The UK leases their nuclear submarine nuclear missiles, from the US, don't they? Has the UK been "blackmailed"?
Australia tends to follow the USA into most conflicts anyway, due to us relying on the US for our defense. How will this change?
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
Australia tends to follow the USA into most conflicts anyway, due to us relying on the US for our defense. How will this change?
Anthony_B_78
Active Member
I think if they did they would have warned by a mod for fantasising. It was a left-field announcement. Have a look back last night at what was being said in response to the initial reports.
I was pinching myself all day to see it I was dreaming but now that I have confirmed that I am awake, it is not April Fools Day and the Opposition has given support (albeit with a few conditions that should not cause any issues for the program), I am delighted with the announcement of 'Australia’s acquisition of at least eight nuclear-powered submarines.'
www1.defence.gov.au/nuclear-powered-submarines
I had become increasingly concerned at the way the French deal was progressing (or perhaps more accurately the way it was not progressing). However, like many on this forum, I could not see an alternative conventional design that would suit Australia's needs. I had thought that the nuclear option was firmly in the too hard basket so I was both surprised and delighted to follow the breaking story today.
Now the hard work begins and I hope the vast majority of Australians will get behind what I think is the most game changing defence announcement for the country that I have seen in my lifetime.
Tas
www1.defence.gov.au/nuclear-powered-submarines
I had become increasingly concerned at the way the French deal was progressing (or perhaps more accurately the way it was not progressing). However, like many on this forum, I could not see an alternative conventional design that would suit Australia's needs. I had thought that the nuclear option was firmly in the too hard basket so I was both surprised and delighted to follow the breaking story today.
Now the hard work begins and I hope the vast majority of Australians will get behind what I think is the most game changing defence announcement for the country that I have seen in my lifetime.
Tas
I am astounded by how Defence managed to keep this under wraps. There were rumours flying around about the French being canned in favour of a German supplied boat but I doubt anyone except those in the know would have thought nuclear was an option.
It makes me wonder what sort of roll on effect this will have in this region.
What would Japan and South Korea think of all this?
It sets a precedent if the US and UK are willing to share their nuclear secrets with Australia. They may want in on that deal as well.
It makes me wonder what sort of roll on effect this will have in this region.
What would Japan and South Korea think of all this?
It sets a precedent if the US and UK are willing to share their nuclear secrets with Australia. They may want in on that deal as well.
I suspect it will not be a Frankenstein rather an Astute with the AN/BYG-1 combat system. The integration work for this is currently ongoing. The Collins class upgrade will use parts of the same sonar suite as the French option was going to have so the integration work is in train as the Collins has the BYG-1 installed. That may explain shy Lockmart at still signing contracts. This is a benefit out of the programme to date.
It is more of a known quantity that the original direction ..... we just never expected the Labour party to support it. It appears the reality of our situation has become obvious.
Started before Dutton took over as Defence Minister in March. The PM said as much in his announcement and explicitly thanked Linda Reynolds for her work on it.
oldsig
Not a clue. I never expected Labour to agree. I was never entirely in love with any of the options but the French offer was closest to SSN capability. Clearly ... not close enough
Anthony_B_78
Active Member
Oh look I'll take the advice of MrC and not go too far with this one, but please understand it can be frustrating for people who work in a profession, who have knowledge and experience, to have that profession criticised in rather black and white terms by those who don't know what they're talking about. Actually, funnily enough, I think there would be many here who would readily understand that.
Your post is to me just an example of someone wearing rose-coloured glasses, who has bought into a problem story and who is ignorant as to what has actually changed in the media.
On the first, I can guarantee you that issues of bias were actually more serious in that earlier time period because they were much more likely to be hidden. Now, they're much more readily debated and highlighted. Sky and The Australian from the Murdoch stable are blatantly biased, but that's known. The ABC has a systemic bias to the left, but, again, that is often subject to discourse.
A problem story is one where someone forms an opinion about a subject and then takes in all information that would support their position, while discounting everything that wouldn't. That is, I doubt you're consuming any media with an objective mind. Your comment above just confirms that. You speak in absolutes with no evidence, just your observations, your belief. You could read a newspaper, cover to cover, thousands of words, and not notice a single mistake, but you're not going to put it down and remark on that. You'll only ever think of it when you spot a mistake. Then you'll blow that mistake out of all proportion.
And then the ignorance of what has changed in the media. For commercial print, radio and TV the market is so different, due largely to the online revolution, Facebook, Google and so forth. What it's meant is that there are fewer people working in the media. Newspapers, for example, have fewer sub-editors. There are more time pressures. Fewer pairs of eyes are seeing a story before it is published. Yet the funny thing is I can remember some howlers that got through back in the day when a story would be checked by at least three separate people. You also have the rise of the spin doctor. Journalists have to contend with armies of people whose job is to subvert the story for their employers' ends. This isn't limited to politics either, far from it. The fact is it is a tougher industry to work in today than 30 years ago. Still, journalists are plying their craft, their trade, their profession and they're doing it with skill, perseverance and genuine passion.
The irony of all this criticism, of course, is that it comes when the media in this country actually broke the story and allowed us to be talking about today's announcement yesterday.
It is the boldest and most ballsy foreign policy move I can think of by Australia for well ever since I can remember and I am old enough to remember an Uncle heading off to Vietnam.
I have being scratching my head to think of an equivalent defence purchase / foreign policy move.
F111 as a bit of kit.................... but not still not an equivalent as both a platform or policy statement.
The purchase of two majestic aircraft carriers back in the day. Still falls short.
Any other takers
"Nup"...................... this is a huge purchase and statement.
Regards S
the road runner
Active Member
This is a good watch from the Chief of Navy..I mean a MUST WATCH REALLY GOOD WATCH!
The call on nuke boats is a big one but its about bloody time..
Most members on this forum would agree that the long transit times that Australia faces to reach its area of operations are well suited to a nuke sub.
AUKUS Announcement - YouTube
The call on nuke boats is a big one but its about bloody time..
Most members on this forum would agree that the long transit times that Australia faces to reach its area of operations are well suited to a nuke sub.
AUKUS Announcement - YouTube
InterestedParty
Active Member
Perhaps the first of class will be HMAS Xi Jin Ping in honour of the man who made the RAN into a nuclear navy.
Not leases. Owns a share of the US navy's missile pool. When a missile needs maintenance the warhead is removed & the missile is shipped to the USA. The UK can draw missiles from the pool, up to a contracted number which is thought by the UK MoD to be enough for three submarine loads plus missiles undergoing maintenance. Individual missiles are not allocated to a particular country.
The warheads are designed & made in the UK, though. There are two big factories not far from where I sit. I know people who work, or used to work, there.
Anthony_B_78
Active Member
Now, now, that was Peter Jennings' line.
Just heard we may be leasing a Los Angeles class boat to get some experience with nuke capability. No source , sorry.
Australia has no facilities to build nuclear reactors or experience in building them. It operates a small reactor for research & production of radioisotopes, but that was bought from INVAP in Argentina, a specialist in such reactors.
Building an industry able to build nuclear reactors for submarines effectively from scratch would take a long time & a hell of a lot of money.
Ten year old article. There's a new reactor for the Dreadnoughts - the Rolls-Royce PWR3.
thatsamguy
Member
Yep. ScoMo did say in the original announcement that there was no plan to build a civil nuclear industry and that this was only possible now (and not during the submarine selection process) due to advances in reactor technology.
I take this to mean, sealed, supplied, fueled for life reactors from either the US or UK (with Boris' announcement calling out work for Rolls Royce suggesting more likely the UK).
Very well put.
Last edited:
- Status