I know the lady has big choppers and a long swishy ponytail and kind of looks a bit horsey but .... hang on the 7th boat could be called HMAS Jacinda Belle which is a 5yr old mare out of Bel Esprit and Ludo Rock and trained by Barry Lockwood and races out of Eagle Farm.You do realise that all the Horses Mr C named are Kiwi Horses don't you? I will agree with him on one condition, I could be a Fly on the wall when Jacinderella found out.
Got to love their logic:
Cant understand that it’s 20 years to get one in the water. Most of the people on this forum will be dead.
With three partners coordinating on a build, hopefully the timeframe can be reduced. There might even be a remote possibility of getting a boat from off the current production queue.
I tend to think at least one will be partially / mostly built elsewhere this time as well. That manufacturing process will be a steep but invaluable learning curve for our own workforce and will significantly shorten the entry to service timeframe I would have thought...
I suspect I might be decommissioned in around 20 years myself.
ukdefencejournal.org.uk
SSN(R) is a paper boat at present, for obvious reasons, but its near certain that the entire propulsion section (the most complicated part) will be from the Dreadnought programme with the new PWR3 reactor. Dreadnought has already been in build for 4 years, with c£10bn spent already (cAUS$19bn) so thats definitely not paper...the first PWR3 is also in build.I suspect I might be decommissioned in around 20 years myself.
The leaders are aiming to bring the submarines into service at the earliest achievable date which I hope will be sooner rather than later.
The main problem with the Attack class was that there wasn't a final design and it is quite possible that the capabilities expected for that boat were never going to be deliverable.
Both the the US and UK designs are mature and provided we don't naff around too much with them I can't see why there should be any great delays in bringing them into production. The main problem will be the learning curve but really, apart from the nuclear bits, it probably won't be much more complex than a conventional boat.
I see the UK has announced preliminary work of replacing the Astute Class.
Announced a day after Australia said it wanted new subs. I wonder if that is a coincidence.Contract awarded to design new British nuclear submarine
BAE, Rolls-Royce and Babcock will design a new class of nuclear powered attack submarines for the Royal Navy to replace the Astute class - currently referred to as SSN-Replacement (SSN-R).
Actually I hope Australia just sticks with the existing candidates and doesn't get sucked into signing on for a paper boat.
S9G and RR PWR3 are very close to each other, UK has had access to the S9G design. Both use HEU. The RR SMR's are a different beast, no relation to the maritime PWR's, they recently got some funding from UK Gov (and a lot of encouragement). We might actually see some built by the early 30's.Maybe Rolls Royce know something we don't.
As it turns out Australia has long been targeted by RR as a potential client for its small modular reactors.
Introduction to the Rolls-Royce UK SMR technology and consortium. – Australian Nuclear Association
Speaker: Alan Woods, Director Strategy and Business Development - SMR, Rolls Royce, UK. Webinar 5 pm Sydney time, Wednesday 21 October 2020. Alan's swww.nuclearaustralia.org.au
In fact once the Australian public get over its phobia of nuclear power plants there is a huge market in Australia for this sort of reactor.
The American S9G reactor used in the Virginia class is designed specifically for submarines and uses weapons grade Highly Enriched Uranium fuel (HEU) while the commercial version of the RR reactors use Uranium Oxide UO2. I don't know whether or not the military version of the RR reactor is significantly different to their commercial version but if it isn't I can see why a UO2 fuelled reactor could be a more attractive option for the Australian government. Even more so if this reactor becomes widely used across Australia.
I suspect I might be decommissioned in around 20 years myself.
The leaders are aiming to bring the submarines into service at the earliest achievable date which I hope will be sooner rather than later.
The main problem with the Attack class was that there wasn't a final design and it is quite possible that the capabilities expected for that boat were never going to be deliverable.
Both the the US and UK designs are mature and provided we don't naff around too much with them I can't see why there should be any great delays in bringing them into production. The main problem will be the learning curve but really, apart from the nuclear bits, it probably won't be much more complex than a conventional boat.
I see the UK has announced preliminary work of replacing the Astute Class.
Announced a day after Australia said it wanted new subs. I wonder if that is a coincidence.Contract awarded to design new British nuclear submarine
BAE, Rolls-Royce and Babcock will design a new class of nuclear powered attack submarines for the Royal Navy to replace the Astute class - currently referred to as SSN-Replacement (SSN-R).
Actually I hope Australia just sticks with the existing candidates and doesn't get sucked into signing on for a paper boat.
If she does, they'll have to chain the crew to the oars to prevent the recruiters making off with the entire crew, if the Astute build were to be true.
There might need to be an agreement reached between the UK and Aus around poaching of crew and engineers if there is a deal....
Naming them after Melbourne Cup winners is the only way an NZ name will ever appear on a sub so good ideaAs I posted at #29,772 the only sensible names for these vessels are after Melbourne Cup winners HMAS Makybe Diva, HMAS Think Big, HMAS Empire Rose, HMAS Let's Elope, HMAS What A Nuisance and of course HMAS Phar Lap.
If not name a champion racehorse to represent each State and Territory. Or starting from this next Melbourne Cup day name the sub after the winner!
Sorry my mistake, right you are.