Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

MickB

Well-Known Member
Just want to give credit to the Mods and Def Pros, dealing so many bold statements of fact based on such little evidence must be frustrating.
I have been guilty of this myself and appreciate the paticence with which I was put straight.
A quick scan over the last few pages will see them repeating the same imformation and counter arguments time and time again.
 
S

Stampede

Well-Known Member
MickB said:
Just want to give credit to the Mods and Def Pros, dealing so many bold statements of fact based on such little evidence must be frustrating.
I have been guilty of this myself and appreciate the paticence with which I was put straight.
A quick scan over the last few pages will see them repeating the same imformation and counter arguments time and time again.
Click to expand...
Yep, the submarine black hole of information does lead to lots of speculation and for some like myself with their pedantic pants on I / we do get somewhat opinionated.

Regards S

ps I'm always correct though, just ask me! ;)
 
ASSAIL

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
ADM reports this am that a “possible” strategy for the SSN build will be for Australi to build the front half of the boats and for the US to build the stern section from the reactor aft.
Worth a thought although still speculative.
www.australiandefence.com.au

Australia could build front half of nuclear-powered subs - Australian Defence Magazine

More details on Australia's intended acquisition of nuclear-powered submarines have come to light this week.
www.australiandefence.com.au www.australiandefence.com.au
 
AndyinOz

AndyinOz

Member
Interesting strategy to have the tail half of the submarines with all the dark arts nuclear voodoo stuff built offshore and the front half built in Australia. I suppose that would satisfy the governments intent to have a significant proportion of the build occur in Australia. How would the transport to Australia occur. Would the powerplant be installed in situ in for arguments sake say in the US. Interesting thought nonetheless. In writing this post I have to admit to a little chuckle recalling the famous (imfamous) Clarke and Dawe skit, hopefully if this is one possible direction the outcome won't end up being 'the front fell off'.
 
aussienscale

aussienscale

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
ASSAIL said:
ADM reports this am that a “possible” strategy for the SSN build will be for Australi to build the front half of the boats and for the US to build the stern section from the reactor aft.
Worth a thought although still speculative.
www.australiandefence.com.au

Australia could build front half of nuclear-powered subs - Australian Defence Magazine

More details on Australia's intended acquisition of nuclear-powered submarines have come to light this week.
www.australiandefence.com.au www.australiandefence.com.au
Click to expand...
Interesting read, love how they have a pic of an Astute on an article about getting the Virginia's :D

Initial thought's, very plausible indeed, palming off the back half or so for US construction as the nuclear component is passable I think to the public and easily explained.

The US method of block/segment construction that then get's brought together for consolidation and stitching together has some merit and could offer a quicker path to floating a boat, would think an increase in block construction from a US perspective as opposed to building an entire boat would be very much within their current capability without putting time pressure on their domestic build.

Interesting indeed
 
A

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
AndyinOz said:
Interesting strategy to have the tail half of the submarines with all the dark arts nuclear voodoo stuff built offshore and the front half built in Australia. I suppose that would satisfy the governments intent to have a significant proportion of the build occur in Australia. How would the transport to Australia occur. Would the powerplant be installed in situ in for arguments sake say in the US. Interesting thought nonetheless. In writing this post I have to admit to a little chuckle recalling the famous (imfamous) Clarke and Dawe skit, hopefully if this is one possible direction the outcome won't end up being 'the front fell off'.
Click to expand...
RAN had the Canberra Class hulls shipped halfway around the world… I don’t imagine moving a very much smaller and lighter ‘half’ a submarine would be that much more difficult?

BC31B045-CC5F-4100-A7B6-31BBAA503F75.jpeg
 
M

Morgo

Well-Known Member
Milne Bay said:
That's probably assuming that final assembly takes place in Australia.
It could easily be the other way around with the front half shipped to the US if this path is chosen.
MB
Click to expand...
This would also have the benefit of an experienced workforce on site to remediate any persistent issues from the Adelaide half. Perhaps send some of the workforce over to learn where they went wrong with build #1.
 
P

Pusser01

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Redlands18 said:
I could see the RAN looking at something with an Ice Rating for the Ocean Protector replacement, not a full on Ice Breaker but something that can operate in Antarctic Waters.
Click to expand...
Personally I wouldn't have an issue if the Ocean Protector did have an ice breaking capability equivalent to the MPV Everest. Quite a few of the navies with a presence in the Southern Oceans seem to be going towards vessels that are able to operate closer to the Antarctic, even the Kiwi's look as though they may go down a similar route with their proposed southern patrol ship. The RAN having a vessel that could provide backup for the AAD's Nuyina wouldn't be a bad thing either. Cheers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top