Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[hairyman]

America has two production lines building their Virginia class submarines, and they may want more still. They might well start a third production line, if someone like Australia were to place an order for three or four. That is what I would be doing. And still going ahead with the Barracuda. I would have a time line so we received most or all of the Virginias before the first Barracuda was launched.ope

 

[gf0012-aust]

America has two production lines building their Virginia class submarines, and they may want more still. They might well start a third production line, if someone like Australia were to place an order for three or four. That is what I would be doing. And still going ahead with the Barracuda. I would have a time line so we received most or all of the Virginias before the first Barracuda was launched.ope

I had discussions with EB, NG and Boeing (yep they were in the sub business as well) when I worked in subs/acoustics - not going to happen

industry would do it in a heartbeat - but their principle and long standing paying customer does not

its a pipe dream

 

[Volkodav]

If I recall correctly there is a treaty precluding the export of nuclear subs, hence why Indias were leased and other interested nations developed conventional builds to work towards local construction (India, Argentina, Brazil). I could be wrong but believe the still born Canadian project was for local build too.

 

[hairyman]

Thanks for the input.
I am beginning to think that Australia, defence wise, is starting to fall behind where we were twenty years ago. and that we need to spend more money than we are.

 

[John Fedup]

If I recall correctly there is a treaty precluding the export of nuclear subs, hence why Indias were leased and other interested nations developed conventional builds to work towards local construction (India, Argentina, Brazil). I could be wrong but believe the still born Canadian project was for local build too.

Yes, the plan was for a Canadian licensed build of a foreign design proposed in the dying days of Mulroney's last mandate likely to gather votes in Canada's nuclear province of Ontario. As you say, a still born project!

 

[oldsig127]

Thanks for the input.
I am beginning to think that Australia, defence wise, is starting to fall behind where we were twenty years ago. and that we need to spend more money than we are.

This is really going to hurt the architects of Plan Beersheba, and of our connected and sophisticated (near) future Orbat.

We could always use more money, but we come back to Otto's quotation.

oldsig

 

[Volkodav]

This is really going to hurt the architects of Plan Beersheba, and of our connected and sophisticated (near) future Orbat.

We could always use more money, but we come back to Otto's quotation.

oldsig

Yes defence is doing pretty well these days. Percentage of GDP may not be as high as during the cold war but as the economy is much larger than then we a spending more in real terms and spending more intelligently.

 

[ASSAIL]

and here's todays fun test

spot all the mistakes in the article without spurting your coffee over your keyboard - or snorting soup through your nostrils

Tony Abbott regrets not challenging Australia's 'no-go' mindset on nuclear power - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

I would expect nothing less from the ideologue moron Greg Jennett, let alone something reasoned coming from the Mad Monk.

 

[ADMk2]

Thanks for the input.
I am beginning to think that Australia, defence wise, is starting to fall behind where we were twenty years ago. and that we need to spend more money than we are.

If you remember 1997 correctly I think you'll find things are chalk and cheese between today's ADF and then...

We have LAND 400 today. Then we had the abortion that was the M113AS2 upgrade. No wait. The AS3 upgrade, oh alright what we really need is the AS4 upgrade and that will take forever...

Oh let's get a bunch of Seasprites for a class of ship we have just decided not to buy... Today we get MH-60R.

We have AWD's rolling off the production line, back then we were struggling to perform an MLU on the in-service FFG and trying to replace our Destroyers with it...

We finally have An AEW&C capability. We are buying new fighter jets instead of overly expensive upgrades on obsolete strike jets that provided no useable real world capability whatsoever.

The list goes on. We have battalions today that don't need 6 months lead up training and re-equipping before they go on operations...

Defence has come SO far since that time...

 

[hairyman]

Twenty years? At my age (77) I might be thinking of forty years ago and calling twenty. At any case I am thinking of the time when we had F111 aircraft and they were considered state of the art.

 

[CJR]

If I recall correctly there is a treaty precluding the export of nuclear subs, hence why Indias were leased and other interested nations developed conventional builds to work towards local construction (India, Argentina, Brazil). I could be wrong but believe the still born Canadian project was for local build too.

Not aware of any treaties explicitly banning nuclear subs, but the Non-Proliferation treaty likely results in serious barriers for export of reactors running on highly enriched uranium (US, UK, Russia, China). The French set up with reactors using fuel more inline with civilian nuclear plants my be able to get round such restrictions.

 

[aussienscale]

I would expect nothing less from the ideologue moron Greg Jennett, let alone something reasoned coming from the Mad Monk.

My goodness !! I, against my better judgement, opened the link and saw this caption

"The resulting sub will have less power, less range, less speed and less capability than the existing submarine on which it is based," he said

Ah that was enough for me

 

[StingrayOZ]

If we were really worried about projecting power into the Coral Sea then we would probably have a Submarine base on the East Coast.

Even if we had nuclear submarines, even if they were in the water and ready to go at max speed of 25 kts.

It would still take them over a week to get there.

 

[aussienscale]

Not aware of any treaties explicitly banning nuclear subs, but the Non-Proliferation treaty likely results in serious barriers for export of reactors running on highly enriched uranium (US, UK, Russia, China). The French set up with reactors using fuel more inline with civilian nuclear plants my be able to get round such restrictions.

Yeah I think you have hit the nail on the head there, I do recall the grade of fuel having been brought up before, GF ? thinking maybe it was you, because I remember part of the conversation saying that the only option was French due to fuel grade, and a French Submarine was never going to happen ? was it ?

Cheers

 

[PeterM]

I think we can all see some merit in a SSN type for the RAN, but it isn't going to happen, barring some dramatic political shift.

Most people aren't big on defence spending and would rather see money on politically advantageous outcomes like schools, hospitals. They don't see the value of defence until it is needed. This is particularly true with a huge ticket item like our future subs.

On top of that we would need to sell the nuclear angle, which would be a tough sell, just look at the influence of the Greens at the moment.

Any SSN would likely need to be built overseas, which means missing out on the SA votes for building our new subs.

I don't see the 10 years to build the capability to support an SSN as being a huge problem. It is some time before our new subs are expected to be in service and if needed interim arrangements could probably be done. It would not necessarily be easy but at the same time probably not a show stopper.

You have to look at the big picture. Defence is going through considerable growth in capability with a stream of big ticket items. The general public just see the headline and price tag and perhaps a rudimentary idea of the various systems. It also doesn't help that much of the capabilities are of necessity secret.

 

[t68]

My goodness !! I, against my better judgement, opened the link and saw this caption

"The resulting sub will have less power, less range, less speed and less capability than the existing submarine on which it is based," he said

Ah that was enough for me

well without detailed knowledge from being an insider and I think the French will only be able to really answer that. but yes it will have less power(has to refuel to charge batteries where as nuclear don't ) less range(that also come down to fuel) and less capability you you only take it from propulsion angle alone to see that.

no hold down problems when comparing total submerged time between conventional and nuclear, same for range and that equals less capability, the only reason nuclear submarine return to port is the human factor they cant stay down indefinitely without food etc

I think we can all see some merit in a SSN type for the RAN, but it isn't going to happen, barring some dramatic political shift.

Most people aren't big on defence spending and would rather see money on politically advantageous outcomes like schools, hospitals. They don't see the value of defence until it is needed. This is particularly true with a huge ticket item like our future subs.

On top of that we would need to sell the nuclear angle, which would be a tough sell, just look at the influence of the Greens at the moment.

Any SSN would likely need to be built overseas, which means missing out on the SA votes for building our new subs.

I don't see the 10 years to build the capability to support an SSN as being a huge problem. It is some time before our new subs are expected to be in service and if needed interim arrangements could probably be done. It would not necessarily be easy but at the same time probably not a show stopper.

You have to look at the big picture. Defence is going through considerable growth in capability with a stream of big ticket items. The general public just see the headline and price tag and perhaps a rudimentary idea of the various systems. It also doesn't help that much of the capabilities are of necessity secret.

that needs a like button totally agree

 

[hauritz]

I wasn't aware of the non-profliferation treaty effectively banning the export of nuclear subs ... but it makes sense.

That should pretty much put an end to any discussion in regards to buying nuclear boats. I don't think leasing would ever be an acceptable option either ... not for a piece of equipment as strategically important as a submarine.

It may be a moot point as unmanned drones will probably render most manned naval vessels obsolete in a few decades anyway.

 

[aussienscale]

well without detailed knowledge from being an insider and I think the French will only be able to really answer that. but yes it will have less power(has to refuel to charge batteries where as nuclear don't ) less range(that also come down to fuel) and less capability you you only take it from propulsion angle alone to see that.

no hold down problems when comparing total submerged time between conventional and nuclear, same for range and that equals less capability, the only reason nuclear submarine return to port is the human factor they cant stay down indefinitely without food etc

Not sure if wires are crossed, or I have miss read your post, but that was my point, talk about stating the obvious between the subs, apples and oranges

 

[t68]

I wasn't aware of the non-profliferation treaty effectively banning the export of nuclear subs ... but it makes sense.

That should pretty much put an end to any discussion in regards to buying nuclear boats. I don't think leasing would ever be an acceptable option either ... not for a piece of equipment as strategically important as a submarine.

It may be a moot point as unmanned drones will probably render most manned naval vessels obsolete in a few decades anyway.

not entirely sure on this but I'm trying to find it, I remember some high ranking official was agreeable to Australia getting nuclear powered submarines it was around the same time that they would have no problems with RAAF having F22 Raptor, cant remember who it was and position.

 

[gf0012-aust]

The constraint for all subs - whether they be powered by diesel, batteries, nuke reactors or 5000 hamsters furiously pedalling away to get some steam up - is food for the crew

Collins was designed to be able to undertake nuke sub tempo cycles - and thats been achievable since they were first slipped into the water

some of those journos and pollies need to stick to getting excited about the cost of living rather than try and contribute to the military platform discussion

again, some of these idiots still get confused about the size of the sub and the relationship to absolute range and/or time on station

half wits