this: as hilighted in bold
too early for anything of confidence to be said about the capability and commissioning merge
I would imagine that all the hulls are going to get a change in tempo within the next 5 years...
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
too early for anything of confidence to be said about the capability and commissioning merge
I would imagine that all the hulls are going to get a change in tempo within the next 5 years...
The irony is most of these non-defence, defence experts often see themselves as innovators, entrepreneurs and usually geniuses to boot; while they may be the darlings of the media (left wing or otherwise) and generate interest and support among some in society perceived and left or left leaning, their SME (small to medium enterprise) backgrounds and personal wealth means they are usually right leaning themselves. So what we are talking about is middle aged +, right leaning, wealthy white men who honestly believe they are smarter than everyone else and that anyone who disagrees with them is a misinformed fool or part of a conspiracy.
I'm not saying the left are any better, but rather the true left is quite ambivalent, if not openly hostile to defence matters, at best they see it as a necessary evil. These vocal clowns thus are predominantly a product of the self aggrandising right, people who are, at best, interested amateurs, who believe, based on their understanding and (possibly) success in non-defence, non-government arenas, believe they have a better understanding of everything than everyone. "I am rich, this is because I am successful, this is because I am a genius and work hard, therefore my opinions are worth more than other peoples (especially experts), and the government should listen to me and do what I say."
On Collins life span another factor is they spent several years, not only with boats laid up through lack of crews, but also with a restricted diving depth due to the inability to certify the Telliborg hoses as safe. This means that not only was half the fleet out of the water for near a decade, but those with crews were not diving to the depths they normally operated down to for safety reasons (if a hose failed the water pressure at deep diving depth (DDD) the volume of water entering the boat could rapidly overwhelm available emergency responses and result in the loss of the boat and the crew). The result of this is the hulls have experienced nowhere near the level of stress and fatigue that they were expected to in their service lives and even if their operational tempo picks up substantially, structurally speaking they will be good for much longer than designed.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Given the amount time our Victoria class subs have spent out of the water, their shelf life should be a positive.
That was the point I made though far less detailed.
I know people are going to knock this suggestion simply because it is nuclear, but if we were to buy 3 -4 Virginias over a 12 -16 year period, this would surely reduce any
problemre time lines/ The Virginias would probably be cheaper, they cost about $3B US, and the US ae building two a year.
problemre time lines/ The Virginias would probably be cheaper, they cost about $3B US, and the US ae building two a year.
Shortfinned Baracudda Mock up
When visiting Downsview I saw a wooden mock up of a DHC Dash 8 cockpit. It was complete down to wiring runs and the designers could see how their ideas worked and workers could be trained on it,
Would it make sense for our new subs to have a similar mock-up?.
When visiting Downsview I saw a wooden mock up of a DHC Dash 8 cockpit. It was complete down to wiring runs and the designers could see how their ideas worked and workers could be trained on it,
Would it make sense for our new subs to have a similar mock-up?.
Yep, sorry, I went a bit over the top, I should have left it at adding that not only were there fewer cycles as you said but they weren't as deep.
Interestingly a similar thing can be seen with the RNs Type 23s. They were designed for a twenty year lifespan assuming high intensity ASW operations in the North Atlantic but with the end of the cold war saw them spending a much greater proportion of their service elsewhere, i.e. the Caribbean, Persian Gulf, Indian Ocean. This placed less stress on their hulls are machinery permitting a greatly extended service life.
It won't be knocked simply because it's nuclear but due to some very key factors. First and foremost the US has no capacity to supply us. They may be producing 2 a year but they are retiring the LA's faster then they are being replaced leaving them a fleet shortage not expected to be resolved until the 2040's. There remaining facilities able to build nuclear submarines don't really have the capacity to increase production and that doesn't take into account the future replacement of the Ohio's.
The US will not put them selves in a worse position for any one, Even us.
Outside of that we don't have the facilities or personnel to support such assets on a permanent basis, Would require billions to be spent for something to prevent the short fall of a couple submarines. Would be better off leasing some submarines (conventional) from some allies to help fill the gap.
They wouldn't actually be cheaper, The $50 billion project isn't just the purchase price. The acquisition price is about 40 - 50% of that giving a unit price of $2b or less.. half that of a nuclear submarine when exchange rates are counted and even cheapen when you account for job's created and taxes raised.
The reason is more to do with politics than anything else.
There are lots of misconceptions about nuclear power and for that reason it will always be a tough sell to the public. Although perhaps not as hard as some people think. I suspect that the general public is coming around to the idea that nuclear power isn't the big bad that they were led to believe.
The other problem is the concern the public might have is that these boats would have to be built and largely maintained overseas. Once again I wouldn't necessarily see this as being impossible to sell. A nuke would probably be cheaper than the option we are looking at and you probably wouldn't need as many of them. The money saved could be used for many other things.
I might be missing something obvious ... but I really don't really see any other unresolvable issues.
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Until we can have a clear, open (and mature) debate on the 'nuclear' question in Australia, then discussions about nuclear subs is, unfortunately, a waste of time.
And until both sides of politics support a more advanced nuclear industry (and submarines too), it is still a waste of time.
Have a look at the link below (and especially the section on opinion polls):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Australia
Whilst the left and right of politics currently agree on certain defence procurements (such as the F-35, which is supported by both sides), until there is the possibility that they would 'both' support nuclear, then I still think it won't happen. And as far as I know the ALP still has an 'anti nuclear' policy.
The polls are interesting, the majority of Coalition voters for example would support nuclear power stations, on the other side of the coin, ALP voters are almost the exact opposite.
Get both sides of politics on the same page, then the possibility exists, but until that happens, I'm not going to hold my breath!!!
Agreed, a couple of US Army LSVs would do nicely, in particular as they are designed to lift a company of Abrams or a mix of other vehicles types and various types of plant and equipment. Much greater lift than a LCH but not that much more to own.
Last edited:
arrrrrgggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
can some of you mob fix up your posts
Stampede started it off and then requoting just exacerbated it.
can some of you mob fix up your posts
Stampede started it off and then requoting just exacerbated it.
abbott set the hares running today by stating that he wished that he'd pushed for nuke subs, and that we could have been commissioning earlier if we had
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Too bad pollies only want to explore politically dangerous but nevertheless good alternatives when they are about to leave office or have left. Canada's Mulroney proposed nukes for the RCN as he was leaving office. As for faster commissioning, an interesting question, would the French nuke be faster than their proposed conventional boat? IIRC, there is no way the US has the build capacity for exporting Virginias especially with the new boomer program looming.
But then, we still have to reconfigure the internal layout for the US's combat systems and weapons. Which, very likely not the same as the diesel-electric version as the lay-out (eg battery capacity) and center of gravity would be quite different.
If we are really go nuclear (if), and Virginia were not available, may be we should consider the Astute class. At least, then RAN can have an alternative platform for some gear that Yanks really don't want the Frogs to have a hand on.
t68
Well-Known Member
As an IF, there is no guarantee we would have went French it's the one area I hazard a guess that we defiantly would have went with something in the water.If the Virginina's were not avalible we could in the theory gone with Astute Class submarine know that the kinks seem to be iron out, wonder if they had room to slip in another 2 or 3 boats before the Successor build so we could get hands on experance then build 6 here in Australia for 9 boats
I dont like the idea that we are going to start building our new class of submarines in about 2030 or later. I and a lot of other posters here will be pushing up daisys by then. Why cant we start the build as soon as they have the design ready? We are going to increase our sub fleet from 6 to 12, so why cant some of the increase occur before the Collins start to retire?
- Status