Subscribe
Notify of
guest

215 Comments
Oldest
Newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
fvf

hats off to you man. You wrote this faster then I can think

Jon

Not to mention including the “Minogue class”, which gave me a chuckle.

Duker

Kylie went the ‘wrong way’ from Australia to UK
Better name choice was the UK born singer Johnny Farnham who became big ( and still is) in Australia

Stuart Willard

Surely the Shute Class would be deeply appropriate on many fronts, emigration, military design/engineering background et al, though perhaps the less said about the rather ominous implication of the name and rather depressing thoughts of On the Beach the better I guess..

StuF

Cook Class might be the ticket.

D J

Orca Class might be an option. Could reuse all the names from the O-boats.

JamesD

I honestly didn’t get the minogue reference at first just blithely imagined it was some decorated Aussie admiral or something ????

Last edited 11 months ago by JamesD
Jon

As well as lead ship Kylie and sister ship Dannii, and the Jason of course, there’s the Peter Andre, the Edna Everage, the Clive James and maybe the Germaine Greer. (Digeriedon’t mention the Rolf.)

Trevor G

You forgot Skippy….

Steve

I did a familiarisation course on the Collins class a few years back, and I was reliably informed that the CO2 scrubbers on board are named “Kylie” and “Dannii” – the little Aussie Scrubbers.

Capt Bligh

That was so funny, made me laugh as well.

fvf

One thought? SSN-AUKUS will be less dreadnought based than a SSN(R) (?)

Duker

A lot of the core systems are the same …reactors and other machinery, the dozens of other systems that are unique to submarines and can be carried over.
I think the RAN has a bottom line to use a US combat system and US weapons .

alan

yes and we shouldn’t. We should use the combat system it comes with

Bloke down the pub

Are the Virginia payload modules about the same size as a Trident tube? The SSN(R) looks very close to what I proposed for Dreadnaught. If they and the Astute replacements had been built to the same design, the number of Trident missiles available at any one time would be lower but could be spread over more boats making it harder to find which cup the pea is under. Would’ve offered enhanced adaptability.

Duker

Trident D5 is a massive missile.
The attack subs and missile subs have different missions. Mixing doesnt hide anything more than a submarine which stays below the surface already does.

The loading of the ballistic missiles into tubes can be observed via satellite, thats the part you cant hide underwater for.

Last edited 11 months ago by Duker
Nick

My understanding is the Virginia Payload Module with four its four vertical launch tubes based tubes based on the Trident 87″ launch tube, soft launch using steam, presuming from graphic a three tube version planned be fitted to SSN(R).

USN fits 7 ~20″ dia Tomahawks per tube as in the four Ohio SSGN’s, in future USN will fit three 34.5″ dia CPS missiles per tube, a hypersonic boost glide missile, range ~2,500 km ~$60 million each, still undergoing trials, first production order for 8 in USN FY2024 budget request.

PS Lockheed recently won possible $2 billion contract to fit VLS tubes firing three CPS missiles each for the USN Zumwalts white elephants, four tubes per ship?, of interest was VLS soft launch using high pressure air, not steam.

Sean

The Zumwalts are hardly white elephants given then already have 80 Mark 57 VLS cells.

Adding CPS to the Zumwalts to allow the carrying of a 12 hypersonic missiles will dramatically increase the ships usefulness.

(Yes the guns are redundant, due to Congress cutting the ship numbers which pushed up ammunition cost. But the entire idea of NGS was defunct to begin with – another Congress mandate.)

Nick

Your definition of white elephant and mine differ, last GAO report reported the three ships cost $9 billion each in 2020$ and the third ship still not yet delivered though ordered in 2011, strong hints that its SPY-3 radar to be replaced by the SPY-6 as well as it two AGS 155mm main guns and magazines being ripped out and to be replaced by VLS for the CPS missiles. Also understand first two ships in trials and not operational.

Zumwalts were intended to replace the battleships to give NGS to the US Marines and without massive fire support amphibious fleet operations are not viable against opposed landings eg the Russian amphibious fleet that withdrew from landing at Odessa in March 2021.

Supportive Bloke

I see, so you think that missiles raining down from ships for the larger targets and LGB’s etc from the embarked F35B’s (USMC) or drones puttering around with a variety of precision munitions wouldn’t do the job?

Nothing suppresses like the idea of a precision strike coming in to take you out if you have the temerity to open up.

The Russian problem in Odessa was simply a total lack of precision anything and throwing shells in the vague direction of a threat takes a huge amount of time to achieve anything much.

I do well understand the value of NGS but a conventional 125mm, which is all over USN, will do a pretty good job. Corporate managed NGS mostly with the 4.5” on Counties and T21’s.

Jon

Really I suggest you look up Scott Ritter ex us marine and un weapons inspector in Iraq or col douglas Mcgreger ex pentagon analyst

Duker

The production costs – excluding the development cost is
 $3.8 billion for DDG 1000,
$2.8 billion for DDG-1001, and
$2.4 billion for DDG-1002.

Not a lot greater than a current build DDG Burke, ($2 bill?) after a run of 70 odd.
As well they seem need another $400 mill to ‘really complete’ the last ship like the earlier ones, which is similar top all the combat ships . putting into service costs another 15% plus after completion.

You have confused each with total as the USN costs come to $9 bill too

Supportive Bloke

They could always switch the gun out for a 5” if they needed to.

Last edited 11 months ago by Supportive Bloke
Nick

“LGB’s etc from the embarked F35B’s (USMC) or drones puttering around with a variety of precision munitions wouldn’t do the job?”

The top USAF General in Europe recently said “In Ukraine fight, integrated air defense has made many aircraft ‘worthless” so no think highly unlikely F-35B’s with LGBs would do the job without very high loss rate per sortie.

Firepower, the Iowa battleships with their nine 16″ guns firing 2,700 lbs shells with single broadside weight of 24,300 lbs makes the 5″ gun firing a 70 lbs shell look like a popgun for all the effect it would have.

As yet nothing developed to replace the massive firepower of the battleships to support an opposed amphibious fleet landing, sometimes talk of fitting HIMARS with its GMLRS rockets on ships deck.

Supportive Bloke

Integrated air defence has made the *Soviet era aircraft* being used worthless as they do not have the EW or stealth to be able to operate.

They are also not used with the necessary support or in an integrated strategy.

Firepower, the Iowa battleships with their nine 16″ guns firing 2,700 lbs shells with single broadside weight of 24,300 lbs makes the 5″ gun firing a 70 lbs shell look like a popgun for all the effect it would have.”

I have to totally disagree with that. Mass of firepower and precision are different things. And precision trumps all. That is the true lesson from Ukraine.

A modern 5″ with the correct ammunition type will be much more effective that the 16″ guns on an Iowa.

Nick

Would note that its not just Soviet era aircraft vulnerable to integrated air defence systems, remember the F-117A shot in ’99 over Serbia with an old gen S-125 missile that dates back to the early ’60’s . Stealth/LO fighters are not invisible to radar, only have to look at Lockheed’s own ~2000 era Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS) to see how, use a low frequency large volume search radar which not effected by fighter a/c stealth design, Lockheed used an UHF band volume search radar with MEADS, to find the stealth a/c and then able target its X-band radar in that small area for fine tracking to guide its missiles. Common practice with Chinese and Russian integrated air defence systems, just have to look at pic of the Chinese Type 052DL destroyers, in the news recently as pic emerged showing five in current build in just the one dockyard, the Type O52DL has a distinctive old style bedstead long waveband radar midships so as able to track stealth a/c at range
 
Not attacking precision projectiles or missiles but to be effective you have to know where the target is and that is problematical at best, in the Gulf War the Iraqi’s fired 88 SCUD’s and though the coalition air force had total control of the air and despite optimistic claims post war analysis showed only a minor few of the SCUD TEL’s were ever hit.
 
Last year Odessa and the Ukrainian southern Black Sea coast were under threat on a Russian amphibious fleet landing attack, Denmark developed the Harpoon coastal defense system and together with other countries including UK donated Harpoon missiles which gave the Ukraine necessary firepower to deter any attack and the Russian amphibious fleet withdrew to port, would be interested to know how you would target the truck mounted Harpoon’s hidden in garages, factories, warehouses etc, etc in a large city like Odessa with a 5″ precision projectile, seems impossible ask to me.

Sean

They won’t, I believe they’re using the space freed-up by removing the guns for the hypersonic missiles. They won’t need guns for NGS, the Zumwalts will be the USNs equivalent of South Korea’s planned arsenal ships.

Nick

The USN hypersonic boost glide CPS missile to be used on the three Zumwalts, did hear cost approx $60 million each, four tubes per ship taking 3 missiles for a total of 12 per ship, USN have budgeted for a first procurement buy of 8 in FY2024.

Even if you use these very limited numbers and horrendously expensive missiles to support an amphibious fleet landing you still have the problem of targeting the CPS missile against the concealed coastal defence AShM systems.


To put firepower required into perspective US is upping its production of 155mm and 105mm artillery rounds to 90,000 per month to replace those supplied to Ukraine from its war reserves and meet Ukraine ongoing requirement.

Bloke down the pub

The hulls of the SSN(R) will be the same diameter as the Dreadnaught Trident boats so presumably the VPMs are the same length too as that used for the ICBM.

Duker

The reactor will be the same size, doesnt mean the hull itself will be, which is set by the quadpack missile tubes
Vanguard class had same reactor ‘type’ as Astute but is beamier

Bloke down the pub

From the above article, ‘Assuming they will have the same PWR3 nuclear reactor(which they will), they would have the same pressure hull diameter as Dreadnought – around 12.8m.’

Duker

Dreadnoughts diameter is set by the missile tubes in the hull, unless they build a aft deck fairing

Bloke down the pub

We’ll know soon enough.

Robbo

What we do know is that the hull diameter of the SSN(R) will be larger than that of the Astutes due to PWR3 being larger than PWR2. Would suggest that we leave it at that rather than potentially crossing security thresholds re size of D5 tubes v VPN modules.

X

Please Sir! Can we have second hand low mileage Virginia’s too?

X

So they can down from a proposed force of what was 12 or 16 SSK’s to just 4 SSN?

Interesting.

Challenger

My interpretation was that the 3-5 Virginia’s will initially replace the oldest Collin’s boats so they’ll perhaps run a mixed fleet for a while before starting to bring their own SSN’s into service (believe the aspiration was for 8 boats).

Plus they’ll have the 5 US/UK SSN’s operating out of Perth.

X

It is completely new strategy for them. Australia is going from a platform in numbers best suited to the defence of the continents northern coat to a platform better suited to open oceans and in few numbers.

Those who think the RAN will be operating 12 SSNs by third quarter of the century are bonkers.

RobB

They only want 8

Louis

6 vastly inferior Collins class to 3 Virginia class with a possibility of two more is actually a major step up. And it’s only an interim.

Duker

A lot of it doesnt add up financially and infrastructure wise. There is talk of a 2nd sub base back on East coast where the subs were previously.

UK a far richer country can tell you its only for top tier nations and then a struggle for a country like UK

Somehow Australia thinks they can pay for it with government mining royalties instead of increased taxes from sending ore , coal and minerals to China!

CD Xbow

Australia is not supporting SSBN or a nuclear weapons programs which the UK is. The cost of the program is 0.15% of the Oz defence budget, substantial but not impossibly huge cost.

Duker

0.15% , less than 1% is ridiculously small amount. Based on current A$48 bill defence budget that comes to $72 mill this year or $2 bill over 30 years

Even 1.5% is too small. Ignoring inflation for the moment, just to get a quantum they will be I think nearer to 10%.
I cant see them ever getting beyond 5 boats, with say 3 on patrol

Jon

I think that’s 0.15% of Aus GDP. If they get defence spending up to 2.2% GDP, it’ll be pushing 7% of the defence budget.

Last edited 11 months ago by Jon
Matt

Thats correct. The plan going forward is to raise the defence budget by an extra 0.15% of the GDP to cover the extra costs in relation to the SSN’s. which by 2026 would be just north of 3 billion USD per a year.

X

Nuclear weapons are stupidly cheap.

We wouldn’t have an SSN programme if we didn’t have the SSBN.

Bloggs

I almost sprayed my coffee when I read the UK is a far richer country than Australia. Pull the other one.

Duker

GDP and population are in a whole different category to Australia thus the bigger resources . UK is second biggest economy in Europe while Australia would rank behind France, Italy, Spain…

Sean

U.K. is G7 member,
Australia isn’t.

QED

X

It’s all relative. The UK is a G7 member. But its GDP is roughly the same as California.

Duker

Thats a misleading number to have the GDP of a single state.
They just count the head office of major companies which , as is common in US, will have plants and staff in different states.
Real estate with extremely high prices is a very large proportion of the states economy

Sean

Duh yes it is relative, and my reply was in response to Bloggs having difficulty believing the U.K. is wealthier than Australia….

Last edited 11 months ago by Sean
KiwiRob

Basically the Aussie govt is going to have to cut social programs to fund this ridiculous pipe dream. If they don’t cut social programs they will have to cut other defence related expenditures to pay for this. I know quite a few Aussies none of them are behind this project at all.

Unicorn

You obviously don’t talk to many Australians, we don’t trust China, with good reason, unlike the New Zealand government that doesn’t want to offend their biggest customer.

Stuart Willard

Indeed when you have a Country that reminds you of its ballistic missile programmer when you dare to support an inquest into the origins of Covid I think it would be rather foolish to think you can just ignore a growing bullish military giant developing across your pond.

Bloggs

Australia is not going to have to cut anything. It’s a mere $11b a year. The $368b number is in 2060 dollars.
Cancelling the stage 3 tax cuts due to come in shortly will pay for the lot in 10 years. Changing the law so energy companies actually pay tax ( they haven’t in the last 8 years) would pay for it all in a few years.
Putting a tax on iron ore exports of a few dollars/ton would pay for it entirely for the life of the project.

And we can still support New Zealanders on the dole here, along with providing them with defence.

Last edited 11 months ago by Bloggs
JSN

Mate, agree with your points regarding funding for the project out to 2060.

And let’s not forget, every $ that gets earned or spent here in Oz from the project makes its way around the economy many times over, taxed and re-taxed, and ends up back in Treasury hands.

Last edited 11 months ago by JSN
X

along with providing them with defence.

Just like the US does for you then?

RobB

Just like the US does for you then?

Duker

Australia doesnt pay benefits to NZ citizens , they have work rights but not unemployment or retirement benefits

D J

Actually they do have a retirement benefits agreement between the two countries. You can even claim a percentage from both countries (depending on how long you worked in each country). I believe it is also possible to get unemployment benefits, but special rules apply.

Supportive Bloke

It tend to agree the AUS side have underestimated the costs massively.

X

SSK and SSN are different tools for different jobs.

JSN

“12 or 16 SSKs to just 4 SSN”, what??

Sorry, you are wrong, clearly you’ve pulled those numbers out of the air.

The original plan was for 12 x SSG (not 16) to replace the 6 x Collins.

18mths ago when AUKUS was announced, the plan was to not proceed with the 12 x Attack class SSGs and instead replace them with ‘at least’ 8 x SSN, we wouldn’t see the first boat commission until the late 2030s / early 2040s.

Roll forward 18mths later (eg, today), and as an ‘interim’ solution the US will provide 3 x Virginia class starting in the early 2030s (plus an option for another two) if delays in SSN(R)/AUKUS boat deliveries.

From the early 2040s the RAN will receive 8 x AUKUS class boats.

Presumably the 3-5 Virginia class boats will retire and return to the US as the 8 AUKUS boats start to be delivered.

(The Collins class boats will still start their LOTE (Life of Type Extension) upgrades from 2026 as planned.

Duker

So how many Collins have been sitting out of the water and for how long…. nothing the RAN has planned up till now has come to fruition.
What makes you think the next 5 years will be any different , its their ‘culture’

Bloggs

None of them. Getting a little jealous, are we?

Duker

They are still working on the Collins life extension ……because . They screwed up the planning for the replacement even before they ditched the French boats
tell us my friend how all the other mid life overhauls went for the surface fleet ?

Not jealous , as sad really
“According to reports first published in The Australian Financial Review, Australian defence technicians were recently sent to Hawaii to repair a stranded Royal Australian Navy Collins Class submarine, which experienced technical issues while on deployment.”
and this other issue
https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/new-doubts-over-ageing-submarines-after-floods-fire-onboard-20210804-p58fqn
Just finished its refit.
So your claim none of the six are out of the water is laughable, even under normal conditions it could at least 2

Bloggs

Every submarine, every mechanical thing, has maintenance time. The LOTE is proceeding as planned. The only laughable thing is your envy at Australia getting nuclear submarine.

Last edited 11 months ago by Bloggs
X

I think Duker is from the UK. We have had nuclear submarines. We have had them for decades. And you have nothing yet. It will be decades before a boat actually owned by Australia enters the water. And then it will be a boat designed by us here. Wind your neck in.

David Steeper

There are guys on here who do nothing but s… stir ignore them.

Duker

Thats our friend Bloggs who strangely seems to claim none of the Collins are out of the water having maintenance.
They have spent years on the planning/doing nothing Life extension of the Collins, even while the French Barracuda planning was delayed and delayed. ( and cancelled after spending thick end of A$1 bill)
I can confidentially predict the Collins life extension will be botched and most wont have it, maybe 1 or 2.

Duker

Proceeding as ‘planned’ …. spending years doing planning rather that getting it done …thats the British way
Ive followed the saga of the Collins boats , what a screw up that was with the Australian designed combat system , I worked with CSC but not on that job. The debacle about the Super Seaprite helicopters….the midlife upgrade of the Perry frigates, made sense but bungled so it came at end of their lives.
Then there the helicopters, the Tiger attack, again a new system that was beyond their technical competance to maintain ( mirrored many of the Collins subs very early on , you have to strictly follow the operating rules for the machinery)

Even this Collins very recently comes out of refit and has major damage as they left the hatch open . Again technical incompetence
https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/new-doubts-over-ageing-submarines-after-floods-fire-onboard-20210804-p58fqn

Although I must say the RAAF has got on with its F-35s into service , has 57 or 58 delivered . Compared to sorry story with RAF/RN miniscule numbers. RAAF also persisted with E7 Wedgetail development , now the US is buying them.

Supportive Bloke

Relax.

Most people in the UK are happy for AUS to have SSN’s.

China is a growing bully that needs to be contained and that needs alliances of the like minded.

That the collaboration should grow the UK’s SSN fleet is a massive plus. It is pretty broadly accepted that the UK SSN fleet is too small and growing it to around 12 makes sense.

JSN

Actually availability of Collins boats are very good these days, it all changed after the Cole Review about 10 years ago.

Today there are usually four in the water at any one time, one undergoing FCD and the other MCD.

The bad old days are long gone.

Last edited 11 months ago by JSN
Matt

And those bad old days where cause by bureaucrats and management not actually listening the the RAN and industry experts on not maintaining them how they suggested. Literally the recommendations from the Cole review that fixed them up they had been told to do in the late 90’s and ignored. most of the worst stuff ups in the ADF acquisition and sustainment can largely be traced back to political decisions against solid advice.

JSN

Matt, It’s been a few years since I read the Coles Review report, and it certainly made interesting reading to say the least.

Anyway, it’s interesting how people continue to slag the Collins boats all these years later, the tag they once had isn’t deserved these days.

From what I’ve read today the LOTE for them will continue, first Collins boat will enter the LOTE in 2026, re-enter service in 2028, and be available for another 10 years of service, subsequent boats will follow at two yearly intervals.

Duker

https://www.asc.com.au/what-we-do/collins-life-of-type-extension-lote/
This is ASC on the Collins LOTE
‘During the project, ASC will replace the propulsion systems, diesel engines, generators, and the power conversion and distribution systems. There will be an optronics upgrade, a planned cooling system upgrade, and ASC will carry out a range of hull assessments. ASC will integrate the new equipment into the existing command and control system.’
Its practically a rebuild and once its cut open and the main hardware removed thats when the scary part will be revealed. The budget is A$6 bill. You could buy 2 Virginias for that …but wait they will

they havent started yet… not a good sign

D J

2028 + 10 years gets you to 2038 for retirement of the first & 2048 for the last one if all 6 get LOTE. If the first RAN SSN(R) comes online early 2040’s, at least 3 Collins if not 4 will be gone (but still 3 Virginia’s).The numbers add up if everything goes to schedule.

X

It was late I couldn’t remember the original plan. Note I used the conjunction OR.

My bad.

Calm down a bit.

JSN

Calm down a bit? Mate, I’m always calm, don’t worry yourself about that.

And yes I did see your ‘or’, and the three numbers, only one was correct though.

Cheers,

David Steeper

See my comment above.

Robbo

Agreed. Although V Adm Mead inferred that the mix would be 3/5 Virginias plus 5/3 SSN(Aukus), eventually those Virginias will need to be replaced. If they were replaced with US boats, the additional support costs of running a mixed fleet would continue. Do we assume that two nuclear safety regimes will have to be followed, with further additional costs?

fvf

current timeline:
. announcement
.Work on SSN-AUKUS starting now
. USN increased sub visits by end of 2023
. Increased astute visits by 2026
. from ~ 2027 rotation of 4 virginia class and 1 astute for aussi patrol
. aussi training
. second hand virgina class in early 2030’s to mid
. First SSN-AUKUS to RN late 2030’s
. first austrailian produced SSN-AUKUS in early 2040’s

additional thoughts of me:
first RN SSN-AUKUS on 100 year WW2 start anniversary ( ? )
war in Taiwan predicted late 20’s by many, soooo yeah
If the lifespan of 25 years, for the whole sub fleet, 0.5-1 will be needed every year for RN alone. say you make it 2. do the same with front-line RN warships. say with RFA. same with auxiliaries. that is 200 solid ship fleet. oh wait when did I go to dreamland?

JSN

The ‘drumbeat’ for the delivery schedules will potentially differ between the UK and here in Oz for the SSNR/AUKUS class.

In the UK you guys alternate your production, a class of SSN followed by a class of SSBN, and repeat as necessary, eg, you should be able to keep your workforce occupied more effectively.

Here in Oz, we will only produce SSNs, so there is a potential for a longer drumbeat between deliveries.

But even with a longer drumbeat it’s going to be a challenge to keep the skilled workforce occupied.

Maybe we might end up with a larger SSN fleet, or maybe be involved in component construction for the UK and USA at various times.

Lots of unanswered questions still.

Esteban

And all vaporware is decades away.

Duker

Theres no ‘vapourware’
The Astutes are still under construction , some hull sections and the long lead items like reactors have started for the follow on Dreadnoughts as well.
The software is being used currently and fit for purpose for the Dreadnoughts and will likely just be later versions of same for SSNR. ( which will use same reactor and steam turbines etc)
They arent reinventing the wheel

Jonno

Nuclear- electric drive so that a new wheel of sorts.

Duker

The components are not new , but the integration needs to be proven full size , not that the MoD likes paying for that these days.
Steam driven turbo generators
Electric shaft drive motor
No need for a reverse turbine -slow speed.

Sean

Ah the anti-western troll is here too it seems…

X

He seems very agitated.

Watcherzero

First Ozzie AUKUS starting construction say 2033, entering service 2041/42 then 8 delivered by 2060-65, thats a delivery rate of around one every 2.5 years and roughly 10 years to complete first sub coming down to around every 7-8 years. Australia would need to find new shipyard work from about 2050 with a decision taken around a decade earlier.

KiwiRob

All to counter the immediate Chinese threat, it will be a completely different world that these submarines will be launched into than world we live in today.

Last edited 11 months ago by KiwiRob
D J

That’s true of anything that takes that long to build. Do you suggest build nothing that takes more than 5 years? No more major bridges, no more railways, no more highways – on the basis we will all be in autonomous flying cars? Missiles made guns obsolete how many decades ago? See how that one turned out.

All anyone can do is an educated guess, but they have more data behind them than just about anyone out there & a lot of smart people involved in this.

KiwiRob

There’s a big different in building infrastructure than building a nuclear submarine for a perceived threat that you have to wait nearly 20 years before you get the first copy of. China will have taken back Taiwan long before first steel is cut.

D J

If China has taken Taiwan, does that really change the equation? SCS is a separate problem to Taiwan for example. So is ECS. India – China (remember a lot of Chinese bound shipping goes past India). Korea kicking off again (remember China militarily supported N.Korea last time).

Stuart Willard

Unless you have a crystal ball into that World I am not sure what point you are making for all you can do is design for your best insights into what that World is likely to be. As things stand it hardly seems in respect of China that it is going to be a better than anticipated scenario so unless one proposes a give up altogether and try to survive as long as you can approach this is the least that one might plan for. As we found in Europe you think you can forget any prospect of oppressive and threatening regimes and scenarios developing and then one arrives overnight when you have spent 20 years disarming in naive anticipation those days are long gone.

Duker

The story has has wrong information about the Tomahawk sub launched cruise missile
‘The Tomahawk missiles carried by RN submarines that are launched conventionally via torpedo tubes are no longer being manufactured.’

However “In June 2022, the UK announced it would be upgrading its Tomahawk cruise missiles to Block V standard through a £265 million contract with the US government. The missiles will be upgraded from 2024”
Re- manufactured would the term to describe it.
I understand the the vertical and torpedo tube missiles are the same , its just the surrounding launch cannister thats different along with gas pressure impulse for VLS and a water impulse in TT.

Last edited 11 months ago by Duker
Iqbal

Is a multi-decade program like Aukus realistically going to be implemented, given the 4-5 year political cycle in these democracies? Can Britain make any meaningful material change to the balance of forces over there with any ‘pivot’ to the Indo-Pacific? Given the way France was shafted, it’s entirely possible that Aukus could fall apart too as each country, over decades, evolves a different way to address the growing strength of China.

The program is forecast to cost Australia $268bn to $368bn between now and the mid 2050s. Britain is increasing its budget by £5 billion over 2 years, with a lot of that going on the next generation Aukus subs and the remainder on restocking ammunition sent to Ukraine. There is no reason to suppose that the publics in these countries would wish to foot the bill over decades with the pressure of Brexit, the Ukraine war and China’s sanctions on Australia biting on public finances and on our personal finances. Anyone noticed how are 99p shops are now effectively £1.25 shops? Something has to give. Who knows what disruptions and crisis the future holds that will impact our finances.

Aukus actually makes the world a less safe place. You can wave goodbye to any notion of Non-Proliferation if Australia ends up with nuclear powered submarines. Aukus is the first time a loophole in the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) has been used to transfer fissile material and nuclear technology from a nuclear weapons state to a non-weapons state. And there can be no meaningful international inspection aboard military vessels under way! By the time Aukus comes to fruition with new submarines in place, its likely there will be additional nuclear powers.

KiwiRob

Exactly and they selling the farm to buy submarines to counter a perceived threat from China, by the time these submarines are launched the world will be a different place.

Sean

Nothing “perceived” about the threat from China. Just ask the countries it’s invaded, like Tibet, or the countries in whose territorial waters it’s building artificial islands for military bases.

KiwiRob

Yes perceived threat, what is the threat to Australia? The South China Sea is not close to Australia, there are many countries between Australia and China. China building artificial islands is no threat to Australia.

Maybe you should read up on the history of Tibet, the only country China has invaded, historically Tibet has been a province of China on and off from 1240 when the Mongols invaded until 1912 when the Qing Dynasty collapsed.

David Steeper

You appear out of nowhere repeating CCP talking points. How come ?

Duker

How come UK has sovereign base in Cyprus and the US has one in Cuba too.
The bigger and powerful countries get what they want

Its odd too that Australia has Christmas Island as its territory near to Java but 1500km to its mainland. It was a strategic location too

Jon

You are right about Christmas island. It was first settled by a family from Shetland, so it clearly should be Scottish. I hope the new SNP leader takes note.

Sean

The threat to Australia is to freedom of navigation and freedom to trade in the region. Of China becoming a hegemonic power using its military power to threaten and bully the nations in the region to conform to its wishes.

Any country that is prepared to commit genocide against a section of its own citizens, has to be considered a threat by any other nation. If China is willing to do that to its own citizens, it will have no issue doing worse to another nation’s.

Tibet was an independent country and internationally recognised as such. Your argument for Chinese sovereignty over Tibet is as bogus as Putin’s claim that Ukraine isn’t a country and should instead be part of Russia.

D J

There is actually only 1 country between the SCS & Australia (ie Indonesia).The problem with the SCS situation is how many countries it involves. Taiwan, Philippines, Brunei, Malaysia, Indonesia, Vietnam & China.

Last edited 11 months ago by D J
Duker

Mongolia used to be ‘part of China’ too. In 1911 a group of mongol princes declared independence from Manchu dynasty and made the Bogdo Gegen, a bhuddist reincarnation similar to Dalai Lama as the head of government.
There was conflict with China over independence but to cut it short, the eastern part or Inner Mongolia remained with China and outer Mongolia became a separate country. The line of reincarnation lamas continued in secret during the communism years but was revealed at its end and the latest Bogdo Gegen is resident in Ulaanbaatar today

Sean

Wow, using a comedy sketch to support your arguments… doesn’t really hold the same weight as actual facts though…

Duker

Island for bases in South China sea? , thats Taiwan too who use Taiping as a base ( who support the Chinese ‘approach’
Taiping is the largest of the Spratleys and is 1500km to Taiwan itself

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiping_Island
the island is claimed by Phillipines, Vietnam and China of course

Sean

Taiping is a natural island, not one manufactured for the sole purpose of hosting a military base.
It hosts a small Taiwanese Coast Guard base, not a military base.
It’s has been held by Chinese (Nationalist – aka Taiwan) forces since the Japanese surrendered it at the end of WW2.
It’s a spurious and disingenuous comparison to the islands that China constructs atop reefs to build PLA bases.

Duker

Its not meant to be an exact equivalent, it was more the 1500km away from Taiwan which is even more than the Chinese ‘islets’

But for your edification this is Johnson island air force base in the mid pacific. Uncle Sams construction at work

Theres a graphic on its wikipedia page showing how the land has grown around 10x since 1942

Aerial_view_of_Johnston_Atoll_and_Sand_Island[1].jpg
Last edited 11 months ago by Duker
X

If I was Australia I would be more worried about Indonesia.

D J

Indonesia could easily get to Northern Australia, but all they can do from there is loose. They have a big army but not the airforce or navy required. The sea / air gap is too wide & Australia physically too big. To invade Australia from the north is like invading Canada from the north. Theoretically possible, but the countryside is likely to kill more invaders than the military.

Duker

Yes. If there was any real interest it would have become a javanese sultanate 700 years ago.
Strategically Indonesia is across Australias lines of commuication to Asia and ME. While for Indonesia, Australia is close but not ‘in the way’ . It may as well be new Zealand

D J

Not really when it comes to ME (direct is from southern India to southern Australia). Eastern Australia connections can go around PNG to east Asia.

Australia is not in the way of Indonesia, but it is one of the few that can close all the straights that connects the Indian Ocean to the Pacific (other than go around the bottom of Australia). Basically, Australia can isolate Indonesia from the Indian Ocean if it wants to. That, by extension is all of southeast & east Asia. Indonesia could if it had the military might, do the same. Who controls the straights of Gibraltar (Portugal, Morocco, Spain or UK)? All do to some degree, but some more than others.

There is also the Iran Jaya problem. This is a former Dutch possession (as is the rest of Indonesia) that is the western half of New Guinea. The natives are all Melanesian, as are PNG & the border is a line drawn by Europeans. Australia formerly administered PNG & has ongoing military & civilian support & agreements. It should really not have gone to Indonesia. Indonesia has little regard for the Melanesians & is importing its own people displacing the natives. A limited civil war has been ongoing for decades. If PNG is dragged in then Australia may be also. One of those little hidden wars that could suddenly become centre stage.

john fedup

Exactly right.

Sean

Utter nonsense. Plenty of countries operate nuclear reactors without breaking the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. Operating a nuclear reactor is totally different to having nuclear weapons.
(Though of course countries like Iran do try and hide their nuclear weapons development behind their nuclear reactor programme.)

Duker

You arent properly informed .
Nuclear submarines – of the US and UK variety use high enriched uranium 95% ( of U235 that is fissile) level.
France uses 20% level in its subs , and (modern) civilian nuclear reactors would be in the 5% level
A nuclear weapon also used 90% plus of U235

The fuel is the ‘enriched’ part , doesnt matter how the reactor is operated , and Australia has signed the Nuclear non proliferation treaty saying it wont obtain HEU
On the face of it its a clear breach of the International rules based system, but of course lies will be told to say black is now white

ATH

Have you read the treaty text? In particular the language around naval propulsion reactors?

Duker

Im not an expert but these people are
 
‘For
Australia to operate nuclear-powered submarines, it will have to become
the first non-nuclear-weapon state to exercise a loophole that allows it to
remove nuclear material from the inspection system of the International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA). I have no real concerns that Australia will misuse
this material itself, but I am concerned that this removal will set a damaging
precedent. 
https://carnegieendowment.org/2021/09/21/why-aukus-submarine-deal-is-bad-for-nonproliferation-and-what-to-do-about-it-pub-85399
 
That will be
the naval reactor loophole you are thinking about
 
Australia is either inside the IAEA inspection system or its outside.
And its something Iran has said its thinking along those lines
” Indeed, in 2018, Iran informed the IAEA it was planning “to construct naval nuclear propulsion in [the] future”—creating an obvious pretext to remove nuclear material from safeguards in the future.”
 
As many will
know naval reactors are usually built as land prototypes first, for Iran its just a pretext

Jon

Let me quote from the same source, to balance yours that I think you took out of context by invoking “these people”.

Among those experts [who have debated the matter], there is far from a consensus on how serious the nonproliferation implications of AUKUS are or, indeed, whether they are negative at all.

As I recall, the physicist Walther Gerlach was interned after WWII, because it was thought that he was heading up the German program to create an atomic bomb. He maintained that he was building a naval reactor. It’s possible both things were true.

The Australian reactors will be sealed when it comes to IAEA inspection. Can they be unsealed? I don’t see why not, but it’s worth remembering that they’ll be pretty well protected inside one of the world’s most formbidable fighting machines, not to mention highly radioactive. Terrorists are unlikely to attempt to steal the material once it’s inside the submarine. I think the biggest danger could be when the reactor core gets transported to the colonies from Derby. I hope we’ll have good procedures in place. In comparison to say Russia’s nuclear icebreakers, which use highly enriched fuel in a civilian operated ship, I’d say AUKUS is pretty safe.

If it became routine for countries outside of five eyes to be running sealed HEU nuclear reactors, I agree that would form a dangerous proliferation. Right now, I’m not too worried that this will form a Western precedent other than perhaps for Canada. I think it’s a compromise I can live with.

If Russia offered the same deal to Iran, citing the Australia precedent, I doubt I’d be so sanguine.

Last edited 11 months ago by Jon
Duker

Thanks for that . You have provided very useful information

Stuart Willard

That’s happening and has been happening anyway and there are suspicions that nuclear help and even fissile material has long gone in between supportive States. As for non proliferation a new Cold War and arms race was initiated by various States the two obvious one# to the for when Western Countries have been on a 20 plus year course of disarmament so it’s something of a joke to imagine this agreement will issue in any increase in that generally. Geez India and Pakistan developed Nuclear weapons with less such accusational language as this proposal has engendered.

Duker

India and Pakistan , nor Israel or North Korea never signed the NPT to say they wouldnt obtain HEU
Australia has , signed Feb 1970
https://treaties.unoda.org/t/npt

US and UK, existing nuclear weapon states also signed to say they wouldnt transfer HEU either
Some Nato members can deliver US nuclear weapons, but they remain under US control until a war breaks out

PeterS

I am not clear what is driving the massive increase in the Barrow workforce or over what timescale. The schedule for Dreadnought is already set with SSNR to follow. Obviously some increase is necessary for detailed design work but the big numbers are driven by the construction stage. So either large parts of the Australian boats will be built at Barrow, or, as the Guardian suggests, the UK fleet will be significantly increased. If it is the latter, why not say so now? Or is the intention to increase the build rate, something that would have a major impact on an already stretched defence budget?

Esteban

The UK failed miserably with the astute class. 12 years to get a boat in the water for the last ships of the class. And the massive involvement of electric boat in even allowing that to happen.. let’s try to think realistically and work forward together. This is unbelievably important.

PeterS

How much of that lengthy build period was determined by a deliberate decision to go slow, spreading costs over a longer timescale and keeping worker headcount at a level that could be sustained? Doing that made sense to avoid the loss of skills that had occurred during the previous drought in orders. The huge increase in workforce will need a bigger fleet to keep it employed long term, so my question remains- what exactly is the increase for?
I really hope that we are planning an increase in hull numbers. I suspect they are the only vessels that could survive an intensive peer on peer conflict.

Sean

Given you’re well known for your anti-British rhetoric on other sites it’s impossible to take your posts seriously.

None of the Astute boats have taken 12 years to get to water.

– Astute 6 years
– Ambush 8 years
– Artful 9 years
– Audacious 8 years
– Anson 10 years
– Agamemnon 9 years
– Agincourt 8 years

Watcherzero

It looks to me like SSN(R) original timescale is being accelerated by around 2 years. There will be Australian shipyard workers arriving though I think the bulk of them will initially be in the US. The rumour is Australia will start producing Virginia Payload Tubes/Virginia Payload Modules for the US towards the end of the decade as a way of both training up their domestic workforce in welding and accelerating Virginia production, those welders once skilled would then move on to producing the AUKUS hulls in Australia in the early 2030’s, meanwhile the other shipyard trades would learn via secondment to US/UK shipyards. Osborne shipyard worker figures have been given as 4,000 reaching a peak of 5,000 in 20 years time with around 8,500 throughout the whole Australian shipyard chain. 2,500 civilian and military would be employed in the Perth fleet base and they have said they want to increase their submariners from 900 to 1100 as soon as possible so they have enough for nuclear school and Astute/Virginia ship rotations.

UK SSN(R) design would be sped up by using more off the shelf US parts from the Virginia class than they would otherwise have used such as the tactical information systems. The Ozzie boats are confirmed to use US torpedoes and missiles and im not sure where that leaves the next UK torpedo but they have said they would be using FC/ASW as the primary UK VLS strike weapon.

Last edited 11 months ago by Watcherzero
D J

The torpedo tubes are standard size. So long as the CMS can handle them, I don’t see much problem what torpedo you use, so long as you have planned for it. Any AShM fired via torpedo tube is much the same.

magenta

Hypersonic missiles will be too large for torpedo tubes.

Duker

Yes. The preferred method now is to use vertical launch, and leave the torpedo tubes for its intended weapons

X

90% of a submarines is the hull. The weapons and systems are very much tacked on. I see no problem with a British hull carrying US systems.

ATH

I don’t see how the 90% figure can be true, unless you count the reactor and drive line as part of the hull. Even then systems inc sonar, communications vessel control and weapons launching must add up to way more than 10% of a submarine.

X

Yes that is part of the hull. The vessel. The boat. Just as the heads and galleys are part of the hull. That’s the figue anyway. I know facts are a bit inconvenient around here. When it comes to systems, that’s things that go bang and sensors, submarines are quite simple. But the actual hull, the boat, the vessel, are extremely complicated especially so if there is a kettle admiships. I can feel my IQ degrading everytime I come here.

ATH

Well if you were a little bit clearer in your contributions you wouldn’t get as much push back.
But describing all the ”systems, that’s things that go bang and sensors, submarines are quite simple” is pure BS.

Duker

Yes.
This is the hull…with the people
photo Covert Shores

Hulls_Single[1].jpg
Who knows

That’s not even a little bit true.

X

>larf<

Duker

Yes . Sounds the other way round… hull and its circular ring frames are 10%?. The rest is packed with machinery, weapon systems and equipment

BigH1979

The Ashes Class?…..I’ll get my coat ????

DRS

Brilliant. Does that mean ownership will swap for the subs every few years based on a game of paper, scissors, lbw?

Steve

There is actually remarkably little opposition to the deal in Australia – both the Labour government and the Liberal opposition support it, as do a number of the minor parties in the Senate. About the only organised opposition at the moment is the Greens and in Australia they are not really a major political force, certainly not when the two major parties are in agreement. Further, the Greens derive much of their support from the inner city well off; and they are some of the people starting to get concerned about Chinese influence. So the Greens may have a problem carrying their supporters if they formally oppose.

john fedup

Chinese and Russian behaviour of late has been the best inducement for SSNs and F-35s. LM, BAE and Electric Boat/Newport News should be pleased.

Jim

Wow, easily the best article in the world on the subject. The new design looks amazing. I know it’s speculation but I can’t imagine it being much different. It’s practically stratrek looks.

magenta

From the top pix it looks like a carbon fibre construction, not that I think it is.

Unicorn

The issue is that the UK will have to understand that the RAN will not want a UK submarine, with UK specified equipment, it will have to be a compromise design.
The RAN uses US combat systems and weapons, and will have a core of nuclear trained engineers who will have learned their trade on the Virginia class.
They will insist that the AUKUS boat be designed such that either RN or RAN specified kit such as sensors, combat sensors and weapons, can be fitted, as each Navy specifies.
If UK PLC digs in its heels and says its our boat, you buy our specified kit, then the RAN will continue buying US SSNs, at a vast cost saving.

Jon

This is not an issue. Aus will be building their own boats to a UK design, and UK industry can’t insist on anything. I think they would be wise to check out UK sensors, but the extra work integrating them into the US command management might not be worth it for them.

D J

A lot of Collins class sensors & the now cancelled Attack class sensors aren’t US sensors. Anything already in Collins or going in as part of their LOTE will already be integrated in the CMS as Collins & Virginia use the same CMS.

JSN

From what I’ve read today the CMS will be common to both the RN and RAN AUKUS boats.

https://www.defence.gov.au/about/taskforces/aukus/australias-nuclear-powered-submarines

The relevant paragraphs are:

”Australia’s nuclear-powered submarines – SSN-AUKUS – will be based on the UK’s next generation design that incorporates technology from all 3 nations, including cutting edge US submarine technologies.

”The combination of technology from all 3 partners will deliver a world-class submarine that meets Australia’s long-term defence needs while bolstering trilateral industrial cooperation.

”SSN-AUKUS will incorporate US technology, such as propulsion plant systems and components, a common vertical launch system and weapons. The AUKUS partners will also develop a joint combat system as an expansion of the US-Australia combat system.”

Unicorn

That’s not how its being reported that the UK Government is selling it to the UK media.

JSN

Mate, it may well be being reported differently in the UK, but as the link above (from the Australian Department of Defence website) states that the CMS, and various other systems, will be common across both RN and RAN boats.

How that will eventually turn out, who knows.

Cheers,

Duker

Its says Australias sub with have US technologies, doesnt mean UK with have the same sensors, weapons and combat systems.

That was a part of the ‘redesign of the French SSK to incorporate US systems especially for the CMS

KiwiRob

The propulsion plant is the sames as Dreadnoughts which is the Rolls Royce PW3 design. I doubt the UK is going to give up it’s ability to design and build nuclear reactors.

ATH

You do know the PW3 is based closely on a US design. It was chosen because it’s safety case was better proven than a proposed entirely British reactor.

Duker

Some features of US newest design included but its still almost entirely UK design

Jon

I’ve not read that the Combat Management System will be US, but I’ve read that the Combat Information System will be. Is there a distinction?

I assumed there was and that the information systems took in sensor information, potentially fused it, and presented it to the decision makers, whereas the CMS targeted the enemy and shot them. On ships some sensors are also effectors; radars can have built in EW and even comms, so I suppose the combat systems might end up mashed together. Is that true on a boat?

Watcherzero

So far from various news interviews we have both navies will operate subs with the following equipment being common to both:

US/AU Combat Information System as used on the Collins and Virginias
Thales Sonar and Optronic masts
PWR 3 Reactor
Virginia Payload Tube (constituent of Virginia Payload Modules)

Divergance:
Australia is going to use US torpedoes and missiles
UK will use FC/ASW as its vertical missile and hasn’t specified if there will be a Spearfish successor or not.

Last edited 11 months ago by Watcherzero
JSN

This web page on the Australian Defence website goes into significant detail of the AUKUS SSN pathway:

https://www.defence.gov.au/about/taskforces/aukus

It makes very interesting and worthwhile reading.

Cheers,

Last edited 11 months ago by JSN
Ian Mitchell

Many thanks for the link hopefully we can all gain a better understanding of the program.

Oh dear

Good boat. Shame they had to upset the French who where offering boats that while not nuclear where just as good.
Problem is wont nuclear boats make the land of oz a nuclear target now? (Toecutter and Max cometh).
Also if the americans turn on one another spare parts drying up wont help.

X

Actually the boat that probably best meet the RAN’s needs is the current (new) French SSN. Less technical than the Astute; if an SSN can be less technical.

Sonik

The issue with Barracuda is the LEU, needs refueling every 10 years which is not something Australia can deal with.

X

There is always a down side. But in terms of size and sophistication it is just about spot on. They aren’t buying it so I wouldn’t worry. Um. Saying that if this programme pays off attitudes to evolutions like refuels may change. Who knows?

DaveyB

The problem is the French fcuked up big style. With terrible project mismanagement, financial mismanagement and next to no infrastructure or information transfer. Yes the French threw their teddies out of the cot. But Australia was fully justified in canceling the program.

X

Yes. The RAN should have bought Japanese……..

Ideally the RAN needs 4 SSN and 8 SSK. I am still trying to understand how SSN(R) will do in the Timor Sea.

Duker

Timor Sea is a small littoral sea for Australia…. say like North Sea for Britain

Not the place to use an offensive weapon, unless Indonesia has become a chinese satellite.
Theres various deep water channels through the Indonesian archipelago, however , gaps between the continental shelfs , including Weber line which passes from Indian ocean close to Timor island and then swings north passing near Sulawesi
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallace_Line
Also delineates the animal and plant species as well

170px-Wallace-line1[1].jpg
Duker

A better bathymetry map of that area of Indonesian Is

VII_Banda_Sea[1].jpg
Bloggs

The Soryu class has half the range of the Collins, carries less weapons, is no more capable sensor wise and is far more cramped. And the Japs didn’t want to provide offsets. That’s why it was rejected.

X

What they could have won………

comment image

Duker

A Mitsubishi ?

Christopher

Of equal interest is the geo-political fallout of this closer to home, Rolls will be building potentially 44 naval reactors over the next 15 or so years, or friends across the channel will be lucky to build 3 + 7 + 2. Who’s navy will be very firmly in the front seat on this side of the pond? Good luck to all the guys in Barrow, Derby and Sheffield a very long time coming ????

Duker

Theres only one reactor per sub. 4 (Ds)+7+6 . Round it up to 20.

Watcherzero

4 Dreadnought, 8 AUKUS for AUS, ?? AUKUS for UK (minimum 7 max 14)

Duker

Australia not getting 8 subs I can bet on that UK isnt scaling up its sub build anything like 14 either. ..have not you heard how much the tories like the cut defence budgets
Even doing the next 15-16 will take all the RR resources, magic thinking has never built anything

Deep32

Are you sure? I see it that AUS will return the 3-5 Virginia class SMs on a 1-1 basis once construction of SSN(R) starts, eventually building a fleet of 8.

Duker

They struggled to maintain and even operate/crew the 6 Collins subs

What magic thinking means they can go tenfold harder with 8 nukes.

They have barely any nuclear sub experience, maybe a few top notch sub officers have done some some time with RN or USN.
The Collins manning will go further in the ditch as their cream of the crews go fairly quickly to US for their training and sea experience …it wont be a picnic as the USN will have much longer sea deployments than the RAN.
The RAN in many ways is a rats nest of ongoing problems, I cant see how the culture will change

Deep32

Wont disagree wrt manning issues, UK and US are also suffering in that respect, not only in the SM service, and I’m sure other nations are to some extent also!

This is long term 20-25 yrs to get it all together, so, you might argue that should be enough time to sort it. Could of course all still go South as you say, but that is just one of the challenges the RAN will face with this project.

Not being disparaging to other branches (I’m an ex dabber), but the critical path is for Nuclear engineers at NCO level and above. These people will require the longest training and greatest amount of sea time to gain the relevant experience. 20-25 years should be plenty.

Right, cant believe Ive just biged up the binbags, so will need to take myself off to a dark corner and give myself a good talking to!!

Duker

Australia will be running a US Virginia within 5 years- not 25, all the while having its existing SSK in service and managing a LOTE for that , plus establishing technical base to build SSNR sections after that.

They are struggling with new T26 frigate design paid for, but still ‘on a plate’ to work out for them and start construction.
Im not in the thick of it …that quaint term Omnishambles comes to mind

Deep32

Yes, thats the first one, they wont have 5+ SSNs for another 20 or so, a lot of time to build the skills/experience required.

Agree, they do seem to be making things complicated/difficult with T26, but different requirement to us. They also get a lot of their procurement right, so should get credit for that too.

Bloggs

Australia isn’t “struggling” with the T26/Hunter Class. The funds are easily available for all these programs and they are proceeding in a normal manner. Not sure why you make up stuff.

Christopher

I know, i realized just after i pressed “post” i had my turbine counting brain pugged in…..old habits die hard ????

Sonik

Regardless the numbers, the point still stands WRT the sustainability of the UK supply chain. RR in particular were in need of some luck of late.

Duker

Alsthom makes the twin steam turbines in each Astute, don’t know if that was one of businesses bought by GE

X

I am hoping that we use the RAN ‘production line’ to up our numbers back to 12 boats. So that means more than 44 kettles, hopefully.

It is very good news.

Duker

Had a chuckle at this
https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2023/mar/15/russia-ukraine-war-live-moscow-should-respect-international-airspace-says-uk-defence-minister-after-drone-crash

The RN of course sunk the Argentine cruiser Belgrano….in international waters ,of course. It was even outside the declared military exclusion zone.
Might is right as it’s always been, does the droids who wrote Wallace’s PR even have any idea of history?

X

in international waters ,of course. It was even outside the declared military exclusion zone.

You really are so ignorant.

Duker

The evidence says so , as I wasnt there.
But its fine to play your cards when you have an empty hand like you have all through this story.
I suppose this sort of thing was thought *clever* when you were at your public school

F34weekfiveOps[1].GIF
Last edited 11 months ago by Duker
AlexS

What is going with you Duker?

Since when war is not made in international waters?
And exclusion zone was for other countries not Argentina!

Duker

TEZ my friend means total exclusion zone. Any vessel could be sunk.
The airspace around was also exclusion zone. Wasnt sidewinders fitted to Nimrods so that any Argentine recon planes could be targeted even much further away
No different to the Black sea, US military recon was scoping out the Russians for Ukraine
Read the comment attributed to Wallace where it was him, not me, saying international waters/airspace should be respected in a war! . As you correctly surmised its laughable

Watcherzero

They always neglect to mention that the Captain of the Belgrano said he was sailing under orders to attack the islands when he was sunk.

Duker

Im not disputing what the RN did, just the current hypocrisy from Wallace about how a warring state must observe the letter of the law about international air/sea. The drone was on active military duty supposedly in an exclusion zone on behalf of Ukraine

OOA

A difficult moment for Paris no-doubt.

X

The US are thinking long term and strategically. France can give them nothing. Even if no boats are built this scheme gives the Americans a base for their nuclear boats in Australia.

Sonik

I read that the RAN originally approached the RN, but obviously UK are not able to share SSN tech without agreement from USA. Smart piece of diplomacy on behalf of the Australians because the USA might have been less willing to accommodate a direct request.

X

Yes there are a couple of treaties that prevent the UK releasing tech. It was a similar situation when Canada wanted SSN’s. The US basically forbid the RCN from ever acquiring the capability.

Duker

They spent quite a lot of effort
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada-class_submarine

‘The United States objected to the RCN having SSNs as part of its fleet, fearing a significant impact to its own submarine operations in North American waters and possible conflict over access to the Northwest Passage. In order to prevent this, the United States exercised its rights under two previously signed treaties. Under the 1958 US–UK Mutual Defence Agreement, the US had the right to block the sale of submarine nuclear reactors by the United Kingdom to any third party (i.e. Canada), and under a 1959 agreement between the US and Canada the US had the right to block the purchase of submarine nuclear reactors by Canada from any third party (i.e. the United Kingdom or France).[24] Attempts to negotiate with the United States were initially unsuccessful, as Canadian Defence Minister Perrin Beatty was “told in no uncertain terms by the U.S. Defense Department and submarine service officials that a Canadian nuclear submarine program was unnecessary and even unwelcome.”

They got the Upholders instead and didnt get back the 3rd batch of Halifax frigates that were given up to pay for? the SSN

Last edited 11 months ago by Duker
X

THIS ^^^^

john fedup

It would be interesting to know if US opposition to to Canada obtaining SSNs is still an issue. From an economic view, adding 6-8 SSN(R)s would benefit Australia and the UK. Canada, unlike Australia, already has a nuclear industry which would welcome manufacturing components for a naval reactor. Given the changing geopolitical situation, our weak knee pollies might even support SSNs. Afterall, they finally bought F-35s after saying never.

OkamsRazor

Interesting article on Electric Boat;

https://ctmirror.org/2022/10/16/ct-electric-boat-
submarine-groton-military-industrial-base-manufacturing/

Commonwealth Loyalist

Thank ins so much for this fine article that as others have mentioned is amazing in speed and insight.

I see there is some “friendly rivalry” about the relative wealth of UK vs Oz, Vive that! At the moment Oz has a much higher productivity per worker and per capita GDP and UK has a much higher actual GDP due to much larger population but lower productivity per worker, I hope they can both learn from each other.

I think it is great that an agreement on getting nuclear submarines for Australia seems to have been worked out with bipartisan support on all sides. Since this is a long term projecct, some have said why bother when the world might be different by then, but at least it’s better than the previously tried and failed approache of disarming as soon as a hot or cold war is over, assuming there is no longer a need for deterrence.

For those who think Oz and NZ are in no danger, think back only a few years to 1941-42 when both could have been invaded by a far away power had not the US stepped in. In that case both countries were pretty defenceless, and therefore had no say in what happened, the US did pretty much whatever it liked in both countries with very token consultation. If in the future Ozies and Kiwis would step up to the plate and show more reaponsibility, at a minimum they would get more of a say in what happens if in the hopefully unlikely case that happens again.

At the moment I don’t see my native NZ seeing the light in this regard, but it is heartening that Australia is being more realistic.

Overall, AUKUS sounds like a win-win situation.

Cheers

John

Jon

I can see that in improving our productivity, we might have something to learn from Australia, but I’m not sure what Oz is supposed to learn from us having a higher population. Sell faulty condoms or relax its immigration laws? In fact Australia already has a far higher proportion of working age people in its demographic.

Let me just define productivity: it’s output produced divided by labour input, so for example annual GDP per total hours worked is a common country baseline. For comparison UK productivity was £44.2/hr, while Australian productivity was $111/hr, which is approx £61/hr for comparison.

We have a significantly higher employment rate (proportion of people of working age employed) than Australia, and I believe a greater focus on getting as many people of working age and above into work, so it’s possible that the marginal jobs used to increase that measure will have lowered productivity. Working harder also decreases productivity. If you work 4 days a week instead of 5, you only do 80% of the hours, but you’ll probably generate 95% of the output. Hours per worker: 1969 hrs in UK, 1592 hours in Australia.

Aussies work smarter than we do.

The best way to increase productivity is to increase GDP (sell more) and decrease hours worked (scale up and automate). If you can do that while keeping unemployment low to spread the wealth, you’re a winner.

Duker

 In fact Australia already has a far higher proportion of working age people in its demographic.”
the UK is actually very similar

this from ABS for the Australians
employment to population ratio remained at 64.3%’

while UK is 75% employment for ‘working age’ its also 64% for population
https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes

Its hard to find exact figures as sometimes its just demographics – ie how many are of working age , rather than ’employed and of working age’

OkamsRazor

Simplistic nonsense “productivity” depends on many factors and is not equally distributed across the country (any country in fact), it also depends upon the industry outputs and how efficiently these are produced. It also depends upon how it is measured and how good the statistics are. From a economics perspective all of these things may seem trivial but are often prone to errors GIGO as we used to say.

Al.

‘UK Government in Sensible Procurement Plan shocker’.

I KNOW that the pretty piccie is just a knowledgable commentator’s interpretation of the known facts but that and all of the statements made public all seem eminently sensible to me.

Of course there’s no point being an armchair Admiral without a bit of wishful thinking so:

Japan and South Korea each have 22 Boats, and similar ambitions to the UK.
But they have no SSBNs so let’s count each of ours as two for this comparison.
That leaves 14 SSN-Rs for RN please.

Whilst we are it, let’s have two production lines at Barrow so that when do actually start building them we can do so in doublequick time.

The leadtime should give us plenty of years to revamp the whole training pipeline, institutional memory, accommodation and <whatever other boring but important things I have forgotten> issues.

There you go, we’re back to being Number One Navy again.

Jeff

They should call them the Duffy class after Simpson’s donkeys at Gallipoli.

Duffy One
Duffy Two
Etc

They did most of the work

Duker

The subs will most likely be named after the various states, theres 6 of them

NSW, Queensland Victoria Tasmania etc

Bloggs

There is no evidence of that at all.

JSN

Some more interesting RAN news.

A DSCA notification today regarding approval for Australia to procure up to 220 Tomahawk cruise missiles:

https://www.dsca.mil/press-media/major-arms-sales/australia-tomahawk-weapon-system

200 x Block V and 20 Block IV. Initial reports here suggest they will be fitted to the Hobart class DDGs.

They may also end up on the Collins class subs, a new weapon after their LOTE upgrade, and eventually for the 3-5 Virginia class and finally the AUKUS class.

OkamsRazor
alan

quote

” The areas that will probably be the greatest challenge will be to design a boat that can accommodate either the US-derived combat systems, sensors and weaponry utilised by the RAN as well as the next generation of RN systems that follow from Astute and Dreadnought ”

Why the hell can’t we make is easier for the builders in UK and have both UK and AUS boats the same. Bloody US once again making demands re combat systems and god knoiws what else making life difficult

JSN

It’s not the US ‘demanding’ the AN/BYG-1 Combat System, it is, and has been, an RAN requirement for many years.

That Combat System is currently installed on USN Virginia class and also fitted to the RAN Collins class too.

Even before the Oz Government selected the French designed Attack class (over the German and Japanese designs), the RAN had already mandated the AN/BYG-1 combat system.

Clearly it, and other common shared systems, are not a ‘game breaker’ for the UK, the ‘reward’ is a larger class of AUKUS class SSNs, and all the industrial benefits that go with a larger production run.

A win for the UK and a win for Oz too.

alan

HMAS Sir Les Paterson

Lee

HMAS Ashes victory