Originally posted by Monash
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
RAN's Collins class replacement
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by Chunder View PostI do believe viewing the subject from the position of just how seemingly impossible this seemed politically just a few years ago to be the primary concern for the way this has been handled.
Happy the opposition is on board. Happy with the Biden administration. Happy that it seems the government has done it this way.
That your people remember this in the polls next year and retain ScoMo.
If there's any doubt maybe your people should be made aware of the open threats that China is giving out.
AUKUS to bring ‘nuclear-powered submarine fever’ across globe: Global Times editorial | GT | Sept 16 2021
The world sees them.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Double Edge View PostWell played by ScoMo. Maybe this won't become the issue it was for Thatcher in the 80s and her decision to go with Trident.
That your people remember this in the polls next year and retain ScoMo.
If there's any doubt maybe your people should be made aware of the open threats that China is giving out.
AUKUS to bring ‘nuclear-powered submarine fever’ across globe: Global Times editorial | GT | Sept 16 2021
The world sees them.
I'm sure Australia will love knowing they are middle level.
In some ways the Chinese, French, and North Koreans are very similar when they have a shitty fit.
Comment
-
Originally posted by tbm3fan View Post
Much ado about nothing if they think every "middle" level country will now want theirs. From who might I ask as it won't be the US or UK supplying them. Oops, guess who?
I'm sure Australia will love knowing they are middle level.
In some ways the Chinese, French, and North Koreans are very similar when they have a shitty fit.
The problem for China has is the same one the US and Britain and Russia for that matter have. There may well be plenty of middle sized nations who would like to buy SSN's if they could. But there are dam few of them who can be trusted not to leak vital core technologies to their political opponents. The only exception I can think of was India's lease of Russian subs. Those countries have had close defense ties for generations and India has been the largest foreign customer for Russian defense equipment and a vital source of foreign revenue now for decades. But it took how long for India to get its hand on Russian nuclear subs? And even those were hand me downs not cutting edge. (I believe they've been returned now haven't they?)
That's why this deal is such big news. Perhaps Canada could join the 'club' but given the potential security issues I think it would be hard even for most NATO members to get an invite (assuming of course they wanted 'in' to begin with). But outside of that group? And China? Who amongst their client states (oop's sorry I means allies) would you trust to hand over that kind of tech to?Last edited by Monash; 18 Sep 21,, 03:59.If you are emotionally invested in 'believing' something is true you have lost the ability to tell if it is true.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Double Edge View PostWell played by ScoMo. Maybe this won't become the issue it was for Thatcher in the 80s and her decision to go with Trident.
That your people remember this in the polls next year and retain ScoMo.
If there's any doubt maybe your people should be made aware of the open threats that China is giving out.
It's 50/50 as to whether he will retain government. ? I don't know, I suck at political commentary.
I think the read population acknowledges China as a real problem, I was shocked to read an article in 'The Gaurdian' of all places in favour of this path, and I do mean the word shocked.Ego Numquam
Comment
-
There are few things I'm very curious about, in this whole deal and story.
-If Australia wanted nukes, why didn't they stated so in the Collin's replacement project? Or did they suddenly changed opinion overnight?
-Afaik, Australia has no infrastructure to support nuclear reactors; wonder how much extra that will cost?
-Is the UK or the US actually going to sell Australia military nuclear technology (even if "just" propulsion-related)? This would be a first, right? I thought both countries had laws preventing this?
-Assuming the boats are built in Asutralia, would this also mean the reactors? This would mean Australia building an entire new industry to build and maintain these 12 reactors (assuming the same number of boats of the canceled contract). While expensive, it would at least mean givig australian personnel hands-on experience on the reactors from the groundup. The alternative would be to have them built in the US or UK and then moved down under, with all the political, security and logistical problems this woule entail. In this case, either australian staff would have to live in the US/UK for a considerable period (something I think will have to happen anyway), or risk getting to know their charges only after arrival).
-How long is this going to take, considering the program has been basically restarted? The canceled program was supposed, afaik, to have boats in the water by 2031 (?). Now a new class will have to be designed, new contracts drawn, shipyards and subcontracters selected... one way to cut down time would be to directly buy either Astute-class or Virginia-class boats, but that would mean scrapping not only the joint US/UK colaboration but also the "build in Australia" part. So... extra more years?
-Meanwhile... the Collins class. Can it be kept working that long?
-Finally, will the RAN find the crews to man so many boats? Weren't they having problems even many 3-4 Collins? Now they want to man 12 boats?
Comment
-
Originally posted by tbm3fan View Post
Much ado about nothing if they think every "middle" level country will now want theirs. From who might I ask as it won't be the US or UK supplying them. Oops, guess who?
I'm sure Australia will love knowing they are middle level.
In some ways the Chinese, French, and North Koreans are very similar when they have a shitty fit.
I've decided to adopt the practice of your previous SECSTATE which is, to point out any and every time these people talk out their sidesLast edited by Double Edge; 18 Sep 21,, 15:08.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Chunder View PostDefence matters rarely ever decide elections in Australia. I see this as no different as ballsy as it is.
It's 50/50 as to whether he will retain government. ? I don't know, I suck at political commentary.
Originally posted by Chunder View PostI think the read population acknowledges China as a real problem
Back in 2010 it was a very different picture compared with recent years.
Originally posted by Chunder View PostI was shocked to read an article in 'The Gaurdian' of all places in favour of this path, and I do mean the word shocked.Last edited by Double Edge; 18 Sep 21,, 18:58.
Comment
-
Indonesian reaction appears to be diplomatic. Won't upset the Aussies and keeps the Chinese off their back.
Morrison-Joko meeting called off before Australian submarines announcement | SMH | Sept 17 2021
Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s plan to stop off in Jakarta on the way back from Washington next week was cancelled after President Joko Widodo opted to instead visit provinces outside the capital, while Indonesia reacts with alarm to Australia’s plan to arm itself with nuclear-propelled submarines.Last edited by Double Edge; 19 Sep 21,, 13:32.
Comment
-
Labor says it wouldn't back this deal unless the government said no to nuclear power facilities and no to nuclear weapons too and the prime minister agreed
Q. Can you explain to me why we even thought that a diesel submarine was the way to go five years ago ?
A. Five years ago i don't think we could have cemented the deal we've now got. It's taken that time and the changes in the environment, the strategic environment to reach a point where you've got both the US and the UK prepared to to back us
It was the American side that needed time to decide. Couple of clues.
The irate French foreign minister decried how "Trumpian" in style this move was and that the French were shocked to discover this deal was 15 months in the making !!! Meaning French intel had no clue.
If its Trumpian in style that's because it was Trump's administration that got it going
All Biden did was review whatever the previous administration agreed and green light it.
Trump's administration brought in the Indo-Pacific construct and figured the Aussies needed a leg up. They figured ALL of their partners and allies need the ability to make this region free & open, a reality.
Q. One of the key failures of the previous deal's that we wouldn't get the first submarine until the mid 30s the last one the mid 50s. Obviously the need is great, the need is now. How fast can we get the first one. A nuclear-powered submarine under this new deal ?
A. i don't think it's going to be fast. Unfortunately, one of the most challenging bits of the transition is the personnel. And not only do you need more qualified submariners but the mix is quite different. A nuclear attack submarine has two qualified commanding officers and five qualified marine engineers compared to the one of each in a conventional.
So there's a quite a dramatic manpower bill and transition to be undertaken.
Q. Have you got any idea when the first one might be on our shores ?
A. From the manpower training perspective, you're looking at something like 15 years to the first commissioning.
You can probably shorten that with a pile of cooperation from both the US and the UK. In particular, the senior technical personnel supervising the capability ashore who take 15 or 20 years to train. We won't be able to do that from scratch and so borrowing those qualifications and that experience would enable us to fast track it.
We have something like 900 qualified submariners today which is a great effort. Training from four operational submarines, we're going to have to double that to man what i think will be the government saying at least eight
I would say you need at least 10 to actually have a sustainable manpower base,
This whole experience has given me an insight into how to deal with people that insist we build at home instead of buying from abroad. In limited instances we can.
Well, the Aussies decided to do just that. Build at home under license. Turn defense projects from warfare into industrial welfare as advocated under Turnbull & Pine.
Spend 15 years redesigning a worse sub than the one on offer todayLast edited by Double Edge; 19 Sep 21,, 13:17.
Comment
-
Originally posted by jlvfr View PostThere are few things I'm very curious about, in this whole deal and story.
-If Australia wanted nukes, why didn't they stated so in the Collin's replacement project? Or did they suddenly changed opinion overnight?
-Afaik, Australia has no infrastructure to support nuclear reactors; wonder how much extra that will cost?
-Is the UK or the US actually going to sell Australia military nuclear technology (even if "just" propulsion-related)? This would be a first, right? I thought both countries had laws preventing this?
-Assuming the boats are built in Asutralia, would this also mean the reactors? This would mean Australia building an entire new industry to build and maintain these 12 reactors (assuming the same number of boats of the canceled contract). While expensive, it would at least mean givig australian personnel hands-on experience on the reactors from the groundup. The alternative would be to have them built in the US or UK and then moved down under, with all the political, security and logistical problems this woule entail. In this case, either australian staff would have to live in the US/UK for a considerable period (something I think will have to happen anyway), or risk getting to know their charges only after arrival).
-How long is this going to take, considering the program has been basically restarted? The canceled program was supposed, afaik, to have boats in the water by 2031 (?). Now a new class will have to be designed, new contracts drawn, shipyards and subcontracters selected... one way to cut down time would be to directly buy either Astute-class or Virginia-class boats, but that would mean scrapping not only the joint US/UK colaboration but also the "build in Australia" part. So... extra more years?
-Meanwhile... the Collins class. Can it be kept working that long?
-Finally, will the RAN find the crews to man so many boats? Weren't they having problems even many 3-4 Collins? Now they want to man 12 boats?
There has been back and forth among those looking at replacements for the Collins about the value of nuclear subs. Part of tha twas about whether or not the capability was required, the other was about the insustry required to support the nuclear technology. The current offer involves us obtaining reactors tha tare basically 'plug and play'. We aren't required to build, fuel or decommission them. That will be done before & after we get them. I assume we will be trained to maintain them, but that doesn't require a civilian nuclear industry. The AUKUS agreement is supposed to involve a fair bit of technology transfer both as part of the sub program and beyond it.
It isn't yet clear how much of the construction will be in Australia. With the French deal we started out at 90%, the French 'negotiated' us down to 60% and apparently they were trying to get our % down ever further. I would hope we will be closer to 90% than 60% o nthis project, but obviously that won't include the reactors. Personally I would prefer to buy off the shelf. It would likely be quicker and higher quality, but there is a LOT of politics in this. The current government has basically stripped most of what remained of our industrial base. This is one of the few things left and it is politically advantageous to keep it going. The plan is to buy/build 8 boats rather than 12. I am hoping for Virginias simply because more have been built so there is a lot more information on how to do it well.
Whatever the original deal said, there wasn't going to be a thing in the water by 2031. It took 3 years just to negotiate the contract and it was only finalized in 2019. Nothing was going to be launched before the mid 2030s and I wouldn't have been shocked if it was vry close to 2040, which is the proposed date for the first sub launch here. Of course, that may also bow out. There is also a plan to upgrade the Collins class, but they won't be in grea tshape by the time the yare finally decommissioned in the 2040s.
I think that is all correct. Hope it helps.
sigpic
Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C
- 1 like
Comment
-
Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
At what point in time did you notice this shift. Any watershed moments that turned your people against China.
Back in 2010 it was a very different picture compared with recent years.
IN 2003 I flew SYD to LAX alongside a HK businessman. Being most interested in China I asked him about HK, I remember his viewpoint 'it's very bad, and it is going to get worse' he said. His wife agreed.
Ego Numquam
- 1 like
Comment
-
Always good to hear from Captain James Fannell
Q. There's been much talk in the past about the so-called pivot to Asia. A lot of people disappointed it hasn't been as obvious. This would seem to be obviously a pivot to this part of the world by the US because there's only one other country you've shared this technology with before and that of course is the UK ?
A. right, this is a major demonstration of a commitment beyond just a power point bumper sticker as the pivot in many ways was. So this is something that i think people will be able to in Australia. the United States and UK, tangibly measure whether or not progress is being made.
With the experience of the French deal i think there's going to be a lot of pressure now on all concerned to not have another episode like that.
They have two choices to make. Virginia or Astute. Pick one and go with it.
Don't try to redesign an already working design. Just decide how and where and then get on with it.
Given the long time line to get the first ship and three year Aussie election cycles, there is the potential for confusion and delays so care needs to be taken not to allow that to happen.
Only thing missing in this discussion is the cost ?
Looks like closer to $40bn AUD for 8 subsLast edited by Double Edge; 19 Sep 21,, 15:35.
Comment
-
Originally posted by tbm3fan View Post
The French are now being... well very French!
- were made to retrofit an SSN into a conventional diesel and spent more than five years at it. Refit a working proven design into an unproven one. How THAT decision was taken i do not know !!! I hear Turnbull had something to do with it and Pine, the then defense minister from South Australia with an obvious conflict of interest. He wanted the subs made in his state. Those three seats from SA were necessary to save Turnbull's prime ministership (!)
French could have sold them nuclear powered subs at the outset. Where did the objection come from ?
- they feel squeezed out by a cabal of allies with common interests. This more than anything has got them upset and is the bigger issue with ramifications further afield.
Which begs the question if the Aussies could have got a nuclear sub from either party why it had to be American/UK ?
Nuclear subs allow longer trips at sea. Either party could have provided them.
Is American war planning so hard boiled as to be incapable of accommodating non-American hardware ? obviously not.
What then ?
Aussie sub deployments could be subject to the whims of Paris which introduces an unwanted dependency for Washington.
Yeah but is that such an issue ? French have been reliable to date from India's experience.
French have the most overseas territory in the Indo-Pacific of any Euro power. French and Australia have common concerns here.
They do not integrate as well as. Yeah but there is more going on here and its political.
The simple answer is the Americans don't trust the French and it was insane to go with a sub designed by the French and then integrate an American combat system on top when the two host countries do not talk to each other.
Aussies knew this when they entered into the deal with the French and yet they still went ahead.Last edited by Double Edge; 19 Sep 21,, 17:04.
Comment
-
Originally posted by tbm3fan View Post
The French are now being... well very French!
How would the US or UK react to this, I wonder? I would certainly not be happy with someone to goes back on a contract...
Comment
Comment