SeamanBeaumont wrote:Have you seen how much Aussie squids get paid... they are always the ones with the most money at the bar!
I'd chalk that up to priorities. Maybe beer over babes.
The UK may have the better beer!
bt
Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
SeamanBeaumont wrote:Have you seen how much Aussie squids get paid... they are always the ones with the most money at the bar!
bikerthai wrote:OK, they will refuel 6. Will there be more than 6 being decommissioned?
What makes me curious is why are they refueling the youngest boat first? Are the older ones not worth retaining?
bt
bikerthai wrote:SeamanBeaumont wrote:Have you seen how much Aussie squids get paid... they are always the ones with the most money at the bar!
I'd chalk that up to priorities. Maybe beer over babes.
The UK may have the better beer!
bt
LTEN11 wrote:My favorite is McEwan's Scottish Ale. Great stuff!bikerthai wrote:SeamanBeaumont wrote:Have you seen how much Aussie squids get paid... they are always the ones with the most money at the bar!
I'd chalk that up to priorities. Maybe beer over babes.
The UK may have the better beer!
bt
UK have better beer
Best laugh I've had all year
They offer a shot in the arm for France’s defense industry after the collapse of a $66 billion contract for Australia to buy 12 French submarines that ultimately went to the U.S.
bajs11 wrote:This deal and the sub one have nothing to do with each other. Nobody owes France anything.possibly relatedThey offer a shot in the arm for France’s defense industry after the collapse of a $66 billion contract for Australia to buy 12 French submarines that ultimately went to the U.S.
https://www.defensenews.com/global/mide ... -with-uae/
but that's only 18 billion which means that France will likely to get more orders from the US and its allies and may will give Airbus/Lockheed the upper hand in the bridge tanker competition but that's a bit off-topic.
RJMAZ wrote:I guess NH90 and Tiger are examples of a bad short term alliance. When the product underperformed each partner did not want to take responsibility or contribute money to find a solution.
All of the discussions of product X versus product Z and everyone picks their favourite team. Usually there is no hard data to show which product is superior. We now have two very strong data points that can be used in an argument European aerospace products.
I'm sure Auukus subs will not have cost blowouts and long term support will be rock solid.
A101 wrote:production slots for C17 & Super Hornets/ Growlers
A101 wrote:RJMAZ wrote:I guess NH90 and Tiger are examples of a bad short term alliance. When the product underperformed each partner did not want to take responsibility or contribute money to find a solution.
All of the discussions of product X versus product Z and everyone picks their favourite team. Usually there is no hard data to show which product is superior. We now have two very strong data points that can be used in an argument European aerospace products.
I'm sure Auukus subs will not have cost blowouts and long term support will be rock solid.
I would have to agree with you there in terms of support for the US product. I think that comes from shear volume that the US buys alone
The RAAF have done alright when it comes to the US they have certainly done the RAAF a lot of favours when they want aircraft in a hurry as they have let them have their production slots for C17 & Super Hornets/ Growlers
Will be Interesting to see if RNZAF buys additional airframes and spares from the ADF god knows they need it, but that also leads them to be an orphan fleet in the area
The MRH90 helicopter fleet has not met contracted availability requirements nor the expected cost of ownership ahead of its planned withdrawal from service in 2037.
Zkpilot wrote:I wonder if they might pick up the RAAF birds
Zkpilot wrote:The ADF certainly has a habit of making poor help choices/not implementing them properly.
Take the Seasprite… RAN messed them up. RNZN have had great success with them.
Zkpilot wrote:NH90 RNZAF love theirs.
And Tiger…
A101 wrote:Zkpilot wrote:I wonder if they might pick up the RAAF birds
RAAF birds? Can’t see the RNZAF rebuilding an Strike wing of classic Hornets, think the Canadians bet you to the best birds out of that lot
Zkpilot wrote:A101 wrote:Zkpilot wrote:I wonder if they might pick up the RAAF birds
RAAF birds? Can’t see the RNZAF rebuilding an Strike wing of classic Hornets, think the Canadians bet you to the best birds out of that lot
Who said anything about strike wing or hornets?
I was referring to the NH90s.
A101 wrote:Zkpilot wrote:A101 wrote:
RAAF birds? Can’t see the RNZAF rebuilding an Strike wing of classic Hornets, think the Canadians bet you to the best birds out of that lot
Who said anything about strike wing or hornets?
I was referring to the NH90s.
Well the RAAF do not operate the Taipans they are Army assets or ex RAN only RAAF birds being retired are the classic Hornets
Zkpilot wrote:A101 wrote:Zkpilot wrote:Who said anything about strike wing or hornets?
I was referring to the NH90s.
Well the RAAF do not operate the Taipans they are Army assets or ex RAN only RAAF birds being retired are the classic Hornets
Fair enough I didn’t realise they were Army rather than RAAF assets. The long still stands though… who are they going to offload them too… RNZAF might be interested in some for the right price, but there’s too many so someone else will need to buy them.
RJMAZ wrote:
I'm sure Auukus subs will not have cost blowouts and long term support will be rock solid.
JayinKitsap wrote:Came across two good articles about the sub options.
https://www.navylookout.com/royal-navy- ... australia/
https://www.navylookout.com/nuclear-sub ... e-options/
I still think the Virginia is the best option as it is still in current production, sustainment of the design would be far less as part of a much larger class.
A big issue is the dry docks, piers, and training facilities as well as training. Some officer positions take 16 years to become qualified - but the boats need to be there to train on. Sounds like apprenticeships on both Royal Navy and US subs.
JayinKitsap wrote:Came across two good articles about the sub options.
https://www.navylookout.com/royal-navy- ... australia/
https://www.navylookout.com/nuclear-sub ... e-options/
I still think the Virginia is the best option as it is still in current production, sustainment of the design would be far less as part of a much larger class.
A big issue is the dry docks, piers, and training facilities as well as training. Some officer positions take 16 years to become qualified - but the boats need to be there to train on. Sounds like apprenticeships on both Royal Navy and US subs.
GDB wrote:JayinKitsap wrote:Came across two good articles about the sub options.
https://www.navylookout.com/royal-navy- ... australia/
https://www.navylookout.com/nuclear-sub ... e-options/
I still think the Virginia is the best option as it is still in current production, sustainment of the design would be far less as part of a much larger class.
A big issue is the dry docks, piers, and training facilities as well as training. Some officer positions take 16 years to become qualified - but the boats need to be there to train on. Sounds like apprenticeships on both Royal Navy and US subs.
Interesting articles, while the USN might be in a position to offer, as stated in one article, a SSN essentially as a training aid for the RAN and industry, I still think the best path for the RAN for new subs and local industry would be inclusion into the follow on to the Astute Class now in the early stages of development.
With a 25 year life, the replacement for the oldest Astute boat needs to be completed in the mid 2030’s.
With the RAN following not far behind, given the problems of the SSN to SSK option, (bizzare and already delayed even at this early stage plus the industrial diagreements emerging), it might just be possible for the RAN to get it’s first SSN from such a tie up not long afterwards, probably not long after the first of the now cancelled class would in all probability been available.
There would still be considerable US involvement, politically and at an industrial level, the RAN working with US industry on the combat system and supply of fuel as well as nuclear infrastructure.
Phosphorus wrote:GDB wrote:JayinKitsap wrote:Came across two good articles about the sub options.
https://www.navylookout.com/royal-navy- ... australia/
https://www.navylookout.com/nuclear-sub ... e-options/
I still think the Virginia is the best option as it is still in current production, sustainment of the design would be far less as part of a much larger class.
A big issue is the dry docks, piers, and training facilities as well as training. Some officer positions take 16 years to become qualified - but the boats need to be there to train on. Sounds like apprenticeships on both Royal Navy and US subs.
Interesting articles, while the USN might be in a position to offer, as stated in one article, a SSN essentially as a training aid for the RAN and industry, I still think the best path for the RAN for new subs and local industry would be inclusion into the follow on to the Astute Class now in the early stages of development.
With a 25 year life, the replacement for the oldest Astute boat needs to be completed in the mid 2030’s.
With the RAN following not far behind, given the problems of the SSN to SSK option, (bizzare and already delayed even at this early stage plus the industrial diagreements emerging), it might just be possible for the RAN to get it’s first SSN from such a tie up not long afterwards, probably not long after the first of the now cancelled class would in all probability been available.
There would still be considerable US involvement, politically and at an industrial level, the RAN working with US industry on the combat system and supply of fuel as well as nuclear infrastructure.
Quite interesting.
Talking about nuclear infrastructure -- isn't it correct that going "Astute way", in principle, reduces the footprint of required infrastructure -- with no refueling capability required.
Otherwise, RAN would either have to rely on industrial partners to refuel, or create much more industry locally?
johns624 wrote:I just read an opinion piece in a British magazine (Warship IFR) about why the French weren't invited to join the AUUKUS defense pact and it makes perfect sense. For the last several years, Macron (DeGaulle Jr.) has been agitating for an EU military force with France in charge, in competition with NATO. Inviting France to join the new pact would just lead to problems due to France being the junior partner, yet wanting to have the loudest voice.
FlapOperator wrote:johns624 wrote:I just read an opinion piece in a British magazine (Warship IFR) about why the French weren't invited to join the AUUKUS defense pact and it makes perfect sense. For the last several years, Macron (DeGaulle Jr.) has been agitating for an EU military force with France in charge, in competition with NATO. Inviting France to join the new pact would just lead to problems due to France being the junior partner, yet wanting to have the loudest voice.
Yeah, its the classic impasse of Anglo/US/French military/diplomatic relations.
The French want to use their dominant position within the EU to push what they likely believe are European equities, but are perceived by a far number of smaller nations as Franco-centric ones.
The French view NATO as US/UK dominated (probably true.) But, that is kind of the price as long as the US/UK are the preponderance of the combat effort and EU combat operations simply not ready for prime time, especially in the major combat operations sense. Interestingly, the UK Left views this dynamic as the UK as the junior partner/poodle of the US, but the reality I've seen is that the US is reacting to UK considerations...our relationship is really far more complex than the UK left wish to make it seem.
I can be pretty sympathetic to French realities, as they are trying to maintain a global presence (a Champaigne priced requirement) on a domestic light beer budget. One of the many ways to manage this is via foreign arms sales (which make many high-end capabilities within budgetary reach.) I welcome the French not viewing the Anglo/US side as their "Prime Enemy" (see the breathless "hyperpower" comments of the 1990s) and recognizing the requirement to join hands in the face of an aggressive China and revanchist Russia.
stratable wrote:
Just remember that France can't really go anywhere in the EU without Germany and German military interests are still somewhat different from France's. While they continue to cooperate on ever more issues, France has the ambition to be a global military power whereas the German military is still geared more toward defending European interests.
At least for Germany I understand that the military and intelligence services are far more pragmatic on cooperating with US/UK forces than the general public may perceive it to be.
Ultimately, we are all allies, even though most European nations are far more cautious on engaging in conflicts far away from their territories.
This is largely due to countless wars that all countries in Europe suffered through in history. However even conflict-averse Europeans are waking up to the reality that China poses a major threat.
I expect a larger cooperative effort by continental European nations both in civilian and military terms against China in the coming years. The EU initiative to combat the Chinese economic expansion in Africa is one example.
There will be more military presence in the Asian region by European vessels, too. Albeit I expect at least initially in a more muted manner than Australian, Japanese, or South Korean navies might prefer.
SeamanBeaumont wrote:JayinKitsap wrote:Came across two good articles about the sub options.
https://www.navylookout.com/royal-navy- ... australia/
https://www.navylookout.com/nuclear-sub ... e-options/
I still think the Virginia is the best option as it is still in current production, sustainment of the design would be far less as part of a much larger class.
A big issue is the dry docks, piers, and training facilities as well as training. Some officer positions take 16 years to become qualified - but the boats need to be there to train on. Sounds like apprenticeships on both Royal Navy and US subs.
RAN isn't starting subs from scratch. They would be starting nuc eng from zero but all that takes is a couple of lateral transfers to get them going..
Best bet for training is a retiring 688. It never has to sail, just sit in the harbour and they can train to their hearts content. Like this, isn't cheap though... https://www.naval-technology.com/news/u ... ning-ship/
GDB wrote:JayinKitsap wrote:Came across two good articles about the sub options.
https://www.navylookout.com/royal-navy- ... australia/
https://www.navylookout.com/nuclear-sub ... e-options/
I still think the Virginia is the best option as it is still in current production, sustainment of the design would be far less as part of a much larger class.
A big issue is the dry docks, piers, and training facilities as well as training. Some officer positions take 16 years to become qualified - but the boats need to be there to train on. Sounds like apprenticeships on both Royal Navy and US subs.
Interesting articles, while the USN might be in a position to offer, as stated in one article, a SSN essentially as a training aid for the RAN and industry, I still think the best path for the RAN for new subs and local industry would be inclusion into the follow on to the Astute Class now in the early stages of development.
With a 25 year life, the replacement for the oldest Astute boat needs to be completed in the mid 2030’s.
With the RAN following not far behind, given the problems of the SSN to SSK option, (bizzare and already delayed even at this early stage plus the industrial diagreements emerging), it might just be possible for the RAN to get it’s first SSN from such a tie up not long afterwards, probably not long after the first of the now cancelled class would in all probability been available.
There would still be considerable US involvement, politically and at an industrial level, the RAN working with US industry on the combat system and supply of fuel as well as nuclear infrastructure.
astuteman wrote:
Three factors to consider in terms of a choice between current generation and next generation are:-
a) both the US and UK have huge SSBN programmes to undertake alongside the SSN's
b) what does the current escalation mean for policy, and thus the demand trend, for SSN's in both the US and UK?
c) what is the perceived threat and thus mission profile the Australians are looking for? (e.g. is the balance more ASW or missile strike).
Rgds
bajs11 wrote:https://breakingdefense.com/2022/02/france-dumps-aussies-from-strategic-partnership-citing-aukus-sub-deal/
looks like France has singled out Australia as the main "bad guy"
bajs11 wrote:Just French politics. With what's going on in Ukraine, France doesn't want to upset London and Washington too much. Maybe next month...https://breakingdefense.com/2022/02/france-dumps-aussies-from-strategic-partnership-citing-aukus-sub-deal/
looks like France has singled out Australia as the main "bad guy"
744SPX wrote:I'll be very curious to see that if they do get Virginia's, they get the S9G "as is" meaning using HEU fuel. What with all the pushing by (seriously misguided, IMO) non-proliferation types to switch naval reactors to LEU and Australia's generally anti-nuclear power stance, it could be an issue.
Such a change would of course require a re-design to incorporate HALEU (at best) with negative consequences for reactor power density and time between refuellings.
JayinKitsap wrote:I recall, possibly way up in the thread, that Australia does not want to have a Nuclear Industry. Either the Virginia S9G or the Astute class's reactor will be set up to not require refueling during the life of the sub, the S9G in the US Navy has attained lifetime initial refueling for their fleet. Previously, a sub would be refuelled 1 or 2 times over its life.
There is extensive annual maintenance around a reactor compartment, that would happen at the home port for the subs. Australia may choose to contract that out to Electric Boat or Bettis, alternatively visit Pearl for such refit work. Sort of a Power by the Hour arrangement where Australia treats the compartment as a big black box.
astuteman wrote:JayinKitsap wrote:I recall, possibly way up in the thread, that Australia does not want to have a Nuclear Industry. Either the Virginia S9G or the Astute class's reactor will be set up to not require refueling during the life of the sub, the S9G in the US Navy has attained lifetime initial refueling for their fleet. Previously, a sub would be refuelled 1 or 2 times over its life.
There is extensive annual maintenance around a reactor compartment, that would happen at the home port for the subs. Australia may choose to contract that out to Electric Boat or Bettis, alternatively visit Pearl for such refit work. Sort of a Power by the Hour arrangement where Australia treats the compartment as a big black box.
Trouble is, you can't have an operational nuclear reactor without a "nuclear industry" of some sorts.
Licensing, qualification, and regulation all have to happen, as do emergency plans.
That's on top of the heavy maintenance and inspection burden you allude to.
As far as I'm aware, EB don't conduct refits.
See my previous post - I'm not sure they'd have the capacity anyway.
USN new builds would surely take priority?
Rgds
astuteman wrote:JayinKitsap wrote:I recall, possibly way up in the thread, that Australia does not want to have a Nuclear Industry. Either the Virginia S9G or the Astute class's reactor will be set up to not require refueling during the life of the sub, the S9G in the US Navy has attained lifetime initial refueling for their fleet. Previously, a sub would be refuelled 1 or 2 times over its life.
There is extensive annual maintenance around a reactor compartment, that would happen at the home port for the subs. Australia may choose to contract that out to Electric Boat or Bettis, alternatively visit Pearl for such refit work. Sort of a Power by the Hour arrangement where Australia treats the compartment as a big black box.
Trouble is, you can't have an operational nuclear reactor without a "nuclear industry" of some sorts.
Licensing, qualification, and regulation all have to happen, as do emergency plans.
That's on top of the heavy maintenance and inspection burden you allude to.
As far as I'm aware, EB don't conduct refits.
See my previous post - I'm not sure they'd have the capacity anyway.
USN new builds would surely take priority?
Rgds
JayinKitsap wrote:astuteman wrote:JayinKitsap wrote:I recall, possibly way up in the thread, that Australia does not want to have a Nuclear Industry. Either the Virginia S9G or the Astute class's reactor will be set up to not require refueling during the life of the sub, the S9G in the US Navy has attained lifetime initial refueling for their fleet. Previously, a sub would be refuelled 1 or 2 times over its life.
There is extensive annual maintenance around a reactor compartment, that would happen at the home port for the subs. Australia may choose to contract that out to Electric Boat or Bettis, alternatively visit Pearl for such refit work. Sort of a Power by the Hour arrangement where Australia treats the compartment as a big black box.
Trouble is, you can't have an operational nuclear reactor without a "nuclear industry" of some sorts.
Licensing, qualification, and regulation all have to happen, as do emergency plans.
That's on top of the heavy maintenance and inspection burden you allude to.
As far as I'm aware, EB don't conduct refits.
See my previous post - I'm not sure they'd have the capacity anyway.
USN new builds would surely take priority?
Rgds
You know better than me, but the support facilities for a nuclear sub are far more than a conventional powered sub. Either need complete bases like Kings Bay and Bangor that have dry docks and can handle Intermediate Maintenance tasks, or utilize a submarine tender. Major overhauls belong to the 4 Naval Shipyards - Portsmouth, Norfolk, Puget Sound, and Pearl Harbor, places like San Diego, Guam & Japan are supported by PSNS Civil Service detachments.
You are right about EB not doing refits at their yard for US or UK vessels, but they have significant contracts on ships and shore facilities. Similar refit kind of work is Lockheed doing all of the sustainment for the D5's.
The only way I see this working well would be to have a Joint Base in Australia with either the US for Virginia boats or the UK for Astute boats. Shore side facilities - dry dock, pier space for 4 boats - double rafted, Magnetic Silencing Facility, a complete refit facility, ordinance depot, dorms and housing, training facilities, public works, commissary, etc. Google - Bangor Trident Base and look at the image. Bangor has other supply depot functions that makes it quite big, but far bigger than Naval Base Point Loma as it doesn't have a dry dock and minimal refit support.
At build out, the base can probably support 10 boats - 6 AUS and 4 US/UK, with the first AUS would be say the 3rd or 4th there. Should do Blue / Gold crews to allow for more trainer work. The first boats there would be crewed 1/3 : 2/3 or similar to the manning done by the USN, only so many first patrol types. Later boats could have more balance in the Joint Operation. A US (or UK) Naval Shipyard detachment would have to do all of the reactor compartment work. I cannot imagine either the US or UK allowing other their own citizens doing the nuclear tech work. The USN has only authorized the UK its nuclear power information, Australia would be the 2nd.
Yes, Australia would get new builds after the US, it may be where only the reactor compartment is US made. Hull structure makes more sense to do in the US but it could be shipped in sections to an AUS shipyard for final assembly.
astuteman wrote:JayinKitsap wrote:astuteman wrote:
Trouble is, you can't have an operational nuclear reactor without a "nuclear industry" of some sorts.
Licensing, qualification, and regulation all have to happen, as do emergency plans.
That's on top of the heavy maintenance and inspection burden you allude to.
As far as I'm aware, EB don't conduct refits.
See my previous post - I'm not sure they'd have the capacity anyway.
USN new builds would surely take priority?
Rgds
You know better than me, but the support facilities for a nuclear sub are far more than a conventional powered sub. Either need complete bases like Kings Bay and Bangor that have dry docks and can handle Intermediate Maintenance tasks, or utilize a submarine tender. Major overhauls belong to the 4 Naval Shipyards - Portsmouth, Norfolk, Puget Sound, and Pearl Harbor, places like San Diego, Guam & Japan are supported by PSNS Civil Service detachments.
You are right about EB not doing refits at their yard for US or UK vessels, but they have significant contracts on ships and shore facilities. Similar refit kind of work is Lockheed doing all of the sustainment for the D5's.
The only way I see this working well would be to have a Joint Base in Australia with either the US for Virginia boats or the UK for Astute boats. Shore side facilities - dry dock, pier space for 4 boats - double rafted, Magnetic Silencing Facility, a complete refit facility, ordinance depot, dorms and housing, training facilities, public works, commissary, etc. Google - Bangor Trident Base and look at the image. Bangor has other supply depot functions that makes it quite big, but far bigger than Naval Base Point Loma as it doesn't have a dry dock and minimal refit support.
At build out, the base can probably support 10 boats - 6 AUS and 4 US/UK, with the first AUS would be say the 3rd or 4th there. Should do Blue / Gold crews to allow for more trainer work. The first boats there would be crewed 1/3 : 2/3 or similar to the manning done by the USN, only so many first patrol types. Later boats could have more balance in the Joint Operation. A US (or UK) Naval Shipyard detachment would have to do all of the reactor compartment work. I cannot imagine either the US or UK allowing other their own citizens doing the nuclear tech work. The USN has only authorized the UK its nuclear power information, Australia would be the 2nd.
Yes, Australia would get new builds after the US, it may be where only the reactor compartment is US made. Hull structure makes more sense to do in the US but it could be shipped in sections to an AUS shipyard for final assembly.
I could google Bangor I guess.... or Faslane for that matter. Or Devonport
Your point about US agreement (technically the US Government, not the USN ) is valid.
The 1958 agreement still stands as far as I know, and Aus will need to become a co-signatory.
Aus does have sub build capability, but not nuclear. So I could see your idea of shipping sections being a possibility.
I have a bit of a chuckle about the vision of an AUKUS SSN reactor section on a barge in the middle of the South China Sea .......
I have no idea how this will evolve, but I will be watching with fascination
Rgds
astuteman wrote:GDB wrote:JayinKitsap wrote:Came across two good articles about the sub options.
https://www.navylookout.com/royal-navy- ... australia/
https://www.navylookout.com/nuclear-sub ... e-options/
I still think the Virginia is the best option as it is still in current production, sustainment of the design would be far less as part of a much larger class.
A big issue is the dry docks, piers, and training facilities as well as training. Some officer positions take 16 years to become qualified - but the boats need to be there to train on. Sounds like apprenticeships on both Royal Navy and US subs.
Interesting articles, while the USN might be in a position to offer, as stated in one article, a SSN essentially as a training aid for the RAN and industry, I still think the best path for the RAN for new subs and local industry would be inclusion into the follow on to the Astute Class now in the early stages of development.
With a 25 year life, the replacement for the oldest Astute boat needs to be completed in the mid 2030’s.
With the RAN following not far behind, given the problems of the SSN to SSK option, (bizzare and already delayed even at this early stage plus the industrial diagreements emerging), it might just be possible for the RAN to get it’s first SSN from such a tie up not long afterwards, probably not long after the first of the now cancelled class would in all probability been available.
There would still be considerable US involvement, politically and at an industrial level, the RAN working with US industry on the combat system and supply of fuel as well as nuclear infrastructure.
I must admit to quietly enjoying the content of this thread.....
I also must admit that when you consider the infrastructure needed to operate and maintain a fleet of Nuclear Submarines, I am awed at the size of the challenge Australia is setting itself.
For those that don't know, as you pointed out earlier, there are 3 Astutes still to finish sat in the BAE yard in Barrow-in-Furness.
Three factors to consider in terms of a choice between current generation and next generation are:-
a) both the US and UK have huge SSBN programmes to undertake alongside the SSN's
b) what does the current escalation mean for policy, and thus the demand trend, for SSN's in both the US and UK?
c) what is the perceived threat and thus mission profile the Australians are looking for? (e.g. is the balance more ASW or missile strike).
There are many ways to divide up the work content that are influenced by all of these..
For what its worth, the RAN may not need to work with US industry on either combat system, or fuel supply.
The US government will need to be involved in the nuclear plant and infrastructure whatever because of the 1958 agreement.
Rgds
JayinKitsap wrote:astuteman wrote:JayinKitsap wrote:
You know better than me, but the support facilities for a nuclear sub are far more than a conventional powered sub. Either need complete bases like Kings Bay and Bangor that have dry docks and can handle Intermediate Maintenance tasks, or utilize a submarine tender. Major overhauls belong to the 4 Naval Shipyards - Portsmouth, Norfolk, Puget Sound, and Pearl Harbor, places like San Diego, Guam & Japan are supported by PSNS Civil Service detachments.
You are right about EB not doing refits at their yard for US or UK vessels, but they have significant contracts on ships and shore facilities. Similar refit kind of work is Lockheed doing all of the sustainment for the D5's.
The only way I see this working well would be to have a Joint Base in Australia with either the US for Virginia boats or the UK for Astute boats. Shore side facilities - dry dock, pier space for 4 boats - double rafted, Magnetic Silencing Facility, a complete refit facility, ordinance depot, dorms and housing, training facilities, public works, commissary, etc. Google - Bangor Trident Base and look at the image. Bangor has other supply depot functions that makes it quite big, but far bigger than Naval Base Point Loma as it doesn't have a dry dock and minimal refit support.
At build out, the base can probably support 10 boats - 6 AUS and 4 US/UK, with the first AUS would be say the 3rd or 4th there. Should do Blue / Gold crews to allow for more trainer work. The first boats there would be crewed 1/3 : 2/3 or similar to the manning done by the USN, only so many first patrol types. Later boats could have more balance in the Joint Operation. A US (or UK) Naval Shipyard detachment would have to do all of the reactor compartment work. I cannot imagine either the US or UK allowing other their own citizens doing the nuclear tech work. The USN has only authorized the UK its nuclear power information, Australia would be the 2nd.
Yes, Australia would get new builds after the US, it may be where only the reactor compartment is US made. Hull structure makes more sense to do in the US but it could be shipped in sections to an AUS shipyard for final assembly.
I could google Bangor I guess.... or Faslane for that matter. Or Devonport
Your point about US agreement (technically the US Government, not the USN ) is valid.
The 1958 agreement still stands as far as I know, and Aus will need to become a co-signatory.
Aus does have sub build capability, but not nuclear. So I could see your idea of shipping sections being a possibility.
I have a bit of a chuckle about the vision of an AUKUS SSN reactor section on a barge in the middle of the South China Sea .......
I have no idea how this will evolve, but I will be watching with fascination
Rgds
I knew you know what all goes into a sub base, I was bringing up one could google for the a.net crowd.
The 1958 agreement still stands, I recall the UK is the only country the US has given nuclear technology as well as furnishing ICBM missiles to.
A new agreement is needed among the three countries as the scope is broadened, nuclear info and stuff will be shared among the three, as well as joint operation considerations. The UK designed their own reactor plants from that information, AUS wants to stand back, just be a user of the propulsion system (50 year lease? of the reactor compartment).
Well they do barge reactor compartments already, but it is from the Puget Sound, down the Washington Coast and up the Columbia to Hanford. It's a sealed reactor compartment ready to be buried. PSNS is the only US location for breaking up old subs. I am sure they watch the weather and China watches closly.
AUS does have shipyards and they built the Collins class, however the Astute and Virginia probably have thicker hulls at a larger diameter, in particular the pressure bulkhead takes some special equipment to manufacture, probably cheaper to buy 5 cones & 5 tail bulkheads than the equipment to make them. The shell sections possibly also. Whichever sub is purchased will be the design, but the UK could fabricate Virginia sections without issue and visa versa. Obtaining and welding the high strength steel takes a huge QC effort that has a steep learning curve. Better for AUS to focus on assembly using the already made bare hull sections. That is all work that the same yard will be maintaining over the years, making good sense to learn.
It will take close to a decade to design and build the sub base, it would be at least a decade for AUS to build its first sub. However, it would also take a decade to properly train the officers, chiefs, and crew on that class, so joint crewing has to begin shortly after the agreement is signed.
The US would love to have a forward sub base there, that really makes it worth it by itself.
Quite fascinating, need lots of popcorn. It all started with the realization that 12 smaller diesel boats was going to cost more than 5 Virginia or 7 Astute boats, just the added endurance allows half of the subs to be operated.
brindabella wrote:JayinKitsap wrote:astuteman wrote:
I could google Bangor I guess.... or Faslane for that matter. Or Devonport
Your point about US agreement (technically the US Government, not the USN ) is valid.
The 1958 agreement still stands as far as I know, and Aus will need to become a co-signatory.
Aus does have sub build capability, but not nuclear. So I could see your idea of shipping sections being a possibility.
I have a bit of a chuckle about the vision of an AUKUS SSN reactor section on a barge in the middle of the South China Sea .......
I have no idea how this will evolve, but I will be watching with fascination
Rgds
I knew you know what all goes into a sub base, I was bringing up one could google for the a.net crowd.
The 1958 agreement still stands, I recall the UK is the only country the US has given nuclear technology as well as furnishing ICBM missiles to.
A new agreement is needed among the three countries as the scope is broadened, nuclear info and stuff will be shared among the three, as well as joint operation considerations. The UK designed their own reactor plants from that information, AUS wants to stand back, just be a user of the propulsion system (50 year lease? of the reactor compartment).
Well they do barge reactor compartments already, but it is from the Puget Sound, down the Washington Coast and up the Columbia to Hanford. It's a sealed reactor compartment ready to be buried. PSNS is the only US location for breaking up old subs. I am sure they watch the weather and China watches closly.
AUS does have shipyards and they built the Collins class, however the Astute and Virginia probably have thicker hulls at a larger diameter, in particular the pressure bulkhead takes some special equipment to manufacture, probably cheaper to buy 5 cones & 5 tail bulkheads than the equipment to make them. The shell sections possibly also. Whichever sub is purchased will be the design, but the UK could fabricate Virginia sections without issue and visa versa. Obtaining and welding the high strength steel takes a huge QC effort that has a steep learning curve. Better for AUS to focus on assembly using the already made bare hull sections. That is all work that the same yard will be maintaining over the years, making good sense to learn.
It will take close to a decade to design and build the sub base, it would be at least a decade for AUS to build its first sub. However, it would also take a decade to properly train the officers, chiefs, and crew on that class, so joint crewing has to begin shortly after the agreement is signed.
The US would love to have a forward sub base there, that really makes it worth it by itself.
Quite fascinating, need lots of popcorn. It all started with the realization that 12 smaller diesel boats was going to cost more than 5 Virginia or 7 Astute boats, just the added endurance allows half of the subs to be operated.
I met an American Engineer recently in Perth, WA.
He had worked for some time in the Nuclear industry.
The subject rapidly got onto the AUKUS project.
I suggested that a new "heavy" dock/facility to the South of Perth would seem to have a number of attractive features for the USN submarine
operations in the Indian Ocean, South China Sea and Indonesian Archipelago/Malacca Strait etc.
Intriguingly, his reaction was very animated, demanding to know: "Where did you hear that?"
The Pentagon’s 2023 budget request already includes $4.7 billion for research and development of hypersonic weapons. It includes planning that would have a hypersonic missile battery fielded by next year, a sea-based missile by 2025 and an air-based cruise missile by 2027.
bikerthai wrote:Will they even be air-launched? Will they fit in Mk41 VLS?What aircrafts in the UK and RAAF inventory can carry these first generation of missiles?
The US has the B-3, B-52 and the F-15EX.
bt