johns624 wrote:

bikerthai wrote:

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

Will they even be air-launched? Will they fit in Mk41 VLS?

Election-launched hypersonic missiles.

While I agree hypersonic cruise missiles are necessary I actually think we need non conventional weapons capability and the ability to quickly deploy these to targets on a distant continent with a minute or two of launch.

It’s very obvious at the moment what happens to countries without this capability in a time of war and defence pacts cannot be relied upon.

We need to go a lot further.

Will these hypersonic cruise missiles need a new bomber capability to launch them? We don’t have any bombers, our last were F111 which are destroyed or in museums.

Could you adapt a large airliner to be a kind of missile carrier for very long range stand off weapons?

cpd wrote:

Could you adapt a large airliner to be a kind of missile carrier for very long range stand off weapons?

You can roll it off a C-17

Not sure if they can reduce the size by 2027 to fit under the F-35. With the USAF accelerating the F-15EX buy, perhaps they don't think it would happen by then.
.
bt

I was referring to them maybe being launched from ships, in case I wasn't clear.

Given the timeframes given (decades away to build Australian SSN), the costs to upgrade the Collins class boats, many are putting the pieces together that form the following picture:
Scrap the Collins and lease up to 8x Los Angeles class boats from the USN (which are due to be early retired). Then build new SSN in the existing timeframe.
The costs to refuel the LA boats and moderate lease costs should be less than the cost to update the Collins boats. Then you get a much more capable boat, you get to learn the SSN ropes, decommissioning costs still revert to the USN.

bikerthai wrote:

Not sure if they can reduce the size by 2027 to fit under the F-35. .
bt

The F-35 external hardpoints can carry up to 5000 lbs. Do you think that's insufficient?

bikerthai wrote:

cpd wrote:

Could you adapt a large airliner to be a kind of missile carrier for very long range stand off weapons?

You can roll it off a C-17

Not sure if they can reduce the size by 2027 to fit under the F-35. With the USAF accelerating the F-15EX buy, perhaps they don't think it would happen by then.
.
bt

Some F-15's would be nice, hell, while this government is splashing cash for defence, why not pick up some B-21's.

If the range is sufficient, ie : can reach China as this is who it is obviously aimed at as far as Australia is concerned, then land based would be fine. Ship or submarine launch ability would be welcome, as of course would be air launched. Of course it will all depend on the size and capability of the weapon as to what aircraft it could be launched from and if Australia, or Britain for that matter, have the aircraft capable to use it, or would need to find a suitable launch platform.

mxaxai wrote:

bikerthai wrote:

Not sure if they can reduce the size by 2027 to fit under the F-35. .
bt

The F-35 external hardpoints can carry up to 5000 lbs. Do you think that's insufficient?

Lockheed Martin claims that the weight of the AGM-183A hypersonic missile is "7000 pound class" (

https://min.news/en/military/cc53cda770 ... df605.html

Ultimately I think they will be able to get the size down. But not in the next 5 years.

bt

bikerthai wrote:

Lockheed Martin claims that the weight of the AGM-183A hypersonic missile is "7000 pound class" (

https://min.news/en/military/cc53cda770 ... df605.html

Ultimately I think they will be able to get the size down. But not in the next 5 years.

bt

I see, thanks for the link. The published specs of the Russian missile vary wildly depending on the source, some put the weight at well under 5000 pounds, other significantly above.

Ultimately, I assume they could cut weight by simply reducing the range (similar to the different AMRAAM versions).

Not sure but I think the US hypersonic approach is different than those being fielded by the Russians.

The air-breathing ram jet has a potential for longer range in a smaller package.

bt

bikerthai wrote:

Not sure but I think the US hypersonic approach is different than those being fielded by the Russians.

The air-breathing ram jet has a potential for longer range in a smaller package.

bt

Yes, the air-breathing approach is significantly superior- scramjets is really where the innovation is.
Nobody used to use the term "hypersonics" they talked about scramjets. Solid-fuel air launched missiles that flew mach 5 or faster have been around for 60 years beginning with Skybolt, and only in the last 10 years or so have they been referred to as "hypersonics". Typical military hyperbole. Scramjets are new, not solid fuel hypersonic missiles.

It’s sorta like sensor fusion and the way the Russians diluted the term in order to market their newest Flanker-retread.

“We display two sensor, overlaid, on CRT screen! This sensor fusion, yes?”

It appears Japan may be asked to join AUKUS (it's important to remember that this alliance is about more than the sub deal, and Japan may not participate in that.) If so, this is rapidly shaping up to look like NATO for the Pacific.

https://twitter.com/stephendziedzic/sta ... 0285344773
https://twitter.com/KantaroKomiya/statu ... 5852540930
https://twitter.com/Sankei_news/status/ ... 8285326342

Zkpilot wrote:

Given the timeframes given (decades away to build Australian SSN), the costs to upgrade the Collins class boats, many are putting the pieces together that form the following picture:
Scrap the Collins and lease up to 8x Los Angeles class boats from the USN (which are due to be early retired). Then build new SSN in the existing timeframe.
The costs to refuel the LA boats and moderate lease costs should be less than the cost to update the Collins boats. Then you get a much more capable boat, you get to learn the SSN ropes, decommissioning costs still revert to the USN.

Exactly who are putting those pieces together? They need to upgrade the Collins in Australia to keep the Australian workers skilled and up to speed when it comes time to build whatever SSN they decide to build. Lease the LA's and all those Aussie shipyard workers and engineers head off to the mines, by the time they come to building SSN's the workforce will be gone.

N328KF wrote:

It appears Japan may be asked to join AUKUS (it's important to remember that this alliance is about more than the sub deal, and Japan may not participate in that.) If so, this is rapidly shaping up to look like NATO for the Pacific.

A friend and I were just discussing this about a month ago. The only difference is that we would include Canada, also. So UK, US, AU Japan and Canada.

johns624 wrote:

N328KF wrote:

It appears Japan may be asked to join AUKUS (it's important to remember that this alliance is about more than the sub deal, and Japan may not participate in that.) If so, this is rapidly shaping up to look like NATO for the Pacific.

A friend and I were just discussing this about a month ago. The only difference is that we would include Canada, also. So UK, US, AU Japan and Canada.

How about South Korea or Taiwan?

So AUUKUS is not necessarily a mutual defense pact. It is a mechanism to share highly protected defense technology. What other highly protected defense tech that could fall under this umbrella?

Hypersonic was mentioned.

Taiwan could contribute the capacity to build high end military grade chips which have become the backbone off all modern hi-tech weapons.

What could Korea contribute? Optical sensors for mass production of loitering munitions?

I know the US could make these components themselves, but the trick is to mass produce and drive down the costs so you can overwhelm your opponent with quantity as well as quality.

bt

ReverseFlow wrote:

johns624 wrote:

N328KF wrote:

It appears Japan may be asked to join AUKUS (it's important to remember that this alliance is about more than the sub deal, and Japan may not participate in that.) If so, this is rapidly shaping up to look like NATO for the Pacific.

A friend and I were just discussing this about a month ago. The only difference is that we would include Canada, also. So UK, US, AU Japan and Canada.

How about South Korea or Taiwan?

I thought about that, but figured that if push came to shove, South Korea would be distracted by the North and Taiwan would be the focus, anyways.
ETA--without sounding too callous, not including Taiwan gives a bit of flexibility. You can include them in your doctrine, without specifically including them.

ReverseFlow wrote:

johns624 wrote:

N328KF wrote:

It appears Japan may be asked to join AUKUS (it's important to remember that this alliance is about more than the sub deal, and Japan may not participate in that.) If so, this is rapidly shaping up to look like NATO for the Pacific.

A friend and I were just discussing this about a month ago. The only difference is that we would include Canada, also. So UK, US, AU Japan and Canada.

How about South Korea or Taiwan?

Historically ROK have to put it mildly, issues with Japan. Likely true of Taiwan too.
However, all are united by more current concerns with China, in 1904 Britain and France managed to bury centuries of wars between each other due to the rise of Germany under the Kaiser.
Not to say it’s been smooth sailing since, not at all, except on the fundamental issue of security.
Despite the differences in culture both are Western democracies, ROK and Taiwan are Asian ones, albeit it only in the past few decades, unlike the PRC which still venerates the biggest mass murderer of Chinese in modern times. Not for his policies, such they were, rather as a national, secular god.

Even John Lennon, often a sucker for faux revolutionaries (*cough* Micheal X), got that;
‘But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao,
You ain’t gonna make it with anyone anyhow’.
(Revolution, 1968).

Kiwirob wrote:

Zkpilot wrote:

Given the timeframes given (decades away to build Australian SSN), the costs to upgrade the Collins class boats, many are putting the pieces together that form the following picture:
Scrap the Collins and lease up to 8x Los Angeles class boats from the USN (which are due to be early retired). Then build new SSN in the existing timeframe.
The costs to refuel the LA boats and moderate lease costs should be less than the cost to update the Collins boats. Then you get a much more capable boat, you get to learn the SSN ropes, decommissioning costs still revert to the USN.

Exactly who are putting those pieces together? They need to upgrade the Collins in Australia to keep the Australian workers skilled and up to speed when it comes time to build whatever SSN they decide to build. Lease the LA's and all those Aussie shipyard workers and engineers head off to the mines, by the time they come to building SSN's the workforce will be gone.

Collins upgrades is quite a different skill set than constructing a brand new submarine.

Zkpilot wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

Zkpilot wrote:

Given the timeframes given (decades away to build Australian SSN), the costs to upgrade the Collins class boats, many are putting the pieces together that form the following picture:
Scrap the Collins and lease up to 8x Los Angeles class boats from the USN (which are due to be early retired). Then build new SSN in the existing timeframe.
The costs to refuel the LA boats and moderate lease costs should be less than the cost to update the Collins boats. Then you get a much more capable boat, you get to learn the SSN ropes, decommissioning costs still revert to the USN.

Exactly who are putting those pieces together? They need to upgrade the Collins in Australia to keep the Australian workers skilled and up to speed when it comes time to build whatever SSN they decide to build. Lease the LA's and all those Aussie shipyard workers and engineers head off to the mines, by the time they come to building SSN's the workforce will be gone.

Collins upgrades is quite a different skill set than constructing a brand new submarine.

Shipyard work is shipyard work, they still have to cut the hulls open for a lot of what they have to do.

https://www.france24.com/en/asia-pacifi ... e-contract

Australia will pay US$ 584 million to formally cancel the French contract, resulting in a total cost of US$ 2.4 billion for 0 submarines.

mxaxai wrote:

https://www.france24.com/en/asia-pacific/20220611-australia-announces-compensation-deal-with-france-over-scrapped-submarine-contract

Australia will pay US$ 584 million to formally cancel the French contract, resulting in a total cost of US$ 2.4 billion for 0 submarines.

Would it have been more preferable to not go into a contract with the French to build conventional submarines, definitely. But nuclear was not a option at the time of contract signing.

Still its cheaper than building the 12 subs that will not do what a Nuclear sub can do can and will do.

A101 wrote:

mxaxai wrote:

https://www.france24.com/en/asia-pacific/20220611-australia-announces-compensation-deal-with-france-over-scrapped-submarine-contract

Australia will pay US$ 584 million to formally cancel the French contract, resulting in a total cost of US$ 2.4 billion for 0 submarines.

Would it have been more preferable to not go into a contract with the French to build conventional submarines, definitely. But nuclear was not a option at the time of contract signing.

Still its cheaper than building the 12 subs that will not do what a Nuclear sub can do can and will do.

I thought the French designs were non-nuclear derived from nuclear subs as Australia didn't want nuclear subs at the time?

ReverseFlow wrote:

A101 wrote:

mxaxai wrote:

https://www.france24.com/en/asia-pacific/20220611-australia-announces-compensation-deal-with-france-over-scrapped-submarine-contract

Australia will pay US$ 584 million to formally cancel the French contract, resulting in a total cost of US$ 2.4 billion for 0 submarines.

Would it have been more preferable to not go into a contract with the French to build conventional submarines, definitely. But nuclear was not a option at the time of contract signing.

Still its cheaper than building the 12 subs that will not do what a Nuclear sub can do can and will do.

I thought the French designs were non-nuclear derived from nuclear subs as Australia didn't want nuclear subs at the time?

That is correct. He was saying that it wasn't an Australian option at the time, not that it wasn't a French option.

johns624 wrote:

ReverseFlow wrote:

A101 wrote:

Would it have been more preferable to not go into a contract with the French to build conventional submarines, definitely. But nuclear was not a option at the time of contract signing.

Still its cheaper than building the 12 subs that will not do what a Nuclear sub can do can and will do.

I thought the French designs were non-nuclear derived from nuclear subs as Australia didn't want nuclear subs at the time?

That is correct. He was saying that it wasn't an Australian option at the time, not that it wasn't a French option.

I wonder if a discussion with the French, direct, on coming back to nuclear propulsion (meaning not trying to retrofit conventional powerplant into essentially nuclear-optimized design), had a chance to go anywhere -- once the decision to abandon conventional propulsion was imminent.

I don't know but it appears that the overruns, both of cost and time, had sufficiently ruined the relationship by the time that the contract was cancelled.

The latest scuttlebutt is that it is indeed the Virginia class that will be purchased with the first 2 boats being US built before the others are built in Oz.
That speeds up the whole process by about a decade.

RJMAZ wrote:

Phosphorus wrote:

I wonder if a discussion with the French, direct, on coming back to nuclear propulsion (meaning not trying to retrofit conventional powerplant into essentially nuclear-optimized design), had a chance to go anywhere -- once the decision to abandon conventional propulsion was imminent.

Buying nuclear submarines made in France would have been the easiest and definitely the fastest option. The discussion about nuclear power should have been made much earlier.
If the Rafale is anything to go buy the French are willing to bend over backwards to get a sale reducing their own aircraft availability. The French subs use non weapons grade uranium as a result they get refueled every 7-10 years. They are designed for cheaper/quicker refueling compared to the US/UK designs that are sealed for to the full 25/30 years.

French Nuclear submarines would and do not fit in Australian plans as they want a sovereign capability from the cradle to the grave. French boats would most likely have meant that the reactor refuel would have been back in France. And be susceptible to French whims, in other words they will want to screw Australia for the maximum amount of money as we have seen with the failed contract of delays and cost blow outs. Imagine what they would have done at refit time.

The sealed nuclear design is actually the reason why the previous government went down that path when the opportunity came due to the very reason the MLU can and will be a sovereign capability and can be conducted in house. I don’t think using French aircraft is an overwhelming benefit to the euro cause with the problems with Tiger and Taipan.

The original intent for Collins replacement was for a clean sheet design, but both sides of government dropped the ball in the preliminary program with delays in funding was not allocated in the 2012/13 budget until a point that a clean sheet design was no longer possible as time had run out, it was then left to a modified MOTS that was handled like a hot potato politicly.

Underfunding in the initial program life and ongoing delays is the reason why there may be a capability gap. Australia should have been building the first boat now for sea trials to begin in 2025, but that’s all water under the bridge.

johns624 wrote:

I don't know but it appears that the overruns, both of cost and time, had sufficiently ruined the relationship by the time that the contract was cancelled.

That would have been a major factor in the cancellation, but it was always reliant on AUKUS getting over the line

The one thing that the French with the dummy spit was that no contract to build had yet been signed. I still think that the French deal would have been scrapped under a coalition government with four improved Collins being built and then a new submarine designed project put in place.

The French are there own worst enemy sometimes

Zkpilot wrote:

The latest scuttlebutt is that it is indeed the Virginia class that will be purchased with the first 2 boats being US built before the others are built in Oz.
That speeds up the whole process by about a decade.

That is just rambling from the previous Defence Minister. I think the US would seriously consider it as it would be in the best strategic interests to do so, getting it pasted Congress is another matter

RJMAZ wrote:

Phosphorus wrote:

I wonder if a discussion with the French, direct, on coming back to nuclear propulsion (meaning not trying to retrofit conventional powerplant into essentially nuclear-optimized design), had a chance to go anywhere -- once the decision to abandon conventional propulsion was imminent.

Buying nuclear submarines made in France would have been the easiest and definitely the fastest option. The discussion about nuclear power should have been made much earlier.

If the Rafale is anything to go buy the French are willing to bend over backwards to get a sale reducing their own aircraft availability. The French subs use non weapons grade uranium as a result they get refueled every 7-10 years. They are designed for cheaper/quicker refueling compared to the US/UK designs that are sealed for to the full 25/30 years.

The French could have given their 5 Rubis class attack submarines an extra refueling adding 7 additional years. France has multiple new Barracuda subs under construction with 1 already in service. 3 of those could have been operational in Australia by 2030 while keeping the French attack sub fleet at 6.

The French Triomphant class ballistic missile subs could also get an additional refueling freeing up resources to build more Barracuda subs.

The US and UK Navies can't do such quick and cheap life extension of existing subs to free up delivery spots of new subs for Australia. I have no idea where the Australian subs will come from. If they are build in Australia they will be $10 billion each.

You might want to consider that the Rubis class are old, very for at least a Western SSN, frankly are crap, being cramped and noisy- very unusual in a Western SSN.
I also doubt that they can build new SSN’s faster, have you seen the latest (and only second) class of SSN’s build time? Makes the problems with the Astute initial builds look extremely tame.
The lead boat of the proper Barracuda class, the ones designed from the start for nuclear propulsion, began construction in 2007. It only completed in 2020, over 5 years late.

RJMAZ wrote:

GDB wrote:

You might want to consider that the Rubis class are old, very for at least a Western SSN, frankly are crap, being cramped and noisy- very unusual in a Western SSN.

But they are in service now and have been doing their job for 30+ years. It is not like they suddenly become out of date in 2025 and self destruct. An additional refueling simply allows some of the new Barracuda subs to be allocated for Australian. France currently plans to have 6 Barracuda subs in service by 2030 and the last Rubis class subs retired in 2030. Australia and France would instead have 3 new Barracuda subs each in service by 2030. By 2037 both Australia and France would have six new subs each.

One extra refueling of the Rubis subs gives nearly the perfect amount of of time to build the extra subs.

GDB wrote:

I also doubt that they can build new SSN’s faster, have you seen the latest (and only second) class of SSN’s build time? Makes the problems with the Astute initial builds look extremely tame.
The lead boat of the proper Barracuda class, the ones designed from the start for nuclear propulsion, began construction in 2007. It only completed in 2020, over 5 years late.

The delays were simply extra design, research and development. Now that is done the boats will get delivered at the original interval. France would only have to increase production speed by 10-20% to build the 6 extra subs by 2037.

You just cannot keep on refuelling these boats, there comes a point when it is not sound operationally and less safe too, they have a finite life.
By comparison the RN has largely phased out the Trafalgar Class built at the same time but third (forth if you count what was in effect a prototype, HMS Dreadnaught) class of SSN's.
Especially when you consider how poor the sub is, how essentially a complete overhaul of it's systems was needed to make it half way useful. Prior to that, the Rubis itself main claim to fame was evacuating state sponsored terrorists after they conducted an attack on a fellow Western nation, New Zealand, murdering an innocent man and the operation was still blown.

Here is a history of this class, the channel is run by an ex USN submariner though is impartial, as his assessment of the recent USS Connecticut incident shows in unsparing detail.

This history reinforces my point in another way, if the Rubis build time and rate (and how the RAN contract was going at the time of cancellation) is anything to go by, good luck with seeing 6 Barracudas by 2030.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9N9VEyc0-Vk

GDB wrote:

[
Historically ROK have to put it mildly, issues with Japan. Likely true of Taiwan too.

The ROK has issues with everyone. They think it's their whole job to have issues with everyone. Their national pasttime is to bring up issues with everyone, the older, the better.

BestIntellect wrote:

GDB wrote:

[
Historically ROK have to put it mildly, issues with Japan. Likely true of Taiwan too.

The ROK has issues with everyone. They think it's their whole job to have issues with everyone. Their national pasttime is to bring up issues with everyone, the older, the better.

Do you know that Korea was brutally colonized by Japan, within still just living memory? Now however they are despite this more closely allied with them as both share real concerns with DPRK and who effectively keeps that regime on life support, China. Taiwan has obvious issues with China.
ROK I think have plenty of reason over the decades to have real issues with the ultimate neighbor from hell, DPRK, an actual aggressive Orwellian regime.
You don’t have to look long or far to see that.

RJMAZ wrote:

GDB wrote:

You just cannot keep on refuelling these boats, there comes a point when it is not sound operationally and less safe too, they have a finite life.

I know this. But you act like the steel suddenly imploded at a fixed date or the computers stop working. We are talking one extra refueling or a 20% life extension. I agree that this extra refueling will probably have higher general maintenance than previous refuelings. Also I agree as technology improves these subs get easier to detect after every year.

France would still get 3 Barracuda subs before 2030 so these can be used on the high risk tasks.

GDB wrote:

if the Rubis build time and rate (and how the RAN contract was going at the time of cancellation) is anything to go by, good luck with seeing 6 Barracudas by 2030.

Worst case scenario they would have 5 subs by 2030 and the 6th sub would arrive in 2032. Big deal Australia is getting nuclear subs far quicker than the US

Watch that video? 35 years ago when for a short time Canada was considering going nuclear for subs (Canada was a pioneering nuclear nation, scientists on Manhattan Project), the Rubis class were roundly seen as not meeting requirements. It would not have gone much further with internal political controversy, the looming but unexpected ending of the Cold War and the US would have blocked a Trafalgar Class sale as they did not think Canada, despite being a NATO ally, their closest physically of course and reliant on aspects of defence such as the DEW and NORAD, should not operate SSN’s, (a bit of 1812-14 thinking still, didn’t go well last time?)
So the one and only Western nuke sub sale/technology agreement 35 years ago involved the Rubis and it was a dud then.

While the UK had Dreadnaught , the Valiant Class, before proceeding to the Resolution SSBN’s which used a lot of Valiant equipment, (a 5th boat was cancelled in Jan 1965 but some long lead components went into more Valiant/Churchill Class boats), France’s first nuclear boats were SSBN’s, a bit later than the Resolution Class.

The Rubis Class are really at the end of their lives, the remaining boats in service built 30+ years ago. It’s not about implosions but more basic.
A few months ago a three part documentary followed the crew of a Trafalgar Class on it’s final commission. Going after Russian subs etc, the crew carried out their mission but a lot of systems breaking down notably the waste systems and other aspects making the crew’s life miserable and at times making completing tastings very challenging. On a much bigger boat with a lot of development history behind it.
I was surprised the RN allowed the doc to be made on a Trafalgar Class nearing the end of it’s life, hardly a recruiting tool.

BestIntellect wrote:

GDB wrote:

[
Historically ROK have to put it mildly, issues with Japan. Likely true of Taiwan too.

The ROK has issues with everyone. They think it's their whole job to have issues with everyone. Their national pasttime is to bring up issues with everyone, the older, the better.

As someone who has actually lived in South Korea, I wholeheartedly agree!

GDB wrote:

BestIntellect wrote:

GDB wrote:

[
Historically ROK have to put it mildly, issues with Japan. Likely true of Taiwan too.

The ROK has issues with everyone. They think it's their whole job to have issues with everyone. Their national pasttime is to bring up issues with everyone, the older, the better.

Do you know that Korea was brutally colonized by Japan, within still just living memory? Now however they are despite this more closely allied with them as both share real concerns with DPRK and who effectively keeps that regime on life support, China. Taiwan has obvious issues with China.
ROK I think have plenty of reason over the decades to have real issues with the ultimate neighbor from hell, DPRK, an actual aggressive Orwellian regime.
You don’t have to look long or far to see that.

No, he actually does have a point. I’m saying that as someone who has lived there before.

Nobody is denying that Korea has gone through brutal occupation, but hating on others, even someone like Taiwan, whom they have little history with, is a national pastime.

leader1 wrote:

BestIntellect wrote:

GDB wrote:

[
Historically ROK have to put it mildly, issues with Japan. Likely true of Taiwan too.

The ROK has issues with everyone. They think it's their whole job to have issues with everyone. Their national pasttime is to bring up issues with everyone, the older, the better.

As someone who has actually lived in South Korea, I wholeheartedly agree!

GDB wrote:

BestIntellect wrote:

The ROK has issues with everyone. They think it's their whole job to have issues with everyone. Their national pasttime is to bring up issues with everyone, the older, the better.

Do you know that Korea was brutally colonized by Japan, within still just living memory? Now however they are despite this more closely allied with them as both share real concerns with DPRK and who effectively keeps that regime on life support, China. Taiwan has obvious issues with China.
ROK I think have plenty of reason over the decades to have real issues with the ultimate neighbor from hell, DPRK, an actual aggressive Orwellian regime.
You don’t have to look long or far to see that.

No, he actually does have a point. I’m saying that as someone who has lived there before.

Nobody is denying that Korea has gone through brutal occupation, but hating on others, even someone like Taiwan, whom they have little history with, is a national pastime.

How many nuclear weapons programs, constant shrill threats to 're-unite', sinking of ROK Navy ships, discoveries of infiltration tunnels and these are just off the top of my head, makes for a bad neighbor?
Any one of them, the neighbor run by a family dynasty and long a supporter of terrorism not just within South Korea, Japan could have done without those missiles overhead too.
Have you lived in the North? Lived not briefly toured (under heavy supervision).

leader1 wrote:

No, he actually does have a point. I’m saying that as someone who has lived there before.

And I'm going to mention that I'm saying it as an actual goddamned Korean.

GDB wrote:

How many nuclear weapons programs, constant shrill threats to 're-unite', sinking of ROK Navy ships, discoveries of infiltration tunnels and these are just off the top of my head, makes for a bad neighbor?
Any one of them, the neighbor run by a family dynasty and long a supporter of terrorism not just within South Korea, Japan could have done without those missiles overhead too.
Have you lived in the North? Lived not briefly toured (under heavy supervision).

Ok but what does any of that have to do with the ROK having a chip on its shoulder regarding Japan

Sad, looks like my callout of the inevitable small-brained histrionics by the inevitable small-brained ANet denizen got deleted by the even tinier-brain ANet mods.

BestIntellect wrote:

leader1 wrote:

No, he actually does have a point. I’m saying that as someone who has lived there before.

And I'm going to mention that I'm saying it as an actual goddamned Korean.

GDB wrote:

How many nuclear weapons programs, constant shrill threats to 're-unite', sinking of ROK Navy ships, discoveries of infiltration tunnels and these are just off the top of my head, makes for a bad neighbor?
Any one of them, the neighbor run by a family dynasty and long a supporter of terrorism not just within South Korea, Japan could have done without those missiles overhead too.
Have you lived in the North? Lived not briefly toured (under heavy supervision).

Ok but what does any of that have to do with the ROK having a chip on its shoulder regarding Japan

Historically you know why, have they really got one now still, with all the problems posed by both DRPK and the PRC?
Genuine question or maybe too small minded?

BestIntellect wrote:

Sad, looks like my callout of the inevitable small-brained histrionics by the inevitable small-brained ANet denizen got deleted by the even tinier-brain ANet mods.

Unlike many forums out there, A-net is not a place to call names. We debate the merits of ideas and not belittle individuals.

And insulting the Mod is one way to get banned.

bt

bikerthai wrote:

BestIntellect wrote:

Sad, looks like my callout of the inevitable small-brained histrionics by the inevitable small-brained ANet denizen got deleted by the even tinier-brain ANet mods.

Unlike many forums out there, A-net is not a place to call names. We debate the merits of ideas and not belittle individuals.

And insulting the Mod is one way to get banned.

bt

Bikerthai is right - even more so the freighter threads in civil and the whole military forum try to have more decorum. It's important, I've seen too many posters with really good information just drop out because of the regular food fights. Let's bring good information and varied viewpoints to the Military threads under discussion rather than pot shots at others.

GDB wrote:

Historically you know why, have they really got one now still, with all the problems posed by both DRPK and the PRC?
Genuine question or maybe too small minded?

As a member of a "lesser Asian" culture looking from the outside, I can see that Korea's beef with Japan is completely different than with its beef with NK/China.

For us its more of a tiered class status with Japan as the ultimate goal for development and Korea as one challenging it to be top dog.

Let's just say we want to emulate their technical prowess but not necessarily their cultural attitude toward the rest of Asia. Who knows, things changes.

bt

I'm not exactly sure what the last few posts have to do with AUKUS, but in regards to the nuclear submarine debate this is from the Australian newspaper.

I can see the need for help in maintaining the reactor compartment in the beginning, but the rest of the boat is pretty much a a larger version of the current Collins class but if the Americans are wanting some operational control them than that is not a sovereign capability. Also building in Australia is not really the problem it can be achieved they have shown that with with Collins class they had problems with the overseas built sections with Australian worker reworking those sections in Australia. The only real section outside Australian expertise is the reactor core which could be built in the US and then transported to Australia

America may lease or sell its nuke subs
BEN PACKHAM
FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND DEFENCE CORRESPONDENT

The US is skeptical of Australia’s ability to build nuclear sub­marines domestically, and is likely to consider selling, leasing and forward-basing US boats to help Australia gain the capability, a US expert has revealed.

Former submariner and navy commander Bryan Clark, a senior fellow at Washington’s Hudson Institute, said many in the US defence industry believed it was “too big a lift for a smaller country like Australia” to build nuclear subs.

Despite huge pressures on the US submarine production pipeline, Mr Clark said he believed the US navy would be willing to sell two new Virginia-class submarines to Australia, as flagged by Peter Dutton.

They would have to be crewed by a mix of US and Australian submariners, giving the US “the ability to exert some control over how it gets used”.

“For the US, it is a way to get a submarine in the Pacific, base it forward in Australia – which is something the US might want to do anyway – but then get the Australians to pay for it,” Mr Clark told The Australian.
The remaining six subs promised under the AUKUS deal could be acquired by leasing boats from the US, or basing US boats in Australia, Mr Clark said.

“There are concerns on the part of the US that Australia will not be able to build these sub­marines indigenously, and if it does happen, it is going to be in the 2040s before they start delivering,” he said.

“The US is not necessarily ready to commit to selling eight Virginia-class to Australia but I think there is probably some ­middle ground there, where maybe the US is willing to sell some number of Virginia-class to Australia, or lease them to Australia so there is not necessarily a reduction to the US fleet.

“Maybe that’s how some of those submarines end up remaining technically in the US fleet but they are operating out of Australia with a mixed crew, so both countries can claim them.”

Both Labor and the former government have committed to building nuclear submarines in Adelaide, but a defence taskforce led by Vice-Admiral Jonathan Mead is examining all the options and could find domestic production of the boats is unfeasible.

The US has 20,000 people directly employed in building ­nuclear-powered submarines at two shipyards. Mr Clark said it was hard to see Australia developing a domestic submarine production enterprise with even half the number of direct employees.

“There are a lot of people in the US that think that is a tall order,” Mr Clark said.

“That’s not because Australia couldn’t do it from a technical or a financial standpoint. It’s a question of, is Australia really committed to spend the kind of money and dedicate the kind of manpower you would need to get that construction program up and running?”

He said Australia could instead focus on maintaining its own submarines and those forward-based for the US navy, which would deliver a sizeable jobs dividend.

Defence Minister Richard Marles accused the Opposition Leader of jeopardising Australia’s national interests by disclosing his submarine plan.

“The comments are loose and undermine the AUKUS agreement,” he said. “The government has made no decision on a preferred submarine. All options are on the table.”

https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=6c0f416b ... NTM5&ntb=1

One would think by this article that the current government will scrap nuclear submarines and just build Son of Collins, not sure what Albo is up to why pay more than you have too


Australia paid France millions more than necessary for cancelling subs

Andrew Tillett
Political correspondent

Australia overpaid French shipbuilder Naval Group hundreds of millions of dollars in compensation as Anthony Albanese focuses on the bigger strategic picture of rebuilding ties with France to address the challenge China poses to the Pacific order.

The $835 million settlement with Naval Group for the dumped $90 billion French submarine program is expected to pave the way for enhanced defence and security links between Canberra and Paris, according to defence sources.

Under the terms of the contract between the Defence Department and Naval Group, the shipbuilder was not entitled to compensation, over and above a break fee.

The break fee for terminating the contract at the basic design stage of the project was €90 million ($136 million). If the project had proceeded to the next stage, it would have risen to about €250 million ($379 million).

The Morrison government axed the submarine project last year, after years of tension with Naval Group, in favour of acquiring nuclear-powered submarines from the United States and United Kingdom under the AUKUS pact.
The scrapping of the contract sparked a fierce diplomatic rift, with French President Emmanuel Macron accusing Scott Morrison of lying over the deal.

Mr Albanese announced on Saturday a settlement had been reached with Naval Group, saying it would “rule a line under the contracts”.

“Given the gravity of the challenges that we face both in the region and globally, it is essential that Australia and France once again unite to defend our shared principles and interests: the primacy of international law; respect for sovereignty; the rejection of all forms of coercion; and taking resolute action on climate change,” Mr Albanese said.

But the hefty compensation payout for Naval Group, which is owned by the French government, is in stark contrast to the treatment of the third partner in the failed submarine venture, US defence contractor Lockheed Martin.

The Defence Department last week closed out its contract with Lockheed Martin, confirming it had paid out less than $35 million to the American giant, with no compensation.

“There has been no settlement with Lockheed Martin Australia. Lockheed Martin Australia is a key defence contractor with substantial defence work; the majority of Lockheed Martin Australia’s employees working on this contract have been redeployed to other Defence programs,” a Defence Department spokeswoman said.

The settlements bring the total costs for Australian taxpayers for the project to $3.4 billion.

France is a major power in the Pacific in its own right with its territories in New Caledonia and French Polynesia. Before the AUKUS announcement, Australia and France had commenced exploratory steps towards allowing French personnel and warships guaranteed access to Australian military bases.

The head of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute’s defence program, Michael Shoebridge, said the combination of Mr Morrison’s defeat, the cash settlement and China’s security overtures to Pacific nations meant it was time for Australia and France to set aside differences and deepen security ties.

“We need each other – and if we didn’t understand that before State Councillor Wang Yi’s visit to the Pacific and the overtly ambitious 10-country security pact, we know that now,” he said.

New Defence Minister Richard Marles has flagged the first nuclear submarines may not be delivered until the 2040s, and has opened the door to a new interim conventionally powered submarine to bridge a potential capability gap.

While Mr Marles’ talks at Singapore’s Shangri-La security dialogue with China’s Defence Minister Wei Fenghe dominated his visit, also on his schedule were separate meetings with the Dutch defence minister and the Swedish secretary of state, providing potential clues to his thinking.

Swedish defence company Saab through its subsidiary Kockums built the navy’s Collins class submarines and is willing to help with either upgrading the existing submarines or building new ones. Saab is also bidding for the Dutch navy’s long-range submarine project, with a design similar to what it could offer Australia.

Mr Marles will visit India next week, according to Indian media reports, for talks with the new government.

A101 wrote:

I'm not exactly sure what the last few posts have to do with AUKUS, but in regards to the nuclear submarine debate this is from the Australian newspaper.

Thanks for bringing the thread back.

Not sure if AUKUS made a difference, but it seems that the US will benefit from the Austrailian/UK/US alliance sooner than the Austrailians.

Plans are underway for the US to aquire an initial 2 E-7 and have US crew train on Austrailian E-7. The E-7 was developed with Austrailian and Boeing money, and the first two US E-7 will be in the UK configuration, so AUKUS could have greased the skids (reduced the red tape) here.

The US will get their E-7 before the Austrailian get their sub.

bt

bikerthai wrote:

A101 wrote:

I'm not exactly sure what the last few posts have to do with AUKUS, but in regards to the nuclear submarine debate this is from the Australian newspaper.

Thanks for bringing the thread back.

Not sure if AUKUS made a difference, but it seems that the US will benefit from the Austrailian/UK/US alliance sooner than the Austrailians.

Plans are underway for the US to aquire an initial 2 E-7 and have US crew train on Austrailian E-7. The E-7 was developed with Austrailian and Boeing money, and the first two US E-7 will be in the UK configuration, so AUKUS could have greased the skids (reduced the red tape) here.

The US will get their E-7 before the Austrailian get their sub.

bt

The US buy in to E7 would have happened either way, after all South Korea Turkey and UK have signed up. prior to AUKUS

As far as I know the UK is a carbon copy of the RAAF the other are slightly different versions from scuttlebug over the years