New defence pact AUUKUS

Aesma · Mon Sep 20, 2021 12:47 am

I don't know, I've read about one ethanol/oxygen based system that isn't about producing electricity, but burns the ethanol with compressed oxygen, making vapor to run a turbine.

Also about "brown water/blue water", one thing the Australian wanted during the Attack program was the ability to land people. Basically they want all the bells and whistles you can imagine, aside from nuclear ballistic missiles (and I've even read if that capability can be retrofitted later, it could be of interest...).

744SPX · Mon Sep 20, 2021 1:46 am

Aesma wrote:
I don't know, I've read about one ethanol/oxygen based system that isn't about producing electricity, but burns the ethanol with compressed oxygen, making vapor to run a turbine.

Also about "brown water/blue water", one thing the Australian wanted during the Attack program was the ability to land people. Basically they want all the bells and whistles you can imagine, aside from nuclear ballistic missiles (and I've even read if that capability can be retrofitted later, it could be of interest...).

Land people? Interesting.

bikerthai · Mon Sep 20, 2021 2:07 am

744SPX wrote:
Land people? Interesting.

Deploy and retrieve SF using a submersible. I know someone who work for such a project for the US NAVY a while back. Did not get to the deployment stage though.

Maybe they may have something now.

bt

bikerthai · Mon Sep 20, 2021 2:13 am

Aesma wrote:
but burns the ethanol with compressed oxygen, making vapor to run a turbine.

What do they do with the exhaust vapor? They would have to manage that system without leaving a trail.

Why ethanol? Wouldn't you want something with higher energy density? What dose the M-1 turbine runs on?

You would also have to keep the Oxygen in liquid form wouldn't you?

bt

SeamanBeaumont · Mon Sep 20, 2021 2:17 am

744SPX wrote:
Australia will most likely go with the Virginia,(although they could also go with the Astute). That being said, the Aussie's are looking for a blue water boat. The Virginia was designed during the US Navy's brown-water/littoral warfare "phase" in the 90's. The 4 key attributes of NSSN/Centurion/Virginia as compared to Seawolf were (and are)

1.) Reduced test depth vs SSN-21 (despite what H.I. Sutton or wiki says, Virginia cannot dive as deep as Seawolf; that was a specific design requirement to save cost) Norman Polmar of the
USNI indicated somewhere between The LA class (290m) and 400m. Seawolf was originally designed for 600m using HY130 steel but it proved too difficult to work with so HY100 was used
and test depth dropped significantly to an estimated 450m.
2.) Reduced speed vs SSN-21
3.) Reduced torpedo load and fewer tubes vs SSN-21
3.) Equivalent noise reduction to SSN-21
4.) Superior littoral/brown water capability to SSN-21

In short, the Virginia is NOT a 21st century blue water boat. It was never designed to be.

Whatever the Aussie's buy, they may want some significant mods to improve deep water capability.

That's complete bunk. If you've ever spoken to an Aussie bubblehead they don't do a lot of blue compared to brown. If anything going nuke will completely change their conops, they won't be able to go where they do with Collins. A Virginia or Astute will be more than enough for them, SCS where this capability is being focused isn't exactly a deep sea anyway and what is 50 meters deeper, that is what UUV is for.

Aesma wrote:
Also about "brown water/blue water", one thing the Australian wanted during the Attack program was the ability to land people. Basically they want all the bells and whistles you can imagine, aside from nuclear ballistic missiles (and I've even read if that capability can be retrofitted later, it could be of interest...).

Virginia can land Seals today and has done so. Whatever you are reading that thinks Skippyland wants nukes stop reading, it is a load of crap!

ThePointblank · Mon Sep 20, 2021 2:43 am

bikerthai wrote:
Aesma wrote:
but burns the ethanol with compressed oxygen, making vapor to run a turbine.

What do they do with the exhaust vapor? They would have to manage that system without leaving a trail.

Why ethanol? Wouldn't you want something with higher energy density? What dose the M-1 turbine runs on?

You would also have to keep the Oxygen in liquid form wouldn't you?

bt

The exhaust gas is vented over the side, and is dissolved into the sea water.

And yes, you do want to use LOX for storage, because of the volume considerations.

The French MESMA system is fairly unique in that it burns ethanol with oxygen to create water vapour to drive a turbine; the more common approach is to use a Stirling engine, and use oxygen to burn fuel oil to heat the engine. Another approach that is common and is used by the Germans is fuel cell technology; using a fuel cell to generate electricity using stored hydrogen and oxygen.

GDB · Mon Sep 20, 2021 6:59 am

SF Ops and the Astute;
https://www.navylookout.com/in-focus-ro ... y-systems/

With what seems to be a change in Australian defence thinking, considering a SSN now more suitable, because of the rapid Chinese military build up and their behavior in the region, given they had made the, to most observers, strange choice for a SSN design converted to a large SSK, the obvious question is why was their first option not to see if since they chosen a design with it's basis as a SSN?

Did they do this and find the costs NAVAL quoted even more astronomical than the current option?

Or was it made clear much earlier in the program that NAVAL, for legal or their own national security laws, could not build a SSN for an export customer, even a Western ally?

Maybe the RAN asked much more recently and got the same answer?

Could NAVAL do it but were told not to by the French government? Not for legal but for 'don't piss China off too much' reasons? (Though France has been maintaining rights of navigation through the areas of the South China Sea which massively upsets them).

If any of the above is true then all of the diplomatic reaction from the French government is really silly, given the change in direction from the customer, there was only one (or two) other places they could go.

RJMAZ · Mon Sep 20, 2021 11:23 am

The latest news is Australia might be considering leasing or buying used submarines from the US Navy.

The submarines will most likely be older Los Angeles class subs. The US Navy has 22 Flight III 688i subs that have been recently updated with the latest sonar, digital combat systems and are quieter. All of these submarines are reaching the end of their reactor life. However the US Navy was planning on refueling between 5 and 7 of these subs to extend their life by another 10 years. The US Navy could in theory refuel all 22 subs if they urgently needed more subs.

Only 3 months ago The Australian Navy announced that all six Collins class subs were going to get a full rebuild life extension. $6 billion was allocated for the life extension. Now it makes perfect sense to skip this life extension and instead refuel Los Angeles subs for a fraction of the price. The Los Angeles subs actually have superior systems to the Collins Class.

The USS Cheyenne is the first sub to get the extra refueling and getting refueled now.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... built.html

https://www.thecheyennepost.com/news/us ... 1ed8c.html

https://www.defenceconnect.com.au/marit ... -extension

par13del · Mon Sep 20, 2021 12:58 pm

Aesma wrote:
It's not about deserving, it's about keeping our own capabilities. Australia wanted to get these capabilities too, I guess they changed their mind.

I thought the boats were being built in France?

Kiwirob · Mon Sep 20, 2021 1:01 pm

johns624 wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:
I'd be happier if NZ was non aligned similar to Switzerland or Sweden.
Both of them practice armed neutrality. I'm not sure that NZ could afford that.

Both countries have significantly downsized there militaries in the past 2 decades. Ireland is another example.

FlapOperator · Mon Sep 20, 2021 1:54 pm

johns624 wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:
I'd be happier if NZ was non aligned similar to Switzerland or Sweden.
Both of them practice armed neutrality. I'm not sure that NZ could afford that.

Both of them are integrated far more with NATO that is publicly admitted. The shift in Sweden has been near tectonic, despite the KiwiRobs in Sweden.

FlapOperator · Mon Sep 20, 2021 1:56 pm

Kiwirob wrote:
johns624 wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:
I'd be happier if NZ was non aligned similar to Switzerland or Sweden.
Both of them practice armed neutrality. I'm not sure that NZ could afford that.

Both countries have significantly downsized there militaries in the past 2 decades. Ireland is another example.

The Swiss are getting F-35s, and the Swedes have aggressively ramped up from two decades of mis-investment in counter-terrorism/peacekeeping to basically Cold War style Territorial Defense model. The Swedes were participants in Afghanistan and got lots of operational experience there, along with being a contributor to EUTM operations.

The Swedes in particular are reintroducing conscription, and have a very active outreach to the other Baltic nations in Baltic defense.

Kiwirob · Mon Sep 20, 2021 2:25 pm

FlapOperator wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:
johns624 wrote:
Both of them practice armed neutrality. I'm not sure that NZ could afford that.

Both countries have significantly downsized there militaries in the past 2 decades. Ireland is another example.

The Swiss are getting F-35s, and the Swedes have aggressively ramped up from two decades of mis-investment in counter-terrorism/peacekeeping to basically Cold War style Territorial Defense model. The Swedes were participants in Afghanistan and got lots of operational experience there, along with being a contributor to EUTM operations.

The Swedes in particular are reintroducing conscription, and have a very active outreach to the other Baltic nations in Baltic defense.

Only 4000 people, during the cold war about 80% of all Swedish males were conscripted, they used to conscript 10's of thousands per year.

It's interesting in Norway for the last conscription call up 70% of the conscripts were female.

MohawkWeekend · Mon Sep 20, 2021 2:28 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
The latest news is Australia might be considering leasing or buying used submarines from the US Navy.

The submarines will most likely be older Los Angeles class subs. The US Navy has 22 Flight III 688i subs that have been recently updated with the latest sonar, digital combat systems and are quieter. All of these submarines are reaching the end of their reactor life. However the US Navy was planning on refueling between 5 and 7 of these subs to extend their life by another 10 years. The US Navy could in theory refuel all 22 subs if they urgently needed more subs.

Only 3 months ago The Australian Navy announced that all six Collins class subs were going to get a full rebuild life extension. $6 billion was allocated for the life extension. Now it makes perfect sense to skip this life extension and instead refuel Los Angeles subs for a fraction of the price. The Los Angeles subs actually have superior systems to the Collins Class.

The USS Cheyenne is the first sub to get the extra refueling and getting refueled now.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... built.html

https://www.thecheyennepost.com/news/us ... 1ed8c.html

https://www.defenceconnect.com.au/marit ... -extension

This makes sense - waiting until 2030 something is too long. The threat is maturing too quickly for that.
Heck - I'm for selling two dozen F-15C's to Vietnam and India but that's a different thread.

johns624 · Mon Sep 20, 2021 3:32 pm

Kiwirob wrote:
FlapOperator wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:

Both countries have significantly downsized there militaries in the past 2 decades. Ireland is another example.

The Swiss are getting F-35s, and the Swedes have aggressively ramped up from two decades of mis-investment in counter-terrorism/peacekeeping to basically Cold War style Territorial Defense model. The Swedes were participants in Afghanistan and got lots of operational experience there, along with being a contributor to EUTM operations.

The Swedes in particular are reintroducing conscription, and have a very active outreach to the other Baltic nations in Baltic defense.

Only 4000 people, during the cold war about 80% of all Swedish males were conscripted, they used to conscript 10's of thousands per year.

It's interesting in Norway for the last conscription call up 70% of the conscripts were female.

"Only" 4000? The entire NZ defence force is only 9700.

Tugger · Mon Sep 20, 2021 4:07 pm

I posted this is the other thread too but I think it speaks toe the military elements enough as well:
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commen ... d717e08f9b

Tugg

johns624 · Mon Sep 20, 2021 4:33 pm

Now North Korea is getting involved. This is getting better all the time.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/n-korea-slam ... 18571.html

FlapOperator · Mon Sep 20, 2021 4:40 pm

Kiwirob wrote:

Only 4000 people, during the cold war about 80% of all Swedish males were conscripted, they used to conscript 10's of thousands per year.

It's interesting in Norway for the last conscription call up 70% of the conscripts were female.

As usual, the goalposts shift.

The point is that they are figuring out how to make a robust collective defense contribution to a country with a recent history of aggression, and not maintaining just enough soldiers to stand solemnly behind the PM to remember the days when their country made oversized contributions to the defense of free peoples.

The Swedes are buying PAC-III SAMS, boosting their SOF force, rebuilding their national resiliency and spending 40% percent more defense.

Additional, much of this spending is coming from the Green Party and Social Dems. They understand the danger that opportunistic aggression in their neighborhood represents.

FlapOperator · Mon Sep 20, 2021 4:42 pm

MohawkWeekend wrote:

This makes sense - waiting until 2030 something is too long. The threat is maturing too quickly for that.
Heck - I'm for selling two dozen F-15C's to Vietnam and India but that's a different thread.

Honestly, we cannot out hardware the Chinese threat.

The point of the Chinese threat is cow nations into accepting Chinese fait accompli, be it grossly expansive South China Sea territorial claims, or Mekong river water levels, or underwriting regional nuclear proliferation.

To me, the answer is building resilience, both military and economic and making the Chinese pay real costs when they decide to bully their way about the international system.

bikerthai · Mon Sep 20, 2021 5:00 pm

FlapOperator wrote:
Honestly, we cannot out hardware the Chinese threat.

We can try. But perhaps the only way to counter the Chinese expansion would be for all the countries impacted to form a military alliance with the US, Austrailia and maybe S Korea and Japan at the core.

This is a tall order and it will be some times before countries like Vietnam get in to the fold, if ever.

bt

FlapOperator · Mon Sep 20, 2021 5:12 pm

bikerthai wrote:
FlapOperator wrote:
Honestly, we cannot out hardware the Chinese threat.

We can try. But perhaps the only way to counter the Chinese expansion would be for all the countries impacted to form a military alliance with the US, Austrailia and maybe S Korea and Japan at the core.

This is a tall order and it will be some times before countries like Vietnam get in to the fold, if ever.

bt

The CCP's actions in HK have shown that there is no international agreement to which the CCP feels itself ultimately bound.

The CCP has taken a maximalist position of nationalism uber alles at this point, and everyone is slowly waking up and taking notice.

bikerthai · Mon Sep 20, 2021 5:34 pm

FlapOperator wrote:
and everyone is slowly waking up and taking notice.

Everyone in the US maybe. Those in the region have been well aware for the longest time. But knowing and doing are two different matter. It falls upon those with resources to do. For two decades, resources have been spent elsewhere.

In the grand scheme of things, I personally doubt that neither France or China were caught by surprise by all this despite the rhetoric. It is merely public venting of frustration that probably have been sniffed out by their respective intelligence network for some times.

bt

Aesma · Mon Sep 20, 2021 10:28 pm

It has been unofficially admitted through journalists that France knew something at least since June and had queried the US and Australia about it. That's partly the reason for the rhetoric though, because instead of admitting to it, even partially, they blatantly lied about it, said the Attack contract was solid, etc.

par13del wrote:
Aesma wrote:
It's not about deserving, it's about keeping our own capabilities. Australia wanted to get these capabilities too, I guess they changed their mind.

I thought the boats were being built in France?

No they were to be built in Australia, Adelaide I believe.

Incidentally last June there were still Australians coming to France for training : https://www.defenceconnect.com.au/marit ... r-training

Hundreds of French and Australian engineers were working on the project, many had moved to the other country to do so.

ThePointblank · Mon Sep 20, 2021 11:08 pm

I would agree; the French are being disingenuous. They've known for over a year and a half that the Australians had issues with the progress on the contract, and that the Australians were looking at possibly going to a contingency plan if they could not work things through with the French.

AngMoh · Tue Sep 21, 2021 12:59 am

ThePointblank wrote:
I would agree; the French are being disingenuous. They've known for over a year and a half that the Australians had issues with the progress on the contract, and that the Australians were looking at possibly going to a contingency plan if they could not work things through with the French.

A very big part of the blame lies on Australia. Many of their large defence procurements are trainwrecks due to localisation requirement and mishandling of Australian content. The Collins class submarine was just as big of a trainwreck as the French sub. There are many other examples like that. And this new sub will have the same problems as the domestic politics needs to be settled first. I am curious to see how SA will keeps their jobs which is absolutely critical to win the state election. The last election was won by signing the French sub contract. Still interesting top see how the SA PM announced that nobody will lose their job, but Laval staff will get fired anyway and they can "express interest for new positions on the AUKAS sub when they become available". In other words, they will lose their jobs and need to become shelf stackers in the supermarkets till the new project starts sometimes in the future. At least my friend has got a job till he retires in 10 years time: he works on upgrades, maintenance and repairs of the Collins class sub.

CX747 · Tue Sep 21, 2021 1:04 am

Would like to see further strengthening of ties between the Air Forces. Maybe the possible basing of 1-2 USAF F-35 squadrons down under and a Det of KC-135/46s. Should be fun to watch how the AUKUS moves forward.

Wonder when AUKUS talks actually began. I could see this having bridged the prior administration to the current in the US.

RJMAZ · Tue Sep 21, 2021 3:55 am

AngMoh wrote:
In other words, they will lose their jobs and need to become shelf stackers in the supermarkets till the new project starts sometimes in the future. At least my friend has got a job till he retires in 10 years time: he works on upgrades, maintenance and repairs of the Collins class sub.

Not if part of the deal involves Australia getting work share on the existing Virginia class subs being built right now. Australian sub contractors could be flat out straight away.

The collins class subs might be completely gone within 10 years when the Los Angeles class subs arrive. The first Los Angeles sub could arrive as early as 2025.

brindabella · Tue Sep 21, 2021 12:31 pm

Zkpilot wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:
Tugger wrote:
You left Australia (among a few others of course). China is definitely pushing its weight around.

Tugg

What's the difference between China pushing its weight around and the US pushing its weight around, both do it, what makes the US right and the Chinese wrong? When was the last time China started a war which lead to millions of deaths and the destabilisation of the middle east for 20 years and counting?

It's like the US sanctioning any Germany company involved in Nord Stream, what business is Nord Stream to the US, it's a deal between Russia and Germany, the only reason the US is using sanctions as a weapon is they want the Germany to buy far more expensive shale gas.

Don’t be so naive. China does a lot worse all around the world, they just do it sneakily with coercion and other methods rather than militarily. That said, ask South China Sea nations what they think of Chinas military! Sinking their fishing boats in their own territory.

Not just them.

DPRK and Iran are basically it where Chinese allies are concerned, (**)

As a Foreign Affairs article recently summarised:

"The trouble with Chinese "SOFT POWER" is that they don' t have any.

None.

Watching China bully Australia and break every WTO rule as well as the Free Trade Agreement signed in 2016 just shows the rest of the world
exactly what China thinks of written agreements that are no longer convenient.

(**) don't be fooled by apparent "amity" between Russia & China.

The world press "forgot" to report a Hot War between the Communist brethren in the 1960s in the Amur River region.

Trust each other?
hah!

cheers

brindabella · Tue Sep 21, 2021 12:56 pm

AngMoh wrote:
ThePointblank wrote:
I would agree; the French are being disingenuous. They've known for over a year and a half that the Australians had issues with the progress on the contract, and that the Australians were looking at possibly going to a contingency plan if they could not work things through with the French.

A very big part of the blame lies on Australia. Many of their large defence procurements are trainwrecks due to localisation requirement and mishandling of Australian content. The Collins class submarine was just as big of a trainwreck as the French sub. There are many other examples like that. And this new sub will have the same problems as the domestic politics needs to be settled first. I am curious to see how SA will keeps their jobs which is absolutely critical to win the state election. The last election was won by signing the French sub contract. Still interesting top see how the SA PM announced that nobody will lose their job, but Laval staff will get fired anyway and they can "express interest for new positions on the AUKAS sub when they become available". In other words, they will lose their jobs and need to become shelf stackers in the supermarkets till the new project starts sometimes in the future. At least my friend has got a job till he retires in 10 years time: he works on upgrades, maintenance and repairs of the Collins class sub.

Valuable contribution.

The current Australian Government seems to have realised that the problem has to be tackled.

However there is a lot of "tribal knowledge" involved.

I was a RAAF pilot & officer in a previous incarnation. (EG a long time ago).
One of the abhorrent memories is the brave Aussie pilots in 1940 rising to meet Zero fighters in completely obsolescent Buffalo fighters.
They were sitting ducks.

So EG RAAF officers seconded into the defence establishment always fight for the BEST outcome so that it never happens again.
Unfortunately "the perfect becomes the enemy of the good".
A previous Defence Minister was lambasted in the popular press for ordering F18Super Hornets "off the shelf" when the F35s were delayed - and - delayed -and - delayed.
Responsible and outstanding decision.
Nobody questions it now.

Sometimes "off the shelf" is the way to go .. sometimes not ..

cheers

FlapOperator · Tue Sep 21, 2021 1:38 pm

brindabella wrote:

Not just them.

DPRK and Iran are basically it where Chinese allies are concerned, (**)

As a Foreign Affairs article recently summarised:

"The trouble with Chinese "SOFT POWER" is that they don' t have any.

None.

Watching China bully Australia and break every WTO rule as well as the Free Trade Agreement signed in 2016 just shows the rest of the world
exactly what China thinks of written agreements that are no longer convenient.

(**) don't be fooled by apparent "amity" between Russia & China.

The world press "forgot" to report a Hot War between the Communist brethren in the 1960s in the Amur River region.

Trust each other?
hah!

cheers

I wouldn't discount Chinese "soft" power in terms of raw corruption and other financially based practices to buy off the proper people.

If you look at OBOR/BRI initiatives in Africa, you see the same elements of debt diplomacy over and over; the underperforming, underbuilt projects that are reliant on Chinese parts and technical advice (i.e. permanent Chinese workers displacing locals) indefinitely that have massive unsustainable financing that is collateralized by national assets like ports.

But, in the absence of US/European/Japanese development aid, built upon strong business cases and sustainable with local talent, plenty of African leaders selected the Chinese "infrastructure" development projects, quietly took the Scrooge McDuck-sized briefcase of cash, and loudly proclaimed their "national independence" while subordinating their nation to the Chinese for the next 30 years.

mxaxai · Tue Sep 21, 2021 1:52 pm

FlapOperator wrote:
If you look at OBOR/BRI initiatives in Africa, you see the same elements of debt diplomacy over and over; the underperforming, underbuilt projects that are reliant on Chinese parts and technical advice (i.e. permanent Chinese workers displacing locals) indefinitely that have massive unsustainable financing that is collateralized by national assets like ports.

But, in the absence of US/European/Japanese development aid, built upon strong business cases and sustainable with local talent, plenty of African leaders selected the Chinese "infrastructure" development projects, quietly took the Scrooge McDuck-sized briefcase of cash, and loudly proclaimed their "national independence" while subordinating their nation to the Chinese for the next 30 years.

Even in Europe, China is offering "cheap" loans worth mere 20% of the countries' GDP to finance "infrastructure". When China asks for repayment later, the people responsible are nowhere to be found, and the country is in crippling debt. https://www.euractiv.com/section/china/ ... road-loan/
Chinese soft power is less about allies or free trade and more about debt, bribes and technology transfer. Having submarines or stealth fighters isn't going to change that but close economic and political ties to other countries can relieve your economic dependence on China. So IMHO this new deal isn't just about the military capability.

FlapOperator · Tue Sep 21, 2021 2:14 pm

mxaxai wrote:
Even in Europe, China is offering "cheap" loans worth mere 20% of the countries' GDP to finance "infrastructure". When China asks for repayment later, the people responsible are nowhere to be found, and the country is in crippling debt. https://www.euractiv.com/section/china/ ... road-loan/
Chinese soft power is less about allies or free trade and more about debt, bribes and technology transfer. Having submarines or stealth fighters isn't going to change that but close economic and political ties to other countries can relieve your economic dependence on China. So IMHO this new deal isn't just about the military capability.

For decades, many countries, esp. in Europe could say "well China is far away, and we need the trade." Canada was happy to let China in every door, despite massive signs of technology theft.

Then, one day, there is no national Canadian technology provider and Huawei is a global powerhouse.

johns624 · Tue Sep 21, 2021 4:33 pm

brindabella wrote:
(**) don't be fooled by apparent "amity" between Russia & China.
cheers

Exactly. Russia is just as concerned about Chinese power as anyone. Russia isn't the old USSR in terms of power; not even close. They're afraid that one day China will look north and see all those natural resources right over the border. So, they act buddy-buddy and keep the Chinese eyes looking in other directions.

RJMAZ · Tue Sep 21, 2021 10:45 pm

Can we get back on topic with AUKUS and the submarine deal.

More reports about the Los Angeles class subs.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/craighoope ... subs-asap/

There is no point building subs for 15 years time if the threat is 5 years away.

People might have missed that Australia ordered SM-6 anti ballistic missiles only 3 weeks ago.

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... australia/

The Hobart class AEGIS destroyers will be getting these missiles fitted ASAP. While western leaders are smiling in public video conferencing they are clearly preparing for something big. I think we all know where the conflict will take place.

SeamanBeaumont · Wed Sep 22, 2021 12:48 am

RJMAZ wrote:
Can we get back on topic with AUKUS and the submarine deal.

More reports about the Los Angeles class subs.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/craighoope ... subs-asap/

There is no point building subs for 15 years time if the threat is 5 years away.

People might have missed that Australia ordered SM-6 anti ballistic missiles only 3 weeks ago.

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... australia/

The Hobart class AEGIS destroyers will be getting these missiles fitted ASAP. While western leaders are smiling in public video conferencing they are clearly preparing for something big. I think we all know where the conflict will take place.

Anyone suggesting this crazy plan has no concept of the issues faced by Navy maintenance today. A basic google search, clearly beyond the capability of a Forbes reporter, makes this clear.

There is not enough yard space to do that type of work for additional subs compared to what is already planned. The USN yards, only Govt yards for the actual nuclear work, are already backed up and even with the current fleet are struggling, on average 9 months late for Virginia and 5 months late for 688s, and that isn't going away any time soon.

The U.S. Navy’s 70 submarines represent nearly one-quarter of its total fleet. Like all naval ships, those submarines require several periods of intensive maintenance during their service life. Navy policy dictates that most maintenance on nuclear-powered ships (all U.S. submarines are nuclear-powered) be performed by the four shipyards it owns and operates.

Those four public shipyards have experienced long delays—sometimes as long as several years—in performing maintenance on submarines. For example, after overhauls Virginia class submarines have returned to operations almost nine months later than expected, on average; Los Angeles class submarines have taken four and a half months longer than scheduled, on average, to return to the fleet. As a result, some submarines have missed deployments or had their deployments at sea shortened. The delays have reduced the number of submarines that the Navy can put to sea, idling expensive ships and their skilled crews. In response to those delays, the Navy has sent several submarines to private shipyards for maintenance in recent years, but still performs the vast majority of submarine maintenance at its own shipyards. It has also increased the number of workers at its shipyards and taken steps to improve productivity.

In this report, the Congressional Budget Office finds that maintenance delays will continue despite those changes. Barring other changes, required maintenance is projected to exceed the capacity of the Navy’s shipyards in 25 of the next 30 years. This report examines some options for mitigating or reducing future delays.

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57083

Not sure how anyone thinks they can slide in a whole bunch on nuc refuels into an already overburdened schedule.

FYI SM-6 is not BMD today, that is SM-3. SM-6 is air defense with secondary surface to surface. It may get BMD at some point but the Aussies are not buying it for BMD.

JayinKitsap · Wed Sep 22, 2021 4:18 am

I would think a joint USN & Australia Base with Virginias would be the best move. Initially the onshore sub school and the dock / pier facilities to homeport 2 US boats, operating with both countries in the crew. Next, two leased to Australia boats, and two added US boats. Final buildout would be 4 US Boats, 6 Aus along with a Intermediate Maintenance Facility including a drydock.

It is tight to begin operations within 5 years, lots of facilities to build even if there are piers structurally adequate and available. New different shore power complete with fast start emergency generators on a very reliable grid. They need 1,600A of 440V/3PH . They need cranes that have been 'blessed'. Building the trainers takes a lot of time and it is the first place for students. Although much can be done in the schools, it is vital that they are 'touching' a real boat for things to sink in.

A huge benefit for the US Navy to get a number of subs forward deployed, fewer based in San Diego and Norfolk.

kitplane01 · Wed Sep 22, 2021 5:09 am

RJMAZ wrote:

Only 3 months ago The Australian Navy announced that all six Collins class subs were going to get a full rebuild life extension. $6 billion was allocated for the life extension. Now it makes perfect sense to skip this life extension and instead refuel Los Angeles subs for a fraction of the price. The Los Angeles subs actually have superior systems to the Collins Class.

I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just saying you can buy brand new submarines for $600M, which is think is less then the $1B cost to refurbish each Collins.

I would ask if there is any submarine program anywhere that's worse than the Collins .. but then I remembered the Canadian submarine program.

kitplane01 · Wed Sep 22, 2021 5:11 am

Kiwirob wrote:

It's interesting in Norway for the last conscription call up 70% of the conscripts were female.

Can you explain how that works? How does a nation conscript so few people, and then target them by gender? And how do the Norwegian people feel .. this seems unfair.

RJMAZ · Wed Sep 22, 2021 6:25 am

SeamanBeaumont wrote:
Not sure how anyone thinks they can slide in a whole bunch on nuc refuels into an already overburdened schedule.

The maintenance backlog is planned to be eliminated by the end of 2023.

Between 2015 and 2020 the number of full time shipyard employees has gone from approximately 29,000 to 36,000. This is shown in your link. The number of shipyard employees is growing slightly exponential. That is nearly a 25% increase and they are still hiring like crazy. Putting the Los Angeles boats through an ERO is a fraction of the labour and cost of building a new Virginia class sub. So more Los Angeles boats will get refueled to provide a short term surge in boat numbers.

If the backlog is sorted by 2023 and headroom is created then the first Australian destined sub could enter for refueling.

RJMAZ · Wed Sep 22, 2021 6:39 am

kitplane01 wrote:
I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just saying you can buy brand new submarines for $600M, which is think is less then the $1B cost to refurbish each Collins.

The cost of doing an Engineered Refueling Overhaul (ERO) of the Los Angeles subs is $406 million.

The cost of a new Virginia class sub is over $2 billion.

So you can refuel five Los Angeles subs for the cost of one Virginia sub. The newer 688i Los Angeles class subs as are very close in capability to average Virginia class sub.

The ERO of the Los Angeles subs adds 10 years to the life of the sub. The $1 billion refurb price of the Collins subs is more substantial and as adds around 20 years to the life the sub. So the Collins class price isn't too bad.

I wonder if Australia is capable of refueling and refurbishing a Los Angeles class sub. That would be a very interesting solution.

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military ... 88-ero.htm

SeamanBeaumont · Wed Sep 22, 2021 8:45 am

RJMAZ wrote:
SeamanBeaumont wrote:
Not sure how anyone thinks they can slide in a whole bunch on nuc refuels into an already overburdened schedule.

The maintenance backlog is planned to be eliminated by the end of 2023.

Between 2015 and 2020 the number of full time shipyard employees has gone from approximately 29,000 to 36,000. This is shown in your link. The number of shipyard employees is growing slightly exponential. That is nearly a 25% increase and they are still hiring like crazy. Putting the Los Angeles boats through an ERO is a fraction of the labour and cost of building a new Virginia class sub. So more Los Angeles boats will get refueled to provide a short term surge in boat numbers.

If the backlog is sorted by 2023 and headroom is created then the first Australian destined sub could enter for refueling.

Do you actually read anything anyone posts or just push crap out?

CBO still says, and anyone with half a brain and knowledge of what is happening in the yards todays knows, that the backlog is not being fixed anytime soon. The building of new boats has nothing to do with the maintenance backlog.

And no, with no nuclear industry, no certified personnel and no experience there is no way an Australian yard is refuelling a 688. That work is only done in Govt yards today, not given to any private yards compared to other maintenance work.

A 688 refuel may only cost 1/4 of what a Virginia does but it only delivers another ten years max. You also forget all the additional material, training required to make that capability work. This isn't a Navy Super Bug replace F-111 scenario, moving to a nuc will take the Aussies 10 years of lead time.

kitplane01 · Wed Sep 22, 2021 5:22 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:
I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just saying you can buy brand new submarines for $600M, which is think is less then the $1B cost to refurbish each Collins.

The cost of doing an Engineered Refueling Overhaul (ERO) of the Los Angeles subs is $406 million.

The cost of a new Virginia class sub is over $2 billion.

So you can refuel five Los Angeles subs for the cost of one Virginia sub. The newer 688i Los Angeles class subs as are very close in capability to average Virginia class sub.

The ERO of the Los Angeles subs adds 10 years to the life of the sub. The $1 billion refurb price of the Collins subs is more substantial and as adds around 20 years to the life the sub. So the Collins class price isn't too bad.

I wonder if Australia is capable of refueling and refurbishing a Los Angeles class sub. That would be a very interesting solution.

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military ... 88-ero.htm

I don't think it's reasonable to compare a Collins class sub (3,100 tons, no nuke) to a Virginia (8,000 tons, nuke powered). A better comparison would be something like a Sōryū (2,900 tons, no nuke). Those cost $540M new which makes the $1B overhaul cost of the Collins seem crazy! Also, the Sōryū has Lithium-Ion batteries for more underwater endurance, and newer sonars than the Collins.

Basically, Australia should buy Sōryū. Smaller crews needed, supportable in Australia, and 1/3 the cost.

But really, I'm just saying that $1B to overhaul a Collins is super-crazy.

Aesma · Wed Sep 22, 2021 6:15 pm

SeamanBeaumont wrote:
Anyone suggesting this crazy plan has no concept of the issues faced by Navy maintenance today. A basic google search, clearly beyond the capability of a Forbes reporter, makes this clear.

What's funny from the article is that you get the idea that nuclear submarines, and the Los Angeles class in particular, are extremely expensive to maintain, so expensive that the military with the most money in the world by gigantic margins would like to ditch them.

How can anyone consider buying these ?

bikerthai · Wed Sep 22, 2021 6:22 pm

Aesma wrote:
How can anyone consider buying these ?

You would consider this if you think war has a good possibility of happening before you can get brand spanking new built subs.

Same reason the USAF is beginning to consider buying new E-7 after 20 years of denying that they need it and the E-3 would be replaced by space based systems.

Make me also wonder if the pull out from Afganistan will open up budget for some of these purchases. Different bucket of money, I know, but the "Dog of War" have to be fed.

bt

JayinKitsap · Thu Sep 23, 2021 2:29 am

kitplane01 wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:
I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just saying you can buy brand new submarines for $600M, which is think is less then the $1B cost to refurbish each Collins.

The cost of doing an Engineered Refueling Overhaul (ERO) of the Los Angeles subs is $406 million.

The cost of a new Virginia class sub is over $2 billion.

So you can refuel five Los Angeles subs for the cost of one Virginia sub. The newer 688i Los Angeles class subs as are very close in capability to average Virginia class sub.

The ERO of the Los Angeles subs adds 10 years to the life of the sub. The $1 billion refurb price of the Collins subs is more substantial and as adds around 20 years to the life the sub. So the Collins class price isn't too bad.

I wonder if Australia is capable of refueling and refurbishing a Los Angeles class sub. That would be a very interesting solution.

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military ... 88-ero.htm

I don't think it's reasonable to compare a Collins class sub (3,100 tons, no nuke) to a Virginia (8,000 tons, nuke powered). A better comparison would be something like a Sōryū (2,900 tons, no nuke). Those cost $540M new which makes the $1B overhaul cost of the Collins seem crazy! Also, the Sōryū has Lithium-Ion batteries for more underwater endurance, and newer sonars than the Collins.

Basically, Australia should buy Sōryū. Smaller crews needed, supportable in Australia, and 1/3 the cost.

But really, I'm just saying that $1B to overhaul a Collins is super-crazy.

Australia went shopping back in the 2010-2016 period and selected the Barracuda non-nuke version. At the latest $90B for 12, I did find links that showed this number did not included sustainment, but probably included the facilities for training and maintenance. This translates to $ 7.5B a boat, over double a Virginia procurement itself. No wonder Aus didn't want to proceed.

Going with the Virginia makes the most sense, already designed, would need to be doing joint crews or lease a Virginia or 2 at the beginning. The training program for the crews and maintenance is a bigger difference between LA class and Virginia than a F-15 and a F-35. The shortest time to in service is to start on the Virginia.

Kiwirob · Thu Sep 23, 2021 5:23 am

kitplane01 wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:

It's interesting in Norway for the last conscription call up 70% of the conscripts were female.

Can you explain how that works? How does a nation conscript so few people, and then target them by gender? And how do the Norwegian people feel .. this seems unfair.

All the kids are sent a questionnaire, the answers they give determines if they are accepted or rejected. A friend of mines daughter really wanted to go, she's very fit and active but has some food allergies so she was rejected. It's also become trendy for the girls to do military service, so more of them make an effort to get accepted.

bajs11 · Thu Sep 23, 2021 8:05 am

Aesma wrote:
bajs11 wrote:
Unfortunately there are people in the West who still believe in a benign PRC and everyone should allow it to occupy islands in the West Pacific, crush student protests in HK, kill dozens of Indian soldiers in border clashes, keep threatening to invade neighboring countries etc.

An arms race is exactly what the Chinese Communist Party wants. Keeps the nationalistic fervor high, justifies their staying in power for the next century.

The only way to hurt China is for the West to stop being dependant on Chinese made stuff.

not when Hollywood keep kowtowing to the regime and keep making propaganda movies for the PRC.
or people keep buying cheap crap from Walmart and AliExpress.
It will be interesting to see how or if anything will be done to those large companies owned by Chinese companies like Volvo and the Waldorf Astoria in NYC.
It's funny that the West is acting like their economies were not prospering at all before the early 2000s and it is impossible to reverse what has been done during the past 15 years.
Can anyone imagine what the world would have looked like if the West economically relied on the USSR or the famous universities in the US of A accepted thousands of students and researchers from the USSR or Hollywood made Soviet-friendly movies in the 50s?

bikerthai · Thu Sep 23, 2021 12:02 pm

bajs11 wrote:
r people keep buying cheap crap from Walmart and AliExpress.
It will be interesting to see how or if anything will be done to those large companies owned by Chinese companies like Volvo and the Waldorf Astoria in NYC.
It's funny that the West is acting like their economies were not prospering at all before the early 2000s and it is impossible to reverse what has been done during the past 15 years.

Well on the other hand the intertwine economy may force the Chinese to think hard before starting a war.

Improving the Chinese economy may not be bad. Consider that if the regular citizen standard of living increased, they may be more averse to the risk of losing that gain. This Covid pandemic may give them a glimpse of what happen when trade start to dry up.

If you look at the Taiwanese, Korean and many of the Central and South American experience, they were able to remove their authoritarian regime only after their economy improved and a strong middle class was established.

bt

bajs11 · Thu Sep 23, 2021 1:07 pm

Yeah, that's what those optimistic neo-liberals thought in the 90s and early 2000s which is also the main reason behind the rise of the PRC.
Look where we are now...
Don't forget that the European countries had considerable economic ties before the WWII.
or Australia which is a major trade partner of the PRC, if I remember correctly 47% of their export goes there.
Economic ties can't prevent major conflicts but values do.
You should read Michael Doyle's Three pillars of the liberal peace.

bikerthai · Thu Sep 23, 2021 1:57 pm

bajs11 wrote:
Look where we are now...

We are not at war yet :mrgreen:

We have yet to see how China play out. We have seen Chile, Korea and Taiwan moved from a military junta to a thriving thriving democracy through growth of their economy.

bt

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net