Kiwirob wrote:

Tugger wrote:

bikerthai wrote:

Bullying Vietnam and the Philipines is a different matter.

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.

And don't forget China's militarized Coast Guard and Chinese fishing fleets which make up China’s maritime militia.
https://www.lawfareblog.com/chinas-new- ... china-seas
https://www.maritime-executive.com/arti ... lack-ships

Tugg

Let's sum it up
- France was underperforming on the Aussie Sub contract and was already projected to go massively over budget and argued over local production numbers before final design has even been finished
- France is madder that a cut snake
- Aussies will spend nearly two years deciding on the platform and capabilities they will get so no decision on Virginia or Astute until at least early 2023
- US cannot build enough boats for themselves and don't have any boats to spare so cannot use existing USN production or boats
- UK will have spare production soon with Astute winding down when Aussies want to start up
- China is upset but China have been conducting a mud campaign against Australia for a number of years
- Aussies want some form of long range missle strike capability with their subs
- Aussies want local production of subs even though it will cost probably twice as much
- This whole deal is just one part of a stronger marriage between US, UK and the Skipps

Now the fun begins, will the UK or US get upset when the Aussies choose the other option?

Kiwirob wrote:

The US and UK don't have any capacity to build subs for anyone other than themselves. Tempest won't be shelved, doing that would make the UK far too sub servant to US political whims.

This is completely false. The last two Astute subs are under construction.

Devonshire Dock Hall was expanded in 2014 to build the 4 Dreadnought-class subs and the first two have already been started. The UK currently have four submarines under construction simultaneously. The second last Astute will launch in 2023 making room to start the first Aussie sub. Australia could have the first Astute sub in 2030 and have one every 2 years. The Australian subs would keep the UK submarine builders at full production rate until their Astute subs need replacement. It would be the perfect gap filler.

Likewise with the US built Virginia subs they are now pumping out a submarine every 10 months. The US could easily speed up production and Australia could then get a couple delivery slots that would have gone to the US Navy. Australia did this with their Super Hornet aircraft. Boeing was slightly ahead of delivery schedule so Australia took aircraft slated for the US Navy. Boeing then slowly caught back up to the US Navy delivery schedule after a few years.

If the US submarine builders speed up by 10% this year and increase another 10% next year then at the higher production rate they would effectively have three extra submarines built by 2030. Three big Virginia nuclear subs is enough for the six Collins class crews to transition to. Australia could then receive an extra Virginia class sub every 3 years.

I'm sure by 2030 the US could easily ramp up production and be pumping out a submarine every 6 months. Australia could then get all 8 submarines by 2040 at a ridiculously low price with zero risk.

I'm sure Australia could offset this deal by having allies purchase the Hunter class frigates that are under construction. Keep the shipbuilding in Australia going for decades.

France's pissed off.....

https://apnews.com/article/france-recal ... c3a738717e

kitplane01 wrote:

Lets talk about the deal they had with the french: "The total cost of the program, which includes the production of 12 submarines, has also risen from $40 billion to nearly $70 billion. At the same time, the French government has continued to insist that its own effort to acquire six nuclear-powered Barracudas will only cost just over $10 billion ..."

A British Astute is something over $US 2B, and a Virgina is about $US 2.7B each.

The first numbers are "total cost of the program". The second numbers are acquisition cost. So you're totally right.

But still, the program cost is going from $40B to $70B and still climbing ..... I'd drop the program too.

SeamanBeaumont wrote:

Let's sum it up
...
- US cannot build enough boats for themselves and don't have any boats to spare so cannot use existing USN production or boats

If I understand, you're saying that by 2028 or so the US cannot build more submarines that we're building now, even if someone else pays for them and uses their own docks for assembly? Why do you think this is true?

kitplane01 wrote:

If I understand, you're saying that by 2028 or so the US cannot build more submarines that we're building now, even if someone else pays for them and uses their own docks for assembly? Why do you think this is true?

The US definitely can. At the current production rate of one Virginia submarine every 10 months. That means by 2040 they would produce 23 submarines.

Australia needs 8 subs by 2040 but the good news is they do not need any subs until 2030. So the US has 18 years to produce 8 additional submarines. This is a piece of cake for a country that is already producing a Virginia sub every 10 months.

With any production ramp up it is rarely linear but usually exponential. If the US starts right now to ramp submarine production as high as possible they probably won't be able to produce a single extra submarine in the next 5 years. However all it would take is an extra final assembly position at either Groton or Newport news. This might take 5 years to put into place. Once in place submarine production could increase rapidly and a couple additional subs would be ready by 2030. Newport news is the larger facility as they are also making the new Columbia-class but this might be stretching the number of available engineers.

Currently the Virginia submarines get prebuilt in four huge sections. So once laid down they are launched in under 2 years. This system will make it easier to ramp up production. Also it allows Australia to customise just one or two sections to produce a much smaller submarine that is tailor made to Australias requirement.


Now adding to the technical discusion the Block 1 to 4 Virginia class submarines has a small number of VLS tubes at the front. The latest Block 5 about to be laid down has an extra 25m plug in the rear just forward of the propulsion section that increases displacement by a whopping 30%. This section has a HUGE number of additional VLS launch tubes. Australia would definitely get their subs without this 25m section as it still has VLS tubes in the nose. Commonality could still be 99% with the Virginia class making maintenance easy.

I would also remove the front VLS tubes and use the space to carry more autonomous underwater vehicles. These are launched through the torpedo tubes. Not having VLS tubes would have big political benefits. The submarines now look more defensive despite it still being able to launch multiple tomahawk missiles through the torpedo tubes. The US subs would do all the ground attack striking and the Australian subs being shorter and faster would get used as an attack sub.

Another benefit of the Virginia class submarines being built in sections allows the sections to be prebuilt in the US and shipped to Australia to join together. This would be very low risk so Australia only has to do the fit out.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgini ... _submarine

kitplane01 wrote:

SeamanBeaumont wrote:

Let's sum it up
...
- US cannot build enough boats for themselves and don't have any boats to spare so cannot use existing USN production or boats

If I understand, you're saying that by 2028 or so the US cannot build more submarines that we're building now, even if someone else pays for them and uses their own docks for assembly? Why do you think this is true?

https://news.usni.org/2020/11/18/navy-c ... d-capacity

Each Virginia coming out today is between 5 and 15 months late and that was from switching from one to two boats a year and before they build Blk V which is bigger while Columbia remains the priority for Navy over additional SSNs taking yard space. Despite the USN and Industry saying so it seems pretty clear if they moved to three boats a year all boats then take longer to build than the already currently delayed boats. At what point does three boats a year mean all are late one to two years and your capacity doesn't build.

Then the USN is short on subs because of stupid decisions in the 90s. USN needs more boats as soon as they can get them as 688Is age out but will have the smallest amount of SSNs in the late 2020s since the 70s. There is no space to build foreign orders of USN attack boats and no boats to loan or sell. That is why this is potentially a good option for the good old US of A, they could get an additional yard out of the Aussies. Imagine the offer to the Aussies, build 8 yourselves and build 4 for US over the next 30 years.

RJMAZ wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

If I understand, you're saying that by 2028 or so the US cannot build more submarines that we're building now, even if someone else pays for them and uses their own docks for assembly? Why do you think this is true?

The US definitely can. At the current production rate of one Virginia submarine every 10 months. That means by 2040 they would produce 23 submarines.

[/quote]

No they can't. The USN cannot afford everything they want nor is there capacity today to do so. Building capacity will takes years and all boats coming out today are late!

par13del wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

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?

When was the last time you saw someone complain about the USA in public, when was the last time you saw mass demonstrations in the world against the USA, when was the last time you saw complaints about the USA president, when was the last time the USA tolerated public dissent on its policies?
The world saw the Kurds suffering from mustard gas in Iraq, unfortunately, no one saw the nuclear weapons program which overtook everything, imagine if that were not the case perhaps the gas would not have been used in Syria civil war.

There's been plenty of demonstrations about the US recently, there have ben plenty of people complaining about the US in public, were you asleep for the past 5 years, haven't you watched any news about Afghanistan??

There was no nuclear weapons program. And then the US renegged on there promises to the Kurds and left them hanging. Notice how there is no Kurdistan.

RJMAZ wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

The US and UK don't have any capacity to build subs for anyone other than themselves. Tempest won't be shelved, doing that would make the UK far too sub servant to US political whims.

This is completely false. The last two Astute subs are under construction.

Devonshire Dock Hall was expanded in 2014 to build the 4 Dreadnought-class subs and the first two have already been started. The UK currently have four submarines under construction simultaneously. The second last Astute will launch in 2023 making room to start the first Aussie sub. Australia could have the first Astute sub in 2030 and have one every 2 years. The Australian subs would keep the UK submarine builders at full production rate until their Astute subs need replacement. It would be the perfect gap filler.

Likewise with the US built Virginia subs they are now pumping out a submarine every 10 months. The US could easily speed up production and Australia could then get a couple delivery slots that would have gone to the US Navy. Australia did this with their Super Hornet aircraft. Boeing was slightly ahead of delivery schedule so Australia took aircraft slated for the US Navy. Boeing then slowly caught back up to the US Navy delivery schedule after a few years.

If the US submarine builders speed up by 10% this year and increase another 10% next year then at the higher production rate they would effectively have three extra submarines built by 2030. Three big Virginia nuclear subs is enough for the six Collins class crews to transition to. Australia could then receive an extra Virginia class sub every 3 years.

I'm sure by 2030 the US could easily ramp up production and be pumping out a submarine every 6 months. Australia could then get all 8 submarines by 2040 at a ridiculously low price with zero risk.

I'm sure Australia could offset this deal by having allies purchase the Hunter class frigates that are under construction. Keep the shipbuilding in Australia going for decades.

You're having a laugh, once the last Dreadnaught leaves the construction hall sometime in the early 2040's the first Astute replacement will start production. The UK doesn't have the capacity to build more subs unless they start building them somewhere else. That somewhere else Cammell Lairds submarine building hall hasn't built a submarine in decades.

6 Collins class crews turning into 3 Virginia class crews, more fun and games, the Australians already have enough problems find crews for the 6 boats they currently have. The Virginians are also being delivered later than expected.

SeamanBeaumont wrote:

Each Virginia coming out today is between 5 and 15 months late

That is a temporary covid delay when looking at the data. Only a small speed bump when we look back in 10 years time. Between March 2016 and October 2019 they launched 7 submarines in 43 months. That is a submarine launched every 7 months.

If they continued to produce a Virginia sub every 7 months that is 31 subs built by 2040. To build 8 extra subs for Australia is only an additional 25% increase in production rate.

SeamanBeaumont wrote:

That is why this is potentially a good option for the good old US of A, they could get an additional yard out of the Aussies. Imagine the offer to the Aussies, build 8 yourselves and build 4 for US over the next 30 years.

This could be one of the big reasons for the deal. After the 8 subs are assembled in Australia for the Australian Navy the assembly line could continue to produce the subs for the US Navy. This would fully justify building them in Australia. The propulsion and nuclear sections can be delivered to Australia ready to go.

Another benefit is the US yards are fully switching over to the longer land attack orientated design. The Virginia subs are moving with the Block V from an SSN attack submarine to a SSGN cruise missile submarine. The extra 25m length and 30% increase in displacement would surely reduce the top speed of the sub.

A big benefit is that Australia could make the shorter Block 4 design but with all of the systems of the Block V. The US Navy would definitely have use for the faster attack design which still retains 99% commonality with their longer block V boats. If they started to fit UK systems to the submarines this would reduce the change of the US purchasing the subs.

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.

When was the last time China started a war? China has sunk the grand total of 1 fishing trawler, only 1, all 8 crew were rescued. I'm naive, pot, kettle, black, you're going to compare the last 20 years of failed US foreign policy to China sinking 1 Vietnamese trawler over the same time period. China 8 wet Vietnamese fisherman, results of failed US foreign policy millions dead.

FlapOperator wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

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?

You're right Rob. When the Chinese Communist Party kills people, its usually in the multi-millions and its usually their own people.

When was the last time the Chinese Communist Party killed multi millions of people? You have to go back many decades.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_m ... China#1987

Kiwirob wrote:

When was the last time the Chinese Communist Party killed multi millions of people? You have to go back many decades.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_m ... China#1987

OK, yeah. But they KILLED MULTI MILLIONS OF PEOPLE!

That's kinda a big thing.

And you are just brushing it off because... you are trying to support some point with it?

Tugg.

Kiwirob wrote:

When was the last time China started a war? China has sunk the grand total of 1 fishing trawler, only 1, all 8 crew were rescued. I'm naive, pot, kettle, black, you're going to compare the last 20 years of failed US foreign policy to China sinking 1 Vietnamese trawler over the same time period. China 8 wet Vietnamese fisherman, results of failed US foreign policy millions dead.

You don't need wars to utterly brutalize people and force your will on others. Oppressing and suppressing entire populations of people. When was the last time China did that? Last year? Last Month? Last week? Yesterday probably...

Tugg

Tugger wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

When was the last time China started a war? China has sunk the grand total of 1 fishing trawler, only 1, all 8 crew were rescued. I'm naive, pot, kettle, black, you're going to compare the last 20 years of failed US foreign policy to China sinking 1 Vietnamese trawler over the same time period. China 8 wet Vietnamese fisherman, results of failed US foreign policy millions dead.

You don't need wars to utterly brutalize people and force your will on others. Oppressing and suppressing entire populations of people. When was the last time China did that? Last year? Last Month? Last week? Yesterday probably...

Tugg

Exactly, you don't have to sink foreign trawlers, a hundred or so chinese trawlers and their coast guard escorts just have to point their guns and sail real close to those Vietnamese, Thai, Indonesian, Philippines, Malaysian, Brunei, North Korean, South Korean, Japanese, let's face it, pretty much any other fisherman who dares fish in waters where chinese want to fish, for them to leave. Better alive and just bullied by China, than dead and worthless to your family and community.

China constantly threatens war with Taiwan, has threatened to nuke Japan off the map, constantly says it will destroy Australia. etc. etc.

Back to the topic, don't expect these subs to be of current British or American design, they will be unique, even if they are based on a current design. Contrary to what a couple of posters here believe, they will be built in Adelaide, whatever additional expertise that will be required will be learned from the British and Americans. The reactor probably won't be assembled here, but it doesn't need to be. Additional cost to build them in Australia is money well spent, it builds the expertise and no how up. If they can come up with a great design, there maybe an export market to the U.S. and Britain, but I would doubt any thoughts of that are even seriously being considered at this stage, maybe in 10-15 years when we actually see what is coming together.

To answer kiwirob's question on UK sub program;
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/contrac ... submarine/

The first Astute would need to be replaced by the mid/late 2030's.
Could Australia be a partner?

Kiwirob wrote:

Zkpilot wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

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.

When was the last time China started a war? China has sunk the grand total of 1 fishing trawler, only 1, all 8 crew were rescued. I'm naive, pot, kettle, black, you're going to compare the last 20 years of failed US foreign policy to China sinking 1 Vietnamese trawler over the same time period. China 8 wet Vietnamese fisherman, results of failed US foreign policy millions dead.

China attacked India within the last year for one.

kitplane01 wrote:

SeamanBeaumont wrote:

Let's sum it up
...
- US cannot build enough boats for themselves and don't have any boats to spare so cannot use existing USN production or boats

If I understand, you're saying that by 2028 or so the US cannot build more submarines that we're building now, even if someone else pays for them and uses their own docks for assembly? Why do you think this is true?

Rather, the US cannot build more boats in their existing facilities. So they'd have to create a new assembly line anyway, and if Australia is the customer, why not build it right there.

Australia is a large source of natural resources of strategic importance. Iron ore, Uranium ore, Aluminum, coal, and other raw materials. Large recipients are the EU, UK and US, but also China and Japan - virtually the entire industrialized world. So of course everybody wants access and influence.

mxaxai wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

SeamanBeaumont wrote:

Let's sum it up
...
- US cannot build enough boats for themselves and don't have any boats to spare so cannot use existing USN production or boats

If I understand, you're saying that by 2028 or so the US cannot build more submarines that we're building now, even if someone else pays for them and uses their own docks for assembly? Why do you think this is true?

Rather, the US cannot build more boats in their existing facilities. So they'd have to create a new assembly line anyway, and if Australia is the customer, why not build it right there.

Australia is a large source of natural resources of strategic importance. Iron ore, Uranium ore, Aluminum, coal, and other raw materials. Large recipients are the EU, UK and US, but also China and Japan - virtually the entire industrialized world. So of course everybody wants access and influence.

We're not even certain it would be a US design; it could very well be a British design as the British have kicked off the start of development of an Astute-class successor design. Australia could very easily tack on a few boats to the British line, driving down costs for the British.

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?

I guess in the past they were just too busy killing their own citizens that they have only been involved in a few wars in the past 70 years:
the Korean war, the Sino-Soviet war, the Sino-Indian war, the Sino-Vietnamese war and a couple of Taiwan straight crisis.
By that logic the Empire of Japan was almost as benign because before 1937 they've "only" been involved in the Russo-Japanese war, first Sino-Japanese war and annexation of Korea and Taiwan. Then those evil Americans imposed sanctions against Japan which pretty much lead to the attack on Pearl Harbor.... right?

Oh yeah, speaking of the Korean war, it was totally the US and its allies who invaded the DPRK first which is why it is called "Resist US aggression and aid Korea" or 抗美援朝战争
Those evil capitalists.

Seriously though.
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.

Tugger wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

When was the last time the Chinese Communist Party killed multi millions of people? You have to go back many decades.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_m ... China#1987

OK, yeah. But they KILLED MULTI MILLIONS OF PEOPLE!

That's kinda a big thing.

And you are just brushing it off because... you are trying to support some point with it?

Tugg.

it was nearly 60 years ago and it was there own people, the deaths caused by the US's failed foreign policies since 9/11 are not domestic, they are foreign, not the same at all.

The US is a bigger menace to world peace than China has ever been, go on prove me wrong.

Zkpilot wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

Zkpilot wrote:

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.

When was the last time China started a war? China has sunk the grand total of 1 fishing trawler, only 1, all 8 crew were rescued. I'm naive, pot, kettle, black, you're going to compare the last 20 years of failed US foreign policy to China sinking 1 Vietnamese trawler over the same time period. China 8 wet Vietnamese fisherman, results of failed US foreign policy millions dead.

China attacked India within the last year for one.

Did they, I was pretty sure it was the other way around, these border squabbles between the two countries have been ongoing for decades.

Kiwirob wrote:

The US is a bigger menace to world peace than China has ever been, go on prove me wrong.

Someone mentioned a good analogy today that AUKUS is like an online group chat. When there is someone in the group chat that everyone doesn't like you then create a new group chat without that person.

kiwirob you seem upset. Is that because New Zealand has been deemed untrustworthy and not deserving of the highest security access?

"New Zealand is in the doghouse. If sections of the Twitterati and Australian media are to be believed, it is no longer a trusted ally."

https://www.internationalaffairs.org.au ... s-problem/

It looks like the Australian media back in April predicted this would happen. The five eyes alliance is no longer the highest level of intelligence sharing. New Zealand will only get what we want them to get. New Zealand can stick to their isolationism with their gutless Prime minister.

That last point is why I think France wouldn't have been interested in the alliance even if offered. We happily share intelligence with allies, but this is a manual process, not letting the US run our intelligence and spy on our people. We have our own assets, our own satellites, our own people on the ground...

johns624 wrote:

Aesma wrote:

Australia isn't exactly keen on a war with China, though. China is a mere 39% of Australia's exports, and it has a healthy trade surplus with it !

Not everything is about trade. Power and prestige are sometimes more important. In fact, I'd say they are more important most of the time.

Climate change will make most of Australia a desert, yet the PM wants to sell even more coal. It seems to me like trade trumps all.

par13del wrote:

Aesma wrote:

If by similar you mean that Australia doesn't have the capability to build it despite insisting on it, then yes it seems that way. I'm sure the price and delays could have come down if the plan was changed to production in France instead. Is that a reason to go instead for UK made or US made ?

If they are promising more local production, yes, most nations today want to create their own industries as agreements today are written in political paper, subject to change with the wind.

More local production than 90% ? Is there an election coming again ?

kitplane01 wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

Lets talk about the deal they had with the french: "The total cost of the program, which includes the production of 12 submarines, has also risen from $40 billion to nearly $70 billion. At the same time, the French government has continued to insist that its own effort to acquire six nuclear-powered Barracudas will only cost just over $10 billion ..."

A British Astute is something over $US 2B, and a Virgina is about $US 2.7B each.

The first numbers are "total cost of the program". The second numbers are acquisition cost. So you're totally right.

But still, the program cost is going from $40B to $70B and still climbing ..... I'd drop the program too.

I don't know why the program ballooned like that, but I'm guessing that setting up an entire industry in Australia has something to do with it.

How much will the new order cost is anyone's guess, the fact Australia is getting 4 subs less is probably an indication it won't be cheap.

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.

Kiwirob wrote:

par13del wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

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?

When was the last time you saw someone complain about the USA in public, when was the last time you saw mass demonstrations in the world against the USA, when was the last time you saw complaints about the USA president, when was the last time the USA tolerated public dissent on its policies?
The world saw the Kurds suffering from mustard gas in Iraq, unfortunately, no one saw the nuclear weapons program which overtook everything, imagine if that were not the case perhaps the gas would not have been used in Syria civil war.

There's been plenty of demonstrations about the US recently, there have ben plenty of people complaining about the US in public, were you asleep for the past 5 years, haven't you watched any news about Afghanistan??

You missed the point, you asked the difference between the two, have you seen demonstrations about China actions in the South China seas, what about Covid?
The reality is that one can complain and demonstrate about the USA and its actions with virtually no penalty, China on the other hand.....

Kiwirob wrote:

it was nearly 60 years ago and it was there own people, the deaths caused by the US's failed foreign policies since 9/11 are not domestic, they are foreign, not the same at all.

The US is a bigger menace to world peace than China has ever been, go on prove me wrong.

So killing your own people is different than killing foreigners? I guess that makes the old Soviet Union just fantastic in your eyes. Dead people are dead people.

RJMAZ wrote:

The five eyes alliance is no longer the highest level of intelligence sharing. New Zealand will only get what we want them to get. New Zealand can stick to their isolationism with their gutless Prime minister.

NZ seems to think that they are an island in the middle of nowhere and nobody will ever bother them. This, in spite of having the world's 9th largest EEZ and one of the most productive fisheries in the world.

Kiwirob wrote:

Tugger wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

When was the last time the Chinese Communist Party killed multi millions of people? You have to go back many decades.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_m ... China#1987

OK, yeah. But they KILLED MULTI MILLIONS OF PEOPLE!

That's kinda a big thing.

And you are just brushing it off because... you are trying to support some point with it?

Tugg.

it was nearly 60 years ago and it was there own people, the deaths caused by the US's failed foreign policies since 9/11 are not domestic, they are foreign, not the same at all.

The US is a bigger menace to world peace than China has ever been, go on prove me wrong.

You are prevaricating.
And you want to be proven wrong? Why don't you "prove" that actions by China to impose themselves on neighbor nations and forcing their will in regions that are not their's is NOT a bigger menace to world peace.

Tugg

Aesma wrote:

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

Tugg

GDB wrote:

A there is a big gap between the last Astute and first Dreadnought Class SSBN, the last time this happened was between the last Trident boat and first Astute, creating all sorts of problems, delays, cost overruns and skills lost. And the costly challenge in running the Trident boats on longer than planned.
s.

Is that so? I thought that the 2yr 'technical' delay in building Audacious (a de facto Batch 2 Astute) had wiped out any gap between the Astute and Drednought programmes?
Long lead time components for all 4 Drednought boats are ordered and steel has been cut on certain parts of HMS Drednought, if she really is a stretched Astute design then we must hope that the production line is still hot.

The Sino-Vietnamese War (Vietnamese: Chiến tranh biên giới Việt-Trung; Chinese: 中越战争; pinyin: Zhōng-Yuè Zhànzhēng) was a border war fought between China and Vietnam in early 1979. China launched an offensive in response to Vietnam's actions against the Khmer Rouge in 1978, which ended the rule of the Chinese-backed Khmer Rouge. Both China and Vietnam claimed victory in the last of the Indochina Wars. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Vietnamese_War

How quickly some people forget. So Vietnam saw the atrocities being carried out by the Khmer rouge (fine group of fellas) and stepped up and liberated Cambodia. That pissed off China and they invaded and got clobbered. Do not underestimate the Chinese though. They pick their fights carefully. (Aside from playing chicken with a P-3 Orion). Until now, they figured they could beat regional rivals. Heaven help us when they think they can take on the US.

There were (and still are for the French Barracuda class) serious issues and delays in the just cancelled contract.

In Dec 2018, in the placing of the contract 2 years in the making there were disputes over the termination clauses in the contract. Australia wanted a 2 year delay or 25% cost overrun to trigger, Naval Group wanted 3 & 30%
https://www.afr.com/politics/christophe ... 205-h18qmd

https://independentaustralia.net/politi ... ment,12201

In 2019 this was reported: https://independentaustralia.net/politi ... ment,12201

An Australian government report Jan 2020, it indicated the first subs production would commence in 23 but not be in service until 2032. From the article

The contract is worth $605 million and covers work through to 2021.

So cancellation is probably around that amount of lost cost. [https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1920/AttackClassSubmarines

A Jan 2021 article:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-01-20/ ... m/13074440

It hadn't gotten much better as reported in this March 2021 article, a quote from it follows:

Delays so far have pushed back delivery of the first Barracuda from the mid-2020s to the early 2030s and now to the 2040s. The latest missed date was finalising the critical Strategic Partnering Agreement which governs the entire project. This was due before last Christmas.

This was the next two year contract schedule, which was delivered 9 months late.

https://independentaustralia.net/politi ... face,14846

An objective with contracts is to go with a parent design concept, thus avoiding a lot of startup issues, lessons learned, delays, etc. Well the Barracuda class submarine has only launched the Suffren, laid down in 2007 but launched in Aug 19, and still performing sea trials. It was to be in service in 2017. The 2nd boat, Duguay-Trouin, has not been launched yet, the 7th boat will not launch unti 2028
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_submarine_Suffren

So the primary Barracuda class nuclear powered boat is running 4 years or more late, with 8 more years estimated to complete. The Australian Attack class submarine fleet of 12 was expected to be built over a 25 year period, building the subs in blocks of about 3 each.

So yes the Attack class order was already quite troubled.

Buying a variant with a completely different propulsion system of a submarine that has not been tested or commissioned yet sounds like a clean sheet variant of an clean sheet, tons of risk. The schedule of the program seemed to be moving to the right by a month every month. Costs soaring, work share being disputed, sustainment of 12 boats with the whole class having only 18 boats, with each major subsystem being a variant of others. In contrast, if by either the Virginia or Astute class versions, sustainment would be far easier - in particular if basically a Virginia class boat it would be a fleet of 40 or more. Just like with the F35, a much less costly option.

The Virginia class is built in 4 major sections, the propulsion plant would be a near complete section built in the US, the other 3 sections I envision being partially built either in the US or UK as it is very heavy very high strength steel requiring massive tooling. Work share where the Australians built components for either or both the Astute or Virginia class in trade could be done. Final assembly at the Aussie shipyard as well as fit out. A far more efficient scenario.

Let's hope all parties are using the same software and the pieces fit together perfectly, silence is the primary weapon of subs, any flaw in joining will result in noise and be very costly to repair, que the 787.

JayinKitsap wrote:

The Virginia class is built in 4 major sections, the propulsion plant would be a near complete section built in the US, the other 3 sections I envision being partially built either in the US or UK as it is very heavy very high strength steel requiring massive tooling. Work share where the Australians built components for either or both the Astute or Virginia class in trade could be done. Final assembly at the Aussie shipyard as well as fit out. A far more efficient scenario.

This would be the dream scenario. I have been an advocate of this style of military development and procurement for years. Long term government to government planning with workshare split between countries.

My post from the Tempest thread.

RJMAZ wrote:

Work together to build complimentary products not competing products. Splitting up a small market with competing products means everyone loses. Duplication of research and development costs and economy of scales reduces.

The first step for this government to government planning is for each country to remove ego and accept their position in terms of what they can and can't do. Australia has taken this step perfectly asking for help.

It would be impossible for say France to join such a development process as they will always insist on a greater workshare than they deserve. They think they can do everything better than everyone.

The US might even insist that the Australian submarines must be laid down in the US. If the US are willing to give 5% workshare on all of the Virginia class submarines built for both Navies then I am sure Australia will accept. It will result in billions saved for the same submarine and the same number of engineers in Australia are still employed building parts that are sent to the US.

I hope there are more future projects that come out of AUKUS. We have the heavy lift Chinook replacement due for all three countries. Tempest and the USAF 6th gen fighter program is the next major product I think should be merged. Workshare split evenly based on procurement numbers. 70/25/5 split based on 300, 100 and 20 aircraft purchased by the USAF, RAF and RAAF respectively.

RJMAZ wrote:

SeamanBeaumont wrote:

Each Virginia coming out today is between 5 and 15 months late

That is a temporary covid delay when looking at the data. Only a small speed bump when we look back in 10 years time. Between March 2016 and October 2019 they launched 7 submarines in 43 months. That is a submarine launched every 7 months.

A covid delay you say. Strange I say as every Blk 4 boat is late and the recovery plan was put in place before covid.

To encourage the foolishness 792 was commissioned in April 2020, must be a crazy bill and ted time travelling 10 month delay due to covid that started in the US in February 2020.

The first Block IV boat, USS Vermont (SSN-792), was commissioned earlier this year and took 71.5 months to construct, compared to the 62-month schedule laid out in the contract.

The entire rest of Block IV is currently projected to take between 67 and 77 months to complete, despite contractual obligations to come in after 62 months and eventually dropping down to 60 months.

“We have had challenges in this program … The Navy recognizes and they’re monitoring these delays on Block IV, but the key thing is really staying on cadence, executing the recovery plan, and ensuring we’re on schedule by Block V,” Goggins said in his opening remarks, adding that the program had developed a recovery plan last year with industry to get back on track by the end of Block IV.

RJMAZ wrote:

JayinKitsap wrote:

The Virginia class is built in 4 major sections, the propulsion plant would be a near complete section built in the US, the other 3 sections I envision being partially built either in the US or UK as it is very heavy very high strength steel requiring massive tooling. Work share where the Australians built components for either or both the Astute or Virginia class in trade could be done. Final assembly at the Aussie shipyard as well as fit out. A far more efficient scenario.

This would be the dream scenario. I have been an advocate of this style of military development and procurement for years. Long term government to government planning with workshare split between countries.

I hope there are more future projects that come out of AUKUS. We have the heavy lift Chinook replacement due for all three countries. Tempest and the USAF 6th gen fighter program is the next major product I think should be merged. Workshare split evenly based on procurement numbers. 70/25/5 split based on 300, 100 and 20 aircraft purchased by the USAF, RAF and RAAF respectively.

These joint programs work well when there is one "leader", like LM on the F-35. It has parts from over a dozen countries. It must have a sound design, practical, and reliable. The program is far from perfect, what ever is anyway?, but the multi-country investment has really paid off.

In the parent design approach, one can evaluate already in service articles to see if it is as good as the slick brochure said it would. The FREMM design already has 8 in service, with the longest 10 years, enough time to see if the gearboxes, bearings, shafts, engines, generators, etc are actually working. The new US frigate looks quite capable. Happening with armored cars, transports, tanks, cutters, and icebreakers. Why reinvent the wheel.

JayinKitsap wrote:

The program is far from perfect, what ever is anyway?,

Not even the P-8A

Wonder if this agreement would lead to possibly basing B3s in Austrailia. Is there any strategic or tactical advantage to do so?

bt

bikerthai wrote:

JayinKitsap wrote:

The program is far from perfect, what ever is anyway?,

Not even the P-8A

Wonder if this agreement would lead to possibly basing B3s in Austrailia. Is there any strategic or tactical advantage to do so?

bt

Interesting thought, does it add coverage compared to Guam and Diego Garcia?

Australia has 100 F-35's coming and one of the articles in my earlier post indicated the US has interest in operating US subs out of Australia.

It does give good coverage of the Indonesia archipelago, but seems to be farther from Taiwan than Guam.

bt

bikerthai wrote:

It does give good coverage of the Indonesia archipelago, but seems to be farther from Taiwan than Guam.

bt

Much further from Taiwan than Guam, but would allow good coverage of the southern portion and the shipping routes into and out of the South China Sea. Additionally, there are Christmas and Cocos Islands in the eastern Indian Ocean, operating from there would give great coverage of the whole of the eastern half of the Indian Ocean, especially for P8's.

Myv40 wrote:

GDB wrote:

A there is a big gap between the last Astute and first Dreadnought Class SSBN, the last time this happened was between the last Trident boat and first Astute, creating all sorts of problems, delays, cost overruns and skills lost. And the costly challenge in running the Trident boats on longer than planned.
s.

Is that so? I thought that the 2yr 'technical' delay in building Audacious (a de facto Batch 2 Astute) had wiped out any gap between the Astute and Drednought programmes?
Long lead time components for all 4 Drednought boats are ordered and steel has been cut on certain parts of HMS Drednought, if she really is a stretched Astute design then we must hope that the production line is still hot.

If they are saying 'late 2020's' for the first one that's fine, if however it moves into the 2030's for the first one completed that's a problem, not least in maintaining the Vanguard boats beyond their planned life.

RJMAZ wrote:

The first step for this government to government planning is for each country to remove ego and accept their position in terms of what they can and can't do. Australia has taken this step perfectly asking for help.

I've seen nowhere where they admitted they couldn't build subs, do you have a source ?

RJMAZ wrote:

It would be impossible for say France to join such a development process as they will always insist on a greater workshare than they deserve. They think they can do everything better than everyone.

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.

France is the 5th economic power right now, and one of the top arms sellers. If you only get small shares in all US hardware, you have nothing to sell. And if you don't like what the US is doing, you can't do anything about it, or suddenly your military is on foot.

As for multi-nations programs compared to single nation, Rafale vs Eurofighter ?

Is there any evidence the F-35 would be worse if it was entirely US made ? It might have been cancelled long ago... I still can't get my head around the idea that it flies with pilots slowly asphyxiating during the flight.

RJMAZ wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

The US is a bigger menace to world peace than China has ever been, go on prove me wrong.

Someone mentioned a good analogy today that AUKUS is like an online group chat. When there is someone in the group chat that everyone doesn't like you then create a new group chat without that person.

kiwirob you seem upset. Is that because New Zealand has been deemed untrustworthy and not deserving of the highest security access?

"New Zealand is in the doghouse. If sections of the Twitterati and Australian media are to be believed, it is no longer a trusted ally."

https://www.internationalaffairs.org.au ... s-problem/

It looks like the Australian media back in April predicted this would happen. The five eyes alliance is no longer the highest level of intelligence sharing. New Zealand will only get what we want them to get. New Zealand can stick to their isolationism with their gutless Prime minister.

I'm more than happy that NZ isn't part of this. I'd be happier if NZ was non aligned similar to Switzerland or Sweden.

At least we manage to keep PM's in the job for a decent amount of time, not the revolving door like in Australia.

USNI has an article on the Attack class, it is an excellent source for Naval information. They regularly print the various reports to congress on boats, planes, etc. Not official navy but more in the know than any other media. They state "The U.S. Naval Institute is a non-profit membership association serving a community of individuals who participate in an open forum to debate key issues in the Sea Services."

https://news.usni.org/2021/09/16/french ... ays-expert

Some other USNI links to this topic

https://news.usni.org/2021/09/15/austra ... th-u-s-u-k

https://news.usni.org/2021/09/17/austra ... the-future

politico Australia had this:
https://www.politico.eu/article/why-aus ... -sub-deal/

and the audit report. Quite interesting, a 9 month delay in design occurring in the first year of design. The first sub wasn't going to be in service until the mid 2030's, assuming no more delays. The cost of the project had doubled to nearly $90B, and that does not include sustainment, also around $90B.

That is like $ 7.5B per boat, far more than the cost of a Virginia class, with Virginia's 6 to 8 boats exceed the capability of 12 Attack class. If the crew was 1.5x the Attack class, the total number of sailors would be similar

https://www.anao.gov.au/work/performanc ... -to-design

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.

What I don't get is why the Attack-class didn't have an air-independent propulsion system, when this is well developed technology, that France offers on the Scorpène-class. Maybe because of the size of the boat, too big ?

JayinKitsap : are you willing to bet that whatever Australia will get will be cheaper ? At this stage we have no idea what will be ordered.

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.

Aesma wrote:

What I don't get is why the Attack-class didn't have an air-independent propulsion system, when this is well developed technology, that France offers on the Scorpène-class. Maybe because of the size of the boat, too big ?

JayinKitsap : are you willing to bet that whatever Australia will get will be cheaper ? At this stage we have no idea what will be ordered.

Any time a conventional submarine wants to move quickly, it's going to use a lot of electricity to do so, far more than what AIP solutions can provide. They will either have to surface or come up and snort to run their diesel engines in order to permit fast transits.

Realistically, the other work around is to design a submarine with large and fairly energy dense battery, such as what the Australians originally did with the Collins, and what the Japanese are doing with the two last boats of the Soryu class submarines and the upcoming Taigei class submarines.

AIP is realistically a fairly limited capability that allows a conventional submarine to stay down longer at low speeds and/or allow the ship's hotel systems to be operated for extended periods below water.