stratable wrote:

Top Canadian military official says country should be involved in AUKUS.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/military-officer-aukus-deal-1.6714845


While he obviously is not a politician he is a public servant, I take this as a sign that there are negotiations happening in the background.

Trudeau was considered unreliable, which is why Canada was excluded. He was perceived as being too soft on the PRC. As long as he's Canada's PM, I don't think they will get an invite.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/ ... l-election

leader1 wrote:

stratable wrote:

Top Canadian military official says country should be involved in AUKUS.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/military-officer-aukus-deal-1.6714845


While he obviously is not a politician he is a public servant, I take this as a sign that there are negotiations happening in the background.

Trudeau was considered unreliable, which is why Canada was excluded. He was perceived as being too soft on the PRC. As long as he's Canada's PM, I don't think they will get an invite.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/ ... l-election

That sounds more like a conservative talking point than actual decision making. Logically it doesn't make sense to exclude an ally that wants to be involved.
If you want to say Canada is coasting, Canada is coasting whether they are involved in AUKUS or not. I would assume we were just slow again.

If the scope of AUKUS is for nuclear and ultra highly secret technology like the B-21 or NGAD, then why would Canada need to join?

They surely don't have the budget for any of that.

bt

bikerthai wrote:

:scratchchin: If the scope of AUKUS is for nuclear and ultra highly secret technology like the B-21 or NGAD, then why would Canada need to join?

They surely don't have the budget for any of that.

bt

Hehe, we wanted nuclear subs before we got our current conventional ones, but the US refused to allow that for fears that Canada could become too independent minded and block the Artic.
I think this was not a matter of nuclear tech, Canada had and has that, it was around mutual defense agreements and the US having certain veto rights.
Canada claims the Artic waters along its coast belongs to Canada (the possible navigable passage is literally meters off the coast), while the US maintains it is essentially an international waterway.
This has never gone before the courts I think, and I doubt it will, but I am sure you could find some middle ground there, at least when talking to the Americans, i.e. "we recognize this is your sovereign territory but given the global importance of the shipping lane (once climate change allows for it), you need to let others through unobstructed, especially our own Navy vessels" (LOL).
But our subs are due for replacement at some point in the next decade and I would guess nuclear subs are at least part of the negotiations around Canada joining AUKUS, whether they will happen or not.

Outside of nuclear subs, you are right, Canada is not necessarily on a spending spree LOL

stratable wrote:

leader1 wrote:

stratable wrote:

Top Canadian military official says country should be involved in AUKUS.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/military-officer-aukus-deal-1.6714845


While he obviously is not a politician he is a public servant, I take this as a sign that there are negotiations happening in the background.

Trudeau was considered unreliable, which is why Canada was excluded. He was perceived as being too soft on the PRC. As long as he's Canada's PM, I don't think they will get an invite.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/ ... l-election

That sounds more like a conservative talking point than actual decision making. Logically it doesn't make sense to exclude an ally that wants to be involved.
If you want to say Canada is coasting, Canada is coasting whether they are involved in AUKUS or not. I would assume we were just slow again.

AUKUS has always struck me as a neat announcable for the three flailing conservative leaders involved, two since voted out by the people and the other resigning in disgrace.

There is no good reason strategically why it shouldn’t be broader, but politics.

Kent350787 wrote:

stratable wrote:

leader1 wrote:

Trudeau was considered unreliable, which is why Canada was excluded. He was perceived as being too soft on the PRC. As long as he's Canada's PM, I don't think they will get an invite.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/ ... l-election

That sounds more like a conservative talking point than actual decision making. Logically it doesn't make sense to exclude an ally that wants to be involved.
If you want to say Canada is coasting, Canada is coasting whether they are involved in AUKUS or not. I would assume we were just slow again.

AUKUS has always struck me as a neat announcable for the three flailing conservative leaders involved, two since voted out by the people and the other resigning in disgrace.

There is no good reason strategically why it shouldn’t be broader, but politics.

Could be broader, yes but does it need to be....... considering that Japan and the US share extensively anyway.

But for Canada I think they will get out of the submarine game sooner rather than later

Just my gut feeling

Kent350787 wrote:

AUKUS has always struck me as a neat announcable for the three flailing conservative leaders involved, two since voted out by the people and the other resigning in disgrace.

There is no good reason strategically why it shouldn’t be broader, but politics.

So AUKUS was negotiated and announced with the Biden administration in 2021. From Wipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AUKUS
"President Joe Biden stated that the deal was a way to "address both the current strategic environment in the (Indo-Pacific) region and how it may evolve".

As far as Canada is concerned - from the same link: "The deal was announced in the midst of the 2021 Canadian federal election. Opposition politicians quickly attacked Prime Minister Justin Trudeau over Canada's exclusion from the pact, to which Trudeau responded by stating that "This is a deal for nuclear submarines, which Canada is not currently or any time soon in the market for. Australia is." Leader of the Official Opposition Erin O'Toole stated that he would seek to join the alliance if elected."

Biden is still in office, and it seems that the following Australian and UK governments have committed to the pact, not sure your theory holds.

Australia - https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-01-07/ ... /101834838 "Prime Minister Anthony Albanese 'very confident' AUKUS deal will benefit all three countries, despite concerns raised in US"[/i]

UK - https://www.gov.uk/government/news/pm-c ... tober-2022 The Free Trade Agreement, AUKUS and the UK’s potential accession to Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership were all examples of the strength of the relationship, the Prime Minister added.

Geomap

geomap wrote:

Kent350787 wrote:

AUKUS has always struck me as a neat announcable for the three flailing conservative leaders involved, two since voted out by the people and the other resigning in disgrace.

There is no good reason strategically why it shouldn’t be broader, but politics.

So AUKUS was negotiated and announced with the Biden administration in 2021. From Wipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AUKUS
"President Joe Biden stated that the deal was a way to "address both the current strategic environment in the (Indo-Pacific) region and how it may evolve".

As far as Canada is concerned - from the same link: "The deal was announced in the midst of the 2021 Canadian federal election. Opposition politicians quickly attacked Prime Minister Justin Trudeau over Canada's exclusion from the pact, to which Trudeau responded by stating that "This is a deal for nuclear submarines, which Canada is not currently or any time soon in the market for. Australia is." Leader of the Official Opposition Erin O'Toole stated that he would seek to join the alliance if elected."

Biden is still in office, and it seems that the following Australian and UK governments have committed to the pact, not sure your theory holds.

Australia - https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-01-07/ ... /101834838 "Prime Minister Anthony Albanese 'very confident' AUKUS deal will benefit all three countries, despite concerns raised in US"[/i]

UK - https://www.gov.uk/government/news/pm-c ... tober-2022 The Free Trade Agreement, AUKUS and the UK’s potential accession to Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership were all examples of the strength of the relationship, the Prime Minister added.

Geomap

I stand corrected. I suspect that my memory of Morrison and Johnson's flailing failings clouded my recollection that Trump had already gone by time it was announced. I still don't see the strategic value of this narrow alliance, and the subs at the core seem to be an increasingly problematic issue.

Kent350787 wrote:

geomap wrote:

Kent350787 wrote:

AUKUS has always struck me as a neat announcable for the three flailing conservative leaders involved, two since voted out by the people and the other resigning in disgrace.

There is no good reason strategically why it shouldn’t be broader, but politics.

So AUKUS was negotiated and announced with the Biden administration in 2021. From Wipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AUKUS
"President Joe Biden stated that the deal was a way to "address both the current strategic environment in the (Indo-Pacific) region and how it may evolve".

As far as Canada is concerned - from the same link: "The deal was announced in the midst of the 2021 Canadian federal election. Opposition politicians quickly attacked Prime Minister Justin Trudeau over Canada's exclusion from the pact, to which Trudeau responded by stating that "This is a deal for nuclear submarines, which Canada is not currently or any time soon in the market for. Australia is." Leader of the Official Opposition Erin O'Toole stated that he would seek to join the alliance if elected."

Biden is still in office, and it seems that the following Australian and UK governments have committed to the pact, not sure your theory holds.

Australia - https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-01-07/ ... /101834838 "Prime Minister Anthony Albanese 'very confident' AUKUS deal will benefit all three countries, despite concerns raised in US"[/i]

UK - https://www.gov.uk/government/news/pm-c ... tober-2022 The Free Trade Agreement, AUKUS and the UK’s potential accession to Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership were all examples of the strength of the relationship, the Prime Minister added.

Geomap

I stand corrected. I suspect that my memory of Morrison and Johnson's flailing failings clouded my recollection that Trump had already gone by time it was announced. I still don't see the strategic value of this narrow alliance, and the subs at the core seem to be an increasingly problematic issue.

I think the media will always voice concerns about naval shipbuilding in Australia irrespective if its French US UK German or Japan

Building the boats are always going to run into problems even the US has its moments when things go wrong

stratable wrote:

Outside of nuclear subs, you are right, Canada is not necessarily on a spending spree LOL

Some nations joining pacts with the US is not always about spending your own money, but about getting a piece of the billions of dollars that the US intends to spend on their military, so if Canada has shipyards they can be offered up to assist the US Navy in their rebuilding plan, there is definitely a shortage of ship yards in the US for new builds and maintenance. So imagine once the Constellation frigate is finalized, Canada can assist there while also being involved with the UK frigate program which Australia is also a participant, imagine the funds, jobs and tech transfer that Canada can gain.

The problem is the Canadians decided that shipbuilding wasn't necessary for it's national defense. For a country with such a proud heritage of shipbuilding, they decided that they hardly needed a navy and that there was no need to protect domestic shipbuilders from overseas competition. I believe Canada has 4 yards left.

The Canadians removed the requirement that commercial vessels operating between Canadian ports be built in Canada. Now most of their large commercial vessels are built in China. Kind of ironic, no?

par13del wrote:

So imagine once the Constellation frigate is finalized, Canada can assist there while also being involved with the UK frigate program which Australia is also a participant, imagine the funds, jobs and tech transfer that Canada can gain.

The Constellation frigate is being built in Marinette, WI at the same, but enlarged yard that built some of the LCS. It is owned by Fincantieri, the Italian builder who also builds the FREMM, that it was derived from. If they need a second shipyard, HHI in Pascagoula, MS would be it. Canada will be too busy building their arctic patrol ships and Type 26 frigates.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

The problem is the Canadians decided that shipbuilding wasn't necessary for it's national defense. For a country with such a proud heritage of shipbuilding, they decided that they hardly needed a navy and that there was no need to protect domestic shipbuilders from overseas competition. I believe Canada has 4 yards left.

The Canadians removed the requirement that commercial vessels operating between Canadian ports be built in Canada. Now most of their large commercial vessels are built in China. Kind of ironic, no?

Commercial shipbuilding in the US isn't in great shape either. The US has one shipyard capable of building large vessels, Philly Shipyard, which is Norwegian owned, building ships in the US isn't cheap either.

China along with South Korea and Japan are the most efficient shipbuilders. I've been to most of the major Korean yards, the scale is unbelievable, there's nothing like it anywhere outside of the three countries I mentioned.

Kiwirob wrote:

MohawkWeekend wrote:

The problem is the Canadians decided that shipbuilding wasn't necessary for it's national defense. For a country with such a proud heritage of shipbuilding, they decided that they hardly needed a navy and that there was no need to protect domestic shipbuilders from overseas competition. I believe Canada has 4 yards left.

The Canadians removed the requirement that commercial vessels operating between Canadian ports be built in Canada. Now most of their large commercial vessels are built in China. Kind of ironic, no?

Commercial shipbuilding in the US isn't in great shape either. The US has one shipyard capable of building large vessels, Philly Shipyard, which is Norwegian owned, building ships in the US isn't cheap either.

China along with South Korea and Japan are the most efficient shipbuilders. I've been to most of the major Korean yards, the scale is unbelievable, there's nothing like it anywhere outside of the three countries I mentioned.

Not in great shape but it exists. NASSCO in San Diego can build large vessels over 50,000 DTW. There are numerous yards in the Gulf of Mexico and the Great Lakes that can build vessels up to 30,000 DTW. These are military useful sizes - modest sized container ships and Ro/Ro's. But even more important, they all maintain the ability and skill set to repair vessels and warships.

The Canadians let all that atrophy. And once those skills are gone, it takes a long time to reconstitute. AS COVID showed the world, relying on a potential enemy to supply you with critical supplies is really bad idea. FWIW, Norway at least maintained its impressive industrial base for building the high end parts of a ship. My last employer bought many Bergen (now RR) engines for it's freighters.

There are alot of "Free Market" folks who have argued that the US is stupid for maintaining (through the JONES ACT) a ship building and repair industry. They would rather outsource this critical defense capability to a country we may soon be at war with.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

MohawkWeekend wrote:

The problem is the Canadians decided that shipbuilding wasn't necessary for it's national defense. For a country with such a proud heritage of shipbuilding, they decided that they hardly needed a navy and that there was no need to protect domestic shipbuilders from overseas competition. I believe Canada has 4 yards left.

The Canadians removed the requirement that commercial vessels operating between Canadian ports be built in Canada. Now most of their large commercial vessels are built in China. Kind of ironic, no?

Commercial shipbuilding in the US isn't in great shape either. The US has one shipyard capable of building large vessels, Philly Shipyard, which is Norwegian owned, building ships in the US isn't cheap either.

China along with South Korea and Japan are the most efficient shipbuilders. I've been to most of the major Korean yards, the scale is unbelievable, there's nothing like it anywhere outside of the three countries I mentioned.

Not in great shape but it exists. NASSCO in San Diego can build large vessels over 50,000 DTW. There are numerous yards in the Gulf of Mexico and the Great Lakes that can build vessels up to 30,000 DTW. These are military useful sizes - modest sized container ships and Ro/Ro's. But even more important, they all maintain the ability and skill set to repair vessels and warships.

The Canadians let all that atrophy. And once those skills are gone, it takes a long time to reconstitute. AS COVID showed the world, relying on a potential enemy to supply you with critical supplies is really bad idea. FWIW, Norway at least maintained its impressive industrial base for building the high end parts of a ship. My last employer bought many Bergen (now RR) engines for it's freighters.

There are alot of "Free Market" folks who have argued that the US is stupid for maintaining (through the JONES ACT) a ship building and repair industry. They would rather outsource this critical defense capability to a country we may soon be at war with.

You don't have the skill set and technology to build vessels like LNG tankers.

There's only 1 shipyard in Norway who retains the ability to build a complete hull Ulstein, even they don't do it often, all the other yards outfit vessels with hulls built in Romaina or Poland. My previous employer is one of the largest suppliers of marine lighting, it has a factory in China and buys a lot of parts from Chinese suppliers. A lot of Norway's marine industrial base have production in China.

stratable wrote:

bikerthai wrote:

:scratchchin: If the scope of AUKUS is for nuclear and ultra highly secret technology like the B-21 or NGAD, then why would Canada need to join?

They surely don't have the budget for any of that.

bt

Hehe, we wanted nuclear subs before we got our current conventional ones, but the US refused to allow that for fears that Canada could become too independent minded and block the Artic.
I think this was not a matter of nuclear tech, Canada had and has that, it was around mutual defense agreements and the US having certain veto rights.
Canada claims the Artic waters along its coast belongs to Canada (the possible navigable passage is literally meters off the coast), while the US maintains it is essentially an international waterway.

I'd be interested to know if you have a source for that.
I haven't. But my memory of the Canadian Nuclear Subs bid is that it was scuppered by the end of the Cold War, rather than anything more overtly political.
But as I say, I can't evidence that.

Rgds

Kiwirob wrote:

MohawkWeekend wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

Commercial shipbuilding in the US isn't in great shape either. The US has one shipyard capable of building large vessels, Philly Shipyard, which is Norwegian owned, building ships in the US isn't cheap either.

China along with South Korea and Japan are the most efficient shipbuilders. I've been to most of the major Korean yards, the scale is unbelievable, there's nothing like it anywhere outside of the three countries I mentioned.

Not in great shape but it exists. NASSCO in San Diego can build large vessels over 50,000 DTW. There are numerous yards in the Gulf of Mexico and the Great Lakes that can build vessels up to 30,000 DTW. These are military useful sizes - modest sized container ships and Ro/Ro's. But even more important, they all maintain the ability and skill set to repair vessels and warships.

The Canadians let all that atrophy. And once those skills are gone, it takes a long time to reconstitute. AS COVID showed the world, relying on a potential enemy to supply you with critical supplies is really bad idea. FWIW, Norway at least maintained its impressive industrial base for building the high end parts of a ship. My last employer bought many Bergen (now RR) engines for it's freighters.

There are alot of "Free Market" folks who have argued that the US is stupid for maintaining (through the JONES ACT) a ship building and repair industry. They would rather outsource this critical defense capability to a country we may soon be at war with.

You don't have the skill set and technology to build vessels like LNG tankers.

There's only 1 shipyard in Norway who retains the ability to build a complete hull Ulstein, even they don't do it often, all the other yards outfit vessels with hulls built in Romaina or Poland. My previous employer is one of the largest suppliers of marine lighting, it has a factory in China and buys a lot of parts from Chinese suppliers. A lot of Norway's marine industrial base have production in China.

Considering the first LNG tanker in the world was built in a US yard in the fifties - it's not rocket science and it's not like building a CVN or a SSN. Every shipyard building warships could build (and have built) commercial ships sometime in the past. The US has the capability to build any vessel they want but it's not cost competitive.

Norway faced the same issue as the US - labor and other societal costs make competing with Asian yards and fab shops impossible for commercial projects. Unless you decide that it's critical to maintain that capability at home for security purposes.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

MohawkWeekend wrote:

Not in great shape but it exists. NASSCO in San Diego can build large vessels over 50,000 DTW. There are numerous yards in the Gulf of Mexico and the Great Lakes that can build vessels up to 30,000 DTW. These are military useful sizes - modest sized container ships and Ro/Ro's. But even more important, they all maintain the ability and skill set to repair vessels and warships.

The Canadians let all that atrophy. And once those skills are gone, it takes a long time to reconstitute. AS COVID showed the world, relying on a potential enemy to supply you with critical supplies is really bad idea. FWIW, Norway at least maintained its impressive industrial base for building the high end parts of a ship. My last employer bought many Bergen (now RR) engines for it's freighters.

There are alot of "Free Market" folks who have argued that the US is stupid for maintaining (through the JONES ACT) a ship building and repair industry. They would rather outsource this critical defense capability to a country we may soon be at war with.

You don't have the skill set and technology to build vessels like LNG tankers.

There's only 1 shipyard in Norway who retains the ability to build a complete hull Ulstein, even they don't do it often, all the other yards outfit vessels with hulls built in Romaina or Poland. My previous employer is one of the largest suppliers of marine lighting, it has a factory in China and buys a lot of parts from Chinese suppliers. A lot of Norway's marine industrial base have production in China.

Considering the first LNG tanker in the world was built in a US yard in the fifties - it's not rocket science and it's not like building a CVN or a SSN. Every shipyard building warships could build (and have built) commercial ships sometime in the past. The US has the capability to build any vessel they want but it's not cost competitive.

Norway faced the same issue as the US - labor and other societal costs make competing with Asian yards and fab shops impossible for commercial projects. Unless you decide that it's critical to maintain that capability at home for security purposes.

LNG tankers are the most difficult commercial vessel to built. The US does t have the ability to build them today.

Norway de industrialised on purpose. As the oil boom boomed Norwegian labour became more expensive, their competitive edge ie cheap labour had gone, the work force transitioned to the oil industry and deindustrialisation of non oil related sectors occurred.

My wife’s father went from seaman to shipyard worker when they started having children, then quickly back to working on supply boats when the incomes skyrocketed.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

MohawkWeekend wrote:

Not in great shape but it exists. NASSCO in San Diego can build large vessels over 50,000 DTW. There are numerous yards in the Gulf of Mexico and the Great Lakes that can build vessels up to 30,000 DTW. These are military useful sizes - modest sized container ships and Ro/Ro's. But even more important, they all maintain the ability and skill set to repair vessels and warships.

The Canadians let all that atrophy. And once those skills are gone, it takes a long time to reconstitute. AS COVID showed the world, relying on a potential enemy to supply you with critical supplies is really bad idea. FWIW, Norway at least maintained its impressive industrial base for building the high end parts of a ship. My last employer bought many Bergen (now RR) engines for it's freighters.

There are alot of "Free Market" folks who have argued that the US is stupid for maintaining (through the JONES ACT) a ship building and repair industry. They would rather outsource this critical defense capability to a country we may soon be at war with.

You don't have the skill set and technology to build vessels like LNG tankers.

There's only 1 shipyard in Norway who retains the ability to build a complete hull Ulstein, even they don't do it often, all the other yards outfit vessels with hulls built in Romaina or Poland. My previous employer is one of the largest suppliers of marine lighting, it has a factory in China and buys a lot of parts from Chinese suppliers. A lot of Norway's marine industrial base have production in China.

Considering the first LNG tanker in the world was built in a US yard in the fifties - it's not rocket science and it's not like building a CVN or a SSN. Every shipyard building warships could build (and have built) commercial ships sometime in the past. The US has the capability to build any vessel they want but it's not cost competitive.

Norway faced the same issue as the US - labor and other societal costs make competing with Asian yards and fab shops impossible for commercial projects. Unless you decide that it's critical to maintain that capability at home for security purposes.

Interesting. Guess where the worlds first purpose built LNG tanker was built .....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane_Princess



Rgds

GDB wrote:

astuteman wrote:

MohawkWeekend wrote:

Considering the first LNG tanker in the world was built in a US yard in the fifties - it's not rocket science and it's not like building a CVN or a SSN. Every shipyard building warships could build (and have built) commercial ships sometime in the past. The US has the capability to build any vessel they want but it's not cost competitive.

Norway faced the same issue as the US - labor and other societal costs make competing with Asian yards and fab shops impossible for commercial projects. Unless you decide that it's critical to maintain that capability at home for security purposes.

Interesting. Guess where the worlds first purpose built LNG tanker was built .....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane_Princess



Rgds

They are getting back in the shipbuilding business, part of a team but that's the way of things today;
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/belfast ... ort-ships/

LOL. I was actually talking about Barrow (then Vickers Armstrong), which was the lead yard and produced all the drawings....
as per this capacity plan..

https://prints.rmg.co.uk/products/capac ... 1964-m1442.

But yes, H+W are getting back into defence, after years of wind turbines for Dong

Rgds

astuteman wrote:

MohawkWeekend wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

You don't have the skill set and technology to build vessels like LNG tankers.

There's only 1 shipyard in Norway who retains the ability to build a complete hull Ulstein, even they don't do it often, all the other yards outfit vessels with hulls built in Romaina or Poland. My previous employer is one of the largest suppliers of marine lighting, it has a factory in China and buys a lot of parts from Chinese suppliers. A lot of Norway's marine industrial base have production in China.

Considering the first LNG tanker in the world was built in a US yard in the fifties - it's not rocket science and it's not like building a CVN or a SSN. Every shipyard building warships could build (and have built) commercial ships sometime in the past. The US has the capability to build any vessel they want but it's not cost competitive.

Norway faced the same issue as the US - labor and other societal costs make competing with Asian yards and fab shops impossible for commercial projects. Unless you decide that it's critical to maintain that capability at home for security purposes.

Interesting. Guess where the worlds first purpose built LNG tanker was built .....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane_Princess



Rgds

We all kind of went off on a tangent here - IMO too many countries failed to recognize that the ability to build and maintain military useful cargo ships (not LNG tankers) is critical to a nations security. That includes having enough of your own countrymen and women to crew those vessels in times of war.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

We all kind of went off on a tangent here - IMO too many countries failed to recognize that the ability to build and maintain military useful cargo ships (not LNG tankers) is critical to a nations security. That includes having enough of your own countrymen and women to crew those vessels in times of war.

At present it is more important to build vessels to make a profit versus defense of your country, Europe produces more naval vessels for sale they they use themselves, it is what it is, a business.

astuteman wrote:

GDB wrote:

astuteman wrote:

Interesting. Guess where the worlds first purpose built LNG tanker was built .....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane_Princess



Rgds

They are getting back in the shipbuilding business, part of a team but that's the way of things today;
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/belfast ... ort-ships/

LOL. I was actually talking about Barrow (then Vickers Armstrong), which was the lead yard and produced all the drawings....
as per this capacity plan..

https://prints.rmg.co.uk/products/capac ... 1964-m1442.

But yes, H+W are getting back into defence, after years of wind turbines for Dong

Rgds

It will be interesting to see how this goes, they haven’t built a ship since 2002. At least they have Navantia backing them. What will be interesting is after these 3 ships have been built will they have more projects to work on afterwards.

Kiwirob wrote:

astuteman wrote:

GDB wrote:

They are getting back in the shipbuilding business, part of a team but that's the way of things today;
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/belfast ... ort-ships/

LOL. I was actually talking about Barrow (then Vickers Armstrong), which was the lead yard and produced all the drawings....
as per this capacity plan..

https://prints.rmg.co.uk/products/capac ... 1964-m1442.

But yes, H+W are getting back into defence, after years of wind turbines for Dong

Rgds

It will be interesting to see how this goes, they haven’t built a ship since 2002. At least they have Navantia backing them. What will be interesting is after these 3 ships have been built will they have more projects to work on afterwards.

I would not count on Navantia as sources from the Hobart build indicate that Navantia wasthe source of many problems in the build running behind because of translation of documents into English and mixing up measurements

A101 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

astuteman wrote:

LOL. I was actually talking about Barrow (then Vickers Armstrong), which was the lead yard and produced all the drawings....
as per this capacity plan..

https://prints.rmg.co.uk/products/capac ... 1964-m1442.

But yes, H+W are getting back into defence, after years of wind turbines for Dong

Rgds

It will be interesting to see how this goes, they haven’t built a ship since 2002. At least they have Navantia backing them. What will be interesting is after these 3 ships have been built will they have more projects to work on afterwards.

I would not count on Navantia as sources from the Hobart build indicate that Navantia wasthe source of many problems in the build running behind because of translation of documents into English and mixing up measurements

How many ships had ASC built before building the Hobart’s? None is the answer. Were there any major problems with the Canberras? Or the Supply class tankers?

Kiwirob wrote:

A101 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

It will be interesting to see how this goes, they haven’t built a ship since 2002. At least they have Navantia backing them. What will be interesting is after these 3 ships have been built will they have more projects to work on afterwards.

I would not count on Navantia as sources from the Hobart build indicate that Navantia wasthe source of many problems in the build running behind because of translation of documents into English and mixing up measurements

How many ships had ASC built before building the Hobart’s? None is the answer. Were there any major problems with the Canberras? Or the Supply class tankers?

Yes I agree it was a new consortium not done beforewhere there was only one prime contractor then farming out the work, but what I said still stands in regards to the detailed drawings from Navantia. I also agree not everything was the fault of Navantia, but because they were not actually part of the consortium they escaped the blow back

21. Despite the contractual arrangements put in place to manage the project, the AWD Program has experienced a range of delivery issues, including significant immaturity in detailed design documentation, major block construction problems and substantially lower than anticipated construction productivity. The design and construction issues have led to extensive, time-consuming and costly rework.

Immaturity in the detailed design documentation provided by Navantia, predominantly associated with drawing errors or omissions, contract amendments and late Vendor Furnished Information.23 The volume and timing of design change have been significant, at times saturating the Alliance’s engineering and planning departments, resulting in late releases of design drawings to ship production. There has been an average of 2.75 revisions per drawing (as at March 2013), and revised drawings were still being provided in late 2013. This process has led to costly and out-of-sequence rework in cases where construction work already undertaken no longer matched the design.2

https://www.anao.gov.au/work/performanc ... er-program


As to the Canberra LHD and Supply class they to had their problems and needed rectify as they didn’t pass surveys

Remember Canberra had approx 14000 defects, both minor and major

“The most serious problems, including electrical failures, leaking seals, unaligned pods and corrosion in propellers”

https://www.anao.gov.au/work/performanc ... isitions-0

A101 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

A101 wrote:

I would not count on Navantia as sources from the Hobart build indicate that Navantia wasthe source of many problems in the build running behind because of translation of documents into English and mixing up measurements

How many ships had ASC built before building the Hobart’s? None is the answer. Were there any major problems with the Canberras? Or the Supply class tankers?

Yes I agree it was a new consortium not done beforewhere there was only one prime contractor then farming out the work, but what I said still stands in regards to the detailed drawings from Navantia. I also agree not everything was the fault of Navantia, but because they were not actually part of the consortium they escaped the blow back

21. Despite the contractual arrangements put in place to manage the project, the AWD Program has experienced a range of delivery issues, including significant immaturity in detailed design documentation, major block construction problems and substantially lower than anticipated construction productivity. The design and construction issues have led to extensive, time-consuming and costly rework.

Immaturity in the detailed design documentation provided by Navantia, predominantly associated with drawing errors or omissions, contract amendments and late Vendor Furnished Information.23 The volume and timing of design change have been significant, at times saturating the Alliance’s engineering and planning departments, resulting in late releases of design drawings to ship production. There has been an average of 2.75 revisions per drawing (as at March 2013), and revised drawings were still being provided in late 2013. This process has led to costly and out-of-sequence rework in cases where construction work already undertaken no longer matched the design.2

https://www.anao.gov.au/work/performanc ... er-program


As to the Canberra LHD and Supply class they to had their problems and needed rectify as they didn’t pass surveys

Remember Canberra had approx 14000 defects, both minor and major

“The most serious problems, including electrical failures, leaking seals, unaligned pods and corrosion in propellers”

https://www.anao.gov.au/work/performanc ... isitions-0

I doubt a vessel has ever been launched that hasn't had defects. The vast majority of those defects will be something silly like scratched paint or a missing screw.

Kiwirob wrote:

A101 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

How many ships had ASC built before building the Hobart’s? None is the answer. Were there any major problems with the Canberras? Or the Supply class tankers?

Yes I agree it was a new consortium not done beforewhere there was only one prime contractor then farming out the work, but what I said still stands in regards to the detailed drawings from Navantia. I also agree not everything was the fault of Navantia, but because they were not actually part of the consortium they escaped the blow back

21. Despite the contractual arrangements put in place to manage the project, the AWD Program has experienced a range of delivery issues, including significant immaturity in detailed design documentation, major block construction problems and substantially lower than anticipated construction productivity. The design and construction issues have led to extensive, time-consuming and costly rework.

Immaturity in the detailed design documentation provided by Navantia, predominantly associated with drawing errors or omissions, contract amendments and late Vendor Furnished Information.23 The volume and timing of design change have been significant, at times saturating the Alliance’s engineering and planning departments, resulting in late releases of design drawings to ship production. There has been an average of 2.75 revisions per drawing (as at March 2013), and revised drawings were still being provided in late 2013. This process has led to costly and out-of-sequence rework in cases where construction work already undertaken no longer matched the design.2

https://www.anao.gov.au/work/performanc ... er-program


As to the Canberra LHD and Supply class they to had their problems and needed rectify as they didn’t pass surveys

Remember Canberra had approx 14000 defects, both minor and major

“The most serious problems, including electrical failures, leaking seals, unaligned pods and corrosion in propellers”

https://www.anao.gov.au/work/performanc ... isitions-0

I doubt a vessel has ever been launched that hasn't had defects. The vast majority of those defects will be something silly like scratched paint or a missing screw.

I did say both MINOR and MAJOR defects.

You inferred that because they had the backing of Navantia because they had not built a ship since 2002 all should be good, to which I pointed out that they too are not immune from making mistakes as I pointed out from design documentation not being up to scratch for the Hobart class which have a knock-on effect to the whole build.

I also would not describe the problems with the Navantia built S-80 submarines minor either. missing a crucial design flaw that had a major impact the submarine would not resurface if launched as designed, hence the S-80 plus designation with a 10m plug for

Everyone makes mistakes that how people learn from them but unfortunately those who make decisions (politicians) never seem to learn of past mistakes because of the need to chase votes hence Australia boom bust cycle of naval shipbuilding.

A101 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

A101 wrote:

Yes I agree it was a new consortium not done beforewhere there was only one prime contractor then farming out the work, but what I said still stands in regards to the detailed drawings from Navantia. I also agree not everything was the fault of Navantia, but because they were not actually part of the consortium they escaped the blow back






https://www.anao.gov.au/work/performanc ... er-program


As to the Canberra LHD and Supply class they to had their problems and needed rectify as they didn’t pass surveys

Remember Canberra had approx 14000 defects, both minor and major

“The most serious problems, including electrical failures, leaking seals, unaligned pods and corrosion in propellers”

https://www.anao.gov.au/work/performanc ... isitions-0

I doubt a vessel has ever been launched that hasn't had defects. The vast majority of those defects will be something silly like scratched paint or a missing screw.

I did say both MINOR and MAJOR defects.

You inferred that because they had the backing of Navantia because they had not built a ship since 2002 all should be good, to which I pointed out that they too are not immune from making mistakes as I pointed out from design documentation not being up to scratch for the Hobart class which have a knock-on effect to the whole build.

I also would not describe the problems with the Navantia built S-80 submarines minor either. missing a crucial design flaw that had a major impact the submarine would not resurface if launched as designed, hence the S-80 plus designation with a 10m plug for

Everyone makes mistakes that how people learn from them but unfortunately those who make decisions (politicians) never seem to learn of past mistakes because of the need to chase votes hence Australia boom bust cycle of naval shipbuilding.

I doubt there's a single person at H&W who was there the last time they built a ship all the way back in 2002, and I'll leave it at that.

Kiwirob wrote:

A101 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

I doubt a vessel has ever been launched that hasn't had defects. The vast majority of those defects will be something silly like scratched paint or a missing screw.

I did say both MINOR and MAJOR defects.

You inferred that because they had the backing of Navantia because they had not built a ship since 2002 all should be good, to which I pointed out that they too are not immune from making mistakes as I pointed out from design documentation not being up to scratch for the Hobart class which have a knock-on effect to the whole build.

I also would not describe the problems with the Navantia built S-80 submarines minor either. missing a crucial design flaw that had a major impact the submarine would not resurface if launched as designed, hence the S-80 plus designation with a 10m plug for

Everyone makes mistakes that how people learn from them but unfortunately those who make decisions (politicians) never seem to learn of past mistakes because of the need to chase votes hence Australia boom bust cycle of naval shipbuilding.

I doubt there's a single person at H&W who was there the last time they built a ship all the way back in 2002, and I'll leave it at that.

So?

You don't think H&W trained anyone after the last ship was built?

Civil engineering trades are dual use, and you would most likely find a couple that have moved off the tools and into management as well

A101 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

A101 wrote:

I did say both MINOR and MAJOR defects.

You inferred that because they had the backing of Navantia because they had not built a ship since 2002 all should be good, to which I pointed out that they too are not immune from making mistakes as I pointed out from design documentation not being up to scratch for the Hobart class which have a knock-on effect to the whole build.

I also would not describe the problems with the Navantia built S-80 submarines minor either. missing a crucial design flaw that had a major impact the submarine would not resurface if launched as designed, hence the S-80 plus designation with a 10m plug for

Everyone makes mistakes that how people learn from them but unfortunately those who make decisions (politicians) never seem to learn of past mistakes because of the need to chase votes hence Australia boom bust cycle of naval shipbuilding.

I doubt there's a single person at H&W who was there the last time they built a ship all the way back in 2002, and I'll leave it at that.

So?

You don't think H&W trained anyone after the last ship was built?

Civil engineering trades are dual use, and you would most likely find a couple that have moved off the tools and into management as well

No they probably didn’t. That yards been been up and down more times than Megan on Harry, I would put money on it that there’s nobody left working there that build the two point class ro-ro’s. Cammell Laird had the same problem when they built Sir Richard Attenbourgh, they hadn’t built a ship in a couple of decades, they had to use a Norwegian company to design and install the electrical systems because there was nobody left with the experience to do it in the UK, then there’s the mess going on in Port Glasgow called Fergusons Marine trying to build two small ferries for CalMac, they’re years late and £300m over budget. They screwed up so badly that the next 4 vessels for CalMac are contracted to Cemre Shipyard in Turkey. Ferguson also has to call i Norwegians to design and install the electrical systems on these vessels as well.

Kiwirob wrote:

A101 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

I doubt there's a single person at H&W who was there the last time they built a ship all the way back in 2002, and I'll leave it at that.

So?

You don't think H&W trained anyone after the last ship was built?

Civil engineering trades are dual use, and you would most likely find a couple that have moved off the tools and into management as well

No they probably didn’t. That yards been been up and down more times than Megan on Harry, I would put money on it that there’s nobody left working there that build the two point class ro-ro’s. Cammell Laird had the same problem when they built Sir Richard Attenbourgh, they hadn’t built a ship in a couple of decades, they had to use a Norwegian company to design and install the electrical systems because there was nobody left with the experience to do it in the UK.

Thats is not unusual to subcontract out specialist parts of the build which would have gone out to tender and that would have been part of the shipbuilding plan when they submitted their details for tender to BAS.

If I remember correctly, you have been saying for a few years now you are involved with suppling electrical fitting for the marine industry something you would have known that to be the case

Kiwirob wrote:

then there’s the mess going on in Port Glasgow called Fergusons Marine trying to build two small ferries for CalMac, they’re years late and £300m over budget. They screwed up so badly that the next 4 vessels for CalMac are contracted to Cemre Shipyard in Turkey. Ferguson also has to call i Norwegians to design and install the electrical systems on these vessels as well.

Why are you moving off from Navantia to highlight what I said before.......everyone makes mistakes and Fergusons Marine is no different.

But you did not go into detail on why Fergusons build derailed which was management moving away from the agreed shipbuilding plan that was in place and no provisions with the contract for CMAL to be cancelled when they moved away from the signed off shipbuilding plan.

https://www.scotsman.com/news/transport ... ns-2446702

A101 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

A101 wrote:

So?

You don't think H&W trained anyone after the last ship was built?

Civil engineering trades are dual use, and you would most likely find a couple that have moved off the tools and into management as well

No they probably didn’t. That yards been been up and down more times than Megan on Harry, I would put money on it that there’s nobody left working there that build the two point class ro-ro’s. Cammell Laird had the same problem when they built Sir Richard Attenbourgh, they hadn’t built a ship in a couple of decades, they had to use a Norwegian company to design and install the electrical systems because there was nobody left with the experience to do it in the UK.

Thats is not unusual to subcontract out specialist parts of the build which would have gone out to tender and that would have been part of the shipbuilding plan when they submitted their details for tender to BAS.

If I remember correctly, you have been saying for a few years now you are involved with suppling electrical fitting for the marine industry something you would have known that to be the case

That flew over your head didn't it, the issue is those trades don't exist in the UK any longer, or at least to the extent that nthey can design and install a complete electrical sysatem on a ship this size.

Kiwirob wrote:

then there’s the mess going on in Port Glasgow called Fergusons Marine trying to build two small ferries for CalMac, they’re years late and £300m over budget. They screwed up so badly that the next 4 vessels for CalMac are contracted to Cemre Shipyard in Turkey. Ferguson also has to call i Norwegians to design and install the electrical systems on these vessels as well.

Why are you moving off from Navantia to highlight what I said before.......everyone makes mistakes and Fergusons Marine is no different.

But you did not go into detail on why Fergusons build derailed which was management moving away from the agreed shipbuilding plan that was in place and no provisions with the contract for CMAL to be cancelled when they moved away from the signed off shipbuilding plan.

https://www.scotsman.com/news/transport ... ns-2446702[/quote]

Again it comes to a complete lack of experience, the competence doesn't exist anymore in the UK. Which highlights you saying Navantia could be a problem but in reality if there is a problem it's more likely to come from the UK side of the build.

How does a pair of vessels which were contracted for £97m blow out to £350m and 5 years late, its more than just changing the build program its a complete lack of competence in every area.

https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/ ... s-28706464

This reminds me of the Project America cruise vessels.

Kiwirob wrote:

A101 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

No they probably didn’t. That yards been been up and down more times than Megan on Harry, I would put money on it that there’s nobody left working there that build the two point class ro-ro’s. Cammell Laird had the same problem when they built Sir Richard Attenbourgh, they hadn’t built a ship in a couple of decades, they had to use a Norwegian company to design and install the electrical systems because there was nobody left with the experience to do it in the UK.

Thats is not unusual to subcontract out specialist parts of the build which would have gone out to tender and that would have been part of the shipbuilding plan when they submitted their details for tender to BAS.

If I remember correctly, you have been saying for a few years now you are involved with suppling electrical fitting for the marine industry something you would have known that to be the case

That flew over your head didn't it, the issue is those trades don't exist in the UK any longer, or at least to the extent that nthey can design and install a complete electrical sysatem on a ship this size.

Really BAE would most likely take umbrage at that, along with Rolls Royce even those who work for Kongsberg in the UK

Kiwirob wrote:

A101 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

then there’s the mess going on in Port Glasgow called Fergusons Marine trying to build two small ferries for CalMac, they’re years late and £300m over budget. They screwed up so badly that the next 4 vessels for CalMac are contracted to Cemre Shipyard in Turkey. Ferguson also has to call i Norwegians to design and install the electrical systems on these vessels as well.

Why are you moving off from Navantia to highlight what I said before.......everyone makes mistakes and Fergusons Marine is no different.

But you did not go into detail on why Fergusons build derailed which was management moving away from the agreed shipbuilding plan that was in place and no provisions with the contract for CMAL to be cancelled when they moved away from the signed off shipbuilding plan.

https://www.scotsman.com/news/transport ... ns-2446702

Again it comes to a complete lack of experience, the competence doesn't exist anymore in the UK. Which highlights you saying Navantia could be a problem but in reality if there is a problem it's more likely to come from the UK side of the build.

How does a pair of vessels which were contracted for £97m blow out to £350m and 5 years late, its more than just changing the build program its a complete lack of competence in every area.

https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/ ... s-28706464

This reminds me of the Project America cruise vessels.

And what makes you think Harland and Wolff will have the same problems as Ferguson-marine?

Ferguson-marine management deliberately moved away from the agreed shipbuilding plan why who knows except for those who made the decision.

Just like the shipbuilders in Australia were following Navantia design drawings, which contained errors and omissions those on the tools can't be held responsible for that they are building to print.

Kiwirob wrote:

That flew over your head didn't it, the issue is those trades don't exist in the UK any longer, or at least to the extent that they can design and install a complete electrical system on a ship this size.

For what its worth, that statement is factually incorrect, as the QEC carriers, T45 and T26 surface ships, and Astute and Dreadnought Submarines demonstrate ....

In the context of AUKUS, it might be worth noting that the Hunter Class Frigates being built in Australia are also part of a class that appears in the list above, and are being constructed at an Australian shipyard that belongs to a UK shipbuilding firm....

Rgds

astuteman wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

That flew over your head didn't it, the issue is those trades don't exist in the UK any longer, or at least to the extent that they can design and install a complete electrical system on a ship this size.

For what its worth, that statement is factually incorrect, as the QEC carriers, T45 and T26 surface ships, and Astute and Dreadnought Submarines demonstrate ....

In the context of AUKUS, it might be worth noting that the Hunter Class Frigates being built in Australia are also part of a class that appears in the list above, and are being constructed at an Australian shipyard that belongs to a UK shipbuilding firm....

Rgds

In the commercial world those trades don't exist. Those are military projects. The RFA vessels are more akin to commercial vessels and built to commercial vessels standards.

When it comes to commercial shipbuilding in the UK a lot of the trades that are needed don't exist or are so run down they don't have the people anymore. Hence the reason the electrical design and instillation for the last two major commercial projects in the UK were contracted out to Norwegian companies. It's why the govt set up this https://www.gov.uk/government/groups/uk ... orce-uksst

Type 26 is a good example, when you look at the supplier list a lot of the companies supplying products aren't based in the UK.

https://www.naval-technology.com/projec ... programme/

Australian, Canadian and UK Type 26's are same same but different. For example something that you would think would have been easy to standardise like ships lighting will be supplied by different vendors for each nation.

AUUKUS needs Canada in their corner. Remembering how Canada's geography gonna play a big part in their success.

The Conservatives in Canada loves Putin too much to do anything about any defence pact. Trudeau might be a slow learner, but he is a better bet than the rest of them.

CAAUUKUS sounds better.

ewt340 wrote:

The Conservatives in Canada loves Putin too much to do anything about any defence pact.

All 2 or 3 of them?

Kiwirob wrote:

Type 26 is a good example, when you look at the supplier list a lot of the companies supplying products aren't based in the UK.

https://www.naval-technology.com/projec ... programme/

Australian, Canadian and UK Type 26's are same same but different. For example something that you would think would have been easy to standardise like ships lighting will be supplied by different vendors for each nation.

Have you never heard of offset contracts?
A large Programme like Hunter doesn't go abroad these days without a large amount of the work being transferred into the receiving countries industries .....

Just because different vendors are undertaking the work doesn't mean the design is not standardised.
By definition, Type 26 came out of the GCS Programme, with G standing for Global..

Offsetting will be the biggest conversation piece in any AUKUS discussions

Rgds

Australia prepares to unveil AUKUS nuclear submarine plans in the United States

https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australi ... r-AA171s0n

Anthony Albanese is expected to detail Australia's preferred nuclear submarine option on American soil next month, alongside US President Joe Biden and his British counterpart Rishi Sunak – raising the prospect of a potential new boat design involving all three allies.

Interesting if they combine the RN/US programs together if it happens. makes sense to share costs. But the timeline doesn't really match the RN with SSN(X)

But a flight II of Astute would for the RN/RAN

A101 wrote:

Australia prepares to unveil AUKUS nuclear submarine plans in the United States

https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australi ... r-AA171s0n

Anthony Albanese is expected to detail Australia's preferred nuclear submarine option on American soil next month, alongside US President Joe Biden and his British counterpart Rishi Sunak – raising the prospect of a potential new boat design involving all three allies.

Interesting if they combine the RN/US programs together if it happens. makes sense to share costs. But the timeline doesn't really match the RN with SSN(X)

But a flight II of Astute would for the RN/RAN

My bet is that they will all go in on a new design and that in the interim Australia will lease/purchase Los Angeles Class SSN to both fill the gap and to get up to speed on nuclear boats prior to getting their own brand new ones.

Zkpilot wrote:

My bet is that they will all go in on a new design and that in the interim Australia will lease/purchase Los Angeles Class SSN to both fill the gap and to get up to speed on nuclear boats prior to getting their own brand new ones.

While I agree that leasing boats is a good idea, coming up with your own design isn't. They're going to have enough trouble building the industry from scratch without a new design. They should choose either a US or UK design and get technology transfers.

johns624 wrote:

Zkpilot wrote:

My bet is that they will all go in on a new design and that in the interim Australia will lease/purchase Los Angeles Class SSN to both fill the gap and to get up to speed on nuclear boats prior to getting their own brand new ones.

While I agree that leasing boats is a good idea, coming up with your own design isn't. They're going to have enough trouble building the industry from scratch without a new design. They should choose either a US or UK design and get technology transfers.

That’s the catch for Astute the PWR2 reactors are out of production and PWR3 apprantly does not fit and needs a redesign to fit it.

Dreadnought Beam 12.8m

Astute Beam 11.3m

johns624 wrote:

Zkpilot wrote:

My bet is that they will all go in on a new design and that in the interim Australia will lease/purchase Los Angeles Class SSN to both fill the gap and to get up to speed on nuclear boats prior to getting their own brand new ones.

While I agree that leasing boats is a good idea, coming up with your own design isn't. They're going to have enough trouble building the industry from scratch without a new design. They should choose either a US or UK design and get technology transfers.

It’s not really Australia designing the new SSN per se, it’s the US and UK jointly designing their next boats which Australia will help to build (potentially not the previous complete build - perhaps building components/sections- like how aircraft are often built by different companies in different countries).

Zkpilot wrote:

A101 wrote:

Australia prepares to unveil AUKUS nuclear submarine plans in the United States

https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australi ... r-AA171s0n

Anthony Albanese is expected to detail Australia's preferred nuclear submarine option on American soil next month, alongside US President Joe Biden and his British counterpart Rishi Sunak – raising the prospect of a potential new boat design involving all three allies.

Interesting if they combine the RN/US programs together if it happens. makes sense to share costs. But the timeline doesn't really match the RN with SSN(X)

But a flight II of Astute would for the RN/RAN

My bet is that they will all go in on a new design and that in the interim Australia will lease/purchase Los Angeles Class SSN to both fill the gap and to get up to speed on nuclear boats prior to getting their own brand new ones.

What benefit would there be for the UK to give up it's ability to design a nuclear submarine to build a US design, because that's what it will be a US design. Besides they've already started on SSN(X) which will be based off the Dreadnaught design.

Buying LA class SSN's would be like ordering a new 911 GT3 but taking delivery of a 1970's 911 RS while waiting.

Zkpilot wrote:

johns624 wrote:

Zkpilot wrote:

My bet is that they will all go in on a new design and that in the interim Australia will lease/purchase Los Angeles Class SSN to both fill the gap and to get up to speed on nuclear boats prior to getting their own brand new ones.

While I agree that leasing boats is a good idea, coming up with your own design isn't. They're going to have enough trouble building the industry from scratch without a new design. They should choose either a US or UK design and get technology transfers.

It’s not really Australia designing the new SSN per se, it’s the US and UK jointly designing their next boats which Australia will help to build (potentially not the previous complete build - perhaps building components/sections- like how aircraft are often built by different companies in different countries).

Okay, I misunderstood what you were saying.

Kiwirob wrote:

Buying LA class SSN's would be like ordering a new 911 GT3 but taking delivery of a 1970's 911 RS while waiting.

...so preferable to wait 10 years or so for your modern boat, then another 2 years learning to operate it versus learning to drive on the 1970's 911 RS.
Ok, cool.

A101 wrote:

Australia prepares to unveil AUKUS nuclear submarine plans in the United States

https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australi ... r-AA171s0n

Anthony Albanese is expected to detail Australia's preferred nuclear submarine option on American soil next month, alongside US President Joe Biden and his British counterpart Rishi Sunak – raising the prospect of a potential new boat design involving all three allies.

Interesting if they combine the RN/US programs together if it happens. makes sense to share costs. But the timeline doesn't really match the RN with SSN(X)

But a flight II of Astute would for the RN/RAN

Don't see an all new common SSN happening, myself.

But I could easily see systems, part systems or components being standardised between the two.
Don't forget that a lot of decisions are likely to be driven by the industrial offset needs between the 3 nations to ensure an "equitable deal" ...

Rgds