astuteman 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

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

Reactor and weapon commonality would be nice.

johns624 wrote:

astuteman 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



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

Reactor and weapon commonality would be nice.

Between the UK and the US I think you can forget those two, reactor and weapon tech is critical so, that local industry has to be maintained. Not to throw shade, but consider how long US subs operated in WWII with faulty torpedoes, the problem was never the actual torpedo being faulty, but the politics around accepting that it was faulty, approving the fix, then resolving production. Now imagine that political situation involving 2 or possibly 3 countries....before you even get to the various military leaders.

johns624 wrote:

astuteman 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



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

Reactor and weapon commonality would be nice.

Pretty sure both US and UK use Tomahawk (and the SSBN's both use Trident 2 of course)

Common reactor?
Not happening, for a whole host of reasons ....
IMO...

Rgds

astuteman wrote:

johns624 wrote:

astuteman wrote:

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

Reactor and weapon commonality would be nice.

Pretty sure both US and UK use Tomahawk (and the SSBN's both use Trident 2 of course)

Common reactor?
Not happening, for a whole host of reasons ....
IMO...

Rgds

UK late last year ordered a further batch of Tomahawks, first used by the RN in the 1999 operation in Kosovo.
From a S Class SSN.
Another block of the latest version, which added, or rather in a modernized way, returns an anti ship capability to add to the land attack role, would be useful for both the subs and from the MK.41 VLS on Type 26.
(We are likely to eventually increase the recent order for (and now being fitted to a Type 23), Naval Strike Missiles, for the Type 26’s and the Type 31’s too).

Kiwirob wrote:

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



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.

Who said they would be giving up their design ability? They’d be working alongside the US.
The LA class that they would be getting would be 80’s if not 90’s vintage which have been considerably improved over the original boats. They don’t really have many options here as the Collins aren’t up to the task and they need to get up to speed on SSNs, getting a few LA class as a stopgap would work quite well.

Zkpilot wrote:

Kiwirob 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.

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.

Who said they would be giving up their design ability? They’d be working alongside the US.
The LA class that they would be getting would be 80’s if not 90’s vintage which have been considerably improved over the original boats. They don’t really have many options here as the Collins aren’t up to the task and they need to get up to speed on SSNs, getting a few LA class as a stopgap would work quite well.

It would be a US led design, the UK would be a minor partner, which really would be the death knell for submarine design in the UK.

Kiwirob wrote:

It would be a US led design, the UK would be a minor partner, which really would be the death knell for submarine design in the UK.

With every class of SSNs getting smaller, due to cost, is it really economically viable for each country to have their own, bespoke design. I know the French will stay separate, but do other countries need to? As long as production is divvied up to the respective countries industry.

Zkpilot you say that Australia has no choice but to get LA class subs, personally I'm not convinced you need them in anticipation of subs you'll get in 20 years or never, adapting to new ships is a normal process and will have to happen anyway as many systems will be completely different.

But more importantly I'm not convinced it's an actual option, has Australia requested such subs ? Can it afford them ? Has the US offered them ? I know some politicians have said the US has nothing to spare.

Aesma wrote:

Zkpilot you say that Australia has no choice but to get LA class subs, personally I'm not convinced you need them in anticipation of subs you'll get in 20 years or never, adapting to new ships is a normal process and will have to happen anyway as many systems will be completely different.

But more importantly I'm not convinced it's an actual option, has Australia requested such subs ? Can it afford them ? Has the US offered them ? I know some politicians have said the US has nothing to spare.

The Collins subs are not up to the task anymore which is why a replacement is needed. They can’t get a SSN new boat out of either the US or UK in the short-medium term due to those capacity constraints you mention.
The reason why the LA class is an option is that the USN is retiring them. They have had long lives, but that doesn’t mean they “have” to be scrapped, it’s just economic for the USN to do so. They’re still a better boat than a Collins and as mentioned can get Australia into the nuclear game.
Keep in mind that scraping a SSN costs a ton of money so if the USN can defer doing so and earn some $$ in the process by leasing them then that’s a win-win situation.

johns624 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

It would be a US led design, the UK would be a minor partner, which really would be the death knell for submarine design in the UK.

With every class of SSNs getting smaller, due to cost, is it really economically viable for each country to have their own, bespoke design. I know the French will stay separate, but do other countries need to? As long as production is divvied up to the respective countries industry.

Post heavily edited - I misinterpreted your comment.

I assume you meant "smaller" as in numbers of boats, not "smaller" as in size.

I guess it remains to be seen whether the end of the cold War that we have now seen up-ends that trend ....

Rgds

astuteman wrote:

johns624 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

It would be a US led design, the UK would be a minor partner, which really would be the death knell for submarine design in the UK.

With every class of SSNs getting smaller, due to cost, is it really economically viable for each country to have their own, bespoke design. I know the French will stay separate, but do other countries need to? As long as production is divvied up to the respective countries industry.

Sorry, but a little bit of research shows that exactly the opposite is happening, as far as I can see.
Every new class of SSN's gets bigger, not smaller.

HMS Dreadnought .... 4,000 tonnes submerged

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Dreadnought_(S101)

Swiftsure Class .... 4,900 tonnes submerged

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiftsure-class_submarine

Trafalgar Class ..... 5,300 tonnes submerged

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trafalgar-class_submarine

Astute Class .... 7,300 tonnes submerged

If I do the same for US SSN's ...
(Sources are Wiki pages as for UK SSN's)

Skipjack Class ....... 3, 500 tonnes submerged
Los Angeles Class .....7, 000 tonnes submerged
Virginia Class (block 1-4) ....7,900 tonnes submerged
Virginia Class (Block V) ....10,200 tonnes submerged

Do you want to make any bets which size direction SSNR and SSNX will go?

Rgds

He’s referring to the numbers being built not the displacement of the vessels.

Kiwirob wrote:

astuteman wrote:

johns624 wrote:

With every class of SSNs getting smaller, due to cost, is it really economically viable for each country to have their own, bespoke design. I know the French will stay separate, but do other countries need to? As long as production is divvied up to the respective countries industry.

Sorry, but a little bit of research shows that exactly the opposite is happening, as far as I can see.
Every new class of SSN's gets bigger, not smaller.

HMS Dreadnought .... 4,000 tonnes submerged

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Dreadnought_(S101)

Swiftsure Class .... 4,900 tonnes submerged

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiftsure-class_submarine

Trafalgar Class ..... 5,300 tonnes submerged

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trafalgar-class_submarine

Astute Class .... 7,300 tonnes submerged

If I do the same for US SSN's ...
(Sources are Wiki pages as for UK SSN's)

Skipjack Class ....... 3, 500 tonnes submerged
Los Angeles Class .....7, 000 tonnes submerged
Virginia Class (block 1-4) ....7,900 tonnes submerged
Virginia Class (Block V) ....10,200 tonnes submerged

Do you want to make any bets which size direction SSNR and SSNX will go?

Rgds

He’s referring to the numbers being built not the displacement of the vessels.

Yeah. I did work that out.
You beat me as I was editing my post ...

Rgds

So, astuteman and Kiwirob, do you agree with me?

Looks like there are strong hints that AUKUS may become a three way design. This may not make sense for the US on the surface, but understand they have budgetary restraints at the moment which would make this advantageous, as it would keep the design timeline shorter. My personal take is that they could make a modular design. Shared cross section, reactor, VLS, open architecture software etc. the US design can be the larger and other versions for UK/ AUS. Know they UK traditionally likes hull mounted hydroplanes etc, and keep other UK specifics and smaller crew

https://amp.abc.net.au/article/101931608

Australia does a lot of mining. It seems to me an adjunct to that is the high end/high tech refining. That alone would be an outstanding contribution to the alliance. There are a number of metals which are in short supply. I think Australian mines have most of them.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

Australia does a lot of mining. It seems to me an adjunct to that is the high end/high tech refining. That alone would be an outstanding contribution to the alliance. There are a number of metals which are in short supply. I think Australian mines have most of them.

I believe most of their mining is shipped as ore. At least the iron mines.

johns624 wrote:

So, astuteman and Kiwirob, do you agree with me?

with some exceptions (the Japanese) I tend to agree.

johns624 wrote:

frmrCapCadet wrote:

Australia does a lot of mining. It seems to me an adjunct to that is the high end/high tech refining. That alone would be an outstanding contribution to the alliance. There are a number of metals which are in short supply. I think Australian mines have most of them.

I believe most of their mining is shipped as ore. At least the iron mines.

Hence an opportunity for Australia. Room here for some governmental industrial policy.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

johns624 wrote:

frmrCapCadet wrote:

Australia does a lot of mining. It seems to me an adjunct to that is the high end/high tech refining. That alone would be an outstanding contribution to the alliance. There are a number of metals which are in short supply. I think Australian mines have most of them.

I believe most of their mining is shipped as ore. At least the iron mines.

Hence an opportunity for Australia. Room here for some governmental industrial policy.

Processing iron ore has gotten a lot eco-friendlier. Cleveland Cliffs just built a new facility in Toledo, OH that uses natural gas insted of coke as fuel. It turns out HBI--hot briquetted iron.
https://www.midrex.com/tech-article/hot ... %29%20Code
https://www.clevelandcliffs.com/operati ... o-dr-plant

giblets wrote:

Looks like there are strong hints that AUKUS may become a three way design. This may not make sense for the US on the surface, but understand they have budgetary restraints at the moment which would make this advantageous, as it would keep the design timeline shorter. My personal take is that they could make a modular design. Shared cross section, reactor, VLS, open architecture software etc. the US design can be the larger and other versions for UK/ AUS. Know they UK traditionally likes hull mounted hydroplanes etc, and keep other UK specifics and smaller crew

https://amp.abc.net.au/article/101931608

This approach has worked well for the F-35...or maybe not. A400M, not so great either.

Good luck.

It seems like it's going to work well for the Type 26 frigates, also.

The deals been announced, the UK will supply the Aussies.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/21356516/ ... australia/

Kiwirob wrote:

The deals been announced, the UK will supply the Aussies.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/21356516/ ... australia/

In the first few lines I read "in principle" and "could". It's the Sun. I will wait for more reliable confirmation before I celebrate.

journeyperson wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

The deals been announced, the UK will supply the Aussies.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/21356516/ ... australia/

In the first few lines I read "in principle" and "could". It's the Sun. I will wait for more reliable confirmation before I celebrate.

Me too. An Astute ‘batch 2’ with systems optimized for the RAN could be short term but there are those, including on here with much better knowledge of dockyard availability and related issues.
Like the idea of Typhoons to Ukraine, we ain’t really got enough SSNs for our own use and of course contingencies.

Kiwirob wrote:

The deals been announced, the UK will supply the Aussies.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/21356516/ ... australia/

I guess this would put paid to "the British are just an add-on, this is just the US wanting to sell weapons to another country" crowd. That's what many from a certain EU country said.
Are the two River-class OPVs just a stopgap measure in the Indo-Pacifc region until a couple of Type 31s can be forward deployed there?

johns624 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

The deals been announced, the UK will supply the Aussies.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/21356516/ ... australia/

I guess this would put paid to "the British are just an add-on, this is just the US wanting to sell weapons to another country" crowd. That's what many from a certain EU country said.
Are the two River-class OPVs just a stopgap measure in the Indo-Pacifc region until a couple of Type 31s can be forward deployed there?

Plus a certain New Zealander who gets his information on highly complex, global defense alliances...from The Sun!

johns624 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

The deals been announced, the UK will supply the Aussies.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/21356516/ ... australia/

I guess this would put paid to "the British are just an add-on, this is just the US wanting to sell weapons to another country" crowd. That's what many from a certain EU country said.
Are the two River-class OPVs just a stopgap measure in the Indo-Pacifc region until a couple of Type 31s can be forward deployed there?

That’s an easy one. Yes!

Would it makes sense for the UK to expand their capabilities a bit? Who knows, the way things are going, Canada may even want some SSNs in the future and their shipbuilding industry seems to be at or beyond capacity with their Type 26, icebreakers, replenishment ships, etc.

johns624 wrote:

Would it makes sense for the UK to expand their capabilities a bit? Who knows, the way things are going, Canada may even want some SSNs in the future and their shipbuilding industry seems to be at or beyond capacity with their Type 26, icebreakers, replenishment ships, etc.

Agree Canada is going to have to decide what they are going to do with the Victoria-class submarines, these are even older than the RAN Collins class boats.

But somehow, I think these are the last in Canadian submarine service.

johns624 wrote:

Would it makes sense for the UK to expand their capabilities a bit? Who knows, the way things are going, Canada may even want some SSNs in the future and their shipbuilding industry seems to be at or beyond capacity with their Type 26, icebreakers, replenishment ships, etc.

In the late 60's and early 70's, when the UK was churning out Valiant/Churchill Class SSN's, Resolution Class SSBN's and was ramping up to do the Swiftsure Class SSN's, a second yard to build two of the SSBN's and one of the Churchills (which was the one that sank the Belgrano), was established, at Cammells.
However, there were industrial disputes worse than at other yards and even with the SSBN's, suspected attempts at sabotage.
(HMS Revenge was apparently the Polaris boat which had the most issues).

That was the end of nuclear boat construction for them.
The last subs they built were three of the four Type 2400 SSK's, in the late 80's/early 90's.
It still exists, built that RSS Sir David Attenborough Antarctic Survey ship

Since then submarine construction has been at Barrow.
It is very hard to see an alternate site.

However, though we don't know yet much of anything about the type, configuration of the proposed RAN sub, only that they want to build them in Australia, if the UK was heavily involved, to the point of being the lead partner, aside from major technical assistance, parts, even major sections for the first boat or two, could be made at Barrow - perhaps. Without impeding the Dreadnought Class SSBN's and future SSN, (steel has been cut on the third of the SSBN's, HMS Warspite - good to have that name back).
Others more knowledgeable can expand on this subject.

GDB--good points. Funny that you mentioned Cammell Laird, since I just finished reading a history of the company by Kenneth Warren. It's not easy to make an industrial history interesting reading, but he succeeds. I was surprised to learn that he was English, since his first two books that I read were on US Steel and Bethlehem Steel. He uses American lingo in his writings.
Anyways, back to the thread--they should do a study on what depts at Barrow are the most constrained, and enlarge them, if it's possible. On the other hand, find out which have overcapacity so that that it doesn't have to be duplicated in Australia.

GDB wrote:

johns624 wrote:

Would it makes sense for the UK to expand their capabilities a bit? Who knows, the way things are going, Canada may even want some SSNs in the future and their shipbuilding industry seems to be at or beyond capacity with their Type 26, icebreakers, replenishment ships, etc.

In the late 60's and early 70's, when the UK was churning out Valiant/Churchill Class SSN's, Resolution Class SSBN's and was ramping up to do the Swiftsure Class SSN's, a second yard to build two of the SSBN's and one of the Churchills (which was the one that sank the Belgrano), was established, at Cammells.
However, there were industrial disputes worse than at other yards and even with the SSBN's, suspected attempts at sabotage.
(HMS Revenge was apparently the Polaris boat which had the most issues).

That was the end of nuclear boat construction for them.
The last subs they built were three of the four Type 2400 SSK's, in the late 80's/early 90's.
It still exists, built that RSS Sir David Attenborough Antarctic Survey ship

Since then submarine construction has been at Barrow.
It is very hard to see an alternate site.

However, though we don't know yet much of anything about the type, configuration of the proposed RAN sub, only that they want to build them in Australia, if the UK was heavily involved, to the point of being the lead partner, aside from major technical assistance, parts, even major sections for the first boat or two, could be made at Barrow - perhaps. Without impeding the Dreadnought Class SSBN's and future SSN, (steel has been cut on the third of the SSBN's, HMS Warspite - good to have that name back).
Others more knowledgeable can expand on this subject.

For speed it would surely be necessary to build the first few offshore. Could you have Australia staff embedded with the offshore teams to get some knowledge?

We need these new submarines “yesterday”!

journeyperson wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

The deals been announced, the UK will supply the Aussies.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/21356516/ ... australia/

In the first few lines I read "in principle" and "could". It's the Sun. I will wait for more reliable confirmation before I celebrate.

I agree the announcement is a few weeks away to be official.

But let’s look at it logically.

UKGov are currently building the last of the Astute and are in early construction of Dreadnought. Collins class are to go through a LOTE beginning with HMAS Farncomb starting in 2026. Which would give each boat about 10 year additional service to the RAN. HMAS Rankin, last boat to receive LOTE is set to retire in 2048
https://www.australiandefence.com.au/de ... class-path

https://www.navyrecognition.com/index.p ... or-uk.html

If the UK were to build Astute II for the RAN after Dreadnought, then that may have timeline implications for the RN with SSNR if Burrow-in Furness build 3 boats Astute block II for the RAN.

Using construction of Dreadnoughts as a guide with steel being cut for boat number 1 in 2016 and the recent announcement that boat number 3 was just recently started, that’s 7 years then steel cutting between boats for an average of 2.5 years so roughly a 9-year delay in construction of the 1st RN SSN(R)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreadnoug ... _submarine

Now we know from open sources that Astute are currently using PWR2 and Dreadnought PWR3 and PWR3 will not fit in Astute as designed with a difference of beam between the two of 1.5m. that means Astute batch II hull would have to be redesigned to accommodate PWR3. I would be shocked to see that AusGov would pay to redesign the hull to fit PWR3 whilst the RN is designing SSN(R) That could also mean that Astute batch II could be SSN(R) in the future but from what I have read that Dreadnought is going to be the base design for SSN(R) which seems fitting if by reports they intend to put a VLS on SSN(R) which also dovetails with the RAN to have long range strike capability with tomahawks

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... ch-system/

The latest PWR2 has a life of 30 years HMS Astute was launched in 2007 which gives an indicative OSD of 2037, which even at the current build rate I think the RN are being a tad optimistic of 1-1 replacement let alone a slip to build for the RAN.


If the article is correct then either the RAN or RN will have to have a capability gap the UK cannot build all the boats for both the RAN and UK for future needs but I would not be surprised if the RN/RAN collaborated on SSN(R) and UK government let slip replacement slip for RN to build 3 boats for the RAN then construction continuing in AU. But then I could also see something like that happening in the US as well to a degree.

https://everything.explained.today/Rolls-Royce_PWR/

johns624 wrote:

GDB--good points. Funny that you mentioned Cammell Laird, since I just finished reading a history of the company by Kenneth Warren. It's not easy to make an industrial history interesting reading, but he succeeds. I was surprised to learn that he was English, since his first two books that I read were on US Steel and Bethlehem Steel. He uses American lingo in his writings.
Anyways, back to the thread--they should do a study on what depts at Barrow are the most constrained, and enlarge them, if it's possible. On the other hand, find out which have overcapacity so that that it doesn't have to be duplicated in Australia.

While I'm not familiar with the area around Barrow, though in 1980, on the way on a trip to the highlands via a stop with friends in Barrow, the father had left the RN to move the family to Canada to work in their civil industry, he'd specialized in the first SSN, Dreadnought's reactor, essentially a test sub with a US supplied Westinghouse, the sub had now decommissioned, all those early deep trials reduced the hull life. Though it did via a Foreign Office/MoD 'leak' deter a potential Argentine invasion of the Falklands in 1977.

It might be that something like this in Scotland, could be done at Barrow, if the facilities, land, access to the sea etc, was there;
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/huge-gl ... n-granted/

But of course, that's one supply chain/facilities issue.
The reactors, could RR ramp up? A potential way in to expand their nuclear sector is if the move to Small Modular Reactors is given real heft. Since this could also be a way to ease the way in with Australia getting nuclear experience, building some/becoming a partner.
If their plan is to construct the sub's reactors?

So if mid 2040 is the timeline, what does Australia do in the interim, get better destroyers to allow longer range patrols with improved weaponry, buy more P8's or just assume the threat will appear after they obtain their subs?
2040 is 17 years away, unless all sailors are going to be in their mid to late 30's and 40's when would they start recruiting the sailors who would man these subs, how many sailors can get training on US and UK subs to "keep the people line moving"?
If they go UK subs there is little to no chance that they can start building up their human capital by operating end of life boats for a couple years, the UK does not have the assets, my assumption is that more folks down under will get training in the design and building aspects of the boats long before the crew training starts.

GDB wrote:

It might be that something like this in Scotland, could be done at Barrow, if the facilities, land, access to the sea etc, was there;
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/huge-gl ... n-granted/

Maybe the more dependable (and therefore faster) build rate using a covered assembly area would allow the UK to become a competitor of the Spanish and Italian shipyards. It could be like the "good old days" when they were selling various Type 12 frigates to many foreign navies. Unless you're the US, export sales are the only way for a country to keep their naval shipyards fully occupied, long term

par13del wrote:

So if mid 2040 is the timeline, what does Australia do in the interim, get better destroyers to allow longer range patrols with improved weaponry, buy more P8's or just assume the threat will appear after they obtain their subs?

I still think something "used" will be leased in the interim. Maybe that's where the US fits in. As far as surface ships go, the Hobart-class AAW destroyers are relatively now and the Type 26 ASW frigates will start being bult within the next year or two, since design work is ongoing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter-class_frigate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobart-class_destroyer

par13del wrote:

So if mid 2040 is the timeline, what does Australia do in the interim, get better destroyers to allow longer range patrols with improved weaponry, buy more P8's or just assume the threat will appear after they obtain their subs?

Is there actually a threat? Or just the perception of one?

Kiwirob wrote:

par13del wrote:

So if mid 2040 is the timeline, what does Australia do in the interim, get better destroyers to allow longer range patrols with improved weaponry, buy more P8's or just assume the threat will appear after they obtain their subs?

Is there actually a threat? Or just the perception of one?

You could say that about the cold war too.

Do you think there was no threat or just a perception as well?

A101 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

par13del wrote:

So if mid 2040 is the timeline, what does Australia do in the interim, get better destroyers to allow longer range patrols with improved weaponry, buy more P8's or just assume the threat will appear after they obtain their subs?

Is there actually a threat? Or just the perception of one?

You could say that about the cold war too.

Do you think there was no threat or just a perception as well?

I don't think the Cold War which followed a hot war and the US lead fear of China have anything in common.

Kiwirob wrote:

A101 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

Is there actually a threat? Or just the perception of one?

You could say that about the cold war too.

Do you think there was no threat or just a perception as well?

I don't think the Cold War which followed a hot war and the US lead fear of China have anything in common.

It's not "US led", just ask the Philippines, Vietnam, Nepal, Bhutan, India, Indonesia, Laos...
As the the "threat" and build schedule, well the simple fact is you just plan and proceed and build based on what can be achieved and is needed. 17 years is fine, and if it isn't then changes will be made. But you have to start somewhere and be realistic and proceed from there.

Tugg

Kiwirob wrote:

A101 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

Is there actually a threat? Or just the perception of one?

You could say that about the cold war too.

Do you think there was no threat or just a perception as well?

I don't think the Cold War which followed a hot war and the US lead fear of China have anything in common.

interesting point of view

Tugger wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

A101 wrote:

You could say that about the cold war too.

Do you think there was no threat or just a perception as well?

I don't think the Cold War which followed a hot war and the US lead fear of China have anything in common.

It's not "US led", just ask the Philippines, Vietnam, Nepal, Bhutan, India, Indonesia, Laos...
As the the "threat" and build schedule, well the simple fact is you just plan and proceed and build based on what can be achieved and is needed. 17 years is fine, and if it isn't then changes will be made. But you have to start somewhere and be realistic and proceed from there.

Tugg

Yes agree while it is perceived as China/USA China wants to dominate the Indo-Pacific] region but know the biggest obstacle is the US.

Kiwirob wrote:

par13del wrote:

So if mid 2040 is the timeline, what does Australia do in the interim, get better destroyers to allow longer range patrols with improved weaponry, buy more P8's or just assume the threat will appear after they obtain their subs?

Is there actually a threat? Or just the perception of one?

If you are in the area, you tell me. How many islands have the US taken by force, how many islands have the US laid claim to and deployed military assets to force other claimants away, how many sections of various seas is the US claiming as their territory and denying access?

Kiwirob wrote:

Is there actually a threat? Or just the perception of one?

The military bases they've built up on all those islands international tribunals have agreed are not theirs..that's just a perception. Kinda like Russia's invasion of Ukraine, it's just a perception.

I'll say this for you Rob, if you'd been running Great Britain in 1940 the Germans would've been frolicking on the beaches of northern Scotland by the time your perception wore off.

PS: I did appreciate your retort about The Sun. It put a smile on my face (seriously).

wingman wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

Is there actually a threat? Or just the perception of one?

The military bases they've built up on all those islands international tribunals have agreed are not theirs..that's just a perception. Kinda like Russia's invasion of Ukraine, it's just a perception.

I'll say this for you Rob, if you'd been running Great Britain in 1940 the Germans would've been frolicking on the beaches of northern Scotland by the time your perception wore off.

PS: I did appreciate your retort about The Sun. It put a smile on my face (seriously).

How are bases in the South China Sea a threat to Australia? Have you looked at a map recently, there are many countries between Australia and China.

We all know the origins of WW2, or we should if we did history in school, appeasement was a daft idea but what has China done that replicates what Hitler did prior to WW2?

GDB wrote:

johns624 wrote:

Would it makes sense for the UK to expand their capabilities a bit? Who knows, the way things are going, Canada may even want some SSNs in the future and their shipbuilding industry seems to be at or beyond capacity with their Type 26, icebreakers, replenishment ships, etc.

In the late 60's and early 70's, when the UK was churning out Valiant/Churchill Class SSN's, Resolution Class SSBN's and was ramping up to do the Swiftsure Class SSN's, a second yard to build two of the SSBN's and one of the Churchills (which was the one that sank the Belgrano), was established, at Cammells.
However, there were industrial disputes worse than at other yards and even with the SSBN's, suspected attempts at sabotage.
(HMS Revenge was apparently the Polaris boat which had the most issues).

That was the end of nuclear boat construction for them.
The last subs they built were three of the four Type 2400 SSK's, in the late 80's/early 90's.
It still exists, built that RSS Sir David Attenborough Antarctic Survey ship

Since then submarine construction has been at Barrow.
It is very hard to see an alternate site.

However, though we don't know yet much of anything about the type, configuration of the proposed RAN sub, only that they want to build them in Australia, if the UK was heavily involved, to the point of being the lead partner, aside from major technical assistance, parts, even major sections for the first boat or two, could be made at Barrow - perhaps. Without impeding the Dreadnought Class SSBN's and future SSN, (steel has been cut on the third of the SSBN's, HMS Warspite - good to have that name back).
Others more knowledgeable can expand on this subject.

If you read my deleted post Cammells built the forward hull sections for the Astutes. I saw the one they were building when I was on a yard tour.

Kiwirob wrote:

wingman wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

Is there actually a threat? Or just the perception of one?

The military bases they've built up on all those islands international tribunals have agreed are not theirs..that's just a perception. Kinda like Russia's invasion of Ukraine, it's just a perception.

I'll say this for you Rob, if you'd been running Great Britain in 1940 the Germans would've been frolicking on the beaches of northern Scotland by the time your perception wore off.

PS: I did appreciate your retort about The Sun. It put a smile on my face (seriously).

How are bases in the South China Sea a threat to Australia? Have you looked at a map recently, there are many countries between Australia and China.

We all know the origins of WW2, or we should if we did history in school, appeasement was a daft idea but what has China done that replicates what Hitler did prior to WW2?

Well from my knowledge of WW2, Hitler did not wake up one day and declare war on the UK, France, USA etc...there were a few "minor" territorial gains / conquest / invasions / re-acquisition of territory leading up to the big show. As for the bad idea of appeasement, perhaps the world is attempting to apply that logic to China, especially those numerous islands that exist between China and Australia, stepping stones come to mind.

Kiwirob wrote:

How are bases in the South China Sea a threat to Australia?

Uh, because the islands are not theirs to put bases onto?

Tugg

par13del wrote:

Well from my knowledge of WW2, Hitler did not wake up one day and declare war on the UK, France, USA etc...there were a few "minor" territorial gains / conquest / invasions / re-acquisition of territory leading up to the big show. As for the bad idea of appeasement, perhaps the world is attempting to apply that logic to China, especially those numerous islands that exist between China and Australia, stepping stones come to mind.

I just checked Google Maps and spitballing the geographic size of Austria and Poland on my laptop screen, it looks like the South "China" Sea inside the hallucinatory 9 Dash Line is even bigger. Granted, I'm not using a ruler, but China's grab here is not only equivalent to Germany's land grab before everyone managed to drop the crack pipe of appeasement, it's actually more valuable by an order of magnitude.