ADF General discussion thread

[Volkodav]

I recall Gary saying years back, before there was a replacement submarine project, that the RANs requirements were for SSN like capability but with a caveat on how it got where it was needed. i.e. the assumption was it should be able to do what an SSN could do but took longer to get to its patrol area.

One thing I am sure of is the combat systems guys will be happy, no more power or heat budgets. Switch on what ever you want for as long as you want, refrigerate the entire boat and have heaters for any compartments that don't need to be cold, or more to the point any compartments where there were crew.

 

[Unric]

It's going to take a while to get used to AUKUS. But maybe they were going for a homonym for "Orcas". If so - very appropriate that the main focus at the moment is big black underwater killers.

 

[Volkodav]

Well, when I did JSSC (30 years ago now…good lord) we certainly had a comprehensive study period on our national strategy. A number of people, including Paul Dibb spoke on it, as did both the heads of foreign affairs and defence, and some senior pollies. We also got the “smell the love” mob’s point of view. There was an articulated and fairly commonly held view of Australia’s position in the world and how it should be maintained.

I doubt if that approach to the business has changed much since then although undoubtedly the issues and details have - and we saw such a change yesterday (the approach, not the hardware). It just hasn’t been widely talked about as for a generation Australians haven’t had a great deal to worry about in the world from an existential perspective and “she’ll be right mate” has carried the day. That seems to be changing as well!

Spending enough to convince the other guy you will fight and can hurt them often means you never need to fight. No need to threaten or posture, just have Teddy Roosevelts big stick in plain sight.

This is where Australian defence posture historically falls over IMHO, we forget that defence spending is about convincing the other guy not to attack, not hiding away capability in secret and then walloping them when they startle you because they had no idea you were afraid.

Pre WWI the German Asiatic Fleet was of the opinion that HMAS Australia on her own could blow them out of the water, so with the exception of Emden the ran before finally being cornered off the Falklands by the RN. Our battle cruiser never had that moment of glory so was seen as useless and not worth retaining, the deterrence effect of the RAN was not comprehended by politicians, let alone the general public.

Question, would Japan have done what they did if Australia had a capable balanced squadron in home waters in 1941/42? I suspect it may have tipped the scales and seen them leave the SWP well alone until the RAN was neutralized.

 

[John Fedup]

It's going to take a while to get used to AUKUS. But maybe they were going for a homonym for "Orcas". If so - very appropriate that the main focus at the moment is big black underwater killers.

Must remember not to confuse AUKUS with ALUKA when discussing submarine stuff after a few brews… like now.

 

[Bob53]

I said no as the US stopped building the F-22 in 2011. Now please explain to me how the RAN planning on buying and building SSNs equates to the RAAF suddenly getting an aircraft that hasn't rolled off the production line in 10 years. Some of say no because we understand the real world practicalities of modern weapon system purchase time frames and building them.

I think you have possibly...no definitely taken my comment the wrong way. I agree with you and what I said want not aimed at B21 or any specific system. Simply its not the right day to say never ever.

 

[Anthony_B_78]

This is positive: Even without a campaign to convince people, a majority are already in support of nuclear-powered subs. I've noted some positive editorials and so forth too.

Roy Morgan snap survey

 

[ngatimozart]

This is positive: Even without a campaign to convince people, a majority are already in support of nuclear-powered subs. I've noted some positive editorials and so forth too.

Roy Morgan snap survey

That's good for a start and half the battle won. It'll make it more difficult for some future government to try and backslide on the deal. I was thinking of the Rudd - Gillard - Rudd years where submarine and shipbuilding programmes basically stood still. It should have been when a fourth, and probably fifth, AWD should have been ordered.

 

[MrConservative]

This is positive: Even without a campaign to convince people, a majority are already in support of nuclear-powered subs. I've noted some positive editorials and so forth too.

Roy Morgan snap survey

Nuclear power in Australia - Lowy Institute Poll

Are you in favour or against Australia building nuclear power plants as part of its plans to cut greenhouse gas emissions?

poll.lowyinstitute.org

Done 10 years ago but is an interesting survey regarding civil nuclear power and can be broken down via age, gender, education, region ect. You can see some interesting trends in these demographic breakdowns. I would guess that even the survey results from the 2001 and 1991 were even more against the 2011 data.

With emerging public knowledge and technological advancement of the last ten years with respect to GEN4 and TMSR's who knows but in another 10-15 years the whole nuclear issue may no longer be the sacred cow it was in the 1980-1990's in Australia.

 

[Stampede]

Not sure if this has been posted but defence have updated their website.

Nuclear Powered Submarine Taskforce | About | Defence

Nuclear Powered Submarine Taskforce

www1.defence.gov.au

A good snap shot of the recent news.

Suggest a look at the fact sheet links at the bottom of the page.

A clear view and perspective of the "shopping list"



Regards S

 

[ADMk2]

Any chance Australia may be given access to US equipment that has until now been a no no, such as F22?

@hairyman

This has been done to dust and given the aircraft is out of manufacture it is clear the answer is no. If the US restart production then feel free to start the conversation. Otherwise ... I suggest you drop it as it add no value.

Alexsa

You mean that fighter that has been out of production for 10 years, the line closed, the tooling disposed of and which the USAF themselves are looking to phase out in favour of NGAD? Lol.

Yeah, we’ll probably get it now…

 

[cdxbow]

Nuclear power in Australia - Lowy Institute Poll

Are you in favour or against Australia building nuclear power plants as part of its plans to cut greenhouse gas emissions?

poll.lowyinstitute.org

Done 10 years ago but is an interesting survey regarding civil nuclear power and can be broken down via age, gender, education, region ect. You can see some interesting trends in these demographic breakdowns. I would guess that even the survey results from the 2001 and 1991 were even more against the 2011 data.

With emerging public knowledge and technological advancement of the last ten years with respect to GEN4 and TMSR's who knows but in another 10-15 years the whole nuclear issue may no longer be the sacred cow it was in the 1980-1990's in Australia.

There is no point in nuclear power in Australia. It's one of the more expensive forms of power, scales badly and it very dangerous. Why would we pick an expensive and dangerous form of power?

 

[MrConservative]

There is no point in nuclear power in Australia. It's one of the more expensive forms of power, scales badly and it very dangerous. Why would we pick an expensive and dangerous form of power?

Because nuclear technology is changing and the old nuke GEN 1 and 2 tech you are basing those points on are becoming less problematic via research break-throughs. Finland is one country that is re-investing in in nuclear technology to maintain sustained generation baseloads and remove non renewables from the supply side.

 

[John Fedup]

There is no point in nuclear power in Australia. It's one of the more expensive forms of power, scales badly and it very dangerous. Why would we pick an expensive and dangerous form of power?

Reactors in Ontario and France have been operating safely for decades. Expensive at the start, not so much during operation. For some nations, nuclear is the only green option. Because of Australia’s vast solar potential, nuclear isn’t as critical.

 

[Volkodav]

You mean that fighter that has been out of production for 10 years, the line closed, the tooling disposed of and which the USAF themselves are looking to phase out in favour of NGAD? Lol.

Yeah, we’ll probably get it now…

I'm betting we will finally retain one of the two squadrons of Phantoms we leased back in the 70s. What about that Essex the RAN proposed in the 60s?

 

[cdxbow]

Reactors in Ontario and France have been operating safely for decades. Expensive at the start, not so much during operation. For some nations, nuclear is the only green option. Because of Australia’s vast solar potential, nuclear isn’t as critical.

Never suggested anything about other countries ways to meet their energy mix. Lot's of space, windy coasts and ample sunlight means Oz simply does not need nuclear power, it remains a very expensive and dangerous way to generate power. Failures in wind and solar farms simply do not carry the same risk of an environmental disaster as a critical failure in a nuclear powerplant. It's not just the Chernobyl or Fukushima events. Most high level civilian waste lives in 'interim storage' until somebody finally bothers to find a way to dispose of it permanently. In more than 60 years the industry has failed to resolve the issue of high level waste. You can bet the cost is never factored into cost of nuclear power.

 

[Takao]

Never suggested anything about other countries ways to meet their energy mix. Lot's of space, windy coasts and ample sunlight means Oz simply does not need nuclear power, it remains a very expensive and dangerous way to generate power. Failures in wind and solar farms simply do not carry the same risk of an environmental disaster as a critical failure in a nuclear powerplant. It's not just the Chernobyl or Fukushima events. Most high level civilian waste lives in 'interim storage' until somebody finally bothers to find a way to dispose of it permanently. In more than 60 years the industry has failed to resolve the issue of high level waste. You can bet the cost is never factored into cost of nuclear power.

The ignorance on this is hilarious.

All of France's nuclear waste over decades of operation fills half a small warehouse. The amount of solar and wind waste after a similar time period fills acres.

The nuclear industry is responsible for waste up front. No other energy source (possibly you could argue hydro) does this.

The actual waste requiring storage is a small fraction of the initial fuel, and this % has been decreasing over time as reactors become more efficient and use old waste.

The cost for the current solar/wind mix (which fulfils single % of Australian needs) is eyewatering. Expanding to fulfil all of Australia's needs will make social security, submarines and carrier-borne B-21's (it is an RAN thread) look cheap.

Outside of hydro or point, non-essential solar (like hot water systems or houses), every nation that has turned away from nuclear to renewables (cough, Germany cough) has seen emissions rise and increased reliance on gas. Nations that have turned to hydro and/or nuclear - haven't.

And yes, I'd happily live next to a nuke reactor. If anything the intellectual ignorance and refusal to look outside a decades old incorrect hashtag means it'll be unpopular, and I might be able to afford a house in the current market....

 

[John Fedup]

Fortunately Australia as amble sun intensive waste lands for solar farms. I have noticed significant patches of farm land in southern Ontario being sacrificed for solar generation, a bad move. Because of green subsidies for renewal energy, many farmers can make more money than growing crops.

 

[MrConservative]

And a 1000kgs of copper goes into each 1.5MW wind turbine which only average 30% generative usage (and thus not a sustained baseload generator) and need to be replaced every 20 years, which the mining and processing of has massive increases in carbon emissions and toxic waste. The intellectual deceit (well a commercial deceit) is that people think we will combat climate change by using technology that relies on the very climate that is changing.

 

[vonnoobie]

Havent bothered to be back in a while but seriously discussing nuclear vs non nuclear in the civil power arena? o.0 Yes Solar and Wind has more waste in a shorter time period but said waste isnt going to give some one cancer or allow a terrorist to create a dirty bomb while nuclear for the thousands of years of long term risks provides a bloody huge amount of power in a tiny amount.

@Takao "cough, Germany cough " really? they freaked out after Fukishima and shut down reactors leaving Fossil fuel reactors with spare capacity ramp up. Hardly an indication at all the turning away from nuclear will lead to increased CO2 emissions but rather blindly jumping in one direction or the other will bugger it up. As for the waste, Yes there is a boat load and a half of old renewable systems to be recycled which developments are advancing towards as we chat here... Comparing a few acres of waste with the tiniest if any at all health risks for solar and wind vs nuclear waste that quite literally with current tech and solutions will still need thousands of years and then some... Not a great argument at all. as fpr the amount of waste decreasing.. Yes because nuclear power plantso have managed to advance from a 30 odd % efficiency to pushing 40%.. In 2012 France was still producing 2kg of radioactive waste per a person or iff easier in 2010 the had enough radioactive waste stpckpiled to fill 1.32 million cubic metres, So that small factory would be the 13th largest in the world by volume.

@MrConservative Yes a large amount of copper goes into wind turbines but the claim of 'average 30%' generation usage tends to be the lower end smaller scale turbines. Not to mention completely ignores the Uranium also has to be mined, or that copper can surprisingly be recycled.

Yes in some regions and economies nuclear power potentially has a place but at the end of the day like it or not renewables are cheaper with a LCOE often less then 1/3 of nuclear.

 

[south]

Havent bothered to be back in a while but seriously discussing nuclear vs non nuclear in the civil power arena? o.0 Yes Solar and Wind has more waste in a shorter time period but said waste isnt going to give some one cancer or allow a terrorist to create a dirty bomb while nuclear for the thousands of years of long term risks provides a bloody huge amount of power in a tiny amount.

@Takao "cough, Germany cough " really? they freaked out after Fukishima and shut down reactors leaving Fossil fuel reactors with spare capacity ramp up. Hardly an indication at all the turning away from nuclear will lead to increased CO2 emissions but rather blindly jumping in one direction or the other will bugger it up. As for the waste, Yes there is a boat load and a half of old renewable systems to be recycled which developments are advancing towards as we chat here... Comparing a few acres of waste with the tiniest if any at all health risks for solar and wind vs nuclear waste that quite literally with current tech and solutions will still need thousands of years and then some... Not a great argument at all. as fpr the amount of waste decreasing.. Yes because nuclear power plantso have managed to advance from a 30 odd % efficiency to pushing 40%.. In 2012 France was still producing 2kg of radioactive waste per a person or iff easier in 2010 the had enough radioactive waste stpckpiled to fill 1.32 million cubic metres, So that small factory would be the 13th largest in the world by volume.

@MrConservative Yes a large amount of copper goes into wind turbines but the claim of 'average 30%' generation usage tends to be the lower end smaller scale turbines. Not to mention completely ignores the Uranium also has to be mined, or that copper can surprisingly be recycled.

Yes in some regions and economies nuclear power potentially has a place but at the end of the day like it or not renewables are cheaper with a LCOE often less then 1/3 of nuclear.

Can people (on both sides of this debate) please include links to support assertions. Otherwise this will (or has already) become a game of ‘he said she said’.

And it may be worth moving out on the ADF thread, as it’s not really relevant to the ADF