I don't see the Americans being keen on changing their laws to allow that.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Agree, but they should. Likely the only way to get more boats for all three partners.
Probably not, but stranger things have happened
Of course something else that could come from the American submarine review is that we might not get the submarines we want. What we are after initially is a block IV Virginia with about 20 years of life left in its hull. It wouldn’t surprise me if we ended up being offered a much older boat.
The USN might be less concerned about handing over an earlier block submarine.
The USN might be less concerned about handing over an earlier block submarine.
InterestedParty
Active Member
Excuse the ignorance but how out of date would the combat and other systems be on an older boat? Do they upgrade on a regular basis to a common baseline?
As I understand it, the boats are not normally refuelled and I assume that would be a significant issue in both cost and time
Would refuelling an older boat have any impact on the delivery or availability of the new/existing boats
As I understand it, the boats are not normally refuelled and I assume that would be a significant issue in both cost and time
Would refuelling an older boat have any impact on the delivery or availability of the new/existing boats
Going Boeing
Well-Known Member
The whole premise of why BLOCK 4 Virginia’s were planned for the RAN’s first 2 SSN’s was that they have enough life (including reactor fuel) to last the expected 20 years until the 6th & 7th AUKUS SSN’s enter service. Earlier Virginia’s would have to be retired earlier which would reduce fleet numbers for a few years.
My understanding from what the British have encountered is that when a refuelling has to be carried out on a reactor that was designed for a full life core, it is very expensive and takes a lot of extra time, ie, it has to be avoided at all cost. The RAN would be better off rejecting early Virginias and try to keep the Collins in service until the new SSN’s can be built locally.
PS. Kanimbla & Manoora come to mind when talking about taking early Virginias.
My understanding from what the British have encountered is that when a refuelling has to be carried out on a reactor that was designed for a full life core, it is very expensive and takes a lot of extra time, ie, it has to be avoided at all cost. The RAN would be better off rejecting early Virginias and try to keep the Collins in service until the new SSN’s can be built locally.
PS. Kanimbla & Manoora come to mind when talking about taking early Virginias.
Last edited:
4 Corners on the ABC had an interesting program on the AUKUS submarine program tonight.
A variety of opinions both from those in uniform and not, on where this program is now and potentially where it going.
Worth a look regardless of where you stand on the subject
Cheers S
A variety of opinions both from those in uniform and not, on where this program is now and potentially where it going.
Worth a look regardless of where you stand on the subject
Cheers S
Does that mean as of today we have 7 ANZACs and 3 Hobarts in the water?
As for crews for ships I’m I cannot say.
Hobart’s to start major refit shortly
Cheers S
Ironically we seem to be reliving the mid eighties.
An aging, shrinking fleet, multiple failed and under funded programs, some of which are under immense pressure to be cancelled by parties with their own agendas and wishlist.
A concentration of critical, achievable and affordable capability, as other important, but lower priority (or perceived to be unaffordable) capabilities are lost.
Remember, the Collins and ANZACs are the result of this, and that when things got better in the mid to late 90s, instead of reversing the contraction, the existing, modest, plans, were cut shrunk and cancelled.
We got six (not eight) subs and eight patrol frigates but no missile armed, helicopter equipped corvettes, only three instead of eight or nine FFF/DDG.