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Excuse the ignorance but how out of date would the combat and other systems be on an older boat?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.
Going Boeing
Well-Known Member
Going back to the earlier discussion about a possible AEW capability for the Canberra class, this article about fitting the proven SAAB AEW system to the GA-ASI MQ-9B looks like a highly capable system with good endurance. It’s obviously aimed at the RN‘s future carrier borne AEW as the RN has already done trials of the STOL version of the MQ-9 off one of their carriers.
No information about whether the landing gear has to be strengthened for ski jump operations or whether a wing fold design is planned. With the limited deck and hanger space on the Canberra class, wing fold would be an essential requirement.
No information about whether the landing gear has to be strengthened for ski jump operations or whether a wing fold design is planned. With the limited deck and hanger space on the Canberra class, wing fold would be an essential requirement.
Perth is currently out of the water for an extended drydocking, should be back in over the next couple of months.
My understanding is that all 7 Anzac's have full crews. Cheers
How many currently fitted with NSM?
Sadly 4 Corners is not immune to bias reporting.
They will distort the story to suit the message that they want to convey.
I have witnessed this first hand. I have been part of one of their investigation entertainment stories.
They even won an award for it, despite the Surpreme court and High Court of Australia's findings.....never let the truth get in the way....
I think it’s difficult for any media organisation not to show some form of bias how ever small.
Re the 4 Corners programme, I thought it was not a bad overview for an audience viewer that may know little of the subject.
Did it have a bias towards the “we do think the SSN venture will be a problem camp”
I’d say yes , but then I guess my own personal bias mirrors that sentiment.
Interested as to what Old Faithful or anyone else made of the programme content.
Cheers S
Ballarat & Toowoomba were fitted with NSM last year, Perth & Parramatta have just finished having it fitted aswell.
I don't see it as a biased report. I think people were simply and pragmatically pointing out the difficulties that will need to be resolved to enable an outcome. If the report didn't cover this view people would have still said it was biased, just the other way. I think in Australia we at least have always had a healthly ability to call out the downside of any strategy, which has usually resulted in the strategy ending up stronger.
I didn't however get a sense of enviability from the report. Effort is going into resolving the problems, and I suspect many (perhaps not all) will be resolved. Maybe the first boat is 2034 rather than 2032. I would be surprised for instance if there are not announcements in the near future to hurry up the Henderson/FBW redevelopment, and increase the number of people in the American/US training system. It was interesting observing the scenes in the report focused on the actual yards in America and what they are doing to increase the labour force.
The report interviewed a number of American stakeholders, many on the Republican side. It was a good look into their psyche and why they see this as important for America. I took out of it that the Americans do not see the submarine deal as just something for the Australians. They see it as of intrinsic value to the Americans. It's something they want, and they will (eventually) do what is necessary to make it happen.
I should point out that obtaining a cadence of 2.4 boats per year is important for the Americans to sustain their own fleet (they need to get above 2 per year for themselves), not just for providing boats to Australia. Failing this metric has consequences of their own. So they have to find a solution regardless of us, our component just comes along with that.
The conversations in the report indicated that there is more of a concern with the Australian policical landscape and less with the American one. America has concerns that we might flip flop (its not like we don't have a track record in this space), or aren't prepared to/can't stump up the resources necessary to sustain the strategy. These are valid.
Good point about Australia’s reliability. We do tend to flip flop and lose focus, particularly in recent years. So many projects are delayed, cut back or just straight up cancelled.
The US are quite entitled to make sure that we are willing to adequately fund and support this program. The original price tag of $368 billion is more likely to go up rather than come down and I fully understand the US position of wanting to make sure we are willing to pay our way on this.
Not sure that there is a real plan B to this. Plans for the AUKUS submarine could be a couple of decades away and we have already conceded that conventional submarines will not be able to deliver the capability we need. Really in the shorter term it is Virginia or nothing.
While the Labor party make all the right public statements about the importance of AUKUS you just know that behind the scenes the rank and file doesn’t have the same level of enthusiasm.