Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Status
Not open for further replies.

76mmGuns

Active Member
So my take away from all of this info if I can condense...
We are getting UK designed Astute Subs with US Nuclear propulsion and US Weapons system? Why the need to change either ? Can the RN interact with the USN?
I have read these will take an extra 4 years and also above the first will be delivered before the end of this decade. I am unclear on this part.
Heard nothing about actual $ cost. I read this morning a Virginia is $US 3.5Billion and an Astute 1.65 billion GBP. Would that mean the on the lot rate would be around $3-$4Billion $AU per boat plus infrastructure plus $AU Build factors ++++.
We need to recruit somewhere around an extra 4-600 extra submariners over the next 10 years.
We will operate them but not refuel or dispose of the spent fuel and reactors.

Read former PM Paul Keating is saying that buying US subs will mean ADF will be blackmailed into all future US excursions.
The UK leases their nuclear submarine nuclear missiles, from the US, don't they? Has the UK been "blackmailed"?
Australia tends to follow the USA into most conflicts anyway, due to us relying on the US for our defense. How will this change?
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
Ok, an opportunity for bragging rights.

Did anyone on DT predict this announcement.

Wish lists excluded.

Post number?



Regards S
 

Tasman

Ship Watcher
Verified Defense Pro
I was pinching myself all day to see it I was dreaming but now that I have confirmed that I am awake, it is not April Fools Day and the Opposition has given support (albeit with a few conditions that should not cause any issues for the program), I am delighted with the announcement of 'Australia’s acquisition of at least eight nuclear-powered submarines.'

www1.defence.gov.au/nuclear-powered-submarines

I had become increasingly concerned at the way the French deal was progressing (or perhaps more accurately the way it was not progressing). However, like many on this forum, I could not see an alternative conventional design that would suit Australia's needs. I had thought that the nuclear option was firmly in the too hard basket so I was both surprised and delighted to follow the breaking story today.
Now the hard work begins and I hope the vast majority of Australians will get behind what I think is the most game changing defence announcement for the country that I have seen in my lifetime.

Tas
 

hauritz

Well-Known Member
I am astounded by how Defence managed to keep this under wraps. There were rumours flying around about the French being canned in favour of a German supplied boat but I doubt anyone except those in the know would have thought nuclear was an option.

It makes me wonder what sort of roll on effect this will have in this region.

What would Japan and South Korea think of all this?

It sets a precedent if the US and UK are willing to share their nuclear secrets with Australia. They may want in on that deal as well.
 

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Getting Nuclear Subs wise move.
BUT should have chosen Astutes OR Virginias.
Why the heck would you build a Frankenstein sub, part Astute, part Virginia class.
Subs are complicated enough without choosing to make them even more complicated.
And dont even start with the BS that our requirements are "unique".

Plan should have been to buy two of the shelf, no modifications, made in UK or USA to get them into service ASAP, while preparations were made for Australian production.
I suspect it will not be a Frankenstein rather an Astute with the AN/BYG-1 combat system. The integration work for this is currently ongoing. The Collins class upgrade will use parts of the same sonar suite as the French option was going to have so the integration work is in train as the Collins has the BYG-1 installed. That may explain shy Lockmart at still signing contracts. This is a benefit out of the programme to date.

It is more of a known quantity that the original direction ..... we just never expected the Labour party to support it. It appears the reality of our situation has become obvious.
 

oldsig127

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Which makes it a rarity. I would think that they were given some official leaks. My reasoning is that the work on this has obviously been happening for quite a while, maybe a year or two, and the security on it has been very tight.
Started before Dutton took over as Defence Minister in March. The PM said as much in his announcement and explicitly thanked Linda Reynolds for her work on it.

oldsig
 

Anthony_B_78

Active Member
Probably the 1980s or 1990s here in NZ. Would've been earlier in Australia especially with Murdoch. See I remember the time when the news media was pretty well regarded. Most of the reporting was apolitical and outlets weren't pushing agendas. It was about the quality of the story and its presentation. Facts were checked. Spelling, punctuation, mistakes, grammar were checked before items went to print or were broadcast. Journos took real pride in their craft and it showed.

Not today. I see / hear / watch/ many articles / items that have basic spelling, punctuation, grammar, missing words, incorrect facts etc., that if a first year uni student handed the work in as an assignment they'd be lucky to get a D for and that's probably for spelling their name right. It's lazy, careless, and totally unprofessional. Journalism used to be a craft, but it no longer is. I wouldn't even call it a trade and to make matters worse Australian and NZ journalism has dumbed down the news media. We are Aussies and Kiwis who have a good education. We aren't Americans who need stuff dumbed down for us because of a poor education system.
Oh look I'll take the advice of MrC and not go too far with this one, but please understand it can be frustrating for people who work in a profession, who have knowledge and experience, to have that profession criticised in rather black and white terms by those who don't know what they're talking about. Actually, funnily enough, I think there would be many here who would readily understand that.

Your post is to me just an example of someone wearing rose-coloured glasses, who has bought into a problem story and who is ignorant as to what has actually changed in the media.

On the first, I can guarantee you that issues of bias were actually more serious in that earlier time period because they were much more likely to be hidden. Now, they're much more readily debated and highlighted. Sky and The Australian from the Murdoch stable are blatantly biased, but that's known. The ABC has a systemic bias to the left, but, again, that is often subject to discourse.

A problem story is one where someone forms an opinion about a subject and then takes in all information that would support their position, while discounting everything that wouldn't. That is, I doubt you're consuming any media with an objective mind. Your comment above just confirms that. You speak in absolutes with no evidence, just your observations, your belief. You could read a newspaper, cover to cover, thousands of words, and not notice a single mistake, but you're not going to put it down and remark on that. You'll only ever think of it when you spot a mistake. Then you'll blow that mistake out of all proportion.

And then the ignorance of what has changed in the media. For commercial print, radio and TV the market is so different, due largely to the online revolution, Facebook, Google and so forth. What it's meant is that there are fewer people working in the media. Newspapers, for example, have fewer sub-editors. There are more time pressures. Fewer pairs of eyes are seeing a story before it is published. Yet the funny thing is I can remember some howlers that got through back in the day when a story would be checked by at least three separate people. You also have the rise of the spin doctor. Journalists have to contend with armies of people whose job is to subvert the story for their employers' ends. This isn't limited to politics either, far from it. The fact is it is a tougher industry to work in today than 30 years ago. Still, journalists are plying their craft, their trade, their profession and they're doing it with skill, perseverance and genuine passion.

The irony of all this criticism, of course, is that it comes when the media in this country actually broke the story and allowed us to be talking about today's announcement yesterday.
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
It is the boldest and most ballsy foreign policy move I can think of by Australia for well ever since I can remember and I am old enough to remember an Uncle heading off to Vietnam.
I have being scratching my head to think of an equivalent defence purchase / foreign policy move.
F111 as a bit of kit.................... but not still not an equivalent as both a platform or policy statement.
The purchase of two majestic aircraft carriers back in the day. Still falls short.

Any other takers

"Nup"...................... this is a huge purchase and statement.


Regards S
 

the road runner

Active Member
This is a good watch from the Chief of Navy..I mean a MUST WATCH REALLY GOOD WATCH!
The call on nuke boats is a big one but its about bloody time..
Most members on this forum would agree that the long transit times that Australia faces to reach its area of operations are well suited to a nuke sub.

AUKUS Announcement - YouTube
 

swerve

Super Moderator
The UK leases their nuclear submarine nuclear missiles, from the US, don't they? Has the UK been "blackmailed"?
Australia tends to follow the USA into most conflicts anyway, due to us relying on the US for our defense. How will this change?
Not leases. Owns a share of the US navy's missile pool. When a missile needs maintenance the warhead is removed & the missile is shipped to the USA. The UK can draw missiles from the pool, up to a contracted number which is thought by the UK MoD to be enough for three submarine loads plus missiles undergoing maintenance. Individual missiles are not allocated to a particular country.

The warheads are designed & made in the UK, though. There are two big factories not far from where I sit. I know people who work, or used to work, there.
 

old faithful

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Just heard we may be leasing a Los Angeles class boat to get some experience with nuke capability. No source , sorry.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
Certainly aint going to cost less.
I imagine sub numbers will be cut down to 6-8.
We will need east and west coast subs.

I hear the power plant will be provided essentially from elsewhere. At least initially.
Australia has no facilities to build nuclear reactors or experience in building them. It operates a small reactor for research & production of radioisotopes, but that was bought from INVAP in Argentina, a specialist in such reactors.

Building an industry able to build nuclear reactors for submarines effectively from scratch would take a long time & a hell of a lot of money.
 
Building an industry able to build nuclear reactors for submarines effectively from scratch would take a long time & a hell of a lot of money.
Yep. ScoMo did say in the original announcement that there was no plan to build a civil nuclear industry and that this was only possible now (and not during the submarine selection process) due to advances in reactor technology.

I take this to mean, sealed, supplied, fueled for life reactors from either the US or UK (with Boris' announcement calling out work for Rolls Royce suggesting more likely the UK).
 

Geddy

Member
Oh look I'll take the advice of MrC and not go too far with this one, but please understand it can be frustrating for people who work in a profession, who have knowledge and experience, to have that profession criticised in rather black and white terms by those who don't know what they're talking about. Actually, funnily enough, I think there would be many here who would readily understand that.

Your post is to me just an example of someone wearing rose-coloured glasses, who has bought into a problem story and who is ignorant as to what has actually changed in the media.

On the first, I can guarantee you that issues of bias were actually more serious in that earlier time period because they were much more likely to be hidden. Now, they're much more readily debated and highlighted. Sky and The Australian from the Murdoch stable are blatantly biased, but that's known. The ABC has a systemic bias to the left, but, again, that is often subject to discourse.

A problem story is one where someone forms an opinion about a subject and then takes in all information that would support their position, while discounting everything that wouldn't. That is, I doubt you're consuming any media with an objective mind. Your comment above just confirms that. You speak in absolutes with no evidence, just your observations, your belief. You could read a newspaper, cover to cover, thousands of words, and not notice a single mistake, but you're not going to put it down and remark on that. You'll only ever think of it when you spot a mistake. Then you'll blow that mistake out of all proportion.

And then the ignorance of what has changed in the media. For commercial print, radio and TV the market is so different, due largely to the online revolution, Facebook, Google and so forth. What it's meant is that there are fewer people working in the media. Newspapers, for example, have fewer sub-editors. There are more time pressures. Fewer pairs of eyes are seeing a story before it is published. Yet the funny thing is I can remember some howlers that got through back in the day when a story would be checked by at least three separate people. You also have the rise of the spin doctor. Journalists have to contend with armies of people whose job is to subvert the story for their employers' ends. This isn't limited to politics either, far from it. The fact is it is a tougher industry to work in today than 30 years ago. Still, journalists are plying their craft, their trade, their profession and they're doing it with skill, perseverance and genuine passion.

The irony of all this criticism, of course, is that it comes when the media in this country actually broke the story and allowed us to be talking about today's announcement yesterday.
Very well put.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top