Royal Australian Navy Submarines to go Nuclear

Personally I hope this leads to the complete mil & Int disengagement of the English speaking world from the continent of Europe. We've spent enough blood, material, treasure and time in the past century and a bit on them. Let them look to their own for a change. And bloody good riddance.

I completely agree. US/UK/Canada/Aus/NZ should just look inward and amongst themselves.

Quebec's a bit problematic though :)
 
Well you assume wrong, I have no problem with Australia having a plan B, I also have no problem with the creation of AUKUS. I have no problem with Australia going for a nuclear submarine, I think they should have done that in the first place. Further from that whilst I think it is unwise to leave France out of Pacific treaty considering they are an important player in the region I don' think they are entitled to membership and also understand that they can't be included in a nuclear propulsion technology sharing agreement due to the independent nature of their own programme.

But I am sympathetic to France and their frustration in what has happened and think the manner the announcing it was made deeply lacking in tact and will harm relations between the countries involved particularly Australia. Negotiating behind their back whilst at the same time saying the deal was all fine and on is hardly mature statesmanship by Morrison.

That is my issue, some here think it is funny to put Frances nose out of joint or even deserved but I think Realpolitik is more important. France is a prideful nation and will not take kindly to the insult, as already seen with the extreme act of withdrawing ambassadors.

Pride cometh before the fall.
 
Nott’s job was not made easier by the United States. At first disposed to be neutral in the conflict, Washington ordered its military base on [British] Ascension Island to refuse permission for RAF Vulcan bombers to refuel there en route to the Falklands.
I am sure that is b*llocks. There was only one Vulcan anyway. Ascension is a British colony and the airfield is British sovereign territory like the SBA's in Cyprus.
 
I'm not sure I follow this logic.

The reason why defence contracts are changed to meet needs is normally because of threat analysis - region specific.

There's no reason why the sub can't be bought 100% as is. The only reason why they'd change anything at all, is because of lousy politics demanding some sort of specific and unique capability.

(See all our heavy metal procurement)
Yes it can be bought "as-is", and as long as you use whatever you bought in the same type of conditions as it was originally designed for then and use it in isolation there should be no problems, it will work to the same specifications as all the other "as-built" examples.

But take it outside that operating environment, or operate it with something else that doesn't have the same systems and you will hit problems. The RAN uses other submarines and surface vessels that are not "as-built" so how do they communicate? How do the weapon systems integrate if one uses torpedo X and the other subs use Torpedo Y?

The salinity and temperature profiles of the waters around Australia are different from the coast of the US or UK, so there will be performance differences in instruments which need to be understood.

To put it mildly, even driven a car with the speedo in KPH? Bit of a pain if you are used to MPH isn't it....
 
Fully agree that conducting major changes to make the boats "Australian" means a lot of engineering and cost risk.
Welcome to defence procurement!

Any change involves engineering risk, that's kept me in a job for the last couple of decades....
 
Personally I hope this leads to the complete mil & Int disengagement of the English speaking world from the continent of Europe. We've spent enough blood, material, treasure and time in the past century and a bit on them. Let them look to their own for a change. And bloody good riddance.
A bit long but an interesting debate about 'Should Britain have stayed out of WW1.' Apparently Germany was more of a democracy than the UK in 1914 as al males didn't get the vote in the UK until 1918 and females in 1928.

 
Yes it can be bought "as-is", and as long as you use whatever you bought in the same type of conditions as it was originally designed for then and use it in isolation there should be no problems, it will work to the same specifications as all the other "as-built" examples.

But take it outside that operating environment, or operate it with something else that doesn't have the same systems and you will hit problems. The RAN uses other submarines and surface vessels that are not "as-built" so how do they communicate? How do the weapon systems integrate if one uses torpedo X and the other subs use Torpedo Y?

The salinity and temperature profiles of the waters around Australia are different from the coast of the US or UK, so there will be performance differences in instruments which need to be understood.

To put it mildly, even driven a car with the speedo in KPH? Bit of a pain if you are used to MPH isn't it....
What modifications did the RAN have to make to the O class boats that Australia bought in the late sixties which seemed to serve the RAN pretty well up to 1997 when I read of nothing but problems with the Collins class?
 
I am sure that is b*llocks. There was only one Vulcan anyway. Ascension is a British colony and the airfield is British sovereign territory like the SBA's in Cyprus.

it’s not complete b*llocks, but it is wrong. What he’s getting at, is that in early April, there were some mutterings from the US, mainly the State Department, that we couldn’t use ASI.

Enter one Prime Minster with handbag at weapons free, and it turned out we could…

State - or more accurately, the Jeanne Kirkpatrick wing of State - hadn’t checked the agreement. Defense, meanwhile, was sending millions of gallons of fuel, etc, to ASI.

Poor Al Haig (who was pro-UK) had to try to push the line that there was some doubt about using ASI and had his posterior handed to him by Mrs T for his pains. Several times.

This was all before Black Buck, and the requisite legal beagles had been through the agreement over ASI and made clear that any bid to prevent its use was unjustifiable. The fact that Mrs T was dropping hints that State’s attempts to treat the Argentines as equally important allies to the US rather than as a bunch of Latin American meat-packing gliterari (c. Roger Waters) might have negative implications for the UK’s attitude towards NATO - we’d have to work more with the French in future - focused minds in DC as well, and encouraged the adoption of the Weinberger view of the whole affair (shared, I think, by Haig if not his department).

Parris is conflating the events of early/mid April 82 with events towards the end of the month when Black Buck was delayed to avoid it being launched while Haig’s last shuttle diplomacy effort was underway.
 
Last edited:

Coldhands

Clanker
A bit long but an interesting debate about 'Should Britain have stayed out of WW1.' Apparently Germany was more of a democracy than the UK in 1914 as al males didn't get the vote in the UK until 1918 and females in 1928.


I toy with that idea, but think on balance the bigger mistake was accepting the armistice. A war was coming regardless, whether it happened in 1914 or not. If you look at late 1918, the British Army was at its zenith; better trained, equipped and lead than its German counterpart by that point and achieving significant victories at a scale I don't feel we've repeated or achieved prior. 3-4 more weeks of fighting would have lead to a total collapse of the German army and by consequence, state.

Why would that have been important? Well, no armistice = no November Criminals. No stab in the back for a war the Germans had half won with the defeat of Russia. No NAZIs.
 
I toy with that idea, but think on balance the bigger mistake was accepting the armistice. A war was coming regardless, whether it happened in 1914 or not. If you look at late 1918, the British Army was at its zenith; better trained, equipped and lead than its German counterpart by that point and achieving significant victories at a scale I don't feel we've repeated or achieved prior. 3-4 more weeks of fighting would have lead to a total collapse of the German army and by consequence, state.

Why would that have been important? Well, no armistice = no November Criminals. No stab in the back for a war the Germans had half won with the defeat of Russia. No NAZIs.
Apparently when the German Kaiser offensive hit the British Army on the 21 March 1918 and units were falling back they were getting abuse from French and Belgium civilians to which British Tommies were shouting back "We have been fighting the wrong side for the past four years."
 
Sheesh, that’s poor. I assume that you are reaching out for humour in the picture you paint of Indonesia but it’s a major fail as an analysis. Is it supposed to be a wind up?

Indonesia that was fighting us during the “Confrontasi “?
Indonesia that put a bomb in a cinema in Singapore then (a few years ago) named one of the former Bruneian OPV’s after a guy Singapore hung for it?
Indonesia that used to spend 2/3 of its procurement budget with the UK. Until Robin Cook got into the FCO.
Indonesia that is becoming our new best friend?
Indonesia that’s becoming the regional powerhouse we always knew it would; not least because there’s 300m of them.

Those first two points: “Confrontasi”, that was what, the mid-60’s? The F-111’s entered service in what, 1967? But…. penis gourds, eh?
You have to go back almost 60 years to Konfrontasi, a silly little bush war in which nobody actually did much fighting and which petered out within a few months, to show the huge looming threat that Indonesia poses to Australia, in your own words "sheesh, that's poor". Just for the record the dispute in Konfrontasi was between Sukarno and the Malaysians, nothing to do with Australia until Australia decided to intervene. However, I must have missed the massed squadrons of Indonesian bombers that darkened the skies over Darwin at the time, or the fleets of landing craft launching hordes of Indonesian marines on the shores of the Northern Territories, perhaps you can remind me of them.

In the meantime I invite you to compare the respective spending by the two nations on their defence budgets and examine how the Indonesian armed forces are only able to fly their troops and equipment around their vast archipelago because Australia donates them a few obsolete (to Australians) Hercules transports plus spare parts every now and again and tell me again what threat Indonesia poses to Australia.

In your own time.
 
Australia’s had troops involved in conflicts with Indonesian troops multiple times. Borneo confrontation in the 60s and East Timor more recently.

Australia has historically been, and continues to be a very, very, very important ally in a region that is becoming steadily more worrisome.

so yeas, Australia has a lot to be concerned about.

In light of the fact that country’s like Canada and Australia have been stood shoulder to shoulder with us in our hours of need. No problem with this call sign helping them out in theirs.
Multiple times? Only the two times you quoted and on both occasions Australia chose to get involved in an Indonesian dispute that was actually of no strategic importance to Australia. I am not questioning whether Australia was correct to get involved I am pointing out that on both occasions Australians chose to pick a fight with Indonesia, not the other way around.

Whenever you can find an example of Indonesia initiating an armed conflict with Australia or indeed ever posing the slightest, eensie-weensiest threat to Australia, let me know.
 
You have to go back almost 60 years to Konfrontasi, a silly little bush war in which nobody actually did much fighting and which petered out within a few months,
Oh the silly little bush war that lasted from 1963 to 1966 in which 114 British and commonwealth service men lost there lives.That war. Not much fighting you say? Tell that to the 36 men of B Company 2 Para who fought off an attack by a 400 strong Indonesian Special Forces battalion suffering 2 KIA, 1 died of wounds, on the night of 27 April 1965 in the Battle of Plamen Mapu.

The True Facts of The Batte of Plamen Mapu.


Battle of Long Jawi

Or the Battle of Long Jawi when the Indonesians execute 10 captured Border Scouts.

MacDonald House bombing.

Or Indonesian terrorist attacks on Singapore Island killing young women when they found British bases too heavily guarded.
 
Last edited:
Oh the silly little bush war that lasted from 1963 to 1966 in which 114 British and commonwealth service men lost there lives.That war. Not much fighting you say? Tell that to the 36 men of B Company 2 Para who fought off an attack by a 400 strong Indonesian Special Forces battalion suffering 2 KIA, 1 died of wounds, on the night of 27 April 1965 in the Battle of Plamen Mapu.

The True Facts of The Batte of Plamen Mapu.


Battle of Long Jawi

Or the Battle of Long Jawi when the Indonesians execute 10 captured Border Scouts.

MacDonald House bombing.

Or Indonesian terrorist attacks on Singapore Island killing young women when they found British bases too heavily guarded.
Again, you go back sixty years to describe a threat that Indonesia presents to Australia.

A miniscule war fought between Indonesia and Malaysia in the bush of Borneo and one terrorist attack in Singapore, sixty years ago.

So I ask again, what threat does Indonesia pose to Australia?

Just to get the threat in context I will present the following data:

Australian defence budget $35 billion - Indonesian defence budget $9 billion (mostly spent on wages and pensions)

That's before Australia gets its nuclear submarine fleet from the UK and US.

Really gentlemen, can we get a wee bit of perspective here? Indonesia poses no threat to Australia.

None.
 
If you need range and speed, you have no choice but to go Nuclear. A Nuclear Boat has an 8-knot edge over a conventional submarine. If you bite the bullet and decide to go Nuclear then a Virginia or Astute class is the obvious choice and beats what the French can offer.

Plus dealing with the French is a nightmare, they're always right, you’re always wrong.

By joining the US and UK in the highest clearance level tech exchange means this deal goes way beyond nuclear subs.
Speed = noise through flow induced resonance and cavitation.

noise = detection

Speed, though useful, is not the chief advantage of nuclear propulsion
 
What modifications did the RAN have to make to the O class boats that Australia bought in the late sixties which seemed to serve the RAN pretty well up to 1997 when I read of nothing but problems with the Collins class?
Let me Google that for you:

Oberon-class submarine - Wikipedia

"Regional Variations: The Royal Australian Navy acquired six Oberons: an initial order of four and a second order of two. The second order was originally for four submarines, but two were cancelled in favour of expanding the RAN Fleet Air Arm.[7]Australian Oberons had different electronic equipment, using primarily American radar and sonar systems. They had Sperry BQG-4 Micropuffs passive ranging sonar and Krupp CSU3-41 attack sonar.[1] Instead of the British Tigerfish torpedoes, the Australians used American Mark 48 torpedoes.[1] They had a slightly larger payload, carrying 22 torpedoes for the forward tubes, six of which were preloaded. Shortly after entering service, the aft torpedo tubes in all six submarines were sealed.The Australian submarines were later updated to be equipped with the subsonic antiship Harpoon missile. In 1985, off the island of Kauai in Hawaii, HMAS Ovens became only the second conventional submarine in the world—and the first Oberon—to fire a subsurface-launched Harpoon missile, successfully hitting the target over the horizon. Consequently, the designation for the Australian Oberons changed from SS to SSG."
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top