Hey! @Dicky Ticker . . . I'm not looking to cause an argument .So what's your point? Are you saying that you don't need to have a modified sub to operate in any water deep enough to hide it?
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?
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.
Exactly what I have been saying for the last decade or so about the Victoria class.I think the issue in this case may be if Australia does its usual and tinkers with the design of the submarines too much. I think the riskiest option would be to take for example a UK boat design and put US kit into it instead of just buying a design and building it as is.
Canada bought the UK Upholders (now Victoria class) but decided we wanted US combat systems in them installed by US defence contractors instead of just using them as is. Thereafter followed years of massively ballooning costs and years of delays, followed by yet more years of unresolved problems. This may sound vaguely familiar to you.
Buy a design that you are confident will work and that the originating country will be using in that configuration themselves so they can sort the problems out before they affect you. If you decide you need something like say bigger air conditioners then that's probably not a major risk, but specifying something that is half of one thing and half of another has all the makings of a fiasco if you haven't got a lot of experience at building such things.
She’s probably already been to Paris and back by Eurostar already for her telling off, probably with the Defence Attaché for not knowing what was going on.Some of the commentary here in France suggests that by not recalling Madame Colonna from London, Macron is showing even more contempt for the UK by implying that we are less significant than the US or Aus in this affair.
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.
You have just reminded me that, when on exchange service with the RAN, I was the *only* qualified French interpreter they had based in Sydney. Good fun too when French ships came in.Fair point. Perhaps the deterioration in terms of contract progress; the reduced extent of local manufacture; and the time delay inherent in more negotiations and design revisions, made Australia want a clean slate.
Plus the definite benefits of sharing a common language when dealing with something as complex as a nuclear sub?
In this you are correct, we are pleased to have cordial relations with the Indonesians these many decades.
While it is also true that major military exercises during the 1970's would issue 'blue force' with strategic maps defining the aggressor as "Kamaria", depicted as an inverted Tasmania positioned roughly where Jakarta is. So while smiling, nodding and waving, we do keep a rheumy eye on sentiment among the Indons., even to the extent of ham-fistedly bugging the mobile phones of their President and his wife, and who knows who else.
The simple fact is that Australia is completely safe from sea-borne invasion in our North, as any force actually making landfall would still be a couple of thousand km from anything of any strategic value.
Indeed all their forces would want is a drink of water and a lay down in some shade. Good luck with that.
Trudeau was asked about whether Canada knew about the recent events in advance. His reply was that no we didn't but it's an arms deal between the involved parties and so was none of our business so there's no reason why we should have been told in advance.Most likely 3 eyes, I doubt that the Canadians or New Zealanders were in the loop on this.
As I said.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.
French submarine reactor technology is stalled in the 80’s.
They can’t make the technical breakthrough to a sealed for life high output reactor.
An example of the gulf in working practices was when Australian officials were left "stunned" to hear discussion of "la rentrée," the process by which French workers would get ready to restart work after the whole company stopped working in August for a month-long vacationI disagree
France is capable of prducing required spec
You Pikeyies went behind our back
I wasn't thinking you were young man, I was merely trying to understand your point so I could try and clarify further. Like I've alluded to, I've been involved in a whole host of military projects ranging from aircraft upgrades and new satellite communication capabilities to data management systems and pocket sized sensors for measuring rust. Each one has had its ups and downs, and on a number of cases they have been reported on in various media releases.Hey! @Dicky Ticker . . . I'm not looking to cause an argument .
I only commented on what I and the rest of the world can see.
Whatever it is, that you have been able to convince the grownups of, and that . . .
"Any change involves engineering risk, that's kept (you) in a job for the last couple of decades . . . ",
excellent!! Carry-on with the good work .