Royal Australian Navy Submarines to go Nuclear

Grytpype-Thynne, shirley...
You are of course correct, I shall stand inthe corner and sing three verses of the ying tong song
 
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?
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 :) .
 

WhiskeyTango

Old-Salt
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....

Okay - I agree on your points regarding interoperability, particularly comms.

My point however, is that they need to leave it alone where possible and accept it as is. Yes, driving a British car in Switzerland is annoying, but it's a lot better than getting a bus.
 
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?

My take and recollection as a non-matelot AU taxpayer is that the only Aussification of the O-boats was the installation of showers.
As for the Collins Class, seems we had a series of progressive demands of those granted the right to build them in Adelaide, including a bulging nose to accommodate sensing and communications gear that the original Kockums design couldn't fit. This went on for years, as apparently the Australian Submarine Corporation had scant naval architectural capability and had a few goes at getting the thing to move quietly as befits the silent service.
 
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.

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.
 
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.
Exactly what I have been saying for the last decade or so about the Victoria class.
Have an excellent, and take yesterday off.
 
Jeff Taylor makes a couple of interesting points.

1. If France had been in on discussions about N powered subs, the EU would have been in the loop too. How long would the talks remain secret from Russia and China?

2. If Scotland was likely to become independent, rather than site the servicing base in the US or France, why not Australia?

 

Mr_Relaxed

War Hero
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.
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.
 

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
So, to summarize the current situation, Australia's gone nuclear and France has gone ballistic.

Good show.
 

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
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.

That's being a bit wise after the event. Had it not been for a whole series of policy errors and a serious and extended lucky streak for the Nazis, the Stab in the Back legend would simply have been so much noise. What was more telling was the war guilt clause because, as has now been shown by scrutinising diplomatic traffic in July 1914 (July 1914, Countdown to War, Sean Meekin), Russia actually mobilised before Germany.

Haig himself supported the Armistice, saying that we could totally defeat Germany in 1919 at a cost of another 100,000 dead but what would it achieve.
 

Union Jack

Old-Salt
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?
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. :cool:

Jack
 
Last edited:
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.

Bit of a Singapore mindset there.
 
Most likely 3 eyes, I doubt that the Canadians or New Zealanders were in the loop on this.
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.

He also added that we aren't in the market for submarines at the moment so again, there's no reason for us to have been involved.

As I previously pointed out in another post we have started the process to look into new submarines, but it will be a few years yet before we start sending out tenders and at the present time are just at the stage of looking into requirements..

When it comes time for Canada to lay down some money on new subs, then while Australia may be asked some general questions about their procurement process I expect the Australians will find out about our actual decision when they read about it in the papers.

There's a fairly simple rule to follow when you are doing things that are confidential, and that's to not tell anyone anything they don't really need to know. Canada (and New Zealand) don't need to know about Australia's submarine purchase (and associated defence agreements about tech secrets) so don't tell them. Anything we would really be interested in will be in terms of "how are they working out for you?", and that isn't something the Australians are going to know for years to come.
 
Last edited:
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.
As I said.

the Borneo confrontation.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_Australia_during_the_Indonesia–Malaysia_confrontation

Don’t worry though. Leaving a close ally with their arse hanging in the wind is a great way to go through life.

were you as critical of the French when they decided to sell the Australians a submarine?
 

Yokel

LE
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.

Which is odd as they are leaders in civil nuclear power. Surely a longer listening reactor would not only aid SSBN and SSN design and operation, but also that of the future carrier currently being talked about.
 
I disagree
France is capable of prducing required spec
You Pikeyies went behind our back
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 vacation

French officials in return were likewise said to be surprised that Australian officials expected meetings to begin on time, citing a French phenomenon known as a "diplomatic 15 minutes" whereby people were considered to be on time as long as they arrived within 15 minutes of the start time.

The report also mentioned French workers requesting more understanding of their need for long lunch breaks.

 
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 :) .
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.

Joe public thinks governments can buy military gear like they would nip down to the high street and pick up a new fridge, except there isn't a big warehouse on the edge of town full of military gear that they can deliver Tuesday week as long as there is someone in the house to sign for it (Also governments get really picky about colours and whether it has an attachment for something or other and can they get a discount for bulk...).
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top