US floats nuclear subs option for Australia

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Rayc, Apr 13, 2012.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Rayc

    Rayc RIP

    Things are hotting up in the Pacific rim.

    US is to have a base in Darwin.

    And recently there was a standoff with the Philippines and China.

    Apart from the problems of Vietnam and China.

    One wonders what is the endgame.
    • Like Like x 1
  2. I wonder whether offering Astute to them might bring a bit of cash into the UK and help keep Barrow busy until we eventually decide what we want our nuclear deterrent to look like?
  3. Why don't they just buy one off us?
  4. Beaten to it!

  5. “All options are being considered other than nuclear propulsion which the government has ruled out.”
  6. Jerries or the Russians it is then.
  7. Possibly they are afraid of ending upholding the bag...
  8. Wot, via the MoD, no sale, red tape, 'elf 'n' safety, you name it.
  9. Guns

    Guns LE Moderator Book Reviewer
    1. The Royal Navy

    I think it might be against US law for (military) nuclear reactor technology to be passed to a foreign nation. Back in the day when I had the misfortune to do ASW (slow and dull warfare) it was a hot topic with my RN/RAF team and the USN team.

    We could offer them some half decent S or T class boats we have knocking around. Few minor dints but nothing you couldn't hammer out.
  10. Because last time we tried to sell Australia a naval vessel the dirty dagos gave us need of it. Selling them a sub would be inviting the Argies to have another go. What is worse, this time around we don't even have harrier!

  11. We could do a build two and give one away for free scheme, like with carriers.....
  12. Running a fleet of SSN's requires more than just a few jetties. There are facilities and associated costs related to managing and disposing of nuclear reactors which go far beyond those required for SSK's. Almost certainly a non-started for Oz unless they fully bought into the USN support system.

    Incidentally the UK's first SSN, Dreadnought, had a US made reactor and subsequent designs right up to the T-boats had reactors based on this, which meant the US could prevent them being exported (we tried to sell T-boats to Canada in the 1980s). Astute's reactor is wholly UK but the rest of the boat required significant US design input due to serial incompetence by BAE/MoD.
  13. Bouillabaisse

    Bouillabaisse LE Book Reviewer

    Incompetence and prevarication by the government, not by BAE or MOD. Procurement of Astute was delayed by politicians for political reasons despite BAE and MOD both telling them that the longer they delayed the more skills would be lost. And lo - it came to pass that no one in Britain remembered how to build a submarine when one was wanted and BAE had to pay Electric Boat a lot of money to remind them.
  14. Ha, there's no support for SSNs in Australia, the politics are totally against it. There is also no nuclear industry or other infrastucture apart from a small reactor used to produce medical isotopes. Then there's the question of where to base them, Fleet Base East = Sydney! SSNs in Sydney Harbour, a guarantee for the party supporting it to lose most NSW seats in Federal parliament, megabrave decision minister. Great joke only a mentally retarded spam in Washington totally out of touch with Aust political reality could have dreamt that one up.
    • Like Like x 1