Jump to content

Nuclear Subs for Australia?


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, AJ Oliver said:

Zonk's point was wrong - and we are all wrong at times. 

Writing that  "Chinese civilization as a nation state is thousands of years old." 

is like writing Britain that has been a nation state since long before 1066. 

It is just not accurate . . . 

Well that rather depends on Britain seeing as it’s been around since before the Roman invasion. I assume you meant Great Britain however.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 959
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Diesel subs are awesome for littoral waters, but suck balls for ocean crossings. I infer this as we have decided a close defence isn't what is needed anymore and we are moving to a forward projection

Gotta wonder why Australia wants subs at all but nuclear subs? They're scary expensive, like $2B, and loud whereas a diesel sub will only set you back $500M and can run dead silent on electric. Since

This is one of the dumber things ever on PA. You think the USA has even a 0.000001% chance of wanting to invade Australia? What The Actual Fuck The USA has no interest in invading anyplace

Posted Images

 

The Chinese have 60 attack and 12 boomer subs. And subs are the major component of their fleet. 

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_People's_Liberation_Army_Navy_ships

 

 A sub is the best thing to have against other subs. The game is all about detection and pretty much everything is easier to detect than a sub. That said, 12 fucking boomers show we are once again playing the game which imagines a major war between two nations which have intercontinental nuclear capability.   

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Laker said:

Just because the Chinese have anti-sub capability does not mean that capability is omnipoten

Actually it's the opposite. The Chinese anti-sub capability is very low. It's a real vulnerability.

For them to increase their capability the hard part isn't the hardware (sonar/dipping helicopters/planes with sonobuoys). The hard part is learning to use it in a coordinated fashion to find a sub and prosecute a contact.

Canada used to be very good at this during the Cold War (finding Soviet subs). We lost that capability and institutional knowledge. Not sure we really have it back yet.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mark K said:

12 fucking boomers show we are once again playing the game

They won't be Ballistic missile subs ("boomers"). They are attack subs with torpedoes and presumably cruise missles.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Zonker said:

Canada used to be very good at this during the Cold War (finding Soviet subs).

Reoportedly, Soviet subs were easy to find because they left a radioactive trail in the water. 

Modern ones may have fixed that - I dunno. 

A wake detection system (WKS) are special sensors that analyze the state of water near a submarine. And sometimes from this analysis it can be determined that another submarine has passed here recently - nuclear submarines leave a small footprint from the reactor, emit warm water used to cool the reactor, diesel submarines leave exhaust from a diesel engine, or a trail of bubbles, etc. That is, with a competent analysis, can not only determine that another submarine passed in this place, but can even determine the direction of its movement, speed and distance. Well, in much the same way as on modern fighters, it is determined by special thermal radars from the thermal and gas trail left by the engines of the enemy aircraft.

Such systems have been used on Soviet submarines since the late 1960s.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And how about a shout-out to that Soviet sub commander who disobeyed 

an order to fire a nuke torpedo in 1962 ?? 

How durst he disrespect civilian leadership in such an outrageous fashion ??? 

The Man Who Saved the World, premiering Tuesday, October 23 at 9 pm ET on PBS (check local listings), tells the unsung story of Soviet naval officer Vasili Arkhipov, the Brigade Chief of Staff on submarine B-59, who refused to fire a nuclear missile and saved the world from World War III and nuclear disaster.

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Zonker said:

They won't be Ballistic missile subs ("boomers"). They are attack subs with torpedoes and presumably cruise missles.

You're partially right, I got something wrong there. They only list 7 ballistic missile subs, the 12 nuclear attack subs I was citing aren't ballistic missiles ships.

 Correction: 7 fucking boomers.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Apparently it never occurred to you that manned submarines make an excellent forward base for drones and are almost certainly to be protected by their own swarms.

You skipped the math lesson on range vs payload, didn't you?

- DSK

That did occur to me.

It also occurred to me that there are much cheaper ways to deploy drones, air, surface ships, all faster and cheaper.

Humans in underwater vessels is so last century, as are air crew.

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, AJ Oliver said:

And how about a shout-out to that Soviet sub commander who disobeyed 

an order to fire a nuke torpedo in 1962 ?? 

How durst he disrespect civilian leadership in such an outrageous fashion ??? 

The Man Who Saved the World, premiering Tuesday, October 23 at 9 pm ET on PBS (check local listings), tells the unsung story of Soviet naval officer Vasili Arkhipov, the Brigade Chief of Staff on submarine B-59, who refused to fire a nuclear missile and saved the world from World War III and nuclear disaster.

Really old news professor, but thanks. 
Speaking of the Russians, how has VFP been received there?

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Burning Man said:

What was the cockup on the Apache?  That's a pretty mature and battle proven weapons system.

Also you guys recently bought F/A-18Gs from us.  By all accounts, yours are a bit more capable then our current Navy's version.  

We were after Apaches but got tigers instead because politics.

Our Abrahams deal was pretty ordinary.

Our super hornets are leased.....

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ease the sheet. said:

Except it does.

Because diesel elec are better.

As long as they don't have to go far from a fleet oiler or shore base, and as long as they don't need to stay on station for months that is.

Ideally you'd have both - the d/e boats for littoral waters around the home coast and nuke powered boats for long distance interdiction, delivery of 'stuff' and other duties as required (mining ports for example).

We can't afford both. Well not yet anyway.

FKT

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

As long as they don't have to go far from a fleet oiler or shore base, and as long as they don't need to stay on station for months that is.

Ideally you'd have both - the d/e boats for littoral waters around the home coast and nuke powered boats for long distance interdiction, delivery of 'stuff' and other duties as required (mining ports for example).

We can't afford both. Well not yet anyway.

FKT

Once you sell Tasmania, you'll be rolling in dough.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/16/2021 at 2:09 AM, Olsonist said:

Gotta wonder why Australia wants subs at all but nuclear subs? They're scary expensive, like $2B, and loud whereas a diesel sub will only set you back $500M and can run dead silent on electric. Since Australia isn't in the nuclear deterrent game, these would be attack subs and diesel electric is at a very high art. But if your mission is to spend money, sure.

We ordered some from France but they only go in reverse. They did say they would throw in a free white flag with every new boat. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

Once you sell Tasmania, you'll be rolling in dough.

Who would buy the place? You'd have to depopulate it first.

No, more better we take South Island off of NZ and rent it out to the USA as a military base. Not like we'd need to send more than a patrol boat after all.

FKT

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

Who would buy the place? You'd have to depopulate it first.

No, more better we take South Island off of NZ and rent it out to the USA as a military base. Not like we'd need to send more than a patrol boat after all.

FKT

A dinghy with a couple of drunks could probably take it over, not that anyone would notice.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ishmael said:

A dinghy with a couple of drunks could probably take it over, not that anyone would notice.

I think we've already done that a number of times.

Then, when they sober up, they give it back.

FKT

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/15/2021 at 10:25 PM, Olsonist said:

Well, Japan did ask us to remove them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._nuclear_weapons_in_Japan#Weapon_withdrawal

The Cold War is over and both US and Russia reduced the number of nukes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_nuclear_weapons_stockpiles_and_nuclear_tests_by_country

I don't think we have any on Okinawa or Diego Garcia. But have aircraft carriers and subs with nukes.

Yeah, the Bulletin says outside of the US, we keep them in five European countries.

Aviano and Ghedi in Italy; Büchel in Germany; Incirlik in Turkey; Kleine Brogel in Belgium; and Volkel in the Netherlands

https://thebulletin.org/premium/2021-01/nuclear-notebook-united-states-nuclear-weapons-2021/

I don't think we have them in incirlik anymore after the attempted Coup and other fuckery from Erdo.

We do/did have them in one other euro country than is what is listed there.  Just saying.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

As long as they don't have to go far from a fleet oiler or shore base, and as long as they don't need to stay on station for months that is.

Ideally you'd have both - the d/e boats for littoral waters around the home coast and nuke powered boats for long distance interdiction, delivery of 'stuff' and other duties as required (mining ports for example).

We can't afford both. Well not yet anyway.

FKT

Collins endurance considered to be 70 days......

 

Fuckers operate out if Perth.

If range/endurance was really a problem, why would they be based in Perth, it's fucking miles from the sth china sea...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Another of your typical substantive comments . .   @Burning Man

One trick pony ?? 

I'd say I have at least three or four tricks. 

Your insults and memes lack creativity  . .  

But for you, it's almost civil. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is our favorite "Peace Pony" . . 

Actually, in seriousness our town has an outstanding carousel museum. 

AJ sez "Check it out!!" 

image.jpeg.dcd3b447b6dc4cb1d5ef4d6162a1e8a3.jpeg

This one is in Salem, Oregon . . . 

The first horse carried peace. As the original horse to be carved, Salem Peace Pony rode forward with an astonishing dream - the hope that a carousel could unite a community. This small, classic pony would lead the way for all others on Salem's Riverfront Carousel. With the first tentative chisel strikes, a horse finally gave form to what had once been only a heartfelt wish. 

Crafted in a simple, flowing design inspired by one of America's original carousel companies, the lithe C.W. Parker-style horse wears our nation's colors and simple symbols of peace and goodwill. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Burning Man said:

I don't think we have them in incirlik anymore after the attempted Coup and other fuckery from Erdo.

We do/did have them in one other euro country than is what is listed there.  Just saying.

What I've read is Incirlik still has B61s. The Turks would know and they would be pissed if we didn't have them there (or rather that we took our toys and went home). They'd probably close Incirlik. They are pissed about Biden recognizing the Armenian genocide. They're probably pleased (in a gruesome sort of way) with the Khashoggi hit because while Shitstain liked it then, Biden doesn't like it now (now is now, if you're keeping score at home) and that drives a wedge between the US and SA. As for the coup attempt, I think it is long over. Obama said we didn't know; we didn't offer asylum to the generals but we didn't extradite Gulen either.

Not a fan of Erdogan but fuck SA. The Ed will probably hell ban me now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, chum said:

So many experts here on so many subjects.

Well it's not hard.

When I saw the news I wondered about what current tech could be used to make them obsolete yesterday.  I thought underwater drones, big enough the carry enough high explosive to take out a sub. 

Googled that and fuck me, there were images of the Chinese parading the fuckers!  The Americans with surface drones hunting subs!

All that had to happen in WWII was a cheap Corvette and some basic sonar.  All that had to happen now was a drone swarm deployed by aircraft, or a mother drone, like a cluster bomb.

I'm sure they already have them.   Manned subs are so 1930's, but dumb as fuck voters think they are kool as.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ease the sheet. said:

Collins endurance considered to be 70 days......

 

Fuckers operate out if Perth.

If range/endurance was really a problem, why would they be based in Perth, it's fucking miles from the sth china sea...

Good question - politics is the usual answer. Cockburn Sound has been a sub base since WW2.

Doesn't in any way invalidate my comments re range though.

EDIT: And who said their patrol area went as far as the South China Sea now? You've failed to establish the relevance of that remark.

Plus of course their 70 days endurance includes all the surface running. Their submerged endurance, especially at speed, is probably a small handful of days.

FKT

Edited by Fah Kiew Tu
Another thought (yes, rare).
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ncik said:

Yes, DE subs are useless on long range missions...

https://www.afr.com/companies/manufacturing/collins-class-sub-shines-in-hawaii-war-games-20000707-k9kir

Could be propaganda though. Who would know.

In WW II diesel subs could go from Hawaii to Japan and back again. That isn't the issue, the issue is they had to do it on the surface or with a snorkel.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kent_island_sailor said:

In WW II diesel subs could go from Hawaii to Japan and back again. That isn't the issue, the issue is they had to do it on the surface or with a snorkel.

You should research what d/e subs have done to US fleets in the past 20 years.

Snorkeling doesn't seem to be the issue that it's made out to be....

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Ease the sheet. said:

You should research what d/e subs have done to US fleets in the past 20 years.

Snorkeling doesn't seem to be the issue that it's made out to be....

I am sure they are better now, we have lithium batteries for a start. The issue is AFAIK in an actual war, as opposed to exercises and fooling around, they are targets all the time, not just around the exercise area. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

I am sure they are better now, we have lithium batteries for a start. The issue is AFAIK in an actual war, as opposed to exercises and fooling around, they are targets all the time, not just around the exercise area. 

There's plenty of other parts of "the system" in an actual war to minimise the risk.

D/E subs biggest advantage has traditionally been noise. Take away that advantage, and nuke subs are definitely better.

I mentioned somewhere else about crewing. Australia cannot man all the subs they have now, how are we going to man a bigger fleet of boats which need twice as many people?

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Ease the sheet. said:

There's plenty of other parts of "the system" in an actual war to minimise the risk.

D/E subs biggest advantage has traditionally been noise. Take away that advantage, and nuke subs are definitely better.

I mentioned somewhere else about crewing. Australia cannot man all the subs they have now, how are we going to man a bigger fleet of boats which need twice as many people?

I don't know, it may be the nuke sub idea isn't really a good one. Converting nuke boats to diesel also is a poor idea. There has to be some diesel boat around somewhere, German maybe, you can just go buy and have it tomorrow instead of 30 years from now.

Actually the biggest drawback of a nuke boat for Australia is you are going up to the biggest bully on the block, kicking him in the shins, and loudly announcing you are buying a 12-gauge in 2050. That gives him a lot of time to figure ways to kick your ass before then :rolleyes:

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ease the sheet. said:

 Australia cannot man all the subs they have now, how are we going to man a bigger fleet of boats which need twice as many people?

If they can't round up some sailors, they have issues that no amount of toys off eBay are going to solve.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ultimately, this decision will be made by the Ozzians (sic?) 

But they would be wise to consider some of the factors listed above . . 

One factor that has not be mentioned yet (though it is in the BotAS cite above), 

is that if they go with the HER motors . . 

that will pretty much blow up what little is left of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. 

I'm sure the Blob is very concerned about that . . . 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, spankoka said:

I don't see why nuclear power per se breaks the NPT.

it is because HER is bomb grade . . . 

Nearly all power plants use LER (much less enriched) 

Highly enriched uranium (HEU) is a substance with only low radioactivity in comparison to several other materials such as plutonium or spent nuclear fuel. ... But HEU has another property: It can be used as a nuclear explosive material, making it one of the most dangerous substances on earth

Come on man, don't make me do your homework for you. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Ease the sheet. said:

There's plenty of other parts of "the system" in an actual war to minimise the risk.

D/E subs biggest advantage has traditionally been noise. Take away that advantage, and nuke subs are definitely better.

I mentioned somewhere else about crewing. Australia cannot man all the subs they have now, how are we going to man a bigger fleet of boats which need twice as many people?

Most of the reports on sub detection these days are about things other-than-noise though. The satellites are getting pretty good and seeing EVERYTHING and China has that tech. If you know about where a sub is you got a good shot at active-sonaring out the details.

  I would guess they are thinking the only shot a sub has in the now and near future is to go under and stay there 24-7.  The DEs have to spend a lot of time on the surface. 

Also the simplicity. See that Collins class, 400 tons of batteries, 15 tanks of diesel scattered all over the ship, have to be flooded with sea water to adjust trim, and then they need fuel-water separators to clean up that mess. A bunch of diesel engines....

 All gone in a nuke. 

  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/16/2021 at 12:53 AM, Ease the sheet. said:

Los Angeles?

You're a generation behind grandpa....

I don't do squid, but my understanding is the Los Angeles boats are still probably better than anything the Frogs built.  You could get a lot of those at the Used Submarine lot for $90B

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Ncik said:

Yes, DE subs are useless on long range missions...

https://www.afr.com/companies/manufacturing/collins-class-sub-shines-in-hawaii-war-games-20000707-k9kir

Could be propaganda though. Who would know.

This is pretty well documented. The exercise involved the Colins class boat being able to get withing firing range which it did. Admittedly the exercise was in littoral waters with a couple of islands that the Collins class got to skulk around. This is the ideal environment for a diesel electric boat.

 

The decision to go nuclear only makes sense if we are moving to a forward projection capability instead of one that is about defence: ie: protecting one's territorial waters. Diesel subs simply cannot survive outside in a hostile environment 1000's of kms from home when you have to come up to snorkel every 24-48 hours. The European AIP diesel boats are impressive as they allegedly extend this range up to potentially a few weeks. 

A nuclear boat has a near infinite submerged duration aside from food. Perfect for skulking around the oceans in a forward operating capacity.

The RAAF always bought their toys predicated around redundancy and range, we wanted the offence capability to strike well outside of our borders. This is why we have , up until the fucking F-35 that is, always bought dual engined strike aircraft like the F111 and the F18 Hornet and Super Hornet, because of the range and environment they had to operate at. You flame out a single engine aircraft anywhere in the operational area that the RAAF play in in and you're pretty much toast. 

Looks like the Navy is now pushing that operational area outwards, big time. 

I'd guesstimate the federal government knows more than they are letting on about Chinese ambitions, and nuclear boats are the resultant response to that information. Wild assed guesses admittedly, but hey, its not really rocket science to read between the lines when faced with such a dramatic policy shift.

 

       

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/16/2021 at 9:31 AM, AJ Oliver said:
On 9/16/2021 at 2:09 AM, 00seven said:

I wouldn't crew on that timber shitter for love nor money.....

You got that right - no room for fascists on the peace vessel. 

Everyone's a fascist if they don't agree with you or buy into your BS.  Ain't that right, OTP?

image.png.14f050dde34309dda19bb8d61cb9d838.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/16/2021 at 3:46 PM, Ease the sheet. said:

 

So NSW dies not have a ban on nuclear ships in the harbour?

Don't know about NSW, but Brisbane seems to have no issue with them....

https://thediplomat.com/2019/07/us-carrier-strike-group-arrives-in-australia-for-port-call-ahead-of-talisman-sabre-2019/

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

I've worked on some security stuff when we had Obama come to visit. Our emergency services use a reserved frequency band for communication and intel swapping that operates at about 4.9 ghz. When the US navy came and parked up in the bay as part of their shadowing the POTUS around, some system on board the ships whited out a significant chunk of that spectrum so effectively we had to can the use of that frequency band until they left.:) 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/18/2021 at 3:30 AM, BeSafe said:

If you look at a map, it's pretty clear to see what's happening.

Toward the end of the 'aughts', the US started its formal pivot east.  Russia done, Europe done, China now interesting.  That picked up steam during Obama's 2nd term but he was always very polite and more diplomatic so things went a bit slow at first.

Then came Trump - he 'got on' with the plan.  Ripped up the Russian agreements that were in the way,   Cut the new deals - with who?   Korea/Japan and India. Rail is nice and all for domestic distribution but nothing competes price wise with cargo ships if you're talking about trade goods.  And China relies on bulk trade more than anyone.  They need heavy commodities, the stuff that's not worth much per pound.  That requires ships.  We cut shiny new deals with the guys that literally sit on the sea routes out from the south china sea.

Layer 2 - those countries in the middle of the box - particularly Malaysia and Thailand - are the world leaders in mid-tier electronics, mostly used in industrial equipment.  They're the middle class of the supply chain these days and are very important to things like cars and factory automation.  Stability in that region is equally important.  So layer 2 was constructed from Diego Garcia, Australia, and Guam.  There's a bunch of other posturing but that's the big onion.  Japan/Korea/India, then Australia/DG/Guam on the outer layer, then you hit the final line in Hawaii.

Biden didn't even bother to talk to the French, he just cut the deal with England/Australia and went on with life.  The US doesn't really care about Europe much anymore - we care about England, that's why the new deal includes them - we don't care about the continent.  We LIKE Europe - good place to visit - but we don't CARE about what happens to any large degree.

This is the new paradigm.  Trump, as boorish as he could be, was honest when he told NATO to buy more guns.  We're not seriously defending their interests anymore and hell-no are we going to get in a stand off against the Russians in places like Crimea .  That's a 'you' problem.  The French actually understand the new dynamic which is why they've been upping their involvement in Africa.  They are just annoyed that we were so RUDE about it. 

 

NewBW2.png

There's only one major flaw with your otherwise excellent synopsis...... 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's not Diego Garcia or DG.  It's Diego FUCKING Garcia, aka DFG.  What??  Are you new here?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/18/2021 at 6:54 AM, loneshark64 said:

And mainland Europe has its bureaucratic head way too far up its ass to help. The west is getting the F out of the Middle East and pivoting toward the Pacific and that’s your next 50 to 100 years, folks.

DING!  With one minor correction.

Edit to add:  China is the master of playing the long game and the west has traditionally been shit at it.  This play by the UK, US and AUS signals to Jhyna that we are playing the long game too, so bring it bitch!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Ease the sheet. said:

Australia cannot man all the subs they have now, how are we going to man a bigger fleet of boats which need twice as many people?

Free beer on Saturdays? 2 weeks on/2 weeks off?

8 hours ago, kent_island_sailor said:

There has to be some diesel boat around somewhere, German maybe, you can just go buy and have it tomorrow instead of 30 years from now.

Yes, French (2000T), Japan (Stirling / Li-Ion 4200T), German D/E (1800 T) all exist but maybe not big enough for the range Australia need. Also slower to get to patrol region 2000 miles away.

I think that's why they were converting a French nuke boat (5300 T) (because the hull was bigger).

 

1 hour ago, AJ Oliver said:
1 hour ago, spankoka said:

I don't see why nuclear power per se breaks the NPT.

it is because HER is bomb grade . . . 

Nearly all power plants use LER (much less enriched) 

Highly enriched uranium (HEU) is a substance with only low radioactivity in comparison to several other materials such as plutonium or spent nuclear fuel. ... But HEU has another property: It can be used as a nuclear explosive material, making it one of the most dangerous substances on earth

Come on man, don't make me do your homework for you. 

The NPT only concerns itself with weapons, not fissible materials. The text is here:

https://www.un.org/disarmament/wmd/nuclear/npt/text/

"Article II

Each non-nuclear-weapon State <i.e. Straya> Party to the Treaty undertakes not to receive the transfer from any transferor whatsoever of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or of control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; not to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices; and not to seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons
or other nuclear explosive devices.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/18/2021 at 8:48 AM, AJ Oliver said:

that is just how the US Blob operates. 

So you've now pivoted from **dogballs** to the "blobbistas"??  Whatever you say, OTP.  I wonder how long the Mods are going to let you go when you use this new word to death.  WTF does it even mean?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/19/2021 at 3:13 PM, Ease the sheet. said:

History says that America likes to invade more often than China. 

Uhhhh, maybe in the last 250 years.  But China has been around for thousands.  Want to try to tackle that history lesson again?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, AJ Oliver said:

Ultimately, this decision will be made by the Ozzians (sic?) 

But they would be wise to consider some of the factors listed above . . 

One factor that has not be mentioned yet (though it is in the BotAS cite above), 

is that if they go with the HER motors . . 

that will pretty much blow up what little is left of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. 

I'm sure the Blob is very concerned about that . . . 

Well AJ our 'Prime Minister in waiting' agrees with you. But unlike you she only enjoys having sex with women.

Labor's Penny Wong questions impact of AUKUS deal on Australia's defence autonomy

A woman with short brown and grey hair wearing a suit jacket with a white top standing at a lecturn in front of two mircophones

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-09-23/penny-wong-to-question-aukus-submarine-deal-impact/100484384

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, LB 15 said:

We ordered some from France but they only go in reverse. They did say they would throw in a free white flag with every new boat. 

 US boats have torpedo tubes mounted in the front too.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, kent_island_sailor said:

If they can't round up some sailors, they have issues that no amount of toys off eBay are going to solve.

This. Staffing the subs is an issue now, may well be an issue in the future.

At least part of the problem is pay, another part the Navy's habit of shifting people from base to base which doesn't go well in the modern era of fucking with the partner's career as well as the Navy person.

And for the officers, it used to be 'up or out' which may not make sense WRT complex things like nuke subs either.

Staffing can always be solved if the will is there to do what it takes WRT pay & working conditions. On that score, no predictions.

FKT

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/21/2021 at 4:37 PM, chum said:

Really old news professor, but thanks. 
Speaking of the Russians, how has VFP been received there?

I noticed you didn't answer Ollie. I've seen you say that VFP is engaged with Russia, why won't you elaborate on that? 

Please take notice that I'm being polite and respectful.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, shaggybaxter said:

This is pretty well documented. The exercise involved the Colins class boat being able to get withing firing range which it did. Admittedly the exercise was in littoral waters with a couple of islands that the Collins class got to skulk around. This is the ideal environment for a diesel electric boat.

 

The decision to go nuclear only makes sense if we are moving to a forward projection capability instead of one that is about defence: ie: protecting one's territorial waters. Diesel subs simply cannot survive outside in a hostile environment 1000's of kms from home when you have to come up to snorkel every 24-48 hours. The European AIP diesel boats are impressive as they allegedly extend this range up to potentially a few weeks. 

A nuclear boat has a near infinite submerged duration aside from food. Perfect for skulking around the oceans in a forward operating capacity.

The RAAF always bought their toys predicated around redundancy and range, we wanted the offence capability to strike well outside of our borders. This is why we have , up until the fucking F-35 that is, always bought dual engined strike aircraft like the F111 and the F18 Hornet and Super Hornet, because of the range and environment they had to operate at. You flame out a single engine aircraft anywhere in the operational area that the RAAF play in in and you're pretty much toast. 

Looks like the Navy is now pushing that operational area outwards, big time. 

I'd guesstimate the federal government knows more than they are letting on about Chinese ambitions, and nuclear boats are the resultant response to that information. Wild assed guesses admittedly, but hey, its not really rocket science to read between the lines when faced with such a dramatic policy shift.

 

       

 

 

 

 

 

Nuke subs now are all about access to technology.

We couldn't access it before now.

I've said previously, we would have had nuke subs 50 years ago if the technology was available to us.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Burning Man said:

China is the master of playing the long game

Sorry dude, but that is an idiotic statement . . 

You need to back it up with Eva Dense . . 

And that you cannot do because it never happened.  

It quite similar to the Right Wing militarist fear mongering that went on during the Cold War. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, chum said:

I've seen you say that VFP is engaged with Russia,

No, you have not seen that. Fortunately we have never met.  

With whom are you engaged ?? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, spankoka said:

Oz and Indo need to be on same page in the China Sea. 

Indi Malaysia Philippines Thailand Vietnam & aust need to be on the same page

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

So here is a recent Blobette OP-ed on China and the long game . . 

Read it. 

It amounts to a giant covfefe hamberder 

https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/09/opinions/presidential-weekly-briefing-china-threat-vinograd/index.html

Seriously, is this the sort of non-analysis upon which you want to hang your hats ??? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, shaggybaxter said:

 

The decision to go nuclear only makes sense if we are moving to a forward projection capability instead of one that is about defence: ie: protecting one's territorial waters. Diesel subs simply cannot survive outside in a hostile environment 1000's of kms from home when you have to come up to snorkel every 24-48 hours. The European AIP diesel boats are impressive as they allegedly extend this range up to potentially a few weeks. 

A nuclear boat has a near infinite submerged duration aside from food. Perfect for skulking around the oceans in a forward operating capacity.

I would imagine that the subs will be spending a lot of time in the South China Sea and distant areas of the Pacific shadowing the Chinese fleets etc. 

With the aggressive expansion of the Chinese navy, it makes sense that we need subs with far greater range and submersion times. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, AJ Oliver said:

So here is a recent Blobette OP-ed on China and the long game . . 

Read it. 

It amounts to a giant covfefe hamberder 

https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/09/opinions/presidential-weekly-briefing-china-threat-vinograd/index.html

Seriously, is this the sort of non-analysis upon which you want to hang your hats ??? 

Why don't you just fuck off and live there since you hate democracy so much.

Leftist twit.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Dark Knight said:

I would imagine that the subs will be spending a lot of time in the South China Sea and distant areas of the Pacific shadowing the Chinese fleets etc. 

With the aggressive expansion of the Chinese navy, it makes sense that we need subs with far greater range and submersion times. 

new navy base in manus....

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Ease the sheet. said:

new navy base in manus....

It's an upgrade, not new. It's for patrol boats.

Do you have a cite that says anything different? Or just superior knowlwdge?

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Ease the sheet. said:

Shadow a fleet?

So our p8's are irrelevant?

Satellites?

Jorn?

FFS, you are incredibly ignorant.

Are you that stupid? An undetected submerged submarine is capable of gathering intelligence 24/7.  Nothing else can do do that.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Ease the sheet. said:

Oh my.

Nothing else, hey?

The * whole point* of the subs is that your adversary doesn't know where they are. Any naval operations you conduct without knowing where every adversary sub is could involve your ships being torpedoed at any time. The subs don't even have to be in the same ocean, as long as you can't find them they MIGHT be right under your fleet.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

The * whole point* of the subs is that your adversary doesn't know where they are. Any naval operations you conduct without knowing where every adversary sub is could involve your ships being torpedoed at any time. The subs don't even have to be in the same ocean, as long as you can't find them they MIGHT be right under your fleet.

 

Subs don't need to shadow fleets.....

Link to post
Share on other sites