Australians now attending British nuclear submarine courses

Wiped the floor with the block IV Virginias? Please provided facts to back up this claim and not just rumors.

It was widely reported in 2018. Astute went to East coast of USA and was pitted against 2 Virginia class SSNs defending and screening a US carrier battle group. Astute approach. Got a targetting lock on both Virginia class without being detected.
They both would have been killed.
Then closed the carrier group. Targetting lock without being detected vs the screening Arleigh burke and Vincennes class cruiser. Both would have been sunk.
That would have stripped away the carrier battle groups defences and the Astute could have closed and made the Nimitz class day very much a bad day.
Was reported in Warships IFR.
USN are qouted as saying they couldnt believe the Astute could track and engage and such ranges whilst being undetected itself.

Hi Mr. Bell.

I think it’s worth adding to your comments that the RN boat crews are perhaps the best trained in the world.

Crew training – be it RN/RAF/Army – often gets overlooked and I think we have some of the finest men and women in uniform anywhere! We as a nation, should be proud of them!

I know I am but I’d like to see a higher profile given to the men women and animals that serve us so well

T this is imaginary UK fanboy stuff. Source please. But it sounds good on the internet.

Nothing much in the public domain for obvious reasons but US Admiral Johnathan Greenert was quoted as saying he was “astounded” and “taken aback” at the range an Astute could track one of the earlier Virginia’s, USS New Mexico, following trials at AUTEC in the Bahamas.

Well it was reported by an American serviceman who served aboard the astute back when it happened it has been reported on variously over the years and I read it again a few momths back in an American publication that made no attempt to discredit the reports. If you are expecting proof you aren’t going to get it the name of said officer will not be released for obvious reasons and no way will either UK or US navies or other authorities, release any information on the matter (for about 50 years anyway) as it’s clearly sensitive top secret information and if true would be deeply embarrassing at best strategically scary at worst, so nothing will be publicly released to confirm it though denials have been interestingly like tumbleweed as that no doubt would be a magnet in attracting further evidence seeping out from those involved Secrets Act or otherwise.

The US in particular is deeply concerned about the quietness of the latest Russian subs, indeed a series of simulation convoy operations have been carried out in recent years to try to determine tactics to counter them no one would wish classified information useful to an enemy to become confirmed but this is no made up story or urban myth, it’s simply the details we don’t know and how damning and encompassing they are.

As an aside if I remember correctly, I certainly saw it reported as such, I do believe the French subs were to sport British sonar and I also read that the acquisition of US reactor technology was countered by transfer of sonar technology though I am only basing that on memory from some years back so not taking it as gospel again it’s not something that’s going to be advertised.

Presume he is referring to circa 2012 trial/demo where HMS Astute held a sonar lock on the New Mexico. Embarrassed and annoyed naval staff. Would bet this spurred significant investment by USN! 🤔😁

where did you get wiped the floor? this? my son is on ambush and tells me a lot of his crewmates(who like all submariners) are superstitious an think the class is jinxed are not impressed that so much money was spent on these boats that the crew wouldn’t be expected to use the cheapest plastic plug sockets and that cheap short cuts can be found everywhere internal pipework is already showing internal rusting the ambush is yet to reach the expected maximum speed predicted in the design. they ARE a awaste of money the R.N could have had double the number of conventional boats for less than the price of one astute

You always get stories like this I’m afraid sometimes meaningful often baseless especially in an oppressive environment like a submarine so unless I hear many stories of this type I personally cannot judge their veracity I have just read an article in the Telegraph by an ex military bod claiming we should replace all F-35b’s because they are ‘useless’ and all Typhoons because they are too expensive to operate and replace both with ‘Hornets’ because they are ‘good enough’ ( after adding cats and traps) oh and cancel Tempest and simply buy American because Bae doesn’t employ as many as it did 20 years ago. No idea if he was being too lazy to use it’s true name or simply doesn’t know that Hornets are very rare these days having been replaced by Super Hornets which are fundamentally a completely different aircraft, either way showed his general lack of insight and precision in his arguments, let alone a serious handle on logic. Anyway one does have to filter comments when such delusion/disillusion can even reach such main stream output, seems to be the culture here sadly.

One thing he said that does have credence however is the fact it hasn’t, or at least hadn’t some years back, met it’s expected top speed due I believe to the problem around forcing an oversized reactor into them (shown by the bulge) and associated issues. However that was reported many years back in the early days of Astute so no idea if that has ever been overcome. That said as it’s reported top speed is superior to that of US equivalents I am not sure how big an issue that might be.

Ah yes, Lewis Page, again. Well refuted here
https://thinpinstripedline.blogspot.com/2022/07/challenging-stupid-thoughts-on-lewis.html

Many stats to modern conversational boats are surprisingly good, although the issue of speed will always be an issue

Conventional boats that are useless for fighting top end nuclear boats or travelling round the world or keeping up with carrier groups? fine for home defence but not much use in peer war

When AR said “too slow” he wasn’t referring to maximum velocity but build speed. However, the build speed has to be slow. That way we maintain a skilled workforce ready to move on to the next project.

Rwiped the floor??? Where did you get that from? I remember the saga of the 100,000swedish krona that wiped the whole Ronald Reagan Cartier group and was so effective, the Americans rented it so that they were able to find it on the net there is a short video of how cheap little submarine sank the American navy.

I certainly agree with your assessment!

Are you calling me a liar?

Well, you have provided any evidence. We haven’t even finished the Astute Class.

I also appear to be living rent free in your head.

And you are a prat.

They could always order a few more and replace them sooner 🙂

I wonder if, with a suitable re-jigging of the budgets, it would be possible to fit another boat in the timeline? Either for the RN or RAN.

When you have to exist in every way aboard a submarine, the last thing you want to do is believe that nobody cares about you to. Operate in an environment which shows how far down the line you arewhen everything around you says that I are at the bottom of the pile morale on a boat is more important than on a surface vessel

Itit was also claimed that the type 45destriyer was to be the best on the planet but we found out that the BAE catalogue had forgotten to consider what it would perform like on a sunny day

Says BAE

Actually I do know my submarines, 8 served in One hm.s Otis an. Oberon class very cramped, very slow, buT deadly. got a bit smelly as well. She, like many of her sisters, was retired too earl. Those sold to other navy’s gave many more years service

So you call me a liar? Don’t think, you, or most of the other ‘admirals on her have ever been in the NAVY and instead spout their. Nonsense from a hobby book 📚

You are absolutely correct there and in my view as finding Chinese subs and defending against their warships is by far more important to them than land attack against a nuclear power when you aren’t, the Astute or something similar is by far more suited to them and their immediate needs. HOWEVER, from what I read last week the proposal to buy US subs in Parliamentary records, was pretty much decided months ago by the pre ious Govt because it’s reckoned they could supply the first as early as 2030, one presumes by passing over a few of their own stock. Australians are already engaged in working on US subs accordingly. One caveat however in that article, it stated a comment from the previous defence Minister ( I think) but certainly high up in that Govt close to defence openly de decrying they haven’t and urging Britain to pull its finger out as it is yet to put forward any proposal for supplying Astute class subs or any proposed date that they could be supplied. It sounded like Britain isn’t really active in offering to supply subs to Australia, maybe we feel we can’t win because of the timescale, cost and the Australians desire to stay onside with the US who knows. But he sounded distraught at our lack of urgency and effort that’s for sure.

My gut feeling is that the uk Govt/Industry just doesn’t want to try to overcome the difficulties, risks and costs of trying to have Bae fit in any such build due to the already plugged in end of programme and the new Dreadnought planning. Perhaps sensible considering the problems involved, but sadly sniffs of that lack of ‘can do’ so prevalent in UK for far too long and still prevails generally despite the pr trying to suggest otherwise. Selling Oneweb (as is being reported) to the French is but another example of not wanting to follow through on highly promoted ‘big ideas’ the words seem like fluff to fool the public that the uk is at the forefront when too often it’s a laggard or true vision is simply sold out for short term cash of fear of commitment to the longer term benefits.

By all accounts, Chinese boats aren’t too hard to find as they are supposed to very noisy. Apparently during CGI 21 last year in the South China Sea, our Type 23s found two Chinese boats that were tailing the carrier group in a matter of minutes and a third was found by our attached Astute boat. All three Chinese boats would have had an invitation to the Bottoms Up Club, if it had been a shooting war.

My only contention with this is the fact the Chinese have the numbers and we simply don’t. They can afford to loose a lot of boats and hulls whereas us loosing just one causes significant hardship.

Could Australia actually afford the missiles? We only have a handful of tomahawks. If official numbers are correct then we couldn’t even fill out the 7 astute let alone extra silo for bigger subs.

Yeah isn’t going to happen even the US on their next gen attack subs are debating due to costs amongst other factors, whether to create something more compact (sound familiar) and losing the vertical launch tubes though I can’t see that actually happening in the end the flexibility is too important to them but a lot will be dictated by whatever missile development they go for too and the launch preferences/requirements but one presumes that vertical likely is the preference in that regard but I am no expert there.

no australia would be bankrupt just filling the vls

That I think would be best for Australia all things being equal like us they need a specialist sub the US rightly needs an allrounder but that inherits compromises that wont give Oz any advantages against China but will add cost in manpower and detectability when they will be operating in a very hostile environment potentially. If they are charged at defending their homeland at distance I know what platform I would prefer to do the job but sadly I think circumstances will dictate otherwise though I expect some uk content esp in sonar.

I do think that the training on uk subs is more down to the fact we intend to utilise a base in Oz for our subs to operate out of on occasion and to at least show some sign ( certainly be presented as such) that the UK is getting something from this deal. Either way there will be increasing threats from China they are wetting their pants at the moment doing everything to block the deal even going to the UN claiming it breaks nuclear treaties blah, blah ( did they do that with India and NK?). So uk subs along with the US will have to patrol those waters in support of the Collins at least till the Australian subs are operative.

I do believe there is talk of RR opening an operation there to service reactors too which may tie into this and no doubt help prepare Australian personnel.

These are silly response you keep leaving. Australia has a significantly larger capital equipment spend than the UK, both in the past and future. And when Australia commits to spending, it follows through with it, unlike the UK

Don’t be ridiculous Australian defence spending has never really been higher than $40billion US you think you can run say 10 attack subs with roughly 40 tubes each. That’s 400 tomahawks plus reloads call it 600 which is conservative with 1/4 of subs disarmed in dock. That’s 300 at see with 1 reload in stock. 600 tomahawks which will be roughly $1 billion. Plus 10 nuclear subs at roughly $2 billion each again conservative as Oz has no experience of building them.
So that’s
$1 billion missles
$20 billion subs
A crew of 100 per sub so 1000 crew that’s 7% of navy to crew them.
Develop nuclear tech
Engineer crew on land
The list goes on and on. I’m not saying Oz shouldn’t have nuclear subs but these comments aren’t from me but from several ex Australia navy staff that have commented the current block 5 Virginia are way too expensive. I suppose you are more knowledgeable than them? Even if you could afford Virginia class with full complement buying kit shouldn’t ever take up most of your budget, ukraine shows you having well paid well trained forces are more important than buying shiny toys you can’t use

Nice rant. It seems you like hearing your own voice.
You clearly don’t realise that the annual defence budget is entirely different to that of defence procurement budget. Australia’s procurement budget for the last 10 years has been significantly higher than the UK and current procurement is set to have over $300 billion spent on current projects, $90 billion of that for the subs.
So yes, your assertion that Australia can’t afford missiles, let alone the submarines, is utterly ridiculous.
The UK, though is not in the same boat. How are those 138 F-35 coming along? Yea that’s right, the UK can’t afford them and have only purchased 42. Not even enough to fully equipment your two vanity projects aka carriers.

Your points are irrelevant. You doubted what i said about Australian spending yet it’s fact. You claim Australia can afford to buy Virginia class at present and fill 40 missle tubes and all expenses yet ex members of Australian defence staff made the points. None of the points have anything to do with the uk

How are they irrelevant? I Lou Ted out the facts on Australian defence procurement spending which shows your assertion Australia “can’t afford missile” is simply ridiculous.

Also, FYI, defence staff don’t make procurement decisions or handle the budget, so it is your point that is irrelevant.

It is a simple fact that $90 billion has been budgeted for submarine spend. That more than covers what is required.

Because your childish comments comparing countries are irrelevant. Try some research or wider reading, no one in their right mind thinks Australia can afford 8-10 current Virginia class, reactors, staff, servicing and then filling 40 tubes plus stocks of missles

And yet it is fully budgeted for 🤷🏼‍♂️

How can it be when they haven’t even decided which of 4 or 5 options they are going for. What they have is a line in a budget. The difference between the possible options range from $0.8 billion per sub to $5 billion. No one has any idea how much building a nuclear industry from scratch will cost, crew 60 to 130 crew, missles 0 to 40. The cost ranges are ludicrous. Read some expert opinion.

It’s called forecasting dude.

I suggest you read the Australian Defence Capability update to understand how it’s already budgeted.

I already know and most experts think it was announced way too early due to political situation and they are gunna get real shock at long term hidden costs of creating nuclear industry from scratch, reactors, experience, industry before even look at subs and weapons. Not for no reason are there very few countries that build nuclear subs.

Hi John, the RN PWR3 is based on the US S9G with UK tech, make what you will with that meaning! We have moved on from Astutes (last 3 are fitting out)and are now into Dreadnought build. I doubt v much we will go back to an Astute design if AU’s choose the UK as a build partner. Far more likely it would be our SSN(R) design if the timings work. If not then it’s from the US.

Timing is the big issue.

And I say that for both SSN(R) and SSN(X).

I think the Government here would be a bit nervous about signing up for one or the other new design without the RN or the USN not having commissioned and operated the ‘first of class’ boats for a while.

Comes down to risk, how much risk?

Which is why they’ve talk primarily about existing designs.

Anyway, we should know the answer by March 2023.

Cheers,

John and any/or knowledgeable people out there. Could someone list a glossary of sub terms as my head is spinning! SSN SSNX SSNR…..What do all these terms mean? I’m guessing ssn is sub surface nuclear? 🤔 the rest baffles me !

Jim, this should help:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._Navy_acronyms

Here’s a few submarine acronyms:

SS – Submarine, conventional
SSG – Submarine, guided missile, conventional
SSN – Submarine, nuclear powered
SSBN – Submarine, ballistic missile, nuclear powered
SSGN – Submarine, guided missile, nuclear powered

So what is SSN(R) and SSN(X)?

SSN(R) is the acronym being used by the UK for their next SSN, the (R) is the ‘Replacement’ for the Astute class.

SSN(X) is the acronym being used by the USA for their next SSN, (X) is the replacement for the Virginia class.

Lots of military acronyms, you can also Google them too, ok?

Cheers,

SHIP EQUALS TARGET IS A REGULAR ONE

To be perfectly honest I think the Aussies need to realise that a nuclear submarine is not something you pick up from Tesco being used as they are to “off the shelf”. A thousand rare and high tech things need to align to build one as well as rare and highly skilled workers. They can likely get some, but they need to get with the programme and not muck about.

What an odd post? We need to get with the program? Seriously?

The decision to dump the conventional Attack class was only 9mths ago, a decision will be announced in about 9mths, eg, March 2023.

That is an 18mth project to deal with the issues, examine the options, select a design, start again on completing the submarine build facilities, etc, etc.

Eighteen months is very very quick for a major Defence project.

How much more ‘getting with the program’ do we need to do??

Agreed you are going at lightning speed compared to our projects and criticisms seem a little patronising, I’m sure as far as possible decision makers have taken all issues with going nuclear into consideration though of course as here or in the US there will be problems but the decision is undeniably the correct one and they have to make it work. Timing is unfortunate would have been better at the time of the original submarine deal when it was considered but circumstances have changed enormously since then and what on balance probably right then is completely wrong today so the timing is what it is, will present problems but the bullet will be bitten and you will get what you need even if it may not be the ideal solution due to the timing issue and necessity. But then to greater or lesser degrees that’s true of most complex military projects.

I was wondering if the early US supply of 2 subs might be because they can supply two existing (perhaps new build) by the early thirties because in reality it won’t weaken their overall Pacific submarine presence because submarines that would otherwise be operated by US crews would for the most part be operated by Australian crews while effectively doing the same job as if they were in US service. No way Britain could compete with that.

Hi mate,

Yes that comment he made was a little patronising, almost a smart arse comment. I don’t think 18mths is slow, it’s pretty bloody quick.

Here’s a bit of info that may not have been reported outside of Oz, the day after the announcement, it was reported by the ABC (our version of the BBC), that the Prime Minister had instructed the Defence Minister to start some informal ‘what if’ discussions with the UK and US about 18mths before the formal announcement.

https://amp.abc.net.au/article/100466150

Those informal discussions were not top level political discussions, but rather our Defence officials talking to their counterpart on ‘technical’ aspects of Australia potentially acquiring SSNs.

Then at the G7 summit in June 2021, the Australian PM, UK PM and US President met together, that would have been at the point of more formal ‘leadership’ discussions.

And a few short months later, the offical AUKUS announcement was made.

As to the possible early supply of two US made SSN? Well there has been some reported speculation about that.

Anyway, roll on March 2023!

Concur; SSN(R) with PWR3 with joint uk/Aus design team at Barrow.Accept that Combat System may be an issue but RN sonar sounds a winner. I think Nuclear issues will over-ride those of CS.

Can’t see the choice of CS being an issue, they take their feeds from whatever source they are connected too. Ok, might need a bit of manipulation to get what they want, but small fry compared with building a RC, shipping it half way round the world and joining it to the front end – indeed if that’s going to be the plan!

Mate,

Actually I think the Combat System and Weapons are a big issue.

You’ve got to remember that in our part of the world, Indo-Pacific, our major Defence partner is the US, has been for decades, will be for decades into the future too.

In a future coalition operation, or dare I say ‘conflict’ we will be operating very closely alongside the US.

For sustainment and resupply alone, it will be important to have as much commonality as possible.

Whilst the RAN might operate different ‘platforms’, the weapons are the same.

The RAAF for example, uses either USAF or USN platforms and weapons for the most part.

Don’t get me wrong, if the UK submarine is the right platform, then we should procure it, but i think it still needs CS and weapons that we require, eg, from the US.

Cheers,

Hi John, sorry, it’s probably my poor phrasing in my post.
What I mean is if AUS chose a UK designed SM, then putting in the CS and weapons of your choice-a US system for example, shouldn’t be too much of an issue. Certainly there will be some integration work required, but that’s a minor problem with how they might intend to build the SMs themselves. Hope that clarifies things.

No problem mate.

I misunderstood your comment regarding the CS, all good.

The Collins boats currently operate the same CS as the Virginia class, and it was also mandated to be fitted to the Attack class too.

And I’m sure it will be mandated again if we go with a UK SSN design.

Cheers,

Absolutely right I think that factor is only proved by Australia selecting US missiles for its type 26 while Canada has selected SeaCeptor for its T-26 despite its usual reliance on US kit. Australia is totally committed to US kit and will be for its subs other than sonar very possibly u less as I mused on in a previous post the UK has indeed passed on sonar expertise to the US in exchange for reactor expertise. If so by the time these subs are delivered even that may not be needed it might be more a political/strategic decision to keep all in AUKUS happy and united, time will tell no doubt..

They can but the downside is cost. Not just buying/building, gaining the infrastructure to build/maintain follow on boats will take longer (Aus is in a hurry), operating and training costs will be bigger. Everything is bigger, even without the VPM module. I think it’s 140m long compared to the Astute’s 97m. However I suspect SSN(R) will be pretty big too compared to the Astutes. Perhaps an important difference for the Australians is SSN(R) will need fewer submariners that the US equivalent.

There’s no point in it carrying more weapons if that’s not what Australia wants the subs for. The extras would be great for anti-land assaults, but if Australia primarily wants the boats for anti-ship operations, I’m not sure if a bigger load out is going to help that much.

The issue for a hunter/killer is to maximise manoeuvrability. The length of the Virginia Block 5 with VPN makes it sub optimal for that purpose. Agree with Jon re reduced crew numbers for SSN(R) against numbers required for SSN(X). Perhaps a sustainment issue here as well as cost.

Indeed if I were Australian I would prefer NOT to have a significant land attack capability it won’t change the balance in the Pacific much if at all but sets Australia up as a massive target especially as China will argue that those vertical launched missiles are ‘nuclear capable’ and make a strike on the mainland far more likely. A supreme defensive platform with some land attack is far more what they need in reality. Less is more in reality for them and a good bit safer and more effective for their requirements.

Too big, too expensive and it needs to much crew. Adding additional production of it to be built over the next few decades will be difficult as well. By the time the Aussies start a build it will be long out of production and the US will move on to SSN X

Depends what you want the sub for. Land attack and long range strike get virginia V. If you can afford it and its larger crew and larger running costs.
If you want a hunter killer get Astute. It is the best in the world at hunting and killing enemy subs and surface ships.

Realistically the AUSN isn’t going to mount offensive operations against mainland anywhere. They never have had an expeditionary force?

The purpose of it is to deter invasion fleet and to take them out of necessary as well as asserting territorial integrity.

Exactly as I have mention in this thread a few times. Using that capability not only isn’t needed ( beyond what an Astute can provide) it would very possibly be signing a death warrant. You don’t even want to put yourself in the position of having a Trump like President on insisting you fire land attack missiles at Chinese forces let alone Mainland. Fact is they need a dub to best take out Chinese subs and surface vessels if they try to strangle Australia and surrounds while the US is thus freed to operate further north. Even at a distance from home that is Australias best role in any conflict keeping it as quiet as possible. .

Yes but it depends on what role they will be playing, it’s always nice to have as many options as possible in one package but if you can’t/daren’t use them then the trade offs and disadvantages of their existence is actually disadvantageous to your submarine and strategy. Who would they risk firing land attack missiles at? If they did so along with the US then you can bet who the Chinese ( the only real target) would launch a nuclear attack on can’t you. Rather like under Obama if the Russians used a battlefield nuke in the Baltics it was proposed that a response would target Belarus not Russia to avoid the US being hit. It’s not rocket science and the more limited land attack capability of an Astute but superior hunter killer ability, smaller crew, speed and arguably better stealth would be far better suited overall to Australian priorities and likely more survivable. But as I have said elsewhere other factors will dictate the selected design I’m afraid which works against Astute and what US weapons are/may be being developed for future submarines will no doubt be a factor too if it disadvantages tube launhed varieties further..

Unfortunately that’s not how it works in the real world of warfare, you don’t just order the biggest box of candies in the candy store.

It’s over kill in its ability to launch land attack weapons which is not necessarily what the Aussies are looking for. It’s very large for traditional SSN missions.

Sorry I am not going to repeat the reasoning again but you can read my various refuting of this argument in posts above. Will only add it’s the Virginias that are only ‘good enough’ at the very job the Australians as with the Brits (unlike the US) need their subs for, there are big trade offs.

maybe the new frigate hall could accodate submarine construction

This would actually be the best solution for the Australians and great for us but I fear that it would only be feasible if the US provided them a few subs for a spell in the mean time. With two more 😂Astutes I dare say we could have done a deal too esp as we will be basing one there on and off anyway it seems. Sadly I can’t see the yanks being that generous can you and thus timing would be a serious problem in making that happen.

Typical nonsensical reply, so what exactly is the “state” of British defence spending, apart from rising, apart from being one of the largest in the world, apart from being one of the few to be above NATO 2%. Do try to engage the brain and not repeat brainless mimes, with all due respect.

An ideal solution might be for a combined US/UK/AU design.

That’s perfectly doable, all three looking towards the next generation. BAE systems has got back into its boat design and build stride again and they could design something really special together.

The additional numbers built would reduce the unit cost all round, especially if the RN and RAN order 12 each.

12 should be the minimum number for a truly viable fleet, with 8 fully operational at any one time.

Perhaps sections built in each country, if that’s viable??

I was thinking about something of this nature after reading Tom E above. It would on paper be the best solution other Countries could even join in or buy when you think Canada once planed a nuclear fleet.

The only way this could work I guess or alternative if they wanted to join the UK or US specific program is if the uk and US made a big commitment to operate present subs out of Australia for a long period. What’s the date for results.from these programs circa 2050 or so I don’t know off hand so no way Australia could wait that long even 2045 unless that protection happens surely. A combined program of all three Countries might well delay matters than otherwise even.

That said I think due to Chinas ire on this and with Oz generally that sort of protection into the thirties is going to happen anyway so extending it somewhat may be the sensible option on paper. But in reality? Britain has few enough subs to do more than occasional duty there and even the US might not be able or willing to spare many esp if they are urgently needed elsewhere. So it would be a risk filled decision perhaps. Ideally 2 US 1 UK sub would for the most part (but variable subject to circumstances) be based there operating with many and training Australian crews over a long period doing what it’s future subs would carry out esp as the Collins go end of life while the new designs develop and come into service. In that case Australia get the ideal solution probably based on the uk size sub but likely with a great amount of US internals. If the same design for all three Countries could be devised then yes better still, though that would mean a US size sub no doubt under armed in uk service ( maybe Oz too) with the inherent disadvantages of the extra heft, manning et al. Could the same basic design be produced in two sizes, ie with a section not included for uk and the Australians if that better suits them? Each building their own but with much overlap obviously. No idea but that would be the ideal if it could be done but in reality would the US be willing compromise at all would it be a bit of a pig and would it in the end save costs? And what date could it even be achieved? So perhaps it’s a fantasy idea at least until the US seriously feels defence costs threatening even its own ability to go it alone. First signs of that are already there in fact but how long would that get to a prestige project like nuclear subs if ever?

Exactly the point I was trying to make w/ my posts (imperfectly). All fleets may require expansion to contain ChiComs. However, the term Block 4 software update, w/ delivery anticipated circa 2100 A.D., had better never arise. 😁

If they did just like any international program funding would be almost guaranteed by the UK.

Oh, sure: it was simply a reflection of my professional outlook. I enjoy the risk of solving difficult design problems in unusual ways.

But the customer picks up the tab.

I agree it’s a shame but timing is likely to dictate it and circumstances dictate a US boat I think even if there are sops to uk industry.

Interesting I didn’t know that but makes sense the US do like to almost endlessly update their existing or old designs as we see with their surface fleet, esp now that financial factors are growing as they try to compete with China.

Suni has zero interest in defence and will be no friend to the Armed Forces. His defence manifesto vaguely states that the 2% of GDP is a floor, not a ceiling. What does that mean?

At least Truss has clearly stated she will increase defence spending to 3% albeit by 2030. I think we who genuinely do have an interest in defence issues could live with that. Let’s see!

Fuelled by the growth she promises despite the fact decent growth has rarely been part of my long lived life so not clear how that can magically be turned around post covid, Brexit and Ukraine War personally. For me the whole structure of the ZuK economy and investment by a risk averse City simply does not allow for the sort of growth she will be relying upon. Worse still the debt will be pushed down the road (after 12 years of being told bringing it down was vital) because she is convinced we have time because Covid was a once in a Century occurrence. And she knows that how, the world environment that allowed such a virus to spread and mutate that way so easily has only really existed for thirty years and increasingly so this end of that period. So it doesn’t suggest she is up with the understanding change. The fact that Monkeypox has suddenly unpredictably spread out of Africa after Centuries of failing to do so to any degree hardly gives me much faith in her grasp of the realities we are entering into in World events. I think she is delusional sadly as well as intellectually and politically lightweight.

The Australian shipyards in Osborne near Adelaide on the South Coast, they really need a closer west coast base than sailing back and forth to Perth, thats why two sub bases makes more operational sense. Also remember to factor in the large distances involved and response/transit times. To circumnavigate Australia is 34,000 KM, thats twice the max unrefueled range of most warships.

The Aussies want a second sub base on the East Coast but it’s controversial.

Fingers crossed but the Solomon’s has claimed there will not be a base there which seems to have been ratified by nearby neighbours who were not happy and rejected Chinese advances. Which was a blow to China. Of course longer term who knows esp if it ties itself into unsustainable financial projects which we know China exploits when they go wrong by using land leases as collateral.

*by…to

How does that help?

None of them are serviceable?

NZ doesn’t even allow nuclear boats in its waters let alone afford them.

That depends on AUS attitudes to the ‘safety case’?

I agree that PWR2 is IRL perfectly safe. I think a large part of the change is containment but also dismantlement at EoL.

Only just read yours, with you on this.

DBs always at 15 mins notice…

Good man, if I’m down your neck of the woods I’ll have my people talk to your people. 😀

Still got mine in the loft with my pussers grip!

Hi Daniele, Fort Blockhouse and Dolphin are/were essentially the same place. The Fort bit is all the buildings closest to the waterfront at the entrance to Pompey Harbour -Gosport side. They eventually built some new accommodation blocks and other facilities closer to what was Haslar. It was all called HMS Dolphin when under the RN, believe it’s now being used by one of the army medical Regiments these days, until mid 20’s at any rate. Believe it might be slated for closure around then!

Correct. It’s actually one of the Field Hospitals, either 22 or 33 don’t recall.

Yes it’s on the chopping block.

That’s what I understood regards the site, thanks for the confirmation. I’ve only driven past towards Alverstoke.

Ah yes, INM territory as well as Fort Monkton (very serious place that). I go past at least twice a week.

Oh, you’re local?

Ha. When I drove past I was indeed visiting Fort Monkton.

Not officially of course!!!

We walked the perimeter, because we can.

It’s MoD, but it’s well known what’s in there.

If there is no threat at your border, easy to justify defence cuts. There are plenty of others that do the same. NZ, Canada, Ireland, Portugal, heck, a lot of NATO members decided ‘why spend on defence when the USA will do it for us’.

Yes, that seems to be the way it is going: it seems to be a long term process unless something drastic happens.

Well, as a massive asde & little to do with submarines:
but you hit on a fine point that I’ve been mulling for some time when you said “If CANZUK happens, it will happen because it has to happen or we will all end up in deep doo-doo.”.

Drastic events created by an external threat have historically been the catalyst for the creation of nations. Unification of Germany thanks to France, Spain in Reconquista, Russia thanks to Mongols etc. etc. etc.

I’d be quite happy for closer ties to take a long time than be a result of something drastic though. 😊

The two major factors likely to drive it are a rising China and an increasingly erratic USA. Our greatest ally just had an attempted coup and has elected three populist presidents in a row, two of them have been outright hostile to the UK (Biden and Obama) well one was outright hostile to Canada (Trump) China has gone out of its way to directly threaten Canada and Australia and broken an international treaty with the UK. The EU remains at best aloof and hostile on many fronts especially on trade. The word could do with another big player and a third leg of western civilisation as Churchill put it.

Agree with most of what you say – I’d add the EU (which you do mention) to the list as a third ‘major factor.’ Not militarily aggresive but certainly hostile.
I’d disagree with the “attempted coup” characterisation of Jan 6th.

What would you call it when a defeated president sends an armed mob to parliament to stop the certification of an election? If it happened in Venezuela or Turkey it would be described as an attempted coup.

https://youtu.be/25w2vlfg88M
“Peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard”
Didn’t ‘send an armed mob’. He asked supporters to demonstrate & was making the argument that some electors from the College weren’t not lawfully appointed. We may not agree with the reasons but people should (and do in the USA) have the right to protest.
Republicans tend to be the 2nd amendment guys. 400M guns, 9B rounds in USA. But in an ‘attempted coup’ they don’t shoot anyone? The only person shot was shot by a cop… they going to overthrow the government by stealing a podium? There are other things that seem strange about the whole thing but seems a funny looking ‘coup’ attempt IMO.

Did you watch the evidence given to the jan 6 committee and his insistence to allow armed protesters to approach the capital? Or do you know better than congress? Do you have some evidence perhaps over looked by the investigation?

From Cassidy Hutchinson? If so, I don’t believe a word of it. Secret Service and others already poo pooed her testimony. Most of it was hearsay & wouldn’t be permitted in a real court (here or in the US).
You’re watching a show ‘trial’ buddy. Even Americans aren’t paying it much attention.
I believe evidence of my own eyes and ears and applying my own reasoning. Have you watched the videos? Have you considered what an actual armed coup would look like? In the US where guns are pretty normal… They even walked within the velvet ropes for tourists… bunch of crazies larping bud.

So yeah, probably do know more than Congress because they’re desperately trying to spin the whole thing into this weird narrative that it was worse than Pearl Harbour or 9/11.
Watch the speech dude, it’s only a few minutes; “peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard”. Not incitement. Sorry.

Yeah that’s what I thought, you clearly know better than the official investigation, congress, the White House chief console, capital police department of justice and everyone else. well done mate not much point in me arguing the toss with you as you clearly have insight not available to us regular types from your YouTube clips.

I appear to have upset or offended you. For that I sincerely apologise. I was only expressing my opinion.

Hutchinson is a liar. We know this as the people she ‘quoted’ (or should I say said “something to the effect of”) called BS.

You want to believe Congress, politicians… ok. 7 of the 9 on the committee are the opposing party. 1 of which (Thompson) voted against certifying the 2016 results.

Chief Counsol, Biden appointee.

Police and DOJ, no sedition charges? No agenda for any decision makers there?

This (IMO) doesn’t look like a coup. Looks like a protest, that got violent and turned into a riot. Wrong, yes. Criminal, yes. But it seems they’re trying to put lipstick on a pig. Just my opinion bud. And you’re entitled to yours. Hope you don’t hold it against me.

Hi stu sorry if I came across upset, I am not. I just don’t see much point in arguing when two people look at the same evidence and come up with completely opposing views. I have an inability to believe that republicans who worked for trump right up to Jan 6 suddenly flip on the guy and we have all seen mountains of evidence that he was actively trying to steel an election. It’s semantics if you call an attempted stolen election a coup or not but there is a clear conspiracy on the part of trump to over turn an election result by illegal/questionable means and part of that plan was sending tens of thousands of armed protestors to the capital. Police officers actually died or were seriously injured. I don’t think you should trivialise that. The fact that the man has an excellent chance of being returned to power in 2024 should terrify the entire western world to start building a defence architecture that can operate without US support.

Believe a majority of US population would willingly vote for an Eisenhower, Kennedy, Reagan or Geo. H. W. Bush. Unfortunately, all are currently unavailable to serve. 🤔🙄

Perhaps when the ChiComs decide to annex Taiwan? Wonder whether the Aussies, Japanese and/or South Koreans would start crash nuclear armament programs, despite being signatories to Nuclear Disarmament Treaty? 🤔 Really should contact Vegas to see if a bet can be placed, whether or not anyone is around to collect.

To a certain extent CANZUK already exists atleast informally. The four nations are already more closely aligned in many way than an EU countries with common laws, systems of government and even a head of state. A simple CANZUK treaty on trade and free movement as well as defence and foreign policy cooperation is all that’s really needed. In essence it’s exits already it just needs to be codified and joined up. It really does not need anything as drastic as EU integration of the commission.

I think they’d need change of government before that happens. If Chinese subs pop up off their coast, it’ll likely be because they were invited…

Or the Russian subs under the ice, Canada knows it needs nuclear subs and was prepared to go their in the 80’s. Three years ago there was no chance Australia would get SSN even though it was clearly needed and things changed almost over night. Canada is increasingly worried its being kept behind. Trudeau might be happy with that but many are not. Canada is very close to Russia after all.

No worries,
Both Canada and AUS have very similar issues WRT threats, hence similar defence requirements. Small populations in respect to large land masses, very long coastlines to police.
Both require systems that can operate at range with persistence and provide mass.
Although Canada’s threat is somewhat closer, it has the advantage of having a big well equipped neighbour to assist.
AUS have come to the conclusion that in the maritime domain they need nuclear power, I would imagine that Canada if given the choice/chance/will would also follow that line. Time and perspective will no doubt tell.

They could extend hours by working a full Friday.

If you want to see the truth of that, use the Mk1 public eyeball, have a look at the car park on Mon -Thursday at 15:00 and then have a look at Friday on 15:00….quite a difference.

You could do a lot to speed things up without stressing anyone out.

More the issue is all the long lead components like motors and reactors and how long they take to make and can production rates of those bits be scaled.

As someone who organises complex construction for a living, these days, the defeatist ‘it can’t be done’ rings very, very hollow. It can be done if it can be funded and resourced.

They could expand module production at other yards such as Cammell Laird, Ali believe they have some experience in work being done at Harland and Wolff before. The US has sped up production by making different modules at each of its two facilities allowing for greater specialisation. They are now able to concurrently build Virginia and Columbia submarines at the same facility. At an extreme the Aussie yard could even build modules. It’s a bit of a mission for transport but not impossible and might help the Aussie industrial base ramp up before full builds commence. Anything is doable with enough cash and the Aussies are bounding around a lot of it.

Read a Breaking Defense article which stated design and engineering contacts awarded to HII and GD Bath Iron Works for DDG(X), w/ projected first vessel circa FY 30. Additionally, draft of SASC budget guidance expressed preference for teaming arrangements. Hmmm… Perhaps intuitively obvious to suggest that it may be an opportune moment for a proactive MoD to propose some form of joint development program between Type 83 and DDG(X). Simply a casual observation…