AUKUS

[Otto Harkaman]

Well I guess that is great, for the long term but wouldn't some AIP SSGs using a combination design of the latest Japanese and South Korean subs be more prudent?

[3catcircus]

Originally Posted by Otto Harkaman

Well I guess that is great, for the long term but wouldn't some AIP SSGs using a combination design of the latest Japanese and South Korean subs be more prudent?

Prudent for whom? AIP and diesel-electric are fuel-limited. Nuclear powered boats are limited by how much food they can carry. In case you aren't aware, China and Australia aren't actually all that close - 5500 miles or so by air. That's a lot of ocean to patrol in a non-nuke boat where you'll need to divert to fuel.

[Otto Harkaman]

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Otto Harkaman

Well I guess that is great, for the long term but wouldn't some AIP SSGs using a combination design of the latest Japanese and South Korean subs be more prudent?

Note that they had a deal or declaration of intention signed with France providing them with nonnuclear subs. Thats gone, I think. So there has been a competion program some years agp. I recall the Germans had hopes to win it, but didnt.



The now announced deal is big because it ends a long prohibition of making US key technology available to others, because Australia will probably dont buy ready blats, but build them under license or license for key components itself. That has been a demand for the SS competition before, too. In other words, we speak of technology and knowhow transfer.

[ET2SN]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Note that they had a deal or declaration of intention signed with France providing them with nonnuclear subs. Thats gone, I think. So there has been a competion program some years agp. I recall the Germans had hopes to win it, but didnt.



The now announced deal is big because it ends a long prohibition of making US key technology available to others, because Australia will probably dont buy ready blats, but build them under license or license for key components itself. That has been a demand for the SS competition before, too. In other words, we speak of technology and knowhow transfer.

The devil is in the details.

The deal with France was going nowhere fast. It exists on paper (as a signed contract) but France was being, well, France and wasn't planning to do anything until there was enough cash on the table.

Australia has traditionally been a close ally with the UK (naturally) and the US. While Australian military hardware was traditionally made up of second hand UK-based fighter planes and ships, they have also relied on US-sourced aircraft (the F-111 and F/A-18 fighter bombers) plus some smaller warships.

The only real problem was that Australia has never really used a "platinum card" budget to buy its hardware (much like Canada). I'm guessing part of the new deal involves some financial support from either the US or UK.

As far as tech transfers, this part isn't that big of a deal. The US was already working closely with the UK in terms of nuke propulsion (the US Columbia class SSBN and the UK's next-gen SSBN are rumored to share a lot of the same tech if not the same hardware). All that's really happening is the US and UK allowing Australia into the same club house. The bigger news (IMO) is Australia "rethinking" its anti-nuclear-power stance.

[Reece]

The bigger news (IMO) is Australia "rethinking" its anti-nuclear-power stance.

I certainly hope so!!

[Skybird]

Yes, the collaboraiton with the UK is 70 years old (on SSNs), but the US has been very shy to give away technology of such a sensitive nature to other countries, propellers for example, sonar etc. Traditionally the US does not like that, and it is understadable. On the other hand today they trade stealth technology in aircrafts... A decade or longer ago there even was an American attempt to buy the German shipyard building the Type 212 to get access to the boat'S technology, because the German offer to trade quid pro quo and exchange, trade sensitive tech secrets between the two states, was rejected. One wanted to know the tech of the 212, but did not want to give data on own tech. Needless to mention this, but the Germans said No, too.


Your last sentence, do you mean this military deal indicates a move away from coal-based power production in civilian industry, too? Australia takes plenty of Flak currently due to its rejection to stop mining coal and joining the climate appeasement choire.

[ET2SN]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Your last sentence, do you mean this military deal indicates a move away from coal-based power production in civilian industry, too?

Ask Reece, I don't live in Australia.

I served on one of the last US diesel boats and a 688 class nuke, I know the best way to go to sea. I'm concentrating only on the SSN part in this thread.

Aside from the start-up cost, Nuclear is the best way to power a sub. There's some risk if you screw it up and its a pain when you have to refuel, but that's at least twenty years down the road.

I got to know some folks in the RAN, they're good operators and some of our closest allies.

[Exocet25fr]

Australian SNA ?

[mapuc]

I knew Kapitan had a thread about this RAN going nuclear-powered. Couldn't find it here, then I remembered it was on FB, where he posted a bulletin about this:

https://www.afr.com/politics/federal...0210915-p58rzo

Back to discussing this AUKUS cooperation

Markus

[Cybermat47]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Your last sentence, do you mean this military deal indicates a move away from coal-based power production in civilian industry, too?

Unlikely with our present Prime Minister. Man has a fetish for coal.

I would try to tell him that global warming is making it a lot harder on us firefighters, but he’s too busy vacationing in Hawaii when the nation is on fire.

[Skybird]

Australia has decided to abandon 48 European-made Taipan helicopters that it already operates, but is not satisfied with,l the machiens are said to be extremely unreliable and having logged only 50-55% of those flight hours that were planned for them, that high is the rate of tecnical down times for these (new!) helicopters that are licensed by Airbus.

Australia wants to buy 40 Blackhawks instead, saying these are proven, more reliable, and in the long run thus much more cost-efficient than the European helicopters. Critics say the cancelled submarine deal with France also freed funds in the short term that now must be reallocated.

I think it should be clear by now that Australia clearly prioritizes the US over Europe as a partner for the conflict with China. I cannot criticise them for this attitude. If I were Australia, I would not place my money on Europe, too.

[Kapitan]

I’m loathed to admit this but I also would y put my money with the European Union it seems they have no back bone what so ever with the exception of the Dutch

The UK I think will be steadfast and support Australia but logistically the USA is a much better logistically suited