Australia to Get Nuclear Submarines

[R011]

17 hours ago, Argus said:

 yes the USN has SSK's 

 

I think you made a typo there and meant to write "SSN's"?

Edited October 28, 2022 by R011

[Josh]

On 10/27/2022 at 1:56 PM, kokovi said:

Yes, and for such sensors to be useful, the platform needs to be relatively nearby in the general vicinity of the sub.

I’d assume so but I’m not familiar with its mechanism. I’m guessing it uses some kind of EO/IR observable phenomenon like scattering of particular wavelengths, in which case I’d imagine it is short ranged and also weather dependent. But where it was effective it would also likely not be subject to counter detection; I presume this is the advantage over a radar in periscope mode.

Edited October 30, 2022 by Josh

[Argus]

R011 - yep typo meant SSN

There's noting mysterious about the detection method, even if the tech and technique is rocket science. Its sort of SOSUS from space for SSK's. Provided the right camera is looking in the right place and someone is asking the software the right questions, a satellite can just see the SSK's hot spot when it snorts, regardless of the current masking technology. Once you have a datum,  in 8-12 hours you'll have another 70-100 miles away, and another and another.... good bye operational/strategic surprise. They know you are coming and have a good handle in where and when they need to start worrying about you.  

[Colin]

On 10/27/2022 at 5:12 AM, Stuart Galbraith said:

 

Its worth reflecting on what happened in 1977, when the Argentinians occupied Thule. We send a 'task force' south, including HMS Dreadnought, two fairly anemic frigates and two RFA's. But there was insufficent power projection to convince the Argentinians to leave, we didnt want to force the issue, and they remained there till 1982. Imagine if we had sent HMS Fearless and HMS Tiger as well, and I rather doubt the issue would have remained in doubt, whether they fired or not.

 

 

 

 

 

Could you imagine a gun duel between Tiger and Belgrano? Given the state of both ships would be in, I suspect it could go either way or even inconclusive.

Edited October 31, 2022 by Colin

[DB]

6 hours ago, Colin said:

Could you imagine a gun duel between Tiger and Belgrano? Given the state of both ships would be in, I suspect it could go either way or even inconclusive.

Stuart seems to have drawn entirely opposite conclusions from the task force deployment in 1977 than literally everyone else who knows that it happened.

I wonder when he'll start to claim that there were 300,000 casualties in the Falklands Conflict.

[Stuart Galbraith]

5 minutes ago, DB said:

Stuart seems to have drawn entirely opposite conclusions from the task force deployment in 1977 than literally everyone else who knows that it happened.

I wonder when he'll start to claim that there were 300,000 casualties in the Falklands Conflict.

No, ive drawn the conclusion that if the point of the 1977 task force was to stop the Argentinians invading the Falklands was to stop an invasion, it worked. Though it doesnt seem as if that it was the Argentinians intent anyway.

if you judge it from the perspective that they did not withdraw from South Thule till 1982 and we send a considerably larger task force to ensure they withdrew from the Falklands, South Georgia and South Thule, then it was an obvious failure. A double one, since if they had ensured the Argentians withdrew, they may have had a wholly different perspective on what we would do 5 years later.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Thule#Argentine_occupation_1976–1982

 

Much has been made of the presence of HMS Dreadnought, but its worth reading what her orders were, specifically to avoid any form of combat. At which point I question why she was sent at all.

https://en.mercopress.com/2005/06/01/secret-task-force-sent-to-defend-falklands-in-1977

The concerns were such that HMS Dreadnought was told in its rules of engagement that if it was attacked by Argentine anti-submarine weapons it should "surface or withdraw at high speed submerged, whichever will be of least risk to life''.

 

John Nott wrote in his memoirs that he was willing to take part of the blame for the Falklands for withdrawing Endurance, but if so, then Labour had to take its share of the responsiblity for withdrawing the South Atlantic Squadron in the 1960's. If he was right about that, and he probably was, then I cant see Operation Journeyman in anything but the same way. its been presented as a Labour success, compared to Conservative intransigence in the lead up to the Falklands, when in reality it was probably just more paving stone towards a war.

6 hours ago, Colin said:

Could you imagine a gun duel between Tiger and Belgrano? Given the state of both ships would be in, I suspect it could go either way or even inconclusive.

I dont know the state of her guns. I do know that there was a navy times article on withdrawal of Blake her sister ship, that claimed her engines were in fine condition. I do question how many times she or her sister ship sailed, because manning her was a real pain. I think it was something like 700 ratings. You can probably justify that for a carrier, but not a half cruiser, certainly not by the 1970's.

Worth remembering of course, Tiger and Blake had Wessex Helicopters. Ive got a vague feeling they could carry ATGM's, or at least the RM version could. So It would make a very interesting CMANO scenario.

 

[DB]

The only difference between use of SSNs as a deterrent between the FI and AUS cases is that the AUS submarines can be assumed to be there from the start, and can be expected to act as per HMS Conqueror if someone gets above themselves.

Tell me whether you think that news of an SSN on station in the FI would have interfered strongly with the original invasion, or not.

[R011]

16 hours ago, Colin said:

Could you imagine a gun duel between Tiger and Belgrano? Given the state of both ships would be in, I suspect it could go either way or even inconclusive.

Eight 13.5 inch guns versus two 10 inch ones and a considerable speed advantage give the battle cruiser more than a little advantage over the older armoured cruiser.

[Colin]

2 hours ago, R011 said:

Eight 13.5 inch guns versus two 10 inch ones and a considerable speed advantage give the battle cruiser more than a little advantage over the older armoured cruiser.

At first I was going to say your wrong, but then I realized what you did.... well played sir, well played.

[Stuart Galbraith]

14 hours ago, DB said:

The only difference between use of SSNs as a deterrent between the FI and AUS cases is that the AUS submarines can be assumed to be there from the start, and can be expected to act as per HMS Conqueror if someone gets above themselves.

Tell me whether you think that news of an SSN on station in the FI would have interfered strongly with the original invasion, or not.

Considering it didnt convince them to back down in 1977, and considering they sailed two of their prize naval assets into the exclusion zone in 1982, after being told in both cases an SSN was present, I think we have assume no, they would not. Because the problem in both  cases is firstly, they didnt know we were talling the truth, and couldnt demonstrate it without our broaching the boat and revealing its presence. And secondly, they couldnt know we would still have the balls to use it.  Which if they had ever seen the orders to HMS Dreadnought in 1977, they would fully have been within their rights to doubt.

Ill stand by my case, SSN's are superb war winning weapons. But if you want a demonstration that they are lousy at demonstrating that power without making themselves vulnerable, 1977 is it.  Compare and contrast to Belize in 1972, and the contrast is obvious, war not avoided, war avoided. Because Carriers are explicit naval power, Submarines, particularly SSN's, are implicit naval power. I dont doubt their power, but politically, they arent there, with all the advantages and disadvantages that implies.

Will it work for Australia?  It depends on the role. If the idea is to sink enemy submarines trying to interdict their sea lanes, yes, it will work brilliantly, I have no doubts. If the idea is to forward place warships to deter China from aggressive action, then no, I dont think it will. Because you cant be deterred by a platform you cannot detect,  if you are of a mind to deprecate your enemies capabilities, its all to easy to pretend the are not there at all.

I suppose a more appropriate question to ask would be, can China be deterred at all? Which is more a political question, but my personal opinion is that China is going to calculate the number of carriers and aircraft facing it before making a move on Taiwan. Its probably not going to count the number of Submarines.

 

[DB]

Opposition stirring sh*t. Has the US actually offered the Virginia?

 

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/uk-defends-submarines-after-australian-remarks/

Edited March 2, 2023 by DB

[Stuart Galbraith]

The account I read yesteday said suggested that the opposition wanted Virginia 'because reasons', but there doesnt seem to be any indication the US has ever offered it, or that its even a possibility. One account I read some months ago suggested the Americans were happy to dump it all on the Brits, because the Americans dont have the production capacity to do it. Their SSN fleet is still declining as the 688's withdraw, and they still have the Ohio replacement to build. Even in surface ship building they are admitting they dont have the necessary shipbuilding capacity, and they will have to rebuild it.

At this rate, the Australians will reduce their submarine sourcing to the PRC and India....

 

[Argus]

Dutton was one of the ministers involved originally and he wanted an off the shelf Virginia buy, the logic behind that option is and was strong - the problem being (As I understand it all) that the US is less interested in it now than they were 2 years ago, and they were not all that interested back then anyway, one senses the difference between a reluctant maybe and and a quiet 'if you don't ask, we won't have to say no.' At the end of the day its not America's job to pull us out of our own Kimchee, lovely if/when they do mind, but there's no obligation, as it was put elsewhere, its not like they are the RN and this is the 30's or even 60's.  


 

[futon]

Hey mate, I been thinking, lately everyone's been so hard on about defenese.

Yeah, well.. yeah.

So I was thinking how 'bout just to lighten up the mood. Kind of sick and tired of everyone crying about making a defense sale.

It does seem kind of childish, you have a point.

Right, so to lighten things up, I'm just gonna accept one of subs. Like, I'm just goinna say it.

Ok..

..and give them an air that they really got accepted, show some gestures and motion, you know, like that deal is moving along.

uh huh

.. and then I'm gonna stop

 

 

Look them dead in the face...

 

 

 

and 

 

 

 

SIKE!!!!

 

 

 

watch, watch this, it'll lighten people up..

I don't know..

Nah, it'll be great. Like, along the way, they'll be upset, but after everyone had a turn, everyone will laugh, trust me..

Lol, ok, I got my beer.

Yeah, watch.

 

..

 

 

..

 

 

..

 

 

Yo, Japan nice sub.

Arigatogozaimasu. We worked over time on it. 

Can I see inside?

Mochiron, ii desu yo, we'll send one down for you. Sorry about WW2 sub

Nah, it's cool mate. Thanks for letting me see inside, great.

You're welcome. Do you like?

Yeah it's great, we want it.

Arigatogozaimasu.

..

..

We need an official process, you know, we gotta do it, don't worry we got you.

Wakarimashita, we'll wait.

Yo, Germany, France, and um that other sub maker, Sweeden, can I see your subs? Japan sub is expensive and they don't want to build in Australia.

Sumimasen, we can make changes..

Oh, ja, you can see our sub.

Bonjour sub yeah take a look, we got most experience.

Well german sub is best defense product, we have tradition.

We'll France is best. And we best sellers. Changing nuke out is easy. German sub too small.

It be easy to up scale.

If you say so but..

Yo yo, guys, mates, I already decided to do Japan's.

 

 

 

 

 

SIKE!!!!!!!!!

 

 

 

Japan you're out, sorry bud.

Majika!

 

Alright Germany and France, let's get to business.

blahblahblah yadda yadda yadda

France, congratulations you win! You're also a natural partner since you have an island not far from Australia and so we used to each other.

(demo, China ni kanshite...)

Sorry Germany.

Really unfair doubt about German sub silence tech and scale..

It's ok Grrmany, we go France and y'all both EU.

That's true.. viva ja France!

...

 

...

 

Yo, France, why more expensive?

Ah well, in order to build more in Australia..

Ah, that's ok, man.

...

 

 

...

 

 

Yo, Britain old pal, can you do a mate a favor?

Certainly, but I'm having tea right now.

Nah, dude, I need help now. France sub is too expensive, and they take too many breaks.

Well I'm on break too but you did say France so... I'm all ears

I want a British sub.

Got it!

Just wait a second, you'll know when I'm ready.

 

...

 

 

...

 

 

Yo, France...

 

 

SIKE!!!!!!!!!

 

 

WHaTt!!

I'm making a new group with Britain.

How could you, so suddenly, like that!! We we're moving along, you even said so, that's like backsta-

...and 'Merica is in the group too. Sorry.

-bing... huh?!

It's called ACKIS, I mean, ah sh!t how does it go again..

What! You really disrespectful, we really pissed about this. OMG

... AKEcus? AtKes...? Ah, I remember now, it's called AUKUS.

Go poo your defense down a toilet.

Sorry bud.

 

 

Hey Japan how about JAUKUS?

(kekko desu)

Hehe, alright Britian, let's do it. We've already been buddying up on crewing subs. So this be easy. But I think I.want nuclear.

Oh, nuclear, that makes it a bit more complex, I think it's still doable though, I've got the most advanced nuclear sub in production right now.

Yeah, let's do it.

 

...

 

...

 

Yo, USA, nice looking Virginia sub there.

Yeah, thanks man. 

I wonder if it's available.

Um, well, we kinda have a big order to fill, you know, we got a really big global order to maintain. We need to protect you, you know.

Yeah, but I'm starting to have doubts about the British sub...

Well, from very beginning of your, um, submarine procurement, we have been ready to delivery combat systems. So that's easy. We might be able to help y'all by inviting your workers to come here and learn at our facilities. 

That sounds great, let's do that.

 

...

 

 

Hey, Great Britain..

Yes, Australia, during my tea break again but is there a problem?

Yeah..

 

 

 

 

SIKE!!!!!!!!

 

 

 

We gonna learn how to build Virginias.

(spits tea)

Sorry, mate, you know, its America, sustainable and long term and all, we need to operate with the whole program guranteed for life upgrades.

--always those Americans--

 

 

...

 

 

...

 

Wow, these Virginias are awesome. Really fun to learn about.

Cool, glad you enjoying it.

 

 

....

 

 

....

 

 

Hey America..

Yeah, what's up?

I feel beat. Our industries are just not up to it. I think I need to cancel our program for learning Virginia subs.

Um, ok, y'all know what's best, good luck.

Thanks mate, really appreciate it.

 

...

 

 

...

 

 

Yo Russia, desperate for some money?

 

Edited March 3, 2023 by futon

[Argus]

Ummm sure, whatever....... 🥺

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

I dont know what Dutton has against an Astute based design. Its not as if the Americans didnt have a large hand in fixing it, and even they were surprised how well it turned out.

Still, they could always go back and ask the French....

[Sardaukar]

Since Australians seem to have pissed off French, Astute and Virginia would be the remaining options.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Ok, so lets say Virginia isnt an option, because Biden wants to suck up to Macron, which seems basically to be the case.  Lets say a labour government for whatever reason goes cold on Australia, because they beat us at cricket or something (not that this is a new phenomenon, but whatever). There really isnt anyone left, unless they want to buy Indian or Chinese. Im not sure even the Russians have the yard capacity to help. They are averaging one nuclear submarine about half a decade at the moment.

We see this in the UK as well of course. When Labour was in, the Tories invented a problem with HS2 rail line, that it didnt go to Heathrow. They made a big song and a dance routine about it. Then when they got in, they evaluated it, and cancelled it.

I guess what im saying is, its invented problems to make them look like they have a real alternative on hand. But they dont. They either buy British (or at least substantial chunks that are British) or they go back to France and beg for forgiveness.

[Ssnake]

Send them Frenchies a crate of Penfold's, and all will be forgiven. And if you ask for a nuclear design not to be converted into non-nuclear but magically perform just the same, it might actually work out this time.

[Sardaukar]

Considering our nuclear plant Olkiluoto 3 was built by French AREVA and still doesn't work fully...only 13 years late from scheduled completion...

Thus I am bit allergic to combination of French and nuclear reactors.  

Someone even made Olkiluoto 3 beer...described having "lingering taste...warming nicely during power outages..."

[Stuart Galbraith]

Well I live just 35 miles downwind of a French built nuclear reactor, so please keep such happy thoughts to yourself.

The French are great engineers, they always have been. Their politics... well, they have great engineers, lets leave it at that.

[Sardaukar]

Just now, Stuart Galbraith said:

Well I live just 35 miles downwind of a French built nuclear reactor, so please keep such happy thoughts to yourself.

The French are great engineers, they always have been. Their politics... well, they have great engineers, lets leave it at that.

I am not worried about safety, we have strict quality requirements (one reason plant is so late), but French engineering had become a laughing stock here after this debacle. To be fair, they had Siemens as companion too, but they bailed out from project years ago.

It's amusing that plant might need to be refurbished before it has started full operation

[Stuart Galbraith]

Oh God, that doesnt auger well for Hinkley C.

[Josh]

To be fair, most every nuclear plant in the west takes twice the time and money to go active.

 

Australia was going to review its options for eighteen months and decide on a path forward. The rumor mill says that at this point it is more likely to be a British based design, but nothing has been released yet. I believe the full plan is going to be unveiled this month on the visit to the US. The main sticking point seems to be finding any production capacity in either UK or US to supply the needed nuclear sections of a boat to Australia, even assuming they build the rest of it.

[Sardaukar]

9 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Oh God, that doesnt auger well for Hinkley C.

But, you'd look like character from one set of Martian books..Barsoomian with 6 arms. Think it as a bonus. 

There is upside.