Jump to content

Australia to Get Nuclear Submarines


Adam_S
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

On 10/17/2021 at 11:08 PM, futon said:

A PRC video about recent China-Russia naval joint-training in the Sea of Japan in this thread Because, TN.

Just prior the training, the PLAN fleet was observed by the JMSDF passing by Tsushima and into the Sea of Japan on October 11th. The fleet consists of 6 ships; a Type 55 destroyer, a Type 52D destroyer, two Type 54A frigates, a Fuchi-class replenisher, and a sub rescue ship.

https://www.mod.go.jp/js/Press/press2021/press_pdf/p20211013_01.pdf

On October 18th, the PLAN group of ships (minus the sub rescue ship so perhaps also minus any PLAN sub) passed east through the Tsugaru Strait (between Hokkaido and Honshu) and into the Pacific together with five Russian navy ships that consisted of two Udaloy class destroyers, two Steregushichiy frigates, and a missile observing ship. It was the first time for the JMSDF to observe both those navies passing togerher through Tsugaru Strait. 

https://www.mod.go.jp/js/Press/press2021/press_pdf/p20211018_02.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, glenn239 said:

They stole a design off the West that doesn't exist in the West?

Quote

Obviously not, or it would have worked wouldnt it?  :)

The news is that they tested a space capsule, not a warhead.

Quote

Balls. From what ive been reading it was travelling too low to be a capsule. There was some allegations it was manoeuvring, I dont know how true that is. Next you will be saying Captain Kirk flew in a hypersonic weapon if you believe that one.

The thing apparently flew around the world and landed within 24 miles of the recovery area.  That looks like a successful test of the hypersonic system to me. 

Flew around the world and missed, yes, I think we established this.

9 hours ago, Ssnake said:

I agree that carriers of 24 miles length are at risk, if the missile attacks the broad side.

😄

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The defence industry minister of the time said that the US decided not to offer SSN for the Attack project because Oz has no domestic nuclear industrial base. Nothing has changed. 

Australia decided to build the bestest SSKs in a sub yard with a meh record. 

The Chinese are just a convenient excuse to pull out of a truly Australian cockup. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Simon Tan said:

The defence industry minister of the time said that the US decided not to offer SSN for the Attack project because Oz has no domestic nuclear industrial base. Nothing has changed. 

Australia decided to build the bestest SSKs in a sub yard with a meh record. 

The Chinese are just a convenient excuse to pull out of a truly Australian cockup. 

 

51ga50.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is the thing, it has to work. Because by cancelling with France, Cortez burned his ships. They either make it work or have to do an upgrade of the Collins into the 2060's, with no logical replacement in sight.

Ive a feeling that will focus minds remarkably. It did with our Astute program, and god knows that was as screwed up when it started.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/18/2021 at 8:40 AM, glenn239 said:

 

China surprises U.S. with hypersonic missile test, FT reports | Reuters


A Chinese hypersonic missile in August circled the world then landed 24 miles from its intended target.  Think that thing can hit a US carrier in the Atlantic?  

Probably not if it truly missed its target by two dozen miles, no. Though I do wonder how that number was determined; surely the Chinese didn't provide it.

In any case, the Chinese have created something like an SS-9 mod3, except that they used a civilian space booster as the carrier and a glider as the RV. The fact that they used an HGV as the RV means that when they get it working, it will have far more cross range ability than a conventional FOBS. But it doesn't bring anything especially destabilizing to the situation that FOBS didn't already do, and deorbiting an RV with a third stage rocket motor isn't especially impressive. It went around the world? Great, it had a longer travel time than an ICBM.

I assume the main purpose of this research is to ensure that there is no possibility of the US establishing a break out capability with their ABM systems such that the PRC deterrent is negated, something the Russians have obsessed over since the 80's.

Circling back (hah!) to hitting carriers - the US a few weeks ago flew a 3D printed scramjet for several hundred miles successfully. Do you think a Mach 5 cruise missile can hit a Chinese landing ship in the Taiwan straight? The sensor coatings would pretty much just have to be the same as an A2A missile and a B-52 will likely carry 14-20 of the HACM missile that is the follow on program to the HAWC weapons demonstrator. I wonder how many a B-21 can carry?

The PLAN have as much at stake to lose if hypersonics make surface ships indefensible, and unlike the US they don't have several decades of ABM tracking and testing experience to draw on in terms of defense. Similarly, I'm unaware of any satellite based missile detection system for the PRC, something the US has in a couple of different orbital inclinations.

Edited by Josh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/18/2021 at 12:29 PM, glenn239 said:

 

The point for Josh is this.  Between the time he posted that the Chinese are losing ground and the few days it took for me to answer, the Chinese (or Americans?) announced that a shocking global ranged hypersonic booster test for a manned spacecraft has occurred.

Generally speaking, if the country we are talking about interrupts a discussion between posters by with news of a test of a system that has no equivalent in the West, if that happens literally in the few days between posts, then maybe it's time to stop thinking that it's inevitable we are going to win this new  race, hmmmn?

I don't think one weapon system constitutes a change in the strategic balance. At least it didn't seem to work out for Zee Germans. The timing of our conversation doesn't particularly impact world events either, I imagine.

Edited by Josh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Simon Tan said:

I cant help it if the fanbois get hurt feelings. 


Nah mate, I'd have to think you were serious first. 
The meme was more a general comment, as I genuinely can't remember the last time you had any positive comment to make about anything when you are in Acid Aunty mode. Seriously, I do appreciate your dedication to the art of the well observed cutting one liner. It's just without a little variety it all gets a bit stale on one hand and loses depth on the other.
Sure, hate boi's gotta hate and trolls be a'rolln, and fair enough too. We all take our pleasures where we find them. I'm only pointing out your perpetual parade of pithy protestations has become prosaic and is presently precious close to parody. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Josh said:

....Circling back (hah!) to hitting carriers - the US a few weeks ago flew a 3D printed scramjet for several hundred miles successfully. Do you think a Mach 5 cruise missile can hit a Chinese landing ship in the Taiwan straight? The sensor coatings would pretty much just have to be the same as an A2A missile and a B-52 will likely carry 14-20 of the HACM missile that is the follow on program to the HAWC weapons demonstrator. I wonder how many a B-21 can carry?
 

It will be a decade before the US fields a Mach 5 missile. The fastest current cruise missile is the joint Indian - Russian Brahmos which has a top 'cruise' speed of Mach 2.5 (their's a Mach 5 version in R&D). The Russians are well ahead of the US in propulsion systems, both Strategic and tactical.
 

Quote

 

The PLAN have as much at stake to lose if hypersonics make surface ships indefensible, and unlike the US they don't have several decades of ABM tracking and testing experience to draw on in terms of defense. Similarly, I'm unaware of any satellite based missile detection system for the PRC, something the US has in a couple of different orbital inclinations.

 

 

 

 The Military Balance states that Chyna has 4 ground based phased array tracking systems but you're right they don't have satellite based detection systems. Only the US and Russia has them.

 

Edited by TrustMe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/19/2021 at 8:31 AM, futon said:

On October 18th, the PLAN group of ships (minus the sub rescue ship so perhaps also minus any PLAN sub) passed east through the Tsugaru Strait (between Hokkaido and Honshu) and into the Pacific together with five Russian navy ships that consisted of two Udaloy class destroyers, two Steregushichiy frigates, and a missile observing ship. It was the first time for the JMSDF to observe both those navies passing togerher through Tsugaru Strait. 

https://www.mod.go.jp/js/Press/press2021/press_pdf/p20211018_02.pdf

The story continues. Didn't think it become a 3 post series. I suppose one more to come.

After all that training with AUKUS, I guess this was to be coming.

The movement of the Chn-Rus combined fleet as the map shows. On October 21st, a heli from a Type 54A and from a Steregushichy in the area around the 3rd bottom red arrow. JMSDF ships Izushima, Yamagiri, and Takanami made the observation as well as a P-3C. JASDF scrambled fighters to the Chn-Rus helis.

twoheligroupmap.jpg

twoheli.jpg

https://www.mod.go.jp/js/Press/press2021/press_pdf/p20211021_03.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Josh said:

Probably not if it truly missed its target by two dozen miles, no. Though I do wonder how that number was determined; surely the Chinese didn't provide it.

The US military reaction was, "we don't have any idea how the fuck they got a hypersonic missile to circle the world", and your reaction is that you think 24 miles from the recovery point is too far from the mark for the space capsule it carried?  

Where did you get your information that the DF-21 guidance system can't pick up a carrier 24 miles away?  I'm curious, because the posters that I associate with the largest degree of rank jingoism seem to be picking up very eagerly on this detail.  To them, it seems proof that they can stop thinking about this.  To me, they are clutching at straws.  What's your take?  Do you think that the Chinese are too stupid to be able to design a radar/optical guidance package that can overcome that 24 mile error rate we just heard about?

 

Quote

In any case, the Chinese have created something like an SS-9 mod3et motor isn't especially impressive. It went around the world? Great, it had a longer travel time than an ICBM.

 I was under the impression that this hypersonic system is much cheaper than an ICBM.  

Quote

The PLAN have as much at stake to lose if hypersonics make surface ships indefensible, and unlike the US they don't have several decades of ABM tracking and testing experience to draw on in terms of defense. Similarly, I'm unaware of any satellite based missile detection system for the PRC, something the US has in a couple of different orbital inclination

If the Chinese sink the US navy and the US navy sinks the Chinese navy, then the US will be thrown out of Asia and back to the Americas, China will then completely dominate Asia, and Taiwan will still be sitting right off the Chinese coast ready to be annexed.  

Edited by glenn239
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, TrustMe said:

 The Military Balance states that Chyna has 4 ground based phased array tracking systems but you're right they don't have satellite based detection systems. Only the US and Russia has them.

The US military apparently just released its assessment for 2022 - it still holds the whip hand over China and Russia combined.  But the overall direction of the trend is not in question.  The Chinese seem to be completing their R&D phase for various systems, (such as J-20) and are now moving into mass production and creating larger force structures.  The Americans, in turn, seem to be imploding a bit on the domestic front.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Josh said:

Circling back (hah!) to hitting carriers - the US a few weeks ago flew a 3D printed scramjet for several hundred miles successfully. Do you think a Mach 5 cruise missile can hit a Chinese landing ship in the Taiwan straight? The sensor coatings would pretty much just have to be the same as an A2A missile and a B-52 will likely carry 14-20 of the HACM missile that is the follow on program to the HAWC weapons demonstrator. I wonder how many a B-21 can carry?

 

I actually pulled up a sea floor map of the Taiwan Straight for the first time ever a few days ago.  Looks to me that if China decides to invade Taiwan for real that they will need ASW barriers that follow the contours of the shallow parts of the Straights, they will need total air superiority over Taiwan and hundreds of miles past it, and the ability to completely disrupt land based air operations out to about a thousand miles.  

On the invasion forces themselves, I think Sealion is a better model than Okinawa, in that what China will want is an invasion fleet of thousands of smaller transports (100-1000 ton range) rather than small numbers of big 25,000 ton amphibious types.  That way, if say 12 of those B-21's you mention come through with 20 of those mach 5 missiles each and sink 200 ships, well 200 isn't so much to an invasion fleet of 10,000 ships, right?

The other emerging trend that catches the attention is robotic fighting systems.  One thing to stick 100,000 troops on transports.  Quite another to put 10,000 troops and 90,000 robotic systems on the invasion transports. 

Edited by glenn239
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, glenn239 said:

 

I actually pulled up a sea floor map of the Taiwan Straight for the first time ever a few days ago.  Looks to me that if China decides to invade Taiwan for real that they will need ASW barriers that follow the contours of the shallow parts of the Straights, they will need total air superiority over Taiwan and hundreds of miles past it, and the ability to completely disrupt land based air operations out to about a thousand miles.  

On the invasion forces themselves, I think Sealion is a better model than Okinawa, in that what China will want is an invasion fleet of thousands of smaller transports (100-1000 ton range) rather than small numbers of big 25,000 ton amphibious types.  That way, if say 12 of those B-21's you mention come through with 20 of those mach 5 missiles each and sink 200 ships, well 200 isn't so much to an invasion fleet of 10,000 ships, right?

The other emerging trend that catches the attention is robotic fighting systems.  One thing to stick 100,000 troops on transports.  Quite another to put 10,000 troops and 90,000 robotic systems on the invasion transports. 

Oh no Glenn don't, just PLEASE don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Oh no Glenn don't, just PLEASE don't.

You know, deep in your heart, that they have always been lurking:

Bundesarchiv N 1603 Bild-054, Schwarzes Meer, Siebelfähre mit 8,8cm Flak ArM.jpg

Seriously, the Chinese already have that capability with the type 072/73 LST/LSM, augmented by civilian ahipping. The recent, larger ships of the type 071 and 075 are clearly intended to be the core of an expeditionary marine group for out of area deployment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...