Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
9 hours ago, Josh said:

The AUKUS boat will have the Virginia block 3 style VLS to make that launcher common across the fleet. Combat system will also be standardized based on BSY-1 type system, which probably pisses off Thales a bit but there you go. But the UK is apparently also about to inherit a lot of US tech transfer on top of the already close relationship between the USN and RN.

It is quite the ambitious endeavor.

Im idly thinking it may be something to do with the new hypersonic antiship weapon which is supposed to be developed.

  • Replies 1.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted
7 hours ago, Argus said:

I think the timeline being put forward now is the 'managing expectations' long form one. Things could, and might very well, go quicker.

I believe the US VLS element was already part of SSN(R), there's beena  bit of work between the US and UK on common elements beyond the reactors, I believe the  next generation of US SSBN has its missile section based on the  UK's new one... some deal like that anyway. 

Thats interesting, Id not heard that. Id heard about the missile compartment, the only difference is I think ours comes in two missiles, they come in 4. Wish someone at MOD hadnt cut the number of missiles in the next SSBN, though I guess we can make the numbers up on the bus.

My main concern is that we seem to be trying to leverage Rolls Royces experience in naval PWR's to make small nuclear plants viable for the UK, and for export. Im not sure quite how much of the naval PWR tech ends up in them, but having the Americans involved with us at the military end might create some awkwardness. Presumably Rolls Royce is up to structuring the company so that isnt a problem.

 

Posted
12 minutes ago, BansheeOne said:

Surely Australia would never allow that after signalling an interest in Japanese boats, ditching the Japanese and signing an agreement with the French, backing out of that agreement to sign another with the US and UK ... 😁

Like Cortez,they burned their ships. Which doesnt mean of course they wont cut their own throat, but they know there wont be anyone else. Which is something of an encouragement one might think.

Posted

If the Americans solely are involved, they will want to build the whole thing themselves, which will run into the Great Barrier Reef of Australian Politics because Australia wants technology transfer, just as we once did. As it is in fact a partnership, and as they stand to make quite a bit of money off the British SSNR order later, which is going to be larger, it would be cutting off the nose to spite the face.

Yes, stupidity and politics can always intervene of course. But if we are cynical about everything, nothing would be done, whether its the Italian Horizon frigate for America, the Franco German Tank or Tempest. We have to give it a try and see how it goes. Sometimes these things do work out as advertised you know.

Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, Argus said:

I think the timeline being put forward now is the 'managing expectations' long form one. Things could, and might very well, go quicker.

I don’t see how. As it is the schedule is ambitious. The fact that they are in effect splitting RANs SSN fleet across three different building nations illustrates the build capability limitations of the US and UK.

 

13 hours ago, Argus said:


I believe the US VLS element was already part of SSN(R), there's beena  bit of work between the US and UK on common elements beyond the reactors, I believe the  next generation of US SSBN has its missile section based on the  UK's new one... some deal like that anyway. 

The Trident tubes are built in common four missile module’s shared by both designs; RN uses three and USN four (12/16 missiles). That VLS is being added for increased payload and flexibility isn’t surprising especially as the US combat system is already designed to handle those tubes anyway. Honestly what is more surprising is that Astute never had them. I suspect this was a consequence of the smaller cylindrical sonar vice the huge spherical (and equally huge large aperture bow array in later blocks) installation. In the US boats there’s already some excess full hull diameter space outside the pressure hull between the sphere and acoustic baffles. Presumably SSN-AUKUS will adopt a LAB type sonar to allow for easy BSY-1 integration.

Edited by Josh
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Im idly thinking it may be something to do with the new hypersonic antiship weapon which is supposed to be developed.

I think the switch to a US combat system likely means it is a US style bow that allows for forward VLS. But also the ability to act as an SSGN is a huge advantage from an anti shipping point of view. The USN supposedly already has a supersonic sub launched missile know as Sea Dragon. It is suspected it is a repackaged SM-6 sans booster with clipped or folding fins. Presumably whatever comes out of the USNs HALO program will eventually be capable of surface/subsurface launch, given that USN elevator restrictions will ensure it is only 15’ long - that allows for a Mk72 type booster.

Edited by Josh
Posted
18 minutes ago, Josh said:

I don’t see how. As it is the schedule is ambitious. The fact that they are in effect splitting RANs SSN fleet across three different building nations illustrates the build capability limitations of the US and UK.

 

The Trident tubes are built in common four missile module’s shared by both designs; RN uses three and USN four (12/16 missiles). That VLS is being added for increased payload and flexibility isn’t surprising especially as the US combat system is already designed to handle those tubes anyway. Honestly what is more surprising is that Astute never had them. I suspect this was a consequence of the smaller cylindrical sonar vice the huge spherical (and equally huge large aperture bow array in later blocks) installation. In the US boats there’s already some excess full hull diameter space outside the pressure hull between the sphere and acoustic baffles. Presumably SSN-AUKUS will adopt a LAB type sonar to allow for easy BSY-1 integration.

Well, possibly at least in part due to penury. Can you imagine what it would cost to have 7 Astutes, all with 12 TLAM missiles and reloads? :D The bomb room on the Astute is if memory serves capable of handling almost twice as many torpedo's as the Trafalgars. As there was in the post war world, little perceived need to loft something like 12 TLAM's in one go, let alone cart that many around, they probably figured there was no need. Its kind of like having only having 12 SLBM tubes on the next SSBN, who would really miss the extra 4 missiles? And then the world changed, again.

 

Posted

The RN could probably use some SSGNs alongside the new SSBNs, based on a common platform (i.e. Dreadnought). No sense in converting Vanguards, they're pretty old now and will be a decade+ older when the replacement comes. 3-4 subs with ~150 cruise missiles each.

Posted

From the RN and MOD's point of view, it makes the Carriers look considerably less important. So I wonder frankly whether we will see a drop from 2 to 1 at that point.

Posted

Not much sense in having one carrier, not when refits can take months/years. 3 should be a minimum if you want to always have 2 operational.

Posted
14 hours ago, BansheeOne said:

Surely Australia would never allow that after signalling an interest in Japanese boats, ditching the Japanese and signing an agreement with the French, backing out of that agreement to sign another with the US and UK ... 😁

Why you would almost think we made a multi-generational habit of signing treaties with neighbouring nations and then invading them anyway. 

Posted
15 hours ago, BansheeOne said:

Surely Australia would never allow that after signalling an interest in Japanese boats, ditching the Japanese and signing an agreement with the French, backing out of that agreement to sign another with the US and UK ... 😁

If the aim is to add more SSNs to the RAN, then buying more Virginias after having already bought three to five is a possibility.  IfSSN AUKUS ends up as the repalement for the RAN Virginias, then they'll almost certainly be built in Australia.

Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

From the RN and MOD's point of view, it makes the Carriers look considerably less important. So I wonder frankly whether we will see a drop from 2 to 1 at that point.

To channel Dr Alexander Clarke, subs are not good for the presence mission.  They are most effective when they can't be seen.

Edited by shep854
Posted
7 hours ago, Josh said:

I don’t see how. As it is the schedule is ambitious. The fact that they are in effect splitting RANs SSN fleet across three different building nations illustrates the build capability limitations of the US and UK.

I don't think either of us have a platform for getting too confident in our ideas. If the three factors driving the bus; are the USN's schedule to release the subs, the RAN's capacity to absorb them and country's ability to support them.  It's the RAN's manpower that looks to be the biggest hard limit with the furthest to go. If in large part this time line is built around the RAN's manpower projections. I would suggest is is going to be a conservative estimate for a number of reasons. Not the least of these being the whole defense establishment has put it neck on the line for this project, and there is simply nowhere for them to hide with this amount of bi-partisan buy-in.  

Posted
10 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

But nobody says that to the French, who only have one carrier. :)

who ever really thinks of the French as having carriers though....

Posted
2 hours ago, shep854 said:

To channel Dr Alexander Clarke, subs are not good for the presence mission.  They are most effective when they can't be seen.

If you are watching Dr Clarke, then he is also wont to point out that presence is a two tiered mission, Sloop and Cruiser or whatever one wants to translate that into current ship types. The RAN has those, more than most actually.  He is also just a little bit wrong - as he often is tbh. Submarines, SSN's at any rate, are superb presence projectors, in good part because they are not seen, and thus can be anywhere so feel like they are everwhere. Their presence has massive deterrent value, great for intimidating the unruly or reassuring the friendly but disturbed.  :D

Posted
6 hours ago, Argus said:

If you are watching Dr Clarke, then he is also wont to point out that presence is a two tiered mission, Sloop and Cruiser or whatever one wants to translate that into current ship types. The RAN has those, more than most actually.  He is also just a little bit wrong - as he often is tbh. Submarines, SSN's at any rate, are superb presence projectors, in good part because they are not seen, and thus can be anywhere so feel like they are everwhere. Their presence has massive deterrent value, great for intimidating the unruly or reassuring the friendly but disturbed.  :D

Yep.  It's good to have both types of presence.  Dr Clarke is interesting and makes good points, but it seems he tries a bit hard to make his mark.  Hopefully he will improve as he matures.

Posted
17 hours ago, Argus said:

I don't think either of us have a platform for getting too confident in our ideas. If the three factors driving the bus; are the USN's schedule to release the subs, the RAN's capacity to absorb them and country's ability to support them.  It's the RAN's manpower that looks to be the biggest hard limit with the furthest to go. If in large part this time line is built around the RAN's manpower projections. I would suggest is is going to be a conservative estimate for a number of reasons. Not the least of these being the whole defense establishment has put it neck on the line for this project, and there is simply nowhere for them to hide with this amount of bi-partisan buy-in.  

Actually having 1.5-2 times the ships you can actually man is not a bad thing, you can rotate ships into refit, hot or cold layup and just keep the ships you can man now active. It does allow you to scale up and if you invest in a naval reserve, then you can fill those bunks with people that are already partial trained. It also means a lot of the upkeep can be done alongside by the shipyards keeping the vessels well maintained, which lessens the burden on the crews and improves morale. The RCN is learning this the hard way by doing the opposite. 

  • 2 weeks later...
Posted

To be fair to the french, it is about time they were brought into the tent and treated as partners in such matters. For one thing we need their production capacity.

Posted
8 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

To be fair to the french, it is about time they were brought into the tent and treated as partners in such matters. For one thing we need their production capacity.

You almost got me, damned April Fools... :D

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

×
×
  • Create New...