Australia's Submarine

Forest Green said:
Purely for discussions on Australia's submarine purchase, no AUKUS, no France, no EU in line with thread closure.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-10...ling-for-nuclear-submarine-contract/100525756
Click to expand...
' An american sourced nuke boat can be serviced in Guam or Japan' has anyone asked the Japanese about that?

whilst I'd love it to be astute boats with US reactor, weapons and systems - which I'm sure the Astute also already has to some degree, I'd prefer a more knowledgeable source.
 
I feel sorry for the poor old salesman, he probably retired once the UK ordered the Astute's, now he's jetting round the world in a biz jet, to countries he crossed off his list 30 years ago....
 
Fluff said:
' An american sourced nuke boat can be serviced in Guam or Japan' has anyone asked the Japanese about that?

whilst I'd love it to be astute boats with US reactor, weapons and systems - which I'm sure the Astute also already has to some degree, I'd prefer a more knowledgeable source.
Click to expand...
All NATO dockyards are centred on the US standard, that's why they have a frequency converter to convert to 60Hz. Devonport and others in the UK are no different.
 
The key question on Astute as an option is, is there a revised Astute design with PWR-3?
 
Interesting article comparing the various options available to Australia.

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-new...-for-australias-aukus-nuclear-submarine-deal/
I personally think they're going to go with a Virginia variant not for capability but for logistics. The ability for American boats to be serviced in Australia and Australian boats to be serviced in American bases in the pacific will most likely have a big influence.
 
Going back to the RN helping the Australian and Canadian Navies adopt the Oberon class subs, I think much will hinge and whether the USN or RN are able to transfer a submarine to the RAN from its existing fleet.
 
uk 75 said:
I think much will hinge and whether the USN or RN are able to transfer a submarine to the RAN from its existing fleet.
Click to expand...

I agree. Since it will be decades until the initial boat is commissioned, I always thought it would be a wise to lease or loan a single Los Angeles or Trafalgar SSN to the RAN so they can start cutting their teeth in nuclear operations now. Not unlike what the Soviets/Russians did with India.
 
The problem with a US solution is that US yards don't have the capacity to build anything (EDIT: anything outside USN boats). Perhaps if the Aus build most of the boat themselves and things like firecontrol and reactor are US it would work, but the quickest solution would probably be having the UK build or lease astutes. Its not clear to me how this whole thing is going to come together given all the moving parts, and a change of government and heart in Canberra could easily scrap the whole thing.
 
Last edited:
THO88 said:
uk 75 said:
I think much will hinge and whether the USN or RN are able to transfer a submarine to the RAN from its existing fleet.
Click to expand...

I agree. Since it will be decades until the initial boat is commissioned, I always thought it would be a wise to lease or loan a single Los Angeles or Trafalgar SSN to the RAN so they can start cutting their teeth in nuclear operations now. Not unlike what the Soviets/Russians did with India.
Click to expand...

Trick might be finding one. Can't speak to their accuracy but Wikipedia has lists of US and UK subs and their current status.

Los Angles Flight II Boats all 32+ years old now, Improved Flight III average age 29 years. If leased to Australia, would they be refueled?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Los_Angeles-class_submarineshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia-class_submarinehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trafalgar-class_submarinehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astute-class_submarine
 
jeffb said:
Trick might be finding one.
Click to expand...
Indeed. The modern boats are all needed at home otherwise they wouldn't be being built. A clapped out, end-of-life boat is hardly representative of what Australia will eventually operate and SSNs go out of service for good reason. Better to have a healthy-sized Australian seedcorn contingent in both US & UK training pipelines for the next 10 years (or thereabouts) than any Australian training boat. By then, the fleet-size issue should have eased for both would-be suppliers and the Australians can purchase an early-production Astute or 774 that'll at least be only one generation shy of the boat they'll be fielding. If they do get a T-boat or 688 soon-ish, I have doubts it will still be in service for HMAS Nautilus to supplant. The US & UK have the training establishments. Use them to full advantage!

Or they could buy a Han? :eek:
 
Opportunistic Minnow said:
jeffb said:
Trick might be finding one.
Click to expand...
Indeed. The modern boats are all needed at home otherwise they wouldn't be being built. A clapped out, end-of-life boat is hardly representative of what Australia will eventually operate and SSNs go out of service for good reason. Better to have a healthy-sized Australian seedcorn contingent in both US & UK training pipelines for the next 10 years (or thereabouts) than any Australian training boat. By then, the fleet-size issue should have eased for both would-be suppliers and the Australians can purchase an early-production Astute or 774 that'll at least be only one generation shy of the boat they'll be fielding. If they do get a T-boat or 688 soon-ish, I have doubts it will still be in service for HMAS Nautilus to supplant. The US & UK have the training establishments. Use them to full advantage!

Or they could buy a Han? :eek:
Click to expand...
I'd expect US and UK would make a plan, squeeze one boat, to base in Australia, with alot of ausie people on.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom