Replacement of Australia's Collins Class Submarines

Scott Kenny said:
"Training was not rigorous enough, in that there were no individual examination failures, nor were there any overall question failures." ​
​
Written tests for nukes are expected to be so hard that someone MUST fail, and one question per exam is supposed to be so difficult that NO ONE gets it right. (failing a question means that you get assigned extra lessons on whatever that question covered, failing a test means you get those extra lessons for every question.)​
Click to expand...

Or it was felt that the training program had been lessened in strength and/or depth in order to either make the students look better or to give the department head or CO something to polish their resume with - "every boat but ours had test failures, see how complete and effective our training is?"
 
Grey Havoc said:
The whippings will continue until morale improves...
Click to expand...
The ship's office on Kentucky Gold gave the new XO a t-shirt that said that...



BlackBat242 said:
Or it was felt that the training program had been lessened in strength and/or depth in order to either make the students look better or to give the department head or CO something to polish their resume with - "every boat but ours had test failures, see how complete and effective our training is?"
Click to expand...
As the Squadron Nukes explained, it's a requirement from Naval Reactors that the tests have at least one person fail and at least one F-U question per test. Edit: specifically to prevent people lessening the training program to make an officer "look good". The "perfect" Navy Nuke training program has the Bell Curve set so that there is only one dude who fails the entire test and one question nobody gets right.
 
Last edited:
Another take....

asiatimes.com

Abandoning AUKUS: a better way to defend Australia - Asia Times​

For more than a century, Australia has followed the same defence policy: dependence on a great power. This was first the United Kingdom and then the
asiatimes.com
asiatimes.com


Regards
Pioneer
 
Pioneer said:
Another take....

asiatimes.com

Abandoning AUKUS: a better way to defend Australia - Asia Times​

For more than a century, Australia has followed the same defence policy: dependence on a great power. This was first the United Kingdom and then the
asiatimes.com
asiatimes.com


Regards
Pioneer
Click to expand...
Says someone who has NO CLUE about what submarines bring to the table.

Not to mention that Oz alone would have to develop all the stuff they want to buy in order to be independent of a great power. And somehow do this with the population of London, England.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Says someone who has NO CLUE about what submarines bring to the table.

Not to mention that Oz alone would have to develop all the stuff they want to buy in order to be independent of a great power. And somehow do this with the population of London, England.
Click to expand...
I appreciate your views Scott Kenny.
In a world dominated by "experts" and military/political and business sociopaths, I for one appreciate and think that a wider spectrum of backgrounds and points of views should put light on a sector like the Department of Defence and the Australian Defence and Industry, which deems itself untouchable and unaccountable to public/government opinion and scrutiny, as apply demonstrated with various Australian government/DoD/ADF programs...... Let alone one that is going to cost us the stupendous hundreds of billions of dollars, with no firm assurance of delivery or said capabilities.

Regards
Pioneer
 
Last edited:
Scott Kenny said:
The ship's office on Kentucky Gold gave the new XO a t-shirt that said that...




As the Squadron Nukes explained, it's a requirement from Naval Reactors that the tests have at least one person fail and at least one F-U question per test. Edit: specifically to prevent people lessening the training program to make an officer "look good". The "perfect" Navy Nuke training program has the Bell Curve set so that there is only one dude who fails the entire test and one question nobody gets right.
Click to expand...
I can see why they are doing it but there are issues with it as technically from year to year it will rank students within their course but not against other courses. It is possible for the best student one year to have less knowledge than the lowest ranked student of another year.

The joys of statistics.
 
Volkodav said:
I can see why they are doing it but there are issues with it as technically from year to year it will rank students within their course but not against other courses. It is possible for the best student one year to have less knowledge than the lowest ranked student of another year.

The joys of statistics.
Click to expand...
True, while you're dealing with school years.

This same training protocol applies to nuclear-powered ships, so you can pretty rapidly compare the different class years onboard ship, and any egregiously below-standards arrivals will get a nasty letter sent back from the ship to the school pipeline.
 
Asia Times (Chinese: 亞洲時報), formerly known as Asia Times Online, is a Hong Kong–based English language news media publishing group, covering politics, economics, business, and culture from an Asian perspective.[2] Asia Times publishes in English and simplified Chinese.
Click to expand...

So the "news organization" based in the PRC wants Australia to give up on the SSNs that are planned to defend against the PRC and go back to less-capable SSKs.

Who'd 'ave thot it?
 
I have zero difficuty, folk can come up with all sorts in the rest phase beween one rational thought process and another.....
 
Coming back to submarines for the Royal Australian Navy. I believe that at this point there isn't much of a different option than commit to AUKUS and run with it. The window of opportunity to explore other viable options has closed for a while now and every current option is definitely less attractive from a capability/strategic point of view. And while the Americans will begrudgingly hand over their much needed Virginias as an interim, I'm confident that they'll stick to it regardless. Basically, the submarines aren't really gone anyway, just operated and deployed by the RAN in a sense. They'll still be operated in a way to counter Chinese ambitions, and thanks to their range they can definitely be deployed from Australia to the WESTPAC closer to China and shadow Chinese ships and submarines. With that in mind, I think the Americans will be slightly less saddened by handing over these SSNs to Australia as an interim for the AUKUS SSN.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Please stop this debate, which has gone OT and political ! Take a deep breath, read the forum rules and the announcement from the 4th of April, and then stay on topic, please.
Please regard this as a warning.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom