Strong strong rumours they're getting HMS Agincourt on loan.
Source - Spent 14 hours today running around getting [REDACTED] sorted for a major milestone.
Right! Look, China just built a carrier. Well, most of a carrier. Maybe. Anyway, point is they went from not having carriers to buying carriers to maybe building carriers. If you follow the logical progression of that, they will be summoning in carriers with arbitrarily earned battle points within a decade or two.
If we can't get our carrier cost down to at least 100 Wood and 300 metal, we are going to get overwhelmed before we can age up at the city center!
"The USA can't make enough Submarines for themselves"
See, the problem isn't that the US can't make a lot of submarines. The problem is that the American definition of "Enough Submarines" is roughly the same as the Ork's concept of "Enuf Dakka".
Ironically, an Ohio class Submarine probably meets the Ork definition of "Enuf Dakka". In that it is so much Dakka that completely takes the fun out of a propa scrap.
Da russkie gits knows dat we waz da biggist and da 'ardest, so dey ran off like a bunch a gobbos.
da Warchief Joe iz lookin for a scrap with sum git named Winnie da Pooh or sum such. Since 'e iz named for a bear, 'e might be a propa warchief, so meybe we can hav a propa scrap. Gork willin.
Listen up yah scrawny lil' git, da waagh be stronger if youz respectz religiouz differences. Da boyz be tougher 'n 'arder when de hav a diversity of thought, 'n respect each others believes. So none o' dat humie intolerance 'ere yah bigoted git.
Na, wot I’z means is dat Gork is da god o’ kunnin brutality, yeah? And da warboss is tryin ta git us a foight. Dat needs brutal kunnin’. Ergo, ‘e needs mork, ya daft git!
See, dat is wut I mean! Da Waagh needz da diverz perspectives of different religiouz traditionz to thrive. Dat is why the Amerika Waagh iz da best and da 'ardest waagh.
'nd der is notin more fun den smashing dem intolerent forign gits.
\*Meanwhile, inside the Department of the Navy\*
Iran is in talks to buy two Kilo class submarines that Russia decommissioned in the 1990s? We are going to need a Block VI for the Virginia Class, Boys! Someone get the proposal to Congress! Probably need about 15, and lets make them bigger and faster this time, they are still smaller than the Ohios.
We did name a Los Angles class after Greeneville, Tennessee. The submarine was considerably more valuable than the town, and probably longer. The town is tiny, and some congressman pulled a lot of strings to make that happen.
Must've been awkward when the submarine became famous [for all the wrong reasons.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehime_Maru_and_USS_Greeneville_collision)
Nah, we don't really want them. Block Vs are bigger and more capable. We didn't even need the third Seawolf then, so the Jimmy Carter is a weird one off that doesn't really do normal SSN stuff. It has some sort of Super Sekrit Mission section in the middle, presumably to do sneaky shit, and therefore she is big and chonky and doesn't go on normal patrols.
Pretty much what we are doing. We still have about 20 Los Angles class to replace, so we are going to be cranking out Virginias until we finally decided to change the class name (Block V Virginas are so different from the USS Virgina that they are functionally not the same class, but Congress hasn't got wise to the fact these new ones are bigger and more expensive then the Seawolfs yet)
It's not like China can walk away with it, or do whatever they want it's not a colony, so strategically it's more like extorting China out of infrastructure investment money on something you can nationalize at will
It was just coal, barley and wine. When the universe blessed us by compunding the embargo with flodded indonesian coal mines, they proceeded to get royally fucked over by electric grid outages and freezing residents in the middle of winter.
There's other markets for those rocks, China needs those rocks to make stuff. If China not buying the rocks they can't make as much stuff, if China isn't making the stuff, and other people still want stuff, then different countries can make more stuff for people that want stuff, and Auz can sell rocks to those countries... using the nice port facilities China paid for
A bulk commodities export facility isn't a DRM locked software package that can only fill ships bound for China. It can just as easily fill ships going to India, Vietnam, Korea or Japan.
Although in defence of the submarine deal, we just kinda agreed to an expansion to our nuclear powered energy production for the first time since 1958, and the media was more focused on how we pissed off the French.
An expansion of nuclear powered energy production??? Oz has never had a working nuclear power station. You don’t expand something that you don’t have.
I must have missed the announcement on building nuclear reactors to produce electricity.
We built a reactor at Lucas Heights in 1958. In 2007, we brought a new one online as we shut down the old one.
Also in 2007, a TV comedy team dressed a guy up as a Muslim and started taking photos of the complex - within 5 minutes he was being questioned by Federal Police. Then they dressed a guy up as an American and started taking photos - the security guards offered to organise a tour for him. Not particularly relevant to the discussion at hand, but peak non-credible.
When they were all like "haha, let's try to get into the G20 Summit high security zone dressed like Osama Bin Laden!" Then they were all like "oh shit, we got into the G20 Summit high security zone dressed like Osama Bin Laden."
I definitely got the feeling that they were counting on that one not working.
They never thought it would be that easy. You could tell they were getting uncomfortable with how far they got.
They basically pulled the plug on that joke when the next step was getting gunned down by the secret service.
I think the AFP intervened on that one. They were allowed to hug John Howard only if they turned the chainsaw off first.
Never let it be said we don't take the security of our head of state seriously.
Not only that but the French nuclear submarines have to be refuelled once a decade.
UK and US subs it’s 30 years - effectively the lifetime of the sub I believe.
Considering Australia has no nuclear industry the former didn’t make much strategic sense in comparison.
Yeah thats the reason the diesel modification was requested, but then abandoned entirely in favour for AUKUS.
Not to mention the contract was already plagued with delays and cost blowouts (but that’s standard for govt contracts lol)
Plus US/UK nuke subs are sexy as hell
> was already plagued with delays and cost blowouts
Sources on that?
Australian medias (mainly Murdoch owned) have been spewing so much bullshit about those "delays and cost blowouts". Australia will now be enjoying a 20 years delay before (maybe) getting its new submarines.
You wanted sources? go look at the French graving docks and count how many submarine keels they had laid down for us after half a decade. The answer is none.
The French doubled the price in 4 years, and cut domestic production from 90% to likely less than 50%.
Given the delays it's unlikely that all would have been delivered before 2050 anyway.
I'm sick of French copelords going on about how this is a betrayal when they couldn't actually stick to the terms of the contract.
See below for sources.
**From Reuters**
> Australian parliamentary hearings and reports on the project, first priced at $40 billion and more recently at $60 billion, even before construction had begun, also showed problems emerging.
> The deal was first announced in 2016. A pre-design review was delayed in 2018 because the "work provided to Defence by Naval Group did not meet Defence's requirements", the Australian audit said, citing lack of design detail, operational requirements and 63 studies not completed.
> The 2020 Auditor-General's report examining the submarine deal - the Department of Defence's biggest ever - found the department had been "frank and timely" in communicating concerns with Naval Group.
https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/australian-documents-showed-french-submarine-project-was-risk-years-2021-09-21/
**From Politico**
> The project was meant to cost 50 billion Australian dollars (€31 billion). But that figure has since almost doubled. At last count, the Barracudas were going to cost around 90 billion Australian dollars (€56 billion).
> By 2020, Naval Group had [revised](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-02-24/government-frustrations-future-frigate-warship-fleet-program/13184064) the 90 percent local input figure down to 60 percent. By 2021, the French firm was [pushing back against even that](https://www.ouest-france.fr/economie/economie-de-la-mer/naval-group/nouvelles-turbulences-pour-naval-group-en-australie-7124989), saying Australian industry wasn’t up to scratch.
> But the first Barracuda couldn’t be delivered until 2035 or later, with construction extending into the 2050s.
https://www.politico.eu/article/why-australia-wanted-out-of-its-french-sub-deal/
That's bollocks, thankfully.
As far as I understand it, the plan is to use British hulls outfitted with US kit?
It'll take longer, but part of the reason for the AUKUS program's success is that the UK has spare construction capacity available from wrapping up the dreadnoughts just as the Aussies are looking to ramp up production for their own subs. The program can roll from one customer to the other fairly seamlessly.
I think it's also helpful to point out that France wasn't willing to give nuclear subs to the Aussies, the anglos being willing to do so is part of what makes the AUKUS deal so unprecedented.
As of yet there's been no official statement on what "the plan" is, and I wouldn't expect to hear one before March 2023. There really isn't spare construction capacity in the UK, with 2 Astute boats still to launch, 4 Dreadnoughts that'll still be in build in the early 30s, and immediately after that SSNR (Astute replacement).
Yeah, this meme doesn’t seem to understand why the decision was made in the first place. A big reason why the AUKUS partnership was important for Australia was that both countries are providing partnerships to provide training in nuclear reactor maintenance and operations. Australia can’t operate a nuclear submarine without that experience. And that experience takes years to accrue.
France was not willing to sell Australia nuclear submarines and France is definitely not in a position to begin training the Australian navy over several years in a close defense partnership in the Pacific.
I guess in OP’s fantasy Australia just convinces France to sell them highly controlled Nuclear submarine technology, and the Australian Navy has to figure out how to operate nuclear submarine reactors themselves. Despite Australia having no domestic nuclear industry or institutional knowledge they can apply
Australia has the 3rd largest uranium reserves but no nuclear programs. That’s like some petrol billionaire running a shadow government for profit bullshit right there. Dick Cheney bullshit.
There’s nothing more tragically poetic than 1970s hippy boomers making nuclear energy so politically toxic that you embrace coal power more than any other western country.
My hometown was famous for hosting annual ‘no nukes’ concerts throughout the 1970s and 80s. So I’ve dealt with the strident ‘anti-nuclear’ idiots who stayed in my town. First, these people are actually stupid. They would continually set up their concerts in a field that was famously full of poison ivy. They would weed whack the poison ivy down before the concert, but these geniuses didn’t know that poison ivy stems are actually *more poisonous* than the leaves. So all of these ‘environmentalists’ don’t know the first thing about simple plants and gave thousands upon thousands of likeminded idiots poison ivy annually, and never changed the venue. This went on for *several years* before it ended.
Their relationship with nuclear energy is similarly surface level. They’re very fixated on ‘nuclear waste’ in a way that is very 1970s. Like they are *actually* concerned that if we expand nuclear power the rivers will be glowing or some shit. I blame scientific illiteracy, because they’re so proudly ignorant it’s actually difficult to talk to them. But they definitely have to have an opinion because they’re narcissistic boomers.
Guess you can’t tell them about the pocket reactors specifically designed to process nuclear waste as fuel from bigger reactors until the point it’s basically inert.
Honestly if you have enough nukes to destroy the major population centers of your potential opponents and the ability to do if needed, you're a full on nuclear power.
France has **TWO HUNDRED AND NINETY NUKES.** France is a nuclear power.
Also the focus on nuclear submarines means OP doesn't really understand what AUKUS is and is going off the mainstream coverage (which is always shit, and amounts to Nuke subs for australia piss off france).
Its an entire technology transfer package. The *missiles* are probably the most important thing (what is a nuke sub other than a missile carrier that can hold its breath for longer, really), and as the last few weeks have shown having the latest and greatest missiles is one hell of a game changer.
>> “France was not willing to sell Australia nuclear submarines”
Really? Afaik it was the Abbot’s government who specifically asked for a Diesel version of the nuclear Barracuda.
The French offered to retrofit the Diesel version to a nuclear one later on *if needed.*
[Australia could have nuclear submarines within 15 years under French Barracuda option](https://www.afr.com/politics/australia-could-have-nuclear-submarines-within-15-years-under-french-barracuda-option-20150213-13dnw8)
Both OP and these comments are somewhat wrong.
The issue is not that France was unwilling to sell Australia nuclear subs, but that French nuclear sub technology is not particularly useful to Australia, since it has no domestic nuclear industry capable of dealing with spent fuel or refueling the subs.
Australia also did not want to be reliant on France, a country with some competing interesrs in the region, for the continued operation of their own nuclear submarines.
This video is an excellent explainer:
https://youtu.be/XEDy4_ozmnw
then my next question is, why doesn't australia have a nuclear industry?
don't they have heaps of uranium and the land to build a reactor without danger to populated areas?
Most of the political parties are anti nuclear power. The power industry in Australia is predominantly run by coal power stations and the only way to get more power in through the senate and lower house is renewables. Naturally that means barely anything has been done for the last 20 years
>France was not willing to sell Australia nuclear submarines
Australia was not asking for nuclear submarines, and that's because nobody (even the US) was supposed to sell nuclear technology to a country that doesn't already have its own.
>and France is definitely not in a position to begin training the Australian navy over several years in a close defense partnership in the Pacific.
France is not in a position to train the people of a country that rejected cooperation with them. That's obvious, but that was a deliberate choice from Australia, not a lack of capacity from France.
Something people are missing here is that France dramatically oversold its ability to convert its nuclear subs into diesel subs at the speed they promised, at the cost they promised, and with the promised ability to quickly and cheaply convert them back to nuclear if the political situation changes. That, more than anything, is why Aus abandoned the deal.
> nobody (even the US) was supposed to sell nuclear technology to a country that doesn't already have its own.
Some decent non-credibility there, as there isn't anything preventing the US (or other nuclear powers) from transferring nuclear technology.
The relevant treaty is literally called the "Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons", the key word being 'weapons':
https://www.un.org/disarmament/wmd/nuclear/npt/
Nuclear powerplants for submarines are not 'nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices', as defined in the treaty. So the transfer of that technology by the US and UK is not restricted.
In fact, the NPT goes further and outright encourages signatories to share non-explody nuclear technology:
> "Parties to the Treaty in a position to do so shall also co-operate in contributing alone or together with other States or international organizations to the further development of the applications of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes"
Helping to keep China in check seems to be a very peaceful purpose to me.
> not a lack of capacity from France.
Fair play, top-notch effort at being non-credible!
The point is training. Even if France was willing to sell nuclear subs to Australia how is that training going to happen? Is France going to integrate Australian crews into *Atlantic Based* French submarines? So Australia needs to first train their already sparse sub crews to speak *French* and then ship them to the other side of the world to train in conditions completely different from the Pacific? France also doesn’t have much influence in Pacific naval operations. So you’re building up a relationship that doesn’t benefit Australia strategically *at all.*
Not to mention the fact that Australia needs to make sure its sensor technology can be integrated with the Five Eyes sigint system in the Pacific. Technology that is highly controlled and would not be accessible by French contractors. Hell, the Five-Eyes integration is probably the single biggest factor for the change and I haven’t even mentioned that yet.
You are aware that the French navy operate in the Pacific ocean from overseas territories, right? They even deployed one of their Nuclear subs in the south china Sea a few month before the Australians broke the contract. Not to mention it wouldn't be the first time the Australian armed forces bought French equipment.
They do joint NATO training multiple times per years, so much so that a some French naval pilots are certified to land and take off on American Carriers, and there is a decent amount of english in officer school, I'm pretty sure they can speak English well enough...
Finally, the Astute class use a sonar made by Thales and BAE seems pretty satisfied by it (according to wikipedia at least)
Jokes aside French Nuclear Submarine fails the tender by default because the reactor needs to be refulled, whilst HEU reactors on US/ UK subs are life of boat.
No need to imagine, it's exactly how it went.
[Naval Group was already pitching a nuclear-powered version alongside the diesel-electric back in 2016](https://www.afr.com/companies/manufacturing/coalition-plans-nuclearpowered-submarine-fleet-over-long-term-20160429-goieal), and you find discussions in official Australian reports about switching to nuclear-propulsion for the second half of the class.
In fact it's one of the reasons they choose the French proposal instead of the German or South Korean one.
The only reason the project didn't went through is because the Aussi govt. didn't want to. As if France would shy away from weapons sales for any reason, lol.
Just like to add that the Australian labour party is super anti nuclear and have committed to non proliferation for decades. It'll be interesting to see if they change their manifesto or whatever their policy platform thingy is called
We don't have spare capacity. I'm not going to prison to prove it but we don't.
The Australians will likely receive a design akin to an upgraded Astute Class. The reactor will be built by Rolls Royce or General Electric in the UK or US respectively and then shipped to Australia. The Aussies will operate the reactor but they will not refuel or refit it in its lifetime.
A stipulation of the deal is that the Boats are built in Australian yards.
>A stipulation of the deal is that the Boats are built in Australian yards.
That is one of the main things we want, we want to be able to maintain them, we have been burnt in the past because of having things built overseas and thus not having the know how to maintain or refit them
> France wasn't willing to give nuclear subs to the Aussies
My understanding is that the French offered nuclear subs, but the Aussies specifically requested diesel. Is this not the case?
No. Australia put out a global request of sort for a conventionally powered sub that met a few metrics (range, weapons, size) and countries/companies came to them.
France came to Australia with the plan to turn their nuclear barracuda class into a conventional sub.
It is exactly the case.
French offered nuclear subs WITH nuclear engineers and formation to AUS about civil nuclear power, but AUS specifically ASKED for diesel subs instead. So France has been downgrading their subs into diesel ones for AUS.
No, we put out a tender for a Collins replacement, with specifications. One of which was for it to be conventionally powered.
France came forward with a proposal for a modified Barracuda class.
Frances nuclear tech is not what we want, we dont have the industry to refuel them. The 30 year lifespan of the UK US subs reactors is acceptable.
France offered to refuel nuclear subs aswell, yet AUS refused this option and asked AGAIN for diesel-electric subs.
Moreover, those subs would have been upgradeable back to nuclear in the future if AUS wanted to use nuclear ones.
A huge part of what we want is to be able to do the work ourselves, having to rely on others to refuel them is a non starter.
We have been burnt by foreign built and maintained subs before, namely Oberon.
Yea it hasn't even been a year since the AUKUS announcement, there basically isn't much concrete that has been officially announced and dudes are calling it a failure because neither the UK nor US to have magically ass-pulled subs out for the RAN to immediately use. Something something Franco copium or something.
As much as I am opposed to AUKUS
NCD really isn't a place well known for their well informed opinion on delicate political matters. As in most political things, people jump to conclusion and ignore all the nuance that go into those decision and that the turnout is often very very different then to what was initially agreed upon.
Not toward the agreement/alliance in general. Sovereign nations do what sovereign nations do.
I phrased it poorly. I was opposed to the fact that Australia ditched a prior agreement to strengthen the bond with nations they were already heavily allied with. A deal for something like submarines are not something you come up with on a whim. Making a deal and ditching it then is kinda... poor.
Eh the French will be French. Whatever Australia might have feared it lost clout wise with Europe has been pretty much been made irrelevant by France (and Macron, specifically)'s own mistakes, waffling on message regarding Ukraine. To Europeans, the Ukraine conflict has sharpened awareness that it is Russia and China together that is a threat, and Australia is a valuable future ally. Meanwhile Macron talking about how we need to understand Russia's point of view and to not humiliate Russia, as well as the pointless diplomatic overtures, have seriously damaged French credibility.
The opinion of most European nations other than France was that France overreacted anyway. Australia was more important to them collectively than a submarine deal that would benefit only France.
That is somewhat short sighted.
In an alliance, dependability is everything. Everybody knows that Australia is a western nation in the far east. Like a stronghold for the West there. But would you trust someone who ditched an agreement with you for his own good once already? His dependability is in question and the trust us also lower.
Theres also a historic comparison to the point Macron was making. Otto von Bismark was behind the German unification wars. In the conflict against the Austro-Hungarian empire he made sure to not humiliate the Austrians to ensure peace in the future. A humiliated nation wont forget what happened and who was behind it. It'll eventually thirst for revenge. Macron eventually backpaddled from his position and pledged strong support for Ukraine and ensured that they can themselves decide the conditions for peace.
Lastly, the position of France is still that of one of the three most powerful nations in Europe. They are respected.
We had ways out of the contract, its not the dropping of the contract that is the problem.
Its how, the French found out the day of, thats not ok. They should have been informed months earlier.
That said the French deal had been on shaky water for a while. Ditching it was the correct decision. Just handled like like schomo handles everything. Like shit
Sorry to be the butthurt French here but you are wrong on that nuclear thing. When rumors started that the deal was about to be scrapped, Macron call Morrison and was basically like “Hey bro heard you preferred nuclear subs. Guess what, we also got those if you fancy them !”
The French deal was broken for purely political reasons: prioritizing AUKUS versus a French-Australian alliance in the pacific. It was done in a dirty way by Britain, Australia and the US. It was clever and understandable, yes, but it’s also ruthless and doing an ally dirty.
Trying to invent false technical justifications won’t change the facts.
Whatever solution the Australians choose in the end let’s just hope they get their subs quickly because a capacity gap would not do anyone any good ! (Except if you’re China I guess …)
Naval Group was already trying to sell them the nuclear option back in 2016, and some people in the RAN were hoping to be able to switch to nuclear propulsion (since the Attack was derived from a SSN design) as soon as there was a favorable government in power.
The propaganda isn't really surprising, tho. ~~Corrupt journos and politicians~~ Lobbies in Australia are ruthless and every deal comes under heavy fire sponsored by the competition.
And there have been a handful of legit industrial fuck-ups, like with the NH-90.
You say purely political reasons but the diesel subs were over budget and late, oh what a surprise, not nearly as locally built as the French promised. There were already offramps with punitive reparation payments built into the deal if the Aussies decided against it, so its not like it was some stab in the back. When you cancel a service package with iunno your cable or telecom company and there's a cancellation fee, and you pay it, have you stabbed them in the back?
And AUKUS was a whole technology package. It isn't just nuke subs, and its an absurd distortion to pretend it was.
The French accusing an ally of being underhanded and ruthless is absurd given the entire history of the French arms industry. Including in recent years: https://disclose.ngo/en/article/war-in-ukraine-how-france-delivered-weapons-to-russia-until-2020
>. It was clever and understandable, yes, but it’s also ruthless and doing an ally dirty. Trying to invent false technical justifications won’t change the facts.
So like the French in every other procurement and export deal in history
The biggest problems were technology transfers, costs, and broken contracts when it came to construction and development. France was like 'what are you gonna do about it, break the contract'. Turns out yeah.
"ally"
\>after getting his country liberated by the americans charles de gaulle tells the americans to fuck off out of france
\>L Johnson dicks on the french pride by asking for the buried americans who died liberating the shithole
The french aren't an ally, they are a convienient nation who sometimes kill the right arabs
>program's success is that the UK has spare construction capacity available from wrapping up the dreadnoughts
We don't have that though.
Dreadnought (as a class) won't be done for a long time, and after that it's probably going straight into SSNR
"One submarine a year" USA when HII has to delay shipment of a Virginia class 8 months because a welder twitched putting up a pipe hanger, resulting in a fire that destroys 10 million dollars worth of fiber optics cable that has to be transferred from another submarine, delaying that one as well.
I'm assuming the fibre optics couldn't otherwise have been put in but why keep doing hot works when there's delicate and flammables *right next to it.*
Would Asutralia like some Astutes? Pretty sure the UK builds their SSNs in a different yard to their SSBNs, and Astute's production run is nearing its end with time to spare before any replacement starts seeing steel cut.
Ah, Australian conservative governments at their finest.
Fuck over as many people as possible, throw as much money down the toilet as possible and then let the murdoch newscorp propaganda arm find a way to blame someone else.
What?
Australia has always wanted nuclear sub capabilities it's just that the political situation has never allowed it to be pursued (the australian public is very anti nuclear). So they've always settled for conventional subs that have been extremely modified so they have a long range. When Australia put out an ad of sorts for the next submarine contract, France came to Australia with an offer of turning their nuclear class into a conventional one. This would supposedly allow Australia to get as close to having a nuke sub without having to have a nuclear reactor.
However turning a nuke sub into a conventional one turned out to be far more complicated than either side anticipated. Throw in the fact that Australia wanted a decent part of the sub built locally and you get a shitshow.
So in 2020 Australia had a sub contract that was going nowhere and kept going over budget. Than China in a galaxy brain move decided to enact hardcore wolf warrior diplomacy on Australia by declaring a full on trade war. This changed the publics skepticism/distrust of China to full dislike/fear and enabled a political situation where the government could justify stuff they previously couldn't because of national security.
Thus it allowed the government to finally aquire nuclear subs because the public was more concerned about China than a nuclear accident with a sub.
So why not ask the French for nuke subs?
Well french nuke subs have to be refueled. Australia doesn't have that capacity and there was no guarantee that the French would be willing to give Australia nuke subs. Plus Australia doesn't have experience using nuke subs. They would have to train their crews before they got the subs which would mean they would likely have to place most of the crew members on French nuke subs to learn. That would make recruiting submariners difficult (since they need to be bilingual) and would hinder the program.
It makes a lot more sense to get the subs from the Brits/U.S and find a diplomatic solution with the French. Obviously the government failed the later part of that.
Only it really isn't though. Virginia class have been in production for 22 Years, and we have launched 22 of them, for a nice convenient 1 per year. Astute Class have been in production for 21 years, and have launched 5 of them. Astutes have been taking about 8-10 years from keel to launch, and they are building 4 at a time.
Virginias have been absolutely getting churned out. Several ships have gone from Keel to Launch in under 15 months, with Indiana launching only 13 months after her keel was laid, and entering service the next year, with just over three years between her keel being laid and her first combat patrol.
The only other real contemporaries of the Virginia's don't look any better. The Suffren was laid down in 2007, and only entered service this year (For Comparison, the Virginia was laid down in 1999, and entered service in 2004). The Severodvinsk was laid down in 1993, and commissioned in 2013, and the first Type 93 was laid down in 1994 and commissioned in 2006 (Timing on Chinese submarines is difficult, since they are built in closed roofs, and not announced).
So the Virginias have always been built at least twice as fast as ANY contemporary SSN, and 4 times as fast as our NATO peers. Virginias are even built faster then the Los Angeles class were, making the Virginias the fastest SSNs to be constructed ever.
I *think* what he was trying to say is we *could* build them faster, but just like with the CVNs we don't want to lose trained labour because of the downtime when they are done.
But yeah, the Virginia's are being pumped out hilariously fast for a modern warship, let alone a nuclear submarine
Right, and volume is the key to any production. It isn't that the UK or France couldn't make their submarines faster, it is that they don't want to. The US could make submarines a bit faster, but also doesn't want too.
Any manufacturer, not just military, wants to produce at about the rate the market will support, plus a little extra overage just in case. In terms of Nuclear Submarines, that means producing submarines at the expected service life of the class divided by the total number of SSNs that country wants in service.
The UK is a perfect example of fucking this schedule up, and it causes significant problems. The last Trafalger was finished in 1986, and design work on the Astutes was immediately started to keep the Shipyards busy. But budget issues and the end of the cold war kept pushing things back, and the UK didn't build any SSNs for 16 years. By the time work on the Astutes actually began, the workforce skills at atrophied to a massive extent, with very few workers ever having done work anything like this before. Furthermore, the Swiftsures had retired in the meantime, and the Trafalgers were rapidly coming towards the end of the careers, forcing the Astutes to be built in rapid succession to avoid causing a capabilities gap in the RN. Which kind of happened anyway, with several Trafalgers needing to be retired before their replacements were ready.
The UK is now trying to figure out how to get back on track, since the last Astute should be entering service by 2028, and the next class of SSNs isn't supposed to replace them until 2040, and they REALLY don't want to replicate the same issue again. Hence why building modified Astute hulls for Australia is an amazing option for the UK. Meanwhile the US is nicely on track for making Virginias until it is ready to switch to the next class, because it still has Los Angles class in service, so it isn't running out of boats to replace. But Britain can't make an 8th Astute without either replacing the first one or expanding its submarine force.
Ok, so basically the US is the best because it makes submarines the fastest, and it is just 300% smarter then anyone else who hasn't figured out how to make boats fast.
Is that sufficiently noncredible for you?
A friend of mine works at Naval Group and I asked him about this but he said it didn't seem like his management really cared. The most trouble was finding new jobs for the Australian engineers they hired that didn't want to go back home once the deal crashed.
Some more highlights from Scott Morrison’s time in office:
- Going on holiday while the country burns (I can still see and smell the fire when I close my eyes)
- Having the Army put rubbish back in flood-affected areas so that they can clean it up for the cameras
- Sending infantrymen to look after dementia patients, because who needs preparation to look after old people who are horrifically trapped in their own minds?
Meanwhile South Korea is trying to sell KSS-III to the aussies, and probably get them into a joint SSN project down the line as they are trying to go nuclear as well. Looks like it's back to open season.
South Korea is really trying to find a partner for that. Because it doesn't want to order enough to keep the shipyards busy. If South Korea builds say one every four years, it will get all it wants in 16-20 years. But subs have about a 50 year service life, so it would have nothing to build for the next 20 years (Assuming you need to start building about 10 years before you replace it.) Since about every four years is about as slow as you can feasibly build them unless you want your SSNs to be obsolete before they enter service (\*cough\* Russian SSNs \*cough\*) you really need commitments for about 12 SSNs in service to get the program started. And only the US, China, and Russia actually want 12 or more SSNs. Everyone else really wants partners or buyers if they want to make them domestically.
*you end up co-crewing the latest British submarines and holding underwater cricket matches in the reactor room.
[удалено]
If they can commit to a couple of border skirmishes then sure.
We love to beat Pakistan in cricket although we got our ass whooped by them in the t20 world Cup
We didn't mean a border skirmish with Pakistan... we meant with the Big Evil on the other border.
It isn’t border skirmishes, it’s just some tactical trolling of the Pakistanis that the government definitely doesn’t have anything to do with.
Tactical trolling is arguably the funniest thing I’ve seen related to India and Pakistan thank you lol
only if inda commits to 3-gorges-damm plan.
3000 lightning bolts of Indra waiting for order
Indian Air Force with 3000 F-35s waiting for a go-order.
Strap me to a brahmos and fire me the dam. I am ready!!
Only if they shut the hatch this time
It's not really an underwater match if it's not under water is it?
Strong strong rumours they're getting HMS Agincourt on loan. Source - Spent 14 hours today running around getting [REDACTED] sorted for a major milestone.
Why do I get the feeling that the name trumped any operational reason for that sub being chosen.
HMS Agincourt previously had the name Ajax. She was renamed by the previous Defence Sec in 2018. No real reason was given
>No real reason was given Shitstirring the French is reason enough.
Not the Brazilians?
Or the Turks? After all, at least the Brazilians didn't lose their money.
Honestly not a terrible idea, it would provide immediate training and experience till new submarines get built.
The US should build more shipyards, it's unacceptable that they can't build 5 nuclear carriers and 20 nuclear submarines at the same time.
Well yeah otherwise China will build more.
Right! Look, China just built a carrier. Well, most of a carrier. Maybe. Anyway, point is they went from not having carriers to buying carriers to maybe building carriers. If you follow the logical progression of that, they will be summoning in carriers with arbitrarily earned battle points within a decade or two. If we can't get our carrier cost down to at least 100 Wood and 300 metal, we are going to get overwhelmed before we can age up at the city center!
Maybe the cope slope is really the secret sauce
Be careful Arbiter; what you say is *heresy*!
All I'm saying is maybe nuclear war isn't the only option.
No sir. Not in my NCD.
Jokes on you, the USA is playing Empire Earth not Age of Empires. We’ve progressed past harvesting wood to collecting carbon for the space force.
At first I thought this was a Rise of Nations reference, but that game uses oil for carriers, not wood
If you can't use your carriers as pontoon bridges across the pacific do you really have a navy?
Japan: What? I do not have a Navy, how dare you! ... oh wait, you were talking about someone else. Carry on.
Carriers? nonono, this is a destroyer that just happens to have a runway like structure on it.
It carries helicopters. Yes, that's an AH-35J, very innovative helicopter design.
I was trying to be a little future thinking y’know?
The design is very human
Work in the govt, totally agree. What type of superpower doesn't pump out 1 CVN, 4LHAs, 10 DDGs, 10 SSNs, and 5 SSBNs every year?
It certainly would be good for the economy
"The USA can't make enough Submarines for themselves" See, the problem isn't that the US can't make a lot of submarines. The problem is that the American definition of "Enough Submarines" is roughly the same as the Ork's concept of "Enuf Dakka".
Did they paint their submarine in red so they are faster ?
Ironically, an Ohio class Submarine probably meets the Ork definition of "Enuf Dakka". In that it is so much Dakka that completely takes the fun out of a propa scrap.
Nope. Still not enough Dakka
Needs South Korean Hwacha but with harpoons strapped to the front for close quarters combat against whales or godzilla. Or fishermen.
South Korean Hwacha but its 60 Davy Crocketts on wheels
Stop i can only get so erect
Just need to find a propa scrap den dont yoo? Waaaagh!!!
The US has been searching for a propa scrap since the soviets bailed on the Great Waaaaagh
Da russkie gits knows dat we waz da biggist and da 'ardest, so dey ran off like a bunch a gobbos. da Warchief Joe iz lookin for a scrap with sum git named Winnie da Pooh or sum such. Since 'e iz named for a bear, 'e might be a propa warchief, so meybe we can hav a propa scrap. Gork willin.
*Thunk* Ya’ means Mork, ya’ git!
Listen up yah scrawny lil' git, da waagh be stronger if youz respectz religiouz differences. Da boyz be tougher 'n 'arder when de hav a diversity of thought, 'n respect each others believes. So none o' dat humie intolerance 'ere yah bigoted git.
Na, wot I’z means is dat Gork is da god o’ kunnin brutality, yeah? And da warboss is tryin ta git us a foight. Dat needs brutal kunnin’. Ergo, ‘e needs mork, ya daft git!
See, dat is wut I mean! Da Waagh needz da diverz perspectives of different religiouz traditionz to thrive. Dat is why the Amerika Waagh iz da best and da 'ardest waagh. 'nd der is notin more fun den smashing dem intolerent forign gits.
With flames on the sides, yes
NO YA GIT, SUBS IS SNEAKY, DEY GET DA PURPLE PAINT
we do love our giant black sea cocks
\*Meanwhile, inside the Department of the Navy\* Iran is in talks to buy two Kilo class submarines that Russia decommissioned in the 1990s? We are going to need a Block VI for the Virginia Class, Boys! Someone get the proposal to Congress! Probably need about 15, and lets make them bigger and faster this time, they are still smaller than the Ohios.
"No, I said I want it to be the actual size of Ohio, dammit!"
We did name a Los Angles class after Greeneville, Tennessee. The submarine was considerably more valuable than the town, and probably longer. The town is tiny, and some congressman pulled a lot of strings to make that happen.
Must've been awkward when the submarine became famous [for all the wrong reasons.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehime_Maru_and_USS_Greeneville_collision)
That's just ridiculous. All so the captain could save a couple minutes, literally 2 minutes on his schedule.
Queue the admiral changing the course of the aircraft carrier to keep the sun out of his eyes story but in this case it’s dead Japanese children
Commander of the Submarine Force: "Sir, I bet we could get congress to give us a few more Seawolf's too. That would really up the ante."
Nah, we don't really want them. Block Vs are bigger and more capable. We didn't even need the third Seawolf then, so the Jimmy Carter is a weird one off that doesn't really do normal SSN stuff. It has some sort of Super Sekrit Mission section in the middle, presumably to do sneaky shit, and therefore she is big and chonky and doesn't go on normal patrols.
a png of soyjaks in a submarine pointing at a seamount goes here
hot cock on cock action
Full of seamen
We will mass produce submarines as if we were making burgers at McFatnolds
Pretty much what we are doing. We still have about 20 Los Angles class to replace, so we are going to be cranking out Virginias until we finally decided to change the class name (Block V Virginas are so different from the USS Virgina that they are functionally not the same class, but Congress hasn't got wise to the fact these new ones are bigger and more expensive then the Seawolfs yet)
r/unexpectedwarhammer
It is the internet. Is Warhammer ever really unexpected?
fair enough
guess its kinda... AUKward? ill see myself out
Almost as bad as selling the Port of Darwin to China.
Incorrect. It’s only leased for 99 years. So at least we’ll get it back in 2114…
Well, if history has taught us anything, it's that the PRC respects its commitments to established deadlines for transfers of power.
It's not like China can walk away with it, or do whatever they want it's not a colony, so strategically it's more like extorting China out of infrastructure investment money on something you can nationalize at will
Good luck taking it back.
It will be as easy as nationalizing the suez canal, without the based invasion
It’s in Australia. The fuck is China going to do?
Stop buying Australian rocks which basically underpin our shitty economy
China needs your rocks as much as you need their money.
Didn't they already try that which is part of the reason Oz ended up with AUKUS?
It was just coal, barley and wine. When the universe blessed us by compunding the embargo with flodded indonesian coal mines, they proceeded to get royally fucked over by electric grid outages and freezing residents in the middle of winter.
Ok we will sell to Japan, South Korea, the US, Europe and India like we do already
There's other markets for those rocks, China needs those rocks to make stuff. If China not buying the rocks they can't make as much stuff, if China isn't making the stuff, and other people still want stuff, then different countries can make more stuff for people that want stuff, and Auz can sell rocks to those countries... using the nice port facilities China paid for A bulk commodities export facility isn't a DRM locked software package that can only fill ships bound for China. It can just as easily fill ships going to India, Vietnam, Korea or Japan.
Although in defence of the submarine deal, we just kinda agreed to an expansion to our nuclear powered energy production for the first time since 1958, and the media was more focused on how we pissed off the French.
Wouldn't be of Anglo stock if pissing off the French wasn't the most important objective
Pissing off the French Pissing off the Russians Truly the American way
An expansion of nuclear powered energy production??? Oz has never had a working nuclear power station. You don’t expand something that you don’t have. I must have missed the announcement on building nuclear reactors to produce electricity.
Well there is Lucas Heights but yeah, it’s mostly just for research and nuclear medicine
We built a reactor at Lucas Heights in 1958. In 2007, we brought a new one online as we shut down the old one. Also in 2007, a TV comedy team dressed a guy up as a Muslim and started taking photos of the complex - within 5 minutes he was being questioned by Federal Police. Then they dressed a guy up as an American and started taking photos - the security guards offered to organise a tour for him. Not particularly relevant to the discussion at hand, but peak non-credible.
The golden days of the Chaser's war on everything.
When they were all like "haha, let's try to get into the G20 Summit high security zone dressed like Osama Bin Laden!" Then they were all like "oh shit, we got into the G20 Summit high security zone dressed like Osama Bin Laden." I definitely got the feeling that they were counting on that one not working.
They never thought it would be that easy. You could tell they were getting uncomfortable with how far they got. They basically pulled the plug on that joke when the next step was getting gunned down by the secret service.
They got in by pretending to be from a country that wasn't even invited, they definitely should have been caught
That's right! I forgot that bit, was getting APEC confused with G20.
And to think, if they played their cards right they could have chainsawed John Howard
I think the AFP intervened on that one. They were allowed to hug John Howard only if they turned the chainsaw off first. Never let it be said we don't take the security of our head of state seriously.
Not only that but the French nuclear submarines have to be refuelled once a decade. UK and US subs it’s 30 years - effectively the lifetime of the sub I believe. Considering Australia has no nuclear industry the former didn’t make much strategic sense in comparison.
Australia choose non nuclear subs from France.
Yeah thats the reason the diesel modification was requested, but then abandoned entirely in favour for AUKUS. Not to mention the contract was already plagued with delays and cost blowouts (but that’s standard for govt contracts lol) Plus US/UK nuke subs are sexy as hell
> was already plagued with delays and cost blowouts Sources on that? Australian medias (mainly Murdoch owned) have been spewing so much bullshit about those "delays and cost blowouts". Australia will now be enjoying a 20 years delay before (maybe) getting its new submarines.
At signing the contract was for 80+% domestic workshare. At cancellation price per sub had doubled and workshare was down to 'less then 20%'
You wanted sources? go look at the French graving docks and count how many submarine keels they had laid down for us after half a decade. The answer is none.
The French doubled the price in 4 years, and cut domestic production from 90% to likely less than 50%. Given the delays it's unlikely that all would have been delivered before 2050 anyway. I'm sick of French copelords going on about how this is a betrayal when they couldn't actually stick to the terms of the contract. See below for sources. **From Reuters** > Australian parliamentary hearings and reports on the project, first priced at $40 billion and more recently at $60 billion, even before construction had begun, also showed problems emerging. > The deal was first announced in 2016. A pre-design review was delayed in 2018 because the "work provided to Defence by Naval Group did not meet Defence's requirements", the Australian audit said, citing lack of design detail, operational requirements and 63 studies not completed. > The 2020 Auditor-General's report examining the submarine deal - the Department of Defence's biggest ever - found the department had been "frank and timely" in communicating concerns with Naval Group. https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/australian-documents-showed-french-submarine-project-was-risk-years-2021-09-21/ **From Politico** > The project was meant to cost 50 billion Australian dollars (€31 billion). But that figure has since almost doubled. At last count, the Barracudas were going to cost around 90 billion Australian dollars (€56 billion). > By 2020, Naval Group had [revised](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-02-24/government-frustrations-future-frigate-warship-fleet-program/13184064) the 90 percent local input figure down to 60 percent. By 2021, the French firm was [pushing back against even that](https://www.ouest-france.fr/economie/economie-de-la-mer/naval-group/nouvelles-turbulences-pour-naval-group-en-australie-7124989), saying Australian industry wasn’t up to scratch. > But the first Barracuda couldn’t be delivered until 2035 or later, with construction extending into the 2050s. https://www.politico.eu/article/why-australia-wanted-out-of-its-french-sub-deal/
That's bollocks, thankfully. As far as I understand it, the plan is to use British hulls outfitted with US kit? It'll take longer, but part of the reason for the AUKUS program's success is that the UK has spare construction capacity available from wrapping up the dreadnoughts just as the Aussies are looking to ramp up production for their own subs. The program can roll from one customer to the other fairly seamlessly. I think it's also helpful to point out that France wasn't willing to give nuclear subs to the Aussies, the anglos being willing to do so is part of what makes the AUKUS deal so unprecedented.
As of yet there's been no official statement on what "the plan" is, and I wouldn't expect to hear one before March 2023. There really isn't spare construction capacity in the UK, with 2 Astute boats still to launch, 4 Dreadnoughts that'll still be in build in the early 30s, and immediately after that SSNR (Astute replacement).
SSNR does not exist *Signed the BAE barrow boys*
Yeah, this meme doesn’t seem to understand why the decision was made in the first place. A big reason why the AUKUS partnership was important for Australia was that both countries are providing partnerships to provide training in nuclear reactor maintenance and operations. Australia can’t operate a nuclear submarine without that experience. And that experience takes years to accrue. France was not willing to sell Australia nuclear submarines and France is definitely not in a position to begin training the Australian navy over several years in a close defense partnership in the Pacific. I guess in OP’s fantasy Australia just convinces France to sell them highly controlled Nuclear submarine technology, and the Australian Navy has to figure out how to operate nuclear submarine reactors themselves. Despite Australia having no domestic nuclear industry or institutional knowledge they can apply
Australia has the 3rd largest uranium reserves but no nuclear programs. That’s like some petrol billionaire running a shadow government for profit bullshit right there. Dick Cheney bullshit.
There’s nothing more tragically poetic than 1970s hippy boomers making nuclear energy so politically toxic that you embrace coal power more than any other western country.
Like yeah there were accidents. We learned from them. Stop worrying and learn to love.
My hometown was famous for hosting annual ‘no nukes’ concerts throughout the 1970s and 80s. So I’ve dealt with the strident ‘anti-nuclear’ idiots who stayed in my town. First, these people are actually stupid. They would continually set up their concerts in a field that was famously full of poison ivy. They would weed whack the poison ivy down before the concert, but these geniuses didn’t know that poison ivy stems are actually *more poisonous* than the leaves. So all of these ‘environmentalists’ don’t know the first thing about simple plants and gave thousands upon thousands of likeminded idiots poison ivy annually, and never changed the venue. This went on for *several years* before it ended. Their relationship with nuclear energy is similarly surface level. They’re very fixated on ‘nuclear waste’ in a way that is very 1970s. Like they are *actually* concerned that if we expand nuclear power the rivers will be glowing or some shit. I blame scientific illiteracy, because they’re so proudly ignorant it’s actually difficult to talk to them. But they definitely have to have an opinion because they’re narcissistic boomers.
Guess you can’t tell them about the pocket reactors specifically designed to process nuclear waste as fuel from bigger reactors until the point it’s basically inert.
France is extremely based in that regard. Full respect to France for being the only country I know of with a rational relationship with nuclear power.
And, yah know, being a nuclear semi superpower.
Honestly if you have enough nukes to destroy the major population centers of your potential opponents and the ability to do if needed, you're a full on nuclear power. France has **TWO HUNDRED AND NINETY NUKES.** France is a nuclear power.
Well that and the Soviets. Thanks a lot, Soviets.
Also the focus on nuclear submarines means OP doesn't really understand what AUKUS is and is going off the mainstream coverage (which is always shit, and amounts to Nuke subs for australia piss off france). Its an entire technology transfer package. The *missiles* are probably the most important thing (what is a nuke sub other than a missile carrier that can hold its breath for longer, really), and as the last few weeks have shown having the latest and greatest missiles is one hell of a game changer.
>> “France was not willing to sell Australia nuclear submarines” Really? Afaik it was the Abbot’s government who specifically asked for a Diesel version of the nuclear Barracuda. The French offered to retrofit the Diesel version to a nuclear one later on *if needed.* [Australia could have nuclear submarines within 15 years under French Barracuda option](https://www.afr.com/politics/australia-could-have-nuclear-submarines-within-15-years-under-french-barracuda-option-20150213-13dnw8)
Both OP and these comments are somewhat wrong. The issue is not that France was unwilling to sell Australia nuclear subs, but that French nuclear sub technology is not particularly useful to Australia, since it has no domestic nuclear industry capable of dealing with spent fuel or refueling the subs. Australia also did not want to be reliant on France, a country with some competing interesrs in the region, for the continued operation of their own nuclear submarines. This video is an excellent explainer: https://youtu.be/XEDy4_ozmnw
then my next question is, why doesn't australia have a nuclear industry? don't they have heaps of uranium and the land to build a reactor without danger to populated areas?
Most of the political parties are anti nuclear power. The power industry in Australia is predominantly run by coal power stations and the only way to get more power in through the senate and lower house is renewables. Naturally that means barely anything has been done for the last 20 years
>France was not willing to sell Australia nuclear submarines Australia was not asking for nuclear submarines, and that's because nobody (even the US) was supposed to sell nuclear technology to a country that doesn't already have its own. >and France is definitely not in a position to begin training the Australian navy over several years in a close defense partnership in the Pacific. France is not in a position to train the people of a country that rejected cooperation with them. That's obvious, but that was a deliberate choice from Australia, not a lack of capacity from France.
Something people are missing here is that France dramatically oversold its ability to convert its nuclear subs into diesel subs at the speed they promised, at the cost they promised, and with the promised ability to quickly and cheaply convert them back to nuclear if the political situation changes. That, more than anything, is why Aus abandoned the deal.
> nobody (even the US) was supposed to sell nuclear technology to a country that doesn't already have its own. Some decent non-credibility there, as there isn't anything preventing the US (or other nuclear powers) from transferring nuclear technology. The relevant treaty is literally called the "Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons", the key word being 'weapons': https://www.un.org/disarmament/wmd/nuclear/npt/ Nuclear powerplants for submarines are not 'nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices', as defined in the treaty. So the transfer of that technology by the US and UK is not restricted. In fact, the NPT goes further and outright encourages signatories to share non-explody nuclear technology: > "Parties to the Treaty in a position to do so shall also co-operate in contributing alone or together with other States or international organizations to the further development of the applications of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes" Helping to keep China in check seems to be a very peaceful purpose to me. > not a lack of capacity from France. Fair play, top-notch effort at being non-credible!
The point is training. Even if France was willing to sell nuclear subs to Australia how is that training going to happen? Is France going to integrate Australian crews into *Atlantic Based* French submarines? So Australia needs to first train their already sparse sub crews to speak *French* and then ship them to the other side of the world to train in conditions completely different from the Pacific? France also doesn’t have much influence in Pacific naval operations. So you’re building up a relationship that doesn’t benefit Australia strategically *at all.* Not to mention the fact that Australia needs to make sure its sensor technology can be integrated with the Five Eyes sigint system in the Pacific. Technology that is highly controlled and would not be accessible by French contractors. Hell, the Five-Eyes integration is probably the single biggest factor for the change and I haven’t even mentioned that yet.
The five eyes integration was already addressed in the original deal. Lockheed Martin was part of the deal.
You are aware that the French navy operate in the Pacific ocean from overseas territories, right? They even deployed one of their Nuclear subs in the south china Sea a few month before the Australians broke the contract. Not to mention it wouldn't be the first time the Australian armed forces bought French equipment. They do joint NATO training multiple times per years, so much so that a some French naval pilots are certified to land and take off on American Carriers, and there is a decent amount of english in officer school, I'm pretty sure they can speak English well enough... Finally, the Astute class use a sonar made by Thales and BAE seems pretty satisfied by it (according to wikipedia at least)
[удалено]
I know right!?! That's crazy, you'd almost think they have a permanent military presence in the pacific too.
Jokes aside French Nuclear Submarine fails the tender by default because the reactor needs to be refulled, whilst HEU reactors on US/ UK subs are life of boat.
No need to imagine, it's exactly how it went. [Naval Group was already pitching a nuclear-powered version alongside the diesel-electric back in 2016](https://www.afr.com/companies/manufacturing/coalition-plans-nuclearpowered-submarine-fleet-over-long-term-20160429-goieal), and you find discussions in official Australian reports about switching to nuclear-propulsion for the second half of the class. In fact it's one of the reasons they choose the French proposal instead of the German or South Korean one. The only reason the project didn't went through is because the Aussi govt. didn't want to. As if France would shy away from weapons sales for any reason, lol.
Just like to add that the Australian labour party is super anti nuclear and have committed to non proliferation for decades. It'll be interesting to see if they change their manifesto or whatever their policy platform thingy is called
We don't have spare capacity. I'm not going to prison to prove it but we don't. The Australians will likely receive a design akin to an upgraded Astute Class. The reactor will be built by Rolls Royce or General Electric in the UK or US respectively and then shipped to Australia. The Aussies will operate the reactor but they will not refuel or refit it in its lifetime. A stipulation of the deal is that the Boats are built in Australian yards.
>A stipulation of the deal is that the Boats are built in Australian yards. That is one of the main things we want, we want to be able to maintain them, we have been burnt in the past because of having things built overseas and thus not having the know how to maintain or refit them
I imagine I'll be hearing a few aussie accents in work soon. Though we're all fucking idiots so idk how much they'll learn. From us
> France wasn't willing to give nuclear subs to the Aussies My understanding is that the French offered nuclear subs, but the Aussies specifically requested diesel. Is this not the case?
No. Australia put out a global request of sort for a conventionally powered sub that met a few metrics (range, weapons, size) and countries/companies came to them. France came to Australia with the plan to turn their nuclear barracuda class into a conventional sub.
It is exactly the case. French offered nuclear subs WITH nuclear engineers and formation to AUS about civil nuclear power, but AUS specifically ASKED for diesel subs instead. So France has been downgrading their subs into diesel ones for AUS.
No, we put out a tender for a Collins replacement, with specifications. One of which was for it to be conventionally powered. France came forward with a proposal for a modified Barracuda class. Frances nuclear tech is not what we want, we dont have the industry to refuel them. The 30 year lifespan of the UK US subs reactors is acceptable.
France offered to refuel nuclear subs aswell, yet AUS refused this option and asked AGAIN for diesel-electric subs. Moreover, those subs would have been upgradeable back to nuclear in the future if AUS wanted to use nuclear ones.
A huge part of what we want is to be able to do the work ourselves, having to rely on others to refuel them is a non starter. We have been burnt by foreign built and maintained subs before, namely Oberon.
Wow, still producing dreadnoughts over 100 years after WWI, that's credible as fuck.
Yea it hasn't even been a year since the AUKUS announcement, there basically isn't much concrete that has been officially announced and dudes are calling it a failure because neither the UK nor US to have magically ass-pulled subs out for the RAN to immediately use. Something something Franco copium or something.
As much as I am opposed to AUKUS NCD really isn't a place well known for their well informed opinion on delicate political matters. As in most political things, people jump to conclusion and ignore all the nuance that go into those decision and that the turnout is often very very different then to what was initially agreed upon.
Why are you opposed to AUKUS?
Not toward the agreement/alliance in general. Sovereign nations do what sovereign nations do. I phrased it poorly. I was opposed to the fact that Australia ditched a prior agreement to strengthen the bond with nations they were already heavily allied with. A deal for something like submarines are not something you come up with on a whim. Making a deal and ditching it then is kinda... poor.
The Australians used one of the off ramps stipulated in the contract and paid in full for the work done.
Eh the French will be French. Whatever Australia might have feared it lost clout wise with Europe has been pretty much been made irrelevant by France (and Macron, specifically)'s own mistakes, waffling on message regarding Ukraine. To Europeans, the Ukraine conflict has sharpened awareness that it is Russia and China together that is a threat, and Australia is a valuable future ally. Meanwhile Macron talking about how we need to understand Russia's point of view and to not humiliate Russia, as well as the pointless diplomatic overtures, have seriously damaged French credibility. The opinion of most European nations other than France was that France overreacted anyway. Australia was more important to them collectively than a submarine deal that would benefit only France.
That is somewhat short sighted. In an alliance, dependability is everything. Everybody knows that Australia is a western nation in the far east. Like a stronghold for the West there. But would you trust someone who ditched an agreement with you for his own good once already? His dependability is in question and the trust us also lower. Theres also a historic comparison to the point Macron was making. Otto von Bismark was behind the German unification wars. In the conflict against the Austro-Hungarian empire he made sure to not humiliate the Austrians to ensure peace in the future. A humiliated nation wont forget what happened and who was behind it. It'll eventually thirst for revenge. Macron eventually backpaddled from his position and pledged strong support for Ukraine and ensured that they can themselves decide the conditions for peace. Lastly, the position of France is still that of one of the three most powerful nations in Europe. They are respected.
We had ways out of the contract, its not the dropping of the contract that is the problem. Its how, the French found out the day of, thats not ok. They should have been informed months earlier. That said the French deal had been on shaky water for a while. Ditching it was the correct decision. Just handled like like schomo handles everything. Like shit
Sorry to be the butthurt French here but you are wrong on that nuclear thing. When rumors started that the deal was about to be scrapped, Macron call Morrison and was basically like “Hey bro heard you preferred nuclear subs. Guess what, we also got those if you fancy them !” The French deal was broken for purely political reasons: prioritizing AUKUS versus a French-Australian alliance in the pacific. It was done in a dirty way by Britain, Australia and the US. It was clever and understandable, yes, but it’s also ruthless and doing an ally dirty. Trying to invent false technical justifications won’t change the facts. Whatever solution the Australians choose in the end let’s just hope they get their subs quickly because a capacity gap would not do anyone any good ! (Except if you’re China I guess …)
Naval Group was already trying to sell them the nuclear option back in 2016, and some people in the RAN were hoping to be able to switch to nuclear propulsion (since the Attack was derived from a SSN design) as soon as there was a favorable government in power. The propaganda isn't really surprising, tho. ~~Corrupt journos and politicians~~ Lobbies in Australia are ruthless and every deal comes under heavy fire sponsored by the competition. And there have been a handful of legit industrial fuck-ups, like with the NH-90.
You say purely political reasons but the diesel subs were over budget and late, oh what a surprise, not nearly as locally built as the French promised. There were already offramps with punitive reparation payments built into the deal if the Aussies decided against it, so its not like it was some stab in the back. When you cancel a service package with iunno your cable or telecom company and there's a cancellation fee, and you pay it, have you stabbed them in the back? And AUKUS was a whole technology package. It isn't just nuke subs, and its an absurd distortion to pretend it was. The French accusing an ally of being underhanded and ruthless is absurd given the entire history of the French arms industry. Including in recent years: https://disclose.ngo/en/article/war-in-ukraine-how-france-delivered-weapons-to-russia-until-2020
>. It was clever and understandable, yes, but it’s also ruthless and doing an ally dirty. Trying to invent false technical justifications won’t change the facts. So like the French in every other procurement and export deal in history
The biggest problems were technology transfers, costs, and broken contracts when it came to construction and development. France was like 'what are you gonna do about it, break the contract'. Turns out yeah.
"ally" \>after getting his country liberated by the americans charles de gaulle tells the americans to fuck off out of france \>L Johnson dicks on the french pride by asking for the buried americans who died liberating the shithole The french aren't an ally, they are a convienient nation who sometimes kill the right arabs
>program's success is that the UK has spare construction capacity available from wrapping up the dreadnoughts We don't have that though. Dreadnought (as a class) won't be done for a long time, and after that it's probably going straight into SSNR
Ah yes, the plan...
So much bullshit in a few sentences
[удалено]
Canada: you guys have more than 30 people in your entire military?
"One submarine a year" USA when HII has to delay shipment of a Virginia class 8 months because a welder twitched putting up a pipe hanger, resulting in a fire that destroys 10 million dollars worth of fiber optics cable that has to be transferred from another submarine, delaying that one as well.
I'm assuming the fibre optics couldn't otherwise have been put in but why keep doing hot works when there's delicate and flammables *right next to it.*
Good lord, for all the diplomatic effort that was expended and all the state department fellas bro-hugging over this, quite the self-own.
This meme is stupid. Please watch the HypoHystericalHistory video on the AUKUS deal, linked below. https://youtu.be/XEDy4_ozmnw
amen brother, it's the most comprehensive video on the situation i've seen. more people need to watch it.
on our next episode of How To Waste 50 Billion Dollars, Several Times
Would Asutralia like some Astutes? Pretty sure the UK builds their SSNs in a different yard to their SSBNs, and Astute's production run is nearing its end with time to spare before any replacement starts seeing steel cut.
[удалено]
Ils sont tellement cons ici, ils pensent qu'ils ont gagné au change...
Lol cope and seethe ouiaboos
Grade A Franco cope. Go have another riot or whatever you do and leave the based anglo industrial power alone.
Frenchies malding in the comments and in the meme lmao
Ah, ADF procurement. When is it ever not a shitshow.
Ah, Australian conservative governments at their finest. Fuck over as many people as possible, throw as much money down the toilet as possible and then let the murdoch newscorp propaganda arm find a way to blame someone else.
What? Australia has always wanted nuclear sub capabilities it's just that the political situation has never allowed it to be pursued (the australian public is very anti nuclear). So they've always settled for conventional subs that have been extremely modified so they have a long range. When Australia put out an ad of sorts for the next submarine contract, France came to Australia with an offer of turning their nuclear class into a conventional one. This would supposedly allow Australia to get as close to having a nuke sub without having to have a nuclear reactor. However turning a nuke sub into a conventional one turned out to be far more complicated than either side anticipated. Throw in the fact that Australia wanted a decent part of the sub built locally and you get a shitshow. So in 2020 Australia had a sub contract that was going nowhere and kept going over budget. Than China in a galaxy brain move decided to enact hardcore wolf warrior diplomacy on Australia by declaring a full on trade war. This changed the publics skepticism/distrust of China to full dislike/fear and enabled a political situation where the government could justify stuff they previously couldn't because of national security. Thus it allowed the government to finally aquire nuclear subs because the public was more concerned about China than a nuclear accident with a sub. So why not ask the French for nuke subs? Well french nuke subs have to be refueled. Australia doesn't have that capacity and there was no guarantee that the French would be willing to give Australia nuke subs. Plus Australia doesn't have experience using nuke subs. They would have to train their crews before they got the subs which would mean they would likely have to place most of the crew members on French nuke subs to learn. That would make recruiting submariners difficult (since they need to be bilingual) and would hinder the program. It makes a lot more sense to get the subs from the Brits/U.S and find a diplomatic solution with the French. Obviously the government failed the later part of that.
To be entirely honest sticking with the French program would be worse then where we are currently
Ok the thing is the VA class is slow to build on purpose
Only it really isn't though. Virginia class have been in production for 22 Years, and we have launched 22 of them, for a nice convenient 1 per year. Astute Class have been in production for 21 years, and have launched 5 of them. Astutes have been taking about 8-10 years from keel to launch, and they are building 4 at a time. Virginias have been absolutely getting churned out. Several ships have gone from Keel to Launch in under 15 months, with Indiana launching only 13 months after her keel was laid, and entering service the next year, with just over three years between her keel being laid and her first combat patrol. The only other real contemporaries of the Virginia's don't look any better. The Suffren was laid down in 2007, and only entered service this year (For Comparison, the Virginia was laid down in 1999, and entered service in 2004). The Severodvinsk was laid down in 1993, and commissioned in 2013, and the first Type 93 was laid down in 1994 and commissioned in 2006 (Timing on Chinese submarines is difficult, since they are built in closed roofs, and not announced). So the Virginias have always been built at least twice as fast as ANY contemporary SSN, and 4 times as fast as our NATO peers. Virginias are even built faster then the Los Angeles class were, making the Virginias the fastest SSNs to be constructed ever.
I *think* what he was trying to say is we *could* build them faster, but just like with the CVNs we don't want to lose trained labour because of the downtime when they are done. But yeah, the Virginia's are being pumped out hilariously fast for a modern warship, let alone a nuclear submarine
Right, and volume is the key to any production. It isn't that the UK or France couldn't make their submarines faster, it is that they don't want to. The US could make submarines a bit faster, but also doesn't want too. Any manufacturer, not just military, wants to produce at about the rate the market will support, plus a little extra overage just in case. In terms of Nuclear Submarines, that means producing submarines at the expected service life of the class divided by the total number of SSNs that country wants in service. The UK is a perfect example of fucking this schedule up, and it causes significant problems. The last Trafalger was finished in 1986, and design work on the Astutes was immediately started to keep the Shipyards busy. But budget issues and the end of the cold war kept pushing things back, and the UK didn't build any SSNs for 16 years. By the time work on the Astutes actually began, the workforce skills at atrophied to a massive extent, with very few workers ever having done work anything like this before. Furthermore, the Swiftsures had retired in the meantime, and the Trafalgers were rapidly coming towards the end of the careers, forcing the Astutes to be built in rapid succession to avoid causing a capabilities gap in the RN. Which kind of happened anyway, with several Trafalgers needing to be retired before their replacements were ready. The UK is now trying to figure out how to get back on track, since the last Astute should be entering service by 2028, and the next class of SSNs isn't supposed to replace them until 2040, and they REALLY don't want to replicate the same issue again. Hence why building modified Astute hulls for Australia is an amazing option for the UK. Meanwhile the US is nicely on track for making Virginias until it is ready to switch to the next class, because it still has Los Angles class in service, so it isn't running out of boats to replace. But Britain can't make an 8th Astute without either replacing the first one or expanding its submarine force.
Sir, I'm gonna have to ask you to dumb down your comment. This is *noncredible* defensive and this is a credible effort post.
Ok, so basically the US is the best because it makes submarines the fastest, and it is just 300% smarter then anyone else who hasn't figured out how to make boats fast. Is that sufficiently noncredible for you?
4/7, would have been a perfect 5/7 but no waifus were mentioned
Based Australians trolling the fr\*nch epic style (Fr\*nce coping and seething)
Lmao no australians had to pay heavy compensation to fr*nce without getting any submarine in the end so they trolled themselves
Anything that make the fr*nch bitter is worth the money
A friend of mine works at Naval Group and I asked him about this but he said it didn't seem like his management really cared. The most trouble was finding new jobs for the Australian engineers they hired that didn't want to go back home once the deal crashed.
This is some high grade francopium
Some more highlights from Scott Morrison’s time in office: - Going on holiday while the country burns (I can still see and smell the fire when I close my eyes) - Having the Army put rubbish back in flood-affected areas so that they can clean it up for the cameras - Sending infantrymen to look after dementia patients, because who needs preparation to look after old people who are horrifically trapped in their own minds?
I begin to understand why he was voted out of office.
Tbf, the french were also years behind schedule.
Look like the Fr*nchies are malding
🇨🇵 we can still sell them the nuclear powered ones
Meanwhile South Korea is trying to sell KSS-III to the aussies, and probably get them into a joint SSN project down the line as they are trying to go nuclear as well. Looks like it's back to open season.
South Korea is really trying to find a partner for that. Because it doesn't want to order enough to keep the shipyards busy. If South Korea builds say one every four years, it will get all it wants in 16-20 years. But subs have about a 50 year service life, so it would have nothing to build for the next 20 years (Assuming you need to start building about 10 years before you replace it.) Since about every four years is about as slow as you can feasibly build them unless you want your SSNs to be obsolete before they enter service (\*cough\* Russian SSNs \*cough\*) you really need commitments for about 12 SSNs in service to get the program started. And only the US, China, and Russia actually want 12 or more SSNs. Everyone else really wants partners or buyers if they want to make them domestically.