Re: US & UK to help Australia acquire nuclear submarines to counter China

27
YankeeTarheel wrote: Thu Sep 16, 2021 9:26 pm
papajim2jordan wrote: Thu Sep 16, 2021 5:55 pm
YankeeTarheel wrote: Thu Sep 16, 2021 4:25 pm
papajim2jordan wrote: Thu Sep 16, 2021 11:52 am More tension.

Are the Chinese to believe the subs will not be a strategic threat?

I admit to being something of a pessimist. Will the design of these subs exclude the possibility of outfitting for launching missiles? Australia professes to have no interest in or intent on acquiring nuclear weapons.
In "The Hunt For Red October" Clancy clearly explains the vast difference between "boomers"--missile-launching subs whose job it is to be invisible, and "hunter-killer" fast-attack subs whose job is to find boomers and destroy them. Both are nuclear powered.
Tom Clancy's novel way of passing state secrets.
He WAS de-briefed after THFRO was publish. But Boomers vs Hunter-Killers isn't much of a state secret, is it?

I.F. Stone used to insist that NOTHING could be kept secret from a determined investigative journalist. He discovered what was supposed to be a super-secret underground nuclear test by reading publicly available seismic reports from other parts of the world. His main sources were the Congressional Record and newspapers because he was barred from just about everything--but "I.F. Stone's Weekly" was subscribed to by just about everyone on either side of the aisle.
RIP, Izzy!
I subscribed to IF Stone's Weekly for years. Izzy was doing exactly what CIA analysts did during the Cold War, connecting the dots of information published by Soviet government and Soviet Communist Party publications. An investigative journalist's journalist.

Another muckraker of the time was Jack Anderson, he so angered the Nixon White House that he was on the Watergate Plumbers hit list to be taken out and J Edgar Hoover called him "lower that the regurgitated filth of vultures".
When Mr. Hoover sent federal agents to stake out his house, Mr. Anderson sent several of his nine children out to take their picture. For good measure, they let the air out of the agents' tires.
https://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/18/us/j ... es-at.html
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: US & UK to help Australia acquire nuclear submarines to counter China

28
I would love to hear more about this. I can't imagine why Australia would need a nuke boat; they're pretty darned close to China. A diesel electric should have no problem patrolling the south china sea. Nuke boats are REALLY expensive...someone pulled one hell of a salesmanship job. And the French are really pissed. I'd like to hear more on the details of the deal.
“I think there’s a right-wing conspiracy to promote the idea of a left-wing conspiracy”

Re: US & UK to help Australia acquire nuclear submarines to counter China

29
FrontSight wrote: Fri Sep 17, 2021 10:35 am I would love to hear more about this. I can't imagine why Australia would need a nuke boat; they're pretty darned close to China. A diesel electric should have no problem patrolling the south china sea. Nuke boats are REALLY expensive...someone pulled one hell of a salesmanship job. And the French are really pissed. I'd like to hear more on the details of the deal.
It's not a need but a want. You can't have a world class navy with out a nuclear submarine. Just like all these countries wanting to buy the F-22 and later the F-35. Got to keep up with the big boys or you are looked down upon at the meetings.

They got hir by a really good selling job. The US Military Industrial Complex has as almost a century of honing their sales tactics against the likes of the US Congress and partnered with Great Britain the Land of Oz had no chance.

The French are pissed because the still have possessions in the South Pacific and consider that area to be under their control.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.-Huxley
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis Brandeis,

Re: US & UK to help Australia acquire nuclear submarines to counter China

30
The US and UK both use nuclear tipped Trident ballistic missiles on their "boomers" and the "attack" subs protect the boomers and have Tomahawk missiles.
The UK and US boomers carry Trident ballistic missiles armed with multiple nuclear warheads. Their mission, essentially, is to stay at sea for months at a time, the vast majority of it submerged, and be prepared to launch a retaliatory nuclear strike should an adversary launch one of their own against the UK or US.
Each of the US ballistic missile subs can carry 20 Trident missiles (16 for the UK subs) with as many as eight warheads (three for the UK subs) per missile. They are able to be shot over a range of 4,600 miles (7,400 kilometers). The nuclear warheads have blast yields between 100 kilotons and 475 kilotons. By contrast, the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima, Japan, during World War II had a yield of 15 kilotons.
The US has 14 ballistic missiles subs, while Britain has four. These are not the submarines Australia is signing on for.
The US has three classes of attack subs in its fleet of 53. The newest of these are the 19 of what's called Virginia class.

Armed with dozens of Tomahawk cruise missiles and torpedoes, the 377-foot, 8,000-ton Virginia-class subs can cruise at more than 28 mph (46 kph) and stay submerged indefinitely. Their time underwater is limited only by the need to resupply provisions for the crew of 132.
The UK's four Astute-class attack subs are even faster than the US subs, capable of more than 35 mph (56 kph) submerged, and like the US carry the Tomahawk cruise missile.
t takes a long time -- possibly decades -- to develop a nuclear-powered submarine and get it deployed. The three-party deal announced Wednesday only provides for an 18-month study to see how to best build nuclear-powered subs for Australia.
Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison said it could be 2040 before the new subs are in the Australian fleet.
"Tomahawk IV is the latest version of the missile. It has a longer range than its predecessors (well in excess of 1,000 miles), can be directed at a new target in mid-flight, and can also beam back images of the battlefield to its mother submarine," the Royal Navy's website says.

That's the kind of firepower and endurance Australia wants as it looks to protect its northern waters from any naval threats and project its naval power into the South China Sea, where it, along with the United States, looks to blunt Chinese influence and protect freedom of navigation.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/17/australi ... index.html

I'd assume that this project will be fast tracked.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: US & UK to help Australia acquire nuclear submarines to counter China

31
Perhaps a better approach would be one like Sweden’s stealth sub.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/hisutton/2 ... a9acaa2bfb
HMS Gotland operated out of San Diego for over 2 years in the late 2000s, reputably ‘sinking’ the carrier USS Ronald Reagan (CVN-76) in an exercise. It wasn’t fast, but it was quiet, which is a valuable quality in underwater warfare. Now that submarine has been upgraded with an even stealthier propulsion system.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: US & UK to help Australia acquire nuclear submarines to counter China

33
Any sub with torpedo launchers can become a nuclear armed sub. Nuclear tipped torpedoes are one of those amazing relics of the Cold War that should send shivers down your spine.

There's a reason the Aussies don't want Gotland-class subs, and the US only leased the one for testing. It's a fraction of the size of the nuke boats we run. One-sixth the mass of the Seawolf, and even less vs. Virginia. Gotland is a brown-water sub, limited in size and range. It's extremely dangerous in the littoral - and the entire Baltic is littoral. In order to do those trials out in San Diego, they had to bring Gotland across the Atlantic by transport. Not an effective strategic choice if you're looking to operate inside the Nine-Dash Line from Down Under.

Besides, Virginia class subs are reportedly being fitted for hundred kilowatt class lasers in the mast. If lasers were effective small arms, I'd never have bothered with gunpowder and lead. Still, $50 billion for the French sub contract is nothing by our military spending standards. I wouldn't be surprised if Milley calls up his French counterparts, apologizes for Blinken, and asks about alternative arrangements for purchase.

Re: US & UK to help Australia acquire nuclear submarines to counter China

34
Where nuclear power really makes a difference for submarines is in the surveillance and special ops roles. The ability to stay at sea for 6 months or more if necessary has come in handy MANY times for spying operations. A friend of mine told me about an operation where they took a Permit class submarine up a river about 20 miles, and then just sat on the floor of the river for nearly a week. He didn't say what they were doing, but you can bet it was about as secret-squirrel as it gets. He didn't way where they were, but he did say it was one solid week of a puckered ass.
“I think there’s a right-wing conspiracy to promote the idea of a left-wing conspiracy”

Re: US & UK to help Australia acquire nuclear submarines to counter China

35
FrontSight wrote: Fri Sep 17, 2021 10:35 am I would love to hear more about this. I can't imagine why Australia would need a nuke boat; they're pretty darned close to China. A diesel electric should have no problem patrolling the south china sea. Nuke boats are REALLY expensive...someone pulled one hell of a salesmanship job. And the French are really pissed. I'd like to hear more on the details of the deal.
Lots of discussion about this on MSNBC lately. I think everyone here is on board about the new subs being hunter/killer subs armed with cruise missiles. Better buy more Raytheon stock.
Redneck Liberal This Is The Way

Re: US & UK to help Australia acquire nuclear submarines to counter China

37
Six nations have nuclear submarines, the UK, US, China, Russia, India and France. Los Angeles is over 7, 000 miles from Sydney, London over 10,000 miles, Hainan Island (nuclear sub base) and Shanghai are over 7,000 miles from Sydney.

Australia is 2.79 million square miles with a population of 25 million, the US is 3.79 million square miles with a population of 330 million.
The world’s largest navies by tonnage:

United States (3,415,893)
Russia (845,730)
China (708,886)
Japan (413,800)
United Kingdom (367,850)
France (319,195)
India (317,725)
South Korea (178,710)
Italy (173,549)
Taiwan (151,662)
https://worldpopulationreview.com/count ... -the-world

The Southern Hemisphere needs to have some self sufficiency.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: US & UK to help Australia acquire nuclear submarines to counter China

39
The Gotland has participated in war games in the Atlantic. I think there were other considerations why it was not sailed from Sweden. What those are, were probably a part of the contract between Sweden and the USA. It’s a defensive submarine and not an offensive one like our nuclear subs. Side note, the USA requested to rent the sub mainly to access its threat to our fleet. It wasn’t something Sweden had requested nor I don’t believe were they looking to sell it. Bottom line, it’s capable of sinking our aircraft carriers and our nuclear subs according to the war games its participated in. My point was not that Australia would be able to buy a Gotland type submarine, but that if you are just interested in sinking Chinese war ships a Gotland type submarine is all one would need. The reality is, Australia is looking for a submarine that is offensive and yes, capable of launching nuclear missiles and we want them to have that capability.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: US & UK to help Australia acquire nuclear submarines to counter China

41
FrontSight wrote: Fri Sep 17, 2021 6:28 pm If you're impressed by the Gotland, keep this in mind. Its one full generation behind the latest Russian diesel electric subs. They are scary quiet.
Not impressed so much, just making a point that even 200 year old tech can defeat our prized navy.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: US & UK to help Australia acquire nuclear submarines to counter China

43
The French government says it was betrayed when Australia pulled out of their existing multi-billion dollar defense deal, agreeing instead to attain nuclear-powered submarines through a new deal with the United States and the United Kingdom.

The effort to provide Australia with nuclear-powered submarines -- a major step toward countering China as President Joe Biden works to build international backing for his approach to Beijing -- is part of a new trilateral partnership among the United States, Australia and the United Kingdom, dubbed "AUKUS."

High-ranking French officials said the AUKUS deal was a stab in the back and a move that "shows a lack of coherence."
France stands to lose the equivalent of $65 billion US dollars from an existing deal to provide Australia with conventional, diesel-powered submarines.

The canceled deal with France, a major global weapons exporter, is expected to make a significant economic impact on the French defense sector. France also stands to lose out strategically in the Indo-Pacific, where the country holds significant interests.

On Thursday, after the nuclear-powered submarine deal with the US and the UK was announced, Australia formally announced it would be withdrawing from its previous contract for conventional submarines with France. The deal with Paris had been in the works for years. Australia previously planned to acquire 12 conventional attack-class submarines from the French shipbuilder Naval Group, which successfully beat out competing German and Japanese bids in 2016.

French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian said he was "angry and bitter" about Australia's new submarine agreement. "This isn't done between allies. It's really a stab in the back," he added.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/17/politics ... index.html

France recalled its ambassadors to the US and Australia, political drama gets played out on the international stage like it does on the domestic stage.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: US & UK to help Australia acquire nuclear submarines to counter China

44
All Gotland showed - and it's not the only modern European diesel-electric to do this - is that US aircraft carrier groups are extremely vulnerable to a modern, well-trained submarine force and we have let our ASW game slide hard in the past 40 years. Then again, in a shooting war we'd be running active sonar off the pickets and screw the whales. I'm afraid that carriers have become what battleships were in WWII - large targets.

With nuclear reactors aboard. Think the consequences through.

China hasn't really tested their navy in a modern military conflict. They seized the Paracels in 1974, but that's about it. They might be in for a nasty surprise going in against any country with a stronger tradition and more direct experience. Japan and the US come to mind, but even Taiwan might prove difficult. Strategically, they would be best served by focusing on their economic strength and technological development, biding their time and being patient. Outreach to France would be optimal.

The whole AUKUS alliance has a long history of overconfidence and screwing up military procurement.

Re: US & UK to help Australia acquire nuclear submarines to counter China

45
wings wrote: Sat Sep 18, 2021 1:53 pm All Gotland showed - and it's not the only modern European diesel-electric to do this - is that US aircraft carrier groups are extremely vulnerable to a modern, well-trained submarine force and we have let our ASW game slide hard in the past 40 years. Then again, in a shooting war we'd be running active sonar off the pickets and screw the whales. I'm afraid that carriers have become what battleships were in WWII - large targets.

With nuclear reactors aboard. Think the consequences through.

China hasn't really tested their navy in a modern military conflict. They seized the Paracels in 1974, but that's about it. They might be in for a nasty surprise going in against any country with a stronger tradition and more direct experience. Japan and the US come to mind, but even Taiwan might prove difficult. Strategically, they would be best served by focusing on their economic strength and technological development, biding their time and being patient. Outreach to France would be optimal.

The whole AUKUS alliance has a long history of overconfidence and screwing up military procurement.
With todays drones and cruise missiles with nuclear capabilities the carrier task force is very vulnerable to attack from a long range. Add in the short range tactical missile all with nuclear warheads and it becomes a real crap shoot. We have had the Cruse missile with nuclear capabilities since 1959. It was the AGM-28 Hound Dog cruise missile. It was retired in 1976 due to the SALT talks.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.-Huxley
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis Brandeis,

Re: US & UK to help Australia acquire nuclear submarines to counter China

47
It appears this has been in the works for at least 4 years, probably more. And I wasn't aware of all the issues Australia was having with their Collins class subs; it would actually be cheaper per year cost to operate a Virginia class.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/ ... ines-94531
“I think there’s a right-wing conspiracy to promote the idea of a left-wing conspiracy”

Re: US & UK to help Australia acquire nuclear submarines to counter China

48
Yes it makes sense. From above link.
“Leasing the Virginia Class submarines together with training, upgrades, sustainment and disposal of spent nuclear material would limit the risks and challenges of establishing a nuclear submarine program.

“It would cost less too at about $20 billion upfront, plus $4 billion to $6 billion for facilities and setup costs...Three-quarters of a billion dollars a year in operational savings might be achieved as well – a Collins Class submarine costs Australia a lot more to run than a Virginia Class submarine costs the United States.

“While nuclear safety is an important consideration, U.S. nuclear-powered submarines have a perfect safety record, having travelled more than 240 million kilometres without a single reactor incident and visited Australian bases since 1960 without any problems. Moreover, submarine reactors are a fraction of the size of a nuclear power plant and much less dangerous.

“Critics cite reliance on foreign support as a reason why Australia shouldn’t operate nuclear-powered submarines. These concerns are spurious. In reality, Australia already relies heavily for the development and sustainment of its platforms on foreign defense forces and foreign defense companies, and their Australian subsidiaries.”
Biden talked with Macron, Australia will probably be paying France for start up costs.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 9 guests

cron