Australia to get nuclear-powered submarines, will scrap $90b program to build French-designed subs

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-09-15/allied-naval-united-states-biden-australia-nuclear-submarines/100465628

Holy shit. Holy shit. Holy shit. Holy shit.

The Chinese will go fucking apeshit.

We need nuclear submarines like a hole in the head.

>$90b

Just think how much public housing that could build.

Bubblecar said:

>$90b

Just think how much public housing that could build.

But they don’t want public housing.

with a boat more suitable to the deteriorating strategic environment.

fuck.

sibeen said:

Australia to get nuclear-powered submarines, will scrap $90b program to build French-designed subs

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-09-15/allied-naval-united-states-biden-australia-nuclear-submarines/100465628

Holy shit. Holy shit. Holy shit. Holy shit.

The Chinese will go fucking apeshit.

“But Australia’s embrace of nuclear-powered submarines will have its political and technological challenges, given there is no domestic nuclear industry.”

ha

sibeen said:

Australia to get nuclear-powered submarines, will scrap $90b program to build French-designed subs

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-09-15/allied-naval-united-states-biden-australia-nuclear-submarines/100465628

Thank goodness!
Yes!

The Collins class should have been nuclear. Seriously. Sailors hated the deisel engines on board those beasts. Hated hated hated hated hated.

Look. The earliest nuclear subs were death traps, but that was back in 1955 to 1965, perhaps extending to 1975.
Collins class was 1990, long after the nuclear reactors in subs had become both safe and miniaturised.

Only a nuclear reactor can provide the long distance safe silent submarine cruising that Australian submarines need. I personally, would very much like to travel in a clean submarine powered by a mini-epithermal uranium nuclear reactor than a dirty noisy diesel machine blowing bubbles and using up oxygen wherever it goes underwater. I do hope they go epithermal rather than thermal, but a Generation IV mini high temperature gas cooled (HTGC) reactor would still put a smile on my face. I’m not completely happy with molten salt, pressurised light ware and enriched nuclear fuel is OK but pretty well bog standard for nuclear subs. A swimming pool reactor like Australia’s Opal would not put a smile on my face ;-)

It goes without saying that this has nothing to do with nuclear weapons, obviously. I’m far more concerned that Australia’s Tomahawk missiles can take an off-the-shelf W80 nuclear warhead, and that US warships and submarines with nuclear weapons dock at Australian ports. An Australian sub powered by a nuclear reactor is a total non-threat, its advantage is in clandestine pick-ups and drop-offs overseas.

As for nuclear experience in Australia. Remember how Collins class had a Swedish-designed body with a German engine. The diesel engine could have been designed in Australia, but it was easier (though not necessarily better) to use a German design. It would be best not to use a nuclear reactor designed in Australia. We really do not have the world leaders in mini-nuclear-reactor design in Australia, our nuclear reactor budget is a minuscule fraction of those overseas.

The safest place for a nuclear reactor is underwater.

Warmongering will get you nowhere.

It is far from what the world needs now.

I want to re-read a couple of articles on this topic before i say much more, but i think that Moll is right.

For an island nation which is vastly more dependent on shipping for its prosperity than 98% of the population has any understanding, submarines are a definite reality and an unavoidable consideration (both ‘theirs’ and ‘ours’), and with the distances and logistics involved, the idea of forever avoiding nuclear propulsion (in the absence of any other propulsion with similar economies) is a pipe-dream.

captain_spalding said:

I want to re-read a couple of articles on this topic before i say much more, but i think that Moll is right.

For an island nation which is vastly more dependent on shipping for its prosperity than 98% of the population has any understanding, submarines are a definite reality and an unavoidable consideration (both ‘theirs’ and ‘ours’), and with the distances and logistics involved, the idea of forever avoiding nuclear propulsion (in the absence of any other propulsion with similar economies) is a pipe-dream.

It is a strategic decision.

captain_spalding said:

I want to re-read a couple of articles on this topic before i say much more, but i think that Moll is right.

For an island nation which is vastly more dependent on shipping for its prosperity than 98% of the population has any understanding, submarines are a definite reality and an unavoidable consideration (both ‘theirs’ and ‘ours’), and with the distances and logistics involved, the idea of forever avoiding nuclear propulsion (in the absence of any other propulsion with similar economies) is a pipe-dream.

Without any research on the matter, those are my thoughts. We have lots of coastline with militarily equipped neighbours, so subs are a good idea, and nukes are the best ones out there.

Having said that, nukes seem best suited to the cold war style cat and mouse games with other subs and I can see they may be overkill for our required use, especially when you consider the associated infrastructure that will be required.

Dark Orange said:

captain_spalding said:

I want to re-read a couple of articles on this topic before i say much more, but i think that Moll is right.

For an island nation which is vastly more dependent on shipping for its prosperity than 98% of the population has any understanding, submarines are a definite reality and an unavoidable consideration (both ‘theirs’ and ‘ours’), and with the distances and logistics involved, the idea of forever avoiding nuclear propulsion (in the absence of any other propulsion with similar economies) is a pipe-dream.

Without any research on the matter, those are my thoughts. We have lots of coastline with militarily equipped neighbours, so subs are a good idea, and nukes are the best ones out there.

Having said that, nukes seem best suited to the cold war style cat and mouse games with other subs and I can see they may be overkill for our required use, especially when you consider the associated infrastructure that will be required.

Unless technology has changed, nuclear subs can’t lie doggo as quietly as diesels. The nuclear plant needs constantly running pumps.

I was thinking that Sooty had gone very quiet for a couple of weeks.. must be planning something big.

Anyway, these subs will probably fly further than the F-35s.

Tamb said:

Dark Orange said:

captain_spalding said:

I want to re-read a couple of articles on this topic before i say much more, but i think that Moll is right.

For an island nation which is vastly more dependent on shipping for its prosperity than 98% of the population has any understanding, submarines are a definite reality and an unavoidable consideration (both ‘theirs’ and ‘ours’), and with the distances and logistics involved, the idea of forever avoiding nuclear propulsion (in the absence of any other propulsion with similar economies) is a pipe-dream.

Without any research on the matter, those are my thoughts. We have lots of coastline with militarily equipped neighbours, so subs are a good idea, and nukes are the best ones out there.

Having said that, nukes seem best suited to the cold war style cat and mouse games with other subs and I can see they may be overkill for our required use, especially when you consider the associated infrastructure that will be required.

Unless technology has changed, nuclear subs can’t lie doggo as quietly as diesels. The nuclear plant needs constantly running pumps.

The reactors and pumps are pretty quiet when dialled-down to low power. I guess there’s no reason why a nuclear sub couldn’t be fitted with a large(ish) battery pack so the reactor could be running at a bare trickle for extended periods. I’m not sure about the military reactors but the regular commercial ones do take a bit of time to get running to higher power settings, they aren’t like a diesel or petrol engine in that way.

Just as well it is Australia in AUKUS and not France.

Peak Warming Man said:

Just as well it is Australia in AUKUS and not France.

Could have been USUKAs

“That fellow Down-Under” is the best thing about this announcement.

“Floating Chernobyls” apparently.

Woodie said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Just as well it is Australia in AUKUS and not France.

Could have been USUKAs

lol

Peak Warming Man said:

Just as well it is Australia in AUKUS and not France.

Heh

Tamb said:

Unless technology has changed, nuclear subs can’t lie doggo as quietly as diesels. The nuclear plant needs constantly running pumps.

Background ocean noise is, on average, about 90dB.

USN Virginia and Seawolf class SSNs have sound signatures of 95dB.

And i do understand that the dB scale is logarithmic, so, but even so..

captain_spalding said:

Tamb said:

Unless technology has changed, nuclear subs can’t lie doggo as quietly as diesels. The nuclear plant needs constantly running pumps.

Background ocean noise is, on average, about 90dB.

USN Virginia and Seawolf class SSNs have sound signatures of 95dB.

90 db is quite loud. Are you sure that’s right?

sibeen said:

captain_spalding said:

Tamb said:

Unless technology has changed, nuclear subs can’t lie doggo as quietly as diesels. The nuclear plant needs constantly running pumps.

Background ocean noise is, on average, about 90dB.

USN Virginia and Seawolf class SSNs have sound signatures of 95dB.

90 db is quite loud. Are you sure that’s right?

Yeah. ‘The silence of the deep’ is purely a literary construct.

captain_spalding said:

sibeen said:

captain_spalding said:

Background ocean noise is, on average, about 90dB.

USN Virginia and Seawolf class SSNs have sound signatures of 95dB.

90 db is quite loud. Are you sure that’s right?

Yeah. ‘The silence of the deep’ is purely a literary construct.

Hmmm…

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep00437

From that it appears that the background noise of the ocean is just above 50 db and that shipping adds a shitload of noise to the background.

captain_spalding said:

sibeen said:

captain_spalding said:

Background ocean noise is, on average, about 90dB.

USN Virginia and Seawolf class SSNs have sound signatures of 95dB.

90 db is quite loud. Are you sure that’s right?

Yeah. ‘The silence of the deep’ is purely a literary construct.

https://dosits.org/science/advanced-topics/ocean-noise-variability-and-noise-budgets/

Wind, rain, shipping, breaking waves, marine life, lightning thunder over water and other anthropogenic and natural sounds.

It all adds up over an average I guess.

Subs actually forms a really important part of out defence network.. easy to underestimate how critical they really are.

Tau.Neutrino said:

captain_spalding said:

sibeen said:

90 db is quite loud. Are you sure that’s right?

Yeah. ‘The silence of the deep’ is purely a literary construct.

https://dosits.org/science/advanced-topics/ocean-noise-variability-and-noise-budgets/

Wind, rain, shipping, breaking waves, marine life, lightning thunder over water and other anthropogenic and natural sounds.

It all adds up over an average I guess.

And then you get whales talking to each other…that can be heard over enormous distances.

And seismic rumbles, and all sorts of other stuff.

56,000 merchant ships trading internationally,
https://www.statista.com/statistics/264024/number-of-merchant-ships-worldwide-by-type/

56,000 noise sources.

diddly-squat said:

Subs actually forms a really important part of out defence network.. easy to underestimate how critical they really are.

Hitler’s navy entered WW2 with 27 long-range submarines. They made it touch-and-go as to whether Britain could hold out. China has around 60 submarines, and this will probably increase to about 75 boats.

The best weapon against a submarine is another submarine.

captain_spalding said:

diddly-squat said:

Subs actually forms a really important part of out defence network.. easy to underestimate how critical they really are.

Hitler’s navy entered WW2 with 27 long-range submarines. They made it touch-and-go as to whether Britain could hold out. China has around 60 submarines, and this will probably increase to about 75 boats.

The best weapon against a submarine is another submarine.

Kamikaze drone subs perhaps

captain_spalding said:

sibeen said:

captain_spalding said:

Background ocean noise is, on average, about 90dB.

USN Virginia and Seawolf class SSNs have sound signatures of 95dB.

90 db is quite loud. Are you sure that’s right?

Yeah. ‘The silence of the deep’ is purely a literary construct.

Interesting. You’d think scuba divers would need hearing protection with that level of noise. The noisiest I’ve heard underwater is during crab mating season, when male crabs bash their claws together to attract a female, which seemed to me to be about 40-50dBA.

Cymek said:

captain_spalding said:

diddly-squat said:

Subs actually forms a really important part of out defence network.. easy to underestimate how critical they really are.

Hitler’s navy entered WW2 with 27 long-range submarines. They made it touch-and-go as to whether Britain could hold out. China has around 60 submarines, and this will probably increase to about 75 boats.

The best weapon against a submarine is another submarine.

Kamikaze drone subs perhaps

They are called smart torpedos.

If MACX was still about this thread would decloak him.

Peak Warming Man said:

If MACX was still about this thread would decloak him.

He was pretty poorly last time he posted, and that was years ago.

May have departed this vale of tears.

Most of that sound is deep, towards the bottom end of human hearing.

dv said:

Most of that sound is deep, towards the bottom end of human hearing.

Don’t know if it’s still done but 12 Hz was/is used to communicate with submerged subs.

Tamb said:

dv said:

Most of that sound is deep, towards the bottom end of human hearing.

Don’t know if it’s still done but 12 Hz was/is used to communicate with submerged subs.

project sanguine, USA. ZEVS Russian.

sibeen said:

captain_spalding said:

sibeen said:

90 db is quite loud. Are you sure that’s right?

Yeah. ‘The silence of the deep’ is purely a literary construct.

Hmmm…

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep00437

From that it appears that the background noise of the ocean is just above 50 db and that shipping adds a shitload of noise to the background.

25-50HZ

probably related RPM of big engines, number of cylinders etc, prop speed

I’ve been giving a bit of thought to range and power requirements for the subs.

• I’d ask for a range of 13,500 km. That’s just enough range to circumnavigate Australia. It would also allow round trips from Fremantle to the nearest parts of India and from Darwin to the nearest parts of Japan. It would not allow a return trip Brisbane to Hawaii, which would be 16,000 km. The range falls short of mainland Africa, the nearest part of South Africa is >16,000 km return. A trip to the Suez Canal or Middle East would be possible as a one way journey.

• For power either one or two 50 MW reactors, depending on whether you feel the need for an emergency backup. The USA’s newest is two 300 MW reactors, Russia’s biggest is two 200 MW reactors. The USA’s first was one 10 MW reactor. France tends to use 50 MW reactors.

• All US Naval floating reactors are pressurised light water reactors with enriched uranium fuel. That makes sense. A breaching of the container would lower the pressure causing the water to evaporate shutting down the chain reaction. Safety. But avoid getting in the way of that steam.

• Enriched uranium is an absolute essential, 235U is only about 0.72% of natural uranium so unenriched fuel would be carrying around more than 99% of useless weight. A 20% 235U enrichment should be considered an absolute minimum for a small reactor like this. You can get away with a lower enrichment only for much larger vessels where weight and volume is less of an issue. In addition, higher enrichment means less poisoning from lesser actinides such as Americium. Australia does not have nuclear fuel enrichment capacity, so would be forced to buy all its fuel prefabricated from overseas.

• On the other end of the enrichment scale is the risk of nuclear proliferation. An 85% 235U or more is weapons grade so that limit should not be exceeded. From wikipedia: “Naval reactors often contain at least 50% 235U, but typically does not exceed 90%”. I honestly, wouldn’t like to push the enrichment above 50%, so would look in the range of 20% to 50% enrichment, unless no small reactors are available in that enrichment grade.

• An amusing and delightful concept I’ve never heard of before is “burnable poison”, which is either boron or gadolinium. In civilian power reactors, the power available on start-up is highest and as fission product build-up increases, so the power decreases and the fuel rods have to be changed every year on average, in the range of 6 months to two years. For a submarine reactor that is is what you don’t want, you want a power reactor that produces a constant amount of power without refueling or maintenance for 30 years. So you put a ‘burnable poison’ in the reactor, which initially decreases the power available from the reactor by absorbing neutrons. As the reactor ages, so there is less burnable poison and more poisoning from fission products. By balancing the two, a reactor continues to produce power at an almost constant level without maintenance for 25 or 30 years, some naval reactors are now claiming 40 years.

• So that alleviates the proliferation problem. No Australian access to the insides of the nuclear reactors for 30 years. At which time it gets dropped off at the manufacturer for a refuel and reconditioning. After a further 30 years the entire submarine gets scrapped and the fission products dealt with in an environmentally friendly way by either the manufacturer or ANSTO.

—

What use would a nuclear submarine be to Australia?

Firstly and most prevalently as a coast guard, as way to defeat the radars of high speed merchant and military vessels straying into Australian waters. A submarine can get close enough to surface unexpectedly in the path of the vessel.

Secondly for humanitarian missions. Access to coastal disaster zones. Help for deep-sea sailors. And Antarctica.

Thirdly as a clandestine drop-off and pick-up. Transporting personnel for starters, mostly diplomats to engage in unofficial government negotiations. Transporting spies, codes and monitoring equipment. In a way that can’t be observed by satellite or land-based radar.

Fourthly, in the event of a limited land-based war, drop-off and pick up of commandos. Particularly pick-up. Commandos can be dropped off by parachute but can only be picked up by submarine. More than anything, that’s why the range of our submarines needs to be limited. So that they’re not seen as a threat to the Middle East, Africa, Europe, North or South America.

They are unlikely to be needed in a sea-war, but they are there if needed. This unlikeliness means that quietness undersea is not a huge concern, but it would be stupid to make them unnecessarily noisy.

……. and it’s pronounced “nyoocular”.

mollwollfumble said:

I’ve been giving a bit of thought to range and power requirements for the subs.

• I’d ask for a range of 13,500 km. That’s just enough range to circumnavigate Australia. It would also allow round trips from Fremantle to the nearest parts of India and from Darwin to the nearest parts of Japan. It would not allow a return trip Brisbane to Hawaii, which would be 16,000 km. The range falls short of mainland Africa, the nearest part of South Africa is >16,000 km return. A trip to the Suez Canal or Middle East would be possible as a one way journey.

• For power either one or two 50 MW reactors, depending on whether you feel the need for an emergency backup. The USA’s newest is two 300 MW reactors, Russia’s biggest is two 200 MW reactors. The USA’s first was one 10 MW reactor. France tends to use 50 MW reactors.

• All US Naval floating reactors are pressurised light water reactors with enriched uranium fuel. That makes sense. A breaching of the container would lower the pressure causing the water to evaporate shutting down the chain reaction. Safety. But avoid getting in the way of that steam.

• Enriched uranium is an absolute essential, 235U is only about 0.72% of natural uranium so unenriched fuel would be carrying around more than 99% of useless weight. A 20% 235U enrichment should be considered an absolute minimum for a small reactor like this. You can get away with a lower enrichment only for much larger vessels where weight and volume is less of an issue. In addition, higher enrichment means less poisoning from lesser actinides such as Americium. Australia does not have nuclear fuel enrichment capacity, so would be forced to buy all its fuel prefabricated from overseas.

• On the other end of the enrichment scale is the risk of nuclear proliferation. An 85% 235U or more is weapons grade so that limit should not be exceeded. From wikipedia: “Naval reactors often contain at least 50% 235U, but typically does not exceed 90%”. I honestly, wouldn’t like to push the enrichment above 50%, so would look in the range of 20% to 50% enrichment, unless no small reactors are available in that enrichment grade.

• An amusing and delightful concept I’ve never heard of before is “burnable poison”, which is either boron or gadolinium. In civilian power reactors, the power available on start-up is highest and as fission product build-up increases, so the power decreases and the fuel rods have to be changed every year on average, in the range of 6 months to two years. For a submarine reactor that is is what you don’t want, you want a power reactor that produces a constant amount of power without refueling or maintenance for 30 years. So you put a ‘burnable poison’ in the reactor, which initially decreases the power available from the reactor by absorbing neutrons. As the reactor ages, so there is less burnable poison and more poisoning from fission products. By balancing the two, a reactor continues to produce power at an almost constant level without maintenance for 25 or 30 years, some naval reactors are now claiming 40 years.

• So that alleviates the proliferation problem. No Australian access to the insides of the nuclear reactors for 30 years. At which time it gets dropped off at the manufacturer for a refuel and reconditioning. After a further 30 years the entire submarine gets scrapped and the fission products dealt with in an environmentally friendly way by either the manufacturer or ANSTO.

—

What use would a nuclear submarine be to Australia?

Firstly and most prevalently as a coast guard, as way to defeat the radars of high speed merchant and military vessels straying into Australian waters. A submarine can get close enough to surface unexpectedly in the path of the vessel.

Secondly for humanitarian missions. Access to coastal disaster zones. Help for deep-sea sailors. And Antarctica.

Thirdly as a clandestine drop-off and pick-up. Transporting personnel for starters, mostly diplomats to engage in unofficial government negotiations. Transporting spies, codes and monitoring equipment. In a way that can’t be observed by satellite or land-based radar.

Fourthly, in the event of a limited land-based war, drop-off and pick up of commandos. Particularly pick-up. Commandos can be dropped off by parachute but can only be picked up by submarine. More than anything, that’s why the range of our submarines needs to be limited. So that they’re not seen as a threat to the Middle East, Africa, Europe, North or South America.

They are unlikely to be needed in a sea-war, but they are there if needed. This unlikeliness means that quietness undersea is not a huge concern, but it would be stupid to make them unnecessarily noisy.

Oops, blank post by accident.

I dunno how the range of a SSN can have limits imposed on it.

If the reactor functions for 20-30 years, then the submarine could, hypothetically, travel in a straight line for 20-30 years. That’s quite some distance.

Currently, the only real limit to the operation of a SSN is human beings. They like to be fed, and when the food runs out, so does the effectiveness of the crew.

Add to that the fact that at least some of them would go quite potty after 1, 2, 3 years submerged…

Australia would presumably not require enormous SSNs.

The most compact SSNs currently around are the the Rubis class boats of about 2,700 tonnes.

They’re built by the…uh…the French.

captain_spalding said:

Oops, blank post by accident.

I dunno how the range of a SSN can have limits imposed on it.

If the reactor functions for 20-30 years, then the submarine could, hypothetically, travel in a straight line for 20-30 years. That’s quite some distance.

Currently, the only real limit to the operation of a SSN is human beings. They like to be fed, and when the food runs out, so does the effectiveness of the crew.

Add to that the fact that at least some of them would go quite potty after 1, 2, 3 years submerged…

Nuclear subs are almost ideally suited to operation by Australia… they are faster, have an effectively unlimited endurance/range and can remain submerged for as long as they can remain provisioned.

The fact we don’t have a domestic nuclear industry is an issue though because we will have to buy in expertise from the Americans and the Brits for ever… I also imagine the $90B price tag is about to get a whole lot bigger as well

This deal has Dutton’s finger prints all over it

diddly-squat said:

captain_spalding said:

Oops, blank post by accident.

I dunno how the range of a SSN can have limits imposed on it.

If the reactor functions for 20-30 years, then the submarine could, hypothetically, travel in a straight line for 20-30 years. That’s quite some distance.

Currently, the only real limit to the operation of a SSN is human beings. They like to be fed, and when the food runs out, so does the effectiveness of the crew.

Add to that the fact that at least some of them would go quite potty after 1, 2, 3 years submerged…

Nuclear subs are almost ideally suited to operation by Australia… they are faster, have an effectively unlimited endurance/range and can remain submerged for as long as they can remain provisioned.

The fact we don’t have a domestic nuclear industry is an issue though because we will have to buy in expertise from the Americans and the Brits for ever… I also imagine the $90B price tag is about to get a whole lot bigger as well

This deal has Dutton’s finger prints all over it

diddly-squat said:

captain_spalding said:

Oops, blank post by accident.

I dunno how the range of a SSN can have limits imposed on it.

If the reactor functions for 20-30 years, then the submarine could, hypothetically, travel in a straight line for 20-30 years. That’s quite some distance.

Currently, the only real limit to the operation of a SSN is human beings. They like to be fed, and when the food runs out, so does the effectiveness of the crew.

Add to that the fact that at least some of them would go quite potty after 1, 2, 3 years submerged…

Nuclear subs are almost ideally suited to operation by Australia… they are faster, have an effectively unlimited endurance/range and can remain submerged for as long as they can remain provisioned.

The fact we don’t have a domestic nuclear industry is an issue though because we will have to buy in expertise from the Americans and the Brits for ever… I also imagine the $90B price tag is about to get a whole lot bigger as well

This deal has Dutton’s finger prints all over it

Ya reckon Mr Potato Head is lining himself up as CEO Dutton of the Nyoocular Submarice Corp (Aust)?

diddly-squat said:

The fact we don’t have a domestic nuclear industry is an issue though because we will have to buy in expertise from the Americans and the Brits for ever… I also imagine the $90B price tag is about to get a whole lot bigger as well

This deal has Dutton’s finger prints all over it

They shoulda gone for the Japanese Soryu submarines, which, by all accounts, are quite nifty.

We don’t know what this sub is going to be yet, all we know is that it’s going to be nuclear.
FFS they haven’t even told us what colour it’s going to be.

Woodie said:

diddly-squat said:

captain_spalding said:

Oops, blank post by accident.

I dunno how the range of a SSN can have limits imposed on it.

If the reactor functions for 20-30 years, then the submarine could, hypothetically, travel in a straight line for 20-30 years. That’s quite some distance.

Currently, the only real limit to the operation of a SSN is human beings. They like to be fed, and when the food runs out, so does the effectiveness of the crew.

Add to that the fact that at least some of them would go quite potty after 1, 2, 3 years submerged…

Nuclear subs are almost ideally suited to operation by Australia… they are faster, have an effectively unlimited endurance/range and can remain submerged for as long as they can remain provisioned.

The fact we don’t have a domestic nuclear industry is an issue though because we will have to buy in expertise from the Americans and the Brits for ever… I also imagine the $90B price tag is about to get a whole lot bigger as well

This deal has Dutton’s finger prints all over it

Ya reckon Mr Potato Head is lining himself up as CEO Dutton of the Nyoocular Submarice Corp (Aust)?

God no.. he’s coveted the defence portfolio for ever because these are the sorts of things that get him hard… he’s a purist in so much that he seeks absolute power over the most strategically important part of government.

I mean can we get a domestic nuclear power industry? At least just for these sub engines. It’s like 70 year old technology, how hard could it be?

Peak Warming Man said:

We don’t know what this sub is going to be yet, all we know is that it’s going to be nuclear.
FFS they haven’t even told us what colour it’s going to be.

pretty sure they only come in that sexy mat Naval Grey

Peak Warming Man said:

We don’t know what this sub is going to be yet, all we know is that it’s going to be nuclear.
FFS they haven’t even told us what colour it’s going to be.

Orange

dv said:

I mean can we get a domestic nuclear power industry? At least just for these sub engines. It’s like 70 year old technology, how hard could it be?

it’s not ‘hard’ in so much that it can’t be done, it’s hard because it would take a really, really long time (decades) to build a nationalised infrastructure to support it (that is unless you are happy to have dependence on other countries for technology, research and development and knowhow)

diddly-squat said:

dv said:

I mean can we get a domestic nuclear power industry? At least just for these sub engines. It’s like 70 year old technology, how hard could it be?

it’s not ‘hard’ in so much that it can’t be done, it’s hard because it would take a really, really long time (decades) to build a nationalised infrastructure to support it (that is unless you are happy to have dependence on other countries for technology, research and development and knowhow)

But..why? It only took a few years for the US to build the very first one, from a standing start.

dv said:

diddly-squat said:

dv said:

I mean can we get a domestic nuclear power industry? At least just for these sub engines. It’s like 70 year old technology, how hard could it be?

it’s not ‘hard’ in so much that it can’t be done, it’s hard because it would take a really, really long time (decades) to build a nationalised infrastructure to support it (that is unless you are happy to have dependence on other countries for technology, research and development and knowhow)

But..why? It only took a few years for the US to build the very first one, from a standing start.

It’s all about them wires, It all takes time, Mr DV. Colour coding all them wires, and making sure they’re all hooked up to the right buttons. Wouldn’t want the wrong wire to the wrong button, now would ya.

dv said:

diddly-squat said:

dv said:

I mean can we get a domestic nuclear power industry? At least just for these sub engines. It’s like 70 year old technology, how hard could it be?

it’s not ‘hard’ in so much that it can’t be done, it’s hard because it would take a really, really long time (decades) to build a nationalised infrastructure to support it (that is unless you are happy to have dependence on other countries for technology, research and development and knowhow)

But..why? It only took a few years for the US to build the very first one, from a standing start.

We would need to create a tertiary education sector capable to supporting the industry
We would need to create heavy manufacturing capable of supporting the construction and maintenance of the industry
We would need to cerate refining and processing industry capable of creating the fuel source
We would need to create storage facilities capable of safely storing the waste materials

decades

Hopefully they are easy to find

Ahh, good ol’ Paul.

diddly-squat said:

Peak Warming Man said:

We don’t know what this sub is going to be yet, all we know is that it’s going to be nuclear.
FFS they haven’t even told us what colour it’s going to be.

pretty sure they only come in that sexy mat Naval Grey

Most submarines are black these days.

Surface warships tend to be ‘haze grey’. The RAN used to paint its ships ‘storm grey’ but has now switched to ‘haze grey’.

I’m now wishing that this announcement could have been made last year…when Trump was still president.

Heads would have exploded :)

dv said:

I mean can we get a domestic nuclear power industry? At least just for these sub engines. It’s like 70 year old technology, how hard could it be?

we agree with dv, this will be good for The Economy Must Grow but yeah

nothing like declaring war in 3 months to win a federal election

I doubt that oz will own any subs, there will be subs, Australia will pay for a substantial investment in something, whether it is exactly submarines is probably open to interpretation, I mean that sort of technology ready for active warfare Australia couldn’t own it, nah

it’s not like buying a new Toyota

subs would be horridly, perhaps even embarrassingly limited without a good supply and very fast moving, accurate missiles with some impressive explosives in them, I hope they come with some missiles, or at least torpedoes, and somewhere to put new ones in it also, wouldn’t like to run out

can’t just wander around under the ocean listening to the whales

sibeen said:

Ahh, good ol’ Paul.

He’s right, and he’s wrong.

In the 1930s, Japan was essentially a ‘continental’ power. All of its military adventures were in China, and their Army was the pre-eminent service, taking over and exerting control over a very large chunk of China, as well as all of Korea and Formosa/Taiwan. 1940s expansions through Indochina and Malaya and the Indonesian archipelago were also mostly ‘army work’.

As Japan began to expand its empire eastwards, the Imperial Japanese Navy began to assume greater importance, but their primary purpose was the support of the Army’s expansion and later defence activities.

Apart from Pearl Harbour, there were few exclusively-naval-purposes actions undertaken by the IJN, although they remained almost maniacally fixated on a ‘decisive battle’ against the US fleet.

The IJN was a large and very professionally effective force, no doubt about it, but it and the Japanese Army were eventually largely defeated via naval means. The US was able to create, extend, and maintain lines of attack, reinforcement and supply across thousands of miles of ocean. This was a staggering achievement, which deserves more recognition than it’s had.

The USN’s submarine war against Japanese shipping was a hugely effective campaign, crippling Japan’s ability to help or rescue its forces, and depriving Japan of much of what its war production needed.

So, the defeat of a largely ‘continental’ east Asian power being by a largely ‘naval’ power from the other side of the world’s largest ocean is not without precedent.

Another big difference would be that, in a more ‘conventional’ war, you can at least identify who the enemy is. Not like the insurgent wars we’ve been seeing for decades.

sibeen said:

captain_spalding said:

sibeen said:

90 db is quite loud. Are you sure that’s right?

Yeah. ‘The silence of the deep’ is purely a literary construct.

Hmmm…

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep00437

From that it appears that the background noise of the ocean is just above 50 db and that shipping adds a shitload of noise to the background.

Thanks for that graph. I know how increadibly awful noise pollution is for wildlife on land. I had suspected that the same would be occurring in the sea.

Now we know it.

diddly-squat said:

dv said:

diddly-squat said:

it’s not ‘hard’ in so much that it can’t be done, it’s hard because it would take a really, really long time (decades) to build a nationalised infrastructure to support it (that is unless you are happy to have dependence on other countries for technology, research and development and knowhow)

But..why? It only took a few years for the US to build the very first one, from a standing start.

We would need to create a tertiary education sector capable to supporting the industry
We would need to create heavy manufacturing capable of supporting the construction and maintenance of the industry
We would need to cerate refining and processing industry capable of creating the fuel source
We would need to create storage facilities capable of safely storing the waste materials

decades

Well, agree to disagree I guess.

In any case these subs won’t be finished until 2038 so might as well start preparing to make their engines…

sibeen said:

I’m now wishing that this announcement could have been made last year…when Trump was still president.

Heads would have exploded :)

Lol get ya hand off it

dv said:

diddly-squat said:

dv said:

But..why? It only took a few years for the US to build the very first one, from a standing start.

We would need to create a tertiary education sector capable to supporting the industry
We would need to create heavy manufacturing capable of supporting the construction and maintenance of the industry
We would need to cerate refining and processing industry capable of creating the fuel source
We would need to create storage facilities capable of safely storing the waste materials

decades

Well, agree to disagree I guess.

In any case these subs won’t be finished until 2038 so might as well start preparing to make their engines…

The engines are steam turbines & we have a lot of expertise in turbine maintenance.
We have a core of Lucas Heights people with nuclear expertise

Bubblecar said:

>$90b

Just think how much public housing that could build.

So what’s happening with the French deal now?

Do we have protracted subexit negotiations, or what?

captain_spalding said:

sibeen said:

Ahh, good ol’ Paul.

He’s right, and he’s wrong.

In the 1930s, Japan was essentially a ‘continental’ power. All of its military adventures were in China, and their Army was the pre-eminent service, taking over and exerting control over a very large chunk of China, as well as all of Korea and Formosa/Taiwan. 1940s expansions through Indochina and Malaya and the Indonesian archipelago were also mostly ‘army work’.

As Japan began to expand its empire eastwards, the Imperial Japanese Navy began to assume greater importance, but their primary purpose was the support of the Army’s expansion and later defence activities.

Apart from Pearl Harbour, there were few exclusively-naval-purposes actions undertaken by the IJN, although they remained almost maniacally fixated on a ‘decisive battle’ against the US fleet.

The IJN was a large and very professionally effective force, no doubt about it, but it and the Japanese Army were eventually largely defeated via naval means. The US was able to create, extend, and maintain lines of attack, reinforcement and supply across thousands of miles of ocean. This was a staggering achievement, which deserves more recognition than it’s had.

The USN’s submarine war against Japanese shipping was a hugely effective campaign, crippling Japan’s ability to help or rescue its forces, and depriving Japan of much of what its war production needed.

So, the defeat of a largely ‘continental’ east Asian power being by a largely ‘naval’ power from the other side of the world’s largest ocean is not without precedent.

Watching a documentary on that at the moment

captain_spalding said:

Another big difference would be that, in a more ‘conventional’ war, you can at least identify who the enemy is. Not like the insurgent wars we’ve been seeing for decades.

Very grey aren’t they, the allies aren’t exactly the good guys and have done quite a lot over numerous decades to force the hand of the bad guys (not excusing them but yeah)

Tamb said:

dv said:

diddly-squat said:

We would need to create a tertiary education sector capable to supporting the industry
We would need to create heavy manufacturing capable of supporting the construction and maintenance of the industry
We would need to cerate refining and processing industry capable of creating the fuel source
We would need to create storage facilities capable of safely storing the waste materials

decades

Well, agree to disagree I guess.

In any case these subs won’t be finished until 2038 so might as well start preparing to make their engines…

The engines are steam turbines & we have a lot of expertise in turbine maintenance.
We have a core of Lucas Heights people with nuclear expertise

Could you get steam turbines to work in space, the lack of gravity amongst other things makes me think no

dv said:

diddly-squat said:

dv said:

But..why? It only took a few years for the US to build the very first one, from a standing start.

We would need to create a tertiary education sector capable to supporting the industry
We would need to create heavy manufacturing capable of supporting the construction and maintenance of the industry
We would need to cerate refining and processing industry capable of creating the fuel source
We would need to create storage facilities capable of safely storing the waste materials

decades

Well, agree to disagree I guess.

In any case these subs won’t be finished until 2038 so might as well start preparing to make their engines…

you honestly believe you could create a fully functioning and self sufficient nuclear industry in less then two decades?

diddly-squat said:

dv said:

diddly-squat said:

We would need to create a tertiary education sector capable to supporting the industry
We would need to create heavy manufacturing capable of supporting the construction and maintenance of the industry
We would need to cerate refining and processing industry capable of creating the fuel source
We would need to create storage facilities capable of safely storing the waste materials

decades

Well, agree to disagree I guess.

In any case these subs won’t be finished until 2038 so might as well start preparing to make their engines…

you honestly believe you could create a fully functioning and self sufficient nuclear industry in less then two decades?

Repurpose foreign student fruit pickers and its possible

Cymek said:

diddly-squat said:

dv said:

Well, agree to disagree I guess.

In any case these subs won’t be finished until 2038 so might as well start preparing to make their engines…

you honestly believe you could create a fully functioning and self sufficient nuclear industry in less then two decades?

Repurpose foreign student fruit pickers and its possible

True there’s apparently a lot of discontent in that heavily populated place where they build 3000-bed hospitals in 10 days hey ¿

diddly-squat said:

dv said:

diddly-squat said:

We would need to create a tertiary education sector capable to supporting the industry
We would need to create heavy manufacturing capable of supporting the construction and maintenance of the industry
We would need to cerate refining and processing industry capable of creating the fuel source
We would need to create storage facilities capable of safely storing the waste materials

decades

Well, agree to disagree I guess.

In any case these subs won’t be finished until 2038 so might as well start preparing to make their engines…

you honestly believe you could create a fully functioning and self sufficient nuclear industry in less then two decades?

Yes. Other countries have done it quicker from a lower starting position. There are no mysteries about how to make a shipboard nuclear reactor.

dv said:

diddly-squat said:

dv said:

Well, agree to disagree I guess.

In any case these subs won’t be finished until 2038 so might as well start preparing to make their engines…

you honestly believe you could create a fully functioning and self sufficient nuclear industry in less then two decades?

Yes. Other countries have done it quicker from a lower starting position. There are no mysteries about how to make a shipboard nuclear reactor.

There is some mystery. I read today that only US subs have their reactors last the life of the boat versus other countries’ which need replenishing.

Witty Rejoinder said:

dv said:

diddly-squat said:

you honestly believe you could create a fully functioning and self sufficient nuclear industry in less then two decades?

Yes. Other countries have done it quicker from a lower starting position. There are no mysteries about how to make a shipboard nuclear reactor.

There is some mystery. I read today that only US subs have their reactors last the life of the boat versus other countries’ which need replenishing.

The reactor can last the life of the boat but the fuel rods will need replenishing.

Tamb said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

dv said:

Yes. Other countries have done it quicker from a lower starting position. There are no mysteries about how to make a shipboard nuclear reactor.

There is some mystery. I read today that only US subs have their reactors last the life of the boat versus other countries’ which need replenishing.

The reactor can last the life of the boat but the fuel rods will need replenishing.

Being in the ocean and able to go deep down they can just dump them without any worry what happens to them in the future

Tamb said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

dv said:

Yes. Other countries have done it quicker from a lower starting position. There are no mysteries about how to make a shipboard nuclear reactor.

There is some mystery. I read today that only US subs have their reactors last the life of the boat versus other countries’ which need replenishing.

The reactor can last the life of the boat but the fuel rods will need replenishing.

That might be it. The article, which i can’t find now, definitely made a technological distinction between US and other countries’ boats though.

Witty Rejoinder said:

Tamb said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

There is some mystery. I read today that only US subs have their reactors last the life of the boat versus other countries’ which need replenishing.

The reactor can last the life of the boat but the fuel rods will need replenishing.

That might be it. The article, which i can’t find now, definitely made a technological distinction between US and other countries’ boats though.

Military equipment is a strange concept when you think about it, need a war to really make use of it, becomes obsolete in what 20 years and you may never get to use it outside of training

Cymek said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Tamb said:

The reactor can last the life of the boat but the fuel rods will need replenishing.

That might be it. The article, which i can’t find now, definitely made a technological distinction between US and other countries’ boats though.

Military equipment is a strange concept when you think about it, need a war to really make use of it, becomes obsolete in what 20 years and you may never get to use it outside of training

sounds like most of the personal as well.

Cymek said:

Tamb said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

There is some mystery. I read today that only US subs have their reactors last the life of the boat versus other countries’ which need replenishing.

The reactor can last the life of the boat but the fuel rods will need replenishing.

Being in the ocean and able to go deep down they can just dump them without any worry what happens to them in the future

Do you want Kaiju? Because that’s how you get Kaiju.

dv said:

Cymek said:

Tamb said:

The reactor can last the life of the boat but the fuel rods will need replenishing.

Being in the ocean and able to go deep down they can just dump them without any worry what happens to them in the future

Do you want Kaiju? Because that’s how you get Kaiju.

Send me an instant karma.

ChrispenEvan said:

Cymek said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

That might be it. The article, which i can’t find now, definitely made a technological distinction between US and other countries’ boats though.

Military equipment is a strange concept when you think about it, need a war to really make use of it, becomes obsolete in what 20 years and you may never get to use it outside of training

sounds like most of the personal as well.

Keeps people in a job.

I’m broadly in agreement with the decision. So there.

China are going off the rails under Winnie the Pooh’s leadership. More and more repressive and dictatorial each year. They are going to the sort of country we would naturally be suspicious of. The second cold war is a reality already I think.

Not sure why are involving the British in this thing too. It is going to be driven primarily by the USA.

party_pants said:

I’m broadly in agreement with the decision. So there.

China are going off the rails under Winnie the Pooh’s leadership. More and more repressive and dictatorial each year. They are going to the sort of country we would naturally be suspicious of. The second cold war is a reality already I think.

Not sure why are involving the British in this thing too. It is going to be driven primarily by the USA.

So why does a cold war require a small country like Oz to invest in a handful of ridiculously expensive submarines?

You can acknowledge the political realities without wasting money on nonsense.

Bubblecar said:

party_pants said:

I’m broadly in agreement with the decision. So there.

China are going off the rails under Winnie the Pooh’s leadership. More and more repressive and dictatorial each year. They are going to the sort of country we would naturally be suspicious of. The second cold war is a reality already I think.

Not sure why are involving the British in this thing too. It is going to be driven primarily by the USA.

So why does a cold war require a small country like Oz to invest in a handful of ridiculously expensive submarines?

You can acknowledge the political realities without wasting money on nonsense.

We may not be around to see the queen launch the first one.

Peak Warming Man said:

Bubblecar said:

party_pants said:

I’m broadly in agreement with the decision. So there.

China are going off the rails under Winnie the Pooh’s leadership. More and more repressive and dictatorial each year. They are going to the sort of country we would naturally be suspicious of. The second cold war is a reality already I think.

Not sure why are involving the British in this thing too. It is going to be driven primarily by the USA.

So why does a cold war require a small country like Oz to invest in a handful of ridiculously expensive submarines?

You can acknowledge the political realities without wasting money on nonsense.

We may not be around to see the queen launch the first one.

Which Queen?

Bubblecar said:

party_pants said:

I’m broadly in agreement with the decision. So there.

China are going off the rails under Winnie the Pooh’s leadership. More and more repressive and dictatorial each year. They are going to the sort of country we would naturally be suspicious of. The second cold war is a reality already I think.

Not sure why are involving the British in this thing too. It is going to be driven primarily by the USA.

So why does a cold war require a small country like Oz to invest in a handful of ridiculously expensive submarines?

You can acknowledge the political realities without wasting money on nonsense.

We’re around the tenth biggest economy on the planet with vital interests in the waters that China is so keen on controlling so if not us who? Our friends in ASEAN will be cheering us on too.

Peak Warming Man said:

Bubblecar said:

party_pants said:

I’m broadly in agreement with the decision. So there.

China are going off the rails under Winnie the Pooh’s leadership. More and more repressive and dictatorial each year. They are going to the sort of country we would naturally be suspicious of. The second cold war is a reality already I think.

Not sure why are involving the British in this thing too. It is going to be driven primarily by the USA.

So why does a cold war require a small country like Oz to invest in a handful of ridiculously expensive submarines?

You can acknowledge the political realities without wasting money on nonsense.

We may not be around to see the queen launch the first one.

I bet Camilla knows how to wield some champers too.

Witty Rejoinder said:

Bubblecar said:

party_pants said:

I’m broadly in agreement with the decision. So there.

China are going off the rails under Winnie the Pooh’s leadership. More and more repressive and dictatorial each year. They are going to the sort of country we would naturally be suspicious of. The second cold war is a reality already I think.

Not sure why are involving the British in this thing too. It is going to be driven primarily by the USA.

So why does a cold war require a small country like Oz to invest in a handful of ridiculously expensive submarines?

You can acknowledge the political realities without wasting money on nonsense.

We’re around the tenth biggest economy on the planet with vital interests in the waters that China is so keen on controlling so if not us who? Our friends in ASEAN will be cheering us on too.

Wiki says 13th.

Witty Rejoinder said:

Bubblecar said:

party_pants said:

I’m broadly in agreement with the decision. So there.

China are going off the rails under Winnie the Pooh’s leadership. More and more repressive and dictatorial each year. They are going to the sort of country we would naturally be suspicious of. The second cold war is a reality already I think.

Not sure why are involving the British in this thing too. It is going to be driven primarily by the USA.

So why does a cold war require a small country like Oz to invest in a handful of ridiculously expensive submarines?

You can acknowledge the political realities without wasting money on nonsense.

We’re around the tenth biggest economy on the planet with vital interests in the waters that China is so keen on controlling so if not us who? Our friends in ASEAN will be cheering us on too.

Cold wars are for show. The money will all be wasted and tomorrow’s people will wonder why.

Bubblecar said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Bubblecar said:

So why does a cold war require a small country like Oz to invest in a handful of ridiculously expensive submarines?

You can acknowledge the political realities without wasting money on nonsense.

We’re around the tenth biggest economy on the planet with vital interests in the waters that China is so keen on controlling so if not us who? Our friends in ASEAN will be cheering us on too.

Cold wars are for show. The money will all be wasted and tomorrow’s people will wonder why.

…and we’ll have to explain, “Dick-waving is seriously expensive, but the patriarchy demands it.”

Bubblecar said:

party_pants said:

I’m broadly in agreement with the decision. So there.

China are going off the rails under Winnie the Pooh’s leadership. More and more repressive and dictatorial each year. They are going to the sort of country we would naturally be suspicious of. The second cold war is a reality already I think.

Not sure why are involving the British in this thing too. It is going to be driven primarily by the USA.

So why does a cold war require a small country like Oz to invest in a handful of ridiculously expensive submarines?

You can acknowledge the political realities without wasting money on nonsense.

I see this new cold war being a reaction to China. Staying out of it will not be an option, China will chose to meddle wherever they think they can. We can stand up to China on our own, we need help from the US. I am not the biggest fan of the US, as you all know, but they are a almost infinitely better than China. It is time to pick a side, staying out of it will not be an option.

party_pants said:

Bubblecar said:

party_pants said:

I’m broadly in agreement with the decision. So there.

China are going off the rails under Winnie the Pooh’s leadership. More and more repressive and dictatorial each year. They are going to the sort of country we would naturally be suspicious of. The second cold war is a reality already I think.

Not sure why are involving the British in this thing too. It is going to be driven primarily by the USA.

So why does a cold war require a small country like Oz to invest in a handful of ridiculously expensive submarines?

You can acknowledge the political realities without wasting money on nonsense.

I see this new cold war being a reaction to China. Staying out of it will not be an option, China will chose to meddle wherever they think they can. We can stand up to China on our own, we need help from the US. I am not the biggest fan of the US, as you all know, but they are a almost infinitely better than China. It is time to pick a side, staying out of it will not be an option.

CAN’T

party_pants said:

Bubblecar said:

party_pants said:

I’m broadly in agreement with the decision. So there.

China are going off the rails under Winnie the Pooh’s leadership. More and more repressive and dictatorial each year. They are going to the sort of country we would naturally be suspicious of. The second cold war is a reality already I think.

Not sure why are involving the British in this thing too. It is going to be driven primarily by the USA.

So why does a cold war require a small country like Oz to invest in a handful of ridiculously expensive submarines?

You can acknowledge the political realities without wasting money on nonsense.

I see this new cold war being a reaction to China. Staying out of it will not be an option, China will chose to meddle wherever they think they can. We can stand up to China on our own, we need help from the US. I am not the biggest fan of the US, as you all know, but they are a almost infinitely better than China. It is time to pick a side, staying out of it will not be an option.

>stand up to China

So we’ll be able to say, “Start buying our wine and beef again, or we’ll send in these subs blow you up somehow!”

Bubblecar said:

party_pants said:

Bubblecar said:

So why does a cold war require a small country like Oz to invest in a handful of ridiculously expensive submarines?

You can acknowledge the political realities without wasting money on nonsense.

I see this new cold war being a reaction to China. Staying out of it will not be an option, China will chose to meddle wherever they think they can. We can stand up to China on our own, we need help from the US. I am not the biggest fan of the US, as you all know, but they are a almost infinitely better than China. It is time to pick a side, staying out of it will not be an option.

>stand up to China

So we’ll be able to say, “Start buying our wine and beef again, or we’ll send in these subs blow you up somehow!”

to

In real life, if the Chinese are stupid enough to ignite a major military conflict with the West, we know which country will really matter, militarily. And it won’t be Australia, no matter how much money we waste on this or that more-or-less useless bit of kit.

>So why does a cold war require a small country like Oz to invest in a handful of ridiculously expensive submarines?

of course you could just put in ports and various facilities to accommodate US submarines, but there are elections here and the flavor of loyalties or level of commitment might shift, and the US might want things to appear more like a shared interest rather than an imperial orientation, given the conceived troubles with the foe are to do with nationalism, and of the latter they are quite successful at it, which is why it is considered not-trivial, and the numbers of

Australia, US and UK are more democratic, the system sort of limits abuse of power, the money needs be able to wander the globe, be free, to do its good work for the common good, no less so since the number specimens of the species has grown such the planet is developing a temperature, the last thing you want is the wrong people on the thermostat

Bubblecar said:

In real life, if the Chinese are stupid enough to ignite a major military conflict with the West, we know which country will really matter, militarily. And it won’t be Australia, no matter how much money we waste on this or that more-or-less useless bit of kit.

Ahhh the ‘we matter little when it comes to climate change so we need not make an effort’ excuse.

Buys subs world is fukt.

Can we just buy the back half and attach it to a generator so that we can fill in the gaps in between solar and wind energy?

Witty Rejoinder said:

Bubblecar said:

party_pants said:

I’m broadly in agreement with the decision. So there.

China are going off the rails under Winnie the Pooh’s leadership. More and more repressive and dictatorial each year. They are going to the sort of country we would naturally be suspicious of. The second cold war is a reality already I think.

Not sure why are involving the British in this thing too. It is going to be driven primarily by the USA.

So why does a cold war require a small country like Oz to invest in a handful of ridiculously expensive submarines?

You can acknowledge the political realities without wasting money on nonsense.

We’re around the tenth biggest economy on the planet with vital interests in the waters that China is so keen on controlling so if not us who? Our friends in ASEAN will be cheering us on too.

+ India, Japan & South Korea.

Witty Rejoinder said:

Bubblecar said:

In real life, if the Chinese are stupid enough to ignite a major military conflict with the West, we know which country will really matter, militarily. And it won’t be Australia, no matter how much money we waste on this or that more-or-less useless bit of kit.

Ahhh the ‘we matter little when it comes to climate change so we need not make an effort’ excuse.

Ahhh no :)

We’re talking about ridiculously expensive military toys that will most likely never be used, but if they are used, will be too few, outnumbered and thinly spread to make any difference.

Do we suppose the Chinese are too dumb to realise that?

Anyway, I don’t suppose a few voices of dissent will make any difference.

I was just pointing out to party_pants that one can be opposed to the Chinese government and their nefarious ways without supporting gross wastage of money on “strategic” military showbiz.

Bubblecar said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Bubblecar said:

In real life, if the Chinese are stupid enough to ignite a major military conflict with the West, we know which country will really matter, militarily. And it won’t be Australia, no matter how much money we waste on this or that more-or-less useless bit of kit.

Ahhh the ‘we matter little when it comes to climate change so we need not make an effort’ excuse.

Ahhh no :)

We’re talking about ridiculously expensive military toys that will most likely never be used, but if they are used, will be too few, outnumbered and thinly spread to make any difference.

Do we suppose the Chinese are too dumb to realise that?

i’d expect the idea, part of, is you need torpedoes and missiles, plenty of them, I haven’t priced any recently but reckon they aren’t cheap, and aren’t made anywhere, you can’t make them in your backyard or get them from the local corner store, anyway the guys that supply them, being some scarcity of supply, possibly get some say in what they are pointed at, and when

Bubblecar said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Bubblecar said:

In real life, if the Chinese are stupid enough to ignite a major military conflict with the West, we know which country will really matter, militarily. And it won’t be Australia, no matter how much money we waste on this or that more-or-less useless bit of kit.

Ahhh the ‘we matter little when it comes to climate change so we need not make an effort’ excuse.

Ahhh no :)

We’re talking about ridiculously expensive military toys that will most likely never be used, but if they are used, will be too few, outnumbered and thinly spread to make any difference.

Do we suppose the Chinese are too dumb to realise that?

We’ll not be spending an exorbitant amount when compared with similar nations so how much it costs is not really an argument. As for what China thinks, should we really be basing our policy decisions on what authoritarian foreign governments are prepared to threaten us with?

Witty Rejoinder said:

….should we really be basing our policy decisions on what authoritarian foreign governments are prepared to threaten us with?

Um, isn’t that exactly what the government is doing with this submarine decision?

Bubblecar said:

Anyway, I don’t suppose a few voices of dissent will make any difference.

I was just pointing out to party_pants that one can be opposed to the Chinese government and their nefarious ways without supporting gross wastage of money on “strategic” military showbiz.

I think that the situation is that we would depend on the US’s protection in the case of a major military threat, and pretty much everything Australia’s military has done since WW2 is paying the protection fee. I’m not especially complaining about that… the world is what it is.

Bubblecar said:

party_pants said:

Bubblecar said:

So why does a cold war require a small country like Oz to invest in a handful of ridiculously expensive submarines?

You can acknowledge the political realities without wasting money on nonsense.

I see this new cold war being a reaction to China. Staying out of it will not be an option, China will chose to meddle wherever they think they can. We can stand up to China on our own, we need help from the US. I am not the biggest fan of the US, as you all know, but they are a almost infinitely better than China. It is time to pick a side, staying out of it will not be an option.

>stand up to China

So we’ll be able to say, “Start buying our wine and beef again, or we’ll send in these subs blow you up somehow!”

No small country will be able to be friends with China. Because China do not want these countries as friends. I think you are failing to see how unhinged China has become in the last 5 years or so since the current president took over. Donald Trump and Brexit have distracted a fair bit of attention away from China. We should be alarmed and fearful of China. We can’t expect the USA do all of it alone and look after us.

Bubblecar said:

party_pants said:

Bubblecar said:

So why does a cold war require a small country like Oz to invest in a handful of ridiculously expensive submarines?

You can acknowledge the political realities without wasting money on nonsense.

I see this new cold war being a reaction to China. Staying out of it will not be an option, China will chose to meddle wherever they think they can. We can stand up to China on our own, we need help from the US. I am not the biggest fan of the US, as you all know, but they are a almost infinitely better than China. It is time to pick a side, staying out of it will not be an option.

>stand up to China

So we’ll be able to say, “Start buying our wine and beef again, or we’ll send in these subs blow you up somehow!”

I’m with party_pants on this one. If you don’t stand up for yourself, you will be walked over, taken advantage of, or invaded. (Tibet, Hong Kong, Sth China Sea, etc)

Doing nothing is not a realistic option.

Pooh Bear has stated that not only is he dictator for life, he intends to invade Formosa.

Standing up to bullies is the only way to stop them. You are probably going to get a bloody nose, but it stops there, at the border.

Bubblecar said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

….should we really be basing our policy decisions on what authoritarian foreign governments are prepared to threaten us with?

Um, isn’t that exactly what the government is doing with this submarine decision?

We were going to replace the Collins class with something else when China was friendlier anyway. The only change is that the US is prepared to share nuclear technology with us because of IMO access to Australian ports/facilities etc

Witty Rejoinder said:

Bubblecar said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

….should we really be basing our policy decisions on what authoritarian foreign governments are prepared to threaten us with?

Um, isn’t that exactly what the government is doing with this submarine decision?

We were going to replace the Collins class with something else when China was friendlier anyway. The only change is that the US is prepared to share nuclear technology with us because of IMO access to Australian ports/facilities etc

so this has nothing to do with West Taiwan now

dv said:

Bubblecar said:

Anyway, I don’t suppose a few voices of dissent will make any difference.

I was just pointing out to party_pants that one can be opposed to the Chinese government and their nefarious ways without supporting gross wastage of money on “strategic” military showbiz.

I think that the situation is that we would depend on the US’s protection in the case of a major military threat, and pretty much everything Australia’s military has done since WW2 is paying the protection fee. I’m not especially complaining about that… the world is what it is.

So instead of duplicating equipment at doubtless higher cost and without proper maintenance infrastructure, we could just donate funds to the US. Given their experience and economies of scale etc, they’ll be able to make better use of it.

SCIENCE said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Bubblecar said:

Um, isn’t that exactly what the government is doing with this submarine decision?

We were going to replace the Collins class with something else when China was friendlier anyway. The only change is that the US is prepared to share nuclear technology with us because of IMO access to Australian ports/facilities etc

so this has nothing to do with West Taiwan now

Didn’t say that.

Bubblecar said:

dv said:

Bubblecar said:

Anyway, I don’t suppose a few voices of dissent will make any difference.

I was just pointing out to party_pants that one can be opposed to the Chinese government and their nefarious ways without supporting gross wastage of money on “strategic” military showbiz.

I think that the situation is that we would depend on the US’s protection in the case of a major military threat, and pretty much everything Australia’s military has done since WW2 is paying the protection fee. I’m not especially complaining about that… the world is what it is.

So instead of duplicating equipment at doubtless higher cost and without proper maintenance infrastructure, we could just donate funds to the US. Given their experience and economies of scale etc, they’ll be able to make better use of it.

Yes.

We’d probably have to send crew as well.

Bubblecar said:

dv said:

Bubblecar said:

Anyway, I don’t suppose a few voices of dissent will make any difference.

I was just pointing out to party_pants that one can be opposed to the Chinese government and their nefarious ways without supporting gross wastage of money on “strategic” military showbiz.

I think that the situation is that we would depend on the US’s protection in the case of a major military threat, and pretty much everything Australia’s military has done since WW2 is paying the protection fee. I’m not especially complaining about that… the world is what it is.

So instead of duplicating equipment at doubtless higher cost and without proper maintenance infrastructure, we could just donate funds to the US. Given their experience and economies of scale etc, they’ll be able to make better use of it.

So cost isn’t an argument then?

Witty Rejoinder said:

Bubblecar said:

dv said:

I think that the situation is that we would depend on the US’s protection in the case of a major military threat, and pretty much everything Australia’s military has done since WW2 is paying the protection fee. I’m not especially complaining about that… the world is what it is.

So instead of duplicating equipment at doubtless higher cost and without proper maintenance infrastructure, we could just donate funds to the US. Given their experience and economies of scale etc, they’ll be able to make better use of it.

So cost isn’t an argument then?

Well Bubblecar’s plan might be more cost efficient

Witty Rejoinder said:

Bubblecar said:

dv said:

I think that the situation is that we would depend on the US’s protection in the case of a major military threat, and pretty much everything Australia’s military has done since WW2 is paying the protection fee. I’m not especially complaining about that… the world is what it is.

So instead of duplicating equipment at doubtless higher cost and without proper maintenance infrastructure, we could just donate funds to the US. Given their experience and economies of scale etc, they’ll be able to make better use of it.

So cost isn’t an argument then?

The passage to which you are responding makes it clear that cost is an argument.

Bubblecar said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Bubblecar said:

So instead of duplicating equipment at doubtless higher cost and without proper maintenance infrastructure, we could just donate funds to the US. Given their experience and economies of scale etc, they’ll be able to make better use of it.

So cost isn’t an argument then?

The passage to which you are responding makes it clear that cost is an argument.

Quibbling over 5-10% matters little when your main beef seems to be that Australia not have its own defence capabilities.

The problem with this deal and the French deal is the lag time, it’s just too long.
By the time the first one is in the water the world will have changed, technology is moving fast, the very tactical concept could well be obsolete by then.

Peak Warming Man said:

The problem with this deal and the French deal is the lag time, it’s just too long.
By the time the first one is in the water the world will have changed, technology is moving fast, the very tactical concept could well be obsolete by then.

What would you recommend?

dv said:

Peak Warming Man said:

The problem with this deal and the French deal is the lag time, it’s just too long.
By the time the first one is in the water the world will have changed, technology is moving fast, the very tactical concept could well be obsolete by then.

What would you recommend?

Chariots. They’re a well understood technology. Well proven in combat.

China’s claims to the South China Seas were rejection by the international permanent Court of Arbitration in 2016. China has not accepted the ruling. Since then it has started building up a huge fleet of surface warships – frigates and destroyers mostly, but they are also building amphibious assault ships and have started construction of at least one big aircraft carrier. In tune with this build-up of warships, their rhetoric towards the international courts and the long established conventions and laws of the sea have become more strident.

Realistically, the number of destroyers and frigates they’ve got is already more than we could deal with. The best contribution we could make is to resort to submarines. Unless we want to spend even more money than that and build huge aircraft carriers too.

If China wants to get aggressive, they will need to be contained near home waters by blockading various choke points along the first island chain. Stop them getting out into the wider Pacific Ocean and stop them getting into the Indian Ocean. Submarines are the bizzo for this.

Peak Warming Man said:

The problem with this deal and the French deal is the lag time, it’s just too long.
By the time the first one is in the water the world will have changed, technology is moving fast, the very tactical concept could well be obsolete by then.

I reckon we’ll probably get them in the water before the proposed schedule for the French boats, if we buy an already existing and proven design. The big problem with the submarine programs over the years is that no other country builds such large and long range conventional subs, the big players all went nuclear a long time ago, so all of our submarines have to be bespoke. (Kevin: take a drink). This is the biggest source of cost and time blowouts. We need to buy as off the shelf as possible.

party_pants said:

Peak Warming Man said:

The problem with this deal and the French deal is the lag time, it’s just too long.
By the time the first one is in the water the world will have changed, technology is moving fast, the very tactical concept could well be obsolete by then.

I reckon we’ll probably get them in the water before the proposed schedule for the French boats, if we buy an already existing and proven design. The big problem with the submarine programs over the years is that no other country builds such large and long range conventional subs, the big players all went nuclear a long time ago, so all of our submarines have to be bespoke. (Kevin: take a drink). This is the biggest source of cost and time blowouts. We need to buy as off the shelf as possible.

Someone has been watching too much grand design.

dv said:

Peak Warming Man said:

The problem with this deal and the French deal is the lag time, it’s just too long.
By the time the first one is in the water the world will have changed, technology is moving fast, the very tactical concept could well be obsolete by then.

What would you recommend?

I don’t have an answer, but if it does come to war it will be a nuclear one and we wont be part of it.
That carrier group that Britain recently sent into the South China sea would be vaporised by the flash of a thousand suns.

Peak Warming Man said:

dv said:

Peak Warming Man said:

The problem with this deal and the French deal is the lag time, it’s just too long.
By the time the first one is in the water the world will have changed, technology is moving fast, the very tactical concept could well be obsolete by then.

What would you recommend?

I don’t have an answer, but if it does come to war it will be a nuclear one and we wont be part of it.
That carrier group that Britain recently sent into the South China sea would be vaporised by the flash of a thousand suns.

I can’t see it turning nuclear myself. Since Mao’s time when he opined that China would benefit from a nuclear conflagration as one of the few countries to be able to rebuild the PRC now has too much to lose.

Witty Rejoinder said:

Peak Warming Man said:

dv said:

What would you recommend?

I don’t have an answer, but if it does come to war it will be a nuclear one and we wont be part of it.
That carrier group that Britain recently sent into the South China sea would be vaporised by the flash of a thousand suns.

I can’t see it turning nuclear myself. Since Mao’s time when he opined that China would benefit from a nuclear conflagration as one of the few countries to be able to rebuild the PRC now has too much to lose.

Wait until they think they can win.

the whole point of deterrence is to make sure the weapons are never used.

Then, looking towards a TV screen on which Morrison was appearing via video link, Biden appeared to hesitate.

“And I want to thank that fella down under. Thank you very much pal,” Biden said. He added: “Appreciate it Mr prime minister.”

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/sep/16/joe-biden-forgets-scott-morrisons-name-during-historic-pact-announcement

Peak Warming Man said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Peak Warming Man said:

I don’t have an answer, but if it does come to war it will be a nuclear one and we wont be part of it.
That carrier group that Britain recently sent into the South China sea would be vaporised by the flash of a thousand suns.

I can’t see it turning nuclear myself. Since Mao’s time when he opined that China would benefit from a nuclear conflagration as one of the few countries to be able to rebuild the PRC now has too much to lose.

Wait until they think they can win.

once they’ve colonised Moon Mars Mimas then we can talk

sarahs mum said:

Then, looking towards a TV screen on which Morrison was appearing via video link, Biden appeared to hesitate.

“And I want to thank that fella down under. Thank you very much pal,” Biden said. He added: “Appreciate it Mr prime minister.”

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/sep/16/joe-biden-forgets-scott-morrisons-name-during-historic-pact-announcement

“Anthony”

sarahs mum said:

Then, looking towards a TV screen on which Morrison was appearing via video link, Biden appeared to hesitate.

“And I want to thank that fella down under. Thank you very much pal,” Biden said. He added: “Appreciate it Mr prime minister.”

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/sep/16/joe-biden-forgets-scott-morrisons-name-during-historic-pact-announcement

Sums up how important Oz is in the scheme of things.

And spending godzillions on sci-fi subs won’t change that.

Bubblecar said:

sarahs mum said:

Then, looking towards a TV screen on which Morrison was appearing via video link, Biden appeared to hesitate.

“And I want to thank that fella down under. Thank you very much pal,” Biden said. He added: “Appreciate it Mr prime minister.”

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/sep/16/joe-biden-forgets-scott-morrisons-name-during-historic-pact-announcement

Sums up how important Oz is in the scheme of things.

And spending godzillions on sci-fi subs won’t change that.

c’m‘on Hawai’i isn’t the only Pacific Island the USSA hope to use as a staging point for empire

Bubblecar said:

sarahs mum said:

Then, looking towards a TV screen on which Morrison was appearing via video link, Biden appeared to hesitate.

“And I want to thank that fella down under. Thank you very much pal,” Biden said. He added: “Appreciate it Mr prime minister.”

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/sep/16/joe-biden-forgets-scott-morrisons-name-during-historic-pact-announcement

Sums up how important Oz is in the scheme of things.

And spending godzillions on sci-fi subs won’t change that.

More likely that he is just old and losing it occasionally.

Bubblecar said:

sarahs mum said:

Then, looking towards a TV screen on which Morrison was appearing via video link, Biden appeared to hesitate.

“And I want to thank that fella down under. Thank you very much pal,” Biden said. He added: “Appreciate it Mr prime minister.”

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/sep/16/joe-biden-forgets-scott-morrisons-name-during-historic-pact-announcement

Sums up how important Oz is in the scheme of things.

And spending godzillions on sci-fi subs won’t change that.

They are not exactly sci-fi. The US Navy’s current model has been in production since the early 2000s, with the production line expected to remain open till at least 2040. They are planning on building about 60-ish all up, and so far have finished about 20.

France says Australia’s $90b submarine deal cancellation is ‘a stab in the back’

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-09-17/france-says-australia-has-stabbed-it-in-the-back-/100469308

party_pants said:

the whole point of deterrence is to make sure the weapons are never used.

Bullshit.

“Deterrence” is just the media spin that the military uses to hide “conspicuous consumption”.

party_pants said:

the whole point of deterrence is to make sure the weapons are never used.

Bullshit.

The whole point of “deterrence” is that it’s nothing but the media spin that the military uses to hide “conspicuous consumption”.

sibeen said:

France says Australia’s $90b submarine deal cancellation is ‘a stab in the back’

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-09-17/france-says-australia-has-stabbed-it-in-the-back-/100469308

The US has an extremely nasty way of negotiating deals. It will offer absolutely no technology to any country who has not already shown the ability to aquire all that technology without US assistance.

Then the US is all friendly soaking up every iota of the new technology that the country is able to supply. The US-made quality of design and manufacture is no better than the other country’s quality of design and manufacture, but they hustle by pretending that it is. And leverage the country’s temporary lack of a small but vital component of technology in order to get the sale.

In other words, without the French deal, there could not be a US deal. With the French deal, the US are going to go all out to undercut price, while still witholding all technology that we couldn’t get on our own.

For example, with Collins Class, the US offered no help whatsoever until we showed that we could do everything on our own. And only then came over all friendly and offerred their expertise in return for access to Australian technology. In the case of Collins Class, the main US “help” was in supplying the useless and superseded (CDC?) computer hardware that crippled the operations on those submarines for a decade.

I didn’t subscribe to the name “Attack-Class Submarines” for the now-scuttled French-designed diesel submarines. I think it is a quite unnecessarily-provocative name.

Given that the newly-announced nuclear submarine deal under the new AUKward-US pact are to be Uranium-powered (I presume), should they be named “U-boats”?

(Personally, I’d prefer we spent the $100B+ on solving Australia’s internal problems, which are certainly manifold. I’d really like Australia to take a somewhat neutral word position and stop pointing fingers at other countries, when our own record in some areas is quite abysmal. However I have no power in this submarine decision – sigh.)

Michael V said:

I didn’t subscribe to the name “Attack-Class Submarines” for the now-scuttled French-designed diesel submarines. I think it is a quite unnecessarily-provocative name.

Given that the newly-announced nuclear submarine deal under the new AUKward-US pact are to be Uranium-powered (I presume), should they be named “U-boats”?

(Personally, I’d prefer we spent the $100B+ on solving Australia’s internal problems, which are certainly manifold. I’d really like Australia to take a somewhat neutral world position and stop pointing fingers at other countries, when our own record in some areas is quite abysmal. However I have no power in this submarine decision – sigh.)

world position

fixed

And I edited, edited, edited, edited, checked, checked, checked and checked again, including previews. I still didn’t get it right. I am a driven perfectionist, but I’m still hopeless at it, despite a lifetime of trying…

Michael V said:

I didn’t subscribe to the name “Attack-Class Submarines” for the now-scuttled French-designed diesel submarines. I think it is a quite unnecessarily-provocative name.

Given that the newly-announced nuclear submarine deal under the new AUKward-US pact are to be Uranium-powered (I presume), should they be named “U-boats”?

(Personally, I’d prefer we spent the $100B+ on solving Australia’s internal problems, which are certainly manifold. I’d really like Australia to take a somewhat neutral word position and stop pointing fingers at other countries, when our own record in some areas is quite abysmal. However I have no power in this submarine decision – sigh.)

I’d prefer Australia to be neytral as well but we’d meed some kind of Swiss strategy because we are a grand prize for any invader.

Michael V said:

I didn’t subscribe to the name “Attack-Class Submarines” for the now-scuttled French-designed diesel submarines. I think it is a quite unnecessarily-provocative name.

Given that the newly-announced nuclear submarine deal under the new AUKward-US pact are to be Uranium-powered (I presume), should they be named “U-boats”?

(Personally, I’d prefer we spent the $100B+ on solving Australia’s internal problems, which are certainly manifold. I’d really like Australia to take a somewhat neutral word position and stop pointing fingers at other countries, when our own record in some areas is quite abysmal. However I have no power in this submarine decision – sigh.)

AFAIK, the ‘Attack’-class thing was a revival of the series of ship names which were applied to the 20 patrol boats built for the RAN in the 1960s of this kind:

The first of these was named HMAS Attack, and in the usual naval practice, the whole set of them was then known as the ‘Attack’ class. Other names included Adroit, Archer,
Arrow, Bombard, Buccaneer, Barricade etc. One boat, HMAS Advance, survives as part of the National Maritime Museum.

There’s a vast amount of money that could be saved by e,g, not giving hundreds of millions of dollars at a time to mining companies who are, according to the capitalist philosophy, supposed to be able to make it on their own or suffer the consequences of their own ineptitude.

Having a good civil rights/humanitarian record does not mean that you don’t need to be prepared to defend yourself. Sweden has little to fear with regard to its reputation in that area, but also maintains strong and up-to-date military forces.

roughbarked said:

Michael V said:

I didn’t subscribe to the name “Attack-Class Submarines” for the now-scuttled French-designed diesel submarines. I think it is a quite unnecessarily-provocative name.

Given that the newly-announced nuclear submarine deal under the new AUKward-US pact are to be Uranium-powered (I presume), should they be named “U-boats”?

(Personally, I’d prefer we spent the $100B+ on solving Australia’s internal problems, which are certainly manifold. I’d really like Australia to take a somewhat neutral word position and stop pointing fingers at other countries, when our own record in some areas is quite abysmal. However I have no power in this submarine decision – sigh.)

I’d prefer Australia to be neutral as well but we’d need some kind of Swiss strategy because we are a grand prize for any invader.

I disagree that Australia would be a grand prize. And I doubt that any country would see us that way. Trading is far better than fighting. Always.

I’ve been trying to decide … The French make nuclear submarines, don’t they? With a 48 MW nuclear reactor.

Yes … ALL the French submarines are nuclear. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_submarines_of_France

Oh, now I understand the name “attack”. Nuclear submarines come in only two gneres: ballistic missile submarines and attack submarines. We don’t want a ballistic missile submarine.

The French have a tendency to make great military gardware. The Eurofighter typhoon and the Tigre helicopter come toi mind. Compact, relatively small, made on a budget but good quality. Compared to many other nations, the French are honest.

The US on the other hand are a nation of grifters, and have a tendency to polish shit – looks great on paper and fails in the field. Remember the F-111 aircraft we bought form the US, looked great on paper but the wings fell off. We, the Australians, fixed the F-111, but US technological flaws are not usually that easy to fix.

mollwollfumble said:

I’ve been trying to decide … The French make nuclear submarines, don’t they? With a 48 MW nuclear reactor.

Yes … ALL the French submarines are nuclear. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_submarines_of_France

Oh, now I understand the name “attack”. Nuclear submarines come in only two gneres: ballistic missile submarines and attack submarines. We don’t want a ballistic missile submarine.

The French have a tendency to make great military gardware. The Eurofighter typhoon and the Tigre helicopter come toi mind. Compact, relatively small, made on a budget but good quality. Compared to many other nations, the French are honest.

The US on the other hand are a nation of grifters, and have a tendency to polish shit – looks great on paper and fails in the field. Remember the F-111 aircraft we bought form the US, looked great on paper but the wings fell off. We, the Australians, fixed the F-111, but US technological flaws are not usually that easy to fix.

>>>>>>>We, the Australians, fixed the F-111, but US technological flaws are not usually that easy to fix.

No we didn’t. We just refused to accept any of them until the problem had been sorted.

https://www.airforce.gov.au/sites/default/files/minisite/static/7522/RAAFmuseum/research/aircraft/series3/A8.htm

mollwollfumble said:

I’ve been trying to decide … The French make nuclear submarines, don’t they? With a 48 MW nuclear reactor.

Yes … ALL the French submarines are nuclear. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_submarines_of_France

Oh, now I understand the name “attack”. Nuclear submarines come in only two gneres: ballistic missile submarines and attack submarines. We don’t want a ballistic missile submarine.

The French have a tendency to make great military gardware. The Eurofighter typhoon and the Tigre helicopter come toi mind. Compact, relatively small, made on a budget but good quality. Compared to many other nations, the French are honest.

The US on the other hand are a nation of grifters, and have a tendency to polish shit – looks great on paper and fails in the field. Remember the F-111 aircraft we bought form the US, looked great on paper but the wings fell off. We, the Australians, fixed the F-111, but US technological flaws are not usually that easy to fix.

We also did the CAC Avon Sabre.

Tamb said:

mollwollfumble said:

I’ve been trying to decide … The French make nuclear submarines, don’t they? With a 48 MW nuclear reactor.

Yes … ALL the French submarines are nuclear. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_submarines_of_France

Oh, now I understand the name “attack”. Nuclear submarines come in only two gneres: ballistic missile submarines and attack submarines. We don’t want a ballistic missile submarine.

The French have a tendency to make great military gardware. The Eurofighter typhoon and the Tigre helicopter come toi mind. Compact, relatively small, made on a budget but good quality. Compared to many other nations, the French are honest.

The US on the other hand are a nation of grifters, and have a tendency to polish shit – looks great on paper and fails in the field. Remember the F-111 aircraft we bought form the US, looked great on paper but the wings fell off. We, the Australians, fixed the F-111, but US technological flaws are not usually that easy to fix.

We also did the CAC Avon Sabre.

I worked at the CAC factory for a while.

ChrispenEvan said:

Tamb said:

mollwollfumble said:

I’ve been trying to decide … The French make nuclear submarines, don’t they? With a 48 MW nuclear reactor.

Yes … ALL the French submarines are nuclear. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_submarines_of_France

Oh, now I understand the name “attack”. Nuclear submarines come in only two gneres: ballistic missile submarines and attack submarines. We don’t want a ballistic missile submarine.

The French have a tendency to make great military gardware. The Eurofighter typhoon and the Tigre helicopter come toi mind. Compact, relatively small, made on a budget but good quality. Compared to many other nations, the French are honest.

The US on the other hand are a nation of grifters, and have a tendency to polish shit – looks great on paper and fails in the field. Remember the F-111 aircraft we bought form the US, looked great on paper but the wings fell off. We, the Australians, fixed the F-111, but US technological flaws are not usually that easy to fix.

We also did the CAC Avon Sabre.

I worked at the CAC factory for a while.

Mz Tamb did some F111 instrument assembly work.

Michael V said:

roughbarked said:

Michael V said:

I didn’t subscribe to the name “Attack-Class Submarines” for the now-scuttled French-designed diesel submarines. I think it is a quite unnecessarily-provocative name.

Given that the newly-announced nuclear submarine deal under the new AUKward-US pact are to be Uranium-powered (I presume), should they be named “U-boats”?

(Personally, I’d prefer we spent the $100B+ on solving Australia’s internal problems, which are certainly manifold. I’d really like Australia to take a somewhat neutral word position and stop pointing fingers at other countries, when our own record in some areas is quite abysmal. However I have no power in this submarine decision – sigh.)

I’d prefer Australia to be neutral as well but we’d need some kind of Swiss strategy because we are a grand prize for any invader.

I disagree that Australia would be a grand prize. And I doubt that any country would see us that way. Trading is far better than fighting. Always.

No doubt.

Michael V said:

No we didn’t. We just refused to accept any of them until the problem had been sorted.

https://www.airforce.gov.au/sites/default/files/minisite/static/7522/RAAFmuseum/research/aircraft/series3/A8.htm

The US loaned us 24 F-4E Phantoms (very effective planes in the day) in place of the F-111s while the troubles were sorted out.

And when finally delivered, the F-111s were the most effective planes in the region for a very long time, and ‘somethig to think about’ for e.g. Indonesia.

So apparently the original French proposal was for nuclear subs and the Australian government insisted they redesign for diesel lol

The F-111 killed the TRS2, which had the potential to be a far better aircraft.

dv said:

So apparently the original French proposal was for nuclear subs and the Australian government insisted they redesign for diesel lol

I guess our strategy objectives have changed.

ChrispenEvan said:

dv said:

So apparently the original French proposal was for nuclear subs and the Australian government insisted they redesign for diesel lol

I guess our strategy objectives have changed.

Sure but I can see why there’s a bit of YGTBFKM happening in Paris

ChrispenEvan said:

The F-111 killed the TRS2, which had the potential to be a far better aircraft.

It’s prolly a typo but the plane was the TSR2

dv said:

ChrispenEvan said:

dv said:

So apparently the original French proposal was for nuclear subs and the Australian government insisted they redesign for diesel lol

I guess our strategy objectives have changed.

Sure but I can see why there’s a bit of YGTBFKM happening in Paris

let them eat cake.

Tamb said:

ChrispenEvan said:

The F-111 killed the TRS2, which had the potential to be a far better aircraft.

It’s prolly a typo but the plane was the TSR2

yep. cold fingers and sloe eyes.

ChrispenEvan said:

Tamb said:

ChrispenEvan said:

The F-111 killed the TRS2, which had the potential to be a far better aircraft.

It’s prolly a typo but the plane was the TSR2

yep. cold fingers and sloe eyes.

The few prototypes were totally destroyed as they had some secret goodies in them.

dv said:

ChrispenEvan said:

dv said:

So apparently the original French proposal was for nuclear subs and the Australian government insisted they redesign for diesel lol

I guess our strategy objectives have changed.

Sure but I can see why there’s a bit of YGTBFKM happening in Paris

Maybe Pauline was part of the committee.

https://finance.yahoo.com/video/rear-admiral-schools-pauline-hanson-080741204.html

ChrispenEvan said:

Tamb said:

ChrispenEvan said:

The F-111 killed the TRS2, which had the potential to be a far better aircraft.

It’s prolly a typo but the plane was the TSR2

yep. cold fingers and sloe eyes.

Gin, so early in the morning!

Michael V said:

ChrispenEvan said:

Tamb said:

It’s prolly a typo but the plane was the TSR2

yep. cold fingers and sloe eyes.

Gin, so early in the morning!

best time. otherwise you think about it more and judge it is a bad idea.

Tamb said:

ChrispenEvan said:

The F-111 killed the TRS2, which had the potential to be a far better aircraft.

It’s prolly a typo but the plane was the TSR2

Shades of SR-71/RS-71…

dv said:

ChrispenEvan said:

dv said:

So apparently the original French proposal was for nuclear subs and the Australian government insisted they redesign for diesel lol

I guess our strategy objectives have changed.

Sure but I can see why there’s a bit of YGTBFKM happening in Paris

Couple of billion wasted on the design stage I heard

captain_spalding said:

Tamb said:

ChrispenEvan said:

The F-111 killed the TRS2, which had the potential to be a far better aircraft.

It’s prolly a typo but the plane was the TSR2

Shades of SR-71/RS-71…

POTUS Johnson said SR-71 & you don’t correct the Pres.

Cymek said:

dv said:

ChrispenEvan said:

I guess our strategy objectives have changed.

Sure but I can see why there’s a bit of YGTBFKM happening in Paris

Couple of billion wasted on the design stage I heard

well fuck it as long as the right pockets have been lined then it’s all right then

ChrispenEvan said:

Michael V said:

ChrispenEvan said:

yep. cold fingers and sloe eyes.

Gin, so early in the morning!

best time. otherwise you think about it more and judge it is a bad idea.

:)

New Zealots

https://www.reuters.com/world/china/nz-says-australias-new-nuclear-submarines-must-stay-out-its-waters-2021-09-16/

NZ says Australia’s new nuclear submarines must stay out of its waters

Foreign Minister Nanaia Mahuta has said she was uncomfortable with expanding the role of the Five Eyes, drawing criticism from Western allies who said New Zealand was reluctant to criticise China due to its trade ties. China is New Zealand’s largest trading partner.

—

shills

SCIENCE said:

New Zealots

https://www.reuters.com/world/china/nz-says-australias-new-nuclear-submarines-must-stay-out-its-waters-2021-09-16/

NZ says Australia’s new nuclear submarines must stay out of its waters

Foreign Minister Nanaia Mahuta has said she was uncomfortable with expanding the role of the Five Eyes, drawing criticism from Western allies who said New Zealand was reluctant to criticise China due to its trade ties. China is New Zealand’s largest trading partner.

—

shills

Is NZ part of the southern pacific ocean nuclear free zone?

Oh Wait Just Like How The French Submarines Were Meant To Be Nuclear Way Back When

New Zealand has held a firm nuclear-free policy since the 1980s and Ms Ardern made it clear the nation had no intention of lifting the ban.

https://news.yahoo.com/australian-nuclear-subs-banned-zealand-002706920.html

New Zealand will not lift a decades-long ban on nuclear-powered vessels entering its waters in the wake of key ally Australia’s decision to develop a nuclear submarine fleet, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said Thursday.

reactionaries

SCIENCE said:

New Zealots

https://www.reuters.com/world/china/nz-says-australias-new-nuclear-submarines-must-stay-out-its-waters-2021-09-16/

NZ says Australia’s new nuclear submarines must stay out of its waters

Foreign Minister Nanaia Mahuta has said she was uncomfortable with expanding the role of the Five Eyes, drawing criticism from Western allies who said New Zealand was reluctant to criticise China due to its trade ties. China is New Zealand’s largest trading partner.

—

shills

See, the whole point of submarines is that you don’t know whether they’ve entered your waters or not.

captain_spalding said:

SCIENCE said:

New Zealots

https://www.reuters.com/world/china/nz-says-australias-new-nuclear-submarines-must-stay-out-its-waters-2021-09-16/

NZ says Australia’s new nuclear submarines must stay out of its waters

Foreign Minister Nanaia Mahuta has said she was uncomfortable with expanding the role of the Five Eyes, drawing criticism from Western allies who said New Zealand was reluctant to criticise China due to its trade ties. China is New Zealand’s largest trading partner.

—

shills

See, the whole point of submarines is that you don’t know whether they’ve entered your waters or not.

:)

captain_spalding said:

SCIENCE said:

New Zealots

https://www.reuters.com/world/china/nz-says-australias-new-nuclear-submarines-must-stay-out-its-waters-2021-09-16/

NZ says Australia’s new nuclear submarines must stay out of its waters

Foreign Minister Nanaia Mahuta has said she was uncomfortable with expanding the role of the Five Eyes, drawing criticism from Western allies who said New Zealand was reluctant to criticise China due to its trade ties. China is New Zealand’s largest trading partner.

—

shills

See, the whole point of submarines is that you don’t know whether they’ve entered your waters or not.

surely the whole point of allies is you tell them things

The Shovel:
\ PM Unveils Major $90 Billion Distraction

Prime Minister Scott Morrison has announced a landmark distraction that will help secure the lead stories of the nation’s media for at least the next five days.

Many a true word spoken in jest.

Mention $90 billion, and the media is quickly diverted from Mr Porter’s measly few hundred grand.

SCIENCE said:

surely the whole point of allies is you tell them things

I’m afraid that you don’t understand how the agreement between Australia, the US, the UK, NZ, and Canada works.

captain_spalding said:

The Shovel:
\ PM Unveils Major $90 Billion Distraction

Prime Minister Scott Morrison has announced a landmark distraction that will help secure the lead stories of the nation’s media for at least the next five days.

Many a true word spoken in jest.

Mention $90 billion, and the media is quickly diverted from Mr Porter’s measly few hundred grand.

Look over there whiile I steal your lunch.

captain_spalding said:

SCIENCE said:

surely the whole point of allies is you tell them things

I’m afraid that you don’t understand how the agreement between Australia, the US, the UK, NZ, and Canada works.

Need to know basis and you don’t need to know

Cymek said:

captain_spalding said:

SCIENCE said:

surely the whole point of allies is you tell them things

I’m afraid that you don’t understand how the agreement between Australia, the US, the UK, NZ, and Canada works.

Need to know basis and you don’t need to know

Everyone tells the US all that they know. The US collates it all along with their own information, and tells all the other partners what the US deems it appropriate that they know.

As one American in the game put it ‘Sure, we’re all in this together, but you folks need to know one important rule: don’t f*** around with the big boys’.

captain_spalding said:

The Shovel:
\ PM Unveils Major $90 Billion Distraction

Prime Minister Scott Morrison has announced a landmark distraction that will help secure the lead stories of the nation’s media for at least the next five days.

Many a true word spoken in jest.

Mention $90 billion, and the media is quickly diverted from Mr Porter’s measly few hundred grand.

I mentioned the “look! Shiny thing!” thing to Mr buffy yesterday.

Srsly I don’t have any opinion on whether this is a good move because I don’t know enough about the subject matter

SCIENCE said:

New Zealots

https://www.reuters.com/world/china/nz-says-australias-new-nuclear-submarines-must-stay-out-its-waters-2021-09-16/

NZ says Australia’s new nuclear submarines must stay out of its waters

Foreign Minister Nanaia Mahuta has said she was uncomfortable with expanding the role of the Five Eyes, drawing criticism from Western allies who said New Zealand was reluctant to criticise China due to its trade ties. China is New Zealand’s largest trading partner.

—

shills

Ha!

captain_spalding said:

The Shovel:
\ PM Unveils Major $90 Billion Distraction

Prime Minister Scott Morrison has announced a landmark distraction that will help secure the lead stories of the nation’s media for at least the next five days.

Many a true word spoken in jest.

Mention $90 billion, and the media is quickly diverted from Mr Porter’s measly few hundred grand.

I agree.

Michael V said:

dv said:

buffy said:

roughbarked said:

captain_spalding said:

The Shovel:
\ PM Unveils Major $90 Billion Distraction

Prime Minister Scott Morrison has announced a landmark distraction that will help secure the lead stories of the nation’s media for at least the next five days.

Many a true word spoken in jest.

Mention $90 billion, and the media is quickly diverted from Mr Porter’s measly few hundred grand.

Look over there whiile I steal your lunch.

I mentioned the “look! Shiny thing!” thing to Mr buffy yesterday.

Srsly I don’t have any opinion on whether this is a good move because I don’t know enough about the subject matter

I agree.

Indeed, we would argue it’s more than just the “Shiny thing!” because we’ve seen this tactic for 4 years, in our so called ally, and it wasn’t just about the bling or the Navy.

“Oh, inconvenient truth, inconvenient political situation, inconvenient disease, whatever … CHINA CHINA CHINA¡”

But don’t worry it’s not necessary, they’ll just sacrifice the Good Man and all will be reelected.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-09-17/christian-porter-future-as-minister-increasingly-uncertain/100467230

SCIENCE said:

New Zealots

https://www.reuters.com/world/china/nz-says-australias-new-nuclear-submarines-must-stay-out-its-waters-2021-09-16/

NZ says Australia’s new nuclear submarines must stay out of its waters

Foreign Minister Nanaia Mahuta has said she was uncomfortable with expanding the role of the Five Eyes, drawing criticism from Western allies who said New Zealand was reluctant to criticise China due to its trade ties. China is New Zealand’s largest trading partner.

—

shills

I wonder of anyone had a quiet word with Mr Mahuta and said: “Mate, don’t worry, these subs won’t be going anywhere near NZ. That’s not what they’re for”.

Not sure how China can get annoyed at us building up our military when they are doing the exact same by another order of magnitude.

party_pants said:

SCIENCE said:

New Zealots

https://www.reuters.com/world/china/nz-says-australias-new-nuclear-submarines-must-stay-out-its-waters-2021-09-16/

NZ says Australia’s new nuclear submarines must stay out of its waters

Foreign Minister Nanaia Mahuta has said she was uncomfortable with expanding the role of the Five Eyes, drawing criticism from Western allies who said New Zealand was reluctant to criticise China due to its trade ties. China is New Zealand’s largest trading partner.

—

shills

I wonder of anyone had a quiet word with Mr Mahuta and said: “Mate, don’t worry, these subs won’t be going anywhere near NZ. That’s not what they’re for”.

She’d probably get right pissed off being referred to as a Mr.

ChrispenEvan said:

The F-111 killed the TRS2, which had the potential to be a far better aircraft.

TSR2 was strategically obsolete before the program was finished. Pretty much designed to carry nuclear weapons only, of the small “tactical nuclear weapon” variety, at high speed and low altitude. Not much spare capacity to carry a large conventional bomb load. The low and fast tactic was fast becoming unviable as Soviet interceptors and fighters improved, and the idea of dropping small nukes on an enemy with big nukes was strategically a non-starter because it would invite an escalation in any response. The strategic doctrine is not to attack any nuclear armed enemy with any nukes large or small.

The F111 at least could be used in conventional bombing, and could carry a large payload.

sibeen said:

party_pants said:

SCIENCE said:

New Zealots

https://www.reuters.com/world/china/nz-says-australias-new-nuclear-submarines-must-stay-out-its-waters-2021-09-16/

NZ says Australia’s new nuclear submarines must stay out of its waters

Foreign Minister Nanaia Mahuta has said she was uncomfortable with expanding the role of the Five Eyes, drawing criticism from Western allies who said New Zealand was reluctant to criticise China due to its trade ties. China is New Zealand’s largest trading partner.

—

shills

I wonder of anyone had a quiet word with Mr Mahuta and said: “Mate, don’t worry, these subs won’t be going anywhere near NZ. That’s not what they’re for”.

She’d probably get right pissed off being referred to as a Mr.

My bad. Adjust gender pronouns as necessary.

party_pants said:

ChrispenEvan said:

The F-111 killed the TRS2, which had the potential to be a far better aircraft.

TSR2 was strategically obsolete before the program was finished. Pretty much designed to carry nuclear weapons only, of the small “tactical nuclear weapon” variety, at high speed and low altitude. Not much spare capacity to carry a large conventional bomb load. The low and fast tactic was fast becoming unviable as Soviet interceptors and fighters improved, and the idea of dropping small nukes on an enemy with big nukes was strategically a non-starter because it would invite an escalation in any response. The strategic doctrine is not to attack any nuclear armed enemy with any nukes large or small.

The F111 at least could be used in conventional bombing, and could carry a large payload.

Tactical, recon and strike. TSR.

party_pants said:

sibeen said:

party_pants said:

I wonder of anyone had a quiet word with Mr Mahuta and said: “Mate, don’t worry, these subs won’t be going anywhere near NZ. That’s not what they’re for”.

She’d probably get right pissed off being referred to as a Mr.

My bad. Adjust gender pronouns as necessary.

Perhaps our government didn’t think they’d stand up to their bigger less inbreed cousin across the ocean,

Cymek said:

party_pants said:

sibeen said:

She’d probably get right pissed off being referred to as a Mr.

My bad. Adjust gender pronouns as necessary.

Perhaps our government didn’t think they’d stand up to their bigger less inbreed cousin across the ocean,

They’ve been anti-nuclear since the 1980s come hell or high-water.

Obviously I don’t know nothing about this situation except what I get fed offen the interwebs but personally I have no problem with this. China has been flexing it’s muscles for a while now. What did they expect. Surely they expected just this kind of thing eventually….. Again I don’t really know but these superpowers must know …..,….. Right?

That said I’d rather no one had these toys. And also have we kinda sorta fucked the frogs not really but yeah a little bit in doing this yes?

ChrispenEvan said:

party_pants said:

ChrispenEvan said:

The F-111 killed the TRS2, which had the potential to be a far better aircraft.

TSR2 was strategically obsolete before the program was finished. Pretty much designed to carry nuclear weapons only, of the small “tactical nuclear weapon” variety, at high speed and low altitude. Not much spare capacity to carry a large conventional bomb load. The low and fast tactic was fast becoming unviable as Soviet interceptors and fighters improved, and the idea of dropping small nukes on an enemy with big nukes was strategically a non-starter because it would invite an escalation in any response. The strategic doctrine is not to attack any nuclear armed enemy with any nukes large or small.

The F111 at least could be used in conventional bombing, and could carry a large payload.

Tactical, recon and strike. TSR.

plus everything i have read about it says it was years ahead of its time.

ChrispenEvan said:

party_pants said:

ChrispenEvan said:

The F-111 killed the TRS2, which had the potential to be a far better aircraft.

TSR2 was strategically obsolete before the program was finished. Pretty much designed to carry nuclear weapons only, of the small “tactical nuclear weapon” variety, at high speed and low altitude. Not much spare capacity to carry a large conventional bomb load. The low and fast tactic was fast becoming unviable as Soviet interceptors and fighters improved, and the idea of dropping small nukes on an enemy with big nukes was strategically a non-starter because it would invite an escalation in any response. The strategic doctrine is not to attack any nuclear armed enemy with any nukes large or small.

The F111 at least could be used in conventional bombing, and could carry a large payload.

Tactical, recon and strike. TSR.

Tactical Strike, and Reconnaissance. The “tactical strike” role being to attack targets within the general area of the battlefield or within close enough proximity that they pose an immediate threat to friendly forces. The TSR2 was supposed to do this primarily with small nukes, not precision guided conventional munitions. The Panavia Tornado program pretty much took over this role in the next decade, with the focus being on conventional smart weapons. Even though they could still carry nukes if required.

Witty Rejoinder said:

Cymek said:

party_pants said:

My bad. Adjust gender pronouns as necessary.

Perhaps our government didn’t think they’d stand up to their bigger less inbreed cousin across the ocean,

They’ve been anti-nuclear since the 1980s come hell or high-water.

Yes sticking to their principles which is fair enough

party_pants said:

ChrispenEvan said:

party_pants said:

TSR2 was strategically obsolete before the program was finished. Pretty much designed to carry nuclear weapons only, of the small “tactical nuclear weapon” variety, at high speed and low altitude. Not much spare capacity to carry a large conventional bomb load. The low and fast tactic was fast becoming unviable as Soviet interceptors and fighters improved, and the idea of dropping small nukes on an enemy with big nukes was strategically a non-starter because it would invite an escalation in any response. The strategic doctrine is not to attack any nuclear armed enemy with any nukes large or small.

The F111 at least could be used in conventional bombing, and could carry a large payload.

Tactical, recon and strike. TSR.

Tactical Strike, and Reconnaissance. The “tactical strike” role being to attack targets within the general area of the battlefield or within close enough proximity that they pose an immediate threat to friendly forces. The TSR2 was supposed to do this primarily with small nukes, not precision guided conventional munitions. The Panavia Tornado program pretty much took over this role in the next decade, with the focus being on conventional smart weapons. Even though they could still carry nukes if required.

there weren’t a lot of smart munitions in the early 60s.

Trevtaowillgetyounowhere said:

That said I’d rather no one had these toys. And also have we kinda sorta fucked the frogs not really but yeah a little bit in doing this yes?

Yes. We should probably buy something else off them to make up for it.

Perhaps an aircraft carrier?

Presumably Scomo has read this:

How to end the contract
You must give the builder a signed notice stating that the contract is being ended under section 41 of the Act. The notice must also give details of why the contract is being ended.
If you end the contract in this way, you must still pay the builder a reasonable price for work completed before the contract ends. A builder may not recover more than they would have under the contract.

https://www.consumer.vic.gov.au/housing/building-and-renovating/checklists/getting-out-of-a-building-contract

party_pants said:

ChrispenEvan said:

party_pants said:

TSR2 was strategically obsolete before the program was finished. Pretty much designed to carry nuclear weapons only, of the small “tactical nuclear weapon” variety, at high speed and low altitude. Not much spare capacity to carry a large conventional bomb load. The low and fast tactic was fast becoming unviable as Soviet interceptors and fighters improved, and the idea of dropping small nukes on an enemy with big nukes was strategically a non-starter because it would invite an escalation in any response. The strategic doctrine is not to attack any nuclear armed enemy with any nukes large or small.

The F111 at least could be used in conventional bombing, and could carry a large payload.

Tactical, recon and strike. TSR.

Tactical Strike, and Reconnaissance. The “tactical strike” role being to attack targets within the general area of the battlefield or within close enough proximity that they pose an immediate threat to friendly forces. The TSR2 was supposed to do this primarily with small nukes, not precision guided conventional munitions. The Panavia Tornado program pretty much took over this role in the next decade, with the focus being on conventional smart weapons. Even though they could still carry nukes if required.

I wonder if nukes would work in the battlefield, you’d possibly accept loss of your own soldiers/equipment if it meant to enemy lost a lot more.
They seem overkill and more for taking out bases/fleets, etc

Cymek said:

party_pants said:

ChrispenEvan said:

Tactical, recon and strike. TSR.

Tactical Strike, and Reconnaissance. The “tactical strike” role being to attack targets within the general area of the battlefield or within close enough proximity that they pose an immediate threat to friendly forces. The TSR2 was supposed to do this primarily with small nukes, not precision guided conventional munitions. The Panavia Tornado program pretty much took over this role in the next decade, with the focus being on conventional smart weapons. Even though they could still carry nukes if required.

I wonder if nukes would work in the battlefield, you’d possibly accept loss of your own soldiers/equipment if it meant to enemy lost a lot more.
They seem overkill and more for taking out bases/fleets, etc

they have nuke artillery shells.

ChrispenEvan said:

party_pants said:

ChrispenEvan said:

Tactical, recon and strike. TSR.

Tactical Strike, and Reconnaissance. The “tactical strike” role being to attack targets within the general area of the battlefield or within close enough proximity that they pose an immediate threat to friendly forces. The TSR2 was supposed to do this primarily with small nukes, not precision guided conventional munitions. The Panavia Tornado program pretty much took over this role in the next decade, with the focus being on conventional smart weapons. Even though they could still carry nukes if required.

there weren’t a lot of smart munitions in the early 60s.

Yes. The TSR2 itself was very advanced for its time in the airframe and design. Just that the strategic doctrine was obsolete. It was pretty much aimed at stopping a Soviet land invasion of Europe by using small nuclear weapons as part of the mix of weapons. Strategic thinking has since clarified into restricting war zones to conventional weapons only and not using nukes. Or at least not being the first to use nukes. The British had bought Polaris during this time too, so they had a credible strategic nuclear deterrent.

ChrispenEvan said:

Cymek said:

party_pants said:

Tactical Strike, and Reconnaissance. The “tactical strike” role being to attack targets within the general area of the battlefield or within close enough proximity that they pose an immediate threat to friendly forces. The TSR2 was supposed to do this primarily with small nukes, not precision guided conventional munitions. The Panavia Tornado program pretty much took over this role in the next decade, with the focus being on conventional smart weapons. Even though they could still carry nukes if required.

I wonder if nukes would work in the battlefield, you’d possibly accept loss of your own soldiers/equipment if it meant to enemy lost a lot more.
They seem overkill and more for taking out bases/fleets, etc

they have nuke artillery shells.

Thought about using them in Korea didn’t they.

party_pants said:

ChrispenEvan said:

party_pants said:

Tactical Strike, and Reconnaissance. The “tactical strike” role being to attack targets within the general area of the battlefield or within close enough proximity that they pose an immediate threat to friendly forces. The TSR2 was supposed to do this primarily with small nukes, not precision guided conventional munitions. The Panavia Tornado program pretty much took over this role in the next decade, with the focus being on conventional smart weapons. Even though they could still carry nukes if required.

there weren’t a lot of smart munitions in the early 60s.

Yes. The TSR2 itself was very advanced for its time in the airframe and design. Just that the strategic doctrine was obsolete. It was pretty much aimed at stopping a Soviet land invasion of Europe by using small nuclear weapons as part of the mix of weapons. Strategic thinking has since clarified into restricting war zones to conventional weapons only and not using nukes. Or at least not being the first to use nukes. The British had bought Polaris during this time too, so they had a credible strategic nuclear deterrent.

Don’t really win once nukes are used, could easily escalate into using hundreds if not thousands in a tit for tat action and what do you win anyway, irradiated land and wide scale destruction on both sides so you don’t exactly gain useable territory.

Cymek said:

party_pants said:

ChrispenEvan said:

there weren’t a lot of smart munitions in the early 60s.

Yes. The TSR2 itself was very advanced for its time in the airframe and design. Just that the strategic doctrine was obsolete. It was pretty much aimed at stopping a Soviet land invasion of Europe by using small nuclear weapons as part of the mix of weapons. Strategic thinking has since clarified into restricting war zones to conventional weapons only and not using nukes. Or at least not being the first to use nukes. The British had bought Polaris during this time too, so they had a credible strategic nuclear deterrent.

Don’t really win once nukes are used, could easily escalate into using hundreds if not thousands in a tit for tat action and what do you win anyway, irradiated land and wide scale destruction on both sides so you don’t exactly gain useable territory.

Yeah. That’s exactly why the idea got dropped.

If both sides have plenty of nukes both large and small you’d be better not starting the process. If you drop one or two small nukes on your enemy, you invite them to retaliate with more and/or larger nukes. It all escalates quickly after that.

party_pants said:

Cymek said:

party_pants said:

Yes. The TSR2 itself was very advanced for its time in the airframe and design. Just that the strategic doctrine was obsolete. It was pretty much aimed at stopping a Soviet land invasion of Europe by using small nuclear weapons as part of the mix of weapons. Strategic thinking has since clarified into restricting war zones to conventional weapons only and not using nukes. Or at least not being the first to use nukes. The British had bought Polaris during this time too, so they had a credible strategic nuclear deterrent.

Don’t really win once nukes are used, could easily escalate into using hundreds if not thousands in a tit for tat action and what do you win anyway, irradiated land and wide scale destruction on both sides so you don’t exactly gain useable territory.

Yeah. That’s exactly why the idea got dropped.

If both sides have plenty of nukes both large and small you’d be better not starting the process. If you drop one or two small nukes on your enemy, you invite them to retaliate with more and/or larger nukes. It all escalates quickly after that.

that was also one of the original roles of the F-111.

mollwollfumble said:

I’ve been trying to decide … The French make nuclear submarines, don’t they? With a 48 MW nuclear reactor.

Yes … ALL the French submarines are nuclear. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_submarines_of_France

Oh, now I understand the name “attack”. Nuclear submarines come in only two gneres: ballistic missile submarines and attack submarines. We don’t want a ballistic missile submarine.

The French have a tendency to make great military gardware. The Eurofighter typhoon and the Tigre helicopter come toi mind. Compact, relatively small, made on a budget but good quality. Compared to many other nations, the French are honest.

The US on the other hand are a nation of grifters, and have a tendency to polish shit – looks great on paper and fails in the field. Remember the F-111 aircraft we bought form the US, looked great on paper but the wings fell off. We, the Australians, fixed the F-111, but US technological flaws are not usually that easy to fix.

The Eurofighter Typhoon is not French. It is a multinational effort between Germany, Italy, Spain and UK. The French had a look at it in the early stages but pulled out and developed the Dassault Rafale instead.

The Tiger/Tigre helicopter is another multinational effort. But is reportedly a bit on the crap side. Australia are already ordering US Apache helicopters to replace them, expected to be in service by 2026.

ChrispenEvan said:

party_pants said:

Cymek said:

Don’t really win once nukes are used, could easily escalate into using hundreds if not thousands in a tit for tat action and what do you win anyway, irradiated land and wide scale destruction on both sides so you don’t exactly gain useable territory.

Yeah. That’s exactly why the idea got dropped.

If both sides have plenty of nukes both large and small you’d be better not starting the process. If you drop one or two small nukes on your enemy, you invite them to retaliate with more and/or larger nukes. It all escalates quickly after that.

that was also one of the original roles of the F-111.

That’s a whole ‘nother story. The F111 was supposed to be an all-singing all-dancing fighter and bomber capable of doing many different things, one common type for both the Navy and the Airforce. It was the first “multirole” aircraft, also well ahead of its time. In the end it turned out to be quite bad as a fighter but reasonably good as a bomber. True multiroles didn’t emerge until a decade or two later.

ChrispenEvan said:

party_pants said:

Cymek said:

Don’t really win once nukes are used, could easily escalate into using hundreds if not thousands in a tit for tat action and what do you win anyway, irradiated land and wide scale destruction on both sides so you don’t exactly gain useable territory.

Yeah. That’s exactly why the idea got dropped.

If both sides have plenty of nukes both large and small you’d be better not starting the process. If you drop one or two small nukes on your enemy, you invite them to retaliate with more and/or larger nukes. It all escalates quickly after that.

that was also one of the original roles of the F-111.

And the nuclear war in Europe would also have involved the misuse of chickens. No-one thinks of the chickens in nuclear war.
Bok Bok Bok

Spiny Norman said:

ChrispenEvan said:

party_pants said:

Yeah. That’s exactly why the idea got dropped.

If both sides have plenty of nukes both large and small you’d be better not starting the process. If you drop one or two small nukes on your enemy, you invite them to retaliate with more and/or larger nukes. It all escalates quickly after that.

that was also one of the original roles of the F-111.

And the nuclear war in Europe would also have involved the misuse of chickens. No-one thinks of the chickens in nuclear war.
Bok Bok Bok

Holy heck!

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-09-18/france-withdraws-ambassadors-over-submarines-deal/100473106

Bubblecar said:

We need nuclear submarines like a hole in the head.

Actually they fit the bill exactly for what we need.

Obviousman said:

Bubblecar said:

We need nuclear submarines like a hole in the head.

Actually they fit the bill exactly for what we need.

The only problem with the decision is that it wasn’t made 10-15 years ago.

Obviousman said:

Bubblecar said:

We need nuclear submarines like a hole in the head.

Actually they fit the bill exactly for what we need.

The nuclear is only for propulsion. They aren’t boomers.

captain_spalding said:

Obviousman said:

Bubblecar said:

We need nuclear submarines like a hole in the head.

Actually they fit the bill exactly for what we need.

The only problem with the decision is that it wasn’t made 10-15 years ago.

Now only if we could get some of them reactors onto dry land and get rid of fossil fuel powered electricity generators…

furious said:

captain_spalding said:

Obviousman said:

Actually they fit the bill exactly for what we need.

The only problem with the decision is that it wasn’t made 10-15 years ago.

Now only if we could get some of them reactors onto dry land and get rid of fossil fuel powered electricity generators…

We have an agent provocateur in our midst.

Tamb said:

Obviousman said:

Bubblecar said:

We need nuclear submarines like a hole in the head.

Actually they fit the bill exactly for what we need.

The nuclear is only for propulsion. They aren’t boomers.

OK.

Dark Orange said:

Tamb said:

Obviousman said:

Actually they fit the bill exactly for what we need.

The nuclear is only for propulsion. They aren’t boomers.

OK.

According to the Greens this decision has turned every major Australian city into a potential Chernobyl and we’ll all be rooned.

Peak Warming Man said:

According to the Greens this decision has turned every major Australian city into a potential Chernobyl and we’ll all be rooned.

HMAS Stirling is about a 15 minute drive from my house. I’m cool with it. Supposedly this is where they are going to be based.

captain_spalding said:

Obviousman said:

Bubblecar said:

We need nuclear submarines like a hole in the head.

Actually they fit the bill exactly for what we need.

The only problem with the decision is that it wasn’t made 10-15 years ago.

Correct.

I do feel a bit sorry for the French though.

Such a bizarre cycle. We insisted on a conventional sub. We took a French design for a nuclear sub and tried make it into a conventional one. Now we’re saying it won’t be any good, let’s go with a nuclear design.

Some people are saying the French offered us the option at the time of a nuclear boat, but without the nuclear fuel. We’d have to organise that bit ourselves. We said no to that offer at the time because we had no way of making it ourselves.

Tamb said:

Obviousman said:

Bubblecar said:

We need nuclear submarines like a hole in the head.

Actually they fit the bill exactly for what we need.

The nuclear is only for propulsion. They aren’t boomers.

But we don’t need SSBNs.

>>I do feel a bit sorry for the French

stops reading

party_pants said:

I do feel a bit sorry for the French though.

Such a bizarre cycle. We insisted on a conventional sub. We took a French design for a nuclear sub and tried make it into a conventional one. Now we’re saying it won’t be any good, let’s go with a nuclear design.

Some people are saying the French offered us the option at the time of a nuclear boat, but without the nuclear fuel. We’d have to organise that bit ourselves. We said no to that offer at the time because we had no way of making it ourselves.

Well, if the batteries weren’t included they can’t complain that we went out and got one where they are included…

Peak Warming Man said:

>>I do feel a bit sorry for the French

stops reading

Exactly. We were being screwed by them, and they complain when we cancel?

Obviousman said:

Peak Warming Man said:

>>I do feel a bit sorry for the French

stops reading

Exactly. We were being screwed by them, and they complain when we cancel?

Or were we being difficult clients? Demanding something that doesn’t exist, or isn’t technically feasible.

Obviousman said:

Peak Warming Man said:

>>I do feel a bit sorry for the French

stops reading

Exactly. We were being screwed by them, and they complain when we cancel?

Oh – and I should say by ‘them’ I mean the NAVAL Group and French government, not “the French” in general!

party_pants said:

Obviousman said:

Peak Warming Man said:

>>I do feel a bit sorry for the French

stops reading

Exactly. We were being screwed by them, and they complain when we cancel?

Or were we being difficult clients? Demanding something that doesn’t exist, or isn’t technically feasible.

If that were the case, why did they make a bid? And when they won, why did they not say it was not possible?

party_pants said:

Obviousman said:

Peak Warming Man said:

>>I do feel a bit sorry for the French

stops reading

Exactly. We were being screwed by them, and they complain when we cancel?

Or were we being difficult clients? Demanding something that doesn’t exist, or isn’t technically feasible.

Then they say, sorry we can’t help you, you should try Sam’s down the road, they might have what you’re looking for…

Obviousman said:

Peak Warming Man said:

>>I do feel a bit sorry for the French

stops reading

Exactly. We were being screwed by them, and they complain when we cancel?

There were a lot of problems, not all of them technical. Some were cultural.

An example was that French technicians etc. assigned to the project were astonished to learn that they could not simply piss off for the month of August, which is traditionally the month during which anyone in France who can manage it absents themselves from their job. Even though it was explained to them that (a) it’s not how we do things here and (b) August is winter here, it was still a matter of contention.

captain_spalding said:

Obviousman said:

Peak Warming Man said:

>>I do feel a bit sorry for the French

stops reading

Exactly. We were being screwed by them, and they complain when we cancel?

There were a lot of problems, not all of them technical. Some were cultural.

An example was that French technicians etc. assigned to the project were astonished to learn that they could not simply piss off for the month of August, which is traditionally the month during which anyone in France who can manage it absents themselves from their job. Even though it was explained to them that (a) it’s not how we do things here and (b) August is winter here, it was still a matter of contention.

Apparently September was their last deadline to get the design finalised, nothing was forthcoming.

Peak Warming Man said:

captain_spalding said:

Obviousman said:

Exactly. We were being screwed by them, and they complain when we cancel?

There were a lot of problems, not all of them technical. Some were cultural.

An example was that French technicians etc. assigned to the project were astonished to learn that they could not simply piss off for the month of August, which is traditionally the month during which anyone in France who can manage it absents themselves from their job. Even though it was explained to them that (a) it’s not how we do things here and (b) August is winter here, it was still a matter of contention.

Apparently September was their last deadline to get the design finalised, nothing was forthcoming.

C’est la vie…

ChrispenEvan said:

LOL at periscope.

Peak Warming Man said:

According to the Greens this decision has turned every major Australian city into a potential Chernobyl and we’ll all be rooned.

Mmm here is where the Greens and I part ways

Obviousman said:

Peak Warming Man said:

>>I do feel a bit sorry for the French

stops reading

Exactly. We were being screwed by them, and they complain when we cancel?

Do you have more information on that? My understanding is that they made a bid to produce nuclear powered subs, Australia requested they change up to make them diesel powered, the French spent hundreds of millions of dollars on the redesign, and then Australia pulled the plug.

dv said:

Peak Warming Man said:

According to the Greens this decision has turned every major Australian city into a potential Chernobyl and we’ll all be rooned.

Mmm here is where the Greens and I part ways

I’ve never understood their problem with nuclear power it sounds like the bomb to me.

It wouldn’t be any cheaper to import them from China, or Japan for that matter. From Japan the sub would work beautiffy but would be far far too expensive. China will charge all the market can bear, and then some.

The cheapest place to import a small nuclear sub from would be either a small country such as South Africa or Israel.

Or for a decent size sub from India. But from India it’d run the risk of a 90% failure rate.

Failures in Indian military hardware are accidental. Failures in US bought military hardware are deliberate.

European countries give best quality at a high but reasonable price. And they compete against one another, which helps to keep the price sane.

We could buy nuclear subs from Russia at a better price than either Europe or the US, but they would be slow, heavy, and prone to about a 40% failure rate.

Or we could design and build it ourselves, using an imported reactor from Russia or Europe. Our Australian quality control is better than India and Russia, and is actually as good as the USA. Probably the best option overall, but slow.

PS, the CSIRO people who developed the brilliant submerged arc welding technique for the Collins Class submarines in South Australia were sacked about 15 years ago. I know because an enquiry came through to me on the topic while I was still with CSIRO.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/sep/18/the-nuclear-option-why-has-australia-ditched-the-french-submarine-plan-for-the-aukus-pact

Obviousman said:

party_pants said:

Obviousman said:

Exactly. We were being screwed by them, and they complain when we cancel?

Or were we being difficult clients? Demanding something that doesn’t exist, or isn’t technically feasible.

If that were the case, why did they make a bid? And when they won, why did they not say it was not possible?

Je suis désolé que ce ne soit pas possible.

Trevtaowillgetyounowhere said:

dv said:

Peak Warming Man said:

According to the Greens this decision has turned every major Australian city into a potential Chernobyl and we’ll all be rooned.

Mmm here is where the Greens and I part ways

I’ve never understood their problem with nuclear power it sounds like the bomb to me.

heh

dv said:

Obviousman said:

Peak Warming Man said:

>>I do feel a bit sorry for the French

stops reading

Exactly. We were being screwed by them, and they complain when we cancel?

Do you have more information on that? My understanding is that they made a bid to produce nuclear powered subs, Australia requested they change up to make them diesel powered, the French spent hundreds of millions of dollars on the redesign, and then Australia pulled the plug.

I think the French company got paid hundreds of millions, if not billions, and then Australia pulled the plug. It’s not as if they’re out of pocket.

I mean I don’t know shit about fuck but I’m not sure why there needs to be a separate treaty arrangement for UK, US and Australia. UK and US are already in Nato. Maybe there just needs to be a broad organisation for Western allies.

sibeen said:

dv said:

Obviousman said:

Exactly. We were being screwed by them, and they complain when we cancel?

Do you have more information on that? My understanding is that they made a bid to produce nuclear powered subs, Australia requested they change up to make them diesel powered, the French spent hundreds of millions of dollars on the redesign, and then Australia pulled the plug.

I think the French company got paid hundreds of millions, if not billions, and then Australia pulled the plug. It’s not as if they’re out of pocket.

Can’t we all just get along?

dv said:

I mean I don’t know shit about fuck but I’m not sure why there needs to be a separate treaty arrangement for UK, US and Australia. UK and US are already in Nato. Maybe there just needs to be a broad organisation for Western allies.

I think the separate treaty arrangement is for thew sharing of nuclear reactor technology.

I am not sure why the UK is involved in this, and it is not just a bilateral agreement between US and us.

We’ll all be singing a different tune when the first AUKUS sub, HMAS Acronym, is launched.
If we are still capable of holding a tune that is.

Peak Warming Man said:

We’ll all be singing a different tune when the first AUKUS sub, HMAS Acronym, is launched.
If we are still capable of holding a tune that is.

Wouldn’t it be the AUKUS Acronym?

dv said:

I mean I don’t know shit about fuck but I’m not sure why there needs to be a separate treaty arrangement for UK, US and Australia. UK and US are already in Nato. Maybe there just needs to be a broad organisation for Western allies.

The EU can’t even decide on a common foreign policy so i doubt an even more disparate alliance would come to fruition

Witty Rejoinder said:

dv said:

I mean I don’t know shit about fuck but I’m not sure why there needs to be a separate treaty arrangement for UK, US and Australia. UK and US are already in Nato. Maybe there just needs to be a broad organisation for Western allies.

The EU can’t even decide on a common foreign policy so i doubt an even more disparate alliance would come to fruition

But the EU is not the same as NATO, that’s a different topic. There are European countries in NATO but not the EU and vice versa.

Witty Rejoinder said:

dv said:

I mean I don’t know shit about fuck but I’m not sure why there needs to be a separate treaty arrangement for UK, US and Australia. UK and US are already in Nato. Maybe there just needs to be a broad organisation for Western allies.

The EU can’t even decide on a common foreign policy so i doubt an even more disparate alliance would come to fruition

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/sep/17/aukus-pact-china-us-european-security-nato

That article tries to tease out what some of the ramifications will be for future alliances.

dv said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

dv said:

I mean I don’t know shit about fuck but I’m not sure why there needs to be a separate treaty arrangement for UK, US and Australia. UK and US are already in Nato. Maybe there just needs to be a broad organisation for Western allies.

The EU can’t even decide on a common foreign policy so i doubt an even more disparate alliance would come to fruition

But the EU is not the same as NATO, that’s a different topic. There are European countries in NATO but not the EU and vice versa.

A treaty organisation for the Indo-Pacific would require a degree of military cooperation i can’t see happening. It’s all about Taiwan and i can’t see the Dutch etc committing to defending it from Chinese provocations. Therefore a more nebulous alliance of western democracies would suffer all the faults of the EU when it comes to foreign policy and still leave Taiwan exposed.

Witty Rejoinder said:

dv said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

The EU can’t even decide on a common foreign policy so i doubt an even more disparate alliance would come to fruition

But the EU is not the same as NATO, that’s a different topic. There are European countries in NATO but not the EU and vice versa.

A treaty organisation for the Indo-Pacific would require a degree of military cooperation i can’t see happening. It’s all about Taiwan and i can’t see the Dutch etc committing to defending it from Chinese provocations. Therefore a more nebulous alliance of western democracies would suffer all the faults of the EU when it comes to foreign policy and still leave Taiwan exposed.

I mean the Dutch already got involved in Mali and Somalia and Afghanistan etc… is there some cutoff?

Some indirect reports of “concern” among Europeans that they are being blindsided and that this would have gone over better if they were given a headsup. They found out about the US plans to withdraw from Afghanistan by reading it in the news, they found out about the AUKUS plan by reading in the news…

Witty Rejoinder said:

dv said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

The EU can’t even decide on a common foreign policy so i doubt an even more disparate alliance would come to fruition

But the EU is not the same as NATO, that’s a different topic. There are European countries in NATO but not the EU and vice versa.

A treaty organisation for the Indo-Pacific would require a degree of military cooperation i can’t see happening. It’s all about Taiwan and i can’t see the Dutch etc committing to defending it from Chinese provocations. Therefore a more nebulous alliance of western democracies would suffer all the faults of the EU when it comes to foreign policy and still leave Taiwan exposed.

don’t forget the Asian democracies.

dv said:

Some indirect reports of “concern” among Europeans that they are being blindsided and that this would have gone over better if they were given a headsup. They found out about the US plans to withdraw from Afghanistan by reading it in the news, they found out about the AUKUS plan by reading in the news…

maybe the problem is reading too much news

SCIENCE said:

dv said:

Some indirect reports of “concern” among Europeans that they are being blindsided and that this would have gone over better if they were given a headsup. They found out about the US plans to withdraw from Afghanistan by reading it in the news, they found out about the AUKUS plan by reading in the news…

maybe the problem is reading too much news

That’s definitely my problem

#AUKUS
Mainstream Media running propaganda for PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PuP4jOc4ibo

One of the people on my facebook rants…

>>OK, so the conventional submarines aren’t good enough for 21st Century defence and the France Australia deal is scuttled …
and, the French have just spat-the-dummy saying Australia is an untrustworthy ally …
Consider: how many Australians gave their lives defending France?
The Great War: 1914-1918 …“of the 313,814 soldiers who embarked from Australia, 46,000 died in France and Belgium. About 18,000 have no known grave. there were 152,171 Australians wounded—many soldiers being wounded more than once.”
World War Two: Bomber Command experienced losses of about one in three and more than 4000 Australian aircrew died as a result of their service.
So, Mr. Macron, let us discuss political point scoring … tell me: how many Frenchies gave their lives defending Australia?

sarahs mum said:

One of the people on my facebook rants…

>>OK, so the conventional submarines aren’t good enough for 21st Century defence and the France Australia deal is scuttled …
and, the French have just spat-the-dummy saying Australia is an untrustworthy ally …
Consider: how many Australians gave their lives defending France?
The Great War: 1914-1918 …“of the 313,814 soldiers who embarked from Australia, 46,000 died in France and Belgium. About 18,000 have no known grave. there were 152,171 Australians wounded—many soldiers being wounded more than once.”
World War Two: Bomber Command experienced losses of about one in three and more than 4000 Australian aircrew died as a result of their service.
So, Mr. Macron, let us discuss political point scoring … tell me: how many Frenchies gave their lives defending Australia?

I missed the bit of history where Australia needed defending in the Great War.

sarahs mum said:

One of the people on my facebook rants…

>>OK, so the conventional submarines aren’t good enough for 21st Century defence and the France Australia deal is scuttled …
and, the French have just spat-the-dummy saying Australia is an untrustworthy ally …
Consider: how many Australians gave their lives defending France?
The Great War: 1914-1918 …“of the 313,814 soldiers who embarked from Australia, 46,000 died in France and Belgium. About 18,000 have no known grave. there were 152,171 Australians wounded—many soldiers being wounded more than once.”
World War Two: Bomber Command experienced losses of about one in three and more than 4000 Australian aircrew died as a result of their service.
So, Mr. Macron, let us discuss political point scoring … tell me: how many Frenchies gave their lives defending Australia?

I don’t think that sort of stuff is necessary. The French have lost out on a big contract and they’re quite reasonably upset about it. But it is business. It is in the best interests of the country to cancel the project before it goes completely pear-shaped. It wasn’t working. I am sure will we pay them out for the work done so far. Things will move on.

party_pants said:

sarahs mum said:

One of the people on my facebook rants…

>>OK, so the conventional submarines aren’t good enough for 21st Century defence and the France Australia deal is scuttled …
and, the French have just spat-the-dummy saying Australia is an untrustworthy ally …
Consider: how many Australians gave their lives defending France?
The Great War: 1914-1918 …“of the 313,814 soldiers who embarked from Australia, 46,000 died in France and Belgium. About 18,000 have no known grave. there were 152,171 Australians wounded—many soldiers being wounded more than once.”
World War Two: Bomber Command experienced losses of about one in three and more than 4000 Australian aircrew died as a result of their service.
So, Mr. Macron, let us discuss political point scoring … tell me: how many Frenchies gave their lives defending Australia?

I don’t think that sort of stuff is necessary. The French have lost out on a big contract and they’re quite reasonably upset about it. But it is business. It is in the best interests of the country to cancel the project before it goes completely pear-shaped. It wasn’t working. I am sure will we pay them out for the work done so far. Things will move on.

Yeah. Likely it’s a storm in a teacup. I’m sure we’ll all weather it. Blue skies will come back.

party_pants said:

sarahs mum said:

One of the people on my facebook rants…

>>OK, so the conventional submarines aren’t good enough for 21st Century defence and the France Australia deal is scuttled …
and, the French have just spat-the-dummy saying Australia is an untrustworthy ally …
Consider: how many Australians gave their lives defending France?
The Great War: 1914-1918 …“of the 313,814 soldiers who embarked from Australia, 46,000 died in France and Belgium. About 18,000 have no known grave. there were 152,171 Australians wounded—many soldiers being wounded more than once.”
World War Two: Bomber Command experienced losses of about one in three and more than 4000 Australian aircrew died as a result of their service.
So, Mr. Macron, let us discuss political point scoring … tell me: how many Frenchies gave their lives defending Australia?

I don’t think that sort of stuff is necessary. The French have lost out on a big contract and they’re quite reasonably upset about it. But it is business. It is in the best interests of the country to cancel the project before it goes completely pear-shaped. It wasn’t working. I am sure will we pay them out for the work done so far. Things will move on.

The sooner we all move on from this, the sooner we can deal with Christian Porter.

Dark Orange said:

party_pants said:

sarahs mum said:

One of the people on my facebook rants…

>>OK, so the conventional submarines aren’t good enough for 21st Century defence and the France Australia deal is scuttled …
and, the French have just spat-the-dummy saying Australia is an untrustworthy ally …
Consider: how many Australians gave their lives defending France?
The Great War: 1914-1918 …“of the 313,814 soldiers who embarked from Australia, 46,000 died in France and Belgium. About 18,000 have no known grave. there were 152,171 Australians wounded—many soldiers being wounded more than once.”
World War Two: Bomber Command experienced losses of about one in three and more than 4000 Australian aircrew died as a result of their service.
So, Mr. Macron, let us discuss political point scoring … tell me: how many Frenchies gave their lives defending Australia?

I don’t think that sort of stuff is necessary. The French have lost out on a big contract and they’re quite reasonably upset about it. But it is business. It is in the best interests of the country to cancel the project before it goes completely pear-shaped. It wasn’t working. I am sure will we pay them out for the work done so far. Things will move on.

The sooner we all move on from this, the sooner we can deal with Christian Porter.

Hits nail on head hard.

Dark Orange said:

party_pants said:

sarahs mum said:

One of the people on my facebook rants…

>>OK, so the conventional submarines aren’t good enough for 21st Century defence and the France Australia deal is scuttled …
and, the French have just spat-the-dummy saying Australia is an untrustworthy ally …
Consider: how many Australians gave their lives defending France?
The Great War: 1914-1918 …“of the 313,814 soldiers who embarked from Australia, 46,000 died in France and Belgium. About 18,000 have no known grave. there were 152,171 Australians wounded—many soldiers being wounded more than once.”
World War Two: Bomber Command experienced losses of about one in three and more than 4000 Australian aircrew died as a result of their service.
So, Mr. Macron, let us discuss political point scoring … tell me: how many Frenchies gave their lives defending Australia?

I don’t think that sort of stuff is necessary. The French have lost out on a big contract and they’re quite reasonably upset about it. But it is business. It is in the best interests of the country to cancel the project before it goes completely pear-shaped. It wasn’t working. I am sure will we pay them out for the work done so far. Things will move on.

The sooner we all move on from this, the sooner we can deal with Christian Porter.

Cynic!

Michael V said:

Dark Orange said:

party_pants said:

I don’t think that sort of stuff is necessary. The French have lost out on a big contract and they’re quite reasonably upset about it. But it is business. It is in the best interests of the country to cancel the project before it goes completely pear-shaped. It wasn’t working. I am sure will we pay them out for the work done so far. Things will move on.

The sooner we all move on from this, the sooner we can deal with Christian Porter.

Cynic!

I don’r see why we cannot deal with both.

roughbarked said:

Michael V said:

Dark Orange said:

The sooner we all move on from this, the sooner we can deal with Christian Porter.

Cynic!

I don’r see why we cannot deal with both.

cynicker

SCIENCE said:

roughbarked said:

Michael V said:

Cynic!

I don’r see why we cannot deal with both.

cynicker

Is that a cynical snicker?

Tamb said:

SCIENCE said:

roughbarked said:

I don’r see why we cannot deal with both.

cynicker

Is that a cynical snicker?

abbreviated.

https://theshot.net.au/national/the-morrison-government-will-splash-almost-any-amount-of-cash-on-almost-anything-remotely-to-do-with-killing-people/

The French seem to expressing more anger at the US for forming a military alliance covering the Indo-Pacific region without asking them, than they are about Australia cancelling the submarine contract.

party_pants said:

The French seem to expressing more anger at the US for forming a military alliance covering the Indo-Pacific region without asking them, than they are about Australia cancelling the submarine contract.

so what we’re after is a redo of the 1800s is that right

C’est furieux. Nous sommes absolument consternés. Le ministre doit démissionner et son ambassadeur sera rappelé!!!!

party_pants said:

The French seem to expressing more anger at the US for forming a military alliance covering the Indo-Pacific region without asking them, than they are about Australia cancelling the submarine contract.

yes

SCIENCE said:

party_pants said:

The French seem to expressing more anger at the US for forming a military alliance covering the Indo-Pacific region without asking them, than they are about Australia cancelling the submarine contract.

so what we’re after is a redo of the 1800s is that right

not sure what that means.

I didn’t think the French had much active interest in the Indo-Pacific except as a testing ground for nukes.

party_pants said:

SCIENCE said:

party_pants said:

The French seem to expressing more anger at the US for forming a military alliance covering the Indo-Pacific region without asking them, than they are about Australia cancelling the submarine contract.

so what we’re after is a redo of the 1800s is that right

not sure what that means.

I didn’t think the French had much active interest in the Indo-Pacific except as a testing ground for nukes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chinese_wars_and_battles

We could possibly buy the nuke version of the French Barracuda, but fit it with a US designed reactor. Then get either the US or UK to supply the nuclear fuel.

dv said:

party_pants said:

The French seem to expressing more anger at the US for forming a military alliance covering the Indo-Pacific region without asking them, than they are about Australia cancelling the submarine contract.

yes

On va pas se laisser accuser à cause de salopiots.

What does the Australian submarine deal mean for non-proliferation?
Nuclear subs are fuelled with the same stuff used in bombs

Sep 17th 2021

Only once in its history has America handed over a nuclear submarine propulsion plant, the crown jewels of military technology, to another country. That was 63 years ago when America helped the Royal Navy to go nuclear. Now it will take that dramatic step again. A new trilateral defence pact, aukus, announced on September 15th, will involve far-reaching defence co-operation between America, Australia and Britain. The group’s first initiative, and its most important, will be American and British assistance to Australia in building a fleet of at least eight nuclear-powered submarines. The precise form of assistance will be worked out over the next 18 months; it may involve Britain actually supplying the technology, with America’s blessing and support.

“This technology is extremely sensitive,” acknowledged an American official, speaking anonymously on September 15th. “This is, frankly, an exception to our policy in many respects…We view this as a one-off.” Nuclear-powered subs are sensitive not just because of their range, speed and stealthiness. It is also because they are powered with the same stuff—usually, uranium enriched so that it has a higher proportion of the most fissile isotope, u-235—that is used in bombs.

The Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (npt) forbids signatories who don’t already have a bomb from making one. It also says they must put sensitive nuclear material, like enriched uranium, under international safeguards, monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency (iaea), a watchdog. But the rules have a submarine-shaped loophole. States are allowed to remove nuclear material from safeguards if they are for “a non-proscribed military activity”, such as submarine propulsion. No non-nuclear-armed state has ever tested that loophole—until now.

Australia is unlikely to produce enriched uranium itself; unlike every other state which has operated a nuclear-powered sub, it has neither nuclear weapons nor any nuclear power stations. It is more likely to acquire reactor fuel from another country. Once that fuel is in a working reactor, it becomes too radioactive to use for a bomb. But depending on how aukus is implemented, it might still have fissile material hanging around before then.

Worse still, both America and Britain use highly enriched uranium (heu), essentially weapons-grade, in their subs. It is possible to operate a sub with low-enriched uranium (leu)—both France and China do so—but it has drawbacks, such as larger reactors and more frequent refuelling.

Most non-proliferation advocates are not terribly worried about Australia building a nuke (it once sought one, but ended that pursuit in the 1970s). They are more concerned that the spread of nuclear-submarine technology and fuel for propulsion reactors sets a dangerous precedent that will be exploited by others. Countries that do want nuclear weapons, or simply want to keep the option open, might see submarines as a convenient excuse for making or acquiring bomb-usable heu, out of sight of pesky inspectors.

Iran, whose nuclear programme is the subject of an increasingly tense dispute with the West, has toyed with the idea in the past. South Korea, which faces a North Korean nuclear threat, and where opinion polls show plurality support for building nuclear weapons, has explored nuclear subs off and on since the early 1990s. Brazil is actually building one, the Álvaro Alberto, as part of a partnership with France. “With the new aukus decision, we can now expect the proliferation of very sensitive military nuclear technology in the coming years, with literally tons of new nuclear materials under loose or no international safeguards,” warns Sébastien Philippe of Princeton University, writing for the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, a research group.

Others believe that these concerns are overwrought. “It would be a matter of real non-proliferation concern if we are planning to produce our own fissile material but we are not,” writes Gareth Evans, a former Australian foreign minister, “and I have no doubt that complete safeguards discipline will be maintained.” Mr Evans dismisses the possibility that the move will encourage “problematic behaviour” by others. Ian Stewart, based in Washington, dc, as director of the James Martin Centre for Nonproliferation Studies, says that Australian subs could be fuelled in Britain, with that fuel placed under permanent iaea seal and subject to periodic inspection in a way that would meet both military requirements and the demands of safeguarding.

Even so, nuclear norms are being tested and stretched. Notably, the past 16 years have seen two revolutionary agreements that prioritised geopolitics—namely, balancing against China’s rise—over non-proliferation sensitivities. The first was America’s civil nuclear deal with India in 2005, which came only eight years after India, an npt holdout, had tested nuclear weapons. aukus treads a similar path. After the cold war, much attention was paid to non-proliferation, observes David Santoro of the Pacific Forum, a think-tank. “Now power politics is back in force. Non-proliferation still matters but isn’t the sole consideration anymore”.

https://www.economist.com/international/2021/09/17/what-does-the-australian-submarine-deal-mean-for-non-proliferation?

Witty Rejoinder said:

What does the Australian submarine deal mean for non-proliferation?
Nuclear subs are fuelled with the same stuff used in bombs

Sep 17th 2021

Only once in its history has America handed over a nuclear submarine propulsion plant, the crown jewels of military technology, to another country. That was 63 years ago when America helped the Royal Navy to go nuclear. Now it will take that dramatic step again. A new trilateral defence pact, aukus, announced on September 15th, will involve far-reaching defence co-operation between America, Australia and Britain. The group’s first initiative, and its most important, will be American and British assistance to Australia in building a fleet of at least eight nuclear-powered submarines. The precise form of assistance will be worked out over the next 18 months; it may involve Britain actually supplying the technology, with America’s blessing and support.

“This technology is extremely sensitive,” acknowledged an American official, speaking anonymously on September 15th. “This is, frankly, an exception to our policy in many respects…We view this as a one-off.” Nuclear-powered subs are sensitive not just because of their range, speed and stealthiness. It is also because they are powered with the same stuff—usually, uranium enriched so that it has a higher proportion of the most fissile isotope, u-235—that is used in bombs.

The Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (npt) forbids signatories who don’t already have a bomb from making one. It also says they must put sensitive nuclear material, like enriched uranium, under international safeguards, monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency (iaea), a watchdog. But the rules have a submarine-shaped loophole. States are allowed to remove nuclear material from safeguards if they are for “a non-proscribed military activity”, such as submarine propulsion. No non-nuclear-armed state has ever tested that loophole—until now.

Australia is unlikely to produce enriched uranium itself; unlike every other state which has operated a nuclear-powered sub, it has neither nuclear weapons nor any nuclear power stations. It is more likely to acquire reactor fuel from another country. Once that fuel is in a working reactor, it becomes too radioactive to use for a bomb. But depending on how aukus is implemented, it might still have fissile material hanging around before then.

Worse still, both America and Britain use highly enriched uranium (heu), essentially weapons-grade, in their subs. It is possible to operate a sub with low-enriched uranium (leu)—both France and China do so—but it has drawbacks, such as larger reactors and more frequent refuelling.

Most non-proliferation advocates are not terribly worried about Australia building a nuke (it once sought one, but ended that pursuit in the 1970s). They are more concerned that the spread of nuclear-submarine technology and fuel for propulsion reactors sets a dangerous precedent that will be exploited by others. Countries that do want nuclear weapons, or simply want to keep the option open, might see submarines as a convenient excuse for making or acquiring bomb-usable heu, out of sight of pesky inspectors.

Iran, whose nuclear programme is the subject of an increasingly tense dispute with the West, has toyed with the idea in the past. South Korea, which faces a North Korean nuclear threat, and where opinion polls show plurality support for building nuclear weapons, has explored nuclear subs off and on since the early 1990s. Brazil is actually building one, the Álvaro Alberto, as part of a partnership with France. “With the new aukus decision, we can now expect the proliferation of very sensitive military nuclear technology in the coming years, with literally tons of new nuclear materials under loose or no international safeguards,” warns Sébastien Philippe of Princeton University, writing for the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, a research group.

Others believe that these concerns are overwrought. “It would be a matter of real non-proliferation concern if we are planning to produce our own fissile material but we are not,” writes Gareth Evans, a former Australian foreign minister, “and I have no doubt that complete safeguards discipline will be maintained.” Mr Evans dismisses the possibility that the move will encourage “problematic behaviour” by others. Ian Stewart, based in Washington, dc, as director of the James Martin Centre for Nonproliferation Studies, says that Australian subs could be fuelled in Britain, with that fuel placed under permanent iaea seal and subject to periodic inspection in a way that would meet both military requirements and the demands of safeguarding.

Even so, nuclear norms are being tested and stretched. Notably, the past 16 years have seen two revolutionary agreements that prioritised geopolitics—namely, balancing against China’s rise—over non-proliferation sensitivities. The first was America’s civil nuclear deal with India in 2005, which came only eight years after India, an npt holdout, had tested nuclear weapons. aukus treads a similar path. After the cold war, much attention was paid to non-proliferation, observes David Santoro of the Pacific Forum, a think-tank. “Now power politics is back in force. Non-proliferation still matters but isn’t the sole consideration anymore”.

https://www.economist.com/international/2021/09/17/what-does-the-australian-submarine-deal-mean-for-non-proliferation?

The Economist talks sense (at least on this occasion).

dv said:

party_pants said:

The French seem to expressing more anger at the US for forming a military alliance covering the Indo-Pacific region without asking them, than they are about Australia cancelling the submarine contract.

yes

the maneuver of the three countries involve a strategic surprise, a message things can be done in a hurry and unexpectedly without the slow grind of democracy when needed, money can be made from it, trading privileges got, at the expense of a nationalist foe

the UK and US will be wanting to do more stuff out here, that’s large part of the big share, which has been in the air for a while now

largely it’s been the evident creeping territorial expansion of the nationalist example that has triggered the security concern, inclined it to another level

I was thinking that when international travel returns we still might not be able to have the enjoyment of looking down on Darwin from 30,00 feet in a first class cabin on a Dreamliner on your way to Paris while sipping champagne. They may make it hard to get visa now.

Peak Warming Man said:

I was thinking that when international travel returns we still might not be able to have the enjoyment of looking down on Darwin from 30,00 feet in a first class cabin on a Dreamliner on your way to Paris while sipping champagne. They may make it hard to get visa now.

Just go to the UK, then to Dover, and hitch a ride on an illegal-migrant boat.

Plenty of them travelling empty back to France.

ABC News:

‘Defence Minister Peter Dutton has defended Australia’s handling of a multi-billion-dollar submarine contract with France, describing his government as “upfront, open and honest” about its concerns with the deal.’

Well, there you go, there’s the definitive answer.

Peter Dutton says it was “upfront, open and honest”.

Which means that the French ambassador was right, it was a total under-handed cock-up.

captain_spalding said:

ABC News:

‘Defence Minister Peter Dutton has defended Australia’s handling of a multi-billion-dollar submarine contract with France, describing his government as “upfront, open and honest” about its concerns with the deal.’

Well, there you go, there’s the definitive answer.

Peter Dutton says it was “upfront, open and honest”.

Which means that the French ambassador was right, it was a total under-handed cock-up.

It probably hasn’t been handled as well as it could have been. Probably because they got the British involved.

captain_spalding said:

ABC News:

‘Defence Minister Peter Dutton has defended Australia’s handling of a multi-billion-dollar submarine contract with France, describing his government as “upfront, open and honest” about its concerns with the deal.’

Well, there you go, there’s the definitive answer.

Peter Dutton says it was “upfront, open and honest”.

Which means that the French ambassador was right, it was a total under-handed cock-up.

He’s the worst copper since Ea-Nasir’s day

dv said:

captain_spalding said:

ABC News:

‘Defence Minister Peter Dutton has defended Australia’s handling of a multi-billion-dollar submarine contract with France, describing his government as “upfront, open and honest” about its concerns with the deal.’

Well, there you go, there’s the definitive answer.

Peter Dutton says it was “upfront, open and honest”.

Which means that the French ambassador was right, it was a total under-handed cock-up.

He’s the worst copper since Ea-Nasir’s day

LOLOLOLOL

Why are the Brits involved in this? Do we expect to get the fuel rods from them or something?

buffy said:

Why are the Brits involved in this? Do we expect to get the fuel rods from them or something?

Dunno. I am puzzled by this as much as anyone.

Anyone remember what happen last time the French got pissed off about a vessel in Australasia? I’m not much of a history buff.

dv said:

Anyone remember what happen last time the French got pissed off about a vessel in Australasia? I’m not much of a history buff.

rainbow warrior.

ChrispenEvan said:

dv said:

Anyone remember what happen last time the French got pissed off about a vessel in Australasia? I’m not much of a history buff.

rainbow warrior.

The French would have to wait until the subs are built before they could sneak around to blow one up.

I’d call that ‘playing a long game’.

ABC News:

‘I don’t regret the decision’: Morrison says he tried calling Macron before pulling out of submarine contract’.

I think that he meant ‘Non, je ne regrette rien’

If Edith Piaf was ‘The Sparrow’, then i’ll now think of ScoMo as ‘The Galah’.

• then i’ll now think of ScoMo as ‘The Galah’.

What, only now?

FWIW the later US nuclear sub reactor power unit is designed to last the life of the sub, so it never needs to be removed for refuelling or replacement.

Youtube

Reading comments about various nations reactions to Australia acquiring nuclear powered submarines.
They are obviously irony impaired and/or blissfully unaware what they say comes across as comically considering how they act

Cymek said:

Reading comments about various nations reactions to Australia acquiring nuclear powered submarines.
They are obviously irony impaired and/or blissfully unaware what they say comes across as comically considering how they act

How who acts?

Witty Rejoinder said:

Cymek said:

Reading comments about various nations reactions to Australia acquiring nuclear powered submarines.
They are obviously irony impaired and/or blissfully unaware what they say comes across as comically considering how they act

How who acts?

The nations annoyed at us, saying it will cause an arms race when they themselves are hugely increasing military strength.
It remind me of certain nation wanting to acquire nuclear weapons, sanctioned for it by nations they have thousands of them and are intending to build more sophisticated one

Cymek said:

Reading comments about various nations reactions to Australia acquiring nuclear powered submarines.
They are obviously irony impaired and/or blissfully unaware what they say comes across as comically considering how they act

What they really don’t like about the idea is the increased capability it would give to the RAN. It upsets their calculations somewhat.

With diesel/electric boats, it’s not that hard to work out where they’re operating. They’re going to need some sort of support facilities. They’re going to have to re-fuel, and that requires arrangements for ports to accept and supply them not too terribly far from their operating areas, or they’re going to need replenishment at sea, which needs deployment of suitable support vessels, which aren’t frightfully hard to monitor.

With SSNs, the world is your oyster. Highly independent operations, could pop up anywhere – South China Sea, maybe, or off the coast of North Korea, without any prior clues.

It complicates one’s considerations to some degree.

captain_spalding said:

Cymek said:

Reading comments about various nations reactions to Australia acquiring nuclear powered submarines.
They are obviously irony impaired and/or blissfully unaware what they say comes across as comically considering how they act

What they really don’t like about the idea is the increased capability it would give to the RAN. It upsets their calculations somewhat.

With diesel/electric boats, it’s not that hard to work out where they’re operating. They’re going to need some sort of support facilities. They’re going to have to re-fuel, and that requires arrangements for ports to accept and supply them not too terribly far from their operating areas, or they’re going to need replenishment at sea, which needs deployment of suitable support vessels, which aren’t frightfully hard to monitor.

With SSNs, the world is your oyster. Highly independent operations, could pop up anywhere – South China Sea, maybe, or off the coast of North Korea, without any prior clues.

It complicates one’s considerations to some degree.

i’ve wondered a couple of times how in the modern age with so much (news especially, but limited to) communications how a war would work, to great extent all the news being out there actually prevents a war (in ways), but in the case there were a conflict you couldn’t have, for example, the ABC reporting everything that happens, or even speculating about it

so it’s hardly surprising things might gravitate toward super stealth, under the sea

transition said:

captain_spalding said:

Cymek said:

Reading comments about various nations reactions to Australia acquiring nuclear powered submarines.
They are obviously irony impaired and/or blissfully unaware what they say comes across as comically considering how they act

What they really don’t like about the idea is the increased capability it would give to the RAN. It upsets their calculations somewhat.

With diesel/electric boats, it’s not that hard to work out where they’re operating. They’re going to need some sort of support facilities. They’re going to have to re-fuel, and that requires arrangements for ports to accept and supply them not too terribly far from their operating areas, or they’re going to need replenishment at sea, which needs deployment of suitable support vessels, which aren’t frightfully hard to monitor.

With SSNs, the world is your oyster. Highly independent operations, could pop up anywhere – South China Sea, maybe, or off the coast of North Korea, without any prior clues.

It complicates one’s considerations to some degree.

i’ve wondered a couple of times how in the modern age with so much (news especially, but limited to) communications how a war would work, to great extent all the news being out there actually prevents a war (in ways), but in the case there were a conflict you couldn’t have, for example, the ABC reporting everything that happens, or even speculating about it

so it’s hardly surprising things might gravitate toward super stealth, under the sea

(news especially, but limited to)

but not limited to, that ought’ve been writ

transition said:

captain_spalding said:

Cymek said:

Reading comments about various nations reactions to Australia acquiring nuclear powered submarines.
They are obviously irony impaired and/or blissfully unaware what they say comes across as comically considering how they act

What they really don’t like about the idea is the increased capability it would give to the RAN. It upsets their calculations somewhat.

With diesel/electric boats, it’s not that hard to work out where they’re operating. They’re going to need some sort of support facilities. They’re going to have to re-fuel, and that requires arrangements for ports to accept and supply them not too terribly far from their operating areas, or they’re going to need replenishment at sea, which needs deployment of suitable support vessels, which aren’t frightfully hard to monitor.

With SSNs, the world is your oyster. Highly independent operations, could pop up anywhere – South China Sea, maybe, or off the coast of North Korea, without any prior clues.

It complicates one’s considerations to some degree.

i’ve wondered a couple of times how in the modern age with so much (news especially, but limited to) communications how a war would work, to great extent all the news being out there actually prevents a war (in ways), but in the case there were a conflict you couldn’t have, for example, the ABC reporting everything that happens, or even speculating about it

so it’s hardly surprising things might gravitate toward super stealth, under the sea

I am sure there is a big difference between what you see happening on the media, and what is actually happening.

Dark Orange said:

transition said:

captain_spalding said:

What they really don’t like about the idea is the increased capability it would give to the RAN. It upsets their calculations somewhat.

With diesel/electric boats, it’s not that hard to work out where they’re operating. They’re going to need some sort of support facilities. They’re going to have to re-fuel, and that requires arrangements for ports to accept and supply them not too terribly far from their operating areas, or they’re going to need replenishment at sea, which needs deployment of suitable support vessels, which aren’t frightfully hard to monitor.

With SSNs, the world is your oyster. Highly independent operations, could pop up anywhere – South China Sea, maybe, or off the coast of North Korea, without any prior clues.

It complicates one’s considerations to some degree.

i’ve wondered a couple of times how in the modern age with so much (news especially, but limited to) communications how a war would work, to great extent all the news being out there actually prevents a war (in ways), but in the case there were a conflict you couldn’t have, for example, the ABC reporting everything that happens, or even speculating about it

so it’s hardly surprising things might gravitate toward super stealth, under the sea

I am sure there is a big difference between what you see happening on the media, and what is actually happening.

of course there is

still it’s difficult for example to hide the origins of land based missile (or even sea launched from a boat), but from a submarine the origin is made more difficult to determine because the launcher is mobile, can submerge, largely remain hidden, and there could be the added advantage of the enemy not knowing from whose vehicle it originated (country associated)

I guess someone will abbreviate possibly US, or UK, or Australian in the tactical analysis computer, abbreviate it anglo maybe, with whatever symbol for onscreen display

anyway, i’m humoring myself, I was more pondering how with all the terrestrial communications in the world things might gravitate to a battle under the sea, or from the sea, satellites and submarines possibly, stuff up really high, and stuff down really low

Dark Orange said:

I am sure there is a big difference between what you see happening on the media, and what is actually happening.

I think that you’ve come up with a one-sentence explanation of ‘government’ there.