By the time Australia is buying more subs it'll be ~2035+ and the US might be able to offer slots in SSN(X)'s production like they're offering Australia now for Block V Virginia boats.
they literally had to call electric boat to come in and help design/build them, im not sure there is much secret there. american subs are meant to be multi-role with a much larger offensive capability with excellent hunter-killer capabilities. astutes are meant to be almost solely excellent hunter killer subs with a limited tomahawk capability. the virginias have VLS cells fitted with anti ship missiles and tomahawks and eventually hypersonic missiles. brit subs are shaped that way for a reason as are virginia subs. no one who knows is going to tell you the actual advantage or reason for that.
Called in to help with time consuming CAD work to prepare designs for the manufacturing process, they weren't doing any design work in the way you portray it.
Imagine designing some furniture then having to take that design and make the flat pack plans and build process. Except its not some furniture, its a colossal submarine with hundreds of millions of parts. If you want to outsource help to speed the process up you can't just call a regular company due to the security concerns.
Also worth noting that this process was pretty new at the time, the last boat (vanguard) was designed in the late 80's and early 90's, computers were involved with to a far smaller degree.
That's great, and SSN(R) likely isn't exactly what Australia wants, so what is your point? Any Australia-specific design is still going to take thousands of man-hours in design time and will likely require the UK to finish their design first to show Australia what's on the table to then make the changes they want, which would take years since as you said, the UK only just started in 2021. Or bring them into the design process early and devote a lot of time to designing two concurrent sub designs. which it's still early enough to do, but would likely increase the timetable on the UKs sub or piss Australia off by not giving them any design considerations at all and just straight handing them the UK-SSN(R) and saying deal with it.
it's far closer to what Australia wants than a fuck huge SSN larping as a SSGN with a large crew requirement and compromised shallow water performance.
>and will likely require the UK to finish their design first to show Australia what's on the table
nope.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
you don't even know what SSN(X) is going to be.
Also we don't even know what SSN(R) is going to be either. You're basically just comparing Astute to Virginia-class now and I don't really see why you're throwing such a hissy fit over it.
If you wanna get down to brass tacks the Virginia-class boats are obviously looking to cover the SSGN gap with the VPM in Block V boats, but I don't see how that makes them bad boats, hyerpsonic missiles and tomahawks that you can launch whenever you want? Yes please. The Astutes have to fire tomahawks from their torpedo tubes which is great versatility and cuts down on overall size since you're no longer using VLS, but you lose the ability to launch a massive wave of missiles (since you have limited torpedo tubes and have to keep loading more tomhawks which takes time).
But again, none of this has anything to do with the new classes that will be available to Australia in the late 2030s and early 2040s.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>I don't really see why you're throwing such a hissy fit over it.
You're the one pretending the deal isn't done, i'm reminding you of reality.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Lol it's something that is still years away, the only thing "done" for now is the US sale of Viriginia-class for the near-future coverage. Long term Australia may very well end up with SSN(R) or a derivative of it, but I'd hardly say THAT is a done deal just yet even if there are promises written on paper.
Remember the french subs were a done deal too until they weren't.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Lol it's something that is still years away,
It's roadmap that's literally just been agreed with a three way international agreement and you're trying to re-write it already. You don't back out of the tech sharing that Australia has just been welcomed to,
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Not only that, but buying VAs off the shelf (not that you can do it anyway, there's no room in the yards for extra orders), but it would be political suicide. The pork barrel is real as it is in America. There needs to be jobs created from this, and buying VAs won't do that.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
I'm not suggesting buying more virginia's I'm suggesting buying SSN(X) over SSN(R)
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Again, i'm not suggesting they back out of the agreement, I'm suggesting they prefer SSN(X) over SSN(R) and ask the US to either sell SSN(X) or give them the ability to domestically produce it instead of buying SSN(R) and getting the ability to build SSN(R) domestically.
I'm not suggesting Australia leave AUKUS or Australia just buy more Virginias.
Have you looked at the build schedule? How on earth can you be suggesting this? There's no room in the US yards. We don't have the people to lend. It doesn't make any sense, you can't expect the Australians to work with the British to build their submarine industrial base for nearly two decade, to only switch it? It doesn't work like that at all!
You are changing the agreement -- all three have agreed to use the SSN(R) as the basis for AUKUS. There would be massively political fallout to this.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Where are we finding the slips for 3 Block V Virginia-class boats for Australia then? How can we spare those but not slips for a future SSN(X)
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Can you please point to me where they mention these are new builds?
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/press-briefings/2023/03/13/background-press-call-by-senior-administration-officials-on-the-aukus-announcement/
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
The US is still running 26 LA-class boats, you're telling me we can afford to give away 3-5 of our CURRENT Virginia-class fleet?
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
That's what the USN saying, yes.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Wouldn't it be more likely that the US is expanding their sub production capability since they've been riding the redline on their sub production capacity for years as it is. They could use more sub building capacity, Australia also needs subs, seems like an easy win win.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
No, because they would have mentioned this. There's zero reason something like that would be kept under wraps.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Australia is literally investing a billion USD into expanding US submarine shipyards as a part of this deal.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
No, because they would have mentioned this. There's zero reason something like that would be kept under wraps.
so which is it?
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
He's misrepresenting it. They're invest in both, but again, there's zero reason to keep Australians are going to "switch" under wraps. Zero. If they were planning on doing so, they they would have announced so.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
The US isn’t building new subs for Australia. Australia is investing 1blUSD into US shipyards. Australia is buying/leasing virginias and then building their own subs with the UK based on the current ongoing UK development program. Australia will build those subs in Adelaide but there will also be an expansion of maintenance facilities to current ports across Australia, most notably Perth where the USN/RN will base a new sun fleet/deployment and Darwin.
Maybe you should just READ THE FUCKING STATEMENTS YOURSELF
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>There would be massively political fallout to this.
Australia is no stranger to this, at least.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>thinking they can back out after the UK/US divulge nuclear secrets to them >nice country ya got there cunt, shame if it were to become a prison colony again
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Again, i'm not suggesting they back out of the agreement, I'm suggesting they prefer SSN(X) over SSN(R) and ask the US to either sell SSN(X) or give them the ability to domestically produce it instead of buying SSN(R) and getting the ability to build SSN(R) domestically.
I'm not suggesting Australia leave AUKUS or Australia just buy more Virginias.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>I'm suggesting they prefer SSN(X) over SSN(R)
No, you prefer it, but you know fuck all about it so ultimately it's meaningless.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>The French subs were a done deal until they weren't
There's nobody on the planet that can offer a capability uplift from Virginia/SSN(R) in the same way that the Aussies got from going from Suffren to the Virginias.
Equally by sharing US/UK infrastructure, there's no cheaper way of getting into big boy sub game for AUS. & don't give me that 'conventional propulsion is just as good' cope. It's not. AUS needs to be able to submerge off Western Australia, fuck about in the SCS without surfacing until they're off Perth again.
Finally there's nobody that can offer the same backup as the UK/US for defence in the region. There's just no better deal than this for Australia.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Are you stupid? See
Again, i'm not suggesting they back out of the agreement, I'm suggesting they prefer SSN(X) over SSN(R) and ask the US to either sell SSN(X) or give them the ability to domestically produce it instead of buying SSN(R) and getting the ability to build SSN(R) domestically.
I'm not suggesting Australia leave AUKUS or Australia just buy more Virginias.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
I think you are if you think that SSN(X) is going to be different enough to SSN(R) to justify an agreement rewrite of that magnitude.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
> Remember the french subs were a done deal too until they weren't.
Until the French repeatedly broke contractual deadlines*
1 week ago
Anonymous
If the French broke any term of the contract why are Aussies paying penalties? Proving that a contractual deadline was missed shouldn't be hard.
1 week ago
Anonymous
Mostly because the frogs got so butt hurt about it they threatened to throw a hissy fit on anything Australia and the UK/US would be involved in for the next few years, so Australia paid them their bullshit bribe and they shut the fuck up.
1 week ago
Anonymous
It isn’t, and it would be quite easy to look up and find yourself if you were actually interested in the topic. You aren’t though. Paying penalties is cheaper than paying for nothing and doesn’t risk security revelations being necessary to be revealed in court.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
reminder that the French subs weren't cancelled for late fulfillment, but the BACKDOORED ISRAELI SOFTWARE SYSTEMS
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
I'd imagine a huge appealing factor for Australia regarding the Astutes is the crew required. 98 for the Asture vs 132 for Virginia. Australia is hardly crawling with Submariners.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
We don't know crew requirements for SSN(R) or (X) which is what Austrlia would be buying.
Though likely the UK (and Australia) would favor a smaller crew as the US just isn't nearly as hard up on finding qualified submariners.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
It's just a seething bongistani, don't worry about it
Fuck "Australia specific design" - thats why DMO/CASG has become a complete joke and anything not exactly MOTS is years late and dogshit when it finally arrives.
Adelaide will be building a Yank+Brit designed Next-SSN as a commonised USN-RN-RAN Fleet of interchangeable Subs without any 'localised' bullshit.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
This. in the nicest possible way, Australia has very little to bring to the table in terms of technology for this project. What it brings is a desire to learn and money for improving it's defences. The UK and US are by a long way the best in the world at underwater warfare, there is a huge amount of institutional experience and technology developed off the back of more than 100 years of submarine warfare. There are technological and doctrinal mistakes that Russia, China, France and others will be making that Australia can bypass.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
DSTO does a lot of high tier R&D - we did a lot of the work on securing rubber anechoic tiles, and the sonar and guidance for the Mk48Mod7 CBASS but when the uniformed and deskwankers in CASG get hold of design requirements to shape a new project it turns into a nonsensical clusterfuck.
Its going to be enough of a political and union timewasting and inefficiency shitfight building any new subs in Adelaide, even without adding in any local design input. >3 Virginias, plus an option for 2 more - we might actually have to keep buying from US or UK way into the 2040-50s until Osborne finally gets their shit together
You didn't watch the announcement. Australia is being folded into the SSN(R) design process with both the UK & AUS operating the SSN-AUKUS when it gets built. Design considerations are already assuming majority Indo-Pacific use as the UK will be keeping signficant presence down there with China being the main threat to them now that Russia have stuck their dicks in the ukrainian mincer.
The first AUS hull is being built in the UK, with subsequent ones being built in AUS as their shipyard gains the capability to do so.
>https://www.navylookout.com/australia-to-join-royal-navy-ssnr-submarine-programme/#
Thank you for linking that article. Almost nobody in this thread will read it but it is actually really useful and insightful.
Australia is really good at adapting what technology already exists to its own bespoke purposes, it won't take that long, in fact we probably already have designs that we think will work it's just going to be straightening out what's achievable.
Also don't imagine for a second they're getting built in the UK.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Also don't imagine for a second they're getting built in the UK.
Building SSN's requires thousands of nuclear qualified engineers. Australia currently has a couple dozen.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Engineers aren't fabricators. Thank goodness.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
If you include the fabricators, welders and all the dock staff we're easily up to 10,000 people. The thousands i'm walking about are for the full nuclear design, maintenance and refueling chain.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Australia is really good at adapting what technology already exists to its own bespoke purposes
Fuck no Australia isn't. Infact your terrible at it. Examples like NH90 Tiger the shitty French subs that got you in this situation in the first place.
Sit down, shut up and learn maybe in 20 years Australia will get to have an input.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>NH90 Tiger
you mean the one Norway, Belgium and Sweden dumped because they were so shit. lmao keep seething fag
To be built in both UK and Oz, and possibly the US if the Aukus design combines with USN planning and it also becomes the US SSN(X).
2 or 3 dispersed shipyards means RN and USN has an alternate major-repair option in Australia for Pacific Fleet Ops or in a Euro WW3 where B-i-F will be a HVT
This deal is win win for all by the looks of it. Aussies get an entire new industry, massively increased naval capability and indefinite forward deployment of Burger/Bong forces to help protect them. Bongs get big investment into their next generation sub. Allowing them to reduce costs, build more for themselves and increase their own industry. Burgers get to sell kit to equip these subs and will have the option to reduce their own costs by picking the SSN AUKUS as an off the shelf replacement for their current boats.
Then there is just that warm glow of the Aussies finally being able to join in in maintaining Anglo hegemony.
> Burgers get to sell kit to equip these subs and will have the option to reduce their own costs by picking the SSN AUKUS as an off the shelf replacement for their current boats.
Won’t happen, the USN seems to be married to jack of all trades design, SSN(R) is pure hunter killer, like the Astute.
>the USN seems to be married to jack of all trades design
It's almost like it's objectively superior
1 week ago
Anonymous
Yea the downside is increased crew and obviously development and construction costs go way up, but the US can afford the monetary increase and the extra crew needed
1 week ago
Anonymous
At what? Certainly not HK missions.
1 week ago
Anonymous
You're wrong. Also, having a boat that only sees real use in a shooting war when subs are the premier recon platform is an utter waste.
US subs are more rounded and can take on a wider range of missions. Bong subs are better as pure hunter killers, due to a smaller crew requirement they are also significantly cheaper to run over service life. Both can only be compared with each other, being miles ahead of any other countries.
1 week ago
Anonymous
>US subs are more rounded >US >More Round
damn burgers, even their subs are fat
Still, the whole original procurement seemed retarded. Let the French redesign a nuclear sub instead of buying an existing SSK and then go "lol, just kidding".
Could have bought nuclear subs years ago, doesn't matter if US, UK or French.
>Could have bought nuclear subs years ago
Gov'ts in the commonwealth, Europe and even parts of the US MIC have been asleep at the wheel since the cold war ended and are finally waking up.
The incidents are occuring in international airspace and it is illegal for ICAO signatory countries to do that.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
It's unsafe? It's a threat of some kind?
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
It's unlawful interference. A plane at cruise altitude will have an assigned altitude and air route by its top level controller and cannot also be expected to comply with random instructions over the radio from a guy claiming to be a warship somewhere below.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
So calls = expectation of compliance in this context?
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
when a warship tells you to do something, i'd argue there is always an expectation of compliance from the side of the warship.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
It doesn't matter what the expectation is, it is illegal to interfere with an aircraft's navigation and communication systems.
>doesn't matter if US, UK or French
Lol, no. US tech is way ahead of the curve. French R&D isn't bad, but just doesn't have the budget to compete with the Americans.
Yeah you guys just had to > checks notes
ah yes, copy our nuclear reactors repeatedly over the decades
S9G isn't the first reactor you copied.
PWR3 for Dreadnaught-class and SSN(R) is basically just the S9G used by the Virginia-class since 2000 but rolls royce threw a union jack somewhere on it.
Meanwhile SSN(X) will probably use a newer S10G or a different design altogether.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Your SSN's perform worse than ours. Meme your way out of that one.
We are both ahead of the curve, the US gives as much as it takes from the UK.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>US does everything it can to stop britain developing its own nuclear tech after ww2, even going so far as to offer american nukes to the uk if the uk stops developing their nuclear tech >pwr1 was entirely british >pwr2 was entirely british >prw3 was based on us design using uk
id say britain is doing well for itself considering how the usa tried to garden gnome them over after ww2.
It's about time. Better late than never I suppose. This will give us the edge that we desperately need.
Still, the whole original procurement seemed retarded. Let the French redesign a nuclear sub instead of buying an existing SSK and then go "lol, just kidding".
Could have bought nuclear subs years ago, doesn't matter if US, UK or French.
There has been a major political shift in Australia in recent years. At the time the French contract was originally negotiated, the Australian Government was completely anti-nuclear, because Cold War-era anti-nuclear hippie hysteria was still popular with the general public. In recent years, with rising energy costs, emerging threats in the region (China, North Korea, etc.) and the safety record of nuclear power, the general public has become far more open to the idea of nuclear energy. it also became painfully clear to the government that it makes no sense to buy diesel-electric submarines in the 21st century.
We are buying 3 Virginias first, with the option of 2 more to cover the expected time blow-out and Union fuckarounds .
The 'SSN-Aukus' Class won't even get started before we get to use the 3-5 Virginias in WW3. >"non-nuclear" weapons
Fuck that, they will gave the same launch-tubes, software and combat systems as the USN Virginias.
USN Virginias will be arming and reloading missiles and torps at Stirling.
We can cross-load US nuke missiles onto the new "HMAS Glass-the-Yellow-Cunts"
Almost two years ago when you guys decided to say "Fuck France" and go with Virginia's, I kept mentioning on PrepHole how this would allow us to give Australia nukes in case of a world war, and everyone said I was retarded for thinking this. Well, here we fucking are.
>Lay out your reasons why you think your government will "give Australia nukes".
I'm not that anon but they sure as fuck would if it was to US advantage, they do it with other NATO nations who aren't even in 5 eyes
>the United States has deployed a limited
number of B-61 nuclear weapons to certain locations in Europe,
which remain under US custody and control
Your own link says you're wrong.
>says US gives nukes to other governments, provides link >link says they remain under US custody and control
Nice one, retard.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>remain under US custody and control
until when? try to use your brain
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>keeps posting
It's time to stop, you already lost.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Fucking always. You’re an idiot. It bears repeating - you’re an idiot
until when? until use in war, which is what the first anon was talking about kek, you utter mongs
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Until when what, dipshit?
US will not just hand over nukes to Australia for Australia to have and use. US has never done it and never will.
You still haven't given any valid reasons why the US would give the Australian government, nuclear weapons, you utter retard.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
So let me get this straight.
You, a retarded retard, thinks the US will let Australia order US nuclear armed bombers to take off and bomb targets with nuclear weapons during a war? You think Australian pilots will fly them or you think American pilots will take Australian orders? Or do you think it’ll be US ballistic missiles launched on Australian orders?
Yes we understand your premise and still think you’re a fuckwit
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>thinks the US will let Australia order US nuclear armed bombers to take off and bomb targets with nuclear weapons during a war?
that is exactly what happens under the NATO agreement, US supplies the weapons and allied nations employ them in line with alliance military CoC.
Until when what, dipshit?
US will not just hand over nukes to Australia for Australia to have and use. US has never done it and never will.
You still haven't given any valid reasons why the US would give the Australian government, nuclear weapons, you utter retard.
>US will not just hand over nukes to Australia for Australia to have and use. US has never done it and never will.
again those agreements already exist for allied use during war, why do you not think the US and AUS could not enter into a similar agreement?
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
That’s literally not true
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
seethe
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>uses nato image >link above states the US has not given custody or control of nukes in europe to any nato member
Seems you're the one retarded and seething
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>link above states the US has not given custody or control of nukes in europe to any nato member
because there isn't a nuclear war yet? holy fuck man, the bombs sit in secure weapons storage on allied bases waiting for the balloon to go up
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>those agreements already exist for allied use during war
No they didn't. US did not hand over nuclear weapons for Allies to use.
Again, you still haven't given any reasons why the US would give nuclear bombs to Australia for Australia's free use.
You have also failed to even mention the US handing over delivery platforms so you can deliver your fantasy nuclear bombs.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Again, you still haven't given any reasons why the US would give nuclear bombs to Australia for Australia's free use.
the only one talking about that is you, the other anon was talking about the US providing nukes IN THE CASE OF A WORLD WAR, which is exactly what happens with NATO, where until the weapons are authorized for use the warheads remain under US control. what do you think this course is for? https://www.natoschool.nato.int/Academics/Resident-Courses/Course-Catalogue/Course-description?ID=12&TabId=155&language=en-US#12aid-aid
honest question are you autistic?
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>link above states the US has not given custody or control of nukes in europe to any nato member
because there isn't a nuclear war yet? holy fuck man, the bombs sit in secure weapons storage on allied bases waiting for the balloon to go up
>the bombs sit in secure weapons storage on allied bases
Yeah, for the US to use when needed, not to just give to other governments like "here, have some nukes too, don't use them on us hehe" >which is exactly what happens with NATO
Wrong, as I've already pointed out. The weapons are not "handed out for use" like lollies, you fucking idiot. >that course link
LOL. You think a one-week course about nuclear surety = "giving nuclear weapons" for a country's "free use". kek you are really fucking retarded and grasping at straws.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Yeah, for the US to use when needed
you're wrong, for fuck sake take a breath you autist, it's literally on wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_sharing
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Again, nowhere in that article, or any other linked, does it state the US freely handing over custody and control (meaning free use) of the nuclear weapons that it has stowed in many countries.
That article pertains to storage of nuclear weapons, and various options other countries have (or had) to be able to deploy those nukes on behalf of US orders.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>does it state the US freely handing over custody and control (meaning free use)
no one claimed that but you
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Jesus, you are so retarded you can't even remember what the whole conversation was about.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>anon claimed having a common platform with US would allow US to provide AUS nukes in a world war >anons sperg out claiming US would never do so >multiple anons prove an agreement for the US to do just that with several NATO nations during war already exists >autistic screeching ensues >thread derailed
1 week ago
Anonymous
>anon claimed having a common platform with US would allow US to provide AUS nukes in a world war
No he didn't. Your first line is wrong so I'm not reading the rest.
He said "I kept mentioning on PrepHole how this would allow us to give Australia nukes in case of a world war".
1 week ago
Anonymous
topkek
Almost two years ago when you guys decided to say "Fuck France" and go with Virginia's, I kept mentioning on PrepHole how this would allow us to give Australia nukes in case of a world war, and everyone said I was retarded for thinking this. Well, here we fucking are.
>I kept mentioning on PrepHole how this would allow us to give Australia nukes in case of a world war
1 week ago
Anonymous
So you admit the US will never give nukes to Australia for Australia to use wherever and whenever it wants to, the same as with NATO, thanks for finally admitting you are retarded.
1 week ago
Anonymous
>for Australia to use wherever and whenever it wants to
no one ever claimed that, why did you assume that would be the case? do you not think that during a world war the US would not provide AUS with nuclear weapons within some kind of alliance if the situation justified it? would you not think there would be significant controls and restrictions on the use of such weapons? are you just arguing for attention?
1 week ago
Anonymous
>why did you assume that would be the case?
Because that was what was being talked about, and clarified over many posts.
"give nukes" is not the same as "store nukes"
1 week ago
Anonymous
>"give nukes" is not the same as "store nukes" the NATO agreement is not about storing nukes for US use, they will be used by begian/dutch/german/italian/turkish forces during war
1 week ago
Anonymous
>they will be used by >they could be deployed by, on behalf of US orders/permission
fixed
Don't you get it?
1 week ago
Anonymous
so do you not think the us would provide weapons to be deployed by australia in a global nuclear war? why are you arguing semantics?
1 week ago
Anonymous
>does the US store nukes in other countries
Yes. >does the US let those countries decide when and where to use them
No. >so are those nukes given to those countries or are they still in US custody and control?
Still in US custody and control. >so those nukes aren't actually given to those countries?
Correct. >do those countries even have the ability to deploy those nukes, if asked to by the US?
Some do.
>why are you arguing semantics?
Can you see it now that I've broken it down for your small brain? It's a major difference and not semantics.
1 week ago
Anonymous
>It's a major difference and not semantics.
no, you're arguing semantics in bad faith and picking fly shit out of pepper to avoid being wrong. if you don't want to call the Italian air force dropping us bombs "giving them nukes" you're just being an autist
1 week ago
Anonymous
Incorrect. It is you that is arguing in bad faith and deliberately attempting to mislead people by essentially saying the US hands out nukes like lollies and countries can do whatever they want with them, when they can't. >Italian air force dropping US bombs "giving them nukes"
Actually, after the removal of Jupiter missiles from service in 1963, remaining US nuclear weapons in Italy are for use from US stealth bombers, so no, the Italian Air Force won't be "dropping US bombs".
Keep replying, dumb fuck.
1 week ago
Anonymous
>remaining US nuclear weapons in Italy are for use from US stealth bombers, so no, the Italian Air Force won't be "dropping US bombs".
literally wrong
>The Belgian and Dutch air forces (with F-16 aircraft), as well as the German and Italian air forces (with PA-200 Tornado aircraft), are assigned nuclear strike missions with US nuclear weapons. >https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00963402.2019.1701286
stop posting fagtron
1 week ago
Anonymous
>for the US to use when needed,
Wrong >not to just give to other governments like
That’s literally why they are there.
If you weren’t either trolling or a retarded plebbitor you’d know that Germany is having an absolute headache finding replacement jets for tornado that can carry the necessary nuclear weapons. But you are so you don’t.
1 week ago
Anonymous
>Germany is having an absolute headache finding replacement jets for tornado that can carry the necessary nuclear weapons
Keep up. Germany already chose F35 in March 2022 to replace the Tornado to deliver US B61 nuclear bombs.
You are retarded.
1 week ago
Anonymous
>they recently agreed to a plane once the capability they were looking for was a confirmed upgrade
Thanks for proving me correct, sperg.
1 week ago
Anonymous
If you know nothing of the topic you shouldn't post. Your information was a year old, thanks for proving you are retarded.
1 week ago
Anonymous
>little sperg seethes
Adorable
1 week ago
Anonymous
>Belgium won't be firing US nukes without getting permission from the US on where and when.
Cool, do you have a sauce for that? >What assets do they have?
Planes capable of dropping b61s. They only have one kind so it should be easy enough to figure out.
Why do AUKUS threads attract complete and utter morons? I’m talking about (you) btw
1 week ago
Anonymous
>Adorable
Nice deflection.
1 week ago
Anonymous
You’re arguing with retards who can’t comprehend the nuclear sharing treaties the US already has with Belgium, Netherlands, Germany, Italy and Turkey. Give up, if they can’t comprehend that in times of war fucking Belgium can dole out instant sunshine they won’t understand that the same could potentially happen with Aus. NuPrepHole is even more full of retards, somehow.
1 week ago
Anonymous
To be fair though, is it really Belgium doling out the sunshine or is it actually the US while using a Belgium delivery platform?
Also, does Belgium even have any assets that can deliver a US nuclear weapon onto a target?
1 week ago
Anonymous
Could be either or both. Once control is handed over control is handed over. >Also, does Belgium even have any assets that can deliver a US nuclear weapon onto a target?
Yes, they do.
1 week ago
Anonymous
>Once control is handed over control is handed over.
That just seems like semantics. Belgium won't be firing US nukes without getting permission from the US on where and when. >Yes, they do.
Interesting, I thought Belgium was only a storage location for US nukes. What assets do they have?
1 week ago
Anonymous
>Belgium won't be firing US nukes without getting permission from the US on where and when.
Cool, do you have a sauce for that? >What assets do they have?
Planes capable of dropping b61s. They only have one kind so it should be easy enough to figure out.
1 week ago
Anonymous
>Planes capable of dropping b61s. They only have one kind so it should be easy enough to figure out.
Ah yes, I forgot that the F16A can carry B61s. My bad.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Fucking always. You’re an idiot. It bears repeating - you’re an idiot
You’re a fucking idiot
The US is currently not allowed to keep nuclear armed anything in Australia because of Australian treaty obligations but no few people believe they do and both parties maintain a dont ask don’t tell policy. Australia would not just be “given” nukes, at most nuclear armed subs or bombers would be stationed here under US command, and Australia would NOT be open about this to either the Chinese or the electorate
I thought TLAM-N was taken out of service and was yet to be replaced though, so it's not like we can actually give Australia TLAM-N currently. Maybe if we develop a new one though I guess that would work.
you are silly. if australia wanted nukes at anypoint in its history it couldve made them. If Australia wants nukes in the future it can choose to make them. Australia doesnt need US for nukes, but we do for your submarines god bless
Yes, Chang, we can put a train on a Space-X and use it as a 'Rod from God' to nuke Beijing for shits&giggles.
Doing the glassing from a RAN Nuke Sub will be almost as much fun.
What the fuck?
I just think it's a lot of money
And are these meant to be offensive submarines?
I thought these were meant to be defensively used during an invasion
>defensively used during an invasion
Yeah, if the Chinks try to invade, the answer isnt playing with trains, it's pumping a shitload of missiles into Beijing from under the SCS.
Oh yeah that's true
Not sure what the fuck that other anon is talking about
Do you think it's a good deal for 368 billion?
I assume submarines are the best thing we can have in our current position
$368 billion over 30 years is very cheap for building a whole industry. The fact that it's involving training integration with the undisputed kings of naval warfare, getting in on a Rothschild tier old money agreement for tech transfer and get permanent basing of a bunch of their submarines in WA to defend you for free is the icing on the cake.
It's a bloody good deal.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Only retards who think military investment should be 1 free 2 immediate and 3 capable of defeating a Chinese land invasion of Australia don’t like it. Also Chinese “Australians”
Sadly a lot of normie Aussies are stupid but there’s mostly bipartisan support for this. Only Dutton is trying to fuck it up, because he’s a ghoul, but he got slapped around by his own party for saying British subs are shit >T Aussie
1 week ago
Anonymous
>Dutton is trying to fuck it up, because he’s a ghoul
Dutton is the biggest piece of shit in this whole country. It's remarkable how he unites people of all cultures, creeds and political persuasions in loathing of his potato head. On his last day serving in the QPS several of his co-workers took shits on his desk. There is no bigger sack in the universe and the trolling over Astutes is absolutely typical of him. It is a mystery to me what the LNP were thinking.
1 week ago
Anonymous
>On his last day serving in the QPS several of his co-workers took shits on his desk.
There was probably a queue forming
1 week ago
Anonymous
I hope the shitty fellas at LNP did the same thing when he left
1 week ago
Anonymous
>politicising AUKUS months before the announcement is out
he had one job
1 week ago
Anonymous
All he had to do was say >remember, this was a LIBERAL victory carried out by the former government, Albo is simply tying a bow on it. only liberals can strengthen our defense
And it would have been a rock solid message. At least we know LNP aren’t winning the next election either kek
What the fuck?
I just think it's a lot of money
And are these meant to be offensive submarines?
I thought these were meant to be defensively used during an invasion
>We should be spending it on trains not submarines
I'm a giant train fan/autist but the only way I'd ever support spending $368 billion on trains is if it meant we could get the electrification of Adelaide's suburban network completed in less than a year so that we can send the old 3000-class DMUs into orbit on the first Starship launches and then drop them on Chinese cities
High-speed rail between most of the state capitals isn't economical or realistic unfortunately. I've looked into it and we're hamstrung by the distance between cities being just far enough that planes win every time both in terms of economic cost and travel time, even when accounting for thought experiments such as potential large increases in the cost of aviation fuel.
The ridership is high enough that you can maaaybe just about make a direct link between Sydney and Melbourne work (perhaps via Canberra as the XPT currently does) but the costs would be astronomical. You either replace and upgrade all of the current track or build a whole new purpose-built line that can accomodate genuine high-speed rail (meaning something akin to the Shinkansen, travelling at 250kmh average speed). High-speed rail has very specific tolerances compared to regular rail, which means it isn't just a simple matter of sticking in nice new welded rails with concrete sleepers and buying some fast trains. You need much larger broader curves, milder gradients, entirely new signalling and line management systems.
There's certainly a strong argument to be made for significant improvements and additions to regional, metropolitan, and freight rail systems though.
>electrification of Adelaide's suburban network
what doesnt all of australia have this shit. was it not a national upgrade to the rail networks?
t. uninformed fag
>was it not a national upgrade to the rail networks?
You're thinking of the various projects to standardise rail gauges across the national freight network, which culminated in the broad gauge line between Melbourne and Adelaide being converted to standard gauge in 1995. The Melbourne and Adelaide suburban networks are still broad gauge though, electrification of which is a state issue. Melbourne's metro network has been electrified since the 1920's while Adelaide was the last major city to be all diesel, with the first electric conversion happening in 2013.
https://i.imgur.com/IdmCe8o.jpg
I want a $100B Perth-Darwin-Brisbane connection so you can ride a train all the way around Australia.
Bonus points if they offer a nice upgraded sleeper/bedroom like they do on the trans-canada or orient-express railway trips.
I miss doing long rail trips in a private bedroom, pure kino.
You could increase intercity passenger popularity if sleeper services were more of a thing. The 10+ hour trip on the Overland comes to mind.
1. DC to Baltimore is one of the largest urban aglomerations on the planet with a huge level of ridership to justify the cost. Melbourne to Adelaide would be a point to point service with ridership levels that would likely never cover the initial development costs of a maglev, nevermind the ongoing maintenance.
2. Any kind of train line coming into Adelaide from Melbourne has to tackle the Adelaide Hills, which make it an absolute bugger to get into Adelaide. Pic related is the Belair Line, a 40 minute trip to go 9km as the crow flies.
There's been repeated thoughts about re-extending the line to Mt Barker to take pressure off the South-Eastern Freeway but every time the argument comes down to the fact it'd take somewhere in the region of upwards of 90 minutes to reach Adelaide (not to mention the cost of relaying broad-gauge track, or importing these fancy gauge-switching trains from Spain as has been suggested). Most people would prefer to continue being stuck in traffic jams.
Now imagine trying to build a 500kmh maglev line from Murray Bridge throught the Hills into central Adelaide. The Hills keep going north along the east of Adelaide, becoming the Flinders Ranges.
Because the National Faster Rail Agency said "as of 2022, their cost estimate for the Melbourne-Sydney-Brisbane HSR corridor was between $200 and $300 billion"-wiki
You can see the studies, proposals and releases over the recent decades....there is simply no firm political will to carry out this project.
At most, only small links have political will, but even then it is fleeting, such as Melb-Geelong or Sydney-Newcastle.
>as of 2022, their cost estimate for the Melbourne-Sydney-Brisbane HSR corridor was between $200 and $300 billion
Show me a government infrastructure/transport project that has stayed on budget and I'll show you a cheap bridge I've got for sale in Sydney Harbour
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Show me a government infrastructure/transport project that has stayed on budget
I won't, because there are none. People who think a HSR link between four major capitals will only cost 'tens of billions' are insane. This estimate of 300 billion is the highest and latest and I have no doubt it will only go higher.
They have. They even built our ciry loop alongside Melbourne Central station, but naturally we dropped the ball after a handover because we're fucking retarded.
JR have talked about doing the Melb-Syd for us, but like the other anon said, Planes are convenient for most even if normies are willing to go through security every time. That and QANTAS told everyone to fuck off from their precious little corridoor that could threaten its continued operation.
That and our local government is trying to build some new tunnel/highway infrastructure through the city alongside improving their city loop shitshow.
t. Just came back from a 3 week Jap holiday with a train nerd mate.
1 week ago
Anonymous
Fair, enough. I'm actually a US train anon, that has only ever done US/Canadian rail trips.
1 week ago
Anonymous
Melbourne and Sydney both have good and bad elements to their transit systems. Sydney is suffering right now but a combination of labor putting more money into their budget and the several new upcoming lines will help a lot. Fuck me I hope they actually put some fucking trains in the eastern suburbs though. North Sydney can rot if they want, they seem quite happy letting their slice of CBD slowly wither. Except Chatswood, that station is awesome
>electrification of Adelaide's suburban network
what doesnt all of australia have this shit. was it not a national upgrade to the rail networks?
t. uninformed fag
SSBNs launch SLBM Nukes
Any sub with a standard torpedo tube (including our current Collins Class) can launch an encapsulated Tomahawk cruise missile - which can have a Nuke warhead
First, the production line to produce the torpedo-launched tomahawks is no longer operational.
Beyond that, all nuclear tipped tomahawks were removed from service about a decade ago. There was talk of maybe eventually replacing it with a new warhead design, but AFAIK that hasn't happened yet and there are still no nuclear tipped tomahawks in stocks.
>First, the production line to produce the torpedo-launched tomahawks is no longer operational.
it's a strap on kit and some software. The UK has it done to all weapons they order.
1 week ago
Anonymous
Then I guess navy lookout is wrong.
> The key difference between Astute and SSN(R) is likely to be the inclusion of payload modules for vertical launch of missiles, medium-sized UUVs or seabed sensors. The Tomahawk missiles carried by RN submarines that are launched conventionally via torpedo tubes are no longer being manufactured.
1 week ago
Anonymous
They are wrong yes, the kits can be made to order and have been in the recent pass. You're butthurt so you're trying to invent reasons why Raytheon will turn down money.
1 week ago
Anonymous
nothing i'm seeing supports that
hell, even the Block V upgrade is just modernizing your older Block IV missiles.
> The first Block V missiles are from the existing Tomahawk Block IV inventory, and have been recertified and modernized for fleet use. > The mid-life recertification process replaces life-limited components in Block IV missiles to enable their remaining 15 years of service life, and provides the opportunity for the missiles to receive Block V modernizations. All Block IV missiles will undergo recertification and modernization.
1 week ago
Anonymous
They also AFAIK have only purchased 65 missiles in total in like 30 years.
1 week ago
Anonymous
You're forgetting the part where it needs to be certified and support by the supplier -- which isn't long given the main customer has stopped buying it.
1 week ago
Anonymous
We haven't stopped buying it at all, we're literally in the process of having all our block IV missiles upgraded to block V.
Because the National Faster Rail Agency said "as of 2022, their cost estimate for the Melbourne-Sydney-Brisbane HSR corridor was between $200 and $300 billion"-wiki
You can see the studies, proposals and releases over the recent decades....there is simply no firm political will to carry out this project.
At most, only small links have political will, but even then it is fleeting, such as Melb-Geelong or Sydney-Newcastle.
is it possible to sedate a whale, add mind control electronics to its brain and load it’s stomach full of nukes or explosives? this would allow the Australians to launch endless waves of fully armed whales at the Chinese without putting Australian sailors at risk
Why don't they weaponize salt water crocs. I always thought they had to hang out near the mouths of rivers but now I see they are attacking Great White Sharks.
I doubt they can do it with only 5 years of prep. Realistically they need 10-15 years from 2022 when they started prepping.
That puts them at ~2032-2037 assuming they even decide it's worth it by then seeing that japan will have doubled it's own defence spending by 2027, and the US will have their bases built up in the Philippines by then. Odds are china doesn't do shit to taiwan and bides their time as they always do continue building up and then by the 2040s Australia has it's own domestic SSN building capabilities and years of experience operating virignia-class SSNs and Astute-class SSNs and servicing Astute, Dreadnaught, Virginia, and Columbia classes.
Seems like a decent timeline to me, and even if china DOES decide to roll the dice in 2027, odds are the current US/ROK/JSDF forces in the area can handle things.
>I doubt they can do it with only 5 years of prep.
They’ve been prepping for two decades. The US thinks China’s best chance will be in five years and is therefore hardening Guam.
AUKUS isn't meant for 'Battle of Taiwan', but for WW3-4.
AUKUS is in no way, a deterrent or major usefulness in a war with China, but an alliance-building and cost-saving measure for UK, US and AUS.
Because of the nuclear arms proliferation treaty. Yes it does include reactors for military vehicles. The nuclear subs will have their reactors welded shut so Aussies cannot access them.
Because the Australian electorate is retarded when it comes to nuclear power and the Greens are our third largest party. No government dares to propose anything of the sort.
Its a real shame. Nuclear power would be perfect for us. Not only would it supply cheap power without any greenhouse gas emissions but it would reduce our dependence on the Middle-East and greatly reduce the lead time should we decide to develop nuclear weapons in the future.
Deciding to build our own nuclear weapons now would make us a geopolitical pariah - instead we should be investing in nuclear power plants for civilian power generation and research, a domestic aerospace industry, and subs capable of launching nuclear weapons should we develop them in the future (maybe buy some B-21s too).
Adam Bandt has been seething that Australia hasnr banned new coal and LNG operations. In an ideal world Albo whould do it only if Greens help remove the restrictons on nuclear energy and research for nuclear related shit
>compact >they work >they are silent >they provide the necessary power
But >HURRRR LEU/HEU MUH LIFETIME CORE NO REFUEL
Which shows how shitbrained you are.
US reactors take up to 2 years to complete refueling operations.
French reactors can be refuelled in a matter of months in parallel to periodic maintenance.
Bonus 1: same fuel as civilian reactors.
Bonus 2: French sub commanders have no limits placed on their power usage outside of emergencies due to the fuel having to last for the sub's lifetime.
As in: >pls don't go too fast or we'll have to refuel it or cut its service life short!!
Considering they are late to the table for SMR designs I doubt it.
1 week ago
Anonymous
Modern chink reactors are stolen designs French couldn't use because of germs.
lmao non, Pierre
Yeah, lets close our eyes ignore the second biggest fleet on the planet and biggest companies that service an entire continent 🙂
1 week ago
Anonymous
What does any of that have to do with >the only people that matter for nuclear reactors
Which is about the most retarded thing I've read all day. I'm not hating in France but cmon now lol you know that's a load of crap
1 week ago
Anonymous
The brit isn't bitting I guess.
1 week ago
Anonymous
You guys have the best civil nuclear infrastructure no one could doubt that. But military reactors? You’re at best not the only game in town
1 week ago
Anonymous
>thinks a fleet that can’t project power because of insufficient RAS support is worth anything
Frog delusion is always fascinating to behold.
>French only look out for themselves.
As opposed to...? >There is a reason the West is decoupling from French-lead projects.
Interesting, last time I checked the French created and lead the 2nd most powerful union on the planet but whatever
The French are the biggest bundle of sticks when it comes to assisting with capability development, and regardless of supplier the Aus government will want extensive domestic maintenance and support capabilities developed in Australia.
The French were constantly croissanting Australia on to what extent they were willing to help build domestic capabilities vs entirely relying on French industry.
The negotiations would've dragged on for even longer than time needed for humanity to achieve interstellar travel judging by how slippery these bloody frogs are.
PAL codes allow for an American nuke to sit in a bunker in Italy or Turkey in case of WW3. Two officers have the code(s) to arm and fuze/yield set the devices.
been like this for years. Allows for non nuclear allies to have nuclear bombs pre positioned.
Even in a field as hopelessly retarded as military procurement this deal stands out. Instead of getting proven diesel electric attack subs today, Australia is ordering nuke subs it can't operate for decades from now. The major war with China is happening in the next 5 years so they won't be able to participate.
What are you even talking about?!? Literally every single issue with Australian submarine procurement has been rooted in the fact that we were insistent on procuring diesel subs and demanding nuke sub capabilities.
Going nuclear is literally fixing a decades-old braindead mentality.
I hope we get Virginias in the interim, bespoke nukes coming years/decades late is okay as long as there is an interim in place to get people/industry trained up on nukes.
I we don't get an interim then honestly it's rightful punishment for us being so retarded for so long on nukes.
We’re going to have UK and US subs based here by 2017, and virginias in the early 2030s, and then our own subs after. It’s a good deal that should have been done earlier but we can’t turn back time. The French deal was a mistake motivated by an anti nuclear electorate who shouldn’t be dictating our defense procurement
>It’s a good deal that should have been done earlier
imo this deal wouldve been impossible without all of Brexit, Covid and Chinese trade wars with Aus and US
>Instead of getting proven diesel electric attack subs today >proven
Frogs couldn’t even be bothered to put pen to paper for a design. How can something not even conceived of be “proven”?
Why do morons always try to create divisiveness by suggesting that the RN and the USN steal shit from each other? Are they just thirdies so distrustful of each other that they can’t fathom the existence or purpose of a collaborative alliance?
Britain is America's closest military ally. Americans are the largest user fraction on this website, Brits are the second and you're wondering why anonymous thirdies would want to try and sow division between the two here?
One of the people I contract for used to be a submariner. His EXACT words today were >If we buy that pompous British shit instead of something from a country who actually KNOWS how to fight a war I swear to fucking god
suffice to say he REALLY doesn't like Britain or the monarchy
>SSN(r) has VLS
I remember that being stated last year. Personally I think UUV capabilities would be more worthy of the tonnage. I know there will likely be a compromise and both, but I'm not sold on sub launched VLS systems.
>but I'm not sold on sub launched VLS systems.
Why not?
Seems to have been working fine for the US. Also it allows your torpedo tubes to be dedicated to torpedos, not having to swap between torpedos and missiles depending on the mission.
The VLS cells aren't going to be an effective weapon in peer combat. Their use against ships isn't great compared to their torpedoes, and I feel are more designed around striking land targets. Personally I would rather they get gutted and they dedicate more space for larger UUVs for more high risk strikes.
>Personally I would rather they get gutted and they dedicate more space for larger UUVs for more high risk strikes.
you can have both anon, https://submarinesuppliers.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Virginia-Payload.pdf
1 week ago
Anonymous
https://i.imgur.com/FhFfRm3.png
moron, the VPM which is likely what the VLS module for the SSN(R) is based off of, is literally designed for UUVs OR VLS (Tomahawks or hypersonics)
The last I heard, the only real "issue" with UUVs in the VPMs is they require you to have your UUV vertical, which doesn't work for certain battery types, but updating the systems to Li-ion batteries is not SUPER difficult in most cases.
Fair play, I didn't know about the VPM, but then you are forcing yourself to design around the module.
1 week ago
Anonymous
Shouldn't really be that much of a problem the Astutes are already ~1 meter wider beam than Virignia-class boats. And the Dreadnought-class is expected to be another ~1-1.5m wider beam still, and it's ALSO expected the SSN(R) will be based on the Dreadnought hull to save time at the shipyards allowing common fabrication size across the two classes.
So it really shouldn't be that hard to fit the VPMs if Viringia-class boats can do it, you just need to make your boats longer to accommodate.
The SSN(R) is likely only going to do 2 VPMs anyway, so not a massive 4 VPM setup the Block V Viringia-class boats have. So yeah, it should still be a good ~15-20 meters shorter than a Virignia, and likely similar for SSN(X).
1 week ago
Anonymous
I meant more in the way the UUVs will be limited by the future VPM.
moron, the VPM which is likely what the VLS module for the SSN(R) is based off of, is literally designed for UUVs OR VLS (Tomahawks or hypersonics)
The last I heard, the only real "issue" with UUVs in the VPMs is they require you to have your UUV vertical, which doesn't work for certain battery types, but updating the systems to Li-ion batteries is not SUPER difficult in most cases.
>Indonesia
A bunch of low IQ orangutans who think they're relevant in the international stage. Cute.
Let them side with China so that we can kill the entire male population and take their women. Useless subhumans. No one's going to miss them if they disappeared tomorrow. Everything they do can be easily learned and replicated. Their primitive food, culture, and so on. It'd probably be better for the environment too. There would be no SEA monkeys burning forests and stuff anymore in Borneo.
America only has 68 subs on paper. Half of them are in maintenance hell and haven't been to sea for years and wont go for more years to come. Having more submarines and more importantly more locations to service submarines is massively important. So much so the US is sacrificing these submarine build slots to Australia, because reducing their total submarine fleet size means an easier time working through the backlog but doesn't mean reducing the alliances total number of submarines.
The USN actually expects to INCREASE sub availability by giving Australia 3-5 Virginia-class boats since it helps remove some of the maitanance load, the US also expects to do maintainance in Australia once the infrastructure is built further expanding the number of ports in the world capable of working on these subs.
So yeah, even with the US giving away 5 subs, we actually think it'll result in higher sub availability overall.
So they say
For now they're buying Virginia-class subs until at least the mid 2030s or early 2040s.
At that point Australia might just end up buying more American subs over doing a UK-based designed Australian built sub.
Don't think you understand how long the long lead items for nuclear boats are.
Why can't we just build them in a year or 2?
>At that point Australia might just end up buying more American subs
Why opt for an inferior product?
By the time Australia is buying more subs it'll be ~2035+ and the US might be able to offer slots in SSN(X)'s production like they're offering Australia now for Block V Virginia boats.
I dont think you understand how much tech is shared between the two countries when it comes to the submarine forces.
t.someone from Connecticut....
Fellow knower. GB and US are butt buddies on Navy stuff.
>kept the development of tear drop hulls and their benefits secret
Sneaky brits. But on the whole you are correct.
they literally had to call electric boat to come in and help design/build them, im not sure there is much secret there. american subs are meant to be multi-role with a much larger offensive capability with excellent hunter-killer capabilities. astutes are meant to be almost solely excellent hunter killer subs with a limited tomahawk capability. the virginias have VLS cells fitted with anti ship missiles and tomahawks and eventually hypersonic missiles. brit subs are shaped that way for a reason as are virginia subs. no one who knows is going to tell you the actual advantage or reason for that.
Apart from the small fact a the USN evaluated the effect of the tear drop shape and recently said they would be using that knowledge for SSN(x)
Want to provide a source?
Called in to help with time consuming CAD work to prepare designs for the manufacturing process, they weren't doing any design work in the way you portray it.
Imagine designing some furniture then having to take that design and make the flat pack plans and build process. Except its not some furniture, its a colossal submarine with hundreds of millions of parts. If you want to outsource help to speed the process up you can't just call a regular company due to the security concerns.
Also worth noting that this process was pretty new at the time, the last boat (vanguard) was designed in the late 80's and early 90's, computers were involved with to a far smaller degree.
Eyyy were my Sikorsky bros at.
fellow eb'er. i dont miss the 11 months of miserable weather in CT.
Do you French Kiss your father with that mouth?
>UK-based designed Australian built
To be built in the UK. The UK is doubling the size of it's SSN fleet and that's where the build capacity will come from.
>https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/politics/21690788/rishi-sunak-to-meet-biden/
We'll see, at this point we're likely years away from UK/Australia even talking about a design, let alone actual order timetables or anything.
>at this point we're likely years away from UK/Australia even talking about a design
The UK has been working on SSN(R) since 2021.
That's great, and SSN(R) likely isn't exactly what Australia wants, so what is your point? Any Australia-specific design is still going to take thousands of man-hours in design time and will likely require the UK to finish their design first to show Australia what's on the table to then make the changes they want, which would take years since as you said, the UK only just started in 2021. Or bring them into the design process early and devote a lot of time to designing two concurrent sub designs. which it's still early enough to do, but would likely increase the timetable on the UKs sub or piss Australia off by not giving them any design considerations at all and just straight handing them the UK-SSN(R) and saying deal with it.
>likely isn't exactly what Australia wants
it's far closer to what Australia wants than a fuck huge SSN larping as a SSGN with a large crew requirement and compromised shallow water performance.
>and will likely require the UK to finish their design first to show Australia what's on the table
nope.
you don't even know what SSN(X) is going to be.
Also we don't even know what SSN(R) is going to be either. You're basically just comparing Astute to Virginia-class now and I don't really see why you're throwing such a hissy fit over it.
If you wanna get down to brass tacks the Virginia-class boats are obviously looking to cover the SSGN gap with the VPM in Block V boats, but I don't see how that makes them bad boats, hyerpsonic missiles and tomahawks that you can launch whenever you want? Yes please. The Astutes have to fire tomahawks from their torpedo tubes which is great versatility and cuts down on overall size since you're no longer using VLS, but you lose the ability to launch a massive wave of missiles (since you have limited torpedo tubes and have to keep loading more tomhawks which takes time).
But again, none of this has anything to do with the new classes that will be available to Australia in the late 2030s and early 2040s.
>I don't really see why you're throwing such a hissy fit over it.
You're the one pretending the deal isn't done, i'm reminding you of reality.
Lol it's something that is still years away, the only thing "done" for now is the US sale of Viriginia-class for the near-future coverage. Long term Australia may very well end up with SSN(R) or a derivative of it, but I'd hardly say THAT is a done deal just yet even if there are promises written on paper.
Remember the french subs were a done deal too until they weren't.
>Lol it's something that is still years away,
It's roadmap that's literally just been agreed with a three way international agreement and you're trying to re-write it already. You don't back out of the tech sharing that Australia has just been welcomed to,
Not only that, but buying VAs off the shelf (not that you can do it anyway, there's no room in the yards for extra orders), but it would be political suicide. The pork barrel is real as it is in America. There needs to be jobs created from this, and buying VAs won't do that.
I'm not suggesting buying more virginia's I'm suggesting buying SSN(X) over SSN(R)
Have you looked at the build schedule? How on earth can you be suggesting this? There's no room in the US yards. We don't have the people to lend. It doesn't make any sense, you can't expect the Australians to work with the British to build their submarine industrial base for nearly two decade, to only switch it? It doesn't work like that at all!
You are changing the agreement -- all three have agreed to use the SSN(R) as the basis for AUKUS. There would be massively political fallout to this.
Where are we finding the slips for 3 Block V Virginia-class boats for Australia then? How can we spare those but not slips for a future SSN(X)
Can you please point to me where they mention these are new builds?
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/press-briefings/2023/03/13/background-press-call-by-senior-administration-officials-on-the-aukus-announcement/
The US is still running 26 LA-class boats, you're telling me we can afford to give away 3-5 of our CURRENT Virginia-class fleet?
That's what the USN saying, yes.
Wouldn't it be more likely that the US is expanding their sub production capability since they've been riding the redline on their sub production capacity for years as it is. They could use more sub building capacity, Australia also needs subs, seems like an easy win win.
No, because they would have mentioned this. There's zero reason something like that would be kept under wraps.
Australia is literally investing a billion USD into expanding US submarine shipyards as a part of this deal.
so which is it?
He's misrepresenting it. They're invest in both, but again, there's zero reason to keep Australians are going to "switch" under wraps. Zero. If they were planning on doing so, they they would have announced so.
The US isn’t building new subs for Australia. Australia is investing 1blUSD into US shipyards. Australia is buying/leasing virginias and then building their own subs with the UK based on the current ongoing UK development program. Australia will build those subs in Adelaide but there will also be an expansion of maintenance facilities to current ports across Australia, most notably Perth where the USN/RN will base a new sun fleet/deployment and Darwin.
Maybe you should just READ THE FUCKING STATEMENTS YOURSELF
>There would be massively political fallout to this.
Australia is no stranger to this, at least.
>thinking they can back out after the UK/US divulge nuclear secrets to them
>nice country ya got there cunt, shame if it were to become a prison colony again
Again, i'm not suggesting they back out of the agreement, I'm suggesting they prefer SSN(X) over SSN(R) and ask the US to either sell SSN(X) or give them the ability to domestically produce it instead of buying SSN(R) and getting the ability to build SSN(R) domestically.
I'm not suggesting Australia leave AUKUS or Australia just buy more Virginias.
>I'm suggesting they prefer SSN(X) over SSN(R)
No, you prefer it, but you know fuck all about it so ultimately it's meaningless.
>The French subs were a done deal until they weren't
There's nobody on the planet that can offer a capability uplift from Virginia/SSN(R) in the same way that the Aussies got from going from Suffren to the Virginias.
Equally by sharing US/UK infrastructure, there's no cheaper way of getting into big boy sub game for AUS. & don't give me that 'conventional propulsion is just as good' cope. It's not. AUS needs to be able to submerge off Western Australia, fuck about in the SCS without surfacing until they're off Perth again.
Finally there's nobody that can offer the same backup as the UK/US for defence in the region. There's just no better deal than this for Australia.
Are you stupid? See
I think you are if you think that SSN(X) is going to be different enough to SSN(R) to justify an agreement rewrite of that magnitude.
> Remember the french subs were a done deal too until they weren't.
Until the French repeatedly broke contractual deadlines*
If the French broke any term of the contract why are Aussies paying penalties? Proving that a contractual deadline was missed shouldn't be hard.
Mostly because the frogs got so butt hurt about it they threatened to throw a hissy fit on anything Australia and the UK/US would be involved in for the next few years, so Australia paid them their bullshit bribe and they shut the fuck up.
It isn’t, and it would be quite easy to look up and find yourself if you were actually interested in the topic. You aren’t though. Paying penalties is cheaper than paying for nothing and doesn’t risk security revelations being necessary to be revealed in court.
reminder that the French subs weren't cancelled for late fulfillment, but the BACKDOORED ISRAELI SOFTWARE SYSTEMS
I'd imagine a huge appealing factor for Australia regarding the Astutes is the crew required. 98 for the Asture vs 132 for Virginia. Australia is hardly crawling with Submariners.
We don't know crew requirements for SSN(R) or (X) which is what Austrlia would be buying.
Though likely the UK (and Australia) would favor a smaller crew as the US just isn't nearly as hard up on finding qualified submariners.
It's just a seething bongistani, don't worry about it
Fuck "Australia specific design" - thats why DMO/CASG has become a complete joke and anything not exactly MOTS is years late and dogshit when it finally arrives.
Adelaide will be building a Yank+Brit designed Next-SSN as a commonised USN-RN-RAN Fleet of interchangeable Subs without any 'localised' bullshit.
This. in the nicest possible way, Australia has very little to bring to the table in terms of technology for this project. What it brings is a desire to learn and money for improving it's defences. The UK and US are by a long way the best in the world at underwater warfare, there is a huge amount of institutional experience and technology developed off the back of more than 100 years of submarine warfare. There are technological and doctrinal mistakes that Russia, China, France and others will be making that Australia can bypass.
DSTO does a lot of high tier R&D - we did a lot of the work on securing rubber anechoic tiles, and the sonar and guidance for the Mk48Mod7 CBASS but when the uniformed and deskwankers in CASG get hold of design requirements to shape a new project it turns into a nonsensical clusterfuck.
Its going to be enough of a political and union timewasting and inefficiency shitfight building any new subs in Adelaide, even without adding in any local design input.
>3 Virginias, plus an option for 2 more - we might actually have to keep buying from US or UK way into the 2040-50s until Osborne finally gets their shit together
Why are you talking so much about something you obviously know nothing about?
You didn't watch the announcement. Australia is being folded into the SSN(R) design process with both the UK & AUS operating the SSN-AUKUS when it gets built. Design considerations are already assuming majority Indo-Pacific use as the UK will be keeping signficant presence down there with China being the main threat to them now that Russia have stuck their dicks in the ukrainian mincer.
The first AUS hull is being built in the UK, with subsequent ones being built in AUS as their shipyard gains the capability to do so.
https://www.navylookout.com/australia-to-join-royal-navy-ssnr-submarine-programme/#
Damn it feels good to be anglo.
>https://www.navylookout.com/australia-to-join-royal-navy-ssnr-submarine-programme/#
Thank you for linking that article. Almost nobody in this thread will read it but it is actually really useful and insightful.
Australia is really good at adapting what technology already exists to its own bespoke purposes, it won't take that long, in fact we probably already have designs that we think will work it's just going to be straightening out what's achievable.
Also don't imagine for a second they're getting built in the UK.
>Also don't imagine for a second they're getting built in the UK.
Building SSN's requires thousands of nuclear qualified engineers. Australia currently has a couple dozen.
Engineers aren't fabricators. Thank goodness.
If you include the fabricators, welders and all the dock staff we're easily up to 10,000 people. The thousands i'm walking about are for the full nuclear design, maintenance and refueling chain.
>Australia is really good at adapting what technology already exists to its own bespoke purposes
Fuck no Australia isn't. Infact your terrible at it. Examples like NH90 Tiger the shitty French subs that got you in this situation in the first place.
Sit down, shut up and learn maybe in 20 years Australia will get to have an input.
>NH90 Tiger
you mean the one Norway, Belgium and Sweden dumped because they were so shit. lmao keep seething fag
To be built in both UK and Oz, and possibly the US if the Aukus design combines with USN planning and it also becomes the US SSN(X).
2 or 3 dispersed shipyards means RN and USN has an alternate major-repair option in Australia for Pacific Fleet Ops or in a Euro WW3 where B-i-F will be a HVT
This deal is win win for all by the looks of it. Aussies get an entire new industry, massively increased naval capability and indefinite forward deployment of Burger/Bong forces to help protect them. Bongs get big investment into their next generation sub. Allowing them to reduce costs, build more for themselves and increase their own industry. Burgers get to sell kit to equip these subs and will have the option to reduce their own costs by picking the SSN AUKUS as an off the shelf replacement for their current boats.
Then there is just that warm glow of the Aussies finally being able to join in in maintaining Anglo hegemony.
> Burgers get to sell kit to equip these subs and will have the option to reduce their own costs by picking the SSN AUKUS as an off the shelf replacement for their current boats.
Won’t happen, the USN seems to be married to jack of all trades design, SSN(R) is pure hunter killer, like the Astute.
The US can afford it
……. How does that affect the price of cheese?
We've already ditched the French boats anon, we don't need to concern ourselves with cheese
>the USN seems to be married to jack of all trades design
It's almost like it's objectively superior
Yea the downside is increased crew and obviously development and construction costs go way up, but the US can afford the monetary increase and the extra crew needed
At what? Certainly not HK missions.
You're wrong. Also, having a boat that only sees real use in a shooting war when subs are the premier recon platform is an utter waste.
I’m not.
>Astutes can’t gather intel
Lol. Lmao even.
US subs are more rounded and can take on a wider range of missions. Bong subs are better as pure hunter killers, due to a smaller crew requirement they are also significantly cheaper to run over service life. Both can only be compared with each other, being miles ahead of any other countries.
>US subs are more rounded
>US
>More Round
damn burgers, even their subs are fat
Why did the Aussies fuck around with conventional subs again if they are now buying nuclear?
It's what they already had. Serious powers don't use SSK's, they came to realise this.
Still, the whole original procurement seemed retarded. Let the French redesign a nuclear sub instead of buying an existing SSK and then go "lol, just kidding".
Could have bought nuclear subs years ago, doesn't matter if US, UK or French.
>Could have bought nuclear subs years ago
Gov'ts in the commonwealth, Europe and even parts of the US MIC have been asleep at the wheel since the cold war ended and are finally waking up.
For the layman, what does that document mean/ and/or imply?
Domestic aircraft being contacted by warships = bad?
Highly improper if nothing else
The incidents are occuring in international airspace and it is illegal for ICAO signatory countries to do that.
It's unsafe? It's a threat of some kind?
It's unlawful interference. A plane at cruise altitude will have an assigned altitude and air route by its top level controller and cannot also be expected to comply with random instructions over the radio from a guy claiming to be a warship somewhere below.
So calls = expectation of compliance in this context?
when a warship tells you to do something, i'd argue there is always an expectation of compliance from the side of the warship.
It doesn't matter what the expectation is, it is illegal to interfere with an aircraft's navigation and communication systems.
I think it's a reference to China trying to assert control over the area between Vietnam and the Philippines?
It was retarded. Saying get fucked to the French was the only good thing scomo did
>doesn't matter if US, UK or French
Lol, no. US tech is way ahead of the curve. French R&D isn't bad, but just doesn't have the budget to compete with the Americans.
>no. US tech is way ahead of the curve.
>Buys British pump jets
>redesigns whole Virginia sonar to emulate astute after getting shown up.
US and UK tech is way ahead of the curve.
Yeah you guys just had to
> checks notes
ah yes, copy our nuclear reactors repeatedly over the decades
S9G isn't the first reactor you copied.
PWR3 for Dreadnaught-class and SSN(R) is basically just the S9G used by the Virginia-class since 2000 but rolls royce threw a union jack somewhere on it.
Meanwhile SSN(X) will probably use a newer S10G or a different design altogether.
Your SSN's perform worse than ours. Meme your way out of that one.
We are both ahead of the curve, the US gives as much as it takes from the UK.
>US does everything it can to stop britain developing its own nuclear tech after ww2, even going so far as to offer american nukes to the uk if the uk stops developing their nuclear tech
>pwr1 was entirely british
>pwr2 was entirely british
>prw3 was based on us design using uk
id say britain is doing well for itself considering how the usa tried to garden gnome them over after ww2.
> doesn't matter if US, UK or French.
That absolutely matters. French nuclear subs are shit.
Because they're cheeky cunts.
Because France lied and said it was viable. Then pocketed billions and produced fuckall
It's about time. Better late than never I suppose. This will give us the edge that we desperately need.
There has been a major political shift in Australia in recent years. At the time the French contract was originally negotiated, the Australian Government was completely anti-nuclear, because Cold War-era anti-nuclear hippie hysteria was still popular with the general public. In recent years, with rising energy costs, emerging threats in the region (China, North Korea, etc.) and the safety record of nuclear power, the general public has become far more open to the idea of nuclear energy. it also became painfully clear to the government that it makes no sense to buy diesel-electric submarines in the 21st century.
nuclear reactors that never need to be serviced were only just invented
We are buying 3 Virginias first, with the option of 2 more to cover the expected time blow-out and Union fuckarounds .
The 'SSN-Aukus' Class won't even get started before we get to use the 3-5 Virginias in WW3.
>"non-nuclear" weapons
Fuck that, they will gave the same launch-tubes, software and combat systems as the USN Virginias.
USN Virginias will be arming and reloading missiles and torps at Stirling.
We can cross-load US nuke missiles onto the new "HMAS Glass-the-Yellow-Cunts"
>We are buying 3 Virginias first,
A lease in all but name tbh.
tfw HMAS Glass-the-Yellow-Cunts steams for the south china sea carrying 40 TLAM-N's with 150 kiloton warheads and a captain shittered on bundaberg rum
Almost two years ago when you guys decided to say "Fuck France" and go with Virginia's, I kept mentioning on PrepHole how this would allow us to give Australia nukes in case of a world war, and everyone said I was retarded for thinking this. Well, here we fucking are.
You are still retarded for thinking the US will just "give nukes" to Australia in a war.
Lay out your reasons why you think your government will "give Australia nukes".
More allied boomers is better than less allied boomers.
>Lay out your reasons why you think your government will "give Australia nukes".
I'm not that anon but they sure as fuck would if it was to US advantage, they do it with other NATO nations who aren't even in 5 eyes
https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2022/2/pdf/220204-factsheet-nuclear-sharing-arrange.pdf
>the United States has deployed a limited
number of B-61 nuclear weapons to certain locations in Europe,
which remain under US custody and control
Your own link says you're wrong.
no, you're just being retarded
>says US gives nukes to other governments, provides link
>link says they remain under US custody and control
Nice one, retard.
>remain under US custody and control
until when? try to use your brain
>keeps posting
It's time to stop, you already lost.
until when? until use in war, which is what the first anon was talking about kek, you utter mongs
Until when what, dipshit?
US will not just hand over nukes to Australia for Australia to have and use. US has never done it and never will.
You still haven't given any valid reasons why the US would give the Australian government, nuclear weapons, you utter retard.
So let me get this straight.
You, a retarded retard, thinks the US will let Australia order US nuclear armed bombers to take off and bomb targets with nuclear weapons during a war? You think Australian pilots will fly them or you think American pilots will take Australian orders? Or do you think it’ll be US ballistic missiles launched on Australian orders?
Yes we understand your premise and still think you’re a fuckwit
>thinks the US will let Australia order US nuclear armed bombers to take off and bomb targets with nuclear weapons during a war?
that is exactly what happens under the NATO agreement, US supplies the weapons and allied nations employ them in line with alliance military CoC.
>US will not just hand over nukes to Australia for Australia to have and use. US has never done it and never will.
again those agreements already exist for allied use during war, why do you not think the US and AUS could not enter into a similar agreement?
That’s literally not true
seethe
>uses nato image
>link above states the US has not given custody or control of nukes in europe to any nato member
Seems you're the one retarded and seething
>link above states the US has not given custody or control of nukes in europe to any nato member
because there isn't a nuclear war yet? holy fuck man, the bombs sit in secure weapons storage on allied bases waiting for the balloon to go up
>those agreements already exist for allied use during war
No they didn't. US did not hand over nuclear weapons for Allies to use.
Again, you still haven't given any reasons why the US would give nuclear bombs to Australia for Australia's free use.
You have also failed to even mention the US handing over delivery platforms so you can deliver your fantasy nuclear bombs.
>Again, you still haven't given any reasons why the US would give nuclear bombs to Australia for Australia's free use.
the only one talking about that is you, the other anon was talking about the US providing nukes IN THE CASE OF A WORLD WAR, which is exactly what happens with NATO, where until the weapons are authorized for use the warheads remain under US control. what do you think this course is for? https://www.natoschool.nato.int/Academics/Resident-Courses/Course-Catalogue/Course-description?ID=12&TabId=155&language=en-US#12aid-aid
honest question are you autistic?
>the bombs sit in secure weapons storage on allied bases
Yeah, for the US to use when needed, not to just give to other governments like "here, have some nukes too, don't use them on us hehe"
>which is exactly what happens with NATO
Wrong, as I've already pointed out. The weapons are not "handed out for use" like lollies, you fucking idiot.
>that course link
LOL. You think a one-week course about nuclear surety = "giving nuclear weapons" for a country's "free use". kek you are really fucking retarded and grasping at straws.
>Yeah, for the US to use when needed
you're wrong, for fuck sake take a breath you autist, it's literally on wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_sharing
Again, nowhere in that article, or any other linked, does it state the US freely handing over custody and control (meaning free use) of the nuclear weapons that it has stowed in many countries.
That article pertains to storage of nuclear weapons, and various options other countries have (or had) to be able to deploy those nukes on behalf of US orders.
>does it state the US freely handing over custody and control (meaning free use)
no one claimed that but you
Jesus, you are so retarded you can't even remember what the whole conversation was about.
>anon claimed having a common platform with US would allow US to provide AUS nukes in a world war
>anons sperg out claiming US would never do so
>multiple anons prove an agreement for the US to do just that with several NATO nations during war already exists
>autistic screeching ensues
>thread derailed
>anon claimed having a common platform with US would allow US to provide AUS nukes in a world war
No he didn't. Your first line is wrong so I'm not reading the rest.
He said "I kept mentioning on PrepHole how this would allow us to give Australia nukes in case of a world war".
topkek
>I kept mentioning on PrepHole how this would allow us to give Australia nukes in case of a world war
So you admit the US will never give nukes to Australia for Australia to use wherever and whenever it wants to, the same as with NATO, thanks for finally admitting you are retarded.
>for Australia to use wherever and whenever it wants to
no one ever claimed that, why did you assume that would be the case? do you not think that during a world war the US would not provide AUS with nuclear weapons within some kind of alliance if the situation justified it? would you not think there would be significant controls and restrictions on the use of such weapons? are you just arguing for attention?
>why did you assume that would be the case?
Because that was what was being talked about, and clarified over many posts.
"give nukes" is not the same as "store nukes"
>"give nukes" is not the same as "store nukes" the NATO agreement is not about storing nukes for US use, they will be used by begian/dutch/german/italian/turkish forces during war
>they will be used by
>they could be deployed by, on behalf of US orders/permission
fixed
Don't you get it?
so do you not think the us would provide weapons to be deployed by australia in a global nuclear war? why are you arguing semantics?
>does the US store nukes in other countries
Yes.
>does the US let those countries decide when and where to use them
No.
>so are those nukes given to those countries or are they still in US custody and control?
Still in US custody and control.
>so those nukes aren't actually given to those countries?
Correct.
>do those countries even have the ability to deploy those nukes, if asked to by the US?
Some do.
>why are you arguing semantics?
Can you see it now that I've broken it down for your small brain? It's a major difference and not semantics.
>It's a major difference and not semantics.
no, you're arguing semantics in bad faith and picking fly shit out of pepper to avoid being wrong. if you don't want to call the Italian air force dropping us bombs "giving them nukes" you're just being an autist
Incorrect. It is you that is arguing in bad faith and deliberately attempting to mislead people by essentially saying the US hands out nukes like lollies and countries can do whatever they want with them, when they can't.
>Italian air force dropping US bombs "giving them nukes"
Actually, after the removal of Jupiter missiles from service in 1963, remaining US nuclear weapons in Italy are for use from US stealth bombers, so no, the Italian Air Force won't be "dropping US bombs".
Keep replying, dumb fuck.
>remaining US nuclear weapons in Italy are for use from US stealth bombers, so no, the Italian Air Force won't be "dropping US bombs".
literally wrong
>The Belgian and Dutch air forces (with F-16 aircraft), as well as the German and Italian air forces (with PA-200 Tornado aircraft), are assigned nuclear strike missions with US nuclear weapons.
>https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00963402.2019.1701286
stop posting fagtron
>for the US to use when needed,
Wrong
>not to just give to other governments like
That’s literally why they are there.
If you weren’t either trolling or a retarded plebbitor you’d know that Germany is having an absolute headache finding replacement jets for tornado that can carry the necessary nuclear weapons. But you are so you don’t.
>Germany is having an absolute headache finding replacement jets for tornado that can carry the necessary nuclear weapons
Keep up. Germany already chose F35 in March 2022 to replace the Tornado to deliver US B61 nuclear bombs.
You are retarded.
>they recently agreed to a plane once the capability they were looking for was a confirmed upgrade
Thanks for proving me correct, sperg.
If you know nothing of the topic you shouldn't post. Your information was a year old, thanks for proving you are retarded.
>little sperg seethes
Adorable
Why do AUKUS threads attract complete and utter morons? I’m talking about (you) btw
>Adorable
Nice deflection.
You’re arguing with retards who can’t comprehend the nuclear sharing treaties the US already has with Belgium, Netherlands, Germany, Italy and Turkey. Give up, if they can’t comprehend that in times of war fucking Belgium can dole out instant sunshine they won’t understand that the same could potentially happen with Aus. NuPrepHole is even more full of retards, somehow.
To be fair though, is it really Belgium doling out the sunshine or is it actually the US while using a Belgium delivery platform?
Also, does Belgium even have any assets that can deliver a US nuclear weapon onto a target?
Could be either or both. Once control is handed over control is handed over.
>Also, does Belgium even have any assets that can deliver a US nuclear weapon onto a target?
Yes, they do.
>Once control is handed over control is handed over.
That just seems like semantics. Belgium won't be firing US nukes without getting permission from the US on where and when.
>Yes, they do.
Interesting, I thought Belgium was only a storage location for US nukes. What assets do they have?
>Belgium won't be firing US nukes without getting permission from the US on where and when.
Cool, do you have a sauce for that?
>What assets do they have?
Planes capable of dropping b61s. They only have one kind so it should be easy enough to figure out.
>Planes capable of dropping b61s. They only have one kind so it should be easy enough to figure out.
Ah yes, I forgot that the F16A can carry B61s. My bad.
Fucking always. You’re an idiot. It bears repeating - you’re an idiot
No, you’re just a retarded esl
You’re a fucking idiot
The US is currently not allowed to keep nuclear armed anything in Australia because of Australian treaty obligations but no few people believe they do and both parties maintain a dont ask don’t tell policy. Australia would not just be “given” nukes, at most nuclear armed subs or bombers would be stationed here under US command, and Australia would NOT be open about this to either the Chinese or the electorate
I thought TLAM-N was taken out of service and was yet to be replaced though, so it's not like we can actually give Australia TLAM-N currently. Maybe if we develop a new one though I guess that would work.
you are silly. if australia wanted nukes at anypoint in its history it couldve made them. If Australia wants nukes in the future it can choose to make them. Australia doesnt need US for nukes, but we do for your submarines god bless
I am in favor of giving Australia SSBNs once our ABM systems are perfected.
>"HMAS Glass-the-Yellow-Cunts"
Better aim those missiles at brissie, sydney, and melbs
nice comms.
. . . . eventually.
Why are we spending 368 billion on fucking submarines man?
We should be spending it on trains not submarines
Yes, Chang, we can put a train on a Space-X and use it as a 'Rod from God' to nuke Beijing for shits&giggles.
Doing the glassing from a RAN Nuke Sub will be almost as much fun.
What the fuck?
I just think it's a lot of money
And are these meant to be offensive submarines?
I thought these were meant to be defensively used during an invasion
>defensively used during an invasion
Yeah, if the Chinks try to invade, the answer isnt playing with trains, it's pumping a shitload of missiles into Beijing from under the SCS.
Nuclear powered does not mean nuclear armed, anon. These subs are for fucking with the PLAN
Oh yeah that's true
Not sure what the fuck that other anon is talking about
Do you think it's a good deal for 368 billion?
I assume submarines are the best thing we can have in our current position
It isn't 368bn for the submarines. Its 368bn of investment into building an industry from scratch.
$368 billion over 30 years is very cheap for building a whole industry. The fact that it's involving training integration with the undisputed kings of naval warfare, getting in on a Rothschild tier old money agreement for tech transfer and get permanent basing of a bunch of their submarines in WA to defend you for free is the icing on the cake.
It's a bloody good deal.
Only retards who think military investment should be 1 free 2 immediate and 3 capable of defeating a Chinese land invasion of Australia don’t like it. Also Chinese “Australians”
Sadly a lot of normie Aussies are stupid but there’s mostly bipartisan support for this. Only Dutton is trying to fuck it up, because he’s a ghoul, but he got slapped around by his own party for saying British subs are shit
>T Aussie
>Dutton is trying to fuck it up, because he’s a ghoul
Dutton is the biggest piece of shit in this whole country. It's remarkable how he unites people of all cultures, creeds and political persuasions in loathing of his potato head. On his last day serving in the QPS several of his co-workers took shits on his desk. There is no bigger sack in the universe and the trolling over Astutes is absolutely typical of him. It is a mystery to me what the LNP were thinking.
>On his last day serving in the QPS several of his co-workers took shits on his desk.
There was probably a queue forming
I hope the shitty fellas at LNP did the same thing when he left
>politicising AUKUS months before the announcement is out
he had one job
All he had to do was say
>remember, this was a LIBERAL victory carried out by the former government, Albo is simply tying a bow on it. only liberals can strengthen our defense
And it would have been a rock solid message. At least we know LNP aren’t winning the next election either kek
>We should be spending it on trains not submarines
I'm a giant train fan/autist but the only way I'd ever support spending $368 billion on trains is if it meant we could get the electrification of Adelaide's suburban network completed in less than a year so that we can send the old 3000-class DMUs into orbit on the first Starship launches and then drop them on Chinese cities
Don't need nuclear subs if there's no more China.
I want high speed rail for the future of Australia
I don't want to turn China into a wasteland
High-speed rail between most of the state capitals isn't economical or realistic unfortunately. I've looked into it and we're hamstrung by the distance between cities being just far enough that planes win every time both in terms of economic cost and travel time, even when accounting for thought experiments such as potential large increases in the cost of aviation fuel.
The ridership is high enough that you can maaaybe just about make a direct link between Sydney and Melbourne work (perhaps via Canberra as the XPT currently does) but the costs would be astronomical. You either replace and upgrade all of the current track or build a whole new purpose-built line that can accomodate genuine high-speed rail (meaning something akin to the Shinkansen, travelling at 250kmh average speed). High-speed rail has very specific tolerances compared to regular rail, which means it isn't just a simple matter of sticking in nice new welded rails with concrete sleepers and buying some fast trains. You need much larger broader curves, milder gradients, entirely new signalling and line management systems.
There's certainly a strong argument to be made for significant improvements and additions to regional, metropolitan, and freight rail systems though.
>was it not a national upgrade to the rail networks?
You're thinking of the various projects to standardise rail gauges across the national freight network, which culminated in the broad gauge line between Melbourne and Adelaide being converted to standard gauge in 1995. The Melbourne and Adelaide suburban networks are still broad gauge though, electrification of which is a state issue. Melbourne's metro network has been electrified since the 1920's while Adelaide was the last major city to be all diesel, with the first electric conversion happening in 2013.
You could increase intercity passenger popularity if sleeper services were more of a thing. The 10+ hour trip on the Overland comes to mind.
thank you wise train anon
Japan was offering the US like $4B to build a highspeed maglev between DC and Baltimore with an operating speed of ~505km/h.
Surely they could be convinced to attempt that between Melbourne and Adelaide.
1. DC to Baltimore is one of the largest urban aglomerations on the planet with a huge level of ridership to justify the cost. Melbourne to Adelaide would be a point to point service with ridership levels that would likely never cover the initial development costs of a maglev, nevermind the ongoing maintenance.
2. Any kind of train line coming into Adelaide from Melbourne has to tackle the Adelaide Hills, which make it an absolute bugger to get into Adelaide. Pic related is the Belair Line, a 40 minute trip to go 9km as the crow flies.
There's been repeated thoughts about re-extending the line to Mt Barker to take pressure off the South-Eastern Freeway but every time the argument comes down to the fact it'd take somewhere in the region of upwards of 90 minutes to reach Adelaide (not to mention the cost of relaying broad-gauge track, or importing these fancy gauge-switching trains from Spain as has been suggested). Most people would prefer to continue being stuck in traffic jams.
Now imagine trying to build a 500kmh maglev line from Murray Bridge throught the Hills into central Adelaide. The Hills keep going north along the east of Adelaide, becoming the Flinders Ranges.
>as of 2022, their cost estimate for the Melbourne-Sydney-Brisbane HSR corridor was between $200 and $300 billion
Show me a government infrastructure/transport project that has stayed on budget and I'll show you a cheap bridge I've got for sale in Sydney Harbour
>Show me a government infrastructure/transport project that has stayed on budget
I won't, because there are none. People who think a HSR link between four major capitals will only cost 'tens of billions' are insane. This estimate of 300 billion is the highest and latest and I have no doubt it will only go higher.
They have. They even built our ciry loop alongside Melbourne Central station, but naturally we dropped the ball after a handover because we're fucking retarded.
JR have talked about doing the Melb-Syd for us, but like the other anon said, Planes are convenient for most even if normies are willing to go through security every time. That and QANTAS told everyone to fuck off from their precious little corridoor that could threaten its continued operation.
That and our local government is trying to build some new tunnel/highway infrastructure through the city alongside improving their city loop shitshow.
t. Just came back from a 3 week Jap holiday with a train nerd mate.
Fair, enough. I'm actually a US train anon, that has only ever done US/Canadian rail trips.
Melbourne and Sydney both have good and bad elements to their transit systems. Sydney is suffering right now but a combination of labor putting more money into their budget and the several new upcoming lines will help a lot. Fuck me I hope they actually put some fucking trains in the eastern suburbs though. North Sydney can rot if they want, they seem quite happy letting their slice of CBD slowly wither. Except Chatswood, that station is awesome
>electrification of Adelaide's suburban network
what doesnt all of australia have this shit. was it not a national upgrade to the rail networks?
t. uninformed fag
I want a $100B Perth-Darwin-Brisbane connection so you can ride a train all the way around Australia.
Bonus points if they offer a nice upgraded sleeper/bedroom like they do on the trans-canada or orient-express railway trips.
I miss doing long rail trips in a private bedroom, pure kino.
How can I profit off this?
buy BAE and Rolls Royce shares 2 months ago
buy a pub as close to garden island or the adelaide shipbuilding yards as possible
>Royal navy could be doubling it's fleet of SSNs
Holy shit please be true don't cuck me MOD.
Probably due to the supposed in increase in nukes the UK is apparently getting in response to other small eastern powers doing the same.
SSNs don’t launch nukes.
SSBNs launch SLBM Nukes
Any sub with a standard torpedo tube (including our current Collins Class) can launch an encapsulated Tomahawk cruise missile - which can have a Nuke warhead
First, the production line to produce the torpedo-launched tomahawks is no longer operational.
Beyond that, all nuclear tipped tomahawks were removed from service about a decade ago. There was talk of maybe eventually replacing it with a new warhead design, but AFAIK that hasn't happened yet and there are still no nuclear tipped tomahawks in stocks.
>First, the production line to produce the torpedo-launched tomahawks is no longer operational.
it's a strap on kit and some software. The UK has it done to all weapons they order.
Then I guess navy lookout is wrong.
> The key difference between Astute and SSN(R) is likely to be the inclusion of payload modules for vertical launch of missiles, medium-sized UUVs or seabed sensors. The Tomahawk missiles carried by RN submarines that are launched conventionally via torpedo tubes are no longer being manufactured.
They are wrong yes, the kits can be made to order and have been in the recent pass. You're butthurt so you're trying to invent reasons why Raytheon will turn down money.
nothing i'm seeing supports that
hell, even the Block V upgrade is just modernizing your older Block IV missiles.
> The first Block V missiles are from the existing Tomahawk Block IV inventory, and have been recertified and modernized for fleet use.
> The mid-life recertification process replaces life-limited components in Block IV missiles to enable their remaining 15 years of service life, and provides the opportunity for the missiles to receive Block V modernizations. All Block IV missiles will undergo recertification and modernization.
They also AFAIK have only purchased 65 missiles in total in like 30 years.
You're forgetting the part where it needs to be certified and support by the supplier -- which isn't long given the main customer has stopped buying it.
We haven't stopped buying it at all, we're literally in the process of having all our block IV missiles upgraded to block V.
>its a kit
Why lie?
american SSNs could before and will again
https://web.archive.org/web/20180203004547/http://seapowermagazine.org/stories/20180202-nuke.html
Why is there so much VA/SSN(X) cope in this thread for fuck sake? Everyone is a winner.
mfs be bending over backwards to create reasons to break the entire AUKUS deal even though the ink isn't even dry
It’s just one retard.
Why has no one mentioned the fact that Australia would be invaluable as a producer of submarine fuel?
Oz will never operate, much less build, SSNs.
They have zero institutional knowledge concerning nukes, and once the cost balloons they’ll scrap the deal all together.
>doesn’t know what ssns are
>cope
They have no relevant experience in operating nuclear subs.
It ain’t gonna happen, kid.
Yep. You don’t know what an SSN is but can (wrongly) assess the capability of the RAN? [x]
Because the National Faster Rail Agency said "as of 2022, their cost estimate for the Melbourne-Sydney-Brisbane HSR corridor was between $200 and $300 billion"-wiki
You can see the studies, proposals and releases over the recent decades....there is simply no firm political will to carry out this project.
At most, only small links have political will, but even then it is fleeting, such as Melb-Geelong or Sydney-Newcastle.
There is new, and perhaps more tangible than ever before, hope, for HSR on the eastern seaboard.
infantry subs.
it can happen, we can make it work.
i know nothing about oceangoing, so forgive me -
is it possible to sedate a whale, add mind control electronics to its brain and load it’s stomach full of nukes or explosives? this would allow the Australians to launch endless waves of fully armed whales at the Chinese without putting Australian sailors at risk
There’s a video of a trained whale from Russia off the coast of Norway.
Why don't they weaponize salt water crocs. I always thought they had to hang out near the mouths of rivers but now I see they are attacking Great White Sharks.
>weaponize salt water crocs.
because the chinese would just eat them
These will surely be useful when the Battle of Taiwan kicks off in 2027
I doubt they can do it with only 5 years of prep. Realistically they need 10-15 years from 2022 when they started prepping.
That puts them at ~2032-2037 assuming they even decide it's worth it by then seeing that japan will have doubled it's own defence spending by 2027, and the US will have their bases built up in the Philippines by then. Odds are china doesn't do shit to taiwan and bides their time as they always do continue building up and then by the 2040s Australia has it's own domestic SSN building capabilities and years of experience operating virignia-class SSNs and Astute-class SSNs and servicing Astute, Dreadnaught, Virginia, and Columbia classes.
Seems like a decent timeline to me, and even if china DOES decide to roll the dice in 2027, odds are the current US/ROK/JSDF forces in the area can handle things.
>I doubt they can do it with only 5 years of prep.
They’ve been prepping for two decades. The US thinks China’s best chance will be in five years and is therefore hardening Guam.
AUKUS isn't meant for 'Battle of Taiwan', but for WW3-4.
AUKUS is in no way, a deterrent or major usefulness in a war with China, but an alliance-building and cost-saving measure for UK, US and AUS.
Why doesn't Ausfailia set up a laboratory for testing reactor designs in the inland northwest?it's probably the best place on Earth to do it.
Because of the nuclear arms proliferation treaty. Yes it does include reactors for military vehicles. The nuclear subs will have their reactors welded shut so Aussies cannot access them.
I'm talking about a scientific laboratory for power reactors
Because the Australian electorate is retarded when it comes to nuclear power and the Greens are our third largest party. No government dares to propose anything of the sort.
Its a real shame. Nuclear power would be perfect for us. Not only would it supply cheap power without any greenhouse gas emissions but it would reduce our dependence on the Middle-East and greatly reduce the lead time should we decide to develop nuclear weapons in the future.
Deciding to build our own nuclear weapons now would make us a geopolitical pariah - instead we should be investing in nuclear power plants for civilian power generation and research, a domestic aerospace industry, and subs capable of launching nuclear weapons should we develop them in the future (maybe buy some B-21s too).
Adam Bandt has been seething that Australia hasnr banned new coal and LNG operations. In an ideal world Albo whould do it only if Greens help remove the restrictons on nuclear energy and research for nuclear related shit
They should have stuck to the French subs tbh
retard
France actually has the full set of technologies needed to build a submarine, unlike some.
They don’t even have nuclear reactors worthy of the name.
>compact
>they work
>they are silent
>they provide the necessary power
But
>HURRRR LEU/HEU MUH LIFETIME CORE NO REFUEL
Which shows how shitbrained you are.
US reactors take up to 2 years to complete refueling operations.
French reactors can be refuelled in a matter of months in parallel to periodic maintenance.
Bonus 1: same fuel as civilian reactors.
Bonus 2: French sub commanders have no limits placed on their power usage outside of emergencies due to the fuel having to last for the sub's lifetime.
As in:
>pls don't go too fast or we'll have to refuel it or cut its service life short!!
https://fas.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Frances-Choice-for-Naval-Nuclear-Propulsion.pdf
Delicious cope
French are the only people that matter for nuclear reactors.
Considering they are late to the table for SMR designs I doubt it.
Modern chink reactors are stolen designs French couldn't use because of germs.
Yeah, lets close our eyes ignore the second biggest fleet on the planet and biggest companies that service an entire continent 🙂
What does any of that have to do with
>the only people that matter for nuclear reactors
Which is about the most retarded thing I've read all day. I'm not hating in France but cmon now lol you know that's a load of crap
The brit isn't bitting I guess.
You guys have the best civil nuclear infrastructure no one could doubt that. But military reactors? You’re at best not the only game in town
>thinks a fleet that can’t project power because of insufficient RAS support is worth anything
Frog delusion is always fascinating to behold.
lmao non, Pierre
French only look out for themselves. There is a reason the West is decoupling from French-lead projects.
>French only look out for themselves.
As opposed to...?
>There is a reason the West is decoupling from French-lead projects.
Interesting, last time I checked the French created and lead the 2nd most powerful union on the planet but whatever
>As opposed to...?
Ensuring other customers get the parts and help they need to keep vehicles usable, duh.
meh
>I checked the French created and lead the 2nd most powerful union on the planet
Wut
The USA
?
The French are the biggest bundle of sticks when it comes to assisting with capability development, and regardless of supplier the Aus government will want extensive domestic maintenance and support capabilities developed in Australia.
The French were constantly croissanting Australia on to what extent they were willing to help build domestic capabilities vs entirely relying on French industry.
The negotiations would've dragged on for even longer than time needed for humanity to achieve interstellar travel judging by how slippery these bloody frogs are.
And I thought it was because Australians couldn't decide if they wanted electric or nuclear, silly me...
Yes silly you, because insistence on diesel was baked into the tender. Unless you have reading comprehension issues?
Haha, silly me, I'll make sure to be more diligent when I'm shoveling shit that's Australian bureaucracy.
lol
>literally naming the sub suffering
red flags from the start
is that an awning for when they throw their poo out the window so it doesnt land on people below?
PAL codes allow for an American nuke to sit in a bunker in Italy or Turkey in case of WW3. Two officers have the code(s) to arm and fuze/yield set the devices.
been like this for years. Allows for non nuclear allies to have nuclear bombs pre positioned.
Even in a field as hopelessly retarded as military procurement this deal stands out. Instead of getting proven diesel electric attack subs today, Australia is ordering nuke subs it can't operate for decades from now. The major war with China is happening in the next 5 years so they won't be able to participate.
Australia already has diesel-electric attack subs today, dumb fuck.
ancient ones instead of state-of-the-art ones. now they won't be replaced until 2045. that's fucking canada tier.
Collins have been upgraded, and will be again in a major way, so much so they are still one of the few best diesel-electric attacks subs today.
>Diesel electric
>Anno domini twenty twenty three
What are you even talking about?!? Literally every single issue with Australian submarine procurement has been rooted in the fact that we were insistent on procuring diesel subs and demanding nuke sub capabilities.
Going nuclear is literally fixing a decades-old braindead mentality.
I hope we get Virginias in the interim, bespoke nukes coming years/decades late is okay as long as there is an interim in place to get people/industry trained up on nukes.
I we don't get an interim then honestly it's rightful punishment for us being so retarded for so long on nukes.
Interim purchasing of Virginias is confirmed.
Better yet, forward basing of Virginias as an interim to the interim is confirmed.
And astute.
For forward basing, and training.
We’re going to have UK and US subs based here by 2017, and virginias in the early 2030s, and then our own subs after. It’s a good deal that should have been done earlier but we can’t turn back time. The French deal was a mistake motivated by an anti nuclear electorate who shouldn’t be dictating our defense procurement
>It’s a good deal that should have been done earlier
imo this deal wouldve been impossible without all of Brexit, Covid and Chinese trade wars with Aus and US
>The French deal was a mistake motivated by an anti nuclear electorate who shouldn’t be dictating our defense procurement
This.
>Instead of getting proven diesel electric attack subs today
>proven
Frogs couldn’t even be bothered to put pen to paper for a design. How can something not even conceived of be “proven”?
1. Design in in UK
2. Built in Japan
Add Aussie sailors
rate
0/10 ignores key requirement
they will be compatible with all 3, aus/uk/usa
Why do morons always try to create divisiveness by suggesting that the RN and the USN steal shit from each other? Are they just thirdies so distrustful of each other that they can’t fathom the existence or purpose of a collaborative alliance?
Britain is America's closest military ally. Americans are the largest user fraction on this website, Brits are the second and you're wondering why anonymous thirdies would want to try and sow division between the two here?
Here's the oz-specific design, the "Etutsa", which is an aborigine word meaning 'original'.
One of the people I contract for used to be a submariner. His EXACT words today were
>If we buy that pompous British shit instead of something from a country who actually KNOWS how to fight a war I swear to fucking god
suffice to say he REALLY doesn't like Britain or the monarchy
Is Aus having any design impact in the AUKUS sub? If so how much?
no one knows. as long as the SSN(r) has VLS and US systems we gucci
>SSN(r) has VLS
I remember that being stated last year. Personally I think UUV capabilities would be more worthy of the tonnage. I know there will likely be a compromise and both, but I'm not sold on sub launched VLS systems.
>but I'm not sold on sub launched VLS systems.
Why not?
Seems to have been working fine for the US. Also it allows your torpedo tubes to be dedicated to torpedos, not having to swap between torpedos and missiles depending on the mission.
The VLS cells aren't going to be an effective weapon in peer combat. Their use against ships isn't great compared to their torpedoes, and I feel are more designed around striking land targets. Personally I would rather they get gutted and they dedicate more space for larger UUVs for more high risk strikes.
>Personally I would rather they get gutted and they dedicate more space for larger UUVs for more high risk strikes.
you can have both anon, https://submarinesuppliers.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Virginia-Payload.pdf
Fair play, I didn't know about the VPM, but then you are forcing yourself to design around the module.
Shouldn't really be that much of a problem the Astutes are already ~1 meter wider beam than Virignia-class boats. And the Dreadnought-class is expected to be another ~1-1.5m wider beam still, and it's ALSO expected the SSN(R) will be based on the Dreadnought hull to save time at the shipyards allowing common fabrication size across the two classes.
So it really shouldn't be that hard to fit the VPMs if Viringia-class boats can do it, you just need to make your boats longer to accommodate.
The SSN(R) is likely only going to do 2 VPMs anyway, so not a massive 4 VPM setup the Block V Viringia-class boats have. So yeah, it should still be a good ~15-20 meters shorter than a Virignia, and likely similar for SSN(X).
I meant more in the way the UUVs will be limited by the future VPM.
moron, the VPM which is likely what the VLS module for the SSN(R) is based off of, is literally designed for UUVs OR VLS (Tomahawks or hypersonics)
The last I heard, the only real "issue" with UUVs in the VPMs is they require you to have your UUV vertical, which doesn't work for certain battery types, but updating the systems to Li-ion batteries is not SUPER difficult in most cases.
>The VLS cells aren't going to be an effective weapon in peer combat. Their use against ships isn't great compared to their torpedoes
what is LRASM
More likely the new MBDA anti-ship missile being developed by the UK and France intended for air platforms, surface vessels, and subs.
Isn't that getting shitcanned?
Nothing I've heard confirms that
>what is LRASM
this bro gets it
AUKUS .... will not proceed without Indonesia's approval.
>Indonesia
A bunch of low IQ orangutans who think they're relevant in the international stage. Cute.
Let them side with China so that we can kill the entire male population and take their women. Useless subhumans. No one's going to miss them if they disappeared tomorrow. Everything they do can be easily learned and replicated. Their primitive food, culture, and so on. It'd probably be better for the environment too. There would be no SEA monkeys burning forests and stuff anymore in Borneo.
When are the dreadnought class subs meant to be introduced?
They will start construction as the final Astutes finish being built. Basically as the Astutes end, the Dreadnoughts begin.
I think the first dreadnought is expected to be commissioned in the 2031-33 timeframe.
Can someone tell me why this fucking matters.
I mean seriously 8 submarines campared to americas 68 for example is going to do what exactly?
That's a 12% increase in hulls, that the US doesn't have to pay for. Plus a new base and Aus SSN production capabilities.
America only has 68 subs on paper. Half of them are in maintenance hell and haven't been to sea for years and wont go for more years to come. Having more submarines and more importantly more locations to service submarines is massively important. So much so the US is sacrificing these submarine build slots to Australia, because reducing their total submarine fleet size means an easier time working through the backlog but doesn't mean reducing the alliances total number of submarines.
The USN actually expects to INCREASE sub availability by giving Australia 3-5 Virginia-class boats since it helps remove some of the maitanance load, the US also expects to do maintainance in Australia once the infrastructure is built further expanding the number of ports in the world capable of working on these subs.
So yeah, even with the US giving away 5 subs, we actually think it'll result in higher sub availability overall.
It's so obvious that the US is only doing this to get an extra submarine base set up for themselves in Australia.
>The USN actually expects to INCREASE sub availability by giving Australia 3-5 Virginia-class boats since it helps remove some of the maitanance load
That's literally what i'm saying lol
Yes, I'm not disagreeing, simply expanding upon what you said.