International Naval News & Discussion

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Post Reply
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Post by brar_w »

It is a knock-on effect and that's it. China is well in its way to field a 400-500 ship Navy by 2040. That Navy will now have to account for far more capable submarines than it would compare to the current Australian Collins class, or even the SSK Attack Class would have provided. It will also have to account for the fact that US SSN's can now spend more time in the Pacific if they are able to operate out of Australia during surge deployments. That may impact the IN in that the PLAN will have to distribute its ASW capability at regions not directly focused on any IOR operations. But any other grand plans of Australian or US subs engulfing PLAN surface vessels if tensions with India again rise in the future is a bit of a stretch. This primarily assumes that the Chinese political class will be foolish enough to start or expand a conflict on multiple fronts. It's possible but probably not very likely. The IN has to plan of meeting all its ASW and Anti surface warfare needs organically.
hnair
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4633
Joined: 03 May 2006 01:31
Location: Trivandrum

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Post by hnair »

Alright, this is getting even more weird
ldev wrote: As far as comparing tech transfer from the US to India is concerned with this deal, you are comparing apples to oranges. One is a treaty ally for the last 70 years via the ANZUS treaty, the other is a country that is now taking baby steps for a security relationship. Having said that given the history of the India US relationship, specially on security I personally believe that US tech transfer has to include a "signing on bonus" i.e. an upfront transfer of technology in an area that India needs as a show of US good faith.
A treaty obligation is a treaty obligation, if it is between two parties that have talked out the expectations. It is neither apple or orange, but a solidly written document that details what needs to be done by both sides. The US failed wrt India(aero engine) but delivered wrt to UK (Trident).

If it needs 70 years of chumminess behind it (as you claim), before US sticks to its part of the deal, then US is a poor partner or honors only specific countries of a certain makeup.


brar_w, agree with your points:
1) 8 new SSNs in IOR (deploying out off Stirling) is certainly something that any PLAN task force has to plan for. Beyond that, straits choking etc are not relevant to India nor going to happen.
2) US will get basing rights for nuclear navy as quid pro quo. Not relevant to India, but valuable for US in pacific, if Guam and Yokosuka are not safe enough.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Post by Rakesh »

hnair, the underlying premise that he is saying is that if India gets into an alliance treaty with Amreeka, India can avail of all these wonderful technologies. Everything he is saying so far, is just a build up to that. As long as no one challenges that, then the "Alliance with Amreeka" strategy will eventually come in one of his posts. Just sign on the dotted line and become a poodle like the UK and Australia. America will lead the way and we will follow. Please don't burst his bubble :)

Dude is a noun, a verb and Treaty Alliance. He cannot think beyond the glorification and beauty of the Amreekhan Empire and that comes out in every post. I will now sing America The Beautiful. You know that Poem? :)

Below is the first para....before you start though, just remember...S-400 :lol:

O great for halcyon skies,
For amber waves of grain,
For purple mountain majesties
Above the enameled plain!
America! America!
God shed His grace on thee,
Till souls wax fair as earth and air
And music-hearted sea!
ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2616
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Post by ldev »

hnair wrote:
A treaty obligation is a treaty obligation, if it is between two parties that have talked out the expectations. It is neither apple or orange, but a solidly written document that details what needs to be done by both sides. The US failed wrt India(aero engine) but delivered wrt to UK (Trident).

If it needs 70 years of chumminess behind it (as you claim), before US sticks to its part of the deal, then US is a poor partner or honors only specific countries of a certain makeup.
Here, read the link below, US State Gov site, spells out the collective defense agreements the US has entered into. It'll clear up the confusion.These are the agreements the US will honor by coming to the aid of the signatories. Everything else is vaporware. Aero engine is not a treaty nor a collective defense agreement. It does not need chumminess, it needs a collective defense agreement. And after that country has entered into a collective defense agreement with the US, the taps for tech transfer open up to those countries. Notwithstanding, the US will still not export certain tech, no matter the collective defense status of the country e.g. for the longest while Japan, Australia and even Israel wanted the F-22. The US refused to export that plane to anyone. The only country that get's a high level of tech transfer and collaboration and which is not in a formal defense agreement with the US is Israel. Look at where the F-35 is being exported now, only the countries in the list above and Israel.

https://2009-2017.state.gov/s/l/treaty/ ... /index.htm
m_saini
BRFite
Posts: 767
Joined: 23 May 2020 20:25

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Post by m_saini »

The collective defense agreements are somewhat vaporware as well. Takes all but 1 year to kick it out of reality and either party could do it unilaterally. Taiwanese are the living victims...

Sino-American Mutual Defense Treaty
Although the treaty had no time limit, Article 10 of the treaty stipulated that either party can terminate the treaty one year after notifying the other party.
Accordingly, the treaty came to an end on January 1st, 1980, one year after the United States established diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China on January 1st, 1979.
That same clause is present in the Philippine Treaty and the Mutual Defense treaty US has with South Koreans. No years of chuminess would make US stick to any treaty if they don't want to.
ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2616
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Post by ldev »

m_saini wrote:The collective defense agreements are somewhat vaporware as well. Takes all but 1 year to kick it out of reality and either party could do it unilaterally. Taiwanese are the living victims...

Sino-American Mutual Defense Treaty
Although the treaty had no time limit, Article 10 of the treaty stipulated that either party can terminate the treaty one year after notifying the other party.
Accordingly, the treaty came to an end on January 1st, 1980, one year after the United States established diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China on January 1st, 1979.
That same clause is present in the Philippine Treaty and the Mutual Defense treaty US has with South Koreans. No years of chuminess would make US stick to any treaty if they don't want to.
Boss, it works both ways. France walked out of NATO. No country wants to be tied in perpetuity with no exit clause. These relations are based on congruent interests after all and these could change with time. The Taiwan situation was based on recognition conferred to the People's Republic of China in 1971 by the United Nations General Assembly. As such Taiwan ceased to be a nation in it's eyes and the US adjusted it's position accordingly. But Taiwan continues to be a flashpoint as you know.
m_saini
BRFite
Posts: 767
Joined: 23 May 2020 20:25

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Post by m_saini »

UN recognition has no bearing on whether or not US decides to terminate/continue a bilateral treaty. The resolution by which PRC was recognized did not contain any provisions mandating all UN member states to discontinue any security pacts with ROC. A great example would be how hundreds of countries recognize Palestine as a country and have treaties with them despite them not being a full UN member.
ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2616
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Post by ldev »

m_saini wrote:UN recognition has no bearing on whether or not US decides to terminate/continue a bilateral treaty. The resolution by which PRC was recognized did not contain any provisions mandating all UN member states to discontinue any security pacts with ROC. A great example would be how hundreds of countries recognize Palestine as a country and have treaties with them despite them not being a full UN member.
USN continues to do regular patrols through the Taiwan Straits despite PRC objections as does the RN. I don't see any nation parking their naval vessels opposite Haifa in support of the Palestinians.
m_saini
BRFite
Posts: 767
Joined: 23 May 2020 20:25

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Post by m_saini »

ldev wrote:USN continues to do regular patrols through the Taiwan Straits despite PRC objections as does the RN. I don't see any nation parking their naval vessels opposite Haifa in support of the Palestinians.
Maybe because Palestine and Israel aren't separated by a strait while PRC and ROC are? I'm not sure I understand the implication. Or are you saying that Palestinians don't get any material support from anyone?
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

WRT, mutual defence pact. India is too big a country to be tied to such agreements with other nations.

Besides what is the value of US words. Especially when it comes to supporting any nation.

Afghanistan isa text book example of a unreliability of USA.

What we can try to accomplish is that try to get better technology then is already available with us. Such as submarine silencing technology. Or better sonar, developed through joint venture with any nation.

Brahmos JV is a good template. Every thing else is a waste of time.
ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2616
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Post by ldev »

m_saini wrote:
ldev wrote:USN continues to do regular patrols through the Taiwan Straits despite PRC objections as does the RN. I don't see any nation parking their naval vessels opposite Haifa in support of the Palestinians.
Maybe because Palestine and Israel aren't separated by a strait while PRC and ROC are? I'm not sure I understand the implication. Or are you saying that Palestinians don't get any material support from anyone?
We are wandering far from the subject at hand. Arming Australia with nuclear subs provides 3 benefits. One is added capacity for naval interdiction. Two is bases for US nuclear subs. Three is a fallback position for US forces in the event that the first and second island chains and the US bases there cannot be used in the event of war with China. Taiwan is inside the first island chain. The reason that US commitment to it's allies is being questioned right now is because of the shambolic withdrawal from Afghanistan. But the withdrawal from Vietnam was equally bad as were the setbacks the US suffered in Lebanon and Somalia. It's just that there was no social media in those days and so it did not register with the wider population. Chinese expansion strategy is well known, the ultimate objective being to demarcate the Pacific east of Hawaii as a Chinese zone i.e. taking over the first and second island chains. And in the IOR to have it's zone of influence stretch from Gwadar down the east coast of Africa, which becomes easier if Afghanistan is under it's influence via Pakistan. So you would have a Chinese zone of influence from Hawaii to the east coast of Africa. The Chinese view India which would then be in the middle of it's zone of influence as a lesser country which will learn to live with the Middle Kingdom.The US and the West would be confined to the Pacific west of Hawaii and the Atlantic Ocean. Grandiose, maybe crazy, but that is what it looks like, the ultimate prize for them. Chinese occupation of Taiwan will make the US bases in Japan vulnerable, as well as the US base in Guam. it will embolden China to then take on the Philippines. The takeover of Taiwan will be the first domino to fall in the eventual Chinese push for it's ultimate prize. And that is why I believe that treaty or no treaty the US will go to war over Taiwan.
m_saini
BRFite
Posts: 767
Joined: 23 May 2020 20:25

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Post by m_saini »

US commitment to it's allies was always doubtful and rightfully so. They've already hung the Taiwanese out to dry once and they'll likely do so again if it serves their interests.

I think the subject at hand was whether or not US are a trustworthy ally, which they demonstrably are not. For now, yes it looks likely they'll defend Taiwan even at the cost of a war. But things change extremely quickly for yanks, just ask the Kurds, Saddam, Noreiga etc or anyone who had the misfortune of trusting amreekis over the years. Again, not a very reliable ally at all and they've proven it over and over again.

Their relationship with Britain(and now Aussies) etc isn't a very good yardstick to measure the robustness of American security guarantee. Those 2 countries don't face a direct, existential threat from anyone(let alone from PRC from half the world over) unlike ROC, Japan or even us. And ROC, Japan and us also don't have the added benefit of being a white, anglo country. Atleast we have our nukes and Japanese have amreeki boots on ground but if I were Taiwan, I'd always keep some vaseline nearby incase the amreekis decide that you're not really that valuable.

What was it again? to be amreeka's enemy is dangerous but to be it's friend is fatal.
Vicky
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 79
Joined: 23 Aug 2021 19:33

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Post by Vicky »

Americans are trying to build an Amphibious C-130. Probably for the Seals.

https://twitter.com/FlightGlobal/status ... 57602?s=19
AFSOC aims to design, build and fly amphibious C-130 in 17 months https://t.co/OHITKI0O8A https://t.co/ieIiOFZ3Am
Hope this doesn't bring back the ghost of ShinMaywa
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Post by brar_w »

French Attack Boat Design, Costs Opened Door to Nuclear Australian Sub Says Expert
Australia’s surprise move to procure nuclear-powered submarines (SSNs) with U.S. and U.K. follows difficulties the country has experienced on its SEA 1000 Attack-class future submarine program and the realization that a conventionally powered submarine (SSK) will not meet its future needs, a regional defense expert told USNI News.

The Attack-class program for 12 new boats was intended to replace the Royal Australian Navy’s existing Collins-class of attack boats but it experienced delays and cost increases that had seen the estimated total program budget balloon to 90 billion Australian dollars.

In 2016 the Australian Department of Defence selected the Shortfin Barracuda 1A from French naval shipbuilder Naval Group. It is a modification of the design used for the French Navy’s Suffren-class nuclear attack boat but entailed a high level of risk because the changes meant it was a new design for an SSK, not an off-the-shelf option.

The Attack-class is “evolutionary rather than revolutionary” and was not set to introduce any major new capabilities beyond what the Collins-class already offered, Marcus Hellyer from the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, told USNI News.

He said that the Attack-class was following a “traditional setup” and wouldn’t have had an air-independent propulsion system, Lithium-ion batteries, a vertical launch system or a large diameter tube for the deployment and recovery of larger unmanned underwater systems.

Problems on SEA 1000 started early. A Strategic Partnership Agreement to manage the relations between the organizations for the duration of the program had been expected in October 2017. It was finally signed in February 2019.

In September 2018 the Naval Shipbuilding Advisory Board had suggested that the government should look at alternatives to the SEA 1000 program if the SPA was not signed. The Board said that extending the service life of the Collins-class would give additional time “to develop a new acquisition strategy for the Future Submarine if necessary.”

Life extension program for the Collins-class SSKs has subsequently been approved to ensure that the RAN retains its submarine capability for the near future pushing the retirement date out to 2038.

Despite the signing of the SPA, by early 2020 a report by the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) entitled “Future Submarine Program – Transition to Design” found that the SEA 1000 program “cannot demonstrate that its expenditure of A$396 million on the design of the Future Submarine has been fully effective in achieving the program’s two major design milestones to date.”

There had been an overall nine-month delay up to this point in achieving the Concept Studies Review (CSR) and the Systems Requirement Review (SRR). The ANAO found that the differing approaches to commercial and engineering work between Naval Group and the DoD has “impacted progress to date”.

These problems strained the relationship between the DoD and Naval Group, which the ANAO described as a “key risk mitigation”.

Although these would not supposedly impact the overall delivery of the program, the report highlighted an overall delay of three years or more could result a gap in the RAN’s submarine capability. At some point in the past year the DoD must have realized it was taking a lot of risk and spending a lot of money to get a platform that would not offer the increases in capability the RAN will need in the 2050s and beyond.

Whilst Hellyer said that that Attack would have been a very capable conventional submarine the intent was to have “continuity from the Collins-class LOTE.” He explained that the issue with this is that “we are at the end of the evolutionary curve of underpinning technologies for SSKs” and that the only capability improvements were by virtue of having a bigger boat (Collins is 3,400t vs Attack at 4,500t) with the capacity to hold more fuel and batteries so it transit faster and stay on station longer.

The DoD had experienced similar problems with the Collins-class 20 years before using an adaptation of the Royal Swedish Navy’s Gotland-class design from shipbuilder Kockums to generate the capabilities that the RAN needed to extend the SSK’s endurance.

Hellyer added that ultimately the DoD was spending too much time and money on “incremental improvements” and “if you want fundamental step changes in submarine performance, have to move to nuclear propulsion.”
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Post by brar_w »

From the P-75 thread :
Cyrano wrote: French anger is aimed especially at Washington: "This unilateral, brutal, unpredictable decision resembles what Mr. Trump was doing", coldly blurted out Jean-Yves Le Drian: "This is not done between allies, it is quite unbearable". Florence Parly drives the point home: "We are lucid about the way in which the United States regards its allies". In the short term, France sees its Indo-Pacific strategy dented, but reaffirms being "a reliable partner" in a region where it has two million nationals and 7,000 soldiers.
.
Based on known information, Australia approached the UK and later US wanting to go SSN on its submarine fleet, after constant delays and schedule slippage on the Attack class program.

On the second point about going around and negotiating a defense deal against interests of a NATO ally, we have public statements made over the last 2-3 years warning the German MOD against considering the F-35 because it would stop all French cooperation on FCAS. This after their Air Force had determined it as the best solution. This happens all the time.

Australia made a dumb mistake with their submarine. They should have asked for an SSN upfront or gone for the Japanese sub that was far more mature and lower risk. Having said that, delays in progressing through the initial phase made their option to leave a lot easier. They had this clause built in and for good reason.
ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2616
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Post by ldev »

brar_w wrote: On the second point about going around and negotiating a defense deal against interests of a NATO ally, we have public statements made over the last 2-3 years warning the German MOD against considering the F-35 because it would stop all French cooperation on FCAS. This after their Air Force had determined it as the best solution. This happens all the time.
I wasn't aware of this. Considering this it is a bit rich for them to complain about back stabbing now.
Mort Walker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10032
Joined: 31 May 2004 11:31
Location: The rings around Uranus.

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Post by Mort Walker »

France just recalled its ambassadors to the US and Australia in response to their submarine deal.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Post by Rakesh »

https://twitter.com/geoallison/status/1 ... 82308?s=20 ---> BAE, Rolls-Royce and Babcock will design a new class of nuclear powered attack submarines for the Royal Navy to replace the Astute Class - currently referred to as SSN-Replacement (SSN-R).

https://twitter.com/geoallison/status/1 ... 28133?s=20 ---> Two contracts worth £85 million each have been awarded to BAE Systems and Rolls-Royce to deliver design and concept work for SSN-R.

Image

https://twitter.com/LatestMessiah/statu ... 89410?s=20 ---> Perfect Timing.

Image
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Post by brar_w »

Both the US and UK have their next generation SSN programs that are just starting out and the Australian DOD would have known this going into its decision (this is publicly known and perhaps getting at the entry level from a design perspective may have appealed to them). But then they don't even need to consider the next generation subs as variants of the current generation submarines would work well for them given the wide gap b/w PLAN and USN/UK nuclear submarine capabilities . The US has two reactors now in development or production with both capable of serving through the life of the submarine without a need to refuel. The US/UK design on the Dreadnought class reactor can also be used as a starting point. What will be interesting to see is how their design evolves and whether they use a proven design (like Astute or Virginia) or use proven technology on these subs on a new clean sheet design. There is certainly some financial/schedule sense in using a proven smaller Virginia class SSN configurations (pre Block V) as that would mean commonality with a program that is delivering 2 SSN's a year and will do so till mid 2030s at least (before transitioning to SSN(X)). The more commonality the cheaper and faster they can have them but with less customization so is a balance that they will have to strike.
Last edited by brar_w on 18 Sep 2021 03:14, edited 1 time in total.
Avid
BRFite
Posts: 471
Joined: 21 Sep 2001 11:31
Location: Earth

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Post by Avid »

brar_w wrote:Both the US and UK have their next generation SSN programs that are just starting out and the Australian DOD would have known this going into its decision (perhaps getting at the entry level from a design perspective may have appealed to them). But then they don't even need to consider the next generation subs as variants of the current generation submarines would work well for them given the wide gap b/w PLAN and USN/UK nuclear submarine capabilities . The US has two reactors now in development or production with both capable of serving through the life of the submarine without a need to refuel. The US/UK design on the Dreadnought class reactor can also be used as a starting point. What will be interesting to see is how their design evolves and whether they use a proven design (like Astute or Virginia) or use proven technology on these subs on a new clean sheet design. There is certainly some financial/schedule sense in using a proven smaller Virginia class SSN configurations (pre Block V) as that would mean commonality with a program that is delivering 2 SSN's a year and will do so till mid 2030s at least (before transitioning to SSN(X)). The more commonality the cheaper and faster they can have them but with less customization so is a balance that they will have to strike.
It would make far more sense for Australia to customize one of the later blocks of Virginia class with its VLS for Tomahawks. This would: a) Be an affordable solution while providing capabilities; b) plug the hole in its submarine capabilities; c) begin developing capabilities for fielding a SSN and develop the associated infrastructure.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Post by brar_w »

^^ Yes that would make sense but it really depends on what's on the table, and what their plan is from a schedule and cost perspective. If they want to basically replicate a part of the US or UK industrial base in Australia then they may need a decade before the first sub even begins construction. That pushes everything out to the mid to late 2030s which then buys them time to go for a newer design. That will be a rather costly option. They could field these faster if they take a proven design, and pursue very limited production in Australia but acquire the capability to sustain these for their life. It really depends on what balance they are trying to strike.

Also, a few comments ago someone had asked what the US gets out of it. Besides just being able to use a common SSN technology and being able to leverage Australia's infrastructure to provide it strategic depth (given other options in the Pacific are closer to China), it also apparently involves more frequent, and perhaps more permanent/semi-permanent deployment of US airpower in Australia.

It isn't too far fetched to assume that when the B-21 comes online in a couple of years, it completely skips being rotated through Guam and instead gets a semi-permanent home in Australia.

U.S. Seeking Basing in Australia After Submarine Deal

U.S. President Joe Biden’s administration is hoping to secure more U.S. military basing rights in the region, multiple current and former officials told Foreign Policy, in the wake of a landmark deal to build nuclear-powered submarines with Britain and Australia.

Plans to bring rotations of U.S. fighters and bombers to northern Australia will be raised at a remote ministerial meeting between U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, and their Australian counterparts, officials said.

Two top Biden administration National Security Council officials, Kurt Campbell and Rush Doshi, briefed officials and experts on the plan for the Australians to field nuclear-powered submarines during a call Wednesday night. During the call, described to Foreign Policy by one participant, the officials said the deal could eventually extend to include long-range precision strike weapons. The Agence France-Presse first reported that Australia would receive Tomahawk missiles.

The fledgling partnership will spend the next 18 months hammering out a joint plan to deliver nuclear-powered submarines to Australia, which could take more than a decade to deploy. Teams from each country will also exchange notes on cybersecurity, artificial intelligence, quantum computing, and undersea technology, though officials did not provide specific details about those initiatives. A senior administration official told Foreign Policy that the Biden administration didn’t plan to announce the provision of more capabilities right now....
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Post by brar_w »

John wrote:^ Most Aussie deals tend be bit inflated for example they are spending over 3 billion each for there Hunter class FFG. Part of problem is everything is imported and local construction is highly expensive.
That's because they aren't buying a Frigate. They are buying a boxed up solution where they could design (combat system/weapons etc), produce, sustain, and upgrade these vessels in house. Canada is pursuing the same. It's basically a commoditized version that includes design, development, innovation, integration and production all rolled into one package that they've selected and are now implementing. It's the same with the sub deal. They want to create the capacity to do some sort of submarine manufacturing without having any submarine industrial base at all. To re-create even a shadow of that capability takes this amount of insane cash. Where they went wrong with the Attack class sub was that they should have either gone for the SSN option from France, or gone in for the Japanese conventional sub which was the most mature in terms of meeting their requirements with minimal modifications. Instead, they chose to pay nearly 80% of what it would cost them to field 8-10 SSN's, and were getting (for some missions) less than half the capability. There was just a huge gap b/w what they were getting vs what they needed and the constant cost escalation and schedule slippage just made it easy to exclude the French from the next phase of the program.
Avid
BRFite
Posts: 471
Joined: 21 Sep 2001 11:31
Location: Earth

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Post by Avid »

Aus needs not repeat past mistakes. It needs to follow buy some, make some, build deeper base and be part of next generation block 2
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Post by brar_w »

Avid wrote:Aus needs not repeat past mistakes. It needs to follow buy some, make some, build deeper base and be part of next generation block 2
A lot of these aren't "mistakes" in the traditional sense. Lot of local industrial and political involvement which is nothing more than "pork" is a part and parcel of their defense procurement and production system where local employment and workshare is given importance even if the technology or knowledge add is minimal or completely non existent. It is a way they get these things approved and build/sustain political support.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Post by brar_w »

Vicky wrote:Americans are trying to build an Amphibious C-130. Probably for the Seals.

https://twitter.com/FlightGlobal/status ... 57602?s=19
AFSOC aims to design, build and fly amphibious C-130 in 17 months https://t.co/OHITKI0O8A https://t.co/ieIiOFZ3Am
Hope this doesn't bring back the ghost of ShinMaywa
Not for the Seals but AF special ops. This thing could get axed if the USN decides to raise concerns about roles and missions.
Avid
BRFite
Posts: 471
Joined: 21 Sep 2001 11:31
Location: Earth

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Post by Avid »

brar_w wrote:
Avid wrote:Aus needs not repeat past mistakes. It needs to follow buy some, make some, build deeper base and be part of next generation block 2
A lot of these aren't "mistakes" in the traditional sense. Lot of local industrial and political involvement which is nothing more than "pork" is a part and parcel of their defense procurement and production system where local employment and workshare is given importance even if the technology or knowledge add is minimal or completely non existent. It is a way they get these things approved and build/sustain political support.
Which is precisely what happened with building of the Collins class.

There was a joke that you did not need to detect a Collins class sub -- it announced itself.

IMHO, that is a mistake; especially when it comes to defense. Pork etc. is a financial overhead -- but if it impacts capabilities and creates vulnerabilities -- it is a mistake. Just my 2c distinction.
Avid
BRFite
Posts: 471
Joined: 21 Sep 2001 11:31
Location: Earth

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Post by Avid »

brar_w wrote:
Vicky wrote:Americans are trying to build an Amphibious C-130. Probably for the Seals.

https://twitter.com/FlightGlobal/status ... 57602?s=19



Hope this doesn't bring back the ghost of ShinMaywa
Not for the Seals but AF special ops. This thing could get axed if the USN decides to raise concerns about roles and missions.
Or USN could choose to join the project and use it for Seals and Marines as well.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Post by brar_w »

If the USN wants something like that then they will lead the program. It is their domain as per agreed upon roles and missions. They may not make a fuss since this is just a prototyping effort.
Avid
BRFite
Posts: 471
Joined: 21 Sep 2001 11:31
Location: Earth

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Post by Avid »

There has been some chatter about Aussies potentially leasing the nuclear submarines, and it would make sense because it is quite an undertaking to adopt SSN -- from training of sailors, maintenance crew, and all of the associated infrastructure.

This in particular suggests Aussies take the younger Los Angeles class submarines for the remaining life while the contract etc. for its own SSN is finalized.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/craighoope ... 3f2a164a6b
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Post by brar_w »

Avid wrote:
IMHO, that is a mistake; especially when it comes to defense. Pork etc. is a financial overhead -- but if it impacts capabilities and creates vulnerabilities -- it is a mistake. Just my 2c distinction.
Yes of course it is a mistake but it is also what's the norm in their system so its an institutional expectation that these programs create jobs that end up costing their economy more than the value they create.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Post by brar_w »

Avid wrote:
There has been some chatter about Aussies potentially leasing the nuclear submarines, and it would make sense because it is quite an undertaking to adopt SSN -- from training of sailors, maintenance crew, and all of the associated infrastructure.

This in particular suggests Aussies take the younger Los Angeles class submarines for the remaining life while the contract etc. for its own SSN is finalized.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/craighoope ... 3f2a164a6b

There are calls within politically influential circles in Washington to increase the Virginia class SSN order (and eventually delivery) rate to 3 per year. Assuming a 6+2 year (6 year build and 2 year production/infra investment lead time) lead time, the leasing of 2-3 LA class subs to Australia could give that group the power to push that through into legislation and budgets. This could mean that the RAN could have its first leased SSN as early as 2032 without any impact on the US SSN deployments over the term of the lease. It eill be welcomed by that group of politicians and would allow a faster replacement of legacy SSNs for USN and a faster transition to SSN(X). I suspect these are the type of things they would be worked out / considered over the next 18 months.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Post by NRao »

UK Starts Work On A New Nuclear Submarine Right After Australia Says It's Looking To Buy
The United Kingdom has kicked off the process of introducing a next-generation nuclear-powered submarine, to replace the Royal Navy’s current Astute class. Investment in the new program, named the Submersible Ship Nuclear Replacement, or SSNR, was announced just two days after it was confirmed that the United Kingdom and the United States would work together with Australia to provide the latter with a new nuclear-powered submarine, at least eight of which are planned.

.................
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Post by brar_w »

The UK's Astute replacement program was in official UK Government MOD publications as early as March this year, and has been known since at least 2019 as a multi sub next gen SSN program. Same with the US Navy's SSN(X) program which has been part of the USN's long term shipbuilding plan for many years with plans to transition from Virginia to it sometime in the 2030s. Trying to get into these programs at the ground level for some tech may have been an incentive for Australia but these things are not related in so far as that both programs would have continued at their pace regardless because they have domestic industrial and operational timelines to meet.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Post by NRao »

https://mobile.twitter.com/GlobalNewsJn ... 9988416527 ----->
Both the leading frontrunners for the post of next PM of Japan, say that they want Japanese Navy to induct nuclear powered attack submarines to counter Chinese naval expansion.
Vips
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Post by Vips »

They should also plan to induct aircraft carriers ASAP. The Japanese Navy had 10 aircraft carriers during the second world war.

A fleet of 3 to 4 Japanese aircraft carriers and some additional helicopter carriers with F-35 will keep the Chinese Navy boxed-in, in the East and South China sea.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

Vips wrote:They should also plan to induct aircraft carriers ASAP. The Japanese Navy had 10 aircraft carriers during the second world war.

A fleet of 3 to 4 Japanese aircraft carriers and some additional helicopter carriers with F-35 will keep the Chinese Navy boxed-in, in the East and South China sea.
The Japanese constitution is the biggest challenge in getting back to full fledged aircraft carriers.

However, now that a consensus jas emerged on both sides of the political scene about SSN. This should be easy enough to accomplish. The JMSDF might just have the 2nd largest SSN fleet by 2050 in Asia Pacific. If they decide to go ahead with SSN.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Post by brar_w »

Besides the constitution budgets too are a challenge. Japan's defense spending has hovered around 1% of GDP levels. Though they are planning a significant boost to this it remains to be seen whether that will be sustained long enough to begin investing in a fleet of SSN's and large Aircraft Carriers. Their F-35 carriers are probably more suited and cost effective as regional air-defense and strike assets and it doesn't appear that they have longer range, or longer striking power needs from them at this time.
kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6278
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Post by kit »

brar_w wrote:From the P-75 thread :
Cyrano wrote:

Australia made a dumb mistake with their submarine. They should have asked for an SSN upfront or gone for the Japanese sub that was far more mature and lower risk. Having said that, delays in progressing through the initial phase made their option to leave a lot easier. They had this clause built in and for good reason.
Thats the logical answer, but the reality was that there was a lot of "wining" dining "wommen" and boatloads (!) of money involved. the French were not playing nice either., and quite rightly no one wants to talk about it either ..expect Macron to eat some more macaroons and simmer down after his "righteous" anger...after the elections
Post Reply