Below the salt
Users browsing this topic:0 Registered, 0 Hidden and 0 Guests
Registered Users: None |
 |
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Tannin 
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
| Post subject: Below the salt |  |
|
Twice this week we have discussed the reality that even the most stupid and wrong-headed individuals occasionally speak the truth, or raise important issues that others do not mention.
Today it is Clownshoes' turn to be accidentally right about something. Well, almost. It's going a bit far to say he is "right" on this call, but there is certainly enough merit in his contention that we should not reject it out of hand.
| Quote: |
Australia should fundamentally rethink its submarine program and consider buying nuclear-powered boats, Tony Abbott says, to better arm the Royal Australian Navy at a time when regional rivals such as China and Russia are expanding their fleets.
The former PM says we should consider nuclear submarines, also revealing his biggest regret while in the top job.
The Turnbull government announced in April 2016 it would acquire 12 conventionally-powered submarines at a cost of $50 billion from French company DCNS. The boats are based on a French nuclear submarine but will have to undergo a major redesign to allow for diesel-electric propulsion, and are not expected to enter service until the 2030s. Mr Abbott said Australia should consider acquiring about nine nuclear powered vessels from the United States, Britain or France. He stressed that he did not want to delay the procurement of submarines any further but said Australia should "explore nuclear-powered options while our committed costs are only in the hundreds of millions".
"Not more robustly challenging the nuclear no-go mindset is probably the biggest regret I have from my time as PM," Mr Abbott said. "I'm not saying that we must go nuclear but surely we should at least consider the option before the opportunity is lost for another several decades. The French-based design is hardly begun, let alone finalised. No contract to build has been signed and won't be for years. This is because it's a completely new sub inspired by, rather [than] based on the existing nuclear model that needs to be designed from scratch rather than simply modified to take a different engine.
"Our new subs are supposed to be "regionally superior" including, presumably, to the sharply increasing numbers of nuclear-powered attack submarines that are based in our region," he said. "Armed with the best US combat system, they should be; but they still have to be in the right place at the right time and a conventional sub takes at least a fortnight to go from Australia to the South China Sea, through which passes more than 50 per cent of our trade."
"Conventional subs need to surface frequently to recharge their batteries, need to refuel every 70 days, and can only briefly maintain a top speed of about 20 knots. Nuclear-powered submarines, on the other hand, can stay submerged as long as the crew can endure, never have to refuel, and can travel at nearly 40 knots."
|
http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/tony-abbotts-nuclear-ambitions-surface-in-call-to-rethink-submarines-20170629-gx0xyn.html
These are excellent points.
On the other hand, nuclear boats have traditionally been noisier (and thus easier to detect), and would unquestionably be even more expensive than the conventional ones we are looking at.
Nuclear boats are usually much larger, which is presumably why we are already looking at a converted nuclear design - distances in our part of the world are so much greater that big submarines make sense.
Note that nuclear power has absolutely nothing to do with nuclear weapons. No-one, not even Clownshoes, wants to take us down that path.
_________________
�Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives! |
|
|
|
 |
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Well what? |
|
|
|
|
ronrat
Joined: 22 May 2006
Location: Thailand
|
| Post subject: | |
|
It doesn't matter, The hardest retiontion rate in the RAN is submariners. The bloke who lives next door to my folks is President of the Submariners assciation.He tells me that only a very few can tolerate the constant lack of sunshine, fresh airand fresh food and the constant stench of diesel.
I question why we need so many when none of our neighbours have any and the nearest ones are probably Singapore or Thailand (yet to get them). I suspect this is more of what employment can we give Adelaide.
I worked in Defence Procuremnt for 30 odd years and anything over a certain dollar value is referred to cabinet. Not only are the technical and logistic reports put forward so is details of what electorates will benefit, short and long term, and where the money will be spent. ADF personnel do not always get what they wanted, needed or lobbied for. The senior officers retire and go and work for who ever wins the contract and the footslogger gets left with it. The buyers get blamed. They never wanted the Steyr but wanted the cheaper and readily available US weapon but when the Austrians offerred to build them in Lithgow the result was over.
The Australian Ground based Defence Air Defence capability was based in the Adelaide hills and I think still is. Logic told everyone it should be moved to Tindal or Darwin. But the artilley bods didn't want postings to Katherine. Hahndorf is much more pleasant for family. So when Ian MCLachlan was Defence Minister they dusted off the proposal and sent it forward for consideration that the ARA component would move to Katherine. McLachlan was member for Mount Barker and was not going to see a few hundred votes disappear plus the local businesses suffer. So he vetoed it it and stated it was not to be rebsubmitted for years. Legend has it it he would not read any brief over a page long. A one line political implications statement would have sunk years of planning. I had to travel to Adelaide once a month instead of Katherine and spent 4 years touring factories in Salisbury, Holden Hill and Elizabeth. Would have much preferred Darwin where I could have kick started holidays to SE Asia.
Can I add. The proposal concluded that the reserve could move to Adelaide and the 100 or so homes and the Barracks being crown land could be handed back to the local Indigineous tribe as a ready made community with sporting fields, roads, gym, bars etc and they could be employed fruit picking.
_________________
Annoying opposition supporters since 1967. |
|
|
|
|
think positive 
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
The last idea is a great one.
As for the subs, so we are committed almost to buying a new model not fully designed yet!
So why not look at alternatives?
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
watt price tully 
Joined: 15 May 2007
|
| Post subject: Re: Below the salt | |
|
| Tannin wrote: | Twice this week we have discussed the reality that even the most stupid and wrong-headed individuals occasionally speak the truth, or raise important issues that others do not mention.
Today it is Clownshoes' turn to be accidentally right about something. Well, almost. It's going a bit far to say he is "right" on this call, but there is certainly enough merit in his contention that we should not reject it out of hand.
| Quote: |
Australia should fundamentally rethink its submarine program and consider buying nuclear-powered boats, Tony Abbott says, to better arm the Royal Australian Navy at a time when regional rivals such as China and Russia are expanding their fleets.
The former PM says we should consider nuclear submarines, also revealing his biggest regret while in the top job.
The Turnbull government announced in April 2016 it would acquire 12 conventionally-powered submarines at a cost of $50 billion from French company DCNS. The boats are based on a French nuclear submarine but will have to undergo a major redesign to allow for diesel-electric propulsion, and are not expected to enter service until the 2030s. Mr Abbott said Australia should consider acquiring about nine nuclear powered vessels from the United States, Britain or France. He stressed that he did not want to delay the procurement of submarines any further but said Australia should "explore nuclear-powered options while our committed costs are only in the hundreds of millions".
"Not more robustly challenging the nuclear no-go mindset is probably the biggest regret I have from my time as PM," Mr Abbott said. "I'm not saying that we must go nuclear but surely we should at least consider the option before the opportunity is lost for another several decades. The French-based design is hardly begun, let alone finalised. No contract to build has been signed and won't be for years. This is because it's a completely new sub inspired by, rather [than] based on the existing nuclear model that needs to be designed from scratch rather than simply modified to take a different engine.
"Our new subs are supposed to be "regionally superior" including, presumably, to the sharply increasing numbers of nuclear-powered attack submarines that are based in our region," he said. "Armed with the best US combat system, they should be; but they still have to be in the right place at the right time and a conventional sub takes at least a fortnight to go from Australia to the South China Sea, through which passes more than 50 per cent of our trade."
"Conventional subs need to surface frequently to recharge their batteries, need to refuel every 70 days, and can only briefly maintain a top speed of about 20 knots. Nuclear-powered submarines, on the other hand, can stay submerged as long as the crew can endure, never have to refuel, and can travel at nearly 40 knots."
|
http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/tony-abbotts-nuclear-ambitions-surface-in-call-to-rethink-submarines-20170629-gx0xyn.html
These are excellent points.
On the other hand, nuclear boats have traditionally been noisier (and thus easier to detect), and would unquestionably be even more expensive than the conventional ones we are looking at.
Nuclear boats are usually much larger, which is presumably why we are already looking at a converted nuclear design - distances in our part of the world are so much greater that big submarines make sense.
Note that nuclear power has absolutely nothing to do with nuclear weapons. No-one, not even Clownshoes, wants to take us down that path. |
SALT? Is that the Strategic Abbott Limitations Treaty?
_________________
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
