The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Fri Oct 15, 2021 11:49 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 54 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Jan 18, 2021 11:19 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2013 7:06 am
Posts: 3010
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Updated Collins class SSKs instead of the Barracudas?

Australian FINANCIAL REVIEW

Quote:
Shot across the bows on submarine contract
Andrew Tillett
Political correspondent
Jan 18, 2021 – 12.00am

Top Defence officials are examining the possibility of replacing the ageing Collins class submarine with an updated version of the original boat and cutting adrift the current contract with the French amid mounting frustration over cost blowouts and missed deadlines.

The Australian Financial Review understands Prime Minister Scott Morrison is increasingly exasperated over the troubled $80 billion project, with tensions rising between the Defence Department and the French designer Naval Group.

(...SNIPPED)

_________________
"Haijun" means "navy" in Mandarin Chinese.

"You have enemies? Good. It means you stood up for something in your life."- Winston Churchill


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Mar 23, 2021 6:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2013 7:06 am
Posts: 3010
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Big ticket naval shipyard contracts are always political:

Naval News

Quote:
Australia and Naval Group ink agreement on Attack-class submarine program
Australia's Future Submarine Program has reached a major milestone with the conclusion of negotiations between the Department of Defence and Naval Group for the amendments to the Strategic Partnering Agreement.
Xavier Vavasseur 23 Mar 2021
This will see Naval Group’s commitment to spend at least 60 percent of the contract value in Australia over the life of the Program reflected formally in the Agreement, supporting Australian jobs in the defence industry.
The amendments ensure that the achievement of Naval Group’s commitment is now a contractual obligation, measured during the course of the Program, driving Australian industry involvement as the Attack class submarines are designed and delivered.
The amendments complement existing requirements under Defence’s contractual arrangements with Naval Group to drive Australian industry capability. This includes establishing procurement organisations in Australia, and the need to approach the Australian market in the first instance for the majority of equipment.

(...EDITED)

_________________
"Haijun" means "navy" in Mandarin Chinese.

"You have enemies? Good. It means you stood up for something in your life."- Winston Churchill


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Mar 30, 2021 5:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2013 7:06 am
Posts: 3010
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Defense News

Quote:
Naval Group trumpets its Australian industry focus in submarine deal
By: Christina Mackenzie   3 hours ago
PARIS – Naval Group is set to become “a Franco-Australian” company, CEO Pierre-Eric Pommellet said in the wake of a contractual commitment to spend at least 60 percent of the contract value for Australia’s 12 new Attack-class submarines in the Commonwealth.
Last week Naval Group’s long-standing commitment to maximize Australian content in the design and build of the Attack Class submarines was signed into the Strategic Partnering Agreement, meaning that it is now a contractual obligation that will be measured over the life span of the program.
Speaking to journalists in a videoconference on Tuesday, Pommellet said, “We already have 2,000 Australians employed in the Adelaide area and there will be many more, including some who will come to work here in France.”
“Australia is massively investing in its naval industry and a supply chain is being created,” Pommellet explained. He had said during his visit to Australia in February that the submarine program would “also create a new and sovereign submarine building industry in Australia. Strong local supply chains will ensure that Australia has new self-reliance in this critical defense capability.”
(...EDITED)

_________________
"Haijun" means "navy" in Mandarin Chinese.

"You have enemies? Good. It means you stood up for something in your life."- Winston Churchill


Last edited by Haijun watcher on Thu Apr 01, 2021 5:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Mar 30, 2021 7:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 2:12 pm
Posts: 3117
was not about Australian sub program but about "Japan, Indonesia sign arms transfer pact amid China concerns". so wrong link posted.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Apr 01, 2021 5:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2013 7:06 am
Posts: 3010
Location: Vancouver, Canada
DavidP wrote:
was not about Australian sub program but about "Japan, Indonesia sign arms transfer pact amid China concerns". so wrong link posted.


Sorry David P,

I just corrected the embedded link above.

If it still doesn't work again, here is the actual source:

https://www.defensenews.com/global/euro ... rine-deal/

_________________
"Haijun" means "navy" in Mandarin Chinese.

"You have enemies? Good. It means you stood up for something in your life."- Winston Churchill


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Sep 16, 2021 6:14 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 6:23 am
Posts: 3316
Location: Copenhagen
Apparently the program is now cancelled and will be replaced by nuclear powered submarines developed together with the US and UK:

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2021/09/australia-intends-to-acquire-at-least-eight-locally-built-ssns-as-part-of-aukus-initiative/

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2021/09/french-government-naval-group-react-to-australias-decision-to-end-attack-class-submarine-program/

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Sep 16, 2021 10:49 am 
How long will this delay introduction of new subs to the Australian Navy?


Top
  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Sep 19, 2021 11:09 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 6:23 am
Posts: 3316
Location: Copenhagen
According to the Australian prime minister to 2040!

That is 9 years after the original planing for the Attack class and 6 years after the last estimates (expected delays). The newest submarine of the Collins class will be 44 years old and further delays would be not surprising.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Sep 21, 2021 11:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 6:23 am
Posts: 3316
Location: Copenhagen
A statement of a spokesperson of the French ministry of defence:

French MoD Sets the Record Straight on Australian Submarine Affair
Quote:
In August 2021, the joint press release of the French and Australian defense and foreign affairs ministers still stated, “Ministers underlined the importance of the Future Submarine program.”

On the same day as the AUKUS announcement, the Australians wrote to France to say that they were satisfied with the submarine’s achievable performance and with the progress of the program. In short: forward to launching the next phase of the contract.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Sep 22, 2021 4:03 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2020 10:22 am
Posts: 29
Location: Sydney Australia
Australian Gov will investigate interim options to lease a nuclear boat from USN or RN

https://www.australiandefender.com.au/new/shop/accessallareas/intel/21%202/210920sub%20lease/2109sub%20lease.html

this would be an interesting option and would allow crews to develop experience alongside US/RN crews and training programs and for support facilities to be planned and built in Australia before the sub build begins.

Cheers

Waz


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Sep 22, 2021 4:53 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 6:23 am
Posts: 3316
Location: Copenhagen
The link does not work (requires login).

What kind of submarine could be leased for 20 years?

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Sep 22, 2021 7:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2020 4:35 pm
Posts: 615
Location: Brittany, France
Australian submarines: what are the risks of nuclear proliferation?

The sale of nuclear-powered submarines to Australia, which has caused an unprecedented diplomatic crisis between the United States and France, raises many questions about the risk of nuclear proliferation in the region and beyond, analysts say.

- The uranium problem -

Australia initially ordered so-called "conventional" submarines from France, which must surface after a few days to recharge their batteries. American and British nuclear submarines are powered by a nuclear reactor that allows them to recharge their batteries indefinitely. Their autonomy is therefore limited to the subsistence of the crew, which rarely exceeds three months.

Paris has nuclear technology, which equips the Charles-de-Gaulle and all its submarines, but France uses low-enriched uranium (LEU) at less than 20%, a level similar to that used in nuclear power plants for electricity generation. LEU has to be renewed every 10 years, a delicate and dangerous process, but it cannot be diverted to military use.

American and British submarines use highly enriched uranium (HEU), which is more than 93%. It has a shelf life of 30 years, but precisely because it is enriched, it can be used to make a bomb.

"The US Navy's reactors currently use the HEU equivalent of 100 nuclear bombs, more than all the world's nuclear power plants combined," said Alan Kuperman of the University of Texas, in an op-ed written just before the announcement of the US-UK-Australia security pact, known as AUKUS.

Congress, which is currently negotiating the 2022 military budget, should make funds available for the US Navy's transition to the much safer LEU technology, the nuclear proliferation expert recommended in the trade journal Breaking Defense.

- Legal vacuum" -
For James Acton of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, the sale of nuclear submarines to Australia therefore represents a "considerable proliferation risk", accentuated by a legal vacuum in international regulations.

Because the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) does not prohibit non-nuclear states from acquiring nuclear submarines, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) "allows them to remove nuclear combustible from any surveillance for 'unprohibited military activities'", he explained on Twitter.

"I'm not worried about Australia acquiring nuclear weapons. My concern is that other states will use this precedent to exploit a potentially serious loophole in the global non-proliferation regime," he added.

This "could well open a Pandora's box of proliferation," said Tariq Rauf, a former IAEA expert and now a fellow at the Toda Peace Institute.

"Non-nuclear weapon states like Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Iran, Japan, Saudi Arabia and South Korea will move to nuclear submarines and keep nuclear combustible" away from the IAEA, he added.

- Snowball effect -
Russia "could increase its technology exchanges with India, China could provide its naval reactor technology to Pakistan and others, and Brazil could more easily find outlets for its troubled submarine reactor project," adds Hans Kristensen of the Federation of American Scientists (FAS).

Washington has reaffirmed its commitment to the NPT in recent days, with White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki saying on Monday that Australia is "an exceptional case, not a precedent-setter.

But for Daryl Kimball, director of the Arms Control Association think tank, "it's one thing to have a defence cooperation agreement with a close ally, it's quite another to do so while compromising your own principles and those of the international community.

"When the US, which claims to be at the forefront of non-proliferation, continues to bend the rules and principles of non-proliferation to help its allies, it has a corrosive effect on the international order that this administration claims to defend," he told AFP.

https://www.boursorama.com/actualite-ec ... a1bc27583c

_________________
Pascal

•SS Nomadic: viewtopic.php?f=13&t=311395
•USS Pamanset: viewtopic.php?f=13&t=305869
•USS Hornet: viewtopic.php?f=59&t=306241


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Sep 22, 2021 1:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 3:35 pm
Posts: 2820
Location: UK
I am not sure that article is very useful in terms of nuclear proliferation. If the loophole exists then you can be sure that some countries will exploit it whether or not Australia gets nuclear powered subs.

However, this deal between US/Australia looks very strange (I am leaving the UK out of it as I suspect they are there just to give it a cloak of "respectability" and are not really part of the sub deal at all). I wonder why Australia opted to cancel all twelve French subs rather than simply reducing the number of diesel subs to, say, six while exploring the long term options for acquiring the nuclear powered subs? Many difficult decisions need to be made before any real work can be done on designing the boats and constructing the necessary infrastructure.

Something doesn't add up and I suspect we won't find out which piece of the puzzle is missing for quite a while. Unless we get a U-Turn of course.

_________________
In 1757 Admiral John Byng was shot "pour encourager les autres". Voltaire


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Sep 22, 2021 9:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 2:12 pm
Posts: 3117
https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/th ... ocid=ientp


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 54 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 15 guests


You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group