Indeed. The MRA4 was an austere MPA replacement, cheap, low risk they thought...
Did they use the same steel spec as the British?
Stefany: Repairs to USS Connecticut Could Cause ‘Perturbations’ in Public Shipyards - USNI News
Unplanned repairs to the damaged attack submarine USS Connecticut (SSN-22) could disrupt the backlog of planned ship maintenance in the public naval yards, Jay Stefany, acting assistant secretary of the Navy for research, development and acquisition, told Congress on Thursday. The Navy’s four...news.usni.org
www.thedrive.com
Seems logical, but take it with a grain of salt. Tony Abbott is not a member of the current Australian government and is not speaking for it. He's regarded as something of a loose cannon.
Australia Could Push To Acquire Retired US Navy Los Angeles Class Nuclear Submarines
Ex-Prime Minister floats using retired U.S. or U.K. nuclear submarines to bridge the gap until Australian-built ones can enter service.
"Finite number" is perhaps a little misleading or incomplete. There's a point past which the hull's ability to operate at depth falls off, traditionally US SSNs aren't allowed to operate past that point. However, it's not necessarily correct that every boat currently scheduled to be retired is useless. The 688i service life extension study that's gone on has been a surveying the hulls to find exactly where they are in relation to that point, and whether it's possible or advisable to operate them in a "depth limited" manner to extend their useful lives even further as construction on new boats continues. If the hull survey has found that a handful of boats could do another 10 years after an additional refueling, they might make an enticing "intro to SSNs" option for Australia.Seems logical, but take it with a grain of salt. Tony Abbott is not a member of the current Australian government and is not speaking for it. He's regarded as something of a loose cannon.
Australia Could Push To Acquire Retired US Navy Los Angeles Class Nuclear Submarines
Ex-Prime Minister floats using retired U.S. or U.K. nuclear submarines to bridge the gap until Australian-built ones can enter service.
If I'm not mistaken, is there not a finite number of times these boats can operate at depth? I'm referring to metal fatigue related issues, not fuel.
Keep one tied to the pier for training purposes only. As you get your crews trained up, start putting RAN sailors on US and UK boats. Learn as much as you can from both. No one knows when you will get a new sub. I would also recommend sending your Reactor sailors to in the USA Nuclear Power School, The UK has a similar program. I am sure this is already happening. I think its a crawl, walk and run situation. When I heard AUKUS announced, I thought that the US or UK should send a soon to be decommissioned sub down to Australia to start training crews. I really think spreading RAN sailors out in the the US and UK fleets to observe/train whatever you want to call it would be essential for a top notch RAN SSN program. Then getting cutting away from the pier doing training missions for each crew 2-4 week training missions. That would have you off at flank speed. Once the new boats start rolling in. You may have to find a way to retain the sailors, training them up will be expensive. Keeping experienced crew is always a brilliant idea for the next generation."Finite number" is perhaps a little misleading or incomplete. There's a point past which the hull's ability to operate at depth falls off, traditionally US SSNs aren't allowed to operate past that point. However, it's not necessarily correct that every boat currently scheduled to be retired is useless. The 688i service life extension study that's gone on has been a surveying the hulls to find exactly where they are in relation to that point, and whether it's possible or advisable to operate them in a "depth limited" manner to extend their useful lives even further as construction on new boats continues. If the hull survey has found that a handful of boats could do another 10 years after an additional refueling, they might make an enticing "intro to SSNs" option for Australia.Seems logical, but take it with a grain of salt. Tony Abbott is not a member of the current Australian government and is not speaking for it. He's regarded as something of a loose cannon.
Australia Could Push To Acquire Retired US Navy Los Angeles Class Nuclear Submarines
Ex-Prime Minister floats using retired U.S. or U.K. nuclear submarines to bridge the gap until Australian-built ones can enter service.
If I'm not mistaken, is there not a finite number of times these boats can operate at depth? I'm referring to metal fatigue related issues, not fuel.
Yes, the US Navy really dropped the ball on that one. We need floating drydocks at all naval facilities and not just overseas.Stefany: Repairs to USS Connecticut Could Cause ‘Perturbations’ in Public Shipyards - USNI News
Unplanned repairs to the damaged attack submarine USS Connecticut (SSN-22) could disrupt the backlog of planned ship maintenance in the public naval yards, Jay Stefany, acting assistant secretary of the Navy for research, development and acquisition, told Congress on Thursday. The Navy’s four...
No drydock in Guam. You can't make this shit up.
When is someone going to tell these folks that the military, like all government agencies, is never, ever, efficient. There is a "carrying cost" to having a military. If you're going to make Guam a big petrol station, you not only need to maintain facilities to repair things, you must make use of them regularly to maintain competency.
I can think of several areas that would make important intermediate yards w dry docks to service submarines and other Naval vessels.
Guam
Subic
Osborne
Lombrum
But it will never happen. Everyone st DoD is trying to get the first 5 things on their lists completed. This is item 12.
Well... Osborne may happen. But only because DoD wouldn't be doing it.
I think sending Aussie reactor people to school and then have them work on one in port. Unless the US/UK set up a school for the sub. With nuclear things I would double the learning time! I agree a boat in Australia is the way to go, on the job training is the best training.
www.france24.com
www.politico.eu
Keep one tied to the pier for training purposes only. As you get your crews trained up, start putting RAN sailors on US and UK boats. Learn as much as you can from both. No one knows when you will get a new sub. I would also recommend sending your Reactor sailors to in the USA Nuclear Power School, The UK has a similar program. I am sure this is already happening. I think its a crawl, walk and run situation. When I heard AUKUS announced, I thought that the US or UK should send a soon to be decommissioned sub down to Australia to start training crews. I really think spreading RAN sailors out in the the US and UK fleets to observe/train whatever you want to call it would be essential for a top notch RAN SSN program. Then getting cutting away from the pier doing training missions for each crew 2-4 week training missions. That would have you off at flank speed. Once the new boats start rolling in. You may have to find a way to retain the sailors, training them up will be expensive. Keeping experienced crew is always a brilliant idea for the next generation."Finite number" is perhaps a little misleading or incomplete. There's a point past which the hull's ability to operate at depth falls off, traditionally US SSNs aren't allowed to operate past that point. However, it's not necessarily correct that every boat currently scheduled to be retired is useless. The 688i service life extension study that's gone on has been a surveying the hulls to find exactly where they are in relation to that point, and whether it's possible or advisable to operate them in a "depth limited" manner to extend their useful lives even further as construction on new boats continues. If the hull survey has found that a handful of boats could do another 10 years after an additional refueling, they might make an enticing "intro to SSNs" option for Australia.Seems logical, but take it with a grain of salt. Tony Abbott is not a member of the current Australian government and is not speaking for it. He's regarded as something of a loose cannon.
Australia Could Push To Acquire Retired US Navy Los Angeles Class Nuclear Submarines
Ex-Prime Minister floats using retired U.S. or U.K. nuclear submarines to bridge the gap until Australian-built ones can enter service.
If I'm not mistaken, is there not a finite number of times these boats can operate at depth? I'm referring to metal fatigue related issues, not fuel.
I agree with no nuclear infrastructure. Australia has a lot of Uranium. Its up to the Australian population to decide what to do. I guess they would have to have a national referendum. Not sure about Aussie politics. US/UK training for RAN forces allows them to see the best of both US/UK submarines. This could also help the RAN decide on what type of submarine they want to produce. It will give them a chance to see the best attack submarines in operation (Astute class) <coming from a US citizen. It will also give them the chance to operate on the Virginia class and hopefully Seawolf class. The Aussies might end up with the best sub crews!
Who says we are going to allow the US to base bombers/subs/ships downunder? It would counter over 50 years of policy. We are no longer a "suitable piece of real estate" for the US or anybody to plumb down military hardware on.
If we get to put an embassy next to the White House.Could we put an Embassy next to the bomber base
If, as likely, the subs Australia selects have lifetime cores provided, then sub production and operation could be done with no nuclear infrastructure.
Ill lay the first stone!If we get to put an embassy next to the White House.Could we put an Embassy next to the bomber base
