Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Wonder what the backstory to this is. I’m guessing it has something to do with the South China Sea.Can’t recall anything like this ever occurring with one of our closest allies. Big deal.
France is pretty serious about their nuclear tech.Gotta think this is more of a straw that broke the camel’s back thing. France losing a defense contract is not the end of the world. We got caught spying on all our allies a few years back and the reaction was tame compared to this.
The Australian contract for French subs was a big deal for French shipbuilding.France is pretty serious about their nuclear tech.
Apparently the Aussies wanted them built in Australia to boost their employment and the Frogs sent a bunch of shipwrights to Australia... they promptly went on their month long summer vacation and then showed up late for work daily like the fashionably french do..Why buy diesel submarines when you can have nuclear? It is not a question of what France needs but of what Australia is willing to buy.
They should have acted like it.The Australian contract for French subs was a big deal for French shipbuilding.
The French have long wanted to stake a claim to being a global naval power, and in particular they wanted a presence in the Pacific. The Aussie/French deal was huge for them to get a presence in the South Pacific. They are really pissed off, and rightfully so. They now have no viable path to becoming a major naval power again anytime soon.Gotta think this is more of a straw that broke the camel’s back thing. France losing a defense contract is not the end of the world. We got caught spying on all our allies a few years back and the reaction was tame compared to this.
The French do have nuclear submarines and could have sold them to the Aussies. I am sure that was what they wanted all along. But France was apparently unwilling to export that technology. And for the first time ever, we were. Sucks for the French, and I do understand completely why they didn't want to sell nuclear subs. But it's a win-win for the US and the Aussies.Why buy diesel submarines when you can have nuclear? It is not a question of what France needs but of what Australia is willing to buy.
Diesel boats scare our navy.That said, this is an even bigger blow to China. The French subs were going to be diesel, which is noisy and have to refuel often and thus have limited range. This is the first time we have shared any nuke technology outside of the UK (who were always involved with US nuclear projects, starting with the Manhattan Project). That's HUGE. The Aussies get to patrol the South China Sea in fully stealth nuclear submarines with near unlimited range. You best believe that for as upset as the French are, the Chinese are pissed off x10.
In battle, there wouldn't really be too much difference. But if your goal is to spy and go around unnoticed into enemy ports, well.... Diesel ones might work just fine, which is why the Aussies agreed to buy them at first, but nukes are definitely better. Better range, quieter engines, and half of the volume of the sub isn't dedicated as a fuel tank which is always nice.Diesel boats scare our navy.
In a recent war game a diesel boat sank one of our carriers.
That would also be based on Chance to some degree in a war game.Diesel boats scare our navy.
In a recent war game a diesel boat sank one of our carriers.
Thanks. I hadn't understood that the French were not selling nukes. The difference is huge.The French do have nuclear submarines and could have sold them to the Aussies. I am sure that was what they wanted all along. But France was apparently unwilling to export that technology. And for the first time ever, we were. Sucks for the French, and I do understand completely why they didn't want to sell nuclear subs. But it's a win-win for the US and the Aussies.
Or skill.. if the boats driver is good.That would also be based on Chance to some degree in a war game.
In a war game? What do you think, they were playing Call of Duty?Or skill.. if the boats driver is good.
You really are playing checkers arent you..In a war game? What do you think, they were playing Call of Duty?
They are relatively short range weapons, so there is the issue of realistic reaction time. You need a super fast automated system.We can shoot missiles out of the sky (sometimes). Why isn’t there anti torpedo technology…or maybe there is and it’s just not very good? A torpedo would seem a much easier target than a missile.
I will add in general to this conversation that Japan has recently developed an electric submarine that is super quiet and they claim can be recharged quickly and and can stay submerged for weeks with an impressive range. It is intriguing and could even have an advantage over nukes in some ways if it is successful. It can idle with almost zero acoustic signature, and can boast high end acceleration from a dead stop, much like an electric car.They are relatively short range weapons, so there is the issue of realistic reaction time. You need a super fast automated system.
The Navy has tried to build such things, but because it has to be super fast and automated, it has trouble discerning between friendly ships and actual threats like hostile submarines and torpedoes.
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/torpedoes-are-hard-intercept-just-ask-navy-172384
The difference between radar detection ranges and sonar detections is also big. Sonar operates at the speed of sound, not light, and water conditions (turbulence, temperature layers, ship noises, etc.) can all interfere with detection and limit reaction time. Great article. Thanks for posting.They are relatively short range weapons, so there is the issue of realistic reaction time. You need a super fast automated system.
The Navy has tried to build such things, but because it has to be super fast and automated, it has trouble discerning between friendly ships and actual threats like hostile submarines and torpedoes.
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/torpedoes-are-hard-intercept-just-ask-navy-172384
Not the type of war game I was referring to, that makes sense though. I was referring to the grand strategy “war games” that are put on by the likes of the Rand Corporation with the help of our military leaders, not mock military exercises.
Seems like, given the benefits and drawbacks listed to the “new” Stirling engine Diesel engine classes and the US nuclear subs, that our intent is to provide Australia the ability to have a much larger scope of viable operations. The new diesel subs might be less detectable, but they can’t operate far from home because of fuel limitations, which is where the Nuke’s beat them.
Youre like my son that thinks that his iRacing console makes him qualified to drive at COTA.Not the type of war game I was referring to, that makes sense though. I was referring to the grand strategy “war games” that are put on by the likes of the Rand Corporation with the help of our military leaders, not mock military exercises.
No I think that strategy is larger than single engagements.Youre like my son that thinks that his iRacing console makes him qualified to drive at COTA.
Thats what the Japanese said at Midway.. Lee at Gettysburg.. and Bonaparte at Waterloo....No I think that strategy is larger than single engagements.
Seemed to work for Eisenhower despite Montgomery trying his best to crap his pants.Thats what the Japanese said at Midway.. Lee at Gettysburg.. and Bonaparte at Waterloo....
Eisenhower was too busy being an ally... if he gave Patton gasoline and ammo the war would have ended in '44... but Ike was too concerned with a potential run for President.Seemed to work for Eisenhower despite Montgomery trying his best to crap his pants.
Oh, you're one of those sorts of idiots.Eisenhower was too busy being an ally... if he gave Patton gasoline and ammo the war would have ended in '44... but Ike was too concerned with a potential run for President.
Nope just a student of history... Patton would have been in Berlin if not for Marketgarden.Oh, you're one of those sorts of idiots.
By the way, the Japanese absolutely thought they could win a war in a single engagement. It was called Pearl Harbor. It didn't work out well for them.
And the japs didnt think they coukd win the war at Pearl... but they did think that destroying our fleet would give them enough time to build a pacific fortress...Oh, you're one of those sorts of idiots.
By the way, the Japanese absolutely thought they could win a war in a single engagement. It was called Pearl Harbor. It didn't work out well for them.
The Midway engagement was chance, just as our carriers being out of Pearl Harbor was chance.And the japs didnt think they coukd win the war at Pearl... but they did think that destroying our fleet would give them enough time to build a pacific fortress...
Too bad the single engagement of the doolittle raid caused them to deviate from original strategy and into another singular engagement at Midway.