Utopia Talk / Politics / Royal Australian Navy capability

shannon Member	Sat Sep 18 18:50:58 https://youtu.be/1WYuGu5QNDA Message from Admiral Mike Noonan, Commander of the RAN. “A new era has dawned”. China will be facing a well armed and vigorous Australia in alliance with the two most powerful Navies in the world, the USN and RN. Canada will be next to join the Anglosphere nuclear submarine alliance.
Rugian Member	Sat Sep 18 19:02:09 CANZUKUS!
shannon Member	Sat Sep 18 19:10:23 Australian Defence Minister lays the path to buy the 7th Astute class SSN (HMS Agincourt) from the UK, due to be launched in 2024. Also says what he thinks about French Ambassadors being withdrawn. https://youtu.be/W3KIant351k
shannon Member	Sat Sep 18 19:14:04 Rugian, as it should be. Blood is thicker than water.
Habebe Member	Sat Sep 18 21:02:54 http://youtu.be/1WYuGu5QNDA This is your first link.If you delete the "s" in https it highlights the link so everyone can click it.
Habebe Member	Sat Sep 18 21:04:31 So when are we going to let/push Japan start building a navy?
TheChildren Member	Sun Sep 19 00:45:04 idiocracy is real. these people r nuts.
Seb Member	Sun Sep 19 03:38:12 So fleet reduction for the RN. Suspect we will never get the 7th astute if that happens. Once the crew of the Trafalgar has been laid off, that's never coming back. Boris fucked the RN in the back.
Seb Member	Sun Sep 19 04:37:50 This article suggests a different approach: lease and 2040s. That would be better in many ways - life extension of Los Angeles class perhaps (if possible) followed by development of an Astute successor across UK and Australia allowing for an incremental approach - like with the US destroyer programme - going forward so there's always subs being built. Australia could initially lease submarines from UK or US but nuclear weapons remain off limits. http://www...r-weapons-remain-off-the-table
Paramount Member	Sun Sep 19 05:48:05 ”Message from Admiral Mike Noonan, Commander of the RAN. “A new era has dawned”. China will be facing a well armed and vigorous Australia in alliance with the two most powerful Navies in the world, the USN and RN. ” I guess Australia does not want to do business with China anymore?
swordtail Anarchist Prime	Sun Sep 19 05:55:09 http://twitter.com/workingdogprod/status/902855541143117825
Paramount Member	Sun Sep 19 11:34:59 Lol Australia It is so obvious that Australia was pressured and threatened by the USA to be a part of the US aggression against China.
Seb Member	Sun Sep 19 13:33:08 Well the UK just announced we are beginning design work on the astute replacement.
shannon Member	Mon Sep 20 07:31:00 Thanks habebe
shannon Member	Mon Sep 20 07:37:47 Seb, the Trenchant crew have not been laid off. The boat has been laid up. ie not on active service list. Sailors are still on service list. More Astute keels will be laid. Do you not get this yet? The RN may even get an 8th with all the money made on an Australian order for Astute. And don’t forget Canada… No loss of capability at all. If fact it’s an increase as a major Permanent base in the Indian Ocean will be available. Will be useful for SSBN, QE CSG and SSNs.
shannon Member	Mon Sep 20 07:39:27 Yes Seb, as I said a few days ago Agincourt will be acquired by the RAN. Birmingham said leasing arrangements would not necessarily “increase the number of submarines and the capability across all of the partner nations” but would help with training and information sharing.
shannon Member	Mon Sep 20 07:40:35 Astute 2 is 20 years away. Australia will not wait. It’s Astute a d the sooner the better. We want 8 and we won’t wait!
shannon Member	Mon Sep 20 07:41:43 Paramount stop being a filthy commie stooge. It’s disgusting.
Seb Member	Mon Sep 20 07:53:11 Shannon: I mean the last Trafalgar class to be decommissioned. If there isn't an astute to put them on, guarantee it will result in a reduction. "The RN may even get an 8th with all the money made on an Australian order for Astute." The marginal price for unit 7 was c. 2bn - there isn't going to be 2bn going back to HMT to fund an 8th boat. "And don’t forget Canada" Biden described this as a "one off", seems unlikely Canada can get in on the deal. "No loss of capability at all. If fact it’s an increase as a major Permanent base in the Indian Ocean will be available." A loss of capability for the RN, as it means fewer astutes to cover the missions in the Atlantic area - where they are most needed for defence of the realm. If Brexit means the UK being fucked by Australia on trade and defence, I can see why you are for it.
Habebe Member	Mon Sep 20 08:02:27 " Paramount stop being a filthy commie stooge. It’s disgusting." In all fairness that's kind of his thing.Hes greasier than a lumber jack, and them cocksuckers are gree hee heeasy!
shannon Member	Mon Sep 20 08:35:31 Lol there is no loss of capability, as HMS Trenchant will remain in service until it is replaced by the 2022 build Astute. How are you not following this simple, logical, sequence of events? 18 months extension? You are thinking of Triumph which had its last refit and upgrade in 2005, and it will serve until 2024. Trenchant was refitted and upgraded in 2011. It has plenty of serviceable life left, all the way to 2029 if required. This is how things will go Seb, AUKUS is a done deal. There’s no point getting homo-hysterical about it. UK military power will be enhanced by this arrangement for decades to come. There’s no certainty yet on how many more Astute will need to be built. At least eight. Maybe 12. Perhaps 16. But then Astute 2 will be in play. That’s a lot of extra money going into the Exchequer. Biden or more to the point the people that are actually running America, aren’t going to say anything about RCN SSNs until there is a change in Govt in Canada. The election is tomorrow! Given the incredibly close strategic US-Canadian relationship going back a century, closer than with Australia, it’s astonishing to suggest they would not also be given SSN privileges.
shannon Member	Mon Sep 20 08:53:18 “If there isn’t an Astute to put them on” there will be. HMAS Agincourt. It will be a joint RN -RAN crew. Its a win-win. I’m pretty sure there will Plenty of volunteers to be based in sunny Perth as opposed to miserable Faslane! http://www...-of-the-best-beaches-in-perth/
shannon Member	Mon Sep 20 09:04:14 Swordtail, yes China buys a lot of Australian resources. But it’s not Australia’s only trading partner. More to the point we need to Australia needs to be able to resist Chinese pressure. At the moment they can play around with import restrictions and boycotts on certain products. Different altogether when they park a fleet off our coastal cities and start making demands on what we need to give them and at what price. Or how many millions of new Chinese “migrants” we have to take. Or dictate any other policy they care to name.
Seb Member	Mon Sep 20 09:04:32 Shannon: Trenchant has already had life extension back in 2013, it's been in service 35 years and it can't be extended further. Reactor refuels on the Trafalgars were every 15 years or so. And the other two Trafalgars, Talent and Triumph are already extended to max cover delays to Astute. MoD have already ruled further life extension as non-viable and relying on "additional maintenance" (i.e. extended downtime). It's the reactors. You can't keep them running at operational levels forever without refueling, and that's a massive operation that takes over a year. So yes, capability gap if we sell Agincourt to the Aussies.
EuropeanPussy Member	Mon Sep 20 09:17:56 Australia will pay for insulting France! http://www...-aground-over-submarine-furor/ EU-Australia trade deal runs aground over submarine furor France says pursuing negotiations is now ‘unthinkable.’ Clément Beaune, France's European affairs secretary, told POLITICO that Europe could hardly continue talks for a free-trade agreement after such a breach of trust. Brussels has held 11 rounds of talks with Canberra to date, and Australia originally hoped to conclude the accord before the end of the year. "Keeping one's word is the condition of trust between democracies and between allies," he said. "So it is unthinkable to move forward on trade negotiations as if nothing had happened with a country in which we no longer trust."
murder Member	Mon Sep 20 09:26:46 Australia should invade France. :o)
Seb Member	Mon Sep 20 09:31:37 That's just domestic talking points. The trade deal was already paused pending the french elections, and prior to that stuck on some point or another on which no progress had been made in a while.
Habebe Member	Mon Sep 20 10:11:29 France has denied stopping the trade deal. But for reference their total trade is 10B yearly.This was a 90B dollar contract over several years.
Sam Adams Member	Mon Sep 20 10:18:05 "Keeping one's word is the condition of trust" You mean like delivering a submarine close to working order on time and on budget?
Seb Member	Mon Sep 20 11:50:55 Bear in mind a lot of this is for domestic consumption. Macron has elections coming up and this is a pretty big blow across a number of areas: 1. France has been pushing "strategic autonomy" for the EU - which in their mind means French leadership - and in particular a pacific strategy. This makes them look stupid and irrelevant in front of the rest of the EU even as they try to galvanise them. To some extent, this is not great for the US either which is keen to get Europe motivated in greater engagement vis a vis china, particularly security. 2. France has pacific territories - far more "skin in the game" than the UK, and is double pissed it was not involved in the pact. 3. France saw the sale as a way of defraying and smoothing it's own sub programme procurement cycle out; and sustaining force projection in the pacific through shared supply chains etc. in the same way the US/UK no doubt it, so beyond the lost revenues to their defence cos, it increases costs all around for them. 4. Massive intelligence failure makes them look shit. Hence the mega strop - they are probably escalating looking to have their tummy tickled (concessions elsewhere), emphasise within Europe the unreliability of the US and need for EU nations to club together on security, and head off domestic criciticism. Sam: Quite. This would not have happened if they had delivered on time and to budget.
shannon Member	Wed Sep 22 03:14:26 Sam & Seb, yes it would still have been cancelled as the diesel submarines are entirely inadequate. The French mismanagement and the rising threat of Chinese aggression just made it easier. You must understand that the Liberal Party politicians who made this decision were pushed out of power by the same Liberal Party politicians who cancelled it. See Dutton vs Turnbull leadership contest. PM Turnbull and Defence Minister Pyne are not even in Parliament any longer. Turnbull came close to being drummed out of the Liberal Party altogether. Pyne is under Senate investigation for joining the French submarine project as a consultant! The RAN always wanted nuclear but were forced to accept diesel by a Turnbull and Pyne for their own political and perhaps financial benefits. HMS Trenchant can and will be back in active service. It’s why she hasn’t been decommissioned. The crew are still assigned and simply tied up on a wharf. She could go to sea today. HMS Trenchant was commissioned in 1989, so 32 years, not 35. Trenchant was subject to the largest and most complex SSN refit and upgrade package ever undertaken at Devonport from 2014-16, involving about 650,000 man-hours of work. Returned to duty in 2017. Given a ten year nuclear refuelling cycle then it’s good for 2027… The only reason Trenchant was to be decommissioned in 2021 is because of budgets and the Astute delivery programme, not due to inability to continue operating at full capability. Note Trenchant is NOT YET DECOMMISSIONED. Even though withdrawn from Active duty in March 2021.
jergul large member	Wed Sep 22 03:31:31 Nice roadmap for Iran. Nuclear material in military reactors fall outside of the NPT.
jergul large member	Wed Sep 22 04:18:29 Though to reck Australia, would not China just need to aim for 2.5 C global warming? Mission accomplished! :D
Seb Member	Wed Sep 22 04:39:47 Shannon: "HMS Trenchant was commissioned in 1989, so 32 years, not 35." She was launched in 86, so the reactor turned on long before she was commissioned - you need to do sea trials etc. before commissioning. That's the key date here. "Given a ten year nuclear refuelling cycle then it’s good for 2027" Well, 2026 as reactor would have started on completion of refit, not when accepted back into service. But was she refuelled though? I can find no record that there was refuelling done, and the Trafalgars typically have one mid-life refuel, not two. If she was refuelled, then possibly - but the trafalgars have already had problems with cracked pipes etc. The other reason for keeping it active is that the astute they will transfer to hasn't left Barrow yet.
Habebe Member	Wed Sep 22 04:46:33 Face to face, out in the heat Hanging tough, staying hungry They stack the odds 'til we take to the street For the kill with the skill to survive.
jergul large member	Wed Sep 22 05:02:08 http://wits.worldbank.org/countrysnapshot/en/AUS Ahahaha China has 40% of Aussie trade. The anglosphere 8%. gg.
shannon Member	Wed Sep 22 05:34:38 http://www...ndo-pacific-presence-rw6mz0p03 The RN will base three Astutes at HMAS Stirling. China cannot attack there without a good old ICBM payback. Seb, Astutes at Australia kinda undermines your theory about Russia being a focus eh? Seb and comrade Jergulmaths don’t appear to grasp what is going on. The Australian PM and DefMin and the UK PM are in Washington now to discuss. The US Airforce secretary on Monday mentioned China 27 times. Russia just once. http://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/2781521/kendall-presents-unsparing-blueprint-for-confronting-china-other-threats/ Seb Leasing or buying an existing SSN. If not Agincourt then which Astute will it be? Anson? Agamemnon? http://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/19/australia-could-lease-submarines-from-uk-or-us-but-nuclear-weapons-remain-off-the-table Australia has an open cheque book for defence. Public sentiment is rock solid on re arming and the AUKUS Alliance.
shannon Member	Wed Sep 22 05:41:49 Ok so 1986 for the Trenchant reactor. Midlife refuelling at 2001, takes you to 2016. When it had the most extensive refit in RN history. Obviously the reactor was refuelled or how was it still on active duty in 2021? As for pipes etc. 2016 refit was 650,000 hours. I’m sure they got around to that. They stressed tested the hull by breaking through the Artic ice in 2018 lol. Trenchant is good to go. As soon as Agincourt is launched it’s going to have an RAN flag.
shannon Member	Wed Sep 22 05:47:14 Jergul, yes China is heavily dependent on Australia coal and iron ore and natural gas. They will be starved of resources if Australia pulls the plug.
Habebe Member	Wed Sep 22 06:18:16 China has coal, I would have figured China would have had a pipeline from Russia by now. China would have a tough time running a war without the Kingdom freinds. In an all out direct conflict US V China, sides would be taken.Iran would side with China and probably Pakistan. The anglosphere, India, Japan and probably the Sunni-Judean sphere, Mexico.
jergul large member	Wed Sep 22 06:47:25 So I guess China should just go for that 2.5% global warming for global dominance. Seems doable. Rofl.
shannon Member	Wed Sep 22 07:37:15 You must feel so humiliated when you sober up and see the this dumb shit you dribble comrade.
murder Member	Wed Sep 22 08:26:21 "In an all out direct conflict US V China ..." Ambassadors would be recalled. Pointed rhetoric would come from both sides. Possibly some chest beating from the Chinese. There would be some temporary reduction in trade. Followed by a summit.
jergul large member	Wed Sep 22 08:46:22 The only thing I am seeing is how irrelevant everything is except the US and China.
Habebe Member	Wed Sep 22 10:23:31 Yes, Europe is irrelevant.
Seb Member	Wed Sep 22 10:24:02 Shannon: If we are losing focus on Russia due to Boris's desire to not have to deal with Europe, that's a strategic error. The Russians are a far bigger threat to the UK than China. "Leasing or buying an existing SSN. If not Agincourt then which Astute will it be? Anson? Agamemnon?" Life extended Los Angeles and get in queue for either an extended Astute run or early production of Astute successor. RE Trenchant: PWR is 15 years fuel load. Hence 86 for the reactor + 15 takes you to 2001 when she went out of service. Trenchant did sea trials in late 2003, so 17 years takes you to early 2021. Two years over, but the reactor doesn't just die, its power output drops. I assume there is a safety factor, but I suspect the Trafalgars remaining are operating outside the normal margin due to astute delay. So the question is, was Trenchant refueled in 20014-17 refit. Let's look at that period: it was actually 2014-16 refit, but during sea trials they found cracks in reactor piping resulting in a delayed return to service in 2017. Some of that "longest and biggest refit ever" is Comms to hide what was at the time a lot of negative stories about whether the Trafalgars would all need to retire early due to reactor pipework issue . I would be skeptical that she was refueled then. It would have been only around 11 years (2003 sea trials to 2014 when she entered the refit) since last reactor coming online. This seems short, but is possible if they wanted to hedge against Astute being late again. However, MoD are normally crap at foresight and like to sweat assets. Vengeance was having her refuel at the time - my gut suspicion is that they do one reactor at a time. In addition the reactor pipe cracks - an age issue affecting the entire fleet - emerging in sea trials suggest the refit didn't involve the reactor being opened up for refueling, or they would have been discovered then. And as the problem was fleet wide, they probably weren't caused by work on the reactor. I can find no mention of refueling, though these are mentioned for other ships. Overall, I suspect the last three Trafalgars are on their last legs. If an Astute is to be leased, I reckon it would be unit 7 and mark a further cut to the UK force (it will be made permanent) - and they'll use the arguments you do: that it's ok because the missions the UK would have done will now be done by Australia. Meanwhile, fewer subs to shadow the Russians.
Seb Member	Wed Sep 22 10:25:38 Murder: That's why Europeans thought a war in Europe would never happen in the 20th century. And then there was two that dragged in the entire world.
murder Member	Wed Sep 22 17:34:38 Yeah but there are these things called oceans between us. We can't hope to land enough troops on Asian soil to take on the Chinese there ... and they are completely outclassed and outgunned in the air and the water once they stray more than a few miles outside their territory. So a full on conflict would be pretty pointless. You'd just end up with two apes making a bunch of noise and flinging poop at each other.
Seb Member	Thu Sep 23 01:42:21 You tend to put too much emphasis on China being out gunned and out classed. They have the bigger industrial base and are modernising rapidly.
Cloud Strife Member	Thu Sep 23 04:24:10 I'm not convinced that they have a bigger industrial base that is already or immediately retooled into productive military assets, FWIW. But I think the point is, that there's no where for the two to invade. The war would be as fruitless as one between Kazakhstan and Bolivia.
Seb Member	Thu Sep 23 10:08:47 Cloud Strife: China's medium term focus is to prevent the US from projecting force into the Pacific. If it does, then it will be able to control most of global trade, and does not need to invade the US. The US will contest that. The fact that it won't involve the US or China invading each other due to distance doesn't mean that the war is inevitable - that isn't the goal that in itself, and is no longer necessary in order to win any conflict decisively as there are other means of striking at each-other's industrial capacity without invading.
jergul large member	Thu Sep 23 10:54:38 China is remarkably well situated to strike at US industrial capacity. Given that most of it has been outsourced to the Chinese mainland. You have a funny way of wording things. China's medium term goal is what exactly? Keep US taskforces out of the Pacific? That seems overly ambitious. They are not even keeping Taiwans fleets out of the Pacific.
Seb Member	Thu Sep 23 12:05:39 *rolls eyes* cut paste "be able to". "Given that most of it has been outsourced to the Chinese mainland" America has no military industrial capacity?
jergul large member	Thu Sep 23 12:18:49 Seb That last question is an interesting one. By what factor is it smaller than China's? The conventional understanding is that all high intensity conflicts are fight with what you have. No industrial base can gear up to replace losses.
Seb Member	Thu Sep 23 12:49:28 Jergul: "No industrial base can gear up to replace losses." Depends if you want to keep refighting the same war.
Dukhat Member	Thu Sep 23 13:19:53 The Anglosphere is a misnomer. America is soon to be a minority/majority country as is Britain. More like the Mexican/Paki-Indian/Aussie sphere.
Seb Member	Thu Sep 23 13:51:52 Dukhat: 80% of the English/Welsh population is white British according to the last survey. This idea that Britain is going to be a minority/majority country any time soon is the fevered delusions of a few very loud people that should be ignored.
Pillz Member	Thu Sep 23 14:31:10 Yes but you also count all persons from former colonies as British white don't you
Seb Member	Thu Sep 23 15:01:31 Pillz: It's all self reported. A white Australian living in the UK might say white British if they have nationality, they might say white other.
Dukhat Member	Thu Sep 23 22:30:38 Man, only 20% minorities and you guys freaked out and decided to Brexit? At least have some balls and get over 50% minority like the US. Though Mexicans are close enough that the GOP will convert a lot of them like they did with Italians.
Seb Member	Fri Sep 24 01:56:13 US is 60% white.
Seb Member	Fri Sep 24 01:56:31 *non Latino white.
shannon Member	Fri Sep 24 07:21:46 HMS Trenchant was obviously refuelled in 2015/16. The RN would not undertake the largest refit in history, with a reactor that would be running out of steam as it left the dock! Bizarre you would even suggest it. Three RN Astutes are to be based in Perth. Russia clearly is not a priority. You really just don’t like idea of close UK-Australian military cooperation against China, because you are so Eurocentric. Britain is a global power, deal with it.
shannon Member	Fri Sep 24 07:25:58 Dukhat, the UK citizen count is close to 90% AngloCeltic. There are a great many non white people in the UK who are not citizens. Brexit was about British sovereignty, not demographics. The EU is white if you haven’t already noticed. The UK stopped granting them permanent residency rights.
jergul large member	Fri Sep 24 07:34:54 And 95% IndoAngloCeltic!
murder Member	Fri Sep 24 07:42:28 "You tend to put too much emphasis on China being out gunned and out classed.They have the bigger industrial base and are modernising rapidly." They build a $500,000,000 ship and we blow it up with $5,000,000 worth of bombs and missiles. And it doesn't matter if you modernize if you are still behind technologically. It's hard to get ahead when your primary means of R & D is theft.
shannon Member	Fri Sep 24 07:56:53 Lol comrade Jergul and his High Retardese comments.
jergul large member	Fri Sep 24 08:05:48 Murder Funny, for by theft is exactly how the US and USSR got ahead after wwii. You can build on it after a while.
Habebe Member	Fri Sep 24 08:12:11 Spoils of war is distinctly different from theft. If your going to take some shit atleast have the decency to kill some people or blow some shit up... Then its ok.
shannon Member	Fri Sep 24 08:15:50 “If an Astute is to be leased, I reckon it would be unit 7 and mark a further cut to the UK force (it will be made permanent) - and they'll use the arguments you do: that it's ok because the missions the UK would have done will now be done by Australia.” Now you’ve finally understood Agincourt will be going to the RAN. HMS Trenchant, still a commissioned warship in the RN, with a reactor fuelled to 2031, and a refit and upgrade only five years old, will continue service until 2027, when a new RN Astute will be launched to replace her. With the money the UK is making on the Australian submarines, there will be money to build an 8th RN Astute or another couple of major surface combatants.
Seb Member	Fri Sep 24 08:35:04 Shannon: It's faintly absurd to just assert things. Why do you think Trenchant was refuelled in 2016 after only 9 years after it's previous refuel?
Seb Member	Fri Sep 24 08:37:49 "he RN would not undertake the largest refit in history, with a reactor that would be running out of steam as it left the dock!" The RN would not extract a set of fuel rods that have been only 60% burned. The RN would not have missed reactor pipe cracks if it had refuelled refuelled a reactor.
Seb Member	Fri Sep 24 08:38:58 "Three RN Astutes are to be based in Perth. Russia clearly is not a priority." That is a statement of politics - Boris is keen to look to the pacific for political reasons - it is not a military assessment. Russia is and should remain a priority for the UK.
jergul large member	Fri Sep 24 09:00:51 Habebe Yah, we always have excuses for when we do stuff. We stole all their patents? Uhm no, we liberated the patents. Well, China too is liberating patents.
Seb Member	Fri Sep 24 09:16:01 Shannon: "ukhat, the UK citizen count is close to 90% AngloCeltic." Incorrect. In 2011, it was more like 81.5% White British plus Irish. The remaining were other white, which will be overwhelmingly European. This will have moved further in the most recent census which has not yet been published.
murder Member	Fri Sep 24 09:20:27 "ah, we always have excuses for when we do stuff. We stole all their patents? Uhm no, we liberated the patents." I have no idea what you are referring to.
jergul large member	Fri Sep 24 09:23:01 Murder Habebe saying all is okiedokie because "spoils of war".
Seb Member	Fri Sep 24 09:25:19 murder: "And it doesn't matter if you modernize if you are still behind technologically. It's hard to get ahead when your primary means of R & D is theft." An out of date view - f.ex if their R&D is theft, how come they have a working rail gun and the US has cancelled their programme as a technical failure? China is to America as America was to Europe at the turn of the 19th century.
murder Member	Fri Sep 24 09:40:15 "An out of date view - f.ex if their R&D is theft, how come they have a working rail gun and the US has cancelled their programme as a technical failure?" Where is their working railgun, Seb?
jergul large member	Fri Sep 24 09:56:34 Murder I think Seb's analogy is fair enough. China will grind down whatever edges remain on the whetstone of a massive engineer advantage.
murder Member	Fri Sep 24 10:28:38 Not anytime soon.
jergul large member	Fri Sep 24 10:56:26 murder You might be surprised. China is far outpacing the US in vessel production. The older ones have had major upgrades 7-10 years ago on average. Your typical surface combatant is using stuff from 8 years ago. For China, it is close to 3 years. Tack on their ships actually carrying a semi full complement of non nuclear missiles compared to a US 20-25%...and a eery picture begins to emerge.
murder Member	Fri Sep 24 11:24:28 "Your typical surface combatant is using stuff from 8 years ago. For China, it is close to 3 years." Yeah but their stuff from 3 years ago is way behind our stuff from 8 years ago. "Tack on their ships actually carrying a semi full complement of non nuclear missiles compared to a US 20-25%...and a eery picture begins to emerge." Those ships are meaningless. For some reason people want to relearn what was learned in WWII. Not only would they all get sunk, but thanks to stealth technology and standoff weapons it's very possible that they wouldn't even see what hit them.
murder Member	Fri Sep 24 11:31:21 This is all pointless anyway. China is no threat to interfere with global trade. They are concerned with keeping it flowing. China is the one in danger of having trade cut off.
TheChildren Member	Fri Sep 24 12:51:21 is cucknon still talkin about this hahaha. those little toyboats r supposed 2 mean something? lol?
Seb Member	Fri Sep 24 16:23:30 Murder: Chinese rail gun is undergoing sea trials on a converted tank transport. US one never got reliable enough on land. Germanies superior technology couldn't overcome allied production capacity. The added value US tech edge has is increasingly narrow and quantity has a quality all of its own. "For some reason people want to relearn what was learned in WWII" You seem to have confused yourself. Germany had all the wonder weapons and superior engineering, and lost to raw production power and numbers of US and Russia. The lesson of WW2 is that Western strategies of batch production of unaffordable bleeding edge tech designed to last for a few weeks intense combat won't necessarily overcome a moderately less technically capable force that is bigger, more robust and can out produce the enemy. Regarding global trade, you should look at Chinese industrial trends post 2010 - internal demand is now more important than exports and the number of people employed in tertiary industry is larger than even primary or secondary. This is a position that gives China a lot of power and why Trump's trade war wasn't very effective. This idea that China implodes if global trade stops is increasingly inaccurate, and of they can maintain imports of raw materials, actually it's the West that is more fucked.
shannon Member	Fri Sep 24 17:02:00 Seb are you saying HMS Trenchant was launched in 1986 and went until 2009 until a refuel? That’s a lot more than 15 years right. Your dates are all over the place. I explained earlier the reactor refuelled was in 2001 when it was refitted. 15 years later is 2016 when it went in for a huge overhaul. Weapons were upgraded in 2011. Of course the reactor was refuelled as HMS Trenchant was still operational in 2021.
shannon Member	Fri Sep 24 17:10:11 Seb you are looking at UK population and not the citizenship count, which are different things. There’s a lot of foreign citizens resident in the UK. The ONS estimates for 2018 show that 9.3 million people were foreign born. In 2019, 39% of people born abroad reported that they were UK citizens. So 5.5m foreign born non citizens. Plus whatever number of illegals are resident in the UK. I wouldn’t be surprised if there a million of them. https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/citizenship-and-naturalisation-for-migrants-in-the-uk/ There are also 1.5m UK citizens in foreign countries, primarily in Australia.
shannon Member	Fri Sep 24 17:11:52 Jergul Iran has a domestic nuclear industry. Australia does not. There’s zero capability of Australia taking enriched fuel from Astute reactors and making bombs.
shannon Member	Fri Sep 24 17:21:27 Lol German wonder weapons? Like what? They had a head start of a couple of years in tank design, which was matched in 1941 by the T34 and eclipsed by 1945 with the British Centurion. Late war German tanks were notoriously unreliable to keep in service. China has no way to compete on military tech. The list of things they have stolen is endless. What tech have we adopted from them? China also have no maritime tradition, unlike AUKUS navies. They will be very easy targets when the shooting starts.
shannon Member	Fri Sep 24 17:23:58 The stately to bring China to heel is very simple. Clear the PLA from the SCS. Blockade their ports. Starve them into submission. Within six months there will be massive civil uprisings and the CCP will be no longer.
shannon Member	Fri Sep 24 17:24:27 Strategy.
shannon Member	Fri Sep 24 17:25:44 The Retarded Children, if RAN SSNs mean so little, why is China threatening to nuke Australians cities because of it?
Seb Member	Fri Sep 24 18:00:08 Shannon: No, if you look back you will see I'm pretty explicit. "PWR is 15 years fuel load. Hence 86 for the reactor + 15 takes you to 2001 when she went out of service. Trenchant did sea trials in late 2003, so 17 years takes you to early 2021." Reactor first powered up around 1986, shut down when she went out of service for first refuel in 2001. Recommissioned for sea trials in 2003, now in year 17 of the second fuel load. Your argument that she was refueled during the 2014-17 refit suggests that the royal navy would have chucked a reactor load of fuel that had only been been used for just over 10 years, when normally they last 15. Why would they do that? As for 2009, thats a random date you just put in that hasn't been quoted by anyone in this thread until now. Which one of us has their dates all over the place again? "I explained earlier the reactor refuelled was in 2001 when it was refitted. 15 years later is 2016" Nope, she returned to service in 2003, which is when the reactor would be turned on, and went out of service in 2014, which is when it would have been turned off. And if you at the months, that's actually closer to 10 years, not 11. You have this weirdly inconsistent approach of using the out of service date for the start of the reactor, and the back in service date for the reactor shutdown. This is wrong. Reactors are turned on just before sea trials, and powered down when taken out of service. So the time the fuel is getting burned is from sea trials to out of service date. Hence 1986-2001 (15 years), 2003-2014 (10.5) years 2016-march 2021 (4 years). Oh look, 10.5+14 = 15.5 two 15 year periods with the 2001 refueling in the middle. The way you are counting the 2001 to 2017 period implies the fuel was put on the moment refit started in 2001, and the reactor is running hot all the way through 2001-2003, and remains running all the way through 2014-2017 refit, then suddenly refueled. I know it makes the dates appear to work better, a d I know you don't have a technical background but I'm pretty sure you know that this is an insane proposition. Refueling requires reactor has weeks long cool down, then the hull cut open, the fuel rods removed, replaced with fresh ones, then the reactor slowly brought back up to critically over several weeks. So I say again, if you actually use the dates consistently, it's pretty clear she was refueled once in 2001-2003; and almost certainly not in 2014-2017. Refueling in 2014 would have involved wasting a cores worth of perfectly good, extremely expensive highly enriched uranium with at least 5 years of life in it. Further if you look at the time the reactor has actually been on, 2021 is about 15 years of reactor on-time from when the reactor was first powered on in 2003 after mid life refueling. Also, if Trenchant is going to remain in commission, why is she still in Devenport when the rest have moved to Faslane? That's a huge clue that she ain't going back into commission - she just hanging around until her replacement hits the water in case there is an emergency.
shannon Member	Sat Sep 25 01:40:28 “Why do you think Trenchant was refuelled in 2016 after only 9 years after it's previous refuel?” “Nope, she returned to service in 2003, which is when the reactor would be turned on“ Seb, you do find it difficult to be consistent. Pick a date and stick to it. “Oh look, 10.5+14 = 15.5“ this is jergulmaths level of innumeracy. Ok a typo lol Look it’s apparent you are are usual as slippery as a jellyfish when it comes to facts. You can’t find mention of a refuel but then acknowledge the reactor pipes were cracked and repaired, which can only be done if the reactor was opened up. Refuelling is t expensive £120m at most. In 2016-17 it was apparent there were long delays with Astute and that the reactor in HMS Trenchant would need refuelling to remain in service, Anson was only launched in April is still be ~2 years away. As you say, reactors don’t just keep going forever. You like to dump on RN saying they don’t know when to refuel and will happily run on empty. I find this quite absurd, especially given the length of time and money spent on upgrades and refit from 2014-2016. HMS Trenchant was always based at Devonport, that is returned there is nothing unusual. It’s not a graveyard lol. You seem to acknowledge that HMS Trenchant is available and waiting around if there is an emergency, or more to the point changed circumstances. Such as needing to be put back into service if a replacement Astute is delayed. Which is exactly what I’m saying with Agincourt. HMS Trenchant finished its 10 year life extension in and returned to service in 2017. That it would only be fuelled for only a couple of years at the most optimistic of calculating the fuel life is just not logical or in keeping with the refuelling done on the SSBNs where similar life extensions and reactor cracks are discovered.
Seb Member	Sat Sep 25 02:48:18 Shannon: Sorry, I appear to have said 9 rather than 10.5. But as I've repeatedly said, the date you should use for when the reactor is turned *off* for refit is the out of service time, not the return to service time. I'm being consistent on this, you are not. Reactor on: 1986 sea trials until 2001 when she went out of service for first refueling. 15 years. Reactor on: 2003 sea trials prior to return to service - until 2014 when she went out of service. Slightly more than 10 years when you look at the months. Reactor on: 2016 sea trials, then off while reactor fixed, on again in full return to service late 2017 until early 2021 - 4 years. "Refuelling is t expensive £120m at most." That's the cost of the operation, not the fuel rods. I don't think they'd have refueled the reactors in 2014 - at the time the Astutes were due to be delivered and the Trafalgars replaced - the delays that are requiring a further 18 month extension came later, as has the Australia deal. So you are asking us to believe the RN would have a half burned fuel core extracted in 2014 from one boat, knowing that there would then be a possibility of another half burned core extracted in 2021. A bunch of fuel rods with a different composition to the rest is going to need their own reprocessing / storage process. It makes zero sense. Also, given all the other refueling are explicitly mentioned, why is there no mention of the 2014 refit involving refueling? And if it was a refueling, how is it that the one dock they use for refueling was occupied by Vengeance? "HMS Trenchant was always based at Devonport" So were the other Trafalgars until they were all consolidated at Faslane. MoD has consolidated all nuclear sub operations out of Clyde. So why is Trenchant at Devenport? Because she's not operational. Having Trenchant around for a few months until a the next Astute arrives isn't the same as saying she can run for a few more years.
Seb Member	Sat Sep 25 03:02:58 Just to be clear, this isn't like deciding to top up your car cause it's got half a tank and you've pulled into the petrol station for some fags. These fuel rods are manufactured to order, and are sent to sellafield where it goes into its own fairly complicated process. You don't fuck around with this process by introducing material that's got a different composition and properties due to being partly burned. This stuff is all planned decades in advance.
Habebe Member	Sat Sep 25 04:56:31 "Just to be clear, this isn't like deciding to top up your car cause it's got half a tank and you've pulled into the petrol station for some fags." Is anyone here surprised Seb picks up fags at petrol stations?
nhill Member	Sat Sep 25 05:01:03 > Is anyone here surprised Seb picks up fags at petrol stations? Slightly surprised at his candor, but overall, not at all.
TheChildren Member	Sat Sep 25 05:05:33 rofl cucknon thinks china needs 2 buy food from overseas or it will starve. typical readerfodder headline from any cuckservative website lmao. i betcha cucknon is still talkin about covid being "intentional or not" like all the cucknutters
	show deleted posts