|
Post by 30sqnatc on Sept 18, 2021 14:59:56 GMT 12
[/quote]NZ has participated in Fincastle exercises before with UK or French nuclear subs what's changed? [/quote]
I just checked the legislation as there has been discussion/interpretation in the past on NZ defence operating and exercising with anything nuclear around what 'have control over' is interpreted as. So your right it appears it does not apply to nuclear powered.
"No person, who is a New Zealand citizen or a person ordinarily resident in New Zealand, and who is a servant or agent of the Crown, shall, beyond the New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone,— (a) manufacture, acquire, or possess, or have control over, any nuclear explosive device; or (b) aid, abet, or procure any person to manufacture, acquire, possess, or have control over any nuclear explosive device.
|
|
|
Post by tbf2504 on Sept 18, 2021 15:43:06 GMT 12
With their ability to stay submerged for extensive lengths of time and therefore hard to detect from orbital/surface detection systems the nuclear submarine is a potential threat that any "potential" aggressor needs to be wary about. With the Australian diesel submarines coming to the end of their economic life, and having to surface on a regular basis to recharge their batteries, going nuclear makes sense to me
|
|
mroz
Flying Officer
Posts: 59
|
Post by mroz on Sept 18, 2021 22:19:49 GMT 12
I think what's got real interesting, is the not completely long-shot rumours the RAAF is going to line-up for the B-21 Raider. The rumours had a "passable, but debateable" level of substance to them.....after yesterday and the birth of AUUKUS, I suspect there'd be some smiling faces in the RAAF looking ahead to the 2nd half of this decade. If we could afford to buy one....we couldnt afford to operate it. I think more likely the fourth F.35 squadron may be created...resurrect No.78 please at Amberley Ha....compared to the subs, the Raider's a bargin!
|
|
|
Post by Mustang51 on Sept 19, 2021 0:57:43 GMT 12
Yes.....one.....
|
|
|
Post by kiwiruna on Sept 19, 2021 7:37:48 GMT 12
We have done well out of the Aussie sub deal We get them to pay for the training aids/targets for our P-8s, now are they pump jets? coz they can only stay underwater for 20mins, which makes finding them easier.😱🤣🤣
|
|
|
Post by mcmaster on Sept 19, 2021 12:14:47 GMT 12
In the shorter term for the RAAF really interested to see if we take up the options to raise the F35 fleet to 100. Will be good indicator of how they are going with the 40 or so at home getting operational. Related to that decision will be if we go with the US and upgrade the Super Hornets to Block 3 standard. Governments are spending like crazy these days on COVID and it's going to bite later with pressure on budgets. Our parties in Aus seemed to be aligned on defence but there is going to be some big debates coming on savings (guns vs butter) at some stage.
|
|
|
Post by Mustang51 on Sept 19, 2021 14:10:42 GMT 12
Mcmaster...completely agree but with what is happening to the north methinks the swing towards defence will be continued.
|
|
|
Post by 11SQNLDR on Sept 20, 2021 10:35:21 GMT 12
A very smart move, the French deal was a dog - $40BN & years of delays when the threat from China is real here and now. It needed to be scrapped. Also pleased to hear Tomahawks for the Hobart class destroyers are being acquired and JASSM-ER (AGM-158B) for the RAAF to compliment the shorter range JASSM's already in service. As for commentary of NZ being 'left out in the cold' - what rubbish, there are alliances already in place and the deal was specific in its aims of introducing nuclear propulsion into the ADF for the first time. Comrade Clueless and her deluded 1980's response of "well they won't be able to come to NZ" says it all really ![(rofl)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/rofl.png) Never felt happier about paying taxes than I do when I see good and progressive defence spending - and there will be more ![:D](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/grin.png) I think what's got real interesting, is the not completely long-shot rumours the RAAF is going to line-up for the B-21 Raider. The rumours had a "passable, but debateable" level of substance to them.....after yesterday and the birth of AUUKUS, I suspect there'd be some smiling faces in the RAAF looking ahead to the 2nd half of this decade. ![::)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/eyesroll.png) You can guarantee the B-21 will be on the ADF's shopping list. Despite the acquisition of longer rage standoff weapons the gap left by the F-111 has not been filled.
|
|
|
Post by 11SQNLDR on Sept 20, 2021 10:40:09 GMT 12
|
|
|
Post by Mustang51 on Sept 20, 2021 11:33:36 GMT 12
Hulls in the water is what's needed. Minister Valdemort announced yesterday that he was not averse to leasing which would certainly achieve the hulls quickly thoughts. A few early Block Virginia Class would be interesting and have everyone up to speed.
|
|
|
Post by Bruce on Sept 20, 2021 11:55:45 GMT 12
The P8s can easily pop over to Australia to practice sub hunting, or go to exercises such as RIMPAC. They havent had to specifically bring subs here for years. Also, remember that ASW is no longer the primary role of the P8...
|
|
|
Post by vultee43 on Sept 21, 2021 12:51:03 GMT 12
Hulls in the water is what's needed. Minister Valdemort announced yesterday that he was not averse to leasing which would certainly achieve the hulls quickly thoughts. A few early Block Virginia Class would be interesting and have everyone up to speed. Minister Valdemort 🤣🤣🤣. Glad it wasn't just me. I thought he liked stopping the boats though?
|
|
|
Post by nighthawknz on Sept 22, 2021 18:27:18 GMT 12
But what are the P8s going to hunt it training as we couldn't possibly play with Aussie nuclear subs? Just not allowed to enter NZ Waters... NZ has exercised the nuclear powered vessels quite regularly, RimPac, and operations they going where the USN is there... So they will do RimPac, Talisman Sabre and what ever other exercises they are in... So the NZDF are allowed to exercise with nuclear powered or armed vessels... they just can not enter our waters... I mean example A: HMNZS Te Mana & USS Abraham Lincoln in the North Arabian Sea ![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8e/US_Navy_080730-N-8539M-186_The_Royal_New_Zealand_Navy_frigate_HMNZS_Te_Mana_%28F111%29_sails_alongside_the_Nimitz-class_aircraft_carrier_USS_Abraham_Lincoln_%28CVN_72%29_in_the_North_Arabian_Sea.jpg) Even did cross landing exercise ![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0a/US_Navy_080730-N-5384B-084_A_landing_signal_enlisted_communicates_with_a_Royal_New_Zealand_Navy_SH-2G_Sea_Sprite_aboard_the_Nimitz-class_aircraft_carrier_USS_Abraham_Lincoln_%28CVN_72%29.jpg) just no to entering our waters... The original anti-nuclear policy was just about weapons and things that went bang not about powered vessels... it was then amended to add nuclear powered vessels as well... but personally I can see that changing in the next ten years or so to allow nuclear power vessels but not nuclear armed... as most kiwi's really don't care, also most kiwi know technology has come a long way and that these types of reactors are safe... many a talking of we need nuclear power station in the future for our power shortage. At the time is was just after the French were testing in our back yard, and then the Rainbow Warrior bombing etc which lead to a knee jerk reaction ... (on both sides to be fair) and is a very minority group mainly the greens...
|
|
|
Post by Mustang51 on Sept 22, 2021 19:34:21 GMT 12
Understand the NZ anti-nuclear thing but think it needs to be updated to reflect the modern technology. For example, what about a nuclear powered icebreaker on its way to work the Antarctic? Nuclear armed another kettle of fish and makes the country a target. We are looking at nuclear powered subs due to longevity, speed and stealth. The US machines - don't know about the UK variety - do not need any refuelling for the life of the boat. Just bury the reactor in the boat at the end of its service life. The Frog boats require refuelling from what I have read every ten years or so. That requires a nuclear industry on land to support the boats. Not going to fly here with the political opposition. Think the MAD standoff still well understood even in Indo-Pacific so conventional may be the case if things go to pushing and shoving. A conventional armed, nuc powered boat fits the bill well here. My opinion...........
|
|
|
Post by snafu on Sept 23, 2021 21:00:21 GMT 12
Well the Yanks have got the Virginia class down to about 3 billion a copy, if the rumoured price of B21 is 500millon, so technically we can buy 6 B21 for 1 submarine Thats not taking into account shore infrastructure or running costs Sure as flies are attracted to Sh#t we are expanding our long range capabilities, B21 is on the horizon for the RAAF, infrastructure fore B21 is going to be a lot cheaper than nuc submarines I think ythe choice is going to come down to is 8 enough or 10 submarines for operational numbers. 10 seem the magical number to me
|
|
|
Post by snafu on Jun 9, 2022 11:57:47 GMT 12
Peter Dutton’s secret plan to fast track nuclear submarines BEN PACKHAM FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND DEFENCE CORRESPONDENT Sorry I could not get the original link to work kept going to thhe Australian subscription page,this article referes to the Australian newspaper article thewest.com.au/politics/plan-to-get-nuclear-submarines-faster-c-7103516I wonder if Dutton is trying to still influence the result, I always thought 10 was the minimum needed
|
|
mroz
Flying Officer
Posts: 59
|
Post by mroz on Mar 11, 2023 6:46:35 GMT 12
|
|
mroz
Flying Officer
Posts: 59
|
Post by mroz on Mar 14, 2023 21:07:44 GMT 12
|
|
|
Post by johnm on Mar 15, 2023 9:34:49 GMT 12
as to whether the nuclear subs are necessary or not:
- OZ is now part of the 'big boys' club - some would say the cost of global warmongering is obscene - no doubt the subs come with a 'target' painted on them (just like any other military asset) - these subs obviously have a deterrent value - maybe that could be cheaper than war - etc
the 6 to 8 subs are a bargain - only roughly say $ 370 B ( $370,000,000,000) .... (over a period of 30 years ?) - don't know if that is hardware (software and running costs could be extra)
talk in OZ is that the piggy bank has holes in the bottom (no pun intended) and more revenue will be needed
the homeless can't be taxed anymore and need to be spared - besides the government at this stage can't afford to house them anyway
its all a subjective situation
|
|
|
Post by 11SQNLDR on Mar 18, 2023 16:37:17 GMT 12
|
|