Utopia Talk / Politics / Canada’s Artic dilemma solved

shannon Member	Sat Sep 25 16:09:28 Canada operates diesel electric submarines which cannot patrol under the ice of its northern territorial waters for very long. The solution is nuclear submarines. http://www...anadian-arctic-support-allies/ The Royal Navy could expand into the Canadian Arctic in a bid to contain strategic rivals Russia and China. General Sir Nick Carter, the Chief of the Defence Staff, said the UK was “keen to cooperate” with Canada in learning how to fight in the cold, in monitoring melting ice, and in “helping Canada do what Canada needs to do as an Arctic country”. His comments come in the wake of the Aukus pact under which the US and UK will provide nuclear-powered submarine technology to Australia. Heightened British involvement in the Arctic would be seen as a way to beef up Nato’s countering of Russia, and China, in the region. It would further the UK’s aims of post-Brexit realignment under a new Global Britain foreign policy. Speaking to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Sir Nick said: “I think we have military capabilities, certainly in the maritime domain and in terms of our science that would be useful to Canada, and I think operating alongside Canada in that regard is clearly going to be good for both countries.”
jergul large member	Sat Sep 25 19:28:27 The US blocked this the last time Canada tried. Remember if you will that the US is challenging Canada's sovereignity in those waters. Strengthening Canada's claim is "unwelcome".
Habebe Member	Sat Sep 25 20:57:47 Do you mean the NW Passage?
shannon Member	Sat Sep 25 21:19:58 Jergul not only uses a unique system of maths, but lives in a parallel universe where President Reagan personally never approved UK built SSNs for Canada. http://www...1-d70b-4c1b-993e-142b74fbd734/
shannon Member	Sat Sep 25 21:32:04 Seb you said HMS Vengeance when refuelled would preclude HMS Trenchant being refuelled, as the RN can only refuel one submarine at a time. I’m unconvinced of that baseless claim. However in any case, HMS Vengeance completed refit in and conducted sea trials in 2015. HMS Trenchant was still under refit in Davenport in 2016…sea trials on 2017. http://www...t-and-refuel-programme-4746630
Sam Adams Member	Sat Sep 25 22:03:00 Just keep warming the globe. Then the ice will melt and they can use their normal fleet... galleys with hockey sticks as oars.
Dukhat Member	Sun Sep 26 00:48:06 Retardos thinking Britain should pretend it’s a global superpower. It’s a small bit player run by geriatrics dreaming of days long past.
jergul large member	Sun Sep 26 05:53:14 Shannon Not how it worked out. I imagine the administration just ignored the senile old man.
Seb Member	Sun Sep 26 06:04:26 Shannon: First sea trials in 2016, that's when the reactor cracks in the primary coolant loop were uncovered. https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/nuclear-submarine-hms-trenchant-rejoins-fleet/ "Nuclear submarine HMS Trenchant rejoins the fleet By George Allison - August 22, 2016" "According to the Royal Navy, the maintenance period, carried out by the Royal Navy’s and Ministry of Defence’s industrial partner Babcock, is the largest and most complex ever undertaken at Devonport, including significant elements of maintenance and capability upgrades to see the boat through to its decommissioning in 2019." Note the then planned decommissioning date. The reactor crack was found (actually by the looks of it, shortly after being formally back in service) and repaired in 2017. "https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.express.co.uk/news/uk/766212/Nuclear-warning-royal-navy-submarines-grounded-crack-reactor/amp" So, why would they refuel a reactor of a sub that had at least 5 years of running left in it, that was at the time slated for decommissioning in 3 years? And in doing so fuck up the entire nuclear materials handling and decommissioning by creating a need for bespoke fuel assemblies at sellafield and god knows what other complexities? Doesn't seem likely. As you say, the refit was one of the most complex, adding new sensors and integrations etc. They'd surely do that *after* they'd welded the hull back together. So if there was a refueling, it would happen earlier during the refit - not at the end. When vengeance was being refueled. Refueling is planned in decades in advance, so why would the RN maintain two sets of equipment and staffing to conduct two simultaneous refueling operations when it can easily space refueling operations such that it is never necessary and avoid facilities sitting idle?
Seb Member	Sun Sep 26 06:05:19 Jergul: Shannon thinks that because Canada, Australia and the UK share a head of state, their armed forces are fully integrated.
TheChildren Member	Sun Sep 26 06:28:07 how come he hugs them? http://www...anadians-freed-by-beijing.html what bout da corona distancinrulez? or is this another affirmation that corona is not even an issue inside china...
Seb Member	Sun Sep 26 07:32:53 Shannon: Not much the UK Can do to help Australia if half its subs are based in Australia. There would only be about 1 submarine half time to do arctic missions.
Seb Member	Sun Sep 26 07:45:19 And before you ask Shannon, Vanguard went into lop(r) in Dec 2015 that lasted 3 years.
shannon Member	Sun Sep 26 10:52:33 Lol Jergul the only senile one here is you. The Reagan Administration approved SSNs for Canada. Deal with it! Just as the Biden administration approved SSNs fjr Australia. The Canadian Govt didn’t go ahead with the plan for domestic political reasons.
jergul large member	Sun Sep 26 11:04:59 Shannon Wrong on all counts. Also, there is not yet any deal to let Austrialia have nuclear subs. The agreement is to negotiate a deal over the next 18 months. The yet non-existent deal with the UK is what the US can veto if it wants to.
shannon Member	Sun Sep 26 11:27:44 Seb, don’t speak for what I think. It’s just confusing for jergul, he’s bordering on Biden levels of dementia. Not many RN Astutes to help Canada…unless there are more Astutes built! Which is what I’ve suggested is the solution. Do keep up Seb lol. Yes Seb note the planned decommissioning date. Two years ago. HMS Trenchant was still on active duty in March 2021and is still a commissioned warship in the RN! Six months after being withdrawn from active duty. Curious. It’s almost as it’ll they will need HMS Trenchant again…but you say these things are planned decades in advance?! Fuck up nuclear fuels handling? Lololol. You have no idea what Royal Navy processes are in place for refuelling SSNs and it’s foolish to pretend you do. Not that it would stop you speculating and theorising of course. It’s clear there is flexibility in keeping warships in service past the date of planned retirement. It’s also clear that the RN doesn’t tell us everything about what goes in with their SSN capabilities. The ‘reactor crack’ and ‘cracked pipes’ was a single fracture less than 100mm on a metal weld connecting a coolant pipe to the reactor pressure vessel. It was repaired and HMS Trenchant returned to duty. I’m reasonably confident HMS Trenchant is available if required to serve another five years. She had sensor upgrades in 2011 and life extension fit out in 2016. You can believe the RN would spend time and effort in refitting an SSN and forget to refuel it. That’s fine. Dumber things have happened. Maybe. In any case a refuel can be done. Or are you going to invent some story that the UK can no longer refuel its submarines lol. The future direction of the Astute programme is clear to any that wish to see it. More Astutes to be built and in service with the Royal Australian Navy. A focus on the Indo-Pacific theatre and countering the PLA-N. Canada has a clear need too for SSNs and the UK is best placed to meet that need.
shannon Member	Sun Sep 26 11:34:57 Lol oh please Jergul stop it lol. AUKUS is a done deal. Australia will be getting nuclear submarines. Why can’t you process this information? Sure the details to get there will need to be announced. But to think the US will suddenly backflip is utterly absurd.
shannon Member	Sun Sep 26 11:39:10 “The yet non-existent deal with the UK is what the US can veto if it wants to.“ yeah. Just like President Reagan did with the Canadian eh comrade? You must be suffering from Mandela effect.
jergul large member	Sun Sep 26 12:00:17 Shannon Akus is by definition not a done deal. What part of "starting 18 months of negotiations" do you not understand? The senile old bugger said something at a press conferance that his State Department countermanded later. Its almost like you dont understand the US does not recognize Canada's sovereignity in the waters we are speaking of.
shannon Member	Sun Sep 26 12:39:21 Lol comrade Jergul please. Negotiations? Not once was this word used by any leader in the AUKUS announcement. You are again suffering from whatever fact repellent brain virus you are infected with. http://www...ouncing-the-creation-of-aukus/ There’s the transcript Jergul. Find the word negotiation! There will be a period consultation to determine the best way to provide Australia with SSNs. A plan will be produced and implemented by all three nations. You will see the results of this very quickly. UK built Astutes. “It will draw on the expertise that the UK has acquired over generations, dating back to the launch of the Royal Navy’s first nuclear submarine over 60 years ago; and together, with the other opportunities from AUKUS, creating hundreds of highly skilled jobs across the United Kingdom, including in Scotland, the north of England, and the Midlands, taking forward this government’s driving purpose of leveling up across the whole country.“ Boris Johnson UK PM
shannon Member	Sun Sep 26 12:44:31 Reagan State department countermanded his approval? Why you lie so much Jergul? State Department spokesman Charles E. Redman stressed that Reagan approved Canada's purchase of British submarines "because of the unique circumstances involving the United Kingdom and Canada, two of our oldest and closest allies. U.S. policy remains opposed to the transfer of nuclear submarines to other nations." http://www...1-d70b-4c1b-993e-142b74fbd734/
shannon Member	Sun Sep 26 12:48:09 “Its almost like you dont understand the US does not recognize Canada's sovereignity in the waters we are speaking of.“ Yet this did not stop the US Givt approving the SSNs for Canada. There is of course the fact that it is US policy to request transit through the area. A nice diplomatic way of resolving the issue to both nations mutual satisfaction. The US does not recognise any claims of any nation over Antartica. But yet I’m is perfectly willing to work with other nations on research etc.
jergul large member	Sun Sep 26 13:00:21 Shannon lol, do you even read your own links? The US sank the Canada-UK plan on the drawing board. You are such a trolly little goblin.
shannon Member	Sun Sep 26 13:10:17 Lol Jergul it’s beyond reason that you cannot understand simple words. Similar to your innumeracy you just fail to grasp written words. The Reagan Administration approved the sale of UK SSNs to Canada. It’s a uncontroversial reality. Except in Jergul world.
shannon Member	Sun Sep 26 13:14:39 State Department spokesman Charles E. Redman stressed that Reagan approved Canada's purchase of British submarines "because of the unique circumstances involving the United Kingdom and Canada, two of our oldest and closest allies. U.S. policy remains opposed to the transfer of nuclear submarines to other nations." It’s highly amusing that you think this means the State Department did not support President Reagan’s decision to approve Canada buying British SSNs.
shannon Member	Sun Sep 26 13:14:39 State Department spokesman Charles E. Redman stressed that Reagan approved Canada's purchase of British submarines "because of the unique circumstances involving the United Kingdom and Canada, two of our oldest and closest allies. U.S. policy remains opposed to the transfer of nuclear submarines to other nations." It’s highly amusing that you think this means the State Department did not support President Reagan’s decision to approve Canada buying British SSNs.
Seb Member	Sun Sep 26 13:44:09 Shannon: "Yes Seb note the planned decommissioning date. Two years ago." How does that help your case? It doesn't explain why they would replace a working core that had plenty of life left in it that they planned to decommission in 3/4 years. "Six months after being withdrawn from active duty." Yeah, or to put it another way, given that the Astute that should be commissioned to replace it delayed; why did they go ahead with sending Trenchant to her crew's home port ahead of formal commissioning and not extend her time in full service and move her to Faslane with the rest? Could it be because they know her reactor can only run a few more months of sufficient power? "Fuck up nuclear fuels handling? Lololol. You have no idea what Royal Navy processes are in place for refuelling SSNs" The royal navy do not do nuclear fuel rod processing - it's a responsibility of the Nuclear Decommissioning Agency - the information is technical and in the public domain and as part of my doctorate I had to learn a lot about low level nuclear waste handling processes. "and it’s foolish to pretend you do." I'm not pretending. I actually have former colleagues and drinking buddies overseeing the decommissioning process for the waste ponds at Sellafield. Also at AWE. Remember how you used to laugh that I was "just a student" - so were they. See, we actually know shit. Unlike you. "It’s clear there is flexibility in keeping warships in service past the date of planned retirement." Yes, some - I'm saying that margin has been used up in keeping the last three Trafalgars 3 years months past their intended decommissioning dates. The significance of the MoD saying that they will have no further life extensions, but only "extended maintenance" is clear to anyone that knows even a bit about this stuff. "It’s also clear that the RN doesn’t tell us everything about what goes in with their SSN capabilities." So, they publish the refuelling of the SSNB's and the attack subs, but strangely fail to mention this one refuelling exercise? And you are attributing this to some sort of hyper convenient opsec? "The ‘reactor crack’ and ‘cracked pipes’ was a single fracture less than 100mm on a metal weld connecting a coolant pipe to the reactor pressure vessel. It was repaired and HMS Trenchant returned to duty." Yes, I know, what is your point? My point is you keep using the 2017 date when she came out of the repair work for that as both the end date of a reactor run period starting in 2001 (when she last went out of service) - when it is clear that any reactor refuel in that period would have to have happened c. 2015 because there isn't enough time to have done the refuel in the period she was out of service for repairs to the coolant network. "I’m reasonably confident HMS Trenchant is available if required to serve another five years." Yes, but that is because you are an idiot and don't base such assessments on factual evidence. "She had sensor upgrades in 2011 and life extension fit out in 2016." Yeah, all the Trafalgars still in service had life extension during the equivalent period of their lives to keep them running because the astutes were delayed - that was intended to keep them operational to this period now. A sensor upgrade in 2011 tells us nothing at all. "You can believe the RN would spend time and effort in refitting an SSN and forget to refuel it." They didn't forget to refuel it - I'm saying they absolutely never had any intention or need to refuel it. The only reason you would imagine a need to give Trenchant a third, unplanned refuelling back in 2015, when it had a perfectly good core that would service it up to its planned end of life; is to allow it to have an operational reactor for an entirely hypothetical 5 year life extension (which isn't being offered) in order to allow an Astute that back then had not been built to be sold or leased to Australia, a country that back then had an avowed no nuclear vessels policy. I.e. there is no reason to imagine they would do so; and it would have been spectacularly stupid to do so. "In any case a refuel can be done." Can it? On what basis do you believe it is possible to refuel the reactor? It's operating beyond it's planned engineering life. Typical things you see in PWRs is steel corrosion and embrittlement from radiation. On marine reactors, that use more highly enriched fuel and have tighter margins, it's far less likely the reactor pressure vessel is engineered and tested to operate so far beyond end-of-life. There would be no reason to take the hit to space and weight to over-engineer it to do so. So why do you think the reactor can be refuelled? The American's will argue that the people best placed to secure the arctic ocean are their own fleet of submarines. We shall see what they come up with in 18 months time. My prediction is Trenchant will be decommissioned long before then.
jergul large member	Sun Sep 26 15:58:03 lol shannon, the rambling of a senile old man at a press brief does not set policy. The US did not want Canada to have nuclear submarines, so Canada did not get nuclear submarines. And nothing has changed since 1989. The US still contests Canadian sovereignity.
Habebe Member	Sun Sep 26 20:11:34 I could use some clarification on AUKUS. Other than the submarines, what dies this new group have that the five eyes has not?
Habebe Member	Sun Sep 26 20:15:27 The proposed nuclear attack submarines were not received well by some politicians. As early as 1985, Ministers Joe Clark and Michael Wilson were against the project, Clark because Canadian nuclear submarines would upset the balance of power with the Warsaw Pact and Wilson because of the cost.[20] The Treasury Board objected to the program, claiming that the project was run poorly with project costs not developed accurately, especially those tied to infrastructure needs.[19][21] Members of the opposition focused on the estimated C$8 billion[22] cost of the project, pointing out the steadily increasing size of the federal deficit and debt.[23] The announcement came slightly more than a year after the Chernobyl disaster, prompting fears of similar nuclear incidents even though no submarine accidents involving reactors had occurred in the then three decades of NATO nuclear submarine use.[22] American opposition Edit The United States objected to the RCN having SSNs as part of its fleet, fearing a significant impact to its own submarine operations in North American waters and possible conflict over access to the Northwest Passage. In order to prevent this, the United States exercised its rights under two previously signed treaties. Under the 1958 US–UK Mutual Defence Agreement, the US had the right to block the sale of submarine nuclear reactors by the United Kingdom to any third party (i.e. Canada), and under a 1959 agreement between the US and Canada the US had the right to block the purchase of submarine nuclear reactors by Canada from any third party (i.e. the United Kingdom or France).[24] Attempts to negotiate with the United States were initially unsuccessful, as Canadian Defence Minister Perrin Beatty was "told in no uncertain terms by the U.S. Defense Department and submarine service officials that a Canadian nuclear submarine program was unnecessary and even unwelcome."[25] Wiki-canadian class submarine
Seb Member	Mon Sep 27 01:06:48 Habebe: "Other than the submarines, what dies this new group have that the five eyes has not?" Canada and New Zealand?
Habebe Member	Mon Sep 27 03:49:22 Well, I think you readnit backwards, but yeah.
Seb Member	Mon Sep 27 05:52:06 Yeah, need to have a coffee before snark.
shannon Member	Thu Sep 30 03:23:50 Jergul President Reagan approved the sale of UK built SSNs to Canada. Deal with it mate. You thought the US Govt opposed it and once again when shown you are wrong, instead of acknowledging the reality of the situation, like a grown up, you just pretend it didn’t happen. No wonder you struggle with simple concepts. Seb, you once again make unproven claims of personal expertise which we both know you can’t substantiate. You then use this invented personal authority as a basis to argue you know what is happening. It’s very Walter Mitty. HMS Trenchant was returned to active service in 2017 after the most entensive refit ever undertaken at Davenport. It’s not my imagination or unfounded claim based on anything other than the facts. Past refits of this extensive nature are 10 year life extensions with a refuel. If the RN need HMS Trenchant it’s still there to be used as it remains today a commissioned warship with an assigned crew. Despite being taken off the active list six months ago. The deal with Australia may have something to do with that. We will see. All your objections to that being possible are of course the pseudo science of what your opinion is, with zero reference to any source, other than yourself lol. You just disappear up your own arsehole. The fact remains that Astutes are going to Australia. The RN will base three Astutes at HMAS Stirling. Despite your view it’s a mistake in not making Russia the focus of the RN. Australia will also base their Astutes there. The USN will also likely base a couple of Virginia there too. It’s like your views on things are not what actually happens…what a surprise lol. And yet you want to be taken seriously as the depository of wisdom and knowledge. More like the suppository. Whether Agincourt is flying a UK or Australian flag in Her Majesty’s service doesn’t really matter. It’s duty will be the same. Patrolling the Indo-Pacific to counter Chinese aggression. That will happen whether or not HMS Trenchant remains a commissioned warship until the mid-late 2020s.
shannon Member	Thu Sep 30 03:32:21 Habebe, yes the Canadians themselves decided not to proceed for domestic political reasons. President Reagan over ruled the US bureaucracy’s objections and as Commander in Chief approved the sale of UK built Trafalgars to Canada. http://www...9-c9ee-4953-96dd-6e82c0631f32/ SUBMARINES FOR CANADA THE SUBMARINE agreement with Canada draws attention to a side of American-Canadian relations not well known south of the border. At face it seems uncharacteristic for President Reagan to approve a Canadian purchase of (British) subs using American nuclear-reactor technology, when a principal Canadian purpose in spending billions for a new fleet is to assert a claim of sovereignty in Arctic waters against the United States. This happens while Canada has only begun to repair its long-sagging NATO contribution. Last year it abandoned its commitment to come to Norway's aid in the event of Soviet attack, terming its decision a prudent ''consolidation'' of Canadian forces in Germany. The submarine deal is explained as part of a worthy and overdue modernization that will give Canada a three-ocean navy (Atlantic, Pacific, Arctic) fit to perform vital NATO missions. Naval modernization is unquestionably worthy and overdue. And given that Canada is only now starting to spend more than 2 percent of GNP on defense (the United States spends around 6 percent), perhaps no one should complain too much about what sort of engine is pulling a weightier Canadian defense train. Still, it's notable that this program probably would not have been adopted but for a voyage through the Northwest Passage -- "internal waters" to Canada -- by the U.S. Coast Guard icebreaker Polar Sea in 1985. Then and since, Washington as a global naval power was careful to engage Canada's consent to transit but not to recognize its claim to sovereignty. Nonetheless, Canada exploded in nationalistic outrage, and the stunned government of Brian Mulroney was impelled to launch broad new assertions of sovereignty and the political and military initiatives to carry them out. These days Washington is pleased to see Canada modernizing some military sectors -- those of its choice, not NATO's. In approving access to sensitive nuclear-reactor technology, the Reagan administration was aware that it is accommodating interests of two close allies, export-minded Britain as well as Canada. In the mandated congressional review of this deal, questions should and will be asked about safety and the subs' military role.
shannon Member	Thu Sep 30 03:40:29 Habebe AUKUS will provide extensive technology sharing and an increased UK and US military presence in Australia. Submarines in WA and aircraft and missiles in the NT. Five Eyes is intelligence sharing. AUKUS is increasing military capability.
jergul large member	Thu Sep 30 03:53:31 So you are expecting Australia to allow nuclear weapons on its soil?
Seb Member	Thu Sep 30 05:51:08 Shannon: "Seb, you once again make unproven claims of personal expertise which we both know you can’t substantiate." *shrug* nothing I've said relies on who I am - like I said you can find all the rules and regulations on nuclear handling online. Just pointing out that if you are going to spend years ranting about how I'm a physics student working in nuclear materials, it seems churlish and inconsistent to discount that immediately when it is inconvenient to do so. "HMS Trenchant was returned to active service in 2017 after the most entensive refit" If it returned to service in 2017 after the most extensive refit, how was it that in 2016 it was taken off active service in Gibraltar due to reactor cracks, as I have provided reports for above. HMS Trenchant actually returned to service in 2016 after the exact same refit that all the Trafalgar's went through. In 2017 she returned to service after having emergency repairs conducted to a cracked coolant pipe in her primary coolant loops connection to pressure vessel. "It’s not my imagination or unfounded claim based on anything other than the facts." What is in your imagination and unfounded is that her reactor core was refuelled. "Past refits of this extensive nature are 10 year life extensions with a refuel." Yes, and each one has been referred to publicly as such. This one was not. And her out of service date remained 2019. "Despite being taken off the active list six months ago. The deal with Australia may have something to do with that. We will see." "All your objections to that being possible are of course the pseudo science of what your opinion is" Well, not really. The refuelling dates are easily calculable. You can do your own research on how nuclear reactors work, you don't need to understand the complicated stuff. The regulations on nuclear materials handling and requirement to set designated areas and access control etc. are public domain. The refuelling requiring the subs pressure hull to be cut open is well known in the public domain. All of this stuff can be independently verified easily - I don't intend to prove it from first principles. I mean take your odd use of inconsistent dates. If you want to demonstrate - as you have argued - that trenchant MUST have been refuelled in 2017 because 2001 to 2017 is 15 years, you kinda need to explain how it is you think that her reactor was running from 2001-2003 and through to the end of 2017, when she was in dry dock. It's a simple enough thing to explain. So set it out for us. "with zero reference to any source" Except you know, the ones I posted above? "Despite your view it’s a mistake in not making Russia the focus of the RN." It is obviously a mistake - you yourself have pointed out in this very thread that the Russian moves to annex the Arctic are a more pressing concern. "Whether Agincourt is flying a UK or Australian flag in Her Majesty’s service doesn’t really matter." Well, it obviously does, because it means the combined navies will be down 1 sub. But if it doesn't matter, why doesn't Australia just give us their defence budget and call it a day? "It’s duty will be the same." Well that's the point, it shouldn't be. We need to be defending Britain from Russian submarines that are increasingly active in the North Sea and Atlantic. Australia's problems with the Chinese should not come at the expense of protecting the UK.
Habebe Member	Sat Oct 02 19:41:16 Found some details. The five eyes and the quad should morph to set up strategic economic agreements....throw in Mexico to that group as well.
Habebe Member	Sat Oct 02 19:43:54 As for canadas NW passage thing, basically they want to charge where it passes by Canadian territory. Whats the reason for US complaints? Maybe they (we?) Don't want to set a precedent where others could do similar stuff?
shannon Member	Thu Oct 07 03:55:48 Jergul, if it’s necessary for nuclear weapons to be based in Australia, why not? There’s plenty of space you know…but that’s not being proposed by anyone, so I’ll put it down to your semi retarded pattern of misunderstanding English. Lol ok Seb, obviously hit a nerve here calling you a failed student. I will call you a failed “consultant” instead. HMS Trenchant was given a major life extension. It seems likely that they would consider a refuel. Lol call me crazy whatever. It appears that the boat is still commissioned, even though taken off the active list over six months ago. It may well be HMS Trenchant can fill in until 2027/8 until it’s replaced by a new Astute. Maybe the RN don’t see the need, as Agincourt will be going to Australia and doing the exact same service under the RN or RAN White Ensign. How are the combined navies down one submarine? Eight more Astutes will be built! At a minimum. Canada must also do their part by acquiring SSNs. Their diesels are not fit for the duties they need to perform. Both in patrolling their northern waters, and also in confronting China. Australia is giving the UK a massive chunk of their defence budget Seb. ~£25 billion In exchange for nuclear submarines. Yet you rail and froth at the same time how dreadful this is. Too funny. It’s highly amusing to see you say things aren’t possible, only for them to happen just as I said. And still you claim to be right, that these things shouldn’t happen. Always a good laugh at your expense. What really winds you up is that the UK is finding itself a key strategic partner with the US and Australia outside the narrow confines of the EU. You also deliberately missed General Carter referencing both Russia AND China activity in the Arctic. So China is not just Australia’s problem. It is all of our responsibility. Our being the Anglosphere. If you don’t like being a part of the Anglosphere, too bad. Go live in the EU. Oh, but your ‘qualifications’ are no good there. So sad. Lmao
Seb Member	Thu Oct 07 05:13:56 No Shannon, you missed the point. I'm highlighting that you will say or believe whatever is necessary to get you though the current conversation, with no consistency. So either I'm a physics student who knows nothing of the world due to being in an ivory tower. Unless we talk about nuclear reactors, in which case it is better to believe I'm a management consultant who knows nothing about nuclear reactors. There's no consistency of logic to your arguments, just wishful thinking. In much the same way, in the same sentence you suggest that reactors are both turned off at the beginning of a service outage, and only at the end of a service outage, in order to get the period of time you want. There's simply no regard at all to internal consistency of your arguments. It doesn't matter, so long as you can preach your gospel. Generally, this is not a successful way to run ... anything. As we are starting to find out in the UK, having elected a gift that thinks this way also. Hah, do you remember when you used to commission Blair governed by soundbites! Good times.
Seb Member	Thu Oct 07 05:19:54 Shannon: "It seems likely that they would consider a refuel." Not really. The reverse is true for three reasons: 1. It has used less than two thirds of its remaining reactor lifetime, with more than enough left to get to the planned retirement date, so a huge waste, and creating a non standard inventory of waste and a massive contract variation to sellafield operators at enormous additional cost. 2. They were refueling the vanguard's at the time and would not have wanted anything that might disrupt that work 3. The other boats went through the same as were not refueled. 4. Every other time they T boats were refueled that was announced, so why no mention of it then? 5. If they had been refueling the reactor, they'd have discovered the cracks before she went back to sea as part of reactor recommissioning. 5. good reasons (and reason 1 is 3 reasons in itself,). Against this, all you've offered is "because they were doing work on the ship, and refueling the reactor is a type of work". That's just wishful thinking, not a reason to think something is likely.
Seb Member	Thu Oct 07 05:21:34 "How are the combined navies down one submarine? Eight more Astutes will be built! At a minimum." If you give me £10, and I promise to give you £10 in 15 years, is it not the case you have £10 less pounds right here and now. This is pretty simple maths Shannon.
Seb Member	Thu Oct 07 05:24:18 "You also deliberately missed General Carter referencing both Russia AND China activity in the Arctic" I would gently suggest that if we want to counter China in the Arctic, Perth is not the ideal location to station the subs to do so. Alliances are fine, but the UK should look to it's own safety first in order to be in a better position to aid others. One way to do that is, of course, regional alliances. But we know you hate those.
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: