Talk:SSN-AUKUS
Latest comment: 7 months ago by WatcherZero in topic Australia will build 5 AUKUS submarines
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the SSN-AUKUS article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg)
.svg)
Change name to ‘Aukus Class Submarine’
editAs per today’s announcement, it’s called the Aukus Class Submarine. 58.161.159.6 (talk) 03:56, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
- @58.161.159.6: Do you have a source for that? Every credible source I can find states they are "AUKUS submarines", not an "Aukus-class". Unless you've got a credible source, this should probably be moved back. TheArmchairSoldier (talk) 18:29, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
- IP posted the source in their edit description. In Australia it’s being openly referred to as the Aukus class in the media [1]. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 21:08, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
- And while a rationale was given in the edit summary, this feels like something @Nford24: should have discussed rather than going ahead and making changes. Mark83 (talk) 18:35, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
- Concur. And why no consideration of what the British MOD or media are calling it? Why should the Australian media be the standard? It's still primarily a British project, so their preferred term should be the title, assuming it meets MOS other titling requirements. I'm inclined to move this back to SSN-AUKUS, and let an RM decide where to go from there. BilCat (talk) 21:18, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
- @BilCat: The UK MoD calls it the SSN-AUKUS[1], the White House fact sheet calls it the SSN-AUKUS[2] and the joint leaders press release call it the SSN-AUKUS.[3] The 64 page MoD policy paper The AUKUS nuclear powered submarine pathway: a partnership for the future, also on the Australian DoD website, uses "SSN-AUKUS submarines".[4]--Melbguy05 (talk) 23:48, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks! BilCat (talk) 23:52, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
- @BilCat: The UK MoD calls it the SSN-AUKUS[1], the White House fact sheet calls it the SSN-AUKUS[2] and the joint leaders press release call it the SSN-AUKUS.[3] The 64 page MoD policy paper The AUKUS nuclear powered submarine pathway: a partnership for the future, also on the Australian DoD website, uses "SSN-AUKUS submarines".[4]--Melbguy05 (talk) 23:48, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
- Concur. And why no consideration of what the British MOD or media are calling it? Why should the Australian media be the standard? It's still primarily a British project, so their preferred term should be the title, assuming it meets MOS other titling requirements. I'm inclined to move this back to SSN-AUKUS, and let an RM decide where to go from there. BilCat (talk) 21:18, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
Not really many sources citing this as the "Aukus-class" outside of Australia, while all press releases suggest this is the SSN-AUKUS, so would be good to be revert this premature move till there's any consensus to the contrary AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 10:20, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
Done BilCat (talk) 18:11, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
References
- ^
This article incorporates text published under the British Open Government Licence v3.0: Prime Minister Rishi Sunak; Secretary of State for Defence Ben Wallace (13 March 2023). "British-led design chosen for AUKUS submarine project". GOV.UK (Press release). Retrieved 14 March 2023.
- ^ "Fact Sheet: Trilateral Australia-UK-US Partnership on Nuclear-Powered Submarines". The White House (Press release). 13 March 2023. Retrieved 14 March 2023.
- ^ Prime Minister of Australia Anthony Albanese; Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Rishi Sunak; President of the United States of America Joseph R. Biden (14 March 2023). "Joint Leaders Statement on AUKUS". Prime Minister of Australia (Press release). Retrieved 14 March 2023.
This article contains quotations from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Licence.
- ^ This article incorporates text published under the British Open Government Licence v3.0: Ministry of Defence; Defence Nuclear Organisation (14 March 2023). "The AUKUS nuclear powered-submarine pathway: A partnership for the future" (PDF). Retrieved 14 March 2023.
Australia will build 5 AUKUS submarines
editThis is repeated multiple times. None of the sources listed say that. Australia is planning a fleet of 8 SSN’s, which the quoted admiral expects to hit in the mid 2050’s. At that point he expects there will be 3 Virginia & 5 AUKUS. However 2 of the 3 Virginia’s are to be second hand & all Virginia’s are to be acquired in the 2030’s. AUKUS start turning up in the early 2040’s. So sometime in the same mid 2050’s, the first of the Virginia’s will time out (reactor lifespan), followed about 3 years later by the second. To stay at 8, Australia has to build more AUKUS. I fail to understand how people here & elsewhere find this concept so difficult. 144.139.103.173 (talk) 13:14, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- Indeed the documents say just after they reach a peak strength of 8 in the early 2050’s the Virginia will start to be replaced. I think the confusion some people have is not realising Australia uses Whole Life Accounting (where you account for anticipated construction, lifetime maintenance, sustainment, crewing, mid life upgrades and decommissioning up front) and its a 30 year budget period, so while their strategy is to continue production, submarines after the first 5 AUKUS aren't yet budgeted. WatcherZero (talk) 22:08, 1 May 2024 (UTC)