HN Explorer

8 comments

[ 3.8 ms ] story [ 27.4 ms ] thread
AussieWog93
(Before people read the title and react, these are not armed with nuclear weapons; they are just propelled by a nuclear reactor. I'm not sure how difficult it would be to change that in future, though.)
alexnewman
Attack subs. Not strategic. These are meant to hunt other boats and ships
nradov
During the Cold War, some attack submarines carried torpedoes and cruise missiles with nuclear warheads. Australia isn't intending to acquire such ordnance though.
alexnewman
I assume you are talking about russian attack subs v.v. nuclear torpedoes. Cruise missiles with nukes I’m unaware of.
nradov
Both the NATO and the USSR deployed tactical nuclear weapons on attack submarines during the Cold War. The US Navy used the TLAM-N cruise missile from 1983-2010, the SUBROC antisubmarine rocket from 1964-1989, and the Mark 45 ASTOR torpedo from 1959-1976.
mytailorisrich
The important piece of news here is that the US and UK have apparently 'convinced' Australia to ditch the huge deal they made to acquire subs from France (and to be built in Australia).
glecedric
At this point, the French should just strike a deal with the Chinese. Sure they already know how to build nuclear submarine, but I am sure they would pay billions to lease land in New Caledonia, Guadeloup ... even Brittany. In the end, France don't care about the East China Sea so they should be more pragmatical when their historic "allies" make such moves.