AUKUS

[golder]

"Astute" was completed in 2007 - so that's a +21 year programme for 7 boats. Gives you some idea of how hard it is to build up a fleet.
There was also a built-in timeline, to have continuality of build for the ship yard. Going into the next class. This was also suppose to happen for the Collins. Only they stopped all plans, the gov of the day had other ideas. Hence another reason of where we are today.

[Not_a_boffin]

Nulcear ships have never been banned from australia. You might be thinking of NZ but australia pretty much continuously gets visted by nuclear powered aircraft carriers. Subs are way less common and neither invincible or a illustrious was nuclear powered

Spent enough time on Invincible and Lusty to be perfectly familiar with their propulsion thanks.

https://www.upi.com/Archives/1983/12/12/Labor-Party-criticizes-Australian-ban-on-British-ship/2470440053200/

It was carriage of buckets of sunshine that was the problem - or more precisely refusal to confirm or deny presence onboard.

[rattman]

Fremantle council declared they were nuclear free, but it was completely ignored by everyone as councils have zero authority over ports its generally state, sometimes federal. Australia has never been nuclear free, labor went to an election in the mid 80's with a nuclear free policy and lost. I remember in the 90's 3 nuclear carriers all anchored off freemantle, the freemantle port is unsuitable for nuclear carriers so they anchor out to see and crew get ferried in

https://www.upi.com/Archives/1983/12/12/Labor-Party-criticizes-Australian-ban-on-British-ship/2470440053200/


Hmm factually wrong, considering Andrew Peacock was head of the liberal party, seems factually wrong, seems a mish mash of errors. Paragraph its banned, paragraph its docked in sydney fixting the propeller shaft

Ahhh figured out. Berthing/anchoring in australia with nuclear weapons was fine, as it was in the sea. Going into a drydock was considered on australian soil because its no longer floating. Nuclear weapons are banned on australian soil because of the poms. But weapons or propulsion is fine as long they as they are floating. The issue was that they needed deammunition the ship while be worked in dry dock, they refused


https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/873x549/rules_e5fe3824fd56c62ffbbd18290db7b55907c0e2c1.jpg

[Going Boeing]

The PR efforts have started, there will be a lot more of this.

PR video supporting RAN acquisition of nuclear powered submarines

[tartare]

Interesting:
https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/senior-us-official-says-washington-would-consider-supplying-b-21-bombers-to-australia/
A few voices `stateside already saying it will never happen - too much bomber for the buck and designed primarily for special weapons.
But then again - people who supposedly know said we'd never buy nuclear boats.

[Going Boeing]

Interesting:
https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/senior-us-official-says-washington-would-consider-supplying-b-21-bombers-to-australia/
A few voices `stateside already saying it will never happen - too much bomber for the buck and designed primarily for special weapons.
But then again - people who supposedly know said we'd never buy nuclear boats.

My read of the recent acceleration of orders for long range missiles (JASSM-ER & LRASM) is a way of substituting for the lack of carrier based aviation. For the RAN to build carrier capability would be a very lengthy (& expensive) process whereas long range missiles deployed on current assets gives the ADF similar capability in a much shorter timeframe. A squadron of B21’s would add significantly to this and would totally make a naval carrier redundant for Australian defence needs.

A squadron of B21’s would be a similar cost as a carrier but would have a lot more flexibility wrt multiple locations as well as having lower manning requirements.

If tensions keep escalating, I can see the government finding the money to buy B-21’s. The recent lengthy operation of B2’s out of Amberley has given the RAAF good insight into the operation of a similar strategic asset.

[etudiant]

My read of the recent acceleration of orders for long range missiles (JASSM-ER & LRASM) is a way of substituting for the lack of carrier based aviation. For the RAN to build carrier capability would be a very lengthy (& expensive) process whereas long range missiles deployed on current assets gives the ADF similar capability in a much shorter timeframe. A squadron of B21’s would add significantly to this and would totally make a naval carrier redundant for Australian defence needs.

A squadron of B21’s would be a similar cost as a carrier but would have a lot more flexibility wrt multiple locations as well as having lower manning requirements.

If tensions keep escalating, I can see the government finding the money to buy B-21’s. The recent lengthy operation of B2’s out of Amberley has given the RAAF good insight into the operation of a similar strategic asset.

Recognizing that Australia's military have responsibility for an enormous area, do any of the proposed systems make sense?
A single digit number of nuclear subs or a double digit number of B-21s will soak up all funds available, leaving at most the dregs for territorial defense or anything else.
It seems a mismatch, so any explanation would be appreciated.

[megan]

Nulcear ships have never been banned from australia. You might be thinking of NZ but australia pretty much continuously gets visted by nuclear powered aircraft carriersRemember orbiting the USS Enterprise anchored in Hobart opposite the casino November 1976, the first US ship to pay a visit to the port, flight school roommate an A-6 driver on board.

[Going Boeing]

Recognizing that Australia's military have responsibility for an enormous area, do any of the proposed systems make sense?
A single digit number of nuclear subs or a double digit number of B-21s will soak up all funds available, leaving at most the dregs for territorial defense or anything else.
It seems a mismatch, so any explanation would be appreciated.

My understanding is that the military planners believe that the best use of the available defence funds is to plan to strike the enemy before they land anywhere along our vast coastline &, if they do manage to establish a beachhead, then it would be important to disrupt their supply lines. For many years, the ADF was relying on submarines and Harpoon carrying air assets to provide this capability. Now that Harpoon is near the end of its service life, more capable missiles such as LRASM & NSM/JSM are planned to become the means to deny access via maritime approaches. A potential enemy would be aware of this structure and would do their best to protect their supporting sea lines of communication thus, having stand-off weapons and/or stealth capability is necessary. The F-35 would perform this role well (within its range) but B-21's would be effective at much greater ranges with larger payloads so it would be a much stronger deterent.

The land side of the ADF may not be getting as big a slice of the defence budget but, what they are getting is a high quality & highly mobile capability. With relatively small numbers in our Army, they have to be able to respond quickly to counter any threat using the RAN's amphibious capability and RAAF transport aircraft. There has been significant improvement in these areas in the last 15 years.

I look at the ADF as an integrated force and it is performing much better now than it did 30-40 years ago when there was significant inter-service rivalry.

[Buster Hyman]

I look at the ADF as an integrated force and it is performing much better now than it did 30-40 years ago when there was significant inter-service rivalry.
Indeed, and integrated with our allies. Especially our mate with the big stick!

[rattman]

Defence minister has opened the door on australia getting B-21's

https://australianaviation.com.au/2022/08/marles-hints-raaf-could-buy-b-21-raider-bomber/

[Buster Hyman]

Considering that Indonesia is having a 'tanty' with regard to the Nuclear Subs, I can only imagine how excited they'll be if we roll out B-21's!

[fdr]

Everyone loves a nukulaar boat. They are so.... well.....

expensive as a weapons system;
life limited by reactor age and fatigue;
so much easier to track than an SSK;

OTOH, they have

excellent global reach (both time on mission and range) ;
speed to vacate a datum;
kerb appeal.

So we are proposing spending multi buckets of pubic purse to get... an ornament?

Submarines are a force multiplier in any form, but numbers count. Any sub can have a bad day, by accident or by design, I would prefer to see a single casualty not knocking out the national capability. ( I prefer those that don't hurt people either, having been onboard a sub that blew a raw water feed in the AMS at 400', subs get busy fast, and without warning).

Over the service life, the nukular boat is going to run around 3 to 4 or more in cost per boat over a conventional SSK. The task of the submarine is to interdict by implied or actual threat as a prime capability, and to provide ISR and SOF support as needed, while giving a screening to friendly naval forces from... other boats. I'm a generation out of the current boats, but follow them nevertheless, including having worked on some design items.

The USA and the UK can do well to have interoperable technologies for C3I, and weapon systems, and gain the benefit of a large SSK fleet operated by a dedicated group. Submariners are different, really, really really different. In the colonies, in the bad old days, politely, mufti was the dress of the day, and occasionally, the dress of the day was the "dress" of the day. The spirit of the sub fleet is different. The size of the RAN fleet has needed a major ramp up from what it has, and getting the oddities that go into subs in numbers is a challenge, but at least they aren't dry. AUS is a maritime nation, a fact that the successive govt seem to have been remarkably ill informed on. It is time that the RAN advocated what they need for both surface, literal and blue water, and sub surface capability.

AIP systems still provide a capability that is cost effective, durable and has unique capability that the UK still retains in small parts, and that has been lost to the USN.

For my money, go with AIP, a goodly size boat with extensive munitions flexibility, expand the numbers, for the same money of the project, and review the latest FFG proposals, as they appear to be staggeringly expensive for limited capability, being just wrong sized. Today, the bigness of the flag that can be carried is not a major factor except on parades, what is needed is capable weapon systems, an adequate range, good sea keeping, and modest direct and indirect costs. Overall, having a fleet of 4 or 5 surface skimmers is not a fleet, it is a bathtub distraction.

RAN has had mixed history with the support ships, but there too, the problem of having 3 subs, 4 FFGs, and 1 fleet oiler/support ship is, that the wheels come off with one bang on the side of the support target. Ship. HMAS HIT ME.... A maritime nation needs to be able to protect its borders. That takes surface, sub surface and air assets to be done effectively. Right now, the UK and the ADF are lean on ASW/surface strike capability, and that leads back to maybe the RQ systems and even the B21 start to make a sort of sense. The B21 is effectively a capital asset, it's a brave OOD that sets out a frag for a B21 to go save the neck of the CPL and LT that are in deep doo doo in the land of far far away....

Notwithstanding that the most recent tiffs that the ADF have had were characterised as being..... well..... desert, and not an obvious location for using subs, frigates or carriers etc.... the one thing that Ukraine has reminded all is that what you see is what you get, conflict will come along at its own sweet inappropriate time, and whatever is in the tool kit at that time is what gets to be used.

[ChrisJ800]

We need F35B's for our Canberra class 'aircraft carriers' . Not sure we have the money for B21's but for sure we should have some permanently on shore as part of joint USAF bases like the UK does.

[Gnadenburg]

If we buy B21 Raiders let’s hope they don’t squish them up together on the tarmac with all the other assets at Amberley and Williamtown. The ADF must start seriously considering the hardening and air defence of the parade ground East Coast bases which now sit frontline. Something like a B21 acquisition, however unlikely it seems, may even require an inland basing strategy or regular dispersal.

[fdr]

If we buy B21 Raiders let’s hope they don’t squish them up together on the tarmac with all the other assets at Amberley and Williamtown. The ADF must start seriously considering the hardening and air defence of the parade ground East Coast bases which now sit frontline. Something like a B21 acquisition, however unlikely it seems, may even require an inland basing strategy or regular dispersal.

The B-21 needs more than that, it needs to be operating from bases that have absolute security from prying eyes, and without a presence above ground to be targeted. even as a conventional-only munitions system, they are a strategic threat to anyone that may be within the range, which is more or less everyone.

A B-21 that is known to exist and whose location is unknown is a pretty good way to add some pause before someone makes a rash decision. Same with das boots, and with all stealth aircraft. It is lunacy to have the Gen 5 aircraft on parade anywhere, they need to be distributed widely in effective cell-sized detachments, and in hardened low-profile structures. That isn't just AUS, that is all locations of NATO as well. IMHO. The B-21, F-35, F-22 and all subs are deterrents, that are best to have fleet size, location and readiness unknown.

[Gnadenburg]

That’s what I was clearly alluding to with “inland bases”. An airbase in the outback would provide better security not only against missile launching submarines, but also saboteurs with modern means such as drones. Woomera is an obvious example, though surprisingly may be too close to the coast if the CCP submarine threat is considerable enough. The investment in additional bases would be a massive addition to the actual cost of these bombers. Consideration of USAF investment in such bases and joint force operations would probably be necessary. Woomera & Alice Springs possible choices along with a further expansion of Tindal.

[Asturias56]

"We need F35B's for our Canberra class 'aircraft carriers' ."

The COST!!! Who is going to pay for that? The RN struggles to equip a carrier AND run SSN's

As for B-21's - the USA never sold any F22's - do you think they'll sell their absolute top of the line, state of the art kit to anyone?

[HK144]

"We need F35B's for our Canberra class 'aircraft carriers' ."

The COST!!! Who is going to pay for that? The RN struggles to equip a carrier AND run SSN's

As for B-21's - the USA never sold any F22's - do you think they'll sell their absolute top of the line, state of the art kit to anyone?

You are right, they don't sell their absolute state of the art technology to anyone; however, given our access to Nuclear propulsion technology along with the UK, we perhaps are not 'anyone' and if the need is identified, it may be achievable. Times have certainly changed since the F22 era.

[rattman]

The COST!!! Who is going to pay for that? The RN struggles to equip a carrier AND run SSN's



I think we should buy some B's and operate them off the UK carriers in the same way that the Marines do, or operate them off USN flat tops. Included in this would appropriate technical and deck crew, that way keeping a nucleus of a carrier qualified pilot and deck crew just in case

[Going Boeing]

"We need F35B's for our Canberra class 'aircraft carriers' ."

The COST!!! Who is going to pay for that? The RN struggles to equip a carrier AND run SSN's

As for B-21's - the USA never sold any F22's - do you think they'll sell their absolute top of the line, state of the art kit to anyone?

The design of the current Canberra class ships has been modified to maximise their amphibious capabilities so they have limited aircraft/helicopter storage and aviation fuel. To operate F-35B’s, a new hull would have to be built that converts all the amphibious capability into aviation support capability - that would take time and funding. The deck would have to be redesigned to withstand the high exhaust temperatures of the F35B’s. Personally, I think a squadron of B-21’s would provide more capability & flexibility than having a carrier. Senior US defence officials have publicly stated that they would look at any proposal that Australia puts to them - including B-21’s. I totally agree with Gnads about dispersal and protection of such a valuable strategic asset.


The RAN & BAE have circled the wagons to keep the focus on construction of the Hunter class and ignore the unsolicited offer from Navantia to quickly build 3 more Air Warfare Destroyers. Good to see that integration of the CEAFAR 2 radar with the AEGIS combat system is progressing well.
Hunter Class construction to start earlier (https://asiapacificdefencereporter.com/hunter-class-frigate-program-could-be-accelerated/?utm_source=Asia+Pacific+Defence+Reporter&utm_campaign=1b2ce50d0f-RSS_News+BuEMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_513319f9bb-1b2ce50d0f-52448849)


https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1200x672/image_055a79fe45321997f260d6b1ad2e31d476bda8a4.jpeg
First Hunter class prototype block section (Block 16, 141 tonnes)

[tartare]

You are right, they don't sell their absolute state of the art technology to anyone; however, given our access to Nuclear propulsion technology along with the UK, we perhaps are not 'anyone' and if the need is identified, it may be achievable. Times have certainly changed since the F22 era.

Agree.
Note this also:
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/australians-to-train-on-uk-nuclear-submarines-under-landmark-pact-20220831-p5be8p.html

[ORAC]

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/australians-to-train-in-uk-nuclear-subs-dd60qm793

Australians to train in UK nuclear subs

Submariners from Australia will be allowed to train inside Britain’s nuclear-powered submarines and access sensitive technology that has been kept secret from foreign nations for decades, it can be revealed.….

Under the plans being discussed by British and Australian ministers today, naval officers would be allowed to see nuclear engineering at work for the first time.… A Royal Navy source said: “We protect UK technology very closely. This a first-time agreement where we can give Australians access to that. It’s a really big gift.”…

Richard Marles, Australia’s deputy prime minister and defence minister will join Boris Johnson and Ben Wallace, the defence secretary, in the northwest of England today to attend the commissioning ceremony for HMS Anson, the fifth of seven new Astute-class attack submarines, and to discuss co-operation between their nations…..

The training is likely to take place on the UK’s £1.4 billion Astute-class nuclear-powered submarines, rather than the Vanguard-class ballistic missile submarines because they have the newest reactor technology. Some of the training could be restricted to four months but other courses could last several years.

The source said that Australian submariners could even potentially embed with the Royal Navy on its submarines. It is understood that no extra security vetting will be deemed necessary.

Marles said that his government had not yet decided which nuclear- powered submarines — British or American — were best to replace Australia’s ageing conventional submarine fleet. He said he was planning to announce the choice early next year.

[HK144]

[QUOTE=ORAC;11288187]https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/australians-to-train-in-uk-nuclear-subs-dd60qm793


Don't forget that it is not only with the RN. There is also a near identical agreement with the USN currently working it's way through Congress. Two RAN submariners undertake USN Nuclear School followed by Submarine Course then secondment to a USN SSN for a two year tour.

[Going Boeing]

The SSN speculation continues with this article indicating that “off the shelf Astute’s are off the table”. The concept of a joint US-UK-AU follow-on SSN incorporating the SSN-X & SSN(R) programs has some merit as it would mean that the RAN would get the latest technology that would be upgradable throughout their service life. It also allows time for the shipyards to be prepared/upgraded for the construction & maintenance of these vessels as well as all the companies that will be suppliers to the project.

Defence Connect Astute class off the table (https://www.defenceconnect.com.au/maritime-antisub/10650-off-the-shelf-astute-class-off-the-table-says-uk)

The downside of this is that it would mean a further delay before the RAN SSN’s become operational and may go beyond the Collins class service life, especially the older ones. Because of the potential capability gap, It may require require the construction of 3-4 interim “son-of-Collins” submarines to be built featuring many of the post LOTE systems that will be installed in the current boats. This would keep the maintenance logistics to a manageable level whereas, the introduction and support of a brand new conventional submarine like the highly rated Korean KSS III class would require a massive investment in money and manpower.

Like many, I’m keen to see what the final decision will be.

[fdr]

The design of the current Canberra class ships has been modified to maximise their amphibious capabilities so they have limited aircraft/helicopter storage and aviation fuel. To operate F-35B’s, a new hull would have to be built that converts all the amphibious capability into aviation support capability - that would take time and funding. The deck would have to be redesigned to withstand the high exhaust temperatures of the F35B’s. Personally, I think a squadron of B-21’s would provide more capability & flexibility than having a carrier. Senior US defence officials have publicly stated that they would look at any proposal that Australia puts to them - including B-21’s. I totally agree with Gnads about dispersal and protection of such a valuable strategic asset.


The RAN & BAE have circled the wagons to keep the focus on construction of the Hunter class and ignore the unsolicited offer from Navantia to quickly build 3 more Air Warfare Destroyers. Good to see that integration of the CEAFAR 2 radar with the AEGIS combat system is progressing well.
Hunter Class construction to start earlier (https://asiapacificdefencereporter.com/hunter-class-frigate-program-could-be-accelerated/?utm_source=Asia+Pacific+Defence+Reporter&utm_campaign=1b2ce50d0f-RSS_News+BuEMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_513319f9bb-1b2ce50d0f-52448849)


https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1200x672/image_055a79fe45321997f260d6b1ad2e31d476bda8a4.jpeg
First Hunter class prototype block section (Block 16, 141 tonnes)

A question then...

what helo benefits from a ski ramp?

[Going Boeing]

A question then...

what helo benefits from a ski ramp?

The only answer that I’ve heard is that the cost to redesign the bow to remove the ski jump from the original Spanish design was too prohibitive so they were built with them - even though they are of no use to amphibious operations. Internally, the two RAN LHD’s are not set up for anything but amphibious craft, combat vehicle storage & supporting helicopter operations, no fixed wing capability.

[golder]

The only answer that I’ve heard is that the cost to redesign the bow to remove the ski jump from the original Spanish design was too prohibitive so they were built with them. Internally, the two RAN LHD’s are not set up for anything but helicopter operations.
Further to this. It wouldn't have given another helicopter landing area. One reason given, was because of firefighting design.

[rattman]

A question then...

what helo benefits from a ski ramp?

None but the harrier the spanish fly off them do. I read the removal of the ramp would have meant a couple of hundred million to redesign and retest and re certify, for minimal gain. Same thing with the turkish version they went the same way, cost wasn't worth the redesign

[tartare]

This is interesting in context of holding China at threat well back from Australian shores:
https://csbaonline.org/uploads/documents/CSBA8325_(Rings_of_Fire)_FINAL_web-9-1-22.pdf

[ORAC]

https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/International-relations/Indo-Pacific/AUKUS-submarines-A-burden-too-big-for-overloaded-U.S.-shipyards

AUKUS submarines: A burden too big for overloaded U.S. shipyards

TOKYO -- A senior U.S. Navy official has expressed concern that assisting Australia in acquiring nuclear-powered submarines may be too much of a burden for America's overstretched nuclear shipyards.….

https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2022/09/07/what-have-the-aukus-partners-spent-the-last-year-doing/

What have the AUKUS partners spent the last year doing?

WASHINGTON — The United States, the United Kingdom and Australia have spent the last year discussing in detail the capabilities that each partner of the so-called AUKUS agreement (https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2021/10/29/the-unintended-consequences-of-the-aukus-deal/) will bring to the table for a future Australian nuclear-powered attack submarine, according to the undersecretary of the U.S. Navy.

Speaking at the Defense News Conference on Wednesday, Erik Raven said he doesn’t have submarine design announcements yet, but could say the three nations are focused on “how to get there in the smartest way to make sure this partnership pays dividends well into the future.”……

Top of mind shortly after the AUKUS announcement was choosing the class of submarine the Royal Australian Navy may use — the U.S. Navy’s Virginia-class submarine, the British Royal Navy’s Astute-class submarine or something new. But the conversation later turned toward whose industrial base has the capacity to handle additional construction work (https://www.defensenews.com/outlook/2021/12/06/australias-defense-industry-minister-the-importance-of-aukus-and-a-strong-economy/).

Rear Adm. Scott Pappano, the program executive officer for strategic submarines, has closely tracked industrial base issues related to his top-priority Columbia-class ballistic missile submarine, as well as what capacity remains to build and maintain the Virginia attack subs.

Although he’s not directly involved in AUKUS conversations, he said last month that, “if we are going to add additional submarine construction to our industrial base, that would be detrimental to us right now without significant investment to provide additional capacity and capability to go do that.” He added the U.K. submarine-industrial base faces similar constraints.

Despite the challenges, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Mike Gilday has called the arrangement “a strategic stroke of brilliance … for all three countries.”….

[Going Boeing]

The new Chief of Navy not concerned about Admiral Poppano’s comments.

SMH Submarine warning a bit of noise (https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/new-navy-boss-dismisses-us-submarine-warning-as-a-bit-of-noise-20220908-p5bgfl.html)

[artee]

The new Chief of Navy not concerned about Admiral Poppano’s comments.

SMH Submarine warning a bit of noise (https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/new-navy-boss-dismisses-us-submarine-warning-as-a-bit-of-noise-20220908-p5bgfl.html)

Here's the view of George Brandis, who used to be the Australian High Commissioner to the UK. He's an Anglophile.The sub-plot to our AUKUS pact: We may need UK rather than US submarines (https://www.smh.com.au/national/the-sub-plot-to-our-aukus-pact-we-may-need-uk-rather-than-us-submarines-20220909-p5bgts.html)Last week, Defence Minister Richard Marles returned from a successful visit to the United Kingdom. At the top of his agenda was a series of meetings, including with outgoing prime minister Boris Johnson and Defence Secretary Ben Wallace, to discuss the next steps in the AUKUS security pact; in particular, the British bid to supply the submarines which, powered by American nuclear-propulsion technology, are AUKUS’s first joint project.

There is much more to AUKUS than the submarine acquisition. It is a long-range commitment to the joint development of a variety of complex technologies for defence purposes: hypersonics, quantum computing, artificial intelligence and other advanced capabilities. However, the submarine program – Pillar One, in the jargon – is the most tangible and the soonest to begin.
https://static.ffx.io/images/$zoom_0.25%2C$multiply_0.7725%2C$ratio_1.5%2C$width_756%2C$x _0%2C$y_171/t_crop_custom/q_86%2Cf_auto/5110a707bf73a1573264afb34894cbb6b4730018A real option for Australia: Boris Johnson, in one of his final duties as Britain’s prime minister, attends the commissioning of HMS Anson, Britain’s newest Astute-class, nuclear-powered submarine in Barrow.Credit:Latika Bourke

The most important question looming over AUKUS in the near term is the choice of submarine. In the debate so far, this has been posed as binary: whether the preferred vessel should be British or American. Specifically, whether it should be the next generation of the UK’s Astute-class submarine, or the US Virginia or Los Angeles-class.

At their press conference at Barrow in north-west England, where Britain’s nuclear submarines are built, Marles, Johnson and Wallace avoided the issue by characterising it as a tripartite build, with significant elements from each country. While this is true up to a point – and takes account of the Australian priority for substantial construction domestically – the ultimate choice will be between a British or American design.

This is a decision which the Albanese government has committed to making in the first half of next year. The evaluation process is well under way. This is a more complex decision than that faced by the Turnbull government when it chose the design of a next-generation diesel-powered submarine. At that time, the much-superior US nuclear propulsion technology was not available to Australia; the decision was a straightforward choice between French, German and Japanese tenders. If the tender for the AUKUS submarine is awarded to Britain, US technology will have to be integrated into a British design.
Related Article https://static.ffx.io/images/$zoom_0.5519%2C$multiply_0.5127%2C$ratio_1.776846%2C$width_1 059%2C$x_0%2C$y_0/t_crop_custom/q_86%2Cf_auto/fdf9f37c195261b80b338956310069ccaa58de40 (https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/new-navy-boss-dismisses-us-submarine-warning-as-a-bit-of-noise-20220908-p5bgfl.html)National security (https://www.smh.com.au/topic/national-security-5zy)New navy boss dismisses US submarine warning as a ‘bit of noise’ (https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/new-navy-boss-dismisses-us-submarine-warning-as-a-bit-of-noise-20220908-p5bgfl.html)That added layer of complexity is one of several reasons why many prefer an American sub: its promoters claim that it could be purchased, effectively, “off the shelf”. While that is way too simplistic to describe the development and acquisition of any complex weapons platform, superficially the American option does appear simpler. Added to that are the crucial issues of speed of delivery and, of course, cost – on both of which the American option is claimed to be superior.

At the Indian Ocean Defence and Security Conference in Perth a fortnight ago, there was a near-to-unanimous expectation that the American build would be chosen. That was the view strongly expressed by the former defence minister and Australia’s current Defence Industry Advocate, David Johnson. It is also clearly former defence minister Peter Dutton’s view, as evident from his claim during the election campaign that he had secured the agreement of the Americans to supply two submarines before 2030.

So far, Marles has been more careful, not expressing a public preference for one design over the other. This is absolutely the right approach; to do otherwise would pre-empt the evaluation process.
Concerningly, however, at the very time Marles was visiting Barrow, one of the most senior figures in the US Navy’s nuclear submarine program, Rear Admiral Scott Pappano, gave an interview in which he cast doubt on America’s readiness or even capacity to incorporate the supply of submarines to Australia into its production schedule. “If we are going to add additional submarine construction to our industrial base, that would be detrimental to us right now,” Pappano was quoted as saying. This comes at a time when the US Navy is planning significant increases its fleet size – including its submarine capability – to meet the China challenge. As Johnson and Wallace no doubt told Marles, there is no hesitancy on the part of the British.

The UK’s commitment to AUKUS is strong. The new Prime Minister, Liz Truss, is every bit as enthusiastic for AUKUS as was Johnson. Wallace has been reappointed as Defence Secretary. If, as many expect, he leaves the government next year to become the secretary-general of NATO, his likely successor in the portfolio is the new Security Minister Tom Tugendhat – a strong China hawk and AUKUS enthusiast. The Truss cabinet – indeed virtually the entire Conservative Party – share that sentiment.
https://static.ffx.io/images/$zoom_0.559%2C$multiply_0.7725%2C$ratio_1.5%2C$width_756%2C$ x_261%2C$y_46/t_crop_custom/q_86%2Cf_auto/37732fe6e567dd5a3d59b21fd3a457152e62bd70Australia’s Deputy Prime Minister, Richard Marles, with then-British Prime Minister Boris Johnson in Barrow for the commissioning of Astute-class submarine.Credit:Official British government photographer.

We can also be confident that a future UK Labour government will take the same view. Although UK Labour was initially sceptical of AUKUS, its bipartisan support has since been clarified. At the Labour Party conference last year, which took place shortly after AUKUS had been announced, I sought and received firm assurances from both the shadow defence secretary and the then shadow foreign secretary that a future Labour government would fully support AUKUS – a position since reinforced by Labour leader Keir Starmer and the shadow cabinet.

The UK’s eagerness to win the submarine contract is palpable. It conforms with one of the key priorities set out in last year’s Integrated Review of Britain’s geostrategic objectives, the “tilt to the Indo-Pacific”. It also reflects an electorally powerful domestic priority which does not feature in American thinking – the rehabilitation of the industrial manufacturing base in the north of England. As a very competitive UK election looms in 2024, the Australian submarine contract would be a huge political trophy.

I don’t doubt the US commitment to AUKUS is as strong as Britain’s. Inevitably, though, Australia has less weight in its relationship with the US than it does in that with the UK. Put simply, we are, as a customer, in a weaker position. And the domestic political imperatives in the UK are entirely absent from America’s priorities. It is inconceivable that anyone of importance in the British system would think as Admiral Pappano does.
https://static.ffx.io/images/$zoom_0.497%2C$multiply_0.7725%2C$ratio_1.5%2C$width_756%2C$ x_0%2C$y_116/t_crop_custom/q_86%2Cf_auto/b208877844c708ee6171a73994fb077c181bb2c5The US Virginia-class, nuclear-powered submarine.

Ultimately, a defence contract of this magnitude will be a decision based on capability, cost and the capacity to deliver soonest. The received wisdom in Defence is that all of those factors favour the choice of an American design. Yet – as the short life of the French diesel submarine project demonstrated – things can change fast in a few short years. For a project whose delivery times are measured not in years but decades, another important consideration is to ensure Australia is in the strongest position it can be when it comes to the delivery phase.

[Three Wire]

Your information with respect to the LHDs is incorrect.

[Asturias56]

Admiral Pappano is making sure he's heard - I'm sure he'd love to see another line for building SSN's in the USA "to help out the Aussies" and to speed up delivery to the USN. Once they start serious work on the next SSBN's it's going to be quite tight in the USA and impossible in the UK without extra capability in the yards

[Bengo]

Admiral Pappano is making sure he's heard - I'm sure he'd love to see another line for building SSN's in the USA "to help out the Aussies" and to speed up delivery to the USN. Once they start serious work on the next SSBN's it's going to be quite tight in the USA and impossible in the UK without extra capability in the yards

The Aussies want to build their subs in Adelaide, so it is not really about more UK or US building capacity, with the exception of the reactor section. It is more about extra boat building expertise. It is difficult to see that either of BAE or GDEB has the expertise to lend to Adelaide sitting around, so it will have to be grown, as an extra to the existing programmes, regardless of the design chosen. That might involve Australians in the existing build activities until they are able to build their own.
Whether that could be resourced down under whilst maintaining the Collins is another matter.

We shall see.

N

[ORAC]

Not just availability in the shipyard, also the reactor core and fuel assembly buildings.

https://www.nuclearinfo.org/article/dreadnought-barrow/mod-admits-problems-rolls-royce-could-delay-dreadnought/

[Ascend Charlie]

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1228x802/screen_shot_2022_09_12_at_8_49_25_pm_8321558d9d7b71bf7366031 f9a8b0fc04fa4ebf4.png
Hey! You Aussies! You no allowed Nucrear submarines, OK?

[Asturias56]

"The Aussies want to build their subs in Adelaide, "

My friends in Adelaide don't reckon it'll ever happen - they have enough problems in getting people right now - it's a political fig-leaf

[Going Boeing]

Whilst this doesn’t fall directly under AUKUS, it shows that Australia is acquiring the best technology to obtain an integrated and balanced force structure. These should integrate well with the P-8’s.

First RAAF MQ4C Triton (https://www.flightglobal.com/military-uavs/northrop-rolls-out-first-australian-mq-4c-triton/150201.article?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=Sendible&utm_campaign=RSS&fbclid=IwAR0EAYJgwbqJuPbIJ33ijcpCyBH1g20i-XvAdlyVQ0g4paWA6BNV2rK_Ix0)

[melmothtw]

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1228x802/screen_shot_2022_09_12_at_8_49_25_pm_8321558d9d7b71bf7366031 f9a8b0fc04fa4ebf4.png
Hey! You Aussies! You no allowed Nucrear submarines, OK?


"Hollywoooood!!!"

Anyone who's seen the movie 1941 will get it.

[Buster Hyman]

Anyone who's seen the movie 1941 will get it.
The Dummy on the Ferris Wheel cracks me up every time!

[layman]

​​​​​​https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-09-16/leaked-document-officials-kept-in-dark-over-french-submarines/101445670

Reporting on a ‘leaked’ 10 page paper prepared by Kim Gillis, a member of the Naval Group board (Deputy-Secretary in Defence before that).

It it would seem many in Defence working on the project were not aware of imminent project cancellation.

I thought his description of the various values associated with the project (in billions of AUD) of 32.0, 46.5, 50.0, 90.0 & 235.0 highlighted the need to compare like-with-like

[West Coast]

"Hollywoooood!!!"

Anyone who's seen the movie 1941 will get it.

I do, thanks for the chuckle!

[tartare]

The thought of Australian nuclear submarines, or even parts of them being built in Australia is very concerning.
I hope they are not.
After a decade living and working here my observation is that compared to Britain, where I have also lived and worked, and the US which I have visited frequently for work, in general Australian industry unduly struggles to organise itself and function optimally.
It is slow-moving, unnecessarily bureaucratic, lacking in imagination and agility, small-minded and inwardly focused compared to it's counterparts in both of those AUKUS nations.
Some might say the same could be said of Electric Boat or BAE... but they have track records and established facilities with experience building nuclear boats.
Australia just cannot move quickly - and it has no sense of urgency.
Hal Brands makes a detailed and compelling argument that as a country facing future economic and demographic stagnation and decline, China is dangerous right now and for the next 5-10 years.
I'm not even confident Australia will be able to make the obvious move to procure long range missiles as quickly as it needs to - or to build or acquire UUVs and XLUUVs to fill the gap between now and the arrival of the SSNs.
Dangerous times indeed.

[Going Boeing]

The thought of Australian nuclear submarines, or even parts of them being built in Australia is very concerning.
I hope they are not.
After a decade living and working here my observation is that compared to Britain, where I have also lived and worked, and the US which I have visited frequently for work, in general Australian industry unduly struggles to organise itself and function optimally.
It is slow-moving, unnecessarily bureaucratic, lacking in imagination and agility, small-minded and inwardly focused compared to it's counterparts in both of those AUKUS nations.
Some might say the same could be said of Electric Boat or BAE... but they have track records and established facilities with experience building nuclear boats.
Australia just cannot move quickly - and it has no sense of urgency.
Hal Brands makes a detailed and compelling argument (https://www.amazon.com/Danger-Zone-Coming-Conflict-China/dp/1324021306)that as a country facing future economic and demographic stagnation and decline, China is dangerous right now and for the next 5-10 years.
I'm not even confident Australia will be able to make the obvious move to procure long range missiles as quickly as it needs to - or to build or acquire UUVs and XLUUVs to fill the gap between now and the arrival of the SSNs.
Dangerous times indeed.

I respect your experience but I have the impression that the companies that support the Australian defence industry are better aligned and working together than they were in the past. There has been a lot of effort put in to improving the structure and communication so that they can hopefully get this massive project to work.

The way that all the issues with design and pre-production of the Hunter class FFG’s have been resolved can give us confidence that these skills will flow on to the SSN’s. Despite all the adverse press, it now looks like they are on top of the issues and expect to catch up with the original schedule by the time the 4th ship is built.

You mention the very significant experience of overseas submarine building companies but, even with all the experience that BAE had in the past, they ran into major problems with building the early Astute submarines - so much so that some senior management from GD Electric Boat were sent to Britain to assist with getting the program back on track. Also, it was discovered in 2017 that substandard steel was used in the construction of USN submarines for the previous 20 years so having them built by overseas companies doesn’t mean that the RAN would get better quality submarines.

The RAN’s experience with the Oberon’s was that the costs escalated as the submarines aged and, as the parts were manufactured in Britain, were forced to pay very inflated prices. This is why the RAN focused on having the Collins (& all subsequent classes) submarines built locally. There were some major issues early in the Collins program but, it was a significantly larger vessel than the class they were based on with many changes to allow the vessels to perform their role so it was expected that there would be teething problems. No submarine had been built in Australia prior to the Collins. As well as major savings for the Defence budget, the flow-on’s for the local economy means that we have to maximise local construction content.

While there were initial mistakes, there were many positives in the Collins construction and ongoing upgrades so that they have developed into very good operational vessels. The steel used in the hulls is stronger (& easier to weld) than the UK & US vessels which contributed to why they have been assessed as suitable for the LOTE which will see some of the Collins having a service life of 45 years - a phenomenal feat. If the SSN’s are built locally, there will be mistakes made (which will be leaked to the press who are only too willing to seize on anything negative) but, I believe that they will be built to a high quality and be very effective for their service life.

The procurement of long range missiles has been accelerated due to funds being available following the cancellation of the Attack class. This is an important capability which needs to be in service as quickly as possible.

I believe that the contract with Anduril for the XL-AUV’s was because they are a company that develops cutting edge technology in the shortest time. The contract is for the first vessel to be in the water in just 3 years - phenomenally fast, which is what is needed in these times.

Personally, I’m in the group that wants the SSN’s and all surface warships built locally.

[tartare]

I sincerely hope you prove me wrong on all points!
On the boats - I'm no submariner but let's assume we opt for the Virginia class, and I've chosen Block 3 as a benchmark.
By way of comparison:

Collins class = 6 boats @ 3400 tonnes displacement, 77m long, diesel electric power, $850m per unit
Virginia class Block 3 = at least 8 boats @ 11,000 tonnes displacement, 115m long, nuclear power, $2.8bn per unit

In other words, the Virginia class Boats are over three times the submerged size of Collins.
They're about one and a half times the length, have all the additional requirements of nuclear power, and each unit is around three times the cost.
Noting your valid point about bisalloy steel - with all due respect to the engineers and yards in Adelaide, I just can't see how they'll be able to handle a project of such magnitude.
Perhaps there is a plan to build some kind of Virginia-lite, and assemble modules in different yards, splitting the work between BAE, GDEB and ASC...

[Going Boeing]

On your benchmark assumption, the Block 4 would have been a better option, it has all the features of the Block 3 but has had a lot of systems redesigned to improve serviceability and reduce operating costs (including increasing the time between major maintenance & thus increasing the number of patrols that each submarine can do in its service life).

I think a smarter option for the RAN is to built standard length Block 6 Virginia’s as they will be in production by the time our processes are complete. The USN will probably build the longer version with the Virginia Payload Module (4 Payload Tubes) but, as that will probably be too much capability for the RAN, the standard ones would save some money. There are some new technologies being tested on the USS South Dakota which are expected to be mature enough to be included in the Block 6 design so this would give the RAN boats the latest technology which would assist in maintaining full capability throughout their life.

Your displacement figures seem to be inaccurate as most articles indicate that the Blocks 1-4 Virginia’s displace 7,900 tons and the longer Block 5 displaces 10,200 tons.

Your point about the cost is very valid and this project will take a large percentage of the ADF’s budget - hopefully not to the point that other important programs suffer.

I understand that there were problems during the AWD build caused by having sections of the ships build at different locations and thus the Defence Department is very reluctant to do that again (despite the political pressure from State governments to create work/jobs for them). If local building of the SSN’s does proceed, I think the plan is to massively increase the submarine building section known as Osborne North to be able to construct all sections (apart from the reactor section) locally. It’s a massive task and attracting enough workers and getting them trained is going to be very difficult. The previous government leased (with the intention of buying if it proceeds) an additional 45 hectares of land adjacent to the current facility so they have the room to expand if the plans come to fruition.

An alternative that has a lot of merit is for the AUKUS nations to jointly develop the next generation of SSN’s. For the RAN to be involved at the beginning of this (replacing the US SSN (X) & UK SSN (R) programs) would mean that the RAN would get the most up to date submarines in the world. The downside would be the extra delay to service entry that would be involved and would require some interim capability in the form of leasing SSN’s (none are currently available) or building long range SSK’s such as a Son-of-Collins incorporating a lot of commonality with the post LOTE Collins class.

[Asturias56]

I think you're right GB - if they HAVE to build them in Adelaide they should build ones that are also under sonstruction in the US, But the challenges are vast - there aren't a lot of spare engineers in S Australia for a start

[Not_a_boffin]

There's a whole raft of different factors going on here.

Firstly, there's the need to have a viable design. That design could be off-the-shelf, or it could be from scratch. Both have pro's and cons. If you go for an OTS design, much of the up-front NRE has been done, but it does tend to tie you in to the operating concept and supply chain the boat was designed around. It also ties you into the reactor type, fuel supply and safety protocols of that boat.

Secondly, there's the build strategy. Pressure hull rating is affected by factors like Out of Circularity (OOC), alignment of frame, bulkheads etc, as well as more mundane things like weld and plate quality. The supply chain and production QA requirements for submarines are significantly in excess of those for surface ships. It's why submarines are rarely done in distributed builds. EB and HII are doing it for the VIrginia's, but that's more an attempt to sustain two build yards than anything else. You can do non-PH steel elsewhere (we're doing that with BAES and Lairds) and you can do things like rafts and decks to be inserted into the PH units in the build yard, but it will be very tricky to try and do multiple PH units in different yards.

Then there's the supply chain. There are literally tens of thousands of equipment items on a boat, from simple things like fuse panels, display screens, junction boxes etc, through valves, pumps, chiller plants, flexible couplings, electric actuators, hydraulic actuators, to main gearboxes, turbines and so forth. Every single one has to undergo a significant level of design, qualification and testing - let alone production QA - before it gets on the boat. Many of which are non-trivial and can incur quite a bit of cost, which is usually why you see "inflated prices". It's rarely a question of just picking one out of a local supply catalogue, because if it doesn't match or exceed the requirements of the original bit of kit, it compromises the safety argument for the system. There won't be many equipment suppliers who qualify their products for submarines "just in case someone wants to put one in". This is often the hidden part of why operating submarines (and particularly nuclear ones) costs a lot of money.

Then there's the manpower - to design, specify, QA, build, accept and operate the boats. Again, the particular nuances of submarines - especially those with a kettle - are not the same as those for ships. One can reduce the direct need for specialists by using an OTS design, but you need an indigenous expert design and operating authority once you've got the boats in service, so it's still a stretch.

All of these things can - and I hope will - be done. But the timescale and budget will need very careful balancing and consideration.

[Asturias56]

I think you've pretty much explained why it will be very very difficult to build SSN's in Australia Boffin. It is a MAJOR long term investment in all sorts of things that politicians 9and some military) never think about.

I can see a lease/operate model working but a design/build one.... very hard

[Flap Track 6]

The SSN(R) project is being run specifically as an RN/RAN UK/Australian joint project. They will be built in both countries to a common design and the sub will be designed to be able to include Australian specified equipment, systems and weaponry.

They won't be available before circa 2040 so expect an interim Collins class life extension & capability upgrade program.

[Going Boeing]

Thanks for your contribution, Boffin, you’ve detailed the difficulties of submarine construction very well. It shows why Australia needs assistance in setting up the manufacturing and QA to make this program work.

Flap Track, it sounds like you have some inside information, are you saying that the decision has been made and will be building SSN (R)’s or is this one of the proposals that is being assessed?

[Flap Track 6]

My information is that it's a high level agreement, hence Def Sec Marles' visit to Barrow for HMS Anson's commisioning recently.

The British Govt and military industrial complex are really pushing this. Lots of upsides for the British military and industry and it will give the Aussies a pathway to SSN capability.

[Flap Track 6]

The main industrial partners for UK SSNs (BAES, RR & Babcock) are all looking at expansion into Australia for their Marine business units. All three already have Australian subsidiaries and significant in country marine design and manufacturing operations already. The head of BAES Australia Marine is a former head of Babcock UK Marine Division.

An Australian SSN program is something they all wish to be heavily involved with and are looking at significant local workshare.

[Not_a_boffin]

The main industrial partners for UK SSNs (BAES, RR & Babcock) are all looking at expansion into Australia for their Marine business units. All three already have Australian subsidiaries and significant in country marine design and manufacturing operations already. The head of BAES Australia Marine is a former head of Babcock UK Marine Division.

An Australian SSN program is something they all wish to be heavily involved with and are looking at significant local workshare.

Of course it is. There's money there. However, the ability to access that money will actually depend on whether they can staff it - and staff it with competent people. Knowing a couple of the Chief engineers in both BAES and Babcock, their constant cry is for more bodies. Bodies that can't just be plucked out of university, or existing organisations. Hence the emphasis for VERY careful balancing of timescale and budget. There's the art of the possible and there's throwing money at a wall and hoping some of it sticks.

[ORAC]

Not sure what spare UK capacity there is.

As previously noted Barrow is fully booked for Dreadnaught and then SSNR. With slippages they are already having to consider refuelling the early Astute boats to last until SSNR arrives, which poses problems, as they found with the current Trafalgar boats, as they weren’t designed to allow it.

SSNR will use the same reactor as Dreadnaught and is mooted to, effectively, be the same design with the missile module removed and replaced by a UUV dock. It is also mooted, as with the new carriers, to be highly automated in weapon handling etc to enable a much smaller crew than the Astute class even though it will weigh in at over 9000 tons.

The RR Derby reactor plant claims to be on schedule with PWR3 production and eager to provide the RAN with reactor modules.Which would also get around the ossicle export problems with a US reactor.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1623588/rolls-royce-engine-aukus-nuclear-submarine-deal-brexit-news-defence

The only feasible UK based route would seem to be for the RAN to take the SSNR design and, instead of removing the Trident missile module altogether, replace it with a VPM - and built it in Australia to create and sustain the required parts and maintenance base.

[Going Boeing]

Your post has certainly given me food for thought, ORAC. I hadn’t seriously considered the SSN(R) as an option as I thought that it was so far in the future that it would create a lengthy capability gap.

The first thought is that making the SSN(R) a cutdown version of the Dreadnought would mean less risk than a clean sheet design as the early Dreadnoughts would be used to debug the systems as well as provide experience with operation of the new PWR3 reactor. As the PWR3 is heavily based on the Virginia’s S9G reactor, I hope it has the S9G’s convective cooling capability and 33 year fuel endurance rather than the 25 years of the PWR2.

The Dreadnought & Columbia SSBN classes will share a Common Missile Compartment (CMC) consisting of 4 missile launch tubes in each section. The Dreadnought will have 3 CMC’s providing 12 missile silos (16 in Columbia). As was shown when 4 Ohio class SSBN’s were converted to SSGN’s, the 87” diameter silos can store and launch 7 Tomahawk missiles in each one. When hypersonic missiles become available, these silos are expected to house 3 in each of them. There have also been suggestions of UUV’s to deliver Special Forces, Mines, ISR, expendable decoys (AURAS project), etc that would be housed in these silos. Thus, it would be highly desirable that the SSN(R) retain at least one CMC (4 silos) to have a very flexible vertical launch capability. The lack of vertical launch capability in the Astute was one of the reasons why there’s been a stronger preference for the Virginia class.

The British plans to maximise automation throughout these vessels and thus reduce the manning requirements would be highly desirable for RAN operations. The structure of RAN submarine operations have been based on RN procedures so it would be an easier transition to stick with a British design rather than having to adjust to USN required procedures.

The main negative to this plan is the amount of extra design work to fit these vessels with US combat systems and weapons - doable (especially because of the extra room in the larger diameter hull) but, how much extra time would be required for the design changes to be incorporated. Any extra time delay in getting these vessels in the water will create major problems for the RAN.

With the heavy workload at Barrow finishing the last of the Astute’s and building the 4 Dreadnought’s, as well as the RAN’s need for the SSN’s to be in service as quickly as possible, is there a chance that construction of the first SSN(R) will be at Osborne, SA (with a lot of UK assistance)? The first UK SSN(R) could commence construction a couple of years later when Dreadnought assembly permits.

[Not_a_boffin]

SSNR will use the same reactor as Dreadnaught and is mooted to, effectively, be the same design with the missile module removed and replaced by a UUV dock. It is also mooted, as with the new carriers, to be highly automated in weapon handling etc to enable a much smaller crew than the Astute class even though it will weigh in at over 9000 tons.



Not sure who's doing the mooting, but I'd treat that with a great deal of circumspection.

[Bengo]

It is generally hard to get even two organisations with considerably different national perspectives to agree on a design, as evidenced by any number of Anglo-French and Franco German equipment projects which speared in because, notwithstanding all the joint statements and political fudge, fundamental national requirements were incompatible. Trying a threesome on a new design SSN sounds pretty high risk to me, especially where one partner has limited experience of SSK design and none of SSN design. It will get even more difficult, and very expensive if there are a lot of RAN specific differences needed.

Even so, SSN(R) still looks to be the least bad bet to me. It is the only approach that will deal with the shortage of current capacity in in US and UK, it has a reactor design that, once complete, can be manufactured and is in a timeframe practical for all partners. It leaves the RAN with a life problem for the Collins boats, perhaps. That is somewhat easier to deal with.

N

[ORAC]

RR Derby PWR3 production is, on paper, ahead of Dreadnaught and SSNR construction and potentially able to meet any RAN requirement.

The potential problem lies elsewhere. If the government decides to give RR Derby a contract for LEU SMRs to meet U.K. domestic needs, and then multiple other foreign orders, where do you honk the RR engineering focus will be?

https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/news/derby-news/new-rolls-royce-mini-nuclear-5427413

[Buster Hyman]

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/925x607/france_proposes_four_submarines_to_australia_despite_the_sta b_in_the_back_of_aukus_ac7a8ae88fa6b71a271a83959f7de3bffec7a 543.jpg
Here we go again…

https://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/naval-news/naval-news-archive/2022/september/12202-france-offers-four-submarines-to-australia-despite-the-stab-in-the-back-of-aukus.html

[Going Boeing]

Are you stirring the pot again, Buster.

The ADF hasn’t had a good experience with French equipment, eg MH90, Tiger & they even prevented the RAAF from using the Mirage in Vietnam.

Political posturing aside, there’s no chance that RAN will acquire French submarines.

[rattman]

Macron did offer 4 diesel subs, we assume scorpenes but nothing official, just like the spanish offered another 3 hobart class AWD. Marles (defence minister) has also had a meeting with Macron in the last 24 hours and hes said they will be more communicative on the MRH-90's if the scrapping is confirmed

[Buster Hyman]

Are you stirring the pot again, Buster.
Ha! No, I just hadn’t seen this mentioned before in the thread. 😂

We’ve swung all our eggs into the US basket, rightly or wrongly, but personally, I’d be exploring the possibility of getting some US or UK patrols to cover the Collins gap. (Don’t flame me, just a random thought as opposed to the 4 FRAUS subs option)

[Asturias56]

The informed , and for once not inflammable, discussion over teh last week has pointed out the fact that any large scale construction in Adleide is likely to be a long way away.

That doesn't stop the RAN training tho' - in 4 or 5 years they could have a decent cadre of trained crews that could man a rental boat (I suggest the "Hertz" class) or co-crew a US or RN boat operating near Australia.

[Bengo]

Yes, and I agree it would have to be either/or, not both. Setting aside the question of whether the RAN could find sufficient submariners for a sensible cadre in both a USN boat and a RN boat, the difference in approach of the USN and the RN to producing SQEP as MEO, XO and CO was mentioned somewhere above. I think they are possibly mutually exclusive.

Are there any RN submarine exchange posts with a US SSN billet?

N

[ORAC]

Are there any RN submarine exchange posts with a US SSN billet?


https://www.gov.uk/government/news/royal-navy-personnel-qualify-in-us-navy-roles

Submariner Lieutenant Matt Main and Chief Petty Officer Stacy Gager have been working with US colleagues as part of the US-UK personnel exchange programme and long-lead specialist skills programme.

Lieutenant Main has already earned his Royal Navy ‘dolphins’ – the unique badge which signifies a qualified submariner – but on 10 June he was presented with the US equivalent after a gruelling 27-month training and qualification process.

Fully integrated into the crew of the USS New Mexico, Lieutenant Main is currently the damage control assistant and will become the assistant engineer in due course before returning to the Royal Navy….

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_New_Mexico_(SSN-779)

USS New Mexico (SSN-779), a nuclear powered Virginia class attack submarine…. is the second of the Virginia Block II submarines to enter service….

[Bengo]

ORAC.
Thanks for that. The USN training and qualification period needed by a RN qualified submariner kind of makes my point.

N

[lightonthewater]

RN navigating / warfare officers do swap with their opposite numbers much more easily: and vice versa. It's the technical specialists than need to be brought up to speed with the other teams kit and operating systems.

[Going Boeing]

We’ve swung all our eggs into the US basket, rightly or wrongly, but personally, I’d be exploring the possibility of getting some US or UK patrols to cover the Collins gap. (Don’t flame me, just a random thought as opposed to the 4 FRAUS subs option)

I totally agree. It would make sense (while the new SSN’s are being built) to have a submarine, from the country that is selected, based at Fleet Base West for operations with some RAN personnel integrated in the crew.

[rattman]

100% There should be some boats from either guam or hawaii given extended deployments to fleet base west where australia submariners can do training and operational cruises. Might the same for RN, I believe one of astute class is supposed to be forward deployed in oman maybe forward deploy it to australia instead

[Buster Hyman]

Okay, someone let Marles know that the Pprune Ozmates have got this. He can stand down now! :ok:

[Asturias56]

"I believe one of astute class is supposed to be forward deployed in oman maybe forward deploy it to australia instead"

this where it starts to get tough - UK has very few real pressing interests in the Australia area compared to the Gulf

[ChrisJ800]

Interesting article today:

https://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/military/us-in-talks-to-build-australias-first-nuclearpowered-submarines/news-story/1e3c9ba570024b954537aaef961fb900

[Going Boeing]

The US badly needs to expand the infrastructure supporting their Navy - especially the submarine force. As the article states, they expect Australia to financially contribute to setting up this infrastructure to increase the rate of submarine construction. This would have more benefit for the USN than the RAN.

My view is that the money needs to be used setting up the infrastructure in Australia to have control of the construction as well as ongoing maintenance of the submarine fleet, it will have the most benefit throughout the life of the vessels as well as allowing the money to circulate within our economy. This may mean a delay in introducing SSN’s into the RAN but the ongoing benefits are worth it. The post LOTE Collins boats would have to remain in service for their full hull life.

[Asturias56]

"The US badly needs to expand the infrastructure supporting their Navy "

Trouble is that is taking forever and costs a fortune. Once you close a yard or a factory you lose people and the skills - and most of them never come back - as the Airline industry is discoveringQuick Reply (https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/642689-aukus-54.html#qrcontent)

[petit plateau]

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/royal-navy-personnel-qualify-in-us-navy-roles

Submariner Lieutenant Matt Main and Chief Petty Officer Stacy Gager have been working with US colleagues as part of the US-UK personnel exchange programme and long-lead specialist skills programme.

Lieutenant Main has already earned his Royal Navy ‘dolphins’ – the unique badge which signifies a qualified submariner – but on 10 June he was presented with the US equivalent after a gruelling 27-month training and qualification process.

Fully integrated into the crew of the USS New Mexico, Lieutenant Main is currently the damage control assistant and will become the assistant engineer in due course before returning to the Royal Navy….

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_New_Mexico_(SSN-779)

USS New Mexico (SSN-779), a nuclear powered Virginia class attack submarine…. is the second of the Virginia Block II submarines to enter service….

It seems easier to turn an engineer into a warfare officer, than a warfare officer into an engineer. To some of us this is not a surprise :) .If the RAN were to go down the path of selecting both a USN design, and the USN method of crewing them, then the RAN's X branch woud be writing itself out of the picture.That alone makes the USN path unlikely.

Flap Track 6 is saying some things and in such a manner that at least suggest he/she is close to some info. Getting a fourth Western build line going (1 x Aus, 1 x UK, 2 x US) is important. Keeping two design teams and two designs going is also an important consideration. As the QEC proved it is possible to build first-of-class at a site that hasn't done significant builds for a long time - we have gotten better at this stuff.

Given the existing yard capacity constraints and personnel pipeline generation constraints, a LOTE of the Collins is pretty much a given. As is a lot of joint operation and deployment. And a lot of money has gone into Oman. The SSN(R) path seems to have the edge most ways. The more interesting question for some of us then becomes what systems would be selected. Assuming a USN fit being shoved into a first-of-class SSN(R) is perhaps a step too far.

[Maggie Island]

Looking more and more likely to be an off the shelf acquisition (here’s hoping anyway)

https://www.wsj.com/articles/biden-administration-in-discussion-to-build-first-nuclear-subs-for-australia-in-u-s-11663963244

[Going Boeing]

Looking more and more likely to be an off the shelf acquisition (here’s hoping anyway)

https://www.wsj.com/articles/biden-administration-in-discussion-to-build-first-nuclear-subs-for-australia-in-u-s-11663963244

This appears to be a continuation of the discussions that the previous government had started. The intended outcome is the same as what Dutton had stated.

[ORAC]

Derby University open Nuclear Skills Academy

https://www.derby.ac.uk/news/2022/new-nuclear-skills-academy-opens/

[Herod]

Very good news. Hopefully teaching about Thorium as well. I gather RR have a couple of pilot projects going.

[tartare]

Interesting story on Channel Noine here last night featuring footage onboard Collins class subs (can't find link).
Statement made that Oz has set up it's own Perisher course - and the first two Commanders have already graduated.
Not much more detail provided though.

[rattman]

https://www.australiandefence.com.au/news/inaugural-australian-submarine-command-course-launches

[Going Boeing]

Worth a read!

Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/interactive/2022/australia-nuclear-submarines-us-admirals/)

[Lonewolf_50]

Worth a read!
Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/interactive/2022/australia-nuclear-submarines-us-admirals/) Not really.
A whole lot of noise about something that's been going on for decades: it's not newsworthy to know that retired experts in {a field} get hired on as consultants in that field by interested parties. WaPo is making a mountain out of a molehill.
You may find a better audience for your breathless enthusiasm in the Mil Av thread about military British pilots (no longer in service) in China. (One of the more savvy posters points out that it's not just Brits involved)

[rattman]

Not really.
A whole lot of noise about something that's been going on for decades: it's not newsworthy to know that retired experts in {a field} get hired on as consultants in that field by interested parties. WaPo is making a mountain out of a molehill.
You may find a better audience for your breathless enthusiasm in the Mil Av thread about military British pilots (no longer in service) in China. (One of the more savvy posters points out that it's not just Brits involved)


Dont like it then dont bother reading, nobody is forcing you to, I found it interesting, I knew it happened but gave me some extra info

[Lonewolf_50]

Dont like it then dont bother reading, nobody is forcing you to, I found it interesting, I knew it happened but gave me some extra info No need to get your panties in a bunch if I review an article and offer an honest critique.

Back on topic:
Might the Japanese eventually join into this august alliance?
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/10/22/japan-australia-leaders-sign-new-security-pact-to-counter-china
22 Oct 2022
Australia and Japan have agreed to share more intelligence and deepen military cooperation in what is being seen as a security pact aimed at countering China’s growing military presence in the Asia Pacific region.

Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and his Japanese counterpart Fumio Kishida agreed on Saturday to strengthen security ties at the annual Australia-Japan Leaders’ Meeting in the city of Perth.

As part of the closer partnership, Albanese said Japan’s military would train and exercise in northern Australia alongside Australian Defence Force personnel, and the exchange of intelligence would be boosted between both countries.

[tartare]

Aus Defence Minister saying B-21 is being examined.
https://australianaviation.com.au/2022/08/marles-hints-raaf-could-buy-b-21-raider-bomber/

The Australian article (paywalled) says:

Days after a senior American defence chief confirmed the US would consider selling its in-*development B-21 bomber to Australia, Mr Marles said the stealth aircraft were also being examined to give the ADF the ability to hold adversaries at bay over long distances. The capability would be examined as the review considered the wider purpose of the Defence Force, and what it needed to do, Mr Marles said.

The review, being undertaken by former defence minister Stephen Smith and former ADF chief Angus Houston, is running against a backdrop of Chinese aggression towards Taiwan that will form the central scenario for the force posture plans developed under the *process.

[rattman]

Aus Defence Minister saying B-21 is being examined.


I think this is the way they will go, B-21 + upgraded collins or new Diesel electric. I am not convince that labor is on board with the SSN, or more specifically not in the timeframe the LNP were pushing. To me a prefered scheme (with no indication of costs yet) would 12-24 B-21, 6 Upgraded collins or 6 new build KSS-3 and then refurbish locally under close american supervision some 688's. Gives australia a grounding in nuclear sub construction and maintainance ready for the SSN (R/X) programs. And the 688's are about the same displacement as the a planned attack class so any work done on the shipyards in preperation for attack class wont go to waste

[golder]

I think we are getting SSN. A bomber is a distant maybe. The Collins life extension will go ahead. We won't buy another diesel. Only 4 more months to find out the plan.

[ORAC]

I wouldn’t hold my breathe on the USA being able to ramp up sub production to fulfill an Oz order any time soon, or doing any overhauling of older subs except to keep USN numbers up.


https://www.defensenews.com/industry/2022/10/21/defense-firms-outsource-sub-carrier-construction-amid-labor-woes/

Defense firms outsource sub, carrier construction amid labor woes

[golder]

However, the plan to build what we decide to get. Is to do it in Adelaide. Where the Collins was built. We will see.

The last time I looked and put the link in this thread, The US yards said they could produce 3 Virginia's a year. If they had a firm order for such, going forward. They would then invest in the infrastructure. This was even before the talk of a build or part build. For one or two Virginia's for AUKUS, to start us off.

I see that article as being the way they talk to congress, about investment infrastructure. “We are saturated in certain areas of the country. The Northeast is one of those. If we cannot bring the people to the work, we’re going to take the work to the people,” Rucker said.

Also the more states they are in. Gives them a broader base of political support. Perhaps they learnt that from the USAF

[rattman]

I wouldn’t hold my breathe on the USA being able to ramp up sub production to fulfill an Oz order any time soon, or doing any overhauling of older subs except to keep USN numbers up.


It was litterally never the plan. They were going to be certainly domestically assembled, reactors and a propulsion are probably going to be foreign built but assembly would other systems would be done in australia, most likely adeliade

[Buster Hyman]

As someone who recalls the ruckus in certain Asian countries about the F-111, I genuinely can’t wait to see their reaction to B-21’s! 🤣

[Asturias56]

"It was literally never the plan."

we know - and a great deal of time has been spent on here pointing out that it's going to be very difficult and take a long time and lots of $ to build, or even assemble, one in Adelaide

If the US can only build a couple per year after 70 years of experience, and the Brits struggle to produce one every 4 years or so, you can see the scale of the challenge in SA

[golder]

We did build and maintain 6 Collins

[ChrisJ800]

Australia does not need to own B21s. Lets just lease an airbase or two to the US like the UK does.

[Lonewolf_50]

TBH, Chris, as much as I am a 'bring the boys home' kind of guy, that's probably the most sensible approach. Those birds are going to be expensive.

[junior.VH-LFA]

As someone who recalls the ruckus in certain Asian countries about the F-111, I genuinely can’t wait to see their reaction to B-21’s! 🤣

It will be no more than the complaints about nuclear submarines.

[West Coast]

Australia does not need to own B21s. Lets just lease an airbase or two to the US like the UK does.

The effectiveness of that strategy requires Australia and the US to be 100% synched in strategy and politics. What happens when one party disagrees on the action or response? Effectively nothing would be my guess judging by examples between the US and the UK.

Likely a money saving idea however.

[Asturias56]

We did build and maintain 6 Collins


Hmm - not the same and not a great precedent - they were all late in delivery and they got later as time went one - the last one was over 3 years late I think

And the list of problems is typical -. SSN's are much more complex and the problems (and costs) escalate likewise. Best to rent/lease if you can until you understand more about ALL the issues involved.

[ChrisJ800]

A thought i just had is conditions for resale. I believe the Oz F35 contract gives US the right to veto if we sell these planes. This came about because we sold Mirages to Pakistan who promptly made them capable of delivering muclear ordinance against US allies. And HMAS Melbourne was sold to China with intact catapults and arrester systems helping kick start Chinas carrier force. So any SSN deal will need a veto of who Autralia can resell these to!

[ORAC]

I can’t think of. Military jet sale in the last 50 years which didn’t have a veto on resale without authorisation in it.

[golder]

Hmm - not the same and not a great precedent - they were all late in delivery and they got later as time went one - the last one was over 3 years late I think

And the list of problems is typical -. SSN's are much more complex and the problems (and costs) escalate likewise. Best to rent/lease if you can until you understand more about ALL the issues involved.
5 minutes on google will tell you, you are on the wrong track. With procurement, an average 6 month delay per sub, isn't a deal breaker. My point was we aren't coming to the table empty. As well as A, there is UK and US in AUKUS. It is a joint input project.

[tartare]

TBH, Chris, as much as I am a 'bring the boys home' kind of guy, that's probably the most sensible approach. Those birds are going to be expensive.

Are they?
I thought they were on track for around US$600m per copy.
Pretty much on time and on budget was what I had read.
For arguments sake - if it was to go ahead - how many B-21s does the armchair hive mind think `straya would need?
That said, we'd have to wait in line behind the USAF...

[rattman]

Are they?


The budget was something like 500 billion - for that development, 100 airframes and 30 years operational life. The development part has come in on budget (they acutally came in under but USAF scrapped the unmanned part)

[golder]

Are they?
I thought they were on track for around US$600m per copy.
Pretty much on time and on budget was what I had read.
For arguments sake - if it was to go ahead - how many B-21s does the armchair hive mind think `straya would need?
That said, we'd have to wait in line behind the USAF...
US$600m flyaway, is about a A$30-45 billion procurement and sustainment for 24. So a decision, if they are officially asked and offered, is significant. Up till now there hasn't been an apatite. The F-35 with standoff munitions and other stuff, is talked about.

[tartare]

US$600m flyaway, is about a A$30-45 billion procurement and sustainment for 24. So a decision, if they are officially asked and offered, is significant.

Interested in the 24 number - assuming you mean notionally Australia would need 24 B-21s?
Has that number been floated somewhere?
If not - what's the rationale - thinking - we had 24 pigs, therefore replace like for like?
I wonder if a smaller number might meet needs - more advanced platform, more lethal, longer range loadout etc.

[golder]

Interested in the 24 number - assuming you mean notionally Australia would need 24 B-21s?
Has that number been floated somewhere?
If not - what's the rationale - thinking - we had 24 pigs, therefore replace like for like?
I wonder if a smaller number might meet needs - more advanced platform, more lethal, longer range loadout etc.
Yes it was a squadron, a copy the F-111 number. I don't think anything has really been pushed. It was a US 'we would consider it' response to a jurno question, that kicked this off. Followed by an Aussie, everything is on the table for the review. There is really nothing public, even if they are seriously examining it. Though in the near future, I can't see us getting a bomber. There isn't even a hint in the defence budget. We have too much other stuff to do. I would be surprised come March, if a bomber was planned..

[Asturias56]

The US are planning on 100 x B-21's but given previous procurement of hi-tech (only 21 B-2's) they'll be lucky to finish up with 50 (and I'm sure the USAF thinks that way as well).

The idea that Australia could afford and field 24 is fantasy - even if Congress would allow their export.

Just give the US basing rights

[Going Boeing]

US$600m flyaway, is about a A$30-45 billion procurement and sustainment for 24. So a decision, if they are officially asked and offered, is significant. Up till now there hasn't been an apatite. The F-35 with standoff munitions and other stuff, is talked about.

Because the Super Hornets & Growlers perform a significant amount of the attack role, I think that a single squadron of B-21’s would be required for the long range strategic role. They are very capable aircraft so a total of 15 would be sufficient to have 10-12 serviceable each day which would achieve the required capability & deterrent.

[golder]

How many is secondary to our CONOPS, Should we get them in the first place? How do they fit into our plan and budget. Then it becomes mission and how many we need to fulfil that.

[Doors Off]

The fiscal situation in Aus, is dire! Just like the rest of the world. Highly unlikely to be any money for an aircraft that is yet to be seen, let alone that it is yet to fly.

Pretty hard to beat the strategic deterrent of Nuke Subs, packed with Precision Long Range fires and a loitering time of months. I know where I want my tax money spent.

[tartare]

In today's Australian (paywalled)
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/defence/ship-to-help-detect-underwater-hostile-activity-given-goahead/news-story/e2519e19589d43512400375fa7445d52

Defence has been given the green light to purchase a new $155m ship to help establish a new network of undersea sensors off the nation’s coast to detect foreign submarines and autonomous underwater vehicles.
The funding for the vessel was quietly listed in Tuesday’s budget – the ship’s first official mention by the government.

So - an underwater Jindalee.
Surprised there isn't one already.
Know about the South East Asian `hook' (https://www.globaldefensecorp.com/2020/01/15/sound-surveillance-system-sosus-the-fish-hook-that-catches-chinese-submarines/)that keeps an ear on Chinese subs and ships - and had always wondered if something like that lurked on the sea bed around our Northern reaches...

[Going Boeing]

The fiscal situation in Aus, is dire! Just like the rest of the world. Highly unlikely to be any money for an aircraft that is yet to be seen, let alone that it is yet to fly.

Pretty hard to beat the strategic deterrent of Nuke Subs, packed with Precision Long Range fires and a loitering time of months. I know where I want my tax money spent.

I understand that the the discussion about buying B-21’s is because they believe they can be operational much earlier than the SSN’s - it’s a case of filling the capability gap as early as possible. They would have a similar stand-off capability with long range weapons as the SSN’s.

[rattman]

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-10-31/china-tensions-taiwan-us-military-deploy-bombers-to-australia/101585380

possibility of a semi permanent deployment of B-52's to australia, same facilities would be usable for B-21's

[Asturias56]

Now that makes sense - move them basing south from Guam - which is now well within range of missiles

[ChrisJ800]

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-10-31/china-tensions-taiwan-us-military-deploy-bombers-to-australia/101585380

possibility of a semi permanent deployment of B-52's to australia, same facilities would be usable for B-21's
good move and hope it happens soon. Im tempoarily in Philippines and hoping for more US deployments here too.

[Lookleft]

B 52s operated out of Darwin on a regular basis in the 90's. Says a lot more about the longevity of the airframe than the current geo-political situation. There is one in a museum at Darwin Airport after they stopped coming here as a memento of its service. If it could talk it would say "I'll be back!"

[BBadanov]

B 52s operated out of Darwin on a regular basis in the 90's. Says a lot more about the longevity of the airframe than the current geo-political situation. There is one in a museum at Darwin Airport after they stopped coming here as a memento of its service. If it could talk it would say "I'll be back!"

It will be interesting to see if bits go missing as spares.

[Asturias56]

Remembering the Vulcan refuelling probe at Wright-Patterson in the Falkland's War you may be correct!

[ORAC]

Skins, tails, wiring, instruments, radar, engines - even fatigue lifted structural parts - all replaced. Not sure what would be usable from an old aircraft.

The B-52 is a bit like Trigger’s broom…

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2021/09/27/the-us-air-force-is-gradually-rebuilding-its-b-52-bombers-from-the-rivets-out/

[junior.VH-LFA]

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-11-03/raaf-to-double-cargo-fleet-in-10-billion-us-deal/101610818

[rattman]

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-11-03/raaf-to-double-cargo-fleet-in-10-billion-us-deal/101610818

A LM representitive said at the dubai airshow in January they were in discussion for the Sale of 30 C-130J, 24 cargo and 6 refuelers

I dont understand the aging part, we recieved this year the first of the Block 8 upgraded C-130J's

[junior.VH-LFA]

I dont understand the aging part, we recieved this year the first of the Block 8 upgraded C-130J's

Block upgrades don't fix the fatigue issues. The C130J is the oldest aircraft in the RAAF now.

With one quiet exception.

[Going Boeing]

Block upgrades don't fix the fatigue issues. The C130J is the oldest aircraft in the RAAF now.

With one quiet exception.


https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x877/a3c29ae8_1b6a_4a09_a8c0_498216559f12_21f1f9f4af6752daac65de3 b1b694e1c3cb16480.jpeg
More than 50 years of service and still the best looking beast.

[Herod]

The RAF have a few C-130s for sale. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1111084/C130J_Brochure_34_.pdf

Reading the brochure, I think the RAF should keep them, but then, as an ageing Hercules pilot, what would I know?

[Going Boeing]

The RAF have a few C-130s for sale. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1111084/C130J_Brochure_34_.pdf

Reading the brochure, I think the RAF should keep them, but then, as an ageing Hercules pilot, what would I know?

I believe that there is a strong push within the RAF to retain their C130-J’s to avoid a capability gap but, if that is not successful and they are sold, then it would make sense for the RAAF to acquire a number of them to start the increase in numbers of aircrew & maintenance personnel prior to the introduction of the 24-30 new aircraft. The RAF aircraft are a bit younger but I don’t know if they have been kept as up to date as the RAAF C130J’s - the RAF didn’t do a good job of keeping the E3’s upgraded.

[Buster Hyman]

I dont understand the aging part, we recieved this year the first of the Block 8 upgraded C-130J's
Perhaps it's not so much the 'ageing' part & more about doubling the fleet size. Doubling the current fleet would mean (possibly) the costs involved for the upgrade & twice as many 20-odd year old airframes. Biting the bullet & renewing the fleet might be a wise move as upgraded Hercs would be worth more you'd assume. (Don't mind me. Idle thoughts from the sideline):ok:

[rattman]

Perhaps it's not so much the 'ageing' part & more about doubling the fleet size. Doubling the current fleet would mean (possibly) the costs involved for the upgrade & twice as many 20-odd year old airframes. Biting the bullet & renewing the fleet might be a wise move as upgraded Hercs would be worth more you'd assume. (Don't mind me. Idle thoughts from the sideline):ok:

Never realised how old the RAAF C-130's are, the other rumors swirling around is that RNZAF teams that are currently in Europe to maintain their C-130 deployed there are climbing all over RAF C-130's for sale.

[rattman]

Perhaps it's not so much the 'ageing' part & more about doubling the fleet size. Doubling the current fleet would mean (possibly) the costs involved for the upgrade & twice as many 20-odd year old airframes. Biting the bullet & renewing the fleet might be a wise move as upgraded Hercs would be worth more you'd assume. (Don't mind me. Idle thoughts from the sideline):ok:

Never realised how old the RAAF C-130's are, the other rumors swirling around is that RNZAF teams that are currently in Europe to maintain their C-130 deployed there are climbing all over RAF C-130's for sale. The RNZAF hercs were delivered in the late 60's

[Going Boeing]

Never realised how old the RAAF C-130's are, the other rumors swirling around is that RNZAF teams that are currently in Europe to maintain their C-130 deployed there are climbing all over RAF C-130's for sale. The RNZAF hercs were delivered in the late 60's

The RNZAF would probably be interested in acquiring only 6 of the RAF C130-J’s so it would make sense that the RAAF bought the other 8 to have the fleet size to start the process of recruiting & training the additional crews and maintenance personnel that are required before the new J’s arrive. I believe that all of these aircraft have completed the wing box strengthening modification so they should be in similar maintenance condition. One additional advantage for the RAAF if they acquire some of the RAF fleet is that they would gain an air-to-air refueling capability.

13 of the RAF fleet are the longer -30 model but they do have one J model that is the shorter (standard) length - it could be very useful for the RAAF to use as a dedicated Special Forces deployment aircraft.

[Davef68]

The RAF aircraft are a bit younger

Are they? the RAF aircraft were delivered from 96 IIRC, RAAF from 99

[BBadanov]

Are they? the RAF aircraft were delivered from 96 IIRC, RAAF from 99

Not exactly. Yes, the RAAF aircraft (all C-130J-30s) were delivered from late 1999.
The RAF aircraft of course comprised the two J-subtypes, the C.4s (C-130J-30) delivered in 1998, the shorter C.5s (C-130J) delivered same timeframe as the RAAF over 1999-2000.
So apples vs apples, RAF C-130J-30s in 1998, RAAF tad later 1999-2000.

[Going Boeing]

Are they? the RAF aircraft were delivered from 96 IIRC, RAAF from 99

I thought that the RAF has already retired their early delivery C130-J’s and the remaining 14 are from a newer batch but, with further research, I found that all 25 RAF C130-J’s were included in the original order placed in December 1994. The delivery dates indicate that they are a very similar age to the RAAF fleet.

The following is from Wikipedia:

”Shorter range, tactical-airlift transport is provided by the Lockheed Martin C-130J Hercules (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_C-130J_Super_Hercules), known as the Hercules C4 (C-130J-30) and Hercules C5 (C-130J) in RAF service, based at RAF Brize Norton and flown by No. 47 Squadron (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._47_Squadron_RAF). Twenty-five C-130Js were originally ordered in December 1994 (15 C4s and ten C5s), the first Hercules C4 to be delivered was ZH865 in August 1998, with the first Hercules C5 (ZH881) in May 1999. The 2010 SDSR called for the retirement of the Hercules fleet by 2022, with the 2015 SDSR amending this to maintaining the fourteen Hercules C4s until 2030. The draw-down of the Hercules C5 fleet began in 2016, with two left in service by December 2020. The fourteen C4 extended variants were scheduled to retire on 31 March 2035. However, due to the crash of Hercules C4 ZH873 in August 2017, one Hercules C5 was retained to keep the fleet at 14 aircraft. The 2021 Defence Command Paper brought forward the retirement of the Hercules fleet to 2023.”

[golder]

‘A simple [ITAR] circuit breaker’ needed for Aussie nuke subs: Rep. Courtney (https://breakingdefense.com/2022/12/a-simple-itar-circuit-breaker-needed-for-aussie-nuke-subs-rep-courtney/)If Australia needs US tech for its AUKUS upgrade, arms transfer legislation could get in the way, unless Congress acts, says key US lawmaker.A blanket exemption for Australia from the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (https://breakingdefense.com/tag/itar/) and related legislation pertaining to nuclear submarines may be the best way for Congress and the Pentagon to clear the decks so the Royal Australian Navy can get nuclear attack boats in the water before the Collins-class subs are retired, according to a key US lawmaker.

[ORAC]

https://twitter.com/covertshores/status/1616005220038836231?s=61&t=E6Tc_Hao96n1qOZ_bL6Z0A


***BREAKING***

Royal Navy's new attack submarine, SSNR, will (highly likely) have a VLS. This is a major break from the Astute class but makes a lot of sense strategically.


https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1920x1080/image_7788c8c12d71279327ef5bd6c85285f26e6017ba.jpeg
​​​​​​​

https://t.co/KdEbEdFL1O

[Asturias56]

Considering we haven't got all the Astutes after years (first delivery 2007) this isn't likely to figure soon...............

[Frostchamber]

Considering we haven't got all the Astutes after years (first delivery 2007) this isn't likely to figure soon...............
Astute was born into and out of a sh*it sandwich of a situation, caused in large part by a complete loss of expertise following a lengthy gap in orders, which took years to recover from. We are not in that situation now - Dreadnaught is following seamlessly from Astute, and future attack submarine should follow seamlessly from Dreadnaught. It IS a few years off, but that reflects the pipeline of deliveries rather than any Astute-era car crash..

[Asturias56]

"Dreadnaught is following seamlessly from Astute, "

We'll see - we've been building Astutes for over 20 years and they still seem to take forever to appear.

[Flap Track 6]

From that Covert Shores article.

(Astute class) are the only subs outside the U.S. Navy able to launch the Tomahawk land attack cruise missiles, a capability which sets them apart.

This is not correct. The Spanish S-80 class submarines have TTL Tomahawk capability. TTL Tomahawk is out of production and Tomahawk Block 5 has never been produced in TTL format.

The RN is having its stockpile of Block 4 TTL Tomahawks upgraded to Block 5 and the RN and RAN want Raytheon to offer new build Block 5 TTL Tomahawk to maintain capability (RN) and additional capability (RAN for Collins class capability upgrade).

The Marine Nationale use horizontal launch Scalp Naval, which would be another option for the RAN

[rattman]

"Dreadnaught is following seamlessly from Astute, "

We'll see - we've been building Astutes for over 20 years and they still seem to take forever to appear.

US government and HII came in and fixed it for them, france is also having massive delays with thiers, suffren was a 12 year build

[Going Boeing]

I think that the SSN(R) is shaping up to be a very good submarine for the RAN with all the capabilities that are being sought. The only problem is that it will result in a further delay before entry into service.

If the British are really keen to have the RAN choose the SSN(R) to have a significantly larger fleet to share the development costs, they may elect to accelerate the design process.

As HMS Astute’s reactor only has 25 years of fuel, the RN also has a pressing need to develop the replacement class as quickly as their design capabilities allow.

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2023/01/britains-new-attack-submarine-to-be-first-with-vertical-launch-system/

[rattman]

As HMS Astute’s reactor only has 25 years of fuel, the RN also has a pressing need to develop the replacement class as quickly as their design capabilities allow.

I have been hearing from around that pwr2 core h can be refueled if needed. They need to refuel has been removed but the capability to refuel if required remains. It takes 3 years to refuel a Core H, so astute will need to be refueled around 2035, add 3 years refueling

[Going Boeing]

I’m aware that the PWR2 Core H can be refuelled but at significant expense & time. As stated in the attached article “In December 2015, HMS Vanguard entered a ‘Long Overhaul Period and Refuel’, which was expected to take about 3 years and cost around £200m. It took almost seven years.” This was the first (&, at this stage, only) PWR2 Core H refuel.

Obviously, most people would prefer that the money was invested in a newer, more capable submarine rather than paying a premium to keep old submarines in service. If it’s at all possible, it makes sense to expedite the design of the SSN(R) - especially if it enables an ally to increase the fleet numbers by 8+.

HMS Vanguard refuel (https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/trident-missile-armed-submarine-hms-vanguard-re-joins-fleet/)

[rattman]

Austal USA, whose parent company Austal is Australian, has gotten a contract to make modules for both the Virginia and Columbia class submarines

https://www.naval-technology.com/news/austal-virginia-columbia-submarines/

Also AFR has an article on the program

https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/australia-to-become-subs-hub-under-aukus-20230118-p5cdgu

[ORAC]

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/australia-to-buy-deep-sea-mines-as-china-deterrent-l7kfxdx7n

Australia to buy deep sea mines as China deterrent

Australia is to lace its coast with powerful sea mines to deter China and other potential attackers from sending warships and submarines into the nation’s waters.

Today the government confirmed what will be the nation’s first major investment in the underwater explosives since the Vietnam War era.

“Australia is accelerating the acquisition of smart sea mines, which will help to secure sea lines of communication and protect Australia’s maritime approaches,” a defence department spokesman said. “A modern sea mining capability is a significant deterrent to potential aggressors.”

The plan to mine key strategic choke points, such as straits and harbours, in order to cripple approaching enemy warships and submarines was first revealed by The Sydney Morning Herald on Monday morning.

It is expected that Australia will obtain up to 1,000 of the so-called smart sea mines which are designed to differentiate between military targets and other types of ships.….

The government is expected to unveil in March what it has described as the “optimal pathway” for Australia to acquire at least eight nuclear-powered submarines with support from the US (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/us-b-52-nuclear-bombers-australia-china-l5w7h6pm9) and UK under the AUKUS defence pact.

The Australian Financial Review reported that three nuclear submarine builders — Electric Boat and Huntington Ingalls Industries in the US, and BAE Systems in the UK — have agreed to take up to 250 Australian workers at each of their shipyards, to be trained in nuclear-powered submarine construction.

[Asturias56]

"The plan to mine key strategic choke points, such as straits and harbours,"

Given the size of Australia and the surrounding Oceans I think 1000 isn't going to go very far

A classic "choke-point" would be the strait between Bali & Lombok - but it's over 22 km wide at the narrowest point ....................

[bugged on the right]

You could mine Darwin harbour.

[golder]

"The plan to mine key strategic choke points, such as straits and harbours,"

Given the size of Australia and the surrounding Oceans I think 1000 isn't going to go very far

A classic "choke-point" would be the strait between Bali & Lombok - but it's over 22 km wide at the narrowest point ....................
We also need to stay within the Australian 12 mile limit

[Asturias56]

maybe its OK if you put a BIG warning notice on them??

[West Coast]

"The plan to mine key strategic choke points, such as straits and harbours,"

Given the size of Australia and the surrounding Oceans I think 1000 isn't going to go very far

A classic "choke-point" would be the strait between Bali & Lombok - but it's over 22 km wide at the narrowest point ....................

Is it your expectation the Chinese will sail their ships towards a remote part of Australia and that needs to be mined or rather the Australians will have an idea where tactically an aggressor might heads towards?

[golder]

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/australia-to-buy-deep-sea-mines-as-china-deterrent-l7kfxdx7n

Australia to buy deep sea mines as China deterrent

Australia is to lace its coast with powerful sea mines to deter China and other potential attackers from sending warships and submarines into the nation’s waters.

Today the government confirmed what will be the nation’s first major investment in the underwater explosives since the Vietnam War era.

“Australia is accelerating the acquisition of smart sea mines, which will help to secure sea lines of communication and protect Australia’s maritime approaches,” a defence department spokesman said. “A modern sea mining capability is a significant deterrent to potential aggressors.”

The plan to mine key strategic choke points, such as straits and harbours, in order to cripple approaching enemy warships and submarines was first revealed by The Sydney Morning Herald on Monday morning.

It is expected that Australia will obtain up to 1,000 of the so-called smart sea mines which are designed to differentiate between military targets and other types of ships.….

The government is expected to unveil in March what it has described as the “optimal pathway” for Australia to acquire at least eight nuclear-powered submarines with support from the US (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/us-b-52-nuclear-bombers-australia-china-l5w7h6pm9) and UK under the AUKUS defence pact.

The Australian Financial Review reported that three nuclear submarine builders — Electric Boat and Huntington Ingalls Industries in the US, and BAE Systems in the UK — have agreed to take up to 250 Australian workers at each of their shipyards, to be trained in nuclear-powered submarine construction.
I think this is significant in the reskilling, to build locally.

[ORAC]

Also helps the companies who are struggling to find qualified skilled welders etc to work on their current build programmes. A win-win situation.

[Asturias56]

Is it your expectation the Chinese will sail their ships towards a remote part of Australia and that needs to be mined or rather the Australians will have an idea where tactically an aggressor might heads towards?

well if you're talking about strategic points in Australia all the cities are right on the coast (except Canberra) so the Chinese don't have a lot of choice. I suppose they could just invade NW Oz and keep all the iron ore..............

[Asturias56]

"I think this is significant in the reskilling, to build locally."

That's a win -win situation - the US yards are short of people and the Australians need tarining - just as long as they decide to return home eventually

[ORAC]

Barrow-in-Furness or Adelaide.

Tricky choice…..

Bigeest risk is how many other skilled workers they take with them when they go home.

[Bengo]

Barrow-in-Furness or Adelaide.

Tricky choice…..

Bigeest risk is how many other skilled workers they take with them when they go home.


If the three countries/ four builders can get their drumbeats synchronised well enough there might be flying welders to go with flying winemakers from dunnunder.

N

[rattman]

guess we will know the plan /answer soon


https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/huge-moment-government-prepares-to-unveil-aukus-plan-20230124-p5ceyh.html

[Flugzeug A]

Has Australia got the shipyards needed to build submarines?
( Not taking the Mickey , I really do not know )

[rattman]

Has Australia got the shipyards needed to build submarines?
( Not taking the Mickey , I really do not know )

osbourne in adelaide. but due to the size of the SSN, they bought up the neighboring land and will be building a bigger one of the SSN, they have a facility for collins maintainence but a bigger facility will be needed, the plan was originally for the attack class to built there but now the SSN will be done there

[golder]

Has Australia got the shipyards needed to build submarines?
( Not taking the Mickey , I really do not know )
We built the Collins sub at Osbourne SA. As has been said there is an expansion. Our main issue as I see it was the brain drain. The original 'continuous build program' wasn't done. We stopped at 6 and the workforce dissipated.

[Asturias56]

Osbourne has a ... chequered record ... at construction over the years but its all there is. main problem has been more attractive jobs elsewhere in SA

[artee]

Osbourne has a ... chequered record ... at construction over the years but its all there is. main problem has been more attractive jobs elsewhere in SA

And the Australian Submarine Corporation incurred the famous quote by the Defence Minister at the time - "I wouldn't trust them to build a canoe". It was 8 years ago, but even so...

Defence Minister David Johnston

[Asturias56]

I know quite a few people in SA - and one of the issues seems to be training people to do ANY industrial job these days. Once the Car and white goods factories closed down the idea of working with machinery seems to have got a very bad name locally

[Going Boeing]

And the Australian Submarine Corporation incurred the famous quote by the Defence Minister at the time - "I wouldn't trust them to build a canoe". It was 8 years ago, but even so...

Defence Minister David Johnston (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRSb9c-mHM0)

I believe that was when PM Tony Abott was strongly in favour of having 12 diesel electric submarines built in Japan and comments like that were designed to prepare the public to accept that they wouldn’t be built locally.

I understand that ASC has been restructured by a competent CEO and is now considered to be capable of building the future submarines - provided they can find, & train, sufficient staff. This is a problem affecting most companies in Western countries.

[rattman]

Why I dont think the australian nuclear sub will have UK reactors

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/feb/01/royal-navy-orders-investigation-into-nuclear-submarine-repaired-with-glue

[Asturias56]

And they were only found when the heads dropped off for a second time......................

[ORAC]

And they were only found when the heads dropped off for a second time......................
Bit more complex than that - found during an inspection as part of the work verification process.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/21217944/nuclear-security-alert-botched-repair-trident-submarine-super-glue/

[Asturias56]

Still - not exactly a brilliant story .............

[Going Boeing]

Bit more complex than that - found during an inspection as part of the work verification process.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/21217944/nuclear-security-alert-botched-repair-trident-submarine-super-glue/

It’s disgraceful and will have serious repercussions. They will now have to inspect every vessel that has been worked on by Babcock Plymouth.

This is right up there with the falsification of test results on steel used in the construction of USN submarines for about 20 years.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/crime/steel-strength-us-navy-submarines-b1954445.html

[Buster Hyman]

https://www.theage.com.au/world/europe/aukus-submarines-likely-to-be-tri-nation-project-uk-defence-secretary-20230202-p5chbk.html

British Defence Secretary Ben Wallace says building Canberra’s fleet of nuclear-powered submarines under the AUKUS pact is likely to be a tri-nation project, raising expectations Australia, the United Kingdom and United States will jointly develop a new generation of boats.
I wonder if the could lead to a combined force?

[Asturias56]

yes - it'll be called the USN

and when will this "new generation" enter service?

[microlighttp]

It’s quite clear from both articles that the bolt heads that were supposedly glued on, we’re holding the insulation on to the coolant pipes and not the pressure envelope(flanges).
Still not good and calls in to question the general standards. But that’s Laggers for you!

[tartare]

Naïve questions - would it be technically feasible to build modules in different countries and then assemble them into a full submarine in another?
Would it be cost effective to do so - and allow an increase in output of yards in US, UK and a new yard in Australia?
EG (gross oversimplification) - the Yanks build the reactor part, the Brits build the back and the Aussies build the front (yes I know submarines are extraordinarily complex, highly integrated pieces of equipment).
Reactor and back are then shipped to Oz to be joined to front.
I suspect I know the answer.

[megan]

Naïve questions - would it be technically feasible to build modules in different countries and then assemble them into a full submarine in anotherWe do it with aircraft, when I worked in shipbuilding different fabricators built sections which were then put together on the slipway, albeit in this case the fabricators were located in the same city and not international.

[rattman]

Naïve questions - would it be technically feasible to build modules in different countries and then assemble them into a full submarine in another?

Theres no practical or technical reason you cant, its only economics / politics. As it stands today modules for ships are built in one location and shipped to another to be assembled. Even recently Austal was announced that they would building 2 different types of modules for virginia and a columbia submarines where they would be barged to either GDEB for final assembly

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2023/01/austal-secures-command-deck-module-contract-for-virginia-class-submarine-program/

[tartare]

Theres no practical or technical reason you cant, its only economics / politics. As it stands today modules for ships are built in one location and shipped to another to be assembled. Even recently Austal was announced that they would building 2 different types of modules for virginia and a columbia submarines where they would be barged to either GDEB for final assembly

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2023/01/austal-secures-command-deck-module-contract-for-virginia-class-submarine-program/

Thank you - my reason for asking was the use of the phrase "It really is, is a genuinely trilateral effort to see both the UK and the US provide Australia with a nuclear-powered submarine capability." by Marles. I wondered if they were looking at doing something like this.

[rattman]

Thank you - my reason for asking was the use of the phrase "It really is, is a genuinely trilateral effort to see both the UK and the US provide Australia with a nuclear-powered submarine capability." by Marles. I wondered if they were looking at doing something like this.

Personally I think they are, I would be bettting that it comes down to for australia, reactors, engineering and propulsors will be built somewhere not australia, either UK or US. They get assembled into part of a submarines, shipped to australia via a heavy lift ship where the a rest of the sub is joined to it, sonar, torpedo room, living and command sections. Then final assembly, launching and startup of the reactor

Canberra and Adelaide LHD were built in spain, shipped to australia via heavy lift ship and then fitout was done locally. Its would be much easier to ship half a submarine


https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/920x540/20121017ran8100279_044_jpeg_148e2337918e1ce037bc2e6d84ff61b8 e3c032c2.jpg

[rattman]

I dont trust the sun. But they are claiming its done deal for astutes.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/21356516/uk-billion-nuclear-sub-deal-australia/

[golder]

"Insiders say ministers would be open to building a sub for another ally — like Australia "

Canada needs nukes, for under the ice.

[rattman]

"Insiders say ministers would be open to building a sub for another ally — like Australia "

Canada needs nukes, for under the ice.

Canada will never get nuke boats while they and the US are fighting over the northwest passage being internal waterways or international shipping channel

[artee]

I dont trust the sun. But they are claiming its done deal for astutes.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/21356516/uk-billion-nuclear-sub-deal-australia/

But their language in places is a bit ambiguous:

"Ministers are said to be open “in principle” to the idea of building conventionally-armed nuke-powered subs, like Britain’s Astute Class for them which cost nearly £2billion each."

[golder]

VIDEO: US or British engineers may 'assist' onboard Australia's nuclear submarines, says Vice Admiral Jonathan Mead
17 minute interview
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-02-13/us-or-british-engineers-may-assist-onboard/101968996

[rattman]

The SDR (strategic defence review) was delivered last night to Australian government. Its classified and allegedly contains a section on the SSN's so we wont be seeing it publically before the announcement next month, if at all

https://archive.is/iPvBs

[Asturias56]

About 4 days before some politician leaks it to the media................... :(

[ORAC]

https://twitter.com/harry_lye/status/1626312820995284993?s=61&t=ZSZKjaT8RefQ2uJMxgGO1w


Rumours that the UK is prepared to sell last two Astute’s off the production line to Australia.

https://t.co/405Qds8ESb

Could Australia jump the AUKUS submarine queue?

…However, rumours the Britain is prepared to immediately sell Australia two Astute class nuclear submarines – HMS Agamemnon and HMS Agincourt, due for completion in 2024 and 2026 – make a lot of sense for both nations, if true.…

Long term, it seems the three AUKUS partners might shift to a joint modular design and integrated production process, similar to the Joint Strike Fighter project.….

Enter the British Astute class. Given Astutes will be discontinued after the production of the sixth and seventh vessels, most analysts assumed they weren’t a viable option.

By jumping the queue, Australia helps manufacturer BAE avoid the loss of skills and production capability that occurs in a stop-start shipbuilding process.

Building nine Astutes bridges the “valley of death” between BAE completing the seventh Astute and starting work on the new UK ballistic submarines. Importantly, Australia and the UK get the subs they need, while AUKUS increases its total submarine count….

[Asturias56]

the problem with that article is that there is no "Valley of Death" between the Astutes and the Dreadnought SSBN's

The first SSBN was commenced 7 years ago and steel has been cut on 3 of the 4 planned boats

Agincourt - the last of the ordered SSN's - is planned to enter service "in 2026" - after an 8 year (I know, I know) build.

I can't see there is a "start-stop" in fact I suspect the SSBN's are being delayed due to the time it takes to complete the last two SSN's

To build two more Astutes for Australia would extend the SSN programme by 16 years out and selling two "off the shelf" would reduce the RN SSN fleet to 5 for that period as the Trafalgar's are already 30 years old and in desperate need of replacement.

[rattman]

Agree with Asturias to many fundamental errors to be legit. I hope its actually right because I believe its a no brainer win win for UK and AUS (depending on price)

astute 7-8 go to aus
final dreadnought goes into build
first dreadnought comes out 2031/2
first SSN(R) goes into build

There not a log of wiggle room because astute is EOL around 2035.

UK gets a cash injection into it budget a couple of billion pounds per hull, they get some income for the MIC as assuming all non basic maintainence and upgrades will be done in the UK.

[Flap Track 6]

'Another two Astutes' is pie-in-the-sky nonsense.

The UK submarine supply chain switched over to Dreadnought a couple of years ago. Dreadnought is needed to replace the aging and increasingly difficult difficult to maintain V boats.

There will be a life extension, technology refresh and capability upgrade for the Collins class unless they decide to buy an interim solution off the shelf (e.g. JB-III or S-80).

[ORAC]

Biggest problem for the rumours is that there is no chance of any more PWR-2 reactors. The order for the core for the last, for Agincourt, was ordered in 2012 and the line is now shut. The production plant is now in the middle of a major rebuild to produce the PWR-3 cores for Dreadnaught and SSNR - which is too big for the Astute hull.

if there is a question it is whether the UK could manage with a fleet of 5 Astute and a crew/use sharing arrangement with Australia for the last 2 under SSNR arrives.

The RN only had 5 Swiftsure and went up to 7 for Trafalgar. If tasking for patrols in the southern hemisphere is shared with Australia under AUKUS, would 5 surface for Atlantic operations supporting Vanguard/Dreadnaught patrols and other duties?

[Not_a_boffin]

The RN only had 5 Swiftsure and went up to 7 for Trafalgar. If tasking for patrols in the southern hemisphere is shared with Australia under AUKUS, would 5 surface for Atlantic operations supporting Vanguard/Dreadnaught patrols and other duties?

Not how it works. There were actually six Swiftsures - not to mention the six earlier boats. The number of boats in a class is not equal to the total number of SSN required. In the early 90s we had between 13 and 16 SSN in commission.

[ORAC]

And the last Swiftsures were decommissioned in 2010, so went down to 7. The first 3 Trafalgar were retired in 2009, 2010 and 2014. the first Astutes’ commissioned in 2010, 2013 and 2016 - so we dipped down to 5 in the 2010s.

Lets not get nostalgic, and depressed, about how many subs, frigates, carriers, squadrons and army troops and brigades we had in the 1980-1990s…

[Not_a_boffin]

And the last Swiftsures were decommissioned in 2010, so went down to 7. The first 3 Trafalgar were retired in 2009, 2010 and 2014. the first Astutes’ commissioned in 2010, 2013 and 2016 - so we dipped down to 5 in the 2010s.

Lets not get nostalgic, and depressed, about how many subs, frigates, carriers, squadrons and army troops and brigades we had in the 1980-1990s…

Oh it's not nostalgia - just pointing out that the number of SSN in a class is not necessarily the number in the fleet.

The two A-boats to the Ockers rumour is someone drawing the wrong conclusions. The RAN are at least a decade away from having the organisation necessary to even think about SSN ops and support.

[ORAC]

Which brings us back in a circle to my comment that dual-manning the last two Astutes and basing them in Oz for AUKUS ops would give them 10 years to train captains, engineers and crews as well as dockyard support in dealing with SSKN ops before their first boat is in the water.

[rattman]

Which brings us back in a circle to my comment that dual-manning the last two Astutes and basing them in Oz for AUKUS ops would give them 10 years to train captains, engineers and crews as well as dockyard support in dealing with SSKN ops before their first boat is in the water.

When I looked a few years ago, 50% of our captains had served in the RN as captains of nuclear subs or had been XO on them

[Not_a_boffin]

Which brings us back in a circle to my comment that dual-manning the last two Astutes and basing them in Oz for AUKUS ops would give them 10 years to train captains, engineers and crews as well as dockyard support in dealing with SSKN ops before their first boat is in the water.
Organisation is vastly more than crews and dockyard. A decade is an optimistic assessment.

[Asturias56]

much easier to transfer/loan/rent two early Virginias to the RAN - and keep doing as they reach their life expectancy -.

Sure the RAN would always be operating "pre-owned" boats but they'd still be very effective and all the big issues would have been fixed

[rattman]

much easier to transfer/loan/rent two early Virginias to the RAN - and keep doing as they reach their life expectancy -.

Sure the RAN would always be operating "pre-owned" boats but they'd still be very effective and all the big issues would have been fixed


been rejected by the DOD and congress many times

[Asturias56]

been rejected by the DOD and congress many times

true but even Congress changes it's mind - occasionaly. :cool:

[rattman]

true but even Congress changes it's mind - occasionaly. :cool:

Which is why I think if the UK was willing to sell the last 2 astutes then that would be the way to go. Nothing to say the US wouldn't change their mine because some congressman get their panties in a twist about something totaly unrelated. I also dont think either will happen, at best australia will be offered some clapped out T or LA class

[Going Boeing]

We’ll know next Monday (US West Coast time).

Despite what this article says, I suspect that it will be a British designed hull with a US reactor (probably S9G). It would be difficult to squeeze a PWR3 reactor into a smaller diameter Virginia hull as indicated in this article.

https://breakingdefense.com/2023/03/aukus-sub-announcement-expected-in-san-diego-next-week-albanese-biden-sunak-in-person/

[rattman]

My money is first RAN subs will be SSN(R/X) they will have a tripartite reactor, engineering and propulsor rest of sub will be configured to the each countries wants and needs. For interim australia will wind up with an astute or 2 in perth, dunno if they will be forward deployed with joint nationality crews or will be a straight up cash purchase. While I think a straight up purchase is possible its unlikely.

[Asturias56]

"I suspect that it will be a British designed hull with a US reactor (probably S9G)"

But then you lose commonalty with either the USN or the RN - and the cost of modding any design will be fearsome. If you want to be cost effective and minimise risks you buy off the shelf, and preferably from a long production line

[ORAC]

My money is first RAN subs will be SSN(R/X) they will have a tripartite reactor
Congress is currently debating whether to make the design of future reactors (SSNX onwards) use LEU rather than HEU. That’s a decision which would lead to a 15 year design orogramme.

One if the main advantages of using a PWR3 reactor is also exportability. exporting a U.S. reactor will require Congress to change the law, something it may not be willing to do. the UK won’t have that problem.

LEU reactors would require mid-life refuelling - a reason which led Australia to discard the option of French nuclear Barracuda subs as it would take away strategic independence for the life if the boat and require several years in a French/US yard to perform per boat.

​​​​​​​The above to just to make the point there are no easy low risk decisions involved.

SSNX will also be Columbia size and cost around $6B apiece.

https://tinyurl.com/3epaamnw

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11826

[rattman]

US looks at LEU reactors every so often and goes back the HEU reactors

LEU reactors would require mid-life refuelling - a reason which led Australia to discard the option of French nuclear Barracuda subs

Barracudas were never an option, they were niether asked for or offered. They would also be a very big grey area under the NPT, australia would require a lot of compliance activity

[Going Boeing]

"I suspect that it will be a British designed hull with a US reactor (probably S9G)"

But then you lose commonalty with either the USN or the RN - and the cost of modding any design will be fearsome. If you want to be cost effective and minimise risks you buy off the shelf, and preferably from a long production line

An off the shelf Virginia would be the simplest build but would require a lot of regulatory changes. The Astute’s PWR2 reactor is out of production and doesn’t meet modern nuclear safety standards. The PWR3 is a much better reactor (based on the US S9G) and has a longer lasting core (>33 years) and has convective cooling capability but, as it’s designed for the Dreadnought class, can it be redesigned to fit in an Astute hull, or the even narrower Virginia hull?

If a British hull is selected, the RAN will require it to have the US combat system and weapons as that will be crucial to timely resupply in event of a conflict in this region. This will mean a large amount of redesign internally but, it’s a big improvement operationally. We’ll know a lot more on Monday.

[Lyneham Lad]

Article in this evening's edition of The Times. Seems to be all conjecture rather than factual.

Aukus submarine deal: Australia ‘to buy British over American’ (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/2862f1b2-bce3-11ed-b039-425ba6c60d6d?shareToken=92ced2ef45dc34aebea052c43ff70398)

Military experts have suggested that Australia will acquire nuclear submarines built by Britain rather than the United States as part of the Aukus defence pact.

Anthony Albanese, the Australian prime minister, will leave for the US on Wednesday. He is expected to be joined in San Diego by President Biden and Rishi Sunak at the US Navy’s second-largest naval base. Reports suggest they will discuss the sharing of top-secret nuclear technology under Aukus (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/britain-must-feel-the-benefits-of-aukus-pact-8f3nbf0h5), an agreement between the nations that was announced in September 2021.

One of Australia’s leading defence experts, John Blaxland, head of the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre at the Australian National University, has raised the prospect that Australia will acquire UK- built nuclear propulsion submarines as a stopgap until it is able to build its own.

Blaxland said that Australia favoured smaller British submarines. “The US produces larger boats but its production line is at capacity, while the British option is smaller and easier to crew,” Blaxland wrote on The Conversation (https://theconversation.com/the-long-awaited-aukus-submarine-announcement-is-imminent-what-should-we-expect-200994). “Crew size is a critical limitation for the Australian submarine arm, which has challenges crewing even the significantly smaller Collins-class submarines.

“With Britain facing significant financial pressures, a couple of submarines from the UK production line may act as a lifeline to its naval construction industry, while also providing the Albanese government with the promise of a face-saving submarine delivery before the end of the decade.”

An alternative option, according to Breaking Defense, an American website, is that the leaders could announce the use of British nuclear reactors paired with American-made boats.

Peter Dutton, a former Australian defence minister and now the leader of the opposition, said last week that as defence minister he was advised that British submarines posed issues. These included a lack of production capacity in Britain and reservations about the “interoperability” of the submarines with those made by the US, Australia’s closest defence ally.

Australia’s defences face a serious capability gap when its existing, locally built, Collins-class diesel submarines are retired in the 2030s after 33 years in service.


There have been reports that Britain is prepared to sell Australia two Astute-class nuclear submarines, HMS Agamemnon and HMS Agincourt, which are due for completion in 2024 and 2026 respectively.

The Sun reported last month that Sunak’s government had reached an agreement in principle to provide the Royal Australian Navy with British-designed and at least partially built nuclear-powered submarines, worth an estimated £2 billion each.

A spokesperson for the British government later said: “While talks are ongoing, we will not prejudge the outcome of the current scoping period, which is being used to understand Australia’s capability requirement.”

At 97 metres long, Astute-class submarines are the largest and most advanced attack craft ever built for the Royal Navy. They can circumnavigate the globe submerged, producing their own oxygen and drinking water, and incorporate a suite of advanced sensors.
The submarines carry both Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles (TLAM) and Spearfish heavyweight torpedoes, providing a range of offensive capabilities.

[Asturias56]

"can it be redesigned "

Of course it can - the British industrial companies just LOVE redesigning something.......... like that Armoured vehicle we bought from the USA................ 10 years ago

[rattman]

"can it be redesigned "

Of course it can - the British industrial companies just LOVE redesigning something.......... like that Armoured vehicle we bought from the USA................ 10 years ago

Same with austalia, just look at the hunter class, lets get a type 26 turn it into a multirole frigate and add 1500/2000 tons to its displacement and it slower and fatter.

[tartare]

Oh God - Australia will just make a few changes...
Here we go again.

[Going Boeing]

The major players are getting the right personnel in place to get the most out of AUKUS.

https://asiapacificdefencereporter.com/former-royal-navy-admiral-named-to-lead-babcock-aukus-team/

Tartare said, “Oh God - Australia will just make a few changes...
Here we go again.”

If the RAN does acquire (or lease) the last two Astutes, I think they will come with the original equipment as they are probably too advanced in construction to make large changes. This will also assist the RN crew to train their RAN counterparts but, it means a lot of additional work setting up the supply chain and supporting systems for combat systems and weapons that are not in the RAN inventory. I believe the vessels that are subsequently built in Australia will be fitted with US combat systems and weapons.

[golder]

Monday US time will tell us.

[Asturias56]

Think you're being optimistic - it 'll be a holding statement

[ORAC]

https://www.defensenews.com/pentagon/2023/03/07/big-aukus-news-coming-but-hill-and-allies-see-tech-sharing-snags/

Big AUKUS news coming, but Hill and allies see tech sharing snags

[ORAC]

https://asiapacificdefencereporter.com/former-royal-navy-admiral-named-to-lead-babcock-aukus-team/

Former Royal Navy admiral named to lead Babcock AUKUS Team

A former UK Royal Navy vice admiral with decades of experience in naval strategy and submarine operations has been appointed as Babcock’s first Managing Director – AUKUS & International to lead the company’s newly established division aiming to deliver key capabilities in support of the trilateral security treaty.

Sir Nick Hine KCB joined Babcock in the UK from the Royal Navy where he was the Second Sea Lord, and brings with him a wealth of wider government and industry facing knowledge which will be invaluable to the delivery of the AUKUS capabilities.

He will lead a team split between Australia and the UK that will seek to coordinate and promote Babcock’s capabilities and manage strategic dialogue with the Australian, US and UK Governments.….

Hine visited Australian Babcock sites recently and is confident the organisation is well positioned to provide the basis to deliver AUKUS capabilities….

Operating the UK’s only licensed facility for refitting refuelling and defuelling nuclear submarines, Babcock manages two of the UK’s three naval bases (HMNB Clyde and HMNB Devonport) which undertake 100 per cent of the deep maintenance, in-service support, and through life management of the UK fleet of nuclear-powered submarines.

Contracted by the UK Ministry of Defence, Babcock provides services including fleet engineering, facilities management, waterfront services and logistics and transport.

[fdr]

https://www.defensenews.com/pentagon/2023/03/07/big-aukus-news-coming-but-hill-and-allies-see-tech-sharing-snags/

Big AUKUS news coming, but Hill and allies see tech sharing snags

like.... landing on mars instead of doing an entry into orbit? What could possibly go wrong with US Imperial, UK Imperial and metric metrology going on. France fought a civil war to resolve measures, we haven't got that sorted yet. At least Boeing never got it wrong with say, building parts in one part of the USA and fitting them somewhere else.... What? B787, fasteners???? Who would have thought, that is just in one country... should be fun across 3 continents... UK is still a bit of the continent? No? When? really? Why? Golly $#1]!

[Paying Guest]

like.... landing on mars instead of doing an entry into orbit? What could possibly go wrong with US Imperial, UK Imperial and metric metrology going on. France fought a civil war to resolve measures, we haven't got that sorted yet. $#1]!

..... you do know that the good sized chunks of each F35 manufactured in the UK seem to fit remarkably well, don't you?

[Bengo]

As they say: a machinist will work to the nearest thou, or less; a carpenter to the nearest 32nd and dockyards to the nearest ship.
N

[tartare]

Non-submariner naïve question here.
If Australia gets the Astute and wants to put an American battle management system in it - is that more or less a case of fitting different electronics boxes, software and monitor screens etc?
Or will different hull related hardware be needed - external sensors, sonar arrays etc.
I think I know the answer but am trying to gauge the degree to which it will be possible to balls it up...

[Gnadenburg]

US Virginia subs as an interim followed by UK designed SSN’s. Extraordinary if accurate.


https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/australia-to-buy-us-nuclear-submarines-to-fill-capability-gap-20230309-p5cqoh.html

[junior.VH-LFA]

US Virginia subs as an interim followed by UK designed SSN’s. Extraordinary if accurate.


https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/australia-to-buy-us-nuclear-submarines-to-fill-capability-gap-20230309-p5cqoh.html

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/australia-expected-buy-up-5-virginia-class-submarines-part-aukus-sources-2023-03-08/

Reported by reuters now also. It would appear multiple souces are confirming it.

Government MP's were briefied yesterday, so it is not surprising it is being leaked now.

[tartare]

Well if that's correct, I'll claim two for two.
Great news if so... the right decision.
EDIT - this is a very interesting story if true.
In the short term, three Virginia class boats.
In the medium term, options on two more.
In the long term, next gen Astute.
So the likelihood that the RAN will be operating a mixed fleet?
Fascinating - so that's what they meant by a genuine three nation solution.
Concurrent with this is the last in the series of the SMHs red alert series - which has infuriated those of a far left leaning persuasion.
Two suggestions - reintroduce national conscription, and not just for young people, in large part to snap the population out of complacency - not sure how that would play politically!
And secondly - Australia should openly host US nuclear weapons - the record showing that if you've got `em you're less likely to be threatened.
That'll get everyone thoroughly up in arms (sorry) and have to say, I completely agree with that suggestion.

[Going Boeing]

Non-submariner naïve question here.
If Australia gets the Astute and wants to put an American battle management system in it - is that more or less a case of fitting different electronics boxes, software and monitor screens etc?
Or will different hull related hardware be needed - external sensors, sonar arrays etc.
I think I know the answer but am trying to gauge the degree to which it will be possible to balls it up...

I’m also a non-submariner but, I believe that one of the biggest problems when modifying a submarine is trim. The weight distribution along the length of a submarine is highly calculated, as is the size and position of ballast tanks - when there’s any weight change, these have to be recalculated.

If we were to lease the last 2 Astutes, the RAN would have some commonality with the sonar as the new sonar going into the Collins class is essentially the same as fitted to the Astutes - different combat system & weapons though.

The reported leasing/acquisition of 3-5 Virginia class as a stopgap until tri-nation SSN(R)’s can be built at Osborne would be a good outcome wrt the combat system and weapons but would create a lot of problems with manning them. They are constructed with a requirement for more than 130 crew and the path for all senior officers includes nuclear power plant training and a tour as a propulsion plant engineer. This is very different from the career path required for crewing SSN’s of British origin.

[Buster Hyman]

I don't have any skin in the game, aside from my own Skin if China joins the game, but as AUKUS is a Tri Nation effort, wouldn't getting the RAN into Nuclear boats be only one part of AUKUS? Could it be that the next gen Astute would also be an AUKUS project meaning Tri Nation compatibility, to a certain extent?

[ORAC]

Non-submariner naïve question here.
If Australia gets the Astute and wants to put an American battle management system in it - is that more or less a case of fitting different electronics boxes, software and monitor screens etc?


Built separately in large modules which slide into the hull. same for the sonar.

Command deck module for Artful.

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/620x388/image_32fde7b5bac95a76ec701c864a7f58c8f25565fa.jpeg

Hull cut out for sonar


https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/620x388/image_25cffacbcb4b437a3355b481b49dc17a5db31816.jpeg

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/defence/8731095/In-pictures-BAE-Barrow-and-the-building-of-the-Astute-class-submarine.html

Sam3 for Virginia and Columbia class.

https://www.naval-technology.com/news/austal-virginia-columbia-submarines/

[Asturias56]

"Two suggestions - reintroduce national conscription, and not just for young people, in large part to snap the population out of complacency - not sure how that would play politically!"

In the UK and US its the MILITARY who don't like conscription - they waste a lot of resources training people for 6 months so they can have undertrained, undermotivated bodies for 18 months max. Lots of bodies are only useful if you intend to refight the Somme.

If there's a problem in society why should it be dumped on the military to "solve"

[Flap Track 6]

Non-submariner naïve question here.
If Australia gets the Astute and wants to put an American battle management system in it - is that more or less a case of fitting different electronics boxes, software and monitor screens etc?.

It's the systems integration task which is the killer. Welding great lumps of metal together is the easy part.
One of the big issues with the Upholder class sale to Canada was changing from UK to US weapons integration. I know the chap who lead that task and he doesn't like to be reminded of it!

[golder]

3 days for the facts, but coalition member who is briefed. He didn't balk in an interview, about buying 5 Virginias. UK program later.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryvzRTulMp8

[rattman]

3 days for the facts, but coalition member who is briefed. He didn't balk in an interview, about buying 5 Virginias. UK program later.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryvzRTulMp8

Hes a back bencher, LNP backbenchers have not been briefed. Only the shadow cabinet have been briefed from the LNP

[golder]

Sorry, change briefed to told. Is this guy good enough?
Virginias in the 30's and UK subs in the 40's
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DH6oQ_-lSxk

[tartare]

Built separately in large modules which slide into the hull. same for the sonar.

Command deck module for Artful.

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/620x388/image_32fde7b5bac95a76ec701c864a7f58c8f25565fa.jpeg

Hull cut out for sonar


https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/620x388/image_25cffacbcb4b437a3355b481b49dc17a5db31816.jpeg

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/defence/8731095/In-pictures-BAE-Barrow-and-the-building-of-the-Astute-class-submarine.html

Sam3 for Virginia and Columbia class.

https://www.naval-technology.com/news/austal-virginia-columbia-submarines/

Thanks for that - very interesting - and remarkably common sense solution too.

[Asturias56]

" Only the shadow cabinet have been briefed from the LNP"

yeah - and do you think they kept their mouths shut? It's all over teh UK media yesterday and today.

Politicians leak like sieves - remember Sir Humphrey Appleby "The Ship of State is the only ship that leaks at the top" ;)

[pax britanica]

Seriously can the UK afford all this? national infrastructure falling to pieces daily , no money for proper health care education pensions etc etc.
i know there is a genuinely serious 'heightened risk' but we are a very small island where shortcomings in all the above areas are a far more real and present danger to the average citizen than anyhting needing more nuclear subs and being involved in any way what so ever in the Pacific . From reading Pprune, danegrous I know, it would seem our conventional military are really struggling with what they have without politicians treating them as a pool of labour for strike breaking, and assorted crises .
Surely it would have made more sense to try and pool any nukes with France seeing as any attack on one is geographically an attack on the other and it seems the PM would like a new entente cordiale.

[ChrisJ800]

Seems like US are rolling out 2 Virginia class a year with potential to grow to 3 a year whereas UK is producig one Astute every 11 years. So can Oz really expect modified Astutes in the 40s?

[golder]

It may be a partnership with the Astute replacement.

[ORAC]

. Summary:

The were major problems at Barrow when the Astute contract was signed as over 20 years had passed since they built the last Vanguard - work force had dropped from 13,000 to 3,000 and most experienced people had retired. It took a lot of assistance from the US to get back up to speed again.

Once of the lessons learnt, as with aircraft, is that its essential to keep the design and manufacture teams intact and that is done by stretching out production between classes and boats to ensure the6 are always active.

In the case of Barrow the design team moved in from the Astute to Dreadnaught and are moving on in turn to SSNR. RR has completed the last PWR2B cores for Astute and has rebuilt their core production plant at Raynesway to build the PWR3 cores for Dreadnaught and SSNR.

At Barrow they are finishing off the last Astutes and stated work on the 3rd of the 4 Dreadnaughts (the construction hall can hold. 3 boats. The last Astute should be commissioned in 2026.

The first Astute was commissioned in 2010 with a planned 25 year life, so with current boats taking 8 years to be completed they should start work on the first SSN in the class just after the last Astute.

That doesn’t leave any space in the construction hall for any extra Astutes - or the reactors to power them. Planned SSNR construction will, presumably, be staged to replace the existing boats before they move onto the Dreadnaught replacement etc etc.

The assumption has to be, therefore, that SSNR construction for Australia will take place in Australia with RR providing the reactors from the UK and the UK and USA providing bith training and assistance, as the US did when the UK started Astute production.

[Asturias56]

Do they work nights and weekends? And that is a serious question.

[Asturias56]

IF the UK wishes to have a deterrent then it has to stay in the submarine business. In the event of a serious war they'll be the main forces available.

It's expensive but a lot of the money is spent within the UK

The "Astutes" have their problems but seem generally to be rated of equivalent quality (but different from in detailed capabilities) to the USN "Virginia's" - in other words some of the best around. There isn't any other UK military asset you can say that about - maybe throw in GCHQ.

The real question will be can they gradually ramp up capability to shorten delivery times?

[ORAC]

Do they work nights and weekends? And that is a serious question.
if the implied question is could they speed up construction in order to produce extra boats - where do they get the extra skilled engineers? It’s taken them over 20 years to get t9 where the6 are now. What they want is a stable work force with stable orders to maintain a stable production rate.

The US is struggling to increase production of the Virginia class from 2 to 2.5 a year for much the same planning reasons as the UK- the design team moved on to Columbia and is now mov8ng on to SSNX and they are already moving trained workforce onto the Columbia line.

https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2022/01/06/workforce-development-process-improvements-will-make-or-break-the-virginia-class-submarine-program/

​​​​​​​I imagine once contracts are signed Barrow might also find it hard to keep staff numbers as Australia starts poaching. Adelaide or Barrow - tricky choice…..

[Asturias56]

I agree - but if they order enough boats atthe start there'll be a 20 -30 year production run

That should eb long enough to train a lot more people

Of course Barrow is not the easiest place in the UK to get more staff of any sort - its a bugger of a place to commute to

[Not_a_boffin]

I agree - but if they order enough boats atthe start there'll be a 20 -30 year production run

That should eb long enough to train a lot more people

Of course Barrow is not the easiest place in the UK to get more staff of any sort - its a b8gger of a place to commute to

Has it occurred to you that a twenty to thirty year production run is a very bad thing? From a design team sustenance and supply chain obsolescence perspective?

As for Barrow - you don't commute there. You enjoy the lake district and the associated property values.

[tartare]

There seems to be an assumption ahead of the formal announcement by many commentators that the Oz Virginia class boats, if not second hand, will be entirely built in the US.
Knowing absolutely nothing about how submarine hulls are fabricated and assembled I wonder if there may be a way of sharing work between Electric Boat's yards in the US, and those in Adelaide.
The boats seem to be constructed in 10 modules.
Would it relieve the pressure on Electric Boat's yards to build the modules in the US and then actually put the sub together down in Australia?
From memory, Australia has quite a bit of expertise in submarine steels of very high quality.
No doubt a mountain of arms control export and practical, logistical barriers to doing so.
Interested in comments from those of you with more knowledge.

[rattman]

There seems to be an assumption ahead of the formal announcement by many commentators that the Oz Virginia class boats, if not second hand, will be entirely built in the US.
Knowing absolutely nothing about how submarine hulls are fabricated and assembled I wonder if there may be a way of sharing work between Electric Boat's yards in the US, and those in Adelaide.
The boats seem to be constructed in 10 modules.
Would it relieve the pressure on Electric Boat's yards to build the modules in the US and then actually put the sub together down in Australia?
From memory, Australia has quite a bit of expertise in submarine steels of very high quality.
No doubt a mountain of arms control export and practical, logistical barriers to doing so.
Interested in comments from those of you with more knowledge.


We will know in 3 sleeps, but the chat is that its going to 2 + 3 virginia. 2 block 3 virginia's will be leased to australia on a 10 year lease with the option buy. For the 3, australia will be given some options either 3 block 4 (with VLS) second hand or 3 new build block 5's with or without the VPM at australia's choice

[tartare]

...and a very wry suggestion on Twitter for naming at least one boat - the objective of a nuclear submarine being to disappear into the ocean.
HMAS Harold Holt.

[golder]

...and a very wry suggestion on Twitter for naming at least one boat - the objective of a nuclear submarine being to disappear into the ocean.
HMAS Harold Holt.
That might be hard. We don't name our fleet after a person or battle.

[BBadanov]

That might be hard. We don't name our fleet after a person or battle.

Yes we do - where do the Collins' names come from?

[golder]

You are right. I was unaware of that. Named after places is very common.

[BBadanov]

You are right. I was unaware of that. Named after places is very common.

If the new subs are Astute-class, we might adopt "A" names again (as we used for the first Attack-class PBs).
There were good names in there, Attack, Assail, Acute, Archer, Adroit, Advance, Ardent, Arrow, Aware - more names than subs!