AUKUS [Archive] - Page 6

Bug

11th Mar 2023, 04:28

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.

US Law prohibits using non US yards for US Navy ships.
Sometimes called the Jones Act.
There is a possible Presidential exception, but I do not think any president would try except in EXTREME circumstances.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/8679

(a)Prohibition.—
Except as provided in subsection (b), no vessel to be constructed for any of the armed forces, and no major component of the hull or superstructure of any such vessel, may be constructed in a foreign shipyard.
(b)Presidential Waiver for National Security Interest.—
(1)
The President may authorize exceptions to the prohibition in subsection (a) when the President determines that it is in the national security interest of the United States to do so.
(2)
The President shall transmit notice to Congress of any such determination, and no contract may be made pursuant to the exception authorized until the end of the 30-day period beginning on the date on which the notice of the determination is received by Congress.

rattman

11th Mar 2023, 04:32

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!

If we get 3-5 virginia's they should be named after the scrap iron folitla. voyager, vampire, vendetta, stuart and water hen

either A or V's would give a lot of cool names. But we know they will name them after people

BBadanov

11th Mar 2023, 04:43

If we get 3-5 virginia's they should be named after the scrap iron folitla. voyager, vampire, vendetta, stuart and water hen

either A or V's would give a lot of cool names. But we know they will name them after people

Yes, heaps of good "V" names, but I doubt Voyager would be used again after its loss in 1964.
Waterhen is currently a shore establishment.
Stuart should be retained for "River"-class vessels - we had 6 frigates in this category before the MEKO/ANZACs.

ChrisJ800

11th Mar 2023, 04:54

As the Virginias are stop gaps till Astutes are comissioned they can be named after stop gap PMs who didnt last a full term. Plenty of them!

Asturias56

11th Mar 2023, 07:07

Buster Hyman

11th Mar 2023, 07:13

Not_a_boffin

11th Mar 2023, 07:24

"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?"

well one of the problems identified by others (not me) on the thread was that its was an issue because the UK stopped design and building for a period - hence the current issues.

However I was thinking that if the UK is going to build boats for Australia we'd have a long period with guaranteed jobs which would attract more people into the industry. And of course we can go for incrementable improvement - the Japanese do this with their frigate/destroyer fleet as do the Chinese. The US has been building steadily improving Arleigh Burke's for over 30 years - the latest ones being very different from the lead ship.

The supply chain will keep building kit if they know there are more orders.

Long production runs over many years do not preserve design teams - in fact quite the opposite, because they're not conducting design activities. Design activities are not properly exercised by incremental changes - you don't get to consider why things are the way they are, or assess alternatives, because the majority of the design is fixed.

The supply chain issue is more to do with supportability / sustainability of equipment items over a long period. A type 2050 sonar installed in a T23 in the 90s, used a 2MB disc drive. Try finding that ten years later. Ditto things like refrigerant gases. Regs on those change, making it progressively harder to make the same kit over a long period.

artee

11th Mar 2023, 08:25

Going Boeing

11th Mar 2023, 08:39

As the Virginias are stop gaps till Astutes are comissioned they can be named after stop gap PMs who didnt last a full term. Plenty of them!

From the multitude of leaks, it’s obvious that the RAN will not be getting Astute’s. The plan appears to be for British designed SSN(R)’s built in South Australia with a number of second hand Virginia class bought/leased as a stopgap until the new boats become operational.

I like your idea of stopgap PM names for the stopgap Virginia’s.

Asturias56

11th Mar 2023, 13:33

Not_a_boffin

11th Mar 2023, 13:52

"Long production runs over many years do not preserve design teams"

Reading Friedman's "British Frigates & Destroyers" there seems to have been no problem in grinding out dozens of studies and designs few of which were ever built. A design time is per head relatively expensive but in total hardly makes the rounding error when you start building. I suspect people move on because so little is actually built
Had you understood the context of that book, you'd also realise it was a different construct and a vastly different periodicity.

The single worst thing you can do is lose your design capability. It is incredibly difficult to reconstitute it, as most western navies, shipbuilders (including the US) are finding out.

golder

11th Mar 2023, 16:12

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/an-absolute-priority-albanese-promises-aukus-will-mean-jobs-for-australia-20230311-p5crae.html

"A French official told Agence France-Presse on Saturday that they still believed AUKUS was a mistake. “Regarding Australia, it was treason,” the unnamed official said."

It's ok, I got him a present. He still seems butt hurt.

https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1647x642/screenshot_2023_03_12_033752_7a3d0c736189e73d3b27c0f4483a7cd 564527577.png

SLXOwft

11th Mar 2023, 18:16

So extending the Collins class out to 2036 and

According to Reuters:

Albanese says announcement on numbers Monday, "This is about jobs, including jobs in manufacturing, and Adelaide in particular will be a big beneficiary of this announcement as will Western Australia,"

"When you talk about the issue of manufacturing submarines in Australia, that's an absolute priority for us," Albanese added.

As a side thought the USN is looking for a 20% increase in its SSN fleet by 2050

I presume Oz is going to get some sort of good deal on the Virginias if they are looking to replace them from 2040?

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

Two Admirals first to command a naval squadron in action (Collins), first Admiral born in Oz (Farncomb), an RAN VC (OS Sheean), three COs KIA (Capt Waller, Capt Dechaineux and LCdr Rankin). More deserving of commemoration that politicos IMO.

I understand the commission that gave the belated VC to Sheean recommended the names of those ex-RAN under considersation for the VC should be kept in continuous use as ship names.

NumptyAussie

11th Mar 2023, 23:58

...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.

The RAN have already shown their sense of humour, as that is the name of the underwater communication base in Exmouth!

golder

12th Mar 2023, 05:40

This is probably the best info so far.
It looks like secondhand Virginias as a 10-20 year gap. till the new sub.
Combined workshare

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2U45jUI3n7s

SLXOwft

13th Mar 2023, 12:39

Rishi Sunak has announced GBP 4.9 bn additional defence spending over two years.

'Downing Street said £3bn from the extra spending would be earmarked to support the pact (AUKUS) , along with boosting industrial infrastructure and servicing UK submarines.'

'The remaining £1.9bn will be used to replace weapons sent to Ukraine and improve the UK's munitions infrastructure.'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64932951 I trust this redirects for outside UK readers

Ninthace

13th Mar 2023, 17:46

My daughter would settle for some of it being spent on her quarter, no hot water or heating since Christmas and still waiting

Doors Off

13th Mar 2023, 19:47

My daughter would settle for some of it being spent on her quarter, no hot water or heating since Christmas and still waiting

It's an important tradition that enhances capability. The more things change, the more they stay the same. I do not miss those cold showers inside of a freezing block.

rattman

13th Mar 2023, 20:08

Its on
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOTiJkg1voo

RAFEngO74to09

13th Mar 2023, 21:15

Joint AUKUS Statement Joint Leaders Statement on AUKUS | The White House (https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2023/03/13/joint-leaders-statement-on-aukus-2/)

pr00ne

13th Mar 2023, 21:59

Er, exactly what is in this for the UK? The US sells the Australians three Virginia Class SSN's in the 2030's. The UK blows £3bn of the £5bn extra allotted to defence over the next 2 years on the ability to build an Astute replacement in the 2040's with the Australians based on a design that we were going to build anyway? So, all we get is a diluted design input to the Astute replacements and a workshare deal with the Australians and the US, thus reducing our existing build and design capability as it will now be a three way collaboration even though the new boat will only be operated by the UK and Australia and not the US.

Did the same clowns who negotiated Brexit and the NI Protocol do this one as well?

Frostchamber

13th Mar 2023, 22:40

Er, exactly what is in this for the UK?

A lot more than if Oz had opted purely for US boats. The UK will still build its own boats and a lot of UK supply chain including tech will go into the Oz-built boats. All the reactors and reactor housings for both UK and Oz will be built by RR in the UK and supplied as sealed units. Tremendous interoperability. There will be some additional US tech in the UK boats; and the UK boats, like the Oz boats, will utilise the US vertical launch system, which is definitely a plus. Many had predicted that it would be largely a US-Australia affair with the UK picking up scraps from the sidelines. That has not happened.

ORAC

13th Mar 2023, 22:54

Australia to join Royal Navy SSN(R) submarine programme Analysis of the implications and what SSN(R) might look like.

https://www.navylookout.com/australia-to-join-royal-navy-ssnr-submarine-programme/

golder

13th Mar 2023, 23:24

"Australia will become a partner in the Royal Navy’s SSN(R) submarine project. This solution was always the most likely long-term answer, given the synergy between the respective timelines."

Ok, so it is a joint design, partnership. With the UK as the lead nation. Australia isn't simply buying the sub tech and building it.

rattman

13th Mar 2023, 23:43

So SSN(R) will be designed to use VPM's or what ever the next gen version is. The talk is that they will be targetting making VPM's in Australia as first contribution the Virginia program

Going Boeing

13th Mar 2023, 23:56

The ABC news this morning mentioned that there would be a continuous SSN AUKUS submarine building process at Osborne starting in early 2040’s but a short time later they said that they will be built at a drumbeat of one every 2 years (a good economical rate). But that construction rate would have the the 8th submarine completed many years before the first one is due for replacement (assuming the PWR3 reactor fuel is sufficient for in excess of 33 years) - it will be interesting how they will achieve a continuous building process!

Overall, I like this final package as the short term is covered by the acquisition of the Virginia class and, in the long term, the RAN will be getting a submarine that is up to date with the newest technology - including vertical payload tubes.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-03-14/aukus-nuclear-submarine-deal-announced/102087614

Update: During the press interview, Richard Marles said that the drumbeat would be one SSN every 3 years, not 2 years as stated by the ABC. This still leaves a gap in the continuous shipbuilding unless the number of vessels is increased to 11 - desirable, but not likely.

golder

14th Mar 2023, 00:32

The Collins was also be the start of continuous Sub building. That stopped at 6 and didn't even get to the planned 8. Then follow on builds. Perhaps we will get it right this time.

rattman

14th Mar 2023, 00:58

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/eight-submarines-three-decades-up-to-368-billion-australia-s-historic-aukus-plan-at-a-glance-20230314-p5crto.html

AU$50-58bn to purchase then maintain its 3 second hand Virginia class (australia uses whole life accounting)
AU$3bn they are investing in US shipyards
Australia will build 8 AUKUS class with the last 3 entering service between 2055-2065 allowing the three Virginia to be retired and maintaining a fleet of 8
Australia will become a Virginia component supplier.
AUKUS class will use US/Australian tactical information system and VPT's/VPMs for compatibility with US weapons

golder

14th Mar 2023, 01:09

If anyone wants to kill an hour?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FjmYyEt7w4

Gnadenburg

14th Mar 2023, 01:57

Er, exactly what is in this for the UK?

The UK actually becomes an Indo-Pacific player with minimal investment.

West Coast

14th Mar 2023, 02:20

junior.VH-LFA

14th Mar 2023, 02:45

I somehow feel any war with China will be over by then. Use the subs to keep the Kiwis in check then I guess.

You are assuming that in the event of a conflict it will end with a clear and obvious winner and loser and then cease.

Recent history would suggest this is unlikely.

West Coast

14th Mar 2023, 03:45

You are assuming that in the event of a conflict it will end with a clear and obvious winner and loser and then cease.

Recent history would suggest this is unlikely.

No, actually I don’t know how it will end, nor do you. No matter how it ends, I believe it will happen long before some of the dates mentioned

typerated

14th Mar 2023, 04:32

I somehow feel any war with China will be over by then. .

Totally agree.
Report in the Sydney Morning Herald recently was war likely within 3 years.
If you had 3 years to prepare I'd be not retiring anything (even the NH-90s!) and building up ammunition and spares!
Most other things are likely to be too late!

Going Boeing

14th Mar 2023, 04:44

The official government fact sheet for the AUKUS SSN states, “Australia will begin building its first SSN-AUKUS in Adelaide, South Australia, by the end of this decade. Australia plans to deliver the first Australian-built SSN-AUKUS to the Royal Australian Navy in the early 2040s.” This is much earlier than any of the press statements indicated.

https://www.defence.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-03/04.%20SSN-AUKUS%20fact%20sheet.pdf

golder

14th Mar 2023, 06:51

From going boeing's link. It will be used by both countries.

...The UK will commence construction of its first SSN-AUKUS in Barrow-in-Furness, UK, as early as the late 2020s. The UK intends to deliver its first SSN-AUKUS to the UK Royal Navy in the late 2030s. Australia will begin building its first SSN-AUKUS in Adelaide, South Australia, by the end of this decade. Australia plans to deliver the first Australian-built SSN-AUKUS to the Royal Australian Navy in the early 2040s. Australia will begin enabling works this year at the future Submarine Construction Yard in Osborne, South Australia. As a trilateral endeavour, SSN-AUKUS provides maximum interoperability among AUKUS partners. It will elevate all three...

PoppaJo

14th Mar 2023, 07:19

Totally agree.
Report in the Sydney Morning Herald recently was war likely within 3 years.
If you had 3 years to prepare I'd be not retiring anything (even the NH-90s!) and building up ammunition and spares!
Most other things are likely to be too late!

Was a comment that the US will be rotating its Nuclear subs in/out of Perth from 2027. Assuming to advise China "back off".

But the next 3 odd years, we are just sitting ducks.

ORAC

14th Mar 2023, 08:17

But the next 3 odd years, we are just sitting ducks.
Don’t overblow it. Even if they are nuclear powered you are only talking about a platform carry a few dozen conventionally missiles - about the same number Ukraine is being hit by every week. Tactically advantageous but far more politically symbolic.

If you are talking about Australia being protected by a strategic umbrella in the short term, remember the US isn’t solely dependent in subs - and has already signed up to forward base B-52s and B-2s which can be deployed in days, if not hours.

https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/politics/2022/10/31/nuclear-bomber-us-australia/

https://www.themandarin.com.au/207742-raaf-adds-b-2-stealth-bomber-refuelling-capability-tyre-kicks-sr-72-darkstar/

Asturias56

14th Mar 2023, 09:06

There are advantages of a joint UK Aus design and order - like Concorde - it's a lot harder to cancel an order when it's tied up with overseas co-constructors. And that might help both the RAN and RN at different times. Plus of course R&D is spread over more boats and the two navies can swap crews - since they're both chronically short of bodies that in itself will be useful.

SLXOwft

14th Mar 2023, 09:33

I am sure the late Harold Holt would be heartened by all this, given his view of Australia as an Asian power and subject to Asian threats, and his opposition to Harold Wilson's retreat from East of Suez abandoning the UK's duties to is Asian and Oceanian (mainly Commonwealth) allies.

'While this is happening, Australia and Britain will begin work on a new class of submarine – to be called SSN-AUKUS – which will be the next class of submarine for both countries. It will be a British design but have American technology including its nuclear reactor, weapons system and vertical launch system.' (SMH article linked by Rattman - post #1278)

'SSN-AUKUS will incorporate US technology such as propulsion plant systems and components, a common vertical launch system and weapons. The AUKUS partners will also develop a joint combat system as an expansion of the US-Australia combat system.' (AUKUS fact sheet linked by Going Boeing)

'On Monday 13 March, as part of the AUKUS trilateral agreement between Australia, the UK and the US, it was announced that Rolls-Royce Submarines Ltd will provide the reactors for Australia’s first nuclear powered submarines.' (RR press release)

Slightly confused by this as there seems to be an assumption in some circles that the powerplant will be (at least based on) the RR PWR3 developed for the Dreadnought Class SSBNs. Design of the PWR3 is reported to have input from the GE SG9 powering the Viriginias, so is this what's meant by 'American Technology' or will there be a more substatial US component?

I'll be interested in how co-operative the development of (M & S)UUVs to be used by the subs will be.:E

Asturias56

14th Mar 2023, 09:39

"But the next 3 odd years, we are just sitting ducks."

I don't think the Chinese are planning a war with Australia in the next 3 years................ Taiwan just possibly, India - perhaps- but Australia??

ChrisJ800

14th Mar 2023, 09:41

So Chinas counter is to build its military into a Great Wall of steel. And McGowan is heading there next month to make sure its oz iron ore that wil be used!

Asturias56

14th Mar 2023, 10:55

that's been a growing problem for many years - Australia needs China more than China needs Australia
https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/317x372/austarlian_exports5407_f2645b7321fa04124bda76b19d84aa1e54d9e 5dc.jpg

Buster Hyman

14th Mar 2023, 10:59

So Chinas counter is to build its military into a Great Wall of steel. And McGowan is heading there next month to make sure its oz iron ore that wil be used!

Indeed! We seemed to manage okay when they cracked the sads at us and stopped importing. Perhaps forcing them to use inferior Iron Ore will bring its own advantages longer term? :E

golder

14th Mar 2023, 14:27

The US is also adding to the pot
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/new-fleet-of-eight-nuclear-submarines-to-be-built-in-australia-in-368-billion-deal-20230314-p5crt9.html

Australia (https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/new-fleet-of-eight-nuclear-submarines-to-be-built-in-australia-in-368-billion-deal-20230314-p5crt9.htmlAustralia) will contribute about $3 billion to the efforts in the US and UK to develop the submarine technology, including the design and development of the SSN-AUKUS.

The US will commit $US4.6 billion ($6.9 billion) to its industry to support the Australian project, while the UK will spend £2.2 billion ($4 billion).

Buster15

14th Mar 2023, 15:25

rattman

14th Mar 2023, 20:23

I wonder whether Japan will be looking to join in following their decision to join the Tempest programme.

They would be a good partner and the other benefits and programs would be an asset to all the other participants, but they have expressed zero interest in nuclear subs and not sure the cost benefit of them would be worth it

tartare

15th Mar 2023, 00:01

Doors Off

15th Mar 2023, 01:23

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1148x1160/screenshot_2023_03_14_at_7_19_43_pm_9614ad40e124739f278d7d0f 9693e7e784e2e480.png

ORAC

15th Mar 2023, 05:44

Here we go.
First stories emerging that - quelle horror - we'll have to dispose of, duh duh, duh - NUCLEAR WASTE! as part of AUKUS.
Spent fuel rods in 2050 I think?
I hope the ADF PR people are onto this straight away - clarifying what, when, where and how.
Otherwise we'll have every scare-mongering muppet wheeled out as the media will quickly wake up to this as a new angle.

There have been long discussions with the IAEA over how such a deal might be done under the terms of the NPT. The resolution was that Australia will not undertake any nuclear fuel fabrication or reprocessing, rather the reactors will be provided as sealed units an£ returned in the same state at the end of their operational life.

Which means that, if manufactured in the UK, the reactors will be returned to the UK for defuelling, storage and eventual dismantling - presumably by sending the boats to be moored alongside together with the 27 all ready awaiting disposal.

So, no, Australia won’t be involved in handing HEU fuel rods.

Guessing, I would think, to keep with the NPT, the terms of the contract will involved the reactor cores being leased to Australia for the life of the boat, rather than sold, and then returned.

https://www.navylookout.com/project-to-dismantle-ex-royal-navy-nuclear-submarines-inches-forward/

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/submarine-dismantling-project

https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pressreleases/director-general-statement-in-relation-to-aukus-announcement

https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/22/09/govinf2022-20.pdf

““it is proposed that Australia would be provided with complete, welded power units.”

https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1800x924/decomissioned_nuclear_submarines_devonport_1_cdd5cf2fa148d03 540c78686cca09d8ac6787007.jpg

tartare

15th Mar 2023, 06:04

There have been long discussions with the IAEA over how such a deal might be done under the terms of the NPT. The resolution was that Australia will not undertake any nuclear fuel fabrication or reprocessing, rather the reactors will be provided as sealed units an£ returned in the same state at the end of their operational life.

Which means that, if manufactured in the UK, the reactors will be returned to the UK for defuelling, storage and eventual dismantling - presumably by sending the boats to be moored alongside together with the 27 all ready awaiting disposal.

So, no, Australia won’t be involved in handing HEU fuel rods.

Guessing, I would think, to keep with the NPT, the terms of the contract will involved the reactor cores being leased to Australia for the life of the boat, rather than sold, and then returned.

https://www.navylookout.com/project-to-dismantle-ex-royal-navy-nuclear-submarines-inches-forward/

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/submarine-dismantling-project

https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pressreleases/director-general-statement-in-relation-to-aukus-announcement

https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/22/09/govinf2022-20.pdf

““it is proposed that Australia would be provided with complete, welded power units.”

https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1800x924/decomissioned_nuclear_submarines_devonport_1_cdd5cf2fa148d03 540c78686cca09d8ac6787007.jpg
Well that's interesting, because there was definitely commentary down here about the need to dispose of `nuclear waste' as part of AUKUS and that said waste would be dealt with remotely - possibly on the Defence Estate.
So if HEU rods will be returned to the UK - what other waste is there to dispose of?

rattman

15th Mar 2023, 06:18

Well that's interesting, because there was definitely commentary down here about the need to dispose of `nuclear waste' as part of AUKUS and that said waste would be dealt with remotely - possibly on the Defence Estate.
So if HEU rods will be returned to the UK - what other waste is there to dispose of?

Yes marles the defence minister and deputy PM said they will be disposed of in australia at an unspecificed location, he was explicitly talking about the virginia's cant image they would handle AUKUS any different

Imagegear

15th Mar 2023, 07:25

For those of us who don't have a seat at the table.

AUKUS Press Briefing:

Fact Sheet (https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2023/03/13/fact-sheet-trilateral-australia-uk-us-partnership-on-nuclear-powered-submarines/#:~:text=Sale%20of%20U.S.%20Virginia%20Class,to%20two%20more %20if%20needed.)

IG

ORAC

15th Mar 2023, 07:36

So if HEU rods will be returned to the UK - what other waste is there to dispose of?

Low and intermediate waste, as per my link 2 above. For ILW you’re talking about the reactor pressure vessel and associated steam pipe work etc.

If the promises to the IAEA are observed, then the reactors will - as a minimum - have to be defuelled in the USA/UK. It would then be possible to transport the boats back to Australia for long term storage and dismantling.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/submarine-dismantling-project

“….UK submarines are powered by nuclear reactors. During submarine operations, nuclear reactions cause radioactive substances to be generated in the pipework and components within the reactor compartment. This requires managing after the submarine leaves service.….

Once the nuclear fuel is removed and transported to Sellafield for storage the submarine can formally enter the SDP.…

The three-stage dismantling method allows the less hazardous parts of a submarine’s nuclear reactor core, known as Low-Level Radioactive Waste (LLW) to be removed first, followed by removal of the Reactor Pressure Vessel which is classed as Intermediate Level Radioactive Waste (ILW).”

golder

15th Mar 2023, 07:42

I wouldn't worry too much. I'm sure there are a few countries. That will buy old HEU and subs, to scrap for us. Or perhaps we open a 'glow in the dark' marine, diving attraction

ORAC

15th Mar 2023, 08:12

That fact sheet seems internally contradictory. Quote:

”As part of this commitment to nuclear stewardship, Australia has committed to managing all radioactive waste generated through its nuclear-powered submarine program, including spent nuclear fuel, in Australia.”…..

”Australia will not enrich uranium or reprocess spent fuel as part of this program”…

To be clear, spent HEU fuel rods contain unspent weapons grade highly enriched uranium and plutonium. The idea of storing spent rods unprocessed indefinitely in Australia seems mad, particularly as there are other uses for it elsewhere. That’s ignoring the reaction by the other NPT signatory nations and the security risks.

https://nonproliferation.org/civilian-heu-france/

Asturias56

15th Mar 2023, 08:58

Letters (contradictory of course) in todays Times:-

Sir, Britain does not have the capacity or effective leadership to provide the huge level of support required by Australia to build its own nuclear submarine fleet (“PM strikes submarine deal to face new threat (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rishi-sunak-latest-pm-meets-joe-biden-to-discuss-aukus-security-pact-k5bkd3ft8)”, Mar 14). The performance of the Submarine Delivery Agency has been abysmal. Astute class submarines are being delivered late by BAE Systems; HMS Vanguard’s refit by Babcock has taken more than seven years; and none of our 22 decommissioned nuclear submarines has been dismantled, which is disgraceful. The in-service date for HMS Dreadnought was 2024 but is now the early 2030s. It is also astonishing that the new director-general (nuclear), Madelaine McTernan, has no previous nuclear expertise; nor did her predecessors, in spite of being responsible for submarine procurement, disposal and infrastructure. This collective failure of leadership has resulted in significant extra cost and loss of submarine availability. It appears that those advising the prime minister on Aukus have focused on the strategic benefits and economies of scale and not on the substantial risks of delivery, given the UK’s woeful performance and Australia’s lack of nuclear submarine expertise. This is not a winning combination. This UK and Australian element of Aukus is high risk for both countries. A bilateral-only agreement between the US and Australia would stand a far greater chance of success.
Rear Admiral (ret’d) Philip Mathias
UK director of nuclear policy 2005-08 and Trident value for money review 2010; Southsea, Hants

Sir, The Aukus deal is unusual in being a British defence project with virtually no downside. It sustains and develops Britain’s successful submarine industries, creates the potent sort of partnership that Brexit was meant to stimulate, and best of all Australia is paying for most of it. Of course, it might turn into Canberra’s HS2, but at least for now, it is an example of proper, multilateral strategic thinking. That said, it does not compensate for the bigger strategic hole in British defence policy regarding our own neighbourhood: Europe. The government cannot use Aukus as a glossy wrapper for underwhelming news on defence spending and the “refresh” of the 2021 integrated review. Our immediate security is at stake in the Ukraine war. Analysts follow the money, not the words. And not enough of it is being devoted to address this more immediate strategic hole in our defence policy.
Professor Michael Clarke
Director of the Royal United Services Institute 2007-15

Sir, Having served in Royal Navy submarines in Australia in the 1960s I am acutely aware of the exciting prospect of the introduction of the new fleet of submarines. However, I hope the navy and the MoD will take steps to discourage our submarine personnel from imitating our NHS personnel, who seem to be deserting Britain as soon as their training is complete. The attraction to a young person to a life in Western Australia is obvious, as my daughter, a consultant psychiatrist in Perth, will affirm.
Captain Richard Wraith RN
Former nuclear submarine CO; Tavistock, Devon

Sir, Whether we are doubling the size of our nuclear submarine fleet, or returning it to the size it was before successive defence cuts halved it, is possibly a matter of which eye the Nelsonian telescope is raised to.
Rear Admiral Ric Cheadle
Yelverton, Devon

ORAC

15th Mar 2023, 09:16

Returning to the contradictory statements about handling the reactor fuel rods.

The IAEA in both their communications state that they have been assured that the reactors will be provided as sealed and welded units. This is repeated in the AUKUS briefing fact sheet. Quote:

”The United Kingdom and United States intend to provide Australia with nuclear material in complete, welded power units that will not require refueling during their lifetime;”

I cannot see how this is compatible with the statement that:

”As part of this commitment to nuclear stewardship, Australia has committed to managing all radioactive waste generated through its nuclear-powered submarine program, including spent nuclear fuel, in Australia.”

Opening the reactors in Australia to extract the fuel at the end of life would seem to drive a coach and horses through the undertaking to the IAEA/NPT. I mean, “they’re sealed and welded - until we open them up to get the stuff inside out”…

The only other possibility would be that the boats would be defuelled and the fuel rods extracted for reprocessed in U.K./USA into LEU/MOX or solid/vitrified form and then sent back to Australia for storage - which would seem unduly complicated and perverse.

I come back to the reactor cores/fuel rods being returned to the UK/USA and the waste described being just to the LLW and ILW contained in the pressure vessel and pipe work.

golder

15th Mar 2023, 09:19

Sir, Having served in Royal Navy submarines in Australia in the 1960s I am acutely aware of the exciting prospect of the introduction of the new fleet of submarines. However, I hope the navy and the MoD will take steps to discourage our submarine personnel from imitating our NHS personnel, who seem to be deserting Britain as soon as their training is complete. The attraction to a young person to a life in Western Australia is obvious, as my daughter, a consultant psychiatrist in Perth, will affirm.
Captain Richard Wraith RN
Former nuclear submarine CO; Tavistock, Devon

That's good news, He thinks australia won't have any manning issues. We have been scratching our heads down here. Wondering where the crew will come from.

Asturias56

15th Mar 2023, 09:20

Maybe there's a secret clause whereby Australia takes ALL UK nuclear waste for storage.......... lots of space after all ..... ;)

rattman

15th Mar 2023, 09:26

That's good news, He thinks australia won't have any manning issues. We have been scratching our heads down here. Wondering where the crew will come from.

Crew currently isn't an issue and hasn't been on the collins for years. There is allegedly (by the west Australian newspaper) 900 submariners in the service atm. When my friend left in 2018 there was actually an issue that a lot of the squids were leaving for the surface navy as there wasn't enough sea time available for the submariners that they had.

tartare

15th Mar 2023, 09:54

golder

15th Mar 2023, 09:59

Bleating has started:
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/states-baulk-at-storing-radioactive-waste-from-nuclear-submarines-20230315-p5csdg.html
If ORAC is right - the States are moaning about storing pipes and casings that probably emit about as much radiation as the average granite worktop...
If you think that is bad. Try suggesting a nuclear power station. It's lucky that subs are under the water and you can't see them.

ORAC

15th Mar 2023, 13:47

Just sayin’…..

https://twitter.com/pinstripedline/status/1635912447453216773?s=61&t=rmEeUn68HhlFHGKbTPQr_A

Powerful article on state of Canadian submarine plans. Without urgent action, Canada may soon cease to operate a submarine force.

Canadian government noncommittal on new submarines as allies push forward with nuclear fleet plans

https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/canadian-government-noncommittal-on-new-submarines-as-allies-push-forward-with-nuclear-fleet-plans

Canadian government noncommittal on new submarines as allies push forward with nuclear fleet plans

Military commanders and experts say subs are critical to defending Canada, including in the Arctic, as Russia and China build up their own underwater fleets

Buster15

15th Mar 2023, 19:16

They would be a good partner and the other benefits and programs would be an asset to all the other participants, but they have expressed zero interest in nuclear subs and not sure the cost benefit of them would be worth it

Understood.
But up to relative recently neither had Australia.
Japan is at least as exposed to Chinese expansionism, Taiwan. It was just a thought.

Going Boeing

15th Mar 2023, 21:13

Understood.
But up to relative recently neither had Australia.
Japan is at least as exposed to Chinese expansionism, Taiwan. It was just a thought.

The area that Japanese submarines are required to operate is effectively on their doorstep step so the slower transit speed of their diesel electric submarines is not an issue. They are currently building very advanced submarines with the latest battery technology so I believe they won’t be interested in nuclear powered submarines.

tartare

15th Mar 2023, 23:11

Gosh - watching Keating last night on 7:30 on AUKUS was a lot to stomach.
A once great man utterly out of touch... does he not get that the most likely scenario for Chinese aggression against Australia is not a Chinese invasion of Australia as he asserts, but limited conventional strikes on Australian and US assets that might support defense of Taiwan i.e. Pine Gap, and then all bases in the top end.
They're never going to invade.
Nuclear powered, conventionally armed submarines acting in concert with their US peers certainly would factor into the Chinese assessment of whether or not to strike Australian targets.
The man's ad hominem personal insults and schoolyard name calling might have played well in the 90s, but today it undermines any credibility, and puts him in the same league as another prominent political figure whose first stop is abuse.
Newsroom contacts tell me they laugh before getting him on the phone for a `crazy man quote.'

Asturias56

16th Mar 2023, 09:17

Why would China hit targets in Australia - its further away than Finland. I think Rota in Spain is closer to China than Darwin.

Not_a_boffin

16th Mar 2023, 09:42

Just sayin’…..

Powerful article on state of Canadian submarine plans. Without urgent action, Canada may soon cease to operate a submarine force.

Canadian government noncommittal on new submarines as allies push forward with nuclear fleet plans

https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/canadian-government-noncommittal-on-new-submarines-as-allies-push-forward-with-nuclear-fleet-plans

Canadian government noncommittal on new submarines as allies push forward with nuclear fleet plans

Military commanders and experts say subs are critical to defending Canada, including in the Arctic, as Russia and China build up their own underwater fleets

They are really struggling with the U-boats.

golder

16th Mar 2023, 10:21

Why would China hit targets in Australia - its further away than Finland. I think Rota in Spain is closer to China than Darwin.
Maybe to try and take out the military equipment, in the US proxy state? That the US has forward deployed here. It's not easy for the US, running a hegemonic empire.

Asturias56

16th Mar 2023, 14:14

Maybe to try and take out the military equipment, in the US proxy state? That the US has forward deployed here. It's not easy for the US, running a hegemonic empire.

hell - all they need to do is stop buying Australian - the economy would be on its knees in a few months, Labour would be in and goodbye AUKUS

ORAC

16th Mar 2023, 14:42

Hansard have corrected the transcript of the Defence Minister's AUKUS Parliamentary statement to clear up confusion.
.
The first Australian SSN-AUKUS will be built in South Australia, not in Barrow.

All nuclear reactors will be built / assembled in the UK.

rattman

16th Mar 2023, 19:46

hell - all they need to do is stop buying Australian - the economy would be on its knees in a few months, Labour would be in and goodbye AUKUS

They did try that, it didn't work. The chinese citizens froze in the dark. They stopped buying coal and guess what the australian coal was sold else where and either china had to buy poor qualitiy other coal or they got australian coal from 3rd party whit approprate markup. Now they willing to buy Australian coal again, theres very little available

tartare

16th Mar 2023, 22:26

Why would China hit targets in Australia - its further away than Finland. I think Rota in Spain is closer to China than Darwin.Not sure if you're being ironic but in case not - for those not familiar with the detail, there is every likelihood that in the event of a conflict over Taiwan, the US would seek to disperse to bases in the top end of Australia.
US Air Force assets already rotate through RAAF bases here (B-52s, B-2s, B-1s, F-22s etc have all visited).
There are also 1,000+ US marines in Darwin (correct me if I'm wrong on latest numbers).
I have seen suggestions that Australia could suddenly face a request by the US to host upwards of 250,000 troops.
In addition, Pine Gap near Alice Springs would be critical in monitoring any conflict - it downlinks SIGINT and IMINT from US satellites that watch the region - and sends it back to Fort Meade and Chantilly.
Harold E Holt Naval Communications Station near Exmouth in WA is also crucial in providing very low frequency coms to US and Australian submarines.
And JORN, the Jindalee over the horizon radar network uses large transmitter, receivers at various locations in remote Australia , which can effectively watch air and sea-surface activity reportedly to Indonesia - possibly further.
I'd suggest that if China was really serious about taking Taiwan, it would either target some or all of these facilities pre-emptively with conventional strikes, or it would consider doing so as part of second, or third wave strikes.
I think it's unlikely it'd break the taboo and use nuclear weapons.
All of these mainland Australia locations are easily within range of the DF-4 and DF-31.
There is also ongoing interdiction or partial blockade of our sea lanes (how many days of petrol do we have in reserve?!) and sabotage of undersea cables to consider.
If a war looks likely in the South China sea - then Australia definitely is a potential target for discrete Chinese strikes on some or all of these facilities, not Australian urban centres, or a land invasion by Chinese ground forces as Keating alludes to.
He knows that, and is being disingenuous in implying otherwise.

rattman

17th Mar 2023, 03:35

FMS for 200 tomahawks has been granted. These are specifically VLS versions for the hobart Air Warfare Destroyers

Lookleft

17th Mar 2023, 03:40

hell - all they need to do is stop buying Australian - the economy would be on its knees in a few months, Labour would be in and goodbye AUKUS

You don't seem to know much about Australian politics especially suggesting that the Labor party would get rid of AUKUS.

rattman

17th Mar 2023, 04:36

You don't seem to know much about Australian politics especially suggesting that the Labor party would get rid of AUKUS.

Hes a dumbo theres no "labour" party in australia and as I said they already tried and come back begging

Asturias56

17th Mar 2023, 08:49

Labour or Labor - still the same folks

They'll ditch AUKUS when the bills start rolling in

rattman

17th Mar 2023, 09:26

Labour or Labor - still the same folks

They'll ditch AUKUS when the bills start rolling in

All I can say is lucky the adults are back in power, LNP worked hard to destroy the country. Hopefully labor is around long enough to fix it

Buster Hyman

17th Mar 2023, 10:22

All I can say is lucky the adults are back in power, LNP worked hard to destroy the country. Hopefully labor is around long enough to fix it
Wow, just wow! :rolleyes:

Lonewolf_50

17th Mar 2023, 15:56

FMS for 200 tomahawks has been granted. These are specifically VLS versions for the hobart Air Warfare Destroyers
Sone info on that in this news story.
US agrees to sell 220 Tomahawk missiles to Australia | CNN (https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/16/australia/australia-tomahawk-missiles-aukus-intl-hnk/index.html)The US State Department has approved Australia’s request to buy up to 220 long-range Tomahawk cruise missiles, making it only the second US ally to obtain the US-made weapon after the United Kingdom.
According to a statement from the Defense Security Cooperation Agency (https://www.dsca.mil/press-media/major-arms-sales/australia-tomahawk-weapon-system), the deal will cost as much as 1.3 billion Australian dollars ($895 million), including maintenance and logistical support.
“The proposed sale will improve Australia’s capability to interoperate with US maritime forces and other allied forces as well as its ability to contribute to missions of mutual interest,” the statement added.
CNN, consider the source.

golder

17th Mar 2023, 16:23

Would it be better from Fox?

But it is accurate.
https://www.dsca.mil/press-media/major-arms-sales/australia-tomahawk-weapon-system
PDF Version
Press Release - Australia 23-02 CN.pdf (https://www.dsca.mil/sites/default/files/mas/Press%20Release%20-%20Australia%2023-02%20CN.pdf)
Media/Public Contact
[email protected]
Transmittal No
23-02WASHINGTON, March 16, 2023 - The State Department has made a determination approving a possible Foreign Military Sale to the Government of Australia of Tomahawk Block V and Block IV All Up Rounds

(AUR) and related equipment for an estimated cost of $895 million. The Defense Security Cooperation Agency delivered the required certification notifying Congress of this possible sale today.

Wow, just wow! :rolleyes:
Same circus, just different clowns.

pr00ne

18th Mar 2023, 06:17

hell - all they need to do is stop buying Australian - the economy would be on its knees in a few months, Labour would be in and goodbye AUKUS

Er, Labour ARE in power in Australia!

And they are firmly behind AUKUS.

golder

18th Mar 2023, 07:31

Er, Labour ARE in power in Australia!

And they are firmly behind AUKUS.
Thanks, I missed correcting that

Asturias56

18th Mar 2023, 08:37

they are today but in the future???

golder

18th Mar 2023, 09:32

they are today but in the future???
What about when we become a fascist republic? Mate, stop digging your hole...move on.

ORAC

19th Mar 2023, 15:45

Sir Humphrey:

The Pinstripedline analysis of the AUKUS SSN deal, why it provides both long term opportunity for the UK but could also be a 'policy albatross' and why Australia may supplant the UK as the key US ally is now live.

https://tinyurl.com/2b8mmh5f

rattman

20th Mar 2023, 04:40

Cloudee

20th Mar 2023, 06:12

Same circus, just different clowns.
As a clown, Morrison was in a class of his own!

golder

20th Mar 2023, 07:11

Going Boeing

21st Mar 2023, 00:29

Missed an interview with Richard Marles, Australian defence minister. He said that the first virginia's would be around 2030 and be 13 years old. That would put it at the Washington SSN 787, Block 3.

That would Washington, Colorado and Indiana to australia with South Dakota and Delaware with the possible 2 additionals. All block 3

It would be unlikely to be USS South Dakota as that vessel has been fitted with a large number of new technologies that are being developed for future Virginias, Columbias & SSN(X) classes.
https://news.usni.org/2016/03/28/submarines-to-become-stealthier-through-acoustic-superiority-upgrades-operational-concepts

Posted by golder: “From what I saw, the first would be secondhand and block 3 fits, With the remainder new build. though not with vertical launch.”

All Virginias have vertical launch - Blocks 1 & 2 via 12 individual launch tubes, Blocks 3 & on via 2 Virginia Payload Tubes (VPT’s) mounted in the bow section. Obviously, the RAN won’t be getting the Block 5’s Virginia Payload Module which has 4 VPT’s that are additional to the bow mounted ones.

I don’t understand the speculation that the possible two extra Virginias would be new builds as these vessels would just be required to fill in until sufficient AUKUS SSNs have been built. The RAN would only need 2nd hand Virginias with sufficient reactor life to fill in any production gap.

Sky News are saying that the Collins class are getting Tomahawk missiles, it would be interesting to find out if this means that production of the tube launched version has been restarted or whether there’s sufficient parts in the USN inventory available to modify the recently ordered 20 RGM-109E Block 4 missiles to the UGM-109 standard.

https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/defence-and-foreign-affairs/australia-set-to-acquire-longrange-missiles-on-collinsclass-submarines/video/0ffb03d4ef07faa36a3f91b3041dd7ba

Lookleft

21st Mar 2023, 06:01

they are today but in the future???

Like I said you know very little about Australian politics with a statement like that. I think you need to be more concerned with the return of a Labour Party in the UK.

Video Mixdown

21st Mar 2023, 06:59

Like I said you know very little about Australian politics with a statement like that. I think you need to be more concerned with the return of a Labour Party in the UK.
That individual’s posts always seek to undermine Western military developments, and AUKUS is just the current target. I have long doubted any real connection to the UK.

Asturias56

21st Mar 2023, 09:02

"That individual’s posts always seek to undermine Western military developments,"

No - I point out what is actually happening

I have bemoaned the dreadfully slow delivery of more UK F-35; the lack of investment in SSN's, and the desperate need for for more Poseidon's

I also post items such as the news today that the MoD are now forecasting the AJAX APV's will be 17 years late. That is a fact - if you want mindless cheerleading go to Jet Blast

rattman

21st Mar 2023, 09:55

"That individual’s posts always seek to undermine Western military developments,"

No - I point out what is actually happening

Bah you make **** and talk trash. Your a conservative shill who doesn't know **** about australian politics, I mean cant even spell the labor parties name correctly

Asturias56

21st Mar 2023, 10:04

Aways nice to hear the authentic voice of a True Australian Ratty!!! :ok:

golder

21st Mar 2023, 11:21

It would be unlikely to be USS South Dakota as that vessel has been fitted with a large number of new technologies that are being developed for future Virginias, Columbias & SSN(X) classes.
https://news.usni.org/2016/03/28/submarines-to-become-stealthier-through-acoustic-superiority-upgrades-operational-concepts

Posted by golder: “From what I saw, the first would be secondhand and block 3 fits, With the remainder new build. though not with vertical launch.”

All Virginias have vertical launch - Blocks 1 & 2 via 12 individual launch tubes, Blocks 3 & on via 2 Virginia Payload Tubes (VPT’s) mounted in the bow section. Obviously, the RAN won’t be getting the Block 5’s Virginia Payload Module which has 4 VPT’s that are additional to the bow mounted ones.

I don’t understand the speculation that the possible two extra Virginias would be new builds as these vessels would just be required to fill in until sufficient AUKUS SSNs have been built. The RAN would only need 2nd hand Virginias with sufficient reactor life to fill in any production gap.

Sky News are saying that the Collins class are getting Tomahawk missiles, it would be interesting to find out if this means that production of the tube launched version has been restarted or whether there’s sufficient parts in the USN inventory available to modify the recently ordered 20 RGM-109E Block 4 missiles to the UGM-109 standard.

https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/defence-and-foreign-affairs/australia-set-to-acquire-longrange-missiles-on-collinsclass-submarines/video/0ffb03d4ef07faa36a3f91b3041dd7ba
It was a video interview. I can't find it restated in text. I heard it as just the first one was secondhand? I may have been wrong. every reference I now googled, points to more being secondhand.
They talk about some secondhand and some new. The first secondhand has 20 years life left and may have been where I was confused..
As to vertical launch I think they mean the block 5 extension is out, in the new builds.
"The Virginia Class submarine is already heavily armed. Each boat can carry up to 37 torpedo-sized weapons, such as Tomahawk cruise missiles. Twelve of these slots are in two vertical launch systems (VLS), known as the Virginia Payload Tubes. The new Block V (5) batch of submarines will add 28 more slots in its VLS. This is an increase of 76% of torpedo-sized weapons."

Being a sceptic, it doesn't exclude the possibility of the 'new' being a PR exercise?

rattman

21st Mar 2023, 19:47

It was a video interview. I can't find it restated in text. I heard it as just the first one was secondhand? I may have been wrong. every reference I now googled, points to more being secondhand.
They talk about some secondhand and some new. The first secondhand has 20 years life left and may have been where I was confused..
As to vertical launch I think they mean the block 5 extension is out, in the new builds.
"The Virginia Class submarine is already heavily armed. Each boat can carry up to 37 torpedo-sized weapons, such as Tomahawk cruise missiles. Twelve of these slots are in two vertical launch systems (VLS), known as the Virginia Payload Tubes. The new Block V (5) batch of submarines will add 28 more slots in its VLS. This is an increase of 76% of torpedo-sized weapons."

Being a sceptic, it doesn't exclude the possibility of the 'new' being a PR exercise?

Interview I saw said 13 years old, which whey would have be the oldest they could if they come in 2030 and are expected to serve to 2050. Also made a comment about no VPM's so they can be prioritised to the US subs, I would imaged the 2 major differences between the block 3's and blk 4 and 5. Block 4 has been refined and needs 1 less maintainance period compared to a block 3 and the 5 has refit and VPM's advantage. Maybe these situations are why the US have agreed to second hand block 3.

Maybe 20 which would still put it around early block 3's might be doable as the subs probably wont be have as hard of service life in australian service as they would in USN they maybe able to push the 35 years on the reactors to 40 +

golder

22nd Mar 2023, 01:05

I would take them at their word of 33 years. Until you see them getting more service life. As to gentle life, that hasn't been our way previously. What I am taken aback with. Is the secrecy over cost. 268-368 to 2050, without a breakdown to be seen. When it is nearly a full year revenue, It should be accounted for, $486.3 billion in 2019–20

Bug

22nd Mar 2023, 02:08

Interview I saw said 13 years old, which whey would have be the oldest they could if they come in 2030 and are expected to serve to 2050. Also made a comment about no VPM's so they can be prioritised to the US subs, I would imaged the 2 major differences between the block 3's and blk 4 and 5. Block 4 has been refined and needs 1 less maintainance period compared to a block 3 and the 5 has refit and VPM's advantage. Maybe these situations are why the US have agreed to second hand block 3.

Maybe 20 which would still put it around early block 3's might be doable as the subs probably wont be have as hard of service life in australian service as they would in USN they maybe able to push the 35 years on the reactors to 40 +

I know next to nothing about nuclear reactors, but I assume with a nuclear powered engine it doesn't matter how hard or easy you use it, the nuclear fuel decays at a certain rate whether you use it to power the submarine or not. The reactor power is sort of fixed and only modulated by lowering/raising control rods that in effect just waste the energy that is produced if lowered.
But, I may be totally wrong.

Edit 23.3.23 - Have rethought this and am wrong - if reduced volume of chain reaction with control rods, then less nuclear fuel is consumed.

ORAC

22nd Mar 2023, 07:29

Found elsewhere - it would appear the loge of the current reactors is designed around the life of the boat - not the other way round…

“Sub vet here, currently work for the Navy maintaining them. A submarine life is calculated based on its number of dives. Very much like airplanes. When they design the reactor for a submarine and its expected life they calculate how many dives they think they need to get out of it and design a reactor life based on this. For the los angeles class this meant an expected once in a lifetime refuel. For the newer virginia class, better fuel loading technology means they expect to go the entire submarine life without refueling. But the hull and expected number of missions stayed about the same.

There are examples of ships that had to be retired with a lot of fuel left, because the hull was evaluated to be done. And it’s possible to use that reactor still. But once a ship is scheduled for decommissioning, the first thing they do is start cannibalizing components for use elsewhere in the fleet. So keeping high performance reactors and their high performance components operating just to make power would not make good sense. Something like 60 percent of the entire us navy maintenance budget is for submarines alone.

In a perfect world reactor life would be managed to match the hull life exactly. And most of the time it does come very close, because as the boat gets old they start managing it tighter and tighter. But failing that, our next priority is to manage our resources to keep the other boats ready to go and repaired quickly. And that means getting the old ones decommisioned.”

Also interesting is this paper, particularly concerning testing, which explains the issues with aging Life of Ship reactors.

https://uploads.fas.org/media/Life-of-the-Ship-Reactors-and-Accelerated-Testing.pdf

Not_a_boffin

22nd Mar 2023, 09:52

It's a mix of different life-enders. Overall, you have an expected in-service life of the boat (which is usually exceeded). Within that life you tend to have separate drivers for different elements of the boat.

The hull fatigue life is driven by the total number of dives - but it's a complex equation that changes depending on the operational use of the boat. Slow dives to deepish depths will have less of an effect than fast changes of depth across a number of depths.

Then you have the core/fuel life. That tends to be based on assumptions as to time spent at various power levels - with a bit of non-linear reactor chemistry thrown in.

Then you have componentry within the NSRP which can be subject to embrittlement, fatigue or other degradation - some of which can be predicted, some not. Because its within the RC its a beggar to fix, so usually means end of life. Lots of the PWR1 boats suffered these sorts of issues.

Finally, you get into things like cable life. Cable insulation has a finite life - once you need to start recabling a boat, the sheer cost of it is usually a life ender too.

None of the above are particularly interrelated, so its a complex balance across many factors.

ORAC

22nd Mar 2023, 11:39

so, being slightly cynical, they'll pass on the older Block 3s as they start because coming maintenance intensive, meaning they'll be able to concentrate their cash and manpower keeping the Block 4/5s etc serviceable and at sea. But the sale price should be much lower as a result.

Sort of like why old Jaguars and Mercedes go at such low second hand prices. Great cars - but the running costs can be crippling if something breaks so you have to factor it into the price you pay.

ORAC

2nd Apr 2023, 14:34

https://twitter.com/alexluck9/status/1642237085041168389?s=61&t=rmEeUn68HhlFHGKbTPQr_A

Just to put some more context on these issues, as they stand right now (and attract some interest in AU for the desired used Virginia SSN to be bought). There are three principal factors in play over the next few years:

It will take five years for two shipbuilders that build Virginia-class attack boats to deliver two submarines a year, according to US Navy’s estimates of production schedule. The two yards are currently on a pace to deliver about 1.2 submarines a year.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1642237085041168389.html

Going Boeing

3rd Apr 2023, 01:49

Vice Admiral Mead has confirmed that all 6 Collins submarines will go through the LOTE. It looks like the aim is to have 8 submarines (with the first 2 Virginia’s) ASAP. It’s likely that the third Virginia will arrive late 2030’s as the first Collins (Farncomb) is decommissioned circa 2038.

Sky News - Massive Opportunity AUKUS Jobs

ORAC

5th Apr 2023, 09:09

https://twitter.com/navylookout/status/1643528942760910850?s=61&t=rmEeUn68HhlFHGKbTPQr_A

🇨🇦.Royal Canadian Navyt wants to buy up to 12 conventional submarines to replace the 4 ex-RN Victoria class.

The budget for Canadian Patrol Submarine Project is approx $60Bn

https://www.standard-freeholder.com/news/national/defence-watch/royal-canadian-navy-pitches-60-billion-submarine-purchase-say-defence-and-industry-sources

petit plateau

5th Apr 2023, 17:40

🇨🇦.Royal Canadian Navyt wants to buy up to 12 conventional submarines to replace the 4 ex-RN Victoria class.

The budget for Canadian Patrol Submarine Project is approx $60Bn

https://www.standard-freeholder.com/news/national/defence-watch/royal-canadian-navy-pitches-60-billion-submarine-purchase-say-defence-and-industry-sources

Isn't it a bit late for April Fool entries ?

ORAC

6th Apr 2023, 09:20

https://twitter.com/harry_lye/status/1643735171588317184?s=61&t=rmEeUn68HhlFHGKbTPQr_A

Canada planning a purchase of 12 subs for around $60 billion.

So what options are on the table?

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1643735171588317184.html

ORAC

9th Apr 2023, 10:51

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/seabed-espionage-variant-of-virginia-class-submarine-in-development

Seabed Espionage Variant Of Virginia Class Submarine In Development

Seabed warfare was once an obscure topic mainly reserved for national security circles, espionage thrillers, and websites like the one you are reading. In recent years, it has exploded into the global consciousness. This has been spurred primarily by Russia's clear designs on being able to wreak havoc on critical undersea infrastructure. China is also active (https://apnews.com/article/matsu-taiwan-internet-cables-cut-china-65f10f5f73a346fa788436366d7a7c70) in the area, as well. Now, the events surrounding the Nordstream 2 pipeline (https://www.politico.eu/article/nord-stream-gas-pipeline-attack-investigation-difficult-to-confirm-russia-ukrain-war-energy/) have made this realm of warfare a household conversation.

Foreign actors are not alone when it comes to seabed warfare capabilities. The United States also has abilities in this shadowy domain and it looks like it is now working to expand those via a customized version of the Virginia class nuclear fast attack submarine.....

Today, the U.S. already has one submarine that was purpose-built for these types of tasks, the highly modified Seawolf class USS Jimmy Carter (SSN-23), which you can read more about here (https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/14309/why-the-navys-top-spy-submarine-flew-a-pirate-flag-while-pulling-into-port) and here (https://jalopnik.com/the-navys-most-shadowy-spy-is-450-feet-long-named-aft-1699659302). This boat, which is markedly longer than the two other Seawolf class submarines, is among America's most prized weapons and is known to have accomplished critical but highly classified operations in its now nearly 20-year-long career.

Now there appears to be a new seabed warfare super-sub in the works in the form of the aforementioned one-off Virginia class variant.

In a slide (seen at 22:00 in the video below) from a presentation given to the Connecticut Business and Industry Alliance's "Economic Summit + Outlook" by Electric Boat president Kevin Graney on Jan. 21, 2022, we see a rendering of a new Virginia class variant. In the presentation, he details the future evolution of the Virginia class SSN and clearly states that a one-of-a-kind seabed warfare capable sub-type is being developed.

Graney says: "We're developing in the third picture a seabed warfare variant and this ship is designed to interact with the sea floor. And this design we'll repurpose some of those missile tubes that I refer to in the VPM [Virginia Payload Module] design to perform those missions."....

The Navy's latest budget request for the 2024 Fiscal Year, released last month, clearly outlines that funding is being requested for this unique variant. It also gives information on what its adapted mission section will be called:

"FY 2024 funds two VIRGINIA Class Submarines (VCS) in different configurations; one is the Modified VIRGINIA Class Subsea and Seabed Warfare (Mod VA SSW) and the second is Virginia Payload Module (VPM); funding also provides Advance Procurement (AP) for future SSNs and EOQ [economic order quantities] funds for a future multi-year procurement."

So it looks like the modification for this subclass is called Virginia Subsea and Seabed Warfare or Mod VA SSW......

It isn't clear exactly how long it would take to fully develop and deploy this new Virginia sub-class, but the Navy expects to take delivery of the first Block V boat in 2028. So, one would think it may be possible by end of the decade or early in the 2030s, depending on how far along the concept is already, for the modified Block V sub-type to arrive. If it were to enter service in 2030, the USS Jimmy Carter would be 25 years old at that time....

chopper2004

24th Apr 2023, 19:22

The ADF did look at B-21 but opted for Lon range stand off ASMs instead

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/australia-held-talks-about-buying-b-21-raider-stealth-bombers?fbclid=IwAR3QMs6wX9xBP1-jZh7kKRoVF9aaNUY9uC13lVDq2ECkJTEFYIKCpklx36g

cheers

Asturias56

25th Apr 2023, 07:06

8.46 The Review has undertaken detailed discussions in Australia and the United States in relation to the B-21 Raider as a potential capability option for Australia.
In light of our strategic circumstances and the approach to Defence strategy and capability development outlined in this Review, we do not consider the B-21 to
be a suitable option for consideration for acquisition.

Buster Hyman

25th Apr 2023, 10:01

Bearing in mind that there's many, many hoops to jump & modifications etc, etc. Could the F-35B come into the equation as launch platforms off the LHD's?

rattman

25th Apr 2023, 22:50

Bearing in mind that there's many, many hoops to jump & modifications etc, etc. Could the F-35B come into the equation as launch platforms off the LHD's?

Back in the dunno the date but when Canberra came to town for its publicity tour I got a captains tour with XO and some of the media. That was a big question he said modifications had happened that removed some aspects of aviation like, smaller armories, removal of some ammunition elevators conversion of JP-5 to diesel. Nothing which is unfixable, the big thing its designed for harriers, fat amy is triple the size and and landing and take off ops where they pounding the same part of the deck all day every day is going to cause massive issues with structural strength. Also note at the time the deck couldn't take the jet blast of the fat amy engines. That has been somewhat fixed as decks were covered in new material to allow it take the lesser jet exhaust of V-22's. How much if any overlap with fat amy there is

Theres this video on it, generally well regarded
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QIA4bn4Pvc&t=948s

Personally if/when the spanish prove its practical, until then its a pipe dream and a waste of resources. Only real way I see australia getting in naval aviation would be buying a squadron of B and flying them of the british carriers and US Landing ships as a supporting force

Going Boeing

27th Apr 2023, 02:12

My understanding is that the internal configuration of the LHD’s is strongly biased towards supporting the amphibious operations and would need extensive modifications to support F-35B’s - much larger aviation fuel storage, weapons storage and lifts, strengthening & heat proofing the main deck, etc. It’s so extensive that it would almost certainly be cheaper to build another hull that is designed for fixed wing aviation and leave the 2 LHD’s with full amphibious capabilities.

Also, the F-35B has significantly less range than the other models so, it would have to be provided with tanker support to be able to conduct operations at a range that doesn’t put the ship into range of enemy forces - these ships have limited defensive capabilities. Overall, it would tie up a lot of resources which would be better utilised by sending in RAAF missile trucks (Super Hornets & P-8’s supported by F-35’s). The Ghost Bat will also be a cost effective force multiplier.

Going Boeing

3rd May 2023, 22:56

It’s time to inject some really corny humour into this serious discussion.

https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1200x1142/img_3614_1d7563a2ab2f89cb8695e5065ba3adfcad77a3e7.jpeg

ORAC

10th May 2023, 07:47

https://twitter.com/redunley/status/1656191181460766721?s=61&t=rmEeUn68HhlFHGKbTPQr_A

I have finally got out of teaching (on Australian naval ship design!) and had time to read the ANAO report on the Hunter Class frigate. A 🧵of few highlights and thoughts 1/…

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1656191181460766721.html

rattman

10th May 2023, 09:41

I have finally got out of teaching (on Australian naval ship design!) and had time to read the ANAO report on the Hunter Class frigate. A 🧵of few highlights and thoughts 1/…

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1656191181460766721.html

God Damn that was brutal, hunter class is dead I think. My money the Naval ship building will kill hunter and we will go either off the shelf with the Fremm / Constellation (copy and paste the constellation) or something in F100 / F5000 for a commonality with the Hobart Class AWD

Going Boeing

11th May 2023, 23:06

It’s a very damming report but the development of the Hunter class is now so advanced that I can’t see it being abandoned for another option. Due to the necessity of getting the Anzac’s replacements built as quickly as possible, Hunter construction will have to continue but the number may be reduced due to cost.

The Type 26 design has a very quiet propulsion system which is a big driver of the high acquisition cost. This is why the Royal Navy is limiting the Type 26 to 8 ships and building 5 much cheaper Type 31’s (General Purpose frigates) to complete the replacement of their Type 23’s. This low noise level will make the Hunter class a superb ASW frigate (with substantial AAW capability) but also, the large hull gives a lot of flexibility for future growth or subsequent use for other roles. BAES has proposed an Air Warfare Destroyer variant with as many as 128 missile launchers - a very capable platform. The savings in support and logistics of having all the Tier 1 warships based on the same hull and propulsion system will have significant savings in support and logistics with improved availability.

The selection of this design was a cluster f**k but where we are now means that we have to proceed as fast as possible and make the most out of what looks like a very good design. The largest amount of the re-design work to integrate the CEAFAR 2 radar, SAAB 9LV & AEGIS combat system is very advanced and this configuration would also be used in subsequent versions.

Asturias56

12th May 2023, 07:21

Putting the words "BAES" and "significant savings" in the same paragraph must be an error..................... :E

tartare

12th May 2023, 23:54

Personally, no way on earth I'd want to be on any surface ship in a real shooting war now.
Big, fat, slow moving target.

ORAC

18th May 2023, 06:32

https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2023/05/17/pentagon-seeks-authority-to-transfer-nuclear-submarines-to-australia/

Pentagon seeks authority to transfer nuclear submarines to Australia

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Department of Defense asked Congress to authorize the transfer of nuclear-powered submarines to Australia as part of the trilateral AUKUS agreement (https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2023/03/13/leaders-unveil-a-circuitous-path-to-nuke-powered-australian-subs/) with the U.K.

Three legislative proposals, submitted on May 2 and first posted online Tuesday, would greenlight the sale of two Virginia-class submarines to Australia, permit the training of Australian nationals for submarine work and allow Canberra to invest in the U.S. submarine industrial base.

Rep. Joe Courtney of Connecticut, the top Democrat on the Armed Services Committee’s sea power panel, praised the proposals in a statement to Defense News, saying “I look forward to working with all my colleagues in Congress to fulfill these goals.”

“The Department of Defense’s legislative proposals are the latest example of President [Joe] Biden’s commitment to fulfilling the AUKUS agreement,” said Courtney. “Importantly, the proposals spell out a clear path forward to facilitate the transfer of Virginia-class submarines to Australia while ensuring we have the necessary authorities to accept the Australian Government’s investments to enhance our submarine industrial base capacity and provide training for Australian personnel.”

AUKUS stipulates that Australia will buy at least three and as many as five Virginia-class submarines in the 2030s as part of phase two of the agreement, giving Congress more than a decade to authorize the sale. This year’s proposal, which the Pentagon hopes will become part of the fiscal 2024 National Defense Authorization Act, asks that Congress approve just two of those submarines “without a deadline to consummate the transfers and without specifying the specific vessels to be transferred.”

The proposal argues that this “small amount of flexibility is necessary” since the transfers depend on Australian readiness to operate the submarines, which will involve developing Australia’s submarine industrial base through training and appropriate shipyard infrastructure.

To that end, a second legislative proposal would authorize U.S. defense service exports directly to Australia’s private sector in order to train its own submarine workers.

“This development must begin as soon as possible for Australia to become ready to own and safely operate these submarines in a manner that both maintains the highest non-proliferation standards and strengthens the global non-proliferation regime,” the Pentagon argues in the proposal.

Finally, the Pentagon is also asking Congress for permission to accept Australian payments to bolster the U.S. submarine industrial base. Australia has offered to make an undisclosed sum of investments in the U.S. submarine industrial base as part of AUKUS (https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2023/03/15/how-the-us-plans-to-expand-its-submarine-industrial-base-for-aukus/)…….

Asturias56

18th May 2023, 07:54

Rep. Joe Courtney of Connecticut, the top Democrat on the Armed Services Committee’s sea power panel, praised the proposals in a statement to Defense News, saying “I look forward to working with all my colleagues in Congress to fulfill these goals.”

Now there's a big surprise..............

"U.S. Navy submarines are built by General Dynamics' Electric Boat Division (GD/EB) of Groton, CT, and Quonset Point, RI, and Huntington Ingalls Industries' Newport News Shipbuilding (HII/NNS), of Newport News, VA."

Going Boeing

25th May 2023, 04:15

There’s some discussion in this paper (from page 14 onwards) about the effect of the RAN acquiring 3-5 Virginia’s.

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/RL32418

golder

25th May 2023, 07:12

Full Committee Hearing on Modernizing U.S. Arms Exports and a Stronger AUKUS
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6j-iSRZacg

Asturias56

25th May 2023, 08:50

There’s some discussion in this paper (from page 14 onwards) about the effect of the RAN acquiring 3-5 Virginia’s.

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/RL32418

That's a well argued paper with lots of info and a reasoned discussion of both sides of the argument from a US view - thanks!!

rattman

2nd Jun 2023, 21:08

Hudson institute did a panel on AUKUS, Panel was Former prime mininister Scott Morrision and Boris Johnson and former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo

https://youtu.be/I2WuyL5xp5g

Asturias56

3rd Jun 2023, 07:36

Hudson institute did a panel on AUKUS, Panel was Former prime mininister Scott Morrision and Boris Johnson and former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo

https://youtu.be/I2WuyL5xp5g

"Simply the Best!" :p

Going Boeing

6th Jun 2023, 22:12

The following is from a well informed source on another forum - I didn’t expect the third boat to be a new build.

”Australian SSN Update:

Of the 3 submarines to be transferred from the US from 2032.
1st and 2nd will have at least 20 years remaining service life after transfer and will be transferred from the USN fleet.
Vessels to be transferred is under negotiation.

(As the Virginias have a 33 year service life, that means the transferred subs will have to have entered service from 2019 or later. So will be a Virginia III or IV.)

3rd Sub will not be transferred from USN but will be a new build straight from the shipyard. As the USN has transitioned to Block V production, Australia would have to specifically request an earlier Block if they did not want to take a Block V.

Source: Vice Admiral Mead
Senate Estimates 31/05/2023
Transcript not yet available on Senate Website.”

Asturias56

7th Jun 2023, 08:36

Guess it's to smooth the eventual retirement profile - you wouldn't want all 3 boats running out over say the same 5 years or so

golder

7th Jun 2023, 09:01

https://www.aph.gov.au/News_and_Events/Watch_Read_Listen/ParlView/video/1220083
above statement made, starting time stamp 11:18

artee

7th Jun 2023, 09:53

Rex Patrick, a former Senator (South Australia) and former submariner, is not keen on getting 2 second hand Virginias:AUKUS Fissile or Fizzer? (https://michaelwest.com.au/aukus-fissile-or-fizzer-rex-patrick-on-the-trouble-with-virginia-class-second-hand-submarines/)"Former submariner Rex Patrick looks under the hood of the second-hand Virginia-class nuclear submarines to see what Australia has bought. Even AUKUS fans might not like what they see.

February 2011 is a time many in the Royal Australian Navy (RAN) would certainly prefer to forget. Within the month, the Defence Minister Stephen Smith had announced a number of trouble-plagued military landing craft would be disposed of and a review would be conducted into Support Ship Repair and Management Practices. Four months later Chief of Navy, Vice Admiral Russ Crane, was gone.

On February 3, 2011, the biggest storm to have ever hit Queensland crossed the Australian coastline and carved a swath of destruction across the state. The storm displaced 10,000 people and caused $3.5 billion in damage. And the Navy was unable to respond with any amphibious ships to help Queenslanders.

On September 26, 2010, the Defence Minister had been advised that two former US Navy ships, HMAS Manoora and HMAS Kanimbla, were in what was described as an ‘operational pause’. By December the decision was made that Manoora would be decommissioned, although that news never made it to the Minister until January 28, 2011, when a tropical depression was forming off Queensland. The Minister was also advised that Kanimbla was to be unavailable to the RAN for 18 months.

That left HMAS Tobruk, a 30 year old ship, as the standby ship. On February 28, the Navy advised the Minister it was on 48 hours’ notice to go to sea. By February 2, with Yasi now a category 5 cyclone, Tobruk entered dock for emergence repairs. It left the dock two days later but was unfit to sail for any of the Yasi response.

The Navy had failed Australians."...

rattman

7th Jun 2023, 10:12

https://www.aph.gov.au/News_and_Events/Watch_Read_Listen/ParlView/video/1220083
above statement made, starting time stamp 11:18

damn just watched, one of the guys on the oversight board of the DSR was secretary of defence for both the attack class and hunter. Man more i hear so many ****ty public servants are just getting promoted

golder

7th Jun 2023, 10:16

AUKUS Fissile or Fizzer? (https://michaelwest.com.au/aukus-fissile-or-fizzer-rex-patrick-on-the-trouble-with-virginia-class-second-hand-submarines/)His unclassified opinion on his blog. Is of the same value as ours. Things have changed, since he served as a sparky on the Oberons. With a 20 year life remaining. They have to be build 2020 or later. Which puts them at block 4.

ORAC

8th Jun 2023, 11:45

https://twitter.com/gabriel64869839/status/1666528735703584772?s=61&t=rmEeUn68HhlFHGKbTPQr_A

I saw image this morning but, honestly, it left me dubious and i did not share. But it reportedly does originate from a BAE Systems PowerPoint used in a talk which involved Robert May, Engineering Manager Type 26, and Neil Griffiths, Technical Authority Future Projects, so...

It seems still very notional, to point of looking "fishy". Hull used in the graphic seems literally like old Type 45 drawings have been modded, to me. Weapon system at base of mast is almost certainly laser to be tested later this year on Type 45/notional operational derivative .

Yep, it's in the BAE PowerPoint. Doesn't add anything and doesn't mean the concept image is in any way "mature", but still: duly noted! First ever Type 83 image to be shared, as far as i know.

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1089x566/image_2d5bbc39cc1c5cdc3f7f126c08063241fe16f136.png

https://www.defenceconnect.com.au/maritime-antisub/12103-bae-presentation-reveals-interesting-next-gen-destroyer-concept

I spy with my little eye: BAE presentation reveals interesting next-gen Destroyer concept

Going Boeing

9th Jun 2023, 11:35

I got the impression from the article that it’s based on a Type 26/Hunter hull & drivetrain. With all the design work for integration of the CEAFAR radars, 9LV & AEGIS combat systems already nearing completion , it reduces the design work required to develop an Air Warfare Destroyer version with a large number of VLS cells.

It looks like a serious BAES proposal to counter the Navantia offer to build 3 more Hobart class AWD’s for the RAN. I suspect that if it gains legs and is approved, 3 ASW Hunters (Batch 1) will be built and then the remaining 6 will alternate between AWD & ASW versions. After the 9 planned hulls are completed, they would be looking at possibly more ASW versions and replacing the existing AWD’s (Hobart’s) which would result in good economies for the RAN’s logistical support as all the Tier 1 vessels would have many common components.

Whilst there’s no detailed data in the public domain, there are reports that the CEAFAR combination of L & S band AESA radars on the Anzacs are performing significantly better than the SPY-1D’s on the Hobarts so this combination of sensors and large weapon load would make a very capable destroyer. With all the joint work going on under the AUKUS umbrella, it’s quite possible that the RN takes this design as their future Type 83.

ORAC

10th Jun 2023, 21:31

https://twitter.com/gabriel64869839/status/1667625033068425220?s=61&t=rmEeUn68HhlFHGKbTPQr_A

Accepting its sized around the Dreadnaught PWR3 reactor, and the stealth lessons learnt on the profile of the Astute requires it be similar - SSN AUKUS is going to be big with a lot of room for VLS and an extra large UUV bay…
https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1088x409/image_d355d41f832b4e6b1486b2224c2eea033fc17a78.png

Comment from thread: “Essentially a blended design of Virgina block V5 and Astute“.

ORAC

13th Jun 2023, 21:50

https://twitter.com/navylookout/status/1668667103807778843?s=61&t=rmEeUn68HhlFHGKbTPQr_A

To meet the demand for future RN and Australian nuclear submarine reactors @RollsRoyceUK announces plans to double the size of its Raynesway facility in Derby and create 1,170 skilled jobs.

https://www.rolls-royce.com/media/our-stories/discover/2023/rr-submarines-to-create-jobs-and-expand-site-in-derby.aspx

Ninthace

14th Jun 2023, 12:01

Accepting its sized around the Dreadnaught PWR3 reactor, and the stealth lessons learnt on the profile of the Astute requires it be similar - SSN AUKUS is going to be big with a lot of room for VLS and an extra large UUV bay…

Will there be a moon pool and a talking dolphin?

ChrisJ800

14th Jun 2023, 13:46

This utube vid has a good walkaround of a Virginia class. The periscope is controlled with an X Box controller according to the fòotage.

https://youtu.be/Al7DqK0f8lI

rattman

14th Jun 2023, 20:03

This utube vid has a good walkaround of a Virginia class. The periscope is controlled with an X Box controller according to the fòotage.

https://youtu.be/Al7DqK0f8lI

Watching that the other day, interesting thing is its USS Indiana which is one of the rumored subs to be sold to Australia. Washington, Colorado, Indiania and south Dakota are allegedly the prime candidates. Delaware is maybe out because it has a unique configuration that was used for testing

Going Boeing

15th Jun 2023, 04:40

Watching that the other day, interesting thing is its USS Indiana which is one of the rumored subs to be sold to Australia. Washington, Colorado, Indiania and south Dakota are allegedly the prime candidates. Delaware is maybe out because it has a unique configuration that was used for testing
USS South Dakota (2nd last Block 3) is the unique boat with a lot of technologies being developed & tested for future Columbia, Virginia & SSN(X) classes. I believe that Delaware is standard.

ORAC

17th Jun 2023, 20:29

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1418x998/image_2638167ba85b87d58c3c42a8daf6030d21a81817.jpeg

golder

17th Jun 2023, 21:07

It shows it well. The image is from this paper.
https://www.defence.gov.au/about/taskforces/aukus

Asturias56

18th Jun 2023, 08:27

That's a great graphic

As for the report theUK has a downloadable version at

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1142588/The_AUKUS_nuclear_powered_submarine_pathway_a_partnership_fo r_the_future.pdf

rattman

27th Jun 2023, 06:49

Sweden will be supplying tech for the LOTE of the collins class

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2023/06/sweden-to-assist-australia-for-submarine-upgrade-program/

ORAC

28th Jun 2023, 21:49

https://twitter.com/gabriel64869839/status/1674132942027739158?s=61&t=rmEeUn68HhlFHGKbTPQr_A

UK MOD has signaled to Parliament that Detailed Design and Long Lead Items (D2L2) phase for SSN-AUKUS starts next month.

This phase includes early steel fabrication and will last out to 2028. October 2028 will see a new phase begin, presumably to include Boat 1 build commencing.

The MOD has produced this long and good briefing paper on SSN-AUKUS but has spectacularly failed to advertise it in any real way and i think very few have seen it. You might want to take a look.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-aukus-nuclear-powered-submarine-pathway-a-partnership-for-the-future

The AUKUS nuclear powered submarine pathway: a partnership for the future

golder

28th Jun 2023, 23:59

They are both the same paper. Just the UK and AU release and websites. A picture of a different person on page 3, is the only difference I saw. When they say this is a partnership, I think they mean it.

golder

29th Jun 2023, 00:17

Sweden will be supplying tech for the LOTE of the collins class

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2023/06/sweden-to-assist-australia-for-submarine-upgrade-program/
Also the US, Germans and French and probably others. The only thing we are keeping is the hull. Just about everything else will be new
This was worth the time to watch.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYEfmAJBUMI

As an aside, I haven't heard this before. This guy is saying the US offered us nuke subs in 1980. We declined. time 0.35
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcy3Ez53K3U

ChrisJ800

29th Jun 2023, 00:41

It seeme the Virginia class has a SEAL delivery chamber but i dont think Oz has dedicated fighting f,rogmen? So i guess you give more underwater traning to the SAS...

golder

29th Jun 2023, 02:00

It seeme the Virginia class has a SEAL delivery chamber but i dont think Oz has dedicated fighting f,rogmen? So i guess you give more underwater traning to the SAS...
Australia has that capability with the Collins

tartare

29th Jun 2023, 03:02

It seeme the Virginia class has a SEAL delivery chamber but i dont think Oz has dedicated fighting f,rogmen? So i guess you give more underwater traning to the SAS...

2 Commando clearance divers.
Not quite the same thing, but...

rattman

29th Jun 2023, 06:25

It seeme the Virginia class has a SEAL delivery chamber but i dont think Oz has dedicated fighting f,rogmen? So i guess you give more underwater traning to the SAS...

Theres rumors of a a new spec ops force been announced its going to be based on the concept of Z Force from WW2. They did have frogman . Also some of the navy clearance divers are spec ops trained and qualified in case they are needed to assist

https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/defence-and-foreign-affairs/adf-to-recreate-z-special-unit-to-address-indopacific-threats/video/6131c8c63d866f47fca274913b8652e6

As an aside, I haven't heard this before. This guy is saying the US offered us nuke subs in 1980. We declined. time 0.35
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcy3Ez53K3U

Hes totally not credible, if you find any forums where actual squids hang out they **** on him hardcore. I believe the best thing I heard about him was "Take anything he says about US sonars in the 2000's with a grain of salt, take everything else he says with a ton of salt"

Asturias56

29th Jun 2023, 07:50

"where actual squids hang out "

perhaps "actual squids" are not party to strategic discusions at Cabinet level?

rattman

29th Jun 2023, 08:19

"where actual squids hang out "

perhaps "actual squids" are not party to strategic discusions at Cabinet level?

betting he wasn't either

rattman

18th Jul 2023, 05:06

AUKUS has passed another hurdle. Senate Foreign Relations Comittee has Okayed a 20 year exemption to the a nuclear transfer act

https://www.afr.com/world/north-america/aukus-nuclear-subs-pass-key-us-hurdle-20230716-p5doiw

Lonewolf_50

18th Jul 2023, 14:18

Gee, they agreed on something. Good news, for a change. :cool:

ORAC

26th Jul 2023, 22:16

https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2023/07/26/house-advances-aukus-authorizations-amid-sub-export-control-debate/

House advances AUKUS authorizations amid sub, export control debate

ORAC

27th Jul 2023, 23:00

ChrisJ800

28th Jul 2023, 01:17

Hmmm so NAUKUS AUKNUS or somethiing else?

Bug

28th Jul 2023, 01:48

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/07/27/blinken-new-zealand-aukus-00108455

‘Door is open’ for New Zealand to join AUKUS, Blinken says

The “door is open” for New Zealand and other countries to join the security pact between the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia, Secretary of State Antony Blinken said Thursday.

“On AUKUS as we continue to develop it … the door is very much open for New Zealand and other partners to engage as they see appropriate going forward,” Blinken told reporters in New Zealand. “We’ve long worked together on the most important national security issues, and so as we further develop AUKUS, as I said, the door is open to engagement.”…

"The door is very much open for NZ and other partners to engage as they see appropriate," said Blinken.

Soon after NZ Foreign Minister reported as saying:

But that door was later slammed shut by Mahuta.

"I'll be really clear, we're not contemplating joining AUKUS," she said.

Not only would AUKUS clash with our nuclear-free laws, but also the country's nuclear-free Pacific policy. It's a club we'd have to sell our soul to join."

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/07/nanaia-mahuta-shuts-door-on-nz-joining-aukus-after-united-states-antony-blinken-says-it-s-very-much-open.html

Buster Hyman

28th Jul 2023, 03:16

But, wouldn’t China want an insider?:hmm:

Bug

28th Jul 2023, 04:31

But, wouldn’t China want an insider?:hmm:

Ah, Machiavelli lives.

SRFred

28th Jul 2023, 04:40

But, wouldn’t China want an insider?:hmm:

Not Wong! Already addressed from Australian side, LOL.

rattman

28th Jul 2023, 08:46

Not Wong! Already addressed from Australian side, LOL.

Yeah gladus Lui, actually member of the CCP got voted out at last election. I forgot to tell her party and asio that she was a member of the CCP party

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gladys_Liu

ORAC

3rd Aug 2023, 14:40

Sir Humphrey:

https://twitter.com/pinstripedline/status/1687065200317329408?s=61&t=rmEeUn68HhlFHGKbTPQr_A

The US and Australia are deepening their defence relationship. What does this mean for the UK, and will Canberra replace London as the real 'Special Relationship'.

Pinstripedline thoughts on UK commitment to the Indo-Pacific region.

https://tinyurl.com/mrxsubfh

Lonewolf_50

3rd Aug 2023, 16:55

But that door was later slammed shut by Mahuta.

"I'll be really clear, we're not contemplating joining AUKUS," she said.

Not only would AUKUS clash with our nuclear-free laws, but also the country's nuclear-free Pacific policy. It's a club we'd have to sell our soul to join."
She's established the price, now it's down to haggling. :p
TBH: I don't see how it is in NZ's interest to be a part of that.

Asturias56

3rd Aug 2023, 17:48

"The current force laydown in the region, built around 2 x RIVER class OPVs, a Gurkha battalion and some occasional RAF deployments is enough to show the flag and support low level defence interests. But to be taken seriously as a credible partner, the UK will need to raise its game."

The British armed forces can hardly deploy a meaningful force in Europe - the idea we'll ever do so in the Far East is an opium dream.

Xhorst

22nd Aug 2023, 01:37

Tomahawks confirmed - only for the Hobarts at this stage, maybe not the Collins.

At least now we have something to put in the VLS tubes when the Virginias roll in...

Australia will become one of only three nations to possess a Tomahawk long-range strike capability when it purchases more than 200 of the cruise missiles from the United States for the Royal Australian Navy’s Hobart-class destroyers (https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2021/08/australias-hobart-class-destroyers-achieve-final-operational-capability/).

As we previously reported, Australia was looking at outfitting its in-service Collins-class submarines with Tomahawk (https://www.navalnews.com/event-news/indo-pacific-2022/2022/05/australia-to-upgrade-collins-submarines-with-tomahawk-missiles/) land attack cruise missiles as part of their forthcoming Life of Type Extension (LOTE). However the fate of this plan is uncertain now, following the announcement (https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2023/03/australia-to-field-virginia-ssn-aukus/) that the Royal Australian Navy is set to field Virginia-class submarines from the early 2030ies.
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2023/08/australia-moves-forward-with-tomahawk-missile-procurement/

Asturias56

22nd Aug 2023, 07:24

Now that makes sense!

rattman

22nd Aug 2023, 10:39

Now that makes sense!

I would still think the submarine launched tomahawks would be aquired. They can just use them on the a virginia/SSN Aukus as required

Asturias56

22nd Aug 2023, 14:22

I would still think the submarine launched tomahawks would be aquired. They can just use them on the a virginia/SSN Aukus as required

one step at a time I suspect................... much easier to justify as "an extension of current purchase" than a whopping up front bill

rattman

22nd Aug 2023, 20:56

one step at a time I suspect................... much easier to justify as "an extension of current purchase" than a whopping up front bill

The rumor is that tomahawk is one of the systems being targets unders GEWOS (sovriegn missile production). Which has some logic to it due to it being relatively low tech and cheaper than LRASM

Going Boeing

28th Aug 2023, 03:19

In March 2023, it was announced that Australia intended to buy 200 Tomahawk RGM-109E Block V all-up-rounds (AURs), 20 RGM-109E Block IV AURs along with the necessary equipment and support. The recent press reports indicate that an order has been made for the 200 Block V’s but there’s been no mention of the 20 Block IV’s.

http://200 Tomahawk RGM-109E Block V all-up-rounds (AURs), 20 RGM-109E Block IV AURs along with the necessary equipment and support.

My interpretation of the original plan was that the 20 Block IV’s would have kits added to them to make them suitable for Collins submarine tube launched missiles and thus become UGM-109E Block IV missiles. As those kits are no longer in production, I suspect that they were intending to get them from USN stocks as they were used in the first batch of Los Angeles class submarines and are probably in storage. When the Royal Navy replaced their tube launched Block III’s with Block IV’s, they had to migrate the UGM kits across to the new missiles as new kits were no longer available.

The recent lack of firm orders for the Block IV’s indicates that they no longer intend to fit Tomahawk’s to the Collins class as part of the LOTE and wait to have that capability when the first 2 Virginia class join the fleet circa 2032. This would not be desirable as the last Collins class is expected to retire in 2046 so they would still have to provide full capability for the remainder of their service life.

https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1621x1209/img_4291_41b10ede293a463b2f37427d9644acd7240ba787.jpeg

Asturias56

28th Aug 2023, 07:25

there hasn't been any serious mention to fitting them to the Collins class recently but how much work is required? If its reasonably simple you could wait another year as the LOTE doesn't kick of until 2026 and it seems that each boat will be in dock for 2 years

Going Boeing

28th Aug 2023, 09:04

My understanding is that it shouldn’t be too difficult to include this capability as the Collins use the same combat system as the LA & Virginia classes so, it probably means using a different software program that has the Tomahawk launch and control software included. I believe that the physical handling of the missiles in the torpedo room does not create any major issues.

ORAC

30th Aug 2023, 09:35

Just the HoC committee, not the government - kit3 flying, but some take off…

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/aug/30/aukus-alliance-australia-us-uk-japan-south-korea

Japan and South Korea should be invited to join Aukus, UK parliamentary committee says

Australia and other countries in the Aukus (https://www.theguardian.com/world/aukus) security pact should ask Japan and South Korea to join them to develop advance defence technology, according to an influential UK House of Commons committee.

The proposed expansion would likely focus on activities such as cyber, AI, quantum and undersea technologies – but not the multi-decade project to deliver nuclear-propelled submarines (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/mar/14/aukus-nuclear-submarines-australia-commits-substantial-funds-into-expanding-us-shipbuilding-capacity) to Australia.

The foreign affairs select committee said the UK government “should propose to Australia and the United States that Japan and South Korea be invited to join an Aukus technological defence cooperation agreement”.

In the report published on Wednesday, the committee noted that Aukus was “not purely about Australia acquiring a fleet of nuclear-powered submarines”.

There is a cyber and advanced technology sharing and joint development component that could be equally, if not more, significant,” the report said.

“There is an in-principle agreement amongst the three powers to work together as closely as possible across the full suite of advanced technologies, including cyber, AI, quantum and undersea technologies, including in submarine detection.

“These could deliver tangible outcomes more quickly than the submarine programme.”…..

The report by the Conservative party-controlled committee also includes a potentially contentious proposal for the UK to seek to join the Quad, a diplomatic initiative that brings together Australia, India, Japan and the US.

Beijing has repeatedly denounced Aukus and the Quad (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/may/18/chinas-ambassador-to-australia-says-aukus-an-unnecessary-use-of-taxpayer-money-and-not-a-good-idea) as anti-China groupings that seek to “stoke division and confrontation and revive the cold war mentality”. South-east Asian countries could also be nervous about the proposed expansion.

The select committee said it had heard “differing opinions from witnesses on whether the UK should apply to join the Quad, with some strongly supporting UK membership, others suggesting that it is too early to consider this now and one group against the proposal altogether”……

ORAC

6th Sep 2023, 07:21

https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2023/09/05/aukus-standoff-australia-uk-wait-on-congress-to-approve-pact/

AUKUS standoff: Australia, UK wait on Congress to approve pact

This is the first story of a three-part series. The second will be available Sept. 7, and the third on Sept. 8.

WASHINGTON ― A bipartisan group of U.S. lawmakers traveled to Britain this spring in an effort to get tough on China.

But House China committee Chairman Mike Gallagher, R-Wis., and his delegation quickly found their British counterparts had another matter top of mind: AUKUS, the trilateral nuclear-powered submarine agreement with Britain and Australia.

Officials from those countries made clear to Gallagher and other U.S. lawmakers that Congress must take steps to ensure the deal is a success. Specifically, they want lawmakers to approve a blanket exemption for the U.K. and Australia within Washington’s stringent export control regime (https://www.defensenews.com/pentagon/2023/03/07/big-aukus-news-coming-but-hill-and-allies-see-tech-sharing-snags/).

That policy, the International Traffic in Arms Regulations, or ITAR, sets rigorous restrictions on sensitive defense exports. Without ITAR exemptions, they worry the pact won’t succeed.

“The thing we heard most consistently from our allies in Britain is that ITAR is a roadblock for cooperation with them,” Gallagher told reporters. He said a “a free-world approach” to AUKUS is critical.

The AUKUS agreement is intended to draw the three countries’ defense industries closer together by helping Australia develop its own nuclear-powered submarine fleet (https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2023/03/13/leaders-unveil-a-circuitous-path-to-nuke-powered-australian-subs/)while sharing top secret technology among the allies. If it works, the program will develop cutting-edge capabilities that will influence the future of warfare.

While visiting Australia in August, Gallagher said “long-overdue ITAR reform” could lead to joint U.S.-Australian munitions production and hypersonic weapons development, “turbocharging AUKUS.”

Critics of existing U.S. export control laws, like Gallagher, argue reform is necessary to increase cooperation among the three countries’ defense-industrial bases, a goal the Biden administration is also eager to pursue. But the push to overhaul ITAR has faced resistance, with the State Department and Democrats arguing the export control policy is crucial to keeping defense industry secrets from falling into the hands of rivals such as China.

As the two-year anniversary of AUKUS approaches, the export control debate and a separate tussle over the health of the submarine-industrial base (https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2023/03/15/how-the-us-plans-to-expand-its-submarine-industrial-base-for-aukus/) have raised questions about how and when Congress will pass several authorizations needed to make the program into the transformational initiative leaders promised….. [more]

Asturias56

6th Sep 2023, 07:44

Well there are a lot of people who would like to see the back of ITAR - and AUKUS is a useful stick that has come to hand even tho' there is zero evidence to date that its causing a problem - it's in the realm of "might", "possibly" " at some time" right now

Lonewolf_50

6th Sep 2023, 19:58

AUKUS standoff: Australia, UK wait on Congress to approve pact

This is the first story of a three-part series. The second will be available Sept. 7, and the third on Sept. 8.

WASHINGTON ― A bipartisan group of U.S. lawmakers traveled to Britain this spring in an effort to get tough on China.

But House China committee Chairman Mike Gallagher, R-Wis., and his delegation quickly found their British counterparts had another matter top of mind: AUKUS, the trilateral nuclear-powered submarine agreement with Britain and Australia.

Officials from those countries made clear to Gallagher and other U.S. lawmakers that Congress must take steps to ensure the deal is a success. Specifically, they want lawmakers to approve a blanket exemption for the U.K. and Australia within Washington’s stringent export control regime (https://www.defensenews.com/pentagon/2023/03/07/big-aukus-news-coming-but-hill-and-allies-see-tech-sharing-snags/).

That policy, the International Traffic in Arms Regulations, or ITAR, sets rigorous restrictions on sensitive defense exports. Without ITAR exemptions, they worry the pact won’t succeed.

“The thing we heard most consistently from our allies in Britain is that ITAR is a roadblock for cooperation with them,” Gallagher told reporters. He said a “a free-world approach” to AUKUS is critical.

The AUKUS agreement is intended to draw the three countries’ defense industries closer together by helping Australia develop its own nuclear-powered submarine fleet (https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2023/03/13/leaders-unveil-a-circuitous-path-to-nuke-powered-australian-subs/)while sharing top secret technology among the allies. If it works, the program will develop cutting-edge capabilities that will influence the future of warfare.

While visiting Australia in August, Gallagher said “long-overdue ITAR reform” could lead to joint U.S.-Australian munitions production and hypersonic weapons development, “turbocharging AUKUS.”

Critics of existing U.S. export control laws, like Gallagher, argue reform is necessary to increase cooperation among the three countries’ defense-industrial bases, a goal the Biden administration is also eager to pursue. But the push to overhaul ITAR has faced resistance, with the State Department and Democrats arguing the export control policy is crucial to keeping defense industry secrets from falling into the hands of rivals such as China.

As the two-year anniversary of AUKUS approaches, the export control debate and a separate tussle over the health of the submarine-industrial base (https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2023/03/15/how-the-us-plans-to-expand-its-submarine-industrial-base-for-aukus/) have raised questions about how and when Congress will pass several authorizations needed to make the program into the transformational initiative leaders promised….. [more] IIRC, AUKUS fits under the rubric of treaties, and the US Senate has a say in that per our Constitution. (I hope they support this).
And I agree with that article: without an ITAR waiver, or a few of them, this may run aground.

ORAC

7th Sep 2023, 06:42

Second part of series…

https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2023/09/07/allies-target-early-aukus-milestones-to-keep-20-year-plan-on-track/

Allies target early AUKUS milestones to keep 20-year plan on track

This is the second story of a three-part series. Click here (https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2023/09/05/aukus-standoff-australia-uk-wait-on-congress-to-approve-pact/) to read the first. The third will be available Sept. 8.

Asturias56

7th Sep 2023, 07:07

I can't see Congress NOT suspending ITAR for AUKUS - it would send an appalling message to any allies. If they can't trust the UK and Australia where does that leave everyone else?

ChrisJ800

7th Sep 2023, 09:31

Isnt Congress in Summer recess?

Asturias56

7th Sep 2023, 11:03

supposed to have reconvened on Sept 5th

CoodaShooda

7th Sep 2023, 12:24

Meanwhile, the current Australian government draws closer to Beijing.

Asturias56

7th Sep 2023, 15:45

well they do pay you an awful lot of money as you sell the country to them literally cubic metre by cubic metre

golder

7th Sep 2023, 21:58

Meanwhile, the current Australian government draws closer to Beijing.
You are letting your political bias come in the way of the reality. The liberal party also pushed for close trade and cooperation relations with China. Concede and don't make me post links. You are only highlighting how useless Scomo was.

CoodaShooda

7th Sep 2023, 23:41

What political bias would that be, golder?

I am simply observing the number and frequency of reported visits to China by Labor politicians at both state and federal level. Not to mention agreements between state labor governments and the Chinese authorities. Some of these don’t get a mention in local media but are reported by the Chinese press.

Personally, I’m a fan of peaceful co-existence in preference to warlike non-existence; to paraphrase Sir Humphrey Appleby.

ORAC

15th Sep 2023, 07:08

https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2023/09/14/aukus-agreement-requires-submarine-production-boost-franchetti-says/

AUKUS agreement requires submarine production boost, Franchetti says

golder

16th Sep 2023, 09:46

AUKUS: A GENERATIONAL OPPORTUNITY TO DEEPEN OUR SECURITY PARTNERSHIPS WITH AUSTRALIA AND THE UNITED KINGDOMDefense and State Department Officials Testify on Australia-U.K.-U.S. PartnershipOfficials from the State and Defense Departments testified on the Australia-U.K.-U.S. security partnership (AUKUS) before the Senate
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x8nzcyx

https://www.c-span.org/video/?530253-1/defense-state-department-officials-testify-australia-uk-us-partnership (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQwoLEAAcl4)

rattman

20th Sep 2023, 10:58

So at DESI23 (defence expo just held in the UK) BAE had a "Next generation submarine" model on display that they wouldn't talk about

https://youtu.be/7V8kJIk-wLs?t=199 (3.19 if the link to time doesn't work)

rattman

1st Oct 2023, 19:53

4 Billion Allocated by UK MOD long lead items and design for SSN AUKUS

https://twitter.com/DefenceHQ/status/1708502506777493797

SpazSinbad

2nd Oct 2023, 04:02

AUKus ALLmighty model photo: UK MoD Awards SSN-AUKUS Submarine Design Contracts - Naval News (https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2023/10/uk-mod-awards-ssn-aukus-submarine-design-contracts/)

Photo: https://www.navalnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/SSN-AUKUS-BAE-Systems-DSEI-2023.jpg
https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1600x1004/ssn_aukus_bae_systems_dsei_2023_676e7f648e1a28d3a4fbc4d7705b 58609adc5355.jpg

Lonewolf_50

2nd Oct 2023, 18:37

As the guy in Monty Python and the Holy Grail said: It's only a model
:}

ORAC

18th Oct 2023, 07:12

https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2023/10/17/senators-push-biden-to-release-submarine-costs-for-aukus/

Senators push Biden to release submarine costs for AUKUS

WASHINGTON ― A bipartisan group of senators is appealing to the White House to release Pentagon cost estimates related to the submarine-industrial base as the Biden administration and Congress move to implement AUKUS, the trilateral submarine-sharing pact with Britain and Australia.

The cost estimates are critical to a debate that has delayed key congressional authorizations needed to advance AUKUS. The study is expected to detail the level of investments needed for the industrial base to sustain submarine production requirements for both the U.S. and Australia.

A Senate letter obtained by Defense News asks Biden to release the cost estimates by the end of the month to inform AUKUS legislation. The Defense Department completed the study months ago, but the letter says the Pentagon does not intend to release its findings and cost estimates until it unveils the fiscal 2025 budget request early next year.

Sen. Roger Wicker (https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2023/06/13/key-lawmakers-flex-new-positions-to-bolster-shipbuilding-industry/) of Mississippi — the top Republican on the Armed Services Committee — spearheaded the bipartisan letter. Wicker has held up Senate passage of two AUKUS authorizations (https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2023/09/05/aukus-standoff-australia-uk-wait-on-congress-to-approve-pact/), making them contingent on the Biden administration and Congress allocating additional funding for the submarine-industrial base as part of a defense supplemental request (https://www.defensenews.com/congress/budget/2023/06/23/senate-defense-bill-pushes-for-spending-over-debt-ceiling-cap/) to bypass the $886 billion military spending cap in the debt ceiling agreement (https://www.defensenews.com/congress/budget/2023/05/29/debt-ceiling-agreement-locks-in-bidens-proposed-defense-budget/).

“The volume of submarine tonnage the industrial base must produce to meet the Navy’s own requirements and fully implement the AUKUS agreement will require historic and sustained investments in the submarine workforce and supplier network,” the senators wrote. “To achieve such capacity, Congress must have a comprehensive understanding of the current status of the submarine-industrial base as well as the future resource investments necessary to meet our nation’s requirements.”

Three Democrats — Sens. Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut and Tim Kaine of Virginia — signed onto the letter alongside Republican Sens. Dan Sullivan of Alaska and Kevin Cramer of North Dakota. The White House and Defense Department did not respond to requests for comment by publication.….

ORAC

24th Oct 2023, 05:27

https://x.com/warinthefuture/status/1716606893844734308?s=61&t=rmEeUn68HhlFHGKbTPQr_A

“It is high time for Washington & Canberra to have a frank conversation about mutual posture expectations so that both sides can set the terms and limits of operational-level integration.” A good piece from @ashleytownshend on US-Aus relations.

https://carnegieendowment.org/2023/10/20/how-to-manage-risks-and-requirements-of-u.s.-australia-force-posture-cooperation-pub-90817

How to Manage the Risks and Requirements of U.S.-Australia Force Posture Cooperation

megan

25th Oct 2023, 03:45

It's only a model https://www.pprune.org/images/smilies/badteeth.gifLone, I can think of models that could do far more damage to the opposite side than any hardware. ;)

ORAC

27th Oct 2023, 10:17

https://x.com/gabriel64869839/status/1717836316312784904?s=61&t=rmEeUn68HhlFHGKbTPQr_A

Osborne yard in Adelaide has expanded a lot and will grow further due to AUKUS. Osborne "south" site is advanced shipbuilding yard built as part of HUNTER project. HOBARTs were assembled in the open in old yard (middle of pic) from blocks coming in from elsewhere, including Spain.

https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1186x683/image_458f33a3c4df26404fbed06facdf9301a0727ae9.png

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1500x864/image_95a39d3c40e7adef68a87677a4f3bf4e06ec91bb.jpeg

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1280x720/image_875f0a6de7a4c6545722aa8648d8a73d071a2b89.jpeg

Asturias56

27th Oct 2023, 16:17

You'll get a really good view from the old Car park lookout - just south (left in ORAC's bottom pic) of the new AUKUS pier and on the track on the right hand side o the bottom pic below- the Chinese have probably already moved in

https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/497x286/port_adelaide_4_911ac5dc7bb654fb4c4d5abb8a70ba5736dc3d55.jpg
https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1234x512/port_adelaide_3_41a3a047b402fe4201a405a8cece794f2c1bfdda.jpg

ORAC

27th Oct 2023, 21:52

https://news.usni.org/2023/10/26/aukus-sub-sale-will-result-in-10-year-dip-in-u-s-attack-boat-inventory-says-cbo

AUKUS Sub Sale Will Cause 10-Year Dip in U.S. Attack Boat Inventory, Says CBOThe U.S. nuclear attack submarine inventory will experience a nearly decade-long dip due to the AUKUS partnership, according to a new Congressional Budget Office analysis of U.S. naval shipbuilding.

To support selling three to five Virginia-class attack boats to the Royal Australian Navy, the attack boat inventory will decrease in the mid-2030s, as shipyards won’t be able to deliver Virginia-class boats to absorb the loss of the sale to Australia.
The dip, estimated to start in 2037, will keep U.S. attack boat inventory in the high 40s to low 50s for about a decade, meaning the Navy will remain short of its goal of 66 attack submarines in the fleet.

CBO analyzed three scenarios, with the U.S. selling different combinations of new and used types of Virginia-class boats, all under the Navy’s first shipbuilding plan. The first plan, several officials have told USNI News, is the most austere of the three proposals in the annual shipbuilding blueprint.…

https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/746x516/image_e9c1f8bb638ca148e0923e878d5f696f5f8c2b37.png

rattman

27th Oct 2023, 22:08

Theres some issues with the map and outlines hunter will take up the whole picture bottom section except for the tank farm (Osborne south), the big slipway will remain common use, but sheds at end will be hunter assembly. The small slipway north is ASC and will be doing collins upgrade / maintainence (Osborne north). Attack is program is cancelled and its aquired land usage is in limbo atm.

golder

27th Oct 2023, 23:12

rattman

27th Oct 2023, 23:19

This is all about the primes, getting the US gov funding a 3rd yard. AUKUS is convenient to push the case. This is how they talk to congress.

Theres 3 billion coming from AUS for the US shipyard program

golder

28th Oct 2023, 05:35

Theres 3 billion coming from AUS for the US shipyard program
I know that that 3b gets thrown around a lot.That 3b is divided among many things. I've seen money to UK included in it. As well as long lead items and deep maintenance on our virginias. A smaller amount goes to the actual US shipyard. I think it is the repair yard and not the build yard too.
https://breakingdefense.com/2023/09/aussies-to-pour-3b-into-us-nuke-boat-yards-long-lead-items-for-aukus-subs/

rattman

28th Oct 2023, 05:46

I. I've seen money to UK included in it. As well as long lead items and deep maintenance on our virginias.

Pay Conroy was wrong when he said that, its all going to the US one way or the other.

golder

28th Oct 2023, 06:15

Pay Conroy was wrong when he said that, its all going to the US one way or the other.
That may well be the case. My point was that the 3b isn't all going to the build yard. In fact if the repair yard is right, none of it may go to a 3rd build yard.

Asturias56

28th Oct 2023, 07:18

"This is all about the primes, getting the US gov funding a 3rd yard. AUKUS is convenient to push the case. This is how they talk to congress."

given the issues and delays over the past few years a third yard is probably needed anyway - AUKUS or no AUKUS - especially as they are going to be building Columbia SSBN's as well

golder

28th Oct 2023, 09:12

A bit more chatting to congress.Even Rudd did his bit.

Rep. Courtney: Lawmakers cannot ‘fumble the ball’ on getting AUKUS provisions passed (https://breakingdefense.com/2023/10/rep-courtney-lawmakers-cannot-fumble-the-ball-on-getting-aukus-provisions-passed/)

The congressmen said legislation related to allowing the foreign military sales case to be opened passed unanimously out of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and another bill related to laws focused on international arms trafficking, called ITAR, had similar results in a Senate committee.

“What we cannot afford in the future, is the continuation of the most ridiculous manifestations of the ITAR regime,” Kevin Rudd told attendees
Asked about Rudd’s comments today, Courtney said he was “glad” to see the embassies weighing in “as intensely as they are because I think that’s really the critical message.”

Some pillar two satellite stuff.
https://www.defenceconnect.com.au/joint-capabilities/13040-australia-finalises-satellite-rocket-launch-deal-with-us (https://www.defenceconnect.com.au/joint-capabilities/13040-australia-finalises-satellite-rocket-launch-deal-with-us)
Australia finalises satellite, rocket launch deal with US
The two countries have been negotiating the “Technology Safeguards Agreement” since October 2021 and confirmation it’s been completed comes after an in-principal agreement was reached in May.
“In Australia, American companies will have access to more high-quality launch sites so that they can increase the frequency of their operations “By opening new doors for the private sector, we’ll grow investment between our countries and help create good-paying jobs in both countries.

“And we’ll also help provide more opportunities for American and Australian firms to continue innovating, and innovating together.

ORAC

1st Nov 2023, 23:36

https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2023/11/01/navy-takes-early-steps-with-australian-uk-vendors-on-shared-sub-work/

Navy takes early steps with Australian, UK vendors on shared sub work

ORAC

20th Nov 2023, 05:51

https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2023/11/13/heres-when-the-us-navy-plans-to-sell-subs-to-australia-under-aukus/

Here’s when the US Navy plans to sell subs to Australia under AUKUS

ARLINGTON, Va. — The U.S. Navy intends to sell Australia used Virginia-class attack submarines in 2032 and 2035, plus a new boat in 2038, leaders said.

This timeline provides a more detailed breakdown of the submarine-sharing arrangement between the United States, Australia and the United Kingdom announced in March.

Those three countries, which are signatories to the trilateral security agreement AUKUS, are working to familiarize Australian sailors as well as the shipbuilding and ship repair workforce with nuclear submarines.

As training efforts in the U.S. and Australia ramp up, the partners should be ready to declare Australia “sovereign ready” by the early 2030s, Capt. Lincoln Reifsteck, the AUKUS integration and acquisition program manager, said last week at the Naval Submarine League’s annual symposium.

Assuming that designation is met on time, Australia will start building its inventory of nuclear-powered submarines almost immediately.

In 2032 and 2035, the U.S. will sell in-service Block IV submarines, Reifsteck said, which are currently under construction.

The first Block IV boat was commissioned in 2020, and the final will likely commission around 2026, meaning Australia would receive submarines with between six and 15 years’ worth of use. Virginia-class subs are designed to have 33 years of service life.

The Navy will also sell a new Block VII boat to Australia in 2038. After 10 years of buying submarines with an extra Virginia Payload Module built into the middle to add more missile tubes, the Navy will return to the original Virginia-class length with Block VII, set to begin construction in fiscal 2029.

In parallel, the U.K. and Australia will build a new SSN-AUKUS submarine that both fleets will operate. Australia is to receive Britain’s first SSN-AUKUS in the late 2030s and its first domestically built sub in the early 2040s, according to a slide Reifsteck showed at the symposium. This timeline would allow Australia’s submarine fleet to continue to expand following the sales of the Virginia boats.

While speaking with reporters, Royal Australian Navy Commodore Bradley Francis, who serves as the country’s AUKUS program lead, said the government has selected a company to build the submarine construction yard but had not yet selected a shipbuilder who will work there to build the SSN-AUKUS. That selection will come in the next year, he added.

The allies do have a contingency plan in case the SSN-AUKUS design, construction and test plans fall behind schedule, Reifsteck noted: The U.S. Navy could sell a fourth or fifth Virginia-class submarine to Australia as part of an agreement approved by President Joe Biden and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin.

The captain told Defense News after his presentation that “three is definitely the desire; that is the plan,” but the contingency to include additional submarines is important because it asks the U.S. Navy to ensure it has enough margin in its own plans to sell the extra boats if required.

Asked what events might invoke the alliance to pursue the additional sales, Reifsteck said it could be a scheduling issue or any unforeseen factors, citing a pandemic or crisis that “causes dramatic changes” to people, infrastructure, industry and regulations.

The goal, he added, is to reach a point where the AUKUS partners can conduct integrated patrols in the Pacific to ensure regional stability.

Reifsteck also noted negotiations are ongoing between the U.S. and Australia over the latter’s support for the former’s submarine-industrial base. Though some officials have suggested Australia might spend $3 billion on that American sector, Reifsteck said the exact amount and the timing are still in discussion.

“I do expect a substantial, proportional investment,” he said.

golder

2nd Dec 2023, 21:01

AUKUS Defense Ministers Joint Press Briefinghttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2RWS850rP8

Transcript
https://www.defense.gov/News/Transcripts/Transcript/Article/3604674/aukus-defense-ministers-joint-press-briefing/

kaikohe76

2nd Dec 2023, 21:08

golder

3rd Dec 2023, 06:46

Worth watching
Sound is ok, no need for a transcript.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRohwFjtPpQ
Panelists: • Mr. Ted Colbert, President and CEO, Boeing Defense, Space, and Security • Rep. Seth Moulton, U.S. House of Representatives, Massachusetts • Mr. Matthew Pottinger, Former U.S. Principal Deputy National Security Advisor • Amb. Kevin Rudd, Ambassador of Australia to the United States; Former Prime Minister of Australia • Rep. Rob Wittman, U.S. House of Representatives, Virginia

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BfWbsYnHeCk
Cyber Insights with Army Gen. Paul Nakasone and Army Gen. Laura J. Richardson
Defense.gov | Pentagon Press Secretary Drops Major Announcement (https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLe95fdmDwNk9Xycq9SoYpBjezke9WyCTF)Army Gen. Paul Nakasone, who serves as commander of U.S. Cyber Command, director of the National Security Agency and chief of the Central Security Service, and Army Gen. Laura J. Richardson, commander of U.S. Southern Command, participate in a panel discussion at the Reagan Nation Defense Forum. The panel will discuss protecting our hemisphere and homeland in the cyber age.

Asturias56

3rd Dec 2023, 07:10

"Also we need to join up with AKUS as soon as possible, rather than burying our heads in the sand,"

the NZ govt takes in around NZ 134 Bn a year = US$ 80Bn approx - I don' think that's enough to buy and operate an SSN - the Australians are looking at around $5-6 Bn a year

Video Mixdown

3rd Dec 2023, 07:32

the NZ govt takes in around NZ 134 Bn a year = US$ 80Bn approx - I don' think that's enough to buy and operate an SSN - the Australians are looking at around $5-6 Bn a year
The submarines grab the headlines, but AUKUS is about much more than just them. If NZ really wants in it should be welcomed for the contribution it can make.

golder

3rd Dec 2023, 07:59

Now at long last, we in New Zealand hopefully have a government, that will support & invest in the military. Also we need to join up with AKUS as soon as possible, rather than burying our heads in the sand, as we did under the previous administration.
Further to what video mixdown said. It won't be a Pillar I nuke sub. Pillar II is actually a larger program and is talked about. They may split it up and allow others to join subsections.
https://breakingdefense.com/2023/10/new-zealand-joining-aukus-more-likely-after-elections-bring-conservatives-to-power/

Asturias56

3rd Dec 2023, 10:51

rattman

3rd Dec 2023, 10:51

Further to what video mixdown said. It won't be a Pillar I nuke sub. Pillar II is actually a larger program and is talked about. They may split it up and allow others to join subsections.
https://breakingdefense.com/2023/10/new-zealand-joining-aukus-more-likely-after-elections-bring-conservatives-to-power/

Correct pillar 1 is the SSN, pillar 2 is a variety of smaller programs. Like the one they announced a few days ago. Space based radars, seem to be intitally for replacement of E-8 Jstars but with E-3/E-7 awacs eventually. Believe HACM (Hypersonic airbreathing cruise missile)

Pillar 2. Cyber warfare, hypersonics, AI, Qantum and undersea warfare are all generic terms but slowly being fleshed

Asturias56

3rd Dec 2023, 10:52

none of those look very cheap......................

rattman

3rd Dec 2023, 10:55

thinking about it the RNZN could have some of their crews on the Aussie and UK boats operating in the area. That would help both the other navies with crewing issues (which they both have ) and also maybe spark more interest in recruitment & retention for the NZ navy - beats sitting on a small patrol boat

If you are talking surface ships possibly. We already lead a substantial part of the army due to a plan anzac, could see that being expanded to the other services

none of those look very cheap......................

Some are a lot of money but others are skill based. Cyber warfare and defence is a more skill based system. Kiwis can do a lot with a bit. Rocket Labs is a prime example, small orbital rocket, which AUS has never done

ORAC

3rd Dec 2023, 10:57

If you think preemptive defence is expensive what till you see what having to fight a war costs.

Video Mixdown

3rd Dec 2023, 11:10

Elsewhere golder has posted about using AI with UK, US & Australian P-8A’s and other surveillance systems to track hostile submarines. I’d have thought the NZ P-8A’s would fit right in.

ResBunny

4th Dec 2023, 06:03

…Rocket Labs is a prime example, small orbital rocket, which AUS has never done

29 Nov 1967; Australia launched WRESAT and became 7th nation in space.

Although it’s all been pretty much backwards since then.

Lonewolf_50

4th Dec 2023, 12:33

Now at long last, we in New Zealand hopefully have a government, that will support & invest in the military.
Also we need to join up with AKUS as soon as possible, rather than burying our heads in the sand, as we did under the previous administration. It would be nice, but I'm not holding my breath.
none of those look very cheap...................... Welcome to 21st Century Warfare.

Asturias56

4th Dec 2023, 15:28

I'm beginning to think Augustine was optimistic when he had the US down to one fighter aircraft by 2054 :(

golder

7th Dec 2023, 13:02

https://www.defenceconnect.com.au/naval/13276-christmas-gift-us-congress-green-lights-submarine-sale-to-australia (https://www.defenceconnect.com.au/naval/13276-christmas-gift-us-congress-green-lights-submarine-sale-to-australiaAn)

An early Christmas gift by the US Congress, as members voted to allow the sale of three Viriginia Class submarines to Australia in the 2030s.

The agreement, added to the US Congress’s National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024, would allow transfer of the nuclear-powered conventionally armed submarines to Australia after the bill is enacted.

Deputy PM and Minister for Defence Marles reportedly welcomed the news of the AUKUS breakthrough after months of glacial-speed progress in the US.

rattman

11th Dec 2023, 22:38

Been confirmed that SSN-AUKUS will have AN/BYG-1 combat systems and in the previous announcement that RN/RAN will both have same combat systems. Mean the RN will be moving away from the BAE CCS, so leaves the question, is dreadnought getting the BAE or AN/BYG-1

Going Boeing

14th Dec 2023, 22:25

I suspect that the Dreadnought design is too advanced to change the combat system which is a shame as the RN will be supporting two different systems for quite some time. If it’s not too late to fit the AN/BYG-1 to the Dreadnought class, there may be an additional capability available to them as the Ohio SSGN’s use the system to launch large numbers of Tomahawk missiles from the tubes previously housing ballistic missiles - it would potentially add a multi role capability to the RN CASD boats. This would obviously only be considered at a time when the strategic threat was low.

It appears that the agreement involves the upgraded AN/BYG-1 system having the British weapons integrated so that the RN can continue to use their preferred weapons. Having 3 countries using the same system will assist with keeping the development & training costs down.

The passing of the US legislation is a very significant step in this process and it appears to have a lot of bipartisan support.

https://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/military/us-green-lights-legislation-for-australias-purchase-of-three-nuclearpowered-submarines-under-landmark-aukus-deal/news-story/7a8a51de8ea1c2b1699edbbec8b212f7

rattman

15th Dec 2023, 00:52

I suspect that the Dreadnought design is too advanced to change the combat system which is a shame as the RN will be supporting two different systems for quite some time. If it’s not too late to fit the AN/BYG-1 to the Dreadnought class,

They will be regardless of the a dreadnought due to astute. But its not confirmed or denied about which combat system it uses. I think it will get the american system, dont think its going to be that big of an issue to change it. But ultimately time will tell.

Also note the 2024 defence aquisitions bill has passed both houses. Including the bit about AUKUS, now permits sale of up to 3 Virginia SSN's to Australia

Asturias56

15th Dec 2023, 08:10

Video Mixdown

15th Dec 2023, 08:55

Asturias56

15th Dec 2023, 13:51

Only in your imagination.

Possibly - but I remember what a Labour Govt did way back.

Whoever gets in next year will be looking to fix the national budget - a lot of cuts will be necessary. They could finish the SSBN's and then just say we can avoid what will be a horrendously expensive SSN replacement programme - which is CERTAIN to go over budget and spend the money on health care, schooling etc etc

Back in the 60's no-one thought we could cancel TSR-2, or the big carriers, or East of Suez................... and the financial situation wasn't as bad as it is right now.

rattman

15th Dec 2023, 19:23

Having set a precedent on Sales Authority it occurred to me that should the pips squeak on a future UK budget the RN could now buy American SSN's.................... shades of the F-111 perhaps..............
Never happen unless its virginias built in the UK. This was actually a somewhat close to not happening, US production is so limited even 3 extra virginias was considered to much of a risk by some decision makers. This pretty much reads as a one off

ORAC

15th Dec 2023, 20:13

Going Boeing

15th Dec 2023, 22:16

One reason to sign multinational treaties to build aircraft - such as Tornado, Typhoon and Tempest - is that they make it incredibly hard to cancel politically, and unlikely to be financially worthwhile once penal clauses due to the cost the remaining partners is taken into account.

The same holds true for SSN-AUKUS, except the penalty clauses and costs would be far higher due to the nuclear element….

I totally agree. It would be very difficult for a future British government to cancel the AUKUS SSN because of the multinational implications. This deal is a win-win in that Australia gets to build SSN’s designed to the latest specs (with the desired US combat system) and Britain gets to spread the development costs of its next generation SSN over a much larger fleet. I think that those people involved in the planning and negotiation of these deals have done a great job and have achieved the best possible outcome.

ORAC

3rd Jan 2024, 13:41

AW&ST:

What The Space Force Wants For Future Domain Awareness

The U.S. Space Force is undertaking an in-depth study of its future space domain awareness mission, finding gaps to fill to meet a need that the service’s boss says is critical to everything it does.….

Leaders in Washington have taken steps to improve domain awareness, most recently with the December agreement among Australia, the UK and the U.S.—also known as AUKUS—to accelerate the Deep Space Advanced Radar Capability (DARC).

Under the new agreement, the first DARC radar site will be set up in Australia with a goal of starting operations in 2026, and more sites in the UK* and U.S. are planned to follow.….

* https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-deep-space-radar-will-transform-uk-security

https://www.spaceforce.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/3604036/us-uk-australia-announce-trilateral-deep-space-advanced-radar-capability-initia/

Cawdor Barracks = RAF Brawdy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cawdor_Barracks

rattman

4th Jan 2024, 01:45

It will most likely be at Harold Holt communications station. They already have a Deepspace telescope and C-Band space radar there

The system they are building
https://www.ssc.spaceforce.mil/Portals/3/DARC%20Technology%20Demonstration%20test%20a%20success.pdf

rattman

8th Feb 2024, 01:03

Interesting report to congress on aukus. I find one of the most interesting things is that B-21 were discussed at some point

Australia, instead of using funds to purchase, operate, and maintain its own SSNs, would instead invest those funds in other military capabilities (such as, for example, producing long-range anti-ship missiles and/or purchasing of U.S.- made B-21 long-range bombers),49 so as to create an Australian capacity for performing non-SSN military missions for both Australia and the United States

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/RL32418/269

rattman

8th Feb 2024, 05:36

https://www.defenceconnect.com.au/naval/13569-surface-fleet-review-carries-hunter-class-changes-in-february-release-say-industry-insiders

Clains the RAN naval review will recommend 8 type 26 in ASW config and 8 upgunned/missile hunters (96 VLS cells)

Asturias56

8th Feb 2024, 09:01

Hope HMG are listening.......................

HK144

8th Feb 2024, 09:16

Interesting report to congress on aukus. I find one of the most interesting things is that B-21 were discussed at some point

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/RL32418/269

Not that interesting, reference to talks between Aus and US on the B21 was mentioned in the Strategic Review.

rattman

8th Feb 2024, 09:49

Hope HMG are listening.......................
Also note another media group is reporting that recommendation that hunters be axed or scaled down and replaced with hobart flight 3 and either arrowhead 140 or alpha 3000

So litterally the news groups are getting different leaks

Not_a_boffin

8th Feb 2024, 10:20

Hope HMG are listening.......................

I hope (UK) HMG are not. Disaster waiting to happen.

rattman

8th Feb 2024, 11:06

I hope (UK) HMG are not. Disaster waiting to happen.
Age and SMH are reporting slashed to 6 hunters with chances even down to 3. 3 more AAW/AWD. (maybe the hunter with 96 cells) and unspecified amount of arrowhead 140

Not_a_boffin

8th Feb 2024, 11:46

Age and SMH are reporting slashed to 6 hunters with chances even down to 3. 3 more AAW/AWD. (maybe the hunter with 96 cells) and unspecified amount of arrowhead 140

The technical term is thrashing about. Trying to add area AAW capability to the baseline ship has not and will not end well.

ORAC

8th Feb 2024, 12:30

Reference the above press reports.

https://x.com/navylookout/status/1755517490375897394?s=61&t=rmEeUn68HhlFHGKbTPQr_A

Henderson shipyard in Western 🇦🇺Australia to partner with @Babcockplc to pitch Arrowhead-14 / Type 31 frigate to @Australian_Navy

Expected 🇦🇺Type 26 / Hunter class frigate order may be scaled back slightly and supplemented with a simpler/cheaper design in an exact mirror of RN programmes.

https://archive.is/2024.02.07-235301/https://thewest.com.au/business/manufacturing/arrowhead-warships-at-henderson-wa-pitching-to-become-home-to-future-build-for-australian-navy-c-13497956

SLXOwft

8th Feb 2024, 12:56

N_a_B - while I sympathise with you views on the likely out come of such a plan, BAES was reported as offering such an option late last year. Navantia had previous made an unsolicited proposal for an ASW vessel to replace the late Hunters. There has been a lot of politicing going on - optimisation for one role, not enough missiles, absence of effective land strike capability, integrating AEGIS etc. (as not adopting INTeACT). Much flowing from Vice Adm. William Hilarides (USN rtd)'s study.

https://www.australiandefence.com.au/defence/sea/bae-unveils-upgunned-hunter-proposal

(reported 02 November 2023)

BAE Systems Australia is offering an up-armed, evolved version of the Hunter class frigate to the Royal Australian Navy (RAN) as a way of rapidly increasing the firepower of the surface fleet. BAE argues that their proposal, which effectively replaces the Hunter class mission bay with additional missile tubes, offers an evolutionary, rather than revolutionary, approach to delivering additional capability to the RAN.

Craig Lockhart, Managing Director at BAE Systems Australia, described the proposal as the “closest thing to off the shelf” available to Australia. The concept, which BAE is proposing for Batch II of the class, uses the space allocated for the mission bay on the Hunter class to insert 64 Mk41 Vertical Launching Systems (VLS) and 16 Naval Strike Missiles (NSM) into the ship for a total of 96 VLS cells.

If the RAN elected to remove the 5 inch Mk 45 gun, Lockhart said, it would enable the VLS count to grow even more to 128 cells – which surpasses even the United States Navy’s (USN) Ticonderoga class Guided Missile Cruisers. According to BAE the up-armed, Batch II Hunter, maintains 85% commonality with the existing ships that are under construction at Osborne, South Australia. The most significant difference is the removal of the Thales Sonar 2087 towed array and various other unspecified Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) systems.

It would also involve “minor” changes to the ship’s propulsion and power systems to accommodate for the increased top weight of the high-mounted VLS cells.

The proposed modifications would have a “minimal” impact on cost and a “negligible” impact on schedule so long as build of the modified design commenced with Batch II, rather than Batch I ships, Lockhart said.

Not_a_boffin

8th Feb 2024, 20:53

It's still thrashing about because they went down a route they thought was low risk and are learning a hard lesson.

Of course BAES will offer this or that, as will Navantia or Babcock for that matter. Point is, if you don't know what you're doing - which DoD don't, then you're at the mercy of the supplier with the "quickest" solution.

Going Boeing

8th Feb 2024, 21:42

Purchasing more Hobart AWD’s is not really feasible because a lot of the systems are obsolete, especially the drivetrain. The RAN would end up with a Mark II AWD without much commonality for maintenance and logistics. The Navantia hulls are also quite small with the systems jammed in, thus making maintenance more difficult and expensive.

All the latest information indicates that the Type 26 hull is the most suitable for RAN requirements despite the furore about the selection process. The very quiet drivetrain is part of the reason for the high cost but that is why it makes such a good ASW platform. The hull size allows much more flexibility with system installation and future growth as new technologies enter service.

The Hunter class is being developed with all the sensors of an AWD but will have a smaller missile capacity due to its ASW role. The BAES proposed 96 cell Type 26/Hunter variant offers a much superior AWD to the Hobart class due to better sensors and twice the missile capacity. It would be a vessel that would be upgradable throughout its service life and remain fully capable in the modern sensor environment and, it would have a large amount of commonality with the ASW version thus reducing logistics and maintenance costs for the RAN.

IMHO, acquiring more Hobarts is sticking with technology that is already starting to become obsolete whereas the Type 26/Hunter is the future - there are signs that the USN agrees as they are totally rejigging the Constellation class in an attempt to have similar capability.

rattman

8th Feb 2024, 23:52

The Hunter class is being developed with all the sensors of an AWD but will have a smaller missile capacity due to its ASW role. The BAES proposed 96 cell Type 26/Hunter variant offers a much superior AWD to the Hobart class due to better sensors and twice the missile capacity. It would be a vessel that would be upgradable throughout its service life and remain fully capable in the modern sensor environment and, it would have a large amount of commonality with the ASW version thus reducing logistics and maintenance costs for the RAN.

Not true, Navantia has offered upgrade to 96 cell as part of the block 2 upgrades which we rejected. They also floated a 128 cell hobart block 3 option + alpha 3000 as part of teir 2 program at same expo that 96 cell hunter was discussed