Given that publicly they were refused. It's possible what i was told is wrong, or may have been a mix of stories. With Nixon and such. The story I was told would have been the Q-244. As well as the uranium. There was a sub, nuke power plant for land base only. it may have been components provided? To assist the land-based plant.

There’s been some interesting posts on this thread and I think the decision to cancel the Attack class submarine was the correct action in the current political climate - for quite a number of reasons. The key development allowing the RAN to purchase/build SSN’s is the availability of reactors that have sufficient fuel for the life of the vessel. This means that there is no requirement to build the massive infrastructure to handle radioactive material or rely on other nations to refuel the vessels. Even though the new nuclear powered submarines will not be operational for many years, the decision has sent a strong signal that the West will stand united and will not allow expansionist aggression by any country to occur.

A number of people have expressed concern about a potential gap between the Collins class retirement and the future SSN’s becoming operational, but the planned Collins Life of Type Extension (LOTE) should adequately cover that period.

I understand that the fatigue checks on the 6 boats has confirmed that all the hulls are suitable for the LOTE and, if the information on Wikipedia is accurate, these hulls have better steel than even the Virginia class SSN’s.

“ The hull is constructed from a high-tensile micro-alloy steel, developed by Swedish steel manufacturer SSAB, and improved by BHP of Australia, which was lighter and easier to weld than the HY-80 (LA class) or HY-100 (Virginia class) nickel-alloy steel used in contemporary submarine construction projects, while providing better results in explosion bulge testing.”

The first boat (HMAS Farncomb) is to commence the LOTE in 2026 in conjunction with a planned 2 year full-cycle docking. The aim is to try to complete the LOTE within those 2 years but, being the first to go through the process, it is expected to run a little overtime, possibly as long as an additional year. On completion, it will have 10 more years of operational service before its expected retirement circa 2039. The LOTE will involve separation of hull sections to allow replacement of all 3 diesel generator units, the main electric motor with possible replacement of batteries, fitment of telescopic photonic masts & acoustic upgrades. It may also involve sonar upgrades if they haven’t been previously fitted to the vessel.

Subsequent vessels are programmed to follow every two years with the last boat to complete the LOTE, HMAS Rankin, possibly retiring after 2048 so that should allow sufficient time for the first 4 SSN’s built in Australia to be operational.

The Collins class is currently experiencing good availability and all are now fitted with the AN/BYG-1 combat system (same as Virginia & retro-fitted to the LA class) and are thus performing well. They are getting a number of Sonar upgrades, a Modular Cylindrical Array (MCA) based on Sonar Type 2076 submarine technology developed by Thales teams in the UK (as fitted to the Astute class). The existing flank array will be replaced by the latest generation flank array as well as new High Frequency Intercept arrays and the locally developed Heron Mine & Obstacle Avoidance System (MOAS). Thus, in conjunction with LOTE acoustic improvements, they will remain as a full fighting force for the duration of their service life. They currently are armed with Harpoon anti-ship missiles and the upgraded Mark 48 Mod 7 Common Broadband Advanced Sonar System torpedo which was jointly developed by the US and Australian navies. This torpedo’s CBASS guidance control system has wider sonar bandwidth and can function at depths much greater than 365 meters. More resistant to enemy countermeasures, the CBASS torpedo variant can be optimized for targeting fast, deep-diving diving submarines or slow-moving submarines and surface ships in shallow waters.


https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....21acd40d9.jpeg
______________________________

If it is decided to purchase/build the Virginia class, the RAN would probably be looking at the Block VI configuration because it will have the acoustic enhancements that are currently being trialled aboard the USS South Dakota. This means the Australian SSN’s will have the latest available technology which is necessary as the RAN traditionally keeps vessels in service for their full fatigue life. They must be upgradable to ensure they are effective and survivable throughout their service life. The US plans to order the Block VI for production in the 2024-28 timeframe so this should fit with the Australian construction timetable. It’s even possible that the later vessels could be built to Block VII standard.

The submarines can be built without the Virginia Payload Module (VPM) at a saving of about US$500M per hull but the VP Tubes add a lot of flexibility & firepower as well as providing a launch capability for future UUV’s & hypersonic weapons. It would future proof evolving capability to include the VPM on at least half of the fleet - to not have VPM capability would limit how much the Virginia’s could be adapted to new technologies through to the end of their service life.

The 33 year life of the Virginia’s S9G reactor (& its much higher output) gives a significant advantage over the 25 year life of the Astute’s PWR2 which is reported to be out of production & has some safety concerns (Fukishima like, primary cooling system). The extra life that the reactor gives the Virginia class helps to offset its higher cost. The US has better facilities for disposal of the reactor core at the end of the SSN’s service life at the US Department of Energy’s Hanford Nuclear Reservation in Washington State. The UK has had all of their older submarines stored at Devonport (Plymouth) & Rosyth for a long time and have finally started the process of removing radioactive components and disassembling them. There have been a number of reports about maintenance events on the Astute class which would indicate that design is not as operationally mature as the Virginia’s.

Another plus for selecting the Virginia would be the higher level of support (maintenance & re-arming) available at US submarine bases in the Pacific & Indian Oceans. If the Astute is selected, the RAN would have to arrange larger infrastructure & logistics.

There are still many hurdles, especially to get US Congressional approval, etc. I believe the leaders in the US would generally be in favour of a long term, trusted alliance partner having access to the latest technology as it assists them in doing the heavy lifting in maintaining peace throughout the Pacific.

PS. There are a lot of articles indicating that the US doesn’t have any spare submarines that the RAN can lease prior to building their own. The number of SSN’s in the US Navy fleet is currently way down on what they need so they can’t spare one. The only possibility is to take one of the Block II Los Angeles class boats that is in the process of decommissioning, paying for a very expensive refuel and overhaul, then try to keep it serviceable for another 10 years while the RAN sailors gain SSN experience. The USS Oklahoma City completed its final voyage in Bremerton a few days ago so it could be a candidate but, following the RAN’s experience with the Kanimbla class rust buckets, I can’t see them going down this path. Also, the USN currently has a backlog of submarines idle while waiting for their turn for refuelling & overhaul because the small number of shipyards able to do this work are unable to meet the demand - they wouldn’t be able to fit another vessel in their timetable for it to be prepared for RAN use. The hapless USS Boise returned from a patrol in 2015, and it hasn’t gone back on patrol since. Posting crew members to RN & USN submarine positions may be the only way for RAN submariners to learn how to operate SSN’s. The Royal Navy also doesn’t have any spare submarines available for lease.


https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....654e4f7fe.jpeg

https://www.defenceconnect.com.au/key-enablers/9142-coras-partners-with-uk-firm-to-support-development-of-australian-nuclear-powered-submarine-capability

Australian management consultancy Coras has inked an agreement with the UK’s Abbott Risk Consulting to support Australia’s acquisition and transition to a nuclear-powered submarine capability.

Following September’s AUKUS announcement, Australian and British firms have begun reaching across the aisle to work together under proposed technology-sharing arrangements between the countries.

Maybe buying the Virginia class Block VI might be too ambitious!


https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....9fccb3b9c.jpeg

US bases on guam and in australia to be expanded, no actual details

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/11/29/p...ina/index.html

Yes, this is the ABC’s report - it would be good to have more details.


https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-11-...alia/100661190

Its actually specified its internal use and restricted / top secret so we wont really know the details

Wonder if they'll bump up activity at Momote?
The amount of stuff still left up there from WW2 is a sight to behold.
ADDED: Interesting: https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-in...nded-navy-port

Guess it'll be somewhere with reasonable access to deep water, not too far from the shipyard or a large industrial area for preference Perth, Brisbane, Newcastle areas look best - maybe Adelaide. Not Darwin or Melbourne

Correct on Melbourne! The Democratik People’s Glorious Leader, His Emperor “Tali”Dan, of the Democratik Republik of the People’s Glorious CCCP State of Victoria - would not such Imperialist Activities.

Darwin though, you may be incorrect. GPR was upgraded to facilitate construction out at GP.

Possible but N subs need a lot of support - almost every base is near a BIG support facility (eg Norfolk, Glasgow, Murmansk) - Guam is the only one that is really different - but it's a monster military base.

:}:D All praise to the Great Leader!

Remember the rumours surrounding French Island being scouted by the USN? I imagine it was just that because Westernport & Port Philip Bays would be easily choked. Ahh, those were the days!

Port Phillip Bay has been off-limits to nuclear (power or weapons) since either the 80s or 90s: maybe even earlier. The maritime unions won't deal with them and the State Gummints have not changed opinions except for Jeff Kennett who welcomed the USS Ohio in November 1992. In Victoria the Nuclear Activities (Prohibitions) Act dates from 1983 and remains on the Statutes today.

"It is the policy of the Royal Navy neither to confirm nor deny the carriage of nuclear weapons on board this ship" :p

The LA class have been sneaking into FBW under cover of darkness for years.

The maritime union only has a say on civilian wharfs/docks/ports.

Manus wouldn't last hours in a conflict with the CCP. Not without significant defensive investment including well-equipped infantry. A proper defensive commitment of a forward base such as Manus, would take up a considerable amount of ADF resources.

In WW2 Australia sacrificed many troops with token defence of forward bases throughout the Indonesian and New Guinea archipelagos. I think defence planners know these problems still present in modern conflict in the Pacific. Lombrum may get a token upgrade- anything more and the US Navy has obviously decided it figures more in their war plans than a peacetime forward refuelling base.

Intriguing though that the runway has been lengthened, apron extended and precision landing aids installed...

Water worked at Windscale too. (once they turned the fans off). Windscale also reduces the size of the milk lake in the UK pre-EU entry.... had to wait another 30 years to have Cesium special milk in EUR (Windscales Heath Robinson filters let Po get into the grasslands, at least it has a short " 'arf lyfe" [Po 210: 138.376 days].

The operational advantages of a nuke boat are valid, but so are the issues that come with them, including having to work out whether to use English, Nuclear, or 'Merican, Nukular pronunciation. "Ze embarrassment would be unbearable"... The program cost plonked onto advanced non-nukes would increase the number of hulls to find swabbies to fill the bunks for, which helps with unemployment. The neat thing with boats is, even if you just hide them under the pier no one knows what the risk to their own plans are. That seemed to work for the Foxtrots that seem to routinely sink at the piers in parts of Asia, although if the bow is still above the low tide mark then it kind of negates the strategy.

Once pinged, the old Alfa/Akula would return a pong doppler on the second ping, and yup they do go, but then localization is reduced in importance, a flat-out Akula pretty much announces its presence. The latest boats are better, particularly with nozzles, but they still are going to be driving at modest speeds. (the fairwater work is much better now than before, but still, pushing 5000cu mtrs of water out of the way ends up with energy dumping into the oggin, at a square of the veeze, so silence still derives from caution. At least the anechoic coating tiles add to.... flow turbulence... huh? er, oops. wheres my spack filler and DP190.

My main concern with AUS nukes is just the fleet sizing, if we had a fleet of 16 boats, it would be a fashion statement. having a handful of what can only be described as capital ships is an option, just not what I would vote for. Of course, I would also like some refurbished F16s and even buy-back of the F/A18A/B's they still have a place. Better yet, buy a 10 score and 50 A10's, re-wing, and invite former marine drivers to come and spend time dunnunda at RAAF Bundaberg, RAAF Hamilton Island, and the satellite airport RAAF Airlie Beach, and RAAF Broome. Replace the 30 x 173 PGU-14/B ammo core with cane toads. Nothing says welcome like a GAU-8/A.Add chicken wire mesh over the rear of the blenders to stop getting fruitbat strikes on takeoff when overtaken by the bats.

While we are at it, naval surface vessels, (known as "targets") of capital value don't make much sense anymore. While not a fan of the LCS as they turned out, it was not because the concept was bad, the complexity added by the committees trying to make an "all things to all users" vessel didn't help, nor did missing out the point that ships need to be maintainable. Having to cut the boat in two to replace a poorly designed bearing is an "own goal". A low signature would seem to be a nice thing to have if you wish to avoid being a flaming datum. Our arsenal dunnunda is a carry-over of the 60's, and the technology and lethality of munitions make a rethink worthwhile. One man's capital ship is another's juicy target.

OH, year, the other great thing about the A10 is that afterward, the barrels can be used as flag poles. really strong flag poles.

:}

RAAF asking about 24 C130J and 6 KC130 tankers.

War in the Pacific is going to require more airlift I guess. But why the tankers?



https://www.australiandefence.com.au...cules-for-raaf

I been saying they should buy the UK C-130's to suppliment the australian fleet, I was thinking specifically get some maffs for firefighting, but wonder if theres a option to get its a tanker for most of the year and if needed throw a maffs in it

Over all seems a bit weird, but will we need that many probe and drogue. Unless they are going retroactively refit the A's for probe you are down to Super hornets and growlers.

I can only guess. We have also benched the 10 C-27j from the battle space. So that airlift and mission, has to be replaced somewhere too. Split between C-130j and CH-47? Perhaps they see a need for more probe refueling for specific Growler missions post 2030. Where the KC-30a isn't required for other assets. Or perhaps another probe platform will be coming? At this stage, the plan is to retire the FA-18f around 2030. That also may change?