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

Astute was born into and out of a sh*it sandwich of a situation, caused in large part by a complete loss of expertise following a lengthy gap in orders, which took years to recover from. We are not in that situation now - Dreadnaught is following seamlessly from Astute, and future attack submarine should follow seamlessly from Dreadnaught. It IS a few years off, but that reflects the pipeline of deliveries rather than any Astute-era car crash..

"Dreadnaught is following seamlessly from Astute, "

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

From that Covert Shores article.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news...launch-system/

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

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

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

HMS Vanguard refuel

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

https://www.naval-technology.com/new...ia-submarines/

Also AFR has an article on the program

https://www.afr.com/politics/federal...0230118-p5cdgu

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/a...rent-l7kfxdx7n

Australia to buy deep sea mines as China deterrent

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

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

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

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

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

The government is expected to unveil in March what it has described as the “optimal pathway” for Australia to acquire at least eight nuclear-powered submarines with support from the US and UK under the AUKUS defence pact.

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

You could mine Darwin harbour.

We also need to stay within the Australian 12 mile limit

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

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

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

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

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

Barrow-in-Furness or Adelaide.

Tricky choice…..

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