Replacement of Australia's Collins Class Submarines

[Zoo Tycoon]

Fuel is 80% to weapons grade. Last 20% is fairly minor compared to getting to this stage.

Uhm, lots of interesting challenges;- Potentially there’s no refuelling because the reactor has urber power rich HEU controlled by a clever burn-able moderator which is good for 25 years operating. Willing to be corrected, but I understand the magic moderator is mixed in with the HEU to create the fuel pellet. So will Aus buy built up and fuelled reactors? Or will they purchase finished fuel pellets and assemble the reactors (The MOX affair comes to mind)? Or will they make their own fuel pellets, in which case where does the HEU come from ? Can weapons grade HEU be legally exported to a country that doesn’t produce their own ? So will Aus start production of its own HEU? Only the latter of these routes gives them a fast track to a nuclear weapon.

I guess once reactors up and running it’s independent for 25 years,

Corrected to refer to HEU

 

[GTX]

Australia to pursue nuclear-powered submarines through new trilateral enhanced security partnership | Prime Minister of Australia

www.pm.gov.au

 

[GTX]

Technically Australia could start producing its own fuel and re-processing though it will take years to fully train people and set up the infrastructure. The fact that Australia has just over 30% of the world's reasonably assured resources of Uranium helps...

 

[Grey Havoc]

Telegraph saying 8, agree astute should be easier to crew, and maybe a bit cheaper?

Though the Astute is a flawed design. Then again, so is the Virginia...

 

[TomS]

Willing to be corrected, but I understand the magic moderator is mixed in with the Pu 239 to create the fuel pellet.

Highly enriched uranium, not plutonium. Pu should show up in typical PWR reactor cores only as a fission product, and not in high concentrations. And after decades in a reactor, it's going to be very messy for weapons use.

 

[Bhurki]

If integration both in management and operation is key within the AUUKUS framework, and cost efficiency is a considerable factor for Aus, then the only long term solution is Virginia B5.

Any new design would inflate the overhead costs for RDT&E, O&M to an extreme point, due to the fact Aus doesn't have the industrial base or institutional knowledge to design, test and sustain nuke boats yet. All those setup costs pile up quickly when the order size is small.

The role for UK maybe to help establish the sustainment capacity for the fleet while US supplies the boats. UK gets orders for equipment and US gets an additional base much closer to the area of concern, SCS.

Again, one could argue Aus is expecting a truly independent O-plan for its upcoming sub fleet, but that doesn't gel well with the 'close' integration mentioned the agreement.

 

[Thorvic]

Potentially interesting observation given one of the announcements yesterday was that the Australian SSNs will be built in Adelaide:

ASC Shipbuilding, formerly the shipbuilding division of ASC Pty Ltd (i.e. Australian Submarine Corporation), is a subsidiary of BAE Systems Australia and will remain a subsidiary for the duration of the contract to build the Hunter class frigates. It was structurally separated from ASC Pty Ltd in December 2018 and became a subsidiary of BAE Systems Australia. In 2021 it was renamed as BAE Systems Maritime Australia.

Given BAE Systems do the Astute class does this signal a future outcome?

Expect to hear Aussie ascents in Barrow in Furness & Faslane in the coming months.

Give the state of the Astute replacement programme and that it sounds like it may be a shortened Dreadnaught but with VLS tubes and facilities to operate unmanned vehicles I cant see that being ready in the next 18-36 mths to act as a basis for the new RAN SSN. Given the existing designs and experience with the Astute perhaps they will look at Adapting the Astute for US weapon systems and maybe the new PWR3 reactor going into the Dreadnaughts, then they can train people during the construction of the last astute and then send the jigs and tooling to Adelaide along with a few advisors to get the building started as they will use the Dreadnaught jigs fir the next RN SSN.

GTX do you guys have the steel manufacturing available for building SSN's ?, I'm assuming your must have after the Collins and the Barracuda, if not then that's another area that will need to be developed.

I guess we will see RAN crews joining USN and RN SSN crews, and no doubt be put through the Perisher training course, to get prepared for their boats.

From a different angle I suspect we may see a regular East of Suez deployment of an RN Astute, and going forward they may be docked and supported at RAN submarine bases

 

[muttly]

Will it be a joint design sub or will designs from the us and the uk
be presented? China doesn't like anyone doing anything but bowing
at their feet.

 

[Volkodav]

As per earlier post, I think the Virginia class would be too large whereas the Astutes are probably closer in size to what the RAN is prepared for though if we compress a program to say 6 - 8 boats rather than the 12 planned under SEA 1000 now it might be more achievable. Mind you, I understand the RAN still struggles with crewing 6 Collins class SSKs even today so...

Mind you if they are talking about new builds in Australia, it may be a new design or design variation altogether...maybe...big maybe.

Part of the crewing issue was the lack of critical mass due to the lack of training billets on active submarines. Counter intuitively, the solution actually turned out to be to increase crew size and improve accommodation / capacity so extra bodies could go to sea and get the required qualification and experience. This meant there were extra qualified sailors over all, less pressure on the same few, more opportunities for leave, for training etc. instead of the status quo of running a hand full of technical sailors into the ground and burning them out.

 

[Jimmo952]

If integration both in management and operation is key within the AUUKUS framework, and cost efficiency is a considerable factor for Aus, then the only long term solution is Virginia B5.

Any new design would inflate the overhead costs for RDT&E, O&M to an extreme point, due to the fact Aus doesn't have the industrial base or institutional knowledge to design, test and sustain nuke boats yet. All those setup costs pile up quickly when the order size is small.

The role for UK maybe to help establish the sustainment capacity for the fleet while US supplies the boats. UK gets orders for equipment and US gets an additional base much closer to the area of concern, SCS.

Again, one could argue Aus is expecting a truly independent O-plan for its upcoming sub fleet, but that doesn't gel well with the 'close' integration mentioned the agreement.

It's be said the Aussies want the American CMS, comms and weapons.

If that's the case, would've it be easier and less risky to just buy Virginia rather than attempt to retrofit that stuff into Astute?

 

[jeffb]

Interesting points coming to the fore now that everyone has been distracted by the 'nuclear subs for Australia' announcement is that part of the AUKUS deal includes Australia allowing a far larger, and at first reading permanent US military presence in Australia.

Washington | American ships, bomber planes, satellites and military base personnel will all have a significantly increased presence across Australia in a new era of co-operation, designed to ensure an enhanced level of “match fitness” in the Indo-Pacific.

...as Defence Minister Peter Dutton confirmed there would be a major increase in the US military presence in Australia...

Thousands of US land forces already rotate through the Northern Territory for training but Mr Dutton flagged an increase in US air and naval assets here. "There is more that we can do, in the maritime space, in the air space, and there is also a big opportunity there for Australian industry ... the sustainment of all of that, you know, personnel, and the equipment that they bring with them."

Mr Dutton also says US military forces could be based in southern Australian states.
"The United States is talking about bringing through all sorts of planes, Bombers and different surveillance planes ... sustaining them through Richmond or Amberley (RAAF bases), different airports ... there is a big opportunity."

Others now pointing out that technically, Australia now has NO plan for a Collins replacement other than a rather vague promise of a nuclear powered option, to be built in Adelaide, at some point in the future.

Is the nuclear powered subs announcement simply a massive distraction to cover Australia agreeing to allow a permanent US military presence on its soil?

Don't know how well it's going to work, Australians generally have never wanted US bases here.

Media in Australia seem to be all ra-ra-ing the change so far.

Bit of a devils-advocate view here, sorry if that upsets.

 

[uk 75]

I would think that regular basing of both RN and USN SSNs in Australia would be an early stage in this programme.
This would permit individual Australians to join their crews and learn about operating SSNs.
The quickest way of getting an RAN SSN in service would be to assign a Los Angeles or Virginia class boat to the RAN with a joint crew.
I imagine the UK role will be more about onshore facilities and training than hardware given the small number of Astutes in service and problems with them.
The SSN is the main tool the Allies have to deny a regional threat use of the sea.

 

[Hood]

Interesting points coming to the fore now that everyone has been distracted by the 'nuclear subs for Australia' announcement is that part of the AUKUS deal includes Australia allowing a far larger, and at first reading permanent US military presence in Australia.

The AUKUS pact seems very vague, the nuclear submarines angle seems to have been pushed hard in the media. It does cover AI, quantum computing and cyber warfare security technologies (not sexy subjects for jurnos to espouse on, they just about know what a submarine is) and there have been one or two vague references to UK and US nuclear sub basing in Australia but the emphasis has very much been on the technology transfer side although there must be other commitments, hence Theresa May's questions beyond the purely technical aspects.
Some of the cyber stuff was probably under 'Five Eyes' already.

You can understand why France is annoyed, if the Australians had wanted an SSN and approached the UK and they approached the US to release nuclear technology then fair enough. But its far more than a simple submarine deal, it seems like London and Washington leapt on this as a bandwagon for the geopolitics in the region and hung an array of additional extras on it. Australia wanted a submarine and came away with a defence pact and all the high-tech goodies - a big win win for them.
For the UK and USA its a lot of pain and political fallout today over submarines that might be built in a decade's time.

France might be miffed but the fact is we don't know whether Paris would have exported Barracuda had been asked back in March (they did nearly export Rubis to Canada 30 years ago though). Some commentators are saying it shows that the US doesn't trust France with it with its nuclear technology, well that's nothing new since De Gaulle's day and irrelevant, the RAN wasn't going to fit a Barracuda with UK or US reactor, they wouldn't have needed to seek any US technology release for the K15 (as far we know).

 

[Archibald]

Can't help thinking about it further.

In an ideal world (note: I said IDEAL, more on this later) NG would accept a major reduction in the Attack / Short fin barracuda program; build 2 to 4 submarines instead of 12;
and these subs would be used
a) as interim types to fill the gap between the Collins and nuclear Barracudas
b) once enough Barracudas in RAN service, the handful of Attacks would become "training subs" for their similar but nuclear "brothers".

Don't you think that would make some sense ?
It would
- salvage some of the $90 billion quagmire
- at a massive reduction in cost by cutting the number of hulls
- and results in a mixed fleet of, say
- 4 Attacks
- 6 Barracudas
A number close from the RAN initial target (for both Collins and Attacks: 12 subs).
And a mixed fleet of nuclear and non-nuclear subs, otherwise very similar since they are kind of "half brothers".
The non-nuclear subs would cost less for daily shores, saving the nuclear subs potential for the most important missions where range is all important.

If I were the french government, I would publically kick Naval Group in their... rear end, presents some apologies to the offended Australians - and make the (counter)proposal described above
- make a handful of Attacks into interim & training subs for nuclear Barracudas later on.

Alas, @Volkodav told us NG attitude toward their Australian customer(s) seems to be rather atrocious and toxic.

Right here

There are definite advantages to the UK/US deal but going a nuc Barracuda would appear logical. However the relationship with NG has been the worst in the experience of people I know on the project. Sometimes it is better to cut your losses.

These are people who have worked with B&V, Navantia, Kockums, Raytheon, BIW, BAE, EB etc. and they have never had an experience as bad. NG also hired some really good people with great reputations in industry, then screwed them over so badly they left the industry.

I don't know if its the company as a whole, or just the operation in Australia but the environment is apparently toxic.

It's really a shame... such a waste. Also noting that according to

Naval Group - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

- the French state holds a 62.49% stake

- Thales holds 35%

- the personnel a 1.64% stake.

- The remaining 0.87% are owned by the heir to the French naval dockyards and the Direction des Constructions et Armes Navales (DCAN), which became the DCN (Direction des Constructions Navales) in 1991, DCNS in 2007 and Naval Group since 2017.

So the French state has a massive stake in NG yet can't get its "troops" into order ? the mind wonder... it is not a free-wheeling private company we are discussing here. I'm a bit ashamed there.

One can wonder if the atrocious attitude described by @Volkodav comes from " Thales 35% slice" or the French gvt's 63% sides ?

As I said, there is no such thing as an "ideal world" obviously - so forget it...

 

[kaiserd]

It does appear that the level of the UK’s role in the sub deal may be being overblown by over enthusiasm from UK sources and contributors here.

The critical part of both the overall agreement and specifically what emerges re: Australian subs is the US-Australia relationship going forward; the UK are the necessary almost-“3rd wheel”.

It appears likely that whatever submarine that may eventually emerge will have much higher US rather than UK content as it is really the US that Australia needs/ wants interoperability with (and in the hope of some genuine economies of scale).
So perhaps something like a slightly smaller Virginia class with reduced crew requirements?

And for all the warm words it is an open question on how long this apparent UK pivot to an area such a long geographical distance from themselves will be sustained and be sustainable in the face of political and economic realities and threats far closer to home.
Only a great reduction in the Russian threat (post a regime change in Russia?) combined with a sustained period of economic growth and stability would start to make this all look more credible and sustainable (something akin to the Blair period and the ordering of the large carriers).

 

[Hood]

It appears likely that whatever submarine that may eventually emerge will have much higher US rather than UK content as it is really the US that Australia needs/ wants interoperability with (and in the hope of some genuine economies of scale).

I wouldn't argue with that, I guess an analogy would be the Hunter-class, a British design with largely local electronics and US weapons. As GTX notes above, BAE Systems has a foot in the door in Adelaide. If the RAN just wanted Virginias then it had no need to bother the UK with a request for technology, I'm sure the US could do a nice package deal on its own.

I really have to ask, how is Britain going to be able to sustain an effective presence in the Pacific, when it's military is so all over the shop. The British military is struggling to meet it's commitment in its own backyard - Europe, let alone on the other side of the world.
I'm still getting my head around the m fact that the British needed the assistance of a USMC F-35B Squadron and I believe a USN Arleigh Burke class DDG to supplement it's deployment during its China rattling deployment says a lot to me.

Its a pertinent question. Small forces, modest budgets and multiple procurement fiascos are not awe-inspiring.
Well having a multi-national task force sends different geopolitical messages, you might read "the UK is weak" or "we all stand united" or a mixture of both messages.

 

[Archibald]

That's why I'm leaning toward @kaiserd hypothesis that UK will have few if no role in the whole scheme: the lion share will be for the USA, and the submarines will probably be american ones.

France might be miffed but the fact is we don't know whether Paris would have exported Barracuda had been asked back in March (they did nearly export Rubis to Canada 30 years ago though).

Interesting, but it seems Naval Group backed itself in a corner with the australians... see my post above, about "ideal" versus "realistic" world.

 

[Deleted member 2278]

Why even mention the UK if they are not intending/intended to make a substantial contribution?

Astute has a fair amount of US IP (thanks to that building gap) and so the UK will need US cooperation to export any Astute derivative. The US are not letting anyone near the Virginia's with a 140m barge-pole. It is about as national security as it gets. Not to mention it is way too much sub for the customer. So we arrive at a tri-lateral agreement for everyone to get what they want.

My prediction, an Astute (possibly Dreadnought aka PWR3) derived powertrain/pump-jet propulsor in a bespoke hullform (smaller than Astute) with Astute level automation to permit achievable manning requirements, with US sensors and weapon systems, as per. Little to no UK manufacturing input outside perhaps the reactors (it wouldn't be economic) but substantial design input.

We'll find out in 18 months or so.

 

[Fluff]

With the exodus from Afghanistan, in terms of overall military numbers, even if different services, UK should be able to contribute, and I dont think we are looking at permanent deployment of a CV & battlegroup.

So 1 Astute loaner to RAN, with a slimmed down crew to train up RAN crew, and maybe we take a CV turn with the USN, every other year.

Thats do-able, if we want it to be.

If people have links to who will contribute what, please share, but I'm doubtful this exists, beyond a top level political agreement.

I'm expecting a pick and mix approach. Also the RN operating from a smaller industrial support base, may be helpful to RAN.

Clearly if this was just a US to Aus deal, UK wouldnt be in it.

 

[Foo Fighter]

I am hoping that a new class will be designed for all three navies, allowing common weapons and equipment in the region. A logical move. This would give time for Oz to build up knowledge and facilities with UK/US vessels staging from Oz to handle shipboard training and covering the region in collaboration with current subs in service. Simplistic I know.

 

[Jimmo952]

Once again, as the Aussies seemingly want to use American CMS, weapons and coms, wouldn't an austere version of Virgina make sense?

Those things are fully integrated with Virginia. There would be no engineering costs or risk there.

Why take on the development costs for a whole new class of submarine? And also the risks?

I am assuming the engineering work required to build a whole new class of submarine would be considerable.

Take that money and use it to build out production and maintenance facilities instead.

 

[zen]

Compliments:-
Virginia 135
Astute 98

Still it's nice to hear the UK has nothing to offer this alliance and isn't needed.
Presumably people think Biden is doing the UK a favour?

 

[TomS]

UK couldn't send an astute today, by the time it gets there, it would need to come back

Pretty sure HMS Artful is out there now with the QEII strike group.

U.K. Carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth Now on the Edge of the South China Sea - USNI News

KUALA LUMPUR — The Queen Elizabeth Carrier Strike Group is making its way into the South China Sea with some ships already there ahead of carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth (R08). The strike group has partially disaggregated into different elements following the conclusion of Exercise Konkan with the...

news.usni.org

 

[Deleted member 2278]

.....wouldn't an austere version of Virgina make sense? ........ There would be no engineering costs or risk there........

An "austere Virginia" is a new class of boat. Plenty of cost and risk to be had. You can't just build a Virginia with some bits you don't want left out. That path is spirally and lies madness!

Now, I'm all for an all-American boat if that is what the Australians want. No way is that boat going to be a "Virginia" as we know it (Jim). Whether UK or US-built, these subs won't be exactly like anything currently in the water. Neither an Astute or Virginia is a good fit for the RAN. There's personnel considerations if nothing else (and there's always something else)!

As an aside, what even is a Virginia at this stage? There's already more blocks than in Legoland!

"Oh, we don't need LAB or VPT, so we'll go with a Block II please."
"We don't do Block II any more......"
"Doh!"

 

[Fluff]

.....wouldn't an austere version of Virgina make sense? ........ There would be no engineering costs or risk there........

An "austere Virginia" is a new class of boat. Plenty of cost and risk to be had. You can't just build a Virginia with some bits you don't want left out. That path is spirally and lies madness!

Now, I'm all for an all-American boat if that is what the Australians want. No way is that boat going to be a "Virginia" as we know it (Jim). Whether UK or US-built, these subs won't be exactly like anything currently in the water. Neither an Astute or Virginia is a good fit for the RAN. There's personnel considerations if nothing else (and there's always something else)!

As an aside, what even is a Virginia at this stage? There's already more blocks than in Legoland!

"Oh, we don't need LAB or VLS, so we'll go with a Block II please."
"We don't do Block II any more......"
"Doh!"

Collins front end, Astute Middle and Fin, Virginia reactor and prop. Crew training by the French.....

What could go wrong?? [would]

 

[Jimmo952]

.....wouldn't an austere version of Virgina make sense? ........ There would be no engineering costs or risk there........

An "austere Virginia" is a new class of boat. Plenty of cost and risk to be had. You can't just build a Virginia with some bits you don't want left out. That path is spirally and lies madness!

Now, I'm all for an all-American boat if that is what the Australians want. No way is that boat going to be a "Virginia" as we know it (Jim). Whether UK or US-built, these subs won't be exactly like anything currently in the water. Neither an Astute or Virginia is a good fit for the RAN. There's personnel considerations if nothing else (and there's always something else)!

As an aside, what even is a Virginia at this stage? There's already more blocks than in Legoland!

"Oh, we don't need LAB or VLS, so we'll go with a Block II please."
"We don't do Block II any more......"
"Doh!"

Collins front end, Astute Middle and Fin, Virginia reactor and prop. Crew training by the French.....

What could go wrong?? [would]

Agreed. Avoid the Frankenboat and the project just might succeed.

 

[Jimmo952]

Compliments:-
Virginia 135
Astute 98

Still it's nice to hear the UK has nothing to offer this alliance and isn't needed.
Presumably people think Biden is doing the UK a favour?

.....wouldn't an austere version of Virgina make sense? ........ There would be no engineering costs or risk there........

An "austere Virginia" is a new class of boat. Plenty of cost and risk to be had. You can't just build a Virginia with some bits you don't want left out. That path is spirally and lies madness!

Now, I'm all for an all-American boat if that is what the Australians want. No way is that boat going to be a "Virginia" as we know it (Jim). Whether UK or US-built, these subs won't be exactly like anything currently in the water. Neither an Astute or Virginia is a good fit for the RAN. There's personnel considerations if nothing else (and there's always something else)!

As an aside, what even is a Virginia at this stage? There's already more blocks than in Legoland!

"Oh, we don't need LAB or VPT, so we'll go with a Block II please."
"We don't do Block II any more......"
"Doh!"

The Aussies want the American CMS, weapons and coms. The want VLS and the ability to support UUVs.

Sounds like a Virginia and I say that without national bias.

That is different though than being able to afford, produce or crew one.

There is a call on the US side to provide the boats or parts of the boats to Australia at cost.

Let's see where this goes.

 

[Deleted member 2278]

There is a call on the US side to provide the boats or parts of the boats to Australia at cost.

Lol! From who? That's insane!

Even if that were true, if someone gave me a free Dodge Viper (1996 blue with white stripes, baby) I couldn't afford to go visit my sister in it!

 

[Jimmo952]

There is a call on the US side to provide the boats or parts of the boats to Australia at cost.

Lol! From who? That's insane!

Even if that were true, if someone gave me a free Dodge Viper (1996 blue with white stripes, baby) I couldn't afford to go visit my sister in it!

I didn't say free. I said at cost. You get the difference I am sure.

They boats would be partially subsidized by the US.

 

[zen]

.....wouldn't an austere version of Virgina make sense? ........ There would be no engineering costs or risk there........

An "austere Virginia" is a new class of boat. Plenty of cost and risk to be had. You can't just build a Virginia with some bits you don't want left out. That path is spirally and lies madness!

Now, I'm all for an all-American boat if that is what the Australians want. No way is that boat going to be a "Virginia" as we know it (Jim). Whether UK or US-built, these subs won't be exactly like anything currently in the water. Neither an Astute or Virginia is a good fit for the RAN. There's personnel considerations if nothing else (and there's always something else)!

As an aside, what even is a Virginia at this stage? There's already more blocks than in Legoland!

"Oh, we don't need LAB or VLS, so we'll go with a Block II please."
"We don't do Block II any more......"
"Doh!"

Collins front end, Astute Middle and Fin, Virginia reactor and prop. Crew training by the French.....

What could go wrong?? [would]

Safety by

Compliments:-
Virginia 135
Astute 98

Still it's nice to hear the UK has nothing to offer this alliance and isn't needed.
Presumably people think Biden is doing the UK a favour?

.....wouldn't an austere version of Virgina make sense? ........ There would be no engineering costs or risk there........

An "austere Virginia" is a new class of boat. Plenty of cost and risk to be had. You can't just build a Virginia with some bits you don't want left out. That path is spirally and lies madness!

Now, I'm all for an all-American boat if that is what the Australians want. No way is that boat going to be a "Virginia" as we know it (Jim). Whether UK or US-built, these subs won't be exactly like anything currently in the water. Neither an Astute or Virginia is a good fit for the RAN. There's personnel considerations if nothing else (and there's always something else)!

As an aside, what even is a Virginia at this stage? There's already more blocks than in Legoland!

"Oh, we don't need LAB or VPT, so we'll go with a Block II please."
"We don't do Block II any more......"
"Doh!"

The Aussies want the American CMS, weapons and coms. The want VLS and the ability to support UUVs.

Sounds like a Virginia and I say that without national bias.

That is different though than being able to afford, produce or crew one.

There is a call on the US side to provide the boats or parts of the boats to Australia at cost.

Let's see where this goes.

If they want all this....

And there is no UK IP restrictions on anything in the Virginia class.
.....
Then why approach the UK as we are told they did?

What is the point of the UK being party to this at all?
After all Biden isn't exactly pro-uk.

 

[uk 75]

We know from the Adams and Perry class daya that the RAN would be happiest with a variant of a current US SSN.
The UK will welcome a safe base for an Astute when it deploys to the Far East.
Russia may pose a land/air threat to vulnerable parts of NATO but its navy is even more contained by NATO ASW assets than it was in the Cold War.
Its few operable surface raiders would be removed quickly by SSNs.
The UK carrier (hardly ever will two be available) is probably more useful East of Suez than in the North Atlantic.

 

[GTX]

GTX do you guys have the steel manufacturing available for building SSN's ?, I'm assuming your must have after the Collins and the Barracuda, if not then that's another area that will need to be developed.

Yes we have capability.

I guess we will see RAN crews joining USN and RN SSN crews, and no doubt be put through the Perisher training course, to get prepared for their boats.

I understand there is actually long history of Australian Sub Captains doing this already.

From a different angle I suspect we may see a regular East of Suez deployment of an RN Astute, and going forward they may be docked and supported at RAN submarine bases

Indeed.

 

[Jimmo952]

Don't forget the River class. Two of them being deployed to the Pacific surely alters the balance there in favor of the West.

 

[GTX]

I would think that regular basing of both RN and USN SSNs in Australia would be an early stage in this programme.
This would permit individual Australians to join their crews and learn about operating SSNs.

I agree. Expect US/UK SSNs in Australian ports possibly before the end of the year. Also expect crew exchanges next year.

 

[GTX]

It does appear that the level of the UK’s role in the sub deal may be being overblown by over enthusiasm from UK sources and contributors here.

The critical part of both the overall agreement and specifically what emerges re: Australian subs is the US-Australia relationship going forward; the UK are the necessary almost-“3rd wheel”.

I don't think so. If they just wanted the US tech etc there would be no-need to include UK. There is much more to this than just the headlines. Dare I go so far as saying this will be the reversal of Britain's East of Suez withdrawal...?

So perhaps something like a slightly smaller Virginia class with reduced crew requirements?

That would be an interesting development. A tri-nation medium sized SSN would be interesting

Only a great reduction in the Russian threat (post a regime change in Russia?) combined with a sustained period of economic growth and stability would start to make this all look more credible and sustainable (something akin to the Blair period and the ordering of the large carriers).

Yes, the Russia aspect is one the West has to address as well. The lost of direction for the Western alliance the over last 4yrs as Russia and China were making moves is something that we are playing catchup with now.

 

[GTX]

The Second and Third Order Consequences as Australia Goes Nuclear - KPMG Newsroom

Yesterday we woke to the surprising news that Australia had made the most dramatic change in Defence policy in a generation.

newsroom.kpmg.com.au

 

[jeffb]

BAE, Rolls-Royce and Babcock will design a new class of nuclear powered attack submarines for the Royal Navy to replace the Astute class - currently referred to as SSN-Replacement (SSN-R).

I'd like to think that Australia could get involved with this project if we're going to build new Nuclear powered subs here, and ASC's connections with BAE won't hurt.




H I Sutton - Covert Shores - Royal Navy Submarine SSN(R)

 

[Jemiba]

This thread has drifted away from the original theme considerably, I'm afraid.
And in several posts, it became victim to severe overquoting, too, making it
hard to read.
Please, back to topic and readable posts again !

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

My prediction, an Astute (possibly Dreadnought aka PWR3) derived powertrain/pump-jet propulsor in a bespoke hullform (smaller than Astute) with Astute level automation to permit achievable manning requirements, with US sensors and weapon systems, as per. Little to no UK manufacturing input outside perhaps the reactors (it wouldn't be economic) but substantial design input.

We'll find out in 18 months or so.

The diameter of Astute's pressure hull was set by the PWR2, so a submarine with a PWR3 would, if anything, be slightly larger.

 

[Archibald]

Might still be winnable for Naval Group as the Australians had no complaints about the design itself.

From what @Volkodav told us, if Naval Group are such pigs with their customers, then they won't sold any SF Barracuda to anyone.

They need to change their attitudes and behaviour - or so it seems.