Replacement of Australia's Collins Class Submarines

No one where I live would dare call Barrow a lovely town! It's a rough working class town, always has been, always will be. They do have a large toilet paper factory though, so its not all deindustrialised ! Around 21% of the town's population work in manufacturing but its true that BAE is keeping the town alive and is probably the sole generator of serious income for families. Most shipyards and aviation and military factories have been in rough and tumble working class districts because historically that's where the cheap labour comes from. Today shipbuilders can import skilled engineers from local regions, nationally and even internationally. Most of the latop-wielding whizkids at BAE probably live outside Barrow in the cozy domains of the Lake District.

But 1.5 hours drive away is Warton, 2 hours Samelsbury - the heart of British military aviation, make no mistake the region is still a hub of high technology, its just in smaller pockets these days.
 
Josh_TN said:
I suspect the build tolerances of any part of a submarine are far in advance of what a yacht entails. Any kind of mechanical imperfection could affect sound profile. Also most parts of a yacht don't undergo a dozen + atmospheres of pressure. The "submarine" part of "nuclear submarine" is probably as challenging as the nuclear bit.
Click to expand...
There's work in an SSN you can hand to crafters who don't have deep experience with nukes. Austal USA has never built a nuke anything and likely will not ever do so, but has subcontracted to do vital SSN work. The key is oversight and quality control.
 
Just as armchair generals want to reduce tank crews to 3 or 2 even. If you look at the simple paper stats it works, pity it has zero relationship to reality and as Von Clauswitz said, "No plan survives first contact with the enemy".

"Admiral, we lost three UAV's in the grid blah, blahblah". "What's the problem with them"? "Probably a tripped circuit breaker". When can that be fixed"? "As soon as we get them RTB".
 
I know this is a dead old post, but I'm going to reply to it here and maybe crosspost to a Soryu thread.

Dragon029 said:
I don't know much about subs, but would the 6100NM distance at 6.5 knots for the Soryu be it's maximum range (with 6.5 knots being it's most efficient speed)? If so, any idea how feasible it would be to bump that up to closer to the Collins' 9000NM through modifications? If not, any guesses at what it's max range would roughly be?
Click to expand...
The simple way to do that is to stretch the hull a bit to get to 150% the fuel tankage or a bit more. 1 cubic meter of diesel is 1000L, roughly 800kg not counting tank walls.

The Soryu class is 2.4m longer than the preceding Oyashio-class and 0.2m larger in diameter, to get that 200 tons greater displacement.

It would probably take less than a 2m stretch through the main fuel tanks to increase the range to Australian requirements, assuming that there's not a midships ballast tank that could be directly converted into a fuel tank like the USN did in WW2.

I suspect that the Soryu class are so relatively short-ranged because they were 1) designed in the late 1990s-early 2000s when the more peaceful governments were in charge, and 2) because some diesel tankage was removed from the Soryu design relative to the preceding Oyashio to add space for the Sterling AIP systems (most likely the LOX tankage).


ouroboros said:
Australia is making noises like they want a Soryu without AIP, but rather a larger lithium ion battery pack for primary energy storage. The belief being that AIP special fuels limit replenishment and patrol time, but a huge lithium battery pack could provide near equivalent performance and can be recharged at sea during convenient snorkeling times, and diesel replenishment at sea or at conventional ports is easy.
Click to expand...
That must have been someone talking out their butt, because the Soryu-class use Sterling AIP that runs on diesel and LOX. It's not a fuel cell that has to run on hydrogen! LOX can be acquired in any place large enough to have a hospital, which means any city with a port big enough to handle a 28ft draft submarine... *facepalm*
 
I honestly never thought I would see the day the USN released active reactor tech to a foreign country. UK? That was a one time deal. They got one working US reactor and all the technical documentation. After that? NOTHING for 40+ years. And then the Astute's reactor design ran into trouble and the USN did another one-time release of data in about 2004 or 05.

Now the USN is actively selling Virginia-class boats? And is apparently collaborating with BAE on the AUKUS sub design? (seriously, guys, where's the "mind blown" emoji on this forum?)

As to individual points:
jeffb said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1655031338226044928
View: https://twitter.com/MrRexPatrick/status/1655031338226044928?s=20
Click to expand...
jeffb said:
Nuclear power isn't a game for children and really requires an independent regulator. Having the same agency that is delivering the capability regulating the capability is a mistake.

https://michaelwest.com.au/who-will-keep-our-submarine-reactors-safe/
Click to expand...
Hasn't been an issue for the USN. USN radiation exposure limits? 1/10 that of Civilian limits.

Naval Reactors, NAVSEA 08, is a very scary dude when he's in work mode.

Part of 08's job is safety, and he takes that job extremely seriously. Usually to the detriment of any damnfools caught being unsafe, or pushing for practices that turn out to be unsafe. See the extremely scathing indictment of 7th Fleet after the two destroyer collisions for an example.

As to disposal? Do you know where the USN puts the reactor core sections of boats, after they'd defueled and cut out of the sub? They go to high desert storage at Hanford, WA to be buried (it's maybe 200 miles from Puget Sound Naval Shipyard).

I'm sure Oz can find someplace that doesn't get much rain in the Outback that is already owned by the Oz federal gov and isn't too far from the shipyard to use for their equivalent storage site. Or maybe the Virginia sections will go to Hanford, AUKUS to whoever uses the boat.


Archibald said:
I never thought I would ever see in my lifetime a nuclear submarine program split between three countries. Of course UK-USA partnership is as old as the 1960's, at least as far as SLBMs are concerned.

Also reminds me a few NATO / MLF proposals to UK and France by the USA (1958-1964, roughly) to try and "neutralize" their independant nuclear deterrent aspirations.
Click to expand...
You and me both!

Point of order, however: Nuclear missiles are not the same as nuclear reactors (they're owned by different organizations in the USN, for example), and technically the UK doesn't use any US warheads, just a shared pool of missiles that get UK warheads when loaded into a UK boat. The missile compartment of the Vanguard class is IIRC roughly the same as the 640-class SSBNs just 12 instead of 16 tubes, the Dreadnought will be sharing the quadpack design with the Columbia again with fewer quads.


TomcatViP said:
Nuclear concerns only a fraction of what a submarine is today.
Click to expand...
Training a SUBSAFE welder isn't a quick process, and SUBSAFE has nothing to do with the nuclear propulsion side of the house except to dictate requirements. Helps that Rickover Himself helped write SUBSAFE after Thresher went down.
 
Scott Kenny said:
I honestly never thought I would see the day the USN released active reactor tech to a foreign country. UK? That was a one time deal. They got one working US reactor and all the technical documentation. After that? NOTHING for 40+ years. And then the Astute's reactor design ran into trouble and the USN did another one-time release of data in about 2004 or 05.

Now the USN is actively selling Virginia-class boats? And is apparently collaborating with BAE on the AUKUS sub design? (seriously, guys, where's the "mind blown" emoji on this forum?)
Click to expand...
Well, when you consider that the Collins class' Combat Control System its (which replaced the original failed CCS) IS the Virginia class' system (just modified for a lower amount of available electric power), and was developed from the Virginia's system while the latter was in development - selected in 2003 and approved by the USN before the first Virginia was commissioned in 2004, I would say that the most technologically-sensitive part was shared 20 years ago.
 
BlackBat242 said:
Well, when you consider that the Collins class' Combat Control System its (which replaced the original failed CCS) IS the Virginia class' system (just modified for a lower amount of available electric power), and was developed from the Virginia's system while the latter was in development - selected in 2003 and approved by the USN before the first Virginia was commissioned in 2004, I would say that the most technologically-sensitive part was shared 20 years ago.
Click to expand...
Believe it or not, the USN considers the entire engineroom more sensitive, despite being at a lower classification level. Confidential-Restricted Data versus Secret.
 
That article is pure speculation, the source it cites for US-UK joint warhead design (2021 nuclear update) disagrees with the authors assertion:

The requirements, design, and manufacture of the warhead are sovereign to the UK, meeting our obligations under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. The UK warhead will be integrated with the US supplied Mark 7 aeroshell to ensure it remains compatible with the Trident II D5 missile and delivered in parallel with the US W93/Mk7 warhead programme.
Click to expand...
https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...clear-deterrent-the-2021-update-to-parliament
The 2023 Parliamentary update has the following:

Warhead and missile
The programme to replace the UK’s sovereign nuclear warhead has now entered its concept phase. The programme is subject to Government scrutiny, oversight, and approvals processes. The requirements, design, and manufacture of the warhead are sovereign to the UK and meet our obligations under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. The transition of the current warhead from Mark 4 to Mark 4A continues, addressing obsolescence to ensure that the UK has a safe, secure, and available stockpile until the UK Replacement Warhead is available in the 2030s. The Department is investing in the personnel, infrastructure, and capabilities at the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) that are required to deliver the UK Replacement Warhead programme and sustain the current in-service warhead until it is withdrawn from service.Our in-service and Replacement Warheads are, and will remain, compatible with the Trident II D5 missile that is deployed on the Vanguard Class and will be deployed on the new Dreadnought Class submarines. As previously reported, the UK is working with US partners on work to extend the life and replenish the Trident II D5 missiles to meet the future programme requirements of both Nations. These life extension programmes will address obsolescence and continue to provide sufficient missile packages, including spares, to support the UK’s requirement.

Infrastructure
Project MENSA, the new-build warhead assembly/disassembly facility at the AWE Burghfield site is progressing. During 2022, work has progressed on the building works and systems integration, as well as material changes to a key part of the facility to achieve current and future safety standards. The facility is now connected to the power, gas and water networks and will soon be starting commissioning in earnest. 2023 will see the facility completing its fit out and commissioning phase, including its end users verifying key processes associated with warhead assembly / disassembly.
Click to expand...

Indeed its believed that while the Mk4a obsolesce upgrade to the British Holbrook warhead takes some fusing components from the recent US W76-1 upgrade the US W76-2 is a hard manufactured lower yield based on the variable yield capability of the Holbrook dating back to its introduction 1988 achieved by replacing one of its explosive charges surrounding the precursor warhead on a W76-1 with a dud ballast.
 
Last edited:
Yeah well known that due to the many year gap in submarine steelwork construction between Vanguard and Astute some skills were lost, particularly in shipyard workflow planning and Electric Boat were brought in as consultants to advise on the managerial rather than technical side. Astute was the first submarine class designed entirely on computer which led to some CAD issues and some rework had to be done on the first boat as it was laid down before the detailed drawings were complete and stuff had to be moved to fit later equipment in. The Astute early on also suffered from being overpowered with a reactor (designed for a larger ballistic missile submarine) developing more power than its prop shaft could translate to its propellers limiting its top speed but that was strengthened and it then achieved its design top speed. The Astutes are to this day faster than the Virginia class.
 
zen said:
WatcherZero states what is well known.

Scott Kenny be stating something different.
Click to expand...
Admittedly, we were talking out in town not in a secured area, so there may have been some shorthand about what exactly was going wrong. And it was 20 freaking years ago.
 
I dont think theres a thread specifically on the British aspect of the class is there?

Anyway the full planning application is in to Westmorland and Furness Council for the Ramsden Dock Facility Pre Paint Facility which is building a second near identical hall to the Central Yard Facility where raft modules and large components are assembled before being sent to the Devonshire Dock Hall to be installed. Interesting statement in the introduction:

“Following an extensive review exercise BAE Systems identified the requirement for additional facilities to the Central Yard Facility to be on stream before August 2027. There is an opportunity to significantly benefit the current boat build programme if a new Pre Paint Facility could be provided in 2025 therefore the proposal to develop Ramsden Dock Facility was initiated.”

“The project sits as part of the Submersible Ship Nuclear Replacement (SSNR) investment programme. The SSNR program follows BAE’s awarding of an £85 million contract by the Ministry of Defence (MOD) to support early design and concept work on the Royal Navy’s next generation submarines. The SSNR programme will eventually replace the Astute Class of submarines. An emerging Masterplan will support Barrows capacity to facilitate the SSNR and other operational requirements of the navies next generation of submarine operations.”

Looks like we have a rough date for AUKUS being laid down. Thats a year after the last Astute is launched and a year after the fourth Dreadnought is possibly laid down.
 
Last edited:
WatcherZero said:
Looks like we have a rough date for AUKUS being laid down. Thats a year after the last Astute is launched and a year after the fourth Dreadnought is possibly laid down.
Click to expand...
Interesting, I was expecting AUKUS to be laid down when the last Astute is off the ways or when the last Dreadnought is off the ways, a year or two after 2027...
 
Good to read Vaujour on the realities of cooperation at working level. Get the politicians off the stage and things usually run better
 
Last edited:
First group of 13 Australians from the Australian naval industry to be embedded into Britain had a welcoming ceremony at Rolls Royce Derby today. They are beginning a 7 week work placement tour of BAE, Rolls Royce and Babcock facilities to familiarise themselves with the nuclear submarine logistics chain so they can begin setting up the Australian facilities to support visiting US/UK subs and to set in motion the skills/equipment changes required to manufacture and support subs in Australia.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/grant-shapps-and-richard-marles-visit-key-nuclear-site
 
Scott Kenny said:
Again, guy from EB said he was sent over to the UK with a data package for the reactor.
Click to expand...
I think there are two events here, both are right, but may be a case of being told as a single story.

WatcherZero is right about EB being brought in to sort out the production process for Astute, which uses the UK engineered PWR2 reactor.

At a different point in time, there seems to have been a one time technical transfer of the design for a specific naval reactor (likely S9G from the Virginia class ) to Rolls Royce in Derby which was used in/served as the basis for the PWR3 reactor being fitted to Dreadnaught and onwards. This may have well been before the production issues with Astute, but the time scales involved could mean it only became common knowledge later.

There was the well known issues with the earlier PWR2 cores on Vanguard, that led to the unplanned, and massively over schedule refuelling. Also, the government papers referencing the choice whether to use an evolved PWR2 or move to PWR3 for Dreadnaught suggests PWR3 was the only design to meet the highest safety standards. While it is not explicitly mentioned, this presumably references the fact that the S9G uses natural circulation vs PWR2 which requires pumped cooling. https://assets.publishing.service.g...nt_data/file/27399/submarine_initial_gate.pdf

Given its the same reactor going into AUKUS, you could make the argument that no additional sensitive information is being shared; its just an increase to the numbers with access to parts of it.
 
Last edited:
bobthemonkey said:
I think there are two events here, both are right, but may be a case of being told as a single story.

WatcherZero is right about EB being brought in to sort out the production process for Astute, which uses the UK engineered PWR2 reactor.

At a different in time, there seems to have been a one time technical transfer of the design for a specific naval reactor (likely S9G from the Virginia class ) to Rolls Royce in Derby which was used in/served as the basis for the PWR3 reactor being fitted to Dreadnaught and onwards. This may have well been before the production issues with Astute, but the time scales involved could mean it only became common knowledge later.

There was the well known issues with the earlier PWR2 cores on Vanguard, that led to the unplanned, and massively over schedule refuelling. Also, the government papers referencing the choice whether to use and evolved PWR2 or move to PWR3 for Dreadnaught suggests PWR3 was the only design to meet the highest safety standards. While it is not explicitly mentioned, this presumably references the fact that the S9G uses natural circulation vs PWR2 which requires pumped cooling. https://assets.publishing.service.g...nt_data/file/27399/submarine_initial_gate.pdf

Given its the same reactor going into AUKUS, you could make the argument that no additional sensitive information is being shared; its just an increase to the numbers with access to parts of it.
Click to expand...
Ah, that makes sense. Thank you!
 
bobthemonkey said:
There was the well known issues with the earlier PWR2 cores on Vanguard, that led to the unplanned, and massively over schedule refuelling. Also, the government papers referencing the choice whether to use and evolved PWR2 or move to PWR3 for Dreadnaught suggests PWR3 was the only design to meet the highest safety standards. While it is not explicitly mentioned, this presumably references the fact that the S9G uses natural circulation vs PWR2 which requires pumped cooling. https://assets.publishing.service.g...nt_data/file/27399/submarine_initial_gate.pdf

Given its the same reactor going into AUKUS, you could make the argument that no additional sensitive information is being shared; its just an increase to the numbers with access to parts of it.
Click to expand...

Yes PWR3 design was chosen because it was more fail-safe, there was also a cracking issue with some early PWR2 cores that led to them being replaced earlier than intended and issues with some of the steam pipework on the first two Astutes being constructed of the lower grade material intended for non-radioactive pipes rather than the higher grade material intended for the 'hot' pipes making it potentially at risk of brittling from prolonged radiation exposure.

When you compare it to other design failures though like the Soviet liquid metal reactor that literally bricked itself or the USS Thresher that was destroyed when she lost reactor power as the design didn't have enough reserve buoyancy to surface without the assistance of propulsive power they weren't really that significant.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom