Replacement of Australia's Collins Class Submarines

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-05...bmarine-supply-chain-ahead-of-aukus/103865356
South Australia's naval shipbuilding sector is moving to become more heavily involved in US nuclear submarine construction, well before work begins on AUKUS vessels.
The SA government said it had struck a deal with shipbuilder Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII) — which builds Virginia-class submarines — that would potentially allow SA companies to enter supply chains for American nuclear-powered naval vessels.

Premier Peter Malinauskas, who travelled to HII's shipbuilding site in the city of Newport News in Virginia for the announcement, said the move was partly intended to ensure SA defence companies had sufficient work until construction of the new SSN-AUKUS submarines began sometime next decade.

"There are already 53 suppliers that are engaged on the list with HII looking at their opportunities to not just participate in the SSN-AUKUS supply chain but even potentially the [nuclear-powered] Virginia-class supply chain," he said.
"Our partnership with HII will help facilitate that endeavour."

The shipbuilding giant said it was already in talks with the 53 South Australian suppliers.
"South Australia is uniquely positioned. Frankly, Australian industry is quite strong — it is very capable [but] it is not a capability issue as much as it is a scaling issue," head of HII's Australian business Michael Lempke said.
"We really look at AUKUS as an opportunity to enhance the industrial capability of all three partner nations, and the collaboration we're talking about today is a very important next step in that partnership."

The government said HII would assess SA companies with expertise in "design and engineering, equipment integration, advanced manufacturing, welding, [and] fabrication", and then advise them on ways to become involved in US supply chains.

Adelaide-based industry group the Defence Teaming Centre said the announcement went a long way to quell the fears of a "valley of death" — a period in which there are few manufacturing projects.
"One of the things about SSN-AUKUS is of course it's very future-focused. There are not going to be submarines rolling out of South Australia for many years to come," chief executive Libby Day said.
"Through the guidance of HII — who, in the US, are the biggest builders of the Virginia-class submarines — there will be opportunities for those South Australian companies who meet the requirements to be put forward for some areas of work on the Virginia-class submarines.
Click to expand...
 
And more Aussie material considered for Virginias... this time steel!

https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/s...australias-ssns-will-be-bigger-better-faster/
Australian steel will be used to build Australia’s SSN-AUKUS submarines, subject to a comprehensive qualification process expected to be completed in the first half of 2025.

The steel is also being qualified to both the British and US standards. Having Australian industry involved will deepen and bring resilience to the three nations’ supply chains, with greater mass, confidence and scale, Mead says.

In April, major US warship builder Newport News Shipbuilding lodged an initial purchase order for processed Australian steel from Bisalloy Steel’s Port Kembla plant for testing and training.
Click to expand...
 
BlackBat242 said:
And more Aussie material considered for Virginias... this time steel!

https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/s...australias-ssns-will-be-bigger-better-faster/
Click to expand...
With a displacement of more than 10,000 tonnes, the SSN-AUKUS class will be larger than current US Virginia-class attack submarine of just over 7000 tonnes. Australia’s six conventionally powered Collins-class submarines are each about 3300 tonnes.
Click to expand...
Whoa, that's going to be a beast! On the order of Seawolf-sized...
 
Josh_TN said:
I suspect a large magazine of weapons and possibly a heavy VLS armament. The USN has come to the conclusion its boats do not have enough magazine depth for the anti surface role and is looking to expand.
Click to expand...
Yes, I'm expecting the SSNX to be Seawolf or Columbia-class diameter (and engine room), with ~50 stows in the torpedo room and at least a pair of VPMs (if it's Columbia diameter, it could have 4x VPMs up forward without taking space in the middle of the hull, for 24x cruise missiles!).

I wasn't expecting the AUKUS to be that big, though, given the UK's fiscal limits and the RN's general disuse of VLS systems for anything but Tridents on their subs. I was expecting it to be about 8000-8500 tons surfaced, call it 1000 tonnes over an Astute.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Yes, I'm expecting the SSNX to be Seawolf or Columbia-class diameter (and engine room), with ~50 stows in the torpedo room and at least a pair of VPMs (if it's Columbia diameter, it could have 4x VPMs up forward without taking space in the middle of the hull, for 24x cruise missiles!).

I wasn't expecting the AUKUS to be that big, though, given the UK's fiscal limits and the RN's general disuse of VLS systems for anything but Tridents on their subs. I was expecting it to be about 8000-8500 tons surfaced, call it 1000 tonnes over an Astute.
Click to expand...
There’s been some discussion I believe on the Columbia thread that future attack boats will be additional Columbias.
 
bobbymike said:
There’s been some discussion I believe on the Columbia thread that future attack boats will be additional Columbias.
Click to expand...

Well the guess is that the same hull and propulsion would be used as a cost saving measure. Plus most USN studies seem to advocate for much larger weapons options, so I could see retaining a four tube multi role launcher section.
 
bobbymike said:
There’s been some discussion I believe on the Columbia thread that future attack boats will be additional Columbias.
Click to expand...
Combined response:
Josh_TN said:
Well the guess is that the same hull and propulsion would be used as a cost saving measure. Plus most USN studies seem to advocate for much larger weapons options, so I could see retaining a four tube multi role launcher section.
Click to expand...
I expect the SSNX to use the Columbia reactor and engine room.

But I absolutely doubt that they'd stick with the small torpedo room on the Columbia class for any SSNs. An SSBN doesn't need a big torpedo room, if it has to shoot at someone it's already lost. So SSBNs carry maybe a dozen weapons. Half of what a Fast Attack would carry.

I'm expecting SSNX to have more like a Seawolf-sized torpedo room (the mission spec is straight up what the Seawolves were supposed to do), so ~50 weapons in the room and 6-8 torpedo tubes.

Except I'm also expecting some of those VPMs up forward, 2 or 4 of them in the forward ballast tanks. VPMs in a ballast tank only hold 6 Tomahawks, the center is an access ladder to plug the cylinder into the submarine's systems.

I don't know if SSNX would have any VPMs amidships, but it certainly could take one or two quadpacks for more Tomahawks and/or Special Ops diver lockout chambers. Any VPM that is inside the pressure hull can hold 7 Tomahawks, because you can plug the cylinder into the sub's systems from an access port in the tube.

If SSNX has any midships big tubes, I think it'll get the SSGN classification instead of plain SSN. But I'm not sure which way that will go. Whether there will be an SSNX class that is actually an SSGN with lots of VPMs on it, or if they'll new-build some SSGNs off the Columbia class design and SSNX is a different beast altogether. The monster would be something with the big torpedo room forward and a large number of VPMs amidships, but you don't want too many of them because they make the boat really long and hard to maneuver in shallow water where your SOCOM teams will be dropped off to go to work.

For the SSGN, I think you'd need at least 3 quadpacks if there aren't any plans to make something like the ASDS. IIC Dry Deck Shelters block 3 tubes. There's a decompression chamber at the front of the DDS and IIRC that's forward of where the access is from the sub, then there's another compartment where the divers can flood down in large number that is where the access from the sub is, and finally there's the Dry Deck tube that goes back something like 20ft and then has the big 5ft tall hemispherical hatch as the "garage door". If they can only block 2 tubes, the diver's access and the tube immediately aft of that, you can relatively easily have only one more quadpack with 28x Tomahawks in the VPMs. If the DDS blocks 3 tubes, you'd need 3 quadpacks and you'd have 6 tubes and 42 Tomahawks (because the other option is 14 Tomahawks!).

But you have to remember that even though the Columbia class will only have 16 Trident tubes, it's still just as long as the Ohio class that had 24 Tridents. The turbo-electric engineroom is very long. A single quadpack is probably ~32ft long, the missile section (less than the compartment) of a Columbia is on the order of 132ft long. An SSGN with 8x VPMs amidships is going to be 500ft long!
 
UK Babcock and US HII have formed a joint venture Australian subsidiary called H&B Defence headquartered in Canberra to work on the Australian AUKUS submarines and shipyard/port infrastructure.

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-new...australias-nuclear-powered-submarine-program/

HII And Babcock Launch New Company H&B Defence To Accelerate Australia’s Nuclear-Powered Submarine Program​

Defence giants HII and Babcock have formed a ground-breaking new joint venture and entity – H&B Defence – to accelerate the development of critical sovereign capability for the once-in-a-generation AUKUS conventional armed, nuclear-powered submarine program.​

Naval News Staff 18 Jun 2024

Babcock Australia press release

H&B Defence combines world-leading nuclear submarine and shipbuilding experience from Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States to support the nation’s inaugural nuclear-powered submarine program under AUKUS.
Together, HII and Babcock bring comprehensive expertise in every aspect of nuclear-powered submarine activities to support the development of Australia’s sovereign capability. H&B Defence has been established to support all steps of Australia’s optimal pathway to sovereign nuclear-powered submarines under AUKUS Pillar 1 – including workforce, nuclear infrastructure design and build, submarine defueling and decommissioning, nuclear waste and future sustainment.
The company, headquartered in Canberra, Australia, will work with government and key stakeholders from industry and academic sectors to develop a comprehensive program to promote and grow a skilled sovereign nuclear workforce in Australia.
Tim Brown AM has been appointed H&B Defence Managing Director.
Brown, of Brisbane and a 33-year veteran of the Royal Australian Navy (RAN), has extensive knowledge and experience of Australia’s submarine programme and Defence and Industry strategy. He is a mechanical engineer who primarily served as a submarine officer and commanded both a Collins class submarine and an ANZAC class frigate. As the Director General Submarines and Head of the Submarine Profession, he led the submarine capability enterprise through a period of unheralded submarine availability and high levels of workforce growth, and he played an early and instrumental role in the AUKUS security partnership. Brown brings significant insight and leadership experience to drive the transformation and uplift of Australian industry to support the operation of nuclear-powered submarines.
The company board is chaired by HII’s President of the Nuclear and Environmental Services and HII Australia business lead, Michael Lempke and also includes Babcock Australasia CEO, Andrew Cridland.

H&B Managing Director Tim Brown said:
“H&B Defence’s mission is to transform Australia’s submarine industrial landscape to position the nation to operate nuclear submarines. This joint venture will focus on equipping Australia with the requisite industrial base, supply chains, and workforce required to support and manage all aspects of the nuclear-powered submarine lifecycle.”

HII Australia Business Lead Michael Lempke said:
“H&B marks a significant step forward in an enduring partnership. HII is excited to work through H&B Defence to leverage the deep-rooted experience and advanced methodologies from Australia, the UK, and the US to support AUKUS Pillar 1. This collaboration is a fusion of resources and visions—aiming to enhance capabilities and foster innovation in submarine technologies and maritime systems to strengthen national and global security while ensuring a safe and secure future.”

Babcock Australasia CEO Andrew Cridland said:
“The formation of H&B Defence is an exciting day for Babcock Australasia as we continue to build on our existing and long-term partnership with the Australian Government in support of our nation’s defences.
“H&B Defence brings together Babcock and HII’s collective history in nuclear and the best and brightest minds to support AUKUS Pillar 1.”

About the companies:
HII is the leading designer, builder, maintainer, and sustainer of US Navy nuclear powered submarines, with over 60 submarines delivered in four decades.
Babcock currently sustains 100 per cent of the UK’s Royal Navy submarine fleet and owns and operates the UK’s only licensed facility for refitting, refuelling and defueling nuclear submarines.
The Joint Venture complements the existing partnership already established between Babcock and HII to collaborate on nuclear decommissioning, disposal, and other national security opportunities.
Click to expand...
 
I was disappointed BAE pulled their application for the Ramsden Dock Facility in Feb which would have mirrored the Central Yard Facility after a lot of local opposition (though their construction timeline always looked ambitious to meet their 2025 opening target). They have however just submitted a fresh application for clearing and levelling the oil terminal for a future medium term Ramsden Dock construction project, so I think they still intend to set up a second final assembly hall and yard facility centred on Ramsden to double their submarine production capacity.
 
MihoshiK said:
This is just the result of bad or deferred maintenance.
Click to expand...
It also shows that the much ballyhooed Collins availability improvements, following the Coles report ("better than international benchmarks", "world class" etc) were just a flash in the pan.

Truth is... even when the RAN thought it was doing great, it was far behind the best sub operators out there.

e.g. While the RAN was trumpeting sailing 600 days in 2018 and aiming for "nearly 700 days" in 2019, the same sized (but significantly older) attack sub fleet in France was sailing 1,000 days/year and sending 4 out of 6 subs to sea when needed. The Collins fleet has never come close to that performance.
 
GTX said:
Errrr...no. Australia is after SSNs for the enhanced capability they offer. If they were simply driven by Collins availability issues they would be buying something quick off the shelf.
Click to expand...
Yup.

Nuclear power turns a ship that occasionally submerges to hide into a ship that occasionally surfaces to resupply. The difference in capabilities is THAT stark.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Yup.

Nuclear power turns a ship that occasionally submerges to hide into a ship that occasionally surfaces to resupply. The difference in capabilities is THAT stark.
Click to expand...
For "occasionally" read "at the end of a normal patrol when back in home-port", or "in a severe emergency", or "if the patrol has been extended significantly".
 
BlackBat242 said:
For "occasionally" read "at the end of a normal patrol when back in home-port", or "in a severe emergency", or "if the patrol has been extended significantly".
Click to expand...
Honestly, it happens more often than that, helps keep the crew from losing their minds (and they restock on fresh produce!). Attack subs seem to surface for port visits every 3 weeks or so, boomers every 6 weeks ish.

But yes, those are the typical reasons to surface.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Honestly, it happens more often than that, helps keep the crew from losing their minds (and they restock on fresh produce!). Attack subs seem to surface for port visits every 3 weeks or so, boomers every 6 weeks ish.

But yes, those are the typical reasons to surface.
Click to expand...
Ah... so things have changed, I was going with the normal procedures in my era (1980s), when USN submarines entering a port other than their home base was a rarity.
 
BlackBat242 said:
Ah... so things have changed, I was going with the normal procedures in my era (1980s), when USN submarines entering a port other than their home base was a rarity.
Click to expand...
That was (eep!) 20 years ago for me, but yeah.

We typically had one major inspection every patrol (alternating ORSE and TRE, though once we got fucked with TRE and ORSE in the same patrol...). So a missile sub in the Pacific would pull into either San Diego or Pearl Harbor for the TRE in the middle of patrol, while ORSE was usually at the end. TRE was a weapons exercise, ORSE is powerplant stuff.
 
BlackBat242 said:
Ah... so things have changed, I was going with the normal procedures in my era (1980s), when USN submarines entering a port other than their home base was a rarity.
Click to expand...
We might see a limited version of this as a Pacific deterrence exercise, but for the most part the Navy values keeping the morale and physical condition of the boats higher by avoiding that kind of deployment. In a conflict, though, they'll be able to stay submerged until the stores give out.
 
Moose said:
We might see a limited version of this as a Pacific deterrence exercise, but for the most part the Navy values keeping the morale and physical condition of the boats higher by avoiding that kind of deployment. In a conflict, though, they'll be able to stay submerged until the stores give out.
Click to expand...
Something like the saga of USS Lapon SSN-661 in 1969.

While under the command of Commander Chester "Whitey" Mack, Lapon successfully tailed a Soviet Navy Yankee class ballistic missile submarine for a period of forty-seven days. Lapon followed the Yankee for the Yankee's entire deterrent patrol and only broke contact when the Soviet submarine turned to go home. Lapon was awarded a Presidential Unit Citation for the feat and Mack became famous in the submarine community for this noteworthy success, personally receiving the Distinguished Service Medal.

47 days plus trip time to & from the "contact" area off Murmansk.

https://ussnautilus.org/the-ballad-of-whitey-mack/
A song by one of Lapon's crew:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hy8pxLKTkcs
 
Last edited:
Scott Kenny said:
What's the electronic deck module?

This sounds like the control room and then the middle level of the Virginia class... (Torpedo Room being the lower level of ops compartment)
Click to expand...

Correct. Virginia has a really quite elegant design with most of the internal equipment being installed on structural module that are then installed into pressure hull sections. This is the structural frame for the forward module including control and much of the spaces for associated electronics.

Scott Kenny said:
Yup.

Nuclear power turns a ship that occasionally submerges to hide into a ship that occasionally surfaces to resupply. The difference in capabilities is THAT stark.
Click to expand...

More significantly, nuclear power provides essentially unlimited strategic mobility. A modern diesel boat can stay submerged for some time, but even with AIP what it cannot do is operate submerged at moderate to high speeds for a long period. For a mission that involves limited mobility, i.e. securing a strait, a SSN doesn't really do much better than a conventional submarine, but for a missing involving a stealthy transit or need to quickly redeploy, a diesel boat is essentially worthless compared to an SSN.
 
I have zero faith these Australian built subs will arrive on time and on budget. 5 years late and a billion dollars per sub over budget would be a best case scenario in my opinion.

The most obvious solution to me is to do a split buy. Brand new Sōryū-class submarines off the Japanese production line and Brand new Virginia class subs off the US production line.

The main reason why subs are being made in Australia is because none of the overseas production lines could satisfy the Australian number of subs. But picking two overseas designs and buying both at the same time could probably get enough subs in the time required.

The Sōryū-class subs would be ideal as a direct replacement for the Collins class for defensive operations close to Australia. The Virginia-class would be used for offensive operations far from Australia.

The biggest mistake Australia made back in 2016 was not buying off the shelf Sōryū-class subs made in Japan. The first sub would already be in service and Japan would have increased the production rate by now. No life extension to Collins would have been required. The whole nuclear sub plan could have be done additional to the Sōryū-class.
 
Your wrong, the main reason they want to build them themselves rather than just ordering from foreign yards is because they want to maintain the Australian shipbuilding capability that built the Collins beyond the Hunter Class which will finish in 2034.
 
WatcherZero said:
Your wrong, the main reason they want to build them themselves rather than just ordering from foreign yards is because they want to maintain the Australian shipbuilding capability that built the Collins beyond the Hunter Class which will finish in 2034.
Click to expand...
No. You are wrong.

They are not maintaining the shipbuilding that built the Collins.The shipbuilding that built the Collins-class has completely gone. They have to start from scratch with the new subs. The last Collins sub was finished 20 years ago. The engineers that designed Collins would now be elderly. Even the required high strength steel is no longer produced in Australia.

Since Collins, Australia has been constantly building frigates and destroyers. Maintaining a shipbuilding industry in Australia should concentrate around keeping a smooth and constant flow of surface vessels. The most obvious solution is that Japan and the US will agree to buy Australian made surface vessels in return for Australia buying off the shelf subs. Australia them gets more shipbuilding jobs in a shorter timeframe and Australia gets more capability for any given budget. The US built nuclear sub will easily be half the price of the Australian built nuclear sub with similar capabilities. The Sōryū-class subs built in Japan would probably be 10% of the price of the Australian built nuclear sub. This allows a larger quantity of subs to be purchased with any given budget. Australia could most likely have 6 Sōryū and 3 Virginia-class subs for half the price of 6 Australian built nuclear subs.


Japan and Australia have similar security
strategies, so why not the same ships?
https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/australia-s-new-navy-japanese-option
Australia could select the Mogami design for the future frigate replacement and Japan could then purchase Australian built frigates. The US can swing their political might and convince smaller Navies to buy Aussie built frigates in exchange for buying off the shelf US built Virginia-class. Australia could end up producing a 100 of these Frigates for international customers over many decades. Shipbuilding in Australia could be bigger than ever all that ks to NOT building nuclear subs in Australia.

It is not too late to pull the plug on the Australian built submarines. Most of the ground work being done in Australia would still be required for maintainance of US built nuclear subs.

If we look at the F-35 program Australia did a emergency purchase of Super Hornets to cover a short term gap created from the F-35 being delayed and the classic Hornets having more wear than expected. This sounds like what Is happening with this sub program. A couple Sōryū-class then gets purchased and like with the Super Hornets an extra orders gets placed. I expect even the RAN to get cold feet as the projected price exceeds double that of a US built nuclear sub of similar capabilities.
 
RJMAZ said:
No. You are wrong.

They are not maintaining the shipbuilding that built the Collins.The shipbuilding that built the Collins-class has completely gone. They have to start from scratch with the new subs. The last Collins sub was finished 20 years ago.
Click to expand...
Errr...the shipyard at Osborne is still very active and has remained so. I have visited there only in the last year and witnessed it first hand. They have kept fundamental skills exercised not only on shipbuilding but also other activities. They are not going from scratch.
RJMAZ said:
The engineers that designed Collins would now be elderly.
Click to expand...
Errr...those engineers would be in Sweden. There are new Australian engineers though.
RJMAZ said:
Maintaining a shipbuilding industry in Australia should concentrate around keeping a smooth and constant flow of surface vessels.
Click to expand...
This is already well recognised with Govt and Defence policy in place to enact it.
 
RJMAZ said:
No. You are wrong.

They are not maintaining the shipbuilding that built the Collins.The shipbuilding that built the Collins-class has completely gone. They have to start from scratch with the new subs. The last Collins sub was finished 20 years ago. The engineers that designed Collins would now be elderly. Even the required high strength steel is no longer produced in Australia.

Since Collins, Australia has been constantly building frigates and destroyers. Maintaining a shipbuilding industry in Australia should concentrate around keeping a smooth and constant flow of surface vessels. The most obvious solution is that Japan and the US will agree to buy Australian made surface vessels in return for Australia buying off the shelf subs. Australia them gets more shipbuilding jobs in a shorter timeframe and Australia gets more capability for any given budget. The US built nuclear sub will easily be half the price of the Australian built nuclear sub with similar capabilities. The Sōryū-class subs built in Japan would probably be 10% of the price of the Australian built nuclear sub. This allows a larger quantity of subs to be purchased with any given budget. Australia could most likely have 6 Sōryū and 3 Virginia-class subs for half the price of 6 Australian built nuclear subs.
Click to expand...
WatcherZero is correct, the main reason is industry. It isn't a justifiable reason, the significant money required to build locally in Australia could be better used in other areas of the economy and for industries that would benefit Australia far more than shipbuilding but this is a political decision not an economic one.

Australia is not getting new Virginia class subs, they will be sold used subs which Australia will probably use till EOL and be replaced by the SSN-A.

RJMAZ said:
Japan and Australia have similar security
strategies, so why not the same ships?
https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/australia-s-new-navy-japanese-option
Australia could select the Mogami design for the future frigate replacement and Japan could then purchase Australian built frigates. The US can swing their political might and convince smaller Navies to buy Aussie built frigates in exchange for buying off the shelf US built Virginia-class. Australia could end up producing a 100 of these Frigates for international customers over many decades. Shipbuilding in Australia could be bigger than ever all that ks to NOT building nuclear subs in Australia.
Click to expand...
Why would Japan buy Australian built frigates? Japan is the third largest ship building industry in the world. Don't you think their workers/population would have issues with their Naval vessels being built overseas when the capability exists already domestically? The US makes more sense, they could benefit from additional units built sooner but that is essentially impossible unless AUKUS allowed a rule change for US military production.

RJMAZ said:
It is not too late to pull the plug on the Australian built submarines. Most of the ground work being done in Australia would still be required for maintainance of US built nuclear subs.
Click to expand...
I agree it isn't too late but probably politically impossible. To walk away now would be a political hand grenade.

RJMAZ said:
If we look at the F-35 program Australia did a emergency purchase of Super Hornets to cover a short term gap created from the F-35 being delayed and the classic Hornets having more wear than expected. This sounds like what Is happening with this sub program. A couple Sōryū-class then gets purchased and like with the Super Hornets an extra orders gets placed. I expect even the RAN to get cold feet as the projected price exceeds double that of a US built nuclear sub of similar capabilities.
Click to expand...
No, the Super Hornet purchase was made to replace the F-111s which had become prohibitively expensive to operate. It had nothing to do with the F-35 which in 2007 had only just flown the year previous and had not suffered much delay to that point. The classic Hornet fleet had plenty of life left at that point, HUG 3 had only just started when the purchase was announced.

I do agree that an interim purchase of submarines would be a good option but the time to build now likely doesn't make that viable. Unless Japan was willing to sell their new Taigei off the dock to Australia directly I cannot see a decent option that would arrive in the time desired/required. EDIT: Even then Australia likely wouldn't want them without the Mk48 torpedo and the US Combat system...
 
Last edited:
Indeed and its doubtful the US would have capacity to supply Australia a dozen submarines over the 2030-2050 timeframe, its looking difficult for them to even supply the 2 second hand and one new build Virginia they promised as they cant produce enough for their own requirements.
 
WatcherZero said:
Indeed and its doubtful the US would have capacity to supply Australia a dozen submarines over the 2030-2050 timeframe, its looking difficult for them to even supply the 2 second hand and one new build Virginia they promised as they cant produce enough for their own requirements.
Click to expand...
The US probably could but would take a lot of AUKUS funds pumped into their industry to match that build schedule. The yard capacity then becomes the primary issue and that is a manning problem, the US yards have struggled for many years to employ sufficient staff.

Guertin said some things are the new normal: “the supply chain is different now,” he said, and the Navy needs to ensure it and its shipbuilders buy materials farther ahead of the start of construction. The “greening of the workforce” — or replacing a highly experienced workforce that’s retiring in high numbers with less experienced employees — has also “changed dramatically” the realities of ship design and waterfront tradecraft work.

Guertin said this review revealed that the entire workforce — the government, the shipbuilders and the entire supply chain — ought to be viewed and invested in as a national strategic asset.
Click to expand...
https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2...ace-years-long-delays-amid-labor-supply-woes/
36 months late on Blk IV boats and 24 months on Blk V...
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom