Replacement of Australia's Collins Class Submarines

[GTX]

Australia has entered ‘nuclear confrontation’ with China, says Emmanuel Macron

Aukus security pact with Britain and the US providing Anthony Albanese's country with nuclear-powered vessels, instead of French submarines

www.telegraph.co.uk

Here's a non-pay wall similar story:

Emmanuel Macron accuses Scott Morrison of provoking 'nuclear confrontation' with China

The French president has accused former prime minister Scott Morrison of provoking "nuclear confrontation" with China as result of his decision to tear up a $90bn submarine contract with France.

www.abc.net.au

While I have no love for the previous Govt or PM, I think Emmanuel Macron is being a tad disingenuous here. If Australia had decided to keep the French Attack Class program or even have gone with a French nuclear option, he would be singing a different tune.

 

[NeilChapman]

Then why is Australia entertaining the construction of SSNs whose reactors are effectively on-loan from the US/UK because Australia can't build or refuel them because of NPT obligations?

Where in the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) is there anything limiting the building/refuelling of reactors?

Enrichment of uranium to the 97% enriched state required by nuclear weapons and the LOB reactors that power US and UK submarines is a clear breach of Australia's NPT obligations.

Are you suggesting Australia should withdraw from the NPT?

The point is though, Australia CAN'T build or refuel LOB reactors (unless they import the HEU ie with the close support of the US or UK), which is hardly independent.

They could however build and refuel LEU reactors because LEU cannot readily be converted into weapons grade material, it's already distributed via a well regulated global industry (of which Australia is already a part) and doesn't impact NPT obligations.

Use of LEU technology actually opens a whole series of possibilities for Australia beyond SSNs, without the need for an Australian uranium enrichment industry. It's a wonder the Australian Liberal Party, which is always banging on about SMRs and the role of nuclear in a future Australian energy mix, aren't pushing harder for it.

It seems it's not a 'clear' breach of anything or the RAN and the government (elected by the people) wouldn't be pursuing these boats.

 

[jeffb]

Turnbull government knew submarines would cost $80bn but told public ‘greater than $50bn’, audit finds

Defence investment plan ‘fell short of providing accurate, reliable and transparent information’ to the public, report reveals

www.theguardian.com

 

[jeffb]

Enrichment of uranium to the 97% enriched state required by nuclear weapons and the LOB reactors that power US and UK submarines is a clear breach of Australia's NPT obligations.

This was just wrong and I retract it.

The point is though, Australia CAN'T build or refuel LOB reactors (unless they import the HEU ie with the close support of the US or UK), which is hardly independent.

This is still true though and refers to the challenges mentioned in posts above and in the article below regarding the need for a NPT compliance inspection system.

I suspect that Australia's status as a NPT signatory and a NNWS would make the refinement of HEU for any purpose extremely controversial.

They could however build and refuel LEU reactors because LEU cannot readily be converted into weapons grade material, it's already distributed via a well regulated global industry (of which Australia is already a part) and doesn't impact NPT obligations.

This is still true though.

The above mentioned article:

AUKUS and nuclear-powered submarines: Let’s all just take a breath

The year-old AUKUS submarine partnership has raised many issues that have yet to be resolved, but geopolitics are getting in the way of technical solutions.

thebulletin.org

 

[Pioneer]

Turnbull government knew submarines would cost $80bn but told public ‘greater than $50bn’, audit finds

Defence investment plan ‘fell short of providing accurate, reliable and transparent information’ to the public, report reveals

www.theguardian.com

If only you could throw rocks at these lying parasites that call themselves and hide under the title of politician/Prime Minister!!!

Regards
Pioneer

 

[jeffb]

Turnbull government knew submarines would cost $80bn but told public ‘greater than $50bn’, audit finds

Defence investment plan ‘fell short of providing accurate, reliable and transparent information’ to the public, report reveals

www.theguardian.com

If only you could throw rocks at these lying parasites that call themselves and hide under the title of politician/Prime Minister!!!

Regards
Pioneer

There's a lot of 'perception management' going on I think.

 

[aonestudio]

Will US supply Australia with AUKUS subs? 'That's not going to happen,' key US lawmaker says - Breaking Defense

The US should take the "next Virginia class that's built, designate that to the Australian AOR, and [say] we're going to dual-crew it with Australian sailors and US sailors," Rep. Rob Wittman tells Breaking Defense.

breakingdefense.com

 

[jeffb]

Will US supply Australia with AUKUS subs? 'That's not going to happen,' key US lawmaker says - Breaking Defense

The US should take the "next Virginia class that's built, designate that to the Australian AOR, and [say] we're going to dual-crew it with Australian sailors and US sailors," Rep. Rob Wittman tells Breaking Defense.

breakingdefense.com

Wittman did offer what he called a “creative” path forward...
What I believe the [US] Navy needs to do is, to say [when Australia’s] Collins class finishes the end of its lifecycle, we are going to, in the next Virginia class that’s built, designate that to the Australian AOR. And we’re going to dual-crew it with Australian sailors and US sailors. And we’re going to dual-command it with mission planning with Australian forces and US forces. So it’ll be a submarine that operates in their AOR like an Australian submarine. It won’t belong to Australia, but it’ll still be an asset that they have that element of control with.

 

[jeffb]

Australia’s first nuclear submarines should be built in the US, Andrew Hastie says

‘There’s too much risk in doing it on our own,’ says shadow defence minister citing immediate need for ‘hard power’

www.theguardian.com

 

[Hood]

Well that seems to put the cat among the pigeons. AUKUS seems to be fraying a little...
The US lawmakers don't want to build them and sure as hell well push comes to shove they won't want the secrets of how to build them leave the continetnal USA either.

Hellyer predicted if such a plan went forward, both country’s navies would find it difficult to accept what are essentially calculated losses of sovereign control. But, he said, “Traditional views of sovereignty and sovereign capability are kind of irrelevant at this point.”

As if the USN would ever accept bollocks like that?

 

[uk 75]

Given that the UK has only one shupyard able to produce nuclear subs and that will soon be focussed on Dreadnought SSBN maybe BAe could set up a facility in Australia to build Astutes for the RN and RAN.

 

[Grey Havoc]

Given that the UK has only one shupyard able to produce nuclear subs and that will soon be focussed on Dreadnought SSBN maybe BAe could set up a facility in Australia to build Astutes for the RN and RAN.

A new, better design, than the Astute-class SSN.

 

[Jimmo952]

Well that seems to put the cat among the pigeons. AUKUS seems to be fraying a little...
The US lawmakers don't want to build them and sure as hell well push comes to shove they won't want the secrets of how to build them leave the continetnal USA either.

Hellyer predicted if such a plan went forward, both country’s navies would find it difficult to accept what are essentially calculated losses of sovereign control. But, he said, “Traditional views of sovereignty and sovereign capability are kind of irrelevant at this point.”

As if the USN would ever accept bollocks like that?

The problem is the US's ability to produce Nuclear submarines is limited.

There is currently no way the American yards can produce subs for Australia without greatly impacting delivery schedules for the US Navy.

The delivery schedules are already considered somewhere between suboptimal and inadequate.

This whole project is an industrial capacity problem.

How quickly can the US yards capacity be improved?

How quickly can the British yards capacity be improved?

How long would it take for Australia's industry to come up to speed in building Nuclear submarines?

I'm sure that is a lot of analysis going on in an attempt to figure that out.

In my view, nationalism should be avoided in the project and the path forward should be the most practical one. At the moment, none of the possible paths looks especially practical.

 

[H_K]

This whole project is an industrial capacity problem.

How quickly can the US yards capacity be improved?

How quickly can the British yards capacity be improved?

How long would it take for Australia's industry to come up to speed in building Nuclear submarines?

Exactly. Too bad they threw out the 1 Western SSN player that has spare capacity at home, loads of technology transfer experience, and that was already working with Australia.

 

[Archibald]

This whole project is an industrial capacity problem.

How quickly can the US yards capacity be improved?

How quickly can the British yards capacity be improved?

How long would it take for Australia's industry to come up to speed in building Nuclear submarines?

Exactly. Too bad they threw out the 1 Western SSN player that has spare capacity at home, loads of technology transfer experience, and that was already working with Australia.

Couldn't have said it better.

 

[uk 75]

Archibald I assume you mean spare capcity for building conventional submarines since France has its own ambitious programnes for building attack and missile submarines.
No disrespect to France's submarine force but can they match the RN and USN years of countering the Soviets in the North Atlantic or current US nuclear sub ops in the Pacific?
As I understand it the main role of French SSN has been to keep the approaches clear and protect the SSBN and to escort the carrier group.
Since Australia has no SSBN and only a modest surface fleet this does not seem relevant.
Whether Australia needs SSN is perhaps the core of the question? So far Australia has decided it needs to take part with US and UK in nuclear sub ops in the region.
The new Australian government could reverse this much as the Whitlam government did in the 70s when it slashed defence spending.
Rather like the UK with CVA01 and F111K if you take the role away you do not need the system.

 

[Josh_TN]

It comes down to the AUKUS group deciding it wanted to have a special relationship among itself and common equipment to that end, not just in submarines. The submarine part was the headline understandably, but it remains to be seen if it will actually come to pass. There definitely seem to be issues with industrial capacity among the entire group. Presumably when the 18 month review is through, there will be more of an idea of how to proceed.

 

[jeffb]

Well, the plan always was to build in Australia, they'll just have to bring up capacity with a crash program.

There are about a million do-dads that go to making a submarine. Australia's manufacturing force had started (barely) gearing up for the Attack class, they'll have to redirect that force to the new design, whatever that new design turns out to be...

One means of speeding up delivery of the initial boats might be to source some components from existing spares inventories maintained by the US or UK (depending on the selected design) while Australian manufacturers get up to speed. Given the respective fleet sizes, that would probably favour a US design.

There are other factors though and crewing remains a problem. If getting boats in the water fast is the goal, combining two Collins crews to form a Virginia sized crew might be an option.

 

[jeffb]

Related.

US to increase rotation of forces to Australia, condemns China’s ‘dangerous and coercive actions’ in region

Defence secretary also pledges to help Australia acquire nuclear-powered submarines ‘as quickly as possible’ at annual high-level talks

www.theguardian.com

Parking Lot B-52: does the escalation of US troops and installations make Australia a bigger target?

The Department of Defence has refused to comment on how many American troops are stationed in Australia, who pays for it, or even why

michaelwest.com.au

 

[Volkodav]

Part of the issue in the US is they did the support package on the cheap for the Virginias in the first place. They didn't factor, let alone order sufficient spares, didn't do the full raft of supportability studies and work. They are now hitting roadblocks and constraints from the false economies of fifteen to twenty years ago, plus the extra pain of sequestration since.

 

[jeffb]

Part of the issue in the US is they did the support package on the cheap for the Virginias in the first place. They didn't factor, let alone order sufficient spares, didn't do the full raft of supportability studies and work. They are now hitting roadblocks and constraints from the false economies of fifteen to twenty years ago, plus the extra pain of sequestration since.

Advantage Astute?

 

[Archibald]

Part of the issue in the US is they did the support package on the cheap for the Virginias in the first place. They didn't factor, let alone order sufficient spares, didn't do the full raft of supportability studies and work. They are now hitting roadblocks and constraints from the false economies of fifteen to twenty years ago, plus the extra pain of sequestration since.

It is just like the f*cking SLS core stage at Michoud. It was supposed to be derived from the Shuttle external tank that flew 10 times a year in 1985 and 8 times a year in 1996. Except Boeing, per lack of money and countless others reasons (Shuttle derived my sorry a$$ !), has dimensioned Michoud new tooling for 1.5 launch a year. Trying to reach 2 or above instantly runs into Michoud production bottlenecks, and this whatever amount of dollars thrown at it (what's more, NASA Artemis budget ain't plentiful by any mean, but that's another story).
End result: every single SLS launch will cost $4 billion, twice as much as the Shuttle which was not exactly cheap in the first place.
Final absurdity: the SLS can't even sustain the rapid fire campaign needed for a manned Mars shot, where 1000 tons of hydrolox have to be launched in rapid succession (the damn thing boiloff), so 10 SLS at 100 tons each over a year, or close. Well - the SLS industrial base can't do this.

 

[zen]

Advantage Astute?

Unknown, subject to secrecy and if we're cynical.....just as lacking in spares. Likely robbed out for the Vanguards.

 

[jeffb]

Advantage Astute?

Unknown, subject to secrecy and if we're cynical.....just as lacking in spares. Likely robbed out for the Vanguards.

We need to add a face-palm emoji to the like/reaction menu.

 

[TomcatViP]

Naval Group ordered a deep search among employee life and targeted an Australian Senator, looking for leakers and hatters (!) :

French submarine maker’s Australian job: On the hunt for a corporate leaker

An Australian senator and a journalist investigated on behalf of France’s Naval Group.

www.politico.eu

That from a company that left gigabit of Defense data related to their submarines unattended on a remote server... Wow.

 

[Archibald]

"The mote and the beam" Naval Group is looking for a mote in the Australian eye, when they have a beam stuck in theirs (Bible quotes are so classy !)

 

[NeilChapman]

Perhaps we'll know more in April.

 

[jeffb]

Naval Group ordered a deep search among employee life and targeted an Australian Senator, looking for leakers and hatters (!) :

Happened while Australia was in talks with the US about turning north Australia into a series of permanent US military bases <cough> obtaining assistance building HEU powered attack submarines.

At its simplest, it's more evidence of how the relationship with Naval was falling apart/being undermined. Someone was leaking against them.

Also:

Worried about cost overruns and delays in delivery, the Australian government had refused to sign a new tranche of the deal.

Did this happen? Last I read, Australian Defence had ticked off on all aspects of the Attack class project and were moving ahead, even though their political masters were about to pull the rug out from under them.

Also, here's another article that talks about 'buying subs' from the US or UK when, in reality, that was never an option. I wonder how that idea got started?

 

[Volkodav]

Part of the issue in the US is they did the support package on the cheap for the Virginias in the first place. They didn't factor, let alone order sufficient spares, didn't do the full raft of supportability studies and work. They are now hitting roadblocks and constraints from the false economies of fifteen to twenty years ago, plus the extra pain of sequestration since.

Advantage Astute?

Astute is out of production and Dreadnought is an SSBN. An SSGN Dreadnought derivative would tick all the boxes, but I can't see that happening.

 

[starviking]

Part of the issue in the US is they did the support package on the cheap for the Virginias in the first place. They didn't factor, let alone order sufficient spares, didn't do the full raft of supportability studies and work. They are now hitting roadblocks and constraints from the false economies of fifteen to twenty years ago, plus the extra pain of sequestration since.

Advantage Astute?

Astute is out of production and Dreadnought is an SSBN. An SSGN Dreadnought derivative would tick all the boxes, but I can't see that happening.

But Astute is still being built, but I can’t see more being added to the build.

What I can see is this:

UK/Australia joint SSNX programme agreed. Generally because RN and RAN requirements, especially around manning, are similar.

1. Australlian personnel are allowed to either shadow, or participate (in low numbers) in the final Astute build.

2. Similar for Dreadnaught, but with perhaps exclusion from the most sensitive parts. Concurrently the Dreadnaught-derived SSNX is being designed by a Binational team.

3. SSNX build starts, probably with sections built in Australia and the UK, with Oz build enhanced by the personnel with Astute/Dreadnaught experience. Likely final assembly in both nations.

 

[Hood]

A binational SSNX would be my favoured choice, I can't see any other UK collaborative project being feasible before the Dreadnought line is completed. Its a long way off though, it probably wouldn't enter service this side of 2040.

It's getting a bit late to shadow the last Astute unless they make some moves soon, Agincourt is just over halfway through her build now. Though presumably assembly work will be under way for Dreadnought and presumably the construction process will be more or less the same and actually might be more relevant given lessons learned from the Astute line and design tweaks made to ease manufacture.

 

[uk 75]

One of the drawbacks for the UK in only having Barrow to build nuclear submarines is that while building four SSBNs no SSN can be built.
Thus we had the long gap between the last Trafalgar and the first Astute. Things are likely to be even tighter with the Dreadnoughts.
With too few Astutes built the possibility of a BAe production facility in Australia to allow subs to be built for both RAN and RN must be attractive.

 

[Jimmo952]

When were the Australians expecting to have these new subs delivered?

For how long will the Collins class remain viable?

 

[kaiserd]

Some detail on wider US views re: near-term provision of US nuclear sub production slots to Australia.

US senators urge Joe Biden not to sell ‘scarce’ nuclear submarines to Australia

Democrat and Republican lawmakers reportedly warned president that Aukus security pact could stress US submarine industrial base ‘to breaking point’

www.theguardian.com

 

[Archibald]

What a pity. What the heck happened to the country that build all these boats ?

Category:Submarine classes of the United States Navy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[jeffb]

Breaking Defence article mentioned in the guardian article above:

EXCLUSIVE: Reed, Inhofe warn Biden AUKUS risks becoming 'zero sum game' for US Navy - Breaking Defense

"We are concerned that what was initially touted as a 'do no harm' opportunity to support Australia and the United Kingdom and build long-term competitive advantages for the U.S. and its Pacific allies, may be turning into a zero-sum game for scarce, highly advanced U.S. SSNs," wrote the SASC heads.

breakingdefense.com

Increasing talk of Australia obtaining US Virginias.

The lawmakers also warn that not enough has been done to understand the legal impacts of AUKUS and where there could be hurdles.

“Just as the submarine industrial base constraints are real, so are statutory and regulatory constraints. We still have little understanding of what … permissions or waivers would be needed to realize the AUKUS SSN options,” the senators wrote. “These permissions or waivers are a serious matter and should not be taken for granted in negotiating any agreements.”

“There’s been a lot of talk about well, the Australians would just buy a US submarine. That’s not going to happen,” Rep. Rob Wittman, R-Va., a top House defense hawk, said in December. “I just don’t see how we’re going to build a submarine and sell it to Australia during that time.”

Rear Adm. Scott Pappano, a top US Navy officer overseeing submarine construction, has expressed similar concerns.

“If you are asking my opinion, if we were going to add additional submarine construction to our industrial base, that would be detrimental to us right now, without significant investment to provide additional capacity, capability to go do that,” he told the Mitchell Institute in Washington. “I won’t speak for the UK, but I think that exists for both the US and the UK where we’re looking right now.”

Breaking defence article on US NAVY training RAN Officers:

House advances bill to train Australian submariners alongside US counterparts - Breaking Defense

The legislation was passed overnight as part of the House's draft defense policy bill amid marathon negotiations.

breakingdefense.com

Courtney’s submariner legislation would allow for two Royal Australian Navy submariners being selected to come to the US each year for training at the US Navy’s sub school, enroll in the Submarine Officer Basic Course and be assigned to duty on an operational US sub at sea.

 

[H_K]

I’d be tempted to suggest to the Australian MoD a wonderful small company (~2,000 employees) that’s a world leader in small modular reactors for civilian and submarine applications. They can build reactors for Oz, there are no non-proliferation treaties to worry about, and they even have a partner with considerable experience building nuclear subs who can offer a very modern off-the-shelf SSN design.

But… that reactor company is TechnicAtome in the sunny south of France. And their partner (whose initials include N and G) should not be mentioned even in a whisper. Much better to be subject to the whims of the US congress.

 

[Josh_TN]

I feel like aiding RAN to get nuke boats is worth some USN pain in the long run, personally. If it means a few LAs have to a couple more years I think it is worth the cost. The US should identify the boats slated for retirement that could be extended and start conserving their hull and reactor time now, IMO.

 

[TomcatViP]

It only says one thing: how bad did the Frenches failed to put the US in such a mess.

Instead of promoting, afterward, paper only reussites, some should walk the walk and talk the talk... back.

 

[BlackBat242]

I’d be tempted to suggest to the Australian MoD a wonderful small company (~2,000 employees) that’s a world leader in small modular reactors for civilian and submarine applications. They can build reactors for Oz, there are no non-proliferation treaties to worry about, and they even have a partner with considerable experience building nuclear subs who can offer a very modern off-the-shelf SSN design.

But… that reactor company is TechnicAtome in the sunny south of France. And their partner (whose initials include N and G) should not be mentioned even in a whisper. Much better to be subject to the whims of the US congress.

Wow.

With the Australian government and people, from top to bottom, and including all parties, insisting on NO Australian nuclear industry (and thus NO Australian-built reactors), you are still pushing for reactors to be built in Australia.

Really?