Replacement of Australia's Collins Class Submarines

Well they are expanding Osborne for the Submarine work as well, Austal will likely do the missile OPV's with curtailment of the Arafura OPV's. Outside building OPV's the other Australian shipyards (some of which have closed in recent years) are mainly at the level of just welding hull modules for larger warships assembled at Osborne like they did for the Anzac class, you need a sizeable slipway for frigates and destroyers.
Nobody else has ~200m slipways?
 
The largest slipway in northern Australia is 3000 tons and 105 metres at Tropical Reef, Brisbane.
Sydney has a 65m floating dock capable of accommodating up to 1000 tons and a 365m graving dock capable of accommodating 110,000 tons.
Then you have the 156m 9,300 ton shiplift at Osborne (capable of being upgraded to 20,000 tons) where the Destroyers are being built
And the 8,000 ton 150m shiplift at Henderson, Perth where the OPV's were built which is connected by rails and a turntable to 3 ship stocks and provides 50% of the fleets maintenance capacity (supposed to be a new drydock built there as well to open in 2028 to maintain warships) and under AUKUS a future drydock on the East Coast for nuclear submarine maintenance in addition to the nuclear berthing facilities at Darwin.

There was also the State Dockyard at Newcastle/Carrington which had a 15,000 ton floating dock until the 70's and a number of slips ultimately closing for good in 1987. The rest of the maintenance capacity in Australia is 100 & 200m wet docks.
 
Last edited:
The largest slipway in northern Australia is 3000 tons and 105 metres at Tropical Reef, Brisbane.
Sydney has a 65m floating dock capable of accommodating up to 1000 tons and a 365m graving dock capable of accommodating 110,000 tons.
Then you have the 156m 9,300 ton shiplift at Osborne (capable of being upgraded to 20,000 tons)

There was also the State Dockyard at Newcastle/Carrington which had a 15,000 ton floating dock until the 70's and a number of slips ultimately closing for good in 1987. The rest of the maintenance capacity in Australia is 100 & 200m wet docks.
YIKES!!!!!

Yall seriously need to add a couple of 200m or so drydocks. Maybe 4 total (existing with additions), Northwest/Northeast/Southeast/Southwest. Possibly only 3, one north, one east, one west, with how the cities are spread out.
 
For those in Europe (site is geofenced) gist of article seems to be Australian company Quality Maritime Surveyors which do materials testing for Collins class submarines are speculatively opening a branch near the Newport News shipyard in Virginia in the hope of getting AUKUS work on Future Australian Virginias as well as a US HQ in Georgia (close to the Ozzie owners US home), while Newport News owner HII has begun building business and academic contacts in Australia.
 
Rolls Royce is opening two new offices in St Mellons, Cardiff, and at the Airport Business Park in Glasgow adding just over 200 staff dedicated to working on the AUKUS submarine. The Cardiff office will work on mechanical design, materials engineering, structural integrity analysis, thermal analysis and fluid dynamics. The Glasgow office will work on electrical controls, instrumentation and cyber security.

 
Pillar 2? Some joint R&D projects on Hypersonics have been set up between US and Australia continuing the work that was going on before as well as drones and some US-UK AI programs have been set up as well as general co-operation on cyber and some tri-national work on undersea drones. New Zealand has received a high level governmental brief on Pillar 2 and may be joining while there is also talk Japan and Canada and outside chance of South Korea are also interested in joining AUKUS Pillar 2. Canada inquired about joining Pillar 1 for their sub replacement but was immediately shot down by the US, still doesn't want Canada possessing SSN's while also been some talk that if the security situation between China and Japan deteriorated they may be interested in joining Pillar 1.
 
As expected announcement that BAE Australia and ASC will jointly build the Australian AUKUS submarines. They also announced Australia would be making a £2.4bn payment to Rolls Royce as their contribution to reactor development and the Derby production facilities.
 
Looks like ASC will take on a role similar to Babcock in the UK; building the supporting infrastructure and then providing maintenance support for the submarines themselves after they enter service.
 
I think what hes referring to is the final design review will be completed in about a year, the design is 'mature' in that its not at a concept/feasibility or initial design review stage.
 
I think what hes referring to is the final design review will be completed in about a year, the design is 'mature' in that its not at a concept/feasibility or initial design review stage.
If you tell me that something is a mature design, I hear "there's more than just a couple of completed prototypes to this, there are operational units currently using parts of this design."
 
Contracts for producing the land based prototypes were awarded last year ahead of the final gate decision. What they are trying to convey is that its at a fairly mature stage of design with nearly a decade of design work already undertaken, they wernt just starting fresh with a clean sheet when they signed the AUKUS treaty.
 
Contracts for producing the land based prototypes were awarded last year ahead of the final gate decision. What they are trying to convey is that its at a fairly mature stage of design with nearly a decade of design work already undertaken, they wernt just starting fresh with a clean sheet when they signed the AUKUS treaty.
Right. I'm still concerned about what reactor it's going to use. The S9G as used by the Virginia class dates to roughly 1990. Good part is that the S9G uses a life-of-ship core (~33yr life), but it's not a natural-circulation design to my knowledge like the A1B of the Ford-class carriers or whatever the reactor used by the Columbia-class is designated (S1B, I think).

Natural circulation means that you don't have to have pumps running to keep the power moving. And that's a great benefit to quieting.

I'm also still not clear if the USN is buying any AUKUS class SSNs, or if we're going for the SSNX "Super Seawolf". Or if AUKUS is going to be that "Super Seawolf"
 
Right. I'm still concerned about what reactor it's going to use. The S9G as used by the Virginia class dates to roughly 1990. Good part is that the S9G uses a life-of-ship core (~33yr life), but it's not a natural-circulation design to my knowledge like the A1B of the Ford-class carriers or whatever the reactor used by the Columbia-class is designated (S1B, I think).

Natural circulation means that you don't have to have pumps running to keep the power moving. And that's a great benefit to quieting.

I'm also still not clear if the USN is buying any AUKUS class SSNs, or if we're going for the SSNX "Super Seawolf". Or if AUKUS is going to be that "Super Seawolf"
I'll go over this just this once (all of the information in my response has already been explained and discussed elsewhere in either this thread or the one on AUKUS).

1. AUKUS SSNs will use either the same UK-designed PWR3 reactor as the RN's new Dreadnought-class SSBNs (to replace their current 4 Vanguard class SSBNs commissioned 1993-1999, first-of-class has started build) or a modified version of the PWR3 (to better fit its hull).

2. The PWR3 (and the PWR2 in the Vanguard and Astute classes) are pressurized water cooled designs.

3. No, the US will buy only US-designed & built submarines to replace the Virginias - and that design will NOT be the AUKUS SSN or a variant thereof (in terms of the reactor, hull, etc).

However, just as the RAN's current Collins class SSKs use the AN/BGY-1 combat data system of the USN's Virginia and upgraded Los Angeles class SSNs (suitably modified to use less electric power), AUKUS and the USN's new SSNs are planned to have many subsystems (notably the sonar & combat data system) that are either compatable or jointly designed.
 
2. The PWR3 (and the PWR2 in the Vanguard and Astute classes) are pressurized water cooled designs.

This is true, but does not fully answer Scott's question. There are not a lot of details about PWR3 in the public sphere but it is reported to be related to the US S8G and S9G, and there are reports that both S9G and PWR3 do use natural circulation at some power levels (S8G definitely does).
 
This is true, but does not fully answer Scott's question. There are not a lot of details about PWR3 in the public sphere but it is reported to be related to the US S8G and S9G, and there are reports that both S9G and PWR3 do use natural circulation at some power levels (S8G definitely does).
I was talking about a reactor that used natural circulation even when at full power.
 
No PWR-3 is not a carbon copy of a US reactor design.
It is a design using elements that are US developments to meet new standards.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom