Replacement of Australia's Collins Class Submarines

I would not like to be the French Embassy in Canberra at the moment.
Even by reading this long running thread they could have had an eye/ear open for Australia deciding that China's growing naval power needed SSNs as the most effective counter.
A cursory look at the history of the RAN should also have alerted the French Naval Attache that his Royal Navy and US Navy colleagues might have a foot in the door.
 
It has been mentioned the submarine deal masked the other aspects of AUKUS. I don't believe this is the case. It is easy to find evidence of the extraordinary buildup of US Air Force assets in Australia. The small USMC contingent rotation is seemingly accepted and expanding with additional US Navy support facilities. I believe, as has been also stated, that this agreement is about the next stage of that buildup.

Some have said, why then include the UK? It is hard to underestimate the closeness of the United States and the United Kingdom. It is a familial relationship. In naval matters, the United States is closer to no other country in the world. They already collaborate on nuclear submarine construction. There has been a blended US Marine F-35 squadrons deployed on the HMS Queen Elizabeth. There are many examples of the depth of this relationship. It is hard to conceive of an agreement like this being made with Australia without the inclusion of the United Kingdom (especially if the boat will be from BAE)

Additionally, the United Kingdom has a significant history in the Indo-Pacific region. Australia, India, Bangladesh, Brunei, Fiji, Kiribati, Malaysia, Maldives, Nauru, NZ, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Tonga, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu are all Commonwealth countries. These are unique and quite special ties the United Kingdom enjoys. It is logical that the US and UK would leverage these relationships in countering the efforts of the CCP.

It's not insignificant that $2-4 billion boats will be built. It's not insignificant that a shipyard and production/assembly system for what is likely an existing boat will be replicated in large part in Australia. How much of that production system to be built is probably what the 18 month study will figure out. That is a political decision. It's obviously faster/cheaper/better to buy boats from an existing assembly line but probably not politically tenable. Figuring out what premium the Australians are willing to pay (and how they can get the can get the US to pay for it) to have the jobs is the decision to be made. This is not the US where two-boat deals extend for decades. This is an order for a specific number of boats. There will be no logical financial motivation to replicate all component manufacturing in Australia. But what is wanted by all three countries is the ability to host and service nuclear submarines, and by extension, other naval vessels, in Australia.

Building submarines in Australia is about building infrastructure for seamless interoperability and support capacity. While I have no evidence the United States is prepared to forward deploy a second Carrier Strike Group in the Pacific it is not inconceivable that an ARG might be based there. It would not be surprising to see temporary basing of US and UK naval vessels as we've seen with US Marines and US Air Force bombers. RAN preparations will most likely follow the patterns we've seen with the F-35. There will be training in the US & UK, significant procedural adoption, placement of crew aboard partner vessels, and a great deal of additional naval support infrastructure. Whether the boats are US or UK is less important.

That being said, there is a rational argument to be made that the boat will be the Astute class being built by BAE. It was announced that the naval yard where the boat is to be built is a BAE yard. More significantly the last two boats of the class are being built and there is nothing in the pipeline until the successor design is completed. But governments are rarely rational. And BAE doesn't have a great record of being on time or budget for any of its completed boats. Also, the Australians may not want a 25 yo design so it is conceivable this deal will prompt an Astute "block 2" program. BAE would love a sole source contract, especially for twice as many boats.

They may not have the capacity to service them but GDEB/HII have mostly built the latest Virginia-class boats on time and budget. I doubt General Dynamics/HII wants any part of building boats in Australia. If the RAN wanted a boat built in the US that would be a different story. But they have their hands full with the existing construction of two classes of boat. Additionally, the USN will not allow any additional risk added to the Columbia-class timeline. And the Virginia-class is a huge boat. It's a sticky wicket.

What probably makes the most sense, and thus, will not happen, is for the major maintenance servicing of nuclear powered submarines to be expanded to Australia and the RAN buy boats from an existing line. AUKUS would pay for the expanded infrastructure and GDEB/HII would build the boats. Ultimately the Australians would probably get a better boat at a better price on a better timeline from the US than from the UK. But it's difficult to see them getting past the purchase price and not being built in Australia. The Australians won't see that they will save money up front and "change order" the heck out of the US and UK if they build a yard to forward service Virginia and Astute class boats. To me, this is a no-brainer.

In 20 years there will be a book describing the genesis of this deal. However it started I think it included: the US considers the Pacific it's pond: the US wants additional forward presence in its pond: the UK had things to offer: there is a unique relationship between the US, and UK, and by extension Australia that enables this program to start. That does not mean I expect the program to be successful. I think the odds of it being successful would be better if the boats were purchased from an existing assembly line and supported fully in Australia but I think, ultimately, the advantages of this option will not be politically tenable to Australians.
 
uk 75 said:
I would not like to be the French Embassy in Canberra at the moment.
Even by reading this long running thread they could have had an eye/ear open for Australia deciding that China's growing naval power needed SSNs as the most effective counter.
A cursory look at the history of the RAN should also have alerted the French Naval Attache that his Royal Navy and US Navy colleagues might have a foot in the door.
Click to expand...
Yes, its been a long running problem here especially given the geopolitics of the Covid era with a neighbor like China. Non SSN's simply can't do what may need to be done, but need to be armed appropriately.
 
If......
If PWR-2 is now limited to extent Astute production.
Then any more Astute Type SSN will have to use PWR-3 intended for Dreadnought class SSBNs.

It would seem there is a large gap in production between Astutes and Dreadnoughts. Potentially this opens the way for Batch II Astute type SSNs.....
 
thebulletin.org

The new Australia, UK, and US nuclear submarine announcement: a terrible decision for the nonproliferation regime

The US and UK decision to transfer military nuclear reactor technology to Australia is a depth charge dropped into the nonproliferation regime. The damage assessment is just beginning.
thebulletin.org thebulletin.org

The United States and UK operate naval reactors in their submarines that are fueled with 93.5 percent enriched uranium...if Canberra wants to operate six to 12 nuclear submarines for about 30 years, it will need some three to six tons of HEU.... The new Suffren-class submarine, from which the French conventional submarine offered to Australia was derived, even runs on fuel enriched below 6 percent.

International Atomic Energy Agency...currently battling to prevent Iran from acquiring enough fissile material to build a nuclear weapon—25 kilograms (0.025 ton) of HEU according to the internationally agreed standard—will have to figure out how to monitor and account for 100 to 200 times that amount without gaining access to secret naval reactor design information.
Click to expand...

Interesting concern
 
jeffb said:

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)
Click to expand...
Reading the following article in a new light:

Its never too early to start planning for the future

Some of the greatest defence industry successes have come as a result of long-term planning and yes, keeping production pipelines hot, to this end the Royal Navy is already setting the groundwork to
www.defenceconnect.com.au www.defenceconnect.com.au
 
shin_getter said:
thebulletin.org

The new Australia, UK, and US nuclear submarine announcement: a terrible decision for the nonproliferation regime

The US and UK decision to transfer military nuclear reactor technology to Australia is a depth charge dropped into the nonproliferation regime. The damage assessment is just beginning.
thebulletin.org thebulletin.org

The United States and UK operate naval reactors in their submarines that are fueled with 93.5 percent enriched uranium...if Canberra wants to operate six to 12 nuclear submarines for about 30 years, it will need some three to six tons of HEU.... The new Suffren-class submarine, from which the French conventional submarine offered to Australia was derived, even runs on fuel enriched below 6 percent.

International Atomic Energy Agency...currently battling to prevent Iran from acquiring enough fissile material to build a nuclear weapon—25 kilograms (0.025 ton) of HEU according to the internationally agreed standard—will have to figure out how to monitor and account for 100 to 200 times that amount without gaining access to secret naval reactor design information.
Click to expand...

Interesting concern
Click to expand...

Very interesting reading - although the author being French... nah, just kidding. I don't think bulletin of the atomic scientists is that partisan.

Didn't knew French submarines ran on LEU. The irony is strong there. "Hey Australia, too much trouble with HEU proliferation ? we have TWO solutions for you, remember ?
- LEU Barracuda
- AIP Barracuda
 
Folks, In order to deconflict this thread, I have moved any posts not directly related to the submarines to a new AUKUS Treaty thread. Please continue posts directly related to the submarines here but anything broader/related to the treaty should go in the new thread.
 
shin_getter said:
thebulletin.org

The new Australia, UK, and US nuclear submarine announcement: a terrible decision for the nonproliferation regime

The US and UK decision to transfer military nuclear reactor technology to Australia is a depth charge dropped into the nonproliferation regime. The damage assessment is just beginning.
thebulletin.org thebulletin.org

The United States and UK operate naval reactors in their submarines that are fueled with 93.5 percent enriched uranium...if Canberra wants to operate six to 12 nuclear submarines for about 30 years, it will need some three to six tons of HEU.... The new Suffren-class submarine, from which the French conventional submarine offered to Australia was derived, even runs on fuel enriched below 6 percent.

International Atomic Energy Agency...currently battling to prevent Iran from acquiring enough fissile material to build a nuclear weapon—25 kilograms (0.025 ton) of HEU according to the internationally agreed standard—will have to figure out how to monitor and account for 100 to 200 times that amount without gaining access to secret naval reactor design information.
Click to expand...

Interesting concern
Click to expand...
Not really? Unless Australia builds the reactors themselves these will come as discrete units supplied by the US or the UK. Like, there's no need to open the cores or replace any of the (interestingly moderated) fuel either, these will last the lifetime of the boat, at the end of which it won't be HEU any more.

Unless Australia decoms a boat early it will have no reasonable way of actually getting at the fuel anyway. Tracking the HEU is only going to be a problem insofar as that Australia won't actually tell where it is when the boats are out of the harbor...
 
NeilChapman said:
More significantly the last two boats of the class are being built and there is nothing in the pipeline until the successor design is completed.
Click to expand...
Hmmm...random idea: I wonder if either Agamemnon or Agincourt could be redirected to the RAN and replacements sought? Would allow BAE Systems' yard to keep going longer, would get quicker solution for RAN and would provide pattern for future Australian builds.
 
Another relevant article that is worth a re-read given latest developments:

www.defenceconnect.com.au

Op-Ed: Australian roadmap for nuclear submarine acquisition

France recently announced it had reached agreement with India to develop six nuclear attack submarines [SSN] for the Indian Navy. This follows Indian experience with the leasing of an Alfa class SSN
www.defenceconnect.com.au www.defenceconnect.com.au
 
GTX said:
NeilChapman said:
More significantly the last two boats of the class are being built and there is nothing in the pipeline until the successor design is completed.
Click to expand...
Hmmm...random idea: I wonder if either Agamemnon or Agincourt could be redirected to the RAN and replacements sought? Would allow BAE Systems' yard to keep going longer, would get quicker solution for RAN and would provide pattern for future Australian builds.
Click to expand...
This is an interesting issue.
RR gave run down long lead elements of PWR-2 reactor production and are ramping up for PWR-3 instead.
This limits the number of Astutes with PWR-2 to the planned production run for the RN.

A major gap is opening up as Astute production runs down prior to Dreadnought production.

So arguably the fastest option for the RAN to get an Astute is one of the Current Build.
But to fill that gap in the RN, more, new SSN production is needed and this cannot be with PWR-2 reactors.
So a modified Batch II Astute with PWR-3 reactor is on the cards....possibly needing a larger diameter hull.
De-risking Dreadnought reactor and propulsion in the process.
 
shin_getter said:
The United States and UK operate naval reactors in their submarines that are fueled with 93.5 percent enriched uranium...if Canberra wants to operate six to 12 nuclear submarines for about 30 years, it will need some three to six tons of HEU.... The new Suffren-class submarine, from which the French conventional submarine offered to Australia was derived, even runs on fuel enriched below 6 percent.

International Atomic Energy Agency...currently battling to prevent Iran from acquiring enough fissile material to build a nuclear weapon—25 kilograms (0.025 ton) of HEU according to the internationally agreed standard—will have to figure out how to monitor and account for 100 to 200 times that amount without gaining access to secret naval reactor design information.


Interesting concern
Click to expand...

Not a problem according to this attachment below;- HEU intended for nautical application is exempt from IAEA monitoring under the NPT.(a known loop hole no less)


Also interesting that the U.K. doesn’t enrich HEU to the required level;- UrF6( HEX) is produced in the U.K. sent to the US for enrichment, returned, where its incorporated into fuel pellets. I wonder where Australia’s fuel pellets will be fabricated?

The joint US/U.K. deal makes a lot more sense.
 
Last edited:
So aside from British reactor, how about US Reactor e.g S9G ? as back-end while having British Sonars etc at front end, so basically a "HMS Dreadnought" of 21st century.
 
Archibald said:
shin_getter said:
thebulletin.org

The new Australia, UK, and US nuclear submarine announcement: a terrible decision for the nonproliferation regime

The US and UK decision to transfer military nuclear reactor technology to Australia is a depth charge dropped into the nonproliferation regime. The damage assessment is just beginning.
thebulletin.org thebulletin.org

The United States and UK operate naval reactors in their submarines that are fueled with 93.5 percent enriched uranium...if Canberra wants to operate six to 12 nuclear submarines for about 30 years, it will need some three to six tons of HEU.... The new Suffren-class submarine, from which the French conventional submarine offered to Australia was derived, even runs on fuel enriched below 6 percent.

International Atomic Energy Agency...currently battling to prevent Iran from acquiring enough fissile material to build a nuclear weapon—25 kilograms (0.025 ton) of HEU according to the internationally agreed standard—will have to figure out how to monitor and account for 100 to 200 times that amount without gaining access to secret naval reactor design information.
Click to expand...

Interesting concern
Click to expand...

Very interesting reading - although the author being French... nah, just kidding. I don't think bulletin of the atomic scientists is that partisan.

Didn't knew French submarines ran on LEU. The irony is strong there. "Hey Australia, too much trouble with HEU proliferation ? we have TWO solutions for you, remember ?
- LEU Barracuda
- AIP Barracuda
Click to expand...

Yep, quite interesting. Not an overriding concern of course but indicative of just why the U.S. has been so stingy in sharing this particular technology and another reason why the French should feel "hard done by".

Furthermore I've seen uncredited (but apparently coming from a high ranking diplomatic source from people that I've become accustomed to thinking as reliable) reports of President Macron pressing the Australian PM twice on separate occasions on whether they wouldn't yet rather acquire nuclear powered instead of diesel-electric subs - this all the while AUKUS negotiations were already ongoing and the PM just avoiding the issue with Macron.

Since it is apparent that the French were totally blindsided by AUKUS as such, I wonder whether French naval experts and NG yet didn't warn Macron that the original Australian requirement seemed wrong for their purposes. Sure seems that way to me and might also go a long way in explaining why NG might have seemed to drag their feet with regards to going forward with the original deal.
 
zen said:
GTX said:
NeilChapman said:
More significantly the last two boats of the class are being built and there is nothing in the pipeline until the successor design is completed.
Click to expand...
Hmmm...random idea: I wonder if either Agamemnon or Agincourt could be redirected to the RAN and replacements sought? Would allow BAE Systems' yard to keep going longer, would get quicker solution for RAN and would provide pattern for future Australian builds.
Click to expand...
This is an interesting issue.
RR gave run down long lead elements of PWR-2 reactor production and are ramping up for PWR-3 instead.
This limits the number of Astutes with PWR-2 to the planned production run for the RN.

A major gap is opening up as Astute production runs down prior to Dreadnought production.

So arguably the fastest option for the RAN to get an Astute is one of the Current Build.
But to fill that gap in the RN, more, new SSN production is needed and this cannot be with PWR-2 reactors.
So a modified Batch II Astute with PWR-3 reactor is on the cards....possibly needing a larger diameter hull.
De-risking Dreadnought reactor and propulsion in the process.
Click to expand...

More evidence, especially given the time it's inevitably going to take to start moving forward again, that Australia should really be angling for a local build of a variant of the new SSN replacement - SSN(R).
 
The other question I haven't seen asked (forgive me if it has) is why Australia, given the decision to "go nuclear", didn't simply approach the French for Suffren-class SSNs retrofitted with US combat systems?

A quick search shows that the Suffrens require refueling at ten year intervals which would have been inconvenient, but given the fact that a partnership already existed to produce conventionally powered versions, would another contract change have made that big a difference?

Australia would require fewer boats, but because sections of them could, like the proposed new nuclear boats be built in France and shipped to Australia, France would see some savings through the increased production of 'power units'.
 
jeffb said:
The other question I haven't seen asked (forgive me if it has) is why Australia, given the decision to "go nuclear", didn't simply approach the French for Suffren-class SSNs retrofitted with US combat systems?

A quick search shows that the Suffrens require refueling at ten year intervals which would have been inconvenient, but given the fact that a partnership already existed to produce conventionally powered versions, would another contract change have made that big a difference?

Australia would require fewer boats, but because sections of them could, like the proposed new nuclear boats be built in France and shipped to Australia, France would see some savings through the increased production of 'power units'.
Click to expand...
Short answer - This isn't just about submarines.
 
Furthermore I've seen uncredited (but apparently coming from a high ranking diplomatic source from people that I've become accustomed to thinking as reliable) reports of President Macron pressing the Australian PM twice on separate occasions on whether they wouldn't yet rather acquire nuclear powered instead of diesel-electric subs - this all the while AUKUS negotiations were already ongoing and the PM just avoiding the issue with Macron.[\quote]
Click to expand...

Very interesting and it would have made some sense. Macron proposal ... and (unfortunately) Morrison lack of reaction to it. If the latter already had enough of NG and knew AUKUS was on the table... no surprise he didn't answered to Macron nuclear offer(s).

To me it failed at 2 different levels
- Naval Group bad relationship with Australia
- Australia being "culturally" closer from UK US , two countries that also happen to built SSN

Why bother longer with those NG pigheads (over Barracudas, nuclear or not ) - when our two fellow anglophone partners can offer Astutes or Virginias ?

And THERE, a good case could be made that...
Culture and language barriers *doomed* NG while *helping* the case of UK US.
To me that was probably the tipping argument. It was stronger than "changing the French ongoing contract - from 12 short fin Barracudas to 6 nuclear ones".
I wouldn't be surprised to learn in the future THIS was proposed by the french as a last ditch desperate move. Related to the quote above.

Finally, nothing had been built yet so the french had not yet a "foot in the door".
To tell the Australians "how about changing that first hull - partially built - from SSK to SSN ?"
And there I would say that the Australians made the decision at the right time.
Too often in aviation history massive projects were canned at the last hour with huge damage (Arrow, cough, TSR-2, cough, Dynasoar, cough, cough, MOL, cough, Boeing SST, cough). Also applies to naval matters although to a different degree, obviously.
 
Last edited:
GTX said:
Hmmm...random idea: I wonder if either Agamemnon or Agincourt could be redirected to the RAN and replacements sought? Would allow BAE Systems' yard to keep going longer, would get quicker solution for RAN and would provide pattern for future Australian builds.
Click to expand...
zen said:
So arguably the fastest option for the RAN to get an Astute is one of the Current Build.
But to fill that gap in the RN, more, new SSN production is needed and this cannot be with PWR-2 reactors.
So a modified Batch II Astute with PWR-3 reactor is on the cards....possibly needing a larger diameter hull.
De-risking Dreadnought reactor and propulsion in the process.
Click to expand...
There is not enough time now.
Steel for Dreadnought and Valiant began being cut in 2016 and 2019 respectively, its not going to be long before Barrow start assembling hull sections and needing assembly space. BAE Systems seems able to build sections for at least three submarines at once and assembling two.

Currently Barrow has:
Anson - fitting out and on the water since April 2021, probably will commission in 2023
Agamemnon - building since 2013, probably won't launch until 2023 and complete in 2025
Agincourt - building since 2018, is scheduled to complete in 2026 which seems unlikely, most Astutes have taken 11-12 years to build so 2027-28 seems more realistic. A launch isn't likely until 2024-25.
Dreadnought - construction (steel cutting) began in 2016, but presumably assembly must be underway on some modules by now. Given the Astute build times and this is a first of class it seems likely commissioning will be circa 2030, launching isn't likely before 2026
Valiant - steel cutting began in 2019 so is three years behind Dreadnought, probably launching around 2029 and commissioning circa 2033
Warspite - presumably steel cutting will begin in 2023, completion 2036
King George VI - presumably steel cutting begins 2026, completion 2039
SSN(R) 1 - presumably steel cut sometime around 2030 with completion in circa 2044?

So even beyond the PWR2 issue, where could two or even one Astute be inserting into the build programme without either pushing back the last two Dreadnoughts?
Even if the RAN in 18 months time goes for an Astute programme boat and ordered one from Barrow that means steel cutting in 2023/24 and completion in 2035 - which means taking Warspite build slot. Replacing Agamemnon and Agincourt would mean waiting until at least 2036-40 to get a full complement of SSNs again and potentially pushing the last two Successors back into the mid-2040s (way past Vanguard expiry) and pushing service entry of SSN(R) back to 2050.

I don't think this will happen, I think a far more likely scenario given the timescales is that Australia will join the SSN(R) programme - if it wants a BAE sub - and that SSN(R) will become a multinational programme like Tempest.
BAE could build a first one and have it completed circa 2045 and get the bugs out and UK and Australian built boats in tandem could churn out 8 subs each between 2045-60.

Now the only question mark is how much capacity has Rolls-Royce got to build reactors? It's never had to handle more than 4 within any procurement block, Astute has been spread out since 2001 - 20 years and counting. 7 reactors in 20 years is not exactly a sausage factory... Assuming RR have 20 years (2016-2036) to build the four PWR3s for the Dreadnoughts, is it going to be able to double that build possibly up to sixteen PWR4s for SSN(R) and AUKUS SSN over 20 years? That kind of rate alone might mean a US reactor is preferred if General Electric has sufficient capacity to meet whatever SSN(X) build rate follows the Virginias from the late 2040s.
 
^ Indeed. If demand increases, I'm sure production capacity could increase. Timescales could very well tighten too. It might do BAE some good to have a customer that has a track record of cancelling errant projects for a change. ;)
 
I see that RN pred-dreads, BB and BC names are out in force... such a weird feeling, reading about SSNs named like WWI warships.
 
Its in the press that the RAN will lease USN SSNs and are aiming to get that their own subs by 2038. Given the the SSNR was formally kicked off on Friday as the Astute replacement, we can see this may fall into line with the RAN SSN ambitions.

Do the USN have SSNs they can lease to the RAN for the next 10-15 yrs ?
 
Thorvic said:
Its in the press that the RAN will lease USN SSNs and are aiming to get that their own subs by 2038. Given the the SSNR was formally kicked off on Friday as the Astute replacement, we can see this may fall into line with the RAN SSN ambitions.

Do the USN have SSNs they can lease to the RAN for the next 10-15 yrs ?
Click to expand...

Spare 688s ? but they are probably too old by now...
 
Had my 15-year old asking me questions tonight in regards to this AUKUS and the submarine issue....
He produced this article on his tablet

"He [Peter Dutton] said the Chinese are pumping out submarines, frigates and aircraft carriers at a record rate and so the rest of the world has stepped up its own production."

www.dailymail.co.uk

Australia to rent nuclear submarines from US as it waits for new ones

Defence minister Peter Dutton confirmed Australia will consider consider leasing nuclear submarines from US in the interim while waiting for new ones to be built.
www.dailymail.co.uk www.dailymail.co.uk

It's funny, because after our in-depth conversation, he said - 'If we're so worried Chinese pumping out submarines, frigates, aircraft carriers, tanks and combat aircraft at a record rate, why doesn't Australia stop selling China it's majority of Iron Ore, Aluminium and coking coal which they manufacture this threat!'

Regards
Pioneer
 
I thought Australia had stopped selling his coal to China - triggering the present feud between them ?
 
A question to Hood:

If an Australian order for an Astute jumped ahead of the Brit order, it wouldn't change how many in-service boats would be in the theatre -- right ? I mean, the boats that Britain is building now are destined for the Pacific -- right?
 
Hood said:

Now the only question mark is how much capacity has Rolls-Royce got to build reactors? It's never had to handle more than 4 within any procurement block, Astute has been spread out since 2001 - 20 years and counting. 7 reactors in 20 years is not exactly a sausage factory... Assuming RR have 20 years (2016-2036) to build the four PWR3s for the Dreadnoughts, is it going to be able to double that build possibly up to sixteen PWR4s for SSN(R) and AUKUS SSN over 20 years? That kind of rate alone might mean a US reactor is preferred if General Electric has sufficient capacity to meet whatever SSN(X) build rate follows the Virginias from the late 2040s.
Click to expand...
Rolls-Royce hopes to start building Small Modular Reactors for the power market, and is touting its experience in reactor design - with a strong emphasis on the sub reactors. I have no doubt that they hope to both expand reactor production generally, and develop synergies between sub and power reactor production.
 
kitnut617 said:
A question to Hood:

If an Australian order for an Astute jumped ahead of the Brit order, it wouldn't change how many in-service boats would be in the theatre -- right ? I mean, the boats that Britain is building now are destined for the Pacific -- right?
Click to expand...
Not clear that's true.
Thing is SSN numbers were drawn down in planning during the Blair-Brown years, and nothing the Coalition, Cameron, May and Boris has done has changed that til now....
At the time of decisions, we were in Afghanistan and Iraq, and were cutting MoD budgets relentlessly, RN had to take hit after hit despite FCO and RN warnings about sustainability and interests/concerns.
 
Fluff said:
Archibald said:
I thought Australia had stopped selling his coal to China - triggering the present feud between them ?
Click to expand...
Did you say oil and Japan??
Click to expand...

No, this - except I got it backwards.

www.mining-technology.com

The coal war: why has China turned its back on Australian coal?

China’s ban on imports of Australian coal has triggered a crisis, leaving a $14bn a year industry hanging by a thread.
www.mining-technology.com www.mining-technology.com

It's China which stopped taking Australian coal in repraisals for the COVID critics.
 
kitnut617 said:
If an Australian order for an Astute jumped ahead of the Brit order, it wouldn't change how many in-service boats would be in the theatre -- right ? I mean, the boats that Britain is building now are destined for the Pacific -- right?
Click to expand...
The Royal Navy didn't have enough when it had all the Swiftsures and Trafalgars let alone the numbers it has today.
Currently we have two old Trafalgars, three Astutes and one working up.
Talent will decommission in 2022 and Triumph in 2024, by 2024 we should still have five SSNs with the two newest Astutes joining the fleet with two more completing before 2030.

That's a small fleet for so much ocean to cover - up the Barents Sea, down to the Falklands, one in the Indian Ocean, one nearer home for training and keeping watch on Trident rotations out of Faslane and at least one in the dock. The fleet must be spread pretty thin and it only takes a breakdown or minor mishap and there is nothing to fill the gap.
I can't see the MoD letting numbers fall below seven. Maybe BAE Systems is going deliberately slower - let's face it 30 years to build seven SSNs is lethargic - and HMS Astute is already 11 years old, so by 2041 should be due replacement by SSN(R) No.1 and the youngest wouldn't need replacing until 2056-60, so I can't see the build rate needing to increase drastically.

For me the RAN is doing the right thing if they can lease some USN subs, at least they might have something relatively young that could be spared (and even the USN hasn't got much spare fat these days). But if they do that and get used to operating US submarines and reactors and getting expertise in US systems its unlikely they will want to switch to British reactors and systems. SSN(R) vs SSN(X) is a tantalising contest. I'm not sure BAE Systems would relish having to design a bespoke hull around a US powerplant and that means giving quite intimate details of reactors etc. that could get to potential competitors (RR).
 
As JFC Fuller can attest, the Nott Plan was 20 SSN. Which was never reached (I think it peaked at 18?).

Cold War's end saw the next generation cut and eventually Astute emerged after the long lapse

During the process for Astute, things started at 12, got cut to 8, which lasted quite a while, then cut to 7. BAE Systems had to slow production right down to sustain the body of experienced personnel for the next generation of Submarines. As the experience of not building anything left them making serious mistakes on the first Astute boats.
 
Thanks for your replies Hood, Zen --
I can see that 'leasing' a couple of boats would be the right way to go so home crews can get some experience operating them, but I hadn't realized that Britain had so few of them themselves. But why would you need one down around the Falklands, are there no diesel/electric boats in the RN for that ?
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom