Replacement of Australia's Collins Class Submarines

Hood said:
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).
Click to expand...
We have had numerous equipment gaps - MR, and now AWACS. I cant see Boris and Liz stopping a gap, to give one to the ausies.

Here's another idea, what about a genuine 'standard' boat, made in 2 sizes, one for uk and Aus, and one for the USN......

Plan the production, plan the people to rotate around the world, so you have constant builds.....
 
Folks, as previously asked, please refrain from over quoting. There is absolutely no need to quote the entirety of a previous post to get across that you are referring to it. It is also not necessary to quote quotes within quotes. It is plain lazy! Moderator editing of such posts will potentially be implemented to make it easier for everyone to read.
 
Hood said:
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.
Click to expand...

Is there any public info on UK SSNs' availability (e.g. days spent at sea), and how Astute compares to the Trafalgar class? Often the fastest, most efficient way to increase fleet size is simply to improve availability.
 
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?
Click to expand...
The existing contract had no allowance for switching to nukes, and word from Aussies is that that work to adopt the platform to their desired combat system was not yet very far along. So both contractually and design-wise, they'd have been starting from little better than "zero." Add on their general dissatisfaction with the pace and progress on the existing contract, and the open question regarding France's attitude toward such a renegotiation, and they probably felt it was an unappealing option.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think the problem with that is the time it would take to create a new design. I would think the Australians want boats in their possession, sooner rather than later.

If they are going to get boats anytime soon, it will almost certainly be with an existing design.
 
They plan to have 18 months of review. That sounds a little bit odd to be in that position after canceling something as big as the Naval Group contract years after if was initiated. It would sound more probable that the information phase is now over and they are planning today how to execute the necessary adaptations of the selected design or the share of work.

Let's be honest, the French experience has probably been for them the right experience to know better what they don't want or absolutely need in their new sub.
 
Moose said:
TomcatViP said:
Is there any chance that a new design will be adopted by the three Navy?
Click to expand...
Yes, there is a chance of a common design to be shared by the 3 navies. It's not possible to rate how high of a chance with current inform, but it exists.
Click to expand...

I would think there are too many constituencies involved to settle on a common design using US reactors built at different yards - as Virginia-class boat builds are split. Wiki says over 4000 suppliers.

But -

This is not Aérospatiale/BAC trying to build Concord. These three countries share a language. If it were possible to "license" Virginia-class to two additional yards it would not make fiscal sense but it might be doable. I'd be quite surprised if this came to pass.

I think it is possible that BAE could split production of a new boat between the UK and Australia, as HII and GDEB do today.
 
jeffb said:
Others now pointing out that technically, Australia now has NO plan for a Collins replacement other than a rather vague promise of a nuclear powered option, to be built in Adelaide, at some point in the future.

Is the nuclear powered subs announcement simply a massive distraction to cover Australia agreeing to allow a permanent US military presence on its soil?

Don't know how well it's going to work, Australians generally have never wanted US bases here.

Media in Australia seem to be all ra-ra-ing the change so far.

Bit of a devils-advocate view here, sorry if that upsets.
Click to expand...
Lets compare the submarine replacement program to another ADF acquisition, the MRH-90 helicopter.

Selection made in 2004 (after defence actually recommended the Blackhawk instead), contract signed in 2005, ran years late and now in 2021, is still not performing as required, is regarded as a maintenance hog and has been grounded for safety issues. Additional aircraft of other types have been acquired to supplement the poor availability and performance.

Now imagine how much time money and effort could have been saved if MRH had been killed, or at least cut back to the original 12 airframes? It quite literally would have been cheaper to kill MRH in 2010 -12 timeframe, open a new production facility and build UH-60L/M instead, especially if local assembly of MH-60R and possible MH-60S were rolled in, then there is the special forces requirement that the MRH has been determined will never meet.

I sort of get the feeling that what is happening with submarines is what should have happened with a number of other projects this century. We spent a lot of money fixing broken acquisitions that probably would have been better off being killed early.
 
Archibald said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yes, China initiated a trade war against Australia for supporting an independent investigation / enquiry in the the origins of COVID19.

Apart from the fact that there should pretty much be investigations and or enquiries into any major disaster (or near miss for that matter) so we have a better understanding of what happened, what worked, what didn't work, what we can do better etc. and there usually are, even when it makes the US, UK, Russia, Australia, EU who ever look bad, China decided it was an attack on them.

Chinas response has been a ridiculous trade war that is actually causing more harm at this point to Chinese industry than to Australia. The vitriol has been excessive, even threatening, there has been more than sabre rattling, some Communist Party mouth pieces have actually been calling for war to teach Australia a lesson. The line is basically, we are a superpower and once we are powerful enough to be able to ignore the US we are coming for you and everyone else they currently protect.

Now China is surprised and disturbed that some of the nations they have been threatening have decided to actually do something to deter the aggression that is already being threatened.

Eight or more SSNs are no threat to continental China, no number of conventional missiles are a threat to China, extra squadrons of fighters are not a threat to China, ballistic missile defences are not a threat to China. What they are a threat to is any foreign expeditionary force that seeks to interdict Australian trade or launch strikes against Australia. They are a threat to bases built in the South China Sea, they are a threat to forces that are attacking regional nations.
 
Last edited:
www.abc.net.au

Scott Morrison's hand-picked General given new military challenge following COVID vaccine rollout

The General appointed to fix Australia’s faltering COVID-19 vaccine rollout has been named for another challenging job back in Defence, but it remains unclear when he will be able begin his new role.
www.abc.net.au www.abc.net.au

Note that the story also confirms that Vice-Admiral Jonathan Mead, has been appointed to the newly created position Chief of Nuclear Powered Submarine Task Force and that by the end of 2021, Royal Australian Navy Commodores will be dispatched to the United Kingdom and the United States to serve as Nuclear Powered Submarine Task Force Liaison Officers.
 
An unexpected point of view (at least to me) :

www.washingtonexaminer.com

Why the US should offer to buy France’s submarines for Vietnam - Washington Examiner

The United States would achieve three objectives by purchasing a number of Shortfin Barracuda submarines from France and then giving them to Vietnam. First, the Biden administration would repair relations with America's oldest ally. Second, it would supply a rising security partner with newly...
www.washingtonexaminer.com www.washingtonexaminer.com
 
TomcatViP said:
An unexpected point of view (at least to me) :

www.washingtonexaminer.com

Why the US should offer to buy France’s submarines for Vietnam - Washington Examiner

The United States would achieve three objectives by purchasing a number of Shortfin Barracuda submarines from France and then giving them to Vietnam. First, the Biden administration would repair relations with America's oldest ally. Second, it would supply a rising security partner with newly...
www.washingtonexaminer.com www.washingtonexaminer.com
Click to expand...

And the ships names would be
HMVNS (Her Majesty Vietnam Navy Ships)
- HMVNS Dien bien phu
- HMVNS Giap
- HMVNS Ho chi minh
....
.
.
(ok, that was silly... where is that coat...?)
 
Although the RN only has a handful of Astutes the advantages of lending one to the RAN and basing it permanently in Australia might well outweigh the problems.
The remaining Astutes would be free to focus on "West of Suez".
 
The idea of using Vietnam as a PITA into China...side, is smart. But also a little whacky at the edges.
Seriously - the US government buying 3*S.F Barracudas won't happen until Hell freeze over.
If only because US submarine builders would raise hell in Congress, shouting about some "stabbing in the back".
Plus not only France has bad historical karma with Vietnam: so has America itself...
"HMVNS Khe Sanh" anybody ?
 
Last edited:
uk 75 said:
Although the RN only has a handful of Astutes the advantages of lending one to the RAN and basing it permanently in Australia might well outweigh the problems.
Click to expand...
Yes and no.
From what we know based on open sources and some detailed discussion in Hennessey & Jinks, there are probably only 3 serviceable SSNs on station at any one time, one of those is always EoS. Patrol times go as high as six months or more, not all of it spent on patrol but the majority of the time is.
It seems transit has been the main problem, the rotation EoS is conducted via Suez but even then the 'core burn' time has reduced the operational life and prematurely aged the Trafalgars (plus they weren't designed for tropical water operations).
A local base would be handy for support while in theatre. Giving the RAN a sub would reduce transit times, but the submarine needs a refit at some point and you might lose more operational time than you would save by rotation given there is no spare while the loaned sub is in refit.
Plus the EoS sub is the standing cruise missile asset for Middle East operations, giving that capability away to the RAN is probably not politically ideal and lessens Britain's military options.
Plus no doubt they hoover up a lot of Elint from other target areas whilst in transit.

I think any loans will have to wait until they get enough trained crew from exchange postings to form a decent nucleus. Despite what the politician's are saying its not going to be the case of tossing the crew a few manuals and signing a hire agreement and letting them sail it away and hoping they return it without any dents or excess mileage.
 
I have zero idea why the UK would or should, buy French submarines for the Vietnamese. Sure, the French would love the idea but it just would not fly.
 
Sometimes I cannot find my way to the bathroom, this getting old is, getting old.........
 
Perhaps this, Comme les politiciens, on les entend mieux quand ils se lèvent.
 
20,000 leagues down a pot of tea:
It is increasingly apparent that Naval Group and the French gov were aware that the contract would not amount to the alleged colossal amount for the French industry, with so far only a Billion contracted (and paid - See French MoD Parly recent declarations) or that the contract was in dire prospect to be renewed (cost, delays, range or performances).
Then the late corrosive drama fueled by the French Foreign Minister's incomprehensibly harsh rhetoric should only be seen as a tempest in a bottomless teapot.

3-20000-lieues-sous-les-mers-20-000-mary-evans-picture-library-canvas-print.jpg

What is it saying?
 
Last edited:
I am referring to the declaration Parly made in front of the low chamber and the Reuters article (post #505).
The french press tends to pick what fits the story as drafted by Mr Drian in a reflexive nationalist move but a deeper research beyond the lines quoted shows that a more mitigated position prevails (if not a disinterest).

Heck, Europe commission president, Ursula V. D leyen, bluntly stated that after the US position will be known EU will be back to "business as usual"...
 
Sounds more like the Australians were covering their ass's -- if the US didn't agree to the deal of technology transfer, they still had the French deal to fall back on. Then AUKUS wouldn't have seen the light of day -- would it ---
It seems to me the Australians were at a point in the contract where it was continue or cancel it ---
 
And, again, this is something happening everyday, everywhere in the world. That's why you have counter-bidding and phased developments.

Hence the point that we can characterize the diplomatic reaction from the French as highly dysfunctional.
 
In my experience, when a large complex contract runs into problems the fault is more often on the client’s side than the supplier. Clients make unreasonable demands, create bureaucratic roadblocks, insist on Method A when everyone else recommends Method B, or can be plain dysfunctional. Sometimes there’s even an internal faction proactively undermining the contract.

Suppliers just want to get paid and have no incentive to drag the process on forever.

Not to say Naval Group didn’t miss deadlines or wasn’t at times hard to work with due to different cultures, but if there was any real risk to the program I believe it was coming from unrealistic behavior/expectations from the client.
 
GTX said:
Oh not disagreeing there - have often said "What's the single common element in all Defence failed/troubled projects? Defence!" - but I think in many cases both sides are partially to blame if we're completely honest.
Click to expand...
*cough* FARA.
 
Exemplar....Australian Army pursuit of new Artillery. A frighteningly fraught process that yet has no real outcome.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom