Replacement of Australia's Collins Class Submarines

Scott Kenny said:
It'd require a complete refueling and update/refit.
Click to expand...

Assuming the hull was sufficiently intact and there was enough people left to even know how to operate them. It would be kinda like saying “a shame we got rid of those F4s”.
 
Halcyon66 said:

Albanese confident on AUKUS despite Trump's Korean subs promise​


https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-10-30/albanese-confident-on-aukus-despite-us-korean-subs/105952342
Wow looks like everyone is getting subs.................Ponzi scheme comes to mind :cool:

Regards,
Click to expand...
Many of the things the current administration says do not come to fruition, in fact almost anything they say with regards to making or building anything. Destroying AUKAS is certainly still possible, but it will not be because the administration is capable of creating anything for the ROK. Mr senile just has a big in his bonnet because Bestest Korea snubbed him.
 
Do we know if it's an evolution of a Korean design with a US power plant, or is it a fully American design ie a Virginia?
 
jeffb said:
Do we know if it's an evolution of a Korean design with a US power plant, or is it a fully American design ie a Virginia?
Click to expand...
It is just an off the cuff idea from nontechnical, degrading mind. Nothing will come of it.

It is ridiculous to take these statements (F-35 with two engines, steam for CVN-78, buying Greenland , Canada as a state) at face value.
 
Josh_TN said:
It is just an off the cuff idea from nontechnical, degrading mind. Nothing will come of it.

It is ridiculous to take these statements (F-35 with two engines, steam for CVN-78, buying Greenland , Canada as a state) at face value.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I generaly avoid dipping into dompol but I would strongly advise waiting until actual experts develop a plan.

(My money is on this never happening.)
 
My understanding after reading a couple articles is that the administration merely gave “approval” for South Korea to develop their own - it seems unclear to me this was required or asked for. It seems most definitely not an offer for the U.S. to build anything.
 
Actually the most recent thing I have read is that the nuclear boats would be built with US technology in the U.S. at the Philadelphia ship yard ROK is in the process of taking over. I think there is zero chance of that happening, and that the ROK is just playing along while he’s president in much the same way as they gave him a golden crown and had a military band play “YMCA”. My guess is that this is to give Trump a non Biden AUKAS win which no one on either side actually thinks is realistic.

To be fair, the submarine part of AUKAS might also not be realistic.
 
Josh_TN said:
built with US technology in the U.S. at the Philadelphia ship yard ROK is in the process of taking over
Click to expand...
Yeah. While the press will run anything the current administration says, anyone who knows anything about this industry is well-aware this will never happen.
 
tychosis said:
Yeah. While the press will run anything the current administration says, anyone who knows anything about this industry is well-aware this will never happen.
Click to expand...
I mean, the reasons are so numerous, but let’s just start with how hard it is to have a yard certified for nuclear work, nevermind one owned by a non U.S. company. About the only realistic part of the idea to my mind is the US handing over nuclear submarine secrets; I assume they are still stored in a guest bathroom at Maralago.
 
South Korean president said the nuclear subs would be built in South Korean not the US. But it could be a similar arrangement to Britain and Australia where Britain will build the reactor modules for all the Australian subs. US seems quite keen for South Korea to use the Philly yard to expand US naval production capacity.

The main takeaway for the South Koreans is that the US will remove its restriction on them enriching fuel beyond 20% in their reactors. Like Japan they have the indigenous capability to quickly produce naval nuclear plant.
 
Various small AUKUS submarine news stories coming out of the Indo-Pacific defence trade show.

A$34 million contract has been awarded by BAE to the Australian company PMB Defence for evaluation of nickel-zinc submarine batteries. A British nickel-cadmium battery supplier has already been approved but PMB Defence is being lined up to possibly supply the batteries to both navies.

Several Australian companies have passed US Newport News supplier qualification performed by HII/Babcock and after some more paperwork will be eligible to supply the US submarine industry, they are CQMS, AW Bell, AJAX, Hycast, Intercast, Supashock, Camco, Stella, Ferra, Axiom and Marand.

HII and Babcock have signed an agreement to integrate REMUS unmanned underwater vehicles into Babcocks Weapon Handling and Launch System.

As expected AUKUS will use a PWR3+ reactor based on the Dreadnought class PWR3, this reactor has a new power management and distribution capability that allows it to provide all the necessary hotel power to the boat when tied up alongside, it doesn't require shore/diesel power when the reactor is in low output.

Preliminary design review is expected in September 2026.

https://www.navalnews.com/event-new...team-but-requires-full-australian-commitment/
 
Last edited:
https://www.navalnews.com/event-new...liver-combat-system-capability-for-ssn-aukus/
Interestingly, in this article, Naval News refer to the design as:

An accurate depiction of what the SSN-AUKUS will look like, as displayed by Rolls-Royce with a London bus alongside to give scale.
Click to expand...
Not sure whether I'm missing a joke, or if this actually is indicative of the final design.

Hood said:
Yeah that has thrown me too, I was sure we'd see some kind of hull shaping rather than just being a generic tube.
There seems to be very little Astute DNA in this.
Click to expand...
There's an ever so slight Vanguard/Dreadnought-esque kink in the nose section which I like. I wish it had Dreadnought's sloped sail and whale nose, would've looked great. But yeah, the only Astute-class features I'm seeing are the six torpedo tubes, clearly visible in this profile shot:

1762476134612.png
Really feels as though it'll be Virginia, but with British insides. Something a little French about it as well.
 
Comparison with the Dreadnought model

1762416759069-jpeg.790576

Dreadnaught-class-SSBN.jpg



The hull shape is the same, just the bow and aft have been shortened, the missile section has obviously been removed and the front of the sail is different.
 
Last edited:
I was trying to measure the model and I got two very different estimates.
If you assume the reactor compartment is the same length (12m) then going by the external markings she comes out about 150m in length, only a tiny bit shorter than the Dreadnought. If you go by the bus model, then a New Routemaster is 11.2m, which results in a length of about 95m, about the same as an Astute which I think is unlikely based on her proportions.
 
Stern planes are the same as SSN(X)'s slightly offset x-stern and yes the sail looks like the Suffren's.

1762484373564.png

There's a question around the scaling as well because a London bus is 11.2m long according to sources, so a Suffren is about 9 buses long. The model of the SSN-AUKUS above, isn't much more than that.
 
WatcherZero said:
I was trying to measure the model and I got two very different estimates.
If you assume the reactor compartment is the same length (12m) then going by the external markings she comes out about 150m in length, only a tiny bit shorter than the Dreadnought. If you go by the bus model, then a New Routemaster is 11.2m, which results in a length of about 95m, about the same as an Astute which I think is unlikely based on her proportions.
Click to expand...
Remember that the beam is about 12m on Dreadnought, so you end up with kinda chunky proportions, same as with the SSN-21s.

Edit: I am leaning towards "roughly the same length as Astutes" being the correct answer. The different proportions at bow and stern compared to Dreadnought are likely due to those areas being the ballast tanks and so they need to be much smaller for a smaller ship.
 
1762476134612-png.790677


Dreadnought-Class-Construction-Units.jpg


On the Dreadnought compartments B-J are pressurised. You obviously discard the missile compartment F/M. And then the profile actually looks more similar than it did at first glance with the main differences being the sail design and the rudders placement relative to the propulsor.

2.png
(Compartment cropped then rescaled to match nose to prop length of the model)

My guts telling me a length of 120-125m, halfway between the two.
 
Last edited:
Clearer pic of the model:
Click to expand...

There was some discussion of this when these images were posted to the r/Warshipporn and r/Submarines groups on Reddit, but there's no visible vertical launch system on the model.

It does have six torpedo tubes, though.
 
Halcyon66 said:
Marles refuses 12 times to say what the Americans want in AUKUS review
https://www.smh.com.au/world/north-...cheque-as-ministers-meet-20251209-p5nlzl.html
Yet we are cutting another 1 billion cheque..............

Regards,
Click to expand...

Not surprising really. This afternoon:
He says the meeting discussed further infrastructure upgrades at RAAF Base Darwin, RAAF Base Tindal and RAAF Base Amberley to support increased rotations of US military aircraft.

The defence minister says the US will increase the rotation of military personnel through Australian bases.
Click to expand...

AUKUS isn't a plan for Australia to get nuclear submarines, it's a plan for the US to get Australian bases.
 
The US is walking away from the EU, we can only hope they walk away from the "Indo-Pacific"

Regards,
 
Relevent quote from a piece mostly concerning Type 31

Sir Nick Hine, Chief Executive of Babcock’s Marine sector, said: “This is an important week in the history of Rosyth. As the keel of HMS Formidable is laid in this vital and fast-paced UK defence programme, our advanced design and build capability will also now support the delivery of the US Virginia class submarines – a critical component of the AUKUS trilateral partnership between Australia, the US and the UK.
Click to expand...
 
Yes HII has signed for major sub-assemblies of the Virginia's to be subcontracted to Babcock in Rosyth, Scotland (Babcock had already been subcontracted to produce the missile tubes at their US plant).

One thing Rosyth shipyard has is aluminium welders, so its possible they've been contracted to produce reactor piping.
 
Last edited:
Josh_TN said:
Assuming the hull was sufficiently intact and there was enough people left to even know how to operate them. It would be kinda like saying “a shame we got rid of those F4s”.
Click to expand...
That, too.

Though it'd be relatively easy to grab the more senior nukes from the current ships, they'd know the older boats. Especially the 20+yr veterans.
 
Halcyon66 said:
Hanwha’s Philly Shipyard can build nuclear submarine for U.S. Navy, executive says

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/12/25/han...ear-submarine-for-us-navy-executive-says.html
https://www.kedglobal.com/shipping-shipbuilding/newsView/ked202512260001
https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-...-submarine-us-navy-executive-says-2025-12-25/
Regards,
Click to expand...

Kind of confusing set of articles that hint that Hanwa could and would like to get involved in the Virginia-class sub program but isn't yet.
Trump told a press conference on Monday that Hanwha would participate in building frigates for the U.S. Navy. He called Hanwha “a good company”, referring to its planned $5 billion expansion in the Philly Shipyard, which it bought in 2024 for $100 million.
Click to expand...
However, Trump did not address whether Hanwha would be involved in the Virginia-class submarine program.
Click to expand...
That said, the US is going to have to do something if they want a hope of reaching 66 operational boats by 2054 in addition to their AUKUS commitment. Watch this space.

There is mention of construction of nuclear subs and access to fuel, but that appears to be in relation to Korean plans to build their own nuclear powered boats.
https://www.kedglobal.com/business-politics/newsView/ked202511140005
Click to expand...
"The US has approved for South Korea to build nuclear-powered attack submarines. The US will work closely with South Korea to advance requirements for this shipbuilding project, including avenues to source fuel," the Joint Fact Sheet states.
Click to expand...

The Joint Fact Sheet...
https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-she...-trumps-meeting-with-president-lee-jae-myung/
FURTHERING OUR MARITIME AND NUCLEAR PARTNERSHIP: The United States welcomed the ROK’s commitment to contribute to modernizing and expanding the capacity of American shipbuilding industries, including through investments in U.S. shipyards and America’s workforce. The ROK welcomed the United States’ support for the ROK’s civil and naval nuclear power programs.

  • Both countries committed to collaborate further through a shipbuilding working group, including on maintenance, repair, and overhaul, workforce development, shipyard modernization, and supply chain resilience.
  • These initiatives will increase the number of U.S. commercial ships and combat-ready U.S. military vessels as quickly as possible, including the potential construction of U.S. vessels in the ROK.
  • Consistent with the bilateral 123 agreement and subject to U.S. legal requirements, the United States supports the process that will lead to the ROK’s civil uranium enrichment and spent fuel reprocessing for peaceful uses.
  • The United States has given approval for the ROK to build nuclear-powered attack submarines. The United States will work closely with the ROK to advance requirements for this shipbuilding project, including avenues to source fuel.
Click to expand...
 
I guess Australia is now going to be writing cheques directly to Hanwha??

The US was never going to allow any US subs to be built offshore, as before we are paying for the US to build subs in the US.

Regards,
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom