Replacement of Australia's Collins Class Submarines

[jeffb]

Wait, how about Australia adopting a non-nuclear variant of the Suffren, before going nuclear ?
...
Nope, forgot that.

According to Turnbull this was actually an option.

The deal required that at least the first two boats be conventionally powered but allowed for a switch to an "Australianized" Suffren, nuclear powered boat along with a reduced total buy (8 rather than 12).

just catching up to all this, so Australia is insistent on it being nuclear..
besides the Suffren and Virginia, was the Astute considered/offered?

Australia's "insistence" on nuclear-powered subs was premised on a step change of defence focus from defence of Australia's littoral to operations anywhere in the world (in the first instance, in the South China Sea).

 

[jeffb]

So what about the Suffren design? Well it was offered informally but never seriously considered...

It wasn't considered because Australia was set on buying conventionally powered subs despite that from a sizing, crewing, manufacturing point of view, it was ideal. Hence the Attack class conventionally powered version.

It remains a mystery why, despite having an option to build state of the art nuclear powered subs, probably prior to the 2030s, Morrison threw the whole deal overboard for AUKUS, second hand Virginias, hypothetical subs yet to be designed by the brits, and a massive increase in the US military presence in Australia.

 

[helmutkohl]

It wasn't considered because Australia was set on buying conventionally powered subs despite that from a sizing, crewing, manufacturing point of view, it was ideal. Hence the Attack class conventionally powered version.

It remains a mystery why, despite having an option to build state of the art nuclear powered subs, probably prior to the 2030s, Morrison threw the whole deal overboard for AUKUS, second hand Virginias, hypothetical subs yet to be designed by the brits, and a massive increase in the US military presence in Australia.

in retrospect, what submarine solution do you think Australia should have gone for?

 

[Scott Kenny]

in retrospect, what submarine solution do you think Australia should have gone for?

Nuclear powered Suffrens. Difficulty then is that every 5-8 years, they gotta go back to France to be refueled unless/until Oz builds a nuclear shipyard. So you'd actually want more than 12, probably 14-16, to keep the numbers up while boats are being refueled.

But I think the AUKUS deal may be better for Oz in the long run. More industry, a nuclear shipyard in Oz to do the work locally, and all the high-paid highly skilled workers that the supporting industries require.

 

[jeffb]

in retrospect, what submarine solution do you think Australia should have gone for?

If nuclear power is still considered an absolute requirement by the RAN then Suffren. It WAS the design selected by the RAN when Morrison blew up the plan, and the design work done already for the Attack class has done the lions share of integrating the AN/BSY-1 combat system into the design.

Refueling of the Suffren class LEU reactors is at around ten year intervals in line with the major overhaul cycle.

I think it's an open question whether they would need to be returned to France for refueling or not. Australia would have a decade to get the facilities together to accomplish the Suffren class' (simplified) refueling process at home after all.

 

[Ainen]

The best plan was to change exactly nothing, and stick to conventional Attack design as it was.

(I am just being salty for not getting to see the pinnacle of SSK).

 

[jeffb]

SSKs have continued to evolve...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1484229008418131971

View: https://x.com/CovertShores/status/1484229008418131971?t=FfvP7TU1so32OiZKMQzM1A&s=19

 

[Archibald]

The best plan was to change exactly nothing, and stick to conventional Attack design as it was.

The supreme irony being that Attack subs were essentially non-nuclear Barracuda / Suffren. Hence, a bunch of Attacks could, first, reliviate the Collins while partially training Australian crews to the coming Barracudas.

 

[jeffb]

The supreme irony being that Attack subs were essentially non-nuclear Barracuda / Suffren. Hence, a bunch of Attacks could, first, reliviate the Collins while partially training Australian crews to the coming Barracudas.

Exactly.

 

[Archibald]

There is also the case for a mixed fleet, nuclear / non-nuclear - of otherwise rather similar submarines (since Attack and Barracuda are heavily related in design) : synergies, symbiosis... basically: use the non-nuclear subs for every mission where nuclear power isn't needed, extracting additional life from the most expensive nuclear subs.

 

[Grey Havoc]

just catching up to all this, so Australia is insistent on it being nuclear..
besides the Suffren and Virginia, was the Astute considered/offered?

Yes. In fact, before the United States ah, barged aboard the program, the original Anglo-Australian plan was for a Astute-based design with a US supplied combat system to allow full interoperability with the USN. Though as H_K notes, that had evolved into the mostly clean sheet SSNR design just before the Americans came onboard.

 

[jeffb]

A longer, more detailed essay by RADM Peter Briggs detailing the issues being faced in Australia, the United States and the United Kingdom in relation to Australia's Collins Class replacement. An excellent breakdown of the issues at hand with AUKUS

When It Comes to Submarines, Australia Is Going to Be Left High and Dry - War on the Rocks

As the new American president shook allied capitals all over the world, a Virginia-class submarine — the USS Minnesota — arrived at a port in western

warontherocks.com

 

[H_K]

Nuclear powered Suffrens. Difficulty then is that every 5-8 years, they gotta go back to France to be refueled unless/until Oz builds a nuclear shipyard. So you'd actually want more than 12, probably 14-16, to keep the numbers up while boats are being refueled

I think it's an open question whether they would need to be returned to France for refueling or not. Australia would have a decade to get the facilities together to accomplish the Suffren class' (simplified) refueling process at home after all.

@Scott Kenny Refuelling the Suffrens would have been easy. As pointed out by @jeffb it is a simplified process that can be done concurrently with any docking cycle by opening a hatch in the reactor section. Typically happens every 10 years and doesn’t require a return to the yard that built it. It’s usually done in the SSN’s maintenance yard with just a little extra infrastructure.*

The French SSNs have the highest availability and sea time of any attack subs in the world so would require *fewer hulls* than any other option. Typically the 5 SSNs (with double crews) average 800-1000 sea days per year vs. 600-700 sea days for the RAN’s 6 Collins… in a good year! So 5-6 Suffren SSNs would deliver more capability than what the RAN has today or is expected to have in 2-3 decades.

(Note the French sea days was with their 30 year old Rubis class, and is expected to be even better with the brand new Suffrens with longer operational cycles in between docking/refueling).

* The infrastructure for refueling is a Reactor Access House on rails that runs over the dock and is used to extract the spent fuel rods in a contained environment. The rods are then moved to a temporary storage pool, from where they can be shipped to France or other countries for reprocessing (as this is low enriched uranium, not military grade HEU). There is also additional safety infrastructure (eg. to handle reactor cooling) but this will need to be put in place whether or not the SSNs need to be refueled.

 

[UpForce]

Haven't bothered with reading all that's been said here about this since last offering my 2¢ (or should it be "centimes" in this case?). One of those story arches that would probably be rejected out of hand if presented as a movie script. But then again our timeline seems to hold an abundance of those.

It's just as well that the French start cranking out (nuclear) Suffrens now whether they be employed at their own, EU's or the universal arsenal of democracies' behest. The more the merrier. What the heck, Macron could just donate some to Australia and christen the first one "Brigitte" to boot. That alone would conveniently explode a few well targeted heads without any escalatory consequences.

 

[Scott Kenny]

@Scott Kenny Refuelling the Suffrens would have been easy. As pointed out by @jeffb it is a simplified process that can be done concurrently with any docking cycle by opening a hatch in the reactor section. Typically happens every 10 years and doesn’t require a return to the yard that built it. It’s usually done in the SSN’s maintenance yard with just a little extra infrastructure.*

The French SSNs have the highest availability and sea time of any attack subs in the world so would require *fewer hulls* than any other option. Typically the 5 SSNs (with double crews) average 800-1000 sea days per year vs. 600-700 sea days for the RAN’s 6 Collins… in a good year! So 5-6 Suffren SSNs would deliver more capability than what the RAN has today or is expected to have in 2-3 decades.

(Note the French sea days was with their 30 year old Rubis class, and is expected to be even better with the brand new Suffrens with longer operational cycles in between docking/refueling).

* The infrastructure for refueling is a Reactor Access House on rails that runs over the dock and is used to extract the spent fuel rods in a contained environment. The rods are then moved to a temporary storage pool, from where they can be shipped to France or other countries for reprocessing (as this is low enriched uranium, not military grade HEU). There is also additional safety infrastructure (eg. to handle reactor cooling) but this will need to be put in place whether or not the SSNs need to be refueled.View attachment 762836

Right, but you still absolutely need that refueling infrastructure, no matter how relatively easy the French design makes it.

If Oz doesn't have it, the boats gotta go back to France to have it done. So now you're without the boat getting refueled for an extra 6 months or so for it to go around. (~3months there and another ~3months back).

 

[zen]

Yes. In fact, before the United States ah, barged aboard the program, the original Anglo-Australian plan was for a Astute-based design with a US supplied combat system to allow full interoperability with the USN. Though as H_K notes, that had evolved into the mostly clean sheet SSNR design just before the Americans came onboard.

Of course what happens with that is Virginias offered but requiring Australian funds to even try to get production up to speed to meet that need.
Which obviously saps any Australian funds towards AUKUS-SSN......

So by dividing Australia's funds the US places Australia and the UK in the bind of not being able to ramp up to meet the schedule. All while waving the temptation to "Just buy more Virginias".

Now considering how China friendly certain factions in the US be.....this is just a win-win here.
Delays.
Schedule pushed back and in doubt.
Australian funds committed to the US, so unavailable for any other option.
Bridges burned with France.

 

[jeffb]

Right, but you still absolutely need that refueling infrastructure, no matter how relatively easy the French design makes it.

If Oz doesn't have it, the boats gotta go back to France to have it done. So now you're without the boat getting refueled for an extra 6 months or so for it to go around. (~3months there and another ~3months back).

Agree. Having that infrastructure is extremely useful as it makes construction easier and safer. The fueling of the reactor can be done separately from the sub's reactor compartment construction and testing, and the fuel rod configuration can be tested in a completely separate purpose built facility prior to its installation in the sub.

The SSN-AUKUS approach, by comparison, would see a completed, 'sealed' reactor compartment, already fueled with 93%+ enriched uranium, delivered from the UK and integrated 'live' as it were, into the vessel under construction.

A fully-fueled reactor that would be delivered, via ship one imagines, having been craned into the hold of a specially chartered cargo vessel and probably escorted by RN or RAN warships, around the Cape of Good Hope (if the Houthis are still harassing cargo) and across the Indian Ocean to Adelaide.

I mean, you can see why the existing AUKUS plan is considered very high risk.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Agree. Having that infrastructure is extremely useful as it makes construction easier and safer. The fueling of the reactor can be done separately from the sub's reactor compartment construction and testing, and the fuel rod configuration can be tested in a completely separate purpose built facility prior to its installation in the sub.

The SSN-AUKUS approach, by comparison, would see a completed, 'sealed' reactor compartment, already fueled with 93%+ enriched uranium, delivered from the UK and integrated 'live' as it were, into the vessel under construction.

A fully-fueled reactor that would be delivered, via ship one imagines, having been craned into the hold of a specially chartered cargo vessel and probably escorted by RN or RAN warships, around the Cape of Good Hope (if the Houthis are still harassing cargo) and across the Indian Ocean to Adelaide.

I mean, you can see why the existing AUKUS plan is considered very high risk.

I was under the impression that all the AUKUS ships would be built in the UK. Did I miss a memo about Oz building them?

 

[jeffb]

I think so. The original plan was to begin building Australia's SSN-AUKUS boats, in Adelaide, with reactors supplied by Rolls-Royce(?), from the early 2040s. US supplied 2nd hand Virginias to cover the gap between LOTE Collins and SSN-AUKUS.

Unless I missed a memo.

 

[Foo Fighter]

I must have missed some of that too. I believed that the first two would be built in the UK with Ocker work teams alongside, gaining experience etc.

 

[jeffb]

You're probably right Foo Fighter. Although I'm not sure whether the first SSN-AUKUS boats are going to the RN or the RAN.

 

[Ozair]

You're probably right Foo Fighter. Although I'm not sure whether the first SSN-AUKUS boats are going to the RN or the RAN.

All Aus boats will be built in Australia. The first SSN-AUKUS will be for the RN built in the UK and delivered in the late 2030s. Aus boats will also start build in the 2030s but the first won't be delivered until the early 2040s.

 

[Scott Kenny]

All Aus boats will be built in Australia. The first SSN-AUKUS will be for the RN built in the UK and delivered in the late 2030s. Aus boats will also start build in the 2030s but the first won't be delivered until the early 2040s.

Ah, okay, I'm following now.

I knew that the timeline for Oz getting AUKUS boats being so long was what resulted in the lease of Virginia-class boats.

 

[Foo Fighter]

All Aus boats will be built in Australia. The first SSN-AUKUS will be for the RN built in the UK and delivered in the late 2030s. Aus boats will also start build in the 2030s but the first won't be delivered until the early 2040s.

Not meaning that UK built boats would be for the Ockers, more that they would gain experience and knowledge while participating in the build of the first two for the UK RN.

 

[Ozair]

Not meaning that UK built boats would be for the Ockers, more that they would gain experience and knowledge while participating in the build of the first two for the UK RN.

100%, Australia finished the last Collins in 2003 so there likely won't be a single person with a welding torch on SSN-AUKUS that worked on the Collins program. A steep learning curve...

 

[Kanga]

100%, Australia finished the last Collins in 2003 so there likely won't be a single person with a welding torch on SSN-AUKUS that worked on the Collins program. A steep learning curve...

Since Collins sustainment and upgrades are ongoing, that seems overly pessimistic. No one around who worked on the first build maybe, but a lot has happened since then.

 

[Ozair]

Since Collins sustainment and upgrades are ongoing, that seems overly pessimistic. No one around who worked on the first build maybe, but a lot has happened since then.

Not really, has been a known issue for the last 20 years in Australian defence especially Navy.

With the Collins submarines, a new company, shipyard and workforce were set up to build them. They turned to maintenance when the build program ended, by which time Cockatoo Island had been closed for over a decade. Early results were not so good, for many reasons.

One factor was that skills had been developed to build the submarines, not to maintain them. It took over a decade and the Coles review before an acceptable outcome was reliably achieved. When Australia started building the air warfare destroyers, after a break of almost 10 years, everybody had to relearn the craft, including Defence, which took time. The fact is, building ships and submarines requires different skills from repairing and maintaining them, even when you built them in the first place.

Collins submarine maintenance: What’s best for the navy and its people? | The Strategist

The public debate about moving full-cycle dockings of the Collins-class submarines to Western Australia has been overwhelmingly political. The vital point has so far been ignored: industry is engaged to support the navy, not the ...

www.aspistrategist.org.au

 

[jeffb]

...and now, Collins LOTE problems.

https://www.australiandefence.com.au/news/news/first-collins-lote-may-be-descopedhttps://www.australiandefence.com.au/news/news/first-collins-lote-may-be-descoped

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/defence/secret-submarine-scandal-collins-lined-up-for-liteon-refit/news-story/48c467dd5d98477b0f355ed8ec70a42e

Scaled-back Collins-class submarine Life Of Type Extension program approved | PS News

The $5 billion Collins-class submarine Life Of Type Extension (LOTE) program has been formally approved by the Federal Government but…

psnews.com.au

Collins Class Submarine Listed As Product Of Concern

The Australian government has listed the Collins-class submarine as "Product Of Concern", indicating more troubles with its life extension.

www.navalnews.com

 

[Scott Kenny]

100%, Australia finished the last Collins in 2003 so there likely won't be a single person with a welding torch on SSN-AUKUS that worked on the Collins program. A steep learning curve...

Oh, man, that's gonna SUCK!

I saw parts of that while NNNS was trying to get up to speed building Virginias, it took them a long time before they were as good as the folks at EB. The NNNS first boat wasn't completed until after EB completed their second.

 

[Foo Fighter]

To me that seems to prove the maintenance of skillset requirement if we are to keep a proper defence of nation industry, wherever we are.
Getting to the point where more whatever is needed and we just cannot, again, strikes me as PPM.

 

[Ozair]

To me that seems to prove the maintenance of skillset requirement if we are to keep a proper defence of nation industry, wherever we are.
Getting to the point where more whatever is needed and we just cannot, again, strikes me as PPM.

I think a long term decision needs to be made on what skills and sectors should be maintained. Australia probably shouldn't be building ships and subs, the cost to maintain that isn't worth the investment required especially when Australia starts and stops these production lines. If there was a constant order book of iterated/updated/evolved designs in the Japanese model then the investment seems more worthwhile. Better to fund sectors of the economy that will provide better long term returns on investment for which shipbuilding is not one.

Edit: The problem being that these efforts are political in nature, marginal electorates that skew the investment dollars in their direction without valid justification and it isn't a one party more than the other nor it is unique to Australia. Would be better to have an independent committee that made decisions like this and essentially told the Govt where the money should be spent for best value to the entire country and not just to satisfy the next election period.

 

[Foo Fighter]

The US and UK could do with maintaining the industrial base, building some of our subs in Oz would spread the load and actually make it easier, bringing investment from overseas INTO Oz.

This form of cooperation is something we could all benefit from.

The fly in the linament is a certain logic so, nah, never happen...........

I have been consuming my favourite dunking comestible this week. Something I got into the habit of during winter nexecises in particular. Bonio, flour and water and great dunking.......

Woof.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I agree that Oz just building however many AUKUS boats and shutting down the production line is poor Industrial Policy.

However, Oz getting a nuclear shipyard up and running to maintain their boats even if they're built in the US or UK is vital.

 

[Ozair]

However, Oz getting a nuclear shipyard up and running to maintain their boats even if they're built in the US or UK is vital.

Take it a step further. Given how constrained the US yards are and will be for years to come Australia should size and staff their yard to accommodate US boats as well so that the yard is busy even when Australian boats are not going through overhaul.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Take it a step further. Given how constrained the US yards are and will be for years to come Australia should size and staff their yard to accommodate US boats as well so that the yard is busy even when Australian boats are not going through overhaul.

Oh, I'd love to see that happen. Both for Oz's success and because the USN is absolutely dying for a third shipyard in the Pacific.

 

[tychosis]

I've been in the industry for almost 20 years and honestly... the problem is always going to be people. Not welders and wrench-turners and the like, but the system integrators who manage the numerous subsystems on the boat. That's really where your bottlenecks are. I can tell you from personal experience that with how quickly subsystems are expanding, shipyards and IMAs just aren't poised to solve the sort of problems that come up during construction and refit--and we only have so many engineers and competent technicians to go around.

It also takes years before you're genuinely useful. As mentioned, these systems are constantly evolving so you're going to see (and be expected to solve) a lot of problems no one has ever seen before. Only through solving these problems do you develop the innate understanding of these subsystems (and their relationships) that make you a better problem-solver. (And not everyone can do it, and it's really difficult to predict who has it and who doesn't.)

I've been saying it for years and nobody likes the answer... but you really have to cast a wide net, grab up all the talent you can and throw them into the mix and hope for the best.

 

[Foo Fighter]

I cannot see a downside to building/servicing the 'boats' of the AUKUS nations in Oz, not a one.

IMHO, a genuine win-win and those are hen's teeth.

 

[tychosis]

I cannot see a downside to building/servicing the 'boats' of the AUKUS nations in Oz, not a one.

IMHO, a genuine win-win and those are hen's teeth.

Agreed. There's literally no other option.

If the desire is to populate the boat with American and British subsystems, we simply don't have the bandwidth to fully support them. They're going to have a build a pool of homegrown talent.

(It's gonna be really painful at first and people are gonna b*tch and moan about struggles/delays/etc, but welcome to life in the industry.)

 

[Scott Kenny]

Agreed. There's literally no other option.

If the desire is to populate the boat with American and British subsystems, we simply don't have the bandwidth to fully support them. They're going to have a build a pool of homegrown talent.

(It's gonna be really painful at first and people are gonna b*tch and moan about struggles/delays/etc, but welcome to life in the industry.)

Crud, even 25 years ago, the USN was farming a lot of the support stuff like for Nav gizmos out to the manufacturers.

 

[tychosis]

Crud, even 25 years ago, the USN was farming a lot of the support stuff like for Nav gizmos out to the manufacturers.

Yeah. Unfortunately, things are advancing even more quickly today and providing sailors and IMA personnel with the knowledge and tools they need to support their own systems just isn't something the Navy is interested in. The pool of ILS money that funds things like training and documentation is the first thing to go away when things get tight. Can't say I'm happy with it, but it's just the way things are.

Frankly, most of the tactical systems back in the day were effectively Fisher-Price My First Sonar in comparison to systems today. Old "if X breaks replace Y" troubleshooting methods simply don't work anymore. As I alluded to in a previous post, you have to have a deeper understanding of system function and be able to approach troubleshooting holistically. I'm not even sure you can train people on that--you just have to have experience working with the systems and develop that toolbox, and that's not something the fleet can do given their ridiculous optempo.

I really don't blame the fleet for their problems in this regard... now, the IMA folks--I have no problem blaming them.