Replacement of Australia's Collins Class Submarines

Pioneer said:
Volkodav said:
jeffb said:
www.dailymail.co.uk

Morrison hints US and UK nuclear submarines may be based in Australia

Scott Morrison announced on Tuesday a federal government study into future infrastructure needed to support American and British nuclear submarines as part of the AUKUS.
www.dailymail.co.uk www.dailymail.co.uk
Click to expand...
This makes sense as an Australian capability can grown more easily if the basing deal includes crew slots and maintenance experience.
Click to expand...
Ah, this makes much more sense now - it appears that this whole nuclear sub thing seems to have more to do with building an infrastructure to support US/British nuke sub operations than that of actual Australian/RAN operational needs and wants....

Regards
Pioneer
Click to expand...
Where we have often fallen over in the past is not factoring in the required infrastructure and support systems required. When you sort out the required frameworks first things usually go smoother
 
Last edited:
uk 75 said:
US and UK subs based in Australia reminds me of this haunting if scientifically wrong film showing the USN and RAN working together with an RN A class submarine posing as USN nuclear boat. Still get emotional watching it

en.m.wikipedia.org

On the Beach (1959 film) - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org en.m.wikipedia.org

The theme music will always be the Australian Naional Anthem for me
Click to expand...

And the way things presently go over Ukraine, we also may have the "nuclear WWIII" side of the book. For real. On top of the submarines.
 
jeffb said:
NeilChapman said:
In the short term, books are written. In the short term people raise their families and send children to school. In the short term grandparents pass wisdom to their grandchildren. Do you have any data to support how long this short term will be? And, really, what does it matter?
Click to expand...

In the short term, Neil, I've got better things to do. You seem to be wanting to say something, why don't you just get it off your chest?
Click to expand...

All my questions were sincere. I was interested in how you would flush-out your thoughts. My 'short-term' examples were pithy as the work effort includes long term jobs with positive benefits.
 
NeilChapman said:
jeffb said:
NeilChapman said:
In the short term, books are written. In the short term people raise their families and send children to school. In the short term grandparents pass wisdom to their grandchildren. Do you have any data to support how long this short term will be? And, really, what does it matter?
Click to expand...

In the short term, Neil, I've got better things to do. You seem to be wanting to say something, why don't you just get it off your chest?
Click to expand...

All my questions were sincere. I was interested in how you would flush-out your thoughts. My 'short-term' examples were pithy as the work effort includes long term jobs with positive benefits.
Click to expand...

Sorry Neil, I misinterpreted your line of questioning. On re-reading my posts I can see I wasn't very clear.
 
jeffb said:
NeilChapman said:
jeffb said:
NeilChapman said:
In the short term, books are written. In the short term people raise their families and send children to school. In the short term grandparents pass wisdom to their grandchildren. Do you have any data to support how long this short term will be? And, really, what does it matter?
Click to expand...

In the short term, Neil, I've got better things to do. You seem to be wanting to say something, why don't you just get it off your chest?
Click to expand...

All my questions were sincere. I was interested in how you would flush-out your thoughts. My 'short-term' examples were pithy as the work effort includes long term jobs with positive benefits.
Click to expand...

Sorry Neil, I misinterpreted your line of questioning. On re-reading my posts I can see I wasn't very clear.
Click to expand...
No worries. I rely on SPUK; its dedicated contributors with varied perspectives, for information that helps refine my thoughts on important topics. On rereading my own posts I recognize that I was pushing a bit hard and see how my questions could easily be misinterpreted.

Onward!
 
A stretched 1980s design with a tweaked US-Anglo reactor design for the 2050s, what could go wrong?
[Neatly done though]
 
Last edited:
Hood said:
Ok... didn't see that coming I must admit.
So Australia is going to build its own reactors and submarine. A stretched 1980s design with a tweaked US-Anglo reactor design for the 2050s, what could go wrong?
Click to expand...
A lot, but it's definatively the most interesting option. And I don't think anyone here saw that one coming.

Edit: Damnit, that date...
 
Last edited:
TomS said:
Hood said:
Ok... didn't see that coming I must admit.
So Australia is going to build its own reactors and submarine. A stretched 1980s design with a tweaked US-Anglo reactor design for the 2050s, what could go wrong?
Click to expand...

What day is today?
Click to expand...
Good point!
Checked the date of the article, yep its from today. As we were guys, back to dreaming of Astutes cruising off Bondi Beach....
 
From the link:
The first submarine, HMAS Vengeful, is expected to be launched before 2050. The remaining three boats of the first batch, HMAS Victoria, HMAS Vexatious and HMAS Vampirious are expected to be in the water in the 2050s. They will be followed by Batch-II, possibly with enhanced capabilities.

The four Batch-II boats will be HMAS Vainglorious, HMAS Vaporous, HMAS Vanquished and HMAS Vegemite. The final batch will be made up of HMAS Very, HMSAS Visible, HMAS Vendetta and HMAS Abbot.

Sources confirm that the pumpjet propulseur, which replaces the screw propeller of the Collins class, will be optimized for Southern Hemisphere operations. It will spin the opposite direction to normal European ones. This should ensure that it can drive for longer than 20 minutes, which was found to be an issue with the Attack class design.
Click to expand...
HMAS Vegemite. Doesn't get any more Australian than that.
 
Hood said:
TomS said:
Hood said:
Ok... didn't see that coming I must admit.
So Australia is going to build its own reactors and submarine. A stretched 1980s design with a tweaked US-Anglo reactor design for the 2050s, what could go wrong?
Click to expand...

What day is today?
Click to expand...
Good point!
Checked the date of the article, yep its from today. As we were guys, back to dreaming of Astutes cruising off Bondi Beach....
Click to expand...
The RAN April first post was the new safety uniform, with the light grey replaced with bright yellow.
 
aonestudio said:
www.navalnews.com

Leak Reveals First Details Of Australia's New AUKUS Submarine - Naval News

Australians expecting that their navy will get Virginia or Astute class nuclear submarines have had their hopes dashed. Documents reveal that the go-forward AUKUS design will be based on an enlarged Collins Class submarine.
www.navalnews.com www.navalnews.com
Click to expand...

"'Son of Collins' springs a leak, can't stay submerged from public view." I'm fully prepared to endure some hardship as far as worthy causes go but have to say, the mere thought of serving on HMAS Vegemite is enough to cause indigestion ... that's a hard pass.
 
Rickshaw said:
Naval Group negotiations to drag on, Collins Class submarines get $381 million upgrade
Click to expand...

Paris_Tuileries_Garden_Facepalm_statue.jpg
 
In lieu of any actual design going forward, or news of same. I'd just like to repost the only actually Australian design put forward so far. The trusty HMAS Vegemite (or maybe the HMAS Drop bear might be a better name?)

AUKUS-Submarine-Go-Forward-Apr22.jpg


I'm amused by the "Naval Group negotiations dragging on" line too. For those who are unaware, there's an election coming up next month in Australia and the current conservative Government is very, very keen not to talk about the possible $5.5 BILLION Barracuda project cancellation cost for at least another couple of weeks.
 
Last edited:
5.5billions, even in Au $ would see a lot of Startups switching from the EV world to offering green silent Submarines to the Australians. Specifically if they agree to pay in bitcoins!
 
From what I’ve read the actual “break-up” fee to Naval Group is likely to be a lot less than that, somewhere in the low-to-mid hundreds of millions of AU$.
www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-15/australia-to-pay-hundreds-of-millions-if-french-sub-deal-sinks/11112952

The “billions” being quoted in the AUS media likely refer to the total $ spent on the project (~$2B as of mid-2021) plus remaining funds in the contracts, which total over $1B.

For example, as of mid-2021 Naval Group had been paid $1.2B of $1.8B in its contract, Lockheed Martin had been paid $350M of $800M, and the US government was owed $200M (!)… in reality not all these funds will need to be paid since work has stopped. That’s where the breakup fees come into play. And some of the combat system work hopefully won’t be totally wasted.
www.anao.gov.au/sites/default/files/Auditor-General_Report_2021-22_13_a_0.pdf
 
That's true H_K, although there's already something like $3B spent with not a huge chance that that investment will be transferable to the new project.

PM Morrison's claim to the press corp that the strategic environment had changed, making the French non-nuclear design non-viable and clearing the way for a US/UK nuclear design, seemed a bit disingenuous too. Apparently switching the conventionally powered Barracudas for nuclear powered Suffrens never crossed their minds.
 
I also forgot to post about Thales & DCNI* prosecution for Malaysian sub**:
www.reuters.com

France's Thales under formal probe over Malaysia submarine deal, denies accusations

French defence group Thales on Wednesday confirmed a media report that the company was being formally investigated as part of a long-running corruption probe tied to the 2002 sale of submarines to Malaysia.
www.reuters.com www.reuters.com

*DCNI was latter englobed into Naval Group.
** it's possible that this one induced the latter event described in the above post.
 
I was going to ask if these people do any prep for these sessions but the RAN officer clearly demonstrated the negative. That anyone can be in such a government position without at least a basic understanding of the topic they wish to discuss is informative to the character of many of them. Bloody sad, imoho, of course.
 
Foo Fighter said:
That anyone can be in such a government position without at least a basic understanding of the topic they wish to discuss
Click to expand...
Well. Maybe it begins with the rule that constituents can cast a vote without at least a basic understanding of the topic they vote on.

The early republics (Rome, Athens, France 1789, etc) had a suffrage censitaire (*), which addressed most of the basic understanding issue. But since the enlightened Universal Declaration of Rights, it is no longer the case. There are good reasons, but there are downsides. Win here, lose there.

* suffrage censitaire: tax-based voting system: "one taxpayer - one vote", not "one man - one vote".
For perspective, in some EU countries like France, less than 50% of households are net taxpayers. Yet they vote. And then people wonder why the political class is, erm, as it is...

Let's get back to Collins-class subs...
 
That person will have researchers and staff. Thinking that a method of propulsion limits sub surface time to 20 mins or less suggests a serious problem with the aquisition of military systems. In this case the replacement for the Collins class submarines. I think it is pertinent. Sorry mate.
 
Foo Fighter said:
That person will have researchers and staff. Thinking that a method of propulsion limits sub surface time to 20 mins or less suggests a serious problem with the aquisition of military systems. In this case the replacement for the Collins class submarines. I think it is pertinent. Sorry mate.
Click to expand...

That specific person (Pauline Hanson) is deeply unserious and I doubt her staff are any better. But she has no real influence on Australian defense acquisitions, since she runs a fringe party with few seats.

I'm sorry I posted the video; I thought it would just be good for a laugh.
 
It is mate and illustrates the problems of getting any military project through the system.
 
dan_inbox said:
* suffrage censitaire: tax-based voting system: "one taxpayer - one vote", not "one man - one vote".
For perspective, in some EU countries like France, less than 50% of households are net taxpayers. Yet they vote. And then people wonder why the political class is, erm, as it is...

Let's get back to Collins-class subs...
Click to expand...
VAT (TVA in France) fixed that. In essence, every consumer can be legally seen as a Taxpayers past any insignificant purchase.
This generally unpopular tax prevents any legal attempt to corner the poorest among us from fully exercising their citizen rights.
When you'll have to pay that extra 20 something percent on your next purchase, try to think about that. It won't give you a smile (it certainly doesn't for me) but you might reconsider beating to death the cashier.
 
TomS said:
Foo Fighter said:
That person will have researchers and staff. Thinking that a method of propulsion limits sub surface time to 20 mins or less suggests a serious problem with the aquisition of military systems. In this case the replacement for the Collins class submarines. I think it is pertinent. Sorry mate.
Click to expand...

That specific person (Pauline Hanson) is deeply unserious and I doubt her staff are any better.
I'm sorry I posted the video; I thought it would just be good for a laugh.
Click to expand...

Is she related to that old teen pop band, you know...
MBOOOP blablah
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom