Replacement of Australia's Collins Class Submarines

H_K said:
BlackBat242 said:
And most of those high-operational time navies operate their subs HOW far from their base(s)?
Click to expand...

Well as far as the French SSNs are concerned, since that’s what I’m referring to, they do regular long deployments to the Indian Ocean (typically 6-7 months) with crew swaps in the UAE, though they also have practised long deployments to the Pacific and Caribbean with crew swaps in Guam, Martinique etc. The double crews actually work better the farther you have to deploy.
Click to expand...
This answers a question I had about the French SSNs. I mistakenly thought they were much more limited in operations.
Although this borders on the heretical/political I am now wondering why we cant all play nice and let France join in.
The new Suffren boats look pretty good and if they match the Virginia and Astutes why not?
 
Oh no please - let's not go down this rabbit hole again. France got its chance but Naval Group seemingly behaved like arrogant dickheads over the Attack contract. So - it is dead and definitively dead. There is no coming back. No way the Australians try again.
 
kaiserd said:
Some detail on wider US views re: near-term provision of US nuclear sub production slots to Australia.

www.theguardian.com

US senators urge Joe Biden not to sell ‘scarce’ nuclear submarines to Australia

Democrat and Republican lawmakers reportedly warned president that Aukus security pact could stress US submarine industrial base ‘to breaking point’
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
Click to expand...
Counterpoint:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1612471052864552961
View: https://twitter.com/DEricSayers/status/1612471052864552961?t=Ma6jff2wGGy59rEF1Ghkhg&s=19

Don't overreact to lawmakers getting on the record before any decisions have been made. This sort of statement tells us that supplying US-made boats to Australia is on the table, and that not everyone loves the idea. We could have guessed that before, but still good to have confirmation.

Getting Oz into the nuke boat business will be hard, there literally are no easy answers and whatever path is taken is likely to step on toes and piss somebody off. It's still worth doing.
 
Here's a group from the House of Representatives arguing to increase sub production in the US to address both USN requirements and to build some boats for Australia.
https://twitter.com/x/status/1612936764511121408
View: https://twitter.com/AndrewBGreene/status/1612936764511121408?t=UkV-UXBu9CgrH2ZkAyOKvw&s=19

https://twitter.com/x/status/1612955750464356353
View: https://twitter.com/stephendziedzic/status/1612955750464356353?t=2fx5nqogx4Cshvz0YP5DYQ&s=19

As I said above, don't overreact to any comments made while the two nations are still investigating options.

That said, there's definitely growth going on in American sub production if for no other reason than the need to build SSNs and SSBNs at the same time.
 
Moose said:
Here's a group from the House of Representatives arguing to increase sub production in the US to address both USN requirements and to build some boats for Australia.
https://twitter.com/x/status/1612936764511121408
View: https://twitter.com/AndrewBGreene/status/1612936764511121408?t=UkV-UXBu9CgrH2ZkAyOKvw&s=19

https://twitter.com/x/status/1612955750464356353
View: https://twitter.com/stephendziedzic/status/1612955750464356353?t=2fx5nqogx4Cshvz0YP5DYQ&s=19

As I said above, don't overreact to any comments made while the two nations are still investigating options.

That said, there's definitely growth going on in American sub production if for no other reason than the need to build SSNs and SSBNs at the same time.
Click to expand...

Certainly building up the industrial capacity is a great option.

The question really is, is it possible? Or more accurately, in what timeframe is it possible?
 
Jimmo952 said:
Moose said:
Here's a group from the House of Representatives arguing to increase sub production in the US to address both USN requirements and to build some boats for Australia.
https://twitter.com/x/status/1612936764511121408
View: https://twitter.com/AndrewBGreene/status/1612936764511121408?t=UkV-UXBu9CgrH2ZkAyOKvw&s=19

https://twitter.com/x/status/1612955750464356353
View: https://twitter.com/stephendziedzic/status/1612955750464356353?t=2fx5nqogx4Cshvz0YP5DYQ&s=19

As I said above, don't overreact to any comments made while the two nations are still investigating options.

That said, there's definitely growth going on in American sub production if for no other reason than the need to build SSNs and SSBNs at the same time.
Click to expand...

Certainly building up the industrial capacity is a great option.

The question really is, is it possible? Or more accurately, in what timeframe is it possible?
Click to expand...
It is possible if there is enough commitment. That's industry commitment to make the investments they need and government (legislative) commitment to consistently fund it. Won't happen with continuing resolutions or arbitrary spending cuts.
 
Moose said:
Jimmo952 said:
Moose said:
Here's a group from the House of Representatives arguing to increase sub production in the US to address both USN requirements and to build some boats for Australia.
https://twitter.com/x/status/1612936764511121408
View: https://twitter.com/AndrewBGreene/status/1612936764511121408?t=UkV-UXBu9CgrH2ZkAyOKvw&s=19

https://twitter.com/x/status/1612955750464356353
View: https://twitter.com/stephendziedzic/status/1612955750464356353?t=2fx5nqogx4Cshvz0YP5DYQ&s=19

As I said above, don't overreact to any comments made while the two nations are still investigating options.

That said, there's definitely growth going on in American sub production if for no other reason than the need to build SSNs and SSBNs at the same time.
Click to expand...

Certainly building up the industrial capacity is a great option.

The question really is, is it possible? Or more accurately, in what timeframe is it possible?
Click to expand...
It is possible if there is enough commitment. That's industry commitment to make the investments they need and government (legislative) commitment to consistently fund it. Won't happen with continuing resolutions or arbitrary spending cuts.
Click to expand...

I agree with you on that. Building up the industrial base will certainly require consistent levels of funding over time.
 
There seems to be two schools of thought in the US critter types, those who don't want to help because it may impact US force levels and those who want to help because they think it will get Australia to pay to expand US industrial capacity, especially increase jobs in their constituencies.

None of them seem to grasp the logical middle road, Australia expands Australian capacity and feeds extra capacity into the US program and maybe the UK does as well. Each does the dollar value of their procurement worth of work but aims for efficiency to reduce costs for all on common components and sections.
 
Volkodav said:
There seems to be two schools of thought in the US critter types, those who don't want to help because it may impact US force levels and those who want to help because they think it will get Australia to pay to expand US industrial capacity, especially increase jobs in their constituencies.

None of them seem to grasp the logical middle road, Australia expands Australian capacity and feeds extra capacity into the US program and maybe the UK does as well. Each does the dollar value of their procurement worth of work but aims for efficiency to reduce costs for all on common components and sections.
Click to expand...

Once again, this had to be looked at as practically as possible.

An honest assessment of how long it would take Australia to get into position to build nuclear submarines would have to be conducted.

I assume this is being done with the results being fed into the decision making process.

I'd like to see Australia get their nuclear submarines before Mandarin becomes the official language there.
 
Jimmo952 said:
Volkodav said:
There seems to be two schools of thought in the US critter types, those who don't want to help because it may impact US force levels and those who want to help because they think it will get Australia to pay to expand US industrial capacity, especially increase jobs in their constituencies.

None of them seem to grasp the logical middle road, Australia expands Australian capacity and feeds extra capacity into the US program and maybe the UK does as well. Each does the dollar value of their procurement worth of work but aims for efficiency to reduce costs for all on common components and sections.
Click to expand...

Once again, this had to be looked at as practically as possible.

An honest assessment of how long it would take Australia to get into position to build nuclear submarines would have to be conducted.

I assume this is being done with the results being fed into the decision making process.

I'd like to see Australia get their nuclear submarines before Mandarin becomes the official language there.
Click to expand...
The capacity constraints relate to a lot more than just the reactors, theres a lot of high quality fabrication, casting forging etc. that is needed, stuff that Austtralia can do.
 
I'm suspicious about how much of the US political opposition isn't really about handing over nuclear (and SSN construction) know-how to another nation, close ally or not.

I think the politicians would very much like to keep that technology in-house, which is why industrial aspects and USN deliveries are at the forefront and why, as Volkodav has mentioned, the middle road option isn't mentioned. It just hasn't occurred to them as an option.
The Australian final report might well favour them middle option, but convincing Capitol Hill is another matter.
 
Archibald said:
Oh non s'il vous plait - ne redescendons plus dans ce terrier de lapin. La France a eu sa chance mais Naval Group s'est apparemment comporté comme des connards arrogants sur le contrat Attack. Donc - c'est mort et définitivement mort. Il n'y a pas de retour. Pas question que les Australiens réessayent.
Click to expand...

cette francophobie se soigne
 
cador said:
Archibald said:
Oh non s'il vous plait - ne redescendons plus dans ce terrier de lapin. La France a eu sa chance mais Naval Group s'est apparemment comporté comme des connards arrogants sur le contrat Attack. Donc - c'est mort et définitivement mort. Il n'y a pas de retour. Pas question que les Australiens réessayent.
Click to expand...

cette francophobie se soigne
Click to expand...

(facepalm)

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35IG66H7vLE


I'm french, actually. So it isn't francophobia. @Volkodav - who seems to be well informed, provided I'm not mistaking him for another forum member - told us that Attack political failure seems to have been related to Naval Group behaving somewhat like arrogant pricks. It is... somewhere upthread.

 
Hood said:
I'm suspicious about how much of the US political opposition isn't really about handing over nuclear (and SSN construction) know-how to another nation, close ally or not.

I think the politicians would very much like to keep that technology in-house, which is why industrial aspects and USN deliveries are at the forefront and why, as Volkodav has mentioned, the middle road option isn't mentioned. It just hasn't occurred to them as an option.
The Australian final report might well favour them middle option, but convincing Capitol Hill is another matter.
Click to expand...

I think it's simpler than that. Volkodav's options 1 & 2 both translate to more investment in US shipbuilding and more jobs in American constituencies. The middle road option translates to investment and jobs in another country. Obviously they're going to favor option 1 or 2 because they don't look at in terms of growing an alliance, they just see it in terms of money not flowing to their constituencies. America first after all.

If Australia does go with Virginia (all roads do seem to be pointing towards that outcome at the moment) my money is on Australia providing the 3 or 4 billion US needed to expand manufacturing capability in the US.

Australia will build the hulls in Adelaide to US specs (although probably not with HY100 but something broadly similar) and the newly expanded manufacturing facilities in the US will build (initially anyway) the equipment that will be shipped out to Australia to go inside the hulls until Australian manufacturing catches up.

That strikes me as the option that will make everyone happy and has the least risk The US gets to expand their production lines for next to no cost, the subs (an existing design) will be built in Australia.

Some jiggery pokery will be announced to get around the NPT and US legislative issues, a branch of General Electric Boat in Adelaide for instance. That branch office would be responsible (under IAEA supervision) for securely receiving fully fueled power plant assemblies from the US and then integrating them into Australian hull sections.
 
Archibald said:
cador said:
Archibald said:
Oh non s'il vous plait - ne redescendons plus dans ce terrier de lapin. La France a eu sa chance mais Naval Group s'est apparemment comporté comme des connards arrogants sur le contrat Attack. Donc - c'est mort et définitivement mort. Il n'y a pas de retour. Pas question que les Australiens réessayent.
Click to expand...

cette francophobie se soigne
Click to expand...

(paume faciale)

[MÉDIA=youtube]35IG66H7vLE[/MÉDIA]
Voir : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35IG66H7vLE


Je suis français , en fait. Ce n'est donc pas de la francophobie. @Volkodav - qui semble être bien informé, à condition que je ne le confonde pas avec un autre membre du forum - nous a dit que l'échec politique de l'attaque semble avoir été lié au fait que Naval Group se comporte un peu comme des connards arrogants. C'est... quelque part en amont.

Click to expand...
Qui veut tuer son chien, l'accuse de la rage. L’attitude des États-Unis, du Royaume Uni et de l’Australie a été des plus élégantes.
 
L’opinion fonctionne dans les deux sens, mais sans preuve n’est toujours qu’une opinion.
 
As an aside......it seems that BAE Systems is investing in new and larger training facilities at Barrow.

Almost as if they intend expansion of nuclear submarine building......
 
zen said:
As an aside......it seems that BAE Systems is investing in new and larger training facilities at Barrow.

Almost as if they intend expansion of nuclear submarine building......
Click to expand...
….like when need start building the new SSBN class…..
 
aonestudio said:
www.aspistrategist.org.au

Who’s going to build Australia’s nuclear submarines? | The Strategist

Vice Admiral William Joseph Houston is a thoughtful and experienced United States naval officer, entrusted with command of perhaps the most potent US capability: its submarine fleet. Houston is also steeped in the history of ...
www.aspistrategist.org.au www.aspistrategist.org.au
Click to expand...

The articles "Australia’s ‘damn the torpedoes’ path to nuclear-powered submarines" and the "Building overseas may be the best approach for Australia’s nuclear-powered submarines", in the sidebar of the article above are both interesting reads too:

So, what would a damn-the-torpedoes accelerated development of SSN capability look like? Above all, it would need to embrace the fact that an Australian SSN capability isn’t going to be a sovereign capability; Australia will always be dependent on our major partner for the acquisition, sustainment and, to a degree, operation of the capability. But once we accept that, several possibilities outside the traditional approach open up that embrace the concept of leveraging our AUKUS partners’ capabilities.
Click to expand...

To really unpack that question, we first need to have an uncomfortable conversation about sovereignty.
Click to expand...
 
Technically the expectations/definitions should be detailed out in the Sovereign Industrial Capability Priorities (SICP) for
  • Collins class submarine maintenance and technology upgrade
  • Continuous shipbuilding program (including rolling submarine acquisition)
Alas, the detailed Implementation and Industry Plans for these aren't available. That said, and as already explained, the March Report by the Nuclear Powered Submarine Taskforce is expected to provide a roadmap and recommendations.

What we do have for now is the following:

Collins class submarine maintenance and technology upgrade:
  • Australian industry must have an ability to enhance, sustain, repair, operate and upgrade our submarine capability.
  • Particular importance is placed on the sonar subsystem, tactical and weapons control system, signature management and endurance. Endurance includes batteries for energy storage and propulsion systems.
Continuous shipbuilding program (including rolling submarine acquisition):
  • Australian industry must have the technical, managerial, heavy engineering and advanced manufacturing capabilities required to build an innovative, cost competitive, sustainable and continuous program that delivers Australia’s future submarines, major surface combatants and minor war vessels.
  • Australian industry will need to be integrated into global supply chains, have modern, productive and secure shipyards, and employ a highly skilled workforce both for shipbuilding and sustainment.
  • Establishing 21st century shipyards for design, construction and optimal production efficiency of our future submarines, frigates and minor war vessels is critical to achieve the capability, reform and efficiency dividends required.
 
Included here given the direct implications this could have on the future SSNs:

www.afr.com

Australia to become major hub for US submarines

Hundreds of Australian companies are likely to be bought into the supply chain to help service US submarines, if they meet exacting standards.
www.afr.com www.afr.com
 
GTX said:
This makes sense to me:

www.abc.net.au

US should send a jointly operated nuclear submarine to Australia, congressman says

A senior member of the US Congress calls for a dual-crewed American submarine to be based in Australia as part of an interim measure under the AUKUS agreement.
www.abc.net.au www.abc.net.au
Click to expand...

I think it makes sense if the March report indicates the solution will be US boats. It is possible that a UK boat is the base for the future capability instead, though I think US centered platform more likely.
 
Well, well, well. New boat.

I'm still of the opinion that Australia is better off starting as a maintenance hub for existing US and UK boats. Also, if Australia is willing, forward deploy boats for the US and UK. Crew sharing with the Australians would be a good part of that deal. This would give Australia experience and revenue and facilities at very low risk.

Once there are facilities, and thousands of workers, available that are certified to maintain US boats then production of certain sections would make sense. But final assembly, with no ramp up of facilities and workers, is going to be a very challenging and very expensive proposition.
 
Seems fairly vague to pin it down until they actually make the speech. A "genuinely trilateral" plan could cover any combination of submarine, logistics and training options.

I'd like to think SSNX and the Aussie sub could merge, perhaps using SSN(X) sections - we already know SSNX is going to have a VLS for the first time in the RN and that system is going to be US for certain which raises the possibility of sharing hull sections.
 
Hood said:
Seems fairly vague to pin it down until they actually make the speech. A "genuinely trilateral" plan could cover any combination of submarine, logistics and training options.

I'd like to think SSNX and the Aussie sub could merge, perhaps using SSN(X) sections - we already know SSNX is going to have a VLS for the first time in the RN and that system is going to be US for certain which raises the possibility of sharing hull sections.
Click to expand...
But the SSNX likely:
- Will be significantly larger and more expensive than a Virgina. Including likely an even larger crew which may be a particular pinch point for the Australian navy.
- Won’t be available to Australia for an even longer timescale than Virgina class subs (the 1st SSNX is approx. a decade away from 1st being in the water, much greater scope for that to creep even later, greater risk of development problems and/ or technical growing-pains, plus when would any be available to Australia given that timescale? A probably unrealistically optimistic 20 years plus for the 1st?).

Given all the other challenges and risk associated with program (and the ticking clock of the Collins class continued availability) a Virgina variant appears likely to be the only horse in town.
Now if a radically different approach was/ is taken (building a number of new interim non-nuclear subs) then that may have opened up an option Australia choosing to time their joining the nuclear sub club with the SSNX. In the absence of such there would likely be a significant (near total?) run-down of the Collins sub fleet before any Australian SSNX subs were available, an approach that would call the whole rationale/ justification for nuclear subs (to deter China) into question.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom