Replacement of Australia's Collins Class Submarines

zen said:
In theory a hull could be zero timed on the work hardening repeated dive cycles impose. But it would mean heating up the hull.......and then slowly cooling back down.....
Click to expand...
Highly impractical for a structure as large as a submarine's pressure hull. One would assume it'd be easier (and probably cheaper) to simply construct a new pressure hull, in which case (considering the other big-ticket items associated with the LOTE project) you're well on your way to building yourself a new submarine anyway!
 
jeffb said:
seapowermagazine.org

Navy Plans to Retire 48 Ships During 2022-2026 - Seapower

Navy Plans to Retire 48 Ships During 2022-2026 Navy
seapowermagazine.org seapowermagazine.org

NameFlightCommissionedPlanned RetirementApproximate Age
Chicago (SSN 721)Flight II - VLSSeptember 1986202438
Key West (SSN 722)Flight II - VLSSeptember 1987202437
San Juan (SSN 751)Improved (688I)August 1988202436
Topeka (SSN 754)Improved (688I)October 1989202435
Helena (SSN 725)Flight II - VLSJuly 1987202538
Pasadena (SSN 752)Improved (688I)February 1989202536
Newport News (SSN 750)Flight II - VLSJune 1989202637
Scranton (SSN 756)Improved (688I)January 1991202635
Alexandria (SSN 757)Improved (688I)June 1991202635

List of Los Angeles class boats coming up for retirement in the next few years. Commissioned dates exceed launch dates by typically a year or two. I assume most of the intervening time is spent alongside fixing problems identified in sea trials and most of the hulls working life starts following commission.

The approximate ages aren't very indicative of the 'true' hull life which would be a lot like airframe hours. They could in theory give a rough idea of how hard the boat has been worked, but earlier retirement could also be due to any number of other possible issues.
Click to expand...
All true. Several 688s have been/will be retired early because of the relative cost of refuelling/refit vs remaining useful service life. This financially-pragmatic approach is compounded by the problems the USN is having with huge maintenance backlogs and dry dock availability + plans to ramp up new SSN/SSBN construction. Were it to prove to be possible, Australia would only take on the boats in the best material condition and tech/capability-wise, probably only flight III 'improved' boats (12 VLS fwd of the sail, prop and fairwater planes moved from the sail to the fwd hull and made retractable) in order to max bang for buck
 
jeffb said:
www.abc.net.au

British MP rejects Dutton's claim the UK does not have capacity to build Australia's nuclear-powered subs

Conservative British MP Simon Fell rejects claims by Opposition Leader Peter Dutton that the UK does not have capacity to build a new class of nuclear-powered submarine for Australia under the AUKUS program.
www.abc.net.au www.abc.net.au
Click to expand...
Well being the local MP he would say that...
I'd find it hard to believe BAE could seriously ramp up production, it's never really been explained why the second batch of Astutes have been so laggard. Was it simply to spread out the construction costs or keep the workers busy until Dreadnought began fabrication? Or was it a shortage of manpower? BAE have been heavily recruiting recently.

I somehow doubt that the Dreadnoughts will complete any quicker than the Astutes.
 
Hood said:
jeffb said:
www.abc.net.au

British MP rejects Dutton's claim the UK does not have capacity to build Australia's nuclear-powered subs

Conservative British MP Simon Fell rejects claims by Opposition Leader Peter Dutton that the UK does not have capacity to build a new class of nuclear-powered submarine for Australia under the AUKUS program.
www.abc.net.au www.abc.net.au
Click to expand...
Well being the local MP he would say that...
I'd find it hard to believe BAE could seriously ramp up production, it's never really been explained why the second batch of Astutes have been so laggard. Was it simply to spread out the construction costs or keep the workers busy until Dreadnought began fabrication? Or was it a shortage of manpower? BAE have been heavily recruiting recently.

I somehow doubt that the Dreadnoughts will complete any quicker than the Astutes.
Click to expand...

Given the troubles everyone has maintaining their sub construction work forces, it's probably the latter.
 
Again I may be misreading the information posted here but my understanding is the following:
- The Collins likely to be subject to an extensive life extension to get them out to the mid/ late 2030’s
- Any Los Angles class subs provided would only last out to a similar timescale at best, and would likely need even more expensive work than the Colin’s class to get there (so ultimately likely not to be very attractive to the Australians - would badly eat into funds required for the already expensive task of fielding a longer term nuclear sub fleet).
- No Astutes (new build or otherwise) realistically available.
- Next generation US, UK (or US/UK) SSN class or classes won’t be available to Australia until mid 2040s at earliest.

Doesn’t that mean that the Virgina class really the only game in town re: the required Australian timescales?
And is what we are really talking about the US doing some re-jigging of production slots to allow the initial Australian Virgina class subs to be in place to prevent a precipitous loss in capacity as the Collins class goes out of service?
And steps like extending Los Angles sub service lives more likely to involve the US retaining them in service longer to compensate for an initial number of new build Virgina’s being directed to Australia instead?

Where the only real apparent room for choice would be if Australia wanted to wait for higher levels of local involvement in production until the next gen sub class and the Virgina class subs only intended as a smaller interim fleet buy (a bit like they did re: replacing the F-111 with Super Hornets with the delayed F-35 seen as the longer term successor, with similar options of ultimately retaining or replacing that smaller interim fleet). Or they could just stick with a full-Virgina buy instead, with local assembly and some local content for later boats.
 
Last edited:
starviking said:
With the Dreadnought-class being due to commence service in the early 2030, could retiring Vanguard-class ships be re-roled as SSNs, or even SSGNs?
Click to expand...

I'd direct you to HI Sutton's excellent article in Covert Shores...

http://www.hisutton.com/Royal-Navy-Vanguard-Class-SSGAN-Concept.html

https://imgur.com/wkQymJ9
View: https://imgur.com/wkQymJ9


HMS Vanguard was commissioned in 93....but has only been operational for 23 years (she spent the last 7 years in a complex refit...that included a refuel...)

When HMS Dreadnought arrives in the early 2030's she'll be 40 years old, but only have been operational for 33 years...with a 10 year old core. Vanguard Class are supposed to have a life of 35-40 years. However, Ohio will manage 45 years in service if it retires on schedule. The Vanguard Class could have 12+ years life left at retirement....given we've managed to learn how to refuel one of them...there is no reason why the others could not follow the same process, we've learned the hard, painful and expensive lessons already...and we managed to produce an additional core so no reason it couldn't be done again...

It would be a hell of a capability for the Australian's to start off with...

Very unlikely though...real pity the UK isn't going to do it...
 
Why was that one boat recore’d but the rest aren’t? Are the other three expected to last long enough that no record is necessary before Dreadnaught?
 
Last edited:
Josh_TN said:
Why was that one boat records but the rest aren’t?
Click to expand...
They weren't supposed to need refuelling but some preliminary tests indicated that Vanguard might. Long story short to keep CASD running they decided to refuel her with a new core. Cue 7 years dockyard job, vastly over-running the estimates and it turns out she didn't actually need it...a precautionary job. As a result there is now confidence that the remainder of the class won't need it...
 
timmymagic said:
Bloomberg reporting that it will be a UK designed boat, with US 'parts' (definitely CMS and weapons). Article is paywalled unfortunately.
Click to expand...
Here are the relevant quotes from the article… the rest is just background on the AUKUS partnership and strategic context with China.
Australia’s new fleet of nuclear-powered submarines will be based on a modified British design with US parts and upgrades, people familiar with the matter said, as the three countries press ahead with a security partnership meant to counter China.

The submarine plan, set to be announced next week, will take years to produce its first vessel, probably necessitating stopgap measures, according to the people, who asked not to be identified discussing private deliberations. The decision on how to move ahead with the new subs will be unveiled on Monday in San Diego when President Joe Biden meets UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese as part of their 18-month old Aukus partnership.
Click to expand...
 
"The albanese government" oookaaay, so the "A" in Aukus was for Albania ? will they pay the submarines with bunkers ? (I'll get my coat...)
 
More from Politico, following briefings to Congress. Be prepared to be disappointed…

www.politico.com

Biden to reveal nuke submarine plans Monday alongside U.K. and Australian leaders

The event in San Diego, which could include a walk atop a submarine, will feature details on how Australia aims to acquire nuclear-powered submarines.
www.politico.com www.politico.com

President Joe Biden will unveil the first phase of an ambitious three-nation nuclear submarine deal next to the leaders of the United Kingdom and Australia on Monday in San Diego, according to six people familiar with the plans.
Click to expand...
Part of the announcement may involve plans to allow U.S. Virginia-class attack submarines to ramp up visits to Australia, or even home port one of the submarines in the country as the work continues on the Australian boats. The first Australian submarine won’t be operational until the late 2030s or early 2040s at the earliest. Officials still must sort through a raft of complicated issues, including how to export nuclear technology to the country, which has no civil or military nuclear programs in the works.
Click to expand...
The allies are expected to detail a path forward on “Pillar One” of the deal, which centers around the submarine design, training to manage the new fleet and all the associated costs. Reforms to U.S. laws on technology-sharing are required before advancing further to “Pillar Two,” American officials said.
Click to expand...
 
timmymagic said:
Bloomberg reporting that it will be a UK designed boat, with US 'parts' (definitely CMS and weapons). Article is paywalled unfortunately.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1633503867143872518
View: https://twitter.com/PeterMartin_PCM/status/1633503867143872518
Click to expand...

Dueling leaks:


UK sources say Astute derivatives with US systems:

www.theguardian.com

UK to unveil nuclear submarines deal with Australia, sources say

Rishi Sunak said to have been ‘buzzing’ about result of 18-month negotiations, part of Aukus defence pact with US
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com

US sources say Virginia class:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1633579989202239489
View: https://twitter.com/idreesali114/status/1633579989202239489?t=dQkDOIq_7xAMJD0wDcjcEg&s=19
 
A modified version of Astute is not an "existing design".

I joked some time ago that given Australia's penchant for overly complex military procurement projects, they'd probably end up buying some sort of highly modified version of the Astute. I guess irony can be pretty ironic sometimes.

images (1) (5).jpeg
 
'Unsourced speculation' vs 'People familiar with the matter'....

The journalists are rolling out the big guns this time...

This may actually mean that there are no leaks whatsoever and journalists are really struggling...
 
The possibility could be of an initial limited (2-3?) Virgina class buy (1st stage) followed by Australia joining the joint UK/ US Astute replacement program (2nd stage).
As such reports of an Astute buy may be a garbled reference to that 2nd stage.
Otherwise not clear how or why you could produce a new development of the Astute AND the new UK SSBN class and then Astute successor all at the same time.
Time will tell.
 
timmymagic said:
'Unsourced speculation' vs 'People familiar with the matter'....

The journalists are rolling out the big guns this time...

This may actually mean that there are no leaks whatsoever and journalists are really struggling...
Click to expand...
Or guessing.
 
The UK submarine programme is in a pretty sorry state.
In marked contrast to the sensible choices made in 1966 to concentrate resources on submarines instead of carriers, the 1998 carrier decision has gutted the RN.
 
jeffb said:
Interesting...
https://twitter.com/x/status/1633565712303411202
View: https://twitter.com/MrRexPatrick/status/1633565712303411202?t=IlP0Wtbpj-g4i2QbGBZG6g&s=19
Click to expand...
On the flipside…

The woes of recent sub production has been assigned to the loss of design, development and production experience with the gap between the Trafagar and Astute SSNs.

I have to assume lessons have/are been learned, and current builds are devloping/maintaining skills. Also, if the Australian sub is an Astute variant that current experience in the UK can be passed on to Australia.

The plan is for most of the boat to be built in Australia, so the only issue I can see is the need for Rolls Royce to be producing both PWR2s and 3s - unless something radical like the the PWR2 being built in Australia but being shipped to RR for fueling is adopted. That, though, would probably be more trouble than it’s worth.
 
To be fair Rear Admiral Philip Mathias has hit the nail on the head of what I was talking about a few posts up.
BAE's performance hasn't been good - and with the Astutes its a serial production run. Babcock's performance isn't hot either (yeah we'll leave aside the glue jokes for the moment), although we have to give them their due that the PWR2 wasn't meant to be refuelled. Which of course should be ringing alarm bells as to what happens to the Astutes if they run out of core life before SSN(R) enters service. 2040 is a ways off... what if its more like 2050...

Politicians like Pat Conroy and Simon Fell might believe the BAE management in their smart suits and pointy Italian shoes - but they ain't on the factory floor and want to make sales, of course they say "we're churning out nuke subs like Cumberland rings" but you need to take it with doses of salt.

The timings would seem to align strongly with SSN(R) and it would make sense to standardise on that design with the use of US SSX payload modules.

Getting the Americans to sign off on giving away nuclear secrets is going to be the hardest part. This ain't 1958 and Biden and Co are not Eisenhower and Rickover making deals to give NATO members SSN technology to kill off any European nuclear competition. The US owns the field - Paris, Beijing and Moscow don't export nuke subs. It's their ballgame as how they want to release the red tape on this one, London has little say in this matter I would think.

And of course the outcome might be a stitch-up with US industry saying they'll only release US nuclear know-how if it's on a US-built submarine.
And of course who is going to provide all the investment funding in building up this new industry in Australia? It could well be billions of Australian dollars sunk into a project that ends up with half-a-dozen submarines in over a quarter of a century's time. Then what? Is this really an effective industrial investment?
 
starviking said:
I have to assume lessons have/are been learned, and current builds are devloping/maintaining skills. Also, if the Australian sub is an Astute variant that current experience in the UK can be passed on to Australia.

The plan is for most of the boat to be built in Australia, so the only issue I can see is the need for Rolls Royce to be producing both PWR2s and 3s - unless something radical like the the PWR2 being built in Australia but being shipped to RR for fueling is adopted. That, though, would probably be more trouble than it’s worth.
Click to expand...
Australia wouldn't want the PWR2. The UK doesn't want the PWR2 and is quite happy to move on to the PWR3 which is "based on a US design (the US Navy's S9G) but using UK reactor technology".

I seem to remember reading that Rolls Royce was actually one of the bottlenecks in the UK sub program and that they were already flat out producing PWR3s for Dreadnought, Astute and the follow on SSN(R), not sure what the latest is though.
 
The Virginia-class just makes sense.

To me, the real news is that the US will be forward basing at least one nuclear submarine in Australia. Probably the new east coast base bc I can't see the USN agreeing to be out in bfe. Brisbane maybe? All the other stuff is 10 years out.

From Reuters, "Over the next five years, Australian workers "(UK reports 750)" will come to U.S. submarine shipyards to observe and train. This training will directly benefit U.S. submarine production as there is currently a labor shortfall for shipyard workers the U.S. needs to build its submarines, the source said."

I could see a joint US Australian UK design being based on a larger diameter platform. The US has stated in the past that the larger diameter would be beneficial for the next level of noise reduction.

I could also see a new UK / Australian boat as being a Virginia Block 6 variant with a RR reactor. Perhaps Virgina production (jigs, etc) gets expanded or moved to the UK and Australia since the US seems to want a larger diameter attack boat. Both scenarios would line up with Virginia Block V production potentially ending in 2032.

I guess we'll find out more next week.
 
jeffb said:
starviking said:
I have to assume lessons have/are been learned, and current builds are devloping/maintaining skills. Also, if the Australian sub is an Astute variant that current experience in the UK can be passed on to Australia.

The plan is for most of the boat to be built in Australia, so the only issue I can see is the need for Rolls Royce to be producing both PWR2s and 3s - unless something radical like the the PWR2 being built in Australia but being shipped to RR for fueling is adopted. That, though, would probably be more trouble than it’s worth.
Click to expand...
Australia wouldn't want the PWR2. The UK doesn't want the PWR2 and is quite happy to move on to the PWR3 which is "based on a US design (the US Navy's S9G) but using UK reactor technology".

I seem to remember reading that Rolls Royce was actually one of the bottlenecks in the UK sub program and that they were already flat out producing PWR3s for Dreadnought, Astute and the follow on SSN(R), not sure what the latest is though.
Click to expand...
We'd be talking PWR-2b and it's a change in standards and regulations that's driven adoption of a UK development of concepts on S9G. The passive cooling design is the key, as it removes another point of failure......a very British approach.
Which is a much more accurate description of PWR-3.

RR is ramping up staff for the SMR effort, which is fairly relevant to any expansion of submarine reactors.
'Flat out' likely refers to the deliberately slow production in order to keep staff and facilities going. No one wants a repeat of the 'peace dividend'.
Astute production has been slowed down to what is felt a practical limit to keep the industry alive.

Dutton's intervention is more a sign of politicking and utilising standing prejudices than being informed. At best it's part of the chatter to confuse prior to the formal announcement, at worst it's just blatant self promotion.
 
NeilChapman said:
To me, the real news is that the US will be forward basing at least one nuclear submarine in Australia. Probably the new east coast base bc I can't see the USN agreeing to be out in bfe. Brisbane maybe? All the other stuff is 10 years out.
Click to expand...
I'd assume HMAS Stirling, since that's where all the RAN subs and facilities are. Stirling isn't that far from Perth (with 2 million+ people) -- closer than Sub Base New London is from Boston or New York, or King's Bay from Jacksonville.
 
zen said:
jeffb said:
starviking said:
I have to assume lessons have/are been learned, and current builds are devloping/maintaining skills. Also, if the Australian sub is an Astute variant that current experience in the UK can be passed on to Australia.

The plan is for most of the boat to be built in Australia, so the only issue I can see is the need for Rolls Royce to be producing both PWR2s and 3s - unless something radical like the the PWR2 being built in Australia but being shipped to RR for fueling is adopted. That, though, would probably be more trouble than it’s worth.
Click to expand...
Australia wouldn't want the PWR2. The UK doesn't want the PWR2 and is quite happy to move on to the PWR3 which is "based on a US design (the US Navy's S9G) but using UK reactor technology".

I seem to remember reading that Rolls Royce was actually one of the bottlenecks in the UK sub program and that they were already flat out producing PWR3s for Dreadnought, Astute and the follow on SSN(R), not sure what the latest is though.
Click to expand...
We'd be talking PWR-2b and it's a change in standards and regulations that's driven adoption of a UK development of concepts on S9G. The passive cooling design is the key, as it removes another point of failure......a very British approach.
Which is a much more accurate description of PWR-3.

RR is ramping up staff for the SMR effort, which is fairly relevant to any expansion of submarine reactors.
'Flat out' likely refers to the deliberately slow production in order to keep staff and facilities going. No one wants a repeat of the 'peace dividend'.
Astute production has been slowed down to what is felt a practical limit to keep the industry alive.

Dutton's intervention is more a sign of politicking and utilising standing prejudices than being informed. At best it's part of the chatter to confuse prior to the formal announcement, at worst it's just blatant self promotion.
Click to expand...


From wikipedia:
Three propulsion options were considered for the replacement of the Vanguard-class, the Successor: PWR2, PWR2b (derivative with improved performance) and PWR3. PWR3 was a new system "based on a US design but using UK reactor technology". The Royal Institution of Naval Architects reported that it was likely that the UK was given access to the US Navy S9G reactor design used in their Virginia-class submarines. The PWR3 was a simpler and safer design with a longer life and lower maintenance requirements than the PWR2 variants and cost roughly the same as the PWR2b. The PWR3 has 30% fewer parts compared to the PWR2.

In March 2011, Defence Secretary Liam Fox said the PWR3 was the preferred option "because those reactors give us a better safety outlook". In May 2011, the Ministry of Defence announced that PWR3 had been selected for the Successor (later named the Dreadnought-class in 2016). The PWR3 cost about £50 million more per boat to purchase and operate compared to PWR2 designs. This is offset by the PWR3's longer life over the 25-year life PWR2 designs. The PWR3 does not require reactor core prototype tests; instead computational modelling is used.
Click to expand...
If Australia's looking at a LOB reactor they'll be looking at the safest one they can get.

RR's SMR effort is a bit of a red herring I think, the SMR industry is an industry that is currently without any customers and if memory serves, needs about 50 customers a year to be viable.

Opposition leader Dutton's comments here regarding the submarine decision are simply a real life example of how a stopped clock can still be right twice a day.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom