Replacement of Australia's Collins Class Submarines

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.
 
TomS said:
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.
Click to expand...
there has been discussion about other ports
 
Folks, lots of speculation present and the media is all clamouring to be first to get the news. I suggest we just get comfortable and wait until next week when it is all official.
 
jeffb said:


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.
Click to expand...
Well, Australia would want the safest reactor that will fit in the hull they choose.

Many SMRs are at the end of their certification processes, and entering their production stage. Most should be technically viable, some economically. Either way, decarbonization coupled with grid stability needs will ensure that either SMRs or traditional large nuclear stations will be needed in many, if not all major grids.
 
starviking said:
jeffb said:


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.
Click to expand...
Well, Australia would want the safest reactor that will fit in the hull they choose.

Many SMRs are at the end of their certification processes, and entering their production stage. Most should be technically viable, some economically. Either way, decarbonization coupled with grid stability needs will ensure that either SMRs or traditional large nuclear stations will be needed in many, if not all major grids.
Click to expand...
The alternative extension lead alone would be a nightmare. Badly quoted from the Martian.
 
SMH floating the idea that it's both, a loan, lease or purchase(!) of Virginia class in the short term while Australia builds a hybrid Astute/SSN(R). Utter folly. Has anyone got the phone number for the French embassy?

www.smh.com.au

‘Massive curveball’: stopgap purchase of US subs raises stakes on $170b AUKUS plan

In the longer term, Australia will have its own fleet of nuclear-powered submarines based primarily on a new British design - a win for Rishi Sunak.
www.smh.com.au www.smh.com.au

From the article:
James Acton, co-director of the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said the submarine program appeared to be a “goat rodeo in the making”, using a common American term for a fiasco or chaotic situation.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Similar story from the Wapo:

Australia has committed to a “proportional” investment in U.S. and British industrial capacity, and over the next several decades will be spending more than $100 billion to buy the submarines, build up its own industrial capacity, as well as shore up America’s and Britain’s shipbuilding capability, officials said.

But even with the influx of money, significant challenges exist, according to defense experts, who are skeptical that the already overstretched American and British shipyards can take on additional projects and still meet their navies’ submarine needs.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
jeffb said:
SMH floating the idea that it's both, a loan, lease or purchase(!) of Virginia class in the short term while Australia builds a hybrid Astute/SSN(R). Utter folly. Has anyone got the phone number for the French embassy?

www.smh.com.au

‘Massive curveball’: stopgap purchase of US subs raises stakes on $170b AUKUS plan

In the longer term, Australia will have its own fleet of nuclear-powered submarines based primarily on a new British design - a win for Rishi Sunak.
www.smh.com.au www.smh.com.au

From the article:
James Acton, co-director of the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said the submarine program appeared to be a “goat rodeo in the making”, using a common American term for a fiasco or chaotic situation.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
This is from “The Argus” on the Navweaps Commonwealth Navies sub-forum. It’s a few days old, so possibly not totally in tune with current ruminations, but lays out a good rationale for the Virginia buy or lease/SSN(R) build:

The more I think about this, the more sense it actually makes IF we stake down three fixed points.

1/ The US will not ever come without sight of letting anyone dip a toe nail into its own submarine production. The whole business is just too important, ring fenced and congressional pork barrels and balances teeter tottering... whatever. Its a third rail issue.
2/ Australia needs some industrial input into its submarine program in the long term, for good and justifiable reasons. We've been there and done that and its just not viable - LONG TERM.
3/ The UK can not help us in the short term. There's a little they can do around the edges, but 7x boats is their minimum to retain operation capability and that's all she wrote.

This leaves the US as the only short term solution, but not a long term one. While the UK is the only long term solution, but not a short term one. Which is exactly the deal we have proposed here.

Sure it is not 'efficient' all three governments are stretching, the US is taking on a lump of risk and we're are using money as lubricant rather than glue. But if the strategic stakes are such the game is worth the candle then... we are in a scary place and that is a bloody wonderful deal.
Click to expand...
 
Australia looking to get second-hand Virginia class boats available in the 2030s.
Money and workforce (from Austal in the US) already going to expand/boost US sub production.
www.theguardian.com

No clunkers: Australia buying ‘highest quality’ secondhand submarines from US, congressman says

Senior US lawmaker confident Virginia Class nuclear vessels can be delivered and concerns about joint crewing are ‘overhyped’
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com


www.smh.com.au

US promises ‘no clunkers’ amid suggestion Australia may get second-hand submarines

US congressman Joe Courtney says Australia will retain full control of its Virginia class submarines, and said the US won’t be “foisting clunkers” on its allies.
www.smh.com.au www.smh.com.au

However, Courtney did confirm reports that Australian workers would likely be required to scale up production at the two US shipyards, operated by General Dynamics Electric Boat and Huntington Ingalls Industries, that currently produce about two boats per year.

This would also provide Australian workers with the training they needed to begin building nuclear submarines in the future.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
jeffb said:
And it keeps going up...
https://twitter.com/x/status/1635054959170568194
View: https://twitter.com/JoshButler/status/1635054959170568194?t=wQxdxogBoTCzE-HY8gyL0Q&s=19
Click to expand...
What's interesting in that article is the following line:

Official estimates now reveal the French-designed boats would have cost at least $216bn to 2055 – well over the initial $50bn reported to the public.
Click to expand...
Thus over a similar period the Attack class would have cost much the same but arguable offer less capability.
 
jeffb said:
Tax revenue?
Click to expand...
You pay employees to build and commission them, then you take back the taxes out of their wages. The extra jobs also puts more money through the economy, which is then taxed by various other taxes etc. and probably gets a few people off benefits too.

jeffb said:
What builders and suppliers in Oz?
www.afr.com

Australia faces long wait for new AUKUS nuclear subs

The long wait for the nation’s first “AUKUS-class” boat increases the likelihood Australia may need to buy more US-made submarines, experts say.
www.afr.com www.afr.com
Click to expand...
Some are being built in Adelaide from what I understand.
 
kaiserd said:
It does appear that the level of the UK’s role in the sub deal may be being overblown by over enthusiasm from UK sources and contributors here.

The critical part of both the overall agreement and specifically what emerges re: Australian subs is the US-Australia relationship going forward; the UK are the necessary almost-“3rd wheel”.
Click to expand...

UK Government Press Release 13th March 2023: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/british-led-design-chosen-for-aukus-submarine-project

  • A new fleet of submarines will be built by the UK and Australia based on the UK’s nuclear-powered submarine design.
  • UK’s submarines will be in operation by the late 2030s following massive, trilateral building project which will create thousands of jobs in the UK.
  • Next stage of AUKUS submarine project announced by the Prime Minister, Australian Prime Minister Albanese and US President Biden in San Diego.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
So confirmed:
  • 3 Virginias to be acquired with possibility of two more
  • New "SSN-AUKUS" Class - presumably replaces SSN(R), or more to the point, SSN(R) is SSN-AUKUS
  • SSN AUKUS start construction before EO Decade - first built in UK but others also in Australia (Adelaide)
  • Cross postings, training etc happening
  • More US/UK deployments to Australian ports
  • RAN boats will be Nuclear powered but not Nuclear armed
  • Australia will not be producing its own 'fuel'
 
Last edited:
JFC Fuller said:
kaiserd said:
It does appear that the level of the UK’s role in the sub deal may be being overblown by over enthusiasm from UK sources and contributors here.

The critical part of both the overall agreement and specifically what emerges re: Australian subs is the US-Australia relationship going forward; the UK are the necessary almost-“3rd wheel”.
Click to expand...

UK Government Press Release 13th March 2023: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/british-led-design-chosen-for-aukus-submarine-project

  • A new fleet of submarines will be built by the UK and Australia based on the UK’s nuclear-powered submarine design.
  • UK’s submarines will be in operation by the late 2030s following massive, trilateral building project which will create thousands of jobs in the UK.
  • Next stage of AUKUS submarine project announced by the Prime Minister, Australian Prime Minister Albanese and US President Biden in San Diego.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
For those interested in more recent relevant comments, and not old out of context comments, you may see comments 1493, 1510, etc.
And, like, all other contributors comments in this thread going back months, years….

And it appears the UK Astute-replacement program, which (per the guidance, comments by other contributors in this thread) was already going to have more US components etc. than the Astutes (which already had a lot of US involvement/ content - thanks to other contributors for correcting me on an incorrect understanding of more UK-only content) is now a joint Australian, US, UK project which is likely to push it even further into having US-supplied systems etc. (Interesting to see to what extent the UK will fall in line and choose US combat systems etc.rather than paying more and duplicating and installing their own equivalents).

The advantages for the UK is somewhat reduced costs (now shared with Australia, plus US), and providing political cover for choosing to further abandon independent capabilities and placing greater reliance on the US for nuclear submarine technology. The economies of scale by adding Australia also makes this class of sub (likely substantially smaller in size and crew than the next class of US SSN) more economically and politically viable and harder to cancel. Plus relatively token rather widely spaced sub deployments/ rotations to boast a self-image as a Pacific power.

The Australians get proven available US subs in a more reasonable timescale. They also get a more experienced partner, get to have local involvement, and avoid having to be extremely junior partner (little to no local involvement or say) in a full Virgina class buy or having to buy the next US SSN class that’s probably too big and expensive for them.

The US get to support their 2 partners, essentially having them bought dependent on them for nuclear sub technology, and avoid having to include or subsidise either of them to the same extent, for example re: potential involvement in the next new class of larger US SSN subs.
 
kaiserd said:
JFC Fuller said:
kaiserd said:
It does appear that the level of the UK’s role in the sub deal may be being overblown by over enthusiasm from UK sources and contributors here.

The critical part of both the overall agreement and specifically what emerges re: Australian subs is the US-Australia relationship going forward; the UK are the necessary almost-“3rd wheel”.
Click to expand...

UK Government Press Release 13th March 2023: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/british-led-design-chosen-for-aukus-submarine-project

  • A new fleet of submarines will be built by the UK and Australia based on the UK’s nuclear-powered submarine design.
  • UK’s submarines will be in operation by the late 2030s following massive, trilateral building project which will create thousands of jobs in the UK.
  • Next stage of AUKUS submarine project announced by the Prime Minister, Australian Prime Minister Albanese and US President Biden in San Diego.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
For those interested in more recent relevant comments, and not old out of context comments, you may see comments 1493, 1510, etc.
And, like, all other contributors comments in this thread going back months, years….

And it appears the UK Astute-replacement program, which (per the guidance, comments by other contributors in this thread) was already going to have more US components etc. than the Astutes (which already had a lot of US involvement/ content - thanks to other contributors for correcting me on an incorrect understanding of more UK-only content) is now a joint Australian, US, UK project which is likely to push it even further into having US-supplied systems etc. (Interesting to see to what extent the UK will fall in line and choose US combat systems etc.rather than paying more and duplicating and installing their own equivalents).

The advantages for the UK is somewhat reduced costs (now shared with Australia, plus US), and providing political cover for choosing to further abandon independent capabilities and placing greater reliance on the US for nuclear submarine technology. The economies of scale by adding Australia also makes this class of sub (likely substantially smaller in size and crew than the next class of US SSN) more economically and politically viable and harder to cancel. Plus relatively token rather widely spaced sub deployments/ rotations to boast a self-image as a Pacific power.

The Australians get proven available US subs in a more reasonable timescale. They also get a more experienced partner, get to have local involvement, and avoid having to be extremely junior partner (little to no local involvement or say) in a full Virgina class buy or having to buy the next US SSN class that’s probably too big and expensive for them.

The US get to support their 2 partners, essentially having them bought dependent on them for nuclear sub technology, and avoid having to include or subsidise either of them to the same extent, for example re: potential involvement in the next new class of larger US SSN subs.
Click to expand...
It’s not a competition, it’s a 3 country co-operative approach, to deliver a balance and an unknown, to the Chinese. All parties benefit, win-win.

Please try to stop seeking a solo win. U.K. will gain 2000 high paid jobs, vis a vis, 2000 highly trained U.K. navy or ex-navy, will move to Australia. USA will provide a common combat system, and weapons system. Australia moves from poor diesel boat, to far more practical nuke, for same money. Australia also moves up to 2nd tier military. It’s a good plan.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom