Replacement of Australia's Collins Class Submarines

Nuclear power isn't a game for children and really requires an independent regulator. Having the same agency that is delivering the capability regulating the capability is a mistake.

michaelwest.com.au

Who will keep our submarine reactors safe? - Michael West

The decision to acquire nuclear submarines has been made. The important question is who will be responsible for keeping the reactors safe?
michaelwest.com.au michaelwest.com.au
 
jeffb said:
Nuclear power isn't a game for children and really requires an independent regulator. Having the same agency that is delivering the capability regulating the capability is a mistake.

michaelwest.com.au

Who will keep our submarine reactors safe? - Michael West

The decision to acquire nuclear submarines has been made. The important question is who will be responsible for keeping the reactors safe?
michaelwest.com.au michaelwest.com.au
Click to expand...

In theory I agree but the US nuclear propulsion program has been extraordinarily successful. One might argue they wrote the procedures before regulators existed.
 
NeilChapman said:
jeffb said:
Nuclear power isn't a game for children and really requires an independent regulator. Having the same agency that is delivering the capability regulating the capability is a mistake.

michaelwest.com.au

Who will keep our submarine reactors safe? - Michael West

The decision to acquire nuclear submarines has been made. The important question is who will be responsible for keeping the reactors safe?
michaelwest.com.au michaelwest.com.au
Click to expand...

In theory I agree but the US nuclear propulsion program has been extraordinarily successful. One might argue they wrote the procedures before regulators existed.
Click to expand...
Much of that was personally baked-in by the Father of the USN's nuclear power program - Admiral Hyman G. Rickover.

While his gruff abrasive and flat-out dictatorial and confrontational personality earned him many enemies both within the Navy and Congress, it was his personal obsession with making nuclear-powered ships as safe as technologically possible without regard to cost that created that safety success.

By the time he was forcibly retired (having already been granted and used exemptions to the mandatory retirement at age regulations), there wasn't an officer in a leadership in the Navy's nuclear power program that hadn't been personally selected by HGR, then trained to be like him in regards to reactor safety.

One thing that he did that is the opposite of most autocratic dictatorial personalities - he tested each candidate during the selection process for their willingness to stand up to, and call out, bullshit and bullying - if a junior officer was unwilling to tell an Admiral "that's BS, I'm not letting that go unopposed" they were rejected (that part of the interview process was never openly known until after his retirement, and each successful candidate had to promise to never tell a new candidate about it).

He only wanted officers who stood up for what was true and correct, not blind followers.
 
Not Australia but an interesting development in the AUKUS pact...

www.theguardian.com

Canada hopes to join Aukus defence pact, says report

Ottawa ‘highly interested’ in joining group amid fears country could be shut out of intelligence and tech sharing
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com

www.theglobeandmail.com

Canada seeks to join non-nuclear pillar of AUKUS alliance

Sources suggest the Department of Global Affairs and the Privy Council Office continue to work to sign up Canada in the non-nuclear aspect of the trilateral security pact
www.theglobeandmail.com www.theglobeandmail.com
 
jeffb said:
Nuclear power isn't a game for children and really requires an independent regulator. Having the same agency that is delivering the capability regulating the capability is a mistake.
Click to expand...
I am curious how people seem to think that the Royal Australian Navy, who are learning from arguably the best in the game - the USN and RN (with collectively well over 100 years of experience with SSNs) - and who are at the start of a program that will not see Australian SSNs enter service for approximately another decade, are somehow not taking careful consideration of all of this. Seriously, I know that there are people against the idea of the SSNs no matter what is said, but the lack of credibility with some arguments or similar is just beyond a joke.
 
BlackBat242 said:
Much of that was personally baked-in by the Father of the USN's nuclear power program - Admiral Hyman G. Rickover.

While his gruff abrasive and flat-out dictatorial and confrontational personality earned him many enemies both within the Navy and Congress, it was his personal obsession with making nuclear-powered ships as safe as technologically possible without regard to cost that created that safety success.

By the time he was forcibly retired (having already been granted and used exemptions to the mandatory retirement at age regulations), there wasn't an officer in a leadership in the Navy's nuclear power program that hadn't been personally selected by HGR, then trained to be like him in regards to reactor safety.

One thing that he did that is the opposite of most autocratic dictatorial personalities - he tested each candidate during the selection process for their willingness to stand up to, and call out, bullshit and bullying - if a junior officer was unwilling to tell an Admiral "that's BS, I'm not letting that go unopposed" they were rejected (that part of the interview process was never openly known until after his retirement, and each successful candidate had to promise to never tell a new candidate about it).

He only wanted officers who stood up for what was true and correct, not blind followers.
Click to expand...

Excellent points. And this is the program the RAN has chosen with which to align. It's a great start and I have great expectations of success for their future.
 
NeilChapman said:
GTX said:
www.abc.net.au

Defence reveals 50 per cent 'contingency' for cost overruns inside $368 billion AUKUS project

An almost $123 billion "contingency" has been set aside for Australia's largest ever defence project, according to a new analysis of the AUKUS nuclear submarine program prepared by the Parliamentary Budget Office.
www.abc.net.au www.abc.net.au
Click to expand...

"A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking real money."

Senator Everett McKinley Dirksen
Click to expand...

"Billions and billions" - USS Carl Sagan...
 
GTX said:
jeffb said:
Nuclear power isn't a game for children and really requires an independent regulator. Having the same agency that is delivering the capability regulating the capability is a mistake.
Click to expand...
I am curious how people seem to think that the Royal Australian Navy, who are learning from arguably the best in the game - the USN and RN (with collectively well over 100 years of experience with SSNs) - and who are at the start of a program that will not see Australian SSNs enter service for approximately another decade, are somehow not taking careful consideration of all of this. Seriously, I know that there are people against the idea of the SSNs no matter what is said, but the lack of credibility with some arguments or similar is just beyond a joke.
Click to expand...
There is a very real, anti technical bias in Australia, I suspect it comes from the reliance on primary industries and being governed by accountants and lawyers.
 
Guys, the arguments for/against Australian SSNs are over. The decision is already made. Move on.
 
Deleted heated argument will little to no relevance to topic.

I must remind @Volkodav and @kaiserd of the following forum rules:
  • Remember The Golden Rule: Treat others as you would have them treat you. The internet can allow you to behave in ways you would never do face to face in real life. Bullying online can be as hurtful as in the real world. Patterns of bad behaviour will result in moderation or banning.
  • ALWAYS be polite and civil in forum posts and private messages.
  • Personal attacks, insults or the belittling of the opinions of others, will ALWAYS be considered inappropriate. Disagree (tactfully and respectfully) all you like with their ideas or opinions, but don't resort to insults, name-calling or flaming. Argue facts, not personalities. 'Ad hominem' is a logical fallacy and will generally result in disciplinary action.
  • Swearing and vulgarity is strongly discouraged. The world is a big place, with different cultures and conventions, and what is acceptable to you might be highly offensive to others of different ages and backgrounds. Remind yourself that these are real people with whom you are dealing. They have feelings. Most people are fundamentally decent. Try to treat others with the dignity you expect to recieve from them.
  • If other users are not as civil as you would like them to be, be more civil, not less in response, or say nothing, and report the post. Some of our older members in particular are actively turned off from the forum by coarse language and rudeness and some valuable former members have been lost from the forum as a result.
  • Keep in mind that meaning in written text may be ambiguous. Irony is not always obvious when written. Remember that text comes without facial expressions, vocal inflection, or body language. Be careful choosing the words you write: what you meant to say might not be what others understand. Likewise, be careful how you interpret what you read: what you understand might not be what others mean, especially if English is not their first language.
Both of you have breached the letter and intent of the rules in different ways.
 
overscan (PaulMM) said:
Deleted heated argument will little to no relevance to topic.

I must remind @Volkodav and @kaiserd of the following forum rules:
  • Remember The Golden Rule: Treat others as you would have them treat you. The internet can allow you to behave in ways you would never do face to face in real life. Bullying online can be as hurtful as in the real world. Patterns of bad behaviour will result in moderation or banning.
  • ALWAYS be polite and civil in forum posts and private messages.
  • Personal attacks, insults or the belittling of the opinions of others, will ALWAYS be considered inappropriate. Disagree (tactfully and respectfully) all you like with their ideas or opinions, but don't resort to insults, name-calling or flaming. Argue facts, not personalities. 'Ad hominem' is a logical fallacy and will generally result in disciplinary action.
  • Swearing and vulgarity is strongly discouraged. The world is a big place, with different cultures and conventions, and what is acceptable to you might be highly offensive to others of different ages and backgrounds. Remind yourself that these are real people with whom you are dealing. They have feelings. Most people are fundamentally decent. Try to treat others with the dignity you expect to recieve from them.
  • If other users are not as civil as you would like them to be, be more civil, not less in response, or say nothing, and report the post. Some of our older members in particular are actively turned off from the forum by coarse language and rudeness and some valuable former members have been lost from the forum as a result.
  • Keep in mind that meaning in written text may be ambiguous. Irony is not always obvious when written. Remember that text comes without facial expressions, vocal inflection, or body language. Be careful choosing the words you write: what you meant to say might not be what others understand. Likewise, be careful how you interpret what you read: what you understand might not be what others mean, especially if English is not their first language.
Both of you have breached the letter and intent of the rules in different ways.
Click to expand...
Fair call, my temper gets the better of me, thanks for resolving this matter.
 
No worries. I'm not particularly interested in Naval topics, so don't imagine I'm not acting on purpose, I probably haven't read the topic.
 
jeffb said:
www.thedrive.com

Australia To Get One New Build Virginia Class Submarine, Two From U.S. Navy

New details about Australia's plan to transition to an all nuclear submarine fleet have emerged during intense questioning in Canberra.
www.thedrive.com www.thedrive.com
Click to expand...

So:
When specifically pressed by Senator Shoebridge as to whether he meant eight locally built next-generation AUKUS class nuclear submarines, the Vice Admiral responded, "No, eight nuclear-powered submarines. That includes three of the Virginias."
Click to expand...

Australia only intends to get 8 SSNs in total. Three and possibly five of which will be Virginia class boats of various flights (III, IV, V ). Meaning only 3 or 5 AUKUS SSNs will be built in Adelaide. Second hand boats will have approximately 20 years of power left in their reactors unless they're refueled (yeah right, they'd have to be refueled by the US because Australia won't have access to the reactors or the necessary industrial infrastructure required to refuel them, let alone the HEU). As already stated by the US, they don't want these boats back. Disposal of the boats and spent reactor cores is Australia's problem. So, coming to a location in South Australia some time in the future (around the 2050's):
https://twitter.com/x/status/1666699362120921090
View: https://twitter.com/NavyLookout/status/1666699362120921090


A brief reminder that, under the French deal, steel manufacture and testing, through Australian industry was planned to start in 2023 with the first of 12 pressure hulls to begin construction in 2024. The workforce that was building up to address this demand has since been 'let go'.

A further reminder (before someone chimes in) that the French did offer to sell Australia the nuclear powered Barracuda for essentially the same price as the Attack class and that the Barracuda class reactors run on 7% enriched LEU (Australia's ANSTO facility at Lucas Heights outside Sydney operates a research reactor powered by 10% enriched LEU which ANSTO refuel themselves regularly from fuel sourced from overseas manufacturers ).

So Australia could have had a mix of 12 conventional and nuclear powered subs, all based off the same general design, and perfectly sized for Australian crewing requirements for the low low price of around $90B (initially of course, the price of actually building such things goes up) without the necessity of a 'nuclear industry' in Australia any greater than the one that already exists and without the need to turn Australia into a US military asset.

So anyway, is the US giving their nuclear propulsion technology away for free, out of the goodness of their hearts? Of course not, don't be stupid. Beyond the eye-watering cost:
The Australian Senate hearings also underlined that far from a program of extended port visits with some maintenance and sustainment elements, the AUKUS-inspired Submarine Rotational Force – Western Australia (with the acronym SURF-West) at the Royal Australian Navy’s HMAS Stirling Fleet Base West near Perth appears to more closely resemble a substantial U.S. Navy Indian Ocean forward presence.
Click to expand...

And this doesn't even start to address the similarly massive "investment" going on in Australia's north to provide 'forward presence' facilities for US strategic air assets there.

So former Prime Minister Keating's characterization of AUKUS as "the worst deal in history", is actually wrong. Turns out it's far, far, worse. Not only does this deal cost Australia an arm and a leg as well as its sovereignty, it turns Australia into America's South Pacific monkey butler into the bargain.

"Winning".
 
With respect, while I don’t agree with jeffb on much of what he is saying (and probably not really on his ultimate conclusion here, and certainly not in other threads), he is clearly contributing something useful to this specific thread.

A different, legitimate, opposing, and - at least in my current judgment re: this particular thread - a good faith, perspective.

It’s just not a perspective that some on this thread agree with or particularly want to hear. But it’s clearly just as legitimate as some of the more hand-wavy “I’m sure/ hope it will all be OK in the end” arguments being put forward by some on the otherside of the discussion.

And the wider project and it’s proponents ability to deal with criticisms (both good and bad, some made in good faith and some not-so-much) raised by critics like jeffb and by others will be critical to the long term outlook and ultimately success of the project.

Australians will be paying a whole lot for this capability for a very long time so there are inevitably going to be a lot of continually evolving questions, perspectives and concerns that have to genuinely engaged with, especially given the likely involvement of bad-faith actors with their own agendas (China being the most obvious example).

This is not some free-speech-absolutist argument; the rules of the forum should be enforced. And a moderator who is moderating a thread to which they are also contributing probably should be extra mindful of their attitude to and their public (and private) comments on other contributors comments that are, at least on face value, not obviously against the rules of the forum but which they (the moderator) appear to dislike or disagree with.

Would note comment above was made in the context of the comment below (now apparently deleted).
 

Attachments

  • IMG_1324.png
    IMG_1324.png
    523.5 KB · Views: 24
Last edited:
It's going to remain a controversial topic. It's always hardest to be a fair moderator on topics where you clearly agree with one side over the other.

As an Australian taxpayer, jeffb is certainly entitled to express his opinion on the deal online and in person. With regards to the forum and topic in hand, restating opposition to (or approval of) the AUKUS deal repeatedly is unproductive in discussions unless you are bringing new information or ideas to the table with your post. We are pretty clear by this stage on who stands where on this deal.

By this metric, the post above is fine as it is clarifying aspects of the nuclear sub program that jeffb feels reinforce his position.
 
Australia is acquiring a fleet of at "least" eight nuclear powered submarines.

The first two are planned to be ex USN boats with twenty years of life remaining.

One is planned to be a US production boat with a thirty year life planned.

There are options for two additional new build US boats to cover any delays in the AUKUS SSN build.

The design of the AUKUS SSN in underway with its build to follow the current Dreadnought SSBN.

The AUKUS SSN will be derived from the Dreadnought SSBN, which in turn was derived from the Astute SSN.

The two Ex USN SSNs will reach retirement age during the AUKUS SSN build and will be replaced by new build SSNs to maintain a fleet of eight.

The new build US sourced boats will reach retirement age while the replacement SSNs are being built.

Decommissioning of nuclear powered vessels is challenging, it is a major program in its own right, fortunately, there are already experts in the decommissioning of nuclear reactors already living and working in Australia, and disposal is already factored into every new defence contract. Basically, if you don't know how you will dispose of it you don't buy it in the first place.

These questions are being asked, they are being worked on, and they are critical to the successful acquisition of the capability.

WA is already ramping up to support USN and RN SSNs.

The details are still being sorted but AUKUS will be a collaborative build, that will see a continuous completion of new SSNs going forward. Some in Australia the rest in the UK.

The reactor sections will be shipped to Australia, said ships could easily take Australian built sections back to the UK. Obviously the contracts are a long way off, but there is no reason a joint build isn't possible, for example EB and Newport News already share production of the Virginias, and they are now outsourcing work to other companies to increase production rates.
 
The above plan seems basically sound. Makes some sense. Now of course, as usual the devils are a) money b) time and delays.

I never thought I would ever see in my lifetime a nuclear submarine program split between three countries. Of course UK-USA partnership is as old as the 1960's, at least as far as SLBMs are concerned.

Also reminds me a few NATO / MLF proposals to UK and France by the USA (1958-1964, roughly) to try and "neutralize" their independant nuclear deterrent aspirations.

A further reminder (before someone chimes in) that the French did offer to sell Australia the nuclear powered Barracuda for essentially the same price as the Attack class and that the Barracuda class reactors run on 7% enriched LEU (Australia's ANSTO facility at Lucas Heights outside Sydney operates a research reactor powered by 10% enriched LEU which ANSTO refuel themselves regularly from fuel sourced from overseas manufacturers ).

So Australia could have had a mix of 12 conventional and nuclear powered subs, all based off the same general design, and perfectly sized for Australian crewing requirements for the low low price of around $90B (initially of course, the price of actually building such things goes up) without the necessity of a 'nuclear industry' in Australia any greater than the one that already exists and without the need to turn Australia into a US military asset.
Click to expand...

That plan is also of interest, at least theoretically. But it seems Naval Group behaved a bit too much like dickheads in the Attack era, for any salvaging to happen. Unfortunately, because an Attack / Barracuda mix, AIP & nuclear, would have been quite unique. AFAIK France is the only country with one foot planted in nuclear propulsion(Barracuda) and the other in AIP ( Scorpene Attack). Or perhaps Russia does it, too ?
 
The erosion of the US industrial base is a concern. The US just can't build enough submarines fast enough anymore.

This represents a risk to the timeline of the project but at least the Virginia class is proven and mature as are the skills to build it.
 
It's probable that submarines have evolved into so complex integrated machines that it even tend to turn the word Submarine simply as irrelevant...

The only way to increase production rates would probably to segregate service expectations among several hulls and family class. Just like the USAF and USN are trying to do with their 6th Gen fighter.
 
Last edited:
TomcatViP said:
It's probable that submarines have evolved into so complex integrated machines that it even tend to turn the word Submarine simply as irrelevant...

The only way to increased production rates would probably to segregated service expectations among several hulls and family class. Just like the USAF and USN are trying to do with their 6th Gen fighter.
Click to expand...

Trying to build the new Columbia class SSNs and ramp up production of the Virginia class at the same time has stretches the remaining build capacity to the limits.

There are simply not enough skilled workers and facilities anymore.

The US is attempting to regain some capacity but it's a tough slow slog.
 
I don't believe that. If the boating industry has managed to match the demand for 300ft plus yacht all a across the world with such extravaganza, I do not see how a shortage of skilled worker could be an excuse here.

A welder takes two years to train. Not twenty. Those programs run over decades.
Methodology has also to evolve to reposition where the bulk of skilled worker are situated. If you can't weld anywhere, anyhow, probably that section construction is to be considered, simpler module to be pre-assembled off site with only large junction welds to be left as critical. That way, production is simplified, time of construction is reduced, automatically reducing the apparent shortage of skilled workers and infrastructure.

AUKUS will help the US/UK industry by augmentating production qty of single items. If coherence can be build across the hulls, added to the increased visibility in manufacturing order, that can only help and raise ressources to tackle the bottleneck in skills.
 
Last edited:
TomcatViP said:
I don't believe that. If the boating industry has managed to match the demand for 300ft plus yacht all a across the world with such extravaganza, I do not see how a shortage of skilled worker could be an excuse here.

A welder takes two years to train. Not twenty. Those programs run over decades.
Methodology has also to evolve to reposition where the bulk of skilled worker are situated. If you can't weld anywhere, anyhow, probably that section construction is to be considered, simpler module to be pre-assembled off site with only large junction welds to be left as critical. That way, production is simplified, time of construction is reduced, automatically reducing the apparent shortage of skilled workers.
Click to expand...

You are equating building a yacht with building a Nuclear Submarine?

Is it possible the standards, complexity and government oversight are different in one versus the other?
 
TomcatViP said:
Nuclear concerns only a fraction of what a submarine is today.
Click to expand...

Of course. The issue goes beyond welders and includes all the supply chain components that go into manufacturing a Nuclear submarine.

Here is some interesting reading on the topic if you are interested:

www.defensenews.com

How the US plans to expand its submarine industrial base for AUKUS

The Defense Department and Congress will need to pour billions of dollars into the submarine industrial base to prepare to sell Australia AUKUS submarines.
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com
 
Last edited:
I suspect the build tolerances of any part of a submarine are far in advance of what a yacht entails. Any kind of mechanical imperfection could affect sound profile. Also most parts of a yacht don't undergo a dozen + atmospheres of pressure. The "submarine" part of "nuclear submarine" is probably as challenging as the nuclear bit.
 
Part of AUKUS is experienced Australian welders and other submarine trades will relocate to the US and convert to US SSN production techniques. As these people are already trained and experienced it will take them less time to get up to speed than new starters. This will significantly increase the number of experienced trades able to train and mentor new starters. Basically Australia's initial investment in AUKUS will be to help the US increase their production capacity.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom