Replacement of Australia's Collins Class Submarines

bobthemonkey said:
I think there are two events here, both are right, but may be a case of being told as a single story.

WatcherZero is right about EB being brought in to sort out the production process for Astute, which uses the UK engineered PWR2 reactor.

At a different in time, there seems to have been a one time technical transfer of the design for a specific naval reactor (likely S9G from the Virginia class ) to Rolls Royce in Derby which was used in/served as the basis for the PWR3 reactor being fitted to Dreadnaught and onwards. This may have well been before the production issues with Astute, but the time scales involved could mean it only became common knowledge later.

There was the well known issues with the earlier PWR2 cores on Vanguard, that led to the unplanned, and massively over schedule refuelling. Also, the government papers referencing the choice whether to use and evolved PWR2 or move to PWR3 for Dreadnaught suggests PWR3 was the only design to meet the highest safety standards. While it is not explicitly mentioned, this presumably references the fact that the S9G uses natural circulation vs PWR2 which requires pumped cooling. https://assets.publishing.service.g...nt_data/file/27399/submarine_initial_gate.pdf

Given its the same reactor going into AUKUS, you could make the argument that no additional sensitive information is being shared; its just an increase to the numbers with access to parts of it.
Click to expand...
Ah, that makes sense. Thank you!
 
bobthemonkey said:
There was the well known issues with the earlier PWR2 cores on Vanguard, that led to the unplanned, and massively over schedule refuelling. Also, the government papers referencing the choice whether to use and evolved PWR2 or move to PWR3 for Dreadnaught suggests PWR3 was the only design to meet the highest safety standards. While it is not explicitly mentioned, this presumably references the fact that the S9G uses natural circulation vs PWR2 which requires pumped cooling. https://assets.publishing.service.g...nt_data/file/27399/submarine_initial_gate.pdf

Given its the same reactor going into AUKUS, you could make the argument that no additional sensitive information is being shared; its just an increase to the numbers with access to parts of it.
Click to expand...

Yes PWR3 design was chosen because it was more fail-safe, there was also a cracking issue with some early PWR2 cores that led to them being replaced earlier than intended and issues with some of the steam pipework on the first two Astutes being constructed of the lower grade material intended for non-radioactive pipes rather than the higher grade material intended for the 'hot' pipes making it potentially at risk of brittling from prolonged radiation exposure.

When you compare it to other design failures though like the Soviet liquid metal reactor that literally bricked itself or the USS Thresher that was destroyed when she lost reactor power as the design didn't have enough reserve buoyancy to surface without the assistance of propulsive power they weren't really that significant.
 
Last edited:
WatcherZero said:
Yes PWR3 design was chosen because it was more fail-safe, there was also a cracking issue with some early PWR2 cores that led to them being replaced earlier than intended and issues with some of the steam pipework on the first two Astutes being constructed of the lower grade material intended for non-radioactive pipes rather than the higher grade material intended for the 'hot' pipes making it potentially at risk of brittling from prolonged radiation exposure.

When you compare it to other design failures though like the Soviet liquid metal reactor that literally bricked itself or the USS Thresher that was destroyed when she lost reactor power as the design didn't have enough reserve buoyancy to surface without the assistance of propulsive power they weren't really that significant.
Click to expand...
There's a whole lot more to the Thresher loss than just "she lost reactor power and was unable to return to the surface"
 
While at the time they suspected a leak in the engine room leading to loss of power (though radio communications with surface didn't mention a major issue only a minor one) the main thing they addressed was adding extra buoyancy to the others in the class through lengthening and shortening the reactor restart time and non of her sisters suffered the same fate which would have happened if it was a construction flaw.
 
WatcherZero said:
While at the time they suspected a leak in the engine room leading to loss of power (though radio communications with surface didn't mention a major issue only a minor one) the main thing they addressed was adding extra buoyancy to the others in the class through lengthening and shortening the reactor restart time and non of her sisters suffered the same fate which would have happened if it was a construction flaw.
Click to expand...
I don't remember hearing about any increases in buoyancy to the class. Were there both short hull and long hull Permit class? yes. But there were several Thresher/Permits all built at around the same time and those were not cut apart and stretched.

There was a fast recovery startup procedure created for the reactor, and a whole lot of changes to any and all pipes leading to sea pressure. Plus very strong air dryers added to the high pressure air systems and geared high power valves to open the EMBT Blow Valves, all to make icing up the EMBT lines and/or stopping the EMBT valves impossible.
 
Yeah six months after her loss the Navy announced a pause and then all 31 nuclear subs then under construction were to be lengthened (the last three in the Permit class and follow on classes) while a couple in the class had already been built longer as they were initially intended to be SSGN's before they changed their mind and completed them as SSN's and another was built longer as it had experimental contra-rotating propellers and needed a larger machinery room (didnt work, spent half her life out of service). The already completed Permits had a couple of short refits in '64 and '65 to address balance and replace pipework but weren't lengthened.
 
Last edited:
WatcherZero said:
Yeah six months after her loss the Navy announced a pause and then all 31 nuclear subs then under construction were to be lengthened (the last three in the Permit class and follow on classes) while a couple in the class had already been built longer as they were initially intended to be SSGN's before they changed their mind and completed them as SSN's and another was built longer as it had experimental contra-rotating propellers and needed a larger machinery room (didnt work, spent half her life out of service). The already completed Permits had a couple of short refits in '64 and '65 to address balance and replace pipework but weren't lengthened.
Click to expand...
Exactly. The lengthening wasn't strictly speaking required to make the boats safe. The lengthening was to make more room in the hull for other stuff.

It wouldn't take much extra weight to make the boat sink out. 500lbs would do it. Also, as a sub gets deeper, the hull compresses and displaces less and less water. And now that same 500lbs extra weight is more like 1000lbs extra, and increasing as depth increases. 4 minutes to go down some 1200ft in depth, as Thresher imploded at about 2400ft down.
 
Babcock will over the next couple of weeks be meeting potential Australian submarine/construction sub-contractors and evaluating them based on workforce skills and security clearances, they will compile this into a rolodex of approved contractors.

Also Australian government has signed a land swap deal with the South Australian government, they will trade government owned military housing land at Keswick, Smithfield and a slice of the military training ground at Cultana for 60 acres of land around the Osborne shipyard for the new submarine construction facilities and a training centre for construction worker/sailor skills, they expect spades in the ground for the construction of access roads, ground preparations and utilities relocations before the end of the year.

The 13 acres of land at Keswick Barracks and 38 acres at Smithfield will be used for future housing developments (with existing military housing transferred to state ownership for continued occupation until the service members rental leases expire) while the land at Cultana will be used for a Hydrogen plant while the rest of the gunnery range will continue to be used for military training.

www.abc.net.au

South Australia reaches land-swap deal with federal government

The South Australian government will give land to the federal government to build nuclear submarines in exchange for three sites, two of which it plans to use for new housing.
www.abc.net.au www.abc.net.au
 
Last edited:
WatcherZero said:
Babcock will over the next couple of weeks be meeting potential Australian submarine/construction sub-contractors and evaluating them based on workforce skills and security clearances, they will compile this into a rolodex of approved contractors.

Also Australian government has signed a land swap deal with the South Australian government, they will trade government owned military housing land at Keswick, Smithfield and a slice of the military training ground at Cultana for 60 acres of land around the Osborne shipyard for the new submarine construction facilities and a training centre for construction worker/sailor skills, they expect spades in the ground for the construction of access roads, ground preparations and utilities relocations before the end of the year.

The 13 acres of land at Keswick Barracks and 38 acres at Smithfield will be used for future housing developments (with existing military housing transferred to state ownership for continued occupation until the service members rental leases expire) while the land at Cultana will be used for a Hydrogen plant while the rest of the gunnery range will continue to be used for military training.

www.abc.net.au

South Australia reaches land-swap deal with federal government

The South Australian government will give land to the federal government to build nuclear submarines in exchange for three sites, two of which it plans to use for new housing.
www.abc.net.au www.abc.net.au
Click to expand...
They're putting a hydrogen gas plant next to a military gunnery range?!?

*facepalm*
 
Cultana is the ends of the earth as far as potential for residential property goes. Back in the late 1960s the Army got fed up with the illegal building of beachside shacks along the gulf coast of Cultana so they decided to call in the medium artillery regiment and shell the road. They destroyed it. So effective was it that the shack owners complained in Parliament. The Army was forced to send in the Construction squadron of the Royal Australian Corps of Engineers and rebuild it. The shack owners stayed put. Indeed they now have a separate post code, according to the Australia Post (successor to the Postmaster's General Office). They not only have a large oil refinery now at Point Lonely just down the road but they are planning a hydrogen facility there, as well as a pumped hydro facility. Cultana is a weird place but it seems to be ideal for development.
 
Rickshaw said:
Cultana is the ends of the earth as far as potential for residential property goes. Back in the late 1960s the Army got fed up with the illegal building of beachside shacks along the gulf coast of Cultana so they decided to call in the medium artillery regiment and shell the road. They destroyed it. So effective was it that the shack owners complained in Parliament. The Army was forced to send in the Construction squadron of the Royal Australian Corps of Engineers and rebuild it. The shack owners stayed put. Indeed they now have a separate post code, according to the Australia Post (successor to the Postmaster's General Office). They not only have a large oil refinery now at Point Lonely just down the road but they are planning a hydrogen facility there, as well as a pumped hydro facility. Cultana is a weird place but it seems to be ideal for development.
Click to expand...
Next to a military firing range, an oil refinery, a hydrogen production facility, and pumped hydropower? Three highly explosive places, and you want to put houses there?!?

I'm surprised that the 1960s incident wasn't wrapped up under some "eminent domain" laws for range safety...
 
Scott Kenny said:
Next to a military firing range, an oil refinery, a hydrogen production facility, and pumped hydropower? Three highly explosive places, and you want to put houses there?!?

I'm surprised that the 1960s incident wasn't wrapped up under some "eminent domain" laws for range safety...
Click to expand...
I have no desire for any of those things. The Army doesn't want them either but because Point Lonely is outside the range area the Army has no control over what goes on there. The road to Point Lonely used to go through the range area and was patrolled during range firing but the rest of the year the users of the road were warned on entering that they must not stray off the road. The road has now been excised from the range, indeed been excised for over 20 years since they established the oil refinery there. Lovely piece of coastline if you ever want to visit it. Range Control used to fish there for crab and fish when they had time off.
 
Rickshaw said:
I have no desire for any of those things.
Click to expand...
Sorry, generic "you".


Rickshaw said:
The Army doesn't want them either but because Point Lonely is outside the range area the Army has no control over what goes on there. The road to Point Lonely used to go through the range area and was patrolled during range firing but the rest of the year the users of the road were warned on entering that they must not stray off the road. The road has now been excised from the range, indeed been excised for over 20 years since they established the oil refinery there. Lovely piece of coastline if you ever want to visit it. Range Control used to fish there for crab and fish when they had time off.
Click to expand...
Still surprised that the Army didn't grab Point Lonely under eminent domain or whatever the Oz legal equivalent is.
 
I think I should describe the Cultana exercise and range complex here. Cultana is a large sheep station near Whyalla a steel refinery city to the south and with Port Augusta to the north on the Spencer Gulf in South Australia. It is a fairly desolate area. The Range complex is arranged in a circular area in the centre of the exercise area. All firing occurs inwards, away from the coast. The impact zone is an elevated area a few hundred feet above sea level. Along the south edge is the Point Lonely road which leads to Point Lonely where a large petro-chemical refinery was established in the 1980s. The Point Lonely road as already explained was excised from the range complex when the petro-chemical refinery was established in the 1980s. They announced plans a few years ago that they were going to build a hydrogen manufacturing facility at Point Lonely. And they have discussed it's use as a pumped hydro site for the last 5 years or so. Only the pumped hydro idea impinges on the range all the others are outside it.

There was a serious accident on the range complex when some school cadets found and decided to play a game of "Catch" with a 37mm HE round, which exploded amongst them when dropped. I was on that exercise as a school cadet and it sent quite a shock through the school cadet force at the time. That was the only serious accident that I know of at Cultana since it was established as a range back at the end of WWII. The Army regularly exercises there. We used to know it well and most soldiers could navigate by sight most points in the exercise area.
 
Rickshaw said:
I think I should describe the Cultana exercise and range complex here. Cultana is a large sheep station near Whyalla a steel refinery city to the south and with Port Augusta to the north on the Spencer Gulf in South Australia. It is a fairly desolate area. The Range complex is arranged in a circular area in the centre of the exercise area. All firing occurs inwards, away from the coast. The impact zone is an elevated area a few hundred feet above sea level. Along the south edge is the Point Lonely road which leads to Point Lonely where a large petro-chemical refinery was established in the 1980s. The Point Lonely road as already explained was excised from the range complex when the petro-chemical refinery was established in the 1980s. They announced plans a few years ago that they were going to build a hydrogen manufacturing facility at Point Lonely. And they have discussed it's use as a pumped hydro site for the last 5 years or so. Only the pumped hydro idea impinges on the range all the others are outside it.
Click to expand...
Interesting. I don't think there's a single US range laid out that way. Especially now with the extra long ranges possible.
 
Scott Kenny said:
I honestly never thought I would see the day that the US approved the export of nuclear subs...
Click to expand...
Likewise but with the PRC expansionist policies (Resource grabs Like Russia and Venezuela) the Gerry Anderson protocol (Anything can happen in the next half hour) becomes relevant.
 
Hood said:
Does selling the UK the back end for HMS Dreadnought nearly 70 years ago count?
Click to expand...
One time tech release, with no further support. They got one working reactor and blueprints/manuals, then told to figure the rest out themselves.

This is full on continuing support, like buying F-35s.
 
Hood said:
Does selling the UK the back end for HMS Dreadnought nearly 70 years ago count?
Click to expand...

France was proposed Skipjack SSNs, in the early 1960's (from memory). This was conditionned however to dropping of Force de Frappe development - that is, a NATO dual-key nuclear deterrent rather than a national one. Needless to say, De Gaulle did not liked the deal.
 
Archibald said:
France was proposed Skipjack SSNs, in the early 1960's (from memory). This was conditionned however to dropping of Force de Frappe development - that is, a NATO dual-key nuclear deterrent rather than a national one. Needless to say, De Gaulle did not liked the deal.
Click to expand...
While I'm not really a fan of DeGaulle, I think he was right about that.
 
Declassified Congressional Briefing report from last October ahead of the AUKUS vote lobbying against selling Virginia to Australia and instead arguing for selling them B-21 bombers instead and providing services in kind such as submarine rotation and carrier deployments while investing in Australian missile design. Really paints the picture that the Virginia is a failing program that should be moved on from, coming apart at the seams due to early design decisions favouring affordability over maintenance, repeated quality issues and poor industrial capacity. Some improvements and lessons learned have been implemented in the Columbia and SSN(X) but there are underlying issues that cannot be fixed with a large amount of cannibalisation of the Block 1 to keep the Block 2 running.


Also mentions previous US nuclear submarine export decisions.
In the 80's Japan was told to do SSN design itself after a request for Phased Array Sonars was also turned down.
France requested details on SSBN quieting techniques but was refused.
US blocked a potential Canadian purchase of 12 Trafalgar class submarines from Britain or Rubis class from France.
Pakistan requested the US provide them a single SSBN when Russia rented one to India to address the balance.
Italy and the Netherlands had at some point prior to the 80's requested nuclear propulsion technology export.
 
Last edited:
Australia has published the result of its surface ship review.
21 Surface combatants at target strength, the largest the Australian navy has been since WW2:

Three Hobart class Destroyers will be retained and fitted with Tomahawk and modernised AEGIS at Osborne.
Six Anzac class frigates (two existing to be retired without replacement, first immediately) to be replaced one for one by the new GPV with smaller manning requirements, TransCAP upgrade program cancelled
Six Hunter class Air Warfare Destroyers (down from 9 in original plan) to be built at Osborne
Eleven General Purpose Frigates (first 3 built abroad due to Osborne work schedule being full) designs from Spain, Germany, Korea and Japan shortlisted.
Six new optionally manned long range strike missile OPV's. (Essentially AsHM/SSM corvettes which would be normally crewed but would be disembarked if going on a likely one way mission)

25 non-combatant vessels for Maritime civil duties
Six OPV's for coastal patrol alongside harbour patrol ships (the six under gunned Arafura class OPV's downgraded to civilian duty)

Naval budget increased by $1.7bn per year with $11.1bn additional spending during the next decade.

www.abc.net.au

Heavily armed 'optionally crewed' ships to enter service under reshaping of Australia's naval fleet

Six large and "optionally crewed" naval vessels heavily armed with missiles will be added to Australia's surface fleet under a dramatic $11 billion reshaping of the navy that will also see the acquisition of 11 new general-purpose frigates to be partly built overseas.
www.abc.net.au www.abc.net.au

 
Last edited:
Well they are expanding Osborne for the Submarine work as well, Austal will likely do the missile OPV's with curtailment of the Arafura OPV's. Outside building OPV's the other Australian shipyards (some of which have closed in recent years) are mainly at the level of just welding hull modules for larger warships assembled at Osborne like they did for the Anzac class, you need a sizeable slipway for frigates and destroyers.
 
Last edited:
WatcherZero said:
Well they are expanding Osborne for the Submarine work as well, Austal will likely do the missile OPV's with curtailment of the Arafura OPV's. Outside building OPV's the other Australian shipyards (some of which have closed in recent years) are mainly at the level of just welding hull modules for larger warships assembled at Osborne like they did for the Anzac class, you need a sizeable slipway for frigates and destroyers.
Click to expand...
Nobody else has ~200m slipways?
 
The largest slipway in northern Australia is 3000 tons and 105 metres at Tropical Reef, Brisbane.
Sydney has a 65m floating dock capable of accommodating up to 1000 tons and a 365m graving dock capable of accommodating 110,000 tons.
Then you have the 156m 9,300 ton shiplift at Osborne (capable of being upgraded to 20,000 tons) where the Destroyers are being built
And the 8,000 ton 150m shiplift at Henderson, Perth where the OPV's were built which is connected by rails and a turntable to 3 ship stocks and provides 50% of the fleets maintenance capacity (supposed to be a new drydock built there as well to open in 2028 to maintain warships) and under AUKUS a future drydock on the East Coast for nuclear submarine maintenance in addition to the nuclear berthing facilities at Darwin.

There was also the State Dockyard at Newcastle/Carrington which had a 15,000 ton floating dock until the 70's and a number of slips ultimately closing for good in 1987. The rest of the maintenance capacity in Australia is 100 & 200m wet docks.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom