Replacement of Australia's Collins Class Submarines

Indeed and its doubtful the US would have capacity to supply Australia a dozen submarines over the 2030-2050 timeframe, its looking difficult for them to even supply the 2 second hand and one new build Virginia they promised as they cant produce enough for their own requirements.
 
WatcherZero said:
Indeed and its doubtful the US would have capacity to supply Australia a dozen submarines over the 2030-2050 timeframe, its looking difficult for them to even supply the 2 second hand and one new build Virginia they promised as they cant produce enough for their own requirements.
Click to expand...
The US probably could but would take a lot of AUKUS funds pumped into their industry to match that build schedule. The yard capacity then becomes the primary issue and that is a manning problem, the US yards have struggled for many years to employ sufficient staff.

Guertin said some things are the new normal: “the supply chain is different now,” he said, and the Navy needs to ensure it and its shipbuilders buy materials farther ahead of the start of construction. The “greening of the workforce” — or replacing a highly experienced workforce that’s retiring in high numbers with less experienced employees — has also “changed dramatically” the realities of ship design and waterfront tradecraft work.

Guertin said this review revealed that the entire workforce — the government, the shipbuilders and the entire supply chain — ought to be viewed and invested in as a national strategic asset.
Click to expand...
www.defensenews.com

US Navy ship programs face years-long delays amid labor, supply woes

Most new shipbuilding programs are running one to three years behind schedule, including the Columbia and Virginia subs and the Constellation frigate.
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com

36 months late on Blk IV boats and 24 months on Blk V...
 
Ozair said:
No, the Super Hornet purchase was made to replace the F-111s which had become prohibitively expensive to operate. It had nothing to do with the F-35 which in 2007 had only just flown the year previous and had not suffered much delay to that point. The classic Hornet fleet had plenty of life left at that point, HUG 3 had only just started when the purchase was announced.
Click to expand...
Err...not quite. The Super Hornet purchase was related to both the F-111 and the F-35. Yes, the F-111s had become too problematic (being the only operator of a small fleet) but originally it was hoped to go direct to the F-35. Unfortunately because of the F-35 program delays it was decided that a "Bridging Air Combat Capability" was required.
 
GTX said:
Err...not quite. The Super Hornet purchase was related to both the F-111 and the F-35. Yes, the F-111s had become too problematic (being the only operator of a small fleet) but originally it was hoped to go direct to the F-35. Unfortunately because of the F-35 program delays it was decided that a "Bridging Air Combat Capability" was required.
Click to expand...
The F-111 was expected to be retired between 2015-2020. In 2003 the RAAF determined that wasn't feasible and the aircraft wouldn't last past 2010 without significant massive investment of funds.

The decision in 2007 to acquire 24 F/A-18F Super Hornets, and their delivery in 2010–11, was intended to bridge the capability gap between the early retirement of the F-111 fleet (advanced from 2015–20 to 2010) and the eventual acquisition of the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter.
Click to expand...

Yes the replacement of the F-111 was originally planned to be the the F-35 but the F-35 for RAAF was never going to arrive in 2010, the USAF delay to IOC was not made until after the SH had been ordered, and AIR5349 ensured that the "gap" was covered. Boeing seized an opportunity with essentially an unsolicited proposal and the Govt ran with it. In hindsight it was a great decision as it allowed the RAAF to take a step transition from the classic Hornet to the F-35 which almost certainly was smoother than what had originally been planned.
 
WatcherZero said:
maintain the Australian shipbuilding capability that built the Collins
Click to expand...
Firstly I am talking about specific submarine building capabilities that built the Collins.

GTX said:
Errr...the shipyard at Osborne is still very active and has remained so.
Click to expand...
Yes it has been building surface ships. The capability to build surface ships has been maintained. The submarine building capability "that built the collins" has not been maintained. That is what the original quote was.

Australia didn't even maintain the production of the steel to make the subs.

Ozair said:
No, the Super Hornet purchase was made to replace the F-111s which had become prohibitively expensive to operate. It had nothing to do with the F-35 which in 2007 had only just flown the year previous and had not suffered much delay to that point. The classic Hornet fleet had plenty of life left at that point, HUG 3 had only just started when the purchase was announced.
Click to expand...
Is this the same Ozair that was on airliners.net? If so Gday mate :)

Originally 100 F-35 were to be purchased to replace both the F-111 and classic Hornet. The Super Hornet was purchased as an emergency stop gap. The F-111 ejection seat rocket motors was also a contributing factor to the early retirement and emergency Super Hornet purchase. But the primary factor was the F-35 delay.

Ozair said:
I do agree that an interim purchase of submarines would be a good option but the time to build now likely doesn't make that viable. Unless Japan was willing to sell their new Taigei off the dock to Australia directly I cannot see a decent option that would arrive in the time desired/required. EDIT: Even then Australia likely wouldn't want them without the Mk48 torpedo and the US Combat system...
Click to expand...
It is better than nothing. The Japanese subs being decades newer than Collins would still be a good upgrade. They would of course have to be Japanese built. Japan has maintained a build rate of 1 sub per year with around 24 in active service. This lines up perfectly with a 25 year service life. The Japanese subs would operate in entirely different areas to the nuclear subs so compatibility of systems isn't a big problem.

Let's assume Japan can increase their sub production rate by 5% per year over the next 10 years. By 2034 they have increased production by 50% making an extra sub every 2 years. Let's assume Japan was also willing to life extend the SS-592 and SS-593 for a period of 3 extra years. Australia could then take delivery of the Japanese built subs in 2030, 2032, 2034, 2036, 2038 and 2040. Six conventional Japanese built subs by 2040. The US Navy will be capable of delivering three new or lightly used nuclear subs by 2040.

6 conventional defensive subs and 3 nuclear offensive subs in service by 2040 completely satisfies the Australian requirement. No subs are needed to be built in Australia.

2 conventional and 1 nuclear sub would be in service by 2032 allowing the smooth retirement of Collins. No life extension of Collins is needed.

Building a nuclear sub in Australia I consider similar to Australia building an F-35 or KF-21 type fighter jet. Sometimes it is best to leave the production of ultra high end capabilities to the larger militaries. Concentrating on the mid range capabilities gives greater return on investment to industry and a greater export potential.

France and UK build their subs at a much lower production rate because they have fewer in active service. It is then very difficult to ramp production up high enough to produce one extra sub for Australia let alone multiple. Japan and the US subs are the only ones being produced at a high enough rate that allows easy production of extra subs gor Australia by 2040.
 
Rickshaw said:
You seem to be thinking that Japan is a reputable defence supplier. Their reputation or rather lack of it told against them the last time the Soryu class was considered for purchase. Seems some people just want to repeat the same mistakes again, over and over.
Click to expand...
The complete opposite.

Australia told Japan and France that they wanted the subs built in Australia. Japan said: "how do you expect that to be possible? You have not maintained a sub building industry and do not have enough skilled workers. You will need to double your budget"

The Australians were insulted because Japanese culture is straight up and no lies. They are the most reputable and trustworthy country.

France wined and dined the Australian procurement staff and said yes to every silly request. France knew the budget would blow out.

Now Australia has consultant experts saying that we can build Nuclear subs. These consultants will be getting financial incentives to say it we can build subs as it guarantee more consultant work. This is bribery.

Quick rough example
One US nuclear sub cost $4 billion.
One Aussie nuclear sub cost $12 billion.
Five subs purchased is then $20 billion versus $60 billion.
If we buy $20 billion worth of US built subs Australia has saved $40 billion.
$40 billion EXTRA can be spent on building dozens of Destroyers, Frigates, LHD, autonomous vessels and patrol boats in Australia. This would have more total shipbuilding jobs created than 5 nuclear subs.

If you want to maintain and grow shipbuilding and defense industry in Australia you would want these Aussie built nuclear subs cancelled immediately.
 
Japan was so inexperienced at International defence bidding they didn't even translate their bid documents into English.
Why would you think one Australian submarine would cost more than a nuclear powered aircraft carrier? The UK is building more capable SSN's for less than the Americans and with all but the reactor module built in Australia there would be far more money going into Australia's defence industry, its already building the CIC for the Virginia class and some of the weapons the Australian subs would use, its domestic workshare is likely to be around 85-90%, meaning far more dollars spent in Australia than if just bought American built.
 
RJMAZ said:
Is this the same Ozair that was on airliners.net? If so Gday mate :)
Click to expand...
Hey.
RJMAZ said:
Originally 100 F-35 were to be purchased to replace both the F-111 and classic Hornet. The Super Hornet was purchased as an emergency stop gap. The F-111 ejection seat rocket motors was also a contributing factor to the early retirement and emergency Super Hornet purchase. But the primary factor was the F-35 delay.
Click to expand...
No, JSF delays were not yet impacting the schedule but the early retirement of the F-111 was a significant impact. The prospective SH order was announced in March 2007 and ratified by the subsequent Govt later that year. The F-35 had a program baseline in 2007 after that initial SH announcement, the Nunn-McCurdy Breach wasn't announced until 2010 along with the first delay of projected IOC dates.
RJMAZ said:
It is better than nothing. The Japanese subs being decades newer than Collins would still be a good upgrade. They would of course have to be Japanese built. Japan has maintained a build rate of 1 sub per year with around 24 in active service. This lines up perfectly with a 25 year service life. The Japanese subs would operate in entirely different areas to the nuclear subs so compatibility of systems isn't a big problem.

Let's assume Japan can increase their sub production rate by 5% per year over the next 10 years. By 2034 they have increased production by 50% making an extra sub every 2 years. Let's assume Japan was also willing to life extend the SS-592 and SS-593 for a period of 3 extra years. Australia could then take delivery of the Japanese built subs in 2030, 2032, 2034, 2036, 2038 and 2040. Six conventional Japanese built subs by 2040. The US Navy will be capable of delivering three new or lightly used nuclear subs by 2040.

6 conventional defensive subs and 3 nuclear offensive subs in service by 2040 completely satisfies the Australian requirement. No subs are needed to be built in Australia.

2 conventional and 1 nuclear sub would be in service by 2032 allowing the smooth retirement of Collins. No life extension of Collins is needed.

Building a nuclear sub in Australia I consider similar to Australia building an F-35 or KF-21 type fighter jet. Sometimes it is best to leave the production of ultra high end capabilities to the larger militaries. Concentrating on the mid range capabilities gives greater return on investment to industry and a greater export potential.

France and UK build their subs at a much lower production rate because they have fewer in active service. It is then very difficult to ramp production up high enough to produce one extra sub for Australia let alone multiple. Japan and the US subs are the only ones being produced at a high enough rate that allows easy production of extra subs gor Australia by 2040.
Click to expand...
I have no issues with Australia not building subs locally, as stated earlier I think the money could be better spent across the economy instead of being pumped in to a niche sector that has little overall future economic impact.

I don't think the above plan is realistic and were Australia to change tack again, which will not happen with the current Govt or likely even a new one if it changed mid next year, it would still be 18 months before a decision like you have proposed could be negotiated with the Japanese. That is before we consider the Mk48 and US Combat system issues that are still present.

Long term I think the SSN-A is still the best option for Australia and I have my doubts that used Virginias will arrive given the schedule pressures and impending retirements the USN is faced with. I'd favour building SSN-A in the UK and saving that local build money for other projects.
 
Ozair said:
The prospective SH order was announced in March 2007 and ratified by the subsequent Govt later that year. The F-35 had a program baseline in 2007 after that initial SH announcement, the Nunn-McCurdy Breach wasn't announced until 2010 along with the first delay of projected IOC dates.
Click to expand...
Australia being a high level partner of the JSF program knew the the F-35 was well behind schedule long before the Nunn-McCurdy Breach in 2010. The Super Hornet purchase in 2007 was due to the RAAF knowing the F-35 is many years being schedule.

Ozair said:
I'd favour building SSN-A in the UK and saving that local build money for other projects.
Click to expand...
I have no problem with the UK building the Australian nuclear subs. The problem is Australia wants half a dozen nuclear subs in the next decade or two. The UK would have to double the production output to satisfy the Australian demand. The US for instance produces nuclear subs at a far greater rate. The US would only have to increase sub production by 25% to satisfy the Australian demand.

This is why I think a two class sub solution is best. This means the shipyards only have to increase their production by a smaller amount. I selected Japan and the US to provide the two sub classes because a conventional sub will compliment a US nuclear sub with the big payload module nicely.

However going all nuclear and buying 3 UK built and 3 US built subs would also work. The shipyards in both countries would have a better chance satisfying the Australian demand now that they each build only half.

In terms of timeline Australia would prefer the new subs as soon as possible to eliminate any Collins class extension. This is why they see looking at second hand US subs as a stop gap.
 
RJMAZ said:
The complete opposite.

Australia told Japan and France that they wanted the subs built in Australia. Japan said: "how do you expect that to be possible? You have not maintained a sub building industry and do not have enough skilled workers. You will need to double your budget"

The Australians were insulted because Japanese culture is straight up and no lies. They are the most reputable and trustworthy country.

France wined and dined the Australian procurement staff and said yes to every silly request. France knew the budget would blow out.

Now Australia has consultant experts saying that we can build Nuclear subs. These consultants will be getting financial incentives to say it we can build subs as it guarantee more consultant work. This is bribery.

Quick rough example
One US nuclear sub cost $4 billion.
One Aussie nuclear sub cost $12 billion.
Five subs purchased is then $20 billion versus $60 billion.
If we buy $20 billion worth of US built subs Australia has saved $40 billion.
$40 billion EXTRA can be spent on building dozens of Destroyers, Frigates, LHD, autonomous vessels and patrol boats in Australia. This would have more total shipbuilding jobs created than 5 nuclear subs.

If you want to maintain and grow shipbuilding and defense industry in Australia you would want these Aussie built nuclear subs cancelled immediately.
Click to expand...
Japan has never exported anything to do with defence matters, let alone a submarine. You seem to have an over-inflated idea of their efficiency as far as submarine building is concerned. You have an over-inflated idea of the Virginia class as well. It is a large boat requiring many crew, far more crew than the RAN could economically supply. The Astute class is more in line with the RAN's needs.
 
Rickshaw said:
Japan has never exported anything to do with defence matters, let alone a submarine. You seem to have an over-inflated idea of their efficiency as far as submarine building is concerned. You have an over-inflated idea of the Virginia class as well. It is a large boat requiring many crew, far more crew than the RAN could economically supply. The Astute class is more in line with the RAN's needs.
Click to expand...
My primary point is that two different types of subs would need to be purchased if they are to be cost effectively built overseas. No single overseas design has the production capacity to satisfy the Australian requirement.

My secondary point is going to a high-low mix of subs would have benefits and increase the number of options. The nuclear subs travel to the enemy and launch cruise missiles. The conventional subs stay close to the Australian coast performing the role of the current Collins class.

I would open up the bidding for the two classes of sub fleets.

$10 billion fixed price contract for nuclear manned submarines.

$10 billion fixed price contract for conventional manned submarines.

The quantity of submarines are not fixed but the quality of subs purchased most not exceed $10 billion limit. I would add financial penalties into the contract if the subs are not delivered on time.
US can offer 3 Virginia class subs.
UK can offer 4 Astute class subs.
France can offer 5 Suffren class subs.
A capability analysis and operational cost analysis will be done to compare the options.

For the low end subs there are also multiple options. Having the high end nuclear subs will open up the option to having more numerous smaller conventional subs. Japan and South Korea both have good options. But a larger quantity of German Type 212A could also work. Again a comprehensive analysis will be done.

My analysis points towards Japanese conventional and US nuclear subs being the best option. But South Korea conventional and UK nuclear subs might be a better option. There are multiple combinations to choose between.

I would have the smaller autonomous subs such as Ghost Shark XL made in Australia.

Government to government negotiations can also take place during the deciding process. The country of the winning bidder has to buy a certain amount of product from Australia. This offsets the jobs. Ideally if the goal is for Australia to increase ship building capacity then Australian built surface vehicles would be purchased by the country of the winning bidders
 
RJMAZ said:
My primary point is that two different types of subs would need to be purchased if they are to be cost effectively built overseas. No single overseas design has the production capacity to satisfy the Australian requirement.

My secondary point is going to a high-low mix of subs would have benefits and increase the number of options. The nuclear subs travel to the enemy and launch cruise missiles. The conventional subs stay close to the Australian coast performing the role of the current Collins class.

I would open up the bidding for the two classes of sub fleets.

$10 billion fixed price contract for nuclear manned submarines.

$10 billion fixed price contract for conventional manned submarines.

The quantity of submarines are not fixed but the quality of subs purchased most not exceed $10 billion limit. I would add financial penalties into the contract if the subs are not delivered on time.
US can offer 3 Virginia class subs.
UK can offer 4 Astute class subs.
France can offer 5 Suffren class subs.
A capability analysis and operational cost analysis will be done to compare the options.

For the low end subs there are also multiple options. Having the high end nuclear subs will open up the option to having more numerous smaller conventional subs. Japan and South Korea both have good options. But a larger quantity of German Type 212A could also work. Again a comprehensive analysis will be done.

My analysis points towards Japanese conventional and US nuclear subs being the best option. But South Korea conventional and UK nuclear subs might be a better option. There are multiple combinations to choose between.

I would have the smaller autonomous subs such as Ghost Shark XL made in Australia.

Government to government negotiations can also take place during the deciding process. The country of the winning bidder has to buy a certain amount of product from Australia. This offsets the jobs. Ideally if the goal is for Australia to increase ship building capacity then Australian built surface vehicles would be purchased by the country of the winning bidders
Click to expand...
We are not just buying submarines, we are buying the training and the support infrastructure. You seem to be under the impression we are just buying subs. It is a common mistake made by newbies to the problem. We are attempting to fund far more so we are at best semi-independent from the Americans and the UK if the balloon goes up. We cannot afford two classes of subs. We can just afford one.
 
RJMAZ said:
The complete opposite.

Australia told Japan and France that they wanted the subs built in Australia. Japan said: "how do you expect that to be possible? You have not maintained a sub building industry and do not have enough skilled workers. You will need to double your budget"

The Australians were insulted because Japanese culture is straight up and no lies. They are the most reputable and trustworthy country.
Click to expand...
Have you ever been to Japan?

They will lie to your face to allow you to preserve their image of your honor.
 
Rickshaw said:
We cannot afford two classes of subs. We can just afford one.
Click to expand...
That is unfounded and you have no evidence of this. If the second class of sub is conventional then it easily comes within budget. The Australian built nuclear subs are already projected to cost more than twice as much as an equivalent British or American sub.

There is no way the infrastructure and support costs for the Aussie built subs will be cheap enough to offset this tens of billion dollar initial purchase price difference of buying foreign subs. Just the cost difference alone could fully fund the purchase of nearly a dozen conventional subs.

If a high-low mix of subs are selected then I assume there would be a greater number of conventional subs relative to the larger nuclear subs. The conventional subs can have all the servicing and overhauls performed in Australia. Australia is then independent at defending our coasts. As only a small number of nuclear subs would be purchased they can have their overhauls and nuclear related maintainance performed in the country of construction. These nuclear subs would be considered offensive weapons as they take the fight into enemy waters and can strike enemy territory with cruise missiles. It is not critical for these offensive submarines to be serviced entirely in Australia.

Now of the current ground work and preparations being done in Australia will be wasted if they decide to buy subs from overseas. The facilities, equipment and staff will all be needed regardless for servicing and maintenance of the future subs. It will be a couple years until the heavy design work will begin. There is still plenty of time to pull the plug and buy off the shelf.
 
RJMAZ said:
That is unfounded and you have no evidence of this. If the second class of sub is conventional then it easily comes within budget. The Australian built nuclear subs are already projected to cost more than twice as much as an equivalent British or American sub.

There is no way the infrastructure and support costs for the Aussie built subs will be cheap enough to offset this tens of billion dollar initial purchase price difference of buying foreign subs. Just the cost difference alone could fully fund the purchase of nearly a dozen conventional subs.

If a high-low mix of subs are selected then I assume there would be a greater number of conventional subs relative to the larger nuclear subs. The conventional subs can have all the servicing and overhauls performed in Australia. Australia is then independent at defending our coasts. As only a small number of nuclear subs would be purchased they can have their overhauls and nuclear related maintainance performed in the country of construction. These nuclear subs would be considered offensive weapons as they take the fight into enemy waters and can strike enemy territory with cruise missiles. It is not critical for these offensive submarines to be serviced entirely in Australia.

Now of the current ground work and preparations being done in Australia will be wasted if they decide to buy subs from overseas. The facilities, equipment and staff will all be needed regardless for servicing and maintenance of the future subs. It will be a couple years until the heavy design work will begin. There is still plenty of time to pull the plug and buy off the shelf.
Click to expand...
It appears you are displaying your ignorance. My brother-in-law was the RAN's chief scientist. He knows intimately more about the topic than either of us could. He has suggested that training and infrastructure costs are much greater than initial purchase costs, much greater. We are receiving quite a discount on these two matters to make our purchase more palatable. The Japanese are basically incompetent as far as submarines are concerned.
 
Never thought I'd see a serious Australian commentator write this (Rear Admiral retired no less).
www.aspistrategist.org.au

AUKUS risks are piling up. Australia must prepare to build French SSNs instead | The Strategist

Australia should start planning for acquisition of at least 12 submarines of the French Suffren design. The current AUKUS plan for eight nuclear-powered attack submarines (SSNs) has always been flawed, and now its risks are ...
www.aspistrategist.org.au www.aspistrategist.org.au

The SSN option that's been staring in everyone's faces - but no one dared mention it (until now).
 
Archibald said:
Submarines not my area of knowledge. Hence, I have no clue about the degree of seriousness of that ASPI group.

https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/a...ia-must-prepare-to-build-french-ssns-instead/

Seriously ? back to french subs, but 12 of them - and nuclear this time ? For the record, France can barely afford half that number, stretched over many years...
Click to expand...

You can judge the seriousness of the report by the fact the author thinks that the RN and USN would continue to support the Australian's SSN buy if they switched to French boats....its pure fantasy.
 

Nuked, Andrew Fowler

Like all military acquisition programs worth billions of dollars, Australia's decision to buy a new submarine fleet was expected to be a torturous process. But no one could have predicted the trail of wreckage it left behind, from the boulevards of Paris to the dockyards of Adelaide, as deep...
www.mup.com.au www.mup.com.au

Regards,
 
I can think of more than a few places but, they would not like to be seen coming - or going.
 
Halcyon66 said:

It only gets better....................

Nuke subs ok, nuke power not so much. Oh where to put that spent fuel?

Regards,
Click to expand...
Buried under the OzParliament assembly buildings and office buildings, to encourage them to spend as little time as possible in the office and deciding on new rules?
 
They used a reactor expected uptime of 53-89%? Thats quite a range. Also for some reason Nuclear reactors require grid connections but large scale renewable plants don't and that's a saving???
 

You cannot help but laugh, so how could the country even do an oil change on a Nuke sub?

www.theguardian.com

Peter Dutton says nuclear ‘will make electricity cheaper’ but critics say Coalition costings a ‘fantasy’

Opposition leader spruiks Frontier Economics modelling but Labor insists ‘it won’t pass the pub test’
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com

www.abc.net.au

Coalition's nuclear costings assume smaller economy and higher emissions

Peter Dutton is today revealing long-awaited details of his nuclear power proposal.
www.abc.net.au www.abc.net.au

Good old Australia (Quarry), if you cannot dig it up it is not worth the effort.

Regards,
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom