Replacement of Australia's Collins Class Submarines

[jeffb]

Wait, how about Australia adopting a non-nuclear variant of the Suffren, before going nuclear ?
...
Nope, forgot that.

According to Turnbull this was actually an option.

The deal required that at least the first two boats be conventionally powered but allowed for a switch to an "Australianized" Suffren, nuclear powered boat along with a reduced total buy (8 rather than 12).

just catching up to all this, so Australia is insistent on it being nuclear..
besides the Suffren and Virginia, was the Astute considered/offered?

Australia's "insistence" on nuclear-powered subs was premised on a step change of defence focus from defence of Australia's littoral to operations anywhere in the world (in the first instance, in the South China Sea).

 

[jeffb]

So what about the Suffren design? Well it was offered informally but never seriously considered...

It wasn't considered because Australia was set on buying conventionally powered subs despite that from a sizing, crewing, manufacturing point of view, it was ideal. Hence the Attack class conventionally powered version.

It remains a mystery why, despite having an option to build state of the art nuclear powered subs, probably prior to the 2030s, Morrison threw the whole deal overboard for AUKUS, second hand Virginias, hypothetical subs yet to be designed by the brits, and a massive increase in the US military presence in Australia.

 

[helmutkohl]

It wasn't considered because Australia was set on buying conventionally powered subs despite that from a sizing, crewing, manufacturing point of view, it was ideal. Hence the Attack class conventionally powered version.

It remains a mystery why, despite having an option to build state of the art nuclear powered subs, probably prior to the 2030s, Morrison threw the whole deal overboard for AUKUS, second hand Virginias, hypothetical subs yet to be designed by the brits, and a massive increase in the US military presence in Australia.

in retrospect, what submarine solution do you think Australia should have gone for?

 

[Scott Kenny]

in retrospect, what submarine solution do you think Australia should have gone for?

Nuclear powered Suffrens. Difficulty then is that every 5-8 years, they gotta go back to France to be refueled unless/until Oz builds a nuclear shipyard. So you'd actually want more than 12, probably 14-16, to keep the numbers up while boats are being refueled.

But I think the AUKUS deal may be better for Oz in the long run. More industry, a nuclear shipyard in Oz to do the work locally, and all the high-paid highly skilled workers that the supporting industries require.

 

[jeffb]

in retrospect, what submarine solution do you think Australia should have gone for?

If nuclear power is still considered an absolute requirement by the RAN then Suffren. It WAS the design selected by the RAN when Morrison blew up the plan, and the design work done already for the Attack class has done the lions share of integrating the AN/BSY-1 combat system into the design.

Refueling of the Suffren class LEU reactors is at around ten year intervals in line with the major overhaul cycle.

I think it's an open question whether they would need to be returned to France for refueling or not. Australia would have a decade to get the facilities together to accomplish the Suffren class' (simplified) refueling process at home after all.

 

[Ainen]

The best plan was to change exactly nothing, and stick to conventional Attack design as it was.

(I am just being salty for not getting to see the pinnacle of SSK).

 

[jeffb]

SSKs have continued to evolve...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1484229008418131971

View: https://x.com/CovertShores/status/1484229008418131971?t=FfvP7TU1so32OiZKMQzM1A&s=19

 

[Archibald]

The best plan was to change exactly nothing, and stick to conventional Attack design as it was.

The supreme irony being that Attack subs were essentially non-nuclear Barracuda / Suffren. Hence, a bunch of Attacks could, first, reliviate the Collins while partially training Australian crews to the coming Barracudas.

 

[jeffb]

The supreme irony being that Attack subs were essentially non-nuclear Barracuda / Suffren. Hence, a bunch of Attacks could, first, reliviate the Collins while partially training Australian crews to the coming Barracudas.

Exactly.

 

[Archibald]

There is also the case for a mixed fleet, nuclear / non-nuclear - of otherwise rather similar submarines (since Attack and Barracuda are heavily related in design) : synergies, symbiosis... basically: use the non-nuclear subs for every mission where nuclear power isn't needed, extracting additional life from the most expensive nuclear subs.

 

[Grey Havoc]

just catching up to all this, so Australia is insistent on it being nuclear..
besides the Suffren and Virginia, was the Astute considered/offered?

Yes. In fact, before the United States ah, barged aboard the program, the original Anglo-Australian plan was for a Astute-based design with a US supplied combat system to allow full interoperability with the USN. Though as H_K notes, that had evolved into the mostly clean sheet SSNR design just before the Americans came onboard.

 

[jeffb]

A longer, more detailed essay by RADM Peter Briggs detailing the issues being faced in Australia, the United States and the United Kingdom in relation to Australia's Collins Class replacement. An excellent breakdown of the issues at hand with AUKUS

When It Comes to Submarines, Australia Is Going to Be Left High and Dry - War on the Rocks

As the new American president shook allied capitals all over the world, a Virginia-class submarine — the USS Minnesota — arrived at a port in western

warontherocks.com

 

[H_K]

Nuclear powered Suffrens. Difficulty then is that every 5-8 years, they gotta go back to France to be refueled unless/until Oz builds a nuclear shipyard. So you'd actually want more than 12, probably 14-16, to keep the numbers up while boats are being refueled

I think it's an open question whether they would need to be returned to France for refueling or not. Australia would have a decade to get the facilities together to accomplish the Suffren class' (simplified) refueling process at home after all.

@Scott Kenny Refuelling the Suffrens would have been easy. As pointed out by @jeffb it is a simplified process that can be done concurrently with any docking cycle by opening a hatch in the reactor section. Typically happens every 10 years and doesn’t require a return to the yard that built it. It’s usually done in its home port with just a little extra infrastructure.

The French SSNs have the highest availability and sea time of any attack subs in the world, with double crews, so would require *fewer hulls* than any other option. Typically the 5 SSNs average 800-1000 sea days per year vs. 600-700 sea days for the RAN’s 6 Collin’s… in a good year. So 6 Suffren SSNs would deliver more capability than what the RAN has today or is expected to have in 2-3 decades.

(The French number was with the 30 year old Rubis class, and is expected to be even better with the brand new Suffrens with longer operational cycles in between docking/refueling).