Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[alexsa]

I get that, I should clarify, LOTE should go ahead regardless, for all subs. I don't think anyone is serious arguing against that anymore. But that is still 12 + years with reduced capability, shrinking crew numbers, if everything goes to plan.



50 or 60 year old subs, are going to have issues beyond just meeting metal fatigue requirements, even with a refit. Those subs are 20+ years old now. Collins turns 30 in 2026 - from its commissioning date. That represents a generation, in terms of construction, operation and more than that in design. Those that built the Collins (and its capabilities) are now progressing into the later part of their careers and retiring out.

I guess people would feel more relaxed and trusting if there was a solid well planned timetable we were all working towards, and that all the puzzle pieces fitted together. People have deep fears about the current state of the world and Australia's ability to plan and implement as massive program to deal with it.

While we look at SSN's as just a homogeneous grouping, that will be our holy land and saviour, SSN's have their challenges too. The timing isn't exactly sweet.

Astute program is basically finished, Agincourt is really the only one left with any significant work to go, even then its four years in and its supply line dry and converting to ssbn or withered. Virginia is rumoured to end after block V. US and UK are turning to focus on SSBN. Astute has lots of issues for a build, Virginia like nearly all US programs has a significant crew demand. US ordered to laid down dates are often 5-10 years with say an approximate build of ~ 5 years. Our first SSN if ordered today, could very well be a 20 year gap before commissioning. Then we would need to spit out a SSN every 1-2 years to match the Collins class aging out.

Peter Briggs argues that is not just the first ssn we need to worry about. Its about when we have a fully operational SSN force and when that will happen.

Australian-built evolved Collins needed to bridge the gap to nuclear subs | The Strategist

I should start by affirming my support for Australia’s transition to nuclear-propelled attack submarines, or SSNs, as my detailed study, delivered to the Department of Defence in 2013, and my public advocacy implies. I think ...

www.aspistrategist.org.au

Also I am not trying to push a wheel barrow here. I don't build subs. But I think it is worth having a detailed academic discussion regarding it. It may end up being inappropriate to build son of Collins, but not inappropriate to continue its development as a plan B until plan A is actually happening.

I can certainly understand what a lot of old salty submariners are talking about.

I think the important element at the moment is clarity about how far the SSN programme has got noting it is supposed to be ahead of schedule. The Astute situation may offer advantages in that the tooling and set up for the construction will be available after Agincourt allowing that to be transferred to Australia or used in situ to start hull 1. The hull is not the biggest issue (noting we would have been building a similar sized hull with the Attack) the big issue is the reactor noting the PWR-2 is basically out of production. So do we get an Astute with a US reactor. The time frame for reactor delivery will drive the entire programme. The drumbeat for the Virginia (depending on blocks) ranges from two to four years. With two hulls in build at any one time then less than 2 years 'may' be practical the build way is set up. if Australia is to be supported by the UK and/or the US I would hope it would not take 20 years to get the first boat in the water.

Construction of the ASC facility in 1987 with Collins commissioned in 2006 (6 years in construction after being laid down in 2000 and launched in 2003). I would hope a mature design would prevent the issues had with Collins (which only existed on paper before hand) which delayed its construction. Construction of the new ASC facility has commenced with some parts already done. I cannot get a status out of the ANI website but it does indicate that some of the facilities have been completed. Work is on hold until the SSN programme is worked out.

220330-The-Morse_Web.pdf (ani.com.au)

Timing is everything and proposing a Son of Collins with no clear idea of the timing ... which in itself is based on the design decision is fraught with problems. The Son of Collins will not be a copy of the original if it goes ahead and setting up for it may well adversely impact the SSN programme. Some of the jockeying about is essentially proposing a new design which would be lucky to be delivered by the time hull 1 of the SSN is built. We are getting a larger defence budget but I don't see two submarine programmes being adopted unless we cut in other areas.

The problem is we do not have the information in the public domain to make a call. I agree the government need to get a wiggle on and its a pity it took this long for bipartisan support. I do not see the Collins living on until it is 60

 

[Redlands18]

Will be interesting to see how they do the Reactor, do they build the entire Hull section containing the Reactor and then ship it to Australia? Or do they just ship the complete Reactor to Australia to be fitted to the Hull section here? May come down to which Reactor and which Sub is selected. A US Reactor in an Astute may mean the latter but a US Reactor in a Virginia is possibly more likely to see the former.

 

[vonnoobie]

One thing that has played on my mind today is the reactor's. The PWR2 is a non starter we all know that, will the USN still be using the S9G in the SSN(X)? If so then not a problem however if the are planning to introduce a new reactor

1. would the US be able to build two different reactor types concurrently?
2. If number 1 is yes what if any would be the effect on reactor costs? (I can't imagine them going from pumping out 2 or so reactor's a year to 1 reactor every 3 years or so would not drive costs up significantly)
3. If no for number 1 would the new reactor be able to be mated to which ever boat we choose?
4. If yes to point 3 what sort of time frame and risks would we be looking at as well what would be the training and operational problems from potentially having 2 different reactor types on a nation just getting used to them.
5. If no to point 3 what time lines and costs could we be facing building one class just to switch to a new class a few boats in?

I know pretty much no one will have all the answers but IMO they are some key questions needed answers before we get stuck on a particular decision if that decision may blow up in our face.

 

[ngatimozart]

Might be a good option for 10 or so years.

Second-hand Japanese boats could rapidly expand Australia’s submarine force | The Strategist

Australia may have a way of very cheaply and quickly expanding its submarine force, improving its defences this decade and preparing for its planned nuclear-powered boats. We might do this by buying good second-hand submarines ...

www.aspistrategist.org.au

@Reptilia

Why? There is a growing irritation with the mods and long term members about spit balling ideas without ‘at least’ a reasoned justification. In this case your have to justifying the cost over the life of the boat, the logistic train issues and the fact this would still be less ideal that a LOTE Collins…. Which suits the RAN operational requirements.

I expect a response.

Alexsa

A Moderator has required a response from you to his direction. You have failed to respond so far. You have until 0600GMT/UTC Friday 4th June 2022 to respond to @alexsa direction or you will face Moderator sanctions. This is both a formal requirement and a formal warning for failing to adhere to a Moderators requirement. 12 demerit points for 1 year have been awarded against you.

 

[spoz]

1. would the US be able to build two different reactor types concurrently?

My understanding is that already are building at least two and probably three; the S9G for the Virginias, the A1B for the Fords, and whatever the Columbias are getting; that's unlikely to be an S9G although it could be either a development of the S9G or a modified version of the A1B. SSN(X) will likely get what Columbia gets.

 

[alexsa]

One thing that has played on my mind today is the reactor's. The PWR2 is a non starter we all know that, will the USN still be using the S9G in the SSN(X)? If so then not a problem however if the are planning to introduce a new reactor

1. would the US be able to build two different reactor types concurrently?
2. If number 1 is yes what if any would be the effect on reactor costs? (I can't imagine them going from pumping out 2 or so reactor's a year to 1 reactor every 3 years or so would not drive costs up significantly)
3. If no for number 1 would the new reactor be able to be mated to which ever boat we choose?
4. If yes to point 3 what sort of time frame and risks would we be looking at as well what would be the training and operational problems from potentially having 2 different reactor types on a nation just getting used to them.
5. If no to point 3 what time lines and costs could we be facing building one class just to switch to a new class a few boats in?

I know pretty much no one will have all the answers but IMO they are some key questions needed answers before we get stuck on a particular decision if that decision may blow up in our face.

The situation is helped slightly by the fact the submerged dived buoyant volume of the Astute and Block IV Virginia is pretty close equal based on open source information. The size is the variable but the Astute hull is over 1m wider than the Virginia. the other variable is weight... so this would need to be compensated for.

It is clear that if the Astute is selected (even for a first batch of 4 noting there is nothing to prevent moving to the SSN-R if the Astute is chosen) then the PWR2 will not be part of it.

 

[John Newman]

The issue does exist because it's in the media.
That's the point

Seriously?

So every time there is a ‘media’ article, story or comment, the Government has to come out and make some sort of statement or comment confirming their support?

So are you saying everything that is in the media must be correct or credible or written with authority? I find most articles in the media full of $hit and don’t warrant any sort of response.

Does that also mean that any media article, defence or non defence related, MUST have a response from Government? Or should Governments actually get on with the job of running the Country and executing policy objectives?

Fortunately, I ignore most of the crap written in the media, I suspect I’m not alone in ignoring media crap.

 

[Massive]

So do we get an Astute with a US reactor.

While I have no expertise to build from this line alone is enough for me to heavily favour the Virginia Class option.

I feel that the less modification required to the existing design will result in the capability being delivered much more rapidly.

Regards,

Massive

 

[Stampede]

Seriously?

So every time there is a ‘media’ article, story or comment, the Government has to come out and make some sort of statement or comment confirming their support?

So are you saying everything that is in the media must be correct or credible or written with authority? I find most articles in the media full of $hit and don’t warrant any sort of response.

Does that also mean that any media article, defence or non defence related, MUST have a response from Government? Or should Governments actually get on with the job of running the Country and executing policy objectives?

Fortunately, I ignore most of the crap written in the media, I suspect I’m not alone in ignoring media crap.

We will both keep an eye on the progress of the nuclear submarine project.



Seriously S

 

[John Fedup]

While I have no expertise to build from this line alone is enough for me to heavily favour the Virginia Class option.

I feel that the less modification required to the existing design will result in the capability being delivered much more rapidly.

Regards,

Massive

Unless the American reactor can be reasonably be adapted to the Astute the preferred option seems to be Virginia block 4. One question I have is the 30% extra crewing requirement for the Virginia. The two boats are roughly similar in size with the Virginia being about 10% larger due to its 12 VL missile capacity. What duties are those extra crew actually doing. I realize damage control is extremely important for the USN so is this the main reason for the extra members?

 

[Redlands18]

Unless the American reactor can be reasonably be adapted to the Astute the preferred option seems to be Virginia block 4. One question I have is the 30% extra crewing requirement for the Virginia. The two boats are roughly similar in size with the Virginia being about 10% larger due to its 12 VL missile capacity. What duties are those extra crew actually doing. I realize damage control is extremely important for the USN so is this the main reason for the extra members?

The Trafalgar class had a crew of 130 so a good question would be is, how did the RN manage to reduce the crew by 25% in a 40% bigger Sub.

 

[Scott Elaurant]

Will be interesting to see how they do the Reactor, do they build the entire Hull section containing the Reactor and then ship it to Australia? Or do they just ship the complete Reactor to Australia to be fitted to the Hull section here? May come down to which Reactor and which Sub is selected. A US Reactor in an Astute may mean the latter but a US Reactor in a Virginia is possibly more likely to see the former.

Redlands
This is partly speculative on my part but I expect they would build the complete reactor module, including reactor, and transport that to ASC for welding to the rest of the hull. Being able to seal it up inside the hull section for that module would eliminate many risks during transport. I am assuming the SSNs built in ASC will use the same modular construction techniques used for both the Virginias by EB/HII and the Astutes by BAE. Because of the locatuon of various parts of the sprawling BAE yard in Barrow, they regularly have to move modules between build halls for final assembly. There are photos of modules weighing up to 800 tonnes, including internal machinery, being moved on low loaders. I expect the same could occur with the reactor module.
(Coincidentally the same heavy haul company, Sarens, has already done work in Adelaide moving concrete bridge components in major road projects. So virtually all the skillsets required for module transport and assembly are already here (in Adelaide).

Part of nuclear submarine is moved through streets of terraced houses

The massive piece of the nuclear submarine, weighing over 1,000 tonnes, is the heaviest to be moved to date by British technology and defence giant BAE Systems.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[Scott Elaurant]

A few more comments on reactors.

The UK PWR2 was based on the US S5W and the UK PWR3 was based at least in part on the US S9G. The S9G and PWR3 will both be in production for some years to come. The S9G will be needed in production for new Virginias till at least 2032.

The issues with the UK PWR2 have been well known for years now. If there were not some solution possible to make a “Batch 2“ Astute or similar with a PWR3 or S9G reactor I do not see why Navy would have included a UK option for the RAN SSN program. The UK does not contribute to the Virginia class. This is not to imply which of the Astute or Virginia Class have been selected,

 

[John Fedup]

The Trafalgar class had a crew of 130 so a good question would be is, how did the RN manage to reduce the crew by 25% in a 40% bigger Sub.

Los Angeles and Virginia SSNs have similar crew sizes despite the latter displacing an additional 2,000 tons so automation/better electronic kit accounts for some of the reduction but the RN and USN seem to have different philosophies wrt crewing requirements.

 

[Stampede]

An interesting article from ASPI in The Strategist.

Nuclear-powered submarines will change the identity of the RAN | The Strategist

Since the AUKUS announcement was made in September last year, a huge amount of ink has been spilled discussing the capabilities of nuclear-powered submarines, the merits of the potential designs, and the challenges of ensuring ...

www.aspistrategist.org.au

A lot of layers to consider with our future nuclear submarines.


Cheers S

 

[alexsa]

Unless the American reactor can be reasonably be adapted to the Astute the preferred option seems to be Virginia block 4. One question I have is the 30% extra crewing requirement for the Virginia. The two boats are roughly similar in size with the Virginia being about 10% larger due to its 12 VL missile capacity. What duties are those extra crew actually doing. I realize damage control is extremely important for the USN so is this the main reason for the extra members?

Based on publicly available information the buoyant volume of the Astute and Virginia are pretty close to the same. This reflects the fact the hull of the Astute 1.3m wider. VLS are a great capability but in the block VI it does mean the torpedo load out is less for torpedoes. Both can carry 38 weapons (some sources say 37 for the Virginia) but there is only space for 22 (or 21) in racks and tubes of the Virginia.

The Astute uses tubes for the Tomahawk missile (and or Harpoon) so there is any combination that may be desirable in the nominal capacity of 38.

The one think that needs to be decided pretty soon is ... which boat. Either way I think it will be the US reactor (just my view).

 

[Scott Elaurant]

An interesting piece today that the Royal Navy are upgrading their existing Astutes for the Tomahawk Block V standard, that includes long range land strike and naval strike capability. This is being done by BAE with Lockheed Martin already involved. It will presumably be fitted to the two remaining Astutes still under construction from the start.

Astute Class subs to receive strike capability upgrades

The Royal Navy’s fleet of submarines are set to be equipped with upgraded Tomahawk missiles as part of a new $461 million investment. The UK Ministry of Defence has entered into a contract with the

www.defenceconnect.com.au

While not making assumptions about which class the RAN will choose, if they did choose an Astute or "Batch 2 Astute" this would make life simpler in terms of incorporating Australia's preferred US combat system and weapons into an RAN Astute. This part of the work would already be done, trialled and any bugs ironed out on the RN Astutes, and the RAN Astutes could have the same Tomahawk mods fitted as will go onto the AWDs.

 

[John Newman]

An interesting piece today that the Royal Navy are upgrading their existing Astutes for the Tomahawk Block V standard, that includes long range land strike and naval strike capability. This is being done by BAE with Lockheed Martin already involved. It will presumably be fitted to the two remaining Astutes still under construction from the start.

Astute Class subs to receive strike capability upgrades

The Royal Navy’s fleet of submarines are set to be equipped with upgraded Tomahawk missiles as part of a new $461 million investment. The UK Ministry of Defence has entered into a contract with the

www.defenceconnect.com.au

While not making assumptions about which class the RAN will choose, if they did choose an Astute or "Batch 2 Astute" this would make life simpler in terms of incorporating Australia's preferred US combat system and weapons into an RAN Astute. This part of the work would already be done, trialled and any bugs ironed out on the RN Astutes, and the RAN Astutes could have the same Tomahawk mods fitted as will go onto the AWDs.

The announcement of a decision on which design is chosen for the RANs future SSNs is less than 12 months away.

I don’t know, or believe, the RN will have trialled or ironed out the ‘bugs’ prior to that decision.

Sorry, but I don’t think that is relevant, one way or the other.

I’m not saying that Astute won’t be chosen over a Virginia (or not), but I don’t think what is ‘currently’ or isn’t, integrated makes much of a difference.

I would image there is a check list a mile long, all the plus and minus points of each design.

We can all speculate until the cows come home, we can all speculate on the pros and cons (be armchair admirals), but that doesn’t mean jack $hit.

This thread would be much better if we all took a very very long breath and waited for an official announcement.

Endless speculation is just pure fantasy,

 

[ngatimozart]

The announcement of a decision on which design is chosen for the RANs future SSNs is less than 12 months away.

I don’t know, or believe, the RN will have trialled or ironed out the ‘bugs’ prior to that decision.

Sorry, but I don’t think that is relevant, one way or the other.

I’m not saying that Astute won’t be chosen over a Virginia (or not), but I don’t think what is ‘currently’ or isn’t, integrated makes much of a difference.

I would image there is a check list a mile long, all the plus and minus points of each design.

We can all speculate until the cows come home, we can all speculate on the pros and cons (be armchair admirals), but that doesn’t mean jack $hit.

This thread would be much better if we all took a very very long breath and waited for an official announcement.

Endless speculation is just pure fantasy,

I agree it's time to stop all the endless speculation. We all know that the RAN SSN is going to be based on a drop bear design.

 

[Morgo]

An interesting piece today that the Royal Navy are upgrading their existing Astutes for the Tomahawk Block V standard, that includes long range land strike and naval strike capability. This is being done by BAE with Lockheed Martin already involved. It will presumably be fitted to the two remaining Astutes still under construction from the start.

Astute Class subs to receive strike capability upgrades

The Royal Navy’s fleet of submarines are set to be equipped with upgraded Tomahawk missiles as part of a new $461 million investment. The UK Ministry of Defence has entered into a contract with the

www.defenceconnect.com.au

While not making assumptions about which class the RAN will choose, if they did choose an Astute or "Batch 2 Astute" this would make life simpler in terms of incorporating Australia's preferred US combat system and weapons into an RAN Astute. This part of the work would already be done, trialled and any bugs ironed out on the RN Astutes, and the RAN Astutes could have the same Tomahawk mods fitted as will go onto the AWDs.

This is probably me being dumb, but can someone explain to me why we would go for the Astutes over the Virginias?

No doubt there are classified capabilities for each, but summarising from the thread the two seem broadly comparable except Virginias have VLS, the Astutes have a smaller crew.

In terms of ease of construction, I think the main differences are that the Astutes may have tooling available soon, but with the Virginias we would be joining an ongoing build program and wouldn’t have to try to shoehorn a reactor into a hull it wasn’t designed for (which seems like a recipe for a disaster given we’ve never built a nuclear reactor or fitted one to a submarine before).

In terms of sustainment and opportunities for Australian industry to join a larger supply chain, one would be adding to a class of 7, the other a class of 66.

This seems like a slam dunk for the Virginias? What am I missing?