Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[Going Boeing]

It would be reasonable to expect that the SSNR, if it is the basis for the RAN SSNs, would not be started before the last of the Dreadnought class SSBNs for the RN has been launched. This is based on Barrow being the only location for the construction of nuclear submarines in the UK. Construction of the Dreadnought commenced in 2016 with King George VI likely to be commenced in 2025 (based on the start dates of the 3 previous SSBNs). So the SSNR construction may not be commenced before 2033 if the design has been finalised (perhaps the suggested design based on the SSBN without the missile section but a VPM section). So the first RAN SSN would not be launched before perhaps 2039 (based on Astute construction times)
All of this is based on the construction commencing in the UK at Barrow. If the Australian government insists on domestic construction (less the reactor section) then it might commence earlier but with an increased level of risk (IMHO). The use of US CMS and weapons will also complicate the redesign and add extra time to the build process be it in the UK or Australia.

If the design of a trilateral SSNR is fast tracked (based on the Dreadnought design) and is in an advanced design stage before any construction capacity is available at Barrow, would there be any reason why the first SSNR can’t commence construction at Osborne? Obviously, this would mean all the teething problems experienced with the “first of class” would be borne by ASC/RAN but, it should result in an earlier introduction compared to waiting for Barrow to start.

 

[Morgo]

I, like you, do not think this will be the outcome.

What it will do though, is re-baseline the debate.

I think this is very important. At the moment it is all things to all people, with not enough of anything (RAAF potentially excluded).

If the outcome is more of the same penny packet procurement of capability, then I will feel let down. Any other outcome and I will feel that the debate has moved forward.

8 SSNs is transformative. Anything else is cream.

That said, I am braced for disappointment.

Regards,

Massive

The Dreadnought is evolved from the Astute, the SSN(R) is to be evolved from the Dreadnought.

The Dreadnought has a 12 tube version of the common missile compartment developed for the Columbia and Dreadnought.

The USN Ohio class SSBNs were converted to SSGNs in such a way that they satisfied arms reduction treaty verification. It can be assumed that similar could be achieved with the common missile compartment on the Columbia/Dreadnought.

The common missile compartment is modular, therefore a shorted four, six, or eight missile configuration should be possible.

This is perhaps a stupid question, but is there any reason we couldn’t build a Dreadnaught and operate it as an SSGN?

The pros and cons in my very inexpert view:

- Littoral operations / special operations support / minelaying/hiding in choke points - SSN wins (by miles)
- blue water performance - tie?
- build risk/design maturity - SSGN wins (if Osborne can cope with the size)
- range - tie
- endurance - SSGN
- transit speed - tie?
- crew - tie?
- cost - SSN wins
- crew amenities - SSGN wins
- growth margin - SSGN wins
- payload - SSGN wins
- less alarming to the neighbours - SSN wins
- passive sonar detectability - tie?
- active sonar detectability - SSN wins.

Would there be merit in something with a huge payload (like enough to probably delete an artificial island or a Chinese carrier group) hiding in the deep of the Pacific or Indian Oceans? Or is this a really dumb idea?

 

[ngatimozart]

This is perhaps a stupid question, but is there any reason we couldn’t build a Dreadnaught and operate it as an SSGN?

Not a stupid question at all.

The pros and cons in my very inexpert view:

- Littoral operations / special operations support / minelaying/hiding in choke points - SSN wins (by miles)
- blue water performance - tie?
- build risk/design maturity - SSGN wins (if Osborne can cope with the size)
- range - tie
- endurance - SSGN
- transit speed - tie?
- crew - tie?
- cost - SSN wins
- crew amenities - SSGN wins
- growth margin - SSGN wins
- payload - SSGN wins
- less alarming to the neighbours - SSN wins
- passive sonar detectability - tie?
- active sonar detectability - SSN wins.

Would there be merit in something with a huge payload (like enough to probably delete an artificial island or a Chinese carrier group) hiding in the deep of the Pacific or Indian Oceans? Or is this a really dumb idea?

Maybe this will help people. It is from the US Defence Authorisation Act for Fiscal Year 2023.

H. R. 7776—472 SEC. 1276. ASSESSMENT OF CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PARTNERSHIP AMONG AUSTRALIA, THE UNITED KINGDOM, AND THE UNITED STATES.​

​

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Defense shall seek to enter into an agreement with a federally funded research and development center for the conduct of an independent assessment of resourcing, policy, and process challenges to implementing the partnership among Australia, the United Kingdom, and United States (commonly known as the ‘‘AUKUS partnership’’) announced on September 21, 2021.​

​

(b) MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED.—In conducting the assessment required by subsection (a), the federally funded research and development center shall consider the following with respect to each of Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States:​

(1) Potential resourcing and personnel shortfalls.​

(2) Information sharing, including foreign disclosure policy and processes.​

(3) Statutory, regulatory, and other policies and processes.​

(4) Intellectual property, including patents.​

(5) Export controls, including technology transfer and protection.​

(6) Security protocols and practices, including personnel, operational, physical, facility, cybersecurity, counterintelligence, marking and classifying information, and handling and transmission of classified material.​

(7) Industrial base implications specifically including options to expand the United States submarine and nuclear power industrial base to meet United States and Australia requirements.​

(8) Alternatives that would significantly accelerate Australia’s national security, including—​

(A) interim submarine options to include leasing or conveyance of legacy United States submarines for Australia’s use; or​

(B) the conveyance of B-21 bombers.​

(9) Any other matter the Secretary considers appropriate.​

​

(c) RECOMMENDATIONS.—The federally funded research and development center selected to conduct the assessment under this section shall include, as part of such assessment, recommendations for improvements to resourcing, policy, and process challenges to implementing the AUKUS partnership.​

​

(d) REPORT.—​

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than January 1, 2024, the Secretary shall submit to the congressional defense committees, the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives a report that includes an unaltered copy of such assessment, together with the views of the Secretary on the assessment and on the recommendations included in the assessment pursuant to subsection (c).​

(2) FORM OF REPORT.—The report required by paragraph (1) shall be submitted in unclassified form but may contain a classified annex.​

​

Source: https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/hr7776/BILLS-117hr7776enr.pdf p 472.​

​

Subsection (b - 8) I think is important for the interim.

(8) Alternatives that would significantly accelerate Australia’s national security, including—​

(A) interim submarine options to include leasing or conveyance of legacy United States submarines for Australia’s use; or​

(B) the conveyance of B-21 bombers.​

​

If one was to look at Subsection (b - 8 - A), it is possible that a new design may be the option taken; a tri-navy SSN(X). That would be a first for both the US and UK. Is it likely? I don't know but it is just one possibility. The next point is the idea being floated by this document that the RAN may be given the option of "... leasing or conveyance [buying] of legacy United States submarines for Australia’s use." We have pooh poohed this option in the past, but now it has been officially raised. Legacy US subs would have to mean Los Angeles Class SSNs, because AFAIK the USN doesn't have any legacy Virginia Class SSNs. We really won't know anything until the decision is announced in the next 6 - 8 weeks. There will be more detail about the USN legacy SSN option when the report required by Subsection (d) is released.

In reply to @Morgo question about whether or not it is feasible to convert a Virginia Class SSN design to a SSGN, I think at this point in time that is rather moot because we won't much more until:

• The March 2023 announcement is made, and
• The report required by the Act is released. Note that the report has to be submitted to Congress by 1/1/2024.

That's my take on it.

 

[OldTex]

In reply to @Morgo question about whether or not it is feasible to convert a Virginia Class SSN design to a SSGN

I think you will find the suggestion was for the conversion of a Dreadnought class sub to SSGN.

but is there any reason we couldn’t build a Dreadnaught and operate it as an SSGN?

The Virginia class effectively become SSGNs with the Block V VPM (although the Block I-IV already have the ability to launch BGM-109 Tomahawks from their VLS tubes)

 

[Redlands18]

I think you will find the suggestion was for the conversion of a Dreadnought class sub to SSGN.

The Virginia class effectively become SSGNs with the Block V VPM (although the Block I-IV already have the ability to launch BGM-109 Tomahawks from their VLS tubes)

HMAS Collins | Royal Australian Navy
Actually, in RAN service all it takes to make it a SSG or SSGN is the ability to fire the Harpoon Missile as the Collins class are rated as SSGs, even before the potential upgrade to fire Tomahawks that is in the works.

 

[Stampede]

This is perhaps a stupid question, but is there any reason we couldn’t build a Dreadnaught and operate it as an SSGN?

The pros and cons in my very inexpert view:

- Littoral operations / special operations support / minelaying/hiding in choke points - SSN wins (by miles)
- blue water performance - tie?
- build risk/design maturity - SSGN wins (if Osborne can cope with the size)
- range - tie
- endurance - SSGN
- transit speed - tie?
- crew - tie?
- cost - SSN wins
- crew amenities - SSGN wins
- growth margin - SSGN wins
- payload - SSGN wins
- less alarming to the neighbours - SSN wins
- passive sonar detectability - tie?
- active sonar detectability - SSN wins.

Would there be merit in something with a huge payload (like enough to probably delete an artificial island or a Chinese carrier group) hiding in the deep of the Pacific or Indian Oceans? Or is this a really dumb idea?

The Dreadnought is an absolute monster in size.
If reduced in length it will still be a big beast.
I'm not sure what is on the the table for next months announcement but I'm guessing a UK / USA "Astute 2".

Cheers S

 

[Aussie optimist]

All this talk of converting dreadnought to a SSGN I think is crazy, considering the size of the beast. Based on quick search there are estimates of 17,200 tonnes. Way too much boat for a hunter killer sub.

 

[Redlands18]

The Dreadnought is an absolute monster in size.
If reduced in length it will still be a big beast.
I'm not sure what is on the the table for next months announcement but I'm guessing a UK / USA "Astute 2".

Cheers S

The future of Royal Navy attack submarines | Navy Lookout
What makes the Dreadnought class so much bigger is the length, Astute is 97m long the Dreadnoughts will be 153m, but Beam and Draught is 11.3/10m v 12.8/12m, the length distance of the dreadnoughts is in the SLBM module which would not be fitted to the SSN(R) reducing length by about 35-40m and halving displacement.

 

[OldTex]

All this talk of converting dreadnought to a SSGN I think is crazy, considering the size of the beast. Based on quick search there are estimates of 17,200 tonnes. Way too much boat for a hunter killer sub.

There have been estimates that the Virginia Block V will have a displacement of 10,000 tonnes due to the VPM. But the USN will double hat it as a SSN hunter-killer and a SSGN.

 

[swerve]

The future of Royal Navy attack submarines | Navy Lookout
What makes the Dreadnought class so much bigger is the length, Astute is 97m long the Dreadnoughts will be 153m, but Beam and Draught is 11.3/10m v 12.8/12m, the length distance of the dreadnoughts is in the SLBM module which would not be fitted to the SSN(R) reducing length by about 35-40m and halving displacement.

A 23-26% reduction in length (but not beam) reduces displacement by 50%? Seems a bit too much.

 

[Reptilia]

Not a stupid question at all.

Maybe this will help people. It is from the US Defence Authorisation Act for Fiscal Year 2023.

H. R. 7776—472 SEC. 1276. ASSESSMENT OF CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PARTNERSHIP AMONG AUSTRALIA, THE UNITED KINGDOM, AND THE UNITED STATES.​

​

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Defense shall seek to enter into an agreement with a federally funded research and development center for the conduct of an independent assessment of resourcing, policy, and process challenges to implementing the partnership among Australia, the United Kingdom, and United States (commonly known as the ‘‘AUKUS partnership’’) announced on September 21, 2021.​

​

(b) MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED.—In conducting the assessment required by subsection (a), the federally funded research and development center shall consider the following with respect to each of Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States:​

(1) Potential resourcing and personnel shortfalls.​

(2) Information sharing, including foreign disclosure policy and processes.​

(3) Statutory, regulatory, and other policies and processes.​

(4) Intellectual property, including patents.​

(5) Export controls, including technology transfer and protection.​

(6) Security protocols and practices, including personnel, operational, physical, facility, cybersecurity, counterintelligence, marking and classifying information, and handling and transmission of classified material.​

(7) Industrial base implications specifically including options to expand the United States submarine and nuclear power industrial base to meet United States and Australia requirements.​

(8) Alternatives that would significantly accelerate Australia’s national security, including—​

(A) interim submarine options to include leasing or conveyance of legacy United States submarines for Australia’s use; or​

(B) the conveyance of B-21 bombers.​

(9) Any other matter the Secretary considers appropriate.​

​

(c) RECOMMENDATIONS.—The federally funded research and development center selected to conduct the assessment under this section shall include, as part of such assessment, recommendations for improvements to resourcing, policy, and process challenges to implementing the AUKUS partnership.​

​

(d) REPORT.—​

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than January 1, 2024, the Secretary shall submit to the congressional defense committees, the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives a report that includes an unaltered copy of such assessment, together with the views of the Secretary on the assessment and on the recommendations included in the assessment pursuant to subsection (c).​

(2) FORM OF REPORT.—The report required by paragraph (1) shall be submitted in unclassified form but may contain a classified annex.​

​

Source: https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/hr7776/BILLS-117hr7776enr.pdf p 472.​

​

Subsection (b - 8) I think is important for the interim.

(8) Alternatives that would significantly accelerate Australia’s national security, including—​

(A) interim submarine options to include leasing or conveyance of legacy United States submarines for Australia’s use; or​

(B) the conveyance of B-21 bombers.​

​

If one was to look at Subsection (b - 8 - A), it is possible that a new design may be the option taken; a tri-navy SSN(X). That would be a first for both the US and UK. Is it likely? I don't know but it is just one possibility. The next point is the idea being floated by this document that the RAN may be given the option of "... leasing or conveyance [buying] of legacy United States submarines for Australia’s use." We have pooh poohed this option in the past, but now it has been officially raised. Legacy US subs would have to mean Los Angeles Class SSNs, because AFAIK the USN doesn't have any legacy Virginia Class SSNs. We really won't know anything until the decision is announced in the next 6 - 8 weeks. There will be more detail about the USN legacy SSN option when the report required by Subsection (d) is released.

In reply to @Morgo question about whether or not it is feasible to convert a Virginia Class SSN design to a SSGN, I think at this point in time that is rather moot because we won't much more until:

• The March 2023 announcement is made, and
• The report required by the Act is released. Note that the report has to be submitted to Congress by 1/1/2024.

That's my take on it.

So potentially..
Collins LOTE (2026-27, 28-29, 30-31, 33-34, 35-36, 37-38)
Refuelled LA class 688I lease or purchase (assuming 3-4, 800+ new submariners) or B21 bomber (assuming 2026-2029 for first sub, possibly 1 every 2-3 years)
SSNR/SSNX combination best of build (begin early 2030s > entry early 2040s > 2060 all 8)?

 

[Redlands18]

So potentially..
Collins LOTE (2026-27, 28-29, 30-31, 33-34, 35-36, 37-38)
Refuelled LA class 688I lease or purchase (assuming 3-4, 800+ new submariners) or B21 bomber (assuming 2026-2029 for first sub, possibly 1 every 2-3 years)
SSNR/SSNX combination best of build (begin early 2030s > entry early 2040s > 2060 all 8)?

List of Los Angeles-class submarines - Wikipedia
Maybe leasing a couple of LAs as Trg Subs only early on to learn the basics of operating and maintaining a SSN but not as a genuine operational capability and we would be an orphan operator of the type by the mid 30s. Actually the time to buy used LAs was 20 years ago the US had a fair few decommissioned with only 16-20 years on them.

 

[seaspear]

Its an old article in comparisons of nuclear versus conventional submarines ,but seems to suggest that older nuclear submarines are not as stealthy as conventional submarines, a conventional powered submarine may have difficulty placing itself close to the sea bottom in shallow waters compared to a conventional class because of water intakes for cooling may be affected by foreign matter and the heat from a nuclear submarine may be detectable in some circumstances , I'm not suggesting this is the case for modern nuclear submarines ,but would suggest caution that any older nuclear submarine may not be stealthier than a Collins class
Why are diesel-electric submarines quieter than nuclear submarines? Are they quieter in both diesel and electric mode, or just electric? - Naval Post- Naval News and Information
This is an old article that has some of the points I referenced
Nuclear versus diesel-electric: the case for conventional submarines for the RAN | The Strategist (aspistrategist.org.au)
I'm not against leasing of some of the upgraded Los Angeles submarines if possible as a training tool for Australian submariners as it would still have some potency and would hold their own with many regional submarines in operation
Australia urged to lease US nuclear submarines to bridge capability gap - ABC News
Los Angeles Class Fast Attack Submarine | Military.com

 

[FoxtrotRomeo999]

I am assuming that a future submarine will have associated remote underwater assets. Accordingly, i would go with a large design rather than a baby dreadnaught, to accomodate likely future stuff. Mirroring the surface ship rule of thumb that steel is cheap.

 

[FoxtrotRomeo999]

duplicate ... deleted

 

[Redlands18]

I am assuming that a future submarine will have associated remote underwater assets. Accordingly, i would go with a large design rather than a baby dreadnaught, to accomodate likely future stuff. Mirroring the surface ship rule of thumb that steel is cheap.

Not sure you can use, Steal is cheap Air is free when talking Submarines.

 

[protoplasm]

Not sure you can use, Steal is cheap Air is free when talking Submarines.

Submerged Steel isn't cheap, and the air in the submerged volume isn't free! There are significant cost implications the larger the volume that you need to submerge and then bring back to the surface, just ask the Spanish!

 

[Morgo]

I am assuming that a future submarine will have associated remote underwater assets. Accordingly, i would go with a large design rather than a baby dreadnaught, to accomodate likely future stuff. Mirroring the surface ship rule of thumb that steel is cheap.

I also think that a “baby” Dreadnaught won’t be lacking for displacement given the parent design is 17,000t!

 

[seaspear]

This article provides some information on the manufacture of submarines particularly the steel
New materials and technologies for Submarines Hulls to enhance their warfigiting capabilities including range, endurance and stealth – International Defense Security & Technology (idstch.com)
This is from an earlier article about Bisaloy and BlueScope being selected to make the specialised steel for the submarines using the attack class
I can recall the sections of hull for the Collins class undergoing very dynamic stress tests (some had not survived) it will be interesting to see what type of steel in considered for a possible AUKUS submarine
Australian steel for future submarines - Australian Defence Magazine

 

[Volkodav]

For a submarine the simplest design factors are the internal diameter of the hull, the longitudinal and hoop stress derived from the required dive depth / specified crush depth, from which the hull plate thickness and stiffening requirements are derived.

For the SSNs, the hull radius/diameter, is set by the size of the largest single system, usually the reactor. The reactor design is why the Astutes have a larger beam then the preceding Trafalgars.

Diving depth, hence the design crush depth, is set by operational requirements.

This means the only variables are hull material and hence, required thickness.

Basically the rest of the boat is designed around the diameter set by the reactor, which, together with crush depth, drives the required hull thickness. Any increase in volume is accommodated by increasing length.