Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[Scott Elaurant]

On the various AUKUS options being considered, I am growing concerned by suggestions that Australia will be building a new design (SSNR?) with VLS tubes and other additions, due to the likely time delay and increased costs. This then leads to risk of loss of capability for the RAN. Hopefully the pathway to be announced will avoid this.

I was recently pleased to see Alexsa's suggestion that we could build a "minimum change Astute" with S9G reactor as that would have been a lower risk option IMO. SSNR will no doubt be well designed and very capable. Nevertheless for the RAN to adopt SSNR means we are effectively skipping a generation of SSN development and joining a program which is not yet designed or costs known. This is still preferable to joining the US SSN program (Virginia or SSNX) since they are facing even greater delays with less spare capacity in shipyards.

I also think we need to be cautious about "SSGN conversion options" for other classes like Dreadnought. These greatly understate the complexity in building such a modified vessel. The current example, the Virginia Block V, was five years in design (2012 to 2017) before the first boat was laid down. Submarines have complex hydrodynamic design requirements for trim and stability. Any change involving weight distribution can lead to a substantial redesign of ballast tanks and internal layout.

From a purely engineering viewpoint, the crunch question remains who can supply ASC with nuclear reactors and reactor cores. We can't build those. Availability of reactors will determine ASC construction start time.

If construction start is not till 2030, IMO Australia made a bad mistake not at least asking if France would have agreed to switching to Suffren SSNs instead of Attack Class. The refueling and maintenance requirements are less than Virginias and Astutes, not greater. Refueling is more frequent, but quicker and easier. I wrote an article on this in LinkedIn, based on my estimate of the time and cost to construct different options. Assuming Areva Technicatom could have supplied reactors, I concluded that AUKUS had resulted in a delay in ASC sub construction work of 4 to 7 years, depending on option chosen.

AUKUS Submarines: Options update

Australia has committed to building nuclear submarines (SSNs) at ASC Adelaide. I leave the debates over their military merits to others.

www.linkedin.com

I realise it is too late to go back to France now given the statements made by the new Defense Minister, and sticking with the UK has human advantages in terms of training and similarity of systems. So I am not suggesting we change back now. I am pointing out the consequences of the decisions already made. I'll keep my fingers crossed waiting for the announcement.

 

[seaspear]

Perhaps the billion dollar question that will never be answered was why the Suffren class was not considered or if it was why not? there are likely people qualified and cleared to know this who will keep quiet.

 

[Redlands18]

On the various AUKUS options being considered, I am growing concerned by suggestions that Australia will be building a new design (SSNR?) with VLS tubes and other additions, due to the likely time delay and increased costs. This then leads to risk of loss of capability for the RAN. Hopefully the pathway to be announced will avoid this.

I was recently pleased to see Alexsa's suggestion that we could build a "minimum change Astute" with S9G reactor as that would have been a lower risk option IMO. SSNR will no doubt be well designed and very capable. Nevertheless for the RAN to adopt SSNR means we are effectively skipping a generation of SSN development and joining a program which is not yet designed or costs known. This is still preferable to joining the US SSN program (Virginia or SSNX) since they are facing even greater delays with less spare capacity in shipyards.

I also think we need to be cautious about "SSGN conversion options" for other classes like Dreadnought. These greatly understate the complexity in building such a modified vessel. The current example, the Virginia Block V, was five years in design (2012 to 2017) before the first boat was laid down. Submarines have complex hydrodynamic design requirements for trim and stability. Any change involving weight distribution can lead to a substantial redesign of ballast tanks and internal layout.

From a purely engineering viewpoint, the crunch question remains who can supply ASC with nuclear reactors and reactor cores. We can't build those. Availability of reactors will determine ASC construction start time.

If construction start is not till 2030, IMO Australia made a bad mistake not at least asking if France would have agreed to switching to Suffren SSNs instead of Attack Class. The refueling and maintenance requirements are less than Virginias and Astutes, not greater. Refueling is more frequent, but quicker and easier. I wrote an article on this in LinkedIn, based on my estimate of the time and cost to construct different options. Assuming Areva Technicatom could have supplied reactors, I concluded that AUKUS had resulted in a delay in ASC sub construction work of 4 to 7 years, depending on option chosen.

AUKUS Submarines: Options update

Australia has committed to building nuclear submarines (SSNs) at ASC Adelaide. I leave the debates over their military merits to others.

www.linkedin.com

I realise it is too late to go back to France now given the statements made by the new Defense Minister, and sticking with the UK has human advantages in terms of training and similarity of systems. So I am not suggesting we change back now. I am pointing out the consequences of the decisions already made. I'll keep my fingers crossed waiting for the announcement.

There is no re-fuelling requirement at all with either the S9G nor the PWR 3 reactors, they have a life expectancy of 33 years, this was given as the reason for the switch to SSNs in the first place. French reactors will require re-fuelling and that is one of the reasons given for not going with the Suffren. Some political differences between the US and France another.

 

[alexsa]

Perhaps the billion dollar question that will never be answered was why the Suffren class was not considered or if it was why not? there are likely people qualified and cleared to know this who will keep quiet.

Having to handle spent radioactive waste is not a simple option in regards to non-proliferation issues. Australia could do it but the rods would have to be exported for reprocessing and then the waste stored in Australia. We do this for OPAL reactor and did it for the HIFAR reactor but 8 to 12 SSNs are another order of magnitude.

The US appear to have this organised but the UK are still addressing decommissioned submarines. My understanding is (and I am happy to be corrected) that AUKUS addresses the the reactor as a closed unit and Australia do not get involved in defuelling it and then dealing with it.

There are also the supply line issues. Given the reported issues on the progress of the Attack class design and the difficult relationship with the Naval group relying on a French Authority to assist in refuelling your submarine every 10 years may be problematic if therewere disagreements into the future.

AUKUS appears to provide certainty of supply and support.

 

[Going Boeing]

My personal view is that whatever SSN design is chosen, it must have vertical launch capability of the size of the Virginia Payload Tubes (~87” diameter) as we have to look as far as possible into the future to make them competitive at the end of their service life ie, in 55-75 years time. VPT’s will be able to launch future hypersonic weapons an well as UUV’s to take on a number of missions.

If the decision was to build hybrid Astute’s, the RAN would have a capable submarine for the current threat but not suitable for future threats because of the lack of vertical launch tubes. The volume of design work to fit the S9G reactor and related systems, as well as integrating the US combat/fire control system & possible redesign the torpedo stowage/handling system would be substantial and may not be completed much earlier than the SSNR design - especially if the SSNR is essentially a cut down Dreadnought which is at an advanced design stage.

The Common Missile Compartment for the Columbia & Dreadnought classes are assembled in blocks of 4 tubes so, if the SSNR design is based on the Dreadnought, one CMC of 4 tubes can be retained and used for weapons, UUV’s etc as in the Block 5 Virginia’s, thus having a design with a lot of capability which can be updated throughout its service life. Yes, there would be a lot of weight & balance issues as well as system changes but it may not take much longer than designing a hybrid Astute class.

It’s not inconceivable that a couple of improved LA class submarines are leased to buy time for the SSNR design to be completed - we’ll know in a few weeks.

 

[Volkodav]

Perhaps the billion dollar question that will never be answered was why the Suffren class was not considered or if it was why not? there are likely people qualified and cleared to know this who will keep quiet.

Quite literally, before you need to consider even one other thing, the reactors need refueling during their service lives.

Refueling places a maintenance, operational, and sustainability overhead that would make it a much bigger headache than the Attack program had already become.

The US and UK are already training Australians at their facilities and on their submarines, this would be much more difficult with the French. Different language, different culture, no where near the relationship and common heritage, shared with the US and USN, or the UK and RN.

 

[Hoffy]

According to Naval News, the SSN(R) will have VLS capability;

Britain's New Attack Submarine To Be First With VLS - Naval News

Not sure where they get their information from.

Article written by H I Sutton BTW, published a couple of weeks ago.

 

[aussienscale]

Having to handle spent radioactive waste is not a simple option in regards to non-proliferation issues. Australia could do it but the rods would have to be exported for reprocessing and then the waste stored in Australia. We do this for OPAL reactor and did it for the HIFAR reactor but 8 to 12 SSNs are another order of magnitude.

The US appear to have this organised but the UK are still addressing decommissioned submarines. My understanding is (and I am happy to be corrected) that AUKUS addresses the the reactor as a closed unit and Australia do not get involved in defuelling it and then dealing with it.

There are also the supply line issues. Given the reported issues on the progress of the Attack class design and the difficult relationship with the Naval group relying on a French Authority to assist in refuelling your submarine every 10 years may be problematic if therewere disagreements into the future.

AUKUS appears to provide certainty of supply and support.

And there are specific OPSEC "concerns" with some/lots of the gear we would be using as well, those concerns are enough to deny us access and ITARS & DSCA approvals. Those issues not only affect the submarines, but a lot of gear and kit we already have.

Cheers

 

[Scott Elaurant]

And there are specific OPSEC "concerns" with some/lots of the gear we would be using as well, those concerns are enough to deny us access and ITARS & DSCA approvals. Those issues not only affect the submarines, but a lot of gear and kit we already have.

Cheers

That is an understandable concern. However it raises the obvious question - if that was the case, why did we pick the French diesel sub in the first place? Wouldn’t it have faced the same problems?

The only reported fact that changed in going from SSK to SSNs was the need for range. An SSN is logical for that reason but that does not explain the need for VLS (not originally in Sea 1000) and all these OPSEC “concerns”. The French had offered to develop VLS as an option in their “Ocean” SSK design.

 

[Volkodav]

That is an understandable concern. However it raises the obvious question - if that was the case, why did we pick the French diesel sub in the first place? Wouldn’t it have faced the same problems?

The only reported fact that changed in going from SSK to SSNs was the need for range. An SSN is logical for that reason but that does not explain the need for VLS (not originally in Sea 1000) and all these OPSEC “concerns”. The French had offered to develop VLS as an option in their “Ocean” SSK design.

Its probably more a case of VLS being required for hypersonic missiles, something that was not on the cards when SEA1000 kicked off. It is also a more efficient way to carry Tomahawk as it doesn't impact the number of torpedoes, and mines that can be carried in the weapons stowage compartment.

Going forward there will be UUV options that could be launched and recovered from large diameter tubes such as the Virginia Payload Modules or the common missile compartment of the new boomers.

 

[aussienscale]

That is an understandable concern. However it raises the obvious question - if that was the case, why did we pick the French diesel sub in the first place? Wouldn’t it have faced the same problems?

The only reported fact that changed in going from SSK to SSNs was the need for range. An SSN is logical for that reason but that does not explain the need for VLS (not originally in Sea 1000) and all these OPSEC “concerns”. The French had offered to develop VLS as an option in their “Ocean” SSK design.

The security issues and concerns were ongoing even with the Attack class, add in the fact the French would have to do refuelling and have pretty much open access with such work being carried out in France, it would be a step too far.

I agree, the Attack Class potentially offered the quickest path to an RAN SSN, in practice the change to the decision for nuclear always killed that path. The haste of the announcement preceded the plan, hence where we are today, but also the look into the window of what was happening to the Attack was an eye opener. The beauty of the intention of the Attack programme was that is would end up being a sovereign capability and that would cut out ties with France.
History has shown, as has happened to us, they have a habit of cutting support and supply when it does not suit their political and internal national views, if we went nuclear with them we would be beholden to them for the life of the submarine !!

Whilst the AUKUS deal won't deliver full sovereign capability, it does tie us into longstanding alliances with mutual benefits all round.

Cheers

 

[ngatimozart]

According to Naval News, the SSN(R) will have VLS capability;

Britain's New Attack Submarine To Be First With VLS - Naval News

Not sure where they get their information from.

Article written by H I Sutton BTW, published a couple of weeks ago.

Since the article has been written by H I Sutton you can presume that it's fairly accurate. He's a recognised international authority on submarines and would be one of the top civilian experts on submarines.

 

[Scott Elaurant]

The security issues and concerns were ongoing even with the Attack class, add in the fact the French would have to do refuelling and have pretty much open access with such work being carried out in France, it would be a step too far.

I agree, the Attack Class potentially offered the quickest path to an RAN SSN, in practice the change to the decision for nuclear always killed that path. The haste of the announcement preceded the plan, hence where we are today, but also the look into the window of what was happening to the Attack was an eye opener. The beauty of the intention of the Attack programme was that is would end up being a sovereign capability and that would cut out ties with France.
History has shown, as has happened to us, they have a habit of cutting support and supply when it does not suit their political and internal national views, if we went nuclear with them we would be beholden to them for the life of the submarine !!

Whilst the AUKUS deal won't deliver full sovereign capability, it does tie us into longstanding alliances with mutual benefits all round.

Cheers

The cutting support would be a major issue, though on a 20-30 year timescale it would raise potential issues with many suppliers.

Speaking of which I meant to ask another question in light of the German law that limited the ability of EU countries to send Leopard II tanks to Ukraine. The obvious question is - does this cloud the reliability of using Germany as a Defense supplier e.g. for SSKs? Germany exports a lot of cars to China (now their biggest luxury car market) and has been very reluctant to take sides in Asian territorial disputes. Does anyone know if the same law affects their export subs like Type 216? I could see that impacting on their attractiveness to Asian countries.

 

[John Fedup]

The cutting support would be a major issue, though on a 20-30 year timescale it would raise potential issues with many suppliers.

Speaking of which I meant to ask another question in light of the German law that limited the ability of EU countries to send Leopard II tanks to Ukraine. The obvious question is - does this cloud the reliability of using Germany as a Defense supplier e.g. for SSKs? Germany exports a lot of cars to China (now their biggest luxury car market) and has been very reluctant to take sides in Asian territorial disputes. Does anyone know if the same law affects their export subs like Type 216? I could see that impacting on their attractiveness to Asian countries.

I am sure some Asian countries might have concerns about the reliability of Germans wrt supply but are any of the other possible suppliers much better, France or Sweden? The SSK market is a huge opportunity for Japan except for the reluctance by the Japanese to export military kit and for Asian countries to buy from them (WW2 memories). Geopolitical considerations might very well change this.

 

[ADMk2]

Its probably more a case of VLS being required for hypersonic missiles, something that was not on the cards when SEA1000 kicked off. It is also a more efficient way to carry Tomahawk as it doesn't impact the number of torpedoes, and mines that can be carried in the weapons stowage compartment.

Going forward there will be UUV options that could be launched and recovered from large diameter tubes such as the Virginia Payload Modules or the common missile compartment of the new boomers.

Quick note, it does mean you have to carry 2 different configurations of Tomahawk in your arsenal however. Tactical Tube-launched and vertical launched are differently configured, I was reading yesterday…

 

[FormerDirtDart]

Quick note, it does mean you have to carry 2 different configurations of Tomahawk in your arsenal however. Tactical Tube-launched and vertical launched are differently configured, I was reading yesterday…

I was probably reading the same article the other day. And a the expense of being the only country fielding tube-launched Tomahawks as the US retires it's Los Angeles boats. Now, it's not a pressing issue for the UK as the US still has 26 LA boats active (18 with no decom. date yet, 8 with dates thru 2027) plus the 3 Seawolf subs. But the future adoption of a sub without VLS means you might wind up being the lone navy covering the cost for continued production/upgrade of tube-launched Tom's and any follow on missile, if you're interested in fielding them of course.

 

[swerve]

You can always buy tube-launched land attack missiles from France (runs for cover . . . ).

 

[FormerDirtDart]

You can always buy tube-launched land attack missiles from France (runs for cover . . . ).

And there is the prospect of the Naval Strike Missile-Submarine Launched coming to fruition. Though, has anyone read, seen, heard of it's advancing development in years?
Or trying to get tube-launched Harpoons upgraded with SLAM/SLAM-ER capabilities.

 

[Scott Elaurant]

You can always buy tube-launched land attack missiles from France (runs for cover . . . ).

Jokes aside, until a sub launched version of NSM or LRASM enters service, MdCN appears to be the only long range, sub (tube) launched SSM available and in service now in NATO nations. The USN has dropped further development of Harpoon, and Tomahawk Block V is due around 2026. The failure of the USN to invest in a new SSM during the 2010s is harming us all now.

The Royal Navy appears to have given up on Harpoon and is going to NSM now as well. But there is still no sub option.

Royal Navy Signs Up for Naval Strike Missile to Replace Harpoon

The UK Ministry of Defence has reached a deal to replace the aging Harpoon anti-ship missiles on 11 of its warships with the smaller but more advanced...

maritime-executive.com

The US Navy is refurbishing some old Harpoons but is not paying to upgrade new versions of Harpoon since it lost the competition to NSM AFAIK.

Navy asks Boeing to upgrade and recertify 25 Harpoon anti-ship missiles and launchers in $16.9 million deal

Harpoon is an all-weather, over-the-horizon, anti-ship missile, developed and manufactured by McDonnell Douglas before its 1997 acquisition by Boeing.

www.militaryaerospace.com

I see from this article that Kongsberg hopes to have sub launched NSM operating for the Norwegian navy by 2025. That would presumably suit any RAN SSN design (and RN Astutes).

Exclusive: Latest Details on Kongsberg NSM-SL (Submarine Launch) Weapon System

Exclusive: Latest Details on Kongsberg NSM-SL (Submarine Launch) Weapon System

www.navyrecognition.com

 

[FormerDirtDart]

...
I see from this article that Kongsberg hopes to have sub launched NSM operating for the Norwegian navy by 2025. That would presumably suit any RAN SSN design (and RN Astutes).

Exclusive: Latest Details on Kongsberg NSM-SL (Submarine Launch) Weapon System

Exclusive: Latest Details on Kongsberg NSM-SL (Submarine Launch) Weapon System

www.navyrecognition.com

That article appears to be from 2015. Hence:

And there is the prospect of the Naval Strike Missile-Submarine Launched coming to fruition. Though, has anyone read, seen, heard of it's advancing development in years?
Or trying to get tube-launched Harpoons upgraded with SLAM/SLAM-ER capabilities.