I took it ( having a USN Admiral) to mean we might get a more aggressive opinion on what we need… hoping that it is not a politics driven review. More this is what you need to meet your objectives without fear or favour. No yes Minister or Utopia decisions following the review.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
American flag officers were involved in the Collins class submarine program providing advice so perhaps nothing new , a difference in training of the requirement of service I understood the U.S.N to provide a different emphasis for its officers in submarines to have a greater focus on the engineering of its submarines than the R.N who had different emphasis
A Comparison of U.S. Navy and Royal Navy Officer Training | Proceedings - March 2018 144/3/1,381 (usni.org)
A Comparison of U.S. Navy and Royal Navy Officer Training | Proceedings - March 2018 144/3/1,381 (usni.org)
I’m quite happy having the review done by someone whose idea of a “Tier 2” vessel is the Constellation class.
Do you have a source for this statement ? AFAIK there are plenty of RAN personnel providing input into the review.
knightrider4
Active Member
No I do not and my bad for not being able to provide one this is my opinion but I find it amusing that the review is headed by a foreigner do we not have the required expertise here? Does it imply that the reviews findings are known in advance and this is purely a political exercise? I stand by what I've said and will be than happy to have members here say that I'm wrong but I would bet the house there is no way we'll be getting 9 hunters they simply cost too much. The current administration will cut to the bone, there is simply no other way you will get your SSN's other than increase funding. And all I've seen regarding budgeting for them is a vague reference to a rise in GDP sometimes in the future with absolutely no idea how. Very easy to say rather more difficult to achieve. This current administration will opt for the cheapest option possible, dress it up and spin it like a gatecrasher DJ. Hope I'm wrong but nothing I've seen so far engenders any confidence whatsoever.
Because a qualified outsider offers fresh eyes, that's why.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
Does it really matter right now if the review recommends 6,9,12 or 18 Hunters? Once we get production up and running we can build as many as we like. That is the important point about getting a continuous build up and running, doesn't really matter how many "this" review recommends, we have years and years to decide on the final number yet.
OK this discussion is getting beyond silly. No fantasy fleets, no making spurious claims, and no speculation without it being based on cold hard facts. The Navy review is not due until October. Until we know the results and the facts, no more speculation, fantasy fleets etc. If it continues the Moderators will take action that people mightn't like.
knightrider4
Active Member
Well from a contracting point of view I would think it does. If they want 6 they will pay for 6 then the miriad of supply chains will plan for 6 then move onto something else. Not easy to change your mind.
knightrider4
Active Member
Understood.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
The current plan is for 3 batches of 3 ships. The current design work being done is for Batch 1 only (Hunter, Tasman, Flinders) and the ordering will be done for those 3 ships only. Once the design is finished and construction is underway (due 2023-24, then design work will begin on improvements for Batch 2, which may include stuff not currently available, or not currently considered, with ship 4 laid down around 29-30, Batch 3 will be a repeat, with further improvements. Why on Earth would you be ordering anything for a ship you are not going to build for another 14 or so years?
The review will be less than 6 months. It will be due out at the end of Q3 this year which is basically three months.
For that reason I am not expecting any big decisions beyond what has already been foreshadowed in the DSR.
The DSR has recommended regular reviews be conducted every two years so really there is no rush to make any decisions on the future of the Hunter program.
The things I think will be dealt with initially will be littoral vessels, more capable minor combatants to perhaps replace the Arafura build, improving the capability of our existing fleet and accelerating other existing programs as much as possible.
I think realistically there is only so much that can be done in a 5 to 10 year timeframe.
Last edited:
MARKMILES77
Active Member
Australian SSN Update:
Of the 3 submarines to be transferred from the US from 2032.
1st and 2nd will have at least 20 years remaining service life after transfer and will be transferred from the USN fleet.
Vessels to be transferred is under negotiation.
(As the Virginias have a 33 year service life, that means the transferred subs will have to have entered service from 2019 or later. So will be a Virginia III or IV.)
3rd Sub will not be transferred from USN but will be a new build straight from the shipyard. As the USN has transitioned to Block V production, Australia would have to specifically request an earlier Block if they did not want to take a Block V.
Source: Vice Admiral Mead
Senate Estimates 31/05/2023
Transcript not yet available on Senate Website.
www.aph.gov.au
Of the 3 submarines to be transferred from the US from 2032.
1st and 2nd will have at least 20 years remaining service life after transfer and will be transferred from the USN fleet.
Vessels to be transferred is under negotiation.
(As the Virginias have a 33 year service life, that means the transferred subs will have to have entered service from 2019 or later. So will be a Virginia III or IV.)
3rd Sub will not be transferred from USN but will be a new build straight from the shipyard. As the USN has transitioned to Block V production, Australia would have to specifically request an earlier Block if they did not want to take a Block V.
Source: Vice Admiral Mead
Senate Estimates 31/05/2023
Transcript not yet available on Senate Website.
Estimates Transcript Schedule
Hansard transcripts for the most recent 2023-2024 round of Budget Estimates hearings are available in the tables below. For all other Estimates transcripts dating back to 1988, please refer to ParlInfo. February 2023-2024 Additional Budget Estimates
Going Boeing
Well-Known Member
The Block 3 & 4 Virginia’s are very similar with the main difference being reduced maintenance requirements (one less docking period) for the Block 4’s which allows an extra deployment. It would obviously be desirable to source Block 4’s for the first 2 as any subsequent new build Virginia’s for the RAN would probably be built to Block 4 or 5 specs (without the VPM). The US would probably insist on a higher price for the Block 4’s compared to the Block 3 so it will a capability versus financial decision.Australian SSN Update:
Of the 3 submarines to be transferred from the US from 2032.
1st and 2nd will have at least 20 years remaining service life after transfer and will be transferred from the USN fleet.
Vessels to be transferred is under negotiation.
(As the Virginias have a 33 year service life, that means the transferred subs will have to have entered service from 2019 or later. So will be a Virginia III or IV.)
3rd Sub will not be transferred from USN but will be a new build straight from the shipyard. As the USN has transitioned to Block V production, Australia would have to specifically request an earlier Block if they did not want to take a Block V.
Source: Vice Admiral Mead
Senate Estimates 31/05/2023
Transcript not yet available on Senate Website.
Estimates Transcript Schedule
Hansard transcripts for the most recent 2023-2024 round of Budget Estimates hearings are available in the tables below. For all other Estimates transcripts dating back to 1988, please refer to ParlInfo. February 2023-2024 Additional Budget Estimates
Last edited:
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
Virginia-class submarine - Wikipedia
At the bottom of the page there is a list of the Virginia class submarines, the last Blk III was commissioned on 4 Apr 2020(SSN791) and the first Blk IV on 18 Apr 2020(SSN792). I suspect we would be looking at early build Blk IVs (SSN792-796), if the 20 years of life for the first 2 is correct. Although SSN-795 is named the Hyman G Rickover, the man considered the Father of the nuclear Navy, so that may be somewhat controversial to sell a Sub named after such a prominent USN figure.
At the bottom of the page there is a list of the Virginia class submarines, the last Blk III was commissioned on 4 Apr 2020(SSN791) and the first Blk IV on 18 Apr 2020(SSN792). I suspect we would be looking at early build Blk IVs (SSN792-796), if the 20 years of life for the first 2 is correct. Although SSN-795 is named the Hyman G Rickover, the man considered the Father of the nuclear Navy, so that may be somewhat controversial to sell a Sub named after such a prominent USN figure.
The perfect figure, who else to start the Australian nuclear navy with. Rickover would love it. I can't think of a more symbolic and appropriate name. And I don't think it is by accident. Rickover was critical in setting up the UK nuclear program.
Any reason why we wouldn't just want the Block V standard? Surely it's a bit silly to ask to modify a design off a hot line to ask for a reduction in capability?
Jason_DBF
Member
It would be a mouthful answering the telephone as uptrot saying HMAS Hyam G Rickover.
The most interesting thing I am reading is that the third SSN will be a new build directly from the US production line. No mention of the optional fourth and fifth boats but I would guess they would also be new builds. Got to wonder what this could mean for the AUKUS SSN project.
US sourced and built submarines will no doubt be enormously capable and coming directly from the US production line means they will probably be delivered on time and on cost. It sounds like it will be an off the shelf design based on a proven boat. It is the lowest risk option and will pretty much guarantee Australia will have nuclear powered submarine capability from the early 2030s using the same boats as our most important ally.
This will no doubt put pressure on the AUKUS submarine project to perform. Delays or price blowouts could easily spell an end to that project. Certainly wouldn't be the first under performing submarine project to be canned.
US sourced and built submarines will no doubt be enormously capable and coming directly from the US production line means they will probably be delivered on time and on cost. It sounds like it will be an off the shelf design based on a proven boat. It is the lowest risk option and will pretty much guarantee Australia will have nuclear powered submarine capability from the early 2030s using the same boats as our most important ally.
This will no doubt put pressure on the AUKUS submarine project to perform. Delays or price blowouts could easily spell an end to that project. Certainly wouldn't be the first under performing submarine project to be canned.
Going Boeing
Well-Known Member
The first Block 5 Virginia is being built without the VPM (all the subsequent ones will have it) so no modification would be required, they already have the design.
The VPM is estimated to add US$5-600 million per boat so it’s a large increase in price.
While most Australians would welcome the increased deterrent effect of VPM equipped submarines, our politicians probably would not want to upset our neighbours who may be concerned about the significant increase in firepower.