Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[Scott Elaurant]

Armchair

Good question re what would be fastest SSN to build for the RAN now. I don’t know enough to say. My point was the Barracuda/Suffren SSN opton should have at least been considered in AUKUS. At the time Attack was cancelled I think switching to Barracuda SSNs would have been by far the quickest option then. IMO the optimal pathway would have been to continue with construction of the first three Attack Class in ASC, then switch to Barracuda SSNs for the second batch of 3. However I don’t know if that would still be the case now. Probably not if you had to restart and the Attack design was still incomplete.

There are many details you would need to answer accurately. The fastest option would be to build an SSN for which an up to date design was completed. That avoids design delay risk. That leaves three options - Astute, Barracuda and Virginia.

For SSN construction, the boat is built around the reactor. Ordering the reactor is usually the longest lead time item for an SSN build. With Astutes reactors (PWR2) already out of production, and Australia unable to build nuclear reactors, that leaves two options for a quick start build - Barracuda SSN and Virginias. So the answer depends on whether Areva Technicatom can build extra K15 reactors quickly, or BWX Technologies can build extra S9Gs quickly. Nobody who knows would put that sort of information in public.

It is clear with the information we have now that the answer was not the BAE option. Even with extra Australian investment they are expanding their reactor production at Raynesway we are due to start SSN AUKUS construction in the mid 2030s. They are booked up on the Astute, Dreadnought and RN SSN AUKUS builds before then.

Rolls-Royce to add a thousand jobs amid submarine factory expansion

Rolls-Royce Holdings PLC (LSE:RR.) has announced plans to expand its Derby submarine manufacturing site and create over a thousand new jobs using Ministry...

www.proactiveinvestors.co.uk

 

[Volkodav]

The lead times to establish suitably qualified and experienced personnel, as well as regulatory structures and infrastructures needs to be factored in.

If the USN had a spare Virgina to giftbus right now, I do not know how long it would take to bring into service. It may well be the current plan is the fastest option.

 

[Reptilia]

Armchair

Good question re what would be fastest SSN to build for the RAN now. I don’t know enough to say. My point was the Barracuda/Suffren SSN opton should have at least been considered in AUKUS. At the time Attack was cancelled I think switching to Barracuda SSNs would have been by far the quickest option then. IMO the optimal pathway would have been to continue with construction of the first three Attack Class in ASC, then switch to Barracuda SSNs for the second batch of 3. However I don’t know if that would still be the case now. Probably not if you had to restart and the Attack design was still incomplete.

There are many details you would need to answer accurately. The fastest option would be to build an SSN for which an up to date design was completed. That avoids design delay risk. That leaves three options - Astute, Barracuda and Virginia.

For SSN construction, the boat is built around the reactor. Ordering the reactor is usually the longest lead time item for an SSN build. With Astutes reactors (PWR2) already out of production, and Australia unable to build nuclear reactors, that leaves two options for a quick start build - Barracuda SSN and Virginias. So the answer depends on whether Areva Technicatom can build extra K15 reactors quickly, or BWX Technologies can build extra S9Gs quickly. Nobody who knows would put that sort of information in public.

It is clear with the information we have now that the answer was not the BAE option. Even with extra Australian investment they are expanding their reactor production at Raynesway we are due to start SSN AUKUS construction in the mid 2030s. They are booked up on the Astute, Dreadnought and RN SSN AUKUS builds before then.

Rolls-Royce to add a thousand jobs amid submarine factory expansion

Rolls-Royce Holdings PLC (LSE:RR.) has announced plans to expand its Derby submarine manufacturing site and create over a thousand new jobs using Ministry...

www.proactiveinvestors.co.uk

Where did you get the mid 2030s build time? The yard has begun works and is expected to be complete later this decade with production set to begin late this decade or early next.
Australia’s first SSN AUKUS in service by 2042/2043 with follow ons every 3 years. After the 5th, new $$$ is needed.
U.Ks first SSN AUKUS, 2038/2039, beginning build also late 2020s.

https://www.asa.gov.au/aukus/australias-nuclear-powered-submarines

 

[seaspear]

I understood this article to suggest the U.S would sell used Virginia classes to Australia from 2032 and possibly new 2038 ,

Here’s when the US Navy plans to sell subs to Australia under AUKUS

The Navy has revealed a timeline to sell used Virginia submarines and a new boat as part of a trilateral security arrangement.

www.defensenews.com

these used submarines may still be superior to Suffren class and at 2032 delivery what is the build and delivery rate of the Suffren to deliver a nuclear submarine that may have been adopted to meet Australia's needs

 

[Reptilia]

I understood this article to suggest the U.S would sell used Virginia classes to Australia from 2032 and possibly new 2038 ,

Here’s when the US Navy plans to sell subs to Australia under AUKUS

The Navy has revealed a timeline to sell used Virginia submarines and a new boat as part of a trilateral security arrangement.

www.defensenews.com

these used submarines may still be superior to Suffren class and at 2032 delivery what is the build and delivery rate of the Suffren to deliver a nuclear submarine that may have been adopted to meet Australia's needs

2032 - Used Block IV
2035 - Used Block IV
2038 - New Block VII
If Australia chooses to purchase a 4th and 5th Virginia, it could be used or new.

 

[Going Boeing]

Armchair

Good question re what would be fastest SSN to build for the RAN now. I don’t know enough to say. My point was the Barracuda/Suffren SSN opton should have at least been considered in AUKUS. At the time Attack was cancelled I think switching to Barracuda SSNs would have been by far the quickest option then. IMO the optimal pathway would have been to continue with construction of the first three Attack Class in ASC, then switch to Barracuda SSNs for the second batch of 3. However I don’t know if that would still be the case now. Probably not if you had to restart and the Attack design was still incomplete.

There are many details you would need to answer accurately. The fastest option would be to build an SSN for which an up to date design was completed. That avoids design delay risk. That leaves three options - Astute, Barracuda and Virginia.

For SSN construction, the boat is built around the reactor. Ordering the reactor is usually the longest lead time item for an SSN build. With Astutes reactors (PWR2) already out of production, and Australia unable to build nuclear reactors, that leaves two options for a quick start build - Barracuda SSN and Virginias. So the answer depends on whether Areva Technicatom can build extra K15 reactors quickly, or BWX Technologies can build extra S9Gs quickly. Nobody who knows would put that sort of information in public.

It is clear with the information we have now that the answer was not the BAE option. Even with extra Australian investment they are expanding their reactor production at Raynesway we are due to start SSN AUKUS construction in the mid 2030s. They are booked up on the Astute, Dreadnought and RN SSN AUKUS builds before then.

Rolls-Royce to add a thousand jobs amid submarine factory expansion

Rolls-Royce Holdings PLC (LSE:RR.) has announced plans to expand its Derby submarine manufacturing site and create over a thousand new jobs using Ministry...

www.proactiveinvestors.co.uk

My understanding of the situation with the Attack class contract was that Naval Group were continuously working to reduce the amount of Australian content in the construction (down to an estimated 40%) and thus would be gouging the RAN/Aust taxpayers over the service life of the fleet. For this reason alone, we had to break the contract with NG - not enter into a modified contract for the nuclear powered version of the same submarine.

The Virginia’s to be delivered in 2032 & 2035 are to have 20 years of service life which would have them being retired when the 6th & 7th AUKUS SSN’s enter service. The “possible” 4th & 5th Virginia’s would only be required if the AUKUS SSN production encounters significant delays affecting the avai fleet numbers.

 

[Reptilia]

My understanding of the situation with the Attack class contract was that Naval Group were continuously working to reduce the amount of Australian content in the construction (down to an estimated 40%) and thus would be gouging the RAN/Aust taxpayers over the service life of the fleet. For this reason alone, we had to break the contract with NG - not enter into a modified contract for the nuclear powered version of the same submarine.

The Virginia’s to be delivered in 2032 & 2035 are to have 20 years of service life which would have them being retired when the 6th & 7th AUKUS SSN’s enter service. The “possible” 4th & 5th Virginia’s would only be required if the AUKUS SSN production encounters significant delays affecting the avai fleet numbers.

If only 20 years of life left in the first 2 Virginia subs…
V1 2032 would exit service in 2052, about the time the 4th ssn aukus is expected to enter service
V2 2035 would exit service in 2055, about the time the 5th ssn aukus is expected to enter service.
The 2038 Virginia is probably new and not used because it would guarantee a supply chain + maintenance hub in australia for the u.s subs up until 2068. (Unless we move it on earlier)

The Attack class, do people think it would have been a good submarine?
Good
-Range
-Increased Speed
-Low Crew
Bad
-No VLS
-20-28 Torpedoes/Missiles
-Lead Acid Batteries
Risk
-Pumpjet Propulsion

 

[hauritz]

2032 - Used Block IV
2035 - Used Block IV
2038 - New Block VII
If Australia chooses to purchase a 4th and 5th Virginia, it could be used or new.

Another way of looking at it is that if a certain ex-president returns to office and scuttles plans for the Australian Navy to get secondhand subs it is possible that we could still acquire them new from the production line from around the late 30s. That means we would need to squeeze every bit of life out of the old Collins class.

 

[GregorZ]

Another way of looking at it is that if a certain ex-president returns to office and scuttles plans for the Australian Navy to get secondhand subs it is possible that we could still acquire them new from the production line from around the late 30s. That means we would need to squeeze every bit of life out of the old Collins class.

Why would he? Has he mentioned that he will? It’s a great deal for the US, something that he always looks for. I doubt any future President would scuttle the deal unless some huge war was upon them and they needed or were losing subs.

 

[devo99]

With regards to the submarine discussion, it's worth keeping in mind that submarines represent the primary and most capable regional deterrence that the ADF wields and as such it deserves the significant priority it's been given thanks to AUKUS Pillar 1. There is nothing that the ADF could feasibly operate that would be more capable of sinking enemy warships. As overused as the "there are two types of ships" line may be, the submariners do have a bit of a point. And this is only more so when the submarines in question are SSNs.

In regards to the decision to kill the Attack-class, I believe it's the best outcome we could've gotten. There's inherent disadvantages to SSGs that can be mitigated but not entirely removed. These disadvantages are made more significant by the somewhat difficult circumstances the RAN requires its subs to operate in (long range patrols, potential enemies with significant ISR capabilities). SSGs can only be pushed so far before you get to the point where it would be more worthwhile to invest in SSNs and I believe we reached that point with the Attack-class. All the requirements that were set pointed to needing an SSN except for the one that required it to be an SSG.

As for the selection of the Virginia-class and the perceived overlooking of the Suffren-class. It must be noted that due to both federal and state level legislation in Australia, the Suffren-class and any other class of SSN using an LEU reactor were non-starters. Aside from the fact that the Suffren-class and Virginia-class both share the same requirement to build up the necessary pool of qualified submariners before bringing them into service, as noted by Volk, with the Suffren-class it would also involve the pain of overturning state and federal legislation regarding nuclear fuel production and then the subsequent establishment of full cycle nuclear fuel production in Australia. It's hard to see how this could be done any quicker than just buying Virginias from the US which use HEU reactors and thus don't require refuelling capability or changes in legislation, not to mention the additional benefits of the Virginias already sharing some major systems used on the Collins-class.

 

[Redlands18]

Why would he? Has he mentioned that he will? It’s a great deal for the US, something that he always looks for. I doubt any future President would scuttle the deal unless some huge war was upon them and they needed or were losing subs.

The final decision won't be made by Trump or Biden anyway. The then US President has to sign off on the transfer 270 days before the transfer takes place, so that will be 2031-32.

 

[Scott Elaurant]

The lead times to establish suitably qualified and experienced personnel, as well as regulatory structures and infrastructures needs to be factored in.

If the USN had a spare Virgina to giftbus right now, I do not know how long it would take to bring into service. It may well be the current plan is the fastest option.

Very true. The critical constraint for an RAN SSN crew is the time to get RAN engineering officers who are qualified to be in charge of an SSN reactor under way at sea. I understand it takes around 6 years for a graduate officer to complete all the training and gain sufficient experience in the USN system to be the engineer in charge on a USN SSN. So starting last year, the first suitably qualified RAN SSN crew would not be commpleted before 2028 or 2029.

 

[Scott Elaurant]

As for the selection of the Virginia-class and the perceived overlooking of the Suffren-class. It must be noted that due to both federal and state level legislation in Australia, the Suffren-class and any other class of SSN using an LEU reactor were non-starters. Aside from the fact that the Suffren-class and Virginia-class both share the same requirement to build up the necessary pool of qualified submariners before bringing them into service, as noted by Volk, with the Suffren-class it would also involve the pain of overturning state and federal legislation regarding nuclear fuel production and then the subsequent establishment of full cycle nuclear fuel production in Australia.

I disagree. Australia could not and need not create a full nuclear fuel cycle locally. Australia does not produce reactor fuel cores for the Lucas Heights reactor and would not for SSNs either. We buy replacement reactor fuel cores from France. We could easily do the same and store them locally for SSNs. As they are LEU this would not breach any local laws.

You are considering the refueling aspect of SSN sustainment and ignoring the reactor maintenance. The latter is a larger job than the former. It is a huge job for HEU powered SSNs. I am concerned that those arguing in favour of Virginias and SSN AUKUS do not understand the extent of work and challenge in SSN reactor maintenance.

I said from the start I did not argue with the decision to cancel Attack or go nuclear. I agreed with SSNs for the RAN. I questioned the level of technical understanding in the decision and the way it is being done.

I also questioned the cost. Nobody gets an unlimited budget; that is fantasy fleets at its worst. Of course you get the best if you pay the most (usually) but Is the difference worth it if you have to cut something else to pay for it?

Many statements made by Defence in the early days of AUKUS, e.g. that Australia would locally build 8 SSNs based on an existing design (Adm Mead to Senate) have proven unachievable. Astute reactors were already out of production before AUKUS was announced and USA has not allowed any country (even UK) to produce a US SSN design in another country.

 

[Scott Elaurant]

Where did you get the mid 2030s build time? The yard has begun works and is expected to be complete later this decade with production set to begin late this decade or early next.
Australia’s first SSN AUKUS in service by 2042/2043 with follow ons every 3 years. After the 5th, new $$$ is needed.
U.Ks first SSN AUKUS, 2038/2039, beginning build also late 2020s.

Reptilia

It is my assumption but I have found contradictory advice. I am happy for it to be wrong. I will explain my logic.

Average build time for an SSN is 6 years (USA), 8-9 years (UK) or 10 years (France). That is for experienced yards that are also building the reaactor compartment, which is a slow and critical piece of work.

Assuming with SSN AUKUS that we are using modular construction with the reactor and probably full reactor compartment built in UK and shipped to ASC, it should be possible for ASC to build the rest of the sub in 8 years (or less). If the first RAN SSN AUKUS is expected to enter service in 2042/2043 that suggests a construction start around 2034/2035. If the first SSN AUKUS construction really starts later this decade (2028/2029?) then it should be ready to enter service in the mid to late 2030s.

If the AUKUS program is clarified and this is really what happens then I am happy to be wrong on this assumption. But I note they also don’t show the expenditure rate kicking up till later in the 2030s, hence I am skeptical about the build start in the late 2020s.

 

[devo99]

I disagree. Australia could not and need not create a full nuclear fuel cycle locally. Australia does not produce reactor fuel cores for the Lucas Heights reactor and would not for SSNs either. We buy replacement reactor fuel cores from France. We could easily do the same and store them locally for SSNs. As they are LEU this would not breach any local laws.

Aside from relying on France for fuel cores being a major issue in regards to sovereignty, it also begs the question of how willing the French would have been to let us in on their reactor technology. Presumably we'd have wanted it for future SSN production as well in a similar way to how we are being given access to the technology in the PWR3 reactor for use in the future SSN-AUKUS.

 

[iambuzzard]

All this talk about French SSNs seems to miss the point that AUKUS is Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States. Where does France come into this arrangement?

 

[Redlands18]

Reptilia

It is my assumption but I have found contradictory advice. I am happy for it to be wrong. I will explain my logic.

Average build time for an SSN is 6 years (USA), 8-9 years (UK) or 10 years (France). That is for experienced yards that are also building the reaactor compartment, which is a slow and critical piece of work.

Assuming with SSN AUKUS that we are using modular construction with the reactor and probably full reactor compartment built in UK and shipped to ASC, it should be possible for ASC to build the rest of the sub in 8 years (or less). If the first RAN SSN AUKUS is expected to enter service in 2042/2043 that suggests a construction start around 2034/2035. If the first SSN AUKUS construction really starts later this decade (2028/2029?) then it should be ready to enter service in the mid to late 2030s.

If the AUKUS program is clarified and this is really what happens then I am happy to be wrong on this assumption. But I note they also don’t show the expenditure rate kicking up till later in the 2030s, hence I am skeptical about the build start in the late 2020s.

British SSN/SSBN production is deliberately slow so as to maintain a continuous build cycle, currently 11 new Subs required every 30 or so years. The Dreadnoughts have started production so far in Oct 2016, Sept 2019 and Feb 2023 so the 4th is due mid 2026, so the first SSN-AUKUS should begin 2029, the design was announced as 70% complete earlier this year. Design work started in 2021 with the SSN(R) project.

 

[Reptilia]

Reptilia

It is my assumption but I have found contradictory advice. I am happy for it to be wrong. I will explain my logic.

Average build time for an SSN is 6 years (USA), 8-9 years (UK) or 10 years (France). That is for experienced yards that are also building the reaactor compartment, which is a slow and critical piece of work.

Assuming with SSN AUKUS that we are using modular construction with the reactor and probably full reactor compartment built in UK and shipped to ASC, it should be possible for ASC to build the rest of the sub in 8 years (or less). If the first RAN SSN AUKUS is expected to enter service in 2042/2043 that suggests a construction start around 2034/2035. If the first SSN AUKUS construction really starts later this decade (2028/2029?) then it should be ready to enter service in the mid to late 2030s.

If the AUKUS program is clarified and this is really what happens then I am happy to be wrong on this assumption. But I note they also don’t show the expenditure rate kicking up till later in the 2030s, hence I am skeptical about the build start in the late 2020s.

The U.K have a ready made workforce, a submarine yard and a training facility.(All of which has to expand for SSN AUKUS). We are starting from scratch. The yard may be complete by the end of the decade but to skill 1,000s…that will take some time.

 

[Armchair]

Armchair

Good question re what would be fastest SSN to build for the RAN now.

Sorry my question was poorly phrased (though the build time discussion is highly relevant). Old Faithful referred to the Virginia decision (not SSN AUKUS) as the best ADF decision.
You suggested the Barracuda SSN would be 2/3 the size and have half the firepower of a Virginia (That size and firepower difference also offer a range of capabilities that are relevant to current and future Australian submarine operations some of which may be delivered through AUKUS).
My question is whether a Barracuda SSN (delivered and built whenever you believe it could be) could deliver the minimum viable capability required by the RAN. If it couldn’t, (and of course we can’t fully know from public domain information) and Virginia can (from the mid 2030s), then Virginia was not so much a political decision as recognizing a strategic necessity. A cheaper solution that does not deliver the required capability is no solution (it is not saving billions it is wasting billions).

 

[Scott Elaurant]

British SSN/SSBN production is deliberately slow so as to maintain a continuous build cycle, currently 11 new Subs required every 30 or so years. The Dreadnoughts have started production so far in Oct 2016, Sept 2019 and Feb 2023 so the 4th is due mid 2026, so the first SSN-AUKUS should begin 2029, the design was announced as 70% complete earlier this year. Design work started in 2021 with the SSN(R) project.

It has already been confirmed the first SSN AUKUS hulls will be for the RN, not the RAN. On this basis alone I will be pleasantly surprised if ASC SSN construction starts before 2030. We can’t just start building an SSN without BAE Barrow support. The reactor and probably the whole reactor compartment will have to be built in UK for the ASC SSNs. If they aren’t ready to support us, we can’t start. If the expansion to Rolls Royce capacity is sufficient then RR may be able to supply a PWR3 reactor to ASC earlier but that is unknown,

I also agree with your comment UK SSN/SSBN production rate has been slowed down, but that is part of my concern. In slowing build rate down, the BAE Barrow capability shrank, just as it did at ASC after production of a class stopped. You cannot instantly turn it back up again. All those skilled workers have either got other jobs or retired. The UK build rate slowed in the 1990s, so they are long gone.

The decline in employment was huge. At the end of the cold war BAE Barrow employed 13,000. By the end of the 1990s it was 3000. In recent times they have been working hard to rebuild the Barrow workforce. I understand it is now around 10,000. This may be enough to both build required UK SSNs, and support Australian build SSNs with essential modules. I don’t know.

I have no way of knowing whether the French SSN would be adequate (though I would be surprised if it was not). I also question the sovereignty argument because it applies to all options. If you read Alan Gyngell’s book “Fear of Abandonment” (I recommend it) there have been many occasions since WWII when Australian governments have been constrained by UK and/or USA from doing as we wished for our own defence. The reality is all governments argue behind the scenes.

As I said earlier, it is probably too late to go back now, so we are stuck with delivering AUKUS as proposed as best we can. But I think it was a mistake to not at least consider the alternative before we committed to a difficult build.

Anyway this is only my opinion. Others are free to have their view.