Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
TBH reading back through the thread, I suspect someone mis-read some of the discussion and interpreted the idea raised of a French SSN having been an option once the Attack-class was canceled and thought that discussion was about the Rubis-class, rather than the Suffren-class which is replacing it.
There do seem to be a couple of things which people to be missing the importance of, and how this would have effectively left the Virginia-class and then the later SSN-AUKUS as the only realistically viable options.
These things are above and beyond the differences between LEU or HEU reactors and which ones could reasonably meet Australian needs.
At the time of the AUKUS agreement (2021) there were three western SSN designs in production, namely the Virginia-class, the Suffren-class and the Astute-class. Given the amount of new information and training needed for RAN crews and personnel to be able to operate and maintain (most of the systems anyway) it would likely take 10+ years before there would be a large enough pool of RAN submariners who had all the necessary training and experiences for a RAN SSN to deploy. It would also likely take at least a little time for the various personnel pipelines to get started.
As @Lofty_DBF posted here earlier this month, the first RAN enlisted personnel just graduated from the USN Nuclear Power Training Unit less than two weeks ago. That means the pipeline has started and will be building up the pool of RAN personnel suitable to serve aboard RAN SSN's but will take time to get enough personnel trained and have them build up the experience required to safely and effectively operate an SSN. Again, figuring about a decade give or take for the more senior enlisted and commissioned personnel to get the relevant experience, this would mean the RAN would likely be in a position to have an SSN crew in the early to mid-2030's. Right now the, this works out to starting around 2032-ish, the RAN might have the ability to operate an SSN. Now whilst there is some (understandable) concern about the US being ready, willing and able to sell a Virginia-class SSN at the appropriate time to Australia, neither France nor the UK were in a position where they could provide Australia with an SSN.
The last Astute-class SSN is currently under construction and IIRC expected to commission in 2026 or perhaps 2027 and again IIRC production of the Rolls-Royce PWR 2 reactor has already stopped.
As for the Suffren-class, it looks like part of their construction time frame takes about a decade from the vessel being laid down, to being commissioned, with operational capability expected after that. This in turn would mean that if Australia wanted a Suffren-class SSN commissioned into the RAN starting around ~2032, then it would need to have been laid down ~2022. In order for it to get laid down, then Australia would need to have contracted to order it which would need to have been completed before hand. Looking at when AUKUS announcement was made (September 2021) and when the announcement was made about Australia seeking to purchase Virginia-class SSN's from the US in ~2032 for the first boat (March 2023) then the selection process took ~18 months give or take. Even ignoring any time required for long-lead items, Australia would have needed select and order the Suffren-class SSN at least a few months before the AUKUS announcement was made. Even if the March 2023 announcement was made in favour of the French SSN instead, and the lead boat was immediately laid down, it most likely would not be able to get commissioned until ~2033 or later.
That timing issue is in addition to all the other very real issues that going with a French SSN design would likely have entailed for the RAN and Australia. One of those issues would likely be the LEU reactor and it's power and energy output as well as the need for periodic refueling (yes, the funny was deliberate). The weapons, sensor and combat system fitout would also likely have been an issue, particularly since it was part of an issue with the Attack-class design. Given Australia's involvement in the development of the Mk 48 Mod 7 heavyweight torpedoe and familiarity with the BYG-1 combat system, I could see how Australia might not be interested in the weapons, sensor and electronics fitout for the French SSN's and possibly some redesign time and work required before the first sub could get laid down.
downunderblue
Active Member
Geopolitical needs may be similar but what about geopolitical will? We can all assume but no one really knows if the US is a serious deterrent to war over Taiwan, as regardless of all of his advisors or China hawks etc, no one really knows whether the President will dump Taiwan like a hot potato if it actually gets too hot to handle.
I'm all for strategic ambiguity as a method to keep your opponent guessing, but in this case ambiguity completely undermines any deterrent factor as a preventer of conflict.
In that regard, our needs just like Japan's are different to the US. We need to know where this President (not Administration or S/HASC etc) strands in relation to China as neither Australia or Japan wants to get caught with our zipper undone (have our soverienty and way of life threatened) trying to stand up for a rules based order without the US or a credible strategic deterrent behind us.
Back to the RAN.
downunderblue
Active Member
That post made me think, and no it wasn't about Plan A to E of SSN production in Australia (nothing personal but I'm over it at them moment and with the recent 'Make US Shipbuilding Great Again' theme, I'm now blindingly a Plan A guy with blinkers permanently fixed ...)
What made me think was reference to the MK 48 Mod 7 HWT torpedo. The Netherlands also use this Walrus-class SSK's. With their replacement by the Orka class, (which is a NG Blacksword Baracuda, which seems to be a little less ambitious than the Shortfin Barracuda once made famous under the Attack class 'moniker'), the RNLN has a choice to make whether to amend the combat system and continue using MK 48's, or continue with the new F-21 HWT torpedo developed again by NG.
There are some rumors that they will commit to the F-21 (they are funding a Mk 48 replacement) but it isn't official yet. The F-21 uses an electric motor driven by an aluminum silver-oxide battery rather than the Otto fuel II of the Mk48, which apparently is quite toxic. It has a smaller warhead but 'allegedly' longer range.
Maybe going fully electric is the future, hey? ;-)
Another thing I found which interested me and furthered some interest I had some time back was a recent announcement (same source) of the Dutch funding of an anti-torpedo torpedo (ATT) system to be utilised with their future anti-submarine warfare frigates
"Development of the anti-torpedo weapon from a demonstration model to a production-ready design will continue within the European Union’s Permanent Structured Cooperation through to 2028, according to the Dutch MoD. Subsequently, the Netherlands expects to acquire a “qualified ATT” starting in 2029, when the first new Dutch ASW frigate is scheduled to become operational".
It still puzzles me why this isn't already an OTS weapon in service both in surface and subsurface platforms but it isn't so.
Anyway, enough of my mutterings as I've deviated off topic and clearly need to call it quits tonight.
downunderblue
Active Member
Back to the RAN, I was viewing a blog on discussion concerning the use of a submarine tender by the RAN and ran into a little known (or it was for me) RAN facility near Bega called Two Fold Bay.
Apparently it consists of a depot and large pier that can berth any ship in the fleet and used to safely load/ unload ammunition onto our ships.
I found a CoA parliamentary report from 2000 when they build the depot/ pier stating:
"Twofold Bay is an appropriate location to site the ammunitioning facility due to the natural advantages of a deep bay with a site away from
population centres. It also delivers economic benefits to the Navy due to the close proximity to the Fleet base at Sydney Harbour and the Navy
exercise area".
Does anyone know if there is/ was as there any consideration to move more facilities to this area? Eden is fixed between Melbourne and Sydney and not far from Canberra so has some advantages yet all the discussion re moving FBE was for Brisbane, Newcastle or Wollongong. I'm not saying everything could be moved here, but it could be an option to move some elements or increase the RAN footprint in the area?
www.australiandefence.com.au
Apparently it consists of a depot and large pier that can berth any ship in the fleet and used to safely load/ unload ammunition onto our ships.
I found a CoA parliamentary report from 2000 when they build the depot/ pier stating:
"Twofold Bay is an appropriate location to site the ammunitioning facility due to the natural advantages of a deep bay with a site away from
population centres. It also delivers economic benefits to the Navy due to the close proximity to the Fleet base at Sydney Harbour and the Navy
exercise area".
Does anyone know if there is/ was as there any consideration to move more facilities to this area? Eden is fixed between Melbourne and Sydney and not far from Canberra so has some advantages yet all the discussion re moving FBE was for Brisbane, Newcastle or Wollongong. I'm not saying everything could be moved here, but it could be an option to move some elements or increase the RAN footprint in the area?
Navy ammunitioning facility to proceed at Twofold Bay - Australian Defence Magazine
The White Paper has given the go-ahead for a vital piece of RAN infrastructure on the East Coast. The Navy ammunitioning facility proposed for Twofold Bay on the south coast of NSW was approved in the...
www.australiandefence.com.au
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
When considering what torpedoe a service should opt for, one needs to look at what specific (and highly classified) capabilities different torpedoes have, what are relevant to the needs of the service, and what/how the torpedoe could/would work with the platform's sensors and combat system.
In the case of the Okra-class to be built for the RNLN, it is apparently going to use sensors based off ones designed/used aboard the French Suffren-class SSN, and looking at the current RNLN Walrus-class subs in service, they already use a combat system from a Dutch subsidiary of Thales Group. This suggests to me that what the RNLN wanted/was looking at was already much more like what France was already using than was the case for the RAN. In this situation, going changing torpedoes would likely be an easier and less expensive option than needing to change the entire combat system as well as the torpedoes.
As for whether torpedoes should continue to use a fuel like Otto II or switch over to an electric motor, I suspect it will depend on what the cost and performance differences are between the two. From what appears to be available publicly, I do not see a particular advantage in terms of capability, and the per unit cost appears to favour the Mk 48 Mod 7 (USD$5.9 mil. in 2022 dollars) over the F21's (~€5.2 mil. per unit including development or €2.3 mil. excluding development, all in 2012 costs). Adjusting for inflation, it looks like that per unit cost including development would work out to ~€6.4 mil. in 2022 or ~USD$6.9 mil. in 2022.
However, it could also be that the RNLN did not have a particularly large stockpile of the Mk 48 Mod 7 instead also had some of the older and less capable Mk 48 versions and possibly even still had some Mk 37's, in this case, it might have been a better overall option to just go for a full replacement with an effectively already integrated heavyweight torpedoe.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
I suspect that many people forget that torpedoes are also guided munitions with their own sensors and onboard logic systems, with all the complexity and cost that comes with such capabilities. That alone can make torpedoes expensive.
Add in the resources required to develop new torpedoe designs and/or improve existing ones, such development and testing also have costs associated with it. This can then turn around and bite the developing nation if they only have comparatively few torpedoes ordered, as the development cost gets spread across fewer production units.
Two words - personnel retention. Who would want to live there ? Like it or not, people who join the RAN primarily come from the biggest population centres and prefer to live in those areas, so the prospect of being sent 4.5 hours south of Sydney to live in a tiny town with very little support services for young families would have an impact on the ability to retain people past their initial enlistment period.Back to the RAN, I was viewing a blog on discussion concerning the use of a submarine tender by the RAN and ran into a little known (or it was for me) RAN facility near Bega called Two Fold Bay.
Apparently it consists of a depot and large pier that can berth any ship in the fleet and used to safely load/ unload ammunition onto our ships.
I found a CoA parliamentary report from 2000 when they build the depot/ pier stating:
"Twofold Bay is an appropriate location to site the ammunitioning facility due to the natural advantages of a deep bay with a site away from
population centres. It also delivers economic benefits to the Navy due to the close proximity to the Fleet base at Sydney Harbour and the Navy
exercise area".
Does anyone know if there is/ was as there any consideration to move more facilities to this area? Eden is fixed between Melbourne and Sydney and not far from Canberra so has some advantages yet all the discussion re moving FBE was for Brisbane, Newcastle or Wollongong. I'm not saying everything could be moved here, but it could be an option to move some elements or increase the RAN footprint in the area?
Navy ammunitioning facility to proceed at Twofold Bay - Australian Defence Magazine
The White Paper has given the go-ahead for a vital piece of RAN infrastructure on the East Coast. The Navy ammunitioning facility proposed for Twofold Bay on the south coast of NSW was approved in the...
And, the Twofold Bay facility is, deliberately, quite some distance from any town. The nearest of significance, Eden, which is quite a major fishing port and tourist destination is some 5 km in a straight line from the facility, and about 35 km by road. That’s the whole point of its location - distant from any significant population in case of accident a la Bandar Abbas. Unlikely, certainly, but still must be allowed for. That would sort of be defeated if you started moving other things there.
Takao
The Bunker Group
Not just guided weapons, but in many ways mini-submarines too. A Mk 48 has to operate in similar environments to a sub, so all the crush depth and pressure stuff has to be designed in.
downunderblue
Active Member
Much cheaper than the 'sunk cost' of a sunken warship.
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
Plus they are probably produced in much smaller numbers then most weapons systems.
Another Evolved Cape launched, HMAS Cape Spencer.
www.defenceconnect.com.au
-HMAS Cape Hawke probably not too far away either.
-2 more Evolved Capes currently under construction for the ABF.
-The last 2 of 24 Guardian class patrol boats also in build.
Assume more Evolved Capes for ABF and LCM to follow.
Austal announce successful launch of future HMAS Cape Spencer
Defence shipbuilder Austal Australia has announced the successful launch of its ninth Evolved Cape-class Patrol Boat for the Royal Australian Navy, the future HMAS Cape Spencer.
www.defenceconnect.com.au
-HMAS Cape Hawke probably not too far away either.
-2 more Evolved Capes currently under construction for the ABF.
-The last 2 of 24 Guardian class patrol boats also in build.
Assume more Evolved Capes for ABF and LCM to follow.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
TBH I was actually reminded of the 1917 Halifax Explosion in Halifax, Nova Scotia. One would want a munitions facility close enough to make it fairly easy to load and unload vessels, but also not so near things that in the event of an incident, critical infrastructure gets damaged/destroyed or a population centre is impacted.
Beautiful spot. If personnel lived in Eden they would probably set up a ferry…it’s only about 4kms across the bay from Eden. Would that be enough in event of explosion?
And internally it should be arranged to limit the effect of any explosion, e.g. buildings dispersed so that one going up wouldn't set off others.
There used to be an ammunition depot by a railway, south of here. Solid buildings, quite small, regular distances apart - & with a strong fence round everything. A local farmer grazed sheep between the buildings, so the land didn't go to waste.
Yes, all of that. You could probably develop Eden as a major port if you wanted to, but as it presently is all those personnel issues mentioned previously still apply - a great view (and nice cheese) doesn’t make up for a spouse who can’t get work.
Further, transport links south of the Shoalhaven, 300km to the north, are limited to one not very good highway (the Prince’s Highway), a difficult road over Brown Mountain from Cooma, and a few small (light aircraft) airstrips. You would need to massively upgrade those to enable the building of a Naval base there. In case anybody thinks Melbourne might have better links, it is 550 km to the west over what is at least arguably a worse road.
Finally, the last costing I saw for moving GI, standfast the CCD, was in the order of $12 billion, and that was some years ago. There are better uses of the Defence budget than unnecessarily moving the Navy to an out of the way spot.
Further, transport links south of the Shoalhaven, 300km to the north, are limited to one not very good highway (the Prince’s Highway), a difficult road over Brown Mountain from Cooma, and a few small (light aircraft) airstrips. You would need to massively upgrade those to enable the building of a Naval base there. In case anybody thinks Melbourne might have better links, it is 550 km to the west over what is at least arguably a worse road.
Finally, the last costing I saw for moving GI, standfast the CCD, was in the order of $12 billion, and that was some years ago. There are better uses of the Defence budget than unnecessarily moving the Navy to an out of the way spot.
Yep, if going for a greenfield site Jervis bay makes far more sense than Eden (larger local population centers; better connectivity to Sydney & Wollongong; a fair bit of realestate already under RAN/Commonwealth control; larger and likely more sheltered harbour...).