Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[devo99]

On that script they should currently be in transition to a new class of sub.

Practically they already are. Public anecdotes from a multitude of defence and government officials will tell you the scale at which things are already moving towards the Virginia class workforce.

Now Id like to be all fanboy with SSNs but
I can’t help but feel uncomfortable with the size of the endeavour.

The often proposed plan B of obtaining a "stopgap" fleet of diesel boats would be no more comfortable and certainly more wasteful compared to the option of additional Virginias if it comes to that. Even more so if the Virginias were cancelled in turn as Tbone suggested earlier.

 

[iambuzzard]

I dont think we can ignore the subject matter regardless of the level of f'ckwittery or w*nker driven agenda's.
Im not suggesting we'd have Indo or Argie levels of ignorance WRT basic maintenance of old subs but I'd be extremely reluctant to serve on one.
Do we lean into Ghost Shark/Speartooth production and hope they can pick up the slack?
Do we get a stop-gap and hope the Japanese will give up a production slot or 4?
Or do we just hope the current plan works?

We will have the rotational force out of FBW that nobody mentions. They will be dedicated to our area of operations. They won't be sovereign capabilities but we won't be entirely undefended.

 

[Takao]

Realistically, if we placed an order for 6 SSK’s conventional subs from Japan how long would it take for them to deliver the first sub? My understanding is they have a hotline and currently pumping them out.
Is it possible to reallocate the 11billion to acquire new subs? Or is it too late? I feel this lote is going to drag on and the nuclear subs is going to be delayed due to it being such a big undertaking. Having 6 new conventional submarines makes sense to ease the pressure off Collin’s, and nuclear build.
Could we just acquire 6 Japanese subs and drop the virginia class from the plan. They can bridge the gap until 2040 when we have our Australian built aukus subs in the water. Dropping the pressure for the us to hand over Virginia boats.
Phase out Colin’s in the 2030s with Japan subs then phase out Japan subs in the 2050’s with the last of the aukus subs. This way we aren’t operating 3 classes of boat

Not an option. How do you pay for another SEA 1000? Look how tight the IIP is right now, you can't jam another sub project in there. And the Virginias are an essential stepping stone.

Repeat after me - there is no plan B. Or C. Those feasible options were ejected in 2024. There is only one way forward.... Collins -> Virginia -> AUKUS.

On that script they should currently be in transition to a new class of sub.
Be that the Attack class or preferably an alternative program that should have started in the early 20 teens.
Now Id like to be all fanboy with SSNs but
I can’t help but feel uncomfortable with the size of the endeavour.

So 2026 and we are still navigating what Collins future and potential is with the sad acknowledgment time is not on their side and the options are limited.

Upshot I believe we have a problem.

I see absolutely no chance any Collins boats will see 2040.
If by miracle they do ,how capable and relevant will they be.
At best a training platform.

Seriously does anyone on DT honestly believe any Collins class will be in service beyond 2040

HMAS Rankin another 14 years ?

We are not in a very good negotiating position.

Yup. We should have started replacing Collins years ago. Arguably even before SEA 1000. But - the decision was made to go SSNs....

There are no means to fit another submarine project into the IIP. Collins will carry the line for the foreseeable future.

Repeat after me - there is no plan B. Or C. Those feasible options were ejected in 2024. There is only one way forward.... Collins -> Virginia -> AUKUS.

I dont think we can ignore the subject matter regardless of the level of f'ckwittery or w*nker driven agenda's.
Im not suggesting we'd have Indo or Argie levels of ignorance WRT basic maintenance of old subs but I'd be extremely reluctant to serve on one.
Do we lean into Ghost Shark/Speartooth production and hope they can pick up the slack?
Do we get a stop-gap and hope the Japanese will give up a production slot or 4?
Or do we just hope the current plan works?

Repeat after me - there is no plan B. Or C. Those feasible options were ejected in 2024. There is only one way forward.... Collins -> Virginia -> AUKUS.

 

[Takao]

So I confess to a little bit of sarcasm above; and I apologise to @Tbone, @Stampede and @Murse for appearing to dismiss them

But the sad reality that has to be hammered home to all the commentators is that, like it or love it, there is no option but SSN. Even if you scrap SSNs now, you are going to not see a SSK until the late 30s. Remember also that there will have to be additional hulls and capabilities to make up for what has been lost with SSNs. People consistently under-estimate the cost, time into service, or workforce that a submarine fleet needs. As @Todjaeger makes it clear with the Japanese example, there are no nations sitting around with free SSK/SSN industry. And making it built in Australia just adds to those estimates.

Repeat after me - there is no plan B. Or C. Those feasible options were ejected in 2024. There is only one way forward.... Collins -> Virginia -> AUKUS.

 

[Murse]

So I confess to a little bit of sarcasm above; and I apologise to @Tbone, @Stampede and @Murse for appearing to dismiss them

But the sad reality that has to be hammered home to all the commentators is that, like it or love it, there is no option but SSN. Even if you scrap SSNs now, you are going to not see a SSK until the late 30s. Remember also that there will have to be additional hulls and capabilities to make up for what has been lost with SSNs. People consistently under-estimate the cost, time into service, or workforce that a submarine fleet needs. As @Todjaeger makes it clear with the Japanese example, there are no nations sitting around with free SSK/SSN industry. And making it built in Australia just adds to those estimates.

Repeat after me - there is no plan B. Or C. Those feasible options were ejected in 2024. There is only one way forward.... Collins -> Virginia -> AUKUS.

If you'd said on this forum 10 years ago that we'd be on a pathway to SSN's, you'd be laughed at-at the very least!
What that means to me is, never say never, especially when plan A relies on things outside of our control, and a very dynamic political landscape in the 3 AUKUS nations.

 

[John Fedup]

So I confess to a little bit of sarcasm above; and I apologise to @Tbone, @Stampede and @Murse for appearing to dismiss them

But the sad reality that has to be hammered home to all the commentators is that, like it or love it, there is no option but SSN. Even if you scrap SSNs now, you are going to not see a SSK until the late 30s. Remember also that there will have to be additional hulls and capabilities to make up for what has been lost with SSNs. People consistently under-estimate the cost, time into service, or workforce that a submarine fleet needs. As @Todjaeger makes it clear with the Japanese example, there are no nations sitting around with free SSK/SSN industry. And making it built in Australia just adds to those estimates.

Repeat after me - there is no plan B. Or C. Those feasible options were ejected in 2024. There is only one way forward.... Collins -> Virginia -> AUKUS.

SKorea might be able to deliver SSKs earlier than the late 30s but I agree Virginia >AUKUS is the path. Collins upgrade, a real stretch albeit no alternative.

 

[Volkodav]

So I confess to a little bit of sarcasm above; and I apologise to @Tbone, @Stampede and @Murse for appearing to dismiss them

But the sad reality that has to be hammered home to all the commentators is that, like it or love it, there is no option but SSN. Even if you scrap SSNs now, you are going to not see a SSK until the late 30s. Remember also that there will have to be additional hulls and capabilities to make up for what has been lost with SSNs. People consistently under-estimate the cost, time into service, or workforce that a submarine fleet needs. As @Todjaeger makes it clear with the Japanese example, there are no nations sitting around with free SSK/SSN industry. And making it built in Australia just adds to those estimates.

Repeat after me - there is no plan B. Or C. Those feasible options were ejected in 2024. There is only one way forward.... Collins -> Virginia -> AUKUS.

There are however options for Collins, many options.

My dig at Shoebridge was because his claim LOTE has been cancelled is BS, it has not, and it is proceeding. He is demonstrating that he is not an analysts boot lace and obviously either knows nothing about sustainment of aging platforms or he is lying to support his own agenda.

I wouldnt be at all surprised if he is submitting the B-21 article AD suggested for this Saturdays Australian.

LOTE has its issues, management included, much of defence has the same issues. My personal bias is its down to too many people with MBAs who dont even know what the acronyms they spout stand for. Actually, its worse than that, too many people who are sent to do MBAs after being appointed to critical management roles on major projects with no relivant qualifications or experience.

Where we are at now appears to be because the government actually read some of the reviews and reports Shoebridge listed then said didnt exist.

LOTE lives as what it was originally intended to be, not what people assumed it was.

 

[old faithful]

The general public think that the Virginas are The AUKUS subs, and cant be convinced otherwise. They think we are paying $268bn for 3 Virginas, 2 of which are 2nd hand.
Someone in the media really needs to explain what AUKUS really is.....or the media dont know or care anyway.

 

[spoz]

The other to remember about submarines (not “subs”, please) is that it is not age of the boat that matters so much as the number of dive cycles it has completed. And, due to the history of the class, Collins dive cycles are low for their physical ages. True, the equipment inside them can become difficult to support with time but over their life much of it, combat system for example, has been constantly updated. Yes, there are issues, but submarines are always expensive platforms to maintain and there is no reason to believe that they can’t be kept going well into the 2030s. By which time, according to AUKUS, we should be starting to commission SSNs - if admittedly second hand ones.

 

[south]

The general public think that the Virginas are The AUKUS subs, and cant be convinced otherwise. They think we are paying $268bn for 3 Virginas, 2 of which are 2nd hand.
Someone in the media really needs to explain what AUKUS really is.....or the media dont know or care anyway.

To be clear, that isn’t the role of media. Explaining and justifying the largest single outlay in Australian history is the role of Government and Defence Seniors.

The tool they may use is certainly media.

Neither side of politics, nor Defence has articulated the case well.

 

[spoz]

I very much doubt that the average Australian knows any more than “AUKUS is about us getting nuclear submarines and it is going to cost a lot.” Unless they are interested in Defence, a small proportion of the population, they’re likely to not have a clue about numbers or timelines. The information is available, but I don’t think that many really want or care to know; and the media reflects that.

 

[Volkodav]

I very much doubt that the average Australian knows any more than “AUKUS is about us getting nuclear submarines and it is going to cost a lot.” Unless they are interested in Defence, a small proportion of the population, they’re likely to not have a clue about numbers or timelines. The information is available, but I don’t think that many really want or care to know; and the media reflects that.

I struggle to find project managers and technical leads within defence who understand what we do and why.

Hell there are very confident naval officers I have encountered who dont understand the basics of why we are doing what we do, let alone the detail of how it is done.

Perhaps worse, there are those who do know, but dont care and are simply marking time to their next posting/promotion.

 

[StingrayOZ]

True, the equipment inside them can become difficult to support with time but over their life much of it,

The swedes LOTE their vastergotland class, commissioned 1989. Became sodermanland class, to be later sold to poland. Singapore still has the swedish archers.. So there is evidence the submarine design often has a long life. So Australia isn't alone in LOTE of these types of submarines.

IMO I just wishes for new engine/batteries. If we ever have a global conflict happen before our SSNs. I think we will regret not doing that. There is a big difference between managing the twilight years of an aging platform in peacetime, and high intensity combat operations with long transits, intense and long patrols. The engines would require huge work to do and be a tech dead end for Australia.

While its money, we are going to build SSNs here, and I think having a project with a bit more meat in it, requiring more active risk and more technical skill would prime the well more actively. Lessons learnt are going to be better to be learnt the hard way on an outgoing platform, rather than a ultra complex new platform that even moderate cost estimates put a 10 times the cost and perhaps complexity. Its one of the few times where I would support attempting a project even if risk of failure is significant.

Historical examples include the US Guppy program. The Swedes with the vastergoltand to sodermanland class (which included a hull extension). The US George washing SSBN program, with a 130ft extension, the Sturgeons.

Japan also fitted lithium batteries to the 11th of the soryus.. while a new build, it was basically a re-engineering of an existing design. for 1 boat. they have about 6+ years of operational experience across multiple boats now.

Batteries can be made to fit the same weight, size profile, but superior performance. So the engineering, while significant, isn't as risky and as massive as re-designing the entire boat for new engines/exhaust/generators. Enhancing submarine battery tech is relevant going forward for UUVs. Even if it was just used for hotel load, something that may apply to the new AUKUS subs anyway. Even if the first 2 subs were built without such features, and it was only included on the last batch.

But I assume such discussions are already being had and assessed.

 

[Flexson]

I attended a brief at IODS; Continuous Naval Ship Building in WA hosted by Austal. At the end of the presentation, which was just a bunch of catch words and punch lines with very little detail on how the "continuous" would actually be achieved, the first question asked of the presenter was "when is the Landing Craft Medium build program scheduled to conclude" And the presenter could not answer and said he had been "put on the spot".

The first program in your "continuous" plan, that you are presenting a pre-prepared brief to a room of defence industry professionals and you're not even across the minor detail of schedule dates. What hope do media or the general public have?

 

[Reptilia]

Paddy Gregg of Austal in the latest Defence Connect podcast…

PODCAST: Australia’s shipbuilding future, landing craft pipeline and autonomous vessels, with Austal CEO Paddy Gregg

How is Australia’s naval shipbuilding sector preparing for a new generation of landing craft, autonomous maritime systems and general purpose frigates?

www.defenceconnect.com.au

Talk about defence media being awful, they thought the OPV(83m?) program was being built by Austal and Paddy had to tell them it was Luerssen/Civmec.

 

[DDG38]

I've tried listening to the Defence Connect podcast a couple of times and I only last about 10 minutes. It's way too slick, corporate and the hosts come across as APS4 grads who try to appear knowledgeable after reading wiki articles on real world platforms and capabilities. Hard pass. For such a niche media space we deserve better.

 

[iambuzzard]

The general public think that the Virginas are The AUKUS subs, and cant be convinced otherwise. They think we are paying $268bn for 3 Virginas, 2 of which are 2nd hand.
Someone in the media really needs to explain what AUKUS really is.....or the media dont know or care anyway.

The general public think that the Virginas are The AUKUS subs, and cant be convinced otherwise. They think we are paying $268bn for 3 Virginas, 2 of which are 2nd hand.
Someone in the media really needs to explain what AUKUS really is.....or the media dont know or care anyway.

As a member of the general public my understanding is we get 3 Virginias to get us in the SSN game to tide us over until the 8 SSN AUKUS boats start to come onstream. Extra Virginias would only be looked at if there's a delay to the onshore builds. Once we have all the new hulls the Virginias would be retired or returned to the US.
The media never state that.

 

[iambuzzard]

The other to remember about submarines (not “subs”, please) is that it is not age of the boat that matters so much as the number of dive cycles it has completed. And, due to the history of the class, Collins dive cycles are low for their physical ages. True, the equipment inside them can become difficult to support with time but over their life much of it, combat system for example, has been constantly updated. Yes, there are issues, but submarines are always expensive platforms to maintain and there is no reason to believe that they can’t be kept going well into the 2030s. By which time, according to AUKUS, we should be starting to commission SSNs - if admittedly second hand ones.

Subs can be bought at Subway! Lol

 

[old faithful]

As a member of the general public my understanding is we get 3 Virginias to get us in the SSN game to tide us over until the 8 SSN AUKUS boats start to come onstream. Extra Virginias would only be looked at if there's a delay to the onshore builds. Once we have all the new hulls the Virginias would be retired or returned to the US.
The media never state that.

Yeah but but, its also about building nuke submarines, basing nuke submarines, maintaining nuke submarines, and training an untrained workforce how to "keep" and use said submarine and infrastructure to exploit it properly.
Then there is the money going to the US to help speed up the process of building Virginias faster, in the hope we will get them. And get them we will. If the RAN takes some of the work load from the USN, there is no degredation of their fleet.

 

[iambuzzard]

Yeah but but, its also about building nuke submarines, basing nuke submarines, maintaining nuke submarines, and training an untrained workforce how to "keep" and use said submarine and infrastructure to exploit it properly.
Then there is the money going to the US to help speed up the process of building Virginias faster, in the hope we will get them. And get them we will. If the RAN takes some of the work load from the USN, there is no degredation of their fleet.

It's already being proven with the personnel we have embedded with the RN and USN learning the ropes as it were. The improvement to our technological and industrial knowledge and expertise can't be understated.