Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Status
Not open for further replies.

Bob53

Well-Known Member
I think the main issue with the subs, regardless of propulsion or the selection is the delivery time frames. Right choice, wrong Choice, there would be less of a debate if they were going to be in water in 10-15 years rather than 30 years.
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
There is no strong lobby group for nuclear. Opposed by coal, gas, industries. Opposed by renewable industries and most of the left. Australia has a huge amount of energy sources, so nuclear isn't an obvious choice and requires significant investment. Even among the liberals and the nationals there is no strong wing for nuclear power, rather just some individuals that are keen on it. Annoyingly, they are usually from different factions and there is no unity.

Australia has built and operated 3 nuclear reactors. 2 are now offline. OPAL is not a nuclear power station, but a medical and science research reactor, we have experience building small nuclear reactors. It creates a lot of medical isotopes. It is a nuclear reactor, it is operational, its just very small 20MW. ANSTO has been operating reactors for over half a century, it has waste handling agreements. It has operated reactors with highly enriched uranium (HIFAR). OPAL is one of the top three research reactors in the world. It produces (or can) about ~1/3 of the Mo-99 doses globally.

UNSW has a nuclear engineering course. Australia has loads of nuclear(or related) physicists. While we may be a bit low on qualified nuclear engineers, Australia does have a very significant pool of nuclear physics talent, and could scale up nuclear capability fairly quickly. There are several dozen ex-SSN US/UK people advising on projects in Australia. Australia could easily and has previously found it fairly easy to attract nuclear talent globally.

Labor has softened a bit on its nuclear policy. Given we actually now mine a lot of uranium from existing mines (Olympic mine - as essentially a biproduct), there isn't the same resistance as a greenfield uranium mine in Kakadu like we had in the 1980s. But there is no unity, and no one wants a nuclear facility near them (except apparently in Sydney - all the reactors, ANTSO, are in Sydney).

It would take something like a national crisis to bring nuclear to the fore front. War, imminent attack etc.

Throwing this on top of the sub program is not a good idea. See the Canada class. Australia would still not spec French submarines. They would still have US combat system, Australian componentry, US weapons, US/UK sensors.

I can 100% bet that the issues with the submarine project are not related to the diesel engines.
 

spoz

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I think the main issue with the subs, regardless of propulsion or the selection is the delivery time frames. Right choice, wrong Choice, there would be less of a debate if they were going to be in water in 10-15 years rather than 30 years.
The first Attack is due to be delivered sometime around 2030. Per the Shipbuilding Strategy, the plan is for a continuous build program with the length of each cycle dependant on the maintenance regime in place; for the Attacks that is something like 24 years so the concept is that the first of the generation after the Attacks will be delivered about 2 years after the last, and 24 years after the first Attack.
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
Ah yes, renowned Defence expert and rational intelligent debater Peta Credlin. That noise you heard was my eyes rolling out of my skull. It's very evident there is a concerted campaign now against this project from elements on the right. Someone somewhere missed out on getting on the contract gravy train. It's hard for such complex projects to get established and underway when a noisy media camp are continuously baying against it from well funded podiums.
ASPI also ran with this article


Marcus Hellver's article is more of a question about perception of problems with SEA 1000 and what we could do about it.
Is the PM and government asking questions for a reason?
Again for the public domain we are in the dark as I'd suggest is the author; but yet again this subject keeps getting air ,so for right or wrong some dirt will stick

As has being said on this forum before, Plan A is also our Plan B.


Regards S
 

cdxbow

Well-Known Member
Yes, Peta Credlin was Tony Abbot's co-Prime Minister (or acted that way), and equally annoyed that Australia didn't choose Rupert Murdoch's Captain's Pick. News Ltd has used Credlin to try to discredit the project ever since. Clearly Murdoch or one of his mates had a business connection with Japan that was upset. She has no credibility on Defence whatsoever (as @DDG38 intimates)

oldsig
Perhaps it's just subs they don't like, remember the vitriol about the Collins class from News corp? I always thought it was because they were tainted by being 'Beasleys subs', but now it's a French design selected by the government of News corps choosing. Hard to work out unless it as you say, somebodies mate had a business connection with the Japanese.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
Australia has built and operated 3 nuclear reactors. 2 are now offline. OPAL is not a nuclear power station, but a medical and science research reactor, we have experience building small nuclear reactors. It creates a lot of medical isotopes. It is a nuclear reactor, it is operational, its just very small 20MW. ANSTO has been operating reactors for over half a century, it has waste handling agreements. It has operated reactors with highly enriched uranium (HIFAR). ...
OPAL is an Argentinean design, & the prime contractor was the Argentinean company INVAP - "undertaking the design, procurement, installation and supervision of the commissioning and performance demonstration of OPAL" - according to the ANSTO website. I think Australia's nuclear reactor design & construction capabilities are far behind Argentina's. How many Australia-designed reactors are in operation around the world?

OPAL is one of the top three research reactors in the world.
Sure about that? I'd be interested in how you define top research reactors

As far as producers of medical radioisotopes goes (I know, not the same thing), the HFR reactor at Petten, in the Netherlands, has recently been producing about 30% of the world's medical radioisotopes, & a replacement (PALLAS. Vital - Pallas Reactor) is being built - also INVAP-designed.

According to the US NIH, in 2016 OPAL had 8% of world production capability for Mo-99, which is used in 80% of nuclear medical procedures & was the 6th largest in the world. Petten was biggest, with 23%, & BFR-2 in Belgium 2nd with 21%. 95% of the world output came from 7 reactors - not necessarily in direct proportion to output capacity.
 
Last edited:

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
OT

Canada’s Chalk River reactor produced a significant portion of the world’s Mo-99 for almost 50 years until its closure several years ago. Two replacement reactors were built (Maple) but they were never licensed. Rather than build another design, the government decided on cyclotron expansion. Work at Vancouver’s TRIUMF facility resulted in a cyclotron design capable of producing Tc-99 directly. An added advantage is the ability to produce other medical isotopes near imaging sites. Currently there are 16 cyclotrons and more will come.
 

Mikeymike

Active Member
The first Attack is due to be delivered sometime around 2030. Per the Shipbuilding Strategy, the plan is for a continuous build program with the length of each cycle dependant on the maintenance regime in place; for the Attacks that is something like 24 years so the concept is that the first of the generation after the Attacks will be delivered about 2 years after the last, and 24 years after the first Attack.
As per senate estimates the yard is being built with the capability to deliver a future submarine every 18 months in required (see attached QoN). Obviously this would affect the continuous shipbuilding plan but if required the government could accelerate and increase the number of submarines in service from ~2034 onwards.

Considering they haven't yet announced how many Collins they are planning to put through LOTE and they are planning on an Attack class every 24 months it would seem Defence/Government don't consider the need for a quicker delivery rate. Though at least they could accelerate if they wanted if the strategic circumstances continued to deteriorate.

Personally I think it is a bit premature to cancel as we are still very early in the overall project. It seems the only delays so far are agreed by Defence as they want the design as mature as possible before starting construction which is the smart thing to do. Also think its stupid to cancel based over % of industrial content as capability is most important and economics should come second. Don't think cancelling and ordering overseas or even changing supplier will increase or change the % level possible.

just my 2 cents.
 

Attachments

Takao

The Bunker Group
Err....yes we do: Visit Sydney OPAL Reactor | ANSTO Sydney | ANSTO

And we have a (small) crew of nuclear experts and throughput of students. In fact, I know at least three that are currently doing their Masters in Nuclear Engineering. All on the eastern coast in Australia too. It may not be enough to support a fleet of 12 SSN, but that's a yet. We wouldn't be starting from scratch.
@Sandhi Yudha, it's been brought to my attention you said powerplant not reactor. I'm sorry, I misread that. You are are 100% correct.
 

hauritz

Well-Known Member
How many enhanced Collins ll could we have commissioned from now to 2035 if we started now?
I think that option left the building ages ago.
It would not surprise me if the new Attack class will be Australia's last manned submarine. So in the event of the Attack program failing a possible Plan B might be to simply extend the life of the Collins for as long as possible and move directly into Unmanned Underwater Vessels.
 

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I think that option left the building ages ago.
It would not surprise me if the new Attack class will be Australia's last manned submarine. So in the event of the Attack program failing a possible Plan B might be to simply extend the life of the Collins for as long as possible and move directly into Unmanned Underwater Vessels.
I don’t think the age of manned submarines is closing, they will be around for some time yet.
How they are used may change and they probably will have unmanned vehicles able to be deployed from them.
Command and Control underwater is not an easy undertaking, particularly at long range and it also varies greatly with water bathymetry so direct human oversight is essential.
Yes there will be many remote vehicles developed for specific purposes and able to be programmed for a variety of tasks but the full range of capabilities of large manned boats cannot be replaced with current technology IMHO
 

John Newman

The Bunker Group
How many enhanced Collins ll could we have commissioned from now to 2035 if we started now?
I think the answer to that is rather simple, nil, zero, none.

The thing I always find interesting whenever Collins II or Son of Collins (whatever people want to call it) is mentioned, you would think that the ‘go’ button is ready to be pushed. But it isn’t.

Is there a complete finished design available? A drawer full of design and engineering blueprints? No? I thought not.

What about infrastructure? All ready to go? No? What about the workforce? Ready to go? No again? Materials and equipment necessary to build Collins II? Another no?

As it stands today, there is no Collins II design ready to go from ‘now’, the infrastructure used to build Collins is now used for Collins class FCD. The infrastructure to be used in the Attack class build is still a few years away from completion. The manpower currently at ASC is dedicated to Collins sustainment, which must continue, the manpower for Attack has to be built over the coming years, etc, etc.


I think a better question would be to ask, what is the construction status of the Attack class by 2035?

Assuming construction starts in 2024 (I’ve also seen 2023 mentioned too), but let’s stick with 2024 as the start date.

A drumbeat of 24mths between boats, eg starting 2024, 2026, 2028, 2030, 2032, 2034, etc.

A total of six boats should have been started (24mths apart) by 2035, there would probably be two boats in commission and possibly a third in the water or soon to go into the water.

Anyway, just my opinion of course.

Cheers,
 

old faithful

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Maybe there is a place for something like that. But replacing the LARC-V, no way? Maybe something for the specials? possibly deployable from their riverine patrol craft for stealthier amphibious insertion. If you made it electric, it could have no significant noise/IR signature, and be able to quickly move in from the horizon to several kilometers inland. A small insertion, through a small mangrove creek, onto land, with lots of cover. Small wheels though..

The UK has their smaller hovercraft and perhaps that is a better way to augment the capability. Hovercrafts are as noisey as fuck (not in anyway stealthy, with huge noise and spray) , terrible in windy conditions or rough conditions, there is plenty of terrain which is difficult for them. They are really fast, and some terrain which is almost impassible with other amphibious vehicles. They can carry 5 or 10t.

The LARC-V is good at what is used for. Resupply, scouting, assisting in prepping for landings, seebee stuff etc. This is vitally important in amphibious operations.

While you can resupply via helicopter, you can't really explore the tidal surf zone of a potential landing zone with it. A boat can't drive over a sandbar, but a LARC, no isssue at all, checking depths and conditions. A LARC doesn't need to travel at 30 knots, or 120kmph on land. It just needs to be good in that odd zone between water and land. So in the end I think you end up with the LARC for that role. It doesn't need to be heavily armored and isn't designed to carry troops into battle. But if you want to remove logs or debris from an area LARC is great for that kind of work, vital work, in that tidal zone.

The Antarctic program uses them as well, Macquarie island is basically inaccessible without them. There is one usually permanently stationed there. They previously contracted the Army for resupply but now they have their own capability. The device is reliable enough and easy enough to maintain they keep on over winter. Its a great example of how difficult many locations are without port facilities. Landing craft can't land directly at Macquarie island. See the image below.

View attachment 48024
Macquarie Island - readily accessible by LARC only.

View attachment 48025
Typical pacific island, with rocky coast, and fringing coral reef.

They are also very useful in the pacific around smaller islands, where even a tinny may be impossible to land as its fringed by reefs and rocks sometimes extending a hundred meters or more. Such islands may not be the focus of an amphibious landing but may be key strategic points, communication, observation posts, etc.

With many rocky features around the beaches, landing craft just can't get in there. It is also extremely shallow even at high tides. You need a narrow, maneuverable, amphibious, truck. This is common in the many volcanic islands around the pacific.

Also more recently, the LARCs proved the fastest, safest way to evacuate people in the fires. More than helicopters, LCM, RHIBs etc. Smoke made air operations dangerous and difficult. Aviation assets were also doing other duties.

Civilian facilities are often based around boat trailer sized capabilities. They were able to drive directly to evacuation centres and where people had gathered, and move people directly. No unloading/reloading. No moving people to an appropriately clear airfield (impossible because of fires/smoke). When shit hits the fan its often the oldest and simplest equipment and solutions that work the most effective.


I think the LARC-V is genuinely useful.

We should have a 100 of the dam things. Then sell/gift them to pacific nations and others who are still operating the 50-60 year old lugs.
There used to be a heap of them at Liechardt in Sydney, not sure what happened to them.
 

DDG38

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
"HMAS Sheean visited Beauty Point, Tasmania, as part of her first deployment of 2021. It is the first of a series of port visits to the state for the submarine, which was named for Victoria Cross recipient Ordinary Seaman Teddy Sheean, who was from Tasmania. The Collins Class submarine has been participating with ships and aircraft in Fleet Certification Period 2021, an annual high-end warfighting exercise." (Image source - ADF Image Library link)
20210227ran8555536_0012edit.jpg
 
I was surprised to see a not scathing article in The Australian by Greg Sheridan "Naval Group agreement for local quotas on Attack submarines" (apologies, pay-walled).

It was mostly all around percentage of content in the contract, but with variations for each stage of the build and incentives for Naval Group if they exceed local content requirements.

That said, the most interesting part to see from my perspective was the following quote:
He [Global Chairman & CEO of Naval Group, Pierre-Eric Pommellet] said Australia was now “strongly pulling” Naval Group and transforming its nature.

“We will become a Franco/Australian company,” he said. “I mean that Australia is not an international operation like others. What we are doing here is unique.

“We will have two countries of sovereignty, France and Australia, and we will have other countries of operation.”
Considering the earlier mentions of culture and process clashes, this is a really positive perspective to be taking and hopefully is real and not just vendor talk. This perspective is really what Australia wanted after all - high end, unique capability matched with more production and design sovereignty. Glad to see Defence taking a strong approach.
 

aussienscale

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I was surprised to see a not scathing article in The Australian by Greg Sheridan "Naval Group agreement for local quotas on Attack submarines" (apologies, pay-walled).

It was mostly all around percentage of content in the contract, but with variations for each stage of the build and incentives for Naval Group if they exceed local content requirements.

That said, the most interesting part to see from my perspective was the following quote:


Considering the earlier mentions of culture and process clashes, this is a really positive perspective to be taking and hopefully is real and not just vendor talk. This perspective is really what Australia wanted after all - high end, unique capability matched with more production and design sovereignty. Glad to see Defence taking a strong approach.
Keep an eye out for the video, if they release it of course, of Greg with Peta Credlin on Sky tonight, he did not let her get away with nitpicking comments and talked over her as she tried to cut him off, he did a really good job explaining it to her, Peta did not like it too much, she just likes to bash the Attack project because her and TA were pushed out !!
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Keep an eye out for the video, if they release it of course, of Greg with Peta Credlin on Sky tonight, he did not let her get away with nitpicking comments and talked over her as she tried to cut him off, he did a really good job explaining it to her, Peta did not like it too much, she just likes to bash the Attack project because her and TA were pushed out !!
Here it is released 20 minutes ago.

 

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Here it is released 20 minutes ago.

It’s a relief to hear a cogent discourse stating the obvious regarding the Attacks.
It’s a damn shame that some of those in government aren’t doing more to dispel the rubbish trumpeted by Sen Rex Patrick and the cheerleaders, I’m looking at you Gottliebsen, casting doubt on on the programme.
The RAN leaders are constrained by their positions and can’t enter the public debate and the opportunities to correct the BS, such as Senate Estimates, come around far too infrequently.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top