Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[oldsig127]

I agree. The response from Indonesia to the development of SSN’s for Australia was not overly enthusiastic. The Astute (or its replacement) are Attack boats without the significant strike weapons of the Virginia. The Virginia combines a significant land attack capability with the VLS tubes/Pay load modules.

That sort of capability is likely to make some of our neighbours a tad uneasy.

Indeed, and some of the press are repeatedly saying that we're buying US submarines and ignoring the other option, then bigging up the offence it might cause Indonesia.

oldsig

 

[Ananda]

The response from Indonesia to the development of SSN’s for Australia was not overly enthusiastic.

Indonesia response more due taking by surprise. Surprised caused Australia before talking on no nuclear power policy, including in Naval.
It's also derived on worries Australian move will open next chapter on SSN say from Japan and South Korea.

Some in Indonesia Political circles even talk (unofficially) to open discussion with French on similar Brazilian SSN solution. This as Naval Group also running on potential partner with PAL for next batch SSK. However the way I see it so far more on concern with the potential East Asia (Japan and ROK) SSN race. There's still far away for Indonesia nuclear Industry before attempt any SSN, but not with Japan and ROK.

This also related to transparency of Strategic Partnership. In the wake of upgrading Strategic Partnership, Indonesia seems feel at least Australia inform on their changing policy with SSN deployment. Something that I believe even in Australia it self taken by surprise. Just like problem diplomacy with French that I post in Geopolitical/Indo Pacific thread, there should be some matter of communication that Australia should handle better.

 

[Rudeboy]

Why are the number dives the key Issue? The vessels are designed with a safety margin construction and materials would that permit them to operate beyond the ‘set’ maximum dive depth so operating to the set maximum depth should not be an issue unless something is done that stressed the structure. It’s how they have been operated and maintained (and ongoing monitoring) that will determine the life of the hull not the number of dives.

Like airliners and landing cycles (rather than flight hours). Diving cycles are the best measurement on how tired a hull is, the extreme stresses of the increase and decrease in pressure, metal compressing and expanding, as a boat dives and surfaces is when a hull is under the most stress. Once a boat has reached depth and the hull has ceased to compress and is stable the amount of stress its under drops enormously.

 

[StobieWan]

The Astutes are:

• Smaller - not by much, but smaller, The Virginias are larger (~15%), physically, particularly the block V with the launchers, 140m, some 40% longer. While the US can build them quite cheaply, they are building ~30-40 of them and have commonality with their entire sub fleet of 100 subs. The US is like a mass production facility.
• Smaller crew - ~100 vs ~135 odd. 35% less crewing is huge. For every 3 V boats you can man 4 A boats.
• More commonality with the sensors/systems we want - Australia basically was specing Astute sensors on the attack program, so all the work on that and integrating that with the combat system is not wasted. Again the UK would operate more like Australia, both as medium power navies. UK companies like BAE already have huge operations in Australia, already building ships, already people experienced on the UK sub building program in Australia in the organisations. US companies like Electric boat have no foot print.
• We have much more in common with RN training and operation. As Alexsa points out the RAN is much closer in operation and manning to the RN than to the USN. We have kick started our submarine programs off the Brits several times, and there is a significant portion of RN sailors in the RAN submarine force. (AE1 and AE2, the Oberon's, some minor help with Collins class).
• The timing is such as that as the Astute build program concludes, the UK could send pretty much its entire team to Australia, to assist get things up and running. 50 welders and trades, ~10 managers, ~10 designers, etc. Jigs and machinery could be moved if required. This could effectively hotstart production. Saving years. The first hull build could basically be a joint venture. With Australians in the UK building part, and Britons in Australia building part.

An Astute with the latest PWR3 reactor and the US combat system would be excellent. PWR3 is a further leap ahead in safety and durability ahead of the PWR2. PWR3 is supposed to effectively be an enhanced PWR2 with very similar dimensions. Its entirely feasible to put it into Astute.

While the Virginias have larger weapons load out in block V, in block I-IV the Astutes can carry more weapons (25+12 VLS) vs a theoretical 38. Realistically this isn't going to be an issue. But the Astutes are focused on being submarines while the Virginia's have a significant land attack capability. So unless we are building the mammoth and yet unbuilt Block V, Astute will be fine for what we need.

The US could certainly strike a deal, they might buy or pay for ~4-6 subs to be built in Australia as they are at maximum capacity, which would change the game. Separately, WA could again become a major US sub base. With say 4-6 US subs based there and maintenance facilities for that as well. I think this is unlikely, but its not impossible. However, I don't think this is what is driving the agreement and would seem to cut the UK out of it.

There are already existing papers/studies looking at Australia's SSN options, most of those comeback in favor of Astute. Going forward, I can see Australia and the UK having a peer relationship on the design and construction of future attack subs. Both countries benefit.

Very good summary!

One more thing - the Astute hull uses advanced shaping vs active sonar - whereas the 'Ginny sticks with the conventional cylinder - Astute may be harder to pick up using active means.

In terms of synergy, an Astute sale would be a shot in the arm to the UK future SSN program as we're perilously close to the minimum numbers that would make a nuclear program viable. Australia could get into that future program right at the outset and be already in pole position to replace subs not yet even specified.

It's a definite win-win if it happens.

 

[ADMk2]

Indonesia response more due taking by surprise. Surprised caused Australia before talking on no nuclear power policy, including in Naval.
It's also derived on worries Australian move will open next chapter on SSN say from Japan and South Korea.

Some in Indonesia Political circles even talk (unofficially) to open discussion with French on similar Brazilian SSN solution. This as Naval Group also running on potential partner with PAL for next batch SSK. However the way I see it so far more on concern with the potential East Asia (Japan and ROK) SSN race. There's still far away for Indonesia nuclear Industry before attempt any SSN, but not with Japan and ROK.

This also related to transparency of Strategic Partnership. In the wake of upgrading Strategic Partnership, Indonesia seems feel at least Australia inform on their changing policy with SSN deployment. Something that I believe even in Australia it self taken by surprise. Just like problem diplomacy with French that I post in Geopolitical/Indo Pacific thread, there should be some matter of communication that Australia should handle better.

Does the reverse happen? Does Indonesia feel the need to brief Australia when it is choosing to acquire some new offensive capability? Brahmos missiles for example?

Without meaning to cause offence, I think some nations are a little bit precious about our defence choices.

 

[John Newman]

Does the reverse happen? Does Indonesia feel the need to brief Australia when it is choosing to acquire some new offensive capability? Brahmos missiles for example?

Without meaning to cause offence, I think some nations are a little bit precious about our defence choices.

I agree, 100%

From what’s been reported, this process started 18mths ago, should we have told Indonesia then? No.

It was reported that all parties came to an agreement around mid year, should we have told Indonesia then? Again, no.

From what is reported Indonesia was informed on Wednesday, along with our other regional friends and partners.

If I was Indonesia I’d be far more concerned about what is happening to their north, not south.

Cheers,

 

[tonnyc]

Indeed, and some of the press are repeatedly saying that we're buying US submarines and ignoring the other option, then bigging up the offence it might cause Indonesia.

My prediction is that Indonesia will make the usual statements about concern (already did) but nothing stronger because they can see the big picture too. Some Indonesian politicians will condemn this because that will get them talking time in the media but the government as a whole will shrug.

Contrary to Ananda's perception, I don't see any "we wish you told us first" sentiment, but the circle of people he knows and the circle of people I know don't overlap much, so we could both be right. I do expect that parts of the Indonesian Armed Forces will start asking around and collecting data for a feasibility study in getting small modular reactor and nuclear powered submarines and ships. This has always been in the back of their mind, though no real timeline has been set in stone. A vague-ish "sometime after 2040, maybe. After we get the twelve diesel submarines."

But if given this impetus the admirals may start making visits to Chinese, Russian, and Indian shipyards and asking questions. There's a good chance that nothing will come of it, and if it does it will be post-2040, but if within the next ten years you guys hear that Indonesia's interested, hey, I called it first.

 

[Ananda]

Without meaning to cause offence, I think some nations are a little bit precious about our defence choices.

The communication coming from Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MoFA), not Ministry of Defense (MinDef). The way I see how Indonesia put concern, if the concern more on what Australia choice of defense, it will be more likely something will come out from Ministry of Defense. So far, MinDef doesn't talk anything on this matter, perhaps they want to maintain level of co-op and communication on defense with Australia.

The communication from MoFA in my opinion more consist of two thing:
1. Concern that Australia move can create SSN race in region (like I put in my previous post especially from ROK and Japan),
2. How this means for regional commitment on not using nuclear for defense.

Indonesian MoFA more concerned that this move can open Nuclear Pandora box in Asia Pacific. The way I see it, it's not being directed to Australia alone, but also to US. What's this means from US perspective, is it mean US ok with Asian developing nuclear capabilities ? If US give Australia nuclear reactor for SSN operation, will it then mean they will not complaint if someone else in the region work with (say French) to build SSN?

But more importantly this is a question to Australian stances on developing Nuclear power. Is this means future Australian SSN will only powered by nuclear, or later on it's open to operate nuclear weapons from US or UK ? What Australia stances if the neighborhood developing nuclear power capabilities ?

Nuclear is always sensitive issue, I remember back in 90's there's concern in Australia when Soeharto told Habibie to study on building Nuclear Power Reactors for electricity. The concern officially talking on safety on nuclear reactor within Indonesia earthquake prone region. However some Australia media already talk that by moving to that direction, Indonesia will develop it's own fuel enrichment capabilities (which with only few tweaks can be developed to the "next" level).

The talking in Indonesia now on potential choosing molten salt technology, also influence to satisfied regional and domestic concern on of fuel enrichment and radiation safety, as Molten Salt technology is harder to turn into "next" level of fuel enrichment and have better radiation safety.

was Indonesia I’d be far more concerned about what is happening to their north, not south.

Well that's part of concern. With US allowing Australia to have SSN, will this means the two US major allies in North of Indonesia (Japan and ROK), open to develop their own SSN ? Their nuclear Industry already advance enough, that if India and Brazil already able to build compact reactor for Submarine, Japan and ROK will able to do it too.

For Indonesia that control some major sea Lanes in the region, off course it is a concern. Instead before only need to watch US, Russia, PRC SSN. Later on can also means Australian, Indian, Japanese and ROK SSN.

Will this means Indonesia later on also building SSN ? As I have put in my previous post, not in short time. It will take much more budget and massive undertaking on Indonesian Nuclear Industry to do that, and I don't see it in near future.

Again, I don't see our MinDef concerned much, but with MoFA that make statement, it's more shown Indonesia concern for the regional in near future.

Add:
My previous post on communication more directed not on Australian choice of weapons. However more on Australian choice to use nuclear power. Again the problem that concern Indonesian MoFA is not what Australia choices of weapons, but more on potential opening nuclear Pandora box in the region.

 

[swerve]

I'm no sub expert, but the image on the recently updated defence web page looks very much like the Asute.

Comparing it with pictures on the RN website, it's bloody identical. Definitely an Astute.

Doesn't necessarily mean that's what the RAN will end up with, but thinking about it, an Astute with PWR3 (either US or UK-sourced: obviously I don't know details, but the public info suggests they're not very different) & US CMS seems logical, & shouldn't have any major design difficulties.

 

[Rudeboy]

Comparing it with pictures on the RN website, it's bloody identical. Definitely an Astute.

The image is actually an UK MoD image of an Astute boat...they're free to use without copyright though so all is good...no charge for it...

 

[Redlands18]

The image is actually an UK MoD image of an Astute boat...they're free to use without copyright though so all is good...no charge for it...

The Astute has a very unique design profile especially with the placement of the Dive Planes, no other Submarine in the world even comes close to looking like an Astute especially from front on.

 

[ADMk2]

The communication coming from Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MoFA), not Ministry of Defense (MinDef). The way I see how Indonesia put concern, if the concern more on what Australia choice of defense, it will be more likely something will come out from Ministry of Defense. So far, MinDef doesn't talk anything on this matter, perhaps they want to maintain level of co-op and communication on defense with Australia.

The communication from MoFA in my opinion more consist of two thing:
1. Concern that Australia move can create SSN race in region (like I put in my previous post especially from ROK and Japan),
2. How this means for regional commitment on not using nuclear for defense.

Indonesian MoFA more concerned that this move can open Nuclear Pandora box in Asia Pacific. The way I see it, it's not being directed to Australia alone, but also to US. What's this means from US perspective, is it mean US ok with Asian developing nuclear capabilities ? If US give Australia nuclear reactor for SSN operation, will it then mean they will not complaint if someone else in the region work with (say French) to build SSN?

But more importantly this is a question to Australian stances on developing Nuclear power. Is this means future Australian SSN will only powered by nuclear, or later on it's open to operate nuclear weapons from US or UK ? What Australia stances if the neighborhood developing nuclear power capabilities ?

Nuclear is always sensitive issue, I remember back in 90's there's concern in Australia when Soeharto told Habibie to study on building Nuclear Power Reactors for electricity. The concern officially talking on safety on nuclear reactor within Indonesia earthquake prone region. However some Australia media already talk that by moving to that direction, Indonesia will develop it's own fuel enrichment capabilities (which with only few tweaks can be developed to the "next" level).

The talking in Indonesia now on potential choosing molten salt technology, also influence to satisfied regional and domestic concern on of fuel enrichment and radiation safety, as Molten Salt technology is harder to turn into "next" level of fuel enrichment and have better radiation safety.



Well that's part of concern. With US allowing Australia to have SSN, will this means the two US major allies in North of Indonesia (Japan and ROK), open to develop their own SSN ? Their nuclear Industry already advance enough, that if India and Brazil already able to build compact reactor for Submarine, Japan and ROK will able to do it too.

For Indonesia that control some major sea Lanes in the region, off course it is a concern. Instead before only need to watch US, Russia, PRC SSN. Later on can also means Australian, Indian, Japanese and ROK SSN.

Will this means Indonesia later on also building SSN ? As I have put in my previous post, not in short time. It will take much more budget and massive undertaking on Indonesian Nuclear Industry to do that, and I don't see it in near future.

Again, I don't see our MinDef concerned much, but with MoFA that make statement, it's more shown Indonesia concern for the regional in near future.

Add:
My previous post on communication more directed not on Australian choice of weapons. However more on Australian choice to use nuclear power. Again the problem that concern Indonesian MoFA is not what Australia choices of weapons, but more on potential opening nuclear Pandora box in the region.

I’d say we’d probably argue that China started this issue, not us… Our piddly fleet of 8 subs is threatening regional stability, but China’s force of hundreds of ICBM’s and SLBM’s isn’t… Lol.

As I said about concerns around our land attack capability (or present lack thereof) some perspective here would be useful. We are responding to an already unstable region due to a very large bully being present, who is more than happy to flex his muscles however they feel like it, yet the region is speaking out against us?

 

[John Newman]

The communication coming from Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MoFA), not Ministry of Defense (MinDef). The way I see how Indonesia put concern, if the concern more on what Australia choice of defense, it will be more likely something will come out from Ministry of Defense. So far, MinDef doesn't talk anything on this matter, perhaps they want to maintain level of co-op and communication on defense with Australia.

The communication from MoFA in my opinion more consist of two thing:
1. Concern that Australia move can create SSN race in region (like I put in my previous post especially from ROK and Japan),
2. How this means for regional commitment on not using nuclear for defense.

Indonesian MoFA more concerned that this move can open Nuclear Pandora box in Asia Pacific. The way I see it, it's not being directed to Australia alone, but also to US. What's this means from US perspective, is it mean US ok with Asian developing nuclear capabilities ? If US give Australia nuclear reactor for SSN operation, will it then mean they will not complaint if someone else in the region work with (say French) to build SSN?

But more importantly this is a question to Australian stances on developing Nuclear power. Is this means future Australian SSN will only powered by nuclear, or later on it's open to operate nuclear weapons from US or UK ? What Australia stances if the neighborhood developing nuclear power capabilities ?

Nuclear is always sensitive issue, I remember back in 90's there's concern in Australia when Soeharto told Habibie to study on building Nuclear Power Reactors for electricity. The concern officially talking on safety on nuclear reactor within Indonesia earthquake prone region. However some Australia media already talk that by moving to that direction, Indonesia will develop it's own fuel enrichment capabilities (which with only few tweaks can be developed to the "next" level).

The talking in Indonesia now on potential choosing molten salt technology, also influence to satisfied regional and domestic concern on of fuel enrichment and radiation safety, as Molten Salt technology is harder to turn into "next" level of fuel enrichment and have better radiation safety.



Well that's part of concern. With US allowing Australia to have SSN, will this means the two US major allies in North of Indonesia (Japan and ROK), open to develop their own SSN ? Their nuclear Industry already advance enough, that if India and Brazil already able to build compact reactor for Submarine, Japan and ROK will able to do it too.

For Indonesia that control some major sea Lanes in the region, off course it is a concern. Instead before only need to watch US, Russia, PRC SSN. Later on can also means Australian, Indian, Japanese and ROK SSN.

Will this means Indonesia later on also building SSN ? As I have put in my previous post, not in short time. It will take much more budget and massive undertaking on Indonesian Nuclear Industry to do that, and I don't see it in near future.

Again, I don't see our MinDef concerned much, but with MoFA that make statement, it's more shown Indonesia concern for the regional in near future.

Add:
My previous post on communication more directed not on Australian choice of weapons. However more on Australian choice to use nuclear power. Again the problem that concern Indonesian MoFA is not what Australia choices of weapons, but more on potential opening nuclear Pandora box in the region.

I understand the points you’ve made, but...

The but is, who would be responsible for opening the Pandora’s Box? The simple answer to that is China.

It’s China’s behaviour towards nations in the region, including Australia, that has led to the new AUKUS Alliance.

It’s the old ‘chicken or the egg’ question, which came first?

 

[StingrayOZ]

I agree. The response from Indonesia to the development of SSN’s for Australia was not overly enthusiastic. The Astute (or its replacement) are Attack boats without the significant strike weapons of the Virginia. The Virginia combines a significant land attack capability with the VLS tubes/Pay load modules.

The Indonesian response has to be seen in context. This is as happy as they are going to be about the announcement at least openly.

There is a reason why this kind of nuclear sharing hasn't happened much before. Can you imagine the response back in the Sukarno era? One of the main reasons for Australia getting into the NPT was the fact if we didn't Indonesia was going to commit to a nuclear weapons program. We stood a far better advantage conventional conventional against Indonesia. Back then, Australia and Indonesia were rivals with real tension, that clearly isn't the case now.

Also, Indonesia being concerned helps them with their issues with China. There is now far more incentive for the Chinese to see the Indonesian as a nice buffer state to Australia. Also across Indonesia, Australia isn't that popular, siding openly with Australia has historically not be popular in Indonesia. Joko copped a lot of flak for even his not very serious proposal to invite Australia into ASEAN. We have been rivals for a long time, this new friendship thing is, new, for both sides.

Also while forewarned, Indonesia is still a bit in shock with the announcement. It wasn't exactly expected. Indonesia's statement basically focuses on "don't make things worse". Understandable, in all this pushing and shoving, Australia has no claims in the south China sea, Indonesia does.

I think behind doors, they are very pleased.

 

[Boagrius]

Very good summary!

One more thing - the Astute hull uses advanced shaping vs active sonar - whereas the 'Ginny sticks with the conventional cylinder - Astute may be harder to pick up using active means.

In terms of synergy, an Astute sale would be a shot in the arm to the UK future SSN program as we're perilously close to the minimum numbers that would make a nuclear program viable. Australia could get into that future program right at the outset and be already in pole position to replace subs not yet even specified.

It's a definite win-win if it happens.

I'd submit that the best sub is the one we can get in the water quickest. If there's a possibility of getting one or two running before 2035 (by whatever means) it strikes me as worth doing. So much of this strategic shift has seen us simply reacting to the continued deterioration in our circumstances. The shift to SSNs gives us an opportunity to take back a bit of the initiative - at least in our own neighbourhood - and I think it should be capitalised on. I guess we'll see in 18 months.

 

[Ananda]

say we’d probably argue that China started this issue, not us… Our piddly fleet of 8 subs is threatening regional stability, but China’s force of hundreds of ICBM’s and SLBM’s isn’t… Lol.

The concern not for your 8 nuke Subs. The concern more with US and UK giving you the whole package of SSN, what this will open to ? Can Pakistan now ask China to enlarge the SSK being supply to them for small reactor installation?

So far anyone who wants to operate their own SSN has to provide/build their own reactor. Brazil has SSN program with French help. However French only providing Subs tech, but Brazil provide their own reactor. India build their own reactor for their own SSBN/SSN program.

This UK and US help for Australian SSN open new chapter. In sense it open the door for an SSN can be bought by anyone as whole package.

Like I said the Indonesian MoFA concern as context not only question to Australia alone, but more also to US. US and UK already say this is one off deal with Australia alone. However will this deal open US agreement for ROK and Japan to go with their own SSN program?

China ICBM and SLBM is to answer USSR/Russia and US. That's part of status quo. What Indonesian MoFA concern, this deal will open other non nuclear power in region to go nuclear propulsion too. After that how long it goes from nuclear propulsion to nuclear weapons ?

Again it's Political concern, not defense concern. That's why MoFA that make communication and not MinDef.

China’s behaviour towards nations in the region, including Australia, that has led to the new AUKUS Alliance.

I believe Indonesian MoFA concern is not directed to AUKUS. However to the consequences on SSN deals.

think behind doors, they are very pleased.

That's why Indonesian MinDef is stay silence. However Indonesian MoFA need to make concern, for Political consideration domestically and regionally.

Perhaps just like tonnyc put in his post, some TNI brass in fact delighted on this, as this in their mind will open reactor development co-op in future with other nuke players, either Russia, French or even India.

Anyway the political language of concern seems it's followed by similar concern from Malaysia.

Malaysia warns new Indo-Pacific pact may trigger nuclear arms race

Malaysia on Saturday expressed concerns that Australia's plan to build nuclear-powered submarines under a new pact with Britain and the United States could catalyze a nuclear arms race in the Indo-Pacific region.

www.reuters.com

Thus it's more on Political concern what US,UK as establihed nuclear power deal with non nuclear power Australia on SSN, will open to.

 

[CB90]

Not a bad idea so long as Nimbin is excluded.

HMAS Nowra?

 

[braddmlewis]

I'd submit that the best sub is the one we can get in the water quickest. If there's a possibility of getting one or two running before 2035 (by whatever means) it strikes me as worth doing. So much of this strategic shift has seen us simply reacting to the continued deterioration in our circumstances. The shift to SSNs gives us an opportunity to take back a bit of the initiative - at least in our own neighbourhood - and I think it should be capitalised on. I guess we'll see in 18 months.

Does it not seem the “likely” sensible answer (post a federal election of course) is to do Astute post the UK builds being done for 1-2 boats which gives a decent amount of time to get the IOC parameters setup, let’s the manufacturing capability here prepare and gets possibly boats in the water around 2030 possibly.
It would seem a prudent balance of satisfying a bunch of challenging dynamics but solving for the one problem that started this ball rolling - needing boats in the water sooner.. I doubt it’s an accident the findings here will be post the election to try and make sure the SA contingent don’t lose their minds that the first boat or two won’t be built there

 

[alexsa]

Like airliners and landing cycles (rather than flight hours). Diving cycles are the best measurement on how tired a hull is, the extreme stresses of the increase and decrease in pressure, metal compressing and expanding, as a boat dives and surfaces is when a hull is under the most stress. Once a boat has reached depth and the hull has ceased to compress and is stable the amount of stress its under drops enormously.

I understand all of that ….. but this is an operational issue not a number of dives issue. If you push the boat to its limits you ‘may’ have issues (noting there a significant safety factors in the design to allow for that and things going bang underwater). If you operate within them the it is less likely. All boats have an operational cycle with allows you to predict the impact on the hull. If the boat spends most of its time at 400 feet then that will be different than going 600+ the whole time. So it is not the number dives. … but how the boat is operated. The boats on patrol would be dived for weeks …. A single dive …. But during that period the boat will alter depth … change speed etc etc

When the boat dives there is differential pressure on the hull but in my understanding the most stress will be when deep and manoeuvring at speed. Boats ‘fly’ underwater (banking in the turn) due to hydrodynamic effect and this will cause torsional stresses. How the boat behaves depends on the control surfaces location and type.

The aircraft analogy does not really work as they have a regular cycle over a short period …… not continuous dived operations.

The construction of the vessels is the other critical factor. A lot of care and attention went into the Collins steel work. The alloy proposed by Kockums was found to have issues. The alloy was refined by BHP and specific weld techniques applied. The quality of the welding in Australia was excellent with faults running at one tenth of the world average for submarines (and that includes the US one ast the time). The book the “Collins Class Submarine Story” is a good reference in this regard.

 

[beepa]

Ok guys, probably a silly question but here goes. If the systems and reactor are the same, what apart from manning and boat type maintenance, would be the issues of operating 4x Astutes and 4x Virginias? I'm just thinking if we want boats in the water asap, we could have the first of each type constructed in their respective countries simultaneously while we gear up here for local builds....