On this has there been any detail on what a used Virginia with low mileage will cost? Is there a floppy man on the nature strip in front of the yard?Because the initial three unit Virginia Class buy is a stepping stone to the AUKUS class and these will be second hand. The extra two vessels discussed appears to be a fall back if the AUKUS class is delayed. The additional two may also be second hand as indicated in the Whitehouse fact sheet
FACT SHEET: Trilateral Australia-UK-US Partnership on Nuclear-Powered Submarines | The White House
- Sale of U.S. Virginia Class Submarines. Beginning in the early 2030s, pending approval from the U.S. Congress, the United States intends to sell Australia three Virginia class submarines, with the potential to sell up to two more if needed. This action is critical to continue growing Australia’s ability to own and operate a fleet of SSNs, and to provide Australia with a sovereign capability at the earliest possible date. It also ensures Australia sustains its undersea capabilities until SSN-AUKUS is ready, given the planned retirement of Australia’s current fleet of submarines.
As this is in the public domain and I suggest that such material should be considered when suggesting what the RAN should get. The pathway is also pretty clear from Australian DoD pages ....
AUKUS Nuclear-Powered Submarine Pathway | About | Defence
The Optimal Pathway | About | Defence
View attachment 50570
Once again, in respect of looking to the future any ambit recommendations consider material that is in the public domain. This will reduce the frustration of many and avoid being pinged for suggesting a fantasy fleet.
Cheers
alexsa
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
On this has there been any detail on what a used Virginia with low mileage will cost? Is there a floppy man on the nature strip in front of the yard?
Your point is valid in regards to sovereign capability in that at the end of this we can build 90% of a boat … but still rely on others for critical components. Possibly the same argument with the surface fleet also…Ageis, diesel engines, MK41 VLS, gas turbines etc…pretty sure we are going to rely on others for those… as for the savings in doing this ….you mention Tens of billions…add a zero I think. I could argue we could just go with a domestic maintenance plan, buy subs from the US or Britain and invest the savings into other defence related programs onshore main a big chunk of domestic spend on weapons production for example. Politics will get in the way of common sense.
Oz-Watcher
New Member
First post from a long time lurker on the site. I have to say I have learnt a massive amount from the quality of post that have been done on this site. In regards to the AUKUS sub plans more has been spoken about on the war zone website today detailing more of the plans.
www.thedrive.com
I am not sure if this article has been posted yet. I seems to confirm what people have been saying on previous posts that the first 2 subs will be second hand but the third will be a new build.
Australia To Get One New Build Virginia Class Submarine, Two From U.S. Navy
New details about Australia's plan to transition to an all nuclear submarine fleet have emerged during intense questioning in Canberra.
www.thedrive.com
I am not sure if this article has been posted yet. I seems to confirm what people have been saying on previous posts that the first 2 subs will be second hand but the third will be a new build.
Scott Elaurant
Well-Known Member
Apologies if others are already across this but there was some significant discussion of AUKUS and sub details for the RAN at Senate Estimates last night. Jackie Lambie asked some fairly hostile questions of Adm Mead, who mentioned the following in his replies:
“Two Virginias would be transferred to us [the Royal Australian Navy] and then we buy one off the production line,”
“But we are looking at those submarines having over 20 years of service life.”
Vice Admiral Mead, responded, “So we’re probably looking at Virginia Blocks III or IV.”
"we are looking to acquire and deliver an eight-fleet SSN [sic] in the mid-2050s."
"No, eight nuclear-powered submarines. That includes three of the Virginias." - so may be 5 locally made and 3 US made SSNs.
www.thedrive.com
I think that pretty much puts to rest talk of Block V Virginias for Australia. Personally I think this is fine. Virginia Block V is more a strategic SSGN asset than a hunter killer SSN. Late Block III/Block IV Virginias will be the USN's state of the art ASW/Anti-ship sub. The RAN getting 3 to 5 of them with 20+ years of life left in the early 2030s is hardly a temporary staging option.
“Two Virginias would be transferred to us [the Royal Australian Navy] and then we buy one off the production line,”
“But we are looking at those submarines having over 20 years of service life.”
Vice Admiral Mead, responded, “So we’re probably looking at Virginia Blocks III or IV.”
"we are looking to acquire and deliver an eight-fleet SSN [sic] in the mid-2050s."
"No, eight nuclear-powered submarines. That includes three of the Virginias." - so may be 5 locally made and 3 US made SSNs.
Australia To Get One New Build Virginia Class Submarine, Two From U.S. Navy
New details about Australia's plan to transition to an all nuclear submarine fleet have emerged during intense questioning in Canberra.
www.thedrive.com
I think that pretty much puts to rest talk of Block V Virginias for Australia. Personally I think this is fine. Virginia Block V is more a strategic SSGN asset than a hunter killer SSN. Late Block III/Block IV Virginias will be the USN's state of the art ASW/Anti-ship sub. The RAN getting 3 to 5 of them with 20+ years of life left in the early 2030s is hardly a temporary staging option.
Nope!
This is where we always fall down, assuming that maintaining and sustaining is easier and or cheaper than designing and building.
That mind set is the root cause of pretty much every maintenance, upgrade and acquisition FUBAR we have had.
If you don't have a sustainable core group of competent people with experience in design, build, sustainment, upgrade and disposal, you are going to stuff everything up due to making the mistakes these people know not to make.
There is actually a lot to go through with this. First of all the expressed desire to move to eight submarines before we start replacing the Virginias. This actually means the first of the Virginias wont be replaced until Boat 6 is delivered sometime in the mid to late 50s. If we count backwards from say 2055 that means the oldest Virginia would have to have been built no earlier than 2022 and the second Virginia would probably have to be one of the boats currently under construction. The third boat would have to serve until the early 2060s which means it would probably need to be a new build.Apologies if others are already across this but there was some significant discussion of AUKUS and sub details for the RAN at Senate Estimates last night. Jackie Lambie asked some fairly hostile questions of Adm Mead, who mentioned the following in his replies:
“Two Virginias would be transferred to us [the Royal Australian Navy] and then we buy one off the production line,”
“But we are looking at those submarines having over 20 years of service life.”
Vice Admiral Mead, responded, “So we’re probably looking at Virginia Blocks III or IV.”
"we are looking to acquire and deliver an eight-fleet SSN [sic] in the mid-2050s."
"No, eight nuclear-powered submarines. That includes three of the Virginias." - so may be 5 locally made and 3 US made SSNs.
Australia To Get One New Build Virginia Class Submarine, Two From U.S. Navy
New details about Australia's plan to transition to an all nuclear submarine fleet have emerged during intense questioning in Canberra.
I think that pretty much puts to rest talk of Block V Virginias for Australia. Personally I think this is fine. Virginia Block V is more a strategic SSGN asset than a hunter killer SSN. Late Block III/Block IV Virginias will be the USN's state of the art ASW/Anti-ship sub. The RAN getting 3 to 5 of them with 20+ years of life left in the early 2030s is hardly a temporary staging option.
Edit: Actually the 3rd Virginia could still be secondhand but it would need to still serve over 20 years when it is acquired towards the end of the 2030s.
Last edited:
I would actually have no problem with just buying directly from an existing overseas production line. We are never going to have the ability to entirely build these things by ourselves. I just see a money pit, or potentially a money black hole, that may result in further spending cuts for the rest of the ADF.
The real desire of the government of course is to spend as much of the money as it can in Australia, even if that involves paying an enormous financial premium which negates any advantage of spending the money in Australia in the first place. The amount of money they are talking about is mind boggling and has the potential to distort our military spending for decades to come.
Also only some of the money in the program goes towards building the boats themselves. Much of rest, including maintence, would still be spent locally.
Last edited:
You have just demonstrated your complete lack and understanding of the topic. It is blatantly obvious you have no technical background what so ever, let alone what is involved in maintaining and upgrading capability, when you lack the expertise to design and build it in the first place.
Going Boeing
Well-Known Member
It was discussed previously that the drive towards having 8 submarines in the fleet will start with the first two Virginia’s arrival circa 2032 with the 3rd Virginia arriving about the time that the first Collins class (Farncomb) is expected to retire (2038). After that, the total numbers may drop slightly with further retirements but, as there will be no more Collins class involved in Full Cycle Dockings, the number of boats available for deployment should remain at the desired level. The possibility of two additional Virginia’s at a later stage is obviously planned in case there are delays in the AUKUS SSN project to ensure that there are adequate numbers.
Unlike the journalists’ interpretation in those previously quoted articles, I don’t see it as a possible reduction in the number of AUKUS SSN’s to be built in Osborne. The last five Collins class are planned to retire at 2 year intervals from 2040 to 2048 with the replacement AUKUS SSN’s probably coming at slightly longer intervals but they would be aiming to have the 6th & 7th boats entering service circa 2052-54 to replace the first two Virginia’s (based on the assumption that they have 20 year’s service left when joining the RAN). The 8th boat may be delayed as the 3rd Virginia would have sufficient life to serve until 2071 (assuming a newly built hull entering service in 2038). If it’s not practical/desirable to interrupt the production line, they could bring the 8th boat into service and operate a 8 + 1 fleet until the last Virginia retires, or look at other options such as returning it to the USN.
The unknown is how they intend to keep the submarine production going after the 8 AUKUS SSN’s have been completed. At a 3 year drumbeat, the production will be complete well before any replacements are required.
Last edited:
That is fair enough.
But what is your understanding of economic matters and politics, because this is largely what this boils down to.
Everything you mention has a cost associated to to it. I remain highly sceptical as to whether it is worth it and feel that money might better spent somewhere else.
I think you are focusing too much on an aspect of a G2G deal.
The US won't outsource their defense production, it's a dogma so discussion over it is wasted time.
What IMHO you can do is seeing the G2G in another way.
G2G don't have to be defense sector exchanged for defense sector.
IMHO you need to focus on your valley of death problem when all this spending will end or in the case your economy slows down (something you still haven't experienced)
Thus from the US I would ask not so much a defense counterweight order, but a civilian one leveraging on how their constitution makes the deal unbalanced.
I would be aiming to civilian sea economy orders that will keep your shipyards and industrial clusters going more than a military counterweight since we as US allies are going to depend on them regardless of our efforts for a long time (that just became longer thanks to Russia showing their bluff and what poor cards they had in hand)
Sorry for the broken english and if the external uninformed POV is wrong.
The US won't outsource their defense production, it's a dogma so discussion over it is wasted time.
What IMHO you can do is seeing the G2G in another way.
G2G don't have to be defense sector exchanged for defense sector.
IMHO you need to focus on your valley of death problem when all this spending will end or in the case your economy slows down (something you still haven't experienced)
Thus from the US I would ask not so much a defense counterweight order, but a civilian one leveraging on how their constitution makes the deal unbalanced.
I would be aiming to civilian sea economy orders that will keep your shipyards and industrial clusters going more than a military counterweight since we as US allies are going to depend on them regardless of our efforts for a long time (that just became longer thanks to Russia showing their bluff and what poor cards they had in hand)
Sorry for the broken english and if the external uninformed POV is wrong.
Scott Elaurant
Well-Known Member
Good point. Logically, if we stick to a three year drumbeat for SSNs, with a 30 year life each, we would eventually settle on a fleet of 10 AUKUS SSNs, not 8.
Another possibility could be for the ASC shipyard to contribute to building parts of the RN SSN AUKUS program or similar. I understand the RN is looking at a larger class than the 7 Astutes. If ASC became cost efficient (and I'm sure it will be after building 8 SSNs) it could become a resource in a joint SSN construction enterprise, just as Australian SSN maintenance facilities could be used to maintain RN or USN SSNs. The latter (USN SSN maintenance) has become a major constraint for the USN, and a way Australia could become a larger player in this industry.
Buying off the shelf has serious economic cost as well. Sustainment costs are higher than acquisition costs, irrespective whether there is a local build.
When you have local builds you establish the critical mass of competent technical and engineering who are required, not just for design and build, but for acquisition and sustainment.
Australia is a country run by lawyers and financiers for the benefit of billionaire speculators, where technical and scientific people are hated for not being subservient enough.
I studied economics and law, even a bit of accountancy. You see, while lawyers, accountants, economists, financiers, business people in general, are very unlikely to study any level of maths, science or engineering, any technical person who wants to earn more than a tradie, has to dirty their souls, and study business and economic related subjects.
We even need to learn eared value management, statistics and other psuedo sciences, project managers and similar, use to pretend they know what they are talking about.
Hell we even audit, process map, and run improvement projects. The difference is, while non technical people do it to write reports and throw mud at those smarter than them, technical people do them to identify problems so they can fix them.
Personally I am sick to death of paper shuffling leaches who think it's cheaper and better to buy everything off the shelf. I sometimes wonder if this is because local, especially government own enterprises, aren't in a position to adequately lubricate certain decision processes.
Block V Virginia-class attack subs delayed 2 years due to staffing problems: GAO - Breaking Defense
Independent government auditors found the issues are driving up price, but not yet to the ceiling for the contracts.
breakingdefense-com.cdn.ampproject.org
Yes let's buy our entire fleet from the US, that is, after we pay them to further expand their production capacity.
Everyone is struggling for the same reason, there has been a serious under investment in defence industry everywhere except north Asia for the last twenty years.
If this is 100% correct how are we going to manage Virginias if we haven’t designed, built etc? I can think of quite a few items that were not designed or constructed here that we seem to manage quite well. But I do understand the point that I think you are making…. in that nothing we do has the complexity of a nuclear sub or surface ship and their systems and therefore training a team Involved in construction makes sense. Does it make financial sense…I don’t know without going into a full financial review that I don’t want to do. Will leave that to the pros .
In My comment above I didn’t assume that build was cheaper than maintain. My logic which may be flawed is that we don’t exactly have a great track record in managing major projects within any type if budget or time frame of recent times. Personally I prefer the money stay as much as possible in the Australian domestic pocket.
I don’t think my comment re sovereign capability is wrong ..having reactors coming from OS is no different to surface fleet components…albeit a nuclear reactor compartment is significantly at the top end of complexity.
One of our biggest issues is a lack of professionalism, not with out engineers scientists and technical people, but with out project managers, contract managers etc.
Our technical people are very good, there just aren't enough of them, definately not enough to use them in PM etc.
Right now as many old and bolds as possible are being attracted back to train and mentor a new generation, get LOTE moving, get Hunter moving, get up to speed to support the US and UK SSNs that will start cycling through WA soon.
We are suffering now because of the dumb decisions made by Keating Howard, Gillard, Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison. Local capability was gutted by successive governments, over three decades, to the point that many of the people we now are relying on, started their training when Hawke was PM.
Yes I left Rudd out, because for all of his failings, failing to realise the criticality of STEM, technical, trade, engineering and science, wasn't one of them.
I think it might have started with Keating's "clever country".
If we were truly clever, we wouldn't be a giant quary and classroom.
Selling education is a bit of a problem. It's a bit like "Zen Do Kai" karate in the 80s, where you could effectively buy a black belt. I have seen it first hand, where O/S students get a scholarship, then work a job (with me) sleep most of their shift, then go and drive ubur,stock shelves in woollies, work at a servo, and pay their mates to do assignments for them. They are our future doctors!
We should be mining our minerals and then processing them as well. Refining our own fuel.
Not pumping out gas, and then buying it for more than we are selling it for.
The certificate 3/4 diploma crap, is nothing more than arse covering, it's not making better leaders or tradespeople. We have a real management problem in Australia. The ADF is being managed like its part of the public service.
If we were truly clever, we wouldn't be a giant quary and classroom.
Selling education is a bit of a problem. It's a bit like "Zen Do Kai" karate in the 80s, where you could effectively buy a black belt. I have seen it first hand, where O/S students get a scholarship, then work a job (with me) sleep most of their shift, then go and drive ubur,stock shelves in woollies, work at a servo, and pay their mates to do assignments for them. They are our future doctors!
We should be mining our minerals and then processing them as well. Refining our own fuel.
Not pumping out gas, and then buying it for more than we are selling it for.
The certificate 3/4 diploma crap, is nothing more than arse covering, it's not making better leaders or tradespeople. We have a real management problem in Australia. The ADF is being managed like its part of the public service.
I'm all for our naval ship building, but I do find it odd how Navy and Airforce have gone down different paths.
Much of the RAN fleet is constructed in Australia, yet the RAAF seem content to purchase aircraft direct from overseas.
It would of been interesting if some 50 to 60 years ago we had gone from assembling aircraft to now designing and building modern world class aircraft.
We didn't take that path, but we have done some good aviation stuff. Building sovereign fighter jets however was not part of the evolution..
That said we have a world class capability in maintaining our broad fleet of aircraft.
The important point is the ADF has to find the correct balance of buying, building and maintaining very technical equipment for all three services within budgets over very long time frames and election cycles.
We generally build most ( Not all ) of Navy's ships here so I support and appreciate appreciate Volk's passion as he has been an ambassador for Australian industry on this forum over the years.
That said it is a difficult balancing act to get the mix right over the ADF.
If a contender for LAND 400 P3 comes up with a corker bid that gives us vehicles for half the price in half the time do we take it???
I don't know.
We could use this example for everything we look at ,but nothing we look at will be in the price range of our future SSN's.
We are correctly building up a world class naval ship building industry which bodes well for taking on the challenge of building our future subs.
I just hope in that in that quest for this particular capability we find the correct balance between manufacturing and maintaining our SSN fleet.
The sums involved could skyrocket down the track and unbalance the finances for a balanced ADF.
Cheers S
I'm not so much an advocate for Australian industry as an advocate for education, training and capability. I've worked on a number of projects where we have had to recover after long periods of inactivity. The amount of effort is incredible and the cost huge.
During the out sourcing the insanity that started in the 90s industry was able to draw on the large pool of uniform and civilian talent. Unfortunately industry didn't invest as much in training and development as defence used to, and defence, of course, had out sourced a big chunk of their capability. End result, a shinking number of highly capable and experienced technical people.
The best way to upskill people with hands on experience, apprenticeships and pupillage.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
The different routes taken by the RAN and RAAF are like chalk and cheese.
For instance, most of the F/A-18 A/B Hornets acquired by the RAAF were actually assembled in Oz between 1984 and 1990. Looking at the build cycle for the ANZAC-class frigates, the lead ship was laid down 1993 whilst the last ship was commissioned in 2006.
The reason why such production can work for the RAN is that naval production, as well as major upgrades, are things which take years to carry out. It is also not something which can really lend itself to assembly line-like production.
With something like aircraft, Australia just does not have the production demand to even justify keeping production assembly of kits, never mind domestic production of (all required) components. Australia could of course opt for establishing a domestic production facility for some sort of military aircraft, but would certainly run into problems once the production run was completed. Instead of it being a shipbuilding "Valley of Death" it would be the same, but for aircraft. The only to prevent such a "Valley of Death" would be for orders to keep coming into the Australian facility. This means either Australia pays for and purchases more aircraft, to keep the line going and maintain the workforce and supply chains, or Australia manages to secure enough overseas orders to sustain everything needed for production.