Downing Street has asserted that the UK’s submarines are the world’s finest following a query from a senior Australian MP regarding their suitability for a significant defence agreement.
AUKUS is a trilateral security partnership between Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States, announced on September 15, 2021.
The partnership aims to bolster security and defence cooperation among the three countries, with a focus on the Indo-Pacific region. The agreement includes a plan for Australia to acquire nuclear-powered submarines, and also involves sharing technology and expertise in areas such as cyber security and artificial intelligence.
The announcement of AUKUS sparked significant reactions and diplomatic tensions with France, as the agreement led to the cancellation of an existing deal for France to supply conventional submarines to Australia.
Australian opposition leader and former defence minister Peter Dutton opposed the selection of British boats for the new fleet, instead endorsing an American model.
“The beauty in my mind with the American model, of the Virginia class, was that it was a proven design, it gave us interoperability with the Americans and there will be more American subs in the Indo-Pacific than there will be British submarines. I worry that if the government has taken a decision to go for a cheaper design it will delay the delivery of those submarines.”
The UK Prime Ministers office said:
“I think through our world-leading Aukus programme we have established an excellent relationship both with the Australian government and the US government. There is more work to do and more to say on the Aukus programme that Iām not going to pre-empt.”
As part of the AUKUS agreement, Australian submariners are now attending Royal Navy nuclear propulsion training courses.
āThe beauty in my mind …’
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
In Oz it would be “beerholder”.
Reminds me of the Australian Fosters advert “How to speak Australian…”
I think that might be pronounced … “‘stralian”! š
Wilde: “Oh, I wish I had said that JImmy!’ Whistler ‘You will Oscar, you will.’
Lol.. š We do have some very fine wines and ā down here in š¦šŗ too!š¦
Does he honestly think that British and US subs aren’t inter-operable?
Sounds like he’s making a fuss for the sake of making a fuss. If the Australian government had gone with American subs he’d be saying they should go British.
Just political point scoring. If the roles were reversed I’m sure our opposition would be saying something similar.
Sounds like another defence minster who doesnāt know a butt from a bayonet. Or the pump jet from the sonar dome in this case.
Hopefully the people who make the call will know what they are talking about.
Usual political BS.
On our side, would be handy if HMG, when not bigging our assets up, got the SSN fleet back to 10. Would be something after the 30 years of endless cuts.
On the AUS side, he’s right in that it is overwhelmingly a US AUS theatre and we should not overstate our importance there.
The “tilt to the Pacific” is about trade, not hard military power.
Beyond that, I’m in full support of AUKUS and helping our cousins get SSNs.
Given the US is buying 66 Virginia and we may get 8 or so SSN(R), you can see why some in Australia would question a decision to choose the latter.
Assuming SSN(R) is inferior based on price may not be the best metric mind.
Edit – 66 came from Wiki but it seems they may buy less than 40.
Both the US & UK lack spare SSN building capacity.
That is the issue. I cannot see where these Australian submarines will come from except on lease.
If UK & AUS PLCs are prepared to invest real money in the facilities then it can happen.
What would anyone lease to AUS.
Their manpower costs are high so the old stuff is no use to them.
Yep any solution will include the through life costs. And the US boats have 35% bigger crews than we do. RAN struggled for years to man the Collins class.
Got to agree with you there mate, believe that ‘through’ life costs and crewing issues will form a big driver in what comes out of this relationship.
Why do the US boats have such hugely bigger crews?
Well perhaps it is related to the size of their Boats and the very rude old joke.
“what is a submarine full of ?”
” ………”
Sorry its Friday.ļ»æš ļ»æ
I was not being serious. I have read a lot of informed comments and no one has a clue when or where Australia is getting a nuclear submarine.
Aren’t the first AU 2 subs more an interim fill in prior to the new SSNR design? They mayn’t be a perfect fit, but will compliment the existing Collins and considering the RAN are training on the Anson it’s a logical next purchase step.
The RN had 16 SSN in 1988. We had the ability to build, from the 1960s to 80s, that number. With modern construction methods, we ought to be able to churn out at that rate again, if there was the political will & the investment to back it up.
The Americans haven’t got the production capabilities they are struggling to supply them to the US navy.
The new Auz subs will be built in Australia in new facilities not in the UK/Us.
Not to start with purely they haven’t got any building capacity at all initially they will start off with either UK of US built. You can’t just build nuclear subs in a normal ship yard plus Australia doesn’t have any nuclear capability at all.
The issue they have is building 66 in any kind of useful timescale.
No I cannot to be frank. If the Ozzies buy American – assuming Congress allows it and that’s a very big if – they will be a rounding error in the Virginia program and they will get exactly what they’re given and use them in exactly the way the USN wants them to be used. The knowledge transfer will be somewhere between SFA and none.
Indeed there are many facets to the quality of choice the Australians make here as the Japanese are well aware of. They need to be focused especially in their early days getting to grips with nuclear tech.
I can see the logic in his argument itās not a matter of quality however itās about regional logic in his mind where they have much more interaction with US assets than UK.. Beyond that in terms of design and capability the US choice might be more expensive though it would help to know what the choice actually is mind, and it might offer overall more flexibility on paper I suspect but that doesnāt mean itās better suited to Australia they like us are naive to think we should try to match or mirror US military decisions. The Virginias are more flexible than Astutes for example but thatās because their strategic role is different it has an important āassaultā role where the Astute is primary aimed at destroying other subs and surface assets at which it is likely unmatched. Australia will understandably like to match the US Pacific orientated role of its subs superficially it makes sense but it would in reality be a serious strategic mistake for them. Do they really want to be involved in strike actions against the obvious foe China? It would be madness because it would add little to nothing to the US capability in doing so but would make Australia the obvious target for any first nuclear strike. Far better they get what they actually need a more compact smaller crewed pre eminent platform for taking out submarines or surface assets in the outer defensive zone around Australia wherever that is calculated to be. Itās pretty much the same strategic necessity of the UK. Thus in reality UK subs are as I have always argued the better fit for their strategic needs. Being a small committed addition to US offensive operations is going to offer far more dangers than effective defence for Australia. If we are talking next Gen subs however then we donāt know enough about their prospective design to make true comparisons so I am assuming this is about present Gen or modified designs.
I remember back in the day the Auz bought some fancy American destroyers after they had bought the original Darings which the RAN liked. At the time the Auzzies were fighting in Vietnam so they needed to stand by the US. The US ships ran on very high pressure steam which was efficient but a nightmare to maintain. Swings and roundabouts.
I think this analysis is spot on. Apart from the strike requirement being very secondary, the smaller crew of the Astute’s is very much in it’s favour.
Virginia costs more because the later ones have lots of add-ons like VLS tubs and missile silos. Virgina is better for land attack but the Astute is just as capable if not more so then Virginia in an ASW and anti-ship role. Cheeper dose not mean not as good. Plus Astute runs with fewer crew and its operating costs are lower so a good match for RAN.
Hi Daniele.. Money is not there, l’m afraid to say.. Agree 9 or 10 would be excellent. I remember the early 2000’s when the RN still had 11 or 12 SSN. But, at least the RN has some of the most potent sub’s in western Europe, if not the world.
It would help if the MoD stopped chasing their platinum standard in all defence procurement.
We would stop wasting billions on project years late ,and obsolete when we final get them. The Ajax being a perfect example!!l we could have bought a well proven design.
Yes, always very complicated. Fine balance between home grown industry and jobs, and as you say buying items straight from another country. I did read the other day that the Ajax is now close to coming into service. I think in the details l read.. It said somewhere between 20 and 30 of the vehicles had been modified Which left about another 1100 to be modified. Plus of course more on the way. See how that all goes. But, you make a good point.
Oop, I mean 100 not 1100 Lol
Around 27 delivered and retro fitted with N&V enhancements, so that leaves about 562 left to do. Circa 120 ish vehicles are waiting delivery to MOD via the acceptance regime.
Hi Ian.. Thanks for the details.
It has got to the point when we hear of a big new defence procurement .
We brace for the inevitable cover spend.
Yet there are things we do and hear not a squeak about. Typhoon radar, spearfish upgrade etc.
We seem to do it right sometimes and very badly wrong in others
Yes, all good points you make.
We do a lot more right then people like to believe. We only hear about the bad news, and bad news sells. Even for defence sites like this, the comments section lights up when its bad/controversial news to have a good rant about.
Totally agree.
Even army gets some procurement right.
NLAWs – on budget – large stockpile – extensively field tested by Mr Zelenski statistically proven to be 90% effective at eradicating Russian tanks.
M270 – long in service – in decent numbers – wonderfully effective, as field tested by Mr Zelenski, as very effective at eradicating Russian everything accurately from a safe distance.
AS90 – long in service – in decent numbers – wonderfully effective, as field tested by Mr Zelenski, effective at eradicating a range of Russian targets.
Harpoon / Harpoonski very effective at converting Russian cruisers to submarines.
I am confident that CH2 will be very, very effective at taking out Russian bunkers and tanks when used with M270, AS90 and close support as it is designed to be.
We haven’t got anywhere near using RAF or RN assets. Storm Shadow would allow ammo dumps and fuel dumps to be taken out at will as would TLAM. I think taking out the Russian command and control would be a mistake as that would risk enhancing the autonomy of the front line troops.
Using any of the drone systems Typhoon/F35B or Apache with smaller ATM’s or even simply LGB’s would-be dramatic. US has so many LGB’s in inventory you could pound them flat. The biggest problem would be finding high enough value targets after the first week TBH.
I think Western airpower could turn the tide of the war very quickly, especially when you look at how effective it has been in past conflicts. But. It’s very political and effectively draws us into the war against Russia directly. Gifting Ukraine fast jets is also very complex and takes a long time. Plus, they don’t want Western tech falling into Russian hands. If we did, I’d give them legacy F18’s. A true multi role platform, reliable, rugged, great performance and is of an age and design that isn’t cutting edge should one go down behind enemy line’s. š That’s my two pence worths anyway.
Personally I think F16 would be good enough to gain air superiority.
Loads around that are flyable and even more that are in storage in various degrees of readiness.
I donāt think its possible with legacy aircraft and without SEAD. Both sides SAM defences are too strong. Ground combat is the only decider now.
The consensus is that anything that is sub-5th gen will not be able to operate over the Donbas due to the extensive Russian SAM network. There would need to be an effective SEAD campaign before even thinking of air superiority or indiction and this would need to be carried out by 5th gen.
S300 and S400 can be overcome.
They are, by NATO standards, quite primitive.
Ask the Israelis!
There’s a vast difference between the radar coverage level in Syria and in Russia. That’s not an argument to say that S400 can’t be worked around. It’s just to say that the Israeli experience in Syria won’t necessarily translate to the Donbas. It’s also worth noting that for a long time Israel had an informal agreement with Russia over Syria, so there was no attempt by Russia to counter Israeli incursion.
The Russian’s in Syria learnt very quickly to turn off their S400/S500 radar sets when Israeli jets were nearby as they were told in under no illusions that if they are targeted by said radars they would be destroyed. The radars are easily foiled. There was an episode of Syrian and Russian aircraft being shot down after Israeli aircraft lulled interceptor missiles towards Russian and Syrian aircraft then decoyed them away onto new targets. So yes the S400 and S500 series can be defeated even by 4th gen aircraft.
HARM/ALARM series missiles would probably do the job of suppression just fine.
UKAF are not currently flying Migs over the combat zone so there is obviously a tangible threat there. Theres not much difference between a Mig and an F16 when it comes to being an observable lump of metal in the sky. My personal view is that any talk of supplying combat aircraft is entirely for the rebuilding of the UKAF post conflict. UKAF donāt have enough pilots right now to take the kind of losses S400 will inflict.
But there is a big difference in the targeting on an F16 even just with LGBs.
The RuAF canāt accurately hit anything so they are just part of the Rubblekrieg doctrine.
If the UKAF could take anything out accurately then it would be transformational in terms of weight of firepower.
New mind if the F16ās were left with 1980ās level jamming kit which would see off the S300ās. The S400ās arenāt switched on much by all accounts as the coordinates get fed straight back by the ELINT and other sources.
Whole new meaning to suppressing a weapons system: make the operators too scared to turn it on!
It is Friday and Iām being a bit facetious todayā¦..
Personally we should given Russia 72 hours to withdraw in the begining… Instead we’ve embolden him and his paganda
Turning the Russian surface fleet into a sub fleet was hilarious… But I disagree with the reluctance to destroy command structures… The autonomy that would follow on the front lines would be waves of Russians surrendering
I am a little dubious about the accuracy but the mods I read about seemed to be spongier seats, mechanical controls isolated from the chassis and ear plugs. If that is their true answer then it only adds to the mess of the program. Yet havenāt heard any official denials as yet. Letās hope they donāt have to communicate through sign language.
Okay crazy question
We take a proven platform. Modify to fit our own needs and we turn a silk purse into a sows ear.
Can somebody explain to me how we managed this cluster f**k?
They did choose a well proven design the ASCOD is in service with Austria and Spain and has just been chosen to be the basis of the US Army’s New light Tank.
It is what we what happend to the basic design and manufacture afterwards where things went Pear Shaped.
With very small armed forces, there is a strong view that the quality of our equipment should be exceptional to make up for the lack of numbers, ie it should be cutting-edge. If we can’t afford the platinum standard we just have to tolerate the gold standard!
I am of the opinion that we should not ask our armed forces to fight with anything less than the best available.
However in shooting for the platinium standard , we , all to frequently fall short and end up billion over budgets , years late and by the time it does enter service , technology has moved on and we donāt even get the gold standard, it is bronze at best.
We do some projects very well and hardly hear a squeak about them.
Perhaps the problem is that the MoD do not have a grasp of what is sensible and achievable in some areas and instead should ask for cutting edge with plenty of room to grow rather than the bleeding edge.
Absolutely John. With the Carriers and the RFA they are our aces that set us apart from most other navies.
I’d prioritise SSN over escorts every day, but sadly, costs, as you say.
Unfortunately Subs are useless at engaging the bad guys missiles and jets,
But not for sea denial and ASW. If our assets are primarily for engaging jets and missiles to me that implies the RN is there for the defensive.
Agree, We donāt think in terms of sea denial anymore because we have not faced a naval threat since 1943. But if we are squaring off against a china in 2050 with a massive navy and huge industrial base we will need to start thinking in terms of sea denial. With cheap SAR satellite constellations providing tracking and land based anti ship ballistic missiles and drones completing a kill chain, surface ships wonāt last long. Using submarines to deny china the resources it needs in the Indian Ocean might be our only way to win. Itās the exact game plan we used against Japan after our surface fleets were wiped out. Worked well then will work even better today.
Yes. And my comment did not imply I’d get rid if escorts, or not have more escorts, as we do need more. But given a choice, another T45, another T26, or another SSN, then the SSN wins for me every time.
As always, it is a balance, and the submarine side has slipped too far.
If that is what the navy is there fore.
However you canāt launch amphibious assaults from submarines or control airspace.
The navy is there to do both and should be adequately equipped to do both.
In my mind , it is poorly equipped to do either.
It is what the SSN is there for, go into northern waters and hunt down red force SSN and SSBN. TLAM mission has been added since and, as some have said, is probably better placed on an escort.
Of course you cannot do amphibious ops or control airspace with subs! But you also hazard your ability to do either without them as your carrier and LPDs are at risk. The Russians main offensive platforms are, and have always been, their submarines.
I think the RN is well equipped to do all domains, but numbers are limited.
I would not call the RNs air defence capability with T45/Sampson/Sea Viper “poorly equipped.” And in the ASW field T23 with TAS, Merlin, our SSN cabability, and upcoming T26 are not poorly equipped either.
I would not describe the RNs LPD capabilities as being poor either. Reinforcing Norway without a port is still a valid reason for the LPDs and you need both subs and escorts for them.
I’d add the RN is also moving away from traditional amphibious assaults to the FCF/LRG concept.
My point was obvious and not directly related to physical toys.
It was related to numbers
We simply donāt have enough to cover everything either above or below the water. Land or air.
Either the government accepts that and uses our armed forces accordingly to purely defend the U.K. or the budget goes up.
Agree- the pentagon war planned this recently- good write up in the latest version of warships IFR. the Virginia, Los Angeles and sea wolf class SSNs (which are arguably less good at sub vs sub warfare then astute) are qualitatively superior to all Chinese vessels and were the difference between a successful defence of Taiwan and defeat. Each SSNs conducting a 4 day fighting patrol of the South China sea/ Taiwan straight had the ability to sink 2-3 major warships or subs, 2-3 amphibious warships or supply ships and the Chinese didn’t have anything like the ASW forces or sophistication needed to defeat them.
The trouble is in any conflict with China the USN is likely to lose anywhere between 25% and 35% of its SSN fleet, even if successful. A price worth paying? maybe if it brought a military defeat of China and crippled China’s expansionist plans.
The RN needs enough warships and subs to be able to face a peer vs peer enemy and suffer some attritional loses but still emerge a victor. Current force levels do not allow any loses.
Agree our SSNs are the modern day equivalent to a first line dreadnought. They have a technological edge over Russian and definitely Chinese enemies- we just lack numbers. If the UK could concurrently construct dreadnought series SSBNs and get going on either an Aukus astute batch 2 or even just a few more astute class that would be a very sensible decision.
Its all about political will and realising the utter craven folly of too many years of defence cuts now coming home. The RN should never have been allowed to drop below the 9-10 SSNs considered the minimum for PEACETIME commitments. If as is now the reality we are facing a resurgent Russia and Chinese axis threat then having 12+ SSNs in service would seem to be the very minimum force level needed to safeguard our national interests.
Personally I feel AUKUS will become AUS. UK will tilt towards Europe and North Atlantic, that’s the way our politics is heading and Australia is right to have concerns.
I think it will expand actually, apparently Japan is interested in becoming a closer fit, though I think the US is concerned about leaks of sensitive information so may not be amenable presently. Itās as much about technology cooperation as actual military presence and that is a vital area to cooperate in esp with Bae so invested in all three Countries.
My judgement is based on 2 things. 1 labour will win the next election. 2 let me quote Mr Healy directly
“Our highest priority as the UKās security in Europe, the North Atlantic and the high North ā the NATO area.”
He mentions breify AUKUS and Tempest but then makes it clear there’s no other support for the Far East. With no Astutes visiting the region why would Australia consider the Astute as an option, they would be better going for a US design and build dedicated infra fir one type of sub.
“Just as we would not expect Japan or Australia to deploy much of their military to Europe, nor does it make sense ā especially at this moment ā for UK forces to devote an increasing share of their scarce resources to the Indo-Pacific”
In reality we will go where ever the US needs us to go. British security policy is and always has been to keep the US involved in Europe and Europe in NATO. The US sees less relavence to its own security in Europe so we pivot our forces to support the US in Asia. Labour wonāt change that and if anything it will maintain the naval program for union jobs. Many other European nations share the same goal and will come with us. The china American war wonāt be won in the pacific it will be won in the blockade in the Indian Ocean where we may have the most important role of all leading a combined NATO fleet.
You think Australia should reject the Astute option because the RN does not patrol the far East with their Astutes? Is that a good reason?
Although Japan will not be included in the original wiring diagram for AUKUS ‘Pillar 1’ (SSN) activities, anticipate that both they and Canada will become early expansion teams participating in ‘Pillar 2’ activities: AI, cyber, hypersonics/anti-hypersonics, quantum computing, etc. (no visibility on space ops.). The breadth of activities to be undertaken will be fascinating, as well as the management of same. š¤š³ Anticipate that the F-35 JPO/Program will, in retrospect, ultimately be considered a paragon of efficiency. š
I reality think we will keep a geopolitical pivot more the the east as the only real threat russia has to NATO and the west is itās nuclear weapons and the cost of weaning Europe off Russian hydrocarbonsā¦itās a nation with a very small GDP based around exporting hydrocarbons with a rotting militaryā¦..so in reality the existential threat is controlled by intent from the west as our wealth, industrial and military overmatch of russia is hugeā¦China on the other hand is a existential threat to western hegemony and the present world order.
Hi Jonathan. Se my response to spyinthesky above. There’s logically to my perspective based on the RUSI speech by Mr Healy.
I am not sure when a US designed warship was last built in a foreign country. Says it all Mr Dutton doen’t it? You are thinking the Virginia class would be built in the USA and not your native Australia. Think about that if I was you.
It’s all more complicated than any of us is aware of, this is noise but which program the Aussies join will depend on timescales as well as running costs.
Given economy size / defence budget size the Aussies would go with UK design as these will be designed with running cost in mind. Big but is the capacity to produce/timescales vs getting Virginia class would fall squarely in favour of the US.
Don’t think quality has anything to do with it as either Sub has top quality sensors etc and can fire torpedos and cruise missiles very accurately and reliably and would fit requirements.
Could Astute batch 2 be an option – many challenges to producing that..
Indeed the Virginias are just a bit more flexible in offensive missile delivery esp as there are question marks over the long term future of tube launched variants. But as I say elsewhere the Australians should be wary of that sort of capability as there is only one target likely for those and to freely do so would be akin to suicide.
The Australians have got bigger problems than Virginia over Astute.
His comment shows how naive he is.
Virginia bigger boat, bigger crew, biggest advantage is the vertical launch tubes for cruise missiles.
Astute supposedly faster and quieter. But cramped inside.
As far as I know both boats can use the other weapons.
I thought the Aussie wanted the Astute replacement?
Think there are 5 options that have been mentioned that the Aussies are looking into.
1) US Virginia Class
2) UK Astute Class
3) US SNNX
4) UK SSN(R)
5) UK sub with US weapons fit out
Some seem less feasible than others
Can i add option 6) Buy the French Suffren class SSN as is rather than the wasted time and money spent on an SSK version of it, it would have been the quickest, easiest and probably cheapest route to Australia getting nuclear capability.
French SSNs use low-enriched uranium, so they must be refuelled every 8-10 years while US and UK subs last 25 years.
That is the case but Australia would have ended up with an SSN capability around 15 years earlier than what they are likely to get when they make their decision – a compromise worth paying, I’m not sure.
Refueling Suffren SSNs in Australia would have been more feasible than previous Australian PM claimed.
Areva Technicatom has already refueled the LEU medical isotope reactor at Lucas Heights in Sydney with no problem.
I still favour the RAN getting Astute or SSNR but Suffrens were the next most practical option.
Buying Suffren would require them to also build a nuclear refueling facility and a nuclear core production capability as the low enriched cores only last around 8-10 years versus 25-30 for the latest high enriched cores.
Indeed that is at the core (literally) of what the Australians are looking for in this cooperation just as it was when the UK negotiated cooperation with the US on reactor design. A no brainer.
No, they dont want any nuclear production or refueling facilities, big no no domestically as its an anti-nuclear power country. All they want is wharfs with the emergency response and umbilical’s to be able to safely berth nuclear vessels.
France has already supplied cores for the LEU research reactor in Sydney.
Thats a research reactor, it exists solely to produce medical isotopes for Australian hospitals and for irradiating material samples. Its built to an Argentinian reactor design and is incapable of generating energy. Spent fuel bricks are indeed sent to France for reprocessing though the original core came from Argentina. It replaced an earlier one for the same purpose at the university which was built by the UK in 1958 and decommissioned in 2007. It actually required a special exemption law be passed because currently Australian law bans the construction or operation of a nuclear power station, enrichment or reprocessing facility, additionally South Australia and Victoria ban storage of nuclear waste or material for processing.
Interestingly Australia did look at just switching to the Suffren SSN before it cancelled the conventional Barracuda version. Spookily the Australian Defence Minister was Peter Dutton.
If you do some reading on the reasons for the cancellation his paw prints are all over it.
As are his comments, letās just say he was 100% focussed on a US solution.
1) US Virginia Class – expensive and large crew so high running costs
2) UK Astute Class – RR reactor2 is no longer in production
3) US SNNX – probalby big and expensive with a large crew
4) UK SSN(R) – the most likley as AUS need some time to gear up
5) UK sub with US weapons fit out – a camel(?) which AUS would then have to support this hybrid by themselves. RN are masters of getting a lot of top end capabiltiy on the relative cheap.
Agree
All signs point to SSNR. The timing works, the cost works, there will be fewer restrictions on use and more KT
Agree, the SSN(R) is the most likely choice. It can have the reactor section built in the UK or US. SSN(R) will likely be a derivative of the SSBN program currently underway.
If they are going SSNR, when can that be delivered? Will they need a interim solution? It’s not scheduled until 2040s, can they wait that long? Collins was commissioned in 1996, so would be 44 years old in 2040
I assume BAE Systems are salivating at the prospect of more boats to build and would very gladly speed up the build of the dreadnoughts.
Wallace has tried to move SSNR delivery to the left and has talked about 2035 in the UK. But I agree that arrival in Aus might be into the 2040s, unless the first two subs built in the UK are for Aus.
Our we get a 2nd production site going or expand Barrow to allow concurrent SSNr and dreadnought build with a push to get first 2-3 SSNr in service by 2032-2033 with first 2-3 boats going to Aus. All indications point to China having quantitative and possibly qualitative edge over USN by early 2030s if current massive military expansion continues.
Note China admitting to just a 5% increase in defence expenditure is utter BS. They are undergoing a massive defence expansion with the sole intent of correcting what President Xi sees as being several historical wrongs.
Taiwan to be returned to China
Japan revenge for Manchuria and WW2, possibly territorial claims vs Japan
Philippines- territorial claims
Vietnam/ Cambodia/ Myanmar ditto- territorial claims
Heck even Russia should probably be very cautious as their far east is a vast territory rich in natural resources and China is more than capable of taking huge swathes of Russian territory. So getting match fit by the 2030s seems like the only answer to our armed forces. will HMG wake up to this fact…doubt it.
Sorry, odds favor some version of the Virginia Class. Outside change they could select a Australian Version of the SSN(X) or SSN(R) but I doubt it. Because of the cost and time involved.
They wont be getting Astutes, once Astute hull 7(Agincourt?) is commissioned that’s it for Astute’s. If they decide to go UK then its whatever SSN(R) is, which should also have VLTs.
I was not sure how far along the SSN(R) design was.
Even with the best will in the world , we are a long way off a SSN(R) being in the water.
Given the age of the Collinās boats , is this a realistic time scale for Australia.
As far as I am aware SSN(R) is still in the design phase, like you, not sure where in that process it is?
There are several wider issues which might well impact on when SSN(R) starts build, with the AUS requirements being one of them.
Astute itself will need a replacement/re-fuelling around 2035ish, as will Ambush some two years later, so getting SSN(R) hull 1 into the water before it’s currently scheduled ISD of 2040 is something of a growing priority. Once a design is finalised/approved, it would mean increasing the build rate on Dreadnought et al to get them into service sooner.
I do believe that the Collins class are all getting some form of major Mid Life Upgrade which should give them all another 15-20 years or so of service. This would allow Aus to introduce an SSN by 2035-2040 without a capability gap.
There are of course many other variables that Aus have to overcome before they can start operating whichever design of SSN they go with, so 2035-2040 is not that unrealistic a time scale.
the SSN(R) design would be about 80% complete before doing anything, the SSBN front end and back end will almost certainly be used, electric propulsion similar to t45 and qec is going to be used on SSBN, and this will carry into SSN(R). much quieter more redundancy. the only difference i suspect will be the centre section, there will be one for crew accomodation but size/vertical launch tubes/extra food etc anything else is possible and configurable. suspect the aussie’s found this out when they visited barrow, before AUKUS. first 1 or 2 subs may be built at barrow, Aus will build there own after, they may even build us a few.
Wouldn’t disagree with any of what you have said.
Whether or not Aus choose SSN(R) or not, I believe that we will see them with VL Tubes fitted.
Of course, that leaves the rather sticky question of who/where is the RC going to be built? Not saying that Aus isnt capable, but if they are only going to build 8-10 say, is it worth all the extra investment? I rather think that it may well be some form of slot in module supplied either by US or UK. Time will no doubt tell.
the reactor will be mated to the design, so either us sub with us reactor or brit sub with brit reactor. anything else would be VERY expensive. if they go brit SSN (R) then the reactor will be built in uk and shipped, maybe a complete reactor section at barrow and then shipped. everything else can be assembled in AUS, certain bits may need to be shipped in. i agree the AUS version will have VL tubes and probably a larger center section for better crew accomodation and food storage for pacific patrols.
The Aussies might be better off buying in some Japanese SSKs (air independent propulsion) or U212 series (from Germany) air independent propulsion- to act as a gap filler until SSNr can be built in enough numbers within the UK and Australia to return our respective fleets back to adequate force levels. RN needs to get back to 10+ SSNs in service.
Or a mix of Ceteus and SSKs- Australia have their new XL large diameter USSVs – so maybe a mix of large numbers of armed drones and SSKs will be a viable interim until SSNs become available. Either way we should find out before the end of this month (march) what AUKUS way forward is.
Indeed they should stick to what their prime need is and that is to defend their homeland as a priority or the South flank generally the Astute is the better option for that but some a little naively have a liking for all the sweets in the shop even if that risks making them very sick indeed. Sometimes less is definitely more and joint offensive operations with the US is not in their best interests.
Really, apples and oranges between the Astute vs Viginia Classes. The former is pure SSN. While, the latter is an SSN/SSGN Hybrid….Australia will picked the latter. “IMHO”
Perhaps the Australians should have stayed with the French Barracuda submarines, but swapped to the nuclear powered version? The timescale would have been better for the Australians.
Not necessarily, the Barracuda project had turned into an omnishambles long before they cancelled and went to the U.K. and USA. The Australian PM had warned the French President long before AUKUS that the project was in danger of cancellation if things didnāt improve.
The eventual cancellation was no surprise in Australia.
Part of the problem, was trying to turn a nuclear designed boat into a conventional SSK. They may have had more luck with the nuclear version.
Not feasible. French naval reactors use LEU rather than the HEU used by the US/UK. The LEU reactors are cheaper for France because they can piggyback off their sizeable civilian nuclear industry but the downside is they need refuelling every 6-8 years on average. US/UK reactors are designed to last the life of the boat, although with some work they can be refuelled if needed. Considering Australia has no nuclear industry to speak of, they’d need to be regularly sending boats back to France for refuelling and probably have to wait in the queue behind the French boats which would take priority.
LEU has less political issues than HEU.
Exactly.
Following in from that – in Australia low enriched uranium is a political red line because it means eventually Australia would likely set up its own full cycle uranium industry ie enrichment reprocessing disposal. That is a massive no go area in Australian politics
I hope they are planning on changing that for PANG. They surely don’t want the propulsion to be like the de Gaulle.
Partly yes, but I canāt imagine the French would allow anyone else having access to their reactor technology.
If the French thought the US/UK would give Australia SSN technology anyway, then that might have overcome French resistance.
Except nobody thought that, AUKUS came completely out of the blue.
Even if the French decided to share their nuclear secrets it wouldnāt have solved all the other things issues around the project.
They would have totally squeezed the pips out of Australia over the decades, who would have been tied in to that choice endlessly. The French always plan long term income from their hi profile exports through āadd onsā like maintenance and weapons as they do with Rafale to give a seemingly cheaper up front price. Bit like dodgy builders as was already happening with the Barracuda platform.
Aren’t they meant to be working with Brazil for their SSN?
Yes, but Brazil has been working for decades on developing its own naval nuclear reactor. So while the submarine is based on a French design and the the French are providing assistance, itās Brazilās own reactor and not a French reactor.
Australia does not have a naval nuclear programme, yet.
If Australia had gone ahead with Suffren SSNs instead of AUKUS France would have had to supply reactors and fuel cores. That is no different to UK or US role under AUKUS. With changes to legislation spare reactor cores could have been stored in Australia for the refueling. No problem under NNPT because its all LEU.
Except that Australia wasnāt building the SSN version of the Barracudaā¦
If they had decided that they wanted to switch to the SSN version thereās no guarantee that France would have agreed to supply their reactor technology.
But just assuming France had agreed, the project was already mired in a multitude of problems and the Australians were losing patience with the French. That Australia cancelled was no surprise to anyone in Australia.
Brazil has only just launched its first SSKs- after 12+ years work. The new single prototype SSN is still some years away. Some think not likely to be in service until 2030 at the earliest.
SSNs are a complex technology mix, Brazil will be doing well to hit 2030, even with Franceās help.
The French did indicate they would be willing to talk to Australia about nuclear subs at the start, back in 2015. This was confirmed by former PM Turnbull after AUKUS was announced in 2021. I am happy if the RAN ends up with Astutes or SSNRs but the reasons the Suffren design was dismissed were false. If delay was the problem we should have sacked BAE and cancelled the Hunter frigates too. They are also years late and over budget.
Further to this France is already helping Brazil with its SSN construction. Why would France oppose selling SSN tech to Australia? It was always talked about as a possible ābatch 2ā in the Attack class project.
Brazil has developed its own nuclear reactor for use in submarines so wouldnāt have needed French reactors. Australia doesnāt, thatās a huge difference between the two.
Barracuda project was late, over budget, not utilising enough native manufacturers, etc etc etc. The French screwed up the project, Australia took the opportunity to change to SSN once theyād decided to ditch the French. The desire to change to SSN wasnāt the reason the French were dumped.
You canāt blame BAE and cancel the Hunter project when the delays/cost-overruns are all due to the Australian government. Thatās the difference FFS. š¤¦š»āāļø
Look what a mess the Australians have made of the Hunter class frigates as well, bought the smallest of the three available frigate hull forms that were offered and yet trying to cram more equipment into it than the mid sized UK hull.
Isn’t the Type 26 the largest Hull size, not the smallest, that entered the bidding for what is now the Hunter class ?.
There were multiple designs from different manufacturers bid and within the Type 26 design there were three hull design variants, ASW, smaller but larger displacement AAW and larger General Purpose.
ASW ships have as much equipment as they can on suspended rafts to dampen noise and built for speed to chase submarines.
AAW are designed to have a deep draft and higher displacement to fit as many missiles as they can.
GP are designed to be a mix of both with extra deck space added for mission modules and extended supplies
UK selected the ASW, Canadians selected the General Purpose and the Australians selected the AAW then decided they wanted it to do ASW as well so have had to stretch and increase the displacement of the design.
I would agree this was definitely Australiaās fault. Cutting the Hobart destroyer program to three (replacing a class of six!) meant the RAN is short of AA destroyers. We should buy three more Hobarts or similar.
Consequently they tried to fit far too much AA into the ASW Hunter class to make up, overloading it, and leading to the delays you mention.
To my knowledge there were three contenders – (a) Navantia 5000 loosely based on the Hobart DDG but optimised for ASW,(b) FREMM design modified for RAN and (c) Type 26 based design.I have seen no information on different options for the T26,have you any links ?.
Listen to the Bilge Pumps podcast, regularly discussed but I cant tell you which episodes off the top of my head.
Purely in terms of manpower and size, then the Barracuda class would probably fit the bill perfectly, but they are very limited in their weapon load (ie 4 tubes and 20 reloads). Notwithstanding the rest of the political noise surrounding such a buy, I dont think that they were ever a serious consideration for Aus. They, IMO need something with lots more firepower per unit, which equates to SSN(R) or SSN(X).
Agree- the Aussie subs need to contend with a proliferative PLAN surface and subsurface fleet- with lots of vessels and hulls in or under the water. The way to defeat PLAN tasks forces is to fire a lot of weapons at them and hope/ know many of their low cost large numbers of ships and subs will be sunk. So SSNr with VLS and spearfish torps in large numbers is needed. Or an Astute.
We will see what they announce, it may be a bit of a surprise.
IMHO I think it will all boil down to who can, where and how anything can be built.
The US is massively overstretched just trying to try and build 2 Virginia’s PA, and now have to add 12 Columbia Class SSBN at 1 PA FOR 12 years 2030 to 2042.
We are effectively out of the SSN Assembly business until mid 2030ās given the present setup at Barrow and the Dreadnought class taking up the DH. Iām not saying it couldnāt be done, but it would need a massive investment.
IMHO I wouldnāt be too surprised if both the US and U.K. end up building components and Australia get an assembly hall of their own. BAe could be ideally placed to really help there due to the Hunter build.
Either way it will be a long while before the RAN see their own purpose built boats.
One thing is for sure it will have to be imaginative.
Oh and reading his actual comments regarding RR here in Derby, yes it presently has its hands full. But given further investment it could probably increase the production of PWR3 from 2030 onwards.
It isnāt like it hasnāt been done before. FYI during the Cold War 1pa was the PWR1 drumbeat and although the PWR3 is bigger and more complex there is a lot more automation these days.
Spot on.
I think weāll at first see Australian boats assembled there from modules built elsewhere. With Electric Boat aiding them, as they did with Barrow for Astute, in getting up to speed in building boats.
The reactor will certainly be supplied by U.K./USA.
I’m not so sure.
Hull 3 of Dreadnought is in fab now.
How many years is it before the hull fab teams actually run out of back to back work. The hulls of Dreadnought 1 & 2 look very advanced to me from the public photos.
Barrow can increase productivity by working Friday afternoon for starters. The car park empties of BMWX5’s (replace with other expensive SUV’s) by about 12:00. You can see that through the fence for yourself. The drumbeat is artificially slowed and you could increase rate by 10%+ by just working normal working hours. Never mind shifts etc.
I know and it isn’t just at Barrow but here in Derby on Raynesway. As you probably know the killer of efficient production is spreading the Budget spend over more years than is required for the build.
It keeps the Treasury happy but you either end up building fewer items due to the overall cost or it is so expensive they delay buying any more. Meawhile the suppliers have gone bust.
Regarding the running out of back to back work that can only be solved by SSN(R) design being finished and ordered pronto.
If the RAN can come onboard and do so sensibly then we could maybe, possibly, hopefully see real investment in the infrastructure at both facilities and someone sorting out the layout at Barrow. Its fun but a mess.
A Drumbeat of 15 months would be optimum. And we could maybe afford more RN Boats if the price comes down “A La T26 Bsatch 2” (sorry that was French).
Speeding things up reduces the net cost.
The workforce is still paid but because the āwork for the weekā is doneā¦.
The less time the boat is in the yard the less yard costs and overhead are allocated against it.
I suspect they donāt want to finish all the Dreadnought work before the SSNR design is ready. Otherwise you just end up with a gap as they had after vanguard.
There is a big difference between
Finish the pressure hull work; and
Finish all the work.
Iām talking about a continuum of pressure hull work at a marginally higher tempo.
Fair, but I suppose it really rests with when the SSNR design is ready, that possibly the limiting factor.if you look that the history of nuclear submarine building in the UK we can probably sustain over the long term a fleet of 15-16 hulls if they are decommissioned after 25 years so the UK could probably manage 4 dreadnoughts, 8 UK SSNRs and 4 Australian boats between now and say 2045ish. But it depends if the SSNR design is on time.
Agree hence why accelerating the SSNr programme and the dreadnought build is the only viable solution. Got to get the dreadnoughts done by 2028 and move onto SSNrs so the first 203 SSNrs are in the water by 2030-2031 timeframe- this is when the predicted peak power projection for the PLAN is forecast. We have to get match fit and prepared for likely conflict with a SINO-Ruskie axis in the 2030s.
Where can one find photo’s of Dreadnought hulls 1 & 2 ? I would have thought such images were strictly prohibited.
Try this site and Navy Lookout.
The boats are sat outside the shed at Barrow for all to see.
As we donāt do closed towns in the UK there isnāt much anyone can do to stop anyone photographing them before launch.
However, you will see that the pump jet and other āinteresting bitsā are covered and unveiled underwater.
Apart from some CGI renders and pictures of pressure Hull sections being transported on trailers there is nothing – https://twitter.com/BAES_Maritime/status/1602993101265637377?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1602993101265637377%7Ctwgr%5Ea612b36ef2725142cda1ae1e84b155fba2d401e1%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fukdefencejournal.org.uk%2Fnew-british-nuclear-missile-submarine-reaches-milestone%2F
I am continually slightly irritated by claims that something as complex as a nuclear submarine is ‘world leading’ etc. Of course it might be in some areas (though, who defines what that means), but there is no way that the whole of the system is better than anyone else’s, that’s just ridiculous.
The risk in saying otherwise is that we forget the real world balance of strengths and limitations that define any complex system. Astutes are good at x, but the americans are better at Y, and I’m sure there’s probably even something the russian boats are better at (no idea what, I will admit).
āprobably even something the russian boats are better atāā¦
Sinking themselves?
The only ālogicalā option is for Australia to join the Astute replacement program. All other options are impractical and unrealistic. A U.K./AU partnership offers industrial benefits for both parties and avoids the parochial Congressional interference that any US deal would involve. On cost/manning/flexibility and industrial development itās a no brainer.
One of Australias main objectives was to use an existing, proven and in production design. That does not exist in the UK. There are no more astutes to be had. Unless the UK wants to hand over theirs. AUS also wants American weapons and fire control. They need the boats now not in 2050.
How are they going to get any boat ānowā then? Just magic up boats and crews! Back to your comics and it probably works thereš
They need the infrastructure and trained people first, they are not going to get that sorted by next Christmas or the next few either, so, 2030/35 onwards before any boats arrive!
Aussie crews are already onboard RN and USN SSNs now learning the ropes. This programme has already started. Infrastructure- fleet base west and something on the east coast are both going to be needed to support an SSN programme. The East coast base would need to be heavily defended as likely Chinese task forces will be operating out of the Solomon islands in the very near future.
They indeed are in the country starting to ‘learn the ropes’, for the Nuclear engineers in particular, this will take years to gain the experience required. It will take time getting all their ‘ducks in a row’ so to speak, so, SSN (R)/(X) will be the primary choices for the RAN.
If they go UK, then I can see UK PLC building 1-2 for us before AUS start building theirs – initially from modules perhaps, then from scratch with the Reactor compartments purpose built either in the UK or US depending on choice of SM and shipped out to AUS.
Oh dear another subject way above your knowledge and capability level.
And that is the best comment in the thread.
Not possible PWR2 is finished dead and PWR3 doesnāt fit in Astute
Not sure that this comment has any relevance to my post. Rush of blood to the brain??
No luvvie, itās knowledge based on having worked in Barrow on the Astute program and having colleagues who worked at Rolls Nuclear.
It is impossible to build another Astute because Astute is built around PWR2 and PWR2 is now out of production. It was right at the end of its development life which stretches back to the 60s and Rolls struggled to get the last couple out. A new build PWR2 is technically not possible therefore a new build Astute is technically not possible.
Clear now? I can draw a picture if necessary
Ummmm
Which was why Mr Razor said āAstute replacement programā
??????
Perhaps if you had bothered to read my post old chap you would know that I was referring to the Astute successor project!
no spare capacity to help Australia with a nuclear sub.
Yards currently in a recruiting drive to increase its headcount from 10,000 today to 17,500 (The most thats been employed at the site since the 80’s when it was building surface ships too and for comparison the first couple of Astute were built with only 3,000 workers including the 500 designers), Australians have also offered to provide shipyard workers for training up and are currently in the midst of a program to have 3,000 of their sailors rotate through service on US and UK subs.
Interesting. Thanks for that.
Interesting, signs on the wall of a massive ramping up of work at Barrow??? please god let that be right. We could really do with dreadnought programme being accelerated and the Barrow slipways cleared for SSNr asap. Then build SSNr in large/ very large numbers. At least 12 for RN and 8+ for Aussies. We would need to surge the programme to get 2-3 boats to the Aussie’s very quickly (or rn keeps first few SSNrs and gives Astutes to the Aussies FOC) and then 1 per year thereafter.
Could we provide any of the old T class boats as an interim now- eg once refurbished? the last 2-3 Trafalgar class boats admittedly are old but still superior to anything the Chinese currently have and would be a game changer in capability for the Aussie Navy. Enabling a mixed Collins and a few old T class boats to see the Aussie navy through until SSNr comes online in the 2030s.
Have they selected British boats? Or is the process still going?
Still ongoing. We’re looking at operational completely Aussie crewed subs starting in the late 2030s at best. It’s a 2040s project.
But this is just Dutton blowing hot air. Guy’s as thick as mince and I doubt he could distinguish a sub from a subway.
Cheers
Lol… I believe Sutton’s family background is in pig farming… which would make it pork mince… Lol š
Expect announcement mid to late March.
Decision by the end of this month- apparently
I did meet an Aussie involved in their sub program the last year and what stuck in mind was when he said the Astute comes with a ‘Technical debt’ over the Virginia. So their a view that the Astute design and system need updating.
The Virginia is much more complicated.
Astute is a reductionist design. Remove all unnecessary bits. Only way they can be made that cheap in such a small run.
Thing with a reductionist design is there is less to maintain. So cheaper to run.
Does AUS need a full load out of whistles and bells? This does seem to be an AUS thing of max complexity load outs: see Hunter class.
Virginia is an older tech design, to save money they reused as much off the shelf components from the Seawolf as they could, even borrowing stuff from the UK’s Swiftsure class. They even knowingly used an obsolete spherical rather than conformal sonar design for the first 8 Virginias while leaving room for it to be replaced.
For this reason it was originally supposed to be superseded by an improved Virginia design in 2025 but they have now put that back to 2045 with a total replacement design required and will instead keep cranking them out!
And yet Astute in war games in 2018-2019 defeated 2 Virginia class SSNs, sunk 2 Vincennes class cruisers, an Arleigh Burke and closed to kill range a US Nimitz class carrier. The USN observers onboard couldn’t believe what they were seeing in terms of the Astute ability to detect engage and not be detected itself. As well as the range and clarity of its passive sonar.
So I would beg to differ, the Astute is frankly the best SSN in the world at sub vs sub and engaging surface warships. The Virginia class is optimised for strike missions with large surface strike weapons and now VLS (in most recent batches) its a different beast, highly capable but not as stealthy or as capable as a hunter killer as an Astute.
The decision is with the assessment council, whose conclusions are shortly to be announced in Washington, sometime between 9th-19th March 2023. They will set out their optimum solution, and it looks likely to be a sensible “engineering” solution; instead of the usual political BS.
Not to pay too much notice of politician’s ill-informed cant: all they want is attention.
There is no way it can be a pure engineering led solution there is just too much geo politics involved.
Changing Australian Law to allow a Nuclear Industry ?
Refit facilities ?
Nuclear Maintainance ?
And what does Australia do with them afterwards ? Now there is an interesting item for discussion.
IMHO I wouldn’t be to suprised to see SSN(R) designed and block constructed in UK. It will already have to be fitted with a US VLS system so I could see Groton designing a common weapons compartment within the UK parameters. And I wouldn’t be surprised to see us just bite the bullet and also buy US while at it.
One key thing may just be in UK favour, once the long lead items for the KGVI are ordered our supply chain could get straight into SSN(R) but if costs are shared up the tempo to supply RN and RAN builds.
Either way it will be “the finest world leading submarine ever”.
One would hope that there have been significant technical consultations w/ both primes and significant subs during the development of this plan.š¤ Previous experience dictates that it would be beneficial to loop in the organizations and people who will be tasked w/ executing plan. Wonder whether sufficient details will be publicly released to permit a comprehensive critique? March could prove to be quite interesting; ‘ beware the Ides of March.’
BTW, since everyone believes events are complicated now, simply wait until a Conservative government is elected in Canada. In due course, they will wish to join the party, probably w/ an order of 6-8 boats. The title will then probably become CAUKUS, but, eventually there may be so many participants that the acronym becomes unpronounceable. š¤š³š
This is what the Australian deputy prime minister and minister for defence had to say on the subject last month
Reported on the ABC news Australia website 04/02/23
The only problem with that is that it sounds like a Political BS soundbite. Australia has exactly zero Submarine design experience and no Nuclear Industry worth mentioning. So this is probably a “feel good” statement to Sugar Coat the fact that it isn’t a partnership of equals. The sheer scale of effort required for the generation of capabilty so Australia is able to support a Nuclear Submarine can’t be understated.
On the other hand I do wonder if there is a 3 way reality check going on. The UK is finishing the design of SSN(R) whilst the US is struggling to build the numbers required to replace the CW Legacy Los Angeles class 1 to 1 and SSN(X) is in the distance.
We wait with bated breath.
Indeed, how does the US increase boat numbers for itself or produce anything for Australia with all its capacity focused on the Virginia and Columbia classes followed by SSN(X).
Could we be looking at BAE developing new facilities in the US to build a US/Australian variant of SSN(R) using PWR3s supplied by RR?
I honestly do not think it can produce more Boats and at present it has zero capacity to do so. Which makes Mr Duttons comments all the more perplexing.
Just remember he is an opposition Politician not an engineer or production expert, so a Big Dollop of Salt Time.
However just because the assembly of Boats is maxed out doesn’t mean that the US cannot provide extra items from the supply chain. That is self evident when you consider that although the US is now trying to ramp up to build 2 Virginia PA and 1 Columbia PA, extra equipment is still being produced.
GD Electric Boat has designed and is building the CMC for both the US and UK Boats.They also build the VBP Module for Virginia class and would be the logical source of same for UK SSN(R) and and RAN Boats.
I could see the UK SSN(R) design being flexible to take US sourced Weapons and CMC etc. We do tend to like our Boats a bit wider in the girth dept.
Couldnāt the Dreadnought Common Missile Compartment be used for SSN(R)? A non-trivial chunk of the overall Dreadnought budget was for the UKās contribution to the joint US/UK development of a new CMC that at least initially was intended to be able to host either Trident or TLAM (multiple TLAM per tube obviously). Did that design aspect not make it through to the final design? If it did then it would seem a shame not to get more use from the joint funding of the CMC design.
SSN(R) might well be very close in design to the Dreadnought class, but without the CMC and VLTs instead.
CMC is for the SSBN, GE Electric Boat also manufacture the VPM for TLAM and probably the SSN(R) as well; just like they do for the CMC in both SSBNs.
I live in Adelaide and politically I expect any final solution will have to include some construction in ASC Adelaide, even if only the front end. Politically both the current SA state premier and new Australian PM have said there will be manufacturing jobs in Adelaide out of AUKUS. Perhaps a joint build whereby BAE Barrow build all the SSN rear halves (reactor module and drive) and BAE in Adelaide build all the bow sections for a joint SSNR class build, with Aussie subs built first?
Iāve been doing some reading regarding the reasons behind the cancellation of the French Barracuda and why they didnāt just opt for the Suffren.
Peter Dutton decided against it due to many reasons but mainly focused on the 8 year refuelling needs against the USN 33 years.
In fact every word is pro the USN option to the complete exclusion of a U.K or combined option.
Could Peter Duttons recent comments just be a timely attempt to āscuff the ballā before an announcement.
It is like he is either very anti U.K. or very heavily biased to the Biggest, most expensive US option without any regard to anything else. Is he a Republican ?
I know I am very biased (RR Derby) but I do think that building on the existing BAe Tri Party T26 project would be a very logical foundation for a joint build.
It proves that taking a basic but flexible U.K. design and integrating it with US systems (and Australian) for RAN and RCN is possible.
The other thing is that despite what some folks think the US and U.K. have had an extraordinary cooperative relationship regarding Nuclear boats and weapons for decades. So adding Australia is just a really logical move, it helps to add mass to the Western SSN capacity in the Pacific and SEA.
Now as you Australians are world famous for being quiet, teetotal, non competitive, diplomatic, subtle folks could one of you kindly go and wake our Canadian Cousins up.š
And try to avoid a sentence containing swearing or ātight fistedā in.
I am an engineer and have friends who do/have worked at ASC so I am biased too. Nevertheless I agree the logic of a joint UK/AUS SSN build makes sense. I donāt perceive USA wants us to build Virginias. Their achilles heal is maintenance. If Australian sub bases can learn to maintain SSNs (engineers are already in the USN NNP school) they will be happy.
Dutton is an unpopular opposition leader seeking publicity. His remarks have been widely panned since.
I think UK is a far more logical partner than USA for RAN SSNs for three reasons:
Canada is beyond my control. But a country with huge arctic waters, melting ice opening up to more shipping and Russia building SSNs could surely use some. We shall see.
If it’s being announced in Washington rather than Canberra, that suggests a level of bias. Are we sure it’s not being announced simultaneously in all three capitals?
It is being announced in Washington only, by all three Heads of State together.
Ahem there will only be 1 Head of State present plus 2 of His Majesty The Kings Prime Ministers.
Please don’t promote Politicians ! Last time we did that the previous King Charles lost his head.
Yes.
When Astute was carrying out sea trials off the US east coast, the US navy could not belive how quiet she was and the fact she could pick a Virginia class boat over a milw away ļ»æšļ»æ
Those sea trials were a decade ago.
Which means they’re still quiet
Those trials were actually wargames- and yes it wasn’t just the single Virginia class the Astute could target and sink at will. It was pretty much the entire carrier battle group- see above for details. this was all reported in Warships IFR and confirmed by the MOD and USN
I agreed with the first half of what he said- the Pacific is the USN’s backyard and operating the same type of SSN has its benefits if things really got unpleasant out there.
But SSN(R) being cheaper and taking longer to deliver because of it? First of all I’m sturggling to understand how those two go together. But, secondly, SSN(R) is built with a “small navy” in mind- by which I mean smaller than the USN. Fewer crew, greater automation, less requirement for deep maintenance because the reactor doesn’t need re-fuelling. All things that even the massive beast that is the USN struggles to keep up to speed. The guy makes zero sense, unless he explains himself better later…
My thoughts entirely he seems to be contradicting known logic which makes me wonder if he is essentially tilting at wind mills because he is in opposition and needs to appear like he is keeping the Govt on its toes.
is this the guy who just after the election was bemoaning the fact that the UK hadnāt made a serious offer as yet and was in fact bemoaning the fact? Either the former PM or former defence Minister thatās for sure.
It was Mr Andrew Hastie, shadow defence secretary here in AU, who was asking BW for the UK to put up a sub offering…. and maybe he or someone else has done the trick?
My reading was he was mistakenly thinking they would be building all 8 Australian submarines as Astutes which is unlikely, however I wouldnt rule out the first couple being Astute derived.
If Australia need 2 subs soonest maybe there’s a Astute-SSNR hybrid design planned as an interim sub? The UK itself will have a mixed sub fleet at some stage as it does now.
The only reason you’re looking elsewhere for subs is because you can’t build your own, you can buy what you like it makes no difference either way…š¤Ø
What’s the plan for getting the Australians from now till whenever the AUKUS agreement results in SSNs, can the Collins class continue to operate safely and effectively till then or will something else have to be arranged?
I’ve wondered why they don’t move the six Collins subs up into Darwin and Townsville to save on fuel and transit time being closer to the SE Asian, SC Sea region and maybe leave Perth and Sydney/Brisbane for the nuclear subs?
There are two real problems with this. The first RAN SSK HMAS Collins in forty years old in 2036. The last turns forty in 2041. So there is urgency. Successive conservative governments in Australia failed badly to treat the sub program with the urgency needed, despite defence spending rising.
Basing the Collins SSKs in northern Australia is also difficult. There are few suitable ports in terms of water depth, tidal range and mud and Collins SSKs need a lot of maintenance.
Also people in Perth won’t move to Darwin or Townsville and don’t need to give the buyoant WA employment market.
It’s a good defense agreement but the submarine component is more complex than the news or politicians seem to be giving it credit for.
It’ll take at least a decade to physically establish SSN refit capabilities in Australia – more like 15 to get any experienced personnel operating that place. And neither the Virginia or Astute class build programmes have any space to turn out units for Australia (though UK Astute builds will be complete sooner) – provided that either one of these is the winning design for an Australian SSN. This is provided that the Australian government could get it’s arse in gear and actually make some decisions regarding spending and timelines.
But even for the Astute build, isnāt the yard already fully committed to the Dreadnought build next? Is there physical capacity to add any more builds?
Maybe Mr Dutton is trying to get a bit of Liberal National “street cred” back into the sub after the debacle with the French sub handling in his previous government. The Virginia class maybe just way too big for Australia’s needs in size, crew, payload and the joint US, UK and AU SSNR design is a way off. A modified AU Astute might just be right. Leave it to experts. If the UK gets the gig then hopefully they can expedite the SSNR program. š¬š§ š¦šŗ
I know some people who work in ASC Adelaide. The details of what is proposed are tightly guarded but I am sure BAE are heavily involved and I have not heard the slightest hint Australia will build Virginias. Hardly any of the US SSN supply chain firms are based in Australia. Much too risky.
I think you’re in for a surprise…..
Hope your sources are right about this. š¦šŗ š¬š§
As an Australian, I would just like to point out that any comments made by Dutton should be treated with extreme scepticism. He is generally regarded as an angry, racist little potato, with firm allegiance to the far right. He is not currently a part of our federal government, and has no decision making power in this matter.
HMG better not get any bright ideas to sell off the two boats that are still under construction to the Australians.
Now that is a “bright idea”… not… or maybe… co-share, forward base in Australia?
Well what about a Wet Lease of KGVI to be forward deployed to Australia ? So they can get experience and start to build up the numbers of crew required.
It isn’t like it wouldn’t be doing some good and save us having to send one over there.
The really nice thing is the RAN don’t even need to change the name just add the A into HM-S.
Well that’s a different story if the Australians want a nuclear deterrent.
Oops my bad.
I would make perfect sense to sell the last two Astute’s to Australia. Then move straight onto producing 14 SSNR’s for the UK and 10 SSNR nuclear sections for the Australian production line.
I donāt know why the U.K. is even involved (Iām a U.K. citizen). We do not have an empire anymore and I think a lot of people in the government forget this!
Ultimately Australia wants an ongoing construction program producing submarines at a sustainable rate over an extended period of time. This would seem a better match with the British production model rather than the mass production program favoured by the US.
Slap in the face from the younger child!
Not fair in the eyes of some, but you can understand his comments. There are going to be at least two dozen USN boats, whereas the Royal Navy might field one. Why would you go for a British design that the Americans canāt fix?
I canāt understand his comments as they donāt make much sense. I would also say, in regard to your last sentence, that the idea of the project is to ensure that the Australians can fix and repair their own boats without outside help from either the UK or US and that they become equal partners thus increasing western SSN capability. There could be an argument in saying it would be beneficial in Australia being able to fix us boats maybe.
Thereās some parts of the Rolls Royce reactor that only Westinghouse can fix. Why would either the UK or US allow anyone, even Australia to have access to secrets that could end up in China. Remember, since the 1990ās, the volume of Chinese allowed to move to Australia and settle has changed the countryās demographics. So many Chinese have moved there, itās made Chinese ex-pats 3.6% of population and Mandarin, the second most widely spoken language from out of nowhere since the 1990ās. Personally, I cannot believe those figures as the number of Chinese that you see in every major city and settlement appears much higher than 3.6%. Chinese spying has shot through the roof. The ASIO warn more Australians are targets of spying āthan at any time in Australiaās historyā.
Iām all in favour of Austria being able to repair their own subs. However, thereās certain parts of the technology shouldnāt be shared. The Americans certainly will not.
If it is the case that there is parts of RRs reactors that only Westinghouse can fix it doesnāt matter which design they chose because for either one sometimes youād have to get the US to repair it.
Also Iād imagine that both the US and UK have weighed up the pros and cons of giving away secret technology to Australia and the inherent risks of it ending up in Chinese hands.
Very Simple MATE. Build them Yourselves. You have Miffed the French, go ahead and Miff the British. you will be Shopping in China Next
I think the UK boats are more suitable for the RAN. The complement of the Astute is 98, while it’s 135 for the Virginia. Australia has enough trouble crewing the Collins, and an abundance of manpower is not something the RAN is blessed with.
There are certainly arguments in favour of the Virginia class, such as interoperability, but I think it’s fair to say Australia cannot go too far wrong with either option, and it will result in an enormous leap in capability for the Submarine service.
I’d sooner have the Astute class any day!
It’s a bit confusing, but reporting suggests we will go for 5 Virginias, then develop an Astute based local version? Announcement Monday?
link:
https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2023/03/australia-to-buy-nuclear-subs-from-everywhere/
What isn’t confusing is that by having a 30knot nuclear boat with cruise missiles somewhere on your flank, any Chinese carrier strike force commander is going to think twice coming out of the Java sea, or into the Arafura or Solomon seas.
(Me, I’d be happy to see Astute based designs, but I’m pro Brit…)
The Collins class are apparently good quiet boats too…
We’re in a bit of a pickle down here. For any Brits who have a bit of time to spend, this is a really good presentation of the history of Australian Defence, and the situation Australia finds itself in now; and what approach we might need to take to ensure our sovereignty:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsEJrxKh0k0
Keep up the good work UKDJ.
Reuter claims to have to been leaked the big AUKUS announcement expected on Sat 11 March.
The big winner is apparently the USA and the USN. Australia is going to spend $ tens of billions over the next c.17 years buying 3-5 US built Virginia class submarines for delivery in the 2030’s. Over the same period a few Ā£ billion will be spent developing an Oz version of the new British SSNR design, to enter service in 2040’s. This will contain many American systems (to maintain compatibility with their Virginia’s) and construction will at the Osborne naval shipyard shipyard in Adelaide, Australia, not in the UK – although presumably some components will be UK sourced.
The big risk from a UK perspective is that RAN is really happy with the Virginia’s and decides it doesn’t really want the SSNR(A). An incoming Australian government might then decides to save a shed-load of money by binning the later and just sticking with the US made subs. Perhaps buying an extra couple of boats to get to a decent force level.