RAN Discussions on SSNs only

[Geddy]

I choose to believe, perhaps unwisely, that the government has a plan to bring nukes into service in a reasonable timeframe. I have had a couple of thoughts.

The Astute is designed to serve at least 25 years. This may have more to do with the UKs desire to have an ongoing submarine construction program and it is possible that the actual life expectancy of the Astute could be perhaps 5 to 10 years longer than that. Some of the Trafalgar class have already seen 30 years service and probably more like 35 years before the last of the Astutes commission.

If the SSN(R) program progresses reasonably smoothly then it is possible that Australia could transition into secondhand Astutes from the mid to late 30s. That timeline could work, with Australia then having a stepping stone from the Collins through to when we start taking delivery of our own nuclear subs. I notice that the submarine drumbeat for the UK sees a new submarine laid down every three years or so which could see construction commence on the Astute replacement around 2028 with an in service date 9 to 10 years after that.

Of course this does depend on the SSN(R) program going smoothly, which could explain the press release on work commencing on the Astute replacement just two days after the AUKUS announcement.

UK Starts Work On A New Nuclear Submarine Right After Australia Says It's Looking To Buy

The replacement for the Astute class may be a fit for Australian requirements, but the US could put forward competing offerings.

www.thedrive.com

As much as I like US subs I think the British boats will be more affordable, and their manufacturing process would be easier to duplicate in Australia. It would also allow Australia to have timely replacements for the Collins class until our own new subs become available.

I am positive that Australia is not going to operate “second hand” submarines. This is not something the public would tolerate after all the fuss about going to nuclear vessels. The Navy, I’m sure, wouldn't tolerate it either.
In 18 months or so I suspect Australia will reveal a quicker than expected pathway to nuclear submarines. No, I don’t have a reference, it’s just what I believe.
The US has a strong interest in getting Australia into its own vessels quickly, to increase the number of allied submarines in the Asia/Pacific. My guess is they will increase their capacity for production at home while helping Australia develop its industrial capacity.

 

[John Fedup]

It appears both the RN’s SSN(R) and the USN’s SSN(X) will share a lot of DNA from each countries respective boomer designs (Dreadnaught and Columbia). The boomers both get their missile compartments from the same vendor(I think). It seems likely their future SSNs will be closer to SSGNs than SSNs. In some respects the block V Virginia already is. Not likely to change any decisions wrt to Australia’s current needs but AUKUS could see the eventual post R and N boats becoming a three way SSGN AUKUS class. This would be at least 40 years away if it were to happen and none of us will likely see if this comes to pass.

 

[Boagrius]

I am positive that Australia is not going to operate “second hand” submarines. This is not something the public would tolerate after all the fuss about going to nuclear vessels. The Navy, I’m sure, wouldn't tolerate it either.
In 18 months or so I suspect Australia will reveal a quicker than expected pathway to nuclear submarines. No, I don’t have a reference, it’s just what I believe.
The US has a strong interest in getting Australia into its own vessels quickly, to increase the number of allied submarines in the Asia/Pacific. My guess is they will increase their capacity for production at home while helping Australia develop its industrial capacity.

I suspect this would be the best outcome for us - a move in the US to increase domestic sub building capacity (3rd yard?) combined with the first couple of RAN boats being built over there, getting us new vessels in the water as soon as is practical, and buying time to prepare our own industry. Alas, we will have to wait and see!

 

[StingrayOZ]

Ladies and Gentlemen, I think its time to branch off the nuclear weapons discussion and NPT issues out of this thread. They aren't specific navy issues, and should be discussed in the Hypothetical Australian Nuclear Discussion thread.

Some posts have been moved, feel free to discuss the issues there.

Hypothetical Australian Nuclear discussions

This is the thread for Australian nuclear and related discussions. Lets try and keep them out of the RAN (and other threads). Australia is a NPT signature, and has no open ambition to get nuclear weapons. However, there are some valid side discussions around these issues and particularly...

www.defencetalk.com

 

[Reptilia]

You have managed to misread the information presented to you, again and again, to correct the factual errors in your post.

I have to conclude you either have an inability understand that every conventional German or Swedish submarine listed by you is either not suited for RAN operations (or does not exist). The A26 is a 2,000 ton boat. The largest submarine being designed by TKMS is the 2,500 ton Type 212CD being built for the German Navy and Norwegian Navy.


Since you like to write nonsense and ignore accurate information, I issue a source challenge for you provide a link to show a new 1,690 ton Type 214 can illogically have the “same range as the Collins class.”

If you can’t provide it in 24 hours you will be banned.

Submarines | Naval | Saab

Submarines are unique tools for securing national interests. In a world where any movement or asset is exposed, being able to act undetected has never been more crucial.

www.saab.com

Oceanic Extended range | Saab

Oceanic Extended (XR) range submarines enable long-distance operations, suitable for any navy using forward deployment of their submarines on extended missions.

www.saab.com

H I Sutton - Covert Shores

www.hisutton.com

let me find the displacement pic

@Reptilla

The A-26 is currently the Blekinge-class submarine. The 3000 tonne version you linked to is a vessel that has not been constructed or ordered. SAAB is offering a paper design which will require a lot of detailed design to ever be capable of achieve the marketing hype. It is not a realistic options without considerable work (and time and cost). So this vessel 'does not exist' as indicate by OPSSG

As such the ban for one month commences now.

alexsa

 

[aviation_enthus]

If it was my decision, I’d be leaning towards the first 4 boats coming from overseas production (UK or USA). This gets us into the game quicker and provides plenty of buffer for the expected delays and screw ups with starting domestic production.

That being said, there is no reason why we couldn’t use this as a chance to send senior staff to the USA or UK to learn on the production lines in the hope of reducing risk for Australian production.

Boats 5-8 (or more) should then be built in Australia. But while this is production run is underway we should be involved in the future UK/USA replacement planning for their current designs. Fork out some cash to join the design process and signal our intent (like the JSF program). If domestic production started around 2035 and a boat rolled off the line every 3 years, we could potentially roll straight into production of a new design around 2047. By then the first boats will be approaching 20 years of age and will be close to replacement (based on reactor life cycle mentioned in this thread). It also ties in well with the planned next Gen USA SSN plans (for example).

I don’t think we should be wasting our resources trying to “reinvent the wheel” with SSN design when the existing UK/USA designs will do most of what we want (provided we can buy them of course). Local production should definitely be the aim though, and given the focus on continuous production in our shipyards, it’s definitely achievable in the timeframes mentioned above.

If buying the first 4 boats from overseas production creates another “valley of death”, I wonder if it would be cheaper just to by additional ships of whatever class is in production at the time, rather than risk a significant drop in our submarine capabilities. This project has been in the works since Kevin Rudd was the PM!! I think as a nation we have to accept a small sacrifice in domestic production is required in this instance because the submarine capability is to important to risk in these uncertain times.

 

[John Newman]

If it was my decision, I’d be leaning towards the first 4 boats coming from overseas production (UK or USA). This gets us into the game quicker and provides plenty of buffer for the expected delays and screw ups with starting domestic production.

That being said, there is no reason why we couldn’t use this as a chance to send senior staff to the USA or UK to learn on the production lines in the hope of reducing risk for Australian production.

Boats 5-8 (or more) should then be built in Australia. But while this is production run is underway we should be involved in the future UK/USA replacement planning for their current designs. Fork out some cash to join the design process and signal our intent (like the JSF program). If domestic production started around 2035 and a boat rolled off the line every 3 years, we could potentially roll straight into production of a new design around 2047. By then the first boats will be approaching 20 years of age and will be close to replacement (based on reactor life cycle mentioned in this thread). It also ties in well with the planned next Gen USA SSN plans (for example).

I don’t think we should be wasting our resources trying to “reinvent the wheel” with SSN design when the existing UK/USA designs will do most of what we want (provided we can buy them of course). Local production should definitely be the aim though, and given the focus on continuous production in our shipyards, it’s definitely achievable in the timeframes mentioned above.

If buying the first 4 boats from overseas production creates another “valley of death”, I wonder if it would be cheaper just to by additional ships of whatever class is in production at the time, rather than risk a significant drop in our submarine capabilities. This project has been in the works since Kevin Rudd was the PM!! I think as a nation we have to accept a small sacrifice in domestic production is required in this instance because the submarine capability is to important to risk in these uncertain times.

You’re making the assumption that the UK and US have excess industrial capacity to build four complete SSNs for the RAN, and without interfering with their own respective SSN and/or SSBN programs.

Sorry, can’t see it happening.

I would easily imagine that all hull sections, complete with the reactor, built overseas, we may also see a number of other hull sections initially built off shore, reducing over time as local production ramps up.

And as time goes by local content increases too.

 

[aviation_enthus]

Y

You’re making the assumption that the UK and US have excess industrial capacity to build four complete SSNs for the RAN, and without interfering with their own respective SSN and/or SSBN programs.

Sorry, can’t see it happening.

I would easily imagine that all hull sections, complete with the reactor, built overseas, we may also see a number of other hull sections initially built off shore, reducing over time as local production ramps up.

And as time goes by local content increases too.

Yes that is an assumption but given the below I respectfully disagree they need extra industrial capacity to help us.

As far as the UK is concerned, it looks to me like they wouldn’t need to “increase production”.

The final Astute class is still due to be delivered in 2026. Long lead items such as reactors were ordered back in 2009 (for boats 5 and 6). So in theory if we ordered something in the next 1-2 years, we might be able to jump on the end of UK production. It would probably also help them carry over relevant skilled workers until the Astute replacement is closer to production.

Subscribe to read | Financial Times

News, analysis and comment from the Financial Times, the worldʼs leading global business publication

www.google.com.au

Astute class Attack Submarine SSN Hunter Killer Royal Navy

astute class attack submarine ssn hunter killer royal navy bae systems

www.seaforces.org

As for the USA:

The US currently uses two separate shipyards yard to build the various sections of the Virginia Class. They can build two per year, with previous goals to build 3 per year

“In December 2019, Newport News and Electric Boat received a $22bn contract to build nine Block V submarines. The navy is expected to receive the deliveries of the nine Virginia-Class Block V submarines from 2025 through 2029.”

NSSN Virginia-Class Attack Submarine

Virginia-Class new attack submarine is a stealth multimission nuclear-powered submarine for deep ocean anti-submarine warfare and littoral operations.

www.naval-technology.com

Again, local USA production (with current orders) ends in 2029. Long lead items ordered in the next 1-2 years could allow us to fit in behind current orders. Obviously this depends on any follow on US order, but I’d argue it’s easier to fit our orders in when it’s planned before the US Navy orders are placed.

Given we could be looking at the late 2030’s (at the earliest) for an Aussie built SSN, I think there’s plenty of opportunity to squeeze into current USA/UK production around 2028-2030. This could potentially have a RAN boat in the water by 2035.

 

[aviation_enthus]

From a pure industrial and support angle (ignoring actual capabilities) there’s more upside with a USA design versus UK.

It’s unlikely a UK SSN would ever be based in Asia let alone our area of AO. Whereas the US Navy has SSN’s regularly operating to our North and West.

IMHO that means we could offer a support network and repair facilities closer to Asia than a continental US shipyard. A minor addition for the USA, but still worthy of pursuing.

If this was combined with a push to base the 1st Fleet in Perth, it would provide benefits to both RAN and US Navy (plus Australian industrial capacity).

I guess what I’m saying is there appears to be more “upside” to buying a US design for both sides, might make it easier to sell to the US Congress, experts etc. These benefits would be over 20-30 years as opposed to just helping UK production for a 5-10 year period.

 

[Geddy]

Y


Yes that is an assumption but given the below I respectfully disagree they need extra industrial capacity to help us.

As far as the UK is concerned, it looks to me like they wouldn’t need to “increase production”.

The final Astute class is still due to be delivered in 2026. Long lead items such as reactors were ordered back in 2009 (for boats 5 and 6). So in theory if we ordered something in the next 1-2 years, we might be able to jump on the end of UK production. It would probably also help them carry over relevant skilled workers until the Astute replacement is closer to production.

Subscribe to read | Financial Times

News, analysis and comment from the Financial Times, the worldʼs leading global business publication

www.google.com.au

Astute class Attack Submarine SSN Hunter Killer Royal Navy

astute class attack submarine ssn hunter killer royal navy bae systems

www.seaforces.org

As for the USA:

The US currently uses two separate shipyards yard to build the various sections of the Virginia Class. They can build two per year, with previous goals to build 3 per year

“In December 2019, Newport News and Electric Boat received a $22bn contract to build nine Block V submarines. The navy is expected to receive the deliveries of the nine Virginia-Class Block V submarines from 2025 through 2029.”

NSSN Virginia-Class Attack Submarine

Virginia-Class new attack submarine is a stealth multimission nuclear-powered submarine for deep ocean anti-submarine warfare and littoral operations.

www.naval-technology.com

Again, local USA production (with current orders) ends in 2029. Long lead items ordered in the next 1-2 years could allow us to fit in behind current orders. Obviously this depends on any follow on US order, but I’d argue it’s easier to fit our orders in when it’s planned before the US Navy orders are placed.

Given we could be looking at the late 2030’s (at the earliest) for an Aussie built SSN, I think there’s plenty of opportunity to squeeze into current USA/UK production around 2028-2030. This could potentially have a RAN boat in the water by 2035.

From what we know publicly, there is little or no opportunity to “squeeze into” current USA/UK production of SSN’s.

Once the British finish their Astutes, the Dreadnought production ramps up. Meanwhile the USN is struggling to increase production for their Virginia’s. This is not to say the Americans may make some sort of Herculean effort to find a way to increase production, however their priority will be their vessels.
It may be possible over many years to get Adelaide to be able to produce some components but the path to Australian nuclear subs is very unclear right now.

 

[ngatimozart]

@aviation_enthus The US has a shortage of naval shipbuilding capacity and capability. Electric is flat out build the Virginia Class for the USN and has no spare capacity to build subs for any others. The USN has a shortage of SSN and is struggling to replace the existing LA Class SSN as they retire let alone build their SSN fleet numbers back up. The Colombia SSBN fleet construction is taking up any other sub construction capability they have. Furthermore there is a growing shortage of qualified shipbuilders as the older ones retire and aren't being replaced by young apprentices and trades people coming through. That's affecting the whole USN shipbuilding program right across the board.

Now across the pond to the UK. There are three Pommy Moderators on here who are far more qualified than myself to comment on the status of UK ship building capability with one in particular having more knowledge than most, not all of which he's at liberty to divulge. WRT to their sub building capability he is able to provide some informed comment. The last Astute is being built at the moment and when she is launched and finished, the RN and the builders will be concentrating upon preparing the yard for the SSN(R) build. Therefore they may not be in the position to build extra Astute Class subs for Australia.

Your argument for RN subs being based or operating in the Indo-Pacific is ill-informed because you don't know what they will be doing. The British government has determined that it is their best interest to have a stronger presence in the Indo-Pacific region and their CBGs will be one recurring aspect of that. Each time one of those deploys there is always an SSN with it. Secondly, when the RN are deploying SSNs to any region generally they don't make a public announcement about it, unless a port visit occurs or something happens.

I strongly suggest that you read back through this thread paying particular attention to what the defence professionals are saying, especially any who have done FVEY naval service or work in the British naval shipbuilding industry.

 

[aviation_enthus]

@aviation_enthus
Your argument for RN subs being based or operating in the Indo-Pacific is ill-informed because you don't know what they will be doing. The British government has determined that it is their best interest to have a stronger presence in the Indo-Pacific region and their CBGs will be one recurring aspect of that. Each time one of those deploys there is always an SSN with it. Secondly, when the RN are deploying SSNs to any region generally they don't make a public announcement about it, unless a port visit occurs or something happens.

My point with this was related to the fact the US Navy has multiple fleets based in our region whereas the UK has only recently increased their focus on Asia.

While you may think my argument was ill informed, 7 boats operated by a European Navy means it’s a reasonable assumption they will be limited in their operations in our region (versus the US Navy). Whether it’s publicly stated or not.

 

[John Fedup]

Question, are Dreadnaught subs going to be built at the same facilities as Astute and the future SSN(R)s or is there another yard for Dreadnaughts?

 

[FormerDirtDart]

Question, are Dreadnaught subs going to be built at the same facilities as Astute and the future SSN(R)s or is there another yard for Dreadnaughts?

Both submarine types are currently being constructed at BAE's yard in Barrow

P.S. it's Dreadnought, "o" not "a"

 

[Rudeboy]

Question, are Dreadnaught subs going to be built at the same facilities as Astute and the future SSN(R)s or is there another yard for Dreadnaughts?

Both will be built in Barrow in the Devonshire Dock Hall. When the last Upholder Class was built at Cammell Laird, Birkenhead that yard stopped building subs, all UK sub building is now at Barrow. Barrow has had £300m spent on it over the last 7 years (finishing in 22/23) to accommodate the increased size of Dreadnought and make the site more efficient.

 

[Rudeboy]

The final Astute class is still due to be delivered in 2026. Long lead items such as reactors were ordered back in 2009 (for boats 5 and 6). So in theory if we ordered something in the next 1-2 years, we might be able to jump on the end of UK production. It would probably also help them carry over relevant skilled workers until the Astute replacement is closer to production.

There really isn't any spare capacity, there's no gap between Astute and Dreadnought. Pieces of the first boat are already under construction in Barrow. Thats not to say that capacity couldn't be increased or builds sped up, but to do that would take years.

 

[Lolcake]

You’re making the assumption that the UK and US have excess industrial capacity to build four complete SSNs for the RAN, and without interfering with their own respective SSN and/or SSBN programs.

Sorry, can’t see it happening.

I would easily imagine that all hull sections, complete with the reactor, built overseas, we may also see a number of other hull sections initially built off shore, reducing over time as local production ramps up.

And as time goes by local content increases too.

I don't see an issue with this. Posted an article about a week ago that said that the shipyard operators were happy to invest in equipment for build a third boat a year provided they had production and scope assurances. Aukus provides this. The third boat could go us whilst continuing with the two boats annually for the Us. They will need to see how this affects the Colombia class though, and tie that into considerations.

Not sure why the Astutes take so long to build, the US churns them out after a year or so whle it takes 10-11 years from Steel laid down to commissioning for the UK subs.. If we tag onto the UK Production line we wouldn't be getting any subs till the Late 2030s. Cant see us waiting that long, especially after Dutton said he wanted to fast track their in-service dates. Unless they want to build the first few boats as astute and the remainder as SSN(R)

EDIT: Here it is.

Defense spending bill promises historic support for submarine production, Courtney says

Navy Confident It Could Build 3 Virginia SSNs a Year, Though More Study Needed On Shipyard Capacity - USNI News

 

[StingrayOZ]

Not sure why the Astutes take so long to build, the US churns them out after a year or so whle it takes 10-11 years from Steel laid down to commissioning for the UK subs.

Is it really that much if a mystery?
The US puts in 20 times the resources.

 

[aussienscale]

I don't see an issue with this. Posted an article about a week ago that said that the shipyard operators were happy to invest in equipment for build a third boat a year provided they had production and scope assurances. Aukus provides this. The third boat could go us whilst continuing with the two boats annually for the Us. They will need to see how this affects the Colombia class though, and tie that into considerations.

Not sure why the Astutes take so long to build, the US churns them out after a year or so whle it takes 10-11 years from Steel laid down to commissioning for the UK subs.. If we tag onto the UK Production line we wouldn't be getting any subs till the Late 2030s. Cant see us waiting that long, especially after Dutton said he wanted to fast track their in-service dates. Unless they want to build the first few boats as astute and the remainder as SSN(R)

EDIT: Here it is.

Defense spending bill promises historic support for submarine production, Courtney says

Navy Confident It Could Build 3 Virginia SSNs a Year, Though More Study Needed On Shipyard Capacity - USNI News

Not correct at all, it takes on average 7 years to build a Virginia, and yes about 10 years for each Astute. Timings vary for each build as the drumbeat is sped up or slowed down.

The UK yard at Barrow is only so big, and it is the only yard in the UK certified to build nuclear powered submarines, the last contract for long lead items for the Astute's was issued in 2012, almost a decade ago, those long lead item lines are now cold. The RR facility that builds the PWR2's has ceased production, the facility has been upgraded and re tooled to start the PWR3 production, again the only facility certified to build naval PWR's.

The drumbeat in the UK is for their requirements and to keep a continuous build programme up and running, could they increase the output, yeah sure, but problem now is the Astute's are literally done and the yard is already building the Dreadnought's, a sub that is substantially bigger and more complex, they literally do not have the space to restart the Astute's for Australia.

It's not to say they can't, with major expansion and a very substantial investment, but for what ? to build a few for Australia while we get up and running ? Then you also have the associated cost to increase the RR production for PWR's as well, then what happens ? The UK is left with a lot of latent capability and their own potential valley 15 year down the road. Let alone to do so would take years to even get into the position for them to start building a boat for us. Does the UK industry have the capacity to restart long lead production ? or are these businesses capable ? are they willing to sink a lot of cost and time to have that disappear ?

The US are in the same boat, so to speak, as the UK for the same reasons above, just on a bigger scale, they are desperately trying to increase their own drumbeat because they are way behind on their required numbers. You talk about the US churning one out every year, look at their fleet Vs the UK's, the UK will have 7 SSN's, and the US did have and need how many ? you are literally talking David and Goliath !!

Are the US willing to give up a few slots for Australia ? Who knows, but if they increase their own drumbeat to 3 a year, you are still talking a decade before any of that becomes reality !

 

[Lolcake]

Not correct at all, it takes on average 7 years to build a Virginia, and yes about 10 years for each Astute. Timings vary for each build as the drumbeat is sped up or slowed down.

The UK yard at Barrow is only so big, and it is the only yard in the UK certified to build nuclear powered submarines, the last contract for long lead items for the Astute's was issued in 2012, almost a decade ago, those long lead item lines are now cold. The RR facility that builds the PWR2's has ceased production, the facility has been upgraded and re tooled to start the PWR3 production, again the only facility certified to build naval PWR's.

The drumbeat in the UK is for their requirements and to keep a continuous build programme up and running, could they increase the output, yeah sure, but problem now is the Astute's are literally done and the yard is already building the Dreadnought's, a sub that is substantially bigger and more complex, they literally do not have the space to restart the Astute's for Australia.

It's not to say they can't, with major expansion and a very substantial investment, but for what ? to build a few for Australia while we get up and running ? Then you also have the associated cost to increase the RR production for PWR's as well, then what happens ? The UK is left with a lot of latent capability and their own potential valley 15 year down the road. Let alone to do so would take years to even get into the position for them to start building a boat for us. Does the UK industry have the capacity to restart long lead production ? or are these businesses capable ? are they willing to sink a lot of cost and time to have that disappear ?

The US are in the same boat, so to speak, as the UK for the same reasons above, just on a bigger scale, they are desperately trying to increase their own drumbeat because they are way behind on their required numbers. You talk about the US churning one out every year, look at their fleet Vs the UK's, the UK will have 7 SSN's, and the US did have and need how many ? you are literally talking David and Goliath !!

Are the US willing to give up a few slots for Australia ? Who knows, but if they increase their own drumbeat to 3 a year, you are still talking a decade before any of that becomes reality !

Thanks for the insight with regards to the UK production. Was not aware of this.

The block iv uss Vermont the most recent sub that was built, was launched 18 months after being laid down and was commissioned after about 3 years of being laid down. Wonder if there was a refinement in the production program or possibly a reorganisation of the build process? I think the 6-7 year time frame you mentioned was possibly for the earlier blocks.