Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[Massive]

But the defence review will fix everything.

I, like you, do not think this will be the outcome.

What it will do though, is re-baseline the debate.

I think this is very important. At the moment it is all things to all people, with not enough of anything (RAAF potentially excluded).

If the outcome is more of the same penny packet procurement of capability, then I will feel let down. Any other outcome and I will feel that the debate has moved forward.

8 SSNs is transformative. Anything else is cream.

That said, I am braced for disappointment.

Regards,

Massive

 

[Redlands18]

Australia prepares to unveil AUKUS nuclear submarine plans in the United States - ABC News
Looks like we now know where the Sub announcement will happen, in Washington with all 3 leaders present, somewhere between 10-19 March. Marles has confirmed it will be a Trilateral solution, but that may just mean, US CMS and weapons fitted to a British design.

 

[Scott Elaurant]

Australia prepares to unveil AUKUS nuclear submarine plans in the United States - ABC News
Looks like we now know where the Sub announcement will happen, in Washington with all 3 leaders present, somewhere between 10-19 March. Marles has confirmed it will be a Trilateral solution, but that may just mean, US CMS and weapons fitted to a British design.

Like Redlands I agree today’s announcement suggests it is very likely to be a UK designed SSN for the RAN, i.e. SSNR with US combat system fitted. The US Virginia and SSNX protrams have little or no UK involvement, so it is hard to see how adopting either would lead to a “trilateral” solution. Plus US shipyard capacity problems would seem to preclude support for Virginia or SSNX.
This is my preferred outcome if Astute and Suffren are off the table. The real question is how soon will construction start.

 

[OldTex]

Like Redlands I agree today’s announcement suggests it is very likely to be a UK designed SSN for the RAN, i.e. SSNR with US combat system fitted. The US Virginia and SSNX protrams have little or no UK involvement, so it is hard to see how adopting either would lead to a “trilateral” solution. Plus US shipyard capacity problems would seem to preclude support for Virginia or SSNX.
This is my preferred outcome if Astute and Suffren are off the table. The real question is how soon will construction start.

It would be reasonable to expect that the SSNR, if it is the basis for the RAN SSNs, would not be started before the last of the Dreadnought class SSBNs for the RN has been launched. This is based on Barrow being the only location for the construction of nuclear submarines in the UK. Construction of the Dreadnought commenced in 2016 with King George VI likely to be commenced in 2025 (based on the start dates of the 3 previous SSBNs). So the SSNR construction may not be commenced before 2033 if the design has been finalised (perhaps the suggested design based on the SSBN without the missile section but a VPM section). So the first RAN SSN would not be launched before perhaps 2039 (based on Astute construction times)
All of this is based on the construction commencing in the UK at Barrow. If the Australian government insists on domestic construction (less the reactor section) then it might commence earlier but with an increased level of risk (IMHO). The use of US CMS and weapons will also complicate the redesign and add extra time to the build process be it in the UK or Australia.

 

[John Fedup]

Agree, the SSNR is probably going to be a Dreadnought derivative with a VPM replacing the BM section. The UK or partial Australian build option, the latter is politically necessary despite the risk. It is unfortunate the Canadian electorate and our pollies can’t see the merits of being part of this project. It would be beneficial for our nuclear industry and SSNs are the best option for a future RCN sub. However it is understandable that the UK and Australia wouldn’t want to deal with Canada’s dysfunctional military procurement. The USN considers the Arctic Ocean to be theirs and have no interest in the RCN being involved (underwater).

 

[Bob53]

Is there any barrier for Australian hull sections or components to be used in any UK subs in the same ilk as the barriers to US boats? This is all guess work at this stage but why do we keep doing things the Seasprite way? Even though it may ultimately be the only option…..This option has danger written all over it . ……or is there any chance the UK could adopt the US combat system in future?

 

[Scott Elaurant]

Is there any barrier for Australian hull sections or components to be used in any UK subs in the same ilk as the barriers to US boats? This is all guess work at this stage but why do we keep doing things the Seasprite way? Even though it may ultimately be the only option…..This option has danger written all over it . ……or is there any chance the UK could adopt the US combat system in future?

I am not aware of any British or Australian law that would prohibit this. As a matter of policy RN warships are always made in UK but they don’t have to be. In this regard SSNR would be much easier than a US design, which would require a Congress vote plus separate presidential approvals for each listed technology.

Contractually with BAE based in both countries and an Australia UK trade agreement it should be by far the simplest option. UK shipbuilding law is summarised at this link.

Shipbuilding in the United Kingdom

A structured guide to shipbuilding in the United Kingdom

www.lexology.com

Remember the first SSN HMS Dreadnought was built using a US supplied rear hull including reactor. AUKUS could potentially see Australia doing the same in reverse now. UK has used Australian supplied Ikara and Nulka in warships in the past. So in future ASC could supply modules to assist UK SSN construction.

I think this is the most practical option by far. Off the top of my head the following relevant firms already have offices in Adelaide:
BAE - builder
Fraser Nash - detailed design of Astute class
Veritas - did verification of Astute SSNs
PMB - already contracted to supply batteries to RN
Lockheed Martin - presumably US combat system

 

[StingrayOZ]

I, like you, do not think this will be the outcome.

What it will do though, is re-baseline the debate.

I think its wise to temper expectations.

Submarines are really the priority going forward. So we can put things into categories into what is supporting that, and what isn't supporting that. Arguably the RAN needs to get bigger, and RAN training pipelines need to get bigger, and Navy and Naval operations are relevant priority areas.

With SSN's, there are fundamental and immovable things about them. We will have to build something here, there is no magical capacity elsewhere unless we are building a new yard in the UK or the US. Capacity it critical. Both the US and UK have a shortage and well known issues of capacity.

It makes a lot of sense from the building perspective if UK and AU work very closely on that. US would be providing key technologies. But I think the RN and the RAN and the UK and AU have closer aligned needs/wants than the US/USN.

But it seems like a big AUKUS announcement is coming regarding the submarines. With leaders from the US/AU/UK making an announcement in the US at the end of this month. A full capability solution.

 

[alexsa]

I am not aware of any British or Australian law that would prohibit this. As a matter of policy RN warships are always made in UK but they don’t have to be. In this regard SSNR would be much easier than a US design, which would require a Congress vote plus separate presidential approvals for each listed technology.

Contractually with BAE based in both countries and an Australia UK trade agreement it should be by far the simplest option. UK shipbuilding law is summarised at this link.

Shipbuilding in the United Kingdom

A structured guide to shipbuilding in the United Kingdom

www.lexology.com

Remember the first SSN HMS Dreadnought was built using a US supplied rear hull including reactor. AUKUS could potentially see Australia doing the same in reverse now. UK has used Australian supplied Ikara and Nulka in warships in the past. So in future ASC could supply modules to assist UK SSN construction.

I think this is the most practical option by far. Off the top of my head the following relevant firms already have offices in Adelaide:
BAE - builder
Fraser Nash - detailed design of Astute class
Veritas - did verification of Astute SSNs
PMB - already contracted to supply batteries to RN
Lockheed Martin - presumably US combat system

I agree, and would also suggest that a hybrid Astute is not out of the question as a possibility. The difference of submerged dived displacement of the Virgina block IV and Astute is about 100 tonnes (if you believe the publically available information). The Astute hull is wider but shorter. The Astute assembly line is on its last hull meaning the jigs and tooling will nolonger been needed for the RN build.

So (for the first batch) an Astute hull fitted with a US Reactor and combat system may be something to ponder. The Astute hull will have no issue with fitting the US reactor width wise (Astute beam is 11.3m, Virgina IV 10m). I would suggest the reactor could be delivered as a sealed unit (as a skid to be slotted into the hull) or installed in a hull section.

The weapons carrying capacity of the two designs is the almost the same (Astute can carry 36 weapons and would fire Tomahawk/harpoon out of its tubes). However, the Astute can carry more torpedoes as the Virgina can only carry 25 weapons in the torpedo compartment (some say 26) with 12 tomahawk in the VLS. This does give the Astute more flexibility in this area.

I am not saying this is the outcome but it may be more likely than the SSNR in the short term.

 

[Redlands18]

I agree, and would also suggest that a hybrid Astute is not out of the question as a possibility. The difference of submerged dived displacement of the Virgina block IV and Astute is about 100 tonnes (if you believe the publically available information). The Astute hull is wider but shorter. The Astute assembly line is on its last hull meaning the jigs and tooling will nolonger been needed for the RN build.

So (for the first batch) an Astute hull fitted with a US Reactor and combat system may be something to ponder. The Astute hull will have no issue with fitting the US reactor width wise (Astute beam is 11.3m, Virgina IV 10m). I would suggest the reactor could be delivered as a sealed unit (as a skid to be slotted into the hull) or installed in a hull section.

The weapons carrying capacity of the two designs is the almost the same (Astute can carry 36 weapons and would fire Tomahawk/harpoon out of its tubes). However, the Astute can carry more torpedoes as the Virgina can only carry 25 weapons in the torpedo compartment (some say 26) with 12 tomahawk in the VLS. This does give the Astute more flexibility in this area.

I am not saying this is the outcome but it may be more likely than the SSNR in the short term.

That would also fit into what Marles said about a Trilateral project, UK Sub design, US Reactor and CMS and built at Osborne.

 

[StingrayOZ]

I agree, and would also suggest that a hybrid Astute is not out of the question as a possibility. The difference of submerged dived displacement of the Virgina block IV and Astute is about 100 tonnes (if you believe the publically available information). The Astute hull is wider but shorter. The Astute assembly line is on its last hull meaning the jigs and tooling will nolonger been needed for the RN build.

So (for the first batch) an Astute hull fitted with a US Reactor and combat system may be something to ponder. The Astute hull will have no issue with fitting the US reactor width wise (Astute beam is 11.3m, Virgina IV 10m). I would suggest the reactor could be delivered as a sealed unit (as a skid to be slotted into the hull) or installed in a hull section.

The weapons carrying capacity of the two designs is the almost the same (Astute can carry 36 weapons and would fire Tomahawk/harpoon out of its tubes). However, the Astute can carry more torpedoes as the Virgina can only carry 25 weapons in the torpedo compartment (some say 26) with 12 tomahawk in the VLS. This does give the Astute more flexibility in this area.

I am not saying this is the outcome but it may be more likely than the SSNR in the short term.

• With an Astute/Virginia boat I could see Australia getting some capability by the 2030's. Difficult but possible. Even if it was a highly modified, like an astute with a US reactor and US combat system. Heck throw VLS if you want ontop if you wish.
• With SSNR its 2040's mid to late. Maybe. We also wouldn't be the first operator. We would want to be very happy with the interim solution. There would be risk, and limited capability when the first hit the water.
• Honestly both the Astute/Virginia exceeds Australia's requirements in terms of capability. That really isn't a concern. IMO.

The UK I think would very much appreciate a partner. The US I think would be wrapped in complexities and honestly doesn't need Australia in their program, they would see it as a hinderance and there is evidence about them seeing it that way.

Not is the Astute tooling, jigs unused, there is a gap now where some suppliers and system could squeeze a few units and systems out before they are needed for the SSBN project. The UK sub project is slow paced and taking tea break while the new design comes up to speed, the US program is frantically behind schedule. The UK program has skills available while the US program needs to operate beyond 100% capacity.

That would also fit into what Marles said about a Trilateral project, UK Sub design, US Reactor and CMS and built at Osborne.

The statement feels that way. IMO that would be a pretty good outcome with acceptable design risk, build risk and costs. I can see how a program like that comes together, how crew development works, build and suppliers etc. It would feel, natural. I think everyone would be pretty happy about that.

A commitment to a 3 boat build. After that future subs may be more viable, but then you would have enough boats to start removing Collins from the fleet, you have enough to train and operate and deploy capability. So switching to a new design for another (say 6) would be quite doable, particularly if the reactors are much the same. Disposal can be done at OZ with the US receiving the reactor at the end of life.

 

[76mmGuns]

I've never understood how an Aussie ferry company (Austal) came to be chosen to build about 30 warships for the US navy, back in the last 1990's/early 2000's. Any ideas how this happened?

Or is this something discussed far back in their thread and I missed it?

 

[Volkodav]

The Dreadnought is evolved from the Astute, the SSN(R) is to be evolved from the Dreadnought.

The Dreadnought has a 12 tube version of the common missile compartment developed for the Columbia and Dreadnought.

The USN Ohio class SSBNs were converted to SSGNs in such a way that they satisfied arms reduction treaty verification. It can be assumed that similar could be achieved with the common missile compartment on the Columbia/Dreadnought.

The common missile compartment is modular, therefore a shorted four, six, or eight missile configuration should be possible.

 

[Scott Elaurant]

I agree, and would also suggest that a hybrid Astute is not out of the question as a possibility. The difference of submerged dived displacement of the Virginia block IV and Astute is about 100 tonnes (if you believe the publicly available information). The Astute hull is wider but shorter. The Astute assembly line is on its last hull meaning the jigs and tooling will no longer been needed for the RN build.

So (for the first batch) an Astute hull fitted with a US Reactor and combat system may be something to ponder. The Astute hull will have no issue with fitting the US reactor width wise (Astute beam is 11.3m, Virgina IV 10m). I would suggest the reactor could be delivered as a sealed unit (as a skid to be slotted into the hull) or installed in a hull section.

The weapons carrying capacity of the two designs is the almost the same (Astute can carry 36 weapons and would fire Tomahawk/harpoon out of its tubes). However, the Astute can carry more torpedoes as the Virgina can only carry 25 weapons in the torpedo compartment (some say 26) with 12 tomahawk in the VLS. This does give the Astute more flexibility in this area.

I am not saying this is the outcome but it may be more likely than the SSNR in the short term.

Alexsa

I had discounted Astute because of the previous statements of Ben Wallace about the PWR2 going out of production and trying to avoid previous guidelines on speculation without evidence. However in practice, if a "Batch 2 Astute" with US S9G reactors fitted to overcome the issues with PWR 2 was possible, that would be a great outcome for the RAN. It would meet the RAN's needs, have an excellent sonar, and with the S9G would actually have a superior reactor to the UK Astutes. Best of all, redesign would be minimal, which might allow a faster construction start. (Service life would also be bumped up from 25 years to 32 years, a not insignificant benefit).

I have always found it frustrating in the AUKUS debate that so many armchair experts focus on capability, VLS tubes etc as the critical factors. They ignoring construct-ability and serviceability, which we have seen time and again are more important for real world navies. I do not dispute that the Virginia is an excellent submarine, but I would much prefer Australia select a design we can realistically build and maintain in an acceptable timeframe.

 

[alexsa]

Alexsa

I had discounted Astute because of the previous statements of Ben Wallace about the PWR2 going out of production and trying to avoid previous guidelines on speculation without evidence. However in practice, if a "Batch 2 Astute" with US S9G reactors fitted to overcome the issues with PWR 2 was possible, that would be a great outcome for the RAN. It would meet the RAN's needs, have an excellent sonar, and with the S9G would actually have a superior reactor to the UK Astutes. Best of all, redesign would be minimal, which might allow a faster construction start. (Service life would also be bumped up from 25 years to 32 years, a not insignificant benefit).

I have always found it frustrating in the AUKUS debate that so many armchair experts focus on capability, VLS tubes etc as the critical factors. They ignoring construct-ability and serviceability, which we have seen time and again are more important for real world navies. I do not dispute that the Virginia is an excellent submarine, but I would much prefer Australia select a design we can realistically build and maintain in an acceptable timeframe.

The issue with the Virginia and its VLS that most seem to miss is that it is seen as a land attack vessel. Given our neighbours are a little jittery about Australia getting an SSN having one that looks, and sounds, like a land attack specialist may be an issue. The Astute is first and foremost a hunter killer which is precisely what the RAN need. However, it comes in a form that could actually fire more TLAM's than the Virginia.

Added to this are other advantages:
1. Crew size
2. Integration between the proposed weapons, the AN/BQG-1 and the sensor suite is partly done in the Collins and should be further addressed by the Collins LOTE
3. Common operating methodology with how we operate submarines noting this was based on the UK system. This offers an established training system for crews.
4. Some modules could be built in the UK while Osborne North is completed. This would be an opportunity for the Australian workforce to be trained up while building hull 1. The reactor module would appear to be one that seems sensible to be built in the UK as they have the facilites and handle the reactor (noting this would be the US S9G). This may help compress the build time as well

For the sake of timeliness I would suggest changes to the Astute should be kept to a minimum.

As I said, this is just my view. Building a run of 4 modified Astutes would make sense if the timeline were to be compressed. If we want to go SSNR after that ... it would be possible.

 

[Hoffy]

Just to clarify the position of Ben Wallace, this is worth a read:

Joint press conference with UK Secretary of State for Defence Ben Wallace | Defence Ministers

"Just one thing on AUKUS, because I think people seem to pose a question as if it’s an either/or. As if buying an American one off-the-shelf, or one of these ones off-the-shelf – it’s not that. AUKUS is a collaborative program between three nations and the question is how do we all get to 2035-2040 in our deliveries, which we all need for our cycles, and how collaborative can we be. So, I think there’s a confusion as to somehow this is me trying to sell that submarine and the Minister will go off to the United States and buy that, but actually the ultimate is to get all of us to get through the 2030s where we produce a submarine that is in my view, truly collaborative, might have a bit of all three on it. And in the meantime, we’ve helped contribute to building a skills base, and a workforce, and an operating Navy to deliver that new strategic capability. So, it may not look like a submarine that none of us have on our stocks, and I can tell you that because when boat seven is out of the Astutes, that’s it. We are onto our next design and our new one, and that might well be fully shared with all three nations as a collaborative design".

 

[hauritz]

Isn't the UK build rate more to do with supporting an ongoing build program?
They may well be in a better position to accelerate their construction rate than the US.

 

[John Fedup]

Isn't the UK build rate more to do with supporting an ongoing build program?
They may well be in a better position to accelerate their construction rate than the US.

The UK Astute program is coming to a close as their Dreadnought program ramps up whereas the US has its Columbia program underway while the Virginia program is still in full production mode. The USN’s larger nuclear fleet requires more resources for support so the entire operation is maxed out. That is why I always suspected an Astute or hybrid version of it for Australia. Will know for sure shortly.

 

[aussienscale]

Isn't the UK build rate more to do with supporting an ongoing build program?
They may well be in a better position to accelerate their construction rate than the US.

The build rate maybe, but the physical space at Barrow is the absolute limiting factor. Accelerating the build rate would not help us in anyway.
Alexa's comments above are, IMHO, on the money. Depending on timelines a batch of 3-4 built in Australia to then slot into SSNR.

Don't underestimate what needs to be done though, it is not just cut and paste, changing combat systems, and in particular the nuclear "plug" if basically the S9G will be different in a number of ways, including all the associated systems, not just the reactor itself. These things are very finely balanced, make one simple change and the flow on ripples through the entire design !

Cheers

 

[Volkodav]

The build rate maybe, but the physical space at Barrow is the absolute limiting factor. Accelerating the build rate would not help us in anyway.
Alexa's comments above are, IMHO, on the money. Depending on timelines a batch of 3-4 built in Australia to then slot into SSNR.

Don't underestimate what needs to be done though, it is not just cut and paste, changing combat systems, and in particular the nuclear "plug" if basically the S9G will be different in a number of ways, including all the associated systems, not just the reactor itself. These things are very finely balanced, make one simple change and the flow on ripples through the entire design !

Cheers

I imagine the constraints that matter are the single source systems, i.e. the reactor, possibly combat system etc. Pretty much everything else Australia can build or has even built previously.

If they can supply a reactor pretty much everything else could be built where ever there is capacity. One factor limiting US build rates is the one on one mentoring required to efficiently qualify welders. Australia could help by sending our qualified welders to the US or UK, quickly certify to their standards and then help mentor and train their new welders.

A win win. They get a quick increase in the number of trainers to further expand their capability, and our workforce gets up to speed on an existing build program.

Down the line, politics permitting, we could share building sections for US or UK boats to help them achieve their required output.