Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[Volkodav]

The difficulty is AUKUS is a lot more than just the subs. France also hasnt done themselves any favours with helicopters torpedis etc.

My initial reaction on hearing the French were the leaders in the sub selection was to remind those telling me of the issues with other french programs. This came up again after he had been working on attack for a couple of years.

He assumed they would be as easy to work with at the Swedes, Americans and Spanish. They each had their quirks and challenges but the French were something different again.

 

[Todjaeger]

The difficulty is AUKUS is a lot more than just the subs. France also hasnt done themselves any favours with helicopters torpedis etc.

My initial reaction on hearing the French were the leaders in the sub selection was to remind those telling me of the issues with other french programs. This came up again after he had been working on attack for a couple of years.

He assumed they would be as easy to work with at the Swedes, Americans and Spanish. They each had their quirks and challenges but the French were something different again.

One also needs to remember that the Attack-class combat system had already been specified as the system used in the Virginia-class SSN as well as the Collins-class SSG. Since this is a US system, there was a requirement that an outside company had to handle the systems integration and that the French were not to have access to the system. The US is rather understandably about possible French military and/or industrial espionage, particularly since this is sensitive tech involving subs.

 

[StingrayOZ]

FWIU, Naval nuclear reactors use a material that is special fissionable material, and as such is subject to the NPF Treaty.

Australia ran its HIFAR reactor on highly enriched uranium, straight from the UK and US weapon line.

High Flux Australian Reactor - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

High-enriched uranium removed from Australia

All US-origin highly enriched uranium has now been removed from Australia and returned to the USA, the US National Nuclear Security Administration has announced.;

world-nuclear-news.org

These weren't sealed in reactors that could not be opened. But just regular fuel rods.

Shipping HEU to Australia in a submarine reactor doesn't really change anything from pre 2009. Arguably its safer.

The UK also recently shipped back nearly 700kg of HEU to the US as part of a 2016 agreement, not the NPF.

US and UK complete project to remove highly enriched uranium

The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority and US Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) have completed the transfer of around 700kg of highly enriched uranium (HEU) from Dounreay, in the north of Scotland, to the US.

www.gov.uk

There is still 140tonnes of Plutonium in the UK awaiting disposal. Some 70 billion pounds to clean up the stellafield site.

Britain is sending a huge nuclear waste consignment to America – why?

The policy failures behind the upbeat headlines.

theconversation.com

I agree the wording of the NPT is interesting.

However, not sure who is going to push the issue against Australia. I don't imagine the UK or the US is going to. Or any ally thereof.

Things like nuclear weapons sharing agreements would seem to be against the NPT too. But there are ways around it, they say its still an american weapon just in Australia. They can say the same thing about the reactor fuel, its American, its just being kept very safe in an Australian submarine. Or that it isn't a special nuclear weapon source, just good olde reactor fuel, as it is.

Of course some other country could push against AUKUS. Maybe Australia has some wild card it can play. Like perhaps it was already a nuclear state before 1967 and has evidence it keeps to that effect, which could just be a letter or something. Or it was still technically part of the UK until 1986 and therefore inherits the UK nuclear state status.

Or perhaps Australia/US just breaks the NPT. If someone wants to apply sanctions to the United States for breaking the NPT (as it would be the US for giving Australia, not Australia receiving it) good luck!.

Escalating Australia to a nuclear weapons state to try an prevent it having conventionally armed nuclear powered submarines would be IMO quite a miss-step by those who oppose the AUKUS will.

Even the US and the UK took active steps to ensure Australia didn't become an independent nuclear weapons state. Australia even has a whole lot of ideas about how it would use nuclear weapons, in a post nuclear exchange world.

See Philip Baxter - Wikipedia, and his idea about using nuclear weapons to protect Australia, post apocalypse, from Northern Hemisphere refugees.


The whole AUKUS subs ties into the US nuclear umbrella.

Australia and the UK would likely be co-funding, perhaps indirectly the US nuclear high enrichment line. After all nuclear powered war ships, powered by highly enriched fuels, subsidies the weapon line operation and its size. Effectively they tap some of the future nuclear apocalypse for locomotion. The US could not reasonably keep a large refinement line operational if it wasn't funded and found a useful regular peaceful purpose.

 

[Scott Elaurant]

One also needs to remember that the Attack-class combat system had already been specified as the system used in the Virginia-class SSN as well as the Collins-class SSG. Since this is a US system, there was a requirement that an outside company had to handle the systems integration and that the French were not to have access to the system. The US is rather understandably about possible French military and/or industrial espionage, particularly since this is sensitive tech involving subs.

True, but the US had already signed off on the US combat system going into the Attack class. Besides Lockheed Martin were already onboard to do that work. We know from the Collins Class build that local Lockheed Martin were more than capable of fitting the CMS. I don’t see this as a problem, assuming the boats would have been built at ASC with French supplied reactor compartment.

I’m not saying Suffrens would be superior to SSN AUKUS, they’re not. But the stated reasons for discarding the French SSN option were obviously false. Likewise the early promise for Astutes (my original preference) for Australia have evaporated in favour of a much later, riskier and more costly design.

 

[Brissy1982]

Here's a link to an article in Australian Defence Magazine published today about a briefing provided to industry by retired US VADM Hilarides, who will lead the team undertaking the review into the RAN surface fleet: Industry briefed on analysis into Navy's surface fleet - Australian Defence Magazine

While there's no information on the thinking of the review team about the composition of the future RAN surface fleet, there is some information about the methodology they will be using to undertake the review, which some may find interesting - happy reading!

 

[Going Boeing]

I’m not saying Suffrens would be superior to SSN AUKUS, they’re not. But the stated reasons for discarding the French SSN option were obviously false. Likewise the early promise for Astutes (my original preference) for Australia have evaporated in favour of a much later, riskier and more costly design.

My understanding of the problem with the Attack class, apart from it having too slow a transit speed, was that Naval Group were deliberately reducing the amount of local participation in the construction process and at the time of the contract being cancelled, NG were saying that they were trying to achieve 60% but it was more likely going to be around 40% - down significantly from the contracted 90%. The RAN’s previous experience with sourcing Oberon parts from the UK convinced them that a high level of local production for any new submarines is required to ensure that they have control of through life costs. NG appeared to be positioning themselves to be able to gouge the RAN (Oz taxpayer) for the life of the Attack class and I think it was essential to get out of the contract, not convert the contract to building Suffrens.

Wrt the Astute class, it’s considered to be an effective SSN for current conditions but was not suitable for long term future RAN needs because, 1. the PWR 2 reactor doesn’t meet modern nuclear safety standards & is out of production & 2. the Astute doesn’t have any growth capability for future hypersonic weapons and UUV’s which will increasingly play a big part in underwater warfare. It’s also an older design with “+” control surface configuration whereas “X” controls have less drag and improved manoeuvrability (better depth control in shallow water and during turns at high speed). The AUKUS SSN will be a significant jump in capability which should suit the RAN for the next 50 years and I think that, with a number of Virginias providing interim capability, the government has chosen the right path.

 

[hauritz]

I remember when the Attack class was proposed there was some speculation as to whether or not the later versions might be nuclear powered. I think in the end Australia will be better off with the AUKUS pact simply because it goes well beyond just supplying SSNs but in many ways transitioning a sub build from conventional to nuclear might have been a little easier than leaping straight into nuclear.

 

[Todjaeger]

True, but the US had already signed off on the US combat system going into the Attack class. Besides Lockheed Martin were already onboard to do that work. We know from the Collins Class build that local Lockheed Martin were more than capable of fitting the CMS. I don’t see this as a problem, assuming the boats would have been built at ASC with French supplied reactor compartment.

I’m not saying Suffrens would be superior to SSN AUKUS, they’re not. But the stated reasons for discarding the French SSN option were obviously false. Likewise the early promise for Astutes (my original preference) for Australia have evaporated in favour of a much later, riskier and more costly design.

The point I was attempting to make is that fitting a number of types of US systems into a French design will automatically introduce additional layers of complexity because of US requirements regarding access to system data and requirements. With the Attack-class, there was to be a third-party, and IIRC Australian company, that would be responsible for fitting and integrating the CMS into the sub rather than Naval Group being directly provided with technical data on the CMS requirements. If the power source for the Attack-class sub had been a LEU reactor design from France, there would be complications in terms of how much normal and peak power could be generated, what sort of noise did the reactor potentially generate, and a host of other pieces of technical data which France would likely not wish to be circulated. Trying to mix US black box technology with French black box tech, would be sort of asking for trouble since no one would really know everything which was going on with the entire system.

 

[spoz]

Yes, Lockheed Martin. The point about integration of US equipment into the products of non FYEY countries (or vice versa) is a significant one, which has caused us problems more than once. I have no idea if that was an issue in the Attack program, but it might well have been going by the past.

 

[SD67]

Good question. As far as I am aware LEU reactors do not trigger the NNPT and this was one of the reasons the French developed theirs. Brazil applied to the IAEA for permission to use LEU reactors in the nuclear subs it is starting to build and received no objection. Despite the difficulties with Naval in the Attack class project, in my view if Australia and France had agreed to switch from the Attack (diesel Barracuda class) to the Suffren (nuclear Barracuda class) it would have been feasible technically and would have solved many diplomatic and internal political problems. Probably 2/3 the price of SSN AUKUS, which would have meant less cuts to the rest of the ADF. I also don’t agree with the claims that French SSNs could not have been refuelled here, since the Suffrens were designed with a hatch to facilitate nuclear refueling. Still a huge learning curve, but it could have been done. Lucas Heights in Sydney is an LEU reactor, and has already been successfully refueled without incident.

France can help Albanese fix AUKUS | Lowy Institute

Labor faces a dilemma over nuclear-powered subs and the non-proliferation regime. An old partner might offer an answer.

www.lowyinstitute.org

Barracuda vs Astute is 5000 t vs 7300 t and SSNR-AUKUS will be significantly larger than Astute.

The UK actually studied going LEU back in the early noughties - there was a potential master plan in the Blair era to create a joint UK-France nuclear enterprise based on LEU. The RN vetoed it because it would be a significant step back in performance, the report is online somewhere I'll try and dig it up. The reason the French are on LEU are
a) synergy with their civilian nuclear power program (80% of French electricity)
b) The US won't license them the alternative.

Subjective judgement as to whether Attack would solve diplomatic and domestic political problems. The hard reality is Australia would need a full cycle nuclear enterprise, sooner rather than later, which may cause more problems than it solves

 

[swerve]

You could add -
c) It'd cost a lot to develop their own HEU reactor.

 

[Bob53]

For the pros here…how realistic is this the outcome of this simulation? …putting aside it had the entire RAN Frigate fleet available and floating off Darwin and that it had the entire RAAF Fighter fleet including Growlers, Shornets and 60 off F35s all available and based in Northern Australia.

spoiler alert….in short 1 Chinese Carrier and 6 Destroyers sink the entire RAN fleet while under RAAF air over within range of Darwin.

 

[Lolcake]

For the pros here…how realistic is this the outcome of this simulation? …putting aside it had the entire RAN Frigate fleet available and floating off Darwin and that it had the entire RAAF Fighter fleet including Growlers, Shornets and 60 off F35s all available and based in Northern Australia.

spoiler alert….in short 1 Chinese Carrier and 6 Destroyers sink the entire RAN fleet while under RAAF air over within range of Darwin.

Not accurate in basically any sense. First and foremost it fails to take into account submarine patrols by our navy and early detection by Jorn/E-7s prior to their fleet getting anywhere near Darwin. It doenst take into account Chinese subs either. How was an armada able to traverse south east asian waters without kicking up a fuss, better still, how did it even get there in the first base with all the numerous US bases in the phillipines, Korea, Japan Etc to 'sneak' past.

Why would we launch Shornets intead of F-35s in the first place? Where is our AWACS/AEW support for our fighters? Is this late 20s? Will Patriots and NASAMS also be a factor for aircover. How did a Chinese fleet leave their port and make it all the way within 500km of Darwin without being detected and not get hit by submarine deterrence patrols. Do we have to take into account a ballistic missile/mass cruise missile/hypersonic missile attacks from their newer type destroyers on our bases prior to an attack by their jets.

You could pick this apart at almost every level, simply inaccurate in every sense of the word.

I would take this sim for nothing more than strictly entertainment purposes only. Something you could probably have a laugh about after a minimum of 7-10 standard drinks.

 

[Wombat000]

I think what it does demonstrate is the value (necessity) of large weapons magazines.
- gee, if only we could re-load VLS systems???

 

[hauritz]

For the pros here…how realistic is this the outcome of this simulation? …putting aside it had the entire RAN Frigate fleet available and floating off Darwin and that it had the entire RAAF Fighter fleet including Growlers, Shornets and 60 off F35s all available and based in Northern Australia.

spoiler alert….in short 1 Chinese Carrier and 6 Destroyers sink the entire RAN fleet while under RAAF air over within range of Darwin.

Well the scenario is quite silly of course but I do agree with one point. The navy needs a lot more missiles.

 

[Bob53]

Not accurate in basically any sense. First and foremost it fails to take into account submarine patrols by our navy and early detection by Jorn/E-7s prior to their fleet getting anywhere near Darwin. It doenst take into account Chinese subs either. How was an armada able to traverse south east asian waters without kicking up a fuss, better still, how did it even get there in the first base with all the numerous US bases in the phillipines, Korea, Japan Etc to 'sneak' past.

Why would we launch Shornets intead of F-35s in the first place? Where is our AWACS/AEW support for our fighters? Is this late 20s? Will Patriots and NASAMS also be a factor for aircover. How did a Chinese fleet leave their port and make it all the way within 500km of Darwin without being detected and not get hit by submarine deterrence patrols. Do we have to take into account a ballistic missile/mass cruise missile/hypersonic missile attacks from their newer type destroyers on our bases prior to an attack by their jets.

You could pick this apart at almost every level, simply inaccurate in every sense of the word.

I would take this sim for nothing more than strictly entertainment purposes only. Something you could probably have a laugh about after a minimum of 7-10 standard drinks.

Did you listen the whole thing? From your questions I don’t think you did.

The scenario was set in 2024 and was a ruse that the Chinese ships would pass Australia 200 mile economic zone but then turned to attack. Australians knew they were coming and in this scenario, which is close to impossible had the entire Fleet and airforce at hand except for subs. Put all that to game play ….

My question surrounds the outcome based on a handful of Chinese destroyers getting within range to start lobbing PL15 missiles at Anzacs and Hobarts. It’s seemed like after the first 8-10 odd missiles per ship they were basically defenceless and had no way of striking back at the chineses who launched their attack from 150 miles away. They just had to wait for the chinese missiles to get within range of the SM and ESSMs.

 

[Volkodav]

Did you listen the whole thing? From your questions I don’t think you did.

The scenario was set in 2024 and was a ruse that the Chinese ships would pass Australia 200 mile economic zone but then turned to attack. Australians knew they were coming and in this scenario, which is close to impossible had the entire Fleet and airforce at hand except for subs. Put all that to game play ….

My question surrounds the outcome based on a handful of Chinese destroyers getting within range to start lobbing PL15 missiles at Anzacs and Hobarts. It’s seemed like after the first 8-10 odd missiles per ship they were basically defenceless and had no way of striking back at the chineses who launched their attack from 150 miles away. They just had to wait for the chinese missiles to get within range of the SM and ESSMs.

That's cool, the Army's LBASM regiment would have already sunk the Chinese taskforce before they fired a shot!

I don't know that the Chinese actually know how effective their systems are or not.

 

[Morgo]

Did you listen the whole thing? From your questions I don’t think you did.

The scenario was set in 2024 and was a ruse that the Chinese ships would pass Australia 200 mile economic zone but then turned to attack. Australians knew they were coming and in this scenario, which is close to impossible had the entire Fleet and airforce at hand except for subs. Put all that to game play ….

My question surrounds the outcome based on a handful of Chinese destroyers getting within range to start lobbing PL15 missiles at Anzacs and Hobarts. It’s seemed like after the first 8-10 odd missiles per ship they were basically defenceless and had no way of striking back at the chineses who launched their attack from 150 miles away. They just had to wait for the chinese missiles to get within range of the SM and ESSMs.

I like some of the scenarios these guys run, but this was particularly unrealistic.

Others have said many of these already, but the deficiencies I can see are:

- no patrols already in the air
- no P8s
- no subs
- no LBASM
- no GBAD
- no countermeasures / soft kill
- no Growlers / other EW
- stationary targets
- no allies

I would say if you factored these in that Chinese task group would be in for a really bad time.

Stating the obvious, it does reinforce however that as good as our ships are in many respects, we really have an urgent problem with the number of VLS at sea.

 

[Redlands18]

I like some of the scenarios these guys run, but this was particularly unrealistic.

Others have said many of these already, but the deficiencies I can see are:

- no patrols already in the air
- no P8s
- no subs
- no LBASM
- no GBAD
- no countermeasures / soft kill
- no Growlers / other EW
- stationary targets
- no allies

I would say if you factored these in that Chinese task group would be in for a really bad time.

Stating the obvious, it does reinforce however that as good as our ships are in many respects, we really have an urgent problem with the number of VLS at sea.

It also has the Type 003 Carrier Fujian, ready for combat operations in 2024, considering that the PLA-N has no experience in operating a CATOBAR carrier, operating with, an as yet unproven EMALS system, has never conducted operations with carriers, the idea that they could conduct Naval operations of this type 4000nm from home in 2024 is simply ridiculous.

 

[Mark_Evans]

It also has the Type 003 Carrier Fujian, ready for combat operations in 2024, considering that the PLA-N has no experience in operating a CATOBAR carrier, operating with, an as yet unproven EMALS system, has never conducted operations with carriers, the idea that they could conduct Naval operations of this type 4000nm from home in 2024 is simply ridiculous.

I agree but remember they are a community of online war gamers who put up scenarios as what if to see what happens, voted by their community and the results can be very interesting (read crazy) based on what they try to do and how the DCS gaming platform behaves.