Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[StevoJH]

Refuelling required every 7-10 years.
With RAN use, it could be just 7, that’s 3-4 refuelling cycles.
Would it still be worth it?

That would depend on cost of refuelling, whether it could be done *in Australia* (politically as well as technically), and how much additional time refuelling would add to the refit time.

Oh, plus the sheer loss of face of returning to a French option at this point, even if they would consider it.

The Suffren also has about half the weapons carrying capacity of an Astute class.

 

[SammyC]

That would depend on cost of refuelling, whether it could be done *in Australia* (politically as well as technically), and how much additional time refuelling would add to the refit time.

Oh, plus the sheer loss of face of returning to a French option at this point, even if they would consider it.

The Suffren also has about half the weapons carrying capacity of an Astute class.

To clarify, I think the Virginia and AUKUS options are way better than the Suffren.

My point was that I don't think, refuelling or not refuelling was a core decision in the selection of the USN/RN subs over the French ones. Good for publicity, but that's all. I actually think contractual relationship breakdown, American combat systems and access to strike missiles were all more significant.

I think a refuelling, given every other complexity with owning an SSN could have been managed. It comes out, goes into a container, and then gets buried in a desert. Maybe I've over simplified, but it's not like landing on Mars.

If Suffrens were magically our only option, then I think we would have made it work, and it would have been better than what we are currently forced to do.

 

[Todjaeger]

To clarify, I think the Virginia and AUKUS options are way better than the Suffren.

My point was that I don't think, refuelling or not refuelling was a core decision in the selection of the USN/RN subs over the French ones. Good for publicity, but that's all. I actually think contractual relationship breakdown, American combat systems and access to strike missiles were all more significant.

I think a refuelling, given every other complexity with owning an SSN could have been managed. It comes out, goes into a container, and then gets buried in a desert. Maybe I've over simplified, but it's not like landing on Mars.

If Suffrens were magically our only option, then I think we would have made it work, and it would have been better than what we are currently forced to do.

Inarguably though a decision on the ability/need to refuel a reactor would be absolutely a core one, though I too suspect that it was not the primary reason why USN/RN sub options were chosen in place of French ones.

I agree that Australia, if absolutely necessary, could establish processes and facilities to actually carry out refueling as well as storage and disposal of spent fuel. However, all of this would add extra costs for new/more facilities and infrastructure, require more time for the processes to be developed as well as infrastructure built. Perhaps even more problematic is that it would likely require even more trained personnel to both handle the refueling, as well as manage, transport and monitor spent fuel. This burden of needing extra trained personnel would further increase costs to both raise the capability initially, as well as sustain it, and perhaps even more problematically, even more time would be needed to recruit and then train these 'extra' bodies.

When one factors all the above in, plus the problems Australia had encountered with getting Naval Group to adapt the Attack-class for Australian service from the Suffren-class SSN AND get sensitive US systems like the AN/BGY-1 fitted (with the sharply restricted access to system specs and reqs), it is not hard to imagine that Australia would not see value in trying to push things further.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Refuelling a French submarine is not impossible even by a nation with fairly basic nuclear capability. If we wanted less reliance on France, we could talk to the South Americans (brazil is building nuclear french designed submarines, Argentina provides fuel rods to Australias OPAL reactor). The French would have to be involved in setting that kind of capability up. We could have some sovereign capability in that space. Being LEU, commercial style capabilities are relevant. Australia has a nuclear research and medical reactor, and has continuously operated nuclear reactors for 60+ years, just in a very small, non-naval capability. But it would be expensive and slow to expand this capability with no commercial capability.

Australia moves and stores spent fuel rods, and has existing arrangements and agreements. We had to get rid of many tonnes of material from HIFAR, which was all weapons grade HEU spent fuel rods from 1950's style reactors. We had stored effectively the entire life time of fuel from that reactor before we sent it off for reprocessing. It seemed that we were quite happy to have many tonnes of spent HEU contaminated with Plutonium.

Australia already needs nuclear waste storage facility. SSNs just further expands the size of that need.

Australia to receive UK nuclear waste shipment amid bitter dispute over national storage facility

Two-tonne load to be stored at Sydney’s Lucas Heights until national facility built in several years

www.theguardian.com

Australia's nuclear waste legacy is hidden in plain sight

Even without nuclear power and submarines in use, the nation is already producing, processing and storing radioactive waste.

www.abc.net.au

Instead of burying the waste in the desert currently we store them in the middle of the most populous city in Australia.
Personally I don't see diesel Baracuda/Sufferens ever getting back onto the table. Im not completely sure SSN Sufferens were ever on the table but more of an option of escalation to deter.

In the current context, getting the US to work with other allies is a very difficult ask. French and US relations are highly complex and ebb and flow even during peaceful periods.

AUKUS was to fall over, early on, and there was genuine questions about getting material for reactors, or the subs not getting into service quick enough. There are other options. We could try to acquire and refurbish an older UK SSN. Its possible, but much much more expensive and takes longer and are in worse material state. We could try to acquire conventional Japanese submarines or/and build those here, or base them out of Australia.

By far the most viable hedging option is Collins. Which is still going to be critical even if we do get a few SSN operating. But we have kind of lowered our expectation around operational avalibility and try to limit costs for that platform. Given the current context, I am not sure that is the way forward.

We may want to talk to the Japanese are about Submarine technologies that can be applied to Collins, particularly if we expect them to stay around longer.

We have over 100 sailors in the US SSN pipeline. Signing up for service on Collins vs signing up for service on a future Australian SSN are pretty different. From what I hear those in the US SSN pipeline feedback is very positive from both sides.

 

[SammyC]

AUKUS cash flows to Australian firms despite doubts over pact

again sorry for a paywalled article, however this is an update on Australian industry involvement in the Virginia supply chain.

The core of the article is that Honeywell has been awarded a contract from the USN to assist Australian manufacturers through the American quality and security system. Aparently there are approximately 1,000 Australian providers who meet at least the first round viability checks (good to see this has been completed, with lot of potential providers, more than I thought), with the first of these to now progress with the next round. This will eventually form a trusted Australian network which technology and IP can then be transferred to.

Huntington Ingalls has also commenced qualifying some Australian providers. Of note, suppliers of more complex items (I assume electrical and electronic components) are being processed first. Hycast Metals in Sydney was called out in the article.

This is all part of the program to increase Virginia production rates, and it signals Australia becomming even more tightly interwoven with the Americans. It becomes progressively harder to deny sales of boats as this supply chain matures.

Sometimes we need to look at the actions rather than words to understand what is really going on in the US. The above seems to be a good sign. A country making decisions to disengage would not be looking at our supply system.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Huntington Ingalls has also commenced qualifying some Australian providers. Of note, suppliers of more complex items (I assume electrical and electronic components) are being processed first. Hycast Metals in Sydney was called out in the article.

This is all part of the program to increase Virginia production rates, and it signals Australia becoming even more tightly interwoven with the Americans. It becomes progressively harder to deny sales of boats as this supply chain matures.

Sometimes we need to look at the actions rather than words to understand what is really going on in the US. The above seems to be a good sign. A country making decisions to disengage would not be looking at our supply system.

I think there is some incentives from both sides for this to happen. In a world where decisions are made very quickly and cuts are the general theme, having a strong AU-US program already in place, is highly desirable. That maybe this would make these cuts less desirable and decisions more stable. Many of these are funded directly by Australia, so doing a partnership is desirable from the US side. For those in uniform and those from the industry sectors.

There is a fear in the US not that everything gets cut, but funding becomes erratic and unreliable, that their business could be affected by random tariffs. The current stock market reflects that. Australian business and American business are looking around, and realising, it would be a very good thing for them to work together.