Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[StingrayOZ]

Err, let's not get into a competition as to how "up to the task" either country is. Remember, Australia needs the UK to make the reactors, which is a big part of the project. It's easy for someone to be chuffed about their contribution to a BBQ if they're just setting up the table, whilst someone else is manning the grill.

Australia never intended to make the submarines with 100% indigenous tech and 100% indigenous sourced components. We don't have the industry for that. Currently collaboration with the UK seems straight forward and easy. The risk with the UK is cost and time. Fairly normal project risks.

The USN have their own issues so the UK-OZ boat is Australia’s only option, additional Virginia boats beyond what have been promised is unlikely.

Well I don't think it is. We are still getting 3 American submarines there is an option for 2 more on top of that. Australia has invested billions into US submarine production and industry. $5billion. Australia Steps Up: Strengthening the U.S. Industrial Base However, the current administration doesn't make that a interesting option at the moment, but that is a 24 month situation, it will be reassessed going forward.

AUKUS is a three nation collaboration. US is still pretty involved in the nuclear technology material stuff with all three partners.

Fact sheet: Trilateral Australia-UK-US Partnership on Nuclear-Powered Submarines

www.gov.uk

AUKUS – Understanding the Uranium Connection

SYNOPSIS AUKUS brings together Australia, the UK and the US in a pact widely perceived as a response to perceptions of a Chinese threat. Less well known is the fact that Australia’s uranium reserves are needed to secure longer-term American strategic advantage globally and to help underpin the...

rsis.edu.sg

The UK is still reliant on the US to enriched uranium for submarines and weapons. Australia isn't allowed to enrich its own uranium while the NPT is important. But these are pretty far off problems. Australia has 3 nuclear submarines before fuelling for the 4 and more becomes a problem.

Australia and the UK have the know how to do enrichment, we just don't currently do it because of treaties, economics etc. Spinning up a new laser enrichment plant based off latest technology is fairly straight forward for both countries.

Australia has huge reserves of uranium and is supplying the US programs with it. So Australia has leverage. US not delivering on Australia's paid for enrichment would mean the US cutting off its uranium supply into those programs.

AUKUS is three close friends cupping each others testicles. Tearing it apart would be, foolish. Its has its own trust but verify systems in place. Perhaps impossible. Its why I don't see anyone, Canada, Japan etc being an equal partner in that relationship. Even the US would find it extremely painful to kill that program. It has been set up, by the Americans, that way. Of the three partners, the least encumbered is Australia, it would just cost money and a type of submarine they don't currently operate.

 

[SammyC]

Err, let's not get into a competition as to how "up to the task" either country is. Remember, Australia needs the UK to make the reactors, which is a big part of the project. It's easy for someone to be chuffed about their contribution to a BBQ if they're just setting up the table, whilst someone else is manning the grill.

The UK has been back on building nuclear submarines for over 20 years now. The issue is not whether we can build the AUKUS submarine, we obviously can. It's whether we can build quickly enough to supply parts for both UK and Australia production lines.

I'm thinking "setting the table" is not quite the right metaphore for Australia's contribution.

Part of the Australian build program is not just the Osborne factory, but the component manufacture in-country.

While the reactor may remain a UK only build, Australia would envision a supply chain that can make a lot of the rest. Australia is targeting (and by what I have read) achieving a 60% local content for the Hunters. The attack class was supposed to be above 60% as well. There are now nine Australian manufacturers who are qualified to provide parts into the USN Virginia progam. This should double and tripple over the next 12-24 months.

All of these would in due course be available to the UK SSN program. It's not just a one way supply.

For all the parts that will be manufactured in the UK, these factories will have access to more than double the UK only supply, meaning efficiencies of scale and cost reductions. This will be necessary to make some of them economically viable.

Furthermore, our best and brightest officers and sailors are currently serving on UK submarines and yards. I'll point out that maintenance and construction is not the only thing keeping UK boats alongside. The UK is short of people.

Our first nuclear engineering degree commences at UNSW next month. Two other Australian universities commenced post grad nuclear studies last year.

So, perhaps more "setting the table and bringing the salads", and Australian funding enables the UK to put steak on that grill. The UK might not be having a BBQ at all if Australia was not turning up.

 

[StevoJH]

So, perhaps more "setting the table and bringing the salads", and Australian funding enables the UK to put steak on that grill. The UK might not be having a BBQ at all if Australia was not turning up.

I disagree, the UK would still be having a BBQ. It would just cost them a whole lot more to do so.

Even if the UK has to pay the full cost for R&D (which they don't), scaling up reactor and component production will give significant economies of scale.

Have you seen the figures for how many people BAe employ at Barrow these days? It makes anything I could realistically see BAe/ASC employing at Osborne being fairly minor by comparison.

And that doesn't even account however many people RR employ at their Nuclear site in Derby.

Even if the US pulled out of AUKUS (unlikely), I still think the SSN's would go ahead as a bilateral arrangement, the benefits to both parties are just too great. Substitute the combat system for a BAe/Thales product, and it might need the VLS cells to be re-engineered to remove US content if they use a cut down variant of the Dreadnaught system.

 

[SammyC]

I disagree, the UK would still be having a BBQ. It would just cost them a whole lot more to do so.

Even if the UK has to pay the full cost for R&D (which they don't), scaling up reactor and component production will give significant economies of scale.

Have you seen the figures for how many people BAe employ at Barrow these days? It makes anything I could realistically see BAe/ASC employing at Osborne being fairly minor by comparison.

And that doesn't even account however many people RR employ at their Nuclear site in Derby.

Even if the US pulled out of AUKUS (unlikely), I still think the SSN's would go ahead as a bilateral arrangement, the benefits to both parties are just too great. Substitute the combat system for a BAe/Thales product, and it might need the VLS cells to be re-engineered to remove US content if they use a cut down variant of the Dreadnaught system.

Yes I overcooked the metaphore, there would likely still be BBQ. Perhaps a more correct analogy would be at the cost of something else, like a hot water for a shower afterwards and definitely all the icecream. I'll park it there, this one has already gone too far.

The point being that the UK would have been under economic strain without a partner in the SSN program. Of all their choices (of which there are few), Australia is cashed up and reliable. Call us CUBs.

The upfront $5B is only a small component of the Australian investment in the UK. I would have thought that a decent chunk of the overall $360 billion will go back into Brittish industry, shareholding or Navy. I'll take a stab, something in the order of a third. Name me someone else willing to plonk $100 billion into the Brittish economy.

The people point, was not that Australia will have a workforce to rival Barrow, but that it is investing heavily across the board to develop its own workforce to avoid being a burden on the UK builds.

I should point out though, that once Osborne is up and running, it will be producing submarine hulls at near the same frequency as Barrow. One would assume that in time FBW and Henderson will also be as busy as Clyde and Devenport. So yard for yard, port for port, one would think similar numbers in due course.

Fully agree that the UK/AUS deal would progress with or without the US. My understanding is that the original concept was a bilateral agreement, with US consent rather than inclusion.

As a side note on the combat system, it is interesting, and I don't fully understand the logic, that the UK gave up their indigenous combat system for the AUKUS SSN design. I am not that familiar with the Thales system, but they have used it for several iterations and one would think it was mature. It's seems a substantial sacrifice to trade it for the American Lockheed Martin system. What was the driver here?

 

[StevoJH]

Yes I overcooked the metaphore, there would likely still be BBQ. Perhaps a more correct analogy would be at the cost of something else, like a hot water for a shower afterwards and definitely all the icecream. I'll park it there, this one has already gone too far.

The point being that the UK would have been under economic strain without a partner in the SSN program. Of all their choices (of which there are few), Australia is cashed up and reliable. Call us CUBs.

Definitely agreed on that.

The upfront $5B is only a small component of the Australian investment in the UK. I would have thought that a decent chunk of the overall $360 billion will go back into Brittish industry, shareholding or Navy. I'll take a stab, something in the order of a third. Name me someone else willing to plonk $100 billion into the Brittish economy.

I'm assuming that the reactors themselves would make up a significant portion of the overall program cost, and that will pretty much all be going direct to Rolls Royce? It does make me wonder if its worthwhile developing a UK based, but AUS/UK funded enrichment plant at somewhere like Sellafield to reduce reliance on the US. I don't believe either the US or UK currently have an enrichment program, though the US has plenty of uranium to reprocess from decommissioned nuclear weapons.

The people point, was not that Australia will have a workforce to rival Barrow, but that it is investing heavily across the board to develop its own workforce to avoid being a burden on the UK builds.

I should point out though, that once Osborne is up and running, it will be producing submarine hulls at near the same frequency as Barrow. One would assume that in time FBW and Henderson will also be as busy as Clyde and Devenport. So yard for yard, port for port, one would think similar numbers in due course.

I believe Barrow currently employs over 14,000 which seems like a lot considering the current output of the yard. Saying that, they do have components for at least five submarines at various stages of construction, the last Astute and all four Dreadnought class. Hopefully the SSBN's complete quicker then the Astute class have.

Fully agree that the UK/AUS deal would progress with or without the US. My understanding is that the original concept was a bilateral agreement, with US consent rather than inclusion.

I assume the US was only brought in because the original agreement that allowed the reactor for HMS Dreadnought (S101) to be imported required US consent for future export of submarine reactor technology?

As a side note on the combat system, it is interesting, and I don't fully understand the logic, that the UK gave up their indigenous combat system for the AUKUS SSN design. I am not that familiar with the Thales system, but they have used it for several iterations and one would think it was mature. It's seems a substantial sacrifice to trade it for the American Lockheed Martin system. What was the driver here?

I can only assume that the RAN was the driver here? Since the same Lockheed Martin system is already in Collins?

EDIT: Yes, there are a lot of assumptions in this post...

 

[StingrayOZ]

I can only assume that the RAN was the driver here? Since the same Lockheed Martin system is already in Collins?

You waste a lot of money developing weapons and combat systems when an existing setup is already there. If UK joins in its development and has access to its core, then what is the advantage of developing your own? Is the UK looking at exporting its combat systems? Probably not, and probably not the same tech as in a SSN. I am curious if the UK continues with its own torpedoes and missiles for its subs or there is the AUKUS combined solutions.

 

[StevoJH]

You waste a lot of money developing weapons and combat systems when an existing setup is already there. If UK joins in its development and has access to its core, then what is the advantage of developing your own? Is the UK looking at exporting its combat systems? Probably not, and probably not the same tech as in a SSN. I am curious if the UK continues with its own torpedoes and missiles for its subs or there is the AUKUS combined solutions.

I suppose the advantage is if software development of the AUS/UK branch of the software for the AUKUS SSN occurs in either Australia or the UK and that they have access to and ownership of the codebase for that branch, compared to the development being done in the US or being done remotely with the codebase being kept on a US based server.

Aka. Does the US have the ability to basically shut down future development of the AUS/UK variant of the combat system at their own whim?

To be honest, I hope the UK retain their own Torpedo and Missile eco-system, as long as both the UK and AUS submarines are able to fire each others weapons interchangeably though possibly with different procedures in place. It gives options.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Aka. Does the US have the ability to basically shut down future development of the AUS/UK variant of the combat system at their own whim?

Its a pretty specific group of customers. Subs also are offline while underwater. So comparisons with F-35s' etc aren't really relevant. US is not likely to share this tech with anyone else, even super friendlies. Its a very, very small circle. Australia was heavily involved in development of APCAP mk48, at some point where you are sharing acoustic mapping and super confidential data for weapons and sensors like this, you are literally too tied into development. You are mapping friendly and enemy vessels.

A combined UK/AU talent pool is enough that if the relationship ever breaks down, the development team breaks in half, it isn't made inoperative.
Its a software ware project essentially. All partners are very active in the development, so effectively any of the three could branch off. However realistically, UK and AU have a lot of funding and experience and intel coming in from the US (80+ subs). The US gains two tight allies and another dozen or so highly capable operational subs, based in locations remote from the US. As US systems and fundings are breaking down, it maybe useful to have these small developments. USN seems very supportive of this. Its grass up not top down.

To be honest, I hope the UK retain their own Torpedo and Missile eco-system, as long as both the UK and AUS submarines are able to fire each others weapons interchangeably though possibly with different procedures in place. It gives options.

Its possible. It maybe that the UK wants a different capability to the US. Guidance could be similar, but different propulsion. Although realistically the drones are coming, into this space.

But again, this whole area is very secretive. Its unlikely to ever become part of public debate.