Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[ASSAIL]

You'd hope so. Another 20 years is a long time to keep Collins running and relevant in our part of the world. The last of her kind will be positively geriatric by the time they're all divested(!).

I’m reasonably confident that the Collins boats can still be serviceable and relevant over the next 20 years.
the first 15 years of their collective lives saw very little use, months, even years alongside, in refit or undergoing remediation and the GOTD had little incentive to fund them properly.
In summary I reckon their regular service lives only commenced over the last approx 8 years so with regular upgrades and LOTE they should remain fully operational.

 

[John Fedup]

I’m reasonably confident that the Collins boats can still be serviceable and relevant over the next 20 years.
the first 15 years of their collective lives saw very little use, months, even years alongside, in refit or undergoing remediation and the GOTD had little incentive to fund them properly.
In summary I reckon their regular service lives only commenced over the last approx 8 years so with regular upgrades and LOTE they should remain fully operational.

Reminds of the Victoria class, they were in storage/upgrade for much of their lives so they are good out to 2040….can you smell the bovine aroma?

 

[Rudeboy]

Reminds of the Victoria class, they were in storage/upgrade for much of their lives so they are good out to 2040….can you smell the bovine aroma?

Collins Class are doing fine now, the key thing for subs is how many dives they've done. Managing that over the lifetime will be a challenge.

 

[Volkodav]

There might need to be an agreement reached between the UK and Aus around poaching of crew and engineers if there is a deal....

I mean who in their right mind would swap Barrow in Furness or Faslane for Adelaide or Perth....and more money...?

The only issue is they get here, cop a reduction in rank and seniority then are treated like morons by less qualified, less experienced, less competent ADF members.

If the ADF members see them as a threat it gets even worse, graduating to deliberate, malicious undermining and othering. Not all ADF members do this but enough to guarantee virtually every lateral entry into the ADF, and every non ex ADF civilian experiences it.

 

[Volkodav]

Collins Class are doing fine now, the key thing for subs is how many dives they've done. Managing that over the lifetime will be a challenge.

The silver lining to the drawn out maintenance cycles, laying up due to crewing issues and long restriction from operating at deep diving depth, is they still have plenty of structural life left.

Also, their modular design means entire new sections can be fabricated an inserted, replacing original sections, as part of the SLEP. Collins can progressively be entirely rebuilt over an extended period. i.e. Grand father's axe.

 

[Redlands18]

The silver lining to the drawn out maintenance cycles, laying up due to crewing issues and long restriction from operating at deep diving depth, is they still have plenty of structural life left.

Also, their modular design means entire new sections can be fabricated an inserted, replacing original sections, as part of the SLEP. Collins can progressively be entirely rebuilt over an extended period. i.e. Grand father's axe.

Its going to be interesting to see what goes into the LOTE now, as Morrison said in his later Presser on Thursday, the Collins class will be around for decades to come. They are still going to have to be a relevant Combat system in 2040. Another thing about the increased US involvement in our Sub program is, they are the masters of keeping old Subs in service, they still have a couple of dozen 30-40yo LAs and Ohio's in service.

 

[Stampede]

*again*

They've been pretty specific about wanting something that's in the water so of the field available, we can rule out the DCNS nuclear option, leaving Virginia and Astute.

Astute may be cheaper to field and run.

But the Virginia is doing really well in terms of production numbers etc

I'm no sub expert, but the image on the recently updated defence web page looks very much like the Asute.

Nuclear Powered Submarine Taskforce | About | Defence

Nuclear Powered Submarine Taskforce

www1.defence.gov.au

I'd speculate the UK are on board for a reason.

A decade ago worked with an ex RN bloke who spent many years sailing on the old Resolution Class.
He was certainly very enthused about the new Asutes Class and its attributes. Suggest the reason was more than just loyalty to his former service.


What sub do we get.
Time will be a factor, as will limited modifications where practical; so suggest the options are only two- Virginia and Astute.
Bets on the later.



Regards S

 

[Geddy]

Can anyone think about why the Brits would be involved with this program is it wasn’t for the Astute class vessels?
18 months of work has gone into this and presumably the options have been assessed. So is the next 18 months all about the how to build them aspect and not so much the what to build? I suspect this is the case.

 

[Arclighy]

Yes the image on the defence web page does look like an Astute class. I don't know how much store we can put in a that though. Both Astute class and Virgina class are excellent subs, no doubt. Astute class may be ahead in affordability stakes , but the latest iteration of the Virginia class has nearly double the weopons loadout of the Astutes. An interesting comparison of the two subs can be found here (Naval Technology). No doubt all the pro's and cons of each design are being examined right now.

 

[spoz]

I can certainly think of a reason; the RAN paradigm for manning a submarine (and a Navy in general) and developing the necessary skills is very similar to the RN’s, and very different to the USN’s. However if it was just that it would make a nonsense of Boris’s frothing on about UK jobs. My money is Astute at the moment, however!

 

[FoxtrotRomeo999]

Chief of Navy discussing AUKUS

 

[hauritz]

Australia generally doesn't buy US ships. The last time were the FFGs but they weren't tier one vessels. The Astutes are cheaper, need less crew, and BAE Systems already have a big presence in Australia.

I am not entirely sure the US would even want to be involved in delivering this capability to Australia. They are working at near full capacity at the moment and managing an overseas build for something as complex as a nuclear submarine sounds like a nightmare task to me. It is also something that Americans probably have little experience with. They would probably be happy to leave it to the poms.

 

[StingrayOZ]

The Astutes are:

• Smaller - not by much, but smaller, The Virginias are larger (~15%), physically, particularly the block V with the launchers, 140m, some 40% longer. While the US can build them quite cheaply, they are building ~30-40 of them and have commonality with their entire sub fleet of 100 subs. The US is like a mass production facility.
• Smaller crew - ~100 vs ~135 odd. 35% less crewing is huge. For every 3 V boats you can man 4 A boats.
• More commonality with the sensors/systems we want - Australia basically was specing Astute sensors on the attack program, so all the work on that and integrating that with the combat system is not wasted. Again the UK would operate more like Australia, both as medium power navies. UK companies like BAE already have huge operations in Australia, already building ships, already people experienced on the UK sub building program in Australia in the organisations. US companies like Electric boat have no foot print.
• We have much more in common with RN training and operation. As Alexsa points out the RAN is much closer in operation and manning to the RN than to the USN. We have kick started our submarine programs off the Brits several times, and there is a significant portion of RN sailors in the RAN submarine force. (AE1 and AE2, the Oberon's, some minor help with Collins class).
• The timing is such as that as the Astute build program concludes, the UK could send pretty much its entire team to Australia, to assist get things up and running. 50 welders and trades, ~10 managers, ~10 designers, etc. Jigs and machinery could be moved if required. This could effectively hotstart production. Saving years. The first hull build could basically be a joint venture. With Australians in the UK building part, and Britons in Australia building part.

An Astute with the latest PWR3 reactor and the US combat system would be excellent. PWR3 is a further leap ahead in safety and durability ahead of the PWR2. PWR3 is supposed to effectively be an enhanced PWR2 with very similar dimensions. Its entirely feasible to put it into Astute.

While the Virginias have larger weapons load out in block V, in block I-IV the Astutes can carry more weapons (25+12 VLS) vs a theoretical 38. Realistically this isn't going to be an issue. But the Astutes are focused on being submarines while the Virginia's have a significant land attack capability. So unless we are building the mammoth and yet unbuilt Block V, Astute will be fine for what we need.

The US could certainly strike a deal, they might buy or pay for ~4-6 subs to be built in Australia as they are at maximum capacity, which would change the game. Separately, WA could again become a major US sub base. With say 4-6 US subs based there and maintenance facilities for that as well. I think this is unlikely, but its not impossible. However, I don't think this is what is driving the agreement and would seem to cut the UK out of it.

There are already existing papers/studies looking at Australia's SSN options, most of those comeback in favor of Astute. Going forward, I can see Australia and the UK having a peer relationship on the design and construction of future attack subs. Both countries benefit.

 

[Takao]

Can anyone think about why the Brits would be involved with this program is it wasn’t for the Astute class vessels?
18 months of work has gone into this and presumably the options have been assessed. So is the next 18 months all about the how to build them aspect and not so much the what to build? I suspect this is the case.

Firstly, because AUKUS isn't only about SSNs. The Brit's involvement in the other areas is obvious, as is our need to be tied in with their efforts.

Secondly, because they offer the stepping stone between the USN and a smaller Navy. They have a smaller fleet, they produce the best submarine COs and crews in the world and, critically, the US is prohibited from exporting nuclear tech to anyone but the Brit's. So, the US can't sell us a reactor, but the RN can....

 

[ADMk2]

The Astutes are:

• Smaller - not by much, but smaller, The Virginias are larger (~15%), physically, particularly the block V with the launchers, 140m, some 40% longer. While the US can build them quite cheaply, they are building ~30-40 of them and have commonality with their entire sub fleet of 100 subs. The US is like a mass production facility.
• Smaller crew - ~100 vs ~135 odd. 35% less crewing is huge. For every 3 V boats you can man 4 A boats.
• More commonality with the sensors/systems we want - Australia basically was specing Astute sensors on the attack program, so all the work on that and integrating that with the combat system is not wasted. Again the UK would operate more like Australia, both as medium power navies. UK companies like BAE already have huge operations in Australia, already building ships, already people experienced on the UK sub building program in Australia in the organisations. US companies like Electric boat have no foot print.
• We have much more in common with RN training and operation. As Alexsa points out the RAN is much closer in operation and manning to the RN than to the USN. We have kick started our submarine programs off the Brits several times, and there is a significant portion of RN sailors in the RAN submarine force. (AE1 and AE2, the Oberon's, some minor help with Collins class).
• The timing is such as that as the Astute build program concludes, the UK could send pretty much its entire team to Australia, to assist get things up and running. 50 welders and trades, ~10 managers, ~10 designers, etc. Jigs and machinery could be moved if required. This could effectively hotstart production. Saving years. The first hull build could basically be a joint venture. With Australians in the UK building part, and Britons in Australia building part.

An Astute with the latest PWR3 reactor and the US combat system would be excellent. PWR3 is a further leap ahead in safety and durability ahead of the PWR2. PWR3 is supposed to effectively be an enhanced PWR2 with very similar dimensions. Its entirely feasible to put it into Astute.

While the Virginias have larger weapons load out in block V, in block I-IV the Astutes can carry more weapons (25+12 VLS) vs a theoretical 38. Realistically this isn't going to be an issue. But the Astutes are focused on being submarines while the Virginia's have a significant land attack capability. So unless we are building the mammoth and yet unbuilt Block V, Astute will be fine for what we need.

The US could certainly strike a deal, they might buy or pay for ~4-6 subs to be built in Australia as they are at maximum capacity, which would change the game. Separately, WA could again become a major US sub base. With say 4-6 US subs based there and maintenance facilities for that as well. I think this is unlikely, but its not impossible. However, I don't think this is what is driving the agreement and would seem to cut the UK out of it.

There are already existing papers/studies looking at Australia's SSN options, most of those comeback in favor of Astute. Going forward, I can see Australia and the UK having a peer relationship on the design and construction of future attack subs. Both countries benefit.

Yup, and for those who point to land attack capability, we should be reminded that we are considering a maritime based land attack capability on the scale of Australian operations, not US operations...

With a notional fleet of 8 subs, each theoretically carrying 14-16 LACM as it currently stands without envisaging adding VLS modules etc, plus the LACM to be fitted to the Hobarts and Hunters as well obviously as air and land delivered strike options, that is a massive increase in long range strike capability, by any nation’s standards except perhaps the USA and China, and even China will take notice of a few hundred long ranged land attack missiles potentially being parked off it’s coast. It already has in fact and they don’t even exist yet...

It would certainly be the strongest long ranged precision strike capability in the Asia Pacific Region aside from the USA and China, and even just to equip this fleet as it stands with a single salvo of LACM would see us needing to purchase in excess of 300x Tomahawks or whichever missile we choose. Consider that the UK herself is the only other user of Tomahawk besides the US and it’s last purchase of Tomahawks comprised 65x missiles. I think some perspective on the idea that we will be acquiring the capability to launch thousands as the US is, needs to be tempered somewhat…

 

[Redlands18]

The Astutes are:

• Smaller - not by much, but smaller, The Virginias are larger (~15%), physically, particularly the block V with the launchers, 140m, some 40% longer. While the US can build them quite cheaply, they are building ~30-40 of them and have commonality with their entire sub fleet of 100 subs. The US is like a mass production facility.
• Smaller crew - ~100 vs ~135 odd. 35% less crewing is huge. For every 3 V boats you can man 4 A boats.
• More commonality with the sensors/systems we want - Australia basically was specing Astute sensors on the attack program, so all the work on that and integrating that with the combat system is not wasted. Again the UK would operate more like Australia, both as medium power navies. UK companies like BAE already have huge operations in Australia, already building ships, already people experienced on the UK sub building program in Australia in the organisations. US companies like Electric boat have no foot print.
• We have much more in common with RN training and operation. As Alexsa points out the RAN is much closer in operation and manning to the RN than to the USN. We have kick started our submarine programs off the Brits several times, and there is a significant portion of RN sailors in the RAN submarine force. (AE1 and AE2, the Oberon's, some minor help with Collins class).
• The timing is such as that as the Astute build program concludes, the UK could send pretty much its entire team to Australia, to assist get things up and running. 50 welders and trades, ~10 managers, ~10 designers, etc. Jigs and machinery could be moved if required. This could effectively hotstart production. Saving years. The first hull build could basically be a joint venture. With Australians in the UK building part, and Britons in Australia building part.

An Astute with the latest PWR3 reactor and the US combat system would be excellent. PWR3 is a further leap ahead in safety and durability ahead of the PWR2. PWR3 is supposed to effectively be an enhanced PWR2 with very similar dimensions. Its entirely feasible to put it into Astute.

While the Virginias have larger weapons load out in block V, in block I-IV the Astutes can carry more weapons (25+12 VLS) vs a theoretical 38. Realistically this isn't going to be an issue. But the Astutes are focused on being submarines while the Virginia's have a significant land attack capability. So unless we are building the mammoth and yet unbuilt Block V, Astute will be fine for what we need.

The US could certainly strike a deal, they might buy or pay for ~4-6 subs to be built in Australia as they are at maximum capacity, which would change the game. Separately, WA could again become a major US sub base. With say 4-6 US subs based there and maintenance facilities for that as well. I think this is unlikely, but its not impossible. However, I don't think this is what is driving the agreement and would seem to cut the UK out of it.

There are already existing papers/studies looking at Australia's SSN options, most of those comeback in favor of Astute. Going forward, I can see Australia and the UK having a peer relationship on the design and construction of future attack subs. Both countries benefit.

The Attack class was to be 97m long, same as the Astute, the Astute being about 3m wider. The facility at Osborn was being set up to build the Attacks, so should have no problems size wise to build Astutes. Security will have to go to another level though with Nuke Reactors. A blk V Virginia though is 140m long so would they need to increase the size of the build Hall to fit them?

 

[Aussie Coms]

Do you have a reference for TLAM taking away VLS cells from the Hobarts ? Have only seen reference to acquiring them, nothing on how they will be deployed and launched ?

Redundant ? depends on what the US is doing with them, if they have plans or not ? who knows, but either way to get into the capability you have to start somewhere and we would follow on with the US either way, they are not getting rid of them any time yet.

Cheers

Could you just remove the Quad Pack Harpoons and replace them with Quad Pack TLAM’s ?
adds about 5-6 tons weight

both SM6 and TLAM are anti ship capable, sort of makes Harpoon Redundant ( though they are cheaper )

Then you would have 48 VLS Quad Packed ESSM + SM2/SM6 + more TLAM’s + 8 Canister TLAM’S

 

[ADMk2]

Could you just remove the Quad Pack Harpoons and replace them with Quad Pack TLAM’s ?
adds about 5-6 tons weight

both SM6 and TLAM are anti ship capable, sort of makes Harpoon Redundant ( though they are cheaper )

Then you would have 48 VLS Quad Packed ESSM + SM2/SM6 + more TLAM’s + 8 Canister TLAM’S

They are spending $5.1b on the 3 ship, Hobart upgrade to add AEGIS Baseline 9.1, SM-6, ESSM Block II, Tactical Tomahawk, plus undoubtedly a raft of other upgrades. The whole class cost $9b from memory?

So something pretty substantial is going on with them…

 

[alexsa]

Collins Class are doing fine now, the key thing for subs is how many dives they've done. Managing that over the lifetime will be a challenge.

Why are the number dives the key Issue? The vessels are designed with a safety margin construction and materials would that permit them to operate beyond the ‘set’ maximum dive depth so operating to the set maximum depth should not be an issue unless something is done that stressed the structure. It’s how they have been operated and maintained (and ongoing monitoring) that will determine the life of the hull not the number of dives.

 

[alexsa]

I can certainly think of a reason; the RAN paradigm for manning a submarine (and a Navy in general) and developing the necessary skills is very similar to the RN’s, and very different to the USN’s. However if it was just that it would make a nonsense of Boris’s frothing on about UK jobs. My money is Astute at the moment, however!

I agree. The response from Indonesia to the development of SSN’s for Australia was not overly enthusiastic. The Astute (or its replacement) are Attack boats without the significant strike weapons of the Virginia. The Virginia combines a significant land attack capability with the VLS tubes/Pay load modules.

That sort of capability is likely to make some of our neighbours a tad uneasy.