Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[StobieWan]

The submarine problem is a whole lot more than buying them from the UK or the US. For starters does Australia have the capability today to process the fuel? To dispose of the fuel? To operate the nuclear power plant safely? Frankly, you have to have a nuclear power industry to do all of the above and with much expenses than buying a submarine. Then there are the political realities, Australia will want to build their subs in Australia.

Virginia and Astute both use a non-refuel requirement reactor - there's ways and means that could be used to get around all those restrictions - go native/license build on the boat and lease the core which would be built in the US, the Australians put the rest of it together offer the reactor compartment up much as they do in the yard in the US, run it til EOL and then return the core for recycling. Treat the core as a lightbulb fitting, screw it in, unscrew when it goes out.

Technically, possible. Politically, not.

Rob's correct in eliminating the UK from consideration - the Astute needed a lot of US input to get it over the line - the yard is back up to speed and doing good work again, and in a good place to deliver Successor but if I were shopping around, and were Australian, I'd have the US on speed dial.

 

[RobWilliams]

We've got a forward repair ship (RFA Diligence) which can supply electricity, water, stores & fuel as well as extensive workshops for hull/machinery repairs to both surface ships and submarines.

For a conventional force, I can certainly see the increased benefits. Not least the idea that a submarine could potentially refuel at sea and not require the need to return to port. Presumably would be an easier buy if it was bought along the philosophy of Diligence; that it can service the entire fleet.

 

[harryriedl]

We've got a forward repair ship (RFA Diligence) which can supply electricity, water, stores & fuel as well as extensive workshops for hull/machinery repairs to both surface ships and submarines.

For a conventional force, I can certainly see the increased benefits. Not least the idea that a submarine could potentially refuel at sea and not require the need to return to port. Presumably would be an easier buy if it was bought along the philosophy of Diligence; that it can service the entire fleet.

In that case I of forward resupply I would be keen on perhaps moving to a split crew system. So fuel, supplies and fresh crew ship out on diligence like vessel (or at least for the first few years so crews can get used to a longer tempo). Also Dilligence was cheap as it was ex STUFT I imagine a similar ex rig vessel could be found to be converted.

 

[t68]

Fixed it for you, the linked doc implied that the US/UK boats are by and large comparable on price (maybe a smidge more for a US boat, probably more for Block V+) so why buy a UK boat when you've got a superbly well managed SSN program delivering boats ahead of schedule, boats which have a CCS which was used as a base for the current Collins' class CCS upgrade IIRC, boats which are used by a service which AFAIK has very close ties with the RAN.

Going US would be the most logical choice as ACS external capability partners are General Dynamics Electric Boat and Bath Iron Works and have a secondment program with each of the partners and greatly increases ASC expertise and knowledge.

But in saying that I would not discount Astute with the very big presence of BAE in Australia with the recent signing of more traditional relations between the UK and Australia anything could happen. But as GF has noted on more than one occasion what we receive from the USPACOM is far and above anything we would receive from other five eyes partners, going US would be a no brainer.

 

[gf0012-aust]

But as GF has noted on more than one occasion what we receive from the USPACOM is far and above anything we would receive from other five eyes partners, going US would be a no brainer.

Despite the very strong political and emotional connections to the UK, there are some capabilities where it makes absolutely no sense at all to go with the UK over the US

the tendency is to just look at platform advantages as though they are a singular construct for an assessment - but systems also have selection criteria where consideration has to be applied to other force posture benefits etc.....

eg going with solution A might seem advantageous until you realise that other critical systems outside of that platform would require integration so that it can talk to other force capabilities and elements - and integration is a killer

Army has procured some daft systems recently - and IMO all because people within the service got a hard on about the gear and ignored external engineering advice about the hurts sitting on the outside re integration into broader force reqs. They've literally stuffed up the broader capability issue by looking at their navels.

small picture vs big picture

and then the gen public get told by the broadsheets that its DMO's fault. I've had snr service tell me that if we don't pick what they want then they'll over ride us by heading to the 2 and 3 stars. In fact I've seen systems that weren't recommended get purchased by stealth through creative funding from other Divs and then they've tried to seek other funding support when the platforms sustainment reqs become visible.

Thankfully, you can't do the same with large single platforms like ships and boats - you just get different headaches put into play like Govt deciding that they will purchase a military asset through a diff Org and thus bypass some of the checks and balances... /TIC

 

[John Newman]

The UK used to run them into the fifties or early sixties, at which point the climate of opinion shifted to indicate that they'd likely be gone in the first few days of war. With perhaps less possibility of everything going instant sunshine if it kicked off, forward based tenders would probably make sense for long range SSK ops. We just sent a Trafalgar off on an 8k grand tour which presumably needed replenishment at sea or in port to keep folk fed and in mars bars (no Brit SSN can function in the absence of mars bars and kit kats, it's a known limitation)

It's interesting when you mentioned Trafalgar going on an 8k tour, that's the equivalent of just one return trip from Fremantle to Darwin and back for the Collins boats!

 

[rjtjrt]

I have a long memory.
Selecting non US suppliers always should be done with the full memory of what happened during the Vietnam War. European (including UK) governments refused to supply parts and ammunition to Australia for critical systems due to their unhappiness with our involvement with that war. Including refusing to supply 1000ib bombs that tha Canberra was dropping in Vietnam. Other than UK I can recall Sweden, France, and Switzerland imposing weapons support/resupply sanctions.
They had in one way a non moral right to do so, just as we have a right to not forget.
Cut to today - those who forget history are ......
I for one would consider US a MUCH more reliable partner in times of real trouble than any European Government.
lest We Forget, because this was 20 years after Australia was involved in the Liberation of Europe. Europe had a fairly short memory/sense of loyalty, including UK.
Yes, I will never forget this and the younger people in procurement should be taught it still.
John

 

[John Newman]

An article (with three photos) in the Telegraph about Adelaide being prepared for her trip to Melbourne:

No Cookies | thetelegraph.com.au

 

[StobieWan]

It's interesting when you mentioned Trafalgar going on an 8k tour, that's the equivalent of just one return trip from Fremantle to Darwin and back for the Collins boats!

I do apologise...335 days out..


Trenchant completes record-breaking mission| Royal Navy

Only seven crew did the entire crew mind, which rams home the other factors thing that was brought up.

 

[John Newman]

I do apologise...335 days out..


Trenchant completes record-breaking mission| Royal Navy

Only seven crew did the entire crew mind, which rams home the other factors thing that was brought up.

No worries!

Yes 335 days (11 mths) out is a long long time to be living inside a steel tube in the ocean!

 

[MickB]

This is not a 'this vs that' question, more about if both choices were on the table what would be more appropriate for the job that Navy needs to do and the environment that it intends to operate them.

Does it necessarily follow just because we could take the nuclear option that it would be appropriate to do so?

Articles published in the Australian tell of spy missions carried out by RAN O class subs at the request of the US. One reason given was that the USN nuke boats were to large to operate in such confined waters.

I know that Collins is larger than the O class was but the nukes are much bigger again.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Articles published in the Australian tell of spy missions carried out by RAN O class subs at the request of the US. One reason given was that the USN nuke boats were to large to operate in such confined waters.

I know that Collins is larger than the O class was but the nukes are much bigger again.

there's a bit of colour and movement in thosed press articles. eg the O's had periscope shots inside the harbour at Vladivostok, but the USN had boats like Parche which also went inside soviet harbours (its one of the most awarded boats in USN history, and most of the citations/awards are still classified)

The USN also had N1, which is the only sub fitted with a wheel on the bottom, so that gives you an idea of how low it got

 

[Astute]

Hi to all
I hope defence procurement never lands into the hands of anyone who has the same view of Europe as rjtjrt for Australias sake , to basically cut Austrailia off from some of the best defence companies in the world because of some sort of misguided grudge is insane :/ ,,,,,,, anyway back to topic at hand,,,,,

I've been reading the above post about the Collins replacement program and I have to disagree , by saying going with the US and buying virginia class is a no brainer and disregarding any other alternative is a mistake.

Firstly I have to say would the US sell some Virginias to Australia ,,, maybe but the US would never allow them to be built in Australia to much top secret equipment on board they would never risk it , so no job creation there ,also they have a crew complement nearly double a Collins class which the Australian navy can't even man now , with out a major investment in manpower and years of dedicated support it would never work , and then there's the cost , around 2.2b US each they are expensive ,

maybe with china on the up and the US turning it's eyes to the pacific Australia could get a deal , but with every deal there is the small print you could say terms and conditions of sale which could prove to be a nightmare when Australia might want to deploy or take action somewhere the US doesn't want them to it could get complicated.

There is a reason many countries build there own submarines specially when they take the decision to go nuclear , they are national defence assets to be controlled and used by the government who owns them ,being in the US back pocket is no place to be over this subject , yes the gravy train is running from the US in to pacific at the moment but for how long , it will stop when the US thinks there is no strategic advantage to it which might leave a few countries with out a seat when the music stops ,

But to be honest I can't see Australia going nuclear not in the foreseeable future anyway and not in time for the Collins replacement program unless a dramatic political turn around happens , so diesel-electric will be chosen in my opinion it's the easy safest choice of the two options.

But if you did ,,,,,,, what's so bad with Astute class lol ??? Boats 4-6 the cost is down to around £750m each and production is running smooth now and with a crew of 90-100 personnel could be doable ,,,,

 

[StobieWan]

This may be relevant:

Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

Can't verify it - there are people on the thread who will perhaps know more.

The "which nuke boat to buy" routine is a case of angels/per square mm of pin head I suspect.
.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Hi to all
I hope defence procurement never lands into the hands of anyone who has the same view of Europe as rjtjrt for Australias sake , to basically cut Austrailia off from some of the best defence companies in the world because of some sort of misguided grudge is insane :/ ,,,,,,, anyway back to topic at hand,,,,,

I've been reading the above post about the Collins replacement program and I have to disagree , by saying going with the US and buying virginia class is a no brainer and disregarding any other alternative is a mistake.

you're misreading the thread responses - nobody is saying that we should get Virginias in any shape or form - its about access to US tech that is the issue

I can tell you that there is no way in hades that we will go with a UK sub when it comes to tech, its the same US tech that was used to save the UK sub program by the USN/NAVSEA/SARPA that we're after - as well as flow on tech which we don't always have to pay for (and neither do UK and Canada - the US provides an extraordinary amount of tech goodwill - gratis)

I've seen the "non public" reports released by USG UK, Canada and Aust on the state of the Astutes when the US was called in to remediate the prog. UK builds and design issues have not improved since those reports were done initially.

It makes no sense at all to get a UK sub when there are broader issues and constraints in play.

The nuke debate is academic, its a generation away (min) in this country

 

[the road runner]

This may be relevant:

Can't verify it - there are people on the thread who will perhaps know more.

There has been a lot of chit chat from some senior defence people and the Minister for Defence about going with a Japanese propulsion system. The press seem to be running a story about this topic every 2 weeks in the paper .Altho i first heard that we may go with a jap propulsion system from GF on this forum. :rel

Japanese and Australian relationship have been flourishing over the last few years ,and the good will that was shown by Australia to help Japan after the Fukishima disaster ,along with Japan easing restrictions on its defence tech seems to be pointing to a much closer defence relationship.

 

[Sea Toby]

There has been a lot of chit chat from some senior defence people and the Minister for Defence about going with a Japanese propulsion system. The press seem to be running a story about this topic every 2 weeks in the paper .Altho i first heard that we may go with a jap propulsion system from GF on this forum. :rel

Japanese and Australian relationship have been flourishing over the last few years ,and the good will that was shown by Australia to help Japan after the Fukishima disaster ,along with Japan easing restrictions on its defence tech seems to be pointing to a much closer defence relationship.

I believe the Japanese are just as concerned as other Asian nations with Chinese sea and air grab in the East and South China Seas, up to claiming islands long considered Japanese. The Japanese alike other Asian nations are more willing than in the past to seek and develop allies. The Chinese bear is a large one, they have almost swallowed the world's industrial production, manufacturing just about everything you can purchase at Walmart outside of groceries. Ask Apple.

 

[Astute]

you're misreading the thread responses - nobody is saying that we should get Virginias in any shape or form - its about access to US tech that is the issue

I can tell you that there is no way in hades that we will go with a UK sub when it comes to tech, its the same US tech that was used to save the UK sub program by the USN/NAVSEA/SARPA that we're after - as well as flow on tech which we don't always have to pay for (and neither do UK and Canada - the US provides an extraordinary amount of tech goodwill - gratis)

I've seen the "non public" reports released by USG UK, Canada and Aust on the state of the Astutes when the US was called in to remediate the prog. UK builds and design issues have not improved since those reports were done initially.

It makes no sense at all to get a UK sub when there are broader issues and constraints in play.

The nuke debate is academic, its a generation away (min) in this country

Hi
It seems i did indeed miss interpreted a post while replying lol ,,,,,

So the Australian governments plans are for a Australian designed sub built in Australia but with US know how and support ,

I agree with you with out US assistance the astute program could of been in trouble but the problems with hms astute were put right and fixes we're incorporated into hms ambush which is now in service and will also be put into the following 5 boats both hms astute and ambush have fired its main weapons with success , astute will be put into service soon enough ,

let's face it building a nuclear powered attack submarine is one of the most complex and expensive building and design projects any country can undertake and there are always problems , I believe we are past most of them and with only two built and 5 being built and one already in service one in final sea trials says to me we are heading the right way.

I read your post gf and the point were you said you've seen "non public" reports of problems with the design of the astute class interests me as everything I've seen lately as been positive , so I personally believe these are old reports put together before US assistance and changes made, hms astute had a lot of problems but this should be expected in the first of class , but only time will tell but at least it doesn't have the problems the Spanish navies new 2.2b euro S-80 series attack sub Isaac Peral as lol

 

[t68]

g'day Astute


I have actually got a lot of respect for what the UK achieved with the Astute program as well as the QEC, as noted all home grown submarine programs run into trouble sooner or later we are certainly not immune. We can still leverage a lot of information from the UK experiences with the program and what you said about operational limitations does have merit, but in our case being so closely aligned with the US and most of our strategic objective would mostly mirror US foreign policy to a degree I can’t see the US imposing restrictions if they do I would expect the UK would have the same limitations as well on how we use the asset.

I am under no illusion that we will get nuclear powered submarines. But I believe we lost a best chance under former Prime Minister John Howard, but it’s most likely an evolved Collins will get up but a clean sheet design with US/UK/Jap/Aus input is not out of the question either.. If I was involved with the program I would build 3 new Collins with Japanese Propulsion that would most likely gives us a bit more breathing space to complete a new design which would be collaboration between AU/US/JAP/CAN yep Canada will need to replace the Upholders as well

 

[gf0012-aust]

Hi
It seems i did indeed miss interpreted a post while replying lol ,,,,,

So the Australian governments plans are for a Australian designed sub built in Australia but with US know how and support ,

I agree with you with out US assistance the astute program could of been in trouble but the problems with hms astute were put right and fixes we're incorporated into hms ambush which is now in service and will also be put into the following 5 boats both hms astute and ambush have fired its main weapons with success , astute will be put into service soon enough ,

let's face it building a nuclear powered attack submarine is one of the most complex and expensive building and design projects any country can undertake and there are always problems , I believe we are past most of them and with only two built and 5 being built and one already in service one in final sea trials says to me we are heading the right way.

I read your post gf and the point were you said you've seen "non public" reports of problems with the design of the astute class interests me as everything I've seen lately as been positive , so I personally believe these are old reports put together before US assistance and changes made, hms astute had a lot of problems but this should be expected in the first of class , but only time will tell but at least it doesn't have the problems the Spanish navies new 2.2b euro S-80 series attack sub Isaac Peral as lol

don't get me wrong - I have no aversion to getting a UK sub design - there are things that the UK do which are "smarter" than the US, and there are things that the US do which make other sub builders sigh in envy and veiled professional avarice - its just that procurement is never just about the single platform......

as others have indicated. the chances of us ever getting major French and Swedish capability (esp wrt weapons systems) has basically been tarnished by our experiences wrt Vietnam. French behaviour towards Israel with the Mirages and missile boats is also another example of why countries look at more than just the platform.