Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Status
Not open for further replies.

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I agree that this would appear to be about the only alternative available.

The Japanese Soryu class and the German Type 216 offering for SEA 1000 were both rejected as not meeting RAN and/or government requirements. As far as I can see, no one else is developing a large, long range submarine that would meet Australia's needs. If, as is currently being discussed as a future possibility, the USN eventually develops a diesel submarine to supplement its nuclear fleet then that may present an option down the track, but at this stage a USN SSK is no more than a possibility!

I wonder though just who it would be that we would need to negotiate with? Kockums has gone through several ownership changes since the IP for Collins was negotiated and is currently owned by SAAB. Would IP ownership be held by SAAB or the Swedish Government?

Tas
Been out of it too long to comment authoritively but I believe Saab as Kockums owner would own the ip. Not a bad thing as defence has a pretty good history with Saab on the skimmer combat systems side of things so I could imagine they would be quite receptive to submarine collaboration.

Still think the French will keep the contract though.
 

hauritz

Well-Known Member
I agree that this would appear to be about the only alternative available.

The Japanese Soryu class and the German Type 216 offering for SEA 1000 were both rejected as not meeting RAN and/or government requirements. As far as I can see, no one else is developing a large, long range submarine that would meet Australia's needs. If, as is currently being discussed as a future possibility, the USN eventually develops a diesel submarine to supplement its nuclear fleet then that may present an option down the track, but at this stage a USN SSK is no more than a possibility!

I wonder though just who it would be that we would need to negotiate with? Kockums has gone through several ownership changes since the IP for Collins was negotiated and is currently owned by SAAB. Would IP ownership be held by SAAB or the Swedish Government?

Tas
They won't walk away, but around about now they might be wondering whether or not they shouldn't have just developed a son of Collins design instead. It is becoming obvious that there really wasn't any off the shelf designs that could replace the Collins. The French design was the closest match but that has its own set of risks.

Just a question to the experts.

If the French deal were to fall through what would be the difficulties in bringing the Collins back into production?
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Not 100% sure about that as it was Labour policy that got us to 12 submarines in the first place,but I believe it was more of a sound bite for PM Rudd.

I just hope if they do get in they just don’t sell off the Family jewels go get it over the line for a supposed coup for labour, we all know it was the fiscal planning of the Liberal government that gave us the confidence to believe the announcements, one only has to look at the supply ship fiasco under labour when they were so urgent that they were going to be built in SA.
10plus Subs actually goes back to Beazleys leadership before no one out side of Queensland knew who Rudd was.

On the tankers, BAE and Forgacs wanted a local build, anywhere but SA, while ASC was talking about south Korean build, local fit out of the first of three, to accelerate the project, together with local construction of the third.
 

John Newman

The Bunker Group
On the tankers, BAE and Forgacs wanted a local build, anywhere but SA, while ASC was talking about south Korean build, local fit out of the first of three, to accelerate the project, together with local construction of the third.
I always have a little chuckle to myself when the question of 'local' build for the AORs comes up, especially the faux indignation of the ALP and the Unions when the LNP decided to order the two ships from Spain.

Had the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd Government actually spent some of the many billions of GFC dollars on enlarging the size of the shiplift and other infrastructure at Techport at the start of the AWD build, then yes the AORs could have been built here in Oz, had they invested in that level of infrastructure, then yes they could have claimed the moral high ground, but of course they didn't, there simply wasn't the infrastructure to build 20,000t ships.

It was only in the dying days of their six years in Government that 'suddenly' the AORs became a priority.

Anyway, all water under the bridge (or enlarged shiplift) now.
 

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I think everyone should take a deep breath and count to ten before spilling over into wotif situations regarding the Naval Group/Austgov negotiations.
The project is too big to fail, both parties have too much to lose by not proceeding.
This is simply some spec reporting of both parties angling for the most advantageous outcome.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I think everyone should take a deep breath and count to ten before spilling over into wotif situations regarding the Naval Group/Austgov negotiations.
The project is too big to fail, both parties have too much to lose by not proceeding.
This is simply some spec reporting of both parties angling for the most advantageous outcome.
Exactly. It was a regular topic of discussion among the Collins project veterans back in the early 2010s that the project kick off had already been delayed for too long. There simply is no time to start again.

Politics aside the project should have kicked off in the mid 2000s, something that both parties failed to do.

When Rudd's White paper put twelve Subs into policy the GFC hit and the cupboard was bare, resulting in even further delays. Followed by Smith's disinterest, Abbott's adoption of the WA Mafia / DFAT buy Japanese plan, then the eventual CEP that saw Naval Group get up, every other option simply ran out of time.
 

Mark_Evans

Member
And of course the nuclear option rears its head again. Naval institute Marcus Hellyer.
Would US nuclear submarines be a cheaper option? – The Australian Naval Institute
Putting aside the "minor" issue of developing and maintaining a nuclear capacity i can't see the US selling us any Los Angeles as they can't build them fast enough for their own navy.
We wouldn't need 12 nuclear subs though, possibly 6 to 9 if we went nuclear instead of 12 conventional, so the comparison isn't really useful in this article
Could Adelaide become the third los angeles line?
We get our long range high capacity submarines and the yanks get extra boats into their fleet.
I appreciate this thread of Australia going Nuclear has been beaten to death over the years but i was wandering if the US would ever consider this as an option.
 
Last edited:

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
The US is not building LA class subs, they are building Virginias. As you correctly point out, US nuclear sub production can barely keep up with USN requirements. If production capability was possible, the US would probably be more willing to sell than the Australian public would be willing to accept this option at present. Properly explained, the Australian public might be convinced but without production capacity the point is moot. Frankly, I think the UK Astute class SSN would be a great alternative for Australia and Canada assuming the US agreed to the transfer of reactor technology. This option is likely a no- go now leaving only the French as an option. Their program seems to be struggling even more than Astute program ever did.
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
The US is not building LA class subs, they are building Virginias. As you correctly point out, US nuclear sub production can barely keep up with USN requirements. If production capability was possible, the US would probably be more willing to sell than the Australian public would be willing to accept this option at present. Properly explained, the Australian public might be convinced but without production capacity the point is moot. Frankly, I think the UK Astute class SSN would be a great alternative for Australia and Canada assuming the US agreed to the transfer of reactor technology. This option is likely a no- go now leaving only the French as an option. Their program seems to be struggling even more than Astute program ever did.
People in Australia talk offhand about Australia building building SSNs but the problems GB & France, 2 Countries that have each built dozens of Nukes have had with there latest Classes prove just how difficult it is unless you have a continous build.
 

hauritz

Well-Known Member
Australia's options are incredibly limited and the French realise this. I don't think Nukes of any description are even remotely in the picture.Technically I think Australia can only lease nuclear submarines anyway so even though we might be a trusted ally of the US we may find that the terms and conditions wouldn't be acceptable to us.
 

hairyman

Active Member
Another option for the RAN would be to buy three or four Astute class from GB, over a 7- 9 year period, thus increasing our fleet while waiting on the first new conventional submarines to come on line.
 

John Newman

The Bunker Group
This debate about what is cheaper or not, or from who or how the RAN could obtain SSNs, is still very much putting the cart before the horse.

Whilst the LNP and the ALP might have a reasonably good bipartisan approach to Defence in general, there is still a massive chasm between both major political parties when it comes to the question of everything 'Nuclear', and I can't see that changing anytime soon.

Until there is a proper Nuclear debate in Oz, starting with agreements on nuclear power, waste storage and expanding the nuclear industry beyond just digging yellow cake out of the ground to be sent offshore, then anything beyond that is pointless.
 

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Another option for the RAN would be to buy three or four Astute class from GB, over a 7- 9 year period, thus increasing our fleet while waiting on the first new conventional submarines to come on line.
What sort of option is that?
The RN has struggled to get the number of hulls it wants, it’s not about to give any of them up.
Even if it did, there’s no point in the RAN taking on a responsibility with which it has no experience to operate or sustain. It takes a generation of training and qualifying to reach operational competence in each type, 7-9 years is a single heartbeat in these operations.
You can’t just swap submarine hull types around like empty milk bottles, each submarine type is an incredibly complex and unique piece of machinery the key word being unique, apart from them both operating underwater and having sonar.

If this wasn’t enough, the fact that Australia does not possess a nuclear industry prevents us ever operating one without some complex arrangement with the USN for men and materiel, it won’t happen.....not yet.
 

hauritz

Well-Known Member
The most likely option being explored at the moment is simply to keep the Collins plugging along until a replacement is built. That could see the Collins serving another 30 years according to the Australian.

Nocookies

For those who can't navigate the paywall here is an abridged version ...

ustralia may be forced to refit its entire fleet of Collins-class submarines and operate them for another 30 years because long delays in beginning construction of the navy’s 12 new subs risks eroding the nation’s strategic military edge in the region.

Australian Strategic Policy Institute senior analyst Marcus Hellyer has called for the Audit Office to investigate the rollout of the $50 billion project and whether delays in crucial contract negotiations between Defence, French submarine manufacturer Naval Group and weapons system integrator Lockheed Martin will result in extended delays in delivering the boats.

His call comes amid mounting frustration within the Australian government at the state-owned Naval Group, the French company selected to build the new submarines, as a crucial document, the strategic partnering agreement, remains unsigned.

Defence Minister Christopher Pyne reportedly has refused to meet the chief executive of Naval Group until the document is signed. This is unlikely until next year. Until the document is signed, detail design contracts cannot be finalised and construction of the submarines cannot begin.

Foreign Minister Marise Payne has vowed that Australia will give priority to protecting its own national interests in its negotiations with French company Naval Group on the future submarines.

Speaking in Washington she said despite reports of stalled negotiations between the two countries, she was confident both nations would eventually reach agreement of the terms of the contract.

“In a complex contract negotiation of this nature - and bear in mind this is an extremely significant contract both for the Naval Group and the Australian government - we want to be sure we are protecting Australia’s interests. That has to be the Australian government’s absolute priority and we will continue to negotiate on that basis,” Ms Payne said.

Australia and the Naval Group are said to be at loggerheads over crucial aspects of the contract. Until those issues are resolved, Naval cannot begin work with Lockheed Martin.

Mr Hellyer said the plan to replace the six Collins subs with 12 new Shortfin Barracuda models now faced long delays, due largely to a lag in initiating the project.

Rear Admiral Greg Sammut, the senior officer in charge of the Future Submarine program, told a Senate estimates hearing in May that the total cost of the project could run to $100bn when the sustainment costs were added to the acquisition price. However, many of the detailed costs of the project won’t be known until the design process is complete.

Australia is due to take delivery of its first Shortfin Barracudas in the early 2030s, with the balance to be delivered sometime in the 2050s.

Defence had originally planned to begin retiring the Collins subs from 2025. But the option exists to extend their operational life for a further decade with a full-cycle docking, which takes two years.

Mr Hellyer said it was certain the navy would be operating a blended fleet for some time, although he added this was not necessarily a bad thing, as it would allow the Collins subs to be used to train new submariners.

“Our analysis suggests that in the best case, if the Future Submarine program is delivered to the schedule they’re talking about — first sub arriving in 2030s — to avoid a capability gap defence is going to have to extend at least three of the six Collins,’’ he said.

Mr Hellyer said that a forthcoming study by ASPI argued it was now all but certain Defence would have to extend the life of three of the Collins subs by 10 years.

“Best case, if you only did three, which is the absolute minimum, we’d be operating Collins until 2042,’’ he said.

“If you did six, which I think we may have to, you’d be operating them until 2048.’’
I would go as far as to say that this is the only option short of scrapping the deal with the French and looking elsewhere for new subs.

Has any nation ever had a good experience working with the French?
 

Joe Black

Active Member
The most likely option being explored at the moment is simply to keep the Collins plugging along until a replacement is built. That could see the Collins serving another 30 years according to the Australian.

I would go as far as to say that this is the only option short of scrapping the deal with the French and looking elsewhere for new subs.

Has any nation ever had a good experience working with the French?
Why not start a conversation with TKMS with the Type 26 and see if the German is good to refine their boat's design to come closer to RAN's endurance and high speed underwater transit requirements. Terminate DCNS (Naval Group)'s contract if the negotiation fail.

In addition, has anyone not consider putting into the sub a small portable nuclear reactor? NASA has recently successfully tested one which reportably passed with flying colours:
NASA successfully tests portable nuclear reactor for crewed missions to Mars

If they can use this for a space craft, surely, one can use this in a sub. I see this as a possible alternative to an AIP system.
 

hauritz

Well-Known Member
Why not start a conversation with TKMS with the Type 26 and see if the German is good to refine their boat's design to come closer to RAN's endurance and high speed underwater transit requirements. Terminate DCNS (Naval Group)'s contract if the negotiation fail.

In addition, has anyone not consider putting into the sub a small portable nuclear reactor? NASA has recently successfully tested one which reportably passed with flying colours:
NASA successfully tests portable nuclear reactor for crewed missions to Mars

If they can use this for a space craft, surely, one can use this in a sub. I see this as a possible alternative to an AIP system.
It only produces 10 KW ... that might be enough for a couple of dozen light bulbs but it wouldn't be able to produce anywhere near enough power for a submarine. You could scale it up but then you would pretty much just have a normal reactor.

There really aren't a lot of options available for the RAN.

Worst case scenario I would honestly just put the Collins back into production. Just build a batch of bog standard Collins with all the fixes and upgrades that have been added over the last 20 years and then for later batches either look for a new design or just keep upgrading the Collins.
 

Joe Black

Active Member
Per
Worst case scenario I would honestly just put the Collins back into production. Just build a batch of bog standard Collins with all the fixes and upgrades that have been added over the last 20 years and then for later batches either look for a new design or just keep upgrading the Collins.
Wouldn't too bad an idea, in fact, one could revisit the son of Collins idea, we could incorporate all the latest technology (bow, towed array and flank array sonars), perhaps a plug in section and perhaps incorporate some of the Saab A26 techs like the vertical launch system modules.
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
I think it was always highly likely that Collins was going to get a significant refit and life extension. That is irrelevant of its replacement.

If the French can't come to the table (I believe they will this is just the hardball negotiation process) then life will continue.

To win the competitive process and then fail to contract would be hugely embarrassing for the French. Australia is going to build 12 new submarines, if the French become unhelpful, then Australia can and will move on. Given the first of the class isn't even in the water yet, I would hardly think all the cards are in their court.

Nuclear subs are a dead end, particularly with dismounted systems and improving battery technology, particularly for Australia. Australia will be flat out with a new submarine, no need to burden the project with nuclear complexities.

People are reading too much into this. Pyne isn't meeting with them until they have signed. I assume this is from Naval to try to pressure the situation. Did anyone thing the contract negotiations would be simple and quick?

I find it funny that people assume nuclear platform, licencing would be faster/better/cheaper option.
 

MickB

Well-Known Member
Any news if one of the LHDs are to head north on HADR mission.
A ship like this complete with stores, equipment (desalination & sanitation etc) and a fully equipped engineer regiment would be a great asset right now.
I know the C17s are quicker but the ship is more long term. The combination of both is a depth Australia has not had before.
This is where Australia displays that it has concerns for the region.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top