Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[StingrayOZ]

And the US Virginia class as an option has been dragged back into the conversation by Tom Lewis at Naval Institute. Even suggesting asking the US if we can build them ourselves.
Sorry been inactive for a while but going to Virginia class is one heck of a size increase despite how much I like the sub.
Please tell me this is dream fleet thinking again on Tom Lewis's part.

Virginia-class nuclear subs a better option | The Australian Naval Institute

navalinstitute.com.au

Its dreaming

• US has no "spare" capacity to build any other nations Virginia submarines. They have a shortage themselves. They currently want the USN to have more Virginia subs, not less. Good luck convincing the USN not to get the subs its needs and is funded to get. Joe Biden Wants To Spend Big On U.S. Navy Submarines

White House projected attack boats to become by far the Navy’s biggest shipbuilding budget item, gobbling up no less than half of all ship-construction funds through the 2030s and 2040s despite attack subs representing just 15 percent of all U.S. warships.

• Virginia has a significantly larger crew size. 135. Collins originally operated with 42 + 12 trainees, and now operates with 58. So really it more like tripling the crew requirement. So we go from 6 subs to being able to crew 2, and that is excluding any issue where you are going to get nuclear techs from. You need a pipeline for those. How many masters level physics students studying do you think Australia has? Look at your fingers, that is how many. How many are Australian citizens? How many are eligible? How many are interested in serving in Subs?
• Virginia is significantly more expensive. You can't compare a program to build 66 submarines in one country to building 3 in another.
• Virginia is significantly larger and more complex. Nearly 8000t verse ~4500t.
• Sub building is a hard enough project as is. You want to add a nuclear propulsion component to that? More money, more time, more of everything.
• We have never done a nuclear power anything in this country. We have one research reactor, in Sydney. No other city in Australia has any other significant nuclear facility at all. You won't just be fighting the hippies, you will be fighting the coal lobby, the local councils, the gas industry etc.
• The performance gap between SSN's and conventional is shrinking.
• Whole life cost of SSN's is terrifying. You build the sub once to make it, you then have very similar costs to disassemble it once its life is up. UK has not completely scrapped any nuclear submarines in its entire history.

Why is the Japanese option not considered for Plan B? They were (reportedly) highly rated during the selection.

Same reason the 214 can never be considered. Because transiting at 5 kts is not going to make them relevant for Australia, unless they are based out of Japan. Also, Japan has no spare capacity to build submarines, they are currently trying to increase the number they operate. For obvious reasons. They are fantastic for Japan. They sail out and are effectively in theatre as soon as they untie their moorings.

 

[Mark_Evans]

Its dreaming

• US has no "spare" capacity to build any other nations Virginia submarines. They have a shortage themselves. They currently want the USN to have more Virginia subs, not less. Good luck convincing the USN not to get the subs its needs and is funded to get. Joe Biden Wants To Spend Big On U.S. Navy Submarines

White House projected attack boats to become by far the Navy’s biggest shipbuilding budget item, gobbling up no less than half of all ship-construction funds through the 2030s and 2040s despite attack subs representing just 15 percent of all U.S. warships.

• Virginia has a significantly larger crew size. 135. Collins originally operated with 42 + 12 trainees, and now operates with 58. So really it more like tripling the crew requirement. So we go from 6 subs to being able to crew 3, and that is excluding any issue where you are going to get nuclear techs from.
• Virginia is significantly more expensive. You can't compare a program to build 66 submarines in one country to building 3 in another.
• Virginia is significantly larger and more complex. Nearly 8000t verse ~4500t.
• Sub building is a hard enough project as is. You want to add a nuclear propulsion component to that? More money, more time, more of everything.
• We have never done a nuclear power anything in this country. We have one research reactor, in Sydney. No other city in Australia has any other significant nuclear facility at all. You won't just be fighting the hippies, you will be fighting the coal lobby, the local councils, the gas industry etc.
• The performance gap between SSN's and conventional is shrinking.

Same reason the 214 can never be concidered. Because transiting at 5 kts is not going to make them relevant for Australia, unless they are based out of Japan. Also, Japan has no spare capacity to build submarines, they are currently trying to increase the number they operate. For obvious reasons. They are fantastic for Japan. They sail out and are effectively in theatre as soon as they untie their moorings.

Could we build hulls for the US and let them fit them out, keeping 1 hull every 2 or 3 years for ourselves?

 

[ADMk2]

If you read back through the thread to when this was discussed 2 or 3 years ago you will find the answer to your question there. It's better that you do some basic research than everyone relitigating the whole saga again.

This applies to German, Dutch, and Swedish submarines. Why? Because none meet the requirements of the Royal Australian Navy and the Commonwealth of Australia who happen to be the ones paying the bills. There is a significant amount that happens behind closed doors that is not in the public domain and this submarine acquisition is highly politicised by certain pollies, groups and media with ulterior motives. Hence what does make it to the public domain outside of official channels should be regarded with caution because of people grinding axes.

Unfortunately however, service requirements are one thing, Government requirements are often another. If Government directed Navy to go and build a fleet of U-214’s that is what would be happening, hence the then Chief of Navy, smiling through his teeth when it was announced by Government they were selecting the Navantia solution, rather than the ”Baby Burkes” for the future Hobart Class...

Personally I think the Attack Class will continue, but to suggest it is the only option for Australia is plain false. It’s the preferred option and RAN doesn‘t want anything else (that Government will allow) but that is a different concept to suggesting there is no other solution. A compromised one in certain respects it might be perhaps, but there ARE other solutions...

 

[ADMk2]

The timing issue, and other things, were discussed around post 29537. No alternate option, except possibly an Attack build in France, would deliver submarines significantly before the current build plan. If you wanted them faster, then increase the drumbeat from 2 years to 18 months which would probably be achievable.

The Collins could be extended “as is” by a Full Cycle Docking; if you want to keep them at the cutting edge you have to do an upgrade. But that has been what has been done during FCDs for years to keep them current. That would give you another ten years of each boat put through the process.

Secretary of Defence confirmed at Senate Estimates last Thursday that the production rate of the Attack Class could be increased if necessary.

The current build-rate is a political decision to suit the Naval Ship-Building Plan, not an absolute best case build-rate. That is what makes me laugh when various analysts, Senator Jim Molan or whoever talk about “gearing up” for a near-peer war. There is a lot we could do, assuming the necessary resources started flowing, a lot quicker than the current political mandate requires…

For example, Attack Class commences build in 2026 on current plans, entering the water in 2032.

Hunter Class commences build in 2022 and hits the water in 2029…

So for a highly advanced, next-generation. unique submarine the build takes 6 years, but a reasonably off the shelf frigate, taken from an existing design takes 7? Admitting I have no experience whatsoever in ship-building, but that seems a tad arse about, except of course, for the political mandate…

 

[John Fedup]

Could we build hulls for the US and let them fit them out, keeping 1 hull every 2 or 3 years for ourselves?

No, they and the UK are both hard pressed to build reactors for themselves let alone anyone else. UK reactor technology contains US tech and would require US permission for export. Neither have shown any export interest. That leaves the French.

 

[oldsig127]

So for a highly advanced, next-generation. unique submarine the build takes 6 years, but a reasonably off the shelf frigate, taken from an existing design takes 7? Admitting I have no experience whatsoever in ship-building, but that seems a tad arse about, except of course, for the political mandate…

Not apples vs apples though. There's a published intent that Hunter will prove the design before the line cranks up to anything like the intended build rate, to derisk the entire build process. As far as I can recall no such pause has been mentioned re Attack, though this is likely but hardly something any sane politician or senior Defence official would say out loud in current circumstances

oldsig

 

[t68]

I wouldn't go so far as to say that. It's somewhat misleading to claim that because RAN sub CONOPS aren't necessarily in the public domain and SSKs are able to undertake some sneaky thinks that SSNs can't because they are generally quieter when running electrically and hence more sneaky.

I agree once the boats are in its area of operations each respective boat has there own advantage and disadvantages in how they operate, that’s th nature of the beast. But also in saying that there is no denying the fact that transit speed and its ability to stay on station for for extend period of time over of a conventional boat is the more logical choice for the RAN. How long a boat stays out is based on crew endurance and consumables. Fuel/food a nuc boat takes fuel out of the equation

Tha said if the RAN ever got a larg nuc boat the way the RAN uses its boats would most likely be turned on its head

 

[Git_Kraken]

Hunter Class commences build in 2022 and hits the water in 2029…

So for a highly advanced, next-generation. unique submarine the build takes 6 years, but a reasonably off the shelf frigate, taken from an existing design takes 7? Admitting I have no experience whatsoever in ship-building, but that seems a tad arse about, except of course, for the political mandate…

Sounds about right. The CSC version starts build in 2023 and is expected around 2030ish.

No, they and the UK are both hard pressed to build reactors for themselves let alone anyone else. UK reactor technology contains US tech and would require US permission for export. Neither have shown any export interest. That leaves the French.

I agree. I would be shocked beyond belief if the US shared their reactor tech with anyone. US submarine technology is just as closely held as their aircraft stealth technology. As much as Australia is an amazing ally it would be tough to get them to agree to anything like building a boat for foreign use.

 

[Todjaeger]

Thanks for the reply
I concur with the concerns re time and the complexity to the challenge.

Trying to find the balance between fantasy fleets and the realistic challenge we may ( may not ) face with submarine availability later this decade is a mix of speculation and guarded prudence.
Collins and Attack may not be the answer.
Two coastal subs built over seas may prove a reluctant but necessary solution.
Entering service in 2028 they will give the RAN greater submarine numbers for active service in a crucial window of transition from one Class to the other.
Singapore's Type 218 has a relatively small crew which would be advantageous short term.
We are after all intending to enlarge our fleet numbers, so reluctantly we may just have to endeavor to do it earlier, not later.
In a different world, the JSF would have been early to production and we would of not needed the Super Hornets.
( Never actually thought that one would be on time but still not disappointed with the SH buy. Something to think about for our submarine capability).

Sometimes we need to be open to tack a different way.

Again I don't know the reality of SEA 1000.
In fact in the public domain most don't.

Preferably all success to the Attack Class with no need any of these other options or conversations.
I just don't know

Certainly the government may need to keep the public on side with this program.
In a election year its a subject that you don't want to become political.


Regards S

I personally consider a 2028 delivery date of copies of the Invincible-class SSK to the RAN following a hypothetical order to be rather optimistic, as there are several stages which would need to be passed through without either issue or delay. The first being that contracts would need to be signed and orders placed basically immediately. The second is that there would need to be sufficient open build capacity at the proper times so that construction of not only the subs themselves, but also any/all needed systems. If a long-lead system ends up going out of production prior to needed units being built for a hypothetical RAN order, or if long-lead units are in production to fulfill orders by other customers, then orders bound for RAN service would need to be added to the queue and any delays this could cause would just push out the final delivery date to the RAN that much further.

To illustrate the potential for these hurdles, look at the RAAF order for F/A-18F Super Hornets. The order was placed in 2007, with FOC achieved in December 2012. Now there are some important items or situations which occurred enabling the RAAF to order, receive and get into service new aircraft so quickly. In no particular order these were;

• Minimal changes needed for Australian service, IIRC it was just some gauges that needed changing to metric units
• Boeing had a 'hot' production line going to fill USN orders, which also relates to the next item
• The USN relationship with the ADF is such that the USN was willing to allow the RAAF order to 'jump ahead' in the production queue
• The F/A-18F, while a different aircraft from the Classic Hornets, has a number of similarities which shortened the time needed to transition personnel into it
• The USN & USMC already had the SHornets in service, which enabled RAAF personnel to be deployed to US facilities for initial training either before or while SHornets bound for the RAAF were being constructed.

I just do not foresee a similar set of circumstances being able to occur, should the RAN decide to initiate a "Plan XX" and place some sort of interim or auxiliary submarine order. Any interim or alternate subs ordered would still most likely take years to get delivered, and then longer still to get into useful service.

 

[alexsa]

I agree once the boats are in its area of operations each respective boat has there own advantage and disadvantages in how they operate, that’s th nature of the beast. But also in saying that there is no denying the fact that transit speed and its ability to stay on station for for extend period of time over of a conventional boat is the more logical choice for the RAN. How long a boat stays out is based on crew endurance and consumables. Fuel/food a nuc boat takes fuel out of the equation

Tha said if the RAN ever got a larg nuc boat the way the RAN uses its boats would most likely be turned on its head

Yes and no. The reason Australia is going for the Attack class is that it is as close to an SSN capability as you can get in a conventional boat. if the SSN options was ever exercised (which still appears to be a pipe dream) it would more of an evolution of how they are operated rather than turning everything on its head.

On the subject of duration, the Attack class is reported to have a duration of 80 days (based on consumables such as food) while the Barracuda is listed as 70 to 80 days. Admittedly these are figures in the public domain and under certain operational situations they may be stretched a bit. However, it does demonstrate that the main advantage of the SSN is sustained speed and lower indiscretion ratio.

As I have said before I support the idea of SSN's but I am acutely aware that the political climate in Australia will simply not wear it and it is not practical at this time even if there was an upsurge in support. Australia could not induct such a capability without considerable lead time (well beyond the programmed start of the Attack build) to build support structure. Low enrichment reactors (as fitted to the Barracuda) are closer to Australia's current capacity but putting the support arrangements in place would take a lot of time. This includes storage facilities for wastes noting the population cannot agree on a location of medical nuclear waste .... let alone reprocessed spent fuel rods from submarines (noting we cannot reprocess fuel rods in Australia for OPAL let alone a number of SSN's .... this is all done overseas).

It would be nice is some of the commentators such as Tom Lewis actually did some study on these issues instead of improbable options such as getting Virginia SSN's out of the US.

Suggest the SSN option be put to bed in order to maintain sanity ..... if under some very exceptional circumstances, things change dramatically, then we can consider it.

 

[hauritz]

I don't see swapping out the Attack for another class of submarine as being an acceptable Plan B. As mentioned by others it will not get new submarines in the water any quicker.

The initial Plan B must obviously involve extending the lives of the Collins class, perhaps even well into the 2040s.

My understanding of the Attack class program at the moment is that much of the design work has already been completed and that Australia owns that design.

Could we proceed with this program without the French or at the very least get rid of them for the build and integration phase?

No doubt the process will be slowed down considerably but would it be conceivable to bring in some American expertise to bring these boats into production?

If nothing else the mere threat that we could be sharing these designs with America could bring the French back into line.

 

[pussertas]

IIRC The Oz Government singed an agreement to pay Naval Group a large penalty if any of the12 Attack Class were cancelled

 

[hauritz]

IIRC The Oz Government singed an agreement to pay Naval Group a large penalty if any of the12 Attack Class were cancelled

Contracts are complex things based on deliverables, performance, changing circumstances and so on. The French also have contractual obligations which they would need to meet.

It wouldn't be the first time a defence contract ended up in litigation.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Could we build hulls for the US and let them fit them out, keeping 1 hull every 2 or 3 years for ourselves?

No. Again their yards are at capacity, and they are trying to grow capacity so they can use that to get a bigger sub fleet. What ever Australian wants in terms of subs is basically going to be built here.

But the US has plenty of design capacity and experience. It was US capabilities that saved the Spanish S80, the Australian Collins, and the UK Astute programs, which are three famously public acknowledgements of US assistance.

We are at the design stage of the Attack class. We aren't having problems of welding the things together. Australia has some of the best welders and metal workers in the world. What Australia lacks is submarine design experience and capacity. We now hope to build that, forever. We don't need the construct yard yet, we need the design capability.

There are four documents from the RAND corp that are highly useful to read if people are interested in Submarine construction. from 2011 they are

https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2011/RAND_MG1128.1.pdf

https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2011/RAND_MG1128.2.pdf

https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2011/RAND_MG1128.3.pdf

https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2011/RAND_MG1128.4.pdf

Vol I - Lessons from Submarine programs of United states, UK and Australia
Vol II - lessons from Ohio, Seawolf and Virginia
Vol III - Lessons from UK Astute
Vol IV - Lessons from Collins

All are super interesting reads if you have even a passing interest in engineering/construction or military programs.

Collins of course is particularly relevant for Australia. Upsizing a design was a complete nightmare. But all these programs had their own challenges.

 

[ASSAIL]

No. Again their yards are at capacity, and they are trying to grow capacity so they can use that to get a bigger sub fleet. What ever Australian wants in terms of subs is basically going to be built here.

But the US has plenty of design capacity and experience. It was US capabilities that saved the Spanish S80, the Australian Collins, and the UK Astute programs, which are three famously public acknowledgements of US assistance.

We are at the design stage of the Attack class. We aren't having problems of welding the things together. Australia has some of the best welders and metal workers in the world. What Australia lacks is submarine design experience and capacity. We now hope to build that, forever. We don't need the construct yard yet, we need the design capability.

There are four documents from the RAND corp that are highly useful to read if people are interested in Submarine construction. from 2011 they are

https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2011/RAND_MG1128.1.pdf

https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2011/RAND_MG1128.2.pdf

https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2011/RAND_MG1128.3.pdf

https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2011/RAND_MG1128.4.pdf

Vol I - Lessons from Submarine programs of United states, UK and Australia
Vol II - lessons from Ohio, Seawolf and Virginia
Vol III - Lessons from UK Astute
Vol IV - Lessons from Collins

All are super interesting reads if you have even a passing interest in engineering/construction or military programs.

Collins of course is particularly relevant for Australia. Upsizing a design was a complete nightmare. But all these programs had their own challenges.

Interesting reading although most has been discussed at length in DT over the years.
My fervent wish is that these lessons are well learned and the same mistakes are not repeated with the Attacks.

 

[vonnoobie]

Think I managed to read all I missed, if I missed anything already covered over last week apologies.

At the end of the day we have one option and that is a life extension on the Collins class, with time frame as it is their was a sound argument and need for it before we started running into headaches with naval group now it is a must.

Beyond that we only have two options, evolved Collins class or continue with the attack class. My personal preference would be to contract a US yard to put together a design proposal for an evolved Collins class while finishing the design work on the attack class.

Will cost a bit more but it's an insurance if things fall apart with naval group. Collins we have experience and knowledge around so it will be the boat we can bring into service that will suite our needs quicker then anything else around.

Anything else in our timeframe is pure fantasy. Nukes are a dead end as no one has the production capacity to supply us let alone all the other technical and political requirements.

Attack class or evolved Collins, that's it.

Out of my own curiosity, what in the short term would need to be evolved on a Collins class (first block of boats hypothetically)?

 

[Git_Kraken]

Anything else in our timeframe is pure fantasy. Nukes are a dead end as no one has the production capacity to supply us let alone all the other technical and political requirements.

Does Australia even have a domestic nuclear industry? Any nuclear power plants? Any medical isotope rectors? Research reactors? And if not then it's doubtful that Australia has even a nuclear engineering degree program. If it's the case that there is no pre-existing nuclear infrastructure of any type then nuke boats are right off the table. It would require the construction of a massive infrastructure beyond just the boats.

 

[Redlands18]

Does Australia even have a domestic nuclear industry? Any nuclear power plants? Any medical isotope rectors? Research reactors? And if not then it's doubtful that Australia has even a nuclear engineering degree program. If it's the case that there is no pre-existing nuclear infrastructure of any type then nuke boats are right off the table. It would require the construction of a massive infrastructure beyond just the boats.

OPAL | Opal multi-purpose reactor | ANSTO

The Open-pool Australian lightwater reactor (OPAL) functions as a neutron factory, producing radioisotopes for cancer detection and treatment, and neutron beams for fundamental materials research.

www.ansto.gov.au

The ANSTO facility at Lucas Heights on the outskirts of Sydney is the home of Australia’s only Reactor.

 

[alexsa]

Does Australia even have a domestic nuclear industry? Any nuclear power plants? Any medical isotope rectors? Research reactors? And if not then it's doubtful that Australia has even a nuclear engineering degree program. If it's the case that there is no pre-existing nuclear infrastructure of any type then nuke boats are right off the table. It would require the construction of a massive infrastructure beyond just the boats.

@Git_Kraken

Please do some research. Even a basic Google Search will have picked up OPAL. You might want to look at SILEX and ANSTO as well. A really quick check would find that ANU have a Masters in Nuclear Science run by their nuclear physics department. Try looking at AINSE as well

AINSE – Australian Institute of Nuclear Science and Engineering
Silex - /
ANSTO | Science. Ingenuity. Sustainability

Post such as this are unacceptable noting the negative connotations you expressed based on no research. The post is lazy and adds nothing to the discussion except aggravation. I would at least expect you would make an attempt to determine what capability exists noting this has been alluded, and referred specifically to, in previous posts on this issue.

Any further ill informed commentary is likely to result in action. You have been warned.

Alexsa

 

[John Fedup]

OT…the only way any nuclear applications beyond research and medical radionuclide production happens in Australia is if climate change requires a massive reduction in greenhouse gas emissions that renewables can’t fully meet.