Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[thatsamguy]

Ah there's the confirmation of at least 8 - Defence Fact Sheet (one of several at Nuclear-Powered Submarine Task Force | About | Department of Defence)

The first major initiative under AUKUS is a trilateral program to support Australia in acquiring at least eight nuclear-
powered submarines for operation by the Royal Australian Navy.

Ref: https://www1.defence.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-09/AUKUS-Factsheet.pdf

Also no civil nuclear industry to be built:

The Australian
Government will not:

• have nuclear weapons on the submarines
• seek to build a civil nuclear power industry
• be required to refuel the submarines during their lifetime
• dispose of nuclear waste in an unsafe manner.

Ref: https://www1.defence.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-09/NuclearPoweredAustraliaFactsheet.pdf

A thought here though - is the "Undersea Surveillance Support Ships" listed on the WA shipbuilding sheet a new announcement or a renaming of an existing project?

Ref: https://www1.defence.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-09/ShipbuildingWAFactsheet.pdf

 

[OldTex]

Just heard we may be leasing a Los Angeles class boat to get some experience with nuke capability. No source , sorry.

As the USN is supposed to not have enough SSN for their own requirements (as suggested by several posters on this site) then it would be unlikely that a Los Angeles class, or even a Virginia class, would be available for lease. If this path was to pursued as a means of gaining some limited experience with operating an SSN then surely it would make some sense to lease a Trafalgar class SSN (such as HMS Trencant, laid up awaiting decommissioning, or HMSs Talent or Triumph closer to their lay-up dates).

 

[Stampede]

This is a good watch from the Chief of Navy..I mean a MUST WATCH REALLY GOOD WATCH!
The call on nuke boats is a big one but its about bloody time..
Most members on this forum would agree that the long transit times that Australia faces to reach its area of operations are well suited to a nuke sub.

AUKUS Announcement - YouTube

Thanks for the link

10 x Arafura Class and up to 9 configured for MCM / Survey.

A slip up or a slight change in the numbers????????



Regards S

 

[Redlands18]

As the USN is supposed to not have enough SSN for their own requirements (as suggested by several posters on this site) then it would be unlikely that a Los Angeles class would be available for lease. If this path was to pursued as a means of gaining some limited experience with operating an SSN then surely it would make some sense to lease a Trafalgar class SSN (such as HMS Trencant, laid up awaiting decommissioning, or HMSs Talent or Triumph closer to their lay-up dates).

But what is the status of the Reactors in the decommissioned Trafalgars? I suspect that the Subs decommissioning was timed to coincide with the Nuclear fuel just about exhausted.

 

[aricho87]

Understandably not much focus today on the Tomahawk acquisition but 2 points:
1. Taking VLS cells away for tomahawks from the Hobarts will severely effect their ability to perform area air defence as intended. Hence, probably better to put more cells on the Hunter Class and a VPM on any future SSN.
2. Is the Tomahawk a redundant technology? It’s now getting to 40 years old.

 

[aussienscale]

Understandably not much focus today on the Tomahawk acquisition but 2 points:
1. Taking VLS cells away for tomahawks from the Hobarts will severely effect their ability to perform area air defence as intended. Hence, probably better to put more cells on the Hunter Class and a VPM on any future SSN.
2. Is the Tomahawk a redundant technology? It’s now getting to 40 years old.

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

 

[John Fedup]

WRT reactor choice, I wonder how the UK public will react to the prospect of having to decommission 6-8 Australian reactors in the UK down the road? The decommissioning of RN reactors is hardly stellar.

 

[Geddy]

As the USN is supposed to not have enough SSN for their own requirements (as suggested by several posters on this site) then it would be unlikely that a Los Angeles class would be available for lease. If this path was to pursued as a means of gaining some limited experience with operating an SSN then surely it would make some sense to lease a Trafalgar class SSN (such as HMS Trencant, laid up awaiting decommissioning, or HMSs Talent or Triumph closer to their lay-up dates).

There is a decommissioning program for the Los Angeles class. If true, a boat may well be available from the soon to be decommissioned list

 

[old faithful]

Is there room on the Hobart's for another mk 41 or is there another way that tomahawk can be launched?

 

[Redlands18]

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

The PM during the Press Conference this morning actually stated that the Tomahawks are for the Hobart class and as far as I know the MK 41 VLS on the Hobarts are currently the only system in the ADF capable of launching Missiles in this class.

 

[OldTex]

But what is the status of the Reactors in the decommissioned Trafalgars? I suspect that the Subs decommissioning was timed to coincide with the Nuclear fuel just about exhausted.

That would be a significant consideration before such a lease should be considered. But with that is the fact such a lease would be for effectively a 'training' boat, rather than an operationally deployable one. The RAN (and the ADF) will have to learn to metaphorically crawl first wrt nuclear boats.

 

[aussienscale]

Is there room on the Hobart's for another mk 41 or is there another way that tomahawk can be launched?

They have been box launched on numerous platforms, admittedly some time ago, but not an issue at all, ground launch platforms and also reported that the US conducted a ground based MK41 VLS launch, caused a bit of a stir from memory, can also be VLS sub launched of course, but also from torpedo tubes as well.

Who know what the RAN plans are at this stage, all speculation, I don't believe the Hobarts have space and weight for additional VLS but happy to be corrected ?

Cheers

 

[Geddy]

I hope the Hobart’s have space and weight for Tomahawks. It would be beyond ridiculous if it was capability restrained after being commissioned for a year or two.
How would the Hunter Class go weight and space wise if they deployed Tomahawks? They’re limited as well I think.

 

[Redlands18]

That would be a significant consideration before such a lease should be considered. But with that is the fact such a lease would be for effectively a 'training' boat, rather than an operationally deployable one. The RAN (and the ADF) will have to learn to metaphorically crawl first wrt nuclear boats.

The other issue would be, can the RN provide the Trg Cadre needed, its own requirements for personnel qualified on the Trafalgars are slowly winding down. We would actually probably be better off taking over one as it nears decommissioning with some RN Crew staying with the Sub as a Trg Cadre but we are still a few years away from being ready to do that.

 

[Redlands18]

I hope the Hobart’s have space and weight for Tomahawks. It would be beyond ridiculous if it was capability restrained after being commissioned for a year or two.
How would the Hunter Class go weight and space wise if they deployed Tomahawks? They’re limited as well I think.

They would be fitted into the MK 41 VLS of which the Hobart has 48, the problem as @aricho87 mentioned any Tomahawks carried by a Hobart will eat into the number of SAMs a Hobart can carry.

 

[Boagrius]

Haven't commented yet as it took me all day to pick my jaw up off the floor. The more talk we hear about TLAM on our MFU's the more I have to wonder whether the weight growth in the Hunters might be connected to additional VLS cells beyond the 32 depicted on early models. Total speculation on my part, but without this I can't see us getting more than a token number of Tomahawks on our surface combatants given current and projected VLS cell counts. You might be able to spread a small number across multiple Hobarts/Hunters, and aggregate them into a decent salvo, but by then you're looking at TLAM's successor anyway.

That said, this all becomes a bit academic if we end up with a Virginia Blk V+ with 40 odd VLS cells, & potential space for hypersonics (IRCPS anyone?). Plenty of water to pass under the bridge before we know where this all ends up, but jeez, this has the potential to turn the whole question of long range strike into a completely different conversation. What a game changer.

 

[StobieWan]

I honestly don't know what will happen going forward but building nukes in Australia still seems to be a pipe dream. I actually found myself googling "How to build a Nuclear Submarine"and come to the conclusion that it maybe beyond Australia's capability. However I don't see any spare capacity in either the UK or US. Unless the USN is willing to give up a few of their spots in the Virginia production line or the UK is willing to push back the Dreadnaught class I don't see an overseas build happening.

As the first non-nuclear power to get nuclear submarines we are in completely uncharted territory.

If you get the sort of help the UK got from the US, you'll be fine.

We ended up building one half of our polaris boat and welding to a US built section, which worked fine.

 

[Arclighy]

The more talk we hear about TLAM on our MFU's the more I have to wonder whether the weight growth in the Hunters might be connected to additional VLS cells beyond the 32 depicted on early models."

Things have gone very quiet on what's happening with the Hunter class. There has been talk of the increased weight but not much else. Of course, Defence Minister Dutton has pretty much put a silence on many Defence related matters, so it is difficult to know what is really happening. I'd like to think the weight growth mentioned is indicative of extra VLS but we will have to wait and see. After todays announcement, nothing seems impossibe.

 

[Geddy]

32 VLS cells for the Hunter Class now seems wholly inadequate given recent developments. I wonder if we’ll see 64? Would explain the weight issues.

 

[ngatimozart]

Things have gone very quiet on what's happening with the Hunter class. There has been talk of the increased weight but not much else. Of course, Defence Minister Dutton has pretty much put a silence on many Defence related matters, so it is difficult to know what is really happening. I'd like to think the weight growth mentioned is indicative of extra VLS but we will have to wait and see. After todays announcement, nothing seems impossibe.

And that's it in a nutshell. However I believe that the RAN is structured incorrectly to face the Chinese and it requires a National Security Strategy and an ADF strategy to ensure that it's fit for purpose and able to totally self sufficient at sea and not reliant upon the USN for anything. The RAN must work on the principle that the Americans will be absent from the Western Pacific for at least a six month period and that China has sea and air control within both the First and Second Island Chains. A repeat of the initial Imperial Japanese successes at removing American and Allied sea and air power from the Eastern and Western Pacific as far west as Midway and down to the Solomon Islands by the Chinese is quite feasible.