I don’t think anyone has posted this as yet. Interesting view. The case for building an evolved Collins Class submarine
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
They will be getting a UAV capability which can be operated out of ISO Containers Under Sea 129 phase 5 and this will be a major improvement over the Fremantle's and Cape's, it will greatly improve the Search capability
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
A UAS could certainly increase the sensor footprint, SA and search area for a vessel it is embarked on. However, I am unaware of any UAS which could be relied upon to carry out a variety of SAR taskings apart from the Search portions. Just as an example of what I mean, consider some of the missions that USCG MH-65 Dolphin helicopters engage in. Granted, these particular helicopters are typically stationed at, and deploy from land-based USCG Air Stations, they do also sometimes deploy from USCG Cutters.
I wasn’t talking about lilly-padding, although that is obviously another option in many situations. Army / Navy MRH-90 and Chinook helicopters temporarily deploy with HMAS Choules and LHD’s and are stored openly on the flight decks.
It’s not ideal or a long term solution, but non-hangar equipped RAN vessels will operate helicopters when required.
There were a couple of Hams as well, used as diving tenders and torpedo recovery vessels. I got my self lectured over the tons at one point, told off by and ex PO when I commented on the being our last wooden ships, I was told very firmly that I was talking out my backside as they were steel!Consider yourself slapped!
(“Ducky” = Duchess, nickname she was known by. As opposed to the fluffy duck, always in full, Swan)
You could make an argument about the Tons I suppose but they are hardly MSC
It certainly does but when we went to market for the OPV it was not a requirement. Don't discount the notion that this was done to prevent an apparent overlap of roles between the OPVs and MFUs
Once again, give politicians a single reason to believe the OPV is just a cheaper, smaller MFU, and they'll take the opportunity of backsliding on the expense of the larger vessels.
Especially when it's obvious that you could also upgun them with a triple supercannon and half a dozen IRBM...Greg Sheridan says so!
oldsig
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
And that is why I deliberately said "will greatly improve the search capability" nothing about rescuing. Would a 3500t Cutter with a specialised SAR Helicopter make a far better platform for Search and Rescue, yes. But in the areas the Arafura's will be operating the need is just not there in enough quantity to justify that degree of expense, especially compared to the USCG.
I think something similar was posted from ASPI earlier. New Collins would be a huge new undertaking, but we are already committed to LOTE collins, so its about expanding that. The most pessimistic assessment seems to indicate 1 SSN by 2040. If that is the case, it may be something the Gov needs to look at. But then you have questions about build volume to make it viable, really its at least 3. This would perhaps mean that 3 of Collins do not go LOTE which would likely increase the availability a little bit before they go away. We have to do the LOTE no matter what, we have to life extend and evolve Collins to keep it relevant.
This might be advantageous as then you can slip into next gen SSN subs from the get go and not run a mixed SSN fleet and a mixed SSK/SSN fleet. It gets sub building up and running before going nuclear.
The configuration and size of Collins is still good in concept for a SSK. But its still a ssk.
The Sub program is in a huge state of flux.
P8 aint replacing ships, but do provide a large fast sensor and weapons platform. IMO its a better platform to put heavy missile on than a OPV. I believe there is a possibility of 1 more P8 being ordered. Given the current make up of the RAN we will be heavily reliant on this platform to cover the RAN, where ever they go. But then how survivable is a P8 unescorted?
Was thinking you'd need to double, triple etc the number of educaters, and then when the new grads/sailers come out, you'll need the current experienced sailors to pass on their knowledge and experience as well. Educating requires know what to tell people, when to, and being patient and allowing for mistakes and not crushing people's souls when correcting them, passing on information. eg- you useful P* of s**, you couldn't walk across the road to save your own mother!
Going Boeing
Well-Known Member
I find the concept of building two Joint Support Ships will provide a good balance to the RAN fleet. As they will have some amphibious capability and replenishment capability, they will be effective as a Choules replacement & additional replenishment capability in lieu of building a third AOR. The onboard hospital capability is also very desirable, not only during conflicts but also during disaster relief operation. I would imagine that the RAN would base one on each coast.
It aligns with what Volkodav said in a post on the other thread in May 2017:
”We are some time off the decision on the third AOR/ second LPD, let alone a replacement for Choules but I agree it would make sense to investigate building / acquiring two similar if not identical ships at the time. If a local build is viable they could lead to eventual replacements for the LHDs and AORs being locally built too. I know the LCH replacement has dropped off the radar but if a larger, more flexible design, with a well dock, was selected for that need it could permit the selection of an innovative design to supplement the AORs and replace Choules, for example an LPD with replenishment facilities, or a logistics ship with amphibious support capabilities.(T-AKE, ESD, ESB).”
The Navantia Australia proposal appears to be very capable.
It aligns with what Volkodav said in a post on the other thread in May 2017:
”We are some time off the decision on the third AOR/ second LPD, let alone a replacement for Choules but I agree it would make sense to investigate building / acquiring two similar if not identical ships at the time. If a local build is viable they could lead to eventual replacements for the LHDs and AORs being locally built too. I know the LCH replacement has dropped off the radar but if a larger, more flexible design, with a well dock, was selected for that need it could permit the selection of an innovative design to supplement the AORs and replace Choules, for example an LPD with replenishment facilities, or a logistics ship with amphibious support capabilities.(T-AKE, ESD, ESB).”
The Navantia Australia proposal appears to be very capable.
Last edited:
The first LOTE sub will last until 2038. Assuming that there are no more life extensions the rest of the Collins Class will be gone by the late 40s. I don't necessarily see that as a problem if we can obtain second hand nukes to cover the gap between the Collins and introduction of whatever replaces them. I have a feeling that their might also be a few more second hand nukes available by the late 30s.
HMS Astute could be available by then. It is planned for a 25 service life which means it could be available from 2035 which could still give us a decade or so of useful life. Part of me still thinks we will probably end up with a modified version of the Astute so that boat might be a good lead in.
Assuming the US ramps up its submarine production rate there could be a few later build LAs available by that time. In other words I do see options for Australia getting into Nuclear submarines by the mid 30s even if our own nuclear boats aren't ready till the 2040s.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
From what Dutton said a couple of weeks ago we will probably get an announcement on the Subs mid year*, we just need to be patient and wait and see what comes out then. From what Dutton said the plan is to have the first SSN in service well before 2040, what that will be ?????
*Subject to Election results.
On the subject of Submarines, anyone visiting Launceston or Tassie‘s north can have a good look at HMAS Sheehan as she is currently at the Inspection Head wharf Beauty Point, leaving early on the 1st. Bring the kids ,nice ice creams and visit the Platypus House and Seahorse World.
Non paid add for Tassie tourism
Non paid add for Tassie tourism
If the Collins LOTE mirrors Sweden's efforts then we can expect to the the fabrication of entire new sections for the existing fleet. If we are fabricating entirely new sections for six boats then how hard is it to fabricate another two to four sections? Depending on the weights of the new systems there may be a need to fabricate new sections simple to provide enough ballast and trim tanks to maintain stability. This means more new sections and the question of how much of the old sub is actually being retained.
There certainly needs clarification around subs. I hadn't really looked at the dates of Astute to see if it would be retiring in that extreme timeframe, I guess if the UK accelerated what they were doing its possible. Not sure about refueling PWR2 and extending it for a longer period and operating here. Its an interesting point.
I'm not convinced the SSN is our ideal TLAM platform while we are running a mixed fleet.
The lote is going to be extensive. Having new boats after the LOTE would seem to be ramping up to that kind of capability. You already have an extensive program, already underway, with a class of boats already in service with a core number of crew. While I don't think collins will be operating deep into the south China sea, say its mission changed, it its focused just on choke points, and long distance fires of TLAM into the region. It could stay in deep water near our P8 patrols and friendlies, but able to fire a dozen tlam into the region or assist in prosecuting choke points afar (commercial shipping etc). This would free the SSN up to go on more offense type missions.
I'm not convinced the SSN is our ideal TLAM platform while we are running a mixed fleet.
It'll be interesting to see when we will finally hear more on this front as the WA Shipbuilding factsheet has it down to commence in ~2026 ...
You'd imagine replacing Choules with two(?) JSS would necessitate an escort fleet increase in itself?
But, I guess that same logic should've already applied to the Canberra Class.
Going Boeing
Well-Known Member
The Astute’s PWR2 reactor with Core H fuel cell is expected to last 25 years whereas the Virginia’s S9G reactor fuel is expected to last at least 33 years. Thus, for the Astute to remain in service beyond 25 years and continue in RAN service, it will require refuelling - not an easy task on a reactor that was not designed for it. The RN has been doing a precautionary Core H refuel on one of their current Boomers and it has run massively over estimated time & budget and they have indicated that they don’t want to do any more. They have established that the other three boomers won’t require this refuel. I personally wouldn’t expect to see any of the RN Astute’s to be available for the RAN to lease/buy.
Similarly, the USN is short of their required submarines (66-72) for the foreseeable future so I can’t see old LA class submarines being available, except as a moored training ship. They are refuelling 5 of the Flight 3 Improved LA’s so that they can remain in service to make up the numbers until sufficient Virginia’s & SSN(X)’s are available to permit their retirement. These refuelled subs would have sufficient fuel when they are retired but they would be suffering age/fatigue issues when their service is complete circa 2040 - about the same time as new RAN SSN’s should become available.
As the PWR2 reactor is out of production (& doesn’t meet modern nuclear safety standards), there has been discussion about redesigning the Astute to be powered by the S9G reactor which is probably quite feasible. I think the design time would be very lengthy (& costly) so it makes sense to build “off the shelf” Virginia’s, especially as they have the Virginia Payload Tubes which provide a lot of flexibility to integrate weapons that aren’t in service yet, eg, hypersonic missiles, etc. I think that it’s essential to be able to keep these major investments updated through their entire service life and I don’t believe the Astute has that flexibility.
The US has much better fuel reprocessing and reactor disposal than the UK so it would be easier to meet the nuclear non proliferation requirements by buying the US system.
Last edited:
Going Boeing
Well-Known Member
I understand that the 3 Diesel engines and electric motor are to be replaced with more modern & more reliable ones which will require the hull to be separated but I don’t believe they plan to extend the Collins hull as they are not fitting an AIP system.
Not necessarily because the JSS could be sailing as part of a task force. But in an ideal world such ships should have ESSM BLK II, NSM, a good sensor setup so that they have adequate self defence against air and surface threats. That's a problem with phat ships, they've got nothing to protect themselves from modern threats.
If the first AU built vessel is operational before 2040 this becomes a moot point.
OK ... why and what does getting the HMS Astute achieve? If the Virginia is selected (I have my doubts) what is the point. If the Astute is selected with the US reactor ... and (noting the governments worst case outcome) this operational before 2040 ..... why pick up an old boat.
For what ever we select training will start well before the hull hits the water. If you had suggested the first SSN would roll off the UK production line before construction moves to Australia I could see this. It would still need to be a new (probably US) reactor.
The US reactor in the Astute hull is a real possibility IMHO noting the submerged buoyant volume (depending on which open source you rely on) is pretty much the same. The Astute is shorter and but with more beam. The last Astute is now rolling down the line. The build jigs and supply lines are in place.
Australia need to be building capacity and capability .... renting an orphan from either side (refuelled LA or HMS Astute ... noting the UK may still want the Astute at this time) is not an option for a delivery over a decade away.
Building a USN reactor for hull 1 (if Astute is the selected option) in the UK and migrating production to Australia has a lot of attraction.
But we are all spit balling .... myself included.
Renting old submarines with different systems does not appear to offer much. You could get the same benefit from sea-riding RAN on the selected design.
Last edited: