Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[John Newman]

I was simply putting it in perspective. There is all this harping on about how much this has cost when the real issue is everything to date was years later than it should have been and delivered nothing.

The issue isn't that we have spent what we have spent, or that the SSNs are not going to enter service for two decades, the issue is the SSNs are replacing the Collins, rather than complementing and then replacing the Collins replacement.

Delaying programs, stretching programs, cancelling programs and changing direction are all false economies that adversely affect and undermine sovereign capability. They result in young Australians operating gear that is older than them and less capable and survivable than what is needed.

V, mate, I understand exactly what you are saying, ok? (You and I have been here on DT for 10+ years each, and again, I clearly understand your point).

But...

The problem is we (all here on DT), can rehash history of what should have happened till the cows come home.

I get frustrated (not directed at you, ok?), at the endless comments here regarding what should have happened, but didn’t.

I just wish everyone would stop looking in the rear view mirror and instead look forward, past is past, can’t be changed.

Rehashing the past is meaningless.

 

[Going Boeing]

I believe that the post LOTE Collins class submarines will be a very capable platform with great sonar, weapons, sensors and propulsion - any work on designing an evolved Collins would only take limited skills away from the SSN program.

 

[BSKS]

BSKS

I don’t think going from Collins LOTE to a new evolved Collins Class would be that simple, and I do not know if any of the Attack Class work would be applicable. As I said, my first preference, by far, is to get on with building SSNs and not be distracted by any plan B. I respect we disagree and I will leave it at that.

The assumption that 12 conventionals would be better than 2 SSNs by 2040 is hypothetical and based on false premises. It assumes that (1) starting from scratch without an agreed design we could build 12 Conventionals by 2040 and (2) that we will only build 2 SSNs by 2040.

Neither of those things was/is planned by the RAN. If we had kept with the Attack Class program they would not have completed 4 conventional SSKs by 2040, not 12. Naval Group were targetting “mid 2030s” for first boat completed, with others following at a two year drumbeat. That would have given 3.5 SSKs completed by 2040 (launching in 2035, 2037, 2039…), That is best case assuming no further slippage. The first SSN has been reported as likely by a similar timeframe.

My preference is building SSN's as top priority too, the option of an interim solution to cover a potential delay is risk management for that project. If ever there was a project that needed risk management this is it. As you say, we can disagree on that though.

I hadn't commented on 12 conventionals vs 2 SSN's, that must have been someone else's post.

 

[John Fedup]

Quite apart from the LEU reactor and frequent refueling issue, I have two other concerns with the French option for SSNs.

First endurance and capability. Once the decision is made for Australia to go to SSN, endurance is really about supplies and number of days at sea. The French SSN is much smaller than Astutes or Virginias and its listed endurance is 70 days, presumably based on crew size and stores. (This is the same as the existing Collins Class). Whereas the Astutes and Virginias both have endurance of 90+days, depending on whether or not they also carry a special forces team.

The French sub is modern and stealthy, but much smaller than the Astutes and Virginias. The latter are faster, carry more weapons, and can carry larger sonar suites. They are simply more capable. Finally on capability, the Astutes and Virginias do not need refuelling, whereas the Barracuda SSNs would need to return to France every ten years to be refueled. The refuelling is quick, but the return voyage would make them unavailable for months each time this was done. I think when the Chief of Navy, who presumably was aware of any French SSN supply option, went to seek RN and USN help with their SSN designs, we should accept that he must have had good reasons for doing so.

Second is deliverability. France/Naval Group has never built SSNs at the maximum rate of the UK or USA, either now or during the cold war. Suffren was delivered three years late, after 8 years of design and 13 years of construction. Measured from the start of design, the Barracuda SSN is no more modern than Astute or Virginia SSNs. Naval has a fixed price contract with the French Navy to deliver four more Barracuda SSNs (2 launchd so far), after which they must build the replacement French SSBN class, which are also urgent.

They were also delayed by a fire on the SSN Perle in 2020, which obliged them to spend a year repairing the Perle by taking the bow half of the retired SSN Saphir and joining it to the Perle stern section. This was unlucky, but I see no reason to believe that France/Naval would be any quicker to help Australia build SSNs than UK or USA would be.

Agree, Astute and Virginia have significant advantages over the French design. My comment related to early days when US naval nuclear technology was not transferrable.

 

[seaspear]

Don't want to rehash but both the Virginia and Astute classes are in the process of being replaced

 

[Redlands18]

Don't want to rehash but both the Virginia and Astute classes are in the process of being replaced

Not really, US and UK are working on next gen designs but they are barely even Vapourware at this stage, the US will not begin building SSN(X) before the early 30s at the earliest and the Astute successor until the Dreadnoughts are finished.

 

[Volkodav]

I’m still stewing over the timeline ramifications.
the ALP (not being political) inertia of the time annoys me beyond clinical reasoning.

but I’m simply surmising (in a general discussion way) that perhaps we mayve fallen into an unforeseen hole of some benefit???

im rationalising that an Attack in advanced construction would’ve been a HUGE expense to suddenly be redundant.
trying to salvage an argument to an ignorant media/public/politik of the requirement to suddenly dump it for a nuke option, maybe been too much to ask.

Perhaps this is indeed a very well hidden obscure blessing???

The ego based leadership shenanigans on both sides of politics and the insane focus on screwing the country in attempt after failed attempt to deliver a surplus budget, ever since the GFC, did an astounding amount of damage to defence, in particular local industry and its capacity to deliver major projects.

Everything became about making the other side look bad, whether the other side was the party in the benches on the opposite side of the house, or even the members of another faction of the same party who wanted a different leader. Politicians in general painted themselves into corners that removed good policy options, removed the ability to go into deficit to invest in needed capability.

I was involved in a discussion with a senior engineering manager over a decade ago about replacement submarines and the verdict was we were already running 10 years late. That is planning for replacing the Collins should have started in the early 2000s and the longer it was delayed the fewer options we had and the greater the risks. Flash forward and a trip back to Adelaide from my new purgatory of patrol boat world and we were discussing subs again, i.e. the German boats were too loud, the Japanese subs also had noise issues and some very old school design features leaving the French as the best option because neither the US or UK had come to the party and the potentially much better options of an Australian design (likely with EB assistance) or an evolved Collins with Kockums.

In the early 2010s the CEO of ASC and the director of engineering were both ex RR nuclear reactor people, there were significant numbers of senior engineering and production people who had worked on SSNs and SSBNs in the UK, even a few ex EB people. Their expertise in systems engineering and controls was outstanding.

This is the same time there were speeches about "couldn't build a canoe" etc. The same time that after years of indecision from Labor (the route cause of which was after the Collins was used to destroy Kim Beazley no one in Labor was game to make a decision on subs), the new government were doing their best to so completely destroy the reputation of ASC that no one would protest when they were shut down, new subs bought from and built in Japan, with all maintenance being moved to WA.

At the end of the day a modern conventional submarine in production and providing effective service would have been a much better place to be than having to upgrade the Collins waiting for either a a French SSG or an AUKUS SSN. The changing strategic situation would still have occurred and we would still likely have gone for SSNs, the difference is we wouldn't have been risking such a serious capability gap.

An added bonus, we would have been in a position to sell SSGs to Taiwan.

 

[Volkodav]

Designing an evolved Collins might have been a good idea ten years ago. But when you understand the shortest times (10+ years) nations experienced in submarine design have taken to get new designs completed and built, you realise it would only cause delay now.

Not necessarily.

If run concurrently with the already planned Collins LOTE it would have minimal impact on the progress of the SSN project. ASC, SAAB, Raytheon will all be working on LOTE, entirely new systems will be designed, looking at SAAB/Kockums work, entirely new sections will likely be designed and fabricated. There is not as much as of a gap between LOTE and an Evolved Collins as may be believed.

Also an evolved Collins isn't needed to last for 40 years, its needed to last for 20. It doesn't need to be bleeding edge, it just needs to incorporate the systems currently being designed or upgraded for the current fleet, it needs to be good enough and available.

To maintain capability the Collins is going to need to serve another 30 years, that is serve side by side with the SSNs as the commission and work up over a decade or so. It could be argued that an evolved Collins is actually a sensible risk mitigation.

 

[hauritz]

Don't want to rehash but both the Virginia and Astute classes are in the process of being replaced

I would suggest that what ever Australia gets will probably just use the US and UK designs as baselines anyway.
For example the Astute with a S9G reactor and VLS or maybe a Virginia based on Block IV rather than the larger Block V.

 

[Volkodav]

BSKS

I don’t think going from Collins LOTE to a new evolved Collins Class would be that simple, and I do not know if any of the Attack Class work would be applicable. As I said, my first preference, by far, is to get on with building SSNs and not be distracted by any plan B. I respect we disagree and I will leave it at that.

The assumption that 12 conventionals would be better than 2 SSNs by 2040 is hypothetical and based on false premises. It assumes that (1) starting from scratch without an agreed design we could build 12 Conventionals by 2040 and (2) that we will only build 2 SSNs by 2040.

Neither of those things was/is planned by the RAN. If we had kept with the Attack Class program they would not have completed 4 conventional SSKs by 2040, not 12. Naval Group were targetting “mid 2030s” for first boat completed, with others following at a two year drumbeat. That would have given 3.5 SSKs completed by 2040 (launching in 2035, 2037, 2039…), That is best case assuming no further slippage. The first SSN has been reported as likely by a similar timeframe.

Building twelve SSGs by 2040 is not going to happen in any conceivable manner I can think of, a maximum effort build as we design program with significant involvement of overseas suppliers..... still hard to see. Supplementing LOTE with a number of evolved Collins, built concurrently with LOTE however, could be done. It may not be six LOTE plus six evolved Collins for a total of twelve, but it could easily be two, three four and maybe a reduced number of upgraded Collins for a total fleet of eight or ten.

LOTE for Collins is a go, it is happening. Systems developed for LOTE, incorporated in a new build is feasible. Building a totally different design along side LOTE, using multiple different systems is a no go. Redesigning a German, French or Japanese design to use common systems with LOTE would introduce risk and delay. Through a process of elimination the only new build interim option that could deliver.

As for common systems with the SSN fleet, the Collins probably currently has more commonality with US and UK SSNs than any other conventional design. Forget Germany, France and Japan, Australia is the designer of the Collins, as in they are the design authority, EB helped them achieve that over a decade ago. Australia owns the IP, if SAAB/Kockums is engaged an evolved Collins makes a lot of sense as an interim option but the decision would have to be made fast.

 

[Volkodav]

V, mate, I understand exactly what you are saying, ok? (You and I have been here on DT for 10+ years each, and again, I clearly understand your point).

But...

The problem is we (all here on DT), can rehash history of what should have happened till the cows come home.

I get frustrated (not directed at you, ok?), at the endless comments here regarding what should have happened, but didn’t.

I just wish everyone would stop looking in the rear view mirror and instead look forward, past is past, can’t be changed.

Rehashing the past is meaningless.

Agreed to a point.

I work in a world where I see so called experts making dumb decisions because they weren't aware they were dumb. Recently I had to cut someone off who was explaining his reason for doing something for the twenty seventh time, as if it was a religious chant, something chiseled in stone so could not be changed. The thing is, had he looked back, not just over his decade plus experience, he would have seen, as I did and was trying to explain to him, that what he was doing had been done before and had failed because of inadequate process controls.

Basically when there is no one left in the room who remembers why you do or don't do something, you are liable to repeat the mistakes of the past. This is where you need people who can dig up what where why etc. Its called lessons learned, its called evolution, its called improvement. Unfortunately too often these days in attempts to gain efficiency and push things through faster, there is less time and inclination to think, process, plan and examine what was done previously and why.

 

[Volkodav]

I believe that the post LOTE Collins class submarines will be a very capable platform with great sonar, weapons, sensors and propulsion - any work on designing an evolved Collins would only take limited skills away from the SSN program.

Or could be the perfect opportunity to grow the size and skills of the workforce on a real project before they are needed on the SSN program. An apprentice hired today to work on LOTE, is your trade supervisor, designer, CM, ILS tech, planner, Build Assurance on the evolved Collins, and your senior technical manager on the SSN build. Quite literally a senior manager in a systems SPO in Canberra today was an APS 3 receptionist on the AWD program, in their first job out of school, just over a decade ago.

Ten years is a long time, we are talking eighteen years. Many of us will be retired by then, the people I worked with in senior technical roles on Collins and AWD were predominantly in their 30s, some in their 40s back then. Many, if not most of them are in much more senior roles now, they cam from the Collins build, the FFGs, ANZACs, many from automotive and general manufacturing.

Where are the 30 something and 40 something year old mid career, technical, engineering, contracts, procurement etc. people going to come from in the early 2030s when we will supposedly be building the Hunters and SSNs, if we are building next to nothing, if anything at all for the next several years to a decade? Black holes kill industry capability and what is ahead looks very much like a black hole.

 

[Going Boeing]

Don't want to rehash but both the Virginia and Astute classes are in the process of being replaced

Not for quite some time & that will be after we need the Collins replacements in the water.

These SSN’s have been developed throughout the years of their construction. The latest Astutes have quite a number of improvements and the Virginia’s are bought in blocks, some of which have been major upgrades. They physically look the same but the systems have all been upgraded, so much that some people think they should be called a different class. The USS South Dakota SSN 790 (2nd last of the Block 3) has a very large number of enhancements which are being trialed and refined so that they should be incorporated in the 10 Block 5 submarines which have started construction. The plans are for the USN to order, next year, 5 Block 6 Virginia’s to start construction in the 2024-28 timeframe and will incorporate technologies that will flow on to the future SSN(X). This timeframe aligns with the RAN’s selection of SSN type, design & prototyping and construction so, if they choose (& are approved) to build the Block 6 Virginia, they will getting the latest available technology - which I think is essential to keep them fully effective over their service life.

All of the Block 6 boats are expected to incorporate the Virginia Payload Module extension but, if this is considered too much capability for the RAN, they can be built without the module, a saving of at least US$500M per boat. The extra Payload Tubes would add a lot of extra flexibility due to being able to carry SF underwater vehicles, UUV’s, mines & future hypersonic missiles, or an impressive amount of Tomahawks.

The RAN could order the first batch of 3-4 submarines in the shorter version of Block 6 with the rest being built with the VPM included.

 

[John Fedup]

Not really, US and UK are working on next gen designs but they are barely even Vapourware at this stage, the US will not begin building SSN(X) before the early 30s at the earliest and the Astute successor until the Dreadnoughts are finished.

To be fair, somewhat more than vapourware. Both the USN’s SSN(X) and the RN’s SSN(R) will share quite a bit of DNA from Columbia and Dreadnought respectively. One possible advantage for Australia going with Astute might be more potential involvement in SSN(R).

 

[MickB]

Building twelve SSGs by 2040 is not going to happen in any conceivable manner I can think of, a maximum effort build as we design program with significant involvement of overseas suppliers..... still hard to see. Supplementing LOTE with a number of evolved Collins, built concurrently with LOTE however, could be done. It may not be six LOTE plus six evolved Collins for a total of twelve, but it could easily be two, three four and maybe a reduced number of upgraded Collins for a total fleet of eight or ten.

LOTE for Collins is a go, it is happening. Systems developed for LOTE, incorporated in a new build is feasible. Building a totally different design along side LOTE, using multiple different systems is a no go. Redesigning a German, French or Japanese design to use common systems with LOTE would introduce risk and delay. Through a process of elimination the only new build interim option that could deliver.

As for common systems with the SSN fleet, the Collins probably currently has more commonality with US and UK SSNs than any other conventional design. Forget Germany, France and Japan, Australia is the designer of the Collins, as in they are the design authority, EB helped them achieve that over a decade ago. Australia owns the IP, if SAAB/Kockums is engaged an evolved Collins makes a lot of sense as an interim option but the decision would have to be made fast.

You put forward very convincing arguments.
The training side of such a build would have great benefits.

One of the problems always put forward as to the impossibility of additional Hobarts is the long leed times required for systems like Aegis.
Would the sonar and other systems for additional subs also have this problem?

 

[Volkodav]

You put forward very convincing arguments.
The training side of such a build would have great benefits.

One of the problems always put forward as to the impossibility of additional Hobarts is the long leed times required for systems like Aegis.
Would the sonar and other systems for additional subs also have this problem?

These systems are already being sourced for LOTE. There are still lead times but it's easier to add to an existing order than to order something as a once off.

 

[ddxx]

Here's an update to RAN personnel numbers, actual and projected, as per the latest budget papers.

Projected net growth of an additional 1,168 personnel between 2020/21 and 2025/26 for a projected total of 16,632.



@ddxx Source required please. You have been on here long enough to know that. You naughty boy you.

Ngatimozart

 

[seaspear]

Its not just the personnel but the size of the Osborne shipyard that is also expanding

Osborne Shipyard SSN expansion plan unveiled

Next week’s federal budget is set to include a commitment to secure more space at Osborne Shipyard to support preparations for Australia’s future nuclear-powered submarine fleet. The Commonwealth

www.defenceconnect.com.au

seems a long way from how the Collins was developed e.g testing hull sections in a flooded quarry lol

 

[StingrayOZ]

If we are in the SSN(X) program, we will just get what ever they come up with. The americans won't base everything around Australia.
There is more scope to be a peer on the SSN(R) program rather than just a client. But either program is still a ways off.

These systems are already being sourced for LOTE. There are still lead times but it's easier to add to an existing order than to order something as a once off.

Many of the details of the Attack class, eg. MTU engines, sensors, batteries, combat system should carry straight over and stand up under their own now. Contracts were already being drawn up regarding purchase, support and sustainment.. All that is still valid. Eg MTU diesel engines, Penske Australia running support, dead set obvious and ticks sovereign and existing partnerships. We don't have to start a whole new program for something like that. All the existing work is still valid. All the work lockheed was doing on the combat system, same deal, continue at full speed. Even when these were being chosen, the idea is that these same would be backported to LOTE (or even in case of combat system, to the US) whenever possible.

IMO Collins development should continue. The platform isn't going anywhere anytime soon. In a region of chaos, being able to build a strong conventional submarine for our security partners is its own attraction. Fairly certain if we wanted to hand off a hot design to another nation, plenty would be interested. IMO Collins may not be ideal for short range engagements in the dragons den 7,000km away, but plenty of missions would still be fine. The UK continued with its diesel sub design for a long time after the decision was made about operating nuclear subs.

Its not just the personnel but the size of the Osborne shipyard that is also expanding

The yard is going to have a furious amount of work going on concurrently. Again, regardless of the design chosen we need all this infrastructure to enable the production anyway. This all should be progressing with great priority. There is a shortage of SSN yards (SSK yards) and facilities.

 

[seaspear]

Apologies if this has been previously covered but a recent senate inquiry stated that the top speed of type 26 would not be known until speed trials of the ship when launched later this year the suggestion was the Hunter class would then be able to match such a speed, my query is why a heavier ship with same power and propulsion would match that of a lighter one by up to three thousand long tons