A few billion pounds will possibly change that
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
Aardvark144
Active Member
Given the Government has announced that the RAN SSN will have VLS, why would we be looking at something smaller than the Astute replacement and bespoke to Australia? I believe the SSN(R) will be approx 25 percent larger than the Astute.
Good golf course and I surfed Gunnery, Meanos and Big Left a lot when younger. They used to kick us out of the water when gunnery practice was underway. Mussels at the pier $5 a kgFor those who don't know Flinders ( West Head Gunnery Range )is a beautiful part of the world just south of Melbourne.
The house prices are commensurate with this attractive location.
It once had an old fashioned caravan park there which was a please to stay in complete with the sound of the gunnery range near bye.
A very strange combination.
So glad to see navy still defending this part of the world!!!
Cheers S
Last edited:
Jason_DBF
Member
As a submariner topless girls getDo the Topless page 3 girls come with the Subs as well
my vote.
Not sure if already posted. For what this is worth.... It looks like Astute's are on the menu
www.thesun.co.uk
UK agrees historic £2billion nuclear sub deal with Australia
THE UK has agreed to provide Australia with nuclear submarines in the first deal of its kind ever — worth billions to British industry. Ministers are said to be open “in principle” to the idea of …
www.thesun.co.uk
An issue with the purchase of the present submarines is the old technology being used, the future attack submarines of the U.S.N R.N and even the P.L.A.N are looking for breakthroughs in electric drive for propulsion leading to stealthier submarines
China all electric rim-driven shaftless ultraquiet submarine propulsion | NextBigFuture.com
Deathly Quiet: The Navy Can’t Kill China’s Submarines If It Cant Find Them | The National Interest
Underwater propulsion - Rim-driven thrusters (tsltechnology.com)
First Submarine To Use New Stealth Technology - Naval News
The U.S.N seems a bit coy on their future propulsion for submarines
Stealthier submarine technology on the new USS South Dakota Virginia class submarine will be advanced on the Ohio replacement and SSBN-X | Submarine Caucus (house.gov)
An advantage for nuclear submarines are the use of lasers
The Navy Is Arming Nuclear Subs With Lasers. No One Knows Why. (popularmechanics.com)
There has been some speculation that nuclear submarines using a blue-green laser can use such to search for other submarines undetected unlike sonar
I believe that with the R.A.N getting nuclear submarines to last twenty plus years they acquire the technology thats most up to date ,with apologies to present submarines
China all electric rim-driven shaftless ultraquiet submarine propulsion | NextBigFuture.com
Deathly Quiet: The Navy Can’t Kill China’s Submarines If It Cant Find Them | The National Interest
Underwater propulsion - Rim-driven thrusters (tsltechnology.com)
First Submarine To Use New Stealth Technology - Naval News
The U.S.N seems a bit coy on their future propulsion for submarines
Stealthier submarine technology on the new USS South Dakota Virginia class submarine will be advanced on the Ohio replacement and SSBN-X | Submarine Caucus (house.gov)
An advantage for nuclear submarines are the use of lasers
The Navy Is Arming Nuclear Subs With Lasers. No One Knows Why. (popularmechanics.com)
There has been some speculation that nuclear submarines using a blue-green laser can use such to search for other submarines undetected unlike sonar
I believe that with the R.A.N getting nuclear submarines to last twenty plus years they acquire the technology thats most up to date ,with apologies to present submarines
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
It has been posted, considering the Sun Newspaper (UK) is better known for pictures of topless ladies on page 3 then breaking Defence stories, I would be somewhat dubious about any such claims.Not sure if already posted. For what this is worth.... It looks like Astute's are on the menu
UK agrees historic £2billion nuclear sub deal with Australia
THE UK has agreed to provide Australia with nuclear submarines in the first deal of its kind ever — worth billions to British industry. Ministers are said to be open “in principle” to the idea of …
Im not sure of your point I was not suggesting acquiring the Astute class but certainly look at its successor
note to self, next post from this source to include the topless ladies for the graphics
Aardvark144
Active Member
I could have read your comment wrong; however, were you not referring to the SSN being perhaps a smaller boat than the Astute replacement?
Last edited:
No my understanding it was larger than the Astute class perhaps as large as a present Virginia class but with less manning a concern may be operating in shallow waters , this might be where unmanned submersibles are deployed but that is of course speculation
Last edited:
In so far as bouyant volume is concerned publically available information suggests the Virgina IV and Astute are within 100 tonnes of each other. In other words the internal volume is pretty much the same. The Virginia has a 10m barrel while the Astute is 11.3m. The SSNR will be bigger (as will the block V Virgina).
I am at a loss to understand the concern about lower manning in shallow waters! The Collins and Oberons operated in shallow waters. The Collins has much lower manning and that is not an issue as the vessel control system is very capable. The Oberons maxed out at about 62 crew (trust me those boats were cramped) and were manually operated and this is still less than the crew on either the Virginia or Astute.
In so far as waiting for SSNR that may result in nothing being delivered in the next decade. A mod Astute (American reactor and FCS) makes sense in that case. If a continous build cycle is retained then Australia could move to SSNR later.
What concerns me in the articles is they seem to suggest construction of all boats in the UK. Australia are certainly capable of building the hulls and most of the equipment (once the yard is finished) and it would be beneficial if construction of the vessel could be moved to Australia over time.
Again, we are all guessing. Hopefully the SDR will clarify all these issues.
Where there is smoke there may be fire. I still remember the UK Secretary of Defence being very adamant that the submarine construction was a three way partnership. While he refused to be drawn into detail it would seem to me that the UK would have very little influence if Australia went with an entirely US design.
Maybe the topless page three lady has contacts inside the UK ministry of defence and knows something we don’t.
Maybe the topless page three lady has contacts inside the UK ministry of defence and knows something we don’t.
My understanding is the primary UK constraint is reactor production, while the US constraint is fabrication and outfitting, i.e. welders and pipe fitters.
A smart business person would be looking at the best option to mitigate the constraints. What does ASC do well, welding, they are actually extremely good at it, and their outfitting is good too.
This isn't just a factor of the tradespeople, who take a minimum of about five years to train, it's also the trade supervisors, managers, planners, schedulers, engineers and technical officers. Welders need to be certified, as do their supervisors, inspectors and engineers.
A simple old fashioned offset deal would see work going to Australian companies, AUKUS is different, it's not just about us getting money back from defence purchases, it's about us contributing to removing constraints affecting all members.
A smart business person would be looking at the best option to mitigate the constraints. What does ASC do well, welding, they are actually extremely good at it, and their outfitting is good too.
This isn't just a factor of the tradespeople, who take a minimum of about five years to train, it's also the trade supervisors, managers, planners, schedulers, engineers and technical officers. Welders need to be certified, as do their supervisors, inspectors and engineers.
A simple old fashioned offset deal would see work going to Australian companies, AUKUS is different, it's not just about us getting money back from defence purchases, it's about us contributing to removing constraints affecting all members.
Unnamed insiders.
Yes, I am sure the UK would love to build SSN's, or at least would not be the ones refusing to do so. That is quite far from saying that will be built in the UK. Again, the UK has no capacity, they are building SSBNs. The sun article mentions investment in Australian capabilities.
So the only way it would happen is a second production line.. at Barrow.. Not sure how likely that is, there have certainly been no announcements or even movement on the ground in that direction. That second line would be completely on the whim of Australian political thought and funding. So the UK would take on all the risks and costs.. With one of the flakest defence procurement countries in the world (while arguable perhaps not, Attack class is still fresh).
The Sun is a UK paper, targeting its UK readership.
Selecting a UK design will mean a lot for UK industry. All those other widgets and pieces will likely be sourced from UK suppliers. So even in a situation where the Hull is manufactured in Australia, the reactor in the US, the UK is still going to provide probably 20-30% or more of the value in parts and supplies.
But that doesn't make for easy reading to the Sun readership. Also nothing has been announced, so anything is possible. At least the Sun admits there is no gap in the production capability for at least 15 years in the UK.
Even if we build the subs in Australia, doesn't mean every widget will be manufactured here. It will be more like a F-35 production line, where some parts and final assembly occur somewhere, but many of the parts are sourced from the US and UK. Overtime there may be a chance to duplicate some items locally, or if there is already a production bottleneck in the AUKUS setup. TBH I am surprised the UK keeps its sub industry viable on so few production units. There isn't enough fat to duplicate every time and widget. Typically I would imagine many smaller UK part suppliers to the UK SSN program would setup a local arm, with supply/logistics capability. Sharing costs between partners is essential if we want subs and want to make them in an economically viable way.
Last the 7.30 report interviewed Admiral Mead regarding our nuclear submarines. Whilst he left most of the specific announcements to Government, there were some interesting points.
The submarines are in Australian sovereign control. If there are in disputes about the sub the Australian captain has final say. This is the way it should be.
He repeatedly said the will be no capability gap. Sarah did bring up the AUKUS submarine design and the fact it could have development delays. Again he reported no capabilities gap. Reading options presented on this forum, I thought the AUKUS sub was the most feasible.
I am no expert so I will leave it to others to analyse. I thought it was a good update to how things are progressing.
Regards
DD
Possibly, but SIMBAD-RC launchers firing Mistral missiles were an initial part of ANZAC ASMD, before we went down the CEAFAR / ESSM path.
He also said built at Osborne, in Australia.
Which is sensible. Not sure if it was officially clear before or just speculation, but it seemed very clear its using a US reactor.
So really just confirming and clarifying things that people have suspected. It appears all the major decisions have been made, as many of his answers indicated the government would announce that in the near future.
Indeed, a positive step that things are actually moving, that there is some sort of plan to address all these questions and issues. He did say defending Australia wasn't cheap. Some of these answers need to come out before the announcement, because there are multiple super important questions on how this whole thing will work. It does appear the sub announcement will be made with all three leaders. It will be global news and of global interest. Some of the important local issues should be clearly resolved before the big announcements. So confirmation building it here in Australia and at Osborne. Sovereign control of the submarine operationally. Why nuclear and not diesel, should be cleared out of the air before the joint announcement. They are valid and important questions, but not sure you need the US president and the UK prime minister there to explain all of those in detail, just perhaps comment confirming that is the case and or understanding.
The joint announcement things like nuclear proliferation, design, capabilities, member contributions, production numbers, future of AUKUS collaborations, global security concerns, global strategy regarding China and Russia. Its going to be a big announcement at a pretty critical time.
Going Boeing
Well-Known Member
Some posts have indicated that we may have some sections of the future SSN built in Barrow and then shipped to Osborne to be mated to locally produced sections - this leads to thoughts about the type of steel to be used.
The steel currently used in Astute class SSN’s is similar in strength to the HY80 used in the LA class. The Virginia class uses HY100 which is stronger but is difficult to weld. The Collins class used a steel originally produced in Sweden but was further improved by Bisalloy and this product is slightly stronger than HY100 with very good blast/bulge capability, good corrosion resistance and is relatively easy to weld. This article discusses the development work for an improved steel to be used in the previously planned Attack class SSK’s.
Deep dive into underwater material advances - Australian Defence Magazine
Obviously, the most suitable steel to be used would be sourced from Bisalloy/Bluescope so, if sections are to produced in Barrow, we would have to send the steel to them and then train them wrt the handling differences - not insurmountable but still something that has to be planned.
On another matter, our submariners have been operating the Collins class which has the aft control surfaces in an X configuration whereas both the Astute and Virginia have the conventional + configuration. The advantages of the X configuration is that the controls can be smaller (less drag), provide better controllability/depth maintenance in shallow water and better control when conducting high speed turns. The Columbia, SSNX, Dreadnought & SSNR classes are all planned to have X configuration controls so, if we were to purchase hybrid Astute class SSN’s we would be going backwards as far as controllability - as well as having no vertical launch capability. I know that it’s important to get the SSN’s as quickly as possible (with no capability gap) but I do hope that our government does decide on the type that gives us the best capability for the entire service life of these very expensive boats.
The steel currently used in Astute class SSN’s is similar in strength to the HY80 used in the LA class. The Virginia class uses HY100 which is stronger but is difficult to weld. The Collins class used a steel originally produced in Sweden but was further improved by Bisalloy and this product is slightly stronger than HY100 with very good blast/bulge capability, good corrosion resistance and is relatively easy to weld. This article discusses the development work for an improved steel to be used in the previously planned Attack class SSK’s.
Deep dive into underwater material advances - Australian Defence Magazine
Obviously, the most suitable steel to be used would be sourced from Bisalloy/Bluescope so, if sections are to produced in Barrow, we would have to send the steel to them and then train them wrt the handling differences - not insurmountable but still something that has to be planned.
On another matter, our submariners have been operating the Collins class which has the aft control surfaces in an X configuration whereas both the Astute and Virginia have the conventional + configuration. The advantages of the X configuration is that the controls can be smaller (less drag), provide better controllability/depth maintenance in shallow water and better control when conducting high speed turns. The Columbia, SSNX, Dreadnought & SSNR classes are all planned to have X configuration controls so, if we were to purchase hybrid Astute class SSN’s we would be going backwards as far as controllability - as well as having no vertical launch capability. I know that it’s important to get the SSN’s as quickly as possible (with no capability gap) but I do hope that our government does decide on the type that gives us the best capability for the entire service life of these very expensive boats.
Last edited:
Astutes may still run tube launched missile systems, but they can still carry up to 38x weapons.
I struggle to envisage ADF carrying the stocks of weapons to even fill some of the more ‘enthusiastic’ suggestions for ADF force structure.
A casual glance at the announced weapon stocks we have acquired for various capabilities aren’t enormous.
150x SM-2.
200x LRASM.
Around 1500 rockets / missiles of various designation for HIMARS.
108x AMRAAM for NASAMS II.
Decent numbers perhaps, but we aren’t acquiring guided weapons stocks in their many thousands, that we’d need to fill some of the latest suggestions…