SeamanBeaumont wrote:

Have you seen how much Aussie squids get paid... they are always the ones with the most money at the bar!

I'd chalk that up to priorities. Maybe beer over babes.

The UK may have the better beer!

bt

bikerthai wrote:

OK, they will refuel 6. Will there be more than 6 being decommissioned?

What makes me curious is why are they refueling the youngest boat first? Are the older ones not worth retaining?

bt

There are 22 improved Los Angeles class submarines still in service. Some reports mention 18 are suitable for refueling. There is an approximate 6 months age gap between each sub so there is no black or white cutoff where certain subs are too old for an extra refueling.

The normal service life is now at 33 years or on average 37 years from commission to decommission. The USN plans to refuel and overhaul six submarines and their service life will be extended to 42 years or around 47 years from commission to decommission.

Now the refueling does not have to be done at exactly 33 years but can be done at any major overhaul planned between 24 and 33 years. The Cheyanne is being done early at 24 years as they put 20+ years worth of fuel in.

There are 12 improved Los Angeles class subs left that the RAN could have refueled. The US Navy planned to retire these subs between 2024 and 2029. All 12 could be refueled and overhauled for the RAN to extend their life to between 2035 to 2040.

This is how I would do it:
The RAN start accepting improved Los Angeles class subs in 2023. These subs have NOT been refueled as they are under 30 years old. As each of these three subs hit their 33 service limit they are swapped out with freshly refueled subs. By 2030 the RAN would have six refueled nuclear subs in service. All Collins class subs at this point would be retired as their refurb was cancelled.

In terms of crew. The first sub would operate with 70 RAN crew and 70 USN crew. After a couple years only a dozen or so US Navy crew would remain. By 2030 the RAN would have all six nuclear subs manned with Aussie crew.

What is interesting is the Los Angeles class subs do not need another refueling to go beyond 42 years as they put 20+ years worth of fuel in during the refueling. They only need conventional maintenance overhauls that could now be done in Australia. They could definitely be extended to 50 years. The RAN should have all 12 improved Los Angeles class subs refueled by 2035. They should plan to only keep 6 in the water at any moment with the rest in dry dock reserve, however if the Pacific is full of conflict all 12 could be operational. Having a lower utilisation rate should keep them operating well into the 2040's. The RAN then has brand new nuclear subs in 2050.

To make this plan work the US has to allow nuclear refueling at a second submarine shipyard as soon as possible. They will not be able to refuel and overhaul enough Los Angeles class subs with the current setup. I wonder if the UK has ability to refuel Los Angeles subs? They might have extra dry dock capacity. This would be an amazing team effort.

*Edit

To make this deal even sweeter the price is only $406 million per sub for the refuel and overhaul to get an extra 10 years of service. A fraction of refurbing the Collins class. For 12% of the cost of a brand new Virginia class the RAN has a sub with 25% of the service life of a new sub.

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military ... 88-ero.htm

bikerthai wrote:

SeamanBeaumont wrote:

Have you seen how much Aussie squids get paid... they are always the ones with the most money at the bar!

I'd chalk that up to priorities. Maybe beer over babes.

The UK may have the better beer!

bt

UK have better beer

Best laugh I've had all year

possibly related

They offer a shot in the arm for France’s defense industry after the collapse of a $66 billion contract for Australia to buy 12 French submarines that ultimately went to the U.S.

https://www.defensenews.com/global/mide ... -with-uae/

but that's only 18 billion which means that France will likely to get more orders from the US and its allies and may will give Airbus/Lockheed the upper hand in the bridge tanker competition but that's a bit off-topic.

Maybe not directly AUKUS related , ADF NH90 Taipan to be retired early like the Tiger


https://adbr.com.au/breaking-army-to-re ... ars-early/

I guess NH90 and Tiger are examples of a bad short term alliance. When the product underperformed each partner did not want to take responsibility or contribute money to find a solution.

All of the discussions of product X versus product Z and everyone picks their favourite team. Usually there is no hard data to show which product is superior. We now have two very strong data points that can be used in an argument European aerospace products.

I'm sure Auukus subs will not have cost blowouts and long term support will be rock solid.

RJMAZ wrote:

I guess NH90 and Tiger are examples of a bad short term alliance. When the product underperformed each partner did not want to take responsibility or contribute money to find a solution.

All of the discussions of product X versus product Z and everyone picks their favourite team. Usually there is no hard data to show which product is superior. We now have two very strong data points that can be used in an argument European aerospace products.

I'm sure Auukus subs will not have cost blowouts and long term support will be rock solid.

I would have to agree with you there in terms of support for the US product. I think that comes from shear volume that the US buys alone

The RAAF have done alright when it comes to the US they have certainly done the RAAF a lot of favours when they want aircraft in a hurry as they have let them have their production slots for C17 & Super Hornets/ Growlers

Will be Interesting to see if RNZAF buys additional airframes and spares from the ADF god knows they need it, but that also leads them to be an orphan fleet in the area

A101 wrote:

production slots for C17 & Super Hornets/ Growlers

They also did some slot swaps for some of the early RAAF P-8As.

bt

A101 wrote:

RJMAZ wrote:

I guess NH90 and Tiger are examples of a bad short term alliance. When the product underperformed each partner did not want to take responsibility or contribute money to find a solution.

All of the discussions of product X versus product Z and everyone picks their favourite team. Usually there is no hard data to show which product is superior. We now have two very strong data points that can be used in an argument European aerospace products.

I'm sure Auukus subs will not have cost blowouts and long term support will be rock solid.

I would have to agree with you there in terms of support for the US product. I think that comes from shear volume that the US buys alone

The RAAF have done alright when it comes to the US they have certainly done the RAAF a lot of favours when they want aircraft in a hurry as they have let them have their production slots for C17 & Super Hornets/ Growlers

Will be Interesting to see if RNZAF buys additional airframes and spares from the ADF god knows they need it, but that also leads them to be an orphan fleet in the area

I wonder if they might pick up the RAAF birds.

The ADF certainly has a habit of making poor help choices/not implementing them properly.
Take the Seasprite… RAN messed them up. RNZN have had great success with them.
NH90 RNZAF love theirs.
And Tiger…

Defence Minister media release on new helicopters
https://www.minister.defence.gov.au/min ... capability

The MRH90 helicopter fleet has not met contracted availability requirements nor the expected cost of ownership ahead of its planned withdrawal from service in 2037.

https://www.flightglobal.com/helicopter ... 53.article

Zkpilot wrote:

I wonder if they might pick up the RAAF birds

RAAF birds? Can’t see the RNZAF rebuilding an Strike wing of classic Hornets, think the Canadians bet you to the best birds out of that lot

Zkpilot wrote:

The ADF certainly has a habit of making poor help choices/not implementing them properly.
Take the Seasprite… RAN messed them up. RNZN have had great success with them.

Problems was that the political establishment I think at the time wanted a jobs creation project over a straight military project and NH90 & ARH were sold as Military off the shelf rather than a development project to which they were at the time


Yeah well every airforce can say that they don’t make mistakes and that includes the Kiwis, the ADF has a habit of wanting the most technologically advanced as they can get

The SeaSprites were a result of the abandoned Joint Patrol Vessels project a Joint program between Australian/Malaysian and needed a suitable sized helo to suit that’s where the SeaSprite came in. they actually got them over the line at a terrible cost but it came down but came a cropper on its airworthiness certificate issued by ADF Authority due to the AFCS hardcover problem from going to crew of two from 3

Zkpilot wrote:

NH90 RNZAF love theirs.
And Tiger…

I would not be so quick in the draw with that statement
RNZAF have had there fair share of problems with the aircraft and supporting issues

https://www.airforce-technology.com/new ... ys-report/

https://adbr.com.au/rnzaf-eases-nh90-fl ... trictions/

A101 wrote:

Zkpilot wrote:

I wonder if they might pick up the RAAF birds

RAAF birds? Can’t see the RNZAF rebuilding an Strike wing of classic Hornets, think the Canadians bet you to the best birds out of that lot

Who said anything about strike wing or hornets?
I was referring to the NH90s.

Zkpilot wrote:

A101 wrote:

Zkpilot wrote:

I wonder if they might pick up the RAAF birds

RAAF birds? Can’t see the RNZAF rebuilding an Strike wing of classic Hornets, think the Canadians bet you to the best birds out of that lot

Who said anything about strike wing or hornets?
I was referring to the NH90s.

Well the RAAF do not operate the Taipans they are Army assets or ex RAN only RAAF birds being retired are the classic Hornets

A101 wrote:

Zkpilot wrote:

A101 wrote:

RAAF birds? Can’t see the RNZAF rebuilding an Strike wing of classic Hornets, think the Canadians bet you to the best birds out of that lot

Who said anything about strike wing or hornets?
I was referring to the NH90s.

Well the RAAF do not operate the Taipans they are Army assets or ex RAN only RAAF birds being retired are the classic Hornets

Fair enough I didn’t realise they were Army rather than RAAF assets. The long still stands though… who are they going to offload them too… RNZAF might be interested in some for the right price, but there’s too many so someone else will need to buy them.

Zkpilot wrote:

A101 wrote:

Zkpilot wrote:

Who said anything about strike wing or hornets?
I was referring to the NH90s.

Well the RAAF do not operate the Taipans they are Army assets or ex RAN only RAAF birds being retired are the classic Hornets

Fair enough I didn’t realise they were Army rather than RAAF assets. The long still stands though… who are they going to offload them too… RNZAF might be interested in some for the right price, but there’s too many so someone else will need to buy them.

Well I’d would imagine airbus will actually want them as parts hulks if there are no takers for operational birds

Just about every user is haveing spare problems, the ADF might ba able to sell for more $$$ as parts hulks

I also did pose the question if NZG would jump quick to get additional airframes and spare parts before you piped up

"Germany’s head of navy calls China’s naval power buildup ‘explosive’ and a cause of worry"
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/22/germany ... ildup.html

Excerpt -
China’s growing naval power is “explosive” and a cause for concern, said German Chief of Navy, Vice Adm. Kay-Achim Schonbach, who urged Beijing to follow the international rules-based order.

Schonbach said China is increasing the size of its navy by the equivalent of the entire French navy every four years.

RJMAZ wrote:

I'm sure Auukus subs will not have cost blowouts and long term support will be rock solid.

I wanted to name the F-35 "the Breacher" because it blew out Nunn-McCurdy SO MANY TIMES.

That said, in a generic contest of a Euro vs. American defense item for customer support/sustainment, I'll take the American one nearly every time. Just the way it is.

If you want to ask anyone, ask the ADF guys who run this stuff.

Came across two good articles about the sub options.

https://www.navylookout.com/royal-navy- ... australia/

https://www.navylookout.com/nuclear-sub ... e-options/

I still think the Virginia is the best option as it is still in current production, sustainment of the design would be far less as part of a much larger class.

A big issue is the dry docks, piers, and training facilities as well as training. Some officer positions take 16 years to become qualified - but the boats need to be there to train on. Sounds like apprenticeships on both Royal Navy and US subs.

JayinKitsap wrote:

Came across two good articles about the sub options.

https://www.navylookout.com/royal-navy- ... australia/

https://www.navylookout.com/nuclear-sub ... e-options/

I still think the Virginia is the best option as it is still in current production, sustainment of the design would be far less as part of a much larger class.

A big issue is the dry docks, piers, and training facilities as well as training. Some officer positions take 16 years to become qualified - but the boats need to be there to train on. Sounds like apprenticeships on both Royal Navy and US subs.

RAN isn't starting subs from scratch. They would be starting nuc eng from zero but all that takes is a couple of lateral transfers to get them going..

Best bet for training is a retiring 688. It never has to sail, just sit in the harbour and they can train to their hearts content. Like this, isn't cheap though... https://www.naval-technology.com/news/u ... ning-ship/

JayinKitsap wrote:

Came across two good articles about the sub options.

https://www.navylookout.com/royal-navy- ... australia/

https://www.navylookout.com/nuclear-sub ... e-options/

I still think the Virginia is the best option as it is still in current production, sustainment of the design would be far less as part of a much larger class.

A big issue is the dry docks, piers, and training facilities as well as training. Some officer positions take 16 years to become qualified - but the boats need to be there to train on. Sounds like apprenticeships on both Royal Navy and US subs.

Interesting articles, while the USN might be in a position to offer, as stated in one article, a SSN essentially as a training aid for the RAN and industry, I still think the best path for the RAN for new subs and local industry would be inclusion into the follow on to the Astute Class now in the early stages of development.
With a 25 year life, the replacement for the oldest Astute boat needs to be completed in the mid 2030’s.
With the RAN following not far behind, given the problems of the SSN to SSK option, (bizzare and already delayed even at this early stage plus the industrial diagreements emerging), it might just be possible for the RAN to get it’s first SSN from such a tie up not long afterwards, probably not long after the first of the now cancelled class would in all probability been available.

There would still be considerable US involvement, politically and at an industrial level, the RAN working with US industry on the combat system and supply of fuel as well as nuclear infrastructure.

GDB wrote:

JayinKitsap wrote:

Came across two good articles about the sub options.

https://www.navylookout.com/royal-navy- ... australia/

https://www.navylookout.com/nuclear-sub ... e-options/

I still think the Virginia is the best option as it is still in current production, sustainment of the design would be far less as part of a much larger class.

A big issue is the dry docks, piers, and training facilities as well as training. Some officer positions take 16 years to become qualified - but the boats need to be there to train on. Sounds like apprenticeships on both Royal Navy and US subs.

Interesting articles, while the USN might be in a position to offer, as stated in one article, a SSN essentially as a training aid for the RAN and industry, I still think the best path for the RAN for new subs and local industry would be inclusion into the follow on to the Astute Class now in the early stages of development.
With a 25 year life, the replacement for the oldest Astute boat needs to be completed in the mid 2030’s.
With the RAN following not far behind, given the problems of the SSN to SSK option, (bizzare and already delayed even at this early stage plus the industrial diagreements emerging), it might just be possible for the RAN to get it’s first SSN from such a tie up not long afterwards, probably not long after the first of the now cancelled class would in all probability been available.

There would still be considerable US involvement, politically and at an industrial level, the RAN working with US industry on the combat system and supply of fuel as well as nuclear infrastructure.

Quite interesting.
Talking about nuclear infrastructure -- isn't it correct that going "Astute way", in principle, reduces the footprint of required infrastructure -- with no refueling capability required.
Otherwise, RAN would either have to rely on industrial partners to refuel, or create much more industry locally?

Phosphorus wrote:

GDB wrote:

JayinKitsap wrote:

Came across two good articles about the sub options.

https://www.navylookout.com/royal-navy- ... australia/

https://www.navylookout.com/nuclear-sub ... e-options/

I still think the Virginia is the best option as it is still in current production, sustainment of the design would be far less as part of a much larger class.

A big issue is the dry docks, piers, and training facilities as well as training. Some officer positions take 16 years to become qualified - but the boats need to be there to train on. Sounds like apprenticeships on both Royal Navy and US subs.

Interesting articles, while the USN might be in a position to offer, as stated in one article, a SSN essentially as a training aid for the RAN and industry, I still think the best path for the RAN for new subs and local industry would be inclusion into the follow on to the Astute Class now in the early stages of development.
With a 25 year life, the replacement for the oldest Astute boat needs to be completed in the mid 2030’s.
With the RAN following not far behind, given the problems of the SSN to SSK option, (bizzare and already delayed even at this early stage plus the industrial diagreements emerging), it might just be possible for the RAN to get it’s first SSN from such a tie up not long afterwards, probably not long after the first of the now cancelled class would in all probability been available.

There would still be considerable US involvement, politically and at an industrial level, the RAN working with US industry on the combat system and supply of fuel as well as nuclear infrastructure.

Quite interesting.
Talking about nuclear infrastructure -- isn't it correct that going "Astute way", in principle, reduces the footprint of required infrastructure -- with no refueling capability required.
Otherwise, RAN would either have to rely on industrial partners to refuel, or create much more industry locally?

Virginia doesn't refuel either. Reactor is there for life of the boat.

johns624 wrote:

I just read an opinion piece in a British magazine (Warship IFR) about why the French weren't invited to join the AUUKUS defense pact and it makes perfect sense. For the last several years, Macron (DeGaulle Jr.) has been agitating for an EU military force with France in charge, in competition with NATO. Inviting France to join the new pact would just lead to problems due to France being the junior partner, yet wanting to have the loudest voice.

Yeah, its the classic impasse of Anglo/US/French military/diplomatic relations.

The French want to use their dominant position within the EU to push what they likely believe are European equities, but are perceived by a far number of smaller nations as Franco-centric ones.

The French view NATO as US/UK dominated (probably true.) But, that is kind of the price as long as the US/UK are the preponderance of the combat effort and EU combat operations simply not ready for prime time, especially in the major combat operations sense. Interestingly, the UK Left views this dynamic as the UK as the junior partner/poodle of the US, but the reality I've seen is that the US is reacting to UK considerations...our relationship is really far more complex than the UK left wish to make it seem.

I can be pretty sympathetic to French realities, as they are trying to maintain a global presence (a Champaigne priced requirement) on a domestic light beer budget. One of the many ways to manage this is via foreign arms sales (which make many high-end capabilities within budgetary reach.) I welcome the French not viewing the Anglo/US side as their "Prime Enemy" (see the breathless "hyperpower" comments of the 1990s) and recognizing the requirement to join hands in the face of an aggressive China and revanchist Russia.

FlapOperator wrote:

johns624 wrote:

I just read an opinion piece in a British magazine (Warship IFR) about why the French weren't invited to join the AUUKUS defense pact and it makes perfect sense. For the last several years, Macron (DeGaulle Jr.) has been agitating for an EU military force with France in charge, in competition with NATO. Inviting France to join the new pact would just lead to problems due to France being the junior partner, yet wanting to have the loudest voice.

Yeah, its the classic impasse of Anglo/US/French military/diplomatic relations.

The French want to use their dominant position within the EU to push what they likely believe are European equities, but are perceived by a far number of smaller nations as Franco-centric ones.

The French view NATO as US/UK dominated (probably true.) But, that is kind of the price as long as the US/UK are the preponderance of the combat effort and EU combat operations simply not ready for prime time, especially in the major combat operations sense. Interestingly, the UK Left views this dynamic as the UK as the junior partner/poodle of the US, but the reality I've seen is that the US is reacting to UK considerations...our relationship is really far more complex than the UK left wish to make it seem.

I can be pretty sympathetic to French realities, as they are trying to maintain a global presence (a Champaigne priced requirement) on a domestic light beer budget. One of the many ways to manage this is via foreign arms sales (which make many high-end capabilities within budgetary reach.) I welcome the French not viewing the Anglo/US side as their "Prime Enemy" (see the breathless "hyperpower" comments of the 1990s) and recognizing the requirement to join hands in the face of an aggressive China and revanchist Russia.

Just remember that France can't really go anywhere in the EU without Germany and German military interests are still somewhat different from France's. While they continue to cooperate on ever more issues, France has the ambition to be a global military power whereas the German military is still geared more toward defending European interests.
At least for Germany I understand that the military and intelligence services are far more pragmatic on cooperating with US/UK forces than the general public may perceive it to be.
Ultimately, we are all allies, even though most European nations are far more cautious on engaging in conflicts far away from their territories.
This is largely due to countless wars that all countries in Europe suffered through in history. However even conflict-averse Europeans are waking up to the reality that China poses a major threat.
I expect a larger cooperative effort by continental European nations both in civilian and military terms against China in the coming years. The EU initiative to combat the Chinese economic expansion in Africa is one example.
There will be more military presence in the Asian region by European vessels, too. Albeit I expect at least initially in a more muted manner than Australian, Japanese, or South Korean navies might prefer.

stratable wrote:

Just remember that France can't really go anywhere in the EU without Germany and German military interests are still somewhat different from France's. While they continue to cooperate on ever more issues, France has the ambition to be a global military power whereas the German military is still geared more toward defending European interests.
At least for Germany I understand that the military and intelligence services are far more pragmatic on cooperating with US/UK forces than the general public may perceive it to be.
Ultimately, we are all allies, even though most European nations are far more cautious on engaging in conflicts far away from their territories.
This is largely due to countless wars that all countries in Europe suffered through in history. However even conflict-averse Europeans are waking up to the reality that China poses a major threat.
I expect a larger cooperative effort by continental European nations both in civilian and military terms against China in the coming years. The EU initiative to combat the Chinese economic expansion in Africa is one example.
There will be more military presence in the Asian region by European vessels, too. Albeit I expect at least initially in a more muted manner than Australian, Japanese, or South Korean navies might prefer.

I'd agree to all, and yes, at the end of the day we are all Allies whose general geostrategic interests are aligned, and at the operational level, usually quite pragmatic regarding cooperation and coordination. There are going to be rubs, like the AUS SSN program, and frankly, that's ultimately for the politicians to manage.

SeamanBeaumont wrote:

JayinKitsap wrote:

Came across two good articles about the sub options.

https://www.navylookout.com/royal-navy- ... australia/

https://www.navylookout.com/nuclear-sub ... e-options/

I still think the Virginia is the best option as it is still in current production, sustainment of the design would be far less as part of a much larger class.

A big issue is the dry docks, piers, and training facilities as well as training. Some officer positions take 16 years to become qualified - but the boats need to be there to train on. Sounds like apprenticeships on both Royal Navy and US subs.

RAN isn't starting subs from scratch. They would be starting nuc eng from zero but all that takes is a couple of lateral transfers to get them going..

Best bet for training is a retiring 688. It never has to sail, just sit in the harbour and they can train to their hearts content. Like this, isn't cheap though... https://www.naval-technology.com/news/u ... ning-ship/

No it isn't cheap, but the San Francisco (SSN 711) and La Jolla (SSN 701) have been converted to training assets, as part of this the reactor compartment and other sections were replaced with similar reactor compartment. I am unsure if they did the S6G reactor compartment or a S9G, I would envision the S9G was selected as all its parts are in production and the LA class are nearing retirement. I recall the cost to convert to an inert reactor was only a fraction of the cost to maintain the live reactor - 24/7 watches, 1600A of 480V 3 phase power, annual maintenance. The two prior trainer hulls had live reactors which cost a fortune every year.

https://www.militarynews.com/norfolk-na ... d6bab.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_P ... ining_Unit

A nuclear sub requires a huge shore facility, even Guam which can homeport currently 3 with a projected 6 subs at full buildout, still uses either Pearl or PSNS for a lot of the maintenance support beyond what the tender can supply. Similarly with training, it only has like a 1/2 sub school, with lots of sailors sent to the US for their major training. Nearly every major station has a shore trainer. For the Boomers, the Trident Training Facilities (Bangor and Kingsbay) are over 1 million square feet each and they receive sailors and officers trained at the sub schools.

https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo/tride ... s-bay.html

Refueling is the super D check for airplanes, still need to do all of the less extensive maintenance, replacing pumps, painting every tank and hull surface, new equipment replacements, etc.

GDB wrote:

JayinKitsap wrote:

Came across two good articles about the sub options.

https://www.navylookout.com/royal-navy- ... australia/

https://www.navylookout.com/nuclear-sub ... e-options/

I still think the Virginia is the best option as it is still in current production, sustainment of the design would be far less as part of a much larger class.

A big issue is the dry docks, piers, and training facilities as well as training. Some officer positions take 16 years to become qualified - but the boats need to be there to train on. Sounds like apprenticeships on both Royal Navy and US subs.

Interesting articles, while the USN might be in a position to offer, as stated in one article, a SSN essentially as a training aid for the RAN and industry, I still think the best path for the RAN for new subs and local industry would be inclusion into the follow on to the Astute Class now in the early stages of development.
With a 25 year life, the replacement for the oldest Astute boat needs to be completed in the mid 2030’s.
With the RAN following not far behind, given the problems of the SSN to SSK option, (bizzare and already delayed even at this early stage plus the industrial diagreements emerging), it might just be possible for the RAN to get it’s first SSN from such a tie up not long afterwards, probably not long after the first of the now cancelled class would in all probability been available.

There would still be considerable US involvement, politically and at an industrial level, the RAN working with US industry on the combat system and supply of fuel as well as nuclear infrastructure.

I must admit to quietly enjoying the content of this thread.....

I also must admit that when you consider the infrastructure needed to operate and maintain a fleet of Nuclear Submarines, I am awed at the size of the challenge Australia is setting itself.

For those that don't know, as you pointed out earlier, there are 3 Astutes still to finish sat in the BAE yard in Barrow-in-Furness.

Three factors to consider in terms of a choice between current generation and next generation are:-

a) both the US and UK have huge SSBN programmes to undertake alongside the SSN's
b) what does the current escalation mean for policy, and thus the demand trend, for SSN's in both the US and UK?
c) what is the perceived threat and thus mission profile the Australians are looking for? (e.g. is the balance more ASW or missile strike).

There are many ways to divide up the work content that are influenced by all of these..

For what its worth, the RAN may not need to work with US industry on either combat system, or fuel supply.
The US government will need to be involved in the nuclear plant and infrastructure whatever because of the 1958 agreement.

Rgds

astuteman wrote:

Three factors to consider in terms of a choice between current generation and next generation are:-

a) both the US and UK have huge SSBN programmes to undertake alongside the SSN's
b) what does the current escalation mean for policy, and thus the demand trend, for SSN's in both the US and UK?
c) what is the perceived threat and thus mission profile the Australians are looking for? (e.g. is the balance more ASW or missile strike).

Rgds

The threat is China first and foremost, with North Korea, Russia and Indonesia as ongoing concerns.
The main reason for nuke boats is for long distances, speed and duration. They will be used to hunt other subs and to attack surface warships. It is possible that some form of land attack is included, but that is not their primary mission.

https://breakingdefense.com/2022/02/fra ... -sub-deal/

looks like France has singled out Australia as the main "bad guy"

bajs11 wrote:

https://breakingdefense.com/2022/02/france-dumps-aussies-from-strategic-partnership-citing-aukus-sub-deal/

looks like France has singled out Australia as the main "bad guy"

French as usual as full of shite, to claim they weren't informed the contract was in doubt for their piss poor performance is utterly wrong.

I'll be very curious to see that if they do get Virginia's, they get the S9G "as is" meaning using HEU fuel. What with all the pushing by (seriously misguided, IMO) non-proliferation types to switch naval reactors to LEU and Australia's generally anti-nuclear power stance, it could be an issue.
Such a change would of course require a re-design to incorporate HALEU (at best) with negative consequences for reactor power density and time between refuellings.

I recall, possibly way up in the thread, that Australia does not want to have a Nuclear Industry. Either the Virginia S9G or the Astute class's reactor will be set up to not require refueling during the life of the sub, the S9G in the US Navy has attained lifetime initial refueling for their fleet. Previously, a sub would be refuelled 1 or 2 times over its life.

There is extensive annual maintenance around a reactor compartment, that would happen at the home port for the subs. Australia may choose to contract that out to Electric Boat or Bettis, alternatively visit Pearl for such refit work. Sort of a Power by the Hour arrangement where Australia treats the compartment as a big black box.

744SPX wrote:

I'll be very curious to see that if they do get Virginia's, they get the S9G "as is" meaning using HEU fuel. What with all the pushing by (seriously misguided, IMO) non-proliferation types to switch naval reactors to LEU and Australia's generally anti-nuclear power stance, it could be an issue.
Such a change would of course require a re-design to incorporate HALEU (at best) with negative consequences for reactor power density and time between refuellings.

A) I don't see Australia getting Virginia's for a number of reasons, not least of which NNS and EB can't build the US one quickly enough (comment aimed at demand challenge, not supply issues)
B) If the fuel density is less than the Virginia's reactor, I'd pretty much bet that it will result in lower performance in order to maintain the whole life core life.

JayinKitsap wrote:

I recall, possibly way up in the thread, that Australia does not want to have a Nuclear Industry. Either the Virginia S9G or the Astute class's reactor will be set up to not require refueling during the life of the sub, the S9G in the US Navy has attained lifetime initial refueling for their fleet. Previously, a sub would be refuelled 1 or 2 times over its life.

There is extensive annual maintenance around a reactor compartment, that would happen at the home port for the subs. Australia may choose to contract that out to Electric Boat or Bettis, alternatively visit Pearl for such refit work. Sort of a Power by the Hour arrangement where Australia treats the compartment as a big black box.

Trouble is, you can't have an operational nuclear reactor without a "nuclear industry" of some sorts.
Licensing, qualification, and regulation all have to happen, as do emergency plans.
That's on top of the heavy maintenance and inspection burden you allude to.
As far as I'm aware, EB don't conduct refits.
See my previous post - I'm not sure they'd have the capacity anyway.
USN new builds would surely take priority?

Rgds

astuteman wrote:

JayinKitsap wrote:

I recall, possibly way up in the thread, that Australia does not want to have a Nuclear Industry. Either the Virginia S9G or the Astute class's reactor will be set up to not require refueling during the life of the sub, the S9G in the US Navy has attained lifetime initial refueling for their fleet. Previously, a sub would be refuelled 1 or 2 times over its life.

There is extensive annual maintenance around a reactor compartment, that would happen at the home port for the subs. Australia may choose to contract that out to Electric Boat or Bettis, alternatively visit Pearl for such refit work. Sort of a Power by the Hour arrangement where Australia treats the compartment as a big black box.

Trouble is, you can't have an operational nuclear reactor without a "nuclear industry" of some sorts.
Licensing, qualification, and regulation all have to happen, as do emergency plans.
That's on top of the heavy maintenance and inspection burden you allude to.
As far as I'm aware, EB don't conduct refits.
See my previous post - I'm not sure they'd have the capacity anyway.
USN new builds would surely take priority?

Rgds

You know better than me, but the support facilities for a nuclear sub are far more than a conventional powered sub. Either need complete bases like Kings Bay and Bangor that have dry docks and can handle Intermediate Maintenance tasks, or utilize a submarine tender. Major overhauls belong to the 4 Naval Shipyards - Portsmouth, Norfolk, Puget Sound, and Pearl Harbor, places like San Diego, Guam & Japan are supported by PSNS Civil Service detachments.

You are right about EB not doing refits at their yard for US or UK vessels, but they have significant contracts on ships and shore facilities. Similar refit kind of work is Lockheed doing all of the sustainment for the D5's.

The only way I see this working well would be to have a Joint Base in Australia with either the US for Virginia boats or the UK for Astute boats. Shore side facilities - dry dock, pier space for 4 boats - double rafted, Magnetic Silencing Facility, a complete refit facility, ordinance depot, dorms and housing, training facilities, public works, commissary, etc. Google - Bangor Trident Base and look at the image. Bangor has other supply depot functions that makes it quite big, but far bigger than Naval Base Point Loma as it doesn't have a dry dock and minimal refit support.

At build out, the base can probably support 10 boats - 6 AUS and 4 US/UK, with the first AUS would be say the 3rd or 4th there. Should do Blue / Gold crews to allow for more trainer work. The first boats there would be crewed 1/3 : 2/3 or similar to the manning done by the USN, only so many first patrol types. Later boats could have more balance in the Joint Operation. A US (or UK) Naval Shipyard detachment would have to do all of the reactor compartment work. I cannot imagine either the US or UK allowing other their own citizens doing the nuclear tech work. The USN has only authorized the UK its nuclear power information, Australia would be the 2nd.

Yes, Australia would get new builds after the US, it may be where only the reactor compartment is US made. Hull structure makes more sense to do in the US but it could be shipped in sections to an AUS shipyard for final assembly.

astuteman wrote:

JayinKitsap wrote:

I recall, possibly way up in the thread, that Australia does not want to have a Nuclear Industry. Either the Virginia S9G or the Astute class's reactor will be set up to not require refueling during the life of the sub, the S9G in the US Navy has attained lifetime initial refueling for their fleet. Previously, a sub would be refuelled 1 or 2 times over its life.

There is extensive annual maintenance around a reactor compartment, that would happen at the home port for the subs. Australia may choose to contract that out to Electric Boat or Bettis, alternatively visit Pearl for such refit work. Sort of a Power by the Hour arrangement where Australia treats the compartment as a big black box.

Trouble is, you can't have an operational nuclear reactor without a "nuclear industry" of some sorts.
Licensing, qualification, and regulation all have to happen, as do emergency plans.
That's on top of the heavy maintenance and inspection burden you allude to.
As far as I'm aware, EB don't conduct refits.
See my previous post - I'm not sure they'd have the capacity anyway.
USN new builds would surely take priority?

Rgds

My belief is this isn't going to go anywhere, I very much doubt in 10-20 years time we will see Australia operating any SSN's.

Interesting point. Would unmanned submarines reach maturity before Austrailia gets their subs?

bt

JayinKitsap wrote:

astuteman wrote:

JayinKitsap wrote:

I recall, possibly way up in the thread, that Australia does not want to have a Nuclear Industry. Either the Virginia S9G or the Astute class's reactor will be set up to not require refueling during the life of the sub, the S9G in the US Navy has attained lifetime initial refueling for their fleet. Previously, a sub would be refuelled 1 or 2 times over its life.

There is extensive annual maintenance around a reactor compartment, that would happen at the home port for the subs. Australia may choose to contract that out to Electric Boat or Bettis, alternatively visit Pearl for such refit work. Sort of a Power by the Hour arrangement where Australia treats the compartment as a big black box.

Trouble is, you can't have an operational nuclear reactor without a "nuclear industry" of some sorts.
Licensing, qualification, and regulation all have to happen, as do emergency plans.
That's on top of the heavy maintenance and inspection burden you allude to.
As far as I'm aware, EB don't conduct refits.
See my previous post - I'm not sure they'd have the capacity anyway.
USN new builds would surely take priority?

Rgds

You know better than me, but the support facilities for a nuclear sub are far more than a conventional powered sub. Either need complete bases like Kings Bay and Bangor that have dry docks and can handle Intermediate Maintenance tasks, or utilize a submarine tender. Major overhauls belong to the 4 Naval Shipyards - Portsmouth, Norfolk, Puget Sound, and Pearl Harbor, places like San Diego, Guam & Japan are supported by PSNS Civil Service detachments.

You are right about EB not doing refits at their yard for US or UK vessels, but they have significant contracts on ships and shore facilities. Similar refit kind of work is Lockheed doing all of the sustainment for the D5's.

The only way I see this working well would be to have a Joint Base in Australia with either the US for Virginia boats or the UK for Astute boats. Shore side facilities - dry dock, pier space for 4 boats - double rafted, Magnetic Silencing Facility, a complete refit facility, ordinance depot, dorms and housing, training facilities, public works, commissary, etc. Google - Bangor Trident Base and look at the image. Bangor has other supply depot functions that makes it quite big, but far bigger than Naval Base Point Loma as it doesn't have a dry dock and minimal refit support.

At build out, the base can probably support 10 boats - 6 AUS and 4 US/UK, with the first AUS would be say the 3rd or 4th there. Should do Blue / Gold crews to allow for more trainer work. The first boats there would be crewed 1/3 : 2/3 or similar to the manning done by the USN, only so many first patrol types. Later boats could have more balance in the Joint Operation. A US (or UK) Naval Shipyard detachment would have to do all of the reactor compartment work. I cannot imagine either the US or UK allowing other their own citizens doing the nuclear tech work. The USN has only authorized the UK its nuclear power information, Australia would be the 2nd.

Yes, Australia would get new builds after the US, it may be where only the reactor compartment is US made. Hull structure makes more sense to do in the US but it could be shipped in sections to an AUS shipyard for final assembly.

I could google Bangor I guess.... or Faslane for that matter. Or Devonport

Your point about US agreement (technically the US Government, not the USN ) is valid.
The 1958 agreement still stands as far as I know, and Aus will need to become a co-signatory.

Aus does have sub build capability, but not nuclear. So I could see your idea of shipping sections being a possibility.
I have a bit of a chuckle about the vision of an AUKUS SSN reactor section on a barge in the middle of the South China Sea .......
I have no idea how this will evolve, but I will be watching with fascination

Rgds

astuteman wrote:

JayinKitsap wrote:

astuteman wrote:

Trouble is, you can't have an operational nuclear reactor without a "nuclear industry" of some sorts.
Licensing, qualification, and regulation all have to happen, as do emergency plans.
That's on top of the heavy maintenance and inspection burden you allude to.
As far as I'm aware, EB don't conduct refits.
See my previous post - I'm not sure they'd have the capacity anyway.
USN new builds would surely take priority?

Rgds

You know better than me, but the support facilities for a nuclear sub are far more than a conventional powered sub. Either need complete bases like Kings Bay and Bangor that have dry docks and can handle Intermediate Maintenance tasks, or utilize a submarine tender. Major overhauls belong to the 4 Naval Shipyards - Portsmouth, Norfolk, Puget Sound, and Pearl Harbor, places like San Diego, Guam & Japan are supported by PSNS Civil Service detachments.

You are right about EB not doing refits at their yard for US or UK vessels, but they have significant contracts on ships and shore facilities. Similar refit kind of work is Lockheed doing all of the sustainment for the D5's.

The only way I see this working well would be to have a Joint Base in Australia with either the US for Virginia boats or the UK for Astute boats. Shore side facilities - dry dock, pier space for 4 boats - double rafted, Magnetic Silencing Facility, a complete refit facility, ordinance depot, dorms and housing, training facilities, public works, commissary, etc. Google - Bangor Trident Base and look at the image. Bangor has other supply depot functions that makes it quite big, but far bigger than Naval Base Point Loma as it doesn't have a dry dock and minimal refit support.

At build out, the base can probably support 10 boats - 6 AUS and 4 US/UK, with the first AUS would be say the 3rd or 4th there. Should do Blue / Gold crews to allow for more trainer work. The first boats there would be crewed 1/3 : 2/3 or similar to the manning done by the USN, only so many first patrol types. Later boats could have more balance in the Joint Operation. A US (or UK) Naval Shipyard detachment would have to do all of the reactor compartment work. I cannot imagine either the US or UK allowing other their own citizens doing the nuclear tech work. The USN has only authorized the UK its nuclear power information, Australia would be the 2nd.

Yes, Australia would get new builds after the US, it may be where only the reactor compartment is US made. Hull structure makes more sense to do in the US but it could be shipped in sections to an AUS shipyard for final assembly.

I could google Bangor I guess.... or Faslane for that matter. Or Devonport

Your point about US agreement (technically the US Government, not the USN ) is valid.
The 1958 agreement still stands as far as I know, and Aus will need to become a co-signatory.

Aus does have sub build capability, but not nuclear. So I could see your idea of shipping sections being a possibility.
I have a bit of a chuckle about the vision of an AUKUS SSN reactor section on a barge in the middle of the South China Sea .......
I have no idea how this will evolve, but I will be watching with fascination

Rgds

I knew you know what all goes into a sub base, I was bringing up one could google for the a.net crowd.

The 1958 agreement still stands, I recall the UK is the only country the US has given nuclear technology as well as furnishing ICBM missiles to.

A new agreement is needed among the three countries as the scope is broadened, nuclear info and stuff will be shared among the three, as well as joint operation considerations. The UK designed their own reactor plants from that information, AUS wants to stand back, just be a user of the propulsion system (50 year lease? of the reactor compartment).

Well they do barge reactor compartments already, but it is from the Puget Sound, down the Washington Coast and up the Columbia to Hanford. It's a sealed reactor compartment ready to be buried. PSNS is the only US location for breaking up old subs. I am sure they watch the weather and China watches closly.

AUS does have shipyards and they built the Collins class, however the Astute and Virginia probably have thicker hulls at a larger diameter, in particular the pressure bulkhead takes some special equipment to manufacture, probably cheaper to buy 5 cones & 5 tail bulkheads than the equipment to make them. The shell sections possibly also. Whichever sub is purchased will be the design, but the UK could fabricate Virginia sections without issue and visa versa. Obtaining and welding the high strength steel takes a huge QC effort that has a steep learning curve. Better for AUS to focus on assembly using the already made bare hull sections. That is all work that the same yard will be maintaining over the years, making good sense to learn.

It will take close to a decade to design and build the sub base, it would be at least a decade for AUS to build its first sub. However, it would also take a decade to properly train the officers, chiefs, and crew on that class, so joint crewing has to begin shortly after the agreement is signed.

The US would love to have a forward sub base there, that really makes it worth it by itself.

Quite fascinating, need lots of popcorn. It all started with the realization that 12 smaller diesel boats was going to cost more than 5 Virginia or 7 Astute boats, just the added endurance allows half of the subs to be operated.

astuteman wrote:

GDB wrote:

JayinKitsap wrote:

Came across two good articles about the sub options.

https://www.navylookout.com/royal-navy- ... australia/

https://www.navylookout.com/nuclear-sub ... e-options/

I still think the Virginia is the best option as it is still in current production, sustainment of the design would be far less as part of a much larger class.

A big issue is the dry docks, piers, and training facilities as well as training. Some officer positions take 16 years to become qualified - but the boats need to be there to train on. Sounds like apprenticeships on both Royal Navy and US subs.

Interesting articles, while the USN might be in a position to offer, as stated in one article, a SSN essentially as a training aid for the RAN and industry, I still think the best path for the RAN for new subs and local industry would be inclusion into the follow on to the Astute Class now in the early stages of development.
With a 25 year life, the replacement for the oldest Astute boat needs to be completed in the mid 2030’s.
With the RAN following not far behind, given the problems of the SSN to SSK option, (bizzare and already delayed even at this early stage plus the industrial diagreements emerging), it might just be possible for the RAN to get it’s first SSN from such a tie up not long afterwards, probably not long after the first of the now cancelled class would in all probability been available.

There would still be considerable US involvement, politically and at an industrial level, the RAN working with US industry on the combat system and supply of fuel as well as nuclear infrastructure.

I must admit to quietly enjoying the content of this thread.....

I also must admit that when you consider the infrastructure needed to operate and maintain a fleet of Nuclear Submarines, I am awed at the size of the challenge Australia is setting itself.

For those that don't know, as you pointed out earlier, there are 3 Astutes still to finish sat in the BAE yard in Barrow-in-Furness.

Three factors to consider in terms of a choice between current generation and next generation are:-

a) both the US and UK have huge SSBN programmes to undertake alongside the SSN's
b) what does the current escalation mean for policy, and thus the demand trend, for SSN's in both the US and UK?
c) what is the perceived threat and thus mission profile the Australians are looking for? (e.g. is the balance more ASW or missile strike).

There are many ways to divide up the work content that are influenced by all of these..

For what its worth, the RAN may not need to work with US industry on either combat system, or fuel supply.
The US government will need to be involved in the nuclear plant and infrastructure whatever because of the 1958 agreement.

Rgds

"For what its worth, the RAN may not need to work with US industry on either combat system, or fuel supply."

I have seen analysis that neatly plugs the RAN production into an expanded Astute line; and indeed the boat seems
somewhat better suited to RAN needs anyway.

The current Collins boats have the USN combat systems.
I have been wondering to what extent the Astutes have combat systems that are compatible with the USN system.
Presumably there is no issue as the navies exercise together(?)

Is this what you meant?

cheers

JayinKitsap wrote:

astuteman wrote:

JayinKitsap wrote:

You know better than me, but the support facilities for a nuclear sub are far more than a conventional powered sub. Either need complete bases like Kings Bay and Bangor that have dry docks and can handle Intermediate Maintenance tasks, or utilize a submarine tender. Major overhauls belong to the 4 Naval Shipyards - Portsmouth, Norfolk, Puget Sound, and Pearl Harbor, places like San Diego, Guam & Japan are supported by PSNS Civil Service detachments.

You are right about EB not doing refits at their yard for US or UK vessels, but they have significant contracts on ships and shore facilities. Similar refit kind of work is Lockheed doing all of the sustainment for the D5's.

The only way I see this working well would be to have a Joint Base in Australia with either the US for Virginia boats or the UK for Astute boats. Shore side facilities - dry dock, pier space for 4 boats - double rafted, Magnetic Silencing Facility, a complete refit facility, ordinance depot, dorms and housing, training facilities, public works, commissary, etc. Google - Bangor Trident Base and look at the image. Bangor has other supply depot functions that makes it quite big, but far bigger than Naval Base Point Loma as it doesn't have a dry dock and minimal refit support.

At build out, the base can probably support 10 boats - 6 AUS and 4 US/UK, with the first AUS would be say the 3rd or 4th there. Should do Blue / Gold crews to allow for more trainer work. The first boats there would be crewed 1/3 : 2/3 or similar to the manning done by the USN, only so many first patrol types. Later boats could have more balance in the Joint Operation. A US (or UK) Naval Shipyard detachment would have to do all of the reactor compartment work. I cannot imagine either the US or UK allowing other their own citizens doing the nuclear tech work. The USN has only authorized the UK its nuclear power information, Australia would be the 2nd.

Yes, Australia would get new builds after the US, it may be where only the reactor compartment is US made. Hull structure makes more sense to do in the US but it could be shipped in sections to an AUS shipyard for final assembly.

I could google Bangor I guess.... or Faslane for that matter. Or Devonport

Your point about US agreement (technically the US Government, not the USN ) is valid.
The 1958 agreement still stands as far as I know, and Aus will need to become a co-signatory.

Aus does have sub build capability, but not nuclear. So I could see your idea of shipping sections being a possibility.
I have a bit of a chuckle about the vision of an AUKUS SSN reactor section on a barge in the middle of the South China Sea .......
I have no idea how this will evolve, but I will be watching with fascination

Rgds

I knew you know what all goes into a sub base, I was bringing up one could google for the a.net crowd.

The 1958 agreement still stands, I recall the UK is the only country the US has given nuclear technology as well as furnishing ICBM missiles to.

A new agreement is needed among the three countries as the scope is broadened, nuclear info and stuff will be shared among the three, as well as joint operation considerations. The UK designed their own reactor plants from that information, AUS wants to stand back, just be a user of the propulsion system (50 year lease? of the reactor compartment).

Well they do barge reactor compartments already, but it is from the Puget Sound, down the Washington Coast and up the Columbia to Hanford. It's a sealed reactor compartment ready to be buried. PSNS is the only US location for breaking up old subs. I am sure they watch the weather and China watches closly.

AUS does have shipyards and they built the Collins class, however the Astute and Virginia probably have thicker hulls at a larger diameter, in particular the pressure bulkhead takes some special equipment to manufacture, probably cheaper to buy 5 cones & 5 tail bulkheads than the equipment to make them. The shell sections possibly also. Whichever sub is purchased will be the design, but the UK could fabricate Virginia sections without issue and visa versa. Obtaining and welding the high strength steel takes a huge QC effort that has a steep learning curve. Better for AUS to focus on assembly using the already made bare hull sections. That is all work that the same yard will be maintaining over the years, making good sense to learn.

It will take close to a decade to design and build the sub base, it would be at least a decade for AUS to build its first sub. However, it would also take a decade to properly train the officers, chiefs, and crew on that class, so joint crewing has to begin shortly after the agreement is signed.

The US would love to have a forward sub base there, that really makes it worth it by itself.

Quite fascinating, need lots of popcorn. It all started with the realization that 12 smaller diesel boats was going to cost more than 5 Virginia or 7 Astute boats, just the added endurance allows half of the subs to be operated.

I met an American Engineer recently in Perth, WA.
He had worked for some time in the Nuclear industry.
The subject rapidly got onto the AUKUS project.

I suggested that a new "heavy" dock/facility to the South of Perth would seem to have a number of attractive features for the USN submarine
operations in the Indian Ocean, South China Sea and Indonesian Archipelago/Malacca Strait etc.
Intriguingly, his reaction was very animated, demanding to know: "Where did you hear that?"
Unfortunately I did not get the chance to explore further.

In fact the announcement by Defence Minister Dutton contained a small reference to a "dock" right down at the bottom.
And recently I read in the local press that the State Government's latest idiotic COVID measures had meant the postponing of a trip
to Perth by the study group set up by Dutton to advise on the best way forward.
It seems the group was looking at dock locations ...


cheers

brindabella wrote:

JayinKitsap wrote:

astuteman wrote:

I could google Bangor I guess.... or Faslane for that matter. Or Devonport

Your point about US agreement (technically the US Government, not the USN ) is valid.
The 1958 agreement still stands as far as I know, and Aus will need to become a co-signatory.

Aus does have sub build capability, but not nuclear. So I could see your idea of shipping sections being a possibility.
I have a bit of a chuckle about the vision of an AUKUS SSN reactor section on a barge in the middle of the South China Sea .......
I have no idea how this will evolve, but I will be watching with fascination

Rgds

I knew you know what all goes into a sub base, I was bringing up one could google for the a.net crowd.

The 1958 agreement still stands, I recall the UK is the only country the US has given nuclear technology as well as furnishing ICBM missiles to.

A new agreement is needed among the three countries as the scope is broadened, nuclear info and stuff will be shared among the three, as well as joint operation considerations. The UK designed their own reactor plants from that information, AUS wants to stand back, just be a user of the propulsion system (50 year lease? of the reactor compartment).

Well they do barge reactor compartments already, but it is from the Puget Sound, down the Washington Coast and up the Columbia to Hanford. It's a sealed reactor compartment ready to be buried. PSNS is the only US location for breaking up old subs. I am sure they watch the weather and China watches closly.

AUS does have shipyards and they built the Collins class, however the Astute and Virginia probably have thicker hulls at a larger diameter, in particular the pressure bulkhead takes some special equipment to manufacture, probably cheaper to buy 5 cones & 5 tail bulkheads than the equipment to make them. The shell sections possibly also. Whichever sub is purchased will be the design, but the UK could fabricate Virginia sections without issue and visa versa. Obtaining and welding the high strength steel takes a huge QC effort that has a steep learning curve. Better for AUS to focus on assembly using the already made bare hull sections. That is all work that the same yard will be maintaining over the years, making good sense to learn.

It will take close to a decade to design and build the sub base, it would be at least a decade for AUS to build its first sub. However, it would also take a decade to properly train the officers, chiefs, and crew on that class, so joint crewing has to begin shortly after the agreement is signed.

The US would love to have a forward sub base there, that really makes it worth it by itself.

Quite fascinating, need lots of popcorn. It all started with the realization that 12 smaller diesel boats was going to cost more than 5 Virginia or 7 Astute boats, just the added endurance allows half of the subs to be operated.

I met an American Engineer recently in Perth, WA.
He had worked for some time in the Nuclear industry.
The subject rapidly got onto the AUKUS project.

I suggested that a new "heavy" dock/facility to the South of Perth would seem to have a number of attractive features for the USN submarine
operations in the Indian Ocean, South China Sea and Indonesian Archipelago/Malacca Strait etc.
Intriguingly, his reaction was very animated, demanding to know: "Where did you hear that?"

You're going to get a knock on your door from ASIO pretty soon... just kidding...

ScoMo has announced the East Coast Nuclear sub base is to be established.

ScoMo said the location of the new base had been narrowed down from 19 potential sites to a shortlisted choice of three locations – Brisbane, Newcastle, or Port Kembla near Wollongong.

https://adbr.com.au/new-east-coast-nucl ... tablished/

The AUUKUS defense alliance is taking their cooperation to the next level, hypersonic Missiles.

https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/nation-politics/australia-uk-us-alliance-to-develop-hypersonic-missiles/

What aircrafts in the UK and RAAF inventory can carry these first generation of missiles?
The US has the B-3, B-52 and the F-15EX.

bt

The timelines mentioned in the article to me sound like they had the technology basically sitting on a shelf and are going forward with an actual implementation now.

The Pentagon’s 2023 budget request already includes $4.7 billion for research and development of hypersonic weapons. It includes planning that would have a hypersonic missile battery fielded by next year, a sea-based missile by 2025 and an air-based cruise missile by 2027.

Always good to see more cooperation among allies though.