The Virginia class makes the most economic sense. The reactor section will be built in the US, possibly also the section with the turbine. Forward of this the British yards can be used to fabricate and assemble the pressure hull including the interior decks. The current Virginia suppliers produce the parts with Aus stuffing the sections except for the reactor compartment, all of the cabling and fitout.

Although less Australian labor, the labor performed will train the yard to do the major alterations which will occur 1 or 2x during the life of the boat.

FlapOperator wrote:

So, your job in building a war machine to counter China is in made possible by the monitor you buy, from China so you can buy a TV, made in China.

To counter China and other countries. The world is not black and white. I am comfortable living in the various shades and gray. I would put it in the reverse, should China be up in arms knowing that their hardware is directly being used or produce weapons that could be used against them in some future war?



bt

Fro a Reddit discussion page - trying to determine who said " The capitalists will sell us the rope with which to hang them"

"I have heard it is a pithy summing up of this quote from Lenin:

"They [the capitalists] will furnish credits which will serve us for the support of the Communist Party in their countries and, by supplying us materials and technical equipment which we lack, will restore our military industry necessary for our future attacks against our suppliers. To put it in other words, they will work on the preparation of their own suicide."

I see basing for UK and USA subs being what's ultimately done, I just do not see the USA or the UK letting some other nation build their subs...even versions already obsolete, too easy for the technology to fall into other nations hands. Yes I know that is taking place in the UK and USA now, but for some strange reason, both countries are still fighting to protect their secrets.

par13del wrote:

I see basing for UK and USA subs being what's ultimately done, I just do not see the USA or the UK letting some other nation build their subs...even versions already obsolete, too easy for the technology to fall into other nations hands. Yes I know that is taking place in the UK and USA now, but for some strange reason, both countries are still fighting to protect their secrets.

Agree, I can’t see an a Australian production line also building for the US, but I can see a limited maintenance capbilty put in place for US to use

The US actully do have the capacity to increase its production it’s just money being the factor why it does not

https://breakingdefense.com/2021/11/aus ... ontrunner/

According to this article Australia will likely get the British Astute class because

One major reason to go with the British Astute instead of the American Virginia or Los Angeles classes is that its nuclear power plant uses less highly classified systems, Sadler said. Though the power plants have been modified considerably since the original agreement between the US and UK in 1959, they are still derived from the S5W reactor.

Maybe the US will help them add a VLS module.

bajs11 wrote:

https://breakingdefense.com/2021/11/aussies-to-pick-mature-nuke-sub-design-is-uks-astute-class-frontrunner/

According to this article Australia will likely get the British Astute class because

One major reason to go with the British Astute instead of the American Virginia or Los Angeles classes is that its nuclear power plant uses less highly classified systems, Sadler said. Though the power plants have been modified considerably since the original agreement between the US and UK in 1959, they are still derived from the S5W reactor.

Maybe the US will help them add a VLS module.

Maybe I should get a job writing for a think tank and get paid to say dumb things instead of just saying dumb things for free...

In brief Aussie sub numero uno says they want mature design and Heritage dude says Astute although Virginia is same age, has over four times as many boats in the water, ignores that Aussies use US Combat system, co dev the Mk48 blah blah blah. The reactor argument is also stupid, either we trust the Aussies to operate nuc boats or we don’t and the reactor is just a sealed unit, plug and play. About the only thing he got right was the yard issues and availability.

SeamanBeaumont wrote:

Maybe I should get a job writing for a think tank and get paid to say dumb things instead of just saying dumb things for free...

In brief Aussie sub numero uno says they want mature design and Heritage dude says Astute although Virginia is same age, has over four times as many boats in the water, ignores that Aussies use US Combat system, co dev the Mk48 blah blah blah. The reactor argument is also stupid, either we trust the Aussies to operate nuc boats or we don’t and the reactor is just a sealed unit, plug and play. About the only thing he got right was the yard issues and availability.

Yes, I'd highly recommend the job of thinking for pay. As just an Inside Baseball point, lots of these papers have to have stupid arguments asked and answered in them, because the decisionmakers will ask those questions, and the staffers building the slide decks want that data.

Anyway, frankly, the boat today beats a better boat maybe tomorrow or 3 years from now. If the British yards have availability and can built an Astute in the timelines that make sense with long lead time components, that's a better selection, even if you're buying integration issues of CICs, weaps, training, etc. (which likely have been smashed out to a greater or lessor degree...I don't know.) Availability to me is the prime consideration, as that drives the timelines of the other issues on the DOTMLPF.

Sadler is also right the RAN needs to looking at off the shelf enablers now as well.

The Virginia class is in ongoing production while the Astute I believe has completed its class of boats. Certainly it can be restarted but easier to just join in, AKA like the P-8 is doing now. The Virginia reactor only recently transitioned from one mid-life refueling to a single fueling for the life of the boat, a HUGE difference, in particular when there are no nuclear yards down under.

The Virginia class with its current weapons already has the engineering for the sustainment and all of the upland training facilities figured out.

Yes, for the Aussies to operate the Virginia it would take a joint effort with the US, with possibly basing of US boats in Australia, an excellent location nearer the probable action.

JayinKitsap wrote:

The Virginia class is in ongoing production while the Astute I believe has completed its class of boats. Certainly it can be restarted but easier to just join in, AKA like the P-8 is doing now. The Virginia reactor only recently transitioned from one mid-life refueling to a single fueling for the life of the boat, a HUGE difference, in particular when there are no nuclear yards down under.

The Virginia class with its current weapons already has the engineering for the sustainment and all of the upland training facilities figured out.

Yes, for the Aussies to operate the Virginia it would take a joint effort with the US, with possibly basing of US boats in Australia, an excellent location nearer the probable action.

Yeah you could do price reduction trade for basing.

That being said the Astute is a good sub and can definitely hold its own against the Virginia. Virginia, after all, is quite literally Seawolf "lite" intended from the start to be cheaper than SSN-21 by being slower and with a reduced diving depth (see Centurion and NSSN). Of course now that its the only US SSN being produced, the Navy plays that down and most people younger than 35 don't know about the Virginia's budgetary and brown-water driven origins. Heck, even Seawolf didn't incorporate all the goodies the Navy had planned for it.

I still don't believe Australia will ever operate an SSN, let alone build them in Australia. I'd also like too see the French tank Australia's FTA with the EU, the benefits in that will be incredibly positive for New Zealand exports to the EU.

JayinKitsap wrote:

The Virginia class is in ongoing production while the Astute I believe has completed its class of boats. Certainly it can be restarted but easier to just join in, AKA like the P-8 is doing now. The Virginia reactor only recently transitioned from one mid-life refueling to a single fueling for the life of the boat, a HUGE difference, in particular when there are no nuclear yards down under.

The Virginia class with its current weapons already has the engineering for the sustainment and all of the upland training facilities figured out.

Yes, for the Aussies to operate the Virginia it would take a joint effort with the US, with possibly basing of US boats in Australia, an excellent location nearer the probable action.

Final Astute completes mid 2020's, three more to complete/commission.
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/new-nuc ... avy-fleet/

A recent visitor down under;
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/british ... australia/

Would the Australians joining this project make the most sense? They get in early, presumably with their requirements for a separate combat system are best done early in the design rather back fitting an existing one, apart from better industrial participation for the same reason.
Timelines might match too, Macron can go on about 'you'll get these nukes later' but it seems the consensus with the abandoned weird hybrid design of theirs (still don't get why allowing for the original requirement being a SSK, dating from 2009, went for this one), is that would have been the same for this sub too.

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/contrac ... submarine/

Kiwirob wrote:

the benefits in that will be incredibly positive for New Zealand exports to the EU.

How much wool and mutton does the EU need?

johns624 wrote:

How much wool and mutton does the EU need?

You would think they'd prefer Austrailian beef.

If timing is an issue, they would want the capability in time for the predicted conflict across the Taiwan Straight, then best not to attempt any hybrid design. It would add one to two years to any schedule.

Chose one or the other, add a keg or two and call it good.

bt

johns624 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

the benefits in that will be incredibly positive for New Zealand exports to the EU.

How much wool and mutton does the EU need?

There are so many lines that could be used to reply to this, but best left unsaid, so as to avoid banning

johns624 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

the benefits in that will be incredibly positive for New Zealand exports to the EU.

How much wool and mutton does the EU need?

Lamb, dairy, beef, wine, we produce most of the same things Australia does, with Australia out of the EU picture it’s better for NZ.

Kiwirob wrote:

I still don't believe Australia will ever operate an SSN, let alone build them in Australia. I'd also like too see the French tank Australia's FTA with the EU, the benefits in that will be incredibly positive for New Zealand exports to the EU.

Why?

The French have often treated Australia as a captive market, egged on by the Australian political left, who apparently believe that overpaying for underperforming and undersupported European sourced defense kit is really showing the US "defense independence" whatever that means (in reality, likely South Australian jobs.)

A RAAF senior officer once told me about a case where two or three boutique parts on a US built aircraft failed at once, and the subsequent inspections downed a significant portion of the fleet. Between the US military and the OEM, parts were overnighted to various bases to ensure operational readiness, frankly in the time European defense concerns would be answering and routing the email. This anecdote isn't limited to the RAAF...both the RAN and AusArmy have similar stories.

As an American, I certainly wish for a robust European defense industry; competition is good, and plenty of good kit in the US has European origins. I think that frankly the French far more than any other major defense exporter believe that certain markets are entitled to them, be they European. Middle Eastern, African or Asian, and throw public fits when things don't go their way. Barracuda is just one recent example...French desires to freeze non EU participation in PESCO is another.

I think a strong European defense industry is good for the West, in general. As a taxpayer, I don't want to be married to the too-often underperforming US defense companies *cough* Boeing *cough*. That said, the best way forward would be the baby steps being made in European defense modernization and a continental wide continuation of the 2% spending goal.
This should be focused on continental strategic concerns, and not focused on preserving individual state defense industrial bases as the greater expense of especially smaller EU and NATO defense partners.

bikerthai wrote:

johns624 wrote:

How much wool and mutton does the EU need?

You would think they'd prefer Austrailian beef.

If timing is an issue, they would want the capability in time for the predicted conflict across the Taiwan Straight, then best not to attempt any hybrid design. It would add one to two years to any schedule.

Chose one or the other, add a keg or two and call it good.

bt

Australia beef really?

Kiwirob wrote:

johns624 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

the benefits in that will be incredibly positive for New Zealand exports to the EU.

How much wool and mutton does the EU need

Lamb, dairy, beef, wine, we produce most of the same things Australia does, with Australia out of the EU picture it’s better for NZ.

But make sure that RAAF patrols NZ airspace, Australia absorbs unemployed Kiwis, the RAN protects broader NZ access to the globe, right? The Australians can continue to do that, right?

Remember when the Kiwis were desiring the Five Eyes to scupper all cooperation with the French over matters nuclear in nature? Pepperidge Farm remembers.

FlapOperator wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

I still don't believe Australia will ever operate an SSN, let alone build them in Australia. I'd also like too see the French tank Australia's FTA with the EU, the benefits in that will be incredibly positive for New Zealand exports to the EU.

Why?

The French have often treated Australia as a captive market, egged on by the Australian political left, who apparently believe that overpaying for underperforming and undersupported European sourced defense kit is really showing the US "defense independence" whatever that means (in reality, likely South Australian jobs.)

A RAAF senior officer once told me about a case where two or three boutique parts on a US built aircraft failed at once, and the subsequent inspections downed a significant portion of the fleet. Between the US military and the OEM, parts were overnighted to various bases to ensure operational readiness, frankly in the time European defense concerns would be answering and routing the email. This anecdote isn't limited to the RAAF...both the RAN and AusArmy have similar stories.

As an American, I certainly wish for a robust European defense industry; competition is good, and plenty of good kit in the US has European origins. I think that frankly the French far more than any other major defense exporter believe that certain markets are entitled to them, be they European. Middle Eastern, African or Asian, and throw public fits when things don't go their way. Barracuda is just one recent example...French desires to freeze non EU participation in PESCO is another.

I think a strong European defense industry is good for the West, in general. As a taxpayer, I don't want to be married to the too-often underperforming US defense companies *cough* Boeing *cough*. That said, the best way forward would be the baby steps being made in European defense modernization and a continental wide continuation of the 2% spending goal.
This should be focused on continental strategic concerns, and not focused on preserving individual state defense industrial bases as the greater expense of especially smaller EU and NATO defense partners.

I don’t really care about the Australian or US defense industry, I’m quite happy to see Australia being thrown under the bus over this. I don’t believe Australian getting SSNs is going to make the South Pacific safer, the opposite is more likely.

If the French dump on Australia and veto there FTA with the EU, which I hope they do, it can only benefit New Zealand primary producers. That matter more to me than Australia getting SSNs.

Kiwirob wrote:

I don’t really care about the Australian or US defense industry, I’m quite happy to see Australia being thrown under the bus over this. I don’t believe Australian getting SSNs is going to make the South Pacific safer, the opposite is more likely.

If the French dump on Australia and veto there FTA with the EU, which I hope they do, it can only benefit New Zealand primary producers. That matter more to me than Australia getting SSNs.

Of course as Kiwi you don't care. Why would you? I mean, you get all of the benefit, and none of the costs. And, any costs you do absorb, you can hand wave.

So, why do you think unilateral disarmament in the South Pacific is the way forward?

FlapOperator wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

johns624 wrote:

How much wool and mutton does the EU need

Lamb, dairy, beef, wine, we produce most of the same things Australia does, with Australia out of the EU picture it’s better for NZ.

But make sure that RAAF patrols NZ airspace, Australia absorbs unemployed Kiwis, the RAN protects broader NZ access to the globe, right? The Australians can continue to do that, right?

Remember when the Kiwis were desiring the Five Eyes to scupper all cooperation with the French over matters nuclear in nature? Pepperidge Farm remembers.

The RAAF doesn’t patrol NZ airspace, Australians are just as welcome to move to NZ as kiwis can move there. How does the RAN protect NZ access to the globe I don’t see any of the 800 of so container ships that arrive in NZ annually being escorted into the country by Australian vessels.

I fail to see what a bakery https://www.pepperidgefarm.com/ has to do with France or Five Eyes.

Kiwirob wrote:

The RAAF doesn’t patrol NZ airspace, Australians are just as welcome to move to NZ as kiwis can move there. How does the RAN protect NZ access to the globe I don’t see any of the 800 of so container ships that arrive in NZ annually being escorted into the country by Australian vessels.

I fail to see what a bakery https://www.pepperidgefarm.com/ has to do with France or Five Eyes.

Actually the RAAF is often invited to patrol NZ airspace as the RNZAF has no organic ability to do so.

The fact that ships aren't be convoyed into port doesn't mean that their safety isn't underpinned by naval operations elsewhere in the globe.

The point was the Kiwis threw a fit over nuclear testing by France in the 1980s, but now want to buddy up with the French over the end of a French submarine program in lieu of a US/UK sourced SSN. Somewhat ironic.

Of course, I don't think a plurality of Kiwis are as short sighted as this.

Australians also protested French nuclear testing in the pacific, they were extremely annoyed when the French resumed testing in the 90’s.

http://sdsc.bellschool.anu.edu.au/exper ... ar-testing

NZ’s stance culminated in NZ becoming a nuclear weapons free zone. No political party in NZ would attempt to change this policy. Nothing wrong with buddying up to the French if it screws Australia over and increases NZ exports to Europe.

If the RAAF are patrolling NZ skys I can find no evidence of this so either put up or shut up. The P3’s are what we currently use to patrol NZ’s territory. These will sone be replaced with P8’s. There is no requirement for fighters aircraft to patrol NZ skys, as there is no threat and no countries close by who could be a threat.

Who is currently stopping cargo vessels around the world apart from a few pirates in certain locations? The world is not currently in a state of conflict no matter how hard the US is trying to start up a new Cold War.

GDB wrote:

JayinKitsap wrote:

The Virginia class is in ongoing production while the Astute I believe has completed its class of boats. Certainly it can be restarted but easier to just join in, AKA like the P-8 is doing now. The Virginia reactor only recently transitioned from one mid-life refueling to a single fueling for the life of the boat, a HUGE difference, in particular when there are no nuclear yards down under.

The Virginia class with its current weapons already has the engineering for the sustainment and all of the upland training facilities figured out.

Yes, for the Aussies to operate the Virginia it would take a joint effort with the US, with possibly basing of US boats in Australia, an excellent location nearer the probable action.

Final Astute completes mid 2020's, three more to complete/commission.
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/new-nuc ... avy-fleet/

A recent visitor down under;
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/british ... australia/

Would the Australians joining this project make the most sense? They get in early, presumably with their requirements for a separate combat system are best done early in the design rather back fitting an existing one, apart from better industrial participation for the same reason.
Timelines might match too, Macron can go on about 'you'll get these nukes later' but it seems the consensus with the abandoned weird hybrid design of theirs (still don't get why allowing for the original requirement being a SSK, dating from 2009, went for this one), is that would have been the same for this sub too.

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/contrac ... submarine/

Thanks for the information, I was just going by memory that completion was soon.

For Australia, what makes sense is to procure subs that are in production, the cost and time to develop a new class, as was happening with the French subs, is far too much. Australia was facing the cost of diesel subs being much higher than either the Astute or Virginia.

744SPX, I agree the Astute is a very good sub, also that the Virginia is a much less capable sub compared to Seawolf. However, decisions were made to go with the less capable Virginia. My favorite sub is the Jimmy Carter, with its extra section to do unique missions.

Australia needs to work out the right course to take. Either the Astute or Virginia design seem the best choices, with the production being in a mix of yards between the US, UK, and Australia. For the Virginia, it would be a US reactor section, balance of the hull structure done in either the US or UK yards. This heavy structural work does not make sense to add to an Australia shipyard, but final assembly, mechanical systems, and all the equipment and wiring inside being the best to be done in AUS, as it is skills important for maintenance as well. Basically it comes down to which approach allows the combined capacities of US, UK, and AUS to add six extra subs above the current plans.

744SPX wrote:

JayinKitsap wrote:

The Virginia class is in ongoing production while the Astute I believe has completed its class of boats. Certainly it can be restarted but easier to just join in, AKA like the P-8 is doing now. The Virginia reactor only recently transitioned from one mid-life refueling to a single fueling for the life of the boat, a HUGE difference, in particular when there are no nuclear yards down under.

The Virginia class with its current weapons already has the engineering for the sustainment and all of the upland training facilities figured out.

Yes, for the Aussies to operate the Virginia it would take a joint effort with the US, with possibly basing of US boats in Australia, an excellent location nearer the probable action.

Yeah you could do price reduction trade for basing.

That being said the Astute is a good sub and can definitely hold its own against the Virginia. Virginia, after all, is quite literally Seawolf "lite" intended from the start to be cheaper than SSN-21 by being slower and with a reduced diving depth (see Centurion and NSSN). Of course now that its the only US SSN being produced, the Navy plays that down and most people younger than 35 don't know about the Virginia's budgetary and brown-water driven origins. Heck, even Seawolf didn't incorporate all the goodies the Navy had planned for it.

Please not this again.

Virginia is as quiet as a Seawolf. It may not dive quite as deep or be as fast but has more flexible weapons load with the VLS which Seawolf lacks. The important part is.... A 774 is literally half the cost of a Seawolf ... Better to have two Virginia than one Seawolf. If the USN wasn't so short on subs I could see all three 21s being retired at their refuel points, the class of only three is just difficult to sustain and nowhere near as flexible as the 774s.

JayinKitsap wrote:

Australia needs to work out the right course to take. Either the Astute or Virginia design seem the best choices, with the production being in a mix of yards between the US, UK, and Australia. For the Virginia, it would be a US reactor section, balance of the hull structure done in either the US or UK yards. This heavy structural work does not make sense to add to an Australia shipyard, but final assembly, mechanical systems, and all the equipment and wiring inside being the best to be done in AUS, as it is skills important for maintenance as well. Basically it comes down to which approach allows the combined capacities of US, UK, and AUS to add six extra subs above the current plans.

There is no other option than Astute or Virginia. The Aussies are not crazy enough to go their own nuke design, leave that to the Brazilians and Indians with their noisy whales. It is also 8 boats, probably two sets of four is what I am hearing.

SeamanBeaumont wrote:

Please not this again.

Virginia is as quiet as a Seawolf. It may not dive quite as deep or be as fast but has more flexible weapons load with the VLS which Seawolf lacks. The important part is.... A 774 is literally half the cost of a Seawolf ... Better to have two Virginia than one Seawolf. If the USN wasn't so short on subs I could see all three 21s being retired at their refuel points, the class of only three is just difficult to sustain and nowhere near as flexible as the 774s.

Oh boy.

I'll take 3 SSN-21's over 6 SSN-774's any day of the week. Or 9 for that matter. I'm a blue water Navy boy all the way, and all of the Virginia's flexibility involves either littoral warfare or lobbing Tomahawks at inland targets (which is done better by the converted Ohio's). My friend, you can have all the Virginia's you want.

FlapOperator wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

johns624 wrote:

How much wool and mutton does the EU need

Lamb, dairy, beef, wine, we produce most of the same things Australia does, with Australia out of the EU picture it’s better for NZ.

But make sure that RAAF patrols NZ airspace, Australia absorbs unemployed Kiwis, the RAN protects broader NZ access to the globe, right? The Australians can continue to do that, right?

Remember when the Kiwis were desiring the Five Eyes to scupper all cooperation with the French over matters nuclear in nature? Pepperidge Farm remembers.

Nevermind that NZ has been propping up the Australian Banks and AU government coffers for decades with the 4 Aussie owned banks sending tens of billions across the ditch…

JayinKitsap wrote:

For Australia, what makes sense is to procure subs that are in production, the cost and time to develop a new class, as was happening with the French subs, is far too much. Australia was facing the cost of diesel subs being much higher than either the Astute or Virginia.

This makes sense, but domestic politics does not work on common sense. The French subs, just like the Collins class before that, are horrendously expensive because if Australian content and Australian local requirements. The French build the same subs with nuclear propulsion for half the cost.

JayinKitsap wrote:

Australia needs to work out the right course to take. Either the Astute or Virginia design seem the best choices, with the production being in a mix of yards between the US, UK, and Australia. For the Virginia, it would be a US reactor section, balance of the hull structure done in either the US or UK yards. This heavy structural work does not make sense to add to an Australia shipyard, but final assembly, mechanical systems, and all the equipment and wiring inside being the best to be done in AUS, as it is skills important for maintenance as well. Basically it comes down to which approach allows the combined capacities of US, UK, and AUS to add six extra subs above the current plans.

[/quote]

Morrison has promised that no jobs will be lost in Australia and Australian content will be maintained. What you propose here goes against that. Scotty from marketing did a nice PR exercise, but it will be up to the next 17 prime ministers to sort out this mess. The biggest problem is that the Australian government believes no nuclear expertise is needed to operate a nuclear sub because "it is just a sealed unit".

744SPX wrote:

Oh boy.

I'll take 3 SSN-21's over 6 SSN-774's any day of the week. Or 9 for that matter. I'm a blue water Navy boy all the way, and all of the Virginia's flexibility involves either littoral warfare or lobbing Tomahawks at inland targets (which is done better by the converted Ohio's). My friend, you can have all the Virginia's you want.

Flexibility for not doing blue water ops... time to drop the whiskey cause you aren't seeing straight. You know 774 and 21 both have the same steel grade right? The diving depth is tactically close enough to be an irrelevant difference.

Blk V Tomahawk is anti-ship again so not just inland targets but a whole lot of pain on China/Russia fleet and the MAC allows hypersonic weapons as well. The SSGNs won't be in service ten years from now when a Chinese fleet hits its peak.

AngMoh wrote:

JayinKitsap wrote:

For Australia, what makes sense is to procure subs that are in production, the cost and time to develop a new class, as was happening with the French subs, is far too much. Australia was facing the cost of diesel subs being much higher than either the Astute or Virginia.

This makes sense, but domestic politics does not work on common sense. The French subs, just like the Collins class before that, are horrendously expensive because if Australian content and Australian local requirements. The French build the same subs with nuclear propulsion for half the cost.

I suspect some funny accounting is going on in France, since I've heard allegations that the French were dumping some of their developmental costs for their new nuke boats onto the Australian program, figuring that since they thought the Australians were locked in and would never abandon the project, thus they could shift funds onto the Australians, causing the massive cost overruns on the Australian boats.

744SPX wrote:

Oh boy.

I'll take 3 SSN-21's over 6 SSN-774's any day of the week. Or 9 for that matter. I'm a blue water Navy boy all the way, and all of the Virginia's flexibility involves either littoral warfare or lobbing Tomahawks at inland targets (which is done better by the converted Ohio's). My friend, you can have all the Virginia's you want.

If the math was that easy, everyone would do it. I'll take the 3 for 1 math of the SSN-774 (which is likely closer to 5:1 when total lifecycle costs are computed.)

For deployable assets, at best 3 = 1 deployed, so your three SSN-21s are one deployed asset, under optimum manning/planning. At some point coverage comes into play, and in the US, the combatant commanders' appetites for multipurpose assets like SSNs is nearly insatiable, and its hard for the force providers to say "no" esp. in places like CENTCOM and INDOPACOM.

So, the force providers (i.e. the Services) have to balance capacity vs. cost vs. availability vs. the other force requirements, all the time. This can lead to broadly head-scratching ideas like sun-downing the entire KC-10 or F-22 fleet, despite the fact they are really good or the best at what they do. Keeping the parts/sustainment/training chains for boutique fleets of superweapons is expensive in its own right...so your 3:1 math might be closer to 3:.7 when stuff like low density parts availability comes into play. As far as the generating force (the Services again) they are given guidance for what forces they are expected to provide, so their choices are constrained there, too.

SamYeager2016 wrote:

AngMoh wrote:

The biggest problem is that the Australian government believes no nuclear expertise is needed to operate a nuclear sub because "it is just a sealed unit".

Hmm... This is starting to sound like win-win for China since there'll be no need to worry about Aussie subs anytime soon whilst Australia is also splurging loads of dosh trying to square the circle.

Honestly, buying this expertise off the RN (and in the future the USN) will be the easy part. One thing the US military does have going for it compared to nearly every other Western military is the ability scale on useful timelines. There are lots of nukes in the Reserve, for example, not immediately gainfully employed.

ThePointblank wrote:

I suspect some funny accounting is going on in France, since I've heard allegations that the French were dumping some of their developmental costs for their new nuke boats onto the Australian program, figuring that since they thought the Australians were locked in and would never abandon the project, thus they could shift funds onto the Australians, causing the massive cost overruns on the Australian boats.

I don't think that's an unfair guess. At the end of the day, the French export program serves to subsidize/undergird the independent French industrial base in my opinion, to in turn support independent French global security.

Considering the size of the French economy, maintaining a UNSC sized military capable of quasi-independent operations from Peacekeeping/COIN to major combat operations/sustained strategic deterrence across a global footprint is frankly amazing, and as an American, I say we still have a lot to learn about how they do it.

That said, despite its elegance of design/execution, there are times when it runs afoul of things like business cases or the total bests interest case of an alliance. Honestly, I think AusBarracuda will fall into this bin, along with some of the more exclusionary ideas of PESCO, for example.

That said, I think the French need to understand there isn't some grand Anglo conspiracy to subjugate them to the will of the Roast Beefs.

ThePointblank wrote:

AngMoh wrote:

JayinKitsap wrote:

For Australia, what makes sense is to procure subs that are in production, the cost and time to develop a new class, as was happening with the French subs, is far too much. Australia was facing the cost of diesel subs being much higher than either the Astute or Virginia.

This makes sense, but domestic politics does not work on common sense. The French subs, just like the Collins class before that, are horrendously expensive because if Australian content and Australian local requirements. The French build the same subs with nuclear propulsion for half the cost.

I suspect some funny accounting is going on in France, since I've heard allegations that the French were dumping some of their developmental costs for their new nuke boats onto the Australian program, figuring that since they thought the Australians were locked in and would never abandon the project, thus they could shift funds onto the Australians, causing the massive cost overruns on the Australian boats.

Only funny accounting could push the cost per sub of this program to $ 7.5B per for a comparably small diesel boat, while the Astute is around $ 2.5 B and a Virginia is $ 3.5B (please these amounts are by memory so don't kill the messenger). The bonus is that six nuclear subs can cover what 12 Barracuda's.

It's time to develop some work trades, where Australia gets the local labor they want but done in a more efficient manner. It doesn't make sense to do the heavy plate work of the pressure hull as that is a skill for the yard needed for 6 sets, then done. Same with the reactor compartment, too much to establish for just 6 sets.

SeamanBeaumont wrote:

744SPX wrote:

Oh boy.

I'll take 3 SSN-21's over 6 SSN-774's any day of the week. Or 9 for that matter. I'm a blue water Navy boy all the way, and all of the Virginia's flexibility involves either littoral warfare or lobbing Tomahawks at inland targets (which is done better by the converted Ohio's). My friend, you can have all the Virginia's you want.

Flexibility for not doing blue water ops... time to drop the whiskey cause you aren't seeing straight. You know 774 and 21 both have the same steel grade right? The diving depth is tactically close enough to be an irrelevant difference.

Time to drop the reefer cause you aren't thinking straight. The Virginia is not using HY100, its using HY80. The Seawolf was supposed to use HY130, but they had enough problems just figuring out how to weld HY100.

744SPX wrote:

SeamanBeaumont wrote:

744SPX wrote:

Oh boy.

I'll take 3 SSN-21's over 6 SSN-774's any day of the week. Or 9 for that matter. I'm a blue water Navy boy all the way, and all of the Virginia's flexibility involves either littoral warfare or lobbing Tomahawks at inland targets (which is done better by the converted Ohio's). My friend, you can have all the Virginia's you want.

Flexibility for not doing blue water ops... time to drop the whiskey cause you aren't seeing straight. You know 774 and 21 both have the same steel grade right? The diving depth is tactically close enough to be an irrelevant difference.

Time to drop the reefer cause you aren't thinking straight. The Virginia is not using HY100, its using HY80. The Seawolf was supposed to use HY130, but they had enough problems just figuring out how to weld HY100.

If only I had a reafer...

HY-100 steel which is also used on the Seawolf was used to build the the Virginia giving it a similar diving depth of 400m, still less than upcoming Russian sub like the Yasen and Yasen-M.

https://battle-machines.org/2015/07/04/ ... he-future/

https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/2 ... b-alliance

1st nuclear contract signed under AUKUS

US To Deploy Powerful Fleet Of F-22 Raptors, F-35s, B2 Stealth Bombers To Australia To Deter Belligerent China – Pentagon Report

https://eurasiantimes.com/us-to-deploy- ... china/?amp




Australia urged to lease US nuclear submarines to bridge capability gap

"We have some Los Angeles Class boats that we're decommissioning, 11 over the next four or five years," he said.

"They could be leased down to Australia, and I think the United States would be willing to do that.

"Maybe one or two of those could be … sent down to Australia and allowed to operate out of your ports, kind of on a temporary rotational deployment basis.

"[That] would allow them — Australian submarine crews — to get training aboard nuclear submarines and expand their knowledge base and experience."

https://amp.abc.net.au/article/100651482

Looks like the brain juices are flowing . . . We can see now that this agreement is more than just buying a few of boats.

bt

bikerthai wrote:

Looks like the brain juices are flowing . . . We can see now that this agreement is more than just buying a few of boats.

bt

Fanell is on smack... there is no sub leasing and no subs to lease.
https://www.afr.com/policy/foreign-affa ... 922-p58tqe

Don't have access to the rest of he article. Your telling us that no LA class sub will be retired in the near future?

bt

bikerthai wrote:

Don't have access to the rest of he article. Your telling us that no LA class sub will be retired in the near future?

bt

Any 688 that is retired will need to be refueled. The USN is only now beginning a process to refuel a 688, Cheyanne that is the youngest 688. It will take them three years...

https://seapowermagazine.org/uss-cheyen ... extension/

The USN have another five 688s they want to do, giving even one of those to the Aussies does not solve the trough,

The Navy is undertaking the effort to shore up the numbers of attack submarines in the fleet as other boats in the Loc Angeles class are decommissioned in order to partially fill in the “trough” in the mid-2020s when the inventory of SSNs declines to 41 boats.

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

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

They plan to refuel the youngest six. It isn’t economically viable to refuel the older boats even though they are being decommissioned in the next 5-10 years because their remaining useful life. After the last six the next youngest boat is 28 years old. With the six USN boats in the queue it will be ten + years before another 688 can be refueled. There is no more useful life left in any of those older boats by that point.

Maybe the "prestige" of being on a SSN will help with recruitment? The Collins are known for having problems. I'm sure a nuke is more comfortable, too.

johns624 wrote:

I'm sure a nuke is more comfortable, too.

Aren't fast attack sub just as cramp? Wasn't the boomers are the ones with more space?

A hefty pay raise would surely would help with recruitement I'm sure.

Just pay them in US wages if they are serving under US command, maybe the USN can chip in.

bt

bikerthai wrote:

johns624 wrote:

I'm sure a nuke is more comfortable, too.

Aren't fast attack sub just as cramp? Wasn't the boomers are the ones with more space?

A hefty pay raise would surely would help with recruitement I'm sure.

Just pay them in US wages if they are serving under US command, maybe the USN can chip in.

bt

I don't think so. Once you get rid of the length of the missile tubes, and account for the larger crew of the SSBN, there isn't much difference in size. In fact, the first boomers were just lengthened attack subs.

bikerthai wrote:

johns624 wrote:

I'm sure a nuke is more comfortable, too.

Aren't fast attack sub just as cramp? Wasn't the boomers are the ones with more space?

A hefty pay raise would surely would help with recruitement I'm sure.

Just pay them in US wages if they are serving under US command, maybe the USN can chip in.

bt

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

Reckon the Nucs won't increase interest but a whole bunch of TDYs to UK or US might.