A101 wrote:

“There are concerns on the part of the US that Australia will not be able to build these sub­marines indigenously, and if it does happen, it is going to be in the 2040s before they start delivering,” he said.

This is actually what Japan said to Australia about the Sōryū-class. Their honesty lost them the contract to the french. Japan's twelfth and last submarine was just commissioned.

Australia could probably have received their first Sōryū-class sub this year. Built in Japan they are a ridiculously cheap price. They are less than a quarter of the price of a Virginia class submarine. The last two
Sōryū-class submarines were effectively fully battery powered with a giant lithium battery. Extremely low noise for thousands of miles submerged. These would no doubt they have extremely low maintenance costs and a very long service life.

I have no idea how Australia can build nuclear boats. Anyone that says they can are lieing and will most likely will profit from the cost blowouts and delays.

Australia really should just do an exchange deal. Australia buy off the shelf submarines from overseas and Australia sells them 50+ Arafura-class offshore patrol vessels to their navy/coast guard. I would rather have a long term ship building industry continuously building ships compared to building submarines and then shutting down the industry for 20+ years each time.

RJMAZ wrote:

A101 wrote:

“There are concerns on the part of the US that Australia will not be able to build these sub­marines indigenously, and if it does happen, it is going to be in the 2040s before they start delivering,” he said.

This is actually what Japan said to Australia about the Sōryū-class. Their honesty lost them the contract to the french. Japan's twelfth and last submarine was just commissioned.

Yes I was very disappointed we didn't go the Japanese boat, that too would have had to been modified to a degree. It became a battle of wills between Abbott/Turnbull . I tend to think that Turnbull did it just to be different from Abbott

RJMAZ wrote:

Australia could probably have received their first Sōryū-class sub this year. Built in Japan they are a ridiculously cheap price. They are less than a quarter of the price of a Virginia class submarine. The last two

Sōryū-class submarines were effectively fully battery powered with a giant lithium battery. Extremely low noise for thousands of miles submerged. These would no doubt they have extremely low maintenance costs and a very long service life.

That's if we built in Japan with no mods. the unmodified Sōryū didn't really fit RAN conops. Battery type was just one aspect there were other limitations even compared to Collins

Rear Admiral Briggs
Their patrol area is a fraction—perhaps less than a third—of the distance we have to go, compared to Collins as a benchmark. And we are doing this with publicly available figures. We have not had any real exposure to the details of the Soryu, but looking at it with a submariner's eye we can tell
quite a lot, and we have been able to talk to people who have experienced the submarine.

Soryu and Collins are about the same size on the surface. That describes a sort of payload capacity that the two platforms have—very similar. From the publicly available figures, Soryu has two-thirds the range, 6,000 nautical miles at six and a half knots. So it is slower and it does not go as far. That is perfectly reasonable for the Japanese situation, but it would be untenable for Australia's situation. If you start from Perth, from Fremantle, and go into the centre of the South China Sea, say—a reasonable bit of geography—you have a 3,500 nautical mile transit and 3,500 nautical miles home. The Soryu might get to the Gold Coast but it cannot come back and it cannot do anything when it gets there. So Collins is expected to be able to do that and then spend up to five weeks on patrol.
…that is 3,500 there and back, 7,000 total, and another 3,000, give or take, on the patrol. You are looking for a submarine with a range of certainly
12,000 nautical miles, and it is not a good idea to come back empty. You want something—10 per cent—left.55

Commodore Greenfield supported the conclusions reached by Admiral Briggs

If a Soryu and a Collins left Fleet Base West near Perth together and travelled at 10 knots to Darwin, the Soryu might not actually make it or, if
it did, it would be very low on fuel. This is because the power and fuel required increases exponentially with speed—at the cube of the speed.

https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Bu ... rt%202/c05

RJMAZ wrote:

I have no idea how Australia can build nuclear boats. Anyone that says they can are lieing and will most likely will profit from the cost blowouts and delays.

Bullshit, Australia has shown it can build a submarine after all there are 6 boats giving testament to that, the problem is Australia has to recruit a new shipbuilding team to build the new boats in an X time frame as the current ASC workers will be tied up on Collins sustainment. All this because of a lack of underinvestment in a continuous ship/boat building plan its the boom bust cycle that has defeated Australia in the past and continues to do so

RJMAZ wrote:

Australia really should just do an exchange deal. Australia buy off the shelf submarines from overseas and Australia sells them 50+ Arafura-class offshore patrol vessels to their navy/coast guard. I would rather have a long term ship building industry continuously building ships compared to building submarines and then shutting down the industry for 20+ years each time.

That actually was part of the reason on going from 6 boats to 12 to have that continuous build program,

There is no way the US will get Australia to supply an offset agreement like you suggest

Seems the US Congress is getting behind the Submarine deal

New AUKUS Caucus Bill Calls for U.S.-Australia Sub Training Pipeline

By: Mallory Shelbourne


A bipartisan group of House lawmakers on Wednesday unveiled legislation that would help the Royal Australian Navy train its future submarine warfare officers with U.S. sailors.

Dubbed the “The Australia-U.S. Submarine Officer Pipeline Act,” the legislation would allow Australia to send at least two of its submarine warfare officers to train with American sailors each year. The Royal Australian Navy officers would first attend the Navy Nuclear Propulsion School, then take the Submarine Officer Basic Course, and finally deploy aboard a U.S. submarine after finishing the basic course, according to text of the bill.

“The new bipartisan bill will establish a joint training pipeline between the U.S. Navy and the Royal Australian Navy, and will enable the start of U.S.-based training of Commanding Officers for Australia’s future fleet of nuclear-powered submarines under the AUKUS alliance,” the AUKUS working group said in a news release.

The bill would mandate that the Secretary of Defense and Secretary of Energy begin the training exchange in 2023 and continue it in the years to follow.

The legislation is the product of Congress’ AUKUS working group, which lawmakers created in April to help advance the new partnership between the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia.

The bill comes as the U.S., the U.K., and Australia continue an 18-month evaluation period to determine what’s necessary for Australia to develop nuclear-powered submarines.

“The AUKUS alliance is the most important national security partnership that America has entered into in decades. Its centerpiece is creating an Australian nuclear-powered undersea fleet of submarines, which all three allies are actively designing. While that work is ongoing, it makes sense to open the U.S. Navy’s nuclear training programs to Australia’s naval officers to acquire proficiency in the operation of nuclear submarines,” Rep. Joe Courtney (D-Conn.), a member of the AUKUS working group who is also the chair of the House Armed Services seapower and project forces subcommittee, said in a statement.

Courtney, Reps. Mike Gallagher (R-Wis.), Blake Moore (R-Utah) and Derek Kilmer (D-Wash.) – all co-chairs of the AUKUS working group – sponsored the bill, as did Reps. Donald Norcross (D-N.J.), Rob Wittman (R-Va.) and Ed Perlmutter (D-Colo.).

“The Australia-U.S. Submarine Officer Pipeline Act will help facilitate the delivery and ensure the future success of Australia’s fleet of nuclear-powered submarines under the AUKUS alliance. Because the delivery of such submarines to Australia will require the appropriate training and development of future commanding officers, and in order to uphold the stewardship of the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program, the bill establishes a program for Australian submariner training between the U.S. Navy and the Royal Australian Navy,” the AUKUS working group said in the release.

Last September the Biden administration announced the new trilateral AUKUS alliance, which includes both broader technology sharing and sharing the nuclear propulsion technology required to develop nuclear-powered submarines. The United States has only ever shared nuclear propulsion technology with the U.K. in 1958.

Building nuclear-powered submarined would require billions of dollars and years of investment in infrastructure on Australia’s part, as the country does not have a shipyard that can build or maintain nuclear-powered vessels, USNI News understands.

“It is imperative that we strengthen our undersea capabilities and increase submarine production for our national security interests, and the training exchange program outlined in the legislation will help us achieve that goal,” Moore said in a statement about the bill.


https://news.usni.org/2022/06/15/new-au ... g-pipeline

Just because submarines were built in Australia it doesn't mean it can build a submarine today. The last Collins was handed over in 2003, 19 years ago, how many of the people who built her are still in place today, how many have retired, the first nuclear sub won't be laid down next year, 2030 is probably more like it, by that time almost nobody would have been working at ASC when the last Collin was built. This is what caught out the British when they built the first Astute, there was a gap of 8 year between the last Vanguard and the first Astute, a lot of people left in those 8 years.

Why build Virginia class submarines in Australia, they will not fit into the existing production facilities, ASC would need to significantly enlarged all the facilities, and beyond that they also require double the manpower of a Collins to operate. The RAN already have enough problems crewing Collins, how do you think they are going to crew 8 Virginia's with double the crew??

Collins 58
Astute 98
Virginia 135

I suspect operating Nuclear submarines will be an albatross around Australia's neck.

A101 wrote:

The US buy in to E7 would have happened either way, after all South Korea Turkey and UK have signed up. prior to AUKUS

True, my point is AUKUS allowed the project to go faster than otherwise.

Here are some circumstantial data point.

A101 wrote:

As far as I know the UK is a carbon copy of the RAAF the other are slightly different versions from scuttlebug over the years

There are some slightly differences in the electronic hardware just because they don't build some of the components used on the RAAF any more.

Recall that the UK originally ordered 5 frames. Budget reason dropped 2. You would wonder why the US selected 2 frames as an initial buy? Maybe because Boeing would have started long lead ordering for those two frames prior to them being cancelled. The US seeing the opportunity, stepped in.

In the long run, the US will look in to updated mission electronics for their follow-on frames. When that is done, the new hardware will be available for both Austrailia and the UK to upgrade their fleet without needing to spend much development money. And when the US do the bulk buy of 18-20 additional frames, cost should be lower, and the UK may be able to afford to get their 2 additional frames back.

All this would have happened whether AUKUS existed. But it may have taken more time to go though the diplomatic bureaucracy without AUKUS.

bt

So it is a given that US submarines will be selected and not UK? If the congress is getting ready to fund training and it is not specified as joint with the UK....
I am still surprised that the US would be willing to have an ally operate one of its subs that is currently in production (Virginia) versus Los Angeles which is out of production.

par13del wrote:

So it is a given that US submarines will be selected and not UK? If the congress is getting ready to fund training and it is not specified as joint with the UK....
I am still surprised that the US would be willing to have an ally operate one of its subs that is currently in production (Virginia) versus Los Angeles which is out of production.

We share first rate equipment with first rate allies.

par13del wrote:

So it is a given that US submarines will be selected and not UK? If the congress is getting ready to fund training and it is not specified as joint with the UK....
I am still surprised that the US would be willing to have an ally operate one of its subs that is currently in production (Virginia) versus Los Angeles which is out of production.

I would say with certainty that the US boat will be chosen, but the indications are leaning that way

One has to remember that if the UK boat is chosen it has to be modified to accept US CMS and weapons. I can’t see the point in either buy or short term lease of 2 boats from the US if we go with Astute

Forget LA boats they will not happen

johns624 wrote:

par13del wrote:

So it is a given that US submarines will be selected and not UK? If the congress is getting ready to fund training and it is not specified as joint with the UK....
I am still surprised that the US would be willing to have an ally operate one of its subs that is currently in production (Virginia) versus Los Angeles which is out of production.

We share first rate equipment with first rate allies.

Never subs to my knowledge, but I stand to be corrected. The UK built their own - attack and boomers - with some information sharing and do use the Trident missiles, but I think if done, this would be a first sale / hand over / lease whatever term used of this technology, which they seem to guard jealously.

Kiwirob wrote:

Just because submarines were built in Australia it doesn't mean it can build a submarine today. The last Collins was handed over in 2003, 19 years ago, how many of the people who built her are still in place today, how many have retired, the first nuclear sub won't be laid down next year, 2030 is probably more like it, by that time almost nobody would have been working at ASC when the last Collin was built. This is what caught out the British when they built the first Astute, there was a gap of 8 year between the last Vanguard and the first Astute, a lot of people left in those 8 years.

If you do not think that Australia can find the work force for the Nuclear submarine fleet, then we’re was Australia getting the work force for Attack class?

Do you also think even in the time since the last build they have not trained a new generation in various skills needed to complete MLU upgrades of Collins and will continue even whilst ramping up to build the nuclear fleet

https://www.asc.com.au/careers/apprenticeship-program/

Kiwirob wrote:

Why build Virginia class submarines in Australia, they will not fit into the existing production facilities, ASC would need to significantly enlarged all the facilities,

Attack class was never intended to be built in existing Collins infrastructure, besides that is still need for MLU for Collins and basic maintenance. Ground has already been broken on building a new boat building yard in Adelaide for Attack class it would not be to big a hurdle to increase the size of the shed if need as it’s a green-fields site

Kiwirob wrote:

and beyond that they also require double the manpower of a Collins to operate.

Australia does actually have more than enough qualified submariners, it’s just not everyone wants to stay in Perth and the submarine force as their entire career. With splitting the submarine force between East/West it gives incentive to remain within. But yes workforce will always have its ups and downs and building the expertise in nuclear will be a challenge but with enough incentives the building blocks are already established within Australia to expand on.

https://www.unsw.edu.au/study/postgradu ... e=Domestic

Kiwirob wrote:

I suspect operating Nuclear submarines will be an albatross around Australia's neck.

Do you hold the same points of view of Brazil and it’s nuclear submarine program?

par13del wrote:

johns624 wrote:

par13del wrote:

So it is a given that US submarines will be selected and not UK? If the congress is getting ready to fund training and it is not specified as joint with the UK....
I am still surprised that the US would be willing to have an ally operate one of its subs that is currently in production (Virginia) versus Los Angeles which is out of production.

We share first rate equipment with first rate allies.

Never subs to my knowledge, but I stand to be corrected. The UK built their own - attack and boomers - with some information sharing and do use the Trident missiles, but I think if done, this would be a first sale / hand over / lease whatever term used of this technology, which they seem to guard jealously.

We also gave the UK reactor technology at the beginning IIRC. Besides, this is a brand new world. We didn't have to worry about the PRC before and nobody else really wanted our sub technology before this.

johns624 wrote:

par13del wrote:

johns624 wrote:

We share first rate equipment with first rate allies.

Never subs to my knowledge, but I stand to be corrected. The UK built their own - attack and boomers - with some information sharing and do use the Trident missiles, but I think if done, this would be a first sale / hand over / lease whatever term used of this technology, which they seem to guard jealously.

We also gave the UK reactor technology at the beginning IIRC. Besides, this is a brand new world. We didn't have to worry about the PRC before and nobody else really wanted our sub technology before this.

The Brazilians did but the US was not really interested in doing so, same when the US was going to block the UK involvement in the Canadian program but was blocked under the 1958 UK–US Mutual Defence Agreement

Kiwirob wrote:

Just because submarines were built in Australia it doesn't mean it can build a submarine today. The last Collins was handed over in 2003, 19 years ago, how many of the people who built her are still in place today, how many have retired, the first nuclear sub won't be laid down next year, 2030 is probably more like it, by that time almost nobody would have been working at ASC when the last Collin was built. This is what caught out the British when they built the first Astute, there was a gap of 8 year between the last Vanguard and the first Astute, a lot of people left in those 8 years.

Why build Virginia class submarines in Australia, they will not fit into the existing production facilities, ASC would need to significantly enlarged all the facilities, and beyond that they also require double the manpower of a Collins to operate. The RAN already have enough problems crewing Collins, how do you think they are going to crew 8 Virginia's with double the crew??

Collins 58
Astute 98
Virginia 135

I suspect operating Nuclear submarines will be an albatross around Australia's neck.

Nuclear subs especially Virginia class are by far a much better workplace to be in for sailors than a diesel/Collins. That alone is a huge factor in retention. Couple that with splitting the fleet between Perth and East Coast gives sailors more flexibility with family etc. Australia almost certainly will get the smaller version on the Virginia class and will likely operate with smaller crews as well.

As for building them, I’m ambivalent about that… on the one hand it keeps money and jobs in the local economy, it also diversifies the shipyards which is important because it would only take a couple of cruise missiles to each shipyard in the US to disrupt SSN production for years.
Remember that to an extent a sub is a sub is a sub and it’s the nuclear reactor that is the difference (which won’t be built in Australia anyway). I do expect that the first couple of boats to be produced in the US (or perhaps leased) to get the fleet underway.
The only other alternative that I see is for them to all be built in the US or UK but subsided by those governments to account for the boost their economies would receive both from production but also exports etc. Effectively selling them to Australia at cost. That would allow the US to open a 3rd line or the UK to boost its production/keep it going.

johns624 wrote:

par13del wrote:

johns624 wrote:

We share first rate equipment with first rate allies.

Never subs to my knowledge, but I stand to be corrected. The UK built their own - attack and boomers - with some information sharing and do use the Trident missiles, but I think if done, this would be a first sale / hand over / lease whatever term used of this technology, which they seem to guard jealously.

We also gave the UK reactor technology at the beginning IIRC. Besides, this is a brand new world. We didn't have to worry about the PRC before and nobody else really wanted our sub technology before this.

That’s a story in itself, the RN wanted nuke boats after exercising with the USS Nautilus, the reactor research facilities at Dounreay started work on what would be the PWR1 for what would be the Valiant class, however the RN knew this would take a number of years so wanted to gain early operational experience in all aspects of SSN operations.
This meant dealing with the famously prickly Admiral Rickover, however First Sea Lord Mountbatten succeeded in getting a S5W reactor which went into HMS Dreadnought, helped as at the same time the 1958 Mutual Defence Agreement, which had supposed to be about nuclear weapons, essentially ending that McMahan act, was becoming law.

HMS Dreadnought became essentially an operational prototype, the Valiant class would use the front section of the Dreadnought design with a modified aft for the PWR1.
(Dreadnought decommissioned after only 18 years, mainly due to it doing all the deep diving trials as part of operational training).

What’s this got to do with the RAN?
Unlike Australia, the UK then had an very major nuclear industry before any sub was built, (and of course weapons as well as power), Calder Hall was the world’s first nuclear power station (the USSR claimed theirs was, though it required more power than it produced).

So the RAN program will have to be a direct transfer at all levels, not an interim program while the national reactor program ramps up.

(Highly recommended the book ‘The Silent Deep’ The RN Submarine Service 1945-2015, by Peter Hennessy and James Jinks).

A101 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

Just because submarines were built in Australia it doesn't mean it can build a submarine today. The last Collins was handed over in 2003, 19 years ago, how many of the people who built her are still in place today, how many have retired, the first nuclear sub won't be laid down next year, 2030 is probably more like it, by that time almost nobody would have been working at ASC when the last Collin was built. This is what caught out the British when they built the first Astute, there was a gap of 8 year between the last Vanguard and the first Astute, a lot of people left in those 8 years.

If you do not think that Australia can find the work force for the Nuclear submarine fleet, then we’re was Australia getting the work force for Attack class?

Do you also think even in the time since the last build they have not trained a new generation in various skills needed to complete MLU upgrades of Collins and will continue even whilst ramping up to build the nuclear fleet

https://www.asc.com.au/careers/apprenticeship-program/

There is a whole lot of difference between upgrading a vessel and building a new vessel to a new design. It's been over 2 decades since they had to bend metal to build the hulls, it will be nearly 4 decades by the time they start bending metal for an SSN.

Kiwirob wrote:

Why build Virginia class submarines in Australia, they will not fit into the existing production facilities, ASC would need to significantly enlarged all the facilities,

A101 wrote:

Attack class was never intended to be built in existing Collins infrastructure, besides that is still need for MLU for Collins and basic maintenance. Ground has already been broken on building a new boat building yard in Adelaide for Attack class it would not be to big a hurdle to increase the size of the shed if need as it’s a green-fields site

Then you have to go back to square one and respec everything already under construction or on order for the increased size of the new vessels.

Kiwirob wrote:

and beyond that they also require double the manpower of a Collins to operate.

A101 wrote:

Australia does actually have more than enough qualified submariners, it’s just not everyone wants to stay in Perth and the submarine force as their entire career. With splitting the submarine force between East/West it gives incentive to remain within. But yes workforce will always have its ups and downs and building the expertise in nuclear will be a challenge but with enough incentives the building blocks are already established within Australia to expand on.

https://www.unsw.edu.au/study/postgradu ... e=Domestic

The attack class was going to have 2 more crew per vessel then Collins, the 12 subs were going to be split between East Coast and West Coast bases. 8 Virginia's need 360 more crew than 12 Attacks would have required.

There are plenty of articles in the Australian press about manpower issues affecting the ADF, mining jobs are significantly better paid and swim in the same labour pool as defence does.

A101 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

I suspect operating Nuclear submarines will be an albatross around Australia's neck.

Do you hold the same points of view of Brazil and it’s nuclear submarine program?

Brazil has even less need for a SSN then Australia has, the Brazlian project is a vanity project. Look how long they have been working on the project, the project was initially started in the 1970, the current project started in 2009, they expect her to be launched in 2029 and commissioned in 2034.

Zkpilot wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

Just because submarines were built in Australia it doesn't mean it can build a submarine today. The last Collins was handed over in 2003, 19 years ago, how many of the people who built her are still in place today, how many have retired, the first nuclear sub won't be laid down next year, 2030 is probably more like it, by that time almost nobody would have been working at ASC when the last Collin was built. This is what caught out the British when they built the first Astute, there was a gap of 8 year between the last Vanguard and the first Astute, a lot of people left in those 8 years.

Why build Virginia class submarines in Australia, they will not fit into the existing production facilities, ASC would need to significantly enlarged all the facilities, and beyond that they also require double the manpower of a Collins to operate. The RAN already have enough problems crewing Collins, how do you think they are going to crew 8 Virginia's with double the crew??

Collins 58
Astute 98
Virginia 135

I suspect operating Nuclear submarines will be an albatross around Australia's neck.

Nuclear subs especially Virginia class are by far a much better workplace to be in for sailors than a diesel/Collins. That alone is a huge factor in retention. Couple that with splitting the fleet between Perth and East Coast gives sailors more flexibility with family etc. Australia almost certainly will get the smaller version on the Virginia class and will likely operate with smaller crews as well.

As for building them, I’m ambivalent about that… on the one hand it keeps money and jobs in the local economy, it also diversifies the shipyards which is important because it would only take a couple of cruise missiles to each shipyard in the US to disrupt SSN production for years.
Remember that to an extent a sub is a sub is a sub and it’s the nuclear reactor that is the difference (which won’t be built in Australia anyway). I do expect that the first couple of boats to be produced in the US (or perhaps leased) to get the fleet underway.
The only other alternative that I see is for them to all be built in the US or UK but subsided by those governments to account for the boost their economies would receive both from production but also exports etc. Effectively selling them to Australia at cost. That would allow the US to open a 3rd line or the UK to boost its production/keep it going.

The Attack class were to be built to the same dimensions as the Barracuda, how is the Virginia any better a work place than an Attack? With the Attacks significantly smaller crew and high levels of automation there is probably more square meters per person in an Attack than a Virginia, there were going to be very large conventionally powered subs.

To reduce the 135 man crew of a Virginia to Astute levels or smaller would probably require a significant increase in automation, which would probably require a lot or redesigning, redesigning costs money, probably billions, that also takes time, maybe years to redesign an SSN.

The US also has problems finding enough workers to man the shipyards, where do you think they are going to find the manpower to open a third production line for SSN's?

The standard Virginia on the production line today is the Block V, it's 140m with vertical launch tubes, Australia doesn't need this capability or length, going back to refitting the production line to build the 115m version wouldn't be easy or that word again cheap.

If Australia are going to continue down this path Astute or its successor make more sense, they're smaller, less crew, cheaper and not a lot bigger than the Attack so refitting the facilities to built them wouldn't be as expensive as the much larger Virginia.

Kiwirob wrote:

The US also has problems finding enough workers to man the shipyards, where do you think they are going to find the manpower to open a third production line for SSN's?

The US as most industrial nations has problems getting workers to build products that are being bought at a slow rate, it is the downside of the manufacturers all up and down the chain making production so expensive that end users even if they need multiples can only afford to purchase at a very slow rate.

In this respect, if Australia do not see themselves going back to non-nuclear boats, then setting up a slow build line will be the result as you can be sure the high cost in the UK / USA will be included in any training / facilities that they decide to assist in building.

Kiwirob wrote:

A101 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

Just because submarines were built in Australia it doesn't mean it can build a submarine today. The last Collins was handed over in 2003, 19 years ago, how many of the people who built her are still in place today, how many have retired, the first nuclear sub won't be laid down next year, 2030 is probably more like it, by that time almost nobody would have been working at ASC when the last Collin was built. This is what caught out the British when they built the first Astute, there was a gap of 8 year between the last Vanguard and the first Astute, a lot of people left in those 8 years.

If you do not think that Australia can find the work force for the Nuclear submarine fleet, then we’re was Australia getting the work force for Attack class?
Do you also think even in the time since the last build they have not trained a new generation in various skills needed to complete MLU upgrades of Collins and will continue even whilst ramping up to build the nuclear fleet

There is a whole lot of difference between upgrading a vessel and building a new vessel to a new design. It's been over 2 decades since they had to bend metal to build the hulls, it will be nearly 4 decades by the time they start bending metal for an SSN.

A full cycle docking is very invasive to the boat, we are talking opening it up and splitting to gain access. Some are even referring the LOTE as being akin to building son of Collins with the new systems that they want to put into the boats. In ways building to print is easier than a LOTE

Kiwirob wrote:

A101 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

Why build Virginia class submarines in Australia, they will not fit into the existing production facilities, ASC would need to significantly enlarged all the facilities,

Attack class was never intended to be built in existing Collins infrastructure, besides that is still need for MLU for Collins and basic maintenance. Ground has already been broken on building a new boat building yard in Adelaide for Attack class it would not be to big a hurdle to increase the size of the shed if need as it’s a green-fields site

Then you have to go back to square one and respec everything already under construction or on order for the increased size of the new vessels.

In the greater scheme of things that’s not a very big hurdle, the modernisation project by the previous govern acquired land holdings by Australian Naval Infrastructure in excess of 100 hectares for not only the new Hunter build but has also taken into account possible increased Infrastructure for the Collins replacement in other words the were future proofing the ability to expand as needed

Kiwirob wrote:

A101 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

and beyond that they also require double the manpower of a Collins to operate.

Australia does actually have more than enough qualified submariners, it’s just not everyone wants to stay in Perth and the submarine force as their entire career. With splitting the submarine force between East/West it gives incentive to remain within. But yes workforce will always have its ups and downs and building the expertise in nuclear will be a challenge but with enough incentives the building blocks are already established within Australia to expand on.

https://www.unsw.edu.au/study/postgradu ... e=Domestic

The attack class was going to have 2 more crew per vessel then Collins, the 12 subs were going to be split between East Coast and West Coast bases. 8 Virginia's need 360 more crew than 12 Attacks would have required.
There are plenty of articles in the Australian press about manpower issues affecting the ADF, mining jobs are significantly better paid and swim in the same labour pool as defence does.

As I pointed out earlier if push came to shove the RAN have the capacity in qualified pers to man the submarines if needed. Also, the increased in crew requirements are not just going to be need in the next couple of years it’s a long-term requirement.

US Congress have put a bill into place for the RAN to post two officer per year to begin training in all aspects of nuclear submarines to start in 2023 “The Australia-U.S. Submarine Officer Pipeline Act”

Yes, I previously said that the Submarine force was to be split East/West, that is an acknowledgement that majority of the work force originates from the East which invariable means that pers lose their support persons which has been a detriment to the silent service for some time.

Kiwirob wrote:

A101 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

I suspect operating Nuclear submarines will be an albatross around Australia's neck.

Do you hold the same points of view of Brazil and it’s nuclear submarine program?

Brazil has even less need for a SSN then Australia has, the Brazlian project is a vanity project. Look how long they have been working on the project, the project was initially started in the 1970, the current project started in 2009, they expect her to be launched in 2029 and commissioned in 2034.

Agree a project on what not to do, only reason that AusGov have gone down the nuclear submarine is for the very fact we will have support from both the US/UK. The Australians will walk crawl run with a known Infrastructure plan in place

Its not so much that we could not do it ourselves if the requirement was there with the AusGov in the 50/60 very much had nuclear on there minds under Menzies but was abandoned under the ANZUS treaty it and its nuclear umbrella

If you move manpower from the surface fleet to the submarine fleet you will still have a problem with manpower, you’ve just shifted the problem to another branch of the service.

I’ll say it one more time ship repair and ship building are similar but not the same.

Kiwirob wrote:

If you move manpower from the surface fleet to the submarine fleet you will still have a problem with manpower, you’ve just shifted the problem to another branch of the service.

I am not sure if you are just being ignorant of what we are debating or you are arguing out of context for the sake of it.

The RAN submarine service is voluntary meaning they can move to the surface fleet more easier than the other way around which also gives them more opportunities of a greater number of postings, which is why they are building a new naval base on the East coast

But for the sake of your rambling out of context, If the bovine excrement hit the fan right now you go to war with what you have, if that means the head sheds want to prioritise subsurface action then those spots can be filled relatively quickly. The RAN can man all current boats if need be, but that would be an operational matter.

What we are discussing is increasing the size of the submarine force over a 10/15 year period along with a new nuclear trade stream which is doable hence the training billets being opened up within the US trade stream

Kiwirob wrote:

I’ll say it one more time ship repair and ship building are similar but not the same.

The basic fundamentals of metal bashing are the same and are transferable, in fact doing the LOTE requires more in-depth requirements from naval architects as they are changing balance of the boat which has major ramifications.

While not disparaging the naval architects of designing either of the UK/US boats whichever boat is selected the kinks have been worked out of the design and will be pretty straight forward in construction because it is a mature MOTS design and building to print.

Guys, debate the topic not the person. No need for insults or personal attacks - you know the rules.

Kiwirob is a bit foolish by predicting recruitment levels for submarines that are entering service in 10 years time.

Most of crew would currently be in high school.

Crew numbers between submarine types can't be compared. They also don't indicate the level of automation. The Virginia class subs has a larger crew because they do longer deployments. To keep a Virginia sub in the water for an entire year you would only need two lots of crew or 270 submariners. To keep a Collins in the water for 12 months you would need 3 standard lots of crew or 174 submariners. If a Collins sub only had two lots of crew allocated, it would only be sailing for two thirds of year.

Operating a Virginia class sub with a crew of 100 would not reduce the combat capability on a short deployment.

RJMAZ wrote:

Kiwirob is a bit foolish by predicting recruitment levels for submarines that are entering service in 10 years time.

Most of crew would currently be in high school.

Crew numbers between submarine types can't be compared. They also don't indicate the level of automation. The Virginia class subs has a larger crew because they do longer deployments. To keep a Virginia sub in the water for an entire year you would only need two lots of crew or 270 submariners. To keep a Collins in the water for 12 months you would need 3 standard lots of crew or 174 submariners. If a Collins sub only had two lots of crew allocated, it would only be sailing for two thirds of year.

Operating a Virginia class sub with a crew of 100 would not reduce the combat capability on a short deployment.

The entire Australian defense force has been having a recruitment and retention issue for 20 years, I can’t see how you think it’s going to change in 10 years when the govt haven’t been able to solve the problem already.

https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/where ... re-people/

Kiwirob wrote:

The entire Australian defense force has been having a recruitment and retention issue for 20 years, I can’t see how you think it’s going to change in 10 years when the govt haven’t been able to solve the problem already.

https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/where ... re-people/

While missing your recruitment targets is seen as a problem and not meeting KPI, but if missing a target by 8 pers in the 2015/16 is still seen as a failure and meeting meet 90% of permanent force recruitment targets in 2020-21, and If missing your cumulative target by only 2510 pers since 2013 is quite remarkable considering the Australian employment market.

The way you are telling it you would think recruitment and separation rates are any better in private enterprise, all voluntary Defence forces across the world have trouble meeting recruiting targets it’s the nature of the beast and that also comes down to how the economy and job market is fairing. The ADF saw this in the mining boom when separation rates where high as they could not compete with the wages in private enterprise.

The ADF has seen applications to join increase year on year up to 40% In the last financial year but the recruitment process is long and winded and majority of those who applied fall by the way side by securing employment in private enterprise

the ADF missed its target for the army – its largest arm – by almost 900 people but beat its navy target by almost 400.
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal ... 5a3bx.html

You can't flick a switch to increase the ADF overnight and nor do they need to. Growing the type of people and skills the ADF needs for future takes time to train and gain experience. The previous LNP government have increased the size of the ADF by an additional 18500 pers by 2040, which is over and above ADF recommendations by 6000 pers to account for redundancy and resilience.

Your own link points to retention problems and the ADF is aware that changes need to be made in relation to posting cycle and general pay and service conditions have an effect on separation rates, service life is not an easy life by any means been there done that and can attest it places a huge strain on married life especially in a modern society.

The key may not be in recruitment, but in retention. The ADF has averaged a separation rate of 8–10% over recent years. In essence, that means it’s losing 5,000–6,000 people per year, many of whom are already trained and highly skilled. If it can reduce that by 1,000 per year, it will have basically cracked the problem. Of course, that’s easier said than done. It comes down to giving ADF members a competitive employment offer. Defence is aware of this and working on it. The business case for an east coast submarine base is as much about recruitment and retention as it is about the strategic drivers of a two-ocean navy. And the ADF’s total workforce system seeks to provide its members with some of the flexibility that Australian workers now take for granted.

GDB wrote:

RJMAZ wrote:

[.
I was surprised the RN allowed the doc to be made on a Trafalgar Class nearing the end of it’s life, hardly a recruiting tool.

Have you considered that they thought that was the better option than filming on an Astute class? surely its better to let everyone know what you had rather than show them what you've got? If astute is as good as we hope it is then i'm happy for it to remain shrouded in mystery, I only wish we could build more

Zkpilot wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

J

The only other alternative that I see is for them to all be built in the US or UK but subsided by those governments to account for the boost their economies would receive both from production but also exports etc. Effectively selling them to Australia at cost. That would allow the US to open a 3rd line or the UK to boost its production/keep it going.

They can't be built in the UK, we don't have the capacity, The Astute programme suffered an unplanned delay with boat 5 and thanks to Cameron the Drednought programme was pushed back.. By the time all 4 Drednoughts are built work will be well underway on the sucessor to Astute. Their is only one yard in Barrow that can build these boats and their order book is full for the next 30yrs!

Myv40 wrote:

They can't be built in the UK, we don't have the capacity, The Astute programme suffered an unplanned delay with boat 5 and thanks to Cameron the Drednought programme was pushed back.. By the time all 4 Drednoughts are built work will be well underway on the sucessor to Astute. Their is only one yard in Barrow that can build these boats and their order book is full for the next 30yrs!

It was in the Australian media today that the new Albanese Government wants to fast track the nuclear submarines and indications are that an announcement will be made sooner rather than later.

An announcement on Australia’s nuclear-powered submarine program is due “shortly”, according to the chief White House adviser for the Indo-Pacific.

https://www.defenceconnect.com.au/marit ... ment-nears

The one thing in favour of Astute tooling will be available sooner than having to build up for Block V Virginia Class, that’s if AusGov decide to go with block V.

The other option is AusGov may decide to stick with Block IV configuration which may better suit RAN conops being smaller than Astute beam wise but slightly longer length wise, the last of the Block IV are in construction in the US, how the tooling structure is done between blocks is unknown to me so there could in theory be options for both sets of tooling to be made available to AusGov at roughly the same time. But depending on strategic interests between AU/US the last two Block IV could in theory be made available to the RAN with construction then moving to AU

While I do like the Astute and think the RN have very good boats, the intention for AusGov is for them to have and use US CMS and weapons fit out, it’s for this reason I think puts the UK boat at a disadvantage if for strategic interests the US allows the last two Block IV for the RAN than I believe AusGov will go US Boats, but only on the caveat of the RAN getting two US built boats otherwise it comes down to which boat can be in the water sooner rather than later if all boats are built in Australia.
Just my 2bob’s worth

Myv40 wrote:

Zkpilot wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

J

The only other alternative that I see is for them to all be built in the US or UK but subsided by those governments to account for the boost their economies would receive both from production but also exports etc. Effectively selling them to Australia at cost. That would allow the US to open a 3rd line or the UK to boost its production/keep it going.

They can't be built in the UK, we don't have the capacity, The Astute programme suffered an unplanned delay with boat 5 and thanks to Cameron the Drednought programme was pushed back.. By the time all 4 Drednoughts are built work will be well underway on the sucessor to Astute. Their is only one yard in Barrow that can build these boats and their order book is full for the next 30yrs!

Which is also why I think the Aussies would be better off going with the UK, they can jump straight into the Astute replacement project. The Barrow yard assembles the Astute and now Dreadnought with components built in other shipyards, the bow sections are constructed at Cammel Lairds. There's no reason why Cammels can't increased the scope of what they deliver to also include Australian SSN's, the hurdle which needs jumping is the PWR3 reactor but this is also supposed to be simpler and easier to construct than the PW2.

Kiwirob wrote:

Which is also why I think the Aussies would be better off going with the UK, they can jump straight into the Astute replacement project. The Barrow yard assembles the Astute and now Dreadnought with components built in other shipyards, the bow sections are constructed at Cammel Lairds. There's no reason why Cammels can't increased the scope of what they deliver to also include Australian SSN's, the hurdle which needs jumping is the PWR3 reactor but this is also supposed to be simpler and easier to construct than the PW2.

Lots of risk with that plan, given that both UK and the US have seen delays when building new class of boats. SSNR is expected to start building boats from 2040. Astute ran up to 57 months behind schedule and if that happens again even by half could amount to a capability cap (no submarines) in the RAN that could mean the RAN will not see any boats before 2050, not going to happen.

Besides the AusGov intent to get boats as soon as possible with as little risk which to me indicates a US boat either Block IV or V, that’s not to say I don’t think the Astute has a chance but I believe there is more risk associated with Astute.

As I said up thread its going to come down to the willingness and each nations strategic interests

Myv40 wrote:

GDB wrote:

RJMAZ wrote:

[.
I was surprised the RN allowed the doc to be made on a Trafalgar Class nearing the end of it’s life, hardly a recruiting tool.

Have you considered that they thought that was the better option than filming on an Astute class? surely its better to let everyone know what you had rather than show them what you've got? If astute is as good as we hope it is then i'm happy for it to remain shrouded in mystery, I only wish we could build more

I have seen docs on more modern warships, on broadcast sensitive displays are pixelated (and some faces blurred too usually in the background).
The documentary seemed to be slated to showing the RN at work around the UK against the activities of Russian subs, they likely got the first sub going out on that kind of patrol.
Likely easier to film on a larger Astute.

Kiwirob wrote:

Which is also why I think the Aussies would be better off going with the UK

The US has now launched 23 Virginia subs since the first one was laid down 23 years ago. They are averaging a new sub launching every 11 months. At that production rate between now and 2040 the US Navy would build another 19.6 attack subs. Australia wanting all 6 nuclear subs in service by 2040 means the US submarine production rate only has to increase by 30%.

The UK is delivering an Astute sub every 3 years. Between now and 2040 the UK could build 6 Astute subs for themselves. For them to build an extra 6 subs for Australia means they need to double production rate. That would be very unlikely.

The Columbia-class SSBN-X are being built without disrupting Virginia-class production. The UK needs to reduce Astute production before moving to their dreadnought class.

RJMAZ wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

Which is also why I think the Aussies would be better off going with the UK

The US has now launched 23 Virginia subs since the first one was laid down 23 years ago. They are averaging a new sub launching every 11 months. At that production rate between now and 2040 the US Navy would build another 19.6 attack subs. Australia wanting all 6 nuclear subs in service by 2040 means the US submarine production rate only has to increase by 30%.

The UK is delivering an Astute sub every 3 years. Between now and 2040 the UK could build 6 Astute subs for themselves. For them to build an extra 6 subs for Australia means they need to double production rate. That would be very unlikely.

The Columbia-class SSBN-X are being built without disrupting Virginia-class production. The UK needs to reduce Astute production before moving to their dreadnought class.

UK only have the single line for the individual modules for intergration a complete boat, unless the UK puts back Dreadnought class there is no additional capacity in the UK that’s the problem unless individual modules are built then shipped to Australia for intergration. I cannot see that happening realistically

A101 wrote:

UK only have the single line for the individual modules for intergration a complete boat, unless the UK puts back Dreadnought class there is no additional capacity in the UK that’s the problem unless individual modules are built then shipped to Australia for intergration. I cannot see that happening realistically

It would be a massive task. To double the production rate is very unlikely compared to the US only needing to increase production by 30%.

The biggest problem is that any submarines that are delivered to Australia in the next 10 years would be submarines that were destined for the US Navy or Royal Navy. The US Navy could afford to let a couple submarines go to Australia as they have around 70 submarines in service so it would only be a small reduction on capability.

The US Navy is planning to refuel a few Los Angeles class submarines. They would simply have to refuel a few more of these older subs to make up for any shortfall.

The US Navy wouldn't have to increase the production rate of new submarines by the full 30% to cover Australia's order if they refuel a few more Los Angeles subs.

RJMAZ wrote:

A101 wrote:

UK only have the single line for the individual modules for intergration a complete boat, unless the UK puts back Dreadnought class there is no additional capacity in the UK that’s the problem unless individual modules are built then shipped to Australia for intergration. I cannot see that happening realistically

It would be a massive task. To double the production rate is very unlikely compared to the US only needing to increase production by 30%.

The biggest problem is that any submarines that are delivered to Australia in the next 10 years would be submarines that were destined for the US Navy or Royal Navy. The US Navy could afford to let a couple submarines go to Australia as they have around 70 submarines in service so it would only be a small reduction on capability.

The US Navy is planning to refuel a few Los Angeles class submarines. They would simply have to refuel a few more of these older subs to make up for any shortfall.

The US Navy wouldn't have to increase the production rate of new submarines by the full 30% to cover Australia's order if they refuel a few more Los Angeles subs.

I don't think the US have to do that Arkansas (SSN 800) & Utah (SSN 801) are the last Block IV for the USN, I think these should be ready around 2025/6 or there abouts. they could be homeported in Perth with a mixed USN/RAN crew until the RAN could take over which would relieve the pressure on Collins LOTE with construction in Adelaide from 2030 with US help obviously. I also get the distinct impression that USN want to base there own boats in Fremantle as well

Time will tell what happens its all speculation at the moment

A101 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

Which is also why I think the Aussies would be better off going with the UK, they can jump straight into the Astute replacement project. The Barrow yard assembles the Astute and now Dreadnought with components built in other shipyards, the bow sections are constructed at Cammel Lairds. There's no reason why Cammels can't increased the scope of what they deliver to also include Australian SSN's, the hurdle which needs jumping is the PWR3 reactor but this is also supposed to be simpler and easier to construct than the PW2.

Lots of risk with that plan, given that both UK and the US have seen delays when building new class of boats. SSNR is expected to start building boats from 2040. Astute ran up to 57 months behind schedule and if that happens again even by half could amount to a capability cap (no submarines) in the RAN that could mean the RAN will not see any boats before 2050, not going to happen.

Besides the AusGov intent to get boats as soon as possible with as little risk which to me indicates a US boat either Block IV or V, that’s not to say I don’t think the Astute has a chance but I believe there is more risk associated with Astute.

As I said up thread its going to come down to the willingness and each nations strategic interests

SSNR is going to start building a lot sooner than the 2040's, Astute was designed with a 25 year life and no refueling, Astute was delivered in 2010, so needs to be replaced mid somewhere around 2035.

RJMAZ wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

Which is also why I think the Aussies would be better off going with the UK

The Columbia-class SSBN-X are being built without disrupting Virginia-class production. The UK needs to reduce Astute production before moving to their dreadnought class.

The first 2 Dreadnaughts are already in build.

Kiwirob wrote:

RJMAZ wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

Which is also why I think the Aussies would be better off going with the UK

The Columbia-class SSBN-X are being built without disrupting Virginia-class production. The UK needs to reduce Astute production before moving to their dreadnought class.

The first 2 Dreadnaughts are already in build.

What I said was 100% correct.

On July 18 2013 when the 6th Astute was laid down the 3rd, 4th and 5th were still under construction. So there are 4 sub build positions in total running at maximum capacity.

Currently 2 Astute subs and 2 Dreadnought subs are under construction. The UK had to reduce Astute production before moving to their dreadnought class as I stated.

The UK would need more space and much more manpower to continue Astute production at the current rate while keeping Dreadnought on schedule

Kiwirob wrote:

A101 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

Which is also why I think the Aussies would be better off going with the UK, they can jump straight into the Astute replacement project. The Barrow yard assembles the Astute and now Dreadnought with components built in other shipyards, the bow sections are constructed at Cammel Lairds. There's no reason why Cammels can't increased the scope of what they deliver to also include Australian SSN's, the hurdle which needs jumping is the PWR3 reactor but this is also supposed to be simpler and easier to construct than the PW2.

Lots of risk with that plan, given that both UK and the US have seen delays when building new class of boats. SSNR is expected to start building boats from 2040. Astute ran up to 57 months behind schedule and if that happens again even by half could amount to a capability cap (no submarines) in the RAN that could mean the RAN will not see any boats before 2050, not going to happen.

Besides the AusGov intent to get boats as soon as possible with as little risk which to me indicates a US boat either Block IV or V, that’s not to say I don’t think the Astute has a chance but I believe there is more risk associated with Astute.

As I said up thread its going to come down to the willingness and each nations strategic interests

SSNR is going to start building a lot sooner than the 2040's, Astute was designed with a 25 year life and no refueling, Astute was delivered in 2010, so needs to be replaced mid somewhere around 2035.

It could be a solution for the RAN, get Australian industrial involvement early, I know some here berate absolutely anything from the UK even just in part, still it’s an experienced submarine builder and operator, 32 nuclear subs built in 62 years, that’s how to see it. That with all but two of the Resolution Class and a couple of the Valiants built in one yard.
A hugely experienced operator too, from trailing often for hundreds of miles, Soviet subs, sneaking into waters in their ‘secure’ areas, numerous often covert special forces deployments, the only one to use SSN’s in a shooting war with a near peer where they were decisive, as well as the usual, including the second to use Tomahawks in action. Never lost any.

The RAN if it joined the Astute follow on class, would be getting the state of the art, joining early the best industrial involvement and some features possibly for the RAN. If they want to outfit it with US sourced systems, easier to to that for their version from the start.
A wildcard? Maybe, to me it makes at least some sense.

Kiwirob wrote:

A101 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

Which is also why I think the Aussies would be better off going with the UK, they can jump straight into the Astute replacement project. The Barrow yard assembles the Astute and now Dreadnought with components built in other shipyards, the bow sections are constructed at Cammel Lairds. There's no reason why Cammels can't increased the scope of what they deliver to also include Australian SSN's, the hurdle which needs jumping is the PWR3 reactor but this is also supposed to be simpler and easier to construct than the PW2.

Lots of risk with that plan, given that both UK and the US have seen delays when building new class of boats. SSNR is expected to start building boats from 2040. Astute ran up to 57 months behind schedule and if that happens again even by half could amount to a capability cap (no submarines) in the RAN that could mean the RAN will not see any boats before 2050, not going to happen.

Besides the AusGov intent to get boats as soon as possible with as little risk which to me indicates a US boat either Block IV or V, that’s not to say I don’t think the Astute has a chance but I believe there is more risk associated with Astute.

As I said up thread its going to come down to the willingness and each nations strategic interests

SSNR is going to start building a lot sooner than the 2040's, Astute was designed with a 25 year life and no refueling, Astute was delivered in 2010, so needs to be replaced mid somewhere around 2035.

There have already been delays in the SSN(R) programme with the knock-on effect of Astute and Dreadnought boats, which highly likely means that SSN(R) will not start building until the late 2030’s and that’s predicated that Dreadnought boats have no unexpected delays

Building and commissioning are two different things. So far, all indications are that SSN(R) will not be commissioned until the mid-2040’s. Whilst HMS Astute reactor core has a service life of 25 years it does not preclude that she will not have a refuelling and LOTE.

As mentioned, before it’s a risk for AusGov because even if HMS Astute receives a refuelling and LOTE the UK will want to keep these to a minimum for the other Astute class boats, so in all this if as you said that AusGov should buy off the UK where does that leave the RAN boats in the schedule considering that the RAN have a much greater need to get the boats in the water sooner rather than later

GDB wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

A101 wrote:

Lots of risk with that plan, given that both UK and the US have seen delays when building new class of boats. SSNR is expected to start building boats from 2040. Astute ran up to 57 months behind schedule and if that happens again even by half could amount to a capability cap (no submarines) in the RAN that could mean the RAN will not see any boats before 2050, not going to happen.

Besides the AusGov intent to get boats as soon as possible with as little risk which to me indicates a US boat either Block IV or V, that’s not to say I don’t think the Astute has a chance but I believe there is more risk associated with Astute.

As I said up thread its going to come down to the willingness and each nations strategic interests

SSNR is going to start building a lot sooner than the 2040's, Astute was designed with a 25 year life and no refueling, Astute was delivered in 2010, so needs to be replaced mid somewhere around 2035.

It could be a solution for the RAN, get Australian industrial involvement early, I know some here berate absolutely anything from the UK even just in part, still it’s an experienced submarine builder and operator, 32 nuclear subs built in 62 years, that’s how to see it. That with all but two of the Resolution Class and a couple of the Valiants built in one yard.
A hugely experienced operator too, from trailing often for hundreds of miles, Soviet subs, sneaking into waters in their ‘secure’ areas, numerous often covert special forces deployments, the only one to use SSN’s in a shooting war with a near peer where they were decisive, as well as the usual, including the second to use Tomahawks in action. Never lost any.

The RAN if it joined the Astute follow on class, would be getting the state of the art, joining early the best industrial involvement and some features possibly for the RAN. If they want to outfit it with US sourced systems, easier to to that for their version from the start.
A wildcard? Maybe, to me it makes at least some sense.

If AusGov wants to skip a generation, the USN will begin building SSN(X) and have boats in the water quicker than the RN, but again it comes down to build capacity to add the RAN boats in a timely manner.

“Under the Navy’s FY2020 30-year (FY2020-FY2049) shipbuilding plan, the first SSN(X) would be procured in FY2031, along with a single Virginia-class boat. In FY2032 and FY2033, the final four Virginia-class boats would be procured, at a rate of two per year. Procurement of follow-on SSN(X)s, at a rate of two per year, would then begin FY2034. The 30-year plan’s sustained procurement rate of two SSNs per year would achieve a force of 66 SSNs—the Navy’s current SSN force-level goal—in FY2048. Navy Next-Generation Attack Submarine (SSN[X]) Program: Background and Issues for Congress https://crsreports.congress.gov
[/quote]

Seems to be a lot happening behind the scenes in regards to the RAN nuc boats of late, very active American involvement compared to UK in open source infomation anyway

https://news.usni.org/2022/06/22/navy-s ... ays-secnav

The admiral who oversees U.S. attack submarine construction has been appointed to lead the Australia-United Kingdom-United States (AUKUS) partnership that promises to develop a nuclear-powered attack boat for the Royal Australian Navy, the Department of the Navy announced Friday.

Goggins, who currently serves as the program executive officer for attack submarines, will report to the assistant secretary of the Navy for research, development and acquisition, according to the sea service’s news release. He will turn the PEO over to Rear Adm. Jonathon Rucker.

As the special assistant in support of AUKUS, Goggins will lead the planning and standup of the Navy’s implementation of the approach selected by Australia after a consultation period, Secretary of the Navy Carlos Del Toro said in the release.

“Adm. Goggins selection to lead AUKUS will further our efforts to strengthen our strategic partnerships with Australia and the United Kingdom,” Del Toro said in the release. “Dave comes to us at a critical time in the consultation period of AUKUS and is the right person to spearhead the analysis of the submarine development production and testing efforts. Under his leadership, I’m confident the AUKUS team will help meet the objective of determining the best path toward equipping the Royals Australian Navy with a nuclear-powered, conventionally-armed class of attack submarines by March 2023.”

Goggins previously served as the Virginia-class program manager. He oversaw the delivery of three submarines for the Navy and started the design for the Block V Virginia Payload Module and Acoustic Superiority upgrades as part of the Virginia-class submarines.

He also previously worked on the Columbia-class submarine as the program manager.

The AUKUS partnership, announced in September and formalized in December, allows Washington and London to share technical secrets of nuclear submarine propulsion with Canberra. The move caused Australia to abandon its deal with the French to buy conventionally-powered submarines that would replace the RAN’s Collins-class boats.

The AUKUS effort is now in the middle of an 18-month study period to determine the best way to move forward with the effort.

Just checking - we are on Airliners.net and this is the Military Aviation & Space Flight forum is it not?

hk144 wrote:

Just checking - we are on Airliners.net and this is the Military Aviation & Space Flight forum is it not?

You could always ask the mods to move it to non aviation if you like

But you are correct AUKUS is more than just nuclear submarines

https://www.cfr.org/blog/more-submarine ... domain?amp

RJMAZ wrote:

I have no idea how Australia can build nuclear boats. Anyone that says they can are lieing and will most likely will profit from the cost blowouts and delays.

Bullshit, Australia has shown it can build a submarine after all there are 6 boats giving testament to that, the problem is Australia has to recruit a new shipbuilding team to build the new boats in an X time frame as the current ASC workers will be tied up on Collins sustainment. All this because of a lack of underinvestment in a continuous ship/boat building plan its the boom bust cycle that has defeated Australia in the past and continues to do so
[/quote]

You continually gloss over the fact Australia hasn't built a submarine since Rankin was launched in 2001. Most of the people who built her are likely close to retirement, retired or will be by the time the new subs will be built.

Kiwirob wrote:

RJMAZ wrote:

A101 wrote:

Bullshit, Australia has shown it can build a submarine after all there are 6 boats giving testament to that, the problem is Australia has to recruit a new shipbuilding team to build the new boats in an X time frame as the current ASC workers will be tied up on Collins sustainment. All this because of a lack of underinvestment in a continuous ship/boat building plan its the boom bust cycle that has defeated Australia in the past and continues to do so

I have no idea how Australia can build nuclear boats. Anyone that says they can are lieing and will most likely will profit from the cost blowouts and delays.

You continually gloss over the fact Australia hasn't built a submarine since Rankin was launched in 2001. Most of the people who built her are likely close to retirement, retired or will be by the time the new subs will be built.

How on earth was industry ever going to build the Attack Class in Australia, after all as you say Australia hasn’t built a boat since 2001?

My gosh, how on earth did Australia ever build a submarine in the first place when they had never built a submarine before?

You know how they did it was through sustainment of the Oberon class boats. Australia was at one time totally reliant on the UK for sustainment. Overtime industry gained enough experience to complete Full Cycle Dockings in Australia at the time it was at Cockatoo Island which led to the Submarine Weapons Update Program, at the time the O boats were having to complete FCD every 5 years, during this time people gained experience and industry became confident enough to build the Collins Class, after all it was through this experience ASC were able to rectify the problems with the hull sections built in Sweden with Kockums a company with prior experience building submarines. All the while sustainment had to continue for the O boats whilst building the Collins class boats.

If AusGov do decide to build the nuclear boats in Australia I have no doubt there is time to build up and train a new generation of submarine builders just as they did for the Collins class with enough work to keep them employed and continue to train through apprenticeships and with lessons learned from the past of the boom bust cycle of building in Australia and the planned continuous ship/boat building program of the future.

It was going to be a shitshow when they started to build the Attacks as well.

Maintaining a vessel and building a vessel are not the same. And as you continually fail to grasp a submarine hasn't been built in Australia since 2001.

Kiwirob wrote:

It was going to be a shitshow when they started to build the Attacks as well.

Maintaining a vessel and building a vessel are not the same. And as you continually fail to grasp a submarine hasn't been built in Australia since 2001.

Keep banging that drum mate,



What you constantly fail to see with planning for major projects such as these and with the boom bust nature of Australian ship building the workforce is put in place with proper planning.

Now if there was a problem finding the workforce all of the RAN combat fleet would be overseas, you seem to think that the trades within Naval shipbuilding just stay at a standstill until that person retires and there is no trade apprenticeship or qualified replacements programs put in place. in actual fact the delay between building the Attack and future SSN may be a blessing in disguise as it may reduce the competitiveness between shipbuilders here in Australia and as the mining and industry slows in the future those skill can be transferable to shipbuilding

You seem to be fixated on a short term problem than looking long tern within the continuous Naval ship building program. Barring another major economic shock to the Australian economy and with the proper planning around the workforce I think the problems are well in hand to be overcome

I'll keep banging it long and loud. Surface vessels and submarines are not the same, a continuous build of surface vessels is not the same as a continuous built of subsurface vessels.

Kiwirob wrote:

I'll keep banging it long and loud.
Surface vessels and submarines are not the same, a continuous build of surface vessels is not the same as a continuous built of subsurface vessels.

A lot of the skills are transferable between surface and subsurface not all welders need to be qualified in welding HY80/100 steel for the pressure hull.

Currently ASC has a workforce of approximately 2000 across a varied number of trade and engineers, within the national shipbuilding plan it was anticipated that the future submarine project was expected to be create an extra 1100 direct jobs during construction phase of the build.

As I have repeatedly said with proper planning its not an insurmountable problem, but keep banging that drum.

I give up! Do we have any Moderators? Will you two (Kiwirob and A101) take it somewhere else Non-Aviation related!