Tugger wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

How are bases in the South China Sea a threat to Australia?

Uh, because the islands are not theirs to put bases onto?

Tugg

Also, if Australia waited until China was knocking next door, it would be too late for them to do anything. They don't have the population/military by themselves to stand up to China. It's the old "First they came for..." scenario, all over again.

Kiwirob wrote:

wingman wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

Is there actually a threat? Or just the perception of one?

The military bases they've built up on all those islands international tribunals have agreed are not theirs..that's just a perception. Kinda like Russia's invasion of Ukraine, it's just a perception.

I'll say this for you Rob, if you'd been running Great Britain in 1940 the Germans would've been frolicking on the beaches of northern Scotland by the time your perception wore off.

PS: I did appreciate your retort about The Sun. It put a smile on my face (seriously).

How are bases in the South China Sea a threat to Australia? Have you looked at a map recently, there are many countries between Australia and China.

We all know the origins of WW2, or we should if we did history in school, appeasement was a daft idea but what has China done that replicates what Hitler did prior to WW2?

A classic case of sea blindness.

They don’t have to be within the AU EEZ to have a negative effect. 80/90% of AU/NZ trade pass through theSCS

Hence AU support for freedom of navigation

johns624 wrote:

GDB wrote:

It might be that something like this in Scotland, could be done at Barrow, if the facilities, land, access to the sea etc, was there;
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/huge-gl ... n-granted/

Maybe the more dependable (and therefore faster) build rate using a covered assembly area would allow the UK to become a competitor of the Spanish and Italian shipyards. It could be like the "good old days" when they were selling various Type 12 frigates to many foreign navies. Unless you're the US, export sales are the only way for a country to keep their naval shipyards fully occupied, long term

All construction in Barrow is conducted indoors.

Rgds

Kiwirob wrote:

GDB wrote:

johns624 wrote:

Would it makes sense for the UK to expand their capabilities a bit? Who knows, the way things are going, Canada may even want some SSNs in the future and their shipbuilding industry seems to be at or beyond capacity with their Type 26, icebreakers, replenishment ships, etc.

In the late 60's and early 70's, when the UK was churning out Valiant/Churchill Class SSN's, Resolution Class SSBN's and was ramping up to do the Swiftsure Class SSN's, a second yard to build two of the SSBN's and one of the Churchills (which was the one that sank the Belgrano), was established, at Cammells.
However, there were industrial disputes worse than at other yards and even with the SSBN's, suspected attempts at sabotage.
(HMS Revenge was apparently the Polaris boat which had the most issues).

That was the end of nuclear boat construction for them.
The last subs they built were three of the four Type 2400 SSK's, in the late 80's/early 90's.
It still exists, built that RSS Sir David Attenborough Antarctic Survey ship

Since then submarine construction has been at Barrow.
It is very hard to see an alternate site.

However, though we don't know yet much of anything about the type, configuration of the proposed RAN sub, only that they want to build them in Australia, if the UK was heavily involved, to the point of being the lead partner, aside from major technical assistance, parts, even major sections for the first boat or two, could be made at Barrow - perhaps. Without impeding the Dreadnought Class SSBN's and future SSN, (steel has been cut on the third of the SSBN's, HMS Warspite - good to have that name back).
Others more knowledgeable can expand on this subject.

If you read my deleted post Cammells built the forward hull sections for the Astutes. I saw the one they were building when I was on a yard tour.

As a point of order, they were the fore end constructions (i.e. not pressure hull).
Pressure hull these days is only built in Barrow.
But it makes a valid point that the manufacture of assemblies can be farmed out to other builders...

Rgds

Well i will be shocked if this is true

However, rumours the Britain is prepared to immediately sell Australia two Astute class nuclear submarines – HMS Agamemnon and HMS Agincourt, due for completion in 2024 and 2026 – make a lot of sense for both nations, if true.

https://www.afr.com/policy/foreign-affa ... 214-p5ckgt

A101 wrote:

Well i will be shocked if this is true

However, rumours the Britain is prepared to immediately sell Australia two Astute class nuclear submarines – HMS Agamemnon and HMS Agincourt, due for completion in 2024 and 2026 – make a lot of sense for both nations, if true.

https://www.afr.com/policy/foreign-affa ... 214-p5ckgt

While this would be good news for Australia, it would hurt the UK and their deployments. I'm not sure which one is more important.

I've mentioned it before but China's claims that the US is the instigator are so like Imperial Japan's claims prior to WWII.

If it weren't for the US and it's nuclear weapons, China would be using the same rhetoric as Putin and it's army would be on the move.

If I'm the Japanese, I'm leaving the non-proliferation treaty.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

If I'm the Japanese, I'm leaving the non-proliferation treaty.

Wouldn't that drive the Chinese crazy!

johns624 wrote:

A101 wrote:

Well i will be shocked if this is true

However, rumours the Britain is prepared to immediately sell Australia two Astute class nuclear submarines – HMS Agamemnon and HMS Agincourt, due for completion in 2024 and 2026 – make a lot of sense for both nations, if true.

https://www.afr.com/policy/foreign-affa ... 214-p5ckgt

While this would be good news for Australia, it would hurt the UK and their deployments. I'm not sure which one is more important.

Like so much else, they've let the SSN fleet get too small, none can be spared.
Not with Russian subs and surface vessels making themselves busy around areas where there are underwater comms cables for a start.
Each SSBN going on deployment needs the area screened beforehand.

There is another planned deployment with a QE carrier to the region planned, for later this year, that will have an Astute naturally, if a second could go along and then break off for extensive deployments and training, including with their personnel on board, the RAN, that would be useful. But not handed over, leased or anything.

GDB wrote:

johns624 wrote:

A101 wrote:

Well i will be shocked if this is true



https://www.afr.com/policy/foreign-affa ... 214-p5ckgt

While this would be good news for Australia, it would hurt the UK and their deployments. I'm not sure which one is more important.

Like so much else, they've let the SSN fleet get too small, none can be spared.
Not with Russian subs and surface vessels making themselves busy around areas where there are underwater comms cables for a start.
Each SSBN going on deployment needs the area screened beforehand.

There is another planned deployment with a QE carrier to the region planned, for later this year, that will have an Astute naturally, if a second could go along and then break off for extensive deployments and training, including with their personnel on board, the RAN, that would be useful. But not handed over, leased or anything.

Speaking of parallels to WWII, I sure hope the plan is for the QE to quickly mate up with a US carrier battle group if the shooting starts.

Without the depth of a US Navy CBG, wouldn't the QE share the same fate as the Repulse and Prince of Wales?

How many escorts sail with her?

MohawkWeekend wrote:

GDB wrote:

Like so much else, they've let the SSN fleet get too small, none can be spared.
Not with Russian subs and surface vessels making themselves busy around areas where there are underwater comms cables for a start.
Each SSBN going on deployment needs the area screened beforehand.

There is another planned deployment with a QE carrier to the region planned, for later this year, that will have an Astute naturally, if a second could go along and then break off for extensive deployments and training, including with their personnel on board, the RAN, that would be useful. But not handed over, leased or anything.

Speaking of parallels to WWII, I sure hope the plan is for the QE to quickly mate up with a US carrier battle group if the shooting starts.

Without the depth of a US Navy CBG, wouldn't the QE share the same fate as the Repulse and Prince of Wales?

How many escorts sail with her?

I believe she always has a submerged asset with her when she is out.

Tugg

Tugger wrote:

MohawkWeekend wrote:

GDB wrote:

Like so much else, they've let the SSN fleet get too small, none can be spared.
Not with Russian subs and surface vessels making themselves busy around areas where there are underwater comms cables for a start.
Each SSBN going on deployment needs the area screened beforehand.

There is another planned deployment with a QE carrier to the region planned, for later this year, that will have an Astute naturally, if a second could go along and then break off for extensive deployments and training, including with their personnel on board, the RAN, that would be useful. But not handed over, leased or anything.

Speaking of parallels to WWII, I sure hope the plan is for the QE to quickly mate up with a US carrier battle group if the shooting starts.

Without the depth of a US Navy CBG, wouldn't the QE share the same fate as the Repulse and Prince of Wales?

How many escorts sail with her?

I believe she always has a submerged asset with her when she is out.

Tugg

During peacetime, she normally seems to sail with only 1-2 escorts. I'm sure it would be more in wartime, but I don't know how many.
In an earlier post, I mentioned that every succeeding class of nuclear sub is smaller quantity-wise than the one that preceded it. Maybe with the heightened tensions and the fact that there are Two near-peer potential adversaries, maybe it's time to increase the number of submarine vendors and actually increase the number of boats. With the US, UK, and Australia all wanting a sizable amount, maybe another production line could be kept busy for a few decades, which would make it economically feasible.
ETA--It too bad that a common design of SSN couldn't be agreed on. All are designed for the same purpose, to confront Russia and China. All three countries have been allies for well over a century and show no signs of fracturing. If it can work with the F35, which has 3 assembly lines, it can work with an SSN.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

GDB wrote:

johns624 wrote:

While this would be good news for Australia, it would hurt the UK and their deployments. I'm not sure which one is more important.

Like so much else, they've let the SSN fleet get too small, none can be spared.
Not with Russian subs and surface vessels making themselves busy around areas where there are underwater comms cables for a start.
Each SSBN going on deployment needs the area screened beforehand.

There is another planned deployment with a QE carrier to the region planned, for later this year, that will have an Astute naturally, if a second could go along and then break off for extensive deployments and training, including with their personnel on board, the RAN, that would be useful. But not handed over, leased or anything.

Speaking of parallels to WWII, I sure hope the plan is for the QE to quickly mate up with a US carrier battle group if the shooting starts.

Without the depth of a US Navy CBG, wouldn't the QE share the same fate as the Repulse and Prince of Wales?

How many escorts sail with her?

No, since the QE will have F-35’s, Type 45’s, the latter are getting BMD software upgrades and 24 SeaCeptors to supplement the main SAM armament.
Escorting Frigates will also have SeaCeptor too.
The WW2 ships had no carrier, one had only semi modernized AAA, from land the only RAF air cover was inexperienced pilots flying the worst US fighter in WW2, the Brewster Buffalo (hence not in Europe), they could take on the bombers but there was no coordination.
A carrier was intended but run aground well away from the area.

Everyone was short on carriers in the Pacific early on, hence the USN later leasing HMS Victorious as USS Robin
(That must have made that convoy denying, keep the lights on, Anglophobic Admiral King mad!)
Plus these days RAF and RN coordination is bedded in, not least on the carriers.

Not to be at all complacent but we’ve had recent and ongoing experience with an autocratic regimes (with attendant corruption) armed forces, which they love showing off and bullying weaker regional neighbors with, yet not all that when faced with real opposition, this one having far less combat experience, likely less training and a lot of their equipment is derived from the other bunch.

"Royal Navy aircraft carrier chases away Chinese spy submarine"
The Royal Navy's largest and most powerful vessel ever constructed has successfully tracked down and chased a Chinese spy submarine, new footage shows. https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-new ... s-29189314

This was last week.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

"Royal Navy aircraft carrier chases away Chinese spy submarine"
The Royal Navy's largest and most powerful vessel ever constructed has successfully tracked down and chased a Chinese spy submarine, new footage shows. https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-new ... s-29189314

This was last week.

This is from episode 4 of the series of hour long films following the worldwide deployment of the QE task group in 2021, of a series of 8.
I posted about it in the RN Carrier thread in Military Aviation, three weeks ago, likely not available if you don’t have BBC/iPlayer access but keep a look out on certain video hosting sites, you never know...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0dnv9 ... des/player

Got to love the British tabloid press, they watch something on TV last Sunday but filmed two years ago nearly, then write it up suggesting it’s current.
You would think they would have reported in a similar fashion to episode 2 when the task group massively pissed off the Russians!
It even says at the start of each episode when it was filmed!

Australia to buy 5 Virginia class submarines, US to forward deploy subs to Western Australia.

It also seems like the Australians, UK and US will collaborate in a new sub class.

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/australia-expected-buy-up-5-virginia-class-submarines-part-aukus-sources-2023-03-08/

Other reporting is suggesting 3+2 Virginia as a stopgap until Astute using some US tech is available.

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal ... 5cqoh.html (may be paywalled)

STT757 wrote:

Australia to buy 5 Virginia class submarines, US to forward deploy subs to Western Australia.

It also seems like the Australians, UK and US will collaborate in a new sub class.

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/australia-expected-buy-up-5-virginia-class-submarines-part-aukus-sources-2023-03-08/

It appears to be confirmed now as posted above. This is a good step.

Commentary is very negative against getting these subs. Mind you half of these folk could be spammers representing other countries.

The only thing not being said is that we should just become allies with China.

UK telegraph stating similar, up to 5 Virginia supplied tonAustralia, in a deal similar to the Trident missiles where the boats are rotated from the US, then an Astute based boat from 2040, with US tech (we know the reactor is a U.S. design, and Aus use US mission software already)

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/ ... ign-aukus/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As predicted, AUS to buy off the shelf from the US (at least initially - I did say that building them in Oz would take a lot of work, better to get some already going in the interim).

Not so clear cut according to these (and other sources), yes up to 5 Virginia Class but thankfully no sign of rumours recently that Astutes 6 and 7 would go to the RAN thus making the already too small RN SSN fleet a barely viable force given it's commitments.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/ ... ources-say

The idea of wannabe tech bro but actual Mr Bean getting all excited, excuse me if we wait until the actual announcement where there are adults in the room.

Over the next five years, Australian workers will come to U.S. submarine shipyards to observe and train. This training will directly benefit U.S. submarine production as there is currently a labor shortfall for shipyard workers the U.S. needs to build its submarines, the source said.

The US needs to increase production of the Virginia Class as well as the new Columbia Class. Hopefully this arrangement will benefit the cause, the US gets the labor in the production facilities and Australia gets the knowledge and knowhow to eventually build their own submarines.

giblets wrote:

UK telegraph stating similar, up to 5 Virginia supplied tonAustralia, in a deal similar to the Trident missiles where the boats are rotated from the US, then an Astute based boat from 2040, with US tech (we know the reactor is a U.S. design, and Aus use US mission software already)

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/ ... ign-aukus/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

5 Virginias as stop gap makes sense.
There are certainly no Astutes to spare.

As a point of order, SSNR will almost certainly NOT be Astute based.
It is much more likely to have more in common with Dreadnought, if the past is anything to go by.
For a start, it won't have the Astute PWR2, but Dreadnought PWR3, or derivative.
Every class of RN SSN's in the past has taken the reactor from the previous SSBN

Rgds

STT757 wrote:

Over the next five years, Australian workers will come to U.S. submarine shipyards to observe and train. This training will directly benefit U.S. submarine production as there is currently a labor shortfall for shipyard workers the U.S. needs to build its submarines, the source said.

The US needs to increase production of the Virginia Class as well as the new Columbia Class. Hopefully this arrangement will benefit the cause, the US gets the labor in the production facilities and Australia gets the knowledge and knowhow to eventually build their own submarines.

I assume that the USA and UK differ in some key respects on how they build submarines, so why would Australians go to work in US shipyards to learn how to build US subs when they will be purchasing UK designed and built boats?

astuteman wrote:

giblets wrote:

UK telegraph stating similar, up to 5 Virginia supplied tonAustralia, in a deal similar to the Trident missiles where the boats are rotated from the US, then an Astute based boat from 2040, with US tech (we know the reactor is a U.S. design, and Aus use US mission software already)

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/ ... ign-aukus/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

5 Virginias as stop gap makes sense.
There are certainly no Astutes to spare.

As a point of order, SSNR will almost certainly NOT be Astute based.
It is much more likely to have more in common with Dreadnought, if the past is anything to go by.
For a start, it won't have the Astute PWR2, but Dreadnought PWR3, or derivative.
Every class of RN SSN's in the past has taken the reactor from the previous SSBN

Rgds

Yes I imagine SSN(R) will be a warmed-over Dreadnought since the hull needs to be larger to fit PWR3

par13del wrote:

STT757 wrote:

Over the next five years, Australian workers will come to U.S. submarine shipyards to observe and train. This training will directly benefit U.S. submarine production as there is currently a labor shortfall for shipyard workers the U.S. needs to build its submarines, the source said.

The US needs to increase production of the Virginia Class as well as the new Columbia Class. Hopefully this arrangement will benefit the cause, the US gets the labor in the production facilities and Australia gets the knowledge and knowhow to eventually build their own submarines.

I assume that the USA and UK differ in some key respects on how they build submarines, so why would Australians go to work in US shipyards to learn how to build US subs when they will be purchasing UK designed and built boats?

Well it is two-fold as far I read in the post above:
One, they need to develop their overall knowledge and skills base for doing such a task as building a modern nuclear submarine. And you can become better and more knowledgeable when you see how two different teams do a similar task.
Two, labor. The USA can use it and Australia can learn the various tasks, gaining experience and building their own work force.

Tugg

My money was always on Virginia class subs being purchased. They are built at a MUCH higher production rate making it easier to build a few extra subs.

Two virginia class submarines are being launched each year. With Astute there is a 3 year gap between each launch. So roughly 6 times the production rate.

At a rate of two attack subs per year that means the US Navy would be getting 30 subs between 2025 and 2040. By selling 5 Virginia subs to Australia they only need to increase production by 16%.

It makes sense for Australia to buy block 4 Virginia subs as they don't have the VPM module. The VPM module is for land attack with 28 tomahawks cruise missiles. I'm not sure if future Virginia subs will be build without the land attack module.

I am certain with a big investment from Australia the US submarine production could increase significantly. Production 20% above today's levels would be easily done by 2030. Production 30% above today's levels by 2035 would also be achievable. That equals roughly 5 additional Virginia subs built by 2035.

If the UK was to deliver 12 Astute subs to Australia by 2040 that would require the UK to more than double their sub production. They would then have to halve their sub production once the Australian subs were delivered.

If Australia plans to have a continous long term build program in Australia it makes sense to get a few Virginia's to start. If we assume a 36 year service life like the Los Angeles class and a requirement of 12 subs that means one submarine built in Australia every 3 years. When the 12th subs enters service the 1st one is ready for retirement.

If the Aussie built subs are comissioned in say 2040, 2043, 2046, 2049 etc then by the time these 5 Virginia class subs are retired we should have 5-7 Aussie built subs in service. Though I think Australia should buy off the shelf subs from the US in the long term. There are some things that are best to buy off the shelf like the F-35 etc.

RJMAZ wrote:

My money was always on Virginia class subs being purchased. They are built at a MUCH higher production rate making it easier to build a few extra subs.

Two virginia class submarines are being launched each year. With Astute there is a 3 year gap between each launch. So roughly 6 times the production rate.

At a rate of two attack subs per year that means the US Navy would be getting 30 subs between 2025 and 2040. By selling 5 Virginia subs to Australia they only need to increase production by 16%.

It makes sense for Australia to buy block 4 Virginia subs as they don't have the VPM module. The VPM module is for land attack with 28 tomahawks cruise missiles. I'm not sure if future Virginia subs will be build without the land attack module.

I am certain with a big investment from Australia the US submarine production could increase significantly. Production 20% above today's levels would be easily done by 2030. Production 30% above today's levels by 2035 would also be achievable. That equals roughly 5 additional Virginia subs built by 2035.

If the UK was to deliver 12 Astute subs to Australia by 2040 that would require the UK to more than double their sub production. They would then have to halve their sub production once the Australian subs were delivered.

If Australia plans to have a continous long term build program in Australia it makes sense to get a few Virginia's to start. If we assume a 36 year service life like the Los Angeles class and a requirement of 12 subs that means one submarine built in Australia every 3 years. When the 12th subs enters service the 1st one is ready for retirement.

If the Aussie built subs are comissioned in say 2040, 2043, 2046, 2049 etc then by the time these 5 Virginia class subs are retired we should have 5-7 Aussie built subs in service. Though I think Australia should buy off the shelf subs from the US in the long term. There are some things that are best to buy off the shelf like the F-35 etc.

From what I can see is that the Virginia class boats are being built in 2 yards.
So there alone you have double to what the Astutes have in Barrow.

Obviously if you have the number of boats ordered you can build your production system accordingly.

How many docks do they have in each of Newport News and Groton to build the Virginias?

But I'm sure Astuteman can chip in much better on production of subs than I or probably anybody else here could!

ReverseFlow wrote:

But I'm sure Astuteman can chip in much better on production of subs than I or probably anybody else here could!

He probably could if he was allowed to

All I'll say is:-

Don't make too large a bet on US subs for the long term solution....
I could be wrong, of course

Rgds

Re. The Virginia class. It’s “up to” 5 boats. I believe it’s 3 with an option for two. I assume this is to mitigate any delays in SSNR. If 8 are ordered, deliveries beginning in 2040, it’s possible the last three might be timed to replace the Virginia’s. Or are they leased?

@A101 It’s a big leap from SSNR sharing a reactor with the dreadnought class to being a “warmed over” Dreadnought. Missions couldn’t be further apart.

I think, with the exception of the interim solution (I expected them to go for a handful of a conventional design like the A26) it’s worked out as expected. The Astute class was always a better fit than Virginia, but the timing was wrong, so SSNR with an interim solution was always likely. I imagine they will go for the American CMS rather than the Thales one. Will be interesting to see if the RN switches from Thales. The industrial strategy will also be interesting- sections built in Australia and shipped to Barrow? Or something else?

The announcement today says:

3 Virginia class submarines with option for two more, then the remainder are the SSN-AUKUS which will be new submarines that will serve both Australia and UK, with these new designs having US reactor and some other tech.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/ ... g-capacity

China is already said to be furious, calling it an expensive mistake.

How inconsiderate we are by acquiring these submarines, we should have consulted Beijing first, right... argh. (sarcasm mode off)

Xi's only rational reason for China's aggressive foreign policy is fear - fear of the Chinese people as he destroys its industry and economy.

cpd wrote:

The announcement today says:

3 Virginia class submarines with option for two more, then the remainder are the SSN-AUKUS which will be new submarines that will serve both Australia and UK, with these new designs having US reactor and some other tech.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/ ... g-capacity

China is already said to be furious, calling it an expensive mistake.

How inconsiderate we are by acquiring these submarines, we should have consulted Beijing first, right... argh. (sarcasm mode off)

Having watched the announcement and from this, it seems that after the 3 Virginia, with 2 more on option, the first sub, if I heard it right, of the now SSN-ANKUS, previously the UK SSNR project for an eventual Astute replacement, the first will be built in the UK, for the RN and sealed reactors from the UK, for all the subs, along with the Australian construction of their SSN-ANKUS.

The RR reactors are not copies, though there was under the 1958 agreement, which put a US reactor into Dreadnought, after which the PWR series from RR evolved.
I would suspect though that there will be differences between the RN and RAN SSN's, likely given the RAN experience on Virginia's a US combat system and weapons will be used.
The RN SSN-ANKUS will likely use evolved systems from the new Dreadnought SSBN's. Including the reactor and combat system.

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/new-aus ... sh-design/

More detail on what the new SSN will likely be;
https://www.navylookout.com/australia-t ... programme/

Agood thing about getting Virginias and then the new subs is that you will have a rolling fleet that all doesn't get old at once. It'll keep the industries fluid for quite a few years.

Apparently recruitment will be underway for roles supporting this effort. It looks very interesting.

cpd wrote:

Apparently recruitment will be underway for roles supporting this effort. It looks very interesting.

Yup. If you are interested, look here: www.buildsubmarines.com

Tugg

GDB wrote:

cpd wrote:

The announcement today says:

3 Virginia class submarines with option for two more, then the remainder are the SSN-AUKUS which will be new submarines that will serve both Australia and UK, with these new designs having US reactor and some other tech.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/ ... g-capacity

China is already said to be furious, calling it an expensive mistake.

How inconsiderate we are by acquiring these submarines, we should have consulted Beijing first, right... argh. (sarcasm mode off)

Having watched the announcement and from this, it seems that after the 3 Virginia, with 2 more on option, the first sub, if I heard it right, of the now SSN-ANKUS, previously the UK SSNR project for an eventual Astute replacement, the first will be built in the UK, for the RN and sealed reactors from the UK, for all the subs, along with the Australian construction of their SSN-ANKUS.

The RR reactors are not copies, though there was under the 1958 agreement, which put a US reactor into Dreadnought, after which the PWR series from RR evolved.
I would suspect though that there will be differences between the RN and RAN SSN's, likely given the RAN experience on Virginia's a US combat system and weapons will be used.
The RN SSN-ANKUS will likely use evolved systems from the new Dreadnought SSBN's. Including the reactor and combat system.

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/new-aus ... sh-design/

More detail on what the new SSN will likely be;
https://www.navylookout.com/australia-t ... programme/

Really good Navy Lookout article on SSNR - well worth a read.

I note they say the workforce in Barrow is being extended from 10,000 to 17,000 (which will be the most it has ever employed)

Referring to your comment on commonality vs differences, I've said this before - probably the single biggest driver in this programme will be industrial offsets between the partners, and what this means for which parts or systems get ordered from where....

Rgds

frmrCapCadet wrote:

Xi's only rational reason for China's aggressive foreign policy is fear - fear of the Chinese people as he destroys its industry and economy.

It isn’t fear, it’s the drive to kick the USA from it’s “worldpower nr.1” position and end the western dominance. Or at least create an alternative in a multi-polar world. A world which is already arrived when you see the results of the latest voting about Ukraine in the general assembly of the UN. “Abstain” is also a clear signal.

Tugger wrote:

cpd wrote:

Apparently recruitment will be underway for roles supporting this effort. It looks very interesting.

Yup. If you are interested, look here: http://www.buildsubmarines.com

Tugg

Thanks. Was hoping to find something local but will look to see what’s about.

cpd wrote:

Tugger wrote:

cpd wrote:

Apparently recruitment will be underway for roles supporting this effort. It looks very interesting.

Yup. If you are interested, look here: http://www.buildsubmarines.com

Tugg

Thanks. Was hoping to find something local but will look to see what’s about.

Not a job advert, but I found this ....

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/nuclear-subma ... 57453.html

There is this, though..

https://www.seek.com.au/submarine-jobs

Rgds

marcelh wrote:

It isn’t fear, it’s the drive to kick the USA from it’s “worldpower nr.1” position and end the western dominance. Or at least create an alternative in a multi-polar world. A world which is already arrived when you see the results of the latest voting about Ukraine in the general assembly of the UN. “Abstain” is also a clear signal.

The 32 abstentions were from nations that don't want to antagonize either the Russians or the Chinese, but nor do they want to antagonize the West. They walk the safe line.

Algeria, Angola, Armenia, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Burundi, Central African Republic, China, Republic of Congo, Cuba, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Gabon, Guinea, India, Iran, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Mongolia, Mozambique, Namibia, Pakistan, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Tajikistan, Togo, Uganda, Uzbekistan, Vietnam, Zimbabwe.

Good news for Barrow and UK shipbuilding in general.

So as I understand the boats will be equipped with predominantly UK systems for the RN boats and US/Aussie systems for the RAN boats?

And then RR reactors for all boats.

Is the US going to be buying/using any UK/AUS tech for the USN? I.e. offsets?

That great article has acronyms galore, a significant one is Suitably Qualified and Experienced Personnel (SQEP) Only with immigration can GB and the US continue to expand its economy and supply the personnel to 'man' this enormous project and the overall economy to support it. China with its declining labor force and population has not come to terms with the significance of this. The logical solution is China seeing itself an important ally of the US and GB, it could be awesome. Which then, paradoxically obviate the need for this program. That radical chant of protestors, Give Peace a Chance continues to be (seen as) unrealistic.

ReverseFlow wrote:

Good news for Barrow and UK shipbuilding in general.
Is the US going to be buying/using any UK/AUS tech for the USN? I.e. offsets?

I am still surprised that the USA will be selling its current submarines - Virginia - to a third party, so who knows, the last bastian of domestic military isolation may be falling.

Avatar2go wrote:

marcelh wrote:

It isn’t fear, it’s the drive to kick the USA from it’s “worldpower nr.1” position and end the western dominance. Or at least create an alternative in a multi-polar world. A world which is already arrived when you see the results of the latest voting about Ukraine in the general assembly of the UN. “Abstain” is also a clear signal.

The 32 abstentions were from nations that don't want to antagonize either the Russians or the Chinese, but nor do they want to antagonize the West. They walk the safe line.

Algeria, Angola, Armenia, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Burundi, Central African Republic, China, Republic of Congo, Cuba, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Gabon, Guinea, India, Iran, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Mongolia, Mozambique, Namibia, Pakistan, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Tajikistan, Togo, Uganda, Uzbekistan, Vietnam, Zimbabwe.

Not only that, but how many of those who abstained are important on the world stage? After China and India at the top, there's a big drop to Iran, Ethiopia, Iran, Pakistan, Vietnam and South Africa. The rest are only important to themselves.

par13del wrote:

I am still surprised that the USA will be selling its current submarines - Virginia - to a third party, so who knows, the last bastian of domestic military isolation may be falling.

I suspect the Navy is looking at the success of the joint F-35 program. An unexpected benefit has been the readiness and redundancy it provides, across all the member nations. All those forces train together to act as one force. They share instructors, training, repair, manufacturing, pilots, and maintainers.

It was smart of the joint program office to encourage equality of participation all the way down to the lowest levels of the program. It has unified the allies in a way not really achieved before.

I personally think this is the future of military alliances. It won't just be a high level agreement to cooperate, it will be integration throughout the forces, right down to manufacturing. That binds the nations and enables them to act as one, in a crisis.

par13del wrote:

ReverseFlow wrote:

Good news for Barrow and UK shipbuilding in general.
Is the US going to be buying/using any UK/AUS tech for the USN? I.e. offsets?

I am still surprised that the USA will be selling its current submarines - Virginia - to a third party, so who knows, the last bastian of domestic military isolation may be falling.

You could argue that ended in 1958, with the signing of the agreement on atomic military technology with the UK.
Breaking an embargo in 1946 by an act of Congress despite the 20% of the Manhattan project personnel coming from the Commonwealth and a 1943 agreement that subsumed the UK ‘Tube Alloys’ project into Manhattan, along with all research not already included in the 1940 Tizard Mission.
The UK perused it’s own program though always with an eye for renewed cooperation especially after the formation of NATO.

In the wake of the US hydrogen bomb tests, not long after the first UK atomic one, the UK started a H-Bomb project in 1954, culminating in a series of tests in the pacific in 1957/58. A US science delegation was invited to one of the final ones, as part of an effort to renew cooperation, with an awareness that Eisenhower was uncomfortable with the embargo too.
Plus this had been very expensive for the UK, to the extent of seriously affecting plans for a post V-Bomber force delivery system.
What the 1958 agreement gave the UK was access to submarine reactor and warhead design, the US was quite keen to know how a viable H-Bomb had been designed and tested within 4 years on a budget a fraction of the US had for similar.

For submarines it meant training and the reactor on the essentially prototype UK SSN, while the RR program caught up no doubt helped by the information sharing.
While the UK weapon design was viable, it was expensive to produce, so subsequent ones would have US technology input and the ones on Polaris and then Trident, while entirely built in the UK are based on the US design for these weapons, though later a UK only upgrade was done for Polaris. But it, as with any UK test, was done underground in the US.

There are some obvious parallels with the above, except with nuclear weapons, also this is an agreement that does not break any embargo, rather extends in some areas to the history I outlined.
Certainly RN personal were doing the atomic school course with the USN that RAN personnel have been doing for months as mentioned by the US President at the ANKUS event, back in 1958 when the ink was dry.
(Major coup that for Lord Mountbatten, getting on the good side of the genius but very prickly Admiral Rickover, the father of the Nuclear Navy, then getting permission to have a US reactor and all the training and information sharing).

But that is not the atmosphere now with this agreement with Australia, though it’s driven by the same broad strategic need, just the main concern this time is China.
Also, Australia is not going to be building submarine reactors, they will need to have deep knowledge of their design and operation however.
In 1958 the UK had the infrastructure to build reactors and weapons, so while this is a huge thing on a military and strategic level for Australia, a major boost to the submarine industry in both the UK and US, as well as Australia once construction gets underway. That’s where the major tech transfer will come from, given its an adapted or further evolved SSNR design.
With likely a combat system using their experience gained with the US supplied Virginia Class.

The timeline of the current plan is a bit ridiculous. I thought the desire for more subs was much more urgent.

Australia plans to have 8 Aussie built in the 2060's....

They will based on the British design that will replace Astute. The crew of these subs won't have been born yet. The three Virginia subs won't arrive for 10 years.

You'd hope the Chinese situation would be over by then, indeed.

Aesma wrote:

You'd hope the Chinese situation would be over by then, indeed.

No, because that would mean that China had reached all its goals.