A new defence pact between Australia, UK, USA is set to be announced today. Should throw up some interesting aerospace/Air Force options but apparently the main aim is to get Australia nuclear support ready (not armed) and to get them nuclear powered submarines!! Most likely US SSN.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/austra ... XM6MZXATY/

Update: Australia is going to build its own SSN submarines (no doubt using either US or UK designs and import their reactors).
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-09-16/ ... /100465814

Interesting they are also talking about sharing bases, technology etc.
So wondering if Aus will bring in any F35b, with the Royal Navy stretching its legs, it could be an interesting development to have them allocated to the Royal Navy carriers, at least when they visit the region, along with an escort or two (the Royal Navy does struggle).
Other thoughts include the Tempest fighter, could this be combined into a US development?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is big. Getting some big press.

First time US to share submarine nuclear propulsion tech since GB in 1958.

bt

Zkpilot wrote:

Update: Australia is going to build its own SSN submarines (no doubt using either US or UK designs and import their reactors).
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-09-16/ ... /100465814

Will such a submarine be ready to take to the water within 40-50 years?

It's a huge announcement, but all it will take is a return to Trump in the USA and the whole thing is finished.

cpd wrote:

will take is a return to Trump in the USA and the whole thing is finished.

While Trump was in office, US-UK-AUS relationship didn't seem to suffer much. The RAAF continued to buy P-8s and the UK bought both P-8s and E-7.

Still it is unlikely Trump will return, the COVID death toll will be brought up if he did.

Whether Democrat or Republicans, the deal is too much to ditch. Specially if both paries dont want to look weak in front of China.

bt

cpd wrote:

Zkpilot wrote:

Update: Australia is going to build its own SSN submarines (no doubt using either US or UK designs and import their reactors).
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-09-16/ ... /100465814

Will such a submarine be ready to take to the water within 40-50 years?

It's a huge announcement, but all it will take is a return to Trump in the USA and the whole thing is finished.

It won't be a new boat, just a mod of an Astute or Virginia and likely the Virginia Blk V or VI. Won't be SSN(X) as that isn't due for 25 years and it won't be a SSBN-X derivative. Sure as hell less risky than modifying a French boat to conventional and more useful buying nuc to transit fast from Skippyland to the South China Sea.

Not sure what Trump has to do with this, the land of skippy buying Nuc boats is good for US business and even better for US interests. US Naval Industry already has an issue building enough SSN boats to timeline, an additional production line in Oz might actually help future production. Could even see the US operating Oz built boats should production need to increase to deter China.

SeamanBeaumont wrote:

cpd wrote:

Zkpilot wrote:

Update: Australia is going to build its own SSN submarines (no doubt using either US or UK designs and import their reactors).
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-09-16/ ... /100465814

Will such a submarine be ready to take to the water within 40-50 years?

It's a huge announcement, but all it will take is a return to Trump in the USA and the whole thing is finished.

It won't be a new boat, just a mod of an Astute or Virginia and likely the Virginia Blk V or VI. Won't be SSN(X) as that isn't due for 25 years and it won't be a SSBN-X derivative. Sure as hell less risky than modifying a French boat to conventional and more useful buying nuc to transit fast from Skippyland to the South China Sea.

Not sure what Trump has to do with this, the land of skippy buying Nuc boats is good for US business and even better for US interests. US Naval Industry already has an issue building enough SSN boats to timeline, an additional production line in Oz might actually help future production. Could even see the US operating Oz built boats should production need to increase to deter China.

A change in US leadership could see the whole project scrapped, Australia might be seen as being untrustworthy or a potential security risk. Remember, we even have the port of Darwin which is leased by Chinese company Landbridge for 99 years since 2015. This was the decision of the Country Liberal Party government in the Northern Territory at that time.

Or if the Australian leadership changes for instance. And I'm used to our Defence projects taking an extremely long time. They are nearly as bad as Australian High Speed Rail, which is the most on time service in the world, arrives just in time for each election.

cpd wrote:

SeamanBeaumont wrote:

cpd wrote:

Will such a submarine be ready to take to the water within 40-50 years?

It's a huge announcement, but all it will take is a return to Trump in the USA and the whole thing is finished.

It won't be a new boat, just a mod of an Astute or Virginia and likely the Virginia Blk V or VI. Won't be SSN(X) as that isn't due for 25 years and it won't be a SSBN-X derivative. Sure as hell less risky than modifying a French boat to conventional and more useful buying nuc to transit fast from Skippyland to the South China Sea.

Not sure what Trump has to do with this, the land of skippy buying Nuc boats is good for US business and even better for US interests. US Naval Industry already has an issue building enough SSN boats to timeline, an additional production line in Oz might actually help future production. Could even see the US operating Oz built boats should production need to increase to deter China.

A change in US leadership could see the whole project scrapped, Australia might be seen as being untrustworthy or a potential security risk. Remember, we even have the port of Darwin which is leased by Chinese company Landbridge for 99 years since 2015.

Or if the Australian leadership changes for instance. And I'm used to our Defence projects taking an extremely long time. They are nearly as bad as Australian High Speed Rail, which is the most on time service in the world, arrives just in time for each election.

And an asteroid could wipe out Washington tomorrow! Seems more likely than a new republican president going back on a deal to sell military hardware and know how to a long standing ally who wants to offset the bully in the neighborhood.

SeamanBeaumont wrote:

cpd wrote:

SeamanBeaumont wrote:

It won't be a new boat, just a mod of an Astute or Virginia and likely the Virginia Blk V or VI. Won't be SSN(X) as that isn't due for 25 years and it won't be a SSBN-X derivative. Sure as hell less risky than modifying a French boat to conventional and more useful buying nuc to transit fast from Skippyland to the South China Sea.

Not sure what Trump has to do with this, the land of skippy buying Nuc boats is good for US business and even better for US interests. US Naval Industry already has an issue building enough SSN boats to timeline, an additional production line in Oz might actually help future production. Could even see the US operating Oz built boats should production need to increase to deter China.

A change in US leadership could see the whole project scrapped, Australia might be seen as being untrustworthy or a potential security risk. Remember, we even have the port of Darwin which is leased by Chinese company Landbridge for 99 years since 2015.

Or if the Australian leadership changes for instance. And I'm used to our Defence projects taking an extremely long time. They are nearly as bad as Australian High Speed Rail, which is the most on time service in the world, arrives just in time for each election.

And an asteroid could wipe out Washington tomorrow! Seems more likely than a new republican president going back on a deal to sell military hardware and know how to a long standing ally who wants to offset the bully in the neighborhood.

Exactly, the biggest complaints in Australia will be some yelling from the greens and some complaining about going back on a deal for the French designed subs. Otherwise the biggest issue when they do finally arrive is where they'll be based, a lot of Australian cities are anti nuclear, so with the exception of Fremantle/Perth, other Australian port visits maybe have to come under a new Federal Government law.

I would expect more announcements in the future, especially around bases in the north of Australia. The cancelling of the previously mentioned port lease in Darwin on national security terms, how that ever got permitted in the first place is a disgrace. I would also expect that one or two of the R.A.A.F. bare bases be brought up to full time use. R.A.A.F. Scherger in the far north of Queensland, should be one and either R.A.A.F. Curtin or Learmonth in Western Australia. Scherger and R.A.A.F. Darwin or Tindal would also by prime for hosting a U.S.A.F. squadron or two.

SeamanBeaumont wrote:

cpd wrote:

Zkpilot wrote:

Update: Australia is going to build its own SSN submarines (no doubt using either US or UK designs and import their reactors).
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-09-16/ ... /100465814

Will such a submarine be ready to take to the water within 40-50 years?

It's a huge announcement, but all it will take is a return to Trump in the USA and the whole thing is finished.

It won't be a new boat, just a mod of an Astute or Virginia and likely the Virginia Blk V or VI. Won't be SSN(X) as that isn't due for 25 years and it won't be a SSBN-X derivative. Sure as hell less risky than modifying a French boat to conventional and more useful buying nuc to transit fast from Skippyland to the South China Sea.

Not sure what Trump has to do with this, the land of skippy buying Nuc boats is good for US business and even better for US interests. US Naval Industry already has an issue building enough SSN boats to timeline, an additional production line in Oz might actually help future production. Could even see the US operating Oz built boats should production need to increase to deter China.

My money is on a Virginia derivative, but it could be Astute to give the Brits a part to play.

A surprise to be sure though it always seemed odd to covert a French SSN design to a large SSK.
Many thought the Aus government were being reamed by this deal.
Not that I can see 12 of these proposed SSN's, you won't need that many for a start, endurance and all that. The number being mooted being 8.

Question, the Virginia Class are much larger than the Astutes, themselves rather larger than previous RN SSN's.
While steel is cheap and in this case, water is free, something more akin to the Astutes, not anything like a copy though?
Some kind of hybrid seems a bit like the SSN to SSK to many, swapping one risky program for another?

Then there is the lack of Australian nuclear infrastructure, here RR may have a hand to play, they have been promoting small modular reactors, themselves with some basis in their submarine reactors.
Surely more suitable to start a civil reactor program with the intention of providing support to this SSN program.
PM Morrison said he has no intention of establishing a civil nuclear industry, he might need to reconsider that.

If you think the Australia pimped themselves to China, consider the UK nuclear reactor deal with France AND China, massively expensive, very controversial and looking like not going further than one or two reactors.
For max cringe, you can find PM Cameron take Xi to a pub, not that any of the current mob here in government now ever expressed reservations at the time.
Those RR Modular reactors seem set to replace that scheme, maybe.....

Interestingly, when the UK-US deal alluded to above was done in 1958, there was a UK (RR) sub reactor program running, which would become PWR1 in development, however Chief Of Defence Staff Mountbatten wanted to forge a close relationship with Rickover (bet that was a challenge), to not only get sub reactor technology as a means of getting a SSN as soon as possible, in the event the RR project was seriously delayed, he also wanted an 'in' with Polaris.

Since the V Bombers were at the time due to be replaced by Blue Streak silo housed but liquid fueled IRBM's, clearly due to the latter arguably more vulnerable to attack than the V Bombers on Quick Reaction Alert, Mountbatten thought it likely it would be cancelled, which in 1960 it was, he had seen a Polaris based system as not only much more survivable but would put the RN back in the strategic role.

HMS Dreadnought became the first RN SSN, with a US reactor, the subsequent ones being the RR one, their development path of reactors carries on today.
Arguably without that relationship with Rickover with the reactor, the Polaris deal later might not have happened.

I doubt this has gone down well in France either, however many informed people were surprised/dismayed by that SSN to SSK deal for the RAN and are likely pleased to see it gone.

Maybe the USN will sell them the early Virginia SSNs which should be quite a bit cheaper than the block V and a clean sheet design unless the RAN want to fire hypersonics from their SSNs

bikerthai wrote:

cpd wrote:

will take is a return to Trump in the USA and the whole thing is finished.

While Trump was in office, US-UK-AUS relationship didn't seem to suffer much. The RAAF continued to buy P-8s and the UK bought both P-8s and E-7.

Still it is unlikely Trump will return, the COVID death toll will be brought up if he did.

Whether Democrat or Republicans, the deal is too much to ditch. Specially if both paries dont want to look weak in front of China.

bt

They will need allies when confronting their main rivals. That guy couldn't even unite his own country let along his liberal democratic allies.
Using and relying on ethnic nationalism to gain votes in a country with large groups of minorities is a bad idea.

I'm expecting a shortened Virginia class submarine.

The Virginia is skinnier than the Astute class so it will result in a lower overall size. The Block V Virginia class subs have been significantly extended in length as they have the additional VPM module which contains four large diameter tubes which can accommodate seven Tomahawk cruise missiles each. The Block V have significant land attack capability that Australia doesn't need.

A 100m long Virginia class design with only torpedo tube and no vertical launch capability would be perfect. A displacement of around 6,500t would be perfect.

GDB wrote:

I doubt this has gone down well in France either, however many informed people were surprised/dismayed by that SSN to SSK deal for the RAN and are likely pleased to see it gone.

The French are furious at the moment

Personally I think the French has every right to be. Did they know at all that Australia was looking for nuclear powered submarines ? Did France get a chance to present a counter offer to such a thing ? I'm guessing not. Bad business practise of Australia and the US to go behind France back like this.


Now, will the nuclear powered submarines be any good ? I'm sure they will, but most likely far more expensive. I doubt very much that Australia actually needs such things. Nuclear powered submarines are for countries that insist on playing world police on the world stage. I don't think that Australia needs it for the Asia Pacific region since they are already backed by the USA, UK and maybe still France ...

Nuclear powered submarines, just like nuclear powered aircraft carriers can be taken out by new as well as old diesel electric far cheaper submarines, as both Norwegian and Swedish submarines has proven in various exercises

France is ... not amused.

"This brutal, unilateral and unpredictable decision reminds me a lot of what Mr Trump used to do," Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian told franceinfo radio. "I am angry and bitter. This isn't done between allies."...
Two weeks ago, the Australian defence and foreign ministers had reconfirmed the deal to France, and French President Emmanuel Macron lauded decades of future cooperation when hosting Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison in June.

"It's a stab in the back. We created a relationship of trust with Australia and that trust has been broken," Le Drian said.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us-move-d ... 021-09-15/

Think Astute type design has some key advantages, cost being a major one. Naval-technology.com stated the the Astute came in around $1.83b, and the Virginia upgrades at $3.2b.

Other key is the nuclear power plant, with the RR Core H requiring fewer refits (a big bonus if you want to avoid getting involved with the nuclear side as far as possible) than the S9G.

Would crew size be an issue, the RAN seems to struggle too, again some advantage to Astute.

That being said, political, and incorporating US sensor tech may be a winner, or indeed an offer for an existing boat brought in earlier could win the deal.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

RJMAZ wrote:

I'm expecting a shortened Virginia class submarine.

The Virginia is skinnier than the Astute class so it will result in a lower overall size. The Block V Virginia class subs have been significantly extended in length as they have the additional VPM module which contains four large diameter tubes which can accommodate seven Tomahawk cruise missiles each. The Block V have significant land attack capability that Australia doesn't need.

A 100m long Virginia class design with only torpedo tube and no vertical launch capability would be perfect. A displacement of around 6,500t would be perfect.

It has been reported that Australia is getting Tomahawks, so unless they can be torpedo tube launched, then you can expect these subs will built to accommodate vertical launch of them.

These subs are being purchased as a deterrent, if you have the ability to launch weapons at your adversary from distance, undetected, you put that seed of doubt in their mind on whether it is worth attacking or not. Not that I could ever see this capability ever being used, but you're not going to spend tens of billions of dollars and then not give them as much non nuclear capability as possible.

RJMAZ wrote:

I'm expecting a shortened Virginia class submarine.

The Virginia is skinnier than the Astute class so it will result in a lower overall size. The Block V Virginia class subs have been significantly extended in length as they have the additional VPM module which contains four large diameter tubes which can accommodate seven Tomahawk cruise missiles each. The Block V have significant land attack capability that Australia doesn't need.

A 100m long Virginia class design with only torpedo tube and no vertical launch capability would be perfect. A displacement of around 6,500t would be perfect.

They are suggesting something locally designed, but also long range missile capability too. That's worthwhile.

Might as well do the job once and do it properly, no pandering to politics or dumbing things down to avoid causing offense, that was really the whole thing with the French submarine - and it was a silly idea doing it non nuclear.

LTEN11 wrote:

RJMAZ wrote:

I'm expecting a shortened Virginia class submarine.

The Virginia is skinnier than the Astute class so it will result in a lower overall size. The Block V Virginia class subs have been significantly extended in length as they have the additional VPM module which contains four large diameter tubes which can accommodate seven Tomahawk cruise missiles each. The Block V have significant land attack capability that Australia doesn't need.

A 100m long Virginia class design with only torpedo tube and no vertical launch capability would be perfect. A displacement of around 6,500t would be perfect.

It has been reported that Australia is getting Tomahawks, so unless they can be torpedo tube launched, then you can expect these subs will built to accommodate vertical launch of them.

These subs are being purchased as a deterrent, if you have the ability to launch weapons at your adversary from distance, undetected, you put that seed of doubt in their mind on whether it is worth attacking or not. Not that I could ever see this capability ever being used, but you're not going to spend tens of billions of dollars and then not give them as much non nuclear capability as possible.

One of the design drivers for Astute, being the first post Cold War RN SSN, was increased ability to carry Tomahawks as well as in the RN’s cae, Spearfish torpedos and supporting/inserting SF.

Of course France is angry, however if there is one story in the RAN submarine saga that is almost as surprising as this announcement, it was that SSN to SSK variant being selected before.

To the question of why the RAN needs SSN’s, look at how vast the Pacific is, look at China’s accelerating build up.

cpd wrote:

RJMAZ wrote:

I'm expecting a shortened Virginia class submarine.

The Virginia is skinnier than the Astute class so it will result in a lower overall size. The Block V Virginia class subs have been significantly extended in length as they have the additional VPM module which contains four large diameter tubes which can accommodate seven Tomahawk cruise missiles each. The Block V have significant land attack capability that Australia doesn't need.

A 100m long Virginia class design with only torpedo tube and no vertical launch capability would be perfect. A displacement of around 6,500t would be perfect.

They are suggesting something locally designed, but also long range missile capability too. That's worthwhile.

Might as well do the job once and do it properly, no pandering to politics or dumbing things down to avoid causing offense, that was really the whole thing with the French submarine - and it was a silly idea doing it non nuclear.

They shouldn't have chosen the French sub in the first place just like they regretted getting the Tiger helicopters.
It's 4 torpedo tubes and 20 storage racks is probably not enough against the PLAN and possibly the Russian pacific fleet.
Might as well get a full size SSN with VLS

GDB wrote:

LTEN11 wrote:

RJMAZ wrote:

I'm expecting a shortened Virginia class submarine.

The Virginia is skinnier than the Astute class so it will result in a lower overall size. The Block V Virginia class subs have been significantly extended in length as they have the additional VPM module which contains four large diameter tubes which can accommodate seven Tomahawk cruise missiles each. The Block V have significant land attack capability that Australia doesn't need.

A 100m long Virginia class design with only torpedo tube and no vertical launch capability would be perfect. A displacement of around 6,500t would be perfect.

It has been reported that Australia is getting Tomahawks, so unless they can be torpedo tube launched, then you can expect these subs will built to accommodate vertical launch of them.

These subs are being purchased as a deterrent, if you have the ability to launch weapons at your adversary from distance, undetected, you put that seed of doubt in their mind on whether it is worth attacking or not. Not that I could ever see this capability ever being used, but you're not going to spend tens of billions of dollars and then not give them as much non nuclear capability as possible.

One of the design drivers for Astute, being the first post Cold War RN SSN, was increased ability to carry Tomahawks as well as in the RN’s cae, Spearfish torpedos and supporting/inserting SF.

Of course France is angry, however if there is one story in the RAN submarine saga that is almost as surprising as this announcement, it was that SSN to SSK variant being selected before.

To the question of why the RAN needs SSN’s, look at how vast the Pacific is, look at China’s accelerating build up.

Might as well get as much non nuclear bang for your billions as possible, I'm all for it. Now whether I'm actually still alive to get to see one of these subs will be a different story.

LTEN11 wrote:

It has been reported that Australia is getting Tomahawks, so unless they can be torpedo tube launched, then you can expect these subs will built to accommodate vertical launch of them.

Tomahawks can be torpedo tube launched. That is how the Astute class subs launch their Tomahawks.

Vertical launch is only required if you need to launch dozens of missiles at once. Australia would never need this extreme offensive capability.

That is why I expect Australia to get the Virginia class with all the vertical launch capability removed. The Submarines are built in four large modules and joined together. The nuclear reactor section could get built entirely in the US and shipped over. The rear propulsion section could be 100% identical to the Virginia class.

If the Virginia class is chosen with shortened length and reduced displacement Australia will probably have the fastest subs in the world.

LTEN11 wrote:

Might as well get as much non nuclear bang for your billions as possible, I'm all for it. Now whether I'm actually still alive to get to see one of these subs will be a different story.

The nuclear part (the reactor, not nuclear missiles) is the most expensive part of an SSN. It would make sense to maximise the offensive capability, especially considering that a sub is almost guaranteed to be detected after a missile launch.

RJMAZ wrote:

LTEN11 wrote:

It has been reported that Australia is getting Tomahawks, so unless they can be torpedo tube launched, then you can expect these subs will built to accommodate vertical launch of them.

Tomahawks can be torpedo tube launched. That is how the Astute class subs launch their Tomahawks.

Vertical launch is only required if you need to launch dozens of missiles at once. Australia would never need this extreme offensive capability.

That is why I expect Australia to get the Virginia class with all the vertical launch capability removed. The Submarines are built in four large modules and joined together. The nuclear reactor section could get built entirely in the US and shipped over. The rear propulsion section could be 100% identical to the Virginia class.

You maybe right, but I wouldn't be surprised if the government spends the extra and gets that extra capability. Lot easy to have it already, than wishing you had it a decade in the future.

The RAN will need those VLS if they want to take out the increasing amount of military bases in the West Pacific especially if/when the RoC is invaded.
https://www.9news.com.au/world/south-ch ... 66f369922b



https://www.9news.com.au/national/aukus ... 597e1aeea7

the Australian government says it is responding to Beijing's own massive military build-up

"This is about the consequential democracies of the world reacting to an aggressive China which is seeking to push those democracies out of the Indo Pacific," Peter Jennings, from the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, said.

RJMAZ wrote:

LTEN11 wrote:

It has been reported that Australia is getting Tomahawks, so unless they can be torpedo tube launched, then you can expect these subs will built to accommodate vertical launch of them.

Tomahawks can be torpedo tube launched. That is how the Astute class subs launch their Tomahawks.

Vertical launch is only required if you need to launch dozens of missiles at once. Australia would never need this extreme offensive capability.

That is why I expect Australia to get the Virginia class with all the vertical launch capability removed. The Submarines are built in four large modules and joined together. The nuclear reactor section could get built entirely in the US and shipped over. The rear propulsion section could be 100% identical to the Virginia class.

Tomahawk could be out of the US Inventory by the time the Aussie subs arrive. Aus and US are already cooperating on an air launched hypersonic so why limit that to air launched. expect a separate program for a sea launched system. Then think about those funky UUVs, which are the future for subs. A bigger boat with room to store, launch and recover these types of vehicles is a BIG deal for a navy buying a sub to cover to the 2070s.

giblets wrote:

Think Astute type design has some key advantages, cost being a major one. Naval-technology.com stated the the Astute came in around $1.83b, and the Virginia upgrades at $3.2b.

Other key is the nuclear power plant, with the RR Core H requiring fewer refits (a big bonus if you want to avoid getting involved with the nuclear side as far as possible) than the S9G.

Would crew size be an issue, the RAN seems to struggle too, again some advantage to Astute.

That being said, political, and incorporating US sensor tech may be a winner, or indeed an offer for an existing boat brought in earlier could win the deal.

The reactor lasts the life of the boat for new builds today, no point worrying about refueling it. The Aussie Collins already uses a US combat system and the french frankenstien was also going to use a US combat system and the Aussies use Mk48s... Put two and two together and you come up with the star spangled banner.

Mortyman wrote:

Nuclear powered submarines, just like nuclear powered aircraft carriers can be taken out by new as well as old diesel electric far cheaper submarines, as both Norwegian and Swedish submarines has proven in various exercises

Yeah, but a nuclear sub has a better chance of getting to the theater of operation undetected.

After operating their P-8A for a few years now, you would think they would know which type of submarines are easier to detect track and destroy.

bt

GDB wrote:

To the question of why the RAN needs SSN’s, look at how vast the Pacific is, look at China’s accelerating build up.

The reaction from China suggests this already has the desired effect and it is the right decision. Of course if we get some small number of nuclear subs it is destabilising security, but never if China does a big build up. Yeah right!

Arm these things with some nice long range hypersonic weapons as well for even better effect.

bajs11 wrote:

The RAN will need those VLS if they want to take out the increasing amount of military bases in the West Pacific especially if/when the RoC is invaded.

Not necessarily. The purpose of an alliance is shared responsibility. So without VLS, the RAN can perform other duties and free up the USN to perform the strikes. However, commonality with the US fleet does bring benefits of the ability to upgrade when ever the USN upgrades.

We all know the USN will always have more money to develop those upgrades.

bt

cpd wrote:

Zkpilot wrote:

Update: Australia is going to build its own SSN submarines (no doubt using either US or UK designs and import their reactors).
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-09-16/ ... /100465814

Will such a submarine be ready to take to the water within 40-50 years?

It's a huge announcement, but all it will take is a return to Trump in the USA and the whole thing is finished.

Hardly. If you think this process wasn't being done in the Trump years, you're grossly mistaken about the nature of the US bureaucracy.

This agreement wasn't plopped out, fully formed as if from Zeus' head, in less than year.

Lots of Australian technology exists in the US Navy now. The DOTMLPF (doctrine, organization, training, materiel, leadership and education, personnel, and facilities) of the ADF/RAN is a hybrid of RN/USN source documents now, and plenty of personnel within the ADF are originally British, and more than a few, American.

Personally, I'd guess that ultimately these boats will look something like or actually just be an Astute class, with the weapons and other fitment that is US sourced currently in the Collins class SSK, which is basically what is aboard the Virginia-class. The current Mark 48 CBASS is a joint development between the RAN/USN. Land attack capability in the form of Tomahawk or equivalent has been Australian policy since 2009ish, earmarked for the Collins class follow-on. I wouldn't be surprised if they keep the sonar off Astute, which is supposedly quite good.

Manning will be the biggest challenge for the RAN, IMO. An Astute carries three times the complement of a Collins, and the Astute class is 2/3rd that of the Virginia.

cpd wrote:

Or if the Australian leadership changes for instance. And I'm used to our Defence projects taking an extremely long time. They are nearly as bad as Australian High Speed Rail, which is the most on time service in the world, arrives just in time for each election.

HAHAAHHAHAHAH!

China has thrown its toys out of the pram, which suggests to me this is a very good idea!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-58582573

China has denounced a historic security pact between the US, UK and Australia, describing the alliance as "extremely irresponsible" and "narrow minded".

The pact, announced on Wednesday, will see the US and UK provide Australia with the technology to build nuclear-powered submarines for the first time.

It is being widely viewed as an effort to counter China's influence in the contested South China Sea.

The region has been a flashpoint for years and tensions there remain high.

On Thursday, Chinese Foreign ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian said the newly announced alliance risked "severely damaging regional peace... and intensifying the arms race".

He criticised what he called "the obsolete cold war... mentality" and warned the three countries were "hurting their own interests".

Chinese state media carried editorials denouncing the pact, and one in the Global Times newspaper said Australia had now "turned itself into an adversary of China".

Mortyman wrote:

The French are furious at the moment

Personally I think the French has every right to be. Did they know at all that Australia was looking for nuclear powered submarines ? Did France get a chance to present a counter offer to such a thing ? I'm guessing not. Bad business practise of Australia and the US to go behind France back like this.


Now, will the nuclear powered submarines be any good ? I'm sure they will, but most likely far more expensive. I doubt very much that Australia actually needs such things. Nuclear powered submarines are for countries that insist on playing world police on the world stage. I don't think that Australia needs it for the Asia Pacific region since they are already backed by the USA, UK and maybe still France ...

Nuclear powered submarines, just like nuclear powered aircraft carriers can be taken out by new as well as old diesel electric far cheaper submarines, as both Norwegian and Swedish submarines has proven in various exercises

The French have no right to be. French support to previous Australian defense programs was abysmal; multiple Australian governments had publicly cajoled the French into action, but its taken decades and millions of dollars for mature helo programs like Tiger to get to FOC, and there were plenty of people within the RAAF for one that remembered the service after the safe of the F-111 or F-18 compared to the Mirage.

To the quality of Virginia or Astute class SSNs, they are really quite good (as is Barracuda) and far better for most applications than a SSK, which is a defensive tool akin to a mobile minefield than naval maneuver element capable of the full range of submarine missions.

You are right, the SSNs are expensive, but to get to the highest capable SSKs, there is a massive infrastructure required as well, and significant limitations of operational utility.

giblets wrote:

So wondering if Aus will bring in any F35b, with the Royal Navy stretching its legs, it could be an interesting development to have them allocated to the Royal Navy carriers, at least when they visit the region, along with an escort or two (the Royal Navy does struggle).

I thought that I've read that there are plans to retrofit the Canberra-class for the F35B. I'm sure this new treaty will give added impetus to this.

Mortyman wrote:

Now, will the nuclear powered submarines be any good ? I'm sure they will, but most likely far more expensive. I doubt very much that Australia actually needs such things. Nuclear powered submarines are for countries that insist on playing world police on the world stage. I don't think that Australia needs it for the Asia Pacific region since they are already backed by the USA, UK and maybe still France ...

Nuclear powered submarines, just like nuclear powered aircraft carriers can be taken out by new as well as old diesel electric far cheaper submarines, as both Norwegian and Swedish submarines has proven in various exercises

Australia by itself doesn't need them, Australia as part of this new treaty does. China is too big to be controlled by one other country. The deterrence has to be spread among many other countries. Australia needs first rate platforms, just fewer of them.
As far as SSK's go, they work better in relatively shallower and shorter range areas such as the North, Baltic and Mediterranean Seas. Transit distances are much longer in the Pacific, also.

johns624 wrote:

Mortyman wrote:

Transit distances are much longer in the Pacific, also

So if the sub base will be near the East Coast and the patrol area is in the South China Sea . . . How many times does an SSK have to surface to regenerate the battery during that trip? I mean to deploy the snorkel. Just curious.



bt

bikerthai wrote:

bajs11 wrote:

The RAN will need those VLS if they want to take out the increasing amount of military bases in the West Pacific especially if/when the RoC is invaded.

Not necessarily. The purpose of an alliance is shared responsibility. So without VLS, the RAN can perform other duties and free up the USN to perform the strikes. However, commonality with the US fleet does bring benefits of the ability to upgrade when ever the USN upgrades.

We all know the USN will always have more money to develop those upgrades.

bt

What if the USN won't be able to defend Australia?
like during 1941-1942 when the empire of Japan bombed Darwin.
Since the RAN doesn't have carriers they could just strike back with subs and suddenly those VLS tubes will be very useful.

considering the USN may not even have enough ships to counter the PRC and its allies.
https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2021/ ... riorities/

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/militar ... ips-alaska

Mortyman wrote:

Now, will the nuclear powered submarines be any good ? I'm sure they will, but most likely far more expensive. I doubt very much that Australia actually needs such things. Nuclear powered submarines are for countries that insist on playing world police on the world stage. I don't think that Australia needs it for the Asia Pacific region since they are already backed by the USA, UK and maybe still France ...

Nuclear powered submarines, just like nuclear powered aircraft carriers can be taken out by new as well as old diesel electric far cheaper submarines, as both Norwegian and Swedish submarines has proven in various exercises

yet both Russia and the PRC are building new generations of nuclear powered subs

https://web.archive.org/web/20070819041 ... y_id=17621

The U.S. Navy and the Swedish navy signed a Memorandum of Understanding March 21 that will begin a bilateral training effort, providing a Swedish advanced diesel submarine and crew for U.S. Navy fleet anti-submarine warfare (ASW) training.

That was 16 years ago...

https://web.archive.org/web/20090202192 ... feb06.html

In the past several years the US Navy has reacquired an urgency about anti-submarine warfare. A poor step-child of the Navy since the fall of the USSR (along with mine-hunting), ASW is once again being recognized as a critical capability.

bikerthai wrote:

johns624 wrote:

Mortyman wrote:

Transit distances are much longer in the Pacific, also

So if the sub base will be near the East Coast and the patrol area is in the South China Sea . . . How many times does an SSK have to surface to regenerate the battery during that trip? I mean to deploy the snorkel. Just curious.

bt

https://web.archive.org/web/20110425220 ... ip-system/

Instead of a number of days, a Stirling AIP submarine can extend the time submerged to weeks and thus outperform any other conventional submarine with regard to that key capability - submerged endurance.

but of course they are much slower than SSNs

Astute makes a lot os sense, if they can use the PWR3 (developed for the dreadnaught class) , its supposed to be based on a US design using UK reactor technology.

However suspect they will use the US fire control System (BYG-1) selected for the Attack Class. This has apparently been under discussion for some time the old Aussie defence minister was thanked for the work), yet Lockheed Martin have continued to hand out contracts.

The sensors for the Attack class were to be supplied by Thales and are essentially the same as the Astute Type 2079 System (comprisiactive, passive, towed array, flank array), so integration work between the BYG-1 and the sensors is already being progressed.

There have been some quotes from UK ministers stating (after cries from the French)’ that Britain did not goes chasing the nuc subs deal, but Australia approached them, if true this makes more sense due to huge amount of US tech (reactor based on US design etc) that it would need their buy in also, however there is a lot more to the deal than just the subs.

https://www.northwaleschronicle.co.uk/n ... nch-anger/

bajs11 wrote:

What if the USN won't be able to defend Australia?
like during 1941-1942 when the empire of Japan bombed Darwin.

Japan just bombed Darwin. It actually invaded th Aleutian Island (part of Alaska).

I doubt the Chinese will have the capacity nor the desire to invade Western Austrailia or the Aleutians.

We are talking about a potential conflict around Taiwan or the South China Sea. What submarine platform will best operate in that area.

From your info, I estimate transit time may be 5-6 days or more to the conflict area. That would take a big chunk out of the submerge capacity if they chose to go the whole way under battery which would be silly.

Once there staying submerged for weeks may be good. But for months would be better.

bt

bajs11 wrote:

considering the USN may not even have enough ships to counter the PRC and its allies.

That is why the US is leaning in to its allies.

As for the Chinese, what allies?

Third point. Statistics may be used to inflate capacity. What is the nature of those Chinese ships and their capacity to operate in the Indian Ocean as opposed to the Taiwan Straight?

bt

giblets wrote:

Astute makes a lot os sense, if they can use the PWR3 (developed for the dreadnaught class) , its supposed to be based on a US design using UK reactor technology.

However suspect they will use the US fire control System (BYG-1) selected for the Attack Class. This has apparently been under discussion for some time the old Aussie defence minister was thanked for the work), yet Lockheed Martin have continued to hand out contracts.

The sensors for the Attack class were to be supplied by Thales and are essentially the same as the Astute Type 2079 System (comprisiactive, passive, towed array, flank array), so integration work between the BYG-1 and the sensors is already being progressed.

There have been some quotes from UK ministers stating (after cries from the French)’ that Britain did not goes chasing the nuc subs deal, but Australia approached them, if true this makes more sense due to huge amount of US tech (reactor based on US design etc) that it would need their buy in also, however there is a lot more to the deal than just the subs.

https://www.northwaleschronicle.co.uk/n ... nch-anger/

No one saw this coming so the plotting to stab in the back is absurd. What had been well known was the increasing disquiet about the deal with France, several years in apparently large gaps in knowledge from the Australian side despite frequent requests to the French contractor, huge overruns and delays seemed certain.
SSN to SSK, why not buy a French SSN, of that design.

Likely they would never allow it, would not want to maybe jeopardize other commercial contracts with China, not being within the 5 Eyes intelligence network not helpful either, however mainly not wanting to export submarine reactor technology, possibly not legal in France?
You know how the UK government is, something like this they would have been trumpeting about well in advance of any announcement between the three governments.

16 years later,

The US Navy will have almost finished upgrading its fleet of ASW aircrafts. The RAAF have upgraded theirs and the UK will by 2022 if not the end of this year.

bt

GDB wrote:

No one saw this coming so the plotting to stab in the back is absurd.

First Germany and MAWS, now this. Is this the other shoe that dropped or is there a third in the works?

bt

SeamanBeaumont wrote:

RJMAZ wrote:

LTEN11 wrote:

It has been reported that Australia is getting Tomahawks, so unless they can be torpedo tube launched, then you can expect these subs will built to accommodate vertical launch of them.

Tomahawks can be torpedo tube launched. That is how the Astute class subs launch their Tomahawks.

Vertical launch is only required if you need to launch dozens of missiles at once. Australia would never need this extreme offensive capability.

That is why I expect Australia to get the Virginia class with all the vertical launch capability removed. The Submarines are built in four large modules and joined together. The nuclear reactor section could get built entirely in the US and shipped over. The rear propulsion section could be 100% identical to the Virginia class.

Tomahawk could be out of the US Inventory by the time the Aussie subs arrive. Aus and US are already cooperating on an air launched hypersonic so why limit that to air launched. expect a separate program for a sea launched system. Then think about those funky UUVs, which are the future for subs. A bigger boat with room to store, launch and recover these types of vehicles is a BIG deal for a navy buying a sub to cover to the 2070s.

giblets wrote:

Think Astute type design has some key advantages, cost being a major one. Naval-technology.com stated the the Astute came in around $1.83b, and the Virginia upgrades at $3.2b.

Other key is the nuclear power plant, with the RR Core H requiring fewer refits (a big bonus if you want to avoid getting involved with the nuclear side as far as possible) than the S9G.

Would crew size be an issue, the RAN seems to struggle too, again some advantage to Astute.

That being said, political, and incorporating US sensor tech may be a winner, or indeed an offer for an existing boat brought in earlier could win the deal.

The reactor lasts the life of the boat for new builds today, no point worrying about refueling it. The Aussie Collins already uses a US combat system and the french frankenstien was also going to use a US combat system and the Aussies use Mk48s... Put two and two together and you come up with the star spangled banner.

I don't think it will be a Virginia. I think OZ will go for the Astutes. Cheaper, and it seems to me the U.S.N is is taking as many Virginias as they can to keep the sub force up to date. The Australians have shown a propensity to buy European ships lately and fit them with U.S systems. I think that is what will happen here.

RJMAZ wrote:

LTEN11 wrote:

It has been reported that Australia is getting Tomahawks, so unless they can be torpedo tube launched, then you can expect these subs will built to accommodate vertical launch of them.

Tomahawks can be torpedo tube launched. That is how the Astute class subs launch their Tomahawks.

Vertical launch is only required if you need to launch dozens of missiles at once. Australia would never need this extreme offensive capability.

That is why I expect Australia to get the Virginia class with all the vertical launch capability removed. The Submarines are built in four large modules and joined together. The nuclear reactor section could get built entirely in the US and shipped over. The rear propulsion section could be 100% identical to the Virginia class.

If the Virginia class is chosen with shortened length and reduced displacement Australia will probably have the fastest subs in the world.

Cue the Virginia-SP....

johns624 wrote:

Australia by itself doesn't need them

Oh, I'd like to see your work on this assertation.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

France is finding out that the Biden crowd isn’t a bit less nationalistic than Trump. Biden pulled the rug on NATO last month in Afghanistan, this month the French. What’s next?

I'll never get tired of pointing this out.

Trump was as multilateral as any previous President, and more so, in the sense of avoiding intractable conflict.

But Haters gonna hate.

bikerthai wrote:

bajs11 wrote:

What if the USN won't be able to defend Australia?
like during 1941-1942 when the empire of Japan bombed Darwin.

Japan just bombed Darwin. It actually invaded th Aleutian Island (part of Alaska).

I doubt the Chinese will have the capacity nor the desire to invade Western Austrailia or the Aleutians.

We are talking about a potential conflict around Taiwan or the South China Sea. What submarine platform will best operate in that area.

From your info, I estimate transit time may be 5-6 days or more to the conflict area. That would take a big chunk out of the submerge capacity if they chose to go the whole way under battery which would be silly.

Once there staying submerged for weeks may be good. But for months would be better.

bt

What we are talking about is the willingness of the CCP to change the map of Asia by force, and their utter unwillingness to abide by treaties, even if they totally favor the PRC (see also, "one country, two systems.")

This goes beyond the operational considerations of what attacks will occur where. Interesting, but at the strategic level, irrelevant. Its far more about the Chinese being forced to invest to continue their combat power overmatch (when their stated purpose is defensive.)

As long as the Australians have SSNs, they can hold at risk, basically independently, any Chinese threat to them.