Australian navy's hunt for new sub to replace Collins class

[Dana381]

Well let’s be honest a significant part of that cost is going to be building a nuclear ‘industry’ in Australia. They don’t have any Nuclear plants and so the uphill battle to bring Nuclear power to Oz is even higher than Canada

Why nuclear energy is not worth the risk for Australia | Climate Council

Nuclear energy risks our energy security, our economy, the safety of our communities and our kids’ future.

www.climatecouncil.org.au

Do they need to, if they are using UK reactors why not just get UK to service them? If the only nuclear power in country is the subs than sail them to England for planned reactor work. And if there is unplanned reactor work then it dosent matter where you are, you are screwed.

 

[GR66]

Do they need to, if they are using UK reactors why not just get UK to service them? If the only nuclear power in country is the subs than sail them to England for planned reactor work. And if there is unplanned reactor work then it dosent matter where you are, you are screwed.

I previously suggested the same could be done by Canada if we procured nuclear subs. East coast subs could be serviced at New London (Groton, CT) and the West coast subs at Kitsap (Bangor, WA)

 

[Underway]

Do they need to, if they are using UK reactors why not just get UK to service them? If the only nuclear power in country is the subs than sail them to England for planned reactor work. And if there is unplanned reactor work then it dosent matter where you are, you are screwed.

UK is having trouble with their own nuclear submarine industry, and with technicians. It's easier said then done, but its probably worth looking into.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I previously suggested the same could be done by Canada if we procured nuclear subs. East coast subs could be serviced at New London (Groton, CT) and the West coast subs at Kitsap (Bangor, WA)

If we were to somehow magically to agree to buy Virginia class SSNs, that is exactly how I think we should maintain them: in nearby US yards…

 

[torg003]

Though Canada needs nuclear powered subs to effectively protect Canadian Arctic sovereignty, I doubt the US will sell us any. Plus the current gov't wouldn't want the political backlash from the anti-nuke supporters.

 

[OldSolduer]

So have we bid on the used Aussie subs?

 

[YZT580]

So have we bid on the used Aussie subs?

no bids until they have been tied up for a decade so as to get them at the best price

 

[torg003]

Other than no political will to do it, is there any reason why we can't build our own subs like we do surface warships?

 

[KevinB]

Do they need to, if they are using UK reactors why not just get UK to service them? If the only nuclear power in country is the subs than sail them to England for planned reactor work. And if there is unplanned reactor work then it dosent matter where you are, you are screwed.

There is a massive difference in a Nuke boat and a DE one
It isn’t just about the reactor replacement.

When you look at what goes into Nuke boat crews here, it’s not going to be an easy journey for Oz.

 

[Spencer100]

Though Canada needs nuclear powered subs to effectively protect Canadian Arctic sovereignty, I doubt the US will sell us any. Plus the current gov't wouldn't want the political backlash from the anti-nuke supporters.

The US would totally sell them to us. The last admin especially would....Trade win! Jobs Jobs! (I have always said we should have a tied a defence contract to the trade talks) But increase in a friendly nation submarine count would be a win for them. They would still control the IP etc. Plus if we base them in the Pacific! Perfect! Say we do get nuke boats the largest percentage of mission time would in the Pacific then the Atlantic, the Artic would still be a side show. But if I was the Gov my PR sell it to use them for Artic patrol. wink wink!

 

[KevinB]

The US would totally sell them to us. The last admin especially would....Trade win! Jobs Jobs! (I have always said we should have a tied a defence contract to the trade talks) But increase in a friendly nation submarine count would be a win for them. They would still control the IP etc. Plus if we base them in the Pacific! Perfect! Say we do get nuke boats the largest percentage of mission time would in the Pacific then the Atlantic, the Artic would still be a side show. But if I was the Gov my PR sell it to use them for Artic patrol. wink wink!

I think you have an overly vivid recollection of the previous admin down here.
Canada wasn’t invited to the Sub deal.
Part of that was the belief that your PM is way to close to China.

 

[Spencer100]

I think you have an overly vivid recollection of the previous admin down here.
Canada wasn’t invited to the Sub deal.
Part of that was the belief that your PM is way to close to China.

I mean the part were Trump asked Canada to spend more on defence. That was very public. And at the same time going for a better NAFTA deal. I had said if I was negotiating it do a big defence buy to get terms on the NAFTA talks. That is want I met. Or if that was not possible a large defence buy may help with softer Buy American rules. I had heard rumbling it that effect.

Canada wouldn't have been asked because we have telegraphed "nuke subs" bad in the past. I would hold if we were truly serious we could be added very easily to Sub pack. I believe the three of them would want us to be a party to it. Canada can be at the big boys table if we just start acting like it. But you know.......

Most of the country would agree with you on the China part.......

 

[Dana381]

The US would totally sell them to us. The last admin especially would....Trade win! Jobs Jobs! (I have always said we should have a tied a defence contract to the trade talks) But increase in a friendly nation submarine count would be a win for them. They would still control the IP etc. Plus if we base them in the Pacific! Perfect! Say we do get nuke boats the largest percentage of mission time would in the Pacific then the Atlantic, the Artic would still be a side show. But if I was the Gov my PR sell it to use them for Artic patrol. wink wink!

I think the u.s. dosent want us having any subs. There is something about declaring they are in our waters. If we have subs they have to ask so as not to hit one. If we don't have any they can run subs in our waters without permission. Not my words but someone on this forum talked about it before

 

[Underway]

Canada wasn’t invited to the Sub deal.

Canada wasn't invited because its a deal about the South Pacific strategic situation. To think we have anything to do with that strategically would be massive hubris on Canada's part. We wouldn't have anything meaningful to contribute even if we "were way too close with China".

 

[OldSolduer]

There is a massive difference in a Nuke boat and a DE one
It isn’t just about the reactor replacement.

When you look at what goes into Nuke boat crews here, it’s not going to be an easy journey for Oz.

I've kinda studied subs especiallay nuke boats. They are massively complicated and I believe the Captain of a nuke has to have a degree in nuclear physics.

 

[KevinB]

I've kinda studied subs especiallay nuke boats. They are massively complicated and I believe the Captain of a nuke has to have a degree in nuclear physics.

The whole culture is significantly different - Officers have Nuke degrees (engineers and higher up the command) and the nuke school is a big part of the non commissioned member side too. Most the reactor folks get pretty solid gigs at city nuke plants if they want when they ETS.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Other than no political will to do it, is there any reason why we can't build our own subs like we do surface warships?

It's massively complicated and will require a lot of really expensive infrastructure and specialist skills. Maintaining them doesn't give you all the tools to build them, but even that's a challenge that we're still working on after 15ish years.

People complain about the costs of surface ships and the NSS; imagine at 10 times the cost.

 

[suffolkowner]

It's massively complicated and will require a lot of really expensive infrastructure and specialist skills. Maintaining them doesn't give you all the tools to build them, but even that's a challenge that we're still working on after 15ish years.

People complain about the costs of surface ships and the NSS; imagine at 10 times the cost.

I wouldn't encourage building thats for sure especially for such small runs, you really need to have a continual production cycle going on. The A26 proposal for the Netherlands is to be assembled there but built in Sweden I think.

Australia's going to (or have to) refit all the Collins to keep them going until the next generation UK reactor/sub is ready to go as all signs point to it being UK derived even though that makes little sense to me. What would make more sense would be to share the reactor between the US/UK/AUS. The UK is having a hard enough time keeping its small production running

 

[KevinB]

I wouldn't encourage building thats for sure especially for such small runs, you really need to have a continual production cycle going on. The A26 proposal for the Netherlands is to be assembled there but built in Sweden I think.

Australia's going to (or have to) refit all the Collins to keep them going until the next generation UK reactor/sub is ready to go as all signs point to it being UK derived even though that makes little sense to me. What would make more sense would be to share the reactor between the US/UK/AUS. The UK is having a hard enough time keeping its small production running

I suspect the USN will work a deal with some of their older 688 with mixed crews to start training up the Aussies.
They will have to send crews to the US and UK for years to build up enough of an internal knowledge bank before they can start conducting internal training anyway.

 

[Grimey]

I've kinda studied subs especiallay nuke boats. They are massively complicated and I believe the Captain of a nuke has to have a degree in nuclear physics.

I believe that is a requirement in USN boats, but not RN.