Not denying that, but isn't this thread about Australian sub programs?
Australian navy's hunt for new sub to replace Collins class
- Thread starter CougarKing
- Start date
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 11,970
- Points
- 1,160
Open source news article
www.abc.net.au
Australia to get nuclear-powered submarines, scrap $90b plan to build French-designed subs
The ABC understands Australia will use American and British technology to configure its next submarine fleet in a bid to replace its existing Collins class subs with a boat more suitable to the deteriorating strategic environment.
www.abc.net.au
- Reaction score
- 18,898
- Points
- 1,280
The AFR one was just "govt could go for SSNs". This one confirms it.Open source news article
Australia to get nuclear-powered submarines, scrap $90b plan to build French-designed subs
The ABC understands Australia will use American and British technology to configure its next submarine fleet in a bid to replace its existing Collins class subs with a boat more suitable to the deteriorating strategic environment.
The Attack-class was going to be a complete crapshow. I can't even really think of a good analogy except for maybe the Cyclone with even more modifications - DCNS was going to modify a French nuke sub design to diesel-electric, and presumably fit non-EU systems onto it.
And Australia was the launch customer.
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 11,970
- Points
- 1,160
Meanwhile the US in Pearl are upgrading the infrastructure to support a modern submarine force.
nationalinterest.org
The U.S. Navy Hasn't Had a New Submarine Repair Facility Since World War II -- Until Now
The Navy is gaining new infrastructure with China in mind, and they're not the only ones.
nationalinterest.org
- Reaction score
- 22,177
- Points
- 1,360
They’ll be mentored by one of the most experienced SSN operators on the planet.
Still though, this will be an order of magnitude more complex than building Attack. Australia has no real nuclear infrastructure, so that will need to be built up, and the shipyard at ASC was in the process of upgrading to build Attack, so it will presumably need another refit to build the much larger and more complex nuclear boats. Also, there is significant anti-nuclear sentiment among Australians. This will need to be overcome to get enough buy in that this program can survive the multiple changes of government that will occur during the program. An interesting development though. The Brits are reporting it could be one of their designs (either Astute or the new SSN (R) follow-on design). Navy Lookout
This is a bit puzzling as a well, given the Aussies use US combat systems, so a British design would need to be modified to support that requirement, which would presumably increase risk and cost.
Last edited:
- Reaction score
- 1,888
- Points
- 1,260
Looks from a high level that Canada is the odd person out in this breaking news. Sad.
Spencer100
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,201
- Points
- 1,040
Yes very sad.
- Reaction score
- 22,031
- Points
- 1,260
Your "leader" is even more chummy with China than mine...
OldSolduer
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 15,629
- Points
- 1,260
Canada is back. Sure Justin.
I cannot express adequately my loathing for the Trudeau name. Our biggest trading partner, one of our founding nations and a close cousin have sent us packing.
Yet people continue to adore this fair haired boy. A pretend PM.
Sorry about the political slant but this is a political issue.
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 11,970
- Points
- 1,160
Potential for the reactor segment to be built elsewhere and shipped to Australia. Refuelling could be done in the US.
According to this, the first boat would be delivered around 2040, and they don't know how much this program will cost: Strategic shifts led it to acquire nuclear subs: Australia
- Reaction score
- 1,888
- Points
- 1,260
We wouldn't be sitting here in the corner sobbing alone if we had had the fortitude to go ahead and build the Canada class subs 25yrs ago. Those subs would be sitting at the same operational level and remaining life span as our current 2nd hand Vics. We would be perfectly positioned to join in the current arrangement and would most likely had something solid to add to the party and help along the Australians.
How low we have fallen.
How low we have fallen.
One of the big issues in Australia with the Attack program, and perhaps the biggest single irritant between the French and the Australians, was "local content". This issue was driven by very powerful labour unions that wanted as much work as possible done in Australia. It was very divisive, and caused the Australians to up the requirement for the percentage of local work after the contract had been signed. Now that they are talking about less boats (8 vs 12), and very likely less locally produced components (with, as you suggest above, critical components being built elsewhere), it will be interesting to see how this plays out politically.
- Reaction score
- 22,031
- Points
- 1,260
Probably wouldn't been in the penalty box if your PM wasn't a Chinese sympathizer either...
Australians are fairly pragmatic folks -- they take what they can get. Much larger sub - and significant more concern about their neighbors than a year ago -- the work will probably be a wash - as really only the reactor stuff will come from the US - the domestic content is going to be similar not just to Labor Unions, but also because Australia requires that significant portions be done in Australia for National Security implications (helps to be able to rebuild the boat in war time...)
It's curious: If all Australia wanted was a sub with nuclear power, I wonder why they wouldn't have explored transitioning the existing program to building the Barracuda, which is the design that Attack was derived from. Presumably some of the work they have done over the past 5 years could be ported back into the parent design.
- Reaction score
- 1,689
- Points
- 1,060
I'm not shoked at the end of the Attack/Shortfin Barracuda program with Naval Group, but still a little surprised. $2B down the hole to start all over with clear impediments going forward on the nuclear side, plus much larger boats with larger crew requirements. One thing you have to say for the Aussies, theyre not afraid to make decisions or alter course 270 degrees. Clearly they were looking to soldify/stengthen alliances with the UK and US as well as making the move to nuclear propulsion. I would think they would be better off just buying the Astutes off the line or at least building them under license. Too bad we couldn't get in on 5 or 6 ourselves
Already lost of questions about this announcement in Australia:
Seems more and more like a pretty dumb plan. Might have been better to stick with Naval Group and build a reduced number (6 ) of Attacks to replace the Collinses, and then transition to a nuclear boat in the late 2030s. That way they don't have to flog the current subs to death for another 20 years, or worse, do without any subs at all once those wear out if this aspirational nuclear scheme doesn't pan out.
Seems more and more like a pretty dumb plan. Might have been better to stick with Naval Group and build a reduced number (6 ) of Attacks to replace the Collinses, and then transition to a nuclear boat in the late 2030s. That way they don't have to flog the current subs to death for another 20 years, or worse, do without any subs at all once those wear out if this aspirational nuclear scheme doesn't pan out.
Last edited:
