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

[KevinB]

New bill would establish AUKUS submarine training program

A new training program would enroll young Australian naval officers in U.S. nuclear propulsion and submarine officer schoolhouses, and then send them to sea on a U.S. boat, ahead of Australia developing and fielding its own nuclear-powered sub.

www.defensenews.com

 

[OldSolduer]

New bill would establish AUKUS submarine training program

A new training program would enroll young Australian naval officers in U.S. nuclear propulsion and submarine officer schoolhouses, and then send them to sea on a U.S. boat, ahead of Australia developing and fielding its own nuclear-powered sub.

www.defensenews.com

That - in my crayon brain - is a good first step.

 

[Underway]

That - in my crayon brain - is a good first step.

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 think that might be a good argument in favour of building the reactors in the UK. Smaller production means Aus orders are more easily fit into a schedule, gives the UK some breathing room between their own subs without losing the expertise, and ensures continuity of the program. We know the US will keep building. The UK getting an order sheet might be just what they need for nuke program stability.

 

[Kirkhill]

Aussies on British nuke courses.

Australians now attending British nuclear submarine courses

As part of the AUKUS agreement, Australian submariners are now attending Royal Navy nuclear propulsion training courses.

ukdefencejournal.org.uk

It would make sense.

The Brits are reliant on Yank technology. If the Aussies are happy with the Brit technology it leaves the Yanks with a tech cut-out between their world and their allies. They don't have to expose everything they know.

 

[RDBZ]

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

Not sure which signs you're referring to, but there are those who believe the US invited the UK to join the program in order to interest them in aligning their future submarine programs with the US. The former defence minister Peter Dutton has made some interesting public comments, and the RAN will want a plan B.

The recently announced AUKUS hypersonic missile program was in fact a pre-existing Aus-US program the Brits were invited to join.

The RAN is very USN centric in combat systems and weapons, and integrating those into a UK design wouldn't necessarily be easy or quick.

 

[suffolkowner]

Not sure which signs you're referring to, but there are those who believe the US invited the UK to join the program in order to interest them in aligning their future submarine programs with the US. The former defence minister Peter Dutton has made some interesting public comments, and the RAN will want a plan B.

The recently announced AUKUS hypersonic missile program was in fact a pre-existing Aus-US program the Brits were invited to join.

The RAN is very USN centric in combat systems and weapons, and integrating those into a UK design wouldn't necessarily be easy or quick.

Well there's this

Australians now attending British nuclear submarine courses

As part of the AUKUS agreement, Australian submariners are now attending Royal Navy nuclear propulsion training courses.

ukdefencejournal.org.uk

but yeah its a difficult road the Aussies are embarking on. I believe the American subs are too big and too manpower intensive and strangely they seem to not be capable or inclined to increase production not that the Aussies dont need time to tool up. The UK and I expect the French too appear to be constrained by alternating attack and ballistic schedules and reactor design changes

 

[MilEME09]

Virginia class for Australia

Australia to buy US nuclear submarines to fill capability gap

Anthony Albanese is set to announce Australia will acquire a fleet of nuclear-powered submarines based primarily on a new British design.

www.smh.com.au

 

[dimsum]

Virginia class for Australia

Australia to buy US nuclear submarines to fill capability gap

Anthony Albanese is set to announce Australia will acquire a fleet of nuclear-powered submarines based primarily on a new British design.

www.smh.com.au

From the article, Virginias for the capability gap (starting in 2030s), then modified Astutes later.

 

[RDBZ]

From the article, Virginias for the capability gap (starting in 2030s), then modified Astutes later.

Odd timing, given the lifespan of a nuclear submarine. "Later" may well be a long, long time in the future. Perhaps we'll see a tri-nation program for a new class of boats to follow-on both the Virginias and Astutes.

 

[dimsum]

Odd timing, given the lifespan of a nuclear submarine. "Later" may well be a long, long time in the future. Perhaps we'll see a tri-nation program for a new class of boats to follow-on both the Virginias and Astutes.

Yup. So they’ll have two fleets, or try and sell the Virginias back to the USN?

 

[GR66]

Odd timing, given the lifespan of a nuclear submarine. "Later" may well be a long, long time in the future. Perhaps we'll see a tri-nation program for a new class of boats to follow-on both the Virginias and Astutes.

Sounds like the kind of decision you'd make if you thought there was a serious risk that there could be a war with China before Britain has their new sub design ready to produce.

 

[calculus]

Sounds like the kind of decision you'd make if you thought there was a serious risk that there could be a war with China before Britain has their new sub design ready to produce.

Or, "better commit to something quick, before public sentiment turns against this".

 

[KevinB]

Yup. So they’ll have two fleets, or try and sell the Virginias back to the USN?

Or to Canada

Seriously now, I think the VA’s are more a lender than a keeper.

 

[dimsum]

Up to $368 billion over 30 years, including $8 billion for upgrades to HMAS Stirling (current RAN sub base near Perth in Western Australia).

SSNs ain't cheap.

Australian nuclear submarine program to cost up to $368b as AUKUS details unveiled

Australia’s nuclear submarine program will cost up to $368 billion over the next three decades, with confirmation that the federal government will buy at least three American-manufactured nuclear submarines.

www.abc.net.au

 

[OldSolduer]

Up to $368 billion over 30 years, including $8 billion for upgrades to HMAS Stirling (current RAN sub base near Perth in Western Australia).

SSNs ain't cheap.

Australian nuclear submarine program to cost up to $368b as AUKUS details unveiled

Australia’s nuclear submarine program will cost up to $368 billion over the next three decades, with confirmation that the federal government will buy at least three American-manufactured nuclear submarines.

www.abc.net.au

And that is why Canada will never have a fleet of nuclear powered anything.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

To funny not to share

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1644907579267506176

 

[CBH99]

Up to $368 billion over 30 years, including $8 billion for upgrades to HMAS Stirling (current RAN sub base near Perth in Western Australia).

SSNs ain't cheap.

Australian nuclear submarine program to cost up to $368b as AUKUS details unveiled

Australia’s nuclear submarine program will cost up to $368 billion over the next three decades, with confirmation that the federal government will buy at least three American-manufactured nuclear submarines.

www.abc.net.au

Are they using the same accounting formulas as Canadian media outlets?

Nuclear subs are expensive, no matter what way they are looked at. But $368 Billion over 30+ years is far too vague a number to draw any real conclusions as TJ whether that is money being well spent or not.

As we all know, accounting in the defence world is a tricky and inconsistent thing - rife with political agendas, projected GDP growth, assumed pace of operations, and different formulas used from country to country. So much so it’s practically impossible to compare apples to apples.


So where am I going with all of this?

- Does that figure of $368B factor in such things as crew salaries, food/supplies, etc that would have been money spent regardless of whether the RAN went nuclear or not?

- or is that the projected acquisition & operating costs of just the boats? Does it include the upgrades to their submarine base?

- or is that projected costs with an extra 15% contingency bolted onto it?


It’s expensive no matter what way we slice the pie, but whether it’s outrageously expensive or not remains to be seen.

Still a heavy sticker shock to the Sustrakiaj taxpayer, no doubt


(Seeing that are getting slightly used American subs, have become an important hub for American subs operating in that region, and will operate mixed crews at least initially…they’ve probably realized some efficiencies they otherwise would have missed for a while. So that price tag could have been even higher yet…)

 

[Prairie canuck]

Are they using the same accounting formulas as Canadian media outlets?

Nuclear subs are expensive, no matter what way they are looked at. But $368 Billion over 30+ years is far too vague a number to draw any real conclusions as TJ whether that is money being well spent or not.

As we all know, accounting in the defence world is a tricky and inconsistent thing - rife with political agendas, projected GDP growth, assumed pace of operations, and different formulas used from country to country. So much so it’s practically impossible to compare apples to apples.


So where am I going with all of this?

- Does that figure of $368B factor in such things as crew salaries, food/supplies, etc that would have been money spent regardless of whether the RAN went nuclear or not?

- or is that the projected acquisition & operating costs of just the boats? Does it include the upgrades to their submarine base?

- or is that projected costs with an extra 15% contingency bolted onto it?


It’s expensive no matter what way we slice the pie, but whether it’s outrageously expensive or not remains to be seen.

Still a heavy sticker shock to the Sustrakiaj taxpayer, no doubt


(Seeing that are getting slightly used American subs, have become an important hub for American subs operating in that region, and will operate mixed crews at least initially…they’ve probably realized some efficiencies they otherwise would have missed for a while. So that price tag could have been even higher yet…)

$13 billion a year for 30 years for 3 subs with all the accoutrements ?? Crikey!

 

[KevinB]

$13 billion a year for 30 years for 3 subs with all the accoutrements ?? Crikey!

It is not 3 Subs.
It's 3 Virginian Class SSN with an option for 2 more, PLUS 5 SSN-AUKUS, eventually working out to 8 of the AUKUS Class SSN and the Virginia's retired (or sold to someone else who likes older Subs, maybe in 2060 it will be Canada...)

 

[OldSolduer]

It is not 3 Subs.
It's 3 Virginian Class SSN with an option for 2 more, PLUS 5 SSN-AUKUS, eventually working out to 8 of the AUKUS Class SSN and the Virginia's retired (or sold to someone else who likes older Subs, maybe in 2060 it will be Canada...)

HAHAHHAHA surely you jest....Canada with NUCLEAR submarines??? NBL - Not Bloody Likely

Or Canada with any subs at all for that matter.....