Australia to Get Nuclear Submarines

[DB]

I think that the Telegraph article follows the logic described by Argus.

Of course, the long term plans depends a great deal on how well integrated the Aus contribution is for SSN(R). If the Aus contingent is treated as core to the design team, it's likely to work well, otherwise not so much.

[Stuart Galbraith]

If the Americans were really smart, they would make SSN (R) a project they treated as something they themselves were going to buy, to suppliment their lack of production capacity. In fact, what if we treated Australia, Britain and America as a joint production facility for SSN's It would bring the cost down, make disposal easier, make production easier. Kind of like Panavia for Submarines.

And then it runs right into the US Senate and dies screaming, I know....

[Argus]

A real joint venture with the US has been prosed in a few places, but even if it passed the political issues, I suspect it would be like a partnership with the French, in that with the best will in the world they would end up driving the bus whatever the agreements might have said - they are just too big for their needs to be compromised when it came to a pinch and there are some pretty fundamental differences in outline that would make a compromise difficult whatever happened. I think that's one of the lessons from the great international frigate programs of the recent past. They only work if partners have more in common than just needing new frigates, the closer to partners actual needs are to one another the better they work.

[shep854]

From Oz media:

 

Edited March 10, 2023 by shep854

[Stuart Galbraith]

Id be astonished if the Americans are just going to sell 2 Virginias. They have been saying publically how difficult they are finding keepinp up with the 688's being withdrawn, because they dont have enough yards.

[futon]

Getting Virginia subs would be an incrediable capability that could make the long program worthwhile in the end. A distant end that has no tangibility yet though.

But if they do get them, the minimum really should be four. Five would provide a reserve in case of loss by accident or loss in conflict. It'll hsve to be assumed one would be for maitenace/upgrade cycle and crew break. One will have to have much of its time for training. So then leaving two for patrols of very wide area. 

If only two or three, then the following design would need to be ready for procurenent no long afterwards.

Edited March 10, 2023 by futon

[Stuart Galbraith]

Well bear in mind, they are transitioning to an all nuclear force. They have 6 Collins I think? Those remain in service for the foreseeable. So it could be 4 Collins, 2 Virginias. Then presumably they work up SSN R, maybe they have 3 of those and either hang onto the Virginia's or hand them back. I doubt you are going to get an established program till about the 2040's, before we really can see what kind of SSN force they can or want to maintain. I think 4 would probably be best, but I think they could probably get by on 3.

In the end, an SSN means you need fewer boats, because you dont need so much time transitioning to station, and you have more time on hand there. But I would commend the logic of developing a forward naval base to get as much out of them as they can.

[Josh]

If we just wait a week, they are going to present their plan forward.

[Ssnake]

We don't have that week!

Must.

Speculate.

Now.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Well why not? Time is free, isnt it? Particularly when one should be working...

 

[Argus]

In terms of numbers, one thing worth pointing out - these Virginia's for the RAN are not new production, they're to be older boats if not the oldest in the US fleet. The 5+2 or 2+3 numbers we see bandied about, could well be a reflection of the 'fleet' having to turn over in RAN service as the boats come due for deep cycle maintenance and so on. There's also no percentage in going too hard too fast. Yes there's a lot to be said for going SSN ASAP, but the RAN has a juggling act, they have to both expand and diversify the personnel pipeline. At the end of the day our total pool of submariners needs to expand and that means keeping the Collins for a good while yet. So I'd expect our overall submarine numbers to contract briefly as operational personnel are sucked out of the Collins fleet to stand up Virginia's but then open up again as the pool refreshes - more people need more sea time to qualify and that means more subs operational. This brings up the whole people question in general. 

Had a chat with a mate today, who pointed out (from open sources) the USN is a bit tight on crews for its submarine force these days - this against normal attrition and new construction. With the increase in SSN production to three a year, that's a training pipe line that has to step up by 50% as a minimum. So from that point of view, for the USN this deal (per leak), really amounts to: a/ shuffling some crews out of SSN's at the bottom of the pile that can be better used in new construction where they will have all the best toys. While at the same time b/ not losing those de-manned boats, instead putting existing crews (and budget) into them that would otherwise be 'wasting its time' in SSK. Yes there are different flags involved, but bottom line this is just adding RAN resources into the bottom of the USN list that frees up USN resources for expansion. At the end of the day, whatever flag they fly, these boats are going to be running as Auxiliaries of the USN to one degree or another for their whole working lives. There are going to be limits to the amount of investment we'll make to a supporting a class taken into service on this basis and no point in re-inventing the supply chain which means there will always be a need to draw in US resources.  

The flag waving argument doesn't fly either pardon the pun,  as His Majesty's Australian Submarines (yes I typed 'Her' first 07 Lizzy) it is perfectly possible they would not be directly available to do Uncle Sam's bidding. So sure in one sense the USN does lose X number of boats, a net loss in numbers is a net loss. However backfilling is standard practice even without any 'special' provision, fleet plots are vast swirly nebulous things, and when holes appear 'training opportunities' get offered to other countries. In a more active sense, 1982, guess who back filled for the RN around the world while they concentrated on the South Atlantic - Everybody. So in the (highly) unlikely event Washington comes up short a couple of SSN's for something Canberra doesn't want to touch with a barge pole, then HMAS Boomer is going to be exercising with a USN CBG off stage left for a few months, while the sub-plot shuffles the USN's SSN's across to fill the gap.  

Back to people problems, in terms of life cycle costs, the  crew are pretty much the big ticket item or at least in the top three, as best I can tell for 'Western' navies and conventional ships. I don't know about nukes or submarines specifically, but at a guess I'd think the crew is still going to be in the top 5 costs, and yes all this depends on accounting standards and so forth. But however the details wash out, here's some numbers (from wiki) that are 'interesting'  

Soryu SSK 4,200ton - 65

Collins SSK 3,400ton - 58

Attack SSK 4,500ton - 60 

Rubis SSN 2,600ton - 66+

Barracuda SSN 5,300ton - 60

Swiftsure SSN 4,900ton - 116

Trafalgar SSN 5,800ton - 130

Astute SSN 7,800ton - 98

Los Angeles SSN 6,900ton - 129

Seawolf SSN 9,100ton - 140

Virginia SSN 10,200ton - 135

With the broadest of broad brushes.
1/ Size doesn't seem to be a factor in minimum crew numbers, about 60 guys can do the basic job (and thats consistent back to WWII IIRC). 
2/ Propulsion doesn't really matter either, the French have run two generations of SSN's with circa 60 (presumably very busy) bon amis. 
3/ Size doesn't seem to be a factor in maximum crew numbers, a 10,000 ton sub or a 6000 ton sub can both get away with 130. 
4/ What's with the extra ~60 guys the RN and USN seem to need? Given those two services have the reputations they do, I'd expect a lot of the 'special sauce' is in those extra hands. 
5/ Yet for all of point 4/ the RN still seem to run half a notch lower down the manning scale and to be pressing down (economic pressures at least in part?), where the USN is stable if not pressing up. 

What is my point, idle speculation of course! I've run into the idea in a few places that SSN(R), which to be clear is the RN's next generation SSN and a program that is likely to involve Australia, could well actually be a fully tripartite program. As in a real three way AUKUS job, with the US actually building... well a derivation shall we say, of the same submarine. Stuart suggested something along these lines just a few posts ago, too which I objected. And yes it takes a certain suspension of disbelief to get there, the objections can start with simple NIH and progress though ever more sophisticated layers politics (that's a pun btw), to be crowned with the simple question of why? The USN has a perfectly good submarine program building world leading craft, that already incorporates collaboration with the UK, so why would they take such a jump?  Wellll..........

If the Australian version of SSN(R) is going to have a US spec combat system and weapons, on 3/4 of the tonnage and 2/3 the crew.... simple economics might be one reason for the USN to look at it pretty carefully.  

Edited March 11, 2023 by Argus
honesty

[DB]

Everyone is pushing crew numbers down - LCS showed that the USN wasn't immune and as is commonly the case, overdid it rather badly.

For another slice of manning, you can also look at the RN progression from Type 22, Type 23, Type 26 to Type 31:

(From wiki, YMMV)

Type 22 by batch: 222, 273, 250 on 4500/4800/5200 tonnes

Type 23: 185 (space for 205) on 4900 tonnes

Type 26: 157/208 on 6900 tonnes

Type 31: 80-100 with space for 160 on  5700 tonnes

Type 31 looks a bit lean, even if it's supposed to be the "LO" mix ship.

The Types 42 and 45 show a similar reduction.

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

[Josh]

[*]3 Virginias to be acquired with possibility of two more
[*]New "SSN-AUKUS" Class - presumably replaces SSN(R), or more to the point, SSN(R) is SSN-AUKUS
[*]SSN AUKUS start construction before EO Decade - first built in UK but others also in Australia (Adelaide)
[*]Cross postings, training etc happening
[*]More US/UK deployments to Australian ports
 

[DB]

Sydney Morning Herald has a clear description, I find.

You know, this all makes way too much sense for it to actually happen.

[Argus]

27 minutes ago, DB said:

Sydney Morning Herald has a clear description, I find.

You know, this all makes way too much sense for it to actually happen.

Frightening isn't it? 

I mean other than that leak this whole thing has been a poster child for process, problems identified early, addressed with courage and decision, new and innovative solutions found, long term commitments made, existing partnerships strengthened, benefit maximisation extending beyond the original scope/issue, win-win-fkn-win...

I don't know if I mentioned it, but one of the key speakers at the big academic AUKUS beano in Canberra the other month was Japanese. 

[Josh]

2 hours ago, DB said:

Sydney Morning Herald has a clear description, I find.

You know, this all makes way too much sense for it to actually happen.

The solution does seem like a good compromise given the resources available. A medium term goal of off the shelf boats and a long term goal of combined design and production. It in effect splits up the production capacity problem between the US and UK while allowing for greater Australian participation further down the road.

Edited March 14, 2023 by Josh

[futon]

4 hours ago, Argus said:

Frightening isn't it? 

I mean other than that leak this whole thing has been a poster child for process, problems identified early, addressed with courage and decision, new and innovative solutions found, long term commitments made, existing partnerships strengthened, benefit maximisation extending beyond the original scope/issue, win-win-fkn-win...

I don't know if I mentioned it, but one of the key speakers at the big academic AUKUS beano in Canberra the other month was Japanese. 

Here it is: https://www.tanknet.org/index.php?/topic/47844-recommended-defense-postures-for-the-nice-pacific-rim-countries/&do=findComment&comment=1648049

At minimum, they probably want to know as much as possible as to how its going along. 

[Argus]

1 minute ago, futon said:

Here it is: https://www.tanknet.org/index.php?/topic/47844-recommended-defense-postures-for-the-nice-pacific-rim-countries/&do=findComment&comment=1648049

At minimum, they probably want to know as much as possible as to how its going along. 

yes indeed thenkee

I think a Japanese perspective may be:
a/ anything that makes my friends stronger is a good thing
b/ all animals are equal but some are more equal than others, if there is a two tier hierarchy of US allies in the Asia/Pacific region developing, Japan would like a seat at the top table too, as they are due IMHO. 
c/ if there is a wider 'free trade zone' of military technology and equipment evolving, again Japan would like to be on the inside, and unfortunate efforts with submarines notwithstanding, she is still sniffing forwards into military exports.   
d/ the Nuclear Club has had firmly locked doors for seventy odd years. Japan might have a love hate relationship with the atom, and gate crashing like India and Pakistan just isn't their style, but however you cut it here is Australia getting SSN's and if so why not Japan in due course?   

[BansheeOne]

6 hours ago, DB said:

You know, this all makes way too much sense for it to actually happen.

Way more than could be expected at the start, anyway. Experience would still indicate they'll manage to screw up spectacularly at some point, but one can hope. 😁

[Stuart Galbraith]

2 hours ago, Argus said:

yes indeed thenkee

I think a Japanese perspective may be:
a/ anything that makes my friends stronger is a good thing
b/ all animals are equal but some are more equal than others, if there is a two tier hierarchy of US allies in the Asia/Pacific region developing, Japan would like a seat at the top table too, as they are due IMHO. 
c/ if there is a wider 'free trade zone' of military technology and equipment evolving, again Japan would like to be on the inside, and unfortunate efforts with submarines notwithstanding, she is still sniffing forwards into military exports.   
d/ the Nuclear Club has had firmly locked doors for seventy odd years. Japan might have a love hate relationship with the atom, and gate crashing like India and Pakistan just isn't their style, but however you cut it here is Australia getting SSN's and if so why not Japan in due course?   

Yes, I thought that. As the Aussies are getting the reactors as sealed units which they will never touch, there is clearly very little reason at this point why they also shouldnt join. Other than it would mean the acronym would be unpronounceable. Japaukus? Aukjapus? Aukusjap? It would probably take 10 years for the politicians to figure out a solution.

[Ssnake]

JAUKUS.

Problem solved, next.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Sounds like something that should be in a Lewis Carroll book.

Now all you have to do is get the politicians sign off on it.

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

So, say 18 months from now, they might have their first boat If Ive read correctly? So clearly these are boats already in US service, and probably flight one Virginia, which dont have the SF capablities the USN want. They are about 20 years into their life, so say about 10, maybe 15 years left. I guess they say 'up to 5', is a recognition that they dont know how long SSN R is going to take to design, let alone build, and the original boats may need to be replaced. We do after all have some leisurely build times for our SSN's.