Australia to Get Nuclear Submarines

[Allan W]

According to the BBC, the French have recalled their ambassadors to the US and Australia...

[Angrybk]

Pretty good explainer https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/09/17/whats-big-ruckus-over-new-defense-partnership-with-uk-australia/

[shep854]

5 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Good old Aussie Sky News, you can always count on them to invite the lunatics on, just like Fox.

If he knew anything about nuclear submarines he would have cited HMS Warspite (Major fire, no nuclear release), K19 (Major nuclear accident, no nuclear release) or K219 (Major nuclear accident, no nuclear release).

That he is actually referencing land based nuclear power plants shows how little he knows.

Letting him hoist away on his petard...

[Adam_S]

10 hours ago, JasonJ said:

With that stated, for comparisobs sake, I can't help myself bring up the Soryu again

I believe the issue with the Soryu was that they wanted to build them in Japan and the Australian government wants to retain at least some ability to build boats in Australia.

[Adam_S]

2 hours ago, Allan Wotherspoon said:

According to the BBC, the French have recalled their ambassadors to the US and Australia...

Calling it a "betrayal of a relationship of trust" is a bit much. They were going to absolutely screw the Australian government over on this one.

[Adam_S]

10 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

I wont knock the Soryu, or indeed any japanese diesel submarines. Buy diesel electric have a number of inherent problems, a finite range, which considering the problem you have on your doorstep isnt really any kind of issue for Japan as it is for Australia. It means you have to keep snorting, which in an era when you are going to have LOTS of drones doing ASW work (I can even see some emerging to do diesel sniffing), is going to be a real problem in maintaining stealth. Yes, there are real advantages, because a conventional boat you can operate in shallow water a lot easier. Its also quiet, when its not snorting. But the only way I could see that it would work is if Australia could forward base in somewhere like Singapore, and for political reasons (not to mention vulnerablity) I cant see that working.

If you are operating underwater for 3 weeks, you are certainly using oxygen scrubbers. Which will certainly add to the noise index, not to mention soaking up electrical power. Maximum limit in WW2 you could do it was about 48 hours. I could see them needing a lot more time than that in a contested environment like the SCS.

I think when you weigh it up, with the distances over which the RAAN want to operate, the ability to remain submerged in an hostile environment, Nuclear power really is the only choice on the table that fits. If you build a diesel boat big enough, its going to be fairly clumsy in shallow water, and its still vulnerable to surveillance, and still have all the problems mentioned above.. Not only that, but the speed with which an SSN is going to be able to move from Australia to the SCS is going to be unmatched by any diesel electric boat.

In the end, Japan could have pushed harder to offer Australia its submarine, but it didnt. Largely I suspect because they knew over the distances Australia want to operate, it doesnt really stack up. So Japan in this instance is the winner, because it avoided being humilitated like France was. Rejoice!

On the distance thing, assume for some reason Australia wants to maintain a more of less continuous submarine presence off the coast of China. How many SSNs would you need to do this and how many SSKs? The nuke can transit there at well over 30kts while SSK has to run at an efficient cruise speed to conserve fuel, so what, 15kts? The SSN can get there faster and stay on station longer which means that you need fewer of them to do the same job.

[Angrybk]

Take a step back and this whole thing seems kinda bizarre, at least from a countering-China standpoint? USN is giant and has tons of very good SSNs. The other likely partners in an anti-China war have large navies with great ships. Australia needs big modern long-range air force. 

Edited September 17, 2021 by Angrybk

[Adam_S]

25 minutes ago, Angrybk said:

Take a step back and this whole thing seems kinda bizarre, at least from a countering-China standpoint? USN is giant and has tons of very good SSNs. The other likely partners in an anti-China war have large navies with great ships. Australia needs big modern long-range air force. 

We've got F-35s and Super Hornets. Does that not count?

[JasonJ]

1 hour ago, Adam_S said:

I believe the issue with the Soryu was that they wanted to build them in Japan and the Australian government wants to retain at least some ability to build boats in Australia.

Well yeah, its not the whole story to it as I already explained. I think Australia made mistake. They should have bought lengthened Soryus for a bunch of reasons I already explained. This new SSN program will have to play out though to really ultimately assess whether or not was good. It may work at well for Australia. I'm just not feeling optimistic about it coming off successfully, again for a bunch of reasons I already explained. I'm going to assume that you think those reasons will not be a issue going forward. Good luck.

Edited September 17, 2021 by JasonJ

[lucklucky]

This seems something done clumsly as Afghanistan departure at political( top military are always political)  level exclusively. You can't just hack a Virginia, put a part of Astute and have a boat.

When the first boat will be operational 15 years, more?

[R011]

3 minutes ago, lucklucky said:

This seems something done clumsly as Afghanistan departure at political( top military are always political)  level exclusively. You can't just hack a Virginia, put a part of Astute and have a boat.

When the first boat will be operational 15 years, more?

More likely they'll hack an Astute by installing US combat systems.  This, of course, can go badly, but should be doable in a reasonable amount of time at a reasonable cost.  Fifteen years may be a bit optimistic, but is a more than reasonable time these days.  

It can turn into a gigantic jugfuck, of course, like the Attack Class or at least be as troublesome as the Collins, but even then, they won't be much worse off than they are now.

[R011]

9 hours ago, alejandro_ said:

Were the French in a position to offer nuclear subs? Someone asked this question in my blog and I thought it was interesting.

 

Probably, but given how screwed up the project is now, Australia would be foolish to try.

[lucklucky]

22 minutes ago, R011 said:

More likely they'll hack an Astute by installing US combat systems.  This, of course, can go badly, but should be doable in a reasonable amount of time at a reasonable cost.  Fifteen years may be a bit optimistic, but is a more than reasonable time these days.  

It can turn into a gigantic jugfuck, of course, like the Attack Class or at least be as troublesome as the Collins, but even then, they won't be much worse off than they are now.

There are no shipyards in UK or US free to do any of this. So how 8 SSN starts to be build in Australian with no submarine naval industry?

[Simon Tan]

F-35 and Superbug...strategic? LR? PM would like you on the team........

The RAN is full of shit as far as what they want and are able to do. That is why they are such a good fit with USUK.

[R011]

3 minutes ago, lucklucky said:

There are no shipyards in UK or US free to do any of this. So how 8 SSN starts to be build in Australian with no submarine naval industry?

Australia does have a sub building facility.  It's the one that was going to build the Attack Class just cancelled.  The nuclear bits aren't made by shipyards, so there are fewer restrictions on how many can be made and then shipped to Australia.  For that matter, sections can be made overseas outside shipyards and assembled in country.

 

[Simon Tan]

Idiocy. Build key modules overseas, ship, assemble in Oz, ship boat back out to fuel, ship fuelled boat back to do builders trials. ASC is not a capability, it's a welfare state.

Why are people arguing for idiocy?

ETA:- This is Australia of course where idiocy is celebrated in public life. See assorted mad white Premiers.

Edited September 18, 2021 by Simon Tan

[Stuart Galbraith]

7 hours ago, Adam_S said:

On the distance thing, assume for some reason Australia wants to maintain a more of less continuous submarine presence off the coast of China. How many SSNs would you need to do this and how many SSKs? The nuke can transit there at well over 30kts while SSK has to run at an efficient cruise speed to conserve fuel, so what, 15kts? The SSN can get there faster and stay on station longer which means that you need fewer of them to do the same job.

Well you of course are quite right. They are quicker to get on station, can last longer on station, meaning fewer boats (but not necessarily less people). People can read through the Aussie thinking on that link I posted up, I think they are quite right, with the technological developments in China the diesel electric solutions imply wasnt going to work anymore. Not unless they built a considerably larger fleet than 12, because they were going to be in transit all the time. And when they get on station, they would still be more vulnerable than an SSN because they cant run after making an attack.

As far as France, the real question is whether they were ever asked to offer nuclear tech. From the Times article it implies that was never going to be offered, but if the French had a choice between offering that or the Anglo's stealing a march on them, I have to question, were they even asked?

I think this will work, but only if the BAE/Electric boat are given the lead to run everything in the yard, and start slapping politicians hands. If that doesnt happen, all bets are off. Looking at how 5 eyes works, Ive a feeling that is going to focus attitudes remarkably.

[R011]

20 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Well you of course are quite right. They are quicker to get on station, can last longer on station, meaning fewer boats (but not necessarily less people). People can read through the Aussie thinking on that link I posted up, I think they are quite right, with the technological developments in China the diesel electric solutions imply wasnt going to work anymore. Not unless they built a considerably larger fleet than 12, because they were going to be in transit all the time. And when they get on station, they would still be more vulnerable than an SSN because they cant run after making an attack.

As far as France, the real question is whether they were ever asked to offer nuclear tech. From the Times article it implies that was never going to be offered, but if the French had a choice between offering that or the Anglo's stealing a march on them, I have to question, were they even asked?

I think this will work, but only if the BAE/Electric boat are given the lead to run everything in the yard, and start slapping politicians hands. If that doesnt happen, all bets are off. Looking at how 5 eyes works, Ive a feeling that is going to focus attitudes remarkably.

Given that Naval Group was apparently a big reason why costs were out of control and the boats completion ever more doubtful, why reward them with a contract?

[Stuart Galbraith]

Im guessing that was the Australians atittude, and I dont blame them for it. It was out of control. Im just suggesting if the Aussies had asked for nuc boats right from the start, it might not have been that out of control. After all, it would just be a follow on from boats France had already built in another yard. The difficulties should have just been down to telling the Aussies how to build a nuc boat.

Whether that was possible, because it seems to me the French were just as obsessively secret over nuclear tech as we are, and whether the Australians realised it early enough to be a desired option, is the difficulty here. I think the timing of the changed decision was bad, and I dont think the French had quite the close relationship with Australia they would ever have offered. 5 eyes and Commonwealth membership seem to have made a difference here. We already trust Oz with the former, why not the rest of the crown jeels.

What is surprising is how the Americans were ambushed on it, when they would know from the history of Polaris the French always handle being left out of tech transfer badly. I would not be all that surprised to see the French elbow their way into this relationship, although for the sake of unfortunate acronyms, I hope not.

[seahawk]

A strange decision. The SSKs would have been well suited to control the sea way from China to Australia. So I guess now they want to focus more on Taiwan and the sea around it, than on containing the Chinese in the South China Sea.

The more worrisome option would be that they came to the conclusion that containing Chinese Boomers won´t work and they they will have to hunt them in the open Pacific and Indian ocean.

Edited September 18, 2021 by seahawk

[Stuart Galbraith]

.

Edited September 18, 2021 by Stuart Galbraith

[Adam_S]

Stuart, the subs are going to be based out of Perth (probably actually Fremantle) which is probably a couple of thousand kms further than Darwin. It sounds like part of the UK's job in all of this is going to be in helping to construct the infrastructure to maintain SSNs out of the naval base there which can then be used by RN and USN boats as well.

 

Edited September 18, 2021 by Adam_S
-

[Stuart Galbraith]

Thanks for that Adam, that makes sense to put it near populated areas. Nobody wants families to live in the middle of nowhere.

Yeah, I just cant see how that could work without building a diesel electric as big as an SSN. At which point the arguement for SSN's is unassailable. The only problem they had was getting the tech to build it.

In a sense, its all the PRC's fault. If they had trod carefully, Australia would probably have carried on with the Barracuda's and be far less of a threat. They made their own problem by pissing off Australians, which history has proven is not a really great idea....

Edited September 18, 2021 by Stuart Galbraith

[Adam_S]

31 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Apologies if my maths goes astray, I have never been good at it. But my calculations, lets say that its 2200 nautical miles. At 20 knots (which a diesel boat is almost certianly not going to run because it runs the battery down), that transit would take 110 days. Both ways, not including time on station. If you could run that at 25 knots, it takes 88. At 30 (at which time you are running effectively blind, but lets say there is a war on)  its reduced to 73 days, or 2 and a half months.

Erm, did you remember that there are 24 hours in a day?

FWIW,  the internet is suggesting that it's about 2,500 nautical miles from Perth to Singapore.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Sorry, my brain is in a complete fuzz this morning. I thank you for pointing that out, so I dont look an even bigger fool than people already assume.

Basically I was trying to illustrate, it was a long way, and a nuc is the only way you can get there quickly and keep forces on station. A diesel electric hustling to do the same thing is going to burn a lot of fuel, and not remain on station half as long.