On February 21, 2022 Anonymous
provided thoughtful comments indicating production of
an "off the shelf" Australian nuclear submarine is Australian policy:
The stated aim, when AUKUS was announced, was to commence building a proven “off the shelf” design as quickly as possible. To select the UK Astute class and then have to redesign it to accept the US S9G reactor and the US AN/BYG-1 combat system with US sourced weapons will add a lengthy design period before construction can begin - this is not compatible with the original plan.
Additionally, the Astute class does not have any vertical launch capability and this will restrict its ability to be upgraded throughout its entire life. Virginia Payload Tubes have so much flexibility that they should be considered to be essential fit for the RAN SSN’s. The weapon options in these tubes include Tomahawk missiles, future Hypersonic missiles, mobile mines, etc as well as housing equipment & delivery vehicles for Special Forces.
USN manning levels [with 135 in each Virginia SSN] always have significant amount of redundancy so an establishment manning reduction would be an option for the RAN, at least until the recruiting & training systems catch up to these higher levels.
Looking at the planned timeframe for the construction of the RAN submarines, they should be looking at building “off the shelf” Virginia class submarines - the first 4 built to Block VI specs but standard length with 2 VPT’s in the bow and the second batch of 4 built to Block VII specs with the stretched hull containing an additional 4 VPT’s per hull. [For Blocks VI and VII see Future (Virginia) acquisitions]. Just my thoughts.
Pete Comment
If Australia plans to continue to use the US Combat System, amounting to 33% of an Australian SSN, will Australia choose US Virginia by default? The US Combat System is in the Collins subs already and was planned for the Attack class. The Combat System consists of US weapons, sensors and databases. The System, is proven in itself and probably essential for Australian SSN's intensive inter-operation with its main ally, the US.
It must also be noted that the US S9G reactor is a proven, operationally used design. In contrast the PWR3 reactor, that the UK is offering, is a future design, not yet fully costed (until its ready) and not tested at sea.
If the Combat System means choosing US submarine builders by default is the visit of HMS Astute to Australia last year and depiction of an Astute-class submarine on the "Taskforce's" website just "might choose UK" diversions? After all Australia's Left (in the ALP, Green Party and some Independents) is traditionally anti-nuclear and anti-US.
To present a UK option might reduce opposition from Australia's Left regarding the Australian SSN policy. It must be recalled that the ALP (with its Leftwing), the Greens and left leaning Independents, may form government after Australia's May(?) 2022 Federal Election. The Australian statesmen in authority at the Sportsbet online gambling company predict an ALP win, after all.
5 comments:
Obviously there are arguments both ways on this. The Virginias have capabilities the Astutes lack, though also vice versa. The Astutes have more torpedoes (38 vs 26) more tubes (6 vs 4), and reportedly an acoustic/stealth advantage over Virginias. This also gives the Astute more flexibility in being able ot launch decoys and UAVs from torpedo tubes.
Virginias have VLS and more SLCMs (14 to 38 vs 8 to 12). Astutes can fire Tomahawks from their tubes without modification. So for land attack Virginias will have the advantage; for ASW and anti-ship Astutes will have the advantage. Also the RN is working on being able to use the Astutes dry well diver facility to launch UUVs.
In one sense it does not matter. Both are excellent SSNS; there is no bad outcome for the RAN. But costs are not the same.
I do not see why changing the Astute combat system to US will add a lengthy period and increase costs by 33%? Other programs, including the original Collins, cite combat system costs as around 20% of total cost. The cost would not all be extra either - BAE would not be able to change for the RN torpedo system if it is not fitted! We would pay the difference. If changing Astutes to the US combat system would really cost +33%(!!) then of course we should get Virginias.
https://sldinfo.com/2020/04/working-common-combat-systems-across-the-fleet-the-case-of-the-new-build-australian-submarine/
In the Collins Class the combat system was a contractual disaster but the replacement Lockheed US system still cost $1 billion out of a $5 billion program, or 20%. So why is it now 33%? I know Naval Group quoted the combat system change as costing 30% of the total cost but I am skeptical of their claims. The entire reactor system on Suffren cost 15%.
The PWR3 reactor is not yet in the water and cost is unknown. However the same criticism applies to Virginia Blocks VI and VII. They are not yet contractually committed.
As for crewing, there is variation in both. Astute crews are quoted from 90 to 98; Virginia crews are quoted from 120 to 135. If we take the lower figure in both cases, the difference is still +25% for the Virginias, or +$22 million per sub per year. That is $5 billion for 8 subs over 30 years, not counting training cost.
Finally, as I have said before, cost and Australian politics are not teh only risks. We have US and UK permission to acquire the PWR reactor technology for SSNs. We do not yet have US permission to acquire other advanced systems such as the Virginia VPN system. That would require congressional approval under US laws on naval shipbuilding and sharing defence technology.
Hi Anonymous [at Feb 23, 2022, 11:11:00 PM]
Virginias could conceivably (?) launch torpedoes from some of their vertical tubes.
Varius acoustics/stealth claim too complex and secret to compare Virginia with (probably) yet unbuilt SSN(Rs). Decoys and especially UAVs and LDUUVs from some Virginia vertical tubes? In terms of LDUUV this is less the Orca and more future, tailored
"Snakehead" https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/38443/snakehead-will-be-the-largest-underwater-drone-that-u-s-nuclear-submarines-can-deploy .
The accepted 33% Combat system term might be more effort, or contents not automatically being hung up on this nebulous "cost" side-tracking...
Costs will be a complex set whole-of-Australian-Government budgetary calculations over the next 20+ years...
Hi Anonymous [at Feb 23, 2022, 11:11:00 PM]
Virginias could conceivably (?) launch torpedoes from some of their vertical tubes.
Acoustics/stealth claims are too complex and too unknown/secret to compare Virginias with (probably) yet unbuilt SSN(Rs).
Decoys and especially UAVs and LDUUVs could be launched from some Virginia vertical tubes.
In terms of LDUUVs this is less Orcas and more future, tailored "Snakeheads" https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/38443/snakehead-will-be-the-largest-underwater-drone-that-u-s-nuclear-submarines-can-deploy .
The accepted 33% Combat system term might be more effort, or contents not automatically being hung up on this nebulous "cost" side-tracking...
Costs will be a complex set whole-of-Australian-Government budgetary calculations over the next 20+ years.
Its becoming increasingly pointless to invent detailed costs on Submarine Matters for a 20+ years, first ever export SSN program...
Pete
Knowing our naval demands, don’t be surprised if the torpedo layout could resemble a “Rubic’s Cube”. And years of redesign for a stock standard configuration. God help us!.
Regarding comments on UKRAINE
I'm moving them to today's article ""Russia Invades Ukraine. Matching Cities/Maps with Reports."
of February 24, 2022 at https://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2022/02/russia-invades-ukraine-matching.html
Regards
Pete
Post a Comment