The buying a US SSN design versus UK debate continues.
After advocating a UK designed SSN on Submarine Matters, I'm floating a buy US case.
In response to Anonymous's comments of February 11, 2022
There must be some political, legal or commercial impediments to the UK simply using whole US developed reactors. Otherwise the UK wouldn't have spent Billions pounds, from the Valiant class in 1966, using the PWR series.
Also I don't think US SSN builders would be happy for the UK selling a 66% US designed (Combat System + Reactor) SSN to Australia instead of the US selling it to Australia.
----------------------
Yes Australia buying a well understood, tested, Virginia Block IV design or Improved Virginia "Block VI?" without the Virginia Payload Module (VPM) might be best.
Although, if ever Australia had (subsequent) SSBN needs then those six large multi-purpose Vertical Payload Tubes (VPTs) in the Block V might come in handy, ballistically...
One thing to avoid might be the USN Submarine Service's version of the SSN(X) concept. It seems that Submarine Service has a SSN(X) from mid-2030s onwards, dream of a return to a much larger/higher specs/EXPENSIVE Seawolf 2.0.
Meanwhile, Congress, the Pentagon and non-Submarine branches of the USN might prefer just a slightly larger/reasonable specs. moderate priced "Improved Virginia" Block "VI" from the mid 2030s onwards.
If the US is only offering a Seawolf 2.0 design
then Australia choosing a future UK SSN might be preferable.
---------------
I'm unsure whether buying the French designed
nuclear Barracuda was ever an option for Australia. Naval Group has been trickle feeding IP
to Brazil so Brazil has/is designing the future Brazilian SSN's reactor from
apparent scratch.
Also Australia strengthening the US alliance is vastly more useful than strengthening a French alliance. This is noting France only maintains 2 light frigates in the Pacific and no full time SSN presence or major SSN heavy maintenance facilities.
Another problem with Australia choosing a UK designed SSN is that the Astutes were way over budget and late. This is in contrast to the first Virginias onwards (less than 10% overbudget and just a few months late). See this US Heritage Foundation article. Whether the US's 2 supplier competitive Virginia build system can benefit Australia will remain a medium term mystery.
Pete
ReplyDeleteA few comments:
1. Like you, I see no negative in Australia buying the Virginia Block IV. It is a state of the art SSN, only just finished production, and designed after the Astutes. The Block V has a tremendously boosted VLS capability, but that is largely for the USN to replace its soon to retire converted Ohio Class SSGNs. Its anti-submarine and anti-ship capability is no greater than the Block IV. Such a capability was never part of the Australian Sea 1000 project. It might also be seen as threatening to neighbors, since it is fundamentally a land-attack capability, not sea defense. For similar reasons, the follow-on Virginia Block VI would also appear a sound choice, focused on the capabilities Sea 1000 sought.
2. The SSN(X) concept is not yet fully designed, nor reliably costed. It seems no more appropriate a choice than the Short-fin Barracuda Class was, being essentially an unknown new design. The risk of delay and RAN submarine capability gap are obvious.
3.On IP and why the UK persevered with locally built naval reactors, the reasons are historic and practical (economic/self sufficiency/sovereignty). I recommend reading Hennessy and Jinks' excellent history of the RN submarine service, The Silent Deep. Essentially, the UK has always wanted to retain an "in-house" ability to build SSNs. They were trying to do this (bu struggling) when the USN assisted them in the 1950s.
4. On France and other considerations,obviously the US has a far greater commitment to the Pacific than France. New Zealand has larger permanent military forces in the Pacific than France!
5. A final point - if via modified Astutes or Virginias, the RAN acquires the ability to operate and maintain SSNs with S9G reactors, that will make RAN bases even more valuable to the USN. As time goes on S9G reactors will be powering most US SSNs in the Pacific. Being able to send a USN SSN to Stirling to be maintained would be operationally invaluable, given the very long maintenance backlog in USN shipyards. It would be one way for the RAN to "repay" the US sharing of reactor IP, in a way it would genuinely benefit from.
Pete
ReplyDeleteOne more thing on your comment about the legal questions on the US permitting reactor technology to go to UK. There are strict US laws prohibiting such technology transfers without specific presidential approval. So the 1950s donation of the then USN reactor technology to the UK required formal approval. It was a one off, and did not entail gifts of all subsequent US reactor learning. so the two reactor programs have diverged since then. Hence US approval is required for either more US reactor technology to go to the UK, or UK (or US) reactor technology to go to Australia.
There is another strict US law on foreign building of USN ships, which may also complicate RAN building of a US sub design (like Virginias). Presumably if the RAN went with Virginias, this would be signed off with the reactor supply.
Pete
ReplyDeleteRe your comment on the feelings of the US submarine builders. This has been a political decision, the ‘feelings’ of the US builders don’t come into it. Neither of the US builders have much of a footprint in Australia. This would have to change & would need to be a long term commitment (& which one?). EB would be my pick. BAE is already a major Australian player, including in shipbuilding. Not all of the IP in the Virginia is US. The pump jet system (a major component) comes from BAE & was designed for the RN. The connection between the US & UK nuclear submarines is a two way street (even more so in regards to upcoming SSBNs).
Hi Anonymous [at Feb 11, 2022, 6:00:00 PM]
ReplyDeleteNot to forget the Tomahawk's ASM role is being enhanced https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomahawk_(missile)#Upgrades "Block Va, the Maritime Strike Tomahawk (MST) which allows the missile to engage a moving target at sea,"
Before 2025 Australia may decide on working with EB on an Improved Virginia OR Working with BAE (already with much market power, though, over the Hunter-class future frigates) on an Improved Astute.
True - the UK (after many years on civil reactors and HEU bombs) was capable of autonomy on its PWRs and (after 55 years of submarine design experience) built Dreadnought (1960), unlike Australia's non-design capacity.
Yes I've got to reread Hennessy and Jinks' "The Silent Deep" especially the final 2 Chapters, on earlier Brit SSNs, Astutes and PWRs.
Also a late, still unread buy, is "Astute Class...Owners' Workshop Manual" at https://www.amazon.com.au/Astute-Class-Nuclear-Submarine-advanced/dp/1785210718
France temporarally sending its very small SSN https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_submarine_%C3%89meraude_(S604) to Australia's region last year couldn't compare to around 35 full sized US SSNs, SSGNs and SSBNs permanently sailing the Indo-Pacific.
A good idea that one of the USN's Submarine Tenders could base itself at our main submarine base at Fleet Base West. US SSNs and SSGNs already short-term visit it. If US nuclear sub visits can "rotate" more often, with longer visits, this would be a good alliance, China deterring, and training Aus future SSN personnel opportunity.
Enhanced basing opportunities for US SSNs/SSGNs could indeed part "repay" the US in a non cash sense.
Regards Pete
Pete
ReplyDeleteA site you may find interesting if you have not run into it yet.
https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/non-power-nuclear-applications/transport/nuclear-powered-ships.aspx
Hi Anonymous [at Feb 11, 2022, 7:26:00 PM]
ReplyDeleteHere's hoping "US Presidentail approval" of any US reactor for Australia is not embuggered by the wrong President after 2024.
Compared to the UK, Australia's lower base of understanding reactors and lower ability to use them will take time and lots of money.
Britain's WWII era donation/sharing of UK Carribean bases to the US + "Tube Alloys" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tube_Alloys may have improved the later US-UK nuke sub agreement. Australia has the Darwin area, RAAF Base Tindal, Fleet Base West, and maybe any Aus Future East Coast SSN base.
Cheers
Pete
Hi Anonymous [at Feb 12, 2022, 11:11:00 AM]
ReplyDeleteBwana no say "feelings".
Where https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bwana
As we all know arms suppliers HAVE no feelings - unless they're French government owned.
I said:
"Also I don't think US SSN builders would be happy for the UK selling a 66% US designed (Combat System + Reactor) SSN to Australia instead of the US selling it to Australia."
Cheers Pete
Pete
ReplyDeleteI always thought being ‘happy’ (or not) was a ‘feeling’. Hence my comment.
Hope you found the site I listed of some interest.
Regards
Being as depressing as the commitment is in building vessels according to the obvious need, I can’t for the life of me see much of anything of “Deterrence Value” built before we are all in retirement hostels.
ReplyDeleteHere is the very issue, we are made a promise that just won’t be delivered when it comes to serious naval procurement.
I get the distinct impression the Americans want us to go off to the English to sort it out. From those I have communicated with in US navy circles, the Virginia class is a bridge to far. The Los Angeles Class, isn’t on the cards because of age and even the Seawolf would be “The Crown Jewels”.
We may have to cut our losses and buy B21s, and be done with it.
Hi Anonymous
ReplyDeleteThanks for your Feb 12, 2022, 10:45:00 PM and Feb 12, 2022, 6:13:00 PM
Thanks for https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/non-power-nuclear-applications/transport/nuclear-powered-ships.aspx
It has much useful detail of PWRs for US and UK nuclear subs, eg.
"UK Astute-class attack submarines of 7400 dwt submerged have a modified (smaller) PWR2 reactor driving two steam turbines and a single pump jet reported as 11.5 MW. The first of seven vessels was commissioned in 2010, and five were delivered by mid-2021 at a cost of £1.65 billion each. New versions of this with 'Core H' will require no refuelling over the life of the vessel, about 25 years*.
In March 2011 a safety assessment of the PWR2 design was released showing the need for improvement, though they have capacity for passive cooling to effect decay heat removal.* Rolls-Royce claims that the Core H PWR2 has six times the (undisclosed) power of its original PWR1 and runs four times as long. The Core H is Rolls-Royce's sixth-generation submarine reactor core.
The PWR3 for the Vanguard replacement Dreadnought-class SSBNs will be largely a US design – presumably based on S9G in the Virginia-class – but using UK technology. It will be more expensive to build but cheaper to maintain than the PWR2. All UK submarine reactors use highly-enriched fuel, obtained from the USA".
$64,000 question is "Will the UK's SSN(R) have a post-Core H PWR2?" or just stick with Core H?
-------
https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/non-power-nuclear-applications/transport/nuclear-powered-ships.aspx even has AUSTRALIA relevant nuclear surface ship detail towards the end, ie:
"Large [nuclear propelled] bulk carriers that go back and forth constantly on few routes between dedicated ports – e.g. China to South America and NW Australia."
Cheers Pete
Hi Lee McCurtayne [at Feb 13, 2022, 12:01:00 AM]
ReplyDeleteYes an AUKUS sub project, anticipating an Aus SSN in 2038, may see a 78 year old Pete drooling over his blog.
With a non-deterred China occupying Taiwan and "Finlandizing" all land in Southeast Asia (+ seas). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finlandization
The odd inclusion of Atlantic-centric UK in AUKUS, rather than logically limiting to a bilateral A-US SSN deal, does beg questions.
Maybe the USN will succeed, by the mid 2030s in developing an over-sensitive, over-speced, unsharable Seawolf 2.0, that is also unaffordable for Australia?
--------------
Re: "We may have to cut our losses and buy B21s". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_B-21_Raider
No, the US, including and since the B-47 in 1951, has never shared/sold its heavy nuclear capable bomber technology. Not even the light https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-22_Raptor part-time nuclear bomber.
In any case we could only afford two squadrons of Australain B21s = 24 x B21s at probably US$2 Billion each aircraft. They would be useless if only conventionally armed against China.
They would also be wiped out by Chinese SLBMs or hyper-sonic SLCMs in 5 minutes, at predictable Aus B21 bases.
Only SSBNs are adequate first or second strike platforms. That is also all a "poorer nuclear power" ie. UK, can afford. Aus being poorer than UK.
Have a peaceful Sunday :)
Pete
Hi Pete,
ReplyDeleteI’m a strong believer that the RAN should build “off the shelf” Virginia class Block 6 submarines
From USNI News, “Block VI will continue that trend of adding new capability and lethality to the boats, which will be procured in a multiyear contract from Fiscal Years 2024 through 2028. Block VI will focus on building upon the acoustic superiority” technology that’s being built into and tested on the USS South Dakota (SSN-790), as well as “really enable that organic subsea, seabed warfare kit release for the first time.”
As the technologies currently being tested on the USS South Dakota will be mature by the time that the Block 6 order is placed and are expected to significantly enhance future Virginia capabilities, it is essential that the RAN build the best technology submarines possible as they must still be capable and survivable in 45 years time when they retire from service.
It’s expected that all of the USN Block 6 submarines would be built with the additional 4 payload tubes (in the lengthened VPM) but, if that is too much capability for the RAN’s needs, they can be built to the standard length with just the 2 bow mounted VPT’s
The SSN(X) would be the best possible technology but would require a very significant delay in construction beyond the duration of the Collins class LOTE, thus leaving a capability gap. It also is planned to be significantly larger than the Virginia class and is expected to be at least 50% more expensive. The latest technology is very desirable but the delay and huge cost put it out of reach for the RAN.
The UK’s SSN(R) will also be too late and too expensive for the RAN. It is expected to have a larger diameter hull than the Astute class so that it will be able to use the PWR3 reactor which is being fitted to the Dreadnought class SSBN. The PWR3 is believed to be based on the S9G and will be capable of convection cooling of the reactor, the PWR2 (Astute class) requires electric pumps to continuously circulate cooling fluid - a significant emitter of noise.
With all things considered, the Virginia Block 6 is a mature design & represents the least risk whilst having significantly more capability than originally required by the RAN.
Thanks Anonymous [at Feb 24, 2022, 5:45:00 PM]
ReplyDeleteI see your USNI source is: "Report on Virginia-class Attack Submarine Program" dated February 18, 2022 at https://news.usni.org/2022/02/18/report-on-virginia-class-attack-submarine-program-7#more-92239
I don't know whether a Virginia Block VI for Australia that deletes 4 Virginia Payload Tubes (VPTs) would diverge too widely from the USN's "off-the-shelf" standard Block VI with its six VPTs.
The desire of the USN Submarine Service for a SSN(X) that is a de facto Seawolf 2.0 might not only be too late but prove too expensive for Australian AND even USN budgets. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seawolf-class_submarine
I think we can trust the famous integrity of "what could go wrong" PM Boris Johnson to do over Australian interests nicely with the "AUSstute" :)
------------------
Also as BAE Systems are already providing Australia's second most expensive project - the 9 Hunter-class frigate build...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter-class_frigate
its only fitting BAE Systems become a MONOPOLY MARKET POWER
shipbuilder for Australia by also overseeing Australia's most expensive project - the 8 Aussie SSNs build. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astute-class_submarine
What could go wrong!?
Pete