Noting the Astute replacements are known as "SSN(R)" and "SSNR". The
replacements are "expected to replace the Astute-class during the 2040s".
The last Astute, HMS Agincourt, is expected to be commissioned in 2026.
So Australia buying UK SSNs would fall between the Astute-class's actual production
availability and the Astutes don't have the fairly important VLS (for AUKUS
hypersonic cruise missiles).
When the almost certain US Combat System integration for Australia's AUKUS SSN
is included the US Virginia class better fits Australia's content and production schedules.
9 comments:
Hi Pete, I still think it highly improbable that the US would export Virginia technology to any partner country. The reactor technology is one thing, but the entire submarine, or some variant is another topic all together. At INDO Pacific this year, the Navy seemed quite comfortable with a US solution still being on the table. But I believe this is wishful thinking.
Pete
I have put aside my earlier preference for Astutes due to the urgency of sub replacement for the RAN now. Time is of the essence.
However for that reason I doubt the decision will be made on SSN capability grounds. It will depend on constructibility.
Therefore I think it all comes down to which country can supply the one component we can’t make - reactors. If BZT can fit in an extra 8 to 10 naval reactors for the RAN, we will build Virginias. If they can’t, and Rolls Royce can fit in the extra 8 to 10 naval reactors we will build Astutes.
Hi Anonymous [at May 19, 2022, 9:04:00 PM]
The US has already exported one third of Virginia technology to Austalia. This takes the form of the AN/BYG-1 US nuclear submarine Combat System hardware (weapons, databases, sensors and comms equipment) which has been on the Collins subs since around 2003
- see on "every submarine in the US and Australian Navies." at https://gdmissionsystems.com/-/media/General-Dynamics/Maritime-and-Strategic-Systems/PDF/tactical-control-system-tcs-datasheet.ashx?la=en&hash=A52B5C6832D92156178B77D6F21CA0626545F91B
The US appears to have transferred or promises to transfer the Virginia's nuclear reactor technology - in computer modelling, designs and plans form. Some Australians would likely be given access to actual Virginia reactors with US guards keeping an eye on Aussies.
- see the "...exchange of naval nuclear propulsion information sharing agreement" of 22 November 2021 "“The United Kingdom and the United States will be able to share naval nuclear propulsion information with Australia, which they cannot with any other country, in the determination of the optimal pathway to acquire nuclear-powered submarines for operation by the Royal Australian Navy."
at https://www.minister.defence.gov.au/minister/peter-dutton/media-releases/australia-signs-exchange-naval-nuclear-propulsion-information
Where you say "the entire submarine" We have a third of the Virgina in the form of its Combat System tech, but yes "the entire submarine" is an issue you and I can only be more definite on in about 2-3 years (planning) or 10 years (begine building in the US and/or Australia) and 15 years (physical delivery).
Cheers Pete
Hi Anonymous [at May 20, 2022, 9:43:00 AM]
I'm in full agreement with "I have put aside my earlier preference for Astutes due to the urgency of sub replacement for the RAN now. Time is of the essence."
Re "However for that reason I doubt the decision will be made on SSN capability grounds. It will depend on constructibility."
Yes and also:
- Money (how much profit to the US and/or UK)
and
Politics (Might the anti-nuclear Greens here have the balance of power influencing a Labor led Hung Parliament? Might erratic Trump win the 2024 Election who then kills off AUKUS?) Many other political imponderables.
Yes we'll need the reactors built overseas and everything else in these subs will need to be tailor-made to measurements (eg. welding) to safety tolerances Australian industry has never faced before. Reactors and the country (US or UK) they're built in define the US or UK submarine.
I'm unsure if the "Must build the subs in Australia" priority can be sustained if that means delivery only from 2045 and even then 2 or 3 years until actual commissioning.
Regards Pete
Hello Pete
Attached is a cut/paste of a recent post by "Rattman" from the PPRUNE AUKUS Australian SSN thread.
It mirrors some of the views in my own comments to SM, submitted to you on 20 May 2022 (see below) that you appear to have not used; the gist of which are (a) the necessarily plodding AUKUS SSN construction schedule is dangerous as it does zero to assist the under-gunned RAN in the next ten years; (b) the LIB equipped KSS III is a better starting point than warmed-over Collins boats; and (c) a fleet of just eight 8,000 ton 'wunderwaffen' is not pragmatic for any Navy, let alone the RAN.
Kevin 07 accepted advice that twelve hulls is the bare minimum for a country the size of a continent with ambitions to attrite incoming hostiles as far as possible from our shores. I believe he was advised VERY well, at least on that point ! It seems to follow that Oz still should aim to invest less per SSN boat to obtain a far larger number of boats.
My long held preference for a UK solution hangs on crew size, avoidance of gold platted customization and our shared naval culture. If the USN revealed it was building a 5,000 ton SSN with a crew of 90, my preferences would change overnight.
Yet a small Navy like the RAN should logically prefer boats that require 40 crew - not 140 (as per Virginia class boats).
As H I Sutton's pages record, SSNs of less than 1,500 tons, requiring just 32 crew actually are NOT beyond the bounds of engineering prowess. So a 4,000 ton 'KSS III AUS' with one or more nuclear gensets to top-up its Australian designed, built and patented Lithium Sulfur batteries (LSBs) is likely a smarter choice than those I assume will be submitted to Albo's Cabinet for consideration.
Have you read the peer reviewed paper on Monash University's recent breakthroughs ? They reckon that their patented LSBs will have five times the energy density of the LIBs being used on Japanese and South Korean boats today.
BL 2022/05/28
_____________________________________________________________
Rattman
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: aus
Posts: 522
I cant see there being any major changes to the scheme. Maybe some apologies to france and US on how shittly our previous government handled the a announcement originally. Funny thing is I have always considered the barracuda to be in the butter zone of what i consider is optimal tonnage a crew requirment for an australian sub. A barracuda with an HEU reactors is a good option for australia.
Also been warming up to the concept of getting a KSS-III from south korea, building some conventional subs to replace the collins, would allow australia to get back the skills in sub building meanwhile the design can be fettled and converted in a nuclear sub. Yes it going to be longer with more displacement, but a lot of the same systems will be able to be used
Albanese was sworn in this morning australian time and that after noon hes on a jet to Japan to meet with Biden, Modi and Japanese PM. Its for the Quad, but can imagine AUKUS will be discussed between australian and US representitives.
_____________________________________________________________
THE CLOCK IS TICKING ON AUSTRALIAN SUBMARINE RECAPITALISATION
Given Australia's deteriorating strategic circumstances, the most rational RAN submarine force recapitalization decision criteria should by now be (in order of priority):
A. Ability (to deter or defeat likely adversaries).
B. Years (before the first nuclear boat is available).
C. Costs (design, production, training and annual operating expenses)
D. Number of boats (per $100 billion whole of life costs)
E: Australian content value (design, production, maintenance)
- WHERE WE ARE TODAY -
On Saturday 21 May 2022, everything might change but, for today, the work to convert the future RAN submarine force from diesel electric to nuclear propulsion seems to boil down to a choice between five nuclear options:
1. US Virginia class Block IV (no VLS hull extension $$$)
2. UK Astute class ('LMA' with US reactor, weapons and sensors)
3. US SSNX class (higher cost, slowest delivery, lowest Australian input)
4. UK SSN(R) class (PWR3 reactor, potentially an industrially equal partnership)
5. Something bold (eg. add Monash University's Lithium Sulfur Batteries and a Westinghouse
five MWe heat-pipe nuclear genset to one, or more, of the planned Collins LOTE boats)
Which of these are still within the realms of possibility is open to debate.
Each option has risks, drawbacks and benefits. None of the five options satisfy all of the above decision criteria. All will likely fail multiple criteria so badly as to bring into question the ongoing existence of the RAN submarine service.
- A RADICAL RE-THINK -
Fatigued RAN watchers, increasingly worried about the (necessarily) plodding Australian SSN development and construction timetable are beginning to wish that an entirely off the shelf diesel electric design would be chosen, and to hell with the late, massively expensive and tough to build US/UK SSN designs.
The best non-nuclear candidate is likely the modern, well received KSS-III class submarine, the first of which entered South Korean navy service on 13 August 2021.
This Korean design has everything going for it, except for nuclear propulsion, and may let the RAN afford, say, sixteen boats years earlier and twenty percent cheaper than the eight SSNs announced by Scotty, Boris and (forgets his name) last year. If commissioning dates (CD) and Australian industrial content were given much higher priority than the Morrison Government has done to date, then change could be needed.
A new Australian Minister for Defense could decide to:
(1) Lease the second (KSS-III Batch 2) boat off the Korean production line CD=2027
(2) Buy the fourth and sixth ('Batch 2 AUS') boats off the Korean line CD=2028,2029
(3) Build four (Batch 2 AUS) boats at Osborne CD=2030 to 2038
(4) Return the leased boat when hull six commissions into the RAN
(5) Build ten ('Batch 3 AUS') boats at Osborne CD=2040 onwards
If the five MWe heat-pipe nuclear genset (trialed in the mooted Collins LOTE boat referred to above) performs as specified, the 'Batch 3 AUS' boats would be equipped with one or more heat-pipe nuclear gensets to cruise at 15 knots under nuclear power (while trickle charging their lithium-sulfur batteries) then sprint at, say, 30 kts on LSB stored energy if and when required.
NB: The Astute and Virginia class boats combine pressurized water reactors, boilers and
trad steam turbines to spin their propellers. Heat-pipe reactors (eg. the Westinghouse
'eVinci' design) use no water, no boilers, no safety-critical cooling pumps and no
steam turbines).
The innovative (some would say 'funky') heat-pipe reactors built for NASA will power future Mars missions. With the looming economic recession, the 'half nuclear' (gradual Australian industrial build-up) option may be the best the RAN can realistically hope for. NASA have funded both LEU and HEU heat-pipe reactor designs.
BUREAUCRATUS LEX 20 MAY 2022
Thanks Anon [at May 27, 2022, 9:16:00 PM and May 27, 2022, 9:16:00 PM]
For variously reasonable, interesting, though sometimes odd, comments.
No wonder an SSN of "1,500 tons, requiring just 32 crew" was canned.
Australia needs already tried and tested SSNs.
In contrast to another hybrid-orphan, "bold", "cutting edge", sub Project, chock full of heroic chemistry experiments.
Your Umble Servant
Hello Pete
Yep, I would pity the unfortunate 1960s Swedish submarine crews that were almost asked to man an 800 to 1,100 ton submarine designed to look like a fish, with a reactor more likely to kill the crew than propel the submarine !
But a 4,000 boat is plenty big enough for nuclear propulsion as the French and USS navies have proven.
The safe bet is still that Australia borrow (initially) UK-crewed new-build Astutes.
The RN currently operates just five SSNs since retiring the last two Trafalgar class boats very recently. If money talks loud enough (in the right ears) the RN could keep their SSN force at five boats for at least a few years (or ten). There would be no career damage to UK submariners, unless the sunshine in Perth is too much for their skin and they don't like driving on the left (oh, wait ! . . . )
BUREAUCRATUS LEX 28 MAY 2022
Hi BUREAUCRATUS LEX [at May 29, 2022, 12:54:00 AM]
Yeah I think in the 1960s some in Sweden weres still thinking of ways to keep its nuclear weapon program alive see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_nuclear_weapons_program "The option to continue development of weapons was abandoned in 1966" Maybe a token mini SSN program was a backup plan to keep some Swedish Naval uniformed types and scientists busy.
It would be just like we Aussies to avoid the obvious UK or US SSNs and spend 5 years and $5 Billion going for a 4,000 tonne South Korean SSN plan (with SK never launching a nuclear sub to date) until we go for a UK or US SSN again.
Given the heightened Russian/Putin nuclear threat I'd say the UK might only lease out to Aus just one (mosly RN crewed) Astute from the late 2020s for us to train on
- but with an infusion of Aus cash accelerating the UK SSN(R) project.
The RN submarine service could continue its tradition of permitting the transfer of key RN SSN submariners (like Commanders) to the RAN. See Commander Dainty here https://www.navy.gov.au/fleet/ships-boats-craft/submarines/ssg .
Regards Pete
Post a Comment