(Photo courtesy "Guinnog" via Wiki)
I’ve been keyword searching “Australia nuclear submarine” in the green Search boxes of UK House of Lords Hansard discussions. Yielding:
On 4 July 2022:
Lord
West of Spithead [of
Labour Party
asked]
To ask Her
Majesty's Government what plans they have to train Australian naval officers in
the Royal Navy nuclear programme
in a similar way to the US Navy with
their Australia–U.S. Submarine Officer
Pipeline Act. [see details of that US Act in Pete Comments below]
Baroness Goldie Lord in Waiting (HM Household) (Whip), The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence [responded]
There are existing arrangements for training non-UK national Navy personnel, including the Royal Australian Navy, as part of Royal Navy training programmes.
----
[More significantly] On 19 July 2022:
Lord West of Spithead [of Labour asked]
To ask Her
Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Goldie on
4 July ("HL1126") [and HL1254 above], whether there are existing arrangements in place to train
foreign officers in operating Royal
Navy submarine nuclear power plants.
Baroness Goldie Lord in Waiting (HM Household) (Whip), The Minister of State, Ministry of
Defence [responded]
"The Royal
Navy (RN) routinely provides
training to foreign Nationals through International Defence Training
arrangements.
Under the AUKUS arrangements,
this now includes the attendance of Australian personnel on RN Nuclear
Propulsion training courses. The
operation of RN nuclear submarine propulsion plants by Australian personnel
remains subject to further enabling work."
Pete Comments
1. On UK training see Marine Nuclear Power expert
Peter Lobner’s website containing quite a large July 2018 PDF
Document. Page 19 to 21 of that PDF details the UK's
"Vulcan Naval Reactor Test Establishment (NRTE)". That PDF provides better photos and labels - as only Lobner's American website could. At NRTE Dounreay Australian military and civilian personnel are likely to receive some of their nuclear submarine reactor and related training.
2. US training - its news to me that there is a “Australia–U.S. Submarine Officer Pipeline Act”. For information see US Congressman Gallagher's, AUKUS Working Group...New Bill [Text of the Bill] June 15, 2022” Press Release:
“…The new bipartisan bill will establish a joint training pipeline between the U.S. Navy and the Royal Australian Navy, and will enable the start of U.S.-based training of Commanding Officers for Australia’s future fleet of nuclear-powered submarines under the AUKUS alliance….
...To prepare for the successful operation of future undersea capabilities, the bill establishes an exchange program between the U.S. Navy and the Royal Australian Navy to integrate and train Australian sailors for the operation and maintenance of nuclear-powered submarines….”
I'll keep on searching US Congress and UK Houses of Commons and Lords Hansards for relevant matters.
5 comments:
Pete
Further to the US nuclear training Pipeline Act, it looks likely to go through Congress smoothly. One US Congressman (Republican) has urged Australia to start officer training well before SSNs are constructed. Its hard ot argue that one. Obviously, a core of SSN trained sailors and technicians would be useful whether Australia chooses the US or UK SSN design.
https://news.usni.org/2022/07/27/wittman-australian-sailors-should-be-underway-on-u-s-submarines-now
Hello Pete
ARE WE THERE YET (2037) ?
One of the most interesting snippets about the nuclear submarine training pipeline being discussed here on SM (and in some more obscure pockets of the web) are the very different submarine commander pipelines of the RN and the USN.
In short, the USN policy is that all SSN captains must have nuclear engineering backgrounds whereas, in the RN, an SSN's commanding officer need not have begun their naval career as a nuclear engineering officer.
A number of sources tell us that it takes fifteen years to produce a USN nuclear submarine commander, largely due to the policy of starting the command pipeline in the rear of the boat.
So an Australian submarine officer who follows the USN training and promotion pathway would have to secure a billet aboard a US nuclear boat before the end of this year to become the captain of any future RAN atomic submarine by 2037.
The Astute (lease / base / crew ) to SSN-R (jointly design and construct) pathway looks to be much less culturally challenging and industrially limiting than the competing Virginia (crew only) to SSN-X (fully import) pathway likely preferred by US congress and by key US naval construction yards.
That said, it seems that 2027 is a far more important date than 2037; i.e. when attacked, you can't fight back with a ship not even under construction yet.
How many of us still believe that a few KSS-III, interim, boats are a bad idea, compared to persisting with a Collins-class do-over until something critical fails and they go down with their crew.
On a related matter, what ere Australian welders doing NOW to be prepared to cut metal on an SSN in future ? Perhaps the RAN (and special forces) could use a few coastal submarines in the sub 1,000 ton range ??
As Poland's huge investment in South Korean defense systems has recently signaled, when you "have a need for (delivery) speed". . . then South Korea may be the best place to call on.
BUREAUCRATUS LEX JULY 28 2022
Hi Anonymous [at Jul 29, 2022, 9:26:00 AM]
Thanks for https://news.usni.org/2022/07/27/wittman-australian-sailors-should-be-underway-on-u-s-submarines-now its very instructive.
There seem to be some strong AUKUS SSN American political advocate/spuiker groups in Congress who seem to be putting the cart before the horse - when Australia may not even choose a US sub.
In https://news.usni.org/2022/07/27/wittman-australian-sailors-should-be-underway-on-u-s-submarines-now Witman indicates:
"Rep. Rob Wittman, (R-Va.) and ranking member on the House Armed Services Seapower and Projection Forces panel, said Australian sailors and officers should be going to the Navy’s nuclear school and deploying aboard American submarines so they can learn how they operate at sea now. ["NOW"!]
In his assessment of what needs to be done immediately, Wittman included sending Canberra’s shipyard workers, engineers and designers to Electric Boat and Newport News to learn how to build, operate and maintain nuclear-powered submarines."
Pete Comment
Wittman is suggesting whole groups of us Aussies "shipyard workers, engineers and designers" be exposed to US Top Secret tech before US subs can be chosen!
I assume a few of the Taskforce https://www.defence.gov.au/about/taskforces/nuclear-powered-submarine-task-force are getting an early look-see but done deal access for whole groups of workers sounds a little premature.
Maybe I'm a bit conservative about political parallel universes. We get enough of that in Australia from our own "2 Virginia's plucked off the assembly line by 2030" Dutton.
Cheers Pete
Thanks BUREAUCRATUS LEX
Timing hurdles will start with Taskforce's https://www.defence.gov.au/about/taskforces/nuclear-powered-submarine-task-force March (or later in) 2023 Report deadline
plus
Gaining A$10s Billions Budget Approval. This will likely bring us to a 2024 program kickoff.
If US Virginia's "win" I assume Australia will need to (be forced to) subscribe to:
- US SUBSAFE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SUBSAFE engineering building, repair and training standards
- You've rightly brought up the 15 year nuclear engineering requirement for Aus Virginia Commanders and maybe even for higher Aus ranks up to Commodore needing to be nuclear engineer back-trained.
All looking like choosing UK SSN(R) are more doable, but for the delays, which may mean actual Australian SSN(R) might only be commissioned mid 2040s to early 2050s and I'll be 90 then.
+++++++++++
Maybe LOTEing 3 Collins to tide us over to 6 "Interim" SSKs?
Certainly "a few coastal submarines in the sub 1,000 ton range" would be great if we operate them in the Baltic (against Putin)
but just 1 SSK type speed/range for Aus SSK realities brings us to 3,000+ tonne subs (surfaced). Adelaide building any new design even "Collins 2" adds the odd 7 year delays over foreign shipyard quotes.
So yeah maybe "interim" might pan out as INSTEAD OF AUKUS SSN because paying for 6 new/interim SSKs and 8 SSNs would be an imbalance to the Aus Defence budget and unjustifiable opportunity costs for the Aus health etc Civilian budget stringensies.
Of Aus SSKs instead of SSNs:
- 6 to 8 KSS-IIIs which need be 500 tonnes larger than the South Korean versions (SKs needing no extra fuel for transit). The KSS-III's 6 to 10 VLS quite useless because Conventional Warheads won't deter China. Unless the KSS-IIIs carry Trident II ICBMs, we can't SSKs close enough even for IRBM rangeor quickly enough to the Chinese mainland to deter it.
or
If France or Japan will have us back 4,000+ tonne surfaced Attacks or Taigeis.
or
Collins II but still thats a 13-14 year proposition. Even Sweden building A26-Blekings for their own Navy kicked off in 2014 and won't be ready till 2027-28 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blekinge-class_submarine#Units and Swedish shipyards are more efficient than Adelaide.
Sooo the Taskforce https://www.defence.gov.au/about/taskforces/nuclear-powered-submarine-task-force
and Albo will need to perform naval-political miracles working all this out in 2023.
Mucho Cheers Pete
The nearest to Collins II is the SAAB offering for the Dutch competition. They even have ASC engineers in the design team. The beam appears to be the same but about 4m shorter & 200t lighter compared to Collins. Range about the same as Collins, as is the existing Walrus class. SAAB openly state that it is referencing both A26 & Collins in the design. Netherlands is the only West European nation to use conventional submarines with a range to match Collins.
Post a Comment