July 21, 2022

Three Virginias/year built in US. For RAN & USN.




Likely for the RAN from the 2030s? The ordered in 2017, already being built US Virginia-class Block V SSNs. They will be capable of vertically launching 40 missiles and can also horizontally launch a mixture of 25 torpedoes/UUVs/mines from their torpedo tubes. They can also perform all the other USN/RAN SSN duties. (Artwork above courtesy General Dynamics via DefenseNews).
---

Following Anonymous' conclusions on July 20, 2022: 

Noting the Guardian article and US Virginia Class Procurement Issues for Congress Report.

Australia acquiring SSNs is always going to mean Australia paying for higher average procurement numbers PER YEAR under the guidance of the US or UK. Australia buying SSNs will always effect US or UK procurement processes.

My outline, which I'll expand with more detail in the Donor Report this month, is as follows:

Assume exclusion of the UK. This is because the UK's batch build restriction (rather than US continuous build opportunities) means No more UK Astutes/No available PWR2 Reactors after 2027. From 2027 to the mid-late 2030s the UK's limited resources will be preoccupied building the Dreadnought-class SSBNs. Then the not yet ordered or designed, hence higher risk, UK SSN(R)s (with PWR3s) will be commissioned probably no earlier than the mid 2040s.

VIRGINIA-CLASS SSNS FOR AUSTRALIA 

Instead of the planned two Virginias per year, the US can be persuaded to  increase the launch rate to three Virginias PER YEAR from say 2030? to meet the RAN's needs for eight.

For the benefit of the US:

Overall Australia will be part cross subsidising Virginias sooner for the USN. 

Economies of scale mean costs per Virginia and spares will be less for the RAN and USN. 

The RAN Virginias will be built in US with rising Australian workforce participation (eg. from Adelaide) on the extra/third US Virginia assembly line. This will eventually assist maintenance and overhauls of RAN Virginia's in Australia. Australian workers back in Australia can be building all the extra infrastructure, eg. in Adelaide. 

This is so there is Australian worker participation equivalent to what would have been in the Attack-class Project. 

More details in the Donor Report this month.

2 comments:

  1. Anonymous7/23/2022 2:09 AM

    Pete
    You must have missed the news out of the US. They are struggling (& failing) to boost to 3. Even Marles has admitted that neither the US or UK can supply Australia with SSN’s. It’s build it here or it doesn’t happen. There are 4 options. Australian built Virginia block IV, Australian built SSN(X), Australian built Astute with US reactor, or SSN(R) with UK reactor. That’s it. If you want a filler, it’s the SAAB bid to the Netherlands (which is a Collins / A26 hybrid design). ie updated & modernised Collins mk 2. There are even ASC engineers formally involved in the Netherlands bid. The alternative is going back to France.

    With a lot of wrangling & political capital burning, US may be convinced to supply one. That would really be pushing it. The two US builders cannot supply new submarines to the USN at the rate they are decommissioning them. They themselves are going backwards. Hence the push to go to 3. The point with SSN’s is distance is not so much a factor. How much difference to the US is a SSN out of Pearl to one out of Sterling?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Pete7/24/2022 6:50 PM

    Hi Anonymous

    I've looked at the source of the news here https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/RL32418 and assume you haven't. Your 4 options especially "Australian built Astute with US reactor" channel mix and match ignorance.

    All should be revealed in March 2023 based on the Taskforce's advice https://www.defence.gov.au/about/taskforces/nuclear-powered-submarine-task-force

    Pete

    ReplyDelete

You can comment :)