Reported today - a US Admiral says SSNs for Australia would disrupt US and UK production lines.
While in the same report the UK Defence
Secretary Wallace goes the opposite way in theorising the US and UK might
restructure their production methods to meet Australian needs, ie:
“Australia's submarine "may look like something none of us
have in our stocks", with the latest post-Astute class submarine designs
fully shared among Australia, Britain and the US.”
There appears to be considerable miscommunication between the US and UK already on the implications of AUKUS.
International alliances to build completely common SSN types been never existed. One reason is the US would impose the extra high cost of the US administered SUBSAFE program on the UK.
What could go wrong with Adelaide possibly designing, but more definitely building, an unprecedented common-hybrid submarine? This would combine UK features and US features, with the latter requiring the US SUBSAFE Program be applied to Australia. As one of the costs I understand SUBSAFE requires all submarine commanders and executive officers having nuclear engineering degrees before they can command a nuclear sub.
At this point if the purpose of comments by Australian, UK and US naval sources on AUKUS was to confuse Chinese intelligence so they do not know what we are doing, they have succeeded admirably.
ReplyDeleteThe only concept I can imagine that fits the comments might make possible sense of the hybrid remarks by the British Defense Minister was that Australis will build Astutes in Adelaide but fitted with US supplied S9G reactors given the lack of PWR2s. I understand an S9G would fit in an Astute hull.
I suppose fitting the US combat system in an Astute might also constitute a hybrid design.
frankly, this is one dog's dinner of a scheme that is best avoided. SUBSAFE will be mandatory for any US made sub-components too... considering the reasonably well established needs for a Virginia Block V type for the RAN, the choice is quite clear.
ReplyDeleteThe US holds up its end of the bargain by adding an extra line either at HII's facility or at Electric Boat's facility. If the US wants it, it can be done. The US has the money power and will power to do it.
They should be deputing Aussie crews to operational Virginia class subs from this year to ensure the first set of crews are ready by 2030 when the new RAN Virginia needs to be close to construction completion (assuming we are all serious about a SSN arm for the RAN)
Then one new RAN Virginia class gets delivered every 2-2.5 years thereby giving a fleet of 7-8 SSGN/SSNs by 2048. Any SLCM and ASBM capacity addition to RAN also needs to proceed apace to ensure the SSGNs have good load out while surface fleet has ASBM access.
Hello from Spain,
ReplyDeleteand what about the idea of going back to France for some SSN Barracudas? I know that from the political point of view it would be a new storm, but from the technical and naval points of view, it could be a much quicker solution...my 2 cents
Hi Anonymous @Sep 2, 2022, 10:07:00 AM
ReplyDeleteBritish Defense Minister Wallace further voiced a claim that didn't hold water, along the lines that the launch of the 5th Astute, HMS Anson, would allow Astutes to patrol waters in Australia's region. China must be confused about how many days or weeks per year Anson could be freed from high priority duties, like protecting UK SSBNs, to "patrol" rather than more likely occasionally going on PR-sales visits to Australia about once a year.
Apparently the PWR3 to go in the Dreadnought SSBNs and SSN(R)s will draw on US S9G technology. Hence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_PWR#PWR3
"PWR3 was a new system "based on a US design but using UK reactor technology".[18][19] The Royal Institution of Naval Architects reported that it was likely that the UK was given access to the US Navy S9G reactor design used in their Virginia-class submarines..."
Its unlikely SUBSAFE would apply to PWR3 or the US AN/BYG-1 Combat system. The latter is already in the Collins and will very likely be carried over to any submarine, SSK or SSN, that Australia buys.
But any use of US hulls (eg. Australia buying Virginias) would attract SUBSAFE. Hence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SUBSAFE
"The Submarine Safety Program (SUBSAFE) is a quality assurance program of the United States Navy designed to maintain the safety of its submarine fleet; specifically, to provide maximum reasonable assurance that submarine hulls will stay watertight, and that they can recover from unanticipated flood version can reproduce all systems exposed to sea pressure or critical to flooding recovery..."
Regards Pete
Ghalib
ReplyDeleteI cannot see the USA setting up another Virginia production line in USA. Money or space to build new infrastructure is not the problem. Recruiting enough people is the problem. They are faced with a failure of companies to train new workers over many years, and the rate of retirement of baby boomer sub builders now being faster than the rate of recruitment/ training of new workers.
UK has a smaller but similar problem. So it looks like there is not much prospect of US built or UK built SSNs for Australia. Ironically the only nation that could build the RAN SSNs right now may be France, with Macron offering to build 4 SSKs for Australia in Cherbourg quickly. If he changed that offer to four Barracuda SSNs with US combat system the RAN should accept. If RAN wants 8 Virginia or Astute SSNs, we will have to build them in Adelaide ourselves.
ASC Adelaide is quite capable in terms of skills and could build every part of the SSN except the reactor, and really whole reactor compartment. That is highly specialised work with classified technologies. In the past Australia has debated which SSN is the best capability for the RaN either Virginia, Astute (or Barracuda SSN). But it appears there is no US or UK build capacity so real question is which SSN we can best build? I think the answer to that depends on which nation (USA, UK or France) can build and supply ASC with SSN reactor compartments. The rest of the SSN can be built at ASC. But no reactor, no SSN.
Read this article to see how hard they are finding it to recruit in USA. There is a shortage of workers in USA (and UK and Australia) right now. In a period when new growth industries like mining (and renewable power) are offering good money to builders and technicians, it is hard for naval shipbuilding to compete. Lack of consistent workflow in recent past is discouraging. You need someone with well above average skills in welding, mech and elec trades to build subs.
https://seapowermagazine.org/security-industry-leaders-call-workforce-development-an-urgent-defense-imperative/
The lower crew requirements of the Suffren class would be a plus for Australia.
ReplyDeleteHowever working with the French again might be a problem given the diificulties faced with delivering a simpler conventional design to Australia.
Also even the French themselves seem to have had diffuculties building the Suffren class in France. 15 years to deliver a submarine is not encouraging.
Hi GhalibKabir @Sep 2, 2022, 11:54:00 AM
ReplyDeleteYes SUBSAFE would very likely apply with any Aus prurchase of Virginia's or indeed for leasing them.
I think any extra US production line would be classed as the disruption the US military-industrial complex is against. Furthermore a mainly foreign build of subs won't wash in Aus politics as submarine funding for the Adelaide manufacturing industry is a political essential of Labor AND Coalition governments.
"Aussie crews [operating] Virginia class subs from this year" is naturally fantasy on many counts.
Any which way it will take 10+ years for Adelaide industry to gear up to build the non-reactor 2/3s of a UK or US designed SSN.
I agree 3 or 4 Aus SSBNs would and should be THE major reason for Aus to build 6 SSNs. That is unless the Aus SSN/SSGNs themselves carry nuclear tipped hypersonic "Beijing busting" cruise missiles.
Regards Pete
Hola Anonimo de España @Sep 2, 2022, 4:40:00 PM
ReplyDeleteLike Britain France is also suffering the reality that it needs to complete its SSNs (2 for the RN, 5 for French Navy) and then immediately needing to design and producing 4 x 3rd Generation SSBNs for each navy.
In any case UK, French and US (for that matter) design support for SSNs even built in Adelaide would be too disruptive in drawing on limited UK, French and US design and manegerial resources.
Also those three countries would suffer the disruption of needing to build the 33%-40% SSN reactor portions in their own countries before shipping the reactors to Adelaide.
Regards Pete
A COHERRENT PLAN, NOT SSN YARD CAPACITY, IS KEY
ReplyDeleteGoing for a US solution to replace Australia's current Collins class submarines ?
Yeah/Nah.
For a true partnership - the UK is a better bet; as the UK submarine industry urgently needs an Australian deal, whereas the US can/will (and may really prefer to) go it alone with no problem.
The UK has demonstrated it has the capacity to build about eight SSNs in a period of 20 years; i.e. they can replay the Astute design/build process - only a little quicker to launch a fleet of SSN(R) boats.
The principle UK SSN resource constraint is not the specialized yard or nuclear engineering capacity - it is the UK Treasury limit on RN SSN spending.
If UK single purpose (SSN) capex and non-recurring design investments were, instead, allocated over sixteen (rather than eight) SSNs; and BAE constructs sixteen rear halves of the planned SSN(R) rather than eight complete boats . . . does this not negate the need for major increases in the (UK) skilled workforce or in the capacity of Barrow Inferno ?
Where, Vice Admiral Sir Blustertoad McBollocks III might splutter, is the other end of these sixteen SSN(R)s getting built, and who pays for the needed capex and workforce development ?
Good old Alligator Albanese may give us an coherent answer to that type of question in the next Australian federal budget speech - coming to a big screen in 2023.
This 'Plan Alligator' ticks a number of boxes :
(a) Adelaide gets to assemble eight fair dinkum Australian made SSNs by manufacturing sixteen front ends and welding eight of those fronts to eight UK manufactured back ends (i.e. eight front ends are exported to the UK)
(b) No tricky reactor compartment engineering happens outside the UK
(c) Sixteen boats equals economies of scale for both the RN and RAN
(d) Screw Subsafe and any future US Congressional interference zone
(e) Mixing RN and RAN crews is, likely, far less culturally fraught than mixing USN and RAN crews
Australian negotiators could get UK ink-on-paper that ensures (say) all anechonic tiles, HVAC and future heavyweight torpedo development and production now 'blong Oz' for both the RN and the RAN.
Training for front end of the boat submariners transfers to Oz from the UK (and vice versa for back end of the boat).
Just saying.
BUREAUCRATUS LEX SEPTEMBER 4, 2022
Bureaucratus Lex
ReplyDeleteIf everyone can agree on the components of your suggestion, that RN/RAN joint build fro SSNR makes a huge amount of sense from an engineering viewpoint. All the steps you suggest are technically feasible.
Virtually all of the firms in the UK SSN supply chain are present in Adelaide, or partnered with an Adelaide firm already.
Lex's commens made me pause to go back over recent ministerial statements to see if I had missed anything. I had.
ReplyDeleteThe biggest hints on AUKUS were not from Marles' comments in UK last week, but from UK MoD Wallace when standing next to him at their joint press conference. Wallace was much more confident of a joint UK/AUS SSNR build. Marles, though standing next to him, did not contradict Wallace.
First
"As if buying an American one off-the-shelf, or one of these ones off-the-shelf – it’s not that. AUKUS is a collaborative program between three nations and the question is how do we all get to 2035-2040 in our deliveries, which we all need for our cycles, and how collaborative can we be."
Then
"I think there’s a confusion as to somehow this is me trying to sell that submarine and the Minister will go off to the United States and buy that, but actually the ultimate is to get all of us to get through the 2030s where we produce a submarine that is in my view, truly collaborative, might have a bit of all three on it."
https://www.minister.defence.gov.au/minister/rmarles/transcripts/joint-press-conference-uk-secretary-state-defence-ben-wallace
The USN SSN program chief virtually dealt themselves out of an AUKUS sub build last week with Adm Pappano saying it wuld be "detrimental" (to the USN SSN program).
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-09-01/us-admiral-issues-blunt-warning-on-building-aus-subs/101394250
So if everyone is telling the truth I think AUKUS will see a joint UK/RAN SSNR design followed by a joint build between BAE Barrow and ASC, with some US technology included.
Hi Anonymous @Sep 5, 2022, 6:26:00 PM
ReplyDeleteWell argued.
If the UK and Osborne can at least launch the first SSNR by the late 2030s and commission it in the early 2040s, it looks like a plan.
Cheers Pete
If it is an Astute, the least they could do is add a 8-10 m section to carry additional BGM-109s or any other mix of subsonic and supersonic SLCM and ASBM or whatever load out may be needed for a 'hot war'. Without a heavy loadout an Australian Astute will no better 'on station' time than a Scorpene or a Barracuda SSN.
ReplyDeleteHi Ghalib @Sep 12, 2022, 1:17:00 PM
ReplyDeleteI agree with your logic, but with twists.
Thinking post astutely (excuse pun :) I would hope the Brits will design even their own UK RN SSN(R)s with a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia-class_submarine#Virginia_Payload_Module with "two multipurpose Virginia Payload Tubes (VPT)". Each VPT capable of carrying 6 Tomahawks or smaller numbers of hypersonic cruise or small ballitic missiles.
If Australia, along with the certain use of the US Combat System (about 33% of a RAN SSN(R)) had a RAN ONLY special fitout of a VPM (around 10% of a RAN SSN(R)) then that would cause many knock-on readjustments (5+%) and extrordinary added costs for a RAN SSN(R).
Rather than Australia buying-building a 50% (with knock-ons) US content RAN SSN(R). Noting this would be probably much more problem prone and expensive than a UK or US SSN of 2040s vintage - it would make it much more logical for Australia to buy/build a US Virginia design - Block V or VI.
However, there is a PLAN B.
Alternatively Australia might consider building just 6 UK pattern SSN(R)s but also 4 UK Dreadnought class SSBNs. In the end Australia needs its own nuclear deterrent. After the Trump experience and real chance of more future US isolationism Australia can no longer rely on a perhaps mythical US nuclear umbrella.
The Yanks were reminding Dad of this mythical reality way back in the 1980s when Dad was Defence Attache, Washington https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Coates_(general)#Military_career
By 2030 the Australian public (who already seem to have been sufficiently scared/sensible about China - to accept Aus SSNs)
...will be sufficiently scared of China, gradually power projecting South, to consider Australian nuclear weapons a serious choice.
Regards Pete