Aus Choosing UK Likely: But Within SSN(R) Constraints

In response to Anonymous’s Feb 27, 2023 comment:

You have interesting views, though I suspect you haven't read Submarine Matters articles like "Which AUKUS Country's SSN Design Will Win?" of February 6, 2023 which covers most aspects you comment on. 

You are clearly out of phase with UK nuke submarine building commitments and limitations. The UK building further Astutes or helping Australia do it, after the UK RN's 7th one (Agincourt), is not possible because the UK industrial base (BAE Systems and the RN) is shifting all its very limited nuke submarine design and build resources to the 4 x Dreadnought-class SSBNs for the next 15 years. 

My admittedly rigid views on each of your comments in turn are: 

1/ - The Astute design (jigs and all) is slaved to the rapidly becoming obsolete PWR2 reactor.
- Australia's submarine shipbuilding facilities may well need 20 years to get up to SSN building quality, once UK and US assistance is available. Which is after the 4 x UK Dreadnoughts are built and after the US 12 x Columbia-class SSBNs build phase (whichever is later).
- Australian submariners will not be qualified to majority man SSNs for 15 years at least. 

2/ Australia, if it chooses the UK cannot build Astutes (without UK help which is unavailable until about 2035). The SSN(R), which presumably will have a larger beam/diameter sufficient to fit the PWR3, is really Australia's only UK option. 

3/ The UK PWR3 just happens to be the UK variant of some of the less sensitive US SG9 attributes. Any idea of putting a US reactor into a UK hull:
- cuts across the UK Rolls Royce submarine reactor industry's very existence.
- an AUSTRALIAN ONLY HYBRID SSN, combining a UK hull with a US reactor, is a highly risky engineering, industrial, cost and political proposition. Like the Collins it would be a unique ORPHAN SUBMARINE DESIGN with all the drawbacks that entails.
- US political/industrial interests must be taken into account. There are long held US non-export of complete reactors to the UK legal conventions and pressures.

4/ Yes reactor support from the US is closer and the US does have an efficient SSN decommissioning plan. This is if Australia chooses the US late model Virginia/SSN(X). I assess this to be a 30% possibility. While I assess that Australia choosing the UK SSN(R) hull with the PWR3 is a 60% possibility.

Regards Pete

SubMatts Remaining "On Air" due to new donation

The free-ware access I provide, of more than 2,100 SubMatts' articles, amount to a gift. 

Mainly more than 10 years ago, sensitive agencies failed to securely protect their IP Address-Domain identities which appeared in-clear. This was when my sitemeter clocked visits to SubMatts from:

-  Vladivostok-Russian Pacific Fleet
-  Severodvinsk-Russian Northern Fleet Submarine Base
-  a Hong Kong site fronting for Beijing,
-  constantly Moscow FSB up to the present
-  Rubin Design Bureau St Petersburg
-  Nuclear Weapons establishments in France Iran in the UK and most of those in the US
-  the CIA, NSA
-  Mossad-Israeli PM's Department liaison, and
-  the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Counterintelligence Service

 to name a few. 

The Australian National Library asked my permission for SubMatts to be stored at its Trove database - see here.

When I started writing on the Internet two decades ago it was a freeware medium of writers and commenters cooperating in good faith, in a shared world-wide project. Now everyone in PayWalling/Blocking, one way or another. 

So I ask regular readers or well-off irregular readers to please Donate to my PayPal account, upper right corner of this blog, That will keep Submarine Matters universally accessible.

I am decidedly bitter about what cancer in my prostate (hopefully nowhere else) is costing/doing to me at 62. I'm having a biopsy to gauge spread, in Sydney, very soon.

STOP PRESS

Kym, Ghalib Kabir, and 5 kind men have donated to Submarine Matters. But more Donations are needed to pay for my cancer operations and growing list of medications.

50+ recurring Donors would be ideal - with new articles at least 3 times a week.

+++++++++++++

Note my new article Good Video on AUKUS Sub Taskforce's Website published today, Feb 16, 2023. 

Suspending blog writing for 9 days.

I'm suspending blog writing for 9 days as there are 101 medical things to do:

-  finalising going up to Sydney details  

- further pathology tests

- going up to Sydney

- Biopsy Operation under general anaesthetic

- recovery

- seeing my son and sister in Sydney

- returning home

Luckily I have 2 police neighbours and a large dog who guard my place.

I'm also keeping my powder dry for March, which will be a busy SubMatts month writing about the Australian Defence Strategic Review announcement and the AUKUS SSN (possible "winner") announcement. 

Regards Pete

Excellent Type 093 Shang SSN Article.

Naval Technology has published an excellent article, of Feb 17, 2023, here.

Good Video on AUKUS Sub Taskforce's Website

I just discovered something I didn’t really notice before, on The Australian Nuclear Powered Submarine Taskforce website. That is not a bad Youtube video, which I also found at https://youtu.be/1Ww5kCgkLZY .

It includes shots of Astutes, Virginias and a Los Angeles – all after 50 seconds. There appears to be equivalent airtime for Astutes (presumably implying the SSN(R)) and Virginias – leaving me none the wiser on what the Taskforce/Aus DoD may prefer.

Although elsewhere I’m predicting UK SSN(R) hull and reactor = 60% chance and late model Virginia/SSN(X) = 30% chance.

Either way both hull choices will include the Combat System basis the US shares with the Collins SSK – though a much more capable Combat System version harnessing the massive electrical power from an SSN’s reactor (versus the Collins’ comparatively miniscule diesel-electric power).

All might be revealed in the late 2040s when an Aus SSN, might, just might, be commissioned…which I might see, if I get to 90.

First Taiwan Built Submarine May Launch Sept 2023

It would be good news if Taiwan can launch its first Indigenous Defense Submarine (IDS) by September 2023.

Such an ambitious target is possible if the main foreign assistance is from Japanese (Kawasaki and Mitsubishi shipbuilding) contractors, who have an efficient record of meeting their Japanese submarine launch deadlines.

On efficiency, see the Japanese submarine build Table. 

US Submarine Production Lacks Reference to AUKUS

This HII based News Release “HII Breaks Ground On New Submarine Facility At Newport News Shipbuilding” of Feb 9, 2023, is significant in that the USN is part funding a Multi-Class Submarine Production Facility with no reference to the AUKUS SSN pact's existence. 

This strongly indicates the only major submarine builders in the US (HII, but also GD EB) are not seen as major designer/builders of the AUKUS SSN hull. 

It is therefore likely the AUKUS-Australian SSN hull design/build oversight role will fall to the UK, specifically into BAE's SSN(R), by default. 

Furthermore the first design contract has been awarded for the UK's PWR3 reactor to go into the SSN(R) hull.

UK using US S9G IP in UK PWR3 for SSN(R) “Victory” class

In response to Anonymous' comment of Feb 11, 2023. 

UK military-industrial interests, including Rolls-Royce's submarine reactor division,  control the "Made in UK" imperative of the submarine PWR series.

Also for US national security, commercial competition reasons and recognition of Rolls-Royce's industrial importance in the UK, the US appears unwilling to export  whole US reactor designs, including the S9G. The US Government recognises the value of good relations with the UK’s Rolls-Royce given Rolls-Royce supplies many types of jet engines for US military aircraft, large UAVs and civilian aircraft. 

Instead the UK and US use a halfway convention of incorporating some US S9G submarine reactor characteristics into the PWR3 "The Royal Institution of Naval Architects reported that it was likely that the UK [Rolls-Royce, the RN and MoD] was given access to the US Navy S9G reactor design used in their Virginia-class submarines". 

As reactor sizes and other characteristics literally define new SSN types a new reactor for a new 2030-40s SSN using the "Astute" class name will not happen. The Rolls-Royce designed PWR3 (using some US intellectual property (IP)) is likely slightly larger in height/diameter and possibly length making for a larger SSN(R) carrying a different name. 

RN sources indicate the SSN(R) will possibly be called the Victory-class "mainly from the heritage of still technically "in service" HMS Victory, of Trafalgar. "Victory" has not been re-used for a ship, or unit or our navy since before 1918. Other names are unavailable. The Dreadnought-class SSBNs are already re-using "Dreadnought, Valiant, Warspite and using King George VI". Re-used major names for new carriers Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales has already taken place". 

Returning to reactors - increasing the chances a PWR3 “Core ?” version going into the SSN(R)-Victory class is that the UK is allocating huge financial resources into a slightly larger version of the PWR3 for future Dreadnought SSBNs, through to the late 2030s. 

A slightly smaller version of the PWR3, able to fit into the smaller beam/diameter of the SSN(R)-Victory, will go into it from about 2040.

Anonymous is probably right in concluding the US cannot supply SSN hulls to Australia because the US is heavily committed to building Columbia SSBNs, and future Virginias [and I dare say SSN(X)s] for the USN. 

Also valid is Anonymous' concern about excessive Australian reliance on SSN(R) Victory builder BAE as Australia's sole SSN supplier from 2023 into the 2050s. BAE will also be providing spares/upgrades, probably deep maintenance and Australian sovereignty defying reactor repairs until the 2080s. 

Furthermore BAE is also involved in the Australia Hunter-class frigate program which is delayed and overbudget, partly owing to BAE marketing an immature Type 26 ship design.

AFR Article In Line With My Earlier Advice

On February 9, 2023. Andrew Tillett, for the Australian Financial Review (AFR) wrote an analysis which is in line with my earlier advise:

-  Aus Nuke Sub Less Likely to Use US Design of Sept 24, 2021

-  UK Clarifying Carriage of Australian SSN Program of Sept 8, 2022 

and, it seems, closely based on:

-  Which AUKUS Country's SSN Design Will Win? of Feb 6, 2023

Which AUKUS Country's SSN Design Will Win?

The Australian Nuclear Powered Submarine Taskforce (aka simply the Taskforce) has constantly been advising Canberra based senior RAN, DoD officers/officials and, of course, politicians. This is in order for the Australian Government to announce which country’s AUKUS submarine design will be selected or a "common AUKUS design". The decision is due within the first quarter of this year (2023) (ie. by Friday March 31, 2023). From the AFR the Australian and UK PMs will likely be in Washington, with Biden, to make public a joint AUKUS SSN decision between March 16 to 19 inclusive.  

At that Washington meeting it is likely UK Prime Minister Sunak will make the ambit claim "the UK will aim to design and organise the build of the first SSN(R) to be delivered to Australia in the 2030s". Against that claim the UK's very limited nuclear sub design and build manpower resources will be fully occupied with the UK's future Dreadnought-class SSBN - from the mid 2020s through to the mid-late 2030s. Hence SSN(R)s built in the UK, and/or in Adelaide, might only be available in the late 2030s, with first commissioning in the 2040s.

Also relevant in advising the Australian government is the bigger picture Australian Defence Strategic Review - due to report around the same time.

As an aside I’m guessing the Taskforce’s main HQ is in Canberra (at Defence Central, Russell Offices?). This is to facilitate frequent and intensive interaction with our  Defence Minister, Prime Minister and with the US and UK Defence Attaches posted to Canberra. Meanwhile the Taskforce would have outstations where submarine talent is: at Fleet Base West, Fleet Base East, Adelaide and the Australian Defence and Naval Attaches in Washington and London. Taskforce HQ likely communicates with all these outstations using an Australian intranet (called?) that is tied to the broader UKUSA STONE GHOST network and to the US DoD's highly secure JWICS intranet. 

My predictions of which country’s submarine design will be selected in the  AUKUS SSN competition (with SSNs to be (party built in the UK or US) + (much built in Adelaide)) is:

UK 60% chance - If so, very likely within a UK designed future SSN(R) hull. 

My prediction that a UK SSN design is most likely is part due to then UK PM Boris Johnson announcing UK jobs and funding, implicitly for an AUKUS SSN(R), on the same day, September 15, 2021, that the AUKUS pact was announced. There was no similar US SSN(X) or Improved Virginia SSN, aimed at AUKUS, announcement that day. 

It is most probably significant that from the time the "About" section of the Taskforce's website was first published, from late September 2021, the photo displayed was of a UK submarine (an Astute) on display through to the beginning of 2022. I never noticed a US submarine photo or artwork anywhere on the website. To make less obvious Australia's UK SSN preference the "About" section for most of 2022 and through to 6pm today featured a definitely not in contention, Russian Borei-class SSBN. Its as if the Taskforce chaps are reading what I'm typing because they just put up a photo of the Taskforce's (hitherto "unknown" location) Russell Offices HQ on the "About" section at 6.25pm (Australian Eastern Time) Feb 6, 2023. At 6.50pm they changed back to the good'ol Borei artwork ;-) 

Higher odds for the UK SSN(R ) have also increased by the UK MoD’s decision to quietly publicize, through various websites (eg. NavalNews), the expectation that the SSN(R) will have a multi-missile type vertical launch system (VLS). 

VLS is very likely a major attribute for Australian selectors. This is because missiles more advanced, faster, larger and longer range than the current US-UK SSN Tomahawk VL missile will more flexibly fit into a VLS compared to a virtually unalterable 533mm horizontal torpedo tube. In short, VLS makes the future SSN(R) more competitive against the US Virginia (a SSN that already has VLS).

Relevant to Australia's submariner manpower shortage, it is highly likely the SSN(R) will have a much smaller crew (98 (as on the Astute) + 6 to operate the VLS = 104) compared to 135 on the Virginias and SSN(X)s. 

An Australian order of 8 SSN(R)s on top of a UK RN order of 7 SSN(R)s will improve the economies of scale of SSN(R) production to the UK's benefit. This may translate into the UK giving Australia a slight discount, maybe of the order of 5%, on SSN(R)s. 

No similar economies of scale benefit would exist for the US if Australia were permitted to buy 8 SSN(X)/Virginias - as the production run for the USN alone may amount to fifty subs over 30 years, out to 2053.

Common-Trilateral Design - Some US Contents Within A UK SSN(R) Hull

The SSN(R) will very likely be powered by  the UK’s PWR3 reactor which is partly based on the US S9G reactor (which powers Virginia-class SSNs). 

If Australia buys a UK or US SSN design either of the designs chosen will still incorporate the US AN/BYG-1 combat system (aka " the TCS") of a type that is already in our Collins-class submarines. US company Lockheed Martin was chosen to integrate the AN/BYG-1 combat system for our previous Attack-class project. This makes it highly likely Lockheed Martin will integrate the AN/BYG-1, consisting of sensors, databases, command center work stations, and weapons modules (including a US derived VLS) on whichever US or UK design wins. 

So I think it likely a joint US, UK &  Australian common (aka Trilateral) Contents Design solution has a 60% chance of being within a UK SSN(R) hull. 

US 30% chance - If so this may be within a future SSN(X) or Improved Virginia-class SSN hull. These may be powered by the existing S9G reactor already in current Virginias or even by a future S9W reactor, not yet on the USN's long list.  

Australia picking a US SSN design is less likely in part due to repeated statements from US admirals eg. key Admiral Pappano and, lately, politicians, that a US supply of Virginias to Australia, or even helping build them within Australia, will be too disruptive to the US SSN industry in its main role of supplying the USN’s pressing needs. US needs are increasing, due to the long term Russian submarine threat, but also due to the rising threat of China building subs of increasing capability. The threat from North Korean SSBs also requires more SSNs for the USN.

Furthermore APDR reports Jan 1, 2023 "The US Government Accountability Office (GAO) has concluded that the country’s already overstretched industrial base faces increasing difficulties constructing Columbia [class] SSBNs and this is already causing delays on the Virginia program...In other words, for the foreseeable future it will be impossible to ramp up the speed of the construction of the Virginia class..." 

In any case the USN and broader government does not like exporting its most sensitive military/naval technology if it can at all avoid it. The advanced tech Virginia SSN is up there with the F-22 stealth fighter. The F-22 cannot be exported under US law.

10% Chance - the Australian government decides to delay a decision partly due to the extreme cost of 8 AUKUS SSNs (whose numbers may be reduced to 6).

HMS Vanguard's Reactor Fixed With "Glue"

The UK Guardian reports February 1, 2023:

"The Royal Navy has ordered an urgent investigation amid claims that workers on [HMS Trident SSBN] fixed broken bolts in the vessel’s reactor chamber using glue.

The faulty repairs on the cooling pipes aboard the HMS Vanguard were found after one of the bolts fell off during an inspection, the Sun reported.

The bolt heads originally came off due to over-tightening. But, rather than replacing the damaged shafts, staff at the defence contractor Babcock implemented a quick fix and glued them back on.

Engineers at the contractor reported it as a procedural glitch after the problem was found, but did not mention the botched nature of the repair.

A [UK RN] source told the newspaper: “It’s a disgrace. You can’t cut corners with nuclear. Standards are standards. Nuclear standards are never compromised.”

The glued bolts held insulation in place on the coolant pipes in the nuclear reactor and were found just as workers were set to fire it up to full power for the first time, the newspaper reported...."