In
response to Anonymous interesting points of November 19, 2023, all the considerations in Australia's future SSN(s) build are very complex.:
Yes
"one class is far safer over the thirty years we will operate these
SSNs."
But
a major concern is timing.
Given
the combination of the UK's and Australia's very inefficient Ship/Submarine
building industries it is possible UK built SSN-AUKUSs may be delayed until the mid 2040s.
It
is likely Virginias cannot be delivered to Australia in the 2030s (basically
because the efficient, but distracted, US's main effort is building Columbia
SSBNs in that decade) with too few new Virginias even for the USN. Equally the UK will be building its own latest generation SSBNs, the Dreadnoughts, throughout the 2030s, with launchings every 3 or 4 years. See these over-optimistic SSN-AUKUS enter into service with UK RN timings.
So that may well leave Australia with no SSNs in the 2030s. Australia will suffer considerable technical and political risks in the 2040s in choosing between the Virginia Block VIs or SSN-AUKUSs. Relying on the US to deliver the world’s most
advanced SSN technology is already politically risky as it relies on highly variable presidential personalities, unstable congressional politics and perhaps a reluctant USN.
The SSN-AUKUS will be advanced, though not so much as a Virginia VI, but less politically risky. The UK RN might only be able to afford 8 x SSN AUKUS. The UK needs our money and economies of scale that a Australian SSN-AUKUS order can bring. Meanwhile the US needs neither as the USN requires 66 x Virginias (see right sidebar) so the US can take us or leave us, even if we are paying an "industrial base" deposit in advance.
I don't think GDEB will be available to supervise an SSN-AUKUS
build in Adelaide. This is in part because GDEB's (and US
Government's) highest naval priority in the 2030s will be the Columbia SSBN
build. Note GDEB might be very busy until 2042. See:
"In March 2016, the U.S. Navy chose General Dynamics Electric Boat as the prime contractor and lead design yard [for the Columbia SSBN].[21] Electric Boat...will do most of the work on all 12 Columbias, including final assembly...All 12 submarines are expected to be completed by 2042" see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia-class_submarine#Overview
It
is actually the other Virginia SSN builder, HII, that will be helping Western Australia maintain Virginias and Astutes and helping South Australia to build SSN-AUKUS. See:
- a
major boost to Western Australia’s maritime defence industry has been achieved
with the signing of a MoU the State Government and HII https://asiapacificdefencereporter.com/wa-government-signs-mou-with-huntington-ingalls-industries-australia/
and
- HII
is assisting the South Australian shipbilding sector including on
"SSN-AUKUS" https://asiapacificdefencereporter.com/us-partnership-to-shore-up-south-australias-shipbuilding-capabilities/
HII
working with BAE to build the front halves (and not reactor rear halves) of 6
or all 8 SSN-AUKUS in Adelaide makes sense.
Also
Lockheed Martin Australia (assisted by GD Mission Systems) will be integrating the Combat System (database,
weapons and sensors) which will be the bulk of the front end build for the SSN-AUKUS.
Pete
ReplyDeleteThanks I hadn’t seen the HII MOU with WA and SA befor I made my last comment on the desirability of GDEB oversight of the local SSN AUKUS build. Either way I am very happy that Australia is getting HII on board. Both governments will find it invaluable to get HII to oversee the work rather than rely on ADF public servants to check BAE is doing things correctly. The former group simply doesn’t have the skills. So no matter what we build, getting some genuine experts involved up front is good.
As for your comments on the likelihood of Virginias for the RAN, I have to agree it is looking remote. But learning to maintain SSNs properly (Virginia and Astute) in Perth is still a very valuable step forward in industry capability in Perth. For all the talk about local builds, there is more work in doing a full maintenance cycle of a Virginia, than building a new OPV. HII will ensure that it is done to USN standards.
The USN and RN are both short of sub crews so RAN sub crew should have lots of opportunities to serve and learn on USN SSNs.
And if you accept that the USN contributes more to Australia’s defence than the RAN (and by a large margin) anything we can do to reduce the USN maintenance backlog and get more Virginia SSNs in the water is good for Australia’s defence.
Hi Anonymous at 11/22/2023 7:02 AM
ReplyDeleteYes HII looks like a positive influence that can minimise BAE technical and political inefficiencies.
This is also noting another US company, Lockheed Martin, came to the rescue during the Collins build by providing the tried and trusted "nuclear sub" Combat System. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collins-class_submarine#Combat_system
Whatever SSNs Australia ends up with Lockheed Martin will be integrating the Combat System.
The issue of the rear, reactor/propulsion half of SSN-AUKUS being built in the UK has not yet been addressed or resolved in Australia.
SOME KEY QUESTIONS: Also where will the Australian front half and UK rear halfs, with 100s of whole-of-SSN systems needing to be tested, occur? Where will final joining/welding into a final complete SSN occur? and then retesting of systems? Will we fly in a large UK force of shipbuilding and UK RN experts? Will all this soak up our government's ALP Conference winning promise of "20,000 well paid [Australian] union jobs"? Australian unionists working in the UK?!
Yes, Australia (in WA and SA) learning to maintain SSNs will provide a useful preliminary learning curve that may assist the US and UK maintenance burden. Although this activity will need green lights from US and UK unions and shipyards.
Particularly the UK RN should be amenable to joint crewing and secondments on UK and Aus SSNs.
Regards Pete
Hi Pete,
ReplyDeleteDisaster averted onboard British nuclear submarine
"The heart of the incident lay in the failure of the main depth gauge during the submarine’s dive. This malfunction misleadingly indicated that the vessel was at a safer, shallower depth, whilst in reality, it continued to descend.
The seriousness of this situation was underscored by the fact that the submarine was nearing its “crush depth.” This term refers to a depth at which the water pressure is so immense that it can cause catastrophic structural failure to the vessel.
Remarkably, it was the engineers on board, whose primary role doesn’t include depth monitoring, who noticed the anomaly on a secondary gauge. This observant action averted what could have been the worst Royal Navy disaster since World War Two."
/Kjell
Pete
ReplyDeleteThe final assembly and welding work for any modular build SSN does not bother me as much. Australia, mainly via the mining industry but also from shipbuilding, has some very high quality welding capability. Specialist firms and people already exist here.
In fact the original Collins Class build saw a rear hull (2 sections) made in Sweden welded to the front (4 sections) made at ASC with the join done successfully in ASC. Ironically the main problem in Collins in the early days was the faulty construction on the rear sections made in Sweden (and the combat system). It was the first time Kockums hade made an SSK that big, and they got things wrong too. The later five boats with all 6 sections made in Australia had fewer problems. Overall Australian content was 70%.
Of course we must adopt RN sub safety standards in full before we start building SSN AUKUS. The design will rely on those standards being adhered to.
Where I get more nervous is in the supply of the nuclear reactor compartments for SSN AUKUS, which must come from UK. Rolls Royce has had a checkered history on the PWR2 in recent years. We assume PWR3 will be better, but we don’t know. Whereas we know the US S9G works very reliably with two decades in service since the Sea Wolfs.
I agree the RN will welcome RAN crews to resolve their own shortage, and that Barrow is also a union town, so for better or worse I doubt that will be a problem. Barrow and ASC have a bit in common.
The 20,000 SSN AUKUS jobs is political fiction. Barrow had 13,000 jobs while making an SSN every 2 years. How will ASC employ 20,000 making one SSN every 3 years, with major modules made in UK? I don’t believe it.
Thanks /Kjell at 11/23/2023 8:06 PM
ReplyDeleteWith this near catastrophic event occuring shortly after another UK submarine issue - all UK SSNs being stuck in port at the same time
...I hope Australia is making the right decision in assigning an excessive portion of our defence gold to the UK submarine industry.
Regards Pete
Hi Anonymous at 11/23/2023 9:05 PM
ReplyDeleteI don't know. With Australia possibly having the world's most inefficient submarine building industry at ASC, what 13,000 can do at Barrow, may translate, via our inefficiency multiplier, into the promise of "20,000 well paid union jobs" Inc. in Osborne.
Our submarine building industry, after all,
- is more a keep the South Australian economy viable scheme
- also for buying federal election votes
- also for union/left votes at ALP conferences
than a useful defence activity, per se.
After all if build locally to boost defence autonomy holds, then Australia show strive even more than Sweden (of Saab Draken, Viggen and Gripen fame) to build jet fighters in Australia.
Cheers Pete