On December 18, 2023 “Grandpa Jim” commented :
"For the life of me I still don't see Australia's need to build SSNs
.. they can barely man the six SSKs they have now
.. and all of this for what
.. three SSN subs ?
Its been ten years already and nothing has been accomplished.
I honestly believe Australia's defenses would be far better off if they chose to buy/build eight or nine Nagapasa [Type 209-1400] subs from South Korea, half dozen or so land based [Naval Strike Missile] NSM batteries, and add perhaps another 24 or so [F/A-18F] planes -- all of which would cost perhaps a fourth of what the SSNs would cost. Utter sillyness."
Pete Comment
1. If Australia goes the conventional submarine (SSK) route. Life Of Type Extending (LOTEing) the 6 Collins could keep the RAN and "20,000 well paid union jobs" going until 8 new SSKs (or SSBs) are built in Adelaide. The new ones need to be large (AIP, Lithium-ion Battery, VLS) submarines for our long range patrol requirements. These should be existing designs, ie:
- South Korean KSS-3s or
- German Dakar-class
Either of the above could launch ballistic/hypersonic missiles with warheads taking their proliferation lead from whatever South Korea and Japan are using by the late 2030s (ie. may well be nuclear warheads).
Additional conventional weapons for Australia include:
- land/sea launched Tomahawk missiles
- Ghost Bat UCAVs, and
- Anduril Ghost Shark or Cellula SeaWolf or a Melbourne company's (name eludes me?) XLUUVs/AUVs
++++++++++++
2. Going the SSN route may "unintentionally" pan out to 6 Virginia submarines. Hence the 3 to 5 already intended plus one more. The 6 Virginia route has the advantages of:
- total crewing is still high but not the unviable number required for 3 Virginias and 5 to 8 SSN-AUKUS
- just one type of SSN rather than an unviable situation of 2 types (Virginias and SSN-AUKUS)
- all built in the US. So Osborne cannot habitually double the cost and build time of SSN-AUKUS.
- The ALP National Conference's "20,000 well paid union jobs" can still be honoured by all the construction and repairs in Fleet Base West (with its new nuclear waste facility), construction and repairs in Adelaide and university education of 1,000s of nuclear submariners/shipbuilder-maintainers/technicians/scientists/administrators.
- I don't know if an East Coast SSN Base would be strategically necessary (given the speed "Perth base" SSNs can get to the East Coast) or even financially or politically viable.
- will draw Australia closer to the ally (the US) that Australia efficiently works with, in our Indian and Pacific oceans, the ally providing Australia with the nuclear umbrella. This is rather than an idealistic bonding with a past ally, the UK RN, that spends 90% of its time in the distant Atlantic Ocean and in Europe.
Time will tell.
5 comments:
South Korea seems intent on getting SSNs as well. Not sure if Australia would
be interested in getting involved in that program though:
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2023/11/south-korean-admiral-claims-that-nuclear-powered-submarines-are-necessary/
Note that some in Japan have been making noises about an SSN program too, but
not much has come of it:
https://www.australiandefence.com.au/defence/sea/is-japan-likely-to-acquire-nuclear-powered-submarines
Thank you for responding !! I agree with the "off the shelf" idea KSSIII or Dakars .. they could perhaps even be assembled in AUS like Indonesia did with the Nagapasa's. Building an SSN is one of the most complex, expensive and time consuming endeavors a nation can attempt .. the facilities needed to build & maintain such ships is incredible. The KSSIII can pretty much do whatever you want an SSN to do except for the unlimited distance.
Hi Grampa Jim at 12/26/2023 8:37 PM
I agree Australia building SSN-AUKUS's will be expensive, complex and lengthy.
The KSS-3s and Dakars will be primarily for launching nuclear tipped SLBMs.
KSS-3s may sit motionless for up to 5 weeks on the seafloor of the Yellow Sea or Sea of Japan to conserve fully submerged performance. If they move it might be just 4 knots for silence and also fully submerged endurance.
In addition to limited distance a KSS-3s will lack an SSNs or SSBN's multi-week 20+ knots sustained speed. A KSS-3 might last only 6 hours at 20 knots.
Regards Pete
Thank you Pete so very much .. your knowledge is priceless.
While the KSS3's are not nearly as capable as SSNs, they are
quite obtainable ... Korea could build six of them in 10-12
years time at about a billion or so apiece. By then, Korea
or even maybe Japan might be able to sell AUS the SSNs. Its
something that is do-able and affordable.
Even if the AUKUS-SSN project began yesterday, just getting
the facilities built and training done would take at least
a dozen years .. and another 6-7 years to complete one...
2042 roughly ? How long can the Collins' last ?
Thanks Grandpa Jim at 12/28/2023 6:02 AM
Australia Life of Type Extending (LOTEing) its 6 Collins will likely maintain Collins availability until 2042.
If Australia's AUKUS SSN plans fail to eventuate on political or increasing cost grounds then I think Australia should be guided by Mature Design and actually Available For Purchase as the most basic purchase criteria for new SSKs or SSNs. On those criteria SK and Japan have never built SSNs and are unlikely to build mature SSNs in under 30 years.
SK's (KSS-3s) and Japan's (Taigeis) are mature probably available SSKs for Australia's needs.
France's commissioned Barracuda SSNs may be an option in the 2040s if France wants to Make Them Available.
Regards Pete
Post a Comment