UK Defence Forum

SKB wrote: ↑14 Mar 2023, 10:01 Thread name changed from SSN(R) to SSN-AUKUS.
And keep it RN related news please. Australia has it's own thread.

This is a three nation project. Cant see your suggestion of UK only working to be honest.

bobp wrote: ↑14 Mar 2023, 15:58

SKB wrote: ↑14 Mar 2023, 10:01 Thread name changed from SSN(R) to SSN-AUKUS.
And keep it RN related news please. Australia has it's own thread.

This is a three nation project. Cant see your suggestion of UK only working to be honest.

Yeah agree if only UK news then no need to change the header.

Its no longer UK centric its more akin to the F35 program partner nations and its level of commitment

would be very interesting to see how the design funding is cost shared 50-50?

The Eurofighter thread seems to be a good model to base this on. Primary focus being the UK but with discussion of the wider programme and partners.

Big win for Barrow if true

Jdam wrote: ↑15 Mar 2023, 11:21 Big win for Barrow if true

Massive win for BAE, possibly controversial in Australia but the biggest win is for Australia to get their technicians into Barrow.

Much like the Navantia involvement in FSS. Swallow hard and focus on the big picture.

It would be interesting to know if AUKUS will speed up Dreadnought and how many SSNs are going to be built concurrently. If built most efficiently it could be up to five if HMG really go for it.

If i were in government you would like to think they would want to expand this renaissance to incorporate the civil nuclear enterprise and RR SMR, massively increasing the tech so pool training and education and funding streams such a civil program would bring while increase energy security with lower emissions and lower industry/consumer bills. Not to mention office to sell civil refactors to others increasing trade.

Make the whole thing more efficient better for defence and better for everyone. Do they have the vision.

Australia also is providing a large some of money to the U.S to help with its production of the submarines and address maintenance backlogs part of the deal for them to sell subs they are short of by heavily increasing the production cycle of such
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 444515002/

I wonder if they will go down a split work share route for all 12-16 UK/AUS subs where barrow builds the rear and less sensitive sections are built in Australia and each nation will completing final assembly locally.
Future SSN designs will be well advanced by now when we know the reactor and common missile compartments they will be carrying, from renders it looks like a shortened Dreadnaught which makes you wonder how soon first steel will be cut.

It looks like £3bn of the £5bn defense uplift is being used to fund the submarine programmes, hopefully to speed up development on the future SSN program and £2bn to replace what has been sent to Ukraine.
I assume that is to fund this interim Archer purchase and any MLRS replacements, but the army isn't getting anything additional. So any MRVP purchases are still in the long grass.

Jdam wrote: ↑15 Mar 2023, 11:21

Big win for Barrow if true

Is there any official source I wonder, as it doesn’t seem to sync with the language used at the announcement.

It does when you consider there are US components in British reactors. Rolls-Royce seems pretty sure so I daresay they have the right of it.

file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/04.%20SSN-AUKUS%20fact%20sheet.pdf
This article states Australia's first submarine to be built and delivered in Australia early 2040s ,is Australia getting two in a short period of time or is something mixed up?

Mercator wrote: ↑16 Mar 2023, 04:13 It does when you consider there are US components in British reactors. Rolls-Royce seems pretty sure so I daresay they have the right of it.

There's no evidence of any US components in British nuclear reactors. Where are you getting this from?

This article states the first Australian sub to be built in Australia someone got their facts wrong
https://www.defence.gov.au/about/taskfo ... submarines

Note the careful wording around that statement

Australia will begin building its first SSN-AUKUS in Adelaide South Australia, by the end of this decade. Australia plans to deliver the first Australian-built SSN-AUKUS to the Royal Australian Navy in the early 2040s.

(My emphasis)

It doesn't completely preclude a UK-built submarine joining their fleet earlier than that

matt00773 wrote: ↑16 Mar 2023, 09:57

Mercator wrote: ↑16 Mar 2023, 04:13 It does when you consider there are US components in British reactors. Rolls-Royce seems pretty sure so I daresay they have the right of it.

There's no evidence of any US components in British nuclear reactors. Where are you getting this from?

maybe parts of the reactor is too specific. Somewhere in the propulsion plant more generally might be a better way to put it.

The USA will be supplying the missile compartments in the same way they produce them for the Dreadnoughts and highly likely to be suppling the command and control systems for it as well.

bobp wrote: ↑16 Mar 2023, 11:47 The USA will be supplying the missile compartments in the same way they produce them for the Dreadnoughts and highly likely to be supplying the command and control systems for it as well.

PWR3 is indeed based heavily on US technology, likely would only be exportable with US consent. But you still need to build it

And there's plenty flowing the other way

The Common Missile Compartments are made by Babcock in Rosyth for both Colobia and Dreadnought :

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... tric-boat/

The pump jet used from Ohio onwards is British technology - been used since the T boats, the US have only just adopted it
Ultra Electronics supply much of the clever / classified stuff

Yes I think there's been a lot of British submarine tech found its way over to the US through the years which they have adopted ,think the Americans were impressed with British sensor tech a few years back , when the reports they were blown away buy how far astute could keep Virginia class at bay on a training round ,one on one ,so I'm sure they took notice and even maybe took tech from that ? So works both ways

Mercator wrote: ↑16 Mar 2023, 10:34 maybe parts of the reactor is too specific. Somewhere in the propulsion plant more generally might be a better way to put it.

The design of the reactor maybe based on a US design but the use of that technology is different to it incorporating actual US made parts.

The U.K Hansard may need to be rechecked
The UK government has released a factsheet which includes the following, "Australia’s SSN-AUKUS submarines will be built at Australia’s future Submarine Construction Yard in Adelaide, South Australia – employing thousands of workers onsite at peak." The UK parliament Hansard record of the answer by the Minister shows as "Indeed, this Thursday, I am looking forward to going to Barrow with the Premier of South Australia—South Australia being the place where the first SSN-AUKUS for the Royal Australian Navy will be built.

inch wrote: ↑16 Mar 2023, 13:10 Yes I think there's been a lot of British submarine tech found its way over to the US through the years which they have adopted ,think the Americans were impressed with British sensor tech a few years back , when the reports they were blown away buy how far astute could keep Virginia class at bay on a training round ,one on one ,so I'm sure they took notice and even maybe took tech from that ? So works both ways

Yes in a broad sense we swapped our knowhow on noise reduction and quietening for the nuclear reactor tech.

Mercator wrote: ↑16 Mar 2023, 10:34

matt00773 wrote: ↑16 Mar 2023, 09:57

Mercator wrote: ↑16 Mar 2023, 04:13 It does when you consider there are US components in British reactors. Rolls-Royce seems pretty sure so I daresay they have the right of it.

There's no evidence of any US components in British nuclear reactors. Where are you getting this from?

maybe parts of the reactor is too specific. Somewhere in the propulsion plant more generally might be a better way to put it.

This is just someone's Twitter account and their personal viewpoint.

This whole "using US technology" thing is simply from a 1958 technology transfer for submarine knowhow - nuclear engine from US vs. stealth and sonar capability from UK. It would be like saying that every US jet engine has UK technology and components simply because the UK transferred this technology during WWII. It really does get rather tiresome.

No doubt the technology arrangements between US and UK allow for access to sensitive knowhow - and that is a good thing - but the UK as been designing and building nuclear reactors for submarines since the early 1960s.

SD67 wrote: ↑16 Mar 2023, 12:13
The pump jet used from Ohio onwards is British technology - been used since the T boats, the US have only just adopted it
Ultra Electronics supply much of the clever / classified stuff

Every pump-jet used on US submarines since Seawolf in the mid-80s (their first to use pump-jets) has been designed and built in UK - British have been doing submarine pump-jets since the late 60s. The Columbia and Dreadnought class SSBNs will have a newly designed turbo electric pump-jet designed in UK that will be completely silent - as opposed to previous steam turbine design. This design will also likely be used on SSN-AUKUS.

“Engage the silent drive!”