Australian Defence Force

[Tempest414]

I do agree and the most important thing is eyes and radar OTH for the ships command

[abc123]

So, what do you think about speculations about ordering 4-6 intermediate/transitional submarines until SSNs arrive in 2040s?

The article mentions KSS-III Batch 2 or Barracudas.

Zero possibility. Australia will go for the Collins upgrade. The RAN knows that if they show the slightest interest in anything else its goodbye SSN's...

Yeah, it's a real danger.
On the other hand, Collins will be very old by then, that's risking lifes of their crews and operational availability will be miserable. And sincerely, Australia isn't really ready for nuclear boats, maybe it would be better to have a larger number of AIP boats.

[abc123]

yes, definitely a Collins upgrade. I think it's already partially approved, actually. Previously, under the older acquisition timetable, it was just a question of whether they would upgrade all of the Collins before the French SSK started to come online online. (I think the plan at one stage was to do only four). Now they obviously need to do all of them. It's years into the future though. We will have to wait for the entire SSN plan to be made public before any of those details get firmed up.

I definitly do think that they didn't really thought out whole that plan, beyond: We would like to have nuclear boats.
ESPECIALLY if they want to build them in Australia.

[Lord Jim]

Wanting to build the boats in Australia will kill the programme. All Australia should aim for if the final fitting out of the boats once they have been delivered, nothing more. Operating and maintaining these first SSNs may help with the manufacture of their successors, but it is asking too much to go from zero to manufacturing a state of the art SSN, even with the help of the OEM.

[R686]

Wanting to build the boats in Australia will kill the programme. All Australia should aim for if the final fitting out of the boats once they have been delivered, nothing more. Operating and maintaining these first SSNs may help with the manufacture of their successors, but it is asking too much to go from zero to manufacturing a state of the art SSN, even with the help of the OEM.

And who is doing that for us, certainly not the UK unless it wants to build another facility.

Building 90% of the boat with the reactor module being built in either the US/UK and shipped to Australia is more doable unless the UK is planning to increase its own fleet

[Mercator]

Yes, the UK won't build another line, but they might help Australia built one. Or the US might offer the same. It's hard to see Australian money going into building another line in either the US or the UK when we could do 70% of it here. It's just too hard politically, otherwise, and not much quicker either.

Who would you say is more motivated to build extra capacity in Australia? As much as I might prefer a UK design (and consequently, the UK crew philosophy), a lot of what I've read lately points towards the UK and the US merging the design of the next SSN. So is there much difference? I suspect the US wants another yard capable of refitting and repairing submarines quite like their own in the south-west Pacific. I feel like they would be more motivated to make that happen – much more so than the UK.

[Lord Jim]

Ok I stand corrected. It will be interesting to see how things turn out. Is there a theoretical date the first RAN SSN is due to be launched by chance?

[Mercator]

Ok I stand corrected. It will be interesting to see how things turn out. Is there a theoretical date the first RAN SSN is due to be launched by chance?

No one knows yet, mate. That's what everyone is waiting for. We'll know soon – probably less than six months, if the pre-election coalition forecast still holds. When we know how soon the first SSN will arrive, we will also know the scope of the life extension to the Collins class. If they somehow gain agreement to lease a bunch of SSNs within 10 years, the Collins class extension will probably be a bit more modest. Definitely diesels, batteries and the scope, but probably nothing more invasive for weapons launch tubes, etc. If it's new builds only, and no interim lease, then we are looking at least 10-15 years for the first boat and so Collins has to do more heavy lifting, hence a more substantial upgrade. Possibly.

So we wait. And speculate ourselves into a frenzy too, apparently.

[Mercator]

No formal corvette project exists, although it has emerged as one option being considered by the Albanese government’s defence strategic review. Sources said the corvettes are also gaining support within the navy, amid concerns over the navy’s patrol boat program...

Sources said one option being floated was for the Australian Border Force to be handed the six OPVs that are under construction and Luerssen be given a contract to supply corvettes for the navy.

Luerssen is already building the first of two corvettes for the Bulgarian navy, with sources saying the company could use this as a starting point for an Australian offering. The Bulgarian boats will be fitted with a 76mm gun, four anti-ship missiles and eight anti-aircraft missiles.

But if the government holds a tender process, other shipbuilders may be interested. TKMS is building four corvettes for the Israeli navy which carry 40 surface-to-air missiles and 16 anti-ship missiles...

Once again, just the usual anonymous sources and a bunch of cold calling by shipbuilders. Could be something, maybe nothing. And we have to wait for the conclusion of another review.

[R686]

No formal corvette project exists, although it has emerged as one option being considered by the Albanese government’s defence strategic review. Sources said the corvettes are also gaining support within the navy, amid concerns over the navy’s patrol boat program...

Sources said one option being floated was for the Australian Border Force to be handed the six OPVs that are under construction and Luerssen be given a contract to supply corvettes for the navy.

Luerssen is already building the first of two corvettes for the Bulgarian navy, with sources saying the company could use this as a starting point for an Australian offering. The Bulgarian boats will be fitted with a 76mm gun, four anti-ship missiles and eight anti-aircraft missiles.

But if the government holds a tender process, other shipbuilders may be interested. TKMS is building four corvettes for the Israeli navy which carry 40 surface-to-air missiles and 16 anti-ship missiles...

Once again, just the usual anonymous sources and a bunch of cold calling by shipbuilders. Could be something, maybe nothing. And we have to wait for the conclusion of another review.

I'm in two minds in regard to the small combatant fleet the idea has merit (Bathurst-class corvette anyone) while they can patrol and have multi role escort limited ASW to home waters freeing up the MFU for far away ops, but still think we are short of MFU

Ideally i would sell the Hobarts to NZ for cheap to keep them in the area then build buy from the South Korea an updated Sejong the Great class destroyer for maximum amount of VLS cells on limited number of ships (6?)

[abc123]

Wanting to build the boats in Australia will kill the programme. All Australia should aim for if the final fitting out of the boats once they have been delivered, nothing more. Operating and maintaining these first SSNs may help with the manufacture of their successors, but it is asking too much to go from zero to manufacturing a state of the art SSN, even with the help of the OEM.

And who is doing that for us, certainly not the UK unless it wants to build another facility.

Building 90% of the boat with the reactor module being built in either the US/UK and shipped to Australia is more doable unless the UK is planning to increase its own fleet

Australia built her last domesticly produced submarine allmost 20 years ago. And even then, it wasn't fully domesticly produced, and most definitly wasn't designed in Australia. If Australia did build another class of submarines after Collins in Australia, and after that designed and built another one fully in Australia- then I would agree that you are capable to build them on your own.
And nuclear subs are an order of magnitude harder to build than conventional.

[R686]

Wanting to build the boats in Australia will kill the programme. All Australia should aim for if the final fitting out of the boats once they have been delivered, nothing more. Operating and maintaining these first SSNs may help with the manufacture of their successors, but it is asking too much to go from zero to manufacturing a state of the art SSN, even with the help of the OEM.

And who is doing that for us, certainly not the UK unless it wants to build another facility.

Building 90% of the boat with the reactor module being built in either the US/UK and shipped to Australia is more doable unless the UK is planning to increase its own fleet

Australia built her last domesticly produced submarine allmost 20 years ago. And even then, it wasn't fully domesticly produced, and most definitly wasn't designed in Australia. If Australia did build another class of submarines after Collins in Australia, and after that designed and built another one fully in Australia- then I would agree that you are capable to build them on your own.
And nuclear subs are an order of magnitude harder to build than conventional.

No one is mentioning design by crikey that ship sailed under the Gillard government when funding for defence was cut. The original intention was Australian design with input from our allies.

we don’t even design our own MFU. Australian industry is able to build to print that’s the whole point

[Zeno]

In regards to Australia's involvement with the Collins class, originally Sweden the manufacturers of the original design were selected by the then defence minister Kim Beazely referring to them as a good as a good socialist country ,certainly the needs by the R.A.N were different to what a small coastal socialist country might need.
Certainly at the A.M.R.L there was very extensive redesign of the original design e.g large numbers of hull plate sections were tested at depth for exposure to explosive force , the U.S.N had a very heavy influence in providing aid as well
https://www.aph.gov.au/binaries/library ... 02rp03.pdf

[Mercator]

...Australian industry is able to build to print that’s the whole point

Yes. This.

Kind of the whole point of AUKUS was that we went to you guys and said "if you help us, can we do this?". Presumably the answer was yes.

Plenty of nations (and companies) have managed to restart dormant shipbuilding enterprises lately. There has even been quite a few cold submarine builds in the last decade or so. Of course, nuclear submarines are orders of magnitude harder, but presumably if you ask someone who is already doing it to let you borrow people to create a copy of their enterprise, it can be done. Slowly, and with buckets of money. If either the UK or the US (or both) don't agree to at least try, it obviously won't happen. I doubt they would make the commitment if they thought there was a high likelihood they would fail.

[abc123]

Wanting to build the boats in Australia will kill the programme. All Australia should aim for if the final fitting out of the boats once they have been delivered, nothing more. Operating and maintaining these first SSNs may help with the manufacture of their successors, but it is asking too much to go from zero to manufacturing a state of the art SSN, even with the help of the OEM.

And who is doing that for us, certainly not the UK unless it wants to build another facility.

Building 90% of the boat with the reactor module being built in either the US/UK and shipped to Australia is more doable unless the UK is planning to increase its own fleet

Australia built her last domesticly produced submarine allmost 20 years ago. And even then, it wasn't fully domesticly produced, and most definitly wasn't designed in Australia. If Australia did build another class of submarines after Collins in Australia, and after that designed and built another one fully in Australia- then I would agree that you are capable to build them on your own.
And nuclear subs are an order of magnitude harder to build than conventional.

No one is mentioning design by crikey that ship sailed under the Gillard government when funding for defence was cut. The original intention was Australian design with input from our allies.

we don’t even design our own MFU. Australian industry is able to build to print that’s the whole point

What's MFU?

Don't know. The best bet, and a real allied assistance, would be if they give you certain number of submarine building slots in their own shipyards. I would reccomend the US, because they have larger capacities for that and build subs continuosly. The UK isn't and has problems of adding even a single additional sub for themselves, even if they have the money.
Anything else, isn't real assistance, IMHO. It's just giving false hopes to Australia ( for political reasons, also to push France out ), for something that will last for decades, cost you zillions and you will probably not be happy with the end result.

[Mercator]

The whole point is that there isn't any extra capacity in the US.


If there isn't any capacity left in the US or the UK, then building a new production line is obviously going to happen, and since Australia will be paying for it (and making it permanent, continuous shipbuilding) it should be in Australia. We don't wish to design and we don't wish to get involved in building (or decommissioning) reactors. We are not even interested in building the combat system (although I think we want the capacity to modify a bit, or we did with SSKs). So just a bunch of metal bashing. We can probably do that and more than likely the guys who sit at the table at AUKUS meetings gave us the go-ahead to do so.

PS. MFU = Main Fleet Unit

[abc123]

The whole point is that there isn't any extra capacity in the US.


If there isn't any capacity left in the US or the UK, then building a new production line is obviously going to happen, and since Australia will be paying for it (and making it permanent, continuous shipbuilding) it should be in Australia. We don't wish to design and we don't wish to get involved in building (or decommissioning) reactors. We are not even interested in building the combat system (although I think we want the capacity to modify a bit, or we did with SSKs). So just a bunch of metal bashing. We can probably do that and more than likely the guys who sit at the table at AUKUS meetings gave us the go-ahead to do so.

PS. MFU = Main Fleet Unit

But why to have it based in Australia, even if Australia pays for it? US has larger and much better trained workforce, better supply chain, shorter lines of communications etc. Virtually everything is easier and cheaper to buy and deliver in US than from the US to Australia. If you have two shipyards that are nuclear-boat capable, it's easier to add a third one, than start from scratch in Australia, just to build 6 boats for Australia, and then close the yard- like what happened after Collins class. And I don't think that the US would order subs for the USN from Australia, either because of strategic uncertainity or because they are not entirely sure about quality. When you build such complex machines like SSNs, you want absolute control and certainity. Shipyard in Australia offers neither. Something like RN base in Faslane. It's allways one elections and referendum away in another country.

[tomuk]

The whole point is that there isn't any extra capacity in the US.


If there isn't any capacity left in the US or the UK, then building a new production line is obviously going to happen, and since Australia will be paying for it (and making it permanent, continuous shipbuilding) it should be in Australia. We don't wish to design and we don't wish to get involved in building (or decommissioning) reactors. We are not even interested in building the combat system (although I think we want the capacity to modify a bit, or we did with SSKs). So just a bunch of metal bashing. We can probably do that and more than likely the guys who sit at the table at AUKUS meetings gave us the go-ahead to do so.

PS. MFU = Main Fleet Unit

But why to have it based in Australia, even if Australia pays for it? US has larger and much better trained workforce, better supply chain, shorter lines of communications etc. Virtually everything is easier and cheaper to buy and deliver in US than from the US to Australia. If you have two shipyards that are nuclear-boat capable, it's easier to add a third one, than start from scratch in Australia, just to build 6 boats for Australia, and then close the yard- like what happened after Collins class. And I don't think that the US would order subs for the USN from Australia, either because of strategic uncertainity or because they are not entirely sure about quality. When you build such complex machines like SSNs, you want absolute control and certainity. Shipyard in Australia offers neither. Something like RN base in Faslane. It's allways one elections and referendum away in another country.

Because they want some Jobs in Australia and also don't want to be entirely reliant on whomever is in the Whitehouse and Senate\House of Reps. Have you ever heard of Sovereign capability?

[Zeno]

Would be easier to have Australia as part of a supply chain building some sections of a common hull not to dissimilar to the f35 build

[abc123]

The whole point is that there isn't any extra capacity in the US.


If there isn't any capacity left in the US or the UK, then building a new production line is obviously going to happen, and since Australia will be paying for it (and making it permanent, continuous shipbuilding) it should be in Australia. We don't wish to design and we don't wish to get involved in building (or decommissioning) reactors. We are not even interested in building the combat system (although I think we want the capacity to modify a bit, or we did with SSKs). So just a bunch of metal bashing. We can probably do that and more than likely the guys who sit at the table at AUKUS meetings gave us the go-ahead to do so.

PS. MFU = Main Fleet Unit

But why to have it based in Australia, even if Australia pays for it? US has larger and much better trained workforce, better supply chain, shorter lines of communications etc. Virtually everything is easier and cheaper to buy and deliver in US than from the US to Australia. If you have two shipyards that are nuclear-boat capable, it's easier to add a third one, than start from scratch in Australia, just to build 6 boats for Australia, and then close the yard- like what happened after Collins class. And I don't think that the US would order subs for the USN from Australia, either because of strategic uncertainity or because they are not entirely sure about quality. When you build such complex machines like SSNs, you want absolute control and certainity. Shipyard in Australia offers neither. Something like RN base in Faslane. It's allways one elections and referendum away in another country.

Because they want some Jobs in Australia and also don't want to be entirely reliant on whomever is in the Whitehouse and Senate\House of Reps. Have you ever heard of Sovereign capability?

Of course, but IMHO, they simply aren't capable for that. And anyway, if you can't design and build it on your own, you don't have the sovereign capability. Never mind where the welding is being made.

[Mercator]

Mate, we're not as dull as you think, and US shipyard workers aren't some mythical class of worker either. Time and money solve many problems. If the US is invested in reproducing their systematic way of building submarines, it can be done here as well.

With respect to sovereignty, no one should be under any delusions. If the US don't want us to succeed at this, it just won't happen. Best case, if we incrementally take on more of the design, build, reactor and combat system production (if we can be bothered), it would take 20 years and the ability to control the full nuclear fuel cycle to get there. Like the UK took a while to do everything. And even the UK is devolving some of that, if I understand the intentions for the next SSN correctly. Does the UK even make every part of their own SSN right now? How about the SSBN? There are various levels of sovereign risk that friends and allies can live with. If the UK can bear the risk, I don't see why we shouldn't. Keeping the shipyard in Australia does give us some measure of control, however. Not only does it give us jobs and control over what gets built – you can still make SSKs or some other ship if need be. What's the future of manned submarines anyway? It might be best to plan for the next big thing after this one, or even between.

Anyway I'm done. Bigger brains than ours will weigh in on this one.

[Halidon]

The whole point is that there isn't any extra capacity in the US.


If there isn't any capacity left in the US or the UK, then building a new production line is obviously going to happen, and since Australia will be paying for it (and making it permanent, continuous shipbuilding) it should be in Australia. We don't wish to design and we don't wish to get involved in building (or decommissioning) reactors. We are not even interested in building the combat system (although I think we want the capacity to modify a bit, or we did with SSKs). So just a bunch of metal bashing. We can probably do that and more than likely the guys who sit at the table at AUKUS meetings gave us the go-ahead to do so.

PS. MFU = Main Fleet Unit

I know I'm going to sound like a little bit of a crazy person saying this, but the maintenance backlog (effecting Boise) and new construction challenges are not one and the same even at the same yard. 764's not been left waiting by a lack of facilities or supply chain crunch (the replacement bow's essentially ready to go), but by a shortage of maintenance-focused skilled workers. Doing a major nuke yard availability takes specialized people to not only do it right but to follow SUBSAFE to the letter, and those workers at EB/NN have been tied up on refueling boomers. The ability of those yards to address the maintenance backlog has a lot less to do with the current pace of new construction and a lot more with Sequestration and the yards' owners attempting to "right size" their workforces.

This is my long-winded way of saying the option to build some (or all) the subs Oz wants in the US does exist, even with challenges. There are no "easy" choices when it comes to building nukes, though, and making the correct decision will require looking at all the options, challenges and all.

[Halidon]

The whole point is that there isn't any extra capacity in the US.


If there isn't any capacity left in the US or the UK, then building a new production line is obviously going to happen, and since Australia will be paying for it (and making it permanent, continuous shipbuilding) it should be in Australia. We don't wish to design and we don't wish to get involved in building (or decommissioning) reactors. We are not even interested in building the combat system (although I think we want the capacity to modify a bit, or we did with SSKs). So just a bunch of metal bashing. We can probably do that and more than likely the guys who sit at the table at AUKUS meetings gave us the go-ahead to do so.

PS. MFU = Main Fleet Unit

I know I'm going to sound like a little bit of a crazy person saying this, but the maintenance backlog (effecting Boise) and new construction challenges are not one and the same even at the same yard. 764's not been left waiting by a lack of facilities or supply chain crunch (the replacement bow's essentially ready to go), but by a shortage of maintenance-focused skilled workers. Doing a major nuke yard availability takes specialized people to not only do it right but to follow SUBSAFE to the letter, and those workers at EB/NN have been tied up on refueling boomers. The ability of those yards to address the maintenance backlog has a lot less to do with the current pace of new construction and a lot more with Sequestration and the yards' owners attempting to "right size" their workforces.

This is my long-winded way of saying the option to build some (or all) the subs Oz wants in the US does exist, even with challenges. There are no "easy" choices when it comes to building nukes, though, and making the correct decision will require looking at all the options, challenges and all.

[R686]

https://amp.theguardian.com/australia-n ... ed-by-navy

$48000 an hour to operate. I really like to see the NZDF comparison as they seem happy with them or they just sweeping it under the carpet

Edit

I found this but I think we can take it with a grain of salt

No.3 Squadron, which flies the 8 NH90, and 5 A109Ms costs taxpayers $229 million annually. According to its website "The Squadron is annually allocated approximately 1500 flying hours for the A109 and approximately 1700 flying hours for the NH90 to achieve the stated tasks". The Iroquois the NH90s replaced flew 2560 hours annually with 40% availability. According to estimates the NH90s were meant to cost $70m per annum to operate. But that was before the cost blow out (showing the reliabillty of airforce estimates). By contrast the A109 was estimated to cost $20m per annum. If we assume a NH90: A109M cost ratio of 4:1. The A109s cost taxpayers $45m per annum while the NH90s cost taxpayers $183m per annum. This yields an operating cost to taxpayers of $107,647 per flight hour for the NH90s and $30,000 a flight hour for the A109s.

https://sites.google.com/site/nzdef2030 ... /air-force

Also I can’t seem to nail down when this was published

[Mercator]

This is just interesting I guess: