(from left) CEO Submarine Delivery Agency Sir Chris Gardner, KBE; Royal Navy Director Nuclear Technology Rear Admiral Tim Hodgson, CB, CBE, RN; Royal Navy Director Submarines Rear Admiral Simon Asquith CB OBE, RN and Head Nuclear Powered Submarine Capability Rear Admiral Matt Buckley, CSC, RAN, on Diamantina Pier during their visit to HMAS Stirling in Rockingham Western Australia.
Australian Defence Force
Re: Australian Defence Force
hmm...
(from left) CEO Submarine Delivery Agency Sir Chris Gardner, KBE; Royal Navy Director Nuclear Technology Rear Admiral Tim Hodgson, CB, CBE, RN; Royal Navy Director Submarines Rear Admiral Simon Asquith CB OBE, RN and Head Nuclear Powered Submarine Capability Rear Admiral Matt Buckley, CSC, RAN, on Diamantina Pier during their visit to HMAS Stirling in Rockingham Western Australia.
(from left) CEO Submarine Delivery Agency Sir Chris Gardner, KBE; Royal Navy Director Nuclear Technology Rear Admiral Tim Hodgson, CB, CBE, RN; Royal Navy Director Submarines Rear Admiral Simon Asquith CB OBE, RN and Head Nuclear Powered Submarine Capability Rear Admiral Matt Buckley, CSC, RAN, on Diamantina Pier during their visit to HMAS Stirling in Rockingham Western Australia.
HMAS Stirling hosted senior representatives from the Royal Navy including Royal Navy Director Submarines Rear Admiral Simon Asquith CB OBE, RN. The Royal Navy visitors engaged with key stakeholders while enjoying a tour of Collins Class Submarine HMAS Rankin and HMAS Stirling. read less
http://images.defence.gov.au/S20230185Re: Australian Defence Force
I have seen that suggested before but does that not increase topweight and how many vls are suggested for this?
Re: Australian Defence Force
Really you have the extra capacity to build Submarines for the RAN at Barrow-in Furness?
You guys' just construction on Warspite. it won't be the entire submarine nuclear reactor module yes but the rest of the boat...hardly
The current government is beholden to the unions to stay in power, and they want the work.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1144
- Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
Re: Australian Defence Force
Currently, am I right that currently FIVE boats under construction at Barrow? The last two Astutes and first three Dreadnoughts?
Re: Australian Defence Force
I couldn't read the article but did it give a time frame ? or is it just "in principle" we could build you one if & when you wanted the UK to ? ideally I would like it if another Astute could be built for Oz in between the SSBN order (maybe delay the 4th boat ) but been told the reactors not in production etc, maybe the SSNR 1st or 2nd could be for Oz if they can't get their facility together by then..
Re: Australian Defence Force
Yes I think it's just,yes we would be willing to build you a sub as say USA would be willing or France would be willing,but in reality we can't actually build you one ,well right now anyway ,and maybe the papers have just jumped on the willing bit as a we are going to build ,that's my take on it anyway but I could be wrong time will tell ,or even a 2billion deal would be UK building parts for a future Australian subs ?
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1144
- Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
Re: Australian Defence Force
I am assuming that we are talking of SSNR rather than Astute as Rolls Royce having already switched to the PWR3 nuclear reactors. So it is not start building now unless BAE Barrow can set up a 2nd build line alongside building the four Dreadnought SSBNs.inch wrote: ↑13 Feb 2023, 20:49 Yes I think it's just,yes we would be willing to build you a sub as say USA would be willing or France would be willing,but in reality we can't actually build you one ,well right now anyway ,and maybe the papers have just jumped on the willing bit as a we are going to build ,that's my take on it anyway but I could be wrong time will tell ,or even a 2billion deal would be UK building parts for a future Australian subs ?
You see many multi-ship building contracts around the world where the proportion of local content starts off lower but increases through the contract. I would be more than happy if BAE Barrow get some solid orders out of Aukus, with an increase in local Australian build percent over the contract. But I doubt that the Australian unions would see it that way. I just hope there is some realism for Australian unions - they struggled buildig the Collins class SSK, and now that is long finished, they want to start building SSN from scratch?
- These users liked the author wargame_insomniac for the post:
- Mercator
Re: Australian Defence Force
There is a bit of misconception in regard to the actual build of Collins class from Australian yards. It was the overseas yards that delivered substandard sections that had to be re-worked in Australian yards up until a point that.wargame_insomniac wrote: ↑14 Feb 2023, 19:43But I doubt that the Australian unions would see it that way. I just hope there is some realism for Australian unions - they struggled buildig the Collins class SSK, and now that is long finished, they want to start building SSN from scratch?inch wrote: ↑13 Feb 2023, 20:49 Yes I think it's just,yes we would be willing to build you a sub as say USA would be willing or France would be willing,but in reality we can't actually build you one ,well right now anyway ,and maybe the papers have just jumped on the willing bit as a we are going to build ,that's my take on it anyway but I could be wrong time will tell ,or even a 2billion deal would be UK building parts for a future Australian subs ?
Main problems were the RAN wanted a bespoke CMS which could not be delivered. The Hedemora
engine, used in all six Collins-class submarines still do this day have caused issues. then there were the prop issues all contractor supplied parts
Steel development, production and welding. Although based on a Swedish formula, the steel in the Collins class was locally developed and produced. It took the production and welding of high strength steel in Australia to new and higher levels. From a quality viewpoint the welding carried out by Australian welders at ASC had a rework rate of between 0.1 and 0.3 percent against an industry standard of 3%. Australian welders performed between 10 to 30 times better than their overseas counterparts.
https://navyhistory.org.au/a-retrospect ... ubmarines/
Everyone has teething problems with new design certainly the UK was no exception with HMS Astute.
https://www.nuclearinfo.org/article/ast ... hms-astute
- mrclark303
- Donator
- Posts: 846
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 10:47
Re: Australian Defence Force
All very true, but building an SSN with double the displacement, is an order of magnitude more complex, including building the nuclear back end, with zero experience, facilities or industrial base to supply it, is a complete non starter.R686 wrote: ↑15 Feb 2023, 06:33There is a bit of misconception in regard to the actual build of Collins class from Australian yards. It was the overseas yards that delivered substandard sections that had to be re-worked in Australian yards up until a point that.wargame_insomniac wrote: ↑14 Feb 2023, 19:43But I doubt that the Australian unions would see it that way. I just hope there is some realism for Australian unions - they struggled buildig the Collins class SSK, and now that is long finished, they want to start building SSN from scratch?inch wrote: ↑13 Feb 2023, 20:49 Yes I think it's just,yes we would be willing to build you a sub as say USA would be willing or France would be willing,but in reality we can't actually build you one ,well right now anyway ,and maybe the papers have just jumped on the willing bit as a we are going to build ,that's my take on it anyway but I could be wrong time will tell ,or even a 2billion deal would be UK building parts for a future Australian subs ?
Main problems were the RAN wanted a bespoke CMS which could not be delivered. The Hedemora
engine, used in all six Collins-class submarines still do this day have caused issues. then there were the prop issues all contractor supplied parts
Steel development, production and welding. Although based on a Swedish formula, the steel in the Collins class was locally developed and produced. It took the production and welding of high strength steel in Australia to new and higher levels. From a quality viewpoint the welding carried out by Australian welders at ASC had a rework rate of between 0.1 and 0.3 percent against an industry standard of 3%. Australian welders performed between 10 to 30 times better than their overseas counterparts.
https://navyhistory.org.au/a-retrospect ... ubmarines/
Everyone has teething problems with new design certainly the UK was no exception with HMS Astute.
https://www.nuclearinfo.org/article/ast ... hms-astute
I think Australia building the front end, with the UK ( or US) building the back end and final assembly in UK/ US is the way to go.
Perhaps with a good number of Australian personnel involved in final assembly.
There's no way they will ship the reactor compartment, due to the obvious security concerns and commissioning the compartment upon completion is extremely specialised work.
If it's based on the UK's SSNR, then the opportunity to jointly construct and assemble 16 or more boats far offsets any lack of Australian final assembly.
If that approach is taken, given BAE Systems depth of experience with SSN /SSBN design and development, then there's no reason it can't succeed. Though let's not kid ourselves, it will be 'extremely' expensive!
- These users liked the author mrclark303 for the post (total 2):
- wargame_insomniac • Mercator
Re: Australian Defence Force
I think Australia should assembly their own boats and leverage their own supply chain for whatever section they build.
Makes sense for the U.K. to assemble perhaps the first one to allow experience to be transferred as the build up to construction of their own. Allows them to get a boat early and allows perhaps a more efficient build schedule in barrow.
As I’ve said many times it’s how we should be building the surface fleet too and conducting bids.
Makes sense for the U.K. to assemble perhaps the first one to allow experience to be transferred as the build up to construction of their own. Allows them to get a boat early and allows perhaps a more efficient build schedule in barrow.
As I’ve said many times it’s how we should be building the surface fleet too and conducting bids.
Re: Australian Defence Force
Just a thought even tho just a crazy notion and I don't know how it would work but could Australia be about to get one of our last few build astute s subs and UK either build another for UK or only having 6 astute and then going straight onto the new UK sub design for the 7 th boat and future possible increase numbers,like I said just a wild hypothetical thrown in there for people?
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1714
- Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
Re: Australian Defence Force
Not likely,, but the possibility does exist for joint crewing of one or more Astute Class, over an extended period.
- These users liked the author Scimitar54 for the post:
- wargame_insomniac
Re: Australian Defence Force
Was just thinking outside the box,as they've already said they will definitely not lend Australia a astute,and we can't build another astute apart from the last 2 we are building,and program will be going straight onto next generation of subs for UK with new PR3 reactors, so can't build another astute,that's the only possible conceivable way I could see UK doing a 2 billion deal to get a submarine fast to Australia and UK just bringing forward the successor program for more submarines without disrupting the build program,if you see what I mean ,yes unlikely I agree but that is the only way possible in my head ,even if successor is going to be a the collaboration program going forwards ,yes it's ok I'll get my coat lol
Re: Australian Defence Force
- These users liked the author Mercator for the post (total 2):
- R686 • TheLoneRanger
Re: Australian Defence Force
Well I could see it happening in principle as we have given away to help Ukraine quite a lot of our kit lately which I agree with btw ,so government are willing to do it in my view.altho not the same I agree by any stretch ,not saying it will happen but I think government would be willing that's all,think the UK might not be able to build more astutes if do give any to Australia tho because of reactor PR2 shortage ,so would think would be full on fire to bring the SSNR onstream as soon as ,and something radical has to happen tbh for Australia to get nuke subs in the time frame or it just isn't going to happen and there ain't that many options really
Re: Australian Defence Force
It's a ridiculous story invented by delusional Aussie journalists which is pure fiction. You seriously think the UK is just going to hand over two brand new Astute-class subs to a nation that has zero experience of operating nuclear reactors or nuclear subs without the necessary training or facilities required? No chance.
- These users liked the author SKB for the post:
- Timmymagic
- mrclark303
- Donator
- Posts: 846
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 10:47
Re: Australian Defence Force
There's no chance whatever of this happening.SKB wrote: ↑17 Feb 2023, 10:52 It's a ridiculous story invented by delusional Aussie journalists which is pure fiction. You seriously think the UK is just going to hand over two brand new Astute-class subs to a nation that has zero experience of operating nuclear reactors or nuclear subs without the necessary training or facilities required? No chance.
I would however expect RAN personnel to be seconded to the RN ( and US Navy) in steadily increasing numbers over the next few years as the RAN gets to grips with challenges of operating and maintaining SSN's.
The RAN seed corn aspect of their SSN project has to start now, it's a horrendously daunting task of mind boggling proportions creating an SSN capability from nothing, that's for sure!
- These users liked the author mrclark303 for the post:
- wargame_insomniac
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1144
- Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
Re: Australian Defence Force
And in the short term that has the added benefit of helping out RN with their current struggle to crew all their boats.mrclark303 wrote: ↑17 Feb 2023, 11:06There's no chance whatever of this happening.SKB wrote: ↑17 Feb 2023, 10:52 It's a ridiculous story invented by delusional Aussie journalists which is pure fiction. You seriously think the UK is just going to hand over two brand new Astute-class subs to a nation that has zero experience of operating nuclear reactors or nuclear subs without the necessary training or facilities required? No chance.
I would however expect RAN personnel to be seconded to the RN ( and US Navy) in steadily increasing numbers over the next few years as the RAN gets to grips with challenges of operating and maintaining SSN's.
The RAN seed corn aspect of their SSN project has to start now, it's a horrendously daunting task of mind boggling proportions creating an SSN capability from nothing, that's for sure!
At the moment we could only crew six SSN, as when Trenchant and Talent had to be retired early to transfer their crew across to Anson before her launch.
- These users liked the author wargame_insomniac for the post:
- mrclark303
Re: Australian Defence Force
If the RAN do get the RN boats, then that also would most likely mean two Collins boats will not go through LOTE. And with builders' trials would not be commissioned into the RAN until the 2030'swargame_insomniac wrote: ↑17 Feb 2023, 18:12And in the short term that has the added benefit of helping out RN with their current struggle to crew all their boats.mrclark303 wrote: ↑17 Feb 2023, 11:06There's no chance whatever of this happening.SKB wrote: ↑17 Feb 2023, 10:52 It's a ridiculous story invented by delusional Aussie journalists which is pure fiction. You seriously think the UK is just going to hand over two brand new Astute-class subs to a nation that has zero experience of operating nuclear reactors or nuclear subs without the necessary training or facilities required? No chance.
I would however expect RAN personnel to be seconded to the RN ( and US Navy) in steadily increasing numbers over the next few years as the RAN gets to grips with challenges of operating and maintaining SSN's.
The RAN seed corn aspect of their SSN project has to start now, it's a horrendously daunting task of mind boggling proportions creating an SSN capability from nothing, that's for sure!
At the moment we could only crew six SSN, as when Trenchant and Talent had to be retired early to transfer their crew across to Anson before her launch.
It also would most likely mean that Ausgov will dump money into SSN(R) as they will still need a production of boats ASAP
- mrclark303
- Donator
- Posts: 846
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 10:47
Re: Australian Defence Force
It simply can't happen, with only 7 Astutes the RN is already below critical mass, it can't let any head south.R686 wrote: ↑17 Feb 2023, 20:06If the RAN do get the RN boats, then that also would most likely mean two Collins boats will not go through LOTE. And with builders' trials would not be commissioned into the RAN until the 2030'swargame_insomniac wrote: ↑17 Feb 2023, 18:12And in the short term that has the added benefit of helping out RN with their current struggle to crew all their boats.mrclark303 wrote: ↑17 Feb 2023, 11:06There's no chance whatever of this happening.SKB wrote: ↑17 Feb 2023, 10:52 It's a ridiculous story invented by delusional Aussie journalists which is pure fiction. You seriously think the UK is just going to hand over two brand new Astute-class subs to a nation that has zero experience of operating nuclear reactors or nuclear subs without the necessary training or facilities required? No chance.
I would however expect RAN personnel to be seconded to the RN ( and US Navy) in steadily increasing numbers over the next few years as the RAN gets to grips with challenges of operating and maintaining SSN's.
The RAN seed corn aspect of their SSN project has to start now, it's a horrendously daunting task of mind boggling proportions creating an SSN capability from nothing, that's for sure!
At the moment we could only crew six SSN, as when Trenchant and Talent had to be retired early to transfer their crew across to Anson before her launch.
It also would most likely mean that Ausgov will dump money into SSN(R) as they will still need a production of boats ASAP
We might get a degree of mixed crewing and boats spending significant time in Australasian waters however.
Perhaps even some RAN tasking, it would strengthen and deepen our newly rediscovered defence relationship with Australia and give their Government and the RAN some real hands on experience of the tasking capability and the unique aspects, that only an SSN fleet can deliver.
- These users liked the author mrclark303 for the post (total 2):
- Mercator • wargame_insomniac
Re: Australian Defence Force
If anyone is interested the unclassified scope of works for Collins class LOTE
https://www.defence.gov.au/sites/defaul ... 221221.pdf
https://www.defence.gov.au/sites/defaul ... 221221.pdf
-
- Donator
- Posts: 3235
- Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Re: Australian Defence Force
There are undoubtedly some RAN personnel going to be working aboard UK and US subs in the future...but their manning issues are every bit as bad, if not worse than ours.mrclark303 wrote: ↑17 Feb 2023, 20:49 We might get a degree of mixed crewing and boats spending significant time in Australasian waters however.
Re: Australian Defence Force
That is some substantial work fitting a new main diesel and electric propulsion motorR686 wrote: ↑19 Feb 2023, 07:44 If anyone is interested the unclassified scope of works for Collins class LOTE
https://www.defence.gov.au/sites/defaul ... 221221.pdf
- mrclark303
- Donator
- Posts: 846
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 10:47
Re: Australian Defence Force
They might have to lay a Collins up to free crew up for seed corn SSN training perhaps?Timmymagic wrote: ↑20 Feb 2023, 16:45There are undoubtedly some RAN personnel going to be working aboard UK and US subs in the future...but their manning issues are every bit as bad, if not worse than ours.mrclark303 wrote: ↑17 Feb 2023, 20:49 We might get a degree of mixed crewing and boats spending significant time in Australasian waters however.
- These users liked the author mrclark303 for the post:
- Mercator
Re: Australian Defence Force
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-n ... at-purpose
Australia’s security outlook has worsened substantially, warns the former defence official Paul Dibb, who carried out the landmark 1985-86 defence review for the then Hawke government. He believes the structure of the Australian defence force needs a significant overhaul to match the times.
In an interview with Guardian Australia, Dibb calls for the Australian defence force to focus on maritime strike capabilities. He also suggests a “serious historical and cultural change” for the army in this new environment. And he warns of the risk of “high-intensity conflict from a country starting with C and ending with A but isn’t Cambodia or Canada or Cuba”.
Key to this was ensuring an enemy would have substantial difficulty in crossing the sea and air gap. He called for ground forces to focus on light mobile operations in the north rather than forces involving armoured and mechanised operations and heavier artillery.
Dibb now advocates a policy of “deterrence by denial”, whereby Australia develops the capability to attack an adversary’s forces and any of the associated infrastructure directly threatening Australia. This would depend on the possession of highly credible accurate, long-range missile strike capabilities.
But Dibb continues: “The new role for army in my view demands a serious historical and cultural change in the army leadership and that is, they should be equipped with trucks that have highly precise long-range strike missiles on them. You deploy them when necessary, to the north of Australia, on the big C-17s.
The other role for army – equally novel and demanding – will be: why not give them the role for integrated air defence including missile air defence of our airfields, our ports, and our central military capabilities which should be hardened? That would be a dramatic change in role for the army.”
Australia’s security outlook has worsened substantially, warns the former defence official Paul Dibb, who carried out the landmark 1985-86 defence review for the then Hawke government. He believes the structure of the Australian defence force needs a significant overhaul to match the times.
In an interview with Guardian Australia, Dibb calls for the Australian defence force to focus on maritime strike capabilities. He also suggests a “serious historical and cultural change” for the army in this new environment. And he warns of the risk of “high-intensity conflict from a country starting with C and ending with A but isn’t Cambodia or Canada or Cuba”.
Key to this was ensuring an enemy would have substantial difficulty in crossing the sea and air gap. He called for ground forces to focus on light mobile operations in the north rather than forces involving armoured and mechanised operations and heavier artillery.
Dibb now advocates a policy of “deterrence by denial”, whereby Australia develops the capability to attack an adversary’s forces and any of the associated infrastructure directly threatening Australia. This would depend on the possession of highly credible accurate, long-range missile strike capabilities.
But Dibb continues: “The new role for army in my view demands a serious historical and cultural change in the army leadership and that is, they should be equipped with trucks that have highly precise long-range strike missiles on them. You deploy them when necessary, to the north of Australia, on the big C-17s.
The other role for army – equally novel and demanding – will be: why not give them the role for integrated air defence including missile air defence of our airfields, our ports, and our central military capabilities which should be hardened? That would be a dramatic change in role for the army.”