Australian Defence Force

News and discussion threads on defence in other parts of the world.
Mercator
Member
Posts: 669
Joined: 06 May 2015, 02:10
Contact:
Australia

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by Mercator »

hmm...

Image
(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/S20230185

Zeno
Member
Posts: 170
Joined: 12 Jun 2022, 02:24
Australia

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by Zeno »

I have seen that suggested before but does that not increase topweight and how many vls are suggested for this?

R686
Senior Member
Posts: 2322
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Australia

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by R686 »

tomuk wrote: 13 Feb 2023, 03:19 Looks like your buying British.


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.

wargame_insomniac
Senior Member
Posts: 1135
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by wargame_insomniac »

Currently, am I right that currently FIVE boats under construction at Barrow? The last two Astutes and first three Dreadnoughts?

serge750
Senior Member
Posts: 1068
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:34
United Kingdom

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by serge750 »

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..

inch
Senior Member
Posts: 1311
Joined: 27 May 2015, 21:35

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by inch »

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 ?
These users liked the author inch for the post (total 2):
serge750Mercator

wargame_insomniac
Senior Member
Posts: 1135
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by wargame_insomniac »

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 ?
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.

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

R686
Senior Member
Posts: 2322
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Australia

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by R686 »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 14 Feb 2023, 19:43
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 ?
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?
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.

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

User avatar
mrclark303
Donator
Posts: 813
Joined: 06 May 2015, 10:47
United Kingdom

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by mrclark303 »

R686 wrote: 15 Feb 2023, 06:33
wargame_insomniac wrote: 14 Feb 2023, 19:43
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 ?
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?
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.

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
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.

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_insomniacMercator

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by SW1 »

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.

inch
Senior Member
Posts: 1311
Joined: 27 May 2015, 21:35

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by inch »

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?

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by Scimitar54 »

Not likely,, but the possibility does exist for joint crewing of one or more Astute Class, over an extended period. :idea:
These users liked the author Scimitar54 for the post:
wargame_insomniac

inch
Senior Member
Posts: 1311
Joined: 27 May 2015, 21:35

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by inch »

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

Mercator
Member
Posts: 669
Joined: 06 May 2015, 02:10
Contact:
Australia

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by Mercator »

These users liked the author Mercator for the post (total 2):
R686TheLoneRanger

inch
Senior Member
Posts: 1311
Joined: 27 May 2015, 21:35

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by inch »

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

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7931
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by SKB »

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

User avatar
mrclark303
Donator
Posts: 813
Joined: 06 May 2015, 10:47
United Kingdom

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by mrclark303 »

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.
There's no chance whatever of this happening.

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

wargame_insomniac
Senior Member
Posts: 1135
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by wargame_insomniac »

mrclark303 wrote: 17 Feb 2023, 11:06
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.
There's no chance whatever of this happening.

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!
And in the short term that has the added benefit of helping out RN with their current struggle to crew all their boats.

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

R686
Senior Member
Posts: 2322
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Australia

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by R686 »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 17 Feb 2023, 18:12
mrclark303 wrote: 17 Feb 2023, 11:06
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.
There's no chance whatever of this happening.

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!
And in the short term that has the added benefit of helping out RN with their current struggle to crew all their boats.

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.
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's

It also would most likely mean that Ausgov will dump money into SSN(R) as they will still need a production of boats ASAP

User avatar
mrclark303
Donator
Posts: 813
Joined: 06 May 2015, 10:47
United Kingdom

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by mrclark303 »

R686 wrote: 17 Feb 2023, 20:06
wargame_insomniac wrote: 17 Feb 2023, 18:12
mrclark303 wrote: 17 Feb 2023, 11:06
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.
There's no chance whatever of this happening.

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!
And in the short term that has the added benefit of helping out RN with their current struggle to crew all their boats.

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.
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's

It also would most likely mean that Ausgov will dump money into SSN(R) as they will still need a production of boats ASAP
It simply can't happen, with only 7 Astutes the RN is already below critical mass, it can't let any head south.

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):
Mercatorwargame_insomniac

R686
Senior Member
Posts: 2322
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Australia

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by R686 »

If anyone is interested the unclassified scope of works for Collins class LOTE


https://www.defence.gov.au/sites/defaul ... 221221.pdf
These users liked the author R686 for the post (total 2):
ZenoMercator

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3224
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by Timmymagic »

mrclark303 wrote: 17 Feb 2023, 20:49 We might get a degree of mixed crewing and boats spending significant time in Australasian waters however.
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.

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1409
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by tomuk »

R686 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
That is some substantial work fitting a new main diesel and electric propulsion motor

User avatar
mrclark303
Donator
Posts: 813
Joined: 06 May 2015, 10:47
United Kingdom

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by mrclark303 »

Timmymagic wrote: 20 Feb 2023, 16:45
mrclark303 wrote: 17 Feb 2023, 20:49 We might get a degree of mixed crewing and boats spending significant time in Australasian waters however.
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.
They might have to lay a Collins up to free crew up for seed corn SSN training perhaps?
These users liked the author mrclark303 for the post:
Mercator

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Australian Defence Force

Post by SW1 »

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.”

Post Reply