Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

RAN's Collins class replacement

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • RAN's Collins class replacement

    Saw an article I thought you might find interesting...
    Nuclear subs buy floated Brendan Nicholson
    The Australian --- February 07, 2011


    AUSTRALIA could buy 10 of the latest nuclear attack submarines from the US for much less than it would cost to build 12 conventional replacements for the Collins-class boats, says the Kokoda Foundation think tank.

    Foundation founder Ross Babbage said the submarines could operate with US boats sharing an Australian naval base and they could be maintained by US nuclear experts.

    Dr Babbage, a member of the government's advisory panel for the 2009 Defence white paper, told The Australian 10 of the US Navy's new Virginia-class attack submarines could be bought and equipped for a total of $28 billion.

    While the white paper called for 12 new conventional subs, it gave no estimate of their likely cost. But Andrew Davies, of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, has calculated that they would cost about $36bn and that figure has not been challenged by the government.

    In the past, apart from political and social objections to nuclear power, key submarine experts have dismissed the idea of Australia opting for nuclear subs because of an expected high cost and because the nation has no nuclear industry to repair and maintain them.

    Dr Babbage said a dramatic step, such as taking this nuclear option, was necessary as evidence emerged of China's rapidly increasing military power.

    "Australia needs to consider purchasing 10-12 of the United States' latest nuclear powered attack submarines in order to balance, offset and deter the dramatic expansion of China's military capabilities," he said.

    "China's massive military build-up is clearly designed to force the US and its allies out of the western Pacific.

    "Key Australian security interests are being challenged."

    A combined force of Australian and US nuclear submarines sharing a base in Australia would send a very strong message to China's military leaders, he said.

    At the AUSMIN talks between Australian and US defence and foreign affairs ministers in Melbourne last year, the two governments agreed to a stronger American military presence in Australia, with US forces to share bases and store equipment here.

    Buying boats from a "hot" production line would greatly reduce the likelihood of delays, cost blowouts and problems with technology, Dr Babbage said.
    .
    .
    .

  • #2
    Unlikely... But if they can get past the Greens' No-Nukes issues, procuring a portion of a Virginia in the US might be a good option. They can build the rest at home in Australia, in keeping with how Virginias are built in the US.

    Quoting a portion of Wiki that describes how the Virginia's are built:
    "The Virginia class is built through an industrial arrangement designed to keep both GD Electric Boat and Northrop Grumman Newport News (the only two U.S. shipyards capable of building nuclear-powered vessels) in the submarine-building business. Under the present arrangement, the Newport News facility builds the stern, habitability and machinery spaces, torpedo room, sail and bow, while Electric Boat builds the engine room and control room. The facilities alternate work on the reactor plant as well as the final assembly, test, outfit and delivery.
    Last edited by JRT; 09 Feb 11,, 21:31.
    .
    .
    .

    Comment


    • #3
      Unlikely China is going to force the USN from any ocean.;)
      Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

      Comment


      • #4
        we aren't going to get nukes - no matter what the "noise" coming from interest groups
        Linkeden:
        http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
        http://cofda.wordpress.com/

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by gf0012-aust View Post
          we aren't going to get nukes - no matter what the "noise" coming from interest groups
          I expect you are right.
          But a couple of SSGNs and a dozen SSNs would be very nice to have.











          .
          .
          .
          .

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by JRT View Post
            I expect you are right.
            But a couple of SSGNs and a dozen SSNs would be very nice to have.
            .
            I'd bet my job, my house and my 3 cars on the fact that we won't get nuke subs.....

            If I had my "drothers" I'd love to see some flying the RAN ensign.... SSGN's though. not SSN's
            Linkeden:
            http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
            http://cofda.wordpress.com/

            Comment


            • #7
              Of course, at how many cruise missiles does a SSN transform into a SSGN?

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Skywatcher View Post
                Of course, at how many cruise missiles does a SSN transform into a SSGN?
                the issue is the launch process. eg Collins is an SSG but uses HLS/TLS. SSGN's (such as the plugged 688I's) use VLS.
                so there is no reason why a SSN could change loadouts and undertake (albeit limited) change in role
                however, the 4 modifed (plugged) 688I's obviously have a primary mission intent of undertaking precision strike, delamination, decapitation, dislocation, destruction of enemy targets of interest.

                SSN's kill other boats and ships as well as ISR. change the load out and they could do strike. it doesn't however play to their strengths.
                SSGN's strike land/inland and are not as useful for killing other boats or ships.

                all boats can do ISR
                Linkeden:
                http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
                http://cofda.wordpress.com/

                Comment


                • #9
                  Thanks. I was thinking of the Russian Yasen, which I have heard consistently as being classed as a SSN but apparently has VLS antiship missiles.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by gf0012-aust View Post
                    we aren't going to get nukes - no matter what the "noise" coming from interest groups
                    What do you think about getting 10 subs?

                    Is that even feasable for the RAN? Not just in manning, but I gained the impression operating said sub numbers of conventional propulsion was sold in regards to expansion of a certain economy or a certain player...

                    All which left me with the feeling it's a 'non-core' goal!
                    Ego Numquam

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Chunder View Post
                      What do you think about getting 10 subs?
                      Initially I thought that 12 was stretching the boundaries of reality. Now I'm not so sure

                      Originally posted by Chunder View Post
                      Is that even feasable for the RAN? Not just in manning, but I gained the impression operating said sub numbers of conventional propulsion was sold in regards to expansion of a certain economy or a certain player...

                      All which left me with the feeling it's a 'non-core' goal!
                      See prev. The decision for 12 was not done by RAN but by Govt. RAN is the only service not at establishment, and there is some significant potential to get more people in place. eg there is no shortage of ex RN/RAF wanting to shift over. The demand for pilots wanting to come over is outstripping spots, and there is an increasing interest by partners submariners. Govt is committed to the subs from what I can see, and I seriously now don't see the manning problem continuing on.

                      The main problem for the sub force is the govt decision to keep all submariners in the west. They don't have the same flexibility as the skimmers in rotating east, and naturally the wives, girlfriends, partners, kids, boyfriends, husbands etc get brassed off at being stuck in the nullah nullah for 3 year cycles. If the Govt pulls their head in and does actually pay attention to the 2030-2040 projections, they'll be splittng the sub force again into FBE/FBW and hey pronto - churn will go down, retention will go up.

                      If it was me I'd be building up Broome as a secondary port in the west and sending half the subs back to Sydney (or Townsville)
                      Linkeden:
                      http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
                      http://cofda.wordpress.com/

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Dreadnought View Post
                        Unlikely China is going to force the USN from any ocean.;)
                        An open question is... Will they someday try?
                        The war is in the trying.

                        .
                        .
                        .
                        .

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by JRT View Post
                          An open question is... Will they someday try?
                          The war is in the trying.

                          .
                          which great economic powers never went to war in their ascendancy.....
                          Linkeden:
                          http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
                          http://cofda.wordpress.com/

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Have they considered having nuke subs built in the UK, or even asking for some older USN or RN Nuke subs for training?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Archdude View Post
                              Have they considered having nuke subs built in the UK, or even asking for some older USN or RN Nuke subs for training?
                              No
                              No and No

                              why would RAN consider getting second hand nukes? it would absolutely screw up the rest of the training and sustainment budget for all the services.

                              the last thing RAN would do is look at 2nd hand nukes and considering that the USN and NAVSEA had to assist with Astute, the UK ship building industry is not out of the water yet (no pun intended)

                              UK shipbuilding was that parlous that US Dept Commerce provided a report to State Dept re lessons learnt from the Astute problems.
                              Linkeden:
                              http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
                              http://cofda.wordpress.com/

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X