RAN's Collins class replacement

[Monash]

Always wondered what black magic was supposed to go into the Shortfin Barracuda that made it so damned expensive and also led to the French promising the Aussies that they wouldn't sell the same subs to anyone else. Looks like the Aussies weren't satisfied with whatever it was.

But does this new nuclear sub deal set a precedent now? The Russians and French can theoretically use this as justification to sell the Yasen or the Barracuda (nuclear) to any customer with deep enough pockets. Or the Chinese to sell their Shang class subs for that matter.

Problem is finding customers you can trust. Firstly they're expensive. Secondly as I noted previously when you sell your current or nex gen sub designs to a foreign power you also hand them all the top secret engineering advances that went into designing and building them in the first place. So the last thing you want is for your 'customer' to then let potentially hostile 3rd powers 'run a ruler over' them extracting all your hard won and expensive tech advantages in the process. The US and other 5 eye nations have worked together for decades so the necessary level of trust is there but the UK has already has SSNs which leaves Canada as the only other potential customer because NZ couldn't afford them - and doesn't want them anyway.

China? Who can the Chinese sell to that they trust (or who trusts them) to the level required. No-one. Russia? Could sell to China (and they may as well since the Chinese have stolen, me bad!, sorry reverse engineered, virtually every other piece of critical military technology they have. But who else do they 'trust'.

France could sell to the NATO powers (as could the UK) but outside of that who? (And even some of the newer members of NATO would be problematic). Plus most don't need the range given by SSNs since their primary areas of concern are much closer to home i.e. the Med, the Baltic and Eastern half of the North Atlantic etc. And that's assuming they even have governments willing to make such purchases to begin with. IMO most don't see like potential buyers. For a start the various green parties in Europe would go off their nut, (always fun to see mind you) but still it puts a major obstacles in the way of any such purchase.

[Bigfella]

Unlikely the nuke boats will cost more. France was taking you to the cleaners on price and was already charging you nuke boat prices. The delivered price per boat for the attack class was more than France paid for thier nuclear powered half sisters.

No one is talking about saving money, which is a pretty good indication that they don't expect to. At least, not on the current estimate. If this government thought there would be significant savings they would be trumpeting them as evidence of brilliant economic management.

My bet is that this could easily cost more than the current proposed spend. Happy to be wrong.

[Bigfella]

... so. it wasn't the current government that signed the deal?

You were right the first time. It WAS the same government. The EXACT same one.

The previous Labour government announced that we would purchase 12 submarines in 2009, but that was it. That government fell in 2013 and was replaced by the LNP. The LNP government announced France the winner of the contract in 2016. Following that they replaced the Prime Minister....twice...but same government. That same government under the CURRENT PM finally signed the contract in 2019.

[Chunder]

[DELETED!] reposted YouTube link mentioned earlier. https://youtu.be/g2vnciriE_Q

[Albany Rifles]

You were right the first time. It WAS the same government. The EXACT same one.

The previous Labour government announced that we would purchase 12 submarines in 2009, but that was it. That government fell in 2013 and was replaced by the LNP. The LNP government announced France the winner of the contract in 2016. Following that they replaced the Prime Minister....twice...but same government. That same government under the CURRENT PM finally signed the contract in 2019.

Pete, can you post that article from Politico Australia you posted on Facebook regarding this?

I think it would clear up a lot and answer some questions.

[Firestorm]

Problem is finding customers you can trust. Firstly they're expensive. Secondly as I noted previously when you sell your current or nex gen sub designs to a foreign power you also hand them all the top secret engineering advances that went into designing and building them in the first place. So the last thing you want is for your 'customer' to then let potentially hostile 3rd powers 'run a ruler over' them extracting all your hard won and expensive tech advantages in the process. The US and other 5 eye nations have worked together for decades so the necessary level of trust is there but the UK has already has SSNs which leaves Canada as the only other potential customer because NZ couldn't afford them - and doesn't want them anyway.

All these issues exist but I was saying that if you get past this the unwritten (or written?) taboo on selling nuke subs should be broken now. Countries do not have to sell their best tech. They rarely do. Soviets had export versions of everything they sold during the cold war. Or they could just sell an older model like an Akula II instead of the Yasen.

China? Who can the Chinese sell to that they trust (or who trusts them) to the level required. No-one. Russia? Could sell to China (and they may as well since the Chinese have stolen, me bad!, sorry reverse engineered, virtually every other piece of critical military technology they have. But who else do they 'trust'.

France could sell to the NATO powers (as could the UK) but outside of that who? (And even some of the newer members of NATO would be problematic). Plus most don't need the range given by SSNs since their primary areas of concern are much closer to home i.e. the Med, the Baltic and Eastern half of the North Atlantic etc. And that's assuming they even have governments willing to make such purchases to begin with. IMO most don't see like potential buyers. For a start the various green parties in Europe would go off their nut, (always fun to see mind you) but still it puts a major obstacles in the way of any such purchase.

The Chinese could sell to Pakistan if they can come up with the money. Range isn't the only advantage of an SSN over an SSK. I did not say there is a ready list of buyers available. Just that there is no restriction for others to do the same (if they feel it is in their interests) once this deal is through.

[Bigfella]

Pete, can you post that article from Politico Australia you posted on Facebook regarding this?

I think it would clear up a lot and answer some questions.

https://www.politico.eu/article/why-...ench-sub-deal/

[Monash]

..... Countries do not have to sell their best tech. They rarely do. Soviets had export versions of everything they sold during the cold war. Or they could just sell an older model like an Akula II instead of the Yasen.

F, just going to address this one point where (I think) a special circumstances may exist. What follows in just my uniformed opinion BTW.

Firstly SSNs (or any nuc sub for that matter) rank as one of the most expensive capital acquisitions a Defense Department can make. In short per unit they're always big ticket items.

Secondly unlike say jet aircraft my understanding is that when new deigns are built the nation building them usually designs a new reactor along with all the related pumping and turbine tech etc that mates with it. That then gets fitted into all new hulls of the class concerned and by default stays put for the vessel's entire lifespan i.e they can't be swapped out. (Well when I say 'can't' I mean not without huge expense! In fact it would probably be cheaper ( I think) to just buy an entirely new sub than pull an old one apart and install an entirely new drive chain.)

So all of that means any new SSN etc a nation sells to a foreign bidder (unlike say a fighter jet) is always going to have key parts of your 'best tech' installed permanently regardless of whether you like it or not, simply because designing an entirely separate (2nd tier power system) for installation in 'export' boats in would be astronomically expensive. You could install weapons and sensors etc that are 'less than your best" but you cant do so with the core technology.

If I'm right about the above then the only other option is selling off reconditioned older hulls. Which is a much less appeal option for most potential buyers unless you selling off the latest hulls from that class rather than the oldest, which are exactly the ones your almost certainly going to want to hold onto yourself anyway.

P.S. I'm perfectly happy to be proven wrong about the above in the event I'm wildly off tack! The above is just my impression gained from reading up on the topic over the years so perhaps one of our resident Defense expertise would like to comment.

[zraver]

The reactor vessels themselves are not very big and the more bulky supporting plumbing should all be fairly similar. The Vanguard SSBN and Astute SSN both use the same Rolls Royce PWR 2 reactor but the Vanguards are twice the size of the Astutes. The complexity in a sub is everything else

[Monash]

The reactor vessels themselves are not very big and the more bulky supporting plumbing should all be fairly similar. The Vanguard SSBN and Astute SSN both use the same Rolls Royce PWR 2 reactor but the Vanguards are twice the size of the Astutes. The complexity in a sub is everything else

Yes but I understand they were designed that way from the the beginning i.e it was always the 'plan' that the same reactors and 'plumbing' would be used. As far as I am aware (and I could definitely be wrong) that's not necessarily the case for Chinese and Russian Subs?

[zraver]

The Chinese don't have near as much experience they are just still in second generation territory.

A lot of Soviet classes had 2 reactors per boat often and different classes would share similar reactors. OK650 reactors are used in the Mike, Seirra, Papa and Typhoon classes. Their early VM reactors had a really bad rep. Lots of irradiated sailors, many buried in lead caskets.

Also, the Alpha class boats were equipped with molten metal reactors. It did not work. They all ended up bricking pier side when shore power could not provide enough juice to keep the metal molten. Reactor replacement was too expensive. Normally though when it's time to break up a sub/replace the reactor after a casualty you remove the entire reactor section of the sub and weld a new one in with the new reactor. The Russians have a lot of reactor compartment loaded with spent fuel waiting to be disposed of. The UK is apparently just abandoning thier retired boats pier side.

American reactors have a solid record and USN disposal procedures are the ideal. The latest generation of US/UK reactors are sealed for life. Built to last the entire life of the boat.

[Monash]

The Chinese don't have near as much experience they are just still in second generation territory.

A lot of Soviet classes had 2 reactors per boat often and different classes would share similar reactors. OK650 reactors are used in the Mike, Seirra, Papa and Typhoon classes. Their early VM reactors had a really bad rep. Lots of irradiated sailors, many buried in lead caskets.

Also, the Alpha class boats were equipped with molten metal reactors. It did not work. They all ended up bricking pier side when shore power could not provide enough juice to keep the metal molten. Reactor replacement was too expensive. Normally though when it's time to break up a sub/replace the reactor after a casualty you remove the entire reactor section of the sub and weld a new one in with the new reactor. The Russians have a lot of reactor compartment loaded with spent fuel waiting to be disposed of. The UK is apparently just abandoning thier retired boats pier side.

American reactors have a solid record and USN disposal procedures are the ideal. The latest generation of US/UK reactors are sealed for life. Built to last the entire life of the boat.

Pretty much what I knew from my reading. All of which which I think makes it harder for the Chinese and Russians to sell old boats to anyone. So that also means they'd have to sell boats with equipped with their latest tech which means they run the risks I alluded to earlier i.e. whom can they trust? . The French? They might be able to build second tier SSN's and sell them. Question is who to?

[Double Edge]

https://www.politico.eu/article/why-...ench-sub-deal/

This article summarises points i've already made in the thread.

What it does not answer is why Australia could not find a sensible way to exit the French deal ? that is the issue. No need for this diplomatic blowout.

i'd posted a clip from 2019 where people were advocating for an exit and calling it a bargain.

As an aside whatever exit costs quoted so far date back to 2019. The price might have increased since.

The way it looks is Australia was being held hostage by the French and it required the Lone Ranger & Tonto to ride in to the rescue !!!

Helpless is not the image Aussies want to project right now if you get what I mean

[Chunder]

What it does not answer is why Australia could not find a sensible way to exit the French deal ? that is the issue. No need for this diplomatic blowout.

All this frigging salt from the French will require huge redesigns of the world's submarine ballast and desal systems to cope.

Its patently absurd. Lets play it out.

Scott Morrison rings Macron and tells him 'look, its not working out, we're going to look elsewhere'.

Australia must then approach the yanks for tech they had been previously been recently rebuffed on. It must do so after publicly cancelling the contract with the French.

Is there any sane commentator that actually beleives the opposition wouldn't have a field day? Anyone?

Oh for the time to find the postings over on Def talk where industry insiders telling us in 2011 that a deal had to be signed THEN to avoid LOTE as an established industry fact. Christ France you had a golden egg, a govt with its back against the wall and you still stuffed it up, and are acting like this to boot.

[Double Edge]

Scott Morrison rings Macron and tells him 'look, its not working out, we're going to look elsewhere'.

Clauses in the contract allow for it

Australia must then approach the yanks for tech they had been previously been recently rebuffed on. It must do so after publicly cancelling the contract with the French.

I don't believe the Americans rebuffed you despite your commentators suggesting it. Unless you can show me otherwise.

They could not only recently change their mind. It was an option but not one that could be taken at the time for domestic reasons. This one is on you guys.

You don't have any leverage with the Americans if they know you want to quit the contract. I'm saying it makes no difference approaching the Americans after publicly quitting with the French.

Is there any sane commentator that actually beleives the opposition wouldn't have a field day? Anyone?

Yes they would have a field day.Which then bring in domestic politics as a motivation to do things how we saw.

But it would be done in parallel. Right. Worked out things with the French and announce the new deal with the US without blowing the French away.

Is that possible at all ?

There is another puzzle to figure out here.

Could not ask the US in 2016 presumably due to domestic opposition. But somehow that opposition isn't tenable in 2021 ?

Add to that the US was never a choice as they were not in the bidding process. Just Japan, Germany & France. No US.