RAN's Collins class replacement

[gf0012-aust]

Transistion from a UK dominated world to a US dominated one is the only peaceful rise I can think of.

I was thinking more of soft and hard competing for a sphere of influence - ie england, france, germany, sweden, russia

although both Gt Britain and the USA were starting to politically manouvre against each other at the close of the 19th century - and were most active (but subtle in delivery) at the Washington Treaty cycle.....

[zraver]

I was thinking more of soft and hard competing for a sphere of influence - ie england, france, germany, sweden, russia

although both Gt Britain and the USA were starting to politically manouvre against each other at the close of the 19th century - and were most active (but subtle in delivery) at the Washington Treaty cycle.....

Regardless, the rise of the US is the only time it happened peacefully. Though perhaps in a thousand years they will see the UK/US as more of a Roman/Byzantine type thing and so not a transition at all.

[JRT]

Before anybody starts up about necropost zombies rising from the dead, please consider that the subject matter is evolving slowly, is far from dead, and attached below is some on-topic news.

Australia leaning towards buying Soryu-class subs

Julian Kerr
11 September 2014
Sydney - IHS Jane's Navy International

Key Points:

- Australian officials are leaning towards replacing the Collins-class submarine fleet with Soryu-class boats bought from Japan

- The purchase would end submarine construction in Australia

- The opposition Labor Party has said it would cancel the deal if it won the 2016 general election

Despite political opposition and apparently contradictory ministerial statements, it appears increasingly likely that Australia will replace its Collins-class submarines with 4,200-tonne Soryu-class submarines built in Japan.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]37939[/ATTACH]

Australia's interest in the Soryu class has gained momentum following the signing of a bilateral defence co-operation agreement with Japan earlier this year. (Japanese Ministry of Defense)

Amid intense media speculation about such an agreement, Prime Minister Tony Abbott said on 8 September that a decision on replacing the six Australian-built, 3,400-tonne Collins-class submarines under Project Sea 1000 would be based on capability, value for money, and regional rather than industrial policy.

To read the full article, Client Login
(116 of 527 words)

[Bigfella]

It is a hot topic right now. Heavy industry has been disappearing in places like Sth Australia & Victoria. In both places auto manufacturing will be dead within a few years due to the withdrawal of government subsidies. The loss of ship building as well is highly contentious.

[surfgun]

Spanish built surface ships such as the new air defense destroyers and LHD's, now it would appear Japanese submarines will be built for Oz. So it would appear Australia is out of building any warship over 3,500 tons?

[gf0012-aust]

I wouldn't be getting too excited at any of the chat re future subs.

99% of the commentary by journos is reconstituted pap and they often have no idea of what the critical capability is that has been sought after

I'd add that I've been pushing for RAN to partner with the Japanese since the StrategyPage days of 8 years ago - so within the Defence community this is not a new idea.

some of the journo reports and claims are just trite nonsense

[JRT]

Before anybody starts up about necropost zombies rising from the dead, please consider that the subject matter is evolving slowly, is far from dead, and attached below is some on-topic news.

Adding to that, here is a recent YouTube video on the Future Submarine Program, the Attack class, the Collins class replacement.

Fleecing the Future Submarine Program
published by Sub Brief
premiered on 08 March 2021

"How a cabal of Politicians, Lobbyist, and a Sub Officer fleeced Australia out of Billions."

.

[JRT]

Naval Group CEO on Australia's Attack-class submarine program

Naval News
09 April 2021

Interview with Pierre Eric Pommellet, Naval Group's chairman and CEO, about Australia's Attack-class submarine program.
______________________________________

Pierre Eric Pommellet visited Australia in February and met with Commonwealth officials for talks on matters including the joint 60 per cent agreement. Australia's Future Submarine Program reached a major milestone with the conclusion of negotiations between the Department of Defence and Naval Group for the amendments to the Strategic Partnering Agreement. This will see Naval Group’s commitment to spend at least 60 percent of the contract value in Australia over the life of the Program reflected formally in the Agreement, supporting Australian jobs in the defence industry.

The amendments ensure that the achievement of Naval Group’s commitment is now a contractual obligation, measured during the course of the Program, driving Australian industry involvement as the Attack class submarines are designed and delivered.

Construction on the first ship-in-class (the future HMAS Attack) is set to start in 2023 and its delivery should take place in the early 2030ies. The next units will follow with a cadence of one submarine every two years.

.

...

[JRT]

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

It seems that I should have accepted that wager (but did not).

By recent news reports, it seems that Australia's plans for replacing Collins boats with French diesel attack boats might be in the crapper, and RAN might now be getting nuclear powered submarines, in close collaboration with US and UK (aka "AUUKUS"). It will be very interesting to see what comes from this.

Good news if true.

[JRT]

https://news.usni.org/2021/09/15/aus...t-with-u-s-u-k

(Note that the acronym is reported in the US press as AUKUS. Australian press reported it earlier as AUUKUS.)

Australia to Pursue Nuclear Attack Subs in New Agreement with U.S., U.K.

By: Mallory Shelbourne and Sam LaGrone
15 September 2021 5:04 PM

The U.S. plans to share its submarine nuclear propulsion technology with a top ally in the Indo-Pacific, as countries in the region look for ways to hedge against China.

As part of a new trilateral security arrangement between the U.S., U.K. and Australia – known as AUKUS – the U.S. and U.K. will support an Australian push to purchase nuclear-powered attack submarines for its fleet.

Nuclear-powered submarines are largely regarded as the most survivable weapon against the Chinese fleet in the South China Sea, where U.S. Navy and Marine Corps officials expect a potential conflict with Beijing could occur. Nuclear-powered boats can travel much longer distances and operate underwater for many times longer than converntionally-powerd submarines, making them ideal for the vast distances in the Indo-Pacific.

“Our first initiative as part of AUKUS is . . . a shared ambition to support Australia’s desire to acquire nuclear-powered submarines and we will launch a trilateral effort of 18 months, which will involve teams – technical and strategic and navy teams from all three countries – to identify the optimal pathway of delivery of this capability,” a senior Biden administration official told reporters today, noting that the U.S. has only ever shared this technology with the U.K. in 1958.

“We are adding – this is a unique set of circumstances – Australia to that deep partnership to explore the best ways for Australia to pursue nuclear-powered submarines. I do want to underscore that this will give Australia the capability for their submarines . . . to deploy for longer periods,” the official continued. “They’re quieter. They’re much more capable. They will allow us to sustain and improve deterrence across the Indo-Pacific. As part of that, we will work closely on efforts to ensure the best practices with respect to nuclear stewardship. I think you will see much deeper interoperability among our navies and our nuclear infrastructure people to ensure that our countries are working very closely together.”

The willingness to share the technology with Australia amounts to an initial step in Canberra’s push to buy nuclear-powered boats. It’s unclear whether Australia – which does not currently have a shipyard that can build or maintain nuclear-powered vessels – would build the boats itself or buy them from the U.S. or U.K. Building and maintaining nuclear-powered attack boats would require billions of dollars and years of investment in infrastructure, USNI News understands.

A retired U.S. submarine admiral told USNI News on Wednesday that sharing the propulsion technology with Australia amounts to a shift in how the U.S. sees both the technology and its partnership with Australia.

“The Australian Navy going nuclear will give them the legs to be viable in areas of the Western Pacific,” the retired admiral told USNI News.
“This is a message to China. China economically punished Australia and this could be a response to that.”

The agreement and Australia’s acquisition of nuclear-powered boats could also increase U.S. presence in the region if U.S. Navy attack boats can be maintained from Australia, the admiral said.

“If you get into an agreement and you have that option you can look at increasing presence.
Maintenance was a big factor in limiting [our deployments],” the admiral said.

The new AUKUS security agreement also includes broader technology sharing between the three countries and ongoing dialogue between defense and diplomatic officials, the senior administration official said.


Royal Australian Navy Collins-class submarine HMAS Sheean (SSG-77) near the Sydney Opera House. RAN Photo

The arrangement will include initiatives “to spur cooperation across many new and emerging arenas: cyber, AI – particularly applied AI – quantum technologies and some undersea capabilities as well. We’ll also work to sustain and deepen information and technology sharing and I think you’re going to see a much more dedicated effort to pursue integration of security and defense-related science, technology, and industrial bases and supply chains,” the official said. “This will be a sustained effort over many years to see how we can marry and merge some of our independent and individual capabilities into greater trilateral engagement as we go forward.”

The announcement comes as the Biden administration has repeatedly emphasized its focus on the Indo-Pacific region, particularly China, which President Biden cited when defending his decision to withdraw from Afghanistan.

“We undertake this effort as part of a larger constellation of steps, including stronger bilateral partnerships with our traditional security partners in Asia – Japan, South Korea, Thailand, the Philippines – and also stronger engagement with new partners like India, Vietnam and new formations like the Quad,” the official said of the new security agreement.

A French company in 2016 won the award to to replace the Royal Australian Navy’s Collins-class boats with a conventional version of France’s nuclear-powered Barracuda-class submarines, USNI News previously reported. That plan is getting axed so Australia can pursue the nuclear-powered boats, the Australia Broadcasting Corporation reported today.

Australia had planned to build the new class of conventional submarines at a shipyard in South Australia.

.

[Monash]

https://news.usni.org/2021/09/15/aus...t-with-u-s-u-k

(Note that the acronym is reported in the US press as AUKUS. Australian press reported it earlier as AUUKUS.)

Beat me to it! Just saw the news. Combined with the new security pact this is a historic announcement, probably the most significant change in defense policy and procurement in decades. The fact Cabinet brought in the Opposition leader and his Shadow Defense Minister were briefed in advance tells you how important it is. There's long been a general consensus between the DoD and all major parties that Australian should avoid procuring nuclear submarines.

I was talking a couple of years ago with a recently retired RAN Commodore at a party and this was one of the topics we discussed at length. Anyway he stated that inside the RAN the chief concern (once the technology had matured) was that the Navy lacked the talent pool of reactor technicians and engineers needed to operations fleet of SSNs (well at least one large enough to be useful). And the training your need takes years to master, all of which makes any swift transition from a conventionally powered fleet to a nuclear one very expensive in terms of training & manpower. I didn't have and still don't have any reason to disbelieve him so the only way I can see us doing this is by borrowing the trained personnel from the US and UK navies and cross training our own crews on both countries ships.

So if, as this seems likely this goes ahead expect to hear a lot of Aussie accents on British and US SSNs in the near future. (Prepare your crews to be bored out of their skulls with talk about Rugby League and Aussie Rules!) And of course the reverse is true - how much talk about American football and cricket can a man take!

The other thing of course is that I can think of another major geopolitical power to the north that is going to be right royally pissed off. By which of course I mean the French!

They've just been told their contract for the construction of our new boats is toast. The Navy's been grumbling to the Government and in public about 'problems' with the contract almost from the start and its been a lot worse lately. I would love to be a fly the wall to find out what exactly the issues were and how the French reacted when they were told! (Hopefully we been sending discreet signals for a while via the proper channels that the deal was being 'reconsidered'. No need to aggravate a major partner international unnecessarily, well no more than was necessary under the circumstances anyway. The only question about the old contract now is what is it going to cost us to pull out of the deal.

[Chunder]

I've never applied for membership on deftalk forums, they have good moderation and quality input to help form opinions about this.

This is a huge surprise, and there are many questions I look forward to learning from. Though fresh news - it seems on the face value the trilateral announcement and involvement of the opposition in briefings leaves little doubt they're serious.

Another unexpected surprise is the public reaction - I thought it would be a lot more negative than it is so far to be honest - all eyes are on the ALP, thenceforth the conversation will be shut politically, which is really what we desperately need.

Of course a huge shout out and thanks to the Chinese Communist Party for being such bad actors of late to make it all politically palatable, something that was previously thought not possible.

[tbm3fan]

I was very pleasantly surprised upon hearing of this yesterday considering that the we closely guard our nuclear technology when it comes to subs. If I were to go up against Chinese ASW skills I'd much rather have a quiet SSN. As for the Chinese they can scream all they want but what did they expect when trying to muscle their way into the SCS and monopolize it for themselves. I'm sure the French aren't happy but they have to realize this is the better road for all concerned about this region and possible Chinese hegemony.

[Monash]

Well it's official, there was apparently no discrete signalling to the French about the Australian Government's concerns over the project. Apparently our PM had a meeting with the French President a few months ago during which he acted as though everything was fine after just having got provisional agreement to the new treaty from the British Government during meetings only the day or so before! The French President has now issued an angry 'sacre bleu'. I wonder what, if any official repercussions there will be?

Oh and for some reason the Chinese weren't impressed either.

[Bigfella]

I did love the French whining about a 'stab in the back' and how we were 'allies'. From the nation whose parliament actually voted to make itself a Nazi pet. From the nation that ostentatiously pulled out of NATO. From the nation that tested nuclear weapons in the Sth Pacific against the express wishes of its 'allies' and actually blew up a Greenpeace ship in Auckland to stop protests about it.

Fuck. Right. Off.

We have no obligation to prop up the French shipbuilding industry. We have already paid them billions and we'll pay whatever we are required to as compensation. We will end up with better subs and strengthen an actual alliance.