Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

RAN's Collins class replacement

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

  • #61
    Originally posted by JRT View Post

    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.
    For the last few days i've been hearing this AUUKUS ruckus and wondering eh ?? what have the kiwis gone and done now ??

    Excellent news for the region. Adds to deterrence. A welcome bolt from the blue. Who could have seen this coming ?

    The Aussies have been sticking their necks out thanks to ScoMo's leadership and i see this as due support for an ally in need.

    Still a lot of questions up in the air as to when those subs come on line.

    Aussies had the choice to buy Japanese subs which they would receive made in Japan in about 5 years. They decided they wanted to build them instead. No doubt domestic politics at play. South Australia would have won the contract for the yard.

    Enter the French but now the timeline stretched out to the mid 2050 or how long it would take to have the last of the eight subs they ordered.

    The costs only seem to balloon with time. Lots of critical commentary over how they went about this sub program.

    They sorely need something operational in the marine space within the next ten years at least.

    Where's the fuel coming from ? would be great if they could make it themselves.

    A nuclear Australia is potentially a bigger PITA for China than Kim is to us.

    If not now then let them get to a screw driver's turn away.

    Originally posted by JRT View Post
    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.
    An awfully large space to oversee !!! A sixth of the planet's surface ?

    Originally posted by JRT View Post
    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.
    For all the bashing Biden has received about going soft on China since entering office i see his moves to date for the Indo pacific as being positive.

    Quad meets later this month. Second apex meet within a year. The last in Feb was virtual, the next will be in person.
    Last edited by Double Edge; 17 Sep 21,, 17:56.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
      Still a lot of questions up in the air as to when those subs come on line.

      Aussies had the choice to buy Japanese subs which they would receive made in Japan in about 5 years. They decided they wanted to build them instead.

      Enter the French but now the timeline stretched out to the mid 2050 or how long it would take to have the last of the eight subs they ordered.

      The costs only seem to balloon with time. Lots of critical commentary over how they went about this sub program.

      They sorely need something operational in the marine space within the next ten years at least.

      Where's the fuel coming from ? would be great if they could make that themselves.
      My wild guess is that they will acquire something very similar to the Virginia block VI, with the Virginia payload module plug behind the sail, maybe also some without that plug, or with differences in plugs among the subs in their fleet. VPM plug adds cost, but also adds four more large vertical tubes (there are two forward of sail, six total) and increased capacity for SOF, spooky ops and payloads, etc.

      The SG9 reactor doesn't need refueling for 33 years, so if they decide to refuel and extend much beyond that, they have time to figure that out. I don't think that they need domestic source of supply for fuel.

      One of the capabilities that I expect that Australia wants to acquire is submarine vertical launched intermediate range hypersonic missile with conventional warhead. I am not referring to Trident. To use the new US missile and associated systems will require using similar compatible vertical tubes, launcher, tube interface, missile interface, fire control and navigation systems, software updates, support and test systems, training systems, logistical tail, etc. It would be much less expensive to share US engineering and development. The vertical tube geometry has large effect in submarine cross-section, the large tubes forcing a large cross-sectional area, which increases drag, which requires more propulsive power for adequately high transit speeds, more work and energy over the interval. That increased requirement for power and energy points to nuclear propulsion, which also brings other advantages.

      Timelines might have shifted, but my understanding is that the US is going to begin constructing Virginia block VI in 2024. Virginia blocks are largely evolutionary, not so much revolutionary, so much of the design and manufacturing planning is already well understood. It will take some time for Australia to build up their SSN industrial base, but they can begin doing that now without major delay, and I think that the timing in that coincides with building something similar to Virginia block VI subs.
      Last edited by JRT; 17 Sep 21,, 17:03.
      .
      .
      .

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Monash View Post
        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.
        It hits at France's role in the Indo pacific. There will be fallout for the India-France-Australia trilat. It will fold.

        Allies undoing each other dilutes the anti-China effort

        The part i'm unclear on is whether and if so, Why the US & UK had an issue with Australia acquiring French subs ?

        Some of my commentators are saying it was US/UK pressure that forced the change. Well, if they were offering a better option and the Aussie sub program was the mess it was then it would not require much pressure.

        The option of getting nuke expertise was not there a decade ago and for good reasons considering Rudd was in charge back then.

        Originally posted by Monash View Post
        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.
        Taking the opposition into confidence is necessary and helps ensure continuity should another party take charge after the election next year.

        Aussies go to the polls every 3 years. Whether ScoMo can hold on. Remains to be seen what the composition of the next Aussie parliament will be like.

        3 year terms is so damn short. This is barring PM's getting rolled or govt getting toppled in the mean time.
        Last edited by Double Edge; 17 Sep 21,, 17:43.

        Comment


        • #64
          My wild guess is that the new missile system at links below is a big consideration in this. And so likewise having a submarine compatible with this missile system, the associated systems, support, etc.

          https://www.ssp.navy.mil/six_lines_of_business/cps.html

          See pages 21-23 at the link:
          https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R41464

          https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11459
          Last edited by JRT; 17 Sep 21,, 18:13.
          .
          .
          .

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Monash View Post
            Combined with the new security pact this is a historic announcement, probably the most significant change in defense policy and procurement in decades.
            That is not an overstatement.
            .
            .
            .

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Double Edge View Post

              It hits at France's role in the Indo pacific. There will be fallout for the India-France-Australia trilat. It will fold.

              Allies undoing each other dilutes the anti-China effort

              The part i'm unclear on is whether and if so, Why the US & UK had an issue with Australia acquiring French subs ?
              Considering that Australia, India, and Japan are meeting with Biden at the White House next week would seem to send a no-nonsense message to China about the Indo-Pacific. France, OTOH, always seems to want to find the cautious middle ground and not upset the Chinese. Play both sides so to speak. The last time they did that it didn't turn out so well for them but the UK has learned their lesson.

              Comment


              • #67
                I've been reading Aussie news so I have questions. I understand how the original $50B contract turned into a $90B contract but not why. I can't see cost overruns as the issue since nothing had been started. Don't see anything about changes requested by Australia. I do understand that your first sub wasn't due until 2035 and the rest after. Why the French can't see the glaring problem with this is beyond me along with the advantage of stealth. I assume money overrides practical reasons here.

                Second question is about what sub-contractors are in Australia relying on this French deal? Although 2035 is 13.5 years away. Have they been paid anything or are they gearing up and now wondering if what they have spent is money down the drain? Still, the fact that you will actually be building your nuclear OWN subs should be seen as monumental here for your defense industry. To me this is the big time versus conventional subs not to mention the other technology you will be gaining. About time in my mind as Australia has been great friends and allies for a long time.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by tbm3fan View Post

                  Considering that Australia, India, and Japan are meeting with Biden at the White House next week would seem to send a no-nonsense message to China about the Indo-Pacific. France, OTOH, always seems to want to find the cautious middle ground and not upset the Chinese. Play both sides so to speak.
                  China is trying to push the French out of Caledonia so the French know what they are up against.

                  The bulk of the French EEZ is in the Pacific.

                  French AUS keeping good relations is important in the larger scheme of things.

                  Both manage an area that John Foster Dulles referred to as the 3rd Island chain.

                  All China has to do now is split the two further, put a firewall in between and contain them.

                  Their plan is to lock the Aussies into their backyard anyway.

                  This is going to take some delicate footwork to manage.

                  Originally posted by tbm3fan View Post
                  The last time they did that it didn't turn out so well for them but the UK has learned their lesson.
                  What are you referring to ? and what lesson did the UK learn

                  AUUKUS at least gets the UK into something coherent when it comes to dealing with China. They were hanging out there for a while.
                  Last edited by Double Edge; 17 Sep 21,, 22:41.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by tbm3fan View Post
                    I've been reading Aussie news so I have questions. I understand how the original $50B contract turned into a $90B contract but not why. I can't see cost overruns as the issue since nothing had been started. Don't see anything about changes requested by Australia. I do understand that your first sub wasn't due until 2035 and the rest after. Why the French can't see the glaring problem with this is beyond me along with the advantage of stealth. I assume money overrides practical reasons here.

                    Second question is about what sub-contractors are in Australia relying on this French deal? Although 2035 is 13.5 years away. Have they been paid anything or are they gearing up and now wondering if what they have spent is money down the drain? Still, the fact that you will actually be building your nuclear OWN subs should be seen as monumental here for your defense industry. To me this is the big time versus conventional subs not to mention the other technology you will be gaining. About time in my mind as Australia has been great friends and allies for a long time.
                    Maybe check this out, It's long though

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      From 3 days ago



                      2:33 err shouldn't WA be Western Australia and not Washington
                      Last edited by Double Edge; 17 Sep 21,, 22:30.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Commentariats logic seems to favour the Astutes because of the U.K involvement. Manning requirements & available support to build sooner and cost reasons seem to make sense. Combat system and weapons seem to favour the U.S.

                        But it's speculation. whatever it is I hope it's a true effort, as much COTS & help as possible.
                        Ego Numquam

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by tbm3fan View Post
                          I've been reading Aussie news so I have questions. I understand how the original $50B contract turned into a $90B contract but not why. I can't see cost overruns as the issue since nothing had been started. Don't see anything about changes requested by Australia. I do understand that your first sub wasn't due until 2035 and the rest after. Why the French can't see the glaring problem with this is beyond me along with the advantage of stealth. I assume money overrides practical reasons here.

                          Second question is about what sub-contractors are in Australia relying on this French deal? Although 2035 is 13.5 years away. Have they been paid anything or are they gearing up and now wondering if what they have spent is money down the drain? Still, the fact that you will actually be building your nuclear OWN subs should be seen as monumental here for your defense industry. To me this is the big time versus conventional subs not to mention the other technology you will be gaining. About time in my mind as Australia has been great friends and allies for a long time.
                          There are two big issues that have been hinted at in the press in the past that I am aware of. One is technical, the other contractual. What I don't know is which party is more to blame albeit give the money that's been spent (and will still have to be spent on a failed project) there's more than enough 'blame' to go around.

                          Firstly the overall cost of the project had as you say gone up steeply. On this issue I suspect (but cannot prove) that the French 'oversold' just how easy it would be to convert their (or any SSN platform for that matter) over to a diesel/electric design and along with that how long it would take for the necessary design changes to be worked through. The only thing this French hull really had going for it was that it was bigger and gave more endurance than the other competing bidders who were trying to sell us modified versions of existing operational air breathers. So I think the design phase more or less started falling way behind schedule from day one. And after 4 years? I'm guessing Australian engineers on the ground in France were starting to report back in panic about just how far behind schedule they were. It didn't help that the French contractors apparently worked at the 'French pace' and the Australians wanted things done faster.

                          The second issue (and this may be more Australia's fault - not that any lawyers will ever get the blame) was that key parts of the contract may have been poorly worded from Australia's perspective. From the onset the idea was supposed to be that 60% of the total value of the work would be done in Australia. I recall last year (I think) that the French were pushing back on this issue and disputing how much or at least what type of work would be done in Australia. Don't no if they got greedy, saw holes in the definitions of 'work' etc or just didn't want to transfer certain key technologies. Anyway it was definitely an area of dispute.

                          And now of course we're starting to see just how royally pissed off the French are. Their Ambassadors to Australia and the US have been withdrawn and they're making noises about objecting to the free trade agreement Australia was negotiating with the EU which apparently wasn't a problem earlier. Looks like this is going to take far longer than expected to smooth over.
                          Last edited by Monash; 18 Sep 21,, 03:35.
                          If you are emotionally invested in 'believing' something is true you have lost the ability to tell if it is true.

                          Comment


                          • #73


                            France recalls its ambassador from Aus AND US (!)

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by Monash View Post

                              And now of course we're starting to see just how royally pissed off the French are. Their Ambassadors to Australia and the US have been withdrawn and they're making noises about objecting to the free trade agreement Australia was negotiating with the EU which apparently wasn't a problem earlier. Looks like this is going to take far longer than expected to smooth over.
                              The French are now being... well very French!

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by Double Edge View Post

                                Some of my commentators are saying it was US/UK pressure that forced the change. Well, if they were offering a better option and the Aussie sub program was the mess it was then it would not require much pressure.
                                Australia has always had two pressing issues that fly in the face of one another as soon as submarines became part of the ADF.

                                1. It's huge EEZ & Naval bases exceed most if not all the limits of existing COTS solutions- before they can get anywhere.

                                2. Plurality public dislike for nuclear & legislation against nuclear industry, and probable unwillingness on the part of third parties to export it. It seemed to be viewed as political suicide.

                                I kind of doubt the UK / US forced much, rather that China has opened the door for them to offer Australia the tech, that IMV the government has felt the need for bi lateral support so needed it's kept things under wraps to choreograph a trilateral press conference from no less than leaders of 2 Western nuclear powers to help achieve the pressure for public bilateral support as well as increasing opposition briefings on the Chinese. The leader of the opposition's body language seemed uncomfortable to me. Political bipartisanship is the holy grail. The need for secrecy to get all your ducks lined up in a row. Morrison specifically thanked the former defence minister Linda Reynolds for her work on the matter, laying groundwork so to speak - she left that portfolio in April I think.

                                I do believe viewing the subject from the position of just how seemingly impossible this seemed politically just a few years ago to be the primary concern for the way this has been handled.

                                Happy the opposition is on board. Happy with the Biden administration. Happy that it seems the government has done it this way.
                                Ego Numquam

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X