Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Thu Mar 28 14:15:37 2024

Utopia Talk / Politics / Australia goes nuclear
shannon
Member
Wed Sep 15 13:41:58

Australian has scrapped the absurd French diesel boat fiasco and will acquire nuclear powered submarines.

Australia to get nuclear-powered submarines, will scrap $90b program to build French-designed subs

By defence correspondent Andrew Greene, political editor Andrew Probyn and foreign affairs reporter Stephen Dziedzic
Posted 4h ago4 hours ago, updated 4h ago

Australia's next submarine fleet will be nuclear-powered under an audacious plan that will see a controversial $90 billion program to build up to 12 French-designed submarines scrapped.

Key points:

Joe Biden is expected to make an announcement at 7:00am AEST
The ABC understands the Prime Minister convened a National Security Committee of Cabinet yesterday
It's expected that there will be an increased presence of American nuclear subs in the region

The ABC understands Australia will use American and British technology to configure its next submarine fleet in a bid to replace its existing Collins class subs with a boat more suitable to the deteriorating strategic environment.

Australia, the United States and Britain are expected to jointly announce a new trilateral security partnership on Thursday, with a focus on aligning technology and regional challenges.

But Australia's embrace of nuclear-powered submarines will have its political and technological challenges, given there is no domestic nuclear industry.

The new three-nation security pact – called AUKUS – will be seen by China as a bid to counter its regional influence, especially in the contested South China Sea.

The nuclear submarines would likely be based in Western Australia.

In 2017, the Turnbull government announced French company Naval Group (then known as DCNS) had been selected for this country's largest-ever defence contract, to design and build "regionally superior" conventional submarines.

The ABC understands Prime Minister Scott Morrison convened a National Security Committee of Cabinet on Tuesday ahead of coordinated announcements in Washington and London.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-09-15/allied-naval-united-states-biden-australia-nuclear-submarines/100465628






shannon
Member
Wed Sep 15 13:49:27

The Australian Minister for Defence has secured approval for US nuclear reactor technology to be shared with Australia, paving the way for UK built Astute class SSNs to be sold to Australia.

The AUD90 billion French submarine deal is cancelled.

A great day for the Anglosphere, and a great step forward for the Royal Australian Navy.

The existing HMAS Stirling navy base at Garden Island is already accomodating visiting nuclear submarines from the RN and USN, but will now become a permanent SSN base for RAN Astutes.






Habebe
Member
Wed Sep 15 14:05:40
This is a good development.But why always with the acronyms? AUKUS?
shannon
Member
Wed Sep 15 14:26:29

What will be interesting to see is how many SSNs Australia orders. There were to be 12 of the dud French diesels.

12 Astutes in the RAN would make it an incredibly powerful force, Russia only operates 9 SSNs. UK has 7 and France 5.



shannon
Member
Wed Sep 15 14:29:01

Also very interested if Canada gets in on this deal as well. They also need to replace their old diesels and have a large unallocated defence budget (2% of GDP is required under NATO) that can be directed to SSNs.

Habebe
Member
Wed Sep 15 14:37:42
Im all for increasing canzuk US. military cooperation.
shannon
Member
Wed Sep 15 15:35:38

HMAS Stirling will become a shared RAN-RN-USN submarine base with more far more SSNs than Guam.

In WW2 Fremantle was the biggest submarine base in the Southern Hemisphere. Second in the world only to Pearl Harbour.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fremantle_submarine_base

When it was fully active the base saw 160 Dutch, American and British submarines pass through the harbour.

The base was tied in with the Indian Ocean campaign of 1942–45. Military historians looking at the strategy in the South East Asian Theatre look upon the command of the Commander Submarines, South West Pacific (COMSUBSOWESPAC), and the facility of the Fremantle base as integral to successes in 1943 onwards.
Seb
Member
Thu Sep 16 01:58:38
Well, that surprises me.

Sure longer range helps but I would have thought with refueling options available, diesel made more sense tactically (they run quieter and work better in shallow seas like the South China).

I would be even more surprised though if it leads to astutes very quickly unless the UK gives up it's own order book and pushes back its own sub replacement program, which would be a terrible idea for the UK.



Seb
Member
Thu Sep 16 02:00:08
I doubt they will go for 12 - with nuclear you can have longer periods on patrol do you can do the same total number of missions time with fewer subs.

However on surge you can be in fewer places. 12 would be a lot.
Seb
Member
Thu Sep 16 02:00:17
I doubt they will go for 12 - with nuclear you can have longer periods on patrol do you can do the same total number of missions time with fewer subs.

However on surge you can be in fewer places. 12 would be a lot.
Seb
Member
Thu Sep 16 02:03:08
"Morrison said teams from the three countries would draw up a joint plan over the coming 18 months for assembling the new Australian nuclear-powered submarine fleet, which will be built in Adelaide."

That doesn't sound like something that can be delivered in the same timescale as the diesel program (delayed and plagued with overrun as it is).

So does this mean a short term cut in the Australian submarine force? Or life extension for the Collins?

Seb
Member
Thu Sep 16 02:15:41
Earlier this year, the UK announced a further 18 month LEP for the two remaining Trafalgars after Trenchant is decommissioned, due to delays in the Astute program.

Still not seeing how you get nuclear subs from the UK lines to Australia in time for 2030, let alone the industry to service them.

As for building in Adelaide, that's incredibly challenging by 2030.

Unless there's some option here that involves buying second hand diesels as a replacement for the Collins to bridge the gap, I would expect either you need to push back the start date for the new boats to be coming into service (which you can do to some extent if the force is shrinking); or look to the US.





Seb
Member
Thu Sep 16 02:20:53
Maybe Virginia's and lease some of the Los Angeles they replace?
Habebe
Member
Thu Sep 16 02:47:54
Is general dynamics involved? They build most of the US subs.
Seb
Member
Thu Sep 16 03:23:17
They are taking 18 months to figure out a plan, so at this stage it seems to me to be more political than a worked out agenda.

I don't really see how the time-lines match up - the last Collins boat came into service in 2007 I think - so even with downsizing they really need to have the new nuclear boats in the water by mid-30's at the latest.

From what I can read it sounds like:

1. Domestic assembly - which is substantial, the way subs are built does not lend itself to shipping modules around the world. This was the bugbear that hurt the Barracuda programme though.

2. Nuclear work (reactor install and fuelling) to be done outside of Australia - but I don't see how the is compatible with domestic assembly in Australia - it's not like the reactor is installed *after* the sub is complete.

3. Domestic service industry for the new subs - ok - even if the main reactor work is done elsewhere, they need to be able to do servicing - I'm assuming everything else is transferable (which may not be true, but lets assume).

4. It also sounds like they are thinking an Australian design... if that is anything more than pretty minor tweaks to say, Virgina or Astute, that's going to add ages.

I'll be interested to see what the plan they come up with is.

Logistically, I would have thought it would have to be more based on American propulsion and reactor rather than UK as the US facilities are much closer.

Finally, as predicted, the loophole on HEU for submarine fuel and removal from safeguards is already being noticed.

From a nuclear proliferation perspective this is terrible. "I'm building a marine reactor for military purposes" lets you remove fissile material from stockpiles and IAEA safeguards and enrich to 20%.

Main implication here being Iran.
Habebe
Member
Thu Sep 16 03:36:59
The emphasis on domestic build (design?!) Seems strange.
Seb
Member
Thu Sep 16 03:42:29
I suppose you could imagine the boats being built in Adelaide, with an unfuelled reactor, then towed to the US for fuelling - I think it's up near Seattle for the east coast facility?

But IIRC both the Virgina and Astutes are designed to use HEU and not to be refuelled - so that might require re-design unless the Astutes and Virgina were built to allow the completed submarine to be cut open to allow refuelling if ever needed.






Seb
Member
Thu Sep 16 03:45:31
Habebe:

Might also be politics: there are jobs in building and maintenance of the subs.

Ditching a deal with the french that has huge cost overruns and delays due to setting up local supply chains; in order to buy nuclear (which is not popular technology, and inhibits cooperation with NZ that is flat out against letting nuclear reactors into their territory) - which isn't even going to result in local jobs - that's a hard sell.

There's some interesting constraints to work through here.

Taking a step back, if I were going to relax one, it would probably be the local build.

So maybe it's one of those things where "Batch 1 will be built in America or UK, while we create production lines for Batch 2" and then eventually "Batch 2 is going to be built in the America or UK also" - but you have 10 years or so to manage that,



Habebe
Member
Thu Sep 16 04:02:18
Seb, Yeah I get that, I see it here all the time where cities vye for military bases and such.

But it seems unlikely they are planning on building a naval industrial complex from scratch.Wouldnt it make more sense to hire general dynamics to build a plant there and just hire locals?

(Fyi:GD is the only submarine company I know of, but they are pretty big)

I would think so, but again so far this is very early planning stages, so who knows.
Seb
Member
Thu Sep 16 05:39:14
Habebe:

Yes, you hire a company to build the facilities - not invent from scratch.

But consider, it's nearly start of q4 of 2021, they want 18 months to get a plan together, and the first Colins boat needs to be in the water around mid 2030s.

So let's assume the first concrete is poured at earliest (and this is not realistic, because actually you have procurement etc.) in q2 of 2023.

11 and a half years to build facilities *and* the unit 1 of a new sub?

Seems unrealistic to me!

Some of that might be reduced by using existing facilities - it depends what's transferable.

But I suspect if getting the boat in the water by mid 2030s is fixed, and we assume they don't do something like lease obsolescent US boats for a few years, then the easiest thing to do is give up on domestic production in stages: " it's coming, it's coming, I've been voted out, it's not coming, it's someone else's problem"

Seb
Member
Thu Sep 16 05:42:01
And it would be a shit anti-China pact if it saw Aussie sub fleet have a capacity/capability reduction mid 2030's.

Seb
Member
Thu Sep 16 05:49:18
*Colins replacement boat needs to be in the water by mid 2030s
shannon
Member
Thu Sep 16 08:12:29

No surprise to me, I said this would happen...

SSNs are exactly what the Royal Australian Navy must have.

Shallow South China Sea? Lol Average depth is 1,200m. Astutes can dive to around 350m.

As for a diesel electric being quiet, only until they need to surface and run their LOUD AS FUCK diesel generators!

The rationale behind 12 diesels was the time required to travel from Perth to the Sth China Sea. With six Collins, they could only manage two weeks in each month on station. So to make sure one submarine was on station at all times, 12 would be needed.

Nuclear propulsion changes this completely. Six would be sufficient given much faster transit times. There’s no certainty yet how many will be ordered.

The idea to build in Adelaide is a non starter. There is zero practical advantage in trying to build Astutes in Australia. The facilities and workforce are in the UK. Boris said this deal meant jobs in the UK. Scomo said they will examine the best way to acquire SSNs and ‘intend’ to build locally. Once the chat and timing factors are assessed, no one in their right mind would suggest an Adelaide production line.

The USA has agreed to allow US nuclear propulsion and reactor tech to be used by Australia. The UK will build the submarines and both countries will support crew training and furnish weapon and other systems.

This will be a straight forward, off the shelf UK built Astute class programme. It is the fastest and most cost effective solution.

There will be expanded support facilities built at HMAS Stirling in WA.

With the cancellation of the French diesel boat deal, the Defence budget saves AUD235 billion over 30 years. Even 12 Astutes will cost nowhere near that. This opens the door to acquiring Dreadnought SSBNs, QE class supercarriers, F35B and more ASW and AWD escorts.

Australia is not messing around…faced with the threats from China, the ADF budget can easily increase to 4.5% of GDP over the next ten years. About equal to the existing UK defence budget. Most of its resources will be concentrated on the RAN and RAAF.

The election in Canada is of immense strategic importance. The incoming Conservative PM is a RCAF veteran and strong CANZUK proponent. Bringing Canada into the SSN club will further expand UK Astute and Dreadnought production.
















shannon
Member
Thu Sep 16 08:43:10

The first RAN Astute can be delivered in 2025, being Agincourt, the 7th Astute under construction now.

Anson was launched in April 2021, which freed up a spot on the Furness production facility. A new keel can be laid immediately. Agamemnon will launch in 2023, allocated to the RN, freeing up another place to lay a new Astute keel.

Agincourt launches in 2024, so allowing a third new Astute to start production. Another keel can be laid down in 2027, when the 2021/2 Astute will launch. the 2027 Astute can allocated to the RN. Followed by more two RAN Astute launches in 2028 and 2029.

By 2030, Australia should have three and the UK seven Astutes in service.

The Dreadnought programme can take two places on the Furness production facility in 2027 and 2028, leaving one place to continue Astute production with a keel laid in 2029.

These launch timings could be accelerated given the additional money Australia will be providing. If Canada orders Astute then facilities at Furness will need to be expanded to accommodate two more continuous Astute production places.











jergul
large member
Thu Sep 16 08:54:33
http://new...elections/poll-tracker/canada/

Rofl@"The incoming Conservative PM"

18 months planning?

When is the next aussie election?

"The next Australian federal election will be held in or before 2022"

So the nuke submarines are basically just a campaign ploy.

I am unsure what tactical niche to vessels are supposed to fill. I am sure someone will explain that to me.
shannon
Member
Thu Sep 16 09:23:12

CBC is the Liberal Party propaganda arm and as reliable as BBC polls on Brexit…

Some ploy, they even hooked in old Joe and Boris to share nuclear submarine tech!

And you do not appear to realise the opposition Labor Party leader announced he supports nuclear submarines…

You don’t know what ‘tactical niche’ SSNs fill? We all know you suffer from acute jergulmaths syndrome, but even your advanced retardation doesn’t cover this level of ignorance.









Seb
Member
Thu Sep 16 09:56:37
Shannon:

"With the cancellation of the French diesel boat deal, the Defence budget saves AUD235 billion over 30 years. Even 12 Astutes will cost nowhere near that."

"This opens the door to acquiring Dreadnought SSBNs"

That most definitely will not happen - their only purpose is for launching trident ballistic missiles. Anything else including land attack can be done with an Astute. Australia isn't going to leave the NPT and acquire nuclear weapons.

"QE class supercarriers, F35B and more ASW and AWD escorts."

You are conflating Capex and Opex here in a quite egregious way. 7 Astutes cost 42bn GBP over 30 years all in - so lets say 12 cost 72bn GBP.

You have about 50bn GBP change over that 30 year period - I can't even find figures for the carrier strike program cost (capex and opex) but you are looking at about 20bn for the lightnings and vessels - you have the helicopters and others - and the opex which early on was about 1bn a year but expected to rise as we started using them.


"The first RAN Astute can be delivered in 2025, being Agincourt, the 7th Astute under construction now."

Ok, but then that means cutting the UK Submarine fleet as the Trafalgar class can't be extended any further than it is already - and we are already stretched - so not good for the UK as it means dropping below what the RN says is below the bare minimum to meet current commitments.

Seb
Member
Thu Sep 16 10:02:16
jergul:

"So the nuke submarines are basically just a campaign ploy."

More than that I think; this is a not-insignificant commitment from Biden at considerable political cost (impact on proliferation) which he will want a return on; and bridges with France incinerated.

I think hard for a new Aus government to reverse.

"I am unsure what tactical niche to vessels are supposed to fill. I am sure someone will explain that to me."

Same as the diesels - hold at risk enemy surface vessels that could otherwise impose trade blockades.

The benefit of nuclear subs is longer range / time at sea and more weapons than diesel electric.

So there is tactical benefit to them; they form a key part of Australian defence requirements; and benefits US strategy.

Not entirely sure why the US wants the UK in the loop here though - would have thought they would prefer to sell them Virgina's rather than UK sell them Astutes; but there may be obscure US political/legislative issues that make it easier to transfer UK tech than US tech.
jergul
large member
Thu Sep 16 11:40:28
Seb
Well, the US needs more subs after it bailed on the Seawolf, but it is a nuclear platform that needs nuclear weapons to reach full ASW potential.

Blockade defence is of course a BS role. It assumes that the US has somehow lost naval and aviation supremacy over areas far, far away from the Chinese mainland.

The anti-shipping role is questionable with the Astute armament. Rofl@subsonic munitions.

Though its a good gunboat platform to bombarding primitives with missiles from standoff ranges as it does have the reach without rebasing. So there we have it then.

Most of Nato's non nuclear armed submarines are area denial weapons to keep the sneaky Russians from hiding in various fjords. The nuclear armed ones have a solid ASW role.
Paramount
Member
Thu Sep 16 12:05:38
The French are pissed off and are comparing Biden to Trump:


"This brutal, unilateral and unpredictable decision reminds me a lot of what Mr Trump used to do," foreign minister Jean-Yves Le Drian said on franceinfo radio.

"I am angry and bitter. This isn't done between allies."

"It's a stab in the back. We created a relationship of trust with Australia and that trust has been broken," he added.



This can only mean war.
Paramount
Member
Thu Sep 16 12:07:38
China already knows that the anglos can not be trusted and that any deal made with them is not worth the paper it is written on. So all China says is:


"The US and UK's action of exporting highly sensitive nuclear submarine technology once again proves that they are using nuclear exports as a tool for geopolitical games and adapts double standards.

"This is a highly irresponsible act."
Seb
Member
Thu Sep 16 12:33:12
jergul:

"Well, the US needs more subs after it bailed on the Seawolf, but it is a nuclear platform that needs nuclear weapons to reach full ASW potential."

None of the other NATO attack subs come with nuclear weapons for ASW.

"It assumes that the US has somehow lost naval and aviation supremacy over areas far, far away from the Chinese mainland."

On current trends by the late 2030's, the earliest that an Australian submarine flotilla could be put in the water, it probably will have.
Seb
Member
Thu Sep 16 12:39:12

"The anti-shipping role is questionable with the Astute armament. Rofl@subsonic munitions."

I have yet to hear about an effective anti-missile system that stops torpedos.

"The nuclear armed ones have a solid ASW role."
There are no nuclear weapon armed attack subs - NATO fields no torps with nuclear warheads, and the nuclear tomahawks were decommissioned years ago and the SSBNs do not have an effective ASW role.

Seb
Member
Thu Sep 16 12:59:51
Also, the given the maximum number of missiles an astute can hold (38) - it's not a very effective thing for a gunboat.

Type 26 can do that much more effectively.

BTW, I think the Perseus will have a sub launched version.
Seb
Member
Thu Sep 16 13:01:33
http://www...strike-concept-missile-system/


Yeah, sub launched variant.

murder
Member
Thu Sep 16 13:03:37

"On current trends by the late 2030's, the earliest that an Australian submarine flotilla could be put in the water, it probably will have."

lol :o)

Seb
Member
Thu Sep 16 13:06:56
murder:

Supremacy means that the area is contested.

China's already got numbers, that plus stand off weapons... the area will be contested.
jergul
large member
Thu Sep 16 13:19:50
Seb
Torpedoes are not that great. Tons of countermeasures to what ultimately is an ultra slow delivery system.

For actual dangerous all round torpedoes, see supercavititing systems.

Subs are good at keeping the Russkies in the high seas. The Bastio defence as a concept concedes that complex coastal waters are highly suited to attack submarine operations.

38 is tons. It is one of the great ironies that far more tomahawk launch tubes exist than actual tomahawk missiles.

I like subs as an invasion defence assets, but it is a niche thing unless you want to go boomer hunting with nuclear warheads. Which, it seems, we do not want to do.

But its all pretend anyway. Need to make your 2%? Nuclear subs can help with that.
jergul
large member
Thu Sep 16 13:22:37
"Yeah, sub launched variant"

Its the thing about concept studies. The only limit is your imagination :D
Seb
Member
Thu Sep 16 15:05:12
Jergul:

Supercaviating are over rated:

Straight line only and short range. Nice for sub hunting if you get the drop in the target, not very good for anti ship stuff.

In war games, subs score plenty of kills. When they aren't supposed to be.
Seb
Member
Thu Sep 16 15:08:46
Oh it's still concept? I thought they moved forward with it in 2016. In that case forget it; but if there aren't supersonic anti ship missiles that fit NATO standard tubes in 2030 I'd be surprised.
shannon
Member
Thu Sep 16 15:42:56

Dreadnought door is open at some point. You said yourself Astute with 38 weapons load is not a great land attack platform. Dreadnought SSBNs can be armed with non nuclear weapons you know! A couple of RAN SSBNs and shared RN-RAN bases in Australia makes great sense.

Astute procurement and operating cost is not £6b each, in 2015 figures it’s less than £2b. Operating costs are £7.5m pa. Even with inflation over 25 years it’s nothing like £6b.

The point was AUD235 billion is saved and pays for far greater capability than on 12 small French diesels. 12 Astute may not be required. Four can do the job of 12 diesels. There’s talk of ordering 8.

The late 2030s timeline is not official. There is already huge public and Defence opposition to any suggestion that it takes that long. This is one of the issues that got the French submarines cancelled. Local building is a no go. There’s just no time to waste.

I outlined above the timetable. It’s means only a couple of years delay on one RN Astute. Balanced by a new RAN Astute. No loss in overall capability. If a QE class supercarrier is based east of Suez it’s obviously best placed in Australia and the RAN Astute can be as assigned escort. Along with one RAN Type 26.







shannon
Member
Thu Sep 16 15:48:11

Paramount the PLA-N has six SSNs that are classed by NATO as stealthy as a 1970s Soviet Victor III.

One Astute or Virginia would eat them all without ever being detected.

Why should Australia care about the CCP objections to their Defence given they have threatened to bomb Australian cities?

jergul
large member
Thu Sep 16 16:21:03
Seb
Invariably linked to complex near coastal termoclines and messy bottom conditions.

They are good at what the do - access denial of near coastal waters.

Supercaviating gives a very short response window. Torpedoes cover 1km every 10 seconds.
Seb
Member
Thu Sep 16 16:26:56
Shannon:

"Astute procurement and operating cost is not £6b each, in 2015 figures it’s less than £2b. Operating costs are £7.5m pa. Even with inflation over 25 years it’s nothing like £6b."

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2007-12-10/debates/07121035000018/AstuteClassSubmarines

Whole life cost of the program includes not just the opex for the sub, but also the opex for facilities (pro rata if shared) needed to support the sub etc. You are looking the staffing cost and consumables used to run a given submarine; so likely excludes major servicing, refits, spares etc.


I imagine this is the equivalent to the figure for the Baracuuda's - overall whole life cost for the attack sub capability - I can't believe it is anything else.

Building a dreadnaught class only to operate it as a SLCM land attack platform is madness.

You'd be better off building an aircraft carrier. Unit cost of a single dreadnaught is about £7bn whole life cost; you really need 4 to maintain one at sea at all times - £30bn was the 2016 estimate total programme cost.

A carrier provides much more firepower.

Habebe
Member
Thu Sep 16 16:27:09
Shannon, White guilt?

But to get past that, Japan today (or yesterday) just told China to back off the Sako something oe other islands.
Habebe
Member
Thu Sep 16 16:32:33
Jergul,

"
Supercaviating gives a very short response window. Torpedoes cover 1km every 10 seconds."

I think you just used the word of the week. Supercavitating, its one of those words you get to use less than oscillating.
jergul
large member
Thu Sep 16 16:35:03
Shannon
Two scenarios

China is using its subs for shiplane interdiction. So literally a needle in haystach scenario.

China is using its subs as escorts for carrier groups that have all kinds of other ASW assets to hunt down any careless submarines nearby.

You could just use them like that I suppose.
jergul
large member
Thu Sep 16 16:37:38
Well, China could also use its subs to sink the 3/4ths of Australian submarines not currently at sea for various reasons.

You could try to return the favor if not for the fact that China has its submarine bases underground.
Seb
Member
Thu Sep 16 16:39:08
Shannon:


"I outlined above the timetable. It’s means only a couple of years delay on one RN Astute."

Which means a couple years of delay where the RN will have to cut some duty.

"Balanced by a new RAN Astute. No loss in overall capability."

No, because that RAN Astute is covering missions currently performed by a to be decommissioned Collins class.

jergul:

"Supercaviating gives a very short response window. Torpedoes cover 1km every 10 seconds."

But require you to be about 7km from target, compared to 54km for a spearfish.

It's great for killing subs, terrible for Anti surface warfare and sea control.

Point is to be able to hold surface vessels at risk, which means they aren't able to be doing blockade duty.
Habebe
Member
Thu Sep 16 16:40:44
Paramount, "The French are pissed off and are comparing Biden to Trump:"

Hyperbole. Yes the French are salty, but the Ozzies were not happy with the French deal for a while.

Plus AU has been moving closer to the US for a few years now since the anti China sentiment has spiked there.

But I'm not sure why the French were not given more warning.
jergul
large member
Thu Sep 16 17:13:10
Seb
You may as well cite data on the newest versions. A sub can easily get within 10km of targets. The difficulty would be extraction thereafter, though sinking stuff can cover a retreat.

The conventional torpedoes are not a threat. Too slow, too noisy, too vulnerable to countermeasures.

A surface fleet would be at very little risk as it enforced a no sail zone.

What is incidentally your counter to China sinking the 3/4ths of nuclear subs at their moorings? Sink would a controlled reactor shutdown would prolly be amongst the better outcomes.

What major city is the base close to? Perth it seems. Nice.
shannon
Member
Thu Sep 16 21:29:51

Seb, that £42b figure includes VAT lol. So take off 17.5% straightaway. VAT doesn’t go to the EU anymore lol.

Calculated in 2007 with all figures inflation adjusted for 25 year programme.

Design and construction is £9b. Very good!

Crew support, maintenance and spares are £32 billion. Seems an extremely overpriced amount.

£1 billion for disposal. Seems quite cheap!

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/456954/20150820-2015-06437_Fish__redacted.pdf

Hopefully that link works.

Annual average running costs are £9.885m pa. In 2015 currency.

It doesn’t include support facilities and maintenance, but I can’t see it being £173m pa for 25 years, per boat! It would be useful to see something more recent than almost 15 years ago. Actual figures compared to estimates before the first boat hit the water.


shannon
Member
Thu Sep 16 21:49:05

Dreadnought as a conventional bomber is not exactly cost effective as a QE class supercarrier, but you never know what can change in the future. The NPT could go the way of the Washington Treaty. Better to have it and not use use it than need it and not have it.

Two more Dreadnoughts could be built, financed by Australia. Based in Australia. But flying an RN flag. This is what’s coming Seb. An INTERCHANGEABLE CANZUK ROYAL NAVY.

The Dreadnought with 12 silos can be loaded with 7 tomahawks each. 84 in total. Plus six torpedoes tubes that can load more tomahawks. It’s a significant payload.

The USN has converted four Ohio SSBN to TLAM only. So not exactly madness, it’s an established capability used by the USN…

Again the point being that by cancelling the French diesels, a whole lot of other options open up.

A couple of years delay on one RN boat isn’t going to change anything. They can up the pace of building if it’s that urgent.

The Collins were allocated a life extension earlier this year. There won’t be a need to retire any for a long time, Astute won’t be replacing anything until after 2040.

https://www.defenceconnect.com.au/maritime-antisub/8226-collins-class-fleet-to-receive-10bn-service-life-extension




shannon
Member
Thu Sep 16 21:54:41

Jergul the PLA-N has no chance of getting anywhere near southern Australian ports without being detected. And they only have six SSNs that are essentially an underwater disco. 1970s level of stealth lol.
shannon
Member
Thu Sep 16 23:18:44

Even Astute at lifetime cost of £5b each (still way over the direct costs of £2b) that’s about 1/3 the cost of the 12 French diesel boats! You can add two QE supercarrier taskforces, a 4 boat SSBN bomber fleet and still be paying far less than before.



Habebe
Member
Thu Sep 16 23:49:08
Those long url's stretch the screen out.
Seb
Member
Fri Sep 17 03:57:01
Shannon:

"VAT doesn’t go to the EU anymore lol"

Oh dear.

1. Only 0.3% of VAT income goes to the EU - so on any given VATable transaction, that would have been say 0.3% of 20% in the UK

2. VAT rate remains unchanged from leaving, and public sector accounting rules the same. As per HMT Greenbook, tax costs are accounted for in financial cases because the tax is levied, flows back to the govt coffers, and is not hypothecated to the spending department. This makes sense if you think about it - in practice the last thing you would want to do is introduce the complication to suppliers to govt by making VAT recoverable in their supply chains based on the nature of the customer rather than the product/service. It adds overheads to business that only appear when govt is a customer, which adds as a barrier to work, and would reduce competition in the supply chain to govt when govt spend money. Not a great idea when trying to get VFM. It also make forecasting VAT revenues harder. Much easier to make VAT non-recoverable for govt expenditure and treat it otherwise normally.

However, VAT is not accounted for in economic benefit cases where you appraise the overall value proposition, it is not a net cost to the taxpayer. I imagine the same is true in Australia as we have very similar set up.

Given though, that we are looking at affordability, yes, VAT needs to be considered in the budget, though agree you should knock of the 17.5% and apply whatever equivalent rate is in Australia - 10% ish. IF you were building locally. However, if you are buying off the shelf from the UK, VAT would be zero rate. However the unit price would go up as if zero rated for VAT, as the manufacturer now cannot recover VAT paid in it's supply chain and will not want to take that out of profits. Really, all you save VAT on here would be the difference between the manufacturers VATable costs and the price of the sub.

"Crew support, maintenance and spares are £32 billion. Seems an extremely overpriced amount."

30 years of dedicated docks and other facilities, spare parts, munitions, staffing for those facilities (which are fully loaded, so include pension contributions etc.)...

You've quoted a figure of 234Bn AUD was it? Can you show the breakdown and basis for this so we can do a like for like comparison.

I suspect it includes a lot of this stuff too - not saying it isn't over priced, but you need to compare apples with apples.


Seb
Member
Fri Sep 17 04:01:47
Look at the letter:

"The average annual costs of operating do not include:
a. Maritime Domain Maintenance Costs
b. Central Allowances- Appointing Drafting and Leave (allowances), Continuity of
Education Allowance etc
c. Overheads for common services
d. Support costs for Naval Bases
e. Support costs from other MoD Top Level Budget areas
f. Central costs i.e. IT and Communications
g. Aircraft costs
h. Training and generation costs"

As I said, this is basically the marginal cost of operating a boat vs mothballing it 90's Russia style (finding a disused port, tying it up and letting it rust). E.g. it doesn't fully cover the crew costs - it just assumes you have a pool of trained man hours you can draw down from - rather than a dedicated and trained crew. Doesn't include servicing etc.

I.e. NOT the cost of the actual military capability to operate a fleet of attack subs.


Seb
Member
Fri Sep 17 04:12:03
"The USN has converted four Ohio SSBN to TLAM only. So not exactly madness, it’s an established capability used by the USN…"

They only did that because the alternative was decommissioning the submarine as arms control treaties left it redundant - essentially the sub was free.

It's like the reactivation of the Ohio's in the 80's. It only made sense because they were there.

It would make zero sense to build from scratch.

Especially when you could just have a lengthened astute / virgina. Virgina has VLS canisters for land attack.

The last thing the RN would want is dreadnaught subs noisily blasting off cruise missiles in some conventional campaign and giving opportunity for hostile powers to observe it's characteristics.
jergul
large member
Fri Sep 17 04:40:37
That would be crazy. Using boomers conventionally. Those vessels only make sense from a nuclear triad perspective.

The Ohio class modification is best viewed as vessel with increased storage capacity where one variant can also have cruise missiles.

Again, there are way more launch tubes than cruise missiles, so counting those is just silly. No vessel ever leaves port with anything close to a full complement of tomahawks.
Seb
Member
Fri Sep 17 06:54:57
Jergul:

For so so many reasons.

I'd put my money into drone ships/boats

Shannon:


The Collins LEP takes end date from 2026 to 2036.

http://www...g=AOvVaw2Jp8E05PYPlsr5iH7jG39T

Though, if you went from 12 to 6, you could stretch the in service date for the new Aussie nuclear attack sub to c. 2038, but that means you want the first one in the water c. 2036/7 for shakedown etc. unless it's really fully of the shelf no changes to anything at all astute or Virginia. So same Comms, no additional systems integration etc.
jergul
large member
Fri Sep 17 07:41:25
Seb
The distinction between missiles and drones is becoming more and more indiscernable.
Seb
Member
Fri Sep 17 07:50:14
jergul:

I meant unmanned sea vessel type drone.

I can sort of imagine something like an amphibious assault ship but stacked with small vessels - I'm thinking maybe something like a trimaran with outriggers that can be pulled in for storage, carrying a radar, maybe a few simple short range missiles like seaceptor and a low calibre gun sufficient to deter anyone thinking of boarding it.

They can then act as a sensor picket for your fleet, form a weak outer perimeter of A2/D2 and sensor network for triggering attack from arsenal vessels.

This is much more effective than turning boomers into arsenal vessels - not least because a submarine is not an ideal platform for dynamic targeting of surface vessels or air craft.

BUT they need to be pretty cheap and dispensable.

Plenty of other ways of going too - I just would not bother with what amounts to an arsenal ship in terms of capability, with a bunch of expensive complications and a redundant nuclear power plant.
Seb
Member
Fri Sep 17 08:13:45
Basically, if you want to bring a bunch of missiles to a fight - make them stand off range and put them out of harms way, and only put sensors in range.

Don't make them the ultimate in surviving a hostile environment.
Seb
Member
Fri Sep 17 09:35:40
I reckon you can get around 28 CUSVs into the well deck of a Canberra class. You an probably get about twice that if you used the motor pool area and slid them off..

Now those are designed for LOS operations but allegedly can be more autonomous.

I was thinking something a little larger - suspect those would be too unsteady and small to hand a couple of short range missiles and a radar; but the idea you could have an LHD sail into theatre, deploy a flotilla of little ships that force the opponent into either launching expensive weapons against disposable assets and thus opening themselves up for counter attack from stand off weapons; or providing a screen and picket for sea skimming weapons... it looks quite viable to me.

And your arsenal ship can basically be a big freighter full of VLS systems rather than a giant nuclear powered submarine.

The only thing you really need submarine land attack is when the enemies stand off range is far longer than yours. So could imagine them being used for e.g. attacking ASBM bases in the south china sea for example. But then, why not just use an attack sub? It can do other things.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Fri Sep 17 16:11:27
France has broken off diplomatic relations w/ the US (recalled its ambassadors)

time to rename french fries again
Seb
Member
Fri Sep 17 16:16:46
And Australia.

That's a pretty silly strop.
Habebe
Member
Fri Sep 17 16:54:18
I thought Biden was the guy who wouldn't alienate our european allies? As opposed to Trump.
murder
Member
Fri Sep 17 17:22:26

Australia seems pretty happy. :o)
Habebe
Member
Fri Sep 17 17:28:10
Murder, Well, they were unhappy with the French deal but also the US and the UK are more on board with holding a tough line on China.

But the argumwnt against Trump that he alienates the EU nations and Biden wouldn't is just hot breath.

Now that said I think in general Biden made the right move in taking over the deal and bringing im the UK to boot, all good stuff.

Should the french have been given greater warning? Probably so.
shannon
Member
Fri Sep 17 17:48:17

Naval Group were given a 3 month warning letter by Australia in June. They just didn’t take it seriously.

The build price had blown out from $50b to $90b and years of delays. Two years into the design contract being signed.
shannon
Member
Fri Sep 17 17:48:18

Naval Group were given a 3 month warning letter by Australia in June. They just didn’t take it seriously.

The build price had blown out from $50b to $90b and years of delays. Two years into the design contract being signed.
shannon
Member
Fri Sep 17 17:51:11

“The last thing the RN would want is dreadnaught subs noisily blasting off cruise missiles in some conventional campaign and giving opportunity for hostile powers to observe it's characteristics.“ The SSBNs are are armed with Tomahawks too Seb. They RN has this capability. And how does that make sense at all when it’s exactly what the USN have done with their Ohio’s?! Which are also still nuke bombers…
shannon
Member
Fri Sep 17 18:05:04

Yes Seb, the Collins class was given a ten year extension. Late 2030s.

So as I said the 7th Astute delivered to the RAN in 2025 will not be replacing a retired Collins, so no loss of capability at all. It’s just flying a slightly different flag in Her Majesty’s fleets.

The timetable I outlined above is entirely practical and will deliver the worlds biggest foreign shipbuilding contract to the UK.

The strategy of equipping the RAN and RN with Type 26 and Astute is well advanced and the RCN is right there too with 15 Type 26 on order. With a change is Govt this week in Canada we may see some further Astute orders for the UK. These are the warships that will be escorting the QE class in years to come.



shannon
Member
Fri Sep 17 18:13:30

The $235b projected cost was already blowing out. We will never know the details on where the money was going.

Similarly with the £32b for Astute. Who knows what accounting magic is going on. Just seems an absurdly high figure when the attributable design and construct was £9b and day to day running costs are £10m a year. £173m on the backup service per boat per year seems astonishingly high.



shannon
Member
Fri Sep 17 18:16:12

France withdraws Ambassador to the USA.

Jergul: It’s just a re election ploy by the Australian Govt.

Aren’t you ever embarrassed by the snide stupidity of your comments comrade?

shannon
Member
Fri Sep 17 18:20:13


Habebe thread is already stretched, so here’s another stupid long link. Warning letter from Defence Minister to France. Not the first one either.


https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/subscribe/news/1/?sourceCode=AAWEB_MRE170_a_GGL&dest=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.adelaidenow.com.au%2Fnews%2Fsouth-australia%2Fpeter-duttons-warning-for-naval-group-if-future-subs-cost-time-frames-blow-out%2Fnews-story%2F58f12f5f28304dadba74a8f932c216cd&memtype=anonymous&mode=premium&v21=dynamic-hot-control-score&V21spcbehaviour=append&nk=7581191a7763205404498f798bdae5d7-1631920724
Sam Adams
Member
Fri Sep 17 20:25:53
Lol france is so butthurt that they are recalling ambassadors to ausukus.
Sam Adams
Member
Fri Sep 17 20:30:33
"It's like the reactivation of the Ohio's in the 80's. It only made sense because they were there."

Iowas. And Iowas are so fucking badass it always makes sense to activate them.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Fri Sep 17 20:32:02
if you erase the ‘s’ in ‘https’, it will linkify URLs and hide the long text (if only done once in a post anyway)
Habebe
Member
Fri Sep 17 20:50:26
Sam, Actually AFAIK the UK was oddly left out of the ambassador pull.
Habebe
Member
Fri Sep 17 20:51:06
They also pulled out of a celebration of US/Franco relations..lol
jergul
large member
Sat Sep 18 03:06:48
Shannon
It is an election ploy. How can you be so stupid as to not see that?

You want it rushed, but not so rushed as the matter is settled and contracts signed before the next election.
Seb
Member
Sat Sep 18 03:50:16
Shannon:

No, I don't at all agree that we should shrink the RN submarine fleet for two years. The operational hit from the crew of the Trafalgars sitting around doing nothing for two years is huge.

If it's all one glorious fleet, why not just have the Aussies give us the money and keep the Astute in the RN and doing exactly the missions would have been doing for the RN, crewed with the same crew.

We can get to providing boats for the Aussies later.

Seb
Member
Sat Sep 18 03:53:48


"Just seems an absurdly high figure when the attributable design and construct was £9b and day to day running costs are £10m a year. £173m on the backup service per boat per year seems astonishingly high."

There's a literal list of cost centres in the link you quoted.

Maintenance and service, bits wear out, anechoic tiles get fouled out damaged, nuclear reactors need to be serviced. Crew need training and holidays and those get charged to the program. You have dedicated shore facilities for the boats, they need staffing and maintenance.
Seb
Member
Sat Sep 18 04:01:46
Sam:

Iowa, yes, sorry brain fart - we were talking about the Ohio subs and all these vowley middle states sound the same.

It made sense to reactivate them, not to build them specifically though.

Jergul:
I doubt think you would get Boris and Biden doing a joint presser for an election stunt.
Personally alienating and humiliating the leaders of three of your closest allies in an election stunt is something that might even give Boris pause for thought.

I think the intention is sincere.
jergul
large member
Sat Sep 18 04:14:16
Seb
By sincere, you mean they will follow through if they win the 2022 election? Sure.

Will chest thumping, flag wagging, keep the socialists from destroying this great plan be milked for all its worth? Sure.

Why the idea was formulated in the first place? Well, labour would rape the conservatives over the french deal if it had not pulled out of it.
jergul
large member
Sat Sep 18 04:20:26
Its not an idea that makes military sense. China can sink nuclear reactors just outside of Perth at their leisure. Its not something they could do against an actual nuclear power with nuclear weapons.

So either Australia is planing something stupid, or has nuclear ambitions going beyond merely using nuclear power militarily.
jergul
large member
Sat Sep 18 04:39:07
Needless to say, Boris and Joe are supporting this for domestic reasons of their own.

Anglospher+screwthefrench is a sure winner for boris.

Joe's gain is more by undermining GOP claims that he is not doing anglosphere+screwthefrench.
Seb
Member
Sat Sep 18 04:41:38
Jergul:

If China is directly attacking Australian territory, we are well passed the stage of conflict the subs are for.

By the time the Chinese are bombing subs in their harbour causing a nuclear incident, US is probably at war with China and destroying south China sea Island bases and everything is close to nuclear escalation.

Subs are to stop China picking off Australia by embargo years before, and supporting a US attempt to sink the Chinese fleet.
Seb
Member
Sat Sep 18 04:45:06
Jergul:

Re the politics, you've answered the question of what is in it for Boris and Joe personally.

That's not the same thing as "what are the costs to Australia if a future govt backs out of the deal". You'd humiliate Biden and Boris which is worse than I'd they hadn't had the boost.

You can speculate on the intention, which will be a mix of things including a serious intent to boost western military capabilities, but I would be more surprised than I was that this happened in the first place of it now melted away, irrespective of who wins the election.
TheChildren
Member
Sat Sep 18 06:57:41
rofl @thinkin aussieland can compete against china on any level.

and rofl@ pretendin china wants da land of aussies...

newsflash kangaroos, those lands u stole from da aboriginals.

TheChildren
Member
Sat Sep 18 07:36:40
da only thing these sheeps down under need 2 know.

http://www..._in_melbourne_australia_break/

TheChildren
Member
Sat Sep 18 07:43:06
when da shit begins, chants basara basara...

jergul
large member
Sat Sep 18 07:49:58
Seb
Sinking vessels at their mooring are very low on the escalation ladder. That those vessels happen to be nuclear, but not backed by a national nuclear arsenal is of course a huge flaw to the whole concept.

It comes way before stopping a Chinese embargo or helping the US sink Chinese fleets.

We are reactivating out mountain bunker sub bases for a reason.

You mean, like how Australia just embarrassed the French? There are literally decades for this deal to fall through for any number of reasons.

Its nice to see that the age of white elephants is not over. Sadder perhaps to what people try to paint these elephants grey.

You may as well toss in an underground submarine base into the cost side of the equation. The keeping civilians hostage to keep uboats safe is a bit unseemly and will not work.
Seb
Member
Sat Sep 18 08:33:20
Jergul:

But well above trade embargo.

Your calculus is way off - sinking ships in port happens all after skirmishes at sea.

Targeting nuclear reactors of out of theatre assets in a way likely to endanger civilian population centres is one step down from nuclear exchanges.





Seb
Member
Sat Sep 18 08:34:09
The phrase you are looking for is Pearl Harbor.
Seb
Member
Sat Sep 18 09:18:25
I suspect that there will be American and British boats moored alongside the Aussies, and American armed forces personnel on the base.

A chinese pre-emptive strike would be a profound miscalculation here. And if not preemptive, the whole point of such subs is they can spend a long time at sea without going to port.

TheChildren
Member
Sat Sep 18 10:19:24
warmongering cucks only now how 2 talk shit. but against us daddy, they can only kowtow and buy more expensive junk while justifyin it as preemptive deterrent...

no attention at all shuld be given 2 those cucks at all. let them spend there hard earned moniez on there own stupidity projects.
show deleted posts
Bookmark and Share