RAN Sub force- to nuke or not to nuke

If we were to go with the US (again), by leasing the LA Class, what submarines does the US have to offer that we might ultimately buy?

The Virginia Class, but I prefer the Astute as they seem to have a more flexible weapons loadout, Virginia is less flexible IMO, because of her VLS.

I doubt that there’ll be any life left in the Los Angeles class subs. The USN is going to have to run all of them into the ground to stem the bleeding of its sub fleet. Remember the math: 52 USN SSNs today, only 42 in 2029, with a minimum requirement of 48, and the threat posed by the rapidly increasing SSK fleets around the world…

If we were to go with the US (again), by leasing the LA Class, what submarines does the US have to offer that we might ultimately buy?

Another point that is being lost here is that Australia has it’s own Uranium source which they export to the global market (yes even US, UK and China all buy our dust).

This would help secure any deal for nuke boats in the future. As for the decline in boats being available: I can’t see that, The LA class (688’s) are starting to retire now- so if we decide rather quickly to move in this direction, the US has boats available for us to train up on and given that they have been loosing out of the defence market recently coupled with the favourable terms the USN has with the RAN, I can’t see many major hurdles to clear!

As for training and learning to use these boats- seems like someone didn’t read my post earlier… Yes we have RAN staff aboard USN and RN nukes, but not in the key areas; hence the need to train up on them!

Actually it’s more like one refueling every 7 years for the Rubis class SSNs.

The refueling itself only takes 6 months, but you’re right that all the other systems have to be overhauled too, which usually extends the overhaul to at least 12-14 months…

Unlikely that any Western navy will have any SSNs to spare in the timeframe we are talking about (2020+).

The USN’s sub fleet is set to decline from 53 today to 41 in 2029 (dramatically less than the minimum force level of 48), so they are looking to use up the remaining Los Angeles class subs’ lives as much as possible. They’ve identified 16 subs whose lives can be extended, mostly by 9-15 months, but the RAN won’t be able to get any of that. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL32418.pdf

The French will be retiring their Rubis class SSNs between 2017 and 2028. Fits the RAN’s timeframe perfectly, but those subs will be 33-35 years old, so I’m not sure if the nuclear core will have any life remaining.

The RN’s last 3 Trafalgar class SSNs will be slightly younger (27-31 years old), but they will be retired rather early: 2017-2022. The last one (HMS Triumph) retiring in 2022 would fit the bill best.

Ultimately, whoever can spare an SSN, even just for 1 or 2 years, will be in a great position to secure this hypothetical contract, since it doesn’t make sense to train on one country’s sub knowing that you’ll ultimately be using another country’s kit.

Why would we need a loan of a Nuclear Sub, when we have personnel who have served on Nukes with the RN and USN (I presume)?

HK, you are right about that but these new systems, but these aren’t available for anyone outside the resident country to use atm. The RAN need experience on Nukes first, hence a loan of 688’s similar to India’s loan of an Akula II

Actually, modern nuclear subs are probably quieter than SSKs at most speeds.

That’s because modern reactors do not use pumps at tactical speeds. Instead they use natural convection to cool the reactor. That leaves only the pumps for the secondary steam turbine/condenser circuit.

This enables Seawolf to go 20kts “silently”., apparently The newer French subs are similar, with radiated noise being reduced by 1000x over early generations of nuclear subs.

Once you add in the fact that SSNs are large enough to have have better vibration dampening systems and pump jets for lower cavitation, the net result is probably in the SSN’s favor.

J. A. Knock off the critisism of the grey brigade. Not all of us, including myself,are anti nuke. You would be surprised just how many are for it in either the subs or power generation.

Sorry Sir, it’s just that I speak with a lot of older generation people over here in Sydney including family and 99.9% are dead set against nuclear power of any sort- I’ve basically been disowned by my family for my stance on this matter. I would shake the hand of someone like you who welcomes the prospect of forward thinking! But lets move on from that, as you have after your cool down (personal thank you).

Having got that off my chest and cooled down, I have a question. I thought that as well as having speed and endurance nukes also have an annoying habit of being noisier then SSKs. Given the areas we operate in and our apparant expertise lying off a coast and listening, would nukes be appropriate?

As I proposed, the nukes in RAN service would actually do the long range patrol work, clearing the way for the LHD’s moving in. In this capacity maybe three boats (I’d prefer four) would be handy. SSK’s would be good for littoral and close in work- since these boats are quieter they can actually gather the needed intel pre-op. So as you can see, I am working on a dual layer ops plan for the next lot of boats.

IIRC noisier because of internal noise from reactor cooling systems which can’t be switched off even when you’re not driving anything, while a sub operating on batteries can be very quiet indeed. But I’m sure there are people here who are far better informed than I am.

This is true- reactors need constant cooling unlike conventional powered subs, but see above for my ops plan.

IIRC noisier because of internal noise from reactor cooling systems which can’t be switched off even when you’re not driving anything, while a sub operating on batteries can be very quiet indeed. But I’m sure there are people here who are far better informed than I am.

Having got that off my chest and cooled down, I have a question. I thought that as well as having speed and endurance nukes also have an annoying habit of being noisier then SSKs. Given the areas we operate in and our apparant expertise lying off a coast and listening, would nukes be appropriate?

J. A. Knock off the critisism of the grey brigade. Not all of us, including myself,are anti nuke. You would be surprised just how many are for it in either the subs or power generation.

Do the French sub reactors qualify as a tea kettle reactor?

www.cea.fr/defense/propulsion_nucleaire/le_reacteur_a_toute_vapeur

If I understand correctly, you’re arguing for a similar reactor setup, with optionally a more advanced cooling system (e.g. sodium instead of water) or enriched uranium to reduce the size of the core further? If so, what are the benefits vs. current technology and who would Australia be buying the technology from?

IMHO, the French reactors are probably the right size, so not sure why the RAN should look further. There are also economic and PR benefits to using civilian non-enriched uranium which can be easily reprocessed. Here’s a pic of the French reactor core, 5m high by 3m diameter:

www.meretmarine.com/article.cfm?id=1390

I have to agree that SSNs do make sense when you consider they wat the RAN operates its subs. One platform that might be of interest is the new French SSN under developement to replace the Rubis class. I know little about it but its role and capabilities may suit the RAN.

Leasing a 688 would be a good way of assessing the use and practicality of SSNs in RAN service.

If the RAN put the infrastructure in place to support SSNs I am also sure the USN would be interested in using them, and therefore may help with the contrustion costs and provide technical assistance.

Thanks Steve for4 bringing back some sanity to my thread. I was trying to say the Tea-Kettle nuke was the way forward for us- but was downed like a ship with a torpedo in it!

The Current Labor party aren’t all against Nuke power- in fact Rudd has openly discussed it on several occasions, just some members of his party are in marginal seats and they happen to be key seats so they are trying to hold on to their jobs.

I was trying to put the point across that we had troubles because of upscaling- even if we upscaled the S-90, it still wouldn’t be big enough for or needs, Nukes are already the size we need.

If India can lease an Akula II, why can’t we lease a 688? LA herself has just de-commed, we could hire that on a five year loan, learn how to operate them, then maybe jump on the band wagon with the Yanks for the next class!

Right…..

Current Euro conventional Boats are out, they are all too small. And many of the problems with collins stem from trying to Scale up smaller swedish designs. This includes both S-80 and Scorpene. Oh, and Scorpene was/is a joint Navienta/DCNS design, except the Spanish changed their minds on ordering it and purchased S-80 instead.

Current AIP tech is out, it was trialed on Collins and canned, with the space assigned to it on the boats given off for other equipment (see posts by gf0012-aust on various boards).

I like Super capacitors replacing current batteries, but they still don’t have high enough energy density to do the job. Though that could potentially change in the next 10-15 years.

I like the tea kettle type reactors, as the numbers being advertised for some of them suggest that 1-2 could replace the entire diesel-electric system of the collins class from memory (there was one particular article on the Australian section of Strategy Page one of the posters found somewhere).

However if you are going to install tea kettle type reactors, in my opinion you might as well just go all the way and build proper SSN’s, preferrably either Astute or Virginia class. Oh, and fairly sure the Labor Party is massively anti-nuclear, Liberals are/were a bit more sensible on the idea.

Ok Fed: yes I was leading into pointing that fact out- Currently the RAN deployment period for any sub is roughly 3-6 months depending on where they go. Now 6 months away from port is a long time for a D/E powered sub.

During the last days of our O-boat operations, we only had three ports outside Australia that could supply power to those boats- New Zealand, Singapore and Japan. Not even the US could supply shore power to them. So we needed a boat bigger for longer range patrols that could also self support in ports that couldn’t supply power to the boats- this is why the Collins is so big- to house more batteries.

Nuclear power would provide the power for long deployments without the need to stop in anywhere to top up fuel or supplies! I do realise 9despite what some of you may think) about the cost of setting up a nuke base and the logistics of such an excercise. Many of you veterans of this forum know me and know my insights to Naval ops and such, so you have a good understanding that I am not talking out the wrong end!

Dis: mate FB West has been welcoming CVN’s and SSN’s for many years now- people over there have no fears about nuclear power- they know that the people in thise tubs know their stuff, nothing is going to happen because these people go through many years of training to be where they are! (talking about the people who cover the reactors here).

Colombamike: those are the same three questions I have been asking myself mate- I still seriously doubt we will see that many boats in the RAN- it’s nice to know that the government thinks this part of the service is a priority, but a change of government will also change these ideas. The final model- well there is a little time before any decision is made and the market can change rapidly (look at the buy of the Type 471’s for example- prior to that announcement we were going to be getting Type 209/1500 which was also a new design on the board and the Poms were really pushing the Upholders on us- but the RAN wanted new boats and six of them, not second hand boats and only four- mind you, the Canadians have had their troubles with those boats too, more so since changing the weapons systems and FC computers.

The size increase is mostly to do with the length of the patrols envisioned coupled with the power storage/generation needed. Toss that out the window and use nuclear power and the boats can come back down to a smaller “Coastal” size- something I believe the French know all about!

Now as for the time frame of entry- it is already said that these boats will start to enter service around 2025 when the Collins will have used up their usefull service life (considering the problems they have, many believe they have already surpassed it).

Now if I was in the decision chair- I’d take a Singaporean* approach to the sub force and have a couple of large boats (SSN’s maybe) for the long range work and a small fleet of coast types for local work.

*For those of you who have been living under a rock for the past couple of years, the RSN has bought and refitted four of the Swedish A-14 (Sjoormen) class calling them the Challenger class and two A-17 (Vaastergotland) class subs calling them the Archer class. They use the Challenger class for inshore and training and the Archers for extended outter area work- very good idea and makes a lot of sence to me!

RSN Sub assets

As for the S-90, it does sound like what we need- I’d like to see some info on it

Just a detail about Ja Worsley post: S80 is not a joint venture between French DCN and Spanish Navantia but just a Spanish project (with a lot of components coming from the US, the UK, Germany and Italy, but not a single one from France)

Apart of that, Spanish Armada decided to purchase a Lockheed Martin combat system after the successful acquisition of Lockheed’s Aegis for the F100 frigates. And this could be quite attractive for the RAN, as it was in the purchase of its new AWD and also because the S80’s combat system is based on that of the US Navy’s Virginia SSN class.

Probably Australia would like to build their own submarines, and would need bigger ships in order to patrol for longer periods. It was told in Spain some years ago that after the first four S80 were built there was the possibility of building an enlarged version (S90), with VLS for Tomahawks, but since the economic crisis arrived even a second purchase of just 2 S80 is in serious doubt.

Well the S90 sounds close to what I was suggesting, sounds ideal.

The CMS from Lock Mart already in use on the Virginia class makes it highly attractive after the trouble with the CMS in the Collins class. In effect America is locked into supporting and developing that CMS for years to come.

An S90-Aus … has a ring to it!

Spanish S80

Just a detail about Ja Worsley post: S80 is not a joint venture between French DCN and Spanish Navantia but just a Spanish project (with a lot of components coming from the US, the UK, Germany and Italy, but not a single one from France)

Apart of that, Spanish Armada decided to purchase a Lockheed Martin combat system after the successful acquisition of Lockheed’s Aegis for the F100 frigates. And this could be quite attractive for the RAN, as it was in the purchase of its new AWD and also because the S80’s combat system is based on that of the US Navy’s Virginia SSN class.

Probably Australia would like to build their own submarines, and would need bigger ships in order to patrol for longer periods. It was told in Spain some years ago that after the first four S80 were built there was the possibility of building an enlarged version (S90), with VLS for Tomahawks, but since the economic crisis arrived even a second purchase of just 2 S80 is in serious doubt.