Australia to looking at buying/leasing nuclear subs to counter PLAN Subs?

plawolf

Lieutenant General
I remember hearing a lot of negative stories about the RAN's problems in recruiting enough people to man their subs a while back. With that in mind, such a large increase in the sub fleet seems rather optimistic.

Australia's economy is also symbiotic to that of China's, and as global and Chinese demand weakens, Australia's resource oriented economy is going to have less and less bargaining power as the commodities market start going from a sellers' market to a buyers' market. All of this means that Australia can ignore China's interests and concerns at its own peril.

Now, given Australia's geographical location SSKs would be perfectly adequate for their needs, and would not unduly alarm China because the short range of SSKs on battery power make them an almost exclusively defensive weapons platform.

SSNs are far more offensive in nature, and Australia operating American Virginias would raise alarm bells and hackles in Beijing. If Australia is unable to explain to China's satisfaction as to why they need so many advanced SSNs, well China may well decide to further diversify their resource suppliers and not give Australia money to buy arms to aim at China.
 

collins

New Member
I agree with Popeye that the chances of the US approving a deal like this are close to zero. To date the USN has sold exaclty... one half of an SSN to an ally. Specifically the rear half of HMS Dreadnought back in the late 50s. And that was because we were already developing our own nuclear subs and had the infrastructure in place to support a program of nuclear subs. Australia has traditionally had an anti-nuclear leaning, remember back in the 80s when HMS Invincible was refused access to a drydock in Sydney because she might have been carrying nuclear weapons? Admittedly that was about munitions not propulsion, but to the general public nuclear is nuclear, ie all bad.

Given Australia's geographic position, the 12 SSKs currently proposed makes more sense on many levels, they can cover a larger area than say 6 SSNs could (remember operational cycles would mean out of 12 SSKs, 4-6 would be available at any time but with 6 SSNs only 2-3 would be at sea normally, the balance in both cases being in dock/refit/ on leave). The RAN cannot afford to operate a large fleet of Frigates to protect her coast line so relies on a laarge fleet of Armidale class OPVs in order to be in more places at once. Quantity has a quality of it's own here, as such the SSNs will always lose out to the SSKs in this argument.

Bottom line, the US will make friendly noises about this but won't sell any SSNs to Australia or anyone else for that matter. Australia may make noises about wanting them but it's not just the straight cost of buying the subs, it's the cost of the infrastructure to support them that would kill any deal. This may be the slippery political intention anyway, to transfer any political capital in favour of the SSNs to the SSK purchase to bolster what has been said earlier, to be an unpopular choice.

Also, slightly miffed no consideration was given to buying Astute class SSNs, as they are bloody good boats and we have spare capacity in the programme!

astute is being considered. see here

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
The USN has never in it's history Exported A SSN Or SSBN I don't see that changing any time soon. The USN did however share reactor plans Trident missile components for the British. The British might, as they have a much closer relation ship too Australia, It would still be unprecedented for them though.
There is only One Nuclear powered Sub that has ever been Exported, the INS Chakra a Russian built Akula II.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

CBC News has learned the Harper government is considering buying nuclear submarines to replace its problem-plagued fleet of diesel-powered subs, all of which are currently awash in red ink and out of service for major repairs.

The four second-hand subs Jean Chrétien’s Liberal government bought from the British navy in 1998 for $750 million were portrayed at the time as the military bargain of the century.

SUB-PAR SUBSCanada's ailing submarines
Instead, they have spent almost all of their time in naval repair yards, submerging Canadian taxpayers in an ocean of bills now totalling more than $1 billion and counting.

One of the subs, HMCS Chicoutimi, has been in active service of the Royal Canadian Navy exactly two days in the 13 years since it was purchased from the Brits.

The Chicoutimi caught fire on its maiden voyage from the U.K. to Canada, killing one sailor and injuring a number of others.

It has been in the repair shop ever since, and isn’t expected back in service for at least another two years and $400 million more in repairs and retrofits.

'In an ideal world, I know nuclear subs are what's needed under deep water, deep ice.'
—Defence Minister Peter MacKay
National Defence said this week that one of the subs, the Victoria, could be back in service in 2012.

The other three would remain out of service until at least 2013. One may not be out of the repair shop until 2016.

By that time, the submarines will have cost taxpayers an estimated $3 billion, almost enough to have bought all new subs in the first place.

But the real problem is that by the time the whole fleet is in active service for the first time in 2016, the submarines will already be almost 30 years old with only perhaps 10 years of life left in them.

High-ranking sources tell CBC News the government is actively considering cutting its losses on the dud subs, and mothballing some if not all of them.

P.O.V.:
Should Canada buy nuclear subs? Take our survey.

Defence Minister Peter MacKay is hinting they might be replaced with nuclear submarines that could patrol under the Arctic ice, something the existing diesel-electric subs cannot do.

Outside the Commons this week, MacKay told CBC News the government is anxious to have its submarine fleet fully operational as soon as possible, providing a “very important capability for the Canadian Forces.”

But asked whether the government might look at other subs, MacKay said: “Well there was a position taken some time ago to go with diesel-electric.

“But you know, in an ideal world, I know nuclear subs are what's needed under deep water, deep ice.”

Nuclear submarines $3B each
Nuclear submarines are hugely expensive — they start around $3 billion apiece — and it is unclear where the Harper government would find that kind of money, much less how it could justify such an enormous expenditure during a period of supposed austerity.

The last time a Canadian government seriously considered nuclear subs was in the late 1980s before then prime minister Brian Mulroney sank the whole program amid a public uproar.

A decade later, the Chrétien government bought the four used diesel subs from the British navy in large part because it was seen as such a huge bargain.

Senator Art Eggleton, who was Liberal defence minister at the time, told CBC News Thursday that his government gave "absolutely no consideration" to buying nuclear submarines, although some inside the navy were pushing for them.

"We were coming out of a period of budget-cutting and nuclear submarines would have been far too expensive."

Instead, the British navy was offering a deal Eggleton said the Canadian military couldn’t refuse — the four diesel-electric submarines mothballed after only two years in service when the Royal Navy switched to nuclear subs.

"We got them at a quarter of the cost it would have cost to build new ones," Eggleton says. "We wouldn’t have had the money to build new ones."

He concedes the Liberal government gave serious consideration to not having submarines at all.

"It was either buy these subs, or get out of the submarine business altogether."

'It makes no difference to our security'
Some defence critics think that’s exactly what the current Conservative government should be considering — scrapping the problem-plagued diesel-electric fleet rather than throwing what they see as good money after bad.

“When you look at the cost of trying to get these things seaworthy again, it just doesn’t make sense," said Steven Staples, president of the Rideau Institute on defence issues.

The Harper government has just awarded a $25-billion contract to build a new fleet of Canadian destroyers and frigates, and Staples says that should be enough.

“Once you are in a hole, the first thing that you should do is stop digging, so I think that it is time to say goodbye to the submarines right now and focus on the new surface fleet.”

Staples says the history of the diesel subs suggests Canada could get by without them.

"The fact that all four submarines are sitting tied up at a dry dock right now doesn’t mean that Canada is in any great danger. It makes no difference to our security.”

I highly doubt Either nation will get a Nuclear Sub in my lifetime. If I were too lay money on a replacement for the Collins class, I would bet That both Australia and Canada buy German Type 216.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

collins

New Member
The USN has never in it's history Exported A SSN Or SSBN I don't see that changing any time soon. The USN did however share reactor plans Trident missile components for the British. The British might, as they have a much closer relation ship too Australia, It would still be unprecedented for them though.
There is only One Nuclear powered Sub that has ever been Exported, the INS Chakra a Russian built Akula II.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!



I highly doubt Either nation will get a Nuclear Sub in my lifetime. If I were too lay money on a replacement for the Collins class, I would bet That both Australia and Canada buy German Type 216.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


actually what you have said is wrong. from the article i linked to:

There is a precedent for the move. In the late 1980s Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan agreed to export the design, nuclear reactors, and technical know-how necessary to permit Canada to build 12 Trafalgar class nuclear submarines.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

cn_habs

Junior Member
Canadians still remember their submariners who perished in that junk that the Brits sold them at such a ridiculous price. Last time I saw it in the port of Halifax, it was out of the water going under endless repairs. :confused:
 

bd popeye

The Last Jedi
VIP Professional
There is a precedent for the move. In the late 1980s Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan agreed to export the design, nuclear reactors, and technical know-how necessary to permit Canada to build 12 Trafalgar class nuclear submarines.

Security risk of some sort more than likely was the reason for the cancellation of the plan. Just my opinion.

Listen up collins.. no matter how much anyone here post or what anyone heard or any deal that was going to happen etc etc.. the security of the US is paramount when dealing with certain types of military hardware. Submarines are on or near the top of that list.

In my opinion

1) No country on this planet will ever gain the use of any US nuclear ship or sub.
2) Politicians say a lot of things. In reality it takes a lot of negotiations behind the scenes to get a deal done with military hardware.

And finally..in 2002 Taiwan was to get US diesel subs. despite the fact the US quit making them many years before. Guess what? 10 years has past and nothing has or ever will happen.

Read this.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

antiterror13

Brigadier
INS Chakra

There is no SSN/SSBN sale so far in our history, the closest one is INS Chakra which is a lease from Russian Navy in 2011 and was formally commissioned into service as the INS Chakra II.

No it is not going to happen.

China may sell SSN to Indonesia as well :), perhaps the old 091
 

NikeX

Banned Idiot
Re: Australia to counter PLAN threat with nuclear subs?

Does anyone have any thoughts?

Australia is also considering buying the latest class of Japanese submarine, the Soryu Class which is seen as very capable with its advanced sensors and AIP propulsion

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


"....The Australian Navy is considering this 4200-tonne Japanese submarine as an option for Australia. These submarines use US Harpoon missiles and Swedish air indpendent propulsion. Importantly they have the size to give them the range (~11,000 km) required to be effective around Australia...."
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Australia Likely To Buy Subs From Japan
Our BureauViewed: 1182 times
Thu, Sep 27, 2012 14:48 CET
Japan and Australia are likely to confirm a defense technology deal involving the technology transfer of Japan’s highly regarded diesel-electric AIP Soryu submarine, according to the Japan Security Watch. This deal is an outgrowth of the relaxing of the arms export restrictions that took place late last year.

The two could collaborate on maritime domain, particularly in terms of Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW). When the two countries held their first bilateral defense exercises recently they engaged in ASW exercises, something they have also done so with the US in trilateral exercises.

According to the Australian press, the Japanese could in a joint partnership to outfit the Royal Australian Navy with 12 submarines similar to the highly regarded Japanese diesel-electric mid-sized Soryuu submarine.

There had been numerous maintenance and technical issues with Australia’s Collins-class submarines, hence a desire this time around to acquire a proven platform." From:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

collins

New Member
Re: Australia to counter PLAN threat with nuclear subs?

Here is the latest news on this subject from Australia...

The purchase of nuclear-powered submarines is a “sensible alternative” to replacing the nation’s ageing Collins-class diesel-electric submarines, says nuclear physicist and former Telstra boss Ziggy Switkowski.

“I think they would come in at a budget that would be no greater than what we would allow for Collins,” Dr Switkowski told Channel 10 on Sunday.

“The US and the UK have only nuclear powered subs. We know they work, they’re faster than conventional diesel-powered submarines, they can stay underwater for essentially years at a time and they get refuelled every 20 or 30 years.”

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Dr Switkowski was responding to questions about The Australian Financial Review’s exclusive report on Saturday about growing support within Coalition ranks for acquiring or leasing Virginia-class nuclear submarines from the United States. Senior Coalition frontbenchers told the AFR that the Obama Administration would support such a move, although it is not yet official Coalition policy.

Labor’s policy is to replace the Collins submarines with conventional submarines at a cost of up to $36 billion.

Dr Switkowski, who carried out a review of nuclear energy for former prime minister John Howard, said it was not at all clear whether America would be eager to sell its nuclear submarine technology to Australia.

However, he said Australia would eventually turn to nuclear for electricity generation.

Resources Minister Martin Ferguson, who released Labor’s white paper on energy last week, acknowledged nuclear power generation would be the subject of debate in coming years.

The original article is here:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
Top