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

Pusser01

Banned Idiot
Well, IMHO, the Collins class did have some rather significant problems out of the chute. The McIntosh-Prescott Report highlighted most of the real issues, while putting a lot of the other hype to rest. But the real issues were significant and resulted in the "Get Well" program that brought the 5th and 6th vessels up to speed through the construction process and then retrofitted those fixes back to the other four boats that had already been launched.

I do not believe that that report, or the extents to which the RAN and Australian government went to to solve the problems were politics...they were real issues and took real solutions to addres them,...and quitre a bit of extra money...over $1 billion US was the tally, if not more.

Happily, I believe that program worked well, and has now produced a good sub force with the capanbilities it was intended to have, and with the even newer combat system update to be completed across the class by 2014, even greater capability than intended.

But, with a submerged speed of 21 knots and a surfaced speed of 10 knots, and without AIP, they are still limited.

I know the Australian Navy trains very well and very hard. They are cut and dried and squared away.

However, I would not want to take a Collins against a Virginia or Sea Wolf at any time because the US Navy training program is just as rigourous and those squids are just as professional and competent...and they also have better platforms to work with.

The class has traded punches successfully with LA Class boats. To the chagrin on those boats, particularly in exercises when they were tasked with protecting Amphibious assault vessels. But the LA Class has also taken the Collins down too. The partiuclar training exercises against the USS Olympia in 2002 were telling, involving the Colllins class, Sheean. Both did well in the hunter killer role against each other. It should also be noted however that the Olympia was a Block I boat and that the Block II and particularly what are called the ADCAP Block III boats are much more effective. It would be interesting to see if the Collins class in any of their training and exercises with the US had gone head to head with Block III ADCAP LA Class and how they did.

Similarly, if they have gone up against either Sea Wolf or Viginia class boas and how they did.

The Olympia was commissioned in 1983, the Sheean was commissioned in 2001, almost 20 years later and benefitting from all of the upgrades to the class. While the Olympia also had upgrades, she was not structurally better than her 1983 design and clearly not a Block III ADCAP boat.

Luckily, we will not ever have to worry about that scenario playing out in war between the two countries in any case...though I will admit that in the litorals, as it is with any diesel/electric, the issue is compounded significantly. The Viginia's have some very special equipment set up specifically for that purpose, though I personally believe that sending a 8,000 ton SSN into those waters is not cost effective in the least and that the US should build a seperate class of 18-24 modern AIP diesel electrics of its own for fighting in the litorals that maybe displace 4,000-5,000 tons.

...and a good place to start, would be the newer, Japanese Soroyu Class, which I believe to be among the best AIP Diesel Electrcs in the world. Here's couple of pics. Displacement at 4,200 tons submerged. The JMSDF has built and launched four of these and is planning four more I believe. I would love to see over a dozen similar boats in US Navy service for the litorals..

But, those are just my thoughts on the matter. God's speed, mate!

Absolutely agree Jeff, the US Navy submariners are trained to the highest standards in the world aswell.
As to a Collins coming up against a newer nuke, well during RIMPAC this year Farncomb played games with the Charlotte, Cheyenne and North Carolina. As to who versed who and how they went, I've only heard 2nd hand from guys who went, nothing in the public forum at this stage unfortunately.
Both sides of politics here have stated that the nuclear option is well and truely off the table, the RAN has been saying this for years not that anyone listened :)
It will be interesting to see what design the RAN goes for, hopefully it doesn't become a political handball after the election next year. The opposition have said they want a study into the available European designs, which at this stage don't meet the RAN requirements. The 216 sounds as though it might in range but it will fall short in other areas.
The most likely design IMHO that will meet the RAN requirements, will be the follow on to the Soryu or a "son of Collins". I also believe that the number will be cut back from 12 proposed to more likely 6-8.
Cheers

PS: recently ordered and read your book Jeff. A good read overall, shame about Australia being invaded though :)
 

ahadicow

Junior Member
It's all well and good Aussies are up for a shopping for some nice subs, but do they have to mention China as the reason? Australia and China had never went to war and had no territorial dispute, add on top of that Austrilia is probably the 2nd largest migration destination(next to Canada) of Chinese, so where is this need to "counter" China come from? Australia is a big maritime country and has a lot of legimate ground to expand her navy, so it really buffles me she necessarily need "China" as a big justification for buying some subs.

It's probably a politican's move to appeal to some sinophobics but in my opinion very bad for Australian's foreign picture. Chinese leaders may not distinguish a politician's word and a country's official policy. It's very possible they think "oh, you're out to 'counter' us, then we as well get the counter to your 'counter'" and we have a full-blown navy arm's race in Asian Pacific that couldn't end well. All in all, very irresponsible words. Regardless whether Australia would eventually get SSNs, any ship RAN further acquires could potentially be interpreted as a move to "counter" PLAN by pointing at such words by some individual, irresponsible and possibly very foolish politicians.
 

tphuang

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
if you go to our sister forum on DefenceTalk, there is always a lot of talk on this. There seems to be a lot of cooperation between the Japanese and Australians here. I wouldn't be surprised if the successor to Collins class look a lot like Soryu.
 

Miragedriver

Brigadier
Just a thought. Australia could consider purchasing some USN nuclear submarines. Australia is one of the USAs closest allies (next to England and Canada). With the budget cut coming in the American defense, it is possible to acquire some of the world best nuclear submarines.
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
Just a thought. Australia could consider purchasing some USN nuclear submarines. Australia is one of the USAs closest allies (next to England and Canada). With the budget cut coming in the American defense, it is possible to acquire some of the world best nuclear submarines.

Guess you only read the last page. The US would never sell.
 

Miragedriver

Brigadier
Guess you only read the last page. The US would never sell.

Thank you. I just now read Popeye’s post on the previous page. I was unaware of the US nuclear policy with Allied nations. I just assumed that Australia would be just as close as the relationship with England. England and Australia both received F-111 (I know that this does not compare to a nuclear sub) so I extrapolated my assumption from there.
 

DigoSSA

New Member
Registered Member
It's Official: France's DCNS Wins Australia's $50 Billion Future Submarine Contract

DCNS’ conventional Barracuda-class variant beat out Japan’s Soryu-class and Germany’s Type 216

Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull announced Tuesday morning that France’s DCNS consortium will be awarded the multi-billion dollar contract to build the 12 submarines that will succeed the Australian Navy’s aging Collins-class submarines under the SEA 1000 Future Submarine Programme. The deal is the largest in Australian defense procurement history. Cost estimates for the final project vary widely, but the deal is expected to be finalized in the range of $30 to $50 billion.

The French consortium beat out ThyssenKrupp from Germany and a joint Mitsubishi-Kawasaki offering from Japan. DCNS’ proposal for Australia was regarding a diesel-electric variant of its Barracuda-class nuclear attack submarine (SSN), which is currently under construction for the French Navy. The German offering was the Type 216 and Japan pitched its Soryu-class diesel-electric submarines.

The Barracuda-class is set to become the backbone of the French SSN fleet, replacing the Rubis-class. The shortfin variant on offer to Australia comes in at 90 meters in hull length and displaces 4,000 tons when submerged. Little else is known about the feature set of the Australian variant. In both weight and hull length, the Shortfin Barracuda is considerably larger than the 72 meter-long, 3,100 ton Collins-class, which it will replace. Critically, the Shortfin Barracuda variant on offer to Australia will use conventional propulsion instead of nuclear propulsion. In a press release from last July, DCNS CEO Sean Costello noted that “If selected the Shortfin Barracuda will remain in service until the 2060s and the Block 1A platform will be updated and upgraded with new technology developed in France and Australia.”

As Benjamin David Baker explained in The Diplomat last November, one of the selling points for the DCNS offering was the fact that the French Navy was about to take delivery of the sub in 2017 and would be able to modify the submarine in line with its operational experience. “As Canberra has stated that it plans to replace the Collins by the mid-2020s, this ostensibly gives the French company plenty of time to smooth out any inevitable technical glitches with the subs before they are launched in Australia,” Baker explained.

Earlier this week, leaked reports in the Australian press noted that Japan’s Soryu-class submarine offering had been ruled out by the Australian government. The Soryu was long seen as a front-runner for the Collins-class replacement contract and was thought to have been a particularly strong contender owing to increasing strategic affinities between Tokyo and Canberra due to a rising China.

With the change of government in Australia last fall, after former Prime Minister Tony Abbott was ousted in an unexpected leadership spill within the Liberal Party, the Soryu‘s position in the SEA 1000 contest declined. Also, as I’d discussed previously in The Diplomat, the Japanese firms’ relative lack of experience in pursuing foreign defense contracts meant that ThyssenKrupp and DCNS held somewhat of a public relations advantage–one that may have become particularly decisive after last year’s change of leadership.

Domestic politics have been an important factor for the Australian government as it has assessed the three submarine offerings. Turnbull’s choice of Adelaide to announce the deal is no accident. ASC, the Australian shipyard that manufactured the Collins-class, is based in Adelaide. The direct involvement of Australian shipbuilders in the construction of the Collins-replacement has been a hot button issue. Earlier this year, after the release of Australia’s 2016 Defense White Paper, Australian Federal Industry Minister Christopher Pyne said that “whatever is being built in Australia will be based in Adelaide and that has to be good news for [South Australia].”

Source:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 
Top