Reply With QuoteFlagg's ideas remind me of the United Anglo States from Civilization IV. Dare to dream.
Interesting.....
if Australia made the considerable investment in a fleet of nuclear attack subs(that possess organic vertical launch long range precision land attack missiles) it would truly reach the stage of regional superpower.
9-12 would provide Australia with 3-4 minimum on patrol at all times.
Combine that with an undisclosed, highly speculative, but strongly suspected ability to create an insta-nuke in a reasonable time frame and you have the ability to stand with greater independence as a near peer on the global stage in a geopolitical crisis.
Money is an issue......times are tight....and getting tighter....and Aussie is the last many standing in the Western world to feel the pinch which it inevitably will.
Manning is definitely an issue.....I would think the manpower needed to fill the boats as well as support the boats has to be a HUGE consideration....I would have thought the Virginia Class would have resulted in a design with possibly a far lower ship's complement...but it looks pretty similar to the LA Class boats.
IF it's an option, and IF it's a lease, I wonder if the eight 688 Flight II boats with the VLS Tomahawks would be suitable?
Assuming the US Navy can spare them, is in need of trimming the boat fleet with the drawdown, they are all good nuclear fuel cycle and overhaul wise for another 10-15 years, AND Australia has the money, people, and WILL to make this happen.
Those boats will be in the last 1/3 of their service life.....but if a refuel/overhaul was included I would think the service life could be extended a bit.
But I'm highly skeptical.
While I support Australia's effort at building a substantial and capable sub fleet...I SERIOUSLY wonder where the money is going to come from to buy and operate said fleet....and the massive number of pers needed to run and support the fleet.
You can't just produce thousands of highly skilled submariners and sub support folks like sausages.
Flagg's ideas remind me of the United Anglo States from Civilization IV. Dare to dream.
@Flagg
In my humble opinion, leasing of some of the older 688 boats to Australia would seem to have many advantages. No disposal problems. We'd help with the training, obviously. We would have to already have a course for training crews.
Maybe the US Navy should have a "fire sale" ? (pun intended)
Use it for training if nothing else, maybe.
Buying or leasing Virginia submarines would have the advantage of obtaining a new submarine, maybe have 2 in process at time, but it might be a matter of negotiating with the US Navy.
IIRC there are quite a few 688s that were retired simply because we didn't want to refuel them. I can't imagine the USN transferring ACTIVE SSNs when we need them so bad.Originally Posted by Flagg
"Between 1998 and 2001 the US will retire 11 Los Angeles class submarines that have an average of 13 years left on their 30-year service lives. SSN-688 class submarines could operate for much longer than 30 years; one of the shipbuilders stated that 10 to 20 years of additional service would not be unreasonable. Past Navy actions indicate that extending a submarine's service life may be feasible. After a 5-year study was completed on the SSN-637 class submarine--the predecessor of the SSN-688 class--the design life was extended from 20 years to 30 years, with a possible extension to 33 years on a case-by-case basis. The 18 SSN-688 class submarines that will be refueled at their mid-life could make good candidates for a service life extension because they could operate for nearly 30 years after the refueling. After these submarines serve for 30 years, they could undergo a 2-year overhaul and serve for one more 10-year operating cycle, for a total service life of 42 years. The cost for the additional overhaul of SSN-688 class submarines would be about $406 million per boat.
Eight older Los Angeles-class submarines, without a vertical launch system, could be refueled at a cost of $210 million more than it would cost to inactivate them.
•FY2000 - SSN 713 Houston
•FY2001 - SSN 698 Bremerton
•FY2001 - SSN 699 Jacksonville
•FY2001 - SSN 714 Norfolk
•FY2005 - SSN 716 Salt Lake City
•FY2006 - SSN 717 Olympia
•FY2007 - SSN 718 Honolulu
•FY2008 - SSN 710 Augusta
These submarines can still be used in strike missions, however, by firing Tomahawk land attack missiles through their torpedo tubes."
*The Block IV Tomahawk cannot be launched from a torpedo tube.
Last edited by C.Puffs; 06-09-2012 at 12:48 AM.
Diesel/electric or nuclear powered whatever we go with will have a land attack capability plus the ability to insert and extract a Special Forces team coupled with the endurance and electrical power to run systems found on a Virginia class submarine. So really if we could overcome the hurdle of nuclear powered propulsion a Virginia class is the next logical step in RAN submarine operations, but in saying that no one in power has the guts to say that’s what will inshore Australia strategic dominance in the Indian and Pacific oceans. Yes it will take planning to ensure a smooth transition to the next generation submarine but a shore the can come up with the goods.
Would the Astute class not be a better fit for Australia?
A nuclear RAN boat......awesome!
Too much ignorance for it to ever get up here. We've got the stable country, remote area for storage of waste, all the uranium we could ever ask for, we should be producing nuc energy. But I doubt if we ever will.
It's twice as big as the Collins, I don't think our needs have changed that much in the last couple of decades that we all of a sudden need twice as big a boat as we already have.
For what ever reason both potential governments have got it in their heads that we need to build these boats ourselves. That's fine (it's not really, I don't see the benefit of us building a dozen boats every couple of decades and have us deluding ourselves int thinking we're mainintaining some form of capability), but hopefully we get a proven design and pretty much stick to it this time. Collins is kicking goals and it's a lot better than the media would have us believe, but it still has some serious flaws that we're every chance to repeat if we go down the same road as last time.
What ever it is, I'm betting it will be a quiet, diesel electric boat that can work in shallow water.
Unless there's a mass drawdown of the SSN fleet (such that we start doing to them what we did to the Perry's) in the very near future, most 688's will be clapped out by the time the USN is ready to let them out of service.
It’s not out of the realms of possibility if the current government lifted their stance on nuclear propulsion, the opposition has claimed that they will have not discounted nuclear propulsion but will look at what is best for Australia. Both Astute and Virginia class submarine are quite larger than what is being envisioned for the replacement boat, but if it was down to what systems that are currently used by the RAN the US boat would be selected on that alone. We get a lot more assistance from USN than just single system, we get but the whole nine yards with are defence ties.
I too is betting we will get a conventional submarine and their will be a collaboration with the Kawasaki shipbuilding, Electric boat and Australian Submarine Corporation with inputs from both the French/English, I think its a doable but with a large dose of outside help namely Electric Boat, but for my money I would rather see a licensed build of a MOTS Virginia class build as it ticks all the box the RAN are asking and with proven combat systems we are already familiar with.
Last edited by digrar; 06-09-2012 at 08:39 AM. Reason: same font as everyone else
It's not going to happen.Ever.
Go read what I posted above. -688s are getting retired years before their lives are up simply because the US doesn't want to pay to refuel them.
That list is mistaken. For one, 698,699, 713, 714, and 717 are still active and well past the 20 year mark. For two, PSNS harvested 718 to repair 711 when she grounded and she'll never never sail again. For three, extending a 688 Flight I to 43 years is iffy at best, dependent entirely on the shape each is in individually. That's without a substantial upgrade to systems, getting their combat system and sonar upgraded to better address year 2020+ adversaries would push the cost substantially.
The RN begs to differ (I think the Spanish Navy were at one time intending to operate them too).
I don't know if there's an issue with the non-improved 688's, but fundamentally the torpedo tubes aren't the problem.
http://www.asiapacificdefencereporte...marine-Captain
This was March 2012 and HMAS COLLINS was in the Western Australian Exercise Areas conducting Exercise Triton Storm, an annual high-end training event. It was my last three weeks at sea as a submarine captain and there couldn’t have been a better way to finish off. Operating at a heightened, but sustainable degree of readiness the crew bring together skills, equipment and experience to deliver a capability feared and admired throughout the world and desperately needed as part of Australia’s national defence. It’s just getting it all together which is the big challenge.
Posting Permissions
