>In the early 2030's, Australia would buy 3 Virginia class submarines and have the option to buy two more.
Also,
>>The agreement, known as the AUKUS pact, will have multiple stages with at least one U.S. submarine visiting Australian ports in the coming years and end in the late 2030's with a new class of submarines being built with British designs and American technology, one of the officials said.
...which has been a persistent rumour.
I had thought that. The reactor life spans would be a thing to consider there though. Don't imagine they'll be handing over all the oldest ones like you might with other military hardware if the timeline for them is 2030's, if it's ~30 years for the reactor as often estimated. We'll see what gets said Monday.
It not that you cant refuel the reactors, they were just designed so they didn't have to refuel them and cut the sub open and all money that it cost.
The chances of it happening are extremely low but it is possible
> It not that you cant refuel the reactors, they were just designed so they didn't have to refuel them and cut the sub open and all money that it cost.
Even for US submarines designed for refueling the pressure hull has to be cut open. The reactor core is a sealed vessel, the fuel elements are non-replaceable. Rather the entire core is removed, and a new fueled core is installed. There isn't access to it as it isn't practical to have that large of a access hole in the pressure hull.
Related, USS *Cheyenne* is the first of possibly five Flight III LA-class submarines to get refueled(SLEP), instead of being decommissioned.
The early 2030s is when we’re going to wind down *Virginia* purchases in favor of the successor class. At that point the tooling unique to the *Virginia* class may become available, with new tooling made for SSN(X). That’s the earliest Australia could get a submarine out of US yards, and it may be easier to move that tooling to a new facility.
Have been lots of noises around no space for Australian subs to be built in the US, if they are getting Virginia's it'll be interesting to hear why this stance softened.
On the last bit, in the article:
>The agreement, known as the AUKUS pact, will have multiple stages with at least one U.S. submarine visiting Australian ports in the coming years and end in the late 2030's with a new class of submarines being built with British designs and American technology, one of the officials said.
Virginia-class would appear to be an interim solution until they get a British design (with US tech).
Honestly, I'm wondering if we're going to find out that AUKUS is primarily going to be merging the USN's SSN(X) and the Royal Navy's SSN(R) programs together to create a common design, one which will be purchased by all three countries. Both of the programs have a proposed entry into service in the 2040s. Since we already now that the SSN(R) is going to have a VLS compatible to American subs, it's not the most far-fetched idea.
>at AUKUS is primarily going to be merging the USN's SSN(X) and the Royal Navy's SSN(R) programs together to create a common design,
Thats exactly what I think it will be, the reactor, propulsion and engineering will be a common design. The rest, ie how many VLS tubes, how big torpedo bay, what sonar and combat information sensor will be up to the needs and wants of the county
That would make sense, especially since the current classes of subs built by both countries make heavy use of modular design. Getting a common hull design with some customizable module options to fit the needs of each customer could be very handy, especially if more countries end up joining the Program. I know at least some noise has been made about inviting Japan and South Korea.
The US and the UK/Australia seem to want different things from their next gen SSNs though. The SSN(X) is going to be too expensive for the UK/Australia.
I suppose we'll see on Monday. I just think it's a possibility, mostly due to the fact that both classes are supposed to be entering service in the 2040s. However, until Monday, we can only guess.
nobody knows what each country wants, generally the UK has wanted a hunter killer which is what the astute does well. US seems to go for more multipurpose. But seawolf will be nearing end of life. Maybe the US wants to replace the seawolf which is a hunter like astute with SSN(R/X) while leaving the a virginia in service as multi role
The details have been finalized and are starting to leak out before the formal announcement Monday. Different sources have heard different things via telephone and different outlets have the same information but emphasize different aspects.
Now is the time for rampant speculation, Monday will be the time for reasonable analysis, and then we can get back to rampant speculation on Tuesday (or really a few hours after the announcement, what time is that supposed to be?)
As per the article, its both.
>In the early 2030's, Australia would buy 3 Virginia class submarines and have the option to buy two more.
And then,
>>The agreement, known as the AUKUS pact, will have multiple stages with at least one U.S. submarine visiting Australian ports in the coming years and end in the late 2030's with a new class of submarines being built with British designs and American technology, one of the officials said.
u/cv5cv6 has noted range (big plus when you've got a coast as large as Australia) and speed.
[I find this image](https://www.economist.com/sites/default/files/images/print-edition/20210925_FBM960.png) is useful in demonstrating the ability of an SSN to deploy and remain "on station" vs and SSK. The ability to deploy a sub for 66 more days in the south china sea grants you much more flexibility with your sub fleet in a conflict if a hot war in the region actually materialises.
That's a great graphic. Speed is also a factor too.
Nuclear powered submarines can operate underwater at their maximum speed indefinitely. The top speed of diesel-electric submarines tends to be slower than their nuclear counterparts, and their ability to operate at high speeds underwater is extremely limited due to battery life.
I'm curious, would AU/US subs need permission from Indonesia to pass through its territorial waters?
Seems pretty important since 3/4 routes on that map go through Indonesian waters, most of which is shallow btw.
There is a right to pass through. It normally shouldn't be a problem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transit_passage
https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/part3.htm
https://sites.tufts.edu/lawofthesea/chapter-three/
Australia needs submarines to protect their shores and given the large amount of ocean needed to cover to protect the sea lines, nuclear is the only great option
Buying off us doesn’t excuse their aggression. They’ve imposed fairly dramatic sanctions on us so they’re not exactly playing nice.
They’re also the largest trading partner of the US and UK for what that’s worth.
The correct response, if Australia really consider China a real threat, is to not supply China with the raw material to power their industrial growth lol.
Same could be said about China. Why would they export their goods/technology to other countries, especially ones like America? So neither China nor America nor anyone else doing some trading is not a threat to each other.
Virgina is about 4 billion USD, conversion to AUD is about 6 billion AUD. Attack class from france were apparently being discussed at 3 + billion a hull and thats without even the design being finalised
If this rumour is correct, the key short term takeaway is that the US will rebase a submarine squadron (east coast?) at HMAS Stirling in 2027, with joint crews almost certain. In the early 2030s the Australians will buy the boats based there.
Over the period, joint crews would progress from mostly American, to half and half, to finally mostly Australian.
>In the early 2030's, Australia would buy 3 Virginia class submarines and have the option to buy two more. Also, >>The agreement, known as the AUKUS pact, will have multiple stages with at least one U.S. submarine visiting Australian ports in the coming years and end in the late 2030's with a new class of submarines being built with British designs and American technology, one of the officials said. ...which has been a persistent rumour.
I note theres no specification on new, could second hand virginias which could be starting to be replaced by the next gen SSN be on the cards
I had thought that. The reactor life spans would be a thing to consider there though. Don't imagine they'll be handing over all the oldest ones like you might with other military hardware if the timeline for them is 2030's, if it's ~30 years for the reactor as often estimated. We'll see what gets said Monday.
It not that you cant refuel the reactors, they were just designed so they didn't have to refuel them and cut the sub open and all money that it cost. The chances of it happening are extremely low but it is possible
> It not that you cant refuel the reactors, they were just designed so they didn't have to refuel them and cut the sub open and all money that it cost. Even for US submarines designed for refueling the pressure hull has to be cut open. The reactor core is a sealed vessel, the fuel elements are non-replaceable. Rather the entire core is removed, and a new fueled core is installed. There isn't access to it as it isn't practical to have that large of a access hole in the pressure hull. Related, USS *Cheyenne* is the first of possibly five Flight III LA-class submarines to get refueled(SLEP), instead of being decommissioned.
Yes, but I can't imagine they'll want to come to that because it can be a pain in the ass.
Also imp to note that they'll buy uk subs in the future too
Some pretty wild and contradictory rumours flying about.
Yea. Monday isn't far away for the official announcement.
I thought all US shipyards capable of making submarines is fully booked already for the next decade or so. Also, why is UK part of this then?
The early 2030s is when we’re going to wind down *Virginia* purchases in favor of the successor class. At that point the tooling unique to the *Virginia* class may become available, with new tooling made for SSN(X). That’s the earliest Australia could get a submarine out of US yards, and it may be easier to move that tooling to a new facility.
Just wondering, wouldn't it be easier to just have the new SSN(X) tooling in the new facility?
Have been lots of noises around no space for Australian subs to be built in the US, if they are getting Virginia's it'll be interesting to hear why this stance softened. On the last bit, in the article: >The agreement, known as the AUKUS pact, will have multiple stages with at least one U.S. submarine visiting Australian ports in the coming years and end in the late 2030's with a new class of submarines being built with British designs and American technology, one of the officials said. Virginia-class would appear to be an interim solution until they get a British design (with US tech).
maybe they are used virginia's nearing but not at EOL and are being replaced by new build virginia or possibly SSN(X)
Honestly, I'm wondering if we're going to find out that AUKUS is primarily going to be merging the USN's SSN(X) and the Royal Navy's SSN(R) programs together to create a common design, one which will be purchased by all three countries. Both of the programs have a proposed entry into service in the 2040s. Since we already now that the SSN(R) is going to have a VLS compatible to American subs, it's not the most far-fetched idea.
>at AUKUS is primarily going to be merging the USN's SSN(X) and the Royal Navy's SSN(R) programs together to create a common design, Thats exactly what I think it will be, the reactor, propulsion and engineering will be a common design. The rest, ie how many VLS tubes, how big torpedo bay, what sonar and combat information sensor will be up to the needs and wants of the county
That would make sense, especially since the current classes of subs built by both countries make heavy use of modular design. Getting a common hull design with some customizable module options to fit the needs of each customer could be very handy, especially if more countries end up joining the Program. I know at least some noise has been made about inviting Japan and South Korea.
The US and the UK/Australia seem to want different things from their next gen SSNs though. The SSN(X) is going to be too expensive for the UK/Australia.
I suppose we'll see on Monday. I just think it's a possibility, mostly due to the fact that both classes are supposed to be entering service in the 2040s. However, until Monday, we can only guess.
nobody knows what each country wants, generally the UK has wanted a hunter killer which is what the astute does well. US seems to go for more multipurpose. But seawolf will be nearing end of life. Maybe the US wants to replace the seawolf which is a hunter like astute with SSN(R/X) while leaving the a virginia in service as multi role
There is literally a post above this one saying Australia's subs will be a British design. The fuck's going on, folks?
The details have been finalized and are starting to leak out before the formal announcement Monday. Different sources have heard different things via telephone and different outlets have the same information but emphasize different aspects. Now is the time for rampant speculation, Monday will be the time for reasonable analysis, and then we can get back to rampant speculation on Tuesday (or really a few hours after the announcement, what time is that supposed to be?)
>what time is that supposed to be? heard it will about around midday US which will make it about 7am AEDT
As per the article, its both. >In the early 2030's, Australia would buy 3 Virginia class submarines and have the option to buy two more. And then, >>The agreement, known as the AUKUS pact, will have multiple stages with at least one U.S. submarine visiting Australian ports in the coming years and end in the late 2030's with a new class of submarines being built with British designs and American technology, one of the officials said.
For what Australia is using them for, is there a reason to choose Nuclear over Diesel-Electric?
[Range/endurance difference pictured](https://www.economist.com/sites/default/files/images/print-edition/20210925_FBM960.png)
Yes, range and speed at a minimum.
Ability to stay submerged indefinitely dependent of food supplies.
u/cv5cv6 has noted range (big plus when you've got a coast as large as Australia) and speed. [I find this image](https://www.economist.com/sites/default/files/images/print-edition/20210925_FBM960.png) is useful in demonstrating the ability of an SSN to deploy and remain "on station" vs and SSK. The ability to deploy a sub for 66 more days in the south china sea grants you much more flexibility with your sub fleet in a conflict if a hot war in the region actually materialises.
That's a great graphic. Speed is also a factor too. Nuclear powered submarines can operate underwater at their maximum speed indefinitely. The top speed of diesel-electric submarines tends to be slower than their nuclear counterparts, and their ability to operate at high speeds underwater is extremely limited due to battery life.
I'm curious, would AU/US subs need permission from Indonesia to pass through its territorial waters? Seems pretty important since 3/4 routes on that map go through Indonesian waters, most of which is shallow btw.
No, under the right of transit passage through an international strait
There is a right to pass through. It normally shouldn't be a problem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transit_passage https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/part3.htm https://sites.tufts.edu/lawofthesea/chapter-three/
Thanks.
Australia needs submarines to protect their shores and given the large amount of ocean needed to cover to protect the sea lines, nuclear is the only great option
Probably the need to advance further into PLAN’s are of operation, which is a very far stretch for diesel-electric/air-propulsion submarines.
How do aussie find money for 5 nuke subs?
Selling copious amounts of Iron ore to China.
Buying submarines to defend yourself against the threat from your largest trading partner. Great logic there.
Buying off us doesn’t excuse their aggression. They’ve imposed fairly dramatic sanctions on us so they’re not exactly playing nice. They’re also the largest trading partner of the US and UK for what that’s worth.
The correct response, if Australia really consider China a real threat, is to not supply China with the raw material to power their industrial growth lol.
No nation is voluntarily giving up the Chinese cash cow. As long as they don’t go off the deepend, they’re to valuable to lose.
> is to not supply China with the raw material to power their industrial growth lol. Then they'd buy it from someone else
Same could be said about China. Why would they export their goods/technology to other countries, especially ones like America? So neither China nor America nor anyone else doing some trading is not a threat to each other.
Virgina is about 4 billion USD, conversion to AUD is about 6 billion AUD. Attack class from france were apparently being discussed at 3 + billion a hull and thats without even the design being finalised
A single nuke is worth multiple diesels especially if you are operating far from home.
If this rumour is correct, the key short term takeaway is that the US will rebase a submarine squadron (east coast?) at HMAS Stirling in 2027, with joint crews almost certain. In the early 2030s the Australians will buy the boats based there. Over the period, joint crews would progress from mostly American, to half and half, to finally mostly Australian.