Does Australia Need Nuclear Attack Submarines?

Onkel Neal · 11-18-16, 07:13 AM

Does Australia Need Nuclear Attack Submarines?

Quote:

Australia obtains maximum benefit and deterrence by exploiting a submarine’s stealth to gain access to sensitive areas, where we don’t control the sea surface or air above it, for intelligence gathering or striking key targets afloat or ashore. These areas are a long way from Australia, necessitating long transits and will be increasingly heavily protected.

Australia would require the ability to ensure and oversee the safe operation of such a force. I do not believe that the Australian public would accept the notion of delegating this to another nation under a leasing agreement.

Can Australia afford nukes, is more to the question, I think. Do they have the defence budget for this?

Cobber · 11-19-16, 05:08 AM

The main reason we can't have nuke subs downunder is because the nuclear support industry doesn't exist. We only have one nuclear power station in Australia and that is only a small facility. Because of this, if we did opt for nukes the cost to maintain them would probably be through the roof.

Regards,
Cobber

Aktungbby · 11-19-16, 11:27 AM

There R other options: of some interest: http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/why-doesnt-australia-want-japans-submarines-some-best-the-16100?page=4 I understand national pride for home-built but the distant projection of 2030 before Australia can build the infrastructure is precluded by China's vigorous expansion/buildup, now, for which all this is necessary.

Kapitan · 11-19-16, 01:23 PM

The Australians are in a bit of a pickle bless them, they have recently made motions for the purchase of 12 french built scorpene submarines conventional like the Collins class i really don't think these are suitable for their navy, they had the option for the German enlarged type 214 (to be called type 220) which is AIP i do think this would have been the very best option for them, the other submarine types included a collaboration with japan which never went ahead and also a version of the new Swedish A26 programme (Collins are Swedish subs).

The problem with the Australian submarine service in particular is lack of volunteers they have a serious issue crewing the 6 they have and with potentially 12 boats now coming along they will need some serious recruitment drives, its long been known that the mines have been stealing sub crews for theer skills which eventually has not helped the situation one bit.

Currently Australia spends 1.9% GDP or A$34bn ($23bn USD) on defence and has a respectable size armed forces, in the Naval side of that which will see around 1/3 of the budget $7.7bn USD.

Some numbers for you to digest:

Army: 28,500 active serving with 14,000 reservists a small mechanised force with 60 M1A1 main battle tanks plus 139 Helicopters plus around 1600 other assorted vehicles and pieces artillery guns and infantry vehicles, probably the smallest and least funded arm of the military.

Air force: 110 combat aircraft mainly F18C/E/F/G models with the F35 on order and a firm order for 70 aircraft (none will fly from the LPA) the Australian air force has modernised over the years and has ceased buying up second hand units such as the F111 (all now retired), there is a total of 260 aircraft in service from transport with the C17 and maritime patrol P8 which is replacing the P3 orion.
This area has seen a big investment in recent years with the new purchases of P8 and F35's.

Navy: has a fairly robust navy with 47 commissioned ships including the two new major acquisitions of the Juan Carlos class LHD commissioned 2014 and 15 respectively, these are a half way return to fixed wing aviation for the RAN however it is extremely unlikely they will operate the F35 and be used solely a helicopter platform.
Other big purchases in recent years are the HMAS Choules (Formerly British bay class RFA Largs Bay) and also HMAS Sirus (2006).
Other items in the near future and it is very near the Hobart class Destroyer costing A$2bn ($1.55bn USD) per ship and having the AEGIS warfare system installed this gives them the most power fullest air defence vessels in the region.

So with the big ticket items now almost out of the way could we see the RAN obtaining a nuclear submarine?

Although due to the location of the country in question I really do not think having a fleet of SSN's is the way forward although tactically yes it would be to their advantage given the unlimited range factor, however economically it could indeed ruin them.

Australia is one of the worlds largest Uranium exporters and does operate nuclear power stations they have the technology in place to build one and put it to sea they also would likely have the backing of the British and American governments which likely under a technology share agreement (more specifically with the British) would assist in the building of such vessels.

What Australia does lack are the major port facilities to handle such vessels, there is no nuclear submarine facilities (nearest being west coast USA) so therefore would lack the much needed facilities to provide support upgrade and maintenance of these vessels, and also end of life decommissioning and scrapping.
Now that would be probably the single biggest ticket item ever purchased in the history of the RAN and a entire new dock to be built you would be looking in the order of $10 to 20bn USD just to get that stage up and running (remember the budget of the entire forces is $23bn USD)

You also need to factor in if you don't build this how much would it cost to send the vessel overseas for its maintenance and again you would look into the $3 to $4bn USD at that per year.
You also need to factor in specialist crewing costs plus training costs and also nuclear submarines tend to carry more personnel so the extra crew requirements plus specialities all adds up and your also prospectively jumping from a 6 boat fleet to a 12 boat fleet.

So what is the likely cost for a SSN well take the 688i $2.1bn USD (inflation adjusted) Virginia $2.67bn USD and British Astute $1.7bn USD per boat, now the Australians have gone for a French built submarine which unusually comes in two power settings AIP fuel cell (Which the Australians opted for) and nuclear (French replacing the Rubis class).
In comparison to American Russia and British boats they are going to be almost en par i would say, the Barracudas are somewhat larger (99m long compared to the Rubis 74m long) and more capable than the Rubis but the short fin version will be less powered due to the fuel cells and less range for obvious reasons and 2m shorter.

These boats are untested none are in sea trials although the Australians have a while yet before the building needs to start (2023-5) i think they should hold off firm orders for now or should have opted for the German tested design which would have been a cheaper option at $330m per boat as opposed to the DCNS Barracuda class costing a whopping $3.05bn per boat ! and for that price i would want a nuclear powered boat!

The reality is the Australian government has already made a firm commitment to purchasing 12 submarines with the sum of $50bn AUD set aside (36.7bn USD) and to do the math on that then it would mount to $4.16bn AUD per boat with inflation factored in and current rises in costs as the project is already 1 year behind schedule and more than $4bn USD over budget, and also to factor in one boat per two years based on current DCNS proposals if they were to sign today and start obtaining the vessels from 2026 onward.

I think they have made one huge costly mistake and maybe yes opted for the nuclear option if and only if they re invested in facilities which would be costing them an eye watering $60 to $70bn AUD ($44-$51bn USD) France would likely technology share with Australia however the current mandate doesn't call for the submarines to be nuclear and it is unlikely to in the future.
Also the strategic picture and ability of the navy must be also called into question here as the R.A.N has no over seas bases beyond its territorial limit and would rely heavily on British and American over seas bases and replenishment vessels.

Currently the R.A.N is a Green water navy it has limited capability to have sustained over seas operational deployments due to lack of logistical support, and mainly focuses its attention on its coast and Economic Exclusion Zone, it also works heavily with the Royal New Zealand Navy which is a Brown water / very limited Green water navy, and also in the areas around the Antarctic, it also supports foreign navies in exercises such as RIMPAC it also commits to operations in the Persian Gulf and also the Gulf of Aden anti piracy operation (Operation Manitou).

The current model for the RAN isn't going to change i don't think and i really don't think the RAN should opt for nuclear submarines, they do have a large very modern fleet with some good quality large surface units and are continually updating the fleet but a nuclear submarine would require considerable rise in the countries defence budget by at least another 1.5% in my estimates (if they were to have 6 SSN's)and thus making the force unsustainable in the long run it would also be a wasted venture due to the lack of fixed wing carriers and also other large operational platforms.
The RAN is best suited as it is and a good coalition partner in the future with good units and all round defence structure they also have the added strategical advantage of being right out of the way.

Just my 2 cents

Politenessman · 11-20-16, 02:31 AM

Australia does not have any nuclear power stations. there is one nuclear research/medicine reactor at Lucas Heights.

The main reason Australia has not looked at SSNs is that it is not considered politically feasible.

Regardless of the technical ability of the boats, there is a belief in Australia that anything nuclear is Chernobyl waiting to happen.

Cybermat47 · 11-20-16, 07:16 AM

They may increase the capability of the ADF (if enough crew can be found), but there could be financial issues and political backlash.

Also, the only wars I can definitely see Australia getting involved in in the next 20 years are actions against jihadist terrorist groups in the Middle East, where SSNs wouldn't be able to do much.

There's a possibility that the ceasefire in Korea will be broken, but I believe that Collins and/or Barracuda submarines would be perfectly capable of taking out the KPN's Foxtrots, especially when you consider that the RKN and USN would probably each be deployed with larger forces - the RKN would be defending their home soil, and the USN has a larger force. The ADF would probably keep some forces in reserve ( for example, as far as I know, we only ever have a single fighter/attack squadron deployed over seas at one time).

Don't quote me on any of this, though, I'm merely a cadet

Mr Quatro · 11-22-16, 01:45 PM

Australia is rumored to be the only nation that escapes the horrible consequences of nuclear war or is it a continent:http://www.bing.com/search?q=contine...onversationid=

I had to look it up

Quote:

A continent is one of several very large landmasses on Earth. They are generally identified by convention rather than any strict criteria, with up to seven regions commonly regarded as continents. These are (from largest in size to smallest): Asia, Africa, North America, South America, Antarctica, Europe, and Australia. In geology, areas of continental crust include regions covered with water

I think it's the Australia continent, but surely Antarctica too (unless Russia is hiding subs down there)

So any nuclear boats would cause a targeting problem for Australia ... if they could just hold off on their final decision a few more years. We could sell them some submarine drones that don't care what country your from as long as you are in their waters illegally.

mapuc · 11-22-16, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Quatro

Australia is rumored to be the only nation that escapes the horrible consequences of nuclear war or is it a continent:http://www.bing.com/search?q=contine...onversationid=

I had to look it up

I think it's the Australia continent, but surely Antarctica too (unless Russia is hiding subs down there)

So any nuclear boats would cause a targeting problem for Australia ... if they could just hold off on their final decision a few more years. We could sell them some submarine drones that don't care what country your from as long as you are in their waters illegally.

(off topic comment)

Your comment made me remember a book I read many years ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Beach_(novel)

Markus
(End off topic comment)

Jimbuna · 11-22-16, 04:21 PM

Would they be able to crew them even if they had them. They had difficulty in achieving sufficient crew numbers for the six Collins Class as far as I'm aware?

ikalugin · 12-22-16, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Onkel Neal

Can Australia afford nukes, is more to the question, I think. Do they have the defence budget for this?

The SSKs that they are buying are more expensive than the SSNs first rate Navys buy.

11-19-16, 05:08 AM	#2
Cobber Watch Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Cooloongup, Western Australia, Australia Posts: 23 Downloads: 16 Uploads: 0	Australian Nuke Subs The main reason we can't have nuke subs downunder is because the nuclear support industry doesn't exist. We only have one nuclear power station in Australia and that is only a small facility. Because of this, if we did opt for nukes the cost to maintain them would probably be through the roof. Regards, Cobber __________________ "It wasn't like this on 206" HMAS Wollongong - Heed the Call Fremantle Class Patrol Boats - the end of an era.

11-19-16, 11:27 AM	#3
Aktungbby Gefallen Engel U-666 Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: On a tilted, overheated, overpopulated spinning mudball on Collision course with Andromeda Galaxy Posts: 27,822 Downloads: 22 Uploads: 0	There R other options: of some interest: http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/why-doesnt-australia-want-japans-submarines-some-best-the-16100?page=4 I understand national pride for home-built but the distant projection of 2030 before Australia can build the infrastructure is precluded by China's vigorous expansion/buildup, now, for which all this is necessary. __________________ "Only two things are infinite; The Universe and human squirrelyness; and I'm not too sure about the Universe"

11-19-16, 01:23 PM	#4
Kapitan Sub Test Pilot Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: UK + Canada Posts: 7,090 Downloads: 68 Uploads: 7	The Australians are in a bit of a pickle bless them, they have recently made motions for the purchase of 12 french built scorpene submarines conventional like the Collins class i really don't think these are suitable for their navy, they had the option for the German enlarged type 214 (to be called type 220) which is AIP i do think this would have been the very best option for them, the other submarine types included a collaboration with japan which never went ahead and also a version of the new Swedish A26 programme (Collins are Swedish subs). The problem with the Australian submarine service in particular is lack of volunteers they have a serious issue crewing the 6 they have and with potentially 12 boats now coming along they will need some serious recruitment drives, its long been known that the mines have been stealing sub crews for theer skills which eventually has not helped the situation one bit. Currently Australia spends 1.9% GDP or A$34bn ($23bn USD) on defence and has a respectable size armed forces, in the Naval side of that which will see around 1/3 of the budget $7.7bn USD. Some numbers for you to digest: Army: 28,500 active serving with 14,000 reservists a small mechanised force with 60 M1A1 main battle tanks plus 139 Helicopters plus around 1600 other assorted vehicles and pieces artillery guns and infantry vehicles, probably the smallest and least funded arm of the military. Air force: 110 combat aircraft mainly F18C/E/F/G models with the F35 on order and a firm order for 70 aircraft (none will fly from the LPA) the Australian air force has modernised over the years and has ceased buying up second hand units such as the F111 (all now retired), there is a total of 260 aircraft in service from transport with the C17 and maritime patrol P8 which is replacing the P3 orion. This area has seen a big investment in recent years with the new purchases of P8 and F35's. Navy: has a fairly robust navy with 47 commissioned ships including the two new major acquisitions of the Juan Carlos class LHD commissioned 2014 and 15 respectively, these are a half way return to fixed wing aviation for the RAN however it is extremely unlikely they will operate the F35 and be used solely a helicopter platform. Other big purchases in recent years are the HMAS Choules (Formerly British bay class RFA Largs Bay) and also HMAS Sirus (2006). Other items in the near future and it is very near the Hobart class Destroyer costing A$2bn ($1.55bn USD) per ship and having the AEGIS warfare system installed this gives them the most power fullest air defence vessels in the region. So with the big ticket items now almost out of the way could we see the RAN obtaining a nuclear submarine? Although due to the location of the country in question I really do not think having a fleet of SSN's is the way forward although tactically yes it would be to their advantage given the unlimited range factor, however economically it could indeed ruin them. Australia is one of the worlds largest Uranium exporters and does operate nuclear power stations they have the technology in place to build one and put it to sea they also would likely have the backing of the British and American governments which likely under a technology share agreement (more specifically with the British) would assist in the building of such vessels. What Australia does lack are the major port facilities to handle such vessels, there is no nuclear submarine facilities (nearest being west coast USA) so therefore would lack the much needed facilities to provide support upgrade and maintenance of these vessels, and also end of life decommissioning and scrapping. Now that would be probably the single biggest ticket item ever purchased in the history of the RAN and a entire new dock to be built you would be looking in the order of $10 to 20bn USD just to get that stage up and running (remember the budget of the entire forces is $23bn USD) You also need to factor in if you don't build this how much would it cost to send the vessel overseas for its maintenance and again you would look into the $3 to $4bn USD at that per year. You also need to factor in specialist crewing costs plus training costs and also nuclear submarines tend to carry more personnel so the extra crew requirements plus specialities all adds up and your also prospectively jumping from a 6 boat fleet to a 12 boat fleet. So what is the likely cost for a SSN well take the 688i $2.1bn USD (inflation adjusted) Virginia $2.67bn USD and British Astute $1.7bn USD per boat, now the Australians have gone for a French built submarine which unusually comes in two power settings AIP fuel cell (Which the Australians opted for) and nuclear (French replacing the Rubis class). In comparison to American Russia and British boats they are going to be almost en par i would say, the Barracudas are somewhat larger (99m long compared to the Rubis 74m long) and more capable than the Rubis but the short fin version will be less powered due to the fuel cells and less range for obvious reasons and 2m shorter. These boats are untested none are in sea trials although the Australians have a while yet before the building needs to start (2023-5) i think they should hold off firm orders for now or should have opted for the German tested design which would have been a cheaper option at $330m per boat as opposed to the DCNS Barracuda class costing a whopping $3.05bn per boat ! and for that price i would want a nuclear powered boat! The reality is the Australian government has already made a firm commitment to purchasing 12 submarines with the sum of $50bn AUD set aside (36.7bn USD) and to do the math on that then it would mount to $4.16bn AUD per boat with inflation factored in and current rises in costs as the project is already 1 year behind schedule and more than $4bn USD over budget, and also to factor in one boat per two years based on current DCNS proposals if they were to sign today and start obtaining the vessels from 2026 onward. I think they have made one huge costly mistake and maybe yes opted for the nuclear option if and only if they re invested in facilities which would be costing them an eye watering $60 to $70bn AUD ($44-$51bn USD) France would likely technology share with Australia however the current mandate doesn't call for the submarines to be nuclear and it is unlikely to in the future. Also the strategic picture and ability of the navy must be also called into question here as the R.A.N has no over seas bases beyond its territorial limit and would rely heavily on British and American over seas bases and replenishment vessels. Currently the R.A.N is a Green water navy it has limited capability to have sustained over seas operational deployments due to lack of logistical support, and mainly focuses its attention on its coast and Economic Exclusion Zone, it also works heavily with the Royal New Zealand Navy which is a Brown water / very limited Green water navy, and also in the areas around the Antarctic, it also supports foreign navies in exercises such as RIMPAC it also commits to operations in the Persian Gulf and also the Gulf of Aden anti piracy operation (Operation Manitou). The current model for the RAN isn't going to change i don't think and i really don't think the RAN should opt for nuclear submarines, they do have a large very modern fleet with some good quality large surface units and are continually updating the fleet but a nuclear submarine would require considerable rise in the countries defence budget by at least another 1.5% in my estimates (if they were to have 6 SSN's)and thus making the force unsustainable in the long run it would also be a wasted venture due to the lack of fixed wing carriers and also other large operational platforms. The RAN is best suited as it is and a good coalition partner in the future with good units and all round defence structure they also have the added strategical advantage of being right out of the way. Just my 2 cents __________________ DONT FORGET if you like a post to nominate it by using the blue diamond Find out about Museum Ships here: https://www.museumships.us/ Flickr for all my pictures: https://www.flickr.com/photos/131313936@N03/ Navy general board articles: https://www.navygeneralboard.com/author/aegis/

11-20-16, 07:16 AM	#6
Cybermat47 Willing Webfooted Beast Join Date: Aug 2012 Location: Australia Posts: 5,386 Downloads: 293 Uploads: 22	They may increase the capability of the ADF (if enough crew can be found), but there could be financial issues and political backlash. Also, the only wars I can definitely see Australia getting involved in in the next 20 years are actions against jihadist terrorist groups in the Middle East, where SSNs wouldn't be able to do much. There's a possibility that the ceasefire in Korea will be broken, but I believe that Collins and/or Barracuda submarines would be perfectly capable of taking out the KPN's Foxtrots, especially when you consider that the RKN and USN would probably each be deployed with larger forces - the RKN would be defending their home soil, and the USN has a larger force. The ADF would probably keep some forces in reserve ( for example, as far as I know, we only ever have a single fighter/attack squadron deployed over seas at one time). Don't quote me on any of this, though, I'm merely a cadet __________________ Historical TWoS Gameplay Guide: http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?p=2572620 Historical FotRSU Gameplay Guide: https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/sho....php?p=2713394

11-22-16, 04:21 PM	#9
Jimbuna Chief of the Boat Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: 250 metres below the surface Posts: 180,962 Downloads: 63 Uploads: 13	Would they be able to crew them even if they had them. They had difficulty in achieving sufficient crew numbers for the six Collins Class as far as I'm aware? __________________ Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something. Oh my God, not again!! GWX3.0 Download Page - Donation/instant access to GWX (Help SubSim)

11-20-16, 02:31 AM	#5
Politenessman Watch Join Date: Dec 2014 Posts: 20 Downloads: 3 Uploads: 0	Australia does not have any nuclear power stations. there is one nuclear research/medicine reactor at Lucas Heights. The main reason Australia has not looked at SSNs is that it is not considered politically feasible. Regardless of the technical ability of the boats, there is a belief in Australia that anything nuclear is Chernobyl waiting to happen.