"Australia - Concerned over Attack class Capabilities" Topic

Apparently, one of the issues that "torpedoed" the submarine deal between Australia and France was concern over the lack of performance provided by the design, in addition to the rapidly escalating costs for the program:

link

From what I've read, the original contract was estimated to run about $36 USDAus Billion, but the latest estimate was as high as $90 USDAus Billion for 12 submarines, and no doubt, expected to climb even more, since the first keel hasn't even been laid down yet (that was planned to start in 2023)

My guess is, given the increasing need to counter China's rising seapower in the region, as well as the rapidly escalating costs of the French conventional sub offering, the Australian military and government decided to pull the plug on their "deal".

No doubt, they determined it would be possible to get a nuclear powered sub for about the same price, or less (possibly a bit more – depending upon the final costs for both projects, ultimately) than that of the far less capable conventional subs being offered by France. Given the size of Australia and the area(s) to be patroled (the Pacific is very large), nuke subs make far more sense than conventional, or even advanced AIP subs. That is especially true if they need to provide aid and support to Taiwan, Japan, and the USA in the region.

Here's info on the capabilities of the planned Attack class sub, that has now been canceled:

link

SSNs provide the ability to cruise for long periods of time at very fast speeds in order to get to their assigned area of operations, and don't need to snort in order to recharge their batteries. Once on station, they can patrol much more stealthily and slowly, if desired.

Conventional subs are very vulnerable to detection and attack when snorting, and even AIPs have to do so occasionally, though far less often.

As we saw in the Falklands War, the Royal Navy's nuclear attack subs were able to get to their patrol areas in the South Atlantic much more quickly than would have been possible with a conventional, or AIP sub. Clearly, having this capability for the Australian Navy would be a big plus too, given the very large size of the continental island's perimeter, as well as adjoining waters that may need to be patroled too in time of war, or increasing tensions.

It will be interesting to see what design will be chosen or produced for Australia, given that this is a Aus/UK/US deal, and whether it/they will be a pure UK/US design, or a mix of the two.

I'd love to see them get some Seawolf SSNs, since even the USA only has three of them (due to their high costs, and short-sighted decision-making), but my guess is that is too much to hope for, given their high costs.

Yes, really obvious decision I was far from sure our corrupt government would actually make, they are so inept. Gives me hope that the Australian government isn't actually working for the Chicoms. Hopefully it will get us closer to nuclear power generation as well. Completely ridiculous we don't have it, our own supply of free uranium and tectonically the least active place in the world. Dumb hippies from the '70s have way too much power in this country. Hopefully we reneg on our deal with the Chicoms on the port of Darwin too. The most dimwitted deal of the century.

Yea, I don't see how a territory can make a deal like that on their own, unless your national government just totally dropped the ball and didn't review it (I can see that happening, since stuff like that happens on this side of the very large lake too).

Seems to me your national government could/should be able to overturn that, though from what I've read, the territorial government that made the "deal" has already spent the $506 USDAus Billion, so that might make things a bit more interesting.

It will also be interesting to see how long it takes to get this new project moving – I'm guessing at least 2 – 3 years to come up with and approve a design (assuming they act quickly), unless of course they select an "off the rack" one already in production or previously produced.

Then of course, 6 – 8+ more years for assembly and commissioning, so perhaps 2030 as a best case scenario for the first one in the class to be commissioned and in service for shake-downs.

2032 – 2035 might actually be more realistic.

Looking to see if David Manley will chime in here, given his experience.

If I was in charge of the USN. I would homeport 3 SSNs in Australia. Giving our allies the training needed to operate and maintain these subs.

Taiwan does not need SSNs they need a modern SS. Perhaps even a inexpensive SS that can be mass produced.

The policy denying the Taiwanese the ability of self defense is and always was ludicrous.

The policy denying the Taiwanese the ability of self defense is and always was ludicrous.

Yep, we should have ended a long time ago – but were always afraid of China being upset with us.

I'm guessing at least 2 – 3 years to come up with and approve a design (assuming they act quickly), unless of course they select an "off the rack" one already in production or previously produced.

Then of course, 6 – 8+ more years for assembly and commissioning, so perhaps 2030 as a best case scenario for the first one in the class to be commissioned and in service for shake-downs.

2032 – 2035 might actually be more realistic.

Actually I've heard 2040 as a realistic service entry date.

There's no actual agreement signed and there won't be one for some time.

Next 18 months will be spent as follows:

An 18-month taskforce led by Defence will now investigate how Australia can become a "reliable steward" of nuclear submarines,"

link

Even the French deal was criticised for how long it would take to get the boats operational (2030s).

We've just lost at least 6 years of work with this cancellation.

Youngest Collins class is 18 years old and the oldest is 25. All were delivered late between 18 and 41 months).

Australia has not managed to build a major warship without significant time delays and overruns for decades.

"…the rapidly escalating costs of the French conventional sub offering…"

Considering the postage costs to ship to Australia, I can see why!

2040 seems pretty far out there, since once laid down, it appears many/most recent US nuke attack subs are being built in 6 – 8 years.

Just read that Australia plans to lease US, and/or UK SSNs in the interim, in order to get them in the water sooner, and for their naval personnel to gain some experience operating them.

Thresher,

You forget USA has been building nuke subs for 7 decades and continues to do so.

Australia's whole experience of sub building is the bungled Collins class sub and the last of those was built nearly 20 years ago.

One minister said he wouldn't trust the Australian Submarine Corporation to build a canoe.

And he's right – they're beyond inefficient in terms of price and delays.