Collins Sub Replacement Project

[DirtyFred]

Planning to replace the Royal Australian Navy's (RAN's) Collins-class submarines began in 2007 with the commencement of defence acquisition project SEA 1000. The six Collins-class boats are due to leave service from 2025 onwards. The resulting vessel is tentatively identified displacing around 4,000 tons, will be equipped with land-attack cruise missiles in addition to torpedoes and anti-ship missiles, and needs to be capable of performing surveillance and intelligence-gathering operations (both directly and through the delivery and recovery of covert operatives).

Original plans for new submarines called for a class of twelve boats. There were four design options: buy a Military-Off-The-Shelf (MOTS) design, modify a MOTS design for Australian conditions, design an evolution of an existing submarine, or design a new submarine from scratch. Nuclear propulsion has been ruled out by the Australian government due to lack of supporting infrastructure and public opposition to nuclear technology. The selected design was to be built in Australia at the ASC shipyard in South Australia: if a company other than ASC was selected to build the submarines, they would be granted access to the government-owned facility. Concept work was to start in 2009, with a design identified by 2013, design work completed by 2016, and construction completed before 2025.

However, there have been ongoing delays with implementing the project. Meetings to define intended capabilities did not occur until 2012, pushing the start of construction past 2017. By the end of 2014, operational capabilities had not been defined, with plans to do so during 2015. Throughout 2014, there was increasing speculation that the Australian government would purchase Sōryū-class submarines from Japan, skipping any tendering processes and ignoring previous commitments to build the boats in Australia. This prompted a series of unsolicited offers from European submarine builders. As of January 2015, no official decision has been made on the replacement submarines.

IMHO both "alternative" SSK's are impressive... US offered Virginia-class, Australia declined. Germany wants to sell 12 Type 216 Subs to RAN... Japan also offers a very good SSK.

Sōryū-class submarine (Japan, in service)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C5%8Dry% ... _submarine
https://translate.google.com/translate? ... umenu.html



Type 216 / U-216 Conventional AIP Submarine (SSK) (Germany, planned evolution of Type 212A and 218)
http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.ph ... iew&id=264
https://www.thyssenkrupp-marinesystems. ... s-216.html



news articles:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-09/d ... nt/5377266
http://www.afr.com/p/germans_submarines ... lnRJB6BpqI

https://translate.google.com/translate? ... &sandbox=1

[magi]

Cool... Thank you.....

[xavierv]

And France offers SMX OCEAN based on the Barracuda SSN currently under construction

DCNS opens a subsidiary in Australia to better market its SMX OCEAN SSK for the RAN
http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.ph ... e-ran.html

[JRyan]

I have read a lot on this one....I think the Lease of Virginia's is the route to go.....Best capability and etc.....

[ultradave]

I don't see that ever happening. When I worked in the UK helping with their sub program, there was very very little in the way of noise quieting technology that could be shared. We could share just about anything else. Australia would be no different. Therefore, the chances of the US providing a VIRGINIA that could be reverse engineered are nil. IMO anyway.

[cf_dallas]

ORIGINAL: ultradave

I don't see that ever happening. When I worked in the UK helping with their sub program, there was very very little in the way of noise quieting technology that could be shared. We could share just about anything else. Australia would be no different. Therefore, the chances of the US providing a VIRGINIA that could be reverse engineered are nil. IMO anyway.

Probably true.... but we haven't generally shared offensive ECM tech either, and this is the same country that's buying Growlers. I wouldn't say zero chance.

But between our reticence to share sound reduction secrets and their desire to be self-reliant, yeah, it's pretty unlikely, even if it makes a ton of sense.

[NickD]

From memory, advocates for buying Virginia class boats acknowledge that they'd need to be built in the US, and undergo all major maintenance periods there as well. I don't know if they ever have seriously been offered to Australia for sale though. Given that Australia has virtually no nuclear power infrastructure (aside from a single research reactor in Sydney) and the public is very hostile to the periodic proposals to set up a nuclear power industry, the idea is a non-starter on logistical, risk and political grounds alone.

[mikmykWS]

If 2025 is the due date the AU needs to start tooling up now if the goal is a first sub via their own industry by 2025. If they're going to buy export they've got time to build out a good vetting process and purchase. Given all the options out there its a good time to want to buy a sub[:)]

[DavidRob0]

There's been a lot of talk of buying the Japanese SSK being offered. However, Japan is currently prohibited by its constitution from exporting arms, so that option would require a significant political and legal process before it could be followed.

ASC at Osborne near Adelaide has now acquired significant experience in building and maintaining submarines (as well as having trouble building DDG sections)so it would seem to me to be a complete waste of that experience and the expertise gained thus far buying off the shelf from somewhere. The MOTS option would almost certainly require significant modification for operations in the Pacific as opposed to the European areas (as was required for the Collins boats).

I've heard from submariners with whom I talk from time to time that what is really being discussed with the Japanese is the purchase of the "drive train" for their latest SSK. Don't know how accurate this is.