Replacing the Subs

[RDBZ]

This is an excellent video about the challenges that Australia has (will have) when it embarks on its journey towards the purchase of a nuclear powered submarine. This video also provides a good idea of what obstacles Canada will also face if it ever decides to buy nuclear powered submarines to replace the Victoria Class. Probably the two major differences are that: (1) unlike Australia, Canada already has substantial nuclear power expertise; and (2) Canada will most likely not build nuclear powered submarines.

On the big hand, the Australian plan is as follows:
Phase 1. Training with US and UK submariners
Phase 2. Receiving Virginia Class submarines in the 2030s
Phase 3. First AUKUS designed submarine will delivered in the 2050s.

Challenges:
1. Building up the number of the submariners to accommodate the nuclear submarines. Need 3,000 trained pers.
2. Infrastructure for the new fleet
3. Cost. $368B or $32M/per for 30 yrs will mean the other Services (Army, Air Force, surface Navy) will suffer cuts. Degradation of overall defence capability and capacity to react?
4. Build up of technical expertise, especially trained engineers, for this program.
5. Significant risk in acceptance and building of a newly designed nuclear powered submarine
6. Significant risk of the Collins Class submarines aging out before 2030s plus the need for $6B to maintain them up to the 2030s.

In brief: Unlike Canada, Australia has big balls to do this despite the challenges and risks.

There's no point in ignoring the challenges in moving to nuclear powered boats, but equally there's not much point in exaggerating them either, or ignoring the benefits of that change.

Sustaining and upgrading a small, six-strong, fleet of unique diesel electric subs that share only their combat system and primary weapons with the USN, is not a simple or inexpensive task either. The ability to tap into the Virginia / AUKUS support and sustainment programs should be a significant advantage.

I'm not sure a nuclear power industry is a necessary training ground for expertise as apposed to Australia's current research reactor program. Either way, operating reactors at sea, under water, is a very different operating environment.

 

[KevinB]

They might need to buy half a dozen diesel subs as well even with the Collins Class life extension

They are going to start crew exchanges on VA class boats with the USN before they get their own VA boats, so I can’t see that happening.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

They are going to start crew exchanges on VA class boats with the USN before they get their own VA boats, so I can’t see that happening.

Coming soon to a nuke boat near you

 

[KevinB]

Hereâs when the US Navy plans to sell subs to Australia under AUKUS

The Navy has revealed a timeline to sell used Virginia submarines and a new boat as part of a trilateral security arrangement.

www.defensenews.com

 

[GR66]

Hanwha Systems to build new ultra-large AUV platform for ADD - Naval News

Hanwha Systems from South Korea announced that it has been awarded a contract to build the prototype of an ultra-large AUV for the ADD.

www.navalnews.com

Does the Victoria-class replacement have to be manned?

 

[suffolkowner]

They are going to start crew exchanges on VA class boats with the USN before they get their own VA boats, so I can’t see that happening.

personnel shortages are a problem everywhere so you are probably right

Hanwha Systems to build new ultra-large AUV platform for ADD - Naval News

Hanwha Systems from South Korea announced that it has been awarded a contract to build the prototype of an ultra-large AUV for the ADD.

www.navalnews.com

Does the Victoria-class replacement have to be manned?

it shouldnt be an either or but

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I don't see AUV's replacing manned subs, but certainly augmenting them. Communicating with a AUV underwater is incredibly challenging. I worked with SFU underwater research lab on that issue back in the 90's. The main advancement is the onboard AI, rather than better underwater comms I suspect.

 

[Underway]

I'm not sure a nuclear power industry is a necessary training ground for expertise as apposed to Australia's current research reactor program. Either way, operating reactors at sea, under water, is a very different operating environment.

I don't think its about a "training ground" its about a minimum inherent amount of nuclear expertise. Canada has both an industry to produce nuclear reactors and maintain them. Its has technicians and experts in the field that have experience working on and with nuclear industry. Canada has that to leverage, Australia not so much.

I agree that its a bit overblown however. Australia will be leveraging the USN's expertise and likely be beholden to them for technicians for quite a while. They'll be ordering in all their parts for a long time.

But there really is not point in comparing either. Australia is going to do their thing and us pretending like we can do it better is pretty dumb and petty. I'll just look to our own knitting and try and figure out how we can get what we need. The Ozzies will make their own mistakes and successes.

 

[Happy Guy]

Based on the little that I know and understand about AUVs, AI, underwater communications, I believe that Hanwha Systems have the right idea about how to use the AUVs for now.

This project is a significant cornerstone for the Repulic of Korea (ROK) Navy as it plans on building MRXUUV (Mission Reconfigurable eXtra-large Unmanned Underwater Vehicle) systems that can carry out underwater operations autonomously. This new AUV became the center of focus as it can perform various missions such as long-range reconnaissance missions and mine installation with a low risk of being detected early by foes or losing the crews, as its operation is strictly unmanned.

In addition from the video, "Can Australia handle its new fleet of nuclear submarines", the RAN are also investing in AUVs, but a commentator remarked that AUVs, at this time, cannot fully replace a manned submarine, but it can prevent submarines from doing its tasks (I'm paraphrasing).
I'm left wondering if AUV and AI technology in the near future will quickly advance to the point when it would be beneficial to buy a fleet of AUVs to hamper, degrade or destroy enemy submarines, to complement the manned submarine fleet.

 

[Kirkhill]

Underwater robots launching robots that can swim and fly.

Uncrewed Submarine Will Launch, Recover Drone That Can Swim, Fly

Uncrewed submarines loaded with 'multi-domain' drones could offer a new dimension for hunting for enemy naval forces and mines, and more.

www.thedrive.com

 

[CBH99]

Underwater robots launching robots that can swim and fly.

Uncrewed Submarine Will Launch, Recover Drone That Can Swim, Fly

Uncrewed submarines loaded with 'multi-domain' drones could offer a new dimension for hunting for enemy naval forces and mines, and more.

www.thedrive.com

Bloody hell the future hit us fast...

 

[Czech_pivo]

We can make major brownie points by buying the KS-III now, then handing over our Victoria Class to the Aussies to help them maintain a sub fleet till their first nukes arrive.

That would be interesting......wonder if they'd be able to keep more than 1 seaworthy/operational at a time.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

That would be interesting......wonder if they'd be able to keep more than 1 seaworthy/operational at a time.

Both the Germans and the Aussie struggle with 6 subs, much less 4 to keep operational subs at sea. when you start looking at sub fleets in context, you see we are not much different. Thankfully we have not had any major accidents since the delivery fire.

 

[GR66]

And this point of view from the Navy who's DE subs we're considering buying...

South Korean Admiral Claims that Nuclear-Powered Submarines are Necessary - Naval News

Admiral Kim Myung-soo, the nominee for the ROK Joint Chief of Staffs has claimed that South Korea needs to have nuclear submarine capabilities despite ROK-US nuclear agreement remains a political challenge to overcome.

www.navalnews.com

South Korea’s prolonged wish to acquire SSN seems like a long journey ahead. However, multiple admirals and even the minister of defense himself have expressed the need of K-SSN during the previous administration. While some trade-offs might be needed, nuclear submarine’s strategic benefits are incomparable to that of conventional diesel-electric ones.

 

[suffolkowner]

And this point of view from the Navy who's DE subs we're considering buying...

South Korean Admiral Claims that Nuclear-Powered Submarines are Necessary - Naval News

Admiral Kim Myung-soo, the nominee for the ROK Joint Chief of Staffs has claimed that South Korea needs to have nuclear submarine capabilities despite ROK-US nuclear agreement remains a political challenge to overcome.

www.navalnews.com

Too bad the CANDU is no more we could have SK develop our nuclear subs with our reactors although I believe SK was one of many places that bought CANDU reactors

Maybe France/Brazil help

 

[Good2Golf]

Too bad the CANDU is no more we could have SK develop our nuclear subs with our reactors although I believe SK was one of many places that bought CANDU reactors

Maybe France/Brazil help

Deuterium/heavy water-moderated reactors are not form-factor friendly in a sub. Everyone (SSN/SSGN/SSBN operators) all run pressurized, light-water enriched-fuel ( vice non-enriched CANDU) reactors, so….NO CANDU…

 

[suffolkowner]

Deuterium/heavy water-moderated reactors are not form-factor friendly in a sub. Everyone (SSN/SSGN/SSBN operators) all run pressurized, light-water enriched-fuel ( vice non-enriched CANDU) reactors, so….NO CANDU…

do we even run heavy water in ours anymore? For some reason I thought we stopped that?

 

[Good2Golf]

do we even run heavy water in ours anymore? For some reason I thought we stopped that?

Yes, it’s inherent to the design and spacing of the fuel-rods and safety feature of dumping the moderator in an emergency…complete shutdown as air between the fuel tube spacing doesn’t support fission. That’s part of why a CANDU reactor is relatively large for its rated power output.

 

[suffolkowner]

Yes, it’s inherent to the design and spacing of the fuel-rods and safety feature of dumping the moderator in an emergency…complete shutdown as air between the fuel tube spacing doesn’t support fission. That’s part of why a CANDU reactor is relatively large for its rated power output.

yeah I must of been confused about something there. Did we stop making heavy water? I just seem to remember reading something about a change in the heavy water system quite a while ago. Maybe to do with Tritium retrieval?

 

[rmc_wannabe]

SLOWPOKE then? IIRC, they were considered as a potential power source upgrade on the Oberon lass ba k in the 1980s, but that withered on the vine.