-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Subs to Aussies - Sound off on thoughts?
- Thread starter jbailey
- Start date
They cancelled the French boats when they discovered they only go in reverse and the tubes only shot out white flags and not torpedoes
Neither shipyard capacity nor Australia's lack of nuclear reactor support infrastructure are classified information.
The former doesn't take much effort to find (it helps if you have classmates in very high level industry roles) the latter is dead fucking obvious.
Go Huntington Ingalls!!!
308,
do you think the hulls will be Virginia-class or Astute-class based? I imagine they aren't going to go all in with a Virginia Block V sized hull... that would be a massive first step, but a Block IV Virginia vs an Astute ... VLS and tubes or all tubes?
I've wondered about that but obviously I don't know.
If they're made here (which I'm almost positive they will be) it would make sense to make a Virginia variant best suited to RAN needs. The design and tooling work will be probably 90% already done, compared to starting from zero tooling and jigs for Astutes.
Same goes for trying to build a Rolls Royce nuclear plant here. Too many many chances for mistakes IMO. R-R has a business unit in Indianapolis but it's aero engines (the old Allison Engine Company).
Who makes the nuclear plants for the Virginias? EB and/or HII do it in-house, or is GE or some other sub contractor involved?
My take on the situation-Xiden is more pleased with the Covid crackdown and pro China elements in the government in Australia than France and therefore trusting the Aussies to be more of token resistance to China and play nice with Joe Xiden’s plan on getting rich by selling his ass to the highest bidder and pleasing his China masters.
It's a General Electric design. There are so many components and so many contractors that I couldn't tell you who builds what where.
The shipyard doesn't really make any components except piping, brackets, etc. They do install and integrate everything with personnel from the different component contractors on site.
Just looked up the VA-class sub on Wikipedia:
S9G nuclear reactor, designed by GE like you said, producing 280,000 of shaft horsepower!!! Gosh darn is that right?, that is a lot of power.
Well, reactor power is measured in megawatts of thermal energy. Shaft horsepower how engine output (in this case the main propulsion steam turbine) is measured
280K seems very high for a submarine, compared to what I know is the SHP rating of the Nimitz-class main engines.
Navy guys talking about "shaft power"
This thread just got gayer than a bag of dicks falling off a truck in Provincetown, MA.
This thread just got gayer than a bag of dicks falling off a truck in Provincetown, MA.
This source might be better:
This source cites the following about the S9G reactor (I bolded the key sections)
3.10. S9G high energy density core
The S9G is a PWR built by General Electric with increased energy density, and new plant components, including a new steam generator design featuring improved corrosion resistance and a reduced life cycle cost.This reactor in the Virginia Class SSN-774 submarines is designed to operate for 33 years without refueling and last the expected 30 year design life of a typical submarine. It produces about 40,000 shaft horsepower, or about 30 MWth of power.The higher power density decreases not only the size of the core, but also enhances quiet operation through the elimination of bulky control and pumping equipment.It would be superior to any Russian design from the perspective of noise reduction capability, with 30 units planned to be built. The core for a contemplated New Attack Submarine is expected to last for the operational life of the ship.The design goals include eliminating the need for a refueling, will reduce life cycle costs, cut down the radiation exposure of shipyard staff, and lessen the amount of radioactive waste generated.This is possible because of many developments such as the use of advanced computers to perform three-dimensional nuclear, thermal, and structural calculations; further exploitation of a modified fuel process; and better understanding of various reactor technologies which permits more highly optimized designs.Performance improvements are gained through advances in such areas as thermal hydraulics and structural mechanics, and by optimizing reactor-to-systems interfaces.
The new reactor with increased energy density has new plant components, such as a new concept steam generator, with improved corrosion resistance and reduced life-cycle costs.The new steam generators allow greater plant design flexibility and decreased construction costs due to a smaller size, spatial orientation, and improved heat transfer efficiency which reduces coolant flow requirements.They alleviate the corrosion concerns encountered in existing designs of steam generators, while reducing component size and weight and providing greater flexibility in the overall arrangement.
Our glorious Prime Minister "Scotty from Marketing" failed to inform the French Government through proper channels that Australia was bailing on the deal.
Australia originally wanted the French nuclear designed boats to be converted to diesel electric, hence the delays and issues with their contract.
Scomo is by nature, a duplicitous and gutless fuckhead
He'll add some spin and by next week, will sell himself as the Saviour of the Pacific.
Australia originally wanted the French nuclear designed boats to be converted to diesel electric, hence the delays and issues with their contract.
Scomo is by nature, a duplicitous and gutless fuckhead
He'll add some spin and by next week, will sell himself as the Saviour of the Pacific.
i stopped calling australia home after the idiot citizens decided to let the government take they guns (rather this citizens handed them in). Move to USA in 1997 as it was clear my passion for shooting and collecting wouldnt be apreciated so fuck them. Feel sorry for all who cant get out from the most dimwitted politicians of them all, they make biden look like a fucking genious.
This source might be better:
This source cites the following about the S9G reactor (I bolded the key sections)
3.10. S9G high energy density core
The S9G is a PWR built by General Electric with increased energy density, and new plant components, including a new steam generator design featuring improved corrosion resistance and a reduced life cycle cost.This reactor in the Virginia Class SSN-774 submarines is designed to operate for 33 years without refueling and last the expected 30 year design life of a typical submarine. It produces about 40,000 shaft horsepower, or about 30 MWth of power.
The higher power density decreases not only the size of the core, but also enhances quiet operation through the elimination of bulky control and pumping equipment.It would be superior to any Russian design from the perspective of noise reduction capability, with 30 units planned to be built. The core for a contemplated New Attack Submarine is expected to last for the operational life of the ship.The design goals include eliminating the need for a refueling, will reduce life cycle costs, cut down the radiation exposure of shipyard staff, and lessen the amount of radioactive waste generated.This is possible because of many developments such as the use of advanced computers to perform three-dimensional nuclear, thermal, and structural calculations; further exploitation of a modified fuel process; and better understanding of various reactor technologies which permits more highly optimized designs.Performance improvements are gained through advances in such areas as thermal hydraulics and structural mechanics, and by optimizing reactor-to-systems interfaces.
The new reactor with increased energy density has new plant components, such as a new concept steam generator, with improved corrosion resistance and reduced life-cycle costs.The new steam generators allow greater plant design flexibility and decreased construction costs due to a smaller size, spatial orientation, and improved heat transfer efficiency which reduces coolant flow requirements.They alleviate the corrosion concerns encountered in existing designs of steam generators, while reducing component size and weight and providing greater flexibility in the overall arrangement.
40K SHP is far more credible than 280,000. I know what size of a turbine it takes to generate nearly 300,000 HP and the reactor and steam plant needed to feed it and it doesn't fit in a sub.
The bolded part sounds like bullshit unless corroborated from someone qualified on the S9G plant.
How much deterrent are subs to China?
China is not a Naval Power.
China's power is People.
Australia might be better researching better machine gun barrel tech. Something that can hold max sustained rate of fire for an hour or two with the butterfly locked down.
Guessing if shit happened Chinas Navy might last an hour or two......than what?
All depends perhaps on how much of our Navy, we are a sea power, has been bought to fight as a Merc for China with only 10% going to Hunter in this case.
Subs are for show, a dangerous show. The internal fight in Aussie Land is the bigger threat now.
China is not a Naval Power.
China's power is People.
Australia might be better researching better machine gun barrel tech. Something that can hold max sustained rate of fire for an hour or two with the butterfly locked down.
Guessing if shit happened Chinas Navy might last an hour or two......than what?
All depends perhaps on how much of our Navy, we are a sea power, has been bought to fight as a Merc for China with only 10% going to Hunter in this case.
Subs are for show, a dangerous show. The internal fight in Aussie Land is the bigger threat now.
China's invasion force, if it ever were to come to that, will mostly come by sea. China's wealth depends on trade. The overwhelming majority of it goes by sea.
If there ever was a warship meant for show, the submarine most definitely is not it.
I enjoy our fun talks so.....and admittedly I am out of my league.....but it's better than science fiction and this IPad does not get Pornhub. Im in footie Jammie's....what are you wearing?
These are attack subs.
Everyone's Navy is going to take a beating day one and the only thing viable against relatively cheap anti ship weaponry (bang for the buck) will be subs.
If it is the west vs China, the west should have the only forces left on the water and that will be only due to what they have under the water.
My statement above is too simple......I'd expect some number of Australias subs to be lost quickly assuming China gets lucky once or twice with some garbage, but lethal, technology or through the regular course of war shit one gets run aground, someone forgets to close a hatch, the USS McCain or the Fitzgerald run one over, typical high operation stupid shit that costs lives and assets.
How many of these subs does Australia get?
The better investment might be paying the US to crew and man a sub as the expectation is we would be fighting in the area also and Australia will be the base of operations.........but good on Australia for maintaining their sovereignty as recent events have shown our exit strategies are fast and without regard for allies.
Australia right now should stop its internal war and start playing the Patriotic music while they can.
Those "Tradies" they are beating on and shooting with rubber bullets should be building bunkers with clear fields of fire.
The post initial conflict period will unlikely resemble the pre conflict tech period.
Drone shit/Anti Drone shit warfare perhaps and than an island hopping campaign from North to South. If Australia is lucky we will have removed Chinas ability to project Nukes and they will have to rely on shit like airplanes and the navigator lighting the fuse with his Nippo lighter ( a fake Zippo).
The sub deal is for show and will burden Aus with maintenance, training costs, while adding fuel for China's pink hair allies to create internal strife protesting the bases where these are at in some crazy anti Nukes agenda.
Im thinking their better plan would be to repeal their gun laws. Break out the L1A1 SLRs from storage and issue one to each and every citizen of military age and unify them through regular training instead of dividing them over a fake plandemic.
Last edited:
Sub Brief has some interesting takes here.
Says it could be decades before the nuke fleet is up.
But they can get sailors on US boats relatively soon and could get a VA class within a few years.
I'm also wondering if these subs can be retrofitted to launch nukes, or if it has to be baked into the design.
Says it could be decades before the nuke fleet is up.
But they can get sailors on US boats relatively soon and could get a VA class within a few years.
I'm also wondering if these subs can be retrofitted to launch nukes, or if it has to be baked into the design.
It sounds like this is a political effort to influence the Aussies into building the subs here in US and/or UK, with existing naval yard capabilities, rather than re-inventing the wheel in Australia. See @308pirate comments above. And the quote from the video commenter: "they could have a Virginia class in 2 years."
In terms of what a nuclear attack sub can do... see the significant naval action in the 1982 Falklands War. One UK sub had large impact that turned the tide, and forcing the entire Arg navy off the battlefield ... and before you laugh and say the Arg navy is a POS, check out their OoB:
Argentine naval forces in the Falklands War - Wikipedia
Aussies ultimately getting 8 of these weapons is a major expansion... remember all 8 of them will be deployed in theater, unlike the US and UK boats which are scattered across the world. I don't know how many attack subs the US 7th Flt controls, but I'm sure 8 new ones under Aussie command will greatly augment their capabilities.
Which nukes, tactical weapons or strategic weapons?
If you're talking about the latter, no.
If you're talking about the former, no need. There is a Tomahawk Land Attack Missile variant designed to be launched out of a torpedo tube. TLAMs can be armed with a variety of warheads including nuclear ones.
I can't remember which Block of Virginias has the vertical launch tubes for Tomahawks, but even if the Aussies buy a version without, they can still launch them out of the torpedo tubes.
It sounds like this is a political effort to influence the Aussies into building the subs here in US and/or UK, with existing naval yard capabilities, rather than re-inventing the wheel in Australia. See @308pirate comments above. And the quote from the video commenter: "they could have a Virginia class in 2 years."
In terms of what a nuclear attack sub can do... see the significant naval action in the 1982 Falklands War. One UK sub had large impact that turned the tide, and forcing the entire Arg navy off the battlefield ... and before you laugh and say the Arg navy is a POS, check out their OoB:
Argentine naval forces in the Falklands War - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Aussies ultimately getting 8 of these weapons is a major expansion... remember all 8 of them will be deployed in theater, unlike the US and UK boats which are scattered across the world. I don't know how many attack subs the US 7th Flt controls, but I'm sure 8 new ones under Aussie command will greatly augment their capabilities.
Eventually the Australians will need their own native capability to at least provide intermediate level refits to nuclear vessels. Depending on the political climate there, they may or may not acquire the capability to refuel reactors. Which is no big deal because we can do so easily.
I don't know intricacies of this particular deal but I did spend 20 years training for and serving on US SSNs and SSBNs. I was assigned to a now-decommissioned 688 that was in a development squadron, 2 Ohio class SSBNs, 1 of which I was a Plankowner on and saw the whole construction and testing process, and my last boat was a Seawolf class SSN. I also was a Plankowner on her and while at EB, I did a bunch of work on Virginia class engine room.
Every person assigned to a US sub has to obtain and maintain a Secret classification or higher. There are reasons for this requirement that are not about the propulsion plant. I am sure that if the Aussies get S9G or the successor, folks like me will find new consulting jobs down under. I would bet some Aussies would end up in our 1+ year Nuke training pipeline.
If we (US) build the boats, I doubt we will diverge much from Virginia or Columbia class design. The design process, especially systems integration, takes too long. How many of the "special" systems will end up on a foreign boat will be my biggest concern.
The Virginia class is certainly not the ASW/ASUW warfighter a Seawolf is (4 21" tubes with 25 reloads and 12 VLS tubes against 8 26" tubes with 40 reloads plus Seawolf is faster and drives deeper). What Virginia has is extremely low sound signature, proven and practiced SOF capability, enhanced littoral ability and lots of off the shelf hardware that will let Aussies customize their boats to their needs.
Every person assigned to a US sub has to obtain and maintain a Secret classification or higher. There are reasons for this requirement that are not about the propulsion plant. I am sure that if the Aussies get S9G or the successor, folks like me will find new consulting jobs down under. I would bet some Aussies would end up in our 1+ year Nuke training pipeline.
If we (US) build the boats, I doubt we will diverge much from Virginia or Columbia class design. The design process, especially systems integration, takes too long. How many of the "special" systems will end up on a foreign boat will be my biggest concern.
The Virginia class is certainly not the ASW/ASUW warfighter a Seawolf is (4 21" tubes with 25 reloads and 12 VLS tubes against 8 26" tubes with 40 reloads plus Seawolf is faster and drives deeper). What Virginia has is extremely low sound signature, proven and practiced SOF capability, enhanced littoral ability and lots of off the shelf hardware that will let Aussies customize their boats to their needs.
All Virginia SSNs have 12 vertical launch TLAM ability fwd of the sail. Block III/IV uses VPMs instead of individual tubes. Block V just adds 4 more 7-missile modules midships.
As for TLAM-N being shared ... highly doubtful.
TLAM-D would provide a nice capability against all those PRC military bases and airfields that keep popping up in the South China Sea.
@NukeMMC did really well in covering part of what's going on. I suspect he knows quite a bit more, but via one reason or another, can't say more.
There is LOTS going into this. There is a clear point which someone else did bring up in this thread, which is good, however there is a key point which everyone (thus far) has missed.
And for one reason or another, I can't mention it. However I won't deny it either. (No, I'm NOT some secret squirrel knowledge hub, but I do hear things in the industry, and know prior actively in it., Plus, I can guess really well by joining dots. )
There is LOTS going into this. There is a clear point which someone else did bring up in this thread, which is good, however there is a key point which everyone (thus far) has missed.
And for one reason or another, I can't mention it. However I won't deny it either. (No, I'm NOT some secret squirrel knowledge hub, but I do hear things in the industry, and know prior actively in it., Plus, I can guess really well by joining dots. )
Thanks for clarifying. Wasn't sure how Block I and II were set up.
Seriously doubt it too. Only mentioned it because someone asked about nukes without understanding that there's more than one kind of sub-launched nuclear weapon.
For sure
Yes, I agree and this is why I hope the Aussie boats will be Virginia hulls and not Astute. Astute's seem like they are updated Seawolf designs, whereas the Virginia's have the land attack role that would be a nice capability vs PRC. I don't see these Aussie boats escorting Carrier strike forces.
Thanks for those detailed replies and thoughts @NukeMMC
The cost overruns come from converting a nuclear-powered sub to diesel-powered and now the Aussies change their minds and want nuclear-powered.
As @308pirate said, there are tube-launched (horizontal) TLAMs, so a Seawolf (or Astute?) has the ability to launch MK48 ADCAP, UGM-84 Harpoon, UGM-109 (TLAM) or TASM. AFAIK, Harpoon is not on subs again, yet and TASM is being re-introduced ... maybe. Regardless, Seawolf certainly has land attack capability from the torpedo tubes.
@NukeMMC
I'm not a submariner or even navy guy, but an old ground pounder/light fighter. My interest in these things is as concerned American and tax payer.
My understanding was a VLS offers faster firing times, allowing a sub to 'shot its load' than 'rapidly exfil' into the murky depths, as its cruise missile go on to complete their precision strike missions.
On other hand, torpedo tube delivery of the same weapon package would be slower, exposing the sub to more time and opportunity in which enemy can ID and kill the sub.
For example, a British Astute has 6 tubes... meaning to fire 12 cruise missiles, the sub needs to reload each of those tubes once, taking some number of minutes / time (maybe exact time is classified and/or variable). Whereas a Virginia would simply hit the fire button and all 12 missiles are away very quickly. I guess the Virginia could also fire cruise missiles out of its 4 tubes, yielding a total mission package of 16 outbounds (?) in this quick time period.
A VLS has the downside of requiring slightly more room/weight, reducing the boats speed (holding reactor power constant) and increasing the platform cost.
Is this an incorrect understanding of doctrine and/or capabilities?
I'm not a submariner or even navy guy, but an old ground pounder/light fighter. My interest in these things is as concerned American and tax payer.
My understanding was a VLS offers faster firing times, allowing a sub to 'shot its load' than 'rapidly exfil' into the murky depths, as its cruise missile go on to complete their precision strike missions.
On other hand, torpedo tube delivery of the same weapon package would be slower, exposing the sub to more time and opportunity in which enemy can ID and kill the sub.
For example, a British Astute has 6 tubes... meaning to fire 12 cruise missiles, the sub needs to reload each of those tubes once, taking some number of minutes / time (maybe exact time is classified and/or variable). Whereas a Virginia would simply hit the fire button and all 12 missiles are away very quickly. I guess the Virginia could also fire cruise missiles out of its 4 tubes, yielding a total mission package of 16 outbounds (?) in this quick time period.
A VLS has the downside of requiring slightly more room/weight, reducing the boats speed (holding reactor power constant) and increasing the platform cost.
Is this an incorrect understanding of doctrine and/or capabilities?
We're getting into areas that are not to be discussed without regard to clearances and needs to know.
They have nothing in common other than the fact that both are nuclear powered submarines.
The RAN went shopping around the world for diesel electrics from the start.
The French CHOSE to tender a proposal for one based on their assumption that they would redesign the Barracuda SSN to suit the RAN. The RAN certainly not required or requested such conversion.
The French were waaaaay the hell behind, from what I've read in various sources at least 10 years before the first keel is laid down.
There's no way to excuse or defend that. They deserved to lose the business.
Well Australia doesn't have any carrier strike groups now so....
But what they do have is an amphibious/expeditionary force capability and an SSN is very well suited to defend it.
And an SSN is the best bang for the buck when the opposition has a carrier or amphib group intent on hostile action. A large surface ship will absorb scores of bomb and missile hits but a single ADCAP will send it down to the depths very efficiently. This has been proven over and over during SINKEX exercises.
Exactly. Getting into specifics of firing times, speed capabilities while firing from different tubes and reload times are not subjects to be discussed UNCLAS. Suffice it to say both platforms have advantages their crews can capitalize upon to overcome an opponent, regardless of type. As is the case with any weapon system, a properly trained crew is more important than the tools.
This is what we, as concerned Americans and tax payers, need to know. We want peace and we want peace to be affordable. Get us and our closest allies the best weapons to secure a viable deterrence.
On the diplomatic front, I'm heartened by the reaction of many important allies in the Asia-Pacific region:
- ROC, Singapore, Japan, Indonesia, the Philippines all constructive on AUKUS. India is lining up too. Heck I think even the Vietnamese are favorable towards it, viewing China as a bigger threat than US (how ironic is that, less than 50 years from a horrible war with us). The liberal New Zealand government is taking after the Europeans however.
And Europeans are taking their typical "we are offended" approach... i.e. those damn Americans and Brits, always engaging in arms race with 'friendly actors' like China. They are so focused on the lost jobs and $'s, they don't see the reduced chances of fighting a Pacific war that results from getting these boats to the Aussies, in a responsible time period, at a reasonable price tag. I think privately most of them are happy to see Americans and Brits continue to increase their security without having to spend their own money.
A VLS launching hypersonic weapons systems from an attack sub with nuclear payloads is going to be quite the interesting addition to the 2030's. I wonder if they will still make boomers at that point.
Make a hypersonic in-atmospheric missile that has a range over 1000 miles and fits in a 21" (533mm) tube and you'll be a wealthy man. Just remember that SLBMs and ICBMs attain speeds in the Mach 20 range, so they are hypersonic, just using out-of-atmosphere flight to do so.
Can’t. I got smarmy internet posts to make like everyone else does. Way more important.
That said I could probably make it work as long as you didn’t complain about the exhaust plume giving off a few Greys of radiation when you fired the thing.
Firing 12 wouldn’t be any worse than Chernobyl really. We could set up a test range for it just off the shoreline of Chicago.
Decent article here
www.navalnews.com
That Block V VA sounds more like a boomer than an attack sub - 40 missiles in the VLS.
The King's hypersonic missiles sounds fierce too. Let's get that operational tomorrow.
Pic from EB's website:
The 5 Main Options For Australia’s AUKUS Nuclear Submarine Deal - Naval News
As Australia looks set to join the elite club of nuclear submarine operators, we explore the options. The U.S. Navy's Virginia Class? The Royal Navy's Astute Class? Or something new? We have identified the 5 most obvious candidates.
www.navalnews.com
That Block V VA sounds more like a boomer than an attack sub - 40 missiles in the VLS.
The King's hypersonic missiles sounds fierce too. Let's get that operational tomorrow.
Pic from EB's website:
Last edited:
Can't. We'd have to get permission from the Russians to use our Uranium mine to ship it to China for manufacture.
