Quantcast
Channel: Submarine & Other Matters
Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 2347

US influences on Australia's Future Submarine Selection Process

$
0
0
Some of the components of the Collins US made Combat System. All of the System's databases, work stations, sensors and US made weapons need to be squeezed into the Collins - see http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/msd/sea1439/index.cfm .
----

An Anonymous commenter [see https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=19245896&postID=1447471589788289697 comment of June 25, 2014 at 1:39 PM]  has asked.


"...why the importance of US tech in Australia's submarine choice is not acknowledged in any of these posts or comments (sorry if I've missed anything). My insider tells me ...the Americans DO NOT do third party deals and sub data and tech is among their most sensitive and tightly held."

To which I say Mr Anonymous is incorrect and poorly advised on all counts. The hide to doubt my authoritah :) !

Right through the blog I talk of cooperation between Australia SSKs and the US SSNs including submarine visits to each other's bases. America being Australia's major military ally and nuclear safety net.

US and Australian submarines rely on the mainly US maintained, immensely complex SeaWeb (other "inhouse" acronyms might be used) communications and sensor system.

The US and Australia are constantly refining the US designed submarine combat system known as the US General Dynamics AN/BYG-1A combat system may well involve up to one third of the cost and development effort for a submarine.This highly protected system (one of America's major secrets) was provided by the US for the Collins. The combat system is the system of sensors, database, management and targeting system which interacts with all of the Collins weapons. The AN/BYG-1 is apparently used on all US SSNs and SSGNs. 

The Collins weapons include the American made Mk 48 torpedoes and Harpoon missiles. The Collins is (US Tomahawk SLCM capable. The mines are UK made.

It is highly likely that Australia's future submarine will continue this mutually beneficial relationship. Basically Australia would not throw away 4 decades of corporate memory, daily alliance coordination and SeaWeb interaction just because Australia can only buy SSKs - meaning German, French, Swedish? Spanish? and/or Japanese submarines hulls and engines. Australia is, of course, incapable of deciding to buy far more suitable SSNs.

So Australia's future submarine combat system would need to be able to talk to and work with the US Navy, utilise the US would-wide SeaWeb and fire US made submarine weapons. If say, the UK or Spain are part contractors for the combat system they would still need to adhere to US standards (drawing on their own technological and bilateral alliances with the US).  

In support of the above I draw Mr Anonymous's attention to two existing posts on this blog indicating Australian Defence Minister and RAN-DMO statements.


In October 2009 Australia's then Minister of Defence Material Greg Combet, speaking still current RAN views, indicated  that the US would play a big part in developing Australia's future submarine.

The Sydney Morning Herald recorded what Mr Combet said on October 6, 2009. http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/us-to-play-key-role-in-new-aussie-subs-20091006-gky2.html:

"US 'to play key role' in new Aussie subs"October 6, 2009

"Australia wants the assistance of the United States as it looks to replace the Collins class submarines, junior defence minister Greg Combet says.

Mr Combet, in the US for talks with administration and industry officials, said the US was a leader in the design and development of submarine technology.

"I expect that Australia will look to learn from companies like General Dynamics Electric Boat and Lockheed Martin in designing and developing the Collins class replacement," he said in a statement.

Under plans outlined in the defence white paper launched in May, Australia will acquire a fleet of 12 new submarines to replace the six Collins boats in the decade from 2020. It will be Australia's biggest military acquisition.

The government was committed to ensuring that Australia obtained a world leading submarine capability, Mr Combet said.

"US technology is likely to be an important facilitator of this capability," he said.

Electric Boat designed and shared construction of the Virginia class submarines for the US Navy and had been instrumental in driving down production costs to enable the US to increase the production rate.

Lockheed Martin was a major supplier in the US Navy submarine combat system, the Collins replacement combat system and supplied submarine combat systems or components to Spain and the United Kingdom."



Also see http://gentleseas.blogspot.com.au/2012/06/australias-future-submarine-selection-s.html of 20 January 2014 

Prime Minister, Minister for Defence and Minister for Defence Materiel – Joint Media Release – 2013 Defence White Paper: The Future Submarine Program 3 May 2013 http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/2013/05/03/prime-minister-minister-for-defence-and-minister-for-defence-materiel-joint-media-release-2013-defence-white-paper-the-future-submarine-program-2/

...The Government has also taken the important decision to use the United States AN/BYG-1 combat system as the reference system for future design work.  The early definition of a combat system is a feature of a successful submarine program.  It allows the submarine design to proceed utilising more accurate projections of space, weight and power requirements.

Also see  SEA 1439 PHASE 4A - COLLINS CLASS REPLACEMENT COMBAT SYSTEM http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/msd/sea1439/index.cfm concerning an upgrade process of the AN/BYG-1 combat system conducted jointly by the US and Australia up to 2019 “in conjunction with the Replacement [amounting to upgrades of the US Mk 48] Heavyweight Torpedo (Project SEA 1429)”which points to future integration with US weapons.

There it is. Mr Anonymous (from Australia?) can say sorry :)

Pete

Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 2347

Trending Articles