HMAS Farncomb will be the first of Australia’s six Collins class submarines to undergo sustainment and capability enhancement under a life-of-type extension program being implemented by the Australian government. The life-of-type extension program is part of the government’s commitment to invest $4 to $5 billion to ensure the Collins class submarines continue be provide a potent strike and deterrence capability.
The life-of-type extension of HMAS Farncomb will be undertaken by the workers at ASC and commence in 2026 at Osborne in South Australia. The life-of-type extension program will ensure the future availability of the Collins class submarines, without compromising on submariner safety.
The government’s decisions on the life-of-type extension program have been informed by advice from Defence as well as independent expert advice. An optronics upgrade for the Collins class submarines, announced by the former coalition government, will not proceed following advice that it would have added complexity and risk to the life-of-type extension program. The SSN AUKUS nuclear-powered conventionally armed submarines will likewise not be fitted with this particular design.
The government has also received advice from Defence, in consultation with the United States, that adding Tomahawk cruise missile capability to the Collins class submarines is not viable and does not represent value for money.
The Virginia class nuclear-powered submarines Australia will receive in the early 2030s will come with the Tomahawk as standard equipment. Tomahawk cruise missiles will also be used by Navy’s Hobart class destroyers and the government has agreed in principle to fit the Hunter class frigates with Tomahawks, subject to a feasibility study. These decisions will reduce risk for the Collins class program and will help maximise Collins class availability as we transition to our future nuclear-powered submarine capability.
Minister for Defence Industry Pat Conroy said, “The life-of-type extension program underscores the Albanese government’s unwavering commitment to keeping Australians safe by ensuring the ADF has the capabilities it needs to deter potential adversaries. Sustainment of the Collins class submarines continues to meet the Navy’s operational requirements and ensures the submarines remain an enduring, potent and credible capability that is critical to Australia’s national security. The sustainment and upgrade work on the Collins class submarines give industry the certainty it needs and will provide a further boost for Australians who will benefit from the creation of highly skilled and well-paid jobs.”
For Editorial Inquiries Contact:
Editor Kym Bergmann at kym.bergmann@venturamedia.net
For Advertising Inquiries Contact:
Director of Sales Graham Joss at graham.joss@venturamedia.net
“An optronics upgrade for the Collins class submarines, announced by the former coalition government, will not proceed following advice that it would have added complexity and risk to the life-of-type extension program. The SSN AUKUS nuclear-powered conventionally armed submarines will likewise not be fitted with this particular design.”
Is curious if it is saying the Australian Government does not envisage SSN AUKUSs having optronic masts?
I noticed that myself but I assume they are referring specifically to the optronic mast on Collins, not optronic masts generally.
No word on using SAAB Kockums to help ASC with the LOTE as recommended by the Ex US Navy deputy assistant secretary Gloria Valdez?
Some of the subs are showing excess corrosion and Defence is saying now that more time than the currently planned 2 years per boat may be needed for the LOTE for a few of the boats.
A very risky business pretty much in every way; time wasted, money spent, potential danger to our crews and a massive hole in our defence capability.
Truly a mess.
The Collins Class Submarine was a very capable boat but it’s time to retire her, the LOTE( as I see it ) does not deliver the capability to sufficiently justify the time, money or resources being invested. In the time it takes to put a boat through the LOTE ( two years I believe) we should be purchasing an interim Boat to fill the capability gap before the SSN arrive. The official mantra of three classes of Submarine is not feasible is also not true as the Collins Boats would be retired as the new boat arrives and Navy has never mentioned that it has a problem with operating Virginia Class Boats alongside SSN AUKUS. I was originally against acquiring Nuclear Boats ( I’m still against acquiring Virginia Class Boats) as being unnecessary for own needs but after reading and speaking with those For and Against,have reassessed my Opposition. We should be onboard with the Nuclear option but in a slower paced way. Wait for the AUKUS Boats but in the meantime retire the Collins and acquire an interim replacement. The LOTE is never going to deliver the gap filler, neither in Capability or Time to be of any use. Kicking the can down the road isn’t going to cut it anymore. If an adversary has a twenty year plan to negate your influence and knows you will be able stop him in ten years, he will just move quicker .
I agree with most of that. I wrote about 2 years ago to scrap LOTE and use that money to build the Korean KSS-III Batch 2 at Osbourne instead. For nuclear submarines, my feeling is that the most modern design in production is the French Barracuda, which could definitely be built in Australia. People have a hangup about it being powered by LEU – but so what? It needs to be refueled every 10 years or so, but the reactor cores could be stored here and then used as necessary.
Kym, I am certainly onboard with scrapping Collins LOTE and building the Korean KSS-III Batch 2 at Osbourne. This would be the quickest route to regain a credible Sovereign Submarine construction industry and Submarine force. The benefits being also that it would enable ASC to learn how to build Submarines again before embarking on the monumental and more difficult task of building Submarines with Nuclear Propulsion.
The recent MOU’s signed between Hanwha Ocean and a number of Canadian Companies (including Babcock Canada), in pursuit of the RCN Patrol Submarine project could also present postive opportunities if successful. Specifically for both Industry/Crew training and ILS in the form of parts availability and cost.
I also agree with Michael in relation to a slower (more measured) acquisition of SSN’s. I too am sceptical as to whether we will ever receive Virginias of our own, especially owned/crewed outright, but the logistical nightmare of trying to run two classes of Nuclear Boat doesn’t bear thinking about.
We should allow the RN SSN-R/AUKUS design process to run its course, wait for BAE in the UK to comence construction of RN Boat 1 and then begin building RAN Boat 1. Any initial design changes, required as issues are found can then be captured and implemented at Osbourne.
Regarding your thoughts on the French Barracuda, I’m sure it will be a good design, but the fact that it is already in production means that it has already aged. The SSN-R/AUKUS Boat design will likely include advances in technology on all fronts that the ‘older’ French Boat has not received. Bear in mind how long it takes to design a Nuclear Submarine.
With reference to your comments about LEU fueled Submarine Reactors and their requirement to be refueled, the process is nowhere near as simple as you appear to suggest. In a previous ‘Life’ in the UK, I was employed as a Fitter & Turner at Devonport Royal Naval Dockyard for over twenty years. As you will probably be aware, the facility there (now operated by Babcock) is the sole licensed site for Nuclear powered Submarines Refits. If you could see the immense effort and scale of the operation there, I think you may have a change of heart regarding the use of LEU over HEU. That is one of the reasons why both the RN (now using Core ‘H’ for the Vanguards, Astutes and SSN-R/AUKUS) and the USN (using their equivalent in the SSBN(X) and the Virginias) are both using ‘fueled for life’ Reactors. When I was at Devonport, they were refitting/refuelling Swiftsures, Trafalgars and Vanguards. On average, an SSN was in Dockyard hands for a major Refit, which included refueling, for approximately two and a half years, SSBNs for longer. A huge chunk of the Man-Hrs were used for technically complex refueling activities involving ‘opening’ and ‘closing’ the Reactor Pressure Vessel. Now that all of the current and future RN Nukes have/will have Core ‘H’, whilst still very challenging, major Refits will be far simpler.
Here in Australia, we will have our hands full just building the Boats we want. Let’s not make the following sustainment process any harder than it needs to be.
Nigel