Australia to Get Nuclear Submarines

[Josh]

4 hours ago, Argus said:

d/ the Nuclear Club has had firmly locked doors for seventy odd years. Japan might have a love hate relationship with the atom, and gate crashing like India and Pakistan just isn't their style, but however you cut it here is Australia getting SSN's and if so why not Japan in due course?   

Japan doesn’t have the same range requirements as Australia and already is building it own subs independently; Australia AFAIK has required foreign involvement in their submarines for decades. It’s hard to see Japan sidelining it’s own production in favor of boats largely designed and constructed somewhere else - it looks like it will be a couple decades before nuke boats are built in Australia, and even then not the reactor section.

[Josh]

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

So, say 18 months from now, they might have their first boat If Ive read correctly? So clearly these are boats already in US service, and probably flight one Virginia, which dont have the SF capablities the USN want. They are about 20 years into their life, so say about 10, maybe 15 years left. I guess they say 'up to 5', is a recognition that they dont know how long SSN R is going to take to design, let alone build, and the original boats may need to be replaced. We do after all have some leisurely build times for our SSN's.

Not until ~2030. My impression was that they would be new builds and that the US was going to have to expand capacity.

[Stuart Galbraith]

That to my mind doesnt make sense, unless they intend to have a mixed fleet. SSN R is due in service early 2040's for Australia. If Austrlia gets a Virginia say, 2030,  the are going to be barely 10 years old before they get SSN R. This arrangement only really starts to make sense if SSN R slips into the mid 2040s or even later.

Unless there is a firm understanding that we arent going to be designing the nuclear plant, and its going to be based on the Virginia, and if so, we have been right royally fucked.

[shep854]

4 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Sounds like something that should be in a Lewis Carroll book.

Now all you have to do is get the politicians sign off on it.

 

e e cummings ?

[futon]

7 hours ago, Argus said:

yes indeed thenkee

I think a Japanese perspective may be:
a/ anything that makes my friends stronger is a good thing
b/ all animals are equal but some are more equal than others, if there is a two tier hierarchy of US allies in the Asia/Pacific region developing, Japan would like a seat at the top table too, as they are due IMHO. 
c/ if there is a wider 'free trade zone' of military technology and equipment evolving, again Japan would like to be on the inside, and unfortunate efforts with submarines notwithstanding, she is still sniffing forwards into military exports.   
d/ the Nuclear Club has had firmly locked doors for seventy odd years. Japan might have a love hate relationship with the atom, and gate crashing like India and Pakistan just isn't their style, but however you cut it here is Australia getting SSN's and if so why not Japan in due course?   

Well, like many countries, there are various perspectives. But your list is not so far off for perhaps a general average.

For a) I would add that Japan places high value in good relations with many countries. This was the case even before China has become stronger. But now with the concern regarding China, friendly countries to place trust in has become more important, at least as far as sentiment goes. But not just geopolitical, exports are very important so the business arm has a pretty strong voice so countries that buy a lot of Japanese products will get close attention. Somehow though, China couldn't capture enough of that same strong business voice. But still, Japan is typically cautious about some things.. like action in the sand box, maybe rightfully so. For Ukraine and the interest that important close countries have regarding the Ukraine, Japan might be stepping up more in the coming months as Kishida host G7 in May. This line of thought segways to your c). With greater military export comes the not so fun side of military exports and having your killing stuff going all over the place. As people and more people get killed by it, its going to deepen resentment by various parties. I guess the US is used to this and has all the various special agents and protocals all set in place for dealing with that resentment as it comes around. It's something the some Japanese are very cautious about. Selling submarines to Australia is very safe from that though. In some way yes, naturally Japan (well the geopolitical/military people that is) would want to export more military stuff, but its something to be careful what one wishes for. 

For b) yeah, that makes sense. I think though Japan has to settle for second tier. US alone is first tier. AUKUS is like tier 1.5. USFJ would also be tier 1.5.. Some basics for it. 1) If Japan has greater acccess or status, it'll be viewed as potential rival to US in some things, P-1 vs P-8 for example. So there's a glass ceiling. The UK and Australia are smaller scale so possibility of rivalry is less. 2) AUKUS all shares common culture/language/war history. Japan is just different. Difference doesn't mean bad, but only that the synergy is not as strong. 3) Japan has some strengths but it has some weaknesses as well. And those weaknesses make it ill suited for top level lead role just simply because those weaknesses mean it can't apply certain kinds of leverage. Weaknesses being somewhat shallow strategic depth and low natural resoucres. 

For D) hate love yeah about nuclear power. Josh did point out different sub needs. Submarines is possibly the highest military item that Japan is committed towards being able to make on its own. Becoming a nuclear power is very contentious. There were some talking heads that think if Japan were to acquire a nuclear arsenal, SSBN would be the way to go. In the past few months, it was said that Japan would pursue making subs that have VLS. It'll be a step closer to a sub that can shoot off ICBM from fatter VLS-like things. No details AFAIK. I guess just a somewhat longer Taigei to make space for a few VLS would be the way to go. With the subs though, there's a lot of research going on in linking the subs up with unmanned mini sub drone things and maybe do stuff in more littoral setting, not sure. But could ve something else not so related to the kind of sub the Australia is hoping to get with the Virginias. One of your previous posts mentioned the shortage of manpower. Whether or not the Virginia can actually function with less redundency in crew numbers (if it exists), with addition to costs, long time table, and now limited crew, I sort of thought that just buying some Soryu (or Taigei) would greatly simplify this whole thing. The US has to find a way to make three Virginias available. Maybe they need a new ship yard. With estimates in how long it'll take to just make modern LSTs which is coming hot off of LCS, this whole thing is starting to sound like another "too big to fail" thing. 

[Mike1158]

I heard the PRC saying that the AUKUS pact should be scrapped and they were not the only nation upset with it.  No indication of exactly which other nations were PO'd but seeing as Ping had a big boys meeting with Putin it does not take a massivley high IQ to work out.

Russia/PRC/NKorea.

'nuff said.

The world would be a much safer place without those bozo's crapping in everyone else's gardens.

[Ssnake]

52 minutes ago, Mike1158 said:

The world would be a much safer place without those bozo's crapping in everyone else's gardens.

From their prespective, we're crapping into theirs'.

[Mike1158]

The gardens I am thinking of are their neighbours whom they wish to crap on as Russia does their neighbours.

 

Where they believe the logic is I do not know.

[Ssnake]

It doesn't have to be logical to be a reality.

[DB]

12 hours ago, Ssnake said:

JAUKUS.

Problem solved, next.

SK.

[JWB]

Former Australian PM says subs 'worst deal in all history' (msn.com)

[Skywalkre]

The timeline given in the report I saw last night about this it seems too little, too late for the possible upcoming conflict with China.  By the time the report said Australia would be receiving their own subs we're talking almost a decade past when many are expecting things to come to a head with Taiwan.  The basing of a few US subs +1 UK sub puts them closer... but do those handful of subs make that much of a difference in the next decade?

[Josh]

47 minutes ago, Skywalkre said:

The timeline given in the report I saw last night about this it seems too little, too late for the possible upcoming conflict with China.  By the time the report said Australia would be receiving their own subs we're talking almost a decade past when many are expecting things to come to a head with Taiwan.  The basing of a few US subs +1 UK sub puts them closer... but do those handful of subs make that much of a difference in the next decade?

I think it is still relevant. There's no telling when and if China will go to war; people have been throwing out 2027 (the PLA  centenial) and 2025 (the next US presidential election, which could be very volatile again if a certain person gets involved), but IMO China isn't currently in a position to take Taiwan if they resist and the US gets involved. That could change over a long enough timeframe; look at much capability they've added in the last decade. Expanding the AUKUS SSN force past 2032 is still relevant.

[Skywalkre]

I'm all for long term planning and strategizing with allies (something usually woefully absent from US policy) but the reality is this means we'll have... 1, maybe 2, subs that can loiter in the region for longer than we had before?  Even that doesn't start til '27.

I'd heard about this being discussed for a while.  When I finally saw the details... I expected more or just expected some aspects of it sooner.

[Stuart Galbraith]

1 hour ago, JWB said:

Former Australian PM says subs 'worst deal in all history' (msn.com)

Keating really is a bit of a fucking idiot isnt he?

[Colin]

On 3/14/2023 at 2:40 AM, Josh said:

Japan doesn’t have the same range requirements as Australia and already is building it own subs independently; Australia AFAIK has required foreign involvement in their submarines for decades. It’s hard to see Japan sidelining it’s own production in favor of boats largely designed and constructed somewhere else - it looks like it will be a couple decades before nuke boats are built in Australia, and even then not the reactor section.

6,100nm is nothing to thumb a nose at. The ranges are all subjective and the latest class does not appear to have a published range, but will likley be longer.

[Josh]

2 hours ago, Skywalkre said:

I'm all for long term planning and strategizing with allies (something usually woefully absent from US policy) but the reality is this means we'll have... 1, maybe 2, subs that can loiter in the region for longer than we had before?  Even that doesn't start til '27.

I'd heard about this being discussed for a while.  When I finally saw the details... I expected more or just expected some aspects of it sooner.

There was never going to be a quick change to nuclear.

[JWB]

3 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Keating really is a bit of a fucking idiot isnt he?

He is a gas bag:

Keating also lashed out at some journalists at the event, telling one reporter her question “is so dumb, it’s hardly worth an answer” and another that “you should hang your head in shame” over his newspaper's recent coverage of China's perceived threat to Australia.

[Stuart Galbraith]

You aren't wrong.

This is an interesting detail.

 

[Josh]

The AUKUS boat will have the Virginia block 3 style VLS to make that launcher common across the fleet. Combat system will also be standardized based on BSY-1 type system, which probably pisses off Thales a bit but there you go. But the UK is apparently also about to inherit a lot of US tech transfer on top of the already close relationship between the USN and RN.

It is quite the ambitious endeavor.

[DB]

It gives the US better support in the PAC area and also assures first tier allied capability in the more traditional North Atlantic. By increasing the total number of boats procured it will likely allow both UK and Aus to afford more than they otherwise would.

My main concern comes when it's time for Aus to start buying the SSN(R) is whether the US companies will try to overturn the deal in favour of a more pure US solution.

And Keating has always loathed the UK, perhaps a legacy of his being Labor (sic) at a time when Thatcher was in power, but more likely because he never had any class.

[Argus]

On 3/14/2023 at 8:40 PM, Josh said:

Japan doesn’t have the same range requirements as Australia and already is building it own subs independently; Australia AFAIK has required foreign involvement in their submarines for decades. It’s hard to see Japan sidelining it’s own production in favor of boats largely designed and constructed somewhere else - it looks like it will be a couple decades before nuke boats are built in Australia, and even then not the reactor section.

That's not actually what I mean., sorry for any lack of clarity. 

Japan will build its own submarines to fit its own needs, and will do so with any blend of domestic or foreign technology it sees fit to employ. What I was trying to say, is just that Australia getting SSN's makes it easier in diplomatic terms for Japan to get SSN's - if they wanted to. I think this is something the Japanese government might like, in the sense that it is a change in their favour that also costs them nothing, and who doesn't like a feebee?

The idea of Japan getting SSN's is another thing altogether. Personally I can see a couple of reasons why they might, not the least being the diplomatic value. While only the US and China had SSN's they were not a currency among the strictly regional powers. But once one regional power has them, there is pressure on those other regional powers who want to be in the front rank to also get them - Japan is both a leading regional player and the only one able build their own SSN in house.   

[Argus]

8 hours ago, JWB said:

Former Australian PM says subs 'worst deal in all history' (msn.com)

Former Australian PM is full of shit (msn.com)
 

Keating has never liked this deal and piled a lot of hate on it under the previous government. So given it is impossible for him to ever be wrong about anything ever,  he has no choice but to throw his own party and the nation under the bus and double down with the BS.  

[Argus]

I think the timeline being put forward now is the 'managing expectations' long form one. Things could, and might very well, go quicker.

I believe the US VLS element was already part of SSN(R), there's beena  bit of work between the US and UK on common elements beyond the reactors, I believe the  next generation of US SSBN has its missile section based on the  UK's new one... some deal like that anyway. 

[BansheeOne]

9 hours ago, DB said:

My main concern comes when it's time for Aus to start buying the SSN(R) is whether the US companies will try to overturn the deal in favour of a more pure US solution.

Surely Australia would never allow that after signalling an interest in Japanese boats, ditching the Japanese and signing an agreement with the French, backing out of that agreement to sign another with the US and UK ... 😁