Australia to Get Nuclear Submarines

[Stuart Galbraith]

1 hour ago, DB said:

If you're quoting from here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AUKUS

Then it says no such thing at the time I looked. There is not much official information, and if this deal was first broached as a concept in March and more formally only in June, I doubt that it's a fully formed thing just yet.

I can't read the article linked by Adam_S because it's paywalled, but as far as i can tell there has been no public statement defining the type of submarine to be supplied, or the types to be leased if any.

the French have really thrown the toys out of the pram, which was inevitable I suppose, but it's not in their interests long-term to spite allies when they are in a relatively vulnerable position regarding Pacific Ocean territory vulnerabilities. Can they deploy a CVBG to the region in times of tension?

I was not. I was quoting from the Virginia page. Its at the bottom under 'Potential exports'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia-class_submarine

Like I said, Ive not gone through all the sources they list to find the exact source of this, and I doubt its official anyway. As you say, they are probably thrashing out the exact workshare. But it seems a reasonable supposition. It even seems strangely fitting, it wouldnt be the first military infrastructure we built in Australia....

Edited September 20, 2021 by Stuart Galbraith

[Stuart Galbraith]

France cancels (or postpones depending on how you look at it) a meeting over future missile collaboration.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/france-cancels-missile-collaboration-meeting-with-uk-amid-aukus-submarine-row/ar-AAODb5h?ocid=uxbndlbing

[R011]

3 hours ago, DB said:

If you're quoting from here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AUKUS

Then it says no such thing at the time I looked. There is not much official information, and if this deal was first broached as a concept in March and more formally only in June, I doubt that it's a fully formed thing just yet.

I can't read the article linked by Adam_S because it's paywalled, but as far as i can tell there has been no public statement defining the type of submarine to be supplied, or the types to be leased if any.

the French have really thrown the toys out of the pram, which was inevitable I suppose, but it's not in their interests long-term to spite allies when they are in a relatively vulnerable position regarding Pacific Ocean territory vulnerabilities. Can they deploy a CVBG to the region in times of tension?

He's quoting from the article on the Virginia Class.

 

Edit: I see I should have turned the page before commenting.

Edited September 20, 2021 by R011

[BansheeOne]

I couldn't previously reconcile statements that negotiations had been going on for 18 months, and that the Australian wish for SSNs was first voiced only this March via the UK. Upon closer reading, apparently the longer timeframe refers to the plans being developed within the Australian government, but contrary to my initial impression they didn't want to raise the question with the US during Trump's term. So the more recent approach via the Brits is probably true.

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

Considering the fairly appalling relationship Australia had with the Trump administration, it seems difficult to believe that these negotiations predated the Biden Administration. Indeed it probably explains why the Australians left it so late to jump ship. Or Boat.

The Times does not have the stellar reputation it once did, largely as a result of Murdoch's ownership of it. But that story had a ring of truth about it, largely as a result of the extraneous detail. And to be honest, im not sure what reason we would have to lie about it anyway. There is nothing at this point that is going to make Macron calm down, so why even try?

There is also this, which also seems to put doubt on the claim the French were not informed by the US before the announcement was made.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9996991/US-UK-defense-pact-build-Australias-nuclear-subs-China-stab-France.html

The White House said on Thursday it had given France a head's up on the new US-UK-Australia defense pact as the French foreign minister blasted President Joe Biden for following in the footsteps of Donald Trump.

The shock announcement resulted in France losing out on a $90 billion submarine deal with Australia.

'Senior administration officials have been in touch with their French counterparts to discuss AUKUS, including before the announcement. I will leave it to our Australian partners to describe why they sought this new technology. As the President said yesterday, we cooperate closely with France on shared priorities in the Indo-Pacific and will continue to do so,' a senior administration official told DailyMail.com.

 

As I said before, i think this has everything to do with what Macron assumed was an emerging strategic relationship with the US, and little to do with what actually happened.

[urbanoid]

On 9/18/2021 at 11:20 AM, sunday said:

There seems to be a number of chokepoints between Perth and the SCS.

I find remarkable Singapore sits on top of one of those choke points, and is Western-aligned.

But no news about reinforcing Singapore military.

Could it be that Singapore is going to be considered indefensible?

SAF is already more or less on par with Australian military, with a quarter of her population. 

[sunday]

1 minute ago, urbanoid said:

SAF is already more or less on par with Australian military, with a quarter of her population. 

Yes, more or less, but Australia beats Singapore in strategic depth, thus Aussies have more time available to recover from mistakes. Singaporeans are Israel-like in this sense, first mistake would be likely the last. So they need a relatively more powerful military.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Australia is part of 5 eyes, so there is already a level of trust to build on. Singapore has no such relationship.

. 

[urbanoid]

They have ~half of Israel's population and ~1/30 of Israel's area. Possibly they'd have to station part of their forces elsewhere, but they can't do it... yet. 

And well, they have conscription and large reserves, can't see how they can realistically do more than they already did. 

[sunday]

4 minutes ago, urbanoid said:

And well, they have conscription and large reserves, can't see how they can realistically do more than they already did. 

Me neither, short of making of Singapore an army with a state, like the Prussia of yore.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Indonesia might be possible. They even have a nuclear research program already running.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Indonesia#:~:text=Indonesia agreed not to conduct nuclear-weapons testing%2C but,to supply Indonesia with uranium for peaceful purposes.

And there is of course India. They must be torn in two between a desire to remain independent, and the possibility of operating something like a Virginia.

[Simon Tan]

Why do you imagine Singapore is interested in fighting for Sam? Singapore is interested in Sam fighting for it. 

[Dawes]

UK is looking ahead to the next generation:

 

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/uk-awards-design-and-concept-contracts-for-next-generation-ssn

[sunday]

20 minutes ago, Simon Tan said:

Why do you imagine Singapore is interested in fighting for Sam? Singapore is interested in Sam fighting for it. 

Singapore looks up to Israel in so many things...

[glenn239]

I see the outrage in the anti-nuclear groups in Australia has already started.

[sunday]

6 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

I see the outrage in the anti-nuclear groups in Australia has already started.

Of course, without any support by the PRC.

[urbanoid]

Hard to say really, various anti-nuclear 'greens' doesn't necessarily have to be Chinese/Russian/whatever agents, they can simply be idiots.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Well considering how many times we thoughtlessly nuked Australia, you wonder what worse could happen....

[RETAC21]

7 minutes ago, urbanoid said:

Hard to say really, various anti-nuclear 'greens' doesn't necessarily have to be Chinese/Russian/whatever agents, they can simply be idiots.

They usually are, "useful idiots" to be precise.

Let's not forget the main purpose of these submarines is to deter the Chinese from looking for lebensraum in the future.

Edited September 20, 2021 by RETAC21

[Stuart Galbraith]

6 minutes ago, RETAC21 said:

They usually are, "useful idiots" to be precise.

Let's not forget the main purpose of these submarines is to deter the Chinese from looking for lebensraum in the future.

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

[lucklucky]

Quote

At least the plan to develop 12 Attack class submarines with French technology – as flawed as it was – had some chance of delivering a capability to the RAN around 2032.  The idea of now completely switching direction and aiming for nuclear propulsion supplied by either the US or the UK has set that back by 10 years.  As more details become known – or rather as the lack of detail becomes increasingly apparent – this deal is looking more like a back of a beer coaster list of ideas compiled by some senior political advisors rather than a coherent plan.

With a startling change of direction, Australia has managed to enrage France, with unknown long term diplomatic and trade repercussions.  This goes on top of earlier efforts that similarly enraged Japan when then Prime Minister Tony Abbott assured his counterpart in 2014 that they had the future submarine project in the bag.  At least the Japanese were put out of their misery in about one year, unlike the five years of effort put in by Paris and Cherbourg.  Having said that, Naval Group has been paid a lot of money – with even more to come – so their hurt feelings have already been generously compensated for by rivers of Australian cash.

To the list of countries offended by Australia regarding submarines, Sweden can be added to the list. As the designer of the Collins class and shareholder in the Australian Submarine Corporation, the Swedes were mightily annoyed in the year 2000 when Defence nationalised the company, kicking them out with the message that they were no longer welcome and that the US would step in and fix all remaining technical problems.  Of course, that never happened – and then in 2014 to add insult to injury a New Generation Collins class was absurdly excluded from the mix, mainly because a few senior bureaucrats had developed a personal dislike of dealing with Sweden.

To be in this position of changing direction again and “stabbing in the back” the French, after already doing so to the Japanese and the Swedes is a collective display of incompetence by successive governments, the Defence bureaucracy and the RAN.  If it were not so serious, this lack of process and the squandering of billions of dollars resembles a family of orangutans trying to water a garden with a high-pressure hose.(...)

https://asiapacificdefencereporter.com/australia-stands-up-to-china-by-delaying-submarine-project-for-a-decade/

[Stuart Galbraith]

Looks to be a deeply flawed piece, particularly as leasing is an option.

[Josh]

On 9/17/2021 at 11:09 AM, alejandro_ said:

Were the French in a position to offer nuclear subs? Someone asked this question in my blog and I thought it was interesting.

 

The French boats use much lower levels of enrichment and require several refuelings, as I understand it. The advantage of the latest US/UK boats* would be no recore and thus no need for the more extensive levels of nuclear infrastructure. In fact I suspect everything nuclear related will be handled by the UK/US, from production to training to disposal. Really the only way it could work.

ETA: well one of the advantages, which is probably a big deal politically for Australia given how anti-nuke parts of the population are

Edited September 21, 2021 by Josh

[Josh]

On 9/19/2021 at 12:46 PM, Dawes said:

Curious as to what the actual boat will eventually look like. Presumably US combat system and Mk 48 torpedoes?

This was a requirement for the Attack class, after the US provided the Collins with its combat system. The RAN also codeveloped the Mk48 mod7 with the USN.  It seems exceedingly unlikely the RAN would switch out. Apparently the firecontrol worked without much delay or cost overruns and is well liked. I suspect the Brits will handle a lot of the bigger non-nuclear bigger pieces. I can't picture how this entire program is actually going to produce anything in fifteen years given the fact Australia will want to/have to produce major pieces of the boat.

The US has little to no bandwidth for additional production; how much capacity does the UK have?

Edited September 21, 2021 by Josh