Australia to Get Nuclear Submarines

[Sardaukar]

Is this the day when French woman asks in HMS Victory: "Are these actual cannonballs used in Trafalgar?" Answer: "No, ma'am, your navy still have those..." 

[Stuart Galbraith]

FUKUS eh? Can't see anyone being offended by that acronym..

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

[Argus]

A bit long and frankly his language is a little unpolished, but.... its good 👍

[Colin]

A bit on the SK sub

 

[futon]

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Department of Defense will order just one Virginia-class nuclear-powered attack submarine in fiscal 2025, a drop from the two-per-year pace of recent years.

The decrease, announced Monday, reflects U.S. shipbuilding bottlenecks. The two private shipyards that produce the Virginia class -- General Dynamics and Huntington Ingalls Industries -- face mounting backlogs due to limited capacity and personnel shortages.

... The delay of the Virginia class exposes the strains of the AUKUS defense pact as well. Together with the U.K., the arrangement seeks to provide Australia with nuclear-powered submarines. The U.S. has promised to sell Australia three Virginia-class submarines, in 2032, 2035 and 2038, with the option of providing two more. The idea is to strengthen deterrence in the Indo-Pacific region with key allies, but Navy officials have raised concerns about the impact AUKUS will have on shipyards.

The two-boats-per-year pace only addressed U.S. demand. To cater to AUKUS, the U.S. needs to construct 2.33 submarines per year, according to the Congressional Research Service. The actual delivery rate has averaged 1.2 boats per year for the past five years

... "If such a cut is actually enacted, it will remove one more attack submarine from a fleet that is already 17 submarines below the Navy's long stated requirement of 66," Courtney said. "Given the new commitment the Department of Defense and Congress made last year to sell three submarines to our ally Australia, which I enthusiastically support, the ramifications of the Navy's proposal will have a profound impact on both countries."

...

https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/Defense/U.S.-cuts-key-submarine-order-for-2025-amid-shipbuilding-jam

[Stuart Galbraith]

Which illustrates something ive long been saying, the US simply doesnt have the shipbuilding capacity to make good on the numbers of 688's and Ohio's as they leave service. There is a good case for saying investing in Aukus is a good idea, just so the US can get yard capacity abroad for making Virginia components.

Oh I know, 'Must be built here' yada yada yada...

[futon]

Could have been an Australian one today.

[Stuart Galbraith]

https://www.forces.net/services/navy/australian-trailblazers-become-first-complete-intense-royal-navy-nuclear-engineer

Three Royal Australian Navy officers have become the first in their service's history to qualify in the UK as nuclear engineers, following nine months of intensive training delivered by the Royal Navy.

The training, delivered as part of the Aukus agreement, a pact between the UK, US and Australia to build a new generation of nuclear-powered submarines, saw the Australian officers train alongside their Royal Navy counterparts at HMS Sultan in Gosport.

Vice Admiral Mark Hammond, the Chief of the Royal Australian Navy and a submariner said: "The graduation marks another significant step forward for the Royal Australian Navy's ability to operate, maintain and support Australia's future nuclear-powered submarine capability.

 

The three officers, named only as Lieutenant Commander James, Lieutenant Isabella and Lieutenant Steve, will now go on to serve in Astute-class submarines alongside the Royal Navy as they gain practical experience to complement their studies.

Lt Cdr James will now be assigned to the Royal Navy's newest hunter-killer submarine, HMS Agamemnon, which is nearing completion in Barrow.

He said: "The experience of bringing her out of construction, going through trials and training will be hugely important down the line for our programme."

[futon]

SYDNEY, Aug 15 (Reuters) - Australia, the United States and Britain have removed significant barriers on defence trade between the AUKUS partners and opened the way for faster approvals for highly sensitive technologies, Australian officials said.

The move is seen as a significant step for Australia to acquire U.S. nuclear-powered attack submarines and jointly develop with the U.S. and Britain a new class of conventionally armed, nuclear-powered submarine over the next two decades.

The AUKUS partners are also developing advanced defence technology spanning hypersonic missiles, undersea drones and quantum technologies, with the reforms expected to speed up the transition of these projects from research to production.

The United States is Australia's closest security ally, but had restricted sharing of closely guarded defence technology, which is governed by the U.S. International Trafficking in Arms Regulations (ITAR).

...

https://www.reuters.com/world/australia-britain-us-drop-defence-trade-barriers-propel-aukus-2024-08-15/

[Argus]

Another step down the road 

Tasking Statement signed - I know its just a fact of life, but in the archives the procurement file on the two county class cruisers (HMAS Australia and Canberra) from the 20's is a couple of inches thick. Mostly, so I understand, because they contain a folded up large scale GA plan, the functional documents are a few of letters and telegrams, two contracts and three invoices. The equivalent paper trail for the ANZAC class frigate program is measured in shelf meters of documents. I hate to think how many new archive buildings we're going to need for the combined Collins Replacements.      

https://www.baesystems.com/en/article/australian-government-and-industry-partners-reach-ssn-aukus-agreement?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=baesystemsplc&utm_campaign=SocialCT&utm_content=Post&utm_term=c53c8306-fbb1-4423-9d0d-04af15028769 

[urbanoid]

Uh...

Quote

Trump pick for Pentagon says selling submarines to Australia would be ‘crazy’ if Taiwan tensions flare

Nominee for undersecretary for defense policy says Aukus deal to deliver Virginia class submarines could leave US sailors ‘vulnerable’

One of Donald Trump’s top picks for the Pentagon says selling submarines to Australia under the Aukus agreement poses a “very difficult problem” for the US and could endanger its own sailors.

Elbridge Colby, Trump’s nominee for undersecretary of defense for policy – the number three post at the US Department of Defense – has previously admitted he is “skeptical” about Aukus and said this week he is worried selling submarines to Australia could leave US sailors “vulnerable” because the vessels won’t be “in the right place in the right time”.

In written and verbal testimony to the Senate armed service committee nomination hearings, Colby affirmed Australia was a “core ally” of the US – “with us even in our less-advisable wars” – and that he supported “the idea of empowering our Australian allies”.

“It is a great idea for them to have attack submarines.”

But, Colby argued, there remained “a very real threat of a conflict in the coming years”, particularly along the so-called first island chain – the first arc of islands out from the east Asian continental mainland coast – including Taiwan, Japan, the Philippines and Borneo.

“And our attack submarines … are absolutely essential for making the defence of Taiwan or otherwise a viable and practical option,” Colby told the committee.

“So if we can produce the attack submarines in sufficient number and sufficient speed, then great. But if we can’t, [supplying Australia] becomes a very difficult problem because we don’t want our servicemen and women to be in a weaker position and more vulnerable and, God forbid, worse because they are not in the right place in the right time.”

In August he tweeted: “Aukus, in principle, it is a great idea, but I have been very skeptical in practice. I remain skeptical, agnostic, as I put it, but more inclined based on new information I have gleaned. It would be crazy to have fewer SSNs Virginia-class [attack submarines] in the right place and time.”

According to the Aukus agreement, signed in 2021 by the then Australian prime minister, Scott Morrison, the US will sell Australia between three and five Virginia-class conventionally armed nuclear-powered attack submarines (known as SSNs), with the first to be delivered in 2032. These will replace Australia’s ageing Collins class diesel-electric submarines before Australia’s own Aukus submarines can be built.

However, the agreement also mandates that before any boat can be sold to Australia, the US commander-in-chief – the president of the day – must certify that America relinquishing a submarine will not diminish the US navy’s undersea capability.

The US’s submarine fleet numbers are currently a quarter below their target and the country is producing boats at half the rate it needs to service its own needs, US figures show. Experts have argued the chance of that condition being met is “vanishingly small”.

On 8 February, Australia paid $US500m ($AUD790m) to the US, the first instalment in a total of $US3bn pledged in order to support America’s shipbuilding industry as part of the Aukus agreement.

But on 11 February, the Congressional Research Service issued a paper highlighting the stubbornly sclerotic pace of submarine-building in the US. The US navy has a “force-level goal” of 66 attack submarines; it currently has 49.

The report says the US needs to build new submarines at a rate of 2.3 each year to meet its own needs, as well as provide submarines to Australia. Since 2022, it has built boats at about half that rate: 1.2 boats a year.

Under an alternative proposed in the paper, the US would not sell any submarines to Australia; instead, it would sail its own submarines, under US command, out of Australian bases.

“Up to eight additional Virginia-class SSNs would be built and, instead of three to five of them being sold to Australia, these additional boats would instead be retained in US navy service and operated out of Australia along with the five US and UK submarines that are already planned to be operated out of Australia.”

The paper argued that Australia, rather than spending money to buy, build and sail its own nuclear-powered submarines, would instead invest that money in other military capabilities – long-range missiles, drones, or bombers – “so as to create an Australian capacity for performing non-SSN military missions for both Australia and the United States”.

Colby is the author of The Strategy of Denial: American Defense in an Age of Great Power Conflict, and has pushed the US to prioritise the Indo-Pacific over other parts of the world. He has been strongly supported by key members of Trump’s inner circle, including the vice-president, JD Vance.

In written comments to the Senate committee, Colby urged Australia to lift its defence spending to 3% of GDP.

“The main concern the United States should press with Australia, consistent with the president’s approach, is higher defence spending,” Colby said.

“Australia is currently well below the 3% level advocated for Nato by Nato secretary general [Mark] Rutte, and Canberra faces a far more powerful challenge in China.”

Australia is not a member of Nato. Australia’s defence minister, Richard Marles, responded: “The budget papers show the Albanese government is increasing defence spending to record levels.”

Australian defence spending is budgeted to reach $56bn this year, equivalent to 2.02% of GDP. The Albanese government has committed to exceeding $100bn by the 2033-34 financial year, representing 2.4% of GDP.

In written comments to the Senate committee, Colby said he “had expressed concerns” regarding the US attack submarine fleet and the production rates of new boats.

“I believe we must increase US attack submarine production to meet US military requirements in the Indo-Pacific region – to ensure our servicemen and women are as well-armed as possible in the event of war – as well as to meet our obligations under Aukus Pillar One.”

Trump told Congress in an address this week he would “resurrect the American shipbuilding industry” by establishing a new “office of shipbuilding” inside the White House.

“We’re going to make them very fast, very soon.”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/mar/09/trump-pick-for-pentagon-says-selling-submarines-to-australia-would-be-crazy-if-taiwan-tensions-flare

[futon]

They should have settled for lengthened Soryu subs back in 2015.

[Stuart Galbraith]

10 hours ago, urbanoid said:

Uh...

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/mar/09/trump-pick-for-pentagon-says-selling-submarines-to-australia-would-be-crazy-if-taiwan-tensions-flare

Doesnt make any difference. If they pull out, you will up with FRAUK, and America will have shot itself in the foot, again.

[urbanoid]

Fears in Australia that they may end up with no subs.

Quote

Turnbull, former Prime Minister : "We are spending a fortune vastly more than the partnership with France would have involved. We’re spending vastly more and we are very likely, I would say almost certainly, going to end up with no submarines at all"

https://x.com/jeangene_vilmer/status/1899338723407667695

 

Quote

“I think America is a much less dependable ally under [president] Trump than it was,” the former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull tells the Guardian this week. “And this is not a criticism of Trump, this is literally a feature, not a bug: he’s saying that he’s less dependable.

“It may be that – regrettably – we do end up with no submarines. And then we have to invest in other ways of defending ourselves. But the big message is that we are going to have to look at defending Australia by ourselves.

“That’s really the issue. We cannot assume that the Americans will always turn up.”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/mar/07/surface-tension-could-the-promised-aukus-nuclear-submarines-simply-never-be-handed-over-to-australia

[Stuart Galbraith]

They could just buy Astutes, that to me would strike me as the logical response, and just kick the Americans out the program. We are perfectly up to transfering all the parts later on to make their own.

For example, we could rent them Astute, which is already some 13 years old and would deserve replacement, and build another Astute and keep the line rolling till we procure the next SSN. Australians could send their engineers over, and pick up the skills to build their own.

For me, I think American participation has just confused things and made the whole thing weaker.

 

[urbanoid]

What about SSBN replacement? Do you guys have enough capacity to do both?

[Stuart Galbraith]

We probably do for the components.

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/britain-to-increase-production-of-nuclear-submarine-reactors/

The hulls? Dont know. Might have to slow down Dreadnought production perhaps. The real deciding point is how long we can keep the vanguards in service for, they are getting rather tired.

[urbanoid]

LOL

https://x.com/UnderscoreYara/status/1899443010418442385

[Colin]

I have suggested that if Canada does go for a speedy buy of up to 12 subs, most likley KS-III from South Korea and starts taking delivery of the first one within 3-4 years, then we can offer free our Victoria Class to the Aussie to help fill the gap till their nuke boat comes in....

[Stuart Galbraith]

Wow. You really dont like Australians, do you?

 

[urbanoid]

They were built around the same time as Collins-class, so they could just keep them in service a little longer instead of using old foreign subs as a stopgap.

[RETAC21]

12 minutes ago, urbanoid said:

They were built around the same time as Collins-class, so they could just keep them in service a little longer instead of using old foreign subs as a stopgap.

They have been used much less, so they will have hull life (which what determines how long a sub serves)

The French have their second Suffren in services, they could still sell SSNs to Australia...

[urbanoid]

1 minute ago, RETAC21 said:

They have been used much less, so they will have hull life (which what determines how long a sub serves)

The French have their second Suffren in services, they could still sell* SSNs to Australia...

How is it that the Americans need 3-5 years to build a Virginia while the French need 13 (!!!) years to build a Suffren?

Honestly I had no idea, just checked it.