Aukus partnership will enable Australia to have nuclear-powered submarines for the first time
www.theguardian.com
"Morrison said teams from the three countries would draw up a joint plan over the coming 18 months for assembling the new Australian nuclear-powered submarine fleet, which will be built in Adelaide."
"The agreement spells the end for a $90bn contract Australia signed with the French company Naval Group in 2016. That deal had become bogged down in cost over-runs, delays and design changes. It marks a setback for President Emmanuel Macron.
“The world is a jungle,” the former French ambassador to Washington, Gérard Araud, observed on Twitter. “France has just been reminded this bitter truth by the way the US and the UK have stabbed her in the back in Australia. C’est la vie.”"
So many questions still left unanswered
Who will supply the HEU?
Will the RAN personal go through Nuke School or set up a domestic equivalent?
Is it even legal to have nuclear naval vessels while having a ban on civilian reactors?
Will Tomahawks be acquired?
That would be, in the words of Sir Humphrey, "an audacious decision" on the part of the US Government. If you were familiar with "Yes, Minister" or "Yes, Prime Minister" you'd know that would be kiss of death to such a decision. It hasn't happened and it will never happen. The US Navy jealously guards it's superiority (supposedly) over all others...
So many questions still left unanswered
Who will supply the HEU?
Will the RAN personal go through Nuke School or set up a domestic equivalent?
Is it even legal to have nuclear naval vessels while having a ban on civilian reactors?
Will Tomahawks be acquired?
It may not use HEU reactors, the reactors and fuel might not be produced domestically, we'll see in 18 months.
They probably ultimately set up their own school, but sending officers to US/UK to start with seems very likely.
Australia can interpret Australian laws for themselves, but my understanding is the ban is against processing and enrichment facilities.
Possible, but if we are to assume these boats would hit the water in the 30s the Tomahawk will probably be on its farewell tour about then.
A US official called the move the "biggest strategic step Australia has taken in generations."
breakingdefense.com
Morrison in his comments pledged that the submarines would be “built” in Adelaide, while Johnson claimed the work would result in “hundreds” of highly skilled jobs in the United Kingdom. The UK Pm also stated the work on the program will last “decades.”
According to Graham, a service life extension of the Royal Navy’s existing Collins-class submarines will likely be required.
“The question remains whether the [Australian Navy] can get the new nuclear boats online later this decade. Otherwise, there’s a risk that this apparently radical solution will only repeat the same mistakes of the previous program. Sometimes, Australia is its own worst enemy in its relentless pursuit of the perfect (‘regionally superior’) over the good.”
This is the most important strategic shift for Australia in generations. Key points from today’s announcement:
Australia will acquire nuclear submarines nuclear technology transfer to Australia from US and UK US remains committed to nuclear weapon non-proliferation - Australia will not be accessing nuclear weapons technology subs to be built in Australia
Extraordinary.
So looking at Sarah's take on it we are talking technology transfer from our closest allies and as a minimum local build of the hulls and non propulsion systems. There is the distinct possibility of, at least, the initial reactor sections being fabricated and fitted out overseas then incorporated in the local hulls
Naval Group shot themselves in the foot playing hard ball because they thought there was no other option, well there may have been no other conventional option but two very good nuclear options once the political hurdles were overcome.
My initial concern was we could end up like Canada, a plan for SSNs ends up as a contraction of the conventional force following a change of government, I notice however that the leader of the opposition and a couple of his senior front benchers were invited to the briefing, i.e. the suggestion at least of bipartisan support.
I've said it before, the biggest hurdle for SSNs for the RAN was political will and to be honest I never thought I would see it in my lifetime but often all it takes is a bully behaving badly to change sentiment.
The next big issue, that does seem to have been sorted in recent time, is Australia's propensity to underfund sustainment, causing availability and capability gaps down the road. This cannot be allowed to happen with SSNs.
Another thought. The Astute was designed and build with extensive support from GDEB following the UKs submarine building blackhole. At the same time EB was doing a lot of work with Australia improving the Collins. There are extensive relationships already in place, we know them, they know us, hell I'm just a pleb and have dozens of contacts in UK and US submarine communities. There is a level of mutual respect and ability to work together I have never seen with the French or Spanish, let alone the Japanese companies I have dealt with.
Last thought. The designs are existing and proven, people who designed and built them are already in Australia and have been for years, to be honest, this may prove to be lower risk, despite it greater complexity, due to team work and already having effectively mitigated much of the risk, than continuing trying to work with an arrogant, condescending bully who thought they had Australia over a barrel.
Nice for Naval group.
Conveniently forgets that the Swedes did no better with the Collins so maybe the Australian government are arrogant jerks too.
More worrisome: they were unable, twice in a row, to build SSK; and now they want to try a third time except going nuclear.
As for a "bully"... LMAO. Working with the USA on nuclear matters will be nothing in comparison.
It is, for good and worse, Australia Nassau Agreement and Polaris deal.
Folks,
I can see Kockums and Naval Group spoofing Kelly Johnson Rule 15
Johnson had a 15th rule that he passed on by word of mouth. According to the book "Skunk Works" the 15th rule is:
"Starve before doing business with the damned (AUSTRALIAN) Navy. They don't know what the hell they want and will drive you up a wall before they break either your heart or a more exposed part of your anatomy."
The Morrison Government has also approved a Life-of-Type Extension to the Collins class submarine fleet from 2026 in South Australia, and confirmed that the Full-Cycle Docking of the Collins class will continue to be conducted at Osborne. Up to $6.4 billion will be invested in these works, and around 1,300 jobs supported in South Australia.
So what's the guestimate when these new nuclear subs will be in service? 2050s? Also how come SA and not WA? Thought we had more defense builders here.
Just a reminder: France wasn't just peddling the Short-fin barracuda to Australia, they were also eyeing a version for the Dutch submarine competition. And the Dutch were looking carefully at what was happening in Australia, and were already worried about the rising costs of that program. And now any developments and troubleshooting that could carry over from the Short-fin Barracuda program have evaporated, turning the Dutch version into a much higher risk program.
This might not be the death knell of the French offer to the Dutch, but it's a serious blow allright.
This is the most important strategic shift for Australia in generations. Key points from today’s announcement:
Australia will acquire nuclear submarines nuclear technology transfer to Australia from US and UK US remains committed to nuclear weapon non-proliferation - Australia will not be accessing nuclear weapons technology subs to be built in Australia
Extraordinary.
So looking at Sarah's take on it we are talking technology transfer from our closest allies and as a minimum local build of the hulls and non propulsion systems. There is the distinct possibility of, at least, the initial reactor sections being fabricated and fitted out overseas then incorporated in the local hulls
Naval Group shot themselves in the foot playing hard ball because they thought there was no other option, well there may have been no other conventional option but two very good nuclear options once the political hurdles were overcome.
My initial concern was we could end up like Canada, a plan for SSNs ends up as a contraction of the conventional force following a change of government, I notice however that the leader of the opposition and a couple of his senior front benchers were invited to the briefing, i.e. the suggestion at least of bipartisan support.
I've said it before, the biggest hurdle for SSNs for the RAN was political will and to be honest I never thought I would see it in my lifetime but often all it takes is a bully behaving badly to change sentiment.
The next big issue, that does seem to have been sorted in recent time, is Australia's propensity to underfund sustainment, causing availability and capability gaps down the road. This cannot be allowed to happen with SSNs.
Another thought. The Astute was designed and build with extensive support from GDEB following the UKs submarine building blackhole. At the same time EB was doing a lot of work with Australia improving the Collins. There are extensive relationships already in place, we know them, they know us, hell I'm just a pleb and have dozens of contacts in UK and US submarine communities. There is a level of mutual respect and ability to work together I have never seen with the French or Spanish, let alone the Japanese companies I have dealt with.
Last thought. The designs are existing and proven, people who designed and built them are already in Australia and have been for years, to be honest, this may prove to be lower risk, despite it greater complexity, due to team work and already having effectively mitigated much of the risk, than continuing trying to work with an arrogant, condescending bully who thought they had Australia over a barrel.
Yeah because the Japanese are so hard to work with that’s why the U.K. has struck a major technological deal with them over Tempest. To be honest U.K. domestic manufacturing would be in a worse state than it already is without Japanese input. Also had some colleagues who’ve worked with Japanese companies and they’ve always spoke well of them.
This is perhaps the most unexpected shift, I would never have imagined this coming to fruition, the anti-nuclear sentiment seemed to be strong and insurmountable.
This looks very much like a long-term project, its hard to imagine the first hull hitting the water until well into the 2030s - the first Astute took BAE nine years to build and they were relatively experienced in building nuclear subs. The costs of refitting the Collins and building a new nuclear fleet are going to be eye-watering though.
For the RAN its going to be a massive shift, as others have noted above there are manpower and expertise issues to overcome plus the acquisition, build and operating costs to bear. Sending RAN submariners to the RN and USN to gain expertise is one way, and that seems very likely.
Will we see a new design or a derivative of the Astute or Virginia?
Its hard to assess at the moment exactly what the agreement means. Yes the UK and USA both build nuclear subs and reactors but which will the RAN ultimately plump for? They can't fit both!! Given how close the Australian military is to the US military-industrial complex and the fact that Washington has given the nod probably hints that the powerplant will be coming from General Electric and not Rolls-Royce. But given the RR PWR3 uses US technology, Washington's approval would still be required to export it. Even the S9G in the Virginias drives a BAE Systems pump-jet so either way you look at some kind of tri-national deal was required.
France might feel stabbed in the back but Australia, the UK and the USA have been the closest of allies for decades ('Five Eyes' intelligence sharing since the 1940s etc.), there is no doubt that if political circumstances had allowed they could probably have had SSNs in the 1970s but Australia was firmly non-nuclear in outlook. The question is, would Paris have offered Australia a French-designed nuclear reactor? They seem willing to sell civilian reactors, so its possible they might not have had any qualms about selling Barracudas had the RAN asked for them.
Framing this as London Vs Paris seems far too simplistic, as I say above, the nuclear powerplants are entwined between the UK and the US, both nations have to be on board to make it work. The end result might be BAE designing the hull and providing certain elements of the combat and propulsion systems and the US supplying the weapons and reactors.
Anyhow Naval Group can do what US a company would usually do at this point, put in a lawsuit and force Canberra to issue a competitive tender.
France might feel stabbed in the back but Australia, the UK and the USA have been the closest of allies for decades ('Five Eyes' intelligence sharing since the 1940s etc.), there is no doubt that if political circumstances had allowed they could probably have had SSNs in the 1970s but Australia was firmly non-nuclear in outlook. The question is, would Paris have offered Australia a French-designed nuclear reactor? They seem willing to sell civilian reactors, so its possible they might not have had any qualms about selling Barracudas had the RAN asked for them.
Bingo. You nailed it completely right. At first glance, a nuclear-Barrucada is (obviously) the closest thing from, well, a non-nuclear-Barracuda, short fin or not. But I'm not surprised as you mention, that when Australia chose the nuclear option, it goes the US-UK way rather than France. And it not only a matter of closer cultural links (let's call that "the english speaking block").
You say "five Eyes" (or Echelon) and I say: Woomera, Maralinga and Nassau. While extremely old of course, these three element remain as pertinent as ever.
Woomera is often know for Blue Streak and Black Arrow testing, but in the 60's the USA also went there in strength. With SPARTA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sparta_(rocket)
Australia also had NASA and military tracking stations.
As long as SSK were concerned, non-nuclear players could be considered: as diverse as Spain, Germany, Sweden, France, Japan...
As soon as the SSN treshold is crossed, options shrinks to: France versus US-UK. No surprise Australia went with the second one, honestly.
Although a case can be make: it's a pity they can't make lemons into lemonade by (somewhat) turning the present, existing "short fin Barracuda" deal into a "nuclear Barracuda" one with some kind of addendum...
UK may have limitations imposed by US on technology sharing, deeply related to nuclear and submarines.
This however opens the way for the UK to share with Australia.
Edited addional thoughts....
Deep moves going on here. Could be a very structured UK move.
Cannot transfer or sell Astute technologies without US waving it through.
US and especially Democrats oppose this sort of thing generally.
Nassau style confrontation may have occurred. Internal weakness/ division has allowed a window to open.
Advice to Australia.....
Get as much domestic technologies as you can, US will close this door when they realise what UK will give as part of pivot EoS.
Pro-EU and Pro-China factions will oppose everything once they realise what is happening.
This is the most important strategic shift for Australia in generations. Key points from today’s announcement:
Australia will acquire nuclear submarines nuclear technology transfer to Australia from US and UK US remains committed to nuclear weapon non-proliferation - Australia will not be accessing nuclear weapons technology subs to be built in Australia
Extraordinary.
So looking at Sarah's take on it we are talking technology transfer from our closest allies and as a minimum local build of the hulls and non propulsion systems. There is the distinct possibility of, at least, the initial reactor sections being fabricated and fitted out overseas then incorporated in the local hulls
Naval Group shot themselves in the foot playing hard ball because they thought there was no other option, well there may have been no other conventional option but two very good nuclear options once the political hurdles were overcome.
My initial concern was we could end up like Canada, a plan for SSNs ends up as a contraction of the conventional force following a change of government, I notice however that the leader of the opposition and a couple of his senior front benchers were invited to the briefing, i.e. the suggestion at least of bipartisan support.
I've said it before, the biggest hurdle for SSNs for the RAN was political will and to be honest I never thought I would see it in my lifetime but often all it takes is a bully behaving badly to change sentiment.
The next big issue, that does seem to have been sorted in recent time, is Australia's propensity to underfund sustainment, causing availability and capability gaps down the road. This cannot be allowed to happen with SSNs.
Another thought. The Astute was designed and build with extensive support from GDEB following the UKs submarine building blackhole. At the same time EB was doing a lot of work with Australia improving the Collins. There are extensive relationships already in place, we know them, they know us, hell I'm just a pleb and have dozens of contacts in UK and US submarine communities. There is a level of mutual respect and ability to work together I have never seen with the French or Spanish, let alone the Japanese companies I have dealt with.
Last thought. The designs are existing and proven, people who designed and built them are already in Australia and have been for years, to be honest, this may prove to be lower risk, despite it greater complexity, due to team work and already having effectively mitigated much of the risk, than continuing trying to work with an arrogant, condescending bully who thought they had Australia over a barrel.
Nice for Naval group.
Conveniently forgets that the Swedes did no better with the Collins so maybe the Australian government are arrogant jerks too.
More worrisome: they were unable, twice in a row, to build SSK; and now they want to try a third time except going nuclear.
As for a "bully"... LMAO. Working with the USA on nuclear matters will be nothing in comparison.
It is, for good and worse, Australia Nassau Agreement and Polaris deal.
You do realise the Collins Class are in service, being life extended well beyond their expected lives, and are still regarded as one of the most capable conventional submarines ever built?
The contractual issues with Kockums stemmed from the sale of Kockums to German interests, violating security and IP agreements associated with the US elements on the Collins and requiring the Australian government to buy out Kockums interest in ASC. Despite this many Swedes remained with ASC and quite a few are still there. The highly successful Fast Track upgrades to Collins, let alone the RCS, HWT, CASE EACE would not have been possible if TKMS had involvement through Kockums.
I was warned off working for Naval Group as they are a known bully, they have treated some very good people very badly. Having worked for another French company I believe this.
People I know are taking early retirement rather than staying in roles working with Naval Group. CASG is also suffering a high turn over as it is so draining working with NG.
Reality check, had NG been a reasonable and competent partner Australia would be announcing they were switching from the Short Fin Barracuda SSG to the Barracuda SSN instead of going the way they are going. They are scrapping the project and going US / UK, as well as throwing away 2 billion already spent and maybe 500 million in penalties, rather than simply switching to a nuclear Barracuda.
Back in 2014 I caught up with old workmates and we discussed the upcoming submarine selection. This is where I discovered the signature issues of the German option (ironically now being addressed by the 212CD) and the range and indiscretion rate issues with the Soryu. I was actually horrified to hear the Shortfin was the the preferred option. I listed every current or recent acquisition involving the French and high lighted the problems with each. The basic pattern was the French over promised and underdelivered, forcing Australia to invest much more money and time to achieve anything like an effective capability, time after time we were sold developmental projects as MOTS, then discovered we almost always had to do the certification ourselves. I hoped and hoped NG was different to Airbus and Thales but no, they are just the same.
This is the most important strategic shift for Australia in generations. Key points from today’s announcement:
Australia will acquire nuclear submarines nuclear technology transfer to Australia from US and UK US remains committed to nuclear weapon non-proliferation - Australia will not be accessing nuclear weapons technology subs to be built in Australia
Extraordinary.
So looking at Sarah's take on it we are talking technology transfer from our closest allies and as a minimum local build of the hulls and non propulsion systems. There is the distinct possibility of, at least, the initial reactor sections being fabricated and fitted out overseas then incorporated in the local hulls
Naval Group shot themselves in the foot playing hard ball because they thought there was no other option, well there may have been no other conventional option but two very good nuclear options once the political hurdles were overcome.
My initial concern was we could end up like Canada, a plan for SSNs ends up as a contraction of the conventional force following a change of government, I notice however that the leader of the opposition and a couple of his senior front benchers were invited to the briefing, i.e. the suggestion at least of bipartisan support.
I've said it before, the biggest hurdle for SSNs for the RAN was political will and to be honest I never thought I would see it in my lifetime but often all it takes is a bully behaving badly to change sentiment.
The next big issue, that does seem to have been sorted in recent time, is Australia's propensity to underfund sustainment, causing availability and capability gaps down the road. This cannot be allowed to happen with SSNs.
Another thought. The Astute was designed and build with extensive support from GDEB following the UKs submarine building blackhole. At the same time EB was doing a lot of work with Australia improving the Collins. There are extensive relationships already in place, we know them, they know us, hell I'm just a pleb and have dozens of contacts in UK and US submarine communities. There is a level of mutual respect and ability to work together I have never seen with the French or Spanish, let alone the Japanese companies I have dealt with.
Last thought. The designs are existing and proven, people who designed and built them are already in Australia and have been for years, to be honest, this may prove to be lower risk, despite it greater complexity, due to team work and already having effectively mitigated much of the risk, than continuing trying to work with an arrogant, condescending bully who thought they had Australia over a barrel.
Yeah because the Japanese are so hard to work with that’s why the U.K. has struck a major technological deal with them over Tempest. To be honest U.K. domestic manufacturing would be in a worse state than it already is without Japanese input. Also had some colleagues who’ve worked with Japanese companies and they’ve always spoke well of them.
It depends on which Japanese company, maybe ask Renault what they think of Nissan and vise versa. Mitsubishi were dodgy and got caught, Toyota on the other hand actually drive and lead quality through out any industry they are involved in while remaining modest enough, despite their size and success, to willingly defer to any they can see are better at certain things than they are.
Feed back I have had is one Japanese sub builder is world class and would have been great to work with while the other was no where near as good and rated by experienced shipbuilders as inferior to ASC.
Have you ever personally worked with or for a Japanese company? I have and I was alarmed at some of their corporate culture, it bordered on outright corruption and deceit.
Weirdly, the Chinese and Korean companies I worked with were much more modest and honest, they admitted mistakes and worked with us to fix things and make improvements. The Americans were all about working out what, why, where and how, with very little blame and recriminations. The thing I recall most about the Swedes was their twisted sense of humor but determination to actually solve problems, usually by applying their considerable real world experience.
The Spanish ignored problems, not acknowledging them until you found and proved them on your own. The French denied there was an issue, even when all the evidence was laid out in front of them.
The best (worst) was an Indian company we outsourced a product to. The pre production approval prototype was delivered, it had multiple issues and as a result was not actually functional. The most glaring problem was they had used a UNF thread instead of the BSPT one specified in the design data, this was critical is it was the mating point for a standard, mass produced, international standard, component that needed to fit. Apparently the issue was that we were racist, we had made up British Standard Pipe Taper, as any competent engineer knows no such thing exists, and our claims were just a racist attempt to cover up our own stupidity and incompetence.
Don't get me wrong, I know there are some a grade dipsticks in Australia, I have to deal with too many of them too often (some would say I am one myself and they may even be right). In fact the worst of the worst are the "fake it until you make it types" who transfer their allegiance totally to whoever is paying them. They follow company culture to the letter, even amplify it. The French company I worked for I only met two French employees, ironically they were both competent, friendly and professional. The others were pretty diverse, but the thing is, almost all the managers were at best spineless sycophants who did what ever they were told, no matter how unethical, or people who thrived when allowed to backstab, undermine, setup colleagues and even customer representatives. They loved finding ways to get out of doing what the customer wanted, they targeted colleagues who tried to meet contracted obligations, they mercilessly "othered" anyone they deemed didn't belong. Senior management didn't only fail to prevent it, they encouraged it as it was what they saw as a good fit with company culture and being a team player.
I would expect that however this project is structured, the Australians are going to get a pre-made life-of-the-ship core helpfully poisoned with the various additives that give it that lifespan and make it much harder to reprocess as weapons fuel.
Reality check, had NG been a reasonable and competent partner Australia would be announcing they were switching from the Short Fin Barracuda SSG to the Barracuda SSN instead of going the way they are going. They are scrapping the project and going US / UK, as well as throwing away 2 billion already spent and maybe 500 million in penalties, rather than simply switching to a nuclear Barracuda.
Reality check, had NG been a reasonable and competent partner Australia would be announcing they were switching from the Short Fin Barracuda SSG to the Barracuda SSN instead of going the way they are going. They are scrapping the project and going US / UK, as well as throwing away 2 billion already spent and maybe 500 million in penalties, rather than simply switching to a nuclear Barracuda.
There are definite advantages to the UK/US deal but going a nuc Barracuda would appear logical. However the relationship with NG has been the worst in the experience of people I know on the project. Sometimes it is better to cut your losses.
These are people who have worked with B&V, Navantia, Kockums, Raytheon, BIW, BAE, EB etc. and they have never had an experience as bad. NG also hired some really good people with great reputations in industry, then screwed them over so badly they left the industry.
I don't know if its the company as a whole, or just the operation in Australia but the environment is apparently toxic.
It's probable that somewhere at Naval Group, realists and other cold minded people are happy with the outcome. The large cost increase wouldn't have been swallowed by the Australian Mod in totality...
It's probable that somewhere at Naval Group, realists and other cold minded people are happy with the outcome. The large cost increase wouldn't have been swallowed by the Australian Mod in all...
Some projects reach the point with cost overruns that you can't help but regretting not going the more expensive option up front. Its when value for money starts to appear more appealing than cheap, or more to the point, cheap isn't cheap enough to justify the compromise on capability.
I was wondering how long it would take and the answer is 24 hours. How long would it take for speculation that the Government is using this as a "good news" diversion to get attention off the COVID Vaccine and Hotel Quarantine, as well as various other stuff ups, in preparation for an early election. Well thats the news story on now.
Now main issue for Australia is how to get those nuclear subs fast enough, before Collins start retiring.
France can't even propose to loan a Barracuda: there is only one, presently in trials at sea. And Rubis... they are near the end of their rope. Or burning, or reborn as hybrids.
I was wondering how long it would take and the answer is 24 hours. How long would it take for speculation that the Government is using this as a "good news" diversion to get attention off the COVID Vaccine and Hotel Quarantine, as well as various other stuff ups, in preparation for an early election. Well thats the news story on now.
There has been blowback here in the UK given how France has reacted. The UK government's position is that Australia came to them asking for an SSN back in March and that they didn't themselves seek the deal, i.e. Australia was dissatisfied with the Naval Group effort and wanted something better. The US in its responses has hinted that the UK wanted a greater role in the Pacific area - which is no secret given the Defence White Paper in March had the Indian Ocean and South East Asia all over it.
The Aukus Treaty seems to be a rather more wider defence technology transfer agreement than just submarines, mentioning as it does technology and software. Does this open the way to purchasing elements of Tempest or NGAD for example? Some strenuous diplomatic effort must have been put in given its only six months since Australia made its approach and certainly covers more than just the submarine programme. So the UK government's excuse seems disingenuous to some extent.
Even ex-PM Theresa May is questioning how far this Treaty binds us with US foreign policy. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/sep/16/theresa-may-aukus-pact-war-uk-china-taiwan
There is no doubt that this deal might have unforeseen repercussions from Paris (relations being at a low point already with Brexit and immigration deadlocks) and Beijing (HMS QE in SCS, Japan showing off its 'DDH' sailing with HMS QE, the new South Korean SSB and their carrier plans). What if China thinks now is a good time to let North Korea buy some Chinese SSNs or even Type 093s to replace those warmed-over Romeos?
India seems to have been very quiet... (I can't remember Beijing complaining when Russia sent them SSN technology).
Plus if it emerges those spent rods and old cores are coming back to Blighty to add to the already extensive Devenport nuclear graveyard then public opinion isn't going to be too chuffed.
Let's just hope the MoD doesn't have a money saving idea like leasing a couple of Astutes to the RAN and leaving our own SSN fleet stretched.
I was wondering how long it would take and the answer is 24 hours. How long would it take for speculation that the Government is using this as a "good news" diversion to get attention off the COVID Vaccine and Hotel Quarantine, as well as various other stuff ups, in preparation for an early election. Well thats the news story on now.
There has been blowback here in the UK given how France has reacted. The UK government's position is that Australia came to them asking for an SSN back in March and that they didn't themselves seek the deal, i.e. Australia was dissatisfied with the Naval Group effort and wanted something better. The US in its responses has hinted that the UK wanted a greater role in the Pacific area - which is no secret given the Defence White Paper in March had the Indian Ocean and South East Asia all over it.
The Aukus Treaty seems to be a rather more wider defence technology transfer agreement than just submarines, mentioning as it does technology and software. Does this open the way to purchasing elements of Tempest or NGAD for example? Some strenuous diplomatic effort must have been put in given its only six months since Australia made its approach and certainly covers more than just the submarine programme. So the UK government's excuse seems disingenuous to some extent.
Even ex-PM Theresa May is questioning how far this Treaty binds us with US foreign policy. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/sep/16/theresa-may-aukus-pact-war-uk-china-taiwan
There is no doubt that this deal might have unforeseen repercussions from Paris (relations being at a low point already with Brexit and immigration deadlocks) and Beijing (HMS QE in SCS, Japan showing off its 'DDH' sailing with HMS QE, the new South Korean SSB and their carrier plans). What if China thinks now is a good time to let North Korea buy some Chinese SSNs or even Type 093s to replace those warmed-over Romeos?
India seems to have been very quiet... (I can't remember Beijing complaining when Russia sent them SSN technology).
Plus if it emerges those spent rods and old cores are coming back to Blighty to add to the already extensive Devenport nuclear graveyard then public opinion isn't going to be too chuffed.
Let's just hope the MoD doesn't have a money saving idea like leasing a couple of Astutes to the RAN and leaving our own SSN fleet stretched.
On a somewhat humours note, a few have noted that when spoken AUUKUS sounds very much like Orcas (i.e. Killer Whales). Quite suitable given the submarine aspect.
Folks, would you please also learn to cut down quotes a bit please. There is no need to re-quote the entire post your are responding to. It gets especially painful when one is re-quoting multi-paragraph posts or worse, quotes within quotes. It only takes a few minutes to cut things down.
Australia’s new military pact with the US and Britain has sent shockwaves around the world, with China labelling it an “extremely irresponsible” threat to regional stability.
Potentially interesting observation given one of the announcements yesterday was that the Australian SSNs will be built in Adelaide:
ASC Shipbuilding, formerly the shipbuilding division of ASC Pty Ltd (i.e. Australian Submarine Corporation), is a subsidiary of BAE Systems Australia and will remain a subsidiary for the duration of the contract to build the Hunter class frigates. It was structurally separated from ASC Pty Ltd in December 2018 and became a subsidiary of BAE Systems Australia. In 2021 it was renamed as BAE Systems Maritime Australia.
Potentially interesting observation given one of the announcements yesterday was that the Australian SSNs will be built in Adelaide:
ASC Shipbuilding, formerly the shipbuilding division of ASC Pty Ltd (i.e. Australian Submarine Corporation), is a subsidiary of BAE Systems Australia and will remain a subsidiary for the duration of the contract to build the Hunter class frigates. It was structurally separated from ASC Pty Ltd in December 2018 and became a subsidiary of BAE Systems Australia. In 2021 it was renamed as BAE Systems Maritime Australia.
As per earlier post, I think the Virginia class would be too large whereas the Astutes are probably closer in size to what the RAN is prepared for though if we compress a program to say 6 - 8 boats rather than the 12 planned under SEA 1000 now it might be more achievable. Mind you, I understand the RAN still struggles with crewing 6 Collins class SSKs even today so...
Mind you if they are talking about new builds in Australia, it may be a new design or design variation altogether...maybe...big maybe.
Potentially interesting observation given one of the announcements yesterday was that the Australian SSNs will be built in Adelaide:
ASC Shipbuilding, formerly the shipbuilding division of ASC Pty Ltd (i.e. Australian Submarine Corporation), is a subsidiary of BAE Systems Australia and will remain a subsidiary for the duration of the contract to build the Hunter class frigates. It was structurally separated from ASC Pty Ltd in December 2018 and became a subsidiary of BAE Systems Australia. In 2021 it was renamed as BAE Systems Maritime Australia.
Potentially interesting observation given one of the announcements yesterday was that the Australian SSNs will be built in Adelaide:
ASC Shipbuilding, formerly the shipbuilding division of ASC Pty Ltd (i.e. Australian Submarine Corporation), is a subsidiary of BAE Systems Australia and will remain a subsidiary for the duration of the contract to build the Hunter class frigates. It was structurally separated from ASC Pty Ltd in December 2018 and became a subsidiary of BAE Systems Australia. In 2021 it was renamed as BAE Systems Maritime Australia.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Australia will acquire nuclear submarines
