Replacement of Australia's Collins Class Submarines

[TomS]

No confirmation of the new sub base location mentioned.

But the US-UK rotational force will be based at HMAS Stirling. It seems odd to build the infrastructure to support Virginias there, and then do it again somewhere else.

Possibly they'll have a split force with the RAN Virginias based at Stirling and the SNN-AUKUS boats eventually be based in a new facility constructed in the 2030s.

 

[jeffb]

So confirmed:

• 3 Virginias to be acquired with possibility of two more
• New "SSN-AUKUS" Class - presumably replaces SSN(R), or more to the point, SSN(R) is SSN-AUKUS
• SSN AUKUS start construction before EO Decade - first built in UK but others also in Australia (Adelaide)
• Cross postings, training etc happening
• More US/UK deployments to Australian ports
• RAN boats will be Nuclear powered but not Nuclear armed
• Australia will not be producing its own 'fuel'

• 3-5 Virginias to be aquired early 2030s as per leaks above and that they won't be 'clunkers'.
• SSN-AUKUS will begin construction in the UK before the end of the decade - but then we already knew that because they've already started work on the Dreadnought class and most sources we have were pointing towards SSN(R) essentially being a shortened Dreadnought class without the SLBM tubes. SSN-AUKUS construction in Australia still unlikely to begin prior to the late 2030s.
• Australia's SSN fleet will be completely reliant on technology, fuel and equipment provided by the US and UK. The Australian SSN fleet will simply be part of a multinational fleet whose geopolitical goals and defence aims will almost certainly be set by its largest member, the US.
• Albanese talks a great deal about sovereign control of the 'Australian fleet'. But if your fleet relies absolutely on the conditional generosity of your partners, it really NOT all that sovereign at all, is it.

From the White House summary:

Australia’s future SSN – which we are calling “SSN-AUKUS” – will be a state-of-the-art platform designed to leverage the best of submarine technology from all three nations. SSN-AUKUS will be based upon the United Kingdom’s next-generation SSN design while incorporating cutting edge U.S. submarine technologies, and will be built and deployed by both Australia and the United Kingdom.

SSN-AUKUS will be the UKs SSN(R) 'incorporating cutting edge U.S. submarine technologies'.

Australia's boats were always planned to vary from SSN(R) in that they were going to incorporate the US Combat management system and US weapons which are sufficiently different to represent a design/construction issue. There doesn't seem to be any word on that.

 

[H_K]

What's interesting in that article is the following line:

Official estimates now reveal the French-designed boats would have cost at least $216bn to 2055 – well over the initial $50bn reported to the public.

Thus over a similar period the Attack class would have cost much the same but arguable offer less capability.

A suspiciously convenient factoid obviously intended to counter complaints pointing out that the 12 attack class boats were only going to cost a revised $90 billion.

Would be very interested to see the basis of the 'official estimates' as the $90 billion number was also based on 'official estimates', generated before they knew the AUKUS plan would be topping $200 billion and would require increasing Australia's defence budget over 2% of GDP.

Well the last part of the sentence is nonsense (“well over the initial $50 billion reported to the public”) so the first part is not merely suspicious but very likely bogus too.

The Attack class costs have been clear since 2019 Senate testimony: $80B acquisition + $145B sustainment through 2080 in out-turned dollars (equal to $50B acquisition + $50B sustainment in constant dollars).

The last Attack cost estimates right before cancellation were actually trending under budget with a $46B acquisition estimate (constant dollars) as of Aug 2021. The only thing that has changed since then is the inflation multiplier, but I don’t see how that would lead to such a big swing.

 

[jeffb]

Tax revenue?

You pay employees to build and commission them, then you take back the taxes out of their wages. The extra jobs also puts more money through the economy, which is then taxed by various other taxes etc. and probably gets a few people off benefits too.

What builders and suppliers in Oz?

Australia faces long wait for new AUKUS nuclear subs

The long wait for the nation’s first “AUKUS-class” boat increases the likelihood Australia may need to buy more US-made submarines, experts say.

www.afr.com

Some are being built in Adelaide from what I understand.

Starting in the 2040s apparently. Presumably tax revenue will commence a year or so later.

 

[jeffb]

And it keeps going up...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1635054959170568194

View: https://twitter.com/JoshButler/status/1635054959170568194?t=wQxdxogBoTCzE-HY8gyL0Q&s=19

And up and up... $368 billion to 2050 now!

Sing along folks: "How high can it go, how high can it go..."

Aukus: nuclear submarines deal will cost Australia up to $368bn

‘Rotational forces’ of US and UK nuclear-powered submarines set to visit Australia from 2027 as part of landmark pact

www.theguardian.com

 

[NeilChapman]

No confirmation of the new sub base location mentioned.

But the US-UK rotational force will be based at HMAS Stirling. It seems odd to build the infrastructure to support Virginias there, and then do it again somewhere else.

Possibly they'll have a split force with the RAN Virginias based at Stirling and the SNN-AUKUS boats eventually be based in a new facility constructed in the 2030s.

Well, there is no other option, today. If you want to encourage growth in you're volunteer force then you have to put them in a location where they'll want to live. And that's not Perth.

Let's not let the fact that the US will spend money on infrastructure fool us into thinking that they don't have other ideas for the future.

We'll have to wait and see.

 

[jeffb]

Australian nuclear submarine program to cost up to $368b as AUKUS details unveiled

Australia’s nuclear submarine program will cost up to $368 billion over the next three decades, with confirmation that the federal government will buy at least three American-manufactured nuclear submarines.

www.abc.net.au

ABC article has the best summary I've seen so far, with the most 'meat'.

The Australian government will take three, potentially second-hand Virginia-class submarines early next decade, pending the approval of the US Congress.

In the meantime, design and development work will continue on a brand new submarine, known as the SSN-AUKUS, "leveraging” work the British have already been doing to replace their Astute-class submarines.

That submarine — which will form the AUKUS class — would eventually be operated by both the UK and Australia, using American combat systems.

One submarine will be built every two years from the early 2040s through to the late 2050s, with five SSN-AUKUS boats delivered to the Royal Australian Navy by the middle of the 2050s.

Eventually, the fleet would include eight Australian submarines built in Adelaide into the 2060s, but the federal government is leaving open the option of taking some from British shipyards if strategic circumstances change.

Meanwhile, the federal government estimates the cost of the submarine program will be between $268 billion and $368 billion over the next 30 years.

From as early as 2027, four US and one UK submarine will start rotating through Western Australia, to be known as the Submarine Rotational Forces West.

No decision has been made on a future east coast base for submarines, although Port Kembla has firmed as the most likely location.

So West Australia's HMAS Stirling is to be turned into a sub maintenance center for US boats (at Australian cost) in three to four years.

"This will be an Australian sovereign capability, commanded by the Royal Australian Navy and sustained by Australians in Australian shipyards, with construction to begin within this decade."

Cannot be sovereign as pointed out above, construction in Australia not to commence till early 2040s. Construction in UK commences "within the decade".

Australia will also contribute $3 billion over the next four years to US and UK production lines, with the bulk of that money heading stateside.

White House officials insisted Australia was preparing to make a "substantial contribution" to US submarine production facilities.

 

[jeffb]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1635433292760776706

View: https://twitter.com/PeterCronau/status/1635433292760776706?s=20

 

[jeffb]

Ground we've covered before now being picked up by the msm. As is usual for msm these days, noticing that the barn gate is open three hours after the horse bolted:

Aukus nuclear submarine deal loophole prompts proliferation fears

Scheme allowing nuclear materials in Australian submarines worries experts about precedent of safeguard removal

www.theguardian.com

To mitigate the proliferation risk, the Australians have agreed not to have a training reactor on their territory, but train their submariners in the US and the UK instead. Australia will not enrich or reprocess the spent nuclear fuel, and the fissile material provided by the US and the UK will come in welded units that do not have to be refueled in their lifetime. Australia has undertaken not to acquire the equipment necessary to chemically reprocess spent fuel that would make it usable in a weapon.

“Since day one of this effort, or consultation period, we have prioritised non-proliferation,” a senior US official said.

How do you maintain a system you don't (and can't) have access to? How will maintainers in Australia (HMAS Stirling, Port Kembla) maintain US and UK reactors that have issues?

EDIT: Additionally, when Australia obtains 3 Virginia class subs in the 2030s, will their reactors be similarly sealed off?

Or is the reason Australia is getting second hand boats is that the reactor material of those boats will be sufficiently degraded that extracting and chemically recovering enough material for nuclear weapon use would be extremely difficult or impossible?

 

[Volkodav]

Overall highly positive.

It appears that Australian workers will move to the US to help them over the mentor/mentee bottle neck they have encounted in rebuilding their workforce skills. They still have extremely skilled people, just not enough of them to provide the one on one training needed by apprentices on submarine work. This is where the Australian workers can make a big difference right up, they will take less time to get up to speed, then being experienced welding supervisors, pipe fitters, electricians, etc. they will add to the critical mass training the next generation. This may actually be even more useful in the refit yards than the building yards.

The objective, as I understand it, is to eventually get up to five Virginias a year. This requires experienced workers to train new workers, it is probably the single most critical constraint.

 

[Zoo Tycoon]

Or is the reason Australia is getting second hand boats is that the reactor material of those boats will be sufficiently degraded that extracting and chemically recovering enough material for nuclear weapon use would be extremely difficult or impossible?

Ah no, nuclear physics doesn’t work like that. Here let me explain;- Pu comes in two main varieties (or isotopes) Pu239 and Pu240. Nuclear weapons are made from Pu239 and not Pu240. If you leave Pu239 in a reactor for more than about 30 days it turns (transmutes) into Pu240.

Pu239 and Pu240 are extremely difficult to separate when mixed (unfeasible really), so even if the reactor initially starts with a high degree of Pu239, after 30 days of running, it’s turned into a mixture of 239/240.

Although these burnable moderator reactors are a lot more complex in their element conversions the above holds true.

 

[jeffb]

Australia saddled with high-level nuclear waste under AUKUS pact

The commitment to permanently store the waste from the submarine engines threatens a repeat of the 30-year skirmish over where to bury low-level nuclear waste.

www.afr.com

 

[Rhinocrates]

Very interesting indeed. If you look at the overall pattern, with BAE Systems and Boeing in Australia working on aerial systems, speculation about B-21s being based there, and the fact that Australia is a source of uranium, it's clearly being positioned as a military power to counter to China geopolitically without the compromises that the East Asian countries have had to make, Japan with its post-WWII constitution, or India's connections with Russia. It looks very 'elegant.'

 

[Rhinocrates]

Historically, this is rather ironic. Australia was seen in the 19th century as a barren land fit only as a prison colony while New Zealand, in size and climate, the potential South Pacific Britain, and thus an antipodal heart of the Empire, as it were.

 

[Rhinocrates]

New Australian submarine to be based on British design

The new Australian submarine, currently called "SSN-AUKUS", will be based upon the United Kingdom’s next-generation SSN design while incorporating cutting-edge U.S. submarine technologies.

ukdefencejournal.org.uk

Australia to join Royal Navy SSN(R) submarine programme | Navy Lookout

www.navylookout.com

 

[jeffb]

Or is the reason Australia is getting second hand boats is that the reactor material of those boats will be sufficiently degraded that extracting and chemically recovering enough material for nuclear weapon use would be extremely difficult or impossible?

Ah no, nuclear physics doesn’t work like that. Here let me explain;- Pu comes in two main varieties (or isotopes) Pu239 and Pu240. Nuclear weapons are made from Pu239 and not Pu240. If you leave Pu239 in a reactor for more than about 30 days it turns (transmutes) into Pu240.

Pu239 and Pu240 are extremely difficult to separate when mixed (unfeasible really), so even if the reactor initially starts with a high degree of Pu239, after 30 days of running, it’s turned into a mixture of 239/240.

Although these burnable moderator reactors are a lot more complex in their element conversions the above holds true.

The question was more about whether there's enough fissile material in a second-hand reactor to remove enough to make a weapon/s while still retaining enough reactor life to cover up the fact that you have removed enough material to make a weapon/s, this would be the IAEAs worry. But thanks for the explanation.

 

[Josh_TN]

Or is the reason Australia is getting second hand boats is that the reactor material of those boats will be sufficiently degraded that extracting and chemically recovering enough material for nuclear weapon use would be extremely difficult or impossible?

Ah no, nuclear physics doesn’t work like that. Here let me explain;- Pu comes in two main varieties (or isotopes) Pu239 and Pu240. Nuclear weapons are made from Pu239 and not Pu240. If you leave Pu239 in a reactor for more than about 30 days it turns (transmutes) into Pu240.

Pu239 and Pu240 are extremely difficult to separate when mixed (unfeasible really), so even if the reactor initially starts with a high degree of Pu239, after 30 days of running, it’s turned into a mixture of 239/240.

Although these burnable moderator reactors are a lot more complex in their element conversions the above holds true.

Fueled for life reactors use other materials to poison the reaction that burn off over time to provide more constant power over their life - lower fuel purity is compensated for with less moderating additives as both are consumed. I wouldn’t assume any normal math applies.

That said the agreement seems “violate the spirit” of NPT, per the official Chinese statement, which implies it doesn’t technically violate it. I’m not sure of the treaty’s exact wording. Certainly opening up the reactor core and harvesting Pu would make sub forever inoperative and as such would make for very expensive warheads.

 

[Josh_TN]

Or is the reason Australia is getting second hand boats is that the reactor material of those boats will be sufficiently degraded that extracting and chemically recovering enough material for nuclear weapon use would be extremely difficult or impossible?

Ah no, nuclear physics doesn’t work like that. Here let me explain;- Pu comes in two main varieties (or isotopes) Pu239 and Pu240. Nuclear weapons are made from Pu239 and not Pu240. If you leave Pu239 in a reactor for more than about 30 days it turns (transmutes) into Pu240.

Pu239 and Pu240 are extremely difficult to separate when mixed (unfeasible really), so even if the reactor initially starts with a high degree of Pu239, after 30 days of running, it’s turned into a mixture of 239/240.

Although these burnable moderator reactors are a lot more complex in their element conversions the above holds true.

The question was more about whether there's enough fissile material in a second-hand reactor to remove enough to make a weapon/s while still retaining enough reactor life to cover up the fact that you have removed enough material to make a weapon/s, this would be the IAEAs worry. But thanks for the explanation.

It seems very unlikely Australia would have the technical capability to open and reseal a foreign reactor at all, let alone with someone not noticing a brand new nuke boat was out of operation for years. These reactors are not designed to be opened and resealed. See HMS Vanguard.

 

[jeffb]

Or is the reason Australia is getting second hand boats is that the reactor material of those boats will be sufficiently degraded that extracting and chemically recovering enough material for nuclear weapon use would be extremely difficult or impossible?

Ah no, nuclear physics doesn’t work like that. Here let me explain;- Pu comes in two main varieties (or isotopes) Pu239 and Pu240. Nuclear weapons are made from Pu239 and not Pu240. If you leave Pu239 in a reactor for more than about 30 days it turns (transmutes) into Pu240.

Pu239 and Pu240 are extremely difficult to separate when mixed (unfeasible really), so even if the reactor initially starts with a high degree of Pu239, after 30 days of running, it’s turned into a mixture of 239/240.

Although these burnable moderator reactors are a lot more complex in their element conversions the above holds true.

The question was more about whether there's enough fissile material in a second-hand reactor to remove enough to make a weapon/s while still retaining enough reactor life to cover up the fact that you have removed enough material to make a weapon/s, this would be the IAEAs worry. But thanks for the explanation.

It seems very unlikely Australia would have the technical capability to open and reseal a foreign reactor at all, let alone with someone not noticing a brand new nuke boat was out of operation for years. These reactors are not designed to be opened and resealed. See HMS Vanguard.

It would be a second hand boat so not brand new, and a number of US boats have been tied up for years waiting for maintenance. I suspect some plausible story could be come up with if they tried.

 

[starviking]

Or is the reason Australia is getting second hand boats is that the reactor material of those boats will be sufficiently degraded that extracting and chemically recovering enough material for nuclear weapon use would be extremely difficult or impossible?

Ah no, nuclear physics doesn’t work like that. Here let me explain;- Pu comes in two main varieties (or isotopes) Pu239 and Pu240. Nuclear weapons are made from Pu239 and not Pu240. If you leave Pu239 in a reactor for more than about 30 days it turns (transmutes) into Pu240.

Pu239 and Pu240 are extremely difficult to separate when mixed (unfeasible really), so even if the reactor initially starts with a high degree of Pu239, after 30 days of running, it’s turned into a mixture of 239/240.

Although these burnable moderator reactors are a lot more complex in their element conversions the above holds true.

The question was more about whether there's enough fissile material in a second-hand reactor to remove enough to make a weapon/s while still retaining enough reactor life to cover up the fact that you have removed enough material to make a weapon/s, this would be the IAEAs worry. But thanks for the explanation.

You’d have to cut through the cladding for the nuclear fuel to remove the fissile material - and unless the fuel was fresh and unused you would have to problem of separating the Pu239 from the mix, and dealing with the radioactivity (and heat) of the actinides produced by the fission reaction.

Then you’d have to replace or repair the cladding - which is built to very fine tolerances, fit it back in the reactor, and hope the fiddling about has not thrown anything out of whack, or that the tinkered-with fuel rod can cope with the extreme environment in the reactor - because if it doesn’t it will show up in the reactor chemistry checks.

Then there’s the issue of the US and UK personnel who are going to be floating around the boats, and the shipyard workers who will be blabbing about any odd procedures going on on the boats.

 

[Josh_TN]

Or is the reason Australia is getting second hand boats is that the reactor material of those boats will be sufficiently degraded that extracting and chemically recovering enough material for nuclear weapon use would be extremely difficult or impossible?

Ah no, nuclear physics doesn’t work like that. Here let me explain;- Pu comes in two main varieties (or isotopes) Pu239 and Pu240. Nuclear weapons are made from Pu239 and not Pu240. If you leave Pu239 in a reactor for more than about 30 days it turns (transmutes) into Pu240.

Pu239 and Pu240 are extremely difficult to separate when mixed (unfeasible really), so even if the reactor initially starts with a high degree of Pu239, after 30 days of running, it’s turned into a mixture of 239/240.

Although these burnable moderator reactors are a lot more complex in their element conversions the above holds true.

The question was more about whether there's enough fissile material in a second-hand reactor to remove enough to make a weapon/s while still retaining enough reactor life to cover up the fact that you have removed enough material to make a weapon/s, this would be the IAEAs worry. But thanks for the explanation.

It seems very unlikely Australia would have the technical capability to open and reseal a foreign reactor at all, let alone with someone not noticing a brand new nuke boat was out of operation for years. These reactors are not designed to be opened and resealed. See HMS Vanguard.

It would be a second hand boat so not brand new, and a number of US boats have been tied up for years waiting for maintenance. I suspect some plausible story could be come up with if they tried.

If these are boats with a decade of mileage on them then it won’t be bomb grade anyway.

 

[Zoo Tycoon]

It’s a “sealed for life reactor”, …spot the clue in the name.

You don’t refuel these, what’s in them at day one is what they’re decommissioned with.

Even if on the fringes of feasibility (good chance it’s impossible ) it would be the most expensive, most troublesome, lest stealthy and therefore dumbest route to acquire a nuke…. Far easier/cheaper/stealthy to use the traditional and well proven route.

Let’s file the suggestion under ‘fantasy’ and move on.

 

[jeffb]

It’s a “sealed for life reactor”, …spot the clue in the name.

Even if on the fringes of feasibility (good chance it’s impossible ) it would be the most expensive, most troublesome, lest stealthy and therefore dumbest route to acquire a nuke…. Far easier/cheaper/stealthy to use the traditional and well proven route.

Let’s file the suggestion under ‘fantasy’ and move on.

It's a life-of-boat reactor, not a sealed-for-life reactor, try to get the terminology right.

The diversion of weapons grade material is exactly what the IAEA is concerned about, why do you think they're requiring the reactors to come in sealed welded boxes in the first place? For the fun of it?

For the AUKUS submarines, the reactors will be delivered 'sealed' and will remain so (as far as we know) while in the possession of the RAN to comply with the IAEA's NPT concerns.

Then at the reactors end-of-life, it will magically become unsealed again and the reactor and any remaining fuel will be taken out of its sealed box and put into a high-level nuclear waste storage facility at a location yet to be determined somewhere in Australia.

That's actually a big deal for Australians, they lost their collective minds at a proposal to build a low-level nuclear waste facility in the middle of nowhere in South Australia, so it'll be interesting to see how this plays out.

 

[jeffb]

Or is the reason Australia is getting second hand boats is that the reactor material of those boats will be sufficiently degraded that extracting and chemically recovering enough material for nuclear weapon use would be extremely difficult or impossible?

Ah no, nuclear physics doesn’t work like that. Here let me explain;- Pu comes in two main varieties (or isotopes) Pu239 and Pu240. Nuclear weapons are made from Pu239 and not Pu240. If you leave Pu239 in a reactor for more than about 30 days it turns (transmutes) into Pu240.

Pu239 and Pu240 are extremely difficult to separate when mixed (unfeasible really), so even if the reactor initially starts with a high degree of Pu239, after 30 days of running, it’s turned into a mixture of 239/240.

Although these burnable moderator reactors are a lot more complex in their element conversions the above holds true.

The question was more about whether there's enough fissile material in a second-hand reactor to remove enough to make a weapon/s while still retaining enough reactor life to cover up the fact that you have removed enough material to make a weapon/s, this would be the IAEAs worry. But thanks for the explanation.

It seems very unlikely Australia would have the technical capability to open and reseal a foreign reactor at all, let alone with someone not noticing a brand new nuke boat was out of operation for years. These reactors are not designed to be opened and resealed. See HMS Vanguard.

It would be a second hand boat so not brand new, and a number of US boats have been tied up for years waiting for maintenance. I suspect some plausible story could be come up with if they tried.

If these are boats with a decade of mileage on them then it won’t be bomb grade anyway.

That's my theory as to why Australia will be getting second-hand Virginia class boats. Either that or they 'seal' those reactors away somehow before turning them over to Australia.

 

[jeffb]

Or is the reason Australia is getting second hand boats is that the reactor material of those boats will be sufficiently degraded that extracting and chemically recovering enough material for nuclear weapon use would be extremely difficult or impossible?

Ah no, nuclear physics doesn’t work like that. Here let me explain;- Pu comes in two main varieties (or isotopes) Pu239 and Pu240. Nuclear weapons are made from Pu239 and not Pu240. If you leave Pu239 in a reactor for more than about 30 days it turns (transmutes) into Pu240.

Pu239 and Pu240 are extremely difficult to separate when mixed (unfeasible really), so even if the reactor initially starts with a high degree of Pu239, after 30 days of running, it’s turned into a mixture of 239/240.

Although these burnable moderator reactors are a lot more complex in their element conversions the above holds true.

The question was more about whether there's enough fissile material in a second-hand reactor to remove enough to make a weapon/s while still retaining enough reactor life to cover up the fact that you have removed enough material to make a weapon/s, this would be the IAEAs worry. But thanks for the explanation.

You’d have to cut through the cladding for the nuclear fuel to remove the fissile material - and unless the fuel was fresh and unused you would have to problem of separating the Pu239 from the mix, and dealing with the radioactivity (and heat) of the actinides produced by the fission reaction.

Then you’d have to replace or repair the cladding - which is built to very fine tolerances, fit it back in the reactor, and hope the fiddling about has not thrown anything out of whack, or that the tinkered-with fuel rod can cope with the extreme environment in the reactor - because if it doesn’t it will show up in the reactor chemistry checks.

Then there’s the issue of the US and UK personnel who are going to be floating around the boats, and the shipyard workers who will be blabbing about any odd procedures going on on the boats.

Thing is, it's doable though. The IAEA obviously think so.

 

[uk 75]

Judging by the bleating coming from Beijing and Moscow the three countries have made a good choice. The devil will be in the detail but I for one am very pleased.

 

[GTX]

That said the agreement seems “violate the spirit” of NPT, per the official Chinese statement, which implies it doesn’t technically violate it. I’m not sure of the treaty’s exact wording. Certainly opening up the reactor core and harvesting Pu would make sub forever inoperative and as such would make for very expensive warheads.

See back on Page 34 of this exact thread where I addressed the NPT issue. And as for taking China's word on anything to do with this, one might as well take Russia's on anything to do with Ukraine.

 

[GTX]

Explaining some of the thinking behind:

Nuclear submarines needed as region has become 'less stable', AUKUS task force head says

The head of Australia's AUKUS task force says China's military expansion justifies the purchase of new nuclear-powered submarines, while reassuring Australians the nuclear reactors on board the vessels will be safe.

www.abc.net.au

 

[GTX]

Base Upgrades:

Perth to become 'home' to AUKUS nuclear submarines under $8 billion naval base expansion

Western Australia will be home to Australia's nuclear powered submarines from the early 2030s, as part of an $8 billion expansion of Perth's naval base.

www.abc.net.au

 

[GTX]

No briefing required: China already knows AUKUS is about them. So what happens next?

From a dalliance with Japan, to an extended French flirt, Australia's now firmly back in the bosom of its Anglosphere allies during a meandering and disjointed journey to find its next generation submarine fleet and with that, Australia's nuclear age has begun, writes Andrew Probyn.

www.abc.net.au

 

[GTX]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1635433292760776706

View: https://twitter.com/PeterCronau/status/1635433292760776706?s=20

Any reporting that uses numbers over 30yr periods or similar is deliberately inflammatory. It is exactly the same with the F-35 "$1 Trillion fighter" which also used multi-decade periods to come up with a big number.

 

[GTX]

Government reveals AUKUS Submarine workforce and industry strategy

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, Deputy Prime Minister and Defence Minister Richard Marles and Defence Industry Minister, Pat Conroy have revealed the Government's plan to develop the Australian wor

www.defenceconnect.com.au

 

[GTX]

Joint Leaders Statement On AUKUS | Prime Minister of Australia

www.pm.gov.au

 

[GTX]

AUKUS leaders reveal Australian nuclear submarine plans | Riotact

Australia will take delivery of up to five Virginia-class nuclear-powered attack submarines (SSN) from the early 2030s and will then…

the-riotact.com

 

[H_K]

Any reporting that uses numbers over 30yr periods or similar is deliberately inflammatory

Agree. I prefer the “0.15% of GDP for 30 years” metric that is being quoted as that’s a much better way to think about the cost. Also removes inflation from the equation.

FWIW the Attack class would have cost approx. ~0.07% of GDP for 30 years so the SSNs are definitely going to be a big step up in cost.

In hindsight the best solution from a cost and schedule perspective would have been a parallel build of Barracudas in France and Australia, as this would have delivered at least 2 SSNs before the 1st Virginia is delivered in 2033, and 5-6 SSNs before the first SSN-AUKUS enters service in 2043. With more Australian content, less manpower pressure, higher sea time (double crews), no need to operate 2 different types, and fewer waste disposal headaches down the road (LEU can be recycled unlike HEU). But that was unpalatable politically so better to spend double on a handful of Virginias and a paper UK design.

The next best option was to scrap the Made in Australia requirement, and just buy Virginias off the shelf. I suspect that is still a fairly likely outcome.

 

[GTX]

AUKUS Plan: Aussie Sailors to Serve on American Subs, RAN to Buy U.S. Virginia Attack Boats - USNI News

This post has been updated with additional information from the announcement ceremony. SAN DIEGO – The leaders of Australia and the United Kingdom joined President Joe Biden at the Navy’s submarine base in San Diego, Calif., Monday to mark a historic trilateral agreement aimed at bolstering...

news.usni.org

 

[GTX]

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/australian-universities-will-team-with-uk-us-unis-on-nuclear-training/news-story/b6ac3ddd9ddfc6a96883ab05f33a8794

 

[TomS]

Base Upgrades:

Perth to become 'home' to AUKUS nuclear submarines under $8 billion naval base expansion

Western Australia will be home to Australia's nuclear powered submarines from the early 2030s, as part of an $8 billion expansion of Perth's naval base.

www.abc.net.au

This sounds like it rules out a new base on the eastern coast, yes? When Morrison announced that a year ago, the new base was supposed to host the visiting USN/RN subs that are now going to HMAS Stirling.

Australia to Build New Sub Base for Nuclear Attack Boat Fleet - USNI News

The Royal Australian Navy will establish a new submarine base on its east coast to host its planned nuclear-powered submarines and to complement the existing Fleet Base West, Garden Island submarine base, Australian officials said on Monday. The government is considering three possible locations...

news.usni.org

 

[Forest Green]

Any reporting that uses numbers over 30yr periods or similar is deliberately inflammatory. It is exactly the same with the F-35 "$1 Trillion fighter" which also used multi-decade periods to come up with a big number.

Also likely factors in inflation estimates and all sorts of future material/equipment costs that are ludicrously difficult to accurately quantify. Direct cost, or cost of borrowing is another grey area. Inflammatory doesn't begin to describe this kind of figure.

 

[Fluff]

Just like to leave this here for 10 years:

I predict an Aukus 2. UK and Aus both get 12 x B21 - in UK service to be known as the Vulcan II. 3 country operation, with USAF.