Replacement of Australia's Collins Class Submarines

[jeffb]

Opposition grows. An interesting discussion on Australia's AUKUS decision on Radio National:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1636872878405853185

View: https://twitter.com/jono_nath/status/1636872878405853185?t=Ay_9gqpUz0hOZC0en0fkiw&s=19

 

[uk 75]

The procurement of all defence equipment is open to scrutiny and there is rarely a consensus. I was never in favour of the two RN carriers prefering to stick with the emphasis which we had put since 1966 on the nuclear submarine force. Others here have argued consistently for the carrier force.
I have expressed support for the AUKUS deal here but also made it clear that Australians must decide what solution they prefer. The long path to the F111 procurement was similarly difficult and controversial, though in that case it was the equally US F4E that some wanted instead.

 

[GTX]

Opposition grows. An interesting discussion on Australia's AUKUS decision on Radio National:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1636872878405853185

View: https://twitter.com/jono_nath/status/1636872878405853185?t=Ay_9gqpUz0hOZC0en0fkiw&s=19

Given both main sides of Government are behind this you will not see the deal ended even if some make noise right now. It is getting media coverage now because it is a hot topic but give it some months and things will die down and people (Navy and Industry) will get down to continuing the real work.

 

[GTX]

An interesting article

Who killed the Attack-class? - Australian Defence Magazine

The death of the Attack class reveals multiple efforts from within the Government to undermine its own defence programs and pin the blame on industry.

www.australiandefence.com.au

Kind of out-dated news given this article was from nearly a year ago...

 

[jeffb]

An interesting article

Who killed the Attack-class? - Australian Defence Magazine

The death of the Attack class reveals multiple efforts from within the Government to undermine its own defence programs and pin the blame on industry.

www.australiandefence.com.au

Kind of out-dated news given this article was from nearly a year ago...

And yet still weirdly relevant.

 

[kaiserd]

Discussion of concerns/ fears re: future US administrations and AUKUS from sources across the political spectrum.
I don’t share or agree with the all the content or opinions therein (for the record I think it is likely that any likely US administration in the foreseeable future is likely to stick with AUKUS) but it is cynical gass-lighting to pretend these fears/ concerns don’t exist.

Could a Donald Trump-shaped torpedo sink Australia’s $368bn Aukus submarine plans?

Technical risks abound in multi-decade plan for Australia to obtain nuclear-powered submarines. There are plenty of political ones, too

www.theguardian.com

Could Donald Trump tank Aukus?

There are few surprises in the Aukus nuclear-powered submarine programmed announced by Rishi Sunak, his Australian counterpart Anthony Albanese, and US president Joe Biden overnight. Australia will get its fleet of nuclear submarines. The United States will supply Virginia-class boats to...

www.spectator.co.uk

Joe Biden might have given his seal of approval for the AUKUS deal, but a future administration could take it away - ABC News

amp.abc.net.au

Donald Trump, the nuclear option and a secret plan that emerged from the deep

The Morrison government's new trilateral technology sharing deal emerged on Wednesday night as suddenly as a silent nuclear...

www.canberratimes.com.au

AUKUS: What happens if the Republicans play the Trump card? | Lowy Institute

A White House change of guard could mean Australia needs to reassess its values under a more nihilistic regime.

www.lowyinstitute.org

 

[zen]

I think we risk a major political hijacking here.
There are risks and political dimensions to AUKUS and the SSN element. But biased reporting doesn't help, only skew perspectives with US internal politics. It doesn't help.

The UK is involved and should the US turn against sale of Virginias the AUKUS SSN effort will still progress now. But you may have to change Combat System......

 

[GTX]

Let's keep US domestic politics out of this thread please.

 

[GTX]

AUKUS Reaction: Some companies support, some criticise sub deal - APDR

Reaction to the AUKUS announcement in the United States on Monday was swift in Australia. Most companies and other entities welcomed the news, while others criticised the announcement and the overall deal.

asiapacificdefencereporter.com

 

[GTX]

Support for potential Taiwan conflict not part of AUKUS submarine deal, defence minister says

Defence Minister Richard Marles says the federal government made no promises to the United States that Australia would support it in any future conflict over Taiwan in exchange for American nuclear submarines.

www.abc.net.au

 

[Volkodav]

What those arguing the suitability of SSNs for Australia are ignoring is SSNs are the spiritual successor for heavy cruisers and battlecruisers, they are in fact ideal for Australia's defence needs and should have been acquired decades ago. Say Australia doesn't need SSNs now would be like saying Australia didn't need cruisers and large destroyers in WWII, that everything could be done by MTBs, PT boats and sub chasers operating out of our ports.

When you look at the Type 212 Boats Rex is pushing, they are quite literally short-range coastal boats, deploying from the Baltic to the Mediterranean is a big deal for them and cannot be done without multiple stops and significant contractor support. They are the Ferraris , not the SSNs, the SSNs are all terrain armored trucks, with long range fuel tanks, multiple RWS and a load of long range missiles on the back.

 

[jeffb]

What those arguing the suitability of SSNs for Australia are ignoring is SSNs are the spiritual successor for heavy cruisers and battlecruisers

Oh, so they're already obsolete?

Relevant:

Advances in detection technology could render AUKUS submarines useless by 2050 | The Strategist

Speaking at a summit in San Diego on Monday, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese announced a decades-long strategy to deliver the most costly defence project in Australia’s history. New details of the AUKUS defence and security pact ...

www.aspistrategist.org.au

 

[Volkodav]

What those arguing the suitability of SSNs for Australia are ignoring is SSNs are the spiritual successor for heavy cruisers and battlecruisers

Oh, so they're already obsolete?

Relevant:

Advances in detection technology could render AUKUS submarines useless by 2050 | The Strategist

Speaking at a summit in San Diego on Monday, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese announced a decades-long strategy to deliver the most costly defence project in Australia’s history. New details of the AUKUS defence and security pact ...

www.aspistrategist.org.au

So you don't understand the concept of large, armored cruisers either? To provide presence and tactical overmatch to anything short of a battle squadron. In WWI the German Asiatic Squadron chose to run for home rather than risk engaging a single battlecruiser, HMAS Australia, her presence alone drove away the greatest threat without firing a shot. The subsequent Battle of Coronel demonstrated that the German squadron was a very real threat to ships that were larger and more capable than anything Australia had other than the single battlecruiser. The Battle of the Falklands confirmed that the Germans fears were legitimate, and running was their only option, when they were caught and destroyed by RN battle cruisers.

 

[kaiserd]

What those arguing the suitability of SSNs for Australia are ignoring is SSNs are the spiritual successor for heavy cruisers and battlecruisers

Oh, so they're already obsolete?

Relevant:

Advances in detection technology could render AUKUS submarines useless by 2050 | The Strategist

Speaking at a summit in San Diego on Monday, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese announced a decades-long strategy to deliver the most costly defence project in Australia’s history. New details of the AUKUS defence and security pact ...

www.aspistrategist.org.au

So you don't understand the concept of large, armored cruisers either? To provide presence and tactical overmatch to anything short of a battle squadron. In WWI the German Asiatic Squadron chose to run for home rather than risk engaging a single battlecruiser, HMAS Australia, her presence alone drove away the greatest threat without firing a shot. The subsequent Battle of Coronel demonstrated that the German squadron was a very real threat to ships that were larger and more capable than anything Australia had other than the single battlecruiser. The Battle of the Falklands confirmed that the Germans fears were legitimate, and running was their only option, when they were caught and destroyed by RN battle cruisers.

But wasn’t it Japan’s entry into WW1 and what that meant re: Japan’s naval strength and re: land/ sea threat to Germany’s few pacific bases, and not HMAS Australia (though the Germans were certainly afraid of facing her, and her presence did inhibit their actions), that actually prompted the Germans to “run for home”?

Hard to learn the right lesson from history if you may not have the history correct, or if you may be looking at a version of history missing some of it’s actual nuances.

 

[starviking]

<SNIP>

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.

It’s less about what Australia can do, and more about what a tinpot dictator with a compliant populace and chained press could do.

I think you meant a compliant press and a chained populace, yes?

Well, I was thinking about countries like North Korea. Would fit either way though.

I take it that you accept my explaination?

 

[jeffb]

Sure. Although the IAEA isn't taking Australia on trust on this, what with special procedures, sealed welded boxes and whatnot, even though Australia definitely isn't in the tinpot dictator category.

The chained press thing got me too. If the populace know they have a chained press, they don't believe most of what it tells them, they're not stupid. A compliant press that amplifies government policy rather than holding it to account, that's a very different matter.

 

[starviking]

Sure. Although the IAEA isn't taking Australia on trust on this, what with special procedures, sealed welded boxes and whatnot, even though Australia definitely isn't in the tinpot dictator category.

The chained press thing got me too. If the populace know they have a chained press, they don't believe most of what it tells them, they're not stupid. A compliant press that amplifies government policy rather than holding it to account, that's a very different matter.

Depends on your point of view: by chained I meant chained to one point of view - the official story. And in NK, the vast majority of the populace do not know that they have a chained press, they believe it is the truth.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Deleted posts related to a very angry exchange between @Volkodav and @jeffb. Multiple forum rules were breached by both.

Any resumption of hostilities will result in a topic ban at minimum.

 

[GTX]

International Atomic Energy Agency endorses AUKUS with key reservations

Despite several reservations, the International Atomic Energy Agency has endorsed Australia’s acquisition of nuclear submarines after the AUKUS announcement this week. The IAEA is the centre for n

www.defenceconnect.com.au

 

[Volkodav]

Deleted posts related to a very angry exchange between @Volkodav and @jeffb. Multiple forum rules were breached by both.

Any resumption of hostilities will result in a topic ban at minimum.

Fair call, I lost it and on reading my posts later actually expected a harsher reaction from the mods. Thank you for your tolerance, I will endeavor to maintain my equilibrium better in future.

 

[Rickshaw]

So, yes, our French friends might have been able to supply some SSNs more effectively than the AUKUS deal but the US provides a whole lot more. You only have to listen to Beijing and Moscow to realise that.

Key point there: While the SSN deal might be the headline act, AUKUS is about a lot more than SSNs. There is more to come...

We've seen Switzerland’s adherence to a ban on the export and re-export of weapons and ammunition to conflict zones blocking NATO countries from giving Ukraine their stocks of Swiss-made ammunition and arms. Could the Australians have be assured of submarine systems support from France in some future conflict with an aggressor? Very likely. But, God love them, one never quite knows with the French. There is, unequivocally, no question with the US and UK. It is a clear signal to aggressors of unified power.

Canada, New Zealand, and the Republic of Korea participate in TALISMAN SABRE with Australia and the United States. Additionally, some 26 countries participate in RIMPAC (and Taiwan, I believe, in 2024). These are clear signals to aggressors of unified power.

It has been mentioned in prior posts the US, UK, Japan, and Australia have systematically removed barriers for joint support in the Pacific. AUKUS is the next step in that process; displaying a clear signal of unified power.

While none of us know if clear signals of unified power will deter aggression, history is quite clear on what happens when we don't. Humanity pays a much higher price for war than we do deterrence.

There will be more to come.

To be fair to France are they really that likely to be less reliable than, say, the UK?
It is arguable that in more recent history France has at least as great experience and track record of supporting their export customers high tech military equipment as the UK does. And the deal for the French subs were part of a wider effort and commitment by France, hence their reaction when Australia exited that deal.

And Australia has the 1941-1942 experience of the UK being unable to come to their aid to the extent required, with the US taking up the mantle as Australia’s key military partner.

And there is always the spectre (hopefully never to become corporeal) of the US turning in on itself and abandoning it allies.
Current positions being taken on Ukraine (and on Russia) by some in the US body-politic would feed this fear about the future reliability of the US as a military and diplomatic partner. AUKUS probably should be seen as part of a concerted efforts to alleviate such concerns (including among countries not party to AUKUS).

None of this is to suggest the likelihood of a “doomsday” scenario or to talk down AUKUS. It’s more that anyone pointing to country A and definitively stating it’s more reliable than country B is at least tempting fate and that ultimately only time will tell.

In the past we had been victims of military export bans when we have been involved in war, namely Sweden during the Vietnam war when they blocked the use of 84mm Carl Gustav Rcls by preventing the export of their ammunition. France also stopped the deployment of the RAAF's Mirage Fighters for use in the Vietnam War. Not that they were actually planning to but there was the danger of it occurring, there were talk about it, publicly Downunder. The real problem was, the Mirage as we adopted it, was completely unsuitable for combat over South Vietnam, there just weren't any opponents for a pure fighter to engage, So, we have had our fingers, so to speak, burnt, once before. After the Swedish experience in particular, we vowed to never beholden to foreign powers again and negotiated a license to manufacture the ammunition in Australia.

 

[Rickshaw]

Another interesting article, this one from Rex Patrick:

I just want a Ferrari, sorry, a nuclear submarine, no matter the cost - Michael West

PM Albanese has just committed Australia to spending $368 billion on nuclear submarines, It’s a strategic blunder, not even going to happen.

michaelwest.com.au

I suspect this bit in particular is true:

The Government tells us that we will start building next generation SSN AUKUS submarines in 2040. But they are wrong. Once the Adelaide workforce is disbanded, we won’t rebuild a submarine build workforce. We will just buy an AUKUS submarine from the UK, or perhaps more US Virginia class boats instead.

Rex Patrick is just a noisy wannabe that the press love to dig up on issues such as this given he is an ex-submariner (1983-1994). He only got into the Australian Senate when the sitting member, Nick Xenophon, resigned. When he ran for election in his own right he failed only receiving only 2.1% of the vote. His views should be taken with a good sized grain of salt.

In all due respect Greg, at least Rex Patrick has a real and meaningful military experiance, unlike most of the cretins that hide under the auspices of carer politicians, who talk the talk, but never walked the walk.

I'd take the point of view of Rex Patrick over the likes of Kim Beazley, Brendan Nelson, Christopher Pyne, Peter Dutton and Linda Reynolds, ......

Regards
Pioneer

I am friends with an ex-shipmate of Rex Patrick. He describes him as a, "Royal pain in the posterior, a real mess-deck lawyer, who can occassionally come out with some useful but most of his opinions are not worth taking notice of..." He acknowledges Rex occassionally coming out with something useful but most of it is designed to serve one purpose - Rex's purpose and no one else. He know something about operating submarines but it is limited because his service ended over 20 years ago and in reality was only on Oberons.

 

[jeffb]

Another interesting article, this one from Rex Patrick:

I just want a Ferrari, sorry, a nuclear submarine, no matter the cost - Michael West

PM Albanese has just committed Australia to spending $368 billion on nuclear submarines, It’s a strategic blunder, not even going to happen.

michaelwest.com.au

I suspect this bit in particular is true:

The Government tells us that we will start building next generation SSN AUKUS submarines in 2040. But they are wrong. Once the Adelaide workforce is disbanded, we won’t rebuild a submarine build workforce. We will just buy an AUKUS submarine from the UK, or perhaps more US Virginia class boats instead.

Rex Patrick is just a noisy wannabe that the press love to dig up on issues such as this given he is an ex-submariner (1983-1994). He only got into the Australian Senate when the sitting member, Nick Xenophon, resigned. When he ran for election in his own right he failed only receiving only 2.1% of the vote. His views should be taken with a good sized grain of salt.

In all due respect Greg, at least Rex Patrick has a real and meaningful military experiance, unlike most of the cretins that hide under the auspices of carer politicians, who talk the talk, but never walked the walk.

I'd take the point of view of Rex Patrick over the likes of Kim Beazley, Brendan Nelson, Christopher Pyne, Peter Dutton and Linda Reynolds, ......

Regards
Pioneer

I am friends with an ex-shipmate of Rex Patrick. He describes him as a, "Royal pain in the posterior, a real mess-deck lawyer, who can occassionally come out with some useful but most of his opinions are not worth taking notice of..." He acknowledges Rex occassionally coming out with something useful but most of it is designed to serve one purpose - Rex's purpose and no one else. He know something about operating submarines but it is limited because his service ended over 20 years ago and in reality was only on Oberons.

Not being rude but which of the arguments made in the article above are dismissed by your friend's opinion of Mr Patrick?

 

[Rickshaw]

Another interesting article, this one from Rex Patrick:

I just want a Ferrari, sorry, a nuclear submarine, no matter the cost - Michael West

PM Albanese has just committed Australia to spending $368 billion on nuclear submarines, It’s a strategic blunder, not even going to happen.

michaelwest.com.au

I suspect this bit in particular is true:

The Government tells us that we will start building next generation SSN AUKUS submarines in 2040. But they are wrong. Once the Adelaide workforce is disbanded, we won’t rebuild a submarine build workforce. We will just buy an AUKUS submarine from the UK, or perhaps more US Virginia class boats instead.

Rex Patrick is just a noisy wannabe that the press love to dig up on issues such as this given he is an ex-submariner (1983-1994). He only got into the Australian Senate when the sitting member, Nick Xenophon, resigned. When he ran for election in his own right he failed only receiving only 2.1% of the vote. His views should be taken with a good sized grain of salt.

In all due respect Greg, at least Rex Patrick has a real and meaningful military experiance, unlike most of the cretins that hide under the auspices of carer politicians, who talk the talk, but never walked the walk.

I'd take the point of view of Rex Patrick over the likes of Kim Beazley, Brendan Nelson, Christopher Pyne, Peter Dutton and Linda Reynolds, ......

Regards
Pioneer

I am friends with an ex-shipmate of Rex Patrick. He describes him as a, "Royal pain in the posterior, a real mess-deck lawyer, who can occassionally come out with some useful but most of his opinions are not worth taking notice of..." He acknowledges Rex occassionally coming out with something useful but most of it is designed to serve one purpose - Rex's purpose and no one else. He know something about operating submarines but it is limited because his service ended over 20 years ago and in reality was only on Oberons.

Not being rude but which of the arguments made in the article above are dismissed by your friend's opinion of Mr Patrick?

They are all suspect because of their source.

 

[uk 75]

As I wrote above, Australia has had vigorous debates and considerable swings in procurement policy since World War 2. There are threads here on the destroyer project in the 70s and subsequent Perry purchase as well as the attempt to replace the RAN's fixed wing force.
Some here (who always seem to dislike the UK and US) have argued or seem to argue that Australia should throw AUKUS out and ask M.Macron nicely for Barracudas of either the nuclear or non nuclear kind.
On past form (anyone remember a bloke called Lance Barnard?) Australia may well come to that conclusion. But it is their call.

 

[jeffb]

Well Former PM Paul Keating's address to the press club the other day, where he described the AUKUS deal as the "Worst deal in the history of the World" and pointed out the fallacy that Australia has any cause to feel threatened by China, has really lit a spark. Many more journalists and MPs are openly expressing misgivings about the deal over the insane cost ( $360B over 30 years for 11-12 boats @ $30B a boat with real questions over how much work will actually end up going to Australia sometime in the 2040s) and with many also expressing concerns over closer military ties with the US at a time when it is itself predicting that it will be in a war with China over Taiwan in the next 3-5 years.

The deal negotiated with Naval would have delivered 12 boats considerably sooner for $90B ($7.5B a boat), was on budget and on time when it was cancelled. The French had offered to provide Suffren nuclear boats (well equivalents, I imagine they would still need to be modified with US Combat systems and weapons) but we can't say at what cost (Suffren's cost €1.75B in 2014 Euros) and at the time the offer was made it was rejected. Obviously this was before the need for SSNs was considered paramount.

There is some conjecture in Australia now that the AUKUS deal wasn't as much a ground breaking security reset for Australia, dreamed up by the Morrison government, as much as an attempt to gazump the Labor party at the last election with a controversial new major defence policy. The Morrison government (who were trailing significantly in the polls) had assumed that Labor would reject the new policy out of hand due to their long aversion to nuclear technology, handing the Morrison government a cudgel to beat them over the head with at the election by claiming they were "soft" on Defense. Labor avoided the political trap by instead wholeheartedly supporting the policy and the rest, as they say, is history.

Thing is, the Labor party DO have a long aversion to nuclear power and that aversion is now reasserting itself at the grass roots level all through the country and through the party.

There is probably more to come on this.

 

[uk 75]

One could even go so far as to argue that China is such a reasonable, peace-loving country that Australia could safely reduce its forces to the level of New Zealand.
By giving up a submarine force altogether and selling the air capable ships in the RAN as well as cancelling the F35 purchase Australia could concentrate on development aid and environmental protection.
I doubt that Me Xi would welcome French submarines any more than US/UK ones so one might as well do the job properly

 

[NeilChapman]

Well Former PM Paul Keating's address to the press club the other day, where he described the AUKUS deal as the "Worst deal in the history of the World" and pointed out the fallacy that Australia has any cause to feel threatened by China, has really lit a spark. Many more journalists and MPs are openly expressing misgivings about the deal over the insane cost ( $360B over 30 years for 11-12 boats @ $30B a boat with real questions over how much work will actually end up going to Australia sometime in the 2040s) and with many also expressing concerns over closer military ties with the US at a time when it is itself predicting that it will be in a war with China over Taiwan in the next 3-5 years.

Virginia-class boat with a VPM is US$3.45 billion. Is that AU$30 billion? That's one hell of an exchange rate!

 

[jeffb]

Well Former PM Paul Keating's address to the press club the other day, where he described the AUKUS deal as the "Worst deal in the history of the World" and pointed out the fallacy that Australia has any cause to feel threatened by China, has really lit a spark. Many more journalists and MPs are openly expressing misgivings about the deal over the insane cost ( $360B over 30 years for 11-12 boats @ $30B a boat with real questions over how much work will actually end up going to Australia sometime in the 2040s) and with many also expressing concerns over closer military ties with the US at a time when it is itself predicting that it will be in a war with China over Taiwan in the next 3-5 years.

Virginia-class boat with a VPM is US$3.45 billion. Is that AU$30 billion? That's one hell of an exchange rate!

I know, it's a simplistic conversion and doesn't include industry support and infrastructure etc, etc. But at the end of the day Australia winds up with 11-12 boats, a bunch of infrastructure, support packages for UK and US industry, maintenance facilities for US and UK subs, and a bill for $360B. How much infrastructure is Australia buying? Should we roll the support packages and maintenance facilities for US and UK subs into the cost of the Australian subs? I'd say yes.

 

[starviking]

Well Former PM Paul Keating's address to the press club the other day, where he described the AUKUS deal as the "Worst deal in the history of the World" and pointed out the fallacy that Australia has any cause to feel threatened by China, has really lit a spark. Many more journalists and MPs are openly expressing misgivings about the deal over the insane cost ( $360B over 30 years for 11-12 boats @ $30B a boat with real questions over how much work will actually end up going to Australia sometime in the 2040s) and with many also expressing concerns over closer military ties with the US at a time when it is itself predicting that it will be in a war with China over Taiwan in the next 3-5 years.

Virginia-class boat with a VPM is US$3.45 billion. Is that AU$30 billion? That's one hell of an exchange rate!

I know, it's a simplistic conversion and doesn't include industry support and infrastructure etc, etc. But at the end of the day Australia winds up with 11-12 boats, a bunch of infrastructure, support packages for UK and US industry, maintenance facilities for US and UK subs, and a bill for $360B. How much infrastructure is Australia buying? Should we roll the support packages and maintenance facilities for US and UK subs into the cost of the Australian subs? I'd say yes.

Be careful what you wish for: imagine if all projects had their associated costs bundled in, and adjusted for estimated future inflation. Nothing would get done.

 

[jeffb]

Well Former PM Paul Keating's address to the press club the other day, where he described the AUKUS deal as the "Worst deal in the history of the World" and pointed out the fallacy that Australia has any cause to feel threatened by China, has really lit a spark. Many more journalists and MPs are openly expressing misgivings about the deal over the insane cost ( $360B over 30 years for 11-12 boats @ $30B a boat with real questions over how much work will actually end up going to Australia sometime in the 2040s) and with many also expressing concerns over closer military ties with the US at a time when it is itself predicting that it will be in a war with China over Taiwan in the next 3-5 years.

Virginia-class boat with a VPM is US$3.45 billion. Is that AU$30 billion? That's one hell of an exchange rate!

I know, it's a simplistic conversion and doesn't include industry support and infrastructure etc, etc. But at the end of the day Australia winds up with 11-12 boats, a bunch of infrastructure, support packages for UK and US industry, maintenance facilities for US and UK subs, and a bill for $360B. How much infrastructure is Australia buying? Should we roll the support packages and maintenance facilities for US and UK subs into the cost of the Australian subs? I'd say yes.

Be careful what you wish for: imagine if all projects had their associated costs bundled in, and adjusted for estimated future inflation. Nothing would get done.

That is true.

 

[jeffb]

Australia’s $3bn Aukus bill to boost US and UK industry may go even higher

Defence industry minister Pat Conroy admits ‘scope’ for extra costs and that local shipbuilder ASC may not win contract for British-designed boats

www.theguardian.com

 

[Hood]

It is a huge industrial bill, like I said before its pumping in billions of investment into an industry created around just 8 submarines (maybe some opportunity for refitting RN/US subs later?).

Do the cost/reward/effectiveness ratios stack up? I don't know but let's look at it this way, all the other nuclear-submarine producing nations (USA, Russia, UK, France, India) have used this technology to create an SSBN force - the ultimate potential arbiter of national power and defence, the final sting in the tail of the nation's defensive willpower. This kind of ultimate defence, that although untested and possibly illusionary, is almost priceless and no price limit has ever been set on acquiring or maintaining that capability and thus automatically justifies whatever nuclear submarine, nuclear warhead and missile technology R&D thrown at it.
Australia has no 'do-or-die' SSBN shield to automatically handwave those billions as the ultimate national defence need. All it may have is eight attack subs. What comes after that to sustain such an industry during the 20-30 year life of the SSN(R)? At least France and the UK can alternate SSN and SSBN classes to keep work ongoing, Australia can't keep building 8 subs every decade - though it may now be committing itself in the long-term to just such an outcome, a constant low-rate production line, the RAN will always have to operate SSNs once the local industry is built up, there would be no other political choice.

But ultimately the current Australian political system figures that the price is worth it. And anyway, with short-term Parliamentary cycles who within the system cares about events that might succeed them?

 

[uk 75]

Canada and Italy are among countries who looked seriously at building nuclear submarines. Both drew back and operated conventional submarines instead.
Japan for obvious reasons has built up a formidable force of conventional submarines.
So it would be quite reasonable for Australia to take another look.
Canada will need to replace its ex RN Upholder boats. Perhaps the Canadians and Australians with help from the UK or France could develop a new class of SSK.

 

[NeilChapman]

It is a huge industrial bill, like I said before its pumping in billions of investment into an industry created around just 8 submarines (maybe some opportunity for refitting RN/US subs later?).

Do the cost/reward/effectiveness ratios stack up? I don't know but let's look at it this way, all the other nuclear-submarine producing nations (USA, Russia, UK, France, India) have used this technology to create an SSBN force - the ultimate potential arbiter of national power and defence, the final sting in the tail of the nation's defensive willpower. This kind of ultimate defence, that although untested and possibly illusionary, is almost priceless and no price limit has ever been set on acquiring or maintaining that capability and thus automatically justifies whatever nuclear submarine, nuclear warhead and missile technology R&D thrown at it.
Australia has no 'do-or-die' SSBN shield to automatically handwave those billions as the ultimate national defence need. All it may have is eight attack subs. What comes after that to sustain such an industry during the 20-30 year life of the SSN(R)? At least France and the UK can alternate SSN and SSBN classes to keep work ongoing, Australia can't keep building 8 subs every decade - though it may now be committing itself in the long-term to just such an outcome, a constant low-rate production line, the RAN will always have to operate SSNs once the local industry is built up, there would be no other political choice.

But ultimately the current Australian political system figures that the price is worth it. And anyway, with short-term Parliamentary cycles who within the system cares about events that might succeed them?

Which comes first, the chicken or the egg?

Australia get's some number of workers to move to the US to train in US shipyard building nuclear submarines. = Win
- The mechanics of this will be interesting. Employment contracts? HII workers average pay is $115k AUD vs $67k AUD in Australia

Australia invests $8 billion AUD in Perth -
- How do you spend $8 billion in Perth? The Sydney Morning Herald reports "The work would include upgraded wharves, expanded maintenance training, and logistical capacity at HMAS Stirling."

• Wharf upgrades and expansion of maintenance training, and expanded logistical capacity at HMAS Stirling;
• More frequent and longer visits of American submarines from this year, and UK subs from 2026;
• HMAS Stirling will host rotations of US and UK submarines from 2027 as part of Submarine Rotational Force West, known as SRF-West;
• WA will be home to Australian nuclear-propelled submarines from the early 2030s, the US Virginia class.

Evidently, $4.3 billion of that will be a new large vessel dry dock at the Australian Marine Complex. Will that dry dock be large enough for Virginia-class submarines? I don't know, but I'd make it at least large enough for Columbia-class submarines. You never know what maintenance work will come along. Heck, if they're building one, they may as well build two for twice the price. They'll be happy they did 15 years from now. The AMC is currently home to some 150 business and is likely to grow.

Another ~$1 billion AUD will be spent at Garden Island's HMAS Sterling. Right across the bay from the AMC.
"
on extensions to the existing wharves, construction of new office buildings, training facilities and living accommodation. This will support the new vessels and personnel at Fleet Base West, and will create business opportunities serving the new Defense families located on the mainland (which has the potential to create thousands of jobs in the City of Rockingham). At present 12 fleet units including Anzac Class frigates and Collins Class submarines are stationed here, along with an additional 70 units including the Submarine Training and Systems Centre, Submarine Escape Training Facility (one of only six in the world), Clearance Diving Team Four, and the Defence Communications Station Perth. Under the planned Navy Capability Infrastructure Sub-Program, Fleet Base West will become homeport to additional Hunter Class frigates (SEA5000 project), Arafura Class offshore patrol vessels (SEA1180 project) and Attack Class submarines (SEA1000 project) as they come into service, and as a result will be the location of significant expansion, sustainment and maintenance opportunities in the coming years.
"
So net new ships and personnel stationed in the Perth area.

Evidently defense contributes ~$1.5b AUD (about 20% of output) to the local economy. By extension, the addition of frigates, patrol vessels and attack submarines will increase that output substantially.

What about the add-on investment in support of all this growth?

Well, it looks like in a separate project, $4b AUD is being spent to move a container port to Kwinana, across the bay from the AMC. The new container port is being built because freight is expected to double by 2030.

Of course, that means the old container port will eventually be shut down. Nice development property on the Perth waterfront.

---

These seems like just the start for the Perth area, not taking into account the 4 Virginia-class boats and the British boat that will be rotating in and out in a few years. And it's 7 - 10 years before a submarine is purchased.

 

[TomS]

Canada and Italy are among countries who looked seriously at building nuclear submarines. Both drew back and operated conventional submarines instead.
Japan for obvious reasons has built up a formidable force of conventional submarines.
So it would be quite reasonable for Australia to take another look.
Canada will need to replace its ex RN Upholder boats. Perhaps the Canadians and Australians with help from the UK or France could develop a new class of SSK.

Isn't this where we came in? Australia building SSKs from France? And Canada of course had a wonderful experience with the UKs last SSK design (now almost 40 years old).

 

[zen]

The bitterness amongs Canadian Naval personnel over the purchase of Upholder class is deep and effectively has the Service adamant that buying from the UK is ruled out.

I was amazed they opted for a Type 26 variant to be honest. Such was the passions raised over the submarines.

 

[GTX]

Be careful what you wish for: imagine if all projects had their associated costs bundled in, and adjusted for estimated future inflation. Nothing would get done.

Especially when people throw in long periods - e.g. the F-35 $1 Trillion Dollar figure...

 

[GTX]

But ultimately the current Australian political system figures that the price is worth it.

Indeed and with both parties that count showing support for the acquisition and broader AUKUS deal + support within the general public still there (despite the noisy/naive minority) this program will still go ahead.

One also needs to keep in mind the changed strategic circumstances facing Australia and the analysis that more needs to be spent on Defence. As will be highlighted more in the coming weeks with the release of the public version of the DSR, Australian Defence is about to undergo arguably the most significant change since WWII. Part of this includes a move to increase the Defence budget to a sustained 2.5% of GDP or higher - and for context, it has averaged around 1.8% for the last 30+yrs with only short peaks higher) based upon individual acquisitions).

I have spent nearly the last 30yrs in/around Defence and I have not seen the level of emphasis and urgency like now. To give you just one small, though potentially very telling, example of how the current Govt is taking this seriously (apart from the SSN decision): Typically the Deputy PM can choose his/her portfolio and to be honest, historically Defence is not seen as a desired portfolio by either Labor or Conservative politicians. That changed when Richard Marles deliberately requested to become Defence Minister in 2022. The Government also initiated the DSR which will, as mentioned earlier, drive the most significant change in Australia's Defence posture since the end of WWII. The SSNs are the headline now but the world is changing and much more is coming despite what some may attempt.

 

[GTX]

Canada will need to replace its ex RN Upholder boats. Perhaps the Canadians and Australians with help from the UK or France could develop a new class of SSK.

OR potentially Canada also goes the SSN route...