Further to my comments above, the following is also well worth the read when it comes to Australian Defence, AUKUS and the SSNs:
A pacifist agenda for AUKUS
A pacifist agenda for AUKUS
OR potentially Canada also goes the SSN route...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.
I'll buy that.Further to my comments above, the following is also well worth the read when it comes to Australian Defence, AUKUS and the SSNs:
A pacifist agenda for AUKUS
There is wriggle-room though.OR potentially Canada also goes the SSN route...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.
Not from the US it seems.
After AUKUS announcement, the US slams shut nuclear propulsion door
Explore the US response to the AUKUS announcement and the debate over nuclear propulsion. Stay informed with Naval Technologywww.naval-technology.com
…said that the sharing of nuclear technology with countries other than those in the AUKUS alliance would not be considered.
Canada’s experience with the Upholders is perhaps more indicative of a country whose government has neglected defence for decades, than any major flaws in the Upholders, which are now giving sterling service.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).
Hugh White was the principal author of Australia's 2000 Defence White Paper.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
The UK can’t do that. They are now irrevocably “tied to the hip” of the US re: nuclear sub technology (even more so than previously).There is wriggle-room though.OR potentially Canada also goes the SSN route...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.
Not from the US it seems.
After AUKUS announcement, the US slams shut nuclear propulsion door
Explore the US response to the AUKUS announcement and the debate over nuclear propulsion. Stay informed with Naval Technologywww.naval-technology.com
…said that the sharing of nuclear technology with countries other than those in the AUKUS alliance would not be considered.
New members may join the alliance. Also, the UK could decide to aid Canada on its own.
The UK can’t do that. They are now irrevocably “tied to the hip” of the US re: nuclear sub technology (even more so than previously).There is wriggle-room though.
…said that the sharing of nuclear technology with countries other than those in the AUKUS alliance would not be considered.
New members may join the alliance. Also, the UK could decide to aid Canada on its own.
There is little to nothing they could share without US approval.
To be honest I think the US would be overjoyed if the Canadian's went for SSN's.If the Canucks were willing to pay for SSNs I can’t see the U.S. getting in their way. I think there’s about as much chance of that as the sunsetting in the East.
$4.3bn for a dry dock?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.
So what? It is just his opinion. He has not been involved with any Govt role since about 2000 too so just like former prime ministers expressing their opinions, it carries no weight in terms of actual Australian Govt policy.Hugh White was the principal author of Australia's 2000 Defence White Paper.
AUKUS commits Australia to fight China if America does, simple | Lowy Institute
Whatever the flag, Washington would not sell nuclear-powered boats unless it could count on them in war over Taiwan.www.lowyinstitute.org
I’m not going to belabour the point but in reality almost everything the UK now does re: their nuclear submarine industry/ building is a joint project with the US.The UK can’t do that. They are now irrevocably “tied to the hip” of the US re: nuclear sub technology (even more so than previously).There is wriggle-room though.
…said that the sharing of nuclear technology with countries other than those in the AUKUS alliance would not be considered.
New members may join the alliance. Also, the UK could decide to aid Canada on its own.
There is little to nothing they could share without US approval.
I know the PWR-3 is derived from a US Reactor, but there is nothing about export controls in the public domain (that I can find anyway). Even if there are controls, the US may not want to block a UK-Canadian deal.
The UK can’t do that. They are now irrevocably “tied to the hip” of the US re: nuclear sub technology (even more so than previously).There is wriggle-room though.OR potentially Canada also goes the SSN route...
Not from the US it seems.
After AUKUS announcement, the US slams shut nuclear propulsion door
Explore the US response to the AUKUS announcement and the debate over nuclear propulsion. Stay informed with Naval Technologywww.naval-technology.com
…said that the sharing of nuclear technology with countries other than those in the AUKUS alliance would not be considered.
New members may join the alliance. Also, the UK could decide to aid Canada on its own.
There is little to nothing they could share without US approval.
I listened to Huge Whites Sleepwalking to War on Audible, some of it was very good but when he started talking about SSNs his language changed, and he lost any sense of impartiality, switching to pushing an agenda. There is a lot of this going on at the moment, individuals and groups following facts, logic and science until it doesn't match their beliefs, then they throw the whole lot out the window.So what? It is just his opinion. He has not been involved with any Govt role since about 2000 too so just like former prime ministers expressing their opinions, it carries no weight in terms of actual Australian Govt policy.Hugh White was the principal author of Australia's 2000 Defence White Paper.
AUKUS commits Australia to fight China if America does, simple | Lowy Institute
Whatever the flag, Washington would not sell nuclear-powered boats unless it could count on them in war over Taiwan.www.lowyinstitute.org
BTW, I am kind of amused by the fact that you dug up Hugh White. Would I by default think that you also supported his thinking on Australia adopting nuclear weapons?
NOTE: I emphasise again that the AUKUS deal and the AUKUS-SSNs are not about Nuclear weapons.
It seemed like a lot to me as well.$4.3bn for a dry dock?
The Indian's were building a 310m x 75m dry dock which would take ships up to Suezmax size (275m, up to 200,000dwt tankers) for around $200m (c$300m AUD). Even accounting for labour costs etc. I would have thought $1bn would get you similar in Australia. Make it $1.5bn and you'll get a lot of dock eqpt like a Goliath Crane (the one at Rosyth for the QE build was around $25m in todays money) and an enormous build shed. You could build an aircraft carrier let alone a Columbia Class...
So what? It is just his opinion. He has not been involved with any Govt role since about 2000 too so just like former prime ministers expressing their opinions, it carries no weight in terms of actual Australian Govt policy.Hugh White was the principal author of Australia's 2000 Defence White Paper.
AUKUS commits Australia to fight China if America does, simple | Lowy Institute
Whatever the flag, Washington would not sell nuclear-powered boats unless it could count on them in war over Taiwan.www.lowyinstitute.org
In his blog, the former NSW premier Bob Carr declared that America's reaction to China ''displays all the neuroses of the world's most insecure empire, always imagining its enemies at work to bring it down''. Carr recalled a session in 1999 of the Australian-American Leadership Dialogue, the closed-door private diplomatic initiative run by the then Melbourne businessman Phil Scanlan (now consult-general in New York).
Richard Armitage, later to be George Bush's deputy secretary of state, talked about the prospect of war over Taiwan and demanded to know what would be Australia's role. ''Are these people nuts?'' is how Carr remembers ''the whispered response of all the Australians''.
Hugh White, the Australian National University strategist who recently set off a resounding debate with his essay urging a US-China power sharing agreement, was another participant. At the time he was a deputy secretary in our Defence Department, engaged on writing the 2000 defence white paper for the Howard government. White recalls giving the dialogue a rundown on Australia's defence planning, foreshadowing the white paper, and the following exchange. ''That's all very well, Hugh,'' Armitage cut in. ''But I really don't see the force structure you are developing giving you a lot of options to support us when the balloon goes up over Taiwan.''
''Well, Rich,'' White says he replied, ''you've got to understand that Australian defence policy is not based on the idea that we support the United States in those scenarios.'' ''Well, they ought to be,'' Armitage declared. ''What do you think this alliance is about?''
White then went over the 1976 defence white paper and the review of defence force structure by the then deputy defence secretary, Paul Dibb, positioning Australia after the Vietnam War. Armitage was not mollified. He recalled that Armitage ''in his inimitable way literally, not just metaphorically, thumped the table and said that in the event of a US-China conflict over Taiwan we'd expect Australia to be there''.
''And there was a lot of ambivalence in the room amongst the Australians as to whether we would or not,'' White said. ''That ambivalence included Coalition ministers.''
Ok, I have to ask, did you actually watch this video? Did you watch it with the sound off maybe?BTW, I am kind of amused by the fact that you dug up Hugh White. Would I by default think that you also supported his thinking on Australia adopting nuclear weapons?
NOTE: I emphasise again that the AUKUS deal and the AUKUS-SSNs are not about Nuclear weapons.
Yes I did - thanks for the smart arse commentOk, I have to ask, did you actually watch this video? Did you watch it with the sound off maybe?
The Netherlands and Germany are also struggling with their SSKs, Norway is shopping for new boats
Yes I did - thanks for the smart arse commentOk, I have to ask, did you actually watch this video? Did you watch it with the sound off maybe?
Paywalled. Please print the text.
Pay walled. Can you please post the article?This is a well balanced 'explainer' article from the AFR:
How Australia would actually use submarines in a war (in four maps)
If a conflict in the Asia-Pacific region broke out, what would it look like, and what roles could conventional and nuclear submarines play?www.afr.com
Pay walled. Can you please post the article?This appears to be an anything but balanced, pro-AUKUS article from the AFR, but it's paywalled. If anyone with access wants to post it up though...
The AUKUS debate needs clear reasoning, not hot air
There is a vacuum in public awareness of our strategic circumstances. In these times of no war and no peace, that needs to be fixed.www.afr.com
Not a subscriber sorry.Pay walled. Can you please post the article?This appears to be an anything but balanced, pro-AUKUS article from the AFR, but it's paywalled. If anyone with access wants to post it up though...
The AUKUS debate needs clear reasoning, not hot air
There is a vacuum in public awareness of our strategic circumstances. In these times of no war and no peace, that needs to be fixed.www.afr.com
That's weird, I could access the whole thing from home, but I'm out now and I'm hitting a paywall as well, possibly I've hit a 'free articles' limit. I'll see if I can post it up when I get back home.Pay walled. Can you please post the article?This is a well balanced 'explainer' article from the AFR:
How Australia would actually use submarines in a war (in four maps)
If a conflict in the Asia-Pacific region broke out, what would it look like, and what roles could conventional and nuclear submarines play?www.afr.com
Errr...my posting of this (at Reply#1651) did not reference you at all. It was also simply an article that included the current Defence Minister Richard Marles's comments on the matter - something I believe is highly relevant. If you are saying that it was misleading then your problem is with him (or the journalist, Georgia Hitch) not me.
your reply to me pointing out that Marles's statement that the subs were not contingent on Australian support of a US led intervention over Taiwan were misleading at best, was both rude and dismissive.
Sorry about that. I won't print the entire text but here are the key points:Paywalled. Please print the text.
Aquilino also field questions on the future rotational deployment of US Navy nuclear-powered attack submarines (SSNs) to Western Australia which was announced last week as part of the broader roadmap to delivering an SSN capability to the RAN.
He did not provide more specifics about whether the future deployments will result in a net increase of US Navy SSNs in the Indo-Pacific or the duration of the deployments as the details are still being fleshed out.
However, he said that the focus will be “to move at the fastest pace possible to deliver the capability that Australia has identified is needed”.
Under the AUKUS submarine plans unveiled last week, the AUKUS partners will have a rotational presence of “up to four” US Navy and one Royal Navy SSNs at HMAS Stirling in Western Australia from 2027. This presence will be known as Submarine Rotational Force - West (SRF-West).
Defence says the deployments “will help Australia build the necessary operational capabilities and skills to be sovereign ready, so Australia can safely and securely own, operate, maintain and regulate a fleet of nuclear-powered submarines from the early 2030s”.
It adds that “SRF-West will accelerate our efforts to develop Australia's capability to safely and securely operate and sustain its future nuclear-powered submarines.”
I was referring to your response at reply #1693, the response where you included a link to Hugh White's aspi talk re Australia's nuclear options.Errr...my posting of this (at Reply#1651) did not reference you at all. It was also simply an article that included the current Defence Minister Richard Marles's comments on the matter - something I believe is highly relevant. If you are saying that it was misleading then your problem is with him (or the journalist, Georgia Hitch) not me.
your reply to me pointing out that Marles's statement that the subs were not contingent on Australian support of a US led intervention over Taiwan were misleading at best, was both rude and dismissive.
As for considering the same rude and dismissive, I cannot help you there if you can't handle someone posting information that counters your position.
So the one that didn't mention Richard Marles's statement nor Taiwan ... rightI was referring to your response at reply #1693, the response where you included a link to Hugh White's aspi talk re Australia's nuclear options.
So the one that didn't mention Richard Marles's statement nor Taiwan ... rightI was referring to your response at reply #1693, the response where you included a link to Hugh White's aspi talk re Australia's nuclear options.
Hugh White was the principal author of Australia's 2000 Defence White Paper.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
AUKUS commits Australia to fight China if America does, simple | Lowy Institute
Whatever the flag, Washington would not sell nuclear-powered boats unless it could count on them in war over Taiwan.www.lowyinstitute.org
So what? It is just his opinion. He has not been involved with any Govt role since about 2000 too so just like former prime ministers expressing their opinions, it carries no weight in terms of actual Australian Govt policy.Hugh White was the principal author of Australia's 2000 Defence White Paper.
AUKUS commits Australia to fight China if America does, simple | Lowy Institute
Whatever the flag, Washington would not sell nuclear-powered boats unless it could count on them in war over Taiwan.www.lowyinstitute.org
BTW, I am kind of amused by the fact that you dug up Hugh White. Would I by default think that you also supported his thinking on Australia adopting nuclear weapons?
NOTE: I emphasise again that the AUKUS deal and the AUKUS-SSNs are not about Nuclear weapons.
Sorry about that. I won't print the entire text but here are the key points:
- Opinion article written by Peter Jennings
Argues the Govt needs to counter 4 particular 'red herrings' being put forward - the article goes into more depth re the arguments against each but I haven't put them here (if people want more please PM me):
- "...that future technology will make the oceans transparent, rendering submarines obsolescent..."
- "...that we simply will not be able crew nuclear-powered boats..."
- "...that operating two different nuclear-powered submarines at the same time – when the Virginia-class subs hand over to the AUKUS design – crosses a threshold of complexity for Australia that will be just too difficult to manage...."
- "...that the project represents a stealthy shift from a “defence of Australia” strategy to a “forward defence” concept ... meaning ... that some day we may have to fight in a battle a long way from Australia and as part of a US-led coalition...”.
Hugh White is an extremely intelligent and thoughtful individual with an extreme breadth and depth of knowledge on strategic matters. However, like pretty much everyone, he has his biases, areas where he gets so angry that he stops applying his usual rigor and simply makes personal statements of opinion, without his usual level of analysis or thought.Yes I did - thanks for the smart arse commentOk, I have to ask, did you actually watch this video? Did you watch it with the sound off maybe?
It was a bit smart arsey, but then your reply to me pointing out that Marles's statement that the subs were not contingent on Australian support of a US led intervention over Taiwan were misleading at best, was both rude and dismissive.
You then went on to say you were amused that I'd 'dug up' Hugh White's opinion and linked to his talk in a way that suggested that it demonstrated he was some sort of kook.
So when I watched the video and found his opinions to be completely reasonable, I was, I'll admit, a little confused. Hence the 'smart arse' questions.