Replacement of Australia's Collins Class Submarines

[jeffb]

Wait, how about Australia adopting a non-nuclear variant of the Suffren, before going nuclear ?
...
Nope, forgot that.

According to Turnbull this was actually an option.

The deal required that at least the first two boats be conventionally powered but allowed for a switch to an "Australianized" Suffren, nuclear powered boat along with a reduced total buy (8 rather than 12).

just catching up to all this, so Australia is insistent on it being nuclear..
besides the Suffren and Virginia, was the Astute considered/offered?

Australia's "insistence" on nuclear-powered subs was premised on a step change of defence focus from defence of Australia's littoral to operations anywhere in the world (in the first instance, in the South China Sea).

 

[jeffb]

So what about the Suffren design? Well it was offered informally but never seriously considered...

It wasn't considered because Australia was set on buying conventionally powered subs despite that from a sizing, crewing, manufacturing point of view, it was ideal. Hence the Attack class conventionally powered version.

It remains a mystery why, despite having an option to build state of the art nuclear powered subs, probably prior to the 2030s, Morrison threw the whole deal overboard for AUKUS, second hand Virginias, hypothetical subs yet to be designed by the brits, and a massive increase in the US military presence in Australia.

 

[helmutkohl]

It wasn't considered because Australia was set on buying conventionally powered subs despite that from a sizing, crewing, manufacturing point of view, it was ideal. Hence the Attack class conventionally powered version.

It remains a mystery why, despite having an option to build state of the art nuclear powered subs, probably prior to the 2030s, Morrison threw the whole deal overboard for AUKUS, second hand Virginias, hypothetical subs yet to be designed by the brits, and a massive increase in the US military presence in Australia.

in retrospect, what submarine solution do you think Australia should have gone for?

 

[Scott Kenny]

in retrospect, what submarine solution do you think Australia should have gone for?

Nuclear powered Suffrens. Difficulty then is that every 5-8 years, they gotta go back to France to be refueled unless/until Oz builds a nuclear shipyard. So you'd actually want more than 12, probably 14-16, to keep the numbers up while boats are being refueled.

But I think the AUKUS deal may be better for Oz in the long run. More industry, a nuclear shipyard in Oz to do the work locally, and all the high-paid highly skilled workers that the supporting industries require.