Some recent developments: Rear Admiral Scott Pappano (US program executive officer for strategic submarines), "if we (U.S.) were going to add additional submarine construction to our industrial base, that would be detrimental to us right now". Also, RAN personel to train aboard UK Astute-class SSNs.
The UK government has ruled out the possibility of an off-the-shelf sale of Astute Class SSNs to the Royal Australian Navy. The United Kingdom’s (UK) Secretary of Defence, Ben Wallace, has sought to address “confusion” over the selection process underpinning Australia’s acquisition of a fleet of nuclear-powered submarines promised under AUKUS. “…I think people seem to pose a question as if it’s an either/or, as if buying an American [submarine] off-the-shelf, or one of [the UK’s platforms] off-the-shelf - it’s not that,” “I can tell you that because when boat seven is out of the Astutes, that’s it,” “We are onto our next design and our new one, and that might well be fully shared with all three (AUKUS) nations as a collaborative design.”
@@Strategy_Analysis I just found your channel with the vid on the AS9. Wished I had found it earlier. Sorry for the super long comment, but there's stuff that needs saying about the AUKUS program. Great to see someone point out the crew issues. What you should or could have have put up some other subs to highlight the issue we have with American subs. The French Barracuda (which we rejected) only has a crew of 60 it also has a price tag that's almost identical tot he Astute. The Russian Alpha that was in *Hunt for Red October* had 34 The Russian Sierra that replaced the Alpha has 61 & 72 for the block I & II respectively. The latest Russian Akula 73 & 62 for the block I & II respectively The Las Angeles class - 129. Even the Astute at 98 is a massive crew by comparison, but its also the sub we should have chosen. Despite the BS of the Ben Wallace, who is also no longer in the job, if we asked the Brits for 2 Astutes as part of the AUKUS program they'd do it. Its pretty simple Britain is almost broke and being able to sell ANYTHING right now would be good news. Its called politics. I discussed this with a Brit and they pointed out that BAE had built a new hall for the Vanguard class. So the hall where they built the Astutes now has nothing in it since they finished the 7th boat. The problem BAE has is people and just having enough of them with the right skills. Like we did the Brits stopped training apprentices as part of the same stupid economic policies we followed and the Americans followed. FYI - I'm Australian but did me degree in Aerospace in America. I have 30+ years experience in control systems. First in manufacturing and most of the last 20 in mining. So I have a lot of large complex engineering project experience. Just on basic project management that almost anyone can understand AUKUS is a disaster. I can't say its badly planned because it doesn't even seem to have a plan. Also the last people we want spending our money on anything is the right now is the American MIC (Military Industrial Complex). The YT Channel Sub Brief recently pointed out the complete disaster the US navy is having with maintenance. He described the contracts surrounding their dry docks as "criminal" and it sounded like he was describing our projects here in Australia. In trying to workout where all the money is going I have done a project cost model. Its basically a spread sheet with where you list everything you know you need So far I have a cost of a AU$117 Billion that includes. 2 x Astute Mk IIs which adds over the current Astute: - a small VLS package (12 or 16 Tomahawks); - automation upgrades to get the crew down to 85-90. - an American compatible combat system. 4 x AUKUS subs which are another step up in automation to get the crew down to 70-75. These will all be built in Britain with an Australian workforce of 6,500. In addition to that are 6 x German 212 variant (1 built in Germany 5 in Australia). These would be very similar to the 212-CD subs being built for Germany and Norway except with an American Combat system and weapons. Although I have heard the Americans are trying to integrate the German sub-to-air missiles into their systems. That's 12 subs in all with less crew requirements than the Virginia option. In my costs I have multibillion dollar upgrades to facilities on both the East & West coast. I have a disposal program where we burry the reactor cores at Olympic Dam. Why? You can't make Olympic Dam more radioactive. Because its already radioactive with about 30% of the worlds Uranium reserves. I have an almost insane bonus system for the Australian who'll go overseas and work on the subs. Bottom line is I have to keep adding stuff and so far I have only manged to get the number up to $117 Billion. Please understand that I am not against AUKUS or getting nuclear subs. *I just think we need a better plan.* If you've read this far thanks. I've watched a couple of your other vids - you've won a subscriber. Your good thing is you don't waste time and stick to the basic facts.
@@tonywilson4713 Firstly, thanks for the very detailed and thought-out comment. Also, thanks for subscribing. In an earlier briefing on SSNs I did mention the whole crewing issue. I didn't in this one because I was covering it as a fait acompli. Agree, the plan doesn't seem well thought-out. Who knows how it will end up?
We need UK built Astute class SSNs. No mix and matching systems or ‘Australianising”. The first Astute we should get is Agincourt, due to launch in 2025. Crew with a combined RN/RAN complement. HMS Trenchant was refurbished in 2016 and can be kept in RN service until 2028, when another Astute will be ready. Barrow in Furness has three construction slots and only two Dreadnoughts will be built at a time. Another Astute should be laid down asap. And continue building more as quickly as possible. Seven Trafalgars were built in 14 years. The UK should aim for same over the next 15 years with Astute production. As for manpower, in 2020, 120,000 applicants were received for only 8,000 positions. We could also recruit from the UK, America and New Zealand.
One thing I forgot to mention about the Astute class was the lengths they went to to reduce the Acoustic signatures. The main decks are supported on isolation mounts, damping and decoupling tiles are used throughout the boat, reducing self noise (the noise interference picked up by your own sensors) increasing sonar performance), reducing radiated noise (reducing probability of detection). The bow shape and flank array have been improved to improve the flow noise limiting speed allowing higher operating speed. Careful attention was also paid to the hull shape, fin shape and propulsor ducting, coupled with the wide scale use of anechoic tiles reduced the active sonar cross signature. The Astute class was designed for lean manning (a concept the USN has never really understood) based on the RN manning structure of separate operations and specialist engineering departments (like the RAN). The USN officers are more generalists backed up by specialist senior rate, although the Captain has to be a qualified Nuclear Engineer as are most of the senior officer. I have also seen comments about limited production capacity in the UK, they clearly have never stood in Devonshire Hall in Barrow in Furness a jaw dropping large covered production facility.
Thanks for the comment, Stuart. Given Australia's experience with very quiet SSKs, wanting a very quiet SSN is logical. As for the crewing issue, I won't say anymore other than to agree with your point. The production capacity issue, for both the U.S. and UK, is of course a critical determinant for Australia.
Astute is the logical option for a number of reasons: 1) they have a compliment of 98 vs the Virginia's 135 2) Astute is 30% cheaper 3) Astute is smaller Astute could be built in an overlapping staggered pair schedule between Adelaide and Barrow-In-Furness which would deliver all 8 submarines by the late 2030's.
None of which is a combat capability ! Astute are having problems with COOLING in tropical waters and in other areas. This on its own is an issue for Australia. Six tubes are better than four but the VLS are an advantage. In truth neither class is really the optimum for Australia, its a pity the U.S dropped the Seawolf class due to the ending of the cold war, its capability is more in line with Australias needs. A Seawolf with VLS is more in line with our combat requirements.
But does the ASUTE have the exact systems as the US submarines. Australia have been having trouble integrating US systems in other countries designed equipment. The US is Australia preferred weapon off choice. So would it be better to go with US submariners that any upgrades would be automatically designed into the sub we go for. Or go for the ASUTE and could run into snags integrating a new system for an upgrade the RAN required
The Swedish AIP Submarine Evaded the US Navy over two years can stay under for two weeks is Massively cheaper and can be serviced in Australia Wont Piss off China And be better at Defending Australia
@@peterjones4180 Peter, not even the USN could afford the Seawolf class, that’s why they only built 3. Do you have a link to the cooling issue with the Astute class? I’ve not heard of that issue, I’d love to know a bit more.
Being a Brit I am a little biased towards the Astute but regardless of which option they go with they are getting a world class sub. With that said, I do think the Astute makes the most sense for Australia, mainly because it has much lower crewing requirements and it's not as expensive. The VLS module of the Virginia block 5 is nice but the Astute can still carry 38 weapons including torpedoes and tomahawk missiles. One thing I found interesting was that a few days ago it was announced HMS Talent, a Trafalgar class sub is to be retired from service with the RN and I also read on a different post that the decision on which boat Australia will pick will be made in the next few months, coincidence? So it's entirely possible that Australia could lease it.
@A B, thanks for the comment. Agree with your logic on the Astute. Hadn't heard the news re HMS Talent. As I say in the video, if a boat is leased, Australia is likely to get the final choice from the same country.
It’s possible America will lease an SSN to Australia. However… British shipyards have finished building Astute class SSN’s so they have availability. While American are backlogged for over a decade. As far as major maintenance and repair the closest to Australia is in the state of Washington in the Pacific northwest.
@@Smokeyr67 …. I agree. However it’s a political decision. Not a military decision. The US Navy hasn’t enough boats. Plus the two American shipyards are years behind schedule in overhauls, refueling, and then there’s new construction ongoing. Washington will be deciding. Not you and I
Based on the timeline and the fact that the UK is already designing the next generation SSN, Australia will most likely get the next gen. US/UK SSN's will serve as a stop gap while these new SSN's are developed. They'll be used to get the Australian navy used to the technology along with generating interest among the kids as they will be the generation to serve on these boats. It's certainly good times from the perspective of an Australian military enthusiast. Current events have completely changed the global world order. Not only will Australia and others have allot more access to the western defence industries, efforts will be ramped up tog get these assets online asap. Australia's navy as too others will be way stronger in another two decades
@Steven Smith, thanks for the comment. Interesting point you and others have made about Australia selecting the next generation of UK SSN. This is entirely possible, unfortunately, the history of Australian Defence procurement has left a lot to be desired. I think it is more likely that IF Australia chooses the UK option, it will be the Astute.
@@Strategy_Analysis Yeah I think that too. The Astute is slightly smaller than the new US SSN's meaning you can get a couple more boats and this is vital for such a massive area to cover. The US and UK SSN's are practically the same in terms of technologies but the Astute definitely looks sexier imo :) Be under no illusion though, nuclear is way better than conventional. Sure, when submerged, conventional may be quieter but it's a moot advantage in the overall scheme of things. 1) Nuclear is allot fast at 32 knots compared to 20 knots for the latest conventi0onal tech. This alone is huge as this is going to be how you catch your prey 2) Nuclear reactors provide far more electricity than conventional subs. This will be needed to power future systems such as unmanned submersibles that will play a vital role in extending the sensor capability of the subs in the near future. Other examples include directed energy laser weapons and sensor upgrades. 3) Stealth ofc. The moment a conventional sub surfaces to recharge, it's vulnerable to detection and this will become more of an issue as the sensors on satellites continue getting better It was certainly the right choice to go nuclear mate. This is why the US and UK haven't bothered with conventional subs
The Astute is the best option from a strategic viewpoint, although I am not sure if that will necessarily be chosen because of UK's tighter production constraints. Nuclear submarines are not required for coastal defence, but power projection and, to be clear, the intended opponent is China. Given that the SSNs are going to operate close to the Chinese mainland, I am unsure of the pactical tactical value of the VLS on the Virginia class. A handful of tomahawks cannot really be expected to penetrate modern fleet defences. The SSNs will also be relying on its stealth to survive in hostile waters, as they are without support from a larger fleet (USN surface forces will probably maintain distance from mainland China owing to ASBMs), so the only realistic weapon will be the torpedo. I suppose if it is operating close to Japan, or from the eastern side of Taiwan, the VLS might be able to be used relatively safely, but that seems quite circumstantial to justify the additional cost of the Virginia class. While I agree there is a high probability that Australia will lease an ex-USN or ex-RN submarine, like the 688i, I also think that is a poor decision that will nevertheless be adopted for political reasons. It costs $600-800 million USD to refuel a 688i (and this is only in 2015 dollars), which needs to be done if Australia is going to be using a decommissioned boat, to say nothing of the fairly imminent disposal cost given you are only using it for a fraction of its service life. Let's say Australia takes 10 years before it sees its first 'permanent' SSN, its government would be paying a high price for only a limited period of service.
Thank you for the comments ENI. Agree that leasing an SSN may be a very expensive option, but as you say might be taken due to politics. A lot of water has to flow under the bridge before any of these possibilities occur. The outcome of Australia's Federal Election may even change things.
I was part of the Sonar 2076 project in the late at the time the predicted performance was head and shoulder any other predicted system, one of the biggest challenges was target overload, the improved performance generated a significant increase in track numbers. I was also on the sidelines of the Collins class procurement, it was clear from the outset that the RAN was very anti a UK solution although a stretched Upholder (the Type 2400) should have been a real contender. It was very revealing that after the Collins class contract had been placed there were large teams of RAN officers visiting Upholder class equipment suppliers trying to bolster their knowledge on these equipments to help them define what was really needed! History has shown that it took them over 20 years to get the Collins class to meet its original specification which the T2400 could have met on day one! ( just look at the Cole report)
I am puzzled why Australia with its changed federal government does not go back to the French and commission them to work with Australia to build a fleet of standard French nuclear submarines, as I understand these French submarines are very good vessels.
@@robertchautardjensen6846 Unsuitable Reactor, the US and UK Reactors have a life span of 30+ years so will not need replacing for the life of the Sub. The French Reactors have to be replaced every 10 years or so. This is the reason why SSNs are now acceptable for Australia. The first of the Suffren class has only just reached full operational capacity so any claims to how good they are should be treated as little more then French propaganda. They need to prove themselves over several years before people should claim they are good Subs.
@@Harldin do you mean the reactor core needs to be replaced every ten years or so? Or the whole reactor? I am perplexed that you suggest these French submarines need to prove themselves over several years. The Collins submarines took more than ten years to debug and yet they seem to be reasonable submarines.
@@robertchautardjensen6846 Well the Reactor Core would need replacing because the French only use a low yield fuel where the US supply weapons grade fuel for both the US and UK Reactors. Whether the French replace the entire Reactor I'm not sure but as they have to cut the Submarine in half to get at the Reactor they may do so, the Reactor would have to be removed and taken to a special facility for the re-fuelling process. Australia wants the US CMS but the US will not allow it to be fitted in French Shipyards, the Reactor refit/replacement would have to be done in France and that is another reason for the French SSN to be ruled out. The Suffren is the first Sub built to this design and like any new Ship class you need to operate it for an extended period to fully work out any Bugs, any issues are fixed and passed on to succeeding Vessels of this class. They should prove to be excellent Subs but they should not be compared at this stage to Astute's or Virginia's due to the immaturity of the project.
@@Harldin This is very interesting. I can see the weapons grade fuel as being more economical over the life of the submarine, on the other hand, perhaps it is more toxic in the event of a catastrophe? Which could mean the French fuel solution might actually have its advantages.
Virginia. The RN only have enough reactors to finish the astute build program. The reactors for dreadnought or Virginia won’t fit into the Astute hull so there isn’t any more. The RAN doesn’t operate our submarine force in tandem with the RN, and aside from Singapore do not share, port or conduct exercise with RN assets. The RAN however does operate extensively with the USN and the US Task Force, we operate regularly with each other and frequently port in USN facilities. Coupled with the geographic location of Guam and availability of support services in the US, and to this our use of BYG-1 and Mk 48; it would be stupid to pick Astute over Virginia.
@@soulsphere9242 the RN has a number of issues that caused them to stop production of the Astute reactors so there isn’t physically one that will fit into Astutes hull. The workforce piece is something that has gained a lot of attention and is certainly achievable for both classes
Having both BAE systems both located at Osborne south / north seems like the best option, 3 or more astutes produced followed by several ssnr new gen uk subs.
A nicely detailed overview of the situation which boils down to: We're all running out of time! AFAIK there's no build capacity in the UK/USA - at all - for an AUS order so AUS must build it's own. But I don't think AUS has the infrastructure or desire to build nuclear vessels on AUS soil, just a need to operate them, I think you touched on this? The US yards are building all the Virginia they can, there's no room for more orders, if there were the USN would grab them and they need to get their new Colombia class off the desk and into the water yesterday. Ohio class are already in need of decommissioning and the USN ponders where that leaves their SSGN capability gap as the Block V Virginia start to build. They're rushing production as safely as possible, but there's no room at the inn. The UK has cut so much infrastructure over the last 30-40yrs the only yard building subs is finishing it's run of 7 Astutes [4 just launched, 5+6 are being completed, 7 has had steel cut] and already starting to cut steel on the 4 new Ballistic missile subs, that project has been delayed so sooo long, the Vanguards they replace may not be able to stay at sea much longer, you just can't refuel/replace these reactors. UK will not delay Dreadnought any further or risk the deterrent itself, not even for besties, sorry mate! HMS Astute was delayed but has been at sea 10+ years, built 2001 launched in 2007, commissioned 2010 [it had issues] it's ALREADY middle aged and in need of replacement as soon as Dreadnought is completed. Design studies have been launched and afaik Sweden is also participating in this process but will not be using nuclear power so, thanks to AUKUS, there's opportunity for UK/US/AUS/Swe to design a sub REPLACING Astute which could implement any unique requirements AUS may have. This process will take a decade at least? followed by 'we can't afford it' I pray that AUKUS can spread the cost as well as expertise. Over 20 years to build 7 boats, R&D not included. 3-4+ years each, the 1st they broke it, 4 was updated and delayed. Seriously is the USA any better or is the Military/Industrial "getting value for it's shareholders" here? Sadly, the larger the sub and more capability built into the hull, the more expensive it becomes. RN complain they don't have enough cruise missile surface strike cap? Put in VLS, not just out the tubes. Need SBS deployment space, garage for toys? Put it in, and a bay for drones too. Not enough torpedo storage for an adversary with [by that time] 600+ ship navy? Give it more room than Seawolf. It goes on and on, and we'll end up with Russia's amazing Belgorod class, but @ 10x the price. For fast construction, keep it simple, keep it cheap, don't let the military/industry fill it with toys and get it in the water asap. THEN build something that makes jaws drop! This is all well and good but your new PM might cancel the whole thing as it's cheaper [more lucrative] to cosy back up to China? Would the people allow it? That took longer than expected thanks for reaching the end
Thanks for the comment @s3p4kner, lots to unpack there. Yes, I was suggesting that it is unlikely that Australia will build the SSNs in Australia, given the infrastructure requirement. Enough will need to be spent just to base them there. And jumping to your last point, it remains to be seen if the new Australian Government will proceed with SSNs. I'm not saying it won't, I am saying it is not certain! Others who know far more about the UK's ability to build SSNs have commented on the likelihood of UK production for Australia. I think the U.S. situation is a little clearer but appears to me to be a zero-sum game, in that what the U.S. might be able to produce for Australia, will mean less for the USN.
Australia's biggest challenge will be enlisting and maintaining sufficient crew plus the whole of life crew costs. The initial capital cost is almost irrelevant. Plus there must be an east coast base near a capital city to have any chance of reliable recruitment and to provide some level of strategic base diversity. So seems the UK sub with absolutely minimal customisation is best?
Going from a medium-displacement conventional SSK like the Collins to a SSN (Astute, Virginia, Barracuda or whatever) is a giant step for a country like Australia.I'm italian, former military, and my country operates a fleet of 8 conventional SSKs ( 4 u212 + 4 Sauro ), not really comparable to a fleet of 8 nuclear subs. In fact, I found many similarities between the needs of our 2 countries, and these similarities can be extended to all the western countries...The big deal is timing. Building a sub requires time, say 5 years from "first cut" to commissioning for a conventional SSK and 7-8 years for an SSN.Western countries spent 20 years (say from the mid-1990s to 2014) without programming a real replacement for their fleets of Subs. Italian navy had 8 Sauro class SSKs, 4 of them were replaced by 4 newly-produced u212 and the other 4 were just left in service, without really thinking about a replacement. A similar thing can be said for Australia, we can say Collins class are already at the end of their life and are for sure not a top-of class SSK. The program to replace them should have started 10 years ago, but in 2022 we still have no idea about the new SSN. Western countries are now facing new threats ( Russia in Europe and China in the Pacific ) with the need to introduce new subs in service in a short period of time because of years-long delays in introducing a real replacement for our actual fleets. Sorry for my english, I hope the point is clear. Anyway, good analysis!
Thank you for the comment Dek Edo. You make some very good points. As you say, moving from SSks to SSNs is a major undertaking, which will take decades to complete. By then, it might be too late to counter the threat which (apparently) is its raison d'etre! And your English is great (far better than my Italian).
@@Strategy_Analysis Thanks. That's exactly my point. Our fleets are aging and we struggle to build subs in time to replace the old ones. We should have thought in terms of capability during early 2000s, instead of simply looking the other way and pretending the end of the cold war stopped every need to maintain capable armed forces. Peace dividends were nothing more than a mirage...
@@Dekeveryour last statement would be truth in any language. Speaking as an American, we spent money like a drunken sailor expecting the peace dividend. Combine this with the large increases in productivity because of the computer and Internet integration, we should have been running budget surpluses- in all of the western First World. That is not what happened. Instead while defense programs did decline, at least in the US, our overall budgets did not. We failed to maintain our nuclear shipbuilding- leaving us with one yard capable of building and maintaining our largest ships. It has had a difficult time keeping a workforce. The submarine situation is worse. With two production sites it should be easy to build the Australian subs. But somehow it is not. I will skip the issues but they are real. None of this should have happened. As you said, the end of the Cold War was an illusion. But politicians can not resist spending it seems, at least while they can still borrow. Insanity.
The build of the Astute Class boats has been between 9 and 11 years. This is the reality of trying to maintain a sovereign sub construction capacity when you only have a small fleet of boats to build. In the UK the total fleet is 11 to 12 boats (SSNs and SSBNs), trying to do so with a even smaller fleet will be even harder still. The Australian build option will easily double the cost of this program and extend the period for the build given the small size of the proposed fleet. Assuming the UK does not build the RAN SSN's, the next generation SSNR needs to be in production by the very early 2030's to have a new built commissioned in time for when the HMS Astute is due to retire in 2042. The US SSNZ program is targeting a similar timeframe The positive for selecting the UK is potential for a win win for both the RAN and RN. The UK needs to build more boast to operate its shipyard at an efficient tempo. With the next generation boats chasing 40+ year service lives, this means they need to build more boast or stretch out the build even further, one could argue that the RAN SSN's are critical to the UK projects viability. The US understands that keeping the Brits in the game is important. It really should be obvious by now that this is about so much more than more than just the RAN getting SSN's. Can you build them in Australia. The answer is yes, sort of. As a minimum the reactor section, (probably the machinery section as well) would have to built overseas and mated with the sections built in Australia. Building Subs in Australia means you will be commissioning a new boat every five to six years. You might get your first boat in the early 2040's, but it will be along wait for the second. If you build Virginia or Astute class boats in Australia you will still be be building these boats in the 2060's, decades after their construction has ended in the US or UK. In both cases these reactors are now old designs and given the increased size of the new generation designs, you couldn't put the new reactors into the these boats. This will make upgrading them to keep them current will be expensive as we would be up for the cost of designing a new reactor as some point. Building these old designs will look very silly when the RN's first SSNR is commissioned years ahead of the first Australian built boat. The RAN program's biggest problem by far is terrible timing. The US is putting all its efforts this decade into the Columbia SSBN and will need to transfer those resources to its SSNX program in the 2030's. Finding US based resources to assist an Australian effort is looking like fantasy, unless you want to wait until 2040's to start stand up your Australian shipyard. That timing might work if you want the buy the US SSNX class submarine, but will mean the RAN will not receive a boat until 2050 and have a significant capability gap with no easy way of filling it. Given SSN's are in short supply, leasing is looking hard. Getting a single boat for training probably the limit of what is reasonable to expect. One point that is often missed is that the UK and US operate two very different nuclear ecosystems. Each based on their experience over decades operating Nuclear powered submarines. Each have developed systems for which are very different. Like comparing Android and Apple mobile phones. They set out to complete the same task, but do it very differently. Training requirements, roles, equipment, everything is different. Nothing is transferable between the two. To answer your question, you you can't operate a Virginia with a smaller crew, because it would no longer comply with the USN nuclear safety protocols. The opportunity that is missed by most is the disposal of SSN's. The UK is yet to build a proper facility for disposing of its nuclear sub fleet. We could build a facility in Australia to handle both RAN and RN boats and build boats for both in the UK. This would provide the jobs with skills we actually have. Unlike a shipyard which will employ mostly expats.
Excellent points Mark. Thank you. Timing is everything in life! The political imperative for a local construction may come undone due to being nuclear vessels. A total overseas build will be extremely difficult to sell to the Australian public, as will the likely cost of only building some of the 8 (at this stage) suggested. The next 12 months will be very interesting.
I think more the issue would be is because Australia is late to come onboard with the program it sets the program back. The UK has already built its subs so 10 years or so will go by and then Australia will just receive its first batch off submarines. So the extension off the program has to be set leaving Australia atleast 10 to 15 years behind schedule. The additional cost would be to extend the program beyond schedule to keep Australia upto date with technology a new system put into new designd submarines may require integrating on older subs for its mid term upgrades. So when the UK is to build its new subs to replace the other Australia will be just in mid term with its subs. This will increase costs off the program. I believe to fix that issue is to build upgraded Collins class submarines for now. And wait for the next batch off submarines to roll out from UK it will give more time for Australia to learn about nuclear powerd submarines and they will be àlway on schedule for when the next batch off submarines get built. Rather always be set back mid lifespan during builds. This will probably solve the issue with submarines builds but not necessarily for Australia defence as nuclear powerd submarines are needed now as a requirement. Australia should had got onbard a decade ago they left it too late during this program
@@Nathan-ry3yu Hence my point about terrible timing. The choice is really between the next generation US or British boats, not the current generation. Once you make that decision then you can start charting a path to get the RAN there. Obtaining a current generation boat as a training boat would be part of that process. The recent tragedy in Indonesia should be seen as a reason why extending the lives of the current Colins class boats has its limits. Talk of extending the service lives of these boats to a fifty year service live needs to be opposed. As crazy as the previous RAAF efforts to keep the F-111's in service for a similar service live. So I agree there is a good argument for acquiring an interim capacity. Given the global shortage of SSN's, it would have to be an SSK. As for building an upgraded Collins class. This is simply not realistic. We need a off the shelf solution that delivers boats to the RAN this decade. Not another program that requires a ten year research and development program followed by a five year build that does not deliver a boat before 2038. The idea being to avoid an expensive and risky life extension process. Japan is a potential source of quality second hand boats. They retire subs early by global standards (after only 24 years of service) to enable a continuous build without operating a massive fleet. They also have many systems which are related to those use in Collins. They have a Swedish propulsion system and a combat system supplied by Lockheed Martin that was the basis of the one used in Collins. This could provide a cost effective solution to the problem that does not put the lives of RAN submariners in danger. There is one other nation we really should be talking to, and that country is South Korea. They are like us a top tier US ally, and like Australia they have recently decided to seek nuclear powered submarines for their navy. They also make conventionally powered boast that use a lot of US systems. I am not saying it is a better option, but if there is an argument for adding a fourth country to AUKUS, that country has to be South Korea.
The UK build speed is deliberately slow, with only 11 Subs required every 30 years you need a continuous build program or you lose all that expertise if you stop at any time. Australia is building a massive new facility for building Submarines that will be one of the most modern shipyards in the world.
@@Harldin Next generation boats are chasing an increase in service life to forty years. This means we can expect a the UK to work to a 120 month build to do as you say achieve a continuous build program. Our problem is can how do we achieve a continuous build program whilst building fewer boats? Three options build more boats, slow the build program even more or retire them early.
To be brief , 1. Lease a Trafalgar to expose Australian to the realities and potential of operations with these platforms . 2. Something the R.N. will not like the seventh and final Austute H.M.S. Agincourt will be sold to Australia leaving the U.K. with just six but kick starting the Australian procurement programme . Austute will be built alongside the Dreadnought programme . The entry into service of the U.K. bomber programme will be elongated but Barrow will get seven new subs to build Australia will be happy H.M.s Treasury will be ecstatic and politically we will draw closer to our southern brethren . Another thought this might trigger Canada to follow suit . A second production facility at Liverpool , where Nuke subs were once built , to ease the bottleneck at Barrow could and probably would be considered . More skilled jobs and apprenticeships to Mersyside but for the Royal Navy once again it will be a case of jam tomorrow !
One thing about the crewing issue: If you join the Army, you get to play with some of the best weapons and equipment in the world, and the Air Force has sexy F18s and is now receiving the most hi-tech and stealthy jets on the planet. They're both appealing options. What does joining the RAN at the moment offer you? You get to serve on mid-range destroyers, frigates or subs. Nothing bad, but not really inspiring. If they acquire a dozen of the most advanced, deadliest and stealthy subs ever made, a lot of the recruitment problems will solve themselves
Good comment @Binkophile. You may well be correct, but the number of additional crew needed for either of these subs is very significant given Australia's population. No doubt Australia will (again) look to recruit for select Navies around the world.
From everything I've read, the Hobarts are pretty good, they just don't have the huge vls cells like the arleigh burkes or chinas big destroyer/cruiser. But are comparable to the UK's destroyers. The Canberra Class LHD's are the biggest LHD's in the world outside of the two super powers, although several countries like france have plans to build even bigger ones in the future. The hunter frigates have the potential to be the best frigates in the world, IF they can sort out the teething issues that are being reported. I'm not holding my breath though.
@@Strategy_Analysis yeah, it looks like it's in a bit of trouble sadly, hard to know if their excuses that problems were expected and will be worked through are genuine or not.
Australian Defence Minister Marles was in London last week for meetings with the PM and the DEFSEC, attending the commissioning of HMS Anson. The UK DEFSEC Wallace said something interesting in that it may not necessarily be an Astute/Virginia choice but hinted at the possibility of an AUKUS SSN design for all 3 members.
@@RPMZ11 Anson was commissioned on 31 Aug so would have been Johnson. Sorry got no idea who Larry Churchill is, if he is the next UK PM I hope he likes Australians far more than his famous namesake did. Funny how everyone was laughing at Australia for changing PMs often, a few years back, at least they all lasted at least 1 year.
The build time for an Astute submarine is bull. The UK has staggered the build so that it doesn't have to lay of skilled workers for years until a new sub is needed. Production can be ramped up if needed, and it would be a simple task to get the more complicated rear end (nuclear powered bit) built at Barrow, while having the rest of the sub built in Australia. Astute has been tested against Virginia class, and has been found to be more than equal in certain area's. She may not have all the 'bang for buck', but she can more than do what she was designed for, a true hunter-killer, and she does it without the extra whistles, or the extra price tag.
I suspect that irrespective of which design we go with, the Reactor will come as a complete hull module ready to be joined with the rest of the Sub. That may include the entire rear half of the Sub (on both Astute and Virginia the Reactor sits just behind the Sail) or just the Reactor module.
Aussie Naval officers are already recognised commissioned officers in the Royal Navy, and Astute has the latest tech - go RN! Also, VLS - a) Are Aussie subs anti-shipping platforms, or land-attack stand-off platforms? b) You can launch cruise missiles from torpedo tubes anyway. C'mon, Oz, let's get the band back together...
Thanks for the comment Neil. Agree, the Astutes seem the best option. Yes can launch cruise missiles through the torpedo tubes, I was just highlighting that the Virginia's have more "tubes".
Both are supremely capable vessels, but one v important factor not discussed here (especially if you're going to operate in the South China sea!) is stealth. The Astute is coated with sonar-absorbing tiles and is one of the world's quietest nuclear subs, with a noise signature "equivalent to that of a baby dolphin" according to some reports. It also has the Thales 2076 sonar, which apparently can sit in the English channel and listen to a halibut sneeze in New York harbour (or something along those lines!). Another factor is the RR PWR2 reactor in the Astute has a long life core which won't require a mid-life refuelling, removing a significant cost consideration normally associated with nuclear subs. I would go with Astute therefore, but must declare a bias as a Brit!
Thanks Martin, important considerations. The current Australian Government has suggested a decision would be made within 18 months. It is also likely that interim boats will be leased until the actual boats come into service.
The other issues with the Virginia's is that they aren't any good for shallow waters. They need deep water. The north of Australia is mostly shallow. Neither class is small enough to be able to operate the way we want them to.
This is all true, but both those subs can and will patrol far and wide, well away from the shores of AUS, they won't and shouldn't some to littoral waters when the AUS have impressive Air and Navy assets to do the job. During the Falklands war RN subs wouldn't chase Argentine ships such as Vincento de Mayo and Belgrano escorts through the relatively shallow waters of the Argentine coast without being targeted by Argentine Air and Naval power. Not because they couldn't. That was a
@@s3p4kner Except that is not how we use subs. We use them to gather intelligence close to shore. Now I have no problem with allowing the US and UK to use our facilities but our subs need to be smaller with less then 60 crew or else we may as well not even have them.
About time Australia thought "outside the box" on this subject. We have ordered from the French a sub that we demanded was converted from nuclear powered to diesel/ electric (at an additional cost of $600 Million), cancelled that, and now wish to order either from the U.S. or Britain, both with very long lead times when we desperately need all the military equipment we can get a.s.a.p. Why not consideer the Los Angeles class nuclear subs that the U.S. is decommissioning as they replace them with the Virginia class. They are available very quickly, are a proven sub, and they would cost much less than either alternative. The U.S. would love to have Australia outfitted with nuclear equipment to help balance the power in S.E. Asia.
They are old and flogged out. The USN submarine fleet is aging and they are losing units faster than they can build them. No way they are giving us submarines when are going down in numbers.
Everybody seems happy with a single style of sub. There should be a layered approach to Australia's huge area of concern. Japanese designed air-independent units for regional concerns. Nuclear for stategic concerns and drones for deeper war fighting
Hi Weblight. Yes this is great in theory, what brings it undone for a country the size of Australia is cost. Australia would be getting a small number, say 4, or each which adds costs to logistic support and training. In a perfect world, your idea would be great.
@@weblightstudio8215 No worries Weblight. I try to respond to all comments. Your suggestion is not totally out of sight. If Australia got a great deal on say 4 SSNs (not built in Australia), and then got a great deal on building 4 or so Japanese SSKs in Australia, its possible. But I wouldn't bet on it.
@@Harldin Thanks mate, The Japanese subs were cheaper and better than most options, also available to have the keels laid now. I knew they werent nukes.
Regarding the crewing, I would suggest that SSN service has more appeal than diesel/electric, and also that female crew can be accommodated. Finding the crew may not be such a problem for these more comfortable boats.
Hi Raymond, thanks for the comment. More space and more comfortable will no doubt be more appealing. And no doubt more and better facilities for the female crew. However some Australians, even in the military, have issues with nuclear (even if only power). Also, Australia has a small population compared to other countries that operate SSNs. Also, Submarines in Australia are paid better than their surface fleet equivalents.
No women onboard. Can only reduce crew functionality. Recruiting for the Collins is due to its poor reputation. SSNs will be an entirely different story.
It appears we now have a date and place for the announcement, San Diego Naval Base, 13 Mar (local time). Both the UK and Aus PMs have now been reported as travelling to the US this W/E.
More likely to be Astute, but mostly because BAe own Barrow, and also own ASC, the builders yard in Adelaide (Osborne) Presently, Collins are going to progress through LOTE (Life of Type Extension) to service the gap Yes the plan is 8 AUKUS boats, but it seems to me these will be in service very late unless purchased from Barrow Heres the kicker, the Collins are better in the littoral waters to the north, and patrol sorties are around the same length, and theyre quieter. Construction in Adelaide is politically also a factor, this was decided when we had the Oberons and couldnt acquire parts for them. It would be my suggestion, that the first Collins be used as a prototype, this will work out a new drive, new sensors, new combat system, and high tech battery. Then that a new batch of Collins boats 471-2 BATCH 2 be constructed in Adelaide And that 4 Astute be acquired from Barrow. We can have 3 Collins for each Astute. Collins cost A$850 mill in 1991, now that value would ascend to A$1.36 bill in todays money, say 1.5 with a stretch (already researched for intended AIP) and LOTE features (budgeted) . that provides 16 new boats on the same money, and retains 1 LOTE, plus the cycle down of the existing Collins fleet.
@@Ferrastar "with ASC Shipbuilding becoming a subsidiary of BAE Systems Australia and subsequently renamed BAE Systems Maritime Australia in 2021" ASC Annual report pp5 www.asc.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Annual_Report_2021.pdf
A lot of technology is shared between the UK and US I wonder how much commonality the two subs share ? If it's a lot it maybe that the assumption any sub leased will lead to that countries sub being purchased is probably in doubt. Unfortunately, the UK has just decommissioned the last 2 Trafalgars, to be honest they look pretty knackered, and I suspect a lot of work would be required to get their lives extended.
I see the crew being one of the major issues frankly, which means neither class is ideal for Australia. What they really need is a Class of boats designed specifically for their requirements, including that reduced crew. That will be years away though. Until then I would see the Astute's being the best option for the meantime, if only because of the reduced crew complement in comparison to the Virginia's. Say 3 - 4 boats to give Australia the experience operating Nuclear boats and to give them a credible submarine force while they design and build their own Boats specific to their requirements.
Australia has announced a plan to increase the ADF from 60,000 to 80,000 over the next 20 years, so the RAN will be up to about 21-22,000 from the current 15-16,000. The ADF has been around 60,000(give or take 2000) since the late 70s but the pop of Australia has gone from 16m to 26m
@@boogle785 Just don't get the point of AUKUS do you? Don't get just how big a deal Australia getting US Reactor technology is, do you? The US has stated that no other country will be given access to that same technology. Australia had to give certain guarantees that France would not have access to the US CMS during construction of the Attack class.
FYI Aus/UK submarine crews, officers in particular already operate on each others boats. Astute is already a decade+ into it's 25-30yr lifespan, design planning has already started on replacement & if AUS is NOT a part of that already then maybe we need to crack some politicians heads together? Astute is cutting edge now, but it won't be by the time it needs replacing, if AUS knows what it wants then it will be incorporated I'm sure. But this could all take *Decades* and maybe time isn't on our side for many, many reasons?
The strategic value of having VLS capability in the new SSNs is not something we should dismiss lightly. There is less need for the Astute class to have this capability as the RN has dedicated SSBs. Giving the RAN the ability to launch a subsurface Tomahawk attack against strategic targets, at considerable range from Australia, would given any potential adversary reason to pause.
Thanks for the comment Kevin. Certainly, the VLS cells would add to the total weapons layout. As far as I know, the Trafalgar's can launch long-range cruise missiles from their torpedo Tubes, so will still have the capability to speak of.
China will not lose sleep over the threat of a few dozen tomahawk's especially when they can retaliate a hundred fold. Going to a Virginia Block V is bracket creep on steroids for Australia. A mix of nuclear and diesel electric subs for Australia with some torpedo tube launched Harpoons and Tomahawks will more than suffice. The whole idea of taking on China in a war is ridiculous and Taiwan should just go down the Israel path and spend 5-6% of GDP on defence, build up a huge one million man reserve army with tens of thousands of artillery including rocket artillery along with a few thousand ballistic and cruise missiles that can accurately target China's ports and airfields plus ample ant ship and SAM systems then they won't need the US, Japan or little Oz if China goes mad and tries to undertake an invasion of Taiwan.
Agreed KQ, But...the problem with sub launched VLS/ Harpoon anti air....you give away your position. Check -6 with YTs Naval News, where they showed the new advanced French SSN concept...where they will have on board launch bays detaching drone subs....that could perform multi task ops....while having the mother ship remain hidden.
The Virginia Block 5 has a far greater weapons payload. This seems to be a very important capability, allowing the submarine to stay 'on station' for a much greater period. Another important question to ask: when will Australian possess this weapon's platform? The faster the better. If you are going to have a submarine fleet, USE IT OR LOSE IT.
By the time Australia gets SSNs - both Astutes and Los Angeles will be very old designs. Astutes first entered service in 2010. As identified our shipyard is busy finishing off the Astutes and building our next missile boats. Unless we re-start building in another shipyard, Barrow is full and busy for the next 20yrs. Our next generation missile boats are already under construction. As for using interim old T class boats - they are all out of service and old boats. I would think that their cores would need replacing
In any case a new sub will not be ready for conflict with China and focus should be on new electrical and propulsion systems for the collins class and if possible building some new Collins with automation to make the original 42 crew possible instead of the 58 that it currently takes.
They tried with the French sub…but china already now has complete details of this sub including some technical information on Collins thanks largely to The Australian taxpayer and the French government
Sorry……..I am not against either vessel….,,but I have not heard anyone make the case for the need for a strike capacity. Where there is no doubt, Australia needs a Conventional replacement for the Collins Class. A Swedish design…..definitely a consideration. A German design…..maybe. Japanese Soryu Class……yes, definitely. Nuclear is a huge step. Could the cover be carried out by aviation……yes. Could the coverage be carried out by a huge Japanese Cruiser Class……yes. The discussion is to confused at the present time.
Thanks for the comment, Robert. I agree it is a confusing discussion at the moment. One does wonder where we would be if the Japanese Soryu-class had been chosen instead.
My bet is two gifted Los Angeles class attack boat. I have read that Astute and Virginia are impossible because of scheduling in manufacturing and construction.
Agree that gifting a couple of SSNs in the interim is highly likely. What we might be gifted will depend on Australia's choice for the final capability. If Australia goes for the Virginia, then lease some Los Angeles class SSN. If Australia goes for the Astutes, then lease some Trafalgars (is possible).
The only issue I see with the RAN procuring the Astute class is the the fact that the Collins class uses the same weapons (Mk 48 adcap torpedoes) and combat system (AN/BYG-1) as the Virginia class and I can’t see the navy wanting to scrap those systems, which they have made a significant investment in over the years in favour of equivalent British systems, even if they are better. Conversely attempting to retrofit those systems into the Astute design could be problematic and cause cost overruns and delays which is something the RAN is trying to avoid by procuring an off the shelf design. While I think the Astute class would be the best fit for the RAN, I am intrigued by the the possibility of Australia procuring the Block V Virginia and it’s 40 cell VPM. Especially considering Australia largely gave up its long range strike capability when we retired the F-111’s and a Block V Virginia armed with hypersonic cruise and and anti-ship missiles makes for one hell of a big stick that would make any potential enemy think twice about messing with us.
Good points @The Hellridr. Maintaining the same combat system will be very appealing, and as we both have said changing/modifying equipment normally doesn't end up well for the ADF. This then points to the Virginia, with the Block V adding a lot more capability through its VPM. Does the ADF need this extra capability? They'll certainly be paying substantially more for it.
A couple of things, irrespective of which Sub we get it will be the AN/BYG-1 CMS, the Collins were not originally fitted with it, and the Attacks were to get it, should not be a drama and once fitted it would actually be easier to integrate the Mk 48 ADCAP Torpedo and the Astute already uses both Harpoon and Tomahawk. I can't see Australia getting the Block V and its actually only 28 Cells in the VPM, the other 12 Cells are fitted to all Virginia's in a separate place.
Why ask the UK to take part in the group if they were not going to build the boats. The USA get bases for their part plus the deal is not just about subs.
The HMS /Astute Class having been Designed and the building departments already Tooled up for the class with Engineers experienced in its Program it appears that it would be Australia’s best option particularly in regards to the crew numbers a distinct advantage .Not forgetting the cost also being a saving that could be used towards Crewing the Boats do to speak .....J
We are not getting either. 98 crew is over 30% more crew then a collins and we barely have enough to operate those. Our future in Submarines needs to be smaller and unmanned. For those saying well you just hire more the problem with that is the RAN has an image problem for a start and joining the military is not on peoples list of things to do. We also have the dole where you get paid by the government to not work. We don't do compulsory military service and enforcing it would be political suicide. The Australian military also doesn't take dreggs like the US does. It isn't 1914 or 1939 any more.
Thanks for the comments Craig. As I say in the briefing crewing will be a problem, maybe the RAN can crew 4 SSNs, combined with some unmanned underwater vessels.
My two cent's: I can't see a solution to Australia getting SSN's that doesn't involve a new production line being opened somewhere. Nether the US nor the UK have the reserve capacity to accept an Australian order, at least for an entire boat. The British are tooling up to build the Dreadnought class SSBN and will be shutting down the the Astute production line as part of that. The Dreadnought's are far overdue an can not be delayed any further. Meanwhile the US has been complaining that it's SSN build pace is too slow for over a decade now and will be tooling up to build the Ohio class SSBN replacement soon too, which will eat into their already slow SSN production. The old ASC production line is long gone and was designed for a 3,000t boat anyway, not a 7 to 11,000t boat. So if a new factory is being built; then where? For an Australian politician (Australia will foot the bill after all) any choice other than Adelaide will end your career instantly and be quickly overturned by your successor (See Abbot). Australia does not have the ability to manufacture high performance nuclear power plants though (Lucas Heights is a 10MW toy for Uni students, not a 200MW+ power plant). So the reactor will be built overseas. Rolls-Royce no longer produces the PWR2 reactor in the Astute class. They've moved on to the PWR3 which is a massive reactor and simply won't fit into an SSN, period. It's bloody huge and designed for SSBN's. The US however is still building the S9G in volume. Could a S9G fit in a Astute? Maybe. Is it a good idea to try? No. So that means for the boat we're left with three options: - Waiting until 2040 for a next-gen British built reactor to go into a yet to be designed boat. - Waiting until 2040 for a next-gen American built reactor to go into yet to be designed boat. - Putting American built S9G reactors into Australian built Virginia Block 6/7 hulls (possibly without the VLS to save money and crew) in 2030. Sorry guys, "Oztutes" is pretty unlikely.
great post @Tranquility Base. Thanks. IF Australia does end up going for SSNs, I think it very likely an interim boat(s) will be leased. This could then change the calculus.
@@Strategy_Analysis Would the electronics integration with other defence platforms be consideration? Surface ships and aircraft. GPS might be obsolete. Australia seems to prefer US weapons.
@@petersinclair3997 I agree that Australia does seem to prefer U.S. weapons. Absolutely integration of different "electronics" is always an issue for any country. Australia has a long and troubled history with this, and it's not the only country to suffer from this.
@@Strategy_Analysis I'll point out that the UK/ANZAC have a long history of interoperability, crew sharing et.c and since UK want's to have more direct global presence, I've no doubt that an RN sub operating in the pacific is going to find itself based in AUS and 1/2 it's crew will not be British. I understand a lot of former RN personnel work in Aus and operate in the RAN/ANZAC anyway. The devil is in the details but that 'could' take some pressure off the timelines? The politicians will have to sort out the rest. Going forward, if RAN have an idea of performance and equipment, then they can jump on board either AUKUS next gen programs and some deal will be struck, and preferably like the RN carriers, the contract will be so prohibitively expensive to break that no politician would dare try. see UK PM Cameron mocking his predecessor in Parliament, that he'd made a mess of the carrier contacts and would have cancelled both if he could. He hadn't messed up of course, but that's another story. A question that should be asked in AUS [louder?]: Can the RAN build it's 10 or 8 or 5+ subs more cheaply by itself, than buying the same design from it's ally and benefit from economy of scale from their now increased order book. e.g the RN could now build in full or in part 15-20 boats? Is that number still too small to matter?
@@s3p4kner I have previously worked with former RN officers in Australia. There is as you say a long tradition of interoperability and exchanges. And no Australia can't build SSNs more cheaply than anywhere else, in fact, there is a cost "premium" Australia is prepared to pay for local construction. How could this extra money (the cost premium) be spent otherwise???
It will be the SSN(R) because the both the Astute and Virginia will be elderly design rather than mature. The astutes reactor ceases production when the last one is built for the fourth Dreadnought SSBN. The timeline for the RAN and RN is the same for the SSN(R). American submarines require 130 plus people whereas the SSN(R) could be less than the 98 of the Astute. The PWR3 reactor will be on the future Royal Navy submarine and the benefit is it can be designed to meet our exact requirements at the same time while the Royal Navy design is happening.
Australian politicians are going to save the country a fortune by restricting the choice to models that are not available. Australia should invest in a ton of Rustoleum for the Collins boats, they better last a hundred years. Good on ya!
And then if you wanted to really go for a nuclear submarine you could of course, with common sense, just have switched from the Shortfin Barracuda SSK to the Barracuda SSN (of which the Shortfin Barracuda was a conventional derivative specifically for Australia). Much of the work had already been done.
Hi Charl. I might be wrong, but I think one issue with the French SSN is that it uses different fuel, so requiring the boat to have a mid-life refuel, which isn't the case for the Astute or Virginia.
@@Strategy_Analysis At present yes. The French use a lower grade nuclear fuel as far as I am aware which makes disposal less of an issue. The Rubis class initially had to refuel every 5 years it is now 30. 10 years is normally in sync with a major refit cycle on normal boats. The discussion in terms of 2nd hand nuclear boats. Has nobody learned from the Canadian Upholders (And they were conventional). Regardless I predict the Collins is going to be operating for a veryyy long time still.
@@charlcoetzee281 Yes important point about disposal, which is extremely expensive for nuclear-powered vessels. The French ship should be cheaper to dispose of than the UK and U.S. ships.
Clearly it will be the UK offering. I imagine that is the only reason the UK is apart of AUKUS? Otherwise why would we need a treaty with the UK who have no real interest down here. That and an Astute visited Stirling last year.
I believe it has to be a tripartite agreement because both the UK and US boats contain technology that comes from the other country, and therefore has to have agreement form the other country to be transferred to a third party. Viz: reactor tech in the Astute and Quietening and propulsion tech in the Virginia. I think the Astute meets the requirements Australia has at a substantial savings per boat in build cost, and operational cost with a smaller complement required to run the boat. It also can deploy tomahawk cruise missile via the torpedo tubes. There is also a slot available that could be used to build an Astute boat at Barrow and at the same time train up Aus staff for building the boats in Aus, when there is the capability established (This is so the fleet build can be spread out in time and prevent loss of skills by building all the boats at once and then have a gap to the next orders). The US are fully committed to their build out with all slots taken, they will have to make a slot available to build a boat for Aus. It makes sense to buy from Britain, though I'm a Brit & hence slightly biased!
Why isn’t the Australian government looking also at French Barracuda class. Less crew needed and could the French supply them faster than the UK or USA?. The Australian Government needs the replacement ASAP as the Collins need to be replaced soon.
Because they need refuelling in 10 years, which means we are beholden to France for keeping our fleet going. We lose our sovereign capability to make our own decisions.
Evolve the Collins to meet medium term defence needs and then transition it to nuclear propulsion for delivery during the 2040's. AUKUS would deliver the nuclear propulsion technology, the rest would remain as a sovereign Australian capability. Think big.
Astute rolls-royce pw2 reactor has had some problems In January 2012 radiation was detected in the PWR2 test reactor's coolant water and The regulator identified two major areas where UK practice fell significantly short of comparable good practice: loss-of-coolant accident and control of submarine depth following emergency reactor shutdown The regulator concluded that PWR2 was "potentially vulnerable to a structural failure of the primary circuit", which was a failure mode with significant safety hazards to crew and the public. There's a new pw3 reactor now 3 was a new system "based on a US design but using UK reactor technology UK was given access to the US Navy S9G reactor design used in their Virginia-class submarines if RAN get Astute we have the pw3 reactors in them PWR3's longer life over the 25-year life PWR2 designs.
This might seem like a silly question. Why not get both? UK & US have limited manufacturing capability in context of meeting their own demands. We seem to need them ASAP. Why not get 4 or 5 of each? Also gives us more diverse capability. Not to mention not putting all your eggs in one basket
i think that it would be easier in a time of war to get supplies of the usa as opposed to the uk. i think the us navy has a great record at running sub reactors, i dont know if that is an indication of a better design. they must be amongst the most experienced people in the world just through hours run with reactors. and the usa spends heaps more than the uk of defence in general so upgrades would be more likely to come from the usa. but australia for some reason doesnt buy ships off the usa. for the example the destroyers, the navy does a report finds they want the arleigh burke and we build some frankenstein with half the capability and less range.
Crew sizes are the biggest problem with the US sips. A couple of examples Virginia 135 Astute 98 Burke 320 Hobart 200 Wasp 1000 Canberra 360 Nimitz 3200+ Air Group Queen Elizabeth 700+ Air Group/Marines The Hobart is a modified Spanish F-101 Frigate, updated due to being 10 years younger but hardly a "Frankenstein's Monster*" The Hobarts are good ships, the major problem is we should have got them 10 years earlier instead of the FFGUP and got at least 4.
@@Harldin spanish hull, german engine, usa fire control. sounds pretty frankensteinish to me. they're more expensive, with half the missile tubes and less range. all after the navy said they wanted arleigh burkes. they fit in well with our collins class frankensteins and our frankenstein canberra class. that seem to have been included because defence noted a lack of port facilities during the east timor thing. i think churchill said generals are always prepared to fight the last war, and it couldnt be more of an apt statement directed at the australian military. our navy at least needs to adopt the jeune ecole naval doctrine. and i hope this is a good first step. i would be happy if we didnt even have a surface fleet. and an after thought on crew numbers. if we cant get people that want to get on the most cutting edge piece of millitary equipment that our country has ever had, with the best chance of survivability in the event of a new war, we may as well give up. if we gave them a distinctive tough looking uniform, more money, refered to them as the navies/countries elite, gave them good trips and cut back on the amount of surface ships, i cant see there being as bad a staffing problem as we have now. best of luck to you and yours and give your dog a pat for me adam
@@adamroodog1718 Sorry but I think calling all 3 Frankenstein's* is a bit far fetched, the most important thing on the Hobarts is the CMS-Weapons mix and that comes from the same place and at the time we ordered the Hobarts the Spanish Ships where proven and in service and had been designed, based on the Perry Class which Spain had just finished building and the cost blowout was caused by the Gillard Government slowing down the build. It would not have mattered if we had built F-101, G&C Baby Burkes or full sized Burkes. Did you know that the US has never exported a brand new Submarine only rebuilds under the GUPPY program. and very few new Surface ships other then some Adams class DDGs and Perry class FFGs PS: *Frankenstein was the Mad Scientist who built the Monster, the Monster had no name.
@@Harldin "2 : a monstrous creation especially : a work or agency that ruins its originator." i was on one of those adams. and no i didnt know that. but isnt that what aukus is for? to be fair i dont think there is much room to build more subs in the usa. the bloke on subrief does a rundown on US naval spending and i think from memory they are expanding their numbers. if i had to bet i would bet on astute. but i wanted to point out its not all champagne and roses. england is a long way away, and even further in the event of a war. it would be much easier to drop into the local US base for repaoirs and get topped up with weapons.
I kept watching even after you missed explaining the cost units in the table, but lost me when you failed to include the south pacific in your maps of regions with strategic significance that the Aukus sub would patrol. .. the shipping lanes, east coast cities, Honiara and Beijing, resources.....
@@Strategy_Analysis The Dutch are looking at three possible contenders to replace their four Walrus Class SSK's - Naval Group, TKMS and SAAB/Damen. They are also dragging their feet but perhaps within a year they may choose a winning bid? My guess is that the new Labor government will decide to buy a small number of SSN's to be built by the supplier nation and build 6-8 SSK's in Adelaide that are smaller than the Attack class but similar to the Collins class. The winner of the Dutch submarine contract, if it does proceed, may be a good contender for any SSK's for the RAN. I have read that the SAAB/Damen A26 Oceanic ER or Blekinge class may be more practical to build in Australia than a minimally updated Collins class as most of the original Collins class suppliers have long ago disappeared or no longer make any applicable components. The Japanese and South Koreans make excellent subs cost effectively but may find it hard to build subs in Australia due to cultural differences. Building any SSK's in Australia is an important requirement to ensure adequate through life support and for local political reasons. Australia can build SSK's cost competitively with the Europeans I believe and to a similar schedule.
@@andreasbimba6519 You may well be correct Andreas. With the change of government in Australia, it is entirely possible that they will go with a split order.
Hi Michael, although I didn't explicitly mention it, by inference I am saying that even if for some reason Australia wanted to "double crew" its SSNs, it is highly unlikely it will be able to.
Britain's already designing its new SSN. Britain wont need to start replacing the Astutes until 2037 at the earliest, so won't need to start building until the late 2020's, 2030's. So Australia will likely get the new design of SSN from Britain, laying the steal within the next two years. It will look like a smaller Dredknot SSBN, minus the VLS for the nukes. So it could have its first boat before 2030, with a boat following each year.
@@petersinclair3997 Less crew and more affordable mostly, but the Astute also seems to be at least as good if not a little better at sinking ships, having 6 torpedo tubes instead of 4. Although the Virginia would be much better at land attack with all the tomahawks it can carry especially with the block 5. It may or may not be worth the extra cost to the RAN, not that I'd be unhappy with the Virginia, I don't like to be too picky.
Its been a "lay down misery" that it will be British since day 1. This is solidifying. 2 more astute on order for RN then manufacturing capacity is available,
Most likely it will be the British Astute class. The American will provide the nuclear propulsion and missiles/weapons. Otherwise, what is the need for the British involvement? And the Astute class is smaller, cheaper, less crews. My observation.
Britain wants to join the CP TPP, post Brexit. Boris is jumping on the wagon as America and Australia cooperate more on defence R&D. There are economic considerations too. Australia has an AAA Stable economy and is about to spend big on Defence to counterbalance China’s hegemony into the Pacific. Recently, jumped an extra AUD 270 Billion over 2020s decade budget estimates. Some of costs to be offset by Australia going into the long range missile business. Also, Australia and the US work together on AI drones and scramjets.
The RAN SSN will be by a very big margin, the largest most expensive Submarine export order in history, no one country has ever ordered 8 SSKs from another country. So irrespective of where they are built a brand new production line has to be set up and a whole new workforce trained to build them, just as well do all that at Osborn which was already being constructed to build large Subs(Attacks) and another 45 Hectares has just been purchased for this reason. UK Sub building is set up to do one thing only, commission a RN Submarine once every 30 or so months, they no longer build SSKs so there is no capacity for an export order and the RANs SSN req is actually more then the RNs, just the RN also has a requirement for 4 SSBNs and the Dreadnought class will immediately follow the Astutes. The US currently have 26 LA class Subs all over 26 yo still in service and are only producing Virginia's at the rate of 2 a year and have just started building the Columbia class SSBNs. One major factor you have missed is which Reactor will be used. The Astutes have the RR PWR2(25 year life cycle) Reactor but the Dreadnoughts will have the RR PWR3(33 year life cycle) reactor, considering the state of both programs I would doubt the PWR2 is still in production and RR are now producing the PWR3 and considering the fact, that would require a 42% increase in Reactor production would have to put a doubt on there ability to supply Australia's requirements. I think an Astute powered by a US S9G Reactor is a real possibility.
Thank you for the very detailed comment Harldin. To address your last question first, you are correct I didn't address the reactor issue. As I mention Australia has a (bad) habit of "Australianising" defence procurement, to its detriment. So I am suggesting Australia will chose an SSN with as little modification as possible. The reactor may then become an important determinant. As to whether the U.S. or UK is best placed to fit Australia's initial (at least) SSNs into their production lines, I think the jury is still out on that.
My bet is on Richard Marles going for 2 to 4 SSN's to be built O/S and 6 to 8 SSK's of a smaller design than the Attack class to be built in Adelaide - all ASAP.
@@Harldin You may be right but we will soon see when the 18 month nuclear sub investigation is completed whether the US or the UK can build some SSN's for the RAN or assist with building some in Adelaide until then we are all guessing. My guess is that if Australia can build the capacity to build SSN submarines then surely the UK is even better positioned to build additional capacity and still build the Dreadnoughts to schedule. My guess is the new Labor government will just order a small number of SSN's, two to four, to be built in the UK or the US and build a batch of SSK's in Adelaide. Whether Rolls Royce can build more PWR2 reactors for an Australian order is also of concern.
@@andreasbimba6519 Not sure why you would think the UK would be in a better position then Australia. There entire build strategy is centred on the requirement of building 11 Submarines over a 35 year period from 2001(Astute) to the mid 2030s(4th Dreadnought) and then restart the entire process over again with SSN(R), where is the extra construction facility? Where is the extra work force? There is no extra capacity because there has been no requirement. Australia began construction on a brand new state of the art Submarine building facility for building the Attack class in 2020 and have recently acquired a further 45 Hectares of land at Osborn for the Sub construction site. We are probably going to end up with a better facility then either the US or UK, staffing it is the biggest issue. Depends very much on whether a PWR3 or a S9G will fit into an Astute, if RR can swap out the PWR2 for the PWR3 then I suspect that is the way they will go, there was some talk about putting a PWR3 in the 7th Astute, not sure that has happened or not, there is very little public info on Sub Reactors, the US and UK hold there secrets very close and so will Australia.
1:20 why not get an old Los Angeles-Class? they still sail and there’s 33 of them in mothballs. we need nuclear submarines with australian flags in the water yesterday, because any conflict between an aussie nuclear submarine and china is between australia and china, and that is the world’s best hope at avoiding world war 3.
Hi Jin. As I mention in the Briefing, leasing an interim boat is likely, and leasing from the same country as the final design that is selected is highly likely. So if the Virginia's are selected, I think it likely a (some) Los Angeles-class will be utilised in the interim.
Hi Simon, as I understand it the French boat needs a mid-life refuel due to the type of reactor fuel, thus increasing cost. The Astutes and Virginias don't require a mid-life refuel. Then there is integrating the U.S. combat system onto the French boat ...
Any submarine is going to be modified with new American nuclear reactors, which are designed to last for the entire lifetime of the submarine. I don't believe the Australians are looking at land attack capabilities, so the Virginia class doesn't really make sense for them and this is doubly true for the Mark V. I think the most likely choice is to have a modified astute class with American fire control and weapons as well as the new nuclear reactor.
Good comment Ron. You have described what I also believe to be the more likely outcome. This is not to say the Virginias aren't as good or even better than the Astutes, but barring unknown factors, it will come down to money.
Everyone is crying about the difficulty of crewing. I can understand why the Navy has trouble crewing the Collins (old tech) but the new nuclear subs ? Nope, they will have no problems finding all the crew they want for the most prestigious posting in the Australian Navy.
So we paid the French +$5B to the French to convert their nuclear powered subs into conventional Diesel Subs. Given the French Nuclear powered Subs used civilian power station grade grade reactors. Then decided we want Nuclear powered subs after all; Why didn't we buy the French Nuclear subs?
Australia is spending AUD 10 Billion on an East Coast Defence nuclear submarine service base, pending the build in Adelaide, Australia, of its own twelve nuclear submarines. Think Australia is seeking special permission to purchase B-21 strategic bombers too.
A Sqn of 12 B-21s would cost $30-40B to introduce over a period of about 8-10 years, where is that money coming from? The Govt released the forecast budget for 2020-2040+ in 2020 and $40B odd for a Strategic Bomber wasn't in that forecast. The B-21 buy is nothing more then Keyboard warrior wishful thinking.
I believe it will be the Virginia class Australia will go for. As it would be easier to get upgrades for during it's service life and wouldn't required any systems change as the British may have some off its own systems slightly different than the Americans.
we need both nuke and conventional boats. We should've returned to the French who offered a nuke boat after the first attack class debacle The USA only offered nuke boats reluctantly, as they're concerned about China out competing them in the globalized world. Since we have no fuel to run conventional boats locally, US had no choice but to offer us nuke boats Need nuke boats stationed in Australia and conventional station in S E Asia
@@Strategy_Analysis Yes. Since 2nd AIF Australia has ever had a recruiting problem; Korea: send P&O to London get some WWII Brits, stick them under a slouch hat and voila; K Force, Malaya/Borneo: Menzies 90 day Jamboree, Vietnam: "selective" national service. Since, just Regulars who just groan - and all just observe a R&SL devoid of cojones and governments whom just give them lawyers as Ministers of Veterans' Affairs. I estimate crewing as: Say 110 per boat Six Boats = 660x2 crews ea = 1320 Training say 2 crews min = 220 Total = 1540 Say 1600 This against a present ability to crew four Collins, say 200 plus training say 50. I cannot conceive for a new recruiting imposition on the RAN for an additional 1,300+ crew with high academic achievement/potential as a start point, for we clearly even now cannot provide even 300+. As an additional specification; minimum submerged draught? The potential area of operation is a continental shelf more suited to perhaps Singapore's AIP Type 218?
@@Strategy_Analysis For sure. I think when you consider the Virginia has the same combat system as the Collins and same weapons, it’ll be a lot more appealing when trying to adapt. Plus US wants to up production of Virginia anyway, so they could make some room for 8 more subs if they get more production going. Crew numbers could be an issue though , and also because all US submarine commanding officers are qualified nuclear officers.
how many tomahawks do we own or will we need to buy them also?? do they come with a full tank of fuel? how long is the warranty period? how many will we buy? will we sub contact crews? (LNP preferred policy)? when we send them back North for services will we get a loan submarine? who will we be attacking in the Indian ocean? India? how many submarines will the LNP enemies have when these submarines are ready and operational? how will we finance them now that the LNP have told China we don't want to sell them our resources or produce anymore? maybe the new government will cancel the alliance and we could sign on to a trade and security agreement similar to what has been offered to the other Pacific Nations (assuming that China is willing to talk to us after our previous team - CoalMo and Dutton)?
We do have a change of Government and the new PM has supported the decision from day 1 but it is not yet clear if it will be a majority Government. The biggest issue is how strong the Greens will be, they and several Independents are guaranteeing a Labor Government at present and the Greens have a totally anti Nuclear stance and if they got their way they would destroy Defence. Peter Dutton is now Leader of the Opposition by the way.
Yes @Harldin, Labor supported the decision with one day's notice. They might change their mind after more extensive briefings. Also, as you say, The Greens may need to be placated to get legislation through the Senate. Far from a done deal at the moment.
What bs you talk ! The greens would not hamper the defence of Australia but would look at all options to get a working Submarine fleet operational asap.
@@Harldin Defence is not a core issue for the Greens but they will be fighting hard on transitioning more quickly to renewable power and reducing poverty/inequality/austerity - perhaps the Greens are not the ogres that you portray. If the Greens formed part of a coalition government like they do currently in Germany they would probably defer to the senior partner on defence policy in a trade for more influence on environmental and social equity issues. Note also the German Greens support Olaf Scholz's big defence spending increases and tough sanctions on Russia. Perhaps it is the Conservatives you should be wary of with Boris Johnson in the UK refusing to commit to a 0.5% p.a. increase in the UK defence budget at a time that the UK Chief of the Army is saying the world is facing a 1937 moment! www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jun/28/no-10-to-ditch-defence-spending-manifesto-pledge
The key Manning probable is that the Colin's old and cramped if you go Virginia block 5 you have the advantage of all that the Americans are done bf and building your crews can start trying now with the yanks and we can have those sweet vls tubes.
Useless Australian Government and Defence department. Australia should have bought nuclear submarines in the 1990’s, plus it needs ICBM’s. It has neither. It needs ground, air and sea launch able ICBM’s. It needs more heavily armed ships and planes. Why are aircraft and ships going on missions without being fully armed. Recently a anti submarine patrol plane was had lasers pointed at it and was not armed with countermeasures, ie, electronic and air to surface missiles. Also No missile defence systems anywhere in Australia. No secret bases. China could launch a missile strike and take out every large military base before Australia could respond. Totally incompetent. The heads of the defence department need to be sacked and say Israel experts bought in ASAP.
I have given this quite a bit of thought and believe Australia and Japan should seriously consider developing a small nuclear weapons capability along with the ballistic missiles to deliver them similar to what Israel currently holds. Japan does already have suitable ballistic missile designs and the production capacity to build them, sufficient plutonium and probably has nuclear bomb designs ready to build. This small nuclear weapons capability would be just a deterrent against an existential threat which unfortunately this world does present and that is not likely to go away soon. North Korea, China and Russia could all become serious threats very quickly. Expecting the US to lose their major cities in an attempt to safeguard any allies under their nuclear umbrella is looking increasingly tenuous. Yes this would further proliferate nuclear weapons but that is less of an issue than survival and meaningful deterrence. Yes New Zealand would go bananas and most of ASEAN would grumble but who got in the way of Israel doing the same? On the other hand I disagree with the current drift towards taking on China militarily by the US, Japan and Australia over Taiwan and the South China Sea. China can out build the US and its allies and it is better to stand back, never provoke but always carry a big stick. The far better solution is for Taiwan to expand defence spending to 5-6% and to build up a very large reservist based army with a professional core and sufficient weapons to defeat any invasion attempt much like Israel has attained with less than half the population of Taiwan. A progressive transition away from China as a supplier of goods would be more acceptable penalty for their current misdeeds in the South China Sea, Xinjiang, Tibet, Hong Kong and towards Taiwan.
Oh crap, Labour got in. I suspect the whole sub project will be dropped in favour of a big white flag ( or red flag ). Better get some rust remover and a wire brush because those Collins boats are going to be in service for a very long time.
I think the coalition is the weakest political entity when it comes to Australia's defence due to their inherent arrogance and entitlement. Also they do not have the ability or competence when it comes to foreign affairs just look at French response to cancellation of barracuda subs and Chinese agreements with Solomon Islands. I thank the universe everyday we are rid of the incompetence of the liberal and national parties who have abandoned centrist policies and have moved to extremist right wing ideologies of the previous Trump administration of the US
I'm sorry to be blunt but can I suggest you write a script and practice it before doing a video, as your ums, aahs and jerky interrupted vocal style are a bit hard to follow unless I fully concentrate.
Hi @i minabrons , thanks for the comment. Just for clarification for you. I do a script, but my presentation is intentionally natural and not a "factory-production", and not a computer-generated voice presentation. If English is not your first language, are subtitles available for you? Also, my style is not for flashy imagery and videos, but more about analysis and my viewers taking time to consider my points, and I'm very happy to hear their critiques.
@@Strategy_Analysis Actually, while watching the video I was thinking how much I enjoyed your narrative style. I find it relaxed but articulate and very easy to listen to. Didn't notice the ums and aahs at all and no jerkiness interfering with comprehension. P.S.. Just listened again and of course now I can hear the ums and aahs but I still don't find it a problem. Of course the suggested improvements would result in a cleaner narration but I don't mind your current style at all.
@@robman2095 Thanks for the comment, Robert. Always looking to improve my briefings. I am very aware they are not perfect, very unnatural for me to do this, but I want to.
@@Strategy_Analysis Certainly far superior to some of the Robotic voices you get on YT Videos that end up sounding like gibberish because they use the wrong inflections, pronounce the word incorrectly or just stop at the wrong point of the sentence. I may not necessarily agree with all your content but I do like the way you present it.
@@Harldin Appreciate the comment Harldin. I don't want to live in an "echo chamber", so very happy to hear other views and opinions. I do my best to provide an objective assessment, which I might get totally wrong.
@Murray that is a possibility, but it will be difficult (politically) for Australia to completely pull out of this arrangement. We should know the new governing party's position before too long.
Think it is more than a pipe dream. The UK was faced with same decision in 1958, owing to the USSR. Australia will certainly train to service AUKUS nuclear submarines. Given today’s Sino geopolitics, I would think Australia has a greater need than the UK. Attitudes are changing towards home based nuclear weapons too. Probably, not necessary owing to the US umbrella. George W. said the US of his Administration wouldn’t care, if Australia or Canada deployed nukes.
Some recent developments: Rear Admiral Scott Pappano (US program executive officer for strategic submarines), "if we (U.S.) were going to add additional submarine construction to our industrial base, that would be detrimental to us right now". Also, RAN personel to train aboard UK Astute-class SSNs.
The UK government has ruled out the possibility of an off-the-shelf sale of Astute Class SSNs to the Royal Australian Navy.
The United Kingdom’s (UK) Secretary of Defence, Ben Wallace, has sought to address “confusion” over the selection process underpinning Australia’s acquisition of a fleet of nuclear-powered submarines promised under AUKUS.
“…I think people seem to pose a question as if it’s an either/or, as if buying an American [submarine] off-the-shelf, or one of [the UK’s platforms] off-the-shelf - it’s not that,”
“I can tell you that because when boat seven is out of the Astutes, that’s it,”
“We are onto our next design and our new one, and that might well be fully shared with all three (AUKUS) nations as a collaborative design.”
@@mickeyjuiced Thanks for the comment, Mike. A new class that all 3 countries use would be a significant advantage, in my opinion.
@@Strategy_Analysis I just found your channel with the vid on the AS9.
Wished I had found it earlier.
Sorry for the super long comment, but there's stuff that needs saying about the AUKUS program.
Great to see someone point out the crew issues.
What you should or could have have put up some other subs to highlight the issue we have with American subs.
The French Barracuda (which we rejected) only has a crew of 60 it also has a price tag that's almost identical tot he Astute.
The Russian Alpha that was in *Hunt for Red October* had 34
The Russian Sierra that replaced the Alpha has 61 & 72 for the block I & II respectively.
The latest Russian Akula 73 & 62 for the block I & II respectively
The Las Angeles class - 129.
Even the Astute at 98 is a massive crew by comparison, but its also the sub we should have chosen.
Despite the BS of the Ben Wallace, who is also no longer in the job, if we asked the Brits for 2 Astutes as part of the AUKUS program they'd do it. Its pretty simple Britain is almost broke and being able to sell ANYTHING right now would be good news. Its called politics.
I discussed this with a Brit and they pointed out that BAE had built a new hall for the Vanguard class. So the hall where they built the Astutes now has nothing in it since they finished the 7th boat.
The problem BAE has is people and just having enough of them with the right skills. Like we did the Brits stopped training apprentices as part of the same stupid economic policies we followed and the Americans followed.
FYI - I'm Australian but did me degree in Aerospace in America. I have 30+ years experience in control systems. First in manufacturing and most of the last 20 in mining. So I have a lot of large complex engineering project experience.
Just on basic project management that almost anyone can understand AUKUS is a disaster. I can't say its badly planned because it doesn't even seem to have a plan.
Also the last people we want spending our money on anything is the right now is the American MIC (Military Industrial Complex). The YT Channel Sub Brief recently pointed out the complete disaster the US navy is having with maintenance. He described the contracts surrounding their dry docks as "criminal" and it sounded like he was describing our projects here in Australia.
In trying to workout where all the money is going I have done a project cost model. Its basically a spread sheet with where you list everything you know you need
So far I have a cost of a AU$117 Billion that includes.
2 x Astute Mk IIs which adds over the current Astute:
- a small VLS package (12 or 16 Tomahawks);
- automation upgrades to get the crew down to 85-90.
- an American compatible combat system.
4 x AUKUS subs which are another step up in automation to get the crew down to 70-75.
These will all be built in Britain with an Australian workforce of 6,500.
In addition to that are 6 x German 212 variant (1 built in Germany 5 in Australia). These would be very similar to the 212-CD subs being built for Germany and Norway except with an American Combat system and weapons. Although I have heard the Americans are trying to integrate the German sub-to-air missiles into their systems.
That's 12 subs in all with less crew requirements than the Virginia option.
In my costs I have multibillion dollar upgrades to facilities on both the East & West coast. I have a disposal program where we burry the reactor cores at Olympic Dam. Why? You can't make Olympic Dam more radioactive. Because its already radioactive with about 30% of the worlds Uranium reserves.
I have an almost insane bonus system for the Australian who'll go overseas and work on the subs.
Bottom line is I have to keep adding stuff and so far I have only manged to get the number up to $117 Billion. Please understand that I am not against AUKUS or getting nuclear subs. *I just think we need a better plan.*
If you've read this far thanks.
I've watched a couple of your other vids - you've won a subscriber.
Your good thing is you don't waste time and stick to the basic facts.
@@tonywilson4713 Firstly, thanks for the very detailed and thought-out comment. Also, thanks for subscribing. In an earlier briefing on SSNs I did mention the whole crewing issue. I didn't in this one because I was covering it as a fait acompli. Agree, the plan doesn't seem well thought-out. Who knows how it will end up?
We need UK built Astute class SSNs. No mix and matching systems or ‘Australianising”.
The first Astute we should get is Agincourt, due to launch in 2025. Crew with a combined RN/RAN complement.
HMS Trenchant was refurbished in 2016 and can be kept in RN service until 2028, when another Astute will be ready.
Barrow in Furness has three construction slots and only two Dreadnoughts will be built at a time. Another Astute should be laid down asap. And continue building more as quickly as possible.
Seven Trafalgars were built in 14 years. The UK should aim for same over the next 15 years with Astute production.
As for manpower, in 2020, 120,000 applicants were received for only 8,000 positions. We could also recruit from the UK, America and New Zealand.
One thing I forgot to mention about the Astute class was the lengths they went to to reduce the Acoustic signatures. The main decks are supported on isolation mounts, damping and decoupling tiles are used throughout the boat, reducing self noise (the noise interference picked up by your own sensors) increasing sonar performance), reducing radiated noise (reducing probability of detection). The bow shape and flank array have been improved to improve the flow noise limiting speed allowing higher operating speed. Careful attention was also paid to the hull shape, fin shape and propulsor ducting, coupled with the wide scale use of anechoic tiles reduced the active sonar cross signature.
The Astute class was designed for lean manning (a concept the USN has never really understood) based on the RN manning structure of separate operations and specialist engineering departments (like the RAN). The USN officers are more generalists backed up by specialist senior rate, although the Captain has to be a qualified Nuclear Engineer as are most of the senior officer.
I have also seen comments about limited production capacity in the UK, they clearly have never stood in Devonshire Hall in Barrow in Furness a jaw dropping large covered production facility.
Thanks for the comment, Stuart. Given Australia's experience with very quiet SSKs, wanting a very quiet SSN is logical. As for the crewing issue, I won't say anymore other than to agree with your point. The production capacity issue, for both the U.S. and UK, is of course a critical determinant for Australia.
Astute is the logical option for a number of reasons:
1) they have a compliment of 98 vs the Virginia's 135
2) Astute is 30% cheaper
3) Astute is smaller
Astute could be built in an overlapping staggered pair schedule between Adelaide and Barrow-In-Furness which would deliver all 8 submarines by the late 2030's.
Thank for the comment Chris. Yes, agree your points.
None of which is a combat capability !
Astute are having problems with COOLING in tropical waters and in other areas.
This on its own is an issue for Australia.
Six tubes are better than four but the VLS are an advantage.
In truth neither class is really the optimum for Australia, its a pity the U.S dropped the Seawolf class due to the ending of the cold war, its capability is more in line with Australias needs.
A Seawolf with VLS is more in line with our combat requirements.
But does the ASUTE have the exact systems as the US submarines. Australia have been having trouble integrating US systems in other countries designed equipment. The US is Australia preferred weapon off choice. So would it be better to go with US submariners that any upgrades would be automatically designed into the sub we go for. Or go for the ASUTE and could run into snags integrating a new system for an upgrade the RAN required
The Swedish AIP Submarine Evaded the US Navy over two years can stay under for two weeks is Massively cheaper and can be serviced in Australia
Wont Piss off China And be better at Defending Australia
@@peterjones4180 Peter, not even the USN could afford the Seawolf class, that’s why they only built 3.
Do you have a link to the cooling issue with the Astute class? I’ve not heard of that issue, I’d love to know a bit more.
Being a Brit I am a little biased towards the Astute but regardless of which option they go with they are getting a world class sub.
With that said, I do think the Astute makes the most sense for Australia, mainly because it has much lower crewing requirements and it's not as expensive.
The VLS module of the Virginia block 5 is nice but the Astute can still carry 38 weapons including torpedoes and tomahawk missiles.
One thing I found interesting was that a few days ago it was announced HMS Talent, a Trafalgar class sub is to be retired from service with the RN and I also read on a different post that the decision on which boat Australia will pick will be made in the next few months, coincidence? So it's entirely possible that Australia could lease it.
@A B, thanks for the comment. Agree with your logic on the Astute. Hadn't heard the news re HMS Talent. As I say in the video, if a boat is leased, Australia is likely to get the final choice from the same country.
The Astute and Virginia class subs are both superb boats, but I have a bias as a Briton, so I would choose the Astute.
Thanks for the comment, Hugh. I'm not a Brit, but agree the Astute appears to best option for Australia.
I am not a limey and still like better the Astutes better
It’s possible America will lease an SSN to Australia.
However… British shipyards have finished building Astute class SSN’s so they have availability. While American are backlogged for over a decade.
As far as major maintenance and repair the closest to Australia is in the state of Washington in the Pacific northwest.
@@Idahoguy10157 No, it’s not possible that the US will lease a boat to the RAN, they don’t have the excess capacity.
@@Smokeyr67 …. I agree. However it’s a political decision. Not a military decision. The US Navy hasn’t enough boats. Plus the two American shipyards are years behind schedule in overhauls, refueling, and then there’s new construction ongoing. Washington will be deciding. Not you and I
Based on the timeline and the fact that the UK is already designing the next generation SSN, Australia will most likely get the next gen. US/UK SSN's will serve as a stop gap while these new SSN's are developed. They'll be used to get the Australian navy used to the technology along with generating interest among the kids as they will be the generation to serve on these boats.
It's certainly good times from the perspective of an Australian military enthusiast. Current events have completely changed the global world order. Not only will Australia and others have allot more access to the western defence industries, efforts will be ramped up tog get these assets online asap. Australia's navy as too others will be way stronger in another two decades
@Steven Smith, thanks for the comment. Interesting point you and others have made about Australia selecting the next generation of UK SSN. This is entirely possible, unfortunately, the history of Australian Defence procurement has left a lot to be desired. I think it is more likely that IF Australia chooses the UK option, it will be the Astute.
@@Strategy_Analysis Yeah I think that too. The Astute is slightly smaller than the new US SSN's meaning you can get a couple more boats and this is vital for such a massive area to cover.
The US and UK SSN's are practically the same in terms of technologies but the Astute definitely looks sexier imo :)
Be under no illusion though, nuclear is way better than conventional. Sure, when submerged, conventional may be quieter but it's a moot advantage in the overall scheme of things.
1) Nuclear is allot fast at 32 knots compared to 20 knots for the latest conventi0onal tech. This alone is huge as this is going to be how you catch your prey
2) Nuclear reactors provide far more electricity than conventional subs. This will be needed to power future systems such as unmanned submersibles that will play a vital role in extending the sensor capability of the subs in the near future. Other examples include directed energy laser weapons and sensor upgrades.
3) Stealth ofc. The moment a conventional sub surfaces to recharge, it's vulnerable to detection and this will become more of an issue as the sensors on satellites continue getting better
It was certainly the right choice to go nuclear mate. This is why the US and UK haven't bothered with conventional subs
@@Strategy_Analysis PS: If you are interested in subs in general then I recommend this book: ua-cam.com/video/ZLbguQvJ708/v-deo.html
The us also has SSN(x)
@@StevenSmith-mk5fg Thank you.
The Astute is the best option from a strategic viewpoint, although I am not sure if that will necessarily be chosen because of UK's tighter production constraints. Nuclear submarines are not required for coastal defence, but power projection and, to be clear, the intended opponent is China. Given that the SSNs are going to operate close to the Chinese mainland, I am unsure of the pactical tactical value of the VLS on the Virginia class. A handful of tomahawks cannot really be expected to penetrate modern fleet defences. The SSNs will also be relying on its stealth to survive in hostile waters, as they are without support from a larger fleet (USN surface forces will probably maintain distance from mainland China owing to ASBMs), so the only realistic weapon will be the torpedo. I suppose if it is operating close to Japan, or from the eastern side of Taiwan, the VLS might be able to be used relatively safely, but that seems quite circumstantial to justify the additional cost of the Virginia class.
While I agree there is a high probability that Australia will lease an ex-USN or ex-RN submarine, like the 688i, I also think that is a poor decision that will nevertheless be adopted for political reasons. It costs $600-800 million USD to refuel a 688i (and this is only in 2015 dollars), which needs to be done if Australia is going to be using a decommissioned boat, to say nothing of the fairly imminent disposal cost given you are only using it for a fraction of its service life. Let's say Australia takes 10 years before it sees its first 'permanent' SSN, its government would be paying a high price for only a limited period of service.
Thank you for the comments ENI. Agree that leasing an SSN may be a very expensive option, but as you say might be taken due to politics. A lot of water has to flow under the bridge before any of these possibilities occur. The outcome of Australia's Federal Election may even change things.
The Astute can fire tomahawks, it fires them through the torpedo tubes.
I was part of the Sonar 2076 project in the late at the time the predicted performance was head and shoulder any other predicted system, one of the biggest challenges was target overload, the improved performance generated a significant increase in track numbers. I was also on the sidelines of the Collins class procurement, it was clear from the outset that the RAN was very anti a UK solution although a stretched Upholder (the Type 2400) should have been a real contender. It was very revealing that after the Collins class contract had been placed there were large teams of RAN officers visiting Upholder class equipment suppliers trying to bolster their knowledge on these equipments to help them define what was really needed! History has shown that it took them over 20 years to get the Collins class to meet its original specification which the T2400 could have met on day one! ( just look at the Cole report)
I am puzzled why Australia with its changed federal government does not go back to the French and commission them to work with Australia to build a fleet of standard French nuclear submarines, as I understand these French submarines are very good vessels.
@@robertchautardjensen6846 Unsuitable Reactor, the US and UK Reactors have a life span of 30+ years so will not need replacing for the life of the Sub. The French Reactors have to be replaced every 10 years or so. This is the reason why SSNs are now acceptable for Australia. The first of the Suffren class has only just reached full operational capacity so any claims to how good they are should be treated as little more then French propaganda. They need to prove themselves over several years before people should claim they are good Subs.
@@Harldin do you mean the reactor core needs to be replaced every ten years or so? Or the whole reactor?
I am perplexed that you suggest these French submarines need to prove themselves over several years. The Collins submarines took more than ten years to debug and yet they seem to be reasonable submarines.
@@robertchautardjensen6846 Well the Reactor Core would need replacing because the French only use a low yield fuel where the US supply weapons grade fuel for both the US and UK Reactors. Whether the French replace the entire Reactor I'm not sure but as they have to cut the Submarine in half to get at the Reactor they may do so, the Reactor would have to be removed and taken to a special facility for the re-fuelling process. Australia wants the US CMS but the US will not allow it to be fitted in French Shipyards, the Reactor refit/replacement would have to be done in France and that is another reason for the French SSN to be ruled out.
The Suffren is the first Sub built to this design and like any new Ship class you need to operate it for an extended period to fully work out any Bugs, any issues are fixed and passed on to succeeding Vessels of this class. They should prove to be excellent Subs but they should not be compared at this stage to Astute's or Virginia's due to the immaturity of the project.
@@Harldin This is very interesting. I can see the weapons grade fuel as being more economical over the life of the submarine, on the other hand, perhaps it is more toxic in the event of a catastrophe? Which could mean the French fuel solution might actually have its advantages.
Virginia. The RN only have enough reactors to finish the astute build program. The reactors for dreadnought or Virginia won’t fit into the Astute hull so there isn’t any more.
The RAN doesn’t operate our submarine force in tandem with the RN, and aside from Singapore do not share, port or conduct exercise with RN assets.
The RAN however does operate extensively with the USN and the US Task Force, we operate regularly with each other and frequently port in USN facilities. Coupled with the geographic location of Guam and availability of support services in the US, and to this our use of BYG-1 and Mk 48; it would be stupid to pick Astute over Virginia.
@@soulsphere9242 the RN has a number of issues that caused them to stop production of the Astute reactors so there isn’t physically one that will fit into Astutes hull.
The workforce piece is something that has gained a lot of attention and is certainly achievable for both classes
Having both BAE systems both located at Osborne south / north seems like the best option, 3 or more astutes produced followed by several ssnr new gen uk subs.
Thanks for the comment Lance. If Australia does build SSNs in the future, it will be in Adelaide, so BAE is well-positioned as you say.
A nicely detailed overview of the situation which boils down to: We're all running out of time!
AFAIK there's no build capacity in the UK/USA - at all - for an AUS order so AUS must build it's own. But I don't think AUS has the infrastructure or desire to build nuclear vessels on AUS soil, just a need to operate them, I think you touched on this?
The US yards are building all the Virginia they can, there's no room for more orders, if there were the USN would grab them and they need to get their new Colombia class off the desk and into the water yesterday. Ohio class are already in need of decommissioning and the USN ponders where that leaves their SSGN capability gap as the Block V Virginia start to build. They're rushing production as safely as possible, but there's no room at the inn.
The UK has cut so much infrastructure over the last 30-40yrs the only yard building subs is finishing it's run of 7 Astutes [4 just launched, 5+6 are being completed, 7 has had steel cut] and already starting to cut steel on the 4 new Ballistic missile subs, that project has been delayed so sooo long, the Vanguards they replace may not be able to stay at sea much longer, you just can't refuel/replace these reactors. UK will not delay Dreadnought any further or risk the deterrent itself, not even for besties, sorry mate!
HMS Astute was delayed but has been at sea 10+ years, built 2001 launched in 2007, commissioned 2010 [it had issues] it's ALREADY middle aged and in need of replacement as soon as Dreadnought is completed. Design studies have been launched and afaik Sweden is also participating in this process but will not be using nuclear power so, thanks to AUKUS, there's opportunity for UK/US/AUS/Swe to design a sub REPLACING Astute which could implement any unique requirements AUS may have.
This process will take a decade at least? followed by 'we can't afford it' I pray that AUKUS can spread the cost as well as expertise. Over 20 years to build 7 boats, R&D not included. 3-4+ years each, the 1st they broke it, 4 was updated and delayed. Seriously is the USA any better or is the Military/Industrial "getting value for it's shareholders" here?
Sadly, the larger the sub and more capability built into the hull, the more expensive it becomes. RN complain they don't have enough cruise missile surface strike cap? Put in VLS, not just out the tubes. Need SBS deployment space, garage for toys? Put it in, and a bay for drones too. Not enough torpedo storage for an adversary with [by that time] 600+ ship navy? Give it more room than Seawolf. It goes on and on, and we'll end up with Russia's amazing Belgorod class, but @ 10x the price.
For fast construction, keep it simple, keep it cheap, don't let the military/industry fill it with toys and get it in the water asap. THEN build something that makes jaws drop!
This is all well and good but your new PM might cancel the whole thing as it's cheaper [more lucrative] to cosy back up to China? Would the people allow it?
That took longer than expected thanks for reaching the end
Thanks for the comment @s3p4kner, lots to unpack there. Yes, I was suggesting that it is unlikely that Australia will build the SSNs in Australia, given the infrastructure requirement. Enough will need to be spent just to base them there. And jumping to your last point, it remains to be seen if the new Australian Government will proceed with SSNs. I'm not saying it won't, I am saying it is not certain!
Others who know far more about the UK's ability to build SSNs have commented on the likelihood of UK production for Australia. I think the U.S. situation is a little clearer but appears to me to be a zero-sum game, in that what the U.S. might be able to produce for Australia, will mean less for the USN.
Australia's biggest challenge will be enlisting and maintaining sufficient crew plus the whole of life crew costs. The initial capital cost is almost irrelevant. Plus there must be an east coast base near a capital city to have any chance of reliable recruitment and to provide some level of strategic base diversity. So seems the UK sub with absolutely minimal customisation is best?
Going from a medium-displacement conventional SSK like the Collins to a SSN (Astute, Virginia, Barracuda or whatever) is a giant step for a country like Australia.I'm italian, former military, and my country operates a fleet of 8 conventional SSKs ( 4 u212 + 4 Sauro ), not really comparable to a fleet of 8 nuclear subs.
In fact, I found many similarities between the needs of our 2 countries, and these similarities can be extended to all the western countries...The big deal is timing.
Building a sub requires time, say 5 years from "first cut" to commissioning for a conventional SSK and 7-8 years for an SSN.Western countries spent 20 years (say from the mid-1990s to 2014) without programming a real replacement for their fleets of Subs. Italian navy had 8 Sauro class SSKs, 4 of them were replaced by 4 newly-produced u212 and the other 4 were just left in service, without really thinking about a replacement.
A similar thing can be said for Australia, we can say Collins class are already at the end of their life and are for sure not a top-of class SSK. The program to replace them should have started 10 years ago, but in 2022 we still have no idea about the new SSN.
Western countries are now facing new threats ( Russia in Europe and China in the Pacific ) with the need to introduce new subs in service in a short period of time because of years-long delays in introducing a real replacement for our actual fleets.
Sorry for my english, I hope the point is clear.
Anyway, good analysis!
Thank you for the comment Dek Edo. You make some very good points. As you say, moving from SSks to SSNs is a major undertaking, which will take decades to complete. By then, it might be too late to counter the threat which (apparently) is its raison d'etre! And your English is great (far better than my Italian).
@@Strategy_Analysis Thanks.
That's exactly my point. Our fleets are aging and we struggle to build subs in time to replace the old ones. We should have thought in terms of capability during early 2000s, instead of simply looking the other way and pretending the end of the cold war stopped every need to maintain capable armed forces.
Peace dividends were nothing more than a mirage...
@@Dekever "Peace dividends were nothing more than a mirage", absolutely!
@@Dekeveryour last statement would be truth in any language. Speaking as an American, we spent money like a drunken sailor expecting the peace dividend. Combine this with the large increases in productivity because of the computer and Internet integration, we should have been running budget surpluses- in all of the western First World. That is not what happened.
Instead while defense programs did decline, at least in the US, our overall budgets did not. We failed to maintain our nuclear shipbuilding- leaving us with one yard capable of building and maintaining our largest ships. It has had a difficult time keeping a workforce. The submarine situation is worse. With two production sites it should be easy to build the Australian subs. But somehow it is not. I will skip the issues but they are real.
None of this should have happened. As you said, the end of the Cold War was an illusion. But politicians can not resist spending it seems, at least while they can still borrow. Insanity.
The build of the Astute Class boats has been between 9 and 11 years. This is the reality of trying to maintain a sovereign sub construction capacity when you only have a small fleet of boats to build. In the UK the total fleet is 11 to 12 boats (SSNs and SSBNs), trying to do so with a even smaller fleet will be even harder still. The Australian build option will easily double the cost of this program and extend the period for the build given the small size of the proposed fleet.
Assuming the UK does not build the RAN SSN's, the next generation SSNR needs to be in production by the very early 2030's to have a new built commissioned in time for when the HMS Astute is due to retire in 2042. The US SSNZ program is targeting a similar timeframe
The positive for selecting the UK is potential for a win win for both the RAN and RN. The UK needs to build more boast to operate its shipyard at an efficient tempo. With the next generation boats chasing 40+ year service lives, this means they need to build more boast or stretch out the build even further, one could argue that the RAN SSN's are critical to the UK projects viability. The US understands that keeping the Brits in the game is important. It really should be obvious by now that this is about so much more than more than just the RAN getting SSN's.
Can you build them in Australia. The answer is yes, sort of. As a minimum the reactor section, (probably the machinery section as well) would have to built overseas and mated with the sections built in Australia. Building Subs in Australia means you will be commissioning a new boat every five to six years. You might get your first boat in the early 2040's, but it will be along wait for the second. If you build Virginia or Astute class boats in Australia you will still be be building these boats in the 2060's, decades after their construction has ended in the US or UK. In both cases these reactors are now old designs and given the increased size of the new generation designs, you couldn't put the new reactors into the these boats. This will make upgrading them to keep them current will be expensive as we would be up for the cost of designing a new reactor as some point. Building these old designs will look very silly when the RN's first SSNR is commissioned years ahead of the first Australian built boat.
The RAN program's biggest problem by far is terrible timing. The US is putting all its efforts this decade into the Columbia SSBN and will need to transfer those resources to its SSNX program in the 2030's. Finding US based resources to assist an Australian effort is looking like fantasy, unless you want to wait until 2040's to start stand up your Australian shipyard. That timing might work if you want the buy the US SSNX class submarine, but will mean the RAN will not receive a boat until 2050 and have a significant capability gap with no easy way of filling it.
Given SSN's are in short supply, leasing is looking hard. Getting a single boat for training probably the limit of what is reasonable to expect.
One point that is often missed is that the UK and US operate two very different nuclear ecosystems. Each based on their experience over decades operating Nuclear powered submarines. Each have developed systems for which are very different. Like comparing Android and Apple mobile phones. They set out to complete the same task, but do it very differently. Training requirements, roles, equipment, everything is different. Nothing is transferable between the two. To answer your question, you you can't operate a Virginia with a smaller crew, because it would no longer comply with the USN nuclear safety protocols.
The opportunity that is missed by most is the disposal of SSN's. The UK is yet to build a proper facility for disposing of its nuclear sub fleet. We could build a facility in Australia to handle both RAN and RN boats and build boats for both in the UK. This would provide the jobs with skills we actually have. Unlike a shipyard which will employ mostly expats.
Excellent points Mark. Thank you. Timing is everything in life! The political imperative for a local construction may come undone due to being nuclear vessels. A total overseas build will be extremely difficult to sell to the Australian public, as will the likely cost of only building some of the 8 (at this stage) suggested. The next 12 months will be very interesting.
I think more the issue would be is because Australia is late to come onboard with the program it sets the program back. The UK has already built its subs so 10 years or so will go by and then Australia will just receive its first batch off submarines. So the extension off the program has to be set leaving Australia atleast 10 to 15 years behind schedule. The additional cost would be to extend the program beyond schedule to keep Australia upto date with technology a new system put into new designd submarines may require integrating on older subs for its mid term upgrades. So when the UK is to build its new subs to replace the other Australia will be just in mid term with its subs. This will increase costs off the program.
I believe to fix that issue is to build upgraded Collins class submarines for now. And wait for the next batch off submarines to roll out from UK it will give more time for Australia to learn about nuclear powerd submarines and they will be àlway on schedule for when the next batch off submarines get built. Rather always be set back mid lifespan during builds. This will probably solve the issue with submarines builds but not necessarily for Australia defence as nuclear powerd submarines are needed now as a requirement. Australia should had got onbard a decade ago they left it too late during this program
@@Nathan-ry3yu Hence my point about terrible timing. The choice is really between the next generation US or British boats, not the current generation. Once you make that decision then you can start charting a path to get the RAN there. Obtaining a current generation boat as a training boat would be part of that process.
The recent tragedy in Indonesia should be seen as a reason why extending the lives of the current Colins class boats has its limits. Talk of extending the service lives of these boats to a fifty year service live needs to be opposed. As crazy as the previous RAAF efforts to keep the F-111's in service for a similar service live. So I agree there is a good argument for acquiring an interim capacity. Given the global shortage of SSN's, it would have to be an SSK.
As for building an upgraded Collins class. This is simply not realistic. We need a off the shelf solution that delivers boats to the RAN this decade. Not another program that requires a ten year research and development program followed by a five year build that does not deliver a boat before 2038. The idea being to avoid an expensive and risky life extension process.
Japan is a potential source of quality second hand boats. They retire subs early by global standards (after only 24 years of service) to enable a continuous build without operating a massive fleet. They also have many systems which are related to those use in Collins. They have a Swedish propulsion system and a combat system supplied by Lockheed Martin that was the basis of the one used in Collins. This could provide a cost effective solution to the problem that does not put the lives of RAN submariners in danger.
There is one other nation we really should be talking to, and that country is South Korea. They are like us a top tier US ally, and like Australia they have recently decided to seek nuclear powered submarines for their navy. They also make conventionally powered boast that use a lot of US systems. I am not saying it is a better option, but if there is an argument for adding a fourth country to AUKUS, that country has to be South Korea.
The UK build speed is deliberately slow, with only 11 Subs required every 30 years you need a continuous build program or you lose all that expertise if you stop at any time. Australia is building a massive new facility for building Submarines that will be one of the most modern shipyards in the world.
@@Harldin Next generation boats are chasing an increase in service life to forty years. This means we can expect a the UK to work to a 120 month build to do as you say achieve a continuous build program. Our problem is can how do we achieve a continuous build program whilst building fewer boats? Three options build more boats, slow the build program even more or retire them early.
To be brief , 1. Lease a Trafalgar to expose Australian to the realities and potential of operations with these platforms . 2. Something the R.N. will not like the seventh and final Austute H.M.S. Agincourt will be sold to Australia leaving the U.K. with just six but kick starting the Australian procurement programme . Austute will be built alongside the Dreadnought programme . The entry into service of the U.K. bomber programme will be elongated but Barrow will get seven new subs to build Australia will be happy H.M.s Treasury will be ecstatic and politically we will draw closer to our southern brethren . Another thought this might trigger Canada to follow suit . A second production facility at Liverpool , where Nuke subs were once built , to ease the bottleneck at Barrow could and probably would be considered . More skilled jobs and apprenticeships to Mersyside but for the Royal Navy once again it will be a case of jam tomorrow !
One thing about the crewing issue: If you join the Army, you get to play with some of the best weapons and equipment in the world, and the Air Force has sexy F18s and is now receiving the most hi-tech and stealthy jets on the planet. They're both appealing options. What does joining the RAN at the moment offer you? You get to serve on mid-range destroyers, frigates or subs. Nothing bad, but not really inspiring.
If they acquire a dozen of the most advanced, deadliest and stealthy subs ever made, a lot of the recruitment problems will solve themselves
Good comment @Binkophile. You may well be correct, but the number of additional crew needed for either of these subs is very significant given Australia's population. No doubt Australia will (again) look to recruit for select Navies around the world.
From everything I've read, the Hobarts are pretty good, they just don't have the huge vls cells like the arleigh burkes or chinas big destroyer/cruiser. But are comparable to the UK's destroyers. The Canberra Class LHD's are the biggest LHD's in the world outside of the two super powers, although several countries like france have plans to build even bigger ones in the future. The hunter frigates have the potential to be the best frigates in the world, IF they can sort out the teething issues that are being reported. I'm not holding my breath though.
@@dan7564 thank you for the comment. Still not sure how capable the Hunter-class will be.
@@Strategy_Analysis yeah, it looks like it's in a bit of trouble sadly, hard to know if their excuses that problems were expected and will be worked through are genuine or not.
It seems they've chosen the classic fudge answer of both. I've been wondering if they want the interim Virginia's because of the VLS?
Australian Defence Minister Marles was in London last week for meetings with the PM and the DEFSEC, attending the commissioning of HMS Anson. The UK DEFSEC Wallace said something interesting in that it may not necessarily be an Astute/Virginia choice but hinted at the possibility of an AUKUS SSN design for all 3 members.
Which PM was that?
I'm confident that our next PM, Larry Churchill, MP😼has a purring affection for Australia, and will be more than on board.⚔
@@RPMZ11 Anson was commissioned on 31 Aug so would have been Johnson. Sorry got no idea who Larry Churchill is, if he is the next UK PM I hope he likes Australians far more than his famous namesake did. Funny how everyone was laughing at Australia for changing PMs often, a few years back, at least they all lasted at least 1 year.
The build time for an Astute submarine is bull. The UK has staggered the build so that it doesn't have to lay of skilled workers for years until a new sub is needed. Production can be ramped up if needed, and it would be a simple task to get the more complicated rear end (nuclear powered bit) built at Barrow, while having the rest of the sub built in Australia.
Astute has been tested against Virginia class, and has been found to be more than equal in certain area's. She may not have all the 'bang for buck', but she can more than do what she was designed for, a true hunter-killer, and she does it without the extra whistles, or the extra price tag.
I suspect that irrespective of which design we go with, the Reactor will come as a complete hull module ready to be joined with the rest of the Sub. That may include the entire rear half of the Sub (on both Astute and Virginia the Reactor sits just behind the Sail) or just the Reactor module.
Aussie Naval officers are already recognised commissioned officers in the Royal Navy, and Astute has the latest tech - go RN! Also, VLS - a) Are Aussie subs anti-shipping platforms, or land-attack stand-off platforms? b) You can launch cruise missiles from torpedo tubes anyway. C'mon, Oz, let's get the band back together...
Thanks for the comment Neil. Agree, the Astutes seem the best option. Yes can launch cruise missiles through the torpedo tubes, I was just highlighting that the Virginia's have more "tubes".
Vertical launch?
what ever made you think that we ever parted ??????????
Both are supremely capable vessels, but one v important factor not discussed here (especially if you're going to operate in the South China sea!) is stealth. The Astute is coated with sonar-absorbing tiles and is one of the world's quietest nuclear subs, with a noise signature "equivalent to that of a baby dolphin" according to some reports. It also has the Thales 2076 sonar, which apparently can sit in the English channel and listen to a halibut sneeze in New York harbour (or something along those lines!). Another factor is the RR PWR2 reactor in the Astute has a long life core which won't require a mid-life refuelling, removing a significant cost consideration normally associated with nuclear subs. I would go with Astute therefore, but must declare a bias as a Brit!
Important point you make about stealth.
Lead times for essential equipment are long. Kit for Astutes is all made, kit for the next class is now in planning/starting to be made.
Thanks Martin, important considerations. The current Australian Government has suggested a decision would be made within 18 months. It is also likely that interim boats will be leased until the actual boats come into service.
The other issues with the Virginia's is that they aren't any good for shallow waters. They need deep water. The north of Australia is mostly shallow. Neither class is small enough to be able to operate the way we want them to.
Parts of the waters are shallow, particularly near Darwin. But the South China Sea is very deep, as are the Indian and Pacific Oceans.
Think part of the idea of going from diesel to nuclear is how far afield the submarines might venture.
This is all true, but both those subs can and will patrol far and wide, well away from the shores of AUS, they won't and shouldn't some to littoral waters when the AUS have impressive Air and Navy assets to do the job. During the Falklands war RN subs wouldn't chase Argentine ships such as Vincento de Mayo and Belgrano escorts through the relatively shallow waters of the Argentine coast without being targeted by Argentine Air and Naval power. Not because they couldn't. That was a
@@s3p4kner Except that is not how we use subs. We use them to gather intelligence close to shore. Now I have no problem with allowing the US and UK to use our facilities but our subs need to be smaller with less then 60 crew or else we may as well not even have them.
You are incorrect about the Virginia class being unable to operate in shallow waters. Go do some research. That info is available online.
About time Australia thought "outside the box" on this subject. We have ordered from the French a sub that we demanded was converted from nuclear powered to diesel/ electric (at an additional cost of $600 Million), cancelled that, and now wish to order either from the U.S. or Britain, both with very long lead times when we desperately need all the military equipment we can get a.s.a.p. Why not consideer the Los Angeles class nuclear subs that the U.S. is decommissioning as they replace them with the Virginia class. They are available very quickly, are a proven sub, and they would cost much less than either alternative. The U.S. would love to have Australia outfitted with nuclear equipment to help balance the power in S.E. Asia.
They are old and flogged out.
The USN submarine fleet is aging and they are losing units faster than they can build them. No way they are giving us submarines when are going down in numbers.
Everybody seems happy with a single style of sub. There should be a layered approach to Australia's huge area of concern. Japanese designed air-independent units for regional concerns. Nuclear for stategic concerns and drones for deeper war fighting
Hi Weblight. Yes this is great in theory, what brings it undone for a country the size of Australia is cost. Australia would be getting a small number, say 4, or each which adds costs to logistic support and training. In a perfect world, your idea would be great.
@@Strategy_Analysis Yeah, It was in the back of my mind that there wasn't a good answer to the issues of cost. Thanks for the reply
@@weblightstudio8215 No worries Weblight. I try to respond to all comments. Your suggestion is not totally out of sight. If Australia got a great deal on say 4 SSNs (not built in Australia), and then got a great deal on building 4 or so Japanese SSKs in Australia, its possible. But I wouldn't bet on it.
Japan does not operate Nuclear Powered Submarines, anything to do with Nuclear and the Military has been a very sensitive subject for 77 years.
@@Harldin Thanks mate, The Japanese subs were cheaper and better than most options, also available to have the keels laid now. I knew they werent nukes.
Regarding the crewing, I would suggest that SSN service has more appeal than diesel/electric, and also that female crew can be accommodated. Finding the crew may not be such a problem for these more comfortable boats.
Hi Raymond, thanks for the comment. More space and more comfortable will no doubt be more appealing. And no doubt more and better facilities for the female crew. However some Australians, even in the military, have issues with nuclear (even if only power). Also, Australia has a small population compared to other countries that operate SSNs. Also, Submarines in Australia are paid better than their surface fleet equivalents.
No women onboard. Can only reduce crew functionality.
Recruiting for the Collins is due to its poor reputation. SSNs will be an entirely different story.
Agreed.
@@advanceaustralia3321 The USA operates women on sub crews on all but their smallest and oldest subs.
@@SocialDownclimber
It’s a mistake.
It appears we now have a date and place for the announcement, San Diego Naval Base, 13 Mar (local time). Both the UK and Aus PMs have now been reported as travelling to the US this W/E.
Great update. Thank you.
Astute is my preference as well good size to crew ratio
My thoughts are service and repairs here or in England and what is at sea at Australian waters
In Australia, its a very important sovereign capability, we need to be able to completely service them in Australia.
Excellent briefing
Thank you, Darwinian, much appreciated.
More likely to be Astute, but mostly because BAe own Barrow, and also own ASC, the builders yard in Adelaide (Osborne)
Presently, Collins are going to progress through LOTE (Life of Type Extension) to service the gap
Yes the plan is 8 AUKUS boats, but it seems to me these will be in service very late unless purchased from Barrow
Heres the kicker, the Collins are better in the littoral waters to the north, and patrol sorties are around the same length, and theyre quieter.
Construction in Adelaide is politically also a factor, this was decided when we had the Oberons and couldnt acquire parts for them.
It would be my suggestion, that the first Collins be used as a prototype, this will work out a new drive, new sensors, new combat system, and high tech battery. Then that a new batch of Collins boats 471-2 BATCH 2 be constructed in Adelaide
And that 4 Astute be acquired from Barrow. We can have 3 Collins for each Astute. Collins cost A$850 mill in 1991,
now that value would ascend to A$1.36 bill in todays money, say 1.5 with a stretch (already researched for intended AIP) and LOTE features (budgeted) .
that provides 16 new boats on the same money, and retains 1 LOTE, plus the cycle down of the existing Collins fleet.
BAE don’t own ASC
@@Ferrastar "with ASC Shipbuilding becoming
a subsidiary of BAE Systems Australia
and subsequently renamed BAE Systems
Maritime Australia in 2021"
ASC Annual report pp5
www.asc.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Annual_Report_2021.pdf
A lot of technology is shared between the UK and US I wonder how much commonality the two subs share ? If it's a lot it maybe that the assumption any sub leased will lead to that countries sub being purchased is probably in doubt. Unfortunately, the UK has just decommissioned the last 2 Trafalgars, to be honest they look pretty knackered, and I suspect a lot of work would be required to get their lives extended.
I see the crew being one of the major issues frankly, which means neither class is ideal for Australia. What they really need is a Class of boats designed specifically for their requirements, including that reduced crew. That will be years away though.
Until then I would see the Astute's being the best option for the meantime, if only because of the reduced crew complement in comparison to the Virginia's. Say 3 - 4 boats to give Australia the experience operating Nuclear boats and to give them a credible submarine force while they design and build their own Boats specific to their requirements.
Australia has announced a plan to increase the ADF from 60,000 to 80,000 over the next 20 years, so the RAN will be up to about 21-22,000 from the current 15-16,000. The ADF has been around 60,000(give or take 2000) since the late 70s but the pop of Australia has gone from 16m to 26m
Yes the real answer would be the French nuclear powered barracuda but with American nuclear fuel and weapon integration.
@@boogle785 Just don't get the point of AUKUS do you? Don't get just how big a deal Australia getting US Reactor technology is, do you? The US has stated that no other country will be given access to that same technology. Australia had to give certain guarantees that France would not have access to the US CMS during construction of the Attack class.
FYI Aus/UK submarine crews, officers in particular already operate on each others boats. Astute is already a decade+ into it's 25-30yr lifespan, design planning has already started on replacement & if AUS is NOT a part of that already then maybe we need to crack some politicians heads together? Astute is cutting edge now, but it won't be by the time it needs replacing, if AUS knows what it wants then it will be incorporated I'm sure.
But this could all take *Decades* and maybe time isn't on our side for many, many reasons?
The strategic value of having VLS capability in the new SSNs is not something we should dismiss lightly. There is less need for the Astute class to have this capability as the RN has dedicated SSBs. Giving the RAN the ability to launch a subsurface Tomahawk attack against strategic targets, at considerable range from Australia, would given any potential adversary reason to pause.
Thanks for the comment Kevin. Certainly, the VLS cells would add to the total weapons layout. As far as I know, the Trafalgar's can launch long-range cruise missiles from their torpedo Tubes, so will still have the capability to speak of.
China will not lose sleep over the threat of a few dozen tomahawk's especially when they can retaliate a hundred fold. Going to a Virginia Block V is bracket creep on steroids for Australia. A mix of nuclear and diesel electric subs for Australia with some torpedo tube launched Harpoons and Tomahawks will more than suffice. The whole idea of taking on China in a war is ridiculous and Taiwan should just go down the Israel path and spend 5-6% of GDP on defence, build up a huge one million man reserve army with tens of thousands of artillery including rocket artillery along with a few thousand ballistic and cruise missiles that can accurately target China's ports and airfields plus ample ant ship and SAM systems then they won't need the US, Japan or little Oz if China goes mad and tries to undertake an invasion of Taiwan.
Agreed KQ,
But...the problem with sub launched VLS/ Harpoon anti air....you give away your position.
Check -6 with YTs Naval News, where they showed the new advanced French SSN concept...where they will have on board launch bays detaching drone subs....that could perform multi task ops....while having the mother ship remain hidden.
@@RPMZ11 i mean you can launch tomahawks from 1k miles...chances are you wont be detected
The Virginia Block 5 has a far greater weapons payload. This seems to be a very important capability, allowing the submarine to stay 'on station' for a much greater period.
Another important question to ask: when will Australian possess this weapon's platform? The faster the better. If you are going to have a submarine fleet, USE IT OR LOSE IT.
By the time Australia gets SSNs - both Astutes and Los Angeles will be very old designs. Astutes first entered service in 2010. As identified our shipyard is busy finishing off the Astutes and building our next missile boats. Unless we re-start building in another shipyard, Barrow is full and busy for the next 20yrs. Our next generation missile boats are already under construction. As for using interim old T class boats - they are all out of service and old boats. I would think that their cores would need replacing
In any case a new sub will not be ready for conflict with China and focus should be on new electrical and propulsion systems for the collins class and if possible building some new Collins with automation to make the original 42 crew possible instead of the 58 that it currently takes.
They tried with the French sub…but china already now has complete details of this sub including some technical information on Collins thanks largely to The Australian taxpayer and the French government
Sorry……..I am not against either vessel….,,but I have not heard anyone make the case for the need for a strike capacity.
Where there is no doubt, Australia needs a Conventional replacement for the Collins Class. A Swedish design…..definitely a consideration. A German design…..maybe. Japanese Soryu Class……yes, definitely.
Nuclear is a huge step. Could the cover be carried out by aviation……yes. Could the coverage be carried out by a huge Japanese Cruiser Class……yes.
The discussion is to confused at the present time.
Thanks for the comment, Robert. I agree it is a confusing discussion at the moment. One does wonder where we would be if the Japanese Soryu-class had been chosen instead.
My bet is two gifted Los Angeles class attack boat. I have read that Astute and Virginia are impossible because of scheduling in manufacturing and construction.
Agree that gifting a couple of SSNs in the interim is highly likely. What we might be gifted will depend on Australia's choice for the final capability. If Australia goes for the Virginia, then lease some Los Angeles class SSN. If Australia goes for the Astutes, then lease some Trafalgars (is possible).
The only issue I see with the RAN procuring the Astute class is the the fact that the Collins class uses the same weapons (Mk 48 adcap torpedoes) and combat system (AN/BYG-1) as the Virginia class and I can’t see the navy wanting to scrap those systems, which they have made a significant investment in over the years in favour of equivalent British systems, even if they are better. Conversely attempting to retrofit those systems into the Astute design could be problematic and cause cost overruns and delays which is something the RAN is trying to avoid by procuring an off the shelf design.
While I think the Astute class would be the best fit for the RAN, I am intrigued by the the possibility of Australia procuring the Block V Virginia and it’s 40 cell VPM. Especially considering Australia largely gave up its long range strike capability when we retired the F-111’s and a Block V Virginia armed with hypersonic cruise and and anti-ship missiles makes for one hell of a big stick that would make any potential enemy think twice about messing with us.
Good points @The Hellridr. Maintaining the same combat system will be very appealing, and as we both have said changing/modifying equipment normally doesn't end up well for the ADF. This then points to the Virginia, with the Block V adding a lot more capability through its VPM. Does the ADF need this extra capability? They'll certainly be paying substantially more for it.
A couple of things, irrespective of which Sub we get it will be the AN/BYG-1 CMS, the Collins were not originally fitted with it, and the Attacks were to get it, should not be a drama and once fitted it would actually be easier to integrate the Mk 48 ADCAP Torpedo and the Astute already uses both Harpoon and Tomahawk.
I can't see Australia getting the Block V and its actually only 28 Cells in the VPM, the other 12 Cells are fitted to all Virginia's in a separate place.
Why ask the UK to take part in the group if they were not going to build the boats. The USA get bases for their part plus the deal is not just about subs.
The HMS /Astute Class having been Designed and the building departments already Tooled up for the class with Engineers experienced in its Program it appears that it would be Australia’s best option particularly in regards to the crew numbers a distinct advantage .Not forgetting the cost also being a saving that could be used towards Crewing the Boats do to speak .....J
thanks for the comment, Dorothy. I see the crewing issues, especially over the life of the boats, as being critical.
Both awesome. Choose the one with best price
Absolutely Pete. But we need to look at the whole of life cost, which includes crew. That is why I suggest the Astute.
We are not getting either. 98 crew is over 30% more crew then a collins and we barely have enough to operate those. Our future in Submarines needs to be smaller and unmanned. For those saying well you just hire more the problem with that is the RAN has an image problem for a start and joining the military is not on peoples list of things to do. We also have the dole where you get paid by the government to not work. We don't do compulsory military service and enforcing it would be political suicide. The Australian military also doesn't take dreggs like the US does. It isn't 1914 or 1939 any more.
Thanks for the comments Craig. As I say in the briefing crewing will be a problem, maybe the RAN can crew 4 SSNs, combined with some unmanned underwater vessels.
My two cent's:
I can't see a solution to Australia getting SSN's that doesn't involve a new production line being opened somewhere. Nether the US nor the UK have the reserve
capacity to accept an Australian order, at least for an entire boat.
The British are tooling up to build the Dreadnought class SSBN and will be shutting down the the Astute production line as part of that. The Dreadnought's are far overdue an can not be delayed any further.
Meanwhile the US has been complaining that it's SSN build pace is too slow for over a decade now and will be tooling up to build the Ohio class SSBN replacement soon too, which will eat into their already slow SSN production.
The old ASC production line is long gone and was designed for a 3,000t boat anyway, not a 7 to 11,000t boat.
So if a new factory is being built; then where?
For an Australian politician (Australia will foot the bill after all) any choice other than Adelaide will end your career instantly and be quickly overturned by your successor (See Abbot). Australia does not have the ability to manufacture high performance nuclear power plants though (Lucas Heights is a 10MW toy for Uni students, not a 200MW+ power plant). So the reactor will be built overseas.
Rolls-Royce no longer produces the PWR2 reactor in the Astute class. They've moved on to the PWR3 which is a massive reactor and simply won't fit into an SSN, period. It's bloody huge and designed for SSBN's. The US however is still building the S9G in volume. Could a S9G fit in a Astute? Maybe. Is it a good idea to try? No.
So that means for the boat we're left with three options:
- Waiting until 2040 for a next-gen British built reactor to go into a yet to be designed boat.
- Waiting until 2040 for a next-gen American built reactor to go into yet to be designed boat.
- Putting American built S9G reactors into Australian built Virginia Block 6/7 hulls (possibly without the VLS to save money and crew) in 2030.
Sorry guys, "Oztutes" is pretty unlikely.
great post @Tranquility Base. Thanks. IF Australia does end up going for SSNs, I think it very likely an interim boat(s) will be leased. This could then change the calculus.
@@Strategy_Analysis Would the electronics integration with other defence platforms be consideration? Surface ships and aircraft. GPS might be obsolete. Australia seems to prefer US weapons.
@@petersinclair3997 I agree that Australia does seem to prefer U.S. weapons. Absolutely integration of different "electronics" is always an issue for any country. Australia has a long and troubled history with this, and it's not the only country to suffer from this.
@@Strategy_Analysis I'll point out that the UK/ANZAC have a long history of interoperability, crew sharing et.c and since UK want's to have more direct global presence, I've no doubt that an RN sub operating in the pacific is going to find itself based in AUS and 1/2 it's crew will not be British. I understand a lot of former RN personnel work in Aus and operate in the RAN/ANZAC anyway.
The devil is in the details but that 'could' take some pressure off the timelines? The politicians will have to sort out the rest.
Going forward, if RAN have an idea of performance and equipment, then they can jump on board either AUKUS next gen programs and some deal will be struck, and preferably like the RN carriers, the contract will be so prohibitively expensive to break that no politician would dare try.
see UK PM Cameron mocking his predecessor in Parliament, that he'd made a mess of the carrier contacts and would have cancelled both if he could. He hadn't messed up of course, but that's another story.
A question that should be asked in AUS [louder?]: Can the RAN build it's 10 or 8 or 5+ subs more cheaply by itself, than buying the same design from it's ally and benefit from economy of scale from their now increased order book. e.g the RN could now build in full or in part 15-20 boats? Is that number still too small to matter?
@@s3p4kner I have previously worked with former RN officers in Australia. There is as you say a long tradition of interoperability and exchanges. And no Australia can't build SSNs more cheaply than anywhere else, in fact, there is a cost "premium" Australia is prepared to pay for local construction. How could this extra money (the cost premium) be spent otherwise???
It will be the SSN(R) because the both the Astute and Virginia will be elderly design rather than mature. The astutes reactor ceases production when the last one is built for the fourth Dreadnought SSBN. The timeline for the RAN and RN is the same for the SSN(R). American submarines require 130 plus people whereas the SSN(R) could be less than the 98 of the Astute. The PWR3 reactor will be on the future Royal Navy submarine and the benefit is it can be designed to meet our exact requirements at the same time while the Royal Navy design is happening.
The switch from PWR2 production to PWR3 is already happening. Agincourt (Astute boat 7) will be the last PWR2 boat.
@@mortified776 is PWR2 powering the Dreadnought SSBN too?
Let’s raise the GST to 12.5%, buy 6 Astute boats and another 12 Type 212’s.
We need more Collins class as a stop gap.
Collins are useless.
Think everything is pointing at Astute…. Costs .. capability…production and maintenance…
Both boats are formidable
Thanks for the comment, David. Yes, agree, unfortunately, politics may come into play.
Yeah but trust the Americans to swoop in and make the Aussies go with the Vagina-class subs.
Australian politicians are going to save the country a fortune by restricting the choice to models that are not available. Australia should invest in a ton of Rustoleum for the Collins boats, they better last a hundred years. Good on ya!
And then if you wanted to really go for a nuclear submarine you could of course, with common sense, just have switched from the Shortfin Barracuda SSK to the Barracuda SSN (of which the Shortfin Barracuda was a conventional derivative specifically for Australia). Much of the work had already been done.
Hi Charl. I might be wrong, but I think one issue with the French SSN is that it uses different fuel, so requiring the boat to have a mid-life refuel, which isn't the case for the Astute or Virginia.
@@Strategy_Analysis At present yes. The French use a lower grade nuclear fuel as far as I am aware which makes disposal less of an issue. The Rubis class initially had to refuel every 5 years it is now 30. 10 years is normally in sync with a major refit cycle on normal boats. The discussion in terms of 2nd hand nuclear boats. Has nobody learned from the Canadian Upholders (And they were conventional). Regardless I predict the Collins is going to be operating for a veryyy long time still.
@@charlcoetzee281 Yes important point about disposal, which is extremely expensive for nuclear-powered vessels. The French ship should be cheaper to dispose of than the UK and U.S. ships.
And they come with a white flag
Clearly it will be the UK offering. I imagine that is the only reason the UK is apart of AUKUS? Otherwise why would we need a treaty with the UK who have no real interest down here. That and an Astute visited Stirling last year.
Yes, Matthew, all makes sense. Daresay we will know within the next 18 months.
I believe it has to be a tripartite agreement because both the UK and US boats contain technology that comes from the other country, and therefore has to have agreement form the other country to be transferred to a third party. Viz: reactor tech in the Astute and Quietening and propulsion tech in the Virginia.
I think the Astute meets the requirements Australia has at a substantial savings per boat in build cost, and operational cost with a smaller complement required to run the boat. It also can deploy tomahawk cruise missile via the torpedo tubes.
There is also a slot available that could be used to build an Astute boat at Barrow and at the same time train up Aus staff for building the boats in Aus, when there is the capability established (This is so the fleet build can be spread out in time and prevent loss of skills by building all the boats at once and then have a gap to the next orders).
The US are fully committed to their build out with all slots taken, they will have to make a slot available to build a boat for Aus.
It makes sense to buy from Britain, though I'm a Brit & hence slightly biased!
Why isn’t the Australian government looking also at French Barracuda class. Less crew needed and could the French supply them faster than the UK or USA?. The Australian Government needs the replacement ASAP as the Collins need to be replaced soon.
Because they need refuelling in 10 years, which means we are beholden to France for keeping our fleet going. We lose our sovereign capability to make our own decisions.
@@advanceaustralia3321 you will need support from what ever country you buy your sub..
Evolve the Collins to meet medium term defence needs and then transition it to nuclear propulsion for delivery during the 2040's. AUKUS would deliver the nuclear propulsion technology, the rest would remain as a sovereign Australian capability. Think big.
Astute rolls-royce pw2 reactor has had some problems In January 2012 radiation was detected in the PWR2 test reactor's coolant water and The regulator identified two major areas where UK practice fell significantly short of comparable good practice: loss-of-coolant accident and control of submarine depth following emergency reactor shutdown The regulator concluded that PWR2 was "potentially vulnerable to a structural failure of the primary circuit", which was a failure mode with significant safety hazards to crew and the public. There's a new pw3 reactor now 3 was a new system "based on a US design but using UK reactor technology UK was given access to the US Navy S9G reactor design used in their Virginia-class submarines if RAN get Astute we have the pw3 reactors in them PWR3's longer life over the 25-year life PWR2 designs.
Thanks DF. So there seems to be a solution to the problem you have highlighted.
@@Strategy_Analysis What is it ?
@@Strategy_Analysis The solution is the PW3
@@Daryl465 Yes, I was agreeing with your suggestion.
@@Daryl465 Isn't the PW3 too big for the Astute class (11.3m beam) being designed to suit the Dreadnought class (12.8m beam)?
This might seem like a silly question. Why not get both? UK & US have limited manufacturing capability in context of meeting their own demands. We seem to need them ASAP. Why not get 4 or 5 of each? Also gives us more diverse capability. Not to mention not putting all your eggs in one basket
We need the subs earlier than later
i think that it would be easier in a time of war to get supplies of the usa as opposed to the uk. i think the us navy has a great record at running sub reactors, i dont know if that is an indication of a better design. they must be amongst the most experienced people in the world just through hours run with reactors. and the usa spends heaps more than the uk of defence in general so upgrades would be more likely to come from the usa. but australia for some reason doesnt buy ships off the usa. for the example the destroyers, the navy does a report finds they want the arleigh burke and we build some frankenstein with half the capability and less range.
Crew sizes are the biggest problem with the US sips. A couple of examples
Virginia 135 Astute 98
Burke 320 Hobart 200
Wasp 1000 Canberra 360
Nimitz 3200+ Air Group
Queen Elizabeth 700+ Air Group/Marines
The Hobart is a modified Spanish F-101 Frigate, updated due to being 10 years younger but hardly a "Frankenstein's Monster*"
The Hobarts are good ships, the major problem is we should have got them 10 years earlier instead of the FFGUP and got at least 4.
@@Harldin spanish hull, german engine, usa fire control. sounds pretty frankensteinish to me. they're more expensive, with half the missile tubes and less range. all after the navy said they wanted arleigh burkes. they fit in well with our collins class frankensteins and our frankenstein canberra class. that seem to have been included because defence noted a lack of port facilities during the east timor thing. i think churchill said generals are always prepared to fight the last war, and it couldnt be more of an apt statement directed at the australian military. our navy at least needs to adopt the jeune ecole naval doctrine. and i hope this is a good first step. i would be happy if we didnt even have a surface fleet.
and an after thought on crew numbers. if we cant get people that want to get on the most cutting edge piece of millitary equipment that our country has ever had, with the best chance of survivability in the event of a new war, we may as well give up. if we gave them a distinctive tough looking uniform, more money, refered to them as the navies/countries elite, gave them good trips and cut back on the amount of surface ships, i cant see there being as bad a staffing problem as we have now.
best of luck to you and yours and give your dog a pat for me
adam
@@adamroodog1718 Sorry but I think calling all 3 Frankenstein's* is a bit far fetched, the most important thing on the Hobarts is the CMS-Weapons mix and that comes from the same place and at the time we ordered the Hobarts the Spanish Ships where proven and in service and had been designed, based on the Perry Class which Spain had just finished building and the cost blowout was caused by the Gillard Government slowing down the build. It would not have mattered if we had built F-101, G&C Baby Burkes or full sized Burkes.
Did you know that the US has never exported a brand new Submarine only rebuilds under the GUPPY program. and very few new Surface ships other then some Adams class DDGs and Perry class FFGs
PS: *Frankenstein was the Mad Scientist who built the Monster, the Monster had no name.
@@Harldin "2 : a monstrous creation especially : a work or agency that ruins its originator."
i was on one of those adams. and no i didnt know that. but isnt that what aukus is for?
to be fair i dont think there is much room to build more subs in the usa. the bloke on subrief does a rundown on US naval spending and i think from memory they are expanding their numbers. if i had to bet i would bet on astute. but i wanted to point out its not all champagne and roses. england is a long way away, and even further in the event of a war. it would be much easier to drop into the local US base for repaoirs and get topped up with weapons.
I kept watching even after you missed explaining the cost units in the table, but lost me when you failed to include the south pacific in your maps of regions with strategic significance that the Aukus sub would patrol. .. the shipping lanes, east coast cities, Honiara and Beijing, resources.....
Hi Chris. Thanks for the comment. What would you like me to expand upon? Happy to add.
Should Go with the Swedish AIP Submarines
Rightly or wrongly @Ben, I think that boat has sailed. If Australia was to stay with SSKs, it is more likely to be the Japanese boat.
@@Strategy_Analysis The Dutch are looking at three possible contenders to replace their four Walrus Class SSK's - Naval Group, TKMS and SAAB/Damen. They are also dragging their feet but perhaps within a year they may choose a winning bid? My guess is that the new Labor government will decide to buy a small number of SSN's to be built by the supplier nation and build 6-8 SSK's in Adelaide that are smaller than the Attack class but similar to the Collins class. The winner of the Dutch submarine contract, if it does proceed, may be a good contender for any SSK's for the RAN. I have read that the SAAB/Damen A26 Oceanic ER or Blekinge class may be more practical to build in Australia than a minimally updated Collins class as most of the original Collins class suppliers have long ago disappeared or no longer make any applicable components. The Japanese and South Koreans make excellent subs cost effectively but may find it hard to build subs in Australia due to cultural differences. Building any SSK's in Australia is an important requirement to ensure adequate through life support and for local political reasons. Australia can build SSK's cost competitively with the Europeans I believe and to a similar schedule.
@@andreasbimba6519 You may well be correct Andreas. With the change of government in Australia, it is entirely possible that they will go with a split order.
Don't forget that Nuclear submarines have two crews due to the length of patrols. You may need to double crew figures.
Only true for SSBNs not SSNs
Hi Michael, although I didn't explicitly mention it, by inference I am saying that even if for some reason Australia wanted to "double crew" its SSNs, it is highly unlikely it will be able to.
Britain's already designing its new SSN. Britain wont need to start replacing the Astutes until 2037 at the earliest, so won't need to start building until the late 2020's, 2030's.
So Australia will likely get the new design of SSN from Britain, laying the steal within the next two years. It will look like a smaller Dredknot SSBN, minus the VLS for the nukes.
So it could have its first boat before 2030, with a boat following each year.
Actually the will need to start construction in the early 2030's as these boats will take 8 to 12 years.
The recorded volume on this is far too low
As an Australian I'd say the Astute is better suited to us
Why?
@@petersinclair3997 Less crew and more affordable mostly, but the Astute also seems to be at least as good if not a little better at sinking ships, having 6 torpedo tubes instead of 4.
Although the Virginia would be much better at land attack with all the tomahawks it can carry especially with the block 5.
It may or may not be worth the extra cost to the RAN, not that I'd be unhappy with the Virginia, I don't like to be too picky.
Its been a "lay down misery" that it will be British since day 1. This is solidifying. 2 more astute on order for RN then manufacturing capacity is available,
Most likely it will be the British Astute class. The American will provide the nuclear propulsion and missiles/weapons. Otherwise, what is the need for the British involvement? And the Astute class is smaller, cheaper, less crews. My observation.
Yes Thieu, this seems a very likely outcome.
Britain wants to join the CP TPP, post Brexit. Boris is jumping on the wagon as America and Australia cooperate more on defence R&D. There are economic considerations too. Australia has an AAA Stable economy and is about to spend big on Defence to counterbalance China’s hegemony into the Pacific. Recently, jumped an extra AUD 270 Billion over 2020s decade budget estimates. Some of costs to be offset by Australia going into the long range missile business. Also, Australia and the US work together on AI drones and scramjets.
Crewing! Double the Nuke numbers, they have two crews each!
Join in a US/UK production? NO, Their power plants are no longer in production...
The RAN SSN will be by a very big margin, the largest most expensive Submarine export order in history, no one country has ever ordered 8 SSKs from another country. So irrespective of where they are built a brand new production line has to be set up and a whole new workforce trained to build them, just as well do all that at Osborn which was already being constructed to build large Subs(Attacks) and another 45 Hectares has just been purchased for this reason.
UK Sub building is set up to do one thing only, commission a RN Submarine once every 30 or so months, they no longer build SSKs so there is no capacity for an export order and the RANs SSN req is actually more then the RNs, just the RN also has a requirement for 4 SSBNs and the Dreadnought class will immediately follow the Astutes.
The US currently have 26 LA class Subs all over 26 yo still in service and are only producing Virginia's at the rate of 2 a year and have just started building the Columbia class SSBNs.
One major factor you have missed is which Reactor will be used. The Astutes have the RR PWR2(25 year life cycle) Reactor but the Dreadnoughts will have the RR PWR3(33 year life cycle) reactor, considering the state of both programs I would doubt the PWR2 is still in production and RR are now producing the PWR3 and considering the fact, that would require a 42% increase in Reactor production would have to put a doubt on there ability to supply Australia's requirements. I think an Astute powered by a US S9G Reactor is a real possibility.
Thank you for the very detailed comment Harldin. To address your last question first, you are correct I didn't address the reactor issue. As I mention Australia has a (bad) habit of "Australianising" defence procurement, to its detriment. So I am suggesting Australia will chose an SSN with as little modification as possible. The reactor may then become an important determinant. As to whether the U.S. or UK is best placed to fit Australia's initial (at least) SSNs into their production lines, I think the jury is still out on that.
My bet is on Richard Marles going for 2 to 4 SSN's to be built O/S and 6 to 8 SSK's of a smaller design than the Attack class to be built in Adelaide - all ASAP.
@@andreasbimba6519 The UK is not in a position to build Australia Subs and the US is way behind on its own builds.
@@Harldin You may be right but we will soon see when the 18 month nuclear sub investigation is completed whether the US or the UK can build some SSN's for the RAN or assist with building some in Adelaide until then we are all guessing. My guess is that if Australia can build the capacity to build SSN submarines then surely the UK is even better positioned to build additional capacity and still build the Dreadnoughts to schedule. My guess is the new Labor government will just order a small number of SSN's, two to four, to be built in the UK or the US and build a batch of SSK's in Adelaide. Whether Rolls Royce can build more PWR2 reactors for an Australian order is also of concern.
@@andreasbimba6519 Not sure why you would think the UK would be in a better position then Australia. There entire build strategy is centred on the requirement of building 11 Submarines over a 35 year period from 2001(Astute) to the mid 2030s(4th Dreadnought) and then restart the entire process over again with SSN(R), where is the extra construction facility? Where is the extra work force? There is no extra capacity because there has been no requirement.
Australia began construction on a brand new state of the art Submarine building facility for building the Attack class in 2020 and have recently acquired a further 45 Hectares of land at Osborn for the Sub construction site. We are probably going to end up with a better facility then either the US or UK, staffing it is the biggest issue.
Depends very much on whether a PWR3 or a S9G will fit into an Astute, if RR can swap out the PWR2 for the PWR3 then I suspect that is the way they will go, there was some talk about putting a PWR3 in the 7th Astute, not sure that has happened or not, there is very little public info on Sub Reactors, the US and UK hold there secrets very close and so will Australia.
1:20 why not get an old Los Angeles-Class? they still sail and there’s 33 of them in mothballs. we need nuclear submarines with australian flags in the water yesterday, because any conflict between an aussie nuclear submarine and china is between australia and china, and that is the world’s best hope at avoiding world war 3.
Hi Jin. As I mention in the Briefing, leasing an interim boat is likely, and leasing from the same country as the final design that is selected is highly likely. So if the Virginia's are selected, I think it likely a (some) Los Angeles-class will be utilised in the interim.
What about the Barracuda french SSN
Hi Simon, as I understand it the French boat needs a mid-life refuel due to the type of reactor fuel, thus increasing cost. The Astutes and Virginias don't require a mid-life refuel. Then there is integrating the U.S. combat system onto the French boat ...
Any submarine is going to be modified with new American nuclear reactors, which are designed to last for the entire lifetime of the submarine. I don't believe the Australians are looking at land attack capabilities, so the Virginia class doesn't really make sense for them and this is doubly true for the Mark V. I think the most likely choice is to have a modified astute class with American fire control and weapons as well as the new nuclear reactor.
Good comment Ron. You have described what I also believe to be the more likely outcome. This is not to say the Virginias aren't as good or even better than the Astutes, but barring unknown factors, it will come down to money.
The RAN certainly is investing in land strike and additional naval strike capabilities
Everyone is crying about the difficulty of crewing. I can understand why the Navy has trouble crewing the Collins (old tech) but the new nuclear subs ? Nope, they will have no problems finding all the crew they want for the most prestigious posting in the Australian Navy.
sea wolf regarding to the initial spec
I like how over half a billion is marginally cheaper
Got to be the Astute class the British and Australian drive on the same side 🤣🤣🤣
Well exactly. What more justification is needed?
So we paid the French +$5B to the French to convert their nuclear powered subs into conventional Diesel Subs.
Given the French Nuclear powered Subs used civilian power station grade grade reactors.
Then decided we want Nuclear powered subs after all; Why didn't we buy the French Nuclear subs?
@@dominique4700 your last sentence was not translated correctly?
*We* didn’t. Turnbull did. And he was turfed out of power…
There are 7 Trafalger class subs just sitting in Dock. Refuel them and they are good for another 20 years.
Certainly a possibility if Australia goes for a UK SSN.
Australia is spending AUD 10 Billion on an East Coast Defence nuclear submarine service base, pending the build in Adelaide, Australia, of its own twelve nuclear submarines. Think Australia is seeking special permission to purchase B-21 strategic bombers too.
A Sqn of 12 B-21s would cost $30-40B to introduce over a period of about 8-10 years, where is that money coming from? The Govt released the forecast budget for 2020-2040+ in 2020 and $40B odd for a Strategic Bomber wasn't in that forecast. The B-21 buy is nothing more then Keyboard warrior wishful thinking.
I believe it will be the Virginia class Australia will go for. As it would be easier to get upgrades for during it's service life and wouldn't required any systems change as the British may have some off its own systems slightly different than the Americans.
Has to be Astute , it is cheaper , faster best of all the builder has capacity now. lay down mazaire
Honestly the French ones would have been better
Perhaps @Oliver Revis, but we will never know
"Collins" is such an Australian name.
we need both nuke and conventional boats. We should've returned to the French who offered a nuke boat after the first attack class debacle
The USA only offered nuke boats reluctantly, as they're concerned about China out competing them in the globalized world. Since we have no fuel to run conventional boats locally, US had no choice but to offer us nuke boats
Need nuke boats stationed in Australia and conventional station in S E Asia
I thought they were going to put a nuclear engine into the current Colin Class Submarine.
TWO crews for each nuclear vessel, no ignition key! Common US/UK practice, we'd never crew them...
Yes, James. The crewing issue is less "sexy" to discuss but a critical component in the overall evaluation.
@@Strategy_Analysis Yes. Since 2nd AIF Australia has ever had a recruiting problem; Korea: send P&O to London get some WWII Brits, stick them under a slouch hat and voila; K Force, Malaya/Borneo: Menzies 90 day Jamboree, Vietnam: "selective" national service. Since, just Regulars who just groan - and all just observe a R&SL devoid of cojones and governments whom just give them lawyers as Ministers of Veterans' Affairs.
I estimate crewing as:
Say 110 per boat
Six Boats = 660x2 crews ea = 1320
Training say 2 crews min = 220
Total = 1540
Say 1600
This against a present ability to crew four Collins, say 200 plus training say 50.
I cannot conceive for a new recruiting imposition on the RAN for an additional 1,300+ crew with high academic achievement/potential as a start point, for we clearly even now cannot provide even 300+.
As an additional specification; minimum submerged draught? The potential area of operation is a continental shelf more suited to perhaps Singapore's AIP Type 218?
Good luck with it all.
Virginia block v pls
Certainly the most heavily armed of all the choices.
@@Strategy_Analysis For sure. I think when you consider the Virginia has the same combat system as the Collins and same weapons, it’ll be a lot more appealing when trying to adapt. Plus US wants to up production of Virginia anyway, so they could make some room for 8 more subs if they get more production going. Crew numbers could be an issue though , and also because all US submarine commanding officers are qualified nuclear officers.
Forget manned submarines. Build AI-drone submarines that are controlled remotely. A lot cheaper and no crewing problems.
Science fiction.
how many tomahawks do we own or will we need to buy them also??
do they come with a full tank of fuel?
how long is the warranty period?
how many will we buy?
will we sub contact crews? (LNP preferred policy)?
when we send them back North for services will we get a loan submarine?
who will we be attacking in the Indian ocean? India?
how many submarines will the LNP enemies have when these submarines are ready and operational?
how will we finance them now that the LNP have told China we don't want to sell them our resources or produce anymore?
maybe the new government will cancel the alliance and we could sign on to a trade and security agreement similar to what has been offered to the other Pacific Nations (assuming that China is willing to talk to us after our previous team - CoalMo and Dutton)?
1080 crew on a Virginia sub????????
Hi @AwesomeSauce81. 1080 is the total crew requirement for 8 Virginia SSNs.
According to reports if they are true then Australia will be paying France $500 million in compensations for contract breach.
I think it is AUD$835. So you'd have to convert that to USD or EUR.
We do have a change of Government and the new PM has supported the decision from day 1 but it is not yet clear if it will be a majority Government. The biggest issue is how strong the Greens will be, they and several Independents are guaranteeing a Labor Government at present and the Greens have a totally anti Nuclear stance and if they got their way they would destroy Defence. Peter Dutton is now Leader of the Opposition by the way.
Yes @Harldin, Labor supported the decision with one day's notice. They might change their mind after more extensive briefings. Also, as you say, The Greens may need to be placated to get legislation through the Senate. Far from a done deal at the moment.
What bs you talk ! The greens would not hamper the defence of Australia but would look at all options to get a working Submarine fleet operational asap.
@@boogle785 Try reading the Greens Defence policy, released during the election. No SSNs and Defence cut by 50%
@@Harldin Defence is not a core issue for the Greens but they will be fighting hard on transitioning more quickly to renewable power and reducing poverty/inequality/austerity - perhaps the Greens are not the ogres that you portray. If the Greens formed part of a coalition government like they do currently in Germany they would probably defer to the senior partner on defence policy in a trade for more influence on environmental and social equity issues. Note also the German Greens support Olaf Scholz's big defence spending increases and tough sanctions on Russia. Perhaps it is the Conservatives you should be wary of with Boris Johnson in the UK refusing to commit to a 0.5% p.a. increase in the UK defence budget at a time that the UK Chief of the Army is saying the world is facing a 1937 moment!
www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jun/28/no-10-to-ditch-defence-spending-manifesto-pledge
The key Manning probable is that the Colin's old and cramped if you go Virginia block 5 you have the advantage of all that the Americans are done bf and building your crews can start trying now with the yanks and we can have those sweet vls tubes.
Block V Virginia please please please 🥺 we need that and 10 nuclear Tomahawks. We don't want a war but China needs to know we have teeth.
You're no nuclear power but China is.
Great
Thak you Andrew.
Useless Australian Government and Defence department. Australia should have bought nuclear submarines in the 1990’s, plus it needs ICBM’s. It has neither. It needs ground, air and sea launch able ICBM’s. It needs more heavily armed ships and planes. Why are aircraft and ships going on missions without being fully armed. Recently a anti submarine patrol plane was had lasers pointed at it and was not armed with countermeasures, ie, electronic and air to surface missiles. Also No missile defence systems anywhere in Australia. No secret bases. China could launch a missile strike and take out every large military base before Australia could respond. Totally incompetent. The heads of the defence department need to be sacked and say Israel experts bought in ASAP.
Until very recent times, Australia would not even consider nuclear weapons. Domestic politics and avoiding issues with Indonesia.
I have given this quite a bit of thought and believe Australia and Japan should seriously consider developing a small nuclear weapons capability along with the ballistic missiles to deliver them similar to what Israel currently holds. Japan does already have suitable ballistic missile designs and the production capacity to build them, sufficient plutonium and probably has nuclear bomb designs ready to build. This small nuclear weapons capability would be just a deterrent against an existential threat which unfortunately this world does present and that is not likely to go away soon. North Korea, China and Russia could all become serious threats very quickly. Expecting the US to lose their major cities in an attempt to safeguard any allies under their nuclear umbrella is looking increasingly tenuous. Yes this would further proliferate nuclear weapons but that is less of an issue than survival and meaningful deterrence. Yes New Zealand would go bananas and most of ASEAN would grumble but who got in the way of Israel doing the same?
On the other hand I disagree with the current drift towards taking on China militarily by the US, Japan and Australia over Taiwan and the South China Sea. China can out build the US and its allies and it is better to stand back, never provoke but always carry a big stick. The far better solution is for Taiwan to expand defence spending to 5-6% and to build up a very large reservist based army with a professional core and sufficient weapons to defeat any invasion attempt much like Israel has attained with less than half the population of Taiwan.
A progressive transition away from China as a supplier of goods would be more acceptable penalty for their current misdeeds in the South China Sea, Xinjiang, Tibet, Hong Kong and towards Taiwan.
Oh crap, Labour got in. I suspect the whole sub project will be dropped in favour of a big white flag ( or red flag ). Better get some rust remover and a wire brush because those Collins boats are going to be in service for a very long time.
Well it will be interesting to see what the Labor Party does.
I think the coalition is the weakest political entity when it comes to Australia's defence due to their inherent arrogance and entitlement. Also they do not have the ability or competence when it comes to foreign affairs just look at French response to cancellation of barracuda subs and Chinese agreements with Solomon Islands.
I thank the universe everyday we are rid of the incompetence of the liberal and national parties who have abandoned centrist policies and have moved to extremist right wing ideologies of the previous Trump administration of the US
I'm sorry to be blunt but can I suggest you write a script and practice it before doing a video, as your ums, aahs and jerky interrupted vocal style are a bit hard to follow unless I fully concentrate.
Hi @i minabrons , thanks for the comment. Just for clarification for you. I do a script, but my presentation is intentionally natural and not a "factory-production", and not a computer-generated voice presentation. If English is not your first language, are subtitles available for you? Also, my style is not for flashy imagery and videos, but more about analysis and my viewers taking time to consider my points, and I'm very happy to hear their critiques.
@@Strategy_Analysis Actually, while watching the video I was thinking how much I enjoyed your narrative style. I find it relaxed but articulate and very easy to listen to. Didn't notice the ums and aahs at all and no jerkiness interfering with comprehension. P.S.. Just listened again and of course now I can hear the ums and aahs but I still don't find it a problem. Of course the suggested improvements would result in a cleaner narration but I don't mind your current style at all.
@@robman2095 Thanks for the comment, Robert. Always looking to improve my briefings. I am very aware they are not perfect, very unnatural for me to do this, but I want to.
@@Strategy_Analysis Certainly far superior to some of the Robotic voices you get on YT Videos that end up sounding like gibberish because they use the wrong inflections, pronounce the word incorrectly or just stop at the wrong point of the sentence. I may not necessarily agree with all your content but I do like the way you present it.
@@Harldin Appreciate the comment Harldin. I don't want to live in an "echo chamber", so very happy to hear other views and opinions. I do my best to provide an objective assessment, which I might get totally wrong.
Unpopular opinion Australia will never get nuclear subs. The whole thing is a pipe dream that will go nowhere
@Murray that is a possibility, but it will be difficult (politically) for Australia to completely pull out of this arrangement. We should know the new governing party's position before too long.
Think it is more than a pipe dream. The UK was faced with same decision in 1958, owing to the USSR. Australia will certainly train to service AUKUS nuclear submarines. Given today’s Sino geopolitics, I would think Australia has a greater need than the UK. Attitudes are changing towards home based nuclear weapons too. Probably, not necessary owing to the US umbrella. George W. said the US of his Administration wouldn’t care, if Australia or Canada deployed nukes.
😊