PETE COMMENT
First, in April 2016, the Australian Federal Government prematurely, but before the July 2016 Federal Election, chose Naval Group/DCNS to build the Attack class conventionally propelled subs. This was, in part, to gain votes/seats in South Australia (where Australia was to build the subs). But this premature Aus Gov announcement and action led to an unmanageable situation with Naval Group.
Second. Now in 2021, prior to the Federal Election probably in April 2022, Morrison has announced a very un-nailed down "vision" to build nuclear propelled subs, again in South Australia. Everything is up for consultation with, not one, but two countries, the UK and US. To be cynical is fully justified that escaping the Naval Group unmanageable situation may lead to something worse. But rest assured votes and seats in South Australia (where these nuclear subs are meant to be built) are (almost) assured for Morrison's Government (which is behind in the polls).
An Australian nuclear submarine (Aus SSN) may become an even more unmanageable situation.
UNCERTAIN VISIONS/OPTIONS
This side of the Federal Election by May 2022 Morrison merely says Australia will build the SSNs, in Adelaide, South Australia. But all of these submarine issues are up for review, by an 18 month Australian Department of Defence research project, in consultation with the UK and US.
8 comments:
I kinda half expected this to happen at one stage...that they were better off with off the shelf SSNs initially...
1. I am sure some export version can be quickly built up (at least one unit delivered before 2030)...I find it unlikely the US will share real top of the line electronics etc..
2. Astute looks cheaper at 1.5 billion pounds for a boat or nearly 2.9 billion AUD compared to nearly AUD 3.8 billion or 2 billion pounds for a Virginia... we need to add about the same 1.5 billion pounds for a boat for the support and maintenance though...at 5 billion AUD a boat...these HEU PWR-2 babies don't come cheap plus another 4-5 billion AUD for other initial facilities...a minimum of 25 billion AUD gone before weapons etc are talked about for these 4 boats.
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/astute-boats-4-7-now-more-than-800m-over-budget/
3. NPT issues: How are they going to iron out these exceptions for Australia? and regarding MTCR, while easier than NPT/NSG, what missiles will Australia sport? BGM-109s?... an agreement to ship reactor fuel back to US/UK has to be agreed upon.... another concern is how China might 'liberally' choose to interpret this as a carte blanche to free lease an SSN to say pakistan...just to spite the 'Quad'? sauce for the goose argument is likely.
4. now australia will have no choice but to let go of HEU paranoia and start to build that facility on small islands off Adelaide region assuming all goes well...that will be very expensive too...
5. Where will Australia find 6-7 sets of crew for the 4 boats? and the extra crew for any surface vessels that will get added to build up battle groups mutually protecting the SSNs? you may now need more MH-60Rs, possibly E-2Ds and instead of 48 VLS destroyers... at least 64-80 VLS bearing ships ala Type-052D... what about SSKs? given Australia's size, an Franco-UK style all SSN fleet is not likely viable... nor sufficient...
All this is 'doable'....though financially and physically likely very very exhausting...
Hi Karthik
You raise a whole host of valid issues that "trust me" Morrison (and Aussia taxpayers) will have to face AFTER the Election
All cost, technical, internationl relations, nuclear treaties are of less import than Morrison's appearance as a decisive leader regarding future Aus SSN and also AUKUS.
Meanwhile Australia's ALP opposition will probably have to agree with this trilateral AUKUS initiative. ALP doesn't want to be accused of being soft on China.
NZ, very anti-nuclear, has already voiced displeasure at the Aus SSN prospect. AUKUS replacing ANZUS will leave out NZ - basically first time since the First ANZAC day in 1915 (ie. more than 100 years ago).
Meanwhile Australia may need 6 (one crew?) SSNs for one to be ready for action on the West Aus coast and one on Aus East Coast (not forward based as Fleet Base East (Sydney Harbour?) I assume).
Pete
NZ opposing N-subs is not a big problem. Besides the 93s sailing now, The PLAN has already planned enough future 'excursions' to the 'third island chain' already and will give two hoots about what NZ thinks...NZ should get used to PLAN CBGs exercising a 100 NM off their coast. It is nice to wish for an N-free world but silly to bury their heads in the sand about the emerging global faultlines. I have little patience for such facetiousness.
Whether the ALP agrees or not is secondary imho, the real issue is the whopping one time bill in excess of AUD 100 billion and the continual O&M running bill annually of an extra 10-20 billion AUD for all the bells n whistles infra that goes with a big set up etc. etc..
we are talking the equivalent of 40-50% of 2020 Australian GDP worth costs in the next 20-25 years alone. this will continue for the foreseeable future..
Hi pete
A french perspective
A few points :
-The Australian change of tack is completely rationnal in view of the novel chinese aggressive posture.BTW they really need SSN due to the geography.
However Australia is casting its lot with the US for the next 30/40 years which could be risky?Who knows the situation in that time frame .The US is a divided nation with a changing demographics..The huge expense and complexity of the Attack programm had for objective to build a naval independant structure in Australia (out of 50 B only 8 were for "the French"..)At least the Koreansand the Japanses are more careful
Owing to the greater complexity and also to the US culture and lack of experience in Tech Transfer Ausralia will have to buy off the shelf and be completely dependant strategically but also economically (price of spare , price of maintenance ..)
From a chinese standpoint , they will see 8 additional US sub ,where even the crew might not be australian ,paid by the Australian taxpayer
- The way it was done is quite dishonorable.
It is quite clear that this decision was not decided 2 days ago and was seriously brewing for a least a year , although the contract negociations were difficult .. ,Naval Group fault of course !,and that a lobbying /media campaign against it was obvious. I gess "Good Faith negociation"...in contract jargon !
Hopefully the US is a trusted ally..!
- this is extremely destabilizing
Th US will transfer weapon grade ( thats were it comes from)HEU, NPT? Breach of NPT is for ..Iran
What can preclude India , Pakistan , Brazil,Indonesia, Egypt ..to ask for SSN from France , China , Russia or SK or Japan doing it
After all as Scott Morrisson said"its only for propulsion" and LEU in the case of France is within the NPT as civilian reactor.SSN due to their speed , depth and unlimited sprint are really strategic and open the deterrent WMD path
H.I Sutton has written quite a good piece on nuclear propulsion proliferation
http://www.hisutton.com/World-Nuclear-Submarine-Navies.html
One issue he highlights that isnot mentioned by many commentators on this subject is the PRC, which has recently gone into serial SSN production. Australia's announcement, with the first SSN(Aus) in ten years, would just start to counter the PLAAN's SSN plans, which is why the CCP sound so pissed of now - they'll have more SSNs to deal with.
Will China sell reactor units to Pakistan and Myanmar? This is now a possibility that cannot be discounted.
Both India and Brazil have their own reactor designs, and while Sutton mentions both North Korea and South Korea as aspring to go underway on nuclear propulsion.
Now Canada has just been placed in a unique position - like Australia, their Upholder SSKs are aged and due for replacement soon, and considering their long Arctic coastline and Russia's Polar expansion, the idea of the RCN operating SSNs has always been floated around. It is now quite conceivable that Canada could take part in Australia's SSN development, though I'm not sure if they'd officially join the trilateral agreement (which would be called CAUKUS?)
From my brief research, both the USN's 20,000 ton Columbia class and RN's 17,000 ton Dreadnaught Class SSBNs are now in production, but to trickle down their large reactor designs to SSNs would cause bloat - this is one of the reasons why the Astute class is 30% larger than the Trafalgar (plus why they look so chunky) and why the Suffern was delayed for years without a reactor while NG figured out how to shrink down a K15 reactor to fit into a small SSN.
The USN's Naval Reactors is currently researching a 'transformational technology core (https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/systems/ttc.htm) for future SSNs, and from a brief Google they are now down to four new core designs.
This could form the basis of the (C)AUKUS initiative, providing all three (or 4) nations with a joint power plant design, and with both the US SSN(X) and UK SSN(R) projects currently in their infancy, and thus could form the basis of the tripartite submarine agreement - a 'joint' design using the same nuclear power plants, with hulls built in each country and fitted to their own specifications. To the UK and US, the inclusion of Australia (and Canada?) should lead to R&D cost spread out, with economies of scale to reactor production.
The discussions in Australia are only just beginning, and while the most recent plan seems to be to accelerate the SSN purchase to deliver the first boat within ten years (highly unlikely, as they're first gonna spend 18 months considering options, then they'll have about three years to design the boat before steel has to be cut to make this timeline) while the Collins gets (another?) life extension.
The RAN might want to consider sticking to the original first three Collins decommissioning dates, and then 'loaning' their crews to the USN, where they could be based in Guam with Subron 15. The USN could then replace the LA class that squadron currently operates with Virginias and operate them in East Asia with a mix USN/RAN crew, while the last three Collins serve to 2031 in Australian waters.
In any approach we choose, there will be a cost to face, not just in money, but also in blood and tears. The question I have is at what costs, the U.S. will walk away. How far will the U.S. go to limit China in Asia?
As an American, it is unclear to me how far the American people are willing to go. POTUS only has a maximum of 8 years and maybe just 2 years if Congress changes hands at mid-term elections.
Afghanistan was not the only time the U.S. walked away. There was Vietnam in 1973 and before that, China (CKS) in 1949.
KQN
So many variables, to contend with, and the navy will want more customisation just like torpedo tubes than the Attack class. I wonder how many billions will go into that fiasco. Is off the shelf the most logical solution for expediencies sake?. Is that off the shelf the Virginia obsolete when we get it in 2030. Do we have options of using retiring SSBNs to train with to establish crews to the professional level that will be necessary to run these new subs. As much as it is an ugly question, but the missiles used on these subs will they all be capable of nuclear tipping, if push came to shove. Oh then the battery question may not be an issue hopefully. No AIP requirements from Stirling. all the connections that once were a consideration is now not applicable. Thank god for minor miracles.
May this be a lesson to us all,all submarine producing nations have built sub after sub. Gradually evolving from the science and technology gained in the process.I f we had just evolved the same for our sub building efforts since the 90s we would be at Collins 3.0 with most of the expectations needed to be relevant for today, minus the obvious propulsion option.
Yes politics of "oneupmanship" has made us all look terribly inept.
Post a Comment