Which AUKUS Country's SSN Design Will Win?

The Australian Nuclear Powered Submarine Taskforce (aka simply the Taskforce) has constantly been advising Canberra based senior RAN, DoD officers/officials and, of course, politicians. This is in order for the Australian Government to announce which country’s AUKUS submarine design will be selected or a "common AUKUS design". The decision is due within the first quarter of this year (2023) (ie. by Friday March 31, 2023). From the AFR the Australian and UK PMs will likely be in Washington, with Biden, to make public a joint AUKUS SSN decision between March 16 to 19 inclusive.  

At that Washington meeting it is likely UK Prime Minister Sunak will make the ambit claim "the UK will aim to design and organise the build of the first SSN(R) to be delivered to Australia in the 2030s". Against that claim the UK's very limited nuclear sub design and build manpower resources will be fully occupied with the UK's future Dreadnought-class SSBN - from the mid 2020s through to the mid-late 2030s. Hence SSN(R)s built in the UK, and/or in Adelaide, might only be available in the late 2030s, with first commissioning in the 2040s.

Also relevant in advising the Australian government is the bigger picture Australian Defence Strategic Review - due to report around the same time.

As an aside I’m guessing the Taskforce’s main HQ is in Canberra (at Defence Central, Russell Offices?). This is to facilitate frequent and intensive interaction with our  Defence Minister, Prime Minister and with the US and UK Defence Attaches posted to Canberra. Meanwhile the Taskforce would have outstations where submarine talent is: at Fleet Base West, Fleet Base East, Adelaide and the Australian Defence and Naval Attaches in Washington and London. Taskforce HQ likely communicates with all these outstations using an Australian intranet (called?) that is tied to the broader UKUSA STONE GHOST network and to the US DoD's highly secure JWICS intranet. 

My predictions of which country’s submarine design will be selected in the  AUKUS SSN competition (with SSNs to be (party built in the UK or US) + (much built in Adelaide)) is:

UK 60% chance - If so, very likely within a UK designed future SSN(R) hull. 

My prediction that a UK SSN design is most likely is part due to then UK PM Boris Johnson announcing UK jobs and funding, implicitly for an AUKUS SSN(R), on the same day, September 15, 2021, that the AUKUS pact was announced. There was no similar US SSN(X) or Improved Virginia SSN, aimed at AUKUS, announcement that day. 

It is most probably significant that from the time the "About" section of the Taskforce's website was first published, from late September 2021, the photo displayed was of a UK submarine (an Astute) on display through to the beginning of 2022. I never noticed a US submarine photo or artwork anywhere on the website. To make less obvious Australia's UK SSN preference the "About" section for most of 2022 and through to 6pm today featured a definitely not in contention, Russian Borei-class SSBN. Its as if the Taskforce chaps are reading what I'm typing because they just put up a photo of the Taskforce's (hitherto "unknown" location) Russell Offices HQ on the "About" section at 6.25pm (Australian Eastern Time) Feb 6, 2023. At 6.50pm they changed back to the good'ol Borei artwork ;-) 

Higher odds for the UK SSN(R ) have also increased by the UK MoD’s decision to quietly publicize, through various websites (eg. NavalNews), the expectation that the SSN(R) will have a multi-missile type vertical launch system (VLS). 

VLS is very likely a major attribute for Australian selectors. This is because missiles more advanced, faster, larger and longer range than the current US-UK SSN Tomahawk VL missile will more flexibly fit into a VLS compared to a virtually unalterable 533mm horizontal torpedo tube. In short, VLS makes the future SSN(R) more competitive against the US Virginia (a SSN that already has VLS).

Relevant to Australia's submariner manpower shortage, it is highly likely the SSN(R) will have a much smaller crew (98 (as on the Astute) + 6 to operate the VLS = 104) compared to 135 on the Virginias and SSN(X)s. 

An Australian order of 8 SSN(R)s on top of a UK RN order of 7 SSN(R)s will improve the economies of scale of SSN(R) production to the UK's benefit. This may translate into the UK giving Australia a slight discount, maybe of the order of 5%, on SSN(R)s. 

No similar economies of scale benefit would exist for the US if Australia were permitted to buy 8 SSN(X)/Virginias - as the production run for the USN alone may amount to fifty subs over 30 years, out to 2053.

Common-Trilateral Design - Some US Contents Within A UK SSN(R) Hull

The SSN(R) will very likely be powered by  the UK’s PWR3 reactor which is partly based on the US S9G reactor (which powers Virginia-class SSNs). 

If Australia buys a UK or US SSN design either of the designs chosen will still incorporate the US AN/BYG-1 combat system (aka " the TCS") of a type that is already in our Collins-class submarines. US company Lockheed Martin was chosen to integrate the AN/BYG-1 combat system for our previous Attack-class project. This makes it highly likely Lockheed Martin will integrate the AN/BYG-1, consisting of sensors, databases, command center work stations, and weapons modules (including a US derived VLS) on whichever US or UK design wins. 

So I think it likely a joint US, UK &  Australian common (aka Trilateral) Contents Design solution has a 60% chance of being within a UK SSN(R) hull. 

US 30% chance - If so this may be within a future SSN(X) or Improved Virginia-class SSN hull. These may be powered by the existing S9G reactor already in current Virginias or even by a future S9W reactor, not yet on the USN's long list.  

Australia picking a US SSN design is less likely in part due to repeated statements from US admirals eg. key Admiral Pappano and, lately, politicians, that a US supply of Virginias to Australia, or even helping build them within Australia, will be too disruptive to the US SSN industry in its main role of supplying the USN’s pressing needs. US needs are increasing, due to the long term Russian submarine threat, but also due to the rising threat of China building subs of increasing capability. The threat from North Korean SSBs also requires more SSNs for the USN.

Furthermore APDR reports Jan 1, 2023 "The US Government Accountability Office (GAO) has concluded that the country’s already overstretched industrial base faces increasing difficulties constructing Columbia [class] SSBNs and this is already causing delays on the Virginia program...In other words, for the foreseeable future it will be impossible to ramp up the speed of the construction of the Virginia class..." 

In any case the USN and broader government does not like exporting its most sensitive military/naval technology if it can at all avoid it. The advanced tech Virginia SSN is up there with the F-22 stealth fighter. The F-22 cannot be exported under US law.

10% Chance - the Australian government decides to delay a decision partly due to the extreme cost of 8 AUKUS SSNs (whose numbers may be reduced to 6).