September 16, 2021

Australia to Have Nuclear Subs (SSNs) Ditching Attack Class

Greg Jennett and Jake Evans on Sept 16, 2021, for Australia's Government owned ABC News report the momentous surprise that:

"Australia to acquire nuclear submarine fleet as part of historic deal with US and UK to counter China's influence"

Australia is embarking on its most significant change of defence and strategic direction in decades, aiming to make the Navy's next submarine fleet nuclear-powered.

In a deal announced by US President Joe Biden, UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson and Prime Minister Scott Morrison, the US will share secret nuclear technology to help Australia in the switch to nuclear-powered boats.

The fleet will be the first initiative of a newly formed trilateral security partnership called AUKUS.

Mr Morrison said the "next generation" partnership would help ensure the region's safety.

"Our world is becoming more complex, especially here in our region, the Indo-Pacific," Mr Morrison said. 

"This affects us all. The future of the Indo-Pacific will impact all our futures."

The deal does not extend to nuclear weapons, only the propulsion system, which has always been conventional diesel-electric in Australia's submarine classes.

"We will continue to meet all of our nuclear non-proliferation obligations."

Mr Johnson also emphasised the deal did not violate nuclear non-proliferation treaties.

"We're opening a new chapter in our friendship, and the first task of this partnership will be to help Australia acquire a fleet of nuclear-powered submarines, emphasising, of course, that the submarines in question will be powered by nuclear reactors — not armed with nuclear weapons," he said.

"Our work will be fully in line with our non-proliferation obligations."

The AFP press agency quoted New Zealand's Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern as saying the yet-to-be-built submarines would be banned from entering New Zealand waters, continuing that country's longstanding non-nuclear policy.

Partnership to 'ensure' region's stability now and in future, Biden says

In a joint statement, the three leaders said AUKUS would also leverage UK and US expertise to bring cyber, artificial intelligence and quantum computing capabilities to Australia.

Thanking "that fellow Down Under", US President Joe Biden said the new partnership would ensure the three countries had the most modern capabilities to defend against "rapid threats".

"We're taking another historic step to deepen and formalise cooperation among all three of our nations, because we all recognise the imperative of ensuring peace and stability in the Indo-Pacific over the long-term," Mr Biden said.

The leaders said they aimed to "bring an Australian [nuclear submarine] capability into service at the earliest achievable date".

Existing [Naval Group] $90 billion submarine project scrapped

The new partnership also spells the end of the Australian government's $90 billion project for French-designed submarines to be built in Adelaide.

In a statement, France's Naval Group said it was disappointed the Australian government had scrapped the project:

"For five years, Naval Group teams, both in France and in Australia, as well as our partners, have given their best and Naval Group has delivered on all its commitments," it said.

Defence had been openly discussing abandoning the multi-billion dollar project since June, as the French deal faltered.

France's foreign affairs minister Jean-Yves Le Drian said the decision betrayed "the letter and spirit" of cooperation between the two countries.

"The American choice which leads to the removal of an ally and a European partner such as France from a structuring partnership with Australia, at a time when we are facing unprecedented challenges in the Indo-Pacific region ... marks an absence of coherence that France can only observe and regret," he said in a statement.

Urgent inquiry call

Former submariner and [Australian] senator Rex Patrick is calling for an urgent inquiry before the deal is finalised.

"If it's a US submarine, they have highly enriched uranium in their reactors and that creates a proliferation issue in terms of Australia standing up saying, ‘No-one should have these this sort of fuel available to them,'" he said. 

"Yet, we might end up having to have that on our submarines."

Peter Jennings, executive director of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, backed the new deal and said his initial response was "surprise".

"This is something that has been negotiated very quickly and has obviously been kept quiet in Canberra," he told ABC News.

"The irony is that when we chose the French-designed submarine a few years ago we actually took a nuclear-powered submarine and have been spending millions of dollars turning it into a diesel submarine."

Mr Jennings said Australia would likely have to spend more on its defence budget to support the partnership.

Australia will become the only non-nuclear [weapons] country in the world to have a maritime nuclear capability."

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

L'attitude de l'Australie est LAMENTABLE.Eelle n'est même pas capable d'honorer sa signature !

Anonymous said...

Gessler Comments

Things seem to be getting pretty interesting again with regard to the Australian submarine program. I'm guessing the official press releases are yet to come (as per what I've read on ABC).

But if RAN & Australian DoD are serious about an SSN acquisition, I personally reckon it makes the most sense to purchase 4-6 submarines directly from the US/UK. Considering that both the Astute & Virginia-class production is currently running, it might be the most affordable way to acquire an SSN capability, both with regard to price & time. Wanting to construct SSNs in Australia would again lead to a program as humongous in price & convoluted in scope as the Attack-class SSK program, if not more so. In fact, definitely more so. CONSIDERABLY more so.

Off-the-shelf purchase of a number of SSNs of similar configuration as currently being built for USN or RN (minus any export-controlled stuff) would certainly seem to be the most straightforward way.

But I understand there's lots of jobs/economical issues tied up with the local construction plan for Attack-class, I wonder what the Morrison Govt will come up with to satisfy those needs. Eagerly waiting for your thoughts (both as comments and/or in the form of an article).

Anonymous said...

Virginia, Astute and Los Angeles class SSN all use highly enriched fissile material beyond the limits of non proliferation treaty, so how can one say one is not violating at a time when we beat up on NK and Iran for enriching fissile material? Should the laws apply to every one and not based on one party's interpretation?
KQN

Anonymous said...

Pete, what are your thoughts on this?

Pete said...

Hi Gessler and Anonymouses

See my lates post - at https://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2021/09/australian-made-ssn-may-take-till-late.html for my comments.

Regards

Pete

Clive Dorer said...

The point made by Rex re HEU being used in American reactors is very fair - ironically the French Barracuda's use LEU fuel, and so skirts around this issue neatly.

I've been thinking about this a lot today and somewhat surprised that France/Naval group werent canvassed about an upgrade option to full nuclear.

I suspect that there is lot of general high-level backroom dissatisfaction with how the entire Naval Group deal was unfolding and there is a desire just to get away from it. This doesnt speak well to Aussie handling and harks back the Swedish/Collins issues all over again.

Like others have commented, I think the truly best value approach would be to buy off-shelf, Virginias (or even Astutes, but I doubt it) could and would be made (much) more cheaply and faster US-side. The commitment to build at ASC is unsurprising but feels deeply implausible: nuclear build expertise is a tough to master, it took the Brits years to get their heads around US reactor tech how to make it work in subs (Dreadnought was a horrific bodge-job).

Unless the idea is just to locally build an existing class with minimal design changes - in which case US builders can literally just direct local workforce. Which maybe a very sensible approach as it seems the various AU stakeholders cant figure out what they want, so they'll wind up just getting one "prepared earlier" and they'll have to make do.

Pete said...

Hi Clive

Rex basically opining No-one should have HEU in their SSNs is not particularly helpful.

Is Rex implying that (Aus should have a SSN drawing on UK and US tech but using French style LEU reactor) is a great idea?

French intelligence probably knew for a long time that Australia was casting around for a Five Eye Angloshere SSN oiption

Probably true when you say "I suspect that there is lot of general high-level backroom dissatisfaction with how the entire Naval Group deal was unfolding and there is a desire just to get away from it."

I would say that Australia did well with its UK designed and UK built Oberons and Australia has fould the US Combat System on the Collins to be a very good US feature.

In contrast Australia going for the Swedish parts of the Collins (noise, diesels, fuel tanks etc) and experience with the Attack class program, so far, has only caused Australia grief.

Yes I agree "the truly best value approach would be to buy off-shelf, Virginias (or even Astutes...[US or UK built would be faster and cheaper]

But in the great Build them in Adelaide tradition going complex, slow and expensive means Federal money for South Australian votes and seats for decades.

As if Life-of-Type-Extension (LOTE) rebuilding the Collins, in the 2020s, for $3 Billion each in Adelaide (or Perth?) is not enough for Australian industry?!

Pete

Anonymous said...

I do not know about U.K. and the production capacities of the Astute, but U.S. facilities are already maxed out with producing Virginia for USN. If the U.K. is also maxed out, then an off the shelf buy is at least a decade away or longer in term of deployments.
It will be a very different PLA Navy in 10 years. I cannot predict the balance of power then.
KQN

Anonymous said...

There is no spare capacity in either US or UK. In the UK, the Astute submarines under construction are the last as their yard swaps to SSBN production. If Australia was going to go with building the Virginia class, there would not be any need to involve UK. UK reactor design is based on US technology, so Australia cannot just deal with UK. To me, this leads to an Astute build in Adelaide by BAE/ASC. Jigs & the like can be transferred from the UK yard as they become available (not possible with Virginia’s as production in US is ongoing). Also, BAE is already well established in Australia (including shipyards) & BAE build the UK submarines. It’s simply easier. The two US submarine builders leaves open the possibility of Naval Group type problems & a repeat cannot be afforded (time wise).