The Australian government has conjured up photos (above) and newspaper story (below) implying Australia will be acquiring an (Astute-class) AUKUS submarine very soon. Such an acquisition, too late for Astutes, may occur in the 2040s or the 2050s.
The Canberra Times newspaper, on October 29, 2021, reported:
"[Australian] Defence Minister Peter Dutton has flagged the arrival of Australia's first nuclear-powered submarines earlier than officials have said.
Mr Dutton said the new nuclear submarines Australia was looking to acquire would not be pushed out into the late 2040s.
"I know there has been speculation about dates out into late 2040s, but that is not going to be the case," he told reporters, standing in front of a UK nuclear-powered Astute class submarine [docked in Western Australia, on October 29, 2021]..."
PETE COMMENT
Nothing like using the visit of HMS Astute as a prop to laud an event that may, but then again may not, occur in the 2040s - or even later.
Dutton's opinion on timeline has zero value. 20 years down the road, none of what he said would matter or that he actually have to take responsibility or be accountable.
ReplyDeleteThe timeline will be driven by how much politics are in the way - the less the smoother the procurement process will be. The politics to drive local jobs and the need to build in Australia will make or kill the project.
An off the self Astute build in the UK is the fastest route to get it down. Any thing else will drag the project to beyond the horizon.
Brumby
Well Brumby
ReplyDeleteIn Minister Dutton's Defence I'm confident he's qualified to sell a used car
but less confident he can pre-sell a UK designed sub "guaranteed" ready by the early (?) 2040s :)
Hi Pete,
ReplyDeleteOn the subject of construction and build out of Australia's first nuke sub i have a few questions/thoughts and would like to hear your opinion.
1. In the given timeline for delivery, does this assume that there is no major war or outbreak of tensions with China?
2. The reason i ask this is i am curious if you believe that AUS would still be able to receive the subs on time in the event of an outbreak of hostilities or war with china either over tiawann or the SCS.
3. With american sub building being a very specialized and niche field with limited dry docks and construction/repair facilities i would think that given any outbreak of war the US would primarily focus priority on construction/repair/overhaul on their own subs vs supplying subs/components for an ally just starting up a program and facing a potential learning curve in operations. The recent issue with the USS connecticut is a good example of an unforeseen accident/issue now necessitating a high priority repair that potentially takes away from other sub related construction/components. I would assume in the event an actual war the focus would be on keeping america's sub fleet at max operating capacity.
Anyways, from a long time reader, love the blog and your thoughts!
Feebs.
Good Evening Mr/Ms Feebs
ReplyDeleteThank you for your questions on future submarine technical aspects and near-medium-long term geo-political possibilities.
As your questionss are way beyond my unclassified information informed public self I recommend you consult the paid government experts and their foreign contractors, working to the Australian Department of Defence's, Nuclear-Powered Submarine Task Force.
Its Home website is https://www1.defence.gov.au/about/taskforces/nuclear-powered-submarine-task-force
Its Contact Details are provided on its website https://www1.defence.gov.au/about/taskforces/nuclear-powered-submarine-task-force:
"For the public"
Defence Service Center...
"For journalists"
Defence Media...
In part its Home web address https://www1.defence.gov.au/about/taskforces/nuclear-powered-submarine-task-force indicates:
"Nuclear-powered submarines
The first major initiative under AUKUS is Australia’s acquisition of at least eight nuclear-powered submarines. The Australian Government intends to build these submarines in Adelaide...
Australia, the UK and the US have committed to a comprehensive program of work over the next 18 months that will bring this capability into service. The optimal pathway to achieve this is through a significant increase in Australia-UK-US defence collaboration.
[AND MS/MR FEEBS - NOTE THIS IN PARTICULAR]
This period will be used to examine the full suite of requirements that underpin nuclear stewardship, with a specific focus on safety, design, construction, operation, maintenance, disposal, regulation, training, environmental protection, installations and infrastructure, basing, workforce and force structure.
The Government has established a Nuclear-Powered Submarine Task Force led by...to facilitate Australia’s role in AUKUS."
-------------------------------------------
MR/MS FEEBS I NOW DRAW YOUR ATTENTION TO:
"Frequently asked questions" at https://www1.defence.gov.au/about/taskforces/nuclear-powered-submarine-task-force/frequently-asked-questions
[FOR EXAMPLE]
Why is a nuclear-powered submarine more capable than a conventional submarine?
The deterioration of our strategic environment since the announcement of the Attack class program in 2016 has required that the Government to revisit its decision to acquire a conventional submarine.
Australia needs the best submarine capability to meet our strategic needs for decades to come.
Conventional submarines have to regularly raise masts above the surface to recharge their batteries.
Nuclear-powered submarines maintain superior characteristics of stealth, speed, manoeuvrability, survivability, and almost limitless endurance, when compared to conventional submarines. They can deploy unmanned underwater vehicles, and carry more advanced and a greater number of weapons.
These abilities allow nuclear-powered submarines to operate in contested areas with a lower risk of detection and deter actions against Australia’s interests.
An assessment provided to Government through a capability review process was that nuclear-powered submarines were the only option that could meet Australia’s defence requirements over the coming decades.
This assessment meant that the Government could not continue with the Attack class submarine program as planned.
The Government has therefore decided to pursue nuclear powered submarine technology with the support of our American and British partners.
We are commencing an 18 month period of consultation with the US and UK to identify the optimal pathway to deliver nuclear-powered submarines for Australia."
I can reproduce more "Frequently asked questions" on request from:
https://www1.defence.gov.au/about/taskforces/nuclear-powered-submarine-task-force/frequently-asked-questions
Sorry Feebs
ReplyDeleteTo fob you off after your words of praise.
Fact is, I keep on getting broad questions from journos seeking free answers.
Please contact me direct to establish your bona fides - a bit about your identity (university? a Navy? journalist? or what?).
Regards
Pete
Hi Pete,
ReplyDeleteThere is only so much political BS that politicians like Dutton can espouse but ultimately they have to deal with hard facts of nuclear submarine procurement and their associated timelines.
There are plenty of examples out there. There is a RAND study "Sustaining US Nuclear Submarine Power Design Capabilities" that suggest 35 million man hours are needed for a new design with the entire process taking between 12 to 15 years. This is based on US capability and not a start up with no experience or infrastructure in place.
In my view it is simply a case of basic project management. Remove complexity and unnecessary self inflicted hurdles and you may stand a chance of getting a boat within a reasonable timeframe. Forget about new design; incorporating local requirements and or local build. Reduce complexities and you reduce timelines. The most basic challenge for a Astute is UK capacity. This can be addressed by investing in UK capacity - not sound politics but economically.
Hi Feebs,
Your questions 1 & 2 to Pete IMO are false dilemma in nature. Nuclear power submarines have a very long procurement process. This does not change whether there is potential conflict with China tomorrow or never. If a strategic decision is made to go for nuclear propulsion to address your strategic requirement then you need to get on with it.
The issue with capacity in the US is non alignment between industry and defense. It is clear that capacity is tight and backlog in maintenance is endemic but yet investment in capacity seems to be a non starter. The US is not serious about the threat from China unlike China which is seriously preparing for potential conflict. We know because actions matter not words.
Brumby