"Choice of a UK SSN" Just a Diversion for Aussies?

On February 21, 2022 Anonymous provided thoughtful comments indicating production of

an "off the shelf" Australian nuclear submarine is Australian policy:

The stated aim, when AUKUS was announced, was to commence building a proven “off the shelf” design as quickly as possible. To select the UK Astute class and then have to redesign it to accept the US S9G reactor and the US AN/BYG-1 combat system with US sourced weapons will add a lengthy design period before construction can begin - this is not compatible with the original plan. 

Additionally, the Astute class does not have any vertical launch capability and this will restrict its ability to be upgraded throughout its entire life. Virginia Payload Tubes have so much flexibility that they should be considered to be essential fit for the RAN SSN’s. The weapon options in these tubes include Tomahawk missiles, future Hypersonic missiles, mobile mines, etc as well as housing equipment & delivery vehicles for Special Forces. 

USN manning levels [with 135 in each Virginia SSN] always have significant amount of redundancy so an establishment manning reduction would be an option for the RAN, at least until the recruiting & training systems catch up to these higher levels. 

Looking at the planned timeframe for the construction of the RAN submarines, they should be looking at building “off the shelf” Virginia class submarines - the first 4 built to Block VI specs but standard length with 2 VPT’s in the bow and the second batch of 4 built to Block VII specs with the stretched hull containing an additional 4 VPT’s per hull. [For Blocks VI and VII see Future (Virginia) acquisitions]. Just my thoughts.

Pete Comment

If Australia plans to continue to use the US Combat System, amounting to 33% of an Australian SSN, will Australia choose US Virginia by default? The US Combat System is in the Collins subs already and was planned for the Attack class. The Combat System consists of US weapons, sensors and databases. The System, is proven in itself and probably essential for Australian SSN's intensive inter-operation with its main ally, the US.

It must also be noted that the US S9G reactor is a proven, operationally used design. In contrast the PWR3 reactor, that the UK is offering, is a future design, not yet fully costed (until its ready) and not tested at sea. 

If the Combat System means choosing US submarine builders by default is the visit of HMS Astute to Australia last year and depiction of an Astute-class submarine on the "Taskforce's" website just "might choose UK" diversions? After all Australia's Left (in the ALP, Green Party and some Independents) is traditionally anti-nuclear and anti-US. 

To present a UK option might reduce opposition from Australia's Left regarding the Australian SSN policy. It must be recalled that the ALP (with its Leftwing), the Greens and left leaning Independents, may form government after Australia's May(?) 2022 Federal Election. The Australian statesmen in authority at the Sportsbet online gambling company predict an ALP win, after all.