Further Reasons to Choose UK SSNs: US IP Complexities.

Pete Comment
This is noting Australia is very likely not in a position to choose, use or buy UK Astutes (with their PWR2 reactors). New build Astutes will be only available until 2026, when 7th and last in class, (Agincourt), is completed. Its highly likely the UK RN will retain all the Astutes for UK use, as the RN considers only 7 Astutes as a SSN shortage compared to significantly more UK SSNs available in past decades.

So I assume the desire for "Astutes" also captures the Astute successor SSN(R) (with their, not yet availabe, PWR3s). In summary Astutes are a non-choice (hence not a "reliable" goal) for Australia.

On Feb 5, 2022 Anonymous commented :

"Thanks Pete. Like Lex I agree with your view of the Astute being the preferable choice for Australia on multiple grounds of deliverability. I agree with others that it is far better to get on of the world’s best SSNs into the water reliably than to get the very best but be unable to reliably operate and sustain it. 

I also consider that choosing Astutes [or is that Astute successor class SSN(R)?] would reduce political risks in delivery. We have discussed Australian political risks but there are also foreign ones. 

First in USA. What if Trump is re-elected and pulls the plug on US supply of some of the unique high tech items in the Virginias? He looked at defense from a very narrowly American viewpoint when in office. Whereas it is much harder to see British support waning if Australia gave BAE a large contract to build Astutes in Adelaide with specialist components like reactor compartments supplied from Barrow, augmenting their work supply for 30 years. 

I cannot see UK Labour or Conservatives wanting to abandon that. The SSN contract would be as big a win for UK industry as the Attack Class one was for France. The fact that Australian SSN money flowing into UK would help financially stabilise the UK SSN program would benefit both countries and their navies in the long term. 

[Pete Comment: All UK current and projected submarine reactors heavily utilise US IP. So, Trump pulling the plug on US intellectual property (IP) could also deny Australia "UK" reactors. This is because the US S5W reactor has IP inside the UK's current PWR1 and Astute PWR2 reactors. Also the US S9G reactor is, not only in Virginias, but has IP in the future UK PWR3 reactor going into the Astute successor SSN(R).

So a Trump, post US Election 2024, "renegotiate deals with allies", mindset may screw up Australia's AUKUS sub deal even if we chose a "UK" reactor. Here's hoping Trump doesn't win the  2024 Election.] 

Second there is the question of relations with other Asian neighbours. Most supported Australia when AUKUS was announced but Indonesia and Malaysia did not. The Virginias with their VLS capability give land strike potential the Astutes are less able to match. [Very true] This also means the Astutes [or non-VLS SSNs] can be more easily be accepted by neighbours as a purely defensive naval capability.

Third in Australia. Labor did not oppose AUKUS, but in a subsequent speech [Australia's Labor Opposition Foreign Affairs spokeseperson] Penny Wong did raise some concerns about the manner of the decision and issues of sovereignty [see ABC on her comment re AUKUS sovereignty aka "defence autonomy"]. This might be another selling point for the Astutes. In reality any Australian SSNs will be closely integrated with USN operations but politicians see perceptions as reality. 

Australia and UK are much closer in relative power than Australia and USA. Australia would have a much better bargaining position and much more leverage with the Astutes with UK when it came to making operational decisions than it would with the USN if it was running Virginias.

Pete Comment

The UK being more palatable for the Australian Labor Party and Australia having better bargaining strength vis a vis the UK are excellet points.

Also, while the Australian Greens object to alliance deals with the US they seem quiet (so far) on the UK.