Dutton's opportunism is damaging Australian negotiations with its AUKUS allies.
Part of Dutton's outbursts on June 8/9, 2022 were to cause divisions amongst Labor Party decision-makers. See "The Enemy" in my June 3, 2022 article.
Apart from Dutton's "help", UK and US SSN provision for Australia is already looking very problematic.
1. SSN Batch building by the UK is of no help to Australia's SSN aspirations.
A "batch"? The UK is Commissioning the 7 Astutes as a batch, from 2010 to 2026.
Then, for Australia, there is the very unhelpful gap between UK batches with the UK only commissioning Astute successors SSN(R)s from the mid 2040s.
The UK batch builds SSNs for its own navy because it doesn't have the requirement for the large number of SSNs that would be produced
by a Continuous build (of 1 or more SSNs every year).
Only the US (with Virginias) and China (probably with the future Type 095s) have the will, competitive need, industrial capacity and defence budget for
Continuous build of SSNs.
Nuclear threats by Putin, in the context of the war in Ukraine, may well have unnerved the UK and US, increasing the chances that they won't lease or sell SSNs to Australia early.
2. From all I've read the US appears to have delegated to the UK the
task of assisting Australia build AUKUS SSNs.
Otherwise it would be much more logical that constantly inter-operating
Pacific and Indian Ocean allies (Australia and the US) formed an A-US SSN
building alliance rather than AUKUS. The UK, most of the time, is a far off
North Atlantic power these days.
Reasons for the US delegation to the UK seem to be based on a US expectation that the US will never deliver its own world's best SSNs to Australia. Here are five reasons:
- the US sees it as essential that all Virginia SSNs produced go to its own navy. Total US SSN numbers will soon decline while threats/commitments for US SSNs increase. The US largely built its SSN force to face the Russian threat but added to that the China threat is even greater.
- the US's "F-22 like" national security tradition of not exporting its
complete-most-sensitive weapons. Yes Australia now has some US reactor tech,
but is the US offering whole of Virginia tech?
- US SSN building companies, GD-EB and HII, have never exported whole SSN tech, because that may eventually boost international SSN building commercial competition against them.
- Also GD-EB or HII providing Australia with SSNs or overseeing Virginia construction in Adelaide is a very inefficient Contractural, Administrative and Training process. GD-EB and HII don't have the time or resources to do this while they are fully committed building Virginia SSNs and Columbia SSBNs.
and
- delivery of Virginias to Australia is politically and financially risky (for GD-EB and HII and Australia) due to the unpredictability of the Next US President and the fickleness of US Congressional export permissions. Australia is caught between perhaps one-term, "lame duck" US President Biden and the far worse prospect of the return of Trump. Trump, with no sense of alliance loyalty, could consider AUKUS "Biden's Deal to be broken".
Re Congressional stability: the Republicans are strongly favoured to win the November 8, 2022 Midterm Elections in both the Senate and House. This may tend to hobble Biden AUKUS initiatives.
Trump is currently odds on favourite to win the November 2024 Presidential Election.
The Collins Life of Type Extension (LOTE), providing some Collins subs to the mid 2040s, gives Australia some time to acquire new submarines, but not much time.
15 comments:
I don’t see the point in Korean SSB (which are Collins size) for Australia. We are already getting Tomahawk missiles with the Collins LOTE. They have twice the range of the missiles used by S.Korea (which for them is not such a problem - the expected targets are close by). So many people online rave on about submarine VLS. Astute is a world class SSN but has no VLS. It can in fact fire 3 x more Tomahawks than a block IV Virginia can (both are a similar volume/displacement) if you want to configure your load out that way. A 10,000t Virginia block V is only 2 ahead. Collins will be able to handle 22. The newest French SSN doesn’t have VLS either (but still has 1,000km Naval Cruise Missiles onboard). Torpedo tube Tomahawk was originally developed for the UK. I don’t believe USN field them (at least there is no public documentation that I am aware of). The only advantage of the VLS is ability to fire all missiles fairly quickly. However, just like surface ship VLS (like mk41 etc), they can’t be reloaded at sea. Both Astute & eventually Collins, can only quickly fire 6 missiles. They can however reload (multiple times). If Australia wants to field a SSB with 22 x 1,000+km range missiles, load a LOTE Collins with 22 Tomahawk missiles. You don’t need a SSB (or SSBN ) to do this. Nuclear missile SSB or SSBN is a whole different discussion.
Thanks Anonymous [at Jun 9, 2022, 10:14:00 PM]
You'll posed many good arguments.
SSBs for Australia against a target as far away as China, is not a great idea, in retrospect.
So I've removed all mention of SSBs from the article.
Regards Pete
Thanks Pete, a good summary.
Politically I don’t think Peter Dutton’s remarks about possible US nuclear submarine supply to Australia were a very wise move. Surely those negotiations were confidential? If it doesn’t happen now Labor can simply blame Dutton for damaging negotiations.
Conversely if as you say Biden ends up a “lame duck” president after November facing a hostile Congress, then Australia’s only option will be to partner with the UK.
In that case the last thing we want to do is offend the UK or make them think we regard their sub as inferior. They would have a very strong (total monopoly) negotiating position assuming BAE is then the last potential constructor standing, in which case Australia will pay through the nose for any British designed and BAE built SSNs.
That being said, looking at the uncertain state of international politics now, like you I can’t see the USN giving up any Virginia build slots any time soon.
Hi Anonymous [at Jun 10, 2022, 9:47:00 AM]
Yes Marles said Dutton’s comments in The Australian were “loose and undermine the AUKUS agreement”. ie. confidential.
Thanks I've added in the article text:
"Australia is caught between perhaps one-term, "lame duck" US President Biden and the far worse prospect of the return of Trump. Trump, with no sense of alliance loyalty, could consider AUKUS "Biden's Deal to be broken".
Re Congressional stability: the Republicans are strongly favoured to win the November 8, 2022 Midterm Elections in both the Senate and House. This may tend to hobble Biden AUKUS initiatives..."
Yes, if the US has no intention of supplying SSNs to Australia then this gives UK BAE a monopoly supplier position. This is on top of BAE already being the monopoly supplier of Hunter-class future frigates to Australia. In short BAE can name its prices for both of Australia's most expensive defence projects.
Is this a fait accompli or can Labor reverse some of this Dutton endorsed damage?!
Regards Pete
Thank you all for the article and comments. And a very big Hi from Spain.
I think there could be another possibility: right now some people is pressing in the UK to increase the number of boats /(SSN) "in the water". As you can read in
https://www.navylookout.com/getting-boats-to-sea-efforts-to-improve-royal-navy-submarine-availability/
several actions are taken to increase the number of "seadays" per boat (is that expression correct??), but numbers are numbers, and I believe that the RN is going to increase the order of ASTUTES very soon.
That extended order (3 units??) could provide some important benefits for UK:
1.- Operationals: More powerful SSN fleet, less demand on existing boats AND CREWS...
2.- Industrials: if the ASTUTE BATCH is extended, that means that the gap until the future SSN(r) is much shorter (or even deleted). So, the design can be approached with much less stress on the teams, the key tech personnel is retained, the critical suppliers can see a "future" without clouds until SSN (r)
In that scenario, it would be interesting for Australia to think about "joining" the extended ASTUTE order:
1.- Could get quite soon a SSN capability, not RAN oriented, but best in the world in any case
2.- Can integrate tech personnel and crews within the RN and BAE
3.- CAn integrate from the very beginning in the "SSN(r) design Team", introducing the systems and capabilities that the RAN need.
My two cents: 3 x additional units per RN AND 6 x ASTUTE for RAN, this is to say, an extended order of 9 units. As the "ASTUTE building machine" is at full speed, I believe this is the moment...
Personally, I would rather BAE then, say LM. Why - because LM can afford to ignore you. BAE is big, but they are more diverse & tend to put down roots. LM can walk away from Australia tomorrow if they thought they needed to. BAE can’t. They own 2 shipyards. They are currently the prime for the Hunter class (worth billions). They build the Nulka decoy missile (sales so far exceed $1b). They designed & supply the RF sensor to Konsberg’s JSM & this is expected to be back ported to NSM (this appears too have worried LM enough to ask BAE (US) to design a new RF sensor for their LRSM missile). They are undertaking the current Anzac class upgrades. ie for BAE to walk away from Australia would cost real money & I am not talking lost sales. When there were problems with the Hobart class module build, BAE head office in UK quickly had people on the ground to find out what had gone wrong. This is not to say you give BAE a blank cheque, however Australian DoD seems to understand BAE better than UK MoD. Or is that Australian DoD understands BAE Australia better than UK MoD understands BAE UK?
The query I have is can you still acquire PWR2 reactors (& why would you want to)? PWR3 reactors don’t fit. US SSG9 reactors will but that requires a redesign, which won’t happen unless Australia pays for it (personally I think they should).
Perhaps build 4 x SAAB Dutch contender’s (Collins 2.0) & then start with SSN(R). I would avoid SSSN(X) as US can be fickle with the coming & going of too many too powerful Kings (sorry - Presidents) that change every 4 years. Besides I am more certain of getting the full version from UK than a modified export version from the US. UK Prime Ministers come & go. The Queen remains (& we know who is next). US Presidents can completely change course year by year. UK Prime Ministers - not so much - (even if the name badge changes). Either way, Australia needs to get whatever it wants to do signed off by the present administration. It’s got 3 years - don’t waste it.
So how about starting with an eighth Astute for the RN to be lease-lent to Australia with a mixed RAN-RN complement in order to allow the training of personnel in SSNs? Having decided on a successor to the Collins class (perhaps a modified and updated Astute+ built in sections in UK, USA and Australian shipyards and assembled in Australia) the last Astute could be returned to the RN and a fully trained ship's company would be ready for the first all-Australian boat. As I recall HMS Australia was a First World War Indefatigable class battlecruiser with the Grand Fleet so that name would seem appropriate.
Anonymous
Thanks very interesting about the Astutes. Does that mean they have resolved the issue with PWR2 reactors? I thought the closed off reactor supply was the constraint on Astute production? If so then that changes everything.
Either way we may be ruling the French out at this point. The Australian government has reached a compensation amount with Naval Group for $845 million AUS, for a contract total of $3.4 billion. I think it unlikely Australia would dive back into negotiating another contract having just paid this amount in compensation for terminating a contract i.e. presumably in addition to payments for work done under the contract..
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-06-11/albanese-submarine-deal-with-france/101145042
Hi all Anonymouses Above
I think it better that Australian money encourages the UK to accelerate SSN(R)* development for launch by 2035 rather than plow money into the Astutes.
The UK RN's Astutes will begin to go out of service from the early 2040s **
Noting that the Astute class uses the PWR2 reactor developed in the 1980s *** and the non-reactor parts of the Astute were developed in the 1990s ****
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SSN(R)
** https://www.navylookout.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Interdependencies-Royal-Navy-submarine-Programme.pdf
*** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_PWR#PWR2 This reactor is also known for
safety problems of an unacceptable level these days.
**** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astute-class_submarine#Astute_programme
Regards Pete
Hi Anonymous from Spain [at Jun 10, 2022, 7:59:00 PM]
Thanks for https://www.navylookout.com/getting-boats-to-sea-efforts-to-improve-royal-navy-submarine-availability/ it looks like a good website
which also has a handy chart on Astute and SSN(R) production and out-of-service trends at https://www.navylookout.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Interdependencies-Royal-Navy-submarine-Programme.pdf
I haven't seen much evidence the "RN is going to increase the order of ASTUTES very soon."
If so its may be in response to Putin's talk of increasing Russian nuclear readiness in the Ukraine War context. So the UK RN maybe thinks it needs more Astutes to face the Russian threat.
As I indicated in my Jun 11, 2022, 2:45:00 PM comment above:
I think it better that Australian money encourages the UK to accelerate SSN(R)* development for launch by 2035 rather than plow money into the Astutes.
The UK RN's Astutes will begin to go out of service from the early 2040s **
Noting that the Astute class uses the PWR2 reactor developed in the 1980s *** and the non-reactor parts of the Astute were developed in the 1990s ****
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SSN(R)
** https://www.navylookout.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Interdependencies-Royal-Navy-submarine-Programme.pdf
*** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_PWR#PWR2 This reactor is also known for
safety problems of an unacceptable level these days.
**** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astute-class_submarine#Astute_programme
Australia doesn't want to be the owner of Astutes that be the 2040s are losing UK spare parts and other support, while the UK ramps up with SSN(R) introduction from the mid 2040s.
Regards Pete
NOW OR SOONER
What a shambles.
Are people now regretting that the Hon. Mr Rabbit's plan (off the shelf SSKs from Japan) never happened ? Are there grudging regrets the Attack class plan was cancelled with no alternative building program, implementable before 2045, agreed ?
Despite outward confidence, the RAN seems to have accepted a Collins LOTE (or two LOTEs) as it is likely the only response (to the Collins class' relative decline) that can bear fruit prior to 2035. It is a relief that someone in the belly of the beast is still focused on getting to sea something better than Collins 1.0 before 2045.
Beyond Collins LOTE, the right path to choose is the one that leads to a continuous build, an Adelaide production line and an in-service date ten years earlier than the projected Australian SSN.
If Government set those as the three main goals, then Aust. DoD and UK MoD could probably come up with a doable plan.
'Continuous build' should mean sixteen boats, constructed over 30 years, with a new boat laid down once every two years and construction times reducing from nine years for the first boat down to four years for the tenth and subsequent boats.
Unless Astute boats six and seven could be pried from the from the desperate grip of the already emaciated RN (for a loan to the RAN) it likely makes more sense to climb aboard the SSN(R) program, as full partners with the UK RN, than to hopefully await for hell to freeze over (i.e. some production slots on the US Virginia class line to open up for the RAN).
At this juncture, the planned SSN(R) program is still . . . whatever the UK and Australian governments say it is.
It could be any one of :
(A) New build 8,000 ton "Bitsa" class boats with the Astute front end and an all new back- end (aka the 'Astute LMA' with a US licensed, RR built, S8G reactor, US machinery etc.)
(B) A clean sheet 9,000 to 10,000 ton "Crikey" class using the UK PWR3 reactor; or even
(C) A 4,000 ton "Dipsy" class with a KSS-III front end and an all-new back end (with heat pipe HEU-fueled reactors provided by a Westinghouse-Rolls team to UK, SK and AU buyers).
Submarine matters are never, ever without thrilling twists and turns !
BUREAUCRATUS LEX 11 JUNE 2022
Pete
This is significant I think. It is the text of Richard Marles’ speech today to Defence Ministers at the (defence) ministers dialogue in Singapore. It strikes a softer tone but makes an unambiguous commitment to both Defence spending of >2% of GDP and to building SSNs under AUKUS, as well as other already announced AUKUS technology plans.
“ There will be no cuts to Australia’s defence spending. The Albanese Government has committed to spending 2 per cent of GDP on Defence, including to enhance the Australian Defence Force with capabilities outlined in our 2020 Defence Strategic Update, like long-range and precision strike weapons, offensive and defensive cyber, and area denial systems.
AUKUS – which Labor supported in Opposition – will be central. It will not only deliver nuclear-powered submarines for Australia, but also guide accelerated development of advanced defence capabilities where they have most impact, such as quantum technology, artificial intelligence, undersea warfare, hypersonics and counter-hypersonics.”
See
https://www.minister.defence.gov.au/minister/rmarles/speeches/address-iiss-19th-shangri-la-dialogue-singapore
Hi BUREAUCRATUS LEX at Jun 11, 2022, 7:38:00 PM
See my alternate hypothesis "Australia's Submarine Programs Out to 2070s" of June 12, 2022, at
https://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2022/06/australias-submarine-programs-out-to.html
Addessing some of your chiseled points:
Australia wasted years 2014-22 and several $Billions is indeed sadness making. Though even if Australia chose Soryus in 2014 they (according to the RAN) had less capability than the Collins.
According to Constable Dutton the Attack-class SSKs [presumably supercharged diesel racket] would have been too easily heard by China from the 2030s.
Go with LOTE our best hope this side of 2043, methinks.
Just getting an SSN production line started in Adelaide will be an expensive miracle. And then "continuous build" which only superpowers can afford?!
Great power UK and British unions and industry wouldn't like to see their 120 year old submarine building autonomy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Holland_1 farmed out to Adelaide (across the world).
No early Astutes for Oz with nuclear threat
Putin breathing down UK's neck
I don't think even Cardinal Abbott would have risked buying SSNs from South Korea, a nation that hasn't even developed them yet.
More see https://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2022/06/australias-submarine-programs-out-to.html
Cheers Pete
Thanks Anonymous [at Jun 11, 2022, 10:23:00 PM]
Yes Marles’ https://www.minister.defence.gov.au/minister/rmarles/speeches/address-iiss-19th-shangri-la-dialogue-singapore proves his continued faith in AUKUS. And that faith:
will cost about 3% of Oz GDP
though much going to Oz industry.
In https://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2022/06/australias-submarine-programs-out-to.html
I refer to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AUKUS#Computer_and_cybertechnology which includes "undersea capabilities" which I read as AUV/UUVs moving up the food-chain to 80 tonne Orcas
and more quietly there will be improved fixed undersea sensors https://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2022/05/australia-and-possible-iuss-connections.html
which no government outside the US is willing to talk about in terms of explicit ASW uses https://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2022/05/us-uk-canadian-undersea-surveillance.html
All these mobile and fixed sensors will need "quantum technology, artificial intelligence"
And new Aus rockets and missiles (launched from land, aircraft, warships not to mention subs) will be improved with AUKUS "hypersonics and counter-hypersonics.” technology.
A Brave New World we live in :)
Pete
Post a Comment