The “‘A risk we should not take’: Republican resistance mounts
to [AUKUS] nuclear submarine plan
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has declared he remains confident Australia will secure Virginia-class submarines from the United States, even as almost half of all Republican senators came out against the current plan on the grounds it would dangerously weaken the US Navy as it competes with China.
Twenty-three Republican senators, including Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell, wrote to President Joe Biden on Thursday (Australian time) saying they did not support the proposal to provide nuclear-powered submarines to Australia unless the US doubled its own domestic production capacity.
...While noting that the AUKUS pact had broad bipartisan support in Washington, the senators wrote: “The administration’s current plan requires the transfer of three US Virginia-class attack submarines from the existing US submarine fleet without a clear plan for replacing these submarines.
“This plan, if implemented without change, would unacceptably weaken the US fleet even as China seeks to expand its military power and influence.”
The Republican senators noted that the US said it required 66 attack-class submarines, but the number of boats in its fleet is set to decline to 46 by 2030.
“Under the current AUKUS plan to transfer US Virginia-class submarines to a partner nation before meeting the Navy’s own requirements, the number of available nuclear submarines in the US submarine fleet would be lowered further,” they wrote.
“This is a risk we cannot take.”
Roger Wicker, the top Republican on the Senate armed services committee, previously vowed to block the submarine transfer unless the Biden administration funded a massive increase in the US domestic production capacity.
The letter shows these concerns are widely held among Senate Republicans.
The senators say in their letter the US would have to produce up to 2.5 [Virginia] submarines a year – up from 1.2 boats currently – to make up for the sale of up to three submarines to Australia and avoid shrinking the US Navy’s operational capacity..."
Why don't the Aussies buy SSKs off the shelf ?
ReplyDeleteBecause there is no "shelf" of subs just sitting there to be purchased.
ReplyDeleteIf by "shelf" you mean a country with a Continuous Build Process that can earmark subs off the production line for Australia - only the US continuously builds SSNs and Japan continuously builds SSKs (one per year).
But Australia considered and rejected Japan's continuously built Soryu or Taigei class SSKs (in 2016) in part because Japan assumed Australia would become a Japanese ally in any Japanese fight against China.
Other than from Japan Australia had (from Sweden 35 years ago and in 2016 from France) an SSK contracting, unique design and building process that was to takes 17 years built in Australia.
For Australia SSK building is all about buying votes (to build an SSK for twice the price) in South Australia, which has a monopoly on Aussie SSK building.
What would France say if Australia went to them cap in hand and asked about buying French nuclear submarines? Would co-production agreement where France built the nuclear section and shipped it to South Australia to be joined to an Australian built front section Be a practical option?
ReplyDeleteAlso, I have been looking at your map comparing patrol times for SSNs and SSKs. What would change if Australia invested in SSKs and a couple of submarine tenders? Keep them in Perth most of the time, but with the option of forward basing them in Darwin, Guam, Thailand, the Philippines as required?
Such tenders could be produced domestically and would avoid the problem of handling nuclear material.
Hi Bill at 7/30/2023 9:54 AM
ReplyDeleteSince 2016 the issue of Australia buying (or presumably building) French SSNs instead of the Attack class SSK (we did choose) has constantly been raised on this blog and on APDR. eg. https://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2022/11/france-not-offering-australia-ssns-only.html
Naval Group's highest nuclear priority is completing its Barracuda SSN order and an even larger task of designing and building its 3rd generation SSBNs. Naval Group does not have nuclear sub building manpower (which is already stretched) to also build SSNs in France or Australia for the RAN.
Hence Presideny Macron said "France would not supply nuclear submarines to foreign countries"
https://www.france24.com/en/france/20221117-macron-says-france-s-submarine-cooperation-offer-with-australia-still-on-the-table
Submarine tenders and surfaced SSNs using them need to be defended by substantial warship, warplane and anti-missile assets. I think Australia wouldn't base SSKs or SSNs overseas because this would frustrate the purpose of those subs defending Australia.
Also US or UK SSNs rotated through Fleet Base West might tend to abandon Australia if their homelands are threatened.
Regards Pete
Thanks for the quick response.
ReplyDeleteI presume the same issue exists with the UK being unable to build SSNs as they are concentrating on their new Dreadnought SSBNs.
I am trying to think of any other potential suppliers. I doubt China, Russia or India are are viable choices, and Brazil's SSN program relies on French technology so presumably that is a non starter.
Do Australian plans include building facilities to refit SSNs? I have heard that the US has a backlog of work on their SSNs. If Australia could help clear that backlog would that make the US willing to divert new construction to the RAN?
Hi Bill at 7/31/2023 1:55 PM
ReplyDeleteMy response to your good questions grew so long that I've turned them into an article:
"Australian Options Limited To Speed SSN Purchases"
at https://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2023/07/australian-options-limited-to-speed-ssn.html
dated July 31, 2023.
Cheers Pete
"Why don't the Aussies buy SSKs off the shelf ?"
ReplyDeleteI want to cite from "Picard": https://youtu.be/D3H5NB7fIB0?t=87
Here is in my opinion the submarine Australian's industrie would fit most: Typ 210.
(Not changed since my first post here.)
Before you try to build an SSN try to build a decent SSK.
I laugh about all the claims about range, speed and US compatablity: Australia needs many submarines not a few.
Australia won't get an SSN before 2050. Collins class will be limited at periscope depth at that time. Even North Korea will have more modern submarines untill that time.
Regards,
MHalblaub
Thanks MHalblaub at 8/01/2023 5:09 AM
ReplyDeleteThe bugged meeting between the RAN's Head of Submarines and his boss lady, the BND has fortuitously recorded see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3H5NB7fIB0&t=87s
harks back to the good old days of World War One U-Boots in the North Sea.
My comments are:
Even if TKMS dug up its old Type 210 plans it would remind Australia "there is no shelf, old chum!" rather there is a 15 year minimum, submarine building project.
TKMS would and has advised, in the 1970s and in 2014 that the RAN's long distance, long endurance missions at high speed (for an SSK) would require a U-Boot 3 times as large as a 210 . This is known as the Type 216 - a 17 year project.
Meanwhile the Netherland's Navy would again remind the RAN that "as much we have tried passing RAN officers at the "Perisher" Training Course, for future Submarine Captains, we have only passed (about) 3 Australian candidates in the last 10 years. There is a high failure rate."
MOST SIGNIFICANTLY: Even in a little submarine you need a fully trained Captain, because lives are at risk. The RAN's 3 Australian Perisher trained Captains (plus the odd UK, South African or Canadian born Captain transferred to the RAN) are only enough for 6 subs, not the 20 subs you have kindly suggested in the past.
BUT OVER THE LAST 10 YEARS a new technology has been developed (mainly in the US) which is an excellent substitute for (about) 80% of what a small coastal sub can do. That is XLUUVs these are crewed remotely from Canberra, Perth and/or Sydney. They can do all of the sensor reconnaissance and even smart mine laying. These are Australia's developing Anduril GHOST SHARK XLUUVs aka XL-AUVs https://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2023/07/sshns-or-xluuvs-are-australias.html .
European navies, including Germany's, are also developing XLUUVs, often quietly.
In this way Unmanned remote control submarines are solving much of Australia's submarine Captain shortage.
And then there is Australia's possible Collins Life Extension project (LOTE) another story.
Cheers Pete
If Australia decides SSNs are impractical what are our options for SSKs?
ReplyDeleteYou mentioned the Japanese Soryu earlier. Are they still an option? The Korean KSS-III is currently in production. The Dutch are looking at a replacement for their Walrus class. Could the Netherlands and Australia save money by sharing development costs?
Hi Bill at 8/01/2023 8:30 PM
ReplyDeleteWith or without SSNs in the 2030s Australia has been sporadically committed to a Life Of Type Extension (LOTE) for some or all of the 6 Collins. ie major overhauls with many new features. Likely costing more than A$2 Billion per boat.
Macron and Naval Group have said a return to the Attack class SSK is still an option.
If Japan wants to risk negotiating with Australia again then the Taigei with its LIBs is more likely than Japan supplying no longer built Soryus.
The KSS-III might be long on vertically launched missiles but short on the range, at spead, that Australia needs. So an Aus KSS-III would need to be heavily modified, perhaps into a DSME-3000 for export model.
Yes Australia should look at any of those last 3 (French, German and Swedish) contenders for the Dutch Walrus replacement competition. Whoever wins may be of particular interest because of those joint build economies of scale.
This is because the Netherlands has similar trans-continental (long range at speed) requirements as Australia. In the Netherland's case it is Netherlands to the Arabian Sea and back or to the Dutch Caribbean and back.
Also we should fully explore the viability of the XLUUVs we are developing.
Cheers Pete