August 22, 2023

Major US CRS Report: No Virginias for Australia?

Andrew Tillett, for the Australian Financial Review (AFR) has written an excellent article AUKUS subs deal ‘could worsen US shortfall, blunt China deterrence of August 21, 2023. The AFR article is marked “Exclusive” see "Comments" below this SubMatts article. 

The AFR article is heavily based on Congressional Research Service report Navy Virginia (SSN-774) Class Attack Submarine Procurement: Background and Issues for Congress of August 15, 2023, numbered RL32418, which raises such major issues as: 

Page 49 “…A November 17, 2022, press report stated (emphasis added) The U.S. Navy has nearly twice as many submarines sidelined for maintenance than it should, and those boats in maintenance ultimately require three times more unplanned work than they should, the program executive officer for attacks subs has said. [Page 50] Of the 50 attack subs, Rucker said 18 are in maintenance or waiting for their turn. Industry best practice would call for just 20% to be tied up in repairs, or 10 boats instead of 18.”

Page 50 “…This drive to zero delay days comes in the context of an undersized attack submarine force that’s kept busy. Navy and Pentagon leadership repeatedly call the submarine force among America’s top advantages over adversaries like China and Russia; yet the U.S. has 50 attack submarines and four related “large payload submarines,” compared to a requirement for a combined 66 to 72 attack [SSNs] and large payload subs [were called "SSGNs"].

Page 17  Selling three Virginia-class boats to Australia by FY2035, and not replacing them through the construction of additional Virginia-class boats by FY2035, would reduce the projected number of SSNs in FY2035 to 47 boats, which would increase the percentage in the number of [Page 18] to about 29%.”

Page 18 continues “,,,A potential alternative to the proposed sale of Virginia-class SSNs to Australia would be a U.S.- Australian military division of labor under which U.S. SSNs would perform both U.S. and Australian SSN missions while Australia invested in military forces for performing other military missions for both Australia and the United States.”

Page 21 “…What would be the impact of a three- to five-boat reduction [for transfer to Australia] in the size of the U.S. SSN force on the ability of the U.S. SSN force to perform day-to-day and wartime SSN missions of interest to the United States, particularly in the context of the Navy’s 66-boat SSN force-level goal…?

Page 22 “…Regarding the net impact on deterrence and warfighting capability of transferring three to five Virginia-class SSNs to Australia rather than keeping them in U.S. Navy service, supporters of transferring them might argue that the deterrent value of introducing SSNs to Australia’s navy would be greater than the deterrent value of keeping those SSNs in U.S. Navy service because a newly created force of Australian SSNs would present China with a second allied decisionmaking center (along with the United States) for SSN operations in the Indo-Pacific, which would enhance deterrence of potential Chinese aggression by complicating Chinese military planning…. 

Page 22 continues "...Skeptics of transferring Virginia-class SSNs from the United States to Australia might argue that it could weaken deterrence of potential Chinese aggression if China were to find reason to believe, correctly or not, that Australia might use the transferred Virginia-class boats less effectively than the U.S. Navy would use them if the boats were retained in U.S. Navy service, or that Australia might not involve its military, including its Virginia-class boats, in U.S.-China crises or conflicts that Australia viewed as not engaging important Australian interests…” [See my August 18, 2023 article on this].

Page 23 “…Skeptics could argue that notwithstanding Australia’s capability for, and commitment to, protecting U.S. submarine and U.S. naval nuclear propulsion technology, sharing this [Page 24] technology with another country would increase the number of potential entry points that China, Russia, or some other country could attempt to penetrate to gain access to that technology."

Pete Comment:
I support the skeptics' arguments. How about you?

18 comments:

Pete said...

Andrew Tillett, for the Australian Financial Review (AFR) "AUKUS subs deal ‘could worsen US shortfall, blunt China deterrence"
at https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/aukus-subs-deal-could-worsen-us-shortfall-blunt-china-deterrence-20230821-p5dy3w of August 21, 2023

"Selling Australia three Virginia-class submarines could worsen the US Navy’s shortfall of nuclear-powered submarines and leave it almost a third below its goal for the size of the fleet, a new report for US legislators warns.

The US Congressional Research Service (CRS) report also posits AUKUS could fail to live up to its deterrence objectives with nuclear-powered submarines in Australian hands.

“Sceptics of transferring Virginia-class [submarines] from the United States to Australia might argue that it could weaken deterrence of potential Chinese aggression if China were to find reason to believe, correctly or not, that Australia might use the transferred Virginia-class boats less effectively than the US Navy would use them if the boats were retained in US Navy service, or that Australia might not involve its military, including its Virginia-class boats, in US-China crises or conflicts that Australia viewed as not engaging important Australian interests,” the report said.

Amid doubts over the AUKUS plan, the report floats the option of Australia abandoning its ambitions to operate nuclear-powered submarines and have US boats perform underwater missions on Australia’s behalf.

Such a “division of labour” approach would free up cash for the Australian Defence Force to spend on other military capabilities that contribute to the US alliance, as well as minimise the risk of Chinese and Russian spies stealing military secrets about submarine technology.

The release of the report bolsters US Republicans in their demands for the White House for more funding to boost American production of submarines before agreeing to transfer Virginia-class boats to Australia. https://www.afr.com/world/north-america/republicans-use-aukus-as-leverage-for-more-defence-funding-20230722-p5dqf9

It also coincides with senior Albanese government ministers quelling a grassroots and union backlash to AUKUS at the Labor Party’s national conference last week by warning a military build-up was needed to deter China. https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/marles-moves-to-defuse-damaging-labor-aukus-debate-20230817-p5dx7g

MORE TO FOLLOW BELOW

Pete said...

FROM ABOVE

"As part of AUKUS, the US will sell at least three and up to five Virginia-class submarines to Australia from the early 2030s to avoid a capability gap between the retirement of the Collins-class submarines and the delivery of the first locally made nuclear-powered submarine in the early 2040s.

The report, released last week, is the first examination by the CRS of the impact of the proposed AUKUS sale on the US submarine fleet and production.

While the US Navy plans to build additional attack submarines to replace those sent to Australia, this will require a lift in production from 20 submarines (an average of two a year) to 23-25 submarines over the 2030-2039 decade.

However, production rates have been averaging 1.2 to 1.4 boats a year, amid labour shortages and growing technical complexity, heightening fears that Australia could miss out or face delays receiving the submarines.

The report warns that AUKUS will make it harder for the US Navy to meet its shipbuilding goal to have 66 attack submarines by 2035.

Based on the current schedule of construction and retirement of older boats, the US Navy would have 47 submarines if it did not replace the Australian-bound vessels, a shortfall of 29 per cent against its target.

The report said it might be more cost-effective to have US submarines “perform both US and Australian [submarine] missions while Australia invests in other types of military forces”, mirroring the US relationship with NATO members.

“Sceptics could argue that notwithstanding Australia’s capability for, and commitment to, protecting US submarine technology and US naval
nuclear propulsion technology, sharing this technology with another country would increase the number of potential entry points that China, Russia, or some other country could attempt to penetrate to gain access,” the report said.

Following high-level talks with US officials last month, Defence Minister Richard Marles expressed confidence the US Congress would not block the sale of submarines to Australia despite the Republican senators’ concerns.

Strategic Analysis Australia head of research Marcus Hellyer said the report had highlighted that officials “still haven’t answered the fundamental question of where Australia’s Virginia-class submarines are coming from without impacting US capability”." ENDS

Anonymous said...

Hi Pete

Back to my previous (Fr) comments about dived subs, aware of the tactical situation, above,thus mitigating the snorkel risk.The network centric aspect of modern warfare.This is the real "game changer"

One of the image is about the link22, a tactical version of link 16,. A packet,internet IP protocol system in the UHF.as an upgrade to the KSSII.These networks are fairly standard in NATO W europeanplatforms since 7/10 years

An idea of the Scorpene system from Nereides (50m depth , 4 knots max operation enveloppe ).Other suppliers in Germany , US, and so on likely

https://www.navalnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/ROK-Navy-Son-Won-Il-class-KSS-II-submarine.jpg

https://www.nereides.fr/en/

Anonymous said...

Australia's also getting a better land-attack capability
for its surface fleet:

"Australia will become one of only three nations to
possess a Tomahawk long-range strike capability when
it purchases more than 200 of the cruise missiles
from the United States for the Royal Australian
Navy’s Hobart-class destroyers.

The Tomahawk missiles, costing about $1.3 billion,
have a range of 1500 kilometres.

Australia will also acquire more than 60 AARGM-ER
(advanced anti-radiation guided missile – extended
range) missiles from the United States for $431
million."

See:

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2023/08/australia-moves-forward-with-tomahawk-missile-procurement/

Anonymous said...

Fr at 8/22/2023 9:58 PM

Sorry corrects links

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2023/08/south-korea-to-upgrade-kss-ii-son-won-il-class-submarines/

Pete said...

Hi French Anonymous at 8/22/2023 9:58 PM and 8/23/2023 8:57 AM

Yes there is much detail here of Link 22 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Link_22 "Link 22 is a secure digital radio link in the HF and UHF bands, primarily used by military forces as a tactical data link..." With all large NATO powers and the Netherlands using it.

Link 22 provides beyond line-of-sight (BLOS) communications. It interconnects air, surface, subsurface [eg SUBMARINES], and ground-based tactical data systems,

Presumably Germany could also offer it to South Korea (SK) for the TKMS designed Type 209 and 214 variants taht SK has built.

Maybe France has beaten Germany on price and other qualities for the SK customer?

Communications on Different Radiofrequency Bands?

Thanks for https://www.nereides.fr/en/ and more specifically https://www.nereides.fr/en/products/defence/ about Paris based company NEREIDES offering VLF? and ELF? band communications from large land based transmitters to submarines that are towing "buoyant wire antennas".

Cheers Pete

Pete said...

Thanks Anonymous at 8/23/2023 1:45 AM

About Australia getting Tomahawk land-attack (and they are anti-ship capable) missiles initially for Australia's Hobart-class destroyers. When Australia's troubled (thankyou BAe) Hunter-class future frigates design are sufficiently developed (and prototype tested in the UK) to be actually built, they will likely adopt Tomahawks.

And Tomahawks are major weapons on Australia's future? Virginia SSNs. Although, events in Ukraine make plain that hypersonic missiles would be much more useful against advanced competitors like Russia and China also Iran (as Iran qualifies as the US's next conquest in the Middle East...).

Regarding https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2023/08/australia-moves-forward-with-tomahawk-missile-procurement/ mention of Australia ordering HIMARS. Buying them while they are in high demand for being GIFTED to Ukraine has ensured Australia is buying HIMARS for 3 times the pre-Ukraine War price!? Such is Australia's premium on the US Protection Insurance Policy sharply rising!

Regards Pete

Anonymous said...

Hi Pete
A few comment about sub transmission (sorry if cannot hide my civilian background in related areas..and posting long comments..)
Link 11.16, 22 operates in the 1 GHZ range to have the bandwidth/bit rates for maps, video ec.This allow for very small antennas (A quarterwave is about 7 cm) but at these frequecies you have to be in the line of sight and to achieve high gain a small parabola (30/40 cm?)on the surface (searching and tracking automatically the right satellite)is needed
The Barracuda class has link 11, 16, 22 via the Thales DiveSat antenna.The German Aeromaritme company has specific radio mast probably functionnally identical

This is "passe"/designed 15/20 years ago however with emergence of Phase Array matrix of detectors at very low cost (Starlink internet terminal incl the flat antenna that scan and track the satllite automatically,at 500USD)
A sub towing a flat plastic black sheet 30 cm, in size at the surface..(with the electronic and power source, FO link for the data) Detection?..
Retrofit likely

As for the buoyant wire it is useful in the HF area ,10/30 Mhz,for traditionnal radio links over long distance , up to 10 000 miles if the seasons and the ionosphere are ok

There is no need for surface wire with VLF because in the 3/40 KHz the EM field penetrates down to 20 meters, although an long surface wire is way better.However the bandwidth at these frequencies is in a fraction of kbits/sec order of magnitude, less than the old traditional analog phone fixed line of Mr Edison in 1890

Anonymous said...

"Although, events in Ukraine make plain that hypersonic missiles would be much more useful against advanced competitors like Russia and China also Iran (as Iran qualifies as the US's next conquest in the Middle East...)."

The problem with hypersonics is that they're expensive and *big*. Note that even a large ship like the Zumwalt-class can only carry 12 of them.

"The tubes will each hold three Common Hypersonic Glide Bodies (C-HGB) – hypersonic missiles being developed jointly between the U.S. Army and the U.S. Navy – for a total of 12 missiles on the ship."

See:

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2023/08/uss-zumwalt-arrives-in-mississippi-for-hypersonic-weapon-upgrade/

Scott said...

Anonymous (Fr)
Further to your comments on hypersonics, I also note that reportedly Ukrainian air defence has successfully shot down several Russian "Kinzhal" (hypersonic) missiles since Patriot and Iris T systems went online. If the speed and tracking issue for hypersonics can be overcome, then is it the bogeyman weapon feared? Would the RAN be better off with a normal payload of a larger number of conventional sub- or super-sonic missiles?

Whereas stealth in missiles is still clearly a huge advantage. In this respect, for a purely anti-shipping role, NSM and Stormshadow/Scalp missiles would still represent a very valuable capability increase for the RAN. I assume the Block V version of Tomahawk will have stealth features as well.

Scott said...

Pete

Thanks for posting this article. IMO this is the primary danger in the whole AUKUS plan - reliability of delivery. Looking at the recent evidence, I consider this a grave risk with both US and UK.

If we follow US efforts to increase their rate of SSN production, which go back to the Virginia Block 2 program (at least) they have not met targets. If they don't succeed now, what does the RAN do? SSN AUKUS will not arrive for 20 years, best case.

Scott said...

Pete

A final quick personal comment. I have been out of the loop for much of this year with my father passing away and some family issues to deal with. I only just caught up with your personal health situation. I offer my sympathy hope you are feeling better and wish you a speedy recovery. I am not working much now but I made a small donation and hope it helps.

Thanks for running Submarine Matters, which I still find excellent for quality information on this topic. Despite being one of the most important issues Australia faces in Defence procurement, there has been a regrettable lack of real technical discussion of submarine options (SSN or SSK), as opposed to political justifications for decisions made behind closed doors.

Pete said...

Hi Anonymous at 8/23/2023 10:02 PM

Thanks for the info on Links 11, 16 and 22 etc.

This is a new area for this blog.

I'll do an article on it next week.

Cheers Pete

Pete said...

Hi Anonymous at 8/24/2023 12:52 AM

and

Scott at 8/25/2023 10:51 AM

Any missile can be shot down, but I think hypersonic missiles will become more agile and low flying, so will be harder to hit.

To face the likes of China, Russia and Iran I think US built hypersonic missiles will form an increasing proportion of missiles alongside diminishing numbers of easy to shoot down Tomahawk subsonic cruise missiles. This is on surface ships and Virginia subs, with hypersonics being phased in over the next 20 years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-Range_Hypersonic_Weapon advises that current rather large and expensive US Long-Range Hypersonic Weapon (LRHW)

are "planned to enter service with the [US] Army in 2023.[8] The Navy intends to field the weapon aboard its Zumwalt-class destroyers by 2025[8] and later on its Block V Virginia-class submarines[9] in 2028"

I would say add 5-10 years to those phase-in estimates. Hopefully the US will develop smaller, cheaper, hypersonic missiles, for mass use.

Select countries, like Australia, Japan, Israel and the UK, may receive such smaller cheaper US designed hypersonics.

Meanwhile India is joint developing BrahMos-II hypersonic missiles with Russia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BrahMos-II. Therefore it is hoped India will quietly pass on BrahMos-II designs and actual missiles to the US.

Regards Pete

Pete said...

Hi Scott at 8/25/2023 10:59 AM

Yes I think US "[un]reliability of delivery" will foil Albos best laid hopes. Once the US realises it is facing Chinese SSNs and SSBNs of increasing quality, in increasing numbers, I think the USN, by 2027, will persuade any President to shelve the US Virginia promise to Australia. This is even if Biden, currently 81, codgers on past 2024.

Yes, alternatively the USN might only part with three older Virginia Block IIs for Australia. The Block II only having less useful 12 x individual Tomahawk slots rather than the more useful Virginia Payload Tubes (VPT) that can take larger Hypersonic missiles, XLUUVs and other gear. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia-class_submarine#Block_II

I think the UK's SSN-AUKUS is Australia's main hope, though probably available to the UK RN in the mid 2040s and to the RAN in the late 2040s. The UK designer/builder BAe's customary over-price and late inefficiency is a risk.

Cheers Pete

Pete said...

Hi again Scott at 8/25/2023 11:18 AM

Thanks for your concern, kind words and your donation.

My own Dad passed away in 2018, which was a sad jolt. Hearts OK. Its now the prostate with frequent PSA tests and yearly MRIs and biopsies, which are a worry. A prostatectomy may be on the horizon.

I enjoy running Submarine Matters and find I'm able to question the Aus Government's lopsided campaign to marginalise dissent, even within its own Labor Party ranks, about the obscenely expensive AUKUS submarine plans.

Penny Wong, who used to voice reservations about AUKUS subs, has been a particular disappointment. But I suppose she wants to keep her Foreign Minister gig.

Meanwhile consultants in Canberra who also have the knowledge to question, fear for their jobs in the small, vengeful Canberra bubble.

Perhaps luckily the US Navy will decide that the US cannot afford sparing 3 Virginias, mainly as training vessels for Australia's steep learning curve, in the 2030s.

Thanks again.

Pete

TDUA said...

Pete, first time poster, long time reader. Thanks for the blog and hope you are getting better.

I keep thinking AU should buy 3-4 SSK class to hedge their bets vs VA class deliveries and late SSN Aukus design concerns. Vice continuing to LOTE all of the Collins class. The Netherlands ultimate decision next Spring might add to their options (same torpedo/Tomahawk interest). At a min they are in control of their own destiny and wont find themselves struggling to keep Collins viable. Plus, the skills for building boats is a bit different than maintaining them and could help develop the workforce in country vice overseas. just a thought.

Pete said...

Welcome to Submarine Matters TDUA at 8/29/2023 1:38 AM

Your comments are very sensible.

So I've responded to them in article:

"4 New SSKs Better Than 5 Collins LOTEs: No Virginias?" of August 29, 2023

at https://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2023/08/4-new-ssks-better-than-5-collins-lotes.html

Cheers Pete