"‘This will make us weaker’: Army restructure faces backlash" see following Sept 28, 2023 article https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/this-will-make-us-weaker-army-restructure-faces-backlash-20230928-p5e8br.html
Pete Comment
My estimate of a A$Half Trillion (over 30 years) required for Australia’s future AUKUS submarine purchases is at the expense of less money for Australia’s Army (causing it to shrink).
However, Trump (on the advice of the US Navy) may well cancel the Virginias for Australia. Trump is increasinly likely win the 2024 elections (the betting odds today are Trump 2.60 to Biden's 3.00). Biden's chances are in free fall. Instead Australia may need to wait for a joint build of Australian SSN-AUKUS subs in the 2040s-2050s.
Whatever the AUKUS partners are claiming now, the cost of Australian SSN-AUKUS's only make sense if they are seen as Australian SSGNs equipped with nuclear weapons. Australia, after all, only has a very small defence budget compared to the other nuclear submarine owning countries (see SIPRI Table 1.). Those countries (see this very useful wiki site) are all great powers (UK, France, India, Russia) or super powers (US, China).
Significantly the great and super power have nuclear powered submarines as their highest priority and most numerous strategic nuclear weapon platforms. Australia may well follow the same nuclear weapon policy.
12 comments:
Oh, so when the Libs were in power:
Scotty boy signing a multibillion dollar SSN sub deal with the US - no issue
Cancelling Attack class after $2.4 billion spent - no issue
Paying Naval Group a further $555 mil to settle the Attack class debacle - no issue
ALP and Australia living with the aftermath - political points to score
Hi Shawn at 9/29/2023 6:34 PM
You've captured Australia's fiendishly wasteful, ever changing submarine acquisition "strategy" in a nutshell.
I hazard a guess that after S10 Billion has been expended since the 2009 Aus Defence White Paper (that put forward a submarine strategy) Australia might be able to cobble together 3 XLUUVs by 2040.
And concerning those Virginias for Aus? Trump will most likely kill off that option on the advice of the US Navy.
Trump is increasingly likely to win in 2024 with the betting odds today being Trump 2.60 to Biden's 3.00 https://www.sportsbet.com.au/betting/politics/us-politics/us-presidential-election-2024-5479667
Biden's chances seem to be in free fall.
Cheers Pete
Pete
I share your concern with AUKUS in terms of both what we are getting for the huge cost, and the certainty of delivery (or lack thereof). In fact I think the odds of certain US delivery are even worse than you say. AUKUS needs both Biden to be re-elected and a majority in favour in both the US Senate and HOR until at least a contract is signed.
The cost is much higher than I had estimated myself. I can't explain it all. For comparison to AUKUS' $268-$368 billion, France spends €5 billion per year ($8 billion Aus) on its nuclear deterrent. Over 30 years that would be $240 billion. That is everything for an air and sea nuclear deterrent. Aircraft, missiles, SSBNs (4) and atomic weapons (about 300 warheads).
Is the $368 billion really all for AUKUS SSNs? The entire Virginia program (66 SSNs @ $6 billion Aus per sub) will only be slightly more than that. The combined cost of the Astute and Barracuda programs (7+6 SSNs) is much less.
Hi Anonymous at 9/30/2023 5:43 PM
I'd add even if Biden gets re-elected it is certain he will have further declined mentally (normal at his age) and physically over the next 5 years 3 months until his Second term of office would end in 2029.
So Biden is likely to be basically too tired to push through an unpopular and difficult policy of Virginias to train our navy - Virginias that might be better used operationally by remaining in the US Navy.
Much of the $268-$368 billion is for so much more than just for SSNs. The cost estimate is because Australia is almost starting from scratch in terms of:
- SSN infrastructure for basing (including the East Coast SSN Base). For maintenance in Adelaide and Fleet Base West.
- nuclear training more than 2,000 submariners, onshore technical maintainers, nuclear shipyard workers, nuclear engineers in uniform and AUS DoD civilians, many more nuclear safety specialists.
This is in contrast to the US and UK that have gradually expanded their large uniformed and civilian nuclear sectors over more than 70 years, since 1950. Both countries have also maintained large numbers of nuclear trained staff for their onshore nuclear reactor electrical industries and nuclear weapon industries.
We only have 10s or 100s of nuclear engineers at Lucas Heights which is staffed by people from the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) and the Australian Nuclear Science & Technology Organisation (ANSTO), some in state capitals and some nuclear medicine doctors and technicines at hospitals.
All extremely expensive for perhaps just 3 secondhand Virginias until the first RAN SSN-AUKUS actually becomes operational in the late 2040s.
Regards Pete
Pete, from my perspective...all eyes on the Netherlands decision...and the time it will take to get through the first of the planned Collins LOTE's...Australia gap filler and maybe even Canada future replacement...
Hi TDUA
The canadian situation is somewhat different
Canada has a very robust nuclear industry .. for 70 years..Among the world leader
From U mining (one of the largest supplier), to ultimate disposal , incl reactors design , export ,operation, dismantling , engineering services..More tha 100K people in that industry
The mood toward N is clealy tilting in its favors..( reactors life extension, and SMR projects)
Owing to its geography,(huge distances, far away from bases,in the front line of new major maritimre routes.) a decision to go SSN should be obvious (technically )in particular with LEU to rely on commercial sources for the fuel and avoid the dependance on weapon grade
If a country can move in that direction it is definitely Canada
Pete,
The UK just injected 4 billion pounds of funding into SSN-AUKUS (https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/new-british-aukus-nuclear-submarine-gets-4bn-boost).
Hi TDUA at 10/03/2023 2:43 AM
Yes all that you mention:
Australia monitoring the Netherlands Walrus replacement decision, Collins LOTEs from 2025 and far less likely Australia choosing an Aus SSK as a "gap filler"
are all necessary Australian hedging measures given Virginias for Australia are a long shot given a weakening Biden.
Regards Pete
Hi Shawn at 10/04/2023 1:26 AM
Yes the UK just injected 4 billion pounds to cover ??? years of early of funding into SSN-AUKUS.
There seems to be a UK and Australian Government propaganda campaign implying SSN-AUKUS commissioning is just around the corner in the mid 2030s.
I would say this campaign is based on a sober but secret UK-Aus assessment that "as Virginias will NOT be available to Australia in the 2030s, to keep AUKUS alive we shall build expectations of UK designed and mostly built SSN-AUKUS appearing in the early-mid 2030s"
The problem with this campaign is the UK Astutes don't need replacing until the "late 2030s and [SSN-AUKUSes can only be available to the] Royal Australian Navy in the 2040s." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SSN-AUKUS
The UK doesn't have the capacity to launch SSN-AUKUSes until after the last Dreadnought-class SSBN is launched around 2038-39 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreadnought-class_submarine#Boats_of_the_class.
Simultaneous SSN-AUKUS and Dreadnought launches cannot occur because production would need to be happening in the same relatively small BAE Systems Submarines, Barrow-in-Furness factory, using the same limited workforce.
Regards Pete
Hi Anonymous...concur that Canada should be considering nukes...but given timelines for Victoria sundowning and even if they join SSN Aukus and have them built overseas...would likely take until the 50's (just a stab at a decade) to start getting them. They are going to need to buy class of diesels to get them to that point.
A further concern about UK SSN AUKUS is the US ItAR rules. US Congress ITAR approval is required for export of US SSN reactor IP and technology to Australia. This is true for both RAN Virginias and SSN AUKUS. Unless a successful ITAR vote gets through Congress soon (looking more and more difficult) BAE SSN AUKUS is just as dead as RAN Virginias.
Hi Anonymous at 10/06/2023 8:08 AM
I've shifted your Congress holding up ITAR approval to https://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2023/10/trumps-indirect-gift-to-his-russian.html because the latter would have damaged Congressional trust in the ability of an Australian or Australians protect US submarine secrets.
Regards Pete
Post a Comment