The AUKUS sub Dog's Breakfast (as in dog vomit) Labor's Albanese inherited. ---
The UK has a poor SSN production and availability record that bodes ill for the UK designing and part building SSN-AUKUS’s for Australia in the 2040s. The UK’s 6 SSNs (5 Astutes and 1 Trafalgar) are reportedly stuck in Devonport and Faslane docks - a dangerous situation of neglect and miscalculation.
It will be difficult for the UK Royal Navy (RN) to spare an Astute for "Submarine Rotational Force-West" at HMAS Stirling, from 2027, if there are insufficient operational Astutes even for the RN. This is noting at least 1 Astute is required near Faslane for "delousing" (ie. protecting) UK SSBNs leaving Faslane on patrol and then returning to Faslane. Another Astute is expected to be on station in the eastern Mediterranean or patrolling the North Atlantic/GIUK Gap (against increasingly active Russian subs). If the RN wishes to maintain 3 operational Astutes (for its Australian, Faslane and another Atlantic-Mediterranean commitment) the RN needs 9 Astutes to meet the Rule of Thirds - but the RN is only building 7 Astutes.
The combination of an inefficient UK SSN build sector and Australia having probably the most inefficient shipbuilding sector worldwide will be too costly for even the loudest Osborne spruiker to flog.
This is on top of likely US unwillingness to provide Virginias to Australia
in the 2030s due to the USN having too few SSNs even for its own use.
ReplyDeleteThe Collins' are aging rapidly .. it's long past time AUS re-considered Japan's offer to build modified Soryu's even as a stopgap measure. This entire nuclear sub program has been a debacle from the start.
It's been a farce. It should have stuck to either the Japanese or French offers r at least the nuclear option which they were willing to offer if having a nuclear propulsion was a non-negotiable. These options were a fraction of the cost of AUKUS which while on paper offers the best solution for the RAN, the concept of itself was obviously unfeasible. Even if we did return to these old options, subs would still be delivered much sooner than AUKUS subs.
DeleteIf even the submarine enthusiasts among us are getting nervous about these price and delivery risks, what must the general public be thinking? For AUKUS to happen somebody still had to introduce a budget into parliament and get it voted through.
ReplyDeleteFor all the debates over which sub is best, if we really think the risk of imminent conflict is high, we should be preferencing the options with the most prompt, reliable delivery. That would rule out the following:
- SSN AUKUS (too distant)
- Virginias (uncertain delivery)
IMO the options with best chance of prompt delivery would be those already under construction not requiring redesign:
- SSN Barracuda (France offered to build four promptly)
- SAAB Expeditionary SSK C718
- TKM SSK Type 218SG
We could get the first six built quickly in the country of origin then debate a follow on order or local construction after that.
Troubling indeed. Would it be possible to license a customized variant of Singapore's Invincible class as a stop-gap? Could TKMS make more of those? Just floating some ideas out there, apols if they are silly.
ReplyDeleteTW
Poor Prime Minister (PM) Albanese is in a bind. As is customary each successive Australian PM has placed his imprimatur on the RAN by choosing a new submarine, to newly announce another submarine project for higly electorally important South Australia (which contains the Osborne Shipyard). PMs being:
ReplyDeleteAbbott chose Soryu SSKs
Turnbull chose Attack class SSKs
Morrison chose Virginias + SSN-AUKUSs.
But with each passing month the Virginia prospect is receding. 3 Virginias in the 2030s will only be Training Submarines taking years to become fully operational with fully trained Australian crews.
As the USN desperately needs operational Virginias in the 2030s Australia's 3 sub training luxury is steadily becoming more remote a possibility.
If Albanese is stll PM in 2026 he, in turn, is likely to turn to an SSK + XLUUV interim solution.
That is until UK designed and half built SSN-AUKUS are operational in the RAN in the late 2040s/early 2050s.
Hi all.
ReplyDelete@TW
I wonder if the Type 218 submarine can fit into the usual Collins class mission profile in terms of range/endurance.
At least it will not match the range/endurance of the Type 216 submarine previously planned for Australia.
But perhaps, with nuclear submarines on the horizon, a possible SSK fleet will no longer need to patrol the South China Sea and will be more useful for guarding Australian borders/coasts.
If so, the Type 218 could be a valuable option, especially because such modern SSKs can be operated by quite small crews and, afaik, hiring sufficient sailors is also a problem for Australia (just as other western countries have the same problem).
About the capacity of tkMS.
They have just completed a new hall for submarine production in Kiel, in which they believe the pure construction process can be accelerated by 20 percent. In addition, after the bankruptcy of “MV Werft” in 2022, tkMS took the opportunity to buy its shipyard in Wismar. So there is some capacity for more customers.
But, it will also be a question of how the tenders from the Netherlands and Poland will proceed. I guess, the early bird will catch the worm.
Regards,
Sascha
Hi Sascha,
ReplyDeleteReckon the RAN could customize a variant of it for their own needs, depending on what want to use any hypothetical interim submarine for, be it coastal patrols right up to the Sunda Straits, or something further out, until AUKUS subs come along. SG's submarine needs are probably quite different, but I feel the 218s could work as a baseline to enlarge (if possible).
Good point about TKMS' increasing capacity.
Cheers,
TW