Pakistan Negotiating With China to Acquire Nuclear Second-Strike Capability?

On December 13, 2024, Drop Site News published a report that alleged that the Pakistani Government requested help from China in order to create a survivable nuclear second-strike capability. This was in return for eventually allowing the Chinese PLA Navy to build permanent basing facilities at Gwadar. Such a base would have placed China's navy in a better position to influence events in the Middle East, including protecting China's oil and gas sources. The report claimed that the Chinese side rejected Pakistan's request.

Pakistan may have requested the capability to launch nuclear-armed submarine launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs).

Ballistic missile submarines are usually nuclear-powered (SSBNs). SSBNs would undoubtedly be ideal second-strike platforms from a survivability standpoint. But, in my opinion, the cost and complexity of such a platform would place it outside the realistic reach of the Pakistani military for the foreseeable future.

However, as South (and North) Korea have recently proved, a conventionally-powered diesel submarine platform, with or without AIP, can also be utilized for the purpose of ballistic missile launch. Such subs, without the N (for nuclear powered) are called SSBs, which are less survivable than SSBNs due to limited underwater endurance. 

However, an SSB (especially one with AIP) can still enhance a country's nuclear deterrence posture. This is achieved by discouraging adversaries from attempting debilitating nuclear first-strikes due to the increased risk factor involved in dealing with a retaliating submerged platform.

Display model of a Type 032 Qing-class SSB, used by the PLA Navy to test SLBM technologies.
---

Close-up of the SLBM launch tubes on the Type 032 Qing-class.
---

The one and only Type 032 submarine.
---

It is not entirely clear why China may have rejected Pakistan's request (if the report is true). Might China have rejected any Pakistani request for an SSBN or SSB due to counter-proliferation principles? Or did China feel that the Pakistani offer of Gwadar as a permanent Chinese naval base was an insufficient offer in return for such a capability? 

I think it is plausible that such a deal, if and when struck, would likely involve China transferring sufficient technology, under the table, to build an SSB within Pakistan itself. The secrecy would be necessary to avoid China being seen as violating the NPT (to which China is a signatory while Pakistan is not). 

Such a transfer of technology might manifest as a continuation of the Type 039A Yuan/Hangor-class production line at Pakistan's Karachi Shipyard & Engineering Works (KS&EW). Of the 8 Hangors ordered by Pakistan in 2015, 4 are being built in China and 4 in Karachi.

The Pakistani SSBs could be a larger variant of the Hangor-class. The Hangors and Chinese Yuans in general, could be seen as a design evolution of the Soviet Kilo-class SSK. A major improvement of the Yuans (and Hangors) over the Kilos are the their Stirling engine-based AIP propulsion. 

Alternatively Pakistani SSBs could turn out to be an operational variant of China's sole Type 032 Qing-class submarine (pictured above). The Qing is a diesel-electric submarine which has already been used by China to test JL-2 and JL-3 SLBMs and related technologies from a conventionally-powered platform, hence the Qing can be considered as having proven itself as an SSB test submarine.

Pakistan May Already Have 5 Nuclear Weapon Submarines

Irrespective of how Pakistan-China negotiations go in future, Pakistan will not be entirely dependent on acquiring a Chinese designed SSB to launch nuclear weapons. Pakistan already has a submarine-launched version of its nuclear capable Babur cruise missile (specifically the Babur III submarine launched cruise missile or SLCM). Pakistan's 2 x conventional Hashmat-class (Agosta-70) and 3 x conventional and AIP equipped Khalid-class (Agosta-90B) submarines may be capable of launching Babur IIIs. Once the 8 x Hangor-class are commissioned they might also carry nuclear tipped Babur III SLCMs.

Babur subsonic land-attack cruise missile in flight during a test launch.
---

Deployed on even conventional submarines the Babur might be a significant second-strike weapon. If it has stealthy, low flying, flight characteristics, the subsonic Babur cruise missile might be somewhat survivable against networked anti-missile systems. The Babur is believed to be powered by a Chinese engine of the same type that powers the CJ-10. The Babur could present a significant complication for any country that might seek to pre-emptively destroy Pakistan's nuclear arsenal and other high value targets. 

A Pakistani ship or submarine launched nuclear-tipped missile of any type comes with significant command and control risks. Surface warships in particular that are capable of firing Baburs are hijack risks, as a previous attempt was already made (linked above), helped by elements within the Pakistan Navy who were loyal to extremist causes. However these might be risks the Pakistani National Command Authority considers worth taking to improve the chances of national survival.

As an aside, on December 19, 2024 the US Deputy National Security Advisor Jon Finer stated that Pakistan intends to develop nuclear-capable ballistic missiles with the ability to reach the United States. On December 18, 2024 the US announced further sanctions on agencies and companies involved in Pakistan's missile program, which DNSA Finer labelled an "emerging threat" to the US.

Existing (as of 2021) Pakistani missile systems and their reported ranges. Graphic via CSIS.

Meanwhile, North Korea reportedly could have begun development of a nuclear-powered submarine platform. While it remains to be seen where this project will go, it could present a future export possibility for countries like Pakistan and Iran. A cost sharing program in turn might allow all three countries to pursue a truly survivable second-strike capability in the long term.

Aussie Christmas Song

“Santa Swapped His Sleigh For A Surfboard” An original composition by Australian singer/songwriter Craig Stewart.
---

Thanks everyone who read Submarine Matters and commented during 2024. 

Wishing everyone Seasons Greetings.

Pete

US Airstrikes Target Iran Proxies & Islamic State in Syria

At https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Republic_A-10_Thunderbolt_II#Operational_history

“On 29 November and 3 December 2024, USAF A-10s were used against targets in Syria to defend US forces in eastern Syria as part of the ongoing Syrian civil war. The USAF said the strikes destroyed vehicles, mortars, and a T-64 tank.^[130] Concurrent with the fall of the Assad regime on 8 December, A-10s participated alongside B-52s and F-15Es in what the USAF said were "dozens" of airstrikes against over 75 ISIS targets. The strikes were intended to prevent ISIS from benefitting from the political upheaval in Syria.^[131]”

++++++++++++++

Video here and above by Chris Cappy and Diego Aceituno (they also wrote description below) at Task and Purpose December 15/16, 2024. Edited by Syed.

"The Syrian civil war has exploded again leading to the United States Air Force executing an A-10 Warthog gun run against Iranian backed proxy militias. Just when you think the A-10 is ready to retire it comes out swinging. The strike KOed three rocket artillery trucks, a T-64 tank, an Armored Personnel Carrier, and a mortar battery.

Today I want to try to untangle this absolute cluster f--k of a situation and investigate whether the US really backed the rebels with material support to overthrow Assad. Why did Syria, Russian and Iranian forces fail to hold the line? Who is this mysterious rebel group that’s taken over the country? All these questions are important but the most important thing is that hopefully the Syrian people themselves stop getting the short end of the stick in the outcome.

According to US Central Command, These strikes were conducted “in self defense”. They claim the gun run was to neutralize an imminent attack that was aimed at the nearby [US] Military Support Site code named “Euphrate” which is a US-led coalition base that’s traded fire with both ISIS and Iranian proxies before."  

First Images of Japan's Type-12 (Upgraded) SSM, Hypersonic Missiles?

The first photos of the new version of Japan's Type-12 Surface-to-Surface Missile (SSM) have been released to the public by Japan's ATLA (Acquisition, Technology & Logistics Agency).

This report from Naval News has the details (and more pictures). But broadly, the main improvement seems to be an increase in range from 200 km (on the previous Type-12) to a reported 900 km (with an eventual aim of reaching 1,200 km). This will give the Japanese Self Defense Forces a longer, stand-off reach to tackle targets.

Additionally, it appears the new airframe of the missile is designed to minimize its radar signature to make it more difficult for adversaries to detect or shoot down the missile as it approaches. This is a feature that previous-generation SSMs lacked and they could therefore be detected at longer ranges, giving more time for adversaries to prepare defences.

This previous SubMatts article from January 2022 by Pete, with information mainly from Anonymous, goes into the details of how the Type-12 missile achieves these enhanced capabilities.





Japan expects to field the improved Type-12 missile in operational units by around 2026. The Type-12 (Upgrade) is reportedly designed primarily for aircraft and ship-based usage but ground-based launchers might also become viable to use once the full range envelop is realized.

Given the presence of what appears to be a small air scoop/inlet on the underside of the missile (see first image from top), it would seem that the new missile is indeed powered by an air-breathing engine, a turbofan. The turbofan (below) is actually identified in January 2022 SubMatts article. 

Turbofan Engine (a jet) of improved Type-12 SSM.
---

Subsonic Missiles to Supersonic, even Hypersonic

This would mean that the new Type-12, like its predecessors, would primarily or wholly travel at subsonic speeds (below Mach 1). Such a slow speed might be unable to defeat the suite of SSM-countermeasures used by China's PLA Navy. Japan may need to develop supersonic missiles like the Indian-Russian BrahMos or even hypersonic missiles to compete with Russia's hypersonic Zircon, emerging Chinese missiles and future North Korean developments.

In order to increase its survivability, the new Type-12 would have to rely almost entirely on its stealth characteristics - which is in line with the strategy employed by the United States' LRASM missile.

Japan, much like the US and other countries is pursuing gradual development of hypersonic weapon systems like the Hyper-Velocity Gliding Projectile (HVGP) program (tested earlier this year). But the results of these technology-demonstration efforts might take much longer to emerge in the form of operational weapon systems.

Until then, the Type-12 (Upgrade) would likely become Japan's go-to SSM for Anti-Surface Warfare (ASuW). It might remain the mainstay even after some hypersonic missiles or gliding projectiles are inducted. Hypersonic missiles are expensive and difficult to develop - and to replenish once used.

Japan might need to rely on the US to fully develop hypersonic weapons in reasonable timeframes. Japan might then eventually secure licensed production rights to reduce reliance on US supplies.

SYRIAN Civil War - Sunni HTS Victory Bodes ILL

It looks like NATO and Israeli intelligence agencies have their work cut out clarifying what is happening to the Russian bases and what deals Russia is making with Turkey’s ambitious President Erdoğan. The agencies need all sources and methods: informants in the region, SigInt and satellite imagery.

Turkey’s apparent power over Syria’s new Hayʼat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) regime gives Turkey considerable power and latitude. Turkish forces have invaded large parts of northern Syria without HTS resistance (or US complaints?) – in order for Turkey to destroy the Kurds to the extent possible.

HTS’s advance south from Aleppo was so rapid and efficient it is reminiscent of Islamic State in Iraq and Syria’s (ISIS‘s) conquest of large parts of Syria and Iraq in 2014. At worst ISIS elements might be the real power behind HTS.

Like the Arab Spring in 2011 any optimism that the Sunni Jihadist HTS takeover of Syria will bring lasting peace and Western style democracy should be tempered by reality. While most Sunnis (74% of Syria’s population) want peace, the HTS regime are liable to round up and eventually kill many of the Shiites (13%) who dominated ex-President Assad’s old regime. Also the 300,000+ Syrian Christians are under threat. Shiites and Christians may be trying to escape over Syria's borders in large numbers.

Generally a bleak picture. One hopes HTS might surprise with continuing moderation. But we shouldn’t bank on it.

K-4 SLBM Launch from Submarine & Indian Hypersonic Program Updates

On the 17th of November 2024, a test launch of the medium-ranged K-4 SLBM was conducted from the recently commissioned Indian nuclear ballistic missile submarine (SSBN) INS Arighaat. I had previously written about the commissioning of this boat which is also known as S3 or by its pennant number SSBN-81.

INS Arighaat is the second submarine in the Arihant-class, which comprises four SSBNs total - the first two (S2 Arihant & S3 Arighaat) with 4 x SLBM launch tubes and the last two (S4 & S4*, not yet named) with 8 x SLBM launch tubes.

It's being reported that this was the first test of the K-4 SLBM from an actual submarine (though some analysts in the know suspect this was just the first 'public' test from a submarine), all previous tests of the missile being from a submerged pontoon test platform.

With a stated range of 3,500 kilometers with a 1-ton (nuclear) payload, the K-4 serves a deterrence purpose by holding major Chinese targets like Beijing and Shanghai within its reach if employed from the northern portions of the Bay of Bengal.

Below is an older video of the missile from one of its previous pontoon-based tests.

However, having to launch from a very specific part of the water in order to reach those targets presents the Indian defence planners with a problem as those waters could be patrolled and/or monitored by Chinese PLA Navy SSNs, which are known to visit the Indian Ocean Region and India's periphery increasingly often. This is why India continues to pursue development of longer-ranged SLBMs like the K-5 and K-6, which supposedly have intercontinental ranges.

The K-5 may find application on the S4 and S4*, while the K-6 appears to be offering a definitive capability that would only equip the future S5-class SSBNs.

Artistic impression of the K4 SLBM; Sourced via overtdefense.com

A nominal range of at least 6,000 kilometers while carrying a MIRVed payload is necessary in order to attain credible deterrence value against the People's Republic of China - and that definitive capability appears to be India's eventual goal with its SSBN & SLBM programs. But this might only be achieved at some point in the next decade (2030s).

But what the K-4 also symbolizes in the meantime is an ability to ensure a truly survivable deterrence against India's other nuclear-armed adversary, Pakistan. The K-4's increased range over the previous K-15 SLBM would mean that India's SSBNs operating in the Bay of Bengal would now be capable of rapidly carrying out launches against major Pakistani counter-value targets like the capital Islamabad and the largest city Karachi without having to spend a considerable amount of time (several days) travelling from the Bay of Bengal to the Arabian Sea in order to bring at least Karachi into range (Islamabad would have still been out of reach for the K-15).

++++

Another interesting development out of India is the test of a Hypersonic missile reportedly called the Long-Range Anti-Ship Missile or LRAShM (pronounced L-Rashem?) on 16 November 2024. The configuration of the weapon appears to be a Hypersonic Boost-Glide Vehicle (HBGV) sitting on top of a large solid rocket booster which is estimated to have the same diameter as the K-4 SLBM.

The only officially stated number about this weapon seems to be its range - a reported 1,500 kilometers - and the fact that it travels at hypersonic speeds (Mach 5 or above) throughout its flight envelop, which might include several maneuvers/altitude variations considering it has the flight control surfaces to affect such movement.

LRAShM during its maiden public test; the object on top is the 'lid' of the sealed canister from which it was launched, it remained stuck on the nose cone for a short while after the ejection

No official figure is stated as to its maximum speed capability - with various analysts speculating it could be between Mach 6 and Mach 9. All that said, it could represent a capability similar to China's DF-17/DF-ZF which also employs a Hypersonic Glide Vehicle (HGV, not the same as a HBGV) payload employed over a similar range (1,600 km).

If deployed in ground-based launchers in the Andaman & Nicobar Islands, the LRAShM can pose a significant threat (over and above what the extended-range BrahMos already represents) to any Chinese PLAN surface task force and/or Carrier Battle Group attempting to traverse the Malacca Strait.

3D Model of the LRAShM by artist Kuntal Biswas, sourced via Twitter; the nose cone & the leading edges of the 'control fins' appear to be coated in a material that's tolerant of extremely high temperatures expected in hypersonic flight

If the Arihant-class ends up being relegated to a comparatively less demanding conventionally-armed SSGN role following the commissioning of the S5-class in the nuclear deterrence role, the LRAShM might also end up being carried by the Arihant-class boats. Just 4 to 8 of these weapons (considering they have a booster that is the same size as K-4's first stage) with conventional payloads wouldn't cause much damage to a land-based target, but can be potentially devastating in a long-range anti-ship/carrier-killing role.

The smaller upper stage (the HBGV itself), with an estimated diameter of 0.6m, might also be carried independently (without the booster, or with a smaller booster of the same diameter as the upper stage) for greater magazine depth (12 to 24 missiles, triple-packed in the silos just like the 0.74m diameter K-15 SLBMs) but with an understandably shorter range of perhaps around 500 to 700 kilometers.

Interesting things to look forward to.

Putin's Future Black Sea NUCLEAR Warning Explosion?

My sources indicate this may be Putin's plan:

Putin may react against the US decision to permit Ukraine to fire ATACMS missiles [1] onto targets in Russia in the following way.

Putin may stage a low yield nuclear warning (atmospheric or on sea) explosion over international Black Sea air-sea space to scare the international community. The yield may be less than 100 tons (ie. < 0.1 kiloton) using a very small existing or newly developed warhead. This would be of the same magnitude yield as the old US Davy Crockett's - W54 Mod 2 warhead (yield was 0.02 kilotons). Delivery means might be many and varied, eg. a suitcase nuke [2] dropped out of a helicopter, transport plane, free fall bomb from a fighter-bomber, dropped off by a boat or conventional submarine, or within an aerial, sea surface or under sea drone or a missile warhead.

"There might be no casualties."

The objective would be to shock the world, including the US, in preparation for the Trump brokered post January 20, 2025 Ukraine-Russia Peace Treaty.

Perhaps Russia's new creditor, China, is holding back Putin from such a warning explosion because the international shock could damage China's top priority, healthy trade.

Ukraine, the US and broader NATO would be more willing to avoid the threat of a seemingly "unhinged Putin" ushering in a regional nuclear war by giving in to Putin’s territorial and other demands. 

Proposed Historical Precedent

Note that in the runup to the 1945 nuclear explosions against Japan a non-combat demonstration explosion was considered [3].

[1]  https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/11/19/russia-warns-ukraines-atacms-attacks-mark-new-phase-of-war

[2]  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suitcase_nuclear_device

[3]  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Proposed_demonstration

Some further reading from Australian Major General (Retired) Mick Ryan AM is “PUTIN’S CHILLING NUCLEAR THREAT HAS ONE STRATEGIC TARGET” of 27 November 2024 at https://www.lowyinstitute.org/publications/putin-s-chilling-nuclear-threat-has-one-strategic-target

Pop-Up Sandy Ridge Nuclear Waste Dump. Another for Osborne, Adelaide.

Western Australia now hosts a massive low level nuclear waste dump few have heard of. Its called Sandy Ridge, created after paid-for secret agreements with interest groups, including some Aboriginal groups. More see https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-08-06/nuclear-waste-sandy-ridge-facility-tellus-holdings-aukus/104130550

(Photo above courtesy ABC News, just part of the Sandy Ridge facility)
For decades federal and state governments have tried to find a place to store low-level radioactive waste and failed. Now private company, Tellus Holdings, has quietly amassed 100,000 tonnes of low-level radioactive and chemical waste stored in the Western Australian outback at very isolated Sandy Ridge. (Photo below courtesy The West Australian - broad shot of the whole Sandy Ridge facility).

Maps above and clearer on Tellus PDF below. Sandy Ridge may be about 150km by helicopter ENE of Kalgoorlie, Western Australia. Or may be more than 3 hours and 200+kms by reliable 4WD east via the Great Eastern Highway from Kalgoorlie or out to blazes from Perth. See clearer image of MAPs on pages 3 and 8 of Tellus Holdings' PDF document at https://www.gemg.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/52018-Sandy-Ridge-%E2%80%93-Australia%E2%80%99s-First-Dual-Revenue-Near-Surface-Geological-Repository.pdf

Separately in Adelaide

Today it was announced Federal parliament has passed legislation that allows for low level nuclear waste to be stored and disposed of at Osborne shipyard in northeast sleepy Adelaide. Residents said they were not consulted or told of the plan. Our AUKUS robot AlboGov (encouraged by his cheerful UK reps :) said the dump is going ahead whatever local plebs think or fear. See https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-11-18/aukus-nuclear-waste-to-be-stored-adelaide-suburbs/104605640

An Australia-China military alliance?!

1. Is seeing Trump’s good side like kicking a puppy into orbit? He’s decisive, scares the sh-t out of enemies and also friends. He's anti woke. His lifestyle, wealth, values and trophy wife all represent what red blooded, gun totin, American men aspire to. True or false? Meanwhile “Trump’s a village idiot” Ambassador KRudd may be planning a new job fast?

2. Higher populations and increased living standards in the developing world are steadily increasing hydrocarbon use. This means our climate change measures are wasted. At climate conferences developing countries are asking for US$1.3 Trillion in hand outs (not loans) as compensation and to somehow lessen their hydrocarbon use. Many Tesla wanter leaders are corrupt. https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-talks-urged-find-1-trillion-year-poorer-countries-2024-11-14/ But more developing country cars and motorbikes all rely on hydrocarbons. Or electric vehicle factories are high energy use. Doom?

3.Trump is appointing Robert F. Kennedy Jr head of the US Federal Health empire. This covers public health policies like vaccines, food, medications, Medicare and fluoride. Australia’s TGA likes to adhere to US FDA rules and standards. This will set hares running in Australian public health. eg There’s always “fluoride is poison” drongos in Australia who write to any distant council or town considering fluoride.

4. The US withdrawing from the Paris climate change agreement would see a boost in US oil, gas and coal (hydrocarbon) production. Australia under Dutton from May next year might compete by permitting higher extraction of Australian hydrocarbons. Transport costs would go down. Also under Trump’s Ukraine War “Peace” Treaty would free up currently sanctioned /blocked Russian oil/gas to flow back into the world energy market. More hydrocarbons extracted worldwide would lower the cost of living in Australia, across the board.

5. On 15 November AUKUS robot AlboGov (term coined here first) announced details of Labor’s electoral reform bill. This includes imposing a $20,000 cap on individual donations and an $800,000 cap on spending per electorate. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/nov/15/labor-and-coalition-accused-of-cooking-up-secret-deal-to-rig-electoral-rules-with-new-bill Independents have accused AlboGov of attempting to “rig” electoral rules in a “major party stitch-up” against the Greens and independents. Meanwhile any party in power or in Opposition uses policy announcements as election advertising.

6. If Trump’s US imposed a 30+% tariff against Australian exports might this be good for Australia to make up our minds to end reliance on the US? In 2023, China accounted for 41% of Australia's total exports. Japan was 12%, South Korea 7%, India 5.5%, US only 4.3%  https://tradingeconomics.com/australia/exports-by-country. How about our alliance with the US? Does it merely drag Australia into far off US led wars?

Maybe Australia should forge a military alliance with main trade partner China. Could ex Prime Minister Keating negotiate this monumental pivot? 😅

7. Good News British novelist Samantha Harvey has been awarded the 2024 Booker Prize for her novel Orbital. “Its written through the perspectives of real-life astronauts” (many of whom are ex fighter pilots). Harvey dedicated her victory to world peace and no doubt Bambi. 

NO UK Astutes Likely to "Rotate" Through Fleet Base West

Here is Gessler’s first comment above the ++++ of Nov 7, 2024 

"I wonder if the 'alternative' proposals listed in the Congressional Research Service (CRS) report mentioned in one of your previous articles (linked below) would find traction under a Trump administration. Namely, the one that calls for the Virginia-class SSNs meant to be sold to Australia instead being owned & operated by the US Navy itself...while SSN-AUKUS program proceeds in parallel with the UK.

https://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2024/02/would-be-ssn-countries-us-rejected.html

It's also possible that Trump will instead argue in favour of building the AUKUS boats in the US itself (perhaps based on SSN-X instead of UK's SSN-R design) in an attempt to create more jobs for American workers & yards while promising to deliver each boat to USN & RAN at a cheaper price instead (as the cost per boat would naturally go down if the number of SSNX hulls increase, plus the cost of building all-new nuclear submarine infrastructure in Australia would no longer be a factor).

Remains to be seen what Trump will do with AUKUS."

To which Pete2 replied:

I think Trump might be guided by US Navy insistence that the USN needs ALL the the Virginia SSNs operational now (ie. no second hand SSNs for Australia) AND USN needs all the new Virginia's. 

This does not preclude Australia getting a clapped-out, Los Angeles-class moored  SSN for immobile training use at Fleet Base West, Western Australia. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moored_training_ships like USS La Jolla (SSN-701) and USS San Francisco (SSN-711)

Regarding "Virginia-class SSNs meant to be sold to Australia instead being owned & operated by the US Navy itself." This is in some respects what is planned for the maybe half US/UK squadron sized "Submarine Rotational Force (SRF-West) " maybe from as early as 2027. The US and maybe UK may provide this force at HMAS Stirling (Fleet Base West).

-  One sub may be a UK Astute. Although the UK RN is already facing severe crew shortages even for those Astutes meant to meet the UK's own Atlantic-Arctic oceans - Mediterranean needs. However, on occasions when an Astute operates in the Persian Gulf - Arabian Sea - Indian Ocean area Australia may get a port visit once every 2 - 3 years. Three years may already be the pattern with Astutes and earlier UK Trafalgar-class SSN visits.  Also see other factors minimising Astute squadron  readiness https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/the-royal-navys-submarine-readiness-issue/

The main hope therefore is one or two US Virginia SSNs (rotated) ie. forward based at Fleet Base West from about 2027 to 2036 when Australia might receive its first purchased Virginia. See https://www.asa.gov.au/projects/submarine-rotational-force-west-infrastructure-project 
and https://www.defence.gov.au/about/locations-property/infrastructure-projects/submarine-rotational-force-west-infrastructure-project

The downside for Australia relying on US crewed Virginias through to 2036 is they will  be used to meet US national interests. These may note coincide with Australian national interests. This is especially if the US decides on a war with Australia's largest trading partner (and 2008 GFC saviour) China - a war that Australia's doesn't want to Coalition of the Willing participate in.

In fact I think it unlikely the US will sell ANY used or new Virginias to Aus in the 2030s due to the critical short-medium-long term shortage of SSNs even for sole USN use.

The Virginias (through to Block VIIIs) and US specialized SSN(X)s can/will only be built in the US. The UK-Aus specialized SSN-AUKUSs can only be fully designed built and tested first in the UK (from the late 2030s).

I think the SSN-AUKUS with the US combat system (integrated by Lockheed Martin) can then be laid down in Australia about 2040, but they will only be completed in the mid 2040s. See https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-au/products/systems-integration/maritime-systems-integration-undersea.html

Trump's Past Pro-Japan, SK Nuclear Weapons Position

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_nuclear_weapons_program#De_facto_nuclear_state advises:

"On 29 March 2016, then-U.S. presidential candidate Donald Trump suggested that Japan should develop its own nuclear weapons, claiming that it was becoming too expensive for the US to continue to protect Japan from countries such as China, North Korea, and Russia that already have their own nuclear weapons.^[50]

[endnote 50 is]

https://web.archive.org/web/20190611080231/https://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-japan-south-korea-might-need-nuclear-weapons/

"Donald Trump: Japan, South Korea might need nuclear weapons

By Stephanie Condon

March 29, 2016 / CBS News

Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump on Tuesday night defended his assertion that more countries, such as Japan, South Korea or even Saudi Arabia, may need to develop their own nuclear weapons.

"You have so many countries already -- China, Pakistan, you have so many countries, Russia -- you have so many countries right now that have them," Trump said in a Milwaukee, Wisconsin town hall televised by CNN. "Now, wouldn't you rather, in a certain sense, have Japan have nuclear weapons when North Korea has nuclear weapons?"

Trump said that the United States spends too much money protecting countries like Japan and Saudi Arabia, but "we can't afford to do it anymore."

CNN moderator Anderson Cooper pointed out that it's been U.S. policy for decades to prevent Japan from getting a nuclear weapon. Trump responded, "Maybe it's going to have to be time to change, because so many people -- you have Pakistan has it, you have China has it. You have so many other countries are now having it."

Trump similarly suggested that Japan and South Korea should develop nuclear weaponry in an interview with the New York Times last week.

Following Trump's remarks to the Times, Japanese Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga told reporters that his nation remains steadfastly against owning, making or allowing nuclear weapons. He said this position will "remain an important basic policy of the government."

Trump said he's in favor of potentially seeing countries like Japan develop nuclear weapons because "it's going to happen anyway."

"It's only a question of time," he said. "They're going to start having them or we have to get rid of them entirely.""

On 27 February 2022, former prime minister Shinzo Abe proposed that Japan should consider a nuclear sharing arrangement with the US similar to NATO.^[51] This includes housing American nuclear weapons on Japanese soil for deterrence.^[51] This plan comes in the wake of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.^[51][52] Many Japanese politicians consider Vladimir Putin's threat to use nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear state to be a game changer.^[52] "

Australia's Trump Era SSN & SSK Choices: Revised

Responding to Scott's at 11/07/2024 12:11 AM comment:

President elect Trump sees himself as a tough, business savvy, negotiator. He does not respect international alliances, even NATO. 

The US Navy is increasingly (and secretly) advising that US industry (eg. principal Virginia SSN builders GDEB and HII) is failing to produce, repair or overhaul sufficient Virginias for USN needs in the 2020s through to the 2040s. Trump may well see AUKUS future Virginia submarines for Australia as a weak Biden Democrat deal [1]. If so Trump might cancel that deal or sharply increase the Virginia sales price to be paid by Australia.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AUKUS#Australia%E2%80%93UK%E2%80%93US_negotiations

Anticipating the danger of a Trump cancellation of the Virginia offer, the super secretive Australian Submarine Agency likely has a Fall-back Options Planning Section. This section is probably thinking along the following lines:

Even if Trump cancelled the Virginia class offer it is unlikely the US would prevent the UK supplying SSN AUKUSs (which will have US combat system technology integrated by Lockheed Martin) to Australia. There is too much cash for the declining UK economy at stake. Therefore the UK would exert its still considerable political influence on the US to make the SSN AUKUS offer stand. 

On French SSNs and SK SSK/SSBs:

China is certainly unhappy (and India possibly) with any SSNs being supplied to Australia. There are many reasons why France would hesitate to provide  Barracuda/Suffren SSNs to Australia.

-  One being France rates trade and (Indian and Pacific oceans) strategic vulnerability from China higher than trade with Australia.

-  Also until the early 2040s France's limited nuc sub sector is fully committed supplying the remaining Suffrens and the 4 x third generation SSBNs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNLE_3G to the French Navy. This is to the exclusion of multi-SSN foreign orders. 

-  Australia was also unimpressed with France's nuc subs for the French Navy first priorities expressed by France in 2021. French Navy priorities were to come first before the delayed Australians Attack-class program was fully tackled some time in the 2030s. On those French priorities see my https://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2021/02/frances-new-ssbn-aus-attack-class-2nd.html

I don't think the South Korean (SK) KSS-III, with its heavy K-VLS SLBM loadout , is suitable for Australia's strategic circumstances. The PRC target is too far for slow, medium range, KSS-IIIs (compared to fast, long range, SSNs) to sail from Fleet Base West to within (future Australian nuclear missile) striking distance of PRC coastal targets.

However if SK industry, in SK, in under 10 years, could build standard SSKs, like the DSME-3000 (which is not burdened by K-VLS silos and has AIP and LIBs) then it may be a good and time sensitive replacement for the Collins. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KSS-III_submarine#DSME-3000 .

The Virginias for Australia were never to be built in Australia, so SSKs, like the DSME-3000, need not be built in Australia. Submarine building in Australia (ie. at Osborne, Adelaide) typically takes 3 times as long at 3 times the price.

Day Before the US Election: AUKUS Virginia Subs?

After 10am Wednesday Australian Eastern (AE) time US swing state Exit Poll https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exit_poll results may start pointing to a winner. After AE 4pm, once Alaska and Hawaii voting has ended, official results may start flowing in in significant numbers. If it is a landslide, by AE 7pm we may know who won.

Iowa (6 votes) is usually Trump territory. According to election “oracle” Ann Selzer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Selzer Harris may be ahead in Iowa, https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-11-04/donald-trump-criticises-poll-after-kamala-harris-prediction/104556162 . 

In part due to this new Iowa expectation Trump may be unnerved, feeling he is losing. Hence Trump has returned to his 2020 mantra “this Election has been stolen”. Such talk may be a Trump mistake immediately before this 2024 election as it may remind Americans of the Trump prompted January 6, 2021 Capitol riot.

It is widely assumed the 7 swing state votes will decide the whole Election. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swing_state The swing states are Pennsylvania 19 votes; Michigan 15, Wisconsin 10, North Carolina 16; Georgia 16; Arizona 11 and Nevada 6 (Nevada has many postal votes that delays the final results). All are considered “tossups” as they are so close. Like Iowa Florida (30 votes) needs close watching. Florida is currently assumed to be a Trump state (he won it by 3.36% in 2020), It was Florida that won George W. Bush the 2000 Election by only 537 recounted  votes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_United_States_presidential_election_recount_in_Florida  

There might be no clear result on November 5 US time (November 6 Australian time). Instead it may be so close there may be a week of vote recounting. This is especially in the 7 Swing States and maybe Iowa and Florida. The Presidential winner might then emerge after Sunday 10 November.

If Harris wins it will likely be continuity after January 20, 2025 Inauguration Day. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_United_States_presidential_inauguration

The ugly alternative? The Australian Government and most informed Australians are very nervous about the possibility of a Trump win.

Trump sees himself as a tough, business savvy, negotiator. He does not  respect international alliances, even NATO. The US Navy is also increasingly (and secretly) advising that US industry (GDEB and HII) is failing to produce, repair or overhaul sufficient Virginias for USN needs in the 2020s through to the 2040s. Trump may well see AUKUS future Virginia submarines for Australia as a weak Biden Democrat deal [1]. If so Trump might cancel that deal.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AUKUS#Australia%E2%80%93UK%E2%80%93US_negotiations