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.
12 comments:
Hi Pete,
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.
++++
On a different note, since you mentioned India, I must offer my opinion based on what I'm hearing from strategic & security analysts from my country on the issue. Basically, there are 2 types of opinions.
The first is the medium-term outlook where AUKUS is seen as a positive. This is because even in the best-case scenario, India is unlikely to commission more than a couple of Project-77 SSNs by the end of the 2030s. If AUKUS had not happened, it was possible that US submarine presence in the IOR would either remain as it is now or even downsize in case American policy becomes more Euro-centric given the war in Europe.
That would have meant that barring whatever US subs operate out of Diego Garcia routinely, the Indian Navy (IN)'s fledgling SSN & SSBN fleet would have become the chief focus for PLAN's expanding submarine presence in the region.
But with 3 to 5 Australian-operated Virginias now set to operate in IOR/Indo-Pacific in the 2030s (not to mention increased USN/RN submarine deployments to the region starting this decade itself), it's highly likely that USN, RN & RAN submarines will become the primary focus for PLAN in the IOR, which in turn would give IN the time & room it needs to build up its nuclear submarine fleet without the burden of having to monitor PLAN presence in the IOR all by itself.
The other opinion is of those who hold the long-term view with a "No permanent friends or enemies in geopolitics" outlook on things. These voices do consider Australia getting a sovereign nuclear submarine capability as a potential negative in case relations between China & the West become amicable like the 1969-1989 period (however unlikely that might seem now), or in perhaps the more likely event of the US becoming isolationist in both letter & spirit, abandoning their treaty allies in the INDOPAC which results in several or all of them being absorbed into Chinese orbit (not saying this would necessarily happen under Trump - I personally don't think he's THAT radical - but it is however true that voices calling for American isolationism are rising, especially amongst younger American voters which means certain 'Trumpist' ideas are likely to remain long into the future).
But perhaps it is for this reason specifically that AUKUS was created in the first place? As an insurance policy to keep American military-industrial complex tied to Australian security interests which would make it difficult for a populist (like Trump) to choose abandoning alliances?
Cheers
Hi Gessler at 11/07/2024 5:45 PM first part above the ++++
I think re: "Virginia-class SSNs meant to be sold to Australia instead being owned & operated by the US Navy itself." would be very likely be unacceptable to Australia. This is because the now through to the 2040s critical shortage of SSNs, crewed by USN crews would be used for US national interests - no matter what might be agreed in contracts.
Also 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 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).
The SSN-AUKUS with the US combat system can then be laid down in Australia about 2040, but they will only be completed in the mid 2040s.
Cheers Pete
Hi Gessler at 11/07/2024 5:45 PM second part ie. below ++++
I think most military planning is governed by Capabilities (with nuc subs taking decades from wanting them to commissioning them) more than Intentions. eg. India might become supremely capable building all the SSBNs it needs and some SSNs by 2039. While USN has a major SSN shortage due, in part, to its rising Chinese Pacific and other oceans confrontation against eventually a PLA-N with mature, potent SSBNs and SSNs. Also the already high quality Russian nuc sub fleet might expand in numbers once Ukraine is forced back into the Russian fold courtesy of Trump.
Countries play it safe in line with their own national interests/survival rather than being forever generous and peaceable eg. Sweden now in NATO.
So yes I agree with " The other [Indian] opinion is of those who hold the long-term view with a "No permanent friends or enemies in geopolitics" outlook on things. These voices do consider Australia getting a sovereign nuclear submarine capability as a potential negative in case relations between China & the West become amicable like the 1969-1989 period (however unlikely that might seem now), or in perhaps the more likely event of the US becoming isolationist in both letter & spirit, abandoning their treaty allies in the INDOPAC which results in several or all of them being absorbed into Chinese orbit (not saying this would necessarily happen under Trump - I personally don't think he's THAT radical - but it is however true that voices calling for American isolationism are rising, especially amongst younger American voters which means certain 'Trumpist' ideas are likely to remain long into the future)."
Also I think you've got something there in: "But perhaps it is for this reason specifically that AUKUS was created in the first place? As an insurance policy to keep American military-industrial complex tied to Australian security interests which would make it difficult for a populist (like Trump) to choose abandoning alliances?"
Further I think Australia in the long term will see its SSNs as potential SSGNs to become a true deterrent. This is only possible by them having nuclear missiles - missiles that could potentially threaten China (naturally) and India (possibly). We have all the precursors now: long range missiles, SILEX Uranium enrichment technology: and over 50 years of knowledge how to build devices with areas to test them.
Cheers Pete
Another side-effect of Trump's election:
"Hours after Donald Trump won the U.S. presidential election, a
South Korean political analyst named Cheong Seong-chang sent
an email to his 1,400 subscribers noting what he considered a
silver lining in the news that had unsettled so many of America’s
allies.
“The reelection of Trump is an opportunity for South Korea to
create its own nuclear weapons,” he wrote.
Cheong and others in his camp argue that it is foolish for South
Korea and its allies in the region to rely on the United States for
their protection, an arrangement forged after the end of the
Korean War in 1953 that granted the U.S. operational control of
South Korea’s military."
Source:
https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2024-11-08/trump-win-fuels-campaign-for-nuclear-arms-in-south-korea
Reply to Anonymous @11/09/2024 8:40AM
I would say it's in the interest of all US treaty allies in the Indo-Pacific (but mainly Japan, South Korea & Australia) to pursue an independent nuclear weapons program along with delivery system acquisition/development. In the worst-case scenario where the US abandons its security guarantees & nuclear umbrella, it can give these countries the means to be more self-assured and resist Chinese bullying or attempts to absorb former US allies into its sphere of influence.
Even in the best-case scenario, being in possession of nuclear weapons would still allow these countries to negotiate more favourable terms with the US (or with China) as they wouldn't be exclusively dependent on the US for deterrence.
There is already precedent for an independent nuclear command & control structure to exist within a US-led alliance framework - like France within NATO.
Pete and Gessler thanks for your comments. We don’t know yet what Trump will do. He has power to do as he wishes with AUKUS. We might get some clue on his plans for AUKUS from his appointments. If he picks Elbridge Colby as security advisor the RAN is unlikely to get Virginias. If not AUKUS might be OK.
If confidence in the US deterrent breaks down I agree SK, Japan and possibly Australia might then develop their own nuclear weapons. The downside of that is it will create an Asian nuclear arms race. Countries like Indonesia and Malaysia might join in.
Hi Gessler and Scott
Presidents and their senior officials will come and go through to the early-mid 2030s during which time the US Navy will continue to feel it has a chronic shortage of SSNs.
This shortage, from the 2000s hasn't been made good. Rather things are getting worse due to more resources needed for the higher priority, Increasingly Delayed, Columbia SSBN program.
The US will feel higher pressures Not to give Australia SSNs. Pressures in the shape of a rising in numbers and quality Chinese nuc sub force and a resurgent post Ukraine Russian nuc sub force.
Russia is now running a war economy (eg. around 15+% GDP on defence). Trump will basically give Ukraine to Russia in two stages 1. Crimea and eastern Ukraine in early 2025 and 2. leave the rest of Ukraine undefended (no US and NATO country support and remove any hope that Ukraine can join NATO). So Russia might invade the rest of Ukraine by 2026.
Russian war tempo can then be shifted back to nuc subs - again built in the large numbers they were before 1990.
Pete
Hi again Gessler and Scott
Unfortunately the US has long discouraged Australia having its own nuclear weapons capability. Much of this may be due to US concern potentially Future hard-line Islamist Indonesia and Malaysia may react by building their own nuclear capabilities.
Hence the AUKUS Agreement prohibits Australia from using AUKUS nuclear reactor technology transfer to develop any "nuclear explosive" devices. See https://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2024/08/a1-trillion-aukus-ssns-no-nuclear.html
Unlike SK and Japan (where short-medium range is adequate) Australia would need a very LONG range nuclear weapons platform to deter China. The best, maybe only, deterrent for Australia would be a nuclear submarine. Not $Trillion dollar super power solutions like hardened ICBM silos or heavy stealth bombers (stealth bombers even Russia cannot afford).
The 3 or so conventional SSKs/SSB required would simply not have the speed or range to deploy near the China heartland in an emergency.
A regime of Australian SSNs with hypersonic missiles with US nuclear warheads provided by a new US Nuclear Weapon Sharing Treaty would be Australia's best hope/solution in the 2040s.
Regards Pete
Pete
As I said I remain opposed to Australia getting caught up in a nuclear arms race. Nevertheless, if it was ever unavoidable, to me the obvious nuclear development partner for Australia would be South Korea. They have the nuclear expertise, financial capacity and the motivation. Last year, even before Trump's re-election, 70% of South Koreans supported ROK getting nukes.
https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/seventy-one-percent-south-koreans-now-support-return-nuclear-weapons-their-country-even
I can't see any reason why ROK would not work with Australia in that case. They are looking for defence partners to increase strategic depth. They said this themselves when establishing the Redback IFV factory in Geelong. If the ROKN had SSBNs they would love to have access to Australian sub bases in return for assistance.
Hi "Anonymous" Aka Scott? at 11/11/2024 1:53 PM
Yes South Korea (SK) could have much more strategic depth (survival/warning time) if its future SSBNs had visiting rights or a permanent presence at HMAS Stirling, Fleet Base West, Australia. In return SK could give Australia designs for 1. SSBNs 2. naval reactors and 3. nuclear weapon device designs.
Even SK placed SSBNs in protective tunnels on the SK coast - they would only have about a 3 tenuous minute survival time before extinction from NK or Chinese hypersonic missiles, MRBMs or SLBMs.
HMAS Stirling (Fleet Base West) Australia is now becoming a permanent base for half a US SSN Squadron, then maybe for Aus Virginias and then for SSN AUKUS.
This will make HMAS Stirling a nuclear target even discounting an SK SSBN factor. This is in the calculation of China and Russia in any general nuclear exchange, where any hostile or potentially hostile targets are "catered for".
Not so Cheery Pete
Taiwan wanted to build a bomb, but the U.S. got wind of the program and put a stop to it:
"As it turns out, Taipei’s attempts at obfuscation were already
compromised. The deputy director of the Institute of Nuclear
Energy Research, Chang Hsien-yi, was a CIA mole who had
been surreptitiously passing information to the United States
for years because he feared the covert weapons program
would trigger an unwanted war with China. In January 1988,
Chang sent his wife and children on vacation to Tokyo
Disneyland and drove to a CIA safehouse. The family was
reunited in Seattle a few days later and placed under
witness protection."
Source:
https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/03/14/taiwan-nuclear-energy-weapons-policy-history/
Hi Anonymous at 11/12/2024 9:46 AM
1. The foreignpolicy.com article on Chang Hsien-yi outing Taiwan's nuclear weapons program is corroborated by Wikipedia at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chang_Hsien-yi :
"Chang Hsien-yi (Chinese: 張憲義; born 1943) served as deputy director of Taiwan's Institute of Nuclear Energy Research (INER) before defecting to the United States of America in 1988. Recruited by the CIA, he exposed the secret nuclear program of Taiwan to the United States and was consequently placed under witness protection. [very significantly] Chang's information led President Ronald REAGAN to insist that Taiwan shut down its nuclear weapons program."
2. South Korea (SK) has had its own secret nuke weapons program run-in with the US : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Korea_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#Previously_unreported_experiments :
"Later, in an experiment at the same facility in 2000, scientists enriched 200 milligrams of uranium to near-weapons grade (up to 77 percent) using laser enrichment.[7][8] The South Korean government claimed that this research was conducted without its knowledge.[9] While uranium enriched to 77 percent is usually not considered weapons-grade, it could theoretically be used to construct a nuclear weapon.[10][11] Highly enriched uranium with a purity of 20% or more is usable in a weapon, but this route is less desirable as far more material is required to obtain critical mass.[12]
These events went unreported to the IAEA until late 2004.
3. Trump endorsed Japan's right to a nuclear weapons capability: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_nuclear_weapons_program#De_facto_nuclear_state
"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]
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]"
Post a Comment