Since it was announced in 2021 the
AUKUS Pillar 1 situation has been getting worse. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AUKUS#Pillar_1_%E2%80%93_Nuclear-powered_submarines
From 2028 [1] US completion
rates will actually decline from 1.1 standard Virginias per year to 0.8 larger
Virginia Block Vs - making availability for the Australian navy even worse. The
US is flat out building Columbia-class SSBNs (the highest USN priority - which
is where Australia's gifted AUKUS $Billions are ending up). The main US effort is
building Columbias until 2042, [2] with sufficient Virginias only
available to send to the Australian navy in the mid 2040s. The UK situation of
only one or no Astutes available at any one time, is even worse, as this bodes ill for
the Astutes' successor, the SSN AUKUS.
Like the Vietnam War that failed,
AUKUS is too big to admit failure - until US withdrawal, or reason, forces
Australia to withdraw.
[1] See USS
Oklahoma and USS Arizona, the first Virginia Block Vs. expected to be
commissioned in 2028. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia-class_submarine#Boats_in_class
[2] See “All twelve [Columbias] are expected
to be completed by 2042…” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia-class_submarine#Overview
6 comments:
Hi Pete,
Australia should get real and buy or build a submarine it can afford and also maintain on its own. There are just two nations with experience transferring technology on how to build submarines in another country: Germany and France. Best example would be South Korea for Germany. For just buying submarines there are Sweden, South Korea or Japan. Singapore ordered their submarines in 2013. Singapore has since 2024 two vastly superior and two superior submarines to RAAN's submarines.
I still belief Australia needs many submarines for basing them all around Australia and a not a few in one garden basket. No submarine is faster than a submarine already there.
Regards,
MHalblaub
Not delivering any Aukus nuclear submarines to Australia explored as option in
US congressional report:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/feb/05/not-delivering-any-aukus-nuclear-submarines-to-australia-explored-as-option-in-us-congressional-report
Thanks Anonymous at 2/05/2026 5:01 AM
For https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/feb/05/not-delivering-any-aukus-nuclear-submarines-to-australia-explored-as-option-in-us-congressional-report
It shows the US is giving only lukewarm support to AUKUS Pillar 1 in spite of Trump's 2 day attention span and mindless "full steam ahead" parroting from Def Minister Marles who is selling out Australia.
Hi Matthias (MHalblaub) at 2/05/2026 12:36 AM
I agree that Australia certainly needs an alternative plan if (as it seems now) the US and/or UK can only deliver SSNs in the mid to late 2040s.
I think 12 submarines of the size of Hanwha's KSS-III Batch 2 of 4,000 tonnes displacement would be most appropriate. Hanwha (with its hot assembly lines) could deliver more quickly than TKMS (with full order queues) or Japan.
The KSS-III's AIP and Li-ion batteries would be useful for Aus KSS-III's longer term submergence and loiter time in Southeast Asian waters.
Australia does not need nuclear subs with their range/speed to support US wars in the Taiwan Strait or for Middle East oil protection.
Cheers Pete
Singapore should have 4 Invincible-class submarines in service by the end of this year, while the two Archer class (refurbished Vastergotlands) will serve till about 2032 until the third tranche of Invincibles are delivered.
I’ve been preaching on this blog that Australia should collaborate with Japan for its next submarine series - they’ve been launching a boat yearly for three decades and have the excess yard capacity to speed up production.
At this moment, both KHI and MHI are half way through the Tiage-class build, and will switch to a successor class around 2029, so there’s just enough time for Australia to order six.
Post a Comment