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
19 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
I have been following the Canadian Patrol Submarine Project and both Korea and Germany are working hard to get the order. If the Type 212CD wins (NATO ties, arctic experience with Norway, etc.) this may give Australia an opportunity. If they loose the Canadian order Korea would be highly motivated to strike a deal with Australia.
Nuclear submarines have obvious advantages but a conventional submarine in the water is more useful than a nuclear submarine found only in PowerPoint.
I know there is a strong political motivation to provide jobs in South Australia but one suggestion I have is to partially address this is to build submarine tenders in South Australia to support forward basing of Australian conventional submarines.
The very informative map on the Submarine Matters home page shows how hard it is for conventional submarines to patrol choke points from Perth. On the other hand, if Australia is facing off alone against China, I believe the technical definition of our situation is "hosed".
The Straights of Malacca are a lot easier to patrol if you have a tender in Thailand, Malaysia or Singapore. Likewise, basing out of Singapore or the Philippines makes it easy to reach the South China Sea. Guam or Okinawa are other places to base a tender.
Of course most of the time the tenders will be in Perth, with the occasional visit to the East Coast or exercise with regional allies but it would give us more flexibility than we have now.
I believe Australia needs more than PowerPoint submarines and we need them ASAP.
Hi Pete,
I still think smaller would be better. Second batch of Dosan Ahn Changho-class submarines have a VLS. It's a nice to have but is it worth the price? South Korea is very vulnerable due to the distance to North Korea. Hiding some strike capability somewhere in the ocean is a good deterrence for South Korea. Maybe some more tankers and F-35 bombers for RAAF would be a better solution. Some for Canada except for the F-35. Canadian submarines have no target for a VLS and they need a fast interceptor and not a slow bomber (F-35). The Gripen can supercruise and has more range than the F-35. Stealth is not required to shoot down bombers.
Helau!
MHalblaub
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.
Thanks Pete. It seems plain now that AUKUS was all about supporting US efforts to contain China vs Taiwan, not defending Australia. With the recent US defense strategy backing away from containing China, it seems futile for Australia to continue with a project designed for that now obsolete objective.
The failure of USA to increase their Virginia SSN production rate is not accidental or “bad luck”. In four USN budgets since AUKUS was announced, neither Biden nor Trump increased the ordered rate of Virginia SSN supply.
If Australia is going to order SSKs in place of AUKUS, they should wait to see the choice of Canadian SSK supplier before choosing. I doubt even Hanwa could supply 12 SSKs to the RAN and RCN at the same time without delay.
Pete this link is to a LinkedIn article by a French engineer (sub design expert) who now lectures at Adelaide Uni. He suggests the French SSN Perle is now spare because French Suffren SSNs are now arriving early (ahem). If the RAN really still needs SSNs, this may be one of the only ways left of getting one. I.e. leasing or buying Perle.
https://t.co/RsLgaqGI6U
Hi Bill,
I have stated before that the Straits of Malacca is an international passageway an is governed under UNCLOS (https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/part3.htm)
Only the three littoral states, Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore can jointly patrol the Straits (the Thais sometimes send a warship for joint patrols), so any country sending warships to unilaterally patrol the Malacca Straits, which lies in Malaysian and Indonesian territorial waters, would be ‘frowned upon’.
No nation can stop a ship who is exercising the right of innocent passage - this is why we can see Russian shadow fleet tankers sailing past Singapore. (https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/shadow-fleet-vessels-zombie-ships-sanctioned-cargo-oil-russia-iran-singapore-straits-5563491)
If these ships were to pull out of the international lanes for whatever reason and enter Singapore’s territorial waters, they would immediately be stopped by Singapore’s Police Coast Guard.
Hi Bill Seney at 2/06/2026 5:58 PM
Medium-Large Type 212CDs and KSS-IIIs both with AIP and Li-ion batteries would be useful for Aus KSS-III's longer term submergence and loiter time in Southeast Asian waters. Shawn has indicated the Malacca Strait is off limits for Aus sub patrolling and in any case too far from main Aus bases.
This is why Aus subs patrol closer straits in the Indonesian archipelago and not the South China Sea or further out.
If Canada and Australia bought KSS-IIIs - specifically the DSME-3000 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dosan_Ahn_Changho-class_submarine#DSME-3000 then South Korea (SSK) could quickly accelerate production with its very efficient shipbuilding industry.
A advantage of the DSME-3000 is that it is note encumbered with 6 or 10 large missile silos - something Aus probably doesn't want. About 22 heavyweight shots in the torpedo room may be what Aus and Canada want and need.
TKMS, with full production lines, cannot accelerate production as easily as SK. The RAN should rely on an 8 year SK production instead of a minimum 15 year build in Australia.
Regards Pete
Hi Shawn at 2/07/2026 2:42 AM and 2/07/2026 2:51 AM
Singapore chose correctly with foreign builds of the Invincible and Archer class rather than attempting a local Singapore build. Aus should also opt for a foreign build to avoid the 15-25 year unworkable build in Aus non-solution (at the risk of dissatisfying Adelaide industry).
Compared to Japanese build I think SK faster and more flexible. During 2014-2016 MHI and KHI appeared none too happy contemplating building Aus Subs that would interrupt the multi decade production drumbeat to meet Japanese Navy needs.
Rather than 2 separate submarine assembly lines Japan uses the unique setup of a half MHI and half KHI procedure of mating large modules that are barged across Kobe Harbor, specifically in the Hyogo-ku area of Kobe, Japan.
Hi MHalblaub at 2/06/2026 9:08 PM
Australia (like Canada) has the challenge of long transits and extended patrols which (if we DO want subs) demand medium-large subs with sufficient diesel fuel for 11,500nm range. Yes South Korea (SK) is vulnerable to North Korea and Germany to Russia.
Instead of Australia buying another class of submarines Australia can rely on its 24 x F/A-18E/F, 72 x F-35As, 12 x EA-18G (jammers) and 7 x Airbus A330 MRTT tankers. In future 30+ x MQ-28A Ghost Bat UCAV "drones" might be built - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Australian_Air_Force#Equipment
Probably better to forget about acquiring SSNs (if Aus doesn't want to use them as nuclear missile platforms) and forget new conventional subs as being too noisy (when diesels are charging batteries) and too slow against China.
Australia's existing aircraft, future Gilmour ICBMs and Ghost Shark ULUUVs might be a better mix.
Cheers Pete
Hi Pete,
some news from the UK: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/feb/05/aukus-nuclear-submarine-deal-us-australia
I still think RAAN's need for range is due to the lack of tenders and bases. This includes also friendly bases. Garden Island once was OK due to the distance to the enemy but that isn't the case any more. All eggs in one basket is the problem. German Type 206A submarines had a range of 4,500 nm. The distance from their base to St. Petersburg is less than 1,000 nm. Still German Navy operated submarine tenders. The first Soviet attack would have hit the base. To rearm and refuel the submarines the tenders were required.
With shorter patrols RAAN will also get more volunteers for the submarine service.
Regards,
MHalblaub
Thanks Shawn
For your 2/07/2026 5:02 PM explanation of the legal status of the Straits of Malacca.
I'll use it soon as the basis of an article.
Cheers Pete
Hi Anonymous at 2/07/2026 7:15 AM
I agree with all your points and add that any SSK Australia selects would suffer the Build in Australia curse of being 15 to 20 year delay before the first SSK is commissioned.
This makes me feel its better to cancel thoughts of SSKs and SSNs and instead rely on the RAAF and large missiles for long range strike and use 20 to 30 Ghost Sharks to do 70 to 80% of a submarines job.
Cheers Pete
Hi Anonymous at 2/07/2026 7:29 AM
Leasing or buying France's Perle small secondhand SSN might be the only way Aus gets its hands on an SSN before 2040. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_submarine_Perle_(S606)
Even if Perle was a training only craft it might be an opener to eventual acquisition of 8 x French medium, affordable Barracuda SSNs.
That is if France trusts Aus enough this time that Aus would honour the deal.
https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7423086200153858048/
is interesting.
Cheers Pete
Pete one advantage of more GhostSharks now is that the new Mogami frigates will have a rear UUV/USV launch and recovery capability that may assist. Not sure if it could cope with Ghost Shark's size and weight, but it is a step in the right direction. The much maligned Arafura OPVs might also be useful as de facto tenders for Ghost Sharks.
https://www.asianmilitaryreview.com/2025/07/unmanned-marine-drone-demoed-at-handover-ceremony-of-japans-newest-mogami-class-frigate/
Post a Comment