About subs, military/naval, missiles, nuclear weapons & politics. New Aussie subs have been just talk since 2009. Collins LOTE 2028-2040? of partial help. UUVs help more. POTUS may cancel AUKUS Virginias in 2031 as the USN needs all SSNs to the 2040s. Australian Gov ignores US higher priority to Columbia SSBNs (one/year being commissioned 2029-2041). Meaning minimal Virginia production until 2043. Shawn C and Gessler are excellent authors.
Thankyou readers, but, I can't begin to answer the 40+ comments received since Australia's September 16, 2021 AUKUS Australian SSN decision. I invite readers to argue among yourselves in Comments.
Instead I'll write extra articles that need to be raised about this vast subject. This is beginning with SSN arms race possibilities. This may link an Indonesian SSN program with Russia and/or South Korea.
Indonesia has always been sensitive to its near southern neighbour Australia's arms acquisitions and resulting defence capabilities. This had been particularly in terms of conventional subs (SSKs). Once Australia expressed a 2009 White Paper intention to build 12 large SSKs significant factions in Indonesia's Navy and military-industrial-political complex began advocating a 12 Indonesian SSK navy to match.
Now some Indonesian factions are advocating Indonesian nuclear submarines. Russia, a past (submarine) and current (jet fighter) arms supplier to Indonesia, might assist in an Indonesian SSN project.
South Korea, Indonesia's current SSK supplier, has sufficient nuclear technology and broached intentions to build SSBNs. Indonesia and South Korea already have a joint stealth jet fighter program. In a joint South Korean-Indonesian project SSNs for both the South Korean Navy and Indonesia Navy could eventually be produced. The US (now permitting Australia to have nuclear propelled subs) can no longer ban US ally South Korea (on non-proliferation grounds) from using nuclear propulsion for submarines.
Catastrophic Indonesian submarine accidents, seen lately with KRI Nanggala, are a worry. Indonesia's land (and sea) nuclear facility threatening "Pacific Ring of Fire" is cause for concern that increases even unintentional dangers of any future Indonesian SSN. That may all increase risks of a regional, radiation, environmental, disaster, that could also impact Australian waters.
Following September 16's, 2021 future Aus-N Sub announcement surprise, my good friend Gary Brown has penned the following excellent article. Gary has been knowledgeable about and written about submarines and regional geo-strategic issues longer than your humble sub-human (moi).
"In science there’s a maxim that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. In strategic studies, one might paraphrase this to be: extraordinary decisions require extraordinary circumstances to justify them.
The Government’s decision to embrace nuclear propulsion – not weaponry – for the next generation of our submarine fleet, paralleled by the decisions of the United States and Great Britain to grant us access to this technology, is certainly extraordinary.
In the past I have been highly critical of Australia’s management of major defence acquisitions. In retirement I have largely held my peace, leaving such issues for later generations of analysts to deal with. But those interested could scrutinize my detailed submission to the Australian Senate’s Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee in 2003, which is submission no.12 at this site:
One of my key criticisms at that time was the mulish pig-headedness which led to “good money being thrown after bad” – that is, persisting with an acquisition which has begun to go off-track despite mounting evidence. This behavior was driven by an unwillingness to admit that a mistake had been made in the first instance. Numerous major projects ended up costing far more for less than was expected: two of the most notorious being the Over-The-Horizon radar network (then called JORN) and the Collins class submarines. The latter required extensive extra investment to get them up to acceptable levels of performance and safety.
The current Government’s submarine decision, radical and controversial though it be, certainly breaks this paradigm. It has been apparent for some time that the French had misled Australia as to its level of industry participation in their conventional submarine design. Straws in the wind suggested that there might also be other operational deficiencies.
In sending the French packing the Government has certainly made a “courageous” (in the Yes Minister sense) choice. It was also a correct one: bailing out before good money followed bad down the French black hole. The Government will simply have to wear the criticisms (already coming, as they ought, from the Opposition) that its 2016 decision to take the French option was wrong, and is going to cost a significant, though still unknown, sum to escape from.
That said, the decision to go nuclear-powered is one of the most fundamental made by any Australian government. This decision was taken in a context of a deteriorating strategic environment driven chiefly by the aggressive, unrepentant and dangerous ambitions of the Chinese tyranny led by “President for Life” Xi Jinping. This megalomaniac dictator has proven by his conduct that China can no longer be expected to operate in a rules-driven strategic context. Its rejection of an adverse decision by the International Court in the Hague against its ludicrous South Seas claims was of course inevitable, but it does demonstrate that as far as Beijing is concerned might makes right. The mass incarceration of Uyghur Muslims is a human rights crime that likely would have gotten one hanged at Nuremberg in 1946. China’s casual disregard for assurances given at the time of the return of Hong Kong, so that in Hong Kong now there is no longer freedom of speech or assembly, likewise demonstrates the regime cannot be trusted to keep its word.
I think that Canberra had little choice but to do as it has. The French are a lost cause: more importantly, the operational advantages of nuclear propulsion over conventional are obvious. With the former, the time a boat can stay submerged is ultimately limited not by fuel, but crew endurance (somewhere around four months is usual before crew stability could become an issue, and of course submarine crew members undergo extensive vetting: it is no place for claustrophobes, to give an obvious example).
But this decision is all about deterrence. It will undoubtedly improve Australia’s regional strategic position and capability, and by doing this we firmly integrate ourselves into a coherent western strategic framework in the region.
The Australian Labor Party has already said it will support the decision subject to three conditions:
·No requirement of a domestic civil nuclear industry.
·No acquisition of nuclear weapons.
·The agreement will be compatible with the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.
These conditions are reasonable and ought to be met. It is to be hoped the government does not try to use them to “wedge” the Opposition. To do so could derail our long-term submarine program at a time when we already behind schedule due to time wasted on the French deal.
There is one vital caveat to all of this: the strategic context in which we have taken this decision is one of coherent and consistent US policy in the Asia-Pacific. Perhaps the greatest threat to the success of this arrangement would be the election of another Trumpist administration in 2024. Its isolationism, general ignorance of and disinterest in multlilateral cooperation could place Australia in a very difficult situation. If Trump or a lookalike again turns US policy into the chaotic mess it become in Trump’s time, we will have a serious problem.
There are other matters to consider too. The most important of these will surround the construction and operational support of these nuclear-powered boats. Where will they be built? Where will the power reactors be installed? Where will we go for refueling and (hopefully not) repair of the reactors? Will we have priority access or simply have to get in the queue of US nuclear-powered attack boats awaiting maintenance? And so on.
And then there’s the overarching threat the whole human race faces: climate change and its consequences. Climate change will come looking for the Chinese just as surely as it threatens us, and China is immensely vulnerable. There will be huge costs for the regime as it tries to deal with the effects. Maybe they won’t have time or incentive to indulge in foolish military adventurism. There’s oil in the disputed South China Sea region? So what? When the world goes to electric cars and renewable energy, what price oil then and how much risk is it worth taking to acquire it?
Debate over this decision will doubtless be extensive and passionate. The nuclear pill is a bitter dose to swallow, but I fear that without it we could find ourselves at a significant regional strategic disadvantage. We are small: we depend on technology to give our armed forces the capabilities they need to remain credible in an increasingly dangerous strategic environment.
One last point. As I said, this is about deterrence. Given that a failed military adventure would likely destabilize his regime and maybe cost Xi Jinping his life if he had to be removed by some sort of coup, the best way to keep the peace is to keep him and his advisorsworried:he will not risk a conflict unless he is certain of success. We are doing our bit to make sure he never will be certain."
First, in April 2016, the Australian Federal Government prematurely, but before the July 2016 Federal Election, chose Naval Group/DCNS to build the Attack class conventionally propelled subs. This was, in part, to gain votes/seatsin South Australia (where Australia was to build the subs). But this premature Aus Gov announcement and action led to an unmanageable situation with Naval Group.
Second. Now in 2021, prior to the Federal Election probably in April 2022, Morrison has announced a very un-nailed down "vision" to build nuclear propelled subs, again in South Australia. Everything is up for consultation with, not one, but two countries, the UK and US. To be cynical is fully justified that escaping the Naval Group unmanageable situation may lead to something worse. But rest assured votes and seats in South Australia (where these nuclear subs are meant to be built) are (almost) assured for Morrison's Government (which is behind in the polls).
An Australian nuclear submarine (Aus SSN) may become an even more unmanageablesituation.
UNCERTAIN VISIONS/OPTIONS
This side of the Federal Election by May 2022 Morrison merely says Australia will build the SSNs, in Adelaide, South Australia.But all of these submarine issues are up for review, by an 18 month Australian Department of Defence research project, in consultation with the UK and US.
Australian Prime Minister (PM) Morrison, UK PM Johnson and President Biden announce AUKUS (pronounced or-kus) and Australian built nuclear submarine (SSN) (Youtube here and above uploaded by The Guardian, Sept 15/16, 2021)
---
PETE COMMENT
Australian nuclear submarine (SSN) plans, at present, appear to be:
2 minutes into the Youtube Morrison indicates to the effect:
after more than a years further consultation between Aus, UK and US under AUKUS
Australia will draw on UK and US nuclear technology, expertise and active building help
to begin an [intended] Adelaide, South Australia, nuclear propelled attack submarine (SSN) program
Australia is not intending to be nuclear armed or build civilian nuclear facilities
[Pete comment: eg. no nuclear power stations]
[Pete comment: this SSN program will take more than a decade]
[Pete comment: to build an SSN tailor made for the Australian Navy's requirements.]
Morrison adds at 2:42 "Australia will continue to meet all our nuclear non-proliferation obligations"
------------------
3:54 in UK PM Boris Johnson describes UK's part in Australia's SSN program lasting "decades". Creating 100s of UK jobs, very high tech etc.
It could involve [an interim or maybe permanent arrangement of] American nuclear-powered Virginia-class submarines operating out of HMAS Stirling in Perth.[6][7]
The US will supply highly enriched uranium to Australia to power the submarines; Australia has reportedly agreed not to produce highly enriched uranium itself.[8] "
The nuclear submarine relevant part of Biden's speech is:
"AUKUS will bring together our sailors, our scientists, and
our industries to maintain and expand our edge in military capabilities and
critical technologies, such as cyber, artificial intelligence, quantum
technologies, and undersea domains.
You know, as a key project under AUKUS, we are launching
consultations with Australia’s acquisition of conventionally armed,
nuclear-powered submarines for its navy — conventionally armed.
I want to be exceedingly clear about this: We’re not
talking about nuclear-armed submarines. These are conventionally armed
submarines that are powered by nuclear reactors. This technology is
proven. It’s safe. And the United States and the UK have been
operating nuclear-powered submarines for decades.
I have asked Secretary [of Defense] Austin and the Department of Defense to
lead this effort for the U.S. government in close collaboration with the
Department of Energy and Department of State.
Our governments will now launch an 18-month consultation period to determine every element of this
program - from workforce, to training requirements, to production timelines, to
safeguards and nonproliferation measures, and to nuclear stewardship and safety
— to ensure full compliance with each of our nation’s commitments under the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty.
We’ll all undertake this effort in a way that reflects the
longstanding leadership in global nonproliferation and rigorous verification
standards, in partnership and consultation with the International Atomic Energy
Agency."
Greg Jennett and Jake Evans on Sept 16, 2021, for Australia's Government owned ABC News report the momentous surprise that:
"Australia to acquire nuclear submarine fleet as part of
historic deal with US and UK to counter China's influence"
Australia is embarking on its most significant change of defence and strategic direction in decades, aiming to make the Navy's next submarine fleet nuclear-powered.
The fleet will be the first initiative of a newly formed trilateral security partnership called AUKUS.
Mr Morrison said the "next generation" partnership would help ensure the region's safety.
"Our world is becoming more complex, especially here in our region, the Indo-Pacific," Mr Morrison said.
"This affects us all. The future of the Indo-Pacific will impact all our futures."
The deal does not extend to nuclear weapons, only the propulsion system, which has always been conventional diesel-electric in Australia's submarine classes.
"We will continue to meet all of our nuclear non-proliferation obligations."
Mr Johnson also emphasised the deal did not violate nuclear non-proliferation treaties.
"We're opening a new chapter in our friendship, and the first task of this partnership will be to help Australia acquire a fleet of nuclear-powered submarines, emphasising, of course, that the submarines in question will be powered by nuclear reactors — not armed with nuclear weapons," he said.
"Our work will be fully in line with our non-proliferation obligations."
The AFP press agency quoted New Zealand's Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern as saying the yet-to-be-built submarines would be banned from entering New Zealand waters, continuing that country's longstanding non-nuclear policy.
Partnership to 'ensure' region's stability now and in future, Biden says
In a joint statement, the three leaders said AUKUS would also leverage UK and US expertise to bring cyber, artificial intelligence and quantum computing capabilities to Australia.
Thanking "that fellow Down Under", US President Joe Biden said the new partnership would ensure the three countries had the most modern capabilities to defend against "rapid threats".
"We're taking another historic step to deepen and formalise cooperation among all three of our nations, because we all recognise the imperative of ensuring peace and stability in the Indo-Pacific over the long-term," Mr Biden said.
The leaders said they aimed to "bring an Australian [nuclear submarine] capability into service at the earliest achievable date".
The new partnership also spells the end of the Australian government's $90 billion project for French-designed submarines to be built in Adelaide.
In a statement, France's Naval Group said it was disappointed the Australian government had scrapped the project:
"For five years, Naval Group teams, both in France and in Australia, as well as our partners, have given their best and Naval Group has delivered on all its commitments," it said.
France's foreign affairs minister Jean-Yves Le Drian said the decision betrayed "the letter and spirit" of cooperation between the two countries.
"The American choice which leads to the removal of an ally and a European partner such as France from a structuring partnership with Australia, at a time when we are facing unprecedented challenges in the Indo-Pacific region ... marks an absence of coherence that France can only observe and regret," he said in a statement.
Urgent inquiry call
Former submariner and [Australian] senator Rex Patrick is calling for an urgent inquiry before the deal is finalised.
"If it's a US submarine, they have highly enriched uranium in their reactors and that creates a proliferation issue in terms of Australia standing up saying, ‘No-one should have these this sort of fuel available to them,'" he said.
"Yet, we might end up having to have that on our submarines."
Peter Jennings, executive director of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, backed the new deal and said his initial response was "surprise".
"This is something that has been negotiated very quickly and has obviously been kept quiet in Canberra," he told ABC News.
"The irony is that when we chose the French-designed submarine a few years ago we actually took a nuclear-powered submarine and have been spending millions of dollars turning it into a diesel submarine."
Mr Jennings said Australia would likely have to spend more on its defence budget to support the partnership.
Australia will become the only non-nuclear [weapons] country in the world to have a maritime nuclear capability."