Send a second flotilla.
I may have made an "analytical leap" concerning the relationship between the AUKUS and Virginia classes or appeared to have, so in case anyone is wondering . . .
The Virginia class is the only class of SSNs that will be in production in the US when the AUKUS commences production come ~2030, as , assuming it is not further delayed.
Inevitably, this means the Virginia class will be the most likely, if not the only plausible principle source of American SSN technologies that will be incorporated into the AUKUS program.
In fact, the RN's Dreadnought class SSBNs, which are now under construction, will each be powered by a single powering the Virginia class.
Just as the Dreadnought class' predecessor, the Vanguard class shares the PWR2 nuclear reactor with the the AUKUS class' predecessor, the Astute class, there's been a reasonable amount of , if not a that the AUKUS class will also be powered by the PWR3 nuclear reactor powering its generational SSBN counterpart.
Obviously sharing the same powerplant doesn't make one submarine a derivative of another, but if two submarine classes also got other systems like their VLS and combat system in common, then an argument can probably be made, especially should the combat system that is to be integrated necessitate employment of a common set of principle sensors.
Though what perhaps even more interesting, assuming it is indeed accurate.
If that's indeed accurate, then the only way for the AUKUS submarine to make any reasonable logistical and operational sense for a navy the size of Australia's, or perhaps for it to even be delivered on time, is if it is to be effectively based on the Virginia class.
Granted, the military isn't a place where everything always makes sense . . .
antiterror13
Brigadier
When AUKUS subs in operation (note: different timeframe than when they receive them) in late 2030 or early 2040s, China will have many 095 & 096 and 093B/C , and likely 097 as well .. so, really wasting money for Australia and won't make any difference, hopefully my country NZ would choose different approach to engage China then confrontation, which NZ has been doing anyway
Last edited:
Obviously AUKUS has been poorly implemented but a capable submarine fleet, and navy more generally, should be a priority for Australia regardless of our posture to China and isn't a waste of money. Is it prudent to be completely helpless as we are currently? No, no it is not.
It's not crazy that our best frenemies Indonesia are on a trajectory to overmatch Australian capabilities within two decades (cost effectively buying off the shelf from Europe vs freakishly expensive novel designs, with local manufacturing requirements, that never gets built anyway). Why would they put up with our shit when they can push us around?
antiterror13
Brigadier
It is capable now on paper but whether still capable in 2040s? who knows
I don't know about you but to me spending US$368B is wasting money and to do what?
With that money, China could easily built 200 SSN Type 095 and China is currently has ~11x nominal GDP as Australia and about 20x as PPP
And not clear whether AUKUS SSN Aussie version would be more capable than 095, but definitely 2x 095 will be more capable than any AUKUS sub version with much cheaper cost (2x 095 cost is much less than 1x AUKUS subs). Thats the way it is as China is much more productive and much bigger economy of scale, much more resources to produce things cheaper and efficient with good quality. China could make many things 5-10x cheaper for comparable quality, especially ships than the US, let alone Aussie
There is a chance that Indonesia may purchase some 093B/C from China (even second hand) (a lot lot cheaper) when Aussie has received AUKUS sub in late 30s
So to me the best approach for Aussie is not to confront China and make China as an enemy, because China is not the enemy and Aussie really rely and depend on Chinese market, without China, can you imagine what Aussie quality of life would be ? The best approach is to engage with China like what NZ do
Historically China and India are not expansionist, unlike European colonist .. even true when China and India were the biggest economies in the world from year zero to 1800
I don't see why China would want to "invade" Australia ..... what is the logic ? Indonesia has more reason to "invade" Australia than China (I know it won't be in the near to medium future)
Last edited:
That is $368 billion AUD (Australian Dollars) for the AUKUS submarines. Not USD (US Dollars). $232 billion USD. It is still quite a lot though.
It is mind boggling how much those submarines are supposed to cost. You can buy a Yasen-M SSN for like a billion.
Aside from a few old white guys there's no one in Australia pushing to militarily "confront" China, especially now that the US is abdicating, but a defense strategy of intentional helplessness (which is functionally the strategy now) is a terrible move. India and China aren't expansionist now but behaviour from hundreds of years ago is a terrible guide to future behaviour in a world of increasing conflict and environmental decline. No one is talking about invasion but the future is simply unknowable.
Doesn't have to be AUKUS, it just has to be something.
Maybe you should start by stop poking China and stay at your corner of the world.
Lethe
Captain
All the indications are that the program was simply from the beginning, with the pitfalls of an immature design exacerbated by the mandated domestic CEAFAR2 radar as the "tail wagging the dog", leading to considerable unanticipated weight growth and corresponding reduction in performance.
Before the review that recommended truncating the program from 9 ships to 6 was released, there were rumours that it was going to be cut off at the three ships that are presently under detailed construction contracts. Indeed, one suspects that the major reason why a second batch of three Hunter-class frigates has been notionally retained at this juncture is to hold out the prospect of maintaining continuous shipbuilding in Adelaide (or rather, to avoid the political implications of being seen to abandon it) with the Batch 2 Hunters notionally bridging to a future Hobart-class successor (while Perth builds the Tier 2 frigates).
Some years ago now, Australia was struck by the same revelation that struck the UK regarding the need to maintain a continuous naval shipbuilding sector in order to maintain the associated workforce and therefore to avoid the massive start-up costs associated with reconstituting skills atrophied in the interim between major construction programs. Of course, implementing that continuous naval shipbuilding strategy is considerably more challenging for a nation of Australia's size than it is for the UK, and is made more challenging by (a) now splitting the work across two yards some 2500km apart and (b) importing the first three Tier 2 frigates directly from abroad in order to alleviate a self-induced schedule crunch.
I don't think there is any intention for SSN-AUKUS to be a "Virginia by stealth", however it is certainly the case that the incremental, pragmatic response to delays will be to shift further in the direction of the Americans (from the "very beleaguered" to the merely "beleaguered"). To the extent that there is a gap between rhetoric and what appears practical, that is more plausibly accounted for by the politically-infused dreamland that birthed and sustains the entire enterprise, rather than some unseen 4-D chess move.
Back in December 2023 I put forward my own prediction as to how all this is likely to unfold, and I don't see any reason to revise it at this stage:
Recent developments furthering this skeptical view include a recent Congressional Research Service that publicly floats the idea that, instead of transferring SSNs to Australia, maybe USN could just operate SSNs from Australia on Australia's behalf instead:
Needless to say, any such pathway would be ruinous for maintaining even the barest pretense that Australia is still a sovereign nation.
There is also the British government's own Infrastructure and Projects Authority which has the nation's ability to produce naval nuclear reactors to meet requirements (i.e. Dreadnought and SSN-AUKUS) as "unachievable" for three years running now (p. 15 & p. 43).
Last edited: