This comment reminded me that foolish men discuss opinions and wise men discuss data. There is too much opinion being discussed here and not enough data. Let's change it a bit.
America's interst in AUKUS is obvious so I will focus on the other two countries.
UK's interest in AUKUS
My hypothesis is that UK seeks additional funds for current production and orders for future production.
To test the hypothesis I combined currently publicized timelines for retirment and commission of Royal Navy submarines.
- Names in black are submarines not in service, names in red are submarines in service.
- SSNR is planned replacement for Astute SSNs
- Numbers in yellow fields are years.
- Red fields denote time of actual and projected service.
- Blue fields denote time of production. Dark blue is production with lighter fields indicate production after the submarine was launched.
- Very light blue fields after 2021 indicate planned production time based on currently approved dates for retirement. Because of very long production times for Astute SSNs and retirements of the last three Trafalgars coming in 2021, 2022 and 2024 respectively I assumed that RN would not go below 6 SSNs. This does not account for possible delays that can't be addressed - this is a projection based on optimistic assumptions by RN.
- Green fields are years in service - for Astute SSNs it is 25 years without refueling which is not budgeted, for Dreadnought SSBNs it is 35 years minimum but none of the subs reaches that age in this simulation.
- Red field described "production" is the total number of boats being produced in any year. Apologies for the illegibility - bad rescaling.
- White field described "USN 30YSP" is the total number of SSNs projected by the 30 year shipbuilding plan issued by the US Department of the Navy in December 2020.
View attachment 77259
- The production time for every Astute SSN has so far been between 9 and 11 years. If the last three boats are built in 11years then RN will have to operate 6 SSNs between 2022 and 2029.
- None of the Dreadnoughts have been officially laid down but if Vanguards are to be replaced on time then all four Dreadnoughts will have to be built at the same time and within 11 years each.
- According to this timetable after 2031 there's a continuing drop in production from 4 subs at the same time in 2032-2026 to only 2 starting from 2038 and only 1 starting in 2050 and 0 from 2055 with first Dreadnought not coming out of service before 2066 at the earliest.
It seems that AUKUS might be an attempt by Britain to solve the issue of funding of nuclear-capable shipyards which already struggles with long-term production and might suffer from further budget cuts in the future.
At this point any injection of cash into Barrow-in-Furness and BAE will help to fund workforce and production capacity to finish Astutes and Dreadnoughts on time. A successful production of an Australian Astute derivative (most likely with American reactors and combat systems) might open a viable direction for export markets. France is already involved in Brazilian SSN program and Russians are helping India.
I think the data supports my explanation.
Australia's interest in AUKUS
My hypothesis is that Australian SSNs are primarily an electoral ploy to preserve Coalition seats in South Australia.
The program to replace Collins-class with 12 conventional submarines was created by Labour government of Kevin Rudd in 2009 Defence White Paper. Location of the main production site is state-owned ASC in Adelaide, South Australia which is a contested electoral region that is leaning Labour.
Announcement of selection of DCNS offer in 2016 came on 26th of April, barely a month away from the election. It's possible that it was seen as a tactical choice to convince voters. Japan despite participating in the bid resisted any significant construction and technology transfer because they needed the orders for their own shipyards. Production of Soryus ended in 2021 and new submarines (Taigei) are not being manufactured at the same rate as past boats - most likely because the intended service life for Oyashio and Soryu boats is longer than 25 years, possibly 35 years. That gap would be filled with Attack if Soryu was chosen. I have no information on German offer for Type 216 and how it was received. French offer included extensive localization and technology transfer and that was used by Coalition government as a bargaining chip but it is possible that they never intended to make good on the contract.
It is possible that the subsequent demands from Australia which caused the budget to grow from 50bn AUD to 90bn AUD was just the government stalling and stonewalling i.e.
negotiating in bad faith.
For coalition it was necessary to stay in power at all cost as Labour government would be extremely problematic to US strategy in the region and would most likely see the deal with France come into effect.
Because the government needs voters from South Australia and is pressured by US to drop France it couldn't cancel the program as it would be a scandal caused by the same government that selected the French bid. It needed a way out and nuclear leap forward was the best option. To prevent France from reissuing their original offer for Suffren SSNs AUKUS was announced in the manner that it was.
To test the hypothesis I combined graphs with opinion polling for federal level in the 2010-2021 period. Data from Wikipedia from"opinion polling" section in articles about federal elections in 2013, 2016, 2019 and 2022.
View attachment 77260
I think the data supports my explanation. In 2016 and currently there's a falling trend for Coalition support while the difference remains small over the entire period.
The next step in both cases is testing
against the hypothesis but this is not a scientific study so I will leave it to you if you are so inclined. This post is already too long and I have other things to do. Enough distractions for today. And you have a good one!
