AUKUS News, Views, Analysis.

Lethe said:

Turnbull still pushing the question of sovereignty:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

One might think that when you have two former Prime Ministers, from both major parties no less, raising concerns of this nature, that it suggests that there is some prospect for a rethink or at least alternative voices at the table. But in truth there is no such prospect and even former Prime Ministers like Keating, Turnbull, and Fraser (were he still alive) are left just pissing in the wind as our nation is led toward the abyss.

Click to expand...

Some rumours of Australia joining the UK's SSN(R) programme rather than buying Virginias. But the whole sub element of AUKUS is ridiculous when you consider that Australia could have (relatively) simply changed its original Barracuda project from 'Shortfin" to "Longfin" at fairly minimal cost and also avoided the NPT issues because French sub reactors use LEU, not HEU.

Amazing.



"Developing a nuclear-powered submarine with Australia could happen in less than 30 years if “we put our shoulders to the task” and commit to a tight timetable, retired Adm. Harry Harris told lawmakers Tuesday."

"Harris’ timeline matches up with recent comments by Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Michael Gilday, who told a Korean-American security group recently that he didn’t expect to see the first Australian-built nuclear submarine until sometime “well into the 2040s.”"

Blitzo said:

Amazing.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

"Developing a nuclear-powered submarine with Australia could happen in less than 30 years if “we put our shoulders to the task” and commit to a tight timetable, retired Adm. Harry Harris told lawmakers Tuesday."

"Harris’ timeline matches up with recent comments by Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Michael Gilday, who told a Korean-American security group recently that he didn’t expect to see the first Australian-built nuclear submarine until sometime “well into the 2040s.”"

Click to expand...

How many SSN and SSBN do we expect Huludao to push out over the next "almost" 30 years?

Maikeru said:

How many SSN and SSBN do we expect Huludao to push out over the next "almost" 30 years?

Click to expand...

Shhh

Maikeru said:

How many SSN and SSBN do we expect Huludao to push out over the next "almost" 30 years?

Click to expand...

The answer to your question is: Yes.

Maikeru said:

Some rumours of Australia joining the UK's SSN(R) programme rather than buying Virginias. But the whole sub element of AUKUS is ridiculous when you consider that Australia could have (relatively) simply changed its original Barracuda project from 'Shortfin" to "Longfin" at fairly minimal cost and also avoided the NPT issues because French sub reactors use LEU, not HEU.

Click to expand...

Well, if anything breaks.

Blitzo said:

Amazing.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

"Developing a nuclear-powered submarine with Australia could happen in less than 30 years if “we put our shoulders to the task” and commit to a tight timetable, retired Adm. Harry Harris told lawmakers Tuesday."

"Harris’ timeline matches up with recent comments by Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Michael Gilday, who told a Korean-American security group recently that he didn’t expect to see the first Australian-built nuclear submarine until sometime “well into the 2040s.”"

Click to expand...

The question is what interim steps we are going to see between now and the 2040s.

1) Creation of maintenance, support, training facilities in Australia that allow for sustained "forward deployment" of USN nuclear submarines, akin to how Japan hosts a "forward deployed" American carrier.
2) Transfer of exhausted Los Angeles-class submarines to Australia for shore-based and possibly limited at-sea training.
3) Cross-decking of Australian personnel onboard USN and British nuclear submarines.

To restate a point I have made earlier, for those skeptical of or outright opposed to this development, as I am, the best-case scenario that could potentially emerge from the forthcoming defence review due to be published in March is for Australia to simultaneously embark on a new SSK acquisition program. The foremost purpose of such an acquisition program would be to guard against a collapse in Australia's submarine capabilities as the Collins-class submarines age out and the nuclear program incubates, but having another option, particularly if it is built domestically, would also provide an off-ramp that some future government could use to scale back the nuclear commitment.

Lethe said:

The question is what interim steps we are going to see between now and the 2040s.

1) Creation of maintenance, support, training facilities in Australia that allow for sustained "forward deployment" of USN nuclear submarines, akin to how Japan hosts a "forward deployed" American carrier.
2) Transfer of exhausted Los Angeles-class submarines to Australia for shore-based and possibly limited at-sea training.
3) Cross-decking of Australian personnel onboard USN and British nuclear submarines.

Click to expand...

#2 and #3 would be doable. For #3, India leased the Nerpa SSN from Russia for crew training in preparation for operating Arihant SSBNs.
For #1, meanwhile, that would take quite some time.

Lethe said:

To restate a point I have made earlier, for those skeptical of or outright opposed to this development, as I am, the best-case scenario that could potentially emerge from the forthcoming defence review due to be published in March is for Australia to simultaneously embark on a new SSK acquisition program. The foremost purpose of such an acquisition program would be to guard against a collapse in Australia's submarine capabilities as the Collins-class submarines age out and the nuclear program incubates, but having another option, particularly if it is built domestically, would also provide an off-ramp that some future government could use to scale back the nuclear commitment.

Click to expand...

The problem being the previous ScoMo administration practically threw that spare-tyre out of the window when he decided to unilaterally scuttle Australia's agreement with France on new SSK projects in favor of fully diving into the AUKUS. In order to return to the SSK, there remains only Seoul, Tokyo or Berlin where Canberra can ask SSK for.

ACuriousPLAFan said:

The problem being the previous ScoMo administration practically threw that spare-tyre out of the window when he decided to unilaterally scuttle Australia's agreement with France on new SSK projects in favor of fully diving into the AUKUS. In order to return to the SSK, there remains only Seoul, Tokyo or Berlin where Canberra can ask SSK for.

Click to expand...

I think France would come to the table again, as this is a new government that has sought to distance itself from how the previous government handled matters with France. Nonetheless, any new SSK program would be very different from the previous Attack-class program. It would emphasise low risk and rapid delivery and therefore stick as close as possible to an existing, off-the-shelf design. Japan and South Korea are the only friendly countries with large SSKs and Japan would likely be the front-runner for such an acquisition.

I'm not saying that a new SSK acquisition is likely, only that it is the best outcome that skeptics like myself can hope for from the impending defence review. There is zero chance that the current government is simply going to back out of AUKUS.

Lethe said:

The question is what interim steps we are going to see between now and the 2040s.

1) Creation of maintenance, support, training facilities in Australia that allow for sustained "forward deployment" of USN nuclear submarines, akin to how Japan hosts a "forward deployed" American carrier.
2) Transfer of exhausted Los Angeles-class submarines to Australia for shore-based and possibly limited at-sea training.
3) Cross-decking of Australian personnel onboard USN and British nuclear submarines.

To restate a point I have made earlier, for those skeptical of or outright opposed to this development, as I am, the best-case scenario that could potentially emerge from the forthcoming defence review due to be published in March is for Australia to simultaneously embark on a new SSK acquisition program. The foremost purpose of such an acquisition program would be to guard against a collapse in Australia's submarine capabilities as the Collins-class submarines age out and the nuclear program incubates, but having another option, particularly if it is built domestically, would also provide an off-ramp that some future government could use to scale back the nuclear commitment.

Click to expand...

There are definitely many ways of to skin this particular cat.

I'm sure some kind of interim capability will be procured, or alternatively they will just suffer some kind of capability gap -- what I'm more interested in is just when they want actual final product will emerge and if (or rather how much) the schedule will shift to the right.

Having the first AUKUS SSN enter service in the early/mid or even late 2040s, and the sheer complexity and cost of this program, makes me wonder what changes may happen between now and then.
Australia's recent major naval projects (Hunter, and then Attack of course) from initial program vision to getting settled on a design, is not exactly brisk.


On top of this, the expected role of the AUKUS SSN for Australia seems predicated on a concept of operations that requires the PLA and PLAN in particular to be unable to context Australian SSNs operating near China's backyard with relative near impunity when supported by Australian allies during wartime. But whew, I think it's a somewhat big bet to think that will be the case in over two decade's time, and I shudder to think how the Australian defense commentators will react if it turns out that the trajectory doesn't go that way.