AUKUS News, Views, Analysis.

ACuriousPLAFan

Brigadier
Registered Member
The current Australia administration has done a better job to be quieter in the US-China contest, relative to the previous one. Australia needs to disentangle itself from the military aspects of the US-China rivalry, when it is not directly related to Australia security.
Sadly, that's not the case.

Australia is well underway in turning herself into a new US state and a US military outpost in the South Pacific...



... and moving Australia itself into the crosshairs of China and the PLA.
 

Lethe

Captain
Cross-posted from Breaking & World News Thread:

Ladies and gentlemen - Just barely more than 1 year after AUKUS has begun, this happens:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Yes. Following the AUKUS announcement, it was immediately obvious to any casual observer (such as myself) that there is no spare capacity in the American (or British) nuclear submarine industries to accommodate additional orders across even the medium-term. The political implications of this were also obvious. It is one thing to place an emergency order for Super Hornets (as RAAF did when it became clear that F-35 was not going to meet schedule) when the American context is that Boeing and Congress want to keep making Super Hornets but US Navy does not want to keep buying them. It is quite another thing to ask USN to effectively give its own submarine production slots over to Australia at a time when there is real concern about the adequacy of current production levels and inventory trends in the first place!

And so we have these quite predictable expressions of concern from two Senators who have been (or were) on the Armed Services Committee, i.e. they are not just random legislators pulled from a hat, but are persons connected to the issues that they raise. Add to this are
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
made a little while ago from a relevant US Navy figure:

During an online forum, the US program executive officer for strategic submarines was questioned on America's shipbuilding workforce and the implications of the AUKUS partnership with Australia. Rear Admiral Scott Pappano said the ambitious plan could hamper his nation's own nuclear submarine program, as well as the United Kingdom's, in comments made to the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies. "If you are asking my opinion, if we were going to add additional submarine construction to our industrial base, that would be detrimental to us right now," Admiral Pappano said. The rear admiral added that significant investment would be needed to provide "additional capacity, capability to go do that" "I won't speak for the UK, but I think that exists for both the US and the UK where we're looking right now," he said.

Now, that is a long way from saying that the project is doomed, even if it probably should be. The political momentum behind this is considerable and where there is the political will there is typically some solution to be found that satisfies those political objectives, even if it falls short in other terms. For those of us who are not overly enamoured with this brave new nuclear world, the hope is that, emerging from the forthcoming defence review to be published in the next few months, will be a recommendation for Australia to also pursue a new conventional submarine capability, in order to get new boats in the water faster and to mitigate against schedule issues with the nuclear boats. I think that would be sensible decision on its own terms, but importantly it also opens the door to, at some point in the future, winding back the nuclear program.
 
Last edited:

plawolf

Lieutenant General
You’d have thought the whole point of the AUKUS sub deal was to take that additional Australian taxpayer billions to expand US SSN production capacity to help address the expected cliff face of US sub numbers as the LA fleet retires.

Instead they just want to pocket the additional money as more profits and reallocate USN sub slots for the RAN. So in effect, do what they were going to do anyways and get an extra $200bn for lolz.

If you pitched that as the plot of a satirical comedy it would be rejected for being too unbelievably.
 

Lethe

Captain
You’d have thought the whole point of the AUKUS sub deal was to take that additional Australian taxpayer billions to expand US SSN production capacity to help address the expected cliff face of US sub numbers as the LA fleet retires.

Expanded production capacity simply must be the solution. The question is how this is to be achieved. No doubt the answer is complicated and has occupied much of the negotiations to date. But whatever solution is arrived at, it will certainly take some years to bring to fruition, which indeed suggests that Australia operating SSNs is more a prospect for the 2040s than the 2030s.

The criticism that Australia's notional SSNs will simply take too long to arrive is the only one that has found any real purchase with establishment figures to date. Peter Dutton, the former Defence Minister under the previous Liberal government (and current leader of the Liberal opposition), under whom AUKUS and the nuclear submarine announcement was orchestrated, claims that these schedule concerns are overblown. Specifically he claims that Washington would've been willing to transfer two Virginia-class submarines from the production line
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.

So when you look at statements from relevant American figures that push back against this notion of simply adding more orders to the existing American production line, which effectively means taking orders from USN and giving them to Australia, the implication is that Dutton is full of shit, and therefore the schedule concerns are very real, and therefore the wisdom of the whole enterprise is in question. Hence the prospect (hope!) that the forthcoming defence review may recommend a further conventional submarine acquisition program as a "Plan B".

In any case we will know a lot more in a few months.
 
Last edited:

Lethe

Captain
Australia should have bought the Soryu. It met all their requirements. They only did not do it because of anti-Japanese racism and pandering to their Western allies.

The Barracuda vs. Soryu vs. whatever the Germans were offering decision was taken under former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull. Turnbull has since claimed that one of the reasons the French design was selected is because, being derived from the new French SSN design, it would be easier to subsequently switch to nuclear propulsion if that were later deemed necessary.

If Australia were to reboot a new conventional program, Soryu/Taigei would be a strong contender. Any such acquisition would (or should) emphasize sticking as close to an established design as practical in order to minimise risks, costs and schedule. Soryu/Taigei as a large SSK is probably the closest thing to a "turn-key" solution out there, and there would be a clear political-strategic argument in favour of the selection also. There has also been some talk of a "son of Collins", but I think that prospect would become less attractive on closer examination in terms of knowledge preservation, tooling, number of systems that would need to be recreated from scratch, etc.
 
Last edited:
Top