AUKUS News, Views, Analysis.

A

ACuriousPLAFan

Colonel
Registered Member
MarKoz81 said:
$245 bn over 30 years is $8,15bn per year on average. It's important to remember that the cost level changes over time it's highest at the start because of procurement, drops approaching the middle of lifecycle and then grows until the end where the cost is highest, unless the system has a particularly high implementation cost.

In this case nuclear subs will require investment in infrastructure to build and maintain as well as operate nuclear submarines. That's expensive when you start from scratch in a country that doesn't have nuclear power infrastructure which means lacking the technological base to train and maintain your workforce. Human and associated cost will be the biggest factor driving the cost above conventional program cost.

Why Australia which is the world's third largest uranium producer and a country where five largest cities house 63% of population doesn't have nuclear power is a separate problem.

UK will finish the last Astute in 2026. The first was commissioned in 2010 and the PWR2 has a life of 25 years meaning that late 2030s for first RN AUKUS-SSN happens in the natural replacement cycle. For RAN to get the first in early 2040s means that production would have to start in 2030. HMS Astute was built over a decade in an established facility with experience and only some was caused due to funding. Australia has no experience and the facility will have to be up and running in seven years starting from scratch.

Collins subs were commissioned in 1996, 1998, 1999, 2001, 2001 and 2003 which given the standard 35 year lifecycle suggests retirement at 2031, 2033, 2034, 2036, 2036 and 2038 although they can be delayed somewhat if necessary.

First Virginias will be retired - assuming 35 year lifecycle - in: (Block I) 2039, 2041, 2042, 2043, (Block II) 2043, 2045, 2045, 2046, 2047, 2048. The plan calls for three plus two optional. Refueling will add cost if AUKUS-SSN is delivered after 2045 due to delays, funding problems etc.

The minimum number of SSNs that make sense operationally is 5 allowing to deploy 2 on regular if intermittent basis. 6 (French) is the number that allows for repairs and emergencies. 7 (British) is the number that allows to deploy 3 on similar regular/intermittent basis. 3 Virginias will be a training fleet corresponding with USN squadron operations.

If AUKUS-SSN is delivered say 2042, 2044, 2046 which is optimistic it will require either Block II Virginias or risk additional cost of refueling Block I but that may be accounted for in the budget if the planned fleet is 5-6 SSNs in operation by 2040.

Current defense budget is $31bn (AUD47bn) at 2% GDP. $8bn is a lot but I'm assuming that this figure is given in current AUD while it either refers to total cost in 2070 (retirement of AUKUS-SSN) or 2060 (arbitrary data for development, introduction and first years of operation but before retirement) then inflation needs to be assumed as well. If we base this on historical inflation of USD which doubled value over 30 years it means 2023AUD value of 4bn per year. If the assumed inflation is higher it's less.

At $8bn it's 26% of budget. Prohibitive without major expansion.
At $4bn it's 13% of budget. Doable but ridiculously expensive and for no real benefit other than developing infrastructure for Virginias in AUS.

Also it's rather obvious that while PM says the plan "will comply fully with Australia’s longstanding position of no foreign bases on its territory" it will be changed to a foreign base in all but name on its territory pretty quickly. This is why Virginias are leased/purchased first because this will allow the program to fund Virginia/USN compatible infrastructure.

UK doesn't matter because at best it's a single SSN on rotation as UK won't be able to deliver more than that unless they relinquish the Atlantic.

So UK is just the fig leaf to facilitate building of US nuclar bases in Australia to force Australia into the conflict on Washington's terms - including nuclear factor - as a de-facto occupied territory. Soviety type of occupation but with better propaganda and management to hide it. Very much like it's been done with some European countries, including mine.

And that's why French deal had to be cancelled because it has never been about nuclear subs for Australia but about institutional capture of the country.

At this point B-21 for Australia may be very likely in near future because it too will be about bases. Soon the argument of "why do we need self-defense capabilities if we can't defend without the US" will be raised to fund those programs. And then probably a hike in military spending if Coalition wins the next election.
Click to expand...
Speaking of which, considering that it could take until the 2030s at the earliest to be absolutely prepared to confront China head-on in the WestPac (USN-wise, at least), so why is the Western MSM so insanely itching for a war with China within the next few years (2023, 2025, 2026, 2027)?

This is especially when you think about how Australia wouldn't get their first nuclear submarine until the early 2030s at least... And they want Australia to be engaged on a crusade of war against China together with their master the US in the next few years?!
 
Last edited:
Lethe

Lethe

Captain
MarKoz81 said:
$245 bn over 30 years is $8,15bn per year on average. It's important to remember that the cost level changes over time it's highest at the start because of procurement, drops approaching the middle of lifecycle and then grows until the end where the cost is highest, unless the system has a particularly high implementation cost.

In this case nuclear subs will require investment in infrastructure to build and maintain as well as operate nuclear submarines. That's expensive when you start from scratch in a country that doesn't have nuclear power infrastructure which means lacking the technological base to train and maintain your workforce. Human and associated cost will be the biggest factor driving the cost above conventional program cost.
Click to expand...

Other cost figures given are (in AUD) $9bn over the next four years, with $6bn of that previously earmarked for the Attack-class program and an additional $3bn coming from savings elsewhere in the defence department (the Army's pet LAND 400 IFV program may well be significantly cut back). Beyond that is cited $58bn over the next decade. Most of that will undoubtedly be in shipyards, bases, technical facilities and personnel programs, plus payments to USA to improve their own submarine construction facilities.

MarKoz81 said:
Collins subs were commissioned in 1996, 1998, 1999, 2001, 2001 and 2003 which given the standard 35 year lifecycle suggests retirement at 2031, 2033, 2034, 2036, 2036 and 2038 although they can be delayed somewhat if necessary.

First Virginias will be retired - assuming 35 year lifecycle - in: (Block I) 2039, 2041, 2042, 2043, (Block II) 2043, 2045, 2045, 2046, 2047, 2048. The plan calls for three plus two optional. Refueling will add cost if AUKUS-SSN is delivered after 2045 due to delays, funding problems etc.

The minimum number of SSNs that make sense operationally is 5 allowing to deploy 2 on regular if intermittent basis. 6 (French) is the number that allows for repairs and emergencies. 7 (British) is the number that allows to deploy 3 on similar regular/intermittent basis. 3 Virginias will be a training fleet corresponding with USN squadron operations.

If AUKUS-SSN is delivered say 2042, 2044, 2046 which is optimistic it will require either Block II Virginias or risk additional cost of refueling Block I but that may be accounted for in the budget if the planned fleet is 5-6 SSNs in operation by 2040.
Click to expand...

Collins-class boats are definitely going through a life extension program, though I haven't encountered any specific end-of-service dates associated with this.

Agree that the schedules you note would indeed suggest either refueling of Block Is or transfer of Block IIs. As the Virginia S9G reactor was designed not to require refueling during anticipated service life, it's possible that provisions were not even made in the design to enable refueling, and hence that the task would be more challenging than for a reactor design that was intended to be refueled.

Yet here is something intriguing: The Australian government has also said that it will be responsible for handling nuclear waste from the submarine program, and that it will build a disposal facility that will not need to be operational before the mid-2050s. That is way too early to be talking about disposal of SSN(R) reactors. Yet it is also too late to be talking about Virginia Block I or II reactors. Rather, it would seem to line up with Australia receiving Virginia Block IV (or late Block III) submarines that have only recently entered USN service.

MarKoz81 said:
Also it's rather obvious that while PM says the plan "will comply fully with Australia’s longstanding position of no foreign bases on its territory" it will be changed to a foreign base in all but name on its territory pretty quickly. This is why Virginias are leased/purchased first because this will allow the program to fund Virginia/USN compatible infrastructure.
Click to expand...

Yes it is a fig-leaf of a distinction but it is interesting that the government felt the need to make it. Evidently they are concerned about the potential for political discontent and are moving to undermine that line of criticism.

MarKoz81 said:
UK doesn't matter because at best it's a single SSN on rotation as UK won't be able to deliver more than that unless they relinquish the Atlantic.
Click to expand...

There is some suggestion that the UK may be looking at an expansion of SSN numbers itself, but that prospect is far enough in the distance that I think we can file that under wishful thinking for the moment.

MarKoz81 said:
So UK is just the fig leaf to facilitate building of US nuclar bases in Australia to force Australia into the conflict on Washington's terms - including nuclear factor - as a de-facto occupied territory. Soviety type of occupation but with better propaganda and management to hide it. Very much like it's been done with some European countries, including mine.

And that's why French deal had to be cancelled because it has never been about nuclear subs for Australia but about institutional capture of the country.
Click to expand...

Yep. The only potential wrench in this is Donald Trump. Most folk probably didn't notice, but there was a brief squabble a few years back when Trump learned that the Obama administration had agreed to take a number of asylum seekers off Australia's hands, which obviously ran completely against Trump's "America first/anti-immigrant/sick of all these freeloading allies" instincts. Trump reportedly hit the roof and had to be talked down into going through with the agreement. If Trump is president 2025-2028, the prospect of transferring scarce Virginia-class submarines to Australia is likely to induce a significantly stronger reaction.
 
Last edited:
vincent

vincent

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Moderator - World Affairs
BoraTas said:
This is worse than I mocked in past. I was mocking "8 subs in 20 years". It turned out it is 8 subs in 30 years for an outrageous price. I don't care if it includes sustainment, training, and development of the SSN construction industry. 250 billion USD is a LOT
Click to expand...
They made lots of money from their biggest enemy and customer. They'll be fine.
 
H

HighGround

Junior Member
Registered Member
BoraTas said:
This is worse than I mocked in past. I was mocking "8 subs in 20 years". It turned out it is 8 subs in 30 years for an outrageous price. I don't care if it includes sustainment, training, and development of the SSN construction industry. 250 billion USD is a LOT
Click to expand...

The money is important. However, I'm much more concerned about what this says about shipbuilding in the West in general. This build rate is really disappointing.
 
Lethe

Lethe

Captain
Notional AUKUS timeline. Blue = In service, Yellow = Life of Type Extension program, Grey = Decommissioned, or not yet built.

Assumptions:
Collins LOTE takes two years per boat and adds 10 years service life for total service life of 42 years (30+2+10)
Three Virginia-class submarines delivered at 3yr intervals from 2032. First boat exits service 2054.
AUKUS SSN delivered at one boat per 3 years from 2042. Final boat delivered 2063.

AUKUS1.jpg

Observations:
Collins LOTE means a decrease in available inventory from six to five boats over the 2026-2031 period. Possibly one reason for pushing for rotational deployment of RN/USN SSNs from 2027.

Early 2040s sees RAN operating three submarine types: Collins, Virgina, AUKUS. Sounds like fun.

Notional service life of 30-years for AUKUS SSNs leaves a suggestive 9-year gap between the last boat delivered in 2063 and first replacement boat required in 2072. Small enough to be bridgeable with a couple more orders for continuous build...

Leaving all political matters aside, this seems a daunting task from a project management perspective, with little margin for delays. The "+2 Virginia" option is clearly intended to create additional flexibility, but how this would interact with American plans for their inventory is unclear.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top