"Australia to Build Nukes?" Topic

link

Curious?
The French 'deal' for 'home built' conventional subs was not going anywhere fast… but how on Earth could Oz 'BUILD' Nuke subs?
Does this mean buying from UK / US shipyards… but with the tech to refit / maintain?
Or, 'Second hand'boats, with the above?

OK, I'm NOT Austalian… but, given the increasingly worrying 'climate' in the Pacific… I would think that 'More Navy' would definitely be a good idea…. and rather quickly.

Just cannot get head around the 'timescale' for actually Building Nuke subs… when 'conventionals', just have not got started?

No doubt, things will become clearer.

Makes sense when a hostile communist regime IS publicly threatening to nuke you.

Perhaps the US, UK, Swedes, Australians, South Koreans, Taiwanese, and Japanese can ALL pool their resources and research, and set up assembly lines to cut costs and get them built quicker.

They ALL seem like they could use some now, along with nuke warheads to go with them.

Personally I think it's going to flop and a disaster for the RAN which will probably find itself operating 1990s Collins class subs in the 2030-40s and no replacement in sight.

The Australian public are generally very anti-nuclear and there's been no discussion about this, let alone public debate.

The subs are meant to be designed in Australia – a country that has never designed a nuclear anything before and which hasn't built a submarine since 2003.

The other insanely stupid thing is nuke subs cost more to operate than diesel electrics!

Then there's the infrastructure or service knowledge needed for nuclear technology which is currently non-existent.

And will they be able to afford 12 subs as planned? Probably not. Britain and France only has 7 and 6 nuclear attack subs respectively. Australia will be lucky to field 6 and quite possibly less.

They should have just brought Japanese Soryus

The deal is larger than nuclear subs – much larger.

I am with arealdeadone – I expect that at the end of the day, nuclear subs in Oz are a non starter. Mainly because of the public opposition. But I think the technical exchange in all areas is the really important part of the deal, and that will go ahead. There are probably non-public parts of the deal as well.

The AUKUS initiative should be an antidote to what sometimes seems an American addiction to legacy weapons systems, such as aircraft carriers and fighter jets, that will have diminishing effectiveness against China's high-tech military. Last week, Gen. John Hyten, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, complained in a session at the Brookings Institution that the Pentagon has been "unbelievably slow" with military modernization. "We're so bureaucratic, and we're so risk averse," Hyten warned. Defense analysts argue that this sluggishness results from the desire of the military services, defense contractors and members of Congress to protect existing systems and the jobs that go with them.

From the Washington Post.

Not sure about nukes … but at least…

Australia Scraps $90 USD Billion Program To Build 12 French-Designed Submarines. Will Build U.S.-U.K. Nuclear Configured Subs Instead

link

Armand

Makes sense when a hostile communist regime IS publicly threatening to nuke you.

The subs won't come with nuclear weapons, only nuclear propulsion.

Regardless of propulsion method, attack subs won't be able to defend Sydney or Melbourne or wherever as Australia has no anti ballistic missile defences.

In fact save one battery of medium range SAMs on order, Australia has no ground based air defences whatsoever.

Even the Navy struggles as the 3 Hobart class AWDs aren't nowhere near as a capable as say an Arleigh Burke and aren't equipped with SM-3 missiles.

----

I suspect all this plan does is derail the Collins replacement program for a few years.

The AUKUS initiative should be an antidote to what sometimes seems an American addiction to legacy weapons systems,

I don't see this happening. It's not like the British or Australians are flexible or particularly innovative in defence.

In fact British weapons are even more rooted in legacy concepts.

You want innovation in military procurement, sign a deal with the Israelis.

adz… as you say. Possibly 'key' words in 'ARTICLE' are 'capable', 'aquiring'… and ''also's'.

Agree about Diesel Electrics for Oz defence.
But, It DOES rather look like you might 'actually get' 'SOME' subs, with Tech to operate.

LOL… can't help but think about the WW2 'Lend Lease' Destroyers… ONE came in useful! NEVER heard anything about the others. (Any useful facts, boys? Maybe on WW2 Naval thread?).

Both RAN and RN seriously, need to grow, fast… just don't like the way 'things' are going.

Horsemen,

All info is that the subs will be built in Adelaide, not aqcuired from US or Brtain.

From our glorious ruling leader, Prime Minister ScuMo:

link

"We intend to build these submarines in Adelaide, Australia in close cooperation with the United Kingdom and the United States. "

And the infrastructure and knowledge for nuclear subs is considerable. You also need specialised refuelling, nuclear fuel processing and storage and decommissioning facilities (UK is struggling with the last one).

Australia has none of this knowledge let alone infrastructure.

Australia's whole nuclear experience is 1 reactor at Lucas Heights outside of Sydney that is used exclusively for nuclear medicine.

----

As for ex-USN or ex-RN ships, US is suffering a massive shortfall of subs with fleet scheduled to decrease by 20% up to 2028.

UK has a few old Trafalgar subs of which 5 are retired and awaiting disposal and of the two operational the youngest is 30 years old.

In any case there would probably no available crews for it. The RAN has struggled to recruit sufficient crews for even Collins class subs and as such one of the ships was drydocked as they couldn't recruit a crew for it. Literally they couldn't find 58 additional people.

Now a Trafalgar had 130 crews whilst Astutes were 100. Virginia is 135.

So if they can't recruit sufficient crews for current subs, how do they expect to do it to do with larger nuclear boats in a country that is averse to anything nuclear?

Seriously, they could not find 58 personnel?
Something has gone VERY wrong.
That just is not 'Aussies'… the way UK see you. NOT 'Attacking'… suppose times / people change.

I think that we just 'might' be going into a 'new' period of 'history'… and just not 'tooled up'. I cannot see 'Shooting Wars'… but if the 'capability' isn't there… then 'just default'… and see.

As a now non pc TV show , used to say:
'Oh Dear…How Sad… Never Mind!'

You might get some old boats to pay for the upkeep… BUT, they 'just might' be needed… and 'building nuke subs' from scratch…LOL! At least the hulls would be there… if tech provided for upkeep.

As for politicians…

YouTube link

If you can sit through that, maybe you will get the idea. I couldn't, so I probably won't.

That just is not 'Aussies'… the way UK see you

Your average Aussie is an overweight consumer* whose main concern is their next 4 wheel drive, their big TV, their big house, their ever increasing house and whatever middle class welfare they can get..

Literally 2/3s of adult population is overweight and 27% are obese – Australia is 5th fattest country after US, Mexico, Finland and New Zealand..

The type of man who fought at Bersheeba or Gallipoli or Tobruk or Kokoda died out decades ago.

youtu.be/1WYuGu5QNDA

Australian Navy announcement. There is a rapidly deteriorating strategic environment in the Indo-Pacific. This is the first response in a massive upgrade to the fleet, including a huge anti-mine, and mine laying capability. Our destroyers are going to be armed with locally produced cruise missiles. The Australian subs will be made in Adelaide. And there's plans for a very large forward deploying ship but they have not said what that will be? Maybe a cruiser?

I'm very happy

Lol … hey , arealdeadone, you do know we don't need a lot of that nuclear infrastructure you are jabbering about . We don't need a nuclear reactor to refuel them as the reactors actually have enough fuel for the life of the platform? And for trained personnel, we'll get enough expats to train up sufficient maintenance personnel before the first one hits the water. Another thing you fail to understand about crew is that you do not need to crew every submarine you have because up to a third of them will be undergoing deep maintenance.

adz… Brits are same… BUT No F Way! Have Faith, Mate! lol!
Old Guys may have gone… but some damn good 'young uns'…
Have seen vids… (yeah, vids, ok!)…of some pretty good Oz lads and girlies! just wish 'life' didn't P*** them off so much!
That is up to 'society'… and there might be a'Sea Change' coming.

Hope They Don't… But, They might need kit…. even if 'old stuff'…

@areadeadone.
Global ranking in fatness 2020.

1 Nauru 61.0%
2 Cook Islands 55.9%
3 Palau 55.3%
4 Marshall Islands 52.9%
5 Tuvalu 51.6%
6 Niue 50.0%
7 Tonga 48.2%
8 Samoa 47.3%
9 Kiribati 46.0%
10 Micronesia (Federated States of) 45.8%
11 Kuwait 37.9%
12 United States of America 36.2%
13 Jordan 35.5%
14 Saudi Arabia 35.4%
15 Qatar 35.1%
16 Libya 32.5%
17 Turkey 32.1%
18 Egypt 32.0%
18 Lebanon 33.7%
20 United Arab Emirates 31.7%
21 Bahamas 31.6%
22 New Zealand 30.8%
23 Iraq 30.4%
24 Fiji 30.2%
25 Bahrain 29.8%
26 Canada 29.4%
27 Australia 29.0%

backstab. For 'political' needs, you need 'infrastructure' for nukes. Reactors are for Life, not just Christmas.
And 'crewing for deployment'does not seem to work all that well.. seems to be 'hated', from what I have read… it may work.. but not an incentive for recruitment.

Money is the right incentive.

Headless horseman,
We are not developing nuclear weapons. We are developing a nuclear powered submarine.
And again … if you got boats in the dry dock ungogoing repair, they do not neeed to be crewed .. it's better to have more of what you need than less.

Soryus for the win, 100%

Putting aside the subs, the actual AUKUS treaty is a good thing. Expect to see us doing a "buy back" on the port of Darwin as well.

Expect to see us doing a "buy back" on the port of Darwin as well.

That is badly needed. It was a stupid decision – but one I see repeatedly when ideology takes over intelligence. link

backstab… yes… but a reacctor is still a NUCLEAR reactor and 'public ' will not like.

Crewing… again, 'sensible'…need the crew… but, even in civvie street, once you have 'dedicated' to something, you HATE being 'retasked'
When UK Post Office 'dropped' 'Perssonnel'… and adopted the new 'Human Resources'… it made you recognise YOUR VALUE. S**T!
Servivce men / women WANT to BELONG to something… being a 'resource'… can understand 'why' they might not want to re-enlist.
A Ship / Regiment would be YOURS, forever.
I used to cover 'leave' in other Offices… but, my Office was 'HOME'!

Perhaps this IS all for show.

After all, a certain guy just tried to get the Afghani President to lie about how well his army was doing against the Talis for media consumption, so…..

Yes, I get that there will not be, or may not be any nukes on them. Then again, perhaps there could be, since a lot of torpedo tubes are now designed to be able to launch both torps and cruise missiles, and the latter can have warheads swapped out easily, if desired. Probably very unlikely, but not a 100% no, when/if needed.

"The other insanely stupid thing is nuke subs cost more to operate than diesel electrics!".

Yes, that IS true, but you also get far greater capabilities too, making them far more effective in most/many cases. Being able to cruise at almost full speed when/if needed, endlessly IS a real force multiplier.

I don't know about nuke boats, but our nuke carriers do sometimes need to be refueled, so if they do, the UK or US could easily provide that when/if needed for a good, reliable ally.

I do agree, if you want to sit back on defense, those superb Soryu AIPs would have been an excellent option.

Nuke subs are better if you need to take the naval war to the enemy in far off seas, and to support your allies in the region, like Taiwan and Japan.

I imagine Taiwan is a lost cause, just as Hong Kong has proved to be, after the British turned that over to China. It would be nice to see us support them, but doubt it will really happen when push comes to shove.

Not sure why Australia went with a French sub design – under the table cash payments, perhaps?

The USA almost let the Chinese lease/buy the Port of Los Angeles/Long Beach, but thankfully that deal was killed when logic finally prevailed.

My guess is that it'll take a decade for the first sub to be commissioned, assuming that actually happens.

Would love to hear about, or read more info about the deal, if/when it is released.

Maybe its just me, but I don't think the right way to respond to a "rapidly deteriorating strategic environment" is to design a new weapon system from scratch. Seems like they should purchase existing designs from Europe, Japan, etc.

China is not ready for war yet. But it will be in 15 years. Once they establish their oil pipe lines through Afghanistan to Iran they won't need to rely on resupply by sea. They still need to expand their blue water fleet experience and take up station in the Persian Gulf to protect Iran. Once that's in place, get ready.

Another thing you fail to understand about crew is that you do not need to crew every submarine you have because up to a third of them will be undergoing deep maintenance.

Except they can't crew the operational subs they've got right now (ie excluding those in maintenance). Same with surface warships eg HMAS Perth was fully ready to go after an overhaul except there was no crew.

And for trained personnel, we'll get enough expats to train up sufficient maintenance personnel before the first one hits the water.

From where? RN barely meet their own crew requirements and again have had ships out of action due to crew shortages.

Westerners don't like military service – it doesn't pay well enough and it's not comfortable enough.

Most Australians people I've known who have been in the service have lasted a measly 5 years or less before bailing out for other pastures. That's not much return on investment for expensive to train technicians etc.

You are right about the nuclear reactors not needing refuelling – that info only came out later yesterday and I wasn't aware of it. Older Los Angeless and Seawolves need refuelling.

@areadeadone.
Global ranking in fatness 2020.

I forgot to mention OECD! Note those stats are obesity. Overweight isn't same.

According to WHO:

overweight is a BMI greater than or equal to 25; and
obesity is a BMI greater than or equal to 30.

67% of all Australians are overweight.

China is not ready for war yet. But it will be in 15 years. Once they establish their oil pipe lines through Afghanistan to Iran they won't need to rely on resupply by sea. They still need to expand their blue water fleet experience and take up station in the Persian Gulf to protect Iran. Once that's in place, get ready.

China will never be ready for any naval war past first and second island chain as long as the US exists in its current format. They will never be able to project real sustainable power past the Philippine Sea or Malacca Straits.

1. Geography – China's position means it might dominate the SC and E China Seas but they are bottlenecked in those seas.

They would need extensive long range striking power to be able to punch out.

2. China's investment in logistics is pitiful.

Eg US has 274 large transport aircraft (C-5, C-17), China has maybe 60 (Il-76, Y-20).

Eg US has 612 aerial tankers (KC-135, KC-10 KC-46, KC-130), China has 13 (H-6U, IL-78)

Eg US has sbout 350 large tactical transport aircraft (C-130), China has 100 (Y-8/-9).

Eg US has 217 large logistic ships, China has 17 (they have more smaller coastal ships which are not capable of global operations).

3. Basing – China has 1 naval base outside of island chains (Djibouti) and might have access to Pakistani ones. That's it!

US on the other hand has bases in Japan and then Guam to guard entrance into East Pacific.

Indian Ocean access is extremely bottlenecked and even India's pitiful navy could block access.

4. China has no long range naval strike force. The two existing carriers offer no combat capability whatsoever because the Su-33 knock offs can't take off with useful loads. They are training carriers.

By 2040 China has 7 aircraft carriers, including the 2 training carriers. US at this stage still has 11 supercarriers as well as 11 America class LHAs that are still far more capable than the 2 Chinese training junkers.

So 5 proper carriers v 11 carriers + 11 LHAs capable of deploying stealth strike fighters. This is basically a repeat of 1944-45.

5. China's carrier airwings only have minor air superiority and ASW capabilities. There is no strike aircraft or airborne AEW (ala E-3 or even heliborne like old RN Sea King ASaC.7s)).

No doubt Chinese are working on this but their progress on new systems has been slow.

By 2040 China will still not have caught up to US in any of the above.

Even US cutbacks don't change the situation much.

Having said that China's navy is a potent green navy force well equipped to defend China's littoral as well as dominate in East and especially SC Seas.

The only way China becomes a military power capable of challenging US et al in Indian Ocean or Eastern Pacific is if the US collapses completely.

Articles on issues with Chinese naval/military projection outside its own geographic boundaries:

link

link

Oh and why China doesn't need Afghanistan for pipelines from Iran – they're already nearly there through other countries:

French really, really unhappy:

link

Who cares about the French deal? An overpriced can that blew its budget out?

And don't say Australia is anti-nuclear, don't speak for me mate. You can straw poll inner Sydney and Melbourne all you like and probably inner city Brisbane these days and get the suitable woke and green response but I say go for it.

Australia is a country that hates itself and thrives on the ability of its citizens to argue about everything inconsequential.

And replace the electricity grid with nuclear whilst we are at it.

I am Australian, immigrant but been here since 1976. Fiercely proud of my country and sick to death of people who want to slag off everything any government (any, irrespective of leaning) does. Our country was built on the sheep's back but now is so hidebound about making sure we don't offend anyone that we have lost our cahunas.

I say bring it on, China off if we must, but who the hell are they to tell my country how we should act.

Rant over.

Like that ! Chinese watchers note.
If a 'Digger' has a shovel… he 'might dig a hole'… BUT, he just might hit somebody with it… 'Caution needed if annoyed'! :)

Korsun & HH +1.

As for the subs issue- the French group tried to pull a big con job, especially WRT jobs in Australia (many of which Macron was promising to workers in France as well). I'm surprised (and pleased) that the deal was flushed down the dunny. It should have been when the group handed over the first of many Contract Change Proposals, not long after the contracts were signed and the original NG lead team were replaced. It's the standard modus operandi of too many contractors over the last 30 years, and it needs to be stamped on.

The new subs- everyone on this board, in the media (and some in government) is just guessing about them. They will continue to be guessing until the new plan is released/leaked, probably in 18 months or so.

Thresher

Not sure why Australia went with a French sub design – under the table cash payments, perhaps?

Stop writing things like that or I may be forced to publicly agree with you.

More likely, though, it was just the same incompetence that gave us some other (useless) equipment deals and several (detrimentally lop-sided) "free trade" agreements. After all, getting an expensive nuke boat redesigned to conventional, and cramming it full of the best kit- compatibility between boat and systems untested or not- is such a great, innovative idea. What possibly could go wrong?

Cynicism in the dark red zone. Three months and six days until retiring. Not that I'm counting at all….

Korsun – so true. We lost our way. We are now changing our society forever due to the current situation. Feds totally gave in to the States, even though Fed law trumps what they are trying to do to us. Some people are using our constitution as toilet paper right now and Scotty is letting it happen.

I agree with the nuke subs. Under the French deal we would get our last sub delivered something like 2080 wasn't it? Completely ridiculous. We have to fast track the Nuke Subs tho. More capable and hopefully based on existing US/UK platforms.

ADZ – NOt much ADA in Aus but we have them land based cruise missiles on order and a whole bunch of other weaponry. Army has Abrams now and opting for Apache too. Makes sense that English speaking powers who believe in the same ideals share equipment and knowledge…now if only we could get some o' them F-22s..

The sub deal is just another vanity project.

We aren't focusing on true defence self reliance. Eg most oil refineries in Australia are being shut down, we don't produce virtually anything and we rely on China for exports and investments as well as imports of key elements of economy.

50 years of deliberate deindustrialisation in effect.

In a war Australia grinds to a halt.

If they Aussies get nukes will it deter anyone ?

No nuclear weapons, Legion, only nuke-powered subs. That point has been stressed a few times, but there's a number of people ignoring it, for various reasons.

I see … Thanks !

Aussies very much anti nuke weapons… powered subs… well, getting the tech, maybe. All OK by me.
But… want to bet that there are not 'contingency plans'… if the 'hammer started falling' ? If not Qz / NZ themselves… certainly other Nations.
Would be Be B****y Stupid if not.

For the Nuclear Decades, Oz / NZ has looked like the 'safest' place to be… but World has changed.

Yep, the Chinese are looking to extend their bomber and naval bases from the SCS to the South Pacific, given some of the deals they've been pursuing, negotiating, and inking with various island nations.

Looks like they are pursuing Japan's WWII dream to me in a lot of ways.

China's expansion in the South Pacific:

link

link

link

If the Chicoms have some kind of Atlantis undersea base and the AusNuke Subs had to attack it that would make one hell of a wargame! I'm talking torpedoes, frogmen and SASR boarding actions, Any rules/miniatures suggestions?

Yep, the Chinese are looking to extend their bomber and naval bases from the SCS to the South Pacific, given some of the deals they've been pursuing, negotiating, and inking with various island nations.

You still don't get the Chinese strategy.

They're not after bomber bases, they're after tributary states.

They're buying and creating influence which is what they do everywhere including Australia, the US, Europe etc.

It's not 1941 anymore – something like a bomber or naval base has to be hardened to be survivable. An international airport in Tuvalu doesn't equal a bomber base.

Remember Americans have subs with cruise missiles! Chinese do.

Fighting wars is what westerners do, the Chinese are pursuing a strategy of winning without fighting.

True. Much 'Effective' combat is about making opponent watch 'Moves'… while you do something else.
Does NOT mean that 'strikes' won't happen if opportunity there.

Strategic and Tactical may be different words… but same end point.

Incidentally… 'Western' Nations having a 'spat'… with loss of 'confidence' in them among other states…
'Influence' can quietly grow…

Horseman,

Exactly.

There is a growing rift between US and EU – and not just over submarines or Iraq but also other things such as US unilateral cancellation of Iranian nuclear deal, Ukraine, oil and gas pipelines etc.

Apparently Europe now views itself as a more moderate western player than the US and views its role to balance US and everyone else.

I really think AUKUS was bad for west as it just exacerbated differences.

Furthermore Japan has explicitly said it views Australia's increased leadership on defence matters as a good matter.

Literally Tokyo is viewing Australia as an expendable source of warm bodies for its own defence.

I suspect the US views it the same – indeed whilst Australia's anti-China rhetoric is loud, the USA is actually reasonably quiet on matters relating to China and still barks more about Russia.

" All The World Is A Stage…!"LOL! In a Pub / Bar Fight, two idiots having a go will be seen as that. Barmaids / Staff may 'appreciate' the guy who 'helps' to clean up the mess… LOL!

Europe… the EU, Might 'see' itself as a more moderate player… and very little 'punch', now… (Stupidly!)… but, it was 'Trade Deal' 'that 'sparked troubles in Ukraine… so is an 'un-ballancer'. Same with NATO expansion.

Japan… it's ironic… but they need friendlies!

USA does not seem to know what it is 'Doing' anymore.

UK… Gov't seem to want to 'get back in the game'… but with no chips.

Japan is stuck with its peace time constitution and the Japanese people are against changing it.

I suspect the Japanese also know that the Americans don't really have their heart set on countering China.

So they are all going to let the naive, loudmouthed Australians do the dirty work.

As for UK BoJo is trying to justify Brexit and reinvent the country.

UK NEEDS reinventing.. been going down the tubes, in so many ways since early 80s. EU… largely to blame . IMO.
I hope UK and what 'was' the Commonwealth can 'refriend'… rather think we all may need Friends at some future point.

I think it's going to be hard for UK to offer much/anything to the Commonwealth to revitalise it.

Militarily the British are getting puny.

And economically, the country is also deindustrialising much like Australia.

if the country couldn't retain an empire in 1945-60, it certainly won't today.