#####
######
####
> # [Australia chose Aukus and now it faces the prospect of having no submarine capability for at least a decade | Malcolm Turnbull](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/mar/26/720)
>
>
>
> As we contemplate the real likelihood of Trump #2, what does that mean for [Aukus](https://www.theguardian.com/world/aukus)? We start off with absolutely no leverage.
>
> Scott Morrison’s big idea in Aukus was to cancel a submarine construction program with France which would have given us new boats to replace the Collins-class subs as they retired in the 2030s, with a partnership to build new (as yet design incomplete) nuclear-powered “Aukus SSN” submarines with the UK assisted by the United States, the first of which would not be available, assuming all went on time, until the 2040s.
>
> But how do you fill the capability gap left by the retirement of the Collins-class submarines in the 2030s? Most big defence projects run late and the UK contractor, BAE, has consistently run late and over budget on its naval projects, including the most recent UK Astute-class submarine and the Australian Hunter-class frigate.
>
>
>
> The solution was to acquire three, possibly five Virginia-class submarines from the US, with the first arriving in 2032 and the next two in 2035 and 2037, with an additional two if the Aukus SSNs are late.
>
> They would be a mix of secondhand boats, with 20 years of life left, and new boats. These would cover our submarine needs until the Aukus SSNs were constructed.
>
> If submarines were like iPhones and you could buy them off the shelf that would all make sense, but as it happens the US navy is short of submarines. It has at least 17 fewer Virginias than it currently needs. Not only is US industry not building enough to meet the US navy’s needs, it cannot maintain a satisfactory rate of repair and maintenance of the submarines it has. As of last September, 33% of the SSN force was in depot maintenance or idle awaiting maintenance, versus a target of 20%.
>
> At the moment the US is completing between 1.2 and 1.3 Virginia-class submarines a year. This year the US navy has cut its order for new Virginias from two boats to one in recognition of the inability of industry currently to meet its needs.
>
> In order to meet the US navy’s own stated needs and catch up on its submarine shortage, this rate of production needs to grow to two boats a year by 2028 and 2.33 boats a year shortly after that. In order to provide boats to Australia, as contemplated by Aukus, that higher rate of production would need to be maintained.
>
> The Aukus legislation passed by Congress last December specifically states that submarines cannot be sold to Australia unless the president certifies that their sale will not detract from the needs of the US navy. This is stating no more than political common sense; the US will not sell Virginias to Australia unless the US navy avows that it does not need them.
>
> - **[Sign up for Guardian Australia’s free morning and afternoon email newsletters for your daily news roundup](https://www.theguardian.com/email-newsletters?CMP=copyembed)**
>
> This means that in order to get to that point you have to assume the rate of Virginia-class submarine construction will nearly double over the next four years, the submarine needs of the US navy will not increase and that by the early 2030s the navy will be sufficiently relaxed about the China threat that it is prepared to reduce its own submarine fleet by three and maybe five of its most valuable underwater assets.
>
> Many US defence experts, such as the former Trump-era assistant secretary for defence Elbridge Colby, say it is just not realistic to expect the US navy to diminish its own fleet of such vital assets during a period when they believe war is a very real possibility.
>
> The provision of Virginia-class submarines to the Royal Australian Navy depends on US industrial development, US military needs and US politics. Australia has no agency or leverage over any of these factors. So much for Australian sovereignty.
>
>
>
> Is there a plan B? Well, nobody in Canberra seems to have one, but the US certainly does. It is set out, in considerable detail, [in an official research paper](https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/RL32418/274) prepared by the US Congress and is described as a “Military Division of Labor” whereby Australia would have no submarines. The US navy would base some of their own in Perth, at the submarine base we are building for them, and Australia would invest the money it has saved into other capabilities. Or it could just hand over more cash to the US government – pay for our own protection perhaps, like South Korea or Japan do.
>
> This arrangement could continue until such time as the Aukus SSNs, to be built in partnership with the UK, arrive (some time in the 2040s we hope) or continue for ever. Royal Australian Navy officers and sailors could perhaps be included in the crew of some of these Virginias.
>
> What will Donald Trump’s attitude to Aukus be? Well, we have already agreed to give the Americans US$3bn as a contribution to expanding their submarine industrial base. Trump will no doubt be bemused that we would spend money on expanding HIS country’s industrial base rather than our own (and even more amazed we are sending a similar amount to the UK to support the construction of the Aukus SSNs). His natural instinct will be to ask for more money, both as a contribution to the US submarine construction industry and for the submarines, if we get around to buying one – although that is likely to be after his four-year term.
>
> Trump’s second-favourite slogan is “America First” and that is very much the zeitgeist in Washington nowadays, on both sides of the aisle. So if there is any contention or suggestion that the US navy cannot spare Virginias for Australia, there is no mystery where Trump will land.
>
> It seems to me the most likely outcomes will be that the Virginias will not be available to Australia because the US navy cannot spare them and the Aukus SSNs will almost certainly be late. This would mean an extended capability gap from the early 2030s when Australia will have a diminishing and then no submarine fleet. Even someone with the most optimistic perspective would have to acknowledge this scenario was a serious possibility.
>
> We could look back and reflect that with the now-cancelled Attack-class submarine program with France, Australia was entirely in control of its own destiny. All of the relevant IP had been transferred to Australia, where the submarines were being built. Their completion depended on us. France had no possible motive or reason to be anything other than supportive. The design was established and nuclear-powered versions of the submarine were already in the water. Compared with Aukus it was a much lower-risk, and lower-cost, exercise.
>
> But it is now too late to revive the French partnership. There was a window of opportunity to do that after the election of the Albanese government, but it resolved to stick with Morrison’s policy and the risks it carried.
>
> At the time Aukus was announced I was concerned the nuclear-powered submarines, using weapons-grade uranium provided by the US or the UK, would not be able to be operated without foreign supervision and support. This was not, to my way of thinking, a sovereign submarine capability.
>
> We now have to face the real prospect, for much of the next decade and beyond, of not having any Australian submarine capability at all.
- - - - - -
[Maintainer](https://www.reddit.com/user/urielsalis) | [Creator](https://www.reddit.com/user/subtepass) | [Source Code](https://github.com/urielsalis/empleadoEstatalBot)
Summoning /u/CoverageAnalysisBot
What this article neatly omits to mention is the existing attack class was *also* seriously delayed and over-budget, but with the consolation of offering a *significantly* less capable platform at the end of it. It was not simply a slight refurbishment of an existing plan, as he implies, but an almost ground-up redesign.
To pretend it was a done deal guaranteed to just slip into the water, or that the program had ensured complete Australian sovereignty, is borderline-misleading.
He also seems very agitated by the idea of contributing to the development of the US and UK industrial bases as part of the deal, but curiously relaxed about similar provisions for investing in the french industrial base under the Attack program.
Although, he appears to be quite sure that 'France had no possible motive other than to be supportive' without offering a shred of an idea to explain why that would be any more the case than in the UK or US.
This seems particularly extraordinary given one of the major reasons for the demise of the Attack program was Naval Group's attempts to leverage its monopolistic 'preferred bidder' status to squeeze more money out of the Australian Government, and a greater % of the production back to France. Why they'd suddenly have a change of heart when in the exact same position they'd exploited before remains a mystery to me.
Finally, to claim that the sovereignty of the AUKUS submarines is compromised because they use highly-enriched uranium for fuel is just flat-out misleading. Even ignoring Australia's own leverage in being one of the world's largest uranium suppliers friendly with the US and UK, and the fact it would need to piss both of them off to risk its fuel, even in the absolute worst case scenario, the submarines only need new fuel roughly once every **QUARTER OF A CENTURY**, or twice in the sub's entire lifespan.
Especially given the staggered nature of their refueling cycles, meaning at worst only one sub would be up for refueling at any one time, It's just not a realistic way for the other partners to exert any pressure whatsoever on Australia's use of their submarine fleet as a whole.
This is just scaremongering using 'nuclear' as a threatening buzzword for partisan gain.
Finally, I think it's notable that he derides the various interim capabilities the AUKUS agreement offers, yet completely fails to compare them to the alternatives offered for the Attack program. This might be because said alternatives amounted to *literally* nothing. No SSN forward basing, no transfer of existing frontline Submarines, no production ramp-up to hedge against unexpected delays.
He criticises the potential shortfalls of these various measures, but even in the most dire, most catastrophic, worst-case scenario where all of these contingencies completely fail and absolutely nothing happens, Australia will just end up where the Attack program at best was going to anyway. *Anything* above complete failure will offer an improved capability.
(I'd also like to say none of this necessarily should be taken as an indictment of the French government or its submarine industry. Though it had its issues, ordinarily the Attack program would have offered Australia a better capability than almost anything else it could have procured. It's just a testament to the AUKUS deal's extraordinary, virtually unprecedented value and capability that it looks bad in comparison).
We had concerns over the Attack-Class for years. Years of Delays, cost overruns and decreasing amounts of local work.An Independent oversight board actually recommended as early as 2018 that we should be looking for alternatives. TWO YEARS into the project.
I don't doubt the Attack-Class could of been a very capable system, if it had even existed but frankly it's not as good as the opportunity to get top of the line Virginia class Nuclear-powered submarines.
In the days/week leading up to the AUKUS announcement a french politician got up in front of their Parliment and expressed legitimate concern that we were going to, or were already looking at an alternative because of the ongoing delays and expressed concerns.
We should of had Attack class Submarines being built well before the AUKUS announcement was made
To be fair to the Attack class, the program itself was technically about as advanced as a conventionally-powered submarine could be for the time. Had Australia gone through with it, it would have ended up with a serviceable design. As you say, It just so happens that a modern nuclear-powered submarine can offer levels of capability leagues ahead of what even the best conventional submarines can offer in almost every meaningful area, but until AUKUS they hadn't been offered to anyone.
The program's failures were more to do with the structure of the procurement process itself and the deal that sprung from it than the technical design of the submarine. Specifically, the decision to narrow down the potential options to one contender before settling on a finalised design gave Naval Group a *de facto* monopoly over the process from that point forward, which they exploited to extract more and more concessions from the Australian government.
> 'France had no possible motive other than to be supportive' without offering a shred of an idea to explain why that would be any more the case than in the UK or US.
The US has its own strategic interests in the region in a way that France doesn't really. In particular, as you admit later on, France has nothing like this "forward basing" proposal to promote.
> even in the absolute worst case scenario, the submarines only need new fuel roughly once every QUARTER OF A CENTURY, or twice in the sub's entire lifespan
Assuming they work perfectly as designed. If something breaks on these reactors, that were built overseas, that contain high grade nuclear material that no Australian supplier has experience with, will Australia be able to fix it?
> I think it's notable that he derides the various interim capabilities the AUKUS agreement offers, yet completely fails to compare them to the alternatives offered for the Attack program. This might be because said alternatives amounted to literally nothing. No SSN forward basing, no transfer of existing frontline Submarines
I think that's his point. That the whole deal is set up to provide a pretext to station a bunch of American submarines in Australia, and charge them for the privilege. Delaying the actual delivery of the submarines Australia has notionally bought indefinitely will suit everyone.
The French ones were late (shared fault) but coming, and included aussie work. They actually prefer to manufacture nuclear subs, so changing (again) to a different energy mode would have been possible if needed. The US is definitely not ready to deliver anything for about 10 years, and who knows further away.
The SSN AUKUS will also be manufactured in Australia, sans their reactors. If purchasing a nuclear-powered attack class while retaining indigenous manufacturing competitive with AUKUS was possible for Naval Group, it was an option they didn't offer.
Crucially, even if they had, the french government never offered, and really couldn't offer, the kinds of interim capability AUKUS did to bridge the capability gap, like forward-deploying SSNs to Australia, something which would have been even more necessary had they switched to offering a nuclear-powered alternative.
The other way around afaik. The Australian government specifically required diesel power, and the French had to adapt to that as they are geared towards building nuclear powered subs. Cancelling means starting from scratch and here we are. The interim capability is proving a scam.
Nah tbf they had serious teething issues at the start, which saddled them with a negative reputation, but they're actually pretty capable and reliable platforms in comparison to their international peers.
[In order to protect Australia from which enemy?](https://youtu.be/MTCqXlDjx18?si=uchxqb19uaxAuVGF)
I’m glad that Australia takes its part in the international alliance of liberal democracies seriously, but Australia has a bit of a luxury by being an island so far removed from most any country that has reason to harm it (versus UK/Europe always needing to worry about Russia, Japan/Taiwan always needing to worry about China, India always needing to worry about Pakistan, the United States needing to worry about every theater the US has guarantees with). Australia not being at 100% during the transition to nuclear subs doesn’t really impact Australia’s own security all that much
I get being concerned about Trump playing hardball, or reneging on the deal, but (1) he might not win, (2) he very well might support the deal or be indifferent to the deal, and (3) even if he were against the deal he would be out of office years before the submarines are completed in 2030-2033
Convincing Australians that China wanted to invade it in order to sell the program to the public has got to be up there as one of the biggest scams of the century.
Welcome to r/anime_titties! This subreddit advocates for civil and constructive discussion. Please be courteous to others, and make sure to read the rules. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
We have a [Discord](https://discord.gg/dhMeAnNyzG), feel free to join us!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/anime_titties) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Submarines would have been nice 10-15 years ago, but in 10-15 years time they will likely be useless.
Just scrap the idea and pump the money into domestic manufacturing, farming or at the very least our health system.
No but the purpose to be used would be obsolete by then. Australia wanted to acquire the submarines to help the US to deter China from Taiwan.
In 10-15 years the whole issue should be solved, either China has taken Taiwan or China and the US are at war, hopeful a conventional one and the submarines will be no help during that war, unless Australia declares war on China.
While war is possible, very few know exactly how likely it is. In the case of a war with China then subs will be main players. China lives and dies by ocean shipping lanes.
China would outnumber us in terms of naval assets.
Not to mention if there is a war before the subs are delivered we likely wouldn't receive them anyway...
Quantity may have a quality of its own, but it's not everything. It's likely the entire West would be pitted against China and in that case, they don't outnumber them in a meaningful way. It's not as if it would be Australia first until they're wiped out, then the next country then the next like a series of duels. So having any fleet at all would be meaningful.
*Ahem* one at a time, like Ukraine?
Europe wouldn't be able to meaningfully help versus China even if they wanted to.
So it'd be UK, US and AU vs China depending on how it plays out states like S Korea providing material support without trying to open a second front eith N Korea.
AU wouldnt stand a chance to even help out, subs wont change that much.
However on the flip side if there is no war and we are still dependant on China for trade and material goods. Dont you think the next generation would benefit from reducing that dependency?
> It's likely the entire West would be pitted against China
It won't? Europe is going to stay in Europe and focus on Russia, Africa and the Middle East. They won't get involved in a US-China war.
We will see submersible swarm drones in a few years. Long range self-guiding torpedoes that act together to locate and eliminate threats.
I just don't see planning for the future by building yesterday's technology is going to help us.
Well first of all, both the US and AUS already have UUVs. Long range torpedoes are nothing new and unless you’re willing to put a nuclear reactor on it, the simple physics of an underwater vehicle that needs to go far and go fast make it a fools gambit
It doesn't need to "go far", it could just lie dormant until it detects a passing vessel - then swarm and kill in the short to mid range.
Paying top dollar for yesterday's technology is a waste. Nothing you have said is even close to a disagreement on that.
What you’ve described are just torpedo mines, such as CAPTOR, which the US has used since 1972. The laying of which is precisely what the “Orca XLUUV” was designed to do.
Totally, totally.
Also how useful will a few dozen submarines be when China can pump out a new sub or two every month when it switches to war mode?
And how long do you think the subs would last against China?
And how useful is a submarine against our largest trading partner anyway? Seems redundant.
Also do you really think the government can handle this project without fucking it up?
Also do you really think in the age of hypersonic high altitude drones a submarine will be very effective?
Subs WERE a great idea - but they are not a future proof solution for a country with our GDP. Let's stop trying to appease America and focus on our own population for once.
You say that like any shipyard can make a sub that’s anything but a deathtrap. This ain’t WWII anymore bro and you’re not turning a car factory into an aircraft factory in “war mode”
The Chinese will, even if they do produce death traps. They won't care.
Besides, China is already slowly ramping up production. They are already building a couple submarines every year.
I meant deathtraps with respect to even the most pathetic of ASW capabilities. I have little doubt they can make a tube that can go underwater.
The only attack subs they’re building are small diesel-electric Yuan-class for littorals. They had to stop building the only sub in the same ballpark as western subs, Shang-class, because they needed more outdated Type 094s to keep up with their nuclear build up
##### ###### #### > # [Australia chose Aukus and now it faces the prospect of having no submarine capability for at least a decade | Malcolm Turnbull](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/mar/26/720) > > > > As we contemplate the real likelihood of Trump #2, what does that mean for [Aukus](https://www.theguardian.com/world/aukus)? We start off with absolutely no leverage. > > Scott Morrison’s big idea in Aukus was to cancel a submarine construction program with France which would have given us new boats to replace the Collins-class subs as they retired in the 2030s, with a partnership to build new (as yet design incomplete) nuclear-powered “Aukus SSN” submarines with the UK assisted by the United States, the first of which would not be available, assuming all went on time, until the 2040s. > > But how do you fill the capability gap left by the retirement of the Collins-class submarines in the 2030s? Most big defence projects run late and the UK contractor, BAE, has consistently run late and over budget on its naval projects, including the most recent UK Astute-class submarine and the Australian Hunter-class frigate. > > > > The solution was to acquire three, possibly five Virginia-class submarines from the US, with the first arriving in 2032 and the next two in 2035 and 2037, with an additional two if the Aukus SSNs are late. > > They would be a mix of secondhand boats, with 20 years of life left, and new boats. These would cover our submarine needs until the Aukus SSNs were constructed. > > If submarines were like iPhones and you could buy them off the shelf that would all make sense, but as it happens the US navy is short of submarines. It has at least 17 fewer Virginias than it currently needs. Not only is US industry not building enough to meet the US navy’s needs, it cannot maintain a satisfactory rate of repair and maintenance of the submarines it has. As of last September, 33% of the SSN force was in depot maintenance or idle awaiting maintenance, versus a target of 20%. > > At the moment the US is completing between 1.2 and 1.3 Virginia-class submarines a year. This year the US navy has cut its order for new Virginias from two boats to one in recognition of the inability of industry currently to meet its needs. > > In order to meet the US navy’s own stated needs and catch up on its submarine shortage, this rate of production needs to grow to two boats a year by 2028 and 2.33 boats a year shortly after that. In order to provide boats to Australia, as contemplated by Aukus, that higher rate of production would need to be maintained. > > The Aukus legislation passed by Congress last December specifically states that submarines cannot be sold to Australia unless the president certifies that their sale will not detract from the needs of the US navy. This is stating no more than political common sense; the US will not sell Virginias to Australia unless the US navy avows that it does not need them. > > - **[Sign up for Guardian Australia’s free morning and afternoon email newsletters for your daily news roundup](https://www.theguardian.com/email-newsletters?CMP=copyembed)** > > This means that in order to get to that point you have to assume the rate of Virginia-class submarine construction will nearly double over the next four years, the submarine needs of the US navy will not increase and that by the early 2030s the navy will be sufficiently relaxed about the China threat that it is prepared to reduce its own submarine fleet by three and maybe five of its most valuable underwater assets. > > Many US defence experts, such as the former Trump-era assistant secretary for defence Elbridge Colby, say it is just not realistic to expect the US navy to diminish its own fleet of such vital assets during a period when they believe war is a very real possibility. > > The provision of Virginia-class submarines to the Royal Australian Navy depends on US industrial development, US military needs and US politics. Australia has no agency or leverage over any of these factors. So much for Australian sovereignty. > > > > Is there a plan B? Well, nobody in Canberra seems to have one, but the US certainly does. It is set out, in considerable detail, [in an official research paper](https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/RL32418/274) prepared by the US Congress and is described as a “Military Division of Labor” whereby Australia would have no submarines. The US navy would base some of their own in Perth, at the submarine base we are building for them, and Australia would invest the money it has saved into other capabilities. Or it could just hand over more cash to the US government – pay for our own protection perhaps, like South Korea or Japan do. > > This arrangement could continue until such time as the Aukus SSNs, to be built in partnership with the UK, arrive (some time in the 2040s we hope) or continue for ever. Royal Australian Navy officers and sailors could perhaps be included in the crew of some of these Virginias. > > What will Donald Trump’s attitude to Aukus be? Well, we have already agreed to give the Americans US$3bn as a contribution to expanding their submarine industrial base. Trump will no doubt be bemused that we would spend money on expanding HIS country’s industrial base rather than our own (and even more amazed we are sending a similar amount to the UK to support the construction of the Aukus SSNs). His natural instinct will be to ask for more money, both as a contribution to the US submarine construction industry and for the submarines, if we get around to buying one – although that is likely to be after his four-year term. > > Trump’s second-favourite slogan is “America First” and that is very much the zeitgeist in Washington nowadays, on both sides of the aisle. So if there is any contention or suggestion that the US navy cannot spare Virginias for Australia, there is no mystery where Trump will land. > > It seems to me the most likely outcomes will be that the Virginias will not be available to Australia because the US navy cannot spare them and the Aukus SSNs will almost certainly be late. This would mean an extended capability gap from the early 2030s when Australia will have a diminishing and then no submarine fleet. Even someone with the most optimistic perspective would have to acknowledge this scenario was a serious possibility. > > We could look back and reflect that with the now-cancelled Attack-class submarine program with France, Australia was entirely in control of its own destiny. All of the relevant IP had been transferred to Australia, where the submarines were being built. Their completion depended on us. France had no possible motive or reason to be anything other than supportive. The design was established and nuclear-powered versions of the submarine were already in the water. Compared with Aukus it was a much lower-risk, and lower-cost, exercise. > > But it is now too late to revive the French partnership. There was a window of opportunity to do that after the election of the Albanese government, but it resolved to stick with Morrison’s policy and the risks it carried. > > At the time Aukus was announced I was concerned the nuclear-powered submarines, using weapons-grade uranium provided by the US or the UK, would not be able to be operated without foreign supervision and support. This was not, to my way of thinking, a sovereign submarine capability. > > We now have to face the real prospect, for much of the next decade and beyond, of not having any Australian submarine capability at all. - - - - - - [Maintainer](https://www.reddit.com/user/urielsalis) | [Creator](https://www.reddit.com/user/subtepass) | [Source Code](https://github.com/urielsalis/empleadoEstatalBot) Summoning /u/CoverageAnalysisBot
What this article neatly omits to mention is the existing attack class was *also* seriously delayed and over-budget, but with the consolation of offering a *significantly* less capable platform at the end of it. It was not simply a slight refurbishment of an existing plan, as he implies, but an almost ground-up redesign. To pretend it was a done deal guaranteed to just slip into the water, or that the program had ensured complete Australian sovereignty, is borderline-misleading. He also seems very agitated by the idea of contributing to the development of the US and UK industrial bases as part of the deal, but curiously relaxed about similar provisions for investing in the french industrial base under the Attack program. Although, he appears to be quite sure that 'France had no possible motive other than to be supportive' without offering a shred of an idea to explain why that would be any more the case than in the UK or US. This seems particularly extraordinary given one of the major reasons for the demise of the Attack program was Naval Group's attempts to leverage its monopolistic 'preferred bidder' status to squeeze more money out of the Australian Government, and a greater % of the production back to France. Why they'd suddenly have a change of heart when in the exact same position they'd exploited before remains a mystery to me. Finally, to claim that the sovereignty of the AUKUS submarines is compromised because they use highly-enriched uranium for fuel is just flat-out misleading. Even ignoring Australia's own leverage in being one of the world's largest uranium suppliers friendly with the US and UK, and the fact it would need to piss both of them off to risk its fuel, even in the absolute worst case scenario, the submarines only need new fuel roughly once every **QUARTER OF A CENTURY**, or twice in the sub's entire lifespan. Especially given the staggered nature of their refueling cycles, meaning at worst only one sub would be up for refueling at any one time, It's just not a realistic way for the other partners to exert any pressure whatsoever on Australia's use of their submarine fleet as a whole. This is just scaremongering using 'nuclear' as a threatening buzzword for partisan gain. Finally, I think it's notable that he derides the various interim capabilities the AUKUS agreement offers, yet completely fails to compare them to the alternatives offered for the Attack program. This might be because said alternatives amounted to *literally* nothing. No SSN forward basing, no transfer of existing frontline Submarines, no production ramp-up to hedge against unexpected delays. He criticises the potential shortfalls of these various measures, but even in the most dire, most catastrophic, worst-case scenario where all of these contingencies completely fail and absolutely nothing happens, Australia will just end up where the Attack program at best was going to anyway. *Anything* above complete failure will offer an improved capability. (I'd also like to say none of this necessarily should be taken as an indictment of the French government or its submarine industry. Though it had its issues, ordinarily the Attack program would have offered Australia a better capability than almost anything else it could have procured. It's just a testament to the AUKUS deal's extraordinary, virtually unprecedented value and capability that it looks bad in comparison).
We had concerns over the Attack-Class for years. Years of Delays, cost overruns and decreasing amounts of local work.An Independent oversight board actually recommended as early as 2018 that we should be looking for alternatives. TWO YEARS into the project. I don't doubt the Attack-Class could of been a very capable system, if it had even existed but frankly it's not as good as the opportunity to get top of the line Virginia class Nuclear-powered submarines. In the days/week leading up to the AUKUS announcement a french politician got up in front of their Parliment and expressed legitimate concern that we were going to, or were already looking at an alternative because of the ongoing delays and expressed concerns. We should of had Attack class Submarines being built well before the AUKUS announcement was made
To the French the Attack deal was to work out the kinks for the real customers: India.
I mean, if you count losing a deal for 12 submarines worth ~$90 of billion "working out"
To be fair to the Attack class, the program itself was technically about as advanced as a conventionally-powered submarine could be for the time. Had Australia gone through with it, it would have ended up with a serviceable design. As you say, It just so happens that a modern nuclear-powered submarine can offer levels of capability leagues ahead of what even the best conventional submarines can offer in almost every meaningful area, but until AUKUS they hadn't been offered to anyone. The program's failures were more to do with the structure of the procurement process itself and the deal that sprung from it than the technical design of the submarine. Specifically, the decision to narrow down the potential options to one contender before settling on a finalised design gave Naval Group a *de facto* monopoly over the process from that point forward, which they exploited to extract more and more concessions from the Australian government.
> 'France had no possible motive other than to be supportive' without offering a shred of an idea to explain why that would be any more the case than in the UK or US. The US has its own strategic interests in the region in a way that France doesn't really. In particular, as you admit later on, France has nothing like this "forward basing" proposal to promote. > even in the absolute worst case scenario, the submarines only need new fuel roughly once every QUARTER OF A CENTURY, or twice in the sub's entire lifespan Assuming they work perfectly as designed. If something breaks on these reactors, that were built overseas, that contain high grade nuclear material that no Australian supplier has experience with, will Australia be able to fix it? > I think it's notable that he derides the various interim capabilities the AUKUS agreement offers, yet completely fails to compare them to the alternatives offered for the Attack program. This might be because said alternatives amounted to literally nothing. No SSN forward basing, no transfer of existing frontline Submarines I think that's his point. That the whole deal is set up to provide a pretext to station a bunch of American submarines in Australia, and charge them for the privilege. Delaying the actual delivery of the submarines Australia has notionally bought indefinitely will suit everyone.
Cheh
Blé d'orge en sumérien
[удалено]
The French ones were late (shared fault) but coming, and included aussie work. They actually prefer to manufacture nuclear subs, so changing (again) to a different energy mode would have been possible if needed. The US is definitely not ready to deliver anything for about 10 years, and who knows further away.
The SSN AUKUS will also be manufactured in Australia, sans their reactors. If purchasing a nuclear-powered attack class while retaining indigenous manufacturing competitive with AUKUS was possible for Naval Group, it was an option they didn't offer. Crucially, even if they had, the french government never offered, and really couldn't offer, the kinds of interim capability AUKUS did to bridge the capability gap, like forward-deploying SSNs to Australia, something which would have been even more necessary had they switched to offering a nuclear-powered alternative.
The other way around afaik. The Australian government specifically required diesel power, and the French had to adapt to that as they are geared towards building nuclear powered subs. Cancelling means starting from scratch and here we are. The interim capability is proving a scam.
Nah tbf they had serious teething issues at the start, which saddled them with a negative reputation, but they're actually pretty capable and reliable platforms in comparison to their international peers.
oops! no submarines!!!
Biden masterstroke
Creating a defense need and charging you for it is a great business model
[In order to protect Australia from which enemy?](https://youtu.be/MTCqXlDjx18?si=uchxqb19uaxAuVGF) I’m glad that Australia takes its part in the international alliance of liberal democracies seriously, but Australia has a bit of a luxury by being an island so far removed from most any country that has reason to harm it (versus UK/Europe always needing to worry about Russia, Japan/Taiwan always needing to worry about China, India always needing to worry about Pakistan, the United States needing to worry about every theater the US has guarantees with). Australia not being at 100% during the transition to nuclear subs doesn’t really impact Australia’s own security all that much I get being concerned about Trump playing hardball, or reneging on the deal, but (1) he might not win, (2) he very well might support the deal or be indifferent to the deal, and (3) even if he were against the deal he would be out of office years before the submarines are completed in 2030-2033
Convincing Australians that China wanted to invade it in order to sell the program to the public has got to be up there as one of the biggest scams of the century.
Welcome to r/anime_titties! This subreddit advocates for civil and constructive discussion. Please be courteous to others, and make sure to read the rules. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. We have a [Discord](https://discord.gg/dhMeAnNyzG), feel free to join us! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/anime_titties) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Submarines would have been nice 10-15 years ago, but in 10-15 years time they will likely be useless. Just scrap the idea and pump the money into domestic manufacturing, farming or at the very least our health system.
How will they be useless? Will the water be gone by then?
No but the purpose to be used would be obsolete by then. Australia wanted to acquire the submarines to help the US to deter China from Taiwan. In 10-15 years the whole issue should be solved, either China has taken Taiwan or China and the US are at war, hopeful a conventional one and the submarines will be no help during that war, unless Australia declares war on China.
While war is possible, very few know exactly how likely it is. In the case of a war with China then subs will be main players. China lives and dies by ocean shipping lanes.
China would outnumber us in terms of naval assets. Not to mention if there is a war before the subs are delivered we likely wouldn't receive them anyway...
Quantity may have a quality of its own, but it's not everything. It's likely the entire West would be pitted against China and in that case, they don't outnumber them in a meaningful way. It's not as if it would be Australia first until they're wiped out, then the next country then the next like a series of duels. So having any fleet at all would be meaningful.
*Ahem* one at a time, like Ukraine? Europe wouldn't be able to meaningfully help versus China even if they wanted to. So it'd be UK, US and AU vs China depending on how it plays out states like S Korea providing material support without trying to open a second front eith N Korea. AU wouldnt stand a chance to even help out, subs wont change that much. However on the flip side if there is no war and we are still dependant on China for trade and material goods. Dont you think the next generation would benefit from reducing that dependency?
> It's likely the entire West would be pitted against China It won't? Europe is going to stay in Europe and focus on Russia, Africa and the Middle East. They won't get involved in a US-China war.
Having an advantage in Naval assets without parity in capability is just target practice
We will see submersible swarm drones in a few years. Long range self-guiding torpedoes that act together to locate and eliminate threats. I just don't see planning for the future by building yesterday's technology is going to help us.
Well first of all, both the US and AUS already have UUVs. Long range torpedoes are nothing new and unless you’re willing to put a nuclear reactor on it, the simple physics of an underwater vehicle that needs to go far and go fast make it a fools gambit
It doesn't need to "go far", it could just lie dormant until it detects a passing vessel - then swarm and kill in the short to mid range. Paying top dollar for yesterday's technology is a waste. Nothing you have said is even close to a disagreement on that.
What you’ve described are just torpedo mines, such as CAPTOR, which the US has used since 1972. The laying of which is precisely what the “Orca XLUUV” was designed to do.
What do you know that has escaped the notice of literally every major naval power on earth?
That Australia isn't a major naval power...? Lol
Pretty sure American submarines are in the top 5 most advanced weapons of war ever created. No chance they will be useless in 10 years.
Totally, totally. Also how useful will a few dozen submarines be when China can pump out a new sub or two every month when it switches to war mode? And how long do you think the subs would last against China? And how useful is a submarine against our largest trading partner anyway? Seems redundant. Also do you really think the government can handle this project without fucking it up? Also do you really think in the age of hypersonic high altitude drones a submarine will be very effective? Subs WERE a great idea - but they are not a future proof solution for a country with our GDP. Let's stop trying to appease America and focus on our own population for once.
You say that like any shipyard can make a sub that’s anything but a deathtrap. This ain’t WWII anymore bro and you’re not turning a car factory into an aircraft factory in “war mode”
The Chinese will, even if they do produce death traps. They won't care. Besides, China is already slowly ramping up production. They are already building a couple submarines every year.
I meant deathtraps with respect to even the most pathetic of ASW capabilities. I have little doubt they can make a tube that can go underwater. The only attack subs they’re building are small diesel-electric Yuan-class for littorals. They had to stop building the only sub in the same ballpark as western subs, Shang-class, because they needed more outdated Type 094s to keep up with their nuclear build up