AUKUS

[rattman]

If Navantia are offering that large a missile capacity, it would have to be in a new hull design as the F100 hull is very tight with the current AWD configuration, thus there would be no commonality with the existing fleet.


Did you bother reading the 96 cell was a mid life refit option to the existing 3 hobarts. While we dont much more information on the 128 cell except for the model at indopac, the 128 is a F110 hull

[Not_a_boffin]

All the latest information indicates that the Type 26 hull is the most suitable for RAN requirements despite the furore about the selection process. The very quiet drivetrain is part of the reason for the high cost but that is why it makes such a good ASW platform. The hull size allows much more flexibility with system installation and future growth as new technologies enter service.

I wouldn't bet on that.....

For avoidance of doubt, that doesn't mean the Hobart/F100 options would be better either.

Thrashing about because they've found that just modding Hunter to fit CEFAR is non-trivial and costly and because they've changed their fleet mix requirement.

[Going Boeing]

CEAFAR has weight in an elevated position, not additional total weight - due to a lot of the electronics being located immediately behind the antennas. This has been the main issue with integrating it into the Type 26 design. The additional volume available in the T26 hull (8,800t V 7.000 for Navantia) is such that BAES is confident that it can build the high capacity AWD with minimal changes.

The Navantia F110 design is more limiting and would require a huge amount of design work - why do that when it has already been done for a superior platform? I seriously doubt that a seaworthy version of the F110 could be built with 96 VLS without removing a lot of other essential capability, the hull size is too limiting.

[Not_a_boffin]

CEAFAR has weight in an elevated position, not additional total weight - due to a lot of the electronics being located immediately behind the antennas. This has been the main issue with integrating it into the Type 26 design. The additional volume available in the T26 hull (8,800t V 7.000 for Navantia) is such that BAES is confident that it can build the high capacity AWD with minimal changes.

The Navantia F110 design is more limiting and would require a huge amount of design work - why do that when it has already been done for a superior platform? I seriously doubt that a seaworthy version of the F110 could be built with 96 VLS without removing a lot of other essential capability, the hull size is too limiting.

You need to understand that "volume in the hull" is not the same as displacement volume, which what you've quoted (and btw the Hunter will end up displacing a lot more than 8800te....). There's also a teensy-weensy little question of stability, (including compliance with the provisions of DEF(AUST)5000), which is not simply a question what people tend to call topweight, but includes subdivision, freeboard and downflooding points - all of which can be affected by significant change of role and hence configuration. As will the majority of items of design information.

Once again - its not that F110 would be more or less limited - it would be subject to exactly the same limitations. This is an object lesson in what happens when you make a significant change to a baseline ship (T26 to Hunter) and then try to change it again, without understanding what you're doing.

[SLXOwft]

From what I understand the even the theoretically low risk conversion of FREMM to FFG-62 has had issues particularly with software development and integration. I will be interested to see how the Canadian Surface Combatant T26 adaptation progresses, but I don't think I would lose money betting on delays.

Number of VLS Tubes
Another potential oversight issue for Congress concerns the number of vertical launch system (VLS) missile tubes in the FFG-62 design. The VLS is the FFG-62’s principal (though not only) means of storing and launching missiles. FFG-62s are to each be equipped with 32 Mark 41 VLS tubes. (The Mark 41 is the Navy’s standard VLS design.)

Supporters of requiring each FFG-62 to be equipped with a larger number of VLS tubes, such as 48, might argue that FFG-62s are to be roughly three-quarters as large, and at least half as expensive to procure, as the Navy’s DDG-51 class destroyers, and might therefore be more appropriately equipped with at least 48 VLS tubes, which is one-half the number on recent DDG-51s. They might also argue that in a context of renewed great power competition with potential dversaries such as China, which is steadily improving its naval capabilities,29 it might be prudent to equip each FFG-62 with 48 rather than 32 VLS tubes each, and that doing so might only marginally increase FFG-62 unit procurement costs. They might also argue that equipping each FFG-62 with 48 rather than 32 VLS tubes will permit the Navy to more fully offset a substantial reduction in VLS tubes that the Navy’s surface fleet is projected to experience when the Navy’s 22 Ticonderoga (CG-47) class cruisers, which are each equipped with 122 VLS tubes, are retired, and provide a hedge against the possibility that Navy plans to field VLS tubes on Large Unmanned Surface Vehicles (LUSVs) will be slowed or curtailed for technical or other reasons.

Supporters of having each FFG-62 be equipped with 32 VLS tubes might argue that the analyses indicating a need for 32 VLS tubes already took improving adversary capabilities (as well as other U.S. Navy capabilities) into account. They might also argue that FFG-62s, in addition to having 32 VLS tubes, will also to have separate, deck-mounted box launchers for launching 16 anti-ship cruise missiles, as well as a separate, 21-cell Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM) AAW missile launcher; that Navy plans continue to call for eventually deploying additional VLS tubes on LUSVs, which are to act as adjunct weapon magazines for the Navy’s manned surface combatants; and that increasing the number of VLS tubes on each FFG-62 from 32 to 48 would increase (even if only marginally) the procurement cost of a ship that is intended to be an
affordable supplement to the Navy’s cruisers and destroyers.

A May 14, 2019, Navy information paper on expanding the cost impact of expanding the FFG-62 VLS capacity from 32 cells to 48 cells statesTo grow from a 32 Cell VLS to a 48 Cell VLS necessitates an increase in the length of the ship with a small beam increase and roughly a 200-ton increase in full load displacement. This will require a resizing of the ship, readdressing stability and seakeeping analyses, and adapting ship services to accommodate the additional 16 VLS cells.

A change of this nature would unnecessarily delay detail design by causing significant disruption to ship designs. Particularly the smaller ship designs. Potential competitors have already completed their Conceptual Designs and are entering the Detail Design and Construction competition with ship designs set to accommodate 32 cells.

The cost is estimated to increase between $16M [million] and $24M [million] per ship.This includes ship impacts and additional VLS cells.
Compared to an FFG-62 follow-on ship unit procurement cost of about $1.0 billion, the above estimated increase of $16 million to $24 million would equate to an increase in unit procurement cost of about 1.6% to about 2.4%.

Congeressional Research Service - Navy Constellation (FFG-62) Class Frigate Program: Background and Issues for Congress Updated December 20, 2023

I forgot to mention the workforce issues which are going to delay FFG-62 by at leat a year

ARLINGTON, Va. – The first Constellation-class guided-missile frigate will deliver at least a year late due in large part to workforce shortfalls at the Wisconsin yard where it’s built, USNI News has learned.

The service has briefed Congress that the future USS Constellation (FFG-62) could deliver in 2027 and that shipyard Fincantieri Marinette Marine has undergone an independent review to assess the delay, a legislative source confirmed to USNI News this week.

During a program briefing on Thursday at the annual Surface Navy Symposium, the deputy manager for the frigate program acknowledged potential schedule slippage in the program due to the workforce issues. When asked for a ballpark on the schedule, Andy Bosak told USNI News the assessment is “ongoing.”

“We do have challenge in the schedule. We are working that. Fincantieri has communicated to us of challenges within the schedule,” Bosak told USNI News.

“We are doing our analysis, as the Navy does, of doing deep dives of causes and effects and various different levers of which we can pull within that shipyard,” he added. “And we need to, as a program, work with our leadership, kind of figure out what we want to do. And from that, we will make that assessment as to what the actual schedule impact is of where we are. And that effort is ongoing.”

Following an earlier version of this post, Secretary of the Navy Carlos Del Toro announced a review of Navy shipbuilding, citing concerns with the frigate program and the Columbia-class ballistic missile submarine program. NAVSEA head Vice Adm. Jim Downey and assistant secretary of the Navy for research, development and acquisition Nickolas Guertin will lead the evaluation.

“The American public should know that the Department of the Navy is committed to developing, delivering, and sustaining the finest warfighting capability to our Sailors and Marines,” Del Toro said in a statement. “We will continue to work with industry and all other stakeholders to strengthen our national shipbuilding capacity, both naval and commercial.”
USNI News - January 11, 2024 5:04 PM - Updated: January 11, 2024 9:59 PM

[ORAC]

https://asiatimes.com/2024/02/new-zealand-one-step-closer-to-joining-aukus/

New Zealand one step closer to joining AUKUS

The National-led coalition government is off to a fast start internationally. In envisioning a more central role for the ANZAC alliance with Australia, and possible involvement in the AUKUS (https://www.cfr.org/in-brief/aukus-explained-how-will-trilateral-pact-shape-indo-pacific-security) security pact, it is recalibrating New Zealand’s independent foreign policy.

At the inaugural Australia-New Zealand Foreign and Defense Ministerial (ANZMIN (https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/morningreport/audio/2018924310/australia-and-new-zealand-foreign-and-defence-ministers-in-inaugural-meeting)) meeting in Melbourne earlier this year, the focus was on future-proofing the trans-Tasman alliance.

Detailed discussions took place on the defense and security aspects of the relationship. This included global strategic issues, the Indo-Pacific region, and the relevance of the partnership in the Pacific.

But the stage for this shift in New Zealand’s independent foreign policy had already been set by the Labour government in 2023.

In his foreword to the country’s first National Security Strategy (https://www.dpmc.govt.nz/sites/default/files/2023-11/national-security-strategy-aug2023.pdf) last year, then-prime minister Chris Hipkins wrote that New Zealand “faces a fundamentally more challenging security outlook.” The strategy document called for a “national conversation on foreign policy.”

Christopher Luxon’s administration is taking the logical next step by increasing cooperation with Canberra….

New Zealand’s independent foreign policy has to be redefined in response to present strategic circumstances rather than past interpretations, however well they may have served us. These historic positions, recently put forward (https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/helen-clark-and-don-brash-aukus-nz-must-not-abandon-our-independent-foreign-policy/LLYEOE4WH5AY5DTV3D323OXRUU/) by former National leader Don Brash and former prime minister Helen Clark, have run their course.

At the sharp end of this recalibration is AUKUS, the technology partnership involving Australia, the UK and the US. New Zealand has expressed an interest (https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/new-zealands-luxon-talk-defence-economy-australia-2023-12-19/) in participating in “pillar two” of the agreement, involving non-nuclear technology sharing.

A joint statement (https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/joint-statement-australia-new-zealand-ministerial-consultations-anzmin-2024) released after the ANZMIN consultations stated that AUKUS was discussed as “a positive contribution toward maintaining peace, security and prosperity in the Indo-Pacific.”….

[golder]

The Honorable Bonnie D. Jenkins Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security U.S. Department of State
ITAR exemption for UK and AU, looking to mid April

AUKUS Implementation and Challenges to International Security and Arms Control in the 21st Century - YouTube

[ORAC]

The Hunter-class (a Type 26 variant) frigate programme has been cut from nine ships to six. Australia will now look at Six Hunter class frigates, 11 new general purpose frigates and six new Large Optionally Crewed Surface Vessels (LOSVs).

https://x.com/warinthefuture/status/1759735461789220880?s=61&t=rmEeUn68HhlFHGKbTPQr_A


Details of the Australian Navy’s new future fleet plan have been released. Planned future fleet: 26 large surface combatants (incl 6 optionally crewed) & 25 patrol vessels.

https://www.defence.gov.au/about/reviews-inquiries/independent-analysis-navy-surface-combatant-fleet

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1214x723/image_2463cf3f7d536ad844632cd67ddc031e3ad8e1ac.png

[ORAC]

https://www.afr.com/policy/foreign-affairs/awakening-of-a-maritime-nation-50-years-in-the-making-20240219-p5f5yb

Awakening of a maritime nation 50 years in the making

It is a historic day when the government has finally agreed to support an enhanced surface combatant fleet capability for the Royal Australian Navy.

[Going Boeing]

A very historic day.

Of the options for the GP Frigate, I think that the updated Mogami FFM would give the RAN the best bang for buck as well as having some good political outcomes.

https://navalinstitute.com.au/from-rocks-to-tigers-advocating-for-japans-30ffm-frigate-acquisition/

[Bug]

A very historic day.
......

Only if you believe it will all happen.

This is politicians being politicians, and an ever gullible crowd of defence watches being offered "cake and circuses" on the never never.
Defence Ministers and PM's have made big announcements about major RAN acquisitions in the past, with grandiose major fleet upgrades and more ships or submarines than anyone expected, and lots of money in the forward estimates, and it all comes to be revised after the next election.
ie
replace 6 conventional subs with 12 new better French subs.
replace 8 ANZAC frigates with 9 bigger and better ones (Hunter Class) that we will alter to customise for our needs
12 bigger steel OPV to upgrade from the poor aluminium patrol boats that were bashed to death on patrols in heavy sea states

- all of which never actually got delivered

Perhaps someone will soon come up with "this time it is different".
This is more money and time wasted when we don't have a lot of money or time to waste.

[Doors Off]

They will have to start Shanghaiing the Boat People Arrivals to huperson (crew) them.

[golder]

AUKUS sub may need a plan B. It can't kill a butterfly.

AUKUS 'first foe' is a rare butterfly colony in South Australia (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/other/aukus-first-foe-is-a-rare-butterfly-colony-in-south-australia/ar-BB1iL30v)

[ORAC]

One Los Angeles Class sub - available NET 2029 - low mileage….

https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2024/02/23/sub-boise-will-begin-its-overhaul-nine-years-late-with-12b-contract/

Sub Boise will begin its overhaul nine years late, with $1.2B contract

[rattman]

One Los Angeles Class sub - available NET 2029 - low mileage….

https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2024/02/23/sub-boise-will-begin-its-overhaul-nine-years-late-with-12b-contract/

Sub Boise will begin its overhaul nine years late, with $1.2B contract


First thing I thought when I read it a few days ago training sub for Australia

[West Coast]

One Los Angeles Class sub - available NET 2029 - low mileage….

https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2024/02/23/sub-boise-will-begin-its-overhaul-nine-years-late-with-12b-contract/

Sub Boise will begin its overhaul nine years late, with $1.2B contract

Interesting article. SUBSAFE QA and all, can’t help but think of Boeing commercial aircraft division as I read it.

[Going Boeing]

The USA appears to really want Japan’s involvement with AUKUS Pillar 2.

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2024/03/03/japan/politics/japan-aukus-pillar-2-participation/#:~:text=There%20are%20no%20plans%20to,“potentially%20bring% 20in%20others.”

[Lonewolf_50]

Saw a blurb the other day (was it on Linked in?) about Huntington Ingalls wanting to (or intending to?) increase the annual rate of sub production...it is currently in an abysmal state. (IMHO).

[golder]

It's the way US procurement works. They cry doom and gloom to congress to get money. Lobbyists and direct political donations, get the money. In this case to refit their yards. They have said they can normally do 2 a year. With covid and lifetime parts that failed and no spares. They took them from current builds. This also slowed things up to the 1.5 a year. So the real base is 2 a year, but they have previously said they can do 3, if they get the money.

[golder]

A Conversation with the AUKUS Army Chiefs on Land Power's Contribution to AUKUS Pillar 2.
Last year, the Australian, British, and U.S. army chiefs signed a statement of intent identifying capabilities of priority for cooperation. This effort is intended to contribute to the broader work under AUKUS Pillar 2. In this panel discussion moderated by Dr. Charles Edel, U.S. General Randy A. George, UK General Sir Patrick Sanders, and Australian Lieutenant General Simon Stuart will discuss AUKUS Pillar 2 from a land domain perspective and how the three armies can work together to enhance collaborative efforts in capability developments.
A Conversation with the AUKUS Army Chiefs on Land Power’s Contribution to AUKUS Pillar 2 (youtube.com)

[rattman]

It's the way US procurement works. They cry doom and gloom to congress to get money. Lobbyists and direct political donations, get the money. In this case to refit their yards. They have said they can normally do 2 a year. With covid and lifetime parts that failed and no spares. They took them from current builds. This also slowed things up to the 1.5 a year. So the real base is 2 a year, but they have previously said they can do 3, if they get the money.

2025 budget has only 1 virginia also mention 12 month delay in delivery of Columbia

[golder]

Always think of a circus act. Then you have unfunded procurement, added on by congress. Often, it's more F-35 and a maybe sub added this year. I can't see them slowing down, one of the 2 lines. I haven't heard of a bottleneck, stopping 2 subs. I would have to google, but I recall them adding subs before. The bigger question is, will they allow the retirement of A-10?:E

[Video Mixdown]

Always think of a circus act. Then you have unfunded procurement, added on by congress. Often, it's more F-35 and a maybe sub added this year. I can't see them closing, one of the 2 lines. I haven't heard of a bottleneck, stopping 2 subs. I would have to google, but I recall them adding subs before. The bigger question is, will they allow the retirement of A-10?:E
Will Australia be the next ally to be thrown under the bus by Trump?

[golder]

If it's a circus now? Trump as the ringmaster, will set the tent on fire. After NATO, it could be Australia. Could enough Americans be so deluded, as to vote him into power?
(this will be reported, by avid fans. We will see if the mods let this comment stand. I don't know where the floor is for protecting Trump? I've had another Trump comment deleted, that I saw as factual)

USNI has an article on subs, it may stand as 1 this year. We will see, as in time, all will be revealed. It may be the cry for the more infrastructure money.
Navy Will Ask for 1 Virginia-Class Sub in FY 25 Shipbuilding Budget, Increase Amphib Production - USNI News (https://news.usni.org/2024/02/20/navy-will-ask-for-1-virginia-class-sub-in-fy-25-shipbuilding-budget-increase-amphib-production)
Critics of cutting the submarine budget say that buying fewer than two per year will send a dangerous signal to U.S. allies about Washington’s lack of commitment to the AUKUS plan. Last month, a bipartisan group of lawmakers sent a letter to the Biden administration outlining this argument.

“Simply put, now is not the time to insert instability in the supply chain with uncertainty in procurement rates,” House Armed Services Committee lawmakers (https://news.usni.org/2024/01/18/house-members-send-warning-to-white-house-over-aukus-attack-submarine-procurement) wrote in the letter, dated Jan. 17 and reported by USNI News.
“The FY2025 budget will come at a pivotal time for the Virginia-class submarine program and sustaining our unmatched edge in the undersea domain. Any deviation from the planned cadence of the construction and procurement of two submarines per year will reverberate both at home and abroad, with allies and competitors alike.”

[ORAC]

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-03-13/us-defence-announcement-raises-questions-on-aukus-anniversary/103578408

Pentagon sparks fresh AUKUS doubts on anniversary of Australia's nuclear-powered submarine plans

[golder]

Remember it's a circus. This is the important part of the FUD article.

"However, this week's Pentagon budget proposal requests Congress to appropriate a further $US4 billion for the US submarine industrial base in 2025, and $US11.1 billion over five years, for a "historic" investment to expand production."

The primes want 15 billion, plus what Australia will throw in the pot.

[Asturias56]

"Democratic congressman Joe Courtney,"

that would be the man who represents the Second Congressional District of Connecticut which is right next door to the main builders of submarines in the USA ?

[ORAC]

Seems SSN-AUKUS will be the lead design…..

https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2024/03/14/navy-delays-next-generation-submarine-start-to-early-2040s/

Navy delays next-generation submarine start to early 2040s

The U.S. Navy is pushing back the start of construction on its next-generation attack submarine by nearly a decade, citing tight budgets (https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2024/03/11/navy-postpones-several-modernization-programs-to-pay-for-operations/)and a need to fund current and near-term operations.

A Navy spokesperson told Defense News construction on the lead ship of the SSN(X) program, which will follow the Virginia-class attack submarine, is now planned to start in the “early 2040s.” The Navy last year planned to begin the ship class in 2035, and it was previously set for a 2031 start…..

The Navy is asking for $586.9 million for SSN(X) design and development efforts in FY25, up slightly from the $544.7 million it requested in FY24….

[JeanKhul]

Seems SSN-AUKUS will be the lead design…..

https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2024/03/14/navy-delays-next-generation-submarine-start-to-early-2040s/

Navy delays next-generation submarine start to early 2040s

The U.S. Navy is pushing back the start of construction on its next-generation attack submarine by nearly a decade, citing tight budgets (https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2024/03/11/navy-postpones-several-modernization-programs-to-pay-for-operations/)and a need to fund current and near-term operations.

A Navy spokesperson told Defense News construction on the lead ship of the SSN(X) program, which will follow the Virginia-class attack submarine, is now planned to start in the “early 2040s.” The Navy last year planned to begin the ship class in 2035, and it was previously set for a 2031 start…..

The Navy is asking for $586.9 million for SSN(X) design and development efforts in FY25, up slightly from the $544.7 million it requested in FY24….

French offer still available....

[Buster Hyman]

French offer still available....
Are you suggesting A-FUKUS???? :E

[ORAC]

https://x.com/pinstripedline/status/1768532533933752631?s=61&t=rmEeUn68HhlFHGKbTPQr_A


Impressive - also note the RN and RAN Ensigns on display - a gentle reminder of AUKUS importance.

Virginia Block III-class fast-attack submarine USS Indiana (SSN-789) surfaced in Beaufort Sea, Arctic Circle, near Ice Camp Whale during Operation Ice Camp 2024 on March 13, 2024. Photos & info via @ryankakiuchan

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1333/image_17a07a1d2c0114ad85a4e17f00ee00e14496ef9f.png

https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1333/image_4a482ceb0e659517f3efb0caf0bb46d61507ed7c.png

https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1974x1110/image_aa14f79ce985717a445313e9e7d47ff9adfcde5e.jpeg
​​​​​​​

[JeanKhul]

Anyway, Netherlands just decided today to buy four Barracuda submarines from French Naval Group.

Smaller contrat than the deceased one with Australia, but more serious customers - and they know how to go to war.

Kom op vrienden !

[golder]

but more serious customers - and they know how to go to war.
There's nothing like waving a national flag. Do you feel better now?


Canada’s Strategic Role in AUKUS Pillar 2: Security, Stability, and Deterrence in the Indo-Pacific • Stimson Center (https://www.stimson.org/event/canadas-strategic-role-in-aukus-pillar-2-security-stability-and-deterrence-in-the-indo-pacific/)Canada’s Strategic Role in AUKUS Pillar 2: Security, Stability, and Deterrence in the Indo-Pacific

[Buster Hyman]

- and they know how to go to war.
Cool. Then you don't need us to help the next time Europe goes Postal on each other! :ok:

[ORAC]

https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/defence-and-foreign-affairs/albanese-government-removes-asio-and-asis-heads-from-national-security-committee-of-cabinet/news-story/87c6df6a8b8f7b52b03a547e6245cafe

Albanese government removes ASIO and ASIS heads from National Security Committee of Cabinet

[bugged on the right]

https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/defence-and-foreign-affairs/albanese-government-removes-asio-and-asis-heads-from-national-security-committee-of-cabinet/news-story/87c6df6a8b8f7b52b03a547e6245cafe

Albanese government removes ASIO and ASIS heads from National Security Committee of Cabinet


Blimey, that sounds sinister. Perhaps these two have been increasingly strident about the threat China poses.

[Bug]

https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/defence-and-foreign-affairs/albanese-government-removes-asio-and-asis-heads-from-national-security-committee-of-cabinet/news-story/87c6df6a8b8f7b52b03a547e6245cafe

Albanese government removes ASIO and ASIS heads from National Security Committee of Cabinet

They probably have been telling Albanese things he doesn't want to hear.
They probably said it wasn't a good idea for Albo to glad hand and almost hug Xi at meeting a couple of days after Chinese Navy turned active sonar on RAN divers in water trying to clear a fouled propeller on our frigate, causing significant injury.
Xi must have been laughing at the fawning weak Australian.

[golder]

Murdoch press hit piece. What a nothing story. They aren't elected and can't be a committee member. They are brought in as advisors and will continue to do so with the current and next govt. Liberal or Labor

National Security Committee (Australia) - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Committee_(Australia)#:~:text=The%20respon sibilities%20of%20the%20National,terrorism%2C%20military%20o perations%20and%20the)
The National Security Committee (NSC), also known as the National Security Committee of Cabinet,[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Committee_(Australia)#cite_note-oni-1) is the peak decision-making body for national security (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security) and major foreign policy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_policy) matters in the Australian Government (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Government). It is a committee of the Cabinet of Australia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabinet_of_Australia), though decisions of the NSC do not require the endorsement of the Cabinet itselfOther attendees[edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_Security_Committee_(Australia)&action=edit&section=7)]As the peak decision-making body on national security, the NSC is also attended and advised by the Secretaries (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Departmental_Secretary) for each respective public service (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Public_Service) department (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Australian_Commonwealth_Government_entities) represented by a Minister on the NSC. As such, NSC attendance also includes the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_of_the_Prime_Minister_and_Cabinet_(Australia)), the Department of Defence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_of_Defence_(Australia)), the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_of_Foreign_Affairs_and_Trade_(Australia)), the Department of the Treasury (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_of_the_Treasury_(Australia)), and the Department of Home Affairs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_of_Home_Affairs_(Australia)).[16] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Committee_(Australia)#cite_note-Case_for-16)

The Chief of the Defence Force (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_of_the_Defence_Force_(Australia)) and other senior ADF officers also attend if requested or required by the NSC.[16] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Committee_(Australia)#cite_note-Case_for-16)

Other government ministers, such as the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minister_for_Trade,_Tourism_and_Investment), are invited to attend meetings as required. The Leader of the Opposition (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Australian_Leaders_of_the_Opposition) is also sometimes invited to attend for important briefings.[23] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Committee_(Australia)#cite_note-23)

As mentioned above, the NSC met numerous times during the 2020 coronavirus pandemic with attendance by the Minister for Health and the Chief Medical Officer.[24] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Committee_(Australia)#cite_note-24)

[megan]

Then you don't need us to help the next time Europe goes Postal on each other!They won't let you into the country Buster, last time there EU members could walk straight through immigration, we had to go through the "foreigners" door. Must admit it left a bit of a taste in the mouth, being ex miliary, and remembering the blood our guys spilt on their behalf in two world wars. ;) The world and time moves on.

[Tocsin]

They won't let you into the country Buster, last time there EU members could walk straight through immigration, we had to go through the "foreigners" door. Must admit it left a bit of a taste in the mouth, being ex miliary, and remembering the blood our guys spilt on their behalf in two world wars. ;) The world and time moves on.

I'm ex-military too (UK), and most of my operational time since 2001 has been in support of US wars - Iraq (twice), Afghanistan (lost count), Syria... plus others outside of Europe where the US has taken a back seat. May I remind you that the only time Article 5 was invoked to date was after 11th September 2001?

Do I begrudge that? No, but I do sometimes question the "two-way" bit of alliances.

And guess what, I have to go throught the "foreigners" door and get my passport stamped too.

[ORAC]

https://www.politico.eu/article/aukus-donald-trump-joe-biden-david-cameron-britain-us-pacific-defense-pact/

Pacific defense pact before election turmoil

Japan and Canada could join AUKUS before the end of 2024.

LONDON — The U.K., U.S. and Australia are rushing to expand their trilateral AUKUS defense partnership to further allied nations before potentially tumultuous elections in all three countries over the next 14 months.

One senior diplomat involved in the talks told POLITICO that Japan and Canada are in line to join the so-called pillar 2 section of the AUKUS agreement, which will see participants sign up to extensive military technology collaboration, by the end of 2024 or early 2025.

It comes amid fears in Washington, London and Canberra that Donald Trump could wind back or scrap the AUKUS deal if he wins the November presidential election.

The AUKUS security agreement was first announced in September 2021. Its first part, pillar 1 involves the U.S. and U.K. helping Australia build nuclear-powered submarines.

Pillar 2 of the agreement allows the three nations to agree on deals to develop advanced military technology in areas such as artificial intelligence, hypersonic missiles and quantum technologies.

It was always envisioned that pillar 2 could be expanded to further U.S. allies, with Japan, Canada, New Zealand and South Korea among those expressing interest in joining.

A second diplomat involved in the talks said U.S. President Joe Biden’s administration was now “pushing really hard to get some things on AUKUS pillar 2 done now, before the U.S. election” in November, which may see Trump retake the White House.

A White House official told POLITICO that "the president and his partners have been clear that as our work progresses on pillar 2 we would look for opportunities to engage other allies and close partners."

While he has yet to speak in public about the AUKUS deal, Trump has doubled-down on his America First rhetoric during the campaign and may adopt a more isolationist foreign policy position.

The U.K. is due to hold its own general election before the end of this year, while Australia is set to go to the polls by May 2025.

The first diplomat quoted in this piece said the return of “American isolationism is a risk to the Indo-Pacific” and that there will be a moment, if Trump wins, where Western leaders will phone each other up and ask: “What the **** are we going to do now?”

That means, they suggested, rushing to sign new partners up to AUKUS now while the White House is still occupied by an administration that favors the pact.

“If pillar 2 fails then AUKUS fails, because we could have just had a submarine deal — albeit a very big submarine deal,” they said.……

U.K. Foreign Secretary David Cameron and U.K. Defense Secretary Grant Shapps travel to Australia this week to hold meetings with their Australian counterparts.

The pair will also meet with Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, who is expected to provide a public update on the core submarine project amid fears in Canberra that America's decision to scale down submarine production (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/australia-confident-receiving-nuclear-submarines-us-funding-cut-aukus-rcna143120) could put the AUKUS deal in jeopardy.

Messmer warned that a second Trump presidency is a “big risk” to the future of the entire AUKUS deal, as the U.S. has to loan Australia several submarines as a part of the deal while new ones are being built.

“If Trump is unwilling to deliver because they don’t want to spare the subs or don’t want to anger China that could definitely jeopardise the Aukus agreement,” she said.

“That prospect is frightening officials in Australia now.”…..

[golder]

ORAC, don't you read and do simple fact checks? the story has several holes in it.

[dagenham]

ORAC, don't you read and do simple fact checks? the story has several holes in it.

such as ?

[ORAC]

https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/Defense/Australia-sure-it-will-get-nuclear-subs-despite-U.S.-funding-cut

Australia sure it will get nuclear subs despite U.S. funding cut

[golder]

such as ?
"Messmer warned that a second Trump presidency is a “big risk” to the future of the entire AUKUS deal, as the U.S. has to loan Australia several submarines as a part of the deal while new ones are being built."

Nothing is right in this paragraph. It's bipartisan, corporates want it. Trump will do as he's told to at the end of the day. Worst case, he is out in 2028, still got time for early 2030's delivery. They aren't loaning subs. We are buying 2 secondhand with 20 years left on them. The new build is 1 with an option for 2 more.

Also the main sub isn't the US, but UK/AU
Australia moves to prop up Aukus with $4.6bn pledge to help clear Rolls-Royce nuclear reactor bottlenecks in UK | Aukus | The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/21/australia-moves-to-prop-up-aukus-with-46bn-pledge-to-help-clear-rolls-royce-nuclear-reactor-bottlenecks-in-uk)The Australian government will seek to prop up the Aukus (https://www.theguardian.com/world/aukus) pact by sending A$4.6bn (£2.4bn) to the UK to clear bottlenecks at the Rolls-Royce nuclear reactor production line.

The funding – revealed on the eve of high-level talks between the Australian and UK governments on Friday – is in addition to billions of dollars that will be sent to the US (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/dec/14/us-congress-passes-bill-allowing-sale-of-aukus-nuclear-submarines-to-australia) to smooth over production delays there.

The Australian government will also announce on Friday that the government-owned shipbuilder ASC and the British defence firm BAE Systems will jointly build the nuclear-powered submarines for the Royal Australian Navy.

[golder]

https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/Defense/Australia-sure-it-will-get-nuclear-subs-despite-U.S.-funding-cut

Australia sure it will get nuclear subs despite U.S. funding cut

What funding cut? If they go one sub. They are spending the other money on sustainment. Wait and see what congress does. Remember, it's a circus. They are getting 15 billion taxpayer funds to rebuild their yards. To increase production above 2 a year.

[ORAC]

What funding cut?
They’ve cut $10B and one sub from the 2025 budget request.

Being spun as reducing the pressure on present production to allow increased cash and manpower to improve the manufacturing base to support a later increase to 2 subs a year.

https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2024/3/11/navy-drops-virginia-class-by-one-in-constrained-2025-budget-request

Fact remains that, at the point the planned handover of subs to Australia is due to take place the fleet will be 46 out of a planned/required 66.

Not saying it won’t take place - but it’s politics and could come under pressure in Congress. Sale is on the proviso that:

Not less than 270 days prior to the transfer of a vessel authorized under subsection (a), the President shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees and leadership a certification that—

(A)(i) the transfer of such vessels will not impact United States undersea operational requirements….

(B) the United States has the industrial capacity to meet and maintain the submarine production requirements needed to meet both the need for Virginia class and Columbia class submarines…



https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/4619/text?s=1&r=2&q=%7B%22search%22%3A%22national+defense+authorization+act+20 24%22%7D

[rattman]

What funding cut? If they go one sub. They are spending the other money on sustainment. Wait and see what congress does. Remember, it's a circus. They are getting 15 billion taxpayer funds to rebuild their yards. To increase production above 2 a year.


Yeah not really a funding cut, what has happened previously including 2022 and 2023 is the navy cuts the sub purchase. Congress after much hand wringing give them an additional budget to get the submarine, the target number is actually 3, 2 virginia per year and 1 Columbia every 18 months + catching up delayed maintainence

[golder]

Fact remains that, at the point the planned handover of subs to Australia is due to take place the fleet will be 46 out of a planned/required 66.

Not saying it won’t take place - but it’s politics and could come under pressure in Congress. Sale is on the proviso that:


You have the wrong end of the stick. No one has ever accused the US of being altruistic. The US wants to forward deploy to Australia. They need nuke sub infrastructure and manpower. It is better for the US, to have Australia with a few of their nuke subs. The main sub is going to be the UK/AU. It's actually a disadvantage to Australia to run 2 types of attack subs. There will be more articles with FUD headlines than I could count over the next 10 years. Congress will also play their games. At the end of the day the primes are going to make money and let's face it. That's all that matters.

Yeah not really a funding cut, what has happened previously including 2022 and 2023 is the navy cuts the sub purchase. Congress after much hand wringing give them an additional budget to get the submarine, the target number is actually 3, 2 virginia per year and 1 Columbia every 18 months + catching up delayed maintainence
It's the way the game is played. The only reason they won't order a sub. Is because there is still one on the yard. They aren't going to close part of the yard and lay off the manpower for a year. Only to start again. That would cost more than the sub. Unless the build years for the 2025 sub is when they want to do major upgrades to both yards? That is also a possibility. There will be a disruption. Over say a 5 year plan. They lose the time to build one sub. That is later made up by the increased production.

[MightyGem]

British Aerospace to build the submarines, Rolls Royce the power plant.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-firm-appointed-to-build-australian-aukus-submarines

[Going Boeing]

Since British Aerospace has grown massively and now encompasses a lot of non aerospace work, they prefer to be known as BAE Systems - similar to how BOC Gases wants everyone to forget that they were originally British Oxygen Company.

Apart from that bit of trivia, it would be good to know the technicalities of how the Australian taxpayer money is appropriated & accounted for. Some reports are that the RR facility that assembles the nuclear reactors will be jointly owned by the British & Australian governments so that is a tangible asset but with a limited customer base, I can’t see the market growing.

[ORAC]

https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/australia-and-britain-deepen-defence-cooperation-but-are-they-allies/

Australia and Britain deepen defence cooperation, but are they allies?

Australia and Britain have concluded a new treaty-level Defence and Security Cooperation Agreement (DSCA). To what extent does this move the dial of their close defence relationship towards a formal alliance? This question matters because the informal, customary nature of the Australia-UK relationship may no longer be appropriate for the strategic tests that lie ahead.

The answer is that they’ve moved significantly closer to becoming de facto allies, with commitments that approach, though do not quite reach, the level of Australia’s alliance with the US, ANZUS. Also, Anglo-Australian military cooperation is intensifying…..

The UK is more strategically aligned with Australia now than at any time since the early 1960s or even earlier. Their shared path might never take the form of a de jure alliance, but, as last week’s developments demonstrate, they are well on track to becoming de facto allies.

[Asturias56]

I don't think we need a de-jure alliance with Australia

[SLXOwft]

AFAIK OZ and the UK do have a common defence treaty. In that the treaty that underlay SEATO, the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty, is (IIRC) still in force for those countries that didn't formally withdraw or cease to exist (Pakistan and South Vietnam). Its affects in relation to the PRC depend on whether the signatories consider the CCP is actually Communist:E.

Article IV
1. Each Party recognizes that aggression by means of armed attack treaty area against any of the Parties or against any State or territory which Parties by unanimous agreement may hereafter designate, would endanger own peace and safety, and agrees that it will in that event act to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional processes. Measures taken this paragraph shall be immediately reported to the Security Council of United Nations.

2. If, in the opinion of any of the Parties, the inviolability or the integrity the territory or the sovereignty or political independence of any Party in treaty area or of any other State or territory to which the provisions of paragraph 1 of this Article from time to time apply is threatened in any way other than armed attack or is affected or threatened by any fact or situation which endanger the peace of the area, the Parties shall consult immediately in order agree on the measures which should be taken for the common defense.

The USA has a particular interpretation of IV.1

Article XI
(...)
UNDERSTANDING OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
The United States of America in executing the present Treaty does so with the understanding that its recognition of the effect of aggression and armed attack and its agreement with reference thereto in Article IV, paragraph 1, apply only to communist aggression but affirms that in the event of other aggression or armed attack it will consult under the provisions of Article IV, paragraph 2.

The treaty area's northern limit is just south of Taiwan & Hong Kong so way south of Japan.

Article VIII
As used in this Treaty, the "treaty area" is the general area of Southeast Asia, including also the entire territories of the Asian Parties, and the general area of the Southwest Pacific not including the Pacific area north of 21 degrees 30 minutes north latitude. The Parties may, by unanimous agreement, amend this Article to include within the treaty area the territory of any State acceding to this Treaty in accordance with Article VII or otherwise to change the treaty area.

[rattman]

They pulled out the model of SSN-AUKUS again.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GJhTj_DXMAAgiBE?format=jpg&name=4096x4096

Same model that was at indopac 2023

https://www.navalnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/SSN-AUKUS-BAE-Systems-DSEI-2023.jpg

[Asturias56]

Look on the bright side - they didn't spend a million on a new model....................

[JeanKhul]

French Naval Group just sold two Barracudas to the Indonesian Navy.
After the Dutch contract (four submarines two weeks ago) the Aukus contract is well forgotten.
And those customers will get their ships in time.... as did India, Brasil, Chile and Malaysia in their time.
So long, boys.

Naval Group vend deux sous-marins du type Scorpène à l’Indonésie | Mer et Marine (https://www.meretmarine.com/fr/defense/naval-group-vend-deux-sous-marins-du-type-scorpene-a-l-indonesie?utm_source=newsletter-mm&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=MEM_RED_NWL_MEL_03042024_newsletter-quotidienne)

[rattman]

French Naval Group just sold two Barracudas to the Indonesian Navy.

No they didn't Scorpene are not barracuda. Even the report got it right, but somehow you didn't

[JeanKhul]

No they didn't Scorpene are not barracuda. Even the report got it right, but somehow you didn't

I can tell you they are the same - only the name differs. And I have been sufficiently below the surface with them to be in a position to confirm it.
So too bad for you guys, once again.
Call me back when you get your british (or american, or whatever) subs.

[rattman]

I can tell you they are the same - only the name differs. And I have been sufficiently below the surface with them to be in a position to confirm it.
So too bad for you guys, once again.
Call me back when you get your british (or american, or whatever) subs.


lol now I know you are liar, scorpene and barracudas are different subs scorpene are about 2000 tons displacement attack was about 4500 tons displacement

take your butthurt to somewhere that cares

[Going Boeing]

French Naval Group just sold two Barracudas to the Indonesian Navy.
After the Dutch contract (four submarines two weeks ago) the Aukus contract is well forgotten.
And those customers will get their ships in time.... as did India, Brasil, Chile and Malaysia in their time.
So long, boys.

Naval Group vend deux sous-marins du type Scorpène à l’Indonésie | Mer et Marine (https://www.meretmarine.com/fr/defense/naval-group-vend-deux-sous-marins-du-type-scorpene-a-l-indonesie?utm_source=newsletter-mm&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=MEM_RED_NWL_MEL_03042024_newsletter-quotidienne)

You must feel very happy that all these submarines that Naval Group are selling will be built in a massive building in Cherbourg, France, that has been paid for by Australian taxpayers.

[HK144]

I can tell you they are the same - only the name differs. And I have been sufficiently below the surface with them to be in a position to confirm it.
So too bad for you guys, once again.
Call me back when you get your british (or american, or whatever) subs.

We will but not before you call us back when France can produce a tank that has more forward gears than reverse!

[ORAC]

I am not sure why this spleen and resentment still exists.

Australia reconsidered their strategic needs and decided they needed nuclear subs due to the threat and the vast patrol areas to be covered.

They also decided, again for strategic reasons, they couldn't consider subs which need their reactors to be refuelled mid-life, meaning an extended absence from operations for up to 5 years and being dependent on the good will of the supplying nation decades hence.

The only 3 allied nations with SSKNs are France, the UK and the USA.

France, for its own reasons, has switched from HEU to LEU reactors requiring mid-life refuelling, acceptable for France which can perform this domestically, but not acceptable for Australia.

Both the UK and the USA continue to use HEU reactors which will last the life of a boat. The USA is considering switching to LEU (but it doubt that will go further than theoretical trials), so SSN-AUKUS will be built around a UK built reactor.

End of.

The French contract was cancelled, they've done extremely well out of the initial deal and the cancellation settlement. Apart from pique and rancour I can't see why some people just don't accept the logic of the above and move on.

I am sure that, based on history, Australia is more than willing to make further purchases from France - as long as nobody wants to use any negotiations as an opportunity to throw their toys out of the cot again.

[rattman]

I am sure that, based on history, Australia is more than willing to make further purchases from France - as long as nosy wants to use any negotiations as an opportunity to throw their toys out of the cot again.

And france still wanted and still got open access to Australian naval bases. Agreement was formally signed late last year. Gives the French navy access to all Australian Navy bases and RAN access to all french bases in the indo pacific

Its the first part of the Australia France Bilateral roadmap, apparently its already covers to be a standing invitiation for french aircraft to participate in Pitch Black and the Navy / Army in Talisman Sabre

[Flap Track 6]

I'm sure somone will write a good book on this saga one day, like they did with the Collins class shenanigans.

Before going to the French, the RAN wanted the Astute class but the Aus politicians wouldn't countenance nuclear. The tried to get BAES interested in doing a non-nuclear Astute but it never went anywhere. By the time they finally realised they had to go nuclear, they were too late for Astute, so need to go with Astute replacement.

'Steel, Spies & Spin' is recommended bedtime reading for anyone in the UK submarine business.
Also 'End of an Era' by RJ Daniels which has a chapter on Aus O class replacement. I lent that book to one of the senior British sub engineers involved with Collins and he said it rang true.

[ORAC]

Only pillar 2… so far…..

https://globalnews.ca/news/10409582/canada-aukus-alliance-trudeau/

Canada exploring possibility of joining AUKUS alliance, Trudeau says

https://archive.ph/2024.04.08-180349/https://www.ft.com/content/f93e7d2f-5d60-4f77-88f1-96fc61115378

US, UK and Australia say Japan could join part of Aukus pact

[ORAC]

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/work-ongoing-for-uk-nuclear-sub-to-operate-from-australia/

Work ongoing for UK nuclear sub to operate from Australia

As part of AUKUS, the United Kingdom and the United States are establishing a rotational presence of one UK Astute class submarine and up to four U.S. Virginia class submarines at HMAS Stirling, located near Perth in Western Australia, by 2027….

[rattman]

Only pillar 2… so far…..

https://globalnews.ca/news/10409582/canada-aukus-alliance-trudeau/

Canada exploring possibility of joining AUKUS alliance, Trudeau says



He does later talk about nuclear subs (Pillar 1) but while canada considers the northwest passage internal waterway and the US and several other big maritime countries consider it international passage they wont get in. Same reason the US killed SSN Canada and nothing has changed some is going to have to fold

[ORAC]

https://x.com/gabriel64869839/status/1777618512783069427?s=61&t=rmEeUn68HhlFHGKbTPQr_A


AUKUS is expanding its Pillar II component to Land capabilities, with a focus on Long Range Fires for 2024.

Both Australia and UK intend to adopt the Precision Strike Missile and UK has ambitious plans for putting advanced payloads on GMLRS rockets, so there is obvious scope.

​​​​​​​

[ORAC]

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1089x1029/image_286c142565ea4b6fea1494d919f73755d9cffca2.png

[rattman]

I posted that on the warzone a few hours ago. You lurk there Orac ?

[ORAC]

No………

[Asturias56]

This weeks Economist

"Some Australians are increasingly sceptical of AUKUS -The government needs to sell its ground-breaking security pact much harder................................ A decades-long commitment, then, with a big price tag—the subs alone are expected to cost Australia up to $368bn. In return, AUKUS ties Australia’s security more closely to America’s and, Australia hopes, ties America more securely into the Indo-Pacific region. On April 8th the defence ministers of the three countries released a cautious statement saying they were “considering co-operation” with Japan, too.

Not everyone in Australia is pleased. Indeed an AUKUS awkward squad, with varied political persuasions and an assortment of not always cohering grievances, is dropping what one AUKUS backer calls “depth charges of dissent”. The critics include Paul Keating and Malcolm Turnbull, two former prime ministers, Gareth Evans, a former foreign minister, and Hugh White, a strategist. Criticisms start with practicalities—above all, whether America can deliver the Virginia-class subs. .................................. Mr Turnbull says Australia may see no Virginias “simply because the US Navy won’t be able to spare them”. That would leave Australia less secure, not more.

Others question reliance on Britain’s defence capacity, with its underwhelming record for delivering on time, at cost or up to standard. Meanwhile, Mr White contends, Australia will get suckered into subsidising the other two members’ defence industries...............................................

Add to that the risk of Donald Trump’s possible return to the White House. If Mr Trump saw America as spending money on Australian interests, Mr Evans argues, he could nix the whole thing. Australia, he points out, has no plan B. But the strongest criticisms of AUKUS have to do with a loss of sovereign agency—hitching Australia’s fortunes to an ever-less dependable superpower, as Mr Turnbull sees it, or one liable, as Mr Evans argues, to drag Australia into a war over Taiwan that is counter to Australia’s interests.

For now bipartisan support for AUKUS remains strong. Yet the pact will have few concrete results to show for years to come. The risk is that all the griping will start to erode public confidence. From the start AUKUS’s backers have not made a frank enough case for it. The deal was negotiated in secrecy. Anthony Albanese, then leader of the opposition, was given only hours to throw his support behind it. Now prime minister, he paints AUKUS chiefly as a jobs scheme rather than as a project of vital deterrence.

Rather, Labor and the conservative opposition should better highlight the progress made so far. This includes making HMAS Stirling a useful pit-stop for friendly subs, and new American and Australian money being allocated to building up a submarine industrial base. Above all, they should talk of the challenge posed by Chinese ambitions. They should be clearer about the importance of Australia’s contribution to deterrence. And they should be upfront both about the financial costs and, more grimly, the human ones. If Australia’s politicians do not come clean and seek support for AUKUS on honest terms, the sceptics may well erode the consensus for it. That also poses grave consequences for Australia’s own security. For if the point of deterrence is to prevent a war, then you have to be seen to be ready to fight one. ■"

[Buster Hyman]

If Australia’s politicians do not come clean and seek support for AUKUS on honest terms, the sceptics may well erode the consensus for it. "
Which is how the Yes vote failed. Light on details to a naturally sceptical audience & it's doomed to lose support.

[pr00ne]

Which is how the Yes vote failed. Light on details to a naturally sceptical audience & it's doomed to lose support.

There’s going to be a referendum on AUKUS????

[Going Boeing]

Being such a high tech & secretive project that doesn’t release details to the public, it’s great to get updates on the SSN AUKUS design status - even if it’s light on detail.

https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2024/04/15/aukus-sub-design-deemed-mature-as-nations-debate-top-technologies/

[ORAC]

Not sure how much fail to put in that article since they get it wrong from the start by saying it will have a US reactor and turbines when it will be powered by a RR reactor module built in Derby based on the PWR3 used in Dreadnaught.

[rattman]

Allegedly public nuclear submarine crew applications will be made available on ADF careers late this year, Image its going to have a pretty astounding ROSO for any applying

[Going Boeing]

Not sure how much fail to put in that article since they get it wrong from the start by saying it will have a US reactor and turbines when it will be powered by a RR reactor module built in Derby based on the PWR3 used in Dreadnaught.

The PWR3 is heavily based on the Virginia’s S9G which, apart from having fuel for 33 years, has the ability to generate moderate levels of power whilst only using “convective cooling”, ie no MCP noise.

I suspect that RR are making a lot of the reactor components under licence to keep the politicians happy in that a local company is supplying the main cost item for the SSN’s.

[ORAC]

Aston Martin cars use AMG engines, it doesn't make them Mercedes.

RR got major input from the US on how to improve the design of the PWR3, leading to a 30% in the number of parts, but that doesn't make it an American reactor.

Designed, built and fuelled at Derby so not dependent on the USA for support during it's service life.

[Going Boeing]

Aston Martin cars use AMG engines, it doesn't make them Mercedes.

RR got major input from the US on how to improve the design of the PWR3, leading to a 30% in the number of parts, but that doesn't make it an American reactor.

Designed, built and fuelled at Derby so not dependent on the USA for support during it's service life.

Uranium enrichment is a complex task requiring specialised equipment that is strictly controlled - does RR have the capability to do high levels of enrichment in-house or is the fuel sourced from the US?

[rattman]

Uranium enrichment is a complex task requiring specialised equipment that is strictly controlled - does RR have the capability to do high levels of enrichment in-house or is the fuel sourced from the US?


UK does it through https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urenco_Group

Also note the US doesn't do nuclear enrichment, they are running from a stockpile of enriched uranium they purchased from Ex USSR / russian decommissioned warheads. At current rate they are expecting to need to restart enrichment in / around 2050. Also US has a license for a SILEX (Separation of Isotopes by Laser EXcitation) that was developed in australia in the late 90's

[ORAC]

Urenco currently just produced HEU for civilian use.

The UK has a reported stockpile of 22 tons of HEU, each PWR3 reactor contains around 200Kg of HEU which it burns at the rate of 6.06Kg per year during its working life.

Working on the basis of 4 Dreadnaught, 5 SSNA for Australia and 7 for the UK as Astute replacements will need around 3 tons over the next 30 years. So there is no rush to restart production.

[Going Boeing]

Working on the basis of 4 Dreadnaught, 5 SSNA for Australia and 7 for the UK as Astute replacements will need around 3 tons over the next 30 years. So there is no rush to restart production.

I believe that the stated number of 5 SSN-A’s for the RAN is an erroneous figure which originates from media who didn’t study the timeline for retirement of existing submarines. The first 2 Virginia’s (circa 2032/4) are slated to have 20 years of service life remaining and will be operating in addition to the 6 Collins class. The first Collins (Farncomb) will be replaced by the 3rd Virginia (2038) and the rest of the Collins will be replaced by the first 5 Australian built SSN-A’s. The first 2 Virginia’s will then be replaced by the 6th & 7th SSN-A. Eventually, the 3rd Virginia will be replaced by the last (8th) SSN-A as the RAN will not want to support multiple types in its submarine fleet any longer than necessary due to the increased cost and higher manning levels.

The option for 2 additional Virginia’s is only there in case there are lengthy delays with the SSN-A program & are thus needed to fill the gaps as the Collins class retires. I’m sure that everyone involved is hoping that they are not necessary due to the high additional costs.

The aim is for the RAN to end up with a single fleet of 8 SSN-A’s with the Collins & Virginia’s retired.

I would not be surprised if, assuming funding becomes available, the RN will want more than 7 SSN-A’s as they are finding their current fleet is stretched.

[Xhorst]

The aim is for the RAN to end up with a single fleet of 8 SSN-A’s

However, the clock doesn't stop when we get to 8 SSN-A's.

Hopefully, Australia will learn that the smart way to build big things like subs is to always have one on the production line. If they have a 33-year lifespan, we need to be building one every 4 years. When we need a newer model down the track, we modify the existing production line. Not close it down, sack everyone and then go "oh, wow, look how much it's gonna cost us to start a whole new sub-building industry again".

[Going Boeing]

However, the clock doesn't stop when we get to 8 SSN-A's.

Hopefully, Australia will learn that the smart way to build big things like subs is to always have one on the production line. If they have a 33-year lifespan, we need to be building one every 4 years. When we need a newer model down the track, we modify the existing production line. Not close it down, sack everyone and then go "oh, wow, look how much it's gonna cost us to start a whole new sub-building industry again".

Yes, it needs to be a continuous build. In an ideal world, both the RN & RAN would operate 9 SSN’s each + the RN would have 4 SSBN’s, then, with a 33 year reactor life and a 3 year drumbeat, Barrow could build 7 SSN’s & 4 SSBN’s while Osborne would build 11 SSN’s - I know, IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN!

[ORAC]

What is the planned size of the Australian production hall?

If it’s similar to that at Barrow it would hold 3 subs in construction - one finishing build, one mid-build and one starting. Assuming a 10-12 year build time that’s one entering service every 5-6 years, which with a 30 year life would be able to maintain a fleet size of 5-6 boats.

An experienced team might get that down to 8 years - the current time to build a Virginia class, rolling one off the stocks every 4 years, which would maintain a fleet of 7-8 boats.

After that you are looking a hall/line able to build 4 at a time.

https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1500x844/image_40738613d767fdcc3456df160ed9edc91d0b0c2b.jpeg

[Going Boeing]

This pic shows the planned development for the Osborne site. The olive green buildings are existing and the white buildings (& grey paved area) are planned to be built.

The large green shed on the left is where final construction of the Hunter/Type 26 Frigates is underway (capable of two side by side) with further buildings not shown where sections are assembled. The surface ship building area is known as ASC South.

The slightly smaller green building leading to a ship lift is where the, now cancelled, Attack class submarines were to have been built and is the site where the Collins class were originally built and now have their 2 year Full Cycle Docking (every 10 years). This is where ASC North (submarine) starts and will be expanded very significantly.

Those buildings will give a reference for the size of all the planned buildings. It is a massive area of land and, when it’s complete, it will be a very modern, digital, parts manufacturing and submarine assembly complex. The final assembly hall is on the right side adjacent to a very high capacity ship lift. The area is considerably larger than what is in use at Barrow.

The unused section in the middle is the Mutton Cove Conservation Reserve which is off limits to any development.

https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1871x1046/img_5496_962f95e073a0f08426b3f6dbf424aa79aa22b7d1.jpeg
Future plans for ASC North
https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1659x668/img_4735_6409ffa12ba6a75cc716e0d955eb9e29db8e6546.jpeg
Hunter class frigate final assembly hall

[Asturias56]

I posted some shots of the undeveloped site in #1448 back in October. Its a massive area alright and should allow for an optimised layout .

Its going to be a major employer just building the place.

I know a lot of S Australians are hoping it will restore some engineering jobs that were lost there from the 1970's onwards

[rattman]

I posted some shots of the undeveloped site in #1448 back in October. Its a massive area alright and should allow for an optimised layout .

Its going to be a major employer just building the place.

I know a lot of S Australians are hoping it will restore some engineering jobs that were lost there from the 1970's onwards

Dunno if I mentioned it here. A good friend of mine is marine electrician in cairns, he works on everything from naval stuff to fishing trawlers. Hes already had initial approaches from some un named recruiters about attending infromation days for an unspecified "national ship building program" Sounds like they are already starting to headhunt for it

[Asturias56]

I'd be surprised if there aren't some people with Australian accents setting up job shops in Barrow & Derby

[Going Boeing]

More infrastructure in support of Defence members involved with the Submarine and Frigate construction has been announced.

https://www.defenceconnect.com.au/industry/13959-54-new-defence-homes-announced-near-osborne

[Asturias56]

stretching it a bit to say "close to the CBD" but new accommodation is always a good thing

[ORAC]

https://x.com/ukdefjournal/status/1782490189606105097?s=61&t=rmEeUn68HhlFHGKbTPQr_A


​​​​​​​The Royal Navy’s latest Astute Class submarine has been officially named at BAE Systems’ Submarines site in Barrow-in-Furness, Cumbria. Agamemnon - named after the ancient Greek king - is the sixth of seven Astute submarines being built by the Company. Here's the video.

[golder]

stretching it a bit to say "close to the CBD" but new accommodation is always a good thing
It's all relative. In some places, it is still inner city at 10km.

[golder]

We have China's attention. Let's hope they take it seriously.

AUKUS expansion to 'undermine peace' (ecns.cn) (http://www.ecns.cn/news/military/2024-04-26/detail-ihczvctz4234089.shtml)
China is gravely concerned about the potential expansion of the Australia-United Kingdom-United States trilateral security alliance, saying that it would severely undermine peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific region, the Ministry of National Defense said on Thursday.

Wu Qian, the ministry's spokesman, made the remarks at a news conference in Beijing in response to reports that Japan has expressed its intention to join AUKUS and that Canada is considering starting negotiations on joining the security alliance.

"We are open to normal military cooperation between any countries, but we firmly oppose relevant countries forming exclusive groupings, building bilateral or multilateral military alliances targeting China, creating division and stoking bloc confrontation,"

[Video Mixdown]

The Royal Navy’s latest Astute Class submarine has been officially named at BAE Systems’ Submarines site in Barrow-in-Furness, Cumbria. Agamemnon - named after the ancient Greek king - is the sixth of seven Astute submarines being built by the Company. Here's the video.
I think it's more accurate to say the submarine is named after a number of historic Royal Navy ships rather rather than a Greek King, most notably HMS Agamemnon launched in 1781 and part of Nelson's fleet at the Battle of Trafalgar.

[golder]

The circus continues to put on a show.More than 100 lawmakers call for appropriators to restore Navy’s second Virginia-class sub (https://breakingdefense.com/2024/05/more-than-100-lawmakers-call-for-appropriators-to-restore-navys-second-virginia-class-sub/)The letter is the latest sign lawmakers have rejected the Navy’s argument that the cut was a strategic one due to a construction backlog, though some key signatures are missing.