AUKUS
Thread Starter
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Joined: Jul 2000
Aviation Qualifications: Spotter
Posts: 24,637
Likes: 7,338
From: Peripatetic
It comes from a US CRS report, but the Grauniad highlights a comment in the paper which indicates the real beef - namely that the US would be giving the Virginia class subs to Australia, reducing their own fleet but wants a guarantee that they’ll be used in any war against China.
Which seems, in view of Australian politics and strategic autonomy, exactly the reason to stick with the current plan.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...-cost-blowouts
Which seems, in view of Australian politics and strategic autonomy, exactly the reason to stick with the current plan.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...-cost-blowouts
In its updated paper, the CRS revived discussion of a controversial policy option that it had previously floated as an alternative to the US proceeding with the sale of three to five Virginia class submarines to Australia.The option, called “division of labour”, would see the US navy retain ownership of all Virginia class submarines but operate some of them from an Australian naval base…..
The idea would be attractive from a US perspective but would have profound implications for Australian sovereign control of the submarines. There is no indication that the Australian government is open to such an option.
The Greens’ defence spokesperson, David Shoebridge, wrote on X that a division of labour “looks more like a strategic surrender than a partnership” from an Australian point of view.
The CRS pointed once again to Marles’s comments that Australia had not given any pre-commitment to join the US in a war against China over Taiwan as part of the Aukus deal.
The report said: “Australia would thus convert those [submarines] from boats that would be available for use in a U.S.-China crisis or conflict into boats that might not be available for use in a U.S.-China crisis or conflict.”
The idea would be attractive from a US perspective but would have profound implications for Australian sovereign control of the submarines. There is no indication that the Australian government is open to such an option.
The Greens’ defence spokesperson, David Shoebridge, wrote on X that a division of labour “looks more like a strategic surrender than a partnership” from an Australian point of view.
The CRS pointed once again to Marles’s comments that Australia had not given any pre-commitment to join the US in a war against China over Taiwan as part of the Aukus deal.
The report said: “Australia would thus convert those [submarines] from boats that would be available for use in a U.S.-China crisis or conflict into boats that might not be available for use in a U.S.-China crisis or conflict.”
Thread Starter
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Joined: Jul 2000
Aviation Qualifications: Spotter
Posts: 24,637
Likes: 7,338
From: Peripatetic
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/lord...n-south-korea/
Lords urge AUKUS expansion to Canada, Japan, South Korea
In a recent House of Lords debate, members discussed amendments to the UK-US Mutual Defence Agreement (MDA) and advocated for expanding the AUKUS alliance—a trilateral security partnership with Australia and the US—to include Canada, Japan, and South Korea.Led by Lord Goldsmith, the debate focused on the importance of parliamentary scrutiny and enhancing cooperation in nuclear defence.
Established in 1958, the MDA is a key agreement underpinning nuclear cooperation between the UK and the US, allowing for the exchange of nuclear materials and technology essential to the UK’s independent deterrent. The latest amendment removes the need for a 10-year renewal, creating an “evergreen” agreement. While many viewed this continuity as strengthening the UK’s deterrent, some raised concerns over reduced parliamentary oversight.
Lord Goldsmith highlighted the International Agreements Committee’s recommendation that, in place of regular renewals, the government should commit to providing a report to Parliament on the MDA every decade. He remarked that while the change provides valuable continuity, it reduces Parliament’s role in monitoring developments in nuclear defence. “This is yet another example of the shortcomings of the CRaG regime,” he noted, referring to the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act’s (CRaG) limited 21-day scrutiny period.
In contrast, Lord Verdirame supported the amendment, arguing that “an indefinite agreement is appropriate…given the strategic importance of our alliance with the United States.” He added that the amended terms align well with the MDA’s legal framework, which already requires mutual consent for termination.
Lord Hannay described the CRaG process as “absurdly short,” especially when compared to the extended review period in the US Congress. Many members called for a more comprehensive scrutiny process for treaties like the MDA.
The debate also covered AUKUS, with Lord Udny-Lister describing it as a “key pillar” of the UK’s Indo-Pacific defence strategy. The agreement, which provides Australia with nuclear-powered submarines, also facilitates cooperation on advanced military technologies such as AI, quantum computing, and hypersonics. Lord Udny-Lister noted that AUKUS not only bolsters UK security but also strengthens “opportunities for technological advancement and military exports, particularly in the Indo-Pacific.”
Several members called for an expansion of AUKUS to include Canada, Japan, and South Korea. Lord Hannan argued that this could create a broader, democratic alliance to counterbalance “rival models” from authoritarian states. Echoing this, Lord Bilimoria noted that “expanding AUKUS would help reinforce international security and provide deeper technological and economic ties among allies.”
Economic opportunities were also highlighted, with many members noting AUKUS’s potential to benefit the UK’s defence industries. Lord Bilimoria stated that “the UK’s defence industries…stand to benefit significantly,” adding that AUKUS would create demand for “highly skilled jobs and manufacturing.” However, Baroness Bennett raised environmental and fiscal concerns, questioning whether this nuclear-based strategy aligns with modern defence requirements.
Lords urge AUKUS expansion to Canada, Japan, South Korea
In a recent House of Lords debate, members discussed amendments to the UK-US Mutual Defence Agreement (MDA) and advocated for expanding the AUKUS alliance—a trilateral security partnership with Australia and the US—to include Canada, Japan, and South Korea.Led by Lord Goldsmith, the debate focused on the importance of parliamentary scrutiny and enhancing cooperation in nuclear defence.
Established in 1958, the MDA is a key agreement underpinning nuclear cooperation between the UK and the US, allowing for the exchange of nuclear materials and technology essential to the UK’s independent deterrent. The latest amendment removes the need for a 10-year renewal, creating an “evergreen” agreement. While many viewed this continuity as strengthening the UK’s deterrent, some raised concerns over reduced parliamentary oversight.
Lord Goldsmith highlighted the International Agreements Committee’s recommendation that, in place of regular renewals, the government should commit to providing a report to Parliament on the MDA every decade. He remarked that while the change provides valuable continuity, it reduces Parliament’s role in monitoring developments in nuclear defence. “This is yet another example of the shortcomings of the CRaG regime,” he noted, referring to the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act’s (CRaG) limited 21-day scrutiny period.
In contrast, Lord Verdirame supported the amendment, arguing that “an indefinite agreement is appropriate…given the strategic importance of our alliance with the United States.” He added that the amended terms align well with the MDA’s legal framework, which already requires mutual consent for termination.
Lord Hannay described the CRaG process as “absurdly short,” especially when compared to the extended review period in the US Congress. Many members called for a more comprehensive scrutiny process for treaties like the MDA.
The debate also covered AUKUS, with Lord Udny-Lister describing it as a “key pillar” of the UK’s Indo-Pacific defence strategy. The agreement, which provides Australia with nuclear-powered submarines, also facilitates cooperation on advanced military technologies such as AI, quantum computing, and hypersonics. Lord Udny-Lister noted that AUKUS not only bolsters UK security but also strengthens “opportunities for technological advancement and military exports, particularly in the Indo-Pacific.”
Several members called for an expansion of AUKUS to include Canada, Japan, and South Korea. Lord Hannan argued that this could create a broader, democratic alliance to counterbalance “rival models” from authoritarian states. Echoing this, Lord Bilimoria noted that “expanding AUKUS would help reinforce international security and provide deeper technological and economic ties among allies.”
Economic opportunities were also highlighted, with many members noting AUKUS’s potential to benefit the UK’s defence industries. Lord Bilimoria stated that “the UK’s defence industries…stand to benefit significantly,” adding that AUKUS would create demand for “highly skilled jobs and manufacturing.” However, Baroness Bennett raised environmental and fiscal concerns, questioning whether this nuclear-based strategy aligns with modern defence requirements.
Joined: Jun 2001
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 1,898
Likes: 17
From: South Pole
A significant fire in Devonshire Dock Hall at Barrow-in-Furness will probably have an effect on the Astute & Dreadnought assembly lines with the potential to even affect the future SSN AUKUS production - depending on the damage sustained to the facility.
https://www.theguardian.com/business...wo-in-hospital
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2dqd2yy5do
Barrow-in-Furness Fire
https://www.theguardian.com/business...wo-in-hospital
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2dqd2yy5do
Barrow-in-Furness Fire
Joined: Oct 2018
Aviation Qualifications: PPL
Posts: 12,245
Likes: 1,657
From: Ferrara
The Australians can fill a gap in the market now............. but the supply chain will have to replace whatever is damaged in Barrow AND supply Adelaide as well - could be very proftable
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 3,083
Likes: 253
From: London/Oxford/New York
Utter nonsense! The Australians cannot and will not fill any such role. BAE Systems Barrow is being increased from a 10,000 workforce to over 17,000. There will be no 'gap in the market' and Barrow will be heavily involved in AUKUS Submarine build.
Joined: Jun 2001
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 1,898
Likes: 17
From: South Pole
An update has been issued via UK Defence Journal - https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/bae-...ing-yard-fire/
It sounds like the fire was contained to one section but no indication as to how much delay will occur.
”pr00ne”, you strongly defended the Barrow facility but, an event like this shows how desirable it is to have an alternative assembly location to minimise ongoing disruption. The facility that is planned at Osborne in South Australia will occupy a larger land area and will have the capability of building all sections of the submarines except for the reactor and associated systems. Barrow & Osborne will be working together under BAES management as directed by the respective Navies and their governments.
It sounds like the fire was contained to one section but no indication as to how much delay will occur.
”pr00ne”, you strongly defended the Barrow facility but, an event like this shows how desirable it is to have an alternative assembly location to minimise ongoing disruption. The facility that is planned at Osborne in South Australia will occupy a larger land area and will have the capability of building all sections of the submarines except for the reactor and associated systems. Barrow & Osborne will be working together under BAES management as directed by the respective Navies and their governments.
Joined: Jun 2020
Aviation Qualifications: Non-Aircrew
Posts: 109
Likes: 61
From: Feet grounded, head in the clouds
Though there are two aspects to that, capability and capacity. Another location provides additional capability and so resilience, but it seems unlikely either facility would have enough capacity to maintain normal production on its own in the event the other is lost or significantly damaged; so either production rate would have to increase - not easy - or the build schedule would suffer. Then there are the practicalities of transferring production across the world in mid build ...
Thread Starter
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Joined: Jul 2000
Aviation Qualifications: Spotter
Posts: 24,637
Likes: 7,338
From: Peripatetic
https://www.nwemail.co.uk/news/24696...k-hall-barrow/
BAE give update after fire at Devonshire Dock Hall, Barrow
BAE has released an update after the fire at Devonshire Dock Hall in Barrow earlier this week.
The defence company said that early investigations indicate the fire, which happened on Wednesday, has 'had a limited impact' and that work is continuing on Astute Boat Six.
"We would again like to thank the emergency services and all our partners and agencies involved whose bravery and professionalism ensured our colleagues were quickly and safely evacuated from the area," a BAE spokesperson said. "We’re also grateful to the local community for their patience and co-operation throughout."
The spokesperson added that only the affected area is accessible to essential personnel only but the remainder of the site is fully operational.
The emergency response prevented significant damage to the facility and the submarine units, it is said. A full assessment of the impact and a comprehensive plan is still in progress before the company conducts remedial action.
The statement in full said:
“Following the fire in the Devonshire Dock Hall (DDH) at our Barrow in Furness site on Wednesday 30 October, a full investigation and clean-up activities are now underway. The affected area is accessible to essential personnel only but the remainder of the site is fully operational.
“We would again like to thank the emergency services and all our partners and agencies involved whose bravery and professionalism ensured our colleagues were quickly and safely evacuated from the area. We’re also grateful to the local community for their patience and co-operation throughout.
“The multi-agency response to the incident prevented significant damage to the DDH facility and the submarine units within it. We are continuing a full assessment of the impact and are developing a comprehensive plan to progress remedial action but early investigations indicate the fire has had limited impact.
“Work continues on Astute Boat 6, which is currently in the water in the Devonshire Dock, and both the Dreadnought and SSN-AUKUS programmes are progressing.”
BAE give update after fire at Devonshire Dock Hall, Barrow
BAE has released an update after the fire at Devonshire Dock Hall in Barrow earlier this week.
The defence company said that early investigations indicate the fire, which happened on Wednesday, has 'had a limited impact' and that work is continuing on Astute Boat Six.
"We would again like to thank the emergency services and all our partners and agencies involved whose bravery and professionalism ensured our colleagues were quickly and safely evacuated from the area," a BAE spokesperson said. "We’re also grateful to the local community for their patience and co-operation throughout."
The spokesperson added that only the affected area is accessible to essential personnel only but the remainder of the site is fully operational.
The emergency response prevented significant damage to the facility and the submarine units, it is said. A full assessment of the impact and a comprehensive plan is still in progress before the company conducts remedial action.
The statement in full said:
“Following the fire in the Devonshire Dock Hall (DDH) at our Barrow in Furness site on Wednesday 30 October, a full investigation and clean-up activities are now underway. The affected area is accessible to essential personnel only but the remainder of the site is fully operational.
“We would again like to thank the emergency services and all our partners and agencies involved whose bravery and professionalism ensured our colleagues were quickly and safely evacuated from the area. We’re also grateful to the local community for their patience and co-operation throughout.
“The multi-agency response to the incident prevented significant damage to the DDH facility and the submarine units within it. We are continuing a full assessment of the impact and are developing a comprehensive plan to progress remedial action but early investigations indicate the fire has had limited impact.
“Work continues on Astute Boat 6, which is currently in the water in the Devonshire Dock, and both the Dreadnought and SSN-AUKUS programmes are progressing.”
Thread Starter
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Joined: Jul 2000
Aviation Qualifications: Spotter
Posts: 24,637
Likes: 7,338
From: Peripatetic
Not AUKUS, but nuke sub related…..
☢️ Project MINERVA: Italy looks to nuclear powered submarines? 🧵
Last August SEGREDIFESA has awarded a PNRM (National Military Research Plan) called MINERVA (Marinizzazione Impianto Nucleare per l'Energia a boRdo di Vascelli Armati) for the Italian Navy.
The project aims to study the integration of a next-generation nuclear reactor on board a front-line combatant naval unit, for propulsion and electricity generation. The goal is to develop technological capacity mainly for upcoming national underwater constructions.
The project consists of 3 phases.
I Phase: study of the naval use of new generation reactors;
II Phase: concept design of a nuclear combat unit;
III Phase: comparison between existing units and ones with nuclear generation.
The companies involved are Fincantieri, Ansaldo Nucleare, RINA and CETENA.
It's important to highlight that Fincantieri, RINA and Newcleo signed an agreement in the summer of 2023 to study the application of Newcleo's SMRs to the propulsion of naval units.
Newcleo is an Italian startup founded in London in 2021 that aims to develop new LRFs.
The startup is also involved in the Italian Government's discussions, together with the energy giant ENEL and Ansaldo, for the reintroduction of nuclear into the national energy mix.
If the project were to be successful and the necessary political and economic conditions were to be preserved, we could see the application of this technology on board the NGS, the future class of submarines of the Italian Navy in post-2040.
**PNRM MINERVA official sources:
https://www.difesa.it/assets/allegat...d562cb7b88.pdf
https://www.difesa.it/assets/allegat...udicazione.pdf
☢️ Project MINERVA: Italy looks to nuclear powered submarines? 🧵
Last August SEGREDIFESA has awarded a PNRM (National Military Research Plan) called MINERVA (Marinizzazione Impianto Nucleare per l'Energia a boRdo di Vascelli Armati) for the Italian Navy.
The project aims to study the integration of a next-generation nuclear reactor on board a front-line combatant naval unit, for propulsion and electricity generation. The goal is to develop technological capacity mainly for upcoming national underwater constructions.
The project consists of 3 phases.
I Phase: study of the naval use of new generation reactors;
II Phase: concept design of a nuclear combat unit;
III Phase: comparison between existing units and ones with nuclear generation.
The companies involved are Fincantieri, Ansaldo Nucleare, RINA and CETENA.
It's important to highlight that Fincantieri, RINA and Newcleo signed an agreement in the summer of 2023 to study the application of Newcleo's SMRs to the propulsion of naval units.
Newcleo is an Italian startup founded in London in 2021 that aims to develop new LRFs.
The startup is also involved in the Italian Government's discussions, together with the energy giant ENEL and Ansaldo, for the reintroduction of nuclear into the national energy mix.
If the project were to be successful and the necessary political and economic conditions were to be preserved, we could see the application of this technology on board the NGS, the future class of submarines of the Italian Navy in post-2040.
**PNRM MINERVA official sources:
https://www.difesa.it/assets/allegat...d562cb7b88.pdf
https://www.difesa.it/assets/allegat...udicazione.pdf
Thread Starter
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Joined: Jul 2000
Aviation Qualifications: Spotter
Posts: 24,637
Likes: 7,338
From: Peripatetic
BAE has filed in plans for demolition of the old gas storage site outside Barrow-in-Furness. Work would start in the spring and would result in a level platform. Said platform would then see the build of the new mega-assembly facility for submarine blocks.
https://www.nwemail.co.uk/news/24699...cility-barrow/
BAE had earlier submitted application to build what was then known as RAMSDEN hall nearby (see maps). This plan is understood to have been abandoned in favor of redeveloping gas storage site instead, possibly because ground here was unstatisfactory for building such structure.
Association of British Ports has high hopes for this new BAE project for Barrow which should act as engine for setting into motion other projects of benefit to whole town. Apparently, idea is submarine hull parts made here would travel to Devonshire Dock Hall on barges.
The gas storage site is conveniently placed close to the Resolution building storage, which can't be a bad thing during build. Lots of space available. One of the ideas floated by ABP involves a mega floating array of solar panels on the waters of Cavendish dock to provide power.
https://www.nwemail.co.uk/news/24699...cility-barrow/
BAE had earlier submitted application to build what was then known as RAMSDEN hall nearby (see maps). This plan is understood to have been abandoned in favor of redeveloping gas storage site instead, possibly because ground here was unstatisfactory for building such structure.
Association of British Ports has high hopes for this new BAE project for Barrow which should act as engine for setting into motion other projects of benefit to whole town. Apparently, idea is submarine hull parts made here would travel to Devonshire Dock Hall on barges.
The gas storage site is conveniently placed close to the Resolution building storage, which can't be a bad thing during build. Lots of space available. One of the ideas floated by ABP involves a mega floating array of solar panels on the waters of Cavendish dock to provide power.
Thread Starter
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Joined: Jul 2000
Aviation Qualifications: Spotter
Posts: 24,637
Likes: 7,338
From: Peripatetic
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/brit...n-for-defence/
Britain to revive nuclear fuel production for defence
Defence Secretary John Healey has announced the UK’s plan to explore options for re-establishing a nuclear fuel cycle dedicated to defence purposes.
This initiative, part of the ongoing modernisation of the Defence Nuclear Enterprise, includes steps toward engaging with industry partners to assess how best to meet the requirements of this programme.“The UK is exploring options to re-establish a nuclear-fuel cycle for reactor fuel for defence purposes,” Healey explained.
He spoke of the Government’s commitment, stating, “The Government is committed to modernising defence nuclear-fuel production under the Defence Nuclear Enterprise. We are commencing engagement with industry to develop options for how this requirement can be delivered.”
Healey reiterated the UK’s adherence to its nuclear responsibilities and international obligations, affirming that, “The UK takes its nuclear responsibilities and obligations seriously. This fuel production cycle will be fully consistent with the UK’s international obligations, including the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).”
He also clarified that the project would respect the UK’s voluntary moratorium on the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons, a policy in place since 1995.
To further emphasise the UK’s commitment to responsible nuclear practices, Healey pledged that “the UK will continue to maintain the highest standards of safeguarding of civil nuclear materials, ensuring a separation from defence materials and complying with our obligations under the UK’s Voluntary Offer Agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency.”
The Defence Nuclear Enterprise is the network of organisations responsible for the upkeep and operation of the UK’s nuclear deterrent and submarine forces. DNE coordinates various entities to ensure that submarines, supporting infrastructure, and specialised personnel are maintained to meet defence standards.
As part of this role, it collaborates with suppliers across the UK, focusing on secure, efficient, and technology-driven support for nuclear capabilities.
DNE’s partnerships are structured to align with its mission to deter threats to national security, which, in turn, supports a wide range of highly skilled jobs throughout the country. These partnerships are emphasised by the collective as critical to delivering the nuclear deterrent while meeting stringent security and governance standards.
Britain to revive nuclear fuel production for defence
Defence Secretary John Healey has announced the UK’s plan to explore options for re-establishing a nuclear fuel cycle dedicated to defence purposes.
This initiative, part of the ongoing modernisation of the Defence Nuclear Enterprise, includes steps toward engaging with industry partners to assess how best to meet the requirements of this programme.“The UK is exploring options to re-establish a nuclear-fuel cycle for reactor fuel for defence purposes,” Healey explained.
He spoke of the Government’s commitment, stating, “The Government is committed to modernising defence nuclear-fuel production under the Defence Nuclear Enterprise. We are commencing engagement with industry to develop options for how this requirement can be delivered.”
Healey reiterated the UK’s adherence to its nuclear responsibilities and international obligations, affirming that, “The UK takes its nuclear responsibilities and obligations seriously. This fuel production cycle will be fully consistent with the UK’s international obligations, including the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).”
He also clarified that the project would respect the UK’s voluntary moratorium on the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons, a policy in place since 1995.
To further emphasise the UK’s commitment to responsible nuclear practices, Healey pledged that “the UK will continue to maintain the highest standards of safeguarding of civil nuclear materials, ensuring a separation from defence materials and complying with our obligations under the UK’s Voluntary Offer Agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency.”
The Defence Nuclear Enterprise is the network of organisations responsible for the upkeep and operation of the UK’s nuclear deterrent and submarine forces. DNE coordinates various entities to ensure that submarines, supporting infrastructure, and specialised personnel are maintained to meet defence standards.
As part of this role, it collaborates with suppliers across the UK, focusing on secure, efficient, and technology-driven support for nuclear capabilities.
DNE’s partnerships are structured to align with its mission to deter threats to national security, which, in turn, supports a wide range of highly skilled jobs throughout the country. These partnerships are emphasised by the collective as critical to delivering the nuclear deterrent while meeting stringent security and governance standards.
Thread Starter
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Joined: Jul 2000
Aviation Qualifications: Spotter
Posts: 24,637
Likes: 7,338
From: Peripatetic
https://archive.ph/AT1vm
Starmer will try to bond with Trump over China concerns
Defence pact between UK, Australia and the US could prove a useful vehicle for getting close to the president-elect
Sir Keir Starmer will seek to bond with Donald Trump over shared concerns about China by hailing the success of a Pacific nuclear submarine deal.
The defence pact between Australia, the UK and the US, known by its acronym Aukus, has been identified as a useful vehicle for getting close to Mr Trump.
Aukus will be held up as proof of Britain’s usefulness in the drive to counter China’s growing military presence in the Pacific – a key concern of the incoming president.
Mr Trump has made standing up to China a central foreign policy goal, not just in trade where he is proposing tariffs of 60 per cent on Chinese imports, but across the spectrum.
British officials are planning to frame the Aukus deal as a way that the UK can help Mr Trump deliver this key objective, not least as he is seen to potentially be a “transactional” president looking for real-world benefits from diplomacy......
One Whitehall source working on preparations for Mr Trump’s White House return told The Telegraph: “We must seize the opportunities presented.
“If one of those things is to find common ground on Aukus due to the China hawks in his administration that all helps.
“Whilst there’s potential contention around Ukraine, Europe, and trade, if there is an area of mutual agreement it would be good to use it as a building block and to our advantage. It would help prove the essential role of the special relationship.”
Starmer will try to bond with Trump over China concerns
Defence pact between UK, Australia and the US could prove a useful vehicle for getting close to the president-elect
Sir Keir Starmer will seek to bond with Donald Trump over shared concerns about China by hailing the success of a Pacific nuclear submarine deal.
The defence pact between Australia, the UK and the US, known by its acronym Aukus, has been identified as a useful vehicle for getting close to Mr Trump.
Aukus will be held up as proof of Britain’s usefulness in the drive to counter China’s growing military presence in the Pacific – a key concern of the incoming president.
Mr Trump has made standing up to China a central foreign policy goal, not just in trade where he is proposing tariffs of 60 per cent on Chinese imports, but across the spectrum.
British officials are planning to frame the Aukus deal as a way that the UK can help Mr Trump deliver this key objective, not least as he is seen to potentially be a “transactional” president looking for real-world benefits from diplomacy......
One Whitehall source working on preparations for Mr Trump’s White House return told The Telegraph: “We must seize the opportunities presented.
“If one of those things is to find common ground on Aukus due to the China hawks in his administration that all helps.
“Whilst there’s potential contention around Ukraine, Europe, and trade, if there is an area of mutual agreement it would be good to use it as a building block and to our advantage. It would help prove the essential role of the special relationship.”
Thread Starter
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Joined: Jul 2000
Aviation Qualifications: Spotter
Posts: 24,637
Likes: 7,338
From: Peripatetic
https://news.usni.org/2024/11/13/nav...start-in-2040s
Naval Reactors: Virginia-class Will Extend to Block VIII, SSN(X) Start in 2040s
ARLINGTON, Va. – The Virginia-class attack submarine program will extend to an eighth block before the Navy transitions to the next generation of attack submarines, the director of Naval Reactors said Wednesday.
Speaking at the Naval Submarine League’s annual symposium, Adm. Bill Houston said the service is planning for a Block VIII Virginia-class submarine that will extend the program into the 2040s.
“If you look at us as a Navy, we have said that we’re going to continue to build Virginia … We’re looking to go to a Block VIII. We are proceeding on with SSN(X)* in after that,” Houston said.
“We are also looking at maintaining that large hull platform of the Columbia class. And to be clear, the nuclear posture says at least 12 Columbia. And I think if you look at the threats around the world, there may be a need for more Columbias.”
The Navy expected to transition from the Virginia-class boats to the SSN(X), with the new program starting construction in Fiscal Year 2031, but now the first boats may not arrive until the 2040s…..
The Navy and EB are in the process of negotiating the contract for the next two attack submarines that were appropriated in Fiscal Year 2024 – Baltimore (SSN-813) and Atlanta (SSN-813). The Navy and the shipbuilders are still about $2 billion away from the money Congress set aside for the two submarines. Additionally, the service is set to negotiate contracts for the next two multi-years for the Block VI Virginias and the Build II Columbias.
By 2028 the Navy wants to have an industrial base that’s building 1 Columbia-class submarine and two Virginia-class boats per year, in addition to supporting sustainment work on its submarine fleet and the AUKUS partnership with the U.K. and Australia.
The industrial base is currently building 1.3 attack boats per year, Rear Adm. Jon Rucker said at the same conference. Rucker cited the industrial base’s challenges with materials, which has affected the sequencing order of the boats, as factors that have contributed to that build rate.
“We continue to hover around a production rate of 1.1 to 1.2 boats per year,” said Rucker, the program executive officer of attack submarines. “Our goal at the end of this calendar year was to be at 1.5. We had a threshold of 1.3. Right now, we’re tracking the threshold value. We will not make the goal value. It will be closer to 1.3.”
To achieve this 2028 goal, and ultimately the 2.33 per year attack boat cadence that officials say the industrial base must build so the U.S. can sell Virginia-class boats to the Australians, the industrial base needs to hire 14,000 new people per year when accounting for sustainment and attrition, Rucker told reporters at the conference. Within a decade, the industrial base needs to hire 140,000 people to build the new boats and sustain the fleet, officials say. These numbers assume attrition across the industrial base decreases and stays at historical rates, Rucker said.
* https://news.usni.org/2024/07/25/rep...ck-submarine-4
Naval Reactors: Virginia-class Will Extend to Block VIII, SSN(X) Start in 2040s
ARLINGTON, Va. – The Virginia-class attack submarine program will extend to an eighth block before the Navy transitions to the next generation of attack submarines, the director of Naval Reactors said Wednesday.
Speaking at the Naval Submarine League’s annual symposium, Adm. Bill Houston said the service is planning for a Block VIII Virginia-class submarine that will extend the program into the 2040s.
“If you look at us as a Navy, we have said that we’re going to continue to build Virginia … We’re looking to go to a Block VIII. We are proceeding on with SSN(X)* in after that,” Houston said.
“We are also looking at maintaining that large hull platform of the Columbia class. And to be clear, the nuclear posture says at least 12 Columbia. And I think if you look at the threats around the world, there may be a need for more Columbias.”
The Navy expected to transition from the Virginia-class boats to the SSN(X), with the new program starting construction in Fiscal Year 2031, but now the first boats may not arrive until the 2040s…..
The Navy and EB are in the process of negotiating the contract for the next two attack submarines that were appropriated in Fiscal Year 2024 – Baltimore (SSN-813) and Atlanta (SSN-813). The Navy and the shipbuilders are still about $2 billion away from the money Congress set aside for the two submarines. Additionally, the service is set to negotiate contracts for the next two multi-years for the Block VI Virginias and the Build II Columbias.
By 2028 the Navy wants to have an industrial base that’s building 1 Columbia-class submarine and two Virginia-class boats per year, in addition to supporting sustainment work on its submarine fleet and the AUKUS partnership with the U.K. and Australia.
The industrial base is currently building 1.3 attack boats per year, Rear Adm. Jon Rucker said at the same conference. Rucker cited the industrial base’s challenges with materials, which has affected the sequencing order of the boats, as factors that have contributed to that build rate.
“We continue to hover around a production rate of 1.1 to 1.2 boats per year,” said Rucker, the program executive officer of attack submarines. “Our goal at the end of this calendar year was to be at 1.5. We had a threshold of 1.3. Right now, we’re tracking the threshold value. We will not make the goal value. It will be closer to 1.3.”
To achieve this 2028 goal, and ultimately the 2.33 per year attack boat cadence that officials say the industrial base must build so the U.S. can sell Virginia-class boats to the Australians, the industrial base needs to hire 14,000 new people per year when accounting for sustainment and attrition, Rucker told reporters at the conference. Within a decade, the industrial base needs to hire 140,000 people to build the new boats and sustain the fleet, officials say. These numbers assume attrition across the industrial base decreases and stays at historical rates, Rucker said.
* https://news.usni.org/2024/07/25/rep...ck-submarine-4
Joined: Oct 2018
Aviation Qualifications: PPL
Posts: 12,245
Likes: 1,657
From: Ferrara
It's a bit of a no brainer - the Virginias are still state of the art, you can't produce enough of them as it is; so kicking the new boat down the road makes a lot of sense. When they start making them production rates will almost certainly drop until they get along the learning curve.
Thread Starter
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Joined: Jul 2000
Aviation Qualifications: Spotter
Posts: 24,637
Likes: 7,338
From: Peripatetic
https://www.theguardian.com/environm...elaide-council
Plan to dispose of nuclear waste from Aukus submarines unanimously rejected by Adelaide council
Plans to dispose of low-level nuclear waste from Aukus submarines at an Adelaide naval facility have been unanimously opposed by the local council for the area, who say they weren’t consulted.
The Osborne naval shipyard, 25km north of Adelaide CBD, and HMAS Stirling at Garden Island 50km south of Perth in Western Australia, have both been designated as “radioactive waste management facilities” for nuclear waste from Aukus submarines under the Australian naval nuclear power safety bill, which passed parliament in October.
Last week, the City of Port Adelaide Enfield – responsible for the area surrounding the Osborne shipyard – voted to unanimously oppose the storage and disposal of radioactive waste at the site. Its mayor, Claire Boan, said council had been briefed on aspects of the Aukus project but it had not received any correspondence or communication about management and disposal of nuclear waste at the site.
“While the decision-making regarding this is out of the control of the council, we will continue to advocate for our community and lobby for community consultation throughout the process,” she said.
Rex Patrick, a former independent senator for South Australia, said the situation highlighted the lack of consultation and transparency regarding Aukus nuclear waste. “Albanese called for Dutton to disclose where he was going to put his nuclear power reactors, and yet there’s been complete secrecy around the entire process associated with where they’ll put the high-level waste from naval reactors,” he said.
No public announcements have been made about the site selection or consultation process for dealing with the high-level nuclear waste associated with the Aukus submarines, which the government agreed Australia would dispose of in March last year.
While the type of radioactive waste to be managed at the Osborne shipyard was not detailed in the legislation, the health minister, Mark Butler, the Labor member for Port Adelaide and Hindmarsh, told the ABC that it would be low-level material.
A spokesperson for the deputy prime minister, Richard Marles, said submarine construction, test and commissioning activities planned for Osborne would generate “small amounts” of low-level waste like gloves, wipes or personal protective equipment that would need to be managed and temporarily stored at the site.
“No intermediate-level or high-level radioactive waste (spent nuclear fuel) will be managed or stored at HMAS Stirling or the Osborne Submarine Construction Yard facilities,” the spokesperson said.
Nigel Marks, an associate professor and nuclear scientist at Curtin University, said low-level nuclear waste was “radioactive, but not dangerous”.
There wasn’t usually consultation for managing low-level material at other facilities like hospitals or in industry, he said, noting “you’d never get away with an intermediate or high-level waste repository without hardcore community engagement”.
The uncertainty surrounding the storage of intermediate and higher-level nuclear waste from the Aukus submarines didn’t help, he said.
He said the government could get on the front foot by explaining the site selection pathway and consultation process for dealing with the high-level nuclear waste from Aukus.
“That’d be smart politics, good science,” he said. “It’ll take a little while to do that, but there’s definitely precedent in Finland or Sweden for how you should manage it.”
Plan to dispose of nuclear waste from Aukus submarines unanimously rejected by Adelaide council
Plans to dispose of low-level nuclear waste from Aukus submarines at an Adelaide naval facility have been unanimously opposed by the local council for the area, who say they weren’t consulted.
The Osborne naval shipyard, 25km north of Adelaide CBD, and HMAS Stirling at Garden Island 50km south of Perth in Western Australia, have both been designated as “radioactive waste management facilities” for nuclear waste from Aukus submarines under the Australian naval nuclear power safety bill, which passed parliament in October.
Last week, the City of Port Adelaide Enfield – responsible for the area surrounding the Osborne shipyard – voted to unanimously oppose the storage and disposal of radioactive waste at the site. Its mayor, Claire Boan, said council had been briefed on aspects of the Aukus project but it had not received any correspondence or communication about management and disposal of nuclear waste at the site.
“While the decision-making regarding this is out of the control of the council, we will continue to advocate for our community and lobby for community consultation throughout the process,” she said.
Rex Patrick, a former independent senator for South Australia, said the situation highlighted the lack of consultation and transparency regarding Aukus nuclear waste. “Albanese called for Dutton to disclose where he was going to put his nuclear power reactors, and yet there’s been complete secrecy around the entire process associated with where they’ll put the high-level waste from naval reactors,” he said.
No public announcements have been made about the site selection or consultation process for dealing with the high-level nuclear waste associated with the Aukus submarines, which the government agreed Australia would dispose of in March last year.
While the type of radioactive waste to be managed at the Osborne shipyard was not detailed in the legislation, the health minister, Mark Butler, the Labor member for Port Adelaide and Hindmarsh, told the ABC that it would be low-level material.
A spokesperson for the deputy prime minister, Richard Marles, said submarine construction, test and commissioning activities planned for Osborne would generate “small amounts” of low-level waste like gloves, wipes or personal protective equipment that would need to be managed and temporarily stored at the site.
“No intermediate-level or high-level radioactive waste (spent nuclear fuel) will be managed or stored at HMAS Stirling or the Osborne Submarine Construction Yard facilities,” the spokesperson said.
Nigel Marks, an associate professor and nuclear scientist at Curtin University, said low-level nuclear waste was “radioactive, but not dangerous”.
There wasn’t usually consultation for managing low-level material at other facilities like hospitals or in industry, he said, noting “you’d never get away with an intermediate or high-level waste repository without hardcore community engagement”.
The uncertainty surrounding the storage of intermediate and higher-level nuclear waste from the Aukus submarines didn’t help, he said.
He said the government could get on the front foot by explaining the site selection pathway and consultation process for dealing with the high-level nuclear waste from Aukus.
“That’d be smart politics, good science,” he said. “It’ll take a little while to do that, but there’s definitely precedent in Finland or Sweden for how you should manage it.”
Thread Starter
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Joined: Jul 2000
Aviation Qualifications: Spotter
Posts: 24,637
Likes: 7,338
From: Peripatetic
The development of hypersonic technology is to be accelerated under a new AUKUS arrangement, bolstering the collective security of the three nations with battle-winning capabilities of the future. 🇦🇺🇬🇧🇺🇸
Full press release: https://ow.ly/EMBB50U9ibV
Full press release: https://ow.ly/EMBB50U9ibV
Joined: Jun 2001
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 1,898
Likes: 17
From: South Pole
It appears that the $Billions that Australia has given the US is not enough to lift US submarine construction out of the doldrums and they need another injection from Congress. I believe that the shipbuilders are having to offer significantly higher wages to attract workers and this is blowing out the budgets.
They have a lot of work to do to free up 3 Virginia’s for the RAN to acquire.
https://breakingdefense.com/2024/11/...arine-funding/
They have a lot of work to do to free up 3 Virginia’s for the RAN to acquire.
https://breakingdefense.com/2024/11/...arine-funding/
Last edited by Going Boeing; 26th November 2024 at 05:41.