There is more to this than finding someone/somewhere to build the boats and training some nuclear submariners. Routes for these things exist and there is quite possibly room in the US or UK pipelines for enough Aussie trainees.
What does not exist is an Australian nuclear Regulatory Environment, because Australia has no civil nuclear base.

It will take a good time to sort out the legislation, train the (civilian?) Staff to replicate the role of the UKAEA or its US equivalent and for it to write some rules. The new body will have zero experience at start up and will need to borrow that from others.

There are a hell of a lot of non-trivial tasks to be done. Who will be the Rickover of dunnunder?

N

The French response to what is a perfectly sensible response by Australia to a floundering program is exactly why there is no French equivalent of the Five Eyes agreement. Why would you trust the French ?

FWIW Australia does have one operating nuclear reactor and has previously run 2 research reactors on the site since 1958 until the new one commenced operation.

We do not use them for power generation though. Australia was after WW2 a fairly prominent player in the nuclear research field.

I would assume ANSTO (Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation) that has in one form or another been operating since the 1950s.

I am not an expert in the field so happy to be educated but I would ask, didn't the US, UK, France USSR, China, India (and soon Brazil) manage to get themselves operational with Nuclear powered submarines starting from a starting point where there weren't any nuclear powered submarines, (or even helpful collaborators) following WW2.

Not suggesting it is a trivial task but given other countries have developed nuclear powered vessels so why is it not feasible that Oz does the same? (especially given support from 2 countries with extensive experience in the field).

Note - not saying this is a good or bad idea but is the lack of previous experience really a consideration given a 20 year implementation timeframe and promised support from 2 highly experienced operators?

The problem is now France - they've just gone through a "Suez" moment and it can be expected to cause all sorts of issues going forward.

Let's say co-operation will be limited - that applies in places like the Sahel and Djibouti. They could decide to get closer to China - or at least less obstructive. That could open up most of the S Pacific to the PLA(N) - running right through any US-Australian "defence line"

I can't see them being very keen to help out the UK with the illegal immigrant problem either

They will be less helpful at the EU, NATO and the UN etc etc

So there will be price to pay

ARPANSA

https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/A...lian-regulator

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austra..._Safety_Agency

Breaking news on this thread
 

Submarine consortia to be enlarged to include France and Portugal and re-named AFUKUP

Don't see the French spiting the US and Oz over this given their values align with the rest of the west and not with the Chinese. The former French Ambassador to the US said mostly the same today on one of the Sunday talk shows this am. This will blow over soon enough.

No more an anomaly than the Falklands, Gibraltar, Cayman, Montserrat, Pitcairn, etc...
Your French Bashing is a bit tiring. Not Grumpy for nothing :p I'd like to remind you that it is Australia who bailed out of a signed contract! Not the other way round. Blame your own government to have it signed at first if it was "such a bad deal"

Anyway like West Coast wrote, it will be blown over soon enough.

Agreed. The hysterical reaction of some of their politicians is doing France no favours. Their pride is hurt, but they know perfectly well that they cannot force the Australians to buy submarines that they no longer want. There will be cancellation terms in the contracts and no doubt the lawyers will get involved, but as far as building the boats is concerned, it’s over.

The Port of Darwin 'deal'.....done by the Federal Government under John Howard, one of his right hand men Andrew Robb brokered the deal with the Chinese Government, then promptly retired and took up a very lucrative job as a consultant to them? I believe i recall is what happened...Andrew Robb was his name???

Landbridge won the bidding for the lease in October 2015 under Abbott/Turnbull and was subsequently awarded such by the NT Government at the time. Andrew Robb did join Landbridge on leaving Politics; however, left the company in 2018.

Alas most are in the wrong half of the ocean.

Gordon Brown's comments about the French response seem to be on the money.

Australia was talking about walking awa6 from the deal over 2 years ago - the nuclear sub part of the AUKUS treaty negotiated over the last year or so is a consequence of Australian dissatisfaction, not a cause of it.

Reference break clauses and penalties, these were also discussed and identified - a price Australia is obviously willing to pay to wash their hands of it.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-...sinks/11112952

The French sub was to be a heavily modified nuclear sub. It would have been a lot simpler to just take their nuclear sub. It also uses a more modern technology that doesn't need highly enriched uranium.

The K15 is a brand new untried reactor - designed specifically to fit inside the Barracuda class. So inherently there is risk.

It also needs refuelling every 5-10 years as it s uses similar fuel to land based French PWR. Not a problem for the French with the entire infrastructure and production and storage chain - but a complex problem for Australia relying on the support French over the life of the boat.

https://tinyurl.com/ue6zbzw3

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news...-ssk-variants/

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/s...alia-fbz8gjfc3

Submarine row: France threatens to block EU trade deal with Australia

France has threatened to veto and block an EU free trade agreement with Australia over the cancellation of a €50 billion submarine deal following last week’s security alliance between the Australians, Americans and British.

The French move risks dividing the EU amid widespread reluctance among European countries to become involved in the row, which is seen as a commercial dispute between Paris, Washington, London and Canberra.

Clément Beaune, the French Europe minister, said that Paris would block any further progress in the trade talks, which were expected to make a breakthrough with a planned 12th round of negotiations in Brussels next month…..

“Keeping one’s word is the condition of trust between democracies and between allies,” he said. “So it is unthinkable to move forward ontrade negotiations as if nothing had happened with a country in which we no longer trust.”…..

Any decision to block an agreement will anger European governments, such as the Dutch, Swedes and Irish while causing unease in Berlin.….

France faces an uphill struggle to convince other European countries to back it in the dispute with Australia over an arms industry contract that has never been discussed at the political level in the EU.

Speaking last Friday as the dispute escalated, Josep Borrell, the EU’s foreign affairs chief, specifically ruled out “ad hoc” suspension of the trade talks. “Trade agreements with Australia will continue down their path, and we will see how things develop,” he said, last Friday.

Senior EU diplomats have described the row as a “small hiccup” that only affects the French arms industry over a bilateral French-Australia security agreement that Paris agreed unilaterally without reference to the EU……

"Don't see the French spiting the US and Oz over this given their values align with the rest of the west"

we'll see - not a split but I doubt they'll cross the street to help any of the AUKUS crowd in anything for quite a while

Germans don’t seem impressed….

https://translate.google.com/transla...F27627196.html