You are right, they don't sell their absolute state of the art technology to anyone; however, given our access to Nuclear propulsion technology along with the UK, we perhaps are not 'anyone' and if the need is identified, it may be achievable. Times have certainly changed since the F22 era.

I think we should buy some B's and operate them off the UK carriers in the same way that the Marines do, or operate them off USN flat tops. Included in this would appropriate technical and deck crew, that way keeping a nucleus of a carrier qualified pilot and deck crew just in case

The design of the current Canberra class ships has been modified to maximise their amphibious capabilities so they have limited aircraft/helicopter storage and aviation fuel. To operate F-35B’s, a new hull would have to be built that converts all the amphibious capability into aviation support capability - that would take time and funding. The deck would have to be redesigned to withstand the high exhaust temperatures of the F35B’s. Personally, I think a squadron of B-21’s would provide more capability & flexibility than having a carrier. Senior US defence officials have publicly stated that they would look at any proposal that Australia puts to them - including B-21’s. I totally agree with Gnads about dispersal and protection of such a valuable strategic asset.


The RAN & BAE have circled the wagons to keep the focus on construction of the Hunter class and ignore the unsolicited offer from Navantia to quickly build 3 more Air Warfare Destroyers. Good to see that integration of the CEAFAR 2 radar with the AEGIS combat system is progressing well.
Hunter Class construction to start earlier


https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....476bda8a4.jpeg
First Hunter class prototype block section (Block 16, 141 tonnes)

Agree.
Note this also:
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/fede...31-p5be8p.html

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/a...subs-dd60qm793

Australians to train in UK nuclear subs

Submariners from Australia will be allowed to train inside Britain’s nuclear-powered submarines and access sensitive technology that has been kept secret from foreign nations for decades, it can be revealed.….

Under the plans being discussed by British and Australian ministers today, naval officers would be allowed to see nuclear engineering at work for the first time.… A Royal Navy source said: “We protect UK technology very closely. This a first-time agreement where we can give Australians access to that. It’s a really big gift.”…

Richard Marles, Australia’s deputy prime minister and defence minister will join Boris Johnson and Ben Wallace, the defence secretary, in the northwest of England today to attend the commissioning ceremony for HMS Anson, the fifth of seven new Astute-class attack submarines, and to discuss co-operation between their nations…..

The training is likely to take place on the UK’s £1.4 billion Astute-class nuclear-powered submarines, rather than the Vanguard-class ballistic missile submarines because they have the newest reactor technology. Some of the training could be restricted to four months but other courses could last several years.

The source said that Australian submariners could even potentially embed with the Royal Navy on its submarines. It is understood that no extra security vetting will be deemed necessary.

Marles said that his government had not yet decided which nuclear- powered submarines — British or American — were best to replace Australia’s ageing conventional submarine fleet. He said he was planning to announce the choice early next year.

[QUOTE=ORAC;11288187]https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/a...subs-dd60qm793


Don't forget that it is not only with the RN. There is also a near identical agreement with the USN currently working it's way through Congress. Two RAN submariners undertake USN Nuclear School followed by Submarine Course then secondment to a USN SSN for a two year tour.

The SSN speculation continues with this article indicating that “off the shelf Astute’s are off the table”. The concept of a joint US-UK-AU follow-on SSN incorporating the SSN-X & SSN(R) programs has some merit as it would mean that the RAN would get the latest technology that would be upgradable throughout their service life. It also allows time for the shipyards to be prepared/upgraded for the construction & maintenance of these vessels as well as all the companies that will be suppliers to the project.

Defence Connect Astute class off the table

The downside of this is that it would mean a further delay before the RAN SSN’s become operational and may go beyond the Collins class service life, especially the older ones. Because of the potential capability gap, It may require require the construction of 3-4 interim “son-of-Collins” submarines to be built featuring many of the post LOTE systems that will be installed in the current boats. This would keep the maintenance logistics to a manageable level whereas, the introduction and support of a brand new conventional submarine like the highly rated Korean KSS III class would require a massive investment in money and manpower.

Like many, I’m keen to see what the final decision will be.

A question then...

what helo benefits from a ski ramp?

The only answer that I’ve heard is that the cost to redesign the bow to remove the ski jump from the original Spanish design was too prohibitive so they were built with them - even though they are of no use to amphibious operations. Internally, the two RAN LHD’s are not set up for anything but amphibious craft, combat vehicle storage & supporting helicopter operations, no fixed wing capability.

Further to this. It wouldn't have given another helicopter landing area. One reason given, was because of firefighting design.

None but the harrier the spanish fly off them do. I read the removal of the ramp would have meant a couple of hundred million to redesign and retest and re certify, for minimal gain. Same thing with the turkish version they went the same way, cost wasn't worth the redesign

This is interesting in context of holding China at threat well back from Australian shores:
https://csbaonline.org/uploads/docum...web-9-1-22.pdf

https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/Int...U.S.-shipyards

AUKUS submarines: A burden too big for overloaded U.S. shipyards

TOKYO -- A senior U.S. Navy official has expressed concern that assisting Australia in acquiring nuclear-powered submarines may be too much of a burden for America's overstretched nuclear shipyards.….

https://www.defensenews.com/naval/20...st-year-doing/

What have the AUKUS partners spent the last year doing?

WASHINGTON — The United States, the United Kingdom and Australia have spent the last year discussing in detail the capabilities that each partner of the so-called AUKUS agreement will bring to the table for a future Australian nuclear-powered attack submarine, according to the undersecretary of the U.S. Navy.

Speaking at the Defense News Conference on Wednesday, Erik Raven said he doesn’t have submarine design announcements yet, but could say the three nations are focused on “how to get there in the smartest way to make sure this partnership pays dividends well into the future.”……

Top of mind shortly after the AUKUS announcement was choosing the class of submarine the Royal Australian Navy may use — the U.S. Navy’s Virginia-class submarine, the British Royal Navy’s Astute-class submarine or something new. But the conversation later turned toward whose industrial base has the capacity to handle additional construction work.

Rear Adm. Scott Pappano, the program executive officer for strategic submarines, has closely tracked industrial base issues related to his top-priority Columbia-class ballistic missile submarine, as well as what capacity remains to build and maintain the Virginia attack subs.

Although he’s not directly involved in AUKUS conversations, he said last month that, “if we are going to add additional submarine construction to our industrial base, that would be detrimental to us right now without significant investment to provide additional capacity and capability to go do that.” He added the U.K. submarine-industrial base faces similar constraints.

Despite the challenges, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Mike Gilday has called the arrangement “a strategic stroke of brilliance … for all three countries.”….

The new Chief of Navy not concerned about Admiral Poppano’s comments.

SMH Submarine warning a bit of noise

Here's the view of George Brandis, who used to be the Australian High Commissioner to the UK. He's an Anglophile.

The sub-plot to our AUKUS pact: We may need UK rather than US submarines

Last week, Defence Minister Richard Marles returned from a successful visit to the United Kingdom. At the top of his agenda was a series of meetings, including with outgoing prime minister Boris Johnson and Defence Secretary Ben Wallace, to discuss the next steps in the AUKUS security pact; in particular, the British bid to supply the submarines which, powered by American nuclear-propulsion technology, are AUKUS’s first joint project.

There is much more to AUKUS than the submarine acquisition. It is a long-range commitment to the joint development of a variety of complex technologies for defence purposes: hypersonics, quantum computing, artificial intelligence and other advanced capabilities. However, the submarine program – Pillar One, in the jargon – is the most tangible and the soonest to begin.
https://static.ffx.io/images/$zoom_0...94cbb6b4730018A real option for Australia: Boris Johnson, in one of his final duties as Britain’s prime minister, attends the commissioning of HMS Anson, Britain’s newest Astute-class, nuclear-powered submarine in Barrow.Credit:Latika Bourke

The most important question looming over AUKUS in the near term is the choice of submarine. In the debate so far, this has been posed as binary: whether the preferred vessel should be British or American. Specifically, whether it should be the next generation of the UK’s Astute-class submarine, or the US Virginia or Los Angeles-class.

At their press conference at Barrow in north-west England, where Britain’s nuclear submarines are built, Marles, Johnson and Wallace avoided the issue by characterising it as a tripartite build, with significant elements from each country. While this is true up to a point – and takes account of the Australian priority for substantial construction domestically – the ultimate choice will be between a British or American design.

This is a decision which the Albanese government has committed to making in the first half of next year. The evaluation process is well under way. This is a more complex decision than that faced by the Turnbull government when it chose the design of a next-generation diesel-powered submarine. At that time, the much-superior US nuclear propulsion technology was not available to Australia; the decision was a straightforward choice between French, German and Japanese tenders. If the tender for the AUKUS submarine is awarded to Britain, US technology will have to be integrated into a British design.

Related Article

https://static.ffx.io/images/$zoom_0...0069ccaa58de40

National security

New navy boss dismisses US submarine warning as a ‘bit of noise’

That added layer of complexity is one of several reasons why many prefer an American sub: its promoters claim that it could be purchased, effectively, “off the shelf”. While that is way too simplistic to describe the development and acquisition of any complex weapons platform, superficially the American option does appear simpler. Added to that are the crucial issues of speed of delivery and, of course, cost – on both of which the American option is claimed to be superior.

At the Indian Ocean Defence and Security Conference in Perth a fortnight ago, there was a near-to-unanimous expectation that the American build would be chosen. That was the view strongly expressed by the former defence minister and Australia’s current Defence Industry Advocate, David Johnson. It is also clearly former defence minister Peter Dutton’s view, as evident from his claim during the election campaign that he had secured the agreement of the Americans to supply two submarines before 2030.

So far, Marles has been more careful, not expressing a public preference for one design over the other. This is absolutely the right approach; to do otherwise would pre-empt the evaluation process.
Concerningly, however, at the very time Marles was visiting Barrow, one of the most senior figures in the US Navy’s nuclear submarine program, Rear Admiral Scott Pappano, gave an interview in which he cast doubt on America’s readiness or even capacity to incorporate the supply of submarines to Australia into its production schedule. “If we are going to add additional submarine construction to our industrial base, that would be detrimental to us right now,” Pappano was quoted as saying. This comes at a time when the US Navy is planning significant increases its fleet size – including its submarine capability – to meet the China challenge. As Johnson and Wallace no doubt told Marles, there is no hesitancy on the part of the British.

The UK’s commitment to AUKUS is strong. The new Prime Minister, Liz Truss, is every bit as enthusiastic for AUKUS as was Johnson. Wallace has been reappointed as Defence Secretary. If, as many expect, he leaves the government next year to become the secretary-general of NATO, his likely successor in the portfolio is the new Security Minister Tom Tugendhat – a strong China hawk and AUKUS enthusiast. The Truss cabinet – indeed virtually the entire Conservative Party – share that sentiment.
https://static.ffx.io/images/$zoom_0...a457152e62bd70Australia’s Deputy Prime Minister, Richard Marles, with then-British Prime Minister Boris Johnson in Barrow for the commissioning of Astute-class submarine.Credit:Official British government photographer.

We can also be confident that a future UK Labour government will take the same view. Although UK Labour was initially sceptical of AUKUS, its bipartisan support has since been clarified. At the Labour Party conference last year, which took place shortly after AUKUS had been announced, I sought and received firm assurances from both the shadow defence secretary and the then shadow foreign secretary that a future Labour government would fully support AUKUS – a position since reinforced by Labour leader Keir Starmer and the shadow cabinet.

The UK’s eagerness to win the submarine contract is palpable. It conforms with one of the key priorities set out in last year’s Integrated Review of Britain’s geostrategic objectives, the “tilt to the Indo-Pacific”. It also reflects an electorally powerful domestic priority which does not feature in American thinking – the rehabilitation of the industrial manufacturing base in the north of England. As a very competitive UK election looms in 2024, the Australian submarine contract would be a huge political trophy.

I don’t doubt the US commitment to AUKUS is as strong as Britain’s. Inevitably, though, Australia has less weight in its relationship with the US than it does in that with the UK. Put simply, we are, as a customer, in a weaker position. And the domestic political imperatives in the UK are entirely absent from America’s priorities. It is inconceivable that anyone of importance in the British system would think as Admiral Pappano does.
https://static.ffx.io/images/$zoom_0...fb077c181bb2c5The US Virginia-class, nuclear-powered submarine.

Ultimately, a defence contract of this magnitude will be a decision based on capability, cost and the capacity to deliver soonest. The received wisdom in Defence is that all of those factors favour the choice of an American design. Yet – as the short life of the French diesel submarine project demonstrated – things can change fast in a few short years. For a project whose delivery times are measured not in years but decades, another important consideration is to ensure Australia is in the strongest position it can be when it comes to the delivery phase.

Your information with respect to the LHDs is incorrect.

Admiral Pappano is making sure he's heard - I'm sure he'd love to see another line for building SSN's in the USA "to help out the Aussies" and to speed up delivery to the USN. Once they start serious work on the next SSBN's it's going to be quite tight in the USA and impossible in the UK without extra capability in the yards

The Aussies want to build their subs in Adelaide, so it is not really about more UK or US building capacity, with the exception of the reactor section. It is more about extra boat building expertise. It is difficult to see that either of BAE or GDEB has the expertise to lend to Adelaide sitting around, so it will have to be grown, as an extra to the existing programmes, regardless of the design chosen. That might involve Australians in the existing build activities until they are able to build their own.
Whether that could be resourced down under whilst maintaining the Collins is another matter.

We shall see.

N

Not just availability in the shipyard, also the reactor core and fuel assembly buildings.

https://www.nuclearinfo.org/article/...y-dreadnought/

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....c04fa4ebf4.png
Hey! You Aussies! You no allowed Nucrear submarines, OK?