Noted on NZ visits - more of an observation that they won't be shifting their position any time soon.
This really is a long term game changer... as your MP above observes.
Collins had a range of ~9,000nm snorting - just 400nm submerged.
Nuclear boats... how much food can you carry?

Tartare,

The differences between different versions of TLAM are somewhat more complex. Though the USN retired their TLAM-N in 2013 they are, reportedly, working on a replacement.

https://www.armscontrolwonk.com/arch...retire-tlam-n/

https://fas.org/blogs/security/2013/03/tomahawk/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidha...ed-a-bad-idea/

Won't this just create an arms race in the Pacific? A self fulfilling prophecy?

The Canberra government is seen as being a Trump like right wing group climate change deniers - a very unpopular stance in NZ.

But Australia has created a groundswell of resentment by sending the' 501's citizens to NZ .

If Australia wants to pay billions in defence to keep China’s expansion under control then NZ reaction is “ Good on Ya Mate”
What goes around comes around when you do the dirty on your neighbour

No , not dirty on our neighbour.
You guys should know what we think of you.
But Australia takes its strategic position in the world much more seriously than NZ.
Thats just an observable fact.
You can act as a small nation of no great importance in the South Pacific.
Hence giving up on your airforce.
Australia can’t.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...submarine-pact

…..France’s foreign minister criticised the deal, which heralds the end of a $90bn deal that Australia made with the French company Naval Group in 2016 to replace its ageing Collins class submarine fleet. France accused Australia of “going against the letter and the spirit” of the deal.

“The American choice to push aside a European ally and partner like France from a structural partnership with Australia at a time we are facing unprecedented challenges in the Indo-Pacific region … shows a lack of coherence that France can only acknowledge and regret,” said the foreign minister, Jean-Yves Le Drian, and the defence minister, Florence Parly, in a joint statement.

On Twitter, France’s former ambassador to the US Gérard Araud went further, saying: “France has just been reminded this bitter truth by the way the US and the UK have stabbed her in the back in Australia. C’est la vie.”

Araud also appeared to question why Australia did not seek nuclear submarines from France. “A nuc powered submarine would have been much easier to France to offer since all its submarines are nuc powered,” he tweeted. “The difficulty was precisely to convert nuc powered into conventional powered ships.”

Protecting us from decimation by stupidity you mean?

We love that you will protect us for free
As I said - Good on Ya.
Although we will hold your coat and bag when go and fight.

Stabbed in the back ?
Like 1914 and 1940 ?
Got to wonder if we went to war on the right side.
French narcissism is breath taking.
The contract was a big mistake from the start.

One thing to keep in mind is relying on other countries, especially European, to support weapons with spares, etc in time of war.
All it needs is a change in political party in power for even a previously steadfast ally to become unwilling to provide parts for weapons.
We learned a hard lesson in Vietnam about this, from European arms suppliers.
A heavy bit of economic coercion from China could leave us with a very compromised capability at a critical time.
Having said that, the US especially, and UK are much less likely to act in such a way even with a China heavy on them.

More on French pique…

https://www.politico.eu/article/fran...ubmarine-deal/

‘Stab in the back’: France slams Australia, US over move to ditch €50B submarine deal

The French government has hit out Australia's decision to tear up a submarine deal with France worth more than €50 billion to instead acquire American-made nuclear-powered submarines.

"It's a stab in the back. We had established a trusting relationship with Australia, and this trust was betrayed," French Foreign Affairs Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian said in a Franceinfo interview Thursday morning. Le Drian added he was "angry and very bitter about this break up," adding that he had spoken to his Australian counterpart days ago and received no serious indication of the move……

Le Drian indicated that France would fight the move. “This is not over," he said. "We’re going to need clarifications. We have contracts. The Australians need to tell us how they’re getting out of it. We’re going to need explanation. We have an intergovernmental deal that we signed with great fanfare in 2019, with precise commitments, with clauses, how are they getting out of it? They’re going to have to tell us. So this is not the end of the story."……

Agree.
For that reason alone , I couldn’t understand a deal with the French.
The Yanks always had a problem putting a US combat system in a French sub.
French subs leak like a sieve from an intelligence point of view.

France.
She who has never backstabbed an ally, shafted a friend or welched on a deal under pressure.

France is a decent country, but like most it acts in self interest in the final analysis.
There is little sense of kinship between continental Europe and Australia.
However, I feel there is residual sense of kinship between between many in UK and Aus that influences attitudes over pure self interest.

Seismic stuff and plenty of reverberations still to come. Intrigued to see how it will pan out. French anger was to be expected and I guess this won't do much to help Anglo French relations - although we continue to loyally support them elsewhere eg with heavy lift etc in the Sahel.

Most intriguing to me is what brand of nuclear subs we are talking about here. Hot favourites must be Virginias, in which case it's hard to see what the UK brings to the table beyond getting a few crumbs from said table, eg BAe or Babcocks getting some management or maintenance contracts. Could there be a scenario however where the US isn't actually keen on exporting Virginias but really likes the idea, strategically, of Australia upping its game in the area with nuclear subs. That could just open the door to an Astute-based solution - something HMG would presumably love to see, and it's interesting that the UK is said to have been a prime mover in bringing this whole arrangement about. Very much a long shot, certainly, but...

I can see the probability that UK will provide the reactors and supply the fuel - and contract to take it back for reprocessing and storage.

The Astute could also be built under licence in Oz - not sure Congress would allow that for the Virginia class for security reasons.

Our industrial base struggles to deliver our own boats - let alone anyone else's. While welcome in strategic terms, this is going to pose a real risk to UK capabilities - primarily in manpower terms.

Any UK expertise might well be in helping the Aussies set up the build, support and safety infrastructure needed. It's non-trivial.

It sounds like they need to do a bit more homework. The John S McCain is conventionally powered.

So, a question for our British friends as you wake up and we go to sleep.
I read a lot in this forum about how incompetent, wasteful etc. BAE are in terms of military aircraft, but know nothing about their performance on the Astute class.
Wikipedia talks about early delays, cost overruns etc - par for course on any new military project it seems.
What's the general feeling about the Astute Boats and BAE submarines at present?
Have they reached some sort of early maturity? I see the RN was pretty chuffed with itself in 2012 about besting a Virginia attack boat in exercises.
Having very little knowledge of submarines - I assume the Virginia class would be:
a) too much boat for Australia's needs
b) not likely to be approved for export by Congress - and even if they were - a long queue to wait for the USN to get their full compliment of 30+
But I would feel a bit more confident about buying from GDEB than BAE subs.
Over to those who know more than I do.

https://www.naval-technology.com/fea...est-submarine/

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/bu...us-navy-151446

Then, of course, they could skip a generation…..

https://www.forbes.com/sites/hisutto...ubmarine-ssnr/

Coincidentally, the BBC documentary ‘How to Build a Nuclear Submarine’ is repeated on BBC4 next Sunday. It follows the construction of an Astute Class submarine and the many highly skilled jobs and apprenticeships it supports.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00syt1w

That would be my guess as well.
In the not too distant future the residents of Barrow might be getting to hear the sound of Aussie accents on a regular basis around town....??

Some years ago I was at a seminar where Ziggy Switowski (then head of the ANSTO) was one of the speakers. From memory he thought that it would take Australia 20(?) years to develop self-sufficiency in the expertise required to support a nuclear industry i.e. be able to design, build, operate, then decommission, a nuclear power station. Presumably a slightly simpler set of problems than nuclear power plants in a maritime environment.

I assume the RAN will be using existing nuclear technology but, even if sailors are despatched tomorrow (or 'yesterday'?), I would imagine there will need to be a few British and / or US accents on the Australian submarines for some time. It may even be an ongoing requirement for Australia to get access to the technology.

Australia submarine deal: France's Naval Group expresses 'great diasppointment

'French shipbuilder Naval Group issued the following statement:

Naval Group takes note of the decision of the Australian authorities to acquire a fleet of nuclear submarines in collaboration with the United States and the United Kingdom.

The Commonwealth decided not to proceed with the next phase of the program. This is a major disappointment for Naval Group, which was offering Australia a regionally superior conventional submarine with exceptional performances.

Naval Group was also offering Australia a sovereign submarine capability making unrivalled commitments in terms of technology transfer, jobs and local content.

For five years, Naval Group teams, both in France and in Australia, as well as our partners, have given their best and Naval Group has delivered on all its commitments.

The analysis of the consequences of this sovereign Australian decision will be conducted with the Commonwealth of Australia in the coming days.

The Swedish technology uses a Stirling engine for AIP (air independent power), and according to this article, is battery-powered, not Diesel-powered when it needs to run fast:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/hisutto...h=22d85d532bfb

The German U212A class uses Diesel-electric for speed and fuel cells for quiet AIP:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_212_submarine
https://www.bundeswehr.de/de/ausrues...t-klasse-212-a

More background on how these rather small, quiet, shallow-water boats are used here (sorry, you'll need to use autotranslate):
https://www.abendblatt.de/politik/au...nd-machte.html

It does not seem clear which ones are the most quiet. While the first and fourth link mention Swedish AIP and older German Diesel-powered (non AIP) boats breching US defenses in manouvres, this article seems to say the Americans consider theirs to be the most quiet, followed on the heels by Russian boats:
https://www.businessinsider.de/tech/...ennen-2018-10/

NZ has been cosying up to China for some time. Immigration policy has looked favourably on Chinese businessmen and investors to the detriment of skilled workers and professionals. Check out the air traffic on FR24, despite the blanket ban on pax arrivals traffic between China and NZ barely missed a beat throughout the pandemic and continues apace. I'm with ORAC on the possibility that NZ will have to come down off the fence pretty soon and depending on which side they land will depend on whether one of the five eyes develops cataracts.

A possible next step could be to "Forward base" either Agamemnon or Agincourt (Boats 7 or 8) in Oz to with mixed crews for give the RAN experience of SSN ops, with the option to buy/lease downstream or replace with locally built derivatives.

If China is so outraged and innocent why is it selling submarines to Thailand (What's the threat to Thailand that it need these weapons?)

The Royal Thai Navy (RTN) is set to receive three Type 039B Yuan-class submarines from China at a total cost of US$1.1 billion.
The Deal now on hold as Thailand is broke however seems it now has an offer of Buy 2 get one free!!!!
***

PS from Wikipedia Type 39A Sub
Combat control systemsChina was known to have imported the Thales TSM 2233 ELEDONE / DSUV-22 and Thales TSM 2255 / DUUX-5 from France during the 1980s and early 1990s. It also has access to a wide range of modern Russian sonar systems (MG-519 MOUSE ROAR, MGK-500 SHARK GILL) through its purchase of the Kilo class. Comparable systems are expected to be copied for the Type 039A. It is likely to be fitted with a comparable surface/air search radar similar to the MRK-50 SNOOP TRAY, a commercial navigation radar like a Furuno unit observed on a number of SONG class and ESM system is comparable to the Type 921A.

No wonder the French are upset they want to sell the stuff to both sides............................

Agreed but just to be clear, I'm certainly not suggesting any Astute-based solution would involve build at Barrow. If what you're saying is that we don't have the wherewithal to support Australia in setting up and running an Astute build facility in Australia then you may be right I guess - we'll just have to see what pans out. Overall I'd agree that the UK is most likely in line for crumbs from the table - but for the reasons I mentioned an Astute scenario exists, even if only just...

This seems to have annoyed both China and France - what's not to like? As for Australians visiting Barrow - one feels for them.

In other news, England has just leapfrogged France in the FIFA world rankings. It never rains...

Maybe Oz offered the UK the option to base its subs their when Scotland eventually goes independent and declares itself nuke-free. Our deterrent doesn't need to be based in the Atlantic.

PS I wonder if the France option is still on the table?...

As a choice I think it's the right one - the RAN need long range and endurance - not something you get with a diesel.

The big problem is building the damn things - the UK has been building them since the '50's and still has problems - "Audacious" spent 4 years working up due to "emergent technical issues" in a class that is over 4 years old.

There are some nice people in Port Adelaide but the yard has had issues before completing high tech warships

Would the US sell them direct?

Sir Humphrey….

https://tinyurl.com/38j9euza

Underway on Nuclear Power - AUKUS and Australian Nuclear Submarines

….There are challenges though to delivering this vision. Firstly, nuclear submarines are extremely expensive and need heavy investment to build and deliver – the challenge Australia will face is working out a strategy that finds sufficient skilled workers to build them, and put the supporting infrastructure in place.

It may be a challenging task, particularly at a time when there is already an extremely ambitious naval construction programme underway in Australia with the Type 26 frigate. Additionally, this is going to need to be an open ended building programme – as the UK and US have found, shutting down construction yards for nuclear submarine construction makes for a very expensive experience when you need to reopen it.

If Australia is serious about becoming, and remaining, a nuclear navy, then it will need to think carefully about building timescales, and essentially always having an SSN in the construction plan to prevent the yards closing. Once closed, the cost to reopen is astronomical – but this in turn may pose significant challenges for the Australian defence budget.

A wider challenge will be putting the infrastructure in place for berthing and supporting these vessels, which will be expensive and require major changes. It will also need a significant retraining and skills uplift in the navy and its support staff to ensure that they can maintain and support these vessels.

The challenge will be in both finding and training these staff, and also potentially handling the nationality restrictions imposed on access to nuclear material. As a nation built on immigrants, it may prove challenging to find the right blend of people who can satisfy the security vetting criteria that they can have access to the highly sensitive nuclear areas and work.

Finding enough crew will also be hard – the Australians have long staffed their military through both local recruitment and the encouraging of former UK (and other) nationals to join for a second career – they are hard worked for a few years, then retire on a good salary and citizenship. The pool of nuclear submariners is small though, so the first challenge is finding them locally, then not poaching too many from the UK or US, a move which may cause tensions if too many British submariners were to ‘jump ship’ to join the RAN.

Finally there is a wider issue of keeping the focus to ensure this project is delivered – realistically this is a 10-20 year project to acquire and build sufficient nuclear submarines to provide a credible capability. Having the focus, resources and political desire to do this, even as the bills mount up and opposition grows is going to be a challenge. Hopefully it happens, but it may not. There is always a slim chance that billions will be spent, and that the Australians will have nothing to show for it (perhaps they should follow the UK example and call the SSN’s the ‘AJAX’ class?)………

Thank you for those posts Orac.
The Astute class would seem to be quite a capable boat.
And the French will likely get a slice of the pie anyway - given the 2076 sonar is developed by Thales!

There seems to be a real worry in Europe, not least in France, that this is the UK turning its eyes, and it’s military, to the Pacific - and realising how much they need the UK strategically. Not sure if the joint declaration on AUKUS being so close to this meeting was a coincidence or deliberate.

Might have been more appropriate in the EU army thread - but also fits here.

Back in the day the UK, along with the USA, was involved in not only NATO but also CENTO and SEATO. The latter two withered on the vine. One wonders what the rise of AUKUS will mean for the former as the focus shifts back to the Pacific.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baghdad_Pact

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southe...y_Organization

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/d...h-eu-rp9c05bnl

Dutch leader Mark Rutte will invite Britain to join deal with EU

Boris Johnson will be offered a pact with the European Union on defence and security co-operation today during a meeting in Downing Street with Mark Rutte, the Dutch prime minister…..

“Afghanistan is a catalyst for further discussion on European defence co-operation, preferably including the UK,” a diplomatic source said. “Since Brexit, not enough European leaders have been in touch with Johnson. It is important to look at the geopolitics without being divided and there is a need to work with the UK.”

France and Germany support the initiative and EU sources have suggested that Downing Street is more receptive to talks after British tensions arose with President Biden……

Rutte will make the offer despite French anger over a security pact between Australia, the US and Britain. The EU regards the issue as primarily a trade dispute over Australia’s decision to drop a submarine contract with France rather than a strategic question.…..

Dutch, French and other European governments back greater co-operation with Britain to overcome European dependency on the US for airlifts, evacuation of nationals and emergency humanitarian assistance.

Doing a deal with the UK is integral to European plans to develop a rapid reaction force to intervene independently of the US to ensure aid is delivered and evacuations carried out in a crisis……

The EU yesterday expressed “regret” that neither the Americans nor the British had consulted European capitals over the new alliance with Australia to counter China but it played down the significance of the row.

Borrell [the EU’s foreign affairs chief] said: “I understand the extent to which the French government must be disappointed. We regret not being informed.”

He said that the EU foreign ministers would discuss the agreement and the French would call for European navies to increase their military presence in the region.

“EU foreign and defence ministers will be pressing for an increase of our presence in the Indo-Pacific and enhanced defence of our interests in the region,” Borrell said. “I am not saying we should send a European fleet in but we should have vessels there.”

Given how "successful" (not!) decades of Green et al protests around Faslane have been in blunting the British R boats and now V boats, methinks that there is not much there to worry about

The Sir Humphrey post hits most of the nails on the head - yes its a great idea BUT can the Aussies carry it through over a 20 year period?

Reinforcing the French/EU angle….

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/...edoed-by-aukus

AUKUS deal showing France and EU that Biden not all he seems

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...s-implications

What is the AUKUS alliance and what are its implications?

https://www.politico.eu/article/jilt...tory-measures/

Jilted France cancels events over lost submarine deal

https://www.politico.eu/article/bide...na-power-play/

Biden shuns EU with Asia-Pacific power play