So the rumors are going strong that the a 'friendly' country that the Toebbe's tried to sell nuclear secrets to were the french. Country1 had the plans and were in communications with Toebbe for 8 months before they contacted the FBI.

I personally dont believe the french would be dumb enough to do something like that. But if, a really big IF they did I could understand how the US government could be pissed and decided to do aukus as a bit of a screw you to france

10 minutes before it is launched the Pentagon and Pine Gap detect the activity, with US Service Personnel also using Tindal and any thermonuclear device likely to poison part of the NT and kill thousands and thousands of US Personnel, I'd say the Chinese would think twice. They probably think the US will look after themselves but they also would not be entirely sure that they wouldn't defend us - the other factor is that if it's Virginia Class boats we get, they'd have to know if the Chinese decided to attack us, they would also gain access to the sub technology and Washington won't have that happen.

More likely the Chinese would sink one of our Destroyers or Frigates and then have the South China Morning Post write one of their Borat-like stories about Australians being crawling maggots in the dung of Americans or some other nonsense.

"Re-Verify our Rangshe to target, one ping only......." "But Kepptin, I hevv...." "Give me a ping Vashilly, whun pingk ornly pleasshh"

Best 20 seconds of dialogue in the whole movie !!!!!!!

You've got to ask the question who the hell runs the United States. The President of the United States, the Chief Executive, Head of State and Head of Government announces that the United States will share its submarine technology with Australia and Australia will get either a US boat or a UK boat but with US nuclear technology.

Enter all these retired Admirals and Sub Commanders and defence 'experts' as well as un-named Pentagon persons saying no, that won't happen.

Like I said, who runs the US, the President or retired Admirals and defence mandarins.

As I said previously, the problem the Australians buying the Virginia class would be getting the purchase through either, let alone both, House iof Congress. Even if they could it would take years - and they would also go to the end of the line behind the USN requirement.

Technology transfer is something the various committees would fight long and hard over.

The U.K., however, already has the technology, transferred aver the last few years for the PWR3 reactor*, which will fit comfortably inside an Astute.

All the UK required was for the President to authorise the UK to share what they already have - which he has done.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_PWR#PWR3

I workday think the main questions would be whether they get either of the last two boats with the PWR2b, for which, from what I have read, the line has been closed. I would doubt it.

The question would then be whether any of the Oz boats would be built at Barrow with a line then opened in Oz, or whether jigs and associated equipment would be transferred to Oz once boat 7 gets past the stage they are required.

In either case I would assume the reactors would all be built in the UK.

"and then we''ll !!!! off their coasht and lishten to their rock and roll and then we'll shail to Cuba, where the weather ish warm and sho ish the welcome. The order is, engage the shilent drive!"

I guess the Australian construction companies could get on with building a replica of the facilities at Barrow whilst their engineers are trained in the UK by working on the remaining RN Astutes. Then when the jigs are free they’d be all set to start building their own. The steel used to make the hull is made to a classified specification by Sheffield Forgemasters, so maybe that will also have to made in the UK and shipped over.

There is no spare capacity at Barrow. The RN want Astute boat 7 HMS Agincourt out as quickly as possible so they can get on with HMS Dreadnought to start replacing the aging Vanguard class boats.

A reason we got Astute number 7 was to keep Barrow busy till the Dreadnought builds came on stream and so avoid repeating the Astute basic SSN building techniques learning process. I daresay Boris, Ben and certainly Treasury would be quite happy for the RAN to have this boat and for the RAN's builders of choice to come and learn how things are done in the same way that BAE were helped. They can then take the jigs and special tools etc. off to Adelaide and build some more RAN modified Astutes around a RR reactor package, probably supplied ready to build in.

N

Nope. Boat 7 was contracted because we need at least seven.

I'd be very surprised if Astute (and its PWR2) form the basis of what is to come.

If Australia could get its hands on the EA-18G I doubt there’s much the US wouldn’t sell to us. The fetish in this thread about buying British is heartwarming, but when was the last time Australia made a major defence acquisition from the UK? Better yet when was the last time the RAN purchased an RN platform??

Type 26 frigate?

N

There is no fetish - it's just the solution that best fits what we've been told about the events leading up to the announcement. It might be wrong, but time will tell.

"when was the last time Australia made a major defence acquisition from the UK? Better yet when was the last time the RAN purchased an RN platform?? "

Cough, cough - three years ago

"In June 2018, the Australian Government announced that it had selected a modified version of the Type 26 platform as the planned replacement for its Anzac-class frigate.[39] This will see the Royal Australian Navy procure up to nine Hunter-class frigates, which will be constructed by BAE Systems Australia at ASC's shipyard in Osborne, South Australia"

"Boat 7 was contracted because we need at least seven."

The 1997 SDR wanted 10, this was cut to 8 and at one point it looked as if they might only build 5 - but (thank God) #6 and #7 were ordered, partly to keep the yard open as per Boffin's post.

The biggest problem is how are they going to recreate the fabulous weather of Barrow in Adelaide?

The Growler is hi-tech, but not that hi-tech.

Remember Australia had reportedly expressed interest in buying the F-22 back in 2008, but had been rebuffed. You think selling a nuke sub would be any easier?

https://www.reuters.com/article/aust...31393720080220

https://thehill.com/opinion/national...submarine-deal

The Raptor being sold overseas was prohibited specifically by the Obey Amendment, there’s no specific US instrument to prohibit the sale of the Virginia class as far as I’m aware.

Congressional approval is obviously not a done deal but it’s far from impossible in this case.

I forget what the agreement Bush entered into with the UK and one with Australia was called. It was given a fancy name. Someone here would know of it. It was for tech transfer. That is still valid.
Anyone?

Read the second link in my post #517 above - it would require the repeal/amendment of several treaties and laws….

”…..While more specifics of the deal will be hammered out over the next 18 months, Congress can — and should — be skeptical of any “exception” that could weaken nonproliferation policy or insist on changes to avoid proliferation concerns.

Because the United States and Australia have an agreement that does not allow this sort of military transfer, Congress will get a say in whether it is amended.

Section 123 of the U.S. Atomic Energy Act (AEA) of 1954 governs nuclear cooperation between the United States and other countries, laying out nine non-proliferation criteria. As recently as 2010, Congress permitted the Australian “123 agreement” to come into force until at least 2040. That deal, however, pertains only to civilian projects and explicitly forbids the transfer of materials for “military nuclear propulsion.”

The agreement also bans the transfer of fuel defined as “highly-enriched uranium” (HEU), meaning uranium enriched to 20 percent or higher in the isotope Uranium-235 (U-235). All United States nuclear submarines rely on fuel enriched to 93.5 percent in the isotope U-235, which technically qualifies as weapon-grade. A new arrangement with Australia, as well as the overall Foreign Military Sales agreement, will require separate Congressional approval processes that Congress will need to consider carefully……”

That is news to me. I recall our PM at the time, John Howard. Specifically saying he didn't want the F-22, as it didn't have enough A2G and was only interested in the F-35 and didn't want the pure A2A. This was before the ban and when LM had their F-22 power point presentation for Australia. that Labour 'review' was never serious. It was political election spin on the purchase of the Super hornet at the time. they never made a request to the US for the F-22.

Anyone remember the agreement the UK and US and Australia US Signed about 2020-2025? It was after Boeing got fined for tech transfer to Australia, less than we already had access to..