Back to topic........ in a post above Going Boeing shows a timeline with 8 SSN's - I can't see Australia managing to afford 8 - the UK will have taken 19 years to get 7 Astute's in service - the latest ones cost £ 1.5 Bn each

I had it explained to me by someone I trust, it originally came up when I !!!!ting on the french about the time the suffren took. He pointed out to me that both the UK and French long build times were sorta intentional. Both countries have been burned in previous generation by building them and 20 years later build the next one, meanwhile all the skills had atrophied. I dont think we are going to get 8, think its going to 6 nuclear and 6 conventional. But time will tell. Also note the cost of the astutes are actually going, astute actually came in massively overbudget and it was thanks to GDEB to save the program and made the boats cheaper

Point of order. AUKUS isn’t just about submarines.

Juggling the shipyard orders to ensure continuity of work for the skilled workers was what the current Australian government was trying to achieve with the schedule for the OPV’s, Attack class submarines & Hunter class frigates but it’s all unraveled with the cancellation of the Attack class & delays with the Hunter class design. The article (below) is a well thought out discussion suggesting a quick decision to build 3 more Air Warfare Destroyers (AWD) to provide the necessary employment until the SSN’s & Hunters commence construction. Funding would be mainly using the money previously allocated in the next few years for building the Attack class.

https://www.aspi.org.au/report/deliv...er-navy-faster

I don’t think the RAN could manage two different submarine types (6 nuclear and 6 conventional) as suggested by Rattman. This government appears to be willing to spend the money because they see a real threat (another reason to build the additional AWD’s) so I think they will buy at least 8 SSN’s. If there is a change of government at the upcoming election, the funding may be more restricted.

The UK government appears to be restricting their defence spending with early retirement of some naval vessels, reduction of the E7 order from 5 down to 3 (not a viable fleet for operations), insufficient P8’s, early retirement of C130J’s, no boom refuelling on the A330 MRTT Voyager aircraft despite having a number of types which use the boom, fitted for (but not with) designs on the Type 26 & 31 frigates, etc.

The latest report on the Royal Navy says that they need more escort ships & attack submarines as well as existing ships require a lot more offensive firepower.

I missed that :)
AUKUS: A melding of forces and technology.
https://www.theguardian.com/australi...der-aukus-deal
Australia won’t lose its sovereignty under the Aukus deal, according to Joe Biden’s top Indo-Pacific adviser, who has sought to clarify his prediction of a “melding” of Australian, US and UK military forces.

"I think they will buy at least 8 SSN’s" -

that's going to be a BIG bill............. and a sitting target for the Australian opposition who will tell people the money would be better spent on Health Care- after all, that's what the Tory Govt. in the UK seems ot think.

AUKUS with its 8 SSN buy has bi-partisan support going right back to Sept.

From the Opposition Leader

"AUKUS with its 8 SSN buy has bi-partisan support going right back to Sept."


They're politicians - they'll use whatever stick they can find to beat the other side - wait & see..................

That’s a bargain based on Emmanuel’s quote of AU$90B for 12 SSK’s.

I appreciate your dogma, however, China is playing its hand. The "Yellow Peril" is real, even for the moderate Left.

Personally, I don't like irrational fear mongering, fuelling partisan political campaigns in Australia. Such as the Defence Minister's recent press conference stating Chinese missiles can strike as far as Hobart. This is irrelevant. Australia's maritime interests are not. Our fuel supplies are just as vulnerable as the CCP's to a interdiction campaign through Indonesian choke points. SSN's offer relevance here. As would securing better national fuel reserves.

I agree - SSN's make a lot of sense for Australia - but there is bill and it won't be small. And over the many years before the programme is bedded in and the boats are on patrol there will be several elections

I have little faith in the ability of any politicians of any country to put long-term over being elected

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...droidApp_Other

Eight subs to cost a total of 178 billion.

Doesn't surprise me - particularly when you read about the sums the UK had to spend.
Not clear how that costing is arrived at and over what time - if we're talking $178bn incl. inflation up to the point that capability is introduced - then the sum is not that large.

Australia prices its defence as total lifetime cost including expected inflation. so the cost of the subs, the spares the maintainence plus additional crews, re/training of crews, accomodation of crews upgrade of naval facilites. So it will be 178 billion over a 50 year time period

Just look at the K9/huntsman program that was just signed 30 k9's at 3 million each and 15 ammo haulers at about 1.5 million each, doesn't cover the 900 million program cost

So - around A$3.56bn per annum for an absolutely game changing capability.
Sounds fair enough.

Possibly too late though?

ICBM or ICCM (non nuke warhead) stationed in the NT may provide a short term (10 year) deterrent?

The trouble with ICBM is that there is no way to tell whether you are on the inbound end of a conventional version, or a nuclear armed version. Whichever you launch, the recipient is likely to treat it as the nuclear version and respond accordingly.

ICCM are less difficult, as I think there currently no western nuclear armed versions, but a lot easier to stop, a lot less effective against hardened targets and not much of a deterrent.

N

Have long believed Australia needs a full nuclear deterrent.
Wish it wasn't the case - but the medium to long term outlook in this part of the world is potentially quite dark.
If I were making the decisions, I'd be ensuring that the new boats are fully capable of firing weapons with special payloads.
Numpty makes an interesting point though.
Nothing to stop` straya from basing some of them new hypersonic glide vehicle things up in the GAFA...

The problem with Australia having a full nuclear deterrent is that it would only take 5 - 10 warheads coming the other way to fry most of the population.

Aye, it's a MAD world...