You are assuming that in the event of a conflict it will end with a clear and obvious winner and loser and then cease.

Recent history would suggest this is unlikely.

No, actually I don’t know how it will end, nor do you. No matter how it ends, I believe it will happen long before some of the dates mentioned

Totally agree.
Report in the Sydney Morning Herald recently was war likely within 3 years.
If you had 3 years to prepare I'd be not retiring anything (even the NH-90s!) and building up ammunition and spares!
Most other things are likely to be too late!

The official government fact sheet for the AUKUS SSN states, “Australia will begin building its first SSN-AUKUS in Adelaide, South Australia, by the end of this decade. Australia plans to deliver the first Australian-built SSN-AUKUS to the Royal Australian Navy in the early 2040s.” This is much earlier than any of the press statements indicated.

https://www.defence.gov.au/sites/def...ct%20sheet.pdf

From going boeing's link. It will be used by both countries.

...The UK will commence construction of its first SSN-AUKUS in Barrow-in-Furness, UK, as early as the late 2020s. The UK intends to deliver its first SSN-AUKUS to the UK Royal Navy in the late 2030s. Australia will begin building its first SSN-AUKUS in Adelaide, South Australia, by the end of this decade. Australia plans to deliver the first Australian-built SSN-AUKUS to the Royal Australian Navy in the early 2040s. Australia will begin enabling works this year at the future Submarine Construction Yard in Osborne, South Australia. As a trilateral endeavour, SSN-AUKUS provides maximum interoperability among AUKUS partners. It will elevate all three...

Was a comment that the US will be rotating its Nuclear subs in/out of Perth from 2027. Assuming to advise China "back off".

But the next 3 odd years, we are just sitting ducks.

Don’t overblow it. Even if they are nuclear powered you are only talking about a platform carry a few dozen conventionally missiles - about the same number Ukraine is being hit by every week. Tactically advantageous but far more politically symbolic.

If you are talking about Australia being protected by a strategic umbrella in the short term, remember the US isn’t solely dependent in subs - and has already signed up to forward base B-52s and B-2s which can be deployed in days, if not hours.

https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/poli...-us-australia/

​​​​​​​https://www.themandarin.com.au/20774...r-72-darkstar/

There are advantages of a joint UK Aus design and order - like Concorde - it's a lot harder to cancel an order when it's tied up with overseas co-constructors. And that might help both the RAN and RN at different times. Plus of course R&D is spread over more boats and the two navies can swap crews - since they're both chronically short of bodies that in itself will be useful.

I am sure the late Harold Holt would be heartened by all this, given his view of Australia as an Asian power and subject to Asian threats, and his opposition to Harold Wilson's retreat from East of Suez abandoning the UK's duties to is Asian and Oceanian (mainly Commonwealth) allies.

'While this is happening, Australia and Britain will begin work on a new class of submarine – to be called SSN-AUKUS – which will be the next class of submarine for both countries. It will be a British design but have American technology including its nuclear reactor, weapons system and vertical launch system.' (SMH article linked by Rattman - post #1278)

'SSN-AUKUS will incorporate US technology such as propulsion plant systems and components, a common vertical launch system and weapons. The AUKUS partners will also develop a joint combat system as an expansion of the US-Australia combat system.' (AUKUS fact sheet linked by Going Boeing)

'On Monday 13 March, as part of the AUKUS trilateral agreement between Australia, the UK and the US, it was announced that Rolls-Royce Submarines Ltd will provide the reactors for Australia’s first nuclear powered submarines.' (RR press release)

Slightly confused by this as there seems to be an assumption in some circles that the powerplant will be (at least based on) the RR PWR3 developed for the Dreadnought Class SSBNs. Design of the PWR3 is reported to have input from the GE SG9 powering the Viriginias, so is this what's meant by 'American Technology' or will there be a more substatial US component?

I'll be interested in how co-operative the development of (M & S)UUVs to be used by the subs will be.:E

"But the next 3 odd years, we are just sitting ducks."

I don't think the Chinese are planning a war with Australia in the next 3 years................ Taiwan just possibly, India - perhaps- but Australia??

So Chinas counter is to build its military into a Great Wall of steel. And McGowan is heading there next month to make sure its oz iron ore that wil be used!

that's been a growing problem for many years - Australia needs China more than China needs Australia
https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....1e54d9e5dc.jpg

Indeed! We seemed to manage okay when they cracked the sads at us and stopped importing. Perhaps forcing them to use inferior Iron Ore will bring its own advantages longer term? :E

The US is also adding to the pot
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/new-fleet-of-eight-nuclear-submarines-to-be-built-in-australia-in-368-billion-deal-20230314-p5crt9.html

Australia will contribute about $3 billion to the efforts in the US and UK to develop the submarine technology, including the design and development of the SSN-AUKUS.

The US will commit $US4.6 billion ($6.9 billion) to its industry to support the Australian project, while the UK will spend £2.2 billion ($4 billion).

I wonder whether Japan will be looking to join in following their decision to join the Tempest programme.

They would be a good partner and the other benefits and programs would be an asset to all the other participants, but they have expressed zero interest in nuclear subs and not sure the cost benefit of them would be worth it

Here we go.
First stories emerging that - quelle horror - we'll have to dispose of, duh duh, duh - NUCLEAR WASTE! as part of AUKUS.
Spent fuel rods in 2050 I think?
I hope the ADF PR people are onto this straight away - clarifying what, when, where and how.
Otherwise we'll have every scare-mongering muppet wheeled out as the media will quickly wake up to this as a new angle.
But I'm not holding my breath...

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....e784e2e480.png

There have been long discussions with the IAEA over how such a deal might be done under the terms of the NPT. The resolution was that Australia will not undertake any nuclear fuel fabrication or reprocessing, rather the reactors will be provided as sealed units an£ returned in the same state at the end of their operational life.

Which means that, if manufactured in the UK, the reactors will be returned to the UK for defuelling, storage and eventual dismantling - presumably by sending the boats to be moored alongside together with the 27 all ready awaiting disposal.

So, no, Australia won’t be involved in handing HEU fuel rods.

Guessing, I would think, to keep with the NPT, the terms of the contract will involved the reactor cores being leased to Australia for the life of the boat, rather than sold, and then returned.

https://www.navylookout.com/project-...nches-forward/

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/submarin...ntling-project

https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pres...s-announcement

https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/f...inf2022-20.pdf

““it is proposed that Australia would be provided with complete, welded power units.”


https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....8ac6787007.jpg

Well that's interesting, because there was definitely commentary down here about the need to dispose of `nuclear waste' as part of AUKUS and that said waste would be dealt with remotely - possibly on the Defence Estate.
So if HEU rods will be returned to the UK - what other waste is there to dispose of?