We will but not before you call us back when France can produce a tank that has more forward gears than reverse!

I am not sure why this spleen and resentment still exists.

Australia reconsidered their strategic needs and decided they needed nuclear subs due to the threat and the vast patrol areas to be covered.

They also decided, again for strategic reasons, they couldn't consider subs which need their reactors to be refuelled mid-life, meaning an extended absence from operations for up to 5 years and being dependent on the good will of the supplying nation decades hence.

The only 3 allied nations with SSKNs are France, the UK and the USA.

France, for its own reasons, has switched from HEU to LEU reactors requiring mid-life refuelling, acceptable for France which can perform this domestically, but not acceptable for Australia.

Both the UK and the USA continue to use HEU reactors which will last the life of a boat. The USA is considering switching to LEU (but it doubt that will go further than theoretical trials), so SSN-AUKUS will be built around a UK built reactor.

End of.

The French contract was cancelled, they've done extremely well out of the initial deal and the cancellation settlement. Apart from pique and rancour I can't see why some people just don't accept the logic of the above and move on.

I am sure that, based on history, Australia is more than willing to make further purchases from France - as long as nobody wants to use any negotiations as an opportunity to throw their toys out of the cot again.

And france still wanted and still got open access to Australian naval bases. Agreement was formally signed late last year. Gives the French navy access to all Australian Navy bases and RAN access to all french bases in the indo pacific

Its the first part of the Australia France Bilateral roadmap, apparently its already covers to be a standing invitiation for french aircraft to participate in Pitch Black and the Navy / Army in Talisman Sabre

I'm sure somone will write a good book on this saga one day, like they did with the Collins class shenanigans.

Before going to the French, the RAN wanted the Astute class but the Aus politicians wouldn't countenance nuclear. The tried to get BAES interested in doing a non-nuclear Astute but it never went anywhere. By the time they finally realised they had to go nuclear, they were too late for Astute, so need to go with Astute replacement.

'Steel, Spies & Spin' is recommended bedtime reading for anyone in the UK submarine business.
Also 'End of an Era' by RJ Daniels which has a chapter on Aus O class replacement. I lent that book to one of the senior British sub engineers involved with Collins and he said it rang true.

Only pillar 2… so far…..

https://globalnews.ca/news/10409582/...iance-trudeau/

Canada exploring possibility of joining AUKUS alliance, Trudeau says

https://archive.ph/2024.04.08-180349...1-96fc61115378

US, UK and Australia say Japan could join part of Aukus pact

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/work...rom-australia/

Work ongoing for UK nuclear sub to operate from Australia

As part of AUKUS, the United Kingdom and the United States are establishing a rotational presence of one UK Astute class submarine and up to four U.S. Virginia class submarines at HMAS Stirling, located near Perth in Western Australia, by 2027….

He does later talk about nuclear subs (Pillar 1) but while canada considers the northwest passage internal waterway and the US and several other big maritime countries consider it international passage they wont get in. Same reason the US killed SSN Canada and nothing has changed some is going to have to fold

AUKUS is expanding its Pillar II component to Land capabilities, with a focus on Long Range Fires for 2024.

Both Australia and UK intend to adopt the Precision Strike Missile and UK has ambitious plans for putting advanced payloads on GMLRS rockets, so there is obvious scope.

​​​​​​​

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....55d9cffca2.png

I posted that on the warzone a few hours ago. You lurk there Orac ?

No………

This weeks Economist

"Some Australians are increasingly sceptical of AUKUS -The government needs to sell its ground-breaking security pact much harder................................ A decades-long commitment, then, with a big price tag—the subs alone are expected to cost Australia up to $368bn. In return, AUKUS ties Australia’s security more closely to America’s and, Australia hopes, ties America more securely into the Indo-Pacific region. On April 8th the defence ministers of the three countries released a cautious statement saying they were “considering co-operation” with Japan, too.

Not everyone in Australia is pleased. Indeed an AUKUS awkward squad, with varied political persuasions and an assortment of not always cohering grievances, is dropping what one AUKUS backer calls “depth charges of dissent”. The critics include Paul Keating and Malcolm Turnbull, two former prime ministers, Gareth Evans, a former foreign minister, and Hugh White, a strategist. Criticisms start with practicalities—above all, whether America can deliver the Virginia-class subs. .................................. Mr Turnbull says Australia may see no Virginias “simply because the US Navy won’t be able to spare them”. That would leave Australia less secure, not more.

Others question reliance on Britain’s defence capacity, with its underwhelming record for delivering on time, at cost or up to standard. Meanwhile, Mr White contends, Australia will get suckered into subsidising the other two members’ defence industries...............................................

Add to that the risk of Donald Trump’s possible return to the White House. If Mr Trump saw America as spending money on Australian interests, Mr Evans argues, he could nix the whole thing. Australia, he points out, has no plan B. But the strongest criticisms of AUKUS have to do with a loss of sovereign agency—hitching Australia’s fortunes to an ever-less dependable superpower, as Mr Turnbull sees it, or one liable, as Mr Evans argues, to drag Australia into a war over Taiwan that is counter to Australia’s interests.

For now bipartisan support for AUKUS remains strong. Yet the pact will have few concrete results to show for years to come. The risk is that all the griping will start to erode public confidence. From the start AUKUS’s backers have not made a frank enough case for it. The deal was negotiated in secrecy. Anthony Albanese, then leader of the opposition, was given only hours to throw his support behind it. Now prime minister, he paints AUKUS chiefly as a jobs scheme rather than as a project of vital deterrence.

Rather, Labor and the conservative opposition should better highlight the progress made so far. This includes making HMAS Stirling a useful pit-stop for friendly subs, and new American and Australian money being allocated to building up a submarine industrial base. Above all, they should talk of the challenge posed by Chinese ambitions. They should be clearer about the importance of Australia’s contribution to deterrence. And they should be upfront both about the financial costs and, more grimly, the human ones. If Australia’s politicians do not come clean and seek support for AUKUS on honest terms, the sceptics may well erode the consensus for it. That also poses grave consequences for Australia’s own security. For if the point of deterrence is to prevent a war, then you have to be seen to be ready to fight one. ■"

Which is how the Yes vote failed. Light on details to a naturally sceptical audience & it's doomed to lose support.

There’s going to be a referendum on AUKUS????

Being such a high tech & secretive project that doesn’t release details to the public, it’s great to get updates on the SSN AUKUS design status - even if it’s light on detail.

https://www.defensenews.com/naval/20...-technologies/

Not sure how much fail to put in that article since they get it wrong from the start by saying it will have a US reactor and turbines when it will be powered by a RR reactor module built in Derby based on the PWR3 used in Dreadnaught.

Allegedly public nuclear submarine crew applications will be made available on ADF careers late this year, Image its going to have a pretty astounding ROSO for any applying

The PWR3 is heavily based on the Virginia’s S9G which, apart from having fuel for 33 years, has the ability to generate moderate levels of power whilst only using “convective cooling”, ie no MCP noise.

I suspect that RR are making a lot of the reactor components under licence to keep the politicians happy in that a local company is supplying the main cost item for the SSN’s.

Aston Martin cars use AMG engines, it doesn't make them Mercedes.

RR got major input from the US on how to improve the design of the PWR3, leading to a 30% in the number of parts, but that doesn't make it an American reactor.

Designed, built and fuelled at Derby so not dependent on the USA for support during it's service life.

Uranium enrichment is a complex task requiring specialised equipment that is strictly controlled - does RR have the capability to do high levels of enrichment in-house or is the fuel sourced from the US?