Do those provisions have to be sourced in Australia? Would think not.

People going oh nuclear subs are more expensive. Dont think people grasp the extreme scale the attack class budget had blown out. So australia uses whole life cost accounting on its defence budgets

The original attack class was claimed to be about 60 billion for 12 subs over their service life time. Our equiv of GAO reviewed this and actually found government documents stating that it would over 100 billion and probably closer to 120 billion life time cost

AUKUS is projected to cost 360 billion over its lifetime, is the virginia (ignoring the SSN AUKUS) 3 times better sub than the proposed attack class. Others may disagree but I think absolutely yes is the answer

Appears today that Washington is now considering the transfer of used Virginia SSN's to Australia for AUKUS to leave a capability gap back home. That would be an interesting spike in the tyres of AUKUS.

Spent lots of my time tracking boomers and SS, SSN's and I contend that the SS/SSK/SSG gives by far the greatest strategic impact within the area of responsibility of Australia. AIP gives all the range and the transit capability that is needed for the boats, unless Australia has an intent to intimidate parties outside of it's area of interests, and that seems to be better left to those that have a concept of hegemony that is not in the Aussie lexicon, or at least wasn't when I was wearing their uniform.

Aussie has all the sun, sand and beer it needs, unlike [Insert relevant state e.g.; Russia] which has every reason to want to go anywhere but [reinsert relevant state name, like Russia].

The frogs and germans design pretty good boats, with only the occasional D'oh moment. The poms make adequate boats too, but seem to be reliant on alliance partners due to the early 60's politics still impacting their initiative.

fdr:

Is Aus's intent to have submarines as defensive assets, or as longer range assets? t
That's where the choice between Diesel and Nuke boats lies.
An AIP (German 212 or similar) would certainly offer good defensive capability, but Aus is as big as the US with way more coastline.
Maybe the unrestricted cruising range of an SSN allows them more flexibility and fulfills all other needs.
Dunno.
Not my bucket of popcorn to butter, but you need to look hard that the intentions at the Operational and Strategic level before assessing their choices (cost being the other 800 pound gorilla in the room).
Just looking at tactical capacities is too narrow of a view to take.

Part of my problem with Mr Trump's offer of the Virginias - sending a few to Oz early puts pressure on US shipyards, and maybe that forces an increase in capacity?? -- is that he may change his mind next week.
Which throws a curve ball at the kind of time horizons needed to plan and implement something like standing up an SSN capability.

For anyone in Oz, the ABC (Oz version) have a 4 Corners program on AUKUS this evening at 20:32 - 21:18

The US, as well as the USMC we have now, wants to forward base the subs in Western Australia. They want port infrastructure and repair facilities, using a mix of US and local labour. If we don't have the Virginia. Will the US get what they want and who will pay to set it up?

My personal opinion is, that I'd like to get the Virginias. However, there will be less cost running one class of sub, the AUKUS/SSN. The US will have the number of subs in the area that they need and will probably if needed, add the 3 earmarked for AU.
If we need more than the Collins interim capability. It has hit the fan. Then we will be a part of a coalition. More than likely lead by the US.

I'd guess it would be like the old USN bases at Holy Loch and La Madelena in Sardinia. Not sure what the financial arrangements were.

But part of the interest in basing SSN's out Perth is to access high quality local repair facilities and take some of the strain off the sites in the US

Ok, I haven't cross checked the source of your figures but are you comparing the through life costs (say AUS$120B) of 12 Attack class submarines against only 3 Virginia class (AUS$360B)? If so, you think 3x SSN are 3x better than 12x SSK??

I very much doubt Australian DoD (or ANAO) would have a reliable handle on through life costs in either case. Where would they be obtaining reliable information in an Australian context?

I noticed our Defence Minister in a recent interview noting the importance of Australian sea lanes of communication (trade) in relation to the subs. So are they now proposed as escorts for commercial shipping??!!... all 3 of them...

You can pretty much guarantee that if you have 3 x SSNs one will always be in refit/maintenance.

Whether nuclear powered or otherwise, zooming around at anything approaching 30 knots would be "noisy as a rock band underwater" as was once the jab at the Collins class. Need to compare options balancing all the pros and cons.

Few weeks ago, came across a news article indicating renewed USN consideration of conventional submarines for littoral operations. Wasn't sure if it was fake news as posted on an obscure site. If reliable, what does that say?

Update: The recent 'news' items on proposed USN diesel subs seem to be speculative, perhaps by their authors. But the idea isn't new. This opinion piece is from around a year ago: https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/us-navy-needs-diesel-submarines-now-212112

I believe that life cost estimate isn’t for just the initial 3 second hand Virginia boats but includes the cost of 8 AUKUS boats* - 5 to supplement the Virginias and the final 3 to replace them. (And the total also includes a hefty $130B in contingency funds)

Though, by that stage (around 2060), with Australian production in full flow, it may switch to whatever is the then planned AUKUS successor.

* https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-03-...nced/102091510

​​​​​​​https://www.nti.org/analysis/article...-capabilities/

"If so, you think 3x SSN are 3x better than 12x SSK??"

depends what you want them to do. If it's to sit in the various straights in the Indonesian archipelago as bottle stops then the SSk are probably fine. If you want long range, deep water capability, especially deep into the S Pacific or up towards the Philippines it has to be SSN. SSK's just take long time to get anywhere

Agree with your points, add in time on station once the sub is forward based.

At least do a modicum of research the price is for 3 virginia and 8 SSN Aukus you have a strong opinion that you think we all need to know but dont even have the most basic of knowledge on the subject

I did qualify my comment and asked for clarification given you wrote:

"...AUKUS is projected to cost 360 billion over its lifetime, is the virginia (ignoring the SSN AUKUS) 3 times better sub than the proposed attack class...".

That could be interpreted the way I did of your post. The implication being 3x better for 3x the cost when comparing only Virginia to Attack.

ORAC at least just answered me with his understanding of what the costs were apparently based on and I thanked him with a thumbs up.

You should know, as I do, that the costs of both Attack class and AUKUS subs from Defence have always been quite opaque. If you understand it better than I do, then please explain what is being included in those through life costs and is it consistent comparison for all classes?

Just because we disagree, you don't have to slag me off... you know little about me other than that I clearly have a strong counter opinion to yours.

Costs of long running programs of any type of military hardware are always complex and it's hard for any two people to agree. The US sometimes doesn't include all the items in the cost of a piece of kit, you have the question of how do you handle inflation, what is your base line, do you include spares? training? Things like the missiles and torpedoes?? Decommissioning costs?? Bases?

I'm not sure either that you can compare apples and oranges so easily - yes, you can compare say an F-35A with an F-35B on costs and performance with reasonable accuracy but an SSN against an SSK? Very different animals, and would be deployed very differently - and have a very different effect on the strategy you'd adopt.

Thanks. To add to that, add the cost of building up the industrial base in USA, UK and Australia. Also add the necessary establishment and sustainment of nuclear safety and regulatory management in Australia beyond what existed so far.

Capability vs cost should always be a consideration in Defence capability acquisitions, even when comparing apples vs oranges capabilities. If such an assessment exists for AUKUS since dumping Attack, it will unfortunately be classified and so a reason it can't be made available to the Australian public to understand the reasoning for the change of plan.

One more consideration is Survivability, especially against an emerging Super Power.
This is also a consideration for crew and family of crew.

3 will give you 1
"The Virginia-class submarine has a typical service cycle of 9 months deployed and 18 months in refit. This translates to a total of 27 months for one complete cycle."

Is that why you need three?