AUKUS fail – US legislation to fund submarine industrial base blocked

I wonder how long it will take, or how many Australian taxpayer dollars will be placed in the pockets of US shipbuilding companies, before this entire AUKUS deal falls over?

This Submarine purchase is becoming possibly the worst defence decision in Australian history. The plan has delayed getting new subs out to 2040, and relies on 2 other separate issues in the medium to long term going exactly right, meaning the LOTE for the Collins class AND purchasing 2nd hand Virginia class submarines, both of which could fail for any number of reasons. But worst of all while these three issues are being juggled they draw massive funds from an already over stretched defence budget. If this defence/industrial triumvirate fails, and I think it is highly likely it will, we will have wasted not only a massive amount of money for nothing but starved other defence programmes into the bargain. A lose lose situation.
I believe this plan could destabilize if not destroy Australian defence procurement for a decade or more to come. Meanwhile, war in the next 5 years is looking increasingly likely. Madness.

Meanwhile French conventional AIP or nuclear powered Barracuda alternatives which offer all the bells & whistles RAN could ever need ie Vertical Launch Missile systems, Uncrewed Underwater AND Aerial Vehicles, Anti ASW Surface to Air defence, Special Forces auxillary systems etc. All extensively automated, state of the art stealthy vessels operable by Collins class sized crews, available within a decade…but nah, straya’s putting all its eggs in the baskets of the UK which betrayed Australia during the Pacific campaign of WW2 and the US which turned its back on South Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan after promising to stand by all 3 throughout the wars it started in each country.

https://defense-update.com/20141023_smx.html#.VE-rU-chcoY

With the US Defense industrial base unable to support even the needs of the US military it was foolish to think there was a realistic chance of getting Virginia class SSN on time. The much better option to build an interim class of SSK. The French bid because it is based on an SSN would have been ideal. From there build a SSN based in the UK follow to the Astutes.

I’ve never been in favour of the Virginia Class for the RAN , let alone second hand ones. The best course for Australia is get moving on an interim Boat now. The Sth Koreans have given the option of the KSS III , which in collaboration with the French are designing a Nuclear Variant, Replace the Collins Boats on a one for one basis, get involved in the Nuclear variant and lock into getting Six Boats. As the Original KSS boats come up for retirement either replace them with new builds or Nuclear Boats. A build system of 1 Korean Build ,1 Korean Build with Australian workers and 1 Korean Build and Australian assembly then transfer the rest of the builds to Australia. The added benefits of using LEU far out weigh the refueling subject ( and Lucas Heights has been working with LEU for years) . The whole AUKUS idea is great in Theory but as can be seen not very practical when then idea is thought out. Australia can eventually get to the Level required by AUKUS but not in the time frame we need.

I knew this would happen. Also, if you look at the size of the erection hall at Osborne, it’s far too small lengthwise compared to Irving Halifax at over 1000 feet, and Barrow in Furness about the same

It was built for the French attack class replacement, so unless the extensions at Osborne include a much bigger erection hall, we’re buggered and it doesn’t matter where we buy a nuke boat from. You think they would’ve future proofed for this nuke purchase scenario and built a larger erection hall in the first place

We should cut ties with this AUKUS nonsense and apply straight to the poms, but I suspect the USA will complain, then we return to the French, who don’t care what anyone says

Perhaps we should look at the type 212 or the KS-111, as not just an interim boat, but a complimentary boat to nukes which indeed serve a practical and important function. Station them in Asia, but they must have lithium battery or AIP, not like attack class that had nothing

Great article, Kym. Why are the mainstream media so silent on this issue? Maybe they figure so much public money is being wasted on dud defence decisions the public are getting punch drunk?

Well this clickbait has the French excited. Which is where I got the link. Doom and gloom. The US hasn’t passed the 2024 defence funding yet. The sub is going to be like the F-35 in handrubbing drama. I won’t critique the unfounded opinions expressed.

In real news, in the US, it looks like it being April for UK and AU ITAR exemptions.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us-very-confident-australia-britain-will-be-eligible-aukus-exemptions-2024-02-14/

The problem with the perceived French alternative(s) is France is not offering them to Australia.

Why the lack of a French diplomatic and commercial campaign to sell Barracuda SSNs to Australia, right now in 2024?

The lack of the LOTE till the late 20s-mid 30s is a given. One Virginia for Australia in 2032 is our earliest bet.

France could make $Billions out of Australia if Barracuda SSNs could come in a reasonable timeframe. But France’s very limited nuclear sub designing-building workforce are fully committed finishing France’s last Barracudas. Then they need to design, build and commission their four 3G SSBNs right through the 2030s.

All this means France doesn’t have the manpower resources for an Aus Barracuda SSN Project. That includes too few Frenchmen even to train up an Australian workforce – with our workforce totally inexperienced in building SSNs.

The UK completing the Astutes and then building a new generation of SSBNs in the 2030s has virtually the same limitations as France.

As SSNs from all three SSN countries are longshots yet another cheaper strategy may be appropriate. That is Australia doing its Collins LOTE (with help from Saab) while we build XLUUVs that can lay smartmines, do recces and sonars. Separately developing ever longer range missiles might be our best strategy for long range strike, including anti-shipping.

Such missiles would include Tomahawks then longer range – something like a Western equivalent of China’s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DF-26 .

Correction to what I said above:

The French NUCLEAR submarine workforce – which is distinct from their conventional submarine workforce – will be partly committed completing the Barracuda SSN program until 2031. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barracuda-class_submarine_(France)#Boats .

In parallel the rest of France’s NUCLEAR submarine workforce have been working on France’s 3rd Generation SSBN (“SNLE 3G”) see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNLE_3G#Design_and_operation :
“first steel [was] cut for the vessels in 2023 and completed submarines delivered at a rate of one every five years from 2035, with the programme completing in 2050.”

So I stand corrected – France will have NUCLEAR submarine workers available to assist with any Australian Barracuda SSN later than expected. That is AFTER 2050.

I’m not claiming the UK or US could deliver SSNs to Australia any quicker.

Hence a Plan B in terms of Collins LOTE, XLUUV and long range missiles may be an option sooner and less expensive.

The only reference to a workforce related delay to the construction/maintenance of French nuclear vessels be it SSNs, SSBNs or the Charles de Gaulle that I could find was related to covid-19. Appears a nation dominated by the development – distribution of nuclear energy and infrastructure since the early 1980s, a nation that can commence construction of its ‘next generation’ nuclear carrier in 2030 while punching out brand new nuclear submarines and maintaining its operational nuclear fleet, has got its NUCLEAR workforce act together. Hence DCNS-Naval Group’s repeated willingness to supply Australia with the Suffren class SSN, should Australia change its mind during the project.

A France wide lack of nuclear workers foils claims France could deliver Barracuda SSNs to Australia quickly and easily – outside of the likely delay: 2050 or later.

Also Barracudas lack all important VLS. Only VLS can launch ever larger diameter future longer range hypersonic missiles for land attack. Such missiles would act as a partial deterrent against China.

On nuclear workers see the French source “France’s struggle to deliver a second nuclear era” by Sarah White in Saint-Marcel (France) at the Financial Times APRIL 23 2023

at https://www.ft.com/content/d23b14ae-2c4e-458c-af8a-22692119f786 which includes:

“France, which employs some 220,000 people in the nuclear industry, needs to rebuild a deep bench of qualified workers for its new nuclear drive. Among them will be highly trained welders like Geoffray and his colleagues — EDF estimates France will need double the 500 it has today by 2030. At the Hefaïs welding school launched last year by the company and other manufacturers near Cherbourg, on the northern coast close to France’s nuclear SUBMARINE
shipyards, the complexities of even that task are apparent.  

After nine months of training there, including with headsets on virtual equipment, they can qualify for a first job, says Corentin Lelièvre, the school’s director. But it can take five to seven years of experience and repeat training before they are entrusted with the most intricate tasks.

Those can require developing a quasi-acrobatic skill of being able to keep a steady hand while working upside down, or using a mirror in cramped corners of a reactor circuit to guide the weld — a one-shot operation that workers can’t go back on once it’s started. It also involves learning to work safely in a radioactive environment, and in a post-Fukushima world, how to grapple with extra layers of documentation.”

++++++++++++

And yes France’s future “PA-NG” nuclear aircraft carrier + its two future K22 reactors are two more major nuclear projects confronting France’s naval nuclear worker shortage.

You clearly do not understand what design concept means.

As I reported in 2014 here https://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2014/10/revised-frances-dcns-announces-smx.html the SMX Ocean was merely a CONCEPT.

It would take years of actual designing and testing to become an orphan sub for the RAN.

In any case the usual contractual hurdles, probably taking 10 years, would need to be negotiated.

That is before France could even contemplate building SMXs after 2050.

Pete at https://gentleseas.blogspot.com/

PS. And yes SMX is seen by France as a conventional concept sub. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barracuda-class_submarine_(France)#Conventionally-powered_variants

South Korea has already launched conventional KSS-IIIs with VLS for the SK Navy.

Hence KSS-IIIs are not orphan subs and (other than the US combat system) would need no further development for the RAN.

Also likely cheaper and much sooner available for the RAN than any French sub.

Hi again Mike Sierra

Yes indeed “we all agree on/hope for, is an astonishing breakthrough with the RAN’s Speartooth or Ghost Shark projects swiftly resolving this national security travesty once and for all.”

If Australia wants to continue with subs the LOTE or new SSKs simply won’t deter China.

If only SSN choices (which Could threaten China) weren’t so darn expensive and involving delays. SSNs appear to be a need for the RAN submarine service’s and ASC’s dreams.

Adelaide and Perth shipbuilders have decades of work building surface warships alone.

So XLUUVs, with non-sub long range strike weapon systems may be, or should be, Australia’s future.

Cheers Pete

The more I read about the whole AUKUS Submarine the more I hope trump wins the U.S. election and cancels the whole deal ( which I believe is a distinct possibility, if he wins). The RAN Submariners must be wringing the hands and tearing their hair out with all the carry on and now the Government is making announcements about a larger surface fleet (Headlined by the most over priced, over weight and under gunned Frigate ever built) . One can only hope that the Admirals don’t screw up or sabotage the selection, as the did with the Arafura, Marles needs to step up, show some guts and tackle the problem head on or step aside and let some else be MOD. The whole fiasco has been simmering for years. Either tell the Navy and DoD Heads to advise and accept the decisions or look for new jobs. This is to important to get wrong again.

Hi Kym

Thanks for indicating concerns the Virginia builders might convert Australia’s generous US$3 Billion gift into corporate profits rather than for boosting the drumbeat of Virginia production.

Since I first looked at Virginias for Australia 9 years ago https://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2015/02/australian-nuclear-submarine-option.html I think it increasingly unlikely the US will ever deliver Virginias to Aus.

Biden is merely using the receding Virginia mirage as a political distraction until the UK tools up Osborne to merely Begin building Aus SSN-AUKUS’s for launch dates Starting around 2051.

In any case China will not be deterred by merely conventionally armed Aus SSNs.

Rather than SSNs Australia should instead be thinking ICBMs (which Queensland’s Gilmour can build in future) these can be placed in silos in Woomera. These ICBMs could be armed using Australia’s SILEX enrichment technology for HEU “gun type” warheads – initially.

The US appears to have unlocked SILEX from being a proliferation item by effectively returning SILEX to Australian control. In doing this the US may be catering for a future nuclear weapons option for Australia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_isotopes_by_laser_excitation#History

Then Australia should utilise the more preferred Pu explosive weapons (with Pu being a dual-use outgrowth of Dutton’s nuclear energy reactor policy) and then standard thermonuclear weapons.

This model has progressively worked so well for Israel since 1967, keeping much larger Arab military coalitions at bay.

Cheers Pete

The Financial cost of replacing Conventionaly Armed Nuclear Submarine with ICBM’s would definitely be far less but the Political Cost would be astronomical. Besides a Dozen or so ICBMs would be little deterant to a nation that has an Anti ICBM capability also placing them in a fixed position they would certainly be priority targeted. Even Mobile Launchers can be tracked as can Submarines but it’s a lot harder to track them. If we ever did decided to go full Nuclear, the ICBMs would need to be Submarine Launched. As I said earlier,I doubt any Government would sign on for that.

France is delivering every two years barracuda ssn to french navy. This building line can deliver till last one in 2034 and behond if Netherlands order . But also in the need emergency france could mix for a ssn client starting 2028 as replacing class isn t to old to wait 2 years more. So from 2028 first aus ssn 2030 french ssn 2032 aus ssn 2034 last french snn 2036 38 40 etc aus ssn

Hi Michael Alleyn

Yes ICBMs, in silos or mobile (and B-21s on the ground) are easier to target.

Australia has already succeeded in absorbing the Political Costs of aiming to oobtain SSNs (with weapons grade U) proliferation under the “shelter” of US and UK political and legal endorsement.

As the threat against Aus increases an Aus Gov may be prepared to accept the Political Costs of mounting China deterring hypersonic missiles in SSNs (called “Baby Boomers” or SSGNs in the trade). This is if the China threat increases sufficiently in the medium-long term.

This would be once the approximately one third of the PRC armed forces earmarked for Taiwan have defeated Taiwan and are freed up for southern power projection past the first island chain.

The US is already signalling that Australia can progress to Technical (nuclear option) Hedging due to 2 US decisions:

1. to permit Australian access to Hypersonic Missile technology under AUKUS Pillar 2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AUKUS#Hypersonic_and_counter-hypersonic and

2. Australian access (previously withheld) to SILEX latest/third generation Uranium enrichment technology which can enrich all the way to weapons grade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_isotopes_by_laser_excitation#History

Kym and Michael

Perhaps Australia has factored these nuclear weapon precursors in – partly explaining Australia’s otherwise inexplicable US$3 Billion gift to the US military-industrial complex.

Cheers Pete

any long range missiles would need to be vehicle mounted. Don’t want them static