Australia’s recently released AUKUS Submarine Industry Strategy marks a step forward in the country’s ambition to field a conventionally-armed, nuclear-powered submarine fleet, built in close partnership with the United Kingdom and the United States. While much of the focus has been on how Australia will develop its sovereign nuclear capability, the strategy carries significant implications for the UK, both for British industry and the Royal Navy.
Strategic context
The centrepiece of the AUKUS program is the joint development of a new SSN, a next-generation nuclear-powered attack submarine that will eventually replace the UK’s Astute class and form the backbone of Australia’s future submarine fleet. The number of boats to be acquired by each notion has not been defined. There is an aspiration for the RN to have 12 SSNs which would be more in line with its large commitments that include GIUK gap and North Atlantic patrols, operations in the High North, worldwide support of Carrier Strike and the AUKUS commitments in the Asia Pacific. Cost and capacity restraints may make this figure unrealistic and SDR may shed further light on the size of the future RN submarine fleet.
AUKUS is fundamentally about countering Chinese influence in the Indo-Pacific, and a modern nuclear-powered Australian submarine fleet would significantly enhance allied undersea warfare capabilities. For the UK, this means closer defence ties with Australia and a long-term strategic foothold in the region.
As the US appears to be disengaging from Europe, this may force the RN to make countering the Russian threat and even higher priority. There is already some controversy about whether the long-planned Carrier Strike group deployment to the Pacific, scheduled to sail from the UK in April, should be abandoned to maximise force presence in Europe. By weakening their commitment to the security of Europe, Washington may inadvertently have curtailed the already limited British and French contribution to countering Chinese influence in Asia. The UK is in a difficult position as it wants to maximise support and cooperation with key allies in the region such as Australia and Japan while the threat on its doorstep has just increased.
Delivery hurdles
One of the biggest hurdles for AUKUS is workforce development. Both the UK and Australia are facing a shortage of highly skilled nuclear engineers, fabricators, and technicians. The Australian strategy acknowledges the need for extensive training and knowledge transfer, with hundreds of Australian personnel expected to train in UK and US facilities over the coming years. This presents opportunities for British universities, naval colleges, and defence contractors to play a role in training the next generation of Australian submarine specialists.
At the same time, industrial capacity is a key concern. BAE Systems is already stretched producing the final Astute-class boats and beginning work on the new Dreadnought-class SSBNs. Adding SSN-AUKUS to the mix risks further strain on an industry already operating at full tilt. The UK government has pledged significant investment in submarine infrastructure and there are already projects underway to allow expansion of the Barrow shipyard, but questions remain over whether the workforce and facilities can scale up quickly enough to meet demand.
The UK will be heavily involved in the design and production of these boats, with BAE Systems in Barrow leading UK construction efforts while Australia’s ASC Pty Ltd in Osborne, South Australia, develops its own production line. The programme is a substantial boost for the UK’s industrial base as the strategy document explicitly states the Australians will integrate fully with UK and US supply chains. The UK has long been a leader in submarine technology, and this initiative will further reinforce its standing as a global hub for nuclear submarine expertise. Aligning regulations, qualifying suppliers, and ensuring a steady flow of critical components across three countries is a complex undertaking. The UK’s nuclear submarine supply chain has been largely focused on domestic production for the Royal Navy, and it remains to be seen how well it can adapt to support a multinational program at this scale.
There are concerns about whether the UK’s submarine program could be affected by the increased demands of SSN-AUKUS. The UK is already struggling with submarine availability, with Astute-class boat delivery taking far longer than envisaged (it will have been at least 18 years between boat 1 and boat 7 becoming operational). The Astutes are also spending far more time undergoing maintenance than expected and the earlier boats will likely remain in service much longer than planned, adding another layer of complexity to the joint program.
With billions of pounds flowing into the UK’s nuclear enterprise, the expansion of submarine construction capacity, supply chains, and training programs should have a lasting positive impact. If managed correctly, the UK could emerge from the SSN-AUKUS project with a stronger, more resilient submarine industry capable of delivering cutting-edge boats for both domestic and allied use.
Platform design
Very little can be stated with certainty about the SSN-AUKUS design at present. For reasons of cost and expediency, the new boats are likely to have much in common with the preceding Dreadnought class SSBNs currently being built in Barrow. Assuming they will have the same PWR3 nuclear reactor, they would have the same pressure hull diameter as Dreadnought – around 12.8m. This would make for a substantially larger boat than Astute, although considerably shorter than Dreadnought. The additional space should provide for heavier armament and defensive countermeasures as well as better crew habitability.
Larger boats with better access and internal volume improve the application of acoustic hygiene measures and are actually easier to construct and maintain in service, although the capacity of available dry docks may be a constraining factor. Besides increased size, the biggest difference between Astute and SSN-AUKUS is likely to be the inclusion of payload modules for vertical launch of missiles, medium-sized UUVs or seabed sensors.
An area of contention will be whether to base SSN-AUKUS on US combat systems, sensors and weaponry utilised by the USN and RAN or use the Thales and BAES-made combat systems familiar to RN submariners as the starting point. Since combat system integration is one of the most demanding and expensive tasks in a warship or submarine design, agreeing on a common platform is critical to avoid vastly complicating the project.
For the RN, SSN-AUKUS initiative represents both an opportunity and a challenge. On the one hand, the shared submarine design will ensure close operational compatibility with the RAN, allowing for joint training, maintenance, and possibly even deployments as well as reducing some costs through economy of scale. The challenge will be maintaining the UK’s own operational needs while ensuring industry in the three nations can deliver a major new class of submarines. If these hurdles can be overcome, the UK stands to gain immensely from its role in shaping the future of nuclear-powered undersea warfare.
The future’s bright, the future isn’t orange, but we still can’t afford to be reliant on a US CMS. And perhaps nor can Australia. What if JD Vance gets in? For 8 years!
Why should RN submariners have to run two separate systems so the Aussies don’t? The UK sensors are reputedly better than the US ones, while the US vertically launched missiles and silos are better than ours. So isn’t that the obvious division? The heavy torpedos, well, they can duke it out, or just support both (which would be my preference).
There is a problem with language here. The “Combat System” in UK terms is the sensors, AIO, FC and weapons systems. But in US terms it’s just AIO & FC (what we sometimes call C2). It’s highly unlikely that we will be using much more than the US C2 element of the system (BYG-1 or it’s successor). Certainly not the US sonar fit.
Also, while Australia uses US weapons & BYG-1 on its current submarines, most of the sensors aren’t (primarily they are from what is now Thales). So a lot of relevant gear is already integrated into BYG-1. These aren’t being delivered next week, so there is time for whatever is missing.
I suspect you are tight. We will get US/Auz C2, UK sensors. We will all get US VLS. The RAN will get all US weapons. The UK will have Spearfish or son of Spearfish. We will probably have a sub launch Anglo/French SSM/ASM.
Considering Konsberg is building a missile factory in both US & Australia, I suspect USN & RAN will be changing from sub-Harpoon to the Konsberg submarine launch missile when it’s ready.
USN retired ‘sub harpoon’ in 1997
The way that the US is going at the moment, I’d be more than a little worried about having them as a partner and judging by the hate being dished out to loyal partners and the seemingly love-in being displayed with Putin’s dictatorship, I’d be seriously looking over the shoulder and digging out the details of the pre war Red Plan again.
Why would the USA back out on a project that is primarily designed to help them counter China in the Pacific?
Have you been on holiday and away from the news this past couple of weeks ?
Why? Because Trump is literally Putin who is literally Hitler who is nearly, just nearly, as bad as FATCHA!
Many here think as the MSM tells them to think. You just have to accept it. No point in trying to take their security blanket off them.
Agreed. No point at all. Just let them go.
Meanwhile many more lives are being taken.
Yes. But Trump and Putin are trying to stop the war. The UK, EU, and Elensky are doing their best to keep it going.
Would it be better if Ukraine no longer existed then ? … Who next, Belarus, Estonia, Latvia, (Poland would probably be a clusterfuck of pain truth be known) Moldova, Romania, ? How about Cyprus, Iceland, Japan ? Huh ?
Russia’s trying to stop the war by refusing to negotiate and concessions, whilst the USA is trying to stop the war by insisting that the Ukraine makes all the concessions.
And you believe this makes the continuation of the war the nUK’s and the EU’s fault.
Putin can end the war today. Withdraw from Ukraine. It’s that simple.
Putin and Trump don’t want that. Putin wants Crimea and the eastern provinces . He wants a guarantee that Ukraine will not join NATO. Trump wants the rare earth minerals. Both want a weakened Ukraine.
If this happens then Europe is at threat.
Nobody wants the war to continue. Remember, Hitler wanted ww2 to end. He just didn’t want it to end the way it did.
Not quite that simple. Putin didn’t start this war he escalated it. Not the same thing. All he managed, was to make a difficult situation much worse for everybody. One thing Trump is right about, this war didn’t have to happen. Everybody is poorer for the fact that it did.
Ukraine is the only place in Europe where Russian’s never accepted the end of the Soviet Union. Kiev lost control of the Dombras region to local Russian militia groups, over a decade ago. Many argue Kiev never had any effective control over them or Crimea at any time since the fall of the Soviet Union. Given the bloody history of this region, distrust is to be expected. Militia activities there do predate Putin’s rise to power.
This war will only end when the Russians live under Russian rule and Ukrainians live under Ukrainian rule. A deal is there to be done to achieve this, if only the egos could get out of the way. That is a problem that shows no signs of going away on all sides. In the meantime more Ukrainians and Russians continue to die in this meet grinder of a war. Ukraine wasting the lives of its citizens to bring a bunch of Russians under Ukrainian rule is not an objective that makes mush sense to me.
By far Zelensky’s biggest problem will be that a broke Europe will not be able to fund any serious reconstruction effort. Ukraine like Vietnam will have to find a way to fund its own reconstruction effort. Like Vietnam that will be a slow and painful process.
The hollow promises of a British prime minister are the least of his problems.
Bot Bot Bot
That line gives me an image of a person with their fingers in their ears.
We are to believe spontaneous local uprising in Russian speaking areas. However none wore uniform or displayed a flag? Why not.
It would suit both Trump and Putin if the EU collapsed so they could divide and jointly rule over a weakened European subcontinent.
Trump said that the EU was set up to rip off the USA (which is nuts but speaks to his hostility to the EU) and some Russians’ recent comments indicate that they want to go back to the pre-1991 borders so Poland et al would have to leave NATO.
Apart the far-right Putin and Trump fanboys (and fangirls), who the hell else in Europe would want us to be turned into vassal states under these two psychopaths?
How do you think the Korean and Vietnam wars ended ?
Thats right a new US President both cases called it quits.
Eisenhower with 6 months of taking office , had ended the Korean war even over the heads of the South government who wanted to fight on ’till reunification was complete’
Trump did the same with the Taliban, side-lining the Kabul government to end a 20 yr war
Yup.
What has China done that they need to be countered by the US in the Pacific? They aren’t about to send a CBG and surprise attack Pearl Harbour.
I have read in other threads that if we go with an American combat control system we may lose the ability to design them ourselves. I think that should rule that out. Ukrainians are dying because we all trusted the Americans too much.
Perhaps. Or our weapons software engineers just add to the AEGIS code base. It doesn’t appear to worry the Japanese or Koreans or Australians. When it comes to defence the UK can’t do anything much anyway without the US.
The submarine CS has nothing to do with AEGIS.
Whoops! Yes. I was off on a parallel track. But the same applies to the submarine combat systems. Most often it is the surface ship world where this topic is discussed the most. Well done for noticing my mistake. It is a shame you couldn’t have gone the extra bit further and added something to the discussion.
We should definitely not become any more dependent on the Yanks going forward. Trump is particularly untrustworthy but we shouldn’t forget that the USA has always prioritised it own interests, we mustn’t forget lend-lease or Suez.
We need to retain sovereign control of core technologies and systems. This would also give us the option to build up our export capability.
Well one of things that is tickling me at the moment is since the end of WW2 both the US and our Europe allies have gone out of their way to take everything we have have us. They have done us real harm. But apparently our biggest problem is a state that has done us comparatively harm over the last century. Such is IR I suppose.
Did you mean to write “comparatively little harm” and are you referring to Russia with that comment?
When you mention that “our Europe allies have gone out of their way to take everything we have have us”, are you referring to the EU?
If it’s yes on both accounts then you sound like a Faragist, anti-EU and pro-Russian.
As far as I can see, Trump/MAGA and Putin are united not least in their desire to destroy the EU so they can re-assert of spheres of influence over client states.
From their perspective, Brexit was a welcome first step.
Its called AN/BYG-1 for US and RAN subs.
Would have similar open architecture and software libraries like Aegis ( but different software)
https://gdmissionsystems.com/submarine-systems/combat-systems/an-byg-1
That requires Lockheed Martin to agree to it. Both AEGIS and BYD are their products and guarantee they must be involved almost any US Navy project. It is a great business position for them to be in, it is not a position they would give up lightly. They have an effective monopoly, and I imagine would like to hold on to that position. I am sure they will happily do anything for you for a fee of course.
The UK is like France, a nation that spent a lot of time, money and effort to have truly sovereign combat capabilities. The other nations have no domestic equivalent. So they are in a very different position. Thales UK is a very unique capability. One that would be next to impossible to replace should a shortsighted politician decide to destroy it. To Lockheed Martin Thales is a competitor doing work on contracts they wished they had. AUKUS is a massive business opportunity for Lockheed Martin.
The AUKUS agreement exchanges UK Sovreign control of SSN development for a small cash handout.
It appears the RN is that desperate for cash.
Its BYG and its a General Dynamics system not Lockheed
https://gdmissionsystems.com/submarine-systems/combat-systems/an-byg-1
The RN doesnt use the US system in its subs
Ukrainians are dying because we all trusted the Americans too much.
I am most sure my trust in Americans has not killed any Uranians. Should I try staring at some goat to see if I can’t stop their heart? Should I put a paper bag on my head and sing hum Kumbaya would that help?
It would help. Could you post a You Tube link, please? 😊
I think we need a Pete the Irate Tax Payer post !!!!! lol
Jim
Coming up quite soon…..
so……please keeping watching your screens and do not adjust your computer’s settings….
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
I still trust Americans personally… It’s just these 3 dangerous, unbalanced egotistical, legally empowered psychopaths that seem hell bent on conquering and dividing a path to M.A.D.
If the democrats did anything to reverse the damage from Trumps first term I’d still have some faith in the Americans. But it’s now clear they are asleep at the helm and Trump is the one setting the US’s long term foreign policy.
Hi Chrislondon. I think every government in Europe, as well as the previous administration here in the US could have done more for Ukraine before now, but they didn’t. I get the America hate, and I’m not saying that you should like what’s happening over here. But for goodness sake, the harder people try to pin the whole blame for anemic Ukraine support on the US, the more fuel they throw on argument that Europe wasn’t pulling it’s own weight and was expecting the US to do everything in the first place. Obviously it’s a far more nuanced situation than that, and some countries helped way more than others, but we could all have done more before this inflection point. If more had been done before now, the antics of one politician would be far less relevant in the here and now. Trump’s actions suck, but they shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone, and we all knew his second term could become a reality, yet now people seem shocked and surprised. It’s Putin’s fault for invading Ukraine, and everyone’s fault for not helping Ukraine more before this point. Now it’s up to Europe to keep the support going, I sincerely hope they do it.
There were some limits to European support both because of ITAR and German reluctance. Unfortunately the US ITAR issues are going nowhere and European countries may find it even harder to support Ukraine militarily if the White House throws a wobbly at not getting a peace deal through fast enough.
The Tangerine will move onto shaking up something else; fasting to get a quick deal; loss of interest and move on z
US have no more duty to support a country 9000km distant than Europe nearby.
Is Europe defending all countries attacked 9000km from it?
Bot bot bot bot bot bot bot bot bot bot bot.bot.
Did you know that America signed the Budapest memorandum in 1994 saying that it recognised the boundaries of Ukraine and would, in exchange for Ukraine giving up its nuclear weapons, provide security guarantees? I wouldn’t want to keep you in suspense, so I’ll tell you that Ukraine gave up those nuclear weapons and America took on a moral duty to support it.
Of course keeping your word isn’t something that need apply to America because, er because, er….
Kuwait 1991 – ok only 6,000km but I think it proves the point.
It didn’t have any duty until it agreed to do it.
The USA has the same duty towards Europe as Europe had towards the USA during the war on terror.
I’ve yet to hear the USA’s current leadership say thank you to the European families that sacrificed their children to help the USA out.
Signed Minsk agreement
I think a large part of the unhappiness with the US around support for Ukraine is not down to a lack of overall support, but more Biden’s overabundance of caution with what capabilities to give Ukraine. Its clear he was more concerned with managing Putin than giving Ukraine the ability to win the war.
Everything about NATO is airpower led, combined arms operations. Noone would even suggest deploying NATO troops without enough airpower to dominate the skies and fully support ground operations. Just look at Yugoslavia, Lybia, Syria. NATO leans on airpower more than anything else, and has launched interventions with nothing but airpower, but never the other way around.
So it was always utterly unrealistic to expect Ukraine to make significant progress against Russia without airpower. Our denial of airpower to Ukraine was controlled by Biden, and I think his wrong headed blocking of airpower for Ukraine for so long and its consequences will be the significant factor in his legacy on the international stage.
UKR was doing incredibly well to start with and had momentum.
Russian were in a daze as they realised all their much vaunted krapski equipment was useless against western systems.
UKR troops couldn’t believe they had stopped the much feared Russian army.
If support had gone in heavy at that point the Russian would have been routed.
Absolutely right. There was a wake-up call in 2014 and our response was pathetic. It was obvious Putin wouldn’t stop with just Crimea.
Imagine if Ukraine had F16s, Storm Shadow, and Abrams in Feb 2022.
The Ukraine had an army that had been trained and equipped by NATO since 1991. What happened to that army?
F16s would have been fodder for Sx00. Storm Shadow is just another missiles. And Abrams has not done any better than any other NATO MBT in theatre.
Imagine instead if the Obama administration had let Kiev take the Russian loan that had no conditions instead of mounting a coup. 30% of Ukrainian land would not belong to foreign entities; that is 10% more than the Russians occupy. There would have been no children of senior Democrat and US Establishment figures sitting on the boards of Ukrainian companies sucking money out of them. The ultra-nationalist Bandarites wouldn’t have pushed the Kiev government to mount a campaign against ethnic Russians and their language and cultural resulting in over 14,000 deaths. Germany and France’s reputation on the international stage would not be in tatters because they lied over Minsk 1 & 2. Germany’s industry would not be in collapse because it would be still buying Russian pipeline gas for a good price like it had done for decades. And so on. And so on. And so on.
“The Ukraine had an army that had been trained and equipped by NATO since 1991. What happened to that army?”
Thats absolute cobblers. Tell us all about the equipment that the Ukrainians received pre-war from the West….go on….
Banderites?
Why don’t you tell us all about the Banderites? Which Ukrainian political party represents them?
It’s pure Russian propaganda, and always has been.
Tell us about this campaign against ‘Ethnic Russians’….try and do it without reference to the usual Russian talking points though…you could try using election results, polling, census data or referendum data….
Bet you’re a ‘free thinker’ as well…
That army royally spanked the Russian forces in 2022, once it was able to organise and respond to the initial invasion taking place from multiple directions. Which is why Putin failed to take Ukraine in 3 days as originally planned.
As we’ve seen, the much vaunted Russian air-defence systems have proved to be far inferior to what was expected, and certainly nowhere near on par with Western ones. So no, the F16s wouldn’t have been shot down – as proven by the fact the Ukrainian air-force (mainly consisting of old Soviet jets) continues to conduct combat missions.
Did I say Abrams was better than other Western MBTs? No I didn’t. You either pathetically trying a straw man argument or still high on whatever hallucinogens you Russian trolls take. But there are literally thousands of Abrams in American reserves, meaning a sizeable number could have been given to Ukraine.
As we’ve seen in Ukraine, ANY Western MBT is much superior to the best Russian can produce.
Imagine you didn’t spew out hilarious propaganda like you do but actually had a grasp on facts and reality. I know, it’s too fantastical to even consider.
I agree and have said many times that if we [NATO] had piled in with the support that has oozed in over three years and delivered it in the first few months the Russians would have been routed before the thing ossified into trench warfare.
Momentum is key on the battlefield or economically. The Ukrainians had precious momentum and the west allowed that to be squandered while Micron grandstanded, the Germans vacillated and Biden tried to remember the name of his dog.
In all fairness to Boris he did want to go full in harder and earlier but the committee approach with the US dragging its heels has cost a lot of lives.
Of course Putin is the real cuplirti in costing lives as he invaded a sovereign country twice.
Sean and Suppotive Bloke
First of all, I totally agree with both of you two’s key premis that much much more should have been done to support Ukraine = especially in the three decades before that fateful day in March 2022.
If that had happened= there would not have been a big war in Europe
————————–
However….
Had Ukraine’s own self defence forces been built up between (lets say) 1992 and 2022 – so exactly as Finland and Sweden built themselves up between 1945 and 1989 – then the Russian’s would not have dared invade Ukraine in 2022.
The Ukrainian’s existing soviet-era armanment and avaition factories could have been switched – probably relatively easily – soon after the cold war ended, so as to start producing more modern military kit: (note: so, possibly, under licence from those two (and at that time both non-algned) Scandinavian nations?)
So, just like Sweden and Finland, Ukraine during that period of three decades (1992 to 2022) might well have been (much?) better off remaing outside of both NATO and the EU alliances : and thus have become pover those three deacdes a well armed “non-aligned nation”
—————–
However, despite Mr Wells having developed and patented this concept well over one hundred years ago – still our buffons in the Q branches of the UK military have repeately failed to bring into operational serive a deployable ATM (i.e. A Time Machine) within the UK military..
………and, frankly, Q have had about as much sucess with ATM’s as they have more recently had with developing an operational Ray Gun (first invented by Flash Gordon in the 1950’s)
—————-
Wiith regards to your suggestions that NATO should have supplied more F16 fighters and Abrams tansk – both of which are top of the range “gucci” NATO fighting kit – I now have “agree to disagree” with both of you for those two suggestions…..
Firstly the soviet era air defence systems (AAD) – both inside western Russia and throughout all of Ukraine – were always going to be very effective at reducing the effectiveness of airpower (i.e. the old USSR’s PVO Strany – their nationwide AAD system).
Both nations in 2022 had simply vast AAD systems – all complete with sheleters and warning sirens for their civilains
Those vast AAD systems have, over the past three years been , reguarly shooting down about 70-80% of intruders (both manned and uncrewed). We will not know those final figures until after the war ends….
Thus – overall – , airpower has played far less of a part over the past three years than it did in, say Gulf War 1 = where Saddam had huge fixed AAD installations throughout Iraq; however nothing mobile to cover his frontlne forces out on their camping holiday in neighbouring Kuwait ……
…….which then got used, by the USAF as a “turkey shoot”
F16:
the F16 requires on hell of a lot of pilot training.
Thus the first ex-NATO F16 – which was delivered to Ukraine over a year ago- are only now going into combat.
(i.e. F16 PREOWNED: one carefull owner from new; full service history; no women drivers; full aftermarket exhaust kit etc) ,
I predicted here on NL whn that news was announced (about the F16’s being delivered) that hey would not have very much impact
Because Abrams requires a hugely complex spares / supply chain and its engine repair technicinnsa are, to all intents and purposes “aerosapce techiciians. That complexity exity is why only the USA operates it (remember: its gas turbine – wot Mr Whittle called a jet- engine – was developed way back in the mid 1970’s’)
In my own humble opinion – instead of Abrams and F16 – the Ukrainians would have been far better off with the
WHY?….
because both of those were specifically engineered and developed so as to be, very easily, used by barely trained conscript forces (especially for that key maintainence out in the field).
However, mainly due to political reasons
————————
Very interesting that Poland, the country which is now rearming the fastest in Europe (i.e. just in case Ukraine soon “collapses militarily”) has ignored all of the traditional NATO military weapons system and suppliers – both US and Europeans and Scandinavians
And so the Poles are now buying one hell of a lot of South Korean made “green kit” for its own – very rapidly expanding – land forces
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
Ridiculous. You are alienated by media.
If in 1983, USSR would have invaded Austria all European PM’s would be flying to Washington asking Mr. Reagan to make a deal with Mr. Andropov. Whatever deal.
Bot.
Yeah just like… in 1982 when Thatcher fly to Washington asking Mr Reagan to make a deal with General Galtieri. Whatever deal.
Except that that’s your fantasy, reality was very different.
In 1954 Austria took up Stalin’s deal to reunite its 4 power occupation zones in return for becoming Neutral. And they remain neutral to this day
The same deal for German reunification but armed & neutral was offered but the French especially wouldn’t give up its occupation zone, Adenauer and his CDU party woulnt accept Oder -Neisse Polish border and they wouldnt have the majority in Bundestag if east was included ( West Berlin Mps couldn’t vote in Bundestag)
Eisenhower did a deal with China and North Korea over the heads of the South to ened the Korean war within 6 months of becoming President.
Nixon did a similar deal to withdraw from the South and later with the north to end an unwinnable war
Crikey, I wrote this as a rply to another comment that now seems to have been deleted !!!!
Not that it will happen but it would be interesting if Australian facilities were scaled to allow us to increase our SSN numbers back to 12 again.
The artist impressions look interesting and show that at least somebody is interested in VLS and ice strengthened conning towers. I do so prefer the American term sail…….
But my they are getting to be a bit big ain’t they? There is now a definite need for something around 3k tonnes surfaced.
What would be handy would be a base in the middle of the Indian Ocean……..
Tell me you are an Imposter ? !!!! lol….
No it is me. I don’t see anything odd in what I have said. Shall we go through it again?
Australis is building new yards to build submarines. It would be good if we could perhaps use extra capacity to build more for us. What is odd about that? It seems a perfectly reasonable thing to speculate about.
Why is it odd for me to say it is good to see the artist’s impression has VLS and mentions ice strengthened conning towers. These are both positives. Astute should have had VLS. What is wrong with me putting any of that out?
And yes a projected displacement of 9,000 tonnes is a lot. They will be big and difficult to manoeuvre. HMS/M Dreadnought displaced 3,500 tons surfaced. So these new boats will be 3 times the size. That is some growth. Again why is it wrong or bizarre to point this out? Could you explain please because I don’t understand what is wrong?
And yes we could do with a flotilla of boats about 3,000 tonnes seeing the size of this coming generation of boats is so large and most definitely something for the deep oceans. Lots of new submarine classes are coming in about 3,000 tonnes now. Can you tell me what is odd about me saying that?
Japan’s Taigei-class diesel-electric submarine seems to fit the bill, with its fourth in class recently commissioned on 6 March.
Yes. Near SSN like performance even if for only a limited time. I have become uneasy about the idea of 9,000 tonne attack submarines charging around below at 30 knots!!! :0
Indeed, a smaller and cheaper option operating around UK waters to deter Russia and China would be welcome.
See my post further down this thread (A-26 Blekinge Class) as an example.
Yes. I like A-26. I like it as it offers a family of submarines. We could do with 8 of the Oceanic-ER (sans VLS) so we can mount a patrol off Northern Norway. 4 of the Coastal variant for training in the Channel and Western Approaches. And a further 4 Oceanic-ER with VLS for work elsewhere………
Um. If I were to be totally profligate with the imaginary budget a clutch of 500 tonners for further training and inner defence of the Hebrides / Irish Sea.
An 8th SSN would be useful. But I think 9000 tonner SSN’s have got to be on the upper edge.
Agreed!
“The A26 submarines are designed to be cost-efficient and modern, with a modular design that allows for easy upgrades and adaptations.
In 2021, the FMV ordered two additional A26 submarines for SEK 5.2 billion, which will be delivered in 2027 and 2028.”
9 Mar, 09:27 UTC
1 Pound sterling equals
13.04 Swedish Krona
Three thousand tonnes!
That would be the smallest reactor ever put to sea, I bet the propulsion section of an Astute weighs more than that on the surface.
On second thoughts, I wonder if the RR work on very small nuclear reactors will allow smaller nuclear subs for littoral navies? Might be interesting as a UK export design…
Pssst…. I think someone is impersonating WIZ … again !!!!
Yes, it would seem so, but the small SSN thing is still worth a discussion.
Unmanned nuclear seems a recipe for disaster, but a lean crewed small SSN (SSSN?) would be handy for all of those North Sea CNI and shadowing roles for which people claim we need SSKs, and free up the design of SSN-AUKUS to be an oceanic monster.
Would Norway or Canada be interested, do you think?
It wouldn’t be significantly cheaper so no.
The A-26 Blekinge Class would fit that role and others, especially with undersea pipelines and cables in mind.
There is also the bigger version that SAAB put forward (Expeditionary C718) for the Dutch competition. Basically A-26 / Collins hybrid.
If we took the UK, France Germany, Spain, Netherlands, Denmark Sweden, Finland, Norway and Italy to purchase two of these types of Submarines, we would have an extremely credible deterrent for the future at a relatively low cost overall.
UK/European defence spending is set to increase after all.
Submarines are best operated in 4’s. A better and more achievable mix would be.
1) Germany increase to 8 SSK and buy 4 SSN.
2) Italy buy 4 SSN.
3) Netherlands and Spain increase to 4 SSK
4) France increase to 8 SSN and buy 8 SSK
So 32 SSK and 16 SSN plus the others like Norway and Sweden…….
More than a match for Russia and China without UK tech onboard!
“In 2005, a Swedish Gotland-class submarine shocked the US Navy by sinking a US aircraft carrier during a war game. The submarine’s stealth and innovative design outperformed the US Navy’s anti-submarine defences.”
Yes. Us being able to watch them and them being able to watch us is what keeps the security situation stable.
Wikipedia says the submarine USS Tulibee displaced 2,316 long tons and it had a 23 ft beam so seems about right. I went to the nuclear prototype for the Tulibee. It wasn’t a great learning environment but I do recall that no one talked about how many tonnes the reactor displaced.
Apparently the smallest nuclear submarine in history is the US Navy NR-1 research sub, at 400t displacement and 10 crew.
But that could only move at 4 knots using nuclear-electric thrusters, so less applicable to littoral combat.
Sailorbouy
You naughty little schoolbouy!
= you have just been caught cheating (i.e by looking it up on Wikipedia!)
Accordingly, can I suggest that, as this weekend’s extra school homework, you now go out and properly research what the USN NR1 could really do….
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
Hint Try “book”
= very old fashioned…however the book I have here in my hand (i.e. all about NR1) still seems to work very well, evenn at twenty years old.
I don’t believe he’s talking a 3k SSN, but a SSK.
A pity, I sort of like the idea of a midget nuclear sub!
Like the Chinese one that I speculate is Li-battery charged from an isotope battery pile. That really would be something as the isotope battery stack could provide almost infinite duration power and the Li a very interesting short range turn of speed as well as being essentially silent and possibly cheaper to build as isotope batteries are a lot less expensive and easier to handle than nuclear reactors – sure they don’t have the power density but for mooching around quietly they could be rather nasty and they don’t have the emissions or thermal detectability of diesels.
A self-charging battery sub?
I’ll have a look, it sounds interesting!
Btw does anyone know how RR’s new micro reactors work? They show the cutaway on their website but it doesn’t look like any other reactor vessel/layout I’ve seen.
Canada did a lot of research into the concept of a low-power reactor, and at one time was seriously looking at putting these into the Oberons. Reputedly this is being looked at again very closely for future incorporation into the 12 new SSKs that are soon to be ordered. The RCN has a requirement to patrol under the icecap, and these Slowpoke reactors would be used as range extenders by topping up the batteries.
There is a lot of good technology in the Commonwealth. We need to start looking to each other for solutions in a world where the US is looking to be increasingly more isolated.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SLOWPOKE_reactor
Thanks for the info.
A 20cm by 20cm reactor vessel is tiny!
You could almost fit one in a CETUS, if the safety mechanisms were refined enough…
Looks like they might be using heat pipes to transport heat out of the core to the heat exchangers. High chance the visual is partly made up though.
That’s a scale model, not made up. The reactor was to form the basis of a system called AMPS (autonomous marine power source), and was designed specifically for submarines up to 2000 tons.
https://inis.iaea.org/records/s9ts8-ebx57
https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1990/march/submarine-technology
It’s being looked at very seriously again for possible inclusion at some future time into the fleet of 12 SSKs Canada is on the cusp of purchasing, as a way to extend submerged range.
A self-charging battery sub?
PLAN’s Type 041 Yuan class.
https://www.google.com/search?q=chinese+submarine+with+reactor+for+charging+batteires+not+driving+the+submarine&oq=chinese+submarine+with+reactor+for+charging+batteires+not+driving+the+submarine&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIHCAEQIRiPAjIHCAIQIRiPAtIBCTI0OTg5ajFqN6gCALACAA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:008cc4c6,vid:6O0ZThTdBKY,st:0
Who said anything about a nuclear boat? Perhaps yes I should have said conventional. But come on you made the leap.
I brought up nuclear, yes, I accepted that.
Just wondering whether an effective SSN of that size could be done.
Well Dreadnought was about 3,500 tonnes and that was 50’s tech. Now obviously you can’t shrink rods and shielding etc. But their might be savings elsewhere. Kettles in boars are already at the limits size wise.
There is a base in the Indian Ocean, it has a name HMAS Stirling. A real base with some maintenance facilities , maybe even a dry dock?
https://www.asa.gov.au/projects/submarine-rotational-force-west-infrastructure-project
Yes nice sub base with lots of infrastructure work going on, however, HMAS Sterling is on the eastern fringe of the Indian Ocean, not in the middle
It’s also a long way from China.
Closer than the BIOT is ( more an island air base/ worldwide comms than a naval base). The Malacca St are too shallow for subs, so its the deep water channels through the western archipelago . Darwin would be best of all.
As I understand it, Darwin is not suitable due to the continental shelf extending a very considerable distance. This means a large submarine has to travel a long way in relatively shallow water, making it easier to track. From HMAS Stirling, it’s a short distance to deep water, with no indication of where it goes from there. There was an article somewhere on it something like 5 years ago.
I would settle for 10 but I’m afraid the absolute most you will get is 8.
What WE get should be adjusted upwards from the expected eight given the new realities (no really new just recognised by more).
An eighth would be fine. Submarines are best operated on a four for one basis.
I would be very disappointed if we went for a US combat system – we need to develop and manufacture our own systems in areas such as this.
Trump is on his last term I gotta feeling he won’t wanna leave
The RN has always had its own sub combat systems, still does for the Astutes and likely for new Dreadnoughts as well.
There is no reason to change to US GD BYG system. For Australia to have it -like the currently do for the Collins- and of course its 2 Virginias in future doest mean RN has to follow
Although developing a future SSN without the US wouldn’t be without big challenges I think the bigger issue if Trump/Vance’s administration get difficult and decide they don’t like AUKUS will be Australia’s desire to get some 2nd hand Virginia’s first.
Hopefully their worldwide still includes regional allies countering China.
More SSN’s for the RN should absolutely be the aspiration……but as the article states we’re struggling to bring into service and maintain 7 Astute’s, so there will need to be a substantial and generation long effort to increase skills and learn from recent mistakes to make it as smooth a drumbeat as possible.
Trump and Vance are gone in less than 4 years. The first AUKUS SSN will not even begin fabrication by then. The decision was made to go with a US CMS for all 3 parties, so that ship has already sailed. That said, there’s still time to change minds.
No such decision has been made, this is nonsense and you have no evidence to back up your statement.
You’re assuming…
• Trump doesn’t scrap the 22nd Amendment, he’s currently trying to scrap the 14th Amendment
• That there will be elections… One narrative coming out of MAGA is that the USA was founded as a “republic” not a “democracy” – they conveniently ignore all reference to elections in the Constitution
• That they don’t do what they accused Biden of, stuffing the ballot boxes to rig the election.
• That the USA will still exist in 4 years and won’t have split in opposing blue and red state factions…
And that JD Vance won’t be elected as President for eight more years.
You can’t just scrap Amendments to the Constitution. If you could the First, Second and Fifth would have been gone decades past.
Is Trumpy Wumpy taking your war away is he? That’s sad. You can always declare war on Russia yourself. Go to the Ukraine now before the big boys bring the fight to an end.
You’re clearly ignorant of Trumps attempt to steamroller the -4th Amendment that gives everyone born there American citizenship. But as you continually demonstrate, you’re somewhat disconnected from reality.
To change the US Constitution, an amendment must be proposed by Congress or by a constitutional convention, and then ratified by three-fourths of the states.
Proposing an amendment
Ratifying an amendment
The amendment process is considered difficult and time-consuming.
There’s an easier route for a President. You stack SCOTUS and “reinterpret” the hell out of it. It may not be as broad or stick as well, but….
You can be Speaker without even being an elected member of the House; it just needs a majority vote. What if MAGA controlled that majority? If the VP and POTUS quit immediately after the election of Pres Trump as Speaker, there’s nothing in the wording of the 22nd amendment that would stop him from becoming Acting President for the next four years, even if he’d previously done two terms: nothing other than an appeal to SCOTUS on grounds of “failure to qualify”. I’m no US constitutional expert and I just came up with that scenario on the fly, it probably wouldn’t work, but I wouldn’t bet against a real constitutional expert coming up with a real loophole that would work with SCOTUS backing.
Gosh dude you could be so right about that!! I mean that is how the Dems got rid of the 1st and 2nd isn’t? NOT!
I’m no US constitutional expert
Really? You don’t say!!! I would have never have guessed. You have such a grasp of all the legal points. I am surprised the Dems didn’t draft you to help Harris win the election…….
Of course you poke fun at things you have no better answer to: play the man not the ball as Sir Humphrey put it on Yes Prime Minister. The substantive point remains, that with SCOTUS in his pocket, Trump could find a way around the 22nd Amendment. SCOTUS are not just constitutional experts, they are effectively constitutional definers.
You are talking rubbish. If amending the US Constitution was as easy as you say then the Democrats would have changed it. You are wrong. Simple as that. I am not interested in your Trump Derangement Syndrome.
That’s like saying you can’t prove that Father Christmas doesn’t exist dude! It has just been explained to you, in detail, how difficult it is to overturn and amendment to the constitution. It is almost impossible, and your reply is, but, but, but what if….. I believe in Father Christmas!!!
I’m not saying it isn’t difficult to overturn the Constitution. I’m saying it may not be necessary to do so. Okay? That’s very different.
Slowly read that paragraph above again before mischaracterising my posts, please.
The Constitution says you can’t be elected President more than twice, and I pointed out that someone can become Acting President, with all the powers of President, without being elected to the job. That’s two reasons the increasingly literalist Supreme Court might allow Trump to do it.
It’s somewhat like how Gerald Ford got there without being elected, although because Ford became VP first, he became President rather than Acting President. Trump would need simple majority confirmations in both houses, like Ford, and a confirmation isn’t an election.
I believe that Gerald Ford existed. Don’t you?
Trump is gone in 4 years. I don’t think Vance is gone.
The US needs Australia’s resources. The co-operation between Oz and the US is on the same scale as that between us and US.
So you’d be happy to dump Australia and it’s people to access their Minerals ?
I am not sure what you mean by that. Who is dumping who for what?
Why would it have big challenges?
It’s development was well underway before AUKUS arrived.
The maintenance issues are well known and mainly relate to facilities being skimped on for years, but the RN is resolving it. Lots of work on maintenance facitilies, docks etc. It will take time but they are digging themselves out of a political inflicted hole…
Given Trump’s actions over recent days, the USA withdrawing from AUKUS wouldn’t be a surprise. Indeed expected?
If you don’t understand that this is the US pivot to Pacific…
Did you heard any Trump blast to South Korea that have thousands of US troops there?
Or Japan?
The US needs Australia’s resources. You seem to be totally unaware what goes on in terms of defence co-operation between the two.
They need resources, not necessarily from Australia however. They are looking for other sources quite actively (Ukraine, Greenland, Russia).
Oh……….So they US doesn’t need iron ore, coal (both thermal and metallurgical), gold, lead, zinc, nickel, copper, bauxite (alumina), lithium, uranium, manganese ore, silver, timber, natural gas, petroleum, and minerals like rutile, zircon, and cobalt? Really? The US would be quite happy for those to go to China then? ‘Don’t worry you guys we have enough resource you can have Oz and all those Westerners!’ Wow………………..
Read my post again, this time more closely. I didn’t say they don’t need those resources. I said they don’t necessarily need them from Australia. The shipping costs alone from Australia virtually guaranty there are cheaper sources of all the items you mentioned from closer sources (Canada, Mexico, South America, even Europe). Australia seems to think they have a unique irreplaceable relationship with the US, but I would argue that if the US is willing to kick Canada in the teeth (a country that has all those items, at much lower transportation costs), they will have no issue whatsoever abandoning Australia. Most Americans have no idea where Australia is, let alone what they supply, so there would be no outcry from the US populace if this current Administration decides to trade elsewhere, or drop out of AUKUS. Those are just the facts.
Is building a small number of nuclear subs to (in 20 years time) project power thousands of miles from Australia the best plan? Purchase of existing class of good quality AIP subs would be my choice. I don’t see the need for Australia to do more than defend home waters and, if there is that need, then have the AIP subs operate from a forward operating base in the Philippines. Australia is building nuclear subs as an ambitious jobs program that has a huge potential for failure and, even if it succeeds, it might deliver a white elephant in 20 years.
BTW, have you seen that the US Navy offers more than $100K in reenlistment bonus to nuclear trained sailors? Take my word for it, nuc sailors have the worst job in the Navy. The Australian navy has not been able to get people to volunteer for the easy fun jobs on subs.
A white Elephant, hardly
You didn’t refute anything I wrote and I’d bet that you can’t see 20 years into the future. China is ready to deploy unmanned, autonomous submarines that are armed with torpedoes. Imagine being surrounded by a dozen of those. If a dozen such enemy vessels pinged a submarine simultaneously I wonder how many torpedoes the captain could fire before he and his sub were no more? Some captains might be tempted to surface and surrender instead.
But hey, I’m sure the US is grateful for the half billion Australia has already paid for the white elephants they get in ten to twenty years.
I think there are some lessons for the Aussies from what is currently happening in Europe here. There is a serious need to increase defence spending with NZ to build a credible defence force that is less reliant on the US. Ironically, AUKUS overtime would give the RAN a high end deterrent to China, which is totally out stripping the US in new warship construction. That is the long term threat in the region and whilst the US might be pivoting it’s force towards the Pacific they are going to be seriously outnumbered in the mid term.
As for using AIP subs for home defence please confirm what is that because Australia relies on seaborne trade that could be choked off close to home or more likely further afield and that is where currently SSN’s come into their own.
In reality our Aussie and Kiwi cousins have become like us in the U.K. too dependent on the US for our defence. Investment therefore in SSN’s, SSK’s, unmanned subs, maritime patrol aircraft and high end ASW vessels is probably a real priority beyond what is currently planned.
This combined with a deepening of defence ties with other nations beside the US must also be a priority going forward.
Remind me who is Oz’s main trading partner? Perhaps we can get them to help defend Australia’s trade routes?
I am very well aware of who is Australia’s main trade partner but that doesn’t make them a benign and friendly one and when did Communist dictatorships become friends with the west?
I am suggesting the Aussies need to spend more on defence because they need a greater degree of autonomy in the long term from the US, which now seems to have gone rogue.
AUKUS therefore presents both a way to do this but also an obvious problem in the US involvement.
This could be to the advantage of the U.K. who will also need to think long and hard about what US equipment and systems are incorporated in the future AUKUS boats.
They are already spending a small fortune on defence.
I am not interest in your TDS.
The Chinese bogey subs that mysteriously sink in port? Good to hear from a believer. How many Chinese admirals have been tried for corruption recently? It seems that the “Russian Problem” is alive and well, just not in the minds of true believers who love propaganda.
🤣 obvious ridiculous straw man argument
Quite agree with you.
You need to have a look at a map with a scale on it if you think an AIP submarine can defend Australia. The current Collins class is not an AIP sub & is already one of the largest SSK’s out there (till the new Dutch ones get built) & it struggles with the distances involved. AIP is slow – so slow that in some areas they would be going backward. Hence no AIP & more batteries instead. Most northern Australian ports are not suitable for submarine use which is why such ports are all in the south. Arranging forward basing in another country is not simple & in wartime is only possible if that country is also in the war.
Why are the Astutes so bad?
I know they didn’t get off to a great start.
FE meshing shouldn’t have been that difficult.
But sure after 20 years of trying we should be in a better place.
Where are we with reactor tech and specc’ing?
Will we have a sports reactor in a sports boat / SSN?
Or will we be using a plodder type unit from an SSBN?
This issue has a fair bit of history.
UK deterrent in a bad place — France has a full deck of cards while we need US tech.
US sensors / CMS / anything techie — not looking good at the moment.
Donny John has just turned the US into the world’s most moody / untrustworthy ally overnight. Not sure they will be able to repair the damage before 2050.
Any thoughts on having a look at French / German tech for this?
Might cause a far amount of humble pie to be eaten but times are getting tough.
We should be almost all the way with reactor tech as the PWR3 reactors for SSN-A will be the same or thereabouts as those in the Dreadnoughts. I have no idea why you’d call it sports vs plodder. It’s just a reactor not an engine.
The propulsion plant itself may well be American (though once again, I’m not sure why). As you probably recall there was a lot of political showboating going on with AUKUS P1 with all sorts of announcements that may not hold up to the light of day. It’s possible that, like the reactors, the US and UK will simply share propulsion information, and the UK will build something using adapted/adopted designs.
Reactor disconnect — loose chat from years ago on TD about the flexibility or lack of it of the Astute unit. SSN need quicker levels of power up than SSBNs by all accounts
Seemingly the reactor in question was more suited to the steady Vanguard duty cycle than the more challenging / sporty Astute mission profile.
Quite a few folk involved in the discussion and the outcome was a less than glowing report of the Astute performance potential.
Might all be RN hot air but using the same reactor for both the the Bomber 3 / AUKUS stirred a few memories.
Shaggy dog story?
It’s a suprise.I think the Dreadnoughts use turbo electric but the Astutes are directly driven. If the SSN-A follows the Dreadnought’s lead the issue, if true, disappears.
Not quite sure I share your positivity.
Turbo electric is still a direct link of sorts — steam generation to steam use to electric motor at the back end — stern I think is what it is called by the hip kids.
Hybrid powertrain would be better.
Battery in the loop to overcome reactor lag.
Big Auto experience — Fuel cells need them to overcome chemical lag.
Agreed. I was perhaps wrongly assuming hybrid. There’s diesel and battery in the mix already, so some form of IEP came to my mind.
I have always been worried about deploying HMS Prince of Wales to protect the commonwealth in a hot war with an asian super power for some reason….so the idea of keeping the carrier groups focused on the Atlantic and med where they van be better supported has a lot of appeal. I could see them being more rapidly equipped as an anti submarine platform in terms of a mixed airwing than the full spectrum capabity needed to be useful further afield. Fixed wing and rotary uav, merlin for anti aubmarine warfare and f35b for air defence and long range strike quicker and cheaper to procure and operate than a strike based air wing purely made up of f35.
SSN as a deployable contribution to aukus then seems far more realistic – and survivable. A fleet of 12 in that context makes sense – if they can be built.
NATO first policy, the world last.
I would be shocked if any submarines are built in the next 10 years. The UK cannot even field a battle group. Subs and surface ships are in maintenance for years. There are more admirals than ships. But the navy and industry will figure it all out and get a country that has zero experience with nuclear power, not building large surface combatants, let alone submarines. Yeah, right. All this will be is a way to grease industry fat cats for millions till it is quietly shelved. I am an American, please explain why I should care about one dictator fighting another 1/2 a world away? The UK can’t scramble together 100 combat jets and a full armored division. Reap what you sow. Don’t worry, our Navy is almost as broke as yours, we just have more money to waste at the moment.
Bot bot bot bot bot bot bot bot bot bot bot bot bot bot. Bot
Should the UK abandon AUKUS P1? Given the current threat level and state of the US I think it should.
SSN-A (or we could again call it SSN-R) should revert back to UK sovereign solutions as much as possible. Risks to sovereignty are more valuable than any technical gains delivered by US collaboration right now. The UK CMS and weapons should be reinstated along with anything else negotiated out. Where resources have been diverted to support AUKUS P1 that are not directly supportive of immediate UK interests they should be redirected. This could include ceasing construction of the additional reactor line at Derby and abandoning the extensive training effort for Aus builders at Barrow-in-Furness.
This of course will greatly impact Australia and lead to the collapse of AUKUS P1. However, I wouldn’t worry about that and in fact I think many in Aus will welcome it. Not just because of the emerging risks of entrapment and coercion from a rogue US, but because of the huge costs and many delivery risks that have always been there. The project has always been a difficult ask for a country with no significant nuclear industry and the costs have massively distorted the Aus Defence Budget. A more appropriate option for Aus would be to return to an expanded fleet of conventional boats and build on the expertise already in country. Something effective but still fully controlled by Australia. Now is not the time for gold plated solutions with many strings attached and that goes for both the UK and AUS.
Are you speaking on behalf of China or Russia?
Due to the size of Oz and the amount of ocean that surrounds it, getting to maritime choke points do not suit a SSKs. The vast distances the the boats have to travel, is one of the reasons why the RAN are going down the SSN path.
SSN’s will be useful to protect Oz from east and west. Depending on where Oz sources its hydrocarbons from in the future. And I have seen the maths re SSK and SSN. But I see little sense in the RAN sending SSN’s to sit off the coast of PRC. I think Oz’s biggest problem in the future will be Indonesia. And the best way to combat that would be a patrol line of SSK across the northern coast. There is a video on YouTube of a skit on a Ozzie cabinet meeting on defence. And the admiral is saying in war Oz will need to protect its trade routes from China. And somebody asks who is Oz’s main trading partner? China. China has to come along way to attack Oz. Better to pick their assets off operating at a distance from home than send assets far away to be picked of by them. Also consider China and Indonesia deciding to carve Oz between them.
Indonesia doesn’t have the shipping to attack Australia & Australia has air tankers & over 100 fighter aircraft, making most of Indonesia within easy strike range. Submarines aren’t used to directly defend northern Australia. They are used to block the choke points (most of which are in Indonesia) that can close off access between the Indian & Pacific Oceans.
Oh………….
A real worry in all this is the lack of qualified engineers who are available, this hasn’t just happened it’s been the lack of investment by successive governments over decades . Now the Chickens are coming home to roost.
As is my want I will chuck the usual bucket of cold water.
Australian Defence spending is currently bouncing around the 2% mark. The current government (if it gets re-elected) has plans to raise Defence spending to around 2.3 to 2.4% but not get to that figure until the early 2030’s. Trump may change that but we will see what happens.
There is also the possibility that Australia may get a new government by mid year (an election is due). Both sides of politics are committed to both to the American alliance and AUKUS but neither have shown an early desire to throw a lot more money at Defence.
Both sides have talked a lot but so far it hasn’t translated into much additional hardware. Pretty much all recent buys have been replacement.
To date there is little sign of growth in the ADF, frigates are being retired well before replacements arrive. The current submarine force (Collins class) are approaching their design life and their future is dependent on a ‘Life of type extension (LOTE)’ of un-precedented scope. The Army has taken a recent wack to its armor plans ‘to free up funds for new technology’.
In short the Australia Defence Force is not in a good place at the moment. It is underfunded and is suffering the usual manpower crisis common to western nations.
In short, I wouldn’t bet the house on long term Defence plans espoused by Australian politicians.
Let this sink in ……Australia’s single most critical problem is not SSN’s it is that China is its major trading partner, fully a third of Australia’s exports go to China and more goes to Asia before proceeding to China semi processed.
Australia would be in deep deep recession if those exports were interrupted. That would blow a lot of Defence plans apart.
In a world that seems to be dividing up, first Australia had better find a way of resolving its Strategic dependance on the US and its economic dependance on China. It has been teetering on that particular pinhead for the last 20 years and it cannot go on much longer.
Japan / 1941 had it all wrong.
Who needs territorial expansion when you can buy a country ton by ton.
AUKUS — looking through a Donny John lens — has the look of a cunning plan to loosen the ties between Aus and China.
Economically Aus is probably closer to China than Taiwan — guess from Glesga / nothing more technical — on the basis that the bond between a country with mouths to feed and a pseudo continent with big fields is pretty strong.
Aus has a lot of maturing to do — 5 insular big cities does not a country / society make.
British Malaya in 1930swas a source of iron ore and had far more tin than Japan needed. Plus rubber. They were cut off by Britain
1937 comes into focus with your analysis.
If Japan had played the commercial long game rather than the militaristic short game things would have been different.
Manchuria was plenty big enough on its own.
Korea was only at the start of a full scale redevelopment / industrialisation.
China in 1937 was just the warrior vibe turned up to 11.
You obviously haven’t toured very far. Canada is a similar setup to Australia. NZ, Argentina, Brazil, Chile can relate. Australia sells to who wants to buy (unless the government says otherwise). But it has rules & isn’t known for stepping backward (China has already tried). In case anyone is not aware, only 3 NATO countries are part of the 5 eyes intelligence arrangement. The world is not a simple place.
No — Aus is well out on its own.
Basics — only they have realistic SSN aspirations.
The iron ore vibe over the past 30 years has been beyond transformational.
The Dutch disease turned up to 11 — their auto industry has disappeared.
Huge economic migration to support their good fortune.
Will it last — probably not but 30 golden years will be a great legacy.
The time-zone had started to deliver big benefits.
And then came the flock of geese that laid iron eggs.
Nation not nation.
Navylookout your infograpgh shows no space for a Dry Dock Shelter.
Some seriously deluded comments here now, Putin and Trump are just trying to stop all the bloodshed, I think you all should embrace that and wind in your biased necks, Putin was just defending Russia and Trump recognises this.
Anyone tell me how many of these we will be getting please ?
Are you Ulya from UKDJ? If so, nice to have you over!
Our conversations are informative, even if we don’t agree.
The current thinking is that this is one of the areas that can most effectively be expanded, so estimates range from 6 to 12 replacing 7 Astutes.
I’m whoever and whatever you want me to be young lad. Just as long as you aren’t a bit odd like some folk on there.
It get’s a little tedious trying to maintain my persona when I’m also commentating under so many other names.
Ok, you’re not Ulya then.
Unless his English has significantly improved.
As for being a bit odd, I make no claims!
What’s missing from this view on Australias industrial strategy is the elephant in the room. The RAN has already made a billion dollar down payment on 2 Virginia class.
Supposedly dual source production of the UK design will come so far in the future as to be unknowable and once they know what that will cost , it’s going to swallow a lot of the Aus defence budget- look how currently the nuclear enterprise is a 14 bill pounds per year project for Britain for each of next 10 years
According to media, Australia is putting $A 4.6 billion into the UK defence industrial base (I assume BAE, Babcock & RR will be the beneficiaries). They have also put money into the US defence industrial base (Virginias (even 2nd hand) will not be available unless US increases production). SSN’s are expensive, especially if you abide by accepted standards. Australia has money. It is also only interested in SSN’s, not SSBN’s. In the UK they are interlinked. Also UK will be designing a new Astute replacement regardless & the only option is the PWR3 from RR & sonar will no doubt be from Thales & vl Tomahawk (or it’s replacement) is highly likely. A 16 to 20 class build will make a huge difference to costs & there will be more maintenance yards available that are cleared on the class.
A$4.6 bill into UK industrial base over 10 years! – RR only
However an opposition MP asked ‘where’s the beef’
In October last year, Defence revealed there was no provision in the Defence budget for the $5bn payment to the UK,” Hastie said.
while US gets actual money
https://www.reuters.com/world/australia-makes-500-mln-aukus-payment-ahead-us-defence-secretary-meeting-2025-02-07/
There is no way I’d go down the US CMS equipment and weapons. It is common knowledge the RN boats are superior in ASW exercises held over the years; why would the RN give up such an advantage? (rhetorically the answer is the UK MoD).
.
.
Both boats use the Tomahawk cruise missile; The Astute detects a Virginia at much greater stand-off ranges and the Spearfish is a better all up round than the Mk-48; if you could go British why would you choose the inferior systems?
.
.
The Aussies will then have to ask themselves whether persisting with the less superior US systems and torpedo is worth it? Dumbness from AU MoD down-under may be the answer! .
– The Aussies have.a reputation for buying off off-the shelf an excellent platforms
…and then ballsing it with their requirements and build quality at a significant cost premium.
.
.
I’d like to see the RN aim for 18 boats (or a round 20!) – End of the 80’s goal force-level. Given the operational requirements spelt out in the Strategy paper, anything less barely meets such operational needs with any level of flexibility allowing for any tactical over-match. …Yes, that requires (at least) two building yards and I’d make it non-BAE (the competition will aid procurement costs).
This is interesting, from the French 360 site;
In December, the Italian government indicated that the takeover offer of Piaggio Aerospace, then in great financial difficulties, by Baykar, the Turkish drone manufacturer, “was the most appropriate to guarantee the interests of employees, creditors and to relaunch the group’s industrial prospects”.
“Baykar is committed to maintaining and developing aircraft production, as well as maintenance and engine component production activities, in Italy,” explained Adolfo Urso, the Minister of Enterprise.
This being said, for Baykar, the acquisition of Piaggio Aerospace, for an unspecified amount, would allow it to have easier access to the European market, or even to participate, indirectly, in possible drone projects financed by the European Union [EU].
However, there is no question of the Turkish industrialist sticking there. Indeed, on March 6, Baykar and the Italian group Leonardo signed a memorandum of understanding to create, in equal parts, a joint venture whose activities will focus on the design, development, production and maintenance in operational condition [MCO] of drones, whether they are combat [of the “loyal wingman” or “faithful winger” type], surveillance or attack. The headquarters of this future structure will be located in Italy.
This memorandum of understanding highlights “the synergies and industrial complementarities” of Baykar and Leonardo in the field of drones, explains the press release released jointly by the two industrialists.
“This partnership will be based on Baykar’s unmanned platforms […] which have demonstrated their operational effectiveness as well as Leonardo’s expertise in mission systems, payload design and aerospace certification in Europe,” continues the text, which speaks of “also capitalising on
Additional synergies in the space sector.”
According to Leonardo and Baykar, the European market for military drones “should reach 100 billion euros over the next ten years”.
As a reminder, in this regard, the Italian group is involved in the European drone program MALE [Medium Altitude Long Endurance] EuroMALE, conducted by Airbus Defence & Space as well as the “Global Combat Air Programme” [GCAP], which, conducted in cooperation with the United Kingdom and Japan, aims to develop a “system of systems” based on a 6th generation combat aircraft.
For its part, Baykar has made a reputation with the TB-2 Bayraktar tactical drone and develops the TB-3 models [a naval version of the TB-2], Akinci [MALE type] and Kızılelma, likely to be a future “loyal wingman”.
In the short term, the future joint venture should focus on the development of the Akinci, with payloads provided by Leonardo… While this aircraft recently made a test flight with an AESA radar [with active antennas] MURAD, developed by the Turkish group Aselsan.
However, this cooperation between Leonardo and Baykar could, in the long run, promote the participation of Turkish industry in the GCAP. And this is all the more so since Turkey and the United Kingdom have close military ties.
All
Lots of very valid points have been made here.
Firstly, let us look at Australia’s defence requirements …………it is not just a country, it is actually a vast, and very sparsely populated, continent.
Therefore, anything being purchased by RAN and/or Aussie MOD to defend that “one nation” continent-sized landmass needs to have very long legs (so any air, sea, land, subsurface platforms etc etc).
So, for example, back in the 1980’s the RAN made the mistake of buying their new coastal patrol boats – apparently to a design and size based on a “proven” overseas practice. That first batch were, very quickly, found to be far too small, so with not nearly a long enough range and also very poor habitability (esp. air-conditioning)
So, just a few years later, the RAN had to “go large”
With regards to the Collins class, the key driver behind this RAN procurement has always been that the Collins class are now very old and thus now needing Zimmer frames fitted internally (obviously for structural strengthening of an old chassis) –
…… so those new submarines will be needed by RAN “quite soon”
The clock is ticking.
And if the RAN keep buggering about with re-debating their “procurement strategy” for very much longer- that key underwater defensive capability will, very soon, be “gapped”; and at a time of rising political tensions in the far east
What nobody had mentioned (above) is that the original Aussie order for their replacement subs was for French conventional powered submarines = and you all forget that caused a huge international diplomatic row just a few years ago i.e. when AUKUS was first announced by Boris J (remember him?)
Thus the RAN order with the Froggie shipyard was cancelled: and I bet the French remember that one !.
Accordingly, Admiral Radakin got promoted up the ranks, up to (almost) top dog in UK armed services, on the back oof (and only) basis of that one big deal….
….so our CDS now has a lot personally ridding on the success, or otherwise, of AUKUS
So, it is more than a little bit ironic that just a few years later, that, only this week, the UK media commentators and loviees – including several tossers from Kings College and RUSI and ADC (note 1) are all now saying that we here in the UK might soon have to rely on the Frogs to support our nuclear deterrent SSBM’s
(Note: what a complete and utter load of bollocks> However, the North London media lovies – especially Nick on BBC2’s Newsnight – seem to nowadays believe whatever nonsense they read on the internet. …….Mind you, there are now more presenters appearing on Newsnight that there are regulaar viewers – i.e. us mugs paying The BBC their TV licence fee)
————————
So, we then came back to the key question:
well, to call them “Very Very Vague” would be polite
= the RN has not got a clue yet…..
as the cartoon printed directly above clearly illustrates
The RN has, as we all know here on Navy Lookout (esp. last weekend !!!!!) been playing fantasy fleets recently – especially from the young and not yet “wet behind the ears” young officer who recently studied Trireme tactics (with ramming) for his recent degree…
Because…..a big planned increase in UK defence spending always brings out the fantasists in the ranks
Quite simply, the UK engineers and naval architects cannot possibly start designing our new “ARKUS” submarine until after we have made up our own minds about what needs to go in them…..which is where the real problems always begin
So: do we here in the UK want?
Then there is the issue with the Aussies which nobody has commented on, which is that with a total population of just 26M souls (mostly ex-cons) Australia will always struggle to define and build the necessary industrial base needed to support their new and hugely complex SSN’s.
It is not the hull (easy) nor the rectors (quite easy after suffering writers crap from signing all the security forms) not the combat systems = it is all the rest of the thousands of on-board systems = acoustically silenced toilet seats (both pink and blue) ; laundromat machines built without the manufacturers standard – very noisy – coin dropping slot etc etc etc
So, we then come onto the geo-political changes – what Harold MacMillian (remember him) once called the “winds of change” they are blowing through Asia as we speak
Australia has been -as has quite correctly been noted (posting above) – strategically spinning on a pinhead
The Assies three biggest exports are, according to their government website today: Iron Oord: Coal and natural gas.
Given the trend towards decarbonisation, theses are all, long-term, losers.
Furthermore, fully 25% of all Aussie exports go north – just to China
This Australia il today is in the same boat as Germany was back in 2017: when Donold Trump told Angeal Markel and Ms Useless von de Lyden that Germany needed to stop buying Russian Gas and also pay more for its own defence.
Angela politely ignores Donald = so look what happened next
So the Aussies now have a very big conundrum to deal with ……they need US, UK, or French industrial assistance to build these bloody expensive SSN (or big SSK;s) and those SSN’s will have to be paid for by those ongoing exports to China = io build SSNs to defend Australia against the quickly growing Chinese Navy
My money is going on, in the next five years, China buying more of its iron ore, gas and coal from Russia – which has vast stock in nearby Siberia.
Furthermore, the RN now has to focus UK defences – building more submarines for UK home defence
So, we live in the Chinese curse of “We now live in very interesting times”
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
PS Dear Mr CDS
if you want to get the RN SSN fleet out to sea more often = you need to pay to build two proper nuclear certified drydock’s at Faslane and Devonport (ASAFP
Note 1.
ADC The Army Dress Committee
(= even more important than the aforementioned Chief of Defence Staff_
As of high noon today, the elite top echelon within the UK military ranking system were meeting at a top secret location “somewhere in England”
Thus the ADC are, as we speak, getting ready for Donald Trump’s state visit to Turnburry
…..you remember – the one announced, to great fanfare exactly one week ago….
So, remember what PM Harold Wilson once said
“a week is a very long time in politics”
Note 2.
OR
Instead of buying the Russian natural resources – instead China could soon invade the completely undefended – and very mineral rich – vast spaces of eastern Siberia…..-
and before you think I am joking
So, for example, back in the 1980’s the RAN made the mistake of buying their new coastal patrol boats – apparently to a design and size based on a “proven” overseas practice. That first batch were, very quickly, found to be far too small, so with not nearly a long enough range and also very poor habitability (esp. air-conditioning)
Yes and no. The hulls were already ‘growing’. Back in the day, and I do mean back in the day!, RAN used to run Attack class for their patrol tasks up north. This was from 1968 onwards. These displaced all of about 140 tons. But they had replaced the Bathhurst class corvette at about 1000 tons. There was no real perceived threat from that way. Attack were too small (though useful for getting around reefs and up rivers) and so their replacement were half as big again. And they themselves were replaced by the even bigger Armidales whose size was governed by the need for better accommodation as anything else. These boats did have problems both in terms of construction and in a meta sense that China and Indonesia were growing and modernising their armed forces and a fast yacht was the answer. The ‘Armidale plus’ class known as the Capes showed the RAN what perhaps they should have procured if a fast yatcht had been the answer. These are superb pieces of kit.
A bit of fun………….
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikLVD-hJX3g&list=PL2uZvAOEf5dofMxT5N0XVXERT2YYqpvSl&ab_channel=MarkAlan
Yes. Australians resources are heading towards the US. To maintain its ‘civilizational block’ and semi-isolationist position the US needs Canada AND Australia. To defend all this Pacific real estate the US will still need to maintain a very large navy, I can see interesting ‘interactions’ between the US and France over the latter’s Pacific possessions. When the EU collapses and if Germany aligns with Russia it would be interesting to see France reluctantly join the US and bring Spain and Italy with them.
The US is far more likely to collapse than the EU. The current crisis is moving it forward and making our rejoining even more inevitable. Russia will of course collapse first and if it does start WW3 to drag everyone else down with it then it is all irrelevant.
Oh……….
WW3? Really? Who would be fighting that then? The US isn’t going to go to war for the Ukraine. Beyond there appears little to be driving the US and Russia to war on any other front or issue. The Taiwan, the US, and PRC will grumble on as it has grumbled on since the end of the Chinese Civil War. The US needs Taiwan and China needs Taiwan so there is no war there. So that is the big three accounted for. Oh! Is the EU and the UK going to fight the US, China and Russia all on its own then? Don’t be daft! So who exactly is going to fight in WW3 then? Or are you like many here you don’t care who is fighting as long as you can get off on death and destruction in your wild loathsome jingoistic fantasies?
“ However, this cooperation between Leonardo and Baykar could, in the long run, promote the participation of Turkish industry in the GCAP. And this is all the more so since Turkey and the United Kingdom have close military ties.”
Where do I start with that?
Nobody trusts Turkey with anything too tech after the S400 nonsense.
With all due respect to Turkey nobody is going to let them have the Crown Jewels of UK defence tech secrets.
Mid tech drones are an area I can see UK and Turkey working together on.
Not true. BAE signed a deal to support Turkey developing a new combat jet. Cooperation deal also agreed with Eurojet.
Peter S and Supportive Bloke
It is not quite as simple as either of you suggest…..
Turkey’s relationship – and especially that of their current “strongman president” – with the rest of the world has always been “somewhat complicated”
Then remember that there have been several big wars fought right on Turkey’s borders over the past three decades
And so, today – measured using just the very crude measure of overall / total manpower numbers – Turkey now has the second largest armed forces in NATO (second only behind the USA)
So….
This is the Channel 4 TV’s video of Turkey shooting down a Russian fighter jet which intruded over its border a few years back.
Please note the commentator’s “very perceptive” comment that the Turkish TV crew were “perfectly positioned to film it”
(this incident was the culmination of a number of quite-deliberate intrusions by the Russian Air Force, all in the same area, over that week)
https://youtu.be/cyhGOvsM4F0
Then this one from the US CNN (Clinton News Network)
Turkey bought Russian S-400 missiles designed to down NATO planes. For the US, that’s a problem | CNN
which may help to explain to you some of the “personaility politcs going on behind the scenes”
Thus Turkey is the only country in the world to buy some state of the art (“ish”) long range surface to air missles (i.e. S40) SAM’s) from the very same country who’s warplane it had – quite deliberately and with malice aforethought – shot down with a big SAM just a few years earlier
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
Turkey have been rowing back on Russian support for some time now. It should also not be underestimated that development times are way shorter in countries like Turkey, as one of our nascent drone manufacturers commented, which was a principle attraction of a joint venture.
Things becoming a bit clearer now.
Some chat below about reactor design for nuclear subs.
Low and slow as in quiet but big — boomer spec / fat hull.
Fast and sporty but noisier seemingly — attack spec as in performance flex.
Not exactly sure where we are with MOD sub design.
Not exactly sure where we are with MOD reactor design.
Would sub reactor tech offer a way into modular reactor design?
To the point of putting the reactors in a hull and towing them to their new coastal sites?
The Trident boats would appear to be plodding along — not sure the last time they made it into Private Eye which is a good sign.
Astute — started badly and getting worse.
Lessons learned or are they just a make work scheme for South Cumbria?
Trident 2 — Dreadnought should never have been used / KGVI is taking the piss — seems to be making slow progress but will cost a lot and little improvement will be made as long as the cheques keep getting signed.
AUKUS — step too far for a limited and low energy sub design capability?
Same old failing gum bumpers forming a circular firing squad and getting in the PR guys to get “good” news into the papers?
Love the chat about the disconnect between RN and RAN requirements for a sub.
Real world solutions abound dealing with product complexity / platform engineering / vessel architectures / feature giveaway.
Big Auto offers hope where the service uber rationalist / Yeti vibe only offers worry / cost / delay.
Russia luv / Pro Putin vibe on show below.
Interesting comments on a pretty trad UK security blog.
One element that to me sticks out as a sore thumb is the fact that after three years of pretty intense fighting Russia still hasn’t made much progress.
The Winter War comes to mind with this level of performance.
Falling population / irrational gangster capitalism economy / living off past glory narrative.
Russia is almost a textbook case of a failing / faltering / dysfunctional entity.
Great Power memories based on what?
If nuclear warheads are the only currency they have then what?
Pretty scary in the abstract but they are now reduced to artillery based incrementalism / 10 bob Iranian bangers / limited de-housing in the absence of any other credible military capability.
Makes headlines but little else.
Donny John vs Putin — who is the organ grinder and who is the monkey?
Match made in hell / worst Stag night in history — not looking good.
CHINESE NAVY’S LIVE FIRE EXCERCISE
– NEAR TASMANIA!
All
when I posted my “lengthy” orginal post (above) I had simply not seen – nor even heard of third hand – of this quite shocking report (orginally from about a fortnight ago)
(thus it seems that the Editor of Navy Lookout is spending far too much time viewing Sky Sports….. when he should be glued to the news feed from Clinton News Network (CNN)).
Australia found out about Chinese navy live-fire drills through a commercial pilot, official says | CNN
Accordingly…
I think the RAN might be making its mind up what type(s) and size(s) of submarine(s) to buy = “rather sooner than later”
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
PS Fat Bloke on Tour
You have, very obviously, not ever experienced US superpower diplomacy “up close and personal”
So – FBOT -before reading on any further – please can you now go back and read the post written by another Peter (the ex MOD official) a few days back (here on NL).
So:
Note 1
If Trump really is serious about ending this war, very quickly, then I for one very strongly suspect that he will soon phone Whiteman AFB, and ask them to “do a flypast”
Note 2.
Balkans / Bosnia 1995 vs Ukraine 2025 — I fear there maybe more than a few differences between these two conflicts.
What happens next — does Russia just sit and wait?
Do we just sit on the fence and wait for our turn?
Plan for a NATO that does not include the US?
Is the future a US / Russia bromance?
If yes then why?
Putin playing Donny John like an old fiddle?
Donny John pulling a big stroke to take Russia out of the Chinese economic orbit.
Two halfwits pumping up and looking for the baby oil?
Donny John rantings — never give a guy with half a brain the full picture.
He will always choose the wrong half and then take the wrong turn.
Ukraine — their future will be in the EU economic area.
The young team want to engage with Europe.
Wrinkles have other views but time is short.
Russia — its future is in the EU economic area if they can get over their kleptocratic gangster capitalism tendencies.
Lived through two huge opportunities / seen them up close.
Big Auto — 2005/08.
Big Pharma — 2018.
Two huge wasted opportunities.
They might have failed but they opened a few eyes.
The opportunity is there just a case that Russian economics needs dumped.
Russian Economics — want two not one then the price goes up.
Needing two means that I as the supplier have more leverage.
Bonkers mental but that is the Russian way.
Making your fortune walking across Siberia picking up furs as you went must have had a huge impact in the isolated forest kingdom that was Muscovy.
Lots to do / lots to learn.
First step — pay your taxes.
Second step — get emotional is you want to.
Maybe we can help.
FBOT
As it fades into a our sepica coloured past memories ……….please do not underestimate the seriousness of that long-running Yugoslav conflict in the 1990’s
Please now go out and buy General Jackson’s own account, in his own book, about how the Britsth Army raced forward to Pristina apirpot – so as to keep the US and Russian Armys well apart
That one could well have been their first meeting during any war since the Elbe in 1945: – and at Pristina it would not have been “very friendly”
General Jackson now claims (note 1) that he personally prevented WW3 – which is frankly a tiny weany bit of a exaggeration = however not by much
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
Note 1. “until recently he claimed that”…because he died not so long ago.
Russian army — pulling strokes from the off if I remember correctly.
They were cadging fuel and food two days later — not a good look.
Ego / national pride / tin-pottery — some things never change.
Much like our view of them — the Great Game has a lot to answer for.
Defence equipment inflation tends to outstrip general inflation. Nuclear defence inflation outstrips non nuclear defence inflation. AUKUS seemed initially a good idea one consequence will be an even bigger squeeze on defence funding both in UK and Australia. The reasons for Australia wanting large long range nuclear boats are obvious. It is much less clear why UK would want to have something even bigger than Astute. Given the small numbers of SSNs we are likely to afford, it may be time to reverse the 1994 decision to go all nuclear. There are several areas where a smaller SSK would be perfectly adequate. Their reduced cost would allow an increase in overall boat numbers.
PeterS
I agree with your proposed mix of boats; i.e. some nukes / some conventional.
—————–
Thus the following calculation should be of interest to you, especially as you are talking here (above) about inflation and thus ever-rising costs
The RN SSN fleet has changed as follows over the past two decades,
Back in 2003.
In 2025
Personally I would like to see the next generation of RN fantasy submarine fleet as
It should be noted the evolution of the Astutes is in the former Batch II Trafalgars design work.
.
.
The Trafalgar class were not specifically designed solely for ASW operations; and like many classes of previous RNs included anti-surface* mission scenarios using torpedo, missile, mine and SF. My point is RN Hunter-Killers have historically been designed as multi-mission platforms. I see no evidence to suggest the future will be any different.
.
.
Design requirements which will influence the dimensions of the future AUKUS boats lie in the in-build Dreadnought boats; which will have in common the reactor, the machinery – with minor tweaks, and the (21m long) CMC blocks – 3 for the Boomers and 1 (tbc**) for the Hunter-Killers.
.
.
Add in other requirements including underwater performance, endurance centred about employing the weapons systems effectively** for various mission sets, will result in big boat. It should be noted, generationally, submarines are getting bigger not smaller (which again is requirements based).
.
.
Displacement is a poor measure to correlate to a type of capability and harks back to some rather poor ship design practices/beliefs from decades past.
.
.
Briefly:
– 7 or 12 Hunter-Killers is insufficient for the missions required into the future.
– In the 1980s 20 Hunter-Killers was a goal, this should be the goal again.
– SSKs, 12 (as was originally required for the Upholders) are needed.
– Using the term ‘coastal’ for the SSK implies a more limited endurance over a properly designed ‘Upholder’ replacement. This would again would be a retrograde step, by rationalising some limited capabilities to a displacement figure.
– SSKs designed for the littorals (which is what I think you meant by coastal), like their bigger fleet sibling, are getting bigger not smaller generationally.
– It is of course a pipe dream HMG will set about addressing decades of military neglect, but it does allow for these discussion about naval architecture if they did!
.
.
* DK Brown was asked to design a 4″ gun mount for the Valiant class.
** Doctrine based (which again drives the all important design requirements).
Using BoE general inflation rates, the costs in 2024£ were roughly-
Last Swiftsure. £350m
Trafalgar class average £570m
Astute class average £1.6b
Unless the AUKUS design breaks this trend, Britain will be struggling even to afford one for one replacement of Astutes.
Defence inflation does not exist.
Nuclear defence inflation does not exist.
It is all down to lack of many things — technical ability / management skills / big people signing cheques.
Then you have ignorance showing up as gold plating / some scope creep / contractor greed / general MOD and service stupidity / big number politics.
Contractor groups — everybody wants a shot of the Golden Goose.
Can get very messy.
Engineering is delivering more from the same level of resource.
Or delivering the same performance from less resources.
Scope creep is ego wrapped up with uncertainty.
You want cheap — go simple or go small.
You want good — go quick / go known / go experience / go repeat.
The trick is to know when to jump and where you are aiming to land.
UK PLC — too much research and not enough development.
Parametric design / variational geometry / engineering change management / product complexity and configuration — basic stuff but missing.
Astute was an Ass 20 years ago — now it is a donkey.
Not good.
Vanguard 2 — Vanguard 1 with as little change as necessary.
Platform architecture is known / understood — change what you need to not what an RN ego tripper wants to so that he can bump his gums at the golf club.
The problems you describe are a large part of the reason why the rise in unit costs of military equipment outstrips general inflation. The UK is not unique – look at what specification creep has done to the timescale and costs of the “ low risk. “ proven design of the USN Constellation frigate.
Give away your NHS.
Trump responded last week to a question by an Australian reporter about AUKUS with a puzzled “What is that?” There seem to be a opinion evolving in the USA administration that the USN needs every SSN it can get, and selling 3 – 5 new or nearly new Virginia-class boats to Australia would be a big mistake. Can the UK then take up the slack and lease or sell a couple of Astute’s to the RAN – no chance. Oz may soon be wondering if it should have stuck with the deal to buy French SSK’s – the first would now be only a few years away from entering service.
The French SSKs was the stupidest contract the Aussies signed up too. The contract specification always needed modification and that is where the French got the Aussies by ballooning the variation costs and the Aussies got the Aussies by doing their now normal thing by signing for an off-the-shelf (abet completely unproven) product and then gutting it with their own specification heavily influenced by some US systems they think the sun shines out of.
.
.
It is quite sad to watch really, as it is an exercise in how to not evaluate tenders and conduct post-contract design work.
.
.
The French SSKs also would not have been delivered to the initial schedule. Schedules always slide and the Aussie defence procurements – they build themselves – are always way way late and have critical weapon system defects, which results in more of the FLOAT (sic) MOVE (CANNOT) FIGHT operational ethos for many years after.
.
.
When it comes to the Virginias, The Aussies will be lucky to get the 3 minimum boats; I would expect they get 2 Block Is and pay for 3!
.
.
Already AUKUS (submarines) for the Aussies is looking to follow previous naval contracts. Sign-up to what will be a scaled-down (length -wise at least) Dreadnought Hunter-Killer, then specify a different (US…sigh) reactor system and ‘tbc’ weapons system with saliva dripping from their collective mouths at …you guessed it swapping the superior British system (incl. torpedos) for the US system they think/believe is better. The steel is even being swapped out, so diving depth and hull life will have a big question mark over it. Of course doing these changes will delay float-out, commissioning, and everything else down-stream of that.
.
.
I know the above synopsis looks grim, but balance that with the fact Australia needs nuclear powered submarines with china being china; In the hypothetical IF Australia had these operational assets IN a war, they would create havoc for their adversary ( Finally, I would just add, I’d go the full British spec!).
What I find amusing is that on paper that the French SSN is exactly what they need. It is smaller and uncomplicated compared to A-boat or Virginia.
The Suffren is smaller than an Astute or Virginia due to the following main design considerations:
The reactor type (low yield) is smaller than the UK and US systems.The machinery quietening systems in the French boat are not as advanced as the Astutes (British boats are renowned for their stealth over other countries offerings).The weapons load. The French has almost half as many reloads than the Astutes or Virginias.Crew size. There are many factors to consider here too: hot bunking, personal space (sic), facilities, deployment cycle lengths, provisions etc etc.It would not be much of an argument to discount the Suffrens and/or any derivative, as the less ideal design, especially based on the weapons load-out. A depot ship, safe anchorage or long transit to a base would be necessary once the ‘usable’ weapons have been exhausted (noting no submarine captain would use every weapon onboard before returning for resupply) while all this moving around leaves the submarine more liable to counter measures.
As a design it is not that far removed from the Collins it would replace.
As for quietening you only have you ‘internet assumptions’ about these boats and no conclusive proof.
Like many here you don’t seem to have looked at a map of Australia. The idea that RAN submarines will be operating off China as they did in the days of the O-boats is probably not valid now. Too many sophisticated PLAN hulls and too many MPA in the water now. You also ignore Indonesia……..
In the future RAN boats will operate from Australia. There won’t be need for depot ships. What the RAN want is an SSK extended range not what the RN or USN have which is a hunter killer for mid-ocean. The latter can do that as they have over 40 boats (which still isn’t enough.)
As down below you make too many sweeping assumptions just too prove your arguments. The design seems to suit French in terms of habitability. A people who don’t like to put up with much discomfort.
There should be no comparison between a SSK and a Hunter-Killer in weapons load-out. The fact the Collins compares favourably to the Suffren, in this respect, is the logical reason why the Suffren is a non starter.
.
.
My point about depot ships was to rearm forward deployed boats, thereby saving the long transits to either Fleet base East or West.
.
.
(edited my original text)
😄 Hilarious (and ignorant perhaps if not a joke) to do a rebuttal riddled with assumptions. I have made my factual points in the earlier posts, some may get them, others not, either way I am happy to leave it here.
I find it amusing that you don’t get that Australia didn’t trust France to refuel the subs when needed. It wanted a sub that could completely integrate with their establish supply chain. The previous French equipment purchased has also been pretty poor.
What I find amusing is that I never said anything about Australia buying French submarines. Please underline where I said that please. What I said the French design in terms of specification suited exactly their needs in terms of size and level of technology. You made the leap because you thought you could score some points in the strange little game going on in your head alone.
“Frankly, whilst it is still on the drawing board, the next generation of RN SSN needs to be put of a diet”
Yes. The size of them has started to give me a cause for some thought and reflection. Compare with the positively svelte Suffren…………
http://www.hisutton.com/images/Suffren-Submarine-Cutaway.jpg
I will then add to the misconception list then:
Added to:
5. Displacement correlates to capabilities.
.
.
Did I miss anything?
.
.
Note: excluded ‘want’ and ‘need to’ statements and these are not requirements …Sorry.
.
.
..If you had added: “..if it ain’t broke don’t fix it” I would have added this may be true for the scenarios you are aware of, However, this is not to there are scenarios, you are not aware of, which necessitates an improved design 🙃
Correction: However this is not to say there…
“..if it ain’t broke don’t fix it”
(only one problem: the Astute is broke!)
Ex Service
First of all, thank you posting for all your very-well-thought through series of comments.
It is good to debate this subject – very throughly – with another expert.
So yes, in one respect you are quite correct. The Astute’s are larger and fitted with more gucci kit internally than the T’s – and that gives them far more capability per boat
However……. as I strongly hinted at directly above……, the key metric is “overall fleet capability” not “capability per boat”
You are quite correct that the table in my orginal post – i.e. the one which compared very simple boat displacement tonnages – was an extremely crude way of measuring things… On that we can totally agree!
However my table very nicely illustrated my key point = that nowdays the RN has just one fully commissioned A class SSN for every two of the S & T class boats which our Navy used to have operating just twenty years ago…..
(Incidentially. “going large” seems to be the way of the world….. Each modern container ship is now so large – carrying, lets say, 14,000 TEU ISO containers – that a single big ship now carries the same amount of cargo that was carried by a entire WW2 convoy)
———————-
My key point has has always been
Much of the Astute’s extra capability and complexity appears to me to have been specified (by the RN) simply so those A boat’s could be used in the Litterol zone
(i.e. in what used to be called “coastal waters” back when I was a young lad….)
However I honestly believe that any SSN is inherently too large – and also inherently too noisy – for really effective use in any litterol zone.
An SSN in the litterols would also be very vulnerable to very simple defensive weapons such as
————————
Thus the next key point is
Therefore I very strongly of the view that the next-generation RN SSN replacement for the Astutes should be now be designed ONLY for the deep ocean role – i.e. for the key purpose for what the RN needs then to do = sinking (nosily, quickly and violently) enemy ships, submarines and especailly the Russian bomber boats (i.e. the biggest single threat to the UK today)
And that war might well be up in the Arctic:Circle = so that key capability really needs to be really thought through – properly..
Thus the next gen RN SSN might well have to be deeper diving…….
For the many litterol roles – covert recce and inserting special forces etc – I honestly believe that a much smaller, more manouverable and quieter coventionally powered submarines would be far better in this role than any SSN can ever be.
I personally have no strong views about whether that new RN “SSK” should be a diesel-electric (ie Upholder) or AIP poweered (i.e. Swedish) – however frankly anything that sinks (note 1) without a large and inherently noisy reactor…..
(Note 1. “Sinks”; however then come back up a few days later!).
——————
Despite all of your comments…….. I am still very far short of being convinced that the next generaion of RN SSN fast attack subs should be both larger and more capable across the full spectrum of capabilities…….
The current RN policy for the replacement to the Astutes – as spelt out in the orginal NL article (above) can best be described as:
—————-
It is time to rethink what the next generation of RN SSN’s really needs to do
My fantasy fleet was
Then – and only then – will the UK be able to afford the numbers of boats which both you, and me, both think are needed to defend our homeland.
That overall increase in the total number of underwater boats which the RN has in full operational service is now essential….and that is yet another thing we can both 100% agree on!
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
PS
If we carry on this debate for much longer = by 2050 the UK might only have one operational submarine in the entire RN fleet…….which will have to be a multi-role underwater beast – so a combined SSBM + SSGN + SSN + SSK !!!!!! )
PPS
The more astute readers of NL (Note. That truely appalling pun was definitely intended here!) reading my very short post will have realised by now that I have missed out commenting upon one really critical issue which Ex-Service had raised i.e. his key statement:
So, let see how Mr C Darwin might have described submarine evolution during this second quarter of the 21st Century:
PPPS
Some of us were around doing this “design stuff” way back during the first Cold War of the 1980’s
…. .so we have a paranormal sixth sense…
……. one which is often called “Deja Vue”
…….or in this case, =”heard it all before” (in 1987)
“There are no eternal facts, as there are no absolute truths” – Friedrich Nietzsche
Surely we would be crazy signing any longer term deals with the US when they could be out of NATO before the first steel is cut. I’d not back any joint venture right now, or possibly in the future.
Yes because Australia has been in NATO forever hasn’t it?
There is a question of whether there is a plan B? What if the over-ripe Tangerine, decides he’s no longer happy with Australia and bins AUKUS. Could the UK and Oz still fulfil their requirements without the USA?
The US needs Australian resources. If you think the UK and Oz can do this without the US are mistaken.
Is Trumpy Wumpy taking your war away against the Russians is he? Ah diddums! Naughty Trump Wumpy!
The US needs neither Australia or the UK to build a nuclear submarine. The timeline for the UK to build any sort of submarine for Australia is so damn far down the road. I can’t even imagine it. Most of us will be long dead.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/dec/14/us-congress-passes-bill-allowing-sale-of-aukus-nuclear-submarines-to-australia
Legislation passed. Its not just a presidential order