Australia Navy Australia SSN Program

[Saithan]

Aukus pact: France and US seek to mend rift​

Published1 hour ago

As a result of Aukus, France will no longer be selling submarines to Australia

France and US have made efforts to end a row which started last week with the announcement of the Aukus defence pact between the US, the UK and Australia.

The pact cost France a deal worth $37bn (£27bn) to build submarines for Australia.

Paris said it found out only hours before the public announcement.

The American and French presidents have now issued a joint statement saying the situation would have benefited from open consultations between allies.

Joe Biden and Emmanuel Macron spoke by phone for half an hour on Wednesday. They will also meet in Europe at the end of next month.

French anger was palpable - the French defence minister called it a "stab in the back".

In a rare step among allies, Mr Macron ordered the recall of the French ambassadors to Washington and Canberra.

However, the ambassador to Washington will now return to his post. There was no word on whether the ambassador to Canberra would do the same.

President Biden reaffirmed the importance of French and European engagement in the Indo-Pacific region.

And the statement underlined US recognition of the importance of stronger European defence to complement Nato - one of President Macron's flagship projects.

US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken and the French Foreign Minister, Jean-Yves Le Drian, are expected to hold a bilateral meeting on Thursday on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in New York, according to a US official.

US and France agree to move on​

Analysis by Nomia Iqbal, Washington correspondent

This was a classic "non-apology apology" by the Americans: an apology for the process (the lack of consultation), but not for the policy itself (Aukus). But we did get a picture of President Biden smiling whilst on the phone with President Macron, in an attempt to show all is well.

As far as the readout goes, they can often be rather bland, but this had lots of meaning.

Firstly, it was a joint statement, when usually you get one from each side, so both leaders were trying to show a united front after their "friendly 30-minute call". It made clear at the start that President Biden initiated the call - perhaps this was something France wanted to make sure was known.

Then there is this line: "The two leaders agreed that the situation would have benefited from open consultations" - again, something France wanted in there?

But America had its say too, Biden did not alter his ongoing underlying message that Europe needs to contribute more to its own defence.

It then ended with a pointed reminder of the US giving extra counter-terrorism help in the Sahel, where the French are hugely invested.

In short, it was a statement that was clearly very well crafted for both sides to get their points across and move on. But a smiling phone call is one thing. What about when the two presidents meet in person next month in Europe?

It is worth mentioning that President Macron is facing re-election next year. His hanging tough with President Biden was important domestically but equally he needed to find an exit ramp. Today's call delivers it.

Earlier, UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson told Mr Macron to "donnez-moi un break" and get over his anger about Aukus.

Brokered last week, Aukus is widely seen as an effort to counter China's influence in the contested South China Sea.

Analysts have described it as probably the most significant security arrangement between the three nations since World War Two.

• ANALYSIS: Aukus pact could signal power shift in Asia-Pacific
• LETTER FROM PARIS: Aukus pact delivers France some hard truths
• LETTER FROM SYDNEY: Australia's big gamble on the US over China

However, a meeting next week between senior EU and Australian officials is now in doubt.
It is the third event - between the EU and Australia or the EU and the US - that could face postponement following the announcement of the Aukus pact.

Aukus pact: France and US seek to mend rift

The deal caused outrage in France, which lost a contract to build submarines for Australia.

www.bbc.com

 

[Saithan]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1440251855460659211

This part of the tweet is pretty interesting with regard to cost.

Virginia-class submarine - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I have to say it's not a bad SSN at all. Perhaps Australia will be able to "receive" an old SSN in the process and get to know it first hand.

I know the french are pointing toward that Australia didn't want nuclear tech, but that doesn't mean a trusted ally won't be able to do the support and maintenance. I'm thinking Japan might be an obvious candidate.

The French Barracuda is pretty neat too

Suffren-class submarine - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Saithan]

Biden calls US 'clumsy' in submarine deal at meeting with Macron

U.S. President Joe Biden on Friday met his French counterpart Emmanuel Macron at the G20 summit in Rome, Italy and addressed Washington's rift with...

www.dailysabah.com

 

[Nilgiri]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1440251855460659211

This part of the tweet is pretty interesting with regard to cost.

Virginia-class submarine - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I have to say it's not a bad SSN at all. Perhaps Australia will be able to "receive" an old SSN in the process and get to know it first hand.

I know the french are pointing toward that Australia didn't want nuclear tech, but that doesn't mean a trusted ally won't be able to do the support and maintenance. I'm thinking Japan might be an obvious candidate.

The French Barracuda is pretty neat too

Suffren-class submarine - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

French twitter guy doesnt understand how inflation works and is factored into the cost estimates in todays dollars.

Also it was aussie own anti-nuclear approach that cause them to go for SSK (shortfin) to begin with (and earlier candidates with downselection).

That anti-nuclear lobby still has massive hands to play in aussie politics....give it an election cycle or two or even earlier.

The executive in power today is just one part of govt.....there is legislature and judicial (and new executives that can come later).

Japan will not be a candidate for SSN maintenance heh (japan is avowedly anti nuclear too).....it will likely be US given Australia navy uses the USN CnC system anyway.

Kiwi ports (for regular visit and logistics etc) also cannot be used as kiwis have declared their entire country nuclear free in that way.

 

[Nilgiri]

Some pertinent details (which I bolded) of interest to readers here @Anmdt @AlphaMike @MisterLike et al.

Australia looking at existing design to ‘accelerate’ delivery of nuclear-powered submarines

Basing it on an existing design would allow Australia to build the nuclear-powered submarines more quickly.

www.smh.com.au

Australia’s new fleet of nuclear-powered submarines would preferably be based on an existing design, Defence officials have revealed, as part of a plan to get the boats in the water before 2040 to avoid a massive gap in the nation’s maritime defences.

Prime Minister Scott Morrison announced last month it was dumping a $90 billion agreement with France to build conventionally powered submarines and would instead develop a nuclear-powered fleet with Britain and the United States under a new defence pact called AUKUS.

The move has led to concerns there will be a significant capability gap, with the first of the existing Collins-class submarines scheduled to go out of service from 2038 and the nuclear-propelled submarines potentially not coming on line until the 2040s.

Chief of Navy, Vice Admiral Mike Noonan, recently revealed that the six Collins-class submarines, which were built in the 1990s, might need to undergo two complete rebuilds over coming decades to keep them in operation if the nuclear boats were not ready by 2040.

But Vice-Admiral Jonathan Mead, the head of the government’s nuclear-powered submarine taskforce, said on Wednesday Australia was looking for a “mature” design from either Britain or the United States that could “accelerate the delivery of the first submarine in Australia in the 2030s”.

Basing the Australian submarines on an existing design would mean the schedule wouldn’t necessarily be dragged out by years in the design phase, as the French-built submarines would have been. The first of the French attack-class submarines would have been delivered years in 2034.

If it goes with an existing design, Australia would have to choose between the US’s Virginia-class submarines and Britain’s Astute-class boats. It is widely believed that Australia is more likely to develop a version of the Astute submarine because the British submarine is smaller and less expensive.

Vice Admiral Meade said the government was “looking at a mature design” and that could “accelerate the delivery of the first submarine in Australia in the 2030s”. He said “at the moment the aperture is wide” but the taskforce over the next 18 months will “narrow down the aperture and get us to the optimal pathway”.

“With the information we have at hand, we are confident that we will have a boat in the water by the end of the next decade,” he told a Senate estimates hearing,” he said.

Vice Admiral Noonan reiterated that the Navy had not ruled out conducting a life-of-type extension (LOTE), which gives the boat an extra 10 years of service, of the Collins-class submarines. A second LOTE – which involves cutting the submarine open and replacing its engine – would allow the submarines to operate into the 2040s and 2050s.

However, if there was evidence of “fatigue” in the submarine’s hull it may be unable to undergo a second LOTE.

“Hull fatigue will be a very important factor in determining whether or not it is possible to extend the Collins class beyond the current planned LOTE period,” Vice Admiral Noonan said.

Defence officials also revealed on Wednesday that a plan to build a new naval ship for the Pacific had been quietly dumped in favour of purchasing the vessel on the open market.

The Morrison government announced in 2018 that it would build a large, new naval ship that will cruise the South Pacific and help Australia’s neighbours deal with natural disasters.

But it was confirmed during the Senate estimates hearing that the government would instead purchase the ship to get into the water next year.

A heated argument between Labor foreign affairs spokeswoman Penny Wong and Foreign Minister Marise Payne then resulted in the committee’s chair, Liberal Senator Eric Abetz, briefly suspending the hearing.

 

[Nilgiri]

The Aussie ex-PM apparently is suggesting buying 1-2 688's to use as learning aids while they wait for their own subs to be produced. Perhaps one underway and one as a docked school boat.

@Anmdt @AlphaMike @Paro et al.

Australia Could Push To Acquire Retired US Navy Los Angeles Class Nuclear Submarines

Ex-Prime Minister floats using retired U.S. or U.K. nuclear submarines to bridge the gap until Australian-built ones can enter service.

www.thedrive.com

 

[Gary]

The Aussie ex-PM apparently is suggesting buying 1-2 688's to use as learning aids

is it that different operating diesel subs with that of nuclear ??

@Anmdt

 

[Anmdt]

is it that different operating diesel subs with that of nuclear ??

@Anmdt

One has nuclear engineer on board and the other doesn't.

Apart from the joke each of them adapts a unique approach in submarine operations, the foremost one nuclear subs stay submerged and silent(comms) for a longer duration and requires less supplies.

 

[Yasar_TR]

One has nuclear engineer on board and the other doesn't.

Apart from the joke each of them adapts a unique approach in submarine operations, the foremost one nuclear subs stay submerged and silent(comms) for a longer duration and requires less supplies.

I think you meant “more” supplies!
The longer they stay down more supplies the crew will need to survive. If Iam not mistaken due to fresh produce/food and space restrictions there is a time limit of 90 days for Nuclear subs to stay away from port or submerged. (If memory serves longest time submerged was 111 days for a nuclear sub)

 

[DAVEBLOGGINS]

Some pertinent details (which I bolded) of interest to readers here @Anmdt @AlphaMike @MisterLike et al.

Australia looking at existing design to ‘accelerate’ delivery of nuclear-powered submarines

Basing it on an existing design would allow Australia to build the nuclear-powered submarines more quickly.

www.smh.com.au

Australia’s new fleet of nuclear-powered submarines would preferably be based on an existing design, Defence officials have revealed, as part of a plan to get the boats in the water before 2040 to avoid a massive gap in the nation’s maritime defences.

Prime Minister Scott Morrison announced last month it was dumping a $90 billion agreement with France to build conventionally powered submarines and would instead develop a nuclear-powered fleet with Britain and the United States under a new defence pact called AUKUS.

The move has led to concerns there will be a significant capability gap, with the first of the existing Collins-class submarines scheduled to go out of service from 2038 and the nuclear-propelled submarines potentially not coming on line until the 2040s.

Chief of Navy, Vice Admiral Mike Noonan, recently revealed that the six Collins-class submarines, which were built in the 1990s, might need to undergo two complete rebuilds over coming decades to keep them in operation if the nuclear boats were not ready by 2040.

But Vice-Admiral Jonathan Mead, the head of the government’s nuclear-powered submarine taskforce, said on Wednesday Australia was looking for a “mature” design from either Britain or the United States that could “accelerate the delivery of the first submarine in Australia in the 2030s”.

Basing the Australian submarines on an existing design would mean the schedule wouldn’t necessarily be dragged out by years in the design phase, as the French-built submarines would have been. The first of the French attack-class submarines would have been delivered years in 2034.

If it goes with an existing design, Australia would have to choose between the US’s Virginia-class submarines and Britain’s Astute-class boats. It is widely believed that Australia is more likely to develop a version of the Astute submarine because the British submarine is smaller and less expensive.

Vice Admiral Meade said the government was “looking at a mature design” and that could “accelerate the delivery of the first submarine in Australia in the 2030s”. He said “at the moment the aperture is wide” but the taskforce over the next 18 months will “narrow down the aperture and get us to the optimal pathway”.

“With the information we have at hand, we are confident that we will have a boat in the water by the end of the next decade,” he told a Senate estimates hearing,” he said.

Vice Admiral Noonan reiterated that the Navy had not ruled out conducting a life-of-type extension (LOTE), which gives the boat an extra 10 years of service, of the Collins-class submarines. A second LOTE – which involves cutting the submarine open and replacing its engine – would allow the submarines to operate into the 2040s and 2050s.

However, if there was evidence of “fatigue” in the submarine’s hull it may be unable to undergo a second LOTE.

“Hull fatigue will be a very important factor in determining whether or not it is possible to extend the Collins class beyond the current planned LOTE period,” Vice Admiral Noonan said.

Defence officials also revealed on Wednesday that a plan to build a new naval ship for the Pacific had been quietly dumped in favour of purchasing the vessel on the open market.

The Morrison government announced in 2018 that it would build a large, new naval ship that will cruise the South Pacific and help Australia’s neighbours deal with natural disasters.

But it was confirmed during the Senate estimates hearing that the government would instead purchase the ship to get into the water next year.

A heated argument between Labor foreign affairs spokeswoman Penny Wong and Foreign Minister Marise Payne then resulted in the committee’s chair, Liberal Senator Eric Abetz, briefly suspending the hearing.

Wouldn't it be nice if Canada had the "g'noids" to join the AUKUS program to jump start our sub replacement program. Call it the AUCANUKUS agreement? But alas.....I joketh too much!

 

[Nilgiri]

I think you meant “more” supplies!
The longer they stay down more supplies the crew will need to survive. If Iam not mistaken due to fresh produce/food and space restrictions there is a time limit of 90 days for Nuclear subs to stay away from port or submerged. (If memory serves longest time submerged was 111 days for a nuclear sub)

Yeah but those supplies are much smaller mass-fraction relative to fuel supplies in SSK....latter is what I think andmt was intimating (i.e supplies as whole to final endurance).

Doing away with such fuel buffer is big thing in SSN.

 

[Nilgiri]

Wouldn't it be nice if Canada had the "g'noids" to join the AUKUS program to jump start our sub replacement program. Call it the AUCANUKUS agreement? But alas.....I joketh too much!

I'm glad you brought this up...(as I was meaning to bring this up earlier somewhere but forgot to)...

Yes basic gonads go a long way....consider what folks I know have told me...Ret'd submariner bud:

Canadian government does not want to have SSNs prowling around the Arctic, especially Canadian SSNs. What would they do if they found a Russian or Chinese boat playing around?
Keep in mind that the people trusted with making that decision can’t figure out what to do or how to do it with 4 conventional boats. They’re pretty unlikely to do better with a lot more nuclear boats."

So you see you need gonads in that kind of stuff already, then joining something like AUKUS (heck even a long time ago with the US in a joint program) becomes a fairly nominal procedure.....Canada would have done so a long time ago actually.

 

[DAVEBLOGGINS]

I'm glad you brought this up...(as I was meaning to bring this up earlier somewhere but forgot to)...

Yes basic gonads go a long way....consider what folks I know have told me...Ret'd submariner bud:

Canadian government does not want to have SSNs prowling around the Arctic, especially Canadian SSNs. What would they do if they found a Russian or Chinese boat playing around?
Keep in mind that the people trusted with making that decision can’t figure out what to do or how to do it with 4 conventional boats. They’re pretty unlikely to do better with a lot more nuclear boats."

So you see you need gonads in that kind of stuff already, then joining something like AUKUS (heck even a long time ago with the US in a joint program) becomes a fairly nominal procedure.....Canada would have done so a long time ago actually.

Hello Nilgiri. If we could get to the high Arctic with a Canadian SSN and located Russian or Chinese boats playing around in our own "backyard" (they more than likely have already been there by now but the Canadian government would never admit it), that would be a very tense situation indeed and playing "Cat & Mouse" would take on a whole new meaning. But at least we would have a Canadian SSN deterrent to give them "pause" which is what we are lacking now to defend our own Arctic sovereignty. Better late than never! Holey Batman!!!

 

[Nilgiri]

India’s deft diplomacy thwarts China’s bid to pass resolution against AUKUS in IAEA

India’s deft diplomacy thwarts China’s bid to pass resolution against AUKUS in IAEA

Indias considered role helped many smaller countries take a clear stand on the Chinese proposal. Realizing that its resolution would not get majority support, China withdrew its draft resolution on September 30, ET has learnt.

economictimes.indiatimes.com

 

[Baryshx]

India’s deft diplomacy thwarts China’s bid to pass resolution against AUKUS in IAEA

India’s deft diplomacy thwarts China’s bid to pass resolution against AUKUS in IAEA

Indias considered role helped many smaller countries take a clear stand on the Chinese proposal. Realizing that its resolution would not get majority support, China withdrew its draft resolution on September 30, ET has learnt.

economictimes.indiatimes.com

A good decision, it allows all countries to build nuclear submarines from now on.

 

[Bogeyman]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1611179518542360581

 

[Lordimperator]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1633586510326034433

 

[DAVEBLOGGINS]

I certainly don't agree with Australia buying Virginia class SSNs outright from the US. The US would quickly have to "ramp-up" their SSN build for this to happen and I don't believe they can do that at this time. Having at least two different types of operational SSN boats may be fine for the US, however I don't believe that Australia can afford to out-right purchase these boats "and" acquire the UK SSN (R) for the Aussies future nuclear fleet needs AND keep the Collins class operational for the near term let alone build the infrastructure required for the Virginia class and SSN (R). IMO Australia should "lease-to-own/new-to-you" 5 Virginia class SSNs while starting to build their SSN infrastructure for the UK SSN (R). As the US brings their own newer Virginia class boats on line, then and only then, would Australia be able to outright buy each Virginia class SSN (probably one at a time). As each Virginia class was bought and commissioned by Australia then each Collins class could be decommissioned and either scrapped or sold to other "friendly" nations. By the time all 5 Virginia class boats were secured by Australia, the UK SSN (R) program would more than likely be coming on stream. Once each SSN (R) was completed for Australia, the 5 Virginia class could sold back to the US one at a time for their own needs to refurbish or do with what they wished with them. Lease-To-Own seems to be a better and more pragmatic way to establish Australia's SSN fleet. In My Opinion. Cheers!

 

[Nilgiri]

I certainly don't agree with Australia buying Virginia class SSNs outright from the US. The US would quickly have to "ramp-up" their SSN build for this to happen and I don't believe they can do that at this time. Having at least two different types of operational SSN boats may be fine for the US, however I don't believe that Australia can afford to out-right purchase these boats "and" acquire the UK SSN (R) for the Aussies future nuclear fleet needs AND keep the Collins class operational for the near term let alone build the infrastructure required for the Virginia class and SSN (R). IMO Australia should "lease-to-own/new-to-you" 5 Virginia class SSNs while starting to build their SSN infrastructure for the UK SSN (R). As the US brings their own newer Virginia class boats on line, then and only then, would Australia be able to outright buy each Virginia class SSN (probably one at a time). As each Virginia class was bought and commissioned by Australia then each Collins class could be decommissioned and either scrapped or sold to other "friendly" nations. By the time all 5 Virginia class boats were secured by Australia, the UK SSN (R) program would more than likely be coming on stream. Once each SSN (R) was completed for Australia, the 5 Virginia class could sold back to the US one at a time for their own needs to refurbish or do with what they wished with them. Lease-To-Own seems to be a better and more pragmatic way to establish Australia's SSN fleet. In My Opinion. Cheers!

Yeah Dave, the articles that leaked out seem a bit premature on what some of them say (those saying outright acquisition of 5 virginias and then the next 7 will be based on Astute etc, and built who knows where, some say locally even).

We will have to see what the actual official announcement contains (I believe coming up next week).

1) The issue is Barrow is entirely booked for the dreadnought SSBNs with the Astute line closing there to make way for it. No new production line will be opened up there till the next SSN(R) class for the RN.

Electric boat is similarly booked up for a decade.

The Aussies already had major issues with bringing any French capacity to their own shores when that was being discussed....so I don't see how the Aussies will bring any local building in any relevant timeline.


2) The US and UK both want more submarines, not fewer - doubt they will hand over in-service boats to Australia. Those nearing end-of life probably will cost too much for the Aussies to maintain and keep going.


3) The Collins class has 6 boats with a crew of 52 each => total of 312 crew, assuming that they've got enough to run all at once which I understand is an issue. The Virginia class has a complement of 135, so 5 off would need 675.

Standing up a new capability is hard enough and doubling the crew you need is a huge additional challenge.


If I had to guess, maybe the official announcement will be something involving Aussie submariners going through UK or US training schools (possibly both) and serving on UK or US boats as appropriate to build a skill base.

We already have exchanges like this, but this would see an increase in 1-2 orders of magnitude in the number of crew involved. We'd also see some sort of announcement about Australia joining SSN(R) or SSN(X), possibly even some sort of merger of/increased collaboration between the two programmes.

@Anmdt @Gary @Mis_TR_Like et al.

 

[DAVEBLOGGINS]

Yeah Dave, the articles that leaked out seem a bit premature on what some of them say (those saying outright acquisition of 5 virginias and then the next 7 will be based on Astute etc, and built who knows where, some say locally even).

We will have to see what the actual official announcement contains (I believe coming up next week).

1) The issue is Barrow is entirely booked for the dreadnought SSBNs with the Astute line closing there to make way for it. No new production line will be opened up there till the next SSN(R) class for the RN.

Electric boat is similarly booked up for a decade.

The Aussies already had major issues with bringing any French capacity to their own shores when that was being discussed....so I don't see how the Aussies will bring any local building in any relevant timeline.


2) The US and UK both want more submarines, not fewer - doubt they will hand over in-service boats to Australia. Those nearing end-of life probably will cost too much for the Aussies to maintain and keep going.


3) The Collins class has 6 boats with a crew of 52 each => total of 312 crew, assuming that they've got enough to run all at once which I understand is an issue. The Virginia class has a complement of 135, so 5 off would need 675.

Standing up a new capability is hard enough and doubling the crew you need is a huge additional challenge.


If I had to guess, maybe the official announcement will be something involving Aussie submariners going through UK or US training schools (possibly both) and serving on UK or US boats as appropriate to build a skill base.

We already have exchanges like this, but this would see an increase in 1-2 orders of magnitude in the number of crew involved. We'd also see some sort of announcement about Australia joining SSN(R) or SSN(X), possibly even some sort of merger of/increased collaboration between the two programmes.

@Anmdt @Gary @Mis_TR_Like et al.

Yes, Nilgiri, totally agree. The Aussies submariner strength is going to be severly "stretched" in the near to long term with the SSN fleet. I fear that Australia has bitten off more than they can chew! A lot of challenges coming up for them!