So I found out yesterday that Australia shocked the world by announcing they are buying Nuclear powered subs. They have a contract with the French for diesel subs that has had many problems including not having an actual sub :smiley_nah:. It seems that this deal is now dead (the French are pissed, 60 Billion dollar deal now dead-ouch :eek1:).
The Big News is
Australia, the UK, and the US have formed a new security organization called AUKUS and part of this agreement involves Nuclear and sub tech transfers. The US has only allowed this level of tech transfer once before to the UK in the 1950's. I mean as recently as the 80's the US killed a similar deal the UK offered to the Canadians and lobbied the US very hard for ( the US builds all the UK's Trident missiles so the UK had to have their consent). It seems based on what I have read it will probably be Astute class British subs with UK reactors and US weapons (including Tomahawks). This is a sea change regarding Austrailia from not even allowing nuclear powered vessels in their waters to now having their own. It also seems that part of the deal is UK,US base rights in Australia. A new Nato like force or a re-imagining of SEATO. Thoughts?
If 1776 could see us now. The English are getting the band back together. But different
I love your 1776 thoughts.
Australia has had a major security wakeup with how China behaves, and has had concerns about Indonesia. A big land with a small population next to a small land with a big population.
From what I've flowed, Australia tried to play nice with China, but China spit in their face. And did so consistently for a while.
I don't know about SEATO. Maybe. But recent political and military events have, from what I've gathered, shaken some confidence in the US. That may drive a demand for Australian ownership of some of the tech. I certainly would want to cover my own butt and not trust others with that task.
I do think the real possiblity of eradication promped the change. I bet threats toward Taiwan also prompted some changes of heart.
Australians will shortly be learning that nuclear sumbarines, much like racehorses and supercars, impress your friends (and enemies) but are expensive to buy and even more expensive to operate.
The seven British Astute class submarines, for example, are costing us £11bn to buy (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/907108/20200408-_Revised_Astute_letter_for_PAC_-_OS.pdf) (US$15bn, AU$21bn) and the UK already has infrastructure to service, maintain and repair nuclear subs.
For comparison, the entire Australian defence budget for 2021 is just under AU$45bn (https://www.australiandefence.com.au/defence/budget-policy/2021-defence-budget-at-a-glance).
QuoteAustralians will shortly be learning that nuclear sumbarines, much like racehorses and supercars, impress your friends (and enemies) but are expensive to buy and even more expensive to operate.
But watching the French bounce around like headless chickens is priceless. :)
Quote from: The Twizzler on September 16, 2021, 07:10:59 PM
This is a sea change regarding Austrailia
I sea what you did there, and I like it. :smiley_clap:
Quote from: sheddi on September 17, 2021, 01:00:40 AM
Australians will shortly be learning that nuclear sumbarines, much like racehorses and supercars, impress your friends (and enemies) but are expensive to buy and even more expensive to operate.
The seven British Astute class submarines, for example, are costing us £11bn to buy (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/907108/20200408-_Revised_Astute_letter_for_PAC_-_OS.pdf) (US$15bn, AU$21bn) and the UK already has infrastructure to service, maintain and repair nuclear subs.
For comparison, the entire Australian defence budget for 2021 is just under AU$45bn (https://www.australiandefence.com.au/defence/budget-policy/2021-defence-budget-at-a-glance).
This very true. The purchase cost is daunting and the level of tech needed to build them properly is massive.
Even the Israelis who have the tech infrastructure to operate nuclear reactors (& build nukes) have chosen to buy conventional subs albeit with sophisticated air independent propulsion systems.
I really question the logic of this decision unless of course the deal is to sell a constructed nuclear sub and provide a trained crew it to the Australians. Submarines are very poor defensive weapons unless they have SSBMs on them.
The snub to France is apparently due to a long history of previous work place issues.
QuoteAn example of the gulf in working practices was when Australian officials were left "stunned" to hear discussion of "la rentrée," the process by which French workers would get ready to restart work after the whole company stopped working in August for a month-long vacation
French officials in return were likewise said to be surprised that Australian officials expected meetings to begin on time, citing a French phenomenon known as a "diplomatic 15 minutes" whereby people were considered to be on time as long as they arrived within 15 minutes of the start time.
The report also mentioned French workers requesting more understanding of their need for long lunch breaks.
Here's a thoughtful article from the
Sydney Morning Herald:
https://amp.smh.com.au/politics/federal/australia-s-submarine-programme-has-truly-lost-its-rudder-20210916-p58scb.html
Highlights:
QuoteChina is well on its way to achieving its goal of complete military modernisation by 2027 and already has more warships and submarines than the US. China's shipyards launch a new sub every year or so. Australia is well on its way to achieving world champion status in faffing about with submarine acquisition. As of Thursday, Australia has no agreement with anyone to build any new submarines whatsoever.
China has 66 submarines. It's expected to have 10 more by 2030, six of those nuclear powered, according to the US Office of Naval Intelligence. By that time, Australia will have exactly as many subs as it has today, which is the same number it had a quarter-century earlier, according to the Morrison government's statements on Thursday. That is, Australia will have the same six Collins-class, diesel-powered subs that were first commissioned by the Hawke government [ie. built in the 1990s], assuming they're still functional.
QuoteAustralia has spent the entire post-war era fantasising about nuclear power for its submarines. Until now, that's all they were, fantasies. Morrison gets credit for persuading Washington and London to share their closely held nuclear expertise with Canberra. But what's Australia going to do with it? Beyond the theatrics of the announcement, what is the practical outcome?
QuoteThe Morrison government has announced an interdepartmental committee to spend the next 18 months talking to the US and UK "identifying the optimal pathway to deliver at least eight nuclear-powered submarines for Australia". They're to be built in Adelaide, the government tells us, so that will require a full reconfiguration of the shipyards and workforce. But there is no known design and certainly no contracts. In other words, it's a plan to have a plan.
QuoteAustralia can now contemplate another decade or two with no new subs. And even if this proposal goes to plan, Australia will not have a full sovereign capability but an increased defence dependency on the US. ... So when Beijing's spokesmen fulminate against this announcement, don't be surprised if they have to pause to laugh into their sleeves.
Australia has a big problem. It's key trading partner for 25% o fit exports is the PRC. The same PRC that it wants nuclear powered subs to protect itself against.
It is a rich country but nuclear subs will fix that for them quickly, especially nuclear submarines supplied by a country that has no concept of the value of money where armaments are concerned (US and its 10x cost over runs).
The key issue is that the minerals and food the PRC want can be taken by force if the PRC wants to do so. This in many ways reminds of the movie cliche plot where a band of outlaws/rebels/troops (PRC) is continually coming to a town (Australia) for supplies and getting rowdy. The town wants the business but not the trouble so they hire a marital to "keep order" (nuclear submarines). It never works the way everyone thinks it will. This is the likely outcome here.
Australia is not like Switzerland. It wants to be, but it is not. The moat of the Pacific Oceans works to their benefit and their detriment. They have spent years enjoying a peace dividend but have not fully realized that the PRC is a master at economic warfare as well as building a world class military. They would be better off playing hardball with the PRC over the latest PRC tariffs.
This plan is likely their solution, but they underestimate the appearance of the absurdity to the rest of the world.
Australia can now contemplate another decade or two with no new subs. And even if this proposal goes to plan, Australia will not have a full sovereign capability but an increased defence dependency on the US.
I mean no disrespect to our Australian friends but isn't that kind of the point. They want closer ties to the US. Buying subs from France is all well and good but no one expects France to go to war with China over OZ. During WW2 even the British abandoned them (with I would point out defensible reasons) but still the only one they can go to is the US. Japan won't sneeze without US approval, they are not willing to loose the US security umbrella for Aus. So who is left?