The United States plans to sell three Virginia-class submarines to Australia prior to the introduction of a domestically built submarine based on British designs with American technology.

Commencing in the early 2030s, subject to approval from the U.S. Congress, the United States plans to sell three Virginia class submarines to Australia, with an option to sell two additional submarines if deemed necessary.

This measure is crucial to enable Australia to progressively enhance its capacity to possess and manage a fleet of SSNs and to provide the country with an independent capability as soon as practicable.

Furthermore, it guarantees that Australia can sustain its undersea capabilities until SSN-AUKUS becomes operational, considering the projected decommissioning of Australia’s present submarine fleet.

New Australian submarine to be based on British design

The Virginia-class

The Virginia class submarine is a nuclear-powered fast attack submarine operated by the United States Navy and is among the most advanced and capable submarines in the world.

A Virginia-class submarine is approximately 377 feet long and 34 feet wide, with a displacement of around 7,800 tons when submerged. It can reach speeds in excess of 25 knots and can remain submerged for several months at a time.

The Virginia class submarines are equipped with advanced sensors and communications systems, as well as state-of-the-art stealth technology, which enables them to operate undetected in hostile environments.

George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

65 COMMENTS

  1. Not surprised. Newer built Virginia class with its ability to launch hypersonic and TLAM makes it an obvious choice.

  2. Seems like an amazing deal for Australia that pulls their government out of the absolute mess around the Attack submarine debacle it created and the Collins replacement saga.

    Well done to the US, I am amazed they would part with three boats when they are so desperate for numbers but shows the depth of the relationship between Australia the UK and the USA.

    • Predict SSN-AUKUS will become an absolutely fascinating case study of a jointly designed and produced weapon system. T-26 and F-35 programs will pale in comparison in terms of complexity. Best wishes to all involved in this endeavor.

      • Doubt we will ever find out much about it though, it will be secret forever. I’m guessing UK design boat and reactor with a US Combat system firing US weapons. Much the same as Collins class is a Swedish design with US combat system and weapons.

        • If that’s the case I wonder if the US system will be used in the UK boats as well and how much control we will have over it.

          • No I seriously doubt it. The UK has always built its own Combat systems for warships although admittedly they are all based on Windows these days. If we opted for a US system we would then have to pay more money to get a US system to operate UK weapons. Would make very little sense.

            Our sensors are generally better as well so I see little benefit in opting for US ones.

            US sensors also tend to cost more than ours.

            Australia has always opted for US combat systems for its submarines and surface ships which are all designed in Europe.

            All it’s weapons are US which is why it wants US combat systems integrated in to its naval vessels.

          • So basically the Australians are getting a boat that everytime they want to do anything in they have to ring up the White house and ask permission?

            I love this assumption if you have an American system onboard you would need to surface, make a phone call, hope someone answers, ask permission, wait for congress to approve then press fire. Oh by that point you are sunk.

            Kinda goes against the entire point of a stealth submarine really.

          • It does not work like that, it’s only for integration of new weapons you need it and it’s not a political decision but a contractor one.

          • I’m not talking about that and you know it, I’m talking about integrating new weapons into a foreign system that wasn’t designed for them. You will need to go through the defence company that cr3ated the original system and you might be very low on there priorities. If you were a company who are you going to give priority to Australia, UK or the US who is most likely spending 10x the amount with this company than both the UK and Aus combined.

    • Is the US really giving up three boats though?
      These boats will probably be doing exactly what they would have been doing for the USN except that Australia is picking up the bill.

      Really very little loss in capability but big win politically.

      • I think the key message is to PRC that Australia will not roll over or be an easy target for PRC expansionism or destabilisation. Along with that it provides a rock of stability for neighbouring states who understand or eventually discover that PRC’s friendship & assistance is far more dangerous than they make out.
        Any arms race started with PLAN expanding heavily & threatening neighbours. Proliferation never seems to encompass N Korea. Destabilisation ignores ripping up the HK agreement timetable or the creation of artificial island military bases on pristine coral reefs which other nations had better clains to.

        AUKUS is great, I’d just like to see it move a little quicker.

    • I don’t if I’ve got this right but I think the 3 Virginia for the RAN will be good second hand and not new builds? To be followed by up to 8 new builds. I assume that the 3 Virginia’s might then be returned back to the US for decommissioning and dismantling?

      • Just seen that the US is the spend nearly £4b on upgrading its submarine construction industry, that’ll explain how they can have the capacity to sell Australia newly built subs.

        I thought they might have just sold Australia some of the first ones that got built when newer boats were ready.

        • The way it was explained today is Australia will be carrying out work on those Virginias building modules or other parts to allow the shipyard in Australia to train up.

          Just hope they can work in imperial measures 😀

          • Makes sence do some bits over in Australia and ship it over to the US to do the final assembly, build up the experience before they commit to building a full sub in the future.

            Hopefully they fit everything right side up.

          • Yes the whole agreement seems to be about building up that expertise and capability in stages over the next decade of so. Seems well considered and keeps everyone happy.

          • I think the concern is that now it’s being boxed in Beijing does a Soviet Union style build up and cranks out 200+ subs.it will take a much larger defence industrial base to match them.

          • OMG – I forgot all about the latitudinal inversion conversion problem!! Not to mention the charts…

          • In my experience, US Imperial as used on structural steelwork drawings produced by Electric Boat is a bit different from British Imperial. Rather than the sensible fractions of inches (1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16, 1/32) they prefer to use “decimal” inches (working in 1/10ths). Barrow had to get a job lot of tapes for everybody working on the Dreadnought CMC.
            To add to the fun, dimensions upto 40″ were written as such but 41″ would be written 3′ – 5″ (but sometimes just as inches!).
            And then there is the minefield of fasteners and thread forms…

        • I do wonder if that may not yet be set in stone, there will be much discussion in Congress no doubt where some have already demanded that Australia wont get boats that deplete new builds or numbers generally for US forces what with Chinese expansion. So I’m thinking there are two factors here, would Australian input into part building allow greater numbers to be built quicker and help get past that hurdle or/and would selling older boats that can be argued as being replaced by new ones placate the opposition. Will be interesting to see how it pans out but they seem to have anticipated ways of getting it done either way.

          • It will be fine. The USA knows it probably can’t win a war long term against China without Australian basing.

      • If Australia is getting domestically built SSN(R) AUKUS from 2040 what would the point be of getting new build Virginia in 2030. Ideally Australia doesn’t want to be running two different classes alongside each other for too long. Far more logical to purchase older Early Block Virginia and operate them until they are replaced like for like with their new SSN(R).

        • The UK will still be operating Astutes while they are transitioning to the AUKUS SSN. In fact the RN is still operating the Trafalgar class. All navies are in a constant state of transition as older classes makeway for newer classes. In Australia’s case they want to get to 8 submarines ASAP so they would want the Virginias to stay in service until the 2050s.

    • From my understanding they will be subs that are already in service. To the dates required by the RAN and life span of the subs I would think that they will be either the last of the Batch IIIs or the first of the Batch IVs. That would mean the subs would have at the time of transfer 10 years operational life left. Which would mean delivery of the new SSN AUKUS early 2040. It would also mean that the first SSN R for the RN would need to be designed, built and tested by 2038. This is doable but a damned tight time line.

      I suppose we do have some advantagies, the powerplant will be a version of what is going into the Dreadnought’s. I suspect the sonar suite will be a development of the current 2076 suite fitted to the Astute’s and Dreadnought class. So we need to decide do we install VL Multi Mission Tubes and if so which it seems like we will have to then how many. The reason I say that we will have to is that all future US made land attack missiles are being designed to be launched from from the VLMMT. Again we know these tubes as BAE manufacture them for the US Navy as the VPM. So it might be possible to build two versions one with Multi Mission Tubes and one in a pure hunter killer configuration. If the RAN is going to have an American Command Deck, then possibly we should use this in our subs. From my understanding USN and RN SSNs are not very diffrent on the command deck and if it would save money by reducing development cost build cost etc then that is money that could be invested into more subs.

      I do have some questions, will Australia share the development costs? Where will the first RAN boat be built? Will it be a combined SSN force? How are we going to transport the nuclear powerplant to Aus, will it fit into a C-17 or will it go via RFA. It cannot go with a civilian transport and I think cannot be built in Aus. We also need to remember the powerplant is about 50% of the sub, with the tea kettle, turbines, generators, shaft, cooling plant etc I will make a guess that it will be about 3000 tons 12-13 meters diameter and a combine length of about 45 meters. Possibly it comes in three blocks but it must be built and tested as a single unit as it must work together. I am going out on a limb here but I would also imagine that before a nuclear powerplant goes into a sub it needs to be fuelled and tested. if that is the case then we have the issue of shipping a live nuclear plant, not active but live this means to my thinking a frigate or two as an escort for the RFA. I do not think or know if Australia has the ability to load the HEU rods into the reactor so it must be done here in the UK.These boats needs deep maintance every few years, where is that to be done, Aus, UK. If in the UK does that mean we send a boat out there to cover? These might sound like stupid questions and if so I am sorry, but I cannot find answers which means I need to ask.

      As for forward basing four Virginia’s and an Astute, I think it is a good idea, training on nulclear reactors, Perisher courses etc could be run with the forward based Astute. However, it does leave the RN SSN force a bit stretched as at one point every year two boats will be away from UK waters for a 3 month period as one returns to the UK and one takes over. That leaves five, then one for SSBN escort, four, one for carrier group escort, three, one in workup/Perisher, two, one in refit, one. Only one to do its job of hunter killer and let us not forget that is what an SSN is; a hunter killer submarine.

      Who knows with a shared development cost and reduced cost to the powerplant the RN could get 12 SSN Rs four in the land attack configuration with four VLMMTs each with seven tubes giving 28 future cruise/hypersonic missles and eight with one VLMMT with seven cruise/hypersonic land attack missiles and a Flexible Payload Lock for ROV/SBS/mine laying operations as designed for the Swedish A-26 class. Although if I was to play fantisy fleets I would build eight Dreadnought class boats, four as SSBNs and four as SSGNs plus 10 SSN Rs. The SSN Rs would have one VLMMT whilst the SSGN would have 12 VLMMTs giving 84 cruise/hypersonic land attack missiles. However, is this what the RN really needs or a nice to have?

      Whilst the possibilities for the RN SSN fleet is promising the RN still has a major issue that not many people speak about smaller subs. The North Sea, Baltic, Med and the West of Scotland as well as sneeky ops with the SBS are not good operational areas for a large SSN. We do need to think about getting some AIP subs such as the A-26 type or the Japanese Taigei class. For the cost of three Astutes we could get nine of the Taigei’s. For the US and for that matter Australia to go nuclear for their sub force is logical, deep water everwhere and a damned big ocean. The RN has a diffrent issue surrounded by shallow waters but deep water requirements. Ask any sub commander if he wants to take a big sub into shallow or confined waters, an honest answer would be No. For the cost of 12 Astutes we could have eight SSNs and 15 AIP type subs operating in five groups of three, one group based in Scotland, one in the North of Norway, one in Gib and one possibly in Brunei, with one under going refit and repair. With the sub group based in Tromso it would cover the Norwegian Sea, the sub group in Scotland the GIUK Gap and the SSBN base, Gib the Med, Brunei the S.China Seas and the SSNs would escort the carrier group, SSBN and have three boats to go hunting. Not sure if it is still for sale but Norway seems to have an underground sub base for sale at about £12 million. The Olavsvern base outside Tromso. This base can accomadate upto six subs with dry dock capability.

      Back to fantisy fleet but in reality what is needed, four SSBNs, four SSGNs (much more of a deterant than an SSBN, you are not going to launch a nuc unless you are completly bonkers or someone else has destroyed all you care about. So a SSBN is only a threat to countries with nucs.), eight SSN Rs (one per carrier group, one per SSBN, one-two for Aus, one in the Artic, one for the Iceland-UK Gap, one roaming and one refit repair) + one older Astute for training/Perisher etc, 16 AIP subs, one for training 15 opertional in five groups of three. That gives a total sub force of four bombers, four thumpers, eight hunters, 15 patrol and two training subs. Can we afford this, yes, the research into the nuclear powerplants is complete, the reserach into the sonar suite is complete, the research into mission bays missile tubes etc is complete so the SSN.SSGN reserach is complete, it just needs to be put together. As for the AIP subs we could take off the shelf Swedish or Japanese designs so research is complete. For the choice Sweden or Japan, good question, from a military point Sweden and the A-26, the Swedes know how to build subs for confined waters. From a political aspect Japan, we buy their design they help with Tempest.

      If we could rebuild the Royal Navy to have a sub force of about 30 subs, a surface combat force of 28-30 ships and an amphibious force capable to land three armoured battlegroups eg three HMAS Canbarra type vessels + six MRSS and 15+ Hamina type fast attack missile boat to operate 2 famb-with 1 T31 and five for UK waters, RNR/officer training etc. These would replace the P2000s.
      The armoured battlegroup, dedicated army units that understand a ship comes from the British army consisting of 16 CH2s, 28 Warriors, 50 APCs, 4 Scimitars, an Artillery ( 8 155mm guns,8 105mm guns, 2 M270s) and Mortar section, a Low Level Air Defence Section, A Long Range Anti Tank Section, Engineering unit and Signals Troop. The MRSS would have 250-300 Royal Marines with a light Artillery section (6 guns 105mm) Low level anti air section, anti tank section, assault engineering unit (blow stuff up). Air support air lift would be 6 F35Bs, 6 Apache’s, 4 Chinooks, 10 Merlins and 4 Wildcats from the combined Canberra/MRSS ships. Gunnery support and anti air support during landings would come from the T32 which would be in my fleet the Damen Crossover XO131C, these would be the dedicated escorts for the Canberra type LHDs. Each carrying 120 Royal Marines, 76mm-127mm main gun, two-three CIWS postions, 32 VLS tubes and eight anti ship canisters, three – five landing craft and two helicopters. A good allround general purpose assault group escort ship.

      So a future RN surface fleet would be two QE carriers, three Canberra type LHDs, six MRSSs, 6 T83s, 8 T26s, 5 T31s, 6 T32s and 15 Hamina type fast attack missile boats. My sub fleet would be 4 SSBNs, 4 SSGNs, 8+1 SSNs and 15+1 AIP subs. Can we afford this well let look the T83s are in the pipe line, no extra cost above planned, the T32s are in the pipe line extre cost + one ship over the five,the MRSS are in the pipe line, Albion Bulwark to be repalced with Canberra type + one extra cost approx £1 billion. New SSNs are in the future planning extre cost one SSN say £1.5 billion. Now comes pure extra cost 4 SSGNs build cost for the four £10 billion, 16 AIP subs say £5 billion and 15 Hamina type at £3 billion, plus an extra 20 F35Bs at £2 billion equals 22-25 billion. Over a ten year build period is £2.5 billion per year extra cost above our current expenditure.

      However this would make the British Armed Forces one of the most capable in the world, able to take on Russia at sea, able to land an Armoured Brigade where ever we want and able to make countries even bigger than us to think twice.

      Then again I can only dream, but I am a firm believer in to keep the peace you must be prepared for war.

      • I think I’ll need to take a day off to read your posting. Have had a quick slim read for starters. 😆 Just a common the subs. They’re all needed sooner not later, before the late 2030-early 2040s. I’m going to make a stupid comment here, but last 2Astutes needed asap and SSNRs starting by mid 30s. And some healthy GBAD in the UK to protect all key manufacturing sites, ports, airfields, bases, energy infrastructure, so basically the whole bloody country! And I wonder what the security levels are like on the channel tunnel after the Nordstream incidents – top notch we’d all hope!

    • The way I’m reading it, the Aussies will probably buy ex-USN Block 1 and/or Block 2 Virginia’s with about a decade of service life left and then operate them through to end of life. The crew then transfers to new SSN AUKUS vessels as the Virginia’s age out. The Old Virginia’s then end up back in the US for decommissioning to meet the non-proliferation requirements from the enriched uranium power plants.

      • Maybe they can trade them into the UK for decommissioning, like a used car.

        Drop off a Virginia and cruise off the lot in a new SSNR.

  4. This announcement has been along time coming.
    It’s a great deal for all three countries.
    I wonder what time scales we are looking at for the Australian boats in the water.
    I had wondered if we were going to see some crazy forward basing of 2 astutes joint manned and 2 colins coming to Clyde.
    Next up Canada wanting some as replacements for its 4 boats.
    I really hope the U.K. can get back up to 10-12 boats. They are so vital for securing the sea.

    • Has Canada shown any indication of wants nuclear subs, I wouldn’t be surprised of they go with a German design. They seem to be all the rage at the moment.

      • They contemplated going nuclear before the end of the Cold War reduced expectations and perceived need to go to that expense. So the Upholders from the UK became the Victoria Class. Not sure how many years they have left but new realities just might revive an interest I guess but with their immediate neighbour doing the heavy lifting in their vicinity anyway they may deem money and capability be better spent elsewhere.

        • I think you will find that the roadblock to a Canadian Nuclear Boat was that their neighbour really didn’t like the idea. They used a caveat in the UK/US nuclear cooperation treaty to block the UK exporting reactors and vetoed the Canadians buying them from France.
          As for Canada trying again, perhaps now that the US isn’t quite as dominant as it once was and concerns re the Artic it is time Canada revisited this idea.
          Then again they are busy with their CCS (T26 build) at present.And they are just a wee bit tight fisted.
          Great Snipers though.🙂

      • Interestingly, back in the ’80s, Reagan and Thatcher reached a similar agreement to supply SSNs to Canada- mostly because operating under the ice cap in a conventional boat is difficult. It all fell through in the end because the Canadians had not fully appreciated what it costs to build a defence nuclear enterprise from scratch.

    • Canada joining AUKUS would provide it with some great options for a sub replacement program as well as other procurement woes. Replacing the 4 Victoria class subs is on the radar for the DnD. The T26 Frigate program and the F35 program however have the priority budget projects for the forces currently.

  5. These are expensive as ****.
    Australia will be spending AU$50-58bn on its 3 second hands Virginia class purchase, thats $33-38bn or £27.3bn to £31.25bn and that excludes the AU$3bn they are investing in US shipyard capacity. Australia intends to build 8 AUKUS class with the last 3 entering service between 2055-2060 allowing the three Virginia to be retired and maintaining a fleet of 8. With the Virginia having a reactor life of 33 years that would mean the boats they purchased would be in the order of 5-8 years old at the time.

      • I believe what @Watcherzero is referring to wrt his numbers is the lifetime costs of the whole project, so SM build, manning infrastructure costs, operating costs and so forth.
        1 X SSN approx £1.5 – 2.5 Billion depending on class.
        1 X SSN yearly operating costs, approx £40-60 million depending on class, it all adds up to some £250-£350 billion over the project lifetime.

  6. Oh dear, The Guardian seem to be in conniptions over this: ‘Aukus nuclear submarine deal loophole prompts proliferation fears’.

    And before someone chimes in about the BBC; they’re being nice and neutral on it.

  7. Lots of good things in this AUKUS deal. I do wonder through how Australia is going to pay for all these PW3 nuclear reactors. Looks like we will be importing a lot of lamb chops.

  8. The purchase of the submarines by Australia is going to cost around AU$1,230,000 per head in Australia (based on the 368 Billion divided by 30 Million population). Anyone got a figure for what the Astutes cost us?

  9. Watching the three leaders speak in San Diego I was very surprised how quietly spoken Rishi Sunak was and not very “Prime Minister” like IMHO. He needs to speak up a bit more! It’s was a three way presentation and I don’t think his speech sounded equal to Biden and Albanese on the day. But have to say a well done to the 🇬🇧 getting the 🇦🇺 sub deal and let’s hope there’s a huge benefit to UK economy, getting the SSNR into RN sooner and giving the UK and allied more fire-power projection and protection of international trade lanes.

  10. One thing to consider is that Australia will have to dispose of the nuclear waste. I cannot see Australia buying a near end of life Virginia and then have to take responsiblility for decommisioning it. This would only work if the hulls had 20 years or more life left in them. I would say that some of the newer build Block IVs are the most likely candidate with Australia operating them through to the mid 50s.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here