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.
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.
Not surprised. Newer built Virginia class with its ability to launch hypersonic and TLAM makes it an obvious choice.
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… Read more »
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.
Not to worry. JohninMK will keep us briefed.
Nope. Not something I’m interested in.
I guess if they end up operating in the Sea of Japan you might be, but no rush eh.
Yep, doesn’t push forward the Kremlin line, does it.
He will be getting outsourced to Beijing soon then he will suddenly care 😀
Just as I don’t speak Russian I don’t speak Mandarin either. So no.
Of course not, as it’s not a Russian propaganda opportunity.
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… Read more »
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?
Do we know if these are going to be ones already in service or newly built ones?
They are buying the boats in the 2030’s so sounds like new builds.
Also sounds like Reactors and components for SSN AUKUS being built in the UK.
From announcement today also sounds like Australia yards may be making sections for Virginia’s as US tries to ramp up production.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/british-led-design-chosen-for-aukus-submarine-project
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…
British Imperial or Chinese Imperial?😉
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
*skim read…. Just a comment…
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.
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.🙂
Everyone wants a nuclear boat. Few are willing to sign on the line for a $200 billion project.
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.
“CAUKUS” …sounds good too. 😄
Catchy!!! It’s settled and official. 😂
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.
Where are you getting your numbers from? 10bln per sub are you sure?
Build and maintain, assume 50% is maintenance and operating costs.
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.
Thanks for filling us in on all this.
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.
The Sky news chat I saw about it the person in the UK discussing was on about how the UK operates 7 Vanguards with nuclear attack weapons which we are sharing the tech with Australia, fml. Open wikipedia for gods sake before talking on TV.
Idiots.
Perhaps he was a courier they mistook for an expert, can’t let the BBC have all the fun.
Clueless as ever.
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.
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?
Wow John you got interested after all 👍👍😅
Wow…..loose lips…..
Actually that works out at $12,266 spread over 40 years.
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.
*It…
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.