Australia, the United States and Britain have unveiled a defence alliance.

The British Government say that the new alliance will bolster the Integrated Review commitment to strengthen alliances with like-minded allies and deepen ties in the Indo-Pacific.

The Australian Prime Minister has announced that the first step of ‘AUKUS’ will be to procure & help develop a new fleet of nuclear powered submarines for the Royal Australian Navy.

According to a statement:

“AUKUS is a concrete articulation of the UK’s ambition, made in the Integrated Review, to deepen defence, security and foreign policy ties with like-minded allies across the globe. The agreement reflects the unique level of trust and cooperation between our three countries, who already share extensive intelligence through the Five Eyes alliance. The first initiative under AUKUS will be a collaboration on future nuclear-powered submarines for the Royal Australian Navy. This capability will promote stability in the Indo-Pacific and will be deployed in support of our shared values and interests.

The UK has built and operated world-class nuclear-powered submarines for over 60 years. We will therefore bring deep expertise and experience to the project through, for example, the work carried out by Rolls Royce near Derby and BAE Systems in Barrow. The initial scoping phase for the new endeavour is expected to take 18 months. The design and build process will create hundreds of highly skilled scientific and engineering roles across the UK, and drive investment in some of our most high-tech sectors.”

The Prime Minister said:

“The UK, Australia and US are natural allies – while we may be separated geographically, our interests and values are shared. The AUKUS alliance will bring us closer than ever, creating a new defence partnership and driving jobs and prosperity.

This partnership will become increasingly vital for defending our interests in the Indo-Pacific region and, by extension, protecting our people back at home.”

Joint Leaders statement on AUKUS

Prime Minister Boris Johnson, President Joseph R Biden and Prime Minister Scott Morrison issued the following statement.

“As leaders of Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States, guided by our enduring ideals and shared commitment to the international rules-based order, we resolve to deepen diplomatic, security, and defense cooperation in the Indo-Pacific region, including by working with partners, to meet the challenges of the twenty-first century. As part of this effort, we are announcing the creation of an enhanced trilateral security partnership called “AUKUS” – Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

Through AUKUS, our governments will strengthen the ability of each to support our security and defense interests, building on our longstanding and ongoing bilateral ties. We will promote deeper information and technology sharing. We will foster deeper integration of security and defense-related science, technology, industrial bases, and supply chains. And in particular, we will significantly deepen cooperation on a range of security and defense capabilities.

As the first initiative under AUKUS, recognizing our common tradition as maritime democracies, we commit to a shared ambition to support Australia in acquiring nuclear-powered submarines for the Royal Australian Navy. Today, we embark on a trilateral effort of 18 months to seek an optimal pathway to deliver this capability. We will leverage expertise from the United States and the United Kingdom, building on the two countries’ submarine programs to bring an Australian capability into service at the earliest achievable date.

The development of Australia’s nuclear-powered submarines would be a joint endeavour between the three nations, with a focus on interoperability, commonality, and mutual benefit. Australia is committed to adhering to the highest standards for safeguards, transparency, verification, and accountancy measures to ensure the non-proliferation, safety, and security of nuclear material and technology. Australia remains committed to fulfilling all of its obligations as a non-nuclear weapons state, including with the International Atomic Energy Agency. Our three nations are deeply committed to upholding our leadership on global non-proliferation.

Recognizing our deep defense ties, built over decades, today we also embark on further trilateral collaboration under AUKUS to enhance our joint capabilities and interoperability. These initial efforts will focus on cyber capabilities, artificial intelligence, quantum technologies, and additional undersea capabilities.

The endeavour we launch today will help sustain peace and stability in the Indo-Pacific region. For more than 70 years, Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States, have worked together, along with other important allies and partners, to protect our shared values and promote security and prosperity. Today, with the formation of AUKUS, we recommit ourselves to this vision.”

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

336 COMMENTS

  1. Very interesting news. Seems the western democracies, maybe the Anglo-sphere, have got the message from China at last. 6 or so Aussie SSNs will put the CCP in a spin. They will, of course, up their own production, they can afford it but this is a significant step in reigning in the dragon.

    I just hope the arms race doesn’t escalate in a stupid way. If it does Japan, S Korea & Malaysia could join in on our side.

    The message is, ‘we will not be intimidated.’

    • this is kind of embarrassing for the Royal Navy…. We need more submarines. I’m kind of hoping the Aussies get 8-10 because that might force us to step up. It would be politically and militarily unacceptable for the RAN to have a better submarine capability than the RN.

          • Agreed just look how much Brazil are spending on their first SSN $5 billion last time I checked you could get a sizable fleet type of Type 212/214’s for that much.

        • As mentioned 8-10 would likely be too big a burden for the RAN budget but even if by some miracle that were to happen I think it would take another miracle for the UK to respond as you hope. I just look at current precedent to support my suspicion. Both Australia and Canada have selected T26 and both are planning to build more than the 8 that the UK is planning, almost double in the case of the RCN with plans for 15 although I would not be at all surprised if that gets cut at least a bit. In any event, that hasn’t prompted the UK to even reinstate its original plans for 13 T26.

          • The RCN have no aircraft carriers, no destroyers, four 30 year old small DE subs and a dozen frigates that are at least 25 years old. The RN has two brand new aircraft carriers, six SSNs (four new with the remaining two old ones being replaced), six air defence destroyers, four SSBNs with four brand new ones being built, a dozen T23 frigates with the T26 and T31 on order at the moment. There is a pretty good reason the RCN need almost double the T26 that we do!

        • Not a very good word to use :/ Militarily meaning in military strategy. There is no way Britain will be able to deploy all or even half of our 7 astutes to the pacific. Best case scenario, if conflict breaks out we might be able to send 2. If Australia has 6 they will have much more say in military strategy than we will, which would once again end up being politically unacceptable.

          • In your scenario the UK will be bringing carrier strike groups. Those guys call the shots. The RAN will play the ancillary role of sub-surface sea denial.

          • Good point. Just as a question, how long do you think it would take, assuming QE/PWLS are not in the pacific, for us to send an acceptable (1 QE, 2 T45, 2 T23/T26, 1 Astute + RFA) CSG to the pacific if it was an emergency?

          • Impossible to answer I’m afraid.

            Under most circumstances it could be fueled and armed at sea and enroute, even coming off a docking period dry and empty.

            Time to get on station in the pacific depends if the canal is available or too high risk and where the supply tail is. The carrier and sub will easily outrun the fort vic and tankers.

            Your biggest speed limit will be the supply chain.

          • Australia doesn’t have a replenishment fleet (save for what will be two oilers at 20k tonnes each) so I’m guessing the MSC and RFA would be essential to the success of any endeavour.

          • About six weeks, give or take. But the alliance submarine force will already be there in numbers. The US already rule the Pacific and that will not change this century. The CCP subs are useless by comparison. Rather than catching up with US/UK technology, they are barely keeping pace with Japanese advancement! Even the new Russian boats are years ahead of the CCP.

          • Actually, the US will call the shots – especially when it comes to China. I’m not saying the US won’t ask for/value input from the UK/Aus but at the end of the day, the US carries the biggest stick by far and therefore….

          • Of course, definitely. The US has its 7th Fleet over there and I’m sure it could deploy 3-4 Nimitzes within a few days. Still, i think the USN hold the RN in high regard and so would definitely ask for input and take it into account.

          • Were not buying 6 , were buying 12 , and they are Virginias all of them , your Subs being WAY WAY to expensive. NFS, which is a subsidiary of BWXT will manage Nuclear infrastructure crew will be deployed to Bangor Washington integrating with SUBRON-19 pretty much being an American extension though when we toast it is the to the Queen not the President . As an Australian is there any other Ozzy’s who have gone through the embarrassing protocol of correcting an US Navy captain when he toasts the current Prime Minister of Oz and advise him we can only raise our glasses to the Queen of England ? If so dont you think it is time we have our own head of state ? What about you grunts , the Royal Marines have almost the same flag on they’re uniform and the Yanks always mistake you as UK Marines ! What about our own flag to boot . Just saying what your all thinking is all .

          • Australia can’t afford 12 Virginia class submarines, not that the US will ever sell them. And, just to be clear, neither the Virginias nor the Astutes are on offer. Then, on to your next point, a Virginia sub is more expensive than an Astute. The rest of what you wrote is purely opinion and that’s your right.

          • It’s 12 , with Six being Tranche One , your right they are not Virginias , they will be they’re own class , an extension of an sub class . We can afford 12 because Old Electric boat will pump them out costing a full One Third less than your Astute class .We do need your men though , officers and Chiefs .

          • Astutes are a much better boat in all respects to the Virginias, but any of these are better than any SSK.

            Unfortunately, excluding the future TLAM capability, which is common to both designs, Australian politics, the RAN currently using the BYG-1 and the Mk48, the programme director; the better weapons system (CCS+2076, Spearfish) will most likely not be chosen.

          • Yes, the Astute’s are pure hunter killers, not hybrid SSGN’s.With missile capability from the torpedo tubes only.

          • “Astutes are a much better boat in all respects to the Virginias”

            Do you have anything tangible to support this claim or this just your opinion?

          • The Virginia’s are really SSGN’s built to replace VLS capacity of the outgoing Ohio SSGN’s. The extra length of a SSGN will certainly handicap a Virginia compared to a pure SSN like Astute.

            It all comes down to the type of mission tasked!

          • I don’t believe that’s how it works. In terms of length the original Virginia’s are not far off the Seawolf class and according to the many submarine warfare experts, nothing comes close to those. Also the Virginia class actually replaces the Seawolf class which was the planned replacement for the Los Angeles class attack subs, not the Ohio class.

          • The Virginia’s don’t replace the Seawolf’s,
            It is SSN(X) that will replace the Seawolf’s in early 2030’s, and early built Virginia’s.

          • Actually they did. The Seawolf class was designed to replace the Los Angeles class. The soviet union collapse and the threat that the seawolf was designed for mostly disappeared with it. (Think of the seawolf class as the F22 of the sea) No longer able to justify the enormous cost and engineering needed for the seawolf, they built the Virginia class as a cheaper replacement after building just 3 seawolf subs.

          • Queen of England?
            There hasn’t been one of those since the Scottish monarchy inherited the title and united their kingdoms into the UK.

          • Lay off the whisky Sean. The official statement from the Australian PM is that they will take 18 months to decide what to build, but it will be built in Osbourne, South Australia (except the reactor), in the new ASC submarine yard. The options are Virginia, Astute or a new updated design of either. Astute has the advantage of lower crewing numbers & BAE is already well established in Australia including shipbuilding. Neither of the US submarine builders have much, if any, presence. IMO, BAE/Astute would be easier & far less chance of Naval Group type problems.

            As to numbers – I doubt 12. No numbers were mentioned, but 6 – 8 seems more likely. UK is only planning 7.

          • What’s terrible besides Whisky (VB for me) is that this decision literally means were going to let a lot of people down in Adelaide . Everything is already decided not by us but the Yanks including the Virginias in all but name . Electric boat is not sharing with you or our own people in Oz so yeah were breaking this to them slowly . They will be a sub class of Block 4 Virginias which as your probably aware of have reduced life maintenance over life time from 4 to 3 making them affordable along with the HMMR and keeping the MACS that we have nothing to put in them . This whole 180 degree turn was done before we advised the Frogs and along with the fact of being “Told” in no uncertain terms by US Navy what , when , and how without so much as an acknowledgment they were interested in our specs has left mud on all faces including PM .

      • Why is that unacceptable? Australia is a major country in the Pacific. In terms of trade it is far heavier entwined to the region that the U.K. Australia has more skin in the Indo-Pacific game so to speak. This is the 21st not 20th century. The U.K. should be delighted not view naval force as a pseudo Ashes competition!

        • Ignore some of the silly comments on here mate. Most of us here in the UK see it as great thing to be joining forces with our Australian brothers and sisters on an engineering journey that will help all parties equally. Most people over here have family,friends or colleagues who are Australian our countries are truly linked. Australia is a big player in the region but even in 21st century the uk has massive business interests in indo Pacific area especially in maritime insurance and finance worth 100s of billions if stability isn’t kept

          • Good point Neil on the maritime insurance. Appreciate your sentiments. I just find it puzzling how some still retain outdated thinking towards this side of the world. Kudos though to the U.K. (and USA) for the foresight and willingness to share the technology.

        • You touch on a long standing issue for UK defence strategy, which is a popular belief that Britain’s pre war status and prestige can be retained despite the diminishing economic ability to do so.
          The UK pulled back from the Eastern hemisphere in the 50s and yet somehow we are now meant to sustain a global presence that includes policing a new superpower located in that same region? It’s bonkers and also irresponsible.

      • No need for the Royal Navy to be embarrassed. With Russia and China on the warpath etc. all of us as a Team/ Allies need to get on with developing and growing our forces together. I am from Australia.

      • I doubt that we could crew more that four boats given the crew sizes are double that of the Collins class submarines. The RAN has severe manning issues with at least one Anzac class tied up because they can’t crew it.

      • It might be the magic number but, as bad as our procurement is, if the RN can’t/won’t afford it the RAN definitely can’t afford it.

        • The RAN are not operating boomers and they are not operating carrier strike and they don’t have such a large surface combat fleet. Surrounded by huge expanses of blue water the SSN option is the correct solution. I suspect they will end up with vertical launch Asm / cruise land attack capability as well. They were facing a black hole of a money pit with the French option (latest estimates were North of $60 billion). The ADF are not the largest forces on the planet but they are generally very well trained, taken seriously by their government, and consequently are provided with good platforms armed with a robust spectrum of conventional weaponry. Finally, national debt to GDP is currently 72% compared to UK 83%. Yes it’s going to rise but the economy is generally in a much healthier place compared to the UK

        • You are forgetting that UK also has very expensive SSBN’s as well to pay for. Australian GDP is around half UK GDP. So a fleet equivalent to half the RN should be possible. Australia was already planning on spending billions on new large submarines. Price goes up, but quantity goes down to compensate (12 down to 8).

    • I’d like to see NZ & Canada on board too. Some additional NZ soldiers & sailors, not to mention having an air force would be good. Canada could easily operate a few SSNs in the far north and some additional air assets too.

          • Expansion of 5 Eyes was stymied by NZ who are presently scared stiff of upsetting China. I suspect t this is a way of getting around that barrier and perhaps even putting pressure on NZ though in reality they have little e tea to offer. Canada would certainly be a welcome addition and it’s subs do need replacing. What their attitude is to acquiring nuclear subs mind I have no idea or whether their a sense from this is significant or otherwise, their relations with China are pretty poor after all and they have a lot to offer this ‘alliance’ maybe this is just a concentration on the South Pacific at this stage so as not to complicate matters and even potentially offend other ‘less Anglo’ potential partners in the region which the emphasis on the subs gives a focus to the choice of those 3 members perhaps as it replaces a programme already active in Oz. Time will tell if this is the start of something wider but I reckon they will tread carefully and work to maintain the other defence relationships strong as apart from Canada I’m not sure who the US would be willing to share its top end tech to outside of theses initial partners and that seems to be the unique aspect of this new agreement.

          • Yes, I agree.

            “Expansion of 5 Eyes was stymied by NZ”

            I would not want expansion of the UKUSA agreement anyway. It is an exclusive club and should remain so.

            There are also the 9 eyes and 14 eyes with nations like Germany and Norway involved but they are not privy to the core 5 eyes material.

            I still recall during the B chaos the media and EU gleefully telling everyone how excluded the UK would be intelligence wise. Ha. Total cobblers. We are a core part of the greatest espionage and SIGINT alliance the world has ever seen.

            A trump card of this nation so often ignored by those only interested in the numbers of Tanks Ships and Planes.

            To be fair that also includes me as numbers way to low, but “defence” is more than that, it is alliances, knowledge and intelligence.

          • Hi Daniele, sadly there is much left wing opposition to the 5 eyes gig here in NZ! I worry about the future here.

          • You’ve not fallen yet though? Enough of the silent majority who will stand up to it?

            NZ covers the south Pacific through Waihopai, another nation would strep in, probably USA or Aus, if the government went there went full on woke and disarmed their intell machinery too.

          • Yes I did have to laugh at the entire the UK would be excluded from the intelligence line, genuinely was one of the arguments that they need us more than them being twisted.

          • “We are a core part of the greatest espionage and SIGINT alliance the world has ever seen.”

            Amen, second to none.

      • The current Canadian election probably prevented an agreement with them at the moment. Whereas the sharing of technology for Australia’s submarines required US and U.K.
        Wouldn’t be surprised at seeing the Canadians and Kiwis join later.

        • Kiwis are highly unlikely to go Nuclear anytime soon. Remember they had a big disagreement with the US over not allowing a Nuclear capable warship berth in NZ sometime ago and they, still to this day are very anti nuclear anything.

          • Doh nobody said the Kiwis are going to go nuclear 🤦‍♂️

            AUKUS is way more than a technology sharing programme for passing on nuclear submarine capability.

        • Kiwis wont. They simply don’t have the GDP, industry, or justification to do it. The defence budget is 3bn USD so they would be able to purchase one a year and nothing else (no maintenance, personnel… literally nothing). They might join in to some UUV programme that either the U.K./US (or them together) will inevitably start. The Canadians though… they’re spending a lot of money on the CSCs (T26) so I’m not sure whether they could afford it either. But if they could get some, even if just 2-4, it would be very helpful for the West indeed.

          • FFS of course the Kiwis aren’t going to buy a SSN. 🤦‍♂️
            But AUKUS is more than just about building SSNs.
            I can definitely see them joining in other initiates, particularly drones which would give them a much greater return on their limited resources.

          • Oh, yes I probably should have read it like that 😆 oops silly me. I thought you meant join in the SSN building… yes AUKUS + Canada and NZ is a good idea. essentially a stronger FVEY with actual military ties instead of just intel.

          • NZ gave up subs decades ago.Its all they can do to find money for t two underarmed frigates.

          • If you’d bother to read posts before ranting you’d realise I never talked about NZ getting subs. Idiot.

          • Lol have you somehow not seen the amount of Chinese investment in the UK lately. We rely on Chinese imports for so many products critical to our economy. Yet its only NZ who are guilty of being too friendly with China? Interesting.

          • I was not commenting on that particular point however as you raise it I agree with your assessment of the threat from the Chinese government acquiring commercial property.

          • It is not so much the threat any such investment might pose, but more the fact this investment is encouraged and welcome.
            Are the UK really standing up to China much more than NZ after all?

        • Good point and convenient for all concerned for the moment I suspect so as not to rock too many boats and e land it in steps as required.

      • I like to see NZ have a couple of long range subs to complement their fleet. I think NZ may only accept diesels though. Doesn’t it still have an anti nuclear stance? Maybe it’ll be too expensive an option for their defence budget.
        Canada with its big coastline, large patrol area, Pacific, Atlantic and Artic, getting a large T26 fleet, new subs and MPAs would be significant a force multiplier.

          • Can’t see it happening and not sure why we should either? The threat from China seems completely overblown and if there was ever a real threat or conflict then I’m sure we would contribute in some manner, without having to subscribe to this overly aggressive agenda.

      • Sorry Rob, highly unlikely the current government here in NZ would entertain the idea. They do what they do best: sit on the fence and talk to people like they are addressing a kindergarten class. Pardon my sarcasm , no doubt you sense my frustration.

        I hope this alliance expands to bring in Japan, Korea and India, Time to curb Chinese expansion imperialism.

        • The no nuclear policy has been established in NZ for almost 40 year’s.
          It’s why we were kicked out of ANZUS and no doubt the reason we were not allowed to join this little shin dig.
          But we should still lay all that at Jacinda’s door right, as you seem to insist?
          As for this nonsense about curbing Chinese expansion, can you not see the hypocrisy in that concept? China hasn’t exactly relocated to the Western Pacific you know? Are they deploying Carrier’s to the Northern Atlantic to curb American or British expansion?

          • Hello BM. Apologies for my late reply to you post, In the interest of robust political debate, I disagree with your view.

            As for ANZUS I’d personally Id rather see us in, however It is for the people to decide and I bow to the will of the majority.

            I do however foresee a Pacrim alliance forming, similar in concept to Nato. Plenty of appetite beyond the US/UK/AUS. Japan , S,Korea, India and Taiwan are natural candidates.

            China expansion is self evident, it is not nonsense. The artificial islands in the Chins Sea for a start. I note you did not reference Taiwan, the elephant in the room (or Panda in the bamboo field). The people of Taiwan have the right to determine their own destiny, or do you endorse China has the right to intimidate and threaten them?

            I do lay this at Ardern’s door – just as I have with other serving PMs. The abuse the Uyghur Muslims are suffering is tip- toed about by our Foreign Affairs Minister (and to be far, most governments). “Re education” camps for a persecuted religious minority. There is something frighteningly familiar to this policy.

            China has no territorial demands, there is something familiar to that phrase too! Or do you think Communist totalitarianism is immune to the same principles that drove fascism in Europe?

          • I do support Taiwan’s right to self determination. Interestingly, so does the US and yet there is an official policy not to recognise the ROC. So it is a strange situation for all involved.
            Now, what I want to know is how can those who get so upset at even the idea of China invading Taiwan, when the English did exactly that to Ireland? Sure, that was a long time ago, but there has been plenty of opportunities within living memory to practice what we preach? Or how about the Cuban sanctions and the Bay of Pigs fiasco? It is the hypocrisy of it all that I would find amusing if it wasn’t so serious!

          • Absolutely re your point on the bay of pigs. But I think it more useful to reference current events rather than those of half a century ago. I thought you were likely to raise the Iraq fiasco which is portably the most relevant example.

            I think it is unreasonable to reference historical events from hundreds of year ago, One should see these events in the context of their times. One could make the same argument about the Romans, Normans, the Mongols and the spread of Islam.

            The most important point of difference between us and China that we have have free democratic society. People can express their views through protest and the ballot box. I do not see that in China and certainly not in Hong Kong. The lesson of Tiananmen square is self evident .

    • I’m Labour, read the Guardian since 15ish.

      I hope it allows true sharing, enables the Aus to begin work on the next fleet subs that the UKUS can buy into AND enable the US to shoehorn in T26 rather than 40 more ffx.

      This, potentially, is fantastic news.

      • Good to see you obviously dismiss many of its pronouncements then. Like treating Snowden like a God, treating GCHQ, one of this nations crown jewels, like an enemy for collecting intelligence to try and stop people being blown up, suggesting the UK should do away with our military completely, championing JC, and saying GB Olympians should not display the flag of the UK as it’s “divisive”

        Just a few gems I’ve seen in that publication over the years.

        Good luck to you and good to see not all its readers are stark raving lunatics.

          • I think it’s obvious. Are people so blinded by their particular political agenda that they cease to have some common sense?

            For instance, my wife’s brother, an intelligent woman, once said to me that she would just sell off the nuclear deterrent as it’s useless. Now, i’m all for a World where there are no nuclear weapons but am bright enough, well I reckon bright enough, to know that getting rid of our deterrent would be a huge mistake. The Russians would love it, the Chinese would would love it, the Iranians would love it, the North Koreans would love it… and what’s worse… the French would love it, the US would sigh (but secretly love it), the Germans would laugh out loud and love it and so on. Sometimes, doing the right thing for humanity only works if the rest of humanity agrees to do the same… but it doesn’t.

          • Afraid so. I returned a few years back at a long stint overseas considering leaving again. There’s very little understanding amongst large parts of the UK population about the wider world. Most get spoon fed their binary view of the world via their chosen media outlets, groups or forums.

          • MURICA FUCK YEAH.

            YOU KNOW WE KICKED YOUR ASSES IN 1812 AND WHERE THE NATION THAT ABOLISHED SLAVERY ACROSS THE WORLD! U-S-A. U-S-A.
            OH AND DEMOCRACY IS GREAT BECAUSE WE INVENTED IT!
            everyone else: *faceplam*

          • don’t you think that’s true of any nation’s population? I do. Where media is privately owned and run that will always be the case. Brits travel in considerable numbers – its up to them to research their sources

          • Hmm government owned news outlets can be a whole lot worse imo there’s no silver bullet. People just don’t bother researching. Brits do travel but Spain or other resort holidays etc is hardly likely to broaden people’s view of the world.

          • I’m coming back from Russia where the spoon feeding is to another level lol That said, there are enough people that see through it that gives me some hope for humanity.

            I do think the lack of understanding is maybe an international thing, not just inherent to the UK.

            Has the UK become so politically correct that anything a person says is pounced on?

            As much as the UK may have changed, possibly for the worse, it will be better than here in most ways.

            Rule Britannia!!

          • We’re so PC now I personally think free speech in the UK no longer exists. People would rather keep quiet than be labelled if they say something that another doesn’t like.

          • Well then i’m screwed as I refuse not to be honest about things… one of the reasons I ‘must’ leave Russia lol

          • Likewise. Say it as it is. It is your right and they usually back down, like a bully, when one stands their ground.

        • … and mocking the task force for touring the Pacific when it claimed our major trading partners are in Europe. The nativity of that statement is simply crass, in not understanding, or perhaps just wantonly ignoring the fact that a major conflict in that part of the Pacific would effectively and indefinitely remove in one move most of the tech or its core ingredients from all that we need to actually carry out trade or business effectively with anyone in the 21st C seemed to elude them. Pains me to see a once great paper sink into little more than the left wing version of the Daily Mail at times in its lack of objectivity..

          • Yes it’s true! Labour has a position of Shadow Minister of Disarmament, in the HoC! I hope for God, No one shadow’s him/her!

          • Have I been on a six month bender and lost all memory? No, it’s not April the first. Okay I’ll search for it.

            And there it is: Shadow Minister for Peace and Disarmament. Fabian Hamilton.

            I wonder if he knows the words to Kumbaya. Current geopolitics doesn’t sit too well with swords into ploughshares.

    • Indeed Daniele, a very encouraging announcement Indeed, it came as somewhat of a surprise to me!

      So, I would think the only real option is a Virginia Class derivative, numbers wise, a minimum of 6 and an ideal of 12, possibly 9??

      Certainly a fleet of 12 Virginia class, with 8 operational at any one time, would be an exceptionally capable ‘big stick’ of Australian foreign policy!

      The Australians can leverage in on US training and perhaps a couple of boats on loan to get an early capability.

      They would be capable of inflicting enormous damage to a potential adversary, if an unthinkable shooting war kicked off in the Pacific / Indian Ocean theater.

      I would imagine we will see co- basing of US Virginia class boats, (perhaps with the odd Astute on occasion) to create a powerful and visible deterrence to potential Chinese aggressive behaviour.

      • The Australian defence budget has just been increased to @£25b. This figure reflects the high value of the $A. Anything made in Australia is very expensive.
        The costs of the submarine contract with France are reported to have risen to $US60b, this partly as a result of localising production.
        I do not see how Australia can build a fleet of 12 nuclear boats at a price it can afford.
        It would be more economical and quicker to buy complete vessels.
        Given production constraints, these would most likely be built in USA.

          • Don’t see why it’s embarrassing for the U.K. Each country tailors the type and strength of its military forces according to its own unique requirements…
            Should Austria be embarrassed because it doesn’t have aircraft carriers? Of course not.

        • The hilarious irony missed by many, including Australia’s current policy makers and their nationalist lobbyists is that a massive percentage of its GDP is derived from export trade with China.
          Australia is selling China the very resources it needs to build and grow the military it now claims they have to defend themselves against?

    • I learned of this from a twitter post complaining about “floating Chernobyl’s”
      Of course, technically submarines don’t float.

    • Powered. Not weapons.
      All the leaders were keen to emphasise that point as so many wouldnt know the difference from an SSN and SSBN. They just hear nuclear and think bomb.
      Not saying that’s you BTW.

        • Well technically it would be possible to launch nuclear tipped cruise missiles I guess. They may even like other navies SSNs be built with vertical launch tubes for a range of missiles too to launch so not potentially out of the question in the future to be nuclear tipped in some form esp if mouth pieces like the Global Times keeps up threatening them with destruction if they don’t become China’s lapdog. Politically acceptable though, who knows.

          • Conventional or hyper-velocity BMs capable of hitting the 3 gorges dam would be plenty dissuasion, without the need to go nuclear. There are 400mio Chinese living downstream …

    • Yes Im surprise at that as well. The current plan is for 12 Diesel Electric based on a French design, so adding some SSNs will be interesting. No news on this over here however.

      • I don’t think there adding, but cancelling the French contract. Probably why Biden was commenting on relationship with France in his part of the announcement.

        • Just been watching the news over here. Stating they have cancelled the $90billion French deal for the 12 Diesel Electric Subs. No word on how many Subs would be required, where they would be built, or who by.

      • The SSNs are in place of the the new diesel boats. Australian press reporting that AUS Defence Minister has been to see Macron to cancel the deal.

          • The main issue is that the Australians want the boats to be built in Australia when they have very little current experience and infrastructure in this field. I feel the French probably said “yeah we can set that up for you, easy”, and it’s obviously turned out to be more complicated and costly, for what are rather mediocre boats for Pacific conditions. Setting up SSN production will be 3x more difficult. If they are prepared to order major components and sub-assemblies from the US and UK then fine, they might get their subs in 3-5 years. If they want to build most of them in Oz, and are talking about doing most of the work in Oz then this is going to talk 10 years plus. On the surface, positive news, but I hope they are realistic about how long this is going to take and how long the Collins Class may have to soldier on.

          • Good Morning, Finney. Maybe not so much.
            Reading Norman Friedman’s ‘British Submarines in the Cold War’, who’s insights are always fascinating. Extent to which we lost our design expertise and skill base, and the naive political and commercial assumptions that followed, explains a lot over how Astute took so long to constitute. Led us to go sort of cap in hand to the US for professional advice.
            With US, and now UK to an extent, nurturing Australia it’s entirely feasible to my mind.

          • Yes Australia does not have a specialist steel maker like Sheffield Forgemasters that can make reactor vessels with a press.

          • I have to say I coincidentally watched a vid of those proposed boats only yesterday and they do look poor so if looks do mean anything a British or US sub will certainly be a better bet. Interestingly the sonar side panels on those boats were going to be supplied by Britain which tends to support the often heard contention that we are at the forefront of submarine sonar technology.

          • Yes the French have claimed it’s due to Aus.changes to the design (sounds familiar) and the level of locally sourced content but apparently the Aus leadership have been asking for Britain and the US to supply a nuclear alternative since at least March. Fact is the Pacific needs those sort of subs to be really effective against a level 1 power and you just know the Chinese will start pushing Aus boundaries as they already do with Japan and even the US on Hawaii so this will be a great deterrent in the way that diesel boats just can’t be. Indeed if they get the best of US and British tech and experience then they will get some awesome subs. But how many who knows won’t be cheap but will be a serious deterrent for years to come so worth every cent I suspect.

          • The Australian management of the French project was shocking, and the Internal project managment from Naval was chaotic with constant uturns and incidences of paris ignoring previously agreed project plans. Probably fair to say that the project was also struggling to fullfil its local content obligations. Australian intent is for SSN project to be Adelaide based.

          • The French always change the parameters. I can well imagine the French said no problem you can build them in Oz and then changed what was agreed half-way through…reminds me of the French involvement in the Eurofighter. Never trust the French to keep their word on industrial projects. Glad the Aussies are going with the US and UK as they won’t regret the decision. Maybe the first three boats might be done with a work share between the US and UK but we can hold their hands through the process so they develop the capability. I’m laughing very hard at the French now as the UK has collaborated with the Aussies on the Type 26 and hopefully the new Aussie SSN – probably a variant of the Asute class in my opinion.

      • The Australian Collins class were diesel boats based on the French Barracuda nuclear design however the contractor have reportedly had a lot of trouble fitting a diesel power plant in place of the more compact nuclear and haven’t been able to solve the weight issue.

        • I’m surprised the French did not try to switch to nuclear if it’d what the Australians now want. AIP would been a huge mistake as it just doesn’t have the speed and endurance to patrol the south China Sea from Australia. It works well in the med and baltic where subs patrol territorial waters.

        • The Collins class are the current in service vessels that were to be replaced by the French boats…but yes…multiple problems technically and politically

  4. Australia get nuclear boats is really big news indeed and it makes complete sense, electric boats in the Pacific is always going to be sub optimal. This is really the Australians giving notice that they are not just sticking to their own bit of the Pacific. I wonder how long it will be before they have carrier based f35s.

    • Very good move by the Australians, replacing the deisel electric boats with long duration SSNs will move their defensive line much further north in the Pacific. I doubt a carrier based task force is needed with those SSNs putting any potential Chinese move south at serious risk, especially with the shared positional intel via the 5 Eyes network.

      • Exactly it saves big potential money on those other options which would be much more of a requirement if they only had diesel boats. But also much more vulnerable too.

    • Indeed. As part of the tech transfer I wonder if they’ll get someone like BAe to heat treat the Canberra’s so they can take the F-35? (Unless that’s already happened and I missed it…)

    • The knowledge pool agreement is already joint US-UK between Electric Boat, Bath, BAE, GE and Rolls Royce. EB actually improved the build process for the astute by changing it dramatically. The agreement adds Australia. Which contractor down there is remotely qualified to handle this, I have no idea.

      From Boris’s speech it sounds like it will be an all new design, developed jointly between the US and UK.

      • BAE Systems Australia with ASC, builders of the Collins Class submarines.

        Already doing this with BAE Systems building the Hunter Class Frigate (a variant of the UK Global Combat Ship + US AEGIS combat system) having already merged in ASC Shipbuilding.

      • Gave a lot of info on their new more compact reactor design to RR too I believe, though that I think is for the Dreadnaughts. One of the reasons the Astutes have that rear bustle is the fact the reactor is based on the previous design for the bigger deterrent boats. Lots of power but can’t quite exploit it I believe as a result.

        • It does indeed have more reactor power than it can output through its screws as the reactor was designed for a much larger ballistic missile submarine. The plus side is it extended the refuel time such that they only had to be refilled once rather than every decade, even before the concept of submarine reactors that are never refilled during their lifetime came along.

    • The Australians want the domestic submarine build to be a domestic industrial/technological development program (and at $90bn Au so would you) and the contractor was required to build up the Australian industrial and shipyard capability so that they could all be built in Australia (I think at most they were allowed is to ship partial hull sections to Australia for completion for the first couple of boats). The US however rarely let go of their advanced technology other than sonar/targeting systems so Australia will likely have to rely more on the UK if they want to keep the domestic side. Though its likely to carry US weapons as the French design already was intended to use US weapons and targeting computers.

      • I realise why they do it, but it always leaves a sour taste when the US don’t share with their closest allies. It definitely leaves me thinking that the UK should be prepared to go it alone if necessary and should most certainly maintain and grow it’s defence industry.

        • The US shares its most sensitive tech (SSBN, Trident, Tier 1 F-35) with the UK, but thats it. Who else do you really propose they share with?

          • I agree though I think this agreement brings Aus somewhat more into that magic circle by all accounts and very sensibly as it occupies the southern flank.

      • I’m not sure. The tech on the Astutes (for today, not sure about in 10-15 years) seems to advanced to just let go. Astutes are ~£1.5bn so australia could definitely afford 6 including ToT. If it was going to have most of the tech on the astutes they would likely just licence-build them. Since they’re not, it seems they might be going for a different approach, perhaps more U.K.-US tech combined.

      • I doubt either the UK or the US would have the space capacity in the near future to build boats for Australia. We’re finishing Astute’s and starting Dreadnoughts while the US will be starting soon on their next generation SSBNs. Plus politically they’d have to be built in Australia, just as RN ships are built in the U.K.

        Given the U.K. is going to have to start thinking about what succeeds Astute, it would be interesting if a common design of SSN could be developed to serve Australia, the U.K., and even possibly the US’s requirements…

        • I think that is where this is going: a common boat. Both the UKUS navies are viewing a new boat and an Aus boat would acr as a percursor.

          • That would be very late for the Australians. US is still busy building Virginias, and we are still building Astutes. If we start building SSNR by 2035, they will at best come in to service by the early 2040s and realistically 2045. That’s a decade later than the Aussies wanted Shortfin. And anyway, Australia doesn’t need a boat the size that the U.K. and USA have.

          • Well given the amount of BAE in straya and a transitioning of workforce from Astute to Dreadnoughts, my premise was whether Straya could begin the initial design workups thus giving Barrow a leg up when it came to building future SSNs; as 1SL said yesterday, there are only 6 SSNs in situ at the moment and it is not nearly enough…

            I’m hopeful 🙂

          • Exactly my thoughts. Surely the work done to date on Attack could be ported back into the parent nuclear design relatively easily, if the Aussies are intent on having their US combat system. If nuclear is what they wanted, why not work with their existing partner? ASC is already well on its way to being refitted to build Attack, and Barracuda is not so different that they probably could build it there without much rework. This seems like a pretty straight up FU to the French, frankly.

        • That’s my thoughts keeps our toe in the water on the design of attack subs and awareness of manufacturing technologies used. We get apply lessons learnt to our next attack sub.

    • I would imagine the hull was primarily based on the Astute as thats more advanced than the Virginia but likely would have a US reactor probably built in the US as a complete module and shipped for installation due to the advanced alloys and welding techniques required for it. Australians have also shown a preference for US weapons over British, rest of boat probably primarily British with British yards setting up Australian yards to assemble and fit out them and possibly British hull steel being supplied as well. Britain would also likely want to share the Australian homebase to support its own subs when operating in the south pacific as well.

      • hi watcherzero share your faith that astute is the best and our silent service is top class, but suspect aussie may go for American option, they are the superpower. can uk provide a permanent astute presence in the pacific

  6. “We’re working with Congress to make sure that we have that authority to invest in Australia and the U.K.,” Jesse Salazar, the Pentagon’s deputy assistant secretary for industrial policy, said at an event at George Mason University on Wednesday.”

    Sounds like the U.K. will be involved in the build. It’s likely all refueling will have to take place in the US or UK.

    • Not so much nonsense, if the will is there, it can and will happen. But it will certainly be a good few years before the first boat is actually rolled out! Look at the UK Astute build times, boat 5 is in the water but yet to go on sea trials and meantime the RN is struggling on with old T boats.

      • Yes, but there was a reason why build rate slowed significantly between hull 3 and 4.
        The first 3 boats were built to the same configuration, and experience gained from this has resulted in some required changes to be built into hull 4 onwards. It’s not a simple process changing designs on these things. It takes time, hence the slow down, hulls 6 and 7 will be built more quickly.

        • The overall build time for 7 boats is very lengthy. Astute was badly delayed by one problem after another, and Audacious went down the same road, albeit the first of the 4 ‘improved’ boats. When you consider what it’s taken to get this far, Australia is unlikely to see its first boat this side of 2030

          • You are correct that the overall build time is slow for the 7 boats, but that was part due to HMGs decision to slow the build rate down post T class. We lost a lot of experienced people from Barrow, skills that take years to acquire. A lot of help from the US eventually got us on track, hence the big delay with Astute herself.
            Australia will need to start from scratch, lots of money and time required for that, so, I imagine that 2030 is not a unrealistic time frame to get its first boat.

          • Another reason was robbing peter to pay paul with items taken from in build to in service boats, to keep the latter operational…

          • I think the idea of this initiative is that Australia avoids these problems previously encountered on U.K. and US builds by the sharing of experience and technology. So for example, they’ll most probably from the start build them in vertical sections as EB advised BAE to do, which resulted in faster construction of later Astute’s.

  8. Surely Astute would be perfect for them. Nice size, very capable and tried and tested. Would probably be on station well before any French boat would have been.

  9. Jacinda lies in bed with China.
    Biden is a senile lunatic.
    Australia is dictatorship, no longer a democratic nation.

    Yet we have to work with this lot … terrifying.

    • Australia a dictatorship? Seriously?

      What rock have you just crawled out from under?

      I’m Australian and that is a load of crap you wanker.

      • “Australia a dictatorship? Seriously?”

        It is certainly a Totalitarian Democracy. One of countries with less freedom to live on.

          • I see you don’t understand either concepts of Democracy and of Totalitarianism.

            Democracy is just the wining of vote by majority.
            Majorities can vote to burn the witches, vote you can only dress with a burka, vote to forbid you to build an internal combustion engine, vote to put a yellow tag in your chest etc etc…

            The control that the Government have over people lives regardless if it was by vote or by coup is what defines if it is Totalitarian or not.

          • You clearly don’t understand totalitarianism, or democracy. According to you, if a government does anything you don’t agree with, then it’s totalitarian… by any chance did you have temper tantrums as a child when you couldn’t get your own way?…
            Democracy still operates within the rule of law and cannot administrator justice: cf separation of powers.

            As for the your examples, no democracy has ordered citizens to wear yellow badges, wear a burka, or burn witches. 🤦‍♂️

            As for banning the ICE… Well an elected democratic government’s first duty is to protect its citizens.
            I assume you’re equally upset on the government banning asbestos, lead in paint, smoking inside public-buildings, flammable cladding, the introduction of seat-belts, the requirement of car drivers to pass a test, etc. All equally freedom restricting ‘totalitarian’ measures 😂

          • “Democracy still operates within the rule of law and cannot administrator justice: cf separation of powers.”

            This phrase tells me you don’t understand the concept of Democracy and Totalitarianism.

            I specifically said that the decision was taken by vote when why called it Totalitarian Democracy, it implies voting by definition, but it is telling you choose to ignore it and posted the above.
            Voting means laws.
            Laws are authorization for state to wage violence on behalf of majority. The more laws you have the more violence can the state make on behalf of majority.

            You are so closed in your epoch cultural time that you don’t see the dangers of a Democracy that tries to control everything: that means being Totalitarian. From Total.

            “As for banning the ICE… Well an elected democratic government’s first duty is to protect its citizens.”
            Sure, now you want a camera in each of Australian to check if they are violating any law, rule etc.
            Tell me do you think every Australian women above 50 with history of cancer in family should be forced to cut their breast do to high risk of mamary cancer?

          • So basically, you don’t believe in wars, states, or basically human civilisation. Well you’re free to return to a hunter-gather existence living in caves or trees, all alone. There’s no laws against that and it’s the only way you’ll be happy.

            But before you to your hole in the ground, I’d point out that laws do not equate to violence. If anything laws prevent violence and in most civilised countries, particularly here in the U.K., we observe laws by consent of the public. That’s why we have a small unarmed police force, unlike totalitarian regimes like North Korea or Cuba that have huge well-armed security forces to intimidate the public into obedience.

            No I didn’t say even person should have a camera monitoring them, how on earth did you jump from internal combustion engines to that?!! 😂

            And no, Australian women aren’t being forced to have operations to prevent cancer. If they have the gene that makes them susceptible to breast cancer then they should though. I’ve lost enough people to breast cancer that I wish we had a screening service in the U.K. far sooner.

            Do tell me what childhood traumas made you such a ranting human-hating individual? I suggest your psychiatrist increase you med dosage otherwise I suspect we’ll next hear of you perpetrating one of those lone gunman rampages…

          • Welcome to the Troll bashing club. They’re easy to spot. Commonly have very few posts to their name of any substance and vanish after their “drive by shooting”

          • Daniele, mate, I’m used to dealing with trolls and wankers, no biggie.

            But they’ve been out in force today on the various Defence websites such as here UKDJ, The WarZone, Defence Talk, etc.

            There’s been one particular French guy on TWZ who’s butt hurt today, real butt hurt, very funny.

            Anyway, been an amazing almost 24hrs here in Oz, last night I received a news notification that the PM was doing an early morning press conference in Canberra.

            Then a bit later, a bit more news dribbled out, something about the French Attack class, then really late there were reports of a joint press conference by our PM at 7am, your PM and the US President regarding SSNs for the RAN.

            It’s also been amazing that this has been kept under wraps for so long without a leak, the PM at a midday conference let it be known that this plan has been bubbling away for many months going back to early this year.

            Cheers,

          • I don’t look at any of those, this is enough for me. I also follow UKAFC and Gabriel’s blog but that does not have such a comment section or daily updates.

            The Anglosphere should stick together, above all.

            Regards.

          • “The Anglosphere should stick together, above all.”

            Haha, when Winston statues barely survive and the supporters of the major Anglosphere hate him, you have only a pretence.
            At present there is more freedom in Continental Europe than in England where even a priest reading the bible is taken by police.

          • That the woke brigade and PC is strong in many countries does not change the desire and natural inclination for anglosphere nations to stick together. That means the UK instinctively feels more at home with the Commonwealth and English speaking nations that continental Europe who’s priority is France/Germany over everything.

            “supporters of the major Anglosphere hate him,”

            That is not proper English, so no idea what you are getting at. There are woke PC elements. And? There are many MORE supporters of Winston and our traditions, they are the silent majority and put up with the crap. For now.

            As far as I’m concerned France especially has still got a chip sizzling on its shoulder that the anglosphere nations were needed to liberate it 77 years ago.

            That said, the Soviet Union were the overwhelming reason Germany was defeated and the EU now exists.

            So sizzle away.

          • Well said Daniele,

            There’s certainly a strong element of French embarrassment regarding the US/ UK liberation.

            Something they have never ‘quite’ managed to come to grips with.

            I think the French aren’t really sure regarding their world position anymore, they have this odd juxtaposition of being a nuclear world power and a proud independent ‘ish’ nation.

            On the other hand, they are shackled to the EU and under ‘considerable’ German influence by natural extension.

            I get the district feeling that the EU’s wish to really jump start a significant military wing, is in effect an effort to really take some control of the French military machine. After all, France has by far the most important military capability in the EU.

            I think France sees the UK / Australian / US alliance forming and genuinely fears its world position fading over the next 20 years.

            I do hope we can resolve this, France is an important partner nation to all three of us, but they have to understand that the UK leaving the EU is starting to alter the long established order of things.

            They need to get used to it….

    • 😂
      Well the Kiwis have fallen under the spell of the wicked witch Jacinda. She has locked them in to ‘protect’ them from covid. They need to read up on Little Red Riding Hood.
      Well for the US it was either a senile unifying president or a barbarian. The well balanced people of America have made a sane choice, just.
      Australia does seem to be stabilising. They don’t seem to be changing Prime Ministers every 6 months. That’s got to be progress. But they do need to read up on King Canute. You can’t beat the covid tide. Get wet and learn to swim: vaccinate!

      • Well said Paul…

        Australia and New Zealand thought Covid would take a similar trajectory to Spanish flu and burn out after three years.

        It doesn’t seem to be doing that, so you can’t just man the barricades!

        You have to mass vaccinate and learn to live with it, until Covid eventually becomes just anothe flu type bug

  10. It will all end in tears. It is actually quite ridiculous, the submarines will at least take 15-20 years to be operational.

    Instead the breaking with France in this manner will have a giant cost.

    • “…breaking with France will have…a giant cost.”
      Reported to be $400 million AUD.
      I’m Aus see this as both good and bad. Electric boats offer unique and ‘silent’ abilities that differ to nuc and the idea of a war and a nuc boat sunk leaking rad’ at the bottom of the sea is seriously ugly. But we need the most powerful we can get to hold our own so can see the reasoning too.
      They just finished a detailed design review on the Attack class porgramme here to decide if they wanted to continue, makes me wonder what they found in that.
      PM says want’s to build nuc’s in Adelaide [same as Attack] but need as soon as possible, and I do love the look of your Astutes, wanta trade mates?

      • You have lots of coastline and vast distances to cover, nuclear boats can leap 500nm in a 24 HR period, DE SMs can’t get anywhere near that.
        DE boats are v quiet, less big noisy moving parts, but lack speed/persistence. It’s horses for courses between the two types.
        In an ideal world AUS navy would have both, SSNs fwd deployed with global reach, and SSKs for area denial/security closer to your shores.

    • Are you a Francophile or something? Why focus on the france aspect of this…? Australia has not been satisfied with Naval group for a while now and I doubt they would have achieved anything operational any time soon. It would have issues, and NG’s excuse would be because “the Ministry of Defence tampered too much and made edits along the way”. We’ve heard that before 😂 the SSNs will at least be able to confidently operate in the SCS and adjacent regions against China.

      • Australia will not be satisfied with anyone if uses same ballpark it did with French.
        Australia have no knowledge depth to build conventional submarines but insisting in high internal input assured the project was going no where.
        With nuclear submarines it is even worse.
        It was Australia that refused that the French nuclear submarines in first place, Since the class is adaptation of a SSN.

        “Reported to be $400 million AUD”

        You don’t get it. NATO is at risk.

          • I’ve seen that little gem bandied about on Reddit too. Rather amusing that AUKUS is meant to be some final death knell, the last nail in the coffin for NATO.
            Meanwhile France, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands are all looking towards the Indo-Pacific and signing agreements with various nations.

    • Well said Alex. I can’t believe that Biden and Johnson are not aware of the seismic diplomatic consequences of this move. It is astonishing that they went ahead and publicly trashed France, a major ally.
      If Biden wants Australia to step up and share more of the burden of containing China in the Pacific then militarily it could have been done by upgrading the sub order to French Barracuda nuclear subs. The sleighting of the French seems deliberate and sends a message that the US feels it cannot rely on France in its dealings with China. France will always put France first just as the US will always put America first. Clearly the strategy is to ‘fence in’ China in the same way we have sought to fence in Russia. Well that worked didn’t it?
      Following Brexit we are no longer a ‘vassal state’ of the EU but Macron is right when he says we are now a vassal state of the US. Well as my grandmother used to say you have made your bed so now you have to lie in it. Enjoy the hormones with your beef. On the plus side the UK gets more hi-tech jobs.
      I see France pushing forwards with the EU army. Perhaps that was also in Biden’s mind; to get Europe to do more to defend itself. Fat chance of that since Germany is burning Russian gas and looks likely to elect a socialist Chancellor.
      Can we have another 150 Challenger 3s please ….

  12. Great news, though a bit of a kick in the goollies for France. I’d like to see us getting those 12 diesel subs, but that won’t happen. I hope we’ll all show firmer support for Taiwan too. United with Japan, S Korea & others in the region we can guard freedom & domocracy in east Asia & Australasia.

  13. Perhaps the sub announcement is about a joint build which we can all acquire; maybe even a single virtual fleet.
    Does Aus need something as gold-plated as an Astute?
    Could the RN use a cheaper/less complex vessel (as well as Astute)?

    Given the UK’s problems with build capacity and fleet size, a cheaper sub, jointly built, might give the the RN the chance of expanding in the medium term without breaking the bank.

    • So sort of like the type 31 to the type 26 then? Maybe we could piggyback off the Australian order and get a few boats out of this. Like we did with the Chinooks and the US. “For testing new equipment” or smth 😂

    • In the SM world, cheap SMs usually means an SSK. Nuclear submarines aren’t cheap, economies of scale will bring the price down,dependent on how many the Australians decide to buy! You either commit to Nuclear boats or you go for SSKs. It appears that Aus are committing to SSNs.
      On a 1 for 3 basis, which is what we loosely work to, I would hazard a guess and say Australia will probably need 9-12 boats(at least 20 yrs work), as they have a huge area to cover.
      There is no spare capacity in any of the US/UK/FR yards, so any SSNs for Aus will be built in Australia.

    • Whatever the final decision on design and building, I wonder how much input British defence industries will actually have. BAE Australia may undoubtedly be involved in building but we can expect that the White House and US Congress will be lobbying for the bulk of the contracts to be awarded to American defense contractors.

  15. I’m a bit confused. Aren’t Australia committed to conventionally powered French subs? Is this extra spending?

    I remember when the US stopped us (the UK) helping Canada get nuclear powered subs. Our 1950s UK/US agreement gives the US a veto, so adding the US to this announcement is great news.

    • No. The French project is now history😂. The Aussie PM also announced a life extention program for the Collins class ( don’t know the details).

      Admittedly I’m very surprised at the announcement as what sub class could be built in an acceptable time frame. The best at moment are Astute and Virginia but they are very large and will be superceeded by new designs which are being developed now I gather. Also domestic Australian politics may change all this…….

  16. Seeing as the UK still has every nuclear sub that has been decommissioned awaiting dismantling, I think AUS would benefit if a Trafalgar class or two was transferred to them so they can become accustomed to operating nuclear vessels. I also imagine it would benefit their industrial base to have working nuclear subs, could be wrong on that though

    • Not a very good idea at all. The two remaining T boats are 30+ yrs old, the technology is over 40 yo! A much better bet is to have some of their navy come over to both the UK and US and join our SM crews to start gaining experience on the power plants. It will be at least 8-10 yrs before the AUS navy gets its first SSN built, so plenty of time for personnel to gain valuable experience.

      • I agree. Trying to operate a decommissioned Trafalgar will not only be very risky, but it will not be very fruitful; Astute is light years away from Trafalgar.

      • You say that, just finished Hunter Killer and the point was made that our COs and XOs are ‘bred’ to lead, the Americans focus on nuclear engineering ability before promotion.

        Wonder what ethos the Aussies will adopt.

        • TBF, our COs and XOs aren’t without nuclear engineering knowledge either, just not to the extent the US are.
          We use specialists if you like that focus on their trades ie Warfare, Marine engineering or Weapon engineering. It’s a system that has served us well and works. I’m sure the US approach works for them too.
          Horses for courses I would assume WRT the Australians.

      • Yeah, that is definitely the more sensible approach. Just wasn’t sure of the condition of the two remaining Trafalgar’s that are listed in active service and if it would be a workable solution to get a working SSN in Aussie hands faster

      • “It will be at least 8-10 yrs before the AUS navy gets its first SSN built…”

        It could be sooner, if some sections are to be built in the UK or US, e.g. reactor vessel.

  17. One red flag for the Australians is manning with many leaving for the mining industry… now, aiui the UK could not supply many but could the Americans? And just as in ‘Hunter Killer’ saw American XOs in Brit boats and vice versa, could that be expanded?

    However, once more I see an opening for T26 entering the US navy.

  18. This should be fun.

    The costs (financial and political) of trying to set up a nuclear industry in AUS will dwarf the Barracuda class costs, when all is said and done. AUS complained about (mostly self inflicted) delays for the current deal – what do they think the delays on this new idea will be? Theyll be starting with a 18 month period just to study the problem.

    UKs current Brexit problems will pale compared to what they might get with a furious France on the other side of the channel tunnel. And if I remember correctly, UK is sourcing quite a few components for its sub fleet from France. Oy.

    As for AUS – I think they can say goodbye to the planned EU trade deal.

    But Sky News will be happy,I guess.

      • NASA still sources engines from Russia despite the climate… I don’t think france withholding any parts required for astute is really a threat.

        • Russia really needs to obtain foreign currency by selling arms and similar stuff to anyone who can pay – even a China that then copies the newest models.
          FRA likes to export weapons – but isnt nearly in the same desperate position. The EUR buys plenty of stuff.

          But I agree that it wouldnt be the first thing to do. Much easier to simply tripple the wait time for lorries to and from the UK by being a bit more thorough on the controls, and have some customs officers happen to be ill at the same time …

    • They’re an ally not a rival so good luck to them. They also don’t have carriers or nuclear missiles so not like for like. I’m just happy they’ve dumped the French which strangely they were having issues dealing with….hard to believe I know😂.

      • The Type 26 number is irrelevant since that will be their only escort except for 2 destroyers, for a total of eleven. We will have 24 escorts (and probably more considering where the world is going). However, it is not acceptable that the Royal Navy will have fewer boats than Australia. If Australia can afford 8, we should be able to afford 15 according to economies of scale. This isn’t even to mention that the Astutes cost £1.5bn each while the Aussies were prepared to spend 50/12=4.2bn usd per boat. So that means we should have actually had around 40 Astutes :/

  20. Of all the options available to Australia this to me sounds very risky, much like the original choice for the Attack Class Boats. Surely the most obvious and cheapest solution would be to stick with the French Suffren Class (Nuclear) as is and get them into service much quicker.

    • Yes on face of it you would think so but I think Australian Govt has been far from impressed with the French builders (they were put on notice some time ago to up their game in relation to local content and forward work program and no doubt other issues/friction has occurred behind the scenes) so the client has walked. I also think that Australia would rather be wedded to US/UK nuclear reactor tech than France (who they don’t have a particularly in depth relationship with compared to US/UK).

  21. Intresting developments down under. I bet the French and Chinese are going bonkers.
    Here is a thought, the Uk will in the next few years start the planning process for the Astute replacement. I suspect it will be based on the Dreadnought class. I just wonder if it makes sense to have a design that is suitable for the RN and RAN. that should cut down on development cost and build cost if we could combine some of the technology such as the reactor. It is my opinion that with the RAN joining the SSN club possibily the USN,RN and RAN could pull resources and build the next SSN class as a joint effort. If we could do that it would mean a reduction in cost, for the bow and aft sections with a midship mission module, say for SBS/SEAL, cruise missiles, mines, etc.

    No matter how you see this, this is a major capability increase by the Assuies and the RAN.

  22. I’m happy to see us gaining closer relationships with our commonwealth partners however, given recent events I’m hesitant about gaining any closer defense ties with America and would be incredibly hesitant to work with them on the geopolitical stage. Unfortunately they have undoubtedly let us down and I think we need to make it clearer that this can not happen again in the future.

  23. It’s going to be interesting to see how / if this turns out. With no native experience in building SSNs, the idea of taking bits from UK and bits from US seems to me to be less than optimal, as it will result in a completely new designed sub, which means first in series costs and issues. Australia seems to have a pretty solid defence procurement strategy but can they really afford to switch from a proven design offered by France to a entirely new one based on a hybrid of US and UK tech? Time will tell when actual details come out, instead of just the current polictical statements.

    • Calling the French design proven is a bit rich… it’s obviously ran into a lot of issues. In fact, it turned out just as dumb an idea as it sounded. Building electric subs from a nuclear design was never going to be as simple as just removing the reactor. Especially in Australia, where there is not very much experience with this sort of thing.

          • “The French boat was already problematic, over-budget and delayed.”

            Most of that due to Australian choices and wanting more they can chew.

            What most of you don’t get is that Scorpène was to start a submarine building industry in Australia

            “Minchin, a South Australian, believes the decision was driven by politics and delayed the delivery of the submarines. He says the Abbott government’s decision to no longer subsidise the car industry was a significant factor in the Turnbull government deciding to build all 12 submarines in Adelaide.
            “That just increased the pressure on the federal Coalition government to come up with a submarine replacement program which maximised the amount of work in Adelaide,” says Minchin, who adds that the cost of sustaining a shipbuilding industry significantly dwarfs any support that the car industry received.”

            Put this quote in Google and it will got to a smh article of this disaster.

          • There is already a submarine buiding industry in Australia, and has been for many years. ASC has already built the Collins class in Adelaide.

  24. Possibly four, as with Collins.
    Realistically, would just leave Canada to debate the merits, but viewed as part of North America in the whole, perhaps AIP is still the way for them complementarily – but six in that case?

  25. Very interesting news. It certainly puts a boundary marker down for China. Also a landmark decision for Australia who in their vulnerability have chosen traditional allies and a quantum step up in naval technology. Slap in the face for France but I always thought putting a conventional power plant into a existing nuclear design sounded like the naval equivalent of Nimrod wings.
    As soon as HMS Glasgow hits the water I look forward to the US cancelling the USN plan for the Aquitaine class in favour of T26 😂

  26. I hope the Australians pick an existing USN or RN design. If they build a weird Australia only hybrid of US/UK designs, they risk build & cost problems.

  29. Allo Allo France retaliates as they normally do by ensuring M and S have to Ckose 11 of its stores in France after losing Submarine contract to Anglo Allience I vill say this only vunce

    • Russia just remembered France about their cancellation of Mistral class due to American and Western pressure…

      You can be sure next time the French will answer very differently.

      Plus, maybe some nice banking financing support would be there for French weapons that Argentinians want…

      • And everyone knows Putin has a long reach even though he denies it the next 2 operatives will probably just say that their visiting Paris as it has a tower taller than Salisbury Cathedral

      • France could lease Rafael’s fitted with Exocet to Argentina (which would never happen) and they’d still get shot out of the sky before getting anywhere near to the Falklands.

        Mount Pleasant alone is a very different place than it was 40 years ago.

        That’s before we even decide to try and reinforce it.

        Argentina militarily are a complete non-entity and no amount of French financial support would change that to the point that the Falklands would be in contention.

  30. Just done some reading up on the Attack class the costs for the entire program is(was) estimated to be A$89.7 billion that’s about $65 billion US. The estimated build costs for each boat was between A$1.4 and A$3 Billion about $1.0 and $2.20 billion US. Virginia’s build cost is $2.8 Billion without VPM, $3.4 Billion with. Astute is about $2.3 Billion currently.

  33. I’ve been doing some thinking on what the RAN might need as an SSN, and what can the two partner countries bring to the table.

    So lets start with need, I do not think the RAN don’t want cruise missiles but a pure hunter killer with SBS ability. The area where they would operate is deep, very deep so it would need to be a deep diving sub. The range would need to be long, yes I know they are nucs so endurance which is food supply needs to be large, say for 90-110 days. Crewing would need to be as small as possible as well Australia does not have a huge amount of manpower so say 80-100 crew members. The next issue is nuc refueling it would be better is the reacotor does not need refuling for 30 years. I would recommend 5 tubes, 2 for large torpedeos (21 inch), two for small torpedoes (16 inch) and a multi mission tube for mine laying, Underwater ROVs and a two man SBS delivery system. Then aft of the fin a two tube multi lunch VLS, the first for SBS the second for missiles be that cruise, quad packed anti air, or anti ship. Yes I know about cruise but it gives the option if wanted or needed. As I understand the BAE Virinia Multi Module is interchangable from a SBS sytem to a multi tube lunching system so it would give the RAN flexiblility.

    So what you are getting is a RN concept for power plant a Swedish section for tubes and a US section for multi mission.

    Now you are getting a sub, the command and control deck would or could be a combination of US/UK sensors the build overall in Australia.

    The US and UK subs are some of the best if not the best in the world but the designs are old. The possible UK Astute replacement is possibly further advanced than the US Virgina replacement.

    So what does this mean well a sub about 8,000 tons, from the UK we have the Astute, the US Virgina. However the UK in the next few years will be looking at a new SSN replacement for the Astutes the US is later in the design phase as they are buliding the new Virgina Block Vs.

    So lets look at the Dreadnought, cut her down by removing the Trident tubes, install two possibly three BAE VLS multi mission tubes and install a multi mission tube forward for ROVs etc. Depending on the Aus build plan a possible 16 sub production design line could be set up with a 8+8 build being set up. Eight to be built in the UK and 8 in Aus for both the RN and RAN.

    So now comes the real question, can Aus build a SSN, I’m not even sure if Australia has nuclear power engineers, so I would think the after section (power) would be built in the US or UK and shipped to Aus for connetion to the fore section.

    So if Aus builds the SSN along these lines then they will have a capabile hunter killier with an anti air, anti land and sneaky ability that can keep quite dive deep and go into harms way. Good luck to the Aussies and the RAN in this endeavour, welcome to the club.

    • I suspect the Australians will replace their 6x SSK with 6x SSN. I doubt their budget will allow for more, unless they cut something else.

    • Just a few thoughts to add to your thinking on what the RAN might need.
      Astute is a pure hunter killer as you put it, with the ability to launch TLAM and SF troops. The US Virginia class is a SSGN with the ability to land SF, and has VL tubes for tLAM.
      SMs operate in a wide range of water depths, their deep diving depth isn’t governed by the depth of water where they are operating! SMs generally spend most of their lives operating at depths of less then 200m. There is little to be gained by going deeper, unless you are evading a torpedo.
      UK SMs usually carry 90 days of food when they go on patrol (+ a% for emergency).
      They generally sail with a core crew of around 100 , it’s the minimum they need to operate the SM safely and deal with any emergencies (DC&FF), so 80 isn’t enough by a long chalk.
      Astutes have 6 tubes why would you want less and smaller ones. The 21 inch tubes fire HWT, TLAM and can launch mines. If you have a smaller diameter store, you fit a sleeve/liner to reduce the tube width. If we had one we could fire a AShM via the tubes, we had sub harpoon until the early 2000s. Why would you want them to have AAM capabilities, it’s not what they are designed for!!!
      Astute has a swimmer delivery system that can be fitted, which takes big bits of SF kit
      The UK won’t be getting any new SSNs until the late 30’s, so no joint anything for at least 15 years.
      UK SSNs are broadly divided into 4 parts, from front to back, the RC is part 3 with the engine room as part 4. The RC (part 3) probably requires the most outside help for the RAN as does fuelling it!!
      The Astutes are already highly capable hunter killers that tick all the boxes the RAN require, it’s just how/where to build and support them that is the issue.
      Happy thinking Ron, hope this helps.

  34. Headline on BBC News today _ ” US and UK face global backlash over Australia defence deal”.
    In the article, China and France are mentioned, that’s it, nobody else.
    The only surprise is that the BBC hasn’t accused the deal of being bad for climate change and gender equality.

  36. So if Australia chooses the Astute design but with a couple VPM tubes, what effect would that have on the cost of the RN’s boats and would it potentially allow for boats 8&9 if the cost came down enough or would the RN be better “evolving” the RAN Astute design to build them as their own Astute B2 so to speak?

  37. What I will say is I used to be a remainder but seeing how the EU reacted , even trying to stop UK film ,drama influences , and letting the Russian gas line go through , I can only trust the anglo alliance at the moment ,because it seems to me the EU has lost the plot , I’m sure the Russians are loving the divide and we must be carful though not to give them the satisfaction.

  38. OK The Federal Gov, was having a review of this program signed in 2016 $50 billion bid to build 12 extremely large submarines.
     It is understood the study will look at the long-range conventional powered submarine that Swedish shipbuilder Saab Kockums has offered the Dutch navy. It can trace its lineage back to the original Collins submarines built for Australia.

    based on producing 3000 Australian jobs but the cost had risen to $90bn

    The government is reluctant to go to the extreme step of tearing up the contract with Naval Group because it would have effectively wasted $1.7 billion and five years on the project…

    5 years and no steel cut, i would sack the French to.

    • To be fair to the French, the Australians specified Diesel Electric powered boats, but wanted them SSN-sized pretty much- which is a huge challenge. The French were only trying to do what was being asked of them.
      I’m not saying that the French were innocent in everything, but I do think this was handled most poorly by the Australians. If they suddenly decided that they needed nukes to counter China, then they could easily have asked Naval Group to look at that- they make them and they do a good job. To not give any notice at all is really poor commercial behaviour.

      • Agree. The Aussies love to point the finger at the French, but take no responsibility for the poor way they have managed this program. It was a matter of scope creep from day one, and the French simply could not keep pace with all the changes.

  39. Highlight of this is seeing the French well and truly stuffed over what they thought must have been the rip off deal of the century, 90billion for 12 diesel subs mean my goodness the back handers from that in the industry would have been immense.

    Other than cancelling the gala dinner in celebration of the alliance with the USA I just saw on the news that they have recalled ambassadors for the US and Australia as the request of Macron.

    Well at least the free trade deal with Oz has already increased the economic relations by the 0.02% they quoted.

  40. I wonder how much, if at all, this will affect future French-British cooperation on defence projects, ie FC/ASW?

    • In the long run, I doubt it.
      Their rhetoric has been pretty drastic, but I don’t think it will amount to much practically; They need us in Mali and the Sahel, and we work pretty closely alongside their navy too. As far as FC/ASW, I think that will go ahead; the French/Italian/UK MBDA interaction on comlex weapons (guided missiles) has been really quite a success story and is one of the areas where we can be competitive with the US. I don’t see them throwing that away because the top dogs don’t get along.

  41. The experience with construction of the Collins class probably made the Australian government very cautious about the programme for their replacement. It seems that they have done nothing more than walk away as permitted under the terms of the contract.
    If the main reason for cancellation was a decision to go nuclear, it isn’t clear why the Barracuda couldn’t deliver that, especially as the fitting of diesel engines to a hull designed for nuclear propulsion is reported as a major cause of delay and cost rises.
    Was this even discussed with France?
    There are reports from Australian sources that the initially high promised level of local content kept falling. It’s hard to see how a nuclear option is going to avoid a large non local content.
    Australia has had difficulty providing crews for all 6 Collins class with boats laid up for extended periods. Providing crews for 8 larger boats with rather bigger crews looks challenging.
    My guess is that they will buy no more than 6.
    The Virginia class is being built at a rate of 2 per year,, with construction times falling from 8 to 5.5 years. There appears to be no spare capacity. Nor is there at Barrow. So an off-the-shelf purchase of either would seem unlikely. If so, these boats won’t be in service until the late 2030s.
    Not really something that China needs to get upset about.

  42. We need AUKUS 🇸🇧….our democracy need subs to operate within regional waters, because asian money laundry flooding in destabilize little Island nation political democracy….nuk subs or not, we need AUKUS presence in Democratic Monarchy Realm.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here