The new Australian submarine, currently called “SSN-AUKUS”, will be based upon the United Kingdom’s next-generation SSN design while incorporating cutting-edge U.S. submarine technologies.
The submarines will be constructed in Australia, drawing upon the United Kingdom’s advanced SSN design currently in development, and integrating state-of-the-art submarine technologies from the United States.
This joint endeavour will enhance Australia’s undersea capabilities by providing longer range and endurance, advanced sensor and communication systems, and enhanced stealth features. The initiative aims to foster regional stability and security and counter potential threats in the Indo-Pacific region.
The submarine type will be the future attack submarine for both Australia and the United Kingdom, with both nations aiming to commence the construction of SSN-AUKUS in their respective domestic shipyards by the end of this decade.
The United Kingdom plans to deliver its first SSN-AUKUS to the Royal Navy in the late 2030s. Australia has set its sights on delivering the first domestically constructed SSN-AUKUS to the Royal Australian Navy in the early 2040s.
But, before that…
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.
Rolls Royce has also been confirmed to build the reactors for Australia in the UK.
US has done well out of this upto 5 boats and sale of tech and systems for the UK and Aussie boats.
US sale of tech and systems for RN boats as well as RAN? Hadn’t read about that possibility previously. 🤔
There is no mention of it. I don’t believe it’s the case.
It appears so from the following: [https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/press-briefings/2023/03/13/background-press-call-by-senior-administration-officials-on-the-aukus-announcement/] page2: “Australia’s long term submarine will be a state-of-the-art platform that uses the best of U.S., UK, and Australian technologies. It will be known as SSN AUKUS. SSN AUKUS will be based on the United Kingdom design for its next-generation nuclear-powered attack submarine, and it will incorporate critical cutting-edge Virginia-class technologies from the United States. SSN AUKUS will be built and deployed by both Australia and the UK. The United Kingdom intends to deliver its first SSN AUKUS domestically in the late 2030s. Australia intends to deliver the first SSN AUKUS built in… Read more »
My read?
All will get US VLS systems.
UK Boats will get UK Sonars and command systems.
US and AUS will get US Sonar and command systems.
Agree. Each Navy could be enabled to specify the number of VLS tubes required to correspond w/ varying operational doctrines, in a manner analogous to the difference in load-out between Columbia and Dreadnought classes? 🤔 In other words, to be able to specify a design between a boat which is principally an attack craft w a secondary deep strike capability, or the converse?
Mention was made by Rishi Sunak I think of common communications systems.
These dates seems very late. Shouldn’t it be more early-mid 2030s for the UK and mid-late 2030s for AU? It’s only 2023!
I believe we are reading it wrong, US CMS and weapons will be for AUS boats, UK will produce their own CMS and weapons. UK/US may well collaborate on certain items, but not all.
Just my view on things.
Agree. Interesting conundrum– rationalizing designs to accommodate common systems may provide an opportunity for better technology insertion/integration and economy of scale production; alternatively, common systems will inevitably result in breaking defense contractors’ rice bowls, unless creative licensing prevails. 🤔😳
Actually not certain that cooperative relationships could not develop (or be compelled to develop) between contractors. Presumably GE and RR have some level of interaction currently, possibly refereed by RN/USN.
RR was given access to the US reactor design to create PWR3. Its an RR design based on the US reactor. However PWR3 is already done and will power all the SSN -AUKUS boats as well.
Electric boat share some design capability with BAE when they were building Astute although I believe it was more use of EB computing and design systems than actual designers.
UK shared work on anacoic tiles and pump jets before. It does seem that cooperation will be more enhanced now.
Yes, agree that that should be the best way forward. Some form of collaboration wrt weapons, systems and sensors would be massively beneficial and cost effective for all. Can see the various contractors suffering heart attacks over such a policy as we speak!!😂
US VLS for all subs…anything else will be a pick and mix for sonar and command systems
Yes tend to agree with that, UK stuff for us, US stuff for AUS, and VPM fitted to all.
Would be hugely beneficial to all concerned if we could get some form of agreement on integration issues that seem to cost vast amounts wrt weapons. Perhaps some form of work-share where no single user dictates to the others!!
Don’t think so. If this actually ever happens (I have my doubts), the boats will be largely common to both nations, with the Australian boats having a different C2 (Lockheed based) system and equipped for Mk48 ADCAP torpedoes, while the UK boats will have a BAE C2 and Spearfish torpedoes (or their derivatives). They will have different countermeasure systems and also probably different sonar systems. Periscopes and other sensors might be different as well. The big question is whether the RAAN will insist on a VLS compartment for Tomahawk and whether the RN might go with this as well, or… Read more »
I think VLS will be a must both for flexibility and the simple fact that by the time they operate there is no guarantee that effective torpedo launched weapons will be available, especially over the course of the boat’s service life.
I think you’re right
Quite, makes no sense to spend more money to differentiate the design and end up with a less flexible boat. VLS makes much more sense at this stage.
The Torpedo tube lunched missiles will be phased out by the US so the new sub will have VLS probably bought from the US. I think the last US sub to have horizontally latched tomahawks is the Seawolf class.
Tomahawks will be long gone by 2040s. Would assume RN would / could get sub version of new ashm / land attack FCASW missile in similar manner to how MBDA developed sub launch versions of SCALP for France although I can imagine US Inc putting up integration blockers if they supply the VLS.
Well AUKUS also covers hypersonics and if they share a common US VLS module I guess they’ll put in a USN hypersonic land attack missile in them as well. They’ll have to get round ITAR and Congress approvals but we must assume that will get sorted out by then. What freaks me out is who’s going to pay for all this. UK economy in permanent decline and Australia’s defence budget has limits to how far it can grow. Not so defence inflation!
Scary analytics. The forecast spend by Australia on this equates to @$1.3million AUD per head of population…. about $30k per person PA over 30 years! …
There’s already a degree of commonality between USN and RN boats. e.g. the missile compartment for the next generation SSBNs, and (I think) parts of the optronic masts that replaced periscopes in the latest designs.
And will do a lot better. I don’t believe this will work in the end as announced. Once the RAAN is set up with Virginia class boats, they’ll stick with them and just buy more. They’ll renege on the SSN(R) deal with UK as too complex and expensive, not to mention a logistics nightmare. This announcement looks good on paper and has good political optics, but the US will pick up all the business at the end of the day. I also don’t trust a UK government to keep to schedule with a new submarine programme (nor BAE Systems).
It’s not about jobs it’s about giving Australia the weapons it needs to defend itself and if they decide later down the road building SSN is to big a job then that’s fine. The US won’t be giving them any more than a handful though.
Indeed it will be tough getting the 3 to 5 through Congress as it is certainly with the unknown of a Republican President very possible. Equally if they simply stuck with Virginias they would only be delaying a choice of new submarine as they will be a very old design by the time they would otherwise be getting the AUKUS boats and we don’t know if the boats they get will be new or old ones. The appeal of the UK design to Australia over the Virginia class (and likely any new replacement) is that they will likely, as the… Read more »
Its obviously a possibility, but, I dont believe that that will be the case.
The time line for SSN(R) ISD matches the AUS requirement better than an old design such as Virginia class or indeed its replacement SSN(X) which wont build until late 2040.
I also believe that the 3-5 Virginia class boats going to AUS are a stop gap until SSN(R) is up and running. These boats (not new build) will then be returned to the US as the RAN build up their SSN fleet with UK assistance and whatever the collaborative weapons/sensor fit is.
Australia has picked the right time to join the U.K sub replacement. Australia wants to build the subs and it’s BAE that have the Aussie shipyard.
I don’t think the Virginias are planned to be returned to the US. Their PM discussed disposal of the nuclear subs in Australia and talked about disposal waiting to 2050. That can’t be the Aukus class as it wouldn’t be ready for disposal by 2050.
Hi Jon, depends on what you read and how you interpret said info I would think. We are supplying AUS with the reactor modules, so no fabrication in AUS, not sure how they would dispose of the Virginia cores if not by returning them to the States, as there would be a big chunk of the required infrastructure missing if they don’t have the capabilities to build in the first place. My read is that the Virginia’s will be replaced by AUS built SSN(R) boats on a one for one basis, eventually building 8. Thus allowing AUS to return Virginia’s… Read more »
We’ll have a change in government in 2 years so I’m inclined to agree. It’s not unknown for political parties to undo work off the previous government.
I do wonder if this will result in a cross pollination of ideas between the Royal Navy’s Cetus and Australia’s Ghost Shark underwater UAVs
I hope so, I’m hoping we can get MQ28 Ghostbat as well and two Canberra class LHD built at H&W.
One can dream 😀
Did anyone notice when Strix was announced by Bae Australia the following: ‘The STRIX VMS already guides platforms, including the M113 for the Australian Army’s autonomous systems program and MQ-28 Ghost Bat drone…’. The as reported VMS is provided by Bae and one presumes comes out of the work on Taranis, Magma etc though they have worked in the US on the Skyborg program too so don’t know what/if the overlap is in all this wide ranging autonomy work. But it’s the first I have heard that their system is in the Ghost Bat when Boeing has its own autonomy… Read more »
It sounds like the VMS is pretty flexible.
I think Strix VTOL would be better than the Banshees for Project Vampire — at least it can land. I’m not sure if a sit-up-and-beg design is scaleable, so I think we are still looking for a Vixen candidate.
A UK design was the only real option for Australian domestic build. BAE is already on the ground in Australia and General Dynamics can’t spell technology transfer much less set up a ship building facility in a foreign country. Both the UK and Australia has very similar needs as well. Primarily a Anti ship and ASW focused vessel able to carry out intelligence missions with as small a crew as possible as opposed to something optimised for land attack.
Hopefully with a shared design and more importantly a shared order book it will drive down the individual price of the boats, hopefully allowing us to order more than like for like.
Their is talk of the UK doubling its SSN fleet. T26 build cost seemed to dive down from a reported £1 billion to the £700 million range following T26 exports. However much if the design cost for PWR and SSN(R) has already been done via successor program. Expanding reactor building in the UK won’t be cheap if RR now needs to build 24 PWR 3 4 for Dreadnaught, 12 for UK SSN and 8 for Australian SSN. The Aussies are certainly talking of dishing the cash though. The Guardian is claiming through life costs of $300 billion for AUKUS subs… Read more »
I’ll eat my hat if the UK/AUS orders 20 between them! At a stretch 8 each but I can’t really even see that happening
Agree. I’ll eat my hat if this happens at all beyond Australia getting a whole bunch of Virginia class boats!
Unless there are very big changes the US won’t be able to provide a whole bunch of Virginias for Australia, they aren’t really practical long term designs for Australia and doing so would go against the whole aspiration of Australia to become as self sufficient as possible in its defence requirements which makes the expenditure worth while to them and for good reason.
Oh god you really do live up to your name don’t you! Definitely a glass half empty guy
It’s actually 23 total to be ordered from reports. UK ordering 15 and Australia 8.
I read the notion of 15 RN SSNs with extreme interest. Admittedly our SSN fleet is a key capability we in the UK have over Sino-Ruskie axis of evil. Neither country has the technological know how yet to deliver anything approaching an astute class. The SSN fleet therefore is where we have a technological edge that potentially is war winning. China did however steal from Naval group designs of the French Barracuda class, contributing to the Australians decision to cancel their shortfin Barracuda SSK design and leading too AUKUS. Don’t be surprised if the PLAN starts fielding SSNs in the… Read more »
Believe the originally stated Australian requirement is for 8 boats in total? Therefore, SSN AUKUS production will be between 3 to 5 boats? 🤔
Wasn’t the highest previous cost estimate generated by Oz ~$171Bn (Australian)? Uncertain whether that was production or through-life cost estimate. Damn, inflation is a bitch!
The way I’m reading it, the Virginia’s seem to be a bridging solution that gets the Aussies some nuke boats about a decade earlier than SSN AUKUS can deliver. So they probably buy Block 1 and/or early Block 2 Virginia’s and run them through to their de-commissioning date, i.e. the oldest of the USN Virginia boats. These then get replaced with 8 SSN AUKUS.
Whats the operating life span of a Virginia?
Reactor life is reportedly 33 years. I was just working with a nominal 30 year life in order to define the Block 1/2 as candidates.
Id guess they arent going to be taking new build boats then otherwise they are finding themselves with 2 classes of the same equipment in service.
Operating systems will be same or very similar so it does make sense to get in to a boat asap to train and work with but how long they remain in service after other boats start getting delivered is questionable.
Actually if you think about it navies will always be operating with two classes of boat, that’s what the UK has been and is doing with Trafalgar- and Astute-class. There might be brief period of a single class e.g. Astute, before the next class SSN AUKUS starts coming into RN service while the Astutes then gradually leave service. But I agree new Virginia’s aren’t making much sense to me as that would take Oz through to 2060+ unless they return them before end of life to USN. However I should correct my earlier estimate of Block 1/2 versions. Oz is… Read more »
Huh…an interesting interpretation. Have to admit that variation had not occurred to me. Presume that, eventually, most aspects of the program will become more obvious.
Exactly the period the Collins will be retired. I don’t see any likelihood that Virginias and the new boats will operate long term in the same fleet, it will be a gradual replacement I suspect. It would be very tough indeed to get new or nearly new Virginias through Congress but older ones would be far less of a hard sale esp if they make a profit from their sale.
yes, that makes sense!
I believe the idea will be to eventually replace the Virginias with SSN-AUKUS so they will get their 8 boats.
My take is slightly different, believe that the 3-5 Virginias are a ‘stop gap’ until AUS ready to assemble their own SSN’s with help from both partners. Believe that AUS will eventually build 8 SSN(R) variants and return ‘borrowed’ Virginia’s to USN as their SSN’s come on stream. UK currently scheduled to buy 8 SSN(R) to replace Astute’s, but can see that increasing to 10-12, as this collaboration drives down costs. Time will of course tell. Would be nice if our cousins (CAN) also got involved in a similar fashion to this, would considerably ease the burden on the US… Read more »
Current estimates from Oz are not only lifetime, they include infrastructure, training and all sorts of extras in the programme.
If the T26 units costs have dropped why don’t we get more of them rather then more OPVs I mean T32s…
Spot on.
On the face of this it is quite simply the most important positive announcement regarding U.K hi tech engineering in my lifetime. If done properly it secures the entire U.K. nuclear submarine supply chain and may well help us to be able to afford more SSN in future. You just need to look at the effect the Tri-National T26 has had on the cost base to see how that may work. I do however have one question and someone needs to ask it ! What is the future for U.K heavy torpedoes and weapon handling equipment ? My heart says… Read more »
My only worry is by using US systems we will be at the whim of the US government and military companies. If we want to change something or integrate another weapon or system we will have to rely on them wanting to and they might refuse, drag there feet or be such a low priority in there minds it takes for ever to do. Similar to how we are struggling to get uk systems and weapons integrated into the f35 as its just a low priority to Lockheed due to the small numbers we have ordered.
The US systems will be (at a guess) the VLS and associated gubins. And seeing how the RN have relied on the CMC for dreadnought and vanguard I can’t see it being an issue
Naval systems are very different to F35, much less complicated. The submarine can only fire two weapons from one location for a strat. The F35 has dozens integrated most of which need to use the aircraft onboard sensors as well.
Integration of new weapons in F35 is not a political US decision it’s a Lockheed Martin commercial decision.
But the UK wont be using US combat information systems.
Hi mate, we are in the premier League for torpedo design, we will use our own weapons and CMS. Torpedo tubes are just that, a 533mm tube. WHS in the bomb shop is largely irrelevant as to who makes it. It just moves weapons up-down, left – right and into the tube, that’s it. Believe the only US tec our boats will have is US VLM to hold VL weapons (7missiles per module),we may see some US built ones, but believe we will prioritize FC/ASM we are developing with the French. Most of the US tec will go into AUS… Read more »
Sorry, SMR?
Read that US is already contemplating a next generation heavy torpedo. No reason to believe that BAE could not be looped into some industrial consortium. Depending upon future developments w/in Pillar 2 of AUKUS (hypersonics), there could be a role for UK PLC in VLS munitions, etc. Contention was always that this program would sprinkle sufficient gold dust into the air to captivate the attention of ALL relevant contractors. 😳😉
SMR= Small Modular Raector
It’s an British government sponsored Rolls Royce program to build civilian nuclear reactors with an output of 400Mw built in factories.
Thank you Jim you saved me the job.
and its a no-brainer!
,👍
‘Small Modular Reactor’, RR is at the forefront of this technology but unlike Johnson, Sunak has been a little less obviously committed to this technology. Awaiting an announcement from Govt on its commitment, as GE Hitachi has a contract to build one in Canada and without support from UK Govt prospective export deals for RR would potentially be threatened, for example to the Czech Republic.
Jim beat me to it. RR builds all our Nuclear Submarine reactors here in Derby (800 yards from my home). SMR is an idea to get away from massive, hugely expensive, bespoke civilian reactors and replace them with much smaller and cheaper ones. The reactors would be built in a factory and shipped out to the power station, after 20 years they are replaced by a new one and returned for refurb / refuelling. You could have 4 or 6 in a Power station and always have 3 or 5 online, with one being swapped out. It is a very… Read more »
Many carrots equals happy bunny. RR were knocking on the government’s door in January asking for an order of at least 4 SMRs, but the man from del Monte, he said no. The excuse as I heard it was that the Treasury wouldn’t approve it until they have regulatory approval, which is about a year away. Considering that HMG wasted £2bn at Wylfa on prep work and are looking for £20bn to get Sizewell C under way, allowing RR to move ahead with a letter of intent and another £250m to play with so they don’t stop work, would have… Read more »
If this deal does allow for a larger submarine fleet in the future then at what point could it be economically viable to build a second construction site outside of Barrow? It sounds as if the site is now working (or will be) at full capacity.
Is it working at capacity or capacity with the current workforce level? TheTrafalgar class were 4 years from keel laid to commissioning, Astute’s are 11 years. If the workforce increases, could the time taken for the SSR reduce from the Astute, even if not as low as the Trafalgar?
Exactly Astute were almost twice as long to build as the Virginia class and surely much of this was to spread out the build (hope so anyway) so with more boats to build hopefully that time can be much reduced especially as they will surely have much in common with the Dreadnought class.
What may be more cost efficient is to build modules in other locations such as CL and HW and ship to barrow for final assembly. This is what the US is doing to ramp up production.
Much easier to get a fabrication yard to build modules just like we do for surface ships.
There are about 10 yards in the UK that can build modules. H&W was previously doing steel work on Astute class from Belfast.
It’s obviously more complicated to do submarine sections but I’m sure it can be done. US yards routinely swap Virginia blocks.
So AUKUS is proving to be an excellent move on the part of all parties concerned…
yet another initiative to thank Boris for?🤔😉🍿
And which the Labour Party membership voted against.
I worry what is round the corner.
That’s a motion at conference though that did not pass the NEC. Means nothing. Tory’s don’t pass any motions at conference now as most are too old to even speak 😀
Even a broken watch is right twice a day 😀
And yet the likes of Corbyn, Lammy, Abbot, are incapable of even that 🤷🏻♂️
Does the Shadow Foreign Secretary still believe that hundreds died at Grenfell and that the London Fire Brigade and Met Police are covering it up?… 🤦🏻♂️
Has Diana Abbot worked out which shoe goes on which foot yet? And if so, do they now match? 😆
Its 100% speculation, but Canada is starting to think about how to replace its 30 year old Victoria/Upholder class SSK’s. The country has seriously considered buying SSN’s in the past, I wounder if there is any chance of AUKUS becoming CAUKUS? https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/aukus-national-defence-britain-australia-1.6777498
Next Conservative Canadian government, almost assuredly. Would royally annoy the scum-sucking, slimeball ChiComs! Can’t wait to watch the show! 😂 Both Canadians and Kiwis (under the right government )may wish to participate in Pillar 2 activities (hypersonics/anti-hypersonics, quantum computing, AI, cyber warfare, undersea C2ISR, etc.). Probably would restrict participation to smaller ticket items, at first. Then, of course, the Europeans/NATO will eventually come to the table, probably claiming some form of discrimination if they are excluded. Not certain about the reliability of the Turks and Hungarians (or the French and Germans), but presume some form of information sharing could be… Read more »
SSN AUKUS would be an amazing fit for Canada especially as they have to operate under the ice. The US won’t allow them to have it at the moment as they have a nasty dispute over the North West passage which the US wants designated an international water way and Canada sees as territorial water.
But I do see Canada being a natural fit for the 4th member of AUKUS once Trudeau is gone.
I don’t think the North West passage dispute would prevent Canada join CAUKUS and obtaining some SSNr. Canada have a requirement for at least 6 SSNs possibly more upto maybe a top figure of 10. Agree though it would be great for Canadian defence capabilities and NATO inter operability and it’s worth doing just to massively piss off Russia and China.
Come on Canada get in on the programme.
Does anyone remember why the US said no to Canada getting British nuclear subs the last time?
That’s interesting, I hadn’t realised they had.
1980s if memory serves. I just looked it up. Canada class subs. From Wikipedia:
Geez it has already been speculated about FRAUKUS and JAUKUS now it’s CAUKUS which in my mind does seem the most obvious and probably only hasn’t happened already by Canada’s less hostile attitude to Chinese telecom tech. And of course it’s already part of 5 EYES. Would make a lot of sense for them to join in esp as you say the Submarine deal. Watch this space I say in the latter.
I know that we are well past the era of churning out Liberty ships and Spitfires daily but the times from project initiation to commissioning are so long these days that some of us(self included) will most likely be pushing up daisies by then! A lot can happen in the 15 to 20 year period being bandied about! The Chinese seem to be able to produce the goods in a fraction of this time!
I think the clue is in the time frames, unless on a war footing if China is knocking out ‘cutting edge’ equipment in a fraction of the time then what they are building in reality its not actually anywhere near as capable.
But I do agree the time frames are beyond extensive, when factoring in 3 countries it gets a bit more complicated, Aus needs/wants equipment now, UK needs to wait for a new design and US is not looking like its making a new design anytime soon.
All in all whats been agreed seems a very sensible workable solution.
By the the time Australia gets its first boat Chinas economy is projected to be twice the size of the US economy 🤔 And China already has more warships than that of the US , plus it’s almost developing them at thrice the speed of the US. China is a rising power working on 6G already while the west struggles to get 5G. They developed hypersonic missiles too. The era where the west did beat China on qualitative edge very soon will be fully over Let’s be frank, the west is a declining power a Shadow almost of itself after… Read more »
Numbers arent everything as Russia is very cleverly demonstrating on the ground at the moment. Yes China is building quickly but whats the capability of what it is building? Until they enter a shooting match no one knows. They are ‘developing’ hypersonic missiles, ive got more chance of winning the lottery this weekend than China firing a fully hypersonic missile and it hitting a target smaller than Taiwan. How is the west struggling with 5g? Its working fine on my phone right now and cant recall last time it wasnt. As China’s economy is expected to grow between 4-5% this… Read more »
Lucky for you, my local town has 3 (nothing else) around town center i live 2 miles away and can’t get it!! the next nearest 5G is either 15 or 30 miles away, hell 4g only give under a mb if i run spreedtest on it :-(, so yeh 5G might be good in LONDON Manchester etc but outside of that the UK Mobile service is crap, the 99% coverage is a joke, phone says 4g but it doesn’t even open google search.
Indeed it’s not quite so clear cut. We have to remember that it is a US op any Qualcomm that controls nearly all 5g broadband chip design even if China leads in 5g infrastructure presently so it’s far more nuanced. In any conflict there would be a whole load of technology that China doesn’t presently have unfettered access to, complex chip fab FinFet machinery being another which even Taiwan has to buy in, so there are economic implications for them too. The Chinese economy is not as stable as many suppose which is why they have been forced to ditch… Read more »
You are working on the assumption that the Chinese economy will exponentially keep growing. People believed this about the Japanese economy in the 1980s, that the Japanese would overtake the US, but that didn’t happen. It’s incredible hard to maintain constant growth. China will face huge challenges in the coming years with population decline and a rapidly aging population. This was predicted to happen in ten years time but it’s actually happening now.
Don’t believe the hype, 6G is just built onto 5G and 5G is being rolled out in the same way 4G was to keep the cost down. In China with its difficult terrain they are struggling to roll out 5G except in their major cities especially the higher frequency part. Most of the work on 5G and 6G is being done in the west but China insists on a different standard to protect its markets and insists on local production, this is why it grows its economy.
Just my thoughts 😉
“By the the time Australia gets its first boat Chinas economy is projected to be twice the size of the US economy”
Whoever made that projection hasn’t seen China’s population pyramid..
Or their debt to GDP ratio after massive internal expenditure trying to turn China into a developed first world nation in 50 years timeframe. This massive infrastructure and construction boom easily surpasses their GDP growth. So much so that many economists think China is an economical bubble that will burst if there is any disruption to their exports based businesses. Disruption such as Western nation’s no longer purchasing goods from China or Russia-like wide ranging and crippling sanctions if they were to invade Taiwan.
Or disruption such as a Zero-Covid policy.
Your theme is generally correct however let’s not forget 3 to 4 centuries ago and indeed for much since the Ottoman Empire was at the gates of Vienna, they controlled much of Eastern Europe through occupation or intimidation, the Barbary pirates had a base on Lundy not to mention in North Africa directing slavery raids, not to mention the appalling events of the 20th Century that was a whisker away from wiping out western democracy altogether so it’s not quite as black and white as you paint it. However you raise the big risk this is the great problem of… Read more »
At most China can knock out one SSN a year at present. The US can do 2 and we can do one every two years. Ours are way more advanced. No doubt they can catch up and can build more but SSN’s are like battleships of old rather than liberty ships and even back in the day they took a minimum 5 or 6 years to build.
Thanks for your comment James. I am man down at present. Chat later
Navy Lookout has a good in-depth article on this, which is a good addition to George’s informative post. See: https://www.navylookout.com/australia-to-join-royal-navy-ssnr-submarine-programme/
What is the production rate of subs in the UK???
Could the UK build another production run so increase this?
Building one sub every 3/4 years isn’t too fast. If there is talk of 15 then you would be wanted a sub every 2 ish years. Then that would allow production all the time with a life expectancy of 30 years
If the funding was there & the need urgent then we could build much quicker. With China breathing down everyone’s necks & throwing desperate tantrums every time anyone has the temerity to stand up to them & speak the truth, the Aussies should be able to turn out SSNs a lot quicker than we do. Our glacial construction rates are down to myopic leadership & stingy funding decisions. The purchase of 3 US Virginias will help bridge the time it takes to set up SSN construction in Aus & time for them to get proficient.
I wonder where the US is going to get 3 ‘spare’ Virginias in that time-frame, given that the USN is already complaining about available numbers, and the shipyards are at capacity trying to meet their requirements.
They have such a backlog of maintenance that they announced yesterday that the much needed finance into those yards was going ahead incl.USD1billion now from the Aussies.
They may have 3 less boats in 10 years time when they are transferred but then will have more at sea and 7 new build
The USN have a fleet of 55 SSN’s and I wonder how many are deployed /active and how many tied up due to maintenance issues?
I can’t help but think that there is a playing down for diplomatic reasons of the dangers of China. I think in reality there will be real pressure to get these new boats built and at sea as a matter of urgency. Therefore the possibility of a new building facility at BAE UK will get a lot of backing and push from HMG There will still be a real problem of finding the right ship yard workers and many new ones will have to trained up. Lets just hope sufficient up front money is put up for both BAE and… Read more »
I think you are right. As an Aussie, the Australian government has never spent much on defence. But the last year or two something has changed (or maybe the government know something they don’t want to tell the public) because they are spending up big on defence and looking to increase the size of the defence force.