The United Kingdom has a new prime minister. This means that since AUKUS – a technology sharing partnership between the UK, the United States (US) and Australia – was announced in September last year, there will have been a change of leadership in both the UK and Australia.
This might invite speculation as to whether the agreement is sustainable and will survive multiple administrations.
This article was submitted by Patrick Triglavcanin, Research Assistant at the Council on Geostrategy, and is the opinion of the author and not necessarily that of the UK Defence Journal. If you would like to submit your own article on this topic or any other, please see our submission guidelines.
To compound potential speculation about the agreement’s validity, US Rear Admiral Scott Pappano recently emphasised the overstretched nature of American shipyards, and the doubtfulness of their current ability to aid Australia in building nuclear powered submarines (something Australia cannot do alone). Indeed, the AUKUS agreement is centred around improving Australia’s submarine capabilities but it can be assumed that the UK or US will not do this at the expense of their own fleets.
Obstacles can be overcome
These obstacles, however, are merely that, and ones that can be overcome. The meeting on 31st August between Boris Johnson, Ben Wallace and Richard Marles, the Australian defence minister and deputy prime minister, at the commissioning of HMS Anson underscores this.
First, it demonstrates the Australian Labor Party’s support for AUKUS and determination to move the agreement forward. The new government may find itself in a bind over its non-proliferation policy in the future (which is stiffer than the previous government’s), however, it seems increasing geopolitical tensions are taking precedence in this matter for the time being. The Labor Party’s support for AUKUS is further highlighted by their upholding of the previous government’s commitment to build a new submarine base on Australia’s east coast as a logistical installation for the new nuclear-powered submarines. Australia is clearly preparing for a more tumultuous future where Indo-Pacific security is under increased strain.
Secondly, it led to a concrete advancement in equipping Australia with nuclear-powered submarines. At the meeting, it was agreed that Royal Australian Navy submariners will join the British crew on HMS Anson (in all areas) to train. This is significant. Her Majesty’s Government has never allowed foreign submariners access to the nuclear technology of their submarines. As stated before, this is a capability alien to the Royal Australian Navy – there is a lot of logistical and industrial work needed before Australia can acquire and operate this much-vaunted capability, but this training provides a good starting point.
The effectiveness of British deterrence is enhanced here as a result. Having British, American and Australian submariners on one another’s vessels means that an adversary, should it attack, must prepare to go to war with not one AUKUS member but two, and possibly all three.
A submarine with the best bits from three nations
These two points lead to a further observation: the lengths the UK, US and Australia can go in actualising this partnership. AUKUS is built around trust and will rely on it if it is to be successful. When it exists, unprecedented ground can be overcome.
Lastly, it addresses some of the speculation about where Australia’s nuclear-powered submarines will come from. Wallace said that the best situation would be for the construction of a submarine that has “a bit of all three of us on it”. The nuclear-powered submarines Australia acquires through AUKUS may, in the end, be an entirely different class of their own produced and even operated collaboratively, providing ample opportunities for British manufacturing and know-how in this sector. This seems like the most reasonable option right now, albeit with all the hurdles it entails.
Addressing international criticism of the proliferation risks of the partnership will continue to be a problem for the three. As will AUKUS’ exclusive nature. The rapprochement in ties between Australia and France (which were derailed due to Australia’s cancellation of a lucrative French submarine contract in favour of the AUKUS partnership) is a positive development toward this end.
There is still a long way to go, but the wheels of the AUKUS technology-sharing partnership are turning.
I don’t see the change in UK leadership having any issue. The UK would love to sell them Astute however I get the distinct impression the Aussies are blinded by Virginia. The Aussies would be mental to try going it alone on a third style design but if they are I would imagine the UK would be the best place for the design. Getting a US contractor to do anything will add billions and the US has close to zero experience in working in foreign yards on naval production where as BAE is already building advanced warships in country. The… Read more »
We can’t sell them Astute since the nuclear reactor factory is being redone for the next generation.
I’d see it more a joint or overlapping post-Astute.
Yes although there was a proposal back in the day for an Astute running on PWR3.
https://thinkdefence.wordpress.com/2013/10/09/astute-batch-2-austerity-class/
“A new military pact involving the UK, US and Australia “undermines world peace” and should be opposed, Labour members have declared”
The view of the Labour Party membership I believe. While the Parliamentary Labour Party above says it supports it. Hmmmm, very predictable that they would say that in my view.
Depends what changes of leadership going forward happen beyond the next GE.
It’s pretty much a non issue in the Labour Party although there are always a few on the fringe. If we are taking comments from the fringe as being party policy I can claim the Tory’s are all for genociding the Scots and locking up single mothers. Does not make it true though.
Agreed. I hope you’re right regards it as a non issue.
The point to me though is that Tory party membership majority view, I don’t think, endorses any of those extreme views regards Scots and single mothers?
Labour membership majority voted for the resolution at conference as voting against AUKUS. In step with Young Labour tweeting against NATO.
What lies beneath the supposed acceptable face of Sir Kier Starmer is what concerns me.
To be honest the party memberships are always a bit on the not appropriate edges of politics ( the very nature of joining a party means your probably a bit radical or reactionary,unless your a member of the Libdems). Personally I’m not keen on the modern move for parties to allow memberships so much control of who leads the parliamentary parties, I personally believe that any person standing for elected high office ( PMs, leaders of political parties etc) should go through an open primary process. Especially the leaders of the political parties who may become Prime minister. The fact… Read more »
Fair comment J, as always. Fancy going into politics leading HM opposition?!
DM,
Sorry to take you down a potential rabbit hole, but curious about the third UK political party, the Liberal (Democrats?). Strong defense policy? Economic policy? Social policy? Never seem to be mentioned. Extinct?
Wish there was a viable third option in US which would occupy the middle ground; chosing some from Column A and others from Column B is depressingly reminiscent of childhood multiple choice exams.
… choosing…🙄
It’s probably the closest party to your Democratic Party ideologically , they have very few if any real stances on defence or other core government issues although they have often been seen as anti nuclear and the only time they have been in government which as a coalition in 2010 with the conservatives they did propose a number of reductions to our trident system however in the end they were out of government by the time the decisions were actually made. They tend to be more focused on constitutional issues like proportional representation and federalism.
No, not extinct, far from it. Much smaller. FPTP ( First Past The Post ) seems set up to favour the big two. Strong defence policy? Not in my view. Their other policies I don’t know anything about to comment, save they are totally pro EU and would have us back in a shot which obviously puts many off, including me. I agree, at the moment we are stuck with one or the other, where I favour bits of the policies of both but lean mostly to the Tories. We had another party, UKIP, which I was involved with. It… Read more »
FFTP system means that an Adolf Hitler could win a seat in the UK parliament, even though most of the people did not (& never would), vote for them. Opportunity lost.
Ironically the Weimar Republic, which *did* elect Hitler to the Reichstag, was run under Proportional Representation. 🙃
Without reading the constitution, it seems to have been a form of Party List system.
Proportional representation is not the same as I was thinking of. I was referring to the Australian system which is more like a round robin system. Each voter lists their preferred candidate in order (all of them) pa & the electoral authority keep eliminating the unpopular & redistributes your vote till you are down to a winner. It means at least 50+% of the voters in an electoral seat have to prefer you to the alternative to get you elected. FPTP means in a 10 candidate seat, a 10% +1 can actually see a candidate elected . The fact that… Read more »
LDs are strong on things like individual conscience (there is a lot of history of support from religious nonconformists), but recently have a fairly prescriptive / less tolerant “rights” tradition developing alongside that. They specialise in using local issues to win local Councillors, then gaining MPs by building on that base. Given their clearcut anti-Brexit position, which came at a cost, they are now in Parliament more of a party of the South / wealthier areas of the country. They are famous for fictional bar charts pretending them to be the only possible challenger to the incumbent, and abusing statistics… Read more »
The Lib Dems only occupy the middle ground to confused mainstream voters who choose them when they are stumped as to who to vote for. There are three main political traditions in the UK. The Tories are the party of monarchy and the established church, socially very conservative and reluctant reformists only when they have too. The Liberals are the party of democracy and meritocracy. Economically rightish and traditionally moderately strong on defence and law and order. Labour are the party of ‘poor populism’ built around the Trade Unions but with a strong Socialist element. Nowadays in practice this means… Read more »
Jim its more than the fringe, JC was elected by the party, he was anti NATO and CND. What indication do you have that the majority of the those who supported Corbyn have left or aligned themselves with Starmer. I like Starmer as he’s taking the party in the right direct but I see considerable risk that he could be ousted in favour of a more left wing leader who’s anti US and therefore AUKUS. Starmer certainly doesn’t have the full support of the party or its paymasters.
There is a risk in that, but I get the feeling the centre of the Labour Party are not going let the communists ( and that’s what Corbin and his followers were) elementals bugger their chances of being elected.
Expat voices my view, the momentum, communist, SWP extreme side hold more of the grass roots in Young Labour and in the membership than the centre.
How many standing Labour MPs are now running for power in 2024 happily wanted Corbyn in power just a few years ago?
I can never vote for them, sorry. One day it might change for me but till then a Leopard never changes its spots!
I don’t disagree I think labour still have a lot of proving to do to a lot of people. It’s scary how much damage the extremes of a party can do if they get control. Generally the British electorate sit very much in a middle of the road slightly socially conservative place. Parties who remember that and speak to that group tend to win.
I can tell you from direct experience most of momentum has been squeezed out over the past three years. Many disaffected left and rejoined the Greens or the Socialists. Still a few hold outs in the “elite” urban centres like London and Edinburgh but not much. Most where never labour in the first place and only joined because of the £3 joining fee. Now it’s like £8 a month and you have to be in for 6 months before you can vote many have left.
Has labour changed that much since the tony Blair times? He did ok and won multiple elections and the country didn’t fall to pieces.
The party had its fringe parts then as well.
It’s hard to be interested in west minister politics recently. Just nonsense and scandal constantly. Career politicians only interested in themselves. The new PM was claiming Amazon prime on her expenses ffs.
Still hasn’t apologised for the feck up he caused in the attorney general’s office. Allowing unrestricted help to claimants with investigating war crimes in Iraq. Until he does, he’s still a piece of excrement on the bottom of my shoe.
Your posts are usually more technical 😀.
Sorry Expat, erious chio on my shoulder about how he set up the inquiry. Then washed his hands of the whole thing.
Spot on, I believe voting at the Labour Party conference was 30% for and 70% against.
Yes but conference does not make policy in the Labour Party only the NEC can do that. Often nonsense motions are adopted in conference and no one can be arsed to stop them as it has to go through the NEC to become party policy.
Many Corbyn supporters hate this which is why they are all leaving. The parliamentary Labour Party and the unions control labour not the members.
But the Unions aren’t exactly aligned with Starmer and would like shot of him. Then the members get to vote on the next leader. There’s nothing stopping anyone leaving rejoining in the event of a leadership vote.
Anyone who is sad enough to go to political conference out of choice is most likely a bit nutty.
The shadow defence secretary used his speech time to argue for closer ties with the USA, AUKUS, bigger part of nato etc etc.
Labour Party really is a broad church as they say. Basically anyone who doesn’t like the tories is there.
I don’t think we much difference on the main issues between the tories or labour. Ones a bit meaner on the poor, the other a bit tougher on the rich and only a little bit at that.
That’s just not true, the unions want to win. There are zero moves against starmer in the Labour Party
It may be perception rather than fact. But that perception is because union bosses have openly criticised Starmer on his stance on strikes and nationalisation. That does nothing to suppress the fears of those who are looking for a party who are more central. The party needs to realise that the far left are irrelevant they’re hardly likely to vote Tory, elections are won by convincing the centralists you’ve got their back. The same goes for the tories the far right are irrelevant in winning an election.
It’s a perception because it’s a lie pushed by the Daily Mail and the torygraph. I have personally never seen the Labour Party so United than in the mid 90’s.
Don’t read either of those but did see interviews with Mick Lynch and Andy Burham both condeming Starmer on Strikes. By blaming the media labour’s falling into the same trap as last election. Instead listen to what people are saying if there’s a wrong perception work hard to change it.
I met Andy Burnham a few weeks ago and he has nothing but praise for Keir Starmer. Starmer and The Central party have a position on strikes due to national polling. Burnham and other regional leaders like Sarwar can afford to take a different approach as they are playing to a different base. The Torys in Scotland often have opposite policies to Westminster as well. The Scottish Tory’s are conservatives and the English Tory’s are increasingly populists/nationalists so they are rarely in alignment. Labour is no where near that divided.
I’m not suggesting tories are any better. I didnt vote tory or Labour last election, somewhat a protest vote instead. Labour still has a lot of work to do imo. My current position is the UK needs a new party as running a country in todays global economy needs a party that’s not rooted in an ideology. A far more selective approach is needed
Labour really is a disaster waiting to happen. Just a pity we don’t have a viable alternative.
That’s just the loony left kicking off, I’ve now made it my official policy to completely ignore both the fringes of the labour and conservative parties….I feel so much happier and positive.
TBF I think that is a CND drafted motion, and the conference is not very representative of the membership.
It is delegates from TUs, and delegates from Constituency parties – so activists. Both tend to get more than their fare share of the extreme.
Though of course the Lab membership itself was boosted by a Looney Tunes demographic during the reign of Comrade Corbynski.
I’m not following down this Labour Part rebbithole, but I will add that:
1 – Mick Lynch’s Union, the RMT, is not affiliated to the Labour Party. They are affiliated to a small, more extreme splinter party called TUSC (Trade Union and Socialist Coalition).
2 – On people leaving the Labour Party – membership down by about 20% in under 2 years. Source: Electoral Commission returns.
Is that right….I’m an RMT member myself. Interesting.
Wonder whether the author, and much more significantly, Ben Wallace, were either subtly hinting at and/or advocating for a common modular design (SSN(R)/SSN(X)/SSN(Aussie wish list))? Stay tuned, March 2023 could prove interesting.
I think Wallace has been stating he wanted that, rather than just hinting.
“…the ultimate is…where we produce a submarine that is in my view, truly collaborative, might have a bit of all three on it … that might well be fully shared with all three nations as a collaborative design”
Wallace, 1st Sept
Wallace is looking short term about how he gets the next SSN off the ground on limited budget rather that long term how the UK stays in the nuclear game.
The problem for the UK is we would loose our design skills completely then be at the whim of any d**khead in congress who suddenly wants to change laws on technology sharing. The UK has been screwed by the US on so many occasions since 1945 on this it’s hard to see any British government accepting it. No disrespect to America as a nation or its people but your government is horrendous at every level. Congress especially is open to premadonas looking to make a name for themselves by screwing over foreigners and the UK is often top of their… Read more »
Jim the dreadnoughts already have co designed elements and we’ve had Trident in service for a very long time. I think our own politicians do a pretty good job of s***ing up the UK on defence. TSR a great example along with Nimrod being based on a nonproduction airframe jumping a close second.
Electric boat provided some design aid primarily around computing on Astute but that’s about it. The UK designs it’s own submarines and share data back and forth on propulsion with the USA. It still designs and builds its own reactors. missiles and their associated launch facilities are taken from the US but that’s no different than sticking a Harpoon in a T23. Moving to a common design for all SSN would mean our design team was gone and we would need a common design for SSBN as well. The F35 shows the folly of working with the US. We were… Read more »
I don’t think we’ll loose the design team, as you point out that would be a disaster. I read collaborative design as 2 teams working on one design not farming out parts of the design. We do appear to have learnt our lesson with the F35 and we now have the Tempest program. I’ve posted here before the UK needs to do far more to make it defence project output a defence product not bespoke kit only useful to the UK. US congress does what you’d expect it to do look after those who are going to vote for them,… Read more »
Could be mistaken, but believe the transfer of the design of first generation nuclear reactor was the principal basis of the (1957?/58?) US/UK treaty. 🤔 Treaty may have been amended/updated subsequently, but undergirded the legal basis for transfer of PWR2 and PWR3 design to MoD/RN and RR. Additionally, believe GD provided support/tech transfer to enable vertical build of Astute hull sections. This assistance was championed by USN. Congress/Administration(s) may have indeed screwed the UK on occasion, but being equal opportunity organizations, have shafted USA/USAF/USN at least as frequently. Consider Uncle Sugar to be your rich, often annoying relative. We do.… Read more »
Yes they are buying all our smaller defence and engineering companies. If they could buy Rolls Royce and Bae to ‘hit them out the park they would. Believe me.
Australian politics is toxic when it comes to Defence spending? Rubbish. Are you Australian? No? I am. Australian politics is toxic, but no more toxic than any other countries politics, the UK and US are good examples. As for politics and Defence here in Oz, it’s about the only area where there is a bipartisan approach by both sides of the major political parties. Both sides support the increased Defence spending above 2% of GDP, both sides support the future SSN fleet. As for F-35, the RAAF currently has the largest F-35 fleet outside of the US, another load of… Read more »
I’m not Australian but I do pay attention. I can start listing the toxic defence issues in Australia’s media and government if you like. For starters the way that you list defence procurement cost through life instead of purchase cost like everyone else. It means any project your involved in looks like it’s massively expensive even when it’s not. Your Murdoch media is even worse than ours or the USA and that’s saying something and your politicians have a very nasty habit of putting their foot in it or just generally pissing off allies by trying to score cheap political… Read more »
Seems clear that the US will only build subs that meet their complex requirements. SSN(X) is framing up to be wider than Virginia Class and closer in concept to its SSBN, with concomitant costs. So Australia no more likely to follow that route than the UK could. Thus, aside from an interim provision of second hand SSN, I’d hazard at the moment that Wallace’s hint is more a firming desire by both UK and Australia to go for a mutually agreed Astute replacement. On the face of it, therefore, it does occur that the French Barracuda SSN could have fitted… Read more »
Rumours is that SSN (X) will be in excess of $5 billion each. I’m sure it’s going to have a lot more bells and whistles that we will. As you say it will likely be more of a missile/drone platform than a true hunter killer.
The French would have sold Barracuda to Australia in a heart beat however the issue was that Barracuda requires refuelling and Labour refused to support an SSN program if it required refuelling.
Barracuda has to be refuelled every 10 years.
It can be done in France.
French sna uses civil uranium, in respect of non proliferation obligations and are 30% cheaper than Astute.
Yes but then you need to rely on a foreign power to refuel your submarines. Hardly a sovereign capability.
Ah, yes. The contortions over how to avail the best capability whilst maintaining principals. If the major concern is effective defence of Australia, then lets hope the prinpical withstands practicality.
The greenhouse gas / fossil fuel issue ought to introduce another contortion for the left……
I think the Astute would be the clear winner if it weren’t for the fact its too small to fit the next generation of nuclear power packs into it. Its a problem.
But an Australian Astute, higher automation, fewer sailors, lower costs with the US command and control system and third gen RR reactor would be good, I can’t unfortunately comment on buildability.
We also need the next gen sub to have more land attack capability and possibly hypersonic launch capability. I think Australia will be looking for the same. There’s a growing consensus that subs with land attack capabilities would be the only way to counter China’s A2/AD plans.
While PWR3’s dimensions are classified, there’s no reason to assume it’s physically larger than PWR2. Dreadnought is going to have much the same diameter hull as Vanguard – it’s determined by the missile tubes, which are the same length. That doesn’t mean that significant redesign won’t be necessary to get PWR3 aboard Astute, but it’s certainly feasible. But I wouldn’t be surprised if they wait until SSN(R) or SSN-X in about 2040.
PWR2 is a very big reactor and the astute are very wide boats to deal with that, they have 2 meters greater beam that a Virginia class. There would be no reason why and astute batch two could not be build with a PWR3 reactor…other than time, money and the yards will be busy building dreadnoughts for the next decade.
Yes, if PWR3 has indeed borrowed the piping design of the yanks and their smaller SSN hulls it should fit in an Astute hull.
I just hope our politicians were intelligent enough to get iron clad promises from Australia that they would help support form and agree to a future official CANZUK trade and security bloc, as well as a strengthening of the commonwealth.
We need to join together to deal with the challenges of the future.
Australia is desperate for a CANZUK/free trade agreement with the UK, it’s the UK holding things up because the UK farmers will be wiped out. Of all four countries CANZUK has the least support in the UK.
I dont get this argument of it impacting UK farmers, do people not look at shipping/logistics costs to get products from Australia to the UK? Immediately any savings on the product itself are vaporised by transport charges.
Shipping is incredibly cheap and UK farmers are massively less productive than those in Australia and NZ.
Maybe. The UK needs to sell abroad based on UK branding, Like Wagyu beef, can only be from Japan. So globally people pay a premium for the real thing. Like Whiskey or Champaign the good stuff comes from certain places and commands the highest price. Germany realised this long ago with cars hence bought Rolls and Bentley knowing the wealthy around the globe buy based on branding and those brands are based on British craftsmanship and quality. Strong advertising campaigns to linking product to place, association to people (celebs etc) and consistent quality are key. We need to tap into… Read more »
Shipping is incredibly cheap? Erm I think you need to move forward from 2019, in simple terms that is about the most inaccurate statement on the internet today.
When shipping sorts itself out the price will come back substantially. Real problem is the UK needs to home produce as much as possible. Its a small island with a huge population. Lets be honest, we have to defend our home farming like the Japanese. I dont know why the USA, Australia, NZ dont back off and realise this. Soon there may not be a UK if things go on way they are headed.
Its the price of land and climate actually.
Its a matter of scale and climate rather than shipping costs. Same as its always been. UK farming was trashed in the 1900’s with refrigerated cargo wiping out dairy and scale doing likewise with grain, until Governments huge subsidies
Australia desperate for CANZUK? Rubbish.
Here in Australia the CANZUK discussion/debate is non existent, it’s a non issue.
As for Free Trade agreements, we have plenty of free trade agreements in place, CANZUK or no CANZUK.
Your right desperate not the word, keener than the UK on both topics for sure. Support form CANZUK aid higher in polling in Australia and the Australian government is more keen on the FTA as it will gain much more than the UK. The UK primary focus seems to be using its FTA with Australia and NZ to gain access to CTPP.
I don’t know where you’ve got your poll from, can you link it?
I’ll say again, the CANZUK debate/discussion is virtually non existent here in Australia.
Now that’s not to say that we don’t have, or wish to grow, various bilateral agreements (including more FTAs) with our Commonwealth cousins.
But we also have a broader view across the Asia-Pacific and Indo-Pacific regions.
https://www.canzukinternational.com/category/poll
Polling is primarily on free movement as biggest impact on the public. All countries supportive but the UK least so.
Non-proliferation has nothing whatever to do with AUKUS, or any SSN. I’m genuinely shocked that Mr Triglavcanin doesn’t seem to understand this. Perhaps it’s just very poor writing.
Quite so.How is AUKUS different than French collaboration on the Brazilian SSN project?
👍
The Brazilians have to use a fuel that is such low grade it requires refuelling every 4 years. India leases SSN from Russia but it’s not a member of NNPT.
The issue is that the fuel in British and American reactors is very high grade indeed it’s actually weapons grade. That’s why they are the only boats that don’t need to be refuelled. It can be seen under some interpretations as a violation of NPT.
That’s a specious argument: Little Boy contained only 80% U235.
Australian input has been sought for the SSN(R) project, i.e. the Astute successor. Seems highly likely to me that they will go for a heavily “Americanised” version of that design, in the same way that the T26 frigate has been heavily customised with US equipment to become the Hunter class. If as a result of AUKUS, the UK prioritised the first of class over the fourth Dreadnought (KG VI), a completion date of the mid-2030’s might be possible. Construction of the first Australian built boat would be a few years behind, completing late 2030’s. I can’t see any option that… Read more »
It kind of makes sense that the basics will be shared at least. Both will be built by BAE so kind of makes sense. Modular being the buzz word of the program. Maybe
I think you will find it extremely unlikely that any future SSN build gets prioritised over Dreadnought hull 4. Our SSBNs come before anything else I’m afraid, and we need new ones sooner rather than later. The only realistic way of getting SSN(R) into service earlier than currently advertised is to speed up their build time, so work can start on SSN(R) that much sooner. There is little point in using Triumph as a trg sub post 2025, she is simply far to old. Her current refit is only to give her another 2 years or so of service life… Read more »
Yes and no. It was seriously considered whether to build just three Dreadnought’s, but bitter experience with the R’s and now the V’s shows that as they start to age, problems mounts, and refits get longer – the UK needs an absolute minimum of four SSBN’s in order to maintain a continuous at sea deterrent. But with three youthful Dreadnought’s on hand, that will not be a real issue in the 2030’s. The build of the fourth boat could definitely be delayed by a few years in favour a SSN(R) FOC. The massive argument against this is cost. The disruption… Read more »
You are correct in that we need 4 SSBN’s to maintain CASD, which has been gained from bitter experience. When the R boats were first muted, it was thought that we would actually require 5 as a ‘double’ redundancy measure to ensure CASD. In the end we went with 4 and have continued to do so. I agree that what you have said is a possible way around the issue of getting SSN(R) into service earlier, but, its a none starter for those very reasons you have mentioned. More importantly, going down to three, new or not, is a massive… Read more »
I’m not proposing to go to three SSBN’s, that’s not viable for the reasons you say. But I do wonder if construction of the fourth Dreadnaught could be delayed in favour of prioritising the first SSN(R). I have visited BAE Subs at Barrow and they do have spare capacity, the constraint for the last decade has been the MOD’s ability to pay the bills. [Which are huge, the CVF project was almost petty cash compared to Trident replacement]
Hi Richard, I get where you’re coming from with this. I just don’t think it’s very likely, if you consider that construction of SSN(R) Hull 1 will start somewhere between Dreadnought Hulls 3 & 4 being built.
It’s already very likely that at least Astute will probably need re-fueling (not good) before we get Successor into service!!
Hi Deep, having been up to Barrow (job interview – didn’t take it). They definitely have the space to build a Dreadnaught and Astute side by side in the shed. The question is could they do the builds concurrently. Yes, this would delay the in-service date of the fourth Dreadnaught, but it would also mean the SSN(R) comes into service earlier.
Hi Davey, space isn’t really the issue. Back in the late 80’s early 90’s, they had Triumph and the first two V boats all building in the shed, although by that time Triumph was built and being fitted out? The issue with building concurrently D &A would be the reactors. Astutes are PWR 2, while we have now moved to PWR 3 reactors. This would be more of a RR problem as they build our reactors. Wouldn’t know if they can build them concurrently or not? Also unsure if PWR 3 will fit an Astute? In my opinion we will… Read more »
Cheers Deep. So it’s the reactor that holds up the build? I’ve heard the PW3 is more compact
It’s a combination of things. Swiftsure and Trafalgar class were built and in service approximately every 4 years, Astutes are about every 10. Part is size of workforce, part is slow build due to finance, here we are talking two different classes with different size reactors. Suspect the critical path in this scenario would be RR building two different size reactors if they had to(not sure I’d PWR3 is more compact or not). It would of course help enormously if they only had to build one type. I don’t know how long it takes RR to actually build one, or… Read more »
Deep, Concur, believe there will be an attempt to expedite the build schedule of Dreadnoughts, w/ finesse and some favorable fortune, might prove to be feasible. May include a somewhat serious attempt to increase and improve infrastructure at Barrow. Probably not feasible w/out increased Dreadnought program budget. Actually believe basing an Astute in Oz will be given serious consideration. Concrete and permanent RN presence in Indo-Pacific, able to assist USN and RAN in monitoring PLAN activity. Would facilitate RAN initial cadre training while simultaneously reducing RN deployment requirements and potentially reducing RN running costs, presuming a combined, cost-sharing RN/RAN logistics… Read more »
Australia will have the base infrastructure (presumably at Fleet Base West, Perth) needed to support a forward deployed Astute by late 2023.
Interesting, thanks, good to know. Reasonably certain training and probably logistics will be considered relatively trivial issues for this program when viewed in retrospect. If a modular design is indeed selected as the path forward, please offer a prayer for the poor bastards detailed to design and build this sub, while harmonizing the requirements of 3 navies (w/ potentially mixed mission systems), and riding herd on 3 contractor teams spread across 3 continents (from a practical perspective). By comparison, delivery of F-35 Block 4 capability may be considered child’s play. The redeeming feature will be enough lucre sloshing around to… Read more »
I reckon the end result will be something like a stretched “Collins” to accomodate the reactor(s) using a mix of UK and US technology to provide sonar/defense/attack and control electronics built in Australian shipyards because neither the UK nor the US have capacity
Rather doubt that. For a start the pressure hull diameter on the Collins would not accommodate either US or UK candidate reactors and much more would be required than “stretching” an SSK.
Probably means stretched both in length and width.
Personally I think tech has probably moved on a lot in last 20-30 years. Clean sheet design is probably best
Not a chance.
Not a chance you would need a 50% increase in the beam, that’s a whole new sub.
In a very short span of time the US has taken over much of the UKs defence industry. They guarantee our security, so fair enough. By ‘technology sharing’ read… buy US.
It’s European firms that own much more of the capabilities Thales and Leonardo. BAE also has massive US operations along with RR. US defence contractors are pretty light on the ground in the UK. Private equity firms have bought a few but they are not exactly US companies rather US funds.
There’d be no “proliferation” if China & its growing navy wasn’t such a threat across the far east & Pacific. Fortunately neighboring nations have not been asleep to the threat & have been growing their forces accordingly.
I doubt the Chinese would get very far last the Japanese much less the USN and everyone else in the region. It’s like Germany in 1914 trying to run past the Royal and US Navies combined.
Slightly off topic (although still underwater): I see that the MoD is requesting bids for a new UUV, this time for the Littoral Response Group and to support marines. The contract is for an “Uncrewed Surface and Subsurface Vessel (USSV)” [how many more acronyms must we suffer?]. There’s about a month to respond, finishing 4th October, so I infer they already have a main contractor in mind. There are likely to be other contractors delivering subsystems as the boat must deliver “surveillance, reconnaissance, electronic warfare, and strike effectors”. Ambitious, although this might be what the boat is expected to carry… Read more »
The MOD a is amazingly good at “requesting” tenders. Just not so good and buying anything revolutionary or fielding a world leading capability.
See both China and more recently Iran pulling unmanned systems out the water recently the big question is how do you secure them. They definitely have a role but technology theft is a real concern.
There is no possibility of building more Astutes, due to the PWR2 reactor production coming to an end. There is also a shortage of shipyard capacity in both the US and the UK. AUS can’t simply render its own yards capable of building SSNs in short order, and creating a completely new design for the platform- even if it borrows heavily from Virginia and/or Astute- takes a long time. So we come back to the problem that generating an AUS sovereign SSN capability is going to take quite a long time, while the security situation in SE Asia seems to… Read more »
I’m not sure basing any US SSNs in AUS helps in any real way, as they are already based both in Guam and Japan, arguably closer to the SCS then if based in AUS.
An Astute based in AUS would obviously be very useful, but at a great cost operationally to the UK – we are only getting 7 by 2026, not sure how much longer Triumph will run for by the time Agincourt is in service, if she is still running then!
Why would the Auzzies want Virginia over Astute? I’ve heard the Astute class is the best in the world right now, and that came from an American.
Astute is probably more in line with Australian needs, Block V Virginia may be better than Astute overall but it’s a bug beast. Way more than the Aussies are looking for.
This is likely to be the successor SSN to the Astute. The added benefit is it will accelerate UK developments on successor class as well whilst we build the dreadnought class. I think this is very likely to be the optimal solution for the Aussies and not the Virginia class which doesn’t make sense technically, financially, operationally or indeed in terms of foreign working (US would have to supply key technical staff to the Aussies and that will never happen in a month of Sundays). This is successor class for the UK written all over this in my opinion and… Read more »
If Australia no longer wants to be part of the commonwealth and becomes a federal state like America, should the UK really stick its neck out for Australia, who for all intents will be unilaterally ending their multi-century historical relationship with the British people, the British tax payers?
Australia already is a federal state and has been for 100 years. There is no movement in Australia to leave the commonwealth either. I’m guessing your talking about Australia replacing its head of state which is not the same thing and has been on the cards for decades. The UK is having much the same debate as are all 13 Commonwealth realms except Canada.
I don’t think the Aussie’s will replace Charles III as head of state ever. What for some failed politician? Similarly can you imagine a President Tony Blair, President Boris Johnson, President Gordon Brown or President Jeremy Corbyn….anytime anyone states this obvious fact it immediately makes me even more Royalist….For god’s sake we had the restoration period simple because no one in England liked the strict, austere social atmosphere of the common of England…God save the King!
Interest in having a monarchy has declined in Canada and probably will continue to do so. There has been active talk in Canada about what to do about the monarchy.
Quebec wants to get rid of the office of lieutenant governor for example which raises constitutional questions about Quebec staying in a federation when the head of state of that federation is King Charles.
With its small crew demands more advanced hull form and lower cost the Astute would be ideal for Australia. However the US could provide the reactor. After all the new Dreadnaught reactor will be basically a US one. I should imagine that the Australians will go for US weapons and C2 systems given their buying history.
They would be wise to go for the Astute sonar fit.
This sounds like exactly what the Aussies would want to do and normally do with naval procurement however messing around with an SSN design in this way is probably a recipe for an expensive disaster. UK manning is lower due to automation which means accepting UK combat and reactor systems. UK Sonar is better due to larger size of arrays which won’t fit in Virginia and also leaves less space for weapons. Building any form of nuclear submarine is the most difficult task any country can undertake. Going from zero to building a bespoke high end SSN will take Australia… Read more »
Yes it would be far easier/cheaper if they just bought Astute and got the US to help with the infrastructure. I hear that Australian personnel are already on RN subs and will be put on our reactor courses. So perhaps they will buy Astute as is. However I did hear that the RR PWR 2 has problems and that is why the UK is moving to a US design for Dreadnaught. It may be a good idea to build an Astute fitted with a Virginia or Dreadnaught reactor.
PWR2 is out of production now, the big question would be can PWR3 fit inside an Astute. I think it can but it would probably need a major redesign.
I should imagine it would as Astute was made large enough to hold the PWR2 that was developed for the Vanguard SSBM. So it is already sized for a SSBN reactor.
The International Atomic Energy Agency has signed off the nuclear sharing safeguards and given a regulatory all clear. Australians have agreed that reactor compartments will be welded shut so that the fuel cannot be removed. Also something I didnt know but apparently on the Australian Collins Class they already have this arrangement with sensitive US computer equipment sealed in welded compartments that the Ozzies cant physically access, they are only told how to troubleshoot but if it needs repairs they have to call the US to do it.
Some rumours a 4th country (besides NZ) will possibly be joining AUKUS and are interested in nuclear subs too. I havent been able to narrow down whether its Canada or Japan (or even South Korea) though those are the most likely candidates.
My money would be on Canada but not until after Tredau is gone. Canada almost went ahead with soothing similar in the 80’s buying Trafalgar and Reagan agreed to it. Not really sure how useful SSN’s are for Japan and South Korea as they are very close to the area of operation and they already have prolific SSK capability.
Agreed. The Canadian military establishment was upset about being blindsided by AUKUS. Canada will be needing new subs within the next decade and more of them. 4 does not cut it.
Yeah for sure, a nation that also has China issues in the pacific and a desperate need for platforms that can operate under Arctic ice probably needs SSN’s more than anyone. However defence spending in Canada has fallen so low and become politically toxic I’m just not sure Canada can find the political grit to embark on SSN’s. Just look at F35.
Agree again.
I think the political grit is now there. Canadian gov has finally realized that there are countries in the world that hate Canada. China bullying and the Russian invasion of Ukraine has for now changed Canadian public opinion. NATO allies also have put the pressure on Canada too.
A budget increase of $4 billion annually is a good start.
The F-35 has finally been chosen and the Canadian press has to report truthfully that the $70 billion dollar price tag, for the 15 new frigates, is for the 30-40 year operation cost, not an all up front cost.
I hope so, it would be amazing to see something like SSN(R) built for all three countries with a number approaching 30 hulls along the lines of T26.
They have just ordered Type 26 frigates (more than the RN), so their defence spending cannot be that low…
Bringing the conversation back to the matter at hand and not the LibDems. Will the US yards being busy possibly see at least one Aussie boat being built into the UK, with others eventually being more and more built in Australia until they have boat built 100% in Australia?
The UK yard is just as busy as the US yard.
UK industry has capacity for an increase in the industrial output however, unlike the US where the yards and labour force are cracking at the seams trying to maintain the build rate, they have had to scrounge 5 nuclear reactors that were laying around for fuel rods to keep the Los Angeles class boats in service upto 6 years longer. Each Virginia is currently taking 70 months to build but the target is 60 months with each successive one being built a month faster, they think they might be able to get it down to 67-68 months through more modular… Read more »
Correct me if I’m wrong but the UK went through what Australia called a naval shipbuilding ‘Valley of Death’ with nuclear submarines, where there were no orders so the yards had to lay off workers and then re-hire and retrain staff years later when orders came in which slowed the build and drove costs through the roof? If so I suspect that the current nuke sub plan has a large part of ‘keeping the industry going’ in it and production could be sped up if orders came in. Further I suspect that Australian Submarine Corporation could insert Australian made modules… Read more »
France is back:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-09-16/leaked-document-officials-kept-in-dark-over-french-submarines/101445670
As I understand it the person who wrote that report Kim Gillis was the civil servant who was responsible for selecting Naval Group’s bid and early in the competition had been lobbying for the French and setting the requirement spec of a diesel submarine with the performance of a nuclear submarine that was impossible to meet, after he left his government job he was immediately appointed to the board of Naval Group the company he had awarded the contract to, when the contract was cancelled he was massively professional embarrassed and his position was untenable, he was forced to resign… Read more »
As a former Royal Navy submariner, I don’t regard Aussies as ‘foreign’. Nor Kiwis or Canadians, for that matter.
Last week the UK government withdrew the necessary tourist visa for Colombian citizens who want to visit your country for a period not exceeding 6 months. As a Colombian and believing that I can provide an objective perspective of the current economic / political and social situation, not only of the crisis in the European community (where I am currently a resident), nor in the United Kingdom, but in a more global context in which the shock of the booming emerging economies such as the fact that only the association of India and China at the world level will represent… Read more »
Just been reading the details and I think everyone below has missed the interesting parts. Its a 3 Nation SSN based on the UK SSN-R design some 70% complete. Australia will contribute some $3.4B to UK and US industrial capabilities. The reactor will be made in the UK from a US design. The SSN’s will have common weapons both horizontal and vertical for global resupply. The combat system will be a US design. This is good for all Three of us. Proven technology already in use and supported by 3 customers for manufacture and supported at all 3 construction years… Read more »