Australia to get US Nuclear Powered Subs

[Occams Barber]

Australia to get US Nuclear Powered Submarines



US President Joe Biden, UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese met today in San Francisco to jointly announce that Australia will take three, potentially second hand, US Virginia class, nuclear powered submarines, with an option to purchase another two, under the AUKUS (Australia/UK/US) defence pact. As part of the deal Australia will contribute significant resources to US shipyards.


Australia will also manufacture a new British Astute class nuclear powered submarine with at least five boats delivered to the Australian navy by the mid 2050s. The new sub, known as the AUKUS Class, will be operated by both the UK and Australia using US combat systems.

The joint arrangement is part of a major refocus on strengthening deterrence in the western Pacific.


Source (edited):
Australian nuclear submarine program to cost up to $368b as AUKUS details unveiled in the US (msn.com)

 

[disciple Clint]

Australia to get US Nuclear Powered Submarines



US President Joe Biden, UK Prime Minister Rici Sunak and Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese met today in San Francisco to jointly announce that Australia will take three, potentially second hand, US Virginia class, nuclear powered submarines, with an option to purchase another two, under the AUKUS (Australia/UK/US) defence pact. As part of the deal Australia will contribute significant resources to US shipyards.


Australia will also manufacture a new British Astute class nuclear powered submarine with at least five boats delivered to the Australian navy by the mid 2050s. The new sub, known as the AUKUS Class, will be operated by both the UK and Australia using US combat systems.

The joint arrangement is part of a major refocus on strengthening deterrence in the western Pacific.


Source (edited):
Australian nuclear submarine program to cost up to $368b as AUKUS details unveiled in the US (msn.com)

Good should help to check China to some degree in this area

 

[durangodawood]

The mid 2050's?

I guess you dont just throw up a nuclear powered sub in a jiffy.

 

[Occams Barber]

Good should help to check China to some degree in this area

In the longer term it's a form of insurance against the extension of Chinese naval capability in the Pacific but does little to counter Chinese influence.

The real current problem is Chinese Belt and Road diplomacy which seeks to expand Chinese influence through commercial ventures, aid and loans. Pacific island nations are easy targets for financial entrapment. Debt traps, aid dependence and commercial dependence increase the influence of China in seeking access to ports and facilities for its navy. The potential end result is a series of Pacific Island steppingstones with Chinese controlled port facilities within easy striking distance of the US and Australia. It also provides China with a compliant UN voting bloc of small nations.

Both the US and Australia have been guilty of ignoring the strategic value of the Pacific. As a result, there was some concern among Pacific nations that Australia had no real interest in the welfare of Pacific nations particularly their exposure to rising oceans. The last Australian PM also came across as a somewhat patronising big brother.

One of the first acts of the new Australian Prime Minister was to visit our Pacific neighbours to re-establish what in the past was almost a familial relationship.

Defending against any extension of Chinese military/political influence in the Pacific is primarily a question of diplomacy, commerce and being a good neighbour.

OB

 

[Occams Barber]

The mid 2050's?

I guess you dont just throw up a nuclear powered sub in a jiffy.

The British sub is a brand-new model so building it will be a major learning curve for the Brits and Aus. The US subs are not new models, but the Aus navy has no experience in sailing nuclear subs and no specialized port facilities. It needs both before it can accept secondhand Virginia class subs.

In the case of the British sub we will need to first build the specialized facilities to build the subs; put together a trained workforce; build home port facilities and train submariners in new and nuclear stuff. Finding a qualified workforce could be a major stumbling block given our small population.

This agreement is a HUGE commitment in Australian terms with costs expressed as a percentage of GDP and time in decades.

OB

 

[Paidiske]

Eight submarines for about 34,000km of coastline. Impenetrable. (/sarcasm).

I'd like to know how nuclear waste will be handled.

I'd also like to know how many lives we could save, or lift out of appalling conditions, for 368 billion dollars. 'Cause that's an awful lot to drop on what feels suspiciously like some impressive but fairly unnecessary military toys.

 

[Bradskii]

Australia to get US Nuclear Powered Submarines



US President Joe Biden, UK Prime Minister Rici Sunak and Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese met today in San Francisco to jointly announce that Australia will take three, potentially second hand, US Virginia class, nuclear powered submarines, with an option to purchase another two, under the AUKUS (Australia/UK/US) defence pact. As part of the deal Australia will contribute significant resources to US shipyards.


Australia will also manufacture a new British Astute class nuclear powered submarine with at least five boats delivered to the Australian navy by the mid 2050s. The new sub, known as the AUKUS Class, will be operated by both the UK and Australia using US combat systems.

The joint arrangement is part of a major refocus on strengthening deterrence in the western Pacific.


Source (edited):
Australian nuclear submarine program to cost up to $368b as AUKUS details unveiled in the US (msn.com)

My eyes glaze over when talking about such huge sums. But that total figure, as a comparision, is about 0.1% of the total assets in superanuation in Australia (Super Statistics - ASFA). Amortize it over the approx. 30 years and it's roughly 12% what we spend on health each year (https://www.health.gov.au/ministers...an Government's 2022-23,per cent on last year) and is about 25% of our yearly military budget (Labor reveals new defence budget - Australian Defence Magazine.).

Or...$2.50 a day from every working Australian

 

[Bradskii]

Eight submarines for about 34,000km of coastline. Impenetrable. (/sarcasm).

I'd like to know how nuclear waste will be handled.

I'd also like to know how many lives we could save, or lift out of appalling conditions, for 368 billion dollars. 'Cause that's an awful lot to drop on what feels suspiciously like some impressive but fairly unnecessary military toys.

There's part of me that agrees. You should have seen the fuss I kicked up when NSW spent $800m knocking down my old footy stadium and rebuilding it. It was 20 years old for heaven's sake. The emails I sent, the calls I made, the lists of things I put together that the money could have bought...

I know footy. I know what I want in a footy stadium. I was there last weekend and I'll be there twice this coming weekend. I'm not going to cut my nose off to spite my face so I will tell anyone who asks that the new stadium is world class. But the money should have been spent on schools and hospitals. Not to give me a new gym, 2 x swimming pools and padded seats with a beer holder.

But defence..?

I have no idea. So I tend to go with the opinions of those in the know. Is China a real threat? I can't imagine going to war with China in my wildest dreams. But me sleeping peacefully and being unconcerned is not a great basis for a defence policy. And that's why I crunched some numbers above. I wanted to see whether we could really afford it. It seems we can.

And $2.50 a day? I spend more than 4x that for one beer at the footy. I can't complain about the government spending the equivalent of $2.50 on the defence of Australia when I'm so profilgate with my own money on booze.

 

[Paidiske]

I think I'd agree if I really believed eight submarines would make any real difference to anything. I'm skeptical on that point.

I suppose, for the ones built here, it's a lot of jobs. That's probably a lot of the attraction.

 

[Occams Barber]

Eight submarines for about 34,000km of coastline. Impenetrable. (/sarcasm).

I'd like to know how nuclear waste will be handled.

I'd also like to know how many lives we could save, or lift out of appalling conditions, for 368 billion dollars. 'Cause that's an awful lot to drop on what feels suspiciously like some impressive but fairly unnecessary military toys.

I think all your points make sense.

I'd like to know how nuclear waste will be handled.

After a bit of a search all I can find is "somewhere remote" which leaves a lot of real estate under consideration

I'd also like to know how many lives we could save, or lift out of appalling conditions, for 368 billion dollars. 'Cause that's an awful lot to drop on what feels suspiciously like some impressive but fairly unnecessary military toys.

I wish I had an answer, but open-ended trust is not (unfortunately) a good survival characteristic for humans. We have a natural and necessary tendency to expect the worst. The problem is keeping our pessimistic expectations within rational bounds.

OB

 

[IceJad]

Australia to get US Nuclear Powered Submarines



US President Joe Biden, UK Prime Minister Rici Sunak and Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese met today in San Francisco to jointly announce that Australia will take three, potentially second hand, US Virginia class, nuclear powered submarines, with an option to purchase another two, under the AUKUS (Australia/UK/US) defence pact. As part of the deal Australia will contribute significant resources to US shipyards.


Australia will also manufacture a new British Astute class nuclear powered submarine with at least five boats delivered to the Australian navy by the mid 2050s. The new sub, known as the AUKUS Class, will be operated by both the UK and Australia using US combat systems.

The joint arrangement is part of a major refocus on strengthening deterrence in the western Pacific.


Source (edited):
Australian nuclear submarine program to cost up to $368b as AUKUS details unveiled in the US (msn.com)

Well good for the Aussies.

 

[IceJad]

Eight submarines for about 34,000km of coastline. Impenetrable. (/sarcasm).

I'd like to know how nuclear waste will be handled.

I'd also like to know how many lives we could save, or lift out of appalling conditions, for 368 billion dollars. 'Cause that's an awful lot to drop on what feels suspiciously like some impressive but fairly unnecessary military toys.

Would you prefer to have nothing to defend then? Military spending is a requirement even if you would like to be a pacifist. Yes it is an eye watering figure and I would agree with you that it would be better suited for civilian and infrastructure development. But geopolitics are not a game of feel good and principles. Else there would be no war and we would all be singing kumbaya.

Look at Japan despite officially not having military and legally limiting their defense to disproportionally smaller than her neighbors did it stop others from growing their military and invading Japan's sovereign borders? Now they scramble to rearm because the geopolitics force their hands. Unfortunately they were caught of guard and now have to play catch up.

South Korea and Japan scramble jets after Chinese, Russian warplanes neared airspace

SEOUL: South Korea's military said it scrambled fighter jets after at least four Chinese and four Russian warplanes entered its air defence zone on Tuesday (May 24). Japan's Defence Minister Nobuo Kishi said his country also scrambled jets after Russian and Chinese warplanes neared its airspace...

www.channelnewsasia.com

Being a pacifist doesn't mean being weak, meek and defenseless. A pacifist only means you don't seek to initiate a fight.

I also believe you understand very little on how national defense framework works. It is not to defend all of the coastline. It is use to deny access into strategic areas. It is to deter an enemy by making it very costly to start an engagement even if they would come out winning. It is to provide support to other allied nations by complimenting their forces with yours. Real world military doctrine is not like RTS video games where you build up as many units as possible and defend every inch of the playable map.

Every nation who can afford it would invest into defense even if the chances of war is near zero. Like I said the world is not a kumbaya place.

 

[Bradskii]

I nearly got run down by one when on a Hobie cat in the middle of Sydney Harbour a few years back. We'd been becalmed off Watsons Bay. Not a breath of air. And my brother and I were just dozing waiting for the wind to pick up. And my brother says 'I think you need to check this out. It's coming straight at us'.

Hey, no worry. Whatever it is will go round us. Then I rolled over and looked. And it's a huge sub, about 400m away. And indeed heading straight for us. There was nothing we could do and they were obviously keeping a look out. But it seemed like a very long time indeed before it ever so slowly turned away from us and missed us by about 50m.

It looked...powerful.

 

[Paidiske]

Would you prefer to have nothing to defend then? Military spending is a requirement even if you would like to be a pacifist.

Even if I concede the necessity of war and military spending, in this particular instance I'm just not convinced eight submarines are going to make enough of a distance to justify this expense. I think it's reasonable for citizens to raise that kind of question about this kind of government decision.

Being a pacifist doesn't mean being weak, meek and defenseless. A pacifist only means you don't seek to initiate a fight.

There are different forms of pacifism. But in this thread I am not advancing a pacifist argument, but a pragmatic one.

I also believe you understand very little on how national defense framework works.

That is potentially true; it is not an area in which I have studied. However, I vote. So I think my government can make a case for their policy position, which is comprehensible to non-experts, if they wish us to vote for them come the next election.

 

[Philip_B]

That is potentially true; it is not an area in which I have studied. However, I vote. So I think my government can make a case for their policy position, which is comprehensible to non-experts, if they wish us to vote for them come the next election.

I am not sure that submarines are not a 20th century solution. I wonder what sort of drone defence we could get for 100 Bn.

 

[Bradskii]

I just watched ScoMo on the 7:30 Report. And I agreed with everything he said on this matter.

Now if you'll excuse me, I need to have a lie down in a dark room for an hour or so.

 

[stevil]

They won't be allowed in NZ waters.

 

[Bradskii]

They won't be allowed in NZ waters.

Can we use them to defend you?

 

[FireDragon76]

I am not sure that submarines are not a 20th century solution. I wonder what sort of drone defence we could get for 100 Bn.

I'm not sure it's good for Australia, strategically, either. A new Cold War with China might not be in the best interest of anyone, except perhaps wealthy oligarchs and the defense industry.

Diesel-electric subs are perfectly capable as far as anti-submarine warfare goes, in fact the quitest subs in the world are diesel-electric. However, diesel-electric subs have a short range and aren't fast. The nuclear sub order, OTOH, is probably all about "power projection" and "containing China".

 

[Occams Barber]

I'm not sure it's good for Australia, strategically, either. A new Cold War with China might not be in the best interest of anyone, except perhaps wealthy oligarchs and the defense industry.

Diesel-electric subs are perfectly capable as far as anti-submarine warfare goes, in fact the quitest subs in the world are diesel-electric. However, diesel-electric subs have a short range and aren't fast. The nuclear sub order, OTOH, is probably all about "power projection" and "containing China".

Australia's location and size are probably the main factors in opting for nuclear powered subs.

If you look at a world map, you'll see we sit between three oceans. We have the Pacific Ocean on the right, the Indian Ocean on the left and the Southern Ocean underneath. We're surrounded by thousands of km of open water. We also have one of the longest coastlines in the world. In fact, we'll need two nuclear sub bases - one on the east coast and one on the west coast.

Nuclear subs have the advantage of speed along with the ability to stay underwater for extended periods and no need for refuelling, all useful for long range operations.

It's also worth noting that India also has a nuclear sub (and more on the way?); has been invited to join AUKUS and was visited by our PM immediately before the formal announcement of the AUKUS sub deal where the PM made a point of briefing the Indians on the Australian sub deal.

Japan's (diesel) subs may also be a factor in building a huge collective (US, AUS, India, Japan and UK) area of naval influence to offset Chinese expansion.

OB