RAN's Collins class replacement

[tbm3fan]

France spent years designing a submarine for Australia, to australian specs. Which included "no nuclear". Then Australia signs a contract acepting the french deal. Now suddenly Australia rips the contract apart, after all this time and money, because... they want what they said they didn't want?...

How would the US or UK react to this, I wonder? I would certainly not be happy with someone to goes back on a contract...

What I meant was that France would react culturally very different than would say the US, UK, you, or Japan. The French, as you can now see, would be more likely to go nuclear over this change and have. Although I do feel that they were screwing you some going from $50B to $90B and most likely higher than that before the first boat got delivered. That could mean your 12 boats at $8B a piece. Hell, what are they a version of a Ford Class submarine? Why not get four Ford Class carriers and then really scare the crap out of everybody in the Indo-Pacific. Just wishful thinking there. Then what 90% built, down to 60% built, and then down to lower still? In the end a $3.5B Virginia Class sub is a hell of a deal compared to the French boat. Chalk it up to buyers remorse, or I changed my mind, or beat the American deal and make them so we can integrate with our US and UK allies. In the end you need to make the best decision for the RAN and you just did. Hell, even the French should see and realize that you having 8 nuclear subs roaming the region is way better than using 12 conventional subs in the end.

As for ripping up the contract I can understand what you say about Australia but I also think the French share a lot of the culpability in this also.

[Double Edge]

Burning question

Why didn’t Australia consider nuclear propulsion for its new submarines? | ASPI | Nov 10 2020

Parliament is filled with many MPs on both sides of politics who will privately advocate for nuclear propulsion but publicly shy away from discussing the capability. The fear is that it isn’t possible to build a bipartisan consensus for nuclear propulsion in ways that prevent one side of politics rejecting the idea, leaving the other side with a potential political liability.

So the Aussies never asked for nuclear because their domestic politics wouldn't allow for it.

Did not matter whether the Americans or French were to offer it and too maybe even a decade ago. The option was off the table for domestic reasons.

‘There is simply no case for wasting time and resources on a technology that is literally the slowest, most expensive, most dangerous, and least flexible form of new power generation.’

That is how Labour reacted to the idea as late as 2019

Where do these jokers get their arguments from !!!!

Is anything likely to change this situation? Potentially, yes.

The strategic ground is changing quickly under our feet, and those developments might, in future, force a more urgent government consideration of the submarine capability Australia needs.

Funny, how times change

[Double Edge]

We need to go further back to understand why nuclear anything is such a big deal in Australia.

They banned nuclear power twenty years ago (!)

They don't mind mining uranium since they have so much and selling it. But they're not allowed to exploit it themselves.

No restrictions on nuclear powered vessels docking at Aussie ports but required radiation checks need to be made before and after.

Australia’s fading anti-nuclear movement: a short history | SMH | Sept 19 2021

This article reads more like a lament but it has the background.

It remains an historical curiosity, however, that apart from scattered Ban the Bomb movements through the 1950s and 60, it took French tests in a distant part of the South Pacific to unite large numbers of Australians in the 1970s.

Brits conducted 12 twelve nuclear test in Australia proper during the 50s & 60s. Not a peep out of the public.

What drove them up the wall was French testing in their territories in Polynesia (!)

The anti-nuke politics of the 70s that lead to the nuclear power ban

We can see why nuclear propulsion was off the table until recently.

When politics overrides defense and strategic matters the results will always be sub optimal to downright disastrous.

[Double Edge]

As for ripping up the contract I can understand what you say about Australia but I also think the French share a lot of the culpability in this also.

No nuclear sub country to date has redesigned their ships to be diesel.

I'm surprised the French even considered it. But if the Aussies were willing to shell out $6bn AUD for the design only then why not.

Special needs customer.

Add to that they wanted to build it locally. Who is responsible then for liability ? this means costs go up. And the longer the indecision goes on the more it rises.

This is why the French while initially agreeing to 90% home made try to whittle it down to 60% later.

It does strike me that successive govts kept kicking the can down the road. They wanted the credit for taking decisions but when it came to payment there was always going to be a reckoning which some other govt preferably not theirs would have to reconcile.

[jlvfr]

What I meant was that France would react culturally very different than would say the US, UK, you, or Japan.

Dunno about Japan, but am pretty sure the US would scream bloody murder, threaten sanctions, demand imediate reparations & retractions and we'd see marches on US cities calling the french every name under the sun. The UK would shout about "perfidious french" and "another EU attack on Britania" and find polite ways of calling the australians "stupid colonials".

[tbm3fan]

Dunno about Japan, but am pretty sure the US would scream bloody murder, threaten sanctions, demand imediate reparations & retractions and we'd see marches on US cities calling the french every name under the sun. The UK would shout about "perfidious french" and "another EU attack on Britania" and find polite ways of calling the australians "stupid colonials".

Well, I can be pretty sure that if France had cancelled a US deal some may have screamed bloody murder but that would not have be a cultural thing with us. Outside of french fries many here just don't have good things to say. Me, I could have cared less as it wouldn't make or break our national honor or made me feel insecure in my identity.

[Chunder]

The arguments about being stabbed in the back are probably more for French domestic political consumption. The commentary does not square against what is needed to seriously contemplate the idea of nuke subs against a historic backdrop of anti nuclear sentiment for a political party that's already on the ropes & a massive increase in expenditure required to boot. It's easy pickings for the opposition, and nobody can deny the stupid stuff the public will believe. Head over to reddit.

People need to flesh out just how the above interacts if the government told the French it was no longer going ahead & then went and talked to the U.S & U.K with no assurances and the likely political suicide that would have resulted in the news cycle.

[Double Edge]

Why Aukus is welcome in the Indo-Pacific | FT (op-ed) | Sept 20 2021

America’s efforts to strengthen deterrence of China are gathering momentum
GIDEON RACHMAN


The Australia-UK-US security pact — Aukus — has been greeted with rage in China and France. But more significant than the flamboyant anger in Beijing and Paris are the countries that are quietly applauding the agreement.

The many Indo-Pacific nations that are worried by China’s increasing belligerence look to America, not France, to balance Chinese power. Japan and India, the two largest economies in the region outside China, have welcomed Aukus. Later this week, the White House will host a summit meeting of the leaders of the Quad — the US, India, Japan and Australia. Week by week, the US is visibly strengthening its network of security relationships across the Indo-Pacific.

The positive reaction in the region will matter much more in Washington than anger in Paris — unwelcome though that is. Containing China’s power and ambitions is now the major strategic priority of the US, a commitment that spans the Biden and Trump administrations. A blow-up with France is seen as a price worth paying for the strengthening of alliances in Asia. A hardening of Britain’s previously ambivalent posture towards China is also welcome in Washington and balances the damage with France.

Antoine Bondaz, a security analyst (once dubbed a “crazed hyena” by the Chinese government) writes that for China, the pact between Washington, Canberra and London is “the realisation of a longstanding fear: the multilateralisation of American alliances in the region. Today, it’s Australia and the United Kingdom. Tomorrow, maybe Japan will join.”

Japan’s foreign minister, Toshimitsu Motegi, was certainly quick to welcome Aukus. The Times of India noted the overlapping membership of the Quad and Aukus and suggested that “in future, the two could merge.” Raja Mohan, an Indian security analyst, argues that for Delhi, the Aukus is welcome for a number of reasons — including the signal it sends about America’s willingness to transfer key military technologies, such as nuclear propulsion.

India and Japan were not the only two regional powers to respond positively to the Aukus. Singapore, which has always carefully balanced its relations with the US and China, welcomed the agreement. In Canada, where an election is taking place, the leaders of both the conservative and leftwing opposition criticised the Trudeau government for not yet being involved in the pact.

The strengthening of collective security arrangements in Asia is ultimately aimed at deterring Chinese power, much as NATO deters Russia in Europe. The Indo-Pacific alliance structure is unlikely to mirror NATO precisely. Rather than a single alliance, we are witnessing a meshing and enhancement of existing ties creating a network of powers committed to preventing the region falling under Beijing’s domination.

The potential membership of that network can be discerned by the countries that have recently undertaken naval exercises with the US and Australia. They include the UK, Japan, Canada, South Korea and India. If and when relations with Paris are repaired, the French may rejoin.

The significance of this co-operation goes well beyond naval exercises and submarine sales. The three countries involved in Aukus will work together on strategic technologies, such as quantum computing and artificial intelligence. India and Japan also have much to contribute in those areas.

China denounces all these moves as provocative. But Beijing’s actions in the region have provoked the efforts to balance its power.

For Australia, China’s imposition of trade sanctions, after Canberra called for an international inquiry into Covid-19, was a wake-up call. So were China’s 14 fourteen demands for changes in Australian policy. For India, the turning point was the military clashes in the Himalayas last summer. Japan, which has a territorial dispute with China in the East China Sea, is also increasingly being harried by Beijing’s military.

China’s decision to build military bases across the South China Sea has alarmed regional powers such as Vietnam and the Philippines. In July, Vietnam hosted Lloyd Austin, the US defence secretary. South Korea, another US treaty ally, has not forgotten the economic pressure from Beijing after Seoul agreed to host a US anti-missile shield.

All of these Indo-Pacific nations know that China has built up its military faster than any other country in the world over the past generation. And they are all concerned by Beijing’s threats to invade Taiwan.

Why has China made these diplomatic errors? It may be that it placed too much faith in economic power. The fact that China is the most important trading partner for Japan, South Korea and Australia gives the Chinese an important lever. But heavy-handed pressure from Beijing has often backfired.

The failure of the Chinese strategy so far does not mean that America’s Asian alliance-building will necessarily succeed. Pulling together a complex group of allies is not easy, as the current backlash from Paris demonstrates.

The attempt to contain Chinese power will also heighten tensions with Beijing. But the alternative would be to accept uncomplainingly China’s efforts to dominate the Indo-Pacific. The US and its allies have decided to draw a line.

The Aussies could have gone to the Americans at the outset if they didn't have such a hangup over nuclear power.

Unquestionably, Australia is an US ally for decades yet could not ask the US for nuclear subs ?

That forced them to take this circuitous route with Japan and France.

It's true that the Aussies were not that impressed with Obama's pivot. At the time, Rory Medcalf famously referred to the pivot as a pirouette. Still, it was Biden that agreed to this deal isn't it. Trump might have done the footwork but Biden did not oppose. Why would Obama ?

When it comes to deepening relations, Americans are not the ones to slam the brakes. If you want A,B,C they will tell you to agree with X,Y and Z.

Australia is doing that now

[Double Edge]

The arguments about being stabbed in the back are probably more for French domestic political consumption.

French will have to come to terms with the simple fact that a more capable RAN is in their interest.

They'll come around to it in their own time. Like the Japanese have supported this deal and who also lost out to the French.

Meanwhile you guys are going to have to do some damage control.

The commentary does not square against what is needed to seriously contemplate the idea of nuke subs against a historic backdrop of anti nuclear sentiment for a political party that's already on the ropes & a massive increase in expenditure required to boot. It's easy pickings for the opposition, and nobody can deny the stupid stuff the public will believe.

This deal could not have gone ahead without tacit support from the opposition. In public your opposition will say other things.

I see this deal as important to Australia as the nuke deal was to India. The politicking continued but in the end the deal was clinched and no govt since has sought to scuttle it.

Head over to reddit.

Post a link.

People need to flesh out just how the above interacts if the government told the French it was no longer going ahead & then went and talked to the U.S & U.K with no assurances and the likely political suicide that would have resulted in the news cycle.

Couple of years ago Gary Johnston was saying it will cost $430m AUD to settle with the French.

The big problem with the Westminster system is if both sides on opposite sides of parliament don't argue with each other the Westminster system breaks down

Interesting quote

https://submarinesforaustralia.com.au

Too bad Gary isn't with us to see this day. He passed on earlier this year.

[Albany Rifles]

Dunno about Japan, but am pretty sure the US would scream bloody murder, threaten sanctions, demand imediate reparations & retractions and we'd see marches on US cities calling the french every name under the sun. The UK would shout about "perfidious french" and "another EU attack on Britania" and find polite ways of calling the australians "stupid colonials".

Hardly. There would be some grumbling in the defense industry, some bitching in Congress from those Congressmen who represent the districts which lost work. But that would be it.

Americans could care less about this level of news.

[Double Edge]

Dunno about Japan, but am pretty sure the US would scream bloody murder, threaten sanctions, demand imediate reparations & retractions and we'd see marches on US cities calling the french every name under the sun. The UK would shout about "perfidious french" and "another EU attack on Britania" and find polite ways of calling the australians "stupid colonials".

One argument i read in a French article wondered what the reaction would have been had it been the French to sell nuclear subs to the Aussies. Implying the Americans have broken a long held taboo about transferring nuclear tech to a non-nuclear state.

I don't see this necessarily as an argument as any NPT state can ask for nuclear power under IAEA safeguards. So a nuclear propelled sub should not be any different.

[zraver]

There are few things I'm very curious about, in this whole deal and story.

-If Australia wanted nukes, why didn't they stated so in the Collin's replacement project? Or did they suddenly changed opinion overnight?

The threat environment changed, submarine technology is in a generational ugrade. Even the latest and greatest US Virginia class subs no longer represent the leading edge. The newest and most capable subs like the Borei and Astute, let alone advancements in torpedo technology that absolutely doom any DE sub that gets detected.

-Afaik, Australia has no infrastructure to support nuclear reactors; wonder how much extra that will cost?

Use Bangor WA for mid life refusling

-Is the UK or the US actually going to sell Australia military nuclear technology (even if "just" propulsion-related)? This would be a first, right? I thought both countries had laws preventing this?

Yes

[zraver]

Figure any future sub the Aussies want will need to be able to...

Be affordable: The Shortfin Barracuda/Attack class cost more than a nuke boat. It was a massive transfer of wealth to France with no return to Australia.

Be able to get on station fast: DE's can't go fast without a lot of noise.

Be stealthy on station
be able to stay on station
Be able to dive deep

Have reserves of energy to actively evade torpedoes fired at it: DE boats can't do this. If they are shot at they die.

Have VLS capability to incorporate hypersonic ASHM and land attack cruise missiles.

Incorporate angled hull active sonar stealth features like seen on the Astute class.

Be built in a reasonable time frame before the Collins rust away and become a causality waiting to happen. Too old DE'd have died recently with great loss of life.

Other possible considerations

The Astute production run is winding down so the infrastructure is going to be available to build a modern, stealthy sub. Tweak the design to add VLS tubes and new American sealed life reactors and boom. A nuke boat in the water years before the glacially slow French would cut a single piece of steel.

Bangor WA provides a ready sub base until local facilities can be built up. Plus it would let the RAN develop the skill sets by training with and against a peer navy.

[jlvfr]

The Astute production run is winding down so the infrastructure is going to be available to build a modern, stealthy sub. Tweak the design to add VLS tubes and new American sealed life reactors and boom. A nuke boat in the water years before the glacially slow French would cut a single piece of steel.

If Australia goes for a Astute mod AUS, this would mean the US would have very little to do with the actuall construction, apart from (possibly?) the reactor and VLS tubes, leaving US shipywards out of the deal. It will also be a major redesign of the boat; I very much doubt one can simply trade reactors. And VLS tubes would take up a lot of room and tonage, againt requiring redesign. Basically you have to design a new boat. And I doubt the US will just wave away selling 12 very expensive boats.

And that's asuming Australia doesn't insist on locally building them.

[zraver]

I don't think we have any slipways open, we already have all the orders we can handle for our own navy. US and UK reactors share design lineages already. The Astutes already have a sealed life reactor. Adding VLS is an easy mod. We have experience adding sections from the Flight III 688, Jimmy Carter and the newest Virginia's. My point was that a modified MOTS nuke boat is going to be faster and cheaper. America probably won't build them, but will be a major subsystems supplier: weapons, power, fire control, sonar etc.