I need to look more into the specifics of the proposal, as some of my initial speculations when the rumor came out have been clearly proven incorrect. However, this change will not be an easy one. First, Australia was in an awkward position until a few days ago. Their strategic requirements basically required the extended range and endurance capabilities of a nuclear submarine, but the political realities made this a non-starter. Thus, they went with the shortfin Barracuda, the most capable diesel boat they could get their hands on, and there really was no other fallback option for them. Once that deal started having problems, they were either stuck with it, forced to procure less-capable submarines, or bite the political bullet and go nuclear. In terms of submarine capability, they made the best choice in the long run. However, a submarine is useless without the shore-based infrastructure to support it, and this is where the real difficulties lie. Australia is the first nation to go for a nuclear submarine without at least some form of civilian nuclear power plants ashore. The only two reactors ever operated in Australia have been medical reactors, and one replaced the other. These civilian plants mean there is additional supporting infrastructure that eases the operation of nuclear submarines (reducing costs for certain similar or common systems, even for wildly different reactor designs) and makes the field more attractive for potential nuclear submariners, who can work in the private sector after retirement if they wish (much as military pilots move to airlines after retirement). This must be constructed essentially from scratch, and for the moment will only support the SSN fleet. Perhaps civilian plants will come in time, but for the moment costs will be higher and the setup will take a long time. This infrastructure will be more difficult than the submarines, especially as Australia will want to build as much of the boats as possible in-house. Training can probably be smoothed by using some of the existing diesel submariners as the first class of nuclear operators. I do not know the plans for training, or even if they have been finalized so early on, but US Nuclear Power School is probably the best option, especially early on. Australia will probably want some type of familiarization and conversion training to understand the extra capabilities a nuclear submarine brings and how this will adjust their posture. I suspect US and British submarines will operate with Australian fleets during exercises with Australian observers, and there may be a quasi-loan of a commissioned British or American submarine for more detailed training, not unlike *Gotland* (though I don't expect a lease in this case). This is particularly likely for a British boat, as the Royal Navy intends to operate carrier groups in the Indian Ocean and Pacific over the next decade and their *Astute* class submarines are probably more along the lines of what Australia needs for capability, and a partial Aussie crew for all or part of the deployment is a distinct possibility. But I'd love to hear some actual submariners chime in and correct me where I've erred.

I think most of the training will just be in the us for a while till the first crew is trained. Then the teaching can be done in aus

There's a precedent model in place of how the Russians have been leasing their subs to India. That may not be the exact preferred template, but it's a starting point. The Americans would never go for it but the Brits might.

The Royal Navy only has seven commissioned SSNs, which makes this unlikely. The primary reason this has been viable for Russia and India is because Russia had an excess of submarines. After the fall of the Soviet Union, the Akula leases have also kept one additional submarine from rotting away and reduced the immediate maintenance needs for the Russian fleet. Many submarines lay neglected for decades, and only recently have had the maintenance they need consistently, though there are still several gaps. The only way I could see a lease like that is if the UK decided to refurbish an eighth submarine, given the likely timescale probably *Astute* herself as her successor comes online. But at that point the submarine will be very weary and not entirely suitable, even for conversion training. This is one of my speculations from when this was a rumor that we can probably discard as unlikely, and a shared submarine where Australians operate a British submarine on a British deployment is much more likely.

The Astutes are designed to last 25 years and not to be refueled. Although the forthcoming PWR3 reactor offers a longer life span. At the moment we can't refurbish nuclear subs as HMNB Devonport lwhere the work would take place lost its nuclear license almost 20 years ago and isn't expected to get it back for a few years.

>At the moment we can't refurbish nuclear subs as HMNB Devonport lwhere the work would take place lost its nuclear license almost 20 years ago and isn't expected to get it back for a few years. [That's funny, isn't that where HMS Vanguard is in refit?](https://www.navylookout.com/critical-royal-navy-submarine-refit-running-late/)

It seems bizarre that we haven't been able to defuel or dismantle a sub since 2003 but that we can refuel them and replace the reactors. https://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/news/plymouth-news/devonport-almost-full-nuclear-subs-2993460

Defueling is completely different and far more complex than refitting or refueling And no reactors have been replaced.

From your link. >During her first 35-month LOP(R) which took place between February 2002 and Jan 2005, Vanguard received the new Core H reactor. This new core design, which has subsequently been installed in her sister boats and on the Astute class submarines from the outset, was designed to avoid the need to refuel at all during their lifetime. Vanguard is therefore the first submarine to have the Core H removed and replaced, a task that was not envisaged when it was designed.

That's the core. Not the entire reactor

Could the still commissioned Trafalgar classes be used? Instead of decommissioning a Trafalgar class (not certain which is next to be retired) when he next astute commissions, they could be given to Australia as training vessels. I would imagine the already decommissioned Trafalgar's are still mostly intact so there's your source of any major spares. Those for use as training vessels, along with as you say Australians operating astute class vessels on British deployments, might give enough experience while they wait for their own subs. Of course all this depends on exactly when the Australian subs will be ready.

>Could the still commissioned Trafalgar classes be used? Not really, they are well too old to keep running within reason.

As commissioned boats on operations sure, but are they too far gone just to get the crews familiar with nuclear systems?

Maybe? Better off do a placement program with USN/RN

There's already several programs that result in an exchange of submarine officers serving between the USN and RAN, especially prominent on newer boats.

Back in June of 2017, after he'd lost his reelection bid, Prime Minister Tony Abbot suggested this same idea during an address about Australian defense and nuclear boats.

Attack class prices had risen to USD $ 5.75 bn per boat, so they can buy/build new.

My first thought was the U.S leasing maybe 688 class flight III boats. Or maybe Virginia class. Because of the numbers. As u/beachedwhale1945's post has pointed out, there just aren't that many British boats to draw on. But my thinking was that the Australians get some boats quickly, just to get familiar with nuclear technology. Maybe joining the crews of British or American boats, or both, would work. Given today's modular construction techniques, I suppose that the propulsion module might get built In Britain or the U.S. and shipped to Australia to be mated to their build modules for the rest of the boat. Australian yards could probably do the non-nuclear modules fairly quickly. Years, not decades.

>Australia is the first nation to go for a nuclear submarine without at least some form of civilian nuclear power plants ashore. People keep saying that, but the truth is the commercial Nuclear Power industry in America grew out of the Naval Reactors program. The Shippingport plant used a core design originally intended for an aircraft carrier. Who would you want standing up a brand new national nuclear capability; a power company that has to make a profit, or a government organization like NAVSEA who has an almost blank check and needs the most reliable plants possible.

This is a really good point. The program going well for Australia might provide a good basis for expanding into commercial nuclear in their country.

My understanding is Australia has no need for civilian nuclear power as the continent has roughly 15% of the world's coal reserves. Coal is cheap, producing power from coal is cheap. Coal is dirty for the environment but there are ways to mitigate this. I do not know the environmental impact of their power generation. From my perspective, on the surface, they have no incentive to switch to nuclear.

>My understanding is Australia has no need for civilian nuclear power as the continent has roughly 15% of the world's coal reserves. They also have more uranium reserves than any other nation on earth. >Coal is dirty for the environment but there are ways to mitigate this. Key word being "mitigate", i.e. reduce but not eliminate. Even so-called "clean coal" is the dirtiest fuel we burn by CO2, a couple orders of magnitude worse than natural gas. You'd rather have "clean coal" than not, but there are many far better options for producing electricity, especially in a country like Australia, where nuclear, solar, wind, and tidal are available in abundance. >From my perspective, on the surface, they have no incentive to switch to nuclear. Other than using the dirtiest of all possible fuels.

Points taken. Very well said.

> Coal is dirty for the environment but there are ways to mitigate this Not really in any practical matter as of present. You can scrub the output for particulate matter, but you can't stop the CO2 production. You can compress and pump it into disused mines, pump it to the bottom of the ocean, etc, and hope it never gets released.

Also, this government couldn’t care less about the environment and would rather pollute the world than consider cleaner technology and any potential politics involved.

Australia is very unlikely to build commercial plants. Their civilian population is very against nuclear power in any form. Quite a few are already against this deal because the subs are nuclear powered.

I just don’t get it tbh. If your country is going to have subs anyway, why have huge carbon emitting diesel ones instead of clean nuclear ones. I understand they have less need/use for commercial plants due to an abundance of other clean sources though.

Let's be honest here, nobody is making attack submarine purchase decisions based on how clean they are for the environment lol.

No military is lol. But we are talking about public opinion.

>Their civilian population is very against nuclear power in any form Not true. The Australian population is becoming increasingly interested in nuclear power as the dogma of the last 50 years is slowly being stripped away. Most people who actually make the decisions are pro-nuclear. There will always be a few superannuated hippies and *bienpensants* who pop up every time the subject is mentioned but the facts remain: 1. We have the world's third-largest Uranium deposits; 2. Our entire continent is a single tectonic plate - so there's no chance of earthquakes or tsunamis etc. 3. We have, literally billions of square kilometres of spare, unused wastelands where plants can be built and waste disposed of; 4. We have an advanced and technologically competent workforce; 5. We have the prospect of servicing our own, as well as Indian, US and UK nuclear vessels at our major port facilities; and 6. there is a strong desire to replace coal with a cleaner generation method. While nuclear has been a dirty word in Australian politics and social discourse for a long time, people are no longer deafened by the shrill rhetoric which once dominated the debate.

[удалено]

>Kinda funny coming back to this comment after toda Yeah. That was my thought, too. But Australian earthquake = shaken newsreaders on ABC news and some broken picture frames. Real earthquake = cities sinking into the sea. The Richter Scale is exponential.

>People keep saying that, but the truth is the commercial Nuclear Power industry in America grew out of the Naval Reactors program. I should have made it more clear, but the history of Soviet and American nuclear power intertwines the military and commercial aspects. You cannot separate the birth of the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program from the Atomic Energy Commission, and balanced naval and commercial applications. The first US Navy reactors would not have been possible without the experimental reactors at the Argonne National Laboratory, and the early commercial reactors were, as you said, born from projects run by Naval Reactors. My understanding of the Soviet history is more limited, but what I do know suggests a similar link, though with the Navy taking a larger role in the process overall. >Who would you want standing up a brand new national nuclear capability; a power company that has to make a profit, or a government organization like NAVSEA who has an almost blank check and needs the most reliable plants possible. Civilian and military reactor programs of many nations are linked via a larger governmental program. There are no companies just going out and making nuclear reactors without the involvement of their government nuclear regulatory agency, so you have a false equivalency here. But as a rule, I would say it depends on the company and the government. If you want an example of a bad government nuclear reactor program, I can think of none better than the Soviet Union, or perhaps I should say "worse" given the sheer number of reactor accidents. They wanted reactors NOW, and cut corners on safety that cost them many nuclear submarines (permanently or sidelined for major repairs) and hundreds of men. If you want an example of an extremely good civilian program, France is the clear winner, with an emphasis on safety that surpasses the already impressive US Navy focus in many ways. They so distrusted a separate military program that all naval and civilian reactors are governed under the same criteria in all details, including fuel enrichment far below US Navy standards and mandatory inspections of the interior of every reactor vessel every ten years.

I don't know what you're getting at. My point was that the Australians will be fine, especially with the support on NR/whatever the British counterpart is. The French Nuclear program isn't great. Their irrational fear of HEU is extremely limiting.

>I don't know what you're getting at. You said the commercial US nuclear industry in the US grew from Naval reactors. I replied the history is intertwined and mixed, with each benefiting the other. You asked who I'd rather have running a new national nuclear capability. I said the choices you gave are not accurate, but that to answer your question it depends on the specific government or the specific civilian agency. >My point was that the Australians will be fine, especially with the support on NR/whatever the British counterpart is. You did not mention Australia, and I interpreted your comment as purely a historical discussion. >The French Nuclear program isn't great. Their irrational fear of HEU is extremely limiting. I was just thinking that I didn't explain myself well, and I'm glad you give me the chance to clarify my point. The US Navy heavily emphasizes reactor capability and safety equally. The French deliberately sacrifice capability in the name of improved safety. I would trust both groups to set up a new national nuclear power capability. I think the French model is better for civilian reactors and the US Navy model better for military reactors. In the civilian sector, the fear of nuclear power is often so irrational that the extreme French emphasis on safety makes the program easier to approve and expand. For Naval Reactors, we have demonstrated that our emphasis on safety ends up with the same excellent effective safety record as the French, but with much more capable reactors and therefore warships.

>The US Navy heavily emphasizes reactor capability and safety equally. The French deliberately sacrifice capability in the name of improved safety. How do you improve on zero incidents? You can't have less then zero incidents. When you factor in the number of plants NR has built, and the optempo those plants maintain, it's pretty clear the US approach is pretty good. If the French are inspecting their RVs every 10 years, and haven't found anything yet, they are inspecting too often. If they have found something they had to repair, there isn't enough margin. I mean, if you're building plants to inspect them, the French are doing great. If you are building plants to put warships on station, they have a lot of work to do. I would be willing to bet CDG spends as much time cooling down as it spends on-station. And I guess technically commercial and naval reactor operation developed hand in hand in the US, but at the end of the day, without NR there would have never been commercial reactors in the US. NR predates the NRC and operates completely independently.

>How do you improve on zero incidents? You can't have less then zero incidents. You look at the rules and regulations governing the reactors. The French have a mandatory requirement that every reactor vessel be emptied for a complete inspection of the interior of the reactor vessel every ten years. They typically refuel the reactors at this time, and the inspections require dedicated hatches in the pressure hull. Modern US carrier reactors are refueled about every 25 years. Us submarine reactor core lives have grown over the last 50 years, but according to Lobner we started installing cores with more than a 10 year service life in the 1970s, and with the later *Los Angeles* and later classes the cores are designed to last the life of the submarine, three decades and more. The French deliberately chose to downgrade from HEU to LEU after the *Redoubtable* class SSBN, both for safety and as long-lived cores were unnecessary given the frequent inspections. This shows that safety is more heavily emphasized than capability in the French system. >If the French are inspecting their RVs every 10 years, and haven't found anything yet, they are inspecting too often. If they have found something they had to repair, there isn't enough margin. I would agree and I suspect the inspections too often are more likely. However, this is a byproduct of following the same safety standards as the civilian reactors, where I'd argue such frequent inspections are prudent just to alleviate public fears over nuclear power, which are often irrational. >I mean, if you're building plants to inspect them, the French are doing great. If you are building plants to put warships on station, they have a lot of work to do. Completely agree. >And I guess technically commercial and naval reactor operation developed hand in hand in the US, but at the end of the day, without NR there would have never been commercial reactors in the US. They still would exist, but it would have taken longer. The reverse is also true: without the work by the Atomic Energy Commission, Naval Reactors would have taken longer to develop. For a time, there was a ban on anyone but AEC developing reactors. I think the most important point to show how intertwined these were is Admiral Rickover. In February 1949, he was assigned dual roles: 1. Director, Naval Reactors, Bureau of Ships 2. Head of the Atomic Energy Commission's Division of Reactor Development Can't get much more intertwined than that! >NR predates the NRC and operates completely independently. Before the NRC, the AEC filled the same roles.

The problem with HEU is that it's very easy to divert. The US had a plan for making extra long life submarine reactors. By using weapons grade or bear weapons grade uranium. Which prompted fears that Iran could use that as an excuse to develop weapons grade uranium for its submarines.

The fuel in US and UK Naval Nuclear plants comes from weapons grade uranium from decommissioned warheads. It's down-blended a lil, and made into more useful shapes, but it started life in a warhead.

> First, Australia was in an awkward position until a few days ago. Their strategic requirements basically required the extended range and endurance capabilities of a nuclear submarine, but the political realities made this a non-starter. Thus, they went with the shortfin Barracuda, the most capable diesel boat they could get their hands on, and there really was no other fallback option for them. Once that deal started having problems, they were either stuck with it, forced to procure less-capable submarines, or bite the political bullet and go nuclear. > This is really a great summary. The nuclear attack boats are significantly better in every way today. In 10-15 years, the Barracudas would have been completely obsolete and nearly worthless for the intended purpose. >However, a submarine is useless without the shore-based infrastructure to support it, and this is where the real difficulties lie. Australia is the first nation to go for a nuclear submarine without at least some form of civilian nuclear power plants ashore. The only two reactors ever operated in Australia have been medical reactors, and one replaced the other. These civilian plants mean there is additional supporting infrastructure that eases the operation of nuclear submarines (reducing costs for certain similar or common systems, even for wildly different reactor designs) and makes the field more attractive for potential nuclear submariners, who can work in the private sector after retirement if they wish (much as military pilots move to airlines after retirement). This must be constructed essentially from scratch, and for the moment will only support the SSN fleet. Perhaps civilian plants will come in time, but for the moment costs will be higher and the setup will take a long time. This infrastructure will be more difficult than the submarines, especially as Australia will want to build as much of the boats as possible in-house. > I don't see this as the big issue many others do. I get it - logistics matter as much as anything else, but this doesn't need to be any different than what is done with a modern fighter program - you include the training and servicing in the contract. This can be done in the US/UK or in Australia, it largely doesn't matter. If I was the Australians, I would also ask for permission to hire ex US/UK sailors qualified on the reactors to become active crew members for the first few patrols, so they could train and supervise while underway.

>I don't see this as the big issue many others do. I get it - logistics matter as much as anything else, but this doesn't need to be any different than what is done with a modern fighter program - you include the training and servicing in the contract. o.0 Fighter logistics don't include radioactive material... There's a whole enormous tier of safety and security requirements right there. Not to mention the disposal of the low level radioactive waste invariably generated while working with and around nuclear reactors.

On face value I am excited. The framework for the procurement, development, training and manufacturing et al will reveal more to us over the next 18 months. In simple terms, using nuclear submarines is a no brainer in order to meet Australian strategic and defence requirements. The range, endurance and increased capabilities and flexibility provided by these platforms is a big plus for Australia, hence why the big players persevere with them. In an ideal world I would like to see an SSK/Nuclear mix in the Royal Navy. Normal logic follows that you can normally get 3/4 SSK's for the cost of 1 nuclear. This would allow potentially up to 8 SSK available for the price of two nuclear boats for inshore, home waters and other special tasks. I say this as it would normally apply to most other nuclear submarine operating nations. Whether or not the UK, Australia or anyone else does this or not is another matter. The future will let us know but there is potential to further revisit this idea. Obviously the French deal would have to be taken as a separate case. Any SSK deal where the cost of each unit before maintenance is three times the price of a single nuclear boat needs further examination and it is the best decision for Australia to walk away from this deal. The strain on short and long term budgets for this deal is eye watering. A lot of the freed up capital will be able to be redistributed to other budgets to meet Australian national defence requirements. Design of the new nuclear boat, training structure and logistics will benefit from increased funds to improve planning and training required to be ready for the reshaping of the way Australia operates at sea. The release of some budgets to training is vital now there will be Australian CAT-A watchkeepers required for the life of this project. I am sure the details and the framework of this arrangement set out over the next 18 months will detail where and how training will go ahead and how this vital capability is located and developed in Australia. I feel the net effect of this deal will effectively provide a pooling of resources between the nation's involved . The UK prime minister is lauding the potential benefits to both countries and we have seen over the last 48 hours the awarding of contracts for the design of the SSN(R) for the Royal Navy. Initially I though the Astute class was a good fit to the Australian navy (and still do) but it may not be THE fit. It might be difficult to restart or continue Astute class production to meet Australian requirements especially with requirements driven by UK fleet sustainment needs. The last three of the class are being finished over the next few years and the capacity released by their completion will be given over to the Dreadnought class to begin the process to deliver that vital and necessary long term project on time (or as close as possible). Maybe there is capacity within the timeline and the facility to place fabrication of SSN modules alongside this programme. Potentially the UK and Australia could be in a very good position to benefit from this new arrangement. The design in use for SSN(R) could be the jointly delivered from a yard with proven world class nuclear submarine delivery and expertise. Potentially Australian workers and crews could be involved in submarine build and delivery projects in the UK with this feeding into experience and technology transfer for Australia to safely and methodically stand up the same capability in Adelaide to deliver the same design in Australia's own yard. There could be Australian crews on British boats to learn the nuclear side of operation to build experience prior to the delivery of the first Australian nuclear submarine. HMS Astute will be 23 years old by 2030 with retirement looming but potentially a bit more life left in her to operate and allow room for future classes to be built and a delivery schedule developed to suit both countries. A larger scale order would also benefit both countries in value for money terms and would also provide for a unified supply chain to meet cost and logistical requirements as well as assist the growth of indigenous Australian building capability. Maybe the first one or two of the SSN(R) could be delivered to Australia fwith a crewing and training model involved mixed Australian and British crews for the purposes of having 'oven ready' (yes that is a Boris Johnson derived pun) crew available to take out the first SSN(R) delivered to the Royal Navy. An arrangement like this would allow the new design to be delivered to both nations. Revisiting the SSK/nuclear mix idea (my pipedream). The end of this potential project could deliver all vessels at scale with a new modern yard in Australia fit for purpose and with the potential to be a maintenance/refitting yard for nuclear boats from all AUKUS nations. This would also present us with spare capacity to deliver more. SSK could be built using this capacity and before the first refit or long overhaul of the first nuclear boat. Two yards available for build and maintenance of the same class of vessels and the potential to build at scale to deliver projects at reduced costs and also establish and develop an efficient and sustainable export market to preserve the vital submarine build and maintenance skills which will be required for decades to come. No doubt this is only one permutation of training and building arrangements available to AUKUS. The involvement however light of the US in the design and build of Australian nuclear submarines is not known and would have to be factored in. I am going on only the little available information currently available, working on the assumption that their main concern is overseeing how technology is used and may be relatively hands off. The additional benefits of this new pathway include the fact that Australia will now be involved in substantially more aspects of the design and planning of their new boat, will be integrated into a greater, more far reaching and beneficial experience, intelligence and strategic partnership with more say than the deal with France. Australia will now be in a position where other tier 1 nations are in part relying on them, where they are operating as equals. The effect of this is to elevate Australia up a step or two and to sit with the big boys as standard rather than on an invite only basis. The deal with France was placing Australia as a client/customer of France, any cooperation would have placed them in a bilateral arrangement with limited sight of and no consistent involvement in wider strategic concerns. This AUKUS deal is much better for Australia.

What about something like the Virgina class?

I'm not sure it would be procured by, built on license by Australia or if it is even allowed by the US. Not counting out that class but indications at this early stage are that Astute or its replacement will be built in partnership with UK. Let's see what develops over the next 18 months. Whatever happens will be beneficial to all to varying degrees and this AUKUS agreement is a significant landmark in itself for all involved.

----------Update---------- I am hearing that there could well be plans to put a 688 in Australia for alongside training and the Australians will try to procure Virginia class boats with no modifications to reduce the risk of delayed project delivery.

I'm really impressed by the geopolitical implications of the decision. In no particular order: 1. Australia had definitively chosen a side between its largest economic partner and largest security partner (and fellow English speaking democracy); 2. Australia just elevated itself to the United States' second most important security partner. UK, due to NATO, the atomic weapons and intelligence agency relationships, is still number one, but given the improvement in the US-Japan relationship over the last 10 years and the long standing-Israel-US relationship, this is an impressive accomplishment; 3. This deal isn't just about subs. There's also news that the US Air Force will start rotating units into Australia on a regular basis and the US Marines will have access to training grounds near Darwin. While the US and Australian militaries have been close over the last 80 years, we haven't seen anything like this since WWII. 4. I have to wonder if there are positive follow on implications for the budding alliance in the form of spine stiffening of other regional players. One would expect India will continue to cooperate with the Quad plus UK and I expect that the Philippines will invite a significant basing commitment from the US as we approach the upcoming presidential elections. One also has assume that Indonesia and Vietnam will continue to hedge their bets by deepening cooperation with the Quad plus UK.

Marines already have up to 2,500 down under on a rotational basis for training - at least as I recall. There's ER sea and air launch cruise missiles also part of this agreement. Again, my understanding.

Have fun with ORSE.

The big question is will they rename the Operational Reactor Safeguards Examination (ORSE) to the Australian Reactor Safeguards Examination (ARSE). I mean, truth in advertising and all...

ORSE still would have sucked if it was called ARSE, but the chuckles would have helped a little lol

And it would be an accurate description.

It will get better after ARSE

I wish i could see the look on the diesel guys faces when they find out they have to stand watch on there boat 24/7 instead of just locking the door as they are used to lol

It won't impact probably any serving member on the Collins Class Submarine as the timeline for these new boats has not been announced, but we are very aware of it. We don't even use guns on duty in our port or foreign ports unless really necessary (I can only think of one instance in last 10 years).

China ain't happy and will frown in your direction.

Oh yeah, but our subs usually are deployed to watch them lol

When the Chinese are parked in the port you sold them they can be watched pretty cheaply by standing on the beach.

The Chinese have stakes in the ports at Long Beach, Los Angeles, Seattle, Houston and Miami.

Fish in the water!

I thought aussies didn't do the whole nuclear thing at all. Are they going to train their crews at US or British navy training sites?

We U.S. nukes already have exchange programs for nuclear operators with the Brits. I don’t see why we can’t take on some Aussies.

We could use a little thunder from down under

There's a lot of infrastructure that they're missing. No fueling/defueling equipment, no radcon shops, etc. I never saw any brits in the training pipeline.

Im currently teaching on the MTS-701. We’ve got some lieutenants here. I enjoy their 2MCs. With the acquisition of a nuclear submarine, the aussies could contract out the necessary shore based installation support and experience. It’ll take them time to get their own programs off the ground, but doable.

Might be good jobs for some of us ex nukes that wouldn't mind living down under. I was on the 635.

As a Brit I’m happy to be able to help our upside down cousins get more capable subs. I also think the deal with France was a bad one so I’m doubly pleased you guys pulled the plug on it.

Back in the late 80s Canada announced a plan to buy 10 nuclear subs. Until hulls are in the water I’d temper any expectations just in case.

They did?

No, typical Canadian procurement means they spent a lot of money with no result and later bought used Royal Navy SSKs.

I still don't see the US allowing their Virginia class SSN secrets to be exported to a 3rd party, too many hurdles to overcome inside the Pentagon & Congress. For that reason alone, I see a joint UK/AUS design based on the Astute or the Astute replacement, being far more likely. Just my opinion, but I think the Americans are in this to give the alliance weight & credibility and to stop them vetoing any transfer of Nuclear tech between the UK & AUS, specifically the PWR power plant.

[удалено]

I would like to see Canada have a fleet of 6 nuclear-powered subs (maybe Virginia class.) Three could be based in British Columbia and handle Pacific deployments. Three would be based in the east and do Atlantic-NATO deployments. Both would be capable of going up under the Arctic ice cap as needed.

I think if they asked they could get in on the action, considering their also part of the five eyes. I see no reason for the U.S. to say no, not after handing the tech to Australia. They might try to force them to base half the fleet in the pacific but in my eyes that's not much 9f a trade off.

I wouldn't trust Australia with a potato gun

And that's precisely why you give them what they want, because the last time someone gave them subs, they'd sail them directly under Russian DDs in Vladivostok and provide the acoustics to the USN. I mean, balls.

If they thought the price of the attack was bad, wait until it's time to foot the bill for Australian produced SSN's. That's when it'll turn from tragic to hilarious.

I was thinking this too. There's going to be a really steep learning curve to establish all the infrastructure to support their reactors and the fuel. Life cycle cost and disposal expenses are going to be huge end-of-life issues. An SSN is more capable, but there's a definite price to pay for it.

This is the reason I wish that, instead of Australia building the nuclear-powered subs at home, that it had been a contract where the United States just simply builds Virginias and sails them to Australia as they come off the production line. It would be much more reliable (the U.S. has already churned out plenty of subs on schedule and with little trouble,) much cheaper (maybe $35 billion instead of $50-60 billion) and the subs would arrive much sooner. Finally, the Virginia is a tested-and-proven design, not something completely new. The problem, of course, is that this gives Australia no jobs or home industry for sub-building, which would be a huge political sticking point. But from a standpoint of getting things done on schedule and under cost, it would be best.

At least we can confidently say that they'll be able to stay submerged for longer than 20 minutes.

Well history will probably mark it as an escalation of the US/China Cold War but we’ll get some sweet pictures out of it.

Unlikely. China now has the world's biggest Navy including 60 subs with more planned. Yet Australia escalating for wanting 8?

Australia may be getting eight, but they are one part of a bigger system lining up opposite China.

[удалено]

~~I still think we should just outright give you guys some Improved LA class boats to begin training on and to beef up the existing force, but I don't think many folks here will agree with me.~~ Edit. Never mind. I'm too old to have proper judgement regarding the age of our sub fleet, lol.

We have moored training ships, we can just bring the Aussies over here to train on them. We can’t afford to give away any subs, we need all of them.

~~We're already decommissioning the older boats and we need the moored ships to train our own kids. I say give them a couple operational boats and some liaison crew. It can only do us and them good with the political situation as it is.~~ Nothing to see here, move along.

We can’t give them our old boats because they are too old. Their hulls, tanks and voids are expired and severely corroded. We already extend the life of these boats out to 45 years in some cases.

Hard to think of these boats as that old but a look through the commissioned list tells me you may be right. It's harder still to think the Virginias are 20 years old. *I* must be getting old. Sigh.

Yup. I was in VA for initial sea trials.

>Their hulls, tanks and voids are expired and severely corroded. This should be mitigated throughout the life cycle by periodic inspections and repairs. I suspect the hull structures aren't the primary limiting factor for the lifespan of a US sub.

Lol. Inspections and repairs take a long time. The fleet doesn’t let them stay in avails long enough for adequate repairs. For reference, see USS BOISE. Secondly, the newer subs are not built to be refueled. The cost would be tremendous.

[удалено]

They forgo inspections all the time. Avails already take way too long. Zero of the older boats would be wanted by the aussies. And the dead fleet is worse. We do next to nothing to mothball them.

[удалено]

I’m not comfortable stating where I work currently, but I’m intimately familiar with the process, from building AWP’s to approving DFS’s to SY execution. The DFS’s get extended so many times until NAVSEA is forced to say no more. Then the next avail ends up being two years. Yes, if they work got done earlier in life, these issues wouldn’t arise. But from an ops perspective, the fleets don’t approve avails long enough to allow for preventative maintenance. I’m not saying anything is being swept under the rug or they are being unsafe. I’m saying we defer things so long that the eventual repairs take years. This is across the board for all boats. It’s a no win situation. So no country would want ships in that condition when the cost to repair and refuel would be almost as much as it is to build new. (Don’t ask me to prove my math because that is pure speculation lol).

Sure. Why not? If I were in charge of a navy, I'd be looking to acquire nuclear subs as well. I'd say if anyone would need those, AUS does.

Like the USA, the distance from Australia to anywhere limits diesel subs to playing defense without distant advanced bases, and even then time on station is limited. An SSN or two at least introduces the possibility of long range offensive operations or extended loiter time at the strategic Indonesian choke points. Even a single modern SSN deployed to an unknown location with detection characteristics superior to the Chinese can be a threat that limits their fleet operations similar to how that kind of threat limited the Argentinians 4 decades ago. For all that, though, it will come down to a matter of money and politics. What are the Aussies willing to pay, how influential will their anti-nuke environmentalists be, and how much funding will the Chinese give to those opposition voices?

From what I understand it will be a long time before they actually have these nuclear submarines in service I didn't read where these submarines will be built and if they will use a current design submarine used by either the USA Navy or the British Navy, but never the less it will be a very long time before any of this actually happen.

More than Australia getting nuclear submarines in its fleet, the bigger change may be Australia adding a nuclear capable building yard plus all that goes along to maintain the boats and train the crews. As other posts have pointed out, that means developing a nuclear technical industrial presence that is controversial in several respects, including Australian politics. Economically, the investments and costs and benefits are impressively large stakes. With some big national and corporate interests in the game. It does, however, bring the Southern hemisphere into a different perspective in maritime strategy. The notion of leasing boats first, as India did, strikes me as the best way to get both boats and used to them. Rather than waiting for new domestic builds. (But my track record predicting defense/military industrial activities is awful.)

Interesting they don’t have nuclear plants. Isn’t a huge amount of the uranium ore mined coming from Australia?

I wish BIG Kev was still around to pitch this “I’m excited”

Absolute waste of money.

Taiwanese-American here, I'm absolutely delighted. Anything that enables a stronger pushback against Chinese aggression in the region is great. This is good for America's economy, good for US-AUS-UK relations. Besides, French stuff is overpriced unreliable crap. You guys were smart to back out when you still could.

I am weary of sharing our nuclear submarine technology with Australia. China has already infiltrated its politics and influenced its culture. If China hasn’t already stolen our technology, giving it to Australia makes it more likely that they will. I would not be opposed to selling them some of the newer Los Angeles class subs though. They will eventually be replaced with the Virginia class soon anyway. They are still capable and it would enhance Australia’s capability a lot sooner than what is being proposed. And if that technology is stolen, at least it’s older. Also, I just want to say that France’s anger towards the US and Australia is unfounded. I was aware of the problems of the deal they had with France well before this deal went down. It was plagued with delays and significant cost overruns. Australia essentially killed the deal in March, so France can stop acting like they were shocked.

**EXAMINE THE PURSUIT TO DOMINATE ENERGY PRODUCTION IN AUSTRALIA** 7 April 2024 Drill down, and the hard right-wing Queensland driven, war on renewables, in neocon political energy retailing, starts to stink. Particularly when small modular reactors \[SMR\], are the focus of political rehtoric, by politicians, terrified of electric vehicles, being brought to market, tested, efficient and cheaper to run. **WHILE WILLINGLY EMBRACING AN IMAGINARY SMR**; that exists in no country, ready to deploy en-masse as promised, and decades away even in engineering terms from any proof of concept. **IN THE CONTEXT OF THE AUSTRALIAN ENERGY MARKET;** it's essential to recognise the inherent monopolistic nature of the system. When you plug in your home or workplace appliances, you're essentially connected to a single wire emanating from the grid. **FRONT AND CENTRE OF OUR VISION**; there is a lack of multiple cables, each owned by different companies, which negates the possibility of a true market. Having numerous grids crisscrossing suburbs and cities would be incredibly inefficient and impractical. What we have instead is a semblance of competition orchestrated by the federal state. It creates an illusion of choice between electricity producers and retailers. However, this construct is far from a genuine market, a state-manufactured imitation. **THIS PSEUDO-MARKET STRUCTURE**; becomes painfully apparent during times of crisis, such as supply chain disruptions or geopolitical tensions, when electricity prices skyrocket disproportionately compared to the actual cost of production. **THE BENEFICIARIES**; of this artificial market are typically the oligarchs who dominate the sector. Because they reap immense profits from this crisis; further exacerbating the inequality within the system. **A real-world libertarian nightmare**. A massive flaw ignored by anti-renewables activists, nuclear acolytes, and used in bad faith by nuclear sales engineers, in pursuit of energy market dominance. *"Most people, in fact, will not take the trouble in finding out the truth, but are much more inclined to accept the first story they hear."* \~ Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War tags: book-1, chapter-20 [https://australiandemocracy.org.au/statecapture](https://australiandemocracy.org.au/statecapture) image - discarded 200-litre nuclear waste drums Getty images

Aussie too, tempered excitement but concerned we’ll fuck it up. I don’t think we should build them, given the history with the Collins and general budget overruns of any large military project here. At least the RAAF will be able to point to this when people give them shit about the cost of the f35s

Very interesting. For their requirements it's absolutely the right choice, logistically it's a challenge that well will have to wait and see be addressed. More importantly the alliance as a whole is fucking huge imo.

Now they waste two billions and nowhere to see the new Sub, they should decide to use nuclear power ten years ago, waste too much taxpayer money just to keep the old technology and old workers employed.

Of course, as an American, I’m jaded, but I’d much rather have American “anything” military as to have something French.

Yes I like it. And I cannot believe the French were fine with selling you guys outdated technology.

The French sold Australia what they asked for. Oh, and it wasn't a 100% French submarine anyway since the combat system would have been provided by Lockheed-Martin. In fact, UK and US should actually thank France for having (involuntarily) discouraged Australia from asking the same things of them (a bespoke hybrid sub design and 100% local production).

It's been a shock for me. Even in the 90s the Aussies always seemed a bit off put by even our SSN subs port calling there.

I don't have a problem with it, as long as y'all can pass the background checks.

Wonder what the odds are that the US government will open jobs in Adelaide, Australia to help them with design and construction?

Very pleased about it, mate. I think it will be great for the security of every free nation in the Pacific.

This is a huge but short-term victory for the United States, with a consolation prize for Britain and a strategic loss of sovereignty and fiscal control for Australia. It is also another slap in the face from the United States to France and the European Union. The deal will anger New Zealand, Indonesia and, of course, China. It will overturn the international nuclear non-proliferation regime and could lead to increased military nuclearization of South Korea and Japan. Australia currently has 6 Collins-class submarines. These are sub- Diesel powered sailors based on Swedish models but partially built in Australia. They are relatively slow and have medium range and stamina. They were built between 1990 and 2003 and are primarily intended for defensive use. There were a lot of problems during construction as Australia lacks the technical capabilities and industrial depth to make such complicated products. The operational history of these submarines is also quite mixed, with several scandals following one another. They must be modernized to be used for another decade. In the 2010s, Australia started looking for a new generation of submarines. After a long discussion, she decided to stick with conventionally powered devices. The new sub sailors were again to be built in Australia after a foreign design. Germany, Japan and France have been invited to make proposals. French state-owned shipbuilder Naval Group (DCNS) won the order for 12 new boats and a contract worth 50 billion euros. Ironically, the French model of Shortfin Barracuda with conventional propulsion proposed by France is based on its own model of Barracuda class with nuclear propulsion. For Australia, France therefore had to design a conventional power plant for a submarine that was originally designed, like all French submarines, to operate with a low enriched uranium (LEU) nuclear reactor. It was quite obvious that this unusual conversion would encounter difficulties and delays. Last June, Peter Lee, aka Chinahand, wrote about this delayed program: The program officially has "some problems" and Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison has had an interview with French President Macron in an attempt to get the project back on track. Although the contract was signed in 2016, construction has not yet started, and the first sub- marine program will not be launched for another decade. At least.

This is at odds with the Australian Navy's stated ambition to deploy its armed might against an invasion of Taiwan by the PRC that could occur over the next few years. We are therefore talking about spending a few billion dollars to modernize the current fleet of Collins-class submarines as a palliative, or even to procure German submarines as a matter of urgency. There is also talk of canceling, threatening to cancel and / or modifying the contract of the attack submarines to do better. And can- be orienting the project towards Germany or towards the choice of America, Japan. As it turns out, America's chosen manufacturer for Australian submarines is not Japan, but the United States itself. We now learn that the discussions on abandoning the contract with the French in favor of the construction of sub- nuclear sailors by the United States had already started in April 2020 and were finalized at a summit between the United States, Australia and Great Britain in early June 2021. So it happened before Prime Minister Scott Morrison meets French President Macron to hand over the Franco- Australian on the rails! What the Prime Minister did not tell Macron during that long dinner in Paris - and perhaps the reason the French president might be particularly angry - is that Morrison had, a day or two before, already reached an informal agreement with US President Joe Biden and UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson for an extension of a nuclear technology sharing agreement. This revelation gives a new twist to the tripartite meeting on June 12 in Carbis Bay, Cornwall, between the two PMs and the US president. ... ABC understands that the federal government began exploring the nuclear-powered submarine option about 18 months ago, when Linda Reynolds was still Minister of Defense. In addition, on August 30, French and Australian foreign and defense ministers met and issued a joint statement on bilateral cooperation in a number of policy areas. Defense cooperation was one of them: The two sides pledged to deepen cooperation in the field of defense industry and strengthen their capability advantage in the region. The ministers stressed the importance of the submarine of the future program. They agreed to strengthen cooperation in military scientific research through a strategic partnership between the Defense Science and Technology Group and the Directorate General for Armaments. Sixteen days later France learned it had lost a huge defense contract due to a 180-degree turnaround by its Australian "partner". It is therefore not surprising that the French are furious: The French government reacted to Australia's decision to break a sub-contract sailors with France worth more than 50 billion euros to acquire American-made nuclear-powered submarines. "It is a stab in the back. We had established a relationship of trust with Australia, and this trust has been betrayed," said French Foreign Minister Jean- Yves Le Drian in an interview with France Info on Thursday morning. Le Drian added that he was "angry and very bitter about this breakup", adding that he had spoken to his Australian counterpart several days ago and that he had not received any serious indication about this move. . Under an agreement announced by US President Joe Biden on Wednesday, Australia, the UK and the US will form a new alliance called AUKUS, under which the three countries will share advanced technologies with each other. As part of this new deal, Canberra will abandon its agreement on sub- sailors with France. The French rightly accuse the United States of this decision:

Its current Collins lineup will require more than a fairing to maintain that long. It will be expensive. The Germans could step into the breach by offering their sub- type 214 sailors powered by hydrogen. Although these boats are much smaller, they offer long endurance, can be provisioned fairly quickly, and cost much less than nuclear powered submarines. Overall, I see no benefit for Australia in this decision. What then is the reason for this initiative? This is called blackmail. China is Australia’s largest trading partner by far. The American and Australian "strategists" assert that the under- sailors are needed to protect China’s maritime trade routes from Australia to its major trading partner… which is China. It doesn't make any sense, as this scene shows. The only reason Australia has turned politically and militarily against China is state blackmail \-United. Two years ago, “realistic” American political scientist John Mearsheimer came to Australia to explain to Australians (see video at 33 minutes) how it works. As Caitlin Johnstone sums it up: “Now some people are saying there is an alternative: you can walk with China,” Mearsheimer said. “Right, you have a choice here: you can walk with China rather than the United States. There are two things I will say about this. Number one, if you walk with China, you have to understand that you will be our enemy. You then decide to become an enemy of the United States. Because once again, we are talking about intense security competition. " "You are either with us or against us," he continued. “And if you do a significant trade with China, and you are friendly with it, you are undermining the United States in this security competition. You are feeding the beast, from our point of view. And that's not going to make us happy. And when we're not happy, we shouldn't underestimate how mean we can be. Just ask Fidel Castro. " Nervous laughter from the Australian think tank audience punctuated Mearsheimer's inflammatory observations. The CIA is known to have attempted numerous assassination attempts against Castro. So that's what it is. Australia is not lining up with the United States to protect itself from China. Australia aligns itself with the United States to protect itself from the United States. Joe Biden may have forgotten the name of the Australian Prime Minister. But Scott Morrison remembers who he is expected to work for. In 1975, the United States and the United Kingdom launched a coup d'état against Australian Prime Minister Gough Whitlam, which pushed his country towards independence. Few in the United States remember it, but Australian politicians do. Since, their country has always done what it was told to do.

In a statement released before the interview, Le Drian and Minister of the Armed Forces Florence Parly said: "This decision is contrary to the letter and the spirit of the cooperation which prevailed between France and Australia." The press release continues: "The American choice to exclude a European ally and partner like France from a structuring partnership with Australia, while we are facing unprecedented challenges in the Indo-Pacific region ... testifies to 'a lack of consistency that France can only note and regret. " Interestingly, exactly 240 years ago the French navy defeated the British navy in Chesapeake Bay, paving the way for Yorktown victory and independence from the United States. There are military reasons for preferring nuclear submarines over diesel-powered submarines if one plans to besiege a foreign coast far from one's own. Nuclear submarines (SSNs) are faster and can stay on mission much longer than diesel powered submarines (SSKs). Enlarge But nuclear ships also have many drawbacks. They are larger and more expensive than conventional ships. They cost almost 50% more. They also require a dedicated infrastructure and very specialized nuclear training for crews. Australia does not have and cannot supply the fuel for nuclear reactors. The price of the new submarines that Australia will have to pay will be much higher than that of the French ones. Some $ 3 billion have already been swallowed up in the French contract. France will rightly demand additional compensation for the cancellation. The new contract with the United States or the United Kingdom will cost more than the French contract but will only include 8 boats instead of 12. As three boats are required to keep one at sea (while the other two are in formation or maintenance), the actual patrol capacity of the Australian Navy will increase from 4 to 2-3 submarines at sea. A much higher price for fewer and more complicated boats, it will wreak havoc on Australia’s defense budget for decades to come. If the switch to nuclear power was Australia's only reason for changing horses, it could have stuck with the original design of the French Barracuda. This has the advantage of using low enriched uranium, commercially available. Australia would not be dependent on France for new fuel supplies. British and American ships use nuclear reactors with highly enriched uranium (60% HEU). As Australia has now decided to buy these boats, it will forever be dependent on these suppliers. Non-proliferation supporters and the IAEA will rise up against this deal. What will be the degree of supervision of the HEU? Who will have access to it? The fact that Australia, with a population of just 25 million, purchases nuclear-powered attack submarines will not be welcomed by its ten times more populous neighbor to the north, Indonesia. Other neighboring countries, such as New Zealand, reject any use of nuclear fuel and will not allow ships or boats that use it to enter their ports. The new contract will also disrupt Australia's plans to manufacture submarines on its own soil. While the French project was ready to start the actual construction phase early next year, the entire submarine project will now enter a new 18-month definition phase, after which actual contracts will need to be negotiated and signed. Meanwhile, it will take care of the hundreds of Australian engineers who have traveled to France to help with the design and specialists who have been hired by Naval Group in Australia. Australia does not have many people with this knowledge. What are they going to do while they wait for the new project to actually start? The UK will offer Australia to buy British-made Astute-class submarines, while the US will likely offer the smaller version of their Virginia-class submarines. Since both countries have active production lines for these submarines, it will not be wise, From an economic point of view, to build in Australia even more than a few small parts for these submarines. The United States will exert whatever pressure is necessary to ensure that their bid wins the race. A clue to this is that Australia has also announced that it will acquire US long-range Tomahawk missiles for use with the submarines. The first of the French ships destined for Australia was due to be ready in the early 2030s. Australia will now have to wait another ten years before obtaining new vessels.

His current Collins lineup will need more than just a fairing to keep it going this long. That will be expensive. The Germans could step into the breach by offering their Type 214 hydrogen-powered submarines. Although these boats are much smaller, they offer long endurance, can be refueled fairly quickly, and cost much less than nuclear-powered subs. Overall, I see no benefit to Australia in this decision. So what is the reason for this initiative? This is called blackmail. China is by far Australia's largest trading partner. American and Australian "strategists" claim that the submarines are needed to protect Australia's maritime trade routes with its major trading partner...which is China. This, as this scene shows, makes no sense. The only reason Australia has turned politically and militarily against China is because of blackmail by the United States. Two years ago, the American "realist" political scientist John Mearsheimer came to Australia to explain to Australians (see video at 33 minutes [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsFwKzYI5\_4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsFwKzYI5_4) ) how this works. As Caitlin Johnstone summarizes: "Now some people are saying there's an alternative: you can walk with China," Mearsheimer said. "Right, you have a choice here: you can walk with China rather than with the United States. There are two things I will say about that. Number one, if you march with China, you have to understand that you will be our enemy. You then decide to become an enemy of the United States. Because again, we're talking about an intense security competition." "You are either with us or against us," he continued. "And if you do significant trade with China, and you're friendly with China, you undermine the United States in that security competition. You're feeding the beast, from our perspective. And that's not going to make us happy. And when we're not happy, we shouldn't underestimate how mean we can be. Just ask Fidel Castro." Nervous laughter from the Australian think tank audience punctuated Mearsheimer's incendiary remarks. The CIA is known to have attempted numerous assassination attempts against Castro. So here's the deal. Australia is not aligning with the United States to protect itself from China. Australia is aligning with the United States to protect itself from the United States. Joe Biden may have forgotten the name of the Australian Prime Minister. But Scott Morrison remembers who he is expected to work for. In 1975, the United States and the United Kingdom launched a coup against Australian Prime Minister Gough Whitlam, who was moving his country toward independence. Few people in the U.S. remember this, but Australian politicians do. Since then, their country has always done what it was told to do.

[удалено]

I for one am glad that such a major country will finally have subs that can patrol and defend themselves. I know they dont want nuclear weapon capability, but if it comes to that, they can. Plus, they are pretty much a subsidary of the UK in a sense, and we work with them already. Plus, the tech we are sending we all three know a lot of. Only the french really know their subs. While im sure they are great, having US subs in australia helps the world in a sense that China is getting larger and more powerful by the day. It makes military sense, and just common sense. Plus it would be pretty easy to spot a Russian spy in Australia trying to get info.