Asian Press Group banner 728x90A necessary precondition for the sale of second-hand Virginia class submarines to Australia in the 2030s is that their rate of production needs to be substantially increased. This, in turn, requires an increase in funding – an increase that now will not happen because of internal US politics.

Republicans in Congress have rejected even considering an omnibus bill that has the main objective of increasing security at the southern border – but which also contains numerous provisions for extra defence spending. What has received the most attention is that the legislation includes desperately needed money for Ukraine and Israel – but Australia is also a casualty. Not that you will learn that from our own government, which remains determined to conceal what is really happening from the public.

Known as the National Security Supplemental Appropriations Act – 2024, it also included a total of US $3.3 billion in various measures designed to expand the industrial base for submarine construction.  The money is divided across a number of areas, including directly on Colombia class missile firing SSBNs (an extra US $1.95 billion); Virginia class SSNs (US $200 million); and a variety of activities such as facilities construction and R&D.

With overall US defence spending capped for the next two years by Congress, there appears to be no way – at least in the short term – for submarine construction to be lifted from its current rate to anything like that required for a sale to Australia.  Virginia class SSNs are being produced at a rate of 1.5 per year – and this needs to reach an annual rate of 2.33 before they are being churned out at a rate exceeding the needs of the USN.

Against this background, Australia is on course to transfer $4.59 billion at today’s exchange rate (US $3 billion) to the US Secretary of the Navy by the end of 2024. So, while the US is not prepared to spend its own money to increase submarine production, a supposedly close ally in the form of Australia is on the hook to hand over a massive amount of cash – with no visibility on how it will be spent, and apparently no refund clause.

This complete travesty has been negotiated in secret by national security bureaucrats in both countries with Australian politicians – and in particular Defence Minister Richard Marles – too spineless to even consider some form of renegotiation.

In the US, a political champion of the Virginia class sale is Congressman Joe Courtney, whose district in Connecticut – not coincidentally – is the location of the Groton shipyard that makes submarines. Regarding the Republican decision not to even consider the bill, he issued a statement referring to Congressional House Speaker Mike Johnson:

“This week, Rep. Joe Courtney made it clear again, again, and again to Speaker Johnson that his refusal to allow a vote on the national security supplemental is a vote against AUKUS and our allies in their time of need.

“The bill, which passed out of the Senate on Monday morning with the support of 22 Republicans, includes support for Israel, Ukraine, Taiwan, as well as an often “overlooked” $3.3 billion investment in the U.S. submarine industrial base (SIB) to increase shipyard capacity and availability of attack submarines.

“On the House Floor Wednesday, Courtney highlighted the impact of the SIB investment on the AUKUS mission and  implored Speaker Johnson to follow the Senate’s bipartisan lead.”

This plea has fallen on deaf ears.

In mid-December when the US passed their 2024 defence budget, which included provision for AUKUS-related legal changes, Richard Marles was euphoric, saying on December 15 to numerous media outlets, including the ABC:

“Well, we’re very pleased. We were confident that this is what would happen. Obviously, we’re very grateful to the Biden administration, but also to members of the Senate and the House, across both the Republicans and the Democrats.

“I mean, in all the work that we were doing in speaking with members of the Senate and the House, what was clear is that there was genuine bipartisan support, both for the relationship with Australia, but also for this arrangement. But this is a historic achievement. It’s the first time in American history that there has been the authorisation of a sale of a nuclear-powered submarine to another country.”

And your thoughts now, Minister? How are you feeling about US bipartisanship? Any comment?

Incidentally, the legislation to which the Minister referred does not authorise a sale – that decision needs to be taken by a future US President at a yet to be determined date, but not before 2028.

In the meantime, as reported by Defense One, the US Secretary for the Navy, Carlos Del Torro, has lambasted local shipbuilding companies for their excessive greed.  Speaking in San Diego at an industry conference on February 15, he said:

“Overall, many of you are making record profits, as evidenced by your quarterly financial statements, and you can’t be asking for the American taxpayer to make greater public investments while you continue to goose your stock prices through stock buybacks, deferring promised capital investments, and other accounting manoeuvres.”

He might have had in mind Huntington Ingalls Industries – co-producer of nuclear-powered submarines, along with General Dynamics Electric Boat.  On January 31, the company issued a media release saying:

“HII Authorizes a $600 Million Increase in its Share Repurchase Program to $3.8 Billion

HII (NYSE: HII) announced today that its Board of Directors has authorized an increase in the company’s share repurchase program from $3.2 billion to $3.8 billion and extended the term of the program from Oct. 31, 2024 to Dec. 31, 2028.

“This action demonstrates continued confidence in HII’s free cash flow generation and supports our commitment to return free cash flow to our shareholders,” said Chris Kastner, HII’s president and CEO.”

Buybacks are a somewhat controversial tactic designed largely to boost share prices by reducing the number of them available to be traded.  The principal beneficiaries – especially in the US environment – are company senior managers, whose employment packages typically include generous share options. The HII buyback in Australian currency is $5.82 billion.

The forthcoming Australian transfer – it has never been revealed whether the money was volunteered by our officials or sought by the US – is as likely to boost corporate profits as go on actual submarine construction.

The time is long overdue for Defence Minister Richard Marles to come clean and explain to the Australian public how they benefit from the unprecedented transfer of cash to the already bloated, massively profitable, US submarine construction firms when their own government is critical of their greed.  Australian taxpayers: don’t hold your collective breath.

APDR_Bulletin_728X90

For Editorial Inquiries Contact:
Editor Kym Bergmann at kym.bergmann@venturamedia.net
For Advertising Inquiries Contact:
Director of Sales Graham Joss at graham.joss@venturamedia.net
leaderboard
Previous articleNova Systems welcomes new graduates
Next articleRed Sea attacks underscore IrvinGQ’s naval decoy significance
Kym Bergmann
Kym Bergmann
https://asiapacificdefencereporter.com/
Kym Bergmann is the editor for Asia Pacific Defence Reporter (APDR) and Defence Review Asia (DRA). He has more than 25 years of experience in journalism and the defence industry. After graduating with honours from the Australian National University, he joined Capital 7 television, holding several positions including foreign news editor and chief political correspondent. During that time he also wrote for Business Review Weekly, undertaking analysis of various defence matters.After two years on the staff of a federal minister, he moved to the defence industry and held senior positions in several companies, including Blohm+Voss, Thales, Celsius and Saab. In 1997 he was one of two Australians selected for the Thomson CSF 'Preparation for Senior Management' MBA course. He has also worked as a consultant for a number of companies including Raytheon, Tenix and others. He has served on the boards of Thomson Sintra Pacific and Saab Pacific.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

57 COMMENTS

  1. I wonder how long it will take, or how many Australian taxpayer dollars will be placed in the pockets of US shipbuilding companies, before this entire AUKUS deal falls over?

  2. This Submarine purchase is becoming possibly the worst defence decision in Australian history. The plan has delayed getting new subs out to 2040, and relies on 2 other separate issues in the medium to long term going exactly right, meaning the LOTE for the Collins class AND purchasing 2nd hand Virginia class submarines, both of which could fail for any number of reasons. But worst of all while these three issues are being juggled they draw massive funds from an already over stretched defence budget. If this defence/industrial triumvirate fails, and I think it is highly likely it will, we will have wasted not only a massive amount of money for nothing but starved other defence programmes into the bargain. A lose lose situation.
    I believe this plan could destabilize if not destroy Australian defence procurement for a decade or more to come. Meanwhile, war in the next 5 years is looking increasingly likely. Madness.

    • Completely agree.

      We have been told that the Collins LOTE, interim Virginia acquisition and joint design/construction of the new AUKUS class will de-risk the program. The suggestion this ‘portfolio approach’ will de-risk the acquisition would seem to be white-knuckle crazy brave.

  3. Meanwhile French conventional AIP or nuclear powered Barracuda alternatives which offer all the bells & whistles RAN could ever need ie Vertical Launch Missile systems, Uncrewed Underwater AND Aerial Vehicles, Anti ASW Surface to Air defence, Special Forces auxillary systems etc. All extensively automated, state of the art stealthy vessels operable by Collins class sized crews, available within a decade…but nah, straya’s putting all its eggs in the baskets of the UK which betrayed Australia during the Pacific campaign of WW2 and the US which turned its back on South Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan after promising to stand by all 3 throughout the wars it started in each country.

    https://defense-update.com/20141023_smx.html#.VE-rU-chcoY

    • well they were busy in ww2. They were in Singapore, and now they’re back in Asia. We’re an independent nation and we’re dumb enough to get involved in Iraq, Afghanistan and Vietnam, them that’s our fault

      I blame them for turning their back on South Africa and Rhodesia

      • Yeah, Britain was busy…busy refusing to send Australia any air support against Japan’s relentless bombing campaign across Australia’s top end in 1942 , busy refusing to reinforce Singapore with any air cover, then busy surrendering the 80,000 Commonwealth troops (15,000 Australians) defending Singapore to a Japanese invasion force of 35,000, then busy trying to covertly divert thousands of Australian troops returning from Tobruk to defend Australia in New Guinea, to protect British interests in Burma instead…Churchill’s definition of gratitude for the sacrifice made by hundreds of Australians for over 2 years in the skies over Britain, the seas around Britain and Britain’s desert campaign.
        Reference to Vietnam, Iraq & Afghanistan just underlines the fact that the US like Britain, has no qualms about abandoning any ally it claims to value.

        • that was Churchill’s decision. He promised air support also for Prince of Wales and Repulse. Both sunk by the Japs. His Singapore decisions were a disaster, Percival too

  4. With the US Defense industrial base unable to support even the needs of the US military it was foolish to think there was a realistic chance of getting Virginia class SSN on time. The much better option to build an interim class of SSK. The French bid because it is based on an SSN would have been ideal. From there build a SSN based in the UK follow to the Astutes.

  5. I’ve never been in favour of the Virginia Class for the RAN , let alone second hand ones. The best course for Australia is get moving on an interim Boat now. The Sth Koreans have given the option of the KSS III , which in collaboration with the French are designing a Nuclear Variant, Replace the Collins Boats on a one for one basis, get involved in the Nuclear variant and lock into getting Six Boats. As the Original KSS boats come up for retirement either replace them with new builds or Nuclear Boats. A build system of 1 Korean Build ,1 Korean Build with Australian workers and 1 Korean Build and Australian assembly then transfer the rest of the builds to Australia. The added benefits of using LEU far out weigh the refueling subject ( and Lucas Heights has been working with LEU for years) . The whole AUKUS idea is great in Theory but as can be seen not very practical when then idea is thought out. Australia can eventually get to the Level required by AUKUS but not in the time frame we need.

    • I have a lot of sympathy for that line of thinking. The idea expressed by the government that you can just stand up “20,000 well paid union jobs” in 2040 to start construction of the AUKUS nuclear-powered submarines is clearly insane. The only logic approach is to create a workforce for a modern conventional submarine (the Attack was a throwback to the 1960s) and then if necessary transition to a nuclear-powered boat. Actually, I think UUV technology will make a lot of crewed submarines obsolete long before then.

  6. I knew this would happen. Also, if you look at the size of the erection hall at Osborne, it’s far too small lengthwise compared to Irving Halifax at over 1000 feet, and Barrow in Furness about the same

    It was built for the French attack class replacement, so unless the extensions at Osborne include a much bigger erection hall, we’re buggered and it doesn’t matter where we buy a nuke boat from. You think they would’ve future proofed for this nuke purchase scenario and built a larger erection hall in the first place

    We should cut ties with this AUKUS nonsense and apply straight to the poms, but I suspect the USA will complain, then we return to the French, who don’t care what anyone says

    Perhaps we should look at the type 212 or the KS-111, as not just an interim boat, but a complimentary boat to nukes which indeed serve a practical and important function. Station them in Asia, but they must have lithium battery or AIP, not like attack class that had nothing

    • Apply straight to the poms ? oh please, Britain’s SSN circus is infinitely worse than America’s, recently its entire fleet of Astutes was tied up, incapable of deployment. The RN suffers crewing shortfalls & maintenance infrastructure incompetence very similar to Australia’s, but worse, has at least 22 ex SSN’s tied up, rusting away for decades around reactors in urgent need of disposal. Britain is unfit to lead Australia or anyone else down the SSN path. France on the other hand continues to demonstrate its capacity to service export customers like India & Brazil while sustaining its own Navy’s needs.

      • I would apply to Poms first, but as I said the back up would be to see the French. Howver, there must be no USA involvement

  7. Great article, Kym. Why are the mainstream media so silent on this issue? Maybe they figure so much public money is being wasted on dud defence decisions the public are getting punch drunk?

    • It’s been patchy, but I saw an item on Sky News and it was also mentioned in the Adelaide Advertiser – but you are correct it’s been ignored by just about everyone else. It’s hard to explain why – I assume most editors think that AUKUS is a done deal and they aren’t interested in any contrary opinions. The government of course will completely ignore any criticism of AUKUS and deny that there are problems.

  9. The problem with the perceived French alternative(s) is France is not offering them to Australia.

    Why the lack of a French diplomatic and commercial campaign to sell Barracuda SSNs to Australia, right now in 2024?

    • I assume it is because the French have been given the message that Australia is not interested in them now that we have returned to the comfort of the Anglosphere.

    • France (DCNS) made it abundantly clear to Australia throughout the Attack Class project that it would accommodate transition from Australia’s requested SSK version of the Barracuda to its original SSN design, should Australia ever wish to do so. PJK confirmed that despite Morrison & Dutton’s duplicitous lies, betrayal & sabotage of the contract, during the subsequent compensation process, Macron made an offer of 4 Barracuda SSN to Albanese as a stop gap option to avert the ludicrous Collins LOTE while AUKUS was under negotiation.

      • what I found incredible, is there was no AIP for attack class

        SMX ocean seems great. So does smx-31 and smx-26. Maybe we should return to France with offers to get involved in projects?

  10. The lack of the LOTE till the late 20s-mid 30s is a given. One Virginia for Australia in 2032 is our earliest bet.

    France could make $Billions out of Australia if Barracuda SSNs could come in a reasonable timeframe. But France’s very limited nuclear sub designing-building workforce are fully committed finishing France’s last Barracudas. Then they need to design, build and commission their four 3G SSBNs right through the 2030s.

    All this means France doesn’t have the manpower resources for an Aus Barracuda SSN Project. That includes too few Frenchmen even to train up an Australian workforce – with our workforce totally inexperienced in building SSNs.

    The UK completing the Astutes and then building a new generation of SSBNs in the 2030s has virtually the same limitations as France.

    As SSNs from all three SSN countries are longshots yet another cheaper strategy may be appropriate. That is Australia doing its Collins LOTE (with help from Saab) while we build XLUUVs that can lay smartmines, do recces and sonars. Separately developing ever longer range missiles might be our best strategy for long range strike, including anti-shipping.

    Such missiles would include Tomahawks then longer range – something like a Western equivalent of China’s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DF-26 .

  11. Correction to what I said above:

    The French NUCLEAR submarine workforce – which is distinct from their conventional submarine workforce – will be partly committed completing the Barracuda SSN program until 2031. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barracuda-class_submarine_(France)#Boats .

    In parallel the rest of France’s NUCLEAR submarine workforce have been working on France’s 3rd Generation SSBN (“SNLE 3G”) see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNLE_3G#Design_and_operation :
    “first steel [was] cut for the vessels in 2023 and completed submarines delivered at a rate of one every five years from 2035, with the programme completing in 2050.”

    So I stand corrected – France will have NUCLEAR submarine workers available to assist with any Australian Barracuda SSN later than expected. That is AFTER 2050.

    I’m not claiming the UK or US could deliver SSNs to Australia any quicker.

    Hence a Plan B in terms of Collins LOTE, XLUUV and long range missiles may be an option sooner and less expensive.

  12. The only reference to a workforce related delay to the construction/maintenance of French nuclear vessels be it SSNs, SSBNs or the Charles de Gaulle that I could find was related to covid-19. Appears a nation dominated by the development – distribution of nuclear energy and infrastructure since the early 1980s, a nation that can commence construction of its ‘next generation’ nuclear carrier in 2030 while punching out brand new nuclear submarines and maintaining its operational nuclear fleet, has got its NUCLEAR workforce act together. Hence DCNS-Naval Group’s repeated willingness to supply Australia with the Suffren class SSN, should Australia change its mind during the project.

  13. A France wide lack of nuclear workers foils claims France could deliver Barracuda SSNs to Australia quickly and easily – outside of the likely delay: 2050 or later.

    Also Barracudas lack all important VLS. Only VLS can launch ever larger diameter future longer range hypersonic missiles for land attack. Such missiles would act as a partial deterrent against China.

    On nuclear workers see the French source “France’s struggle to deliver a second nuclear era” by Sarah White in Saint-Marcel (France) at the Financial Times APRIL 23 2023

    at https://www.ft.com/content/d23b14ae-2c4e-458c-af8a-22692119f786 which includes:

    “France, which employs some 220,000 people in the nuclear industry, needs to rebuild a deep bench of qualified workers for its new nuclear drive. Among them will be highly trained welders like Geoffray and his colleagues — EDF estimates France will need double the 500 it has today by 2030. At the Hefaïs welding school launched last year by the company and other manufacturers near Cherbourg, on the northern coast close to France’s nuclear SUBMARINE
    shipyards, the complexities of even that task are apparent.  

    After nine months of training there, including with headsets on virtual equipment, they can qualify for a first job, says Corentin Lelièvre, the school’s director. But it can take five to seven years of experience and repeat training before they are entrusted with the most intricate tasks.

    Those can require developing a quasi-acrobatic skill of being able to keep a steady hand while working upside down, or using a mirror in cramped corners of a reactor circuit to guide the weld — a one-shot operation that workers can’t go back on once it’s started. It also involves learning to work safely in a radioactive environment, and in a post-Fukushima world, how to grapple with extra layers of documentation.”

    ++++++++++++

    And yes France’s future “PA-NG” nuclear aircraft carrier + its two future K22 reactors are two more major nuclear projects confronting France’s naval nuclear worker shortage.

    • Thanks for that additional research – that’s very interesting. On a much broader point, all of the industrialised world is rushing to introduce robotic and autonomous manufacturing. Australia seems to be well off the pace and my feeling is we are slipping further behind. Just an impression.

    • Pity about the FT paywall Pete. Regardless, re your quotation from the April 2023 article,
      “EDF estimates France will need double the 500 (highly trained welders) it has today by 2030.
      At the Hefaïs welding school launched (in 2022) by the company and other manufacturers near Cherbourg, on the northern coast close to France’s nuclear SUBMARINE shipyards, the complexities of even that task are apparent.
      After 9 months training, they can qualify for a first job. But it can take 5-7 years experience and repeat training before they are entrusted with the most intricate tasks.”
      I trust France’s capacity to generate an additional 1,000 specially trained welders, with at least 5 years experience by 2030 (since 2022) over 1. the GOP allowing the USN to part with 3 much less 5 Virginias or 2. a project led by the faltering UK submarine industry seamlessly delivering Australia an immature SSN design from the 2040s.
      The claim that “Barracudas lack all important VLS” is false, the SMX Ocean – an AIP SSK concept based on the hull of the Barracuda SSN, is designed with a large modular Vertical Launch System that packs 6 cruise missiles (see animated link below).
      The bottom line here is that from the beginning of this ridiculous sh*t fight, the US was happy for its top secret combat/weapon systems to be installed in the RAN’s 12 French Barracuda SSKs (and now Fremm Frigates – see US Constellation class) which begs the question why US – UK Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) propulsion technology can’t also be adopted to fit a vessel whose size & extensive automation better suits Australia’s Collins size crews.
      The argument against Australia developing the capacity to refuel the Barracuda’s Low Enriched Uranium reactors once a decade (which would’ve averted China & regional concerns – debate about nuclear proliferation) has been comprehensively discredited by Australia’s obligation to store HEU weapons grade nuclear waste forever under AUKUS. (won’t be the slightest bit surprised to see the UK deposit its 21 decomposing reactors in the same hole Australia is digging for itself)
      This entire process has been mired in bullsh*t from the very beginning, from Morrison & Dutton’s lies, betrayal & sabotage of the contract with France, to the rejection of a son of Collins SSK because of “multi platform complexity”, another lie that has swung 180 degrees to have the RAN operate vastly different US & UK SSN designs.
      One thing I think we all agree on/hope for, is an astonishing breakthrough with the RAN’s Speartooth or Ghost Shark projects swiftly resolving this national security travesty once and for all.

      https://defense-update.com/20141023_smx.html#.VE-rU-chcoY

  14. You clearly do not understand what design concept means.

    As I reported in 2014 here https://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2014/10/revised-frances-dcns-announces-smx.html the SMX Ocean was merely a CONCEPT.

    It would take years of actual designing and testing to become an orphan sub for the RAN.

    In any case the usual contractual hurdles, probably taking 10 years, would need to be negotiated.

    That is before France could even contemplate building SMXs after 2050.

    Pete at https://gentleseas.blogspot.com/

    • why oh why do we need a US combat system? Norwegians, Germans UK and France don’t have them. Our Oberons didn’t and worked well with allies

      • I agree completely about the combat system. Atlas Elektonik won the competition for the replacement combat system for Collins in 2001, but the project office was overruled. At least look at the possibilities, don’t ignore them.

  16. Hi again Mike Sierra

    Yes indeed “we all agree on/hope for, is an astonishing breakthrough with the RAN’s Speartooth or Ghost Shark projects swiftly resolving this national security travesty once and for all.”

    If Australia wants to continue with subs the LOTE or new SSKs simply won’t deter China.

    If only SSN choices (which Could threaten China) weren’t so darn expensive and involving delays. SSNs appear to be a need for the RAN submarine service’s and ASC’s dreams.

    Adelaide and Perth shipbuilders have decades of work building surface warships alone.

    So XLUUVs, with non-sub long range strike weapon systems may be, or should be, Australia’s future.

    Cheers Pete

    • modern conventional boats, stationed in Asia, would give anyone, including the Chinese something to think about

      • I think the PLA(N) is far more likely to be concerned about modern – an emphasis on modern – conventional submarines operated by Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore and Indonesia than they are about SSN AUKUS arriving on the scene in 2060.

  17. The more I read about the whole AUKUS Submarine the more I hope trump wins the U.S. election and cancels the whole deal ( which I believe is a distinct possibility, if he wins). The RAN Submariners must be wringing the hands and tearing their hair out with all the carry on and now the Government is making announcements about a larger surface fleet (Headlined by the most over priced, over weight and under gunned Frigate ever built) . One can only hope that the Admirals don’t screw up or sabotage the selection, as the did with the Arafura, Marles needs to step up, show some guts and tackle the problem head on or step aside and let some else be MOD. The whole fiasco has been simmering for years. Either tell the Navy and DoD Heads to advise and accept the decisions or look for new jobs. This is to important to get wrong again.

  18. Hi Kym

    Thanks for indicating concerns the Virginia builders might convert Australia’s generous US$3 Billion gift into corporate profits rather than for boosting the drumbeat of Virginia production.

    Since I first looked at Virginias for Australia 9 years ago https://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2015/02/australian-nuclear-submarine-option.html I think it increasingly unlikely the US will ever deliver Virginias to Aus.

    Biden is merely using the receding Virginia mirage as a political distraction until the UK tools up Osborne to merely Begin building Aus SSN-AUKUS’s for launch dates Starting around 2051.

    In any case China will not be deterred by merely conventionally armed Aus SSNs.

    Rather than SSNs Australia should instead be thinking ICBMs (which Queensland’s Gilmour can build in future) these can be placed in silos in Woomera. These ICBMs could be armed using Australia’s SILEX enrichment technology for HEU “gun type” warheads – initially.

    The US appears to have unlocked SILEX from being a proliferation item by effectively returning SILEX to Australian control. In doing this the US may be catering for a future nuclear weapons option for Australia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_isotopes_by_laser_excitation#History

    Then Australia should utilise the more preferred Pu explosive weapons (with Pu being a dual-use outgrowth of Dutton’s nuclear energy reactor policy) and then standard thermonuclear weapons.

    This model has progressively worked so well for Israel since 1967, keeping much larger Arab military coalitions at bay.

    Cheers Pete

  19. The Financial cost of replacing Conventionaly Armed Nuclear Submarine with ICBM’s would definitely be far less but the Political Cost would be astronomical. Besides a Dozen or so ICBMs would be little deterant to a nation that has an Anti ICBM capability also placing them in a fixed position they would certainly be priority targeted. Even Mobile Launchers can be tracked as can Submarines but it’s a lot harder to track them. If we ever did decided to go full Nuclear, the ICBMs would need to be Submarine Launched. As I said earlier,I doubt any Government would sign on for that.

  20. France is delivering every two years barracuda ssn to french navy. This building line can deliver till last one in 2034 and behond if Netherlands order . But also in the need emergency france could mix for a ssn client starting 2028 as replacing class isn t to old to wait 2 years more. So from 2028 first aus ssn 2030 french ssn 2032 aus ssn 2034 last french snn 2036 38 40 etc aus ssn

  21. Hi Michael Alleyn

    Yes ICBMs, in silos or mobile (and B-21s on the ground) are easier to target.

    Australia has already succeeded in absorbing the Political Costs of aiming to oobtain SSNs (with weapons grade U) proliferation under the “shelter” of US and UK political and legal endorsement.

    As the threat against Aus increases an Aus Gov may be prepared to accept the Political Costs of mounting China deterring hypersonic missiles in SSNs (called “Baby Boomers” or SSGNs in the trade). This is if the China threat increases sufficiently in the medium-long term.

    This would be once the approximately one third of the PRC armed forces earmarked for Taiwan have defeated Taiwan and are freed up for southern power projection past the first island chain.

    The US is already signalling that Australia can progress to Technical (nuclear option) Hedging due to 2 US decisions:

    1. to permit Australian access to Hypersonic Missile technology under AUKUS Pillar 2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AUKUS#Hypersonic_and_counter-hypersonic and

    2. Australian access (previously withheld) to SILEX latest/third generation Uranium enrichment technology which can enrich all the way to weapons grade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_isotopes_by_laser_excitation#History

    Kym and Michael

    Perhaps Australia has factored these nuclear weapon precursors in – partly explaining Australia’s otherwise inexplicable US$3 Billion gift to the US military-industrial complex.

    Cheers Pete

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here