Making AUKUS Work for the U.S.-Australia Alliance

[@Adept893]

Talky bit starts at 4:20

[@mjlamborn2169]

You've got to trust your Allies

[@JohnRWMarchant]

Very interesting discussion. I agree that it seems pointless to get Virginias to then change to SSN AUKUS in the future. I suspect the problem was that Astute class would have been a better fit for Australia looking at manpower and such but they are produced at a glacial pace and there is no way we could give Astute to Australia in a timely fashion. The SSN AUKUS is predicted to need an 80 odd crew whcih is also a better fit for Australia which does not have a vast population. Also looking at the time frame and Australian politics i will not be surprised if AUKUS never happens and Australia continues with Virginia class but with less numbers.

[@Adept893]

Different capabilities of the subs? Maybe the Virginia's will have different capabilities from AUKUS. Ie. If they are block V the would have the VPM and a presumably better drone support/diver delivery facilities. The AUKUS class could be a more asw focused platform. Or something like that is how I am mentally squaring that circle.

[@JohnRWMarchant]

@@Adept893 Oh without a doubt they are different capable. We do not really know much about SSN AUKUS, what we do know its it will have less crew than Astute around 80, it will have VLS which Astute does not and will have sonar 2076 or the follow on. Astute also has an SDV system similar to Virgina's and the VLS will be able to fire the latest hypersonic and such weapons. The only real plus side to getting SSN AUKUS is the likely cost and the manpower requirements whcih will be different and the fact that they will be built in Australia, im assuming this was something the USA was not happy for them to do building under license in Australia Of course this has all got to get through congress and has got to keep having support in the Australian parliament and people, that is more of an issue as history has shown us.

[@spielboy6931]

Whilst the SSN Aukus may be a better man power fit - I also suspect there maybe other reasons - specifically BAE who builds the British nuclear subs at Barrow-in-Furness already has a strong ship building presence in Australia so it is easy sell to say they can build those subs in Australia - plus I do wonder whether the US would be 100% happy with a foreign country ( even one with close military cooperation such a Australia - after all the UK never built exactly copies of US subs ) building US designed subs.

[@JohnRWMarchant]

@@spielboy6931 There are other reasons without a doubt, the USA was probably never going to let any country build Virginia class submarines under license outside of the USA. The only thing that is wholley American on British submarines is Tomahawk and the Trident D5 missile section on the Vanguard SSBN's, the warheads are British, there are also some smaller items and compnents on British subs which are also American, also Harpoon on British Warships. They are more worried about the technology falling into the wrong hands. BAE also has a strong shipbuilding componet and general military componet in the USA, the latest railguns under test in the USA are BAE, and are some components of tanks and other vehicles. Thats why the time frames are big because no one especially the UK but also to a lesser degree the USA can build what they need fast enough and also provide Australia with some. The UK was never going to give 3 to 5 Astutes when at present we only have 5 and will not have 7 until 2026, plus even if we could Australia cannot maintain, refit and train the people needed for some time, so the Virginia class was the only really modern choice. You could also argue that they could easily have given Australia 5 688 Class Los Angeles submarines to tide them over. Yes some are getting old now but they are still in active service in the USA, but i suppose they would rather have newer boats and its mostly about the timing. The vast majority of the AUD 360 Billion is not for submarines anyway its all for the ancilliaries, maintenance, storage, training and other such stuff. It took the USA and UK a long time to get where they are now and it also cost a hell of a lot to get there so its not like Australia can just do this in the next couple of years, there is also an environmental componenet.

[@alanbstard4]

No, its all about profit for US companies. The US companies have their products and copyright all over this, and Australia will pay $368B over 30 years It's a bad deal for Australia, it's loss of sovereignty. We should have returned to the French who made another offer re nuclear boats

[@bernieburawski1446]

The RAN will be required to enhance their protective capabilities to ensure that highly classified nuclear-propulsion technologies can be shared by the United States and the United Kingdom to Australia. Australia is not there yet and won't be in the foreseeable future. More importantly, what do the Australian people think about this deal? I already am aware that the Australian Government is for this but what about the citizens of Australia? These concerns are legitimate and need to be carefully considered. This issue needs to be looked at because from my understanding of the AUKUS plan is having Australia build a next-generation nuclear-powered submarine called SSN-AUKUS based on a UK design and all with the next generation Australian, US and UK technology. Questions need to be asked about the timeline and whether Australia should follow through without looking at issues of affordability and capability first. Were these issues looked at in depth, if at all, before September 2021, when Australia committed to purchasing conventionally-armed nuclear-powered submarines? It should be noted that Australia is currently a non-nuclear power. I am no expert by any means, and far from it. However, I believe this deal is being rushed and is pushing a bridge to far without thinking through all of the ramifications and planning needed to even ascertain if this endeavor is even worth it. I have my doubts on this deal.

[@YaMumsSpecialFriend]

At an apparent one sub per 3 years from 2033 Australia is going to want to insist on Virginia block 5’s with the VPM if they’re to be a useful capability cover and addition of much use.

[@alanbstard4]

they won't get block 5s