ADF General discussion thread

[Morgo]

I'm not sure what our AUKUS partners will make of this commentary by the former defence minister and now opposition leader Peter Dutton

'Worked against the national interest': Anger at Peter Dutton's disclosure of submarine negotiations

Opposition Leader Peter Dutton's decision to divulge sensitive discussions with the United States on acquiring nuclear-powered submarines has sparked concern that he may have jeopardised plans for a joint agreement by year's end.

www.abc.net.au

Perplexed S

If that’s true - two SSNs in the water by 2030 - then it completely undermines any rationale for a son of Collins. And would be wonderful news.

The South Australians won’t like it but they’ll be flat out as it is getting set up for the subsequent local builds and Hunters. The Poms will be upset too but so be it. They’ll probably be heavily involved in getting ASC up and running.

I think the US wouldn’t be thrilled that this is playing out in public, but on balance would be happy to see anything that counters a threat to an Aussie SSN fleet emerging ASAP and the supporting infrastructure that the USN would also have access to.

Hopefully this is all a storm in a teacup but time will tell.

 

[hauritz]

Dutton backs Virginia Class, touts off-the-shelf option

The federal opposition leader has shed light on his preferred pathway for Australia's future nuclear-powered submarine program. Former defence minister Peter Dutton has thrown his support behind th

www.defenceconnect.com.au

More insight into what Dutton had planned. Two off the shelf Virginias followed by 8 others to be built in Australia. He believed the US would have facilitated that. Also talking about expanding the Hunter program or exploring other work opportunities to appease the British.

He also expressed strong opposition to a new class of conventional submarine as any sort of interim fix.

It sounds like he was planning on making a captain's choice for the Virginia. I guess the ball is now in the new government's court.

 

[AndyinOz]

It is not necessarily a good look, it could be perceived as an attempt at a bit of ill conceived grandstanding that he could have delivered the capability quicker etc. From a person and a member of a government that was very tight lipped (rightly so) about the creation of the AUKUS agreement, this could come across as a bit loose. Might perhaps leave a bit of a bad taste in the mouths of our American friends.
I am not sure about the validity of the idea myself considering it appears the US cannot currently build boats faster than they are removing older Los Angeles class from service meaning apparently a reduction in numbers for periods in the future. Not that I am in any way an expert.
Aside to that the ones currently on order appear to not quite be within our requirements with the VPM seeming being part of future build plans.
Would it be preferable to have a capability sooner rather than later? Of course but we have so much to do from getting engineering and technical staff trained up to the infrastructure to base nuclear boats long term (not just temporary port visits). That's a lot to achieve in less than 8 years.

 

[hauritz]

It is not necessarily a good look, it could be perceived as an attempt at a bit of ill conceived grandstanding that he could have delivered the capability quicker etc. From a person and a member of a government that was very tight lipped (rightly so) about the creation of the AUKUS agreement, this could come across as a bit loose. Might perhaps leave a bit of a bad taste in the mouths of our American friends.
I am not sure about the validity of the idea myself considering it appears the US cannot currently build boats faster than they are removing older Los Angeles class from service meaning apparently a reduction in numbers for periods in the future. Not that I am in any way an expert.
Aside to that the ones currently on order appear to not quite be within our requirements with the VPM seeming being part of future build plans.
Would it be preferable to have a capability sooner rather than later? Of course but we have so much to do from getting engineering and technical staff trained up to the infrastructure to base nuclear boats long term (not just temporary port visits). That's a lot to achieve in less than 8 years.

On the other hand Australia is willing to acquire 10 new Virginia's for use against China, for which the US taxpayer for won't have to pay, as well as tens of billions of dollars being pumped into the US economy. Having said that I think the reason this wasn't proposed before the election is that the US were not onboard with the idea.

 

[AndyinOz]

On the other hand Australia is willing to acquire 10 new Virginia's for use against China, for which the US taxpayer for won't have to pay, as well as tens of billions of dollars being pumped into the US economy.

A fair point that is certainly true, and I would imagine that the next best thing to having assets like them under direct US command would be with a very close like-minded ally conducting collaborative exercises and operations, and ones that they are not shelling out US taxpayer dollars for. You raise and interesting point as well with the apparent mentioning of a 2 boat allocation from the US line and an 8 boat build in Australia for a total of 10. That would make for a significant force even if the boats at the end of the build replace one or so from the beginning of the program assuming that the statements and reporting are all accurate and it could be achieved.

 

[StingrayOZ]

A couple of points:

• I don't understand why the UK would need to be sedated. It is highly likely that BAE would be building them (here), and the Virginia's include uk technology including the pump jet. US contractors have had no interest in the Australian yard, meanwhile BAE is huge in Australia and has much of the workforce already. UK-AU workforces are generally more supportive of relocation and the UK has significant sub building knowledge and expertise that will be needed including sub contractors. UK capacity could be added to US and AU capacity.
• Virginia is a 20+ year old design. While it has evolved, it is highly likely a complete 8 boat cycle of Virginia's would need to be produced. SSN(X) is likely to be significant different and significantly more expensive. The Virginia's are a fine submarine, and we would be building into an ecosystem that has had lots of submarines built and operating on a very refined and optimised design. For the next 30 years.
• 10 SSN's seem like a strong number. Going from 12 attacks to 10 SSN is huge in terms of capability and time on patrol.
• Virginia is much larger than Attack. 8000 compared to ~5000t. So while a decrease in number, is still an increase in total build volume.
• If it is Virginia. It make sense to assess Astute, and Astute-Virginia hybrid. Also we don't know what the US is doing evolving Virginia, they may be looking at addressing crewing.
• Dutton belief isn't the same as a delivery of. Abbott believed the Japanese would build submarines for us, in Japan. The USN believed LCS/Zumwalt was a good concept. Between industry, Navies, Governments and international aspects, plenty of ground needs to be covered.
• Collins still need LOTE. Nothing changes that. Arguably 3 subs are needed for proper SSN capability, and before we start decommissioning subs. We should aim to replace Collins ASAP, but it is still going to be around 20-30 years.
• The current build pipeline is drying out. Urgency is required for industry and crewing.

Dutton has put some pressure by putting this out there. Labor would have to come up with an equal or "better" plan than his. What ever that magic metric for better is. Its interesting he pushed this out, after the election. Also as great as this is, he wasn't able to implement it as defence minister, so clearly it isn't a done deal.

 

[ngatimozart]

A couple of points:

• I don't understand why the UK would need to be sedated. It is highly likely that BAE would be building them (here), and the Virginia's include uk technology including the pump jet. US contractors have had no interest in the Australian yard, meanwhile BAE is huge in Australia and has much of the workforce already. UK-AU workforces are generally more supportive of relocation and the UK has significant sub building knowledge and expertise that will be needed including sub contractors. UK capacity could be added to US and AU capacity.
• Virginia is a 20+ year old design. While it has evolved, it is highly likely a complete 8 boat cycle of Virginia's would need to be produced. SSN(X) is likely to be significant different and significantly more expensive. The Virginia's are a fine submarine, and we would be building into an ecosystem that has had lots of submarines built and operating on a very refined and optimised design. For the next 30 years.
• 10 SSN's seem like a strong number. Going from 12 attacks to 10 SSN is huge in terms of capability and time on patrol.
• Virginia is much larger than Attack. 8000 compared to ~5000t. So while a decrease in number, is still an increase in total build volume.
• If it is Virginia. It make sense to assess Astute, and Astute-Virginia hybrid. Also we don't know what the US is doing evolving Virginia, they may be looking at addressing crewing.
• Dutton belief isn't the same as a delivery of. Abbott believed the Japanese would build submarines for us, in Japan. The USN believed LCS/Zumwalt was a good concept. Between industry, Navies, Governments and international aspects, plenty of ground needs to be covered.
• Collins still need LOTE. Nothing changes that. Arguably 3 subs are needed for proper SSN capability, and before we start decommissioning subs. We should aim to replace Collins ASAP, but it is still going to be around 20-30 years.
• The current build pipeline is drying out. Urgency is required for industry and crewing.

Dutton has put some pressure by putting this out there. Labor would have to come up with an equal or "better" plan than his. What ever that magic metric for better is. Its interesting he pushed this out, after the election. Also as great as this is, he wasn't able to implement it as defence minister, so clearly it isn't a done deal.

Just to add to this.

Ten Virginia Class SSN would require a huge leap in infrastructure requirements and crew numbers. You can't grow crew overnight and each Virginia Class boat crew (135) is over twice that of a Collins Class boat (58) so for each Virginia Class SSN two Collins Class crews plus 19 from a 3rd Collins boat are required for crew. Go to a 3rd Virginia boat and that's all of your Collins crews used and you are over half a Collins crew short. That's just for three Virginia boats. Now there's another seven to find crews for; that's 945 bods and so far we have 1350 submariners without any replacements. If we use the rule of threes that's another 2,700 crew that have to be found. SSNs cost serious money to run and SSN crews get paid serious money, so they aren't cheap.

Finally Dutton is playing politics with this and he should've kept his mouth shut because there are some things you don't blab about in public.

 

[MickB]

It is not necessarily a good look, it could be perceived as an attempt at a bit of ill conceived grandstanding that he could have delivered the capability quicker etc. From a person and a member of a government that was very tight lipped (rightly so) about the creation of the AUKUS agreement, this could come across as a bit loose. Might perhaps leave a bit of a bad taste in the mouths of our American friends.
I am not sure about the validity of the idea myself considering it appears the US cannot currently build boats faster than they are removing older Los Angeles class from service meaning apparently a reduction in numbers for periods in the future. Not that I am in any way an expert.
Aside to that the ones currently on order appear to not quite be within our requirements with the VPM seeming being part of future build plans.
Would it be preferable to have a capability sooner rather than later? Of course but we have so much to do from getting engineering and technical staff trained up to the infrastructure to base nuclear boats long term (not just temporary port visits). That's a lot to achieve in less than 8 years.

A possibility is that the USN thinks it can delay increasing the number of its subs, is as under an agreement like this one would expect large numbers of USN submariners to be spending several years in Australia to bring the RAN up to speed.
Perhaps creating a short term crew shortage for the USN.
And as already stated, every operational RAN ssn is one the USN will not have to pay for.

 

[ngatimozart]

A possibility is that the USN thinks it can delay increasing the number of its subs, is as under an agreement like this one would expect large numbers of USN submariners to be spending several years in Australia to bring the RAN up to speed.
Perhaps creating a short term crew shortage for the USN.
And as already stated, every operational RAN ssn is one the USN will not have to pay for.

We locked the RAN 2.0 thread because of the amount of spurious uninformed speculation that was occurring there around the SSN procurement. We don't want this polluting other threads and it will not be tolerated. Nobody knows what is happening. those that do know, with the exception of one person, are firmly keeping their mouths shut. Until some actual facts and / or data is released by the Commonwealth of Australia anything else is pure speculation and fiction. If people persist in continued speculation we will consider bans of some type.

 

[At lakes]

MSN

As the RAN thread is locked I will put this here. Aust PM at a press conference this morning advised that the Aust government will pay 830 million to the French regarding the failed Sub deal.

 

[John Fedup]

MSN

As the RAN thread is locked I will put this here. Aust PM at a press conference this morning advised that the Aust government will pay 830 million to the French regarding the failed Sub deal.

Contrast that payout with Canada’s $500 million for Chrétien’s cancellation of the EH101, a vastly smaller deal. I say Australia made out better than OK.

 

[vonnoobie]

Contrast that payout with Canada’s $500 million for Chrétien’s cancellation of the EH101, a vastly smaller deal. I say Australia made out better than OK.

Considering it has been stated in the past the cost to break the contract with Navantia in regards to the Hobart AWD's would have been around $1 billion then $835m break price is a bloody bargain. Seems we are atleast learning in how to do and write up the contracts so that we aren't forced to stick to them because it would cost too much to dump it.

 

[Morgo]

'Australia's new government will be pleased if the French reach out'

Opinion piece in Le Monde (partly paywalled) saying it’s now time for France to re-engage with Australia. This is a really positive development and hopefully indicative of the broader mood in their political and defence establishments.

We need them and they need us. It seems however that they’re still feeling excluded (with some justification) from AUKUS and the Quad.

Albanese is apparently going to Paris in the coming weeks. I wonder whether some formal reaffirmation or upgrade of our bilateral relationship is on the cards? I don’t know what the current base access rights are but I’d think letting the French routinely pop into Garden Island and the new east coast SSN base and we do likewise in New Caledonia would be mutually beneficial.

 

[spoz]

They already drop in up to GI and other Australian ports quite regularly, if a bit infrequently, and we have refitted at least one of their pacific patrol craft in the past.

 

[Arclighy]

Australian Defence Minister, Richard Marles has met with Chinese Defence counterpart General Weng Fei, at the Shangri-la security summit in Singapore today. This ends the three year diplomatic standoff between the two countries. Very significant! A replay of Marles's press conference can be found here.

 

[Morgo]

Australian Defence Minister, Richard Marles has met with Chinese Defence counterpart General Weng Fei, at the Shangri-la security summit in Singapore today. This ends the three year diplomatic standoff between the two countries. Very significant! A replay of Marles's press conference can be found here.

Who blinked?

Presumably them given the food and hydrocarbon insecurity they’re staring into and our ability to help with that?

 

[KrustyKoala]

I dont think he's going to Paris but some Ministers will. Anyhow only reason to be in Paris right now it would be the WTO meeting.
“In Paris, I will convene a meeting of key WTO Ministers which I will use to press for a package that will address the challenges facing the global trading system, including a response to the pandemic,” Assistant Minister Ayres said.

Following the 23 May launch of the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF), Assistant Minister Ayres will also meet with counterparts from other IPEF members to discuss next steps.[/QUOTE]

 

[Arclighy]

Who blinked?

Presumably them given the food and hydrocarbon insecurity they’re staring into and our ability to help with that?

From what Richard Marles said, China hosted the meeting, so l presume they invited Australia. Marles had previously stated he wouldn't be seeking a meeting and that seems to be the case

 

[Morgo]

From what Richard Marles said, China hosted the meeting, so l presume they invited Australia. Marles had previously stated he wouldn't be seeking a meeting and that seems to be the case

Excellent. Chalk that up as a win for the good guys.

 

[ngatimozart]

Australian Defence Minister, Richard Marles has met with Chinese Defence counterpart General Weng Fei, at the Shangri-la security summit in Singapore today. This ends the three year diplomatic standoff between the two countries. Very significant! A replay of Marles's press conference can be found here.

Interesting but it will be wait and see.

Excellent. Chalk that up as a win for the good guys.

Is it a win. Don't count your chickens before they hatch or your winnings before your emu crosses the finish line.