ADF General discussion thread

[hauritz]

On what basis to you suggest 20 years when the utterances do not support this and our current submarine force would be lining up for a second LOTE if that was true. Area denial beyond the Australian coast requires a submarine force and requires it to be capable.

Your suggestion that 20 years is all that we can hope for (noting you have provided no evidence to back up why you assume this) and disregard of the impact submarines have in forward power projection and the utterances made by the GoA. Failure to maintain this capability would be the most significant defence failure in recent history and will reflect on those parties that permitted it to happen.

I would also note that Loyal Wingman and missile production are project are projects that are currently in place and being funded. Are you suggesting that funding for the frigate and SSN's be redirected there to expand this capability?

If that is the case I suggest that is a very poor option.

I am not suggesting that we pull funding away from any project. Budgets are allocated and payments are often scheduled decades in advance. In the case of the Submarine program there have been slippages which means that money has been allocated but has yet to be spent. There are also many other projects that are scheduled to start, but haven't, because of budget planning. Often the start and finish dates of these projects tend to be rubbery for that very reason. In other words there is nearly always wiggle room in budgets as circumstances and priorities change.

As things stand I believe the SSN will take a couple decades to deliver. Some may disagree and think it can be delivered sooner but let's just say that I remain sceptical. I have yet to see any plan that doesn't involve leasing or having access to an early overseas build. Even if we were to build locally it would still involve having crucial modules constructed overseas and once again would probably see us being pushed to the back of the queue.

Then of course it comes down to training not only those who will sail in these submarines but also those who will build them. It is generally considered to take ten years for anyone to become an expert in their trade so training is a long drawn out process.

I would love to see nukes in service by the early 2030s but to be honest I can't see it happening.

 

[hauritz]

Is it? What happens if the US isn't in a position to do all as you suggest? What does Australia do then? Think about it. The US isn't anywhere as capable militarily or industrially as it was 30 - 35 years ago.

If the US can't step up then we may be toast. Our options then really just come down to Area Denial and perhaps some long range strike capability.

In the real nightmare scenario of the US no longer being able to guarantee our security we may have to follow in the path of Israel, North Korea and (perhaps soon) Iran and build our own nuclear deterrent.

 

[StingrayOZ]

There is no doubt that for significant SSN capability it will likely take several decades.

A single SSN, as amazing platforms as they are, are still a single unit. There may be a possibility of getting one in the water by 10 years (recent history would seem to indicate that is a nearly impossible goal), but fielding a significant, robust, SSN capability will take longer. A single F-35 doesn't make airpower, and a single Sub, isn't everything.

Declining US power isn't just an issue for Australia, it would be a global issue. I would imagine Europe would have greater concerns if US power collapsed, and Skorea and Japan would likely be almost instantly in hot wars in that situation, Taiwan would no longer exist, and Israel would likely be fighting an existential fight. Australia and China aren't the only two in the room. Australia is a logical fall back position for the US if Asia gets too hot or if its over stretched. Our enemies may have threats much closer to hope to keep them occupied.

Australia does have a strong connection to the UK as a secondary alliance. Presumably we would have some time before this instant US collapse. Australia has always relied on its allies, and hitting our deep rolodex, we would always want to repel any opposing force as a coalition. As such it would likely include US, UK, SG, Malaysian, NZ, Indonesian, Japanese, Indian, Brazilian, capabilities.

If there was a weakening of the nuclear umbrella, we would push for the US to forward deploy nuclear weapons here. However, that would likely cause more tension and a nuclear race in the region. I don't see Australia pursuing our own independent nuclear capability at this stage. Doing so would hurt our relationship with the US, as well as other allies. If we really wanted to annoy people, we could help the UK build more SSBN's, and have one or two based in Australia to protect UK-AU interests and concerns in the region. There ultimately is very little need for Australia to have its own unique nuclear capability.

Australia has lots of options. Australia has a long term plan to significantly increase its capabilities and spending in multiple spectrums. It is arguably the most capable military power in its immediate region, and it has no ongoing disputes with its neighbors. If anything our military power is rising, and our neighbors are tighter than they have been in 3 generations.

While Australia as an individual nation has limited capability, its the capabilities we provide as an ally that are impressive. While many nations might struggle to spare a ship or a plane with their own taskings, Australia can deploy taskforces, squadrons and battalions, afar and sustain that for long periods, across many regions. It isn't restricted by local threats and concerns, and our populace supports forward deployment in aiding international security.

What we need to to is focus that capability growth. Make us more capable, thus enabling our alliances to be more capable and more of a deterrent.

 

[alexsa]

There is no doubt that for significant SSN capability it will likely take several decades.

A single SSN, as amazing platforms as they are, are still a single unit. There may be a possibility of getting one in the water by 10 years (recent history would seem to indicate that is a nearly impossible goal), but fielding a significant, robust, SSN capability will take longer. A single F-35 doesn't make airpower, and a single Sub, isn't everything.

Declining US power isn't just an issue for Australia, it would be a global issue. I would imagine Europe would have greater concerns if US power collapsed, and Skorea and Japan would likely be almost instantly in hot wars in that situation, Taiwan would no longer exist, and Israel would likely be fighting an existential fight. Australia and China aren't the only two in the room. Australia is a logical fall back position for the US if Asia gets too hot or if its over stretched. Our enemies may have threats much closer to hope to keep them occupied.

Australia does have a strong connection to the UK as a secondary alliance. Presumably we would have some time before this instant US collapse. Australia has always relied on its allies, and hitting our deep rolodex, we would always want to repel any opposing force as a coalition. As such it would likely include US, UK, SG, Malaysian, NZ, Indonesian, Japanese, Indian, Brazilian, capabilities.

If there was a weakening of the nuclear umbrella, we would push for the US to forward deploy nuclear weapons here. However, that would likely cause more tension and a nuclear race in the region. I don't see Australia pursuing our own independent nuclear capability at this stage. Doing so would hurt our relationship with the US, as well as other allies. If we really wanted to annoy people, we could help the UK build more SSBN's, and have one or two based in Australia to protect UK-AU interests and concerns in the region. There ultimately is very little need for Australia to have its own unique nuclear capability.

Australia has lots of options. Australia has a long term plan to significantly increase its capabilities and spending in multiple spectrums. It is arguably the most capable military power in its immediate region, and it has no ongoing disputes with its neighbors. If anything our military power is rising, and our neighbors are tighter than they have been in 3 generations.

While Australia as an individual nation has limited capability, its the capabilities we provide as an ally that are impressive. While many nations might struggle to spare a ship or a plane with their own taskings, Australia can deploy taskforces, squadrons and battalions, afar and sustain that for long periods, across many regions. It isn't restricted by local threats and concerns, and our populace supports forward deployment in aiding international security.

What we need to to is focus that capability growth. Make us more capable, thus enabling our alliances to be more capable and more of a deterrent.

The issue is if accept it will take two decades to deliver then we have just made a case not to go down the SSN path and persist with the French option. Why, well the Collins have a lifespan and two decades to the first SSN’s (note the plural) to be in service will mean these vessels are looking at a follow on LOTE and will be increasingly difficult to maintain.

Basically we will be in the same space as Canada with an aged submarine fleet with decline room to upgrade the boats. Essentially we will have a declining capability fostering a significant capability gap (much like the Collins/Oberon change over).

Since defence initiated this change (and the urgency of the current situation) I would hope that the intended time frame will be shorter. Looking at history the move to the first nuclear submarines from a much lower knowledge base took less time than you suggest. The knowledge base is higher, there is an offshore production process we can rely on for those areas we do not have the capability …. And I certainly hope we can still produce the hull …. Noting the technology in the Collins was in many ways ahead of its time.

 

[John Fedup]

The issue is if accept it will take two decades to deliver then we have just made a case not to go down the SSN path and persist with the French option. Why, well the Collins have a lifespan and two decades to the first SSN’s (note the plural) to be in service will mean these vessels are looking at a follow on LOTE and will be increasingly difficult to maintain.

Basically we will be in the same space as Canada with an aged submarine fleet with decline room to upgrade the boats. Essentially we will have a declining capability fostering a significant capability gap (much like the Collins/Oberon change over).

Since defence initiated this change (and the urgency of the current situation) I would hope that the intended time frame will be shorter. Looking at history the move to the first nuclear submarines from a much lower knowledge base took less time than you suggest. The knowledge base is higher, there is an offshore production process we can rely on for those areas we do not have the capability …. And I certainly hope we can still produce the hull …. Noting the technology in the Collins was in many ways ahead of its time.

Australia won’t exactly be in the same position wrt subs as Canada. At least your pollies understand the urgent need, ours don’t.

 

[Geddy]

Reminds me of what Yamamoto said..

For a while we’ll have everything our own way, stretching out in every direction like an octopus spreading its tentacles. But it’ll last for a year and a half at the most.” SEPTEMBER 1941

Having lived in China for more than 20 years until recently, ascribing competence to them in complex technical issues is a bit of a stretch in my experience. More importantly, the public wouldn’t take any sort of casualties of their single child family males. But most importantly, the biggest deterrent to China is trade. Unemployment of the masses in China is the Wests best weapon.

 

[John Fedup]

I am not so sure, unemployable of the masses isn’t initially going to be a problem for the CCP. It’s not like the masses can complain, Tiananmen Square version 2.0 would be much worse with Xi in charge now.

 

[Geddy]

China is terrified of unemployment and it’s one of the reasons there are huge numbers of pointless govt jobs. Unemployment means the umbrella of the party is not protecting them, and that spells trouble very quickly in a society that values money and family first and nothing second. People tolerate the CCP because all people can work.

 

[StingrayOZ]

The issue is if accept it will take two decades to deliver then we have just made a case not to go down the SSN path and persist with the French option. Why, well the Collins have a lifespan and two decades to the first SSN’s (note the plural) to be in service will mean these vessels are looking at a follow on LOTE and will be increasingly difficult to maintain.

I think there is some optimism about SSN project production, but there are concerns. But yes, I have concerns about the Collins life span. Getting 1 sub in 10 years doesn't solve all our concerns. Also the tempo of the continuous build is IMO under threat. It will be interesting to see how many SSN's we plan to build, plan to operate, and when.

IMO the greatest threat to the submarine is political. Essentially all the delays around the submarine program (and most of our ship building programs and most ADF acquisition programs), are essentially political, mostly on slow decisions or no decisions or commitment on volume (not trying to pick on either party here, but both sides have had some issues with defence projects becoming reality). While there are technical limitations, I am quite confident Aus industry can deliver, as they have for 100 years.

ASC in osborne and Civmec in henderson are pushing pleasingly on the work they currently have. The workforce is pretty much ready, what is missing is future projects in a state to be constructed. The ADF clearly needs and wants things, and our allies clearly want us to have capabilities.

 

[hauritz]

The issue is if accept it will take two decades to deliver then we have just made a case not to go down the SSN path and persist with the French option. Why, well the Collins have a lifespan and two decades to the first SSN’s (note the plural) to be in service will mean these vessels are looking at a follow on LOTE and will be increasingly difficult to maintain.

Basically we will be in the same space as Canada with an aged submarine fleet with decline room to upgrade the boats. Essentially we will have a declining capability fostering a significant capability gap (much like the Collins/Oberon change over).

Since defence initiated this change (and the urgency of the current situation) I would hope that the intended time frame will be shorter. Looking at history the move to the first nuclear submarines from a much lower knowledge base took less time than you suggest. The knowledge base is higher, there is an offshore production process we can rely on for those areas we do not have the capability …. And I certainly hope we can still produce the hull …. Noting the technology in the Collins was in many ways ahead of its time.

We may yet have burnt our bridges a little too early. Perhaps Nuclear subs should have been looked at as being the follow on to the Attack class rather than a replacement for that program. We will have a better idea after the government finishes its consultation process around the end of next year.

I am slowly forming the opinion that we might well end up going with the British option probably dovetailing with their SSN(R) program. They are planning to deliver the first of their new subs from the mid 2030s. One option that might leave Australia is that we could get early access to one or more of the Astute class as the SSN(R) enter service with the RN. That might give us some extra breathing space between the retirement of the Collins and the first of our new nukes.

 

[Stampede]

I think there is some optimism about SSN project production, but there are concerns. But yes, I have concerns about the Collins life span. Getting 1 sub in 10 years doesn't solve all our concerns. Also the tempo of the continuous build is IMO under threat. It will be interesting to see how many SSN's we plan to build, plan to operate, and when.

IMO the greatest threat to the submarine is political. Essentially all the delays around the submarine program (and most of our ship building programs and most ADF acquisition programs), are essentially political, mostly on slow decisions or no decisions or commitment on volume (not trying to pick on either party here, but both sides have had some issues with defence projects becoming reality). While there are technical limitations, I am quite confident Aus industry can deliver, as they have for 100 years.

ASC in osborne and Civmec in henderson are pushing pleasingly on the work they currently have. The workforce is pretty much ready, what is missing is future projects in a state to be constructed. The ADF clearly needs and wants things, and our allies clearly want us to have capabilities.

"Greatest threat to the submarine is political"

I have come to the conclusion that Nuclear propulsion is NOT the way forward for the RAN.
Yes I get its benefits, but for myself too many layers of concern for it to be a good fit for OZ.

That aside, the political aspect is an interesting one.
To make this program work we need all three governments representing AUKUS and their respective oppositions, on board for the the duration of the build and supporting us for the life of the submarine fleet.

That is a lot of decades.
That is a big ask!

Just looking domestically, I find it difficult to believe both major party's will be on the same page with this for the life of the project, and that does not include what influence the minor party's will play in the decades ahead.

Too many political variables to see this coming to fruition.

This is all very negative talk on my behalf, but I have genuine concerns with this project.


Sadly S

 

[StingrayOZ]

We may yet have burnt our bridges a little too early. Perhaps Nuclear subs should have been looked at as being the follow on to the Attack class rather than a replacement for that program. We will have a better idea after the government finishes its consultation process around the end of next year.

A new submarine is a new submarine. Naval groups Attack design had not yet been fully detailed as a conventional sub we would be spending billions creating a design for a sub. Presumably we are looking at two fully detailed and engineered designs, or extremely minor modifications of two fully speced and detailed designs.

I have come to the conclusion that Nuclear propulsion is NOT the way forward for the RAN.
Yes I get its benefits, but for myself too many layers of concern for it to be a good fit for OZ.

It will be a huge challenge.

Peter Briggs put something together about how we could migrate off conventional to nuclear boats. He had quite detail plans about migrating to full double crews, designed around min of 10 boats.

The issue with submarines may come down to growing the manpower force more than the construction of them. Some of his planning was around replacing the 10th conventional with a SSN around 2046. Clearly, we don't have that sort of time. He basically said it was impossible to grow it faster.

We need to grow the submarine arm from ~600 through to ~3500. Some will need to be qualified in courses we don't really offer. We will need a new submarine base and that base will likely need to be on the east coast for the new submarines, training and other infrastructure.

I feel that we will want to start something right now, and existing design with minimal changes, possibly at multiple yards. We may want to move to either the US or UK future submarine in the mid future, but their time frames are again further down the road. Leaving the decision later, makes everything harder, colder and more broken.

I worry that 18 months is also too long and too magical to make everything happen. We need to break that up into ~6 month milestone segments.

Segment 1. US/UK submarine & build plan numbers and plan. Once this decision is made an order of say the first batch of 2 local submarines would be ordered from ASC, with 1 overseas build, ordered by the government of the overseas yard. The overseas build would be a hot start, while the local build would be ~12-18 months behind. Enabling training and then transfer of people and skills to local. Local build content would be on a sliding scale
Segment 2. Solving the reactor material issues, ordering the reactor and rods, waste and disposal cycle.
Segment 3. Sub basing plan, infrastructure, crew development etc.

In conjunction there would be a commitment by the winning nation to base 1 SSN out of Australia for a period of say 5 years.

This gets:
* 5 year deployment of a SSN from Australia itself with a mix crew. Likely to be scheduled when the LOTE of Collins occurs, when hulls start to disappear.
* 2 subs being built, 1 from a hot yard.
* Aiming so that 2 subs would become available towards the start of 2030.

Briggs own analysis seemed to indicate under normal measures it would not be possible to grow the RAN submariner size quick enough using normal methods. So we need aggressive abnormal methods. Talking about Canada, I say we make a move on their entire Submarine force around 2026.

I would expand beyond subs too. I would be detailing out a plan for RAAF to branch out from the USN/USAF/RAF and the Army to branch out from USMC/RM. Targeting high performing early career professionals.

 

[aussienscale]

Segment 1. US/UK submarine & build plan numbers and plan. Once this decision is made an order of say the first batch of 2 local submarines would be ordered from ASC, with 1 overseas build, ordered by the government of the overseas yard. The overseas build would be a hot start, while the local build would be ~12-18 months behind. Enabling training and then transfer of people and skills to local. Local build content would be on a sliding scale
Segment 2. Solving the reactor material issues, ordering the reactor and rods, waste and disposal cycle.
Segment 3. Sub basing plan, infrastructure, crew development etc.

In conjunction there would be a commitment by the winning nation to base 1 SSN out of Australia for a period of say 5 years.

This gets:
* 5 year deployment of a SSN from Australia itself with a mix crew. Likely to be scheduled when the LOTE of Collins occurs, when hulls start to disappear.
* 2 subs being built, 1 from a hot yard.
* Aiming so that 2 subs would become available towards the start of 2030.

The only "hot yard" is the US, UK Astute program is in its final days with the last long lead item contract issued a decade ago, the supply lines are now cold and you would probably find most have gone to Dreadnought item production. Not to say they can't expand to take on the extra capacity, but how likely are they going to be willing to make that investment in capability for a single boat order ? Space from my understanding at Barrow is limited and they are already backing up the last Astute's with Dreadnought.

Also still leaves the issue of the reactor itself, RR are no longer geared and capable of producing the PWR2 as their facilities have been upgraded and geared for the production of the PWR3/S9G. That in itself leads to a lot of re-design work to swap in the new reactor along with the required increase in RR's production capability to produce extra.

That leaves the Virginia's as the only real hot line. Time will tell and a better picture in the next 18 month's, but the Governments own timeline, the Collins LOTE and times for that all point to not getting anything in a hurry, no matter how much we need it. I would be betting on us joining the SSN(R) program with the UK, timings over the next couple of years to get involved are perfect.

Cheers

 

[StingrayOZ]

The only "hot yard" is the US, UK Astute program is in its final days with the last long lead item contract issued a decade ago, the supply lines are now cold and you would probably find most have gone to Dreadnought item production. Not to say they can't expand to take on the extra capacity, but how likely are they going to be willing to make that investment in capability for a single boat order ? Space from my understanding at Barrow is limited and they are already backing up the last Astute's with Dreadnought.

I guess I am trying to be coy regarding selection. If we were to select Astute, hypothetically we could try to detail some of that out. Assuming extreme political support both here and the UK.

I believe there may be a period where we can jump in on tail end astute/early Dreadnought production. While not hot, is warm, or has some life signs, if now mostly pointed at dreadnought. Dreadnaught production could be pushed back slightly. Would obviously need significant support for that to happen. It may result in dreadnaught spec items for things like cabling, distribution, HVAC, being used instead of Astute. While 1 local UK build there would be 1 local AU build, and say an order for 2 more, with additional in the pipe at various gates but basically 2 immediate + 2 follow on.

Barrow is limited, but Dreadnaught is only just moving, and the Astutes are going out the door. With again, shuffling around and tremendous political power, I may be possible to squeeze in one more build there.

ASC would also be building, if at any point things fall behind, the whole UK hull could be moved to AU to complete fitout.

Also still leaves the issue of the reactor itself, RR are no longer geared and capable of producing the PWR2 as their facilities have been upgraded and geared for the production of the PWR3/S9G. That in itself leads to a lot of re-design work to swap in the new reactor along with the required increase in RR's production capability to produce extra.

IMO PWR2 is dead for a number of reasons. We would be fitting PWR3 IMO for this scenario and modifications to accommodate it. This would likely need to involve the Americans. They, GE, could perhaps license build 2+ reactors, and the fuel rods for all 10+ Australian SSN's. They certainly have the capability to do that. RR isn't ready and then there would be questions about even if they were, do they had the capabilities to increase production. Given our fuel will ultimately need to come from the US, and most likely go back there, they are going to have be be involved, building the reactor as a licensed build would be manageable for them as a short term solution.

Messy, yes, but not impossible. Getting the RN and the UK to shift orders around may be easier than getting the USN and the US to stuff things around. Any Australian orders on the US side would be rounding errors, not much of a incentive to accommodate. However, for the UK, this would be huge. A doubling of their program. I would imagine politically, the UK would get tremendous mileage out of this, where in the US, this would again be lost in the noise, small fry to them.

While the US has very strict IP rules on export and rules about production of equipment for the US military, the UK is far more open and flexible. Reciprocal arrangements could be made to level out build share and whats not and open new doors in different areas. In terms of moving mountains, it would be easier to move them in the UK.

The nuclear decision is messy anyway you cut it. Well any sub decision now is messy. The time for clean natural logical solutions is over, we are effectively out of time with that. Both the build and manning will be fairly intense projects, more akin to war time activities. Favors will have to be called in things will need to be shuffled, precedents broken.

 

[Stampede]

A new submarine is a new submarine. Naval groups Attack design had not yet been fully detailed as a conventional sub we would be spending billions creating a design for a sub. Presumably we are looking at two fully detailed and engineered designs, or extremely minor modifications of two fully speced and detailed designs.



It will be a huge challenge.

Peter Briggs put something together about how we could migrate off conventional to nuclear boats. He had quite detail plans about migrating to full double crews, designed around min of 10 boats.

The issue with submarines may come down to growing the manpower force more than the construction of them. Some of his planning was around replacing the 10th conventional with a SSN around 2046. Clearly, we don't have that sort of time. He basically said it was impossible to grow it faster.

We need to grow the submarine arm from ~600 through to ~3500. Some will need to be qualified in courses we don't really offer. We will need a new submarine base and that base will likely need to be on the east coast for the new submarines, training and other infrastructure.

I feel that we will want to start something right now, and existing design with minimal changes, possibly at multiple yards. We may want to move to either the US or UK future submarine in the mid future, but their time frames are again further down the road. Leaving the decision later, makes everything harder, colder and more broken.

I worry that 18 months is also too long and too magical to make everything happen. We need to break that up into ~6 month milestone segments.

Segment 1. US/UK submarine & build plan numbers and plan. Once this decision is made an order of say the first batch of 2 local submarines would be ordered from ASC, with 1 overseas build, ordered by the government of the overseas yard. The overseas build would be a hot start, while the local build would be ~12-18 months behind. Enabling training and then transfer of people and skills to local. Local build content would be on a sliding scale
Segment 2. Solving the reactor material issues, ordering the reactor and rods, waste and disposal cycle.
Segment 3. Sub basing plan, infrastructure, crew development etc.

In conjunction there would be a commitment by the winning nation to base 1 SSN out of Australia for a period of say 5 years.

This gets:
* 5 year deployment of a SSN from Australia itself with a mix crew. Likely to be scheduled when the LOTE of Collins occurs, when hulls start to disappear.
* 2 subs being built, 1 from a hot yard.
* Aiming so that 2 subs would become available towards the start of 2030.

Briggs own analysis seemed to indicate under normal measures it would not be possible to grow the RAN submariner size quick enough using normal methods. So we need aggressive abnormal methods. Talking about Canada, I say we make a move on their entire Submarine force around 2026.

I would expand beyond subs too. I would be detailing out a plan for RAAF to branch out from the USN/USAF/RAF and the Army to branch out from USMC/RM. Targeting high performing early career professionals.

Not sure if this was posted.
ASPI today an article from Peter Briggs

Making the shift to nuclear-powered submarines: technical skills and oversight | The Strategist

In my last post, I explained the need for dual lines of responsibility for nuclear safety, with civilian authorities answerable to a minister other than the minister for defence to provide a degree of independence ...

www.aspistrategist.org.au

This is a big endeavor.

Regards S

 

[vonnoobie]

I am not so sure, unemployable of the masses isn’t initially going to be a problem for the CCP. It’s not like the masses can complain, Tiananmen Square version 2.0 would be much worse with Xi in charge now.

It's not just unemployment, a trade embargo wouldn't just stop factories but limit food imports, domestic agriculture, fuel imports both for transport and heating etc. It would be china going back to the 1950's china with most the population living in urban environments. So they have a starving jobless population that is in the dark, it's a set of circumstances that could break china apart with regions potentially fighting one another for resources. An embargo could very well destroy the china that we know today.

 

[ngatimozart]

I am not so sure, unemployable of the masses isn’t initially going to be a problem for the CCP. It’s not like the masses can complain, Tiananmen Square version 2.0 would be much worse with Xi in charge now.

That would be a very big problem for Xi, the CCP and the Indo-Pacific.

1. Xi Jinping because literally retaining his ability to wake up in the morning for the foreseeable future, depends upon him keeping control of the Politburo Standing Committee, the Politburo, and the Central Committee of the CCP, from the Jiang faction. If the Jiang faction regains control, he's dead. So he has to keep them suppressed and the general population happy within reason.
2. The CCP cannot afford widespread public dissatisfaction because of unemployment etc., because of its self professed covenant with the people that it will provide jobs, food security, and homes. At the moment there is brown outs and electricity supply restrictions because of self inflected coal shortages. Winter is coming and there appears to be no solution in sight. People are not happy because it impacts upon employment, ability to cook in some cases, and the ability to heat work places and homes. There have also been a series of explosions in various cities that have killed and injured people, due to gas leaks in buildings. One explosion destroyed a complete multistorey building. Recent disastrous floods haven’t helped matters much, especially when local government authorities and Party officials have left displaced flood victims to fend for themselves.
3. If the CCP feels that the domestic pressure and situation is serious enough to threaten its hold on power, it will have no qualms creating a foreign adventure to divert the domestic population expending its pent up frustrations on and at the same time whipping up nationalistic fervour, further diverting public attention away from CCP mishandling of events.

If the CCP goes with the third option, Australia will definitely be caught up because Taiwan is the obvious target. The CCP has expended much political capital on its claims to the island and its statements of investing it. It no longer can be seen to politically back down on Taiwan, because it has painted itself into a corner due to its intransigence, arrogance and stubbornness. In the interview below DEFMIN Dutton outlines the Australian policy WRT a CCP / PRC invasion of Taiwan. So you would be involved and personally I think that is the correct decision.

War with China is a ‘question for the Chinese’: Peter Dutton

Defence Minister Peter Dutton says the potential for a war with China is a “question for the Chinese”. “China’s been very clear about their intent with regard to Taiwan,” Mr Dutton told Sky News Australia. “Equally, the United States has been clear about their intention toward Taiwan...

www.skynews.com.au

 

[Julian 82]

A new submarine is a new submarine. Naval groups Attack design had not yet been fully detailed as a conventional sub we would be spending billions creating a design for a sub. Presumably we are looking at two fully detailed and engineered designs, or extremely minor modifications of two fully speced and detailed designs.



It will be a huge challenge.

Peter Briggs put something together about how we could migrate off conventional to nuclear boats. He had quite detail plans about migrating to full double crews, designed around min of 10 boats.

The issue with submarines may come down to growing the manpower force more than the construction of them. Some of his planning was around replacing the 10th conventional with a SSN around 2046. Clearly, we don't have that sort of time. He basically said it was impossible to grow it faster.

We need to grow the submarine arm from ~600 through to ~3500. Some will need to be qualified in courses we don't really offer. We will need a new submarine base and that base will likely need to be on the east coast for the new submarines, training and other infrastructure.

I feel that we will want to start something right now, and existing design with minimal changes, possibly at multiple yards. We may want to move to either the US or UK future submarine in the mid future, but their time frames are again further down the road. Leaving the decision later, makes everything harder, colder and more broken.

I worry that 18 months is also too long and too magical to make everything happen. We need to break that up into ~6 month milestone segments.

Segment 1. US/UK submarine & build plan numbers and plan. Once this decision is made an order of say the first batch of 2 local submarines would be ordered from ASC, with 1 overseas build, ordered by the government of the overseas yard. The overseas build would be a hot start, while the local build would be ~12-18 months behind. Enabling training and then transfer of people and skills to local. Local build content would be on a sliding scale
Segment 2. Solving the reactor material issues, ordering the reactor and rods, waste and disposal cycle.
Segment 3. Sub basing plan, infrastructure, crew development etc.

In conjunction there would be a commitment by the winning nation to base 1 SSN out of Australia for a period of say 5 years.

This gets:
* 5 year deployment of a SSN from Australia itself with a mix crew. Likely to be scheduled when the LOTE of Collins occurs, when hulls start to disappear.
* 2 subs being built, 1 from a hot yard.
* Aiming so that 2 subs would become available towards the start of 2030.

Briggs own analysis seemed to indicate under normal measures it would not be possible to grow the RAN submariner size quick enough using normal methods. So we need aggressive abnormal methods. Talking about Canada, I say we make a move on their entire Submarine force around 2026.

I would expand beyond subs too. I would be detailing out a plan for RAAF to branch out from the USN/USAF/RAF and the Army to branch out from USMC/RM. Targeting high performing early career professionals.

There was an interesting podcast on the UNSW Defence Research Institute on the opportunities arising from SSN announcement including potential for a future civilian nuclear industry with small modular reactors. There is a nuclear engineering course taught at UNSW, lots of collaboration with the research reactor ANSTO and a surprising number of local companies involved in the global nuclear industry. So perhaps not a case of a standing start.
Out of interest, why would it be necessary to have a base on the east coast? Given the unlimited endurance and fast transit times of SSNs wouldn’t the existing base at HMAS Stirling be enough?

 

[Julian 82]

Not sure if this was posted.
ASPI today an article from Peter Briggs

Making the shift to nuclear-powered submarines: technical skills and oversight | The Strategist

In my last post, I explained the need for dual lines of responsibility for nuclear safety, with civilian authorities answerable to a minister other than the minister for defence to provide a degree of independence ...

www.aspistrategist.org.au

This is a big endeavor.

Regards S

No doubt but one I believe is worth pursuing. The SSN is perfectly suited for Australia’s geography and delivers tremendous operational advantages.

 

[Redlands18]

There was an interesting podcast on the UNSW Defence Research Institute on the opportunities arising from SSN announcement including potential for a future civilian nuclear industry with small modular reactors. There is a nuclear engineering course taught at UNSW, lots of collaboration with the research reactor ANSTO and a surprising number of local companies involved in the global nuclear industry. So perhaps not a case of a standing start.
Out of interest, why would it be necessary to have a base on the east coast? Given the unlimited endurance and fast transit times of SSNs wouldn’t the existing base at HMAS Stirling be enough?

It will help a lot with Recruitment and Retention for the Sub Fleet, at present, the Submariners are pretty much stuck in Perth for their entire Career. Even being able to cruise at 20-25kt+ for an extended period it still takes a long time to get anywhere. a East Coast Base would make an Eastern approach into North Asian waters a lot more feasible.