SSN-AUKUS Future Astute Replacement (2030s) (RN) [News Only]

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
BB85
Member
Posts: 218
Joined: 09 Sep 2021, 20:17
United Kingdom

Re: SSN(R) Future Astute Replacement (2040s) (RN) [News Only]

Post by BB85 »

I was under the impression the CMC would be replacing the VPM, but could be completely wrong. Either way the RN will adopt one of the two as we don't have the money to develop our own and deliver 7-8 subs.
Seems sensible to to use the base Dreadnaught design but reduced to between 2 and 4 tubes. I'm not sure how that would impact its effectiveness in littoral environments, but if their primary operating areas are the Atlantic and Pacific oceans I cant see it being a major issue.

Dobbo
Member
Posts: 120
Joined: 08 Apr 2021, 07:41
United Kingdom

Re: SSN(R) Future Astute Replacement (2040s) (RN) [News Only]

Post by Dobbo »

Key for me is the industrial synergy with the US and Australia. Leaving national interest aside, one of the easiest ways of increasing SSN / SSBN production and productivity would be to increase the numbers built at Barrow over a 25-35 year cycle.

I’m other words, building 7x Astute and 4x Vanguard over the 25 years or so period has been very inefficient. Setting up a similar facility in Australia to build 8-10 SSNs over a 25 year cycle is also likely to also be very inefficient.

Building 4x Dreadnought and 16-20 SSN(R) over the next 25 years (for the RN and RAN) would likely be much more efficient, but there would need to be some workforce and industrial quid pro quo to make that happen - but there is IMO a lot of merit to that idea.
These users liked the author Dobbo for the post:
abc123

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: SSN(R) Future Astute Replacement (2040s) (RN) [News Only]

Post by shark bait »

If they're adding a VLS they could the torpedo room and store all the torpedoes outside the pressure hull, reducing cost and crew requitements.
@LandSharkUK

Dobbo
Member
Posts: 120
Joined: 08 Apr 2021, 07:41
United Kingdom

Re: SSN(R) Future Astute Replacement (2040s) (RN) [News Only]

Post by Dobbo »

There is a suggestion that the Australians may proceed with the U.K. SSN design.


https://www.iiss.org/blogs/military-bal ... r-reaction
These users liked the author Dobbo for the post:
wargame_insomniac

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: SSN(R) Future Astute Replacement (2040s) (RN) [News Only]

Post by SW1 »

These users liked the author SW1 for the post (total 2):
PoiuytrewqDobbo

matt00773
Member
Posts: 301
Joined: 01 Jun 2016, 14:31
United Kingdom

Re: SSN(R) Future Astute Replacement (2040s) (RN) [News Only]

Post by matt00773 »

Dobbo wrote: 30 Jan 2023, 14:14 There is a suggestion that the Australians may proceed with the U.K. SSN design.


https://www.iiss.org/blogs/military-bal ... r-reaction
The most interesting part of that article from a UK perspective is surely this:

"Among the ‘straws in the wind’ are the UK’s ambitions to rebuild its own submarine fleet. The Royal Navy would like to see a rise from the planned seven Astute-class attack submarines to perhaps 12 boats in the long term. In a speech in December 2022, the UK chief of the defence staff, Admiral Sir Tony Radakin, said of AUKUS that ‘if we have the courage to do this properly’ it could help grow the UK’s own submarine numbers in the decades to come, clearly assisted in part by potential economies of scale under AUKUS."

Any credibility to this assertion?

Dobbo
Member
Posts: 120
Joined: 08 Apr 2021, 07:41
United Kingdom

Re: SSN(R) Future Astute Replacement (2040s) (RN) [News Only]

Post by Dobbo »

It makes practical sense in that the delivery of 24 boats across a 25-30 year cycle (4 SSBN and 12 SSGN for the RN and 8 SSN/SSGN for the RAN) represents a fairly efficient cycle for Barrow, does not cut across the capacity constraints at US yards, does not require the construction from scratch of facilities in Australia and permits some form of Australian work share in the value chain.

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 2762
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
United Kingdom

Re: SSN(R) Future Astute Replacement (2040s) (RN) [News Only]

Post by dmereifield »

Dobbo wrote: 06 Feb 2023, 16:52 It makes practical sense in that the delivery of 24 boats across a 25-30 year cycle (4 SSBN and 12 SSGN for the RN and 8 SSN/SSGN for the RAN) represents a fairly efficient cycle for Barrow, does not cut across the capacity constraints at US yards, does not require the construction from scratch of facilities in Australia and permits some form of Australian work share in the value chain.
If only...for the kind of money the Aussies are pumping in they'll want local construction....
These users liked the author dmereifield for the post:
serge750

SouthernOne
Member
Posts: 122
Joined: 23 Nov 2019, 00:01
Australia

Re: SSN(R) Future Astute Replacement (2040s) (RN) [News Only]

Post by SouthernOne »

matt00773 wrote: 06 Feb 2023, 10:28
Dobbo wrote: 30 Jan 2023, 14:14 There is a suggestion that the Australians may proceed with the U.K. SSN design.


https://www.iiss.org/blogs/military-bal ... r-reaction
The most interesting part of that article from a UK perspective is surely this:

"Among the ‘straws in the wind’ are the UK’s ambitions to rebuild its own submarine fleet. The Royal Navy would like to see a rise from the planned seven Astute-class attack submarines to perhaps 12 boats in the long term. In a speech in December 2022, the UK chief of the defence staff, Admiral Sir Tony Radakin, said of AUKUS that ‘if we have the courage to do this properly’ it could help grow the UK’s own submarine numbers in the decades to come, clearly assisted in part by potential economies of scale under AUKUS."

Any credibility to this assertion?
This started as a joint US-Aus program that the UK later joined following an invitation from the US. That dynamic will most likely shape the entire effort.

In relation to Australia's options, strategies and preferences, I'd be listening to public comments from the Aus minister for defence rather than a UK publication.

So is the UK "talking up" its requirements hoping to maximise its share of a US led tri-nation program? The history of the T-26 and E-7 programs might blunt any such strategy.

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1409
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: SSN(R) Future Astute Replacement (2040s) (RN) [News Only]

Post by tomuk »

SouthernOne wrote: 06 Feb 2023, 20:59

This started as a joint US-Aus program that the UK later joined following an invitation from the US.
Not it wasn't. It was a Aus - UK to start with. The Australian equivalent to Adm Tony Radakin made an approach when he was First Sea Lord about the possibility of supplying Nuclear Subs. Due to the somewhat unique arrangements around the nuclear reactors and their US 'content' the Americans were brought into it.
These users liked the author tomuk for the post:
Jensy

SouthernOne
Member
Posts: 122
Joined: 23 Nov 2019, 00:01
Australia

Re: SSN(R) Future Astute Replacement (2040s) (RN) [News Only]

Post by SouthernOne »

tomuk wrote: 06 Feb 2023, 21:45
SouthernOne wrote: 06 Feb 2023, 20:59

This started as a joint US-Aus program that the UK later joined following an invitation from the US.
Not it wasn't. It was a Aus - UK to start with. The Australian equivalent to Adm Tony Radakin made an approach when he was First Sea Lord about the possibility of supplying Nuclear Subs. Due to the somewhat unique arrangements around the nuclear reactors and their US 'content' the Americans were brought into it.
I was referring to the current AUKUS program.

In terms of precursor "what could have been" activities, the possibility of acquiring nuclear boats was even part of the decision mix in selection of the Short Fin Barracuda from France for the cancelled Attack class. A conventional boat derived from a nuclear powered one made sense if you were considering transitioning the program to the latter.

The decision by the US to export nuclear tech to Aus reset the whole submarine program dynamic. There would have been a lot of negotiations and "history" before that decision was announced.

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1409
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: SSN(R) Future Astute Replacement (2040s) (RN) [News Only]

Post by tomuk »

SouthernOne wrote: 06 Feb 2023, 22:03
tomuk wrote: 06 Feb 2023, 21:45
SouthernOne wrote: 06 Feb 2023, 20:59

This started as a joint US-Aus program that the UK later joined following an invitation from the US.
Not it wasn't. It was a Aus - UK to start with. The Australian equivalent to Adm Tony Radakin made an approach when he was First Sea Lord about the possibility of supplying Nuclear Subs. Due to the somewhat unique arrangements around the nuclear reactors and their US 'content' the Americans were brought into it.
I was referring to the current AUKUS program.

In terms of precursor "what could have been" activities, the possibility of acquiring nuclear boats was even part of the decision mix in selection of the Short Fin Barracuda from France for the cancelled Attack class. A conventional boat derived from a nuclear powered one made sense if you were considering transitioning the program to the latter.

The decision by the US to export nuclear tech to Aus reset the whole submarine program dynamic. There would have been a lot of negotiations and "history" before that decision was announced.
So was I. The AUKUS programme exists because of the approach to the UK. The US are involved because of the need to give the nod on the reactor and are only interested in the wider basing opportunities for ships, troops and aircraft in Australia.

SouthernOne
Member
Posts: 122
Joined: 23 Nov 2019, 00:01
Australia

Re: SSN(R) Future Astute Replacement (2040s) (RN) [News Only]

Post by SouthernOne »

tomuk wrote: 07 Feb 2023, 00:05
SouthernOne wrote: 06 Feb 2023, 22:03
tomuk wrote: 06 Feb 2023, 21:45
SouthernOne wrote: 06 Feb 2023, 20:59

This started as a joint US-Aus program that the UK later joined following an invitation from the US.
Not it wasn't. It was a Aus - UK to start with. The Australian equivalent to Adm Tony Radakin made an approach when he was First Sea Lord about the possibility of supplying Nuclear Subs. Due to the somewhat unique arrangements around the nuclear reactors and their US 'content' the Americans were brought into it.
I was referring to the current AUKUS program.

In terms of precursor "what could have been" activities, the possibility of acquiring nuclear boats was even part of the decision mix in selection of the Short Fin Barracuda from France for the cancelled Attack class. A conventional boat derived from a nuclear powered one made sense if you were considering transitioning the program to the latter.

The decision by the US to export nuclear tech to Aus reset the whole submarine program dynamic. There would have been a lot of negotiations and "history" before that decision was announced.
So was I. The AUKUS programme exists because of the approach to the UK. The US are involved because of the need to give the nod on the reactor and are only interested in the wider basing opportunities for ships, troops and aircraft in Australia.
They already have troops and aircraft based in Australia, regular ship visits and even "jointly" run bases and facilities that were established in the cold war era.

R686
Senior Member
Posts: 2322
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Australia

Re: SSN(R) Future Astute Replacement (2040s) (RN) [News Only]

Post by R686 »

SouthernOne wrote: 07 Feb 2023, 00:38
tomuk wrote: 07 Feb 2023, 00:05
SouthernOne wrote: 06 Feb 2023, 22:03
tomuk wrote: 06 Feb 2023, 21:45
SouthernOne wrote: 06 Feb 2023, 20:59

This started as a joint US-Aus program that the UK later joined following an invitation from the US.
Not it wasn't. It was a Aus - UK to start with. The Australian equivalent to Adm Tony Radakin made an approach when he was First Sea Lord about the possibility of supplying Nuclear Subs. Due to the somewhat unique arrangements around the nuclear reactors and their US 'content' the Americans were brought into it.
I was referring to the current AUKUS program.

In terms of precursor "what could have been" activities, the possibility of acquiring nuclear boats was even part of the decision mix in selection of the Short Fin Barracuda from France for the cancelled Attack class. A conventional boat derived from a nuclear powered one made sense if you were considering transitioning the program to the latter.

The decision by the US to export nuclear tech to Aus reset the whole submarine program dynamic. There would have been a lot of negotiations and "history" before that decision was announced.
So was I. The AUKUS programme exists because of the approach to the UK. The US are involved because of the need to give the nod on the reactor and are only interested in the wider basing opportunities for ships, troops and aircraft in Australia.
They already have troops and aircraft based in Australia, regular ship visits and even "jointly" run bases and facilities that were established in the cold war era.
it's more of an expansion on what has been happening. irrespective of AUKUS I think it was always going to expand.

But what can expand now is once we have our own maintenance/refit facilities set up set up for it would be an extra feather in both RAN/USN cap to repair close to operational areas.

With the announcement that the USAF want to have 6 B52 deployed in NT also gives more bases and extra complications for China as the aircraft are more dispersed over a greater area
These users liked the author R686 for the post:
wargame_insomniac

SouthernOne
Member
Posts: 122
Joined: 23 Nov 2019, 00:01
Australia

Re: SSN(R) Future Astute Replacement (2040s) (RN) [News Only]

Post by SouthernOne »

R686 wrote: 07 Feb 2023, 01:04
SouthernOne wrote: 07 Feb 2023, 00:38
tomuk wrote: 07 Feb 2023, 00:05
SouthernOne wrote: 06 Feb 2023, 22:03
tomuk wrote: 06 Feb 2023, 21:45
SouthernOne wrote: 06 Feb 2023, 20:59

This started as a joint US-Aus program that the UK later joined following an invitation from the US.
Not it wasn't. It was a Aus - UK to start with. The Australian equivalent to Adm Tony Radakin made an approach when he was First Sea Lord about the possibility of supplying Nuclear Subs. Due to the somewhat unique arrangements around the nuclear reactors and their US 'content' the Americans were brought into it.
I was referring to the current AUKUS program.

In terms of precursor "what could have been" activities, the possibility of acquiring nuclear boats was even part of the decision mix in selection of the Short Fin Barracuda from France for the cancelled Attack class. A conventional boat derived from a nuclear powered one made sense if you were considering transitioning the program to the latter.

The decision by the US to export nuclear tech to Aus reset the whole submarine program dynamic. There would have been a lot of negotiations and "history" before that decision was announced.
So was I. The AUKUS programme exists because of the approach to the UK. The US are involved because of the need to give the nod on the reactor and are only interested in the wider basing opportunities for ships, troops and aircraft in Australia.
They already have troops and aircraft based in Australia, regular ship visits and even "jointly" run bases and facilities that were established in the cold war era.
it's more of an expansion on what has been happening. irrespective of AUKUS I think it was always going to expand.

But what can expand now is once we have our own maintenance/refit facilities set up set up for it would be an extra feather in both RAN/USN cap to repair close to operational areas.

With the announcement that the USAF want to have 6 B52 deployed in NT also gives more bases and extra complications for China as the aircraft are more dispersed over a greater area
Yes, similar to the opportunities provided by Australia being the regional maintenance hub for the F-35 program
These users liked the author SouthernOne for the post:
R686

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3952
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: SSN(R) Future Astute Replacement (2040s) (RN) [News Only]

Post by Poiuytrewq »

dmereifield wrote: 06 Feb 2023, 18:01 If only...for the kind of money the Aussies are pumping in they'll want local construction....
Of course it is true that the Australians will want local construction but they also want SSNs in the water.

The higher the ratio of Australian workshare the longer it will take for Australia to get its SSNs.

The politicians will have to reach a suitable balance between workshare and speed of construction but the RAN will just want the shortest possible build schedule.

IMO just allowing the RAN into AUKUS is Australias big win. Pushing too hard for “local construction” might not be smart.

After all, if AUKUS doesn’t work out, who else is going to help them build SSNs?

SouthernOne
Member
Posts: 122
Joined: 23 Nov 2019, 00:01
Australia

Re: SSN(R) Future Astute Replacement (2040s) (RN) [News Only]

Post by SouthernOne »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 07 Feb 2023, 08:02
dmereifield wrote: 06 Feb 2023, 18:01 If only...for the kind of money the Aussies are pumping in they'll want local construction....
Of course it is true that the Australians will want local construction but they also want SSNs in the water.

The higher the ratio of Australian workshare the longer it will take for Australia to get its SSNs.

The politicians will have to reach a suitable balance between workshare and speed of construction but the RAN will just want the shortest possible build schedule.

IMO just allowing the RAN into AUKUS is Australias big win. Pushing too hard for “local construction” might not be smart.

After all, if AUKUS doesn’t work out, who else is going to help them build SSNs?
Don't forget that there have been "grumblings" in the US about industry there already being over stretched to meet current USN build schedules.

Sections containing the reactor and associated equipment will most likely (inevitably?) not be built in Aus, but that still leaves a lot of submarine that's not too different to what's already be constructed and or integrated locally before.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: SSN(R) Future Astute Replacement (2040s) (RN) [News Only]

Post by SW1 »

Don’t rule out the possibility of dual sourcing of manufactured sections.

A payload section maybe a gd candidate for Australian manufacture.

I would also expect a FAL being in each country
These users liked the author SW1 for the post:
mrclark303

User avatar
mrclark303
Donator
Posts: 813
Joined: 06 May 2015, 10:47
United Kingdom

Re: SSN(R) Future Astute Replacement (2040s) (RN) [News Only]

Post by mrclark303 »

SW1 wrote: 07 Feb 2023, 08:23 Don’t rule out the possibility of dual sourcing of manufactured sections.

A payload section maybe a gd candidate for Australian manufacture.

I would also expect a FAL being in each country
This is the difficult one....

Final assembly of an SSN is a hugely difficult, unbelievably complex and expensive task, especially with no experience.

You only have to study the disastrous start to the Astute programme here in the UK, to see what happens if you simply pause submarine production, never mind start from scratch!

Let's take it that the SSN that will form the basis of Australia's boat, will also be the RN SSNR.

Production split 50/50, across 16 boats, 8 each.

Hopefully, the RN taking the opportunity to rectify the huge mistake of dropping our fleet below critical mass and ordering 12!

The Australians could build and fit out the front end, Barrow build the back end, perhaps with Uncle Sam building the center section and final be assembly and testing in the UK.

If China continues it's current aggressive stance, then Australia might opt for 12 too.

A production run of 24 boats would give tremendous cost benefits, drawing down the cost of long lead hugely expensive items, like the reactor assembly.

It would require an expansion of Barrows final assembly shed, but it would create huge numbers of jobs across three countries.
These users liked the author mrclark303 for the post:
Poiuytrewq

inch
Senior Member
Posts: 1311
Joined: 27 May 2015, 21:35

Re: SSN(R) Future Astute Replacement (2040s) (RN) [News Only]

Post by inch »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 07 Feb 2023, 08:02
dmereifield wrote: 06 Feb 2023, 18:01 If only...for the kind of money the Aussies are pumping in they'll want local construction....
Of course it is true that the Australians will want local construction but they also want SSNs in the water.

The higher the ratio of Australian workshare the longer it will take for Australia to get its SSNs.

The politicians will have to reach a suitable balance between workshare and speed of construction but the RAN will just want the shortest possible build schedule.

IMO just allowing the RAN into AUKUS is Australias big win. Pushing too hard for “local construction” might not be smart.

After all, if AUKUS doesn’t work out, who else is going to help them build SSNs?
FRANCE,they would jump in in a heartbeat to supply/tech transfer nuclear boats to Australia, don't kid ourselves they wouldn't

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3952
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: SSN(R) Future Astute Replacement (2040s) (RN) [News Only]

Post by Poiuytrewq »

inch wrote: 07 Feb 2023, 14:51 FRANCE,they would jump in in a heartbeat to supply/tech transfer nuclear boats to Australia, don't kid ourselves they wouldn't
The French thing didn’t work so well the last time. I don’t see the Australians having a second crack that that relationship anytime soon.

If AUKUS doesn’t work out the Australias next partner is likely to be Japan and the dream of the SSNs will disappear.

AUKUS will be complicated and most likely delayed but the RAN will eventually get their SSNs unless the politicians screw it up.
These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post:
mrclark303

User avatar
mrclark303
Donator
Posts: 813
Joined: 06 May 2015, 10:47
United Kingdom

Re: SSN(R) Future Astute Replacement (2040s) (RN) [News Only]

Post by mrclark303 »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 07 Feb 2023, 15:03
inch wrote: 07 Feb 2023, 14:51 FRANCE,they would jump in in a heartbeat to supply/tech transfer nuclear boats to Australia, don't kid ourselves they wouldn't
The French thing didn’t work so well the last time. I don’t see the Australians having a second crack that that relationship anytime soon.

If AUKUS doesn’t work out the Australias next partner is likely to be Japan and the dream of the SSNs will disappear.

AUKUS will be complicated and most likely delayed but the RAN will eventually get their SSNs unless the politicians screw it up.
I agree, French SSN's are particularly suited to the confines of the Mediterranean, their limited displacement in turn means a relatively small ordnance load

Australia needs a much larger boat with a 38 (plus) torpedo / missile load and supplies for long duration Pacific area operations.
These users liked the author mrclark303 for the post (total 2):
Poiuytrewqwargame_insomniac

SouthernOne
Member
Posts: 122
Joined: 23 Nov 2019, 00:01
Australia

Re: SSN(R) Future Astute Replacement (2040s) (RN) [News Only]

Post by SouthernOne »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 07 Feb 2023, 15:03
inch wrote: 07 Feb 2023, 14:51 FRANCE,they would jump in in a heartbeat to supply/tech transfer nuclear boats to Australia, don't kid ourselves they wouldn't
The French thing didn’t work so well the last time. I don’t see the Australians having a second crack that that relationship anytime soon.

If AUKUS doesn’t work out the Australias next partner is likely to be Japan and the dream of the SSNs will disappear.

AUKUS will be complicated and most likely delayed but the RAN will eventually get their SSNs unless the politicians screw it up.
When there is a lot of money to be made, people usually "kiss and make up" very quickly.

Naval Group and the French government may have simply overplayed their hand, because they didn't realise how close the US was to changing its longstanding policy on the transfer of nuclear technology. Aus and France do have fairly deep and broad alignment of strategic interests in the Pacific; in fact far more so than Aus and the UK.

Dobbo
Member
Posts: 120
Joined: 08 Apr 2021, 07:41
United Kingdom

Re: SSN(R) Future Astute Replacement (2040s) (RN) [News Only]

Post by Dobbo »

dmereifield wrote: 06 Feb 2023, 18:01
Dobbo wrote: 06 Feb 2023, 16:52 It makes practical sense in that the delivery of 24 boats across a 25-30 year cycle (4 SSBN and 12 SSGN for the RN and 8 SSN/SSGN for the RAN) represents a fairly efficient cycle for Barrow, does not cut across the capacity constraints at US yards, does not require the construction from scratch of facilities in Australia and permits some form of Australian work share in the value chain.
If only...for the kind of money the Aussies are pumping in they'll want local construction....
I’m sure they would want a major say in the design decisions and the work in the value chain but I’m not sure how much local construction is practicable (and I find it hard to believe that local final assembly is being realistically considered).

However, I’m sure both parties will benefit significantly - the U.K. from the ability to keep Barrow operating at a higher tempo which should facilitate a greater number of SSNs in the RN, the Australians from knowledge and know how, not to mention a capability leap.
These users liked the author Dobbo for the post (total 2):
mrclark303wargame_insomniac

User avatar
mrclark303
Donator
Posts: 813
Joined: 06 May 2015, 10:47
United Kingdom

Re: SSN(R) Future Astute Replacement (2040s) (RN) [News Only]

Post by mrclark303 »

SouthernOne wrote: 07 Feb 2023, 20:37
Poiuytrewq wrote: 07 Feb 2023, 15:03
inch wrote: 07 Feb 2023, 14:51 FRANCE,they would jump in in a heartbeat to supply/tech transfer nuclear boats to Australia, don't kid ourselves they wouldn't
The French thing didn’t work so well the last time. I don’t see the Australians having a second crack that that relationship anytime soon.

If AUKUS doesn’t work out the Australias next partner is likely to be Japan and the dream of the SSNs will disappear.

AUKUS will be complicated and most likely delayed but the RAN will eventually get their SSNs unless the politicians screw it up.
When there is a lot of money to be made, people usually "kiss and make up" very quickly.

Naval Group and the French government may have simply overplayed their hand, because they didn't realise how close the US was to changing its longstanding policy on the transfer of nuclear technology. Aus and France do have fairly deep and broad alignment of strategic interests in the Pacific; in fact far more so than Aus and the UK.
I think once Australia decided to go from SSK to SSN, then France was out of the running, their boats are just too small for Indo Pacific patrols, with a limited war load.

The Australians need a large load out with vertical launch tubes, to offset their small numbers.

When you consider a single Astute Class boat would be capable of causing huge damage to the Chinese Navy, and its SSNR replacement will be quieter yet, better sensors and a considerably larger loadout, then a fleet of 8 Australian boats, with 5 active at any one time, would be enough to gut the Chinese Navy if needed.

It's Aircraft Carriers and force multipliers ( tankers/ support ships) would be taken out quickly, followed by tracking and destruction of their noisy Subs.

I would think China sees Australian acquisition of this capability as a line in the sand, it will mean an effective end to their regional dominance and greatly limit their ability to wage war and threaten their neighbours.

China's window of opportunity to invade Taiwan and seize other territories is shrinking rapidly, Russian aggression in the Ukraine has without doubt united the Western powers and many of the Indo Pacific nations, in doing so, severely damaged Chinese aggressive regional medium and long term aims.

Post Reply