www.defensenews.com
That - in my crayon brain - is a good first step.New bill would establish AUKUS submarine training program
A new training program would enroll young Australian naval officers in U.S. nuclear propulsion and submarine officer schoolhouses, and then send them to sea on a U.S. boat, ahead of Australia developing and fielding its own nuclear-powered sub.
I think that might be a good argument in favour of building the reactors in the UK. Smaller production means Aus orders are more easily fit into a schedule, gives the UK some breathing room between their own subs without losing the expertise, and ensures continuity of the program. We know the US will keep building. The UK getting an order sheet might be just what they need for nuke program stability.
ukdefencejournal.org.uk
Not sure which signs you're referring to, but there are those who believe the US invited the UK to join the program in order to interest them in aligning their future submarine programs with the US. The former defence minister Peter Dutton has made some interesting public comments, and the RAN will want a plan B.
Well there's this
ukdefencejournal.org.uk
From the article, Virginias for the capability gap (starting in 2030s), then modified Astutes later.Virginia class for Australia
Australia to buy US nuclear submarines to fill capability gap
Anthony Albanese is set to announce Australia will acquire a fleet of nuclear-powered submarines based primarily on a new British design.www.smh.com.au
Odd timing, given the lifespan of a nuclear submarine. "Later" may well be a long, long time in the future. Perhaps we'll see a tri-nation program for a new class of boats to follow-on both the Virginias and Astutes.
Yup. So they’ll have two fleets, or try and sell the Virginias back to the USN?
Sounds like the kind of decision you'd make if you thought there was a serious risk that there could be a war with China before Britain has their new sub design ready to produce.
Or, "better commit to something quick, before public sentiment turns against this".
www.abc.net.au
And that is why Canada will never have a fleet of nuclear powered anything.Up to $368 billion over 30 years, including $8 billion for upgrades to HMAS Stirling (current RAN sub base near Perth in Western Australia).
SSNs ain't cheap.
Australian nuclear submarine program to cost up to $368b as AUKUS details unveiled
Australia’s nuclear submarine program will cost up to $368 billion over the next three decades, with confirmation that the federal government will buy at least three American-manufactured nuclear submarines.
Are they using the same accounting formulas as Canadian media outlets?Up to $368 billion over 30 years, including $8 billion for upgrades to HMAS Stirling (current RAN sub base near Perth in Western Australia).
SSNs ain't cheap.
Australian nuclear submarine program to cost up to $368b as AUKUS details unveiled
Australia’s nuclear submarine program will cost up to $368 billion over the next three decades, with confirmation that the federal government will buy at least three American-manufactured nuclear submarines.
$13 billion a year for 30 years for 3 subs with all the accoutrements ?? Crikey!Are they using the same accounting formulas as Canadian media outlets?
Nuclear subs are expensive, no matter what way they are looked at. But $368 Billion over 30+ years is far too vague a number to draw any real conclusions as TJ whether that is money being well spent or not.
As we all know, accounting in the defence world is a tricky and inconsistent thing - rife with political agendas, projected GDP growth, assumed pace of operations, and different formulas used from country to country. So much so it’s practically impossible to compare apples to apples.
So where am I going with all of this?
- Does that figure of $368B factor in such things as crew salaries, food/supplies, etc that would have been money spent regardless of whether the RAN went nuclear or not?
- or is that the projected acquisition & operating costs of just the boats? Does it include the upgrades to their submarine base?
- or is that projected costs with an extra 15% contingency bolted onto it?
It’s expensive no matter what way we slice the pie, but whether it’s outrageously expensive or not remains to be seen.
Still a heavy sticker shock to the Sustrakiaj taxpayer, no doubt
(Seeing that are getting slightly used American subs, have become an important hub for American subs operating in that region, and will operate mixed crews at least initially…they’ve probably realized some efficiencies they otherwise would have missed for a while. So that price tag could have been even higher yet…)
It is not 3 Subs.
HAHAHHAHA surely you jest....Canada with NUCLEAR submarines??? NBL - Not Bloody Likely
