AUKUS partnership

[JBGooner]

"A new security partnership in the Asia Pacific will see the UK and US provide Australia with the technology and capability to deploy nuclear-powered submarines. American officials have said the move was not aimed at countering Beijing. However experts say the AUKUS agreement signals a paradigm shift in strategy and policy across the region."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-58540808

So Australia have ditched the bizarre plan to build French submarines and will, presumably, build a copy of the Astute class or the equivalent US boat.
The French are understandably a bit miffed at the cancelling of what they had called the "contract of the century".

Still given the efficiency of PRC spying I can't see this technology sharing as being without risk.

 

[Drago]

In practical terms the matter makes little difference, other than the news with the Oz nuke powered boats. The arrangement simply formalises that which already exists.

I expect itll be access to propulsion technology, possibly even being allowed to buy entire reactors and control suites. The Americanos only just let us have that much in the early days of nuclear propulsion, and only thar much because the First Lord of the Admitaltry at the time (Mountbatten?) was particularly good chums with the American chief of naval operations, Arleigh Burke. Even Hyman Rickover, themfather of nuclear maritime ops, was against the arrangement. Even now theres no where in hell theyd allow the sale of Virginia Class boats to a foreign customer, no matter how trusted.

So my fiver is on propulsion technology, up to and including being able to buy entire reactors from the likes of GE, although it may be as 'little'as technical and design assistance.

Vickers can't knock the Astute class boats out quick enough for the RN, so little prospect of them making the hulls and creating jobs here. Its possible they might licence the hulls design to Oz, but i think thats a stretch. I reckon itll be an all new class of boat, with propulsion developed with a big dollop of help from the US.

Of course, over here it wou,d be 2 decades late, 10 times the promised cost, and only half as capable as the original tender called for, so lets hope the Australians dent let the politicians interfere.

 

[Cycleops]

China can whine but it’s really all their fault for ramping up tensions, they should have known this is what you get. Someone is going to rattle their sabre too.
I shouldn’t worry about the Frenchies noses getting put out of joint, they’ll get over it.

 

[Archie_tect]

Watching Vigil... all those submarines following each other like sheep, all around the Pacific!

 

[MichaelW2]

If England loses the submarine base at Faslane on Scottish independence, Australia will become the base for RN nucular submarines. That or France.

 

[Drago]

They may be used as Forward Operating Bases so that subs don't have to return to blighty unless absolutely necessary, but the main actual base will be in the whats left of the UK.

 

[Dogtrousers]

I'm disappointed. I assumed AUKUS partnership meant that Audax UK were entering into partnership with Randonneurs USA.

 

[HMS_Dave]

In 4 years since the Aussies signed the agreement with the French, the French have had very little to show for it. Given Australia's position in the world and China spreading it's wings across SE Asia, it needs more capable vessels than the Phil Collins class of Diesel Electric it currently possesses some time this century.

The RN Astute was forwarded to the Aussies before, it is one of the worlds most capable Nuclear Attack Submarine, which in its trials, made mince meat out of US Navy Virginia class in simulated scenarios. What's more, much of the production issues plaguing the Astute and cost overruns have since been ironed out and the Aussies would have had a technically more superior submarine in every single department including costs had they gone for the Astute in the first place.
Despite the waste of going with the French initially, they now have a really good deal, getting the best of both worlds in the two world leading navies in nuclear submarine design which should get the Aussies very capable vessels that are going to be delivered in most of our lifetimes!

 

[MichaelW2]

I'm disappointed. I assumed AUKUS partnership meant that Audax UK were entering into partnership with Randonneurs USA.

USUKA was rejected by focus groups.

 

[JBGooner]

Vickers can't knock the Astute class boats out quick enough for the RN, so little prospect of them making the hulls and creating jobs here. Its possible they might licence the hulls design to Oz, but i think thats a stretch. I reckon itll be an all new class of boat, with propulsion developed with a big dollop of help from the US.

Yes Barrow will be straight onto the Dreadnought boats too so no spare capacity there I would think. Australia doing much of it themselves from scratch will be tough, the UK had difficulties enough with the long gap between Vanguard and Astute retaining the necessary skills.

Of course, over here it wou,d be 2 decades late, 10 times the promised cost, and only half as capable as the original tender called for, so lets hope the Australians dent let the politicians interfere.

Apart from the engines on the T-45s the RN hasn't done too bad in its procurement. At least when compared to the Army that is ...

 

[swee'pea99]

I shouldn’t worry about the Frenchies noses getting put out of joint, they’ll get over it.

Worry? Surely that's a bonus, n'est-ce pas?

 

[JBGooner]

Ha! I see the Beeb is now reporting the 'international backlash' against this partnership https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-58592613

This 'international' backlash consisting of France upset at the unravelling of their great submarine misselling scandal and, uh, China.

 

[HMS_Dave]

Ha! I see the Beeb is now reporting the 'international backlash' against this partnership https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-58592613

This 'international' backlash consisting of France upset at the unravelling of their great submarine misselling scandal and, uh, China.

To be fair, its completely unlike the media to whip up a storm, creating a narrative that doesn't exist...

 

[Dolorous Edd]

For decades, Letters of Last Resort given to Trident submarine commanding officers have included instructions in the event that contact with the UK is lost. One common option is to place the submarine under an allied country's command, either the US or Australia.

So it's simply wrong to portray a strategic nuclear relationship with Australia as a ground-breaking shift in alliances.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letters_of_last_resort

 

[HMS_Dave]

For decades, Letters of Last Resort given to Trident submarine commanding officers have included instructions in the event that contact with the UK is lost. One common option is to place the submarine under an allied country's command, either the US or Australia.

So it's simply wrong to portray a strategic nuclear relationship with Australia as a ground-breaking shift in alliances.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letters_of_last_resort

In fairness i don't think the shift in alliances is about Trident.

Australia aren't arming themselves with Nuclear Weapons.

But the sharing of extremely sensitive technology between nations to build a 3rd party nuclear powered submarine for another nation to independently operate is quite a significant development and on a level that perhaps hasn't been seen since WW2.