On December 18, 2023 “Grandpa Jim” commented :
"For the life of me I still don't see Australia's need to build SSNs
.. they can barely man the six SSKs they have now
.. and all of this for what
.. three SSN subs ?
Its been ten years already and nothing has been accomplished.
I honestly believe Australia's defenses would be far better off if they chose to buy/build eight or nine Nagapasa [Type 209-1400] subs from South Korea, half dozen or so land based [Naval Strike Missile] NSM batteries, and add perhaps another 24 or so [F/A-18F] planes -- all of which would cost perhaps a fourth of what the SSNs would cost. Utter sillyness."
Pete Comment
1. If Australia goes the conventional submarine (SSK) route. Life Of Type Extending (LOTEing) the 6 Collins could keep the RAN and "20,000 well paid union jobs" going until 8 new SSKs (or SSBs) are built in Adelaide. The new ones need to be large (AIP, Lithium-ion Battery, VLS) submarines for our long range patrol requirements. These should be existing designs, ie:
- South Korean KSS-3s or
- German Dakar-class
Either of the above could launch ballistic/hypersonic missiles with warheads taking their proliferation lead from whatever South Korea and Japan are using by the late 2030s (ie. may well be nuclear warheads).
Additional conventional weapons for Australia include:
- land/sea launched Tomahawk missiles
- Ghost Bat UCAVs, and
- Anduril Ghost Shark or Cellula SeaWolf or a Melbourne company's (name eludes me?) XLUUVs/AUVs
++++++++++++
2. Going the SSN route may "unintentionally" pan out to 6 Virginia submarines. Hence the 3 to 5 already intended plus one more. The 6 Virginia route has the advantages of:
- total crewing is still high but not the unviable number required for 3 Virginias and 5 to 8 SSN-AUKUS
- just one type of SSN rather than an unviable situation of 2 types (Virginias and SSN-AUKUS)
- all built in the US. So Osborne cannot habitually double the cost and build time of SSN-AUKUS.
- The ALP National Conference's "20,000 well paid union jobs" can still be honoured by all the construction and repairs in Fleet Base West (with its new nuclear waste facility), construction and repairs in Adelaide and university education of 1,000s of nuclear submariners/shipbuilder-maintainers/technicians/scientists/administrators.
- I don't know if an East Coast SSN Base would be strategically necessary (given the speed "Perth base" SSNs can get to the East Coast) or even financially or politically viable.
- will draw Australia closer to the ally (the US) that Australia efficiently works with, in our Indian and Pacific oceans, the ally providing Australia with the nuclear umbrella. This is rather than an idealistic bonding with a past ally, the UK RN, that spends 90% of its time in the distant Atlantic Ocean and in Europe.
Time will tell.