The Ship Model Forum

I am not sure that article is very useful in terms of nuclear proliferation. If the loophole exists then you can be sure that some countries will exploit it whether or not Australia gets nuclear powered subs.

However, this deal between US/Australia looks very strange (I am leaving the UK out of it as I suspect they are there just to give it a cloak of "respectability" and are not really part of the sub deal at all). I wonder why Australia opted to cancel all twelve French subs rather than simply reducing the number of diesel subs to, say, six while exploring the long term options for acquiring the nuclear powered subs? Many difficult decisions need to be made before any real work can be done on designing the boats and constructing the necessary infrastructure.

Something doesn't add up and I suspect we won't find out which piece of the puzzle is missing for quite a while. Unless we get a U-Turn of course.

Australian submarines: what are the risks of nuclear proliferation?

The sale of nuclear-powered submarines to Australia, which has caused an unprecedented diplomatic crisis between the United States and France, raises many questions about the risk of nuclear proliferation in the region and beyond, analysts say.

- The uranium problem -

Australia initially ordered so-called "conventional" submarines from France, which must surface after a few days to recharge their batteries. American and British nuclear submarines are powered by a nuclear reactor that allows them to recharge their batteries indefinitely. Their autonomy is therefore limited to the subsistence of the crew, which rarely exceeds three months.

Paris has nuclear technology, which equips the Charles-de-Gaulle and all its submarines, but France uses low-enriched uranium (LEU) at less than 20%, a level similar to that used in nuclear power plants for electricity generation. LEU has to be renewed every 10 years, a delicate and dangerous process, but it cannot be diverted to military use.

American and British submarines use highly enriched uranium (HEU), which is more than 93%. It has a shelf life of 30 years, but precisely because it is enriched, it can be used to make a bomb.

"The US Navy's reactors currently use the HEU equivalent of 100 nuclear bombs, more than all the world's nuclear power plants combined," said Alan Kuperman of the University of Texas, in an op-ed written just before the announcement of the US-UK-Australia security pact, known as AUKUS.

Congress, which is currently negotiating the 2022 military budget, should make funds available for the US Navy's transition to the much safer LEU technology, the nuclear proliferation expert recommended in the trade journal Breaking Defense.

- Legal vacuum" -
For James Acton of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, the sale of nuclear submarines to Australia therefore represents a "considerable proliferation risk", accentuated by a legal vacuum in international regulations.

Because the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) does not prohibit non-nuclear states from acquiring nuclear submarines, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) "allows them to remove nuclear combustible from any surveillance for 'unprohibited military activities'", he explained on Twitter.

"I'm not worried about Australia acquiring nuclear weapons. My concern is that other states will use this precedent to exploit a potentially serious loophole in the global non-proliferation regime," he added.

This "could well open a Pandora's box of proliferation," said Tariq Rauf, a former IAEA expert and now a fellow at the Toda Peace Institute.

"Non-nuclear weapon states like Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Iran, Japan, Saudi Arabia and South Korea will move to nuclear submarines and keep nuclear combustible" away from the IAEA, he added.

- Snowball effect -
Russia "could increase its technology exchanges with India, China could provide its naval reactor technology to Pakistan and others, and Brazil could more easily find outlets for its troubled submarine reactor project," adds Hans Kristensen of the Federation of American Scientists (FAS).

Washington has reaffirmed its commitment to the NPT in recent days, with White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki saying on Monday that Australia is "an exceptional case, not a precedent-setter.

But for Daryl Kimball, director of the Arms Control Association think tank, "it's one thing to have a defence cooperation agreement with a close ally, it's quite another to do so while compromising your own principles and those of the international community.

"When the US, which claims to be at the forefront of non-proliferation, continues to bend the rules and principles of non-proliferation to help its allies, it has a corrosive effect on the international order that this administration claims to defend," he told AFP.

https://www.boursorama.com/actualite-economique/actualites/sous-marins-australiens-quels-risques-de-proliferation-nucleaire-7da696c43323c585f2a545a1bc27583c

The link does not work (requires login).

What kind of submarine could be leased for 20 years?

Australian Gov will investigate interim options to lease a nuclear boat from USN or RN

[url]https://www.australiandefender.com.au/new/shop/accessallareas/intel/21%202/210920sub%20lease/2109sub%20lease.html[/url]

this would be an interesting option and would allow crews to develop experience alongside US/RN crews and training programs and for support facilities to be planned and built in Australia before the sub build begins.

Cheers

Waz

A statement of a spokesperson of the French ministry of defence:

[url=https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2021/09/french-mod-setting-the-record-straight-on-australian-submarine-affair/]French MoD Sets the Record Straight on Australian Submarine Affair[/url]
[quote]In August 2021, the joint press release of the French and Australian defense and foreign affairs ministers still stated, “Ministers underlined the importance of the Future Submarine program.”

On the same day as the AUKUS announcement, the Australians wrote to France to say that they were satisfied with the submarine’s achievable performance and with the progress of the program. In short: forward to launching the next phase of the contract.[/quote]

According to the Australian prime minister to 2040!

That is 9 years after the original planing for the Attack class and 6 years after the last estimates (expected delays). The newest submarine of the Collins class will be 44 years old and further delays would be not surprising.

How long will this delay introduction of new subs to the Australian Navy?

Apparently the program is now cancelled and will be replaced by nuclear powered submarines developed together with the US and UK:

[url]https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2021/09/australia-intends-to-acquire-at-least-eight-locally-built-ssns-as-part-of-aukus-initiative/[/url]

[url]https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2021/09/french-government-naval-group-react-to-australias-decision-to-end-attack-class-submarine-program/[/url]

[quote="DavidP"]was not about Australian sub program but about "Japan, Indonesia sign arms transfer pact amid China concerns". so wrong link posted.[/quote]

Sorry David P,

I just corrected the embedded link above.

If it still doesn't work again, here is the actual source:

https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2021/03/30/naval-group-trumpets-its-australian-industry-focus-in-submarine-deal/

[url=https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2021/03/30/naval-group-trumpets-its-australian-industry-focus-in-submarine-deal/]Defense News[/url]

[quote][b][size=200]Naval Group trumpets its Australian industry focus in submarine deal[/size][/b]
By: Christina Mackenzie   3 hours ago
PARIS – Naval Group is set to become “a Franco-Australian” company, CEO Pierre-Eric Pommellet said in the wake of a contractual commitment to spend at least 60 percent of the contract value for Australia’s 12 new Attack-class submarines in the Commonwealth.
Last week Naval Group’s long-standing commitment to maximize Australian content in the design and build of the Attack Class submarines was signed into the Strategic Partnering Agreement, meaning that it is now a contractual obligation that will be measured over the life span of the program.
Speaking to journalists in a videoconference on Tuesday, Pommellet said, “We already have 2,000 Australians employed in the Adelaide area and there will be many more, including some who will come to work here in France.”
“Australia is massively investing in its naval industry and a supply chain is being created,” Pommellet explained. He had said during his visit to Australia in February that the submarine program would “also create a new and sovereign submarine building industry in Australia. Strong local supply chains will ensure that Australia has new self-reliance in this critical defense capability.”
(...EDITED)[/quote]

Big ticket naval shipyard contracts are always political:

[url=https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2021/03/australia-and-naval-group-ink-agreement-on-attack-class-submarine-program/?fbclid=IwAR1VvyTsi8Pe0GlpSCOijTnf0G4SzPc_GjHsdUo-yhniWMBbw2yBFL7dWEU]Naval News[/url]

[quote][b][size=200]Australia and Naval Group ink agreement on Attack-class submarine program[/size][/b]
Australia's Future Submarine Program has reached a major milestone with the conclusion of negotiations between the Department of Defence and Naval Group for the amendments to the Strategic Partnering Agreement.
Xavier Vavasseur 23 Mar 2021
[b][u]This will see Naval Group’s commitment to spend at least 60 percent of the contract value in Australia over the life of the Program reflected formally in the Agreement, supporting Australian jobs in the defence industry.[/u][/b]
The amendments ensure that the achievement of Naval Group’s commitment is now a contractual obligation, measured during the course of the Program, driving Australian industry involvement as the Attack class submarines are designed and delivered.
The amendments complement existing requirements under Defence’s contractual arrangements with Naval Group to drive Australian industry capability. This includes establishing procurement organisations in Australia, and the need to approach the Australian market in the first instance for the majority of equipment.

(...EDITED)[/quote]

Updated [i]Collins[/i] class SSKs instead of the [i]Barracudas[/i]?

[url=https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/shot-across-the-bows-on-submarine-contract-20210117-p56uo9?fbclid=IwAR0wugHXsFRTt1LarfAamPrh4lJ_hqSeYGXkQHpT8SD8VKk8Sqn6ywg7nho]Australian FINANCIAL REVIEW[/url]

[quote][b][size=200]Shot across the bows on submarine contract[/size][/b]
Andrew Tillett
Political correspondent
Jan 18, 2021 – 12.00am

[b][u]Top Defence officials are examining the possibility of replacing the ageing Collins class submarine with an updated version of the original boat and cutting adrift the current contract with the French[/u][/b] amid mounting frustration over cost blowouts and missed deadlines.
[b][u]
The Australian Financial Review understands Prime Minister Scott Morrison is increasingly exasperated over the troubled $80 billion project, with tensions rising between the Defence Department and the French designer Naval Group.[/u][/b]
(...SNIPPED)
[/quote]

[url=https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/6862569/labor-lashes-bungled-submarines-program/]Canberra Times[/url]

[quote]canberra times

[b][size=200] Labor lashes 'bungled' submarines program[/size][/b]

Daniel McCulloch

Latest News

Richard Marles says the federal government is bungling the future submarines program.
Labor has accused the Morrison government of "profoundly compromising" national security by bungling the purchase of new submarines.
Opposition defence spokesman Richard Marles argues the fleet is needed more than ever because of the fallout from coronavirus.
"COVID has given rise to greater instability within our region and the world. COVID has created questions to which there are no answers," Mr Marles told the National Press Club on Tuesday.
"And this has raised our strategic challenge to an entirely different level. And so the need for future submarines which will help meet this challenge has quite simply never been greater."
(...SNIPPED)[/quote]

[url=https://www.newcastleherald.com.au/story/6517803/new-sub-fleet-blows-out-to-225-billion/?fbclid=IwAR01s1Krh8CYOPRJUIG9YvyDe1S0FsRf6EfzQuK3Hi0OPd_GkaG47RycdUA]NewcastleHerald[/url]

[quote] November 29 2019 - 4:13PM
[b][size=200] New sub fleet blows out to $225 billion[/size][/b]
Finbar O'Mallon
National
Australia's new fleet of submarines will ultimately cost $225b over their lifetime.
[b][u] Australia's new 12-strong submarine fleet will cost taxpayers $225 billion, an estimates committee has been told.
Rear Admiral Greg Sammut said there was an $80 billion build cost, which was originally touted by defence to be $50 billion.
There would also be an $145 billion support and maintenance cost over the lifetime of the attack subs until 2080.[/u][/b]
"It is only an estimate of the sustainment of the fleet, we are designing the sub today," Read Admiral Sammut said.
The submarines are being built in a contract with French submarine company Naval Group.
The $80 billion build cost also covered other infrastructure related to the submarines, including upgrades to the wharves where they'd be housed.
Defence heads also said there was a high risk the new submarines would not be ready by the early 2030s.
(...SNIPPED)[/quote]

[url=https://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/defence-news/2019/november/7706-naval-group-will-design-weapon-discharge-system-for-attack-class-submarines-of-australian-navy.html?fbclid=IwAR0ZQUW18YgYygvl8ri54F6DxRsmVjxx31UmMdPZf5FdIZz-9Pbocle7poI]Navy Recognition[/url]

[quote] [b][size=200]Naval Group will design weapon discharge system for Attack-class submarines of Australian Navy[/size][/b]
Posted On Sunday, 24 November 2019 14:51
On November 23, 2019, [b][u]Minister for Defence of Australia has announced that Naval Group has signed a subcontract with Babcock International Group PLC for the design of the weapon discharge system for the Attack-class submarines[/u][/b]. The Attack-class submarine is a future class of submarines for the Royal Australian Navy based on the Shortfin Barracuda proposal by French shipbuilder Naval Group (formerly known as DCNS) to replace the Collins-class submarines.

[b][u] The development of the weapon discharge system is critical to the overall design of the Attack class submarine. Its purpose is to launch the submarine main weapons, including torpedoes and anti-ship missiles.
[/u][/b]
Babcock is a proven in‑service supporter for systems that have already been installed on the Collins class submarine and Hobart class guided-missile destroyers. The subcontract with Babcock will support the operation and sustainment of the Attack class while maximizing the involvement of the Australian industry.

[b][u]The Liberal-National Government’s $50 billion Attack class program will see 12 regionally superior submarines designed and built in Australia, for the Navy.[/u][/b]
Our Government is committed to maximizing local industry involvement in the Attack class program to ensure Australians get the most out of this important national investment.
(...SNIPPED)[/quote]

[url=https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/australias-futuristic-submarine-could-be-real-budget-buster-94141?fbclid=IwAR22yb4HFo01zbZL7ZAB3fp6L628VjxDDUBJhifWzc_5eSMmsdstgc6_0KQ]National Interest[/url]

[quote] November 9, 2019 Topic: Security Region: Asia Pacific Blog Brand: The Buzz Tags: AustraliaSubmarinesDefense SpendingNavyMilitary
[b][size=200] Australia's Futuristic Submarine Could Be A Real Budget Buster
Even if we don't know yet how much it will cost.[/size][/b]
by Andrew Davies Marcus Hellyer
We’ve known for a while that SEA 1000, the Defence Department’s future submarine program, is going to cost a lot of money—we just haven’t known exactly how much. But as time moves on and Defence releases more data, we’re starting to get a better sense of the program’s cost.
Let’s review what we know about the cost of the program. [b][u]In 2012, ASPI estimated it to be around $36 billion, in constant dollars, which doesn’t take inflation into account. But the Australian government, including the Defence Department, works in ‘out-turned’ dollars, which includes an allowance for inflation. Once out-turned, that number becomes $50–60 billion.[/u][/b]
(...SNIPPED)[/quote]

Oops.

[url=https://amp.abc.net.au/article/11625156?fbclid=IwAR3JXnkCxZlusgAovnF4dyfUHoir08tWJ5bZxl0_lVcIgJTll6tcdwHfaAo]ABC News Australia[/url]


[quote] [b][size=200] Billion-dollar correction in Australia's Future Submarine budget blamed on 'typo'[/size][/b]
By Defence Correspondent Andrew Greene
Posted 2 days ago, updated1 day ago
A "typo" is being blamed for an apparent dramatic cost increase on Australia's most expensive defence project in history, the $50 billion Future Submarine program.
Key points:

[i] *The government approved a $4.9 billion injection for the 2018-19 financial year
*About $3.7 billion was attributed to "real increases needed to fund underestimates or budget overruns"
*A senior Defence figure said the figure was "described inaccurately", because the money had already been provisioned[/i]

According to the Defence Department's annual report released last week, the government approved a $4.9 billion injection for the project during the 2018-19 financial year, taking the total budget to date to almost $6 billion.
Further examination of the figures reveals $1.3 billion of extra funding was due to a change in the project's "scope", while a further $3.7 billion was attributed to "real increases needed to fund underestimates or budget overruns".
A senior Defence figure told the ABC the latter figure was "described inaccurately", because the money had already been provisioned to cover not only future submarine design work, but Adelaide shipyard equipment and workforce over the next few years.
(...SNIPPED)[/quote]

the RAN now changing its future subs to SSNs?

[url=https://www.abc.net.au/radio/programs/am/submarines-may-be-switched-to-nuclear,-says-navy-vice-admiral/11584988?fbclid=IwAR137HQ2adLrH-kVYHhxn_6SPNNz0WkHaC6dLbQgDTUHP1NcmItbVI1IsmI]ABC News (Australia)[/url]

[quote][b][size=200]Submarines may be switched to nuclear, says navy vice admiral[/size][/b]
By Andrew Greene on AM
Australia's navy chief says it's possible the country's future submarine fleet could eventually switch to nuclear power.
Vice Admiral Mike Noonan has opened an international maritime conference in Sydney, where he says defence is keeping a close eye on emerging technologies.
Duration: 2min 35sec
Broadcast: Wed 9 Oct 2019, 8:12am[/quote]

Eastern Australia ports to be a possible basing option for some of these new RAN Barracudas?

[url=https://www.illawarramercury.com.au/story/6394341/defence-looking-at-port-kembla-for-a-new-navy-submarine-base/?fbclid=IwAR0INgCCMCYJryjm4D9GP4iAh3oebFlwpxHM0-J_rEJ6ktiZCG8TMVng2W0]Illawara Mercury newspaper (Australia)[/url]


[quote][b][size=200]Defence looking at Port Kembla for a new Navy submarine base[/size][/b]
Glen Humphries
Go east: The Royal Australian Navy's fleet of new submarines - the Shortfin Barracuda - could end up based at Port Kembla.
Port Kembla could become home to the new submarine fleet now under construction in a "two-ocean" concept.
Defence is considering the strategic option of basing the future submarines on the east coast.
[b][u]Port Kembla and Newcastle are understood to be the leading options.[/u][/b]
Defence is working on a report looking into the various options to be presented to the federal government.
"Defence is conducting studies and a range of operational and support modelling to identify the most effective and efficient options for positioning of the Attack class submarine force," said Defence Minister Senator Linda Reynolds.
"Defence studies and modelling include a two-ocean basing concept."
(...SNIPPED)[/quote]

[url=https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/breaking-french-submarine-contract-a-bargain-at-dollar330m/ar-AAFtyCm?fbclid=IwAR3rhnV8y0R7z8FqPUHWP1_LY7CeLX4Gp79GchZgZKT9IFmDetinh_SdlPo]Sky News Australia[/url]

[quote] [b][size=200]Breaking French submarine contract a ‘bargain’ at $330m[/size][/b]
Sky News Australia
20 hrs ago
Submarines For Australia's Gary Johnston says breaking a contract for French submarines at a cost of $330 million would be a “bargain”

Speaking to Sky News, Mr Johnston said the naval group making the submarines are “having a go of us” with their quote of $6 billion for the design of the machines.

Mr Johnston said Australia would be “far better off” buying existing French nuclear machines as they are “off the shelf”.[/quote]