Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[BSKS]

Conroy's revelation on SRF-West ending in 2032 relates to the recent decision by the US to reintroduce tactical nuclear weapons (SLCM-N) into their Virginia's in 2032. Hosting nuclear armed Virginia's containing tactical nuclear weapons would put us in contravention of the Treaty of Rarotonga which effectively bans the basing of nuclear weapons in signature countries. The treaty is a big deal especially in the Pacific.

A good discussion of the wide ranging impacts of the US decision is below.

Australia will soon host a US SSN force. We need to discuss war planning | The Strategist

From 2027, Australia will host under the AUKUS agreement a US submarine force at HMAS Stirling, near Perth. It will be known as Submarine Rotational Force–West (SRF–W) and will consist of up to four US ...

www.aspistrategist.org.au

 

[SammyC]

Conroy accused of handing AUKUS ‘eviction notice’ to US submarines

weirdly Sen Conroy seems to have walked back some of his comments on the 730 report today, as per the linked article.

Here he says that the Americans will have some form of submarine presence in FBW indefinitely, and that the agreement could easily be renewed or expanded.

Conroy is usually very tight on his public communications, and rarely steps offline.

This whole thing seems an odd time to raise the issue. Why raise it in the first place as there did not seem to be a need to wake this sleeping dog.

Then extra unusual to soften what he said within 24 hours.

 

[spoz]

It's arguable. The SPNFA is defined in the treaty as ending at the eastern boundary of the territorial sea of Australia. It also specifically allows each country whether to allow visits by nuclear armed ships. It does not define "visits".

 

[KrustyKoala]

Here's a link to Pat Conroy's interview with Sarah Ferguson on SRF-West Rotations. Didnt seem like a big deal to be honest, he talked about it being five years but kept implying that a future Government will be more then able to renew it.

MINISTER CONROY: Well, our commitment is five years. That's the arrangement that we've put in place, with the plan being that as we acquire our nuclear powered submarines that they would move into HMAS Stirling and the rotational presence would come to an end. That's our plan, that's what we're committed to implementing.

Kept talking up domestic jobs and industry like ususal but honestly dont get the noise about this interview

 

[BSKS]

Yes they can possibly renew SRF-West, but will they? Renewing after the US Virginia's begin carrying SLCM-N would cause relationship damage with Pacific nations and might even unravel the good diplomatic work recently with various countries in the region. On the other hand, if they don't renew and US can't base Virginia's at Stirling, the US loses it main AUKUS deliverable and may decide to scuttle the whole thing.

The Interpreter article suggests the Labor party plan to draw a distinction between war-time and peace-time on the matter, leaving open the opportunity to bypass Treaty of Rarotonga compliance in times of war. In any case I think it is still a thorny issue. Arguments suggesting US basing creates war time targets would gain further traction and not just for conventional weapons but for nuclear strike.

Nevertheless, I think the possibility of Virginia's being able to launch tactical nuclear weapons is good news for Australia in the longer run as it lowers the bar for Australia to acquire tactical nuclear weapons of our own at some stage. We would already have the launch platform (Virginia) and delivery vector (Tomohawk) in service. Something we may decide we need in the future.

 

[iambuzzard]

Yes they can possibly renew SRF-West, but will they? Renewing after the US Virginia's begin carrying SLCM-N would cause relationship damage with Pacific nations and might even unravel the good diplomatic work recently with various countries in the region. On the other hand, if they don't renew and US can't base Virginia's at Stirling, the US loses it main AUKUS deliverable and may decide to scuttle the whole thing.

The Interpreter article suggests the Labor party plan to draw a distinction between war-time and peace-time on the matter, leaving open the opportunity to bypass Treaty of Rarotonga compliance in times of war. In any case I think it is still a thorny issue. Arguments suggesting US basing creates war time targets would gain further traction and not just for conventional weapons but for nuclear strike.

Nevertheless, I think the possibility of Virginia's being able to launch tactical nuclear weapons is good news for Australia in the longer run as it lowers the bar for Australia to acquire tactical nuclear weapons of our own at some stage. We would already have the launch platform (Virginia) and delivery vector (Tomohawk) in service. Something we may decide we need in the future.

If the treaty covers the region up to the East Coast of Australia I think SRF-West is out of the equation. A new base on the East Coast could be used exclusively for our boats and any belonging to non-nuclear armed allies. SRF-West would be for us and the USN.

 

[SammyC]

Is SLCM-N intended to be a version of Tomahawk, or a brand new missile? I remember there used to be a nuclear version of the Tomahawk, but a new missile type can be difficult and expensive to complete.

I should note that this project is pushed by the Trump administration, but has not been prioritised by others. It is possible that it might fade away after Trump, like the battleship.

Or, if the world deteriorates, it might become more important and become more valuable than peace time treaties.

To your point BSKS, it provides an interesting pathway for Australia to obtain nuclear weapons capability if we ever saw the need (i.e if the world really, really deteriorates).

 

[seaspear]

I seem to recall in an earlier discussion when Australia was researching their own nuclear weapons and the platform of delivery was the F-111 ,that some understanding was achieved with the U.S not to ,I always thought it meant the U.S was to provide that umbrella

 

[ADMk2]

I seem to recall in an earlier discussion when Australia was researching their own nuclear weapons and the platform of delivery was the F-111 ,that some understanding was achieved with the U.S not to ,I always thought it meant the U.S was to provide that umbrella

The same basis upon which Ukraine dismantled it‘s nuclear capability.

Food for thought.

 

[StevoJH]

Am I remembering wrong, or did UK support for an Australian Nuclear program dry up when after they signed the MDP with the US in 1958?

Possibly due to technology transfer constraints of the agreement?

And then a change of government killed off the reactor at Jervis Bay which was supposed to produce Plutonium for a weapons program in addition to generating power for the NSW grid.

 

[StingrayOZ]

2032 Is a long way away. Situation and ground may change. They can't commit to things that aren't committed..

Sterling isn't in the pacific.. it's not nukes in Samoa or new caledonia. There is future wiggle room.

 

[StevoJH]

And the current Government are not going to commit a future government to something when there is every chance that the current management are not going to be the ones to make the decision.

 

[Morgo]

There is future wiggle room.

The Glow-In-The-Dark Green wiggle?

I can’t see this as being a serious issue when anything reasonably determined as being the Pacific is 3500+ away from the base in question.