That would depend on cost of refuelling, whether it could be done *in Australia* (politically as well as technically), and how much additional time refuelling would add to the refit time.
To clarify, I think the Virginia and AUKUS options are way better than the Suffren.
Inarguably though a decision on the ability/need to refuel a reactor would be absolutely a core one, though I too suspect that it was not the primary reason why USN/RN sub options were chosen in place of French ones.
www.theguardian.com
www.abc.net.au
I think there is some incentives from both sides for this to happen. In a world where decisions are made very quickly and cuts are the general theme, having a strong AU-US program already in place, is highly desirable. That maybe this would make these cuts less desirable and decisions more stable. Many of these are funded directly by Australia, so doing a partnership is desirable from the US side. For those in uniform and those from the industry sectors.
Australia really has three bites of the Cherry as far as aquiring SSNs are concerned. Even if the Virginia deal were to fall through you will still have the AUKUS SSNs in the 2040s. Failing that we could always go crawling back to the French. If everything goes belly up then the precedent has been set with the GPFs. Just buy some OS built, off-the-shelf SSKs. Pretty sure Japan or Korea would be happy to oblige.Refuelling a French submarine is not impossible even by a nation with fairly basic nuclear capability. If we wanted less reliance on France, we could talk to the South Americans (brazil is building nuclear french designed submarines, Argentina provides fuel rods to Australias OPAL reactor). The French would have to be involved in setting that kind of capability up. We could have some sovereign capability in that space. Being LEU, commercial style capabilities are relevant. Australia has a nuclear research and medical reactor, and has continuously operated nuclear reactors for 60+ years, just in a very small, non-naval capability. But it would be expensive and slow to expand this capability with no commercial capability.
Australia moves and stores spent fuel rods, and has existing arrangements and agreements. We had to get rid of many tonnes of material from HIFAR, which was all weapons grade HEU spent fuel rods from 1950's style reactors. We had stored effectively the entire life time of fuel from that reactor before we sent it off for reprocessing. It seemed that we were quite happy to have many tonnes of spent HEU contaminated with Plutonium.
Australia already needs nuclear waste storage facility. SSNs just further expands the size of that need.
Australia to receive UK nuclear waste shipment amid bitter dispute over national storage facility
Two-tonne load to be stored at Sydney’s Lucas Heights until national facility built in several years
Australia's nuclear waste legacy is hidden in plain sight
Even without nuclear power and submarines in use, the nation is already producing, processing and storing radioactive waste.
Instead of burying the waste in the desert currently we store them in the middle of the most populous city in Australia.
Personally I don't see diesel Baracuda/Sufferens ever getting back onto the table. Im not completely sure SSN Sufferens were ever on the table but more of an option of escalation to deter.
In the current context, getting the US to work with other allies is a very difficult ask. French and US relations are highly complex and ebb and flow even during peaceful periods.
AUKUS was to fall over, early on, and there was genuine questions about getting material for reactors, or the subs not getting into service quick enough. There are other options. We could try to acquire and refurbish an older UK SSN. Its possible, but much much more expensive and takes longer and are in worse material state. We could try to acquire conventional Japanese submarines or/and build those here, or base them out of Australia.
By far the most viable hedging option is Collins. Which is still going to be critical even if we do get a few SSN operating. But we have kind of lowered our expectation around operational avalibility and try to limit costs for that platform. Given the current context, I am not sure that is the way forward.
We may want to talk to the Japanese are about Submarine technologies that can be applied to Collins, particularly if we expect them to stay around longer.
We have over 100 sailors in the US SSN pipeline. Signing up for service on Collins vs signing up for service on a future Australian SSN are pretty different. From what I hear those in the US SSN pipeline feedback is very positive from both sides.
Im not sure that capability is endlessly avalible.
www.navalnews.com
As you suggest putting Australian resources into accelerating UK production.., hull sections for the dreadnoughts to try and accelerate that build with AUKUS sections to follow…etc makes sense. At least there is a probable outcome. I cannot in anyway see any Virginias being available. They need to manufacture 2.4 this year. If that’s not achieved it snowballs…2.6 next year, 2.8 the following year and the backlog keeps snowballing.
Their involvement with Australia's requirement has probably shifted their future design specs. Part of the issue of the Japanese subs was that they had built them for the Japanese CONOPS very specifically, so things that needed to be very good and modern for that, were, but things like the periscope, which they didn't utilise in the same way, were old school.
Sizing for Australian crew isn't really the issue, the height difference between the average Australian and the average Japanese is ~3cm. Subs are always small and cramped, but japanese subs and Japan as a culture probably adopt an even more compact personal space approach. As someone who is 6'7 and been through Collins and Oberons, more room would always be better, but on a sub changing deck height is essentially impossible.. One of the benefits of opening women up to submarine service is their generally smaller dimensions.
www.aspistrategist.org.au
asia.nikkei.com
So much is up in the air about US industrial manufacturing atm. I listened to the new SECNAV nominee hearing and whilst he seemed to be unqualified, he did promise a lot and clearly already had Trump on his back to achieve solutions.
I'm thinking the option of SSKs for local protection is not the end of the world. If that's what we end up with.Their involvement with Australia's requirement has probably shifted their future design specs. Part of the issue of the Japanese subs was that they had built them for the Japanese CONOPS very specifically, so things that needed to be very good and modern for that, were, but things like the periscope, which they didn't utilise in the same way, were old school.
Sizing for Australian crew isn't really the issue, the height difference between the average Australian and the average Japanese is ~3cm. Subs are always small and cramped, but japanese subs and Japan as a culture probably adopt an even more compact personal space approach. As someone who is 6'7 and been through Collins and Oberons, more room would always be better, but on a sub changing deck height is essentially impossible.. One of the benefits of opening women up to submarine service is their generally smaller dimensions.
But long range patrol and endurance is. But then again, a lot of that was based around being based in Australia and for use during peacetime or for long range offensive operations. That may not longer be the case. While we wouldn't want to give up all long range capability, if it is the only subs we could quickly acquire... and if they were forward based, or just used for continental protection within our EEZ....
Japan has a neat trick where it tends to slightly overbuild to ensure it has a constant production line of ships, so it can shuffle its service life/decommissioning generally if required to make boats/ships available such as what is proposed with Mogami. This is how Japan rapidly increased the number of operational submarines, by very slightly increasing production rates, but also increasing service lives. Because the actual platform material cost, isn't actually the big part of the over capability cost.
How Japan could quickly build up its submarine force | The Strategist
Japan can quickly and inexpensively increase its force of diesel-electric combat submarines from 22 to at least 28, if it stops prematurely retiring them. That would provide more of the one category of warship that ...U.S. Congress studies Japan's fixed submarine production schedule
Building a boat a year, Tokyo adjusts fleet size by adjusting ship retirement age
Other options include acquiring the Gotland class. The Blekinge class you mention above is expected to be delivered in 2027-8. Gotland is essentially a mini-collins structurally. These hulls may be useful to acquire for spares, training, de-risking developments, de-risking new yards etc. Even if they just operate out FBE or FBW for coastal defence and ASW training duties. It may also be attractive to acquire some swedish submariners, who want to travel with the platform over to Australia, rather than retrain for the new gen subs. Training and layout would mostly carry over. It may allow those who are looking for a different type of submarine service to stay in the service. Do more like a two week deployment from Sydney to train regional surface combatants. I've mentioned the Singapore Archer class, which are also of a swedish design and have had some Collins class improvements applied. That would be an additional 5 operational submarines, able to be acquired for essentially scrap value off allies, that share a huge commonality with Collins. Sweden also has the Sodermanland submarine, so you could bump that up to 6 hulls... They are smaller crews, so the crewing and collins commonality would go a long way.
But these would be coastal submarines. They are not blue water subs. But as we have seen, there may be value in having something that can operate in our own EEZ and train our surface ASW capability.
So again, while an idea, we would have to be pretty desperate to put so much energy and effort in getting these 1980's relics into service with the RAN. I would imagine Japan would readily make available subs to Australia, particularly if they were based in Japan on rotation. In trying to expand their submarine service, they too will find it difficult. But extending the service life of a submarine also generally means, extending the service of those crewing it. Their model is one we should definitely be looking at.
The interesting question with this is whether Australia is willing to go down the path of doing our own enrichment... Yes, there are major treaty implications and our own politics, but we've got the yellowcake, just no way to use it.
If suggest the only way that will happen is if the US abandons the Pacific or parts of Asia and we don't fit under their 'umbrella" any more. Japan and ROK will also be queuing up and potentially SG, overall a bad outcome IMO.
Given US unreliability, Australia won't be alone in considering enrichment and treaty obligations won't matter as your reliable allies are considering as well.