Are the U.S planning to build another submarine yard at Austal USA-Mobile, Alabama?
I don't think so. There are multiple bottlenecks in the current setup, I am not sure a full new nuclear submarine yard would be effective. But why they are trying to do is shift work that doesn't need to happen in one of the full production yards, out. Which they have done.
Austal is building the internal aluminium structures for submarines. This makes sense, as much of it is aluminium, and normal steel yards don't have as much capacity to do aluminium work. But they still need a sizable shipyard and expert welders with security etc to do the work.
Austal intends to grow its workforce by one-third as it opens a new facility devoted entirely to producing nuclear submarine components.
www.defensenews.com
Austal isn't building whole submarines. Just vital parts. In a unique and specialised facility, to significantly improve the build production rate of submarines in other yards.
AUKUS had Australia spending a lot of money improving infrastructure in the US to build submarines, to address those bottlenecks. With a new yard in Australia to build submarines. But Australia and the US have considerable stake in each others programs. They aren't going to mess with each other. There has been significant effort put into that. I would tend to ignore casual observers saying AUKUS not delivering on submarines, there may and will be issues, but there is too much in play on both sides now. Cutting it would mean chaos for the US as well as Australia.
I believe there was some study done to see if it was better to build a new yard or fix the current bottlenecks and improve what is already in place. I presume we are doing the latter. Although they aren't mutually exclusive and this is exactly the sort of stuff you may not want to announce many years ahead of implementation.
You can't deny US SSN production barely, if at all, meets USN needs and as the situation with China gets worse, the need will increase. For sure Australian investments will help but skilled tradespeople don't just happen with a pile of cash. Training takes time. Skilled labour in Japan and SKorea could speed things up....if allowed.
Unlikely to happen a direct collab SK/JP with the US on subs. However, Australia could be an intermediary or pilot program. Australia is less complicated to work with and less conservative and more motivated about collaborations. If Japan is selected for sea3000, that would be a huge collaboration project would already be in place. Australia is also setting up a new submarine line, to the obvious place to implement/pilot those improvements, is there.
The US has benchmarked and studied Japanese submarine/shipbuilding building before, particularly around the virginia class.
But that is why these types of programs are so important. It's more than just ships and boats. It's about having functional, useful tangible relationships that work and deliver for the collective good. It's not just about the weapons, but the friends we make along the way.
Especially concerning are the comments form the Under Secretary of Defense questioning this importance of this program to the US.
It's a concern. Sometimes people (including those in power) don't understand, and sometimes new understandings need to be made given new context. Elbridge Colby is concerned with China. It hard to say exactly what his aims and intentions were in saying the things that were said in the way they were said. But in saying those he didn't say that Australia isn't getting any submarines and the program is cancelled.
It maybe that the program needs to be clearer on how it is doing both, meeting the US's needs and that of its Partner Australia. And that Australia isn't taking advantage of the US. Which is fair enough given the current environment. There have been multiple leadership changes since the deal was signed, so what does it mean to each party, today. Is it some whimsical, aimless program without tangible outcomes, or a hard headed real capability program that is going to succeed for both involved? That has, needs a narrative that resonates with the current administration.
Is it a constellation class program, or a Flight III burke program? If its a constellation program, it would be better for both parties if we part ways immediately. If its a flight III program, we should double down and make blood oaths to each other. Australia has had submarine acquisition programs have issue before, if this is going to happen it needs to work.
Australia is very good at communicating its value. Australia has huge credibility and outsized gravitas and influence with the US. I think the fundamental concept of AUKUS and Australia getting submarines is very sound and stands on its own merits, for both sides.
China absolutely hates the idea.
Everyone else loves the idea. Particularly given the current environment. But doesn't mean it won't be questioned, and that there won't be pressure on the program. There are critics out there, and they have some possibly realistic and legitimate fears. They should be addressed.
www.nippon.com
www3.nhk.or.jp
