“It’s too long and risky to do it alone”: Australia says the first nuclear submarines for this country should be built in the USA

Australia should make a deal with the US to have the first of its nuclear submarines built in Connecticut because "it's too risky to do it on your own," said shadow secretary of defense Andrew Hastie (in Anglo-Saxon tradition, a man who is in opposition but This claims to be the head of the ministry) of Australia.

Speaking to senior Australian ministers this week at a meeting with US counterparts, Hastie said Australia should take one or two Virginia-class submarines off the production line by the end of 2030. Hastie did not deny that it could require Australia to subsidize an expansion of an already overcrowded US production line, but said strategic circumstances meant there was no time to waste. "It's too long and too risky to do it alone," Hastie said.

Who would have doubted ... The United States would not have understood if the construction of nuclear submarines was not carried out by them, not with additional opening of jobs for Americans, and therefore without funding for the American military-industrial complex in this segment.

We need to launch a boat or two boats and build capacity at the same time.

Opposition leader and former defense secretary Peter Dutton has previously floated the idea of ​​buying the first submarines from the US, and Hastie's new comments amplify those calls at a critical time.

AUKUS will be in the spotlight when Defense Secretary Richard Marles and Foreign Secretary Penny Wong hold their annual talks with their US counterparts Lloyd Austin and Anthony Blinken in Washington this week.

Marles is also expected to join US Ambassador to Australia Caroline Kennedy on a visit to a facility in Connecticut where nuclear submarines are being built.

Hastie called for more diplomatic engagement with the United States, not only through the legislature, but also through the bureaucracy.

The opposition "minister" said it would be "perfectly sensible to launch one or two submarines off the production line this decade, but that should not delay work on training Australian submarine crews and developing base facilities."

At the same time, we must also build up our industrial base by looking for talents at the primary, middle and senior levels for people who will become part of this state building industry.

- he said.

Comments

[rotmistr60]

"too risky to do it yourself"

Are there not enough opportunities and specialists? No, rather the main role is played

The United States would not understand if the construction of nuclear submarines was not carried out by them

Union - union, but their jobs and profits are closer to the body. A non-nuclear power is acquiring nuclear submarines and it is questionable what weapons they will be equipped with.

[solar]

Are there not enough opportunities and specialists?

They simply don't exist. Australia has never built a nuclear submarine. And apart from the Americans and the British, there is practically no one to build them now, the French have all the capacities suitable for the construction of nuclear submarines.

[TermNachTer]

The article is very confusing, and perhaps the translation let us down, because I do not speak English in sufficient volume. But it was already clear that such a "fat" piece of mattress covers would not be given to anyone. True, at the beginning it was about used "moose".

[solar]

There were no options. The French could not fulfill such an order, all capacities were loaded for a long time, so they offered a difficult option to make diesel-electric submarines first, and then convert them into nuclear ones (since the Australians from the very beginning wanted nuclear ones, they can be understood, they have such an arrangement with large water areas).
Therefore, when the Americans and the British proposed directly to make nuclear weapons, the Australians immediately seized on them, no one else made such an offer to them.

[TermNachTer]

To cover the coast of Australia, non-nuclear French women, or any other - German, Japanese, are just the best. But if the Aussies decided to "play adult games", then yes, nuclear submarines are needed here. But is it necessary, for ordinary Australians, "to have a hangover at someone else's feast"?

[solar]

To cover the coast of Australia

With the nuclear submarine, the logical decision of the Australians. In the 21st century, defense begins not at one's own borders, but at the borders of a potential enemy. Therefore, nuclear submarines and UDC are being acquired.

[Amateur]

If the Australians have a lot of extra money, then "share" with their "white master" as they say, "God himself ordered."
Hooray for Australian politicians who offer to pay wages in Australian money to American worker voters, and not to their Australian ones!

[tralflot1832]

The PRC is not bad "friends" with the Australians in the matter of LNG supplies. So there are questions to him, where does Australia get the money for nuclear submarines.

[tun5t]

they know how to incline the United States of their partners .... Okay, people, don’t envy the Americans, there was nothing to screw up your own ... piss, we are constantly surrounded by Europeans ... because we envy them all the time too and don’t see how the bulk of 1917 is (In And Lenin Ulyanov) was sent to us, thrust into the center of the prayer place (Kremlin), put in power and now all of Russia from there (from the Kremlin) - not a candle to God, not a poker to hell ... we’re just dumb, the world is a laughingstock and we envy, we envy, envy .... it was shorter, that's what they call us!

[solar]

With the nuclear submarine, the logical decision of the Australians. In the 21st century, defense begins not at one's own borders, but at the borders of a potential enemy. Therefore, nuclear submarines and UDC are being acquired. And the potential adversary is increasing the production of weapons at a serious pace.

[TermNachTer]

The problem is that for Australia, defending off the coast of China could end up like a Mad Max movie filmed in Australia. Toki - this will not be a movie)))

[solar]

The Australians have enough allies in this matter. It is unlikely that it will start with them at all, if that.

[TermNachTer]

It may not start with them. But they don't need much. Virtually everything is concentrated on the narrow strips, east, southeast and west coast. Everything else is not well adapted for life, that's why Mad Max was filmed there. No pavilions needed. Come and shoot horror films.

[certero]

As far as I understand, the supply of nuclear submarines to Australia completely violates the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, which the United States also signed.
the fact is that, unlike reactors at conventional nuclear power plants, nuclear fuel for submarines is enriched to tens of percent, and the supply of such materials falls under the nonproliferation treaty.
The question remains whether sanctions will be imposed against Australia as against Iran? ;)

[Just a visitor.]

What's the point in nuclear submarines if they don't have missiles with atomic warheads? And why would Russia, in that case, adhere to the treaty?

[solar]

the supply of nuclear submarines to Australia completely violates the nuclear non-proliferation treaty

Nuclear submarines for India and the USSR and Russia gave.

[certero]

Quote from solar

Nuclear submarines for India and the USSR and Russia gave

India is already in the club of atomic powers possessing atomic weapons.
Therefore, the lease of nuclear submarines to India did not violate the contract.

[solar]

There is no "atomic club", this is an invention of journalists.

the lease of nuclear submarines to India did not violate the agreement

What contract are you talking about?
India has not signed the NPT at all.

[certero]

Quote from solar

what contract are you writing?
India did not sign the NPT at all

Correctly. Therefore, the supply of nuclear submarines to India is not a violation of the treaty.
Let me explain to you. The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons provides for the responsibility of the country that signed it. For example, Iran signed an agreement on the basis of which the country receives technologies for the nuclear industry from countries that have nuclear weapons.
In exchange for the fact that he himself will not develop nuclear weapons.
Therefore, the development of nuclear weapons by Iran is a violation of the treaty. They could get out of it and calmly make an atomic bomb.
But Australia signed the agreement, so the supply of nuclear submarines there is a violation of the agreement by both Australia and the United States

[TermNachTer]

Let's start with the fact that the countries that persuaded Iran not to make nuclear weapons did not keep their promises. Therefore, there is nothing to blame the Persians for - they were "thrown", which is already becoming absolutely normal for geyropa and mattressland.

[solar]

Correctly. Therefore, the supply of nuclear submarines to India is not a violation of the treaty.

not properly. Under the NPT, signatories receive access to nuclear technology in exchange for giving up nuclear weapons.
There is no violation in the transfer of the Australian Premier League. But in the case of the transfer of nuclear submarines to India, there are questions.

[solar]

The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons provides for the responsibility of the country that signed it.

The USSR signed it.

[TermNachTer]

At the time of receiving the first project 671, India already had nuclear weapons, therefore, no violations. And if you look more broadly, then who cares about some contracts now? If the mattresses need to shift some of their financial problems onto their "sixes")))

[solar]

therefore, no violations.

What is not broken? India did not sign the Nyao. And the USSR signed.

[TermNachTer]

The NPT talks about nuclear weapons. "Chakra" carried conventional missile and torpedo weapons, although theoretically the warheads on missiles and torpedoes could be replaced with those with the prefix "special")))

[solar]

The same with Australia. The same conventional missile and torpedo armament for nuclear submarines.
But at the same time, the NPT speaks of access to nuclear technology in exchange for the renunciation of nuclear weapons.

[TermNachTer]

So both India and Australia have not produced and are unlikely to ever be able to manufacture nuclear reactors themselves.

[certero]

Quote from solar

The same with Australia. The same conventional missile and torpedo armament for nuclear submarines.
But at the same time, the NPT speaks of access to nuclear technology in exchange for the renunciation of nuclear weapons.

The agreement allows fuel enrichment up to 5%. For nuclear submarines, fuel is enriched up to 75% or more. So the transfer of such reactors and fuel is a violation of the contract.

[solar]

The agreement allows fuel enrichment up to 5%.

This is not in the contract.
https://ru.wikisource.org/wiki/Договор_о_нераспространении_ядерного_оружия

[certero]

Quote from solar

The agreement allows fuel enrichment up to 5%.

This is not in the contract.
https://ru.wikisource.org/wiki/Договор_о_нераспространении_ядерного_оружия

Undoubtedly, there are no exact percentages in the text of the treaty itself, because the phrases there refer to the magate, namely, the magate considers a five percent level of enrichment as a criterion.