Military Review

“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

30
“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.
Author:
30 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. rotmistr60
    rotmistr60 7 December 2022 07: 15
    0
    "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.
    1. solar
      solar 7 December 2022 10: 36
      -2
      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.
      1. TermNachTer
        7 December 2022 19: 25
        0
        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".
        1. solar
          solar 8 December 2022 10: 25
          -1
          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.
          1. TermNachTer
            8 December 2022 13: 07
            0
            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"?
            1. solar
              solar 8 December 2022 15: 26
              -1
              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.
  2. Amateur
    Amateur 7 December 2022 07: 32
    +1
    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!
    1. tralflot1832
      tralflot1832 7 December 2022 09: 24
      -1
      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.
  3. tun5t
    tun5t 7 December 2022 08: 32
    -5
    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!
  4. solar
    solar 7 December 2022 10: 34
    -1
    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.
    1. TermNachTer
      7 December 2022 19: 22
      0
      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)))
      1. solar
        solar 8 December 2022 10: 26
        -2
        The Australians have enough allies in this matter. It is unlikely that it will start with them at all, if that.
        1. TermNachTer
          8 December 2022 13: 04
          0
          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.
  5. certero
    certero 8 December 2022 12: 58
    0
    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? ;)
    1. Just a visitor.
      Just a visitor. 8 December 2022 13: 26
      0
      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?
    2. solar
      solar 8 December 2022 15: 33
      -1
      the supply of nuclear submarines to Australia completely violates the nuclear non-proliferation treaty

      Nuclear submarines for India and the USSR and Russia gave.
      1. certero
        certero 8 December 2022 23: 15
        0
        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.
        1. solar
          solar 9 December 2022 12: 51
          -1
          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.
          1. certero
            certero 9 December 2022 13: 29
            0
            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
            1. TermNachTer
              9 December 2022 15: 27
              0
              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.
            2. solar
              solar 10 December 2022 00: 48
              -2
              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.
            3. solar
              solar 10 December 2022 03: 45
              -1
              The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons provides for the responsibility of the country that signed it.

              The USSR signed it.
      2. TermNachTer
        9 December 2022 15: 23
        +1
        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")))
        1. solar
          solar 10 December 2022 00: 53
          -1
          therefore, no violations.

          What is not broken? India did not sign the Nyao. And the USSR signed.
          1. TermNachTer
            10 December 2022 12: 20
            0
            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")))
            1. solar
              solar 10 December 2022 12: 32
              -4
              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.
              1. TermNachTer
                10 December 2022 13: 14
                0
                So both India and Australia have not produced and are unlikely to ever be able to manufacture nuclear reactors themselves.
              2. certero
                certero 11 December 2022 01: 05
                0
                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.
                1. solar
                  solar 11 December 2022 02: 22
                  -2
                  The agreement allows fuel enrichment up to 5%.

                  This is not in the contract.
                  https://ru.wikisource.org/wiki/Договор_о_нераспространении_ядерного_оружия
  6. certero
    certero 11 December 2022 11: 31
    0
    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.