AUKUS Treaty NEWS ONLY

We're gonna need a bigger acronym.

Seriously tho,' this occurred to me even before I clicked on the link:

Trudeau says Canada will consider whether it needs to purchase nuclear-powered submarines to better ensure it can defend Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic.

It looks like we're gonna need more shipyards - and shipbuilders.
 
Last edited:
Rhinocrates said:
We're gonna need a bigger acronym.

Seriously tho,' this occurred to me even before I clicked on the link:

Trudeau says Canada will consider whether it needs to purchase nuclear-powered submarines to better ensure it can defend Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic.

It looks like we're gonna need more shipyards - and shipbuilders.
Click to expand...
I would enjoy being wrong, but I'm highly skeptical any Canadian government in the near future would put up the necessary money to build SSNs locally. If I squint I can just about see them paying for some subs someone else has built. But a nuke shipyard? I'd be stunned.
 
Moose said:
I would enjoy being wrong, but I'm highly skeptical any Canadian government in the near future would put up the necessary money to build SSNs locally. If I squint I can just about see them paying for some subs someone else has built. But a nuke shipyard? I'd be stunned.
Click to expand...
I can't see Canada paying for nuclear subs even if they got some Virginias on the cheap. "$4 billion each?!? Are you kidding me?!?"
 
Moose said:
I would enjoy being wrong, but I'm highly skeptical any Canadian government in the near future would put up the necessary money to build SSNs locally. If I squint I can just about see them paying for some subs someone else has built. But a nuke shipyard? I'd be stunned.
Click to expand...
I suspect that the Prime Minister's trying to undercut the Conservatives .
Arctic Sovereignty is an issue that for the last couple of decades has been claimed by them almost as proprietary issue.
It's Arctic Sovereignty, most of the time it's a bit like the weather. Everybody talks about it but no one ever does anything.
Every couple of years our military rediscovers the north and tosses some money and bodies at it
And then we forget and ignore it until the next time.
Right now the Liberals are trailing badly in the polls and are throwing money at everything and telling people how much they care care about....well everything .
Even Defence issues.
I suspect that building nuke boats here isn't going happen . Based on the cost factor alone. You'd be considered insane just for suggesting it.
I'm not sure it would be worth it to build conventional subs here.
You're talking some serious money just buying and operating then . And they comes the question do I trust the RCN to even operate them?
Not currently, operating reactors requires a different mindset a culture as it were that currently doesn't exist in the RCN.
Mind you the utter military capabilities offered up by SSNs is incredibly tempting. You can see why the Navy in the mid to late 80's gave up the third tranche of City class Frigates for the still born Canadian SSN offered up in the Defence White Paper under MND Perrin Beatty.
 
Last edited:
Rhinocrates said:
We're gonna need a bigger acronym.

Seriously tho,' this occurred to me even before I clicked on the link:

Trudeau says Canada will consider whether it needs to purchase nuclear-powered submarines to better ensure it can defend Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic.

It looks like we're gonna need more shipyards - and shipbuilders.
Click to expand...
Forest Green said:
CANZUKUS?

5 eyes missiles and fries?

Just throwing out suggestions.
Click to expand...
I believe the AUKUS acronym will remain unchanged. Others will just be signatories/partners to it.
 
Scott Kenny said:
I can't see Canada paying for nuclear subs even if they got some Virginias on the cheap. "$4 billion each?!? Are you kidding me?!?"
Click to expand...
As I understand it, only Australia, USA, UK are involved in Pillar 1 involving SSNs. All other potential partners are only interested in Pillar 2
 
Trudeau has said he is interested in nuclear submarines but US have previously said they don't want Canada to possess them.

www.cp24.com

Canada to seek to join AUKUS alliance, consider nuclear subs: PM

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau says Canada is exploring the possibility of joining the second phase of AUKUS, a U.S.-led alliance with the United Kingdom and Australia.
www.cp24.com www.cp24.com
 
Australian Defence spending to rise to 2.4% of GDP by 2033/34 broken down 38% on Navy, 22% on Infrastructure/industrial investment, 16% Land forces, 14% Air, 7% Cyber and 3% Space.

www.defensenews.com

Australia targets major spending boost for Asia-Pacific defense

Budget plans foresee the most significant ramp-up only at the end of the decade, leaving Australia vulnerable to Chinese aggression in the meantime.
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com
 
www.linkedin.com

AUKUS Partnership Update

In October 2023, I published a blog that assessed how Fiscal Year (FY) 2024 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) provisions might impact future Australia – UK – US (AUKUS) Partnership cooperation. Now that the final version of the FY2024 NDAA enacted in December 2023 is being implemented by the
www.linkedin.com www.linkedin.com
 
I hear a rumour from another forum, that there is differences over certain systems and RN and RAN be at loggerheads over them.
Worse each side is essentially dismissive of the other's views and problems.

Essentially each side is already committed to those systems and it would impose increased costs to change or run two different systems at the same time.

Commonality may have to be sacrificed to get an agreement. Where agreement is likely be the reactor and propulsion, maybe VLS section.

But that treads on false perceptions of 'savings' seen from Treasury perspectives.

This treads onto sensitive national interests.
 
The exemption for Canada goes back to WW2 and Lend Lease, american industry couldn't keep up with demand so they allowed US companies to set up shop in Canada to manufacture components and treat it as domestic production.
 
zen said:
I hear a rumour from another forum, that there is differences over certain systems and RN and RAN be at loggerheads over them.
Worse each side is essentially dismissive of the other's views and problems.

Essentially each side is already committed to those systems and it would impose increased costs to change or run two different systems at the same time.

Commonality may have to be sacrificed to get an agreement. Where agreement is likely be the reactor and propulsion, maybe VLS section.

But that treads on false perceptions of 'savings' seen from Treasury perspectives.

This treads onto sensitive national interests.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't mind the US BYG-whatever fire control systems to be able to talk to Spearfish torpedoes as well as Mk48s (and whatever the cheap torp ends up being called).

I suspect that the US may end up forcing the issue on the fire controls. (Which may end up forcing the UK to replace all their FCS with the US version)
 
zen said:
That is.....disturbing.

Almost a "trust us"...and that's never gone well in the past.

I translate it as "give up on your domestic technology"
Click to expand...
This has happened numerous times in the past; the lesson of the story is "never give up your domestic capabilities"
 
snne said:
This has happened numerous times in the past; the lesson of the story is "never give up your domestic capabilities"
Click to expand...
I can't argue with that, but the Aussies have been using US-supplied fire control systems for decades and the UK have been using their own forever.

It will drive up costs to make Aussie boats with one and UK with the other. It also won't save any money for all the boats to use UK. The system with the large production numbers is the US fire control.

So unless Aus and UK Treasury are willing to pay probably 50% more for the FCS, they're buying US.
 
Scott Kenny said:
I can't argue with that, but the Aussies have been using US-supplied fire control systems for decades and the UK have been using their own forever.
Click to expand...
Even Israel, "the bestest ally" of the US of A, pivots away from depending too much on American equipment (except aircraft)

You never know when your ""allmighty superpower ally" will chicken out and leave you all alone when they have to face a nuclear, peer force. That's something the US is infamous with. They consume their "allies" when it best suits them and then throw 'em under the bus all the time.
 
snne said:
Even Israel, "the bestest ally" of the US of A, pivots away from depending too much on American equipment (except aircraft)

You never know when your ""allmighty superpower ally" will chicken out and leave you all alone when they have to face a nuclear, peer force. That's something the US is infamous with. They consume their "allies" when it best suits them and then throw 'em under the bus all the time.
Click to expand...
Yup. And I hate that we do it.
 
I never thought that the AUKUS sub would ever be 100% identical for both nations, would be crazy for the Treasury bean counters to think that would be possible.
 
Thing is what excludes different interfaces, measurement units and display symbology from being presented to the users?

Does this come down to American verses Imperial measurements?!!

What even prevents digital communications between systems in the era of modern networking?

Is one in 8bit and the other in 32bit?

We have Unix and Linux communication to Windows and Android and even (spit) MacOS. The days of cannot share files is long gone.

Is the US system writen in....(vomit) Cobol?!!!

We have high end software running in virtual engines these days....

Essentially what 'back end' technologies are mutually exclusive here?

Both torpedoes are supposed to use NATO standard interface connectors. Only the position of such differs.....
 
Well a nautical mile is a unit of the circumference of the earth and frankly a better system than one based on dividing the distance between Paris and the North Pole....

And at least a yard is 3 feet. A very human measure.

I would imagine the RN still works in such measures for submarines.
 
snne said:
This has happened numerous times in the past; the lesson of the story is "never give up your domestic capabilities"
Click to expand...
The UK domestic combat system infrastructure is already tied in with multi-national efforts for the surface fleet, without withering to dust. There's certainly instances you can point to where the US is a more problematic ally than France for industrial and geopolitical reasons, but I think they can make it work.
 
zen said:
That is.....disturbing.

Almost a "trust us"...and that's never gone well in the past.

I translate it as "give up on your domestic technology"
Click to expand...
There is nothing to worry about here:

  1. It is Commerce Dept (thus EAR items for now), not State Dept (ITAR items) - though wait for more on this front
  2. Australia at least (UK probably similar) has put in place it's own legislation protecting the items - thus ensuring anyone who does the wrong thing is prosecuted
  3. Australia and UK are long standing, well trusted allies of the USA
  4. The sharing of technology actually boosts the ability to work together and to do things in all countries.
  5. This is nothing new - it just speeds up/streamlines what has already been happening for years.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom