U.S. cuts key submarine order for 2025 amid shipbuilding jam
Pentagon's 0.9% budget growth pales in comparison to China's 7.2%
asia.nikkei.com
Australia’s jarring air defence gap
Most of the recent bad decision revelations have concentrated on the navy, but arguably the biggest blunder of all is the so-called Joint Strike Fighter or F-35.
Australia’s jarring air defence gap
To his great credit, Australia’s Defence Minister Richard Marles is the first defence minister to recognise that defence department chiefs have been giving bad advice to Australian ministers for two decades.Most of the recent bad decision revelations have concentrated on the navy, but arguably the biggest blunder of all is the so-called Joint Strike Fighter or F-35.
In Australia, defence officials have been successful in covering up their JSF-F-35 blunders, but in the US there are bodies that have a statutory obligation to reveal the truth. And in the case of the F-35, the revelations continue to shock and help explain why so many trained Australian F-35 pilots leave the service.
A new round of horrors are now being revealed by US government accountability bodies, which have been documented by ex-marine and defence analyst Dan Grazier in the publication of US think tank “Project on Government Oversight”.
In his first term as President, Donald Trump did not tackle the JSF-F-35 problem and President Joe Biden continues to ignore reports from the independent US bodies.
The next president, whether it be Trump or Biden (and it looks like it’s Trump), will not be able to ignore these reports, although the Pentagon is still in denial. To be fair, Biden started a new air defence weapons program. It will need to be accelerated.
Grazier points out that since the F-35 program officially began 22 years ago, costs through its anticipated lifespan have risen $US1.7 trillion. It has been a bonanza for Lockheed Martin.
The Pentagon’s top testing office, the Director Operational Test and Evaluation, has just revealed that the F-35 program has a fleet wide mission capable rate of only 30 per cent. Australia keeps those sorts of details secret, but almost certainly our operation rate will be similar to the US. You can’t fight battles when 70 per cent of your aircraft are out of action at any one time. The Pentagon’s solution is to order more aircraft. Australia’s defence people may try the same stunt.
The F-35’s breakdown rate is far more frequent than the architects of the program anticipated.
DOT&E reports that the fleet of air force F-35As (Australia’s version) experienced critical failures that that render an aircraft unsafe to fly nearly twice as often as normally anticipated in such aircraft.
The Pentagon established a 60-day goal for repair times. As of February 2023, it took an average 141 days to cycle an F-35 through the depot repair process. The entire F-35 enterprise relies heavily on Lockheed Martin contractors to keep the program running.
The JSF-F-35 officially entered the “operational” testing phase in late 2018 and was initially expected to complete this process to gain “operational” clearance within a year.
More than five years later, officials now say they have finally completed all the testing events necessary to write the report necessary to satisfy the legal requirements for a full rate production decision.
Even if finally, after 22 years, the aircraft is declared “operational”, the F-35 program still has years of further development work to go before the jet approaches the lofty goals set a generation ago.
In Australia, the data similar to the US is kept secret, but Australia’s gullible defence officials have been buying JSF aircraft that have not passed the test and taxpayers foot the bill to bring them up to operational level.
Thanks to the research work of Airpower Australia, I have been able to document the failings of this aircraft over many years. The base problem of the JSF-F-35 is that the Chinese and others have better aircraft that can fly higher and faster.
The JSF-F-35 has software and aircraft recognition capabilities there are world standard, but it is a sitting duck to be shot down is it gets anywhere near combat. Because of the great distances in our region, the F-35 needs to be regularly refuelled in the air, adding to its vulnerability. The drawbacks that apply to our JSF-F-35 aircraft also apply to America’s aircraft, but the US has the far superior F-22 aircraft and other defence weapons to fill the gap.
Grazier says that as the Pentagon and Congress begin to consider plans for the next generation of US weapons systems and combat aircraft, the US must learn from the serious JSF-F-35 mistakes.
When the Australian May budget is released, I fear that while we will praise the Albanese government for recognising the defence department's shortcomings, instead of allocating the required expenditure to fix them, we will spend most of the available money on lifestyle consumption. /end
L’Australie va-t-elle devoir renoncer aux trois sous-marins nucléaires d’attaque américains « Virginia » ?
Will Australia have to give up its three American "Virginia" nuclear attack submarines?
By forming a strategic alliance with the United States and the United Kingdom [AUKUS pact], Australia has cancelled the Attack programme, which provided for the delivery by the French Naval Group of twelve conventionally powered ocean-going submarines of the Shortfin Barracuda type to the Royal Australian Navy [RAN]. This was in favour of the acquisition of eight nuclear attack submarines [SNA].
According to details revealed in March 2023, the United States is expected to deliver at least three Virginia-class SNAs from the early 2030s [the first in 2032, the second in 2035 and the last in 2038]. As for the other five, they will come from the British SSNR programme [renamed SSN-AUKUS], which aims to replace the Royal Navy's Astute-type SNAs.
However, the situation is not looking good... And the budget proposal for the 2025 financial year that the Pentagon has just sent to Congress is not likely to dispel the concerns in Canberra.
The total budget requested by the US Department of Defence for 2025 is $849.8 billion, an increase of "only" 0.9% on the current fiscal year.
This very moderate increase can be explained by the Fiscal Responsibility Act, which is the result of an agreement reached in Congress in June 2023 to curb the US debt. But it is not enough to offset the effects of inflation... Hence the need for the Pentagon to make choices.
While the US Navy has ordered two Virginia-type SNAs every year since 2011, it has decided to acquire just one in fiscal year 2025. And with good reason: the US naval industry - in this case General Dynamics and Huntington Ingalls Industries - is struggling to meet demand, due to insufficient production capacity, a shortage of skilled labour and problems in supply chains.
In addition, the maintenance in operational condition [MCO] of units already in service also poses a problem. For example, the USS Boise, an ANS belonging to the Los Angeles class, hasn't been to sea since... 2015. Its overhaul has just begun... and will not be completed until 2029.
Theoretically, to renew its ANS fleet, the US Navy should receive an average of 2.33 units per year... twice as many as at present.
The Pentagon's budget proposal is bound to be amended by members of parliament. Some of them are already making their voices heard, such as Representative Joe Courtney [Democratic Party], who was elected in Connecticut and is an influential member of a subcommittee dedicated to naval power.
"If such a reduction is adopted, it will remove one more attack submarine from a fleet that already has seventeen fewer than the sixty-six that the US Navy has long required," said Mr Courtney. "Given the new commitment by the Department of Defense and Congress to sell three to our Australian ally, which I enthusiastically support, this Navy proposal will have a profound impact on the navies of both countries," he warned.
However, Assistant Secretary of the Navy Erik Raven said that investment had been proposed to help the industry overcome its problems. These include an $11.1 billion package [over five years] and a $3 billion contribution promised by Australia as part of the AUKUS pact.
Australia's Minister for Defence Industry, Pat Conroy, is also optimistic. "Australia has full confidence in the AUKUS agreement and the United States is making progress in modernising its shipyards so that they can produce Virginia-type ANS for both navies," he said. "I'm seeing a lot of headlines about the death of AUKUS. This must be the fourth time AUKUS has died in the last year," he quipped.
The fact remains that, by 2030, the number of SNAs in service with the US Navy is set to fall to forty-six? It's going to get harder for a US submarine force commander to say 'no, I can manage with fewer submarines, I'm happy to sell three to my Australian friends'," Michael Shoebridge, founder of Strategic Analysis Australia, told Reuters. "An American president will be under more pressure to say: 'I have to look after my own security first'", he insisted.
In fact, as Australian Senator David Shoebridge points out, "when the US passed the AUKUS legislation, they put in circuit breakers, one of which would allow them not to transfer submarines if it would degrade the capabilities" of the US Navy.
Having approved the order for twelve Shortfin Barracuda submarines when he was Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull also used irony. "The United States is unlikely to add to its own deficit by delivering submarines to Australia. [...] This is really a case of us being assaulted by reality," he told the Australian Broadcasting Corp.
Will Australia have to give up its three American "Virginia" nuclear attack submarines?
By forming a strategic alliance with the United States and the United Kingdom [AUKUS pact], Australia has cancelled the Attack programme, which provided for the delivery by the French Naval Group of twelve conventionally powered ocean-going submarines of the Shortfin Barracuda type to the Royal Australian Navy [RAN]. This was in favour of the acquisition of eight nuclear attack submarines [SNA].
According to details revealed in March 2023, the United States is expected to deliver at least three Virginia-class SNAs from the early 2030s [the first in 2032, the second in 2035 and the last in 2038]. As for the other five, they will come from the British SSNR programme [renamed SSN-AUKUS], which aims to replace the Royal Navy's Astute-type SNAs.
However, the situation is not looking good... And the budget proposal for the 2025 financial year that the Pentagon has just sent to Congress is not likely to dispel the concerns in Canberra.
The total budget requested by the US Department of Defence for 2025 is $849.8 billion, an increase of "only" 0.9% on the current fiscal year.
This very moderate increase can be explained by the Fiscal Responsibility Act, which is the result of an agreement reached in Congress in June 2023 to curb the US debt. But it is not enough to offset the effects of inflation... Hence the need for the Pentagon to make choices.
While the US Navy has ordered two Virginia-type SNAs every year since 2011, it has decided to acquire just one in fiscal year 2025. And with good reason: the US naval industry - in this case General Dynamics and Huntington Ingalls Industries - is struggling to meet demand, due to insufficient production capacity, a shortage of skilled labour and problems in supply chains.
In addition, the maintenance in operational condition [MCO] of units already in service also poses a problem. For example, the USS Boise, an ANS belonging to the Los Angeles class, hasn't been to sea since... 2015. Its overhaul has just begun... and will not be completed until 2029.
Theoretically, to renew its ANS fleet, the US Navy should receive an average of 2.33 units per year... twice as many as at present.
The Pentagon's budget proposal is bound to be amended by members of parliament. Some of them are already making their voices heard, such as Representative Joe Courtney [Democratic Party], who was elected in Connecticut and is an influential member of a subcommittee dedicated to naval power.
"If such a reduction is adopted, it will remove one more attack submarine from a fleet that already has seventeen fewer than the sixty-six that the US Navy has long required," said Mr Courtney. "Given the new commitment by the Department of Defense and Congress to sell three to our Australian ally, which I enthusiastically support, this Navy proposal will have a profound impact on the navies of both countries," he warned.
However, Assistant Secretary of the Navy Erik Raven said that investment had been proposed to help the industry overcome its problems. These include an $11.1 billion package [over five years] and a $3 billion contribution promised by Australia as part of the AUKUS pact.
Australia's Minister for Defence Industry, Pat Conroy, is also optimistic. "Australia has full confidence in the AUKUS agreement and the United States is making progress in modernising its shipyards so that they can produce Virginia-type ANS for both navies," he said. "I'm seeing a lot of headlines about the death of AUKUS. This must be the fourth time AUKUS has died in the last year," he quipped.
The fact remains that, by 2030, the number of SNAs in service with the US Navy is set to fall to forty-six? It's going to get harder for a US submarine force commander to say 'no, I can manage with fewer submarines, I'm happy to sell three to my Australian friends'," Michael Shoebridge, founder of Strategic Analysis Australia, told Reuters. "An American president will be under more pressure to say: 'I have to look after my own security first'", he insisted.
In fact, as Australian Senator David Shoebridge points out, "when the US passed the AUKUS legislation, they put in circuit breakers, one of which would allow them not to transfer submarines if it would degrade the capabilities" of the US Navy.
Having approved the order for twelve Shortfin Barracuda submarines when he was Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull also used irony. "The United States is unlikely to add to its own deficit by delivering submarines to Australia. [...] This is really a case of us being assaulted by reality," he told the Australian Broadcasting Corp.
‘Profound’ submarine blow to AUKUS on eve of anniversary
(Australian Financial Review, 03.12)The Pentagon has halved the number of AUKUS submarines [ie Virginia class] it will build next year, casting doubt on the timetable to supply Australia with its first nuclear-powered boats, in what a leading US congressman said was a “profound” blow to the pact.
The Biden administration’s draft budget funds construction on just one new Virginia-class submarine for 2025, despite promises to ramp up production so second-hand boats can be freed up for Australia’s navy in the 2030s.
“Given the new commitment the Department of Defence and Congress made last year to sell three submarines to our ally Australia, which I enthusiastically support, the ramifications of the navy’s proposal will have a profound impact on both countries’ navies,” US Democratic congressman Joe Courtney said.
To mark the anniversary, a US Los Angeles-class submarine has docked in Perth as part of a commitment to increase port visits to familiarise Australians with operating nuclear-powered boats.
Under the AUKUS plan, Australia is meant to receive the first of at least three Virginia-class submarines from the US in 2032 to avoid a capability gap while the first British-designed submarines are built in Adelaide.
However, the transfer of the American submarines hinges on production in the US increasing to an average of 2.33 boats a year. That will ensure the US Navy can replace its boats destined for Australia and avoid a reduction in the size of its fleet.
The US Navy needs to build two submarines a year to maintain its fleet numbers given the retirement of older vessels – a rate it doesn’t expect to achieve until 2028 – but production is languishing at 1.2 to 1.3 boats annually because of labour shortages and industrial bottlenecks.
As part of AUKUS, Australian taxpayers will invest $US3 billion (AUS$4.53 billion) to bolster the submarine industrial base, while the US will tip in a similar amount, although that funding is tied up in a political fight over other defence-related funding, such as US military aid to Ukraine.
The Pentagon budget, released on Tuesday (AEDT), asks Congress to approve a further $US4 billion for the US submarine industrial base in 2025, and $US11.1 billion over five years, describing it as a “historic” investment in suppliers, workforce development and infrastructure to expand production.
“These investments will also support the administration’s commitments under AUKUS, the first major deliverable of which was the historic decision to support Australia acquiring conventionally armed, nuclear-powered submarines,” a White House fact sheet said.
The budget request covers the 2025 fiscal year, which runs from October to September in the US.
But Mr Courtney, whose Connecticut district is home to one of two submarine yards, seethed that cutting production would remove one more submarine from a fleet that was already 17 submarines below the US Navy’s long-stated requirement of 66.
“At a time when the pace of all of navy shipbuilding – manned and unmanned, including carriers, submarines, destroyers and frigates – is recovering from the impact of the COVID pandemic and supply chain disruptions, the navy’s plan to cut a submarine that is already been partially paid for and built, makes little or no sense,” he said.
Mr Courtney said the proposal contradicted the Pentagon’s National Defence Industrial Strategy issued on January 11, which identified “procurement stability” as critical to achieving resilient supply chains.
Greens defence spokesman David Shoebridge said the Pentagon budget showed the AUKUS deal was “dead in the water”.
“The Liberals and ALP are just in blanket denial about what is going on in the US and meanwhile they are shovelling billions of dollars into this mess,” Senator Shoebridge said.
‘Seriously awkward for AUKUS’
“The US will simply not sell any nuclear submarines to Australia unless they have enough for themselves. This budget shows they are nowhere near achieving that goal.
“For AUKUS to work the US needs to make 2.3 Virginia class submarines a year and this year the US Navy has budgeted for just one. That maths is seriously awkward for AUKUS.”
Elbridge Colby, a former top defence official in the Trump administration, said the US should not authorise the transfer of submarines to Australia if it diminished availability of boats for the US in a potential war with China over Taiwan.
He said it would take a “Herculean effort” to increase production to meet the US need for replacement submarines as well as supply Australia’s navy.
“Nobody knows how a fight with China would go but we [the US] need to have every single attack submarine we can get our hands on,” Mr Colby told The Australian Financial Review.
“We need to preserve every ounce of our war-fighting capability, and you’re telling me we are going to transfer our most critical asset to Australia? How does that make sense?”
Strategic Analysis Australia director Michael Shoebridge said the budget request showed how badly shipbuilders were struggling to lift production.
“The US Navy budget request shows the nasty reality that despite efforts, the US submarine industrial base is not yet able to meet the US’ own needs for subs, and so isn’t yet on track to make the AUKUS ‘optimal pathway’ viable,” said Mr Shoebridge, a former Defence official.
“The problem is even bigger than this budget request. Because it’s taking the US eight years to build each Virginia sub, even starting to build more from now on doesn’t change much until well into the 2030s.”
Australian government sources argued that before any increase in production could be achieved, it had to be preceded by increased investment in the industrial base as part “responsible and methodical” steps towards accommodating more Virginia-class submarines on the production line.
“As we approach the one-year anniversary of AUKUS, Australia, the United States and United Kingdom remain steadfast in our commitment to the pathway announced last March, which will see Australia acquire conventionally armed, nuclear-powered submarines,” Mr Marles said.
“All three AUKUS partners are working at pace to integrate our industrial bases and to realise this historic initiative between our countries.”
‘Lost, slow and indecisive’
But opposition defence spokesman Andrew Hastie said the government was overwhelmed by AUKUS.
“They are lost, slow and indecisive on the basics. They can’t even get started on the submarine base in Perth,” he said, citing that preparation works on HMAS Stirling will not start until 2025, just two years before US and UK submarines are permanently rotated through the base.
“Labor is deaf to the concerns of defence industry, our allies and the Australian people. We can’t afford to fail at our first hurdle.” /end
Australia selects BAE Systems and ASC to build SSN-AUKUS - Naval News
The Australian Government has selected BAE Systems and ASC Pty Ltd to build Australia's new fleet of nuclear powered submarines
www.navalnews.com
Japan to be considered for membership in AUKUS military technology pact
Washington DC (UPI) Apr 8, 2024 - The United States, Australia and Britain indicated Monday they will officially consider Japan's push to be included in the AUKUS military pact between the three nations.
www.spacewar.com
Japan and possibly Canada to partner on some AUKUS Pillar II projects, but no ‘JAUKUS’ or ‘CAUKUS’ for now | PS News
Reports that Japan may become a member of the AUKUS trilateral construct between Australia, the UK and the US seem…
psnews.com.au
This is very quickly becoming a Pacific NATO.
dsm.forecastinternational.com
globalnews.ca
AUKUS: Trilateral Security Agreement Update – Sea Air Space 2024
Sea Air Space Panel Offers Updates on AUKUS Program Since its announcement in September 2021, the Australia, United Kingdom, U.S., or AUKUS trilateral security pact has sparked interest and promise…
dsm.forecastinternational.com
Canada exploring possibility of joining AUKUS alliance, Trudeau says - National | Globalnews.ca
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau says conversations are underway on possibly joining the second phase of AUKUS, a U.S.-led alliance with the United Kingdom and Australia.
globalnews.ca
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.
Canada and Japan may join pillar 2.
Canada should have nuke subs, to work under the ice. I don't know if pillar 1 is politically achievable.
Canada should have nuke subs, to work under the ice. I don't know if pillar 1 is politically achievable.
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
The plan is still to buy 2 secondhand Virginia, with 20 years left. One new build Virginia, with the option of 2 more new builds.
The forward deployment of UK and US subs will continue. I can't see that stopping, until China is sorted.
Last edited:
AUKUS allies developing undersea capabilities they can field this year
The three AUKUS navies may see advanced undersea technology like small drones and AI-enabled target recognition tools tested and fielded this year.
www.defensenews.com