AUKUS submarines: A burden too big for overloaded U.S. shipyards

1/ A senior U.S. Navy official has expressed concern that assisting Australia in acquiring nuclear-powered submarines may be too much of a burden for America's overstretched shipyards.https://t.co/gTH7OhNoNa

— Ken Moriyasu (@kenmoriyasu) August 31, 2022

3/ AUKUS envisions building the subs in South Australia. But recently there are suggestions from Australia to build the first few boats in existing U.S./U.K. shipyards to accelerate the process.https://t.co/dqqELU43tf

— Ken Moriyasu (@kenmoriyasu) August 31, 2022

6/ At the heart of U.S. concerns is a problem that has been decades in the making. Immediately after the Cold War, there was a period in which the U.S. significantly reduced the production of its submarines.
This will inevitably lead to a "submarine gap" later this decade.

— Ken Moriyasu (@kenmoriyasu) August 31, 2022

8/ "Neither AUKUS nor Columbia should be allowed to compete for limited resources that could jeopardize both efforts," said @brentdsadler

— Ken Moriyasu (@kenmoriyasu) August 31, 2022

Seems the service industry growth combined with retirement aged laborers rob our Navy's production capabilities.

Quote:

---

"As the Los Angeles-class and Ohio-class enter mass retirement, the total number of U.S. submarines will decline in the 2020s," @tetsuo_kotani said. "This gap coincides with the 10 years starting in 2027, when the danger of a Taiwan contingency is said to rise to its peak."

---

This 4th turning is sure getting spicy.

Secondly, isn't it a little too convenient, the relationship between China and Aus? [Edit: dang, guys. Yall are quick]

I'm ignorant on how this works though, can any submariners chip in on what information/technology sharing we are performing with our "allies" in this endeavor? We do hold back some data right? Or are we literally building subs and sending them as if they were our own? Or do we have an even better class of sub that are undisclosed and are sharing the dregs which we've developed exceptional capabilities to track?

Thirdly, Loyal Ag posits that the US naval supremacy is what bolsters the infinite purchasing power of the dollar. Does this data improve the value proposition or further debase the value proposition?

Maybe we should be giving $10-20k to high school students to enroll in trade schools in exchange for a period of service working on projects.

But no, Gender Studies graduates serving coffee are more important.

As usual I always shake my head at navy pontifications like this.

Why, exactly, do we even need a fleet of subs any longer? What war would break out if they weren't out there floating about?

This is another one where it would seem like the USN is wholly stuck in the past, frankly. With AI/drones today even if we do need to retain a hunter capability sub-surface, why a big manned sub in the 2030's? Why a manned nuke attack sub?

Pookers said:

---

This is a stupid agreement on every level. Australia is a colony of chyna at this point and will only continue to lose more of its sovereignty as we move forward. Giving them nuke subs is essentially handing them over to chyna.

---

Yep this is whole contract is more than a security risk. It is handing over our crown jewel to China.

Hopefully the shipyard is so slow the next administration can cancel this contract.

Why would an 18 year old join the military. Patriots by liberals standards are now armed antifa members in black block sitting outside a childrens drag show. Can cook burgers for 20+ dollars an hour, dem leaders dangling free education. Not even looking at the covid vaccine mandate bs.

Pookers said:

---

This is a stupid agreement on every level. Australia is a colony of chyna at this point and will only continue to lose more of its sovereignty as we move forward. Giving them nuke subs is essentially handing them over to chyna.

---

If you are thinking that way, the greater risk is that somehow the details would leak or be passed on by agents.

Its hard to see a scenario where even if Australia was falling to a Chinese invasion that a nuclear submarine wouldn't simply submerge and leave the disaster. Its not like it would need to worry about fuel before reaching some Allied port.

Or are you worried they would be turned over outright?

Pookers said:

---

This is a stupid agreement on every level. Australia is a colony of chyna at this point and will only continue to lose more of its sovereignty as we move forward. Giving them nuke subs is essentially handing them over to chyna.

---

Australia is one of the most dedicated and knowledgeable foreign military customers that we have. They know their stuff and are serious about defending themselves against China. This couldn't be more wrong.

Historically or presently?

Historically we had Eisenhower, presently we have ?strip=1

Whats the Ozzie landscape looking on the military equity front, or how at what speed are they finally becoming equitable?

Disregard for a moment whether we should be building naval assets for another nation.

Any "senior navy official" that says we can't in 10 years have production capacity for X, Y, or Z should be keel hauled!

Outside of pure political (and union) incompetence there is absolutely no reason this country, the greatest and most prosperous country the world has ever seen couldn't simultaneously replace/upgrade our fleet and build assets for another nation.

Adverse Event said:

---

Historically or presently?

Historically we had Eisenhower, presently we have ?strip=1

Whats the Ozzie landscape looking on the military equity front, or how at what speed are they finally becoming equitable?

---

Also, this creatures current job status is 100% geared around how it's a man wearing a dress.

Pookers said:

---

This is a stupid agreement on every level. Australia is a colony of chyna at this point and will only continue to lose more of its sovereignty as we move forward. Giving them nuke subs is essentially handing them over to chyna.

---

Gee, place was colonized by thieves, murderers, rapists, pickpockets and working girls that got caught.
Who could ever think they would be crooked?

nortex97 said:

---

As usual I always shake my head at navy pontifications like this.

Why, exactly, do we even need a fleet of subs any longer? What war would break out if they weren't out there floating about?

This is another one where it would seem like the USN is wholly stuck in the past, frankly. With AI/drones today even if we do need to retain a hunter capability sub-surface, why a big manned sub in the 2030's? Why a manned nuke attack sub?

---

Because unmanned vessels can suffer all kinds of problems and face all kinds of issues that cannot be solved without someone there. If an unmanned vessel did have a serious problem, you must then go find and fix it or write it off. These are not attritable UAV's we're talking about, but vessels costing hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars with highly secretive systems. Losing them because of a technical problem is not an option.

They're also hard to communicate with. The radio spectrum UAV's use does not work underwater. You must use ULF or VLF, which have a much smaller bandwidth. Any such vessel would need to be completely autonomous to make decisions like shoot/don't shoot or turn/don't turn.

Most subs play many roles. They can insert special forces, launch cruise missiles, engage in surveillance, support ops for tapping undersea cables, or act as hunter/killers. Having the ability to hide or shoot and sail away under the waves is very important.

Surface vessels are susceptible to radar and satellite detection. They are especially visible to satellites because their wakes can be fairly picked up by synthetic aperture radar. Subs can hide quite effectively in many locations and be invisible when changing stations. If you're going to soften targets with cruise missiles, it would be much easier if your enemy didn't see the launch vehicles sailing their way.


You can't just develop and build a modern submarine at the drop of a hat. They're very complex and specialized vessels. If a war broke out and you needed one (or more likely many), it would be over by the time it was finished. We don't live in the 1940's anymore, and you can't just roll a bunch of analog vessels off the line and expect to win through numbers. Russia/Ukraine and Desert Storm are all the evidence you need to show that specialized, precision weapons will wreak havoc on and decimate simpler weapons made to be cheaply mass produced. Try to build a bunch of cheap subs in a few months and they will all die quickly.

Adverse Event said:

---

Historically or presently?

Historically we had Eisenhower, presently we have ?strip=1

Whats the Ozzie landscape looking on the military equity front, or how at what speed are they finally becoming equitable?

---

Right now.

Maybe Australia needs to beef up its population with some Honduran and other Central American immigrants. They can work on the subs.

Kenneth_2003 said:

---

Disregard for a moment whether we should be building naval assets for another nation.

Any "senior navy official" that says we can't in 10 years have production capacity for X, Y, or Z should be keel hauled!

Outside of pure political (and union) incompetence there is absolutely no reason this country, the greatest and most prosperous country the world has ever seen couldn't simultaneously replace/upgrade our fleet and build assets for another nation.

---

Easier said than done. Anything can be done with enough money, but the issue is the cost effectiveness and feasibility of increasing production capacity.

You can throw more bodies at a project to finish faster to a point, but after that they just start getting in each other's way. You can have them work longer, but you start incurring more cost in OT or shift differentials. Or you can increase the capacity of your facilities to do more work at the same time. The problem with that is that one you're done making submarines, what do you do with the facilities? Who pays for the capital expenditure? Do you bake it into unit cost?

These are all of the reasons mills did not expand operations in 2020/2021 with record lumber prices. It just didn't make long term financial sense. Long story short, the private ship builders have sized and optimized their operations for the expected workloads. You can't just add to that load and expect them to meet because, "This is America.l

IslanderAg04 said:

---

Adverse Event said:

---

Historically or presently?

Historically we had Eisenhower, presently we have ?strip=1

Whats the Ozzie landscape looking on the military equity front, or how at what speed are they finally becoming equitable?

---

Also, this creatures current job status is 100% geared around how it's a man wearing a dress.

---

Too bad Patton couldn't return from the dead to sit in the same room as IT.