Here are the reasons the deal collapsed:
1. 77 and 11. Nuke subs give 77 days patrol capabilities, limited only by ship’s stores. Diesels give 11 patrol days before having to go back— serious strain on the crews and fleet management.
2. a 40 billion deal ballooned to 50+ billion and not one sub has been produced
3. trusting France to build the best 12 diesel-electric boats for AUS, hence a significant part of their defense strategy
4. US nuke sub tech was not on the table in 2016.
The question is, what can they do in the short term?
ANSWER: Take 6 US SSNs from Hawaii and homeport them in AUS, and move an SSGN to Hawaii.
China would lose their shit.
“ANSWER: Take 6 US SSNs from Hawaii and homeport them in AUS, and move an SSGN to Hawaii.”
Simply patrolling may be the more secure option. Deploying deepwater assets to operational areas from PI south, choke points, oil reserves etc... it is a sizable AOR. BUT... the whole asymmetrical approach may get rolled out. Do we want to go there? Or perhaps obligate sensor assets?
thanks for the extra info. Number 1 makes perfect sense and it what I first thought - diesel means refueling like a car (only a bigger tank) whereas nukes need only provisions and water, so nukes make sense.
RE: #2
Wait ‘til you see the cost overruns when the US builds some subs.