By Dr. Ann Griffiths, 21 March 2023
The announcement of the Australia-United Kingdom-United States (AUKUS) agreement in September 2021 caught a lot of people by surprise. It was a surprise to France which thought it had a deal with Australia to build new conventional submarines, and it was a surprise to Canada, which from Prime Minister Trudeau’s reaction, obviously had no idea that the discussions were happening. The submarine part of the agreement has produced the most discussion as the details begin to be hammered out. While we can only wait to see how things shake out, it is likely going to be a long and expensive road before Australia has its own nuclear-powered subs. And there will be endless debate about it. Questions have already been raised about whether this deal contravenes the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty which prohibits nuclear powers (in this case, the UK and US) from transferring nuclear capabilities to non-nuclear powers (Australia). But from a Canadian perspective is it the non-submarine elements of AUKUS that send the strongest message of exclusion? The joint statement announcing the agreement says that the three countries are embarking on “further trilateral collaboration under AUKUS to enhance our joint capabilities and interoperability. These initial efforts will focus on cyber capabilities, artificial intelligence, quantum technologies, and additional undersea capabilities.” So while everyone focuses on the submarine question, are we ignoring the more interesting elements of the agreement? Did the Five Eyes club become Three Eyes for new technology with Canada left on the outside pressing its nose against the window?
29 thoughts on “AUKUS Awkward?”
What does Canada expect? Mr Trudeau and the government can’t even equip its own military properly, let alone spend the funds to do it. This is what you get when a Drama teacher is in charge.
Such a thoughtful comment that explores deeply and thoroughly the implications and complexities of the AUKUS agreement!
Hello,
Stationing nuclear submarines in Australia would allow the US to control, and harass in case of conflict, China (and Asia)’s Sea Lanes via the Straits of Malacca and the Indian Ocean. It would give the US an alternative permanent base to Guam.
Canada offers no comparable value so why bother with us?
Furthermore, the initial deal is for Australia to purchase older US boats, and eventually decommission the fuel assemblies at Australia’s own cost. So the US unloads old boats and the decommissioning hassle on a country that has no experience or capability managing any of the nuclear cycle beyond uranium mining.
Ultimately, the four small eyes are vassals (or at best, very junior partners) to the fifth. The US will use all of us as it sees fit.
Regards
So many missed opportunities under this government. Canada’s strengths in Artificial Intelligence and other high tech would be highly valued by our hypothetical CAUKUS partners. We could better equip our own military and Canadian defence industry could benefit from the HUGE market across the partnership.
If it were up to me, we would join (C)AUKUS for the advanced capabilities part (ie. everything except SSNs) and work with France to build our own SSNs, perhaps sticking very closely to the Barracuda-class design to reduce risks, delays and cost overruns. In contrast to Australia we could take advantage of our existing civil nuclear power industry and build our own reactors, produce our own fuel etc. We could also develop new cutting edge technologies for our submarines that could spin off for civilian purposes as well. Remember, GPS was originally a submarine technology.
Tim Choi wrote a great paper recently about future submarine requirements. Patrolling under the Arctic ice cap could become increasingly important to counter Russian SSBNs, assert sovereignty and protect future infrastructure. Canadian SSNs could also deploy overseas of course and make Canada a credible middle power.
But this is all just dreaming of course. We have no serious leaders in any of the major parties and unlike the Australians, and even the Europeans now, most Canadians still seem very complacent about security.
Would appreciate understanding the reasons that lead you to prefer the Barracuda design.
To explain my preference for the Barracuda (ie. Suffren) class design, I’ll start with the capabilities I think Canadian submarines need. I think our submarines should be optimized for patrolling the Arctic and the Pacific and Atlantic approaches to North America. Overseas deployments will be important but secondary. On overseas deployments they can help defend a task group or operate independently gathering intelligence. Therefore, we don’t need an especially large and heavily armed submarine but we do need one that can travel long distances quickly while remaining submerged, and SSN’s are far superior in that regard.
I think that we should use an off the shelf design for our first generation SSN’s to save time and money. The Barracuda class seems the clear winner. The smaller crew size (65 vs. 132+ for Virginia-class) would be extremely important for Canada given our chronic recruitment challenges. If the French were willing, I would favour buying the same reactor technology they use, building the first one or two in France and the remainder in Canada. This way we support domestic industry and create a legacy of an independent Canadian SSN program, while still managing to get the first boat by the mid-2030s for training, etc. The last of the six Suffren class SSN’s for the French navy was laid down in 2020 and is due to be commissioned around 2030. Whether France has the capacity to build an additional one or two without seriously compromising their next generation SSBN program, I don’t know.
If we are to produce our own fuel, I think it’s best to use technology that only requires LEU. As far as I know, there are no signatories to the NPT who produce their own HEU other than the five designated nuclear weapons states. Even if it’s not technically a violation of the NPT, I don’t think Canada would want to be a trailblazer in that regard. I recognize the downside of needing to refuel the reactor once every seven to ten years, but for the above reasons I think it makes sense.
The one significant alteration to the design of the Barracuda class that I would propose would be the ability to link up with large and extra large UUV’s, to recharge their batteries and download data without surfacing. I think that could be achieved with a robotic arm built into the sail (“Canadarm Ocean” perhaps?) connecting a cable to a UUV hovering above. It seems crewed/uncrewed teaming is the way of the future. We could develop UUV’s with our potential (C)AUKUS partners.
Regarding who has sovereignty over the design, my understanding is that the United States has control over the British reactor technology but the French have an independent, sovereign program. I stand to be corrected. In any case, I don’t think the United States would oppose a Canadian SSN program if we were prepared to pony up the money. I think they’d be very happy to have more SSN’s in the alliance, and they’d be even happier about it if they didn’t have to share their most sensitive technology to make it happen.
Regarding nuclear waste, that’s already a problem with our civil nuclear power industry. I don’t think a few naval nuclear reactors would change that significantly. I also don’t think we can turn the tide on global greenhouse gas emissions without a significant increase in nuclear power development, so we just need to bite the bullet and pick a spot to put the waste. Ruin a few square kilometers in a remote location, or ruin the entire planet? It seems like an obvious choice to me. But that’s another issue.
Thank you so much for taking the time to explain this in some detail.
Clearly articulated.
Our priority has to be the arctic and its approaches, not the Indo-Pacific. The only way to defend our northern interests are with NUCLEAR submarines. The French SSN option is the best one for Canada. It would let the world know we take our own backyard interests seriously, and allow us to participate in (C)AUKUS as viable partner.
So heres a couple of issues with the Suffren that I have seen so far and you mentioned a couple of them too.
1. The sail as it stands right now is not reinforced, thus under ice missions where punching through is required would require a refit at the very least.
2. I am aware that they do not have a forward + Upwards looking V/UHF sonar system (we use MIDAS Mine Ice Detection Avoidance System) meaning they would transit totally blind under ice (not a good idea)
3. You’re robbing Peter to pay Paul when you’re looking at crew numbers and also cost of platform. There’s a reason they are cheap and a reason they have less crew (not always a bad thing) the reason they are cheap is because they are not as capable as US or UK submarines in some roles.
4. with a reactor life span of only 10 years if you use the submarine gingerly it would mean you’re looking at the cost of at least 2 refuels, plus cost of waste disposal and storage. Where do you plan to put it and will new infrastructure have to be built to house the waste? If you want to see what happens when you sit on your hands regarding decommissioning these things look no further than the UK check out Rosyth and Devonport. There’s our first generation boats in there and they have been out of commission longer than they were in commission!
5. With the LEU reactor you’re not going to have enough power to charge external UUVs while running a full hotel load, a LEU reactor does not produce anywhere near the same amount of power a HEU reactor does and this is where limitations come in, what systems will you sacrifice to charge them UUV batteries?
To quote you here “Regarding who has sovereignty over the design, my understanding is that the United States has control over the British reactor technology.”
The United states has no control of British Reactors, they are developed by Rolls Royce entirely independently (there are massive differences between the two as well), however we do share our data with General Electric as part of the MDA agreement.
France is totally independent, and in all honesty I certainly could see the USA try and block French reactor tech to Canada and then offer up American tech as a replacement.
Hello Andrew. Although I agree with most of what you have said, I cannot agree with Canada buying French SSNs. The US still owns the reactor technology, that goes into the French reactors and would almost never allow that technology to be transferred into another country without permission. the French reactor cores will only last 7-10 years. The core for each submarine would then have to be replaced much more often because of its Low Enriched Uranium (LEU) technology (50-75% enrichment) as opposed to the US/UK Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) technology which will last well over 30 years (93-95% enriched) which means you would have to replace the French reactor cores at at least 3 times the rate. And where would you bury all that spent uranium in Canada? NIMBY comes to mind. If you are suggesting that Canadian Small Modular Reactors (SMR)/Small Modular Micro Reactor (SMMR) technology could be used in say, the French Barracuda Block 1A SSK submarines (The same ones that Australia was going to acquire) before AUKUS came along, then maybe that could happen but at what cost and what percentage of enrichment would be used. Enriched to HEU standards? There would certainly be a lot of areas in Canada that this uranium waste could be placed, but will the average Canadian agree? A lot of hurtles to jump through and would take decades more research and development by Canada to prove the Canadian SSN technology.
Sorry to correct you but the US has no links, ties or say in regards to French or British reactors.
France has a completely independent nuclear industry that has 0 input or ownership from the USA and the same is true for the UK too.
Hello Blair. Can you quote me on your assertions with regard to French & British nuclear core technology? The last I looked it was Canada who was not allowed to buy the Trafalgar class because of US nuclear technology concerns. Canada could never buy French nuclear technology either as the US would “vigorously” oppose that as well.
Hello David,
I’d like to challenge you on the assertion that the US would “vigorously” oppose a Canadian SSN based on a French design. Why would they? I’m aware of the opposition that arose in the 1980’s. There is a (justified in my opinion) resentment that Canada seems preoccupied with defending its sovereignty from the United States while freeloading on other defence matters. We do need to up our game in all areas of defence. But the United States is INFINITELY more concerned about a potential war with China than a tiff with Canada over the Northwest Passage. They identify the shortage of submarines as a major vulnerability. Canadian SSN’s could make an enormous contribution in a war in the Western Pacific, defending Carriers Strike Groups or guarding choke points, for example, enabling the more heavily armed US subs to go on the offence. Why would the US oppose that?
Cheers,
Andrew
I will find it when I get home next week but the whole nuclear argument with France stems from de Gaulle policy.
While in the early years the USA assisted in some design, overall French reactors today are French designed French built using French materials. The French have had a policy since 1968 to be totally nuclear independent which is why warheads are not in the NATO stockpile count and why de Gaulle took France out of the NATO command structure.
France designs and builds its own missiles too currently using the M4 – this is totally independent from the UK or USA, it’s a French only program.
The UK cooperates with a lot of American companies – Rolls Royce works heavily with GE for example this is all done under the MDA agreement. With regards to the Trafalgars we do use some American tech inside them which is why the USA had a veto for the Canada class.
This move is not new, the UK did it not long ago to Sweden when they offered up Grippen to Argentina. Because it had BAe systems and parts the UK Gov blocked any sale.
Reagan gave his approval for the Trafalgar sale over the objections of the USN brass.
@Dave Dunlop, as promised if you need more let me know I can do a bit more digging.
When we look at the history of the French nuclear industry we have to understand that both the UK & USA made bilateral agreements NOT to share anything with France. This agreement was signed in 1958 and still stands and is enforced today, therefore all of French nuclear technology is completely independent, has no USA or UK involvement whatsoever because by treaty the UK and USA cannot share technologies with France – unlike the UK & USA which have the mutual defense agreement.
It is why De Gaulle pulled France out of the NATO Command structure, and the nationalists wanted a nuclear bomb, and this was developed entirely by France with no foreign input (CIA Declassified intelligence memo 1957).
I can also tell you from experience that the K15 & CAS-48 reactors are very different from anything the USA or UK has installed, the French reactors are actually a lot less powerful than a single reactor on our boats.
https://ahf.nuclearmuseum.org/ahf/history/french-nuclear-program/
A lot of our NATO partners do see Canada as a joke when it comes to defense, mismanaged projects and procurement, a wishy washy leadership not wanting to spend capital, endless blithering in parliament about nothing then no results. It isn’t just the current government that is the issue, it has been many governments. Failure to plan ahead — the saying “make hay while the sun shines” springs to mind — that’s a recipe for very short term thinking and Canada unfortunately in both politics and industry is absolutely rife with this mentality.
No one seems to think beyond the next election in politics and no one in industry plans beyond summer, the short term thinking needs to stop. It affects the economy as well as many other factors and it does send a very bad message to our NATO partners. A lot of our NATO partners look at us and wonder how smaller countries (some in financial issues) with smaller GDP with less population still manage to achieve the NATO targets and end up with more capability than the CAF. It’s embarrassing to be honest.
Until we tackle the short-termism Canada will continually be sidelined. I do believe that the reason why they didn’t talk to us about AUKUS is because they simply couldn’t put up with the wishy washy politics and had absolutely no faith that anything put forward could be implemented with Canada involved.
With regards to the NPT question. Questions have already been raised about whether this deal contravenes the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty which prohibits nuclear powers (in this case, the UK and US) from transferring nuclear capabilities to non-nuclear powers (Australia).
From my understanding, the Nuclear Non Proliferation treaty is quite specific in that; it is almost entirely dedicated to nuclear weapons. As submarines are not weapons there should be no issue with the treaty and it’s not in breach. A submarine is a platform / asset from which weapons are fired from they are non weapons themselves.
Secondly precedent had already been set for helping non nuclear states in the past regarding this issue (i.e., transferring nuclear submarine for service in another navy). I cite that the Soviet Union transferred (Leased) a project 670 Skat (NATO Charlie Class) SSGN nuclear cruise missile submarine to India in 1988 which ended in 1991. Subsequently Russia also transferred (on lease) a second nuclear submarine of the Project 971I (NATO Akula II) SSN from 2011 until 2021. This enabled India to gain practical skills for their own domestic submarine program.
On top of this we have France that has been for at least the last decade helping Brazil design, build and bring together their own nuclear submarine which is currently being built. France doesn’t hide the fact they transferred reactor designs to the Brazilian navy nor their role in developing the submarine with Brazil.
NATO also has an interesting one this time with nuclear weapons, we know there are American nuclear weapons present in Germany and the Netherlands, and in some situations both countries can use these weapons on their own aircraft as per the agreement for nuclear sharing.
In conclusion I don’t see any issue with them being in violation with the NPT as the treaty doesn’t mention platforms only weapons, I enclose the first 3 articles of the treaty plus the link as the source.
Article I
Each nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to transfer to any recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; and not in any way to assist, encourage,
or induce any non-nuclear-weapon State to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, or control over such weapons or explosive devices.
Article II
Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to receive the transfer from any transferor whatsoever of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or of control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; not to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices; and not to seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons
or other nuclear explosive devices.
Article III
1. Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes to accept safeguards, as set forth in an agreement to be negotiated and concluded with the International Atomic Energy Agency in accordance with the Statute of the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Agency’s safeguards system, for the exclusive purpose of verification of the fulfilment of its obligations assumed under this Treaty with a view to preventing diversion of nuclear energy from peaceful uses to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. Procedures for the safeguards required by this Article shall be followed with respect to source or special fissionable material whether it is being produced, processed or used in any principal nuclear facility or is outside any such facility. The safeguards required by this Article shall be applied on all source or special fissionable material in all peaceful nuclear activities within the territory of such State, under its jurisdiction, or carried out under its control anywhere.
https://www.un.org/disarmament/wmd/nuclear/npt/text
Blair. I while I whole-heartedly agree with just about everything you have said and agree that the NPT does not apply to SSN attack submarines (only Nuclear Weapons), My only query is with the French selling US reactor technology to Brazil. They either had to have permission from the US to do that or they are doing it to spite the US. Perhaps because the French reactors are only 50-75% enriched, that the US did not disagree with the transfer of its technology. If that was the case, then perhaps the French technology could be transfered to Canada as well IOT buy (or build) French SSNs as Andrw has eluded to. Still a very expensive and time consuming process for decades to come.
France has sold French reactors to many countries not just Brazil. What’s more their reactors are completely devoid of anything American including input parts and design. Charles De Gaulle made that very clear – the United States has absolutely no say or hand on it so they would not need to seek American approval for anything. Therefore France can do what it wishes with its technology and hardware and there’s nothing the USA can do. It’s why they had French reactors in Iraq that the Israelis bombed.
Could France sell a reactor to Canada? Yes they could. No American stamp needed. Would we buy it ? No probably not.
France is not always a good defence partner and having worked with their marine nationale many times I can say that they say one thing and do another hence why the Australian deal fell apart.
French reactors use a lower enriched uranium and have to refuel every 7-10 years while US UK use highly enriched uranium with 25 years + before refuel. This means that French reactors produce more waste – about 3x more than UK and US reactors. Also, SMRs produce even more waste than that currently we’re estimating 5x more over a 30 year span than a single LEU.
From geographic and cultural perspectives, Australia and New Zealand are isolated nations. Thus, their interests and needs are somewhat different than those of Canada. Both countries must function within a cultural, political and economic environment that is very different from North America.
So very true!
Thank you for bringing reality and context to another exercise in self-denigration on the Broadsides Forum
This isn’t about AUS, UK, or US. This is embarrassing for Canada because we have a failed nuclear policy for domestic production. Now if we want nuclear Subs, we have to go to the Brits or Yankees. And the fact they do not consider us as important says something about our defense policy for the past 30 years. Instead of dreaming about nuclear subs, we need to buy subs first to replace the Victoria class. Fix all three of the unified forces nonsense. You can’t have the army on the same pay level as the Navy if their time and professional commitments are completely different. The Navy and the Air Force need to pay their NCMs more than the army based in the middle of nowhere. It cost more to live around those bases. That and Ottawa’s forever procurement policy are driving us down.
This is not about Harper or Trudeau, this is the defence’s fault first and foremost. Then we can blame politicians.
Hello PASSEDMOST. Canada,s SMR/SMMR technology could very well be applied to a “designed in Canada” approach for say the French Barracuda Block 1A class SSKs. Build the boats in France and then bring them to Canada for SMR reactor core insertion. Yes, we are just “spit-balling” here but this could be a reality after decades more Canadian technological research. Your perceived suggestion that the Canadian Army should be paid less than our Air Force or RCN brothers (and sisters) to pay for all of this seems to be simplistic and will never fly or sink!
The French did this with the Rubis class which is basically an Agosta class with a nuclear reactor. What they ended up with was a SSN that was cramped limited in capabilities and a submarine that’s actually very noisy and slow. The upgrade to Amethyst helped a little but she was still easy meat for even SSKs let alone our all powerful SSNs.
With SMR they are over their life span more expensive to operate than a traditional PWR because they will have to be refuelled every 4-6 years which is incredibly expensive and SMRs generate around 5 times more waste than a conventional reactor. Again that’s expensive handling right there.
Overall it’s not the way forward I don’t think the French only pushed through the Rubis because at the time they had nothing else and they didn’t want any outside help either. We shouldn’t make yet more mistakes with submarines – we made enough already.
Hello,
Note that none of the SMR designs currently being explored are Canadian technology.
OPG will use a GE Hitachi reactor at Darlington.
Point Lepreau is going with nonexistent UK Moltex and the US ARC based on Argonne Labs reactor.
NuScale is US DoE design from Idaho Labs.
eVinci is a Westinghouse reactor.
Not much CANDUing there.
As with everything defense, successful operation of naval nuclear reactors would be an extension of national capability. A nation that can comfortably handle the nuclear cycle domestically and can build complex machinery, can design, build, operate and decommission a nuclear reactor, whether for civilian or military purposes, regardless of the specific reactor technology.
My enduring concern is that we stopped. We were nuclear leaders, then stopped. We designed the Bras d’Or then stopped. We built warships then stopped. We were leaders in aerospace and then stopped. We manufactured heavy machinery then stopped.
The eastern countries we don’t like never stopped.
So now, as we wring our hands about what expensive platform to buy or borrow from others, remember that such things are currently beyong our national capability, and that the costs will be brutal, regardless of choice.
I’m not trolling or being critical for fun. I just hope that we wake up, take blinders off, and rebuild the capabilities we lost.
Buy an American or English or French one if you must, or a Japanese, or a German; the cost will be a wash. But build our own in parallel. Design a boat, build a boat, any boat, or a tractor or airplane. Then another. Then another. Develop capabilities with each one.
Just don’t stop again.
Regards
Problem is creating a line that can last long enough that enables the replacement vessel to be inbuild before that line is shut down.
The Japanese do this very well with their submarines, the UK not so well which is why the Astute program has taken so long (not enough numbers so had to slow production).
Stopping and starting again costs a lot of money and in my opinion it’s wasted money too.
Some good points there.
Agreed.
“not enough numbers so had to slow production” that goes to the crux of the matter that only a heavily industrialized country with sustained and advanced manufacturing and industry can keep building these increasingly complex platforms and systems. Very few nations have built and maintained such capabilities, and fewer still are developing them. The rest of us got off the boat.
The RCN, RCAF, and indeed the energy industry, all face technologically complex problems that require industrially complex capabilities to solve. This at a time when the collective West is on a de-industrialization trend.
There is an incompatibility there that cannot be addressed through semantic changes to national policy, or by sprinkling a couple $billion here and there.
Mr. Shaw’s comment of 21 April, 5:22 PM, that “all of French nuclear technology is completely independent,” with “no USA . . . involvement whatsoever,” is stated too categorically. I realize the interest here is primarily naval, but on the civilian side, the first French pressurized water reactor (PWR) was a licence-built version of a Westinghouse design, the licence being granted in February 1959 (https://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/rap-oecst/nucleaire/r1359-05.asp).
Even on the naval side, though, it looks like the French can thank Uncle Sam in the beginning. According to Alain Tournyol du Clos:
In 1959, a French delegation went to the United States in order to negotiate some technology transfer in naval reactors; it was a failure. The United States refused any cooperation with France; however, the US agreed to sell a limited amount of highly enriched uranium (HEU), provided that it should only be used in a land-based installation. Hence, the first naval propulsion reactor, conceived by French scientists, was a land-based prototype (PAT: prototype à terre) set up near Cadarache in the southeast of France. It was designed and built in less than five years. The French Government decided—unlike other countries which started using nuclear submarines—to start with SSBNs. Those submarines were equipped with nuclear plants identical to the PAT. (https://uploads.fas.org/2016/12/Frances-Choice-for-Naval-Nuclear-Propulsion.pdf).
The remainder of Tournyol du Clos’s paper explains why the French abandoned the use of HEU for their naval reactors in favour of low enriched uranium (LEU).
(In fairness to Mr. Shaw, he does allude to American involvement in his comment of 13 April that “in the early years the USA assisted in some design.”)
I should have been a little more clearer in my comments – my apologies there. I am specifically referencing naval reactors today in that thread.
In the very early years the USA did help France with regards to civil reactors and did sell them HEU however, with the agreement between the USA & UK regarding nuclear sharing of military reactors for ships and submarines France hit a wall thus they produced their own designs and technology.
The Westinghouse reactors provided the starting block and since then France has gone about nuclear technology in its own way, developing its own reactors and systems etc and patenting its technology.
Therefore the USA and UK have no involvement with French naval reactors today indeed their reactors are very different from our own, and have very different operating requirements and specifications.
As of right now they are assisting the Brazilian navy in building their own SSN.