I think the political view in Australia has changed from "we don't have nuclear infrastructure" to "we can build up nuclear infrastructure while the US builds the subs"? This is just my assumption.
If I'm wrong on any of this please correct me.
I think the political view in Australia has changed from "we don't have nuclear infrastructure" to "we can build up nuclear infrastructure while the US builds the subs"? This is just my assumption.
If I'm wrong on any of this please correct me.
I suspect the core of the issue is some kind of aux deal that comes with US-UK supplied nukes, possibly leading down the line to Australia handling nuclear weapons for one of those, or equivalent. E.g. maybe the nuclear bases will be made "compatible" with US or UK nuclear subs, which will then be stationed there, blah blah blah.
Otherwise I don't understand the haste in ditching the French, and in bad style, since France definitely produces nuclear subs - surely no worse than their already-accepted diesels.
That, plus the French nuclear subs need to be refuelled, and it’s a big ask for Australia to build the infrastructure to do that. The US/UK subs never need refuelled in their service life.