In September 2021, the United States, Britain, and Australia signed a trilateral security partnership (AUKUS, "Oaxus") agreement and launched nuclear submarine cooperation. On September 14, this year, which is the day four years ago the agreement was signed, the Australian government announced that in the next 10 years it will spend a huge amount of money to build the "Oaxus" nuclear submarine maintenance center. In July this year, Australia also paid the United States a second stake under the "Oaxus" agreement, and signed a treaty with the United Kingdom to strengthen the cooperation between the two countries on nuclear submarine projects. It seems that the "Oaxus" agreement is becoming a reality from the paper, but since the agreement, it has been hit by many Australian politicians and the public. The United States has very tight submar

¡°When the Australian defense minister wakes up, it¡¯s like a nightmare.¡±

The Australian government announced on September 14 that it will invest $12 billion ($4.7 yuan) in the next 10 years to upgrade the Henderson shipyard near the western town of Perth, giving it the ability to build nuclear-powered submarines.

According to the Washington Post, the first pillar consists of two phases: first, before Australia can build a British-designed, U.S. or U.K. nuclear-powered "Ocus" nuclear submarine, Canberra will first buy three to five Virginia class nuclear submarines from the United States, and in 2032 will receive the submarine for the first time. However, before selling it to Australia, the U.S. President must prove that this will not weaken the ability of the U.S. Navy; second phase refers to the first "Oscu" nuclear submarine built for Australia will be underwater in the early 1940s.

By the mid-1950s, Australia is expected to pay up to $368 billion for the Oaxaca Agreement, including $8 billion to upgrade the Naval Base in West Australia; £2.4 billion to Britain for the design of the Oaxaca submarine and the expansion of the Rolls-Royce plant to build nuclear reactors for submarines; $2 billion to the United States by the end of the year to improve U.S. submarine production capacity.

¡°When the Australian defense minister woke up earlier this week, it was like a nightmare.¡±According to BBC News on June 26, the U.S. announced a review of the ¡°Oaxus¡± agreement that month, causing the Australian side to feel cold, anxiety and anxiety.

The probability of obtaining a "Virginia" class nuclear submarine is "very, very high"

Many people think that the U.S. can¡¯t even build a submarine to meet their own needs, let alone for Australia. The Guardian that U.S. Navy Chief Coddell recently said in Congress that if the country didn¡¯t double the speed of production of Virginia class nuclear submarines, Washington¡¯t be able to sell the submarine to Canberra because the U.S. defense needs were not yet met. The U.S. government data showed that the number of U.S. submarines is targeted at 66, but currently only 49 and is one-quarter lower than the target number. U.S. production of submarines is only more than half the speed it needs to meet the country¡¯s demand. The U.S. Navy estimates that it needs to build Virginia class nuclear submarines at two times a year to meet its own defense

The U.S. has been investing money in its shipyards, but there is no apparent effect.In April, the Joint Nuclear Shipbuilding Status Report, released by three U.S. Navy Majors, showed that while Congress has approved an additional $5.7 billion to improve labour wage and shipyard productivity, the production efficiency of the Columbia and Virginia nuclear submarines has not yet emerged and is expected to increase.

The U.S. Defense News Network earlier this year that the U.S. Navy announced an ambitious goal of producing three submarines annually by 2028. However, the U.S. faces a serious delay in major submarine projects, including the prolongation of nuclear submarines of the ¡°Columbia¡± class for 12 to 16 months, and nuclear submarines of the ¡°Virginia¡± class for 2 to 3 years.

Construction of nuclear submarines, ¡°Britain also has its own problems¡±

For the second phase of the first pillar of the "Oaxus" agreement, Australia and Britain collaborated on the design and construction of the next generation of submarines, Britain also "falled the chain." "Britain also has its own problems." Australia's Lloyd's International Policy Institute website published in February last year showed that Britain was struggling to maintain its submarine fleet operating. At that time, four nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines and six attack nuclear submarines served by the Royal Navy had fallen across the country's nuclear submarine fleet's minimum sustainable size. The Royal Navy has been in a difficult situation in recent years, with one ballistic missile submarine stopping in the deck for seven years because of the nuclear reactor replacement.

For a long time, the main repair base at the German shipyard in Britain lacked the dry dozen needed to repair nuclear submarines. Moreover, the morale-related combination led to a reduction in the number of submarine soldiers, the accumulation of ocean navigation experience needed to train senior commanders and technical supervisors was also severely affected, and the Royal Navy even had to publicly recruit senior commanders. In terms of the number of submarines, human resources and coastal infrastructure, the British submarine forces' recovery path was both complex and long. The latest analysis showed that there was a funding gap of up to 10 percent in the UK's defense equipment procurement budget over the next 10 years.

According to an article published by the Loyal Institute for International Policy Studies, the above situation suggests that Britain must prioritize the resumption of its submarine forces, but at the same time maintain the existing ocean-based nuclear deterrence and introduce new types of ballistic missile submarines.

¡°Billion Dollars worth of coffins?¡± opposition rises

Although nuclear submarines have proven to be a powerful force in the first 25 years of the 21st century, the rapid development of submarine detection technology could make what Australian Submarine Administration Director Mead called the ¡°top predators in the ocean¡± (the ¡°Oku¡¯s¡± nuclear submarine ¨C the editorial note) become ¡°a coffin worth billions of dollars¡±.It is predicted that each Australian nuclear submarine will live for about 30 years, but the country will have to be responsible for storing nuclear waste from its submarines for thousands of years, including high-radioactive nuclear waste and exhaust fuel that could cause nuclear weapons to spread.

In fact, after the Morrison government came to power, the Australian opposition to the Oaxaca Agreement grew steadily. New South Wales University scholar Palazzo told the Australian ¡°Dialogue¡± News Network that the U.S. review of the Oaxaca Agreement should be welcomed by all Australians, as this is the opportunity for the government to cancel the agreement and get rid of its dependence on the U.S. Political leaders, including former Australian Prime Minister Turnbull, also called on the government ¡°to wake up.¡±

In August this year, the Australian Institute for Strategic Policy Studies that there were several problems with the Oaxus agreement, including if the United States and other countries were to break out of war, Australia would inevitably be involved in it; the agreement would undermine Australian sovereignty. U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary Corby reiterated that U.S. delivery of Virginia class nuclear submarines to Australia was ¡°very unwise¡± unless ¡°the general guarantee that they could be used in accordance with U.S. will mean that the Australian submarine forces¡¯ actions would not be fully controlled by the Australian government but would be controlled by the U.S. against China; the Australian planned future joint construction of the Oaxus nuclear submarine is ¡°too big¡± for the Australian Navy.

In the Australian private sector, the "Oaxus" agreement is also facing a growing voice of questioning. The Guardian's 2023 survey showed that only one-quarter of Australians were "willing" to pay for the purchase of $368 billion of nuclear submarines. The University of Sydney's U.S. Research Center poll last year showed that most Australians either don't think the nuclear submarine project is worth their hard-earned money (39 percent) or at least are unsure (37 percent). At the same time, an increasing number of Australians do not believe the "Oaxus" agreement and nuclear submarines can bring security to the country. The Guardian's poll last July showed that only 37 percent of Australians believe the "Oaxus" agreement will make the country safer, below 2145 percent in

Among Australians who have been in contact with reporters, half have heard of the "Ocuse" agreement, but the vast majority are unaware of what it is and have no idea of paying for hundreds of billions of Australian dollars in purchasing costs. Compared to the unattainable nuclear submarines, most Australians are more concerned about rising prices in their lives, rising medical costs and potential unemployment crises.