When Australia signed up to the AUKUS pact, it committed to enormously expensive nuclear-powered submarines. And if rumours of the US taking over their construction are true, there will be little if any benefit to Australian workers, writes Rex Patrick. As for strategic benefits …
In the past 12 months Australia has gone from a $90 billion Attack class submarine project that wasn’t meeting industry involvement expectations, to a $170 billion nuclear sub with limited local content, to a now even more expensive proposition where taxpayers will directly fund US defence industry expansion.
Reports are emerging that Australia will seek to acquire nuclear submarines earlier than would otherwise be possible by taking the first few submarines from a US production line; an expanded US production line funded by Australian taxpayers.
Did we learn nothing from Covid? Did we learn nothing about the importance of having local capability?
A national fiscal disaster that may bankrupt our Navy is pending, a national security disaster is pending, and the death of a sovereign submarine industrial capability is pending. And the average Joe and Jill Australian are the ones paying for it.
We went through a lot of pain to get our Collins Class submarines to their operational state, supported in their full-cycle docking with a local involvement score of 92%. If there are problems with our Collins boats in time of conflict, we have an onshore capability to deal with them.
Since 2009 the Defence Department has spent $4 billion on our future submarine capability … and delivered nothing. They’ve wasted a decade that we didn’t have to waste. Now the same department is advising us to steer into a strategic danger zone.
Nuclear v the new breed
Nuclear submarines are good. I say so from the informed position of having spent time at sea on USS Santa Fe, a Los Angeles Class submarine, in the 1990s.
One of the most impressive capabilities of a nuclear submarine is their ability to submerge down to couple of hundred metres, crank the speed up to about 30 knots, and stay at that speed for as long as required. Nuclear submarines are great for power projection. They also enjoy the ability of carrying a lot of missiles, torpedoes, special forces etc.
But they have some limitations over non-nuclear submarines. The latest Air Independent Submarines (AIP) out of Germany and Sweden can stay underwater for extended periods without having to return to just below the surface to run their diesels. When operating on battery or AIP, they are quieter than nuclear submarines. They can operate in shallow water with advantages over their larger nuclear cousins.
Eight nuclear submarines for Australia have a price tag of $170 billion.
The Senate Economics Committee inquiry into Australia’s sovereign naval shipbuilding capability priced Japanese lithium ion powered submarines at $958 million per boat and a German fuel-cell powered submarine at $807 million per boat.
Twenty AIP submarines, with supporting elements, would have price tag of $30 billion.
The right submarine
If our objective is to be a deputy sheriff to the US, as the 51st state of the Union, then eight nuclear submarines is the answer.
If our objective is ‘‘defence of Australia’’, with the ability to forward deploy boats to operating bases in Singapore, Malaysia, Guam or Japan, in support of our allies and friends, then 20 AIP boats is the answer.
The contrast between a $170 billion nuclear program and a $30 billion AIP program is huge in the context of the huge deficit we have and challenging economic headwinds.
The contrast between a 2040 first nuclear submarine delivery and 2030 first AIP submarine delivery is striking when the geo-strategic circumstances we find ourselves in is factored into decision making.
We should, as other countries in the past have done when offered a US nuclear capability, just say “no thanks, it does not suit our strategic needs”.
The wrong answer
Sadly, we have a Defence Minister, Richard Marles. captured by a Department, a Department that has failed the Australian public with its past advice.
The last thing we need to be doing is exporting $140 billion in expenditure difference to bolster the US defence industrial complex, when we desperately need strong and effective local defence industry capabilities.
One wonders what our Department of Defence leaders will do as our quarries that they sup off are depleted of their resources, or the markets they serve dry up.
Exporting this money at the expense of supporting local industry is an anti-self-reliance move that will tie all future Australian governments hands by institutionalising our dependence on the US for this most important capability. It’s a move that will see us less and less able to exercise our own sovereign decision making as to which conflicts we participate in, and which conflicts we don’t.
We may find we have to participate in the conflicts that are not in our best interests and can’t participate in the conflicts we absolutely must.
A national fiscal disaster that may bankrupt our Navy is pending, a national security disaster is pending, and the death of a sovereign submarine industrial capability is pending. And the average Joe and Jill Australian are the ones paying for it.
Has PM put Australia on the hook to finance struggling UK, US submarine projects?
Rex Patrick is a former Senator for South Australia and earlier a submariner in the armed forces. Best known as an anti-corruption and transparency crusader - www.transparencywarrior.com.au.