There has recently been speculation that the AUKUS submarine
project may be cancelled. The
speculation is likely fueled by the fact that the current administration is
reviewing the program, as it’s doing with all major defense programs. At the moment, the project is not cancelled
and, I suspect, is unlikely to be though it may well be altered.
Let’s take this opportunity to review and reassess the
program.
To review, the program calls for Australia to receive eight
nuclear powered submarines (SSN).
Construction would be in the UK and Australia although plans have varied
with time so this is probably not locked in yet. The first delivery would not be until at
least 2040. The US has committed to
providing Australia with up to five Virginia class subs as interim replacements.
My take is that the deal makes no strategic or operational
sense, whatsoever. Here are a few
issues:
Strategic Situation
- A few more submarines in Australia won't appreciably change the strategic
situation. The US already has enough
submarines to cover monitoring the E/S China Seas and trail any Chinese subs
that enter the open ocean. Of course,
this assumes that the US can get their subs to sea instead of sitting for years
pierside waiting for maintenance.
The delivery date of 2040 or beyond also renders any
discussion of near to moderate term strategic relevance nearly moot. If Australia could, magically, operate a
fleet of SSNs today, that would potentially benefit the US as we grapple with
our own (long recognized and yet ignored!) submarine shortfall. Of course, that can’t happen and by 2040+,
the US plans (hopes!) to have its submarine numbers on the upswing again which
makes a few more AUKUS subs much less impactful.
Support - I
assume Australia will have a very difficult time maintaining and crewing the
subs given their well documented difficulties with the Collins class submarines.
As of November of last year, only one of
the six Collins class subs was operational.[1] Manning and maintaining nuclear subs will be even more challenging.
Australia will also come to find out that establishing and
maintaining a nuclear industry to support the subs will be costly beyond their
imagining and prove highly unpopular with the citizenry. Establishing a nuclear technology base will
be much harder than simply sending a few officers to a US/UK training
course. Nuclear technology, technicians,
scientists, and support staff are not conjured out of thin air. It would take decades to establish.
As has happened in the US, the Australian government will
likely pass comprehensive and onerous nuclear regulations that will create
significant costs.
 |
| Collins Class Submarine - It will only get harder with SSNs |
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/australia-has-only-1-collins-class-submarine-service-213563
Would a more valuable program then be to create a coordinated effort amount all three countries involved - Australia, the UK and us to build SSK's together? Say starting with a dozen for each country at a more affordable cost, and with the added flexibility where an SSN might not even be the right tool for the problem being solved?
ReplyDelete"a more valuable program then be"
DeleteThat's appealing on paper but both the UK and US lack an existing conventional submarine logistics and support system. That would impose great costs for a marginal, if any, gain in capabilities. For Australia, a new generation of SSKs makes perfect sense and is what they should be doing instead of pursuing SSNs that they can't maintain, man, or support and for which the lack the support infrastructure.