Australia’s Submarine Plans Could Be Dead in the Water
More AUKUS Woes
21WIRE
Corrosion-plagued subs, a collapse of the AUKUS debacle, have forced Australia to consider some radical solutions, or completely rethink its role in NATO’s problematic ‘defensive’ alliance.
The fact of the matter is that the business war is getting even more expensive. A recent report by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) cast serious doubt on cost-benefit analysis of NATO’s wildly ambitious AUKUS submarine project proudly announced by Australia, US and UK back in 2021. The CRS has published an updated version of its previous report auditing the US-led effort to sell Australia at least three Virginia class submarines starting in 2030, well ahead of planned Australian-built nuclear-powered submarines meant to enter service sometime in the 2040s.
Even worse: Australia will be forced to “foot the bill for any loss or injury caused by sensitive technology and radioactive materials transferred by the United States and United Kingdom for nuclear submarines, under a revamped version of the AUKUS agreement.”
All of this has lead military brass down under to rethink where they are heading in the early 21st century, once again, as a vassal state of America…
Gabriel Honrada writes for Asia Times…
Australia’s submarine plans are slipping due to aging Collins-class vessels and AUKUS uncertainties, forcing tough decisions on its future underwater warfare capabilities.
This month, Naval News reported that the Australian government has designated the Collins class conventional submarine sustainment program as a “product of concern,” following a Defense Australia recommendation to enhance ministerial oversight of this critical capability.
Naval News says this announcement underscores the challenges faced in extending the operational life of these submarines beyond their original design. It mentions that the Albanese Government is committed to investing AUD 4 to 5 billion (US$2.56-3.2 billion) over the next decade to ensure the Collins class remains effective until its planned withdrawal in the 2030s.
The report notes that this effort includes a new AUD 2.2 billion sustainment contract with the Australian Shipbuilding Company, signed in June 2024. This contract replaces the previous one, which included an AUD 120 million efficiency dividend under the former coalition government.
Naval News mentions that the Collins class has experienced significant issues, including unprecedented levels of corrosion, necessitating comprehensive remediation measures. It says the product of concern designation aims to address these challenges through enhanced oversight and a planned summit in early 2025.
The report says this initiative is part of a broader effort to maintain Australia’s maritime security and ensure no capability gap until the transition to conventionally armed, nuclear-powered submarines is complete.
Underscoring the gravity of the problem, Australian Broadcasting Corporation News reported in November 2024 that the Royal Australian Navy is grappling with a significant operational challenge. The report says the navy currently has only one fully operational submarine from its fleet of six Collins-class vessels.
According to ABC News, this situation arises due to urgent repairs and scheduled upgrades required for the aging fleet, which has been plagued by unprecedented hull corrosion. The report says two submarines are stationed at Adelaide’s Osborne shipyard, where worker strikes are causing delays in their extensive maintenance, known as full-cycle docking.
Further, the report mentions three submarines are at Western Australia’s Garden Island naval base, with at least one awaiting certification to return to service.
Despite these challenges, ABC News maintains that Defense Australia can meet government-directed operational availability levels, although specific submarines’ precise locations and availabilities remain undisclosed for security reasons.
While Australia may hope to acquire nuclear attack submarines (SSNs) under the AUKUS framework to restore its underwater warfare capabilities, that prospect faces an uncertain future.
Asia Times mentioned this month that Australia’s nuclear submarine ambitions under the AUKUS security pact face significant challenges due to a weak US production base, uncertainties from a second Trump administration and reluctance to share nuclear technology.
A recent US Congressional Research Service (CRS) report suggests that US SSNs could perform Australian and US missions in the region in lieu of Canberra’s acquiring nuclear attack submarines (SSNs) under AUKUS. This arrangement would be similar to existing ones between the US and its NATO allies. The report outlines alternative plans, including forward rotations of US and UK SSNs to Australia and reinvesting funds intended for SSNs into other military assets. The report warns that if Australia’s SSN plans reach a cost-accounting death spiral, it could reduce funding for other military capabilities, impacting deterrence against China.
Critics argue that the AUKUS SSN project lacks a clear strategic rationale and that Australia should leverage its distance from China instead of projecting military power into China’s near seas.
US President-elect Donald Trump’s return to the White House raises concerns about the future of AUKUS, with potential demands for increased Australian contributions. Further, Australia’s reluctance to cooperate on nuclear power complicates its SSN ambitions.
Given Australia’s looming underwater warfare capability gap and the unclear future of AUKUS, Australia may have to reconsider acquiring SSNs from an alternative source.
In an article for the Strategist this month, Peter Briggs argues that Australia should prepare to acquire at least 12 French Suffren-class SSNs, as the current AUKUS plan for eight SSNs faces increasing risks.
Briggs points out that the AUKUS plan, which includes three US-built and five British-built SSNs, is unlikely to meet deadlines due to production delays and design challenges. He says that the Australian Government, elected next year, should decide by 2026 whether to switch to the French design to ensure deliveries by 2038.
He mentions that the Suffren class, already in service with the French Navy, offers a more feasible solution with its 5,300-ton displacement, 70-day endurance, and 60-person crew. According to him, this design is optimized for anti-submarine warfare and the vessel can carry missiles and special forces.
Briggs says the AUKUS SSN plan’s mixed designs and oversized UK submarines, driven by reactor dimensions, are unsuitable for Australia’s needs and pose significant crew and cost challenges. He adds that US and UK submarine production issues further complicate the AUKUS plan, making the French Suffren class a more practical and affordable alternative.
__________
(TLB) PUBLISHED THIS ARTICLE FROM 21WIRE
READ MORE NATO NEWS AT: 21st CENTURY WIRE NATO FILES
ALSO JOIN OUR TELEGRAM CHANNEL
SUPPORT OUR INDEPENDENT MEDIA PLATFORM – BECOME A MEMBER @21WIRE.TV
Header featured image (edited) credit: Org. post content. Emmphasis added by (TLB)
••••
••••
Stay tuned tuned…
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
