CDR Salamander - AUKUS Update: Great News

It is far past time to pick up the conversation point we last visited back in September: AUKUS.

Just to refresh everyone on my position that I’ve held since this program was announced a half-decade ago: this is one of the most important military and diplomatic initiatives of this century.

There are a host of reasons we discuss this on a regular basis. They are also why I have been emphatic that it not only must work, but must come online as early as possible.

• Australia is one of our most critical allies.

• She is one of our most reliable allies.

• She occupies one of the most strategic positions in the world.

• Our greatest adversary—and hers—are aggressively attempting to subdue her.

• Her geography demands what nuclear submarines alone can deliver.

As such, this came as great news.

Through discussions today, the Deputy Prime Minister and Secretaries confirmed that AUKUS Pillar I remains on track to support Australia’s acquisition of a conventionally-armed, nuclear-powered submarine capability.

…Just this month, the United States authorized establishment of the U.S. Navy support elements for SRF-West and will begin rotating the first U.S. Navy personnel to HMAS Stirling later this year. Likewise, the United Kingdom reaffirmed its commitment to have a rotational presence as part of SRF-West and noted the successful Submarine Maintenance Period conducted earlier this year by HMS ANSON.

…Australia to acquire three in-service VCS in lieu of a mixture of new and in-service VCS variants.

In summary: we’re setting up shop at the Australian naval base on the western end of the continent within liberty-distance of Perth, and we are ensuring early delivery of capability by slating three already in service Virginia Class SSN from American to Australian service.

This is a variation of exactly what I continue to believe is essential: sooner rather than later this needs to happen to cement alliances, and send messages to our adversaries. If that means a submarine that might have been USS X will instead be HMAS Y, then so be it. Should a Great Pacific War emerge, we should expect that an HMAS SSN will be able to create 87.6% of the effects a U.S. Navy SSN would have in that conflict.

There is no downside. As Tom Shugart pointed out Sunday,

I nodded my head until I read what he was quote tweeting. Shock-not-shocked…but the usual suspects are trying to turn this into a negative for some reason. Well, we know the reason(s). Been seeing them since the Cold War.

Amazing.

Jennifer Parker, Adjunct Professor, Defence and Security Institute, The University of Western Australia; UNSW Sydney did a good job trying to counter emotion with facts over at The Conversation:

A stopgap solution is required. The purchase of three Virginia class submarines in 2032, 2035 and 2038 will provide this, and also give Australia the ability to start operating nuclear-powered submarines.

Think of it as a “crawl, walk, run” approach. The Virginias are the walk phase before we start building our own nuclear-powered submarines.

Acquiring submarines already in service reduces risk and complexity, avoids the challenges of introducing a new submarine, and removes the need for initial certification trials.

Is Australia getting a less capable submarine?

Not in any meaningful sense, though the third Virginia will be an older version than planned, so its sensors will probably be slightly less capable.

Australia will now receive three Block IV Virginia class submarines. These remain among the most capable attack submarines in the world. They carry more than 20 torpedoes and 12 Tomahawk land strike missiles.

Much of the commentary this week has suggested Australia has lost additional missile capacity because the submarines we’re receiving won’t have the “Virginia Payload Module” – a new hull section that allows the submarines to carry more missiles.

But that commentary is incorrect.

The submarine Australia was expected to receive in 2038 was never intended to have that capability.

In conflict, Australia would predominantly use these submarines in an anti-submarine and anti-ship role. Land strike missiles are not used for this and so the extra capacity isn’t essential. It’s also capability the US has said it is not willing to provide.

The main difference is the third submarine will have fewer years of life remaining than a new boat. A Virginia class submarine off the production line would normally have a 33-year life.

At Senate estimates this week, the Australian Submarine Agency said each boat will have more than 20 years of life remaining when we receive them.

Claims these submarines would only have eight years of life do not withstand scrutiny. The kind of submarines Australia will receive only started entering service in 2020.

The Australian Prime Minister is being firm, but it appears some in his party are…well…being Laborites:

Australia needs a backup plan for the Aukus submarine agreement, Labor MP Ed Husic has warned, arguing sluggish US production and the “transactional nature” of the Trump administration have put the multibillion-dollar defence deal at risk.

The defence minister, Richard Marles, this week agreed to US requests for Australia to accept three second-hand Virginia-class nuclear submarines, rather than a combination of new and old vessels.

Husic spoke out during Labor caucus on Tuesday in what former Labor minister Kim Carr described as an “courageous” intervention.

It was the most significant internal criticism of the $368bn deal – agreed by the Morrison government in 2021 and endorsed by the then-Labor opposition – since heated debate at the ALP national conference three years ago. Labor ultimately continued its support of the multi-decade pact.

Husic said production rates of submarines in the US were too low for Australia to realistically expect boats to be handed over in the early 2030s.

The deal requires the sitting US president to agree to release submarines based on the US having an adequate supply for its own navy, even though Australia is paying to boost production.

“We need to be open as a nation that we are not going to get the deal that was promised to us,” Husic said.

You know where this is going…

“Given how transactional the Trump administration is, you can almost imagine them saying ‘we give you these, you will do this with them’, and so there’s an active sovereignty question there.

“It won’t be a renegotiation; it’s a reality about the production rates and whether or not we’ll get them. What’s the contingency? What’s the plan B?”

AUKUS is not a Trump plan, nor an Albanese plan. It is an Australian, American, and British plan that is already bringing on other partners. Making this personal and partisan only demonstrates the immaturity of the people trying.

Of course, the Greens are being defense-clueless, as usual:

Appearing on ABC’s Insiders program on Sunday, the Greens’ defence spokesperson, David Shoebridge, said the focus of Australia’s military assets should be on defending the nation’s borders.

He suggested that could be done with conventional submarines and other weapons, rejecting the need for capabilities designed to operate “thousands of thousands of kilometres from our shore” – such as the nuclear-powered vessels.

Shoebridge said buying the Virginia-class submarines would make Australia an “interoperable” part of the US military, drawing the country into a potential conflict with China.

“Nuclear submarines are pretty much a disaster on every front,” he said.

“Why are we inviting ourselves to a US war with China by buying this weapons platforms and making our defence an interoperable part of the US?”

I’m sure it sounded better in the original Mandarin Chinese.

If you would expect any shade to be thrown, you’d think it would be the French, but even their reporting is fact based.

Sooner is better than later. More is better than less. Money is in short supply.

At the end of the day, you get the world’s most capable submarine. Not bad.

Leave a comment

Share

View the full article