Much of the reaction to this week’s AUKUS announcement(Opens in new window) that Australia will acquire three in-service Virginia-class submarines and forgo buying a new US-built boat has missed the point. While some have portrayed the decision(Opens in new window) as a fundamental change to the deal, in reality, it is a relatively minor adjustment to a program that will run for more than 30 years and one that actually reduces risk for Australia. (From: The Interpreter. The Lowy Institute.)
The practical effect is that all three Virginia-class submarines Australia acquires in the 2030s will be of the same configuration. That matters. Commonality is a core principle in capability acquisition. Operating three of the same submarines simplifies workforce, training, maintenance and sustainment requirements.
The downside is that an in-service submarine has less life remaining than a newly built boat. But that was already true of the first two submarines Australia was due to receive.
The operational benefits are real. The boats will have common systems, support requirements and training pipelines. It also reduces pressure on the United States industrial base by removing the need to build a separate submarine for Australia.
But it does not change the purpose of AUKUS.
The objective of AUKUS has never been to acquire three Virginia-class submarines. The objective has always been to establish an Australian nuclear-powered submarine capability and industrial base. That was the goal when AUKUS was announced in 2021 and it remains the goal today.
The Virginia-class submarines were always intended as a bridging capability, ensuring Australia built a submarine force while developing the workforce, infrastructure and industrial capacity needed for its own nuclear-powered submarines. The Virginia-class subs also provide a pathway to develop the skills and experience required before the arrival of the first Australian-built boat.
This week’s announcement does not change that trajectory. If anything, it reduces some of the risk along the way.
Debating whether the third submarine is new or already in service misses the more important question. Is Australia progressing towards building a local nuclear-powered submarine capability? The answer is yes(Opens in new window).
For an island nation with one of the world’s largest maritime domains and an economy dependent on maritime trade, submarines are essential to maintaining the capability to protect its interests.
There will always be arguments for and against nuclear-powered submarines. Just as there are arguments about tanks, frigates, fighter aircraft or the structure of Defence itself. Debate is healthy. An informed public debate is essential to the country.
For all the claims of crisis – including in launching a self-appointed inquiry(Opens in new window) into Australia’s submarine capability – the program has survived political change in all three countries and reviews in both the United States(Opens in new window) and United Kingdom(Opens in new window). The plan for the three-phase(Opens in new window) pathway was agreed by all three countries within 18 months of the announcement.
Australia has embedded hundreds of personnel in US and UK submarine programs, begun maintenance on allied nuclear-powered submarines and is preparing(Opens in new window) HMAS Stirling to support Submarine Rotational Force-West next year. Discussions with the International Atomic Energy Agency(Opens in new window) are progressing and the design for the shipyard that will build the submarines in South Australia is in progress.(Opens in new window)
In truth, much has been achieved in the nearly five years since AUKUS was announced. Risks remain. No major defence project is risk free, and AUKUS is the most complex capability program in recent Australian defence history.
But these risks should be considered in context and grounded in fact. Challenges in the US and UK submarine industrial bases, workforce generation, infrastructure and funding are real, but they are known and being actively managed. These risks require management, not abandonment.
If Australia were to abandon a submarine program that remains on track, it would almost certainly forgo a credible submarine capability for a decade or more, at a critical time for the nation’s security.
Walking away from a second submarine program in little more than a decade, this time involving the country’s closest ally, would also further damage Australia’s reputation as a defence partner. After abandoning the French Attack-class(Opens in new window) program and significantly reducing the planned production runs of the Hunter-class frigates(Opens in new window) and Arafura-class(Opens in new window) offshore patrol vessels, there would be limited confidence among major submarine builders that Australia could be relied upon to see such projects through. Australia should continue to scrutinise AUKUS, challenge assumptions and test alternatives against the facts. But the reality is that AUKUS remains on track.
*Jennifer Parker is the principal and founder of Barrier Strategic Advisory.
