Login
iscover
Opinion: The AUKUS announcement early Tuesday, 14th March, by the three heads of state from the spectacular setting in the US Navy Submarine Base, San Diego, California, with the backdrop of a flag-bedecked Virginia Class submarine, echoed worldwide to a range of reactions. So, what’s next? Writes former naval officer and defence industry analyst Christopher Skinner.
To continue reading the rest of this article, please log in.
Create free account to get unlimited news articles and more!
From China predicting an arms race to members of the US Congress extolling the virtues of like-minded partners committed to uphold regional peace, freedom, and sovereignty against coercion, intimidation, and aggression.
As usual in Australian major investment programs, the media and their general audiences seized on the all-up projected costs without much consideration of the epoch over which the investment would be made. The more thoughtful commentators noted the projected investment equated to an average 0.15 per cent of GDP with occasional peaks.
The whole AUKUS nuclear-powered submarine process has confronted the Australian community with the concurrent focus on multiple sequential generations, and we are quite unfamiliar with such a challenge. Even the timeline facing the achievement of zero emissions in response to climate change is less difficult to comprehend.
The telescopic timeline ends when the nuclear submarines that Australia plans to acquire reach their end of life, are defuelled, decontaminated, and disposed into a prepared site for radioactive waste. We are already in a state versus state debate on where that should be even though it will not occur until two or more generations, hence based on building submarines with a service life of 25 years from their first commissioning in say, 2043, plus 25 years then another 10 years for the spent fuel to cool sufficiently, so around 2078. That’s at least two generations, surely?
Then there is the production process for those Australian-built SSNs — 2043 for the first of them, then say three-year intervals for a further seven, making 2064 for the last of them.
Closer to today will be the delivery of three, or possibly five, Virginia Class SSNs from US production lines or maybe reconditioned boats from US Navy service. They are reported to arrive starting in 2033 at three-year intervals, so maybe until 2045.
Collins Class after their 10-year service life extension will all be gone by 2043, so the overlap with the US SSNs is sensible.
Then there is the preparation of the SSN building complex in Osborne, South Australia, a major undertaking that will require a decade at least and major investment. If the construction of each Australian-built SSNs takes 10 years then construction of the first must start in 2033, making that the deadline for the building works.
Meanwhile, Australia will have been investing in US submarine production infrastructure to expand it sufficiently to produce the extra boats for Australia without detriment to the already flat out production for the US Navy.
Then there will be USN and UK Royal Navy SSNs based in Australia’s Fleet Base West at HMAS Stirling on Garden Island, Western Australia. A number of safety, security, and productivity investments will be necessary before the USN will move four of its SSNs to be based there.
And all of this will be achievable within an increase on 0.15 per cent of GDP, a figure that sounds a lot more affordable than the gross $368 billion total being bandied around.
So why has this attracted so much controversy? It is the sheer magnitude of the sum that gets the attention of most people. Then the more thoughtful commentators ask what is the benefit of that sum, even if it is affordable. Third, the question is posed on what risks are incurred, including the possibility of starting an arms race in the region; or that it commits Australia to an uncomfortably close alignment with the USA in its competitive relationship with China. Finally, there is the opportunity cost of that very large investment denied for other purposes.
In summary then, the whole AUKUS topic has raised a number of large issues for debate all at the same time, when the issues themselves will unfold over many decades in a world where there is already the prospect of massive dislocation from climate change and the real possibility of international disruptions and conflict. So with these uncertainties, it is somewhat pointless to debate the merits of the further parts of the timescale in the same way as the very first steps.
A journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step. As long as that step is in the right direction, progress will follow. So be it with AUKUS.
