Australia's AUKUS nuclear subs. Coming to save or sink?
Opinion
Rick, a subscriber, asked, “…as an Australian, I’m curious as to how relevant our future fleet of very expensive nuclear submarines will be when they finally arrive.”
Good question, Rick. Another subscriber proposed more or less the same question: “What if we get them just as our enemies have invented a means of looking down deep into the water and seeing them?”
Given these and other related questions, I’ve been thinking that perhaps a piece on the AUKUS deal—the technology sharing arrangement between Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States, the main feature of which is Australia's procurement of nuclear submarines (SSNs) — might be worth considering.
…it was the thoroughly despicable meeting in the Oval Office recently, together with the Trump administration’s other obscenity of late — voting with its new bestie Russia, alongside North Korea, Belarus and a rogue’s gallery of others against Ukraine’s interests in the UN General Assembly — that dragged this issue to the top
However, it was the thoroughly despicable meeting in the Oval Office recently, the one where Trump and J.D. Vance did their best to bully Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, together with the Trump administration’s other obscenity of late — voting with its new bestie Russia, alongside North Korea, Belarus and a rogue’s gallery of others against Ukraine’s interests in the UN General Assembly — that dragged this issue to the top of my Substack schedule.
I’ll return to those two vile events in a minute. Firstly, for those of you who don’t know anything about AUKUS, which includes the current US president, apparently, the agreement came into being in 2023 as a response to the increasingly strident security threat posed by the People’s Republic of China (PRC) – specifically, its militarization of the South China Sea (enclosed by the “ten dash line”) and its increasingly bellicose statements and actions focused on its plans for Taiwan.
AUKUS was originally brokered during Biden’s presidency with the former prime ministers of Australia and Britain, Scott Morrison and Boris Johnson
AUKUS was originally brokered during Biden’s presidency with the former prime ministers of Australia and Britain, Scott Morrison and Boris Johnson (Morrison claims to have originated the idea). The deal announcement followed close on the heels of a disastrous and very public trashing of a contract between Australia and France to buy its diesel-powered Attack-class submarines.
As mentioned, the cornerstone of AUKUS is the delivery of nuclear-powered submarines to the Royal Australian Navy. Five of them are to be built jointly by the UK and Australia at the Osborne Submarine Construction Yards, South Australia, and utilize technology from the US. And because those boats won’t come on-line until sometime in the 2040s or even, perhaps, the 2050s, the deal includes the purchase of three second-hand US-made-and-designed Virginia-class nuclear vessels, with the option to purchase an additional two.
The price tag on the subs deal is astronomical, and far and away the most significant defence procurement in Australia’s history by an order of magnitude: up to AUS$368 bn
Leaving aside the nuclear waste question, which is yet to be satisfactorily resolved for the Australian public, the other big issue is cost. The price tag on the subs deal is astronomical, and far and away the most significant defence procurement in Australia’s history by an order of magnitude: up to AUS$368 bn. (But stand by for eye-watering cost blow-outs because when did a big defence contract EVER come in on budget or, for that matter, on time?)
So why are nuclear submarines such a big deal and so incredibly expensive? Simply, with the exception of having a brace of nuclear weapons sitting atop intercontinental ballistic missiles in your back pocket, they are the ultimate deterrent. Why? Because once an SSN leaves port and submerges, this weapons platform is virtually invisible and undetectable until it surfaces up to three months later. And in that time, it can go almost anywhere on the planet provided there’s enough sea depth under its keel.
Think about that for a moment. A Virginia-class submarine (Block 5) is a steel tube longer than a football field (460ft/140 meters) weighing around 10,200 tons (9,253 tonnes) that disappears while it speeds along at over 25 knots (28mph/45kmh). Allow your brain to digest those facts. The technology enabling the disappearing act for something so BIG is phenomenal. It’s also at the top of top-secret. And, of course, this submarine carries up to 40 or more Tomahawk missiles (in the US Navy’s case, armed potentially with thermo-nuclear warheads), each with a range of around 1550+ml (2500km+), plus mines and torpedoes.
Step out of line, and this sub can pop up and park where you least expect it and do an awful lot of damage, and there’s pretty much nothing you can do about it. Like I said, a nuclear-powered sub is half a step below the ultimate deterrent. You don’t want to mess with a country that has a quiver of these babies because, if you do, it’ll end badly for you. Guaranteed.
The United States, seeing its global hegemony slipping away (mostly), agreed that nuclear subs parked Down Under was a good idea
It was in the light of the PRC’s aggressive activities in the South China Sea (and possibly also influenced by China’s coercive trade tactics against Australia, the blatant spying, and the continuous cyber-attacks on its infrastructure), that the Australian government decided it needed something to give the Chinese pause — like the SSN weapons system. The United States, seeing its global hegemony slipping away (mostly) agreed that nuclear subs parked Down Under was a good idea. Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, the “mostly” bit found its way into the deal’s fine print. To whit: the US Congressional Budget Office insisted that the US Navy needs to have two new Virginia Class subs augmenting its fleet every year, a schedule US shipyards are failing to meet. And then there’s the US law that states the US president (whoever it is at the time) can approve the transfer of the vessels only “if it will not degrade the United States undersea capabilities” and only if the US has ensured “sufficient submarine production” at home.
So, there exists in the deal a couple of triggers for the United States to unilaterally put a stop to Australia getting its subs at any time. And, given the cuts to the US defense budget recently undertaken by the Trump administration, achieving that sufficient submarine production seems ever more unlikely, and that’s despite Australia committing to pay USD$3bn to boost that American subs-building capacity, the first instalment of USD$500ml having been paid only recently.
What is increasingly clear from other contract clauses made barely public, together with suspicions about whole sections redacted for “national security reasons,” is that this deal has a political angle
But let’s say the deal sails ahead regardless and Australia gets its SSNs from the US. What is increasingly clear from other contract clauses made barely public, together with suspicions about whole sections redacted for “national security reasons,” is that this deal has a political angle, progressing on the sole proviso that Australia’s boats are to be be considered part of any American naval response to events that threaten its national interests.
So, the essence of this “enhanced trilateral security partnership” is that Australia’s foreign policy, its sovereignty, is secondary to the terms of the agreement. In short, Australia and its SSNs are there to follow, come what may. Or, if you prefer, even though we’ll pay for them,
they won’t be Australia’s boats, they’ll be Uncle Sam’s.
Perhaps Australia could live with this in a more stable political climate. But what icebergs conceivably lie ahead with Donald Trump at the helm in the Oval Office?
Perhaps Australia could live with this in a more stable political climate. But what icebergs conceivably lie ahead with Donald Trump at the helm in the Oval Office? Recent Trumpian demonstrations reveal that anything is reliably possible. Already, in barely more than a month, he has undone 80 years of stable world order, ceding to Putin even before official negotiations begin, everything the dictator has wanted in the war with Ukraine. In fact, it does seem at the moment that the Soviet Union 2.0 in the guise of Putin’s Russian Federation has finally managed to turn the tables on the free world, all thanks to Donald. The US and Russia are now clearly in lockstep.
And so, back to that performance in the Oval Office with J.D. Vance and Zelensky. The Russian news agency TASS, not officially a member of the White House press pool, “just happened” to be on hand for the meeting and live streamed it for the folks back home in Moscow. Now, call me a howler monkey, but there’s no way TASS’s presence was a fortuitous accident. That “great television,” as Trump put it, was clearly all for Putin’s benefit.
Indeed, there’s a theory doing the rounds that Trump was recruited as a Russian asset in the late 1980s. Believable? Well, if it walks like a duck…
Given Trump’s predilection for licking Putin’s boots, the AUKUS terms could theoretically force Australia, kicking and screaming, into some unforeseen catastrophe with MAGA America
Given Trump’s predilection for licking Putin’s boots, the AUKUS terms could theoretically force Australia, kicking and screaming, into some unforeseen catastrophe with MAGA America, the orange monstrosity’s arm comfortably around Putin’s narrow sloping shoulders?
The research undertaken for this piece really was causing me to break a sweat.
But then, as I continued my deep dive into the material for this opinion piece, I came across the following: the AUKUS agreement is specifically “contingent on the UK and the US staying in NATO.” As they say, BOOM! Trump, as we know, all but despises NATO every bit as much as Putin does, and I’m not the only person who believes putting the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to the sword, and laying the achievement at Putin’s feet, is supplicant Trump’s near-term ambition. That’s deeply troubling for the world peace. But it’s also a comfort if only because the US waving goodbye to NATO would provide Australia with its trigger to leave AUKUS in its wake. And if this should come to pass, my advice to Australia would be — RUN! And perhaps run all the way back to Paris, because those French Attack subs are actually pretty good.
PS: In specific regard to the question, “What if we get them (those SSNs) just as our enemies have invented a means of looking down deep into the water and seeing them?” Well, if such a thing were to happen, it would be a case of tough titty, because submarines would likely and quickly go the way of the battleship — to the boneyard.
The fine print in the Aukus deal is truly scary. As you suggest though, if the US leaves NATO, there’ll be an out for Australia which, hopefully, we’ll take.