Australia's pending purchase of 3 to 5 Virginias for the 2030s comes with extra obligations and conditions:
- the sale must be approved by the US Congress, noting the US lower house, the House of Representatives, is already Republican dominated. The US Navy, long opposed to the sale, may persuade Congress to block the sale on sensitive technology transfer grounds - as Congress did with the USAF F-22 stealth fighter. "The F-22 cannot be exported under US federal law to protect its stealth technology and classified features."
- Australian must pay the odd A$30 Billion (2030s inflated) total cost of 3 Virginia's
- Australia must pay (say) an additional A$30 Billion required to improve the US submarine industrial base (for the benefit of the US Navy and to employ additional American submarine-building workers).
- the US sees the deal as an additional way of tying Australia to the US commanded alliance.
The points above are backed by the backed up by the following:
On March 14, 2023, US National
Security Advisor Jake Sullivan explained to the US “Press Gaggle”
"...the delivery of three
Virginia-class subs from the United States to Australia over the course of
the 2030s, with the possibility of going up to five if that is needed.
…And
I would reinforce that for that Virginia-class sale to Australia, the
Australians are not only paying for those boats, they are also making a
proportional contribution to the U.S. submarine industrial base — to lift
it so that we can accelerate the production and accelerate the ongoing
maintenance of Virginia-class submarines over the course of the years ahead.
…AUKUS
represents, for Australia, not just a long-term investment in nuclear-powered
submarines, but a long-term investment in its alliance with the United States
of America.
This
is a decades-long — maybe a century-long commitment. And it reinforces the fundamental view, we
believe, in Canberra that the United States and Australia, standing shoulder to
shoulder for the purposes of safeguarding peace and stability — not to provoke,
not to go try to fight wars, but rather to deter conflict and to promote peace
and stability — that Australia is stepping up to make that bet."
7 comments:
Hi Pete,
Overall, the announcement was a surprisingly mature, well thought out one. It addresses the issues that have been discussed ad nauseum in a circular manner for 18 months.
You're right about locking Aust into the US military complex, but heck, we've been locked in for decades. Even when we choose new high end hardware, there's usually a US admiral in the group.
My biggest disappointment is that I won't live to see the fully revamped Aussie navy with 12 Hunter class frigates, 8+ nuclear subs, and all the bigger auxillaries (OPV's, hydrographic, minehunters).
There's no way we can realistically get the full complement, up and running with fully trained people and infrastructure up more quickly. I read that the first Virginia Class sub took 7 years to build, and even the 5th one took nearly 6 years. If the world's premier sub builder needs to so, there's no way we can do it like we build OPV's.
Have a good one,
Andrew
Hi Andrew
Taking your points in turn.
Yes the AUKUS leadership trio leaked all the details (5 days beforehand) well and spoke well yesterday.
Only an Australian nuclear deterrent could free us from dependence on the US (which is the very definition of a lack of Albo's "sovereignty"). Too few Aussies are pro-nuclear weapons!
I'm not disappointed that I won't see all the ships and subs built. Covering this since 2005 is such a glacial, frustrating, Australia make the same mistakes again, business.
Have you noticed that every new Aus PM wants to create a new submarine deal.
Yes crewing all the ships and subs the RAN wants might only be doable in an actual WWIII.
HMS Astute took just over 9 years to build - which might be Osborne's SSN-AUKUS pace.
Cheers Pete
A french perspective
I think this deal is rationnal and make the most sense in the political context
In its first part AUS is buying proven SSN from the US, invest in the US for the increased capacity in the US yard and build a base in S Australia which ensure complete SM control of the Pacific (Bremerton, Guam, San Dieg) with SSN moving strategically at 25+ knots .US crew will orogressiveley train Austalians.
Given the desire to get US complete protection in front of China ( not the same situation as 2014/2016 !)it is the only rational and coherent plan.No other options is really available in the time frame.It meets the political /strategic objective
It is the most expensive by far and assume total US alignement and protection incl N deterrent for the next 30 years at least...This is "THE" big bet (as history is full of eternal friendship..)and to some extent will not ease AUS relation with its neighbourhood
The second part of the deal is collaborating on an hybrid ,novel, sub development with the UK and with US systems and building it in AUS in the late 2030/ 2040. Sounds like a "powerpoint" project with clear internal AUS politics and time will tell. The concern however is that these structures habve been a proven receipe for delays , cost overun, deceiptive performance as we witness in numerous European Projectsw
Pete,
I read a good argument to the claim that Australian needs nuclear weapons.
The map you have posted of the strategic choke pints around China was also posted on twitter and the subsequent discussion convinced me that threatening those choke points around China is a better deterrent than nuclear weapons. China's dependence on imports is its biggest achilles heel and even if China should move beyond the first chain of islands, those choke points will still be there. And its other importation links are just as vulnerable, aren't they? The threat of cutting the crude and refined petroleum China needs should give it pause.
I think that the threat submarines present to those choke points is both a more substantial concern to Chinese leadership and more credible than the threat to possibly use nuclear weapons.
Regards, Greg
If this happened in India, this must be the one of the biggest scandal. We even cry about paying $3 bn for Akulas to Russia, and think it as costly proposition. Paying $11 billion for a single boat, its unthinkable.
And whatever justification pro AUKUS guys give, lifecycle cost, upgrade cost or whatever, its still unbelievable cost.
US is litterally robbing the Aussies.
Hi French Anonymous @Mar 16, 2023, 4:37:00 AM and Arpit Kanodia @Mar 16, 2023, 3:10:00 PM
If the unsubstantiated rumour that Australia will be paying a purchase price + a US industrial base contribution (ie: double paying) for "USED" Virginias then Australia is playing a risky game indeed
and may get screwed by the US for $10s Billions.
Also if anyone in Canberra or Adelaide has bright ideas of upgrading "USED" Virginias to some notion of modernity or de-rusting. Then Australia's peculiar tendency to complicate things will kick in, via special Australia-only specifications.
Then there is ample scope for Australia to mess up this Devoid Of Detail Virginia Purchase all by Australia's self.
This worry is supported by even a brief look at the Task Force website at https://www.defence.gov.au/about/taskforces/aukus
which is long on detail about SSN-AUKUS planning but
very short on detail about the Virginia interim idea.
I'm concerned the Virginias are a last minute political fix between Biden and Albanese, something not yet thought out...
Regards Pete
Hi Greg @Mar 16, 2023, 1:14:00 PM
Yes from 1942 onwards, in the Indo-Pacific, diesel-electric submarines have been of sufficiently small size to sit in and utilise narrows/choke points.
In WW2 this was originally against Japanese tankers, cargo, troopships and naval vessels.
In the Cold War onwards Aus Oberons and Collins were more than able to "choke point" against Russian and Chinese ships and subs.
Basically, you don't need nuclear subs to do choke points.
But now the RAN's Submarine Service (and the US) have all-consuming vision plans for too much of Australia's defence future...
With Aus nuke-subs being excellent support craft for far-off US ventures,
like defending the Taiwan Strait...as the price of the privilege of spending too much on US subs.
With UK designed subs in 20+ years time (maybe).
Cheers Pete
Post a Comment