Once the Biden-Harris Administration
(wedded to AUKUS) lost the November 5, 2024 Election US Admirals became increasingly
frank in their assessments that US industry couldn’t build Virginia SSNs quickly
enough to meet USN, let alone AUKUS-Australian, needs.
Karen Middleton, Political Editor of
Guardian Australia, has written an excellent article, Top admiral warns US
far behind on building submarines needed to meet Aukus target, dated
November 19, 2024 (ie. over a week after Trump won the
2024 Election).
Middleton describes the outlook of
the USN officer Rear
Admiral Jon Rucker, program executive officer for Attack Submarines
(PEO SSN), who is most in the know about Virginia class production
limitations.
[Pete Comment] Admiral Rucker's main job is to know more about Virginia SSN shipyard labor shortages and delayed supply chain
realities than politicians. In the article Rucker:
[on November 13, 2024] “confirmed construction is behind schedule and nowhere near the rate required to supply Australia’s Aukus nuclear submarines on schedule… the US had “an exceptionally fragile” military shipbuilding base and could not meet construction rates for its own vessels this year… a materials [read supply chain] shortage had affected the sequencing order of manufacturing and slowed down the production rate."
Backing up Rusker’s warning the USN’s director of
Navy reactors, Admiral
Bill Houston, said:
the
nature of global threats meant “there may be a need for more [high priority] Columbias
[SSBNs also sharing Virginia SSN shipyards]” – appearing to signal the
production pressures may only increase.
“We
are not in low-rate production,” Houston was reported as saying. “We are in the
highest rate of production we’ve been in as a nation [but] with an industrial base
that’s less than half the size [than in the cold war]. It’s an exceptionally
fragile industrial base. It’s with an industrial base that is very, very
challenged.”
In the article see the declining political claims of outgoing US Defense Secretary Austin (loyal to Biden’s AUKUS
Virginia offer to the end). Austin said:
he was “confident” the submarines would be provided.
“Now, we recognise that there are challenges in the
industrial base and we’re doing things to address those challenges,” he said.
Austin
said he had met the leaders of the companies involved [mainly GDEB
and HII
(also see APDR)
who have publicized severe labor shortages and supply chain delays] and
was encouraged by “their focus to get this done, and they will get it done”.
Australia’s part-time Defence Minister Richard
Marles claimed:
“the incoming Trump administration would honour
the Aukus submarine deal, pointing to its bipartisan support in the US
Congress.”
“The Greens’ defence spokesperson – and Aukus
critic – Senator David Shoebridge, said Rucker’s comments proved the deal was
“a mess”.”
See Karen Middleton’s whole excellent article at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/nov/19/aukus-submarine-deal-richard-marles-on-track
Admiral Rucker conveyed the warnings at the US Naval Submarine League’s Annual Symposium and Industry Update, in Arlington, Virginia on November 13, 2024. See the US National Defense website.
Pete Comment
The US Admirals are taking a risk telling the
truth. They probably aim to cover themselves because they might be compelled to
share blame for low Virginia SSN production output.
However the incoming Trump Administration might listen to their advice more closely than the outgoing Biden Administration. Biden, unlike Trump, is/was politically wedded to the success of AUKUS Pillar 1.
But it will be a future President, likely in 2031, who will finally decide if any Virginias can be spared for Australia. That future President will be guided by US naval advice. The USN has advised (privately for years and now publicly) that the low Virginia production rate is a long term problem and it competes with higher priority Columbia production. Columbia production hasn't been meeting major deadlines due to the same supply chain delays experienced with Virginias.
I’m also more persuaded by the warnings of US Admirals than politicians’ references to “honour”.
And to think Australia is giving, or gave, GDEB and HII A$5 Billion total, no strings attached bribe, to deliver a clapped out Virginia in 10 years or never.
ReplyDeleteAUKUS is starting to look a pretty poor bet by Australia. It takes 6 to 8 years to build a Virginia. IF USA has not started building enough SSNs by 2026, it will not be possible for there to be any spare for the RAN in time to transfer one in 2032. We are soon reaching the point where it will be physically impossible to deliver AUKUS in time. We should be developing Plan B now, not in 2032.
ReplyDeleteHi Anonymous at 1/17/2025 1:28 PM
ReplyDeleteYour pessimism seems well justified.
Also the US government has been saying the US submarine building sector needs vastly more bailout money (US$10-20 Billion in the short term?) than Australia's US$3 Billion (A$5 Billion) "tribute".
So I think Australia A$5 billion to our protector, the US, could be seen as neo-feudal Tribute. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribute :
"A tribute is wealth, often in kind, that a party gives to another as a sign of submission, allegiance or respect."
Hi Anonymous at 1/18/2025 11:24 PM
ReplyDeleteSadly Australia, post UK Oberons, has traditionally made poor bets with foreign designed and/or built submarines:
- 2013-14 we were talking modified Japanese Soryus. A good idea with prospects of rather rapid, cost effective, delivery.
2016 we chose the French designed Attack class diesel-electric
2021 we had Biden's and the UK's word that they could deliver SSNs under AUKUS in a reasonable time...
So we might not have new submarines if Virginias under AUKUS fail to happen. With our next hope mainly UK designed SSN-AUKUS some time in the 2040s once the UK's Astutes go out of service.
Your approach using US SSN construction lead times is very valuable. Hence:
"It takes 6 to 8 years to build a Virginia. IF USA has not started building enough SSNs by 2026 [no chance 2.33 Virginias Launched per year by 2026 can happen], it will not be possible for there to be any spare for the RAN in time to transfer one in 2032. We are soon reaching the point where it will be physically impossible to deliver AUKUS in time. [Correct 2.33 Launched per year is physically impossible while higher priority Columbias remain a priority AND are behind schedule] We should be developing Plan B now, not in 2032."
On other SSN Plan B's. Unfortunately France has not ever offered to build or sell Nuclear-Powered Barracudas for Australia. France around 2016 offered to Help Australia (like the France-Brazil deal) to Develop an SSN. But, as with the France-Brazil SN-BR deal, with no reactor. Under SN-BR France's DCNS (now Naval Group) said Brazil would have to design, build and integrate a reactor in a French designed hull. Brazil was/is believed to be well advanced in reactor development after decades. Australia has no reactor development experience. See https://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2015/03/brazil-new-submarine-prosub-program.html
With the Japanese government working hand in hand to push Improved Mogami Class as a good FFG for Australia maybe they can do some updates to the Taigei's design and sell it as a quicker stop gap solution.
ReplyDeleteHi Abao at 1/24/2025 1:49 AM
ReplyDeleteIf future modified Taigeis (for Australia's range/speed requirements) were made in Japan they might get to the RAN in (say) 7 years. They also couldn't cross the South China Sea if China detected their diesels running.
We can also expect "submarines must be built in Australia" Osborne curse. Much more politicking, more contractual hurdles, and basically a new shipyard at Osborne all meaning 15 years from now until the RAN gets them.
Pete