..."Former [long term] foreign minister Alexander Downer believes that building AUKUS-class submarines in Adelaide is a “huge waste” of Australia’s defence budget.“In time the AUKUS-class submarine…will be built, we may as well just buy them off the shelf from the UK where they already have the capacity to build nuclear submarines rather than spending a 30 per cent or 40 per cent premium building them in Adelaide,” Mr Downer told News24 host Chris Kenny.
[Downer added] “Give South Australia some
compensatory money, but honestly, it’s just a huge waste of the defence budget
to be building the submarines here in Australia. “We don’t build F-35s in
Australia for good reason. “When it comes to defence, focus on defence, don’t
focus on votes in Adelaide suburbs.”
5 comments:
Has Downer been offered a post politics job in UK? Seriously, I can't think of a less reliable supplier than BAE at the moment. If Australia was free of a constraint on building its subs here, I'd be talking to Mitsubishi or Hanwha to get modern, reliable, affordably built subs in half the time.
Hi Anonymous at 9/06/2026 10:09 AM
The AUKUS SSN lobby would say SK or Japanese conventional subs lack the speed/range to get involved in far off missions.
But avoiding being a US ally in Northeast Asia and the Mideast would be a good thing.
Pete
Economically it could make sense building them locally. Since the local spending generates gdp that the government then benefits from through taxes and less welfare spending. Of course a significant part of the cost would be technology imports from overseas, but on the other hand the australian costs would feed upstream industries and general spending that'll multiply the spending (maybe ~x2 for aus manufacturing).
However (also economically) it makes sense to do trade with nations that have a comparable advantage. In this case the UK already has the infrastructure and skills to produce nuclear submarines. Buying UK make aukus-ssns in exchange for the UK buying billions in australian exports that we have a comparable advantage in would probably be the best way to maximise gdp in both countries. What's economical for australia to produce AND transport to the otherside of the world would be a question worth 10s of billions of dollars.
Of course there are other reasons for building the subs in australia (industrial development, increased sovereignty, continuous ship building capability) other than just economic.
On the cost issue though i'm more worried about the (now) 11 billion aud budget for the collins class LOTE. I can't find out how much of the cost is on operating the collins rather than the 'upgrades' (actually now replacing/repairing parts).
Buying the korean Jang Yeongsil-class or the japanese Taigei-class submarines might be a better use of money. The Jang Yeongsil-class will cost the South Korean government the equivalent to 1.4 billion AUD each, while the Taigeis 630 million AUD (although eyeballing the 10yr exchange rate average, 840 million seems more reasonable). I don't know if its just the sub or if other things are accounted for though. The Yeongsil is estimated to have a similar range to the collins and includes 10 K-VLS cells. The taigei's are estimated to have HALF THE RANGE and no vls.
Personally I would prefer the Japanese class for a number of reasons, although having half the range of the collins might automatically disqualify it for RAN requirements.
- Korea declined to supply their domestic SAMS to Ukraine citing that they don't get involved in foreign conflicts (probably didn't want to piss off Russia).
- Japan is said to be the nation with the closet strategic overlap with Australia. It feels like our relationship with Korea is more transactional compared to Japan on a transactional-values based (good faith) scale.
- Australia is already procuring the new-FFM (evolved mogami) class system with no changes to the combat management system apart from english translation. If we're already commited to running a JSDF combat system and ordering from a Japanese supply chain, then the Taigei's would be easier to support without incorperating a korean system to our planned US, AUS, JP and UK supply chain (+ spain because of the hobart-class?) for the RAN. What differences the new-FFM has to the taigei's and allied operability is unknown. The Taigei's also don't currently support the mk-41 and nsm weapons AUS would use (though the new-FFMs are working on supporting them).
- Japan's Taigei class production line seems to be winding up. While New Taigei's might be too slow for AUS, Japan might give us some of their slots like they've done with the Mogami(es).
- Japan also spending R&D money on a Taigei successor. Australia buying Taigei's could give them more time to develop their successor, though they've been highly successful in introducing new classes on time through iterative development. Australia could buy the successor instead just like we've done with the new-FFM although my guess is it might be too late to replace the collins. The successor could have a more of focus towards VLS cells and UUVs since that seems to be the industry trend.
- With minimal changes and a close relationship, AUS might be able to sell back the submarines at a discount to Japan. For AUS this allows them to dispose of the conventional platform when we've adopted SSNs, and recoup some money. For Japan they'll get to replace their oldest submarines with newer (although 10+ yrs old) Taigeis or expand their fleet at a discount.
There are risks with a Japanese stop gap. Uncertified for the mk-41 and nsm weapons, half the range and what the acquistion, operating and supporting infrastructure would cost compared to collins. The federal government hasn't explained how much of that 11 billion AUD collins lote is operating vs 'upgrade' costs or why the Taigei or Jang Yeongsil are unsuitable as a collins replacement.
Hi Kev
1. A Bipartisan POLITICAL REALITY (for votes) for any new Australian submarines is that they be built at Osborne/Adelaide NOT overseas (except for a prototype or 2).
2. And the whole Australian ECONOMIC lobby (Fed Gov, SA Gov, SA economy, Employers, Unions, sub-contractors, consultants, nuclear lobby, Adelaide public ) agrees.
3. Because of the China threat, and Chinese skill at saturating the seas around Australia and to the north of Australia with mobile and fixed ASW sensors new Australian subs that have their very noisy diesels are out. Subs only relying on AIP and/or Lithium-ion batteries lack speed/range.
4. The 2 or more classes of large Australian UUVs being developed can perform all of the peacetime SECRET missions the Collins are currently performing. Also Australian AUVs, manned aircraft and satellites do reconnaissance and sigint. All of the above and secret fixed Australian sensors dotted all over the place can do ASW and anti-surface warfare work.
5. Long range anti-shipping strike traditionally allotted to Collins is increasingly performed by aircraft, current long range missiles and in future Gilmour ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DF-26 like) anti-ship and land attack missiles.
6. If Australia just considers the AUKUS Pillar 1 $Billions paid to the US and UK to be sunk money Insurance Premiums on the US nuclear and conventional deterrence policy Australia will not need to pay the Trillion Dollar balance owing on Australia acquiring 8 SSNs.
Cheers Pete
Post a Comment