Australia’s nuclear submarine ambitions under the AUKUS security pact are sinking to a weak US production base, uncertainties from a second Trump administration and a reluctance to share nuclear tech.
This October, the US Congressional Research Service (CRS) released a report stating that instead of Australia acquiring nuclear attack submarines (SSNs) under the AUKUS Pillar 1 framework, US SSNs could perform Australian and US SSN missions in the region.
Such an arrangement would be similar to existing ones between the US and some of its NATO and other allies on significant naval assets such as aircraft carriers, large surface combatants, SSNs, amphibious warfare ships and non-naval capabilities such as nuclear weapons, space-based capabilities and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR).
The CRS report discusses several alternative arrangements for planned SSNs for Australia. These include forward rotations of US and UK SSNs to Australia, operating three to five US SSNs out of Australia, or Australia reinvesting funds initially intended for SSNs to other assets such as B-21 bombers and other long-range strike aircraft.
The report discusses other variations of such alternatives, namely that Australian investment in indigenous and US submarine construction capacity would continue while US SSNs perform Australian SSN missions until Australia builds its SSNs.
Another variation the report mentions is that US SSNs would perform Australian SSN missions indefinitely while Australia could continue investing in other military capabilities supporting a US-Australia division of labor.
The CRS report warns that should Australia’s SSN plans under AUKUS reach a cost-death spiral, it could reduce Australia’s funding for other military capabilities, negatively impacting Australia’s deterrent capabilities versus China.
The CRS report may represent a significant change of heart for AUKUS regarding SSNs for Australia, contrasting with the project’s earlier fanfare hype.
One of these reasons may be a weak US submarine construction base. A 2023 US Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report mentions that the US faces significant challenges in its submarine production base, directly impacting the AUKUS’s submarine-sharing goals.
The CBO report mentions that US submarine production struggles with cost overruns, construction delays and missed deadlines. It notes that this is compounded by a 50% projected increase in submarine construction workload over the next decade, as the US Navy aims to produce five types of submarines simultaneously, including Virginia-class, SSN(X) and Columbia-class nuclear ballistic missile submarines (SSBN).
The report says the high cost of implementing the US Navy’s 2024 shipbuilding plan, driven by surging submarine expenses, exacerbates these issues. It projects submarine construction will outpace historical funding levels, requiring systemic industrial reforms and jeopardizing the AUKUS timeline for Australia to have SSNs by the 2030s.
Uncertainty over a second US Trump administration’s stance on AUKUS has compounded doubts about Australia’s SSN acquisition ambition.
In a November 2024 article for The Conversation, David Andrews mentions that Donald Trump’s return to the White House has raised significant concerns about the future of the AUKUS agreement. Andrews notes that the Australian government has expressed apprehension that Trump may seek to renegotiate or terminate the agreement.
He mentions that this concern stems from Trump’s history of demanding greater financial contributions from allies, as seen in South Korea, Japan, and NATO, with AUKUS possibly being subjected to similar demands. Andrews says the AUKUS agreement allows any party to withdraw with 12 months’ notice, making its longevity dependent on political will.
In line with that, Australian Greens spokesperson for defense David Shoebridge pointed out in August 2024 that AUKUS places the US and UK above accountability. Shoebridge says the agreement has multiple exit clauses that allow the US and UK to back out without compensation to Australia and place responsibility on Australia should anything go wrong with the formers’ SSN technology.
ABC News reported in July 2024 that the head of the AUKUS submarine program, Vice Admiral Jonathan Mead, has refused to confirm whether Australia will receive a refund if the US fails to deliver nuclear-powered submarines as part of the AUKUS agreement.
During an Australian Senate estimates hearing, ABC News says that Senator Shoebridge questioned the A$4.7 billion (US$3 billion) payment to the US, seeking clarity on whether a refund clause exists. According to the report, Mead reiterated the US commitment to providing two Virginia-class submarines in the early 2030s but avoided addressing the hypothetical scenario of non-delivery.
While Andrews notes bipartisan support for AUKUS in the US Congress, Trump’s unpredictable foreign policy approach and potential demands for increased Australian contributions raise questions about the agreement’s stability.
Australia’s reluctance to cooperate with the US and UK on nuclear power may also be a stumbling block for its SSN ambitions, hindering the establishment of the nuclear infrastructure necessary to operate SSNs.
ABC News reported in November 2024 that Australia has declined to join a UK and US-led pact to accelerate civilian nuclear energy development, citing the technology’s inapplicability to the country.
According to the report, Acting Prime Minister Richard Marles stated that pursuing nuclear energy would be Australia’s most expensive electricity option, as the country lacks a civilian nuclear industry. It notes that the UK and US had initially expected Australia to join the pact, but the Australian government ultimately decided against it, focusing instead on transitioning to renewable energy sources.
While AUKUS’ SSN ambitions are lofty, its rationale may be vague, impractical and militarily unsound according to some analysts. In a March 2024 Lowy Institute article, Sam Roggeveen cites AUKUS critics who point out that the AUKUS SSN project lacks a clear strategic rationale, with neither the Morrison nor Albanese governments providing a detailed explanation of what the SSNs are meant to achieve.
Roggeveen points out that the debate has primarily been framed around vague notions of “deterrence” without engaging in a substantive discussion on how best to achieve it.
He mentions skepticism about the sincerity of the Australian Labor Party’s support for AUKUS, suggesting it was driven more by political calculation than genuine conviction. He also emphasizes the project’s financial burden, which could lead to cost overruns and program delays, potentially straining other defense budgets.
Roggeveen also notes concerns about the potential impact of a second US Trump administration on AUKUS, including fears that Trump might not support it. Notably, he questions whether the AUKUS SSN project is a good idea, suggesting that Australia should leverage its geographic distance from China rather than attempting to project military power into China’s near seas.
I do not really see helping AU to go nuclear as necessarily a negative move. However, it should happen as a meaningful process as opposed to a shakedown. In geopolitical terms their long-term sustainability is valuable to the West. Both China (1956) and Russia (Soviets 1949) achieved First Bomb relatively fast after the Manhattan project and both with major Western contributions.
We gonna take your Aussie dollars and consider it a contribution to helping Ukraine. 100 mil. Aussie dollars should be what? 300,000 US dollars? That’ll buy some snacks for the hard fighting boys over there. If you send us some more money, we’ll sell you some special magic beans. They’re fantastic, everyone wants them.
This is nuclear proliferation by other means. Russia and China can give nuclear material to Iran in return. Fair’s fair.
Yes, just like Russia could give NK nuke technology. But it seems even Russia and China know giving technology to crazies is a bad idea.
Why does Australia want to go to war with China? China is not going to invade Australia. The MIC simply wants to sell more high tech weapons.
Just like China doesn’t want to invade Tibet?
Australia is way down under. They are of no significance to China except as a source of raw material and food. There’s is no bigger market for them than China. It’s one of a very few countries that enjoys a large trade surplus with China. Don’t provoke or bite the hand that feeds them. My advice.
The trade surplus is vanishing, because China is finding other/cheaper sources.
Telling someone to be quiet in the face of a bully is cowardice.
Australia is occupied by American troops. So is Japan, South Korea, Germany, Italy and Poland (+ many others). Study the correlation between the US troops on soil and the stupendous, suicidal foreign policy of the blackmailed hosts. Australians will be told what to do, and they will be good little lemmings and listen or else.
Yes so many countries prefer US soldiers. I think Tibet, E Turkmenistan etc would also prefer US troops to the PLA.
maybe when they get the subs China could invade and take that from them
Chinese have very small weapons.
To get AUKUS, Australia needs it’s own DOGE. And sell it’s prettiest daughters to the US to cut a deal with Trump. China had/has to faint fear of AUKUS to ensure AUKUS participants doubled down on this once in a generation astronomical waste trap.
You mean like LBFM’s from China?
How much money do the Australians pay for this trash. $50 billion? $100 bllion? Its almost one third of the budget for the sinkhole project in Ukraine. What a bargain. I suggest a doubling down. The return on investment will be great for Americna war pigs. Not so much for Australians or their security. Then again, do not expect much from the descendants of prison colonies.
Very few Aussies can trace our roots to criminals. Unlike Chinese who can all trace their ancestors to conquered coolies.
A stick and a kangaroo saddle and an Aussie soldier is fully equipped. But they’d need us in America to supply them the sticks at 50k a pop, cuz making a stick from a branch would be too complicated for an Aussie. Maybe in 5 years we’ll send them a couple a rafts and tell them they’re floating subs.
What are we talking about exactly, is it Australia’s ability to defend itself against seaborne invasion, or will it be Aussie fooled into potentially disabling misadventures outside of home waters?
If Aussie wants to secure itself against an uncertain future it should implement a civilian nuclear power industry,—I mean everything, especially uranium enrichment and fuel reprocessing. Turn Australia into a regional hub for nuclear power.
YES……..
It was either a Singaporean or Malaysian statesman who once said Australia is the white trash of Asia. And its true. Do not expect much from the anti-intellectual prison colony downunder. They never attained freedom from the British. They have no idea what real freedom and sovereignty is. They are just expendable white trash for the British and American bullies.
It was the great Lee Kwan Yew of Singapore. A great friend to Aus and NZ. He wanted a strong Aus to keep Sg safe.