Why Adelaide’s the best place to build the AUKUS nuclear submarines

Got whiplash from all the political doublespeak thrown around on plans for SA to build nuclear submarines? Gabriel Polychronis explains why Adelaide is the best location.

It’s entirely understandable many South Australians are probably suffering whiplash from the wildly varying language around AUKUS from this country’s leaders over the better part of a year.

But Defence Minister Richard Marles gave one of the strongest assurances yet that Australia’s future fleet of nuclear-powered submarines will be constructed in Adelaide.

His comments that “Osborne is where it’s at” should end months of hysteria that the planned eight boats will be somehow shipped in from overseas and that South Australia would miss out on thousands of jobs.

“Whichever way you look at it, Osborne is going to be completely fundamental to not only delivering the submarines, but delivering them sooner rather than later,” Marles told The Advertiser.

Here’s why his comments are more than just the political doublespeak we have become so accustomed to with AUKUS.

What’s the background?

The previous government had always seemed to leave the door ajar to the possibility of having the submarines predominantly built overseas – in either the US or the UK.

When former prime minister Scott Morrison announced the AUKUS pact last September, he only said it was his “intention” to build the fleet in Adelaide.

Of course, meaningful steps were taken in SA – such as the lease of a large parcel of land to dramatically expand the Osborne shipyard.

But there has always been this lingering fear that the rug would be pulled from under SA, and that Osborne would just play the role of Ikea furniture assemblers.

Why build them in Adelaide?

Mr Marles recognises Adelaide is the only location that can deliver a fleet of nuclear submarines within the AUKUS framework as quickly as possible.

SA has an existing industrial base with a soon-to-be-built new shipyard that was already under construction for the French Attack-class submarines before the Naval Group deal was torn up.

It’s clear the state has a skills problem, but so does the rest of the country.

Minister Richard Marles on tour at the Osborne shipyard with Premier Peter Malinauskas and Hon Mark Butler guided by Commodore Steve Tiffen. Picture: Mark Brake

What makes this a world first?

Australia will become the first non-nuclear weapons state to acquire nuclear submarines with highly enriched uranium.

To achieve this world first, SA must develop a sort of nuclear industry packed with skilled workers who are trained in nuclear safety and regulation to help construct, maintain and eventually overhaul these boats for decades to come.

All this means getting the first boat in the water earlier than 2040 is ambitious, but the option of using our AUKUS allies to build the submarines for us sooner is out of the question.

Why can’t we get them from the US?

It’s a little known fact in Australia that the American defence supply chain is stretched incredibly thin.

The US Government Accountability Office recently released a report that revealed construction on its latest batch of Virginia-class nuclear submarines “fell further behind schedule and construction costs continued to grow above original targets”.

This was, the report said, due to “higher workforce demand and additional factors such as correspondingly less experienced workers”.

You have to admire Opposition Leader Peter Dutton’s optimism, but it seems incredibly unlikely the US would be willing to plunge their own submarines further behind schedule so they could send us a couple by 2030.

The US Navy’s nuclear-powered attack submarine PCU Virginia (SSN 774). Picture: US Navy/General Dynamics Electric Boat

What about the Brits?

There’s a very similar problem in the UK. As the Australian Strategic Policy Institute noted, the completion of the remaining Astute-class nuclear submarines is finely balanced with the construction of the Dreadnought-class ballistic missile submarines.

There is simply no space in UK shipyards or the skilled personnel to add any extra boats for Australia.

We’ve already seen how our Hunter-class frigate program was delayed due to Covid implications slowing down the design of its parent ship – the Type 26.

What’s stopping Richard Marles going back on his word?

Mr Marles has indicated he is open to all options for plugging the country’s looming naval capability gap, which could include acquiring extra conventional submarines to relieve the ageing Collins-class until the nuclear fleet is complete.

Marles insists that in “every one of those (options), you end up having a conversation about SA”.

One issue he would need to solve is how our navy officers would be trained to operate three different submarine platforms – the Collins, the “interim” subs, and eventually the nuclear subs.