Akerman: AUKUS nuclear subs deal risks being scuttled by appeasement and incompetence

A nuclear submarine designed by committee will please all AUKUS partners but not the unfortunate Australian taxpayer.

A camel is a horse designed by a committee and the AUKUS proposal for the design of our future nuclear submarines is heading down the same path.

On the face of it, the reported suggestion that we purchase US-built, tried and proven Virginia-class submarines is a good thing.

It’s an established type, it’s not going to have cost overruns and time blow-outs, and the purchase of three as our Collins-class reach the end of their lives fills the capacity chasm.

But the path toward the second, and admittedly long term, goal of building a nuclear-propelled submarine fleet is strewn with apparent and extremely foreseeable risks.

It involves acquiring a fleet of joint US, British and Australian-designed nuclear submarines and, ultimately, building further subs in South Australia.

A Virginia-class submarine. Picture: US Navy/Ashley Cowan

This smacks of a political – not a practical – goal designed to please all AUKUS partners but not the unfortunate Australian taxpayers who will bear the bulk of the costs but have to wait for the aquatic camel to emerge at the end of the process.

Any clear thinking reader will appreciate that the deal to obtain US submarines is the most straight forward, even it means that Australia helps subsidise the construction of a third nuclear submarine production line in the US.

Australian Defence Minister Richard Marles (centre) visited the General Dynamics Electric Boat's submarine construction facilities last December. The visit was undertaken with delegations from Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Picture: Twitter/@RichardMarlesMP

It would also avoid running headlong into the steep learning curve needed here and the obvious incompetence of the defence department.

As I told Sky News presenter Sharri Markson recently, the two US yards currently producing nuclear submarines have full order books and there was pressure within the US from their navy to open a third facility.

If our order tips the balance in favour of another production line, all well and good. Full steam ahead.

As for the rest of the reported plan, consider that all UK submarines rely on US technology for their power units – small modular reactors (SMRs) – and their fire control systems.

Any future and as-yet to be designed nuclear submarine resulting from the application of US, UK and still-to-be developed Australian technologies is realistically so far down the line as to be almost beyond the working life of any current mature reader.

Worse, Labor, since Kim Beazley was defence minister in the Hawke government, has been committed to propping up an extravagantly expensive defence materiel construction industry in South Australia.

South Australian Premier Peter Malinauskas. Picture: Ben Clark

SA’s current Labor Premier Peter Malinauskas says he is determined not to let any decision to buy nuclear subs from the US erode the federal (Labor) government’s “cast iron” commitment to create a sovereign nuclear submarine building program in his state.

The development of a new sub class will also create the additional complexity of maintaining two types of vessel. To carry the camel metaphor further, horse saddles don’t work on camels.

There is, of course, massive hypocrisy underlying Labor’s commitment to nuclear submarines, as welcome an addition to our minuscule defence resources as they would be.

The embrace of nuclear-powered subs is totally at odds with the sneering approach of both Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Energy and Climate Change Minister Chris Bowen to utilising the same nuclear technology to replace the essential coal-fired power generation they are intent on closing down.

If intent on nuclear-powered submarines, why not nuclear power facilities in Australia.

If we are to develop a nuclear engineering industry capable of building nuclear-powered submarines, why aren’t these numbskulls encouraging the development of the skills that will be needed by lifting the current ban on developing nuclear power facilities in Australia?

Instead of focusing on the real energy needs of the nation, and wasting billions on solar and wind energy, we should be investing in nuclear now, training technicians who may be able to work with future nuclear subs but, more immediately, shielding us from the blackouts which will inevitably occur under the Green/Labor net zero policies.

Once again, Labor is squandering an opportunity for genuine renewal and reform by pandering to its Green Left constituents and ignoring the bread-and-butter issues.

The heat-or-eat question is going to hit households this winter as cost-of-living pressures force consumers to choose whether to stay warm or fed.

Instead of downgrading our energy security, as Labor is doing, we could be building it up at a fraction of the cost of the so-called renewables which are absolutely reliant on the weather (which even the Greens have come to admit is variable).

If Albanese’s is fully grounded after his golden chariot ride with India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi, the full details of the nuclear subs proposal will be revealed when he meets US President Joe Biden and UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak Tuesday in San Diego.

Unfortunately, most of the decision makers will have died by the time the second part of this proposal is ready to come into play.