US doubts surface over nuclear-powered submarines

Australia’s nuclear submarine ambitions have been dealt a blow by key US senators who warned the AUKUS pact risks stretching the country’s industrial base ‘to breaking point’.

Nuclear-powered submarine USS Michigan in South Korea in 2017. Picture: AFP

Australia’s nuclear submarine ambitions have been dealt a blow by key US senators who warned the trilateral AUKUS pact risks undermining American military power and stretching the country’s industrial base “to breaking point”.

In a dramatic intervention, the heads of America’s Senate armed services committee warned Joe Biden the AUKUS submarine agreement could become “a zero-sum game” for the allocation of “scarce, highly advanced” US ­nuclear boats.

In a letter to the President, Democrat Jack Reed and Republican James Inhofe called for a “sober assessment” of the agreement between the US, Australia and Britain, and explicitly warned against selling Australia submarines off the production line.

The warning comes just months ahead of the scheduled release of a Defence report that will set out the pathway that Australia hopes to take to acquire ­nuclear-powered submarines.

One option that had been under consideration, as revealed by former defence minister Peter Dutton, was buying two newly built Virginia-class submarines from the US by 2030 – at least a decade before Australia could expect to build them domestically.

But the senators warned Mr Biden against such a move, saying despite the US’s two-boat-per-year target, “just 1.2 Virginia-class (submarines have been) delivered, on average, per year, over the past five years”.

They urged Mr Biden to adopt a “do no harm” approach to AUKUS negotiations that would ensure “sovereign US national ­security capabilities will not be diminished as we work to build this strategic partnership with Australia and the United Kingdom”.

The senators issued the warning in a December 21 letter to the White House that was subsequently leaked to US website Breaking Defense Indo-Pacific.

“Over the past year, we have grown more concerned about the state of the US submarine industrial base as well as its ability to support the desired AUKUS SSN (nuclear submarine) end state,” they wrote.

“We believe current conditions require a sober assessment of the facts to avoid stressing the US submarine industrial base to the breaking point.”

The senators also warned of “regulatory constraints” in sharing US military secrets, saying there was currently “little understanding” of the legal hurdles that would be required to transfer ­nuclear submarine technology to Australia. “These permissions or waivers are a serious matter and should not be taken for granted,” they said.

Democrat senator Jack Reed. Picture: AFP

Former Republican senator James Inhofe.

When the letter was sent, senators Reed and Inhofe were the chairman and ranking Republican, respectively, of the Senate armed services committee – one of the key congressional panels overseeing the Pentagon and the AUKUS agreement.

Senator Inhofe has since retired, but Senator Reed remains the SASC chairman and one of the most influential voices on ­defence issues in congress.

Australia’s outgoing ambassador to the US, Arthur Sinodinos, said getting the AUKUS agreement across the line would be one of the key challenges for his successor, Kevin Rudd, who initially questioned whether nuclear submarines were “strategically necessary” for Australia.

“The relationship is in great shape, but there are some big challenges ahead, particularly bedding down AUKUS and getting that implemented,” Mr Sinodinos told an Australian Strategic Policy Institute podcast released on Friday. Defence Minister Richard Marles’ office said the “optimal pathway” for Australia to acquire nuclear-powered submarines was “taking shape”, and would be ­revealed soon.

His spokesman declined to specifically address the senators’ comments, but said “Australia is grateful for the work which we have been able to do with the United States and United Kingdom to enable Australia to ­acquire a nuclear-powered submarine capability”.

Former Australian senator and retired submariner Rex Patrick, who believes Australia needs to buy modern diesel-electric submarines, said the US senators had “nailed it”. “We are talking about nuclear reactors. The US can’t half commit to this. AUKUS nuclear submarines will be a considerable distraction to the entire US submarine enterprise at a time when they don’t need distraction,” he said.

ASPI executive director Justin Bassi said it was “no surprise” such questions were being asked in the US. “The issue of constraints on defence industrial base capacity is a known issue not just for the US but globally,” he said. “It is important to remember that AUKUS is not just about helping Australia but about aligning the national strategies of three close allies and democracies to deliver practical improvements to our collective defence and security capabilities.”

Strategic Analysis Australia director Michael Shoebridge said members of the Senate armed services committee were “heavyweights” in the US national security system, “so what they think and say matters”.

He said the best way to prevent AUKUS becoming a drag on ­allied submarine capability was to set out the contribution Australia could make “in people, money and other resources like ­location”.

“Australia could increase overall submarine availability by doing maintenance and support of AUKUS boats, noting that we get world best practice availability out of the Collins subs now,” Mr Shoebridge said.

The US has long striven for an operational force of 66 fast-attack submarines. But the senators noted the US Navy has only 50 such boats in its current fleet and expects to see its inventory reduced to 48 by 2027, as older subs retire faster than new ones are ­delivered.