US has capacity to supply Aussie nuclear subs, says congressman Joe Courtney

Extra orders could help lift industrial capacity at American shipyards back toward Cold War levels.

The Virginia-class attack submarine USS California in the Atlantic.

The chairman of the US congress’s seapower committee has dismissed as “very unfair” concerns American shipyards are too busy to supply nuclear-powered submarines to Australia, arguing extra orders could help lift industrial capacity back towards Cold War levels.

Democrat representative Joe Courtney said he was “very confident there will be capacity when the demand signal is out there”, amid speculation the British, with greater production slack, will end up with the lion’s share of contracts to build at least eight ­nuclear-powered submarines under the AUKUS security pact.

“If you go back to the 1980s and 1990s, we were building four ­Attack submarines a year,” Mr Courtney, who is also co-chairman of the Friends of Australia caucus, told The Australian.

“In 2007 the subs workforce here was around 7000; now it’s 18,000.” He added that it was around double that level again during the Cold War.

The two US submarine shipyards, in Connecticut and ­Virginia, are already under pressure from congress to ramp up their annual construction from two Virginia-class submarines and one Columbia-class ballistic submarine.

Bryan Clark, an expert in naval operations at the Hudson Institute, said he expected “reticence on the part of congress” to release parts, experts and equipment, let alone whole submarines, to Australia, where AUKUS stipulates at least some of the subs to replace the Collins-class boats will be built. “There’s already an enormous workload, so a big stumbling block is lack of capacity on the part of US to do this; it’s a bad time for anyone to come and say we’d like a submarine,” he said.

Mr Clark suggested buying the final two of seven British Astute-class submarines under construction would be the best option, since the British didn’t need them as urgently as the US needed them. “Britain can sell or lease the last two, maybe share their operation to train the Australian crew, and just keep building two more for itself,” he said.

Mike Gilday, the most senior officer in the US Navy, in September said it would be “decades” ­before Australia obtained a ­nuclear-powered Virginia-class submarine. The first French-designed conventional submarine was due to be delivered in 2035 as part of the now defunct 2016 contract with Naval Group.

Bill Greenwalt, a former senior defence official at the American Enterprise Institute, said the US Navy was instinctively against sharing submarine technology, and could drag out a deal until governments lost interest.

“We were supposed to share sub technology with the Canadians in the 1980s under Reagan, but it didn’t happen, probably because of the navy,” he said. “If the Australians really want a sub fast, they’ll have no choice but to go first for a retiring Los Angeles class.” Australia could then have a submarine in “three years, not 30”.

French President Emmanuel Macron this week mocked Australia’s chance of obtaining ­nuclear submarines at any time near the 2035 arrival date for the first French conventional submarine.

“Now you have 18 months ­before a report. Good luck,” he said in Rome at the G20, referring to the period AUKUS stipulates for the government to assess the best path forward among multiple suppliers and construction options.

Former prime minister Tony Abbott recently returned from Washington, where he was also advocating Australia obtain retiring British or American nuclear submarines.