AUKUS review to probe how it will alter US war planning

The snap 30-day Pentagon review of AUKUS will assess the impact on US strategy of sending up to three Virginia-class submarines to Australia, says a leading American expert.

The snap-30 day Pentagon review of AUKUS is being led by Under Secretary of Defence for Policy, Elbridge Colby. Picture: Getty

One leading American expert says the snap-30 day Pentagon review of AUKUS is likely to examine how the US plan to provide Virginia-class submarines to Australia would alter Washington’s war planning.

Bryan Clark, the director of the Center for Defence Concepts and Technology at Hudson Institute, told The Australian that the AUKUS agreement would “reduce US submarine inventory until the US catches up on submarine production, which probably won’t happen until the mid-to-late 2030s.”

Bryan Clark.

Mr Clark said he thought that the 30-day review being led by Under Secretary of Defence for Policy, Elbridge Colby, would be “assessing the impact on US strategy – if any – of sending up to three Virginia-class submarines to Australia.”

“A concern would be that reduced US submarine presence could require the DoD to alter its war plans,” he said. “Another aspect is likely whether the DoD believes Australia will employ its Virginia-class submarines in support of US operations, or if Australia’s government will be reticent to contribute to a US-led campaign against China.”

The warning comes as Anthony Albanese used the John Curtin Oration in Sydney over the weekend to sketch out the need for Australia to have the “confidence and determination to think and act for ourselves.”

“Australia cannot predict, or control the challenges we will face,” the Prime Minister said. “But we can determine how we respond. We can choose the way we engage with our region and deal with the world.”

This speech will be closely watched in Washington and seen as an attempt to assert greater independence within the alliance framework at a time when differences are emerging over a range of fronts including on defence spending, Middle East policy, trade policy and on China.

One of the key issues which Mr Colby has identified as a strategic dilemma for Washington is whether Australia would provide support to the US in a contingency in the Taiwan Strait.

The Australian government believes it is unreasonable for Canberra to provide any such predetermined commitment - especially when no such guarantee of support is forthcoming from America.

Yet Mr Colby has already demonstrated a willingness to take decisions halting support for key American security partners. He has been fingered in recent US media reports as the key man responsible for pausing much needed weapons shipments to Ukraine believed to include Patriot air-defence missiles, Hellfire missiles and several thousand Howitzer rounds as well as other ammunition.

Republican chairman emeritus of the powerful House Foreign Affairs Committee, Michael McCaul, was quoted in Politico last week on the decision as saying that “I’m not even sure [Secretary of State Marco] Rubio was consulted on this one … There’s internal division in the White House.”

The White House went on to defend the pause, saying it was normal to ensure that aid allocations were “in line with the America First agenda.”

When the Pentagon confirmed its snap-30 day review of AUKUS last month, it also said the Department of Defence was ensuring the security partnership “aligned with the President’s America First agenda.”

The Pentagon said this meant “ensuring the highest readiness of our servicemembers, that allies step up fully to do their part for collective defence, and that the defence industrial base is meeting our needs.”

However, in comments that will provide a sense of reassurance to policy planners in Canberra, Mr Clark said that concerns in Washington over whether Australia would join a US-led campaign against China or if AUKUS might alter US war planning were unlikely to sink the security agreement first unveiled by Scott Morrison in 2021.

“I don’t think these or other aspects of the review will change the basic plan for Pillar One since it is structured to only send submarines to Australia if conditions allow both in terms of Australia’s readiness to operate them and US ability to execute its strategy and plans without them,” he said.

“Under the optimal pathway, by 2027 there will be 3 to 5 US and UK SSNs continuously operating out of HMAS Sterling as part of the Submarine Rotational Force-West, which is a substantial deterrent even before Virginia class submarines are delivered to Australia.”

Yet Mr Clark did suggest that a deferment in the delivery of Virginia-class submarines to Australia was possible, arguing that the development of advanced capabilities under AUKUS Pillar Two could “mitigate the impact of a delay in subs to Australia.”

While AUKUS would deplete the US submarine inventory, Mr Clark said that a reduction by three submarines “isn’t a substantial operational impact, since US subs conduct one 6-month deployment every 24 months.”

“That means selling three submarines would reduce deployed US submarine presence by less than one ship,” he said.