Connect with us

Hi, what are you looking for?

Smart Bombs: Military, Defense, National Security and More

China’s Worst Nightmare: The U.S. Starts Selling Nuclear Attack Submarines

U.S. Navy Attack Submarine
Image: U.S. Navy

There was a time a few years ago, however brief, that some of us Asia-defense nerds had an unorthodox idea to tip the military balance in Asia. Quite a few people thought it was crazy and highly unlikely, but an idea nonetheless worth considering.

It went a little something like this: in order to lessen the impact of China’s massive naval build-up and negate the lethality of Beijing’s growing anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) battle networks in the Pacific, Washington could sell or lease what many would call its most sophisticated weapons platform, nuclear-powered attack submarines. Specifically, the mighty Virginia-Class attack sub.

The idea still pops up now and again to this day. In fact, I was very keen on the suggestion and still am. For example, why not sell such subs to Australia? Canberra would be provided with the best submarines the world has to offer at a price, that while more expensive than a conventional sub, would provide longer range and capability considering the large expanses Australia’s submarines would need to to patrol.

Such submarines would be far more capable than the ones now in line to replace the troublesome Collins-class boats while providing strategic depth that could prove useful if Beijing were ever to push any of its claims in East Asia too far.

When I put the question to Ross Babbage, one of Australia’s best defense experts several years ago, he had some interesting thoughts—and even made the case for another nation to provide such attack subs:

“I remain strongly of the view that the best submarines for Australia for the coming 40 years would be 10-12 leased or bought Virginia or Astute class boats. The Virginia class boats, in particular, are well sorted and reliable, they have low risk, they have known costs, they never need to be refueled and they could be acquired with associated training programs and system upgrade pathways. . . .

“However, all other things being equal, if the U.S. government were open to the idea, it would seem more sensible for Australia to opt for the Virginia Class. Australian boats of this class would be operating in very close cooperation with U.S. boats in Pacific and Indian Ocean waters. There are likely to be substantial advantages flowing to both countries from joint basing, logistic support, training and many other aspects.

“It’s also worth noting that the U.S. Navy has advised Congress that it expects to be operating a global total of 39 SSNs in 2030. In a Western Pacific crisis in that timeframe it might have 30 to 31 SSNs available for operations, and it may be able to deploy some 20 to 24 into the primary operational theatre. Should the US be able to rely on 8 to 10 Australian SSN’s operating in very close cooperation with the U.S. boats, this could equate to a 30 percent to 40 percent combat supplement. This type of consideration should make the general idea attractive both to Washington and Honolulu.”

However, such nuclear-powered boats are very expensive. So, I asked Babbage about another option–the purchase of older Los Angeles-class attack subs from Washington? He responded:

“While an interesting suggestion, I don’t think that this is a good idea for Australia. If our politicians decide to take the major step of leasing or acquiring nuclear powered submarines from either the U.S. or U.K. (or conceivably from France), the Australian Navy would be keen to integrate training as far as was reasonably feasible with the host navy at an early stage. The Australian Navy would likely insist on training and certification standards that were at least as stringent as those employed by the U.S. Navy and Australian Navy. This training and skill development would most appropriately center around the class of boat that Australia intends to operate for the following 30 to 40 years. If the Australian Navy were to acquire or lease Virginia Class boats, it would make greatest sense for nearly all training to be directed towards that class.”

Babbage continued, noting that there could be another path for the older subs to join the effort:

“ . . . there might be a case for the Australian Navy and U.S. Navy to jointly operate one or two late model 688 Los Angeles Class boats for a few years in the early stages of an Australian SSN program. This type of special arrangement might be designed both to build key Australian Navy skills and qualifications and to keep valuable U.S. SSNs operating a few years longer than their currently planned date of decommissioning. This approach may be worth considering if all other key issues concerning an Australian SSN force and fleet cooperation were agreed by the respective governments.”

Other noted defense experts down under felt the acquisition of nuclear subs could work. Simon Cowan, a Research Fellow at the Centre for Independent Studies and author of the report “The Future Submarine Project Should Raise Periscope For Another Look”, had his own thoughts when it came to the issue, making some compelling points in a piece also featured in The Diplomat when it come to leasing the boats:

“Leasing the Virginia Class submarines together with training, upgrades, sustainment and disposal of spent nuclear material would limit the risks and challenges of establishing a nuclear submarine program.

“It would cost less too at about $20 billion upfront, plus $4 billion to $6 billion for facilities and setup costs…Three-quarters of a billion dollars a year in operational savings might be achieved as well – a Collins Class submarine costs Australia a lot more to run than a Virginia Class submarine costs the United States.

“While nuclear safety is an important consideration, U.S. nuclear-powered submarines have a perfect safety record, having travelled more than 240 million kilometres without a single reactor incident and visited Australian bases since 1960 without any problems. Moreover, submarine reactors are a fraction of the size of a nuclear power plant and much less dangerous.

“Critics cite reliance on foreign support as a reason why Australia shouldn’t operate nuclear-powered submarines. These concerns are spurious. In reality, Australia already relies heavily for the development and sustainment of its platforms on foreign defense forces and foreign defense companies, and their Australian subsidiaries.”

I still believe that the best option for Canberra is a nuclear-powered submarine. Anything else, shall we say, is sub-optimal.

Harry Kazianis is a Senior Director at the Center for the National Interest. 

Written By

Harry J. Kazianis (@Grecianformula) serves as a Senior Director at the Center for the National Interest in Washington, D.C., a Washington D.C.-based think tank founded by President Richard Nixon in 1994. Kazianis in the past served as Editor-In-Chief of the Diplomat and as a national security-focused fellow at CSIS, the Potomac Foundation, and the University of Nottingham (UK). His ideas have been published in the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Newsweek, CNN, CNBC, and many other outlets across the political spectrum.

6 Comments

6 Comments

  1. Harry_the_Horrible

    June 23, 2021 at 9:37 am

    Sounds like a plan to me.
    We can keep General Dynamics Electric Boat busy, while using the ongoing production to look into ways of improving our our own SSNs.

  2. Slack

    June 23, 2021 at 10:17 am

    I have a vision of the future of warfare in the western pacific – a fleet (SMALL FLEET) of spaceplanes buzzing in low earth orbit at 20,000 to 30,000 kph and ensuring or keeping a target on the surface within range at any given moment.

    Bases, national power utilities, population centers and capital cities all within striking range 24/7.

    The spaceplanes will occasionally take fuel from their orbiting space station(s) and maintain vigilance against any or all types of aggression 24/7. This is the future of the hi-tech battlefield in the western pacific.

  3. Slack

    June 23, 2021 at 10:54 am

    Any nation worth its salt and also possessing far-sighted vision must plan its best for the future as it is fully unpredictable.

    Can anyone PREDICT that a burglar won’t enter your home tonight? It is completely unpredictable.

  4. Jimmy John Doe

    June 23, 2021 at 11:37 am

    The worst nightmare for anybody would be he or she going on an outstation trip to the very virgin deep woods, perhaps, and then going home only to find that an intruder (like Charles Manson or Gary Zieger) has bloodied all the walls and trashed all your belongings.

  5. frazier stall

    June 23, 2021 at 2:41 pm

    @doe,what can you do if your house is always being eyed by fearsome burglars who know your dwelling is a veritable treasure house.
    You can get a guard dog, but they can give him poisoned meat and very quickly your dog is no more.
    You can arm yourself with a .22 but he has a kevlar vest. So, it’s zilch.

    So you need an insurance policy that allows you to recover and survive your ordeal.
    Thus an armed space system is like an insurance policy for a country that always gets the lookover from burglars.

  6. Jimmy John Doe

    June 23, 2021 at 9:34 pm

    You can always invest in an alarm system that operates 24/7.

    That is you keep a network of spies within the burglar’s lair. But it’s risky.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Advertisement