Connect with us

Hi, what are you looking for?

Smart Bombs: Military, Defense and National Security

Australia Wants Nuclear Attack Submarines (It May Never Happen)

Astute-Class
Astute-class Submarine. Image: Creative Commons.

Last summer, the Australian government said it would announce the design for its nuclear submarine in the first quarter of 2023.

(Subscribe to Our YouTube Channel Here. 19FortyFive publishes original videos every day.)

Under the “AUKUS pact,” London and Washington had each agreed to help Canberra build and operate its own fleet of nuclear-propelled submarines by 2040.

Fast forward, and the issue has become one of squabbling, in-fighting, and differing opinions on the needs of the Royal Australian Navy.

Last month, Andrew Hasite, Australia’s shadow defence minister, was among those who suggested Australia should seek one or two Virginia-class submarines – the nuclear-powered fast attack submarines currently employed by the United States Navy.

However, Hasite admitted this would require Canberra to subsidize the expansion of the already-crowded U.S. production lines.

Hasite has been vocal that there is a risk in Australia trying to take on the project alone, and has pushed to get a boat or two “in the water,” while building the capacity to domestically produce submarines.

U.S. Capacity Issues

Such a solution didn’t sit well with some U.S. lawmakers, notably Rep. Rob Wittman (R-Virginia), who serves on the House Armed Services Committee’s seapower subcommittee.

He told Breaking Defense last month, “There’s been a lot of talk about well, the Australians would just buy a US submarine. That’s not going to happen.”

Wittman said the United States can’t afford to interrupt its own submarine production.

“I just don’t see how we’re going to build a submarine and sell it to Australia during that time,” Wittman noted.

The comments were echoed by Marcus Hellyer of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, “The U.S. doesn’t have spare submarines it can sell to Australia and won’t have them anytime soon.”

The UK Option?

Australia has also been considering adopting the UK’s Astute-class, which is operated by the Royal Navy.

Last year, Royal Australian Navy crews even began to train on the newly commissioned HMS Anson, yet, a decision on what submarine could actually be operated by the RAN remains unclear.

Assistant Defence and Veterans’ Affairs Minister Matt Thistlethwaite told Sky News on Tuesday that a review of the options “will be handed down” soon but that the AUKUS submarine deal is part of a “separate review” from the Defence Strategic Review expected in the Australian Parliament’s first sitting in 2023.

UK Defence Minister David Wallace had also suggested last year Royal Navy submarines could be deployed to patrol the Indo-Pacific until Australia has the boats capable of taking on the role.

The Nuclear Option?

Whether the RAN even needs the submarines also remains an unresolved issue.

At the same time, some of Australia’s neighbors have even expressed concerns that the future boats would need to travel near their territorial waters. 

Both Malaysia and Indonesia have already called into question the safety issues with the transportation and use of highly enriched uranium and the risk of it being diverted to weapons programs.

There is a bigger argument that such weapons aren’t needed for the defense of the nation.

Writing for The Sydney Morning Herald on Wednesday, former Australian diplomat David Livingstone called nuclear-powered submarines an exercise in futility, noting that China – the most significant potential adversary for Australia – would likely never mount a maritime invasion, and couldn’t succeed if it tried.

“Australia is thousands of kilometres from China, and its approaches are characterised by maritime choke points and potential killing zones,” Livingstone wrote. “That’s thousands of kilometres where its forces would be exposed to attack; thousands of kilometres of stretched supply lines requiring enormous and sophisticated logistics.”

The question therefore may not be about what nuclear-powered fast attack submarine Australia will operate but should be one of whether it actually needs such boats in the first place.

Author Experience and Expertise: A Senior Editor for 19FortyFive, Peter Suciu is a Michigan-based writer. He has contributed to more than four dozen magazines, newspapers, and websites with over 3,200 published pieces over a twenty-year career in journalism. He regularly writes about military hardware, firearms history, cybersecurity, politics, and international affairs. Peter is also a Contributing Writer for Forbes and Clearance Jobs. You can follow him on Twitter: @PeterSuciu.

Written By

Expert Biography: A Senior Editor for 1945, Peter Suciu is a Michigan-based writer who has contributed to more than four dozen magazines, newspapers, and websites with over 3,000 published pieces over a twenty-year career in journalism. He regularly writes about military hardware, firearms history, cybersecurity, and international affairs. Peter is also a Contributing Writer for Forbes. You can follow him on Twitter: @PeterSuciu.

4 Comments

4 Comments

  1. Kelvin Clarke

    January 19, 2023 at 3:57 am

    You should be more careful with your editing, Peter.
    The Federal Member for Canning, Shadow Minister for Defence, is Andrew Hastie, who in addition to having held governmental defence portfolios has served as a commander of Australia’s elite SAS special forces.
    The British Secretary of State for Defence is Ben Wallace.
    The Australian government is currently awaiting the completion of a review to outline the submarine acquisition process which will report to Parliament in March. It is expected to recommend the submarine to be selected and the process of construction and maintenance.
    Australia is a maritime nation and constructed the non-nuclear Collins class submarines which are currently in service.
    Our history indicates that a policy of deterrence is necessary. We have no need for nuclear weapons, but nuclear powered attack submarines are one of the logical weapons to provide such security.
    A recent assessment of the likely cost of the project for eight submarines is AU$171bn (US$118bn). I am sure that the US defence industrial base would like a slice of that. Or maybe the British.

  2. Kelvin Clarke

    January 19, 2023 at 4:17 am

    Who edits your columns, Peter?
    The Federal Member for Canning, Shadow Minister for Defence, is Andrew Hastie, who in addition to having held governmental defence portfolios has served as a commander of Australia’s elite SAS special forces.
    The British Secretary of State for Defence is Ben Wallace.
    The Australian government is currently awaiting the completion of a review to outline the submarine acquisition process which will report to Parliament in March. It is expected to recommend the submarine to be selected and the process of construction and maintenance.
    Australia is a maritime nation and constructed the non-nuclear Collins class submarines which are currently in service.
    Our history indicates that a policy of deterrence is necessary. We have no need for nuclear weapons, but nuclear powered attack submarines are one of the logical weapons to provide such security.
    A recent assessment of the likely cost of the project for eight submarines is AU$171bn (US$118bn). I am sure that the US defence industrial base would like a slice of that. Or maybe the British.

  3. Him

    January 19, 2023 at 8:02 am

    To say, as diplomat David Livingstone said, that China would never attack Australia across the oceans – is like saying Imperial Japan in 1941 would never attack America across the oceans; which they did in Pearl Harbor. Right now, China is bribing its way to establish military bases in the Solomon Islands and other Pacific islands. Not so far from Australia.

  4. Cooper

    January 19, 2023 at 9:23 am

    Very sloppy article

Leave a Reply

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

Advertisement