What did you pronounce ow-kus or or-cas? Eventually everyone settled on aw-kus (although the Global Times said that in Chinese it’s pronounced “Australia cries itself to death”). This embarrassment was compounded by US President Joe Biden, who memorably referred to the Australian prime minister as “the one that went down” during the press conference announcing the deal. Australia, the US and the UK were entering into a new tripartite defense technology partnership – with nuclear submarines as a central element. Then-prime minister Scott Morrison joined Biden and then-UK prime minister Boris Johnson via video conference to announce the deal. France, which had already agreed to sell its stealth, conventional submarines to Australia, was furious. President Emmanuel Macron was later asked if Morrison had lied to him during the secret switch to Aukus. Macron uttered the immortal words: “I don’t think, I know.” China later accused Australia of saber rattling. A year later, the geostrategic environment is even more dire. China has made military threats to Taiwan and incursions into the Pacific. It recently joined Russia for large-scale war games. “That fella down under”: Joe Biden and Scott Morrison. Photo: Evan Vucci/AP And it will be another six months before Defense Secretary Richard Marles announces which submarine Australia has chosen – a US or UK version. Before that, he will hear from the nuclear-powered submarine task force and have the results of the defense strategy review, which will be used to review and reshape the defense force and its capabilities. Two of the biggest moving cogs in this machine are Australia’s planned frigate fleet (nine warships, due for delivery in 2031) and its need for these new submarines (at least eight of which are expected in the early 2040). These multi-billion dollar projects are far in the future while our existing naval fleets (especially the Collins class submarines) are aging. This brings us to the oft-discussed capability gap, where old submarines become obsolete before the new ones rain down behind their escape hatches. We should not discount the possibility that we may never get these submarines Sam Rogeven, Lowy Institute The growing threat from China and this capability gap are the driving forces behind Albanese’s desire to achieve the Aukus deal. But doubts about Aukus and the submarine program are growing, even as the bureaucracy that drives it is churning behind the scenes. Will they be ready on time? Will other technology replace them? Can Australia, without a nuclear industry, build them? “I think we have to seriously consider the possibility of never getting the Aukus submarines,” says Sam Roggeveen. Roggeveen, director of the Lowy Institute’s international security program, points out that two of Aukus’ three “champions” have already left politics. Political consensus remains strong, he says, but “they’ll have to maintain a fairly high momentum” to keep the project moving. “We should not discount the possibility that we will never get these submarines,” he says. “I know that sounds left field at the moment, but 12 months ago it seemed left field that we would lose the French. What we need to think about is how you can have a graceful disembarkation from Aukus.” There is movement. Conversations are held between Aukus countries. Australian submarines train on American and British vessels. The defense department is developing a range of resources and expertise. The working group and various other subgroups meet. Marcus Hellier, a senior analyst at Australia’s Strategic Policy Institute, says about 250 people have been absorbed into the nuclear submarine group, which is expanding the Navy’s workforce. “[But] There’s not really much to point out in terms of results,” he says. “What goes on behind closed doors?” Hellyer shows the non-submersible side of Aukus. The agreement includes coordination on autonomous underwater vehicles, quantum technologies, artificial intelligence, advanced cyber capabilities, hypersonic and anti-sonic capabilities, electronic warfare and (in general) innovation. “A lot of it was happening anyway,” says Hellyer. “So what’s the innovation that Aukus brings to this?” With this looming skill gap, there is a flurry of proposals to fill it. From underwater drones to warships and bombers, when there’s a need (and billions of defense dollars on offer), there are those willing to suggest a way. Not just submarines: an American B-52 Stratofortress with a hypersonic test missile under its wing. Some analysts have pointed to drones and long-range missiles as a quicker way to bring Australia’s defenses to zero. Photo: US AIR FORCE/AFP/Getty Images
Bridging the gap
The most common suggestion is that Australia is getting an “intermediate” submarine. Former Defense Secretary Peter Dutton’s suggestion that the US could simply scrap some of its existing nuclear submarines caused jubilation. Both the US and the UK have overstretched production lines. But there are a myriad of other options. A “son of Collins”, an evolved version of Australia’s existing vessel, is one. Submarines from Spain, Germany, Singapore, Sweden and Israel have been suggested as options to fill the gaps. An advanced Collins or a version of an existing submarine were all considered in 2015 before the Abbott government announced a competitive evaluation process – the process that ultimately led to France being selected as Australia’s partner. Back then, Australia’s shipbuilding industry shifted gears to help build the Australian version of the Barracuda-class submarine, a deal offered by the French and accepted by Australia. Now he’s trying to reorient himself, not even knowing what’s coming. Australian Defense Industry Network chief executive Brent Clark says AIDN members are concerned about how and how much they will be included in the supply chain. One issue is that Australian companies could be shut out, not just from submarines but other projects, because of US involvement. Subscribe to Guardian Australia’s Morning Mail Our Australian morning news email breaks down the key national and international stories of the day and why they matter Privacy Notice: Newsletters may contain information about charities, online advertising and content sponsored by external parties. For more information, see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and Google’s Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. “We could see the writing on the wall,” Clark says. “Once it all goes Aukus, there’s the US State Department, there’s regulations on the international arms trade, an Australian company could be blocked because an American company could say ‘this is classified, we can’t pass it on.’ Companies are also concerned that there are no details on what they need to do to get involved. Australia’s existing naval fleets, particularly Collins-class submarines such as HMAS Rankin (pictured), are ageing. Photo: Australian Defense Force/Getty Images “If you’re not planning to get the supply chain involved today, then it’s too late,” says Clark. Roggeveen says an “intermediate submarine” could provide this “elegant disembarkation” from Aukus. “If you can get them in time and in sufficient quality,” he says. “Then the intermediate becomes the submarine, the pressure comes from Aukus, which then becomes more of a technology sharing and development project.” Other experts have warned there is “no chance” the US or UK will find capacity space to produce additives for Australia. Other obstacles include Australia-wide skills shortages and specific shortages of engineers, welders and submariners for the shipbuilding industry, as well as serious global concerns about whether Australia’s move could pose a threat to nuclear non-proliferation.
Commitment issue
Other doubts hover around Aukus’ policy. Roggeveen says Australia should worry about submarines becoming an “orphan capability” if America’s commitment to fighting China from the region evaporates. Our ability ties into the American strategy of containing the Chinese, he argues, which is dangerously provocative in its own right. But if American resolve to exert power in the region falters, Australia could be abandoned. “What if the Americans are not so serious? We end up doing everything ourselves,” he says. Hellyer is concerned that despite Australia being in “crisis mode” with China making leaps ahead in its capabilities, the urgency will not permeate the Ministry of Defence. “The world has changed radically. China is developing new technology and new capabilities and is not shy about using them coercively,” he says. “Aukus signaled that we need to speed up all our processes, do things faster. Defense leaders may understand that, but the way the defense machine does its day-to-day work has not changed.” On his recent trip to Germany, the UK and France, Marles visited the UK’s warship and submarine programs and met with outgoing Prime Minister Boris Johnson. Aukus has breathed new life into “our oldest relationship,” Marles said, and while the US vs. UK decision has yet to be made, submarines are already being trained in both countries. “Thinking about the decision we have to make about which submarine we’re going to run with, how we can get that hardware in place as quickly as possible, we also have to work on how we can get the human equation right.” he said. Cost and capability are obviously important factors, Marles said, but he also emphasized the need for speed. “We…
