WASHINGTON DC
Thursday, September 16, 2021
Now that the initial shock of this momentous decision has worn off a lot of questions remain. The announcement gives the parties 18 months to study the issue. Many major questions remain.
Australia has no nuclear industrial base
Reports suggest that the boats will be constructed in Australia excluding the power plants. One explanation is the reactors will be manufactured in the US and delivered to AUS in a ‘plug-n-play’ concept. Nevertheless, the RAN will have to create an entire ‘nuclear navy’ construct and the nation a technological and industrial support base to service and maintain advanced technology boats. Its history with the Collins class and recent French boat designs is a concern for the success of such critical elements of the program.
HEU and proliferation
US submarine reactors are around the size of 2 washing machines and use HEU (Highly Enriched Uranium) at around 94%, which is weapons grade. LEUs are used by other navies but are not in contention for any VIRGINIA Class subs and the follow-on SSN(X) Class. A 2020 study by the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) explained that “It is not practical to substitute LEU into existing naval fuel systems or to design a VIRGINIA Class Submarine replacement [i.e., the SSN(X)] around an unproven advanced LEU fuel concept”.
The plug-n play system might be able to devise a way to accommodate some proliferation and fuel cycle concerns, but can not ameliorate the consequences of an accident or other risks. Consequently, a lot of problem solving will need to take place around basing, program and operational security issues, that will be unfamiliar to the hitherto conventional RAN. They are capable of this work, but it should not be hand waved away as easy.
Which Boat will the Aussies Get?
The US operates 3 types of submarines. SSBNs, SSGNs, and SSNs.
SSBNs - or boomers - nuclear missile launching (hence ‘boom’), nuclear power boats. Those are out.
SSGNs which are SSBNs converted for special operations. A fantastic capability and perfect for the Australians in many ways but the US only has four and it is unclear if the new COLUMBUS Class SSBNs might have an SSGN variant added to the end of the run. It should BTW.
SSNs or fast attack boats. Currently the USN operates the LOS ANGELES, SEAWOLF and VIRGINIA Classes. The later have been in service since 2004 and would be a contender for the AUKUS boat. The Australian deal is presumably looking at SSNs. (A modification to future SSNs to have an SSGN like capability will likely emerge in time).
All future VIRGINIA’s will have the VPM (Virginia Payload Module), an ‘insert’ into the boat body with four large-diameter, vertical launch tubes. This would explain why Tomahawk cruise missiles were announced as part of the new technology package being released to the Australians. The VPM can carry other payloads. This opens up questions about hypersonic missile technology transfer to the Australians, for just one example.
SSN(X) Plans are already underway to explore a replacement for the VIRGINIA’s. Tentatively titled the SSN(X) - next generation submarine - has received funding for initial R&D. Thus it is very early days yet and they may not come on stream in time to meet RAN timelines.
A danger for the SSN(X) is already apparent in that the USN wants it to be a Swiss army knife of subs. The navy wants the SSN(X) “to incorporate the speed and payload of the .. Seawolf’s, the acoustics and sensors of the Virginia’s.. and operational availability and service life of the Columbia's". (Justin Katz, “SSN(X) Will Be ‘Ultimate ApexPredator,’” Breaking Defense, July 21, 2021.)
Having said that, the US will likely want the Aussies to spend big and operate the latest and greatest capability - thereby effectively expanding the US fleet at Australia’s expense. Naturally, Canberra will want the greatest high tech and payload per craft. All of which points to an SSN(X).
The SSN(X) therefore poses a threat of becoming to subs what the F-35 was to 5th gen fighters... All the same issues and challenges will be there - including converting Australia’s conventional boat building capabilities to SSN or SSN(X) standards.
Australia will want the tech and skill transfer but the smarter play would be to buy direct from the manufacturer given the size, cost and complexity of the program. If the objective is truly a military capability as fast and efficiently as possible, then direct purchase is the way to go. But as ever, these projects are also used as domestic stimulus programs and so the call for internal investment will be understandably high. Frankly, the spread of investment on a build program would be essentially narrow. While the wider benefits of the program in general - “after sales service” - would still be substantial even if the hulls were bought direct. All the announcements point to internal development. But as the F-35 case proves, a lot can change with time.
Cost
VPM equipped VIRGINIA’s cost $3.4 billion per boat.
Current estimates for SSN(X) are running between $5.8 (USN) and $6.2 (CBO).
As with all advanced systems in this initial scoping phase, it's early days. Prices are likely to double if past experience across platforms is anything to do by. Soon enough, cost will win the war for the enemy. Even if their tech is not quite the same they have enough mass to compensate.
Speed of delivery
VIRGINIA’s are coming off the line at 2 per year. There is reported capacity to add a third. Would America ceed its needs and program objectives to keep Australia happy? Under Biden perhaps, but under a real America First Administration? Under President Marjorie Taylor Green?
Politics
The point being that with such a long time horizon it is worth noting that there will be many governments in the US and AUS that will come and go over the life of this proposed project. As the AUS govt just tore up a contract with the French, so could a new government renegotiate or pass over this new announcement. The benefits to Australia in tech transfer are considerable. Access to hypersonics and cruise are stand alone achievements. In the long run, the benefit of access to cutting edge civilian US AI will likely transcend military application into the broader economy and community and be seen as worth the price of admission if the US DOD can properly capitalize on the opportunity itself.
The French case is ironic… the recently cancelled project was complicated by the AUS desire to take a nuclear powered boat and converting it to a conventional sub. The French have understandably complained. But none of the coverage I have seen suggests the French would sell AUS a full-up nuclear boat. Until they address that question, perhaps they need to be happy with the broken contract payouts.
This touches on a bigger question for AUS. Post COLLINS, post FRA contracts and all the messing about with design adjustments to fit this and that requirement, and the massive problems building in AUS represents; perhaps they should just bite the bullet and buy direct if they are serious about fielding a capability in a strategically realistic timeframe and within fiscally sound parameters. As they did between F-111 and F-35, when they leased super hornets, perhaps the RAN could dive in with some leased VPM VIRGINIA’s to gain experience and start learning about just what a huge complex project they have taken on, while at the same time obtaining a much needed immediate capability while defraying costs for both the US and AUS?
What I have been unable to get my hands around is the UK piece beyond secondary level systems. This I’ll have to explore more.
Update
Radical Transformation Suggestion
More details are coming in on the new AUKUS deal - not the least of which was an announcement from London that it will use Australian facilities for submarine maintenance to permit it to have a greater presence in the region.
The following is a series of quite radical ideas that will inevitably be highly controversial and involve slaughtering many sacred cows. However, given the already extraordinary nature of this deal, why not go all out?
France is rightly upset about the deal and their exclusion. Australia's concern about the problems in the original sub deal are justified and the decision to move on cant be a huge shock, however as in any relationship, it can often be the 'how', not the 'what'.
In fairness to the French, over the last ~20 years they have made great efforts to integrate with the Western alliance, in NATO and in the Indo-Pacific. France remains an important power. France has played an important role in global conflict post 9/11 and has led many efforts in Africa.
Here are some radical ideas for breaking the crisis and moving forward.
1. Add France to the 5 Eyes intelligence sharing system. In fact we should add one or two others as well. Certainly Japan. Others are a matter of debate and should be a mix of those that were most effective in AFG and those who are critical to a war in Asia.
2. Invite French subs to undergo maintenance in AUS to prolong their regional presence. Open the door to French military exercises in AUS. France has limited airspace. AUS owns a lot of empty sky.
3. Transfer the French sub deal to Vietnam and fund it with a 3 way split US/AUS/FR. All 3 have things to make up for with Vietnam. Hanoi is an important partner in the region and one uniquely suited and motivated to check China by land and sea. History matters here. Modifications will need to be made but the principle is a good one I think.
Remember these are just ideas. They will be controversial. But here's the thing - if we are going to do new and interesting things - lets do them well and inclusively and find pathways to agreement where possible.