AUKUS ambitions face reality check

From the editor’s desk

Submarine deal threatened by US production limits

The AUKUS pact, formulated with a keen strategic perspective and unveiled in 2021 as a significant security alliance among Australia, the United States, and the United Kingdom, aimed to enhance Australia's defence capabilities and contribute to the preservation of stability in the Indo-Pacific region. At its essence resides the bold initiative to furnish Australia with a cadre of nuclear-powered submarines—craft that would significantly enhance the nation's deterrent capabilities and foster a closer alignment with its most formidable allies.

Nevertheless, three years following its momentous introduction, AUKUS is facing a disquieting reality: mere strategic intent is insufficient. Ambitious initiatives are currently encountering significant logistical challenges, especially within the United States. The industrial foundation anticipated to fulfil Australia's commitment to Virginia-class submarines is experiencing significant pressure, prompting senior officials in Washington to raise concerns. This transcends a mere technical issue. This presents a fundamental challenge that has the potential to redefine expectations regarding AUKUS, reveal weaknesses in Australia’s defence strategy, and possibly postpone or obstruct the nation’s most ambitious defence procurement initiative in contemporary history.

A fragile supply chain meets an overstretched system Reports from The Guardian Australia and The Sydney Morning Herald indicate that the U.S. Navy is currently manufacturing approximately 1.2 nuclear submarines each year—significantly under the minimum threshold of two necessary to satisfy its own fleet requirements, not to mention the obligations under AUKUS. The industrial framework required to achieve this output, encompassing essential shipyards such as Newport News and Electric Boat, is encumbered by labour shortages, overextended contracts, disruptions in the supply chain due to the pandemic, and ageing facilities.

The outcome, a potential deficiency that may postpone the arrival of the initial Virginia-class submarines to Australia—should they be delivered at all.

U.S. officials, among them Navy Secretary Carlos Del Toro and various congressional members, have commenced a public recognition of the shortfall and are cautioning about its possible ramifications. In the absence of substantial new investment and an increase in skilled labour, the United States may find itself unable to relinquish submarines to Australia without compromising its own naval preparedness. The defence establishment of Australia has, up to this point, conveyed a sense of assurance regarding the AUKUS timeline.

The Department of Defence has emphasised its dedication to collaboration with both the U.S. and U.K., as Canberra allocates substantial resources towards nuclear training, shipyard readiness in Adelaide, and advancements in defence education. These measures indicate that Australia is earnestly fulfilling its commitments.

However, the disconcerting truth persists: the submarines—the centrepiece of the agreement—lie outside Australia's immediate jurisdiction. This represents the fundamental vulnerability of the AUKUS initiative. The construction of submarines is not occurring on Australian territory in the immediate future, nor do they utilise indigenous technology. Should the U.S. defence industrial base weaken, it will inevitably impact Australia's defence strategy as well.

A shorter timeline would make this dependency less worrisome. However, we are discussing a multi-decade project in a rapidly evolving global setting. Australia has a lot on the line.

The Collins-class submarines that are currently in its fleet are getting older. As regional tensions continue to rise, strategic analysts concur that a smooth transition to nuclear-powered capability is essential to preventing a dangerous capability gap in the 2030s.

Geopolitical tensions raise the stakes

This goes beyond simple logistics of procurement. The regional environment in Australia is growing increasingly unstable. Concerns about Taiwan, North Korea's nuclear brinkmanship, rising South China Sea tensions, and China's increasingly assertive actions all highlight the necessity of an Indo-Pacific defence posture that is both credible and capable.

The AUKUS submarines are more than just military equipment in that regard. They serve as a strategic reminder to both domestic stakeholders and adversaries that Australia is capable and willing to protect its interests and make a significant contribution to regional stability. Any indication that the project is struggling could give rival nations more confidence and damage Australia's strategic standing.

$368 billion and growing: The cost of uncertainty

At more than $368 billion, AUKUS is the biggest defence investment in Australian history. The project's scope not only piques interest but also demands close examination.

The general public, defence workers, and Australian taxpayers all deserve accountability and openness. They are entitled to know if deadlines will be fulfilled, what backup plans are in place, and how Australia intends to fill in any defensive readiness gaps. The Albanese government must be transparent if it turns out that delays are inevitable. Additionally, it needs to be proactive, seeking workable answers, investigating stopgap options, and quickening the growth of Australia's own defence industry capabilities. When the nation's security and billions are on the line, complacency is not an option.

Towards a more resilient defence industry

Increasing Australia's domestic capacity is one possible way to move forward. Although domestic nuclear-powered submarine construction is still a long way off, there are steps that can be taken right now to accelerate the process. This entails boosting investment in shipyard capacity, expediting the SSN-AUKUS program in Adelaide, and establishing avenues for the local production of additional components.

This strategy can lessen dependency and build buffer capacity, but it won't completely make Australia self-reliant, particularly when it comes to nuclear propulsion systems, which call for close cooperation with the United States and the United Kingdom. Additionally, it will increase Australia's long-term sovereign capability, generate jobs, and develop skills.

Leveraging diplomacy and influence

Strong diplomatic engagement is essential in addition to domestic initiatives. In order to convince U.S. lawmakers that timely submarine delivery is not just a bilateral commitment but also a crucial component of regional stability, Australia must make its case. A more robust Australian naval presence directly benefits the United States. Washington can better manage the larger IndoPacific strategic environment by assisting Australia.

To guarantee shared responsibility, Canberra must also cooperate with the U.K., the other AUKUS partner. De-risking delays and maintaining program momentum will be greatly aided by the UK's involvement, particularly in the design of SSNAUKUS and possible technology transfers.

The bigger picture: AUKUS beyond submarines

Submarines were never the only focus of the AUKUS pact. It stands for a more comprehensive idea of trilateral collaboration in the areas of artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, defence technology, and quantum computing. However, the strategic and symbolic focal point is the submarine deal. The remainder of the pact might be seen as meaningless rhetoric if that fails.

Owing to this, the current crisis needs to be handled quickly.

Overcoming these real-world obstacles is essential to AUKUS's credibility and, consequently, to Australia's defence strategy. This is a test of political will, strategic clarity, and alliance management in addition to industrial capacity.

The U.S. warning signals are not your typical bureaucratic complaints. Ignoring these signals will have serious repercussions, including weakened deterrence and a decline in strategic standing in addition to delayed submarines. Australia needs to take decisive, quick action. This entails pressuring the United States to increase its production commitments, boosting domestic capabilities, maintaining open lines of communication with the public, and creating backup plans to keep the navy strong in case of delays.