So much for Australian sovereignty. We are locked out of repairing key US components of our subs’ computer systems, and the Coalition has committed our submarine fleet to the extraordinarily dangerous role of helping the US conduct surveillance in the South China Sea.
It is hard to believe that a government genuinely committed to defending the nation would sign a contract to buy 12 ludicrously expensive submarines that would not be operational for at least 20 years, with the final submarine not ready for nearly 40 years. The fleet will be obsolete before its delivered.
But this is what the Turnbull government did when it announced in September 2016 that the majority French government-owned Naval Group would build 12 large submarines in Adelaide. The first sub is unlikely to be operational until the late 2030s and the last one until well after 2050.
It is even harder to understand why Turnbull endorsed the extraordinarily dangerous role for Australian submarines of helping the US conduct surveillance and possible combat operations within the increasingly crowded waters of the South China Sea.
And while the Morrison government repeatedly claims that Australia’s defence force has a “sovereign” capability, in reality we are locked in “all the way” with the USA. US secrecy prevents Australia from repairing key American components of both the Collins and Attack class submarines’ complex computerised systems.
Ominously, an earlier Coalition government gave Lockheed Martin the contract to integrate these systems into the Attack subs. This is the same company that wasted billions on a dud computerised system for the US made F-35 fighter planes.
Called the Attack class, the conventionally powered submarines to be built in Adelaide by Naval will rely on an unfinished design based partly on France’s Barracuda nuclear submarines.
Their official cost has already blown out from an initial $50 billion to $90 billion. It was revealed earlier this week that Defence officials knew in 2015 that the cost of the fleet had already blown out by $30 billion to $80 billion, yet continued to state publicly that the price tag was $50 billion. Life-cycle costs are expected to be around $300 billion.
Current tensions about maritime boundaries in the South China Sea may well be resolved before the fleet is delivered. Further billions will also have to be spent closing the gap in capability created by the retirement of our six Collins class submarines due between 2026 and 2038 – well before the first six Attack class are operational. Australia’s expenditure of $90 billion will be enough to put just one Attack class submarine in the South China Sea at a time.
The other submarines will be making the 13,000-kilometre trip up there and back, being repaired and refurbished, or be committed closer to Australia.
Australian subs in the South China Sea will be integrated into US forces and will be relying on them for operational and intelligence data. In an escalating clash, accidental or otherwise, they will be expected to follow orders from US commanders. Again, so much for Australia’s sovereignty.
There is no compelling strategic reason why Australian submarines should travel that onerous distance to support the US in the South China Sea. Contrary to popular belief, the vast majority of Australia’s trade with North Asia does not go through the that Sea. Nor does China impose barriers to commercial navigation, much of which involves its own trade.
China has adopted a defensive anti-access/area denial strategy to control approaches to its homeland, building up an array of forces and sensors. This is in response to the US deploying sensors below and above the sea to prevent Chinese forces passing through choke points in the area to the broader ocean. While China’s actions are seen as aggressive, the US would never tolerate China laying sea-bed sensors and deploying submarines around its naval bases on the West Coast of America.
The Pentagon focuses on always knowing the whereabouts of all Chinese submarines, especially its two nuclear-armed ballistic missile-carrying subs based at Hainan Island. The Americans’ goal would be to destroy these subs at the start of any potential war. However, China’s nuclear armed missiles on land or sea are essential as a deterrence because the US has not ruled out first US first nuclear strike.
Australia’s submarines aren’t nuclear powered, which means they have to come to the surface to charge their batteries every few days. This leaves them open to being detected by increasingly sophisticated sensors and then destroyed. This risk can be greatly reduced by using air independent propulsion; for example, fuel cells, meaning submarines don’t have to resurface for up to six weeks.
But the Australian Navy stubbornly refuses to use this lifesaving technology. It also resists using modern batteries that are lighter and go further than lead acid ones.
Submarines could make an important contribution to the nation’s defence by operating above and below the island chain to Australia’s north to deter a naval force intending to attack Australia. This does not require ultra large submarines.
A report released in March by the executive director of Insight Economics Jon Stanford makes a persuasive case for not proceeding with the Attack class. The report, funded by electronics retailer Garry Johnson, was commissioned by the think tank Submarines for Australia.
One solution might be to design and build a modern version of the 3,100 tonne Collins instead of the 4,500 tonne Attack class submarines. This option has not been costed. A cheaper alternative would be to extend the life of the six existing Collins class submarines. The think tank Submarines for Australia has costed this at $15 billion, with the Australian Strategic Policy Institute costing it at $20 billion.
A much less costly option would be to build proven, high-performance submarines to be based at two harbours in northern Australia and scrap the reckless commitment to integrate them with US nuclear submarines in the South China Sea.
The Singapore Navy is getting new 2000 tonne submarines from the biggest maker of quality conventional submarines, Germany’s Thyssekrupp Marine Systems. Called the Type 218SG, they have hydrogen fuel cells and lithium ion batteries. They are low maintenance, can carry land-attack missiles or the German IDAS missile, which can hit ships and sub-hunting helicopters. The cost would be about $7 billion for six and just over $13 billion for 12, including spares and crew training. A high degree of automation also means they require a crew of just 28 that can rotate on eight-hour shifts instead of the usual 12 hour shifts for most submarines. Compare this with the Attack class requirement of a crew of 63, at a time when it is not easy to attract the large number of submariners required.
Perhaps the best argument, however, for not wasting $90 billion on the Attack class is that cheap underwater drones will soon have an important military role particularly suited to use from bases in northern Australia.
Brian Toohey is author of Secret: The Making of Australia’s Security State.
Comments
14 responses to “In for a penny, in for a pound: $90 billion for an obsolete submarine fleet”
Looking from another perspective this is about using Defence funds for political PR of construction jobs for stereotyped imagery of ‘workers using their hands dressed in fluoro vests and hard hats’ in a SA electorate, caters to defence industry insiders and ensure that maximum budgeted taxpayer funds are used; whether effective weapons or defence systems does not seem to matter?
I was born between VE day and VJ day – the war to end all wars = except someone forgot to tell the Americans, those exceptional people who like to wag their Australian tale. Strangely I have not found a logical reason why any country would like to invade Australia. A million Asians landing on the northern coast could not feed itself unless they brought it with them. If they wanted to invade the east coast, that a hell of a long way to transport their troops. If inclined a few thousand on tourist visas could blow up the power grid at the fraction of the cost of a submarine. Would the US come to our aid in either scenario? Perhaps the boffins know this, which makes the constant embedment with US forces run against our own self defense!
Thank you Brian . Important piece about the government’s generosity to the US Lockheed Martin and exposing it as gargantuan fiscal waste at a time when Australia’s poor, our homeless, our disabled, our burgeoning unemployed, our elderly, our First Nations, our artists, our public school system will be carrying the burden of the LNP debt.
For 50 years I’ve been watching Australian defence acquisition debacles that, more often than not, solve financial problems for foreign equipment manufacturers rather than our actual military requirements.
Sometimes it’s just a matter of our unimpressive little men being overwhelmed by a US brass band & red carpet routine followed by sitting in a Big Boys Toy & signing the first contract that gets shoved in front of them.
Sometimes it’s after a junket with private jets, limo rides, hookers & a post-politics “consultancy”. Don’t think I’m exaggerating here. It’s happened. (Lockheed Martin have decades of form on this, DCNS had to rebrand after a massive subs/bribery scandal, BAE have a similar trail of wreckage, etc)
Sometimes it’s as simple as an experienced, aggressive sales team just monsterinq the yokels.
Sometimes it’s arranging for the entities having input into the purchase decision be part of a quid pro quo merry-go-round of career advancement & feather bedding.
The current government have spent the last seven years dismantling almost all of the anti-corruption measures that stop this, along with ensuring waste & inefficiency by appointing idiots to to be in charge of it all – even if they weren’t ethically compromised, they’d be too ignorant to make the correct decision anyway.
I have no confidence in a single Defence purchase. They couldn’t even buy new boots without it descending into farce.
If there is a need for us or anyone at all to have defence equipment, the future surely is bound up in research, development, domestic manufacture and near perfect strategic assessments, using missile and drone technologies, taking the humans out of it. Most subs and planes are obsolete, now, as they are made.
Major props to Brian Toohey for continuing to bring these sorts of things to our attention.
About all I can add are questions: what are our strategic objectives here? Are we a small time expeditionary force -an adjunct to the US or as in the past the UK – sent in to get sunk or stranded? Or are we defence minded? If so, what are the real threats we face and need to prepare for?
Some years back, John Quiggin wrote about this. One of his pieces: https://johnquiggin.com/2016/02/26/refighting-world-war-ii/ suggests {is it an age old adage?} that we’re fighting the last war. Rather than being proactive and anticipating (in evidence based ways) how we’ll go 10 or 20 years down the track.
Sir,
After spending that eye-watering amount on arms, won’t we have to go looking for a war to make it worthwhile?
Sincerely,
Teow Loon Ti
Conservative governments have a history.
cant have a war till they’re ready, though!
Economic managers? Nup, just economic vandals with their sleeves rolled up.
Even the highly optimistic estimate of 1800 jobs “at its peak” makes this a very very very expensive job creation program! That $90 billion could pay an awful lot more people to dig some useful holes!
A federal ICAC could spend its whole budget for a decade investigating defence procurement as well as the illegal movement of senior politicians and bureaucrats into the defence manufacturing indistries.
Why does Oz which, with the Kiwis, showed the world more than a century ago how to build an excellent civil society now need to show the world how to build the opposite, a mean, petty society where the rich get richer and the poor, poorer and refugees have to suffer at least twice?
Let’s be able to defend ourselves, yes, but there is no need for us or anyone else to be deputy sheriff
“… Turnbull endorsed the extraordinarily dangerous role for Australian submarines of helping the US conduct surveillance and possible combat operations within the increasingly crowded waters of the South China Sea.” Turnbull must have been confused, and thought that Australia was the Sheriff himself! Just like how he went in front of the US in banning Huawei from Australia. Not smart nor wise for Australia’s long term interests in our region.
Imagine what $90b would allow in drones?