Australia is pouring billions into AUKUS submarines without clear delivery capacity from the UK or the US. The result could be a costly strategic and fiscal mistake – with little to show for it.

Attempts at political wedging can come with a very high price. None though would seem to match that employed in 2021 by Scott Morrison, when in an attempt to save his sinking government, he suddenly pulled AUKUS deal out of the hat. 

‘And boy, have we got a deal for you!’ $368 billion (and no doubt that will sharply rise as military contracts inevitably do) for nuclear powered submarines – the wrong weapon, for a bogus scenario, and one never likely to eventuate.

The justification for the AUKUS project supposedly is protecting our shipping lanes against Chinese interference, thus ensuring that Chinese submarines will not blow their own ships out of the water – those bringing exports from Australia, which they want, and for which they will have already paid. 

If the project was ever to eventuate, it would entail guarding almost 26,000 kilometres of Australian coastline with at best just two of those submarines.

Still, we are meant to take the AUKUS justification seriously, and increasingly, both sides of politics, as well as the defence and intelligence establishments, hold to it as holy grail. Delusion, dangerous for an individual, is much more so for entire establishments. 

Now the AUKUS fantasy has taken another hit, with damning criticism from the UK. Retired British Rear Admiral Philip Matthias has highlighted the Brits lack the capacity to deliver Australia the AUKUS submarines, and there is a high probability that the program will fail.

His is but the latest expert voice, a number in these pages, to draw a similar conclusion. 

Under the AUKUS program Australia is supposed to receive between three to five Virginia class submarines during the next decade – though cold water has already been poured on that – followed by the UK and Australia co-designing and building a new class of submarine, the AUKUS class. 

Australian experience in constructing such nuclear powered submarines is precisely zero. Even for those with experience the build is not easy. The UK’s BAE Systems takes a decade to build an Astute Class submarine, the predecessor to the AUKUS class. The UK (optimistically) believes they can step that up to building one every 18 months in future, that however, being sufficient only for their own needs, not those of Australia.

The US, with a larger capacity, manages to build about 1.2 Virginia class submarines annually, something which will need to be almost doubled to supply both the US, whose submarine fleet is diminishing, its own future needs and those of Australia. The US, unable to satisfy its own requirements, is clearly unlikely to provide for Australia’s needs. 

Still, one couldn’t quibble about Australia not being a generous (naive?) benefactor. To help our partners to reach their seemingly unobtainable goals we are pouring in the cash. Australia has made advances of $4.6 billion to the UK for the Rolls Royce Derby site, for building the engines which power the boats, while being generous to the US, to whom we have already provided $3 billion in down-payments, with another $1.5 billion to come. 

So following Australia’s former submarine commander Admiral Peter Briggs, who on _Pearls and Irritations_ adjudged the AUKUS submarine project to be a ‘quagmire’, what does his British counterpart say?

After his summation that the project will fail, Matthias concludes, “It is clear that Australia has shown a great deal of naivety and did not conduct sufficient due diligence on the parlous state of the UK’s nuclear submarine program before signing up to AUKUS – and parting with billions of dollars, which it has already started to do.” 

Of those, who in a too facile manner set the project in motion, he deduces, “policy and money don’t build nuclear submarines – people do that, and there are not enough of them with the right level of skills and experience.”

“While there had been plenty of announcements and international visits relating to AUKUS over the last four years, there had been no substantial increases to the industrial base required to deliver on the project.”

“Britain’s nuclear submarine fleet is in ‘deep’ trouble and that’s why it can’t provide Australia with the support it needs.”

Of Australian monies already paid for AUKUS, Defence Minister Richard Marles, (why does my mind turn to Dr Strangelove on mentioning his name?) has always refused to say if Australia will be refunded the money if either or both countries are unable to deliver Australia the submarines.

The answer to the question is ‘no.’

Meanwhile submarines, more fit for purpose, were on order from the French ($90 billion for 12), or could have been bought off the shelf from upwards of  $200 million each for conventional subs, rising to $2 billion for those nuclear powered.

Well, what’s billions wasted between friends? Unless you care for the opportunity costs foregone in health, education, welfare, and national infrastructure.

And we still are never likely to see the submarines, submerged, or otherwise. More likely sunk, carrying our monies.