The Royal Australian Navy's HMAS Waller (SSG 75), a Collins-class diesel-electric submarine, is seen in Sydney Harbour on Nov 2, 2016. (PHOTO / AFP)
Sometime toward the end of March, Australia should know whether or not its nuclear submarine ambitions will be realized.
The program is the cornerstone of the AUKUS security pact – between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States – which was unveiled in September 2021. Since then, only one of the signatories remains in power – US President Joe Biden. Scott Morrison, as prime minister of Australia, lost the federal election in May 2022 and his British counterpart Boris Johnson quit in July.
Since September 2021, the three countries have had a working party looking into the feasibility of the project and in particular the capabilities required to enable production and operation of nuclear-powered submarines by Australia, but more importantly the transfer of technology.
There is also a question around nuclear nonproliferation sensitivities and exemptions under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations.
Not every US senator or congressman is in favor of sharing sensitive technology of nuclear submarines, even with an ally as close as Australia. And this is despite Australia being the second-largest US defense export market after Saudi Arabia, according to the US Department of Commerce’s International Trade Administration
The group was given 18 months to submit its findings, with a report expected toward the end of March this year.
Australia has made no secret it is looking at US nuclear submarines rather than the UK’s.
However, not every US senator or congressman is in favor of sharing this sensitive nuclear technology, even with an ally as close as Australia. And this is despite Australia being the second-largest US defense export market after Saudi Arabia, according to the US Department of Commerce’s International Trade Administration.
One Australian analyst, Binoy Kampmark, said the thinking behind the AUKUS pact was “shoddy”.
He said the whole program has raised serious questions about the extent US power will subordinate Australia further in future conflicts; has brought into question Australia’s own sovereignty; and has also raised the specter of regional nuclear proliferation.
ALSO READ: China against IAEA budget use for AUKUS safeguards activities
Australia’s new Labor government has said it is committed to delivering eight nuclear-powered submarines, despite the cost, which some experts say could exceed A$20 billion ($14.3 billion).
Congressman Adam Smith, a senior member of the US House of Representatives Armed Services Committee, has serious doubts about the entire security pact.
He told a seminar in Washington on Jan 11 that the biggest stumbling block to the viability of the pact is technology transfer.
“Our (US) excessive focus on technology export controls could scuttle the three-way security pact,” Smith said.
Obviously, it is a very big project for which many decisions need to be made. But speaking personally there is still a long way to go and we still don’t have any details.
Siemon Wezeman, a senior researcher, arms transfers program, with the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute
During a webinar at the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies in August last year, US Navy Rear Admiral Scott Pappano, the executive officer for strategic submarines, was asked if the United States had the capacity to meet Australia’s nuclear submarine ambitions.
According to a report by the Japanese magazine Nikkei, Pappano said, “If you are asking my opinion, if we are going to add additional submarine construction to our industrial base, that would be detrimental to us right now, without significant investment to provide additional capacity, capacity to do that,” adding, “and that goes for the US as well.”
ALSO READ: Doubts surface over AUKUS nuke-powered submarine deal
At the end of last year, a letter to President Biden from Jack Reed, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and James Inhofe was leaked. The senators’ letter expressed serious concerns that plans to “sell or transfer” Virginia-class submarines to Australia would “undermine the US Navy’s own requirements”.
Siemon Wezeman, a senior researcher, arms transfers program, with the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, said: “Obviously, it is a very big project for which many decisions need to be made. But speaking personally there is still a long way to go and we still don’t have any details.”
He told China Daily: “Nuclear propulsion would dramatically increase the (underwater) endurance of the submarines compared to conventional propulsion. It would also make the subs more compatible with those of Australia’s main allies, the United States and Britain, which both only operate nuclear submarines.
Susannah Patton, Southeast Asia program director at the Lowy Institute, a Sydney-based think tank, believes that while differences over AUKUS can be managed in the short term, Australia’s submarine ambitions stand to have lasting implications on its relationships with Indonesia and with others in the region
“Politically, however, it is a minefield. Australia, the United States and Britain maintain they (nuclear submarines) are needed for regional stability.”
Some of Australia’s regional neighbors, particularly Indonesia, have questioned the need for Australia to have nuclear-powered submarines.
It is no secret that Indonesia was upset by the AUKUS announcement, as neither Australia nor the United States had bothered to brief Jakarta before announcing the alliance.
Jakarta outlined its concerns in a working paper presented to the United Nations nuclear nonproliferation review conference in August last year.
READ MORE: 'AUKUS nuke material transfer legitimacy must be ensured'
Susannah Patton, Southeast Asia program director at the Lowy Institute, a Sydney-based think tank, believes that while differences over AUKUS can be managed in the short term, Australia’s submarine ambitions stand to have lasting implications on its relationships with Indonesia and with others in the region.
“Those concerns (of Indonesia) are things that Australia should be worried about because it points to the fact that Australia and Indonesia have very different worldviews and that will have an impact on our long-term relationship,” she told the Australian Financial Review in August.
karlwilson@chinadailyapac.com