Australia will build eight nuclear-powered submarines using US technology as part of “the biggest single investment in Australia’s defence capability”, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese announced on Tuesday morning.
Standing alongside US President Joe Biden and UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak in California, Albanese said the AUKUS submarine agreement would strengthen Australia’s national security and bring “stability to our region”.
“This is the first time in 65 years — and only the second time in history — that the US has shared its nuclear propulsion technology,” Albanese said.
The underwater vessels will be fitted with conventional arms but be nuclear-powered, based on a British design and incorporating “cutting-edge Australian, UK and US technologies”.
“I’m proud to be your shipmates,” Biden told the other leaders in remarks made at the naval base Point Loma in San Diego.
Sunak said “Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, China’s growing assertiveness, and destabilising behaviour of Iran and North Korea” made it “more important than ever [to] strengthen the resilience of our countries”.
“But ultimately, the defence of our values depends, as it always has, on the quality of our relationships with others,” he added.
The full cost of the program is estimated at between $268 billion and $368 billion by 2055.
Australia’s current fleet of Collins-class submarines will begin going out of service in 2038, and the new fleet are not likely to arrive until the 2040s.
However, three US Virginia-class nuclear-powered submarines will be delivered to Australia by the early 2030s, Albanese said.
Ahead of the announcement, Opposition Leader Peter Dutton said the Coalition would offer bipartisanship on budget savings to help pay for the subs. “The short answer is yes,” he told ABC’s 7.30.
Greens defence spokesman Senator David Shoebridge called the deal a “$368 billion nuclear-powered raid on public education, health, housing and First Nations justice that will starve core services for decades to come”.
“Until it is reversed, today’s announcement will force Labor to deliver austerity budgets to funnel billions of dollars offshore to fund the US and UK nuclear submarine industries,” he claimed.
Shoebridge is 100% correct of course.
Labor and the LNP on a unity ticket to oblivion.
The money should be spent on the only real threat humanity faces, Climate Change.
Absolutely agree. This is nothing more than what people in the US call a ‘boondoggle’: just another means to move public funds to private industry, without achieving anything besides damaging bellicosity.
…or more blunt Australians call a ‘wank”.
And a rort.
Just one more boondoggle… as with the Abrams M1…a fuel guzzling turbine engined tank built to charge high speed across the boggy, cold wet North German Plain to counter any USSR attack…not really suitable for the dry, dusty, hot deserts of the world and certainly not outback Australia…
When the first batch of second hand Abrams battle tanks, arrived in Australia back in 2007, they immediately encountered problems, with no rail transport available to carry the tank to the Northern Territory. Deployment will be further hampered because, at 68 tonnes, the Abrams is too heavy to travel across road bridges in the Northern Territory. As the first 18 of the tanks were delivered to Port Melbourne, the operators of the Adelaide-to-Darwin railway said they lacked the equipment to carry them.
Adelaide-based Freightlink said the tanks were too big.”Freightlink has participated in a rail study with the implication for new rolling stock to be acquired,” the company said.It did not say when or if it intended to acquire the required rolling stock and suggested it was waiting for contracts to be signed with the Defence Department before going ahead with the purchase. A total of 59 refurbished tanks were bought from the US for $500 million.
Transporting them north by road is likely to be problematic. A senior Northern Territory shire engineer said road bridges in the Katherine Shire had a maximum capacity of 50 tonnes, 18 tonnes less than the weight of one Abrams tank. Road trains weighing up to 50 tonnes are able to use the bridges by disconnecting a trailer, he said.
The tanks, described by the then LNP Defence Minister Brendan Nelson as the best in the world, have a fuel economy as low as 200m a litre. While the US-made tank provides unmatched protection for its crew of four, experts claim its jet turbine engine is three times more expensive to run than the diesel engines in the army’s ageing Leopard 1s. A Defence spokesman said the Abrams’s 2200-litre fuel tanks ensured they had a similar range to the Leopards and that an additional eight refuelling trucks would be provided to the army’s 1st Armoured Regiment in Darwin.
Critics also claim the Abrams’s high heat emission will constrict its ability to work with infantry in urban areas. But a Defence Department spokesman said the Australian Abrams had been designed to minimise their heat emission to a level comparable to diesel-powered tanks. How didi that come about as these are just preowned US tanks, not built specifically to any Australian specifications?
Army mechanics will be kept busy if the US army experience is any guide. It allocates 25 per cent of its maintenance budget for ground combat systems to fixing Abrams gas turbine engines.
But Dr Nelson said the Abrams still offers the best value. “These tanks are the most advanced and capable in the world. This capability w(ill be increasingly important as widespread proliferation of cheap, high-tech and lethal anti-armour, anti-personnel weapons could pose an increasing threat in any future conflict,” he said.
But the Abrams tank was designed to charge across the cold wet North German Plain to counter attack Soviet tanks..not really very suitable for use in dry, dusty and hot outback Australia..
The then Federal Opposition defence spokesman Robert McClelland questioned the need for such a large tank.
“The wisdom of the Abrams acquisition has to be questioned in the light of the limited use they are going to have in our region,” he said. “And specifically, in the light of the logistical issues they are going to present to the ADF simply within Australia.”
Now they hey have just bought more boondoggles, another 70 Abrams tanks and variants, but even heavier with new version SEPv3 version of the Abrams that is not only impossible to transport it using the ADF’s existing amphibious landing boats but also there are reportedly significant parts of northern Australia — where much military training takes place — that are too swampy and the roads too rudimentary to support the new tanks. The Trophy active protection system alone is said to add around 5,000lbs c. 2 tonnes weight, with an overall weight, in combat, of 73.6 tons.c. 66 tonnes
It’s also questionable to what degree tanks would be likely to play a role in any kind of military campaign in the Asia Pacific theater involving China, with most credible scenarios more likely to be dominated by air and sea platforms, as well as missiles.
Interesting that now in the US efforts are being made to return to the concept of a light tank to provide additional firepower for airborne and dismounted infantry brigades, as part of developing a doctrine that’s based on a potential conflict with a ‘great power’ adversary like China or Russia.
While the new Abrams and supporting armored vehicles have been billed by the ADF as an essential element to its land combat capability, some have questioned whether heavy armor of this type is best suited to Australia’s potential requirements in the Asia-Pacific region.
The Joint Strife Fighter…single engined…supposedly stealth…but not so if it is carrying externally the proposed new missiles…it now appears there are not enough spare parts, as US officials warned in July 2019 that there is a chronic shortage of spare parts for international buyers…
Hence…F-35As are not mission-capable 48 per cent of the time.The network to distribute spare parts for the F-35 to international partners has not been established
US official says the fighters “probably won’t” meet a September 2019 benchmark for capability
Lest We Forget the Wedgetail AEW&C ordered in 1999 to be delivered in 2006..but delivery did not occur until the end of 2009…but not until May 2010 were the first two accepted into RAAF service!
Could we just have correct word use – the USUKA subs are NOT “defensive capability” – the Collins DEFEND our country well enough because they cannot operate far beyond our territorial waters.
The nuclear penis substitutes are specifically, solely designed and intended to be OFFENSIVE inside the territorial waters of another country.
In reality they are intended to be provocations and targets for casus belli, just as US troops stationed in Germany since WWII were intended as sacrificial offerings to stop the Soviet invasion through the ‘Fulda Gap’.
Exactly , they are offensive capability to do the bidding of the USA in water far from the coast and waters of the C of A.
You would think that a Labor Government having seen the disasters that those previous US military adventures on which LNP governments had marched off lockstep The Viet Nam Farrago, The Afghan Imbroglio and The Iraq Fiasco who clearly led to The Da’esh Disaster, would have learned some sort of lesson.
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” Georges Santayana.
More money down the sink of defence procurement. Drain the bath and put those little nuclear toys away please.
I dont trust any decision with the taint of ScoMo. Perhaps some Robo Subs may make more sense, with former coalition members as onboard caretakers.
“Perhaps some Robo Subs … with former coalition members as onboard caretakers.”
Priceless! Thanks, John.
Yes it would be good to see the warmongers of the Lying Nasty Party at the pointy end!
Australia’s greatest threat is not China, it’s global warming.
Agree with Shoebridge, the government is behaving like drunken sailors (pardon the reference) with taxpayers’ money which should be spent on life-enhancing & essential services. We are being set up as a support colony for the USA while paying them for the required military equipment with funds we cannot afford. Clever of them, isn’t it…
And involvement in America’s wars!
Not wars but in fact US military adventures. No declaration of war has ever been been made. Neither here in Australia by the Parliament of the C of A , nor in the USA by the US Congress.
The Viet Nam Farrago now followed now by The Afghan Imbroglio and The Iraq Fiasco were all GOP initiated US military adventures into which LNP governments marched off lockstep. With LNP governments committing evermore blood and treasure of the Commonwealth of Australia based on deceit, deception, disinformation,dissimulation, fabrication,fear mongering and scare tactics
.
The Afghan Imbroglio, based on much mendacity, as the real perpetrators were not from Afghanistan or Iraq, but were Sunni Wahhabi-Salafi Islamists, 15 Saudis, 2 from the Gulf States, 1 each from Egypt and Lebanon. Funded by the Saudi government generous support of the Sunni Wahhabi-Salafi, still the mainstay of the jihad movement around the world. Only ended in its 20th year at cost of C.AUD 9 billion.
The Iraq Fiasco, for which PM Howard was proud to serve as Deputy Dawg, an immoral and illegal attack based on a pack of lies, dissimulation and fear mongering started with a Biblical style Shock and Awe to strike the Land of Iraq as, Dubya, The Faux Texan and Blair The Poodle had consulted The Lord before it was launched! At a cost of c.AUD 5 billion
Iraq was a Shi’i country that had nothing to do with the events of 11 September, for again in there were 15 Wahhabi Salafi from Sunni KSA a major funder of Sunni Islamist Terrorism.
This led to the deaths and displacement of the people of Iraq as well as the almost total damage to the country and its economy. Including such incidents as happened in Fallujah , not to forget Abu Ghraib…Which later led to The Da’esh Disaster that still effects parts of Iraq, Syria and the surrounding countries.
Usual rubbery figures, with costings between “268 and 368 BILLION Dollars”.
Billions mentioned like it was small change.
Given such projects invariably end up costing way more than indicated, this should keep future governments too poor to deal with health, welfare and social issues for the next 20 years.