Very interesting debate on the Aukus submarine program.
Sovereignty and Security forum Canberra 2025
This panel discusses the viability of AUKUS in its current form, and what needs to change to deliver sovereign undersea warfare capabilities that Australia can afford to own and man. Panellists include:
- Dennis Richardson AO, served as Secretary of Defence, Secretary of Foreign Affairs, was the Director General of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) for almost a decade to 2005, and was the Australian Ambassador to the United States for 5 years until 2010;
- Jennifer Parker, served for 20 years with the Royal Australian Navy, specialising in Principal Warfare Officer. She was second in command of the HMAS Darwin, our guided missile frigate;
- Rear Admiral Peter D Briggs AO OAM served in the Royal Australian Navy for 40 years, specialising as a submarine operator. He was in Command of HMAS Stirling, and was Head of Submarine Capability resolving Collins introduction into service issues.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LtXSr0QsME
Adm. Briggs kicks off with the flaws in the current SSN Aukus plan:
- "A plan designed by a couple of political advisors in a coffee shop, who have never been nowhere near anyone who has ever operated and maintained submarines... a flawed plan, heading for the wrong destination."
He then goes into
"Virginia we have a problem" - the reasons why the US submarine fleet is aging faster than it can be replaced by new Virginias, and how Virginia deliveries are behind schedule and further build delays inevitable. His conclusion:
- "There is no scenario under the current plan that does not severely degrade the USN's SSN availability. (...) Getting [the Virginia build rate] to 2.33, even though it's not going to happen, will not tick the box [mandated by Congress] which is not to degrade US undersea warfare capability"
He discusses how the current and future US administrations can be expected to view AUKUS:
- "The current US administration is not going to dump AUKUS. It's such a good deal. No one is going to object to that deal. They're getting access to a base we're going to build, maintenance that we're going to pay for, we're sending Australians to serve in their SSNs, filling gaps in their crewing, paying their wages, and sending money to support the US shipbuilding industry"
- "In 2031 it will be a different administration. They will be looking at the legislation that says "does not degrade" [US undersea warfare capability]. There is no way the next administration will choose to cut their own SSN years in order to sell us submarines which we cannot man and cannot get operational."
He then goes into the other flaws of SSN AUKUS, the UK's inability to deliver, complex supply chains with 2 variants, excessive manning requirements etc.
Finally Briggs finishes in favor of a Plan B based on 12 Suffrens, which are smaller, require fewer crew, will be less expensive to build and maintain than 8 US or UK SSNs, won't have to be debugged, can be bought in large enough numbers to enable an Australian supply chain...
- "It won't be low risk, but it will be much lower risk than SSN Aukus. We will be in charge of our own destiny... this is the only sovereign option"
On the other hand, Parker, a supporter of AUKUS, argues that Australia must work with the US to obtain the Virginias and must stop constantly changing approaches. She repeats claims that the French SSK purchase wasn't working, it was delayed and above cost (however, she is corrected by the moderator Turnbull, who cites government official statements that there were no delays or cost increases), and argues that the current partnership has been progressing remarkably well.
- "In 3.5 years, a lot has been achieved. Of course there is risk... but we know the risk, and it is being treated."
breakingdefense.com
www.abc.net.au
breakingdefense.com
