Australia needs a larger, self-reliant nuclear-powered submarine force, but AUKUS is too costly, too dependent on the US and too uncertain to deliver it.

AUKUS was always a very bad deal, secretly negotiated without expert input. Instead of waiting for its inevitable failure to deliver, we should pursue a better alternative source of nuclear submarines now.

There have been numerous articles on P&I setting out what is wrong with the AUKUS agreement, including a two-part article by us (P&I, 18 and 19 August).

The loss of sovereignty to America, which will not sell us their Virginia-class SSNs (nuclear-powered attack submarines) unless we agree to totally integrate them with the American fleet, and there is also the lack of Australian control over the US use of the bases that we have made available in Australia.

The AUKUS SSNs cost too much and so we cannot afford to buy a sufficient number to properly defend Australia.

The mix of different types of submarines and their very large crews will create further management problems.

All the AUKUS SSNs that Australia proposes to buy are powered by highly enriched weapons-grade uranium, and that will create major management challenges during their life and perhaps insuperable dismantling and disposal problems for Australia after the submarines have been decommissioned.

In addition, capacity problems in both the US and UK shipyards mean that the AUKUS submarines are unlikely to ever be delivered, or certainly only years late.

The first reaction of some readers may be to say that non-delivery is a good thing. It would save a lot of money, and some may want to believe that we don’t really need SSNs.

But realistically Australia does need nuclear submarines for its defence. And unfortunately, while what is wrong with AUKUS has received lots of attention, the possible alternatives have not. However, there is a good and viable alternative to AUKUS.

Our starting point is that while we strongly support Paul Keating’s........

© Pearls and Irritations