Áutralia's non-govt defence lobbies, think tanks and other industry hanger-onners are generally a hawkish deeply compromised rabble.
funded in part hy foreign arms manufacturers and riddled with former foreign defence operatives, these groups can usually be relied upon to provide uncritical support of Australia's defence industry decisions, such as the $368 billion AUKUS subs fiasco.
so it was surprising to see an article in ASPI's Strategist publication on Dec. 5 calling for Australia to junk the nuclear subs and start planning to buy a French design.
things must be so bad already in AUKUS land that ASPI wants to backpeddle from previous support and get some distance from its position as a brown-nosing AUKUS toady.
the article by former submariner Peter Briggs, the start of which appears below, can't be construed as ASPI policy but at least its publication concedes genuine concerns about Australia's most stupid possible defence purchase.
PETER BRIGGS/ASPI:
"Australia should start planning for acquisition of at least 12 submarines of the French Suffren design."
"The current AUKUS plan for eight nuclear-powered attack submarines (SSNs) has always been flawed, and now its risks are piling up.
"We should go ahead with naval-operational aspects of the AUKUS SSN plan, such as supporting US and British submarines when they come to Australia. But for the acquisition effort, we should be ready to drop the plan to buy eight SSNs under AUKUS—three from the US that Washington is increasingly unlikely to supply, and five that are supposed to be built to an oversized British design and probably can’t arrive on time.
"Instead, we would commence a joint Franco-Australian construction program for a greater number of submarines of the Suffren class, a design that is already in service with the French navy.
"To ensure deliveries could begin as early as 2038, the Australian government that’s elected next year should commit to deciding in 2026 whether to switch to the French design.
"Even if the AUKUS acquisition plan succeeds, it will deliver a questionable capability.
"The submarines’ designs would be a mix of two blocks of Virginia-class submarines, more than 14 years apart in design, and yet-to-be-designed SSN-AUKUS using Britain’s yet-to-be-tested PWR3 reactor. Moreover, SSN-AUKUS would be partly built by the underperforming British submarine enterprise that’s under great pressure to deliver the Royal Navy’s next class of ballistic missile submarines.
"Displacing more than 10,000 tonnes, SSN-AUKUS submarines will be too big for Australia’s needs. Their size will increase their detectability, cost and crews. (The large size appears to be driven by the dimensions of the reactor.)
"The Royal Australian Navy is already unable to crew its ships and grow to meet future demands. It will have great difficulty in crewing Virginias, which need 132 people each, and SSN-AUKUS boats, too, if their crews equal the 100-odd needed for the current British Astute class."
