Séance politics: Is it unpatriotic for Turnbull to question AUKUS?

There’s a mathematical problem with AUKUS — one its supporters would prefer we didn’t discuss.

In the early 2030s, the Americans are supposed to sell us at least three Virginia-class nuclear submarines, before the SSN AUKUS subs, which are yet to be designed, are constructed in the UK. But the sale will only go ahead if it does not “degrade US underseas capabilities”. To avoid this, US submarine production needs to increase to two subs per year by 2028 and 2.33 a year by 2030. Last year, US production was between 1.1 and 1.2 subs, with interim production goals — such as lifting construction to 1.5 subs by the end of 2024 — already missed.

What happens if the Americans need to keep those subs? The modified Collins class subs will still be reaching the end of their working lives, and we’ll have no replacements. It will be the biggest strategic failure by Australian policymakers since World War II. And the risk here is not what might happen if there’s some deviation from business as usual: it will happen unless both the Americans and the British cease business as usual and significantly expedite production of some of the most complex weapons ever built.

There are suggested Plan Bs. Retired submariner Peter Briggs, who spoke this week at Malcolm Turnbull’s Sovereignty and Security forum, has argued we should beg France to build us smaller, cheaper, Suffren-class nuclear subs that will come off a working production line. Others argue for existing off-the-shelf diesel-electric subs. Turnbull points to the US Congressional Research Service as having identified a Plan B:

Up to eight additional Virginia-class SSNs would be procured and retained in US Navy service and operated out of Australia along with the US and UK SSNs that are already planned to be operated out of Australia under pillar 1, while Australia invested in military capabilities (such as, for example, long-range anti-ship missiles, drones, loitering munitions, B-21 long-range bombers,
or other long-range strike aircraft) for performing non-SSN missions.

Former defence secretary Dennis Richardson, who was on the panel with Briggs, told the forum that the previous, Turnbull-era Naval Group submarine contract was far less problematic than the media had portrayed and had been about to proceed to the next stage when Scott Morrison killed it — but he still believed AUKUS had to be pursued. In his view, the big risks to AUKUS were here in Australia, due to the lack of political will, budgetary constraints and workforce problems.

Things got tenser when Turnbull asked what would happen if the subs didn’t arrive. Rear admiral and former submariner Peter Clarke agreed that Turnbull’s question was “absolutely pivotal”, but said “I don’t think it’s the question we should be asking”, and added “I’m not sure how helpful this is because it takes focus, particularly from those who are ill-disposed to AUKUS, it takes focus away from the Plan A, which has enough challenges as it is, without lots of people standing up and saying, this is never going to work.”

When Turnbull pursued the issue, Richardson said, “You’re continuing to press that point. You’re almost making it a certainty that we won’t get it … I think there’s a good chance we will get it. It depends upon the degree of commitment that we have in this country and our preparedness to pursue it as a national enterprise, not as a defence project.”

The implication from Richardson — intentional or otherwise — was that “pressing the point” undermined the degree of commitment necessary for AUKUS to succeed.

Does it undermine AUKUS to wonder what we do if highly plausible events transpire? There’s been a persistent campaign in the media to tell Turnbull to shut up and stop asking difficult questions about the US alliance (most recently in the Nine newspapers this morning). The Australian was sufficiently alarmed by Turnbull’s forum that it launched a pre-emptive strike on the event on Monday, by Anthony Bergin of the neocon “think tank” Strategic Analysis Australia. Bergin suggested the forum might be a gathering of panda-huggers designed to hurt Peter Dutton, argued it wouldn’t change Turnbull’s “long-held opposition to AUKUS”, and claimed “it’s irresponsible to play politics with our US alliance in an election campaign.”

It’s a novel idea that a veil of silence must descend on the discussion of the pros and cons of the US alliance during an election campaign. Rather like how “now is not the time to talk about climate change” is always uttered after bushfires, it seems elections are not the time to discuss the US alliance. It is also a continuation of The Australian’s attitude of “free speech for me, but not for thee”.

But Bergin’s view that such issues should not be debated complements the response of pro-AUKUS figures to Turnbull: stop undermining AUKUS. The real threat to the program is not the manifest failure of America’s submarine construction program but a nebulous “lack of will” on the part of the Australian political class.

AUKUS is thus beginning to take on the core characteristic of a séance: it will only work if everyone believes in it, and fail if there are any sceptics there to harsh the vibe. Merely questioning AUKUS will kill it.

Problem is, this is exactly the mindset that has left us on the precipice of the greatest strategic blunder in 80 years. The lack of questioning of AUKUS — and Labor’s reckless and unthinking embrace of what began life in Scott Morrison’s search for a wedge and Boris Johnson’s hatred of Emmanuel Macron — seems likely to lead to a massive capability gap in our naval forces at a time when events in our region require that capability more than any time since the end of the Cold War.

Keeping quiet isn’t going to build any more subs. Ignoring the basic maths of submarine construction isn’t going to create capability where none exists. If the answer to any question is “how dare you ask that”, everyone should be asking it.

Have something to say about this article? Write to us at letters@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name to be considered for publication in Crikey’s Your Say. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.