Ideas@TheCentre
Facts favour nuclear-powered submarines
Australia’s $40 billion project to replace six Collins Class submarines with 12 Future Submarines is at risk of failing. In addition to the potential gap between the retirement of the Collins Class and the commissioning of the Future Submarines, unsolved problems with the Collins Class threaten the viability of our future submarine fleet.
Australia’s diesel-powered Collins Class submarines are expensive and unreliable. These problems are likely to be inherited by any Australian-designed Future Submarine, which is why Australia must explore leasing the US Navy’s nuclear-powered Virginia Class attack submarine.
Nuclear-powered submarines can travel faster and farther, and remain deployed for much longer than their diesel-powered rivals; they also operate more powerful sensors, systems and weaponry.
Despite these advantages, the government has refused to consider the nuclear option, instead preferring to substantially redesign an existing diesel submarine. The same process gave us the Collins Class; we don’t need to repeat the mistake to know the likely outcome.
Each Collins Class submarine costs more than $110 million a year to maintain and operate, with total costs for the six submarines likely to exceed $1 billion a year by 2021. Nor has the higher cost meant greater reliability. Typically, no more than two Collins Class submarines have been available for deployment. The rest have been in maintenance or awaiting repair of serious defects.
By contrast, the Virginia Class submarine costs the United States approximately $50 million per submarine per year and is proving very reliable.
The acquisition costs are lower too. The upfront cost of leasing eight Virginia Class submarines (together with establishment costs) is $23 billion to $27 billion, substantially lesser than the $40 billion estimate for the diesel-powered Future Submarines.
Arguments against nuclear-powered submarines don’t add up. The defence minister cited self-reliance as the main reason for rejecting nuclear-powered submarines. However, the Collins Class submarine was the poster child for self-reliance and it is hardly a success story.
Moreover, Australia depends heavily on foreign defence companies (and their Australian subsidiaries) for the development and sustainment of its platforms now, and that dependence will only increase given Australia’s declining defence budgets.
The United States has agreed to give nuclear submarine technology to Canada and the United Kingdom in the past. As Australia is an important ally and has close defence ties with the United States, the latter would seriously consider a request from Australia for nuclear-powered submarines. Leasing submarines would also increase the effective force level of the United States and its allies, and take some of the pinch out of proposed budget cuts.
Safety concerns and skills gaps are also important considerations, but these are manageable issues. What is important is getting the best submarine we can for the money the government is willing to spend. On that basis, Australia must consider nuclear-powered submarines.
Simon Cowan is a Research Fellow at The Centre for Independent Studies and author of The Future Submarine Project Should Raise Periscope for Another Look, which was released on 24 October.
