The shock waves from the US betrayal of Ukraine and their threats against Canada and Denmark are being felt all around the world, except in Australia where politicians and the media have their heads firmly in the sand. A notable exception was former PM Malcolm Turnbull who has tried to alert people to the danger, but instead has only been asked about the complete irrelevance of his negative comments about Donald Trump and how they might have impacted exemptions from tariffs. Our current PM and Defence Minister can only keep repeating nonsense that the US alliance is safe because there was bipartisan support in Congress for AUKUS legislation.
Well, APDR has read the legislation and all that it does is set up the bank account for Australian cash to be deposited – for the US Secretary of Defence to spend on whatever he damn well pleases. When it comes to making ourselves less dependent on the US, we should immediately take up an offer from South Korea to jointly develop a next generation Army C2 system. Why aren’t Defence officials on their way to Seoul right now? Finally, it looks like the Collins Life of Type Extension (LOTE) program is another disaster – and the consequence is that in the 2030s Australia will have no submarines at all.
To listen to the podcast, click here.
For Editorial Inquiries Contact:
Editor Kym Bergmann at kym.bergmann@venturamedia.net
For Advertising Inquiries Contact:
Group Sales Director Simon Hadfield at simon.hadfield@venturamedia.net
Time to just give up on the idea of a Collins LOTE. Also scrap the plans for the Virginia. I think the best solution would be to acquire off the shelf, offshore built SSKs from Japan or Korea. AUKUS subs could still go ahead in the 40s and 50s if they prove viable.
In August 2022 I wrote scrap the LOTE and buy from the RoK instead: https://asiapacificdefencereporter.com/forget-collins-lote-buy-new-submarines-from-korea-instead/
I felt like screaming this week, too.
Turnbull was given bandwidth to talk about AUKUS because he had criticised Trump in the previous week. Then the media (I suspect the ABC is actually now the worst at this) avoided any analysis of the strategic intentions of AUKUS partners and the rising project risks of AUKUS (three years post-signing) and could only ‘analyse’ it through a ‘tit for tat’ lens of the immediate spat on tariffs and big personality conflict. Asinine and lazy. We are very, very poorly served by our media.
On the Collins class LOTE, I smelt a rat back in May 2024 when it was revealed that there were ‘unprecedented’ corrosion issues on HMAS Farncomb and Rankin. It had to have been known well ahead of May 2024 that this was an issue. Shortly after that, Defence quietly walked back its interests in upgrading Collins to deploy Tomahawks (AFR in June 2024). The Finance Minister (shareholding minister of ASC) stated in May 2024: “I’m satisfied that ASC are doing what they need to do and engaging with Defence and in terms of matters relating to Defence’s overall budget I work closely with the Minister of Defence on those matters.” Twelve months later – what the hell is going on?
Singapore is receiving Type 212 Invincible Class submarines for a program purchase cost of AUD$2.8 billion – for four boats. Crewing at only 28 berths, but ultra-long intra-snorkel capability with the Lithium-Ion and AIP configuration. The LOTE contract on six Collins is listed at AUD$6 billion – six boats. Perhaps someone in Defence could justify that decision.
If Australia remains committed to AUKUS (and I have no reason to believe that this is rational), the smartest thing to do would be to de-risk the project by buying 6 off-the-shelf, littoral submarines from either the Germans, Koreans, Japanese or Swedes. This eliminates the LOTE risk on Collins and shifts the risk from ASC (Australian taxpayer) to either of TKMS, SAAB, MHI or Hanwa, and would allow Australia to (theoretically) jump straight to a UK-AUS design boat. Cheaper, faster, simpler (that is, Australia would only be operating a maximum of two submarine types at any one time) and an approach that guarantees that we maintain an operating submarine capability throughout the life of the AUKUS project along with the flexibility to shut the project down if conditions change.
Finally, I note that AUSTAL disclosed that Hanhwa has taken a 9.9% stake in an off-market transaction. Isn’t AUSTAL supposed to be Defence’s strategic shipbuilding partner? ‘Crickets’ from Minister Conroy, Husic, Chalmers or Marles on this issue. Only in Australia could a nation’s largest defence contractor be subject to a ‘pre-take over move’ from a foreign investor with no comment made by government.
As always, appreciate the podcast for its currency and objectivity.
Thanks Mike – I agree with your analysis, as usual. It’s yet another extraordinary failure of planning on the part of Defence / RAN, with a totally complacent government. Things will only improve when someone is finally held to account. Chances of that happening? Zero.
I posted this earlier, but in August 2022 I outlined the Korean option: https://asiapacificdefencereporter.com/forget-collins-lote-buy-new-submarines-from-korea-instead/
Doing nothing is not an option. Without some submarines, the RAN will lose all of their expertise before any nuclear submarines arrive – which should convince even the pro-AUKUS crowd that something needs to happen.
RAN , ASC & DoD’s escalating incompetence delivers the International Atomic Energy Agency and Australia’s regional neighbours just cause to reject the baseless presumption that Australia could ever be trusted to operate nuclear propulsion technology safely.
Very good point.
Thanks, Mike.
An issue that gets no coverage in Australia is the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (2017). The treaty requires signatories (currently 69 states) to prohibit the basing or movement of nuclear weapons within their jurisdictions. Indonesia submitted to the UN regarding what it considers to be a loophole in the treaty regarding nuclear-powered weapons, as opposed to a nuclear weapon.
Our regional neighbours have moved on this issue. When you look at the current signatories, the list includes most of our littoral neighbours – Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Cambodia, Thailand, Vietnam, Timor-Leste (essentially, all of ASEAN excluding Singapore); our South-Pacific neighbours in Nauru, Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, Tuvalu, Cook Islands and New Zealand. We can add to this our TPP partner countries of Chile, Peru, Mexico and Sri Lanka.
If the Indonesian amendment goes to ratification, Australia’s SSNs will become a pariah to many of our regional partners and their EEZs.
More generally, Australia is looking increasingly isolated from its regional and trade partners when it comes to nuclear deterrence.
Just another dimension to AUKUS Pillar 1 that is not debated in Australia.
I hadn’t thought about that either.
On a related note Kym & Michael W, please see link below from Senator David Shoebridge’s Senate Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee questioning shedding light on the Albanese government’s side stepping word salad re its responsibility under the Treaty of Rarotonga aka the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty, with future basing of nuclear capable US B-52 bombers at RAAF Base Tindal
There are three protocols to the treaty, which have been signed by the five declared nuclear states, with the exception of Protocol 1 for China and Russia who have no territory in the Zone.
Number 1 being no manufacture, STATIONING or testing of nuclear weapons in territories within the Zone
U.S. bomber aircraft have been ‘visiting’ Australia since the early 1980s, and nuclear-capable B-52s and B-2s operate regularly out of northern Australia.
In 2023, Australia’s Foreign Minister Penny Wong said the Australian Government “understand[s] and respect[s] the longstanding US policy of neither confirming or denying”
its aircraft are carrying nuclear weapons.
The weasel worded posturing exposed by this clip should disqualify any trust in Australia.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAMI6nZrA7w
Thanks – I’ll watch with interest.
Another great podcast Kym
It is hard to understand how it is possible for Defence and Navy can so consistently make bad decisions and totally stuff up projects.
I have long advocated moving closer to South Korea and working jointly with them to diversify our equipment procurement on a more regionally focused basis.
We should be pulling out of the tier one AUKUS agreement and buying the KS III submarine – which Canada is also looking at as well. The South Korean KF21 or the Joint UK/JAPAN Gen 6 fighter projects are also something we should move towards.
The Collins class LOTE is just another stuff up of an unprecedented scale and something we have all sadly been expecting.
I am looking forward to seeing the outcome and fallout from the upcoming election to see what happens from that.
LOTE is just doomed to fail. I cannot see anyway it can succeed. Really I can only see two possible outcomes.
The first is just LOTE lite. What this gives us is a submarine that would simply not be fit for service in the 2030s. You couldn’t send submariners into harms way in a 40 year old sub that has basically just had a few bandaids applied to it.
The next option is a full LOTE which some outlets claim could take 4 years or more to complete. This would inevitably lead to a row of Collins subs sitting on hard stands waiting to recieve their upgrades. At 4 years per sub it would take 24 years to complete the upgrades.
It is so obvious that this just won’t work.
Just to add to the confusion, I have been going through various transcripts from Richard Marles in the last few days and he says very clearly in one that the full LOTE will happen to the first sub, but not necessarily to the remaining five. If this proves to be correct it would seem completely insane because ASC would be ordering a single batch of new MTU diesels, a single main electric motor etc with no economies of scale. But in these crazy times, who knows?
Sounds very much like they just want to wait and see. A full LOTE of Farncomb will probably take 4 or more years to complete. By 2030 we may have a clear indication of whether or not the Americans will honour their agreement on the Virginia’s. If they don’t I suspect we will be looking the replace the Collins with whatever can be built quickly. Much the same way as the ANZAC frigates GPF replacement.
It amazes me that after decades of planning they managed to still screw up our submarine and frigate programs to the point where we are forced to buy whatever is available on short notice.
Thanks again for the informative Podcast, although very depressing, the state of the ADF and it’s slavish dependence on the U.S. is appalling and has been the corner stone of Defence Policy for decades. Blaming it all on the Governing Party ( who still must shoulder a lot of the blame) is not exactly correct. The Defence Force itself has been culpable of that way of thinking for as long as I can remember, with a few notable exceptions the AirMarshalls, Generals and Admirals have cowtowed to U.S. influencers and High ranking Military Brass. Breaking free from total dependence on U.S. equipment is not feasible but diversification is well within reason. The Chunmoo offered by Sth Korea is an acceptable alternative to HIRMARS and less expensive and more easily obtained as well as being able to building them in Australia and both use compatible missiles , the KSS III is a better option for the RAN as a stop gap than LOTE Collins ( which doesn’t look like happening anyway) and even as an alternative to AUKUS . The long Range aspect ,which is the only advantage a N Boat has over a DE Boat, can be carried out by Ghost Shark . These are only just two items that can be easily obtained and there are many more from MCM to sensor suites and Radar systems. It’s all there we just need to get out of the mind set that Made in the U.S.A. Means it’s the best option for Australian and that they need us as more than we need them .
For all those submariners in the RAN looking to the future and wondering what it holds for them, the DoD and the RAN has just provided you with a clear answer.
A job anywhere else but the RAN
This week I have heard AUKUS advocates in the media peeling away from the importance of Collins LOTE to the program. I even heard one commentator suggest that AUKUS wasn’t actually about delivering subs to the RAN, but keeping the US tied to Australia. Delusion.
The UK currently has 5 Astute class submarines, with 2 more under construction. The UK has a massive capacity challenge ahead of it if it is to contribute to a joint Euro force outside of a NATO command structure. However, the UK’s budget and balance sheet is famously ‘cooked’.
Could a solution be for the UK to sell two Astute class subs to Australia – one existing, one new – for delivery under a joint crewing/transfer schedule later this decade? Then Australia would engage BAE to establish an Astute production line in Adelaide, based on a ‘no-change’ design for an additional 6 boats.
This would allow the RAN to wind LOTE down to nothing as they would have a contractually committed schedule for boat delivery. Design risk for the future AUKUS boats evaporates, as does the risk of the US delivery schedule for Virginia.
For the UK, it slings a lazy USD 10-12 billion their way that they can use for army and missile protection re-equipping at a time when they are struggling to find the coin they need. It leaves them with a fleet of 5 Astute class subs, but they would also be relieved of any need to forward deploy one boat to Fleet Base West.
Two boats isn’t a fleet, but it at least keeps Australia in the sub-business. In any event, it seems that we are currently operating with one functional Collins boat and are likely to do so for a while.
So Australian taxpayers are to shovel out nearly half a trillion dollars with no guaranteed returns, to an ‘ally’ now poised to attack Australia’s most vulnerable by pushing our PBS into crosshairs of Trump’s deranged tariffs campaign…how to make China look good without China lifting a finger.
UK’s rented missiles & worn out subs, overall control of which rests with the US.
An omen of what an AUKUS future will actually look like…?
click on link below
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2Z0Y-mFMBk
The arguments above are logical and many constantly made over the 16 years i’ve been concentrating on submarines.
But logic, productivity and efficiency since the beginning of Collins, through to today have been usurped by South Australian state, more Australia wide, RAN and Federal Government financial-POLITICAL-electoral priorities.
Basically ASC, the unions, South Australian Government and supply chain companies from all over Australia require LOTE then new submarine building at Osborne using money from the Federal Government. Without car factories, now, South Australia desperately relies on warship and submarine building federal money. All these industrial-political realities doubles the building time for triple the money of a built overseas sub.
What do Federal governments (be they Labor and/or Coalition) get out of this? They buy critical Federal Election votes from the electoral swing state South Australia. A textbook example being Turnbull winning the 2016 Election by rushing the selection of the Attack class submarine to be built at Osborne. He won enough federal seats in South Australia to win the Election.
Also, as with the Collins and Attack-class, the RAN demands special higher speed and very long range alterations to largely mythological “off the shelf” conventional submarines. South Korean, Japanese and German built subs (in response to their customer requirements) have different speed-range qualities that do not match the RAN’s genuine need for long transit range missions at speed.
Singapore’s Type 218 Invincibles were not off the shelf but tailor made to Singapore’s requirements using a mixture of Type 214 and 212 characteristics. Every submarine customers requires some tailoring – but better built overseas.
Between what I call the Osborne “efficiency” curse and necessary RAN tailoring any choice of a new sub would take 12-15 years from 2026 = first sub commissioned in 2038-2040 for triple the built in South Korea price.
Actually Naval Group’s already achieved work on the Attack-class might make it another serious choice for Australia. Much Naval Group Attack-class tech is going into the 4 Dutch subs in a competition won last year. The Netherlands having a high speed transit long range requirement due to its Netherlands to Dutch Caribbean missions, Netherlands to Middle East monitoring mission requirements.
Back to the Attack-class anyone? Also Europe needs all the help it can get against the Trump-Putin Axis.
A bit of nuclear weapon light heartedness, Macron might even extend the French Nuclear Umbrella to Australia. We can’t trust Donald or his thugs to protect us. South Korea, Japan and Germany have no nuclear subs or weapons to help us.
Check out the treatment of a desperate victim of Putin https://youtu.be/HyTO0oIpbqQ? and Trump’s Witkoff (the US negotiator with a love of Putin) https://youtu.be/GctXyUFyNK8?si=2uGUnotP64DUUia0 .
Pete