‘Pathetically undergunned’:The navy’s nuclear dilemma

The navy has spent billions on new surface ships. But experts warn they’re all but useless against China. Modern naval warfare will be won underwater,and time’s running out for Australia to be ready.

By
Is Australia ready for war?

Is Australia ready for war?Matthew Absalom-Wong

Since Federation there have been two competing schools of thought on how Australia should assemble its defence forces. The names may have changed,but the divide is always present.

In the early 20th century it was the “Australianists” against the “imperialists”. Then it was “fortress Australia” versus “forward defence”. Since the end of the Vietnam War,it’s been “self-reliance” and the “US alliance”.

Are we building the Australian Defence Force to defend the continent and its approaches from an attack? Or is the aim to deploy the ADF further from home,alongside the United States and other allies,so that we keep the wider region stable and rely on a security guarantee from our big and powerful friend?

The truth is that Australia is always trying to do both,but in a world of finite resources the hard part is deciding where we sit on this spectrum so that we can structure our forces accordingly.

With the rise of China challenging the position of the US in the Asia-Pacific,this fundamental split is at the centre of the debate over how the Royal Australian Navy should be structured.

While the likelihood of an actual war between the major powers is remote,Beijing’s actions – which include militarising disputed features of the South China Sea,increasing military pressure on Taiwan and butting up against Japan in the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands – have made the prospect of a maritime conflict more likely.

Any real discussion about the navy is always centred on submarines,given the vital role they would play in a major conflict today.

Submarines,which can travel both underwater and on the surface,have long been a vital capability for the world’s biggest navies. They can operate undetected for long periods of time,providing an indispensable tool for surveillance as well as a credible threat to sink surface ships with torpedoes or anti-ship missiles.

Why nuclear submarines?

Prime Minister Scott Morrison announced in September that Australia was dumping a $90 billion agreement with France to build 12 conventional submarines and would instead develop a fleet of at least eight nuclear-powered boats with the US and Britain under the AUKUS agreement. The nuclear submarines will arrive by 2036 at the earliest,but possibly much later,at a cost of at least $116 billion.

The decision to acquire a fleet of nuclear-powered submarines has very little to do with defending the mainland and its maritime approaches,which our current fleet of Collins-class subs could probably handle. In fact,some commentators argue conventional submarines are superior in defending the archipelago to our north because their engines can be turned off,which makes them stealthier.

“There are so many ways for the Chinese to sink ships,and our ships are just pathetically undergunned.”

Marcus Hellyer,Australian Strategic Policy Institute senior analyst

Nuclear submarines are far superior in endurance,speed and weapons storage. They can also stay underwater for longer because they don’t have to rise to the surface to “snorkel”. Conventional submarines charge their batteries with diesel engines and must come to the surface to do so;nuclear submarines use power generated by the nuclear reactor on board.

If a war broke out in the South China Sea,conventional submarines would not be very helpful against a Chinese navy – now the biggest in the world. They would only be able to spend about 11 days in the disputed waterway before running out of fuel and heading back to their station in Fremantle,according to a study by the Centre for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments in Washington. A nuclear submarine could last 77 days.

This is why Australia decided to go nuclear – so that it can deploy its submarines alongside the Americans,and other allies such as Japan,much further from home.

There is no room for error in the schedule. The first of Australia’s Collins-class boats is due to undergo a full rebuild between 2026 and 2028,before going out of service in 2038. The nation faces a serious capability gap if the nuclear submarines are delayed.

Defence Minister Peter Dutton says he is now confident that the first nuclear submarine will be in the water by 2038.

“I have no doubt we’ll have a nuclear-propelled submarine before that date,” Mr Dutton tellsThe Sydney Morning Herald andThe Age. “We didn’t enter into these negotiations thinking that our partners[Britain and the US] were half-hearted. They’re very committed to the task,and we’re in some fruitful discussions at the moment,but we’ll have more to say on that in due course. But I think the nature of the conversation and negotiation at the moment is what gives me confidence.”

The government has given itself between 12 and 18 months from theAUKUS announcement in September last year to decide which nuclear submarine to build. The two main options are to base it on the US’s Virginia-class submarines or Britain’s Astute-class.

Dutton says discussions are also under way on the prospect of more British and American nuclear submarines visiting Australia,as well as Australians going on their submarines as part of joint crewing operations.

The Defence Minister is also not ruling out an option put forward by former prime minister Tony Abbott for Australia to lease retiring American or British nuclear submarines for training purposes.

“There’s just complete and total engagement by the US and the UK,and they’re very willing partners,” Dutton says. “There’s nothing that I’m ruling in or out in those discussions.

“And I do think there will be joint-crewing and there will be visits and all of that is part of the discussion.”

Dutton is also still insisting the submarines will be built in Adelaide,saying the government has already “demonstrated through a number of programs a desire to build our capability … and there are tens of thousands of jobs in the economy today as a result of that”.

Under AUKUS,the three countries are also exploring the development of underwater drones,which Dutton says will “absolutely” be part of Australia’s future navy,but he doesn’t believe they will be a replacement for submarines.

What would a modern war between nations look like?

The last time comparable navies fought each other was in World War II,which presents problems in determining what Australia needs in 2022 and the years ahead.

The naval battle during the Falklands War in 1982 was not a fair contest. Argentina had just two conventional submarines,while Britain had four nuclear-powered submarines. When one of the British nuclear submarines sunk the Argentine cruiser General Belgrano,the war was effectively over.

Since then,the ability of submarines to find and sink ships has only increased.

Despite this,Australia is spending $45.6 billion on a fleet of nine new frigates and about $4 billion on 12 offshore patrol vessels. Its $3 billion class of two amphibious ships – called “landing helicopter docks” (LHDs) – has been in service for almost a decade.

Marcus Hellyer,a senior analyst with the Australian Strategic Policy Institute,says there needs to be less focus on big warships because they will be easily sunk by submarines and aircraft in a modern war.

At the very least,Hellyer says Australian warships need to have long-range missiles installed on them as a matter of priority.

“Defence is still in that paradigm where you have endless time to create beautiful warships that you will send away on a US or UN operation,and their job is to sort of sit there and patrol,” Hellyer says.

“They haven’t got the message that this is now for real,and you’re up against a near-peer adversary who is going to be just bombarding you with very sophisticated anti-ship missiles of various kinds. There are so many ways for the Chinese to sink ships,and our ships are just pathetically undergunned.”

The government has decided to equip the navy’s three Hobart-class destroyers with Tomahawk cruise missiles,allowing them to hit land targets from about 1600 kilometres away. This would be a massive upgrade on their current missiles which have a range of just over 150 kilometres,and give the destroyers the ability to strike Chinese targets from well outside its seas.

In the longer term the navy is also looking to equip its ships with hypersonic missiles – which can travel five or more times the speed of sound – that can be co-developed with the US.

What kind of war would Australia be fighting?

While Australia is gearing up to help deter Chinese aggression in places like the South China Sea,we can’t neglect our mainland and its approaches.

The prospect of an attack on the continent by a country like China may seem remote,but we also want to deter the threat of force being used to make us do things we don’t want to.

Australian military strategist Hugh White,the principal author of Australia’s 2000 Defence White Paper,says he doesn’t understand why Australia is doubling down on big surface vessels because “finding a ship is now a cinch and sinking it is now trivial”.

“For Australia,this means it’s very easy for us to stop other people projecting power towards us,” he says. “But the converse of that is that it’s very easy for an adversary to stop us projecting power towards them.”

“We should be planning Australia’s defence today on the expectation that we don’t have a US ally to depend on in 20 or 30 or 40 years from now.”

Hugh White,Australian military strategist

For this reason,according to White,the focus should be on “maritime denial” – stopping adversaries from controlling the maritime approaches to Australia by air and sea – rather than on attaining “sea control” closer to China.

“I think a battle for sea control with China is a fundamentally stupid policy. Because the US is going to find it extremely hard to project power by sea against China,and so are we,” White says.

“We should stop spending money on forces designed to achieve sea control so we can project against others,and start spending money on forces designed for sea denial to stop other people projecting power against us.”

White has long been pessimistic about the US’s staying power in the region and is instead in favour of Australia focusing on self-reliance. White believes the costs and risks to the US of seeking to preserve its position in Asia-Pacific are too great,and America will eventually withdraw from the region.

Australia,according to White,needs to learn how to live with a dominant China on its doorstep – and this means building a military that would impose an unacceptable risk to a great power directly threatening the mainland.

“How do you stop a major power like China projecting armed force towards Australia? The good news is that it’s actually not as hard as you might think. We have two huge things going on our side:the fact that we are remote and the fact we are an island,” White says. “You have to build a military strategy on what I call maritime denial – that is:denying the adversary passage across our maritime approaches. That’s a very different kind of operational concept from the one Australia is pursuing at the moment.”


White is not a fan of the AUKUS agreement,saying it has been exaggerated for two reasons. The first is because the nuclear fleet will arrive too late,and the second is it is not necessarily what is needed.

Instead of getting nuclear submarines decades down the line,White says Australia should be looking at building a new version of the Collins-class submarine,while moving as fast as it can to buy “off-the-shelf” submarines such as Germany’s Type 216 conventional submarine.

“One of the differences between me and everybody else is that I don’t think we need a class of six or eight or even 12 submarines – we need a force of 24 or 36,” White says.

“That’s because I think we should be planning Australia’s defence today on the expectation that we don’t have a US ally to depend on in 20 or 30 or 40 years from now.

“For that reason,my whole approach is different from everybody else’s – I just want to start buying just about any submarine I can find.”

John Blaxland,a professor of international security and intelligence studies at the Australian National University,says he agrees more submarines are needed,but short-range diesel-electric submarines are not the answer.

“Just to get from Fremantle to Darwin,you need a long-range submarine. This is not the Baltics. We’re talking about massive distances,” he says. “I agree that we need to double down on the number of submarines – we need to get cracking on getting them – but I really fundamentally disagree with the rationale for lots of small ones. They’re ineffective,they’re vulnerable,they don’t have stealth,they don’t have range or endurance.”

Is Australia ready for war?

Despite so many changes over recent decades,it all comes back to whether the nation’s military should be focused on defending the continent,or if its interests are better served by helping a powerful ally further from home.

Opposition defence spokesman Brendan O’Connor says the ADF’s primary responsibility is to “defend the nation and its citizens”.

“It has very important matters that are incidental to that objective,as we’ve seen recently with its involvement in responses to other challenges – such as bushfires,pandemics and alliances. So the role of the ADF,first and foremost,is to defend this country,” says O’Connor,who adds that Labor supports acquiring nuclear submarines under AUKUS and promises to keep the arrangement in place.

Dutton says the ADF has many objectives but its main business is to “keep prevailing peace in our region”.

“They do that by working very closely with their partners,” he says. “The absence of the United States from the region would dramatically reshape Australia’s position in the Indo-Pacific.”

For now,Australia is betting on the US’s staying power. But the Americans need our help on the high seas more than ever.

This is part three in our seriesIs Australia Ready For War? Part four,exploring cyber warfare,will be published on Thursday.

The Morning Edition newsletter is our guide to the day’s most important and interesting stories,analysis and insights.Sign up here.

Anthony Galloway is political correspondent for The Sun-Herald and The Sunday Age.

Most Viewed in Politics