Making waves with submarines

Arming up: USS North Dakota is a Virginia-class nuclear powered attack submarine of the US Navy. Biden announced recently that the US will provide these kinds of submarines to Australia to confront a rising China. – Filepic/Reuters

LAST Monday US President Joe Biden announced the current Aukus arrangements providing Australia with Virginia-class attack submarines to confront a rising China.

Multiple challenges facing Aukus – the Australia, United Kingdom and United States trilateral security pact – and critics’ complaints were not mentioned. Some basic issues also remained unclear.

The earlier cost for three submarines was US$268bil (RM1.2 trillion), which ballooned to US$368bil (RM1.65 trillion). When they are delivered in a decade, the cost could approach US$500bil (RM2.24 trillion).

Biden wanted to sell Australia submarines to spread the overheads when expanding US production capacity. Now that the Pentagon wants to enlarge the US navy’s own submarine fleet, Australia has to wait longer.

Complaints include the enormous cost, the long wait, and the resulting cuts needed in Australia’s other armed services. Even the navy’s plan for US$35bil Hunter-class frigates may have to be sacrificed.

Aukus displaced Canberra’s original plan for 12 conventionally powered French submarines costing US$37bil (RM166bil). Scrapping that contract saw a compensation payout of US$585mil and a decade’s wait for pricier Aukus substitutes.

The latter’s nuclear-powered engines are said to be quieter to avoid detection. But China’s old sonar array technology can already detect the quietest submarines for up to 87 nautical miles, while its newer equipment would do even better.

Advances in underwater drone technology would also reduce submarine utility by the 2030s. With at least two US presidential elections due before then, a new president may revise or scrap the deal.

With so much at stake for the Aukus brand, its rationale is remarkably limited. Each stage takes a decade or more to fulfil, while China already has the world’s biggest navy with the highest capacity naval shipyards to build more vessels faster.

What difference will three new Aukus submarines make? However reliable they may be, routine servicing and resupply would mean an average of no more than one or two being battle ready at any given time.

Former Australian Prime Minister Paul Keating described it as “throwing a handful of toothpicks at the mountain” which “would make a cat laugh.” The submarines are more significant in what they symbolise than what they can actually do.

China’s People’s Liberation Army – Navy Submarine Force (PLA-NSF) currently fields 66 submarines, with another 10 due by 2030. Yet this is considered inadequate defence, as more submarines, uncrewed drones and surface ships are built.

Aukus goes beyond submarines to cover artificial intelligence, hypersonic missiles and quantum technologies. Yet China already leads the world in these areas.

Nuclear-powered submarines enable longer operations farther from shore, making deployments more offensive than defensive. Instead of aiding Australia’s defence, Aukus would worsen relations with China at the expense of dialogue, security agreements and better trade and diplomatic relations.

Traversing Asean waters could challenge the South-East Asia Nuclear Weapons-Free Zone, the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation, and the Zone of Peace, Freedom and Neutrality besides the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and the Treaty of Rarotonga. Some reports suggest Aukus submarines could eventually be nuclear-armed.

Even if only nuclear-powered, they would bend the NPT with the transfer of nuclear technology or fissile material to non-nuclear-armed Australia. Aukus countries deny setting a dangerous precedent, but they cannot know how other countries might respond in pursuing nuclear weapons.

Indonesia is considering whether to allow the submarines in its waters. Approval is not automatic and Jakarta has yet to decide.

Aukus encourages an escalation of PLA-N firepower. What is already a regional arms race underway began with the Obama administration.

In 2011 Obama declared a “pivot to Asia” with larger military deployments to the region. China saw a US military might that had devastated Iraq and Afghanistan coming its way.

Beijing scrambled to occupy maritime features it had already claimed without acting on them before. It has recorded hundreds of foreign military intrusions spanning two centuries, all from the sea.

The US launched Aukus in mid-September 2021, a full decade after Obama’s “pivot”. A classic arms race has since been in place.

Taiwan is seen as the most likely flashpoint for conflict. Yet despite US commitment to continue arming Taipei, it remains doubtful if Washington would deploy its own forces if China invaded Taiwan.

US reluctance or refusal to deploy would leave Australia in the lurch as the closest Aukus country to Taiwan. The Anzus (Australia, New Zealand, US) treaty does not address Taiwan’s status or security, making it a quandary than any help.

Anzus covers an attack on the US rather than an attack by the US, such as a pre-emptive assault on China or a false flag operation over Taiwan. An Australia Institute poll found only 30% of Australians agreed with a war against China.

The Taiwan Relations Act has replaced the Sino-American Defense Treaty which had guaranteed Taiwan’s defence, while a One China Policy implicitly acknowledges Taiwan as part of China. These provisions also constitute today’s rules-based order.Bunn Nagara is a geopolitical consultant and Honorary Research Fellow of the Perak Academy.