\u201cIt is the apex predator of the undersea domain, the most advanced and lethal submarine ever built.\u201d<\/p>\n
There are few who would argue with the Virginia\u2019s lethality. Australia is set to buy three of these boats, second-hand, from the US Navy, beginning in 2032.<\/p>\n
But is it the right submarine for Australia?<\/p>\n
Australian defence minister, Richard Marles, speaks as US secretary of defense, Pete Hegseth, and UK defence secretary, John Healey, look on at an Aukus meeting at the US embassy in Singapore. Photograph: Edgar Su\/Reuters<\/p>\n
Hegesth\u2019s words, for all of their rhetorical bellicosity, were revealing: \u201cAmerican \u2026 fighting spirit\u201d; \u201capex predator\u201d; \u201censuring America is free and safe and powerful\u201d.<\/p>\n
Virginia-class submarines \u2013 nuclear-powered and conventionally armed \u2013 are very good at travelling undetected fast and staying underwater for a very long time (limited, essentially, only by the capacity of the crew to stay submerged).<\/p>\n
They are an attack submarine, an outstanding offensive platform for hunting and destroying a far-distant adversary, able to traverse thousands of miles of deep ocean undetected.<\/p>\n
But Australia\u2019s National Defence Strategy<\/a>, released this year, says the nation\u2019s \u201cstrategy of denial\u201d \u2013 which aims to deter conflict before it begins \u2013 was \u201cfocused on safeguarding Australia\u2019s interests in our primary area of military interest\u201d. This includes the immediate region encompassing the north-east Indian Ocean through maritime Southeast Asia into the Pacific as well as Australia, its populated offshore territories and its northern approaches.<\/p>\n double quotation markThe US Navy has over 60 nuclear submarines and are currently unable to force open the strait of HormuzAndrew Gaczol<\/p>\n A growing chorus of naval experts is arguing that the Virginia-class submarines are the wrong boats for this country.<\/p>\n The waters to the north of the Australian continent \u2013 from where any potential threat is overwhelmingly likely to approach \u2013 are shallow, best suited to a submarine far smaller than Virginia\u2019s nearly 8,000 tons of displacement, some say.<\/p>\n A smaller, more nimble submarine, quieter when operating under battery, is a better platform for that role, they say. In addition, smaller submarines are cheaper and easier to crew: Australia could afford more of them, increasing the potency of its force.<\/p>\n The argument runs thus: the Virginias, and the even larger Aukus-class submarines set to follow, are nuclear-powered submarines perfectly suited to fighting a distant war on behalf of the US. But they are the wrong boats to defend Australia.<\/p>\n Defence or \u2018projecting power\u2019?<\/p>\n Dr Andrew Gaczol spent a decade as an international political analyst and policy officer at the Australian department of defence. He told an independent inquiry into Aukus coordinated by the Australian Peace and Security Forum that the Australian public had been provided only two arguments in support of the Aukus deal, \u201cand neither stand up to serious scrutiny\u201d.<\/p>\n The primary argument put forward is that of defence of Australia.<\/p>\n Gaczol told the inquiry it was unnecessary to have submarines with unlimited range to defend the nation\u2019s waters or conduct defensive operations in the region.<\/p>\n \u201cThe latest state-of-the-art Air Independent Propulsion (AIP) conventional diesel-electric submarines are more suitable as they are smaller, quieter when submerged and better suited to the relatively shallow waters of the Australian continental shelf and the waters to Australia\u2019s north,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n The second argument propounded for Aukus is the need for Australia \u2013 as a nation reliant on trade \u2013 to maintain open sea lanes around it.<\/p>\n Given the small number of attack submarines the Aukus deal will ultimately provide, critics argue they will not be able to protect Australia\u2019s seaborne approaches.<\/p>\n Navies around the world operate on \u201cthe rule of threes\u201d, which states that for every three of a complex platform you possess, only one can be relied upon to be operational at any given time. Essentially, of three submarines, one is on active deployment, one is training or conducting exercises, and one is in maintenance, dry dock or recovering from operations.<\/p>\n Australia plans to buy three Virginia-class submarines from the US, to be supplemented \u2013 when they are designed and built \u2013 by up to five submarines of the Aukus class. By the end of the 2040s, eight submarines would give Australia, at any time, a fleet of two, perhaps three submarines on active deployment.<\/p>\n \u201cI can\u2019t see how such a small number of vessels will be able to keep open all of Australia\u2019s trade routes all of the time,\u201d Gaczol told the inquiry.<\/p>\n \u201cAs a counterpoint, I note that the US Navy has over 60 nuclear submarines and are currently unable to force open the strait of Hormuz.\u201d<\/p>\n Gaczol says he supports Australia having submarines, but that the Virginia and Aukus-class boats were not ideal for Australia\u2019s defence. The benefit of Australia\u2019s geography \u2013 a vast landmass protected by thousands of kilometres of ocean \u2013 mean \u201cthe chances of Australia being actually sort of invaded are virtually nil\u201d.<\/p>\n The oceans to Australia\u2019s north are also relatively shallow \u2013 under 200 metres deep across parts of the Indonesian archipelago and South China Sea \u2013 meaning large nuclear submarines \u201care more easily detected\u201d than smaller and quieter conventional boats.<\/p>\n As deep-water boats that can travel anywhere around the globe at high speed, nuclear submarines are unnecessary for defending Australia, Gaczol says, and are instead about \u201cprojecting power into another part of the world\u201d.<\/p>\n Quick GuideDifferences between types of submarines Show<\/p>\n Nuclear-powered submarines<\/p>\n – Able to stay underwater indefinitely, limited only by the capacity of the crew<\/p>\n – Can maintain high speeds at all times<\/p>\n – Have cooling pumps which must run constantly to cool the nuclear reactor, giving them a constant acoustic signature<\/p>\n Conventional diesel-electric submarines<\/p>\n –\u00a0Must surface every few days to \u2018snort\u2019 because their diesel engines require atmospheric oxygen to burn fuel and recharge batteries that power the submarine underwater<\/p>\n – Detectable, and therefore vulnerable, while on the ocean\u2019s surface\u00a0<\/p>\n Air Independent Propulsion (AIP)<\/p>\n –\u00a0Allows conventional diesel-electric submarines to generate electricity underwater<\/p>\n – Can stay submerged for weeks at a time without needing to \u2018snort\u2019<\/p>\n – There are different AIP systems: most use fuel cells, hydrogen, and liquid oxygen to create electricity underwater. This is used to replenish the submarine\u2019s batteries, allowing it to stay submerged<\/p>\n – While operating under AIP, the submarine travels more slowly<\/p>\n Thank you for your feedback.<\/p>\n \u201cTo put it colloquially, that\u2019s not protecting our patch. That\u2019s going into someone else\u2019s patch and poking them in the eye,\u201d he says.<\/p>\n Gaczol believes the acquisition of Virginia-class submarines suits US imperatives, not Australia\u2019s.<\/p>\n \u201cThe only scenario I can really see these boats being applicable for is to chase Chinese submarines in the South China Sea should it come to a conflict there. Effectively, our force will be an adjunct of the US Navy.\u201d<\/p>\n \u2018Best deal on offer\u2019<\/p>\n Former South Australian senator Rex Patrick, an ex-submariner and resolute Aukus critic, is familiar with the aphorism \u201cquantity is a quality of its own\u201d.<\/p>\n He says while there was undoubted advantage to buying large attack submarines \u2013 greater payloads, more torpedoes, more capability to transport special forces soldiers \u2013 \u201cthere\u2019s always a trade off\u201d.<\/p>\n \u201cIf the cost of buying one large nuclear submarine is that you could buy four other submarines for the same price, that\u2019s a trade off you have to consider.\u201d<\/p>\n Aukus is forecast to cost up to $368bn by the 2050s \u2013 $33m a day for 30 years on a conservative estimate. Few, if any, major defence projects of this complexity run on time, or on budget.<\/p>\n And Aukus is dependent not only on Australia\u2019s efforts to build a nuclear-powered submarine fleet from scratch: it is reliant on the US \u2013 beset by tenaciously laggard boat-building \u2013 to construct enough Virginia class boats to spare three for Australia<\/a>; and it needs the UK\u2019s sole submarine-building yard to design and build the first of the new Aukus class boats, on which Australia\u2019s domestically built boat will be constructed.<\/p>\n For far less than the slated cost of the Aukus deal, Australia could buy 20 conventionally powered air independent propulsion submarines, Patrick says.<\/p>\n \u201cIf you had 20 submarines, you\u2019d have seven boats in the water, in seven different locations, and seven times the magnitude of problem for the other commander,\u201d he says.<\/p>\n Patrick notes Canada, with the longest coastline in the world and facing many of the same geopolitical challenges as Australia, recently announced it would buy 12 air independent propulsion submarines<\/a> from German shipbuilder TKMS for a reported $33bn.<\/p>\n A rendering of ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems\u2019 HDW Class 212CD diesel-electric submarine. Illustration: TKMS Group<\/p>\n The Australian government, though, insists Aukus is \u201cthe best deal on offer\u201d.<\/p>\n In June, the defence minister, Richard Marles, told the Shangri-La dialogue<\/a> Australia had made the deliberate choice to increase the weight of its naval spending: more than 40% of Australia\u2019s defence budget is now directed towards the country\u2019s maritime domain.<\/p>\n \u201cFor a three-ocean nation, this is a strategic necessity,\u201d Marles said. \u201cNinety-eight percent of Australia\u2019s traded goods passes through Australian ports. Ninety percent of our fuel is imported. Our economic sovereignty, in the most basic sense, is a maritime proposition.\u201d<\/p>\n And Marles argued an increasingly militarised region demanded a collective response.<\/p>\n \u201cThe free and open passage of goods, energy and data across the seas is not just Australia\u2019s economic lifeblood \u2013 it is the economic lifeblood of this entire region.\u201d<\/p>\n![\"Malcolm](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/1791060850_37_563.jpg\")
Malcolm Turnbull says faith in Aukus nuclear submarines deal is \u2018stark staring bonkers\u2019 \u2013 video<\/p>\n![\"Is](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/1791060850_858_1920.jpg\")
Is Aukus a $368bn fix for Australia\u2019s problems, or will it create more headaches? \u2013 video<\/p>\n