Elbridge Colby should be guiding the United States’ AUKUS trilateral security pact review. He has called on Australia and Japan to spell out their commitments should war break out over Taiwan. This request comes in light of growing concerns over the sustainability of the US submarine fleet. These worries pose a complicated set of myriad implications for the AUKUS framework. The US today has 47 attack submarines, and that number is expected to fall to 41 or fewer in coming years. It’s a decline that underscores the immediate need for a robust maritime strategy.
The AUKUS pact signed between Australia, the UK, and the US intends to deepen trilateral defense cooperation. Today it’s under fire for its production timelines and lack of strategic coherence. China is accelerating its military escalation with a laser focus on Taiwan reaffirmation. All this raises real doubts about how effective manned submarines will be in an increasingly volatile and dangerous geopolitical landscape. Academics and defense wonks alike have been disappointed AUKUS hasn’t had firmer guidance yet. They caution that this dangerous precedent might further degrade each country’s submarine deterrent.
The Submarine Dilemma
the US Navy to reach a goal of 66 hulls for attack submarines. Today’s forecasts show a worrying gap that threatens to undermine naval readiness. According to Peter Briggs, a former commander of the Royal Australian Navy’s submarine squadron, “Compared to the US Navy’s target of delivering two Virginias each year over this period, that is a cumulative shortfall of 18 nuclear-powered submarines.” This shortfall prompts key questions about whether Australia can trust AUKUS to meet its naval defense requirements.
That’s why Briggs openly doubts the UK’s real intention to follow through on providing submarines to Australia. He likes to say that not a single ship will ever exceed the design table. He further argues that the new AUKUS plan “has now become a danger to the US and Australia’s undersea capabilities.” The continued production delays and uncertainty surrounding the entire intent of the program only serve to deepen these concerns. With China demonstrating military prowess through recent displays of naval weaponry, it becomes increasingly critical for Australia to reevaluate its strategic partnerships and defense commitments.
“With luck, the current Pentagon review of AUKUS will reach this obvious conclusion and withdraw from this plan. Failing that we will continue until reality hits, when the next president declares the US national interest outweighs the ‘best endeavours’ we are now relying on.” – Peter Briggs
Geopolitical Implications
Further, the AUKUS partnership effectively shackles Australia to American geopolitical ambitions in a region that analysts continue to judge as disoriented. In a recent piece, Elbridge Colby cautions that this misunderstanding may endanger Australia’s own security. In doing so, it might endanger the United States. As tensions rise in East Asia, particularly regarding Taiwan, Australia must navigate its alliances carefully while ensuring its military capabilities remain intact.
U.S. and Taiwanese defense officials recently held clandestine discussions in Alaska. These discussions overlook some greater context—the urgent need to combat potential long-term threats from China. The discussions emphasize the need for a clear strategy that aligns with AUKUS objectives while accommodating regional partners like Japan. Recommendations from Colby’s report urge Australia and Japan to explicitly articulate their commitments. He’s looking for a more coordinated response to China’s growing aggressiveness.
Hugh White, Australia’s best known strategic analyst, urges different courses for AUKUS. Instead, he asserts that “There are two obvious solutions,” exposing the dangerous lack of imagination and nuanced understanding necessary to keep pace with the evolving national security landscape. Australia will need to look outside its current policies and targets. That pressing demand brings into sharp relief the difficulty in crafting viable defense strategies.
Future Considerations for AUKUS
As China presses on with its aggressive military buildup, Australia is at a critical juncture in terms of its defense partnerships and capabilities. So the nation seems determined to persuade itself that AUKUS will, in the long run, deliver worthwhile results. Most academic observers assert that AUKUS is very much a subject for speculation in future years. We hope the failure that is built into all of its processes continues to inspire debate.
Colby is right to suggest that AUKUS deserve a robust Plan B. It would mean designing only one class of submarine based on a mature design that could be built to licence in Australia. This proposal would reduce production timelines while improving operational readiness. Peter Briggs is an advocate for this approach. He proposes that options like “a Virginia derivative or [wait for it] the French Suffren” would be able to meet Australia’s submarine requirements in short order.
“It will most likely be quicker.” – Peter Briggs
In view of these dialogues, Australia needs to take a serious look at its defense strategy. AUKUS is an important part of this assessment. With mounting pressure from regional adversaries and competing global interests, clarity and decisiveness will be imperative for ensuring national security.
