Quantcast
Channel: Submarine & Other Matters
Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 2347

Most Australians Favour AUKUS Nuclear Subs: So far.

$
0
0

My comments are in [...] brackets.

[The latest recorded polls suggest most Australians support nuclear propelled submarines for Australia. Defence against the perceived threat from China appears to be the main reason.]  

Anonymous provided the following  learned comments on January 22, 2022:

"Pete

I appreciate you are playing devil’s advocate so I will try to respond further on the political status and risks for Aussie nuclear subs under AUKUS. Any successful RAN nuclear subs program will take 20+ years and so on average will see at least two changes in Federal government. So I agree it is a valid question for any of us who want to see RAN SSNs to consider the political risks.

First the good news. Opinion polls show a clear majority of Australians (57% in Roy Morgan) are in favour of SSNs, mainly due to growing fears of China. The left wing [September 28, 2021] Guardian poll had an even higher % in favour (62% in Essential poll). Note that is 15% higher than the Liberal government’s current voter share [latest primary and 2PP support for L/NP] , suggesting a lot of Labor supporters support SSNs. If you have a cynical view of politicians as only acting in their own self interest, that makes it very likely that a Labor or Liberal government will stick to the deal.  

Of the minor parties, only Green voters [Very likely. See the Greens Party statement.] are clearly opposed to SSNs. One Nation, UAP and Rex Patrick/Centre Alliance all support SSNs too. This suggests that a majority Labor or Liberal government will pass funding for SSNs, with the worst case being a Labor government dependent on Green votes in the Senate to pass legislation. Even then, a Labor/Rex Patrick/Independents alliance could pass SSN funding bills and enabling legislation. 

In my view the greatest political risk for the SSN project is if the LNP or RAN gets distracted by trying to achieve other objectives that Labor might abandon in government. These risks are obvious: trying to establish domestic nuclear power, nuclear weapons, or diverting the subs (and jobs) to an overseas build. The Labor left and Greens would go ballistic (pun intended) at any of these. That would risk killing the project via cancelled funding. The challenge for the RAN is to stay focused on the core objective (SSNs) and adopt a delivery method that minimises these risks, i.e. maximises local jobs. 

For these reasons, I think the safest path to delivery of RAN SSNs is local construction of the UK Astute design, with modular construction of the reactor compartment in the UK for final assembly in Adelaide. Lockheed Martin installing the US combat system and Mk48s could be done locally, bumping up the local build %. 

If the RAN went for Virginias there is a risk there would be more work in USA for its multiple complex systems like optronics and VLS. Less local content means more cancellation risk. Also, call me a cynic, but I note the BAE yard in Barrow is heavily unionised, which makes me suspect in practical terms Australian Labor politicians would prefer to see a joint AUS/UK build by BAE, knowing there will be unionists employed in both yards. If that is the case, it will be very difficult for the Labor party in government to abandon the deal. 

So while I agree it is a risk, in my view unless the Greens hold the balance of power completely in a Labor minority government, the risks are manageable. And provided the RAN proposes a delivery approach with high local content (and jobs starting sooner rather than later), Labor in government will be very unlikely to abandon the SSN program. 

Finally, in financial terms, SSNs are expensive but manageable. $90 billion over 30 years is $3 billion per year. We spend over $10 billion per year subsidising fuel for miners and farmers. There are lots of ways the cost could be raised. 

Jan 22, 2022, 12:29:00 AM"

Pete Comment

Anonymous's comments seem very valid concerning the political considerations. 

"There are lots of ways the cost could be raised." may indeed be accurate and necessary.

Later surveys of public support may change. This is after the public becomes aware of the full costs of: SSN construction; total nuclear propulsion program; and supporting infrastructure. Rather than AU "$90 Billion over 30 years" this might easily be more than AU$200 Billion over 30 years. 


Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 2347

Trending Articles