Antinuclear

‘Folly’ of nuclear submarines plan floated

A former navy chief warns outsourcing nuclear subs is risky, raising questions about AUKUS, sovereign capacity and local industry.

Callum Godde, Grace Crivellaro, The Mandarin, 3 Oct 25

The former head of Australia’s submarine squadron has urged Australia against outsourcing boat construction overseas, as bureaucrats express confidence that the US won’t scuttle AUKUS.

A parliamentary inquiry on Thursday ran the ruler over the Geelong treaty, a 50-year AUKUS co-operation agreement between Australia and the UK signed in July.

Under AUKUS, the US has promised to sell at least three Virginia-class nuclear-powered submarines to Australia from the early 2030s.

A submarine solution closer to home should be examined instead, retired navy rear admiral Peter Briggs argued.

“Depending on an overseas supply chain for such a critical capability as our submarines is a folly,” he told the inquiry.

Briggs had serious concerns with the plan, including its potential to limit Australia’s commercial interests. He suggested that the nation should build more submarines, as it had previously done with the diesel-electric Collins class.

“There is no minimum protection in the treaty for a guaranteed work share for genuine Australian industry,” he said.

“The Collins project has established a viable submarine supply chain within Australia.

“We should build on this, not sign a treaty mandating it out of existence.”

Briggs cast doubt on Australia receiving submarines from the US on time, pointing to its falling behind in building its fleet.

Bernard Philip from the Department of Defence said advice was being provided to the federal government on extending the life of Australia’s ageing Collins-class fleet.

The Pentagon has been investigating the AUKUS pact to ensure it aligns with President Donald Trump’s “America-first” agenda.

The review by Under Secretary of War for Policy Elbridge Colby sparked speculation that Trump could walk away from the deal, which is estimated to cost up to $368 billion across 30 years.

Nikkei Asia on Tuesday reported the US would not make changes, with an unnamed member country official declaring AUKUS was “safe”.

Mikaela James from the Australian Submarine Agency strongly hinted that the US would not walk away from the deal.

“(We’re) obviously aware of the US review that is underway, and we are confident the US will continue to find that the program is in line with its interests,” she told the committee.

The review is expected to finish before Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s visit to the White House on October 20.

Tim Deere-Jones, who has 40 years of experience researching the UK government’s system for monitoring marine radioactivity, said managing nuclear waste was expensive and caused environmental issues.

“You’ve got to build the facilities to remove it from the boats,” he said.

“Then you’ve got to be looking for a long-term, hopefully perpetual dump site for it, none of which we’ve managed to do in the UK despite having many decades of nuclear submarines.”

It was inevitable some waste would be discharged into the ocean, he said.

Nationals MP Alison Penfold said such concerns had the potential to undermine public confidence in AUKUS………………………………………………………………….https://www.themandarin.com.au/300512-folly-of-nuclear-submarines-plan-floated/

October 7, 2025 - Posted by Christina Macpherson | weapons and war