Build our nuclear submarines in America, not Adelaide

Australia should move immediately to buy nuclear submarines from US shipyards.

As Chinese military power escalates, it's beyond ludicrous for the government to be talking about receiving the first of our nuclear submarines as late as 2040, when the threat to this country may have risen alarmingly. This is an abdication of its responsibility to put national defence first.

The reason for expecting the program to take so long is simple: the government wants to build these immensely complicated things in Adelaide, where neither sufficient facilities nor sufficient skills are now available.

The Labor Party is not raising even a squeak of an objection. Both sides are more interested in South Australian votes.

If we order our submarines from US shipyards, we might have them nine years sooner - and certainly at a lower price.

Do not believe politicians or admirals who say submarines and other warships must be built in this country so we can operate them effectively.

That was also the excuse for the former plan to build diesel submarines of French design in Adelaide - and not deliver the first until 2032-33. Now the government is talking about a further delay of possibly seven years for nuclear boats.

And it expects to spend the next 18 months talking to our US and British partners about exactly what to do. This looks like more time-wasting, because the best way forward, outlined in this column today, is obvious.

First, the design we must choose is the Virginia class, which is in production for the US Navy, not the Astute class, which is going out of production for the Royal Navy. More particularly, we must choose the Virginia class in its current form, with no changes except any that the US needs for keeping its own secrets.

One of the more disturbing implications of the possible 2040 date for first delivery is that any submarine completed then could not use a current design: technology would have advanced too far to do so. So the government evidently plans to take on the risk of a development program, which could easily go wrong, with cost escalations and - worse - more delays.

Immediately after our new policy was announced last week, Britain said it would develop a design for replacing the Astute class. We want nothing to do with that.

We must choose the Virginia class also because the US's submarine industry builds faster than Britain's. Virginias can be delivered about eight years after they are ordered. The process begins with making so-called long-lead parts - mostly for the nuclear propulsion plant - well ahead of the main construction effort.

The US industry is bigger than Britain's, so stretching it to supply us would not be so difficult. It would, however, need stretching, and we would have to fund that. So, yes, part of our defence budget would pay for more facilities and workers in the US - not in Adelaide.

Two US shipbuilders and the component suppliers behind them are currently delivering two Virginia-class boats a year. We should place orders for them to make one more Virginia a year for us.

The US industry has been struggling with even its current Virginia building rate, as it has also taken on the new burden of constructing huge Columbia-class ballistic missile submarines (designed for strategic nuclear attack). But just three months ago the US Navy helpfully estimated the cost of expanding annual capacity to three Virginias and one Columbia: $US1.5-2 billion ($A2-2.8 billion).

Setting up new Australian capacity would obviously be much more expensive than stretching the US's.

The large and experienced US industry would also turn out cheaper submarines; indeed, by accelerating production we would help reduce costs for the US Navy, too.

And there would be much less risk of program foul-up. Nothing in our experience with the former French program suggests Australia can smoothly manage the more complex task of building nuclear submarines domestically.

READ MORE:

Our money should go on the table right now to expand the US industry and get the long-lead parts into production as soon as possible. Allowing time for capacity to ramp up, we should be able to have a Virginia in service in 2031 and the eighth in 2038 - two years before Adelaide could give us even one.

While the long-lead parts are being made, there should be time to make any necessary changes to the Virginia design. Modifications might include removing features that the US would not supply to us, such as provision for handling tactical nuclear weapons.

Construction should never shift to Adelaide. We should not pay for industrial facilities twice.

The excuse for domestic construction of warships, accepted happily by politicians, is that we need a local supply of spare parts.

This is simply untrue. Many countries, including Australia, operate warships that were built abroad. They just have to keep a sufficient stock of spares and, with help from foreign suppliers, train a local maintenance workforce.

The entire fleet of aircraft in the Royal Australian Air Force is maintained that way, including those of such complexity as F-35 Lightnings and F/A-18F Super Hornets.

We should go further with our submarines: at first, much of the maintenance should be done in the US while our facilities learn to do the job.

Defence Minister Peter Dutton has said we might lease a US or British nuclear submarine before taking delivery of those that we buy. The idea would be to use it for training. Another possibility should be assigning Australian sailors to US Virginia-class boats while we wait for our own.