The defence department has confirmed that, rather than building eight of the new Aukus submarines, Australia plans to acquire a total of eight nuclear powered submarines (SSNs) under the $368bn deal.
At least three and up to five of that eight will be Virginia-class submarines it will buy from the United States.
The “only actual promise” under Aukus is for Australia to build three nuclear powered submarines, Greens senator David Shoebridge said.
It has been widely reported that all eight submarines will be SSN-Aukus boats built in Australia.
The misunderstanding appears to have crept in because, while successive governments have talked about acquiring eight submarines under the Aukus program, those submarines will not all be SSN-Aukus submarines.
Vice admiral Jonathan Mead, the navy’s nuclear-powered submarine taskforce chief, told estimates last week the government had “indicated eight nuclear powered submarines for Australia”.
“Based on our modelling and working with our US and UK partners, we are looking to have a fleet of eight SSNs for the Royal Australian Navy in the mid-2050s,” he said.
The Greens senator David Shoebridge then said: “Sorry, eight Aukus-SSN?”
To which Mead replied: “No, eight nuclear powered submarines. That includes three of the Virginias.”
The majority of reports on the Aukus submarine program refer to eight Aukus submarines, to be built in Australia.
The defence minister, Richard Marles, has consistently referred to the Aukus plan to acquire a “fleet of eight nuclear-powered submarines”, not SSN-Aukus submarines.
He has said the threat of a capability gap as the existing Collins class submarines are retired and before the SSN-Aukus starts to roll out in the 2040s is why they arranged with the US to get the three Virginia class submarines.
“But were those timelines to slip, there is the option to have four and then potentially five Virginias,” he has said.
When Aukus was first announced by the former prime minister Scott Morrison, he promised to find the “optimal pathway” to deliver “at least eight submarines”.
When the “optimal pathway” was announced in March, the prime minister, Anthony Albanese, described the SSN-Aukus as a “new, conventionally-armed, nuclear-powered submarine, based on a British design and incorporating cutting edge Australian, UK and US technologies”.
“This will be an Australian sovereign capability, built by Australians, commanded by the Royal Australian Navy and sustained by Australians in Australian shipyards, with construction to begin this decade,” he said, while describing the 20,000 jobs and increased skills set to flow from the project as well as the plan to buy Virginia submarines.
The defence department’s guide to the optimal pathway mentions the possibility of up to five US boats, but no overall number for the SSN-Aukus.
The US president, Joe Biden, said the SSN-Aukus would “feature cutting edge propulsion technology and provide unmatched stealth and manoeuvrability”.
He confirmed the US would sell three Virginia-class submarines to Australia, “with the potential to sell up to two more if needed”.
But “selling subs” was not the ultimate goal, he said. “It’s developing something new together. We’re calling it the SSN-Aukus.”
The UK prime minister, Rishi Sunak, said the new submarine would be “one of the most advanced nuclear-powered subs the world has ever known”.
Shoebridge continued to question Mead in the May estimates about the number of SSN-Aukus submarines to be built.
“The decision to go beyond eight nuclear powered submarines would be a question for a government in the future,” Mead said.
The secretary of the Department of Defence, Greg Moriarty, said the government had been “very upfront” about deciding on five SSN-Aukus submarines.
“But [defence minister Richard Marles] has also said that a future government will take a decision about acquiring additional SSN-Aukus,” he said.
“In Mr Marles’s view, once we have that production line going, he thinks we will involve ourselves in a continual shipbuilding production run of SSNs in Adelaide.”
The Australian Industry and Defence Network chief executive, Brent Clark, said a future government might decide to keep building submarines, but the timeframes are so long it starts to become a “flight of fantasy”.
“We don’t know what a government in five election cycles will do … it may determine it doesn’t want a nuclear submarine at all. It may want underwater drones,” he said.
That uncertainty made it difficult for industry to plan, he said, adding that the uncertainty had been increased by the defence strategic review emphasising speed and capability “trumping” Australian content.
Shoebridge said he was surprised by Mead’s admission, but “nowhere near as surprised as workers” would be, and that it made the Aukus decision appear a “thought bubble”.
“Labor’s promise that a future government might decide to build some more boats from 2060 is about as useful as flyscreen on a submarine,” he said.
