This is part of a series on AUKUS. Click here to read the full series.
In a US Federal Court in late 2021 an extraordinary 30-year fraud case finally came to an end when metallurgist Elaine Thomas pleaded guilty to falsifying test results on the strength of metal used to build the US Navy’s submarines. Thomas worked at a foundry in Tacoma, Washington state. The submarines included the navy’s fleet of Virginia-class nuclear-powered submarines. Australia is due to inherit two or more used submarines from this fleet.
It emerged that between 1985 and 2017, the metallurgist had systematically falsified test results that measured the strength and toughness of some 240 separate productions of steel. This represented a “substantial percentage” of the castings that the foundry, Bradken, produced for the two giant defence contractors that build nuclear-powered submarines.
Quoting the indictment against her, The New York Times reported that Thomas’ actions had “caused the US Navy to make payments it would not have made if it had known the true characteristics of the steel”.
The company paid US$10.8m (A$16.6m) as a settlement for making and selling substandard steel components for installation on US submarines, according to the US Department of Justice.
When it discovered the falsified tests, the company reportedly misled the navy by suggesting the discrepancies were not the result of fraud. This hindered the navy’s investigation and its efforts to address the risks to safety.
The US Navy was ultimately forced to carry out checks on the affected submarines, a move which led to increased costs and maintenance time.
The case of the falsified tests is one example of the problems that have plagued the US Navy’s Virginia-class nuclear-powered submarine fleet.
A host of others are detailed in a US Congressional Research Service (CRS) report released this month. The 70-page report is meant to provide clear, independent information for members of the US Congress as they prepare to vote on key aspects of the AUKUS agreement, including laws that would enable Australia to send billions of dollars to the US to build facilities.
The CRS report includes much that dispels the myth of invincibility promoted by the AUKUS sales job. It raises serious questions about US power and competence — and in turn, makes one wonder how hard it really was to convince the Americans to share their nuclear secrets, given the evident disarray of the US Navy’s nuclear submarine program.
Is Australia inheriting lemons?
Australia is set to acquire at least three (and possibly five) nuclear-powered submarines directly from the US in order to bridge the looming gap in Australia’s submarine capability following Scott Morrison’s decision to cancel the French submarine contract.
The numbers and details vary, with the latest version emerging through Australian Senate committee hearings that two of the submarines will be drawn from the US Navy’s current Virginia-class fleet.
So what kind of used sub might Australia get for its money?
The CRS report details that older Virginia-class submarines — the type Australia would likely inherit — have been beset with repair and maintenance problems.
Nearly 40% of subs under repair
Eighteen of the US Navy’s nuclear submarines — about 37% of the total fleet — are in maintenance or are awaiting maintenance. According to the CRS report, industry best practice calls for about 20% of the nuclear submarine force to be in maintenance — and for none to be waiting for maintenance — at any given moment.
This has “substantially” reduced the number of operationally ready submarines to 31 out of a force of 49. (In 2008, for example, 40 submarines were classed as operationally ready.)
A key reason for the backlog is that there have not been enough workers to do the maintenance.
The workforce crisis
Reports quoted by the CRS said that the US Navy and its suppliers had “thousands of open jobs” at government repair yards and in the private shipbuilding and ship repair industrial base.
Hiring and retaining skilled workers has become the “number one strategic challenge across the enterprise”, according to Vice Admiral Bill Galinis, the head of Naval Sea Systems Command, who pointed to “an undersized pool of talent”. The report said 100,000 people would need to be recruited over 10 years to meet the demands of submarine construction alone.
The replacement parts problem
According to the CRS, the US Navy discovered that Virginia-class submarine components which were supposed to last more than three decades had in fact worn out years earlier.
At the same time it has emerged that some submarine parts are no longer available. This means that since 2013 the US Navy has been forced to swap more than 1600 parts among its Virginia-class submarines to ease maintenance bottlenecks.
US Rear Admiral Scott Brown blamed the parts problem on a lack of “sustainment” planning at the time the early subs were commissioned.
Brown reportedly said the navy hadn’t made the required upfront investments when designing and acquiring the Virginia-class subs, meaning shipyard workers today reach for parts and components only to find they’re not there.
“It’s resulting in a lot of churn, a lot of cannibalisation — so we have to take things off other boats to stick them on the boat we’re trying to get out — and a lot of, frankly, frustration with the workforce on waiting for stuff that doesn’t exist,” Brown said. “Of course, that leads to delays.”
The shoddy hull coatings
The CRS report also pointed to ongoing questions about the hull coating used on Virginia-class boats, noting this was “first reported years ago, and then again 2017 and 2019”.
The quality of the hull coating matters because the coating consists of sonar-absorbing material designed to make submarines harder to detect — a key to the submarine’s much-vaunted “stealth” ability.
In 2017 media reports showed a picture of the USS Mississippi returning to base with large amounts of soundproofing material peeling off its hull.
Asked about the missing hull coating, the Naval Sea Systems Command reportedly said that “an integrated process team was assembled to address conditions such as those reflected in the (USS Mississippi) photograph, and improvements to materials, processes and testing were subsequently identified, evaluated and implemented. The navy is continually assessing and developing more effective solutions.”
According to a 2019 report referenced by the CRS, an engineer who worked with defence contractor Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII) claimed problems continued with the hull coating and that this jeopardised the safety of submariners.
The claims emerged in legal action filed by engineer Ari Lawrence in 2019 in which he alleged that the company had failed to follow the navy’s contracting requirements and specifications and that submarines had been “plagued” with “serious adhesive failures” of the exterior sound-absorbing material.
Lawrence claimed HII falsified testing, inspection results and certifications related to the coatings. The company said it would vigorously defend itself against the claims.
Lawrence made his complaint under US whistleblower laws which provide for a financial reward if a case is proven. He claimed he was sacked after telling the company of his concerns. The case was dismissed in 2020 without Lawrence’s claims being put to the test.
When contacted by Crikey, US-based HII pointed to the dismissal of the case. It did not respond to questions on the substance of Lawrence’s claims. Crikey has sought comment from Lawrence’s attorney but we have not received a response.
Australian Submarine Agency responds
In response to the findings of the CRS report, the Defence Department’s newly established Australian Submarine Agency (ASA) told Crikey via email that it was “confident” in the US Navy’s ability to maintain its fleet of Virginia-class submarines and that Virginia-class submarines provided to Australia would be “of a high quality”. Furthermore, Australia’s nuclear-powered submarine fleet would be maintained in Australia, a spokesperson said.
A trough approaches
However, a separate capability issue has emerged which poses further questions about the AUKUS deal.
The CRS report identifies that the US faces a possible threat with a trough in the number of nuclear-powered submarines in its fleet, set to last roughly 10 years from around 2025 into the early 2030s.
The trough is due to a drop in production stemming back to decisions made during the 1990s, in the early years of the post-Cold War era. The CRS report observes that China has long taken note of the coming trough and quotes “some” being concerned about whether the US could meet the demands of the Asia-Pacific “rebalance”. To bridge the gap the US will seek to give added life to its older subs, the report notes.
Yet under present plans, Australia is set to draw on three (or up to five) submarines from the US fleet just as the US Navy faces its own trough in capability. It remains to be seen what this means for the much-touted deal to transfer used US submarines to Australia.
I don’t have sufficient words to talk about this egregious betrayal of Australians and they’re hard earned. Incompetence? Corruption? Jobs for the boys? warmongering against our major trading partner who we will become more dependent on for friendly relations as the USA continues to sink, and a million other questionable govt character flaws. What can we do?
Vote Green.
Trouble is – haven’t heard much out of the Greens re the Septic Sub debacle.
True. You’d think they’d be on to it, but I suppose they just steer right away from War stuff?
Discretion is the better part of valour.
Napoleon Bonaparte
Unless you go looking, what you “hear out of the Greens” is entirely dependent on what the media chooses to tell you.
And if there’s one thing “both sides” agree on completely, it’s that they don’t want even the possibility of viable third parties entering people’s heads.
https://greens.org.au/campaigns/no-nuclear-subs
https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Treaties/ENNPIA/Report/section?id=committees%2Freportjnt%2F024853%2F78806
Unless you go looking, what you “hear out of the Greens” is entirely dependent on what the media chooses to tell you.
And if there’s one thing “both sides” agree on completely, it’s that they don’t want even the possibility of viable third parties entering people’s heads.
https://greens.org.au/campaigns/no-nuclear-subs
In case you missed my comments on this issue yesterday –
As has been widely reported, Albanese, Wong and Marles decided to support the AUKUS idea essentially to avoid being wedged on national security by the devious Morrison. That Albanese signed on in only 24 hours after consulting whom, certainly not his Caucus or party rank and file members, gave that game away.
I line up behind Gareth Evans, Bob Carr and Sam Rogeveen on the issue. I find it extraordinary that three years ago the idea of Australia having nuclear submarines was not even considered, and now all the strategic and defence players agree they are essential. Talk about herd thinking by self-interested parties.
Mark Beeson’s piece in Menadue the other day, about the UWA talk-fest about how wonderful it will be for Australia to have the nuclear subs and all the benefits that will accrue, is worth reading. https://johnmenadue.com/inside-the-aukus-bubble/
Labor’s efforts to sell the idea on the back of some sort of domestic manufacturing renaissance is tawdry and pathetic. Basing the national manufacturing rebirth on making stuff whose only purpose is to kill people – what exactly is the economic benefit of that? Who’s going to want to buy them? To whom would the US let us sell them? How does that make Australia a better, healthier or wealthier country other than adding a few percentage points to the GDP and cutting a few thousand jobs from the unemployment figures. Again – see the link to Mark Beeson’s piece.
The nuclear subs are not for patrolling Australia’s littoral waters – Rex Patrick has made that point very clearly, as has Brian Toohey. They are for patrolling the East Asian waters and monitoring Chinese submarine activity, on behalf of the US. We don’t need deep water submarines for our coastline.
All Crikey readers will be aware of the arguments about Australia becoming a US base, surrendering sovereignty under the Forces Posture Agreement, and making ourselves a target if and when the US decides it has a pretext for attacking Chinese assets.
We are told by Marles (who refuses to say who sponsored him for a game of golf at a prestigious course in the US, leading to suspicions that it was the CIA or somesuch in the US national security population) that we need to participate in the East Asian arms race because China is building its armed forces. The unspoken dog-whistling implication is that China will invade Australia – as if we wouldn’t see 100,000 Chinese troops sailing down the South China Sea, past Singapore, and through Indonesia, or via some circuitous route through the Solomon Islands.
China has no reason to invade and occupy Australia, or even attack us, unless we give them reason to do so, such as hosting US forces. Dutton, as Defence MInister, saying we would be at war with China in three years was so implausible as to be laughable, yet the media reported it as though it had some validity or basis.
With regard to Obama’s visit to Australia in 2012, the schoolgirl swooning at him by the foreign affairs neophyte Gillard, and his announcement of the US “Pivot to Asia”, other than Michelle Grattan (https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/gillard-goes-all-the-way-with-obamas-big-regional-push-20111117-1nl15.html) I don’t recall any of the various commentators at the time explaining that it was about containing China. The sales pitch was all about securing peace and stability in East Asia and the Pacific. Does anyone know what exactly was the state of the Chinese military buildup at that time and in the period leading to it? What came first – the Pivot to Asia (Contain China Strategy) or the Chinese military buildup, has the rate of growth of the Chinese military increased in response to the US Pivot?
Something else bothers me. Everything China does is described in the mainstream media by commentators and so-called analysts like Hartcher, Sheridan and Andrew Greene (all of whom seem to hot-desk at Russell Hill) as aggressive or offensive, and everything the US does is described as defensive or a deterrent.
Does anybody look at the situation from a Chinese perspective, and consider the possibility that they see all the US activity as aggressive and offensive, while everything they do is a defensive action, a deterrent? Xi spoke of a “wall of steel”, but walls are for defence, not aggression. Was the militarisation of the South China Sea islands an act of aggression or was it in response to secret US Navy activities in the South China Sea and off the Chinese coast? Was the militarisation of the islands in fact a defensive action, to protect Chinese trade routes, to prevent a US blockade in the event of hostile acts?
Remember how the US told us it “had our back” when China imposed trade restrictions on Australia in response to Marise Payne’s ill-considered call for Virus Inspectors into Wuhan? Recall that she, and Dutton, had just returned from AUSMIN talks with anti-China hawk Pompeo, the evangelical Christian. I wondered if Pompeo (and Ivanka, who she also met) had revved her up and she was essentially doing their bidding. (It was the only thing of note that she did as Foreign Minister.)
Marles speaks of the necessity to protect Australia’s trade routes. We’ve all seen the clip from Utopia in which Rob Sitch concludes his national security are saying that we need to protect our trade routes from attack by our major trading partner. Interestingly, while the US said it had our backs when the trade restrictions were imposed, in fact it increased its exports of coal and barley to fill the shortfall in China created by the bans imposed on us. In short, the US does not care in the least about Australia’s trade routes, since they are the same as China’s. The US, quite rightly, pursues its own interests above all else and for Albanese, Wong and Marles (and Dutton) to pretend our interests are aligned is either wilful blindness or dangerously ignorant.
Finally, do the military and intell people really think China will invade Taiwan? Do they really think China would risk its economic and business interests, and waste blood and treasure on a messy invasion and occupation, and the sanctions it would bring down on itself? There have been claims that the Ukraine war is a proxy war being fought by the Ukraine people on behalf of the US, whose promises by GHW Bush to Gorbachev about the non-expansion of NATO were broken by Clinton? While there can be no excuse for what Putin has done, it could nonetheless be seen as the Kremlin signalling to the White House to stay out of Russia’s sphere of influence, or away from its defensive barriers – whichever term you wish to use. It would not be difficult to imagine Xi, seeing how the US goaded Putin, deciding that if the US wants to push, then he can push back.
And if push came to shove, those countries hosting US bases, ie Japan, ROK, Guam, Philippines and Australia would most probably be the first to be targeted by China. China would not, however, target the US mainland because it saw what happened the last time that happened, on 7 December 1941.
Malcolm Fraser said the reason we need an alliance with the US is because we have an alliance with the US. We have more than an alliance now – we are in the process of becoming de facto US territory for military purposes, and can expect to be treated as such if the US gets the war it seems to be angling for. None of this would be in Australia’s national interest. We would be just another proxy target for the enemies of the US.
Couldn’t agree more!
Albo: The Chinese fleet are on the horizon! Launch the submarines!
Marles: Can’t. They’re all in dry dock.
Albo: For God’s sakes, when will they be ready?
Marles: Well, we’ve sent off to America for some spare parts. Um, then we have to train our mechanics on how to fit them. Then we might have a problem with quality control. Ah, we might also need some extra training on the use of the new items. Then…
Albo: Aw, forget it. The fleet’s arrived. Hello Xi.
Wasn’t it Harcher who said “The Chinese fleet are on the horizon”?
US based issues could be another card up the sleeve for the ALP to avoid Australia and Defence Department wearing future sub financing costs for the UK and US, thanks to a LNP etc. radioactive half life of forever ‘strategy’ to harass the ALP, plus a return to and communicating our defence and security strategy (non existent or on the back of a cigarette packet?).
I hear the French had a submarine under development. Perhaps we could approach them.
Having now seen the “competitive quote” from the USA, I dare say the asking price might have gone up significantly from $90 billion………
The Swedes have a good sub. As do the Germans. In fact, the German subs have been bought by Singapore who, last time I looked at a map, face the same geo-political threats from China as we do, except they are less far away.
https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2023/07/21/singapores-navy-receives-first-of-four-new-german-built-submarines/
how can supplying sub-standard materials to the military not be considered to be treason? – the US seems awfully keen to charge others outside the military-industrial complex with treason, but for the grifters inside the tent it’s all in days work