.@PeterDutton_MP’s rationale for the unaffordable $171 billion #AUKUS program has enough holes in it to sink a submarine without the need for @AustralianLabor to torpedo it. 1/10 #auspol theaustralian.com.au/commentary/lab…
He starts by incorrectly boasting that “the US had only ever shared their nuclear submarine technology with the UK – and that was in 1958.” In the late 50’s the US offered nuke subs to the Dutch, Italians and Canadians who ultimately walked away from the US proposals. 2/10
He suggests “a diesel-electric submarine would not be able to compete against the Chinese in the South China Sea beyond 2035.” Japan, South Korea and Singapore, who are in the region, all use air independent propulsion (AIP) subs and clearly disagree. 3/10
He suggests diesel-electric submarines need to come to the surface to recharge their batteries, exposing them to detection. This is not true of hydrogen fuel cell and Stirling engine equipped AIP submarines that can avoid “snorkelling” for weeks. 4/10
He suggests nuclear submarines lurk at great depths for months at a time and are therefore very difficult to detect. AIP subs go just as deep as nuclear subs and can lurk for months too. Australia’s old Oberon submarines used to go on patrols for 6 to 8 weeks. 5/10
He thinks the US might give us two nuclear submarines this decade. This goes against all the advice that has been provided to the US Congress which reveal that US shipyards are failing to meet the build needs of the US Navy. 6/10 👉 sgp.fas.org/crs/weapons/RL…
Conventional boats, including our Collins submarines, often defeat nuclear boats in submarine v submarine exercises. AIP submarines are quieter and perform better in shallow water. 7/10
AIP boats cost significantly less than nuclear boats. For the same price an enemy commander can face 1 nuclear submarine conducting operation or delivering weapons in 1 location OR 4 AIP submarines conducting operations of delivering weapons in 4 different locations. 8/10
The future submarine program kicked off in 2009 with submarine construction to start in 2016. 13 years have passed with $6 billion spent and no progress made towards construction of a new submarine. Each new program suggested by Defence costs more and takes longer. 9/10
We can’t afford, from a national security or ethical perspective, to ask our submariners to go to sea in ageing non-AIP Collins subs until 2040 and beyond. We can’t afford a $171 billion program. There’s so much more we can do for the ADF with that sort of money. 10/10 
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
