Australia Might Be Forced to Build French Submarines

We support our Publishers and Content Creators. You can view this story on their website by CLICKING HERE.

Key Points: Australia’s AUKUS plan for acquiring eight nuclear-powered attack submarines (SSNs) is fraught with challenges, including delays, cost overruns, and doubts about U.S. and U.K. capabilities to deliver on time.

-Instead, Australia should pivot to building 12 French-designed Suffren-class submarines, which align better with Australia’s operational needs and capacity.

-The Suffren offers proven performance, reduced size and crew requirements, and operational flexibility at lower costs.

-Joint production with France could start in 2026, ensuring timely deliveries. Australia should maintain AUKUS-related naval training and support programs while prioritizing a more achievable and effective submarine strategy with the Suffren class.

Australia’s Submarine Dilemma: A Shift to French Suffren Submarines

Australia should start planning for acquisition of at least 12 submarines of the French Suffren design. The current AUKUS plan for eight nuclear-powered attack submarines (SSNs) has always been flawed, and now its risks are piling up.

We should go ahead with naval-operational aspects of the AUKUS SSN plan, such as supporting US and British submarines when they come to Australia. But for the acquisition effort, we should be ready to drop the plan to buy eight SSNs under AUKUS—three from the US that Washington is increasingly unlikely to supply, and five that are supposed to be built to an oversized British design and probably can’t arrive on time.

Instead, we would commence a joint Franco-Australian construction program for a greater number of submarines of the Suffren class, a design that is already in service with the French navy.

To ensure deliveries could begin as early as 2038, the Australian government that’s elected next year should commit to deciding in 2026 whether to switch to the French design.

Even if the AUKUS acquisition plan succeeds, it will deliver a questionable capability. The submarines’ designs would be a mix of two blocks of Virginia-class submarines, more than 14 years apart in design, and yet-to-be-designed SSN-AUKUS using Britain’s yet-to-be-tested PWR3 reactor. Moreover, SSN-AUKUS would be partly built by the underperforming British submarine enterprise that’s under great pressure to deliver the Royal Navy’s next class of ballistic missile submarines.

Displacing more than 10,000 tonnes, SSN-AUKUS submarines will be too big for Australia’s needs. Their size will increase their detectability, cost and crews. (The large size appears to be driven by the dimensions of the reactor.)

The Royal Australian Navy is already unable to crew its ships and grow to meet future demands. It will have great difficulty in crewing Virginias, which need 132 people each, and SSN-AUKUS boats, too, if their crews equal the 100-odd needed for the current British Astute class.

We have yet to see a schedule for the British design process, nor does a joint design team   seem to have been established. In the absence of news that milestones have been achieved or even set, it is highly likely that the SSN-AUKUS program, like the Astute program, will run late and deliver a first-of-class boat with many problems. Knowing that Britain’s Strategic Defence Review is grappling with serious funding shortfalls hardly instils confidence.

Also, eight SSNs will be enough to maintain deployment of only one or two at any time, not enough for an effective deterrent. The difficulty in training crews and building up experience in three designs of submarines would add to the obvious supply chain challenges in achieving an operational force.

Achieving even this inadequate capability is growing less likely. Reports at the recent US Navy Submarine League Symposium reveal continuing US failure to increase submarine building rates. By now an additional submarine should have been ordered to cover the transfer of an existing Block IV Virginia to Australia in eight years, but no contract has been placed. Worse, Virginia production at both US submarine shipbuilders is actually slowing due to supply chain delays. The US’s top priority shipbuilding program, for Columbia class ballistic-missile submarines, continues to suffer delays. In late November, the White House requested emergency funding from Congress for the Virginia and Columbia programs.

This situation flags an increasing likelihood that, despite its best efforts, the US Navy will be unable to spare any Virginias for sale to Australia. The president of the day probably will be unable, as legislation requires, to certify 270 days before the transfer it will not degrade US undersea capabilities.

Meanwhile, Britain’s submarine support establishment is having difficulties in getting SSNs to sea. A recent fire affecting the delivery of the final Astute class SSN can only add to these woes.

The French Suffren SSN class was the reference design for the diesel Attack class that Australia intended to buy before switching to SSNs. It offers the solution to our AUKUS problems. It is in production by Naval Group, with three of the planned six submarines commissioned in the French navy.

At 5300 tonnes and with a 70-day endurance, capacity for 24 torpedoes or missiles, four torpedo tubes and a crew of 60, it would be cheaper to build, own and crew than the AUKUS boats. The design is flexible—optimised for anti-submarine warfare but with a good anti-surface ship capability from dual-purpose torpedoes and anti-ship cruise missiles. It can also carry land-attack cruise missiles, mines and special forces.

The Suffren class uses low-enriched uranium fuel and needs refuelling every 10 years, whereas the US and British designs, with highly enriched uranium, are intended never to be refuelled. But the Suffren reactor is designed to simplify refuelling, which could be completed during a scheduled refit in Australia. Used fuel can be reprocessed, simplifying decommissioning at the end of life.

True, the Suffren design does not have the weapon load, vertical launch missile tubes or 90-day endurance of the Virginia and, presumably, SSN-AUKUS. However, as a nuclear-powered relative of the Attack class it is much closer to the original Australian requirement for a replacement for the Collins class than SSN-AUKUS is shaping up to be. The design offers adequate capability for Australia’s needs in a package we can afford to own. We could operate 12 Suffrens and still need fewer crew members than we would under the AUKUS plan.

If we shifted to the Suffren design, we should nonetheless stick with the SSN training programs we’ve arranged with the US Navy and Royal Navy. We should also go ahead with establishing an intermediate repair facility that would support their SSNs as well as ours and with rotating them through Western Australia.

As for the AUKUS acquisition plan, we need to begin preparations now for jointly building Suffrens with France. Australia cannot wait for the US to finally say Virginias will be unavailable.

To the extent that design needs changing, we can go back to the work done for the Attack class, particularly incorporation of a US combat system and Australian standards.

Difficult, challenging and politically courageous? Surely. But not nearly as improbable getting SSNs under AUKUS on time.

About the Author: Peter Briggs 

Peter Briggs is a retired submarine specialist and a past president of the Submarine Institute of Australia. This first appeared in ASPI’s the Strategist.