BEN HARVEY: Used AUKUS submarines will end up costing Australia big-time

Washington’s decision to revoke the one new Virginia-class submarine we were due under the AUKUS deal has everyone thinking they’re an expert in defence strategy.

People with absolutely no military or geo-political experience are proffering their opinions on every platform they can find.

It reminds me of the pandemic, when people who had never even walked past a medical school were suddenly authorities on the scientific vagaries of spiked proteins.

Before we go on, here are the CliffsNotes on the great AUKUS adventure.

Under the broad deal, Australia will build, in conjunction with Britain, at least five nuclear-powered submarines. They’ll be constructed in South Australia — a State whose last foray into precision engineering resulted in the Holden Camira.

On top of that, we’ll purchase three Virginia-class submarines from the US. Two of those subs were going to be second hand and one brand new but all three would be nuclear-powered.

It emerged this week that the US has rewritten the contract such that all the Virginia-class boats will now be “in-service” models — in-service being a euphemism for “pre-owned”, which itself is a euphemism for “used”.

The Government has tried to turn something that is clearly a negative (when was something used ever better than something new?) into a positive, by saying it was our preference all along to have three “in-service” boats.

Greenhorn Defence Secretary Meghan Quinn was particularly adamant that this was the case, despite the fact she is so new in the job she doesn’t know where the toilets are.

Foreign Minister Penny Wong said it didn’t matter whether they were new because “it’s the capability that matters”.

“I mean, these are capability decisions, which are discussed between the United States and Australia, but I don’t believe as much turns on it as you are putting to me,” she told ABC Radio.

“We want three submarines from the United States to deal with their capability gap before the AUKUS submarines are to be delivered, that is the plan.”

The Virginia-class submarines have an estimated lifetime of 33 years, and Australia has been assured that it will receive ones that have only just been through their first maintenance, with 25 to 27 years remaining.

No worries. That’ll mean the price will come down, right?

The total cost of the AUKUS contract over the 30-year life of the deal is a mind-blowing $367.6 billion dollars, so any saving will be appreciated (even if it means the third Virginia boat has some miles on it).

The bit about that astonishing price tag that sticks with me isn’t the $367b; it’s the .6. Nobody has any idea what the final price tag will be to the nearest $100b, let alone $600 million.

Estimating the price of a multi-decade project administered by three countries is impossible.

There will potentially be eight new US presidents and 20 Australian and British prime ministers sworn in by the time the contract expires in the 2050s and half the Australian tradies tasked with building the local subs will have got bored and gone to work on the mines.

When was the last time any government outside of Singapore delivered a complicated engineering project on time and on budget?

Snowy Hydro 2.0 was meant to cost $2b. Last I saw it was going to be six times that.

And we actually know how to do that; it’s Snowy Hydro 2.0 because we’ve already built the first one.

We have no fricking idea how to build and service a nuclear-powered submarine, so God knows what we’ll be in the hole for come 2050.

Richard Marles is sticking by the deal, saying nuclear submarines are critical to the nation’s security regardless of whether they’ve got that wonderful new submarine smell or are slightly soiled.

He says the subs will be an insurance policy against “coercion” by a foreign power. He didn’t go on but it’s clear our Defence Minister was implying coercion such as “drop your support for an independent Taiwan or we’ll blockade you like the Iranians did Hormuz”.

Which sounds alarming until you stop and think about it for a bit .

It reminds me of that scene in Utopia when Rob Sitch’s character is holding a meeting with Australia’s defence chiefs.

“So, under this scenario we’re spending $30b a year to protect our trade with China, from China,” he says with an incredulous tone.

Talk about life imitating art!

If Xi Jinping blockades the iron ore carriers from the Pilbara, how will Chinese steel mills be able to build the warships they need for the blockade?

Is he going to stop the grain shipments that feed the soldiers in the People’s Liberation Army?

What about the LNG cargoes that keep the lights on at the Chinese Department of Defence?

Coming back the other way — is he going to pull the rug from under his own economy by stopping Chinese cargo ships filled with BYD cars and crap from Temu?

Former Albanese frontbencher Ed Husic says dropping that new Virginia sub is a reason to junk the whole deal.

I suspect Ed wants to send the $367.6b to Palestine. I also suspect he is also enjoying being able to niggle Marles, who is the reason Husic is a former frontbencher.

Everything in politics is personal.

Regardless of his motivations, Husic has a point about renegotiating. Unfortunately, we’ll end up paying whatever the US wants us to because in this deal, Australia is a price-taker, not a price-maker.

The US has treated us with contempt since the original AUKUS announcement was made by Joe Biden, Boris Johnson and Scott Morrison back in 2021.

Who can forget that excruciating moment when Biden forgot Morrison’s name.

“Thank you Boris and I, ah, want to thank that fellow Down Under,” he said, before making it even more obvious he had no idea who Morrison was by signing off with the line “thank you very much pal”.