Nuclear Submarines and Lessons From the Front
Ukraine and Australia, lessons from war and deterring China, are top talking points for one Pentagon strategist.
While Russia’s invasion has shown how warfare has changed and stayed the same, there is growing concern that joint nuclear-powered submarine plans with Canberra may be facing debates and delays.
“It is very clear that the industrial base has not been able to perform at exactly the level that we all want it to, and that is why the administration, with the very robust support of the Congress, has put funding into it,” said Mara Karlin, assistant secretary of defense for strategies, plans and capabilities.
As the National Defense Authorization Act, the nation’s top law for defense planning and spending, works its way through Congress, lawmakers have raised concerns that supplying underwater capabilities to Australia would divert scarce industrial capacity away from U.S. vessels, for both production and maintenance.
The United Kingdom, Australia and the United States have pledged investments in submarines and other cutting-edge capabilities within the trilateral AUKUS alliance. The pact is geared toward deterring China’s growing threat in the Indo-Pacific and beyond.
Australia has pledged to expand its submarine-building industrial base, but statements are somewhat divergent. Canberra claims it is an investment to create jobs in its country, while the Pentagon official had an opposing claim.
“That is a foreign country who is willing to put a very large sum of money into our industrial base—that is U.S. jobs,” Karlin said.
Meanwhile, the ally presented a contrasting version. “We expect the phased approach will result in $6 billion invested in Australia’s industrial capability and workforce over the next four years, creating around 20,000 direct jobs over the next 30 years,” according to a release from Anthony Albanese, Australian prime minister.
Currently, the United States maintains its pledge to supply up to five vessels armed with conventional weaponry, and deliveries are expected to be completed in the 2040s.
The Pentagon official also is concerned about the lessons from the war in Europe.
It is very clear that the industrial base has not been able to perform at exactly the level that we all want it to.
Renewed stresses of warfare on industry have created questions regarding the West’s readiness in case of conflict with a near-peer adversary. “Russia's war on Ukraine made us all really tangibly feel, and kind of intimately understand, the need to turbocharge our defense industrial base—and for our allies and partners to do so as well,” Karlin said.
Ukraine’s demand for both cutting-edge technology and conventional ammunition has presented planners with fundamental questions and facts to compare regions and scenarios.
“Looking at things like critical defensive stockpiles, multidomain awareness, anti-armor and air defense, and I think that that's all really important in terms of Taiwan, having those asymmetric capabilities so that [Taiwan] can fend off attempts to undermine it,” Karlin told journalists.
Karlin spoke at a press event hosted by the Project for Media and National Security on Tuesday in Washington, D.C.
