Wrong subs? US Admirals’ groupthink running Australia aground

The US Navy and Australia need new diesel-electric submarines. Don’t try to explain that to the conflicted American admirals who, according to reports, guided our AUKUS disaster. Michael Pascoe.

Australia’s diesel-electric submarine purchase agreement with France was famously canceled by Scott Morrison in June 2021 and replaced by the current AUKUS agreement. The title concerns a senior American naval strategist who campaigned for the United States to begin building or purchasing diesel-electric submarines. I will come back to this topic.

But just as important for Australia is that American admirals have nailed groupthink when it comes to submarines. It is groupthink that has weakened America’s silent service and stranded Australia’s naval defenses.

Let’s not forget that the person the Coalition hired to direct the submarine route was a group of American admirals and former US Navy civilian officials; which somehow inevitably resulted in abandoning the French option in favor of the AUKUS nuclear energy debacle.

Wrong submarine strategy?

James Holmes is chair of maritime strategy at the U.S. Naval War College. For many sound reasons, he believes that the United States should add diesel-electric boats to its existing fleet of all-nuclear submarines, and do it quickly. He is not alone, but he warns that the campaign is futile.

“I say this is a futile issue because nuclear-trained officers strongly resist proposals to revert the fleet to even partial conventional propulsion,” Holmes wrote. National Interest last month. “The legacy of Admiral Hyman Rickover, the father of the nuclear navy, is an integral part of the submarine force’s corporate DNA.”

Like people who adhere to the religion of their birth, U.S. admirals are fervent members of the one, truly nuclear-powered faith and are a scourge of infidels.

three years ago, Washington Post exposed The extent to which former US Navy personnel advised Canberra to pursue nuclear weapons under the headline “Former US Navy leaders profited from overlap of interests in sub-deal.”

“The Australian government kept the details of the Americans’ recommendations secret,” WaPo said. “The Post was forced to sue the U.S. Navy and State Department under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to obtain documents that would shed light on the admirals’ involvement.”

To refresh:

“Two retired US admirals and three former US Navy civilian leaders are playing critical but secret roles as paid consultants during the Australian government’s negotiations to acquire top-secret nuclear submarine technology from the US and UK.

The Americans are among a group of former U.S. Navy officials the Australian government hired as high-dollar consultants to help transform its fleet of ships and submarines, receiving contracts worth $800,000 each, according to the documents.

“All together, six retired US admirals have worked for the Australian government since 2015, including one who served as Australia’s deputy defense minister for two years. In addition, a former US Navy minister served as a paid adviser to three consecutive Australian prime ministers.

“A Washington Post investigation found that former US Navy officials benefited financially from a tangle of overlapping interests in their work for a long-time US ally. While some of the retired admirals worked for the Australian government, they also advised US shipbuilders and the US Navy, including on classified programmes.

“One of six retired US admirals was forced to resign as a part-time submarine advisor to the Australian government this year because of a potential conflict of interest in his role as full-time chairman of a US company that builds nuclear-powered submarines.”

Geez, you hire members of the nuclear energy faith to give advice, guess what they recommend?

Holmes’s article draws on two Naval Institute articles by heretical U.S. Navy lieutenant commanders pushing for the addition of diesel-electric attack and missile submarines to the fleet. Some of his articles read as if he were reviewing their work. MWMRex Patrick, whose 2023 article in these pages conclusively establishes that the Ferrari of submarines is unsuitable for Australian purposes.

I just want a Ferrari, sorry, a nuclear submarine, whatever the cost

Diesel-electric submarines

As Rex reports, in addition to their superior performance in coastal waters, diesel-electrics also have the obvious benefit of being faster and cheaper than the nuclear-powered submarines that America has barely been able to build in time to replace the boats it is retiring.

Perhaps most attractive from the American perspective (and what appears to be Australia’s perspective as an otherwise submissive vassal state), diesel electrics offer strategic and tactical benefits, including the launch of Submarine Guided Missiles (SSG).

“The five vertical launch-equipped SSGs purchased for the cost of the Block V Virginia will have more combined missile firepower than the single Virginia—more than half, in fact,” Holmes writes. “Furthermore, this firepower will be ‘distributed,’ or dispersed, among several smaller bodies in accordance with the U.S. Navy’s prevailing ‘distributed maritime operations’ doctrine.”

Newspapers cite Korean KSS-111 missile submarines, which are already at sea and whose “production line is running hot,” as very viable options.

“It makes perfect sense to distribute the capability among multiple SSGs. This means that in the event of war, the fleet can lose a boat in action without losing an undue share of its total combat power. The fleet will continue to fight.”

“More importantly, while five different SSGs can be in five different places on a naval chart, one SSN can only be in one place. Control of more geographic areas is invaluable. A distributed fleet will give naval commanders the authority to disperse missile boats across vital sea passages.”

And before anyone screams “snorkel”, the new air-independent, non-nuclear submarines can stay submerged for weeks and are much quieter than nuclear weapons.

Nuclear groupthink

Compared to purchasing more submarines better suited to our needs relatively quickly at less cost, the fact that Australia could eventually acquire a large number of extremely expensive nuclear-powered submarines, only some of which are operational at any one time, is beyond consideration.

Unless you’re a member of the nuclear-powered groupthink faith and just want Ferraris.

And if you believe in unicorns and the tooth fairy, beyond the US boats lies the yet-to-be-designed idea of ​​larger British submarines to be built in Adelaide. This is Adelaide, which can barely build your run-of-the-mill or garden-variety warships, certainly not on budget and/or on time, let alone magically gain the much more difficult skills and technology to build the next generation of nuclear-powered boats.

“Accumulation of defects”. AG gives scathing report on Navy shipbuilding

Coincidentally, on the heels of the Holmes article, I received some thoughts on groupthink from economist Jeff Schubert, who has extensive experience as an analyst and teacher in Russia and China, among other places. He cited the group sentiment of Western academics about Russian reform in the early 1990s and the neocons’ invasion of Iraq as examples of the disasters that followed.

“I just listened to a Times Radio broadcast in which PR hack Sophie Gaston and other so-called AUKUS ‘experts’ claimed that AUKUS was essential to Indo-Pacific security and that a ‘whole of government/society’ approach must be implemented for AUKUS to be successful. As is clear by now, the invasion of Iraq was driven by fanatics orchestrating a process of ‘groupthink’, while the real experts on Iraq were marginalized,” he wrote.

“No ‘independent expert’ believes AUKUS submarines could be built in Adelaide,

But ignorant advocates like Sophie Gaston reassure each other that it is possible, avoiding skeptics and critics.”

This description also fits Australia’s political duopoly. Labor and the Coalition met last week to prevent a Senate committee from investigating AUKUS.

When it comes to Australia’s biggest-ever defense spend, they don’t want to take independent views into account, let alone skeptics or critics. They prefer to stick to American groupthinks. They know their place.

AUKUS. Deal of the century! …for Americans