A US congressional inquiry has warned that the Australian government's view that the Aukus nuclear-powered submarine program is “too big to fail” will increase cost risk.
The Congressional Research Service also questioned whether any rigorous cost-benefit analysis had been conducted before Australia, the United States and the United Kingdom announced the plan in 2021.
The CRS has published an updated version of its previous report examining plans to sell at least three Virginia-class submarines to the United States in the 2030s, before Australian nuclear-powered submarines enter service in the decade. of 2040.
The report specifically cited comments by Australian Defense Minister Richard Marles in an interview with Guardian Australia's political podcast last year.
Marles said at the time that Australia, the United States and the United Kingdom were “deeply committed to mutual success in this project” and “it puts all three countries in too good a position for any of them to fail.”
But the CRS report warned that such an approach could boost budgets: “Some observers argue that procurement programs considered too big to fail may be at greater risk of cost growth that could erode the profitability achieved.”
Citing a 2020 report, managers tend to allocate more funds to complete a large project, stating that “once started, a megaproject is too big to fail and too expensive to stop.”
He echoed congressional testimony in 2018 from NASA's then-inspector general, who said a “too big to fail” mentality “pervades the agency's thinking when it comes to NASA's biggest and most important missions.” “, resulting in delays for other programs.
CRS also noted a parliamentary submission by retired Royal Australian Air Force air commodore EJ Bushell criticizing Australia's management of the program to acquire F-35 joint strike fighters.
“Despite increasingly critical statements from several US administration officials…both US and Australian military and defense officials have retreated to arguing that 'the project is too big to fail' and that 'it is not There is an alternative. It is true,” Bushell wrote in a 2012 presentation.
CRS is an independent service that provides policy reports to the United States Congress without making specific policy recommendations.
After newsletter promotion
In its updated document, CRS renewed discussion of a controversial policy option it had previously introduced as an alternative for the United States to move forward with the sale of three to five Virginia-class submarines to Australia.
The so-called “division of labor” option would see the U.S. Navy retain ownership of all Virginia-class submarines but operate some of them from an Australian naval base.
CRS explained that US-owned submarines would carry out US and Australian missions, while Australia would divert their voyages. Submarine-based funding to develop other military capabilities “for example, long-range anti-ship missiles, drones, cruise missiles, B-21 long-range bombers or other long-range attack aircraft” is affected.
The idea would be attractive from the American perspective, but would have profound implications for Australian sovereign control over submarines. There is no indication that the Australian government is open to that option.
Greens defense spokesman David Shoebridge wrote in X that, from an Australian perspective, Labor “looks more like strategic capitulation than partnership.”
CRS reiterated Marles' comments that Australia had made no prior commitment to join the United States in a war against China over Taiwan as part of the Aukus agreement.
The report said: “Australia will change that [submarines] From vessels available for use in a crisis or conflict between the United States and China, to vessels that are not available for use in a crisis or conflict between the United States and China.
US President Joe Biden announced the Aukus defense partnership in a video call in September 2021 with Scott Morrison and Boris Johnson, then prime ministers of Australia and the United Kingdom.
But CRS said there was “little indication” that a “rigorous comparative analysis” had been carried out before the announcement, examining whether Pillar 1 would be a more cost-effective way to commit defense resources and develop warfighting capabilities than possible alternative courses of action. . Actions such as the Division of Labor between the United States and Australia.”
