Mike Gilligan

The Virgina class submarine has been repurposed since the Republicans took the White House. So, Australia’s biggest ever military project has entered another stratosphere of farce.

The best that can be said of Deputy Prime Minister Marles is that he is not across his portfolio. To flaunt such uniform ignorance after a full term of ministerial responsibility shows the deputy prime minister is a danger to Australia.

In response to the US Defence Department announcing that it will review the AUKUS agreement to “ensure that it meets common sense America-first criteria”, Australia’s defence minister described the action as “perfectly natural”.

Let’s not mince words about Marles. He makes it clear that he’d rather be known as the Prime Minister’s dogsbody than for the substance of his ministerial portfolio. Albanese had to put him straight publicly on his portfolios fundamentals – it is Australia’s Government, not America’s, which determines Australia’s defences. Predictably, Marles now vacillates on the US review of AUKUS nuclear submarines – “there is a plan here and we are sticking to it”.

So what’s behind the US wanting a rethink of AUKUS? Scanning the online defence dross reveals that the game has changed. The Virginia class submarine has been repurposed since the Republicans took the White House. It will be redesigned to deliver nuclear-tipped cruise missiles, able to penetrate with impunity into China’s land mass:

WASHINGTON — The “greatest risk” for the Navy’s planned fiscal 2034 delivery of the nuclear Sea-Launched Cruise Missile Nuclear (SLCM-N) is integrating it onboard Virginia-class submarines that were never designed to carry a nuclear weapon, one of the Navy’s top officers in charge of overseeing nuclear weapons programs said.

After establishing a program office for the SLCM-N last year, the Navy is just starting to “hone in” on technical concepts for integrating the at times controversial weapon with the Virginia class, as well as ironing out the operational questions involved with adding a new mission for the sailors onboard, said Vice. Adm Johnny Wolfe, director of the Navy’s Strategic Systems Programs.

“I think the greatest risk to the 2034 timeline … it’s really understanding, how are we going to get this system integrated into a platform that was never purpose built for that,” he told a Senate Armed Services strategic forces panel on Tuesday.

“This will be a whole new infrastructure … that’s going to be the one of the challenging parts of this.”

The issues this raises for Australia are many and big. So Australia’s biggest ever defence project has entered another stratosphere of farce. Regardless of where the US review comes out, rational options do exist for Australia – using common sense Australia-first criteria.

Marles has not been open about America’s support for Australia getting nuclear submarines. The vessels are purpose-designed, by the US Navy, to attack China’s submarines. But that design is anathema to what best suits Australia in protecting our littoral and maritime approaches. So not only are we paying squillions for a submarine of limited utility in our own defence, we are joining US attack planning on China. Given the mind-boggling cost to taxpayers ($368 billion and counting) the betrayal of trust and taxpayers is elite.

Japan appears to have applied intellect and sense to the submarine thing. Its Taigei-class diesel-electric attack submarines, designed to counter Chinese or North Korean undersea threats, are remarkably advanced despite conventional propulsion. A key innovation is their use of lithium-ion batteries, for increased underwater endurance, faster recharge times, enhanced silent operations and speeds, effectively making a separate Air-Independent Propulsion system unnecessary.

This technology, matured over two decades, has been integrated without disrupting the Japanese construction schedule, with the fifth boat launched in October 2024. At least nine Taigei-class submarines are planned, built by both Mitsubishi and Kawasaki.

And even the US is said to be rethinking submarines. “The US Navy, despite its historical dominance in nuclear submarines, is exploring the acquisition of diesel-electric submarines, or SSKs, driven by evolving global conflict environments, where these smaller, quieter, and more manoeuvrable vessels are better suited for operations in shallow waters. Such a transition would enhance the Navy’s tactical flexibility and operational efficiency, particularly in littoral zones where larger nuclear submarines may be less effective.”

From the inception of his ministry, Marles injudiciously embraced US defence lobbyists. Showing that he barely grasped the substance of his responsibility, he ingratiated himself to the US Centre for International and Security Studies in July 2022, claiming the security relationship really rested on a network of individuals, not the hard-won policy planks and the written ANZUS Treaty. Marles enabled American inroads into our defence policy heartland with the appointment of an academic with CSSC roots (lacking as much as a molecule of Australian defence policy experience) to be a leader of the Defence Strategic Review 2023. Which is a mingy document riddled with code as cover for compromising our sovereignty at will and further availing the US of our military.

Then a US admiral was asked to review Australia’s naval combatant capability. Each appointment deepened Australia as a tool of US military strategy against China.

The best that can be said of Marles is that he is not across his portfolio. Recently he observed that China’s defence spending is inexplicable:

“When you look at the growth in Chinese military that has happened without a strategic reassurance or a strategic transparency… we would like to have a greater transparency in what China is seeking to do in not only its build-up, but in the exercises it undertakes.”

Of course, China’s defence spending has grown in lockstep with the US tilt to Asia and its militarisation of Australia as a base for US operations. Marles would have been in the Parliament which rose in standing applause to President Obama in 2010 as Australia’s sovereignty was sucked into US confrontation with China. Surprise – China’s defence expenditure rose in response, though it still is modest against the US and its allies (ca 20%).

The deputy prime minister lacks the fundamentals for his ministerial portfolio. Dangerous ignorance after a full term of ministerial responsibility. This is no ordinary time for Australia to be dependent on impaired leadership. Is it asking too much for a defence minister who lives by common sense “Australia-first” criteria?

https://johnmenadue.com/post/2025/06/why-australia-needs-a-defence-minister/

READ FROM TOP.

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.