Thoughts on the Aukus Submarine Deal

My thoughts are framed from a risk management viewpoint.

Video discussion points

Does the deal represent value for money? How is value for money defined in this instance?

The spend is $360 billion circa over a couple of decades.

Phased introduction of submarines, starting with rotational visits by US and British subs.

The Virginia Class second-hand subs come with a 33-year shelf life.
Then a bespoke build of subs that will carry the Australian flag – will happen in 20 to 25 years.

Are these weapons defensive or offensive weapons? – is the task only protecting Australia’s shores? Or to prevent a blockade of trade routes?

Currently, only two refineries onshore; in 1990, there were 8.

Refined oil comes from Singapore – if disrupted entire economy comes to a halt – will the subs be able to prevent a blockade?

Are eight subs enough of an effective deterrence to keep trade routes open?

How important is US Navy in preventing any blockade of Australian trade routes?

Timeframes for subs delivery vs vis predictions on when the Taiwan conflict breaks out – that is all supposed to happen in 4 to 5 years.

Should we refine a lot more oil locally even if it does not pass a cost-benefit analysis on costs incurred?

US change of govt how can it disrupt the Aukus build – isolationist GOP may be disinclined to build subs for Australia.

Looking back at history – Battle of Coral Sea after Pearl Harbor – entire battle group primarily American – future naval battles, is it realistic not to expect US Navy to come to aid?

What a future conflict may look like?

Other than subs, what else can help ?

Defence systems do not always need to be the biggest and best – Falklands War example.

Can we realistically develop the capacity to build the nuclear subs?

Technology obsolescence impact on subs?

Local refining – more and much more needed?