It comes from a US CRS report, but the Grauniad highlights a comment in the paper which indicates the real beef - namely that the US would be giving the Virginia class subs to Australia, reducing their own fleet but wants a guarantee that they’ll be used in any war against China.
Which seems, in view of Australian politics and strategic autonomy, exactly the reason to stick with the current plan.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...-cost-blowouts
In its updated paper, the CRS revived discussion of a controversial policy option that it had previously floated as an alternative to the US proceeding with the sale of three to five Virginia class submarines to Australia.The option, called “division of labour”, would see the US navy retain ownership of all Virginia class submarines but operate some of them from an Australian naval base…..
The idea would be attractive from a US perspective but would have profound implications for Australian sovereign control of the submarines. There is no indication that the Australian government is open to such an option.
The Greens’ defence spokesperson, David Shoebridge, wrote on X that a division of labour “looks more like a strategic surrender than a partnership” from an Australian point of view.
The CRS
pointed once again to Marles’s comments that Australia had not given any pre-commitment to join the US in a war against China over Taiwan as part of the Aukus deal.
The report said: “Australia would thus convert those [submarines] from boats that would be available for use in a U.S.-China crisis or conflict into boats that might not be available for use in a U.S.-China crisis or conflict.”