Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee, , 5:54:04 to 6:02:36
The committee debates the impact of US laws requiring nuclear-capable missiles on Virginia class submarines. Officials discuss Australia's obligations under the Treaty of Rarotonga and the distinction between the rotation and permanent stationing of nuclear weapons.
Topics: National security, International law
Speakers: David Shoebridge, Hugh Jeffrey, Mark Hammond, Meghan Quinn, Unknown Speaker
were talking previously about the United States defense force and its um program to have nuclear armed seal launched cruise missiles on its Virginia class submarine fleet. Do you remember that discussion
>> senator? I believe it's nuclear capable >> missiles. That means that they could be equipped with conventional warheads as
yeah. Yeah. Okay. The section 1633 of the National Defense Authorization Act for the United States in 2026 um requires the defense secretary to ensure that there are a limited number of um sea launched cruise missiles with nuclear warheads to enable limited operational deployment of them with the Virginia class fleet no later than September 2032. two that's now written into law in the US Congress. Um has the US Navy or the US defense um department or war department as I like to call it um advised the Australian government what the impact of having nuclear armed um cruise missiles on the Virginia fleet consistent with the law passed by Congress. uh what in what impact that would have on AUS
>> uh Senator uh Pu Jeffrey Deputy Secretary Strategy Policy and International Group uh we have as we have mentioned earlier today Surf West will be consistent with Australia's international obligations this was reiterated by the governments of the United States uh and the UK and Australia on Tuesday Senator um including by Secretary Hegsth Uh the statement released on Tuesday said that Orcus activities associated with surf west will be conducted consistent with ARUS partners respective international obligations including those under the treaty of non-prololiferation of nuclear weapons and Australia's obligations under the South Pacific nuclear free zone treaty of Roratonga. Um while the the Slickham program is under development of course as we've discussed it is a matter for the US government and we have engaged with them about the pro uh with them and and of course in this committee um about uh about the program. Um and what we can say about it of course is that uh uh the pursuit of orcus the government has made clear that pursuit will be consistent with all of Australia's non-proliferation obligations including the treaty of
Ratatonga. Has the US sat down with the Australian Defense Force or Defense Department and explained what the impact of this congressional law requiring the Navy to have nuclear armed um cruise missiles on its Virginia fleet by 2032? Have they discussed what the impact that will be on the deployment of US nuclear submarines to HMAS Sterling?
Senator, as I said, um it's routine business for uh the Australian Defense Department and the US Defense Department to talk about future programs. Uh
>> we have engaged the I'm asking about this.
>> We have engaged on this program, Senator. I can confirm that. Uh part of our routine engagement on a range of um uh uh programs. uh this is 6 years away. Um and of course as I mentioned uh still developmental uh the objective is to be able to ensure certain number of USSNs will be capable uh for this program. It may not ultimately end up being the platform on which this platform on which this capability is um established. There are a range of different US submarine platforms. So my point being is that
what do you mean there's a range of different other US submarine platforms? Well, there's a Virginia class. >> Apart from the Virginia class, >> what other um US submarine platform is the US Navy considering putting sea launched um cruise missiles on with nuclear weapons? If there is one, tell me what it is.
>> That there are the US Navy operates significantly larger submarines that involve that have greater capacity uh for missile storage. and indeed could could well be more suitable platforms for this program. But uh I will our chief of navy and indeed >> our ADF our our CDF is an expert
submariner can also answer these questions. >> If you understand the US is considering putting these sea launched cruise missiles with nuclear weapons on them on a platform other than the Virginia class submarine. um please a tell me what platforms you understand that US Navy is doing and then b point me to the evidence that says that
>> so I just want to check the the characterization is that as as we've said this program is in development it's six years away uh and we understand that they'll be looking at their full suite of capabilities uh in order to deploy these weapons in six years subject to their development so it's all very hypothetical um but in terms of the suite of uh submarines that they have in the United States uh Navy will hand to the experts.
>> Um this is a law passed by Congress to require the US Navy to have uh a a number of sea launched cruise missiles with nuclear weapons on them and the law expressly says for for the Virginia class submarines. Now, if you have um evidence that there there's some parallel project for other US submarines to put sea launched cruise missiles with nuclear warheads on it as again please tell me what these submarines are and show me the evidence.
>> Uh Senator, are you familiar with the Ohio class guided missile nuclear submarine carries 154 Tomahawk missiles?
>> Yes. And are you saying that the law passed by Congress that required these C sea launched cruise missiles to be put on the Virginia class submarine with all of the detailed design that requires for launch authority for personnel um specific to this class of submarine? They've got a parallel project with the Hawaii class. Is that your understanding?
>> Senator, that's not what I'm saying. What and I'm not going to speak for the United States Navy. What I will say is the launch system that that launches a Tomahawk missile is the same launch system on a Virginia class as it is on an SSGN, although the SSGN has more capacity. So, it would be reasonable to conclude that that would be a similar option. But the at the end of the day, the um all three nations stated on Tuesday, according to the statement that Mr. Jeffrey referred to that our obligations under the Treaty of Raratonga will be honored. And to your point, Senator, not all Virginia submarines are required to be fitted as such. There's there will be a minimum requirement. This will take years. So, at this stage, I I think we can honor the uh the words of our ally. And uh and I I do not anticipate uh that this is going to be an issue in the near term.
>> Um uh I never said all, I said a limited number. That's the congressional author that requirement from September 2032. The requirement to have them fully deployed across a a subclass of Virginia class submarines doesn't kick in till 2034 under that congressional law. Are we of one mind about that? mean is that if um the US Navy acts consistent with the law passed by Congress, there will be a limited number of Virginia class submarines with nuclear um armed sea launched cruise missiles by September 2032. That's the law and that's the plan, isn't it?
>> And by extension, there'll be many others that won't.