She was the lead ship of a class of three battleships, and the first ship to be named for the state of New Mexico. Her keel was laid down on 14 October 1915 at the New York Navy Yard, from which she was launched on 23 April 1917 and commissioned on 20 May 1918. New Mexico was the U.S. Navy’s most advanced warship and its first battleship with a turbo-electric transmission, which helped her reach a maximum speed of 21 knots (39 km/h; 24 mph).
Shortly after completing initial training, New Mexico escorted the ship that carried President Woodrow Wilson to Brest, France to sign the Treaty of Versailles. Thereafter she was made the first flagship of the newly created United States Pacific Fleet. The interwar period was marked by repeated exercises with the Pacific and Atlantic Fleets, use as a trial ship for PID controllers, and a major modernization between March 1931 and January 1933. New Mexico’s first actions during World War II were neutrality patrols in the Atlantic Ocean. She returned to the Pacific after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and participated in shore bombardments during operations at Attu and Kiska, Tarawa, the Marshall Islands, the Mariana and Palau islands, Leyte, Luzon, and Okinawa; these were interspersed with escort duties, patrols, and refits. The ship was attacked by kamikazes on several occasions. New Mexico was awarded six battle stars for her service in the Pacific campaign and was present in Tokyo Bay for Japan’s formal surrender on 2 September 1945. Four days later, she sailed for the United States and arrived in Boston on 17 October.
New Mexico was decommissioned in Boston on 19 July 1946 and struck from the Naval Vessel Register on 25 February 1947. She was sold for scrapping to the Lipsett Division of Luria Bros in November 1947, but attempts to bring her to Newark, New Jersey for breaking up were met with resistance from city officials. City fireboats were sent to block the passage of the battleship and the Lipsett tugboats, while the United States Coast Guard declared intentions to guarantee safe passage. The Under Secretary of the Navy Department was sent to defuse what the media began to call the “Battle of Newark Bay”; the city agreed to break up New Mexico and two other battleships before scrapping operations in Newark Bay ceased, while Lipsett was instructed to dismantle the ships in a set timeframe or suffer financial penalties. Scrapping commenced in November and was completed by July 1948.
She was laid down in 1895 as Amazonas for the Brazilian Navy by Armstrong, Mitchell and Company, Newcastle upon Tyne, England, launched on 4 December 1896, purchased by the U.S. Navy while building on 16 March 1898; and commissioned 18 March 1898 at Gravesend, England.
Hornet was commissioned in November 1943, and after three months of training joined the U.S. forces in the Pacific War. She played a major part in the Pacific battles of World War II, and also took part in Operation Magic Carpet, returning troops back to the U.S. Following World War II, she served in the Korean War, Vietnam War, and also played a part in the Apollo program, recovering astronauts as they returned from the Moon. Hornet was finally decommissioned in 1970. She was eventually designated as both a National Historic Landmark and a California Historical Landmark, and in 1998 she opened to the public as the USS Hornet Museum in Alameda, California. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Hornet_(CV-12)
On 15 February 1910, Severn was ordered refitted as a submarine tender. On completion of that work in mid-May 1910, she reported for duty with the 3rd Submarine Division. Until 1913, she performed submarine tender duties off New England during the summer and in the Chesapeake Bay during the winter, her movements being accomplished under tow. She was decommissioned a third time for overhaul after summer maneuvers in 1913.
Severn was recommissioned on 15 November 1913 and transferred to the Panama Canal Zone. She arrived at Coco Solo, Panama, on 12 December 1913 and served as tender to the 1st Submarine Division until July 1916.
Severn was ordered back to the United States in July 1916. She arrived at Norfolk, Virginia, under tow by collier Nereus, on 1 August 1916. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Severn_(1899)
USS Adder (SS-3) (later renamed A-2), a Plunger-class submarine, was one of the earliest submarines used by the United States Navy. She was laid down on 3 October 1900 by the Crescent Shipyard, launched on 22 July 1901, and commissioned on 12 January 1903 at the Holland yard at New Suffolk, Ensign Frank L. Pinney in command. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Adder_(SS-3)
After initial experimental duty at the Naval Torpedo Station at Newport, Adder was towed to the Norfolk Naval Shipyard by the tugPeoria, arriving there on 4 December 1903. In January 1904, the submarine torpedo boat was assigned to the Reserve Torpedo Flotilla. Placed out of commission on 26 July 1909, Adder was loaded onto the collierCaesar, and was transported to the Philippines, arriving on 1 October.[1]
A crewman guiding one of the submarine’s three torpedoes below deck through the torpedo loading hatch.
Recommissioned on 10 February 1910, she was assigned to duty with the 1st Submarine Division, Asiatic Torpedo Fleet. Over almost a decade, the submarine torpedo boat operated from Cavite and Olongapo, principally in training and experimental work. During this time, she was renamed on 17 November 1911, becoming simply A-2 (Submarine Torpedo Boat No. 3).[1]
During World War I, she carried out patrols off the entrance to Manila Bay, and around the island of Corregidor. Decommissioned on 12 December 1919, A-2 (assigned the alphanumeric hull number “SS-3” on 17 July 1920) was designated for use as a target on 24 September 1920.[1] Sunk as a target in mid-January 1922,[4] she was struck from the Naval Vessel Register on 16 January 1922.
Ship history Elrod was built at the Bath Iron Works in Maine, and was commissioned on 18 May 1985. The ship was originally home ported in Charleston, SC and shifted to Norfolk, VA in March 1995. Elrod has completed five deployments to the Persian Gulf, three to the Mediterranean Sea, and one to the Adriatic Sea, and has participated in numerous operations in the Atlantic Ocean, the Mediterranean Sea, the Black Sea and the Caribbean Sea. Elrod’s third Persian Gulf deployment followed Operation Desert Storm and supported aggressive air and surface surveillance operations. Elrod conducted naval exercises with units of Gulf Cooperation Council nations to strengthen and further develop the bonds that were forged during Desert Shield and Desert Storm. The ship participated in TEAMWORK ’92, NATO’s Arctic Ocean anti-submarine exercise, and Operation Sharp Guard, in support of multi-national enforcement of United Nations sanctions and embargoing war materials to the Balkans. Elrod demonstrated America’s commitment to her NATO allies by providing a presence among the Standing Naval Forces Mediterranean (SNFM) and Standing Naval Forces Atlantic (SNFL) during Operation Enduring Freedom. Recently, Elrod completed another NATO deployment in 2004 in support of Operation Active Endeavor, and helped protect the 2004 Summer Olympics in Athens, Greece, in Operation Distinguished Games. Elrod crew members have served with pride and distinction as ambassadors of America and spokesmen for the US Navy, hosting official and unofficial visits for foreign military, business and civilian dignitaries throughout the world, including Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Spain, Bulgaria, Turkey, Israel, Greece, Italy, France, England, Scotland, and Croatia. Elrod has sailed the major oceans of the world, transited the Panama and Suez canals, crossed the equator and the Arctic Circle. In addition to a reputation for operational readiness and fighting skills, Elrod has earned a reputation for community support and participation in charitable projects. The ship has been recognized for the crew’s contributions by designation as a Presidential “Point of Light”.[clarification needed] Elrod has also earned numerous awards during her commissioned service, including the Joint Meritorious Unit Award, Navy Meritorious Unit Commendation, Coast Guard Meritorious Unit Commendation, Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal, Humanitarian Service Medal, several Battle Efficiency Excellence Awards, Secretary of the Navy Energy Conservation Award, Armed Forces Recreation Society Award and various departmental and mission-specific awards for excellence. The current captain of the Elrod is Commander Jackie L. Killman.
Minneapolis was laid down 16 December 1891 by William Cramp & Sons, Philadelphia; launched 12 August 1893, sponsored by Miss Elizabeth Washburn, daughter of SenatorWilliam D. Washburn of Minnesota; and commissioned at Philadelphia, 13 December 1894, CaptainGeorge H. Wadleigh, in command.[4] The class was originally designed with three funnels; however, Columbia was built with four and Minneapolis with two. This may have been to make them resemble specific passenger liners.
A new report from the US Congressional Research Service has detailed the risk and reward opportunities associated with the Australian acquisition of Virginia Class submarines as part of AUKUS Pillar I.
There can be no doubt, Australia’s ambition and plans to field a fleet of nuclear-powered, conventionally-armed submarines through the trilateral AUKUS partnership is one of the most transformative developments in our national history.
Indeed, the AUKUS submarine program has often been described as not only the most “transformative industrial endeavour” in our history, but also in our nation’s strategic capability.
At the core of the first stages of Australia’s nuclear submarine fleet is the initial acquisition or rather transfer of up to five US Navy Virginia Class nuclear-powered submarines ahead of the fielding of locally-built SSN-AUKUS submarines, developed in conjunction with the United Kingdom and the United States.
This “optimal” pathway isn’t without its challenges though, with the very real industrial limitations of the United States submarine yards coming to the fore at a time when the qualitative and quantitative edge of the US Navy’s submarine fleet will become increasingly important in both the Atlantic and the Indo-Pacific.
Equally challenging is the industrial capacity of both the United Kingdom and Australia, coupled with their mounting personnel and industrial challenges, that have resulted in increasing challenges to their respective navies.
Nevertheless, all three parties remain resolute in their continued ambition and commitment to the trilateral development of an Australian nuclear-powered submarine capability.
It goes without saying that the complexity of both the regulatory, legislative, and planning processes surrounding the AUKUS agreement are as immense, if not more so, than the technological challenges presented by the transfer of nuclear-powered submarine technology to Australia.
Congress recognised this, asking a particularly poignant question, stating, “How do the potential benefits, costs, and risks of the proposed Pillar I pathway compare to those of a potential alternative of a US-Australia division of labour on SSNs?”
While these questions have been raised both in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia, the trilateral partnership has enjoyed some major milestones ahead of the delivery of the first of the three-to-five Virginia Class submarines, namely, the successful embedding of Australian personnel with the US and UK submarine fleets and the establishment of Submarine Rotational Force-West (SRF-W).
The CRS detailed these milestones, stating, “Beginning in 2023, Australian military and civilian personnel would embed with the US and UK navies, and in the US and UK submarine industrial bases, to accelerate the training of Australian personnel. The United States would increase SSN port visits to Australia beginning in 2023, with Australian sailors joining US crews for training and development; the UK would increase visits to Australia beginning in 2026.
“As early as 2027, the United States and UK would begin forward rotations of SSNs out of HMAS Stirling, an Australian naval base near Perth, in Western Australia, to accelerate the development of Australian naval personnel, workforce, infrastructure and regulatory system. Eventually, one UK SSN and up to four Virginia Class SSNs would be rotationally deployed out of HMAS Stirling under the arrangement, which would be called Submarine Rotational Force-West (SRF-W),” the CRS explained.
Each of these foundational pillars serve as the basis for developing Australia’s domestic nuclear workforce, both from an industry workforce and uniformed workforce perspective ahead of Australia accepting the first Virginia Class nuclear submarines at some point between 2027 and the early-to-mid-2030s.
This agreement isn’t without risks for the US Navy, particularly its own submarine force which is facing increasingly capable and numerous Russian and Chinese nuclear submarine fleets, respectively.
Highlighting this impact, the CRS report articulated, “Selling three to five Virginia Class boats to Australia would reduce the size of the US Navy’s SSN force from FY2032 (when the first boat would be sold) until (as estimated by CRS and CBO) sometime between 2040 and 2049.” In response, the CRS and Congressional Budget Office (CBO) stated that while a challenge to the US Navy’s submarine fleet, it isn’t an insurmountable one.
“The Navy states in its FY2024 30-year shipbuilding plan, ‘the Navy anticipates building additional Virginia Class SSNs in the 2030s as replacements for submarines sold to Australia.’ Strictly construed, building additional SSNs as replacements for three to five Virginia Class boats sold to Australia would involve building three to five SSNs that would be in addition to those that were already envisaged as being built under the Navy 30-year shipbuilding plan that preceded the announcement of the AUKUS agreement in September 2021.
The CRS report articulated, “The Navy 30-year shipbuilding plan with 30-year ship procurement profiles that preceded the announcement of the AUKUS agreement in September 2021 is the Navy FY2020 30-year (FY2020-FY2049) shipbuilding plan, which was submitted in March 2019. This 30-year plan includes the procurement of SSNs at a steady rate of two boats per year from FY2021 through FY2049.”
However, this isn’t the whole solution, which the CRS explained, “On this basis, it might be argued that building replacement SSNs for three to five Virginia Class boats sold to Australia would involve building SSNs at a rate of something more than two boats per year.
“At an October 25, 2023, hearing on the submarine industrial base and its ability to support the AUKUS framework before the Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee, the Navy testified that supporting both US Navy and AUKUS needs would require the increasing the Virginia Class construction rate from 2.0 boats per year to 2.33 boats per year. Compared to a previously planned procurement rate of 2.0 boats per year, a procurement rate of 2.33 boats per year would equate to one additional boat every three years.”
Meeting this planned rate of shipbuilding is still a long way off, particularly given the increasing supply chain constraints and the very real constraints on the existing two US submarine yards that will be further weighed down as production for the Columbia Class ballistic missile submarines continues to ramp-up.
So, solving these challenges requires some innovative thinking among the tripartite members, which spells exciting opportunities for Australia.
Alternatives to ‘divide labour’, maximise deterrence
In response, the CRS presented a number of alternatives to better leverage the respective strengths and maximise the impact of Australian nuclear submarines in this era of mounting geostrategic challenges.
The CRS stated, “the proposed forward rotations of US and UK SSNs to Australia would still be implemented; the size of the US SSN force would be expanded by at least three to five boats, and possibly eight boats, above previous plans so as to provide additional US SSNs for performing Australian SSN missions.”
Unpacking this further, the CRS added, “Australia, instead of using funds to purchase, operate, and maintain its own SSNs, would instead invest those funds in other military capabilities (such as, for example, producing long-range anti-ship missiles and/or purchasing of US-made B-21 long-range bombers), so as to create an Australian capacity for performing non-SSN military missions for both Australia and the United States.”
Alternative to these few options, the CRS presented two additional options, stating, “Under one variation of this potential alternative, the proposed sharing of US naval nuclear propulsion technology and US submarine technology, the proposed Australian investments in Australian and US submarine-construction capability, and the other proposed actions for supporting eventual Australian construction of AUKUS SSNs would continue, and Australia would eventually build its own AUKUS SSNs, reducing at that point the need for US SSNs to perform Australian SSN missions.
“Under another variation of this potential alternative, the performance of Australian SSN missions by US SSNs would continue indefinitely, and instead of implementing the technology sharing, making Australian investments in submarine-construction capability, and taking the other actions that would be needed to eventually build AUKUS SSNs, Australia would continue investing in other military capabilities for supporting a continuing US-Australia division of labour. Under this variation, the size of the US SSN force would eventually be expanded above previously planned levels by eight boats,” the CRS explained further.
Final thoughts
The rapidly deteriorating geopolitical and strategic environment that is transforming the global and regional security paradigm requires a realistic analysis, assessment, and acceptance by Australia’s policymakers.
Equally, both the Australian government and the Australian public have to accept and understand that we will need to dramatically increase spending in our national defence and do so over the long term, rather than short-term sugar hits or sleight of hand that push money out over the forward estimates and allow inflation to account for “increases” in spending, despite there being little-to-no new money in real terms.
Ultimately, this comes back to the government’s shift away from a “Balanced Force” towards a “Focused Force” as championed in the Defence Strategic Review and the foundational problem that is our lack of clearly defined role and objectives for our own defence capabilities.
This reality equally fails to account for the planned increase in ADF personnel by 2040 and places ultimate hope in a series of as yet to be developed autonomous systems, cyber or tactical weapons like HIMARs and others that are being shoehorned into fulfilling “strategic” roles to provide both “impactful projection” and deterrence against “any potential adversary”.
Importantly, no one has said that defending the nation in this era of renewed and increasingly capable great power competition will be cheap or easy and we have to accept that uncomfortable reality, because the alternative outcome is infinitely worse.
Get involved with the discussion and let us know your thoughts on Australia’s future role and position in the Indo-Pacific region and what you would like to see from Australia’s political leaders in terms of partisan and bipartisan agenda setting in the comments section below, or get in touch at [email protected] or at [email protected].
Richard L. Page was laid down on 4 January 1965 by the Bath Iron Works, Bath, Maine. She was launched on 4 April 1966, sponsored by Miss Edmonia Lee Whittle and Mrs. Nannie Page Trinker, granddaughters of the ship’s namesake, Brigadier General Richard L. Page, and commissioned as a guided missile destroyer escort at Boston, Massachusetts on 5 August 1967 with the hull number DEG-5.
