Wicker’s argument: In a Wall Street Journal op-ed published Sunday, Wicker reiterated his support for the goals of AUKUS, but said the Navy’s fleet of 49 attack submarines already falls short of the service’s goal to have 66 — and that it can’t afford to spare any.
The Navy has acknowledged that because it bought fewer attack submarines in the 1990s, its fleet will hit a low point from the 2020s through the early 2030s, with only 46 in fiscal 2030. To help fill in part of the projected valley, the Navy plans to refuel and extend the service lives of up to seven Los Angeles-class attack submarines.
“Australian investment in U.S. shipyards will also help. But we can’t afford to shrink the overworked U.S. submarine fleet at a dangerous moment,” he said.
Boosters react: Senate Foreign Relations Chair Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), who co-sponsored the AUKUS legislation based on an administration proposal, decried the Republican opposition to what might have been a smooth path for adding the sub transfers to the National Defense Authorization Act.
In a brief interview, Menendez said he was considering whether to offer a separate floor amendment that, if passed, would add the sub-transfer language to the defense policy bill. If so, that could tee up a Senate floor fight between lawmakers on either side of the issue.
“There seems to be an element of [Republicans] that has a problem transferring submarines to the Australians. I think it’s foolish because giving us the ability to have that type of presence in the Pacific with a strong ally makes a lot of sense,” Menendez said.
Senate Defense Appropriations Chair Jon Tester (D-Mont.) said AUKUS is “pretty damned important” for the country, but questioned whether the submarine industrial base can actually absorb another large influx of cash.