The latest China warning to Australia that our defences are “weak” coincides with a disturbing Senate economics references committee report on our submarine fiasco.
In addition the American aircraft carrier the Ronald Reagan will sail from our region to the Middle East this northern summer. That means the US won’t have an aircraft carrier in the Indo-Pacific for months.
Together, these events are chilling.
China’s English language mouthpiece Global Times warns: “Australia’s military is too weak to be a worthy opponent of China, and if it dares to interfere in a military conflict for example in the Taiwan Straits, its forces will be among the first to be hit.
“Australia must not think it can hide from China if it provokes….Australia is within range of China’s conventional warhead-equipped DF-26 intermediate-range ballistic missile.”
While it is clearly part of China’s propaganda barrage, there is no doubt the DF-26 rocket can reach northern Australia and presumably the China warning would cover any war in Taiwan.
In The Weekend Australian Greg Sheridan wrote a first class commentary on the dangers that a Taiwan conflict poses to Australia.
But the biggest issue for Australia is the horrible reality that China maybe actually telling the truth when it claims our military is “weak”. I feel sorry for new defence minister Peter Dutton, who must wonder whether his defence chiefs are telling him the truth or whether they are merely covering up previous mistakes.
I hope he has been allowed to see the defence modelling which is believed to show that Australia’s F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is no match for the best Chinese and Russian aircraft.
Given we have limited antimissile weaponry that leaves us in a dangerous position in the air without substantial US support, which why the US repositioning of the Reagan, albeit temporary and for understandable reasons, underlines our exposure and raises doubts about their commitment to the region.
Then, on Monday night, the Senate committee report on the submarine project arrived. It has done a lot of research despite Defence concealment walls.
Remember this is the largest defence equipment project we have ever attempted. We will spend between $120 billion and $150bn in a cost plus deal to deliver the submarines in the late 2030s and beyond. Then you can more than double that outlay as we operate them.
For a nation now deep in debt this almost like tying our future to a lottery ticket. We are not buying a proven submarine but, via the French and alone as a nation, we are actually trying to invent a submarine using a combination of technologies that have never been combined before.
Of course they might work but the committee report flags multiple warnings, starting with total confusion over the cost.
The rival German fixed price tender was $20 billion in 2016 dollars. Defence now claims that the French bid was $50 billion in 2016 dollars – a $30 billion difference. Why on earth would any self-respecting Australian government accept a tender when there was such a huge price differential.
The simple fact was that the ministers of the day genuinely believed the French bid was pitched around $23 billion in 2016 dollars which was not far away from the German bid. Someone is clearly not telling the truth and that’s a bad way to start our biggest project.
The Germans had proven systems to convert their submarines to local industrial infrastructure.
The French had little experience in area this but made many optimistic statements.
As soon as we had rejected the Germans, the French backtracked on their industrial network promises. Since then we have had incredible trouble trying to get them to deliver because we desperately need this project to restore the industrial base which was lost when the motor industry shut.
Wisely, it is now national policy to boost Australian industry via defence spending.
Our need for a US defence partnership is now greater than at any time since World War II.
The Americans warned us not to go into the French deal because, apart from the enormous cost and risk, the US is very reluctant to put its best combat system technologies into a French-designed submarine because it’s wary of sharing top secrets with the French.
We chose to ignore our defence partner.
The Senate committee reveals that the Defence chiefs told the Germans that Australia was unhappy with the propeller system in the German proposal and preferred the pump jet system proposed by the French.
I will not debate the relative technologies except that there are many engineers who state that the pump jet system, which is used in nuclear submarines, will not work efficiently in a submarine driven by lead acid batteries.
We taking a $120bn - $150bn gamble that they are wrong.
Paradoxically, because the French submarine will take so long to develop and build, we are actually talking again to the Germans about an older submarine to help fill the gap.
Actually the Germans have now developed submarines using hydrogen fuel cells which can operate at high speed on diesel power or switch to the alternative system for silent slow cruising, staying submerged for up to three weeks with little exhaust heat. The system is also said to be vibration-free, extremely quiet and virtually undetectable. Israel and Singapore have bought versions.
While it might be smaller than the French submarine, it only costs a $1bn.
Add an industrial base and we will say the cost is $1.5bn. For $150bn we can buy 100 of these submarines (not 12 in the French deal ) and they are actually proven to work. Cut back the purchase to, say, 50 and we can move to the British-American developed nuclear submarines. They work too.
More Coverage
Show goes on in Las Vegas after Tesla explosion
Las Vegas shaken but not stirred as it prepares to host one of its biggest shows of the year – three days after a US Green Beret blew up a Tesla Cybertruck, wounding seven people.
Mining group wants explorer tax breaks to be an election issue
The Association of Mining and Exploration Companies has made its top federal election issue a scheme that delivers tax breaks to investors who punt on junior explorers.