Defence Department must push ahead to avoid naval equipment paralysis following French submarine fiasco

Defence Minister Peter Dutton and his assistant Andrew Hastie must move on from French submarine drama to avoid naval equipment paralysis. Picture: Gary Ramage/NCA NewsWire

A clear danger for Australia is that the submarine controversy with the French will create a naval equipment paralysis. There are a lot more decisions to be made and time is not on Australia’s side. It is vital that Defence Minister Peter Dutton and his assistant Andrew Hastie move ahead.

The Morrison-Dutton decision to exercise Australia’s cancellation rights in the French submarine deal and replace the French disaster with nuclear submarines using American and British technology as part of an AUKUS pact was a brilliant concept.

But in its aftermath we have seen the French at their most arrogant which underlined the mistake that we made in signing the 2016 contract. But in the wake of the cancellation a strange vacuum has been created that is being filled by those with agendas.

French President Emmanuel Macron. Picture: AFP

For example, Australian officials who played a role in the submarine and frigate mistakes are suddenly emerging to defend the indefensible. Defence equipment senior public servants who were part of the submarine and frigate disasters must try to plot new strategies, giving critics space to move.

Normally what politicians do in situations like this is to appoint consultants who then recommend what the public servants want. But it doesn’t work in this situation.

The good news is that the hard decisions have been made and the next steps are relatively straightforward as long as Dutton and Hastie don’t allow a delayed decision vacuum to be created.

Australia was never going to receive French submarines until around 2040 so the defence gap in submarine capability between the end of the life of the Collins class submarines around 2026 and the French submarines in 2040 was always too big. Nuclear submarines did not change that situation. The time gap that has been ignored for so long, still has to be filled. Modern nuclear submarines are not available.

The defence solution is to revamp the Collins class submarines but they are old all and have been used extensively so a virtual rebuild is required.

We need their designers, the Swedes, to advise us on whether patching them up or completely reconstructing them is actually worth while.

A far better solution looks to be to buy off the shelf either the Swedish, German or Japanese submarines it will be necessary to get outside advice on whether to accept the Swedish German or Japanese submarines. Important in the selection will be the ability of the tenderers to set up an Australian industrial base — the first step towards the necessary industrial capacity to build nuclear submarines.

With modern new non-nuclear submarines, we can also begin to build up our naval operating capacity which will need to be substantial by the time we start commissioning nuclear submarines. We should be able to buy these submarines in the $1bn range — a far cry from the $100bn (set to go beyond $120bn) cost of 12 French submarines.

While all attention is on the French mistake some of the people who made a hash of the submarine tender performed just as badly when it came to the frigate contract.

We wanted a fully designed and operational frigate which we could make in Australia. Instead we purchased from the British a frigate was not fully operational that couldn’t take our radar and the American combat system.

In practical terms we are now designing a new frigate. This is lunacy. The cost will be enormous because there are no economies of scale by amortising a new ship among other customers — a feature of the submarine mistake. The redesigned Frigate is unlikely to be a very effective ship.

The word from the UK is that the designer BAE are fully aware of the mess and don’t want to be part of a blame game. A solution appears to buy BAE’s upgraded Astute nuclear submarine. It is powered by American nuclear reactor technology but is smaller than similar American submarines and looks better for our needs. My guess is that the British would be happy to exit the Frigate mess in exchange for the submarine contract.

We then need a Frigate replacement. If BAE have a ready made Frigate that meets our requirements then they can be invited to tender.

The Italians were among the original tenderers that we didn’t choose but they won the American Frigate tender. There have been some industrial problems with that US contract but they seem to have been sorted out and the Italians showed in the US that they can establish an industrial base to build their frigates. But sometimes the best solution to a problem is close to home

Australia has actually learned how to make frigates. We built three Hobart frigates. In the first two there were lots of problems but the third, which came into operation around 2018, was constructed very well with few problems. They are fine frigates that meet our requirements and we can build more. What’s important is that we make some decisions.