Government must explain submarine project decisions

The project to replace the existing Collins-class submarines will be the most expensive in Australia’s defence history. Picture: Supplied

The auditor general’s report showing defence projects are $10 billion over budget and an average of 27 months late is a warning to the nation that our current decision making structure not good at developing major defence projects.

In private enterprise, groups that regularly underperform find it difficult to raise capital for future projects. In defence, we have handed a struggling organisation a $220 billion project that is bigger and more difficult than anything it has previously tackled. Worse still, the submarine project is strategically suspect at best.

Paradoxically, in the final weeks of the 2019 federal parliament concentrated on managing the provision of a small surplus for the year ended June 30 2020.

But in practical terms, the submarine project heads us into deep deficit territory.

The more I learn about this decision the more it seems to be one of the most stupid decisions ever taken by an Australian government.

Last week I discussed how the combat system for the submarine was being provided directly to Australia by the Americans who were anxious that the French designers of the submarine not learn too much about it for fear they would leak the details of the combat system to the Russians, Chinese or anyone else.

Designing a new submarine where the two major suppliers are not allowed to talk to each other is almost certain to deliver a horrific outcome. And remember that the group that must tackle that challenge has underperformed on its previous, and much easier, challenges.

But having my interest kindled I began reading other articles about this looming disaster including one by Lieutenant Colonel (retired) Alistair Pope.

Different propulsion

Pope points out that in simple terms Australia is buying a nuclear submarine and taking out its nuclear propulsion systems and replacing them with lead acid battery based systems that require large amounts of diesel fuel. Yes, there are lots of bells and whistles proposed on the propulsion systems, but basically it is World War II technology.

Pope points out that in the Second World War, after their initial successes German U boats suffered horrific casualties. In subsequent years, submarine warfare evolved into providing mobile rocket launchers to attack land-based targets.

For decades the Russians and the Americans played cat and mouse in this arena of warfare. The next era in the development of submarines has already started and we are starting to develop unmanned submarines driven by artificial intelligence. These can attack ships and be destroyed by the enemy without any loss of life.

The next generation of manned submarines, according to Pope, will be major carriers of unmanned submarines and will co-ordinate the attacks of those unmanned submarines. We will not get our first old style submarine until 2035 or more likely 2040 – that is two decades away and the order won’t be completed until around 2050 – 30 years away. We are spending this enormous sum on a submarine that even before it starts development looks outdated.

Its main attribute will be the US combat system but whether that can be made to work in a submarine designed by people not talking to the Americans remains to be seen. And even if it is installed our submarine will be incredibly vulnerable in any battle. Already sailors are reluctant to sail in the Collins class submarine for fear that they are in a coffin. The French submarine will be much more dangerous.

External review

Last week I called on Scott Morrison, Josh Frydenberg and Mathias Cormann to engage people outside defence to look closely at this decision. They need to think not just of the money but of the long term security of the next generation. This decision looks so stupid that it makes you wonder whether there are other agendas that we don’t know about. All sides of parliament need to step back and realise that they will not be forgiven if they don’t bring all the facts to light.

Footnote

Wednesday’s The Age newspaper in Melbourne carries a front-page headline “Blackout risk as heat hits”. Climate change is being blamed, but that’s simply wrong. The potential blackouts were caused by the response of the Andrews government to climate change. The government set carbon targets, which was fine, but, in response, it erected solar and wind generation units without proper back up and grid connections. And these generators were not co-ordinated with coal so that the coal stations were operated badly contributing to predictable breakdowns. Here are some of the 2017 headlines on my commentaries:

• Energy crisis risk is criminal
• Mistakes caused the energy disaster — what other damage is being done?
• Energy crisis will be worse than expected, with costly blackouts coming

That was two years ago. Countess others followed. The potential crisis has been caused by politicians.