Submarines are vital for defence of island nation

It is a long way from “spaceships of the ocean” to “billion-dollar coffins” but these deeply contrasting assessments of Australia’s future submarine fleet underscore the divergent opinions and irreconcilable views when it comes to defence priorities. This is why the complex task of defence procurement is conducted through an array of expert, bureaucratic, commercial and political processes to ensure the astronomical sums of money spent can deliver on the nation’s strategic goals. It was former Victorian independent senator John Madigan who likened submarines to spacecraft as he supported a local construction effort, whereas Australian National University professor Roger Bradbury argues in a piece online today that our next generation of subs could be dangerously redundant by the time they are built. With $50 billion of taxpayers’ money at stake, we need to allow for changing technologies and circumstances but still have confidence in government decision-making. Professor Bradbury’s case suggests all submarines will be rendered useless by technology that makes the ocean electronically transparent. If he is right, the military establishments of the US, China, Russia, India and a host of European nations are wrong too. This would seem unlikely.

The US has more than 60 subs of various types in commission and is still building the most sophisticated Virginia-class nuclear vessels. Russia still runs a submarine fleet and is adding to it with new Borei ballistic vessels and Yasen attack subs. India is expanding its fleet; Britain runs nuclear submarines and is expanding its fleet; and, importantly, China has more than 60 nuclear and conventional subs and is expanding and upgrading its fleet. Submarines clearly are seen as a crucial tactical platform and strategic asset for many decades to come for the world’s largest and most ambitious navies. The Australian has been critical of choices that mean this nation will pay perhaps as much as twice the cost necessary for what won’t necessarily be the best boats available; this decision has largely been dictated by political preferences for a domestic build. For all the controversy over the choice, it is absolutely in the nation’s interests that the Collins-class replacement project is successfully completed in coming decades to ensure this island nation has a modern and effective submarine capability.

More to the point in today’s opinion pages is the argument from retired rear admiral James Goldrick and Andrew Shearer, a former foreign policy adviser to prime ministers John Howard and Tony Abbott, about the importance of refocusing our naval resources on our region. Our military has long played an important role in the Middle East, through the first Gulf war, the Iraq embargo, the Afghanistan war, the invasion of Iraq and the present efforts against Islamic State. But the naval deployment cannot last forever, especially when there are pressing concerns closer to home. We trust the Turnbull government is carefully considering how long we can continue to rotate a frigate through Middle Eastern waters and what use those resources could be put to in our region.