We suffer from a substandard policy of procurement

Our long coastline makes us alarmingly vulnerable without the military hardware capable of effective defence.

Greg Sheridan rightly points out major flaws in our submarine fleet replacement program, but fails to mention an important failing: opting for a conventional rather than a nuclear powered propulsion system (“We might sink decades before these subs fly”, 14/2).

It doesn’t take a Rhodes Scholar to understand our isolation as an island- state, and our extensive and vulnerable coastline bring with them both strengths and weaknesses. In today’s environment it’s probably more of the latter.

This, along with our inability to acquire and maintain a military force capable of defending us on a stand-alone basis must surely tell us we need not only to have strong allies, but that our military hardware must be compatible and interoperable with their hardware; in our case, with the US in particular.

Its strategic submarine fleet is predominantly nuclear powered; why isn’t ours? Here we are, with one that is conventionally powered, with inherent limitations in respect to operating range. And that’s before we even consider the lead time in replacing our existing obsolete fleet with one not even fully designed yet, being manufactured on the other side of the world in France, with which we don’t have a close military partnership.

John George, Terrigal, NSW

Greg Sheridan’s article about our submarine procurement is truly a sorry litany of sloppy and ineffective activity, but doesn’t mention the initial cause of the situation we are in today.

The failure to build a nuclear industry in the most suitable country in the world, must have perplexed the French — who are 75 per cent dependent on nuclear power and are not short of energy — when they were tendering for the submarine contract.

Australia has messed up its energy program by inexplicably ruling out the most effective zero emission energy source to replace coal-burning power stations.

The benefits from building our own nuclear industry are obvious: we would replace all coal-fired power stations, avoiding their polluting emissions and keep the integrity of our power network and our international agreements intact.

The evolution of the industry would create jobs for many workers. Not least, we could avoid a costly orphan in our defence armoury.

Ian Milne, Seven Mile Beach, Tas

I have long argued that the toll of military casualties in the Middle East and Afghanistan is the “butcher’s bill” we pay for hiding behind the skirts of the US.

As Greg Sheridan rightly says, our military operations are designed to win credit with the US at minimum cost to the Australian taxpayer. But we cannot just blame our politicians for this — time and again, we witness extraordinary procurement decisions.

As an Australian serving in the British army I spent two years in the ministry of defence’s procurement executive; admittedly the Brits had their fair share of procurement stuff- ups but an urgent principle was getting “kit” the military needed to them as soon as feasible.

In comparison, the glacial progress of Australia’s submarine project just beggars belief.

Bob McGilvray, Paddys River, NSW

Two worthy articles on the subs fiasco from Greg Sheridan in one week (“We might sink decades before these submarines fly”, 14/02 and “Hiding behind US as subs delivery date sails off into the horizon,” 12/02). Good on him. Months ago Tony Abbott raised the same concerns that Sheridan and many of us share — that the government’s $50 billion decision to redesign French nuclear submarines to run on diesel, the first of which won’t be delivered until 2034 at the earliest — is ludicrous.

Then defence minister Marise Payne rebuked Abbott for speaking up. Perhaps her successor, Christopher Pyne, rather than shooting the messenger, would care to give us taxpayers the courtesy of the decent response we all deserve.

Mandy Macmillan, Singleton, NSW

Greg Sheridan writes of the submarine debacle. How could we have signed up for a critical piece of defence equipment that hasn’t even been designed?

To believe that such a project could remain relevant, let alone within cost estimates, over a 20-year time frame, requires the submerging of all rational thought.

William Mapleston, Ashgrove, Qld