Up periscope on $36bn subs spend

Mike Gilligan

John Kerin overlooks what the Defence white paper really says in his “US floats nuclear subs option” (February 22). In the debate over wasting $36 billion on replacing the present submarines, Kerin claims the white paper “called for 12 large conventional submarines, predicated on the potential threat posed by China”. Let’s get clear what that white paper said, and didn’t, about submarines. And China.

“Defence policy must be based on clear objectives. We have to be very clear about what matters most, so that we can provision against the right risks and do not waste resources. Australia’s most basic strategic interest remains the defence of Australia against direct armed attack, founded on the principle of self-reliance.

“This entails a fundamentally maritime strategy, for which Australia requires forces that can operate with decisive effect throughout the northern maritime and littoral approaches to Australia, Maritime forces of major surface combatants (destroyers and frigates), submarines and other naval capabilities, supported by air combat (for air superiority and maritime strike) and maritime surveillance and response assets, are necessary.”

That’s it. There’s no analysis to justify why Defence is now demanding $36 billion for 12 submarines. The only mention of China is, “changes in the distribution of global power have become obvious in the past decade. China’s rise in economic, political and military terms has become more evident”. If that is the justification for the $36 billion grab by the peripheralia who feed off Defence, let’s see the marginal costs and effectiveness behind “operating with decisive effect ” against China which has advanced with aggressive intent to our northern and littoral waters (presumably over our ally’s dead body).

Mike GilliganGundaroo NSW

The Australian Financial Review