Search Results
-
SSNs: a second-best solution for defence?
Defence’s defeat on the French Submarine was an extraordinary victory for a small group of dedicated professionals. Defence’s counterattack with the nuclear submarines under the aegis of AUKUS reeks of the same old problems. Continue reading »
-
Why should Australian submarines prowl off the coast of China?
Jon Stanford’s response to Brian Toohey’s criticism of his promotion of nuclear submarines for Australia deserves a response. Continue reading »
-
AUKUS: time to talk about time and submarines
Scheduled for the 2040s, while the AUKUS nuclear-powered submarines might never eventuate, the theatre surrounding the announcement provides a publicly-digestible narrative for the surrender of Northern Australia to the American military in the present day. Continue reading »
-
Australia’s national security strategy: no room for peace, arms control?
In contrast to Labor politicians such as Paul Keating, Bill Hayden, Gareth Evans and Gough Whitlam, the four part series recently published by Keating and Stanford on Australian national security sees no place for arms control measures and peace initiatives. Continue reading »
-
A flawed argument for Australian nuclear deterrence
Hugh White’s book on Australian defence amounts to an advocacy of nuclear weapons. Some aspects of his arguments are reckless and reveal a sense of denial. Continue reading »
-
Magical thinking: nuclear submarines and Australia’s Maginot Line of the imagination
The relationship between defence policy and the nuclear powered submarines has generated a lot of magical thinking. Continue reading »
-
In defence of Australia’s submarine decision
Swapping the expensive French conventionally powered submarines for nuclear submarines was the right decision, and it does not have to come at a cost to Australia’s independence. Continue reading »
-
Lest we forget: Lessons for AUKUS from the Anglo-German naval race
In the shadow of AUKUS, there are many echoes of debates from the era of the Anglo-German naval race, 1900 to 1914. Are there any lessons for us? Continue reading »
-
Saturday’s good reading and listening for the weekend
What people in other forums are saying about public policy Continue reading »
-
Easy Lies & Influence in the $90b submarine boondoggle
No-one knew what the evaluation process involved, but it was clear the decision was political, not driven by the obligation of government to spend public funds for the best product and the best price. Continue reading »
-
The French submarine boondoggle is Australia’s biggest defence blunder. Our tame corporate media hardly noticed.
For the first time in over five years of delay and evasion the Secretary of Defence has at last told us that the Government is looking at an alternative to the French submarine. Our corporate media has failed to hold the government to account in its scandalous handling of the $90 billion French submarine purchase. Continue reading »
-
The French submarine boondoggle is Australia’s biggest defence blunder and compounded by media failure
Our corporate media has failed to hold the government to account in its scandalous handling of the $90 billion French submarine purchase. For five years, the media has failed us. It is now rewarded in the new Media Code with 90% of the tax on Google and Facebook to be handed over to the three Continue reading »
-
Exaggerated threats and contrived military strategies: a response to Jon Stanford
For all the discussion of China’s aggression, it is the US and its allies that have been constantly at war for two decades. Continue reading »
-
The smart money is that in defending Australia we will be on our own. Part 3
The government’s recent Defence Strategic Update suggests Australia faces the greatest threat to our independence since 1942. In this final article of three, I consider the need for a Review, both to design a new Australian military strategy and analyse the essential elements of the new force structure that this will require. Continue reading »
-
Part 2. Australia’s Defence Strategy: built-in resistance to change
The government’s Defence Strategic Update suggests Australia faces the greatest threat to our independence since 1942. This demands a sophisticated diplomatic strategy, the development of a sound military strategy and the careful analysis of how to deliver an appropriate force structure so as to address the threat in an acceptable timeframe. Continue reading »
-
Sharp-edged but sophisticated diplomacy needs to underpin our defence strategy Part 1
The government’s recent Defence Strategic Update suggests Australia faces the greatest threat to our independence since 1942. This demands a sophisticated diplomatic strategy, the development of a sound military strategy to deter an attack by a great power and careful analysis of how to design the right force structure to deliver it. This first article Continue reading »
-
Australian submarines operating in the South China Sea is a very provocative and very bad idea.
In responding to my post (19 October) about the Morrison government’s plan to spend at least $90 billion on large submarines, Jon Stanford’s post (21 October ) argues that we should do what the Commander of the US Submarine Force wants with our submarines. Continue reading »
-
Exorbitant cost of the Coalition’s renewed interest in manufacturing
Before the budget Scott Morrison announced through Michelle Grattan a $1.5 billion plan to boost manufacturing in six priority areas – resources technology and critical minerals processing, food and beverage, medical products, recycling and clean energy, defence and space. Not surprisingly there was no critical examination by the mainstream media. Continue reading »
-
What should Australian submarines do? – Response to Brian Toohey
Brian Toohey’s challenging post (19 October) concerns what we want our submarines to do. In light of the recent Defence Strategic Update, the ADF needs to build a force capable of deterring an attack by a major power. Continue reading »
-
In for a penny, in for a pound: $90 billion for an obsolete submarine fleet
So much for Australian sovereignty. We are locked out of repairing key US components of our subs’ computer systems, and the Coalition has committed our submarine fleet to the extraordinarily dangerous role of helping the US conduct surveillance in the South China Sea. Continue reading »
-
JON STANFORD. A Response to Michael McKinley on Future Submarines
In a series of five pieces in Pearls and Irritations last week, Dr Michael McKinley cites the recent report by Submarines for Australia at some length. While I acknowledge some of Dr McKinley’s concerns about our approach, it is not clear to me what he is proposing in its place. But insofar as I understand Continue reading »
-
MICHAEL McKINLEY. Arse-backwards: the now unmistakeable nature of the Future Submarine programme by refusing to ask the prior questions. Part 1 of 5.
Even from well outside the arcana imperii of the processes which led to the decision to select the Shortfin Barracuda proposal by French shipbuilder Naval Group to replace the Collins-class submarines it is apparent that the result is contrary to the good order and strategic discipline which should be the hallmarks of such a project. Continue reading »
-
MIKE SCRAFTON. The warning that wasn’t on the submarines.
The Australian’s correspondent Robert Gottliebsen (The Australian 12 Feb 2020) has found ‘a clear warning to the Australian nation’ buried in the ANAO audit report on the Future Submarine Program. Continue reading »
-
MIKE SCRAFTON. Future Submarines and Future War
The SEA1000 Future Submarine project is back in the news following the ANOA report. Jon Stanford has demonstrated how badly this acquisition project is flawed. How government imagines the submarines will be employed remains imponderable. Continue reading »
-
JON STANFORD: Second rate leadership: Future Submarine Part 4 of 4
I have suggested that recent governments have failed to provide leadership in the defence portfolio. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the case of SEA 1000, the future submarine program. Continue reading »
-
JON STANFORD: Second rate leadership: Future Submarine Part 3 of 4
I have suggested in earlier posts that recent governments have failed to provide leadership in the defence portfolio. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the case of SEA 1000, the future submarine program. Continue reading »
-
JON STANFORD: Second rate leadership Part 2 of 4: Defence
“Australia is now a confident, wealthy nation that has the right to expect its leaders to rise above the second rate.” Continue reading »
-
JON STANFORD. Comment on Mike Scrapton’s article ‘The casual talk of war’.
Isn’t it interesting that in the Prime Minister’s attempt yesterday to make us all very frightened indeed about the national security threats that a Labor government would expose us to — ranging from hordes of asylum seekers at the gates, including paedophiles and murderers in their ranks, to increased domestic violence against women — he Continue reading »
-
JOHN MENADUE. We are paying an enormous price to keep Christopher Pyne in Parliament
The Coalition Government ended our car manufacturing industry which had an Effective Rate of Protection of 8%. It employed 200,000 people. We are told by the Government that the void in SA will be filled by building the new French submarines in Adelaide. The won’t. There will be only about 2000 new jobs in SA Continue reading »
-
JON STANFORD. The Future Submarine: Time for a Review
One year ago, Insight Economics, sponsored by Sydney businessman Gary Johnston, published a comprehensive, independent report on the future submarine (FSM) acquisition. Launched at the National Press Club by Professor Hugh White and Dr Michael Keating, the report highlighted the excessive cost of the FSM; its unacceptable delivery timetable leading to a dangerous capability gap; Continue reading »
