A hostile world order

Nuclear-armed superpowers dominate the world. The UN and the ‘rules based order’ are dead.

Australia needs a robust defence force to deter aggression against our continent.

We have no capacity to interfere in wars elsewhere.

Russia	USA & Israel	PRC	India	DPRK
5,580	5,315	600	172	50

Australia’s weak position

• A few (one?) operational submarine
• An outnumbered and outclassed surface fleet
• A short-range air force
• Complete dependence on the USA for protection
• No nuclear weapons

Australia’s Current Plan

• Try to buy nuclear submarines that the USA and UK will not be able to provide (see below)
• Try to start a local nuclear submarine industry with no experience at vast expense
• Buy surface warships that are easily sunk
• Rely on the USA for protection and most defence materiel 

Australia needs another defence plan! 

A new defence posture

Given that the USA will not be able to sell us nuclear submarines the “Forward Defence” strategy is no longer feasible for Australia. Attacking nuclear-armed superpowers with submarines was always a bad idea anyway.

Australia should pivot to the “Echidna Strategy” as proposed by Sam Roggeveen.

Such a defence posture is all that Australia can afford and avoids direct conflict with nuclear superpowers as far as possible.

What we need

• Many small, survivable assets that we own to deter attacks on Australia.

What we don’t need

• A few large, vulnerable, expensive assets to deploy to northern hemisphere wars.
• Assets that can be easily “turned off” by foreign suppliers
• Getting involved in distant wars on Islam and China.

What we can’t do anyway

• Defend “sea lanes” from multiple nuclear-armed superpower adversaries and their huge navies.
• Prevent nuclear-armed superpowers from pursuing wars elsewhere. (E.g. Palestine, Ukraine & Taiwan)

Problems with Australia’s current plan:

1) Nuclear submarines are unavailable and too expensive

The Virginia submarines are not going to be available.

The future AUKUS submarines are “unachievable” in the timeframe which is too far away – “2040’s”.

Big submarines like these are becoming increasingly detectable using quantum and other technologies.

• Top admiral warns US far behind on building submarines needed to meet Aukus target
• Virginia, we have a problem
• Musk to review US submarines as Australia warned tariffs could push up cost
• Desperately seeking submariners: why keeping nuclear-powered boats afloat will be Australia’s biggest Aukus challenge

(On the positive side the purchase of Ghost Shark drone submarines is a very good initiative.)

2) Collins class subs are too rusty

The $A 5 billion plus cost of the Collins Class refurbishment is likely to exceed the cost of buying six advanced new submarines given the “unprecedented corrosion” found on these old boats.

Even if the refurbishment is successful the end-result is still an inferior submarine with lead-acid batteries with only one day submerged. New non-nuclear submarines offer 3+ weeks submerged.

3) We should not rely on one power

The USA is concerned primarily with their own interests as they perceive them.

Australia should:

• Select weapons systems from an array of defence suppliers
• Aim to have deep stocks of parts and munitions in Australia
• Manufacture weapons systems components and munitions in Australia where practical
• Not rely on weapons systems that can be easily disabled by the supplier – such as the F-35.

Australia should not attempt to close US bases in Australia.

4) Surface Warships are too vulnerable

We keep buying warships but they are not survivable in modern warfare.

The RAN’s few ships would be sunk quickly in any serious conflict. Note Russia’s heavy losses against Ukraine’s home-made weapons.

No RAN vessels should be sent north of the equator. See our No Warships page.

We would sell functional warships – probably to the USA. The rest would go to border force or be scrapped.

A New Plan

Buy hidden land-based anti-ship missiles

We can’t build or crew dozens of warships – but we can build thousands of Anti-Ship Missiles.

These need to be hidden in regular-looking trucks to avoid destruction in the first hour of a conflict.

Buy advanced non-nuclear submarines

Non-nuclear submarines cost about 10% of the cost of nuclear submarines and would be more effective than SSN in the shallow waters around Australia.

The RAN would then comprise only these submarines once surface ships were sold or scrapped.

A stronger airforce instead of warships

Australia should consider longer-range aircraft that can provide enhanced maritime strike without reliance on vulnerable tanker aircraft. Several options are becoming available.

Uncrewed Combat Aircraft (UCAV’s) should also be considered. They could be used as missiles for high-value targets and some do not need an airfield at all.

An Agile Army

We need a highly mobile and distributed army with less emphasis on tanks and fighting land wars somewhere else.

• Anti-ship missiles would be operated by the Army.
• X-BAT or other runway-independent drones may also be operated by the Army.

Distribute and hide

Instead of concentrating important assets at a few easily-destroyed bases the ADF should distribute and hide assets around Australia.

As far as possible defence assets should be hidden from pervasive satellite surveillance when inactive. 

A large number of decoy assets should be deployed and constantly moved to confuse aggressor states.

Keep out of northern hemisphere wars

Australia cannot make a meaningful contribution to conflicts between nuclear-armed superpowers and should stay out of them.

PRC vs. USA

Re Taiwan, there are three options:

• The USA agrees to let the PRC take Taiwan
• The USA uses nuclear weapons to destroy PRC forces as they cross the Taiwan straight
• Taiwan does some deal with the PRC and merges into the PRC.

In all of these scenarios there is no military role for Australia to play.

Re The South China Sea, Australia has no capacity to effect military outcomes in this area now or in the future.

Creation of “Greater Israel”

Australia has no capability to prevent the creation of Greater Israel by the USA & Israel.

Token measures such as withdrawing from the F-35 program (i.e. turning off our air force), breaking off diplomatic contact or applying sanctions will have no measurable impact on outcomes in the middle east.

Australia should not support Israel, and should not buy their military equipment. The ADF should not support Israel or the USA in this conquest.

USA vs. Canada, Venezuela, Greenland, etc.

We don’t want to be involved in any of these wars – but can’t stop them.

DPRK

North Korea has a huge army and nuclear arsenal and can only be contained by nuclear-armed superpowers. Australia should cease sending our hopelessly vulnerable ships and aircraft into this area – or anywhere else north of the equator.

Europe vs. Russia

We should continue to support Ukraine financially with Europe and via purchase of their weapons systems (such as Neptune anti-ship missiles) but should not be militarily involved.

Economic Resilience

See Economic Resilience.

Alternative spending

If Australia isn’t spending ~$500 billion on nuclear submarines, frigates and destroyers over the next few decades then more spending on housing, health, education and transport becomes possible.

Rejecting the Coalition’s Plan

The Liberal-National-One Nation plan is:

• Stir up racial hatred
• A new White Australia Policy
• Strong bias towards Christianity and Judaism
• Strong bias against non-white people & Islam
• Weaker gun laws
• Strong alliance with US Republicans

This risks:

• War with Islam, India, ASEAN & China
• War with the largest Islamic country – Indonesia
• An immediate oil blockade from Islamic producers and through ASEAN waters from the Singaporean refineries
• An immediate end to trade with Islamic countries, China and ASEAN
• No fuel
• Economic ruin
• A major increase in crime and terrorism in Australia.