The Strategist, a blog run by the Australia Strategic Policy Institute, posted an article concerning Australia’s future submarine today that arrived at some interesting conclusions.

In the post, the author, Nic Stuart, questions the necessity of a submarine capability, particularly in light of Canberra’s present budgetary difficulties.  He suggests that new robotic technologies could perform a similar function to the proposed submarines, that the money lavished on the submarines could be better spent on other ways to achieve Australia’s strategic objectives, and that there are better alternatives that ought to be explored.

While I think it’s valuable to question received wisdom, I find Stuart’s article unconvincing.  To begin with, the notion that robotic technology could replace a submarine within a relatively short timeline seems fanciful to me.  If the cost of acquiring a new submarine is expensive, developing a robotic alternative that could approach or match the capabilities of a traditional submarine would, I wager, be prohibitive and most likely beyond Australia’s ability if the travails experienced with the Collins class is any indication.

As for the matter of money, the sinew of strategy, there is no doubt that a new submarine will represent a large investment.  This, however, does not mean that it will not be a wise investment.  The first priority of the ADF is to defend the Australian continent.  While any conventional threat to Australia currently seems unlikely, it must be prepared for.  In addition, given the rapid shifts in relative power taking place in the Asia Pacific, only a fool would be willing to bet that Australia would not have cause to rue the absence of a submarine capability over the next thirty years or so.

Given Australia’s vast maritime approaches, I consider a submarine capability to be essential.  Even the presence of a limited number of submarines would severely complicate the planning of any opponent.  If any naval procurement program should be revisited it should be the construction of the Navy’s news air warfare destroyers.  They may make for fine photo opportunities for politicians, but that does not change the fact that they are large floating targets, easily overwhelmed by swarming tactics.

Stuart concludes that there are better ways to achieve Australia’s strategic objectives.  Unfortunately, however, he does not outline what they are.  While I concur that Australia’s limited defence budget could be spent more effectively, allowing its submarine capability to wither is not the answer.