The Australian Government's refusal to consider buying a fleet of nuclear submarines has left the country open to future invasion or attack, a high-ranking defence analyst says.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
or signup to continue reading
Professor Ross Babbage, who worked on the 2009 Defence white paper, says political considerations - including placating the Greens - were being placed ahead of the national interest.
The 2009 Defence white paper, and current Labor Party policy, rules out nuclear propulsion as an option for a future Australian submarine.
''This is about whether our politicians are serious about defending Australia in the much tougher security environment that is envisaged for 2030 to 2050,'' the Kokoda Foundation founder said.
''If they are serious they cannot dodge the fact this [Australia's submarine force] is one of our most critical defence capabilities.''
Professor Babbage believes Defence has dropped the ball in its handling of the ''future submarine project'' to replace the trouble-plagued Collins class boats and that only a nuclear submarine had the capability to deliver the deterrent effect Australia needs.
He agrees with other Defence critics in saying that spending money to keep the Collins class operational to the end of its design life is a case of throwing good money after bad. He does not agree with suggestions Collins should be replaced with smaller ''off the shelf'' European designs, however.
''I don't believe - for a minute - that one of the smaller European boats would deliver 90 per cent of the capability of a Virginia class [US-built nuclear submarine],'' he said.
''Maybe they could deliver 60 per cent of a Type 216 (German submarine) or a 'son of Collins' but really only 40 to 50 per cent of that delivered by a Virginia.''
Professor Babbage said given the next generation of Australian submarines would likely be in service into the second half of the century they needed to be the best the money could buy.
''You are comparing a 1965 Mini Minor with a current model Formula1 car,'' he said.
''They are simply in a different universe in speed, endurance, systems, power, range and weapons carriage - even though both drive on bitumen.''
The nuclear submarine camp received a shot in the arm earlier this month when Opposition defence spokesman senator David Johnston said the Coalition would most likely support a proposal if it was put forward by the Gillard Government.
He recently told the Senate Australia's submarine capability was in dire straits.
''A government that fails to properly maintain a reliable deterrent platform vital to our nation's defence is as much a threat to our national security as any external threat,'' he said.
''The dominance Australia once had in regional submarine capability has, despite the best efforts of our very committed submariners, evaporated. Collins as a class is inherently unreliable, challenging to maintain and difficult to crew.''
Senator Johnston said Australia rarely had two of the six submarines available to go to sea and that this number had, on occasion, dropped to none.
Greens spokesman on nuclear issues, senator Scott Ludlam, could not be reached for comment.