Hellyer said his think tank had studied how to move from the Collins class to nuclear submarines on several occasions and always came to the same conclusion that Australia cannot do it without something in between.
Loading
“You have to go through another conventional ship, because you just have to acquire too much criticism of your submarine force,” he said.
“You need boats to generate your divers. And if you have a fleet of six aged Collins who can’t get to sea because they have so many liability issues, you’re just not generating the amount of divers you need.
Another argument for getting a new fleet of conventional ships is to operate them closer to home, given that China is looking to increase its presence in the South Pacific. The main reason Australia decided to go with nuclear ships is that they are far superior when it comes to operating away from the country in places like the South China Sea and the Taiwan Strait.
“China has solved it for us a little bit by getting very, very close,” Hellyer said. “So you may want to … diesel ships to operate in our first island chain and nuclear ships for Taiwan Strait contingency ships.”
Loading
John Blaxland, a professor of international security and intelligence studies at the National University of Australia, said Australia could not be left without a credible submarine fleet for decades to come.
He said there were a number of options, including “available” submarines from Germany, Sweden, Korea and Japan.
“I think it’s better to buy a commercial in Korea or Japan,” he said. “They are really our security partners in the neighborhood, they have pretty good options and they are cheaper than the Europeans. You will have a lot of money and you will get it very quickly. “