ADF General discussion thread

[Volkodav]

The suggestion started as a proposal during the last parliament that some or all of the OPVs be armed due to a need perceived as part of our worsening strategic outlook.

In the current parliament the consideration of a corvette, potentially being a more cost effective and capable solution became part of the discussion. The K130 or a derivative thereof was mentioned as it, like the Arafura class OPV, is a product of Lurssen, who currently have a relationship with Australia as a designer.

During this period, Navantia, who made an unsolicited offer of three additional AEGIS ships, added an offer for six corvettes. Navantia of course also have a relationship with Australia.

This appears to be a case of investigations being made into how much extra bang can we get, and when, for our buck, by repurposing existing relationships, materials and equipment.

Other options fall outside of this scope.

Would the RAN be happier if they were told they were getting six Flight III Burke's by 2030, you bet cha! Are they going to get them, not in our current reality, would they be happy with six missile corvettes in place of six stock OPVs, of course. Will they care if they have the same range as the Arafuras and Capes, probably not.

 

[Redlands18]

The suggestion started as a proposal during the last parliament that some or all of the OPVs be armed due to a need perceived as part of our worsening strategic outlook.

In the current parliament the consideration of a corvette, potentially being a more cost effective and capable solution became part of the discussion. The K130 or a derivative thereof was mentioned as it, like the Arafura class OPV, is a product of Lurssen, who currently have a relationship with Australia as a designer.

During this period, Navantia, who made an unsolicited offer of three additional AEGIS ships, added an offer for six corvettes. Navantia of course also have a relationship with Australia.

This appears to be a case of investigations being made into how much extra bang can we get, and when, for our buck, by repurposing existing relationships, materials and equipment.

Other options fall outside of this scope.

Would the RAN be happier if they were told they were getting six Flight III Burke's by 2030, you bet cha! Are they going to get them, not in our current reality, would they be happy with six missile corvettes in place of six stock OPVs, of course. Will they care if they have the same range as the Arafuras and Capes, probably not.

Technically the K-130s are a MEKO product (same as the Anzacs), so Lurssens partners, ThyssenKrupp and Blohm +Voss would want their cut.

 

[Rob c]

It's a cheap and nasty political trick to cover the fact that they're to stingy to build the original 13 Type 26 which are replacing 19 Type 23 frigates. So now you basically have 8 Type 23 FFG replacing 19 Type 23 FFG.

The numbers are a little astray on the type 23. 16 where built, for the RN of which 3 were sold to Chile in the early 2000's. That left 13, of which 1 has been withdrawn from service, leaving 12 in service. But I agree it was cheep and nasty.

Type 23 frigate - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I know it is wiki, but the numbers do line up with other sites I have read in the past.

 

[Morgo]

The suggestion started as a proposal during the last parliament that some or all of the OPVs be armed due to a need perceived as part of our worsening strategic outlook.

In the current parliament the consideration of a corvette, potentially being a more cost effective and capable solution became part of the discussion. The K130 or a derivative thereof was mentioned as it, like the Arafura class OPV, is a product of Lurssen, who currently have a relationship with Australia as a designer.

During this period, Navantia, who made an unsolicited offer of three additional AEGIS ships, added an offer for six corvettes. Navantia of course also have a relationship with Australia.

This appears to be a case of investigations being made into how much extra bang can we get, and when, for our buck, by repurposing existing relationships, materials and equipment.

Other options fall outside of this scope.

Would the RAN be happier if they were told they were getting six Flight III Burke's by 2030, you bet cha! Are they going to get them, not in our current reality, would they be happy with six missile corvettes in place of six stock OPVs, of course. Will they care if they have the same range as the Arafuras and Capes, probably not.

Yeah I’m with you on all of that mate. It’s not a great situation we’re in and we’re selecting from least bad options in the short term.

Where I disagree is that before we go down that path, which is in my view a last resort, we should see whether we could we instead direct the incremental funds towards (a) getting the first Hunter earlier and subsequent ones faster, (b) getting three new Hobarts if Navantia’s offer is credible, or (c) something else that would more tangibly improve our security vs the corvettes.

For example, can we get another 12 P8s? A squadron of F35s? Army amphibious watercraft? Another LHD + AOR? 24 Romeos? HIMARS + PrSM? Increase stockpiles of guided munitions? I think each of these would be deliverable for a comparable or lower cost, with more capability, faster and at lower execution risk than corvettes.

If we’ve exhausted all other ideas like the above, and the Treasury says that there is still some coin to spare, then I’d say maybe. But in my subjective assessment I think corvettes would rank a long way down the pecking order.

 

[Volkodav]

Yeah I’m with you on all of that mate. It’s not a great situation we’re in and we’re selecting from least bad options in the short term.

Where I disagree is that before we go down that path, which is in my view a last resort, we should see whether we could we instead direct the incremental funds towards (a) getting the first Hunter earlier and subsequent ones faster, (b) getting three new Hobarts if Navantia’s offer is credible, or (c) something else that would more tangibly improve our security vs the corvettes.

For example, can we get another 12 P8s? A squadron of F35s? Army amphibious watercraft? Another LHD + AOR? 24 Romeos? HIMARS + PrSM? Increase stockpiles of guided munitions? I think each of these would be deliverable for a comparable or lower cost, with more capability, faster and at lower execution risk than corvettes.

If we’ve exhausted all other ideas like the above, and the Treasury says that there is still some coin to spare, then I’d say maybe. But in my subjective assessment I think corvettes would rank a long way down the pecking order.

If you push a design into production before the design baseline is set you will suffer delays, increased rework, forced redesigns, design compromises, massive schedule slips and cost overruns.

It's hard enough when you are building as existing design in an existing facility with an experienced workforce. It becomes much harder when you are building to an incomplete or changing design. You end up installing systems you know you will need to replace and completing structural work you know will be in the way.

Accelerating the hunter is something that is said a lot but doing so will cause problems. It's not the fault of the design, the designer, the builder or the RAN. It is squarely the fault of those who decided to shrink the size of the navy and not order the ships that were required when they were required.

Saying corvettes or light frigates aren't as good as Hobart's or Hunters is all well and good, as is saying building overseas is cheaper, quicker, sexier, cooler, etc. The thing is strategy, needs, requirements, design, build, support, operations and disposal are all part of the same ecosystem, if you leave out or take short cuts in any of the areas you suffer major impacts in others.

If there is a low or lower, impact way of getting more presence, strike and defence capability, while increasing design, building, sustainment and operational expertise then we should carefully consider it.

 

[FoxtrotRomeo999]

How much of this Corvette push is driven by nostalgia and misunderstanding for the past (the ANZAC myths etc) without appreciating how times have changed. In WW2, the RAN Corvettes were a success story, actually an Australian success story - for those that don't know see the RAN site The Australian Corvettes | Royal Australian Navy . We don't need helmets - the Aussies in WW1 didn't use them (ooops, they did). We don't need tanks - Aussies in WW1 didn't use them (Monash was an initiator of Blitzkreig - integrated multi-service, multi-nation operations, and that definitely included tanks). If the enemy is lots of maritime strike aircraft, ASMs, Major Surface Combatants and modern submarines, Corvettes (even networked ones) are not a great or survivable solution.

 

[swerve]

The numbers are a little astray on the type 23. 16 where built, for the RN of which 3 were sold to Chile in the early 2000's. That left 13, of which 1 has been withdrawn from service, leaving 12 in service. But I agree it was cheep and nasty.

Type 23 frigate - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I know it is wiki, but the numbers do line up with other sites I have read in the past.

The RN's numbers match, & they've all been named in parliamentary answers. There's no secrecy about how many we have or have had. 16 built, 3 sold, 13 kept until recently - all definitely known.

 

[Volkodav]

How much of this Corvette push is driven by nostalgia and misunderstanding for the past (the ANZAC myths etc) without appreciating how times have changed. In WW2, the RAN Corvettes were a success story, actually an Australian success story - for those that don't know see the RAN site The Australian Corvettes | Royal Australian Navy . We don't need helmets - the Aussies in WW1 didn't use them (ooops, they did). We don't need tanks - Aussies in WW1 didn't use them (Monash was an initiator of Blitzkreig - integrated multi-service, multi-nation operations, and that definitely included tanks). If the enemy is lots of maritime strike aircraft, ASMs, Major Surface Combatants and modern submarines, Corvettes (even networked ones) are not a great or survivable solution.

The choice is OPVs or Corvettes, i.e. patrol vessels that can not defend themselves against anyone able to execute a stern frown, verses one that can.

The name Corvette is a misnomer, the WWII corvettes were very small escorts, the Australian vessels were actually seaward defence vessels with a mine sweeping and limited ASW capability as well as basic surface and air defence gunnery.

They were all we had and we were lucky to have them, but we should have had better.

Sloops were better, as were destroyers, but these were proper warships that were built in naval yards, while the corvettes and later River class frigates could be built in commercial yards.

What we are currently doing is building an even less warship like vessel than the wartime corvettes, the OPV, in naval yards.

The modern corvettes have a wartime equivalent, the small or coastal destroyer, in the RN this was the very useful Hunt class.

They escorted coastal convoys, conducted ASW sanitation of coastal waters, led flotillas of MTBs and MGBs in anti surface ops. They were smaller, slower and weaker than destroyers, but larger, faster and stronger than corvettes and frigates. Their combat power was similar to sloops but also had torpedoes, which the sloops didn't, and traded range for speed.

This is a type the RAN has long wanted but never had, a multi role platform that can dominate coastal and near regional waters. A combatant than can defend itself from credible attacks, force open and hold open ports and choke points, conduct anti piracy and counter insurgency operations, as well as shallow water ASW.

This is basically the Hunt, the DDL, the Type 21 (described as more of a modern sloop or patrol frigate than the open ocean ASW platform the RN wanted), as well as the modern corvette, light frigate or patrol frigate.

I am calling BS on the line constantly being pushed in this topic and elsewhere. That is that corvettes are not survivable.

If a Corvette is not survivable in a given situation then an OPV or PB definately wouldn't be. There is a requirement for minor combatants, so if you don't have corvettes, you will have to use something else, if that something else is an OPV or PB, then we are deploying our personnel in vessels that are not survivable.

 

[hauritz]

I am more of the belief that any new corvette design is likely to just be a larger MMPV version of the OPV 80. The previous government dropped hints that the new MCM and hydro vessels would likely be based on the current OPV and I think that is still the most likely outcome.

As for extra Hobarts, well I can’t see those happening either. If BAE start building Hunters next year then there probably wouldn’t be any spare capacity. Knowing how governments like to spin things I would say that they will most likely push the narrative that the stretched Arafura will plug the capability gap until we start to see the new Hunters.

Perhaps they will also announce an increase in the numbers of Hunters. Of course when you think about it the Hunter class is simply the first phase of an ongoing naval construction program so numbers are probably less significant than build rate. If the delivery drumbeat was even shortened to 12 months that still only result in the first ship being delivered in the early 30s with perhaps the full fleet being delivered maybe a few years faster than originally planned.

In other words my expectations for the new defence strategic plan, or whatever it is being called these days, isn’t particularly high.

 

[StingrayOZ]

For example, can we get another 12 P8s?

If we do, we better order them before 2023.. AFAIK the production ends some time next year. I don't know about 12, but 2 more I think would be highly valued.

A squadron of F35s?

Maybe, Order books are pretty full I think it may be useful to have blk IV arriving new while we are upgrading our existing fleet. But again if we don't order say this year, to get say 2027.

Army amphibious watercraft?

Whole new project and new idea. To get FOC from the project you are talking at least 3 individual units built and FOC. So more than 10 years, maybe 10 years you could get one IOC. Could be 15. You need to get crew, systems, logistics, industry support, design, build, bring it into service, doctrine, CONOPs, address issues, initial service etc.

Another LHD + AOR?

Turkey is currently working on their 2nd, and their first just had the first helicopter land on it the other day.
Anadolu was order 2015, laid down in 2018 and expected to be commissioned this year. So 7 years for a first of type build in an inexperienced yard. It is possible this could be reduced to ~5 years. The AOR were ~5 years from order, the sailed to Australia in 2020 after being ordered in 2016.

24 Romeos?

The additional 12 we have ordered are expected mid 2026 if there are no delays. These will probably be the last batch build of these. So again, if we wanted more, we would have to act now. However, IMO 36 is a decent number. If we wanted more strength in this area then perhaps concider more P8s.

HIMARS + PrSM? Increase stockpiles of guided munitions?

Getting harder. Munitions and systems are in demand, gifted equipment is getting used in Ukraine and they need to backfill. Also its shown its value , which I think wasn't as valued in western doctrine, because we kind of base every thing around air superiority. But if that doesn't happen, or can't happen, HIMARs and artillery is essential. I would be talking to the South Koreans, they seem to be the only western country with significant production capability and expertise in this stuff. We should totally get the SK's to do some production here. The US is pounding them with contracts for munitions and equipment, 100,000 155mm just to help out. This is a project worth exploring and having some production capability and increased stockpiles could have global significance.

I think each of these would be deliverable for a comparable or lower cost, with more capability, faster and at lower execution risk than corvettes.

Agreed. Even things that look superficial like very big and complex projects, like LHD's, are actually more doable than things like a little corvette or even Army watercraft. We have just run out of time.

Spending $600m per corvette, for 6 corvettes looks like limited capability and somewhat an odd fit for the RAN. Your talking about the crewing requirements of our entire Submarine force, if not larger, to crew, 1 or 2 small ships being available, that would have small range and small capability and small munitions. A corvette isn't going to change the state of play globally. 3 new F-35B light carriers, well that might do that, Australia operating 6 destroyers by 2030 might do that, a bigger P8 fleet might do that.

Throwing that money and resources, into other already in-service systems makes much more sense, also, as a single unit comes online, it because operationally useful, and we aren't crewing, support logistics, upgrades, etc from scratch. Even while they are being acquired, you are looking at improving things like logistical/operational/maintenance support, improving crewing/training, allocating future funds for upgrades, spares, munitions etc. This helps those existing units.

There is a reason why defence forces tend to have multiple copies of the same design and platform, and not widely different platforms and designs in tiny numbers. Unit design diversity kills efficiency.

 

[hauritz]

When it comes to building more ships for the the navy one of the elephants in the room is who will build them and where will they be built?

Australia’s ship building industry seems pretty much locked into building frigates, OPVs and patrol boats at the moment.

Austal might have some spare capacity going forward. It also be less contentious if Austal build overseas since they actually own shipyards in the US and Philippines. They also own slipways in a couple of other states I believe.

 

[Redlands18]

When it comes to building more ships for the the navy one of the elephants in the room is who will build them and where will they be built?

Australia’s ship building industry seems pretty much locked into building frigates, OPVs and patrol boats at the moment.

Austal might have some spare capacity going forward. It also be less contentious if Austal build overseas since they actually own shipyards in the US and Philippines. They also own slipways in a couple of other states I believe.

Both the Cape and Guardian builds would be completed by the time anyone got around to building Corvettes and if Corvettes are built instead of the 2nd group of Arafura's there will be room to build them at Henderson and if they are a Lurssen based design, then it should be a relatively straight forward build. Lurssen won't care which one of their designs they end up building, more money in building K-130s then OPV80s.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Australia’s ship building industry seems pretty much locked into building frigates, OPVs and patrol boats at the moment.

Osborne is pretty much spoken for. The will be busy with Hobart upgrade, Collins LOTE, Hunter. While hunter tempo could be increased in the future, that future is out past 2030.

Civmec Henderson less so. ASC ate two of their lunches with Arafura and Eyre. The 6th vessel Carpentaria is already under construction. Leaving 6 to be built at Henderson if Osborne doesn't need any more filler work. But the MCV aren't ordered yet. Henderson isn't exactly at maximum capacity. They reckon they can shape 80,000t per annum through just the civmec facility. They have a pretty tremendous capability to shape and weld steel.

They could build the opv's just in the smaller side bays at basically the rate (the two side bays can each handle two OPV's so four ships in construction at a time), as they are concurrently and work on ~ 2 Hobart destroyers in the centre bay. I don't know how workforce efficient or workflow efficient that would be, but it describes the size of the facility.

Australia has very modern and capable shipyards. 5 years ago, not so much, now, we have huge capacity. I would also point out that the Hobart construction was piecemeal across a variety of yards, and quite inefficient, to try and give work to NSW Forgacs and BAE Victoria. The BAE yard is dead. The Forgacs yard is basically in mothballs, ready to go if Civmec was busy, although probably only contributing modules for assembly elsewhere. But I am unclear of what their workforce capability is at that site.

Navantia has yard capacity in Spain, and is willing to move its government projects around for it. For LHD production, Australia-Spain-Turkey might come to an agreement on hull fabrication. I suspect if Australia had the money, governments like Turkey and Spain would be very accommodating.

It sounds absurd that things like destroyer or LHD's or AOR could be inservice faster than a smaller vessel like a corvette. But Again, depends what is being already planned and acquired and built and what isn't. What weapons and systems are available and in-service, and what is not. But the devil is in the details.

Of these the AOR may be the quickest to build, as complexity wise is it is probably less complex than a corvette, there would be less demand for changes, and it would follow exactly the spec of the preceding ships.

The destroyers are hard to really comment on, because we don't really know what Navantia has up their sleeve regarding design and equipment and how they would vary from the existing hobarts. I also note that the RAN originally wanted at least 4 destroyers, and the contract was 3 with an optional 4th, so in that respect the RAN was very much planning around at least a 4th destroyer. It has previously made motions about a 3rd LHD.

We will have to wait until the defence review is complete. Which unfortunately will see many options unavailable.

 

[MARKMILES77]

Greg Sheridan reporting in the Australian that In the Defence Review “Tanks are gone” and spending on IFVs will be downgraded.

So army will lose out to Airforce.

Money will be spent on an extra fighter Squadron.
Hardening of Northern bases including likely with Air Defence. Bigger purchases of missiles and unmanned systems.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/

 

[meatshield]

They haven't been reading anything coming out of Ukraine then. The top 3 things the Ukrainians have been asking for are Tanks, Fast jets and air defence systems.

 

[Stampede]

Greg Sheridan reporting in the Australian that In the Defence Review “Tanks are gone” and spending on IFVs will be downgraded.

So army will lose out to Airforce.

Money will be spent on an extra fighter Squadron.
Hardening of Northern bases including likely with Air Defence. Bigger purchases of missiles and unmanned systems.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/

View attachment 49896

Probably sold some papers.

Wait for the review

Cheers S

 

[Redlands18]

The Tanks are already ordered and I believe may have begun the re-life process at the factory, so any cancellation at this stage is going to draw some pretty hefty penalties.

 

[Redlands18]

Probably sold some papers.

Wait for the review

Cheers S

It may only be an educated guess by Sheridan to, but it has a ring of being correct about it, I certainly would not dismiss it too lightly.

 

[ngatimozart]

Greg Sheridan reporting in the Australian that In the Defence Review “Tanks are gone” and spending on IFVs will be downgraded.

So army will lose out to Airforce.

Money will be spent on an extra fighter Squadron.
Hardening of Northern bases including likely with Air Defence. Bigger purchases of missiles and unmanned systems.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/

View attachment 49896

It's Sheridan and the Australian. The great Australian doyens of defence analysis who are highly knowledgeable and world leading experts in all matters defence - as if

 

[Morgo]

Here’s the full article for those who don’t have access


Labor’s Defence review to park tanks in history

The Australian

Greg Sheridan

21 November 2022 13:00



The good news is, it seems the tank is gone. The interim report of the Defence Strategic Review, being conducted by Stephen Smith and Angus Houston, has been delivered to the government, which will get the final report early in February and respond to it fully by March. I hear the tank is gone.

In national security and international affairs, the Albanese government has had a whirlwind first six months. But there will hardly be anything more important than the decisions it makes next March.

The DSR will rightly recommend reduced investment in armour – tanks, infantry fighting vehicles and similar beasts – in order to focus on far more relevant and important priorities. There is no plausible scenario in which tanks, or even IFVs, could be important to Australian security. This means no more than 300 of the gargantuan-sized and largely unusable IFVs.

This is not a negative decision. It’s a reality decision. The DSR gives the government a chance to focus defence effort on capabilities relevant to our dangerous environment, in which the challenges are maritime, missile and drone.

The DSR also recommends substantial action for our northern air force bases. Some are shabby and in a poor state of readiness. None is hardened.

Hopefully, there is never a military conflict in this region. But if there ever were to be a military clash between the US and China over Taiwan, Australia would furnish a dozen high-priority targets for Chinese attack. These include the Pine Gap and North West Cape communications facilities, the submarine base at HMAS Stirling near Perth and the main air force bases, as well as the part-time air force bases we have in northern Australia.

UQ's Garrick Professor of Law James Allan says anyone who thinks Australia can defend itself right now is “delusional”. “By all means, I’d spend a lot more on defence, we’re still barely two per cent … get it up to three,” she told Sky News host Rowan Dean. “Let’s not start burning bridges, without the Americans we’re in big trouble.”

If all these facilities were wiped out in a first strike, we would have very little capacity to defend ourselves at all. Yet none of these facilities is hardened or properly defended. The DSR, I believe, will call for a significant expansion, and perhaps hardening, of our northern air force bases. It will also call for the development of missile defences around some of them.

This is not such a radical concept. We provide missile defence for ships at sea, planes in the air and sometimes deployed ground forces. Hardening and defending remote air bases is extremely unsexy as military expenditure goes. There’s no bright shiny “toy” at the end of the process. But it’s critical expenditure if you want to have a real military capability as opposed to a symbolic capability; that is, if you want to have any war-fighting capability. And it’s only a war-fighting capability that can deter a potential enemy.

The DSR will also recommend a fourth combat squadron of Joint Strike Fighter F-35s. If we get this extra squadron, and maybe some extra training F-35s, and keep our Super Hornets and Growlers in service as we should, this would take us over the magic 100 fast-jet figure.

One hundred fast jets to defend the whole of Australia is not remotely excessive. And we’ll struggle to recruit the needed pilots. It’s also true that more F-35s doesn’t extend the range at which our air force can operate. But given the attrition rates involved in any combat, this increase does give you greater density, endurance and sustainability.

The DSR will recommend a big investment in missiles and drones. This cannot come soon enough. The Defence Department took a ludicrous length of time to identify the obvious suspects, Raytheon and Lockheed Martin, as its primary industry partners in developing a local missile-making industry. Some three years after this was first announced, the government still hasn’t told these companies precisely what missiles it would like. Indeed, they were only engaged formally at all five minutes before the last federal election.

Defence Minister Richard Marles warns Australia’s Defence Force faces personnel shortages of over 4,000 staff as it fails to meet targets of over 81,000. “We must innovate to compete and attract new skills, not just for soldiers in the field but in intelligence, space and cyber,” says Mr Marles. “We will have to be willing and capable to act on our own terms when we have to.\"

In an important piece on this page on Monday, Paul Dibb outlined that the Japanese probably intend to buy large stocks of Tomahawk missiles and ground-based long-range missiles that can hit ships and ground targets. The DSR will recommend that Australia do something very similar.

Of course, here is a very big problem. Throughout the West there is a tremendous shortage of missiles. The necessary and right action in supporting Ukraine has just about emptied Western arsenals of all their surplus stock. Western missile-building industries cannot keep production up anywhere near demand. If Australia placed orders for all these missiles right now, they would still probably be a couple of years from delivery.

But here is a top-priority, urgent, code-red message for Defence. If you don’t actually place an order, you will never, ever get them. The delay in all this has been near criminal. The acquisition process in the Defence Department is woefully, hopelessly unfit for purpose. But let’s not spend another 100 years reforming the acquisition process. Let’s just buy the weapons.

The DSR will also recommend big changes to the Offshore Patrol Vessel project. We’re building OPVs as big as small frigates but they carry no serious weapons, don’t have hulls thick enough for combat, or decks strong enough for helicopters. They are being built by Luerssens. You could easily put more weapons on them and make them more lethal. But to make them real combat ships you’d need modifications to the hull and so on. That plus the new weapons would change their weight and there would be a bit of redesign work.

Luerssens already makes proper combat corvettes, just 10m longer than our OPVs, and with a full range of anti-ship missiles and other weapons. These are as cheap as chips compared with the overweight, under-gunned Hunter frigates we are going to get on Star Trek time from the British.

We could switch from OPVs to the corvettes and still get the whole 12 of them before we get more than a Hunter frigate or two. But, and here is the enormous but, we cannot do this if we embark on the normal “hundred years of solitude” tender process that Defence routinely uses and that would take years to complete.

The government, as Anthony Albanese and Richard Marles have frequently suggested, must prioritise producing real capabilities quickly. The alternative is to honour the impenetrable, baroque processes of Defence tradition.

The DSR will also recommend more missiles for the ANZAC frigates. The DSR can’t look at what we do on nuclear submarines or on the troubled Hunter frigate projects. Be that as it may, if the government does all or most of the things outlined in this column, it will have made a historic contribution to Australian security.