Remote controlled systems are only useful as long as the signals that control them, remain completely viable; as opposed to being jammed or turned around by a stronger signal; and used against the attacker!
Grim is right, our almost utter dependence on foreign fuel is our Achilles heel, and insanity that could put us out of any military conflict/home defense, inside a week?
I mean, we could buy the best most expensive (diesel powered) military hardware in the world, and be compelled to just park it, when virtually everything is out of fuel and parked.
The term inventory dump takes on a whole new meaning! And perhaps could even be called, (aren't our pollies so dammed clever and responsible) inventory dump?
Look, Germany was defeated in the end; not because she couldn't build them faster than we were blowing them up, but because she just didn't have any fuel!
The battle of the bulge should tell our polysyllabic pollywaffle leaders, how not to prepare to defend your own.
Grim is absolutely right, we do need to become completely self sufficient, and given the way the world seems to be moving, with urgent alacrity.
Adding siphoning hoses to the battle packs of soldiers, just isn't going to cut it!
The reason we aren't already completely self sufficient, is nearly as mysterious as those mystery oil slicks, that tell every oil prospector, we could quite easily be sitting on our own Edmonton sized oil and gas reserve.
Our response? Lock it away for all time!
And only logically explained by brown nosing pollies sucking up to a foreign fuel flim flammers? (You can't hurt a dead reef!)
A problem further compounded by a green movement, who just want to lock it away and leave it!?
Maybe if the day ever dawns, we trade places with Gaza, and it is our war Widows sitting in the rubble and ruins of their former homes, they may have a change of heart?
Sorry, but it'll be way too late then, Bob, Chris!

Too troo Rhosty.
Think of the economic/social benefits of a massive government drive into a defense industry.
As a nation it would mean that we'd be in "debt" but so what?
Every nation on the planet has debt, the entire world economy is based and built on credit/debt, and the spin-off growth in our local economy would make that debt easily "affordable" in the long term, that misty place where governments really should be looking, rather than only as far as the next election.
As a culturally isolated nation and an island one at that I would suggest that as far as a decent self-sufficient military goes it's a case of...better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.
I for one would prefer never to find out if America really WOULD spring to our defense, we might not like the answer!

I would have thought lasers from space would be a more effective weapon to sink ships these days ?
What's the point of having a defence force if all the enemy needs to do is apply for a 457 Visa after they arrive by boat .

There's a nation that invented CAD, ship building. And that huge technological advance brought the costs way down, given computers could guide the plasma cutters, to cut panels that fitted perfectly!
Meaning the time spent grinding and cutting to get the perfect fit, was all but eliminated.
The nation that first invented and used this innovation should be engaged to build all our ships, and that Nation is Australia.
Yes we have a problem with the Collins class; however, one crew can't sail several boats!
The other problem is pettifogging politicians, who interfere; rescinding contracts/withdrawing already committed funding, and generally creating an investors/employers/workers/experts beware, proper balls up.
Please consider, the Vietnam war went badly, because as always, when politicians can and do usurp the military masterminds, there's always a bad result! ALWAYS!
We have defense experts, and economic experts, and these people know we should be building these things here; on the best possible defense arguments, and the best economic outcomes. [However, advice hard to hear when "incredibly intelligent Ideologues," have their fingers in their ears, and singing La,la,la,la?]
Failing that, we should at least open up to a very transparent tender process!
And if former enemies think they can undercut us?
Well given both have higher average wages, I'd like to see that!
If we could just get the death grip claws of pork-barreling or punishing pollies, of off defense contracts, they'd be mostly filled at home, and for the most cogent economic and defense reasons!
We must have continuing contracts and known work into the future, to retain critical expertise; needed to keep production up and consequent costs down!
And in so doing, keep our own defense industries alive and well.
The politically created on again off again approach is a major problem, as is trying to marry incompatible systems.
Some built here, others built abroad.
If we can't build, here, then we should buy off the shelf American and ensure that it's both fully American and nuclear powered, if only to transfer the world's leading defense technologies!
Rhrosty.

Hi Grim

I think in the face of increasing Chinese encroachments near Australia having the US as an ally is all the more important.

Earlier this year China sailed a flotilla (2 destoyers, 1 amphibious assault ship) into the Timor Sea. An excessively high number of Chinese warships (without suitable search equipment) were notionally searching for MH370, off Perth.

An independent Australia would need nuclear weapons, nuclear powered subs and lots of both to fend off any Chinese threats. Such a nuclear force might take 30 years of high defence spending to develop and buildup.

Our own industry is proving inadequate even to efficiently build cars.
---

@Stezza

Your condescending tone wins you no friends.

What I wrote was an OLO article (a comment piece on current issues) within the word limits set the Editor.

What you are asking for is a much longer work from first principles, perhaps appropriate for ASPI or the Lowy Institute.

Regards

Pete

I'm not sure how our Asian neighbours would take Australia acquiring a nuke-powered sub with the force-projection capabilities that that implies. I'm anti-nuke by and large but as a sub drive it is indeed the ultimate and there are good and cogent reasons to consider investing in them. NOT nuke armed of course but the variety of conventional and non-conventional weapons and delivery systems such a sub can encompass are really only limited by your desires and budget.
However, there are also political and social issues involved and I can't honestly see our urea-deprived political pussycats having the cojones to tackle them, ever!
Set up a Defense Industry Board alla the Snowy Scheme, give it freedom from political interference (and keep the bean-counters out of design decisions) and Australia would very quickly be booming, and safer in the long run.