The defence budget will certainly have to grow. Given the current threat, and compared with other countries, the present spend is pathetic.

Spending on things like the NDIS need to be revised - or the rorts policed - and the amount wasted on the aboriginal industry should be zero, just to start.

How do we 'grow the economy'? We have ceased to manufacture most things. And who would invest in the Socialist country Australia has become with all the red tape, government interference, and expensive energy, getting more expensive and less reliable all the time?

But, in the time it will take to get the submarines and other cheaper and more readily available weapons never mentioned, Communist China could crush us like a bug.

At a function last night I sat next to an ex-Collins submariner who now works in a related support industry. He thinks Australia will buy or lease five Virginia class subs and there will not be any home grown or AUKUS version. In my opinion other factors could derail even that reduced ambition. Xi Jinping could be replaced by a dove and there could be a permanent global economic slowdown.

Whether the subs will help a domestic nuclear power industry is hard to say. The Virginia class have General Electric reactors and the Astute class use Rolls-Royce. Neither engineering firm is likely to co-operate with any of the numerous other makers of SMRs or maybe the subs will give them a foot in the door to the domestic power industry. Too early to tell.

We don't have a 'defence budget' we have a 'war budget' and these nuclear submarines clearly fall under the category of war. We'll spend on war, whatever the Americans demand we spend. At the moment China is a manufactured threat by the Americans, they always have to have a "threat" of some kind, it keeps their military/industrial complex operating for the benefit of Capitalism. Should America keep going as they are, and China will become a real threat, Russia is already a real threat, no small thanks to the Yanks.

When we have needed to pay for something big, like say the snowy mountains scheme we found the money from somewhere. And we paid more than three times over and to the grandchildren of the original lenders before we owned the thing outright, at which time an airhead idealogue from Bennelong wanted to privatise it.

This time we need something like defence bonds, or a means tested defence levy (5%) so as to ensure, those with most lose, are those who pay it! The others (non-payers) usually serve and pay with their lives, liberty, or able-bodied abilities.

In the intrim, some unnamed boffin may invent a solid-state drive powered by diamond clad nuclear batteries that also power all else, may be able to be retrofitted to the Collins class.

Imagine being able to slip through the water minus a prop or prop cavitation or engine noise of any sort whatsoever.

Yes, that star drive engine exists nowhere but in the mind of yours truly. Scientifically feasible/sound and may power any form of transport, including near light speed interstellar travel someday.

Lord forbid that I take this knowledge to the grave unpublished and untried. Because some investment shark or sharks weren't prepared to pay what it's worth, i.e., 15 billion!?

I mean the payoff would be in the trillions. This technology could, I believe, lift (VLT) a battle cruiser and make it fly to the stars if required.

Imagine what a bulk freight shipping line could earn if powered by this technology. Two weeks to delivery? How about two hours!? Fresh from the field to you.

Road maintenance? What road maintenance? Gridlock? What gridlock? Flying doctor? How about flying hospital?

Limitations? What limitations?
Alan B.

These subs aren't to protect Australia,
They're there to antagonise China

Alan B & Armchair Critic you're both right !

AC,

If you wanted to antagonize China it would be much cheaper to send Kevin Rudd there as ambassador but then we might end up at war.

Once again the village idiot is clueless. The easiest way to maintain peace is to ensure that the cost of anyone attacking you is far higher than any perceived benefit.

Russia attacked Ukraine because Putin felt that it could be quickly overwhelmed for little cost. He would never have tried if Putin had foreseen his army being destroyed and Russia's economy ruined.

Hi shadowminister,

"If you wanted to antagonize China it would be much cheaper to send Kevin Rudd there as ambassador but then we might end up at war."

- Yeah maybe, but he'd probably drive them all mad.

"Once again the village idiot is clueless. The easiest way to maintain peace is to ensure that the cost of anyone attacking you is far higher than any perceived benefit."

- I can't really disagree with the basic premise, but tying ourselves to the US, a nation that already sees China as the enemy, is no recipe for peace in my book. Given both options I'd say the best course of action would be 'neutrality' and home grown efforts at defence and purely for the purposes of defence not to antagonise a potential adversary who is also our largest trading partner.

"Russia attacked Ukraine because Putin felt that it could be quickly overwhelmed for little cost. He would never have tried if Putin had foreseen his army being destroyed and Russia's economy ruined."

Ukraine joining NATO was a red line for Russia.
'Nyet means Nyet'
If the shoe was on the other foot and China was building up a military presence in Mexico the US would certainly respond to it.
Putin's not going anywhere, his army isn't going to be destroyed, but Ukraine's army already has been largely destroyed, and Russia's economy will survive, they have plenty of resources they can find other markets for, where payment can be made outside the western payment system.

This war is more of a threat to the US in terms of de-dollarisation and loss of world reserve currency status, and we see western monetary institutions failing.

Also the US can't defend Taiwan, America has 3 places in the Western Pacific they can use to refuel their naval fleets, and a salvo of precision guided hypersonic missiles can easily destroy them, leaving those fleets dead in the water, or like fish in a barrel.
They can provide weapons to Taiwan, but their naval assets can't achieve anything tangible in a real war, bar the nuclear subs.

SM

How stupid can you be? "The easiest way to maintain peace is to ensure that the cost of anyone attacking you is far higher than any perceived benefit."

Fool, did you tell that to the world in 1914 and again in 1939. Massive military build prior to those years by world powers led to the direct annihilation of over 100 million people. Gee, all we need is you as Fuhrer!

Paul,

Two things are clear, I am smarter than you and your knowledge of history is abysmal. The century before WW1 was an almost continuous series of wars and the reason that Europe was arming was that major power blocs were expecting war. You have confused cause with effect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conflicts_in_Europe#19th_century

Germany attacked because it thought it could get an easy win and grab some territory and the spoils of war would compensate for the cost which was true for both wars. Much like Putin thought a year ago.

A half dozen Virginia class subs armed with cruise missiles could not only wreak havoc on any invasion force long before it could launch attacks but could also massively disrupt China's vulnerable supply routes. They would be useless in themselves in attacking China but would be a powerful defence.