The only submarine that we should be concerned about is the Chinese one that fired the missile into the Pacific just short of Vanuatu.

Our ‘tough’ government's reaction was a whine that the Communists, sticklers for the rules (not), gave only 2 hours warning, not the Hague-required 48 hours.

Nevertheless, let's have another ear-bashing about AUKUS that is still on paper, and very likely to stay that way.

Kampmark has never revealed the qualifications that equip him to hold forth on the subject of AUKUS and who should be running it. He's right about one person who never got past a plastic boat in the bath - Peter Garrett.

In the meantime, our useless government and bureaucrats should be concentrating on what Communist China has clearly shown what it can do to us, and what the hell we can do about it.

China operates an estimated 32 active nuclear-powered submarines, making its fleet the second-largest in the world behind the United States. This fleet includes ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs) and nuclear attack submarines (SSNs), and is backed by a much larger force of roughly 48 diesel-electric conventionally powered submarines

AUKUS was a dud deal from the start. Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, the sycophantic Morrison mob dutifully fell into line as ordered by America, Labor in fear of American retribution followed suit.

"Communist China has clearly shown what it can do to us, and what the hell we can do about it?" Militarily very little, Australia relies on China to be a responsible world citizen, sabre rattling (we don't actually have a sabre, more like a toothpick) and shirt fronting on our part does us no good at all. Australia should concentrate on the Indo/Pacific, through the establishment of stronger ties with our regional neighbours. Signing a military pact with Fiji, might have made the Fijians feel better, but it did nothing to frighten the Chinese. Economic ties are of far greater value than anything militarily we can do.

So a bunch of people who decide BEFOREHAND that they are opposed to the AUKUS deal, hold an inquiry and find that (surprise, surprise!) that the AUKUS sub deal isn't good. Colour me convinced.

The first part of the AUKUS deal (ie the 3 Virginia subs) is good for Australia and will/should proceed. The second part with the as-yet undesigned SSN subs is more problematic. My major issue is the timing. They won't really come to fruition until the early 2040s. By then the Chinese problem will have been resolved one way or the t'other. That is, China will already by then hold Formosa and be the paramount world hegemon OR their decline will be accelerating and their threat rapidly diminishing. Either way, the SSN subs will be surplus to needs - unless another threat to Australia (eg Indonesia) arises.

The other issue is that the nature of warfare is changing rapidly with things like AI assisted drones not to mention the militarisation of space. Again, by the time these subs come online, subs will be old technology.

So buy the three Virginia subs but keep all options open as regards the AUKUS subs.