Up periscope, down periscope

I don't really know what to think of the AUKUS deal, now that it has been warmly embraced by a Labor government, savagely attacked by an ex Labor PM who always seems far too willing to endorse China and attack those who criticise it (while at the same time, being correct that the SMH was being ridiculously bellicose in its recent "this is how a war with China will go down" articles), and met with scepticism by the likes of Hugh White and John Quiggin (the latter having long had it in for defence spending on navies, though.)   

The trouble is, of course, that the term "armchair expert" seems to just about have been invented for opinions on defence programs and procurement, as well as international relations.  Everyone thinks they have a better idea.

So my opinion is certainly going to be ill informed, but I will put it out there again anyway:   we should have gone with Japanese submarines, with some built in Adelaide.  

Update:  There's an article at SMH today by a former diplomat (not sure that's much of a qualification on technical defence issues, TBH) who argues that submarines are going to be made redundant soon anyway:

Manned submarines are nearing the end of their utility in hostile waters because of developments in smart sea mines, unmanned underwater vehicles (UUVs) and underwater sensors. China has already made a strong start on this, and will deploy them in large numbers in its coastal region and strategically important areas of the South China Sea and East China Sea.

Australia plans to buy at least three American Virginia-class nuclear-powered submarines while it proceeds to build its SSN-AUKUS subs. The acoustic signature of the Virginia-class is known to China. It will be programmed into China’s defensive and offensive capabilities, which are cheap counters to an extremely expensive submarine – one that carries 132 increasingly vulnerable sailors.

By the time Australia gets the submarines from the US in the 2030s, it will be simply too dangerous to deploy them to contested areas that could take advantage of their performance and firepower. They will be restricted to home or benign waters, undercutting their main justification. Russia has already shown this to be true in the air. Its air force rarely ventures into contested territory, preferring to fire missiles from a distance. That is also the future of underwater warfare.

While that sounds sort of plausible, predictions as to the future use of naval power always seems to be a bit of a guessing game.   Going way, way back to when I used to be in navy cadets, and hence sometimes heard the opinions of actual navy officers, I remember that in (probably) the early 1980's there was an Australian senior submariner talking about how the (then new) technology of cruise missiles was going to make surface ships redundant.   Navies would move to having more submarines full of cruise missiles, he argued, with which to sneak up within range and launch from afar, with no significant danger of detection and destruction, in the way surface ships are vulnerable.

Again, sounds kind of plausible, but things haven't exactly panned out like that, have they?   Perhaps because you can fit a hell of a lot more missiles on a surface vessel than a submarine?   Perhaps because the visibility of (say) an aircraft carrier armed to the gills is helpful towards defusing some potential attacks?   

So I don't know - I'm a little skeptical of the "submarines will be redundant soon anyway" argument.

On the other hand, it's a little hard to see where we are going to get enough Australians who want to serve on submarines.   Perhaps we should follow the rest of shipping and just contract Filipinos to do it!