SUBMARINES

It's possible to justify choosing any of the new submarine bids. 

The Swedish/Australian one? We did that last time and it worked. 

The French? Has the potential to go nuclear. 

The German? Worth pursuing. 

The Japanese? Possibly, but not if it locks us into an alliance with Tokyo; will be built in Japan; and if the Japanese won't explain any of the advantages publicly. 

How many hulls in this picture?

We'd be better off without one, as I suggest in this piece for the Canberra Times . . .

A NEW SUBMARINE

We want to buy a new submarine.

The only question is; which one?

A French nuclear submarine - one we won't be getting

The problem is the government won't share any of its thinking about the project.

And this is not the only area where the government's failed to explain its thinking, as this column for todays Canberra Times pointed out . . .

BUILDING SUBMARINES

This column is about the submarine industry, not their utility. And it's a story of chaos and dysfunction.

The Collins program spends 40 percent of the Navy's maintenance budget on a weapon used by just 6 percent of the personnel.

As I suggested in the Canberra Times, it looks as if here we go again . . .