Australia’s submarine program staggers along, rather like an aged pensioner who wants to keep working.

The latest pedestrian bollard into which it has crashed is an assessment of the proposal to extend the life of the current six Collins-class vessels, the last of which entered the water in 2003.

The review, by former US navy deputy assistant secretary Gloria Valdez, says the government-owned submarine company ASC lacks the design and engineering experience to extend the life of the submarines for a decade. It’s hardly surprising. The Collins boats would literally be pulled apart, including cutting the hulls open in a process which is supposed to take two years each. The cost is an airy $5 billion. Given ASC’s expertise since it last put a vessel in the water is limited to maintaining the six Collins boats, it has a steep climb ahead if it is to reach the heights of such expert upgrading.

But why go down the road of experimenting with boats now 20-plus years old anyway? The current cost of a Japanese Sōryū-class conventional attack submarine is approximately US$540 million. So for around $3.3 billion the country could have six brand new capable and proved submarines, with up-to-date technology.

What’s this, I hear you cry. Didn’t Australia once look at buying Japanese boats? Yes indeed. So far the sorry story of submarines looks like this:

2003: the last of the Collins-class vessels enters service, surrounded by the debacle of technology that didn’t work. Thanks to the US Navy, it eventually did.

2004-2012: nothing much happens, despite the Rudd government saying it would begin construction on new vessels ‘in about 2017’.

2016: under the Turnbull government, France won a contract to build a diesel-powered variant of its Barracuda-class submarine for Australia. This was one of the most stunningly incompetent decisions in Australian military acquisition history – proven nuclear boats would be re-designed to carry fuel tanks and all of the other paraphernalia for diesels because…?

2021: the French deal was scrapped in favour of Aukus, a nuclear solution.

Unfortunately in the intervening time no steel has been cut for an Australian boat, and there is no firm delivery date for when HMAS Sub 1 will be in the water. Instead we are going to see a) three American Virginia-class boats delivered, with the first possibly around 2030, b) US boats based out of Perth with Australians aboard; c) British boats built in Australian shipyards, and d) the Collins vessels soldiering on possibly for decades. On the positive side there are Aussie submariners training with the Americans in the complications of operating nuclear vessels, so there is that.

The Sōryū-class is being superseded by the Taigei-class, but why not leave the beta-testing to the excellent Japanese designers? The Sōryūs have an excellent track record. They use both air-independent propulsion, and lithium-ion batteries. This propulsion  system means subs can stay submerged longer without coming to the surface to snort – that is, using a snorkel. Although this allows the submarine to stay semi-submerged it’s still bringing it close to the surface and those things that kill you – aircraft and anti-submarine warships. The newer batteries have almost double the electric storage capacity of traditional lead-acid batteries, again adding to the submerged endurance capability. The Sōryūs fire torpedoes and the Harpoon missile Australia uses. Their performance is excellent, and their track record over the 12 boats Japan has built so far the same.

It must be said however that the best solution for Australia’s submarining needs is 12 Virginia-class boats from the USA, built there, as fast as possible. If we are contemplating an unstable Pacific environment, and possible conflict, then we need weapons systems now, not later. Building our own submarines is also fraught with danger. We messed it up last time, and we will do so this time. Submarines are the most complex machine on the planet, and our track record, littered with mistakes and problems, is not good. Why go down that road again?

There are three questions reporters could ask the Aussie Defence Minister any time he pops his head over the parapet. 1) How much steel has been cut? 2) How much have we spent so far? 3) When will the first sub hit the water? We actually know the answers: none; about $5 billion, and maybe in the 2030s. The overall situation is disgraceful.

Refitting the Collins-class is another sorry solution in this drunken walk towards a solution. They are a good boat, but they are constantly being overtaken by newer technologies. The Sōryū-class are cutting edge, and the best conventional submarines in the world now.

There is however one thing to change. The Sōryū was one of the four aircraft carriers that attacked Darwin in 1942. Although it went to the bottom of the sea along with the other three of that assault group at the Battle of Midway, we’d want to call them something distinctive. Hopefully Teddy Sheean VC’s name will live forever, and be one of the newer submarines, along with Farncomb, Collins, Rankin, Dechaineux, and Waller – all great fighting figures in RAN history.

Perhaps the first of class could be called Rogers. Jonathan ‘Buck’ Rogers – the nickname comes from a popular science fiction character – was a hero from HMAS Voyager, tragically rammed by the aircraft carrier Melbourne in 1964 off Jervis Bay. Chief Petty Officer Rogers united those trapped in the forward section of the destroyer, still afloat, before after some time its inexorable flooding with water sent it to the seabed.

Do we really want to have three classes of submarines in the Navy; all of them surrounded by uncertainty? Instead, we could buy into a proven new class for less money. At least that would give us some certainty in this meandering path towards new submarines for Australia.