By Robbin Laird
Australia’s Maritime Autonomous Systems Unit, the MASU, stands at an inflection point. The period of experimentation and prototype evaluation that has defined the past several years of Australian engagement with unmanned maritime systems must now give way to something harder to achieve and more consequential: operational delivery.
The pressure is not abstract. Australia faces a significant hull gap as its surface combatant fleet ages and new vessels remain years from delivery. The AUKUS pathway toward nuclear‑powered submarines promises transformative capability but on a timeline measured in decades. In the meantime, the strategic environment is not waiting.
The question is whether MASU will rise to meet it as an operational command with real mission responsibilities, or remain primarily a niche capability and development cell within Navy’s bureaucracy.
In a wide‑ranging conversation, defence analyst Marcus Hellyer, Head of Research at Strategic Analysis Australia and former Senior Analyst at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, engaged with these questions directly. What emerged was both a frank assessment of where Australia currently stands and a practical agenda for what MASU should be doing right now.
The Bolt‑Action Rifle Principle
The instinct to treat maritime autonomous systems as precursors to some future perfected capability waiting until doctrine is fully developed, until the optimal platform arrives, until the concept of operations is airtight is precisely the trap Hellyer wants to avoid.
He reached for a durable analogy: the bolt‑action rifle. If you look at a bolt‑action rifle as a prototype of some perfect firearm arriving thirty or forty years down the track, you miss the utility it offers right now in its own context. It kills people perfectly well.
The same logic applies to maritime autonomous systems today. We know what Bluebottle USVs can do. We have seen them conduct fisheries surveillance operations. We have a good picture of their reliability from company testing and exercises such as Autonomous Warrior. The question is not whether these systems are ready for something; they are. The question is what that something should be.
The answer lies not in the systems themselves but in the operational problems Australia already has and can already see coming. Learning by doing, iterating against real mission requirements, generating real data, these are the activities of an operational command, not a purely developmental one.
The Hull Gap as Strategic Opportunity
The Australian shipbuilding program’s well‑documented delivery challenges create an opportunity to reframe the hull gap. Rather than treating the absence of new surface combatants as simply a problem to be managed, the question becomes: how can maritime autonomous systems help bridge that gap operationally over the coming decade?
The common objection that the vast distances of the Indo‑Pacific make Australian autonomous systems irrelevant compared to the compact operating environment of Ukraine’s Black Sea campaign does not hold up to scrutiny. Industry is already producing relatively small autonomous systems with strategically relevant reach: sufficient, in principle and depending on payload and configuration, to operate from Australia into the northern archipelago, from Guam to the Philippines, from the Philippines toward Taiwan. The geometry is no longer prohibitive.
This reframing also changes how to think about what MASU should prioritize. Extending reach into the first island chain, managing water space to Australia’s north, building comprehensive port security for facilities that will eventually host nuclear‑powered submarines, these are not science fiction. They are near‑term operational requirements that autonomous systems, fielded thoughtfully and connected to real CONOPS, can begin addressing now.
Protecting the Submarines Before They Arrive
Hellyer’s sharpest observation concerned what he sees as the most underappreciated vulnerability in the AUKUS submarine pathway. He is not particularly worried about whether Australia eventually acquires and crews nuclear‑powered submarines; that will happen. Nor is he losing sleep over the prospect that technological advances will suddenly make submarines transparent to detection, vessels operating at the speeds and depths modern submarines achieve remain profoundly difficult to find.
What concerns him deeply is survivability in port and during transit to open water. Submarines often spend the majority of their operational lives in port or in dry dock. HMAS Stirling, Australia’s primary naval base near Perth, will become the home of some of the most valuable and strategically consequential vessels in the Australian Defence Force. The question of how to defend that base against the full range of threats that will exist when those vessels arrive and that already exist today demands urgent attention.
The threat picture is layered and diverse. Long‑range ballistic missiles can reach Australian ports. Autonomous surface and underwater vehicles, potentially carrying small missiles or drone payloads, can be launched from considerable distances. Container ships, as Hellyer and I discussed, can serve as covert launch platforms, a pattern with both Iranian activities and World War II precedent. Short‑range drones do not need long range if the platform carrying them does. In a plausible worst‑case scenario, a high‑value submarine damaged or destroyed by a very low‑cost drone, launched from a long‑range unmanned platform, would represent a catastrophic return‑on‑investment failure.
The response architecture, layered air defence, counter‑drone systems, underwater barrier operations, surface surveillance networks, is not futuristic. It is anticipatable and buildable now. And HMAS Stirling offers a ready‑made development environment. Whatever defensive architecture Australia learns to build around Stirling can subsequently be applied offensively to bottle up adversary forces at strategic chokepoints. The skills and the mesh networks transfer.
The ISR Grid as Foundation
Hellyer’s specific operational suggestion, deploying thin‑line sonar arrays on Bluebottle USVs and potentially on larger UUVs such as Speartooth and Ghost Shark, points toward a broader architectural principle. For relatively modest investment, Australia could begin placing large numbers of underwater sensors across the approaches to its major ports and along the transit corridors its submarines will need to use. These systems could form the beginning of a defensive anti‑submarine warfare barrier.
But the value of this activity extends beyond its immediate tactical purpose. Every sensor network of this kind generates data, and the task of collecting, distributing, and acting on that data whether through USV‑to‑USV relay, USV‑to‑aircraft handoff, or satellite distribution builds exactly the mesh‑networking competency that more advanced future systems will require. It almost does not matter precisely how the data flows are resolved in early iterations. What matters is that the force learns to resolve them, because that learning is the foundation upon which future capability is built.
Fleet Mix: Not a Capital Ship
One of the more important conceptual points to emerge from the conversation concerns the fundamental difference in how to think about autonomous maritime systems compared to capital ships. A capital ship is designed to do everything itself. It is an integrated weapons and sensor platform. An autonomous maritime systems fleet is optimized differently: multiple specialized platforms, each contributing different capabilities, working together toward a combined effect.
Hellyer raised the cautionary example of Triton as a warning about what happens when autonomous systems are asked to replicate everything a traditional exquisite manned platform can do. The result is predictable: development takes as long, costs as much, and produces as few units. The whole point of the autonomous systems revolution, its promise of intelligent mass over exquisite scarcity, is lost.
Mine Countermeasures, Amphibious Support, and the Full Mission Set
The conversation identified three immediate mission sets for MASU that extend well beyond the Ukrainian‑inspired port‑strike scenario that dominates public discussion.
First, underwater barrier operations to protect submarine transit corridors and deny adversary UUVs the ability to lay mines in approaches to Australian ports.
Second, comprehensive port security, including defence against drone swarms, autonomous surface vessels, and other asymmetric threats, which carries commercial value as well as military utility. The threat to merchant shipping approaching Australian ports is real and does not require state‑level adversaries to materialize.
Third, and perhaps most overlooked: mine countermeasures. As Hellyer noted candidly, Australia, like most Western nations, has allowed its mine countermeasure capability to atrophy significantly.
The most effective response to a mine threat is to prevent mines from being laid in the first place, and autonomous systems operating persistent barrier patrols around port approaches offer a practical mechanism for doing exactly that. The Offshore Patrol Vessels already in service, integrated with USV and UUV capabilities, represent an existing asset combination that could deliver this mission without waiting for new procurement.
The 2023 Defence Strategic Review and the subsequent National Defence Strategy have directed the Australian Army towards a more explicitly amphibious and littoral operational focus. Maritime USVs have obvious roles in amphibious operations: sanitizing landing zones, conducting ISR in contested littoral environments, providing persistent surveillance of the operational space ahead of landing forces. Given the deep operational relationship between the Australian Defence Force and the United States Marine Corps, this is an area where coordinated development could produce capabilities valuable to both forces.
Strategic Rear Defence and the Alliance Value Proposition
The conversation closed with a point that deserves more prominent attention in Australian strategic discourse. Japan, South Korea, and the United States increasingly regard Australia as a strategic rear area, a secure base from which to sustain and regenerate forces operating in the western Pacific. That strategic value is only as durable as Australia’s ability to actually defend its ports, its logistics nodes, and its maritime approaches.
A robust MASU, one genuinely delivering operational effects rather than conducting perpetual prototype evaluation, is therefore not merely an Australian defence capability. It is a contribution to allied deterrence, a demonstration that the strategic rear is credibly defended, and potentially a model for collaborative capability development that partners could invest in and contribute to. The alliance value proposition runs in both directions.
Hellyer noted that real progress is being made in Australian thinking about autonomous systems after years of what he considered excessive caution. The investments are real. The conceptual advances are real. But the gaps remain, and the timeline pressure is intensifying. The adversarial autonomous systems that might threaten Australian ports are not waiting for MASU’s concept of operations to mature. A large UUV capable of travelling from the northern approaches to Australia to its major ports is essentially a question of battery volume, platform size, and design choices, rather than a distant technological fantasy.
Conclusion: Focus on Real‑World Mission Requirements
MASU should be focused on real mission requirements: port security, submarine transit protection, barrier ASW operations, mine countermeasure support, and amphibious ISR requirements. The Maritime Border Command already demonstrates what this looks like: an operational force using Australian‑built systems to deliver real‑world surveillance effects.
The bolt‑action rifle is not a prototype of the machine gun. It is a weapon that kills people effectively right now. Australia’s maritime autonomous systems are not prototypes of some future fleet. They are capable systems that can begin delivering operational effects today, against threats that are already evident, in defence of infrastructure that cannot afford to wait.
Marcus Hellyer is Head of Research at Strategic Analysis Australia and former Senior Analyst at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute. He is the author of multiple editions of The Cost of Defence and holds a Master’s and PhD in History and the History of Science from the University of California, San Diego, as well as a Master’s in Strategic Studies.
Australia’s Maritime Autonomous Systems Unit: From Kill Chain to Kill Web at Sea