What Are Australia's Defence Needs?

There has been a recent update on Australia's defence needs in today's Age Newspaper. Battle on the Home Front

It seems the debate has boiled down to 4 choices facing Australia:

Thomson and Davies start with a "stand easy" option that would cost 1.64 per cent of GDP and that would provide a defence force suitable for extensive peacekeeping and humanitarian operations, with no new submarines. The three air warfare destroyers now on order would be cancelled and the RAAF would not get the 100 revolutionary multi-role Joint Strike Fighters it wants. The ADF would get four more maritime patrol planes and more troop-carrying ships and aircraft.

Adopting that plan would run the risk of Australia being seen as a free rider on US military capability when it came to defending itself from any major attack, but it would still be considered a "good international citizen", the authors say.

Option two is a "focused force" with more special forces and light infantry, 12 submarines instead of the current six, and five air warfare destroyers instead of the planned three. The RAAF would get four more maritime patrol planes and 48 more Super Hornets instead of the 100 Joint Strike Fighters it wants. That would cost 2 per cent of GDP.

The third option, "securing the waves", provides for a bigger navy that would include five air warfare destroyers, five more frigates and 12 submarines, with 12 more naval helicopters and six new maritime patrol planes. That would soak up 2.18 per cent of GDP.

The fourth option would make Australia a "muscular regional power" with 18 submarines, five air warfare destroyers, five frigates, three big troop-landing ships, 250 Joint Strike Fighters with several extra early warning and control aircraft and aerial refuellers to extend their operational range, and our own "constellation" of military communications and spy satellites. The army would get three new battalions. All this would soak up 2.41 per cent of GDP. An additional option would be to spend $8.5 billion buying the navy two Queen Elizabeth II class aircraft carriers and another $5.8 billion fitting them out with 36 naval version Joint Strike Fighters and four early warning aircraft to watch over them all.

I may be wrong about this but I see carriers as force projection rather than self-defence. I would like to see the fourth option without the carriers. I totally agree on "beefing up" the Navy.

The article also lists concerns about Australia giving our neighbours the impression that we're being aggressive... but if they're our friends wouldn't they appreciate a strong ally? One who could come to their aid if necessary?

What do you think?