Yes Pete; but, given we've finally learned how to build these things they should be built here.
And lithium batteries are very likely to be superseded in months, by a GM design that doubles the range of lithium ion!
The real problem with the Collins class was crewing them, rather than the build, which was eventually fixed.

However, the nuclear option gives a much longer range and fuel that doesn't need replacing for around 25 years; and lord only know how dear diesel will be by then or even if we have any critical reserve of the stuff at all!

If we are to have fewer subs, then at least they should be very large ones able to carry cargo, [military material,] should the need ever arise!
After all, our moat can work two ways, as was the case in, cut off from the world, wartime Malta!

In which case political expediency should never ever trump military practicalities, or logistics.

Spares that can't be delivered from a foreign source during a real war; like say a conflict involving both Japan and China, could force the mothballing of an entire fleet for the want of a tiny paper pin sized, failed or flawed part

If we are to buy something off the shelf, why not something from the good old USA, very technically advanced and nuclear powered!?

At the end of the day, shopping must include any and all possible technological transfers!

And size does matter as does raw underwater speed!

If I had to choose between a noisy rattling (shoot me I'm here) Japanese/German sub, with an effective range of five-ten thousand nautical miles, plus a top speed of 12-15 knots underwater, and a super silent (where the hell did he disappear to) one with virtually unlimited range and a top speed of around fifty knots submerged!

Then I'd choose the latter, even where that meant my initial order was just four fully equipped subs; due to current cost constraints.
Rhrosty.

Hi Rhrosty

You raise many interesting issues which I'll respond to over several posts.

An initial dividend with selecting already-in-production subs (like the Soryu, HDW 214 and Scorpene) is that they (and Australia) don't need to go through any extended design phase. That means the first one for Australia might be launched by 2020, with the next five launched each year through to 2025.

Such a timely launch of these subs can allow early retirement and replacement of the Collins Class which are suffering very high maintenance costs and very low availability. The Collins are spending too long in maintenance-dry dock. I've heard that HMAS Collins itself is now unservicable as it is being cannibalised for spares. Cannibalisation is a pitfall of relying on a limited spare-chain, orphan design.

My article is about reasonable choices - based on Australia's experiences of the many downsides of choosing yet another Large, Orphan (Australia only) sub with all the extra costs, delays and technical risks involved.

I'll examine the very large subs, nuclear propulsion, mission and build in Australia issues in later posts on this thread.

Regards

Peter Coates

Anything less than full nuclear subs would be a bad joke on our navy, & the men who we expect to serve in the things. Why do people still want to build the weapons of the last war, to fight the next. That has got so many English speaking people, Poms Yanks & Ozzies mostly, killed it is just not funny.

We also need nuclear missiles. Just a few of these would take out any invading force, & they could be fired from patrol boats. We don't really need subs, particularly out of date at launch subs.

Building anything in South Oz is a recipe for disastrous cost overruns. The unions have total control at the sub works, & in the whole state. It was this union power that destroyed the car industry, pure & simple. It had little to do with imports, but the cost of production in Oz, & particularly South Oz.

Lets face it, about the only thing they are good at in SA is grabbing other states money & water.

Time for a dose of reality folks, not wishful thinking.

Peter,

what do you think about the ASC and whether subs should be built in SA at all?

Hi Hasbeen and Rhrosty

A major advantage of my proposal for just 6 existing (less expensive) conventional subs is that a later buy (as strategic threats increase) of 4 nuclear propelled subs would be less expensive.

Nuclear propulsion what be ideal however:

- one concern is trigerring a naval arms race (proliferation) in the region. Would an increasingly wealthy Indonesia, wealthier South Korea, Taiwan, Japan and technologically advanced Singapore also commence nuclear propulsion programs? Indonesia may be a problem.

- assuming Fremantle would remain the principal submarine base where could we build an East Coast nuclear submarine base http://www.navy.gov.au/establishments/fleet-base-east in Sydney Harbour? Jervis Bay?

Forget vulnerable northerly base, Darwin or Cairns

- Would the Virgina Class nuclear be the natural/only choice or smaller, far less crew French Barracuda SSN?

Pete

Hi Malcolm 'Paddy' King, Rhrosty and Hasbeen

As things stand at the moment I think ASC building 6 conventional subs in Adelaide would be a mistake.

Some Australian content may make sense if BAE Systems Australia (with its better shipbuilding record) took over ASC and built sections-plugs in Williamstown, Victoria with minimal work in Adelaide.

Final assembly in Japan, Germany or France would reduce the ability of South Australia and Australian Unions to hijack the submarine project (as with the Collins and the AWDs).

If the Australian states and unions led to great inefficiency an upfront Contractural Promise that the Entire project work will revert to Japan, Germany or France should be made.

This is still complex, full of Ifs and Buts but this is working in the Real World of Australian Domestic Politics not in a world of Total "Build Overseas" Efficiency.

Also Shorten's Labor Government may rule by 2016-2017.

Building just 6 in-production designs will reduce the chances of Australian Federal, States and Union fiddling.

Pete

Elsewhere others have pointed out that the Collinses apparently never fired a shot in anger in the decade or so they had problems. Ergo do we need subs at all? I think the bigger problem is preventing the skill exodus from Adelaide when Holden closes and ASC wind down. The 200+ hectare Pt Stanvac site needs remediating by 2019. My suggestion is to start building a small stationary nuclear plant there if the public approves. (actually 58% of SA approves of nuclear when the site is not specified) Notice SA gas fired plant like Torrens Island is getting mothballed perhaps creating a baseload power shortage unless SA gets dirty brown coal power from Victoria.

Pt Stanvac would be within commuting distance for many current ASC employees. New business entities would be required with ASC management excluded. If the build goes OK and we survive several years of no working submarines think of the money saved. OTOH if we do need foreign nuclear submarines we'll have experience under our belt.

Mr Abbott says he wants us to have the best subs. That's good news. The best subs are all nuclear powered and we are not even evaluating nuclear powered options. That is not good news. Collins class boats cost more than $100million per annum each to maintain and utilisation seems to be around 33% (2 out 6 operational). Virginia class subs are recognised as the best attack sub in the world, cost $50m per annum each to maintain, have 3 or more times the capability. Cost of 10 Virginia class as judged by last order placed by US is approx $1.8Bn fixed price each. They are twice as fast under water, can stay under water indefinitely (enemies don't know where they are as they can travel to and from patrol area under water, get there and back twice as fast, pack a bigger punch (more missiles - vertical tubes), don't need to refuel in mid ocean (or back home), can dive deeper, cost less to buy, less to operate, proven design, least amount of modifications, fully compatible with combat systems on our AWDs and F35s, in production now, available for a fixed price at a much earlier date than any other option - US building at the rate of 1 per year from 2 shipyards, order them now and take delivery of the first one in 2025 then one a year until we have all 6, 8,10 or whatever. Early retirement of Collins saves us at least $50m/year/boat. There is one very obvious choice so why not use it as a yardstick against which to compare all others?

A nuclear powered submarine for Australia would be madness. You need about 135 sailors to man a Virginia-class submarine. Collins-class operates today with about 60 crewmen. How many Collins-class submarines RAN could men?

What is RAN’s job? Hunt enemy submarines with SLBMs? OK then Australia should already have nuclear powered submarines. Is there really a nuclear threat to Australia?

For all other missions diesel powered submarines would suit better because they are cheaper and quieter. I would say a rather small submarine would be the best. My favorite is the Ula-class (Type 210) submarine. Displacement is just about 1,000 t surfaced and not 3,000 t like Soryus. For sure they have less range but they also need just a crew of 22 men for a 3-watch system and just 15 for a 2-watch system (3-watch for peacetime and 2-watch in case you need more submarines). So for one Virginia class RAN could men 9 Type 210 submarines (or for one Collins 4 Ulas)! A Virginia class submarine might be fast but nothing is faster as being already there.

Price for one Virginia is $2,600 million but just $250 million for one Ula. – Price 10:1 and crew 9:1. Get real!

Deterrence is laughable with one or two operational submarines positioned in just one place. Nearly any enemy can estimate from time leaving harbor where the submarine could be and where not even for fast nuclear powered submarines. With a fleet of many submarines positioned around Australia and on distant islands nobody can be where RAN’s submarines are.

Range is not necessary for submarines stationed all around Australia. Ula-class has sufficient range for a trip from Christmas Island to Hong Kong. A submarine tender is something to think about. Some may mention a submarine tender is vulnerable. That depends on Hobart-class AWD.

Save money and buy 24 small submarines instead of 12 big ones! Mass production is no problem. There are already three shipyards to build Type 210 submarines - one in Germany and 2 in South Korea. A fourth shipyard in Australia could be possible without ASC. I believe it is possible to build a submarine in South Australia. The problems down there are not related to the workers, engineers or unions. Poor management is the problem.

With many rather small submarines another problem is solved: keeping the production running! A steady stream of small submarines is affordable and keeps the systems up to date. Today Australia pays about $1,000 million per year to keep 2 out of 6 submarines afloat. Within 10 years this is the price for 40 Type 210 submarines. So building just 2.5 submarines a year and scrapping them after 10 years is much cheaper than maintenance for Collins-class. Australia can keep the price down due to the competition between 3 or 4 shipyards.

Hi MHalblaub and AlexJ

Thanks for your comments. I see Australia ultimately needing two classes of submarines:

- 6 x medium conventional subs (from 2025). Australia mainly follows a forward defensive strategy with its allies including the US and perhaps increasingly Japan. This means instead of small HDW 210 (that assume defending ports) longer range, more missile-torpedos HDW 214/Scorpene/Soryus (mainly Japanese alliance benefits) that can economically venture into South China Sea to keep the possible enemy (China?) busy, alongside our allies with US and Japanese subs.

- 4 x Virginia SSNs (from 2035) but ultimately serving as SLBM carrying "baby bombers" the main platform for Australia's nuclear weapons (talking 2040 at least). All this would depend on increases of threats - most likely China.
---

Hi Taswegian

Truth be known - the last and only Australian sub to fire a torpedo in anger was the AE2 in 1915 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMAS_AE2#Dardanelles_Campaign . Those torpedos missed. During the rest of WWI (no Aussie subs), WWII (no Aussie subs existed), Oberons (1967-99) never at war, Collins 1996-now never at war. Shows how good a deterrent they were/are.

However, like the UK in the Falklands War 1982, you never know when subs are needed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Conqueror_(S48) . Subs are mainly a highly refined intelligence gathering platform in peacetime.

Regards

Pete

One of the reasons why Japan lost the Pacific War was because their admirals were too concerned with building major surface combatants, and they completely neglected their anti-submarine forces. US submarines eventually made all of their major surface assets almost completely ineffective for lack of fuel.

The world is unlikely to see another major war between superpowers as such wars are extremely costly in damage to economies and infrastructure. It is far more likely that the main powers will continue to use proxy wars to settle their differences, and for Muslims to continue their global jihad. Submarines have no place to play in such scenarios. If the Australian government wants to buy submarines, then replace the six we have always fielded. I can not understand why we are doubling our submarine numbers when the numbers of every other major weapon system (tanks and fighter aircraft) is being halved.

Australia once had 220 second hand Centurion tanks, replaced by 90 new Leopards, replaced by 48 second hand M1A1 Abrams. We had 150 Mirage jets, replaced by 75 Hornets, which are being replaced by 50 JSF.

We could not get enough seamen to crew our existing 6 submarines and now we want to double them. I submit that the reason why we could not get crews was because the seaman considered the Australian built submarines to be shoddily built death traps. We buy submarines for political and environmental reasons, and military requirements come last.

For God's sake buy six US nuclear attack submarines and we might be able to find crew to man them. Turn Jervis Bay into a nuclear capable port for our subs and resume the land of any local resident who objects. Jervis Bay is a naval port and why we allow people create housing estates on it's foreshore is beyond me. The money saved from not buying six extra clunky Australian built submarines should be spent adding two more battalions to our army. It is the army which is doing all of the heavy lifting in our insurgency wars and the service which is taking all the casualties.

Hi Pete,

"Oberons 67 -90 never at war!

Perhaps but not really accurate and yes they have fired in anger. It's just not unclassified yet!

For my two cents worth, consider the longer-term threat environment and build or buy accordingly.

Variants of the smaller French, proven, attack nuke boats and inclusion of the larger Brit built nuke boats for strategic force projection come to mind.

Forget ASC they have ballsed up every contract they have had with the Commonwealth. Go international, straight off-the-shelf and save Billions.

Geoff

Dear Pete,

Norway (population 5 million) operates 6 small Type 210 submarines to defend the over 1,250 nm long Norwegian coastline operating out of Haakonsvern and also to defend the gap between Norway and Greenland. In 2004 the submarine KNM Utvær was disqualified from NATO exercise “Joint Winter”. During the exercise this submarine did nearly “sink” the complete fleet including the HMS Invincible without being detected. The landing operation was then performed without submarine disturbance.

Type 210 submarines have a range of 5,000 nm. A Type 210mod with better engines, AIP or lithium batteries would have much more range.
Distance from Christmas Island or Darwin to South Chinese Sea is about 1,500 nm. Distance to important choke points is even less. I just cannot see necessity for excessive range or speed.

For sure one Type 214 (8+13?)/ Dolphin (10+13?)/ Collins (6+16)/ Soryu (6+24)/ Scorpene (6+12) submarine carries more weapons (ready+reload; “?” because this is known reload for smaller Type 212). Ula offers just 8 torpedoes tubes and 6 reloads. This is less than half compared to Soryu-class but you should look at the price tag. Ula-class offers the same torpedo load for about the same price but on more submarines. With more submarines more sea space could be controlled.

In case of an encounter the size of a submarine is not important because all torpedoes have the same size. The size of the submarine fleet is far more important. In case you lose one submarine it is important how many operational submarines you have left. Just one or two like today or 7 Type 210mod (fleet of 24). 8 more could be available soon by cannibalizing the remaining 8.

Regards,
MHalblaub

Hi LEGO

Yes just 6 subs makes sense due also to the advantages of network centric warfare which can direct weapons and platforms more precisely. Another example is the ability of just 6 Aussie Super Hornets to range over Iraq instead of a need for 6 squadrons.

Nuclear powered subs would be preferable but even THE MAN, Abbott, lacks the stamina to push that need.
---

Hi Geoff of Perth

Re: Oberons? Assuming a torpedoing would be too noticed and newsworthy... Mine-laying by sub? Not only by aircraft? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Pocket_Money ?

I also agree that nuclear propelled would be preferable.
---

Hi MHalblaub

I think most sub-owning countries are ordering new subs much larger than the 1,000 ton HDW 210 for good reasons. Reasons include greater range (eg. Pacific Ocean), greater warload (South China Sea is a long way from Aussie port replenishment), need for adequate crew size (for 70+ day missions). Even Germany decided to build HDW 212 for German needs - a fair bit larger than the 210s.

The 210 is ideal for Norway's Baltic and fairly narrow North Sea operating areas. But Aus missions may be 5 times further out into the Pacific and Indian Oceans.

As well as the 214 the Dolphin 2's range capacity, warload, and submerged speed of 25 knots is worth a look by SEA 1000 selectors - see photos here http://gentleseas.blogspot.com.au/2014/11/submarine-institute-of-australias.html .

Regards

Pete

Dear Pete,

I just can’t see a reason for big Australian submarines.

Germany did operate a fleet of 18 Type 206 to control the Baltic Sea and the North Sea. This type was a digest of a submarine: crew 27 men, 8 torpedoes, no reloads and surfaced displacement of just 450 t. Type 206 was sufficient to keep the Soviet Union at distance. It would have been a success if one submarine could have launched all torpedoes. Reload was at sea by tenders because harbors were expected to be extinguished.

The new Type 212 was build for quite different operation areas like Mediterranean Sea or Arabic Sea. Due to that the range was quite doubled to at least 8,000 nm. Crew size stayed the same.

Oberon-class did inherited 10,000 nm range from German Type XXI with range of 14,000 nm. I guess nobody ever thought about the need of such range for Collins-class design. The Type XXI was designed to reach the Gulf of Mexico, patrol there for a while without any aid and sail back. Distance is about 5,000 nm one way via Caribbean Sea. What is quite the same distance as from Garden Island to Bohai Gulf. The difference is German Navy had no base closer to the US than La Rochelle. Distance from Darwin to Bohai Gulf is just 3,500 nm.

There is no need for excessive range for RAN. Intelligence gathering somewhere along the Chinese coast could be done by a small Type 210mod far better than with a big nuke. Distance is no problem. RAN just needs a tender somewhere in the Philippine Sea. Such a tender is easy to detect? So what? Philippine Seas are international waters.

Oh, tenders are vulnerable in case of a conflict. In case of a conflict RAN may operate with a tender called Guam. In case of a conflict RAN submarines should control the straits and protect Australian harbors against enemy submarines.

...to be continued...

...

“Aus missions may be 5 times further out into the Pacific and Indian Oceans.”
Submarine patrols somewhere in the vastnesses of the Oceans are military nonsense. A submarine may detect another fast moving submarine 10 nm away but that’s it. Maybe RAN does such patrols because it is the only useful thing Collins-class can do. To cover the waste area around Australia the P-8 Poseidon was ordered.

In case a P-8 detects something how will RAN get a submarine there in time? Maybe something unusual like a small fleet is cruising in the Coral Sea. A submarine based in Garden Island would need 5 days at 30 knots. A submarine based at Brisbane would need 2.5 days at 10 knots to reach the middle of the Coral Sea.

In case of a conflict Australia needs a fleet of 6 operational submarines to control own important harbors and about another 3 or 4 to control the choke points like Gulf of Aden, Strait of Malacca, Sunda Strait or Lombok Strait and a few to operate in the South Chinese Sea. Therefore Australia would need a fleet of 24 submarines.

Germany was able to provide about 9 Type 206 with just 8 torpedoes (72) through a total displacement of 8,100 t. RAN operates a submarine displacement of 18,000 t and is lucky to provide 3 submarines with 66 weapons. In case of just one loss just 44 are left…

A Type 210mod is far enough to protect Australia and affordable. What else should RAN do? Capsize some container in Shanghai harbor? Any direct attack against China would be useless. China is dependent to open seas. China is vulnerable there and therefore Australia needs many submarines.

The Type 210mod would just raise the displacement from 18,000 to to 24,000 t and not to 48,000 t. Big submarines are for Admirals with a small ego or something else underdeveloped.

Regards,
MHalblaub

Hi MHalblaub

Australia's current-future submarine needs are far different from Germany's previous (206) situation. For Germany the proof that Germany decided to replace 206 with the much larger 212 is compelling.

I would say that Germany was forced to build a small, defensive 206 in the 1960sbecause the most powerful countries in NATO (UK, US and France) did not want Germany to have larger oceanic submarines (of large WW2 U-boat size) that could again pose a threat to those countries.

After these NATO restrictions wwwere lifted Germany reverted to its optimum submarine tonnage - much larger than the 206s.

Australia having, say 12 HDW 210s, would not be a simple question of lower cost, crew and tonnage. All of these savings result in mission limitations, noting:

1. An Australian submarine tender sitting beside the South China Sea is not a serious solution as it would be under permanent Chinese satellite or "fishing boat" surveillance. This could escalate to permanent, dangerous, Chinese (or Russian?) SSK surveillance.

2. the ability of an Australian sub to rapidly move unrefueled from Fremantle to the mid South China Sea, operate there for 2-3 weeks and return to Fremantle is essential. This is something the lower range and small tired crew of a HDW 210 couldn't do.

3. Unlike Germany Australia does not have the large population and technical density to provide full submarine service ports for 210s in Broome, Darwin, Townsville, Cairns etc.

Regards

Pete

What a lot of nonsense !
What are you going to fuel them with ? Diesel ? and where will you get that ?
Once a shooting war starts, no more tankers will arrive in Australian ports.
What oil is in stock will be reserved to feed the people and when the
diesel submarines use their fuel they will be tied up at the dock.

Are you aware that Australia does not have the mandatory OECD 3 months
stock of fuel ? All we have is what just happens to be in the terminal
tanks, what is in the service stations and the tanks of our cars and
trucks. That will last between three days and one week.

There is absolutely no point in diesel submarines. They are unusable !

Would three nuclear submarines cost more than 12 unusable diesel submarines ?

No diesel imports to = no trucks + no regional or rural trains = NO AUSTRALIAN ECONOMY...

Australia's diesel submarines will last much longer than the AUSTRALIAN ECONOMY.

Suggest a better plan than the following - which is what I propose in an IDEAL WORLD:

- 6 x medium conventional subs (from 2025)

- WHILE RE-OPENING A DIESEL REFINERY OR TWO IN AUSTRALIA

- then 4 x Virginia SSNs (from 2035) but ultimately serving as SLBM carrying "baby boomers" the main platform for Australia's nuclear weapons (talking 2040 at least). All this would depend on increases of threats - most likely China.

Pete

Pete I don't see China as a threat, unless something is precipitated by US China rivalry. In this case we are more likely to be a battle ground, rather than doing much ourselves. The thought of us fighting China is almost funny.

If that happened I think it would be well before 2040. By then it would be too late for the us to have real supremacy.

I see any threat coming from much closer to home, & being much less likely to attract US participation. There is every possibility that in 20 years time, Oz may be less desirable as US allies than our larger neighbours. Don't they have oil?

As we could not defend ourselves against a large industrial country threat, we need to be prepared to go it alone against a lessor threat. That is why the only real defence possible is nuclear arms. We simply don't have the manpower to defend ourselves with conventional weapons, & since the F111s went, & are not going to spend enough to have the technical superiority in the volume required again.

Perhaps we should declare neutrality, & spend all that money on welfare. The greens should vote for that, & from what my son tells me, quite a lot of our defence spending, could almost be considered make work welfare already.

One suggestion,
- WHILE RE-OPENING A DIESEL REFINERY OR TWO IN AUSTRALIA

Fine if that happens soon, but the politicians have told us we have
good solid commercial arrangements for supply of fuel.

My goodness, they even think that would continue in a state of war or
confrontation, yes they are that stupid.

Even if we did have one or two refineries (all close to the coast)
retained which would we chose fuel for food or submarines.
How long before the refineries were shot up.
At our present rate of decline would we even have enough crude to
warm up the refineries ?

BTW, Al Quiada has already asked associates to attack tankers on their
way to Australia.

Hi Hasbeen

Of course we're limited to our opinions rather than having all-seeing correct answers.

As France built its nuclear force as a deterrent against the much more powerful USSR - Australia may need to build a nuclear deterrent against China. China has great conventional and nuclear superiority over Australia, while Indonesia doesn't.

Indonesia's armed forces are mainly orientated for internal security (eg. against dissident Army commands on Java and against dissident islands) rather than having a force to go into battle against Australia. Australia's conventional air and sea forces are far superior to Indonesia's and will be for the foreseeable future. Indonesia army would need air and sea forces to deploy in Australia.

If Australia built nuclear weapons it is likely Indonesia would as well - in so doing Indonesia would nullify Australia's conventional (and new gained nuclear) superiority. Australia would again need the China deterrent for Australian built nukes to make sense.

I still see China as the main threat against Australia, But Australia is in alliance with the US (and maybe also with Japan) to face China.

If the US subsequently favoured China, all bets would be off.

Pete

Hi Bazz

I agree that our politicians should give greater weight to strategic common sense to ensure the supply of fuel. Both in terms of refineries in Australia and adequate storage tank capacity.

There is no such thing as total security of refineries and tanks (eg. against Chinese nuclear missiles)

But internal sabotage should be guarded against.

Looking at today's event threats from IS? or al Qaeda? in terms of on-the-sea terrorism/piracy as well.

Regards

Pete

I do not see China as a risk, they are already buying as much of
Australia as they need and will continue.
After all they already have a large population here and an increasing
amount of land, so why invade ?
They already have !

Dear Pete,

According to the “London and Paris Conferences” of 1954 Germany was allowed a displacement of just 350 t for submarines. It was raised to 1,000 t in 1962 and finally lifted in 1991 “Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany”. Despite that submarines with a displacement of more than 1,000 t were built and delivered to allies.

The reason for Type 212 was far more range and a different crewing system. The crew will be replaced and the submarine will stay close to the theater with minimal support. A reliable submarine is necessary to operate in such a way.

This crewing system would be suitable for RAN. A reliable submarine could be stationed at Christmas Island e.g. Type 210mod. Trip to center of South Chinese Sea in about a week and 2 or 3 weeks on station are feasible.

“1. An Australian submarine tender sitting beside the South China Sea is not a serious solution as it would be under permanent Chinese satellite or "fishing boat" surveillance. This could escalate to permanent, dangerous, Chinese (or Russian?) SSK surveillance.”

A submarine operating out of Christmas Island won’t need a tender submarine but a tender is a very nice tool. As you noted the tender would remain under close surveillance. Fishing boat surveillance would be nice for a fast tender with high sustained speed. RAN could easily distinguish the "fishing boat" from the fishing boats.

SSK surveillance would be the best thing what could happen. Your tender just needs a towed sonar system to record SSK noise. A tender should be cheaper than a submarine doing this job (not sure about a canoe tender by ASC being cheaper).

...
“2. the ability of an Australian sub to rapidly move unrefueled from Fremantle to the mid South China Sea, operate there for 2-3 weeks and return to Fremantle is essential. This is something the lower range and small tired crew of a HDW 210 couldn't do. “

That is the way Collins-class is operated. Just the way from Garden Island to Christmas Islands is about 1,400 nm or about 6 days for Collins-class and also back. Nearly 2 weeks worth nothing only necessary due to an unreliable submarine that needs a lot of maintenance after such a patrol.

Why should the Type 210mod crew being tired? The way of doing it with a Type 210mod would be quite different. 5 or 6 weeks patrol, back to Christmas Island, one week or less maintenance and back on patrol with a new crew. Two weeks more travel for Collins-class crew. There is also a big difference between maintaining 3 Garden Island-Hedemora with 18-cylinder each against two well proven MTU 12-cylinder at sea or the Type 212 solution 1 MTU 16V and fuel cells.

Check the following page according to Time Between Overhauls (TBO) for MTU 396: 7,250 hours or 300 days. That is far more than one year on station and then back to overhauls. BTW For how many days was the Collins-class fleet at sea this year?
http://www.bmtdsl.co.uk/media/5045649/BMTDSL-Multiengine-submarine-power-supplies-Pacific10-Jan10.pdf
(I know submarine diesel won't run 24 hours a day...)

“3. Unlike Germany Australia does not have the large population and technical density to provide full submarine service ports for 210s in Broome, Darwin, Townsville, Cairns etc.”
Check for MTU maintenance in Australia http://www.mtudda.com.au/corporate/overview/
The point is with Type 210mod RAN would not need full service ports around Australia as for Collins-class.
Start to think different;-)

Regards,
MHalblaub

Obviously MHalblaub and some others know more about submarines than me.
In peace time the submarines could go to Singapore to refuel and change
crews. Perhaps they do that anyway.
However in time of hostilities Singapore might not want to be involved
so I guess Darwin or Broome might be an alternative fueling port.

However if Singapore was not available then fuel would not be available
in Australia. So I guess you just tie them up somewhere.

There is no way around that. In a time of hostilities fuel will not be
available so what is the point of buying diesel submarines anyway ?

Dear MHalblaub

Thanks for the info on the 1954 etc tonnage restrictions on West German Navy subs.

On Type 210 you win.

By 2025 retire the Collins and replace with:

6 x Type 210modAUs https://www.thyssenkrupp-marinesystems.com/en/hdw-class-210mod.html .

With Australian specifications for:

- comfortable 60 days endurance

- 21,000 km unrefueled range

- 25 knots speed submerged

- fuel cell AIP

- 20 x Mk 48 torpedos/Harpoon SLCM/Tomahawk SLCM/mines

- combat system interoperable with satellite, undersea arrays, and all allied subs.

- detachable dry dock shelter sufficient to carry SEAL delivery vehicle for 10 divers http://gentleseas.blogspot.com.au/2014/08/navy-seal-and-submarine-capabilities.html

By 2035 4 x Virgina Class SSNs.

Cheers :)

Pete

err Plantagent, whats the point if fuel is not available ?

Hi Bazz

If there's no fuel available there's no Australian economy to defend - so we have already lost.

Which is why there is a Plan C = 4 x Virginia SSNs and hope Defence Minister Johnston's SEA 1000 Purchase Team is paying attention.

With a defeated Australia our 4 SSNs could intergrate into the US Navy striking back to free Oz from the Chinese Imperial blockade.

Here is the instrument http://youtu.be/WoL1sbqqmEc

Regards

Pete

Of course, it might be difficult to get the greens to give the
government permission to buy nuclear submarines.

Don't worry Bazz, Tony knows there is no point having refinery capacity, while we have a fifth column of Muslim Jihadists in the country. They would simply flood it with suicide bombers at the start of any hostilities.

I have it on good authority he is working on a cunning plan to have the Greens & the Jihadists take each other out, solving most of our problems simultaneously.

Without the Muslim vote to pander to, trying to buy a few votes, Labor will return to loyalty to Oz, [will this post is a joke after all] & start voting intelligently in the senate, bring the budget under control.

It is all quite simple really, & about as likely as our choice of sub, & sub supplier being a rational decision.

Oh, & sorry, but this is the silly season after all.

But Hasbeen

Is not Islam the religion of peace?

That is the constant soma* message we are meant to believe in following each new outrage.

For that matter aren't other religions (be they Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, Communist and Christian) frequently excuses for violence?

* Soma is the name of a fictional drug in Aldous Huxley's 1932 novel, Brave New World. In the novel the drug produces both intoxicating and psychoactive properties and is used in celebratory rituals.

Well I think the difference is that Christianity has a guilty conscience
about its history, but not so Islam, it insists that its conquests and
killing was ordered by Allah and those invasions mean the land is always moslem land.

Anyway, submarines are only one part of the navy.
What about the surface ships ?
Australia may turn out to be the first country that can front up
only an army. Even that army would be very limited and would have to
revert to historic town defense techniques.
Armies on bicycles and guerrilla techniques ?

I think the above sounds really way out, but without major change in
government policies how do we stop my defense outline being real ?

Hi Bazz

Our armed forces (destroyers soon, frigates, new Landing Helicopter Docks, Super Hornets, older Hornets, F-35s on the way, 1,000s of armoured vehicles) are fairly large for our immediate region.

As long as an enemy cooperates by only sending smallish conventional forces against us we can handle it.

But one Chinese nuclear propelled submarine with nuclear cruise missiles could hold Sydney, Newcastle, etc to ransom because we have no nuclear propelled subs to handle it
- and the Americans, with THEIR nuclear subs, may be too busy defending themselves.

But terrorism within Australia is a more pressing menace requiring internal armed forces and massive surveillance.

Yes plantagenet, we are going to have to arm our defence forces, even while in Oz. Having hundreds of unarmed pongos wandering around Holsworthy, or sailors around Garden Island, is just asking for a terrorist attack.

Telling navy personnel on watch while tied up at Garden Island to not interfere with any trespasser, but to call the cops really is a joke, but will get a lot of sailors killed some day.

Having our only operational amphibious assault ship playing floating hotel for a bunch of useless bureaucrats up at Manus, coming into cyclone season, when it would be better here for any rescue work required is not a joke, but ridiculous.

Time to send some tents up there for those bureaucrats, & instantly dismiss any who complain.

With the replacement today of David Johnston, as Defence Minister, by Kevin Andrews the submarine project might get back into gear.

Before Christmas Minister Andrews will hopefully give an update/media interview about where the future submarine selection process is at.

But what purpose will they serve ?

Nearly all of the comments on this thread are stupid! The primary purpose of our submarines isn't war, it's espionage. Nuclear submarines require deep water so are useless for that purpose.

There are no conceivable circumstances where having our own nuclear weapons would be of benefit to Australia. The only territory China wants to conquer is that which it considers to be Chinese. Effectively that's the South China sea (it must be Chinese because it's got China in the name) and maybe some of the territory that China's previously tried to conquer (though certainly not Japan).

And Taswegian, you're suggestion's a non starter. Port Stanvac is not a suitable site for a nuclear power plant. There would be far too much local opposition. If SA is to get nuclear power, it will be in Port Pirie where the community is broadly supportive. But I'm not convinced nuclear power would be economically viable in Australia at all, let alone at the small plant level (as around the world these tend to work out much more expensive than the big ones). And if Torrens Island is getting mothballed, it's because of a surplus of baseload electricity. There certainly won't be a shortage. SA solved its shortage problem by investing in wind, solar and a few gas turbine peakload generators.

http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=4100&ct=4&tid=100 :

The nuclear powered Virginia class has several innovations that significantly enhance its shallow water warfighting capabilities including:

- a fly-by-wire ship control system that provides improved shallow water ship handling.

- other features to support special operations forces particularly SEALS. This includes a reconfigurable torpedo room which can accommodate a large number of SOF and all their equipment for prolonged deployments, and

- a large detachable dry dock shelter for a SEAL delivery vehicle that can carry divers from the Virgina sub to a beach http://gentleseas.blogspot.com.au/2014/08/navy-seal-and-submarine-capabilities.html :)

Plantagenet, none of those innovations would make a nuclear submarine suitable for surveillance.

Aidan

The Virginia has a comprehensive suite of surveillance sensors which would be greater than on any conventional sub. This includes:

- sonars
- Lidars
- magnetic anomaly
- UUVs
- the weapons Mk 48 torpedos, Harpoon and Tomahark SLBMs, mines, carry many surveillance devices for real-time feeds
- UAVs
- access to satellite and undersea array feeds
- sigint
- divers themselves once off the beach and inland carry all soughts of surveillance devices.

Checkout:

- my website article for a fraction of the sensors on the Virginia http://gentleseas.blogspot.com.au/2014/06/us-influences-on-australias-future.html,

- particularly the US combate system http://www.gd-ais.com/Capabilities/Mission-Systems/ANBYG-1-Submarine-Tactical-Control-System-(TCS)

Pete

Absolutely pathetic! Why send divers out to do the job that could be done from within a conventional submarine?!?!?!

A conventional sub that's fitted out for surveilance has much better capability than that. Nuclear submarines have the crippling disadvantage of being restricted to deeper water, so are inherently inferior for our purposes. If we wanted subs for combat, nuclear probably would be better, but we don't.

Aidan

Watch this SEAL Delivery Vehicle (SDV) move from the nuclear sub pod and through shallower water than a conventional sub can operate in. Divers get out and reach the beach.

Enjoy http://youtu.be/cIF5MiE0CuE

P.S. Ireland has no subs :)

I refer you to my previous comment!

Considering that I am going to be paying for these submarines would
those with knowledge please write in a manner we ignorant landlubbers can understand.

First why are nuclear submarines unable to operate in water as shallow
diesel subs can ?
Are we confusing nuclear missile subs with non missile subs.
I guess missile subs would need more vertical height to house the missiles.

I find it hard to believe that there are not a lot cheaper ways of obtaining
intelligence than building 12 diesel subs.

I find it hard to believe that we will build 12 diesel subs just to
go on snooping expeditions in peacetime and then have one wartime
patrol each then tie them up for the duration !

Getting Virginia nuclear powered subs would be a longshot in the next few year. So we need to work with what is likely. As indicated at "Thursday, 11 December 2014 10:05:44 PM" in this thread I see Australia ultimately needing two classes of submarines:

6 x medium conventional subs (from 2025). Ideally they would be currently in-production subs (with extended range). That is:
- Soryus (Abbott's Plan A?)
- Plan B? HDW 214 (Dolphin 2 version?) or Scorpene? Their introduction from around 2023 would gradually remove the 5 working Collins from our navy.

Eventually Plan C which is 4 x Virginia nuclear powered attack subs (SSNs) from 2035, but ultimately serving as SLBM carrying "baby boomers" the main platform for Australia's nuclear weapons (talking 2040 at least). This would depend on a perceived increase in threats - most likely from China.

Combining nuclear and conventionally propelled subs in a fleet is fairly common (India, China, Russia and eventually Brazil). Nuclear and conventionally propelled subs can perform a wider range of missions more economically than just one class.

Pete