I agree and disagree. It would be folly to build another batch of unreliable diesel submarines. Like car subsidies it represents a makework activity for Adelaide. If Australia can get by for a decade without a working submarine fleet I suggest another approach. Use the ASC to project manage some stationary nuclear build and see how they go.

Rather than an engineering firm spend years building a large monolithic nuclear reactor the ASC could install prefabricated small modular reactors. The components would arrive by ship and then assembled on a chosen site. The fuel rods would be already be made up. Alternatively Australia could consider building a CANDU 6 kind of reactor using only lightly enriched uranium. Again the ASC could be involved since the lower internal pressures in such a reactor would be comparable to those in a submarine.

This line of work would keep the apprentices and engineers fully engaged and by creating reliable low carbon electricity would produce an immediate public benefit, a feature lacking in another submarine project. A decade later then review whether we still need subs.

Whilst I will be the first to admit that I am not a naval strategist, I must ask why does Australia need a fleet or indeed any submarines at all?
They are a weapon of offence and unless we are contemplating invading any more countries, would seem to be a completely unnecessary addition to the navy.
The money would be better spent on perhaps anti submarine ships and aircraft to protect out supply lines in the event of an all out war. These could also be used in time of peace, as search and rescue and border protection assets.
A similar mistake was made when we purchased a fleet of F111 aircraft, which were basically nuclear bombers and we had no nuclear bombs to use with them only "iron" bombs.
Again the money would have been better spent on a fleet of Harriers, which could have operated from any road in the North as a ground attack aircraft and did not need sophisticated bases.
They proved their worth of course in the Falklands.

Cowan's arguments are totally irrelevant. Australia will get diesel submarines as required by the American containment of China policy. Leslie

This advertorial was brought to you by......

I agree with Simon Cowan (5 November 2012) that any Australian-designed Future Submarine runs the risk of having reliability problems similar to the Collins Class. However, there are proven conventional submarines available from NATO countries. These are are compatible with Australian and US military systems.

A good option would be Navantia's S-80 Class submarine, not because it is necessarily better than those of other European makers, but because Australia is already buying ships from the same company, making negotiations and after sales service easier. At the same time Australia should buy ships to resupply the submarines in friendly ports, to extend their patrol range.

What Australia should not do, as was done with the Collins Class, is take a proven design, stretch it, add systems from other navies and try and make a super conventional submarine. Instead Australia should buy a submarine with a minimum of modifications and accept it will not have the range of a nuclear submarine. Also at least the first few should be made overseas, in a shipyard which has a proven record of building submarines. http://blog.tomw.net.au/search/label/submarine

Australia is not known as the world's premier submarine manufacturer! In fact, it is known as the world's worst submarine manufacturer.

Australia buys its aircraft from overseas so why not its submarines? The Yanks probably have a few WW2 submarines laying around somewhere that they might let us have for a few billions dollars (each).

It's time Australia declared itself to be a 'neutral' country and stopped trying to emulate the big spending nations many of which use borrowed money to 'float their boats' (who could I be thinking of, I wonder?).

Time to grow up, Australia, and accept reality!