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!

Simon Cowan,

Thank you for this excellent and informative post. I agree with you. Nuclear powered submarines seem to me to make sense for Australia. Here are muy reasons – mostly the same as yours.

Firstly. I understand the US Virgina Class submarines never need refuelling (in fact they can’t be refuelled). They run for a life time (33 years) on their initial fuel load. . They cost $2 billion each. Cheaper than the Australian ‘Son of Collins’ idea that many people advocate.

They could be maintained by the US if we allowed the US to have a submarine base in Australia.

Importantly, it seems to me to be nuts to embark on another program with diesel powered subs. The Australian, Son of Collins would be entering the water from about 2030 and the 12th would be expected to last until about 2070 to 2080. What potential enemy would still be operating diesel subs by then?

Diesel subs be next to useless compared with any threat by the time they begin service. They have to keep coming to the surface to get refuelled – and be easily detected from space and sunk by the enemy.

Australian diesels have to keep getting towed back to base to get repaired. What a joke.

As an ex-SA person I believe that State has come to expect favours from Canberra. In the case of River Murray water upstream users (where the rain actually falls) have to cut back so SA people can enjoy their paddle steamers and pelicans. Holden has to be subsidised indefinitely and new whizzbang defence projects have to be dreamt up to keep contractors like ASC in work.

However what SA does have is an ordinate fraction of the world's easily mined uranium. They should exploit that to the max if necessary by re-purposing the ASC to work on reactors, most likely part-assembled. The skill base is waiting to be used. If successful the ASC could apply their expertise to the whole of Australia. The figure of $36bn (same as the NBN) has been bandied about for the Collins replacement which is way more than enough to kick start the ASC in a new direction. Forget subs for a few years.

Submarines are a vital element in Australia's defence, far more important than jets (increasingly redundant due to drones), surface ships and soldiers. If we spend money on nothing else, we should have an effective submarine deterrent.

It is criminal that our Collins class subs are so ineffective. This proposal to lease nuclear subs from the US, provided it is true that the US would agree to lease them, offers a legitimate, cost-effective solution

Taswegian,

I wouldn't let ASC near managing anything, let alone nuclear power plants. Would we want our first nuclear power plants to run over budget and schedule like the ships they try to build. or to have the reliability of the Collins class Subs. ASC knows nothing about building civil nuclear power plants. They can't even build the things they were set up to do.

ASC is an ex government organisation. The government culture is deeply entrenched. That cannot be changed. Give them a diminishing role in future subs and leave it at that. When we do get to build nuclear power plants they need to be project managed by the best organisation we can get - and that should be determined from public tender open to the world.

Just in case some don't remember, the Collins class sub was another of those brilliant Labor decisions. To build more diesel subs would be another bad joke.

It really is time to admit that the South Australian experiment, that of trying to live there, was a failure, & shut the whole shebang down.

If we were to stop wasting money & water on South Oz, & money on Tasmania, the rest of the country could be quite prosperous.

Perhaps as Tasy is an island we could excise it from Oz propper, & use it as a camp for boat people. The existing population could be warders, just as they were when the place was first settled.

If we want to run any subs successfully, we have to move them to NSW, or Qld. Subs are a volunteer arm of the navy, & they will never get enough crew, of suitable quality to move to Perth.

Just like Darwin, the blokes might not mind, but their ladies won't have it. It's too expensive, & too far from mum.

The defense force sent my youngest daughters bloke to Darwin. In the 12 months they have been there, he has been off doing courses & such for 7 months. Young ladies do not like living alone, particularly in places like Darwin.

He has the choice of resigning, getting a posting now, rather than when this one finishes, or become a bachelor. After spending hundreds of thousands of our money, training this bloke, they will probably loose him.

I see no value in preparing endlessly for types of wars which probably won't happen - eg wars where a handfull of conventional Aussie subs can conceivably make a difference.

If Australia has a spare $40B or so, which I doubt, then why are submarines even on the list, let alone at the top of it?

Last Saturday, the Foreign Minister announced a $100M program to assist our near neighbours to eliminate malaria. This is one quarter of one percent of the envisaged $40B.

Imagine what could be achieved to foster good will and peace amongst our near neighbours over time with, say, one tenth of our current military budget. Against this, consider that these subs are actually intended to be used against our near neighbours... being diesel powered, they could never project force much beyond the third line of breakers at Manly, for they will run out of fuel and supplies. So, our neighbours must be the targets. Is Australia's mooted Asian language program going to be the language of attack submarines and warfare?

Imagine the lasting value that could be obtained from improvements to education and democracy in PNG, Timor Leste, Vanuatu, the Solomons, Fiji... and for much less than any imagined $40B folly with submersible targets.

By the way, lest there is confusion. I certainly do not advocate handouts or cargo cult approaches. I have in mind skill transfer and targetted financial support. The malaria program is an excellent example. Eradication on our doorstep will go a long way towards preventing its spread southwards through the Top End. Projects such as these will last far longer and bring greaster harmony and peace than any bunch of sub's couple of decades.

Further to Peter Lang's comment re ASC.

Not only would I not let ASC near another pot of gold, the same can be said of Defence Procurement, or whatever the organisation's current name is.

Under the current management, there is no guarantee that a foreign supplier will deliver the promised outcomes at the promised prices. For example, consider recent experience of blowouts in costs and delivery time for military aircraft, along with inferior capability.

Conventional military approaches to world stability are deeply flawed. Where are the successes? What were the costs? It's time to divert a significant fraction of Australia's and the world's military budgets to alternative pathways to peace, to focus less on the stick and to try something different.

Summarised to one phrase, when it comes to diesel subs "Just say no".

I repeat:all of this debate about the relative merits of diesel and nuclear submarines is totally irrelevant. In at least one basic performance, the "failed" Collins is far superior to the most advanced US nuclear sub- stealth. Diesel subs are able to get much closer to China without detection, and will be built as Australia's contribution to America's containment of China policy. It is merely an extension of marines in Darwin; and this is the reality of relations with Asia, not the idiot White Paper. Leslie

I see little merit in the article.
Self sufficiency, is never ever important, unless or until you actually need it, during a hostile war.
Besides, we now have some expensively acquired home grown expertise, we would simply throw away or send elsewhere, if we bought stuff off the shelf, to save say, two or three million dollars.
Better we fix the structural deficit in our inordinately complex two tiered tax system, rather than reduce defence spending or funding for all or any associated R+D!
And yes, the next generation of submarines will need to be nuclear powered!
Small inherently safe pebble reactors can be built in factories and trucked wherever they are needed, be it a shipyard or a defence base, where independent power supply is critical; but never more so, than under hostile attack!
During and since the second world war, our Subs served us as DEFENSIVE weapons, and intell gathering platforms.
We have invented almost undetectable, small acrylic subs, that literally fly through the water.
Our subs, could carry small fleets of these, remotely controlled, rechargeable Mini-subs?
Which could be tasked amongst a host of multi tasks, with simply coming, undetected, in behind Hostile shipping?
Disabling them with a few well placed, rocket propelled projectiles, that put paid to propellers.
Unable to manoeuvre, said shipping would have few choices, other than capitulation?
Less complex, solid fuel rockets perform surprisingly well under water, and at greater speed than torpedoes, giving shipping less time to take evasive action!
Miniature unmanned subs could also surface to draw sacrificial fire away from an escaping, multi million dollar mother ship!
Miniatures could undertake, shallow water resupply of reconnaissance missions etc; and act as another dozen or more protective or intell gathering eyes and ears, for a larger submarine?
Which would then only ever need to surface in relative safety, when in port?
Of course we need to build and resupply our own nuclear powered subs here.
They are primarily weapons of war, and would be virtually useless, and very costly white elephants, if we couldn't repair, replenish and resupply them right here!
Rhrosty.

You're from South Australia, Rhrosty?

I have been following a debate for the last year or so on this topic between several people who are in US/ Australian/European defense industry i.e. actually know what they are talking about (no offense OLO posters). This specific paper was debated when it originally came out and debunked for inaccuracies on both capabilities and costs. I admit I am no expert on the subject so I will leave it to you to decide, but I should at least point to the major flaws of the arguments presented in both this "advertorial" and the comments above. I will note that I have no preference of any format, rather I just wish evidence and common sense to prevail over politics and ideology.

First, while it is well publicized that the Collins class has had (and continues to have) technical problems, it is actually regarded as one of the stealthiest and potent submarines in the world. This is a fact backed by experts in the field and evidence in "war games" with our boats sinking US carriers on more than one occasion. It is political decisions cutting funding for maintenance that should be criticized. As for the usefulness of submarines as part of a defense of Australia, how do you think any potential force would invade our country? Any strategy would require several carriers to overwhelm our air force, as well as a major sea resupply network. Obviously submarines are the most important component of our defense force.

Second, we do have major problems with the current defense procurement processes, as well as maintenance of crew for the boats (note Virginia class requires many more hands than proposed subs), these all are problems of management of the subs (government) and not of the subs themselves. I completely agree that Australian designed and built subs will be more expensive and involve much more (political) waste than renting (from another wasteful government), however on the national security front, these are the most important assets we own. We should be annoyed that the first generation Collins class had problems, But that means we should demand that the second generation is an improvement! Don't just give up at the first hurdle. It almost makes me ashamed that some Australians have so little faith in our ability to engineer and innovate. Many other countries have gone through this and persevered to succeed.

Third, the author does not discuss other options. On this topic I completely rely on the advice of several Australians I know working in the US sub systems field. It seems like the favored direction is towards a joint development of a conventional large sub with the Japanese, who have very similar requirements as ourselves. Here is a link discussing some of the pros and cons of this approach: http://www.asiapacificdefencereporter.com/articles/270/JAPANESE-FLAVOURED-SUBMARINES-FOR-SEA-1000

The way some other counties develop these major assets makes our method seem quite inefficient. While Australia will build say, 6 submarines over a 10-15 year period, followed by a period of time of (in)decision regarding a replacement, many other countries will have a continuous development line, with sub building spaced out over a longer period of time, but including upgrades/improvements as required. This has the advantage of allowing technical issues to be addressed in future subs, and also avoids the stop/start problems with the local sub building industry, where significant expertise is lost between build periods.

I admit that I am not an expert in the field, however I am happy to debate any strategy that can contribute to the defense of our country. I really believe that self-reliance in defense is needed, even with the extra costs associated with allowing politicians near it. I see our politicians as the lesser of two evils compared to foreign politicians or private companies (same thing?). The author uses the word facts in his title, but seems to only use the ones that support his agenda. I have no agenda and only wish to discuss the facts of this debate to achieve the best outcomes for Australia.

Robert LePage wrote:

>>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.>>

Australia relies heavily on seaborn trade and has long supply lines. It needs the ability to defend those sea lanes. Submarines are the best option.

I agree that "Son of Collins" is the worst possible option.

I also agree that by 2030 diesel submarines will be too vulnerable.

Acquiring nuclear submarines from the US is probably the best option.

At the same time I think Australia should ditch the F35. Drones will make it obsolete by 2030 at the very latest.

Stezza wrote:

>>I really believe that self-reliance in defense is needed,…>>

I don’t think that is even remotely feasible in Australia's case.

However I do think Australia should be investing in the technology that will enable it to build nuclear weaponry as a backstop.

">>I really believe that self-reliance in defense is needed,…>>

I don’t think that is even remotely feasible in Australia's case.

However I do think Australia should be investing in the technology that will enable it to build nuclear weaponry as a backstop."

Well that would be the ultimate self-reliance wouldnt it? I agree with your general predictions, but not sure about the timelines, what do you propose would make either the subs or f35 obsolete? With 2030 not far away in military terms competitive technologies would be at least the planning stage. Also don't forget that for nuclear weaponry requires delivery mechanisms that will suffer from the same risks of becoming obsolete.

Drone submarines seem like the ideal choice.

mac wrote:

>>Drone submarines seem like the ideal choice.>>

Unmanned autonomous submarines are under development

See:

New Unmanned Baby Submarine To Protect Coastal Waters

http://www.defencetalk.com/unmanned-baby-submarine-protect-coastal-waters-20359/

So are unmanned gunboats

See:

U.S. 'mulls buying Israeli robot gunboats'

http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2012/10/29/US-mulls-buying-Israeli-robot-gunboats/UPI-39311351527487/

At the rate we're progressing, soon there'll be no need for humans.

That should make the Greens happy.

Unless we stop this war mongering insanity,forget about the future.The Oligarchs are playing their war games and we just fall in line.

First of all manufacture your enemy, or even better pick a fight with some underpowered country then bomb the life out of its populace just to show the world that you are indeed the chosen country. Australia is not really a prime mover in this world game but to hedge our bets we join with America who in the last 235 years have made an art form of bludgeoning countries into submission through trade sanctions, subversion and military murder.

Is Australia hell-bent on classing other countries as future enemies or are we happy to be told who they are going to be.

We are now locked into trade agreements and friendly co-operation with the Asian bloc countries including China.

So who is it that we want as enemies or indeed who wants us as an enemy. Seems a bit too simplistic doesn't it, and it is, because we do not maintain a truly independent foreign policy. We are predominantly an extension of American foreign policy; we hang on to the apron strings of corporate America and their military industrial complex. The American government is merely the conduit by which the Australian politic is advised which pawn and when to move it.

Consider the fact of Pine Gap, which is reported to be the most powerful and comprehensive surveillance facility outside of America, a facility which was used in support of American warmongering in Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, and currently Pakistan, Iraq and Iran. Refer: “Killing Hope” William Blum.

We do not need military submarines of any sort. If the security of the American military bases in Australia is ever challenged make no mistake, they would blockade Australia in defence of these facilities.

We should work very hard at being an indispensible part of the Asian bloc and if ever possible tell America to pack up its war toys and go home. The best hope for the world is for a balance of power sharing between Asia, Europe and America; otherwise the world will continue to be bludgeoned by the failed state of America and its huge nuclear and military superiority.
Den71

stevenmeyer,

Very interesting.

The problem for our strategic planners is whether to delay replacing the Collins class until drone technology is available.

I have to say that the prospect of autonomous drone subs is rather scary.
.

Diesel powered submarines are to naval warfare what propeller powered aircraft are to air warfare. Spending $40bn on submarines that will be obsolete when they hit the water is madness when nuclear subs can be obtained for half the cost.

As for buying subs, they are a very effective deterrent against invasion, and if the government is in anyway serious about the defense of the realm, then this cannot be put off any further.

However, with Labor being beholden to the greens, we will probably get solar powered subs that are no threat to anyone.

Stezza,

I agree with most of your comments, it's probable that the "Great Australian Cultural Cringe" is operating and the Collins class subs are not the disaster that's usually claimed by commentators, however, without technical expertise it's impossible to evaluate the arguments presented. Apparently it's been forgotten---the Americans suffered a series of spectacular failures in the early stages of the Space Race with the Soviet Union, in the same situation Australians would probably have given up.

Australia was a pioneer in space technology until our politicians (mostly lawyers) decided that the whole effort was a waste of time.

We should be as self reliant as technically possible, during the early days of WW2, with no significant defence industries Australia depended on foreign suppliers and our "Great and Powerful Friend" the UK had other priorities, we were very lucky that the Americans made the strategic decision to base their armed forces here. Many of the comments on this subject seem more concerned with the technical aspect of defence than the strategic and political decisions our "allies' might make to refuse supply of materiel, or place Australia at the bottom of their list of priorities. It's happened before.

Why cant Shadow Minister and others grasp the simple basic fact that the Collins diesel sub is as Stezza points out " one of the stealthest and potent ,,, in the world". As it can get close to China undetected, it will be a subservient Australia's contribution to America's containment of China policy. Leslie

Leslie true the Collins is stealthy, but it doesn't need much stealth to get from Perth to Broom, about the extreme extent of it's cruising range, between major maintenance efforts involving a dock yard.

Mac, we used to have long drawn out wars, but it is unlikely we will have another major war like that. ICBMs fly too quickly for that. The best way to loose any war is to be fighting with the last one's equipment & attitudes.

In any future major war, it will be all over quicker than you could draw up the plans for a sub, let alone build one. No the next war, [if one occurs], will go to the party best equipped to fight it today, not next week, or in our case next decade.

With Labors ripping of 4.5 Billion out of the defense budget, we will be a sitting duck for damn near anyone, if the US don't find us valuable enough to defend.

We have now discarded the only weapon we had capable of projecting power any distance, the F111s, & hope a bunch of last century subs will do anything.

Perhaps we could buy a fleet of ocean going tugs, to tow our subs from the end of the earth in Perth to where they may be needed. They sure can't get there themselves.

Stezza and Leslie,

The Collins class submarine is one of the stealthiest and potent non nuclear submarines. However, the very nature of non nuclear power subs that require diesel generation is that the majority of the distance they travel is at best partially submerged as the diesels need air. Nearer the target they can submerge and travel on batteries. While partially submerged they are not nearly as stealthy as nuclear powered subs, that can travel for months below the thermocline which makes them almost completely undetectable. The storage of the batteries and diesel limits the range and payload of the subs.

Secondly once submerged, the speed and range of the subs is severely limited by the capacity of the batteries, and the ability to escape after an attack is limited. Whereas nuclear subs can travel far faster than surface vessels at greater depths.

Size for size, dollar for dollar the nuclear submarines have capabilities far beyond the diesel subs.

Well we need to decide what sort of submarine (and how many) based on the capabilities we require, rather than just looking at the stats (cost, speed, range). Do we really need to travel across the other side of the world, launch ballistic missiles and then escape rapidly? For a nuclear armed power like the US the answer would be yes. For Australia, I'm not so sure. I think the capabilities we require are more in line with intelligence gathering and posing a threat to a potential invasion force near our shores and their supply lines. In this situation range and speed are less important, and stealth is key. A disadvantage of nuclear power is the requirement for cooling pumps to be active at all times. Unlike diesel engines which can be shut off when needed. That said I have no problem having a mixed fleet, if the extra costs and numbers can be justified by capability need. However we need to start at the capability question.

The Centre for Independent Studies report released today says Virginia-class nuclear attack submarines would be bigger than any conventional submarine Australia could buy or build, so they could carry more weapons and equipment, travel much faster, and cover immense distances without needing to be refuelled.

Report author Simon Cowan, a research fellow at the centre, says in the report that the government's promised Future Submarine Project is a risky proposition. "The government is ignoring submarines that offer better value for money," he says.

"Australia needs world-class submarines and the US Virginia-class looks like the best option.

"Nuclear-powered submarines are superior in almost every way to diesel-powered submarines -- they can travel further, faster and stay deployed for longer, and they have more powerful weapons, systems and sensors."

Mr Cowan notes that the safety record of the US Virginia-class subs is flawless. "These subs don't carry nuclear weapons and never need refuelling and if Australia leases them from the US, the US could dispose of spent nuclear material," he says.

"While establishing an Australian nuclear program would have its challenges, leasing eight Virginia-class submarines is a capable, reliable and safe option for our naval servicemen and women.

"Australia could also save more than $10 billion by leasing eight Virginia-class submarines and up to $750 million a year on operational and maintenance costs as well."

Of course it would be cheaper still to buy Scorpene class subs directly from France. Making them here simply costs a fortune.

I can only repeat that the Australian Government will make its decision according to the global strategic requirement of America, specifically its containment of China policy, to which Australia is committed ( marines in Darwin etc). And all the evidence points to the Collins because of its superior stealth role.Leslie

As I proposed in my first posting,this debate on the relative merits of the Collins and nuclear subs is irrelevant, as the decision will be made according to the dictates of the American Alliance which will require Australia to contribute to the containment of China. Forget the exaggerated nonsense about its deficiencies; the US Brass know better; they have been studing it carefully in joint exercises.Leslie

Leslie,

I am interested to know how the slow surface bound diesel subs would be useful in containing China's ambitions in the south china sea?

Similarly Australia's vast coast line and needs fast subs, and the new Virginia class compete very effectively with the Collins class subs with respect to stealth.

Shadow minister,

I am interested to know what you think Australia needs submarines for? What capabilities do we need?

You are incorrect about the Virginia competing with the Collins class In regards to stealth. You will find that any nuclear powered sub, which requires cooling pumps running at ALL times will be much noisier than a conventional on batteries.

I agree that nuclear has advantages over conventional, such as speed, power and range, but if these attributes are not required for our doctrine, what is the point? You will have to convince me of the strategy befor you can sell me on these boats.

Shadow Minister
Disregard the sensational press reports about the Collins. Its performance remains classified, but is known to the US strategic planners. Because of its superior stealth it can come close to China undetected, and will be employed in that role in the Containment of China.Leslie

Leslie and Stezza,

The work on silencing the Nuclear subs has included using natural convection cooling and low noise pumps almost to the point that at low speed the greatest sources of noise are the personnel. Once the subs move much faster than 4 knots the noise from friction of the water on the surface eclipses everything else.

Stealth covers more than just the absolute measurement of the motionless submerged vessel in the latter part of WWII the greatest sub killers were the aircraft that caught the subs on the surface. The ability to move quickly with no projecting snorkel to breath is a huge advantage.

Submarines are offensive weapons designed to attack some distance off shore. Diesels are useful for coastal defence, but using them for large areas or extended ranges from dock beyond the 25000 km of Australian shore line to the China sea is wildly optimistic.

The reason the US and British fleets contain only nuclear subs is the need to project force long distance.

The morons argue about which Submarine is better while their Govts make them slaves to the banking,military industrial,complex.

China,Russia,Syria and Iran are not our enemies.Psychopathic ,power hungry,war mongering lunatics have always been the enemy of all humanity.Nothing has changed in the last 5000 yrs.

Shadow Minister
Thanks for the rational debate which is not the norm in these open forums.
Arjay: however sincere, your emotional outburst does not help expose the "war mongers". If you had followed the exchanges, you would have seen that a couple of us "morons" have tried to cut through the propaganda and provide evidence to warn about the Containment of China. Leslie

Leslie,

The reading this thread has encouraged me to do has enlightened me to the role that diesel powered subs have. Comparing diesel and nuclear is like comparing destroyers and aircraft carriers. Both have differing roles and capabilities.

Diesel subs are typically much smaller, about 1/6th of the cost and very effective in protecting specific assets where they can ambush targets. Whilst Nukes are faster and carry a much higher range of weapons and can be used to seek out and destroy targets and flee faster than any surface bound ship.

The question is then: Why on earth are we going to build these diesel subs ourselves when we can buy them at a fraction of the cost. If we can lease Nukes of the advanced Virginia class cheaper than building the diesels then there is something very wrong.

Yes SM something is very wrong, when we can't build a little sub for the price of a large one. It is the same problem that makes all our construction costs double that of the US. It even adds to the crazy price of our housing.

Mostly it's Oz unions, but the hand out mentality that has become standard in South Oz had something to do with it.

I was having tourist boats, & other large equipment built by NQEA in Cairns, when they won the contract to build patrol boats for the navy.

They had to increase their work force, & that involved importing some heavily unionised labor from our deep south.

These unionists then forced all sorts of crazy conditions on the company, with union management inspired strikes. Penalty clauses in the contract forced the company to give in to effective blackmail.

Old hands that came to do warranty work would complain about all the strikes. They reckoned it would cost them thousands in lost wages, during a strike, for a $5 a week pay rise.

Some conditions such as the 9 day fortnight made it impossible for us to do business with the company. It just took too long to get an answer from them on anything. We did not have the luxury of waiting 4 or 5 days for a day when all the different experts were actually at work.

Continued

When the contract was finished the company announced the withdrawal of all the crazy new conditions, They had to, or go out of business. The inefficiencies were just too great for a business to survive in the north Queensland environment.

The ensuing strike & picket line lasted weeks, but slowly the deep south infection bleed away, & sanity, with the local work force returned.

From our point of view multi tasking returned. One expert would be sent to sort out any problem, rather than the 5 or 6 we would get during the union control period. The people we got were much happier too.

The company had learnt their lesson. No more defence contracts were sort. One experience of how business is done in the deep south was enough for them.