It would seem most odd to buy Japanese submarines when one (actually the remains of two) is on display at the National War Memorial as a symbol of evil. Are submarines relevant to the 21st century? The bigger question I think is the loss of skilled manufacturing if the ASC closes. SA will greatly feel the loss of Holden in 2017 then shortly after ASC's workbook dries up.

If they want to retain SA manufacturing skills I suggest building a small nuclear power station on the largely vacant site of the former Mobil refinery at Pt Stanvac. Whether or not submarines are needed is arguable but the need for low carbon energy is clear cut. The issue is not subs but retaining skilled manufacturing.

Peter, two points.
We need to be able to make things here in Australia. If the government will not support local manufactures who will, we can't all be Miners.
Two getting things built over seas doesn't stop cost over runs or design specs not being meet, you mentioned the F35 but didn't mention the cost over runs, time over runs and design spec downgrades.

Nonsense; If we were at war, we'd find that and three times as much, to upgrade our submarines etc/etc.
We had this same argument, before the last war, and were reduced to a few old secondhand subs, when all hell broke lose. What would have been our fate, if the Yanks hadn't been forced into the war?!
The only thing that prevents us building our own subs here is Ideology.
I mean, invested here, this money goes around and around, doing up to 280 billions worth of economic work in our economy, before exhausting.
And just how much tax would 280 billions create! At least twice that laid out for homemade subs, or tanks/APC's or boots! I mean, you name it!
However, if we buy our subs off the shelf to save a few dollars, some other nation will receive absolutely all the flow on benefits!
We have plenty of money!
What we don't have is an efficient tax system that actually prevents endemic avoidance, the one and only reason, we actually have a tight budget!
Yes Taswegian, we should build a thorium reactor, that then powers defense industries at inherent cost!
And with just that one change, encourage the energy dependent automation, that could easily halve the cost of building, (refueled once every 25 years nuclear powered) subs and ships here!
And indeed, create a vibrant export industry, and the scales of economy, to make them even cheaper.
You have to spend a sprat to catch a mackerel!
I mean and for heavens sake; Japan is not a cheap labor country, and trade professional salaries could be two/three times our average!
Yet they can build ships for less?
The current government, cannot see the economic forest for the economic trees!
Rhrosty.

Taswegian, Cobber, Rhrosty, that is just the sort of thinking that gets our defense force personnel killed. We, following the Poms have usually gone into a fight with out of date, poorly designed or built equipment. We have so often lost the best of our permanent defense people, before we had weapons worth fighting with.

The last consideration, when choosing defense equipment, should be jobs for the boys, in South Australia, or anywhere else. It was Labor vote buying that gave us the Collins disaster. Thank god none of our people ever had to fight in one of the things.

Ships in general, & subs in particular have to be ready to fight when put into service, not 15 years later, after so much expense & modification, they barely resemble the original. It would be nice if they could get as far as Darwin before breaking down, too.

What we should do is buy a proven sub, from a reliable supplier. It should be something recently developed, but with the teething problems solved, properly armed, & it must be nuclear.

Oh & it must not under any circumstances be built in South Australia. The place [South Australia that is], is likely to be closed down, permanently, before anything actually got built.

Continued.

Just a couple of posts away some are predicting Australia becoming petroleum free in the not too far future. Now I agree with those who believe no company should be allowed to sell imported bulk fuel in Oz, without refining at least 80% of it here in Australia, but that is unlikely.

They worry overseas refiners will stop supplying us as fuel becomes short of supplies. How much more are we likely to experience a lack of supply in war time.

Why would we build ships that are likely to be difficult to supply with fuel when we could have ships with greater operational capacity, fueled by long lasting, & easily stored fuel.

As usual, we are going to set ourselves up to fight the last war. Even worse, we are likely to build our out of date equipment in South Australia, who have proved they can't even build a car, economically, & who's ship building is bloody awful.

Unlike past wars, future wars are likely to be quickly divisive. We won't have time to build a citizens force, & arm it adequately, while sacrificing our professional force, with antiquated equipment to buy that time.

If we are going to have subs, & I'm not sure that is a great idea, they must at least be the real thing, not a bunch of rubber ducks to play with in the bath.

Hi Hasbeen

You speak a lot of sense.

It is true that whatever submarine Australia selects is must have sufficient missile capacity to make a difference in what might be very quick actions in a war.

THYSSENKRUPP

In terms of risk the 4,000 ton ThyssenKrupp 216 (aka HDW 216) does involve some risk because it is as yet an undeveloped design. There is a risk it might become an "orphan" Australian only purchase. So the 216 may not be the best pick in the ThyssenKrupp series.

However there are lower risk choices. The ThyssenKrupp 214 is a proven design that has been bought be several countries.

The 214 is truly Military off the Shelf (MOTS) but its 2,000 ton design involves trade-offs that make it inadequate, including:

- short range limits,

- limited endurance for Australia to operate right into the South China Sea,

- inadequate warload (usually measured in torpedo shots)

- but also significantly lacking in (quick war) vertical launch cruise missile capability.

Singapore, the most experienced and innovative submarine user in Southeast Asia, has purchased 2 HDW 218SGs, possibly a 3,000 ton design that may have the requirements Australia needs.

Australia is probably looking at the 218SG as it is built in Germany. Australia can also ask Singapore what 218SG characteristics Singapore has set down.

Australia can therefore leverage the experience of the Singaporean customer and Germany (the actual 218 builderr) to reduce Australia's risk if Australia wants to buy what would be an HDW 218AU.
--

DCNS SCORPENE + POSSIBLY NUCLEARR

If Australia, alternatively goes the DCNS route it can talk to Brazil which is building 4 Scorpenes near Rio under French supervision. Significantly Brazil will later be integrating a Brazilian developed submarine NUCLEAR REACTOR into an enlarged Scorpene 5,000 ton hull.

Australia could therefore leverage the experience of Brazil and France in not only building good conventional subs but also (if thought necessary) developing a nuclear propelled submarine

All better than Australia trying to build a high risk Australian-third country-Japanese-US submarine solution

Regards

Peter Coates