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

While purchasing a sub' overseas makes sense from a bean-counters point of view it is precisely THAT view that has reduced our national ability to a shadow of what it once was.
The Collins program only fell down due to poor management and too many bean-counters sticking their oars in at every level.
If we take a hard look at this nation and decide to act in our own best interests we will build ALL our defense needs here, being self-sufficient is a PRIME need in a war situation, especially considering our geographical isolation.
The flow-on effects of self-sufficiency would soak up a large % of our unemployed and generate many support industries and jobs, and increase the amount of wealth available too the general population, rather than the present situation where the majority of it is in the hands of the elite few.
Set up efficient management programs, monitor them for quality and shake out the non-performers or incompetents at every stage, use Australian companies and personnel at every step, and help grow what we lack, in the end the benefits will stay HERE, and we will be far more secure in the long run, and a far more happy and successful nation in the process.
Things like the Snowy Scheme etc would never have been built if the bean-counters had had their way, it takes vision and determination, and a strong desire to advance AUSTRALIA to achieve such things, and those all appear to be seriously lacking in our current crop of politicians and business leaders.

We can't even get and retain enough trades people in DMO to keep the weapons maintained, they simply leave because of crap pay, crappy management and bullying within the organisation of epic proportions. The security at GI is a farce and add to the mix, the RAN not having enough trained submariners to man the boats to do patrols. Yes buy more boats, build them here for sure, but they'll be nothing but dockside ornaments on both the east and west coasts, for foreign surveillance satellites to photograph.

And those are precisely the problems we need to solve, rather than throwing our hands in the air and tasking the cheap option, and betraying our own interests in the process

Building nuclear powered subs sounds like practical common sense to me, as does building them here.
If we lack expertise, then we should import that!
The biggest risk to those we have to send into harms way, is lack of supply, or an ability to resupply!
We lead the world in small sub manufacture, and that same jet powered sub, all but flies through the water, utilizing a steam venturi system!
Our own future subs, should be sort of "underwater aircraft" carriers, carrying a veritable fleet of small subs, which could be carried forward and resupplied from mother.
We should focus on what we do well or, in many cases, the best!
And for my money, a vehicle that can outrun any torpedo, and then reply with much faster underwater capable, directed rockets and painted targets, would be my first choice.
It's hard to detect an underwater vessel, particularly one running silent and resting on the bottom, with only anomaly technology able to perhaps find it.
Even so, given the miniatures are made from acrylics rather than metal, and are propelled by a venturi system, rather than props, invisible to even that level of discrimination or electronic sensing!
Forward thinkers envisaged that future Maritime conflicts would be fought by carrier groups, rather than huge battleships, which was proven with the attack on Pearl, and then when America fought back!
We could do worse than use the same forward thinking, but apply it to all future underwater conflict.
The one difference, our new generation miniature stealth subs, wouldn't be flying blind; but would have the advantage of eyeballs, night vision and lasers, to locate and light up any and virtually all targets and or, danger!
And a sub with its props blown away, and therefore disabled unable to maneuver, is unable to participate in its own defense or submerge, let alone, any future conflict?
And if a one ton submersible, manned by just two men, can take out/disable a 4,000 ton one manned by dozens, and live to fight another day, then that's they way we should go!
Rhrosty.

"G'dayBruce"

Your argument "we will build ALL our defense needs here" shows an ignorance and simplicity that is touching. Only the US, Russia and perhaps France "build ALL [their] defense needs". Even Germany and China are not self sufficient.

How about Australia designs, develops and builds its own jet fighters, "spy" satellites and Global Hawk level UAVs? Not in the real would of capacity and risk.

Your comments "The Collins program only fell down due to poor management and too many bean-counters" is also simplistic.

For the Collins Sweden proved that it did not have the design capacity and experience to help build a large, non-Baltic, submarine. Sweden and ASC did not adequately identify the RAN need for a propulsion system that could transit 3,000km and then travel 3,000more km to reach operational areas. Sweden's experience of building subs that were ideal for short range, short drive, Baltic use ill-fitted Australia's needs. The Indian and Pacific Oceans also involved much saltier water for the engines (also a fuel tank ballast issue) than the Baltic.

The combat system consortium Australia INITIALLY chose for the Collins' also involved some overly inexperienced companies and a failed re-invention of a combat system.
--

Hi Albie Manton in Darwin

Yes DMO and also ASC need to demonstrate by a multi-year track-record rather than words that they are capable of efficiently being involved in a future submarine process.
--

Hi Rhrosty

Your visions may be too futuristic although there are niches for small unmanned underwater vehicles (UUVs) to support full sized submarine operations.

To perhaps build submarines in Australia risk reduction is important. That involves utilising the assistance and designs of the most experienced submarine builders, exporters and submarine project managers - which happen to be ThyssenKrupp and DCNS. Which are not Navantia, Japan's Soryu builders, Sweden's new entrant Saab or UK or US Nuclear Only submarine builders.

The alternative of buying 4 to 6 Virginia class nuclear submarines involves foresight beyond an Australian government...

Regards

Pete

Gee Planta's, are our needs as huge as those nations you refer to?
Hardly.
There's no defensible reason why Australia can't begin and grow a defense industry, all it would take is leadership and investment, government at first but once begun the private sector would rapidly join in, that's been shown every time any government starts a major project anywhere.
You appear to be just another bean-counter, counting beans and playing it safe, always wanting a guaranteed return blah blah blah, exactly the attitude that has lost us our manufacturing capability in the first place.
What we need is investment in the FUTURE, not in bank accounts for rich investors, in our NATION, our PEOPLE, not the balance sheets of the already bloated banks.
As for your description of the Collins program problems, all of that can be boiled down to one sentence, which has a familiar ring to it...
"The Collins program only fell down due to poor management and too many bean-counters sticking their oars in at every level".
Capacity? Yeah, we lost that, thanks to you bean-counters, but that doesn't mean it can't be rebuilt, does it?
Risk? See, more bean-counting, not looking forward to what can be achieved and what the social and economic benefits of that would be, just wanting a "safe" return on your precious beans.
No vision cobber, a common failing arising from peering endlessly at piles of beans.

It probably doesn't matter much what we buy/build, they will not operate successfully for long. The billion a year Gillard/Swan ripped out of the defense budget has not been replaced.

Our engineers running some of our small ships can not get the budget to buy the oil to change their oil in their engines at the proscribed time. Ships are becoming inoperable due to lack of maintenance. Some maintenance is 12 & 15 month overdue, & it is going to get worse.

Stokers, the engineers that run the ships are resigning at an increasing rate due to frustration.

With the subs we do have, even if we could find the crew to fight the ships, we can't find the engineers to make more than a couple go at any one time.

The idea of a dozen, or even half a dozen serviceable subs is nothing but a pipe dream, we will never achieve.

SORYU EXPORT MATTERS

Matters that probably need to be raised about the Soryu (or perhaps Japan's post 2030 follow-on submarine design) include:

Does, or will, the Japanese submarine have the capabilities Australia may well want, including:

- Lithium-ion batteries - for longer fully submerged range and slightly higher fully submerged speed.

- a vertical multi-purpose lock (VMPL) for increased flexibility in deploying divers, UUVs and extra Tomahawks for quick launch.

Regarding the Soryu's propulsion-drivetrain, issues include:

- if Kawasaki Heavy Industries merely holds a licence for the Stirling engine AIP (owned by Sweden's FMV and Saab?) could Japan export Stirlings to Australia?

- if the Japanese Soryu builders only part own the rights to the Kawasaki diesel generators, is permission from the German designers (MAN or MTU?) required to release the "Soryu" generator to Australia?

- any multi-country licensing of the 5.9 MW Fuji Electrics main motor driving a (German designed?) seven bladed propeller is another unknown.

Pete
see http://gentleseas.blogspot.com.au/2014/06/increasing-australian-interest-in.html

G'dayBruce, trying to do that got a hell of a lot of our airman killed in WW11.

We killed dozens just by not supplying beaufighters with contra rotating engines. You can't get much more careless or incompetent than that.

We built Collins so noisy anyone within a hundred miles or so could hear them coming. Perhaps we thought that would frighten them away.

When I was doing my flying training it was a standing joke that we numbered out Winjeels from 400. We reckoned it was to frighten the Russians that we had lots of the things.

We could I suppose hide those Collins, & make any enemy think they were out at sea waiting for them. Na, wouldn't work. When they did not turn up broken down in Broom, for a 2 month refit, they would know they hadn't gone to sea.

Thank god my son has put in his resignation.

Hi Hasbeen

Thanks for sharing:

"When they did not turn up broken down in Broome, for a 2 month refit, they would know they hadn't gone to sea."

As I have no contact with submariners (and don't seek it - due to overt only) I frequently wonder if I have a decent picture of Australian submarine operations. The experience in Broome confirms that hunches may be true.

I've also looked at the history of US subs operating out of Fremantle in WWII. Some operated from Frremantle, with one refueling in Exmouth, as far as the Sea of Japan - a pointer to the capabilities of today's subs.

Regards

Pete

Now and then former US submariners provide some convincing arguments in favour of buying US SSNs.

On 20 April 2012 (in response to one of my posts) a former US nuclear submarine officer provided interesting comments on Australia's Future Submarine acquisition choices. Specifically he commented on the many drawbacks of diesel-electric propulsion given Australia's long-distance geostrategic situation.

The information in his advice (see http://gentleseas.blogspot.com.au/2012/04/former-us-nuke-submarine-officer_1.html ) is all Open Source. I've seen it elsewhere on the internet in fragments. But I've never seen such consolidated comments with such a good feel for the subject. Below are his comments:

"I think it's very desirable that Australia invest in nuclear submarines - if not US, then French or British.

Diesel boats are quiet when running on their batteries or on their AIP systems (air-independent propulsion such as fuel cells). Unfortunately, such subs can only creep at very low speeds -- just a few knots. Traveling from Perth to Darwin might take 2+ weeks using AIP and/or a battery (except the battery doesn't have anywhere near that range).

Diesel subs can stay submerged and run on their diesels using a snorkel, but there are still problems. First, diesel engines are extremely noisy and easy to detect, acoustically. Second, snorkeling exposes a mast to radar, generates smoke, and produces a very visible wake. Third, snorkeling limits the boat's speed to under 10 knots to avoid snorkel mast problems.

Diesel boats are great for countries like Singapore, Sweden, Germany, and Israel that use them close to their own waters to passively "lurk". They're lousy for sending distances of more than a few hundred km.

If it was just about any other country, I'd say buy diesels, but Australia has such long distances to contend with, even in its own coastal waters."

MORE OF THE SUBMARINER'SCOMMENTS TO FOLLOW

CONTINUED FROM ABOVE

"Tellingly, when new diesel boats are sent from the shipyard to faraway customers, they're sometimes shipped in floating drydocks -- it's faster and easier than sending them under their own power.

Much has been made of Australia's lack of a civilian nuclear power industry -- the US didn't have one either when it developed nuclear submarines.

Australia can get its supplier to help it build the domestic infrastructure to maintain these boats.

If the US will sell Australia its Virginia class boats, it's a very good financial risk. That program is very economically stable (unlike so many other defense programs like the F-35). They've been making these boats for a while. You can probably get them under $2 billion each. The maintenance and life cycle costs will also be very predictable.

You've had a hard time retaining your submariners but that's a very fixable problem that the US has dealt with for years.

Finally, if you buy nukes, you probably won't need 12 nukes to get the same coverage as 12 diesels. The diesels would waste much of careers time at sea just creeping to and from their destinations. Nukes would have much more useful time on station."

MY COMMENT

Thinking outside the Jobs for South Australia box may produce more capable submarines, at lower risk and bought probably at a lower price than building more obsolescent SSKs. Buying US would even more firmly cement us to our main ally. The inter-operability of Australian Virginias with US SSNs would also make sound military sense.

Pete

I just want to make a quick comment to try and increase the quality of discussion here. The most important thing to do before any military purchase is to define the capabilities required, and then seek to purchase/design/build the most appropriate platform to match the require capabilities. As no-one has actually discussed what we require from our submarines, then I suggest discussion of propulsion, size, range etc. is putting the cart before the horse.

I have learnt much from the forum on this website: http://www.defencetalk.com/ which has members involved in both US and Australia's submarine and other industries, and are happy to inform and teach. I have also learnt a lot about the F35 capabilities here too. I would suggest anyone with a real interest in the subject to have a browse.

Thankyou Stezza

For in your words "increas[ing] the quality of discussion here"

Your essential guidance (worthy of The Great Helmsman) is of course utterly correct. Though a century has been wasted since 1912 in defining the capabilities required of Australia submarines, in many White Papers, offline and online publications and tomes, which few outside of the in-group read.

Capabilities are many for an Australian submarine as they have to do a bit of everything (usually of a classified nature in peacetime) and predictions need to be made now as to what the Future Submarines may need to do up to 2060. This makes capabilities-requirements as much an art as a science.

Your words have inspired me towards another OLO article on requirements and capabilities.

Thanks mate.

Pete

At the end of WW11, we had an viable aerospace industry.
The beaufighter bomber we were then producing, could have very easily been rejigged as passenger/cargo planes, and as Wittle's jets proved themselves, jet powered and streamlined!
But no, we didn't have and still don't have forward thinkers!
Just the usual cultural cringe/forelock tuggers!
And so, we now import all of our aircraft, except a very few, very small, light aircraft
Again, thanks to CAD and things like laser cutters, we led shipbuilding for awhile.
i.e., our fast ferries were once, exported to the rest of the world.
And when we finally learned to build subs, most of the then expert workforce were laid off, due to insufficient ship building activity!
It really is that simple, and or complex! So don't blame our shipbuilders, just the political imbeciles, responsible for just that very outcome, or layoffs!
Now, we have to import that expertise, the first choice, if supply and refits ever enters the equation; say in a real hot war, and a moat that then works against us!
I mean, we are an island, just like Malta, the only difference, we are so big, and our population so small, we simply can't defend ourselves!
At least not without a radical rethink, and an inculcated culture of much more self reliance/utilizing what we do well.
Imagine, a 4000 ton American nuclear sub is larger than a WW11 aircraft carrier!
And all the experts agree, we cannot afford one of those, or the forward posture, they represent!
We need to be realists, and given we build our own subs and their weapons here; and we could do that as well as anyone, given the political will and the necessary funding.
Rhrosty.

Putting people in harms way, is increased with the size of a vessel, but particularly a submarine!
If that same submarine, is used to ferry a cargo of miniature subs to any area, and for any purpose, be it sunken enemy shipping tonnages or intell gathering?
Then a miniature sub, carrying say up to eight underwater capable rockets, [and yes they do already exist;] is just as capable of that, given modern technology; and new batteries, which double the range of Lithium phosphate and with far less, potential casualties, or cost!
A nuclear sub can make both its own air and drinking water, which means, it could lie, undetectable for days. weeks or even months, should that ever be necessary, on the seafloor, and at considerable distance from the intended target or mission!
And that very undetecability, is what limits putting personal in harms way!
And if it needs to exit in a hurry, then speeds of up to fifty knots, is very useful and very sustainable, as is being able to sail under sea ice too thick for any surface vessel!
And a sub is just as capable of launching, quite massive non nuclear self defense/attack cruise missiles, as any other form of shipping!
Rhrosty.

Hi Rhrosty

I suspect you’ve intentionally made some comments that demand a bit of correcting :-)

Post-war Australia’s aviation industry, including the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_Aircraft_Corporation was fairly busy and innovative. Australia frequently modified and then assembled (quite a big job) P-51 Mustangs, F-86 Sabres, Winjeel trainers, Mirage IIIs, Aermacchi MB-326 optimised for Australian conditions, and Bell Kiowas. Our industry also assembled several types of aero-engines http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_Aircraft_Corporation#Aero-engine_production.

I agree AUSTAL has distinguished itself in making fast ferries, even helping with US warships - with Austal USA building at least one Littoral Combat Ship http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Independence_(LCS_2).

Re “4000 ton American nuclear sub”. They actually weigh more than that these days. If Australia bought 4 to 6 Virginia Class nuclear propelled subs (just shy of 8,000 tonnes each) they would cost less and have far more capability than a project for 12 homebuilt conventional subs. BTW the average US full sized carrier in WW11 weighed more than 20,000 tonnes.

A miniature sub (even ones propelled by one of your mass produced miniature thorium reactors :) would have trouble even launching one ballistic missile as the dimensions of the missiles determine the dimension of the sub e.g. the US Ohio-class SSBNs must vertically accommodate 13.6 m Trident IIs .

More reasonably Australia would begin with much smaller Tomahawk cruise missiles. If launched vertically or horizontally they would still require a full sized (at least 1,500 tonne) submarine. Its true that intel gathering does not require such size. UUV’s may collect intel (in some ways) but could one be sure they were not captured or electronically jammed by an enemy? Subs usually need to be capable of many roles and much weighty endurance and range (say Fremantle to Japan and back).

MORE TO FOLLOW

FROM ABOVE

If Lithium-ion batteries were demonstrably reliable and reasonably safe (when part battle damaged) then they might be an option – although Australia might not want to be the first country to deploy them. Let the Germans, French or Japanese extensively test and deploy them (with the attendant risk level) first.

Its true only nuclear subs have the low indiscretion ratio necessary to take on top level opponents (eg. China). And only an Australian nuclear attack sub (SSN) rather than a Collins (around 20 knot max , over a short burst) conventional sub could have a hope of catching an opponent's SSN.

We can’t forever rely on the US Navy to do the SSN roles for us.

Regards

Pete