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.