The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Future submarines: Australia's $40 billion risk > Comments

Future submarines: Australia's $40 billion risk : Comments

By Peter Coates, published 21/7/2014

At current estimates the cost of 12 locally built submarines may amount to $40 Billion. With the global financial crisis and the end of the mining boom Australia doesn't have that kind of money to spare.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. All
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.
Posted by Stezza, Thursday, 24 July 2014 10:40:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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
Posted by plantagenet, Friday, 25 July 2014 12:57:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Rhrosty, Monday, 28 July 2014 11:48:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Rhrosty, Monday, 28 July 2014 12:13:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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
Posted by plantagenet, Monday, 28 July 2014 7:15:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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
Posted by plantagenet, Monday, 28 July 2014 7:17:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy