The submarine contract comes up at a very time for SA with the closure of Holden in 2017 and the loss of thousands of support jobs. The price of natural gas in SA is also expected to double or triple in the next few years. Torrens Island power station for example is Australia's biggest gas user. I'm inclined to say forget submarines and build a nuclear power station instead. That will generate many jobs and set up SA for the future.

Others have pointed out that while the Collinses were beset with problems we didn't seem to actually need a reliable submarine fleet. However we do need to spend billions of dollars on creating alternative jobs in value-for-money projects. Spend the money just not on subs.

If our submarines are to be built overseas, then the key question must be the level of local content.

A minor part of this would be writing the manuals, but something much more substantial could be engineered, with a little imagination.

Both Japan and Germany, have higher labor costs; and spare parts may be vastly more expensive, and unprocurable!
And this is where the protective moat, would work against us!
If we are to procure a foreign build sub, then it should be both American and nuclear powered.
Nuclear powered subs could stay out to sea for many months, and form the basis of any counter measure; aided by our huge coastline, if we were ever attacked and occupied, by a vastly superior power?
Diesel power limits the available range; nuclear provides almost limitless options, including circling the globe and approaching from the south, and under protective ice?
And it's hard to argue against torpedo beating speed!
As in the past, our US procurement have included considerable technical assistance, and local assembly/fit-out options.
It seems passing strange to can the local build option, when we have finally learned how to build the things.
Ditto warships.
Finally the government needs to remain cognizant of the raw economic facts.
Every dollar spent offshore is money that exits our economy. Say a billion per sub, GONE! POOF!
However, if we spend that money locally, it goes round and round the economy up to 7 times before finally exhausting; and therefore, is reaped as 7 fold, [usual multiplier factors] job and or wealth building opportunities, along with all the total tax liabilities; that flows from that.
i.e., taxpayer pays out so much, less what the ATO reaps back from the increased economic activity.
Say a billion and a half per local built sub, less the additional tax return; thanks to the increased economic activity!
And therefore, as much as 1.1 billions as an additional tax windfall.
Meaning, the actual cost to us in raw numbers, could be as low as just 400,000, or if you will, around 600,000 less in real terms, than what we might pay, IN TOTAL, for an offshore built option.
At the end of the day, the taxpayer need transparency and an open tender process!
Rhrosty.

Why can we not keep developing the Collins? Surely by now we should be getting better at it.
Relying on foreign countries for national defense is bizarre. Our greatest weakness is our dependence on others. The first step towards national security must be self sufficiency.

When Bill Shorten raged about 360 odd Australian ships being sunk by the Japanese navy during WW2, my first thoughts were 'gee, would be great to have some of them, really must be quite good at it'.

One has to question the rationality of making our nation dependent on a foreign power for our defense capabilities.
Quite apart from the loss of skills, facilities and industries we so sorely need there is the question of an actual war scenario, without local support infrastucture and manufacturing our submarine fleet could very quickly become a very dead white elephant indeed.
When it comes to questions of Defense the neo-con mentality is simply suicidal, if not outright TREASON!
There is no apparent reason why Australia cannot build it's own Defense capabilities, ships, subs, millitary vehicles of all descriptions, even planes, think of all the jobs and economic benefits to be had, think of a government backed scheme on the order of the Snowy, making us a strong and independent nation as a bonus. Such a program would almost immediately soak up all the auto industry unemployed, along with most other unemployed as well, and the spin-offs for small manufacturing and services would be exponential.
All it requires is VISION, but alas, there's a very poor view when your snout is buried in the Golden Trough, as is clearly the case with the Canetoad's Liberats and the Lazy Laboringers.

Australia does not need very large conventional submarines, as most of the jobs in future will be done by small Autonomous Underwater Vehicles (AUVs).

The main job of the submarine of the future will be to launch AUVs (which look like torpedoes). This will be able to be done using submarines of the size already produced in European and Asian shipyards. The very large conventional submarines currently only made by Japan (and proposed to be built in Adelaide) will not be needed.

Australia was unable to build the Collins Class submarines satisfactorily and more recently has had difficulty with the much simpler Hobart class Air Warfare Destroyers. There is little point in having much more complex submarines constructed in Adelaide, knowing there is next to no chance of them ever working satisfactorily and that they will be obsolete before they can be completed.

A smaller overseas design, constructed overseas and fitted out to launch AUVs can be built with low risk and at low cost. These can carry out the primary task of submarines, which is surveillance, and the secondary task of keeping shipping lanes open.

Australia should not be building some sort of submersible dreadnought for strategic attack on our Asian neighbours. Even if we could build them (which we can't) this would cause more problems than they would solve.

Australia has the capability to learn to build submarines, but this is a high risk business which is not worth being in. Problems are common with any form of large and complex weapons system and Australia needs to choose which it will spend large resources on.

Recently Australia has taken the approach with military aircraft to buy foreign, proven equipment with minimal adaptation for local conditions. The same approach should be taken with submarines.

Australia can then concentrate resources on the important part of undersea warfare, which will be the AUVs launched from submarines. Australia has the capability to develop these. One unlikely source of technology is inner Sydney, where world leading deep sea miniature submarines are designed: http://blog.tomw.net.au/2014/08/james-camerons-submarine-made-in-sydney.html

Well the first choice should be what we need. Rhrosty's first statement is correct. If we are to have subs they must have a reasonable capability, & that means US & nuclear.

Surely if it is good enough to have our amphibious ships built in Spain, effectively a simple cargo boat, surely a high tech vessel should be built where real expertise exists.

Then we must eliminate South Australia as a place to do anything of any serious nature. They will probably turn off the lights in that failure before anything could be finished. Because the place is loaded with over paid yobbos, about to be unemployed, is a good reason to avoid it, not go there.

There is no worse reason for any decision than union pressure for local work. South Australia can't build cars economically, or generate electricity either apparently. No place to build something our defense force will depend on then either.

It was union pressure & Labor stupidity that built the current lot of rubbish in SA. Isn't there something about the stupidity of doing the same thing that failed, yet again, & expecting a different result.

My understanding is that Australia had had difficulty in finding crews for its current lot of Collins class submarines. This makes the acquisition of more submarines a very problematic proposition. Better to scrap the idea altogether and look at alternatives. UAV's are much cheaper both to build, arm and operate.

David

The comments above present all of the conflicting submarine build considerations that have been playing on the Government's mind. This has led to Government inaction for the last 10 years.

What may now be (and its not definite "till the fat lady sings") honing down of the choices to a Japanese or German designed submarine is at least a decision instead of inertia.

Yes we could:

- go the nuclear submarine route, but the opposition to this choice within Australia would be matched by arms race worries of other countries in our region (read Indonesia, South Korea, Vietnam and Japan).

- we could again build the whole sub in Adelaide, but this represents a high cost trade barrier that would be cross subsidised by all Australian taxpayers.

- Note all our aircraft are built overseas but there are no (or few) arguments that we should build military aircraft here. Why should traditional-union shipbuilding be a needy case?

- Why not have the 10 subs build overseas for $20 billion then spend the $25 Billion saved on a nuclear power or some other industry in South Australia?

- the proposition that "we don't need submarines at all" doesn't consider that subs are principally an intelligence gathering tool in peacetime and but also, in wartime, a deterrent to enemy (eg. Chinese naval) aggression in our region. We can't predict all scenarios when we really need submarines.

- UAVs can't loiter for weeks or securely fly thousands of kms to the shores of an advanced enemy (eg. China).

If we decide on a Japanese or German submarine Australia can then decide on the proportion-cost of local content in the build. For example ASC or some other specially created company in Adelaide could build offsets or sections of the sub - that are then sent to Japan and Germany for connecting-mating to the submarine hull. Section building is now a very commen practice in sub and shipbuilding.

Pete

In forming a defence strategy, I would suggest we first need to assess the most likely threats.
Whereas the USA had bitten a very bad tasting bullet in pushing ahead with a highly controversial fracking program, it has made itself largely self sufficient in oil -at least with the help of it's 2 closest neighbours. It also has around 100 days oil reserves, I believe.
Australia OTOH, has less than a week.
Clearly, all a determined enemy need do to bring Australia to the point of starvation, is interrupt our oil supplies -for about 10 days.
It seems then, we have 2 options: either spend billions on ships and planes capable of defending our incoming shipping or...
Follow America's lead, and concentrate on becoming self sufficient.

@tomw

The argument that Australia buy subs of the existing European size eg. 2,000 tonnes has many price, capability and low-risk advantages. This is noting that Germany has been successfully modifying existing designs eg. the HDW 209 for the needs of different countries – from 1,000 tonne subs for the Norwegians to 2,400 tonne subs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolphin-class_submarine) for the Israelis.

A submarine doesn't need to be so large if the crew can be smaller because more functions are being steadily automated.

Still, range-security-capabilities of large Autonomous Underwater Vehicles (AUVs) for Australia’s needs presents many problems. This is particularly for long range operations against an advanced enemy.

Conceptually Australia already has defacto AUVs in the form of Mark 48 torpedos which have increasingly smart computerised capabilities. Modifying some Mark 48s for a more emphasised reconnaissance capability makes sense. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_48_torpedo#Sensors_and_improvements

The range of small submarines carrying large? AUVs is a complex tonnage and range problem. AUV might be useful in some circumstances but not long range enough for other circumstances.

China’s growing detection and jamming capabilities may well isolate AUVs when reliable information gathering, communication and decision making is most needed.

If detected AUVs are far more politically and literally sinkable in peacetime as the political boundary of killing or capturing an AUV “crew” doesn’t exist.

@Hasbeen and tomw

I agree. The downsides of the Air Warfare Destroyer build should be sufficiently alarming to deter any federal government from building subs using the Adelaide-ASC-DMO-sorry guys-Union mix.

@Grim

How an oil shortage could make fueling a conventional submarine very difficult is a good argument for nuclear propulsion.

If our strategic environment changes for the worse (eg. China appears increasingly worrying) Australia should not rule out buying 4 Virginia Class nuclear subs. But that would-should be after we at least make a conventional sub decision.

Pete

"Recently Australia has taken the approach with military aircraft to buy foreign, proven equipment with minimal adaptation for local conditions...."
Let's face facts, Defence Procurement here has an atrocious record of nepotism, corruption and incompetence, highlighted especially in the case of the current overcost, under-performing flying turkey, the F35.
Already many years beyond it's due date, costing many times the initial quote, and utterly useless for it's designated roles, and easily outflown and out-fought by even the current crop of opposition planes, let alone any in development, it's been proven nothing more than a cash-cow for the American arms industry.
As for all those crying about the cost of having our own defense industry I say be damned to Neo-con thinking, in this instance our National Interest is best served by being self-reliant, not by saving a few dollars that will be quickly pocketted by politicians and their cronies anyway. That's bean-counter thinking, and it was and is the bean-counters that white-ant projects like the Collins class subs, their penny-pinching and bureacractic b/s mitigate against any real chance of success.

G'day Bruce, well said.
G'day plantagenet, you make some fine arguments. However, when the grocery store shelves are empty within a week, fueling our submarines might be the least of our worries.
G'day Hasbeen, no doubt the unions need a good kicking occasionally. And buying our military hardware from the yanks has always been such a winner; after all, when have they ever failed to deliver our order on time and under budget? Why on earth should we bother to learn from our mistakes, build up our own manufacturing and industrial infrastructure and employ our own people when we can just buy everything from the rest of the world?
It's so nice to be so rich.

G'day Grim and G'dayBruce

Cost (be it typified as bean-counting) is still important. Issues like opportunity costs are all part of the creative process of decision making.

Grim - Regarding "buying our military hardware from the yanks has always been such a winner; after all, when have they ever failed to deliver our order on time and under budget?" Well think of the on-budget, on time, Super Hornets, Abrams M1 tanks and the C-17 military transports. But yes there are those F35 JSFs and many lesser "cutting edge" projects .

The US is the main strategic ally benefactor, I hope. It is that dominant conventional and nuclear umbrella supplier. So premiums on the US alliance come by way of overspending on many of their weapons.

If it was politically realistic those Virginia nuclear subs from the yanks would be ideal. But my second pick is a German sub which can be rapidly and safely tailored to Australian conditions.

Also Germany, unlike Japan, has had a great deal of experience exporting to customers with local content-offsets for local (eg. Australian shipbuilding) benefits.

If our Government wants a sub of the "right" size but wrong contents it should live dangerously and buy Japan's Soryu.

Pete

G'day Pete, points ceded.
But (always a but) when one is allied to the biggest bully in the schoolyard, at some point one has to wonder whether he is getting you out of more trouble than he is getting you in to, particularly when he insists on interfering in the sovereign rights of others.
It is very easy when discussing military strategy to focus on frontline troops and forget the quartermaster. Just as Australia's greatest weakness is our almost total dependence on foreign oil supplies, America's greatest weakness is it's own dollar; specifically it's “reserve currency” status.
Should the global community ever lose faith -due to egregious over supply- America could very quickly become a crippled liability.
There are signs this is already happening, indeed more than conspiracy theorists wonder if this was not Saddam's greatest crime -in American eyes.
So who can we trust?
We, as much if not more than other nation are remarkably capable of self sufficiency. With our resources and isolation we could be a much more secure fortress than America ever was (Certainly our border security is superior).
Winning a war is about survival. You can't survive if you can't eat.

I'm a bit disappointed in this article Pete. As we discussed last time, any discussion on military equipment must happen only after the strategic and military capabilities are defined.

Some suggestions for the next article:
1. Start with a description of what we actually need a military for, people don't really seem to understand strategic or military planning

2. Explain the capabilities that our military needs to achieve these goals. Why are submarines needed as a platform at all? What can they do that satellites, aircraft, ECHELON/Pine gap can't?

3. If we do need submarines, you need to explain what they need to do, where they need to do it, and for how long. Once we know these things, then look at platforms that meet these criteria. A limited list from the top of my head would be anti-Submarine warfare (best platform for this), intercepting communications and command and control systems, capturing encryption/jamming to develop countermeasures, tracking and escorting of commercial shipping, sea denial, land attack etc. etc.

4. Australian submarines will be fitted with American systems and weapons. This not only increases risk and cost for for an OTS (is it even OTS after such significant modifications), but how will this effect space, range etc?

5. You have not discussed the value of domestic build capabilities. It is fair enough to argue the (many) disadvantages of domestic design and construction, but there must be some value for this capability. Do you think that the disadvantages outweigh the advantages? We don't know because you ignore this side completely.

Now I don't have these answers, but if I read an article I hope to finish more informed than where I started. Anyone can pull up numbers of various platforms and do a basic A vs B vs C comparison, but without context this tells us nothing.

I've posted a link to this article on another forum for discussion. Many of the posters are very well informed and will provide useful and constructive comments. I'll post the link in the next post if you are interested.

Almost anyone who has been exposed to the very basics of business understands there's two columns to consider; and not just the debit ledger.
The other is the credit ledger. Or how any acquisition will affect/increase the income stream.
The govt is clearly focused on just the debit ledger, when it comes to subs, and has thrown it out the window, when it comes to war planes!
When it comes to warplanes, pure speed is less important than invisibility/silent running.
And we know how to build a planes that are invisible to radar.
We also lead the world in molded carbon fibre production.
We also have the capability to build/assemble/maintain VTO aircraft.
All we really need is an ability to get planes in the air; and from virtually anywhere!
And our homemade smart bombs are at least as good as the Yanks.
Other posters have identified that we just don't need a dozen big subs, when all we need to sink shipping is small ones.
Around two decades ago, one of our Aussie innovators invented a two man sub that virtually flies through the water, powered by a super smart steam venturi system.
Largely built from bulletproof see through acrylics; it can outpace/outmaneuver any current torpedo, and respond with underwater capable rockets, no underwater vehicle/torpedo can outrun!
However, we do need a vehicle that can carry a swarm of these units to where they are the most useful/needed.
Today's Nuclear powered subs are as big as a WW11 aircraft carrier.
Which could conceivably therefore, carry as many as a hundred of the smaller subs, and all their munitions, as identified.
Rhrosty

Remote controlled systems are only useful as long as the signals that control them, remain completely viable; as opposed to being jammed or turned around by a stronger signal; and used against the attacker!
Grim is right, our almost utter dependence on foreign fuel is our Achilles heel, and insanity that could put us out of any military conflict/home defense, inside a week?
I mean, we could buy the best most expensive (diesel powered) military hardware in the world, and be compelled to just park it, when virtually everything is out of fuel and parked.
The term inventory dump takes on a whole new meaning! And perhaps could even be called, (aren't our pollies so dammed clever and responsible) inventory dump?
Look, Germany was defeated in the end; not because she couldn't build them faster than we were blowing them up, but because she just didn't have any fuel!
The battle of the bulge should tell our polysyllabic pollywaffle leaders, how not to prepare to defend your own.
Grim is absolutely right, we do need to become completely self sufficient, and given the way the world seems to be moving, with urgent alacrity.
Adding siphoning hoses to the battle packs of soldiers, just isn't going to cut it!
The reason we aren't already completely self sufficient, is nearly as mysterious as those mystery oil slicks, that tell every oil prospector, we could quite easily be sitting on our own Edmonton sized oil and gas reserve.
Our response? Lock it away for all time!
And only logically explained by brown nosing pollies sucking up to a foreign fuel flim flammers? (You can't hurt a dead reef!)
A problem further compounded by a green movement, who just want to lock it away and leave it!?
Maybe if the day ever dawns, we trade places with Gaza, and it is our war Widows sitting in the rubble and ruins of their former homes, they may have a change of heart?
Sorry, but it'll be way too late then, Bob, Chris!

Too troo Rhosty.
Think of the economic/social benefits of a massive government drive into a defense industry.
As a nation it would mean that we'd be in "debt" but so what?
Every nation on the planet has debt, the entire world economy is based and built on credit/debt, and the spin-off growth in our local economy would make that debt easily "affordable" in the long term, that misty place where governments really should be looking, rather than only as far as the next election.
As a culturally isolated nation and an island one at that I would suggest that as far as a decent self-sufficient military goes it's a case of...better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.
I for one would prefer never to find out if America really WOULD spring to our defense, we might not like the answer!

I would have thought lasers from space would be a more effective weapon to sink ships these days ?
What's the point of having a defence force if all the enemy needs to do is apply for a 457 Visa after they arrive by boat .

There's a nation that invented CAD, ship building. And that huge technological advance brought the costs way down, given computers could guide the plasma cutters, to cut panels that fitted perfectly!
Meaning the time spent grinding and cutting to get the perfect fit, was all but eliminated.
The nation that first invented and used this innovation should be engaged to build all our ships, and that Nation is Australia.
Yes we have a problem with the Collins class; however, one crew can't sail several boats!
The other problem is pettifogging politicians, who interfere; rescinding contracts/withdrawing already committed funding, and generally creating an investors/employers/workers/experts beware, proper balls up.
Please consider, the Vietnam war went badly, because as always, when politicians can and do usurp the military masterminds, there's always a bad result! ALWAYS!
We have defense experts, and economic experts, and these people know we should be building these things here; on the best possible defense arguments, and the best economic outcomes. [However, advice hard to hear when "incredibly intelligent Ideologues," have their fingers in their ears, and singing La,la,la,la?]
Failing that, we should at least open up to a very transparent tender process!
And if former enemies think they can undercut us?
Well given both have higher average wages, I'd like to see that!
If we could just get the death grip claws of pork-barreling or punishing pollies, of off defense contracts, they'd be mostly filled at home, and for the most cogent economic and defense reasons!
We must have continuing contracts and known work into the future, to retain critical expertise; needed to keep production up and consequent costs down!
And in so doing, keep our own defense industries alive and well.
The politically created on again off again approach is a major problem, as is trying to marry incompatible systems.
Some built here, others built abroad.
If we can't build, here, then we should buy off the shelf American and ensure that it's both fully American and nuclear powered, if only to transfer the world's leading defense technologies!
Rhrosty.

Hi Grim

I think in the face of increasing Chinese encroachments near Australia having the US as an ally is all the more important.

Earlier this year China sailed a flotilla (2 destoyers, 1 amphibious assault ship) into the Timor Sea. An excessively high number of Chinese warships (without suitable search equipment) were notionally searching for MH370, off Perth.

An independent Australia would need nuclear weapons, nuclear powered subs and lots of both to fend off any Chinese threats. Such a nuclear force might take 30 years of high defence spending to develop and buildup.

Our own industry is proving inadequate even to efficiently build cars.
---

@Stezza

Your condescending tone wins you no friends.

What I wrote was an OLO article (a comment piece on current issues) within the word limits set the Editor.

What you are asking for is a much longer work from first principles, perhaps appropriate for ASPI or the Lowy Institute.

Regards

Pete

I'm not sure how our Asian neighbours would take Australia acquiring a nuke-powered sub with the force-projection capabilities that that implies. I'm anti-nuke by and large but as a sub drive it is indeed the ultimate and there are good and cogent reasons to consider investing in them. NOT nuke armed of course but the variety of conventional and non-conventional weapons and delivery systems such a sub can encompass are really only limited by your desires and budget.
However, there are also political and social issues involved and I can't honestly see our urea-deprived political pussycats having the cojones to tackle them, ever!
Set up a Defense Industry Board alla the Snowy Scheme, give it freedom from political interference (and keep the bean-counters out of design decisions) and Australia would very quickly be booming, and safer in the long run.

Frankly Pete, I believe the smartest and cheapest defence policy Australia could implement is inserting a clause into our Constitution:
Australia will NEVER cross the borders or interfere with the rights of sovereign nations to self determinacy without a clear mandate by referendum of Australian citizens.
The first step to peaceful coexistence must be a declaration of non aggression.
By designing a defence force which is actually defensive we not only save billions on aggressive weaponry, but also send a clear signal that we are a civilized nation which believes the real enemy in war is always war itself.

G'dayBruce

What you seeking would require a major cultural, political and economic shift for Australians.

On Defense Industry Board - this is what http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_Materiel_Organisation (DMO) is meant to be - under the direction of the National Security Committee of Cabinet.

Independent Australian defence inevitably includes nuclear weapons, nuclear powered subs and lots of both to fend off any Chinese or other threats. No nuclear weapons would expose us to nuclear blackmail. Such a nuclear force might take 30 years of high defence spending to develop and buildup.

Building a nuclear power industry and consumer goods industries in parallel would make sense.
--

Hi again Grim

Being neutral, or non-aligned generally doesn't work. China or India would love our resources and could aggressively force us to hand them over below cost - or extracted by their own people.

Neutral countries are frequently invaded or tacitly (Switzerland and Sweden) under the nuclear umbrella of great powers. Australia, out on a limb, doesn't enjoy the protections of being in Europe.

Arguably nuclear weapons are primarily for defence-deterrence as are subs, destroyers, tanks and jetfighters.

Regards

Pete

I can't agree with Australia becoming nuke armed, that would be a step too far IMO.
Since we have no need of offensive capabilities our major military defense requirements are best served by a sub force, that and a strong decentralised air and ground force gives us options that would make any attempt to invade extremely expensive, hopefully too expensive.
Think..."junkyard dog", scary as but purely defensive.

Hi Rhrosty

I admire your pluck, panache and je ne sais quoi. Australia needs a military innovator, a seer, a Sir Basil http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B._H._Liddell_Hart and you are it.

Though Australia can't yet build a plane invisible to radar.

Can't yet build an http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Boeing_V-22_Osprey or Harrier like VTOL aircraft.

Can't yet make homemade smart bombs as good the Yanks.

Can't yet build a sub that virtually flies through the water or build underwater capable rockets.

This shouldn't deter us from developing, reverse-engineering and building our own military hardware.

I agree self sufficiency in extracting and refining fuel should be a strategic priority for Australia.
--

Hi again G'dayBruce

Yes I agree that an expanded sub force is necessary. Also greater decentralisation of military away from so many "eggs" in NSW and Victoria is needed.

Regards

Pete

Everyone has overlooked one absolutely over riding fact.
In the event of a war, hot or luke warm, any submarines we have will
have to operate without a fuel supply.
At the first sign of a conflict the "enemy" will only have to sink one
tanker on its way to Australia and all petrol and diesel supply will cease.
Short of seizing another countries tankers the insurance companies
would stop all further oil deliveries to Australia.

If a nearby country with which we were having a confrontation attacked
an oil tanker, then once the subs ran out of fuel they would be lucky
to get another topup.

We will have no oil refineries, so we will not be able to refine any
oil we might still be producing.

As far as I can see nuclear submarines and warships MUST be nuclear powered.

Cont:
I forgot, of course they could be coal fired, well at least surface ships could be.

With our population there is no defense other than nuclear. All this talk of subs is garbage, particularly little diesel things that can't get from base to Darwin, without resupplying.

The only defense for us against a large aggressor is nuclear ICBMs & long ranger Nuclear or conventionally armed cruise missiles. Any thing else, in the numbers we can afford to buy & man is just a joke. We would represent only a mild annoyance to any large power with a dozen little subs & a few even quality strike aircraft.

Any local threat could be handled with our patrol boats, if armed with adequate missiles, surface to air & surface to surface & cruise. These are cheap, easy to man, & we can afford enough to be useful.

To a major aggressor we would currently be as much impediment to a moderate attack as half a dozen Wirraway pretend fighters were in Rabaul, & a few more were in Darwin. Adding some subs, even if they actually work, would by basically a gesture only.

If we want defense we have to pull our finger out of our ears, [& other places], & get serious. A good quantity of cruise missiles, which may be & are nuclear armed could eliminate any invasion force, far enough out, to prevent anyone considering making an invasion attempt. A few subs & our air force could at best only inflict acceptable damage before being eliminated.

The right answer is forget some piddling little subs, & get serious, or just roll over with our feet in the air in welcome.

We cannot exclude nuclear powered boats. It is the only type of boat that meets RAN requirements. Virginia Class (SSN) would require a minimum amount of modification. They are designed to work with the Aegis system in our Air Warfare Destroyers (AWD) and with the planned JSF F35 fighter aircraft.
Positioning 4 SSNs on the west coast and the other four on the East coast would provide maximum coverage of our huge coastline.
We would set up a maintenance facility that could also service USN SSNs operating in our area to save them having to leave our region to go back to the US for service. We could better support our allies with battle-group protection, which is not possible with conventional subs which are too slow. Conventional boats would require major modifications to increase the range, implement new electronics, Some may have language issues to face during training and maintenance? Surely we want to avoid cost over-runs and delays that would undoubtedly occur from such major issues. An unbiased evaluation will clearly show Virginia SSNs to cost less to buy, have greater capability, longer service life, simpler to make operational and open up additional work and revenue streams for Australia. Training would be done in existing proven training facilities in the USA. Australia's requirements could increase the recent USN order for 10 more Virginia Class boats to 18 (10 cost US$17,6Bn) and reduce the cost further. We would negotiate Australia's participation in the construction of 18 Virginia Class boats to help transition to a future maintenance role. The choice of any new submarine will undoubtedly express concern to some of our neighbours regardless of the choice. There is only one design that meets our current and future requirememts, will require few if any modifications, has a longer operational life, cost less to buy, would more easily attract suitable crew, have existing proven training facilities, open additional revenue streams to drive local jobs. We have an opportunity right now to make the best choice for the defence of our country.

Alexj, are they nuclear propelled submarines ?
You did not actually say.

Bazz, coal fired (or coal propelled) also do not have the range so I would exclude them at this stage.

Nuclear powered submarines would definitely be my choice.

Alexj,
actually anything other than a nuclear powered submarine is of no use.
However I know that the government thinks that there is no risk to our
supply of diesel and petrol and because they are not considering
nuclear submarines they think because we have contracts with the
Singapore refineries the enemy would understand and let the tankers
come to Australia.
Yes, we need one 1 million barrel tanker a day to arrive.

Japan is in the same situation as Australia, it imports all their oil
needs and requires eight tankers a day to arrive in Japan.
How do they intend to keep up fuel supplies ?

It is simple one warship in Malacca Straits and one warship in the
Sundra Strait means no tankers and no submarines !
I wonder why politicians do not understand this ?

Pete, im not here to make any friends, but for what it's worth I apologise for coming across condescending. I'm certainly no expert and I was trying to simply offer some constructive critism.

Feel free to continue to discuss details such as fuel types, range, size etc. Ill refer to the other websites if I need information about what our military actually needs to do with the final product.

Bazz, that's an interesting point and one that must be considered. Reliance on diesel from outside of Australia will call for large fuel dumps to be established to mitigate risk. That then limits the range of conventional subs or reduces stealth if they have to be serviced from a tanker. Compare that to 30 years for a nuclear powered boat and a speed in excess of 35 knots compared to 20. There is really only one choice - nuclear power for our new subs.

Hi Bazz, Hasbeen and AlexJ

The vulnerability of supplies for oil fueled subs are certainly major - as are the range limitations and constant maintenance problems for such subs.

Coal fired subs were phased out early on eg. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_submarine_Abd%C3%BCl_Hamid#Technical_details due to slow-dive problems, higher fire and gas risks and low energy density of coal compared to oil.

I agree an independent Australia would need nuclear weapons, nuclear powered subs and lots of both to fend off any Chinese threats. Such a nuclear force might take 30 years of high defence spending to develop and buildup.

The US Virginia SSNs indeed have the advantage of never needing refueling over 30 years of operation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia-class_submarine

A smaller number of Virginias, maybe 4 to 6, may be approriate as they can do more work, get around faster, than conventional subs. Smaller numbers of Virginias would also come from higher usage blue-gold crewing with 2 x 135 for each Virginia compared to only the one crew of 58 on each Collins.

The Virginia with a vertical launch system could better accomodate nuclear missiles if/when eventually fitted.
--

Hi Stezza

Is OK mate. My Website "Australia by the Indian Ocean" at http://gentleseas.blogspot.com.au/ may be a better venue to discuss subs from first principles. I've done around 100 posts (300 comments) on subs there. So we could discuss things there if your're willing. I need to write a 5,000 word paper some time - maybe more in line with what you have in mind.

Regards

Pete

G'day Plantagenet Pete, I didn't actually say anything about being neutral or 'non aligned', now did I? One should always be careful of putting words into other mouths.
My suggestion of requiring a clear mandate by referendum before indulging in aggressive acts simply removes that ability from politicians, so they can't waste lives just to divert attention from poor performance or policies.
The Falklands conflict also demonstrated another economic aspect of war, that it is possible for a million dollar missile to take out a billion dollar ship.
I quite like G'Bruce's “junkyard dog” analogy. Spending billions on mass producing shore based surface-to-air and surface-to-sea missiles would:
employ more Australians
Demonstrate our defensive, rather than aggressive nature
offer greater security
make fewer enemies
And cost less.
Ships of all types have, in a serious conflict with a technologically advanced enemy, a frighteningly short life expectancy.
Much better to have 50 bunkered missile sites than one highly vulnerable ship.

Buying diesel-fueled submarines from Japan is crazy. That Australia is trying to emulate America is also crazy.

No one takes Australia seriously. As a military power it is a joke. Unlike the U.S., Australia can't spend all its money buying hugely expensive American weapons and tools of destruction.

What about peace? What about telling the warmongers that we don't want to be part of their plan to control the world. What about we said we wanted to be independent, a true symbol of peace? Why are we talking about submarines that, technologically, are similar to the Ark!

Why are we allowing an Raving Idiot like Abbott to take us to war on the other side of the world? Why aren't people marching in the streets, pelting the Prime Ministerial car with rotten fruit and eggs?

Most Australians are little better than sheep. When the war between Russia and the U.S., clearly we will be on the wrong side!

P.S.Perhaps we can refurbish some Tiger Moths?

Hi Grim

Firstly - regarding "putting words into other mouths" I can't get the vision of Linda Lovelace gobbling out of my brain - thanks mate.

I equated your non-aggression vote to neutrality - like many would. So we'd be voting with the usual 2 year leadup by referendum? An enemy wouldn't play by our voting rules.

Falklands? Yes the billion dollar ship (today's money) was sunk by 2 x One million dollar torpedos fired by a TWO BILLION dollar nuclear powered sub http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARA_General_Belgrano#Sinking

Yeah we could return to a shore based defence strategy - never relied on and scrapped in the 1940s.

Defences? And France's Maginot Line also proved the value of defence thinking (not)

All nuclear armed countries are steadily moving away from "bunkered missile sites" onto highly INvulnerable SSBNs.

Cheers

Pete

Hi David G.

I agree buying Japanese diesel subs is crazy. Even senior Japanese military agree
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-15/japanese-concerns-over-submarine-deal/5743022

I'd say an Australian purchase of 4 Virginia nuclear powered subs would be a good idea. This would give Australia a qualitive edge over higher numbers of enemy nuclear subs.

Fremantle is already used for fairly regular visits from American nuclear powered subs.

Switzerland and Sweden spend higher sums per capita (than Australia) on defence to defend their peaceful dispositions.

Subs are keeping up with the times.

Re "Why are we allowing an Raving Idiot like Abbott to take us to war on the other side of the world? Why aren't people marching in the streets, pelting the Prime Ministerial car with rotten fruit and eggs?"

Yes Abbott has created himself "National Security Prime Minister" due to a failed budget and Palmer's dominance in Parliament - as I said in the article. Shades of Abbott's mentor "Jackboot Johnny" and khaki electioneering.

No violence "rotten fruit and eggs" please. But at least Shorten should be opposing more of Abbott's schemes. Shorten is wimping out while its left to the Greens to be a decent opposition.

P.S Tiger Moths were only used as trainers in their day. How bout some Brewster Buffalos - made great target practice for the Japs in Malaya?

Regards

Pete

Pete, other OLO'ers...Hi & Good morning.

DMO, suffice it to say, is a very dysfunctional entity if ever there was.

High dissatisfaction and retention rates among the skilled trades persons who carry out the maintenance of the various weapons systems, and from what I observed in my time there, there has been for far too long a 'bean counter mentality' pervading from the very top. This is a corrosive environment to work in from any maintenance perspective.

There was, it appeared, active poaching going on for the technicians working for various contractors who carried out systems maintenance within the ADF facility. To the point where management insisted the Mark X boys didn't sit at the table with the Mark XX boys and talk shop within earshot or at all whilst having smoko.

The skills sets needed to carry out the maintenance of the systems mechanical, electrical, & electronically components takes many years to cultivate. Most working there, like myself, came from a military background with requisite knowledge and skills gained during careers in RAAF/RAN/Army on the same or similar systems.

Recently it was decided to recruit from 'outside' i.e. advertise for people with 'similar' skills sets such as truck drivers, motorcycle mechanics and small engine mechanics, with the occasional electrician thrown in.

This, along with a culture of harassment, unaddressed bullying in many forms being condoned from within the culture/structure of APS, & a lack of security in the sense of low salaries for the scope & nature of work carried out, poor personnel management, and no real comprehension of the OH&S basics were; the reasons I left.

Similarly in manufacturing, if we are to retain skilled people to make these new subs, we need to make their salaries and conditions commensurate with mining and other sectors.

And if we can't retain skilled weapons maintainers what use are the shiny new subs anyway ?

That is a creepy vision Pete, thanks backachya.
If we were to have something like a National Broadband Network, Referendums could be very fast indeed; much faster than a parliamentary debate in fact. I would advance this as a strong argument AGAINST my position; not hard to visualise a deeply incensed populace jumping on the net to express their ire...
I really can't accept the “everybody else has moved away” argument as valid or compelling; did your mother never use the “if everybody else jumped off a cliff...” argument on you? Let's face it, America's military industrial complex likes big ships, big planes, big tanks...
And Australia's coastline and remoteness can't really be compared to France's Maginot line. We are incredibly fortunate to share a border with no one.
The prime question is, what are we guarding against? Why would any country want to invade? The cost of such an invasion would be incredible. Much cheaper to simply buy our resources on the open market. Our farmers are known world wide to be amongst the most efficient in the world, so again cheaper to simply buy our products than to try and take them by force.
The only reason anyone would want to drop a bomb on us would be strategic; we are part of the eyes and ears of the most inarguably aggressive and belligerent nation on the planet.
It is one thing to sign treaties with friends and neighbours, to come to their assistance should they be invaded, and something else entirely to trot alone like a little dog behind it's master every time he wants to secure another country's oil.

This is not a new war, it is a very old war.
War 0.1 was when the moslems invaded the Mesopotamia and surrounding areas.
War 0.2 was when the crusaders dislodged the moslems from Jerusalem.
War 0.3 was when the moslems retook the area.
War 0.4 was when the Ottomans took Constantinople.
War 0.5 was when the Moslems invaded Greece
War 0.6 was when the Moslems invaded Serbia.
War 0.7 was when the Moslems were defeated by the Poles & Austrians at Vienna.
War 0.8 was when the Moslems invaded Egypt and Nth Africa
War 0.9 was when the moslems invaded Spain
War 1.0 When the Moslems blew up the Embassys in East Africa
Have I missed something there, probably.
This war is still continuing.

Do you see a patten here ?
Every few hundred years the west has to go to war with the moslems.
Everyone has a turn, it is now our turn.

There are only two ways to resolve this;
1. Submit to Islam.
2. Decide to finally anhilate all Moslems. Nuke Mecca & Medina.

The alternative is more of the same.

Hi Albie Manton in Darwin

Thanks for your post. When in the Public Service I also experienced the full dispiriting gumit of inefficiencies. In the end one was dissuaded from actually serving the Public on high tech matters - as though the Public were the enemy. Sorting and flicking work to others became the road to success and $$$ for high fliers.

I can see that extra hands-on military technical requirements, involving safety and all, would even be more repugnant for the politicised Sorters and Flickers.
--

Hi Grim

I'll play Devil's Advocate in CAPITALS.

I find near instant electronic referendum scary. What if Palmer offers everyone a $million if we made him President for Life? Or the public voted for Union with Bali, PNG and NZ?

Who would decide what was a serious referendum question or outcome?

REGARDING:

"The prime question is, what are we guarding against?" CHINA

"Why would any country want to invade?" CHINA

The cost of such an invasion would be incredible. NOT REALLY WHEN CHINA THREATENS TO NUKE US.

Much cheaper to simply buy our resources on the open market. OR MINE OUR RESOURCES WITH LOW COST LABOUR, THEN SELL IT TO THEIR MASTERS (CHINA) WAY BELOW WORLD PRICES.

CHINESE SETTLERS COULD LEARN QUICKLY AND FARM MORE CHEAPLY

WITH MUCH IMPROVED TARGETING BOMBS CAN BE ONLY MINI-NUKES or fuel-air explosives
--

Hi Bazz

Deary me. This makes my CHINA prejudice look mild.

Depending on one's prejudice and age one could substitute:

Priests
Politicians
Journalists
Catholics
Irish
Jews
Protestants
Jehovahs Witnesses
Chinese
CHINA
Japanese
Japan
Indians
Russians
Communists
Fascists
Nazis, and
Refugees (of course)

I'd say Oil Money financing terrorism is more a threat. When Middle East-Iranian oil runs out leading to an Israel-Arab agreement, I think peace will (probably) break out.

Regards

Pete

Plantagenet, the Chinese Mandarins are aggressive and have cared little about how many "volunteers" taken from the rice paddy die and even less for those on the receiving end, as long as they control things. By example a big building site with no deaths though poor safety; let us say there are some voids in the foundations.

There is no doubt China has already war-gamed the invasion of Australia, its in the basic manual for such an aggressive military. My guess is Queensland would be the best, its easy to digest and just ignore the rest. Good access, lots of unused agricultural land, great place to build dams, few people, lots of varied minerals, seafood and etc.

No Plantagenet you are wrong.
Non of those you listed have a religious imperative as orded by Allah
to put to death infidels and those that are of the book offer either
submission to Islam or pay the Jeziz tax or be put to death and your
wife and children be sold into slavery.

Think that is silly ? It is being done by IS today.
Do you think they would treat us any better than the Shiites ?
You have to remember these people have been marrying their cousins
for generations and no longer think like us.
Look up NSW Parliament Hansard report and House of Commons reports.

Has the world had to go to war with Buddhists every couple of years ?
Is there any other religion that has declared war on the rest of
the world so regularly ?
What Islam does is war upon those who are not moslems (except Shiites)
They get a serving because they are not Moslems so they say.

But who will take over Australia first - the Chinese Communists armed with H-Bombs or the Caliphate merely armed with Paki A-bombs?

See footage of a Chinese airdropped H-bomb tested in the 1960s http://youtu.be/BuX5xug9prk

Note what appears to be the sun in the fireball sequence to the left of that fireball.

Thanks to goldenpanda translators for the narration:

"bomb away!"

"The hydrogen bomb gently falls toward the ground. It will be exploding 2900 meters above ground level"

"9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, detonate!"

"June 17th 1967, at 8:20am, our nation's first hydrogen bomb achieved success!"

"A brightness appears by the fireball. It is indeed the sun."

In referencing the Falklands, I was thinking of the Sheffield, taken out by an exocet missile. Although launched from a plane, it could just as easily have been launched from a land based battery.
The greatest advantage of bunkers over ships of any kind is of course depreciation. Whereas a ship may have a life expectancy of 20-30 years before requiring expensive replacement (assuming it doesn't actually see battle, in which case the life expectancy can be measured in minutes) the bunker could conceivably have a usable life measured in centuries.
Weapons of aggression force antagonists into escalating costs and weapons development. This may have strategic value if you are certain your pockets are deeper than your perceived enemies; certainly the arms race all but bankrupted the USSR.
There doesn't seem to be much chance of Australia bankrupting China.
Mass produced defensive limited range shore based missile defence systems sends the message we are echidnas, not sharks (attack us and you will get hurt).
If our major concern is protecting our resources, then the goal should be making it abundantly clear to the world that the cheapest way to get our resources must be through trade, not conquest.

Grim, your last two lines illustrates why the accusation that oil was
the reason for the Iraq invasion is a lie.
Iraq, and indeed all the export countries were keen to sell to the world.
Another is that US only gets a very small percentage of its import oil from the Middle East.
That is why an export ban would not worry the US.

Iraq had WMD or has everyone forgotten the Sarin gas they used on the Kurds and Iranians.
In any case I saw Saddam Hussein boasting that they were bypassing the
bans on supply of devices used for nuclear weapons. He was speaking
about their weapon program. It was no secret it was on BBC World !

Hi Grim

An even more fitting example of use of a bunker to fire anti-ship missiles was in 2006. That year Hezbollah fighters fired anti-ship missiles from a Lebanese coastal bunker that hit the Israeli corvette http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INS_Hanit . This damaged INS Hanit but it managed to return to Israel in one piece - under its own power. A second missile in this same Hezbollah salvo struck and sank an Egyptian merchant ship. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-ship_missile#History .
--

Hi Bazz

Not only did Iraq use mustard gas but it had a nuclear WMD program. However both the chemical and nuclear WMD programs had been destroyed long before Dubya's notionally "anti-WMD" 2003 invasion of Iraq. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

I thought this blog was about submarines....

Well you are right Alexj, but we tend to wander off in our dotage.