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