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 > Our submarines to be built overseas? > Comments

Our submarines to be built overseas? : Comments

By Peter Coates, published 12/9/2014

While Abbott may be saving money, uncertainty, control and risk over the next 40 years of the future submarine program should still be considered.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. Page 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. 10
  12. All
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.
Posted by Hasbeen, Sunday, 14 September 2014 5:51:27 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
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.
Posted by AlexJ, Sunday, 14 September 2014 7:56:51 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
Alexj, are they nuclear propelled submarines ?
You did not actually say.
Posted by Bazz, Sunday, 14 September 2014 9:06:27 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
Bazz, coal fired (or coal propelled) also do not have the range so I would exclude them at this stage.
Posted by AlexJ, Sunday, 14 September 2014 9:48:06 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
Nuclear powered submarines would definitely be my choice.
Posted by AlexJ, Sunday, 14 September 2014 9:50:13 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
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 ?
Posted by Bazz, Monday, 15 September 2014 8:47:15 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. Page 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. 10
  12. All

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