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