Yes Pete; but, given we've finally learned how to build these things they should be built here.
And lithium batteries are very likely to be superseded in months, by a GM design that doubles the range of lithium ion!
The real problem with the Collins class was crewing them, rather than the build, which was eventually fixed.

However, the nuclear option gives a much longer range and fuel that doesn't need replacing for around 25 years; and lord only know how dear diesel will be by then or even if we have any critical reserve of the stuff at all!

If we are to have fewer subs, then at least they should be very large ones able to carry cargo, [military material,] should the need ever arise!
After all, our moat can work two ways, as was the case in, cut off from the world, wartime Malta!

In which case political expediency should never ever trump military practicalities, or logistics.

Spares that can't be delivered from a foreign source during a real war; like say a conflict involving both Japan and China, could force the mothballing of an entire fleet for the want of a tiny paper pin sized, failed or flawed part

If we are to buy something off the shelf, why not something from the good old USA, very technically advanced and nuclear powered!?

At the end of the day, shopping must include any and all possible technological transfers!

And size does matter as does raw underwater speed!

If I had to choose between a noisy rattling (shoot me I'm here) Japanese/German sub, with an effective range of five-ten thousand nautical miles, plus a top speed of 12-15 knots underwater, and a super silent (where the hell did he disappear to) one with virtually unlimited range and a top speed of around fifty knots submerged!

Then I'd choose the latter, even where that meant my initial order was just four fully equipped subs; due to current cost constraints.
Rhrosty.

Hi Rhrosty

You raise many interesting issues which I'll respond to over several posts.

An initial dividend with selecting already-in-production subs (like the Soryu, HDW 214 and Scorpene) is that they (and Australia) don't need to go through any extended design phase. That means the first one for Australia might be launched by 2020, with the next five launched each year through to 2025.

Such a timely launch of these subs can allow early retirement and replacement of the Collins Class which are suffering very high maintenance costs and very low availability. The Collins are spending too long in maintenance-dry dock. I've heard that HMAS Collins itself is now unservicable as it is being cannibalised for spares. Cannibalisation is a pitfall of relying on a limited spare-chain, orphan design.

My article is about reasonable choices - based on Australia's experiences of the many downsides of choosing yet another Large, Orphan (Australia only) sub with all the extra costs, delays and technical risks involved.

I'll examine the very large subs, nuclear propulsion, mission and build in Australia issues in later posts on this thread.

Regards

Peter Coates

Anything less than full nuclear subs would be a bad joke on our navy, & the men who we expect to serve in the things. Why do people still want to build the weapons of the last war, to fight the next. That has got so many English speaking people, Poms Yanks & Ozzies mostly, killed it is just not funny.

We also need nuclear missiles. Just a few of these would take out any invading force, & they could be fired from patrol boats. We don't really need subs, particularly out of date at launch subs.

Building anything in South Oz is a recipe for disastrous cost overruns. The unions have total control at the sub works, & in the whole state. It was this union power that destroyed the car industry, pure & simple. It had little to do with imports, but the cost of production in Oz, & particularly South Oz.

Lets face it, about the only thing they are good at in SA is grabbing other states money & water.

Time for a dose of reality folks, not wishful thinking.

Peter,

what do you think about the ASC and whether subs should be built in SA at all?

Hi Hasbeen and Rhrosty

A major advantage of my proposal for just 6 existing (less expensive) conventional subs is that a later buy (as strategic threats increase) of 4 nuclear propelled subs would be less expensive.

Nuclear propulsion what be ideal however:

- one concern is trigerring a naval arms race (proliferation) in the region. Would an increasingly wealthy Indonesia, wealthier South Korea, Taiwan, Japan and technologically advanced Singapore also commence nuclear propulsion programs? Indonesia may be a problem.

- assuming Fremantle would remain the principal submarine base where could we build an East Coast nuclear submarine base http://www.navy.gov.au/establishments/fleet-base-east in Sydney Harbour? Jervis Bay?

Forget vulnerable northerly base, Darwin or Cairns

- Would the Virgina Class nuclear be the natural/only choice or smaller, far less crew French Barracuda SSN?

Pete

Hi Malcolm 'Paddy' King, Rhrosty and Hasbeen

As things stand at the moment I think ASC building 6 conventional subs in Adelaide would be a mistake.

Some Australian content may make sense if BAE Systems Australia (with its better shipbuilding record) took over ASC and built sections-plugs in Williamstown, Victoria with minimal work in Adelaide.

Final assembly in Japan, Germany or France would reduce the ability of South Australia and Australian Unions to hijack the submarine project (as with the Collins and the AWDs).

If the Australian states and unions led to great inefficiency an upfront Contractural Promise that the Entire project work will revert to Japan, Germany or France should be made.

This is still complex, full of Ifs and Buts but this is working in the Real World of Australian Domestic Politics not in a world of Total "Build Overseas" Efficiency.

Also Shorten's Labor Government may rule by 2016-2017.

Building just 6 in-production designs will reduce the chances of Australian Federal, States and Union fiddling.

Pete