Elsewhere others have pointed out that the Collinses apparently never fired a shot in anger in the decade or so they had problems. Ergo do we need subs at all? I think the bigger problem is preventing the skill exodus from Adelaide when Holden closes and ASC wind down. The 200+ hectare Pt Stanvac site needs remediating by 2019. My suggestion is to start building a small stationary nuclear plant there if the public approves. (actually 58% of SA approves of nuclear when the site is not specified) Notice SA gas fired plant like Torrens Island is getting mothballed perhaps creating a baseload power shortage unless SA gets dirty brown coal power from Victoria.

Pt Stanvac would be within commuting distance for many current ASC employees. New business entities would be required with ASC management excluded. If the build goes OK and we survive several years of no working submarines think of the money saved. OTOH if we do need foreign nuclear submarines we'll have experience under our belt.

Mr Abbott says he wants us to have the best subs. That's good news. The best subs are all nuclear powered and we are not even evaluating nuclear powered options. That is not good news. Collins class boats cost more than $100million per annum each to maintain and utilisation seems to be around 33% (2 out 6 operational). Virginia class subs are recognised as the best attack sub in the world, cost $50m per annum each to maintain, have 3 or more times the capability. Cost of 10 Virginia class as judged by last order placed by US is approx $1.8Bn fixed price each. They are twice as fast under water, can stay under water indefinitely (enemies don't know where they are as they can travel to and from patrol area under water, get there and back twice as fast, pack a bigger punch (more missiles - vertical tubes), don't need to refuel in mid ocean (or back home), can dive deeper, cost less to buy, less to operate, proven design, least amount of modifications, fully compatible with combat systems on our AWDs and F35s, in production now, available for a fixed price at a much earlier date than any other option - US building at the rate of 1 per year from 2 shipyards, order them now and take delivery of the first one in 2025 then one a year until we have all 6, 8,10 or whatever. Early retirement of Collins saves us at least $50m/year/boat. There is one very obvious choice so why not use it as a yardstick against which to compare all others?

A nuclear powered submarine for Australia would be madness. You need about 135 sailors to man a Virginia-class submarine. Collins-class operates today with about 60 crewmen. How many Collins-class submarines RAN could men?

What is RAN’s job? Hunt enemy submarines with SLBMs? OK then Australia should already have nuclear powered submarines. Is there really a nuclear threat to Australia?

For all other missions diesel powered submarines would suit better because they are cheaper and quieter. I would say a rather small submarine would be the best. My favorite is the Ula-class (Type 210) submarine. Displacement is just about 1,000 t surfaced and not 3,000 t like Soryus. For sure they have less range but they also need just a crew of 22 men for a 3-watch system and just 15 for a 2-watch system (3-watch for peacetime and 2-watch in case you need more submarines). So for one Virginia class RAN could men 9 Type 210 submarines (or for one Collins 4 Ulas)! A Virginia class submarine might be fast but nothing is faster as being already there.

Price for one Virginia is $2,600 million but just $250 million for one Ula. – Price 10:1 and crew 9:1. Get real!

Deterrence is laughable with one or two operational submarines positioned in just one place. Nearly any enemy can estimate from time leaving harbor where the submarine could be and where not even for fast nuclear powered submarines. With a fleet of many submarines positioned around Australia and on distant islands nobody can be where RAN’s submarines are.

Range is not necessary for submarines stationed all around Australia. Ula-class has sufficient range for a trip from Christmas Island to Hong Kong. A submarine tender is something to think about. Some may mention a submarine tender is vulnerable. That depends on Hobart-class AWD.

Save money and buy 24 small submarines instead of 12 big ones! Mass production is no problem. There are already three shipyards to build Type 210 submarines - one in Germany and 2 in South Korea. A fourth shipyard in Australia could be possible without ASC. I believe it is possible to build a submarine in South Australia. The problems down there are not related to the workers, engineers or unions. Poor management is the problem.

With many rather small submarines another problem is solved: keeping the production running! A steady stream of small submarines is affordable and keeps the systems up to date. Today Australia pays about $1,000 million per year to keep 2 out of 6 submarines afloat. Within 10 years this is the price for 40 Type 210 submarines. So building just 2.5 submarines a year and scrapping them after 10 years is much cheaper than maintenance for Collins-class. Australia can keep the price down due to the competition between 3 or 4 shipyards.

Hi MHalblaub and AlexJ

Thanks for your comments. I see Australia ultimately needing two classes of submarines:

- 6 x medium conventional subs (from 2025). Australia mainly follows a forward defensive strategy with its allies including the US and perhaps increasingly Japan. This means instead of small HDW 210 (that assume defending ports) longer range, more missile-torpedos HDW 214/Scorpene/Soryus (mainly Japanese alliance benefits) that can economically venture into South China Sea to keep the possible enemy (China?) busy, alongside our allies with US and Japanese subs.

- 4 x Virginia SSNs (from 2035) but ultimately serving as SLBM carrying "baby bombers" the main platform for Australia's nuclear weapons (talking 2040 at least). All this would depend on increases of threats - most likely China.
---

Hi Taswegian

Truth be known - the last and only Australian sub to fire a torpedo in anger was the AE2 in 1915 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMAS_AE2#Dardanelles_Campaign . Those torpedos missed. During the rest of WWI (no Aussie subs), WWII (no Aussie subs existed), Oberons (1967-99) never at war, Collins 1996-now never at war. Shows how good a deterrent they were/are.

However, like the UK in the Falklands War 1982, you never know when subs are needed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Conqueror_(S48) . Subs are mainly a highly refined intelligence gathering platform in peacetime.

Regards

Pete

One of the reasons why Japan lost the Pacific War was because their admirals were too concerned with building major surface combatants, and they completely neglected their anti-submarine forces. US submarines eventually made all of their major surface assets almost completely ineffective for lack of fuel.

The world is unlikely to see another major war between superpowers as such wars are extremely costly in damage to economies and infrastructure. It is far more likely that the main powers will continue to use proxy wars to settle their differences, and for Muslims to continue their global jihad. Submarines have no place to play in such scenarios. If the Australian government wants to buy submarines, then replace the six we have always fielded. I can not understand why we are doubling our submarine numbers when the numbers of every other major weapon system (tanks and fighter aircraft) is being halved.

Australia once had 220 second hand Centurion tanks, replaced by 90 new Leopards, replaced by 48 second hand M1A1 Abrams. We had 150 Mirage jets, replaced by 75 Hornets, which are being replaced by 50 JSF.

We could not get enough seamen to crew our existing 6 submarines and now we want to double them. I submit that the reason why we could not get crews was because the seaman considered the Australian built submarines to be shoddily built death traps. We buy submarines for political and environmental reasons, and military requirements come last.

For God's sake buy six US nuclear attack submarines and we might be able to find crew to man them. Turn Jervis Bay into a nuclear capable port for our subs and resume the land of any local resident who objects. Jervis Bay is a naval port and why we allow people create housing estates on it's foreshore is beyond me. The money saved from not buying six extra clunky Australian built submarines should be spent adding two more battalions to our army. It is the army which is doing all of the heavy lifting in our insurgency wars and the service which is taking all the casualties.