What a lot of nonsense !
What are you going to fuel them with ? Diesel ? and where will you get that ?
Once a shooting war starts, no more tankers will arrive in Australian ports.
What oil is in stock will be reserved to feed the people and when the
diesel submarines use their fuel they will be tied up at the dock.

Are you aware that Australia does not have the mandatory OECD 3 months
stock of fuel ? All we have is what just happens to be in the terminal
tanks, what is in the service stations and the tanks of our cars and
trucks. That will last between three days and one week.

There is absolutely no point in diesel submarines. They are unusable !

Would three nuclear submarines cost more than 12 unusable diesel submarines ?

No diesel imports to = no trucks + no regional or rural trains = NO AUSTRALIAN ECONOMY...

Australia's diesel submarines will last much longer than the AUSTRALIAN ECONOMY.

Suggest a better plan than the following - which is what I propose in an IDEAL WORLD:

- 6 x medium conventional subs (from 2025)

- WHILE RE-OPENING A DIESEL REFINERY OR TWO IN AUSTRALIA

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

Pete

Pete I don't see China as a threat, unless something is precipitated by US China rivalry. In this case we are more likely to be a battle ground, rather than doing much ourselves. The thought of us fighting China is almost funny.

If that happened I think it would be well before 2040. By then it would be too late for the us to have real supremacy.

I see any threat coming from much closer to home, & being much less likely to attract US participation. There is every possibility that in 20 years time, Oz may be less desirable as US allies than our larger neighbours. Don't they have oil?

As we could not defend ourselves against a large industrial country threat, we need to be prepared to go it alone against a lessor threat. That is why the only real defence possible is nuclear arms. We simply don't have the manpower to defend ourselves with conventional weapons, & since the F111s went, & are not going to spend enough to have the technical superiority in the volume required again.

Perhaps we should declare neutrality, & spend all that money on welfare. The greens should vote for that, & from what my son tells me, quite a lot of our defence spending, could almost be considered make work welfare already.

One suggestion,
- WHILE RE-OPENING A DIESEL REFINERY OR TWO IN AUSTRALIA

Fine if that happens soon, but the politicians have told us we have
good solid commercial arrangements for supply of fuel.

My goodness, they even think that would continue in a state of war or
confrontation, yes they are that stupid.

Even if we did have one or two refineries (all close to the coast)
retained which would we chose fuel for food or submarines.
How long before the refineries were shot up.
At our present rate of decline would we even have enough crude to
warm up the refineries ?

BTW, Al Quiada has already asked associates to attack tankers on their
way to Australia.

Hi Hasbeen

Of course we're limited to our opinions rather than having all-seeing correct answers.

As France built its nuclear force as a deterrent against the much more powerful USSR - Australia may need to build a nuclear deterrent against China. China has great conventional and nuclear superiority over Australia, while Indonesia doesn't.

Indonesia's armed forces are mainly orientated for internal security (eg. against dissident Army commands on Java and against dissident islands) rather than having a force to go into battle against Australia. Australia's conventional air and sea forces are far superior to Indonesia's and will be for the foreseeable future. Indonesia army would need air and sea forces to deploy in Australia.

If Australia built nuclear weapons it is likely Indonesia would as well - in so doing Indonesia would nullify Australia's conventional (and new gained nuclear) superiority. Australia would again need the China deterrent for Australian built nukes to make sense.

I still see China as the main threat against Australia, But Australia is in alliance with the US (and maybe also with Japan) to face China.

If the US subsequently favoured China, all bets would be off.

Pete

Hi Bazz

I agree that our politicians should give greater weight to strategic common sense to ensure the supply of fuel. Both in terms of refineries in Australia and adequate storage tank capacity.

There is no such thing as total security of refineries and tanks (eg. against Chinese nuclear missiles)

But internal sabotage should be guarded against.

Looking at today's event threats from IS? or al Qaeda? in terms of on-the-sea terrorism/piracy as well.

Regards

Pete