Aidan

The Virginia has a comprehensive suite of surveillance sensors which would be greater than on any conventional sub. This includes:

- sonars
- Lidars
- magnetic anomaly
- UUVs
- the weapons Mk 48 torpedos, Harpoon and Tomahark SLBMs, mines, carry many surveillance devices for real-time feeds
- UAVs
- access to satellite and undersea array feeds
- sigint
- divers themselves once off the beach and inland carry all soughts of surveillance devices.

Checkout:

- my website article for a fraction of the sensors on the Virginia http://gentleseas.blogspot.com.au/2014/06/us-influences-on-australias-future.html,

- particularly the US combate system http://www.gd-ais.com/Capabilities/Mission-Systems/ANBYG-1-Submarine-Tactical-Control-System-(TCS)

Pete

Absolutely pathetic! Why send divers out to do the job that could be done from within a conventional submarine?!?!?!

A conventional sub that's fitted out for surveilance has much better capability than that. Nuclear submarines have the crippling disadvantage of being restricted to deeper water, so are inherently inferior for our purposes. If we wanted subs for combat, nuclear probably would be better, but we don't.

Aidan

Watch this SEAL Delivery Vehicle (SDV) move from the nuclear sub pod and through shallower water than a conventional sub can operate in. Divers get out and reach the beach.

Enjoy http://youtu.be/cIF5MiE0CuE

P.S. Ireland has no subs :)

I refer you to my previous comment!

Considering that I am going to be paying for these submarines would
those with knowledge please write in a manner we ignorant landlubbers can understand.

First why are nuclear submarines unable to operate in water as shallow
diesel subs can ?
Are we confusing nuclear missile subs with non missile subs.
I guess missile subs would need more vertical height to house the missiles.

I find it hard to believe that there are not a lot cheaper ways of obtaining
intelligence than building 12 diesel subs.

I find it hard to believe that we will build 12 diesel subs just to
go on snooping expeditions in peacetime and then have one wartime
patrol each then tie them up for the duration !

Getting Virginia nuclear powered subs would be a longshot in the next few year. So we need to work with what is likely. As indicated at "Thursday, 11 December 2014 10:05:44 PM" in this thread I see Australia ultimately needing two classes of submarines:

6 x medium conventional subs (from 2025). Ideally they would be currently in-production subs (with extended range). That is:
- Soryus (Abbott's Plan A?)
- Plan B? HDW 214 (Dolphin 2 version?) or Scorpene? Their introduction from around 2023 would gradually remove the 5 working Collins from our navy.

Eventually Plan C which is 4 x Virginia nuclear powered attack subs (SSNs) from 2035, but ultimately serving as SLBM carrying "baby boomers" the main platform for Australia's nuclear weapons (talking 2040 at least). This would depend on a perceived increase in threats - most likely from China.

Combining nuclear and conventionally propelled subs in a fleet is fairly common (India, China, Russia and eventually Brazil). Nuclear and conventionally propelled subs can perform a wider range of missions more economically than just one class.

Pete