Bigger is better Syd, and enables things like sacrificial drones to be carried to operational points and deployed, while the sub waits resting on the bottom as all but invisible but for the radio waves, emanating from them; which could be also eliminated by replacing the remote control with one or two volunteers?

The model we're choosing is designed for nuclear power; and while that might require around a decade of lead time to establish and develop home-based expertise?

We have enough lead time to do just that if we stop with the endless prevarication and mountains of (outdated, anti nuclear) misinformation now!
Alan B.

Many thanks for publishing this article.

In a couple of minutes my knowledge of the proposed subs and the process by which they might be acquired has been multiplied.

Regarding Australia's ability to build the things, I wonder if/when we will find a way as a nation to be self-sufficient industrially. The alternative seems to be for us to become a nation of bankers and shopkeepers, with the occasional mine thrown in. We won't own a single ship capable of carrying ore overseas to where the real work is done, or the products back home and we won't have any say in their design - like the French submarines, we will purchase from a short list of existing designs, thus ensuring that nothing is innovative or, perhaps, even fit for purpose.

Where are our nation-building politicians, the true leaders with vision, drive and purpose? The current lot would never have constructed a Sydney Harbour Bridge, in part because the debt lasted from the 1920's to the 1970's. Railways, ditto.

As China becomes more threatening, and the US may well retreat into Trump isolationism, Australia should certainly be revisiting the already built nuclear version of the French submarine.

The nuclear version of the French submarine is known as the Barraccuda https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Barracuda-class_submarine. The first Barracuda is to be commissioned into the French Navy in 2018. Meanwhile the future conventional version of the Barracuda, known as the Shortfin, can only be developed in about 9 years (2026).

The $20 Billion cost of developing the conventional Shortfin is likely to translate into a a higher unit price (about $3 Billion) than the already developed Barracuda (cost to Australia about $2 Billion each).

So, I recommend Australia should buy the much more capable nuclear Barracuda, for assembly sooner in Australia and at a lower price.

Pete

Don't you understand Syd it's all about the new economy were we can resolve international crisis with a cleaver marketing program and bringing in an innovation specialist.

There was a story while back about Australia not having enough trained crew for the subs we have, who are the navy going to get to operate these new white elephants?

One other thing by the time we get them I will guarantee there will be ways to detect them and destroy them easily, rendering them useless for any stealth operations.

Spend the money on hypersonic missiles instead they can be more easily hidden and the targets changed quicker.

We built mini-subs here decades ago, that were constructed of non metallic stronger than steel acrylics, which by the way, hold the record for the deepest dives; and given locally invented venturi propulsion literally fly through the water, and capable of outrunning a speeding torpedo or high speed destroyers?

Ditto nuclear powered subs apparently? And critical in terms of crew safety.

I personally believe we'd have less trouble crewing them if we incorporated genuine escape speed as essential even in times of peace, given those folk will be placed in harms way just collecting intell during peacetime maneuvers!

For mine, that'd be easier conducted from two man mini-subs, ferried to and fro and deployed simultaneously from a large modern nuclear powered submarine, which would remain technically operational, when all the diesel powered variants had long since run out of fuel!

Moreover, bullet proof acrylics allow the crew to eyeball marine targets of choice and fire manually aimed underwater capable rockets at them, probably at the propulsion or steering system, while they sleep undisturbed? Gives us unparalleled abilities to respond to any and all marine sourced hostilities!

SAMS can be carried covertly into hostile waters, even by suitably large mini subs?

Quite massive response in the air as well! And unequaled even by camouflaged Vertical takeoff aircraft?

We have trouble finding a downed plane! Building and siting ballistic missiles here, is tantamount to saying here I am, come and destroy me as targets of first choice; than if carried aboard an easily relocated Aussie sub?

Even just assembling them here will transfer some very useful technology. Moreover, building a nuclear powered, Australian owned national fleet of cargo carrying fast ferries, will quite massively improve our ability to compete for export markets with the world!

And risk free, given bulk freight forwarding is one of the most profitable business models in the world, pay for themselves in comparatively short time!

Something we should be doing to keep our homegrown shipbuilding expertise right here and enabled by surety of continuing work to keep tenders more than competitive?
Alan B.

Phillip S, we're getting the missiles,Australia is a partner in the new Norwegian Joint Strike Missile program, which is an air launched version of the Naval Strike missile intended for use by the new F-35 fighters.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Strike_Missile
The French Barracuda submarines are armed with Block 2 Exocet and Storm Shadow missiles, but apparently the Australian variant will have an American weapons system, so something like the Rafael Popeye or Tomahawk might be used.

All very well but how are they going yo refuel them ?
When this question was put to a cabinet minister he waffled.
Mumbled something about good commercial contracts !

Fact is after one patrol they would be tied up at the dock for the duration.

Simple Bazz

Convert Australian future subs into:

A. Nuclear propelled, or

B. Coal fired

The beauty of Option B. is that Australia's submariners are multi-skilled, especially the woman - who make excellent stokers and scrubbers.

F-35 fighters - You mean the over $1.3 Trillion dollar lemon.

So many faults only a fool would go into real combat flying one.

I don't mean missiles for defense I mean long range ones for offensive action in case someone attacks here.

No your options no good, all the stokers have been employed by QANTAS
for use on their coal fired 747s !

Let me get this right. You are implying that the French submarines have never been operational with a deisel/electric power plant? Australia is once again buying an experimental weapon system which has never been tested? Didn't the farcical lessons involving the F111's, F18's, and Collins class submarines ever sink in?

This is insanity. In the last 50 years, it is the Australian Army which has taken ALL of the casualties against our foreign enemies. I doubt if even one airman or seaman has died in action fighting against anyone. But as usual, it is those services who do the least, which get the most.

In 1965, the Australian Army had 220 Centurion tanks. In 1980, it had 108 Leopards. Now it has 52 M1A1 Abrams tanks. The RAAF had in 1965 (I think) 150 Mirage 111 fighters, reduced to 75 F/A 18's, and will purchase a measly 50 JSF. But the damned RAN gets to double it's submarine force when it admitted once that it could not get crews to man the 6 it already had.

These subs could only be useful in a conventional war agaist China, our biggest trading partner. If China is a potential enemy, why in the hell are we allowing tens of thousands of Chinese to immigrate to Australia every year? The idea that foreign immigrants completely divest themselves of their national, religious and ethnic loyalties the second their big toe hits Australian soil, has been conclusively debunked by the actions of our Muslim "Australians" who have more of their sons fighting for ISIS than they do in the Australian Army.

We are at war with Islam at the very moment and submarines would be the least suitable weapon against this enemy. For God's sake, we don't even manufacture our own ammunition for our infantry rifles in Australia, and we are about to squander (at least) $50 billion on a submersible pork barrel which is useless for our present conflict of fighting the violent spread of Islam.

Err Lego it wasn't me that mentioned the French subs and nuclear.
My question is, as we will have no refineries we will not be able to
refuel them in a hot war OR even a lower level confrontation if a
single oil tanker is sunk on its way to Australia.
Three nuclear subs from the US might well be cheaper and give more sea
time as they are refuelled every three or four years.

Bazz, you seem to have forgotten we have allies!

Is there any good reason why we can't refuel in Singapore?

To Bazz.
I was not responding to your post, I was responding to the author of this article.

Deisel/electric submarines are obsolete. Everyone who has any brains knows that. That is why the RAN can not get enough crewmen to man the 6 (actually 5) Colins class submarines they already have. Who wants to go to war in an obsolete steel coffin deathtrap?

Each of these new French submarines will supposedly cost $5 billion each, but everybody knows that whenever Australia has bought drawing board only weapons systems, the price has always ballooned. The F111 price went through the roof, and we ended up buying the F18 because it was supposedly cheaper than the F15 which had much better performance. When the F18 was bought, it was more expensive than the F15.

The USA built three "Seawolf" class SSN's at US $2.8 billion dollars each which is supposed to be the most advanced submarine ever built. They have now began a new 'Virginia" class which is basically a much cheaper "Seawolf" at US $1.8 billion each. Australia is going to buy 12 much inferior and experimental French submarines at least two and a half times the price of an American SSN. Australia is only one of a few countries in the world that the USA would sell this technology to.

But Australia does not buy weaponry for military reasons, we buy them for economic or political reasons. We can't upset the Greenies by buying effective weapons. And we have to buy the SA vote even though they all vote Labor anyway.

The reason why, is because we buy wea

Aiden;
No reason at all provided our opponent does not make it impossible to
access Singapore, Taiwan or Korea, or those refineries have not been
put out of action or are out of range when needed.
It could be that a demand that our subs not be refilled at those
refineries, else they would be attacked.

Of course it does not necessarily mean that a strong naval power
would be involved, perhaps just ISIS or some similar offshoot, as
an Indonesian Islamic terrorist threat to destroy the refineries.

It does not even have to be a hostile action, just industrial
accident that puts one of those three refineries out of action or
an Iranian attack on Saudi terminals/refineries, or an Iranian closure
of the Straits of Hormuz.

The upshot is any of those scenarios can generate a very sudden and
quick shortage of diesel fuel worldwide.
Don't rely on "friends" it will be everyone for themselves.
There is almost no slack in the system. The US would be the most
unreliable of allies as they import 45% of their usage.

There is one further complication, in the event of a shortage we could
not afford to give the navy diesel as it would be needed to feed the cities.