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We have enough lead time to do just that if we stop with the endless prevarication and mountains of (outdated, anti nuclear) misinformation now!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