"The biggest unasked questions" that you missed, Syd Hickman,is how is it that the 6 Indian submarines cost $12 billion dollars, while the 12 Australian submarines, which are near identical in design, cost $50 billion?

And why is Australia buying diesel electric submarines at roughly $4 billion a pop, when for the same price we could buy "Virginia" class nuclear submarines from the USA, the most advanced submarines in existence?

And why are we buying 12 submarines, when out navy can't find crews for the six they already have?

Another thing you forgot to ask, because you are too intent on giving the Liberals a kick instead of really concentrating on an important issue, is why are we making the same mistake we have made so many times before, in buying a weapon that is only on the drawing board?

Let' see, remember the F-111 fiasco? Then we bought the drawing board only F/A 18 fighter jet, instead of the superb F-15, because it was supposedly cheaper. By the time the F-18 was flying, it it's performance was a complete disappointment, and it was more expensive than the F-15, which outperformed it in every way. Then came the "Tiger" helicopter gunships which are now too unsafe to fly, another $500 million pisssed up a wall. Then there was the fiasco over the RAN's anti submarine helicopters, which had to be scrapped. Another $billion or so pisssed up the wall.

Why do we keep making the same mistakes, over and over gain? Is somebody in the defence department getting their palms greased? If the notorious sale of the 12 old C-130A Hercules aircraft is anything to go by, the answer must be "yes."

London to a brick, that by the time we get these new submarines, they will make Australia's old Collins class look good.

Hi Syd and LEGO

Your comments are mostly right.

Turnbull's main goal was to use his 26 April submarine announcement to win/keep enough seats in South Australia to win the July 2016 Election http://gentleseas.blogspot.com.au/2016/04/what-should-be-in-brief-to-cabinet-on.html . He succeeded in that.

Our Navy's aim is to build 4 to 6 diesel-electric French submarines in the 2030s until France (late 2030s) gives Australia the option of building 4 to 6 nuclear powered subs (known as Barracuda class http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Barracuda-class_submarine ).

This French nuclear offer will then prompt the US to genuinely offer 4 superior Virginia class nuclear subs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia-class_submarine .

These Virginia's will also be the platforms for Australian nuclear tipped missiles.

Note that Australia needs to build its own nuclear deterrent against existing and NEW submarine launched nuclear missile owning countries (new ones being India, Pakistan and now North Korea).

Pete
Submarine Matters
http://gentleseas.blogspot.com.au/

I believe it has always been about nuclear?

we could deviate from standard design and uranium fuel sources to cheaper than coal thorium

We own around 40% of the world's thorium need to take another hard look at this cheaper than coal fuel!

Given something the size of a marble (8 grams) is safe enough to power your personal ride for 100 years, without refueling, should put to rest some of the green initiated hysteria! And never ever allow the facts to get in the way of their anti development depopulation agenda?

I was reading about flying cars, the most impressive of which was a self piloted VTL hybrid, with a land virtually anywhere range of around 500 miles?

And where the substitution of the petrol engine with a thorium reactor, and even a whooping 50 grams of fuel, would likely allow this essentially (thorium) electric four seat combination to go anywhere by road or air?

Just what a small rapid response unit would need, particularly if it could be used via remote control to, after delivering a highly mobile unit and their equipment, then be tasked with continuous air patrol, forward spotting and or, rapid evacuation!

Thorium powered mini subs using larger thorium powered subs as the mother, enabling a truly massive response on myriad fronts, should that ever become necessary!

If I can agree with Donald Trump on anything, it is a vastly increased defense spend! And given it puts every able bodied person back on this or that assembly line for at least a couple of decades and creates an arms race with other ideologies, to get the global economy up and running!

By repeating what occurred last time in response to Pearl Harbor, a sustained period of unprecedented prosperity, created by equally unprecedented rearming!

Only this time keep it alive and well rather than destroying it with extreme capitalism!

If we need ten years to get up to speed on nuclear power, then we have no time to waste! We'll achieve nought with an (is that all there is) increased welfare response!
Alan B.

Some Australian Boutique submarine reactor ideas are Deadends.

So the Virginia class nuclear subs that Australia would aim to order in the 2040s uses the "S9G" for Submarine 9th Generation/General Electric Reactor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S9G_reactor

It has taken the US, with its huge military-industrial base, 66 years to produce 9 Generations of submarine reactor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Naval_reactors#Submarine_reactors

S9G is a tried, tested, pressurized water reactor style nuclear reactor. It has increased energy density, and new plant components, including a new steam generator design featuring improved corrosion resistance and reduced life-cycle costs.

This reactor alleviates the corrosion concerns encountered by earlier designs, while reducing component size and weight and providing greater flexibility in overall arrangement.

Unlike the French Barracuda reactor (known as the K15, which needs refueling for more than a year in France every 7-10 years) the US reactor is designed to operate without refueling for the whole operating life of the submarine, ie. 33 years .

Estimated time for France to develop a reactor comparable to the US S9G is 20-30 years.

Estimated time for Australia to develop a reactor superior to the S9G is 80 years, ie. 2120, costing $500 Billion or $125 Billion per sub for All 4 of our nuclear subs.

Trade and benefitting from US economies of scale is certainly justified.

Pete

The main problem with these submarines comes from the Turnbull government's ignorance of the serious difference between Australia's defence and job-creation. Unlike the the Abbott government, which took defence more seriously, consulted an ally (protector, even) alongside whom the subs would be used, on the type and source of the vessels, Turnbull, who takes advice from noone, used defence as part of his 'jobs and growth' mantra. He decided on France, a country not exactly arm in arm with us or our region, and a local build to 'help' a rust belt state (my own) brought low by 15 years of Labor government. That local build immediately added $10 billion to the project.

Even if these vessels are ever built (and there is now talk from the top that drone-style submarines are a possibility before these convential craft hit the water), the impact will not occur soon enough to fulfill the jobs and growth story for SA, where ACS is shedding jobs jobs as I post. The SA Wetherill government is well reported as being 'anti-business' - strangling red tape; the highest energy prices in the world. Not so long ago, one business a week was closing its doors, and that and worse could be true now, if our only daily, 'The Advertiser' was interested in finding out.

And, of course, who doesn't remember the canoe builders and the Collins Class, which has only just become worth having after reworking by specialists.

Governments should be enabling private enterprise to create jobs, and realise that defence has nothing to do with jobs in South Australia. It's about defending the country and its people. I believe that if Abbott was still Prime Minister, we would have been on the way to having Japanese made submarines, at a much lower price, from a country much friendlier and more reliable than France. But, it looks like we will have another Collins debacle, if we get anything at all.

Firstly we do not need them they will be obsolete when we get them, easy to locate and destroy, if we have people to man them which we do not.

Should be investing in long range moveable ballistic missiles.

I suspect some people are getting a massive payola out of this deal.

Phiip S.

Missiles are not much good for surveillence of hostile coastlines.

Submarines are essential for an island surrounded by water. A larger surface fleet than we will ever have, intent on landing on Australian soil would wipe out our fleet very quickly. Submarines relying on stealth are a different proposition. In one naval exercise with America, a Collins Class snuck into a harbour a 'sunk' an American warship. Nobody had a clue that they were there.

I think this inability to crew submarines is much exaggerated by the media.

The best missile platform is one you can move at will yet have remain virtually invisible and undetectable! And that is a nuclear sub able to sit on the bottom for months at a time!

Even then, with a full flight of mini subs on board also powered by a few grams of thorium?

Able to undertake a distant mission virtually anywhere as flights or single submarines. And given their size, construction and motive power able to fall in undetected behind the largest aircraft or troop carrier or hostile submarine, to launch underwater capable missiles powerful enough to destroy almost any target long before they knew they're under attack!

And seriously limit the lives put in harms way for this form of target acquisition,

We invented a steam venturi (underwater jet) driven stronger than steel deep diving acrylic mini sub that literally flies through the water, and only needing something like a laser activated miniature thorium reactor, to add unimaginable range to the sheer torpedo outrunning speed of these machines; that are both fast enough and maneuverable enough to bring any torpedo smart enough to track them right back to the very hostile that launched them!

And where crystal clear acrylics would allow the operators to eyeball the target acquired. Or essential range locator landmarks, if a military inland installation was the mission?

If rogue nation picked a fight? We could, under the foregoing scenario, respond from hundreds of synchronized locations simultaneously, leaving a dozen silent mothers to fire their full complement of cruise missiles at predetermined targets; (nuclear silos, communication centres, power plants etc) leaving a rogue nation reeling and all but beaten, well before they knew who was attacking them, or from where!

By all means develop missile technology, just make sure they can be launched from a submersible platforms still active even where the country were temporarily overrun!

If we built submarines that were the safest place to fight a war from and put far fewer lives in harms way while fighting it, we'd have far less trouble getting enough recruits to man them?
Alan B.

Pete, both you and I know only too well that Australia into the 21st century without a US Big Brother is not going to happen. Sure the Gillard government may have "signed off" on an agreement with Obama's administration to build a fleet base in Joseph Bonaparte Gulf, one rivalling the closed down facility at Subic Bay and already completed some of the civil works in readiness for the 25,000 - 35,000 Marines to be stationed across the harbour at Mandorah (adjacent to the Belyuen Community).

But what of the current sabre rattling by China ? Do you think Australia would really be able to sustain any sort of "defence of Australian assets" if the PLA and its navy decided to get serious ?

As I've posted previously, the RAN cannot train and man enough personnel to send out adequate patrols in the Collins class boats (noisy bloody things anyway), so how in hell would they man the proposed 12 boats - yet to be built ?

The current weapons systems maintenance and repair are an altogether entirely different farce of Monty Python proportions.

See:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOrgLj9lOw

ttbn...BTW in 1986 during the Kangaroo Exercises off the Qld coast, an Army LCM8 crew "officially sank" the USS John F Kennedy, having closed up on it from 8 miles in broad daylight. No one on board this huge aircraft carrier knew we were there either...a 74' lump of steel FFS !

Just for giggles we stuck a lump of rolled up Denso tape with a little Aussie flag in it onto the hull to verify our visit. So if I told you that the media isn't actually beating up the fact our boats don't have enough crew to man patrols and that the torpedo maintenance issues with DMO (since 2014 they have been 'outsourced')...all of which meaning that our submarine deterrence value is pretty well stuffed at present, do you think that would be a fair comment ?

Like so many posts here, I have to suppress my guffaws when I read "facts" (or are they as this forum suggests, just "opinions" ) about the ADF, terminologies etc. MSM, Google and Wikipedia are such a gold mine for disinformation they should be given an 'Order of Heroic Exemplar' from Xi Jinping himself.

Alan B...what about a fleet of underwater drone submarines, small, armed with something like a torpedo or missile system (or both) sitting in a network of locations on the sea bed around our coastline...let's call it a "Smart Mine - with a twist " that responds to an acoustic signature or by command ? Cheap comparatively, to a capital vessel like the proposed submarines...and very difficult to detect once placed in position.

TTBN let me assure the lack of sub crew is no fallacy. Half the problem is that the navy has so few stokers, [engineering ratings who run the machinery], that you would let loose to service your diesel land cruiser, that they just can't run the stuff they have.

My son was harassed for over a year to try to get him to transfer to subs. The pay rate is huge, but the fact they are based in Perth makes them most unattractive to most sailors, & a definite no no to most of their wives. Could this ridiculous basing of the subs be as political as the building of them in Adelaide?

He was one of the last stokers who could run the Amphibians Manoora & Kanimbla. These ships were scrapped not because they were past their use by date, but because all but one of the last few stokers capable of running them have resigned from the navy. One said "if they want the engine rooms full of girls, go for it, but I won't be there to do their job".

When Kanimbla tried to ram Sydney heads it was because no crew knew how to run the ship. They shut down the engines, & all abandoned the engine rooms because of a small exhaust lagging fire. This was a normal result of running the engines at low power output for extended periods, & totally manageable if the ship was handled properly.

The standard of crewing of the subs is even worse. I doubt any new subs, based in the west will be any more successful than this lot.

While we have the stupid attempt to make the defence force a jobs for the girls employer, things will not improve. The type of bloke who joins the services is not the "sensitive new age guy" type. While we have SNAGs in defence leadership, the rot will continue. The subs will rarely get passed Broom, before being towed home.

Defeat is glorious. Admiralty dudded the Gallipoli navigation and woke up the Turks with broadsides. The Sydney battleship sat 1 mile off the German Kormoran until they sank. Singapore's guns faced somewhere and they lost 2 battleships at the cost of a month's wardroom gin in Jap bombs . The navy stands ready to defend our ports for 2 1/2 weeks except the Chinese Colonial Stores Depot of Darwin .

'Nick...if the ADF lasted 2 and a bit weeks with the PLA knocking on our doorstep I'd be very surprised ! Recent "scenarios" carried out echo similar exercises and projections done when the Townsville based Ready Reaction Forces (ODF) were set up in the early 1980's...also when NORFORCE was established. Along the line of the Nackeroos who preceded them in WW2, primarily to observe and report. All our war exercises were conducted with Indonesian Kopassus forces of the day in mind - around 25,000 + active troops as they were then.

The Brisbane Line (or should we say the Townsville to Carnarvon Line) is still very much in the back of the Brass Hats mentality today.

The farcical situation of one lonely submarine base stuck in the sand-hills off Rockingham WA is not a very bright strategic decision. The TMF on Garden Island is likewise easily disabled or severely damaged by lone wolf attacks and in 2013 not even a steel bollard stood between the mainland and the causeway onto the island.

Whoever they are, those mental Lilliputians being paid by our taxes to draw up strategic plans for Fortress Australia. The Chinese and Indonesians must surely be reading and re-reading the Defence White Papers. Yes, you guessed it - both nations recently invited over to witness our 'defence capabilities' on Ex's Predators Gallop and Night Falcon and rubbing their chins, saying something like..."How easy will it be with the US fleets preoccupied somewhere else...?"

As a young boy sitting in the Chiefs & PO's mess at HMA establishments: Kuttabul, Tarangau, Waterhen and at Creswell while my father and his shipmates sank schooners, I listened to the "Old Salts" say these words..."be wary, be very alarmed at the Indonesians...".

Perhaps we should now also be mindful of the Chinese expansionist mentality ?

The subs aren't even technically for us but for America to have greater capabilities to spy on China.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-13/dick-smith-questions-submarines-project-over-nuclear-power/7837946

"A Federal Government spokesman said the 'best experts' were involved in the Government's decision-making on the project. These submarines will be regionally superior. They will allow Australia to pursue our national and international interests and fulfil our role as an effective US ally," he said.

What exactly are our national and international interests btw and what exactly does the US expect from us as an ally?
Can anyone define this?

And what exactly are they going to do to save us when a fight they instigate breaks out with Russia and China?

I think our national interests would be better served staying away from the US.
I'd also like to know how we got suckered (who was paid off) into buying the overpriced junk F-35's...

Australia makes some pretty poor decisions in my opinion.
Our leaders are idiots.

Armchair..."our leaders are idiots". That makes us, the electorate, even bigger idiots for putting (or keeping) the recent crop of politicians in power.

Australia is the regional 'snail' foraging out into the wilderness of political uncertainty with its eyes on stalks. Only to encounter a threat and withdraw back into its shell until the US Intelligence community, via its mouthpiece in Washington DC, tells it to come out and play again.

BTW...the Torpedo Maintenance Facility on Garden Island, WA is actually a United States government installation, just like Guantanamo Bay and Subic Bay facilities were.

It has long been my belief that we should become like the Swiss, a 'neutral' country. Unfortunately we have lots of open spaces, lots & lots of stuff in the ground and under the sea beds within our territorial borders. A very small population mostly concentrated around the eastern shoreline and correspondingly a very small defence capability. All of which makes us vulnerable to an attack by any aggressor who chooses to.

The US administrations since WW2 have relied on us to supply cannon fodder for their imperialist policies, for if any Australian government were to deny them this, they simply threaten to remove the umbrella of protection. We see a continuation of the Coral Sea until this very day.

Some military historians argue that the Japanese Empire did not plan to invade Australia, so why then did they print vast amounts of money with the name "Oceania" (Australia) on them?

The 'aboriginal issues' would not be an issue today if the Japanese had in fact invaded, they would have been annihilated wholesale in the first 5 years of occupation. The Japanese would have run a pretty tight ship and today the nation of "Oceania " would most likely been a powerhouse economically and politically given the resources and land available.

Back to the thread...is it defence of our sovereign borders we are carrying out with submarines, or is it as Philip S suggests - just another contract to keep our politicians in beer and skittles post politics ?

Summarising you last Post, Albie.

The USA is telling Australia to by 12 submarines so that Australia can "spy" in China for them? I will leave that to the judgement of our readers as to the sense of that statement. And the USA uses Australian soldiers as cannon fodder for their "Imperialist" policies. So where is the American empire?

You asked that somebody should define what the USA expects from it's allies? The main thing that the USA expects from it's allies, is that we make some effort to defend ourselves instead of relying on the USA to do it for us. One reason why Americans will make Trump their next President is because they are sick and tired of being endlessly criticised by the very people they are defending. The Americans see something wrong with them spending 6% of their GDP on defence while their unreliable allies, who depend upon them, can't even maintain a promised 2% spending on defence.

You seem to be implying that the USA must be responsible for any war that breaks out in the South China Sea?

The South China Sea is International waters. It always has been, and everybody knows it. Even the Chinese leadership knows it. But China is an emerging superpower, and just like Imperial Germany, Nazi Germany, Imperial USSR, and Imperial Japan, it is making a spurious territorial claim backed by naked force. Nobody in human history has claimed an entire ocean as it's own territory.

WW2 saw the western democracies, especially the USA, caught with their pants down. But if China threatens to use military force to stake it's illegal claim, then it is in a bad position. France wants NATO to get involved in this. India just signed an agreement with the US Navy to use each others bases. The Japanese navy by themselves could take out the Chinese navy. And every small country with a border with the SCS is becoming friendly with the USA. Just like the USA in Vietnam, this new superpower is biting off more than they can chew.

I'll put my hand up. I'll not only imply that the USA must be responsible for any war that breaks out in the South China Sea, I'll openly state it that it is.
I'll also state the same thing for Ukraine, and M/E as well.

The US encroaches upon other nations it considers unfavourable.
The conduct regime changes; and arm and upgrade the military and missile capabilities of their allies.
This FORCES the unfavorable countries to respond countering the Wests moves.
The West then gets to work with its media spin proclaiming "Russian or Chinese Aggression" and that they are "Acting Provocatively" when the real truth is that the US themselves forced them to act.

Then, don't worry about the Chinese Islands, they don't move.
The US has also built it's own military Islands, but they DO move.
They're called Carrier Battle Groups, and what the US really wants is to be able to move them right up onto China's doorstep.

And at the end of the day it's still all about global hegemony.

All Wars Are Bankers Wars.
http://youtu.be/F29bNPN8FTE

In the 1990s the American dream was real with no commie or Islamic military able to resist. It even assured the Kremlin that it wouldn't march in while Soviet organisation was being deleted. But overwhelming power wasn't enough , it still was insecure. China wants to share the warm fuzzy glow but Obama refused as god blesses America not the Emperor of heaven.

Thank you Armchair Critic.

So, China claims an entire ocean, which just happens to be international waters, and it's all the USA's fault?

Yeah, that fits.

Now you know why Trump is going to be the next President, and why he will try to make the USA isolationist again. The Americans are sick and tired of being the world's policeman, and getting little in return except criticism and abuse.

If you despise the Americans and hope that the USA collapses, then I don't think you will like what is coming next. It is either going to be the Caliphate, or trying to deal with China, the first homosexual superpower since Sparta. Either way, these guys make the yanks look like angels.

Personally, I prefer the yanks, and so do most other people and countries. China's only "allies" are North Korea, nicknamenick, and possibly Cambodia. The only ally Islam has is Islam, and even then they are fighting among themselves to be top dog. The USA's allies include NATO, Australia, South Korea, Japan, Canada, and every other decent country in the world. In addition, many non aligned nations are friendly to the USA because they don't share your bizarre world view. The Indian navy wants to conduct "freedom of navigation" patrols with the US Navy in the SCS. The Philippines is considering reopening Subic Bay as a US naval port. Even Vietnam is considering opening Cam Rahn Bay to US ships.

The yanks have a lot of friends, which is more than I can say about the sorts of countries you prefer over the USA. And that is China's problem. If it wants a war, then every nation bordering the SCS will be their enemy. It will be biting off more than it can chew, which is a great way to deter an aggressor. You should be happy about that. But of course, your default position is that the Americans are always wrong.

Perhaps your worldview is simply a factor of contrarianism? You know, everybody says this, so I say that, just to show how different and unique I am?

It's about democracy : a choice of candidates, free competition. Africa is OK with exporting on Chinese roads and rail. Pakistan OK with Chinese port ( spelt "darwin" ) and rail into China . Philippines kicked US out of Subic and even now is not shooting anyone except small dealers. Democratic US in the world Criminal court and Law of sea would be a good idea. Instead of Billy the Kid and losing gunfights since Tokyo 1945.

Lego... as AC posted, it is also my belief and only that, the US/China kerfuffle in SCS is about regional hegemony. That and an eye to trade/oil corridors from the Russian side of the Asian continent.

The Russians have the Ukraine thing in hand at the present.

I’ll dust off my old DPCU and Poo Boots as I oil up the SLR when I see the whites (sorry - ‘unpigmented’ parts) of their eyes

Hey, why not do a deal with the Chinese to build dem submarines ? I've seen and all too often had to rework some of their steel products on various mine sites around Australia. They be lucky to make it out of Cockburn Sound...let alone up the coast to Broome ! Seeing as they already have the electronic intelligence on our RAN surface and sub surface fleet after the MH370 search. Funny as it was watching PLA Air Force maritime surveillance crews wandering around at Perth and Darwin airports during the event, the fact remains, we have given too much of importance away.

Oh there’s always the Universal Policemen to call when the manure hits the fan I suppose…but given that most predictions on projected losses of ADF personnel and assets within the first 48 – 72 hrs of any serious and concerted “invasion” - we might as well start learning Mandarin.

The comment about us Bronzed ANZAC's being lackeys, well we still haven't managed to let go of Lizzie's apron strings and remain today a far flung outpost of the Empire in all but name. The 54th state of the USA sounds much better don't you think ?

Hey LEGO,

'So, China claims an entire ocean, which just happens to be international waters, and it's all the USA's fault?'

Yeah thats about the size of it.
Just like Russia ended up with Crimea and that was the USA's fault as well.
Well played Putin.

Brzezinski's Grand Chessboard, Wolfowitz Doctrine, Neocons etc...
'American Exceptionalism' 'Liberal Intervention' etc.. Soros..
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-08-03/washingtons-fifth-columns-inside-russia-and-china
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/08/25/the-broken-chessboard-brzezinski-gives-up-on-empire/

Wars of the world for US hedemony, Saddam, Libya, Syria.... Iran
Wars that serve foreign interests - Saudi's and the Qatari pipeline...
Wars that serve Israel's interests... Zionist Plans for the Middle East, Clean Break
Wars that defend the Petrodollar and the ponzi scheme known as Private Central Banking.

Yesterday our soldiers were involved in killing dozens of Assads troops and the Russians are saying the Americans did it on purpose.
You know, all that crap...
You're talking about my bizarre world view, I'll admit I certainly don't know everything but I think you're a little naive in your own understanding of how the world actually works, no offense.

I never said I hope the US collapses.
I wouldn't want US citizens to suffer because of what their government does and more than I'd want Australians to suffer because of some of the stupid decisions our government does.

ARMCHAIR CRITIC: They've bled us white, the yank bastards. They've taken everything we had, and not just from us, from our fathers, and from our fathers' fathers.
FOXY: And from our fathers' fathers' fathers.
ARMCHAIR CRITIC: Yeah.
FOXY: And from our fathers' fathers' fathers' fathers.
ARMCHAIR CRITIC: Yeah. All right, FOXY. Don't labour the point. And what have they ever given us in return?!
HALDUAL: The aqueduct?
ARMCHAIR CRITIC: What?
HALDUAL: The aqueduct.
ARMCHAIR CRITIC: Oh. Yeah, yeah. They did give us that. Uh, that's true. Yeah.
DAVID G: And the sanitation.
FOXY: Oh, yeah, the sanitation, ARJAY. Remember what the city used to be like? God, this place used to stink before the yanks got here.
ARMCHAIR CRITIC: Yeah. All right. I'll grant you the aqueduct and the sanitation are two things that the yanks have done.
PLANTAGENET: And the roads.
ARMCHAIR CRITIC: Well, yeah. Obviously the roads. I mean, the roads go without saying, don't they? But apart from the sanitation, the aqueduct, and the roads--
YUYUTSU: Irrigation.
DAFFY DUCK: Medicine.
ARMCHAIR CRITIC: Huh? Heh? Huh...
SUSIEONLINE: Education.
EMPORER JULIAN: Ohh...
ARMCHAIR CRITIC: Yeah, yeah. All right. Fair enough.
HALDUAL: And the wine.
FOXY: Oh, yes. Yeah...
DAVID G: Yeah. Yeah, that's something we'd really miss, ARJAY, if the Americans left. Huh.
POIROT: Public baths.
CONSTANCE: And it's safe to walk in the streets at night now, Reg.
FOXY: Yeah, they certainly know how to keep order. Let's face it. They're the only ones who could in a place like this.
EMPORER JULIAN: Hehh, heh. Heh heh heh heh heh heh heh.
ARMCHAIR CRITIC: All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Americans ever done for us?
DAVID G: Brought peace.
ARMCHAIR CRITIC: Oh. Peace? Shut up!

Syd Hickman asked why the submarines Australia has selected so large. As I understand it, these are intended to be long range submarines to detect and intercept threats far from our shores. Also the submarines will act as the underwater equivalent of aircraft carriers: launching Autonomous Underwater Vehicles (AUVs). The AUVs are intelligent torpedoes which will collect data and, if necessary, attack targets far from the submarine.

Of course the AUVs may increase in capability to the point where the submarines are obsolete. Just as aircraft rendered the battleship obsolete, submarines may be too big, slow and vulnerable to attack by swarms of AUVs (launched from surface ships or aircraft).

The technology used to make a one person sub for James Cameron, in the inner Sydney suburb of Leichhardt, might be used to mass-produce cheap AUVs: http://blog.tomw.net.au/2014/08/james-camerons-submarine-made-in-sydney.html

Very true LEGO

Also without the US fighting in World War Two for the defence of Australia (against Japan) Australia would have been stuffed.

Australia simply did not have the necessary aircraft carriers, battleships and submarines at any time in WWII to defend Australia.

And Australia didn't have 100,000s men (in the navy, airforce and army) available to defend Australia in 1941-43. Instead most Australian servicemen had been defending British interests in the Northern Hemisphere, through to 1943, or were captured at Singapore.

The US did have the forces (naval units and men) close to Australia - so defended us.

1,000s of yanks died in battles defending Australia at:

- The Battle of the Coral Sea http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Coral_Sea#Japanese_expansion

AND

- Guadalcanal (7,000 US dead) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guadalcanal_Campaign#Strategic_considerations

Pete

Hi tomw

I think any balanced debate on whether UUVs (aka AUVs) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmanned_underwater_vehicle
might lead to subs becomming obsolete suffers under:

1. bureacratic/career considerations in our Navy

2. (a more curly one) perceptions from possible enemies that torpedo/missile armed submarines provide a DETERRENT while UUVs/AUVs are not a deterrent,

3. (also curly) future Australian subs as the principal nuclear second strike weapon (Australian SSBs or SSBN as "baby boomers")

4. (also curly) lack of speed/range for UUVs/AUVs for Discrete handling of many tasks eg. long range reconnaissance

5. and (MAYBE THE PRIME REASON) political considerations of Ship/Sub building for jobs = votes in Adelaide to win Elections for any Party in power (Coalition or ALP). And Subs Built in Adelaide being the major policy for the rising Nick Xenophon Team (Party) which is becoming a major balance-of-power force in Federal Politics.

Regards

Pete
http://gentleseas.blogspot.com.au/

To buy diesel submarines when we import all our diesel and petrol
is the hight of stupidity. I told Paul Fletcher MHR that but his
answer was "We have good commercial arrangements for fuel supply".

Nuclear submarines were discussed by cabinet but rejected.
So after the start of any sort of belligerent confrontation we will
get one patrol out of each submarine and they then will be tied up at the dock.
Any fuel still left in Australia will be commandeered to supply food to the cities.

Oh you say, why would fuel stop being supplied.
Well we do not own any tankers and in those circumstances the insurance companies will stop them.
Info; Sydney alone requires two oil tankers a day.

Naval Fuel Budget Committee chairlady P Hansen MP has links to organised crumb fish. Cooking Oil is the fall back option for diesel fuel .Market Share of Companies : Fish and Chips 2016.
There are no companies with a dominant market share.
Industry Statistics & Market Size
Revenue
$658m
Annual Growth 12-17
-0.8%

Employment
5,487
Businesses
4,113

Barnaby Joyce may opt for methane gas from cattle not coal seams and also naval fuel. During RIMPAC 2016, one of the US Navy’s carrier strike groups deployed using alternative fuels, including nuclear power for the carrier and a blend of advanced biofuel made from beef fat and traditional petroleum for its escort ships.

Pete, all good points on why UUVs/AUVs might not replace submarines. Some responses:

1. Bureaucratic: Traditionally, military personnel wanted large platforms with large crews. But if U-platforms are more militarily effective, then being associated with them may be a way to get a promotion in the military (and stay alive long enough to enjoy your pay rise).

2. Submarines provide a DETERRENT: It did not take long for UAVs to go from being regarded as toy aircraft to serious weapons which have a kinetic effect (ie: blow stuff up). Same will apply the first time a UUV sinks a ship in combat.

3. Australian subs ... nuclear second strike weapon: Australia currently has no plans to acquire nuclear weapons. This would be national suicide, without an anti-ballistic missile system. The Hobart class air warfare destroyers (AWDs) will have a limited anti-ballistic missile capability, but with only three ships will not be enough: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobart-class_destroyer

4. Speed/range for UUVs/AUVs: As with UAVs the range of UUVs is increasing, admittedly with speed as a tradeoff.

5. Ship/Sub building for jobs: Consider the political advantages of local UUV building. The work could be contracted out to small companies in every marginal electorate. ;-)

Hi Tom

All your points have validity.

However UUVs-AUVs as a weapons system for Australia (to use instead of submarines) suffer from:

1. even the US and Russia haven't fully developed AUVs as weapon system. Will Australia be the first using $Billions in taxpayer money?

2(a) being underdeveloped technically eg:

: if comms from Australia via satellite to AUVs are jammed by enemies or be oceanic conditions can AUVs make autonomous decisions in new situations?

: if AUVs are armed how could Australia disprove (say) Chinese accusations that One of our "out of control" AUVs destroyed a Chinese ferry? This is akin to the bad press the US gets when Reaper UAVs blow up "wedding parties" in Pakistan.

2(b) The US is building ever better submarines AND developing UUVs to work from these submarines, not instead of.

3. AUVs have delivery problems. How would Aus deploy one in the middle of the South China Sea DISCRETELY?

4. How could AUVs be ordered (from Australia) and then communicate together to sink a taskforce of 10 Chinese warships quickly?

5. perhaps the central problem (related to point 1.) how could the Federal Government (for VOTES) spend $10s Billions in Adelaide merely developing an untried weapon system? It is important to spend (plausibly) alot on jobs/growth/VOTES before Elections - saving is political suicide.

See some of my research on US and Russian UUVs/AUVs here http://gentleseas.blogspot.com.au/2016/03/the-echo-voyager-lduuv-great-for.html

Regards

Pete

Pete:

1. Australia has world class robotics researchers who could develop AUVs. Some of this technology is used by CSIRO for oceanographic research. It is a lot easier to test an AUV than a full-size submarine, doable as an undergraduate university student project. I once visited a UAV factory in an old house in Melbourne, where they built an aircraft which one person could easily pick up (I did), but was capable of flying 3,200 kilometers across the North Atlantic Ocean (it did): http://www.tomw.net.au/travel/ara/

2(a) Australian AUVs would only need to transmit short radio bursts, making jamming difficult. They could communicate to aircraft if satellites are unavailable.

There is the risk of claims of civilian casualties with any weapons system. The same allegations could be made about a submarine: the fact that it had a crew would not make any difference as their denials could be dismissed as propaganda.

2(b) The US is still building submarines, but they can afford to more readily than Australia can. The USA also kept building battleships after they ceased to be a good idea.

3. AUVs could be launched from ships or aircraft.

4. AUVs would need to come up to the surface periodically for instructions. However, submarines have the same limitation.

5. Politically it would be handy for the government to be able to give small research, development and construction grants to universities and companies around the country for AUV work.

Tom W.

Hi Tom

Along the lines of point 5, the US DoD/Navy is a good example of sponsorship-cordination for universities to develop AUVs.

"The Seahorse Autonomous Undersea Vehicle (AUV) was developed by the Applied Research Laboratory at the Pennsylvania State University (ARL/Penn State) beginnning in April 1999 in support of the Naval Oceanographic Office of the United States Navy (NAVOCEANO)." http://www.navaldrones.com/Seahorse.html

I think that when US AUV advocate, Bryan Clark, visited Australia in 2015 he was involved in talking to Australian companies and universties about AUV research and development http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-22/australia-next-submarine-fleet-obsolete-due-to-drone-warfare/6488618 .

Regards

Pete

Tomw, your point 5 is what started up Silicon Valley.
There was a doco on sbs recently about that.

Bazz, good point on how Silicon Valley was started by defense R&D funding. There is a bit of that happening in Canberra right now. There is a building with what looks like the mast of a warship of its roof. This is CEA Technologies, who test their phased array radar: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CEA_Technologies/

The area between the ANU and the Canberra CBD is turning into a Silicon Valley type innovation precinct, or more accurately a Cambridge Triangle: http://blog.highereducationwhisperer.com/2015/04/designing-innovation-course-part-3.html#cbb

Tom W.

Certainly the public would be interested in Bryan Clark inspired Austonomous Underwater Vehicle (AUV) research and devlopment, CSIRO funded, at:

Flinders University (at Adelaide, Australia's main submarine research city) http://www.flinders.edu.au/science_engineering/csem/research/programs/auv.cfm "for...and surveillance"

Collaborators:

- Prof. Neil Bose, AMC - National Centre for Maritime Engineering and Hydrodynamics

- Assoc. Prof. Colin Kestell, Mechanical Engineering, The University of Adelaide

- Dr. Stephen Grainger, Mechanical Engineering, The University of Adelaide

- under "research group leader A/Prof Karl Sammut."

This AUV activity seems surprisingly flying under the radar compared to more open US reseach on AUVs.