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. ;-)