Thanks David.

"Equally, the existing nuclear Barracudas only cost $2 billion each, so we could get twelve of those for $24 billion."

The answer is neclear submarines, either from the French or the Brits or the US. Leased or purchased with crew training as part of the deal.

The whole submarine episode has been one great fraud on the Australian taxpayer. It says something about the Government that it sacked the only defence minister that called out the Australian Submarine Corporation for what it is - a hopeless organisation that could not be trusted to build even a canoe!

We should learn from past mistakes and scrap this industry. We would literally save tens of billions by doing so and get submarines that worked and were delivered on time.

I have to agree the subs need to be nuclear and the reactors need to be WALK AWAY SAFE, molten salt reactors that ideally will use abundant thorium as the fuel, Which will put any destination within range and allow said vessel to sit for a year or more on the ocean floor.

The only weapons that will be of any use in any future conflict will be either undetectable or unmanned and sacrificial!

Today's nuclear subs are as large as WW11 aircraft carriers, have a top speed of fifty knots or better. So as to be able to outrun most if not all surface vessels. The only one with a snowflake's chance in hell, is the new hydrofoil?

Diesel subs are notoriously noisy, far slower and easier detected. Moreover, a dead sub invariably equates to a dead crew and 100% casualties!

As a deterrent? 12 subs don't amount to much and we may not have the luxury of time waiting for their assembly/delivery. And where they could be stationary surface targets, like the American fleet anchored in Pearl Harbor was.

As for them being cheaper built elsewhere. France has higher wages, a shorter working week and much higher taxes? So to worry like you seem to David, may hide a political motive to buy them somewhere else? Perhaps where the builder pays a finder's commision?

That aside, just 12 subs are not much deterrent unless nuclear armed or carrying fleets of mini subs that are construct here of space age stronger than steel acrylics. Which already hold the deepest dive record and built here.

We have strengths and certain knowhow and would be wise to deploy them, if we were ever in a conflict, where our very survival was at risk! And that scenario is why this job needs to be left to the experts, not bean counting/worry wart, cross bench Senators, needing a beat up or more public spotlight and photo opportunities?
Alan B.

Nothing is technically or politically quick and cheaper about submarines, despite what this ignorant Senator claims.

1. Politics is a major weapons' program reality. A submarine type had to be selected in April 2016, to be built in Adelaide, otherwise the Turnbull Government would have lost the 2 July 2016 Federal Election. Turnbull (and even an Abbott) needed the seats in Adelaide and Nick Xenophon Party's support, to win that Election.

2. The Japanese option (Soryu) has only half the range Australia needs - requiring major modifications. Soryu only have a 19 year life instead of the 33 years Australia needs.

Japan has turned to Lithium-ion batteries (LIBs) for submarines that may be high risk technically (due to higher fire and explosion risks).

3. Australia new submarine will no longer be called the Shortfin Barracuda because or DELAYS and major COST OVERRUNS with the French Barracuda nuclear submarine project. Basically the Barracuda's reactor is out of date. If Australia bought Barracudas our Barracudas would need 2 or 3 one year refuels IN FRANCE over there 33 year lives.

4. Nuclear submarines (SSNs) like all things nuclear, are unacceptable to the Australian voting public. They would cost 2 to 3 times more than the particularly large conventional submarines Australia needs.

5. The other competitor, Germany, has so mismanaged its submarine effort that none of its submarine service are available for action.

Pete
Director
Submarine Matters
with 2,108,865 pageviews
http://gentleseas.blogspot.com.au/

Maybe we should use the rubber band type?....nah! build them in Adelaide.
Sooner or later they'll have to get it right 'cos they'll run out of people to blame at some point

The sub contract will go to the bidder that can anonymously donate the most money to the political party and the people making the decision.

It’s a worry when defence decisions are not made according to the optimum technical and economic outcomes. The Japanese subs would have been best for Australia from the point of view of technology and economics. In addition, it would have strengthened ties between Australia and Japan. Australia needs to build alliances in the region as the Americans slowly withdraw. Strengthening ties with Japan should not be all that difficult, they are a democratic nation after all, if not in our sense.

Historically, some people may find it difficult to contemplate an alliance with Japan because of WWII. However, one should remember how alliances have changed in Europe: during the Napoleonic Wars, Prussia, ie, Germany was aligned with Britain against France, then interests changed so that by 1914 Britain found itself aligned with the French against the Germans.

During the Renaissance in Italy, the Italian city states had no qualms about changing their allegiances every year if it served their interests.

One might also remember that in 1979 Vietnam had a short, sharp border war with China, despite China having been one of Vietnam’s most consistent supporters in its wars against the French and Americans.

The interests of countries change and we should not interpret national interests in terms of personal morality.

Seriously, what do we need subs for? The next war will, if conventional, be fought by unmanned machines and via a war of attrition.

Only those societies where everyone pulls together for the greater good (NOT HERE) and have some mineral wealth to build stuff with, will prevail.

Even then need a sane AFFORDABLE energy policy not tied to the wind or the sun. Nor hydro and a million miles of very vulnerable wires.

Currently, we might as well roll over and beg our new masters for a tummy rub!

We are a nation divided against itself!

Yet expect others to sacrifice themselves for what? THIS!

Moreover, need a robust manufacturing sector! Subs need to be nuclear powered and nuclear capable to serve as a deterrent or so place a bevy of missiles so as in the first strike! They render the opponents infrastructure worthless useless junk.

While we bury ours out of sight! New road and rail tunnels?

Submarines need to be modern and fast and not in plain sight in this or that shipyard or port.

But need to put to sea as soon as they are built!

And if they don't carry nuclear weapons, even tactical battlefield miniaturized. As useful as tits on a bull in any future conflict.

Ideally they would also carry fleets of mini subs powered by steam venturi systems that make them all but fly through the water.

And armed with missiles able to be fired underwater at either submerged or surface targets and far faster than the fastest torpedo!

A strike back needs to come from all points of the compass as a coordinated response that would be far too costly for any future antagonist to seriously contemplate annexing any part of Australia, for any mineral wealth, water and arable land!

Putting men and their machine on the ground in plain sight in any future conflict simply makes them easy targets.

Ground forces will need to be small, nimble and light, able to be injected behind enemy lines, then evacuated out faster than they went in!
Alan B.

So the only subs that could be of any use are nuclear, obviously.

In that case lets forget subs, & spend our money on cruise missiles & ICBM. These are the only things, other than nuclear armed atomic subs, that offer any deterrent or defence.

The elephant in the room which everyone seems to be ignorant of is "Where are you going to get the men to crew all these submarines". My understanding is that Australian subs are crewed by volunteers and there has never been a full complement of volunteers necessary to crew all the serviceable Collins Class subs.

I suspect Hasbeen is the only one with a practical approac to the defence problem.

David

Our new subs need to be nuclear powered for the life saving speed that would confer. They need to be nuclear armed. Ideally this armement, would be delivered by stronger than steel acrylic mini subs, that literally fly through the water with enough velocity to leap out of it to traverse a barrier or escape submersible ordnance!

Built here they would be about 18-25 metres and able to safely carry as many a dozen personal and their equipment.

Not too far ahead in time, I'd expect miniaturized laser activated thorium power plants to be perfected; and the motive power that would power the steam powered venturi systems to drive these needle nosed, streamlined, stronger than steel, acrylic vessels faster than a MTB?

Inboard they would carry as many as a dozen rocket propelled battlefield tactical nuclear weapons around the size of a very heavy grapefruit, with a ground zero kill zone of around a mile in circumference.

That's a dozen subs carrying a dozen mini subs apiece, each armed with a dozen loclly built, tactical nuclear weapons that would cripple electronics and destroy all life forms in the kill zone, with a magnetic pulse, plus a massive shock wave of bunker penetrating, lethal gamma radiation.

So, that's a dozen subs carrying a dozen locally built, superfast mini subs, able to be deployed many, many miles from the intended mission or target! And simultaneously launch as many as a dozen locally built short range missiles each, over a thousand all up?

Only needing range of a thousand kilometres to become an extreme counter attack deterrent THAT WOULD NEVER EVER NEED TO BE USED, as long as we had them? But prepared to if we needed to, as a reply to unmistakeable warlike hostilities!

The mother ships Could be armed with weapons of last resort, Nuclear IBM armageddon, if all else fails?
Alan B.

Missiles Hasbeen? Yes absolutely, just needing a fail safe launch platform almost impossible to both detect and destroy!

And that's not military bases nor aircraft launched from very vulnerable aircraft carriers that can be brought down with SAM's. And only able to be deployed as a battle group! Each one expendable?

I say, F that, and stay with the less expensive option that we can actually afford that can be mostly built here and more importantly, repaired, rearmed or refurbished here!

Which given our island continent status, and unreliable allies with no stomach for a fight? Would be an absolute requirement, with the onset of any future hostilities!

We have to prepare for the worst, even as we hope for the best!
Alan B.

Hi VK3AUU

A very good point. To get full value out of nuclear subs (that cost 2 or 3 times more than conventional programs ie. $150 BILLION for Australia) you need:

TWO CHANGEOVER CREWS per submarine, eg.

- the US Virginia class need 2 (Gold and Blue crew) x 135 = 270 crew per sub [1]

- the French Barracuda class need 2 ("Port" and "Starboard") x 60 = 120 crew per sub [2]

Meanwhil Australia has trouble keeping 3 x 58 = 174 fully qualified crew for the 3 available subs of its WHOLE submarine program. [3]

[1] see right sidebar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia-class_submarine

[2] right sidebar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Barracuda-class_submarine

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collins-class_submarine

Australia's future submarines will still need around 60 crew per sub due to the lengthy 50+ day missions.

Missions are mentally exhausting, needing 3 or 4 shifts per 24 hour period. Exhaustion/tension will increase as more effective Chinese sensors spread south of the South China Sea.

Regards

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

Crewing subs would offer much less problems if

1/ They were reasonable boats, with a reasonable record of serviceability.

2/ Were based anywhere but Perth, [or Darwin].

While it may be possible to get sailors to go to Perth, for the crazy high pay deals, it is impossible to get their ladies to go.

Of course it is not just the subs, the navy is having almost as much trouble crewing our 2 Spanish catastrophes, the Canberra Class Amphibious Assault Ships. It is so bad that the navy is facing the prospect of having to mothball one of these billion dollar disasters, to get enough crew to man the other.

Without a number of reservists, serving for 3 months at a time, these ships would not be running at all. These reservists are being chased to go to Perth to do some sub time. As one said, "will the navy pay for the divorce"?

When my son was telling me about the problems keeping Manoora going many years ago, I commented that it was a good thing we had the air force. His reply, "dad they are the ones who keep crashing their choppers into our decks".

Enough said I think.

Hi Hasbeen

I think our subs' main monitoring mission area(s) tends them to be based in Perth.

Agree about Darwin. Additional "no Darwin" reasons are:
- Port of Darwin sold (umm "99 year leased") to a Chinese Company
- hydrological conditions (port on average is too shallow, hence reliance on a long vulnerable dredged channel, tides, etc)
- close proximity to a possible future Chinese airbase at Baucau, East Timor (noting land based Japanese WWII bombings of Darwin and Broome forced US subs to be based south at Fremantle-Perth).

Any practice of "reservists" part manning Aussie submarines sounds like the makings of interrupted training/revision to handle the critical immediate actions when 101 peacetime things go wrong with subs. That valve that needed turning or button push sequence forgotten that let in seawater, upsetting buoyancy, sinking the sub.

Not forgetting that ARA San Juan, sunk with all hands late last year, probably due to mistakes that let seawater in, hitting the batteries (then poison gas > fire > explosion/crush depth implosion) see http://gentleseas.blogspot.com.au/2017/11/argentinian-submarine-san-juan-likely.html

If only poor two way communications with large Autonomous Underwater Vehicles (AUV) could be resolved. see http://schmidtocean.org/cruise-log-post/the-many-challenges-of-underwater-communication/

Regards

Pete

I heard somewhere that they have drones that can operate underwater.

I think that may be a big game changer.

It may have escaped the good senators attention that the Chinese have developed a sub sea drone that is capable of detecting a wealth of data and presumably the presence of submarines.
They could carry means to attack these subs or pass the data back to the mainland for action by land based aircraft.
Putting all of our defence eggs in one basket is perhaps not such a good idea.
Australia is in a fortunate position in a case of all out war and would not need any supplies from overseas. This really means that land based aircraft would be quite sufficient to defend mainland Australia, especially if they were not the F35 flying Turkey and opted instead for a better version perhaps from Europe or Russia?

Putting all of these innovative ideas together: why not unmanned submarines, operated by computer from anywhere in Australia ? And why not hundreds of miniature submarines, since quarters for crew wouldn't be necessary, except for the proverbial cleaner and his dog ? And yes, why not nuclear-powered ? And obviously Thorium-powered ?

Australia has a vast coast-line, so even a hundred unmanned midget thorium-powered submarines would each have to patrol a hundred miles of coast-line, and much further out to sea. On the plus side, they would need only a few hundred land-based monitoring 'crew' and evaluators, working three standard shifts.

Of course, their unmanned midget submarines could take out ours, and vice versa, but at far less unit cost. Sounds worth the risk.

Joe

Hi Robert LePage on sea DRONES or Unmanned Undersea Vehicles (UUVs)

So as not to reinvent the wheel, the world's Number 1. military UUV advocate is former US Navy submariner BRYAN CLARK. He has discussed UUV issues for several years. He has visited Australia for semi-confidential reasons now and then.

There are two big limitations to UUVs

1. one is short endurance, short range and slow speed on battery compared to a manned submarine.

2. the other big UUV limitation is they don't have any accountability in terms of the human control over weapons use. And so even though you could autonomously program a UUV to go and shoot (itself or a mini-torpedo) at a target that it recognises, who will be accountable for the result if that torpedo hits a civilian ship instead of hitting a military ship?

Clark also seems to be asking Will attacks by Chinese UUVs be less constrained morally and legally than more careful Western UUV attacks?

Unlike weapon carrying aerial UAVs, which can secretly beam up what they see and what they may shoot to satellites

- and then receive remotely piloted orders

- this is far less possible with sea UUVs that wish to remain hidden.

Regards

Pete
http://gentleseas.blogspot.com.au/2015/05/uuvs-need-to-complement-manned.html

Sorry Robert LePage, you have missed one small point.

Australia is running on empty. We have just a couple of weeks of all liquid fuels in our stocks, & no reserves. So we are more dependent on imports of fuel than practically anywhere else, to run the country, military or industry.

Unless we can find some way of convincing the population we need nuclear, & as it is hard to fuel subs & planes with coal, we had best start organising coal to liquid fuel, & gas conversion plants before we bother with diesel subs, or jet aircraft.

We might as well produce blow up models of planes & subs, like the Poms did during WW11, for all the use billions of dollars worth of gear will be without fuel.

plantagenet - Quote "one is short endurance, short range and slow speed on battery compared to a manned submarine."
Battery technology is getting better very quickly, there are experiments with atomic batteries very small and last for years.
short range and slow speeds can easily be overcome by using higher voltage, what is the size of the smallest battery you will know in a few years as most modern electronics come to consumers via ex military technology.

Point 2 is also nothing drones have been killing innocent people by the hundreds ever since they first were used and no one has been held accountable.

Hasbeen Quote "We have just a couple of weeks of all liquid fuels in our stocks, & no reserves. So we are more dependent on imports of fuel than practically anywhere else, to run the country, military or industry."

Same problem Germany had in WW2 but they managed for quite a while, I am sure someone would come up with a solution.

Why didn't I think of that Philip S, we'll just knock up a coal liquefaction plant or 3 in the 15 days it takes for us to run out of the fuel we need to build them.

Perhaps you forgot Germany started that war, & were planning how to fight & fuel it for some years.

As I don't expect we would be an aggressor we would be reacting to an attack, or someone cutting off our fuel supplies.

I really do wish I was too blind to see the problems, it would make "she'll be right mate" a whole lot easier.

All good and well to have boats - new, second hand, whatever David.

But firstly, what about the situation with DMO retaining and commensurately paying the maintainers of the MK48's (excuse my ignorance, but isn't this the main reason the boats are in the water - as a platform to deliver the warshots) a reasonable salary ?

Secondly, if you can't even man the Collins boats with RAN crews for current patrol demands, as is the other consideration, then why FFS is this conversation even happening ?

TMF at Stirling couldn't even get the air exchange rates right...oh too much thinking involved for the budgeteers, engineering consultants and assorted numpties in Caarnbra to get into their thick heads? $Millions of taxpayer money wasted there in review after review with nothing really achieved.

This and 'reusing' parts from previous firings is symptomatic of Defence thinking across the ADF & the good ole 'Just in Time' ordering system simply has not worked during the nearly 40 years since I qualified as an armourer. 100 mile an hour tape, second rate screws and garbage from China in the form of Grab it Kits is still the norm in workshops in every corner of the the country. Not to mention uniforms and boots made by our faithful allies in Chung Wah to add insult to injury !

Nothing like a good healthy lungful of Otto fuel sludge as mist and HCN gas to start the day, followed by a rummage around the various boxes of stashed away bolts & screws to put a weapon back together is there ?

Wake up mate, the Yanks don't have the same problems & like every other weapons system we've inherited, bought off them, or adopted since WW2 we have had to make do with what bits we have on hand, or make it ourselves in shop. Otherwise like any other bit of kit it sits on a shelf, labelled: " awaiting parts "

Politicians...dreamers and conjurers of false hopes.

...canoes anyone ?

Dear Albie

I fear You, like Hasbeen, like Me

fear for the Sanctity

of our submarine Navy.

Cheers

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

Unless this discussion is restricted to nuclear submarines it is a
waste of time.
Just buy three or four nuclear subs from the US and forget the diesel
subs tied up at the dock. Along side of them will be the rest of the
navy fleet and in paddocks around Australia will be the armies trucks.

Any fuel still in place will be seized for farms for harvesting and
to fuel trucks and trains to feed the cities and towns.

The politicians have not realised that Australia is defenseless and
and would have to go to a gorilla type warfare

Sure Bazz

Pushing aside all Australia's political realities - including any Coalition or Labor Government that follows your advice losing office, Federally and in South Australia

and America's total lack of enthusiam.

and if Trump did make a decision http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snTaSJk0n_Y

denying the US Navy any Virginia subs for four years

and if the subs were ordered with that 10 year lead-time.

and if we did pay the odd $5 Billion per sub upfront purchase price before the other $60 Billion fixed costs.

And if the dead cat bouncing did hit the ceiling before hell froze over...

Nope.

And Bazz and other Nuclear Sub advocates

Problem is no country will allow Australia to build its Top Secret designed Nuclear Subs in Australia. Never happens, never in history.

The essential thing for sp many is Australia CAN build conventional submarines (SSKs) which keeps:

- Federal and State Governments and Treasuries happy

- Federal and State taxpayers and under-employed happy

- Federal and State voters happy

- Federal and State opposition politicians happy

- Unions happy, and

- even the RAN happy.

Abbott lost office for proposing Japan build Australia's future conventional subs.

Cheers

What part of the RAN does it keep happy plantagenet? The top brass are proving too incompetent with highly technical items. They are just not educated to fight the next war.

It matters not very much if they are happy anyway, because without sailors they are no more effective than Hitler in the last weeks of WW11. The current fleet has proven we can't get sailors to man "B" grade subs, or "B" grade anything else for that matter.

I guess the population doesn't count either. They will only find out they have been sold a pup, just as they find we have lost our navy.

OK Plantagenet, so nuclear is out, there is no alternative.
No fuel for ships anyway so why bother.
Do what the Japs did in Malaysia, bicycles for the army.
In reality, it does come down to that.
It should be a priority for the government to build a couple of
refineries, and take over the last couple before they are closed.
I think we are still exporting about 300k barrels of oil a day.
So one refinery on the west coast and one on the east coast would seem a minimum.
They would be open to attack from the sea.
The government did not even take the NRMA report seriously.

Just a thought, convert army trucks to steam power.

Oh yes, I forgot, I put this diesel problem to my MHR, a minister
and his response; "We have good commercial arrangements for supply."

Duh, during a war ?

Hi Hasbeen

The Navy is partly kept happy by Australian built submarine projects providing a massive retirement scheme for senior officers and middle level engineers in the:
- Aus major builder to be (ASC?)
- Naval Group Australia,
- Lockheed Martin Australia (sub combat system) and
- the 500? or so Australian component suppliers

The 12 Future Subs number has always been a furphy. The industry and Navy are hoping for a 8 subs compromise.

Australia's inability to crew (including Captain) or efficiently maintain 6 conventional submarines points to fewer than 6 replacement, smaller crew, conventional subs being built.

Safe off the shelf options include:

- Naval Group Scorpenes (reliable propulsion, as low as 31 crew, sufficient range) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scorp%C3%A8ne-class_submarine and

- TKMS 209s (reliable propulsion, as low as 36 crew, sufficient range) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_209_submarine

Cheers

Pete

Hi Bazz

It took 2 hours till the 4posts in 24 hour meter allowed me to reply to you.

SUBs?

If Australia could afford 12 conventional subs or 4 nuclear subs would that be the main or only factor making oil available for Australian use?

Presumably a Chinese naval blockade or destruction of the Singaporean oil refinery (that supplies Oz) would block oil shipments to Australia.

With 4 nuclear subs, 3 at a stretch would be available for operations. They could not repair Singapore's oil refinery if it was destroyed by Chinese ships, subs, aircraft or ground forces.

Many weapons could sink Chinese ships mounting a blockade, including our P-3 Orions (with Harpoon missiles), P-8 Poseidons, air refueled F-18s or future F-35s. Our destroyers and frigates mounting anti-ship missiles could sink Chinese blockade ships. Any Aus submarines could sink Chinese blockade ships also.

Australia has also been toying with the idea of building a land based missile network probably turn out to be Tomahawk missiles to sink enemy ships. This in addition to the usual sea launched Tomahawks http://www.raytheon.com.au/capabilities/products/tomahawk/ .

If the Chinese are using aircraft to sink Singaporean tankers countermoves get more difficult and submarines are irrelevant.

So, all in all, instead of puzzling whether a $150 Billion 10-25 year Aus nuclear sub program is warranted Australia could construct 2 oil refineries for about $2 Billion each (one in Sydney, the other in Perth) in 2+? years.

Cheers

Pete

Now you are talking plantagenet, we most definitely should be building our own refineries. That does not ensure we could get all the crude we might want, but would make interdicting tankers a hell of a lot more difficult.

Then there is our own oil. At some stage someone will develop the oil around the Keppel/Gladstone area, & it should be us, not new owners of the country. We would need some big prisons to lock up the misguided greenies to do so. Any development there or elsewhere should be government controlled, so it was done in the countries interest, rather than to suit commercial interests of oil industry giants.

My feeling is that any future major war will be fast, furious & decisive. If it starts there will be no time to develop a defence force, & industry, while fighting it. It will be a matter of being ready, or being defeated. With the present organisation, defeat would be unavoidable.

In such a case you can bet all our energy assets, including oil, would be developed pretty damn quickly by the winner.

Plantagenet I have no idea if submarines are necessary or not.
But if you need them seems nuclear despite being noisy is the way to go.
Re refineries, well the government must have decided to let them close
just like they have decided to let power stations close.

In any war in Asia it must be presumed that oil refineries would be
a high priority target.
Singapore and the Korean refineries would be lost.

The government has decided that fuel supplies are not all that risky.
Even an accident in the Singapore refinery could mean economic
collapse in Australia, depending for what other supplies we could
outbid others.
The government has banned preparation of Disaster Planning for fuel shortage.
This attitude was put in place during PM Rudd's time. It is long standing.

It must affect defense planning but surrender looks to be the only option.

The subs and any surface vessels are now useless.

http://www.blacklistednews.com/Russia_Has_Underwater_Nuclear_Drones%2C_Leaked_Pentagon_Documents_Reveal/62950/0/38/38/Y/M.html

Russia is in possession of an underwater nuclear drone capable of carrying a 100-megaton nuclear warhead, a recently leaked draft of the Pentagon's Nuclear Posture Review confirmed.

The weapon, referred to in the document as an “AUV,” or autonomous underwater vehicle, is featured in a chart that lays out Russia's multiple nuclear delivery vehicles.

Pentagon officials warn in the posture review that Russia has actively diversified its nuclear capabilities, a strategic advantage it has over the United States:

In addition to modernizing ‘legacy’ Soviet nuclear systems, Russia is developing and deploying new nuclear warheads and launchers. These efforts include multiple upgrades for every leg of the Russian nuclear triad of strategic bombers, sea-based missiles and land-based missiles. Russia is also developing at least two new intercontinental range systems, a hypersonic glide vehicle and a new intercontinental, nuclear-armed undersea autonomous torpedo.

Phillip said; The subs and any surface vessels are now useless.
Correction;The subs any surface vessels and aircraft are now useless.
Likewise trucks also will be useless unless we build charcoal burners.

In other words Australia is virtually defenseless once we use the fuel
stocks up, (3 weeks max) so how many horses and bicycles are available ?
errr unless we have to eat the horses !