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.