SUBMARINES

The author speaks truth when he says:

Australia's "choice of [future Attack-class] submarine designs are diesel electric that would use up most of their endurance just transiting to and from their operating areas and too slow to be effective when they get there.

The Attack-class subs will take days moving north from their Fleet Base West (south of Perth) to their operational area (possibly the Indonesian area...).

Also these subs will take days to move, at short notice, from their base south of Perth, to defend Australia's most vital eastern seaboard cities (Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne).

To achieve the Government's touted "regionally superior submarines" they need to be Fast, hence nuclear propelled.

In recognition that it is nuclear propelled submarines that are "regionally superior"

Australia relies on US nuclear propelled subs regularly visiting Australia's Fleet Base West.

That base is at Rockingham, Western Australia.

See my articles on this at:

- http://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2015/05/us-nuclear-subs-that-temporarily-docked.html

and

- http://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2016/03/nuclear-propelled-australian-submarines.html

Australia's current and future conventional diesel-electric submarines are inferior to the nuclear propelled submarines of Australia's potential enemies - China and Russia.

Even India's nuclear propelled subs will pose a threat in the medium-long term.

Pete
http://gentleseas.blogspot.com/

Hard to disagree with this! Particularly the comment about diesel-electric subs! The government should take this Gentleman on as a professional consultant and then learn how to actually listen!
Alan B.

They didn’t listen to experts then, but they are making up for it now by listening to jumped up Lefties who know diddly squat about what their paper qualifications state they they are supposed to know. I remarked to my wife last night that the services seem to be ‘womened’ not manned these days after seeing two advertisements to join up. I hope like hell we never have to fight a war with lot we have now. They seem more interested in ‘gender quotas’, ‘sex-change payments’ and fitting killing the enemy in with child care.

I doubt that the best equipment in the world will compensate for the worst personnel the highly PC, highly politicised generals are recruiting.

Diesel submarines ? What makes them think diesel fuel or petrol will be available ?
I understand that ships use a lightly refined crude oil known as
bunker fuel or perhaps straight diesel fuel.
By the time the last submarine is delivered it will have to be
towed to the navy base by a steam ship.
The government, the oil companies, and the motor manufacturers all
seem to know this but the public has not woken up.

On fuel. Has the government done anything about our pathetically inadequate fuel reserves, or are they still talking about it or, not even talking about it anymore.

"Defence, and Navy in particular during times of peace, is generally the first casualty in budget cuts. Alas there are enemies looming on the horizon."

If only the Government would get real and axe the 'new (although obsolete-technology and far-away delivery) submarine' project, thereby saving some $80 billion.

I TOLD YOU SO.

All a bit late to be worrying now.

The horse has bolted and the enemy is already inside the gate.

If I had my way I would cancel the visas of PRC migrants and send them packing back to China and start de-coupling from China in a big way.

But it won't happen because Australia's dishonest and untrustworthy politicians, bureaucrats and business people can smell Chinese money a mile away and are already trying to bring tens of thousands of more Chinese into the country, even prioritising them over Australians wanting to return home.

The government know about the future of fuel but other than rent space
in the tank farm in Kansas US and hope they can engage tankers to
transport fuel from the Gulf of Mexico to Australia they have done nothing.
I suspect they know nothing can be done about it.
Convert all transport to electricity is the only real solution.
There are a few operational steam locomotives around and they could
provide a model for new construction.
Then that would need a lot of steel and coal, back to the future ?

I agree with the author on the practicalities of his suggestions, but relying on the pressed service of private craft is actually a sign of a stuff up.

A famous example of a monumental stuff up, corrected by private enterprise, is the evacuation of Dunkirk in 1940.

Ttbn seems to recognise the problem before the necessity to repeat a Dunkirk experience: Put the broom through the navy in a meaningful way, replacing the problematic personnel who consider a fighting force with a focus on PC as a substitute for blood and guts warfare, as a priority.

Dan

No Bazz, navy ships today use effectively jet fuel.

For the navy to defend our huge coast it needs a large fleet of cruise & ICBM missiles. Any ships we tried to use would be about as effective against our potential invaders as the half dozen poor old Wirraways we sent up to defend Rabaul against the 100 Jap aircraft supporting the invasion in 1942.

Yes a dozen nuclear attack subs could buy us some time, & perhaps some retaliation ability, unlike our planned museum pieces Turnbull has saddled us with.

You'll like this ttbn. My son was undertaking an overhaul on one of the old HMAS Manoora's 6 engines. He had a bunch of stokers, navy talk for mechanics, which included 2 lady stokers, in our ‘womanised’ navy.

Now these ladies had been through the same training as the male stokers, but perhaps had not absorbed it as well. They did not seem to understand just which places were dangerous to stand during removal of some very heavy bits of cast iron. He was quite concerned for their safety.

The cylinder heads were to be sent to a shore facility for machining. To get them off the ship they had to be taken up 5 decks to the upper deck, then down to the dock. This involved traversing 150 meters of passageways, & 5 very steep companionways between decks. As the heads came off a stoker was given the job of moving each one off the ship. The heads were way above the weight a girl was allowed to life, so he detailed both of them to move one cylinder head.

Still too heavy for them combined, they asked how they were to do it. Pointing to a chain block he told them to use their initiative. In retrospect he decided this was the best idea he'd ever had. Rather than the couple of hours it took other stokers to get a head off the ship, the girls took 2 days. Now that's efficiency in the new defense force. While it was still not exactly a safe activity, he reckoned it was a lot safer for them than being right where some very heavy bits of engine were about to be going, & it saved him both time, & a lot of worry, & the girls from probable injury.

Hasbeen,

The Navy should get 457 visa mechanics from China.

Alas there are enemies looming on the horizon.
Stuart Ballantyne,
Australia's worst enemies are on this side of the horizon !

Thanks Hasbeen

The insights you bring of women in Navies are as scary as:

"Exception "Proves?" Female Submariners a Bad Idea?"

at http://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2021/02/x-rated-women-submariners-bad-idea.html

Regards

Pete

As all Govts do they consult experts rather than people who know !

Well, on the other hand, most Australians don't bother so, why should the Govt ?
Seriously, if Australians were so concerned why don't they embrace a National Service ?