The usual Idiocy from Canberra. Don’t vote.

Don't vote? More to the point, don't read this sort of garbage: anti-AUKUS, anti-American, and Anti-Australian.

What happens with submarines has sweet Fanny Adams to do with this bloke who, as a mere academic, knows absolutely nothing about them. We will get them. America has assured us of a stopgap between the Collins and the nuclear-powered ones.

In the meantime, we need to remember that the people submitting articles to this section are only giving opinions. They actually know bugger-all about anything.

Is it possible that the real intention was to park American nuclear subs in Australia? Since it is going to be near impossible for us to get our own in the next 10 or 20 years?

Pivot to Oz! To show China that America is not vacating Asia!

Wittman makes perfect sense, and his advice is one we should grasp with both hands.

Moreover, we need to also become a nuclear-powered economy. As this option is the only one that'll support a robust manufacturing sector an allow us to become shipbuilders to the world. And able to build all our subs here.

Here I'm referring to MSR thorium and MSR nuclear waste burning technology. And energy prices that will enable us to compete with allcomers, including China.
Alan B.

We can't even produce steel able to handle the requirements of US nuclear sub operational conditions, let alone build the subs.

http://www.voanews.com/a/china-s-expanding-submarine-fleet-makes-experts-worry-about-taiwan-s-readiness/6709507.html

Ttbn.

Don’t agree at all. I find this author to be on the ball.

It’s way way too late, and a total waste of precious resources equipping Australia with any submarines capable of useful resistance to the Chinese submarine inventory.

Suggest you read the above short link.

Taiwan is a similar sized country to Australia, and far more vulnerable. Why do you think Taiwan has long ago given up on competition with China, and attempting to match Chinese submarine capabilities.

I say don’t vote for the idiot class who forever manage to take over the controls of our country, continuing to plunge it further into the unthinking stupid it advertises itself as.

When I see a few bombs land on US soil, from the plethora of global conflicts they gleefully kick off, I might have a change of heart.
But sadly, the current America is not the great nation we remember it as, from 1945.
I can only describe it as our greatest unreliable nightmare.

ttbn,

He lives in hope.

In vain.

The likes of ttbn wants Australia to be a sabre rattler without realising we don't actually have a sabre to rattle.

Binoy obviously has an anti Australian agenda.

Hasbeen, we could make much more steel if we had cheaper 24/7 dispatchable power (MSR thorium or MSR nuclear waste burners) and stopped exporting iron ore to China.

You always seem to know what we don't or can't do, but never ever how to fix the problem identified.

Here I'm referring to the big arc furnaces that we use to make steel. Double them and we doble steel production here or tribble or quadruple.

All the prevents that outcome are parliaments wasting our money propping up foreign investment. Unsustainable tax reform.

Foreign investment should be limited to investment bonds that would pay for what I've outlined. We may need to foreign dollars but not the foreign control or ownership.

u One also needs massive electrical power to smelt titanium. Which if reinforced with graphene, would produce hulls able to withstand depths that would crush any other sub and keep them safer when depth charged.

Nuclear power could produce underwater speeds as high as 60 knots and enable the sub to remain submerged until they ran out of food rations.
Alan B.

If you're not a warmonger, or a US sycophant, then you're obviously anti Australia, no one could accuse you and a few others on here of that.

One cannot rely on intermittent power when smelting steel, aluminium or titanium. The big graphite refractory grade crucibles cost millions per. Cannot runout of electricity halfway through an arc furnace smelt. As the cooling metal would contract and destroy the crucible. Battery backed power, not suitable, given the limited time they replace other power sources.

We once led the world in advanced ship building and the one step steel smelting process. And could do so again, but for the cost to us of energy, our coal and our gas, all of which are produced here and for the most part from stuff we Aussies once owned.

If we built MSR thorium reactors we could use the power, they generate to underpin economies of scale ship building to the world. Which as an island continent and maritime nation, makes perfect sense.

And wisely managed rather than sold to foreign investors by demonstrably insane idealogues. Would mean we could and should end supply side shortages.

I think at this time, the energy paradigm advocated should by limited exclusively to ships, subs and armament building/construction. And only replace coal fired power when they are decommissioned.

Making our steel offshore is a mugs game and we need to return to making it here. And don't now to any extent because of the current prohibitive, economy destroying cost to us, of energy!
Alan B.

TOO EXPENSIVE and TOO LATE

Australian Nuclear submarines will cost HALF A TRILLION DOLLARS all up.

The best brains in the Nation estimate Australian future nuclear propelled submarines will cost A$500 Billion over 30 years. That will require an increase of A$20 Billion/year in our annual Defence BudgetS.

Taking into account 3% inflation per year over 30 years.

Put another way our Defence Budget will need to rise from 2% GDP/year to 3% GDP.

Expenses include:

- building the 8 new submarines - with the nuclear reactor/propulsion stern/rear half actually being built in the UK or US, whatever Albanese or Marles claim as "Made in Australia"

- spare parts, regular upgrades and overhauls

- training and paying for literally 1,000s of nuclear expert submariners, shipbuilders, maintainers, lecturers, nuclear safety scientists and bureaucrats.

- paying for 100s of Australians to train in UK/US nuclear establishments. And to serve as crew in training on UK/US nuclear subs.

- creation of massively expanded nuclear research agencies. A new naval nuclear safety agency. Creation of new Nuclear Emergency drills and sirens. Making Iodine Pills (anti-radiation medications) freely available in Adelaide, Wollongong and South Perth nears bases and shipbuilding.

- an expanded Fleet Base West (south of Perth) and construction of a East Coast Nuclear Submarine Base (probably at Port Kembla), a new submarine shipyard at Osborne, Adelaide.

IF WE SELECT UK SUBMARINES THE FIRST MAY ONLY BE AVAILABLE IN 2045 (OR LATER)

Hi Mavs,

A nice post there, I support a defence capability for Australia, I emphasise DEFENCE, as opposed to out and out MILITARISM. These nuclear submarines seem to be nothing more than "Big Boys Toys" and as you say a half trillion dollar outlay with the promise that something might appear sometime in the next 25 to 30 years plus. I very much doubt that Australia will ever see these submarines.

Thanks Paul

As Australia can't wait for incredibly expensive nuclear submarines (SSNs which are likely to be mainly built overseas)and delayed until the late 2040s, and which still won't deter nuclear armed China

Australia needs its own nuclear deterrent against China within the next 10 years.

The most common delivery platforms for nuclear weapons are long range missiles. For Australia we need:

- Tomahawk missiles (by 2028) from northern Australia and on Collins subs we already have. Nuclear armed Tomahawks could destroy new Chinese bases near Australia, Chinese invasion fleets or at least Chinese fleets that are blockading Australia.

- by 2030 missiles from air launched Australian F-35A stealth aircraft we already have, which with refueling could fire missiles that could hit southern China (particularly China's Hainan island nuclear submarine base, just east of northern Vietnam).

- Small ballistic/hypersonic milles fired from a replacement conventional submarine class by 2033,
ie. buying South Korea's KSS-IIIs long range conventionall powered nuclear ballistic missile subs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KSS-III_submarine

and

- perhaps, 2038 central Australia based small ICBMs in protected silos that fire hypersonic boost-glide warheads

For mobile launch modes Australia can leverage newly emerging hypersonic missile technology which are: larger, faster, longer range missiles than old fashioned Tomahawk cruise missles, but smaller, leghters and cheaper than full sized traditional ballistic missiles (like the Minuteman III ICBM or Trident II SLBM).

A new hypersonic missile being the "LRHW" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-Range_Hypersonic_Weapon

Cheers Mavs

What Australia needs is leadership.
What Australia needs is voters who have both eyes open when voting.
What Australia needs is less ignorance.
What Australia needs is less self serving politicians.

What Australia doesn't need is more toys of delusion.

Now we all know that's not going to happen so go on a picnic, or have a Barby, instead of pretending to know what Australia needs.