Of course like all "right" thinkers the author dosent have any ideological biases or "sensitivities".

More money away from health and education and into defending ourselves against a potential enemy nobody in the defence forces nor government want to mention by name.

While I'm not sure that Australia needs submarines at all, given that submarines are (largely) used to attack opponent's supply lines (and many potential enemies could rely on domestic sources or airfreight) I can't fault the author's logic in suggesting that the Collins class replacements should be nuclear. For submarines, nuclear gives a clear advantage over diesel/electric, particularly in range and cruising speed. My knowledge of submarine warfare is not comprehensive, but I do know that nuclear subs (mainly because of their size) are not good for shallow waters/inshore work, and given our country's huge coastline, can't help wondering whether we don't need two new classes of submarine- small diesel boats for inshore work and bigger nuclear boats for offensive tasks against invaders.

As a former USN officer, I see Australia as a long term ally and friend. The AORs that the Australian navy much operate in requires you to build a nuclear powered submarine. You will get speed, size, the ability to carry a variety of new 21st century weapons systems and also have enough room to carry a crew in decent quarters, with enough stores to feed them for 90 days. Using the USN's new Virginia SSNs as a guide, the cost would fall in the area of US $2 billion per sub.....You'll need a VLS system with the capability to target both surface ships, subs and land targets. You'll also need something like the USN's Mark 48 mod 6 or 7 heavyweight torpedoes. The Virginia's bow, chin and flank array sonars and a towed array will increase the new sub's offensive & defensive capabilities. While an AIP equipped diesel boat is cheaper, it has significant short falls in capability vs the SSN attack sub.....speed,range and weapons systems capabilities being some of the more obvious ones.....smaller size and smaller crews make long patrols much more difficult on the non-nuke crew. It all comes down to dollars and where your govt will draw the line.
Suffice it to say, in the 21st century the bad guys will be growing their weapons delivery capabilities......we, the US and Australia MUST meet the challange.

What path have we started marching along – the tactical or the strategic – perhaps sneaking towards a “Frappe de Force” as De Gaulle put it?
Will all the billion-dollar-eggs be put in one basket, sent out individually like a great tank into battle to be tactically out-manoeuvred and dispatched by a well-organised opposition? Like an aircraft carrier on its lonesome, sans cruisers, destroyers, shepherding subs?
What is its intended role – defending the local, or supplementing yet another force assembled by the world’s self-appointed policeman on yet another ill-advised distant adventure?
At least the speculative atomic sub’s decommissioning presents no problem: cruise it up past Norway’s late-lamented ex-pristine kelp beds and scuttle it amongst all the other pensioned-off nuclear waste in the White Sea; no-one would notice.

Ebullient punster, ex Defence analyst Denis Jensen's harangue on Australia's future deployment of Submarines is old-hat.He should be debating the merits of sub warfare with the Kokoda Foundation and Aust Defence Assn, which publishes numerous ' white papers ' on Oz's Security Challengers - submarines, rating a next-to-zero, in the Defence 2008 agenda.

Briefly, our Australian Submarine Corporation is an upgrade of the defunct Kockums/Transfield/Thales/ Govt consortium enacted specifically to build 6 Collin's Class Swedish designed 3000t, diesel-electric, submarines back in 1987. The project delivered eventually, but with heaps of acriminous behavioural contagion disputes which was settled out of Court,June 2004.

FOI Laws, notwithstanding, if the truth is ever known, the blame-game must have cost taxpayers a mint !

In 1987, the Hawke Govt poured $ 5 billion into the ASC to build the 6 subs. Amidst fanfare, it was signed 3 June 1987 - the biggest Defence Budget on record. 51 % Aust owned, Kockums 49 %.

The aftermath - two high profile original stake holders, subsequently bailed out, leaving James Hardie Industries of " asbestosis fame " becoming a leading player.

To economise and apportion State Funding amicably, the hulls were fabricated in two half's in Osborne.SA and Willimamstown.Vic. It took six years to achieve assembly, retrofitting, tuning before sea trials in Port Philip Bay.

Naval hierarchy have never officially accepted the Submarine Fleet. i.e HMAS Collin's launched in Aug 1993 was not commissioned until 3 years later ? There was a multitude of problems from leakages to malfunction of sonar,propulsion,air quality etc. The RAN underwent major repairs to the hull, and special force's modifications which presumably rectified the bugs, despite submariner's misgivings the subs were sea-worthy ? HMAS Waller, in cooperation with the US Navy Virginia Class subs in San Diego, was the last to undergo a $ 921 million refit of combat sys, torpedo's,hull, props, and a new mast for the Aegis communication system. The saga of repairs to the six subs reads like a Machiacellian litany. RAN conditionally ( naval double-speak )accepted " operational release " of the six subs in March 2004.
cont..

In hindesight, the horrendous cost blow-out would have been better spent had the ADF procurement honcho's, research scientist, analyst bought the Virginia Class sub, with ongoing upgrades,'money-back' guarantees, long term agreements, and US goodwill, instead of embarking on the 'misadventure-of-a-lifetime' nightmare. We would have saved trillions. A National tragedy indeed.

The dispute with Kockums ( incidently, built the HMS Svardfishken )
in 1914 is a state-of-the-art technological wizard ) dragged on for some years, becoming more rancorous. It looked likely to finish up in the Hague International Court.

The Company: Thyssen, Krupp Marine Systems, says it all.It contracts to build Destroyers, Rescue craft, subs etc. for Denmark, Sweden, Singapore etc. It's Naval shipbuilding expertise is World renown. The Swedish Defence Dept's new generation submarine is scheduled 2008.

Anticipating a future role, the ASC has since injected $100 million into upgrading. Demolishing the outdated facilities, expanding ten-fold, providing innovaive initiatives - a R& D facility, Deep Blue Technology Pty. Adelaide University, Northup Grumman, General Dynamics, etc have a finger in the'born again' proverbial pie !

Realistically, what is the role of a Submarine ?
Intel ( SIGINT ) SURVELLANCE, RECONNAISSANCE, PORT BLOCKAGE, ANTI-SHIPPING,MISSILE PLATFORM.

Is Aust better served with more submarines ?
In the 21st millennium, there are more cost effective military hardware available that achieve the same objective and more. Archaic thinking, WWII, Vietnam and Iraq military appraisals are not cognizant of the advances made in modern electronic avionics warfare. The submarine is a maritime museum piece. We can ill afford the luxary.In order of priorities, our Naval capabitities historically have proved costly and ineffective.
More mishaps, bungles, and misadventures have occured in the Senior Service, than any arm of the ADF. Sadly, more lives have been lost in peace time, than any other. Voyager, Melbourne, Westralia etc. In perspective, 44 years after the accident, Veteran's are still battling the Govt for compensation !

The Navy in 1994 enacted a two Ocean Policy for submarines. HMAS Platypus in Sydney, and the WWII ancorage HMAS Stirling at Hendersen. SW of Perth.A Submarine traning school was established 1992.

OLO percludes continuing.Next round.

Subs - to have or not ?

The first USN -SSN774 Virginia Class Fast Attack Submarine was built at the General Dynamic's shipyard in Groton.Connecticut.It's keel was laid Sept 2000, launched Aug 2005, commissioned Oct 2005. Price tag $2.53 billion. This figure escalates exponentially with add-on's and upgrades.
General Dynamics Aviation is the provider of Oz's Twentyfour F111c Fighter-Bomber Squadron based at Amberly.Qld. Soon to be retired.

The US Navy's SSN774'S predecessor, SSN-21,22,23 Sea Wolf Attack Class sub, became so expensive to maintain, Congress ordered it shelved.
Our Defence Chief's, ASC and vested interest, please take note !

Aust being an Island Continent, with an enormous coastline cannot rely on six aging subs operating from Garden Island and Perth to adquately safeguard us. The RAN's surface Fleet and Air Arm are in no better position now, then it was in 1941-45.

The Submarine is as obsolescent as the dodo/moa.

With the event of Electronic surveillance UAV's ( unmanned aerial vehicles )spy satellities, and orbiting space tracking probes etc, aircraft,surface ships and subs are under constant surveillance 24/7. All are ( signature ) indentified, plotted, computerised in memory banks in the Pentagon. President Reagan wasn't kidding with the Star War concept - it's been refined tenfold. For what it is worth this is Peace-time, and only a DRILL ! Paradoxically, this changes the whole emphasis of Warfare and littoral operations worldwide.

BAMS (Broad Area Maritime Surveillance) 10 Satellities continuously orbiting the Globe which tracks ship and Port movements, is a proven maritime interdiction system with a 95 % mission efficiency. ECM (Electronic Counter Measures) fitted to Lockheed P3's Orions, helicopters, Destroyers etc detect long range sub's underwater electrical, magnetic, acoustic, pressure and seismic signatures the minute they put to sea. Multifunction Radar / Sonar Systems with D,E,F,ultra low, frequency bands, fitted with UV,optical,infrared,laser sensors can detect even the stealth (acoustic cladded) configuration of the Sea Wolf and Virginia Class sub.

Instead of dropping mines, aircraft drop sonobuoys at various depths along the coastline which alerts monitoring stations, be it HMAS Rankin or HMAS Kinimbla on patrol. Pragmatically, there is nowhere to

..hide.

Zeitgeist blogger, Denis Jenkin's cites Kim Beazley ( former Labor Leader / Defence Minister ) advocating doubling the Submarine Fleet.His brief tenure was riddled with inconsistencies and half-baked concepts. Member for Swan - dreamer,fantasist, out of his depth. No inkling of either Politics or his portfolios. He was unceremoniously scuppered by his erstwhile colleagues..twice. Et tu Brute, Kevin Rudd of globe-strutting prominence, torpedoed his one time mentor. Say's heaps for our Pollies !

The rub - Kimmy dreamt of a Coast Guard to repel hoards of illegal boat people (since integrated) threatening our Ozzie civilisation and culture ! He championed burning / jailing / deporting, those pitiful troncus-shell fishermen from Java, who have been fishing the area, since the first Indonesian migration 40,000 eons ago !

Oz is suffering mampower skill's shortages. A common complaint is the lack of qualified personnel to man the subs. ADF recruitment have not kept pace with wages, perks offered in civil employment. Money squandered on Advertising agengies that fail to deliver.The quality of aspirants enlisting less than exhilarating, with a high reject rate.
It takes years to educate and train submariner's - almost as much as Aircrew.Retention rates were alarmingly poor, until the ADF boosted salaries and provided uncentive bonus's for reengagement for Officers and specialist crews.

As with all submaine fleets there is a necessity for specialised Rescue teams with a Scopio 45 (ROV)submersible, and on standby i.e. Russian Priz AS-28 submersible disaster Aug 2005. RN, US and Rusky response teams extracted all the Russian crew safely. Their vessel was trapped and entangled in fishing nets at the bottom of a deep gorge in the Kamchatks peninsula. It took 5 hours to free the stricken sub.

Finally, apart from the exorbitant cost to build and maintain a submarine fleet we should consider Oz's absolute reliance on foreigh technology, expertise and burgeoning cost, and in time of War, little or no replacements. The lead time to Plan, build and exercise completion is in the decades time frame. Priorities, security, Alliance's, and response time to WWIII is critical.

Can we meet the challenge ?

Dennis

Another thought provoking article. All the more significant because few politician have expertise in Defence (Beazley may have been Labor's last....;)

Your suggestion of nuclear powered submarines (6?) reduces the need for a sharp rise (to 30?) in conventionally powered submarines floated by Ross Babbage recently. Ross may have been seeking headlines (For his Kokoda Foundation) with little concern for manpower realities.

Naturally the "N" word in connection with Defence, weapons and reactors is politically dangerous in Australia, particularly for a Labor Government reliant on the peaceful pronouncements of regional countries. In connection with Dreaming I've been in NZ for 2 weeks hence the delay in this comment.

There are also some problems with reliance on US reactors:
- the US can and has put political limits on the use of high tech weapons
- As with the F-22 the US does not like to export its best weapons (in whole or part) even to allies. I recall the US actively discouraged Canada from considering a nuclear propulsion solution for replacement subs in late 1990s.
- US reactors might be too large (designed for boats that are too large like the Virginia Class) hence not the solution for Australia. If scaled down reactors are practicable then this downside might not be a problem.
- I'm under the impression that the fuel for the sub reactors is 90+ enriched (ie weapons grade). This spells "proliferation" to a (selectively) conscious US Congress and would increase the domestic sensitivities in Australia.
- France may be an alternate and perhaps more willing supplier.

Sub based reactors are not only an alternative power plant but a highly specialised piece of engineering which would require significant training in nuclear science and technology for shore based maintainers as well as crewmen. This would be a major additional cost to the high unit cost of the subs.

But overall I think nuclear powered submarines will be essential for Australia in our region of increasing threats. Perpetual reliance on the US nuclear submarines is too risky.

Pete
http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com/2008/03/will-australia-go-nuclear-powered.html

Do you want a committed christian view on defence?
We would do better to study the dynamics of prayer, the thing, the force, the success, that prayer to Jesus Christ is, than to make plans for the future that dont include Him.
At the end of the Bibles endtimes (generally 7 years from the appearance of the worlds final dictator, the Beast) we see China swarming outwards across asia towards Israel; and Armageddon to the north. Nothing is going to stop this vast 200million man army...not even the mighty USA (which tells us a story of another treachery. Seek out A.C.Valdez's 1929 vision/A.A.Allens 1954 vision).
Likewise we pay attention to the number of visions and prophecies to the christian churches of Australia about The Lord allowing an invader because of the sins of the Australian people (e.g. this great Chinese thing at the end continueing south onto Australian soil, as a Judgment).
To set up prayer teams across Australia (what a Defence initiative that would be!) would do far better than any military scenario planning.
Really, having been in Gods Word and in collecting revelations for quite a while, Id say without doubt...its all for nothing that we buy for and build Australias defences if we cut God and Christ out of the doings.
Those enemy soldiers are going to get here... and establish... if the nation fails to engage prayer and christian revival

And that, dear friend, is the whole story of Australia and defence.