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..