-- from above --

Anyway, the real big problem with subs is that modern subs have never been tested against a major power. When was the last time any western sub directly engaged in an aggressive action against a major foreign power? We have no idea how good they'll be. And by spending *billions* on these subs we are preventing the possibility of us experimenting and diversifying with the myriad of others options that are now clearly going to materialize in the near feature, since the defense force will have no money left. Ie., we're putting all our eggs in one basket when buying these subs.

thinkabit,

Yes, I agree that "modern subs have never been tested against a major power". But that is true also for modern surface fleets, modern carrier groups and modern air forces.

It is also true for drone warfare. As I opined above, the war on the Russian steppes isn't really a proving ground for drone theory.

Everyone is 'flying' blind here. No one quite knows how a war between modern major powers might pan out, what theories will turn out to be valid and which were dead-ends.

So pumping for subs is an educated guess at best. But some educated guess has to be made and most admiralties are guessing in favour of subs.

" if you don't like the Goliath/David reference for personal reasons"

I've got no problem with it although some of our Israel-phobic contributors might. Given my own proclivities, rather than David/Goliath, I probably go with Marathon or Watling Street or even Gaugamela all of which had massively out-numbered forces triumphing.

"we're putting all our eggs in one basket when buying these subs."

Well that's not right. We are already contracted to buy large numbers of medium range missiles in a $7b deal and have allocated a further $20b for future purchases of missiles. Additionally we have an emerging locally based drone industry that might yet provide significant benefits to the ADF.

"What is the sum total of your military experience? "

Paul declares that we should only be posting about things where we have direct personal experience.

Which of course means we won't be hearing from Paul again until we start a thread on dementia wards.

Hi mhaze,
"It seems that since I don't think like he does ('like I do' ) then that means, by definition, I'm not 'saying sensible stuff'. Only people who agree with thinkabit are sensible, it seems."

It's ok mhaze, we all say silly things now and again.
Some more than others, but no-ones perfect we all learn new things.
Maybe you can try a little harder in the future?

"We get an inkling of how relatively easy it is to counter drones on the open water by the way the Houthi attacks have been deflected using a relatively small force."
- We get an inkling of your daftness whenever we fact-check.

Red-Faced U.S. Retreats? USS Abraham Lincoln Leaves Red Sea After Houthis’ Missile & Drone Blitz
http://youtu.be/K5Z9lQ4eTaU

- It's ok, you're only human, just like the rest of us.
No need to carry on every time someone posts something you disagree with.
We're still all Aussies you know.

While nobody seems to know when, or if, we will ever have replacements for the Collins submarines, on the positive side we have now had the full fleet of 72 F-35 fighter planes delivered to us.

"Sending a thousand drones against a carrier group is a very different thing. It takes an heroic assumption to think that that would be successful and that that is a substitute for things like subs and vessels of the line.

Again drones have their place and that place will expand over the years. We know that US and Taiwanese planners think they could deflect a Chinese invasion by overwhelming use of drones, but again this is a restricted waterway from a home land mass. Completely different to anything Australia might be involved in."

I think you are being incredibly naive mhaze.
Firstly the U.S. drone plan if I remember correctly, was pathetic.
It won't be a war like Ukraine, it will be a lightning strike.
China will take Taiwan in 2 weeks and the West won't be able to stop it.

U.S. carriers have a lifespan of 1 week in port and 2 weeks at sea, and personally I think that's an extremely conservative estimate.

They're not going to fire off weapons with the intention of doing superficial damage.
They'll send a 100+ decoy drones, as well as a a hundred cruise and ballistic missiles+ - to overwhelm any air defenses, (just like Iran did to Israel) then the carrier and fleet will be hit with those carrier killer hypersonics, (all of which times to hit the fleet at the same time - as well as something similar to Russian Oreshniks, not to mention the subs tailing the fleet, and the whole entire carrier fleet WILL BE GONE.
Any aircraft in the air will have to find a safe place to land, if they even have the fuel to reach a safe landing zone.
Which of course refueling facilities along Chinas periphery will be one the first things that China hits.

That's why they need the subs.
After that, mushroom clouds will miraculously start appearing over many cities.