Greg Sheriden in the Weekend Australian has written about nuclear
submarines not being possible for Australia for political reasons.
The subject has arisen because Tony Abbott raised the possibility.

It must be understood that diesel submarines are just not practical
for a country that imports 100% of its petrol and diesel fuels.
In a military standoff of one sort or another it would require only
one oil tanker to be sunk and the insurance companies would stop all.
However it does not require that Australia be involved in any sort
of military action, it could be an action that closed the Strait of Hormuz.
It could be an Iranian attack on Saudi Arabian oil installations.
It does not have to be a military action, it could be a fire in the
Singapore refinery. It could be an industrial dispute anywhere.

Australia requires a certain number of oil tankers to arrive.
Sydney alone requires two every day.

So in the case of a military action requiring our submarines to be
at sea when they use up their fuel they will be tied up at the dock for the duration.
Diverting stocks to the subs will not happen as the stock will be
needed to move food to the cities. Submarines or starvation ?

You think this is just waffle, then read these;

http://www.aspo-australia.org.au/References/Bruce/NRMA/Fuel_Security_Report_Pt2.pdf

http://www.aspo-australia.org.au/References/Bruce/NRMA_Fuel_Security_Infographic.pdf

The NRMA's reports to Senate enquiries into fuel security was ignored.
Just like the warnings on solar & wind electricity generation.
Politicians just never listen, they know it all !

The folly of war. Use the money where it can do some good. Not on big toys for the boys.

We do have plenty of allies, so it's NOT imperative for diesel subs to refuel in Australia.

The deep water requirements of nuclear subs make them unsuitable for our needs.

Nuclear is the the only thing that makes sense for Australia. The other thing that would have been sensible is to have bought off the shelf vessels from Japan or America. The over-priced French rubbish is unlikely to ever eventuate in South Australia. It was just a ruse by the Turbull government to help Squeaky Pyne to retain his precarious seat (and look how he has said thank you!). We can't even produce cars here anymore, and we don't have the electricity for manufacturing: it's unreliable and the dearest in the world.

Stick to the Collins until we have underwater drones. Sailors don't want to man submarines any more.

Nuclear subs are noisy, in the past, our "Oxley" diesel subs ran rings around US nuclear subs as ours were virtually undetectable.

There was the famous occasion when one of our subs penetrated the screen of high-tech ships around the USS "Enterprise", passed under her, surfaced and gleefully signalled "You're sunk".

Better efficiency than nuclear power.

I don't know what the best choices are. However I do know that there are many trustworthy and highly skilled professionals to give the government and Parliament the necessary advice.

What is very concerning though is the impression given to Asian countries to the north during the years of Rudd and Gillard and still being echoed by Labor and Greens, that Australians don't value what they have and do not have the interest and will to defend any of it, particularly the Australian way of life and culture.

Allies find value in their own interests, not in being friendly with us because we are so 'nice'. If the North was being swamped with so-called 'asylum seekers', the Greens and Labor would find cynical political capital in frustrating every effort to return or contain them. They would be rolling out the welcome mat instead and giving further encouragement.

A far as 'allies' are concerned, a partitioned Australia would serve their interests just as well and they might gain some trade-off benefits, a certain one being that they were not required to take military action, "Hey, you Aussies, you were already multicultural right? Some tens of thousands of migrants followed by 'police' to protect them and millions more to follow, that just gets your desired 'Big Australia' even sooner, huh?".

Anything that Abbott says would be a no brainer. He is a fissile inferior infidel. It’s only going to take 15 years to set up an atomic capability. Remember all of the rolling back flips and he broke every promise he ever made. We are paying the penalty of Abbott backing out the price on carbon with high power costs. Industry does not know which way to go, and it is costing us badly. Even the RBA is calling for rise up and get wages moving. Abbotts failure was the dumbing down of wages growth so business could hire more staff. That has failed to the extent that no one can afford to buy goods. Everything that Abbott touched turned to mud.

I know absolutely nothing about Submarines, but to my untrained mind and from what I've read and seen in Doco's on TV, without question, Nuclear is the way to go. And to further muddy the waters, 'apparently' the French could build the ideal Sub. suitable for our strategic needs, rather than several other Nuclear powered Nations, by all accounts. As I said at the outset, I haven't got any specific knowledge about Submarines or Submariner's, other than a friend of mine who was a Lt. in the Oz Submarine fleet in Sydney. It was my humble opinion, all Submariners were essentially mad!

o sung wu,

Madness helps, there is nothing like submerging in a sub for the first time; all the disaster movies come to mind!!

I've just finished reading Malcolm Davis's article
written in The Australian newspaper, May 15, 2017.
Malcolm Davis is a senior analyst at the Australian
Strategic Policy Institute.

He asks, "Is it time to begin a discussion on nuclear
powered submarines for the Royal Australian Navy?

In his analysis there are quite a few questions.

1) What key operational advantages are offered by nuclear
subs for Australia?
a) Long range, and endurance?
b) tactual advantage in speed, manoeuvrability, power and stealth?

Are our submarine missions focused on long-distance deplyments
rather than short-range coastal defence?

In which case then he imagines that nuclear subs offer this
much more effectively than coventional boats.

The article ends with the very important fact that -
'We should also not entertain any illusion that nuclear subs
would be operated at anything less than the highest safety
standards."

He goes on to tell us - "That however demands a cadre of
skilled nuclear experts with the navy and a substantial logistics
base to maintain sovereign operation."

According to Malcolm Davis, "This is a critical capability area
that Australia lacks."

I know nothing about the technology of submarines, but that is irrelevant.

Aiden thinks they could go somewhere else to get refuelled.
Perhaps they could get the US Navy to do it at sea. If they had to go
to the US to refuel, what is their range ? By the time they got back
would they need to refuel ? Would they then have enough to get back to the US.
It would certainly make a hole in their patrol time.
Of course other countries are closer but they would be in the same
boat as us,if you will pardon the pun.

Is Mise, it does not matter how efficient a submarine is, if its base
does not manufacture diesel fuel it is just expensive junk.
Remember if they set out on a patrol and came back after two weeks the
supermarkets would be almost empty and steam trains would be being
resurrected to bring food into the cities.

It is a really serious problem whether it is a war situation or a
Middle East problem or any number of other problems.

But as Paul Fletcher MHR Minister for Infrastructure said;

"We have good commercial arrangements for the supply of fuel!".

Oh Yes ?

Bazz,

"Is Mise, it does not matter how efficient a submarine is, if its base
does not manufacture diesel fuel it is just expensive junk"

Substitute 'surface ships' for submarines and you're in the same boat (pun intended)!

Then what about trains?

Now, you're talk'n Issy. What any self respecting navy needs is a decent Battleship, nothing too ostentatious something around the 70,000 tonne make should do. The navy brass would love it.

Australia should be gearing itself towards a defensive capability, not some belligerent offensive nonsense which involves billion dollar submarines.

Paul,

"Australia should be gearing itself towards a defensive capability, not some belligerent offensive nonsense which involves billion dollar submarines."

Like training and arming the civilian population, good thinking.

Indeed Is Mise, the surface ships with diesel engines would be in the
same maritime vessel. If any of them burn bunker oil they might be
able to use the small amount of crude oil that we do produce after
some modification.
There would be enough crude, 350000 barrels a day, for their use.
Diesel trains would also be out of use after stocks exhausted.
Regarding stocks, the OECD has a decision that all members, including
Australia, are to hold a three month security stock.
All OECD countries comply except Australia which has zero stocks.
Our major stock is in the tanks of our cars.
This is really a very serious risk aside from the defence aspect.
Australia's civil emergency management is ignorant of the risk.
State, District and Local Emergency Management Committees are
forbidden to prepare displans to cover the risk. Why ?

Read the links I gave at the beginning of this thread.
Even if you think I am a panic merchant, what do you think of the NRMA ?

Do try to grow up a bit Paul. Apply some grey matter, if you have any, to subjects before you rush to the keyboard.

In WW11 we were defending ourselves, but intelligently we did it in PNG, the middle east & north Africa. This spared our population the devastation of having our country become a battleground. Yes Darwin got hit rather hard, & a few other northern areas somewhat, but if we had fought on our own soil, Sydney, Melbourne & Brisbane would have been hit much more than Darwin.

The only smart form of defence is to project your strength a long way from home territory, & keep your enemy a very long way away. I guess this concept is a bit much for a Green, but do try to understand.

As a matter of fact, even northern Oz is long range for the current crop of home grown subs, they usually require a repair stop in Broom, even before they make it to Darwin. Do you really think another bunch of homegrown stuff will be any better. Yes I agree, pigs might fly too.

Issy, I'll check with leoj, if he can see his way fit and give you a commission in his para-military armed citizen militia. Dust off that old Boar War uniform of yours, get out the blunderbuss, and lets see Colonel Issy front and center. It would be finger lick'n good, being a pacifist myself, I'll just bring the herbs and spices.

p/s Our first target is Abdul's Kebab Shop, next door to our KFC HQ, KFC = Kiddies Firing Cannons.

"Australia should be gearing itself towards a defensive capability, not some belligerent offensive nonsense which involves billion dollar submarines."

You said it, Paul.
I was only agreeing with you!!

You have all missed the point:
The defence forces, air force, navy and land forces will be inoperable
after two weeks, perhaps sooner due to hoarding.
The Federal and State governments will also be inoperable.
Only local government will have any functions.

Perhaps the army will be marching up to Queensland or be on a steam
train, pulled by the reconditioned C3801 and the C36 that are the two
operational steam locomotives in NSW.
Forget about forward defence, that is a fuel dependant operation.
An armed population may well be all that we can manage.
However an invader will quickly run out of fuel also and the invader
and us will have a bigger problem, locating food.

Oh yes the Navy might call for crew with sailing experience to man
HMAS Endeavour.
You think I am joking ?

Bazz,

I agree with you and others do too, that the fuel reserves and production are not there for self sufficiency under threat.

But your argument is first with those who dismiss the need for an acceptable defence capability, or maybe as international socialists or whatever they don't really care. To them, 'national' is a dirty word. And there are those who believe that the US umbrella would be always available and sufficient. Even that Australia should be expecting that, gratis.

It is only through being proactive and other areas of policy are relevant too, that Australia can have any hope of countering the most likely threat, which is an occupation more or less along the lines of the present migrant invasion of Europe.

There are countries nearby who would like to grab Australia's resources to balance their economies. They must see opportunity in the leftists' disruption of initiatives to improve Australia's capacity to defend its borders and at a distance.

However it hurts brains to be thinking, especially independently of spoon-feeding Waleed and others.

Most prefer to be discussing gay this or that. It is one of the diversions they have been given to occupy the dumbed-down and goes well with the take away sugar, fat and salt of their takeaway TV dinners.

Leoj,

Is it possible for you to provide evidence of your claim that;

"There are countries nearby who would like to grab Australia's resources to balance their economies. They must see opportunity in the leftists' disruption of initiatives to improve Australia's capacity to defend its borders and at a distance."

Are you referring to Indonesia? or is it New Zealand? possibly East Timor?

The militarists among us, you included, have used a false premise, presenting it as fact, that a threat to Australia exists to justify intervention in aggressive wars, or at the very least excessive spending on offensive military hardware.

I recognize the reality that Australia does require an appropriate defense capability, but that in itself does not justify excessive spending on 'big boys toys' like submarines.

Paul1405,

Those NSW 'Eastern Bloc' Greens handlers of yours need to give you a red clown's nose to go with the 'Useful Idiot' lapel badge. How did your boasted visit to Melbourne go? Dodge any street cameras while carrying the 'Watermelon' contagion to the willing Adam Bandt?

The Eastern Bloc's Trots threat (and death?) list puts the US and Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East, as their top threats. That is to the Greens' goal of 'one world government' where Australians lose control over their destiny and their children, their birthright, particularly their freedom of speech, democratic institutions and Australian law . Add to that the UK, most of Europe and in fact all of the Western democracies, who the Greens maintain are the 'real' invaders and the cause of all of the world's problems.

However most people do as I do which is to accept the assessments of Defence, DoFA and experts including the Lowy Institute. It is a fact easily seen from news reports that the strategic outlook in the Indo-Pacific is more hazardous. Both sides of the federal Parliament have been dragged down by wasted parliamentary pre-occupation with Green's nuisance subjects such as gay marriage and are failing to adequately prepare Australia for a ‘less rosy Asia’.
Australia is highly susceptible to treats to maritime shipping routes and one would definitely add changing Indonesian leadership/s.

Most posters provide support from what they say and I usually do the same out of politeness and respect for others time. But YOU never do, while setting out to be the forum clown and stirrer. What about YOU actually make a contribution to the discussion some time?

Should be, "Australia is highly susceptible to THREATS to maritime shipping routes and one would definitely add changing Indonesian leadership/s."

Paul1405, not being any sort of expert on defence I draw your attention
to China's claims to the Sth China sea down to Indonesia because they
claim in historical times it was under their control.
It is only a extension of that to claim that the Chinese admiral, whose
name I cannot remember, discovered Australia on his way to Africa and
claimed it in the name of his emperor.
When the number of Chinese living in Australia reaches a certain level
it would give the Chinese government a further lever to justification.

Perhaps you have not noticed the Wahhabi influenced moslem activists
in Indonesia. If they get control of the government they may decide
that we are suppressing moslems in Australia and come to "rescue" them.
To consider and prepare for that sort of scenario is the reason we
pay politicians and defence people.

Nuclear submarines are said to be very noisy but they may have a
different attack technique because of their speed.
For the same money we could get fewer submarines but get more sea time.

I have to agree with those who think a fleet of any sort of subs is a bad joke.

What we need is all of north Australia bristling with at least 500 nuclear armed cruise missiles. Add another 100 or so nuclear armed ICBMs, & Australia becomes a target just too expensive to attack.

The MAD, mutually assured destruction, system is what stopped major war between the superpowers, & would work for us equally well. We just have to be able to cause our attacker more in cost than the value of taking Oz, & other than boat people & migrant invasions, we have a suitable defence.

What we need are solar powered submarines, then the Greens would be happy.

To keep them even happier we could have wind-powered surface ships; for which the proven technology already exists.

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=sailing+ship&rlz=1C1CAFB_enAU718AU718&oq=sailing+s&aqs=chrome.2.69i57j0l5.13581j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Leoj, like that other propagandist you attempt to turn the big lie into fact;

"There are countries nearby who would like to grab Australia's resources to balance their economies. They must see opportunity in the leftists' disruption of initiatives to improve Australia's capacity to defend its borders and at a distance."

Where is your evidence? it may be the One Nations party line, but that is not proof.

"Most posters provide support from what they say and I usually do the same out of politeness and respect for others time."

What a load of rubbish leoj. Like a cracked record, you grind out the same silly line over and over; "Greens, Eastern Bloc, trots, watermelons.

Paul1405,

You are quickly out of your depth. -Which is also why Lee Rhiannon, her 'Boy' Sh**bridge and others want to keep the Greens as a collective of serial protesters. That way it is all care and no responsibility and no need to research either. Just bang on with the 'Class Wars' and 'comrade this and that'. Good work if you can get it, polishing a leather Senate seat and no responsibility, just log-jamming and frustrating others who want to get things done.

It wasn't anyone as recent as 'Hanson' (always on your mind), it was defence analysts, in Australia and international. There are authoritative sources to confirm.

The Greens themselves refer to the exasperating NSW 'Eastern Bloc' faction as 'Watermelons', Trots, anarchists and so on. Your attention has been drawn to recent media reports, with links. But of course you are claiming ignorance.

There are so many questions that need answers -
regarding the consideration of nuclear submarines
for this country. One of the main concerns should
be the maintenance of the highest safety standards.
Experts point out that if we are going to have a
competitive evaluation process for new submarines
we should ask - is Australia prepared in political,
military-technological or industrial terms to consider
nuclear submarines as a viable option? According to
some experts Australia does not have the necessary
expertise in the navy that is required for the
insurance of the highest safety standards. That this
is something Australia currently lacks.

Foxy said;
Australia does not have the necessary
expertise in the navy that is required for the
insurance of the highest safety standards. That this
is something Australia currently lacks.

Not completely, there are many years of experience in managing a
nuclear reactor.
The navy of course can be trained, there would be some years in which
to train them. Unfortunately our most experienced people in nuclear
power have now died of old age.

At present our biggest threat is from the 5th column.
We do need to try and detect future threat development.
If we do detect a future threat then planning needs to be undertaken.

Leoj, that is a laugh coming from one who incessantly prattles on about Greens, Eastern Bloc, Trots, watermelons. Nearly ever post on every topic you let fly with, Greens, Eastern Bloc, Trots, watermelons. Maybe you don't notice yourself.

The professionalism is there and the risk assessments and treatments that Australia can afford and can best contribute to its alliances are also there in the main. The politics being played and largely because governments have short terms, do impact, but more so in delays rather than poorer choices one would hope.

There is much more noise now that the forever disaffected and serially protesting have access to social media and of course heaps of time through lack of anything worthwhile to occupy themselves.

Go looking for independent and competent information on defence from such 'sources' as Waleed Aly and Tony Jones and expect to be disappointed. They have their dumbed-down audience (the same ones) to feed like chooks.

Dear Paul,

He's now added Tony Jones and Waleed Aly to the mix.
How bizarre. What do they have to do with nuclear
subs? Why not add the "real experts" like Andrew Bolt,
and Alan Jones, and of course Cory Bernardi, and
the all knowing Pauline Hanson (she knows everything).
And then for an international expert of course we can
always rely for the "real news" on the US President -
Donald Trump.

It's all a case of "Deja Poo." The feeling that we've heard
all this crap before. (smiley face).

According to some, the only acceptable analysis is the one put forward by the so called experts who support a Capitalists feed belligerent militaristic approach which has failed Australia many times in the past. The concept of establishing Fortress Australia, from which we venture forth periodically to blast the perceived third world enemies, is well established.
The spending of $50 billion on these offensive submarines is ridiculous. Our aim should be the prevention and reduction of conflicts, not a policy which blindly links us to the US, and its confrontational foreign policies. A move to a non aligned stance would see Australia better respected on the world stage, and give us a meaningful voice in world affairs. Unfortunately, since WWII, because of our sycophantic support of US aggression throughout the world, others view Australia as an appendage of US militarism, with no worthwhile opinion or contribution to make.

Hi Foxy,

Rather strange that one, I thought he might have thrown in Eastern bloc, Trots, watermelon, Greens.
Leoj might have thought I was having a poke at him when I suggested he could be suffering from 'Sensory Processing Disorder', but I was not, I think he is a genuine sufferer.

Problem is we are at the mercy of incompetent politicians.
Just heard Bob Carr talking on the TV about how we cannot do anything
to stop Nth Korea if China won't act.
Nonsense "we" could stop Nth Korea in its tracks in about two days if
either China stopped its fuel supply or if they would not then if
somebody put a cruise missile into each tank in each tank farm.
Nth Korea would come to a halt in one or two days.

The same to power stations or HV switch yards. It takes at least
six months to get new transformers.

"Problem is we are at the mercy of incompetent politicians"

Labor has gay marriage and its 'Friends of Palestine' to talk about. Labor is vying with Greens through failing memberships on both sides.

The ABC is the de facto Opposition.

DMO can't recruit enough skilled folks to maintain the MK48's, let alone train the RAN crews needed to sufficient levels to man the patrols required in the Collins boats. I'm sure the Chinese suppliers of our boots could do a deal on a couple of pre loved nukes, hell it would probably come with a few hidden dissidents who'll absolutely love the WA weather.

Good onya Fuhrer Abbott, to zee U Boats mein herren volk !

Ein Reich, ein LNP, ein massive white elephant daubed in matte black paint !

Now let's all be patriotic little Aussies and get out those flags and start waving madly.