Ex naval officer and military historian, Tom Lewis, reckons that now Turnbull has been scrapped, so too should the French Barracuda class submarine also be scrapped. The vessel is named the Barracuda, but Lewis thinks that it would be better named the Turnbull class to recognise that man’s “absurd decision to re-engineer nuclear vessels as diesel-electrics”, which will, like Turnbull himself, “bring nothing but failure and grief”.

There are eight reasons why we should go nuclear: cost; the proven design; endurance; undetectability; speed; crew; safety; deterrence.

The U.S. Virginia class, already built and proven is half the cost.

Odds of success with the one-off French design are dubious. We know that the Virginia class works. Australia had never built a submarine before the Collins, and look how well that worked. We are deluding ourselves if we think that we can build subs as well as countries who have been
“sub-building for over 100 years”.

A nuclear sub never needs refuelling. It doesn't need to be at certain predictable spots to refuel. The air can be “scrubbed” and fresh water produced without surfacing.

Not surfacing means undetectable. The Virginia, unlike all old technology, wouldn't have to come to periscope depth to take in air to run their diesels, and recharge batteries. When they’re at war, this is dangerous.

Nuclear submarines are much faster underwater than dated diesel electric.

Probably referring to the reluctance of Australian sailors to crew submarines, the author thinks we might be able to “buy” American crews as well. Hmmm … to that one, I think.

The nuclear engine Is a sealed unit that can operate for 30 years without being touched. At which time it would be obsolete. “America, France, Britain, China, Russia, India – with Pakistan following soon – all have nuclear subs. Their engines have been accident-free for decades”.

Sea invaders would never know where nuclear submarines were lurking. Just knowing that they are around is a great deterrent.

The Barracudas haven't been started. We should say 'non’ to the French and talk to Americans who, unlike the French, are our allies.

Ttbn

Diesel/ electric... very quiet. There are more considerations to submarine choice outside of raw technology.

The Americans have very different considerations to submarine choice than does Au.

Don't underestimate the French. Big mistake.

Pls do go on DD, what's the game changer? It appears that Green opposition even stops us from defending ourselves by any means nuclear, let alone powering our society.

Not sure it was entirely Turnbull's fault where we ended up on subs, probably more a general lack of willingness to tackle the whole nuclear question.

IMO, Oz should arm itself with nuclear weaponry as we are just a light lunch for an invading power while the US appears to become more isolationist and conflict averse. Will ANZUS really protect us at the level we may need it?

Nuclear subs may have all those strengths, but they have one major weakness: the inability to operate in shallow water. As water is good at absorbing radio waves, that makes conventional subs better for our purposes.

Luciferase

I'm of the school of thought; who gives a toss?

But reality is, the French have been building submarines since around the turn of the twentieth century. I would be confident in their design ability.

*....During COMPTUEX 2015, an exercise led by the US Navy, Saphir successfully defeated the aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt and her escort, managing to "sink" the US carrier. This was widely advertised by the French Navy but unmentioned by the US Navy....*

As we know, SA is the problem with this new sub deal.

Aidan Quote "the inability to operate in shallow water. As water is good at absorbing radio waves, that makes conventional subs better for our purposes."

Confusing, so nuclear according to you don't operate well in shallow water WHY?
Then you say water is good at absorbing radio waves, by your reasoning because conventional subs operate in shallow water they would be easier to communicate with.

You fail to keep up with technology there was something on media a few days ago about a system that could make communications with things underwater at great depths as well as under ice.

I doubt if the minimum depth a nuclear sub could operate as opposed to the minimum depth a conventional sub could operate at is large enough to make a great strategic difference.

I would rather be in a sub at a greater depth than one in shallow water where it could easily be detected.

What about the oddity of converting a nuclear vessel into a diesel electric one, and lengthening the hull for some arcane reason. All to be done by the people who gave us the Collins! The whole idea is a sick joke akin to the F-35 aircraft,which is getting dearer and dearer and having more faults found all the time. And when will the first hybrid Barracuda be operational? Years from now when it will be obsolete. Still, I suppose it's par for the course in a country that blows up power stations and replaces them with windmills.

//Let The Ship Go Down With Turnbull//

Boat, not ship. Submarines are boats.

How about these Submarines just go down, and we spend the $100 billion on something worthwhile.

http://www.afr.com/news/100-billion-babies-defence-reveals-true-cost-of-new-submarines-for-taxpayers-20180529-h10ohc

Hey Diver Dan, could you advise me of even one naval battle that the French have won.

Don't forget, we want a fighting ship, not one to pull up a white flag.

Paul might have something here. We could buy quite a few cruise missals & even a few nuclear intercontinental ballistic missiles for 50 million, which would be a greater deterrent than a few subs, unless the subs were so armed.

Nuclear is the only weapon that would give us any real deterrent.

Philip S,
I'm not a submarine expert, so I'll leave the explanations of why to others. But AIUI the main purpose of our subs is to surreptitiously intercept others' communications.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Toni Lavis,
Don't tell ScoMo or he might try to stop them!

_____________________________________________________________________________________

We certainly don't want nuclear weapons. They'd be counterproductive because countries would treat us as a much bigger threat to them. Plus of course geopolitics has moved on; nobody would even consider invading us now. We need to equip ourselves for the requirements of the advancing 21st century, not the bygone requirements of the 20th.

Toni,

I've never heard the expression 'going down with the boat. I was speaking figuratively; but I suppose you have to have your peevish little digs.

"Plus of course geopolitics has moved on; nobody would even consider invading us now"

I'm sure hope Vlad reads this advice and ceases his pranks, oh, and the Chinese in the SCS. Invasion is so yesterday!

Wouldn't take much for the Chinese to chomp off north-western Australia for a food-bowl and mineral supply. China's SCS exploits set the platform for future dominance over the region, and within the lifetime of our children.

Luciferase Our traitor politicians would probably just sell it to them if they offered enough money and kickback.

Aidan
I doubt the main purpose for $50 Billion dollar submarines is to listen to communications, low orbit satellites can do that and are harder to to find than a sub. Even Pine gap has been doing that for years.

Luciferase,
It may have escaped your attention, but Australia is not in the SCS.

I didn't say nobody would ever consider invading anybody now. We're still at the stage where despots consider invading countries whose land their country has a historical claim on (however dubious that claim is). But China has never had any territorial ambitions in Australia. Nor has Russia, which is really only interested in former Soviet territory.

China may want to dominate South East Asa, but we're not in South East Asia.
China has no ambition to invade, no reason to invade (they can buy stuff from NW WA at far less than the cost of invading) and every reason not to invade (it would undoubtedly trigger international sanctions devastating the Chinese economy).
__________________________________________________________________________________

Philip S,

I understand that to be their main purpose, and if it isn't then I very much doubt it's worth having submarines at all.

But this is one of the very few things the public must be kept in the dark on for security reasons. We can not know whether our submarines are getting good value for money, nor what our exact requirements are.

China has no ambition to invade, no reason to invade (they can buy stuff from NW WA at far less than the cost of invading
Aidan,
The Chinese have long ago found Australia's weakest Link the $ & they're exploiting it to the fullest.

//Nuclear is the only weapon that would give us any real deterrent.//

Hassy, taking a leaf out of Kim Jong-un book. Nuclear proliferation, just what we need. Who said you were such a Hasbeen.