"The Australian public is Not Yet ready to OK Australia purchasing nuclear subs ..."

Have they been asked? Quite frankly, I think governments should make the best decision on defence irrespective of public option. Non-nuclear subs are pretty useless even now. Nuclear gives us the range we need in our part of the world. A British nuclear submarine went to the Falkland Islands, sank the Belgrano, and wasn't seen until it arrived back in Portsmouth.

However, no matter what armaments we have, the Ad Man can't be trusted with the defence of Australia.

ttbn,

Back in the 1980s an Australian conventional submarine penetrated the defensive shield of warships and Nuclear submarines and "sunk" the USS ENTERPRISE.

It managed to do this because it was so quiet, nuclear subs are noisy underwater because of their STEAM engines.

I've heard a tape made on one of our subs of a nearby US nuclear sub and the noise was astonishing.

Hi Mr Opinion [your Wednesday, 18 November 2020 4:23:33 comment]

Nuclear propelled submarines (called "SSBNs") that carry large ballistic missiles are directly connected to nuclear weapons because the ballistic missiles are always nuclear tipped.

The main job of the smaller nuclear "attack" submarines (called "SSNs" eg. the Barracudas I mentioned in the first comment) is to defend SSBNs when SSBNs are leaving and returning to their nuclear naval bases. In some circumstances an SSN or two may be tasked to defrnd an SSBN that is on patrol.
_______________________________

Another task for Australian SSNs would be to frustrate a Chinese trade blockade or to intercept Chinese SSNs that are in Australian waters,

For Australia Barracuda SSNs would have the major advantage of being very quiet when travelling fully submerged at high speed (eg. 30 knots).

This would allow them to travel 3 times faster (from their major future base just south of Perth) than the conventional subs we plan to buy at SSN prices. Our west coast based SSNs could

1. via the Great Australian Bight travel rapidly to defend our East Coast

OR

2. travel to trouble spots in our near north (lets say near Jakarta or the Malacca Straits (near Singapore).

Aidan

Only you are talking about China "invading Australia"

More likely is:

1. a Chinese naval blockade particularly to block oil tankers full of the oil that can only be processed outside Australia (since we closed our refineries).

AND/OR

2. Chinese nuclear blackmail. China saying "Do what we say. Sharply lower your iron and Uranium prices. Open your land to totally Chinese owned/run food production. Or face the consequences.")

Nothing like a true deterrent to stop Chinese threats AFTER 2030.

Hi Paul1405

If Australia is to have a "non-aligned" defence policy then we need to buy/build the weapons we rely on the US to wield.

Australia's main missing categories are the nuclear propelled and armed submarines manned by the US Navy.

Like the US, the UK (with its US desighned nuclear submarine reactors and US designed and provided Trident II nuclear missiles) won't supply reactors or nuclear weapons to Australia. This anti-proliferation policy is under the NPT http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferation_of_Nuclear_Weapons

Fortunately France is more flexible.

Hi ttbn

At last we agree on something.

Its true the Australian public have not been asked about Aussie nuclear subs.

Our government is too concerned about US opposition. Also Australia likes to promote empty treaty promises eg. the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Rarotonga

Australia has always been hypocritical totally relying on the US nuclear weapons umbrella against Russia and China while our Greenies and DFAT push the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty.
_______________________________

Only nuclear propelled subs can cover Australia's vast distance to action areas quickly and quietly.

Also faster transit times north from Perth mean each Aussie sub could spend longer on station covering various narrows in/around Southeast Asia.

Australia would no longer need 12 conventional subs at nuclear prices. Instead Australia would need:

- 4 ballist missile SSBNs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballistic_missile_submarine

AND

- 4 SSNs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SSN_(hull_classification_symbol)
__________________________

But what of the nuclear "tipping points" dynamic leading to consideration of Australian nuclear submarines?