Hi Canem Malum
and others interested.

Nuclear subs are so expensive only cashed up "Great" or "Super" powers can afford them. So even the UK and France with over twice Australia's GDP, can only afford 6 of the nuclear attack subs (SSNs) that Australia may want in the 2040s. By then China will have already invaded or absorbed more territory (eg. Taiwan) in our region.

If China succeeds in invading Taiwan this will free up Chinese military resources for more distant ventures - like blockading Australia through taking oiver islands like East Timor and even Vanuatu.
___________________________

As to nuclear propelled nuclear missile submarines (SSBNs) even UK and France can only afford 4. Three or four is the practical minimum. In the absence of US nuclear protection Australia might want to buy or build 3 SSBNs but only by 2050s.
_______________________

Canem

I agree "Darwin is the wrong location for a base." a naval base or a air base. Placing air or naval resources in Darwin leaves them too exposed to a rapid air attack or sneak naval attack. Also you need a large city to supply the manpower for a large naval base.

So Australia's main submarine base is just south of Perth at Rockingham at a base oddly called HMAS Stirling http://www.defence.gov.au/id/NCIS/HMAS-Stirling.asp

Meanwhile our main surface ship base is at "Fleet Base East - Garden Island" in Sydney Harbour http://www.navy.gov.au/establishments/fleet-base-east

MORE ON AUSTRALIAN SUBMARINE BASING - see http://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2020/02/australian-future-submarines-how-many.html

Pete

Thanks Plantagenet for the information your perspective and your blog link.

I like to think that Australia still has engineering capabilities but in my limited understanding the difficulties lie in the electronics and weapons technology and are held by the various large contractors.

There was of course significant Australian missile development completed in the 60's and bomb tech is 70 years old and fairly well understood even by pro-ams.

Australia will of course need a different defense procurement and R&D strategy than our allies- the US in particular has vastly greater resources- our spending needs to be more focused substituting more thought for less money- it's always been than way it seems.

The US of course also has it's own internal issues which undermine it's military integrity.

Any nation must be able to mobilize it's population and resources in the interest of itself- and obviously this is what is required here- but our systems and processes and certain people conspire to subvert the nations interest.

There are many opportunists out in the world looking to exploit the naive- Australia's interest is not necessarily the same as the world's interest.

There is a negotiating principle going around management circles by Jim Camp from memory "The Power of No". It seems to reject "Win Win" claims as manipulative and exploitative- as perhaps is the concept of universalism.

http://campnegotiations.com/

You might find the following interesting Plantagenet...

http://electricscotland.com/history/nation/stirling.htm

plantagenet,
Does the word 'if' mean anything to you ?

Yes China is the main threat
plantagenet,
The Lefties within Australia are an even greater threat !

Thanks Canem

For the Stirling link.

Looking at http://www.navy.gov.au/establishments/hmas-stirling HMAS Stirling was named after:

"Captain James Stirling, Royal Navy, the naval officer who landed on Garden Island in 1827 and returned in June, 1829 to found not only the first European settlement in Western Australia, but also the first free colony anywhere in Australia. Stirling's makeshift camp was set up on the craggy rock outcrop on the eastern side of the island, which today is known as Cliff Head and is the site of a memorial. Stirling's crest is based on the Stirling family coat-of-arms."
___________________________

Regarding outside help on missiles and nuclear weapons the US finally helped the UK in the 1950/60s with Polaris missile submarines, nuclear reactors and all. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1958_US%E2%80%93UK_Mutual_Defence_Agreement

For Autralia to have an alternate supplier it didn't escape the attention of Australia's submarine selctors that France gave Isreal nuclear weapon and missile help in the 1950s-60s.

Also I have the feeling Israel did not need to hold its own nuclear tests because Israel definitly joint tested its nukes with France (in French North Africa) in the 1960s and I assume in France's Pacific tests later.

So all the money Australia is throwing at France for the Attack class subs is a downpayment on a possible nuclear for military purposes future for Australia.

Regards

Pete