So does the noise when it’s running.

No one got a comment on the noise factor?

As far as fuelling of conventional subs, the Germans refuelled in mid Atlantic from surface mother ships, today refuelling could be done from large submarine tank subs and with far less danger than is experienced by those engaged in aerial refuelling.

Hi ttbn and diver

Even Australian goverments cannot predict and react to sometiomes far off future possibilities that may amount to nothing.

Even your luminary ex-Generaal Molan may be living down suspicions that he worked for the Americans ("wasting" Iraqi civilians) for too long.

When the $300 Billion cost of Aus future nuclear subs becomes public even you might have problems paying the extra tax for the necessary doubling of Australia's Defence Budget.
_________________

However you're right that building nuclear subs in Adelaide will double their cost - taking 20 years until the first is delivered to the RAN. Instead of a much cheaper US or UK build in half the time.

Between 2025 and 2040 Australia will continue to be stuck with aging, defective Collins subs - giving CHINA extra time to get at us.
__________________

The "USN has completed more than 5400 accident-free reactor years" because they have higher safety standards (with more damage control crew in their subs) than Australia will ever have.

This is especially considering the only place on Australia's East Coast that can forward base our future nuclear subs is SYDNEY HARBOUR.

Hi Is Mise

Times change. The need to run Diesel engines every 2 days in conventional subs like ours is 4 times as loud as reactors - contacts admit.

The Chinese increasingly have seafloor acoustic sensors that are fairly defened by the sound of our Collins subs running their diesel engines.
___________

But very true "Seems like a desperate election ploy or the small kid wanting to play with the big boys."

Scottie's timing is curious. Only a few months or less to the next Election. South Australia is happy to receive 3 times more to build nuclear subs than conventional (diesel) subs.

Still, the CHINA THREAT is rapidly rising and uber expensive large diesel subs increasingly didn't make sense.
__________________

"USS ENTERPRISE"

Subs of any type can penetrate carrier groups 10% of the time but may get sunk 90% of the time.

If Chin’a ever decides to attack Australia it will be by conventional means, they would not want to harm their current investments by using nuclear weapons.

What good are submarines, whatever their power source against a conventional attack; especially if that attack comes by air?

It's good that at least some nuclear action is being taken in response to the Chinese threat. It opens up a number of opportunities whatever implementation they choose.

Paul 05

Or should I say Manuel? Despite your Fawlty Towers heritage I shall soothsay to you that:

Money wasted on the failed Attack class project is a mere pittance of $2.4 Billion (so far). That's nothing for Defence - just TAX-PAYERS hard earned money!

Oh yes, and, there will be Breach of Contract Penalties of $500 millions going to the French.

But its like a Fart in a Fan Factory for the Federal Fudge-it.
_______________________

And your "$90+ billion" for the failed submarine deal has blown out to $300 Billion for the nuke sub deal.
___________________________

"Issy! I've always had my suspicions about you"

Well said, me to. But Issy is related to Royalty. We should recognise our betters.
__________________

The Frogs EAT Frogs and horsemeat.

And who lost the Napoleonic Wars anyway!?