F-35 Joint Strike Fighter - Abbott agrees to buy more, more, more.

Do you agree with the Aus gov's decision to purchase F-35s?


  • Total voters
    42
  • Poll closed .
Our subs did some serious damage to the US fleet in wargames...The US has a weakness against diesel subs (which is why they hired the swedish boat...to (re)learn how to counter them).

The problem with them is that they're tiny...~1600 tonnes. (A26 isn't much bigger at 1900).

To get the fuel capacity/range we'd need, 4000 would be bare minimum, 5000 more likely (The A26 variant proposed for us is 4000 tonnes), but clearly that would be a massive change. They'd also probably need significant changes in the electronics....So basically, we'd have the same situation we had with the Collins class boats...A massively upsized Swedish boat with a separately sourced fire control system.

yep

the reality is by making a conventional sub larger, you lose 90% of its advantage which is by being small is suitable to close to shore and shallow warfare.
 
Mar 17, 2009
21,636
17,319
Hobart
AFL Club
Collingwood
yep

the reality is by making a conventional sub larger, you lose 90% of its advantage which is by being small is suitable to close to shore and shallow warfare.

Not really, the secret to a good sub is its ability to be quiet. Noise, sonar, electronic quietness.

We need subs with all the advantages of being small & quiet but the size to sustain long ranges & crew comfort.
 
the reality is by making a conventional sub larger, you lose 90% of its advantage which is by being small is suitable to close to shore and shallow warfare.
Depends - O-Boats were bigger than the Collins but had the advantage of being able to rest on the bottom because of the hull, meaning they could be truly silent.

The ability to be quiet and, in the Australian context, range are important considerations. The small Jap subs have serious range issues which would necessitate either moving the subs at FBW North or establishing a third sub base at (for example) Darwin.
 
Depends - O-Boats were bigger than the Collins but had the advantage of being able to rest on the bottom because of the hull, meaning they could be truly silent.

Only really works in (relatively) shallow waters, and also means you're not doing anything (while still using up air), so the benefits are limited.

The ability to be quiet and, in the Australian context, range are important considerations. The small Jap subs have serious range issues which would necessitate either moving the subs at FBW North or establishing a third sub base at (for example) Darwin.

Small Jap subs? The Soryu's are 4,200 tonnes submerged.

I'm starting to think the air independent propulsion system (used by both the Japs and Swedes..It's a Swedish design, the Japs licenced it) comes at a 'cost' of speed/range, because the Swedish boats aren't exactly quick either.
 
Not really, the secret to a good sub is its ability to be quiet. Noise, sonar, electronic quietness.

We need subs with all the advantages of being small & quiet but the size to sustain long ranges & crew comfort.

So we need a big sub that acts/sounds like a small one...

Big ask, especially as nobody builds diesel subs them like that. Long range subs are pretty much all nucs.

Hell, the French 'proposal' for a sub for us is their new Nuc sub with a diesel engine swapped in.
 
Depends - O-Boats were bigger than the Collins but had the advantage of being able to rest on the bottom because of the hull, meaning they could be truly silent.

The ability to be quiet and, in the Australian context, range are important considerations. The small Jap subs have serious range issues which would necessitate either moving the subs at FBW North or establishing a third sub base at (for example) Darwin.

I am sure much has changed on subs in 20 years but subs when silent can not produce water, can not have a/c running (high 30 degree temps is not unheard of), no hot food, no showers allowed and only two people authorised to walk around meaning you are stuck in your rack.

so not only are you limited by time due to running out of oxygen (burning O2 producing candles helps) but how long can a crew operate sensibly in high 30 degree heat and laying in their sweat which is discoloured by diesel?
 
So we need a big sub that acts/sounds like a small one...

Big ask, especially as nobody builds diesel subs them like that. Long range subs are pretty much all nucs.

Hell, the French 'proposal' for a sub for us is their new Nuc sub with a diesel engine swapped in.

we also need a sub with only 20 crew as that is all we probably have fit in the entire sub fleet. Our plan under the collins class was to have 3 crews for each sub thus 18 crews for the 6 subs. We could only manage 1 crew.....only short by 17 crews from our goal.

seriously though, we should look a for a sub with tiny crew and pay them $120k per annum and a $2.0m bonus at the end of 10 years and $4.0m at the end of 20 years. If we are to spend $40b per sub we need to ensure they are operational which includes having a crew. The job would have to be one of the worst in the world yet requires extremely capable guys who don't crack under pressure.

I don't know what the smallest crews are for subs these days (probably 22) but we will no doubt have a crew requirement of 50 or 60 on our subs, simply because our navy is dumb and our sub choice post modification will be wrong. May be we can outsource our crews to indians or chinese?
 
we also need a sub with only 20 crew as that is all we probably have fit in the entire sub fleet. Our plan under the collins class was to have 3 crews for each sub thus 18 crews for the 6 subs. We could only manage 1 crew.....only short by 17 crews from our goal.

seriously though, we should look a for a sub with tiny crew and pay them $120k per annum and a $2.0m bonus at the end of 10 years and $4.0m at the end of 20 years. If we are to spend $40b per sub we need to ensure they are operational which includes having a crew. The job would have to be one of the worst in the world yet requires extremely capable guys who don't crack under pressure.

I don't know what the smallest crews are for subs these days (probably 22) but we will no doubt have a crew requirement of 50 or 60 on our subs, simply because our navy is dumb and our sub choice post modification will be wrong. May be we can outsource our crews to indians or chinese?

Soryu's have a crew of 65, Collins 58 (was 42 but was increased in 2009 to cut workload/stress in an effort to retain crews), Gotland 28 (much higher officer/enlisted ratio though). Simply put, it seems to increase almost linear with size (4000,3000,1600 tonnes).

Most modern subs have a lot of systems designed to reduce the need for crew (both due to staffing problems and the fact these systems are more size/resource efficient which is a big deal on a sub). The need to man systems 24 hours/day for months means you can't cut things too far (you'd need 3 crews on board).

The problem with paying submariners a lot more (they do this already to a small degree) is that if they go too far with it, it threatens to disrupt the navy (indeed, all of defense) pay structures....In an NCO on a sub earns 150K in 'peacetime', and the equivalent doing aircraft maintenance keeping a $150M F-35 going earns 50K, the latter will (not unreasonably) feel quite annoyed (let alone the army/SAS blokes who are actually getting shot at).
 
Don't really know much about subs but I wonder why the Gov't and press are so critical of over-runs and delays of sub building in Australia yet the Gov't is committing to the purchase of a fighter plane that has problems yet to be resolved.
I recall seeing a documentary (Four Corners?) on the ABC and in reading about the plane in numerous press reports.
The gov't even had a mock handover of the plane when it is nowhere near ready, very strange.
 
Don't really know much about subs but I wonder why the Gov't and press are so critical of over-runs and delays of sub building in Australia yet the Gov't is committing to the purchase of a fighter plane that has problems yet to be resolved.
I recall seeing a documentary (Four Corners?) on the ABC and in reading about the plane in numerous press reports.
The gov't even had a mock handover of the plane when it is nowhere near ready, very strange.

It wasn't so much the overruns as the fact that when 'finished' they were absolute crap and needed to have extensive refits in order to make up for the poor workmanship. There is a big difference between a plane (even a $150M one) not being ready yet and a sub worth a billion or so being stuffed.

As for the 'mock' handover, it was a real handover...But the first couple were always going to be kept in the US for some time and used for testing/training.

(BTW, if you want 'mock' efforts, when HMAS Collins was 'launched' it had painted wooden boards in place covering large holes in the superstructure, and as soon as the ceremony was done, it went straight back into dry dock for a couple more months).
 
It wasn't so much the overruns as the fact that when 'finished' they were absolute crap and needed to have extensive refits in order to make up for the poor workmanship. There is a big difference between a plane (even a $150M one) not being ready yet and a sub worth a billion or so being stuffed.

As for the 'mock' handover, it was a real handover...But the first couple were always going to be kept in the US for some time and used for testing/training.

(BTW, if you want 'mock' efforts, when HMAS Collins was 'launched' it had painted wooden boards in place covering large holes in the superstructure, and as soon as the ceremony was done, it went straight back into dry dock for a couple more months).
Oh, Okay, however re the testing/training, are you sure it was not more about the faults and not testing/training?
Other governments pulled out as they believed this may not be ready for many years and still incur problems, what will the final cost be?
What will be the final cost if more countries pull out? (BTW this is not Lib/Labor as I thought both supported the purchase, just a genuine question).
Don't suppose that there is any such thing as 'fixed price' is there?
 
(BTW, if you want 'mock' efforts, when HMAS Collins was 'launched' it had painted wooden boards in place covering large holes in the superstructure, and as soon as the ceremony was done, it went straight back into dry dock for a couple more months).
And the majority of comms systems didn't work because some bright individuals cable-tied the comms lines and electrical lines together because it was quicker :drunk:
 
Oh, Okay, however re the testing/training, are you sure it was not more about the faults and not testing/training?

It was planned in advance, so testing/training is the genuine 'reason' (it's easier to squeeze 2 or 3 planes in at the front of the queue for this than to get an entire squadron pushed up the line), but as things turned out I imagine it's a bit both ways now.

Other governments pulled out as they believed this may not be ready for many years and still incur problems, what will the final cost be?
What will be the final cost if more countries pull out? (BTW this is not Lib/Labor as I thought both supported the purchase, just a genuine question).
Don't suppose that there is any such thing as 'fixed price' is there?

Other countries have dropped out (at their cost), and more have reduced their orders (which is a bigger factor as it's not 'who' so much as 'how many') and yes, the costs rise with each cut in the total order because the fixed costs (R&D, setting up the production facilities, etc) have to be spread across fewer planes. That said, the cost per unit has been dropping as they work out how to built them more efficiently (another of the the 'joys' of being on the leading edge).

Yeah, both parties supported it...Howard ordered the first ones, Rudd 'took up the option' and ordered a lot more.

No, no such thing as fixed price :(
 
Don't really know much about subs but I wonder why the Gov't and press are so critical of over-runs and delays of sub building in Australia yet the Gov't is committing to the purchase of a fighter plane that has problems yet to be resolved.
I recall seeing a documentary (Four Corners?) on the ABC and in reading about the plane in numerous press reports.
The gov't even had a mock handover of the plane when it is nowhere near ready, very strange.

The problem with defence equipment is it is big boys toys. Those who use it want what was really good 20 years ago and have no appreciation of cost or current technology.

Those who ultimately buy it listen to those who use it and defence contractor sales teams. Both are notoriously unreliable and then you have the political football.



In regards to building the subs in Oz, we simply don't have the time. The Oberon replacement program began in the 70s, proposals early 80s, committed in late 80s, construction started 1990, first commissioned in 1996 and first sub ready for war was early to mid 2000s.

That is 30+ years!

We can cut 10 years off the beginning as we know we want to replace them and a further 3 years as the submarine building facilities already exist. We can cut 3 years off the construction time by having them built overseas. We can cut 8 years off by having them work straight away if we don't customise them too much.
 
Don't really know much about subs but I wonder why the Gov't and press are so critical of over-runs and delays of sub building in Australia yet the Gov't is committing to the purchase of a fighter plane that has problems yet to be resolved.
I recall seeing a documentary (Four Corners?) on the ABC and in reading about the plane in numerous press reports.
The gov't even had a mock handover of the plane when it is nowhere near ready, very strange.

of the the aircraft program is looking like a complete shambles
 

little graham

Brownlow Medallist
10k Posts
Sep 18, 2013
17,752
11,820
AFL Club
Adelaide
Remember we went with the Collins because the gov at time was anti nuclear and wanted something that could fit SF detachment with it. No one else was making diesels at time but the Swedish. The subs designed for our unique operations, were one of a kind.

I read an article yesterday about the Germans wanting the contract. first two built over there training our workers, the rest built here.

Now seriously, while reading the article, Germans have some serious pedigree when it comes to subs.
 
I read an article yesterday about the Germans wanting the contract. first two built over there training our workers, the rest built here.

A very sensible option, great idea, hadn't heard this before.
 

little graham

Brownlow Medallist
10k Posts
Sep 18, 2013
17,752
11,820
AFL Club
Adelaide
A very sensible option, great idea, hadn't heard this before.


Alot think the contract is being awarded on ideological grounds, strengthening the Japanese- us alliance. Hence why it appears to lack common sense.

The delaying of the official announcement (apparently because of Lindt cafe siege) suggests their mind was changed by polls worse than Gillard ever got, the absolute bath the libs got in a by election.
 
Remember we went with the Collins because the gov at time was anti nuclear and wanted something that could fit SF detachment with it. No one else was making diesels at time but the Swedish. The subs designed for our unique operations, were one of a kind.

I read an article yesterday about the Germans wanting the contract. first two built over there training our workers, the rest built here.

Now seriously, while reading the article, Germans have some serious pedigree when it comes to subs.

From memory there were 5 or 6 tenders for what became the Collins class subs.

As I mentioned before, the French (+Germans I think) have an 'early proposal' for us using their 'new' Nuc sub, but refitting it with a diesel fuel system.
 
Alot think the contract is being awarded on ideological grounds, strengthening the Japanese- us alliance. Hence why it appears to lack common sense.

The delaying of the official announcement (apparently because of Lindt cafe siege) suggests their mind was changed by polls worse than Gillard ever got, the absolute bath the libs got in a by election.

First I've heard of a delay in an announcement (didn't know the sub was about to be announced).

I suppose it depends on the exact timing...if they were going to announce it that day/day after, then it's quite reasonably to hold off for a little while. (bit of a 'can't win situation', but having the government looking like it doesn't care is a bad move, so any non-essential stuff would have been held off, whatever the government).

I think it's more just that the Japanese subs are the closest to what we want that's available 'off the shelf', and after last time, they're probably (too) gun-shy about anything that requires extensive modifications.
 
A very sensible option, great idea, hadn't heard this before.

Getting full crews of shipbuilders to uproot their families and move to Germany for a couple of years would have been problematic, not to mention that it would have required 2 sets of shipyards to be fitted out.
 

little graham

Brownlow Medallist
10k Posts
Sep 18, 2013
17,752
11,820
AFL Club
Adelaide
I think it's more just that the Japanese subs are the closest to what we want that's available 'off the shelf', and after last time, they're probably (too) gun-shy about anything that requires extensive modifications.

What we did with collins was better than anything the Americans or British could do with subs. You are aware in war games, they sank new attack subs and then took photos inside torpedo range of an american carrier and dissapeared without trace

We're throwing skill and expertise away.
 
What we did with collins was better than anything the Americans or British could do with subs. You are aware in war games, they sank new attack subs and then took photos inside torpedo range of an american carrier and dissapeared without trace

We're throwing skill and expertise away.

The Yanks have a big problem with diesel subs, and that seems to happen a lot when they go up against them (it's why they hired a Swedish boat for a couple of years to test against/learn how to fight them).

Also, getting away would be a lot tougher if they'd actually fired torpedos rather than 'taking a photo'.

Not sure we can't build the Jap subs here.
 
Back