$36 Billion on Submarines!?!?!?!?

Remove this Banner Ad

Nuggs Bunny said:
It's hard to think of a time when unmanned submarines will make any sense, barring the invention of benevolent and predictable AI that's capable of controlling such a machine.
Click to expand...

The main advantage of a conventional sub is how quiet they can be. Meaning they are great at sitting on the sea floor listening for shipping movements. This capability of subs became obsolete with the invention of and improved capabilities satellites.

Further e will never win wars against China, India and other regional behemoths without drones. Russia is one leader in this technology and not surprisingly, as India has their soft under belly and China on their vulnerable east.

Russia is one of the few nations on this planet that can claim they stood by us during WW1 and WW2 and I believe they will be a vital ally again in our time of need. We should be looking at their progress and others, in this area.


No supply lines and no body count. That's the future.
 
Power Raid said:
The main advantage of a conventional sub is how quiet they can be. Meaning they are great at sitting on the sea floor listening for shipping movements. This capability of subs became obsolete with the invention of and improved capabilities satellites.

Further e will never win wars against China, India and other regional behemoths without drones. Russia is one leader in this technology and not surprisingly, as India has their soft under belly and China on their vulnerable east.

Russia is one of the few nations on this planet that can claim they stood by us during WW1 and WW2 and I believe they will be a vital ally again in our time of need. We should be looking at their progress and others, in this area.


No supply lines and no body count. That's the future.
Click to expand...
The whole point of a submarine is that the enemy doesn't know where it is. An unmanned submarines that's controlled remotely requires a data link of some description to function, that data link is essentially advertising its position for as long as it's running. An unmanned submarine might as well be a frigate.
 
Nuggs Bunny said:
The whole point of a submarine is that the enemy doesn't know where it is. An unmanned submarines that's controlled remotely requires a data link of some description to function, that data link is essentially advertising its position for as long as it's running. An unmanned submarine might as well be a frigate.
Click to expand...

yes but what is the point if satellites can do the same job of surveillance? what is the point if you have to chug along on the surface letting everyone know you are coming? what is the point if you can't remain stealthy for long once your there?



we were supposed to have 18 crews for the 6 collins class. I don't know how many crews we have at the moment but it's probably 3 or 4. We simply don't have the expertise or operating budget to be man submarines effectively.



Would you go to war on submarine with a crew with L-plates on? I'd much prefer to sit at a control centre at Canberra HQ, Stirling or remote deployment and operate a submarine. That way, if the submarine is taken out by enemy, you simply load up another submarine or change desks. We will never win wars against China, India and other behemoths, with a body count. Just like drones in the sky, drones at sea will be far more effective in surveillance and targeted attacks.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

a balanced article on nuclear, conventional and unmanned

There's a Case for Diesels

Since the USS Nautilus (SSN-571) set sail in 1954, nuclear power has been the defining characteristic of the U.S. Navy’s undersea dominance. The performance advantages of nuclear submarines over conventional, diesel-electric submarines are considerable, however force structure, procurement, and...
www.usni.org www.usni.org
 
Power Raid said:
yes but what is the point if satellites can do the same job of surveillance? what is the point if you have to chug along on the surface letting everyone know you are coming? what is the point if you can't remain stealthy for long once your there?
Click to expand...

This is basic. Satellites can't attack. More Power_Fail.
 
Nuggs Bunny said:
The whole point of a submarine is that the enemy doesn't know where it is. An unmanned submarines that's controlled remotely requires a data link of some description to function, that data link is essentially advertising its position for as long as it's running. An unmanned submarine might as well be a frigate.
Click to expand...
You can't data link something that's on the sea floor the sub has to surface. The yanks have used really long (iirc ) radio wave but they carry stuff all data like Morse code is really slow.
 
Bradesmaen said:
This is basic. Satellites can't attack. More Power_Fail.
Click to expand...

I don’t think you understand what the word surveillance means.

You have different roles for conventional and nuclear. As we will for unmanned.

Conventional is great for surveillance which is now better completed by other technologies.
 
Power Raid said:
yes but what is the point if satellites can do the same job of surveillance? what is the point if you have to chug along on the surface letting everyone know you are coming? what is the point if you can't remain stealthy for long once your there?



we were supposed to have 18 crews for the 6 collins class. I don't know how many crews we have at the moment but it's probably 3 or 4. We simply don't have the expertise or operating budget to be man submarines effectively.



Would you go to war on submarine with a crew with L-plates on? I'd much prefer to sit at a control centre at Canberra HQ, Stirling or remote deployment and operate a submarine. That way, if the submarine is taken out by enemy, you simply load up another submarine or change desks. We will never win wars against China, India and other behemoths, with a body count. Just like drones in the sky, drones at sea will be far more effective in surveillance and targeted attacks.
Click to expand...
What is the point of submarines? What doctrinal purpose do they fulfill? This is a deep question that involves diving (LOL) through the history of the craft. The original role and one that is still very much applicable today is sinking powerful surface combatants that allied vessels and/or aircraft would have difficulty doing. This gave way to arguably the most ubiquitous role of the submarine; trade interdiction. This has been of lesser importance post WW2 due to beliefs surrounding the sanctity of civilian life but in a total war everything becomes fair game. Then there's the newer roles that were only really made possible during post WW2 advances; anti-submarine warfare, delivery of ballistic missiles and SIGINT. A modern SSI should be able to fulfill all of these purposes (with the exception of launching SLBMs because that's done by SSBs).

Can a combination of satellites, surface vessels and aircraft perform the same role? Of course they can't. Surface vessels are easily detected and so are aircraft at close range, low observability or otherwise. Satellites cannot perform SIGINT like a submarine, nor can they detect other submarines. The capability mix afforded by SSI/SSNs is very much exclusive to the breed unfortunately.

And the key behind this is the fact that submarines can be virtually undetectable by virtue of remaining underwater and being very quiet in both the literal and metaphorical sense; soundwaves that can be detected through SONAR and electronic signals that can be intercepted by enemy receivers. This part is important, because you cannot remotely control something without a continuous transmission between vessel and operator. Even ignoring the serious potential for an intercepted transmission to provide valuable intelligence to the enemy and the improbability of maintaining a steady connection as raised by Sainteric, a continuous transmission is a large and obvious beacon as to the whereabouts of your vessel, essentially turning your prized submarine into a very expensive and very slow frigate.

Note also that Australia is an industrial minnow; losing a $3 billion submarine that's virtually irreplaceable would be nothing short of catastrophic so much so that nobody would really notice if the crew of 50 survived or not. They say you can't put a price on human life but that's bollocks, of course you can, and in western countries the value is much lower than you think, even for highly trained highly specialized roles like submariners and fighter pilots.

tl;dr unmanned subs = bad idea
 
Nuggs Bunny said:
What is the point of submarines? What doctrinal purpose do they fulfill? This is a deep question that involves diving (LOL) through the history of the craft. The original role and one that is still very much applicable today is sinking powerful surface combatants that allied vessels and/or aircraft would have difficulty doing. This gave way to arguably the most ubiquitous role of the submarine; trade interdiction. This has been of lesser importance post WW2 due to beliefs surrounding the sanctity of civilian life but in a total war everything becomes fair game. Then there's the newer roles that were only really made possible during post WW2 advances; anti-submarine warfare, delivery of ballistic missiles and SIGINT. A modern SSI should be able to fulfill all of these purposes (with the exception of launching SLBMs because that's done by SSBs).

Can a combination of satellites, surface vessels and aircraft perform the same role? Of course they can't. Surface vessels are easily detected and so are aircraft at close range, low observability or otherwise. Satellites cannot perform SIGINT like a submarine, nor can they detect other submarines. The capability mix afforded by SSI/SSNs is very much exclusive to the breed unfortunately.

And the key behind this is the fact that submarines can be virtually undetectable by virtue of remaining underwater and being very quiet in both the literal and metaphorical sense; soundwaves that can be detected through SONAR and electronic signals that can be intercepted by enemy receivers. This part is important, because you cannot remotely control something without a continuous transmission between vessel and operator. Even ignoring the serious potential for an intercepted transmission to provide valuable intelligence to the enemy and the improbability of maintaining a steady connection as raised by Sainteric, a continuous transmission is a large and obvious beacon as to the whereabouts of your vessel, essentially turning your prized submarine into a very expensive and very slow frigate.

Note also that Australia is an industrial minnow; losing a $3 billion submarine that's virtually irreplaceable would be nothing short of catastrophic so much so that nobody would really notice if the crew of 50 survived or not. They say you can't put a price on human life but that's bollocks, of course you can, and in western countries the value is much lower than you think, even for highly trained highly specialized roles like submariners and fighter pilots.

tl;dr unmanned subs = bad idea
Click to expand...

great post by the way

The debate about subs is a complex one, as the use of a submarine itself is not well understood. Especially given all the different types of subs, different weapon systems and the needs of each nation.

The short term debate for Australia has to be limited to nuclear v conventional as the unmanned subs are still some way off. Conventional has the advantage in shallower waters but is really limited to surveillance, as they are too slow to be support for convoys. Further their lack of speed and lack of ability to maintain stealth for any reasonable period of time on the move, means they are like a snapping turtle that has to sit and wait for prey (such as a shipping channel or strait).

Nuclear on the other hand are true blue sea warfare vessels that can be stealth, hunt, work in convoys and proper weapon systems.

A conventional would have made sense pre the rise of China or even in the case where China's subs were limited to the shallow waters of the south china sea. With the new naval bases (Philippines) providing China with quick access to blue oceans, the containment using conventional subs is no longer feasible.



In regards to cost, a $3b sub that works is a very hefty price to pay if we lose one. Yet Australia's subs will come in at closer to $10b each and may or may not work for the first 10-20 years as we experienced with the collins.

The unmanned subs of the future is the only real way of dealing with an enemy the size of India, China or an allegiance of power of that size. Being small means they can avoid detection from many traditional warfare systems, operating without continuous transmission avoids the issue you raise and being cheap (on a relative basis) they are disposable. Similar to WW2, the US built ship that lasted two or three voyages...........cheap and nasty is the way of the future in a war of attrition and containment.
 
HairyO said:
$100b so Pyne could remain the SA power broker seems like money well spent.

Sadly Labor would have done the exact same thing for their unions so we were getting shafted either way.

It took 20 years to make the Collins subs world class. This project will be the same.
Click to expand...

Like the NBN, technology wont stand still - cant see any reason for a manned anything going forward, e.g mining in the Pilbara unmanned trains/trucks run from the Perth CBD wouldnt have seemed possible 15 years back.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Kwality said:
why we go with unproven anything in the defence area baffles me - hell here in vic we needed a public transport ticket system, ignore proven, developed our own, tech fail.
Click to expand...
Because of our unique situation. There aren't any Diesel-Electric submarines that have the range Australia requires aprt from maybe the Germany Type 214, but the Navy wants a longer submarine (not sure exact reasons but they must have good ones). Nuclear would give us the unlimited range but we do not want nuclear subs. Myki fails for an obvious reason, it tries to submit ticket data instantaneously, but uses similar technology to everything else.
 
Bradesmaen said:
Because of our unique situation. There aren't any Diesel-Electric submarines that have the range Australia requires aprt from maybe the Germany Type 214, but the Navy wants a longer submarine (not sure exact reasons but they must have good ones). Nuclear would give us the unlimited range but we do not want nuclear subs. Myki fails for an obvious reason, it tries to submit ticket data instantaneously, but uses similar technology to everything else.
Click to expand...

We bought the Swedish design for Collins and built it ourselves. Badly.

Same is happening here. We are buying designs and will do a terrible job building them.

Governments dont care about waste because its never been an election issue.
 
HairyO said:
We bought the Swedish design for Collins and built it ourselves. Badly.

Same is happening here. We are buying designs and will do a terrible job building them.

Governments dont care about waste because its never been an election issue.
Click to expand...
Actually if you know about the Collins class submarines, before you spew out wasting money because you have no idea, then you'd know it was design flaws mainly and some sub standard building. It had nothing to do with it being difficult or not, it was just a failure in process. The design flaws were to do with SAAB.

So poor construction was limited to just one issue. The rest were design errors or process failures (such as the combat system issues).
 
Bradesmaen said:
Actually if you know about the Collins class submarines, before you spew out wasting money because you have no idea, then you'd know it was design flaws mainly and some sub standard building. It had nothing to do with it being difficult or not, it was just a failure in process. The design flaws were to do with SAAB.

So poor construction was limited to just one issue. The rest were design errors or process failures (such as the combat system issues).
Click to expand...

No. The design flaws came about because we decided to tack on US systems and botched it in design and then botched it in the build.

The Swedes were building and operating their subs without issue years before us.
 
Bradesmaen said:
Because of our unique situation. There aren't any Diesel-Electric submarines that have the range Australia requires aprt from maybe the Germany Type 214, but the Navy wants a longer submarine (not sure exact reasons but they must have good ones). Nuclear would give us the unlimited range but we do not want nuclear subs. Myki fails for an obvious reason, it tries to submit ticket data instantaneously, but uses similar technology to everything else.
Click to expand...

The relevance (to me) of Myki is its been a money pit BUT its got nothing on these subs.
 
HairyO said:
No. The design flaws came about because we decided to tack on US systems and botched it in design and then botched it in the build.

The Swedes were building and operating their subs without issue years before us.
Click to expand...
No, the issues came directly from SAAB/Kockums. Get your facts right before you just throw out the usual trash. I dislike the LNP as much as the next person but to suggest it was done just to keep SA alive rather than buying an MOTS sub is ridiculous.
 
Kwality said:
Mates nah, pork barrelling 101, a tried & proven strategy.
Nothing to do with mates, the only winner is jobs/votes.
Click to expand...
How is awarding of a tender to mates pork barrelling? Pork Barrelling is saying you'll spend $150m to upgrade a road in an electorate you might lose.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Ohitsthatguy
The Coalition initiated Robodebt on the most vulnerable...
2 3
Replies
59
Views
2K
Gethelred
Gethelred
Aristotle Pickett
Moved Thread Pressure mounts on Dockers to give Woodside sponsorship the heave ho
16 17 18 19 20
Replies
490
Views
13K
Goroyals22
Goroyals22
nut
One nation
Replies
9
Views
600
Gralin
Gralin

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top