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

[Nuggs Bunny]

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.

The debate of nuclear vs. conventional for Australia is nothing more than a hypothetical at present and likely will remain that way for the next 20 years minimum. We are not a nuclear nation; for us operating a nuclear submarine would be like somebody that lives off-grid 200 kilometres out of Broken Hill buying a Tesla and trying to charge it. There's no doubt that nuclear >>> diesel for the long range, fast attack role that our submarines perform but its not a plausible option for the RAN.

And Australia already has small, cheap, unmanned, one-use submarines, see here:

 

[Power Raid]

WA pitching for contracts otherwise earmarked for SA

Nothing like snouts in the trough

Votes in SA are more important

 

[Thegibbsgamble]

$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.

The Collins was already world class. From the moment they started building sheds at Osborne to build them.

Just because it was a government owned venture and not part of the military industrial cOmplex, the corporate media who represent the interests of the mic, have run a negative campaign against them.

These subs were designed to successfully hunt carriers after disposing of the carrier fleets own attack subs. They were successful.

They also were designed to house a special forces squad, meaning we cOuld pull black ops and nobody could trace.

They mastered the kriegdmarines work of the 20th century.

They brought jobs and economic stimulus to a very working-class area of adelaide, in dire need of jobs.

They took away americas ability to emvargoe us.

Execeptional piece of policy

 

[HairyO]

The Collins was already world class. From the moment they started building sheds at Osborne to build them.

Just because it was a government owned venture and not part of the military industrial cOmplex, the corporate media who represent the interests of the mic, have run a negative campaign against them.

These subs were designed to successfully hunt carriers after disposing of the carrier fleets own attack subs. They were successful.

They also were designed to house a special forces squad, meaning we cOuld pull black ops and nobody could trace.

They mastered the kriegdmarines work of the 20th century.

They brought jobs and economic stimulus to a very working-class area of adelaide, in dire need of jobs.

They took away americas ability to emvargoe us.

Execepfional piece of policy

Except they took years longer than planned because there were design problems, construction problems, and then systems problems.

They did not launch world class.

 

[Thegibbsgamble]

Except they took years longer than planned because there were design problems, construction problems, and then systems problems.

They did not launch world class.

You can lead a sheep to water, but you cant make it drink.......

 

[Kwality]

The Collins was already world class. From the moment they started building sheds at Osborne to build them.

Just because it was a government owned venture and not part of the military industrial cOmplex, the corporate media who represent the interests of the mic, have run a negative campaign against them.

These subs were designed to successfully hunt carriers after disposing of the carrier fleets own attack subs. They were successful.

They also were designed to house a special forces squad, meaning we cOuld pull black ops and nobody could trace.

They mastered the kriegdmarines work of the 20th century.

They brought jobs and economic stimulus to a very working-class area of adelaide, in dire need of jobs.

They took away americas ability to emvargoe us.

Execeptional piece of policy

Execeptional indeed!
But I cant follow what you are saying, sure cant deny the jobs, its why SA are fighting hard to keep the work from the WA shipyards built on private enterprise

Submarine maintenance spat could threaten Coalition's crossbench support

Cross-bench senators from South Australia issue veiled threats to the Coalition as the federal government mulls over moving sub maintenance to WA.

www.smh.com.au

 

[Kwality]

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.

Pyne tried but kicked a point.

Submarine maintenance spat could threaten Coalition's crossbench support

Cross-bench senators from South Australia issue veiled threats to the Coalition as the federal government mulls over moving sub maintenance to WA.

www.smh.com.au

 

[Kwality]

WA pitching for contracts otherwise earmarked for SA

Nothing like snouts in the trough

Votes in SA are more important

That was then, all bets are off.

 

[Power Raid]

So we build them here, but bring foreigners in to do the intelligent work, and bring in foreigners to run them

Brilliant work

Might as well go all the way then and keep the propulsion system that we know works and is fit for purpose

 

[Bradesmaen]

Pyne tried but kicked a point.

Submarine maintenance spat could threaten Coalition's crossbench support

Cross-bench senators from South Australia issue veiled threats to the Coalition as the federal government mulls over moving sub maintenance to WA.

www.smh.com.au

You really don't understand pork barrelling and representing the public who elected you do you? Purely anti-SA

 

[Thegibbsgamble]

Execeptional indeed!
But I cant follow what you are saying, sure cant deny the jobs, its why SA are fighting hard to keep the work from the WA shipyards built on private enterprise

Submarine maintenance spat could threaten Coalition's crossbench support

Cross-bench senators from South Australia issue veiled threats to the Coalition as the federal government mulls over moving sub maintenance to WA.

www.smh.com.au

Liberals represent the corporate world. Hence why.

Traitors.

 

[Kwality]

Liberals represent the corporate world. Hence why.

Traitors.

Only in a world where its left or right, fortunately more & more pick & chose these days .... if you want to join a cheer squad ring your footy club.

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

This is basic. Satellites can't attack. More Power_Fail.

No, but they can identify targets for attack.

 

[Bradesmaen]

No, but they can identify targets for attack.

So can binoculars. Let's just get rid of Satellites.

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

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).

I think the issues with the combat system was us fitting an unsuitable US system to appease the Americans.

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

So can binoculars. Let's just get rid of Satellites.

Doesn't warrant any sort of response.

 

[Bradesmaen]

I think the issues with the combat system was us fitting an unsuitable US system to appease the Americans.

Nah it wasn't due to that. It was the company involved being idiots..