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

[Nuggs Bunny]

Agree with all of this

Was absolutely incensed when the libs withdrew subsides to the car industry.

Idiotic and short sighted. A car manufacturing plant can become an armoured vehicle manufacturing plant in time of need. There are certain industries that are national need. We should never lose those skills.

Whether or not funding was withdrawn, we never really had a car industry of our own that could develop and innovate independently which is essentially why we don't make cars anymore. Ford in Australia was effectively killed off in the late 1990's after Detroit decided they'd wind back funding for Australia and focus on building plants in Asia, GM and Toyota soon followed suit. They might have announced in 2013 or whatever that they were finishing manufacturing then, but if you look at the level of updates and advertising that the Falcon received after the GFC, it becomes very obvious that said decision was made far earlier.

Had both Australian operations been able to raise their own capital, export to wherever they liked and build whatever they liked, there's an excellent chance we'd probably still be making something here today.

The Evolved Collins replacement was originally shelved in 2015 because we did not want to go through the hassle of designing a new submarine. If you are talking about the new A26 being used as a bid for the Dutch Navy, then that is an interesting discussion. The current short range A26 submarine has not been built yet due to contractual and constructions issues, and it has a shorter range and endurance base than the current Collins submarines. The long-range version of the A26 is a complete unknown at this stage as is the Barracuda tbh as neither have completed the construction phase. We know the specifications of the Barracuda as the first three submarines are about to launch over the next two years and we have already invested quite a considerable sum on the Shortfin's, so we are better off sticking with them at this stage, not that I am a big fan of said submarines or conventionally powered submarines.


https://www.smh.com.au/politics/fed...mirals-call-for-a-plan-b-20181212-p50ls4.html
Retired Rear Admiral Peter Briggs and the three former commodores yesterday wrote to Scott Morrison calling for the “Son of Collins option” to be considered in case the French submarine design was found to be unsatisfactory. They warned the Prime Minister the decision to build the French submarines, known as Shortfin Barracudas, could leave Australia with just one new submarine in operational service in 2040. “We are writing to you about the Future Submarine Program, reflecting our profound concern about a lack of submarine capability in the future as well as with the excessive costs and risks of the program,’’ wrote the group, which included commodores Paul Greenfield and Terry Roach.


“We are strongly of the view that the government should evaluate a second option, at very low cost and without impeding the present approach. The alternative option, that we believe could be cheaper, quicker and less risky and offer a greater level of Australian industry participation, is to build an evolved version of the Collins class.’’

The former submariners called for an urgent study to be undertaken into developing the Collins option, which they say would save Australian taxpayers billions of dollars, be less risky than the French project and become operational years earlier.

Spot on criticisms, but the evolved version of the Collins class is still on the drawing board itself (re: Dutch-Swedish A26 long-range version design) and is still in the bidding process at the present stage, it has not even entered the construction phase. We are already up s*** creek without a paddle with the Shortfins; the only thing we can do now is to increase the release rate of Barracuda's to get them sooner than planned, but when does that ever happen with Australian defence procurement. The Evolved version would probably carry less risk than the Shortfin due to Australia's familiarity with the Collins design, but even if we change things up now, we will be waiting just as long, if not longer for our submarines. As for costs, I agree with the criticisms.

I don't think we can ever escape the lingering problems of buying an unknown, foreign product so long as we insist on design features that are unique to the world. Any other western country buying diesel electric subs would be content with a much lesser range and endurance, and they'd probably be able to buy an off-the-shelf design as a result. Conversely, any other western country buying a submarine with the range, endurance and speed that we want would be looking at a nuclear boat, which frustratingly isn't an option for Australia for at least the next 20 years because we're politically adverse to nuclear technology.

The grounds on which the A26 was excluded suggests the government is doing all they can to avoid the teething problems that plagued the Collins. The french have designed and built more submarines than any of the other bidders, IMO they should be seen as the safest option.

 

[kranky al]

We could easily fly a radar aeroplane over the north coast every morning to check for hordes of invading yellow bogey men. We could even buy a cheaper radar plane or two with just sea scanning radar without all the complex air combat stuff like the Wedgetails do.

EDIT: possibly BorderFarce already do such flights daily.

I know we can easily do this - thing is by the time they land we would stuggle to have a land force ready for them.

They could set up a supply bridge based on small ships.

Thus we have a navy that still has guns rather than all missile

 

[Nuggs Bunny]

Of course - but that gets your infantry over.

And that could move 100000 men overnight leaving your larger capacity vessels for heavy equipment.

And seeing as we dont have a bunch of tanks, artillery or ifvs lining the shore without good intel we could face an overnight threat.

We'd know well in advance if an invasion was at foot. You don't move 100,000 troops onto the sparsely populated islands near our coast without making a lot of noise in the process.

 

[Admiral Byng]

I know we can easily do this - thing is by the time they land we would stuggle to have a land force ready for them.

They could set up a supply bridge based on small ships.

Thus we have a navy that still has guns rather than all missile

We could improve, but I don't see it being a threat for now. For example I've always thought a Townsville to Broome railway would be a good idea for shifting military forces around, running mostly a bit inland. Maybe if we could find some economic purpose for it, and build it the same gauge all the way.

 

[kranky al]

Whether or not funding was withdrawn, we never really had a car industry of our own that could develop and innovate independently which is essentially why we don't make cars anymore. Ford in Australia was effectively killed off in the late 1990's after Detroit decided they'd wind back funding for Australia and focus on building plants in Asia, GM and Toyota soon followed suit. They might have announced in 2013 or whatever that they were finishing manufacturing then, but if you look at the level of updates and advertising that the Falcon received after the GFC, it becomes very obvious that said decision was made far earlier.

Had both Australian operations been able to raise their own capital, export to wherever they liked and build whatever they liked, there's an excellent chance we'd probably still be making something here today.


I don't think we can ever escape the lingering problems of buying an unknown, foreign product so long as we insist on design features that are unique to the world. Any other western country buying diesel electric subs would be content with a much lesser range and endurance, and they'd probably be able to buy an off-the-shelf design as a result. Conversely, any other western country buying a submarine with the range, endurance and speed that we want would be looking at a nuclear boat, which frustratingly isn't an option for Australia for at least the next 20 years because we're politically adverse to nuclear technology.

The grounds on which the A26 was excluded suggests the government is doing all they can to avoid the teething problems that plagued the Collins. The french have designed and built more submarines than any of the other bidders, IMO they should be seen as the safest option.

Our objection to nuclear at any cost is ludicrous.

Country with our coastline needs nuc boats


If there was ever a big one - guaranteed at some stage we would lose a boat to running out of power/ recharging - at tge very least it would have to spend serious time pretending to be a black hole somewhere combat ineffective for however long.

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

Our objection to nuclear at any cost is ludicrous.

Country with our coastline needs nuc boats


If there was ever a big one - guaranteed at some stage we would lose a boat to running out of power/ recharging - at tge very least it would have to spend serious time pretending to be a black hole somewhere combat ineffective for however long.

We developed Plan D to develop the RAAF as a nuclear force under Chifley, i.e. Canberra bomber.

 

[Elroo]

Our objection to nuclear at any cost is ludicrous.

Country with our coastline needs nuc boats


If there was ever a big one - guaranteed at some stage we would lose a boat to running out of power/ recharging - at tge very least it would have to spend serious time pretending to be a black hole somewhere combat ineffective for however long.

There is a write up in today's AFR about Australia assisting the US in developing Nuclear Subs.

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

There is a write up in today's AFR about Australia assisting the US in developing Nuclear Subs.

View attachment 595683

That's interesting because the Yanks told us to bugger off when we asked for aneohic tiles for the Collins submarines, which reduce the noise profile of the submarine from memory, as it contained nuclear technology.

I doubt it will go anywhere, the US Navy has long been opposed to Australia obtaining nuclear information or technology stemming back to the days of Chifley.

 

[kranky al]

That's interesting because the Yanks told us to bugger off when we asked for aneohic tiles for the Collins submarines, which reduce the noise profile of the submarine from memory, as it contained nuclear technology.

I doubt it will go anywhere, the US Navy has long been opposed to Australia obtaining nuclear information or technology stemming back to the days of Chifley.

Big difference between modding a foreign sub and selling a bunch of your own but.

Jobzengrowth etc

 

[Nuggs Bunny]

Our objection to nuclear at any cost is ludicrous.

Country with our coastline needs nuc boats


If there was ever a big one - guaranteed at some stage we would lose a boat to running out of power/ recharging - at tge very least it would have to spend serious time pretending to be a black hole somewhere combat ineffective for however long.

Absolutely, there's few countries in the world better placed to use nuclear energy. Enormous fuel reserves, an educated and technically-capable workforce, and virtually limitless possibilities to locate reactors or sub-bases in uninhabited areas.

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

Big difference between modding a foreign sub and selling a bunch of your own but.

Jobzengrowth etc

In the case of nuclear technology, it doesn’t matter. The Americans have long shut us out of the nuclear game.

 

[kranky al]

In the case of nuclear technology, it doesn’t matter. The Americans have long shut us out of the nuclear game.

They arent the only ones to make nucs but

 

[Admiral Byng]

They arent the only ones to make nucs but

Rule out China and Russia. Leaves the UK or France realistically. Would the French sell us a nuke sub, given how much s**t we gave them for testing in the Pacific.

 

[kranky al]

Rule out China and Russia. Leaves the UK or France realistically. Would the French sell us a nuke sub, given how much s**t we gave them for testing in the Pacific.

Le dunno?

Le nfi actually.

Frogs’ll sell to anyone

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

They arent the only ones to make nucs but

Special relationship has ruled out GB since 1957; France or India are the only options. India is keen to get the USA as an ally against China, so that rules them out, and France is not the sharing kind. Russia’s nuclear missiles and missile defence screen has continually deteriorated since perestroika and China is not giving a very loyal US ally nuclear tech.

Le dunno?

Le nfi actually.

Frogs’ll sell to anyone

Nuclear tech, not so much, conventional tactical arms, they sell plenty. The French are not in a realistic option. If they were happy to sell nuclear tech to anyone, they would have offered us nuclear propulsion via the Shortfin.

 

[kranky al]

Special relationship has ruled out GB since 1957; France or India are the only options. India is keen to get the USA as an ally against China, so that rules them out, and France is not the sharing kind. Russia’s nuclear missiles and missile defence screen has continually deteriorated since perestroika and China is not giving a very loyal US ally nuclear tech.

Nuclear tech, not so much, conventional tactical arms, they sell plenty. The French are not in a realistic option. If they were happy to sell nuclear tech to anyone, they would have offered us nuclear propulsion via the Shortfin.

This article says we reserve the right to change to nuclear at a later date:

https://www.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/1203491/australia-and-nuclear-submarines/

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

This article says we reserve the right to change to nuclear at a later date:

https://www.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/1203491/australia-and-nuclear-submarines/

We initially said that pre-Collins, so wait and see is the best solution for now. I am a big supporter of nuclear propulsion as I believe it gives us a long-range strategic option, but I just don’t see it happening if we still fiddling with the pump jet propulsion for the Shortfin. The question remains why we didn’t press the French on nuclear propulsion for the Shortfin? You would find Washington’s influence on us and public opposition to anything nuclear would probably be the culprit. I would nuclear propulsion just to make the Greens sook it up.

 

[kranky al]

We initially said that pre-Collins, so wait and see is the best solution for now. I am a big supporter of nuclear propulsion as I believe it gives us a long-range strategic option, but I just don’t see it happening if we still fiddling with the pump jet propulsion for the Shortfin. The question remains why we didn’t press the French on nuclear propulsion for the Shortfin? You would find Washington’s influence on us and public opposition to anything nuclear would probably be the culprit. I would nuclear propulsion just to make the Greens sook it up.

I think it has more to do with the spannerheads shitting bricks over nUkUlAH

 

[Nuggs Bunny]

Special relationship has ruled out GB since 1957; France or India are the only options. India is keen to get the USA as an ally against China, so that rules them out, and France is not the sharing kind. Russia’s nuclear missiles and missile defence screen has continually deteriorated since perestroika and China is not giving a very loyal US ally nuclear tech.

Nuclear tech, not so much, conventional tactical arms, they sell plenty. The French are not in a realistic option. If they were happy to sell nuclear tech to anyone, they would have offered us nuclear propulsion via the Shortfin.

IIRC, the big reason that we haven't been offered nuclear technology in recent years is because we don't ask; ie. SEA 1114 and 1000 specifically requested diesel electric submarines and didn't accept tenders for nuclear propulsion alternatives. The US were not opposed to offering a nuclear alternative to us for the SEA 1000 tender; they made it clear that if we asked they would consider selling us a variant of the Virginia. With nuclear technology being considerably more prevalent than it was in the early phases of the cold war, there's much less risk to Australia also becoming an SSN operator.

 

[kranky al]

Y

IIRC, the big reason that we haven't been offered nuclear technology in recent years is because we don't ask; ie. SEA 1114 and 1000 specifically requested diesel electric submarines and didn't accept tenders for nuclear propulsion alternatives. The US were not opposed to offering a nuclear alternative to us for the SEA 1000 tender; they made it clear that if we asked they would consider selling us a variant of the Virginia. With nuclear technology being considerably more prevalent than it was in the early phases of the cold war, there's much less risk to Australia also becoming an SSN operator.

the yanks kickstarted the uk nuclear sub fleet as well

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

In the case of nuclear technology, it doesn’t matter. The Americans have long shut us out of the nuclear game.

Frenemies...

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

IIRC, the big reason that we haven't been offered nuclear technology in recent years is because we don't ask; ie. SEA 1114 and 1000 specifically requested diesel electric submarines and didn't accept tenders for nuclear propulsion alternatives. The US were not opposed to offering a nuclear alternative to us for the SEA 1000 tender; they made it clear that if we asked they would consider selling us a variant of the Virginia. With nuclear technology being considerably more prevalent than it was in the early phases of the cold war, there's much less risk to Australia also becoming an SSN operator.

You recalled correctly.

Agreed, voter opposition and lack of a general nuclear industry to support nuclear submarines has generally lead Australia to not often ask for nuclear technology, particularly during the Collins project, with the exception of the anechoic tiles.

Our possible involvement in the ballistic missile defence network and the American's wanting our submarines in the Indian Ocean shows that the Americans are nowhere near as stubborn as they used to be in regards to higher grad military technology. This means that we are more strategically important to the USA and its interests in the region, probably because of China's involvement in the local region.

An American offer of nuclear tech would mark a sharp variation from their stubbornness over the anceohic tiles with the Collins submarine and the intelligence dramas of the late 1940s in Australia. I just looked it up as the offer came as a surprise to me due to the history of nuclear power, Australia and the US, apparently it was a loan offer of Virginia class submarines, to be joint crewed by RAN and USN personnel during the late Bush administration right at the start of SEA1000, but we knocked it back because we didn't think they would give the subs to us in the end, plus the domestic factors. Irregardless, I would argue that domestic factors have ultimately shaped Australia's opposition to nuclear propulsion during the Collins and SEA1000, but the US has certainly played a role.


Taken from an article on SEA1000:
Acquiring Virginia Class nuclear-powered submarines from the United States is not a credible option for the RAN Future Submarine (FSM). This is because of the high acquisition cost at $31.6 billion USD (12 boats), Australia’s unpreparedness for nuclear energy, the high crewing requirement and the highly protective arms export regulations of the US Government.

Funnily enough, the cost is not so much of a drama. Hugh White doesn't like the nuclear submarines for the RAN because he thinks we will become too reliant on the Americans for technical support, which is true, but that is already the case for a number of current defence capabilities and a nuclear submarine offers a lot if we could negotiate a healthy tech transfer.

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

I think it has more to do with the spannerheads shitting bricks over nUkUlAH

Agreed, the talk of nuclear weaponry is largely in the realms of defence circles nowadays.

 

[Nuggs Bunny]

You recalled correctly.

Agreed, voter opposition and lack of a general nuclear industry to support nuclear submarines has generally lead Australia to not often ask for nuclear technology, particularly during the Collins project, with the exception of the anechoic tiles.

Our possible involvement in the ballistic missile defence network and the American's wanting our submarines in the Indian Ocean shows that the Americans are nowhere near as stubborn as they used to be in regards to higher grad military technology. This means that we are more strategically important to the USA and its interests in the region, probably because of China's involvement in the local region.

An American offer of nuclear tech would mark a sharp variation from their stubbornness over the anceohic tiles with the Collins submarine and the intelligence dramas of the late 1940s in Australia. I just looked it up as the offer came as a surprise to me due to the history of nuclear power, Australia and the US, apparently it was a loan offer of Virginia class submarines, to be joint crewed by RAN and USN personnel during the late Bush administration right at the start of SEA1000, but we knocked it back because we didn't think they would give the subs to us in the end, plus the domestic factors. Irregardless, I would argue that domestic factors have ultimately shaped Australia's opposition to nuclear propulsion during the Collins and SEA1000, but the US has certainly played a role.


Taken from an article on SEA1000:
Acquiring Virginia Class nuclear-powered submarines from the United States is not a credible option for the RAN Future Submarine (FSM). This is because of the high acquisition cost at $31.6 billion USD (12 boats), Australia’s unpreparedness for nuclear energy, the high crewing requirement and the highly protective arms export regulations of the US Government.

Funnily enough, the cost is not so much of a drama. Hugh White doesn't like the nuclear submarines for the RAN because he thinks we will become too reliant on the Americans for technical support, which is true, but that is already the case for a number of current defence capabilities and a nuclear submarine offers a lot if we could negotiate a healthy tech transfer.

Very true, we'd be extremely reliant on the Americans/French/British for nuclear technicians for at least a decade, if not more. Each submarine crew would require more qualified nuclear technicians than we probably have in the country at the moment.

Unfortunately I don't think our insistence for diesel-electric subs is going to change in the future, barring a seismic political shift in the ALP at least no longer opposing nuclear power and either them or the liberals driving hard for it to be embraced in Australia. Without a self-sufficient nuclear power industry propped up by a civilian market, we realistically won't be able to justify nuclear submarines. As Trump would say: Sad!

 

[Power Raid]

Yeah, I'd rather pay double and fund Australian engineering and manufacturing than save money and boost jobs overseas. Thales is huge for Victoria post-GM and Ford. Money well spent

On [device_name] using BigFooty.com mobile app

As an ex servicemen, I’d prefer reliable equipment than pork barrelling and jobs