Australia's submarine solution

[Sean K]

Like our car industry it seems the only good reason the government has to build our new subs (and to have built the Collins) in Adelaide is that we need to maintain a national manufacturing / engineering capability.

Should that come at the expense of national security however?

Our Collins has been a turkey in just about every sense. A deterrent and capability on paper only. I think on average we've only had one boat fully manned and sea-worthy at any one time for a number of years. Lucky we've had the US floating by and no adversary except NZ kayakers. Obviously that will change in the coming years with the emergence of China and other minor SE Asian powers responding. Add India.

I like the idea of us building our own boats. Long range conventional things that we can build and maintain, that our Baby Boomer no-nuclear NIMBY type would sign off on. However, as with the Collins, it will without doubt be a colossal failure and waste of resources that could be pushed into Pink Batts and the like. At a time when we really actually do need to be developing this capability. We can't get this one wrong.

Any thoughts from the ASF Defence mindful community, or BB NIMBYs?

 

[Glen48]

Oz has turned out some good products like the Black box which is orange and no one wanted them now they have them in cars, hearing aid implants etc we have the ability to be world beaters given the right Government by all parties have to check with USA first in case we step on their toes and upset the true believers in free Enterprise.

 

[Sean K]

Oz has turned out some good products like the Black box which is orange.

Must grab on to that orange box next time the plane heads down.


Not sure why our Navy finds it hard to keep their sailors. They get paid about twice as much as a soldier, are at sea about the same as a regular sailor, get to wear pretty cool black overalls, and double dolphins on their uniform. They are very special. I guess the extra confinement under the surface is a concern especially when you can't trust the engines on board.

Perhaps having a world class piece of kit to descend would save some angst and provide enough confidence to take up the challenge.

Like an LA Class Attack Boat.

Let's rent 4 of the suckers based at Stirling, and ask the US to maintain them in Hawaii for allowing their own boats to park here occasionally as part of the new 'Marines in the NT' plan. A relatively short term quick fix to our imminent no-submarine-Navy.

Once that has filled the gap, continue work on our own conventional machines as our indigenous capability to satisfy SA Defence industry and the tree huggers.

Ooops, can't have nuclear subs being operated by Australia.

Must check on that nuclear medicine research also. And, are we selling uranium to India now? Whatever, that's different.

 

[Smurf1976]

Must grab on to that orange box next time the plane heads down.

The ability to retrieve information after a crash has without doubt lead to a greater understanding of the causes of actual aircraft crashes and hence the ability to avoid repeating the same mistakes in future.

How many lives this has saved is anyone's guess, but the answer would surely be "a lot".

The reason for the orange colour of the box is to make it more visible amongst the wreckage, especially where it may be in water or scattered amongst a forest etc over a considerable distance. Orange just stands out easily amongst those surroundings, the same as those orange jackets the road works people wear to make them more visible and improve safety.

 

[Calliope]

I like the idea of us building our own boats. Long range conventional things that we can build and maintain, that our Baby Boomer no-nuclear NIMBY type would sign off on. However, as with the Collins, it will without doubt be a colossal failure and waste of resources that could be pushed into Pink Batts and the like. At a time when we really actually do need to be developing this capability. We can't get this one wrong.

When it comes to big projects Labor governments always get it wrong. They think they can fix anything by throwing money at it.

But, flawed as the Collins process was, even less work was done by the Rudd government on the Future Submarine program before it was announced. As with the National Broadband Network, only the most cursory costing was carried out. Little serious consideration was given to the vessel's specifications. And the decision to assemble the submarines in Adelaide, thus excluding imports of fully built vessels, was entirely political.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...-to-enemy-within/story-fn7078da-1226242990568

 

[Sean K]

Great summary by Ross Babbage here and is as clear as day.

Let's hope the no nuclear option idiots wake up because we will be left in long term security wilderness otherwise. Our future depends on it.

We'll be sunk if we don't choose the best submarine

This is much more significant than any other Defence purchase that I can imagine in recent times.

 

[Sean K]

Australia must stop trying to build an indigenous boat costing multiple amounts of COTS options when we have the US offering up superior machines for less. It just doesn't make sense to make the same Collins mistakes again. One of the supposed reasons for our support of the US in Iraq and Afghanistan was the political collateral. It's being offered up in submarines.

I have no doubt our pig-headed government and ignorant population who think 'nuclear' means nuclear weapons will turn this opportunity down.

http://afr.com/f/free/blogs/christopher_joye/coalition_leaders_float_nuclear_FTYU0PR4uJLeGinF94G5kI

 

[bellenuit]

Australia must stop trying to build an indigenous boat costing multiple amounts of COTS options when we have the US offering up superior machines for less. It just doesn't make sense to make the same Collins mistakes again. One of the supposed reasons for our support of the US in Iraq and Afghanistan was the political collateral. It's being offered up in submarines.
http://afr.com/f/free/blogs/christopher_joye/coalition_leaders_float_nuclear_FTYU0PR4uJLeGinF94G5kI

+1

I read in some newspaper today where it said that China would disapprove of Australia buying US nuclear submarines. Whichever type of submarine is likely to engender the maximum disapproval from China, should be the one we go for IMO. Though not an enemy, China remains a potential adversary should a day come when its interests conflicts with ours. While it continues to build up its military might when there is no regional threat to it, there is nothing it would like better than the rest of the region to do the opposite. You can be sure that the only thing that would not attract Chinese disapproval is for us to acquire outdated armaments and pursue ineffectual policies.

 

[DB008]

I read in some newspaper today where it said that China would disapprove of Australia buying US nuclear submarines. Whichever type of submarine is likely to engender the maximum disapproval from China, should be the one we go for IMO. Though not an enemy, China remains a potential adversary should a day come when its interests conflicts with ours. While it continues to build up its military might when there is no regional threat to it, there is nothing it would like better than the rest of the region to do the opposite. You can be sure that the only thing that would not attract Chinese disapproval is for us to acquire outdated armaments and pursue ineffectual policies.

+1

I also mentioned earlier this year that there was a great AFR article about the costs of the submarines getting built here in Oz. Buy from USA or Spain and save yourself the money, seems logical, doesn't it?

 

[banco]

The navy has a lot to answer for with the collins submarines. They insist on vapourware, customisng and goldplating everything to the nth degree and then we end up with these hugely expensive white elephants that have terrible reliability.

 

[DB008]

Report out...

Keeping Collins afloat ludicrous: expert

The Defence Materiel Organisation cannot be trusted to deliver accurate cost estimates or capability projections for the country's $36 billion future submarine fleet, a senior naval analyst has said.

Rex Patrick, a former submariner, said that despite its multibillion-dollar budget and 7000-strong workforce, the DMO had been spectacularly and consistently wrong on the cost estimates it has given the government on maintaining the Collins-class fleet. Each of the six boats costs twice as much to sustain and operate as an American nuclear submarine, while falling far short in terms of either capability or availability, Mr Patrick said.

''In 2014-15, the accounting cost of Australia's submarine force will, by Defence's own numbers, hit $1 billion,'' Mr Patrick, the chief executive of a defence consultancy Acoustic Force, said. ''Government would have every right to be nervous about anything put forward by the DMO with respect to SEA 1000 (the Collins replacement program)''.

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/keeping-collins-afloat-ludicrous-expert-20121209-2b3zb.html

 

[burglar]

Keeping Collins afloat?????

I thought it was a sub !

 

[Sean K]

How much are we spending on inferior boats to the Virginia? $40b?

http://www.defensenews.com/article/...80024/US-Navy-Orders-10-New-Subs-Record-17-6B

Are we really this stupid?

Oh, right, can't have nuclear power that causes no emissions, etc.

 

[sydboy007]

When it comes to big projects Labor governments always get it wrong. They think they can fix anything by throwing money at it.



http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...-to-enemy-within/story-fn7078da-1226242990568

Yet Howard signed up for the JSF and Abbott has pretty much doubled down on it even though the cost has been ballooning and other countries have started to pull their purchase orders. Government waste on the defence industry has bipartisan support at the federal level.

Abbott is looking to spend $10-15B to help the inefficient local defence industry make 1000 armoured vehicles. He's still seriously considering building the submarines when we could import them for $5-6B a piece.

 

[SirRumpole]

I can see us going the same way as Britain did in the 1950-60's. Develop a product, sort out the teething problems, get it working well, then throw all that knowledge and intellectual property out because of cost or political considerations.

A smart country learns, researches, developes, improves and produces. Dumb countries just hand over money to the smart countries.

 

[SirRumpole]

$50 billion so they can argue about when to have lunch.

WTF ?????

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-04...shes-lunch-meeting-times-naval-group/11049748

 

[SirRumpole]

So we are going to nuclear powered subs.

Great news, more jobs, more capability (more expense).

This will give you know who something to think about and advance our capabilities.

It's about time.

 

[Sean K]

This should have been the initial plan. But, there probably wasn't enough political will to mention the word nuclear until recently and China's increasing threat and belligerence.

I'm interested in what they're going to do with the French. Maybe we build 6 x conventional and then 6 x nuclear? That's probably going to be too complicated and end up costing more. Better to ditch the froggies and go straight to a copy of the Virginia Class.

We'll have to allow the US/UK to build a maintenance facility in Australia I think. The US can then possibly base a squadron of their own boats here.

The fluff about these being just nuclear powered, not nuclear armed or lead to nuclear energy, is a bit of a furphy I think. This will be a gateway drug for nuclear down the track.

 

[IFocus]

This should have been the initial plan. But, there probably wasn't enough political will to mention the word nuclear until recently and China's increasing threat and belligerence.

I'm interested in what they're going to do with the French. Maybe we build 6 x conventional and then 6 x nuclear? That's probably going to be too complicated and end up costing more. Better to ditch the froggies and go straight to a copy of the Virginia Class.

We'll have to allow the US/UK to build a maintenance facility in Australia I think. The US can then possibly base a squadron of their own boats here.

The fluff about these being just nuclear powered, not nuclear armed or lead to nuclear energy, is a bit of a furphy I think. This will be a gateway drug for nuclear down the track.

Spot on, nuclear weapon's really are our only choice against China, I am anti nuclear but a realist and also anti being forced having to speak Chinese.

If we get processing tech then nuclear power becomes more viable as perhaps a base load option still its the most expensive option.

 

[Sean K]

The Canadians are freaking out that the US, UK and AS are doing this. The Canucks are in integral part of ABCA Armies and Five Eyes and arguably an even closer ally to the US than us. A lot of people will think they've been left out. I think they may have been part of the initial discussions on this but there's no way Trudeau would have joined this gang. Unless they painted the subs in rainbow colours perhaps...