Australia's submarine solution

[sptrawler]

As we said back in September, the US subs would arrive faster than was first quoted.

Australia to get first nuclear submarine early as China tensions rise

The controversial deal - which saw Australia abandon its contract with France for a fleet of diesel submarines - could now see the new subs coming into operation in the first half of the 2030s.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[rederob]

As we said back in September, the US subs would arrive faster than was first quoted.

Australia to get first nuclear submarine early as China tensions rise

The controversial deal - which saw Australia abandon its contract with France for a fleet of diesel submarines - could now see the new subs coming into operation in the first half of the 2030s.

www.dailymail.co.uk

The USA will not be number 1 when they arrive.
And by 2050 India will put America into 3rd place:

Strategic alliances with the USA and UK make little sense when considering our place in the world in coming decades.
All we have done for the past 5 years is alienate our nearer neighbours, and a handful of subs is not going to make an iota of difference
to the emerging world order.
Keating understood where we needed to be, but the legacy of our past is cemented in conservatism, blind to geography, and wedded to fighting the invisible enemy of Communism that hides under our beds.

 

[sptrawler]

Still better than diesel subs in 2040
If Keating was in we would have Chinese subs and aircraft, which probably supports the thread I started 'why dont we sell W.A to China' Keating would have IMO.

 

[IFocus]

Still better than diesel subs in 2040
If Keating was in we would have Chinese subs and aircraft, which probably supports the thread I started 'why dont we sell W.A to China' Keating would have IMO.

Keating never advocated that ever in fact he told China to behave its self and compile to their faces unlike the current lot of cowards making grand statements for domestic political gain.

The Chinese sending people to the Solomon's should make all here shudder flagging the complete failure of this Coalition Government to engage in our own back yard which Keating did advocate.

 

[sptrawler]

Keating never advocated that ever in fact he told China to behave its self and compile to their faces unlike the current lot of cowards making grand statements for domestic political gain.

The Chinese sending people to the Solomon's should make all here shudder flagging the complete failure of this Coalition Government to engage in our own back yard which Keating did advocate.

Yes, maybe the Chinese troops that are going to the Solomons, can have a game of cricket with our troops that are already there.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://amp.abc.net.au/article/100660318&ved=2ahUKEwjK2ICLhIP1AhWtSWwGHcfjDT0QFnoECA8QAQ&usg=AOvVaw1Mltxmw4nZ3uBAlBJIC7j6

 

[rederob]

Still better than diesel subs in 2040
If Keating was in we would have Chinese subs and aircraft, which probably supports the thread I started 'why dont we sell W.A to China' Keating would have IMO.

Why the need for any?
Subs are essentially "attack" vessels as their defensive capability is incredibly limited. So who are we attacking?
Or why are we supporting an attack on another nation given how well we have gone since WWII?

If we are not intending to be involved in attacks then we need to concentrate on defensive measures. In that regard the upwards of $80B we are committing to subs could instead stretch a long way towards weaponry, especially UAVs, actively involved in patrolling our borders. In fact the future of warfare will be via robotics and AI and I am gobsmacked we are investing tens of billions in a technology which is unlikely to remain "hidden" underwater in decades to come. Last year the French won America's "Hook 'Em" award for sub hunting, and in another decade that technology will be obsolete.

 

[rederob]

Yes, maybe the Chinese troops that are going to the Solomons, can have a game of cricket with our troops that are already there.

Dominoes anyone?

 

[sptrawler]

Well I certainly cant be bothered getting into a debate into the strategic importance of military infrastructure, as it isnt my area of expertise, I think we are fortunate on the forum to have people who are expert on every subject know to man. Lol

 

[SirRumpole]

Subs are essentially "attack" vessels as their defensive capability is incredibly limited. So who are we attacking?

It depends on how you look at it.

If an invasion armada is heading towards us, we would defend ourselves by attacking their ships with submarine launched torpedoes or missiles.

Is that attack or defense ?

 

[sptrawler]

It depends on how you look at it.

If an invasion armada is heading towards us, we would defend ourselves by attacking their ships with submarine launched torpedoes or missiles.

Is that attack or defense ?

One could also ask, if we dont need them, why do China, India, France and the U.K need them?
The U.S and Russia, possibly a left over from the cold war.

 

[SirRumpole]

One could also ask, if we dont need them, why do China, India, France and the U.K need them?
The U.S and Russia, possibly a left over from the cold war.

Secret reconnaisance of other nations shipping movements and onshore military bases, potentially laying mines, general deterrence effect.

 

[sptrawler]

Secret reconnaisance of other nations shipping movements and onshore military bases, potentially laying mines, general deterrence effect.

It is illogical for us not to have an effective military force, I would have thought subs would be sensible, on the basis we are an island and any attack on us will rely on a large naval force.
To say we are antagonising countries also doesnt make sense to me, Switzerland which is usually a neutral country, has a very large armed force and conscription for 18 to 20 year old men is mandatory.
They have also cancelled the purchase of French fighter planes, in favour of U.S ones, are they being antogonistic to their neighbours?
Too many people allowing their political bias, to influence their reasoning IMO.

 

[SirRumpole]

It is illogical for us not to have an effective military force, I would have thought subs would be sensible, on the basis we are an island and any attack on us will rely on a large naval force.
To say we are antagonising countries also doesnt make sense to me, Switzerland which is usually a neutral country, has a very large armed force and conscription for 18 to 20 year old men is mandatory.
They have also cancelled the purchase of French fighter planes, in favour of U.S ones, are they being antogonistic to their neighbours?
Too many people allowing their political bias, to influence their reasoning IMO.

Better to have arms and not need to use them, than to need them and not have them.

 

[sptrawler]

Better to have arms and not need to use them, than to need them and not have them.

As England found out, when Neville Chamberlain tried to appease Hitler and ignored Germanies agressive expansion through Europe.
Nothing to see there, was his call, if my memory serves me correctly.

 

[IFocus]

There is a good argument that the subs will be of no use in 40 years due to technology how about missile systems instead?

 

[SirRumpole]

There is a good argument that the subs will be of no use in 40 years due to technology how about missile systems instead?

Subs ARE missile systems that can move around while being difficult to detect.

If you put missile systems on land then satellites can detect their locations pretty easily and you have to build massive bunkers to protect them.

 

[sptrawler]

There is a good argument that the subs will be of no use in 40 years due to technology how about missile systems instead?

Isnt that what Scomo says, technology will fix it, I didnt realise you were a fan. Lol

 

[sptrawler]

We did say, that the nuclear subs will be here before 2040, my guess is new U.S subs will be having training exercises here already, in preparation for delivery. ?

Peter Dutton flags Australia sending weapons to Taiwan, acquiring nuclear submarines before 2040

The Defence Minister says Australia may send weapons to Taiwan in response to any future Chinese military aggression, while revealing Canberra may acquire nuclear submarines earlier than 2040.

www.abc.net.au

 

[Craton]

Wondering what sorta sub will we get as apparently the top silent attack Sea Wolf is a tad pricey even for the US Navy.

Found this interesting YouTube vid, re. a stealthy Swedish diesel sub entering the "red zone" in a US Navy exercise and scoring multiple torpedo hits before disappearing undetected.
The sub uses a modified Sterling engine designed way back in 1816!

 

[wayneL]

Yes, maybe the Chinese troops that are going to the Solomons, can have a game of cricket with our troops that are already there.

Well at least we might be able to win that one. ?