This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Australia's submarine solution

Jump to new
Knobby22 said:
Have a read of the article.
Click to expand...
Yes I have read it, I'm on the train going back and disagree with his assumptions.
I dont think the subs have anything to do with Taiwan, I think they are getting bought on the expectation of China building military bases on the Solomons and other nearby countries.
They wont arrive before Taiwan comes into play, but they probably will before China establishes Naval facilities with our neighbours.
As I said the Collins class were past there use by date years ago, from what I was told and the author says they would by effective against Chinese naval equipment, ring him up and tell him he is dreaming. Lol he must have watched top gun maverick where the F14 tomcat gives a 5th generation current fighter plane a whipping IMO. Lol
 

The F-14 didn't give the enemy a whipping, Tom Cruise did !

He paid for the film after all.
 
A met a relly of a mate at a party a few years ago, he was a retired Navy man with "good knowledge" of the Collins class subs

In his opinion "they always were and still are useless"

I do think we need some sort of deterrent, it helps us form a bond with the USA for defence purposes.

Without the USA I think any other strong nation with advanced weapons could rule the world quite easily.
 
We could use the money better as this military guy says such as smart mines drones, fighter planes etc. I am worried that we are going in hock for one element only that may become redundant as new tech occurs.
 
Knobby22 said:
We could use the money better as this military guy says such as smart mines drones, fighter planes etc. I am worried that we are going in hock for one element only that may become redundant as new tech occurs.
Click to expand...

I don't see why we don't invest more in unmanned subs, for recconnaisance purposes and tracking potential targets.

They don't need to have a missile capability but they could provide targetting info for guided missile destroyers.

No need to bother with oxygen systems or food for crew so they could be a lot cheaper..
 
I like subs for the stealth benefit.

I agree about drones but a sub could carry 100 small drones and launch them from close quarters, drones coming from any distance are swattable by a powerful force
 
macca said:
I like subs for the stealth benefit.

I agree about drones but a sub could carry 100 small drones and launch them from close quarters, drones coming from any distance are swattable by a powerful force
Click to expand...
Every war game expert uses subs as the first line of defense, even the bloke who wrote the article.
Drones can't carry large long range missiles.
 
Knobby22 said:
We could use the money better as this military guy says such as smart mines drones, fighter planes etc. I am worried that we are going in hock for one element only that may become redundant as new tech occurs.
Click to expand...
As the guy in the article said, interupting the supply chain is the trick, planes have limited range and limited time in the air. So they have one shot and have to go back to re arm, also if their airstrip is damaged they cant get in the air, or return to base. Also ships have excellent surface to air missile systems these days.
The only way we have any chance IMO, is land based missile systems and subs that can travel for long periods under water and also can carry large payloads of surface to surface and surface to air misiles. The Collins class carries very few of either and is limited in speed and stealth mode by being battery/ diesel.
Just my opinion.
 
As was said at the beginning of the thread, U.S will be deploying subs to Australia well before they new ones are built, so the worry warts can breathe easy.

Australia to buy US nuclear-powered subs​

The US will arrange for the first few subs to be built in America, and will establish the capability to rotate its attack subs through Perth by 2027.


Exclusive-Australia expected to buy up to 5 Virginia class submarines as part of AUKUS -sources

Australia is expected to buy up to five U.S. Virginia class nuclear powered submarines in the 2030's as part of a landmark defense agreement between Washington, Canberra and London, four U.S. officials said on Wednesday, in a deal that would present a new challenge to China.
www.reuters.com
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -Australia is expected to buy up to five U.S. Virginia class nuclear powered submarines in the 2030’s as part of a landmark defense agreement between Washington, Canberra and London, four U.S. officials said on Wednesday, in a deal that would present a new challenge to China.
The agreement, known as the AUKUS pact, will have multiple stages with at least one U.S. submarine visiting Australian ports in the coming years and end in the late 2030’s with a new class of submarines being built with British designs and American technology, one of the officials said.

U.S. President Joe Biden will host leaders of Australia and Britain in San Diego on Monday to chart a way forward for provision of the nuclear-powered submarines and other high-tech weaponry to Australia.

China has condemned the effort by the Western allies, who are seeking to counter China’s military buildup, pressure on Taiwan and increasingly muscular deployments in the contested South China Sea.

Two of the officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said that after the annual port visits, the United States would forward deploy some submarines in Western Australia by around 2027.

In the early 2030’s, Australia would buy 3 Virginia class submarines and have the option to buy two more.


AUKUS is expected to be Australia’s biggest-ever defense project and offers the prospect of jobs in all three countries.

Australia has an existing fleet of six conventionally powered Collins-class submarines, which will have their service life extended to 2036. Nuclear submarines can stay underwater for longer than conventional ones and are harder to detect.

The officials did not elaborate on the planned new class of submarines, including offering specifics about production locations.
 
Why try and build a hybrid?

Dummest thing ever IMHO.
 
IFocus said:
Why try and build a hybrid?

Dummest thing ever IMHO.
Click to expand...
Possibly the U.S aren't keen on having their latest technical systems, that interface 100% with America's satellite, sonar and missile guidance systems and also carrying U.S very high level technology chipsets, floating around in the South Pacific.
It would make much more sense from their perspective, to have a U.K control system, which probably piggy backs on the U.S master system then they can restrict access, if a sub was captured then at least the other side doesn't have the actual technology to reverse engineer.

It's also great to see the press is onboard with the subs now and they have given up on trashing the Government for, upsetting France and cancelling the diesel subs.?
Now AUKUS isn't a slap in the face to our BFF in Europe, it is a new dawn, 12 months is a long time in politics and the press. The pitchforks have been put back in the shed, until the press call upon them again.?

PM declares 'new dawn' for defence policy on eve of nuclear submarine announcement

Anthony Albanese is in San Diego for the AUKUS announcement, with predictions the nuclear-submarine project will support about 20,000 jobs over the next 30 years.
www.abc.net.au

On the eve of the highly anticipated AUKUS unveiling, Anthony Albanese has declared a "new dawn" for Australia's defence policy, with predictions the nuclear-submarine project will support about 20,000 jobs over the next 30 years.
 

Yeah, by the time these things are built, remote underwater drones will probably have made them obsolete. Except for the role of delivering special forces, although maybe they could also just hitch a ride on a remote ubersub.
 
Submarines of themselves are not a bad idea.
However in this case the excessive expenditure leaves Australia more vulnerable on land that it should otherwise be.

The next issue, rather than a problem was just pointed out by @Sean K .
 
Sean K said:
Yeah, by the time these things are built, remote underwater drones will probably have made them obsolete. Except for the role of delivering special forces, although maybe they could also just hitch a ride on a remote ubersub.
Click to expand...
there is only one non obsolete military use for nuclear submarines: having nuke on board and have a fleet underwater 24/7...that is non achieve-able in Australia and who would you rely on to give you some if need be?
Either put half that amount and build own nuke force..will take a generation then set up a few silos and get 4 submarines or ensure we can damage any invader.
Europe got nukes yet got a million if not more illegal immigrants a year which fully destroyed the countries there with no shot fired ..
what will happen if there is a drought in indonesia, nuclear subs? As for China, do we really want to fight a war in Taipei when we can not even get enough antibiotics when China close its borders?
what a fxxxing waste of money and opportunities
 

Yes, I doubt an autonomous/remote sub will be nuclear armed. I think the future underwater force will still need manned subs but they will have unmanned subs that they deploy and control, multiplying their effect. Much like what we're currently doing with the 'Ghost Bat' aircraft that will fly with the F35s. You just need less manned subs for greater effect at a cheaper cost.

I'm still astonished by the numbers they're throwing about for the development of these things. A Virginia Class boat costs about $4b a piece... A lot of development and maintenance I guess.
 
Sean K said:
I'm still astonished by the numbers they're throwing about for the development of these things. A Virginia Class boat costs about $4b a piece... A lot of development and maintenance I guess.
Click to expand...

Yeah the numbers are likely to be below the real cost, still don't think buying a yet to be designed / developed / commissioned sub is the go in fact I think its fu(king stupid and agree with Frog they need nuclear weapons' ideally (not that I am keen on nuclear but you have to be realistic) maybe the politics will shift enough by the time of delivery.
 
submarine are only useful imho as a hidden platform to launch balistic nuke, ..you do not need them to go and sink a few boats WWII is over;
as in WWII, too many generals are one (or 2) wars behind.If Ukraine could at least be useful to wake them up
 
rederob said:
Submarines of themselves are not a bad idea.
However in this case the excessive expenditure leaves Australia more vulnerable on land that it should otherwise be.

The next issue, rather than a problem was just pointed out by @Sean K .
Click to expand...
$368 Billion (plus likely cost blowouts) for submarines alone.

That is roughly $15,000 for every man, woman and child in Australia.

Was not that long ago, you could buy a new car for that coin.

Let's have a referendum on whether we should have new subs or just give everyone a new car.
 
Yes IMO subs are still a versatile strike weapon, but as everyone has said it is a huge amount of money and by the time we get them they are still only 5.
If they are meant to be a deterent to China, they will be outnumbered 10 to 1, so it is a bit of an excercise in futility.
But does make great press.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Albo's Coal and Gas Price Cap and Financial Aid proposal
2
Replies
38
Views
5K
Smurf1976
Holden brand to cease operation in Australia
2
Replies
22
Views
3K
Smurf1976
Destruction of Australia's engineering and construction expertise
2 3 4
Replies
63
Views
6K
divs4ever
D
Some investing lessons from BASE jumpers on successful investing
Replies
0
Views
3K
dreamxite
D
Are Australian freight going the same way as our car industry?
Replies
2
Views
3K
Smurf1976
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...