Australia's submarine solution

[Smurf1976]

What I'm not following is why is it so costly to build a submarine in the first place?

An awful lot of much larger things can be built for a fraction of the cost so why's it so expensive?

 

[IFocus]

What I'm not following is why is it so costly to build a submarine in the first place?

An awful lot of much larger things can be built for a fraction of the cost so why's it so expensive?

I guess bases, logistics, weapon systems, amo, come into the equation but suspect its all about design proving up etc new subs.

 

[rederob]

What I'm not following is why is it so costly to build a submarine in the first place?
An awful lot of much larger things can be built for a fraction of the cost so why's it so expensive?

You cannot build nuclear submarines without a supply chain tooled to produce customised products in exceptionally small volume. A report I read said there were over 4000 different suppliers alone contributing to America's nuclear sub rollout. We have none here for nuclear subs!

America has not been able to build its subs on time or to budget and you can find this info in Congressional reports. Even American politicians' eyes water at the hideous cost impost of their nuclear sub programme. Getting Australia onboard to recover costs is a clever move on their part.

This announcement goes down well with all the sabre rattling over China. However the idea touted that the Pacific Ocean region is "unstable" is beyond a joke. Whatever tensions exist remain largely confined to the South China Sea which American naval ships regularly frequent when they are not otherwise flying over islands that China claims. My map of the world does not have America or Australia especially close to the South China Sea.

Unfortunately, as @sptrawler points out, our fleet will have minimal impact as it will be miniscule. A far better alternative would have been to develop en masse our locally made Ghost Sharks and enhance their capabilities as technology advances. A recent report shows the autonomous marine vehicle market is growing at a CAGR of +15%. This is the new world of hybrid warfare where weapons costing relatively little can take out those worth tens of millions to billions. If what's happening in Ukraine is not informing our military experts of this trend then we should pack up shop.

While it's good to be planning ahead, we appear to have way too many eggs in a submarine basket case. I suspect our army knows that wars are mostly fought on the ground where strength of numbers is paramount when other factors are equal. Where will Australia get the necessary firepower from to repel invading ground forces? Ukraine has over 20 nations nearby supporting it, with no sea barrier. I doubt New Zealand will be able to fill the void that NATO does for Ukraine!

More importantly, he 2030s are most likely to be dominated by AI which is ok now but advancing at an incredible pace via machine learning and the use of big data. This is increasingly allowing a greater array of small, cheap, and deadly weapons to identify and destroy enemy targets. Even Russia has worked this out:

 

[sptrawler]

While it's good to be planning ahead, we appear to have way too many eggs in a submarine basket case. I suspect our army knows that wars are mostly fought on the ground where strength of numbers is paramount when other factors are equal. Where will Australia get the necessary firepower from to repel invading ground forces? Ukraine has over 20 nations nearby supporting it, with no sea barrier. I doubt New Zealand will be able to fill the void that NATO does for Ukraine!

If an invading force lands in the North of Australia IMO it is game over, it isn't as though we have any friendly neighbours, other than NZ.

As recently as yesterday, I'm sure I read Indonesia commented they don't mind us getting the subs, as long as it doesn't upset China.

So between China and Australia, there are many countries that will support a supply chain once open hostilities broke out, so supplying the forward troops and establishing a foothold wouldn't be an insurmountable issue.

It would be best all round if a negotiated agreement over Taiwan is reached, it may mean the U.S can remove any intellectual property they have, but as it is I can't see the U.S administration showing any signs of bending.

They actually appear to have less interest in negotiation than Trump did, at least with Trump and his fist banging he got China to come to the table and negotiate the bilateral trade agreement, whether it worked or not isn't the issue at least they were talking.

The same issue is happening with North Korea, since the change of administration in the U.S all detente has broken down, funny that the crumbling of all relations between the U.S, China and North Korea hasn't been first and foremost in the media, it is a blatant failing of the current Government in the U.S.

 

[sptrawler]

What I'm not following is why is it so costly to build a submarine in the first place?

An awful lot of much larger things can be built for a fraction of the cost so why's it so expensive?

The other issue of course is exchange rates, if we were still $1.10 to the $US, they would probably only be going to cost half the price. ?

On a side note, before the 1980's and globalisation, our $1 was worth $1.25 U.S, I remember because I was paid in U.S dollars.? happy days.

 

[Knobby22]

If an invading force lands in the North of Australia IMO it is game over, it isn't as though we have any friendly neighbours, other than NZ.

As recently as yesterday, I'm sure I read Indonesia commented they don't mind us getting the subs, as long as it doesn't upset China.

So between China and Australia, there are many countries that will support a supply chain once open hostilities broke out, so supplying the forward troops and establishing a foothold wouldn't be an insurmountable issue.

It would be best all round if a negotiated agreement over Taiwan is reached, it may mean the U.S can remove any intellectual property they have, but as it is I can't see the U.S administration showing any signs of bending.

They actually appear to have less interest in negotiation than Trump did, at least with Trump and his fist banging he got China to come to the table and negotiate the bilateral trade agreement, whether it worked or not isn't the issue at least they were talking.

The same issue is happening with North Korea, since the change of administration in the U.S all detente has broken down, funny that the crumbling of all relations between the U.S, China and North Korea hasn't been first and foremost in the media, it is a blatant failing of the current Government in the U.S.

Seem to remember that we (Australia) got threatened by China under Trump and he just looked away and did nothing.

Also wasn't the deal with the subs arranged with Biden, also wasn't it Biden who put real pressure on China over Australia and organised other countries to also put pressure and now they have backed off their demands?

Also Russia was in the Crimea and Trump didn't even mention it. Said we should be friends with Russia.

Also North Korea, wasn't the whole thing a complete failure?

As you say didn't the Chinese screw him over increasing exports into the USA while at the same time reducing imports from the USA despite him having a trade treaty? Wasn't it Biden who put in the bans to computer chips to China and put in big tarriff protection to reboot the USA industry?

I am trying to think of something he did achieve in foreign relations. Can you remind me?

Just my thoughts.

 

[sptrawler]

Seem to remember that we (Australia) got threatened by China under Trump and he just looked away and did nothing.

Also wasn't the deal with the subs arranged with Biden, also wasn't it Biden who put real pressure on China over Australia and organised other countries to also put pressure and now they have backed off their demands?

Also Russia was in the Crimea and Trump didn't even mention it. Said we should be friends with Russia.

Also North Korea, wasn't the whole thing a complete failure?

As you say didn't the Chinese screw him over increasing exports into the USA while at the same time reducing imports from the USA despite him having a trade treaty? Wasn't it Biden who put in the bans to computer chips to China and put in big tarriff protection to reboot the USA industry?

I am trying to think of something he did achieve in foreign relations. Can you remind me?

Just my thoughts.

A shame you didn't post up anything, but that does appear to be the case these days, just say something and a person is correct.

As for China /Trump relations, a quick google.

Trump Signs China Trade Deal, Putting Economic Conflict on Pause (Published 2020)

An initial pact, cooling tensions in an election year, follows months of escalating tariffs and a trade war that seemed as if it would never end.

www.nytimes.com

WASHINGTON — President Trump signed an initial trade deal with China on Wednesday, bringing the first chapter of a protracted and economically damaging fight with one of the world’s largest economies to a close.

The pact is intended to open Chinese markets to more American companies, increase farm and energy exports and provide greater protection for American technology and trade secrets. China has committed to buying an additional $200 billion worth of American goods and services by 2021 and is expected to ease some of the tariffs it has placed on American products.

As for the subs deal being done with Biden.
Absolutely, which also confirms what I said, as to the deteriorating relations with China since the change of Government in the U.S. So thanks for bringing that up.

As for Trump and Russia taking the Crimea:
Russia invaded the Crimea in March 2014, Trump was elected into office in Jan 2017- Jan 2021, so I suppose if you are going to hang that on someone, it would be Obama. But hey he is probably on the correct side of politics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Donald_Trump

Donald Trump's tenure as the 45th president of the United States began with his inauguration on January 20, 2017, and ended on January 20, 2021.

Wasn't North Korea a complete failure:
Actually no it wasn't, as shown above Trump came into office in 2017-2021.
North Korea didn't launch an ICBM from late 217 through to March 2022, which is actually after the change of Government in the U.S.
Again thanks for bringing another bit of history changing myth up.
Since 2022 North Korea has launched the most missiles in the shortest period of time, so I guess that shows teh U.S Govt is lacking eh.

North Korea Launches First ICBM Since 2017

Move set to significantly raise tensions on Korean Peninsula

www.voanews.com

North Korea launched an intercontinental ballistic missile Thursday, the United States and its allies in the region concluded, Pyongyang's first long-range launch since 2017.

The launch significantly raised tension on the Korean Peninsula. Just two hours later, South Korea fired five of its own missiles, in what it called a "demonstration of our ability and willingness to respond immediately and impose punishment."

The North Korean missile flew for over 70 minutes, at a lofted trajectory, before landing just 170 kilometers west of Japan's Aomori Prefecture, according to Japan's Ministry of Defense.

Anything else you want to discuss?

 

[Knobby22]

So what did he achieve? I have previously posted on the trade deal surely you remember it.

You can't bring up someone else. Plenty of excuses.

You said Trump did a great job.. must be something. I remember he threatened Ukraine. Africa? South American success?

 

[Knobby22]

Anyway off topic. Let's forget it.

 

[sptrawler]

So what did he achieve? I have previously posted on the trade deal surely you remember it.

What did he achieve, if you read the above post, a lot more than the current government.

You can't bring up someone else. Plenty of excuses.

Classic bit of modern day diversion, I posted up plenty, you gave your opinion

You said Trump did a great job.. must be something. I remember he threatened Ukraine. Africa? South American success?

I never said Trump did a great job, I gave examples of how he was achieving more than the present administration, which as can be seen by the state of the world wouldn't be hard to beat.

This is the problem today, way too many warm feel good people, who judge people by their personality, rather than by their actions and achievements.
That's the underlying problem why Australia can't halt its downward slide, anyone who says anything against the slide is classed as nasty and a hate speaker, well as we continue our trajectory down it will be interesting to see how people feel in 10 years.

You should do yourself a favour and grab a copy of the Australian financial revue today, it covers quite a lot of the current issue, we have been talking about on the forum. Like the energy crisis over East and the slide in living standards in Australia.
But hey, there I go talking hate speech again, don't tell it as it is, tell it how people want to hear it.
OK things are Tickety Boo with China, Russia and North Korea and Trump caused all the problems, there you go, now you can relax.?

 

[Knobby22]

Play it right and we can profit from this subs deal​

It may be billed as $368 billion over the next 30 years, but the AUKUS deal is not what it seems. In a major deal like this, one benefit that is rarely mentioned is business ‘‘offsets’’.
These offsets are a corresponding return from the seller in return for a favourable deal. For example, if you buy a supercomputer from a Japanese company worth over $10 million, you can expect some form of returns from the company, e.g. it hires your people for its company or offers to buy your software services in return.
As the base for construction of these submarines, South Australia will be built up for future business and can expect to generate revenue in the billions. In the banking/financial sector, Australia will gain prospective investments in our government bonds (the UK and the US will buy our bonds to help us pay for the submarines). This will generate a lot of ‘‘money’’ for Australia – it may be virtual, but it will importantly keep our credit rating above AAA.
Correspondingly, we will have opened up business connections with the UK and the US. The trust that comes with the deal means they will reciprocate in trade as never before.
Australians will be increasingly prioritised for employment visas to these countries. Our reputation will be enhanced globally due to this favourable treatment.
As they say, ‘‘money makes money’’, and it will be perfectly true for this AUKUS investment. China will see us in a different light – not as enemies but as a worthy potential partner due to our connections.
Finally, our business image around the globe will rise. I think what we will invest in AUKUS will ultimately be balanced out by our ability to earn. Bill Cheng, Ascot Vale

Thought this letter in "The Age" made some excellent points.

 

[Sean K]

What I'm not following is why is it so costly to build a submarine in the first place?

An awful lot of much larger things can be built for a fraction of the cost so why's it so expensive?

This is something I don't get either. The Virginia Class supposed to cost about US$4-5b a copy. It's all the extra stuff in development, bases, workforce, maintenance etc that must be really pushing up the SSN AUKUS part of the bill. I haven't seen a breakdown of the $375b costing as yet.

 

[sptrawler]

The other thing this submarine debate has highlighted is, how important it is to stay on top of your game, I mean really the Germans dropped the ball when it came to subs.
They really were ahead of the curve in WW2, now I'm not sure they even make a sub.

 

[Sean K]

The other thing this submarine debate has highlighted is, how important it is to stay on top of your game, I mean really the Germans dropped the ball when it came to subs.
They really were ahead of the curve in WW2, now I'm not sure they even make a sub.

They do, SSKs, but like Japan after WW2 really dialled back the force projection part of their defence and stood back in embarrassment really. China and Russian actions over the past year have turned that around. They will soon be global military powers once again thanks to Russian and Chinese aggression. Wouldn't be surprised if they both start developing SSNs very soon.

 

[rederob]

The other thing this submarine debate has highlighted is, how important it is to stay on top of your game, I mean really the Germans dropped the ball when it came to subs.
They really were ahead of the curve in WW2, now I'm not sure they even make a sub.

Germany is not likely to be attacked by sea and no longer has plans to rule the world. Even Russia's submarine fleet is shrinking when it's not otherwise rusting into oblivion.

On topic proper, as I said much earlier on, submarines are designed specifically to attack:

"And what are submarines designed for? They are an offensive capability, intended to sink ships and other submarines. Yes, they do other tasks, but this offensive capability is the bread and butter of ‘the trade’. Because of their potency, our submarines can have a powerful conventional deterrent effect."​

The 2014 paper in my link makes for sober reading. It is at odds with the AUKUS decision in many ways.

Thought this letter in "The Age" made some excellent points.

But did it?
As I pointed out earlier, thousands of suppliers will be involved and they will produce bespoke products for a market of ONE. There are no profits to be had except to the extent a supplier can screw-over DoD with a favourable quote.

The idea that companies are going to spring out of the ground to make the odd piece of equipment for a sub, and then wait years for the next order, does not make for a sound business proposition. That's part of the reason America's nuclear sub supply chain is so large, as they have to rely on who already exists and is capable, and still this leads to massive cost blowouts.

As the base for construction of these submarines, South Australia will be built up for future business and can expect to generate revenue in the billions.

Really? Who else are we going to be making nuclear subs for?

The below map shows major trading arteries, and Australia is an insignificant player many thousands of kilometres removed. Other nations are far more reliant on shipping trade and will be more invested in ensuring that trade is not jeopardised.

A separate point relates to a government comment that the Pacific region is "unstable."
Is it putting to fine a a point on it to suggest that the sovereign states of South East Asia need to sort this out, if it is at all true. The 2B people in that region have a vested interest in maintaining the peace so that they can continue to develop.
The AUKUS project seems more one of global interference in distant regions rather than national defence per se.

 

[SirRumpole]

One thing that gets overlooked in the China debate is that is primarily Western consumers who are funding China's military buildup by buying their exports .

If we want to contain China, the first thing to do is stop buying their stuff, or put import tarrifs on them and put the proceeds into our own manufacturing.

 

[moXJO]

Here's the problem I have: You can't trust the yanks.
When we were being their lapdog and had words with China. Once China cut trade with us the US rushed in to fill the void on products they couldn't compete with us on.

The US would have no qualms letting Australians die rather than US citizens for their stupid quest to control the east.
Those subs lock us down into the idiocy of the Yank war machine.

I don't trust the US to have Australians interests in mind.

 

[rederob]

One thing that gets overlooked in the China debate is that is primarily Western consumers who are funding China's military buildup by buying their exports .

So where is Australia getting over $380B for a handful of nuclear subs?
Oh, you seem to overlook the fact that China's military spending as a percentage of GDP is about the same as Australia's:

.

If we want to contain China, the first thing to do is stop buying their stuff, or put import tarrifs on them and put the proceeds into our own manufacturing.

Where is this a policy?
Or is this just what you want to do?

 

[SirRumpole]

So where is Australia getting over $380B for a handful of nuclear subs?
Oh, you seem to overlook the fact that China's military spending as a percentage of GDP is about the same as Australia's:
View attachment 154627.


Where is this a policy?
Or is this just what you want to do?

Of course it's not a policy because the pollies are too gutless to do it and too short sighted to believe it's true.

Military spending per GDP it's irrelevant, it's the total spending that counts, that's why big countries always outspend smaller ones.

 

[sptrawler]

Here's the problem I have: You can't trust the yanks.
When we were being their lapdog and had words with China. Once China cut trade with us the US rushed in to fill the void on products they couldn't compete with us on.

The US would have no qualms letting Australians die rather than US citizens for their stupid quest to control the east.
Those subs lock us down into the idiocy of the Yank war machine.

I don't trust the US to have Australians interests in mind.

That kind of goes for every country in the world and just about every human being, how many will starve themselves and their family, in order to feed a stranger?
How many will die in order that a stranger will live?
The issue Australia has IMO is, we are in the middle of nowhere, surrounded by countries that in general are much poorer, have a much lower living standard, much worse general health and have very little with which to lift themselves out of poverty and their predicament.

If you think the U.S would be prepared to throw us under the bus, give me an example of a viable ally that will put our interests before their own, because given half a chance 25million extremely indulged and entitled people would struggle hold onto what they have, if someone wished to take it.
So IMO we don't have a lot of options, with regard keeping the wolves from the door, very similar to Ukraine.
Without outside assistance and dependency on alliances, no doubt Ukraine would probably already have been overrun, I doubt we would last very long without an alliance with a major power.
Who that major power is, remains the only question IMO.
I'm not sure our laconic nature, scintillating personality and underlying smugness, would hold anyone at bay for very long. ?