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

Submarines: $50 billion down the drain?

Jump to new

explod

explod
Joined
4 March 2007
Posts
7,341
Reactions
1,198
I have scratched my head for weeks trying to see the value in buying the new submarines, and even without considering the enourmous amount of expenditure, I can't.

Sure a few jobs whilst they are being done and the retention of expertise, and on the latter, for what?

As far as the Navy is concerned they have great difficulty in maintaing the right manpower to keep our current subs operational.

I suppose in a few years we might be able to tow fresh water from Antartica when the desal plant is snowed under. But on defence the enimies will come on thier individual airborne harnesses.
:1zhelp:
 
Re: Submarines: 50 billion down the drain?


A bit depends on how upgradeable they are. Upgraded weapons systems, nuclear power maybe, updated communications etc.

If someone wants to invade here they have to come by ship and the subs are then a deterrent.

But it's a long time to wait for them.
 
It appears everyone in the country has a view on whether this was the correct decision or not. However, the general consensus is the French was the best value for money. However, this could now result in Australia getting the cold shoulder from Japan but don't they kill a majority of the whales for research? Yes talking of research couldn't we have purchased some smaller submarines - with viewing windows/floors and air capsules for divers so we could reduce the ongoing damage to the Barrier Reef? Better trying to save lives than destroying them? After all are all 12 submarines going to be out patrolling the seas at any one time unlike the Collins type that only had the reputation of having only one out at a time as the others were being patched up!!

There are some interesting point of views (by clicking on the link) via a video, documents, a reporter's point of view as well as over 200 comments from fellow Australians.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...s-50b-submarine-contract-20160425-goeuxh.html
 
Its just like home building insurance. You don't want to pay for it, and most likely you'll never need it.

But if you ever do need it, you'll be very glad you've got it.
 
Isn't it far more likely that future invaders will come by plane, maybe even disguised as tourists, or "migrants" island-hopping in an armada of wooden boats? What good will subs be against that?

A fraction of those $50+ Billion would buy a fleet of small coast guard vessels that are assisted by a cloud of drones patrolling our coast line. Such a system would also be flexible and upgradeable; you might even add some serious weaponry to those drones that "turn back the boats".

I reckon it's obscene that the Noalition rubbishes a $30B investment in a FTTH NBN as too expensive, yet considers Billions more for underwater observatories as sound economics.
 
The price of Freedom is eternal vigilence.
I think W. Churchill said that.
We are surrounded by sea and ships are too vulnerable.
Planes and subs are our best serious protection.
 
Knobby22 said:
The price of Freedom is eternal vigilence.
I think W. Churchill said that.
We are surrounded by sea and ships are too vulnerable.
Planes and subs are our best serious protection.
Click to expand...
I do not believe subs are anything but an obsolete technology, as already linked on another thread, the US/israel already have underwater drones able to cruise for 6 months which can follow these and blow them up whenever required.
unmanned vehicles are the future, be it sub, figher, and that is not even considering the absence of crews to man these or the fact they won't be ready before 2030 nor the cost (probably 100 billions or a quarter of our debt by the time they will get delivered);
A total disaster for Australia security IMHO, but yes that was the best option, if you want to blow 50 to 100 billions away on equivalent of cavalry in the 2nd world war
 
Re: Submarines: 50 billion down the drain?


Firstly what sub marina would want to man a tin can like the Collins class which has been unreliable since their conception.....The Collins subs have been a headache since Kim Beasley decided to build them in Australia......With a more reliable and modern sub, mariners will be more attracted.

Secondly, if the Labor Government had not sat on their hands for 6 years and had done some planning instead, THE-LONG-TIME-TO-WAIT-FOR-THEM would not have occurred.

The Labor Government under Rudd/Gillard/Rudd let our defense force run down to 1.8% of GDP....The lowest since 1938.

Furthermore, the Labor Party 2007/2013 did not build one naval ship , however they did purchase two from overseas......And during the open borders by Rudd in 2008 to 2013 our naval ships were used as overworked naval water taxis to "RESCUE" illegal immigrants.

The Labor party would never be satisfied with what ever approach the Liberals did on the building the new French subs in Australia.......Labor has been caught with their pants down well and truly and must surely be totally embarrassed by the forward planning of the Liberal Government's initiative.
 

That makes sense.

So for (a buy you in under-estimate of) $50B, we're getting 12 subs by 2030 (average built time is 1 per year? ha ha. Man, takes an average of 6 months to build a normal house... so it'll be parallel production sites then?).

Anyway, $4B a pop... how many drones would it take to find and destroy that expensive piece of hardware?
 
So_Cynical said:
The Japs were going to do it for 20B
Click to expand...

Where did you pluck that figure from and are they conventional or nuclear?

How do they compare with size to the French sub?....How long could the Jap sub stay under water?....How long could the Jap sub stay at sea without refueling?...How many torpedoes can the Jap sub carry?

You pay peanuts and you will always get monkeys.

Best you do some homework before making comparisons of cost.
 
Re: Submarines: 50 billion down the drain?


I think you'll find the scope of works and design was locked in under Malcolm Fraser ... I seem to recall it was his govt that demanded local content. I also think their was a degree of maturity by the ALP and then president of the trades unions, Bob Hawke in giving Malcolm their support.

Of course Bill Shorten ~11 years old then and probably responsible for the bad things that afflicted the subs.

Planning for the new subs started under Kevin Rudd shortly after he took office. He wanted 12 subs, but Tony killed that off because it would have cost $40bn
 
Re: Submarines: 50 billion down the drain?


Are you dreaming again?.....Kim Beasley was the Minister of defense at the time.

Can you substantiate your claim that the 12 subs was an Kevin Rudd initiative?
 
Re: Submarines: 50 billion down the drain?


Here is a link for your information about the development of the Collins class sub.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collins-class_submarine.

https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2014/12/case-collins-class-subs/

When the problems of the Collins programme became public in the early 1990s, they were used politically against the then Defence Minister, Kim Beazley. In part, the current perceived problems of the Collins class are echoes of the politics around its inception. In reality, it is now a good submarine that has had its bugs ironed out
 
Of course subs are important. One sub can cause havoc to shipping routes and enemy fleets.
We are also upgrading air defence and missile shields.
I wouldn't put too much faith in unmanned drones. A lot of systems get shut down with a buzz from EMP. Systems were also hacked in some earlier cases.
 
Knobby22 said:
We are surrounded by sea and ships are too vulnerable.
Planes and subs are our best serious protection.
Click to expand...
Who would be the most likely bully/thug/psycho. on the block to attack us?
 
Re: Submarines: 50 billion down the drain?


Mate I'm not going to debate history with you. You can revise it all you like, but I see things through glasses devoid of hate and partisan politics. You are so conditioned to extreme bias, your messages are lost in the dark clouds that accompany them.

I remember the factual events and the first subs were a Frasier innovation as were the latest are grounded in Kevin Rudd's initiative.

I am infallible and you are therefore not lol
 
Re: Submarines: 50 billion down the drain?


Sorry you are wrong again about Rudd.....It was the Defense Department who recommended the 12 subs to Rudd and he was frighten to make a decision in case it was the wrong one.

https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2014/12/case-collins-class-subs/

A few years ago the Australian Government of the day undertook to build 12 replacements for the Collins class submarines. That might increase the number of submarines in the patrol area to two or three, for the whole vastness of the western Pacific and the northern Indian Ocean. The number 12 was the pronouncement of the Prime Minister of the day who did not want to appear to be weak on defence, although he had no intention of funding any submarines in any number.

The number required by our needs is more like 24 which would give us at least six boats on station. If you think that 24 submarines are excessive, Singapore with a quarter of Australia’s population has four submarines. By that metric, we should have sixteen. But the real problem now is not the number of boats but how fast we can build them. The last of the Collins submarines, Rankin, took eight years from the keel being laid to commissioning. Supposing we could consistently build submarines in three years keel-laying to commissioning. At that rate and starting in 2015, the number of new submarines in the fleet would reach a maximum of nine in 2042. If we started building them at one per year, we would get to 12 by 2027 and the fleet would peak at 28 boats in 2042. Designing a new submarine from the ground up would take four years, putting all those dates back by four years.
 
explod said:
I have scratched my head for weeks trying to see the value in buying the new submarines, and even without considering the enourmous amount of expenditure, I can't.
Click to expand...

The Collins class is able to wander around the Taiwan Straits freely, whereas the US nuclear subs cannot. The Collins Class is fitted with US controls, comms and command facilities .....when push comes to shove it will be the Collins Class that goes into action first once they are seconded to the yanks.

Starting to make sense?
 
Fraser and the Oberon Replacement = Collins Class:


http://www.cambridge.org/au/academi...ns-class-submarine-story-steel-spies-and-spin

Rudd and the Next Gen Subs




As always I am 100% on the money
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...