Australia to build world’s most lethal submarines

Onkel Neal · 12-26-07, 11:18 AM

According to Subsim's World Naval News, there's a big storm brewing Down Under over the next gen of Aussie subs. The Defence Minister has targeted $25 billion for this, and some are pushing for nukes to replace the current six diesel boats, while others are insistent that the Aussie sub force remain conventional. For that kind of money, Australia should be able to build nuke fast attacks that are not surface dependant, possibly eight or ten.

SUBMAN1 · 12-26-07, 11:29 AM

I agree. 25 Billion is a Virginia scale project.

-S

fatty · 12-26-07, 02:46 PM

Canadian and Australian navies are in pretty similar situations - huge amounts of coastline to cover; similar fleet sizes, compositions and budgets; looming strategic predicaments (the Arctic and East Asia, respectively) - and as a result we frequently co-operate and exchange ideas and personnel. An Australian presents a defence workship at least once a year to the department I study in.

Noting these similarities, I think it's worth analogizing Canada's quest to acquire a dozen or so SSNs in 1987. The idea was to use plans for an existing foreign class - either the U.K. Trafalgar or the French Rubis - and build them in Canada.

The plan failed almost immediately for three reasons. First, the money was not there. The government was posting enormous deficits in the late 1980s (into the tens of billions) and producing an extra few billion to build and maintain the subs would have taken a miracle. Second, the cost was highly underestimated. If memory serves the procurement costs were expected to be in the rather modest $8-10b range, but these figures did not take into account the enormous tasks of shore support and training for an entirely new kind of platform. Third, the opposition turned nuclear propulsion into a straw man, convincing themselves and much of the public that atomic power = atomic weaponry.

So can Australia pull through with a new fleet of nuclear subs? Unlike my country in 1987, the Australian governments have done well to balance their books, posting a surplus for the past several years. Yet while $25b is a lot of money, for state of the art nuclear subs it disappears fast. The VA class are around $2.5b a pop, and if you build ten there goes your $25b with nothing left for shore support and training. As for sentiments against nuclear power, my fingers are not on the pulse of Australian society enough to know for certain, but I suspect like any good liberal democratic nation they have a solid demographic that, while perhaps not so knowledgable in the realms of military affairs, is strongly opposed to military use of nuclear energy. Stances like that easily bubble over into election issues overnight.

One of those news releases on the front page says Australia is looking at the "most lethal conventional submarine fleet" instead, and it seems a lot more realistic and worthwhile to me that use their $25b to produce world-class conventional subs instead of a nuclear fleet hamstrung by budgetary limits and public opinion. I'm sure that, in the strategic context, a big powerful fleet of SSNs would be primo, but I don't think it to be something that Australia can make a reality.

Edit: This dissertation claims that Australia has been a large figure in non-proliferation movements since the 1960s and might be a better indication of the Australian public's nuclear mood than I can provide. Perhaps a good, long read if anyone is really interested in the topic.

TarJak · 12-26-07, 06:31 PM

Public opinion is fairly strongly against the use of nuclear power in most of it's forms at present and it is doubtful that the present Labour government would embrace the technology even for powering future subs unless they can be convinced that there are votes in it.

I agree with fatty's assessment that a very strong conventially powered sub fleet is more likely to be looked at than SSN's.

SUBMAN1 · 12-26-07, 07:42 PM

Might be so, but here in America, the perception of Nuke power is changing drastically. We are once more building nuke reactors, and not simply tiny ones - massive ones! Our new Cruiser also has a nuke power mandate from Congress, make it what? 25,000 tons? They should increase the displacement and add 5 inches of armor, but what do I know? To me, its a massive taget for a torp, but I guess I have no say on the issue.

-S

Pioneer · 12-26-07, 09:37 PM

Australia has just had a change in government, and one of the first things the incoming party did was withdraw from Iraq.

Factor that into the equation too.

12-26-07, 11:18 AM	#1
Onkel Neal Born to Run Silent Join Date: Jan 1997 Location: Cougar Trap, Texas Posts: 21,385 Downloads: 541 Uploads: 224	Australia to build world’s most lethal submarines According to *Subsim's World Naval News,* there's a big storm brewing Down Under over the next gen of Aussie subs. The Defence Minister has targeted $25 billion for this, and some are pushing for nukes to replace the current six diesel boats, while others are insistent that the Aussie sub force remain conventional. For that kind of money, Australia should be able to build nuke fast attacks that are not surface dependant, possibly eight or ten. __________________ SUBSIM - 26 Years on the Web

12-26-07, 11:29 AM	#2
SUBMAN1 Rear Admiral Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 11,866 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	I agree. 25 Billion is a Virginia scale project. -S __________________

12-26-07, 02:46 PM	#3
fatty The Old Man Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Canada Posts: 1,448 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	Canadian and Australian navies are in pretty similar situations - huge amounts of coastline to cover; similar fleet sizes, compositions and budgets; looming strategic predicaments (the Arctic and East Asia, respectively) - and as a result we frequently co-operate and exchange ideas and personnel. An Australian presents a defence workship at least once a year to the department I study in. Noting these similarities, I think it's worth analogizing Canada's quest to acquire a dozen or so SSNs in 1987. The idea was to use plans for an existing foreign class - either the U.K. Trafalgar or the French Rubis - and build them in Canada. The plan failed almost immediately for three reasons. First, the money was not there. The government was posting enormous deficits in the late 1980s (into the tens of billions) and producing an extra few billion to build and maintain the subs would have taken a miracle. Second, the cost was highly underestimated. If memory serves the procurement costs were expected to be in the rather modest $8-10b range, but these figures did not take into account the enormous tasks of shore support and training for an entirely new kind of platform. Third, the opposition turned nuclear propulsion into a straw man, convincing themselves and much of the public that atomic power = atomic weaponry. So can Australia pull through with a new fleet of nuclear subs? Unlike my country in 1987, the Australian governments have done well to balance their books, posting a surplus for the past several years. Yet while $25b is a lot of money, for state of the art nuclear subs it disappears fast. The VA class are around $2.5b a pop, and if you build ten there goes your $25b with nothing left for shore support and training. As for sentiments against nuclear power, my fingers are not on the pulse of Australian society enough to know for certain, but I suspect like any good liberal democratic nation they have a solid demographic that, while perhaps not so knowledgable in the realms of military affairs, is strongly opposed to military use of nuclear energy. Stances like that easily bubble over into election issues overnight. One of those news releases on the front page says Australia is looking at the "most lethal conventional submarine fleet" instead, and it seems a lot more realistic and worthwhile to me that use their $25b to produce world-class conventional subs instead of a nuclear fleet hamstrung by budgetary limits and public opinion. I'm sure that, in the strategic context, a big powerful fleet of SSNs would be primo, but I don't think it to be something that Australia can make a reality. Edit: This dissertation claims that Australia has been a large figure in non-proliferation movements since the 1960s and might be a better indication of the Australian public's nuclear mood than I can provide. Perhaps a good, long read if anyone is really interested in the topic. Last edited by fatty; 12-26-07 at 02:56 PM.

12-26-07, 07:42 PM	#5
SUBMAN1 Rear Admiral Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 11,866 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	Might be so, but here in America, the perception of Nuke power is changing drastically. We are once more building nuke reactors, and not simply tiny ones - massive ones! Our new Cruiser also has a nuke power mandate from Congress, make it what? 25,000 tons? They should increase the displacement and add 5 inches of armor, but what do I know? To me, its a massive taget for a torp, but I guess I have no say on the issue. -S __________________

12-26-07, 09:37 PM	#6
Pioneer Stinking drunk in Trinidad Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: AU in the USA Posts: 349 Downloads: 5 Uploads: 0	Australia has just had a change in government, and one of the first things the incoming party did was withdraw from Iraq. Factor that into the equation too. __________________ An AU writer marooned in the USA. The American Pioneer story continues @ www.grantmadden.com Latest publication: Chicken Soup for the Soul Angels and Miracles

12-26-07, 06:31 PM	#4
TarJak Fleet Admiral Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Sydney, Australia Posts: 17,052 Downloads: 150 Uploads: 8	Public opinion is fairly strongly against the use of nuclear power in most of it's forms at present and it is doubtful that the present Labour government would embrace the technology even for powering future subs unless they can be convinced that there are votes in it. I agree with fatty's assessment that a very strong conventially powered sub fleet is more likely to be looked at than SSN's.