Australia to build world’s most lethal submarines

[Onkel Neal]

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]

I agree. 25 Billion is a Virginia scale project.

-S

[fatty]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[SUBMAN1]

Just factored. The end result is America left to defend the world. Everyone else balling up in a don't hurt me fetal position, except for China, Russia, and the middle east out looking to exploit the liberal food population. Don't eat the goo - you can guess what it might be.

-S

[fatty]

Originally Posted by Pioneer

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.

True, but on the other hand - unless the new government plans to rearrange and scrap some defence priorities set out by their predecessors - then Australia has a long list of procurement projects already on hand. The Defence Capability Plan posits main battle tank replacements, air warfare destroyer projects, ASW helo replacements, amphib replacements, etc etc. It's a lot to juggle.

[mcf1]

The German type 212A is the world's most technologically advanced uboat. I read that one of them managed to sneak through a heavilly escorted U.S carrier and took pictures of it at a distance of 200m it also remained under the carrier for 2 hours undetected. Small but lethal

[NiclDoe]

I will be my butt off when i see the US navy or any other navy just kills the subs

[CCIP]

Originally Posted by NiclDoe

I will be my butt off when i see the US navy or any other navy just kills the subs

Yea, except that same US navy is having lots of trouble trying to find a counter to SSKs at the moment :hmm:

If not nuclear, what are the chances of it turning into a big, advanced AIP sub?

I would be curious how that'd work for Australia's requirements. If they do go for it and it actually works for them, that would be an interesting alternative to US and Britain's all-nuclear navies, and might give those arguing for new diesel subs there some new arguments too.

[Kapitan_Phillips]

What are SSKs? Hunter-Killers?

[CCIP]

Originally Posted by Kapitan_Phillips

What are SSKs? Hunter-Killers?

In this case I meant conventional-powered hunter-killer subs, yea. See the head-scratching that seems to be going on in the navy regarding the Gotland right now for example.

[Venatore]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Just factored. The end result is America left to defend the world. Everyone else balling up in a don't hurt me fetal position-S

Mate as an Australian soldier (Infantry) trust me we do not take a step back from our responsibilities in the world, in particular our SAS.

With East-Timor, Solomon Island, Fiji all in desperate trouble in our own backyard and the Japanese killing whales in Australian water which has now devoted our Navy to shadowing their boats.

Having an Australian Defence Force of a total strength of a mere 51,000 full-time active-duty personnel, we ourselves are doing our bit at this end of the world,

Let me make it very clear to you SUBMAN1; we Australians are NOT as you say "balling up in a don't hurt me foetal position".
You are not left to defend the world as you say again, if you think you are then get your arse down to East Timor, Solomon Island, Fiji and take over so we can kick back and drink beer and have BBQ s.

Oh by the way just so you know; I've done my part in helping the USA, I was not home from 1999 - 2003 every bloody Christmas because I was overseas on operational deployments.

PS: compare our numbers to yours; our total infantry would fit in one of your infantry brigades; factor that.

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by CCIP

In this case I meant conventional-powered hunter-killer subs, yea. See the head-scratching that seems to be going on in the navy regarding the Gotland right now for example.

Sweden - Um, any chance of getting our sub back?

USN - Aaahhh, well, give us another year, k? Aside: Curse those crafty Swedes!