Australia's New Nuclear Subs - Political Forum

superdude17* · #1 (**permalink**) 12-25-2007, 08:27 PM

Quote:

AUSTRALIA will build the world's most lethal conventional submarine fleet, capable of carrying long-range cruise missiles and futuristic midget-subs, to combat an expected arms race in the region.

New Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon has ordered planning to begin on the next generation of submarines to replace the Royal Australian Navy's Collins-class fleet with the aim of gaining "first pass" approval for the design phase from cabinet's National Security Committee in 2011.

The 17-year project will be the largest, longest and most expensive defence acquisition since Federation, potentially costing up to $25 billion.

It comes at a time when regional navies such as Indonesia's, China's and India's are seeking to drastically expand their submarine fleets, potentially altering the balance of naval power in the region.

"There is widespread agreement that submarines provide a vital military capability for Australia," Mr Fitzgibbon told The Australian.

"The development of new submarines requires long-term planning and needs to progress quickly, and that's what I have asked for."

Defence planners have examined two key studies this year - one by independent think tank the Kokoda Foundation - which have concluded that strategic shifts in the region will make submarines a more vital cog in Australia's defence than ever before.

Defence will study a wide range of futuristic options for the new submarines, which will be built in Adelaide and will replace the six Collins-class submarines when they are retired in 2025.

The new submarines will almost certainly be built by the builder of the Collins-class fleet, the Australian Submarine Corporation, once the government-owned ASC has been privatised.

"South Australia is the only credible location for the construction of Australia's next generation of submarine," Mr Fitzgibbon said.

The aim will be to create the world's most deadly conventional submarine fleet to allow Australia to maintain its strategic advantage over fast-growing rival navies in the region.

Although Defence has not yet ruled out the possibility of Australia acquiring nuclear-powered submarines, this option is considered highly unlikely on strategic, practical and political grounds.

Instead, defence planners will focus on producing a larger, quieter, faster and more deadly version of the existing six Collins-class submarines, which, after a troubled birth in the 1990s, have proved to be one of the country's most important defence assets.

It is not known how many of the new submarines will be built.

Defence has confirmed that one of the options to be considered for the new submarine fleet will be small unmanned mini-subs that can be launched from the "mother" submarines.

"Technological developments such as unmanned vehicles would probably offer complementary capabilities to any future underwater warfare platform," a Defence spokesman said.

These unmanned mini-submarines, crammed with high-tech sensors, could travel remotely tens of kilometres away from the mother vessel to conduct surveillance, detect enemy submarines or carry an SAS team.

Another priority for the new submarines will be the new generation air-independent propulsion systems, which allow conventional submarines to stay underwater for longer periods, greatly increasing operational effectiveness. Defence says the new post-Collins submarines will have more flexible designs, allowing them to be quickly reconfigured for different types of missions, from intelligence gathering to strategic strikes.

The new submarines will be able to carry a greater variety of long-range weapons, possibly including long-range cruise missiles as well as short-range tactical land-strike missiles. They will also be configured to facilitate the secret transporting of SAS squads into regional hot spots.

In a study earlier this year, the Kokoda Foundation estimated that building, arming and supporting a new, fully modernised submarine fleet could cost between $20 billion and $25 billion, making it the largest defence project in Australia, dwarfing even the $15 billion Joint Strike Fighter project.

The Government hopes to complete its initial research into the options for the new submarines by 2011, when cabinet will give "first pass" consideration to the plan.

In 2014-15, the Government is due to give "second pass" consideration to the project, resulting in contracts and the eventual construction of the submarines, with sea trials tentatively scheduled for 2024.

The submarine-replacement project will be included in the next Defence Capability Plan.

I hope this is real. It is good to think some of the good guys understand the need for such forward thinking defense capabilities. These new diesel boats are extremely good, and our side had better take them seriously so we can stay a step ahead in both offensive and defensive capabilities.

I believe that our Navy puppeteers understand this. It sounds like the Australian puppeteers understand it, as well.

W.E.B. Du Bois · #2 (**permalink**) 12-25-2007, 08:39 PM

I'm sure the Aussie subs will be decent, however the Germans have been in this business the longest and based upon what I've read and seen, they make the best conventional subs in the world.

W.E.B. Du Bois · #3 (**permalink**) 12-25-2007, 08:40 PM

Also, given that this is said in the article:

Quote:

The aim will be to create the world's most deadly conventional submarine fleet to allow Australia to maintain its strategic advantage over fast-growing rival navies in the region.

Although Defence has not yet ruled out the possibility of Australia acquiring nuclear-powered submarines, this option is considered highly unlikely on strategic, practical and political grounds.

As well as the fact that Australia is a very small country (population wise) (20 million people) they cannot afford nuclear submarines and will go the conventional route.

Paratrooper · #4 (**permalink**) 12-26-2007, 07:35 PM

Well, last time Australians wanted to make submarines, on the day of their launch, they just turned sideways

So yes.... Purely ridiculous.

Australia does need navy, to enforce it's presence and to intercept ships, but Submarines do her no good.

Kazikli Bey · #5 (**permalink**) 12-28-2007, 01:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by W.E.B. Du Bois

As well as the fact that Australia is a very small country (population wise) (20 million people) they cannot afford nuclear submarines and will go the conventional route.

What do you mean we can't afford them, we have the largest deposit of Uranium in the world, we don't buy it, we just mine it.

superdude17* · #6 (**permalink**) 12-28-2007, 07:41 AM

two observations:

1.

Quote:

The new submarines will almost certainly be built by the builder of the Collins-class fleet, the Australian Submarine Corporation, once the government-owned ASC has been privatised.

This is much in contrast with European society, which tends to own most of its infrastructure. Therefore, again, we see the split between Australian, Britain, Spain and American society from that of France, Russian and especially German society.

2.

Quote:

Although Defence has not yet ruled out the possibility of Australia acquiring nuclear-powered submarines, this option is considered highly unlikely on strategic, practical and political grounds.

Why is this? this gives Australia an incredible advantage to its neighbors and allows it to be a viable force in regards to patrolling and protecting its shores and lands. I don't understand such nonsense. Diesel pollutes the water more than a nuclear sub does, for all you tree huggers out there. And while the rods of the sub have are active for hundreds of years, we have technology now that allows them to do very little damage to the environment.

Calvin-X · #7 (**permalink**) 01-05-2008, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by superdude17*

...
2.
Why is this? this gives Australia an incredible advantage to its neighbors and allows it to be a viable force in regards to patrolling and protecting its shores and lands. I don't understand such nonsense. Diesel pollutes the water more than a nuclear sub does, for all you tree huggers out there. And while the rods of the sub have are active for hundreds of years, we have technology now that allows them to do very little damage to the environment.

Keep in mind the primary benifit of nuclear subs is the ablilty to stay on patrol for very long durations. It they are going for a regional fleet this may not be a high priority.

Also nuclear reactors generate some noise due to cooling that diesel subs with engines off and running on battery power do not.

sirhc · #8 (**permalink**) 02-05-2008, 11:48 PM

look at a map of the water around australia. there is a lot of water, carbon based fules are just to ineficent. Uranium is the way to go, but i wouldn't build them in SA they have a really bad record. there are some good ports in Vic
(at least they have never built subs that leak or roll over

)

Kazikli Bey · #9 (**permalink**) 02-06-2008, 04:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sirhc

look at a map of the water around australia. there is a lot of water, carbon based fules are just to ineficent. Uranium is the way to go, but i wouldn't build them in SA they have a really bad record. there are some good ports in Vic
(at least they have never built subs that leak or roll over

)

Yeah, but we got the contract, not Victoria because, well, we're better situated. And those were the faults of the corparations building them, not the state that won the contract.

ISaberhagen · #10 (**permalink**) 02-21-2008, 11:52 AM

Considering the vast natural resources (e.g. sun, wind, ocean) that Australia has, why do we persist in using dangerous power sources?