Navy 'to invest $15b' on Australian subs

[cx2115]

February 20, 2009 - 2:04PM

The federal government will spend $15 billion on a new Australian-built fleet of submarines under a 15 to 20 year project.

The project codenamed SEA 100 will replace the Royal Australian Navy's fleet of six Collins-class subs based at Garden Island near Perth, the West Australian newspaper reported on Friday.

The submarines will be built in Adelaide, be non-nuclear and use a combination of Australian, European and US technology.

The acquisition was expected to create thousands of jobs and interest from international submarine outfitters.

It would also have major strategic and diplomatic consequences, a defence expert told the West Australian newspaper.

New technologies being developed by China and Russia would make the Collins-class subs obsolete, Andrew Davies from the Australian Strategic Policy Institute said.

"This weaponry will make life much more difficult for surface warships, so if a middle power like Australia wants to have a credible long-range naval influence, new submarines are going to be better than surface ships," Mr Davies said.

The six new submarines were expected to cost between $1.5 billion to $2 billion each. Project overheads could cost up to $3 billion more.


Source: http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/navy-to-invest-15b-on-australian-subs-20090220-8d9k.html

I'm happy to hear this - the Collins class had er.... teething trouble but the end result was a quite a boat. Experience gained in the whole saga should make this a much smoother ride and the end result will (hopefully!) be as big an advance as the Collins.

[Ballistic]

"This weaponry will make life much more difficult for surface warships, so if a middle power like Australia wants to have a credible long-range naval influence, new submarines are going to be better than surface ships," Mr Davies said.


What a load of bullshart.

[Rakki]

What a load of bullshart.

In terms of combat power (i.e. making things difficult for countries like China and Russia with big surface fleets), the submarine would indeed be a better choice for Australia (with its relatively small surface navy) than a surface warship.

[Universals]

In terms of combat power (i.e. making things difficult for countries like China and Russia with big surface fleets), the submarine would indeed be a better choice for Australia (with its relatively small surface navy) than a surface warship.

Subs can pose danger to surface ship but they can't replace them. You need both to form effective navy. BTW Russia has got some angry subs too.

[Ballistic]

So the RAN should lower it's surface fleet to ramp up it's sub fleet? No, it should not.

The RAN can't even man 3 of their subs currently. If they want to ramp up the sub fleet, it will come at the cost of less surface vessels if Navy recruitment/retention continues to be an issue. A major loss for the RAN and not to mention the defence of our country.

[chefjavier]

I think Australia needs to replace their aging F-111

[digrar]

We'll take all the F22's you can sell us...

[Snoshi]

I think Australia needs to replace their aging F-111

Shh.. Dont make Koop angry :)

Everyone knows that F-111 is the most uber strike jet ever built

[yourmonkeybutler]

Proves really how broke the USA is this doesn't it?
They can afford 15 billion for some totally unneeded ship.
What a joke we leave in these days.
I THOUGHT WE WERE ALL BROKE, OR GOING BROKE?

[T3ngu]

Proves really how broke the USA is this doesn't it?
They can afford 15 billion for some totally unneeded ship.
What a joke we leave in these days.
I THOUGHT WE WERE ALL BROKE, OR GOING BROKE?
Reading.

Your doing it wrong.

Comprehension, you also doing that wrong.

The navy would be better getting bums on seats in subs first IMO.

[ShotOver]

Yep, they can't crew the 6 they have already, why waste time putting money in to a new fleet which would then need another 20billion to fix all the bugs, waste of time and money.

Recruitment, Recruitment, Recruitment...

Maybe move the fleet to Sydney? WA is a ****hole, Rockingham is a ****hole within a ****hole.

[Slouch]

WTF the Navy get $15 Billion for new subs while the Army gets a ****load of money cut from the new UAV's and other critical kit that can be used right now?

Goddamn Labor. And I don't want to hear it Min.

[MichaelF]

Welcome your new Chinese masters.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

WTF the Navy get $15 Billion for new subs while the Army gets a ****load of money cut from the new UAV's and other critical kit that can be used right now?

Goddamn Labor. And I don't want to hear it Min.

Well you are going to get it anyway.

What would you prefer?

1. A defense force that has a large enough deterrent and capability to ensure the defense of our mainland, and economic interests and the capability to defend against any conceivable threat.

or

2. A defense force that is organised for use as an expeditionary force primarily used for deployments overseas in conjunction with our allies?

Now we can get the best of both worlds. But the fact of the matter is that we simply can not afford it. Especially in the current economic climate. Therefore it is best to concentrate our defense force on our own interests.

Now we could get the best of both worlds but where do you want the government to cut spending?

Cut spending on education?

Cut spending on Health?

Cut spending on social welfare?

Cut spending on infrastructure?

15 Billion dollars is a lot of money that is going to be pumped into the local economy. This is a lot of jobs that will be directly and indirectly created.

Also bare in mind that Australia has the 3rd largest Exclusive Economic Zone in the world. One of the largest coast lines in the world to defend. We only have 21 million people.

This is the hard facts in which we are faced.

[Kilgor]

The job cuts in the mining industry should swing things back to the defence force.

It was rumoured that mining agents would wait outside the ports to lure sailors into lucrative jobs.

[StockholmBoy]

I think Australia needs to replace their aging F-111
I saw 2 F-111 flying 100 meter outside the Hayman Island in the Whitsundays once what a shocker!

[void]

The subs are expected to cost HOW MUCH? I've read that the Yury Dolgorukiy submarine cost $900 million USD to construct, and thats an SSBN. These Australian subs are going to be diesel SSKs. I wonder what the going price for a top of the line Amur submarine is currently.

[Eztyga]

The job cuts in the mining industry should swing things back to the defence force.

It was rumoured that mining agents would wait outside the ports to lure sailors into lucrative jobs.

No rumour, they recruited outside the gates of Garden Island in Perth, and called the workshops by phone to get people.

[digrar]

There were two mining jobs in the mid week section on Wednesday. This time last year it would have been 1 or 2 pages.

[chefjavier]

I saw 2 F-111 flying 100 meter outside the Hayman Island in the Whitsundays once what a shocker!
Very impresive but the F-111 is old aircraft. I think they should take the money and buy more F-18:roll:

[ShotOver]

No rumour, they recruited outside the gates of Garden Island in Perth, and called the workshops by phone to get people.

I had a mate who was contracted by an offshore rig company while still at Cerberus, basically walks in to the job when his ROSO is up.

MT-E, though.

[Eztyga]

I had a mate who was contracted by an offshore rig company while still at Cerberus, basically walks in to the job when his ROSO is up.

MT-E, though.

Yeah, electrical bods are still in demand, especially as they have heavy industrial experiance. I have done the course and applied it, I don't see it being much of a problem getting work when I do leave.

[Cipher]

What a load of bullshart.
In the Navy, there are two classification of ships -- submarines and targets.

[StockholmBoy]

There were two mining jobs in the mid week section on Wednesday. This time last year it would have been 1 or 2 pages.
Unemployment i Australia?

[digrar]

Just the mining industry.

[drunken sailor]

What a load of bullshart. On the seas subs are the only boats, All others are just targets.

Have a nice day!!!

[perdurabo]

Two soviet generals met in Paris after WW3
"hey who won this war at sea?"
p-) ships are usless scrap them and buy AH-6 they can supercruise while hovering! p-)

[BMUS]

Hey man, Sweden here, we cut you in on a sweet deal, you kno' some silent sub with all the gadgets and what not. I know you want it. Just take it out for a spin, the birds will go crazy and be hanging round you neck. We wont even tell if it's for your future invasion of those pesky kiwis p-)

We wont tell.

Promise!

[Spagga]

I just left the ADF......

Glad I have......

To many shirt lifters and shielas now......

Oh...not to mention to number of obese pogues which is upto 7500 ppl.

ADF is a deck of cards with not many structual beams left in it.............


CRASH

[Eztyga]

Maybe move the fleet to Sydney? WA is a ****hole, Rockingham is a ****hole within a ****hole.

They should have kept Platypus, then they wouldn't have as much of an issue in crewing boats...

[firemedic]

We'll take all the F22's you can sell us.......Considering the very real possibility of the cancelation of the F22 program I don't think you will getting many.

[digrar]

Oh...not to mention to number of obese pogues which is up to 7500 ppl.

There is no doubt there are wide bodies in the ADF, but those numbers are going off of BMI, so basically every bloke who plays Rugby in the Army is considered obese.
Another stat they chucked out was that the average digger is 16kg heavier than his WW1 counterpart, without mentioning that we are about 4 inches taller on average.
The last stat I found interesting was that there were 2000 people suffering musculoskeletal injuries, associated with being obese and everyone who has served knows that most of those injurries come from the "obese" people running around on the footy ovals and pitches.