Reply With QuoteWe don't even have enough crew for our current ones and they want more? And what is the use for submarines in modern day combat? It's not like there are massive sea battles. The only use they would get would be during training exercises like Rimpac.
Not sure what Kim has to do with it, but ok.Originally Posted by Chanan
The point about domestic construction holds, as with all major warships submarines are maintenance intensive and for various reasons (economic, political, security of supply lines, wartime repair etc) the skills have to be located domestically, as stated in the current White Paper. This does not mean it has to be an Australian designed boat, or built self sufficiently (i.e. ever component designed and built in Australia from Australian materials), that's altogether different. Foreign design expertise is vital, as is cooperation with key component systems makers, electronic suite, weapons, engines etc. But the simple fact is that no off-the-shelf existing design for an SSK meets the RANs requirements. This can be seen in that even the stretched design of the Collins has been judged as to limited for RAN operations. That means a bespoke design for Australian requirements. Hence it is time for experienced sub builders to pony up and put some design proposals on the table, but all will have to take into account the boats being contructed in Australia.
Alfa
We don't even have enough crew for our current ones and they want more? And what is the use for submarines in modern day combat? It's not like there are massive sea battles. The only use they would get would be during training exercises like Rimpac.
Subs are actually one of the most flexible systems around for modern warfare. They can sow smart mines, strangle merchant shipping, sink enemy warships/subs, gather a wide range of covert intelligence, launch surprise precision strikes with SLCMs on enemy bases/assets with little or no warning, and covertly land special forces teams/operatives. In short we need them. The program is also spread over more than two decades, so a slow build up of recruitment numbers is far from impossible.
The FSP is planning against future threats, we can't predict what the situation in Asia will look like in twenty years time, and we can't just ring and get some delivered on short notice. It takes decades from initial design and planning to having a full in service capability, and with the Collins class fast running out of service life we must start now or risk a significant loss of vital skills and resulting capability gap.
As has been stated before submarine numbers in Asia are also undergoing a rapid increase, and national security demands that we keep up.
Alfa
With $36 billion we should have been looking at the second largest conventional submarine fleet in the entire world.
Well, are we?
In a word...no
12 boats
A bespoke original design combined with their large size (4000 plus tonnes, over double that of the Sohn Wonyil class) and top shelf weapons/electronics suites will carve up $36 billion in no time.
Put simply subs are expensive, and more costs more.
Alfa
Basically you're seeking to be emulate Japan's navy in this regard. A shame that Japan's laws prohibit them from selling you their designs, as they make the European offerings look less than spectacular in comparison.
Japan actually has some nice boats which are close to what the RAN is after in capability, although they are still a little light. They still lack some of the legs that the RAN is after, as they lean more towards operating in Japans home waters than across the Pacific and beyond as Australia needs, larger boats needing more fuel and stores for the crew. It is a pity, some of Japans experience in building bigger SSKs could be useful for the FSP.
Alfa
I think Australia and Canada should be cooperating on a program like this. The two nations have submarines which are of similar age, and will be decomissioning around the same time frame, and i think it is possible for the two navies to come up with a design that would fit the needs of both
The two could share the development costs, and it would be much more attractive to both this way. Neither of us is likely to go nuclear, and both want AIP for their own reasons. It would need to operate in different climates effectively since it would likely see use in the Arctic by Canada, and it would be in the Pacific rim for Australia
Id even be alright if the Canadian hulls were built in Australia
The "Global Tactical Submarine"
And i agree 35 billion is a large sum. We are replacing our major surface combatants with about that much, but for a nation like Australia, or even Canada, where an "export version" is unnacceptable, it isn't too large, especially for 12 boats
I said the same thing in a previous thread on the topic. Australia and Canada could do a lot worse then working together. Canada will need to replace its boats in the next 10-15 years, just as Australia will have to with the Collins. Both want long ranged SSKs, and climate is not that much of an issue as Australian boats will also have to operate in cold southern waters. Hopefully Canada sees the opportunity and puts some feelers out. The close relationship that both Canada and Australia has with the U.S also means that tech share/cooperation involving U.S sub tech should not be a huge issue.
Alfa
If only the government where that smart.
These are replacements, not additional, although they do want to increase the fleet size. On their use, you're wrong, they are important to our security and they are something we need to maintain.
I see what you mean. Without them there would be a huge hole in our national defence, which we need to be air tight.
Never underestimate the power of a Sub. They are not just for 'Sea Battles'
On a side note, I for the life of me can not remember where I heard this but the majority of the build as I understand it will still be in the Adelaide (ASC)?
The 2009 White Papers states 'assembled in Adelaide', presumably involving ASC or its facilities. If the government wants to opt for minimal controls it could include the sale of ASC in the contract for the winning bidder. Or else the government may opt for maintaining majority ownership of ASC to ensure it has adequate control over the build and go for a state private partnership model. The second option is actually more likely than you might think, as one of the problem identified with the Collins build was a lack of effective government control over the build.
Alfa
Cheers Alfa, I hoped the build was to stay put simply to keep the experience going.
Posting Permissions
