Do You Support Australia's Submarine Policy?

GG57 on 15/03/2023 - 15:41

I won't bother posting any links to media reports about the Australian governments recent announcement regarding its submarine policy and related purchase agreements, so as to not taint the discussion with one media slant vs another.

My view - I with Paul Keating on this and think that this is a really bad decision on any number of fronts.

  • The costs are huge. I know we are talking decades away, but that just means we are only really guessing what the actual costs will be. As well as somehow finding the money for this, it likely means that funding for other things is likely to be detrimentally impacted (e.g. social housing, health, education, environment, etc.)

  • Do we actually need submarines? Most dialogue is around the "threat" from China, but I can't really think of any reason why China would engage in a war with Australia, or with our closest neighbours. I've seen reports that suggest China probably won't even push to take over Taiwan, given the perceived global effects of doing that.

  • As we wait decades for the submarines to be built and delivered, we are apparently to host US nuclear submarines as a stop-gap measure. I'm pretty sure that is against our nuclear-free Pacific treaty obligations and, if you believe China would be aggressive in the future, make us a nuclear target.

  • We will apparently need to deal with nuclear waste in the future.

Poll Options

  • 411
    I'm all for it
  • 701
    I'm against it
  • 55
    I don't care
Financial

Comments

          • Protractor on 16/03/2023 - 12:13
            +3

            @illusion99: Patriotism begins at the top. This govt is showing 100% patriotism to the American war machine (not even the actual govt). I'd frame that closer to the other end of the 'patriotism' spectrum.
            If a govt does not ask the people their direct thoughts on OS combat deployments (especially to faux wars) and ignores our input on this Behemoth bloodbath/bear trap, they are far from patriots. And frankly the word is now a hostage to a bigger threat to peaceful societies. I also find it a bit bit rich to cop the 'we are all fighting for freedom & democracy lecture" from a corrupt, broken,violent,dysfunctional train wreck that America has become.Half the population would happily burn the place down.
            AUKUS is like signing a rental lease with Hannibal lecture, and giving him your spare keys.

            • illusion99 on 16/03/2023 - 12:15
              +1

              @Protractor: Best part of democracy. If majority believes the same you can vote your leaders out and change policy. Or run for office yourself and enact change. Can I assume you will be campaigning at the next election or are you just complaining without trying to do anything about it?

    • ForkSnorter on 15/03/2023 - 16:13
      +10

      Not in the near future. But looking long-term, and looking back over human history, nothing is out of the question, and the situation can look very different after only a few decades. Empires naturally begin to absorb surrounding neighbours as they expand. Very few people predicted Russia would start a full-on war last year. I wouldn't expect China to invade in my lifetime, but in a hundred or 2 hundred years, China might not even exist, and there might be another empire to worry about.

      Another important question is,"With the future so uncertain, why bother preparing for it, when our preparations are unlikely to be relevant, or to change the outcome?"

      At least with climate change, the future is relatively known (likely to be within a known range), so we have the option of making useful preparations.

      • Roman Sandstorm on 15/03/2023 - 18:00
        +5

        Empires naturally begin to absorb surrounding neighbours as they expand.

        For much of human history this has been so. But the twentieth century changed all that.

        Expansionist colonialism disintegrated, giving way to economic globalism.

        One of the last colonising powers, the Soviet Union, actually fell apart (the oppoiste of expanding). Britain, France and others lost their previous hegemony. Europe's traditional colonising countries actually came together following WW2 to create (the now) EU, and unprecedented political, and economic security.

        There are no more 'physical land-grabbing' expansionist countries. The intricate interdependence of the world's economy makes 'invading and occupying troops' not viable in even the short term.

        Yeah, yeah. Russia. It's the exception that proves the case.

        Very few people predicted Russia would start a full-on war

        Actually, lots of military and political experts did. There was precedent in the annexation of Crimea in 2014. And the pathetic response by US, China, NATO, and the EU to that event.

        In both Crimea and Eastern Ukraine Russia has long-standing (and largely invalid) territorial claims, which would not have been pressed to military action but for essential domestic political expediency. (ie, Putin has done it to remain in power at home.)

        As for China: yes, they are extending their economic clout all over the globe. Just as any other country is entitled to do. And does. And yes, they are building up their military, which for decades was basically a joke, with millions of men and basically wooden rifles, backed up by their (real) nuclear threat.

        But are they in any way physically expansionist? Have they invaded Vietnam, or North Korea, or Nepal, or even Mongolia? Sure, they 'rattle sabres' about Taiwan, and bully Australian planes over South China Seas waters (wtf are we doing there anyway if not being equally belligerent?).

        But invading and occupying a country in a modern warfare context is massively difficult, even when one has material (and materiel) superiority. Just look at Russia and their problems in Ukraine. For China to be a military invasion threat to Australia would require a build-up and planning of years/decades, an attack force of unprecedented historial capability and size. And to what end? Lebensraum? Ha. Australia and China are already massive trading partners, both benefitting hugely from the relationship. (Despite day-to-day, year-to-year minor diplomatic and political waves.)

        but in a hundred or 2 hundred years,
        there might be another empire to worry about.

        Really? Yeah. Possibly those pesky aliens from Alpha Ceti 5? Or maybe Wakanda stretching its muscle?

        Nine submarines are not going to do much good then.

        Securing the future with rock-solid trade relationships, by mitigating the oncoming disaster of climate change, by contributing to world peace and stability through UN involvement, disaster and refugee relief efforts, having good diplomatic relations with friends and non-friends alike - these are the long-term paths to security.

        • JumperC on 15/03/2023 - 19:16
          +18

          China is literally expanding into other countries internationally recognised economic zones, building military bases in their waters and attacking other nations navies and fishermen etc. As well as expanding in disputed territories with India etc.

          It's a failure to be informed to think they aren't already, and a failure of imagination to think that a physical invasion of a mainland is even in the top 10 threats.

          The only way China will be at war with Australia is miscalculation. But that's not an impossibility. Dictators fall into the dictator trap all the time. they don't need to think rationally and it's a mistake to use rational argument to infer their actions. Escalation can come from something very minor, even without planning. And Australia is very very vulnerable, we don't even store our emergency fuel in Australia, we rent space in the US for it. Disrupting shipping is the major threat to the country, no invasion needed.

          Have they invaded Vietnam

          Um, yes? In 1979 with border fighting until 1990.

          Mongolia

          There's parts of what really should be Mongolia in China, currently being ethnically erased. It's kind of difficult to invade when a large number of your citizens are actually Mongolian and you already hold the valuable part of the country, need to erase that identity first. Mongolia and Tibet have both been promised, much like Hong Kong, and ability to keep their identities in exchange for their being part of China, a promise slowly eroded and in the case of Hong Kong, quickly eroded.

          rock-solid trade relationships

          Ultimately Australia ISN'T vital to China, there's no way to BE vital to China. They are very important to us, that's an unbalanced relationship they have shown they are willing to try and leverage for concessions. Despite the utter ineptness of the previous government's foreign relations, this is still a real strategic risk. The UN has shown to be ineffectual in dealing with issues that involve any of the members who have a Veto. Diplomacy and friendly relationships sometimes are contingent on showing you're 'doing your part'.

          South China Seas waters (wtf are we doing there anyway if not being equally belligerent

          What is Australia doing in international waters? Are you serious? How can you claim that the UN is the answer and ignore the fact that China has illegally built military bases in other countries EEZ's and is using their navy 'coast guard' to attack fishermen and blockade countries from accessing their own territory? And you have the duplicity to say Australia is belligerent for flying through airspace internationally recognised as being open to us to do?

          Newsflash, we were assisting the Phillipines who have been brutally bullied by China precisely because they can't stand up to them alone. It's called having good diplomatic relationships and is vital to our security. Calling an unarmed surveillance flight in international waters 'equally belligerent' as physically attacking it seems to indicate an irrational bias.

        • ForkSnorter on 16/03/2023 - 09:02
          +1

          For much of human history this has been so. But the twentieth century changed all that.
          Expansionist colonialism disintegrated, giving way to economic globalism.

          The problem with our short lifespans is that we expect the world will stay roughly the same way it is now. But in the long term, unexpected things are always going to happen, and the world could change dramatically. One massive war is all it would take to shake things up again.

          Really? Yeah. Possibly those pesky aliens from Alpha Ceti 5? Or maybe Wakanda stretching its muscle?

          When I said "China might not even exist", I meant China as we know it may not exist. Large nations and empires tend to split, transform, or even disintegrate over time.

          I definitely do not agree with building these submarines, and I don't see China as an immediate threat. I'm just trying to emphasise that the future is unpredictable.

        • Protractor on 16/03/2023 - 12:16
          +2

          Yep, we coulda shoulda chosen to be peacekeepers and good neighbours instead, but the point is moot now.
          "I am, you are, we are Ameri-can"

    • thesilverstarman on 15/03/2023 - 16:38
      +3

      The West shares similar philosophies and systems.We value the right of the individual, democracy and freedoms. China is different. It values the rights of the state above all else. This means that the rights of indivuals are not valued, democracy doesnt exist and freedoms are only what the government allows. Whilst people are all the same the world over, our different systems are very different indeed.
      The US is a major trading partner with China. Would China risk this? Yes.
      Go back to pre WW2. Look at Japan. They wanted to expand for resources and regional power. Germany did the same with Russia, and they had a peace treaty with them! China may be larger, but it has a large population. Australia is nearly empty, close by, and is full of resources. Remember that the chinese government doesnt value people, only the state. If the state needs to expand, it will.
      At present the greatest potential threat to Australia and our region is China. We would be stupid to just ignore this and hope for the best. A smart government will always expect the best, but plan for the worst. Why has China been so intent on expanding its military and bases? We have to make sure that we consider the possibility and plan accordingly.

      • GG57 on 15/03/2023 - 16:45

        Perhaps any expansion by China of its military and bases is a subterfuge, as it quietly accrues valuable assets (e.g. water, food, cotton, etc.) around the world. No-one seems to talk about that yet that would align with your view that China needs to expand.

        • thesilverstarman on 15/03/2023 - 17:01
          +1

          Im not saying that they need to expand, but saying that history shows us what has happened may happen again. If they look at the US and the power it has because of its military, they might want the same. The US always gets trade deals in its favour, and has a huge voice on wold affairs because of its military. They use its military to ensure supply of resources as well. There could be many reasons, but the fast rise of Chinas military is a huge potential threat to peace in our region.

          • GG57 on 15/03/2023 - 17:11

            @thesilverstarman: I suppose China may invade Taiwan, but I thought I'd read that China is holding off as they can foresee the effects that would bring.
            I can't see why they would invade Australia.

            If China invaded anywhere else, the next question would be should we be involved? And, of course, we would because we have bought into this alliance with the USA.

    • JumperC on 15/03/2023 - 18:39
      +9

      Since they're already attacking another US ally, the Phillipines, and have attacked an Australian P-8 on patrol, why do you think they won't continue to escalate?

      The failure people have is to see things as peaceful or full scale all out war. There's a lot of room in-between for aggression and miscalculation that escalates without thinking.

      It's in no way inevitable there's a war, but pretending things that have happened haven't and won't is the sort of thing history shows doesn't work.

    • peterpaoliello on 16/03/2023 - 02:58

      It's irrelevant. Australia can't talk about wanting independence from the crown but also be too under developed to put on their big boy pants and be a legitimate independent nation with the minimum of things which come along with that. We need to also contribute to the protection offered to us by the US and others, to be a REAL partner with something to offer on the world stage. If nothing else it's important experience and skills we have as a nation and an industry and jobs on technology which brings us screaming into the future on something which would be well beyond our reach otherwise.

    • trapper on 16/03/2023 - 09:20
      +1

      Why would Russia attack Ukraine?

      It doesn't always make sense when dictators are calling the shots.

      Xi Jinping might invade to 'protect' the ethnic Chinese living here who we are 'oppressing'

      • Solosurf on 16/03/2023 - 11:39
        +5

        Ukraine becoming NATO is an existential threat to Russia.. Do you think the yanks will be happy if Russia places strategic strike weapons near its border? Cuban missile crisis? The ukraine conflict is not a black and white thing, it is complex and needs to be contextualised. It is more likely we become a target to China by hosting US nuclear subs and military base in the event a war breaks out.

        • trapper on 16/03/2023 - 11:57
          -1

          Ukraine becoming NATO is an existential threat to Russia.

          Not true, and sounds like some nonsense a dictator would say to justify a 'special military operation'.

          Proves my point don't you think.

          • thesilverstarman on 16/03/2023 - 16:44
            +1

            @trapper: It is true. Russia has always remembered Napoleon and Hitler. The only thing that stopped them from reaching Moscow was the winter. But nowdays that isnt an issue. Crimea was handed to Ukraine by Yeltsin. It can be argued that it wasnt a part of Ukraine. But Russia got to keep its warm weather port there. When Ukraine started geeting closer to Nato and western Europe, that worried Russia. So they took control of Crimea. And the world complained but would have done the same. which is why there was no major uproar.
            Russia has long been calling for discussions about Nato, worried that US weapons would be right on its border. It asked Ukraine to stay neutral. When it was clear that nobody was listening, it invaded to secure a land bridge to Crimea. This is understood by other nations, but there is now an opportunity to weaken Russia by fighting a proxy war. Securing the warm weather port and access is seen as strategic to Russia, and Putin would have been seen as weak if he didnt take action. If he walks away, he will be seen as weak and a failure. Saving face is important.
            This is why they keep asking for discussions, but Ukraine refuses unless Russia withdraws. They know that Russia wont withdraw unless agreements are reached. And people continue to die.
            Politics is messy. The USA did the same thing when Russia placed missiles off its shores in Cuba. The world nearly went to WW3 over that.This situation is very similar.If Putin withdraws you can bet that the next leader will not give up.
            Australia was already a target for China because of Pine Gap and our facilities in the NT. A base in WA isnt likely to make a huge difference. But China is a real threat to the region, and we have lots of resources and a small population. Its better to have a deterrent than to have nothing and be vulnerable.

            • trapper on 17/03/2023 - 08:00

              @thesilverstarman:

              So they took control of Crimea. And the world complained but would have done the same. which is why there was no major uproar.

              There was no 'major uproar' because it was an almost bloodless takeover which was complete in a matter of days.

              Putin was hoping for a repeat with the whole of Ukraine, didn't work out like he planned.

        • Yotta00 on 16/03/2023 - 21:16

          lol Z-trash propaganda. Ukrainians wanted to pivot Europe economically and kicked out the Russian puppet, Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014. Tankies think Putin is a master tactical genius by putting this justification. However Kremlin is stacked with Russian mobsters, when you think from a perspective of a Mobster it makes sense. Yevgeny Prigozhin sent thousands of Russians to the meat grinder so he can steal the Soledar Salt Mine. Russian politicians do not care about people, it's how much they can extract and steal.

  • Muzeeb on 15/03/2023 - 15:54
    +19

    Submarines, in the next 20 years, will become redundant. Defence and warfare equipment will be unmanned, remote and more digital focussed as time goes on.

    Source: my opinion

    • GG57 on 15/03/2023 - 16:01
      +1

      You opinion seems reasonable to me; why physically invade somewhere when a hostile country could shut down our infrastructure etc.?
      But I still don't understand why a country would even do that to Australia; what would they get from that?

    • AustriaBargain on 15/03/2023 - 16:12
      -2

      A lot can happen in 20 years. If the US wants us to have these submarines for their own strategic reasons, we should want them too.

      • smartazz104 on 16/03/2023 - 08:26
        +1

        If the US wants us to have these submarines for their own strategic reasons, we should want them too.

        The $360 billion is just the cherry on top.

      • coldlambsandwich on 16/03/2023 - 09:18
        +2

        Why should Australia blindly follow everything the US says? Aren't we an independent nation?

      • ripesashimi on 16/03/2023 - 12:10

        That sounds submissive. I prefer the fiery type.

    • thesilverstarman on 15/03/2023 - 16:28
      +5

      Unmanned and remote equipment needs to be able to communicate with a base. This means that there needs to be satelite or wireless connections. These make them vulnerable to jamming. For aerial vehicles this is not as bad, but terrestrial vehicles can lose signal, just like we lose phone signals or GPS. And for underwater vehicles it is far worse. What is currently planned is to have a manned vehicle that controls some drones. Being closer in contact means different signals can be used to control them. Each of these subs could control a small fleet of drones. The only alternative is AI controlled equipment, and so far this is not on the horizon. Its one thing to control a car, but another to have the control over weapons of distruction.

      • [Deactivated] on 15/03/2023 - 19:34
        +1

        Its one thing to control a car, but another to have the control over weapons of distruction.

        AI for weapons is much easier than for cars. No bloody pedestrians, signs and bridges, fly free my angry bird!

    • xtremehell on 15/03/2023 - 17:18

      That's whats been argued by the US govt and others about Taiwan on the back of the Ukraine conflict; that Taiwan needs to focus on building its asymmetrical warfare capabilities, not buying big assets that will get swarmed and knocked out quickly in an all out assault.

    • [Deactivated] on 15/03/2023 - 18:17
      +3

      Defence and warfare equipment will be unmanned, remote

      You do know that radio waves do not work under water? just checking :) Except ELF, 3 to 30 Hz, which is mostly unusable. I think subs are here to stay, nothing else is stealth like this.

      • Muzeeb on 15/03/2023 - 19:21

        Airborne stealth technology will be more advanced in 20 years also

        • [Deactivated] on 15/03/2023 - 19:46
          +4

          Definitely. But also will radars tech. With subs - there is just no way to improve on anything. Dark deep silent nothingness there, lol

      • GordonD on 15/03/2023 - 20:50

        You do know that radio waves do not work under water?

        Tell the US Navy that operates the Harold E. Holt Naval Communications Station at Exmouth in WA. They will be immensely surprised that their nuclear submarines are not getting the messages being sent to them.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Communication_Station_Ha…

        And, anyway, the way you do it if you're a submarine - drone, nuclear or whatever - is to stay underwater during the day when you could be seen if you surfaced by satellites, then at night release a tethered camouflaged buoy that floats on the surface that has your radio antenna on it.

        • [Deactivated] on 15/03/2023 - 21:07
          +1

          My (badly made) point was about submarine stealth as its main advantage, meaning they will still be essential for a long time. I know, I mentioned ELF. But it is bits per minute, not really useful for real-time comms in warfare.

        • [Deactivated] on 15/03/2023 - 21:09

          then at night release a tethered camouflaged buoy that floats on the surface that has your radio antenna on it

          that can be triangulated :)

          • GordonD on 15/03/2023 - 21:16

            @[Deactivated]:

            that can be triangulated

            Not if you have a directional antenna pointing upwards to a satellite that you timed to be overhead when you transmit. And even if one of their satellites knows what frequency you're going to use today, and locates you, by the time they can you've finished, pulled down your antenna, and headed off in a random direction at flank speed.

            • [Deactivated] on 15/03/2023 - 21:19

              @GordonD:

              and headed off in a random direction at flank speed

              Which still gives them location, just delayed. The whole point of nuclear subs is not to be located at all, for months. This fact scares the shit out of anyone thinking of striking first.

              • GordonD on 15/03/2023 - 21:29

                @[Deactivated]: Just a note on Harold E. Holt. It punches its signal through water by using huge transmitting power. Like a megawatt. It was enough that it killed a technician - it cooked him alive - who was in the wrong place at the wrong time, and generated enough interference in their flight electronics that on two occasions it nearly downed Qantas flights between Perth and Singapore that were unfortunate enough to be flying past when it was operating. Of course officially this never happened, but its on record both planes went out of control off Exmouth, and it was blamed on the software not discarding obviously interfered with bad data from the angle of attack sensors without pointing out what corrupted the data and why it had never happened anywhere else ever, but I was involved with the investigations.

                • [Deactivated] on 15/03/2023 - 21:32

                  @GordonD: Thanks, interesting! I checked how deep can VLF go, just for my curiosity:
                  VLF radio waves (3–30 kHz) can penetrate seawater to a few tens of meters and a submarine at shallow depth can use them to communicate.
                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communication_with_submarines

                  But, my wild guess, you can use VLF to sub comms only within 300kms radius or so. Probably less, inverse-square law.

                  • GordonD on 15/03/2023 - 21:48

                    @[Deactivated]:

                    you can use VLF to sub comms only within 300kms radius or so

                    I can only quote the official version, which says Harold E. Holt provides communications to ships and subs in the eastern Indian Ocean and the western Pacific Ocean. The latter surprises me.

                    • philmccracken on 15/03/2023 - 22:53

                      @GordonD: VLF signals at that transmit power can travel significant distances with very little loss, using the ionosphere and earth surface as a wave guide to help it propagate around the curvature of the earth (it performs a lot better during the daylight hours).

                      Fun random fact: have used the Exmouth/NW Cape VLF signal in geophysical surveying to detect features in coal seams in central QLD. The signal travels all that distance and then some of the energy propagates vertically downward when it strikes the earth's surface while the rest gets reflected. The change in surface impedance can be measured to detect geological features at depths of over 50m through the earth.

                      I'm not sure how well that translates to propagation of a demodulatable radio data signal through water but figure the distance from the transmitter is a lot less critical than the depth of water.

  • Seraphin7 on 15/03/2023 - 16:03
    +9

    The costs are huge. I know we are talking decades away, but that just means we are only really guessing what the actual costs will be. As well as somehow finding the money for this, it likely means that funding for other things is likely to be detrimentally impacted (e.g. social housing, health, education, environment, etc.)

    The cost of any government program comes "at the expense" of any other potential government program. It's called opportunity cost. Mr Keating's great superannuation policy is now creating so-called "massive tax breaks" that mean we'd just be better off paying the age pension. Were these foreseen by him and relevant others back in the 80s/90s? Turning to opportunity cost, I wonder what might be more valuable than our national security? Or whether any aggressors might be more generous on those items should the the proverbial push come to shove?

    Do we actually need submarines? Most dialogue is around the "threat" from China, but I can't really think of any reason why China would engage in a war with Australia, or with our closest neighbours. I've seen reports that suggest China probably won't even push to take over Taiwan, given the perceived global effects of doing that.

    China is playing a long game and one where it intends to make itself militarily strong. It then uses that strength to get what it wants. It's not building military bases across the Pacific region (amongst others) to have a laugh. Does China want war? Who knows. It's incumbent upon us and our allies to ensure the answer to that question, or at least whether China would be successful in waging war against us, is "no" using all forms of policy and action available.

    As we wait decades for the submarines to be built and delivered, we are apparently to host US nuclear submarines as a stop-gap measure. I'm pretty sure that is against our nuclear-free Pacific treaty obligations and, if you believe China would be aggressive in the future, make us a nuclear target.

    Without researching all the treaties you are alluding to, to the extent there are "issues", these will be removed. There are plenty of Pacific nations at least "discussing" arrangements with China that risk them becoming little more than vassal states in any event. The presence of US submarines, amongst other military hardware, will make Australia as a single entity a less attractive target than it otherwise would be. China is not going to start a war with Australia by bombing an American submarine in its ports. That is starting a war with the US. Should war break out in the way you are describing, nuclear-powered submarines aren't going to be knocking around some port somewhere (in Australia or anywhere else).

    We will apparently need to deal with nuclear waste in the future.

    If there was one country on the planet built to store nuclear waste, it's Australia. Millions upon millions of square kilometres of uninhabited and otherwise unusable land that is amongst the most geologically and tectonically stable on Earth. The amount of nuclear waste these things are going to produce is actually tiny. Of course, you don't want to eat the stuff, but it's not like it's proposed to be stored just behind the local Woolworths.

    • vodamerc on 15/03/2023 - 16:08
      +7

      If there was one country on the planet built to store nuclear waste, it's Australia. Millions upon millions of square kilometres of uninhabited and otherwise unusable land that is amongst the most geologically and tectonically stable on Earth. The amount of nuclear waste these things are going to produce is actually tiny. Of course, you don't want to eat the stuff, but it's not like it's proposed to be stored just behind the local Woolworths.

      People seem to be blind to the fact that we could literally store thousands of years worth of nuclear waste in Australia alone very safely. In that time someone will have figured out what to do with it.

  • Bid Sniper on 15/03/2023 - 16:05
    +8

    Nuclear subs are first strike weapons.

    All is needed is defensive diesels one. Which are cheap and very effective (Swedish ones). Better off with multiple diesels than one nuclear. Plus we don't have the personnel and infrastructure to service nuclear vessels.

    Cynical me see this as more provocation for US industrial complex to make more money. $400B billion today will be probably trillion when final unit is delivered. If anything its made us less safe by buying offensive rather than defensive subs. Typical American view to sell everyone guns and to hell with long term consequences.

    There is trillion better ways to spend that money to make life better for everyone including our neighbors.

    • thesilverstarman on 15/03/2023 - 16:22
      +10

      You are thinking of nuclear weapon equipped subs. Ours will only be nuclear powered to give greater range. They are both offensive and defensive. The european subs do not have the range for Australia. We are on a massive island with huge distances to cover. On top of that conventional engined subs are noiser and easier to detect.

    • [Deactivated] on 15/03/2023 - 17:52
      +1

      Nuclear subs are first strike weapons.

      Nope. It is also a second-strike weapons, as in MAD. Hell of a deterrent.
      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction

      • Bid Sniper on 15/03/2023 - 20:40
        +2

        These are nuclear powered, as in nuclear engines.

        Australia signed treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), so wont be carrying nuclear weapons.

        Nuclear subs are designed to be long range (offensive) weapons vs diesel (defensive).

        • [Deactivated] on 15/03/2023 - 20:52
          -2

          Makes sense, as long as NPT stands, I stand corrected. In this case we need no subs at all. But I'd personally vote for NPT status to be revoked. If shit hits the nuclear fan, we better have nukes than not.

          Lets say Vlad P loses his shit completely (he is mentally ill already).

          • Bid Sniper on 15/03/2023 - 21:52

            @[Deactivated]:

            Lets say Vlad P loses his shit completely (he is mentally ill already).

            We're not in a position to do anything about it even if we wanted to. Overpriced subs wont do anything even if with Amazon Prime. US and NATA has plenty of nuclear capability Supporting Ukraine is the best way to declaw this threat.

            Australia adopting nuclear weapons makes us a target. Great for defense contractors not so great for us.

            • [Deactivated] on 15/03/2023 - 21:59

              @Bid Sniper:

              Australia adopting nuclear weapons makes us a target.

              No, it removes us from list of soft targets. VladP will def try soft target first, just to play chicken game with the West.

            • DarwinBoy on 16/03/2023 - 00:23

              @Bid Sniper: Nukes have kept North Korea safe while many other tinpot dictators have fallen the last few decades.

          • JumperC on 15/03/2023 - 22:22
            +1

            @[Deactivated]: The thing is, the NPT isn't revocable. If we try to develop nuclear weapons the UN will attempt to sanction us. And I really doubt the US/UK would stop that, it's not in their interest to have us nuclear armed either. Ultimately we made a call that we're more secure by not spreading nuclear weapons because the more countries that have them the more likely they're to end up in the hands of someone that 'loses his shit completely' because people that do that don't think rationally about a counter attack.

            • [Deactivated] on 15/03/2023 - 22:46
              -2

              @JumperC:

              we're more secure by not spreading nuclear weapons because the more countries that have them the more likely they're to end up in the hands of someone

              Nukes are not hard to make. Expect like 10 new countries into the club in next 50 years. We belong to the club, I think. US is getting crazier with every day :)

        • GordonD on 15/03/2023 - 20:58

          Australia signed treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), so wont be carrying nuclear weapons.

          The nuclear non-proliferation treaty requires nuclear states to not proliferate (supply or supply the knowledge or equipment to produce) weapons grade nuclear material to non-nuclear states. The power reactors in the nuclear powered US and UK use highly refined weapons grade nuclear material. The French nuclear subs that we could have built - but we chose to convert to diesel - did not use weapons grade uranium. They used power reactor grade nuclear material. That would have required them to be refueled a number of times during their life, as nuclear power reactors are. The US/UK ones using weapons grade uranium don't need to be refueled for the life of the boat. We won't need to do that, but we'll have to dispose of weapons grade uranium at the end of the boats' life, starting in the 2050s.

          • Bid Sniper on 15/03/2023 - 21:47

            @GordonD:

            The US/UK ones using weapons grade uranium don't need to be refueled for the life of the boat.

            We dont need that capability, only those that will consider long range strikes needs such capabilities, its why China is rightfully angry.

            Defending our boarders with a fleet of small diesel submarines would actually more of a strategic advantage to us to defend against China rather than a few first strike subs. Depends what a foreign policy is, is it attack China or simply defend our sovereignty?

            Fleet of these cheap subs would be a very considerable threat to Chinese Navy. We wont win in a war but more likely to seriously damage their fleet making attacking us costly from a strategic POV. Also from a foreign policy doctrine, signals we will defend ourselves but not interested in attacking other nations.
            https://www.businessinsider.com/how-swedish-sub-ran-rings-ar…

            AUKUS just stupid zombie Scott Morrison stupidity that needs to be sunk ASAP.

            • JumperC on 15/03/2023 - 22:19
              +3

              @Bid Sniper:

              We dont need that capability, only those that will consider long range strikes needs such capabilities, its why China is rightfully angry.

              The reactor type doesn't have much relation to the ability to conduct long range strikes. Australia's borders are 'long range' as far as nuclear subs and any potential adversaries ability to blockade are concerned.

              If you have a diesel sub you have at most a couple of months before they're all destroyed. They have a timer on them before advancing drone and satellite deployment density means they're detected upon surfacing and destroyed. An ability to stay hidden and pick a target is a much bigger deterrence.

              Diesel subs were absolutely the right call when we bought the last lot, they might have even been the right call when we started this failed twice round of procurement, but they're going to be useless in the coming decades. The bigger risk is how long until drones and remote sensing also make nuclear subs suffer the same fate.

              A fleet isn't going to 'attack us'. It's going to keep away and interdict supply lines. Eg, stop all boats heading to and from Australia as far away from Australia as they can get. A sub that uses half its range just to get to the position it's needed isn't useful, either is one that surfaces so often it's likely to be surfaced on day one.

              We're not facing some sort of beach landing invasion anytime soon. What's much more likely is harassment of Australian interests a long way from the mainland. Grey 'not quite war' things like we're already seeing with China harassing their neighbours and damaging Australian aircraft.

              • Bid Sniper on 16/03/2023 - 09:58

                @JumperC:

                The bigger risk is how long until drones and remote sensing also make nuclear subs suffer the same fate.

                Totally agree with your post

                I think age of large vessels in general is being questioned due to these and other technologies. that $400B better spent on us being able to develop and sell such technologies to counter such threats. Seems more numerous cheap smaller weapons are more advantageous on a modern battlefield. Why I talk about that cheap and nasty diesel sub, if its capable to sink a carrier thats a serious threat and calls into question viability of large capital vessels. Same with long range guided missiles and drones.

                https://www.businessinsider.com/how-swedish-sub-ran-rings-ar…

            • trapper on 16/03/2023 - 09:38

              @Bid Sniper:

              Defending our boarders with a fleet of small diesel submarines would actually more of a strategic advantage to us to defend …

              They would all be trivially sunk when forced to surface constantly

          • JumperC on 15/03/2023 - 22:09
            +1

            @GordonD:

            The nuclear non-proliferation treaty requires nuclear states to not proliferate (supply or supply the knowledge or equipment to produce) weapons grade nuclear material to non-nuclear states

            It doesn't actually.
            https://www.un.org/disarmament/wmd/nuclear/npt/text

            It prevents the transfer of nuclear weapons or

            "Each State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to provide: (a) source or special fissionable material, or (b) equipment or material especially designed or prepared for the processing, use or production of special fissionable material, to any non-nuclear-weapon State for peaceful purposes, unless the source or special fissionable material shall be subject to the safeguards required by this Article."

            ie. We need to comply with safeguards via the IAEA.

            How we comply is going to be the interesting part. With a nuclear power plant compliance is a hell of a lot easier than on a submarine. There's a reasonable prospect that they can demonstrate at intervals that we comply, but continuously will be harder. The treaty is a bit vague on how compliance can be achieved so ultimate it's up to the IAEA to decide. Once we reach disposal compliance is going to be easier as the waste site can be monitored per the IAEA's monitoring of other sites. Before that I guess we're relying on them being sealed and functional and not exactly easy to extract fuel from without tearing apart the whole sub and making the sub itself radioactive.

            I'm not really convinced that fuelling a conventional sub would make us ultimately less able to produce nuclear weapons, since to be self reliant we would have to actually be producing mid grade fuel instead of using a sealed reactor. Yes, i guess if we cracked open a sub it might be easier but more obvious, and that's a concern should other countries follow our example.

            I'm also kind of dubious that we could have built French nuclear subs given one of the reasons they were cancelled was that the French weren't even complying with the requirement to help us build the non nuclear ones and the offer to supply them in nuclear format came only after the AUKUS deal was announced at which point it was a deal they knew they never had to keep.

            I was kind of expecting the subs to go to the US/UK for disposal since that seems like we're building a lot of capability for the sake of 8 subs and it's easier for them to ensure we comply with the NPT if we did return the whole sub.

  • SnowDragon on 15/03/2023 - 16:06
    +10

    Eight Submarines which will cost >$200 BILLION over their lifetimes, meaning $25 BILLION each.
    If you can't fathom how much money that is use this tool

    Absolutely obscene amount of money.

    • muzzamo on 16/03/2023 - 11:57

      So probably around a quarter of what the NDIS will cost over the same period.

      • GG57 on 16/03/2023 - 12:00

        Is comparing the cost for (some would say questionable) submarines, against the cost for supporting our citizens with disabilities, of any purpose?

        • muzzamo on 16/03/2023 - 13:36

          The cost of defending our country going into a very unstable century, vs the highest-in-the-world cost of supporting citizens with disabilities, yes.

          (i reworded it for you)

          • GG57 on 16/03/2023 - 13:44

            @muzzamo: Again, is the comparison of any purpose?

            • SnowDragon on 16/03/2023 - 14:12

              @GG57: I dunno, it's a hard choice

              • muzzamo on 16/03/2023 - 14:21

                @SnowDragon: There's always a comparison.

                I'll turn it around back at you. What do you think the limit for NDIS spending per year should be? 100 Billion a year? A Trillion a year? or do you think there should be no limit at all.

  • ForkSnorter on 15/03/2023 - 16:15
    +16

    8 submarines would delay a Chinese victory by about 5 minutes. It's a complete waste of money, in my opinion.

    • djones145 on 15/03/2023 - 16:33
      +4

      8 submarines in 10-20 years time will delay chinese victory by 5 minutes as they are rolling on the floor laughing thinking where are these submarines that havent been built…..

    • trapper on 16/03/2023 - 09:40

      If they deter China for even one year that will be ~$1.5 trillion we saved.

      • Drakesy on 16/03/2023 - 18:40

        Lets be honest though, if China's attacking us we won't have an economy anyway so debatable if we'll even earn $1.5 trillion.

        • trapper on 17/03/2023 - 08:10

          That's what I am saying.

          The longer they are deterred, the longer our economy will be ticking along happily.

          Failure to deter will cost astronomically more than these submarines.

          • GG57 on 17/03/2023 - 09:55

            @trapper: Is part of the problem with this that the deterrent won't be here for how long? So we will be in the same situation that we are today (and have been for decades prior), and it hasn't costed us this much.
            Meanwhile, as we commit to this expense and wait (and wait) for the deterrent to be in place, any hostile party has the same amount of time to expand their already superior military capability such that our eight submarines will be worthless.

            • trapper on 17/03/2023 - 12:56

              @GG57: I agree that the delay is not ideal, but better late than never.

    • ThithLord on 16/03/2023 - 14:27

      Fork - we also would only be able to have three of those submarines active at once. You can't have all of your submarine's active at the same time

  • Drakesy on 15/03/2023 - 16:18
    +9

    Someone's making a shitload of money out of this.

    It's a ridiculous amount, mind you technology in 10 years might make them obsolete anyway and we'll just be putting drone submarines stationed off each coastline indefinitely.
    The whole thing is a publicity stunt concentrating on "job creation" not looking at the bigger picture that this is a terrible waste of money. Should've stuck with the cheaper French subs $90 billion is much easier to swallow.

    The costs are horrendous. I guess though given our isolation the submarines are our best offensive safety net given our air force are literally limited by their effective radius (which barely gets into Indonesia.) Ships would be sitting ducks, mind you an aircraft carrier you'd imagine would be cheaper… Maybe stock it with drones that can strike and you have a cheap, cost effective way of patronizing other countries with minimal labour.

    • GG57 on 15/03/2023 - 16:22

      What are your thoughts about basing the submarines in south-east WA? It seems to be a long way from where any action would be.

      • Drakesy on 15/03/2023 - 16:24

        Yeah, apart from the jobs and growth moniker that i don't mind, it's a strange one. Garden island is a long way south, and would take a sub a few days to steam far enough north to be within striking distance of anything attacking us.

        From a defense standpoint though. We'd have a couple of hours of warning if there was a strike group coming which is a plus..

        • GG57 on 15/03/2023 - 16:27
          +2

          Wasn't there recently a Chinese military ship that passed just north of Australia, apparently unnoticed? I doubt we will even have a couple of hours warning.
          But, again, why would a hostile country want to obliterate an Australian city?

          • Drakesy on 15/03/2023 - 16:30
            +2

            @GG57: Generally they get flagged around exmouth/shark bay i believe where the radar station is. But yeah i do remember that.

            I agree, Australian cities are tiny compared to other capitals and given all our resources (iron ore, oil etc) are in the north they'd have to be really desperate to come all the way south.

            I reckon they'll churn out 1 or two of the subs then dump the plan as smaller, more mobile, less manned subs start to dominate the space.

            Why put all your eggs in one basket when you can have a fleet of 10-15 nuclear sub drones for the same price/cheaper permanently stationed off every capital city around the world basically in a stalemate - it'll be the cold war MKII.

            • GG57 on 15/03/2023 - 16:32
              +1

              @Drakesy: And we will probably allow container ships and bulk goods ships to traverse through those nuclear blockades.

        • trapper on 16/03/2023 - 09:44

          Garden island is a long way south, and would take a sub a few days to steam far enough north to be within striking distance of anything attacking us.

          They will be constantly patrolling though, not sitting parked in base.

          • GG57 on 16/03/2023 - 09:52

            @trapper: I agree that the submarines could be on constant patrol, but Australians probably aren't that keen on living for months/years on a vessel underwater. Does anyone know how long they would be on patrol for?

      • djones145 on 15/03/2023 - 16:40
        +1

        thats casue it will be the first spot to get smashed if we go to war, best be in WA! and not in east coast where we all live

    • pharkurnell on 15/03/2023 - 16:44
      +1

      The costs are horrendous

      Its not their money they are spending… NFLTG..

    • CalmLemons on 16/03/2023 - 00:28

      aircrafts carriers are actually insanely expensive and difficult to run.

      google the us ford air craft carrier -

      • Solosurf on 16/03/2023 - 11:22
        +1

        with advancement in hypersonic missels these are sitting ducks. I wonder if the missle defense systems around the strike group can handle a volley of hypersonic missles. More chances of atleast one evading the defence and boom there goes $$$ under water and huge loss of life.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join