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

  • pharkurnell on 15/03/2023 - 16:29
    +4

    I cant think of anything else to spend that many billion on… so go for it.

  • [Deactivated] on 15/03/2023 - 16:33
    -1

    We should join NATO.

    • JumperC on 15/03/2023 - 23:23
      +4

      NATO Article 10 means we can't join unless we somehow move this whole place to Europe. We're a partner country.

      • [Deactivated] on 15/03/2023 - 23:41

        Im pretty sure Article 10 will not prevent us joining NATO. Its politics all the way down.

        • JumperC on 15/03/2023 - 23:45

          I mean, theoretically anything can be changed if everyone agrees. But currently

          Article 10
          The Parties may, by unanimous agreement, invite any other European State in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area to accede to this Treaty. Any State so invited may become a Party to the Treaty by depositing its instrument of accession with the Government of the United States of America. The Government of the United States of America will inform each of the Parties of the deposit of each such instrument of accession.

          And they're not even at the point where they're even all agreeing to add two much more useful European states currently.

          • [Deactivated] on 15/03/2023 - 23:47

            @JumperC: Yea, they need to dump Turkey, it is not an European country by any measure.

            • JumperC on 15/03/2023 - 23:50

              @[Deactivated]: Geographically it half is and strategically it's kind of a vital location. Hungary and Turkey are both a bit of trouble at the moment. There's no real mechanism to dump a country, they'd have to make a new 'NATO without Turkey' and all withdraw. Going to bet they see it better to have Turkey in the tent rather than outside it for the moment though, with the hope things change politically.

              • [Deactivated] on 15/03/2023 - 23:55

                @JumperC: Turkey makes NATO non functional, Id say keeping being functional is above all other considerations. And veto power should not exist. Majority should have its way.

                • JumperC on 16/03/2023 - 00:12

                  @[Deactivated]: I don't think NATO is non functional, I'd say it's functioning better than if Turkey wasn't there. Most of what NATO does doesn't require Turkey's consent, just expansion does. Ultimately before putting an obligation on a country to defend another, it requires their consent, or the whole thing falls apart and may have never got anyone to agree to join in the first place.

                  I think there's a reasonable chance this obstruction is being played up for domestic political purposes and win or lose (or lose and fudge it) it will probably be resolved post election. The leadership in Turkey is a bigger problem for the people living there than for NATO.

                  • [Deactivated] on 16/03/2023 - 00:20

                    @JumperC: I bet you a tenner, that if Russia invades Estonia, Turkey will weasel out of sending its troops there and otherwise support the NATO actions. It will be a big blow to the NATO idea. Turkey internally is very much like Russia now, no free press and no opposition.

                    NATO does doesn't require Turkey's consent, just expansion does

                    aint that a bitch, lol

                    • JumperC on 16/03/2023 - 00:31

                      @[Deactivated]: Turkey is well on its way to be like Russia but it's not quite the same. There is a possible opposition. Whether it is allowed to be successful remains to be seen.

                      Turkey is trying to play both sides. They've sent drones to Ukraine and blocked Russian warships ships from accessing the black sea, while buying gas from Russia at a discount and not sanctioning them directly. And belatedly enforcing the sanctions.

                      Ultimately that's a net positive for Ukraine, even if not what one might hope of a NATO ally.

                      I'm not sure the calculation would be the same if Turkey breached Article 5. You have to think, while they feel they can play both sides they have, but when it benefits them they choose NATO. I think not being seen to contribute in the case of Article 5 being invoked would probably be a net negative for them, vs siding with Russia who is failing to beat Ukraine let alone NATO unchained, and would surely be well on the way to economic and political collapse at that point.

                      • [Deactivated] on 16/03/2023 - 00:40

                        @JumperC:

                        Turkey is well on its way to be like Russia but it's not quite the same. There is a possible opposition. …
                        Turkey is trying to play both sides. …

                        Nope and nope. Authoritarian states are only getting more authoritarian, there is no way back except the blood way. Don't be fooled by minute "good" things it does for public view. Ukraine made it back, and now is being punished for this. Turkey does not belong in NATO and they should dump it.

                        … and would surely be well on the way to economic and political collapse at that point.

                        Not political collapse. They are past this point, its irreversible, Erdogan won.

                        • JumperC on 16/03/2023 - 01:02

                          @[Deactivated]:

                          Not political collapse. They are past this point,

                          I was speaking of Putin being deposed.

                          Erdogan won.

                          https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/polls-show-erdogan…

                          I fear you are right, but I still have some hope you are not. A year ago I would have agreed with you without hesitation. It's a question of how unpopular he is right now, leaders don't tend to do well when the masses suffer and are not generationally used to it as in Russia. He may still rig it or effectively hold a coup, he's not without form. But unlike Putin I don't think his life depends on holding on regardless.

                          • [Deactivated] on 16/03/2023 - 01:17

                            @JumperC:

                            I was speaking of Putin being deposed.

                            Not gonna happen either. Protests get canned with squads of police bagging the first persons arriving. Comms are all monitored (Telegram especially) so you cannot gather large enough group of people. They are building new holding facilities for detained protesters as we speak. TV pours toxic "experts" opinions 24/7 at all TV channels, brainwashing like you'd never thought is possible.

                            • JumperC on 16/03/2023 - 01:42

                              @[Deactivated]: I mean, in your theoretical 'invade Estonia and trigger NATO scenario.

                              Yes, the population that would protest has mostly fled anyway, it's generational conditioning that such things are hopeless and there are too many windows in Russia for them. All bets are off in a full scale war with NATO however. Putin's biggest threat isn't people rising up against him, it's someone who thinks he should be fighting 'the west' harder trying to take the job for themselves. That's what you get when you build nationalist sentiment, eventually even the most strident nationalist can't keep up with their myth. And then there end up being too many windows in Russia…..

          • Eeples on 16/03/2023 - 10:33
            +1

            @JumperC: For the purposes of Eurovision we are a European state.

            • JumperC on 22/03/2023 - 21:01

              @Eeples: Even Eurovision (which we may not be allowed to compete in beyond the 5 years agreed ending this year) won't let Australia host it if we win.

      • Drakesy on 17/03/2023 - 12:56

        I mean it was fine for Eurovision, it's gotta be fine for NATO right?

        • JumperC on 22/03/2023 - 21:04

          Australia's been allowed to compete (but not as per countries in Europe, actually win the right to host Eurovision), until 2023 (5 years granted in 2017). We're also a NATO partner so, same same already. Able to tag along but not be a permanent part.

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

    honestly they should have spent the money with Japan building Gundam Mech with Rail guns.

  • rumblytangara on 15/03/2023 - 16:37
    +23

    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 someone who lived there until recently and followed the news from a much closer viewpoint than most people here, the government of China respects one thing and one thing only: The ability to project force.

    They've staked territorial claims to most of the ocean in the Pacific, right down to the Philippines. And they regularly engage in naval provocation right up to the edge of other nations waters.

    They don't care about defensive capabilities, they will just play boa constrictor and squeeze every time there is any give. They play much longer term than our Federal election cycles- the same guy with the same objectives has been in power for a decade and has just cemented the position for life.

    They have a vastly bigger GDP, they can (and do) funnel vast amounts of resources into their military because they don't have a population or political opposition parties to put a check on this, so I regard hand wringing, penny-pinching, or cries of "it's not our problem" to be extremely short sighted.

    • GG57 on 15/03/2023 - 16:49
      +1

      I can see that China is working on accruing undersea resources.
      I also understand that China already owns vast quantities of resources in Australia.
      It seems to be a very broad strategy, but at the same time that suggests to me that a military invasion or warfare is unlikely here.

      • rumblytangara on 15/03/2023 - 17:11
        +8

        I don't think that anyone in their right mind thinks that an invasion of Australia is on the cards. But Australia will be a considered a bunch of distant bumpkins who are outside the sphere of Asia and to be ignored or brushed off, fit only as a safe haven for money that people want moved offshore, unless the country can project force.

        (OTOH, Taiwan is totally hosed.)

        • GG57 on 15/03/2023 - 17:14

          Maybe being viewed as that, and remaining peaceful, might be a good option for us.

          • rumblytangara on 15/03/2023 - 17:19
            +9

            @GG57: Then you get squeezed for anything else they think they can squeeze you for. I would have thought that the past two years of punitive trade sanctions would have made that fairly clear to see.

            The old Latin adage about "want peace, prepare for war" works, I think, when faced with aggressive dictatorships. Taiwan has not done this, so it'll be interesting to see what happens to them over the next 5-10 years. They are totally reliant on their semiconductor industry being considered too vital to the US. Given their proximity to China, hard to see what else they could have done though.

            • GG57 on 15/03/2023 - 17:23
              +1

              @rumblytangara: Some would say that AUKUS is displaying more aggression towards China, than China is towards that alliance.

              • rumblytangara on 15/03/2023 - 17:26
                +9

                @GG57: Well, people say all sorts of things. Depends on who they are, and if you agree with them.

                What do you say?

                Personally, I'd say that a country that spends the second largest amount in the world on its military, without providing any defense/peacekeeping activities, is displaying a fair bit of aggression to its neighbours.

                Have you kept abreast of any of the nine-dash-line stuff in the Pacific, or the regular incursions on Taiwanese airspace?

                • GG57 on 15/03/2023 - 17:28
                  -5

                  @rumblytangara: China would probably argue that its military is for defence purposes.

                  • rumblytangara on 15/03/2023 - 17:31
                    +10

                    @GG57: Yes, because they have been so sorely put at thread of invasion by… whom, and where, exactly?

                    The only threat of potential invasion they face on a regular basis is on the Himalayan border with India, where there are occasional reports of soldiers fighting each other with clubs and shovels.

                    I get the strong impression here that you are not arguing in good faith and rather presenting a series of distractionary smokescreens. This is pretty much every post of yours on this topic. I am going to step away now.

              • matt-ozb on 15/03/2023 - 22:41
                +1

                @GG57: Defence & deterrence buddy .. not aggression

              • DarwinBoy on 16/03/2023 - 00:31
                +1

                @GG57: How is ANKUS aggression? China already has 12 nuke subs. Half of those armed with ballistic missiles which could be 100km off Sydney right now.
                We haven't said to them they can't have them.
                China just wants to be the only kid in the playground with the cool toys. It doesn't want anyone else having something that may affect its power play.

            • plmko on 15/03/2023 - 17:43
              +3

              @rumblytangara: I would have thought that the past two years of punitive trade sanctions would have made that fairly clear to see.

              Australia has been sanctioning Chinese industries for decades prior to all this sensationalism on China. Try importing Chinese steel or stone…..

              Australia just got done by the WTO for illegal use of sanctions against paper imports coming from Korea, Indonesia etc

              Sanctions are normal.

              In any case because of the insistency to die on that hill, the US have now overtaken our exports of beef to China. All this banging on to protect maybe 200million dollars of trade and our prized industries are being usurped against a partner which has leverage over us militarily now.

              Australia just never learns.

              • JumperC on 15/03/2023 - 22:59
                +5

                @plmko:

                Australia just got done by the WTO for illegal use of sanctions against paper imports coming from Korea, Indonesia etc

                It's a bit of a stretch considering that was 2020 and was settled without appeal, the steel / stone was 2010 and neither had a list of political demands attached to them like the Chinese reaction. Anti-dumping measures are normal with regards to 'abnormally cheap' goods designed to kill domestic industries. China rejected Australian goods that were sold at premium prices as well as other trade embargoes that were unofficial because they couldn't prevent them under WTO rules.

                Ultimately China's inappropriate use of anti dumping measures for political points hurts them more than us, that beef didn't stop being exported, it just went to other countries at the market price.

                China has never been an open economy, foreign investment into Australia is allowed almost without restriction, and China will complain loudly about any restriction, while the reverse isn't true. You're extremely limited in your ability to invest in China, it all requires a 'local partner' and technology transfer.

                https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/11/09/australia-china-decoupl…

                Australia is a tiny market for China. Australia couldn't use sanctions against China politically if it wanted to. These things are not the same at all.

                If anything this deal is a pretty good indication Australia has learned.

  • dcep on 15/03/2023 - 17:04

    Can someone confirm if those US subs will only arrive by end of 2030 ? Whilst still concurrently building subs designed by UK from now ?

    What kind of strategy or logic is this.

    Maybe they're expecting huge delays and cost blowouts from building UK subs here ?

    • GG57 on 15/03/2023 - 17:13
      +1

      I think the end of 2030 subs are the ones on loan from the USA.
      Our own subs won't be for decades.

      • JumperC on 15/03/2023 - 23:05
        +1

        The US/UK are basing 4 subs here from 2027, the transfer to Australian control is early 2030's. The Australian built ones are end of 2030's early 2040s. There's 3 to 5 purchased from the USA (not on loan, owned) 8 more built here. Training on US subs started > 1 year ago. It's ultimately a question of when we have enough people trained to operate / maintain / crew them here before they can be transferred.

        The ones we're building could be as soon as 15 years, but it depends on how the project is run / how close to existing designs / how ambitious it is.

        Ultimately I think the transfer to Australian control of the US subs will depend on how urgent the need appears to be, it will be stepped up if there's some sort of urgent need (eg as per Ukraine). Otherwise, no rush to take on those costs.

  • GordonD on 15/03/2023 - 17:14
    -6

    Keating. Worst Treasurer we ever had. Every government since has tried to restart Australia's manufacturing industry after Keating destroyed it. And male workers have searched in vain for the good well-paid real jobs that went. But he would have been the best Foreign Minister we never had.

    If, as he says, Penny Wong decided in 2016 to agree with the Coalition on every core foreign policy, to let the Conservatives decide Labor's foreign policy, it is appalling. This won't go over well at Labor Pary branch level.

  • Daniel Plainview on 15/03/2023 - 17:15
    +5

    Do people realise you don't HAVE to post up your thoughts - so perhaps unless you're pretty sure they're correct, take some time to read up on the subject area before being so definitive about your thoughts.

    My 2c. In short, we've gone with the premium, most expensive solution - when our needs in defence & all other areas of the budget SHOULD have said, we need a more value oriented solution. e.g the French & German (finished 2nd in that tender) subs can be derrided but I have seen high ranking ex-Navy personnel state they were better fits to the purpose Australia needed at a massively cheaper price!).

    I get it if you have nuclear weapons, having nuclear powered subs makes sense as they can be submerged longer and travel faster - but Australia claims not to want this (though to be honest this could change in the future). For conventional weapons - they're something of a massive overkill.

    The French or German subs would have been (IIRC) a dozen boats, in service a lot earlier - yes inferior in many regards, but the cost was flagged as $AUD50B. So are these nuclear subs, worth the massive extra wait and over SEVEN(7) times the cost? I'm incredibly dubious.

    I think too often we want to have the same 'high end' stuff as the US e.g HIMARS,F35 jets - but really should be shopping a tier or so down to get better bang for our buck - as we just don't have their economy nor same heavy offensive focus with their defence forces.

    Highly recommend folks read John Mearsheimer's works in what countries can do to make themselves unappealing to attack and also on the US focus on 'contain' China. Quite fascinating stuff.

    • GG57 on 15/03/2023 - 17:18
      +1

      By sharing my thoughts, I'm happy to read all the inputs from others and learn more. My thoughts and opinions are correct, in my mind, until I learn something different to change them.
      That is the purpose of a forum.

      • Daniel Plainview on 15/03/2023 - 17:24
        +1

        I'm not being specific to you here - I've no idea or care if you've said intelligent, well regarded things or utter nonsense. It's fine to say Nike make the best shoes or that car is the best brand - but for people to post up that China isn't a threat to Australia militarily - they're utterly naive & clearly not across educated thought by actual experts in this area.

        The purpose of a forum isn't to post up nonsense either - and there are many folks on here that really should have followed the carpenter's adage in 'measure twice, cut once'. But you do you. :-)

        • GG57 on 15/03/2023 - 17:26
          -1

          As I said, I'm happy to listen.
          Can you expand on why you think that China is a military threat to Australia?

          • Daniel Plainview on 15/03/2023 - 17:34
            +2

            @GG57: With all due respect - go as I have said read up on Mearsheimer & any other number of actual experts in this area - I am not going to pretend to know it all as others here will.

            China is a threat to Australia as Australia is a military ally of the USA. China is the ONLY peer competitor to the USA in it's global and regional hegemony. The USA has and continues to pursue a policy of containment on China, which China is determined to break free of.

            The USA has also made it very clear it will support Taiwan if it is attacked - China has made it clear it considers Taiwan part of China (something I tend to feel is pretty reasonable if you read the history of Taiwan).

            So that will come to a head within the next 5-10yrs with near certainty - and Australia will 100% certainly be expected to participate in this conflict - and I would expect China would strike US military assets based in Australia as part of this offensive e.g Pine Gap.

            Alas this isn't pie in the sky stuff but a near certainty - all this said I am certain these subs will be too late for this conflict - but I suspect it will be far from the last one with China. As i said read or listen to Mearsheimer on the subject as China is a particular interest of his and it's fascinating to hear his explanations.

          • nomoneynoproblems on 15/03/2023 - 17:48

            @GG57: Tbh if you’ve done your research as you say and you’ve still come to this conclusion, there’s no point in even posting about it any further.

  • GordonD on 15/03/2023 - 17:16
    +5

    Would someone explain to me how submarines that won't get delivered until the 2030, or built until the 2040s, are going to protect us from a China that the same people who are telling us we need them say is likely to attack us in less than 3 years?

    • JumperC on 15/03/2023 - 21:52

      China won't invade us in 3 years, no one sane is saying that. They're attacking us last May. Things aren't black and white, there's a lot of space between full scale invasion and damaging an engine.

      From a submarine perspective we have submarines that currently have to surface reasonably frequently, limiting their undetectable range. Advancements in drones and the number of satellites will render these obsolete over the coming years. There will be US and UK subs based out of Australia by 2027 and in Australian hands by the early 2030's, there are already Australian's training. Were the need to become critical you might find, like Ukraine, that timetable stepped up, something that can only happen given training has already been going on for over a year, and that training is part of the deal.

      Maybe someone's getting confused and thinking Australia being potentially drawn into a Taiwan conflict is related to these subs which aren't directly related. Defence money is best spent if it's never useful.

  • [Deactivated] on 15/03/2023 - 17:23
    +9

    It's a lot of money, and doesn't make us able to defend ourselves. So seems kind of pointless. Of course I am confident that they would find other ways to waste the money if it wasn't this.

    • DarwinBoy on 16/03/2023 - 00:37
      +2

      You couldn't invade Australia by air. You would need a shipping supply line.
      Nuke subs would make that impossible.
      Hence defending Australia.
      Look at the total tonnage of ships sunk in WW2 by submarines.
      Submarines could be used to isolate Australia and bring us to our knees or used to keep us safe from an aggressive force.
      All depends on who has the best boats and how many.

      • [Deactivated] on 16/03/2023 - 00:47
        +1

        The subs won't make us able to defend ourselves alone. We'd still need help from the US. What we're really doing here is spending a lot of money to subsidize the US controlling these waters.

        • DarwinBoy on 16/03/2023 - 00:59
          +1

          It would be hard for an attacking force to send an invasion fleet with there being 1 to 5 nuke subs out there hiding away
          An enemy ship sunk might hold 5000 thousand soldiers or 50 tanks so doing so by subs is much cheaper and safer then waiting for that ship to unload on Australian soil.
          As a defensive deterrent they cannot be underestimated.
          There may be US ships in our waters but I feel the threat of invasion or military harm is zero.
          China's military growth and easily seen expansionist policy does worry me.

  • WreckTangle on 15/03/2023 - 17:23
    +7

    What we actually need are nuclear weapons. For defence & deterrence only of course.

    • GG57 on 15/03/2023 - 17:24
      +1

      As the old line goes, what could go wrong.

      • Daniel Plainview on 15/03/2023 - 17:27
        +11

        Tell that to Ukraine - the only country IN HISTORY to voluntarily give up a nuclear weapon arsenal & also strategic bomber fleet in return for security assurances from a number of nations….one of which is presently doing it's best to wipe Ukraine from existance.

        • xtremehell on 15/03/2023 - 17:34

          Even if they had nukes, the deterrent value might not be have been enough because of taboos surrounding their use. I understated you're influenced by neorealism, but Nina Tannenwald provides good food for thought from a constructivist point of view:

          https://library.fes.de/libalt/journals/swetsfulltext/7064286…

          • Daniel Plainview on 15/03/2023 - 17:42
            +5

            @xtremehell: Suffice to say it's a complex subject and sadly we will never know. Post 2014 - the West let Ukraine down big time & was taken in by Putin's BS - but I digress.

            You do tend to find that Russia has a bully mentality and I personally am near certain they'd not have tried to literally smash all of Ukraine it could not possess if it knew Ukraine could strike back in such a manner.

            Is like saying would you go and punch a guy in the face who you know has a gun? Perhaps, but the risk vs reward is pretty compelling to say pick on someone else instead.

            Thank you for your reference/suggestion - I've got my hands full with reading Mearsheimer at present - who is often lambasted in recent times due to claimed Russian sympathies (which is total BS) but when you look into it he was on the mark with much of his claims/predictions & makes a complex area quite simple albeit with normal exceptions.

            • JumperC on 15/03/2023 - 21:43

              @Daniel Plainview: Ukraine has one major advantage over Australia, it can be resupplied via land. As much as being an island helps with Australia's defence it also makes us subject to potential blockade.

              Wars don't start because of what people know about their enemy, but because of what they think they know. Someone liable to believe they would be welcomed as liberators and that a decapitation of leadership was possible could just as easily think that such weapons wouldn't be used / were non operational / were secured by friendly foreign agents already etc etc.

              If people went to war because they thought there were WMDs they can just as easily go to war because they think there aren't.

        • Caped Baldy on 15/03/2023 - 17:39
          +2

          The US does the same thing. Look at Saddam and Gaddafi for example.

          • DarwinBoy on 16/03/2023 - 00:41

            @Caped Baldy: Good riddance. 2 less dictators. At least the US boots it's leaders out after a maximum of 8 years. Putin and Xi changed laws to make themselves rulers for life and when has that ever been a good thing?

        • mushyboy on 15/03/2023 - 19:56

          South Africa also had nukes at once stage and they also voluntarily gave it up, so Ukraine wasn't the only country to do it.

          • JumperC on 16/03/2023 - 00:21

            @mushyboy: The South African government did a lot of things, and faced a lot of sanctions/pressure for them. But is the only state to build the capability themselves (albeit after getting a US reactor for energy purposes) and then voluntarily give it up. Ukraine inherited the capability via the Soviet Union and probably couldn't afford to maintain them and didn't have control of them to use operationally. They might have found themselves invaded in the 90's had they not given them up, before they could get them into operation. Though hindsight…..

    • DarwinBoy on 16/03/2023 - 00:38
      +1

      It's kept North Korea safely under dictatorship
      control the last few decades.

  • elgrande on 15/03/2023 - 17:30
    +7

    The subs will buy us atleast an extra 3 hours during an invasion.

    • gromit on 15/03/2023 - 20:53
      +4

      I doubt that, they will be the first things hit, might buy us 10 mins.

      • JumperC on 15/03/2023 - 21:09

        If they're at sea that's kind of the point not to be hit they can survive submerged until they run out of food. If it's the US ones based here the point is so that they do get hit, forcing the US to enter such a war which is politically only likely if they lose their own service members in an initial attack.

        Of course an invasion is incredibly unlikely. More likely is treatment like China is currently giving their neighbours by using their 'coast guard' navy to harass fishermen etc, or a naval blockade, something stopping 'just short' of all out war. Why invade when you can just choke a country almost entirely dependent on shipping with zero risk to your own vessels?

    • DarwinBoy on 16/03/2023 - 00:42
      +1

      It's a very large ocean. And they hide very well.

  • Caped Baldy on 15/03/2023 - 17:36

    Correct me if I'm wrong, the subs will get start getting built in around 2040 and the cost is over decades.

    I agree that there are better ways to spend the money and am worried about cost overruns. But I am concerned about China's expansion and dodgy behaviour.

    • JumperC on 16/03/2023 - 00:36

      The expenditure starts now (or probably more accurately, 18 months ago), but is only ~$9billion the next 4 years. (Can't believe I have to say 'only $9 billion'). Basing US/UK subs here starts in 2027, purchase of US subs starts early 2030's. Whole cost is through to the 2060's and includes disposal and operation, as well as bases etc. Still a lot but not just for 8 subs.

      • Caped Baldy on 16/03/2023 - 07:23
        +1

        Didn't Morrison give away close to $70 bil during covid?

  • OBEY YOUR MASTERS on 15/03/2023 - 17:39
    +12

    They are really pushing this "threat from China" thing aren't they? I wonder why?

    • Caped Baldy on 15/03/2023 - 17:40
      +2

      They're not taking kickbacks like some conservatives and there's an actual potential threat? China has been hacking western countries for years and acting all innocent about it.

    • GordonD on 15/03/2023 - 17:49
      +9

      Its hard to believe it was just a co-incidence that the leading Sydney and Melbourne newspapers ran a front-page "red alert" series telling us war with China was imminent just the week Albanese was going to go off the US and come back having signed up for nuclear subs. It was a PR campaign run from Canberra (ie, Washington) to create a public opinion environment where Albanese would come back and be declared a hero for saving us from China. The small problem is that he came back with a huge bill too, and a lot of people aren't convinced.

      • Protractor on 16/03/2023 - 15:41

        Read Murdochs fave propagandist> Murdoch. Jamie Siedel. He's a relative nobody, but he reads like he has his hand up Duttons back half the time.

        He has been drip feeding goanna shit to the masses for years. I cannot believe the authorities allow him to whistle so loudly. Well, up until the SHAFTUS deal, I couldn't. Now it all adds up. Inject a war footing into normal convos.

        Despite his own site claiming he does various content, all he has ever published in Murdochs rag is racist BS. Just what Rupert pays him for. The DNA of newscorp

        His site> all warm and fluffy
        https://www.news.com.au/the-team/jamie-seidel

        Newscorp (he does slip in the occasional I am not a racist but story, as a red herring)
        (but most of his writing is red rags. Single focus. China bad)
        https://www.news.com.au/the-team/jamie-seidel

        Ironically even this guy has his doubts about SHAFTUS

    • DarwinBoy on 16/03/2023 - 00:44
      +1

      Look at the expansionist behaviour shown by Japan in the 30s. It's kinda looking the same by China these days.

      • Protractor on 16/03/2023 - 16:10

        Should we nuke them now then?

        • DarwinBoy on 16/03/2023 - 17:18

          No. but we should get nukes so then there wont be any desire by China or any other country to invade because the principle of MAD applies.
          Look at North Korea. Free to do whatever it wishes behind the safety of its nukes.

  • Empharand on 15/03/2023 - 18:14
    +11

    I usually don't like to get political, and have 'Centrist' views; however to share my opinion on the Submarine topic

    What I think is that the USA probably would have built those submarines regardless and likely parked them on our shores waiting for a fight that may never happen.

    According to the tabloids (So take it with a grain of salt because you know, News is biased and controlled), Labour and Albanese were starting to repair relations between ourselves and China but now we're preparing ourselves for a fight between ourselves and China? I'm no CCP fanboy and do object to a lot of what they do, but that's a great way of saying '.Lets shake hands, sike!'

    Spending 386 billion (Which I have no doubt will blow out to 500+ billion in the long run) over the course of 30+ years for shiny new Submarines which may never be used probably wasn't the best idea.

    Lets not forget that if China wants conflict in the form of war, they aren't going to wait 30+ years for submarines to be built by their opponents.

    I'm also curious, isn't the government essentially having to print more money to pay for said submarines? Are we effectively following the USA's logic of spending money on potentially useless shit and running up debt? IF the government isn't having to print more money to pay for these subs, wouldn't it have been better to inject that money back into our economy over that 30+ years?

    • JumperC on 15/03/2023 - 20:18
      +1

      wait 30+ years

      I mean, we're talking 4 years ish for the 4 subs positioned here and 7-10 ish for the first Australian owned ones. 30+ is the time they'll be operational and includes the decommissioning and labour costs. No doubt it will blow out, but they also started by including not just the subs themselves but 'everything'.

      It's not just a risk of a planned war, but a miscalculation that could turn into one, or actions short of war like harassing shipping. The main reason that they changed from diesel electric to nuclear is that China is launching and planning to launch a lot of satellites, the number of which will basically mean total real time surveillance of all the ocean's surface. While they don't have that capability this instant the current subs can operate. But increasingly they will lose an ability to operate.

    • Prosp24 on 16/03/2023 - 11:13
      +1

      Its a horrible premium to pay, without any shopping around for market competitive value, and actually goes against many principles of public procurement (e.g. fair, transparent, open to larger market with multiple bids)

      The earlier french deal was criticized for breaching the cost of 40 billion, how this has somehow increased ten fold to $380 billion now is ridiculous.
      Also the big and very public announcement was akin to a global announcement that australia was to become an extension of US militarism, australia pretty much becoming a low density outpost of the US military arsenal. You might as well slap china in the face with a glove and challenge them to a duel.

      Without knowing it, i cant help but question if albo has signed away our complete independence/ sovereignty and finances to the whims of a major superpower with but such little regard for its actual worth and impact to the aus people…

      There is very little tact and intelligence in the way it has all been handled and negotiated. Mr Keating is a man of reason, his discomfort and need to come out and appear at his old age against his own party and legacy, shows just how big of a blunder it is and just how bureaucratic and impractical our politicians and media have become unfortunately. He's literally had to call out and have a little rant at all the journalists and politicians regardless of how well their intentions

  • lostgoat on 15/03/2023 - 18:18
    +9

    I reckon 400 billion spent on all types of drones would stop any threat . Not a few subs . In the future there will be an anti sub defence eg drones that will make them obsolete.

    • JumperC on 15/03/2023 - 20:20
      +2

      There's also very likely going to be increasing drone defense too. We are spending money on drones as well though… Drones and satellites are the things making electric subs obsolete. Yes, there's a risk they eventually make nuclear subs obsolete too.

    • Creamsoda on 15/03/2023 - 23:53
      +1

      don't forget we bought bunch of old Abram tanks from the US few months ago. Our military is fully taken over by the US. Each Australian have to pay $14k to fund those subs that will sit close to the Chinese coast and have no sovereignty over them. This cost is just to get it built, maintenance and upkeep in the long term will cost a lot more. Absolute Insanity.

      • JumperC on 22/03/2023 - 21:14

        This cost is just to get it built

        This isn't true. The headline figure includes building, staffing, operations, and decommissioning. They literally went 'all in' as if they wanted to make the figure as BIG as possible by including the whole total cost of ownership. Of course it might still 'blow out' but it's absolutely not true to say this is the (projected) cost to build.

        Each Australian have to pay $14k to fund those subs that will sit close to the Chinese coast and have no sovereignty over them

        I'm not sure how deep your head has to be in the sand to say this given it's been repeatedly stated they will be under full Australian command and control. Where they will sit won't be known, but us or others, that's the point of having them.

        There's a reason why progressive tax systems are fairer than people pretend them to be. Those that earn more from having secure borders pay more taxes while others pay less. It's reasonable to argue not being invaded disproportionately benefits those that hold the most assets. So it's extremely misleading to say 'each Australian have (sic) to pay'. Because the wealthiest will pay much more, and the average person much less. And depending on where it's spent a chunk comes back to the government in taxes, so it never quite costs the government to spend what you think it does. A combination of increased economic activity and quantitive easing means the actual tax collection per person even on average will be way less. And this is over the next ~40 ish years.

  • Donaldhump on 15/03/2023 - 18:19
    +2

    I personally don't care as no amount of caring will ever changes what they do.

  • lostgoat on 15/03/2023 - 18:27
    +5

    They should have put a think tank filled with people with no vested interests skilled on this topic . Not 2 parties that like being an American Pushover .

  • Daniel Plainview on 15/03/2023 - 19:15
    +7

    Not sure on the maths of this whole Submarine 'bulk buy' - but Wikipedia says the 2021 cost for a brand new Virginia class sub is $USD3.45B.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia-class_submarine#cite_…

    So even with the yet to be made UK 'AUKUS' class boats I've no idea how this $AUD370B figure was tabbed up unless we've been bent over the barrel incredibly badly.

    Paul Keating's comments about it being the worst deal of all time do seem somewhat plausable at face value as we've fallen for buying what our richer pals have which is well beyond our needs and practical means. Ugh…..

    • Benoffie on 15/03/2023 - 19:24
      +2

      Factor in:

      • upgrading Osborne SA
      • expanding HMAS Stirling WA and Rockingham
      • building east coast base
      • training specialists (short, medium, long term)
      • investment in expediting builds in UK at Barrow
      • nuclear costs and disposal in stewardship program required by US
      • Daniel Plainview on 15/03/2023 - 19:33
        +4

        Sure - still seems anything but the deal of the century for a bunch of hand me down US subs, which will already be in the process of being replaced by their equivalent to the 'AUKUS' class subs when they're offloaded onto us. And a bunch of completely untested hybrid UK boats.

        Really seems we paid full sticker price and then some - I mean you'd like to think at some point the total cost was a significant factor in this - but it looks like it was never a consideration as I cannot imagine they could have spent more if they'd had that as their sole aim.

        State of the art diesel electric + much money spent in other areas of our military would have been far more effective deterence and we could still have saved perhaps several hundred billion. Staggering mistake this one - all as we had to have the same toys as our bromance pals.

        And tack on the now trivially small looking $EURO 555 million settlement/break fee we had to pay to the French company for worming out on our $AUD40B deal with them from 2016.

        The French would be laughing at our headlines here and the great 'deal' we just had to have. Ouch!

        • JumperC on 15/03/2023 - 20:02
          +3

          we paid full sticker price

          I don't think we've paid anything yet.

          Diesel electric is basically going to be useless within a few years. China is launching enough satellites that they will basically have real time coverage of all the oceans. At that point anything that has to surface will be knocked off within minutes of doing so. Our EEZ is way too big to patrol without nuclear propulsion.

          The risk is by the 2040's that submerged vessels will also be nearly as detectable.

          It's always difficult to judge defence projects as you don't really get the full picture. I'm concerned with the cost, but it's definitely not just being spent on the subs themselves. Buying a few of anything is always $$$. And building here will also be more $$$ but also $$$ spent here isn't really costing as much as the headline figure as it ultimately goes back into the economy. It'd be interesting to see a breakdown between how much is spent on what, and how much here vs paying for the US equipment.

          I can't quite figure out why we need the staffing numbers I've seen floated but there's going to be a very high number of very well paid Australian's required to support the program and that would be a lot of the cost.

    • xdigger on 16/03/2023 - 11:52
      +1

      Some writers have alluded to our own Defence being compromised by US operatives to supporting this deal. The whole thing is fishy and someone is bound to be very rich from this event. Even cancelling the French deal costs Aussie taxpayers billions in compensation.

  • Benoffie on 15/03/2023 - 19:20
    -2

    Keating is so far up the backside of the CCP, take anything he says with a grain of salt.

    I am always interested in how, being on a giant island, people don't see naval investment as a necessary thing?

    Note - necessary. Not cost effective, cheap, palatable to the masses, or unlikely to impact on budgets. Necessary.

    China is a massive belligerent that, if the analysts are to be believed, will drag this side of the world into WW3 pursuing much the same path as Japan before it.

    Taiwan is a ruse. Watch the Himalayas, Mekong and Guam.

    • Daniel Plainview on 15/03/2023 - 19:38
      +6

      There is naval investment - and then there is this. To say it dwarfs all the previous defence upgrades is a massive understatement - subs are 100% needed, but to blow so much on so little is crazy - especially with the extended time frame and uncertainty that brings. Off the shelf solutions plus a proverbial crapload of other defensive weaponary would have been far more wise (IMHO).

      Atleast by the time we receive all of them we'll all be under water as we 'had no money' to properly address clean energy solutions etc - so they subs will be handy for the fat cats to run about in if nothing else.

      • JumperC on 15/03/2023 - 20:11
        +1

        other defensive weaponary

        The main problem Australia has is that we have so little defensive weaponry, that it's possible to take just about all of it not currently underwater out within hours. We don't even protect our jets that well, favouring spending on the aircraft themselves more than what's required to keep them capable after a first strike. This looks like they might maybe be spending on the bases required to support them minutes after a conflict starts.

        From what I can see the other weaponry is part of AUKUS too.

        The extended timeframe does give time for changes to be made, though building that nuclear capability is something that will last a generation.

    • freefall101 on 15/03/2023 - 19:40
      +5

      Naval investment - necessary
      This naval investment - our contribution to AUKUS by pouring cash into American and British coffers so they don't need to spend it themselves

      Pretty sure no one is suggesting that we shouldn't spend money on a navy, but it should be reasonable and in line with budgetary sanity. We can't keep up with the Joneses on this one, so why are we trying?

      • JumperC on 15/03/2023 - 22:36

        Nuclear subs are a bit asymmetric, they can potentially kill a lot of shipping. If you can't keep up with the joneses it's not a bad category to pick. Now if we were building an aircraft carrier that could be knocked out on day one, that would be a mistake.

        I'm definitely concerned about the cost, though noting the cost is through to the 2060's and the current rate of inflation.

        Ultimately I'd say the US is spending a lot of money so that we don't need to spend it ourselves. Ultimately this is cheaper than natively developing such a capability and the US/UK are theoretically actually contributing their own money to development costs, so this potentially costs them more as well.

        I'd be interested in seeing which country most of the money will be spent in as it's not quite the same spending money to pay wages of Australian taxpayers as spending it overseas. It ultimately ends up being taxed when paid as wages, then taxed as GST a lot of the time when spent. Slightly inflationary, whether that's a problem in 10+ years time or not who knows.

        • freefall101 on 15/03/2023 - 23:12

          Good point on it being asymmetric, it probably is the place to invest if we're going to. The broad post of just naval investment seemed a weird argument above

          I guess I come back to looking at what other things we have. The government just ruled out increasing job seeker payments because it's inflationary. While not taxed as wages it does generate a lot of GST and generally goes into local things like food, medical support, rent and petrol. And doesn't include much in the way of imported weapons systems and metals that tip the trade balance.

          At the end of the day if we're sinking a whole lot of shipping we're pretty screwed anyway, not sure a handful of subs that the Chinese will probably steal the schematics for long before we even get one will be of actual benefit. Whereas we could benefit people here and around the world right now, maybe even offset some of that massive Chinese influence that they've been peddling. China is basically buying up the world with some loans and asset projects that will make them a return anyway.

          • JumperC on 15/03/2023 - 23:19
            +1

            @freefall101:

            The government just ruled out increasing job seeker payments because it's inflationary.

            Yeah, totally giving people enough to not have to choose between electricity and food is inflationary, and not the stage 3 tax cuts. You see the drop in death rate when people actually had a somewhat liveable jobseeker? And now people are wondering why it's up….

            At the end of the day if we're sinking a whole lot of shipping we're pretty screwed anyway

            The point of defense spending is that if you do it right, you never need to use it. If you don't spend you wish you had.

            China is basically buying up the world with some loans and asset projects that will make them a return anyway.

            Sure, but that doesn't mean they're not also harassing fishermen and throwing chaff into our aircraft engines. If they can do both, why won't they?

            The biggest deterrent they have to war is the debt the US owes them, but that's assuming the person making the decision is rational and informed. Too much centralised power seems to far too often lead to military adventurism.

  • Ryk on 15/03/2023 - 19:41
    -2

    Australia should have as many nuclear powered subs as it can afford. I don’t know how many that is 1, 3, 8, 12 or more?
    The subs should absolutely have nuclear weapons also. Ukraine and Russia, and more over India and Pakistan, have demonstrated the only real deterrent is possessing them.

    • Empharand on 15/03/2023 - 20:03
      +2

      We can't have nuclear weapons as we signed the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) which doesn't expire. You can read more about it here

      In 1995, Australia and other signatories collectively succeeded in ensuring the Treaty was extended indefinitely.

      One would imagine Australia is walking a very very fine line regarding that 'Treaty' as one would consider Submarines a weapon of war as they're still Nuclear powered front-line weapons that carry non-nuclear torpedo's

      • Ryk on 15/03/2023 - 20:07

        Pffft

      • JumperC on 15/03/2023 - 20:36
        +2

        We shouldn't, in part because we signed that treaty, but mostly because it's ultimately in our (and everyone's) interest to limit the number of nations that have such weapons.

        Can't is a strong word. There would be massive international consequences if we did. Much much stronger than the other treaties we're freely ignoring. Ultimately we have to allow the IAEA to verify they're not being used for weapons.

        I think it's a stretch reading to consider a nuclear powered submarine as a 'nuclear weapon'. There are non weapon submarines, just as there are non weapon ships. If you were to regard them as nuclear weapons then the US would be also breaking the treaty (which they have acceded to) by suppling them.

        While not considering the subs themselves weapons because they're nuclear powered, the fact that we will ultimately have material that could be used in a weapon is pushing it. Even if the IAEA is able to continually verify we have no weapons. One imagines having the material drastically shortens the time it would take to produce a weapon, something it's not in our interest to allow other countries to do, so also not in their interest to allow us to do.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join