Thailand is exercising economic good sense and purchasing submarines from China for $ 0.35 Billion each compared to Australia's projected cost for submarines of ~ $1.7 billion each. Nearly six times the cost. All of Australia's military equipment projects have greatly exceeded budget so the $1.7 billion is just a low ball estimate.

Thailand is also aligning itself with the source of goods, trade and investment whereby it does more business with China than with other countries.

The world and alliances is changing.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/defence/expert-panel-to-oversee-the-navys-new-submarine-contract/story-e6frg8yo-1227385249032

Quote:

France, Germany and Japan have been asked to offer designs for up to 12 submarines. The boats could be built in Australia or in another country, or the first one or two could be built overseas and the rest in Australia. The three countries have confirmed they will take part in the contest for Australia’s largest ­defence contract. Estimates of the cost range from $20 billion to construct the submarines to $50bn for their “whole of life” use.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/thailand-tilts-away-from-the-u-s-1435678360

Quote:

Thailand’s navy has long pushed to buy conventional submarines, with U.S. allies Germany or South Korea the expected suppliers. So the decision to buy Chinese boats, reported Friday by the Bangkok Post, suggests America’s oldest ally in Asia is edging toward Beijing. This development is particularly concerning because the two countries’ militaries have a deep and abiding relationship. The U.S. helped Bangkok fight a communist insurgency and flew bombing missions from Thai air bases during the Vietnam War. Started more than 30 years ago, the annual Cobra Gold joint exercises are among the largest in the world. In 2003 President George W. Bush made Thailand officially a “major non-NATO ally,” a designation that brings the benefits reserved for the most trusted security partners. The relationship started to sour after the May 2014 Thai coup, with Cobra Gold downgraded and other U.S. aid and contacts curtailed. Washington has called for an early return to democracy and warned against a politically motivated prosecution of deposed Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra. While this mirrors American condemnations of past coups, the generals bridled at the perceived interference. Thailand’s polarized politics makes it doubtful they will allow fresh elections soon, and a new constitution is expected to neuter elected politicians. The junta has tried to get Washington to mute its criticism by strengthening ties with Beijing, which is all too happy to lend support to fellow authoritarians. Such signaling is one thing, but the sub deal would be a concrete step away from the U.S. alliance. The Thai navy would need a continuing relationship with Beijing to maintain and operate the boats. Naturally Beijing has sweetened the deal to secure this opening. The three subs will cost $355 million each, including technology transfer and training, which makes them cheaper than the competition. And on paper at least they are more capable vessels, with advanced air-independent propulsion that allows them to stay submerged for extended periods. If the submarine deal goes ahead, it will represent the breakdown of trust between the U.S. and Thailand. Clearly there has been a divergence of values as the Thai elite has turned against democracy. But the U.S. has exercised a stabilizing influence in the neighborhood and will continue to do so. Thailand’s generals need to think twice about squandering their most important alliance.

From what I've seen, our submarines are much better than any off the others out there. During recent war games even the American subs couldn't match them. All the so called 'problems' they've had have stemmed from compatibility issues with American weapons systems. I doubt anything Chinese made is likely to be any more compatible.

When dealing with the lives of our submariners, or any of our defence forces, I'd rather pay more and get the best then the cheapest. Anyone who disagrees should volunteer for the submarine corp.

Chinese subs have a warning sticker on them ... NOT TO BE USED UNDERWATER

Pakistan has purchased 8 Chinese submarines.

http://www.naval-technology.com/news/newsthailand-may-procure-three-submarines-from-china-for-1bn-4611352

Quote:

This year, China received an order from the Pakistan Navy to provide eight submarines, which will be equipped with air independent propulsion, anti-ship missiles, Yu-4 (SAET-50) passive homing and Yu-3 (SET-65E) active / passive homing torpedoes.

I suspect the chinks would have secret backdoor spy methods installed as well. free of charge.

Lie down with dogs ..........

John Smith wrote on Jul 1^st, 2015 at 12:41pm:

From what I've seen, our submarines are much better than any off the others out there. During recent war games even the American subs couldn't match them. All the so called 'problems' they've had have stemmed from compatibility issues with American weapons systems. I doubt anything Chinese made is likely to be any more compatible. When dealing with the lives of our submariners, or any of our defence forces, I'd rather pay more and get the best then the cheapest. Anyone who disagrees should volunteer for the submarine corp.

You aint seen nuffink John old fruit.

Australia's submarine performance is very far less than stellar and at times there has only been one submarine out of the repair shop to guard the whole coast line.

The only reason they performed in sea trials against USN submarines is that Australia had time to panel beat its sardine cans ahead of the trials. So they were out of commission for months getting fixed for the USN bunfight.

If you put a snorkel on longweekend58's fibro house, duct taped the openings and launched it as a submarine it would probably outperform Australia's Collins class submarines.

Take a gander at the link below and weep.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/australias-submarine-program-in-the-dock-06127/


Quote:

Collins was launched in 1993, and delivered in 1996. Its successor boats of class were commissioned in 1998 (Farncomb), 1999 (Waller), 2001 (Deschaineux and Sheean), and 2003 (Rankin). Many of those boats have been laid up for very long periods, and there have been a number of periods when the RAN has had just 1 fully operational submarine available – or less. That’s a shaky record for a fleet whose final boat of type entered service more than 10 years ago. Launching a submarine building industry is admittedly very difficult, and using what amounts to a new design added to that risk. The Collins Class has performed well in exercises with the US Navy, where it has scored successes against American Los Angeles Class nuclear-powered fast attack subs. On the other hand, it has also encountered a long-running sequence of issues, including significant difficulties with its (Australian chosen) combat systems, noise issues due to mechanical faults, major program cost growth to A$ 6+ billion, schedule slippage, and the reliability issues noted above. As the government’s own Phase 1 Coles Review noted:     “Ownership of a submarine design requires the ‘parent nation’ to invest in facilities and equipment to allow it to operate the submarines effectively – shipbuilding facilities, docks, manpower and training, operational support facilities, engineering and scientific resources, access to the necessary industry resources and skills, and a properly resourced and effective supply chain. Due to the failure to recognize fully what they were taking on, the various agencies involved did not make all the necessary investments post delivery…” The effects aren’t just mechanical, or financial. Crew retention issues are exacerbated by low mechanical readiness, which restricts training opportunities, and so limits the available pool of crew. That forces higher deployment rates away from home and family among qualified submariners, which in turn feeds back into low recruitment and retention.

innocentbystander. wrote on Jul 1^st, 2015 at 12:55pm:

Chinese subs have a warning sticker on them ... NOT TO BE USED UNDERWATER

That's the warning sticker that should have been put on the collins subs. Only 1 in 6 are working. The rest of them are spare parts.

Unforgiven wrote on Jul 1^st, 2015 at 1:14pm:

John Smith wrote on Jul 1st, 2015 at 12:41pm: From what I've seen, our submarines are much better than any off the others out there. During recent war games even the American subs couldn't match them. All the so called 'problems' they've had have stemmed from compatibility issues with American weapons systems. I doubt anything Chinese made is likely to be any more compatible. When dealing with the lives of our submariners, or any of our defence forces, I'd rather pay more and get the best then the cheapest. Anyone who disagrees should volunteer for the submarine corp. You aint seen nuffink John old fruit. Australia's submarine performance is very far less than stellar and at times there has only been one submarine out of the repair shop to guard the whole coast line. The only reason they performed in sea trials against USN submarines is that Australia had time to panel beat its sardine cans ahead of the trials. So they were out of commission for months getting fixed for the USN bunfight. If you put a snorkel on longweekend58's fibro house, duct taped the openings and launched it as a submarine it would probably outperform Australia's Collins class submarines. Take a gander at the link below and weep. http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/australias-submarine-program-in-the-dock-06127/ Quote: Collins was launched in 1993, and delivered in 1996. Its successor boats of class were commissioned in 1998 (Farncomb), 1999 (Waller), 2001 (Deschaineux and Sheean), and 2003 (Rankin). Many of those boats have been laid up for very long periods, and there have been a number of periods when the RAN has had just 1 fully operational submarine available – or less. That’s a shaky record for a fleet whose final boat of type entered service more than 10 years ago. Launching a submarine building industry is admittedly very difficult, and using what amounts to a new design added to that risk. The Collins Class has performed well in exercises with the US Navy, where it has scored successes against American Los Angeles Class nuclear-powered fast attack subs. On the other hand, it has also encountered a long-running sequence of issues, including significant difficulties with its (Australian chosen) combat systems, noise issues due to mechanical faults, major program cost growth to A$ 6+ billion, schedule slippage, and the reliability issues noted above. As the government’s own Phase 1 Coles Review noted:     “Ownership of a submarine design requires the ‘parent nation’ to invest in facilities and equipment to allow it to operate the submarines effectively – shipbuilding facilities, docks, manpower and training, operational support facilities, engineering and scientific resources, access to the necessary industry resources and skills, and a properly resourced and effective supply chain. Due to the failure to recognize fully what they were taking on, the various agencies involved did not make all the necessary investments post delivery…” The effects aren’t just mechanical, or financial. Crew retention issues are exacerbated by low mechanical readiness, which restricts training opportunities, and so limits the available pool of crew. That forces higher deployment rates away from home and family among qualified submariners, which in turn feeds back into low recruitment and retention.

And you have the gall to post against/about the LNP going to bed with the Chinese & selling out jobs & industry in Australia.

Tosspot ::)

Gnads wrote on Jul 1^st, 2015 at 6:51pm:

And you have the gall to post against/about the LNP going to bed with the Chinese & selling out jobs & industry in Australia. Tosspot Roll Eyes

You must have landed on year head when you fell out of bed this afternoon.

Are you auditioning for a job in the Chinese Navy or the Chinese circus?

Unforgiven wrote on Jul 1^st, 2015 at 1:14pm:

John Smith wrote on Jul 1st, 2015 at 12:41pm: From what I've seen, our submarines are much better than any off the others out there. During recent war games even the American subs couldn't match them. All the so called 'problems' they've had have stemmed from compatibility issues with American weapons systems. I doubt anything Chinese made is likely to be any more compatible. When dealing with the lives of our submariners, or any of our defence forces, I'd rather pay more and get the best then the cheapest. Anyone who disagrees should volunteer for the submarine corp. You aint seen nuffink John old fruit. Australia's submarine performance is very far less than stellar and at times there has only been one submarine out of the repair shop to guard the whole coast line. The only reason they performed in sea trials against USN submarines is that Australia had time to panel beat its sardine cans ahead of the trials. So they were out of commission for months getting fixed for the USN bunfight. If you put a snorkel on longweekend58's fibro house, duct taped the openings and launched it as a submarine it would probably outperform Australia's Collins class submarines. Take a gander at the link below and weep. http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/australias-submarine-program-in-the-dock-06127/ Quote: Collins was launched in 1993, and delivered in 1996. Its successor boats of class were commissioned in 1998 (Farncomb), 1999 (Waller), 2001 (Deschaineux and Sheean), and 2003 (Rankin). Many of those boats have been laid up for very long periods, and there have been a number of periods when the RAN has had just 1 fully operational submarine available – or less. That’s a shaky record for a fleet whose final boat of type entered service more than 10 years ago. Launching a submarine building industry is admittedly very difficult, and using what amounts to a new design added to that risk. The Collins Class has performed well in exercises with the US Navy, where it has scored successes against American Los Angeles Class nuclear-powered fast attack subs. On the other hand, it has also encountered a long-running sequence of issues, including significant difficulties with its (Australian chosen) combat systems, noise issues due to mechanical faults, major program cost growth to A$ 6+ billion, schedule slippage, and the reliability issues noted above. As the government’s own Phase 1 Coles Review noted:     “Ownership of a submarine design requires the ‘parent nation’ to invest in facilities and equipment to allow it to operate the submarines effectively – shipbuilding facilities, docks, manpower and training, operational support facilities, engineering and scientific resources, access to the necessary industry resources and skills, and a properly resourced and effective supply chain. Due to the failure to recognize fully what they were taking on, the various agencies involved did not make all the necessary investments post delivery…” The effects aren’t just mechanical, or financial. Crew retention issues are exacerbated by low mechanical readiness, which restricts training opportunities, and so limits the available pool of crew. That forces higher deployment rates away from home and family among qualified submariners, which in turn feeds back into low recruitment and retention.

like i said, most of the problems stem from incompatibility with the US weapons systems and more importantly from what I've seen, the failure of US systems to recognise them as friendlies. Who was the idiot who decided to install into the collins class a weapons system that is incompatible? I bet it was a politician who wanted to score brownie points for life after politics.

John Smith wrote on Jul 1^st, 2015 at 7:21pm:

like i said, most of the problems stem from incompatibility with the US weapons systems and more importantly from what I've seen, the failure of US systems to recognise them as friendlies. Who was the idiot who decided to install into the collins class a weapons system that is incompatible? I bet it was a politician who wanted to score brownie points for life after politics.

But John you said they won the war games against the USA.

USA compatibility of RAN weapons systems doesn't prevent them patrolling Australian waters, however their availability is extremely low because of mechanical equipment failures.

Unforgiven wrote on Jul 1^st, 2015 at 7:54pm:

John Smith wrote on Jul 1st, 2015 at 7:21pm: like i said, most of the problems stem from incompatibility with the US weapons systems and more importantly from what I've seen, the failure of US systems to recognise them as friendlies. Who was the idiot who decided to install into the collins class a weapons system that is incompatible? I bet it was a politician who wanted to score brownie points for life after politics. But John you said they won the war games against the USA. USA compatibility of RAN weapons systems doesn't prevent them patrolling Australian waters, however their availability is extremely low because of mechanical equipment failures.

Not my area of expertise so I'm not going to argue, I'm simply trying to recall an article I read. .. and i didn't say they WON anything, I said even the yanks couldn't match them (I believe they were referring to stealth at the time)

John Smith wrote on Jul 1^st, 2015 at 7:58pm:

Unforgiven wrote on Jul 1st, 2015 at 7:54pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 1st, 2015 at 7:21pm: like i said, most of the problems stem from incompatibility with the US weapons systems and more importantly from what I've seen, the failure of US systems to recognise them as friendlies. Who was the idiot who decided to install into the collins class a weapons system that is incompatible? I bet it was a politician who wanted to score brownie points for life after politics. But John you said they won the war games against the USA. USA compatibility of RAN weapons systems doesn't prevent them patrolling Australian waters, however their availability is extremely low because of mechanical equipment failures. Not my area of expertise so I'm not going to argue, I'm simply trying to recall an article I read. .. and i didn't say they WON anything, I said even the yanks couldn't match them (I believe they were referring to stealth at the time)

If they are lying on the bottom with all their power systems defective and shut down of course they are not going to be detected.

Actually, their unavailability has been because of a combination of the government being unwilling to spend the required amount of money to maintain them properly AND the mining boom which has just ended, which dragged the qualified machinists away from the RAN to the much higher paying and easier lifestyle of a FIFO workforce.   ::)

Unforgiven wrote on Jul 1^st, 2015 at 1:14pm:

John Smith wrote on Jul 1st, 2015 at 12:41pm: From what I've seen, our submarines are much better than any off the others out there. During recent war games even the American subs couldn't match them. All the so called 'problems' they've had have stemmed from compatibility issues with American weapons systems. I doubt anything Chinese made is likely to be any more compatible. When dealing with the lives of our submariners, or any of our defence forces, I'd rather pay more and get the best then the cheapest. Anyone who disagrees should volunteer for the submarine corp. You aint seen nuffink John old fruit. Australia's submarine performance is very far less than stellar and at times there has only been one submarine out of the repair shop to guard the whole coast line. The only reason they performed in sea trials against USN submarines is that Australia had time to panel beat its sardine cans ahead of the trials. So they were out of commission for months getting fixed for the USN bunfight. If you put a snorkel on longweekend58's fibro house, duct taped the openings and launched it as a submarine it would probably outperform Australia's Collins class submarines. Take a gander at the link below and weep. http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/australias-submarine-program-in-the-dock-06127/ Quote: Collins was launched in 1993, and delivered in 1996. Its successor boats of class were commissioned in 1998 (Farncomb), 1999 (Waller), 2001 (Deschaineux and Sheean), and 2003 (Rankin). Many of those boats have been laid up for very long periods, and there have been a number of periods when the RAN has had just 1 fully operational submarine available – or less. That’s a shaky record for a fleet whose final boat of type entered service more than 10 years ago. Launching a submarine building industry is admittedly very difficult, and using what amounts to a new design added to that risk. The Collins Class has performed well in exercises with the US Navy, where it has scored successes against American Los Angeles Class nuclear-powered fast attack subs. On the other hand, it has also encountered a long-running sequence of issues, including significant difficulties with its (Australian chosen) combat systems, noise issues due to mechanical faults, major program cost growth to A$ 6+ billion, schedule slippage, and the reliability issues noted above. As the government’s own Phase 1 Coles Review noted:     “Ownership of a submarine design requires the ‘parent nation’ to invest in facilities and equipment to allow it to operate the submarines effectively – shipbuilding facilities, docks, manpower and training, operational support facilities, engineering and scientific resources, access to the necessary industry resources and skills, and a properly resourced and effective supply chain. Due to the failure to recognize fully what they were taking on, the various agencies involved did not make all the necessary investments post delivery…” The effects aren’t just mechanical, or financial. Crew retention issues are exacerbated by low mechanical readiness, which restricts training opportunities, and so limits the available pool of crew. That forces higher deployment rates away from home and family among qualified submariners, which in turn feeds back into low recruitment and retention.

Quote:

If you put a snorkel on longweekend58's fibro house, duct taped the openings and launched it as a submarine it would probably outperform Australia's Collins class submarines.

;D ;D ;D ;D

"Wages in Thailand decreased to 13247.89 THB/Month in the first quarter of 2015 from 13581.10 THB/Month in the fourth quarter of 2014"

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/thailand/wages

http://themoneyconverter.com/THB/AUD.aspx

Now get real.......

A Thai makes 13,248 Baht a month = $509.12 AU

That's 509.12 x 12 / 52 per week = 26464.24 = about $99 a week max.  Not bad.

Australian wages AWE is about 14 times that.... cost per submarine is only differing by around 5.5 times......

Are the Thais buying direct from China or buying parts and designs?

What is your argument?  We can build submarines for ourselves cheaper here, less than half actual cost to the economy, than Thailand can for itself considering wage cost.

THAT, Grasshopper, is your yardstick - not some mythical 'global economy'.  Then the payment to workers is absorbed back into OUR economy.. not someone else's.

Thanks for coming.

You want to trust your son or daughter's life to some Thai welder on $20 a day for a five day week?

Leave mine out!

Crew retention levels are a direct product of selection methods and standards and training in the 'holiday camp' these days, and of the comparative lack of cement in modern generations.

If I were a sailor, I'd want to spend my whole time at sea, not expecting only about 20% of my time as actual sea service.

But I'm different, I suppose....

I love Ozpolitic!  Every day is a walk in the warm sun, a day at the farm, a holiday in Acapulco... every meal a banquet.. every pay cheque a fortune!  I LOVE Ozpolitic!

Television has a lot to answer for.....

Quote:

I continue to be confronted and annoyed by the repeated negative claims and distortions being reported in the Australian media about submarine matters. What started as an orchestrated miss-information campaign against the Collins submarine has now spilt over to the next generation of submarines. Why is it so? Our modest submarine force of 6 Collins class boats is a major part of Australia's Defence Force. Our defence policy is based on deterrence and modern, capable submarines provide a very powerful deterrence. But repeatedly, we are being told that our Collins submarines are “duds”, that the “building of those submarines in Australia was an expensive disaster”, and now “we are going to do it again”. My reason for writing this letter is to try and set the record straight. I will argue that the Collins project was, in many ways, a remarkable success, both as an industrial build and operationally, having produced a highly effective submarine. That is not to say that there were not some problems. At the coal face, these problems were identified and solved whereas, at the political level, it seems that issues were seized upon, blown out of all proportion and repeated time and time again, creating the widespread impression of a “dud” submarine. Playing politics with a major part of Australia's Strategic Defence should not occur. Have an informed debate by all means but keep the politics out of it. Where to start? A project like building of the Collins submarines is large and complex. There have been many reviews and reports written about the project and I would direct anyone who would like more details than can be covered in this letter to a book “The Collins Submarine Story; Steel Spin and Spies” by Peter Yule. The author had no involvement with the project, had no axe to grind, conducted a very large number of interviews with people from all sides of the project, and produced a warts and all and balanced analysis. The book should be compulsory reading for all those Canberra based politicians and bureaucrats who are now considering the new submarines. Firstly, let me say that, having finally allocated the required resources (manpower, spares and maintenance) the submarines are now performing very well and the manpower problems are being overcome. Perhaps our strongest supporter is the highly acclaimed United States submarine service and that should say it all. The Americans also visited us many times during our build program and have adopted concepts such as modular design and build, performance contracts, and combat system concepts in their own submarine programs. They are great admirers of what we have achieved and are mystified by the paucity of the political debate and lack of support for such an important element of our Defence Force though they would not be so impolite to say so. As a former submarine Commanding Officer, it is the operational miss-information that I find most objectionable. There are many aspects that define a submarines effectiveness but above all, the submarine must be quiet. It owes it's existence to the fact that a very quiet submarine can virtually disappear. If the opposition cannot find you, and you have the necessary fire-power to seriously hurt an aggressor, you create a very real deterrent. That is what our submarines are about. So what is this rubbish that we keep hearing about the Collins submarines being noisy? Nothing could be further from the truth. In the early days of the first boat, there were two noise issues, a poorly manufactured propeller and some water flow noise problems. These were both solved long ago and for many years, the boats have been exceptionally quiet. The noise levels are so low that it has been very difficult to find an area where we can measure their noise. The boats are quieter than the background noise in the ocean. This characteristic alone sets the Collins boats very high on the effectiveness scale and we should all be very proud of what we have achieved.

[con't]

Quote:

Another operational feature that is still being “bagged” is the combat system. For the uninitiated, the combat system includes all the sensors (many different sonars for underwater listening, periscopes for visual and optronics, passive and active radar), communications, navigation, all the weapons stuff, and what we call the Tactical Data Handling System where all the information is processed and displayed to the operators. We set the requirements for the combat system in the mid 1980's based on our very successful modernisation of the Oberon Class combat system. We were not trying to invent some new technology but we were trying to predict the technology that would be available some years ahead (due to the protracted nature of Defence contracts). The successful prime contractor for the combat system was the large American company Rockwell, who put together a strong international team of equipment specialists. Rockwell was to integrate the equipments. It is fair to say that the company did not cover itself in glory, but never-the-less, a combat system was delivered with some shortcomings. As time moved on, new technologies became available (readers may remember that laptop computers were not available in the mid 1980's and smart phones only came along around 2005). Funds that should have been available to keep the combat system up to date were removed. When it became obvious that the upgrade was essential, there was a self inflicted drama requiring the funds to be re-allocated. So now we have a combat system that incorporates modern technologies, with support from the US Submarine service. It is a very capable system and makes the submarine a formidable opponent to any potential aggressor. This capability is repeatedly demonstrated and acknowledged in advanced war-games with our allies. Another area of concern highlighted by the detractors has been the shortage of crews and poor serviceability of the submarines. These problems were real. They were brought about by the reluctance of the relevant authorities to provide the required level of support. The resultant shortages in spares, maintenance dollars and trainee crews were exacerbated by the ongoing “bagging” of the Collins. The poor image impacted on morale and, at the same time, the mining boom provided very attractive wages and conditions for our highly qualified personnel. Not surprisingly, we had manpower problems. A few years ago, the Department finally accepted the need to properly support our submarines and corrective measures have been put in place. While the years of neglect will not be resolved overnight, there have been substantial improvements and there is a clear pathway to build crews and other support arrangements for the next generation of submarines.  My comments would not be complete without reference to the contemporary debate about the new generation submarines, their capability and whether they should be built in Australia. I write with the benefit of many years at sea, deep experience with the Oberon modernisation and Collins projects and an ongoing interest in Defence matters, particularly submarines. I am a member of the Submarine Institute of Australia, a think tank set up to provide a vehicle for informed discussion on submarine matters. My comments are my own and not necessarily those of the Department of Defence or the Institute. On the capability issue, the requirements are derived from the roles our submarines are expected to perform. My assessment is that this will require a submarine of similar capabilities to the Collins, what has been described as an “Evolved Collins”. Such details should be left to the current submarine community. It will be they and their successors who will have to operate the boats and it is they who know the critical issues for an effective submarine. On the numbers required, many studies have shown that you need 12 submarines of this type to produce an effective deterrent. There will be other reasons put forward for “how many”. One such  argument will be the need to establish a “continuous build” arrangement. The Japanese are a case in point. Much has been said about Option “J”, i.e. having the submarines built by Japan in Japan to the current Japanese submarine design. The Japanese have had an excellent “continuous build” program going for their submarines for many years and that has allowed continuity of workforce and skills as well as the evolution of the submarine design over time. While the design of the Japanese submarine is not suitable for Australia, their build and design evolution concept is certainly relevant.

[con't]

Quote:

On the question of an Australian build, I have trouble answering why not. Do we still have some sort of cringe or fear? Come on Canberra. We can do it. We have just proven that with the Collins. We have also completed a very successful similarly complex Anzac Ship build program in Melbourne. We build huge infrastructure projects. We are a capable nation and if we need some particular skill, we can get that as we did with the Collins project. What are we worried about? Is it risk? Everything we do has some risk but we should not be so risk averse that we do nothing. Risk can be mitigated by proper planning and we need to get on with the job. By taking on a suitable experienced submarine builder as a partner, risk can be kept under control. It should be remembered that our “Deterrent” posture is a combination of factors including the capability of the submarine, the skills of our crews, our support facilities, our actual support, and our political will. If we don't have an Australian build and a committed Government, I suggest our “Deterrent” credibility will be significantly reduced. What about cost? Clearly we need to get value for our money. The Collins project showed us that it can be done in Australia without any significant cost penalty and that is before looking at the negative foreign exchange issues of spending billions of dollars off-shore and the positive flow on effect of spending money in Australia. Industrial relations is another red herring. On the Collins project, site specific workplace arrangements were negotiated before the contract was signed and the project was completed over 10 plus years without any significant demarcation or other industrial issues. The Federal Government is now the sole owner of the ASC in Adelaide and it is their responsibility to negotiate suitable workplace arrangements. From what I see in the media, the Government seems to have lost the will (or skill) to negotiate, not just at ASC but in the Senate as well. Much has been said about the type of tender that might be offered. My view is that an open tender would not be appropriate but a competitive restricted tender would achieve the desired outcome. i.e. the best product at the best price. The tender should include pricing and conditions for an Australian build. In conclusion, let me reassure all Australians that the Collins submarine is a very capable submarine, probably the best of it's kind in the world. The next generation submarines can and should also be built in Australia. Rod Fayle Commander RAN Retired

[url=http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Frarasa.org.au%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2015%2F02%2FCollins-Open-Letter-Feb-15.doc&ei=BumTVamkGoPWmAWZ0abYBw&usg=AFQjCNFvxbspVYzaByp6XnqSfFsQuyMcqA&sig2=qb37wfjhkwrmdl2mvCLcgw&bvm=bv.96952980,d.dGY]Source[/url]

Quote:

There are many aspects that define a submarines effectiveness but above all, the submarine must be quiet. It owes it's existence to the fact that a very quiet submarine can virtually disappear.

That's nonsense -
the fact that a diesel submarine must send a snorkel to the surface for a long time every day
while running loud pinking diesel motors
to recharge the batteries is the weakness.

Unless we had nuclear subs that could stay under water for months then the enemy would easily find us.

I think in a real war we would lose all our subs very quickly.

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Jul 1^st, 2015 at 10:45pm:

"Wages in Thailand decreased to 13247.89 THB/Month in the first quarter of 2015 from 13581.10 THB/Month in the fourth quarter of 2014" http://www.tradingeconomics.com/thailand/wages http://themoneyconverter.com/THB/AUD.aspx Now get real....... A Thai makes 13,248 Baht a month = $509.12 AU That's 509.12 x 12 / 52 per week = 26464.24 = about $99 a week max.  Not bad. Australian wages AWE is about 14 times that.... cost per submarine is only differing by around 5.5 times...... Are the Thais buying direct from China or buying parts and designs? What is your argument?  We can build submarines for ourselves cheaper here, less than half actual cost to the economy, than Thailand can for itself considering wage cost. THAT, Grasshopper, is your yardstick - not some mythical 'global economy'.  Then the payment to workers is absorbed back into OUR economy.. not someone else's. Thanks for coming. You want to trust your son or daughter's life to some Thai welder on $20 a day for a five day week? Leave mine out!

Very wrong and very naive financial presentation.

In regard to Grappler's comment about Thai welders wages he is totally wrong. Skilled workers in all Asian countries earn many multiples of the average wage in that country.


Brian Ross wrote on Jul 1^st, 2015 at 11:22pm:

There are many aspects that define a submarines effectiveness but above all, the submarine must be quiet. It owes it's existence to the fact that a very quiet submarine can virtually disappear. If the opposition cannot find you, and you have the necessary fire-power to seriously hurt an aggressor, you create a very real deterrent. That is what our submarines are about. So what is this rubbish that we keep hearing about the Collins submarines being noisy? Nothing could be further from the truth. In the early days of the first boat, there were two noise issues, a poorly manufactured propeller and some water flow noise problems. These were both solved long ago and for many years, the boats have been exceptionally quiet. The noise levels are so low that it has been very difficult to find an area where we can measure their noise. The boats are quieter than the background noise in the ocean.

I bet they are very quiet when lying on the seabed with their engines broken down. The article quoted in the opening post of this string raised the issues of performance, availability and reliability and manning. Everything else is trivia.

Unforgiven wrote on Jul 1^st, 2015 at 12:37pm:

Thailand is exercising economic good sense and purchasing submarines from China for $ 0.35 Billion each compared to Australia's projected cost for submarines of ~ $1.7 billion each. Nearly six times the cost. All of Australia's military equipment projects have greatly exceeded budget so the $1.7 billion is just a low ball estimate. Thailand is also aligning itself with the source of goods, trade and investment whereby it does more business with China than with other countries. The world and alliances is changing. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/defence/expert-panel-to-oversee-the-navys-new-submarine-contract/story-e6frg8yo-1227385249032 Quote: France, Germany and Japan have been asked to offer designs for up to 12 submarines. The boats could be built in Australia or in another country, or the first one or two could be built overseas and the rest in Australia. The three countries have confirmed they will take part in the contest for Australia’s largest ­defence contract. Estimates of the cost range from $20 billion to construct the submarines to $50bn for their “whole of life” use. http://www.wsj.com/articles/thailand-tilts-away-from-the-u-s-1435678360 [quote]Thailand’s navy has long pushed to buy conventional submarines, with U.S. allies Germany or South Korea the expected suppliers. So the decision to buy Chinese boats, reported Friday by the Bangkok Post, suggests America’s oldest ally in Asia is edging toward Beijing. This development is particularly concerning because the two countries’ militaries have a deep and abiding relationship. The U.S. helped Bangkok fight a communist insurgency and flew bombing missions from Thai air bases during the Vietnam War. Started more than 30 years ago, the annual Cobra Gold joint exercises are among the largest in the world. In 2003 President George W. Bush made Thailand officially a “major non-NATO ally,” a designation that brings the benefits reserved for the most trusted security partners. The relationship started to sour after the May 2014 Thai coup, with Cobra Gold downgraded and other U.S. aid and contacts curtailed. Washington has called for an early return to democracy and warned against a politically motivated prosecution of deposed Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra. While this mirrors American condemnations of past coups, the generals bridled at the perceived interference. Thailand’s polarized politics makes it doubtful they will allow fresh elections soon, and a new constitution is expected to neuter elected politicians. The junta has tried to get Washington to mute its criticism by strengthening ties with Beijing, which is all too happy to lend support to fellow authoritarians. Such signaling is one thing, but the sub deal would be a concrete step away from the U.S. alliance. The Thai navy would need a continuing relationship with Beijing to maintain and operate the boats. Naturally Beijing has sweetened the deal to secure this opening. The three subs will cost $355 million each, including technology transfer and training, which makes them cheaper than the competition. And on paper at least they are more capable vessels, with advanced air-independent propulsion that allows them to stay submerged for extended periods. If the submarine deal goes ahead, it will represent the breakdown of trust between the U.S. and Thailand. Clearly there has been a divergence of values as the Thai elite has turned against democracy. But the U.S. has exercised a stabilizing influence in the neighborhood and will continue to do so. Thailand’s generals need to think twice about squandering their most important alliance.

[/quote]

Friend, this is conclusive proof y'all aint got yer head screwed on proper friend.

Thailand and it's great King have a big ass longstanding relationship with the Emperors of Nippon. There aint nothing comes between em friend.

This here is a big ass chance fer the Thais and their friends and such to git their hands and their peepers and listeners and such on them "technologies" and "capabilities" and such from the Wilds of Ch.ina land. They sure is bristling now that them folks want to make the SCS into a Chyneez lake friend.

Worth more in intel than the actual boats theirsselves, which aint nothing better than a 1950s or 60s at best Soviet Golf or Oscar friend.

Anywho, them crews are the key. The boats are just a tool for them crews to use friend.

Something that appears lost on the likes of you.

Why not just say the number eight 10 times friend. Y'all might git some good luck out of it.

Bobby. wrote on Jul 1^st, 2015 at 11:35pm:

Quote: There are many aspects that define a submarines effectiveness but above all, the submarine must be quiet. It owes it's existence to the fact that a very quiet submarine can virtually disappear. That's nonsense - the fact that a diesel submarine must send a snorkel to the surface for a long time every day while running loud pinking diesel motors to recharge the batteries is the weakness. Unless we had nuclear subs that could stay under water for months then the enemy would easily find us. I think in a real war we would lose all our subs very quickly.

Y'all don't know how it works friend.

Them subs have the same range as the Atlantic Ocean. Gitting from Sydney to Perth is the same distance, except round, not straight.

Them subs aint to be found anywhere friend, and diesels do mighty fine as attack subs. In any navy half them subs are being repaired and such while the other half is in action.

Our subs could operate well, despite their problems and do a lot of big ass damage if needed.

Within the USN net they would be even better friend. They be mighty fine.

Cheap Chinese subs will be perfect if their only purpose is to be targets and draw resources from an enemy.

That is a worst case at least, for all I know they could be ok.
Pretty sure someone in the Australian Navy will know

John Smith wrote on Jul 1^st, 2015 at 12:41pm:

From what I've seen, our submarines are much better than any off the others out there. During recent war games even the American subs couldn't match them. All the so called 'problems' they've had have stemmed from compatibility issues with American weapons systems. I doubt anything Chinese made is likely to be any more compatible. When dealing with the lives of our submariners, or any of our defence forces, I'd rather pay more and get the best then the cheapest. Anyone who disagrees should volunteer for the submarine corp.

then you haven't seen much then have you...

they are a great stinking, over budget (thanks unions), pile of poo...

only a dimwit would build submarines in Australia..

Que - Bull Shitten... http://i978.photobucket.com/albums/ae269/oldpom/bill-short.jpg


Quote:

the dismal history of the Collins-class submarines that were always delivered late and way over budget. At any one time over recent years, only one or two of these creaking vessels have been available and seaworthy at any one time with the low point being between October, 2009 and February, 2010 when exactly none were available.

Billy Jack wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2015 at 1:41am:

Bobby. wrote on Jul 1st, 2015 at 11:35pm: Quote: There are many aspects that define a submarines effectiveness but above all, the submarine must be quiet. It owes it's existence to the fact that a very quiet submarine can virtually disappear. That's nonsense - the fact that a diesel submarine must send a snorkel to the surface for a long time every day while running loud pinking diesel motors to recharge the batteries is the weakness. Unless we had nuclear subs that could stay under water for months then the enemy would easily find us. I think in a real war we would lose all our subs very quickly. Y'all don't know how it works friend. Them subs have the same range as the Atlantic Ocean. Gitting from Sydney to Perth is the same distance, except round, not straight. Them subs aint to be found anywhere friend, and diesels do mighty fine as attack subs. In any navy half them subs are being repaired and such while the other half is in action. Our subs could operate well, despite their problems and do a lot of big ass damage if needed. Within the USN net they would be even better friend. They be mighty fine.

So - you completely ignore the battery re-charging problem?

innocentbystander. wrote on Jul 1^st, 2015 at 12:55pm:

Chinese subs have a warning sticker on them ... NOT TO BE USED UNDERWATER

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-492804/The-uninvited-guest-Chinese-sub-pops-middle-U-S-Navy-exercise-leaving-military-chiefs-red-faced.html

The uninvited guest: Chinese sub pops up in middle of U.S. Navy exercise, leaving military chiefs red-faced
By MATTHEW HICKLEY

Last updated at 00:13 10 November 2007
Published: 10 November 2007

When the U.S. Navy deploys a battle fleet on exercises, it takes the security of its aircraft carriers very seriously indeed.
At least a dozen warships provide a physical guard while the technical wizardry of the world's only military superpower offers an invisible shield to detect and deter any intruders.
That is the theory. Or, rather, was the theory.


http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/11_01/submarine_468x323.jpg

American military chiefs have been left dumbstruck by an undetected Chinese submarine popping up at the heart of a recent Pacific exercise and close to the vast U.S.S. Kitty Hawk - a 1,000ft supercarrier with 4,500 personnel on board.


By the time it surfaced the 160ft Song Class diesel-electric attack submarine is understood to have sailed within viable range for launching torpedoes or missiles at the carrier.
According to senior Nato officials the incident caused consternation in the U.S. Navy.


The Americans had no idea China's fast-growing submarine fleet had reached such a level of sophistication, or that it posed such a threat.
One Nato figure said the effect was "as big a shock as the Russians launching Sputnik" - a reference to the Soviet Union's first orbiting satellite in 1957 which marked the start of the space age.
The incident, which took place in the ocean between southern Japan and Taiwan, is a major embarrassment for the Pentagon.


http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/11_01/2submarine_468x396.jpg
The lone Chinese vessel slipped past at least a dozen other American warships which were supposed to protect the carrier from hostile aircraft or submarines.
And the rest of the costly defensive screen, which usually includes at least two U.S. submarines, was also apparently unable to detect it.
According to the Nato source, the encounter has forced a serious re-think of American and Nato naval strategy as commanders reconsider the level of threat from potentially hostile Chinese submarines.
It also led to tense diplomatic exchanges, with shaken American diplomats demanding to know why the submarine was "shadowing" the U.S. fleet while Beijing pleaded ignorance and dismissed the affair as coincidence.
Analysts believe Beijing was sending a message to America and the West demonstrating its rapidly-growing military capability to threaten foreign powers which try to interfere in its "backyard".
The People's Liberation Army Navy's submarine fleet includes at least two nuclear-missile launching vessels.
Its 13 Song Class submarines are extremely quiet and difficult to detect when running on electric motors.
Commodore Stephen Saunders, editor of Jane's Fighting Ships, and a former Royal Navy anti-submarine specialist, said the U.S. had paid relatively little attention to this form of warfare since the end of the Cold War.
He said: "It was certainly a wake-up call for the Americans.
"It would tie in with what we see the Chinese trying to do, which appears to be to deter the Americans from interfering or operating in their backyard, particularly in relation to Taiwan."
In January China carried a successful missile test, shooting down a satellite in orbit for the first time.

President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2015 at 5:45am:

John Smith wrote on Jul 1st, 2015 at 12:41pm: From what I've seen, our submarines are much better than any off the others out there. During recent war games even the American subs couldn't match them. All the so called 'problems' they've had have stemmed from compatibility issues with American weapons systems. I doubt anything Chinese made is likely to be any more compatible. When dealing with the lives of our submariners, or any of our defence forces, I'd rather pay more and get the best then the cheapest. Anyone who disagrees should volunteer for the submarine corp. then you haven't seen much then have you... they are a great stinking, over budget (thanks unions), pile of poo... only a dimwit would build submarines in Australia.. Que - Bull Shitten... http://i978.photobucket.com/albums/ae269/oldpom/bill-short.jpg Quote: the dismal history of the Collins-class submarines that were always delivered late and way over budget. At any one time over recent years, only one or two of these creaking vessels have been available and seaworthy at any one time with the low point being between October, 2009 and February, 2010 when exactly none were available.

lets see now, am I going to take your word for it or the word of someone who spent their life working on a submarine? (see Brians reply)

sorry but you're sheat out of luck ... you're way down the list of people who's word I'd take over a career submariners

it_is_the_light wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2015 at 8:44am:

innocentbystander. wrote on Jul 1st, 2015 at 12:55pm: Chinese subs have a warning sticker on them ... NOT TO BE USED UNDERWATER http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-492804/The-uninvited-guest-Chinese-sub-pops-middle-U-S-Navy-exercise-leaving-military-chiefs-red-faced.html The uninvited guest: Chinese sub pops up in middle of U.S. Navy exercise, leaving military chiefs red-faced By MATTHEW HICKLEY Last updated at 00:13 10 November 2007 Published: 10 November 2007 When the U.S. Navy deploys a battle fleet on exercises, it takes the security of its aircraft carriers very seriously indeed. At least a dozen warships provide a physical guard while the technical wizardry of the world's only military superpower offers an invisible shield to detect and deter any intruders. That is the theory. Or, rather, was the theory. http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/11_01/submarine_468x323.jpg American military chiefs have been left dumbstruck by an undetected Chinese submarine popping up at the heart of a recent Pacific exercise and close to the vast U.S.S. Kitty Hawk - a 1,000ft supercarrier with 4,500 personnel on board. By the time it surfaced the 160ft Song Class diesel-electric attack submarine is understood to have sailed within viable range for launching torpedoes or missiles at the carrier. According to senior Nato officials the incident caused consternation in the U.S. Navy. The Americans had no idea China's fast-growing submarine fleet had reached such a level of sophistication, or that it posed such a threat. One Nato figure said the effect was "as big a shock as the Russians launching Sputnik" - a reference to the Soviet Union's first orbiting satellite in 1957 which marked the start of the space age. The incident, which took place in the ocean between southern Japan and Taiwan, is a major embarrassment for the Pentagon. http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/11_01/2submarine_468x396.jpg The lone Chinese vessel slipped past at least a dozen other American warships which were supposed to protect the carrier from hostile aircraft or submarines. And the rest of the costly defensive screen, which usually includes at least two U.S. submarines, was also apparently unable to detect it. According to the Nato source, the encounter has forced a serious re-think of American and Nato naval strategy as commanders reconsider the level of threat from potentially hostile Chinese submarines. It also led to tense diplomatic exchanges, with shaken American diplomats demanding to know why the submarine was "shadowing" the U.S. fleet while Beijing pleaded ignorance and dismissed the affair as coincidence. Analysts believe Beijing was sending a message to America and the West demonstrating its rapidly-growing military capability to threaten foreign powers which try to interfere in its "backyard". The People's Liberation Army Navy's submarine fleet includes at least two nuclear-missile launching vessels. Its 13 Song Class submarines are extremely quiet and difficult to detect when running on electric motors. Commodore Stephen Saunders, editor of Jane's Fighting Ships, and a former Royal Navy anti-submarine specialist, said the U.S. had paid relatively little attention to this form of warfare since the end of the Cold War. He said: "It was certainly a wake-up call for the Americans. "It would tie in with what we see the Chinese trying to do, which appears to be to deter the Americans from interfering or operating in their backyard, particularly in relation to Taiwan." In January China carried a successful missile test, shooting down a satellite in orbit for the first time.

impressive. ..

why is it the usa always call other countries hostile???


when all anyone sees is the usa being hostile themselves,, invading other countries or blowing the s*** out of them with drones???

It is interesting that Americans protest diplomatically when Chinese subs shadow American military manoeuvres in international waters while Americans dismiss Chinese protests about USA overflying Chinese navy and military bases on Islands in the Chinese sea.

"It also led to tense diplomatic exchanges, with shaken American diplomats demanding to know why the submarine was "shadowing" the U.S. fleet while Beijing pleaded ignorance and dismissed the affair as coincidence."

President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2015 at 5:45am:

John Smith wrote on Jul 1st, 2015 at 12:41pm: From what I've seen, our submarines are much better than any off the others out there. During recent war games even the American subs couldn't match them. All the so called 'problems' they've had have stemmed from compatibility issues with American weapons systems. I doubt anything Chinese made is likely to be any more compatible. When dealing with the lives of our submariners, or any of our defence forces, I'd rather pay more and get the best then the cheapest. Anyone who disagrees should volunteer for the submarine corp. then you haven't seen much then have you... they are a great stinking, over budget (thanks unions), pile of poo... only a dimwit would build submarines in Australia.. Que - Bull Shitten... http://i978.photobucket.com/albums/ae269/oldpom/bill-short.jpg Quote: the dismal history of the Collins-class submarines that were always delivered late and way over budget. At any one time over recent years, only one or two of these creaking vessels have been available and seaworthy at any one time with the low point being between October, 2009 and February, 2010 when exactly none were available.

I take it you believe in giving foreigners jobs and not Australians then?

You do realise that the COLLINS was initially built in Sweden and then had to be reconstructed in Australia, after the numerous faults were found in it's construction by the Swedes?    ::)

The people likely to be working on Australian submarines manufactured in Australia are likely to be foreigners.

What if they gave a war and Australia did not come because the submarines were late and-or not seaworthy.

The Swedes are hardly renowned in the submarine business. They frequently report unidentified submarines in their waters and never catch one.

Unforgiven wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2015 at 9:53pm:

The people likely to be working on Australian submarines manufactured in Australia are likely to be foreigners. What if they gave a war and Australia did not come because the submarines were late and-or not seaworthy. The Swedes are hardly renowned in the submarine business. They frequently report unidentified submarines in their waters and never catch one.

Which rather indicates just how difficult ASW is.  The RN in the Falklands War fired large numbers of torpedoes, depth charges and mortar rounds at what they believed were Argentine submarines.   ASW is more an "art" than a "science" in the minds of most naval planners.  The COLLINS class are more silent underwater than the OBERONS that they replaced.   They are one of the largest conventional powered submarines in the world today and they possess capabilities which leave the OBERONS for dead.

Considering they were the first attempt by Australia to build submarines they have done as well as anyone.  Submarine building isn't easy.   The British (who famously welded a hull section on an SSN on upside down) and the Americans (who famously had to scrap an entire hull on an SSN because they did the welds badly) in the same period that we built the COLLINS.

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 4^th, 2015 at 12:05am:

Unforgiven wrote on Jul 3rd, 2015 at 9:53pm: The people likely to be working on Australian submarines manufactured in Australia are likely to be foreigners. What if they gave a war and Australia did not come because the submarines were late and-or not seaworthy. The Swedes are hardly renowned in the submarine business. They frequently report unidentified submarines in their waters and never catch one. Which rather indicates just how difficult ASW is.  The RN in the Falklands War fired large numbers of torpedoes, depth charges and mortar rounds at what they believed were Argentine submarines.   ASW is more an "art" than a "science" in the minds of most naval planners.  The COLLINS class are more silent underwater than the OBERONS that they replaced.   They are one of the largest conventional powered submarines in the world today and they possess capabilities which leave the OBERONS for dead. Considering they were the first attempt by Australia to build submarines they have done as well as anyone.  Submarine building isn't easy.   The British (who famously welded a hull section on an SSN on upside down) and the Americans (who famously had to scrap an entire hull on an SSN because they did the welds badly) in the same period that we built the COLLINS.

It appears the Russians and the Chinese are leading that technology. The Americans were unable to detect a Chinese submarine which surfaced in the middle of their fleet in recent war games.

Not to mention that Australia could not detect or find an aircraft which supposedly plunged into the Indian Ocean off Australia.

The American Navy didn't detect the Chinese submarine because they weren't looking for a submarine.   The USN had become rather lazy at that point after the end of the Cold War.   The PLAN OTOH has been honing it's abilities.   It won't happen again.   What it demonstrated was that a submarine is an extremely difficult thing to detect underwater, particularly when you're not seriously looking for it.   It, plus the Argentine submarines which were all in port during most of the Falkland Islands War, demonstrate the deterrence value of the submarine as a weapons system.    It just has to be.  It doesn't need to do anything.   That is something critics like you who know basically stuff all about submarines miss all the time.

In case you missed it, the Indian Ocean is a very big patch of water and one which has been, until now, relatively unexplored.  The search for MH370 is a completely different proposition compared to that of searching for a submarine.

I also note you have failed to address the letter that I posted.  Why?  Does it argue too well the case for the COLLINS and their replacements?    ::)

Bobby. wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2015 at 6:44am:

Billy Jack wrote on Jul 2nd, 2015 at 1:41am: Bobby. wrote on Jul 1st, 2015 at 11:35pm: Quote: There are many aspects that define a submarines effectiveness but above all, the submarine must be quiet. It owes it's existence to the fact that a very quiet submarine can virtually disappear. That's nonsense - the fact that a diesel submarine must send a snorkel to the surface for a long time every day while running loud pinking diesel motors to recharge the batteries is the weakness. Unless we had nuclear subs that could stay under water for months then the enemy would easily find us. I think in a real war we would lose all our subs very quickly. Y'all don't know how it works friend. Them subs have the same range as the Atlantic Ocean. Gitting from Sydney to Perth is the same distance, except round, not straight. Them subs aint to be found anywhere friend, and diesels do mighty fine as attack subs. In any navy half them subs are being repaired and such while the other half is in action. Our subs could operate well, despite their problems and do a lot of big ass damage if needed. Within the USN net they would be even better friend. They be mighty fine. So - you completely ignore the battery re-charging problem?

Nuclear subs also have a lot of pumps and stuff and these are hard to make silent.  A diesel electric running on electric is much quieter.

Unforgiven wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2015 at 12:59am:

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Jul 1st, 2015 at 10:45pm: "Wages in Thailand decreased to 13247.89 THB/Month in the first quarter of 2015 from 13581.10 THB/Month in the fourth quarter of 2014" http://www.tradingeconomics.com/thailand/wages http://themoneyconverter.com/THB/AUD.aspx Now get real....... A Thai makes 13,248 Baht a month = $509.12 AU That's 509.12 x 12 / 52 per week = 26464.24 = about $99 a week max.  Not bad. Australian wages AWE is about 14 times that.... cost per submarine is only differing by around 5.5 times...... Are the Thais buying direct from China or buying parts and designs? What is your argument?  We can build submarines for ourselves cheaper here, less than half actual cost to the economy, than Thailand can for itself considering wage cost. THAT, Grasshopper, is your yardstick - not some mythical 'global economy'.  Then the payment to workers is absorbed back into OUR economy.. not someone else's. Thanks for coming. You want to trust your son or daughter's life to some Thai welder on $20 a day for a five day week? Leave mine out! Very wrong and very naive financial presentation. In regard to Grappler's comment about Thai welders wages he is totally wrong. Skilled workers in all Asian countries earn many multiples of the average wage in that country. Brian Ross wrote on Jul 1st, 2015 at 11:22pm: There are many aspects that define a submarines effectiveness but above all, the submarine must be quiet. It owes it's existence to the fact that a very quiet submarine can virtually disappear. If the opposition cannot find you, and you have the necessary fire-power to seriously hurt an aggressor, you create a very real deterrent. That is what our submarines are about. So what is this rubbish that we keep hearing about the Collins submarines being noisy? Nothing could be further from the truth. In the early days of the first boat, there were two noise issues, a poorly manufactured propeller and some water flow noise problems. These were both solved long ago and for many years, the boats have been exceptionally quiet. The noise levels are so low that it has been very difficult to find an area where we can measure their noise. The boats are quieter than the background noise in the ocean. I bet they are very quiet when lying on the seabed with their engines broken down. The article quoted in the opening post of this string raised the issues of performance, availability and reliability and manning. Everything else is trivia.

Aha, so you wan' sen' you son a' dau'er into ba'le with Asian weld?  You numbah ten...

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Jul 4^th, 2015 at 4:05pm:

Nuclear subs also have a lot of pumps and stuff and these are hard to make silent.  A diesel electric running on electric is much quieter.

Basically, yes.  However, it must be acknowledged that a conventional powered submarine is much slower and has a shorter range.  However, it comes with significantly fewer political, economic and environmental problems than a nuclear powered submarine.   An AIP system powered submarines combines the advantages (can remain submerged for longer and has a greater range) of a nuclear submarine without all the problems associated with such a power source.   The next generation submarine will more than likely have an AIP system.

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 4^th, 2015 at 4:25pm:

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Jul 4th, 2015 at 4:05pm: Nuclear subs also have a lot of pumps and stuff and these are hard to make silent.  A diesel electric running on electric is much quieter. Basically, yes.  However, it must be acknowledged that a conventional powered submarine is much slower and has a shorter range.  However, it comes with significantly fewer political, economic and environmental problems than a nuclear powered submarine.   An AIP system powered submarines combines the advantages (can remain submerged for longer and has a greater range) of a nuclear submarine without all the problems associated with such a power source.   The next generation submarine will more than likely have an AIP system.

Dear Brian - if Air Independent Propulsion was so good
then the Yanks would never have built so many nuclear submarines.

you are forgiven

namaste

Bobby. wrote on Jul 4^th, 2015 at 4:37pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 4th, 2015 at 4:25pm: Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Jul 4th, 2015 at 4:05pm: Nuclear subs also have a lot of pumps and stuff and these are hard to make silent.  A diesel electric running on electric is much quieter. Basically, yes.  However, it must be acknowledged that a conventional powered submarine is much slower and has a shorter range.  However, it comes with significantly fewer political, economic and environmental problems than a nuclear powered submarine.   An AIP system powered submarines combines the advantages (can remain submerged for longer and has a greater range) of a nuclear submarine without all the problems associated with such a power source.   The next generation submarine will more than likely have an AIP system. Dear Brian - if Air Independent Propulsion was so good then the Yanks would never have built so many nuclear submarines.

I have a two word answer to your point, Sir Bobby:  Admiral Rickover.   ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 4^th, 2015 at 5:16pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jul 4th, 2015 at 4:37pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jul 4th, 2015 at 4:25pm: Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Jul 4th, 2015 at 4:05pm: Nuclear subs also have a lot of pumps and stuff and these are hard to make silent.  A diesel electric running on electric is much quieter. Basically, yes.  However, it must be acknowledged that a conventional powered submarine is much slower and has a shorter range.  However, it comes with significantly fewer political, economic and environmental problems than a nuclear powered submarine.   An AIP system powered submarines combines the advantages (can remain submerged for longer and has a greater range) of a nuclear submarine without all the problems associated with such a power source.   The next generation submarine will more than likely have an AIP system. Dear Brian - if Air Independent Propulsion was so good then the Yanks would never have built so many nuclear submarines. I have a two word answer to your point, Sir Bobby:  Admiral Rickover.   ::)

Hyman Rickover - the US Navy vowed never to have a Jewish Admiral again...

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Jul 4^th, 2015 at 5:51pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 4th, 2015 at 5:16pm: Bobby. wrote on Jul 4th, 2015 at 4:37pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jul 4th, 2015 at 4:25pm: Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Jul 4th, 2015 at 4:05pm: Nuclear subs also have a lot of pumps and stuff and these are hard to make silent.  A diesel electric running on electric is much quieter. Basically, yes.  However, it must be acknowledged that a conventional powered submarine is much slower and has a shorter range.  However, it comes with significantly fewer political, economic and environmental problems than a nuclear powered submarine.   An AIP system powered submarines combines the advantages (can remain submerged for longer and has a greater range) of a nuclear submarine without all the problems associated with such a power source.   The next generation submarine will more than likely have an AIP system. Dear Brian - if Air Independent Propulsion was so good then the Yanks would never have built so many nuclear submarines. I have a two word answer to your point, Sir Bobby:  Admiral Rickover.   ::) Hyman Rickover - the US Navy vowed never to have a Jewish Admiral again...

Except Rickover became an Episcopalian at the age of 31 and remained one for the rest of his life...

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 4^th, 2015 at 6:22pm:

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Jul 4th, 2015 at 5:51pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jul 4th, 2015 at 5:16pm: Bobby. wrote on Jul 4th, 2015 at 4:37pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jul 4th, 2015 at 4:25pm: Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Jul 4th, 2015 at 4:05pm: Nuclear subs also have a lot of pumps and stuff and these are hard to make silent.  A diesel electric running on electric is much quieter. Basically, yes.  However, it must be acknowledged that a conventional powered submarine is much slower and has a shorter range.  However, it comes with significantly fewer political, economic and environmental problems than a nuclear powered submarine.   An AIP system powered submarines combines the advantages (can remain submerged for longer and has a greater range) of a nuclear submarine without all the problems associated with such a power source.   The next generation submarine will more than likely have an AIP system. Dear Brian - if Air Independent Propulsion was so good then the Yanks would never have built so many nuclear submarines. I have a two word answer to your point, Sir Bobby:  Admiral Rickover.   ::) Hyman Rickover - the US Navy vowed never to have a Jewish Admiral again... Except Rickover became an Episcopalian at the age of 31 and remained one for the rest of his life...

Yeah - but they never forgot his roots... man was brilliant, but well.. you know how that goes down sometimes...  actually he gets a re-birth in my WW IV book as the man in charge of a fleet with no boats other than the nukes, since there was insufficient fuel, and the nukes had run dry since there was no fuel to build etc ..... and so the US Navy took over the flat-top train aircraft carriers used in the Continental US World War, and developed train battleships etc for its sailors sitting around playing mah-jong.

I like my series....

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Jul 5^th, 2015 at 8:07pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 4th, 2015 at 6:22pm: Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Jul 4th, 2015 at 5:51pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jul 4th, 2015 at 5:16pm: Bobby. wrote on Jul 4th, 2015 at 4:37pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jul 4th, 2015 at 4:25pm: Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Jul 4th, 2015 at 4:05pm: Nuclear subs also have a lot of pumps and stuff and these are hard to make silent.  A diesel electric running on electric is much quieter. Basically, yes.  However, it must be acknowledged that a conventional powered submarine is much slower and has a shorter range.  However, it comes with significantly fewer political, economic and environmental problems than a nuclear powered submarine.   An AIP system powered submarines combines the advantages (can remain submerged for longer and has a greater range) of a nuclear submarine without all the problems associated with such a power source.   The next generation submarine will more than likely have an AIP system. Dear Brian - if Air Independent Propulsion was so good then the Yanks would never have built so many nuclear submarines. I have a two word answer to your point, Sir Bobby:  Admiral Rickover.   ::) Hyman Rickover - the US Navy vowed never to have a Jewish Admiral again... Except Rickover became an Episcopalian at the age of 31 and remained one for the rest of his life... Yeah - but they never forgot his roots... man was brilliant, but well.. you know how that goes down sometimes...  actually he gets a re-birth in my WW IV book as the man in charge of a fleet with no boats other than the nukes, since there was insufficient fuel, and the nukes had run dry since there was no fuel to build etc ..... and so the US Navy took over the flat-top train aircraft carriers used in the Continental US World War, and developed train battleships etc for its sailors sitting around playing mah-jong. I like my series....

I hereby appoint you Admiral and give you charge of Australian Navy submarines.

Good luck.

I would not buy the Chinese Subs...

although im a big fan of the Australia/China ties and for that to get stronger.. I don't think we are all that Luvvy Duvvy just yet...

i'd buy the Japanese Subs... tried ad proven...

President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Jul 5^th, 2015 at 9:31pm:

I would not buy the Chinese Subs... although im a big fan of the Australia/China ties and for that to get stronger.. I don't think we are all that Luvvy Duvvy just yet... i'd buy the Japanese Subs... tried ad proven...

You're a mechanic and you like tinkering with greasy contraptions. What's better for you than Australian built Collins class submarines. A lifetime of tinkering there.

Why can't we think laterally?

How about a few satellites to monitor all enemy shipping -
& an advanced air to ship attack capability to
destroy any ship invading us?

Why do we need submarines?

Unforgiven wrote on Jul 5^th, 2015 at 10:21pm:

You're a mechanic and you like tinkering with greasy contraptions. What's better for you than Australian built Collins class submarines. A lifetime of tinkering there.

;D


Bobby. wrote on Jul 5^th, 2015 at 10:59pm:

Why do we need submarines?

To sink them refugee ships, bobby.

Bobby. wrote on Jul 5^th, 2015 at 10:59pm:

Why can't we think laterally? How about a few satellites to monitor all enemy shipping - & an advanced air to ship attack capability to destroy any ship invading us? Why do we need submarines?

Bobby, anti-submarine warfare is what nearly destroyed the British and did destroy the Japanese in WWII.   Unrestricted submarine warfare is deadly.   The mere presence of submarines in the Falklands forced the Argentines to retreat to port and nearly forced the Royal Navy to abandon it's effort to retake the Islands.   In every war where submarines have been used, they have proved to be effective and combating them time consuming and expensive.  Any potential aggressor against us must invest heavily in ASW assets and practice to defeat our submarines.   QED.   ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 5^th, 2015 at 11:57pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jul 5th, 2015 at 10:59pm: Why can't we think laterally? How about a few satellites to monitor all enemy shipping - & an advanced air to ship attack capability to destroy any ship invading us? Why do we need submarines? Bobby, anti-submarine warfare is what nearly destroyed the British and did destroy the Japanese in WWII.   Unrestricted submarine warfare is deadly.   The mere presence of submarines in the Falklands forced the Argentines to retreat to port and nearly forced the Royal Navy to abandon it's effort to retake the Islands.   In every war where submarines have been used, they have proved to be effective and combating them time consuming and expensive.  Any potential aggressor against us must invest heavily in ASW assets and practice to defeat our submarines.   QED.   ::)

But that was in 1980 -

technology has advanced now - air power is orders of magnitude stronger.

President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Jul 5^th, 2015 at 9:31pm:

I would not buy the Chinese Subs... although im a big fan of the Australia/China ties and for that to get stronger.. I don't think we are all that Luvvy Duvvy just yet... i'd buy the Japanese Subs... tried ad proven...

What? .... at the expense of Australian industry, employment & resources?

The FTA with China is only a win for them. ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 5^th, 2015 at 11:57pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jul 5th, 2015 at 10:59pm: Why can't we think laterally? How about a few satellites to monitor all enemy shipping - & an advanced air to ship attack capability to destroy any ship invading us? Why do we need submarines? Bobby, anti-submarine warfare is what nearly destroyed the British and did destroy the Japanese in WWII.   Unrestricted submarine warfare is deadly.   The mere presence of submarines in the Falklands forced the Argentines to retreat to port and nearly forced the Royal Navy to abandon it's effort to retake the Islands.   In every war where submarines have been used, they have proved to be effective and combating them time consuming and expensive.  Any potential aggressor against us must invest heavily in ASW assets and practice to defeat our submarines.   QED.   ::)

 
Yeah of course ..... the whole 6 of them ::)

Gnads wrote on Jul 6^th, 2015 at 7:45am:

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 5th, 2015 at 11:57pm: Bobby. wrote on Jul 5th, 2015 at 10:59pm: Why can't we think laterally? How about a few satellites to monitor all enemy shipping - & an advanced air to ship attack capability to destroy any ship invading us? Why do we need submarines? Bobby, anti-submarine warfare is what nearly destroyed the British and did destroy the Japanese in WWII.   Unrestricted submarine warfare is deadly.   The mere presence of submarines in the Falklands forced the Argentines to retreat to port and nearly forced the Royal Navy to abandon it's effort to retake the Islands.   In every war where submarines have been used, they have proved to be effective and combating them time consuming and expensive.  Any potential aggressor against us must invest heavily in ASW assets and practice to defeat our submarines.   QED.   ::)   Yeah of course ..... the whole 6 of them ::)

And only 1 or 2 in the water.

Bobby. wrote on Jul 6^th, 2015 at 7:34am:

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 5th, 2015 at 11:57pm: Bobby. wrote on Jul 5th, 2015 at 10:59pm: Why can't we think laterally? How about a few satellites to monitor all enemy shipping - & an advanced air to ship attack capability to destroy any ship invading us? Why do we need submarines? Bobby, anti-submarine warfare is what nearly destroyed the British and did destroy the Japanese in WWII.   Unrestricted submarine warfare is deadly.   The mere presence of submarines in the Falklands forced the Argentines to retreat to port and nearly forced the Royal Navy to abandon it's effort to retake the Islands.   In every war where submarines have been used, they have proved to be effective and combating them time consuming and expensive.  Any potential aggressor against us must invest heavily in ASW assets and practice to defeat our submarines.   QED.   ::) But that was in 1980 - technology has advanced now - air power is orders of magnitude stronger.

It has advanced on both sides of the equation, Bobby.  Submarines are quieter, dive deeper and patrol further.  ASW assets can listen better, but still can't automatically detect a submarine.   Ships are vulnerable to longer ranged torpedoes and missiles launched from submarines.  There is no certainty in ASW, Bobby.   You have to hear the submarine and destroy it before it destroys you.   The ocean is vast and deep and somewhere in it might be a submarine.   Are you willing to chance sending a ship out against it?   ::)

Gnads wrote on Jul 6^th, 2015 at 7:45am:

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 5th, 2015 at 11:57pm: Bobby. wrote on Jul 5th, 2015 at 10:59pm: Why can't we think laterally? How about a few satellites to monitor all enemy shipping - & an advanced air to ship attack capability to destroy any ship invading us? Why do we need submarines? Bobby, anti-submarine warfare is what nearly destroyed the British and did destroy the Japanese in WWII.   Unrestricted submarine warfare is deadly.   The mere presence of submarines in the Falklands forced the Argentines to retreat to port and nearly forced the Royal Navy to abandon it's effort to retake the Islands.   In every war where submarines have been used, they have proved to be effective and combating them time consuming and expensive.  Any potential aggressor against us must invest heavily in ASW assets and practice to defeat our submarines.   QED.   ::)   Yeah of course ..... the whole 6 of them ::)

Three, actually, of which we can actually send two to sea at any one time, Gnads.   Where in the ocean are they?   Near you or on the other side of the Pacific?   Do you know?  I don't.    ::)

Gnads wrote on Jul 6^th, 2015 at 7:42am:

President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Jul 5th, 2015 at 9:31pm: I would not buy the Chinese Subs... although im a big fan of the Australia/China ties and for that to get stronger.. I don't think we are all that Luvvy Duvvy just yet... i'd buy the Japanese Subs... tried ad proven... What? .... at the expense of Australian industry, employment & resources? The FTA with China is only a win for them. ::)

oh yeah of course...

China population is around 1.4 Billion with over 8.5 Million births already this year...

Australian population... 23.6 Million...

so guess who's going to benefit on the export front?
guess who's going to benefit on jobs per capita.. ?

you can't just keep Australian jobs at any cost to the Australian public...

if the Union Thugs have pushed wages so high that the employee's positions are not cost effective or competitive, and their workmanship and skill are atrocious.. then they have to go... and that's not even taking into account of Union Extortion against Australian companies.. 

just ask Bull Shitten.... >:(

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 7^th, 2015 at 12:17am:

Bobby. wrote on Jul 6th, 2015 at 7:34am: Brian Ross wrote on Jul 5th, 2015 at 11:57pm: Bobby. wrote on Jul 5th, 2015 at 10:59pm: Why can't we think laterally? How about a few satellites to monitor all enemy shipping - & an advanced air to ship attack capability to destroy any ship invading us? Why do we need submarines? Bobby, anti-submarine warfare is what nearly destroyed the British and did destroy the Japanese in WWII.   Unrestricted submarine warfare is deadly.   The mere presence of submarines in the Falklands forced the Argentines to retreat to port and nearly forced the Royal Navy to abandon it's effort to retake the Islands.   In every war where submarines have been used, they have proved to be effective and combating them time consuming and expensive.  Any potential aggressor against us must invest heavily in ASW assets and practice to defeat our submarines.   QED.   ::) But that was in 1980 - technology has advanced now - air power is orders of magnitude stronger. It has advanced on both sides of the equation, Bobby.  Submarines are quieter, dive deeper and patrol further.  ASW assets can listen better, but still can't automatically detect a submarine.   Ships are vulnerable to longer ranged torpedoes and missiles launched from submarines.  There is no certainty in ASW, Bobby.   You have to hear the submarine and destroy it before it destroys you.   The ocean is vast and deep and somewhere in it might be a submarine.   Are you willing to chance sending a ship out against it?   ::)

Diesel subs might dive deeper but they have to come to the surface every day
to take on air & run their diesel motors to
recharge their batteries.
This makes them vulnerable to attack from the air.

Bobby. wrote on Jul 7^th, 2015 at 6:20am:

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 7th, 2015 at 12:17am: Bobby. wrote on Jul 6th, 2015 at 7:34am: Brian Ross wrote on Jul 5th, 2015 at 11:57pm: Bobby. wrote on Jul 5th, 2015 at 10:59pm: Why can't we think laterally? How about a few satellites to monitor all enemy shipping - & an advanced air to ship attack capability to destroy any ship invading us? Why do we need submarines? Bobby, anti-submarine warfare is what nearly destroyed the British and did destroy the Japanese in WWII.   Unrestricted submarine warfare is deadly.   The mere presence of submarines in the Falklands forced the Argentines to retreat to port and nearly forced the Royal Navy to abandon it's effort to retake the Islands.   In every war where submarines have been used, they have proved to be effective and combating them time consuming and expensive.  Any potential aggressor against us must invest heavily in ASW assets and practice to defeat our submarines.   QED.   ::) But that was in 1980 - technology has advanced now - air power is orders of magnitude stronger. It has advanced on both sides of the equation, Bobby.  Submarines are quieter, dive deeper and patrol further.  ASW assets can listen better, but still can't automatically detect a submarine.   Ships are vulnerable to longer ranged torpedoes and missiles launched from submarines.  There is no certainty in ASW, Bobby.   You have to hear the submarine and destroy it before it destroys you.   The ocean is vast and deep and somewhere in it might be a submarine.   Are you willing to chance sending a ship out against it?   ::) Diesel subs might dive deeper but they have to come to the surface every dayto take on air & run their diesel motors to recharge their batteries. This makes them vulnerable to attack from the air.

I call bullshit...

Quote:

I call bullshit...

forgiven

namaste

Bobby. wrote on Jul 7^th, 2015 at 6:43am:

Quote: I call bullshit... forgiven namaste

Quote:

#.8 Soryu class (Japan) Entered service: 2009 Diving depth: ~ 250 m Torpedo tubes: 6x533-mm Weapons: Type 89 torpedoes, Sub-Harpoon anti-ship missiles.     The first Soryu class boat was commissioned with the Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Forces in 2009. Unlike other nuclear-powered boats on this list the Soryu class submarines have diesel-electric propulsion. These attack submarines, fitted with air-independent propulsion system. Japan is the only country to use this class of boats.     Air-independent propulsion system allows to stay submerged for longer periods without surfacing to charge the batteries. Submerged endurance is increased from days to weeks. It also enhanced vessel's stealth and operational capabilities. However these submarines lack range and endurance of nuclear-powered attack submarines.    Soryu class submarines have hydrodynamic design and are fitted with anechoic coating. Interior also has sound isolation of loud components.    However these boats do not have vertical launch systems. Their armament is limited to Torpedoes and Sub-Harpoon anti-ship missiles.

you've been watching too many of those 1950s sub movies bobby...

get up with the times...

diesel-electric propulsion Sub in the TOP 10 attack submarines in the World... wow..  :o

right?

Quote:

Air-independent propulsion. Japan is the only country to use this class of boats.

forgiven

namaste

   

and bobby...

do you even know how much money it'll cost to replace the Collins tubs?

do you know what it takes to go Nuclear?

the sea wolf is the best submarine in the world.. but not even the US can afford to build and maintain them.. so they went for a cheaper option..

we are staring down the barrel of a 60 Billion Dollar project...

and that's for a basic diesel electric to sink fake reffo boats...

so go Nuclear.. well... where do you even start?

Australia hasn't even begun to acquire the infrastructure or invest in the training needed to support nuclear powered submarines.... we haven't got a clue in that regards... so there is no point in even looking at Nuclear..

if we did... we'd be our own worst enemies.. BOOOM!!

President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Jul 7^th, 2015 at 7:16am:

and bobby... do you even know how much money it'll cost to replace the Collins tubs? do you know what it takes to go Nuclear? the sea wolf is the best submarine in the world.. but not even the US can afford to build and maintain them.. so they went for a cheaper option.. we are staring down the barrel of a 60 Billion Dollar project... and that's for a basic diesel electric to sink fake reffo boats... so go Nuclear.. well... where do you even start? Australia hasn't even begun to acquire the infrastructure or invest in the training needed to support nuclear powered submarines.... we haven't got a clue in that regards... so there is no point in even looking at Nuclear.. if we did... we'd be our own worst enemies.. BOOOM!!

Would the Yanks sell us a few nuclear subs?

Bobby. wrote on Jul 7^th, 2015 at 4:48pm:

President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Jul 7th, 2015 at 7:16am: and bobby... do you even know how much money it'll cost to replace the Collins tubs? do you know what it takes to go Nuclear? the sea wolf is the best submarine in the world.. but not even the US can afford to build and maintain them.. so they went for a cheaper option.. we are staring down the barrel of a 60 Billion Dollar project... and that's for a basic diesel electric to sink fake reffo boats... so go Nuclear.. well... where do you even start? Australia hasn't even begun to acquire the infrastructure or invest in the training needed to support nuclear powered submarines.... we haven't got a clue in that regards... so there is no point in even looking at Nuclear.. if we did... we'd be our own worst enemies.. BOOOM!! Would the Yanks sell us a few nuclear subs?

No

Australia only wants to play submarines. The real thing is too much.

Navy should just buy a big hot tub and some plastic submarines and the admirals can play submarines together.

If Australia wants real submarines they need a lot of infrastructure around Australia and some Navy personnel who are prepared to spend weeks, if not months at sea. It won't happen. Australian naval personnel are too soft and pampered.

Unforgiven wrote on Jul 7^th, 2015 at 5:18pm:

Australia only wants to play submarines. The real thing is too much. Navy should just buy a big hot tub and some plastic submarines and the admirals can play submarines together. If Australia wants real submarines they need a lot of infrastructure around Australia and some Navy personnel who are prepared to spend weeks, if not months at sea. It won't happen. Australian naval personnel are too soft and pampered.

What about the Gaffa tape on Longy's fibro house -

that would make a good submarine.

Bobby. wrote on Jul 7^th, 2015 at 5:26pm:

Unforgiven wrote on Jul 7th, 2015 at 5:18pm: Australia only wants to play submarines. The real thing is too much. Navy should just buy a big hot tub and some plastic submarines and the admirals can play submarines together. If Australia wants real submarines they need a lot of infrastructure around Australia and some Navy personnel who are prepared to spend weeks, if not months at sea. It won't happen. Australian naval personnel are too soft and pampered. What about the Gaffa tape on Longy's fibro house - that would make a good submarine.

Longfellow could be gaffa taped and used as a torpedo propelled by anus gas.

Bobby. wrote on Jul 7^th, 2015 at 4:48pm:

President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Jul 7th, 2015 at 7:16am: and bobby... do you even know how much money it'll cost to replace the Collins tubs? do you know what it takes to go Nuclear? the sea wolf is the best submarine in the world.. but not even the US can afford to build and maintain them.. so they went for a cheaper option.. we are staring down the barrel of a 60 Billion Dollar project... and that's for a basic diesel electric to sink fake reffo boats... so go Nuclear.. well... where do you even start? Australia hasn't even begun to acquire the infrastructure or invest in the training needed to support nuclear powered submarines.... we haven't got a clue in that regards... so there is no point in even looking at Nuclear.. if we did... we'd be our own worst enemies.. BOOOM!! Would the Yanks sell us a few nuclear subs?

in case you missed my point..

we're broke and can't even afford a clapped out Diesel Electric let alone Nuclear subs...

Labor/Green coalition put us into massive debt borrowing 100 million dollars a day.. .

Labor/Green coalition are blocking austerity measures so we are still borrowing 100 million dollars a day...

we are not far off being another Greece...

if we were to build our own subs i'd take 8 years just to draft up the blueprints... and get this.. we don't have anyone in Australia that can do that job.. 

Bobby. wrote on Jul 7^th, 2015 at 6:20am:

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 7th, 2015 at 12:17am: Bobby. wrote on Jul 6th, 2015 at 7:34am: Brian Ross wrote on Jul 5th, 2015 at 11:57pm: Bobby. wrote on Jul 5th, 2015 at 10:59pm: Why can't we think laterally? How about a few satellites to monitor all enemy shipping - & an advanced air to ship attack capability to destroy any ship invading us? Why do we need submarines? Bobby, anti-submarine warfare is what nearly destroyed the British and did destroy the Japanese in WWII.   Unrestricted submarine warfare is deadly.   The mere presence of submarines in the Falklands forced the Argentines to retreat to port and nearly forced the Royal Navy to abandon it's effort to retake the Islands.   In every war where submarines have been used, they have proved to be effective and combating them time consuming and expensive.  Any potential aggressor against us must invest heavily in ASW assets and practice to defeat our submarines.   QED.   ::) But that was in 1980 - technology has advanced now - air power is orders of magnitude stronger. It has advanced on both sides of the equation, Bobby.  Submarines are quieter, dive deeper and patrol further.  ASW assets can listen better, but still can't automatically detect a submarine.   Ships are vulnerable to longer ranged torpedoes and missiles launched from submarines.  There is no certainty in ASW, Bobby.   You have to hear the submarine and destroy it before it destroys you.   The ocean is vast and deep and somewhere in it might be a submarine.   Are you willing to chance sending a ship out against it?   ::) Diesel subs might dive deeper but they have to come to the surface every day to take on air & run their diesel motors to recharge their batteries. This makes them vulnerable to attack from the air.

Except of course, in reality they don't.  They can use a Snorkel to run their diesel motors while submerged, more advanced ones use Air-Independent Propulsion (AIP) to allow them to remain submerged for weeks, Bobby.   They use Oxygen rebreather systems to keep the air fresh for the crew during that time.

Time you caught up with the early 21st century and stopped watching old Hollywood movies as your main source of information.   Technology has improved SSK submarines to the point where they are in some ways more effective than SSN submarines (they are quieter but lack the range and speed submerged of the SSNs).    ::)

Bobby. wrote on Jul 7^th, 2015 at 4:48pm:

President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Jul 7th, 2015 at 7:16am: and bobby... do you even know how much money it'll cost to replace the Collins tubs? do you know what it takes to go Nuclear? the sea wolf is the best submarine in the world.. but not even the US can afford to build and maintain them.. so they went for a cheaper option.. we are staring down the barrel of a 60 Billion Dollar project... and that's for a basic diesel electric to sink fake reffo boats... so go Nuclear.. well... where do you even start? Australia hasn't even begun to acquire the infrastructure or invest in the training needed to support nuclear powered submarines.... we haven't got a clue in that regards... so there is no point in even looking at Nuclear.. if we did... we'd be our own worst enemies.. BOOOM!! Would the Yanks sell us a few nuclear subs?

The boat builders would like to but I suspect the US Government would be reluctant to do so.

Even if they did, we would beholden to them to maintain and refuel the submarines we purchased.   As Mechanic has pointed out, we lack the skills and the infrastructure to either build or maintain nuclear submarines.

Purchasing them would double the cost of the submarine replacement program, Bobby.   ::)

President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Jul 7^th, 2015 at 6:27pm:

in case you missed my point.. we're broke and can't even afford a clapped out Diesel Electric let alone Nuclear subs...

No, we can afford Diesel powered submarines.  Australia is far from broke.  We are a long way from the Greek predicament.


Quote:

Labor/Green coalition put us into massive debt borrowing 100 million dollars a day.. .

And how much is the Liberal Government borrowing at the moment, Mechanic?   More!    ::)


Quote:

Labor/Green coalition are blocking austerity measures so we are still borrowing 100 million dollars a day... we are not far off being another Greece...

We have massive amounts of cash in the bank, our banks are liquid with it.  Greece has little cash and it shows.   The ALP and Greens have acted responsibility in opposing unnecessary austerity measures while the fat cats keep there money under the Liberal Government.   ::)


Quote:

if we were to build our own subs i'd take 8 years just to draft up the blueprints... and get this.. we don't have anyone in Australia that can do that job..

Actually we do.  In Adelaide.  They work for the Australian Submarine Corporation, Mechanic.

As much as you attempt to bag Australia and it's economy, the reality is that we are actually quite healthy and we have the expertise to build these submarines, despite everything you and the Tories might claim.    ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 7^th, 2015 at 7:48pm:

President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Jul 7th, 2015 at 6:27pm: in case you missed my point.. we're broke and can't even afford a clapped out Diesel Electric let alone Nuclear subs... No, we can afford Diesel powered submarines.  Australia is far from broke.  We are a long way from the Greek predicament. Quote: Labor/Green coalition put us into massive debt borrowing 100 million dollars a day.. . And how much is the Liberal Government borrowing at the moment, Mechanic?   More!    ::) [quote] Labor/Green coalition are blocking austerity measures so we are still borrowing 100 million dollars a day... we are not far off being another Greece...

We have massive amounts of cash in the bank, our banks are liquid with it.  Greece has little cash and it shows.   The ALP and Greens have acted responsibility in opposing unnecessary austerity measures while the fat cats keep there money under the Liberal Government.   ::)


Quote:

if we were to build our own subs i'd take 8 years just to draft up the blueprints... and get this.. we don't have anyone in Australia that can do that job..

Actually we do.  In Adelaide.  They work for the Australian Submarine Corporation, Mechanic.

As much as you attempt to bag Australia and it's economy, the reality is that we are actually quite healthy and we have the expertise to build these submarines, despite everything you and the Tories might claim.    ::)[/quote]

I am positive that I read that we don't have anyone here in Australia who can design a new sub... I stand corrected if that's wrong..

I guess we "can't afford" not to have a few as there's subs all over our shipping lanes..

if someone wanted to take us down big time... they'd blow our import ships out of the water... thank god we still produce some of our own food..

Quote:

in his conference speech, Professor Thomas Mahnken of the US Naval War College contended that the most important characteristic of our future submarine would be “interoperability”. What he meant was that Australia should regard the ability to work with the US Navy as the most important consideration. This may mean we can only partner with the Swedes, building on what’s been learnt from working with their former submarine designer Kockums on the Collins Class subs. This is because the US has already allowed some of its submarine technology and data, among the most tightly held defence technology in the world, to be incorporated into the Collins, something they’re extremely reluctant to allow with other builders. The more speeches I heard, the clearer it seemed that there is a looming contradiction between Australia’s oft-stated goal of regional technological superiority in defence and our decreasing investment in training and research. Defence capability is a complex, high-order expression of a nation’s scientific and technical strength – it’s not something that can just be bolted onto a shaky educational and research foundation. Changes to higher education funding, which may make engineering degrees very expensive, will further hollow out this capability. Currently we do not even have enough draughtsmen to produce technical drawings for submarine design.

hmmmm  :-/

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 7^th, 2015 at 7:42pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jul 7th, 2015 at 4:48pm: President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Jul 7th, 2015 at 7:16am: and bobby... do you even know how much money it'll cost to replace the Collins tubs? do you know what it takes to go Nuclear? the sea wolf is the best submarine in the world.. but not even the US can afford to build and maintain them.. so they went for a cheaper option.. we are staring down the barrel of a 60 Billion Dollar project... and that's for a basic diesel electric to sink fake reffo boats... so go Nuclear.. well... where do you even start? Australia hasn't even begun to acquire the infrastructure or invest in the training needed to support nuclear powered submarines.... we haven't got a clue in that regards... so there is no point in even looking at Nuclear.. if we did... we'd be our own worst enemies.. BOOOM!! Would the Yanks sell us a few nuclear subs? The boat builders would like to but I suspect the US Government would be reluctant to do so. Even if they did, we would beholden to them to maintain and refuel the submarines we purchased.   As Mechanic has pointed out, we lack the skills and the infrastructure to either build or maintain nuclear submarines. Purchasing them would double the cost of the submarine replacement program, Bobby.   ::)

Yes - actually the Yanks are a bit strange about selling us their weapons.
They buried the F117 stealth planes in the desert - destroyed them -
rather than sell them to us.


http://www.urbanghostsmedia.com/2013/01/top-secret-aircraft-classified-stealth-burial-grounds-of-area-51/

Bobby. wrote on Jul 7^th, 2015 at 8:42pm:

Yes - actually the Yanks are a bit strange about selling us their weapons. They buried the F117 stealth planes in the desert - destroyed them - rather than sell them to us. http://www.urbanghostsmedia.com/2013/01/top-secret-aircraft-classified-stealth-burial-grounds-of-area-51/

They don't want their stealth secrets revealed.  The F-117 was a bit of a dog anyway.  It wasn't very manoeuvrable and it needed careful planning of it's strike packages to make sure that it's stealth could work properly.   Just as the F-22 was never exported and the F-14 was cut up and trashed.

Anyway, the F-117 was never offered and we never (officially) asked for them, Bobby.    ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 7^th, 2015 at 11:14pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jul 7th, 2015 at 8:42pm: Yes - actually the Yanks are a bit strange about selling us their weapons. They buried the F117 stealth planes in the desert - destroyed them - rather than sell them to us. http://www.urbanghostsmedia.com/2013/01/top-secret-aircraft-classified-stealth-burial-grounds-of-area-51/ They don't want their stealth secrets revealed.  The F-117 was a bit of a dog anyway.  It wasn't very manoeuvrable and it needed careful planning of it's strike packages to make sure that it's stealth could work properly.   Just as the F-22 was never exported and the F-14 was cut up and trashed. Anyway, the F-117 was never offered and we never (officially) asked for them, Bobby.    ::)

Well it was just an example where the Yanks would rather destroy their secret weapons than let us have one -

even though - the F-117 was 1980s technology - you can't have one!


( PS - the Israelis didn't get any either )

Bobby. wrote on Jul 7^th, 2015 at 11:34pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 7th, 2015 at 11:14pm: Bobby. wrote on Jul 7th, 2015 at 8:42pm: Yes - actually the Yanks are a bit strange about selling us their weapons. They buried the F117 stealth planes in the desert - destroyed them - rather than sell them to us. http://www.urbanghostsmedia.com/2013/01/top-secret-aircraft-classified-stealth-burial-grounds-of-area-51/ They don't want their stealth secrets revealed.  The F-117 was a bit of a dog anyway.  It wasn't very manoeuvrable and it needed careful planning of it's strike packages to make sure that it's stealth could work properly.   Just as the F-22 was never exported and the F-14 was cut up and trashed. Anyway, the F-117 was never offered and we never (officially) asked for them, Bobby.    ::) Well it was just an example where the Yanks would rather destroy their secret weapons than let us have one - even though - the F-117 was 1980s technology - you can't have one! ( PS - the Israelis didn't get any either )

It's more profitable to repackage it as an F-35 and rip us off ;)

Thailand is resisting US pressure and going for the China deal of 3 submarines for US$ 1 billion. One sixth the prospective price of Australian Submarines.

USA thought that giving Thailand free ASW training would sweeten Thailand towards USA's stooges. However it did not happen.

USA is fast losing influence in the region to China.

Bet the Thai submarines are no match for ours....

Ia there any relevance to this discussion?

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Jul 9^th, 2015 at 12:44am:

Bet the Thai submarines are no match for ours.... Ia there any relevance to this discussion?

You are right. The Australian strategy of lying on the seabed with busted engines is unbeatable. Virtually undetectable.

Unforgiven wrote on Jul 9^th, 2015 at 1:18pm:

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Jul 9th, 2015 at 12:44am: Bet the Thai submarines are no match for ours.... Ia there any relevance to this discussion? You are right. The Australian strategy of lying on the seabed with busted engines is unbeatable. Virtually undetectable.

;D ;D ;D ;D

so what boat did we all come up with.. ?

Japanese with Australian fitment??

I'd suggest we wait and see, Mechanic.   I suspect it will be Japanese but I'm willing to see what the other contenders tender.

Which ever submarine we end up with, it should be manufactured in Adelaide.

President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Jul 11^th, 2015 at 8:06pm:

so what boat did we all come up with.. ? Japanese with Australian fitment??

Solution:

Longy's fibro house sealed up with Gaffa tape & launched out to sea.

Australian submarine budget now up to $50 billion. That is before the customary overruns.

That is $4.2 billion each for 12 submarines. China produces subs for its clients for $ 0.35 billion.

Somebody will make heaps of taxpayer money from this circus. Bring on the clowns.

http://www.afr.com/news/special-reports/defence-and-national-security/australias-50-billion-submarine-project-still-dogged-by-uncertainty-20150617-ghobr8


Quote:

Australia's $50 billion submarine project still dogged by uncertainty On the surface three contenders – Japan, France and Germany – are vying to build the new fleet as part of a 10-month competitive evaluation process. On the surface three contenders – Japan, France and Germany – are vying to build the new fleet as part of a 10-month competitive evaluation process. The uncertainty over the Abbott government's $50 billion new submarine project has only deepened since the announcement of a much-criticised competitive evaluation process. On the surface three contenders – Japan, France and Germany – are vying to build the new fleet as part of a 10-month competitive evaluation process. Japan-based Kawasaki/Mitsubishi is proposing its 4200-tonne Soryu diesel electric submarine, France-backed DCNS is offering a non-nuclear version of its 4700-tonne Barracuda submarine and Germany is offering its 4000-tonne Type 216. Australia is after up to 12 submarines larger than the existing Collins class, with greater endurance and firepower. The competitive evaluation process involving the three bidders was outlined by Defence Minister Kevin Andrews in February, but the process has been plagued by Labor accusations the process is a "sham" and Japan is in the box seat to win. Prime Minister Tony Abbott has expressed a clear preference for the Japanese option, as a means of strengthening defence and security ties between the two countries and amid fears over China's sabre-rattling over its territorial disputes. Germany has been stressing that not only does it have the export experience but there isn't the political risk in buying from Europe that there is in buying from Japan, given its rivalry with China. BACKED AWAY A furore over whether the submarines will be built in South Australia has also plagued the project since the government backed away from a pre-election promise to build the new fleet in Adelaide. "I would agree that because the facilities exist in South Australia at the ASC site that the infrastructure and the workforce is the only current workforce that could assemble the submarine [but] whether it is the right place to assemble a new design is up for question," said David Gould, general manager submarines of the Defence Materiel Organisation. South Australian Defence Teaming Centre chief executive Chris Burns said if Japan was chosen most of the work could go to Western Australia, where lighter maintenance is carried out, rather than the overhauls carried out in Adelaide because Japanese submarines had a shorter lifespan. Defence officials also admitted winning the competitive evaluation process didn't mean the winner would get the contract. The admission came after independent South Australian Senator Nick Xenophon brought up a previous example where a bidder for a submarine system on the current Collins class submarines had been successful in a competitive evaluation process only to be over-ruled by the federal cabinet. Japan has also been muddying the waters, with the former commander of the Japanese submarine fleet Masao Kobayashi expressing doubts the submarines could be built in the Adelaide shipyards. Captain Hisayuki Tamura, of the Japanese Ministry of Defence, insisted Japan had the best technology to build the submarines but another former Japanese submarine commander, Captain Toshihide Yamamuchi, expressed concern that if Japan shared its most sensitive technology with Australia, China might try to steal it. CAPTAIN'S PICK Labor's defence spokesman Stephen Conroy said Mr Abbott has already made Japan his "captain's pick" and the "fix is in". Mr Xenophon, who has campaigned tirelessly for the submarines to be built in Adelaide, said German and French submarine builders used "high-yield steel similar to that cited by the Japanese and have exported to other countries the skills and expertise to enable local submarine fabrication". Mr Xenophon accused the Japanese of offering "excuses to have $50 billion worth of Australian taxpayers' money spent almost entirely in Japan". Defence Minister Kevin Andrews continues to insist the competitive evaluation process will be a fair and equitable process that will treat the bidders fairly. The government has appointed an expert panel to oversee the process, including Professor Donald Winter, who was co-author of a report into the troubled $8 billion air warfare destroyer project, former Federal Court justice Julie Anne Dodds-Streeton, infrastructure specialist Ron Finlay and former BAE Australia chief executive Jim McDowell. Mr Andrews said "significant work will be undertaken in Australia during the build phase of the submarine, including combat systems integration, design assurance and land-based testing".

Australia has finally found subs it can afford. They don't break down; they don't leak toxic radiation; they are the ultimate in stealth; they are undetectable by sonar particularly after digestion.

http://www.tasty-sandwich-recipes.com/images/turkey.sub.jpg