Australian Politics Forum - Australian submarines $1.7 billion Chinese $0.35

Unforgiven

Gold Member

Offline

I have sinned

Posts: 8879
Gender: male

Australian submarines $1.7 billion Chinese $0.35
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...
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.

Back to top

“I’ll let you be in my dreams if I can be in yours” Bob Dylan

IP Logged

John Smith

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 75273
Gender: male

Re: Australlia submarines $1.7 billion Chinese $0.35
Reply #1 - 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.

Back to top

Our esteemed leader:
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.

IP Logged

innocentbystander. Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 4723 Gender:	Re: Australian submarines $1.7 billion Chinese $0.35 Reply #2 - Jul 1^st, 2015 at 12:55pm Chinese subs have a warning sticker on them ... NOT TO BE USED UNDERWATER
Back to top	IP Logged

Unforgiven

Gold Member

Offline

I have sinned

Posts: 8879
Gender: male

Re: Australian submarines $1.7 billion Chinese $0.35
Reply #3 - Jul 1^st, 2015 at 12:57pm

Pakistan has purchased 8 Chinese submarines.

http://www.naval-technology.com/news/newsthailand-may-procure-three-submarines-f...
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.

Back to top

“I’ll let you be in my dreams if I can be in yours” Bob Dylan

IP Logged

Redmond Neck Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 21740 ACT Gender:	Re: Australian submarines $1.7 billion Chinese $0.35 Reply #4 - Jul 1^st, 2015 at 1:08pm I suspect the chinks would have secret backdoor spy methods installed as well. free of charge. Lie down with dogs ..........
Back to top	BAN ALL THESE ABO SITES RECOGNITIONS. ALL AUSTRALIA IS FOR ALL AUSTRALIANS! IP Logged

Unforgiven

Gold Member

Offline

I have sinned

Posts: 8879
Gender: male

Re: Australlia submarines $1.7 billion Chinese $0.35
Reply #5 - Jul 1^st, 2015 at 1:14pm

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-061...

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.

Back to top

“I’ll let you be in my dreams if I can be in yours” Bob Dylan

IP Logged

Sir lastnail Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 30111 Gender:	Re: Australian submarines $1.7 billion Chinese $0.35 Reply #6 - Jul 1^st, 2015 at 1:59pm 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.
Back to top	In August 2021, Newcastle Coroner Karen Dilks recorded that Lisa Shaw had died “due to complications of an AstraZeneca COVID vaccination”. IP Logged

Gnads

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 30110
Gender: male

Re: Australlia submarines $1.7 billion Chinese $0.35
Reply #7 - Jul 1^st, 2015 at 6:51pm

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

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-061...

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 Roll Eyes

Back to top

"When you are dead, you do not know you are dead. It's only painful and difficult for others. The same applies when you are stupid." ~ Ricky Gervais

IP Logged

Unforgiven

Gold Member

Offline

I have sinned

Posts: 8879
Gender: male

Re: Australian submarines $1.7 billion Chinese $0.35
Reply #8 - Jul 1^st, 2015 at 6:56pm

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?

Back to top

“I’ll let you be in my dreams if I can be in yours” Bob Dylan

IP Logged

John Smith

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 75273
Gender: male

Re: Australlia submarines $1.7 billion Chinese $0.35
Reply #9 - Jul 1^st, 2015 at 7:21pm

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

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-061...

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.

Back to top

Our esteemed leader:
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.

IP Logged

Unforgiven

Gold Member

Offline

I have sinned

Posts: 8879
Gender: male

Re: Australian submarines $1.7 billion Chinese $0.35
Reply #10 - Jul 1^st, 2015 at 7:54pm

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.

Back to top

“I’ll let you be in my dreams if I can be in yours” Bob Dylan

IP Logged

John Smith

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 75273
Gender: male

Re: Australian submarines $1.7 billion Chinese $0.35
Reply #11 - Jul 1^st, 2015 at 7:58pm

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

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.

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)

Back to top

Our esteemed leader:
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.

IP Logged

Unforgiven

Gold Member

Offline

I have sinned

Posts: 8879
Gender: male

Re: Australian submarines $1.7 billion Chinese $0.35
Reply #12 - Jul 1^st, 2015 at 8:02pm

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

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

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.

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.

Back to top

“I’ll let you be in my dreams if I can be in yours” Bob Dylan

IP Logged

Brian Ross

Gold Member

Offline

Representative of me

Posts: 42612

Re: Australian submarines $1.7 billion Chinese $0.35
Reply #13 - Jul 1^st, 2015 at 9:12pm

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. Roll Eyes

Back to top

Someone said we could not judge a person's Aboriginality on their skin colour. Why isn't that applied in the matter of Pascoe? Tsk, tsk, tsk... Roll Eyes

IP Logged

Bobby.

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 107189
Melbourne
Gender: male

Re: Australlia submarines $1.7 billion Chinese $0.35
Reply #14 - Jul 1^st, 2015 at 9:27pm

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

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-061...

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.

Back to top

IP Logged