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

Grappler Deep State Feller

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 85489
Always was always will be HOME
Gender: male

Re: Australian submarines $1.7 billion Chinese $0.35
Reply #15 - 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!

Back to top

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams

IP Logged

Grappler Deep State Feller

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 85489
Always was always will be HOME
Gender: male

Re: Australian submarines $1.7 billion Chinese $0.35
Reply #16 - Jul 1^st, 2015 at 10:48pm

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.....

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jul 1^st, 2015 at 10:54pm by Grappler Deep State Feller »

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams

IP Logged

Brian Ross

Gold Member

Offline

Representative of me

Posts: 42629

Re: Australian submarines $1.7 billion Chinese $0.35
Reply #17 - Jul 1^st, 2015 at 11:22pm

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]

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

Brian Ross

Gold Member

Offline

Representative of me

Posts: 42629

Re: Australian submarines $1.7 billion Chinese $0.35
Reply #18 - Jul 1^st, 2015 at 11:24pm

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]

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

Brian Ross

Gold Member

Offline

Representative of me

Posts: 42629

Re: Australian submarines $1.7 billion Chinese $0.35
Reply #19 - Jul 1^st, 2015 at 11:26pm

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

[Source]

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

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 107236
Melbourne
Gender: male

Re: Australian submarines $1.7 billion Chinese $0.35
Reply #20 - 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.

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 #21 - Jul 2^nd, 2015 at 12:59am

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.

Back to top

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

IP Logged

Billy Jack

Gold Member

Offline

The Duke of Brisbane Town

Posts: 869
Brisbane Town.
Gender: male

Re: Australian submarines $1.7 billion Chinese $0.35
Reply #22 - Jul 2^nd, 2015 at 1:35am

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...
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.

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.

Back to top

IP Logged

Billy Jack

Gold Member

Offline

The Duke of Brisbane Town

Posts: 869
Brisbane Town.
Gender: male

Re: Australian submarines $1.7 billion Chinese $0.35
Reply #23 - Jul 2^nd, 2015 at 1:41am

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.

Back to top

IP Logged

miketrees Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 6490 Gender:	Re: Australian submarines $1.7 billion Chinese $0.35 Reply #24 - Jul 2^nd, 2015 at 3:00am 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
Back to top	IP Logged

President Elect, The Mechanic

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17501
Gender: male

Re: Australlia submarines $1.7 billion Chinese $0.35
Reply #25 - Jul 2^nd, 2015 at 5:45am

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...

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.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jul 2^nd, 2015 at 6:01am by President Elect, The Mechanic »

Q

The STORM has arrived
Every Dog Has Its Day...
Dark to Light.
Sheep no more.

IP Logged

Bobby.

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 107236
Melbourne
Gender: male

Re: Australian submarines $1.7 billion Chinese $0.35
Reply #26 - Jul 2^nd, 2015 at 6:44am

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

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.

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

Back to top

IP Logged

it_is_the_light

Gold Member

Offline

Christ Light

Posts: 41434
The Pyramid of LIGHT
Gender: male

Re: Australian submarines $1.7 billion Chinese $0.35
Reply #27 - Jul 2^nd, 2015 at 8:44am

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-p...

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.

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.

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.

Back to top

ॐ May Much LOVE and CHRISTS LIGHT be upon and within us all.... namasté ▲ - : ) ╰დ╮ॐ╭დ╯

IP Logged

John Smith

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 75280
Gender: male

Re: Australlia submarines $1.7 billion Chinese $0.35
Reply #28 - Jul 2^nd, 2015 at 9:53am

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

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.

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

Back to top

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

IP Logged

President Elect, The Mechanic

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17501
Gender: male

Re: Australian submarines $1.7 billion Chinese $0.35
Reply #29 - Jul 2^nd, 2015 at 9:54am

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

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-p...

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???

Back to top

Q

The STORM has arrived
Every Dog Has Its Day...
Dark to Light.
Sheep no more.

IP Logged