1. Politicians and the public can count.
So radically multiplying Australian
conventional submarine numbers creates reader interest.
Calls to radically multiply Australian
submarine numbers and other weapons, is somewhat traditional - seen in Ross Babbage's 2008 "rip
an arm off a giant" with perhaps 300 to 400? F-35s and 20 to 30? submarines.
But if Australia can hardly crew and captain 6 Collins how will we handle the already planned 12, let alone 24 or 36? A more reasonable plan may be 6 conventionally propelled Attack / Shortfin class submarines operating by 2038 followed by 6 nuclear propelled Attack class (aka French Barracuda SSNs) by 2050.
Nuclear reactors are the only way to make Australian
submarines reach the Government’s goal of "regionally superior" as
expressed in this 1 page summary from Australia's 2016 Defence White Paper. That is for Australian submarines to be a match for the
most serious nuclear sub owning threats (Russia, more particularly China and
perhaps, one day, India).
2. Nuclear propulsion is also ideal to make 4 Australian submarines adequate “Baby Boomers” that is small carriers of SLBMs for a credible nuclear deterrent .
2. Nuclear propulsion is also ideal to make 4 Australian submarines adequate “Baby Boomers” that is small carriers of SLBMs for a credible nuclear deterrent .
An ideal Baby Boomer SSGN would be the superior (whole of life fueled reactor) late model US Virginia class Block V...
Pete
I am sure most of us have submarine numbers in mind that would make a substantial impact as far as Area Denial is concerned. What I propose is what would your readers like to see as far as missile capability and types of missiles to be carried on the Attack Class subs .
ReplyDeletePlease everyone let the blog know what your missile ambitions would be.
I believe France made reference to the nuclear propulsion option when it was putting forward the Shortfin. If Australia was to get some SSN’s, then I hope they also maintain SSK’s. When you want to be super sneaky, SSK’s are quieter than SSN’s. SSN’s are also at a disadvantage in shallow waters (heat signature) & there is a fair amount of shallow water to the north. The other problems are lack of domestic nuclear industry (only the small Lucas Heights research reactor which also makes medical & industrial isotopes) & what to do with used reactors. I believe UK has never actually fully dismantled any of its nuclear subs. They keep putting it off & the costs keep rising. The lack of domestic industry is especially a problem with regards submarines. Not everyone can mentally handle working in submarines. It’s why bonuses are paid & you have to volunteer to be a submariner. We have no nuclear powered surface ships, so what do you do with those that can’t handle it? Lucas Heights is a single small reactor.
ReplyDeletePersonally I would put nuclear off until a viable Thorium submarine reactor is developed. Much safer & limited timespan of the waste, including the reactor itself. As to Baby Boomer subs with lifetime reactors, USA cannot build enough SSN’s for itself, let alone for someone else. It would probably be easier to source Astutes. There is also the question of the NPT in regards to lifetime reactors. They utilise weapons grade fuel, meaning you could crack one open & use the fuel to build nuclear bombs. The French reactor uses civilian grade fuel (hence needs refueling every 10 years).
Hi Pete,
ReplyDeleteHugh White's thoughts are interesting. One thing I thought about was that perhaps 2 classes of subs could be considered, in order to build them faster. For example, according to wiki, the German Type 214 has a range of 12,000nm. That's pretty good. So perhaps we can have, say 9 214's for around Australia, and 6 Attack Class subs for more distant missions.
Yes, I am totally aware of the political, logistical, and financial constraints with this. But it could be done. The Govt revenue seems to be still increasing yearly. The yearly differences could be shunted to Defence, while maintained in other areas.
Thanks for keeping your blog going.
Andrew
In the mean time, China's J20 supposedly achieved a super cruise (w/o afterburners) speed of Mach 2.5. That is a world beating performance.
ReplyDeleteKQN