Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Australia Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Latest Defence Budget and Collins Replacement Alternatives
Kirkzzy    5/20/2011 10:49:18 AM
So as you all know, defence will not be getting its 3% budget increase this year. And... as such The Australian has gone on with its usual load of crap. Blaming the government and ADF. (no offence intended, I try to keep an open mind and read right and left newspapers) http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/commentary/defence-cuts-cripple-the-nations-options/story-e6frgd0x-1226057808643 http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/budgets/plane-truth-is-our-force-2030-is-missing-in-inaction/story-fn8gf1nz-1226053596400 Pretty much they're saying that because of one missed increase the future submarine project other defence acquisitions are going to fail. (they themselves not realising that money not spent now will mean bigger increases in the future, as the Defence min has indicated)Anyway to the point, pretty much it is like their usual rant of "We need more guns, planes, subs, etc..." (which is getting old),only allowing comments on a story that sides with them and saying that we will not be able to get 12 of the future subs in time... etc What I wanted to know was, in a way it is a big project and 12 subs is going to cost a lot of money. What alternatives would there be? I mean for deterrence, lets say we go with 8 future subs instead like they wanted/were thinking of doing with the Oberons and Collins IIRC (possible nukes). What would be able to fill the gap for deterrence, as the F-111 with its incredible range is gone... what have we got now? Or what could we get? (using the money saved on not buying as many subs.. this can also open the door to getting a 4th AWD) TL;DR version: Options for Australia's future deterrence.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2 3   NEXT
gf0012-aust       5/20/2011 7:20:15 PM
the 12 subs are affordable. the number chosen was Govt's decision, not Navys, so if the numbers change it will be at the Govts pleasure.  will we get 12 in the end? Govt is committed to it at this stage - again its their vision of where we will be in 2030 based on threat, risk assessment of the region and whats seen as out future military obligations

they won't be built and staged out all at once - they'll do the build rate to match the expected availability rate.

eg 8-9 will be avail at any one time and by the time 10-11-12 come on line then 1-2-3 will be in deep maint 

 
 
Quote    Reply

Kirkzzy       5/21/2011 4:00:52 AM
It is achievable I know that, but what I wanted to know is, is there any other deterrence alternatives?
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       5/21/2011 5:40:13 AM
an AWD is not a replacement for 2 subs - or 3 subs for that matter

we aren't getting a 4th AWD and we aren't getting nukes - period

what threat?  what gap?

how does an AWD replace the force projection capability and deterrence of a sub?

subs have a disproportionate impact on enemy naval forces, far more than what any AWD could hope to achieve 
 
Quote    Reply

Kirkzzy       5/21/2011 6:32:36 AM
You've misunderstood me.. I just meant with some of the money saved from not getting as many subs we could get an AWD. I agree it is no substitute. What I am trying to ask however, is what would another alternative be to the subs for a deterrence.
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       5/21/2011 7:37:05 AM

You've misunderstood me.. I just meant with some of the money saved from not getting as many subs we could get an AWD. I agree it is no substitute. What I am trying to ask however, is what would another alternative be to the subs for a deterrence.

subs and persistent strike air don't have too much similarity. the tactical similarities for both are limited in opportunity.

think of the tactical constraints.  subs are in real terms limited by food and bumkerage   Collins can undertake duty cycles close to a nuke,

long range air has a different mission and opportunity set,  they can be force dependant at range, they don't do the same ISR, they don't have autonomy and persistence.

its not apples with apples. 

 
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain       5/22/2011 12:11:32 AM
The alternative deterrant force to the planned future subs is to buy a proven off the shelf design like the Type 214. Advantages would be:
 
1. It would be much cheaper. The Australian Strategic Policy Institute estimated a unique design might cost $40 billion, while an OTS design might cost $9 billion. Imagine what else we could buy for Defence for the $31 Billion saved.
 
2. It would be far less risky - from both the financial and the operational perspective. I know that many of the current subs have had problems, such as those of the 214 in Greek service, but by the time we would get around to getting new subs there would be a far better prospect of those being sorted out compared to the unknown risks of a unique design;
 
3. If used imaginatively they could deliver the same or better capability. For example, the 214 has a greater range and endurance than the Collins and has half the crew, so for the fundamental sea  denial  mission we would be able to keep more subs out for longer. Therefore a 214 fleet can simultaneously cover more ocean if we used the Collins or another large sub; and
 
4. we could get the submarines earlier, both boosting our capability sooner and offsetting the increasing risks posed by the Collins class as they age.
 
The three advantages touted for the proposed for the unique design revolve around it's larger size and include:
 
1. Greater weapons carrying capacity, allowing diversification into systems like Tomahawks;
 
2.  Greater ability to carry special forces; and
 
3. Greater ability to carry onboard sensors for peacetime acoustic intelligence missions.
 
The first two missions could be addressed easily by just sending two smaller subs when we would have otherwise have sent one Collins or new design. Given that the smaller crew size they are likely to be available in those proportions anyway, so it isn't a drama. The third capability could be addressed by building one smaller sub without torpedo cradles, and using the space entirely for intelligence gathering equipment and personel. We only send one sub a year up to do those acoustic recon patrols anyway, so one asset would suffice. In fact its crew would probably to a better job as they would be able to specialise in the mission. Reducing the wartime capability of the fleet by one submarine wouldn't be a siginificant reduction in our capability.
 
The other argument that the Submarine Lobby makes is that European designed subs won't do because they aren't built for Australian regional operating conditions. I reckon that is bullsh1t as the Collins Class comes from a Swedish design. If some modifications need to be done to design to make it work in the waters of our region, that is undoubtedly going to be a hell of a lot cheaper and less risky than designing an entirely new sub.
 
Personally, I reckon that this stupid big sub idea will be ditched and that we will go OTS. I think this because:
 
1. The big sub idea is Rudd's idea and apart from not liking Rudd, Gillard isn't remotely as interested in defence and foriegn affairs as he is. She won't want to spend the money on so obviously flawed an idea;
 
2. There are very few votes in the big subs idea while there are substantial risks of Tony Abbott beating her over the head for wasting more money;
 
3. If Tony Abbott gets in he won't want to buy into this for the same reasons that Gillard won't, besides which he would hopefully be concentrating on paying down debt (maybe a vain hope given his love of middle class welfare, but never the less a hope);
 
4. The Chief of the Navy, Vice Admiral Russell Crane is the major proponent of the idea and he looks to have lost the confidence with the Government due to fiascos with availability of the amphibs, subs and the rest of the fleet. I think it might be suggested that if he can't run a Navy that can keep more than three of his current subs at sea and can't operate existing surface ships, why should his advice be listenned to on such a risky project; and
 
5. The Government has appointed Dr Ian Watt as Defence Portfolio Secretary. He is an economist who is the former, highly thought of, Secretary of the Department of Finance and Deregulation, and he is on the record as saying that he want's the ADF to move more towards OTS purchasing. I think he will be listened to.
 
 
 
&nb
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       5/22/2011 2:36:35 AM
unfort the capacity to have a sensible debate about subs in australia has been permanently politicised, so we are likely to not get what we want

I disagree with the range aspect  of the 214's against 471's, but we then get into public and "other" debate

certainly in the vignettes,  214 tactical range is not as close, absolute range however also includes onboard food before replenishment and the collins were always designed to fight and stay with nukes - their duty cycles are close to nukes, 214's are nowhere near it.

re the discussion on  designing subs for the tropics, we already know that the first major flaws were that the swedes also made assumptions about thermal conditions and got it fundamentally wrong - it was DSTO who had to fix the probs.  The americams discovered the same when they leased the Gotland. - and thats despite the fact that there was an assumption that the atlantic training was close to north china sea conditions.
 
for a number of reasons I'm out of this debate, but I don't subscribe to the fact that smaller subs are more effective for our needs.  the issue of size gets down to onboard power requirements for sensor and combat suites - less about range, be it ferry or tactical

I have been involved with 209's- and modified 212's so am familiar with what 214's are claimed to be able to do. 

 
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain       5/22/2011 2:53:18 AM
certainly in the vignettes,  214 tactical range is not as close, absolute range however also includes onboard food before replenishment and the collins were always designed to fight and stay with nukes - their duty cycles are close to nukes, 214's are nowhere near it.
 
re the discussion on  designing subs for the tropics, we already know that the first major flaws were that the swedes also made assumptions about thermal conditions and got it fundamentally wrong - it was DSTO who had to fix the probs.  The americams discovered the same when they leased the Gotland. - and thats despite the fact that there was an assumption that the atlantic training was close to north china sea conditions.
 
 for a number of reasons I'm out of this debate, but I don't subscribe to the fact that smaller subs are more effective for our needs. the issue of size gets down to onboard power requirements for sensor and combat suites - less about range, be it ferry or tactical
 
I have been involved with 209's- and modified 212's so am familiar with what 214's are claimed to be able to do. 

Sticking a plug in it to put in a bigger larder and another generator sounds a lot easier to me than designing an entirely new sub. They extended the 209's on enough occasions to showthat it can be done. As for the tropical operations stuff, we now know about that so could contribute to ensure that it is addressed while being built. Again, easier than building an entirely new sub.
 
In any case, the other  issue for me is that there are heaps of other things that we can do with the extra $31 million, either in defence, somewhere else or left in taxpayers pockets. To put that in context, that is almost double the entire JSF buy. AFAIC the capabilty advantages that the "big sub" proponents claim just isn't worth the expense



 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain       5/22/2011 4:30:19 AM

certainly in the vignettes,  214 tactical range is not as close, absolute range however also includes onboard food before replenishment and the collins were always designed to fight and stay with nukes - their duty cycles are close to nukes, 214's are nowhere near it.

 

re the discussion on  designing subs for the tropics, we already know that the first major flaws were that the swedes also made assumptions about thermal conditions and got it fundamentally wrong - it was DSTO who had to fix the probs.  The americams discovered the same when they leased the Gotland. - and thats despite the fact that there was an assumption that the atlantic training was close to north china sea conditions.
 


 for a number of reasons I'm out of this debate, but I don't subscribe to the fact that smaller subs are more effective for our needs. the issue of size gets down to onboard power requirements for sensor and combat suites - less about range, be it ferry or tactical

 

I have been involved with 209's- and modified 212's so am familiar with what 214's are claimed to be able to do. 




Sticking a plug in it to put in a bigger larder and another generator sounds a lot easier to me than designing an entirely new sub. They extended the 209's on enough occasions to showthat it can be done. As for the tropical operations stuff, we now know about that so could contribute to ensure that it is addressed while being built. Again, easier than building an entirely new sub.

 

In any case, the other  issue for me is that there are heaps of other things that we can do with the extra $31 million billion, either in defence, somewhere else or left in taxpayers pockets. To put that in context, that is almost double the entire JSF buy. AFAIC the capabilty advantages that the "big sub" proponents claim just isn't worth the expense



 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       5/22/2011 6:20:38 PM
12 subs confirmed today
 
no 4th AWD
 
Quote    Reply
1 2 3   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics