SEVENTY-TWO years after Japanese submarines attacked Sydney Harbour, the next generation of Australian submariners will be put to sea in boats made in Japan. 
 
In one of the biggest and most contentious defence equipment decisions in decades, the Abbott Government will select the Japanese-built Soryu Class submarine to replace locally built Collins Class boats as the navy’s key strike weapon beyond 2030.

A decision to spend more than $20 billion on up to 10 of the Japanese vessels will be announced before the end of the year.

That is six months ahead of the release date for the Abbott Government’s first Defence White Paper.

The decision is being fast-tracked due to growing concerns about the massive cost of maintaining the Collins boats beyond their use-by-date of 2026. Some estimates put that cost at more than $2 billion.

“The Government cannot afford a submarine capability gap and every day past 2026/27 when Collins class is due to begin decommissioning, adds days of risk,’’ a senior defence source said.

The 4200-tonne Soryu Class boat carries a crew of 65 and is powered by an air-independent propulsion system that allows it to remain submerged for much longer periods that other conventionally powered submarines.

Range has been a major factor against the design — the Soryu has a range of about 11,000 km at 12 km/hr compared with 22,000 km at 19 km/hr for the Collins Class - but it is understood that one option under consideration is to provide submarine basing facilities in Northern Australia (Darwin) to cut the transit distances to the boats’ patrol areas by thousands of kms.

The purchase price for the Japanese built boats would be about half the price of an Australian option.

German builder TKMS told a conference earlier this year that it could build 12 submarines for $20 billion.

Both German and French submarines remain in the running, but senior sources told News Corp Australia that the Japanese option was clear favourite.

The decision will anger government owned South Australian shipbuilder ASC and the SA Government and it finally breaks the government’s election promise to “build 12 submarines in Adelaide”.

“It is ludicrous to think we can design a submarine — nobody believes that,” one insider said.

Given that the Collins fleet will not reach its availability benchmark (the amount of time a vessel is available for service) until 2016 (20 years after entering service) the government does not want to risk a submarine capability gap.

ASC will remain the centre of submarine sustainability and will play a key role in the future frigate project with work estimated at $1 billion a year flowing to South Australia by 2023.

However the yard’s woeful performance on the Air Warfare Destroyer (AWD) project ($600 million over budget and three years late) has left the government with little option but to look elsewhere for a new submarine.

“With a record like that is anyone seriously thinking we should proceed and build a fleet of future submarines in the same shipyard?” a government source said.

News Corp can also reveal that when the Commonwealth signed up to the AWD contract, it was informed by Treasury that it would incur a premium of $1 billion.

According to government auditors the premium for local production is about 30 per cent or $15 billion for a locally built submarine. That is the entire cost of the Joint Strike Fighter project.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/new-japanese-submarines-to-cost-abbott-government-20-billion/story-fni0xqrc-1227050682205

Why would we go with an Australian builder when (a) it is going to cost significantly more than an overseas product and (b) the ASC can't even deliver the AWD on budget and on-time, given that a submarine is a far more complex and difficult build than a warship? You'd have to have rocks in your head to build here just for the sake of jobs.

Labor left our defence wanting for five months!

AUSTRALIA’S national defence was left dangerously exposed for five months between October 2009 and February 2010 when not a single Collins Class submarine was able to be put to sea. 
 
Defence Minister David Johnston revealed the serious lapse in national security under the Labor Government at a submarine conference in Canberra today.

“We were in a very dire and a very dark place,’’ Senator Johnston said.

Submarines are the government’s most important tactical and strategic military assets and the minister assured his audience of submariners, bureaucrats and industry types that such a capability gap would never be allowed under his watch.

He also revealed that by December 2012 the fleet had recovered to 60 per cent availability and that it was now running at 90 per cent.

Senator Johnston reiterated the government’s preference for constructing the new generation submarines in Adelaide, but not at any cost.

“We have also committed to ensure that work in Australia on the replacement of the current submarine fleet will be centred around the South Australian shipyards. As a Government we want to give Australian industry every chance of success,’’ he said.

“Industry must demonstrate an ongoing capacity to meet international benchmarks with respect to productivity, cost and schedule.’’

The minister also dismissed the previous government’s figure of 12 boats to replace the six Collins Class vessels.

”It may well be that we have more than 12 submarines,’’ Senator Johnston said.

“What I am looking at is ... a long-term commitment out 20-30 years where we learn the lessons of submarine construction. Don’t think about numbers, think about a long-term enterprise.’’

He did not rule out the option of possibly buying submarines or submarine technology, such as air independent propulsion systems, from Japan which is the only country building the type of boat required by the Royal Australian Navy.

The 4200-tonne Japanese Soryu Class vessels are the most capable diesel/electric vessels in the world.

Discussions with the Japanese are well advanced, but Senator Johnston refused to elaborate saying they were “commercial in confidence’’.

Even if a decision is taken by mid-2015 a new class of submarine would be more than 15 years beyond that.

To that end the government will extend the life of the Collins fleet by an extra six years.

Senator Johnston said the government’s new Defence White Paper due next April would be about “money, funding and credibility’’ and would include a detailed timeline for the new submarines.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/collins-class-submarines-put-australian-defence-in-dark-place-after-unable-to-deploy-for-five-months/story-fni0xqrc-1226878865577

Compromise in security by even considering boats from the country with the world's most sophisticated ASW systems - a legacy of the destruction of their fleet in 1941-45 by the Silent Service US submarines.

What little 'trap-doors' will be installed in the design?

(Deep Under The Pacific):-

"Commander of HMAS Beerwah here - we are in a position to monitor Japanese fleet!"

"Japanese Sea Traffic Control here - please ping 1057 and assume a holding pattern."

It will be interestin  to see if the US of A will allow their fire control and weapons systems to be installed in these

Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 8^th, 2014 at 6:05am:

Why would we go with an Australian builder when (a) it is going to cost significantly more than an overseas product and (b) the ASC can't even deliver the AWD on budget and on-time, given that a submarine is a far more complex and difficult build than a warship? You'd have to have rocks in your head to build here just for the sake of jobs.

I tend to agree, better to get some cheap subs now, and spend the difference on technology development.

Yup, better to buy Jap subs, see more unionised manufacturing jobs go. Soon—no more unions!

Why is the range so poor?


Research answered my own question. Thats the AIP range. Not the overall range.

St George of the Garden wrote on Sep 8^th, 2014 at 8:27am:

Yup, better to buy Jap subs, see more unionised manufacturing jobs go. Soon—no more unions!

“It is ludicrous to think we can design a submarine — nobody believes that,” one insider said. - from the OP.

Even if they could design it, union labour would ensure that it would be late and waaaaaayyyy over cost...

The Heartless Felon wrote on Sep 8^th, 2014 at 8:37am:

St George of the Garden wrote on Sep 8th, 2014 at 8:27am: Yup, better to buy Jap subs, see more unionised manufacturing jobs go. Soon—no more unions! “It is ludicrous to think we can design a submarine — nobody believes that,” one insider said. - from the OP. Even if they could design it, union labour would ensure that it would be late and waaaaaayyyy over cost...

Design is half the problem. The other half is building them and the Collins subs have been plagued by poor welds, as has happened on the AWD. Seems the Aussie ship builders aren't learning from past mistakes at all!

Vic wrote on Sep 8^th, 2014 at 8:23am:

It will be interestin  to see if the US of A will allow their fire control and weapons systems to be installed in these

If we installed that then why not? The Japs won't be using our subs if they build them, we will be using them.

My wife's uncle was an instructor on the Collins and he said while they have been unreliable and suffered problems, they're one of the deadliest and quietest subs in the world on a good day. They're much quieter than the American or British nuclear subs. However, those good days are few and far between, he said.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 8^th, 2014 at 9:13am:

Vic wrote on Sep 8th, 2014 at 8:23am: It will be interestin  to see if the US of A will allow their fire control and weapons systems to be installed in these If we installed that then why not? The Japs won't be using our subs if they build them, we will be using them.

The americans are very tight about giving their technology away.  It took a lot of negoitation and rigour to get the AEGIS on the Spanish design AWD.    Same as the Fire Control and Torpedo on the Collins, they are very protective of their IP

Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 8^th, 2014 at 9:15am:

My wife's uncle was an instructor on the Collins and he said while they have been unreliable and suffered problems, they're one of the deadliest and quietest subs in the world on a good day. They're much quieter than the American or British nuclear subs. However, those good days are few and far between, he said.

I probably know him then.  I was involved in sea trials on Collins in the 90s, and also worked for some time at the Sub School at Garden Island.

Vic wrote on Sep 8^th, 2014 at 9:45am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 8th, 2014 at 9:15am: My wife's uncle was an instructor on the Collins and he said while they have been unreliable and suffered problems, they're one of the deadliest and quietest subs in the world on a good day. They're much quieter than the American or British nuclear subs. However, those good days are few and far between, he said. I probably know him then.  I was involved in sea trials on Collins in the 90s, and also worked for some time at the Sub School at Garden Island.

His name is Matt. Was based in WA. That help?

Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 8^th, 2014 at 11:06am:

Vic wrote on Sep 8th, 2014 at 9:45am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 8th, 2014 at 9:15am: My wife's uncle was an instructor on the Collins and he said while they have been unreliable and suffered problems, they're one of the deadliest and quietest subs in the world on a good day. They're much quieter than the American or British nuclear subs. However, those good days are few and far between, he said. I probably know him then.  I was involved in sea trials on Collins in the 90s, and also worked for some time at the Sub School at Garden Island. His name is Matt. Was based in WA. That help?

Unfortunately no!   There were quite a few Matts around.  Did he work for Defence or SMA?

Vic wrote on Sep 8^th, 2014 at 12:57pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 8th, 2014 at 11:06am: Vic wrote on Sep 8th, 2014 at 9:45am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 8th, 2014 at 9:15am: My wife's uncle was an instructor on the Collins and he said while they have been unreliable and suffered problems, they're one of the deadliest and quietest subs in the world on a good day. They're much quieter than the American or British nuclear subs. However, those good days are few and far between, he said. I probably know him then.  I was involved in sea trials on Collins in the 90s, and also worked for some time at the Sub School at Garden Island. His name is Matt. Was based in WA. That help? Unfortunately no!   There were quite a few Matts around.  Did he work for Defence or SMA?

Not sure. I've only met him once. I have a feeling it may have been BAE, but I may be wrong.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 8^th, 2014 at 9:12am:

The Heartless Felon wrote on Sep 8th, 2014 at 8:37am: St George of the Garden wrote on Sep 8th, 2014 at 8:27am: Yup, better to buy Jap subs, see more unionised manufacturing jobs go. Soon—no more unions! “It is ludicrous to think we can design a submarine — nobody believes that,” one insider said. - from the OP. Even if they could design it, union labour would ensure that it would be late and waaaaaayyyy over cost... Design is half the problem. The other half is building them and the Collins subs have been plagued by poor welds, as has happened on the AWD. Seems the Aussie ship builders aren't learning from past mistakes at all!

Could that be from lack of practice?

Vic wrote on Sep 8^th, 2014 at 9:44am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 8th, 2014 at 9:13am: Vic wrote on Sep 8th, 2014 at 8:23am: It will be interestin  to see if the US of A will allow their fire control and weapons systems to be installed in these If we installed that then why not? The Japs won't be using our subs if they build them, we will be using them. The americans are very tight about giving their technology away.  It took a lot of negoitation and rigour to get the AEGIS on the Spanish design AWD.    Same as the Fire Control and Torpedo on the Collins, they are very protective of their IP

Usually they offer the second string stuff first - you need to get right in their pockets to get the good oil.

Export F-16s do not possess the US fire control and management systems and are inferior in air-to-air against US F-16s.

You can't expect them to give away everything..... ya gotta retain an edge....

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Sep 8^th, 2014 at 2:05pm:

Vic wrote on Sep 8th, 2014 at 9:44am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 8th, 2014 at 9:13am: Vic wrote on Sep 8th, 2014 at 8:23am: It will be interestin  to see if the US of A will allow their fire control and weapons systems to be installed in these If we installed that then why not? The Japs won't be using our subs if they build them, we will be using them. The americans are very tight about giving their technology away.  It took a lot of negoitation and rigour to get the AEGIS on the Spanish design AWD.    Same as the Fire Control and Torpedo on the Collins, they are very protective of their IP Usually they offer the second string stuff first - you need to get right in their pockets to get the good oil. Export F-16s do not possess the US fire control and management systems and are inferior in air-to-air against US F-16s. You can't expect them to give away everything..... ya gotta retain an edge....

Hence why we had no chance of getting F-22s

A govt with balls (i.e. not an Abbott led one) would start negotiating to buy the Russian planes. Bet the yanks would be willing to sell us the raptors then!

Range has been a major factor against the design — the Soryu has a range of about 11,000 km at 12 km/hr compared with 22,000 km at 19 km/hr for the Collins Class

That is why as far back as I think 1954 – there has been nuclear powered subs.

All our new subs should be nuclear powered.

Yep......just another case of abbotts election lies and deception

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Sep 8^th, 2014 at 2:11pm:

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Sep 8th, 2014 at 2:05pm: Vic wrote on Sep 8th, 2014 at 9:44am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 8th, 2014 at 9:13am: Vic wrote on Sep 8th, 2014 at 8:23am: It will be interestin  to see if the US of A will allow their fire control and weapons systems to be installed in these If we installed that then why not? The Japs won't be using our subs if they build them, we will be using them. The americans are very tight about giving their technology away.  It took a lot of negoitation and rigour to get the AEGIS on the Spanish design AWD.    Same as the Fire Control and Torpedo on the Collins, they are very protective of their IP Usually they offer the second string stuff first - you need to get right in their pockets to get the good oil. Export F-16s do not possess the US fire control and management systems and are inferior in air-to-air against US F-16s. You can't expect them to give away everything..... ya gotta retain an edge.... Hence why we had no chance of getting F-22s

Yup... way back in the F/A-18 days, Oz could have purchased the same number of F-16's AND A-10s* for ground support/tactical air.

Not a single A-10 was exported... I said at the time Oz would take the 18 since it had two engines, and despite its prodigious fuel consumption and thus reduced payload.

Oh, well - goo to know our betters don't seriously think we'll be dusting it up with anyone for real in the foreseeable future....

* the A-10 tasked with low level tank-busting found it difficult in Desert Storm I and copped a lot of damage, and was subsequently limited to above 12,000 feet.. same as Europe in WWII..... never fly below 12,000 feet over occupied territory...

Of course, the Russian bought anti-air guns were simply modifications on WWII tech, with some bells and whistles.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 8^th, 2014 at 9:15am:

My wife's uncle was an instructor on the Collins and he said while they have been unreliable and suffered problems, they're one of the deadliest and quietest subs in the world on a good day. They're much quieter than the American or British nuclear subs. However, those good days are few and far between, he said.

Really?

I thought one of the bad things from day 1 was the noisy diesel powered Collins?

King FriYAY II wrote on Sep 8^th, 2014 at 3:27pm:

Range has been a major factor against the design — the Soryu has a range of about 11,000 km at 12 km/hr compared with 22,000 km at 19 km/hr for the Collins Class That is why as far back as I think 1954 – there has been nuclear powered subs. All our new subs should be nuclear powered.

Hmm - yes.. the pumps etc in the cooling systems are comparatively noisy, compared to electric.... do we want attack subs or boomers armed with missiles?  Depends on your defensive posture.....

Notwithstanding, I am wary of submarines designed by an potential future foe... don't laugh... it's a scenario that Japan will again be a foe in the Pacific in the ongoing saga of The Second Hundred Year's War, same as India.... you may think that odd... there are many factors involved.

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Sep 8^th, 2014 at 3:28pm:

Yup... way back in the F/A-18 days, Oz could have purchased the same number of F-16's AND A-10s* for ground support/tactical air. Not a single A-10 was exported... I said at the time Oz would take the 18 since it had two engines, and despite its prodigious fuel consumption and thus reduced payload. Oh, well - goo to know our betters don't seriously think we'll be dusting it up with anyone for real in the foreseeable future.... * the A-10 tasked with low level tank-busting found it difficult in Desert Storm I and copped a lot of damage, and was subsequently limited to above 12,000 feet.. same as Europe in WWII..... never fly below 12,000 feet over occupied territory... Of course, the Russian bought anti-air guns were simply modifications on WWII tech, with some bells and whistles.

The reason they like 2 engines instead on one, is a history with the Mirages flaming out on a regular basis, kinda makes the drivers nervous. They have become a lot more reliable these and hence the move away from double burners.

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Sep 8^th, 2014 at 3:33pm:

King FriYAY II wrote on Sep 8th, 2014 at 3:27pm: Range has been a major factor against the design — the Soryu has a range of about 11,000 km at 12 km/hr compared with 22,000 km at 19 km/hr for the Collins Class That is why as far back as I think 1954 – there has been nuclear powered subs. All our new subs should be nuclear powered. Hmm - yes.. the pumps etc in the cooling systems are comparatively noisy, compared to electric.... do we want attack subs or boomers armed with missiles?  Depends on your defensive posture..... Notwithstanding, I am wary of submarines designed by an potential future foe... don't laugh... it's a scenario that Japan will again be a foe in the Pacific in the ongoing saga of The Second Hundred Year's War, same as India.... you may think that odd... there are many factors involved.

Collins class are electric! I Thought they were diesel... :-/

100% waste of money. Another good reason to stop paying taxes.

gone wrote on Sep 8^th, 2014 at 5:08pm:

100% waste of money. Another good reason to stop paying taxes.

Protecting the sovereignty of ones country is 100% waste of money, good one  ;D ;D ;D ;D

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Sep 8^th, 2014 at 2:11pm:

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Sep 8th, 2014 at 2:05pm: Vic wrote on Sep 8th, 2014 at 9:44am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 8th, 2014 at 9:13am: Vic wrote on Sep 8th, 2014 at 8:23am: It will be interestin  to see if the US of A will allow their fire control and weapons systems to be installed in these If we installed that then why not? The Japs won't be using our subs if they build them, we will be using them. The americans are very tight about giving their technology away.  It took a lot of negoitation and rigour to get the AEGIS on the Spanish design AWD.    Same as the Fire Control and Torpedo on the Collins, they are very protective of their IP Usually they offer the second string stuff first - you need to get right in their pockets to get the good oil. Export F-16s do not possess the US fire control and management systems and are inferior in air-to-air against US F-16s. You can't expect them to give away everything..... ya gotta retain an edge.... Hence why we had no chance of getting F-22s

They've refused to export those to ANYONE, not just us.

St George of the Garden wrote on Sep 8^th, 2014 at 3:20pm:

A govt with balls (i.e. not an Abbott led one) would start negotiating to buy the Russian planes. Bet the yanks would be willing to sell us the raptors then!

What you meant to say was: "A govt with rocks in its head (i.e. not an Abbott led one) would start negotiating to buy the Russian planes. Bet the yanks would be willing to sell us the raptors then. NOT!"

The F22 is a piece of crap , as is the F35, the sukhoi and F35 went head to head in simulated war games in 2012 and the F35 lost 2/3rds of the entire fleet in less than 6 hours to the sukhoi,, worst taxpayer purchase ever, not just Abbott but Rudds commitment to the piece of crap. Oh the Americans actually now own 4 sukhois.

BigOl64 wrote on Sep 8^th, 2014 at 6:23pm:

gone wrote on Sep 8th, 2014 at 5:08pm: 100% waste of money. Another good reason to stop paying taxes. Protecting the sovereignty of ones country is 100% waste of money, good one  ;D ;D ;D ;D

Australia, a sovereign country?  ;D ;D ;D You must be living in gaga-land. 

Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 8^th, 2014 at 7:21pm:

St George of the Garden wrote on Sep 8th, 2014 at 3:20pm: A govt with balls (i.e. not an Abbott led one) would start negotiating to buy the Russian planes. Bet the yanks would be willing to sell us the raptors then! What you meant to say was: "A govt with rocks in its head (i.e. not an Abbott led one) would start negotiating to buy the Russian planes. Bet the yanks would be willing to sell us the raptors then. NOT!"

So you didn’t get my point, no problem.

However, we do currently have a govt with rocks in its head, so maybe they will try?  ;D

Wasn't it howard who left a whole in our defences when he allowed the Perth class destroyers to be decommissioned without replacements?

King FriYAY II wrote on Sep 8^th, 2014 at 4:51pm:

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Sep 8th, 2014 at 3:33pm: King FriYAY II wrote on Sep 8th, 2014 at 3:27pm: Range has been a major factor against the design — the Soryu has a range of about 11,000 km at 12 km/hr compared with 22,000 km at 19 km/hr for the Collins Class That is why as far back as I think 1954 – there has been nuclear powered subs. All our new subs should be nuclear powered. Hmm - yes.. the pumps etc in the cooling systems are comparatively noisy, compared to electric.... do we want attack subs or boomers armed with missiles?  Depends on your defensive posture..... Notwithstanding, I am wary of submarines designed by an potential future foe... don't laugh... it's a scenario that Japan will again be a foe in the Pacific in the ongoing saga of The Second Hundred Year's War, same as India.... you may think that odd... there are many factors involved. Collins class are electric! I Thought they were diesel... :-/

They are both.  Underwater, the boat runs on batteries that are rated at 8000A/H (I believe they have been upgraded).  Whilst underwater, the boat can raise a snort induction mast to allow air into the engine room, and run the diesels whilst underwater to charge the batteries.  This can have an interesting effect on your eardrums if for some reason the boat dives and the boat becomes a vacuum!  On the surface, the diesels run and either charge the battery and provide power to propulsion, or the battery "floats" across the busbars (neither charging nor discharging) and the diesel power goes directly to propulsion.

King FriYAY II wrote on Sep 8^th, 2014 at 3:29pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 8th, 2014 at 9:15am: My wife's uncle was an instructor on the Collins and he said while they have been unreliable and suffered problems, they're one of the deadliest and quietest subs in the world on a good day. They're much quieter than the American or British nuclear subs. However, those good days are few and far between, he said. Really? I thought one of the bad things from day 1 was the noisy diesel powered Collins?

You cannot operate Diesel engines when submerged. The diesels are turned on when surfaced or when "snorkelling", with a mast sticking up out of the ocean above the submerged sub to let out exhaust gases. Otherwise, the diesels are used to charge a bunch of big batteries that are used to power the sub when submerged. This is the advantage of nuclear subs over diesels - nuclear subs don't need to recharge the batteries but diesels do. However, diesels are much quieter when submerged because they don't have high pressure pipes full of water cooling the reactor & that's what makes a nuclear sub a bit noisier than a diesel sub. Our diesels will detect a nuclear sub before the nuclear sub can detect us nine times out of ten because of this. I hope this makes sense. :)

Taipan wrote on Sep 8^th, 2014 at 11:18pm:

Wasn't it howard who left a whole in our defences when he allowed the Perth class destroyers to be decommissioned without replacements?

No, they were well and truly obsolete and couldn't have done much good.

gone wrote on Sep 8^th, 2014 at 9:13pm:

BigOl64 wrote on Sep 8th, 2014 at 6:23pm: gone wrote on Sep 8th, 2014 at 5:08pm: 100% waste of money. Another good reason to stop paying taxes. Protecting the sovereignty of ones country is 100% waste of money, good one  ;D ;D ;D ;D Australia, a sovereign country?  ;D ;D ;D You must be living in gaga-land.

Please do not reply, it makes everyone a little more stupid for having read your comment. Now off to the kiddies table with you, the adults want to talk

Its time wrote on Sep 8^th, 2014 at 9:13pm:

The F22 is a piece of crap , as is the F35, the sukhoi and F35 went head to head in simulated war games in 2012 and the F35 lost 2/3rds of the entire fleet in less than 6 hours to the sukhoi,, worst taxpayer purchase ever, not just Abbott but Rudds commitment to the piece of crap. Oh the Americans actually now own 4 sukhois.

You didn't actually read the report, did you, yeah neither di the 4 corners reporter, well they didn't fully disclose the report, they are pretty clueless on these matters. 

But to help you understand a paper exersice and how usless it may be, here is a couple of things to consider.

Maintainablity and aircraft availability (no point having the best aicraft if you can't keep them in the air)

Force multiplication of supporting assets (who can you see and can they see you, can they gather more information than you and how do they use it to their advantage)

Tactics and training ( Who has the best pilots and tactics)


None of these are ever considered by the retard or 4 corners.


BTW, the report identified force projection capability as the main issue not the aircraft capability, not that it matters to you or the cretins at the abc.

End uncertainty over subs, says business, unions

Date
    September 9, 2014


  

Prime Minister Tony Abbott has indicated the government may break a pre-election promise to build 12 submarines in Adelaide instead sending the work to Japan.


Business is calling on the federal government to end the uncertainty over where Australia's next fleet of submarines will be built and declare a decision "as soon as possible".

It comes as the government sends out more signals that it is prepared to break its election promise to build 12 new submarines in Adelaide and potentially buy new vessels from Japan.      :(

Australian Industry Group chief executive Innes Willox said local supply chain companies had made investment decisions on expectations the submarines would be built in Adelaide and needed clarity.

"Companies have acted in good faith here and there's been a long held belief and signals from governments of both sides that submarines would be built in Australia," he told ABC Radio on Tuesday.

"Industry would be looking for guidance as soon as possible."

Australian Manufacturing Workers Union national president Paul Bastian said on Tuesday that building the submarines in Japan would cause a ripple effect for industry.

"I think there will be thousands of jobs in the ship building sector that will be put at risk," he told ABC Radio.      :(

On Monday, Prime Minister Tony Abbott have his clearest indication yet that the submarines would not be built in Adelaide, telling reporters in Canberra that value for taxpayers must outweigh job creation, angering the South Australian government.

Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane said on Tuesday that while no decision had yet been made he confirmed the government would prioritise "value for money".

He said a decision would be made on the advice of the Defence Department and when Defence Minister David Johnston brought the issue to the National Security Committee.

"We haven't made a decision yet on where the submarines will be built," he todl ABC radio and said he would not engage in speculation when asked if the new conditions were paving the way for another broken promise from the government.

"We're going to look at the options, you're assuming South Australia won't get the contract, I'm not assuming that," he said.

But Labor leader Bill Shorten said: "Tony Abbott and David Johnston have looked South Australians in the eye and lied to their faces."      :(

Mr Shorten will visit ASC (formerly known as the Australian Submarine Corporation) in Adelaide on Tuesday.

He has warned that buying submarines from overseas will "devastate South Australia and could irresponsibly put our national security at risk as a maritime nation".

South Australian Premier Jay Wetherill said any decision outsource the building of the submarines would hit Victoria and Western Australia.

Independent South Australian Senator Nick Xenophon on Tuesday slammed the possible move as sending taxpayer funds to create jobs overseas.      :(

"This would have a national impact on our skills and our ability to manufacture," he told ABC local radio in Melbourne.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/end-uncertainty-over-subs-says-business-unions-20140909-10e6xb.html#ixzz3Cliv66D3

Vic wrote on Sep 9^th, 2014 at 6:18am:

King FriYAY II wrote on Sep 8th, 2014 at 4:51pm: Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Sep 8th, 2014 at 3:33pm: King FriYAY II wrote on Sep 8th, 2014 at 3:27pm: Range has been a major factor against the design — the Soryu has a range of about 11,000 km at 12 km/hr compared with 22,000 km at 19 km/hr for the Collins Class That is why as far back as I think 1954 – there has been nuclear powered subs. All our new subs should be nuclear powered. Hmm - yes.. the pumps etc in the cooling systems are comparatively noisy, compared to electric.... do we want attack subs or boomers armed with missiles?  Depends on your defensive posture..... Notwithstanding, I am wary of submarines designed by an potential future foe... don't laugh... it's a scenario that Japan will again be a foe in the Pacific in the ongoing saga of The Second Hundred Year's War, same as India.... you may think that odd... there are many factors involved. Collins class are electric! I Thought they were diesel... :-/ They are both.  Underwater, the boat runs on batteries that are rated at 8000A/H (I believe they have been upgraded).  Whilst underwater, the boat can raise a snort induction mast to allow air into the engine room, and run the diesels whilst underwater to charge the batteries.  This can have an interesting effect on your eardrums if for some reason the boat dives and the boat becomes a vacuum!  On the surface, the diesels run and either charge the battery and provide power to propulsion, or the battery "floats" across the busbars (neither charging nor discharging) and the diesel power goes directly to propulsion.

Ah ha, thanks

Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 9^th, 2014 at 6:37am:

King FriYAY II wrote on Sep 8th, 2014 at 3:29pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 8th, 2014 at 9:15am: My wife's uncle was an instructor on the Collins and he said while they have been unreliable and suffered problems, they're one of the deadliest and quietest subs in the world on a good day. They're much quieter than the American or British nuclear subs. However, those good days are few and far between, he said. Really? I thought one of the bad things from day 1 was the noisy diesel powered Collins? You cannot operate Diesel engines when submerged. The diesels are turned on when surfaced or when "snorkelling", with a mast sticking up out of the ocean above the submerged sub to let out exhaust gases. Otherwise, the diesels are used to charge a bunch of big batteries that are used to power the sub when submerged. This is the advantage of nuclear subs over diesels - nuclear subs don't need to recharge the batteries but diesels do. However, diesels are much quieter when submerged because they don't have high pressure pipes full of water cooling the reactor & that's what makes a nuclear sub a bit noisier than a diesel sub. Our diesels will detect a nuclear sub before the nuclear sub can detect us nine times out of ten because of this. I hope this makes sense. :)

Cool, cheers..

Well - you can - but they'll suck all the air out in no time flat.. but only using the oxygen in it..... (gasps)