Australia to get nuclear-powered submarines, will scrap $90b program to build French-designed subs

[dcsports]

Why wouldn't they use diesel electric submarines to do the same job at a fraction of the cost of nuclear submarines?

A diesel submarine should cost less to build and operate than a diesel one - but "a fraction of the cost" is overselling it. These diesel subs were going to cost almost three times what a current US nuclear sub does.

The issue is that they can't do the same job. A diesel sub can be adequite for coastal defense.

 

[dcsports]

They have much better nuclear subs in their own Navy but they were not offered.


https://newatlas.com/france-nuclear-attack-submarine-launch/60593/

Again, this is the sub we're talking about. The sub type offered to sale to Australia. France has ONE of them so far, after 13 years of production, and it's barely entered service.

 

[dcsports]

This could change in the future IF they perfect the new Glass Lithium battery
as In cars they are trying out now
these batteries can go something like 1500 miles instead of a hundred or 2 in cars
and can charge in a matter of min. for a car it is 10min.instead of 10 or 12 hours
This means if they get a battery large enough to power a sub they will be able to stay under water a real long time
Days instead of hours and when they need to run their eng. it will be for only min.not hours
and Diesels can be super quiet when on Batteries
It is some thing to look out for
and China is doing a lot of research on this type of Batteries
Have a nice afternoon

That's not how it works. Better batteries might extend the range slightly, but it won't make a drastic change. They might be able to last longer on station, but it doesn't help the transit issue. There is no way they'll be able to operate in potentially hostile waters,

 

[iguanaman]

Again, this is the sub we're talking about. The sub type offered to sale to Australia. France has ONE of them so far, after 13 years of production, and it's barely entered service.

The sub in the picture is nuclear powered with a silent jet pump propulsion system. That is not what Australia was offered.

Another innovation is that the Barracuda class is much more stealthy than its predecessor with its propeller pump instead of a conventional screw, improved general acoustics, and increased maximum silent speed. It also boasts improved maneuverability, optronic periscope masts that don't penetrate the hull and are equipped with high-definition daytime cameras, infrared and light intensification instead of a string of prisms and lenses. A high level of automation also allows the boat to be controlled from only two work stations, if necessary.

https://observer.com/2019/09/barracuda-class-suffren-submarine-worlds-best/

 

[Questerr]

A diesel submarine should cost less to build and operate than a diesel one - but "a fraction of the cost" is overselling it. These diesel subs were going to cost almost three times what a current US nuclear sub does.

The issue is that they can't do the same job. A diesel sub can be adequite for coastal defense.

I wasn’t talking about Australia. Australia has a need for nuclear subs.

I was addressing people saying that South Korea and Japan should get in on a program to build nuclear subs too, which is absurd.

 

[dcsports]

The sub in the picture is nuclear powered with a silent jet pump propulsion system. That is not what Australia was offered.

Another innovation is that the Barracuda class is much more stealthy than its predecessor with its propeller pump instead of a conventional screw, improved general acoustics, and increased maximum silent speed. It also boasts improved maneuverability, optronic periscope masts that don't penetrate the hull and are equipped with high-definition daytime cameras, infrared and light intensification instead of a string of prisms and lenses. A high level of automation also allows the boat to be controlled from only two work stations, if necessary.

https://observer.com/2019/09/barracuda-class-suffren-submarine-worlds-best/

Yes. The Barracuda class submarine IS what Australia was offered. They were a 'partner' in the class (apparently meaning they pay for much of the development cost). The Australians were being sold an electric-diesel version of the same submarine. The selling point was that the Barracuda can be built with either form of power, and the diesel electric allows for later conversion to nuclear.

 

[dcsports]

I wasn’t talking about Australia. Australia has a need for nuclear subs.

I was addressing people saying that South Korea and Japan should get in on a program to build nuclear subs too, which is absurd.

That wasn't clear.

South Korea, sure. They can't even defend themselves. Diesel-electric makes a lot of sense for them.

Japan is different - they are much more capable, and have a developed nuclear energy program, They also cover a lot more territory and have a vested interest in keeping an eye on China. They would be a great country to partner with on submarines.

 

[Questerr]

That wasn't clear.

South Korea, sure. They can't even defend themselves. Diesel-electric makes a lot of sense for them.

Japan is different - they are much more capable, and have a developed nuclear energy program, They also cover a lot more territory and have a vested interest in keeping an eye on China. They would be a great country to partner with on submarines.

There is no conceivable combat area where the Japanese MSDF would be operating their submarines in that warrants nuclear power. Any conceivable naval combat zone with China, North Korea, or even Russia will be within 1,000 miles of the home islands.

They can easily protect their territory from threats with conventional subs.

 

[dcsports]

There is no conceivable combat area where the Japanese MSDF would be operating their submarines in that warrants nuclear power. Any conceivable naval combat zone with China, North Korea, or even Russia will be within 1,000 miles of the home islands.

They can easily protect their territory from threats with conventional subs.

There is a much bigger difference between the types of submarines than you think, as well as the threats posed by China. Japan covers a huge area. We're also talking about using them as a partner to help monitor and deter aggression from China. How would they be different in that than Australia?

 

[Questerr]

There is a much bigger difference between the types of submarines than you think, as well as the threats posed by China. Japan covers a huge area. We're also talking about using them as a partner to help monitor and deter aggression from China. How would they be different in that than Australia?

The distance from Australia to China: 2,500 miles.

Distance from Japan to China: 350 miles.

I don’t know, do you see a difference there?

 

[dcsports]

The distance from Australia to China: 2,500 miles.

Distance from Japan to China: 350 miles.

I don’t know, do you see a difference there?

Gaslighting doesn't help you make this point.

The distance to the coast doesn't make a difference - just as the fact that Russia is 40 miles from the US doesn't. It's not that one point we're talking about.

The main island of Japan is 1900 miles long. The country has 30,000 miles of coastline and something like 6000 islands. It's a big territory with a lot of water. The Chinese coastline is also very long. Much of the dispute with China, and their current aggression, involves islands spread across a large area of the western pacific - too large an area to be covered by a diesel-electric submarine.

 

[Tangmo]

That wasn't clear.

South Korea, sure. They can't even defend themselves. Diesel-electric makes a lot of sense for them.

Japan is different - they are much more capable, and have a developed nuclear energy program, They also cover a lot more territory and have a vested interest in keeping an eye on China. They would be a great country to partner with on submarines.

Indeed yet Canberra chose France over Japan to not piss off Beijing by choosing Japan.

Oz had been negotiating with both Japan and France for either the stealthy and lethal Soryu class of Japanese conventional sub or the nasty Barracuda of the French. Washington that had pulled for Japan was as disappointed as Tokyo was with the wobbly Oz decision to go with France.

So while CCP Boyz in Beijing had figured they had won a significant concession by Oz it's come back to bite 'em in the arse given the French were piling on the costs to Australia. Plus Oz found it was quickly becoming a Department of France as French everything started pouring into Oz from France constructing shipbuilding facilities to the new teaching of French in Adelaide schools.

Despite a bit of a storm come on from France this nuclear sub deal by Oz, UK, USA is an Anglophone Alliance of two countries that have the same Queen and the USA that's tight with each of 'em. Geostrategic types of the Asia-Pacific are saying Australia has become the new West Germany of the cold war era, ie, the Western democracy right there militarily border to border with the Big Bad Guy of the present time, China.

This is good news for the good guys. Bad news for the Bad Guys. Completely so than if Oz had kept digging the deepening hole of a deal with France that Canberra had made for the wrong reasons to begin with.

 

[Ikari]

France is pretty pissy about this, but likely because of the money they lost on the deal, nothing more. But with China stirring shit up, I think it was the right call to swap out the diesel subs for the nuclear powered ones. We're gonna have to be on the ready, China is clearly going to start being a bigger problem globally.

 

[Questerr]

Gaslighting doesn't help you make this point.

The distance to the coast doesn't make a difference - just as the fact that Russia is 40 miles from the US doesn't. It's not that one point we're talking about.

The main island of Japan is 1900 miles long. The country has 30,000 miles of coastline and something like 6000 islands. It's a big territory with a lot of water. The Chinese coastline is also very long. Much of the dispute with China, and their current aggression, involves islands spread across a large area of the western pacific - too large an area to be covered by a diesel-electric submarine.

You act like a single submarine would be expected to do that job by itself.

 

[Tangmo]

If we could get Canada, New Zealand, Japan, Taiwan, Philippines, Thailand, and Australia to field a viable sub fleet, (even small electric fleets) that would strengthen us and hold China in check. Even if each country had only a few electric subs, it would add up to a serious fleet. Same thing with air forces in Europe. Too many of our allies have allowed their militaries to atrophy to the point of being non-existant. It doesn't take each country to have a serious fleet of subs or aircraft, just enough field their combined might.

While Japan, SK and Australia want nuclear powered subs Oz was the obvious choice for US & UK.

SK doesn't need 'em and Japan is very strong in anti sub warfare in addition to having the Soryu class of stealthy and lethal attack subs.

Taiwan has begun its new sub construction program.

Philippines has a small military given its formal mutual defense treaty with USA and this is not going to change. Blinken was in Manila two months ago saying we've got your back and your front too. Japan has given for free two dozen coastal patrol boats to the Phils Coast Guard and Navy to show and monitor PLA Navy and Coast Guard, fishing boats of militia crews etc.

Thailand however has completed buying a bunch of Chinese subs despite being a formal mutual defense treaty ally of the U.S. who opposed the policy.

Good news comes from Vietnam where they're about to sign on formally as a Strategic Partner of the U.S. Hanoi recently received the 6th of six Russian Kilo class newly built subs that have the Klub missile that can reach into the southern half of China. The VN sub crews, officers, maintenance personnel etc are being trained in India.

U.S. formal defense treaty allies from India to Japan and Indonesia to include formal Strategic Partner nations have more than 1,200 naval ships total so I don't get too worked up about the PLA Navy & Air Force given they're severely overmatched in quality especially -- of commanders and crews, armaments, history and tradition.

While the Japan Maritime Self Defense Force is the best Navy in Asia so is the Japan Air Self Defense Force the best AF in Asia, along with the AF of SK, Taiwan, Singapore. Indeed, Singapore AF trains from bases in Taiwan for years given the air space of the city state is the size of a postage stamp and despite CCP Boyz in Beijing constantly hollering themselves red white and blue in the face against it.

 

[dcsports]

You act like a single submarine would be expected to do that job by itself.

No, quite the opposite. It's going to take quite a few. That's why I said it would be beneficial to have Japan involved, along with US/UK/AUS, in a submarine program to monitor China.

 

[Questerr]

No, quite the opposite. It's going to take quite a few. That's why I said it would be beneficial to have Japan involved, along with US/UK/AUS, in a submarine program to monitor China.

And with a bunch of diesel electric subs, along with surface ships and aircraft, Japan would be (and is) capable to defending its own waters.

 

[Tangmo]

France is pretty pissy about this, but likely because of the money they lost on the deal, nothing more. But with China stirring shit up, I think it was the right call to swap out the diesel subs for the nuclear powered ones. We're gonna have to be on the ready, China is clearly going to start being a bigger problem globally.

Macron is up for reelection this year and there are two guys hot on his heels in the polling.

A slew of French families and corporations are screwed out of contracts besides as the Macron government with the France MIC inflated the original $30bn deal massively to $90bn.

The French acted as if they thought a bunch of suckers from Australia were throwing a wild party for 'em. Which explains the wicked hangover in Paris.

 

[Tangmo]

No, quite the opposite. It's going to take quite a few. That's why I said it would be beneficial to have Japan involved, along with US/UK/AUS, in a submarine program to monitor China.

During the 00 decade and the rise of China a new analogy developed about Japan, the UK and the USA. And an accurate one it is.

That is, to the U.S. Japan has become in the Asia-Pacific what UK has been to the U.S. in the Trans Atlantic Alliance.

Japan is the formal U.S. defense treaty allied island nation in the Western Pacific that is strategically positioned off the continent of Asia. This is just as Britain is the formal U.S. defense treaty allied island nation in the North Atlantic to the Equator that is strategically positioned off the continent of Europe.
The South China Sea and the Malacca Strait resemble the Med and Suez feeling the pressure of the Nazi menace. Taiwan and Israel are not very dissimilar or unalike, ie, in an immediate hostile and threatening environment working hard each day to survive and to thrive.

Now with the Anglophone Alliance nuclear sub deal by Australia, UK, USA, the geostrategic types are likening Oz to the West Germany of the cold war era, ie, Oz being the militarily vital Western democracy that is border to border with the big bad guy who presently is China. West Germany became a heavily armed camp and it looks very much like Australia has been moving gradually and now radically toward having a military upgrade and expansion that is significant indeed. Japan just again increased its defense budget as UK itself has been doing.

The analogies work for me.

 

[dcsports]

And with a bunch of diesel electric subs, along with surface ships and aircraft, Japan would be (and is) capable to defending its own waters.

Again, they can do an OK job of that, but it's becoming more difficult with chinese aggression, especially given how far flung it's territories are.

They would be in a much better position to assist the US (and UK/AUS) in monitoring and deterring chinese aggression if they had more capable submarines. Again, I didn't say they needed them - but that they have the potential to be a good partner in this effort. Given their proximity to China, technological capability, and strong US ties, can you suggest another country in a better position to do so? Australia has been a great ally, and they are closer to China than the UK, but they are still a long way from China, and it's a big ocean.

 

[Questerr]

Again, they can do an OK job of that, but it's becoming more difficult with chinese aggression, especially given how far flung it's territories are.

They would be in a much better position to assist the US (and UK/AUS) in monitoring and deterring chinese aggression if they had more capable submarines. Again, I didn't say they needed them - but that they have the potential to be a good partner in this effort. Given their proximity to China, technological capability, and strong US ties, can you suggest another country in a better position to do so? Australia has been a great ally, and they are closer to China than the UK, but they are still a long way from China, and it's a big ocean.

Japan's territory isn't "far flung". They have a lot of coastline, but that's because they have a lot of small islands packed into a very small area.

 

[dcsports]

Japan's territory isn't "far flung". They have a lot of coastline, but that's because they have a lot of small islands packed into a very small area.

The main part of Japan is along an archipelago that's 1900 miles long, and they have 378K of territory on almost 7000 islands. For comparison, it's roughly the land area of California, which is 'only' 770 miles long. Including ocean, their economic exclusion zon covers 1.7 million square miles (8th largest in the world). So yes, it's pretty far flung.

 

[Questerr]

The main part of Japan is along an archipelago that's 1900 miles long, and they have 378K of territory on almost 7000 islands. For comparison, it's roughly the land area of California, which is 'only' 770 miles long. Including ocean, their economic exclusion zon covers 1.7 million square miles (8th largest in the world). So yes, it's pretty far flung.

Most of those islands are uninhabited rocks only a couple miles square in size. Sweden is 2,000 miles long. Does Sweden need nuclear subs?

 

[phoenix2020]

Most of those islands are uninhabited rocks only a couple miles square in size. Sweden is 2,000 miles long. Does Sweden need nuclear subs?

Why are we assuming that coastal defense is the only motivation? I read this as about projection of power into the South China Sea, not Australia or Japan needing some boats to guard their coasts.

 

[Questerr]

Why are we assuming that coastal defense is the only motivation? I read this as about projection of power into the South China Sea, not Australia or Japan needing some boats to guard their coasts.

Distance from Japan to the South China Sea: ~300 to 500 miles.

You don't need nuclear subs to operate at that range.