|
|
Post by Graham Palmer on Nov 6, 2012 19:00:49 GMT 9.5
The CIS has an interesting policy monograph arguing that Australia would be better to lease a fleet of US Virginia Class nuclear subs rather than locally building an updated diesel-electric Collins Class. cis.org.au/publications/policy-monographs/article/4589-future-submarine-project-should-raise-periscope-for-another-lookSome of the arguments overlap with debates over power reactors, and perhaps provide a test case for social/political/media willingness to meaningfully engage in a serious discussion of the cost/benefits of modern nuclear. A better option is to lease the US Navy’s Virginia Class nuclear powered submarine. It can cover greater distances, at greater speeds, and be deployed for longer than diesel powered submarines. It has better sensors and systems. It is a better submarine.
Leasing Virginia Class submarines would save Australia more than $10 billion in acquisition costs and potentially up to three-quarters of a billion a year in operations costs.
Arguments against nuclear powered submarines on the basis of skill shortages and defence self-reliance are flawed. Nuclear powered submarines are safe and the best option for Australia’s Future Submarine |
|
|
|
Post by LancedDendrite on Nov 6, 2012 21:24:02 GMT 9.5
I agree with the contention that Australia should acquire Virginia SSNs. Mind you, this assumes a fundamental question has already been answered: What is the RAN submarine fleet's role in Australia's defence and how does it fit in with the US Navy?
Buying or leasing Virginia SSNs makes sense if we want to throw our weight around in the Pacific, as does taking delivery of amphibious assault ships (the Canberra class) which the RAN has done recently. However, if we simply wanted to defend our borders and covertly acquire intelligence that no other system can, then getting diesel+AIP subs makes more sense because they cost less per individual sub but still have the same core capabilities. This is the Australian angle.
The US angle is that acquiring Virginias makes the DoD very happy but it restricts asymmetric training opportunities with the USN, as perceived opponents in the Pacific region use diesel subs and Australia (along with Japan) is a firm ally that can provide this capability reliably. Another couple of Virginias on station in the Asia-Pacific region would certainly be appreciated, but I suspect that they'd rather have them under their complete control (i.e with USN crews).
However, my primary concern is that one of the major drivers of costs for the FFS program will be ongoing personnel costs, and nuclear will not help in this department. The monograph quotes 60 crew for a Future Force Submarine and 135 crew for a Virginia; note that nuclear-trained crew will also cost more. Despite the monograph's contention that a Virginia acquisition will be less costly because it would require only 8 subs instead of 12, this still adds up to 360 extra crew for the Virginia option. The question must be asked - would we (Australia) be willing to use the extra capability that Virginia-class SSNs provide enough to justify acquiring them?
|
|
|
|
Post by quokka on Nov 7, 2012 9:02:27 GMT 9.5
I doubt that China would be very amused by Australia acquiring a fleet of nuclear powered subs. Might be better if we just played in our own back yard.
In any case, this is a topic I would leave well alone. It is a political gift to the anti-nukes.
|
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on Nov 7, 2012 10:09:23 GMT 9.5
I'd say it'd depend on whether the Navy would want nuclear submarines badly enough. I understand that a large part of the Collins class being CO2 spewing was because we just didn't have the infrastructure to do nuclear powered submarines so leasing off the US would seem to be the best way to go if we wanted them and the US would lease to us.
In Australia's defence the submarines would serve the role of sneaking up and sinking enemy ships should someone be stupid enough to try to invade.
|
|
|
|
Post by Graham Palmer on Nov 7, 2012 12:09:14 GMT 9.5
My limited understanding is that SSG's are far better for covert littoral and estaurine operation, but SSN's are far superior for blue water operations. Ultimately the navy is going to have its own expert preferences. I'm not sure that Cowan is arguing absolutely that SSN's should be the preferred choice but that the outright rejection of SSN's without consideration is bad policy. The lesson I think is that if there is a refusal to even engage in a serious policy debate over SSN's, which has serious implications for Australia's future defence, what hope is there for power reactors for which the primary benefit is a lower greenhouse intensity electricity sector? Other than Greg Sheridan, this doesn't seem to be a discussion any mainstream media wants to go anywhere near. www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/world-commentary/paralysed-by-our-anti-nuclear-hysteria/story-e6frg6ux-1226100028747 |
|
|
|
Post by LancedDendrite on Nov 7, 2012 21:12:57 GMT 9.5
I do think that purchasing nuclear subs would be better value for money than say, buying 75-100 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, an arbitrary overestimate of how many we need.
At least subs are mildly useful in unconventional conflicts (launching cruise missiles and deploying off special forces) and can collect intelligence.
As for the nuclear power in Australia angle, I don't think that it's terribly relevant as it would probably require offshore nuclear maintenance facilities and wouldn't contribute anything to a fledgling nuclear industry in Australia at all. It's only relevant if it indicates that Australian politicians aren't scared of skirting around the 'n' word all the time like they usually do.
|
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on Nov 8, 2012 10:38:47 GMT 9.5
My limited understanding is that SSG's are far better for covert littoral and estaurine operation, but SSN's are far superior for blue water operations. The distances our Navy would need to cover would likely make real submarines better than submersible surface vessels. I do think that purchasing nuclear subs would be better value for money than say, buying 75-100 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, an arbitrary overestimate of how many we need. The RAAF has tended not to actually use the fighters it has (at least the past several decades) but instead keeping them for the defence of Australia should that actually turn out to be necessary. Though if the Australian government wants to project air power without having less aircraft protecting Australia than currently then buying more fighters will be necessary. Of course the extra fighters might turn out to be F35Bs for the Navy which may turn out to be the better idea as the Navy would have floating airbases for them. As for the nuclear power in Australia angle, I don't think that it's terribly relevant as it would probably require offshore nuclear maintenance facilities and wouldn't contribute anything to a fledgling nuclear industry in Australia at all. It's only relevant if it indicates that Australian politicians aren't scared of skirting around the 'n' word all the time like they usually do. Except a bunch of people from the Navy already trained to operate nuclear reactors, that could help when we finally get around to building nuclear power plants. |
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on Nov 8, 2012 12:33:09 GMT 9.5
The US NPP fleet is definitely improved in safety and availability by having the superbly trained nuclear navy retirees available to hire as operators.
Also, while not terribly outspoken, they are all advocates of nuclear power AFAIK.
|
|
