HMAS Sheean
Posted on 09/05/2006 4:45:54 AM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
Submarine fleet 'should go nuclear'
Katharine Murphy
September 5, 2006
AUSTRALIA must consider commissioning a new fleet of nuclear-powered submarines, a submission to the nuclear taskforce says. The move will be necessary to deal with complex security pressures emerging within the region over the next two decades.
The former head of the navy's submarine team, Rear Admiral Peter Briggs, and one of Australia's top national security analysts, Allan Behm, claim the national debate on nuclear energy allows Australia to consider seriously the advantages of acquiring nuclear-powered submarines to replace the Collins class.
In a submission to John Howard's nuclear taskforce, they argue the current and emerging security imperatives of the region, which will require Australia's defence forces to respond to "short-notice contingencies" over the next 15 to 20 years, favour nuclear-powered fleets.
"Nuclear propulsion allows the submarine to proceed covertly at high speed … and greatly reduces the risk of counter detection of the submarine."
The men warn Australia will not be able to secure such a controversial shift in defence procurement policy without bipartisan political support.
Opposition Leader Kim Beazley was the architect of the Australian Navy's program that developed the Collins-class submarine while serving as defence minister in the Hawke government in the mid-1980s.
But Mr Beazley has declared his party will oppose any move by the Howard Government to develop a nuclear power industry in Australia.
"Without (the foundation of bipartisanship) any discussion about the need for nuclear power for Australia's submarine capability is likely to be poorly directed and at risk of derailing the fundamental need to start preparations for replacing this critical national capability," Admiral Briggs and Mr Behm say.
The controversial argument in favour of Australia considering nuclear-propelled warships is made in a submission to an inquiry headed by former Telstra chief Ziggy Switkowski.
The inquiry has published about 200 submissions considering arguments for and against Australia developing a domestic nuclear industry. It will report to the Government in November.
HMAS Sheean
Ozzie PING!!!!!
"You rang?"
Much as I would love to see this happen for strategic reasons, the political aspects worry me. I would be very concerned that a Labor government would be extremist enough and stupid enough to put all nuclear submarines in mothballs immediately they were elected.
Methinks that going nuclear for subs is the not exactly the best way forward for the RAN.The whole issue of funding is always there.The advances in AIP tech are providing a lethal lease of life for SSKs.The RAN can fit their Collins class boats with any European system which can provide underwater endurance of over 15 or more days...at a fraction of the cost of buildingg nuke boats.The Collins has a pretty big torpedo load for an SSK-they can easily load upto 8-10 Tomahawks while still maintaining ASW/ASUW capabilities.
I was just thinking the same thing.
L.A. class and a couple of Ohio class boomers. We are talking about one of our greatest allies here.
Conventional boats are fine for defense. All the better if they are AIP. However, they are not adequate for projecting force.
When it comes to projecting force and covering large areas of water, conventional boats simply don't have the speed. Submerged endurance is great at chokepoints, but submerged speed is king when it comes to threatening a potential adversary in blue water or in their home waters.
Boomers would be a violation of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.
Oz could do a deal with the Brits for new Upholder(?) class
SSNs
I'd rather we kept any 688's that still have life in them. We're in danger of running short on subs ourself.
Upholder class???Those are the troubled SSKs which Britain sold to Canada.I think you are referring to the Astute Class SSNs that the Royal Navy is building-great boats,but are terribly expensive even for the Brits.Their yards are busy domestic demand-so even if Britain sold Astutes,it would be only after 2016 or so.
They should name one for Steve Irwin.
Thats it - Thanks for the correction.
The cost of operation has been the leading cause for the reduction in the number of U.S. SSN's. Once the decision is made to reduce total numbers (and its been made and implemented), keeping the older 688's in service creates a long lag in new SSN development and building, which greatly damages our industrial base. Better to have an ally operating these subs, than to have them in mothballs or scrapped. Its a great way of leveraging our military power.
For instance, the only thing better than replacing all of our F-15's with F-22's and putting the F-15's in the desert, would be getting the F-22's and having good allies flying the F-15's.
If it were me, I would investigate conventional, fuel cell powered submarines. They cost a lot less to operate, work well in shallow water, and have good capability.
I don't know what the right answer is for Austrialia, but I seem to recall a largish nation just north of them with many islands and choke points.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.