6 ms·

In your opinion why is the submarine deal/F-35 program "totally useless" for Australia? Are you saying it's the wrong equipment? Too expensive? Not needed?

dools 2y ago
The F35s we have are pretty sweet but we are paying a shit tonne for like 5 submarines that we are going to receive in the 2040s. China already had 10x that many attack submarines. The subs deal stinks.
tedk-42 2y ago
Not needed. It's tax payer money down the toilet. But hey I'm a pacifist and will be told that I'm a weak man who will lead to the downfall of civilisation so oh well.
- scrapcode 2y ago
  Well, ya know - it could be. Not needed until they are... risk management. Most should hope that their weapons are never "needed."
  - defrost 2y ago
    We already had an order in for convential working subs from the French .. now we're on the hook for more money and less of a guarantee they'll ever arrive.
  - lmpdev 2y ago
    They’re still redundant though If we’re heading to regional war, US nuclear subs will be here regardless Even Darwin is a massive permanent US base
- Log_out_ 2y ago
  [flagged]
- spiderfarmer 2y ago
  I'm a pacifist at heart, but I'm not blind to the fact that a single digit percentage of humans (in every country) are just plain evil (in lots of ways). These people can do harm without any feelings of remorse. And a double digit percentage of humanity can easily be manipulated into being / doing evil. Our current, imperfect, civilisation exists because we largely succeed in keeping the whims of these minorities under control. It's a depressing thought, but if I don't accept it, I'll be disappointed in humanity on a daily basis.
  - riehwvfbk 2y ago
    [flagged]
YounoYouno 2y ago
All of the above!
zik 2y ago
The submarines are almost certainly useless. We won't get them for decades. We're not even allowed to service the nuclear reactors when we do get them. And the technology is already an old one and will likely already be superceded by the new much quieter air-independent fuel cell and lithium battery technologies which other countries are adopting.
- inopinatus 2y ago
  The whole point of the AUKUS submarine deal is to never get them. It’s a political manoeuvre, an emollient for national security hardliners.
- _djo_ 2y ago
  Air-independent fuel cell and battery powered submarines are not at all a replacement for nuclear submarines, nor even really competing with them. No matter how good the tech becomes, diesel-electric subs running fuel cell AIPs will always have shorter range, less submerged time, and lower speeds than nuclear-powered submarines. Each time they surface, even to periscope level, the chances of detection go up massively. That's why diesel-electric submarines are best suited for coastal defence, especially of small countries, whereas larger countries with huge areas of territory to protect benefit from having nuclear submarines. Whether it's the right decision for Australia to get these subs under AUKUS is a fair debate, but it's not at all accurate to claim that they're using 'old' technology that is being superseded by AIP.
defrost 2y ago
All those reasons and more. Strategically bad move, we did okay in the middle. You don’t have to be a Sinophile to know Keating’s right about AUKUS alt-headline: Paul Keating is right, AUKUS will turn Australia into US protectorate The ex-PM is the only person offering a convincing explanation of AUKUS. And it's a damning one. webcache: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https%3A%2F%2Fwww.crikey.com.au%2F2024%2F08%2F13%2Fpaul-keating-aukus-australia-us-alliance%2F https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https%... subscription: https://www.crikey.com.au/2024/08/13/paul-keating-aukus-australia-us-alliance/ https://www.crikey.com.au/2024/08/13/paul-keating-aukus-aust... On the economics | robustness of the deal: This deal is getting worse all the time. Courtesy of the latest details of the AUKUS agreement tabled yesterday in Parliament, we now know that the moment it becomes inconvenient for the Americans or the Brits, there’ll be no submarines for Australia: Cooperation under the agreement is to be carried out in such a manner as to not adversely affect the ability of the United States and the United Kingdom to meet their respective military requirements and to not degrade their respective naval nuclear propulsion programs. Those programs, as even ardent defenders of the program admit, are already pretty degraded. The Americans have shifted from building two Virginia-class boats a year to one this year, and delayed the construction of the next generation of nuclear submarines by five years to 2040. The new generation Dreadnought-class boats under construction in the UK have suffered serious delays and astonishing cost blowouts. Somehow, with around $10 billion of Australian cash, both programs will come good, to the point they can build boats for the US and UK, and for Australia, and help Australia build its own. It’s normal for defence policy to double as heavy manufacturing policy, and Australia has a rich history of wasting billions making things here that we could have bought far cheaper from other countries. Where AUKUS is unusual is that Australia will be using its defence policy as heavy manufacturing policy for the US and UK as well
throwawaythekey 2y ago
One of our former prime ministers, Paul Keating, came out strongly against the submarine deal. IIRC two important dimensions are that Australia has shallow waters which are not a good fit for the chosen submarine technology and that tactically it makes limited sense for Australia to focus on weapons to be used on our largest trading partner. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/mar/15/paul-keating-labels-aukus-submarine-pact-worst-deal-in-all-history-in-attack-on-albanese-government https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/mar/15/paul-... I am not an expert on any of the above.
- roenxi 2y ago
  They might make sense if in the long term we build out a nuclear deterrent? We'd need a handful of deep water submarines with big missiles on them. Although I expect that it'll turn out they're designed wrong for that or something. Other than that I can't see what situation they'd be useful in practice though. If we get into a war with Indonesia, China or the like that is the end. There will be no winners and we'll either lose or be ruined. One of the lessons in the modern era is if a country can't defend itself with diplomacy then it is in a lot of trouble. I assume we're buying this gear as some sort of realpolitik tribute-style thing for the US military industrial complex. If the point isn't to give them money I doubt we're achieving our goals.
  - ChrisMarshallNY 2y ago
    > if a country can't defend itself with diplomacy then it is in a lot of trouble. You are absolutely correct. I wish more folks understood this.
    - oroup 2y ago
      Diplomacy works _because_ you have the means to defend yourself. If they can fight and you can’t, why will they bother talking to you?
      - roenxi 2y ago
lmpdev 2y ago
Not OP but another Aussie I’d sat it’s too good Effectively trading the last of our sovereignty for overkill submarines The threat of China exists yes but I think the French subs we had lined up would have been adequate Especially as the US will likely send their nuclear subs our way when/if Sino-American tensions escalate again I mean we’re effectively already an American outpost with many permanent US bases/facilities
stephen_g 2y ago
The submarines are useless to our (Australia’s) national interest. If we ever get them (and even then there’s serious questions about whether Australia would actually have command authority over them), they aren’t really geared to be super useful for defending our shores (taking advantage of our distance from potential enemies) - we’d need more, smaller subs for that. But they do have the extreme range and endurance that would be useful for, say, projecting force into the South China Sea, following the US into a conflict - and that is something the vast majority of Australians are dead against, but what our politicians (at least on the opposition side) have basically already pledged to do…
ruthmarx 2y ago
I would think it isn't needed. Australia is a leading country for R&D and they have the money to fund their own designs.

dools 2y ago

The F35s we have are pretty sweet but we are paying a shit tonne for like 5 submarines that we are going to receive in the 2040s. China already had 10x that many attack submarines. The subs deal stinks.

tedk-42 2y ago

Not needed. It's tax payer money down the toilet. But hey I'm a pacifist and will be told that I'm a weak man who will lead to the downfall of civilisation so oh well.

scrapcode 2y ago
Well, ya know - it could be. Not needed until they are... risk management. Most should hope that their weapons are never "needed."
- defrost 2y ago
  We already had an order in for convential working subs from the French .. now we're on the hook for more money and less of a guarantee they'll ever arrive.
- lmpdev 2y ago
  They’re still redundant though If we’re heading to regional war, US nuclear subs will be here regardless Even Darwin is a massive permanent US base
Log_out_ 2y ago
[flagged]
spiderfarmer 2y ago
I'm a pacifist at heart, but I'm not blind to the fact that a single digit percentage of humans (in every country) are just plain evil (in lots of ways). These people can do harm without any feelings of remorse. And a double digit percentage of humanity can easily be manipulated into being / doing evil. Our current, imperfect, civilisation exists because we largely succeed in keeping the whims of these minorities under control. It's a depressing thought, but if I don't accept it, I'll be disappointed in humanity on a daily basis.
- riehwvfbk 2y ago
  [flagged]

YounoYouno 2y ago

All of the above!

zik 2y ago

The submarines are almost certainly useless. We won't get them for decades. We're not even allowed to service the nuclear reactors when we do get them. And the technology is already an old one and will likely already be superceded by the new much quieter air-independent fuel cell and lithium battery technologies which other countries are adopting.

inopinatus 2y ago
The whole point of the AUKUS submarine deal is to never get them. It’s a political manoeuvre, an emollient for national security hardliners.
_djo_ 2y ago
Air-independent fuel cell and battery powered submarines are not at all a replacement for nuclear submarines, nor even really competing with them. No matter how good the tech becomes, diesel-electric subs running fuel cell AIPs will always have shorter range, less submerged time, and lower speeds than nuclear-powered submarines. Each time they surface, even to periscope level, the chances of detection go up massively. That's why diesel-electric submarines are best suited for coastal defence, especially of small countries, whereas larger countries with huge areas of territory to protect benefit from having nuclear submarines. Whether it's the right decision for Australia to get these subs under AUKUS is a fair debate, but it's not at all accurate to claim that they're using 'old' technology that is being superseded by AIP.

defrost 2y ago

All those reasons and more. Strategically bad move, we did okay in the middle. You don’t have to be a Sinophile to know Keating’s right about AUKUS alt-headline: Paul Keating is right, AUKUS will turn Australia into US protectorate The ex-PM is the only person offering a convincing explanation of AUKUS. And it's a damning one. webcache: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https%3A%2F%2Fwww.crikey.com.au%2F2024%2F08%2F13%2Fpaul-keating-aukus-australia-us-alliance%2F https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https%... subscription: https://www.crikey.com.au/2024/08/13/paul-keating-aukus-australia-us-alliance/ https://www.crikey.com.au/2024/08/13/paul-keating-aukus-aust... On the economics | robustness of the deal: This deal is getting worse all the time. Courtesy of the latest details of the AUKUS agreement tabled yesterday in Parliament, we now know that the moment it becomes inconvenient for the Americans or the Brits, there’ll be no submarines for Australia: Cooperation under the agreement is to be carried out in such a manner as to not adversely affect the ability of the United States and the United Kingdom to meet their respective military requirements and to not degrade their respective naval nuclear propulsion programs. Those programs, as even ardent defenders of the program admit, are already pretty degraded. The Americans have shifted from building two Virginia-class boats a year to one this year, and delayed the construction of the next generation of nuclear submarines by five years to 2040. The new generation Dreadnought-class boats under construction in the UK have suffered serious delays and astonishing cost blowouts. Somehow, with around $10 billion of Australian cash, both programs will come good, to the point they can build boats for the US and UK, and for Australia, and help Australia build its own. It’s normal for defence policy to double as heavy manufacturing policy, and Australia has a rich history of wasting billions making things here that we could have bought far cheaper from other countries. Where AUKUS is unusual is that Australia will be using its defence policy as heavy manufacturing policy for the US and UK as well

throwawaythekey 2y ago

One of our former prime ministers, Paul Keating, came out strongly against the submarine deal. IIRC two important dimensions are that Australia has shallow waters which are not a good fit for the chosen submarine technology and that tactically it makes limited sense for Australia to focus on weapons to be used on our largest trading partner. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/mar/15/paul-keating-labels-aukus-submarine-pact-worst-deal-in-all-history-in-attack-on-albanese-government https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/mar/15/paul-... I am not an expert on any of the above.

roenxi 2y ago
They might make sense if in the long term we build out a nuclear deterrent? We'd need a handful of deep water submarines with big missiles on them. Although I expect that it'll turn out they're designed wrong for that or something. Other than that I can't see what situation they'd be useful in practice though. If we get into a war with Indonesia, China or the like that is the end. There will be no winners and we'll either lose or be ruined. One of the lessons in the modern era is if a country can't defend itself with diplomacy then it is in a lot of trouble. I assume we're buying this gear as some sort of realpolitik tribute-style thing for the US military industrial complex. If the point isn't to give them money I doubt we're achieving our goals.
- ChrisMarshallNY 2y ago
  > if a country can't defend itself with diplomacy then it is in a lot of trouble. You are absolutely correct. I wish more folks understood this.
  - oroup 2y ago
    Diplomacy works _because_ you have the means to defend yourself. If they can fight and you can’t, why will they bother talking to you?
    - roenxi 2y ago

lmpdev 2y ago

Not OP but another Aussie I’d sat it’s too good Effectively trading the last of our sovereignty for overkill submarines The threat of China exists yes but I think the French subs we had lined up would have been adequate Especially as the US will likely send their nuclear subs our way when/if Sino-American tensions escalate again I mean we’re effectively already an American outpost with many permanent US bases/facilities

stephen_g 2y ago

The submarines are useless to our (Australia’s) national interest. If we ever get them (and even then there’s serious questions about whether Australia would actually have command authority over them), they aren’t really geared to be super useful for defending our shores (taking advantage of our distance from potential enemies) - we’d need more, smaller subs for that. But they do have the extreme range and endurance that would be useful for, say, projecting force into the South China Sea, following the US into a conflict - and that is something the vast majority of Australians are dead against, but what our politicians (at least on the opposition side) have basically already pledged to do…

ruthmarx 2y ago

I would think it isn't needed. Australia is a leading country for R&D and they have the money to fund their own designs.