Comments by "Andy Dee" (@AndyViant) on "Why Australia is Gladly Preparing for War" video.
-
Actually, conventional powered subs, and even better air independent subs are far quieter than nuclear subs when they are trying to be quiet. As America has found out wargaming against Australia on multiple occasions. The much "derided" Collins class are actually exceptional hunter killer subs, but they're still ending the end of their viable operational lives. Whilst we can extend them to the mid-late 2030's they have a limited lifespan and the lead time on building replacements is probably a decade or more.
The decision needs to be made now. If it were not the Aukus agreement we'd be building French Nuclear Powered Shortfin Barracudas right now. Realistically it's lineball between them and the Astute class as to which is better for us, but geopolitics and all...
If this was just about defending Australia, Nuclear subs would be a huge mistake as they are far less stealthy, and thus far less effective in a hunter killer role. You cannot turn off that water pumping to cool the reactor as the reactor will melt down. And since you can't do that you cannot hide the heat signature of the submarine either. Both are easy to eihtter hear or track to high end sensors. That's how the Collins class can find American (or Russian or Chinese) subs so easily.
So If Australia was closer to China, like the way European nations are closer to their threats, Nuclear would make no sense at all. This was why an extended range conventional submarine was on our shopping list until the current tensions with China meant more time on target became a critical priority.
It is precisely due to that distance to China, that 2500 miles, that Nuclear power becomes viable. It's too far to allow for good time on target without stopping for refuelling in a potentially hostile region. Australia would need to refuel their subs in Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam, Taiwan or Japan if they wanted to be able to patrol the South China Sea for an extended time. Japan is probably too far away for that to be feasible, and the others pose too great a security risk to be viable, with Singapore being the best of those options.
2
-
Every nation has a balance between what is affordable and what is desired. This is why figures of around 2% of GDP are pretty standard during peacetime, bar for major structural shifts or purchases. Every nation can better spend capacity on productive improvements like transport and port infrastructure etc.
But military capacity, particularly capital ships has a lead in time of often decades.
It's clear we, like most European nations, have underinvested for a while, although certainly not like Germany. We need to increase that level, and wear the one off costs of upgrades or structural changes outside that 2% of GDP.
My question is about best efficiency. The previous government badly mismanaged the Submarine Contract and the Land 400 purchases, both due to lack of decision capability and blatant political manipulation. The issues on the Eurocopters are also an example of a defence purchasing process in shambles.
A reduction in IFV's is potentially disturbing, but if some of that funding goes to upgrades to either the old M113's or the ASLAV's then it may be money well spent. Both can have an important role, either in lower threat environments or even in higher threat environments with the correct upgrades. They also have capabilities that the Redback IFV and Bushmasters PMV do not have, most notably amphibious capability. The upgrade path of the ASLAV to LAV III spec and the Bushmaster M242 to 30mm or greater needs to be seriously considered.
The ASLAVs are far too good for just retirement. Either refitting or sale to allied powers to allow further purchases of newer generation gear would make sense.
Getting rid of gear with an intended increase in permanent professional Arm,y and also an increase in Army reserve makes no sense.
2
-
2
-
1
-
1