Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 34

Thread: Australia's big buy

  1. #16
    Regular
    Join Date
    07 Jan 08
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by Bigfella View Post
    The government basically told then to fuck off, so they did. To be more precise, the government pushed by the National party told them to fuck off.

    At the time the dollar was still considerably higher than the historical average to which it has now returned, and higher than the low US 90c required to make the care industry viable. Welcome to the mining boom. Subsequently the dollar slumped, and is now well & truly at a level where our cars would be competitive on export markets. The industry could have been sustained for a good long time on the same dough going to prop up farmers or a fraction that going to build subs.

    Amid lectures on the inability of Australia to subsidize uncompetitive industries, the same government stumped up billions for yet another rural assistance package (on top of the permanent drought relief payments, diesel fuel rebates etc.). Of course, not many unionists on farms. Now we get an even more expensive package for a relatively tiny industry whose future as an exporter is even less likely than the auto industry. I should add that I don't have a problem with governments using their influence & coffers to sustain important industries, I do have a problem with killing a big employer & 'keystone' manufacturing industry for completely bogus reasons.

    Our currency certainly would have been more conducive to local production. Just a side note though, the mining investment boom had already ended when USD/AUD was hovering in the mid-90's. It was the US QE, higher bond yields, the AAA rating and good outlook on China (there wasn't that much talk about a landing back then) that propped up the currency.

    I believe the car manufacturers also said that they had been under pressure from other factors for a while. E.g. high labour costs. Toyota gave an example where every worker took Friday afternoon off together to donate blood, thus stopping the production line completely.

    I just hope these subs won't turn out to be like those Collins.

  2. #17
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    29,353
    Quote Originally Posted by Chunder View Post
    From what i've read repeatedly is that they'll do the job.... but not 'just fine'. The problem is our location and our transit. Politics holds it back. Countries that are serious about their geopolitical space and their ability to affect it have no such concerns, whether it is a PLAN nuke lying at the bottom of the pacific or a conventional one. That's the crux of the issue.
    You're joking me. The only navy of concern is the Soviets and they've fallen way behind (although still decades of everybody else). Western ASW has no equal. The only time the Chinese subs have a chance is when you're napping and even then, the noises they make will often wake you up. If the Australians go looking, the Chinese can't hide.
    Chimo

  3. #18
    Patron
    Join Date
    07 Oct 14
    Location
    San Jose, CA.
    Posts
    248
    Quote Originally Posted by Bigfella View Post
    Anything short of a majority local build would be political suicide for this government. That probably killed the Japanese bid. Of course, in the nature of such things, a fraction of the extra cost incurred here would have kept the auto industry alive for decades & employed tens of thousands more people. However, I think putting a large, highly unionized workforce on the unemployment rolls was part of the motivation anyway. Those workers won't get jobs building ships, but neither will they be joined by Sth Australian ship builders (though their equivalent in my state are already lining up for the dole).


    Reuters is reporting pretty much the same thing. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-au...-idUSKCN0XQ1FC
    So, a bunch of factors at work here. Bottom line is no nuclear powered submarines while any of us are drawing breath. Diesel subs will do the job just fine.
    Exactly on the Diesels
    Last edited by gf0012-aust; 13 Jul 16, at 08:22.

  4. #19
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,401
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveDaPirate View Post
    This is something that has never made much sense to me. Australia has a TON of real estate to patrol, which is a perfect fit for the strategic speed offered by nuclear powered ships. A conventional diesel/AIP sub traveling long distances at snorkel depth doing 10 knots is a whole lot different than a nuclear boat that can punch it up to 30 knots and just keep going full speed all the time.
    They also have a primarily littoral role. They don't need to sally forth deep in the wild blue yonder. They need to be worried about coastal roles as any attack will generally follow the same path the Japanese did in 1941.

    In shallower and or restricted waters, AIP subs are a better fit, they are smaller, stealthier and just as deadly to an attacker

  5. #20
    Senior Contributor Bigfella's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jan 07
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    9,091
    Quote Originally Posted by Dazed View Post
    Reuters is reporting pretty much the same thing. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-au...-idUSKCN0XQ1FC
    Reuters always check with me first. ;-)


    Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

  6. #21
    Senior Contributor SteveDaPirate's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Aug 13
    Location
    Kansas City, United States
    Posts
    1,220
    Quote Originally Posted by zraver View Post
    They also have a primarily littoral role. They don't need to sally forth deep in the wild blue yonder. They need to be worried about coastal roles as any attack will generally follow the same path the Japanese did in 1941
    I was under the impression current patrols frequently range from NZ up into the Indian Ocean and the South China Sea. That's a lot more water to cover than a boat patrolling the Baltic or Sea of Japan.

    I agree that an AIP sub is a better fit for a defensive use case in confined waters, but I'm not sure that's what Australia is dealing with. The Collins is already a bit of an outlier with a huge patrol range compared to most conventional subs. Range obviously wouldn't be an issue with the original Barracuda design, but I can't quite make myself believe DCNS will find enough room for fuel in a conventional propulsion conversion.

  7. #22
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,401
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveDaPirate View Post
    I was under the impression current patrols frequently range from NZ up into the Indian Ocean and the South China Sea. That's a lot more water to cover than a boat patrolling the Baltic or Sea of Japan.
    Where they (are rumored to) patrol in peacetime to gain operational experience, and what they plan to do in a for real shooting war may not be the same things.

    I agree that an AIP sub is a better fit for a defensive use case in confined waters, but I'm not sure that's what Australia is dealing with. The Collins is already a bit of an outlier with a huge patrol range compared to most conventional subs. Range obviously wouldn't be an issue with the original Barracuda design, but I can't quite make myself believe DCNS will find enough room for fuel in a conventional propulsion conversion.
    I have faith that what the RAN brings to the table in so far as ABCA operations go is designed to complement not duplicate a nuke boat. 12 boats will make the RAN the most powerful navy in that part of the world and them being AIP will give them a manned offensive/recon inshore ability vs China even the USN can't match. Only way you're going to find a modern AIP sub is with active sonar.

    Think seal delivery vehicle or SAS equiv on an AIP sub...

  8. #23
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    29,353
    Like Like Like Like Like
    Chimo

  9. #24
    Senior Contributor Monash's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Mar 10
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,453
    Quote Originally Posted by zraver View Post
    Think seal delivery vehicle or SAS equiv on an AIP sub...
    One article I read noted that the large (compared to conventional ) hull of a nuclear boat in part to allow space for a 12 man 'commando' team and their support gear.

    However the same article also talked about proposal to use lead/acid batteries as the submerged power source. I was a bit skeptical when I read this part because while granted they will have more storage space to play with in a modified Barracuda such a decision (if true) means the Navy has assessed the other options available i.e. other advanced batteries, fuel cells, closed cycle diesels and stirling engines etc and found them wanting. I would have thought that given the time frame for this purchase they would be keeping their options open.

  10. #25
    Senior Contributor SteveDaPirate's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Aug 13
    Location
    Kansas City, United States
    Posts
    1,220
    Quote Originally Posted by zraver View Post
    I have faith that what the RAN brings to the table in so far as ABCA operations go is designed to complement not duplicate a nuke boat. 12 boats will make the RAN the most powerful navy in that part of the world and them being AIP will give them a manned offensive/recon inshore ability vs China even the USN can't match. Only way you're going to find a modern AIP sub is with active sonar.

    Think seal delivery vehicle or SAS equiv on an AIP sub...
    This is a good point. I was considering Australia's acquisitions based on independent action rather than in the context of integration with ABCA.

  11. #26
    Senior Contributor Bigfella's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jan 07
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    9,091
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveDaPirate View Post
    This is a good point. I was considering Australia's acquisitions based on independent action rather than in the context of integration with ABCA.
    You shouldn't. Under our last right wing government we ordered air warfare destroyers well above our requirements & Abrams tanks we probably can't deploy beyond our shores without US logistics assistance. Why would we do such a thing? it was made clear at the time that both capabilities were purchased with the intent that they be able to integrate quickly & easily into a US force of some sort. There were other reasons, most of them poor. We do this sort of stupid stuff all the time. SIGH!


    Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

  12. #27
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Aug 08
    Location
    UK/Europe
    Posts
    3,938
    Eric Heginbotham and Richard J. Samuels think it is a mistake to take the (French) Shortfin Barracuda and that Oz should have gone for the *** Soryu-class; https://www.foreignaffairs.com/artic...oor-substitute

    Don't know enough about this sort of thing to offer a view but thought it might add to the discussion.

  13. #28
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    29,353
    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    Eric Heginbotham and Richard J. Samuels think it is a mistake to take the (French) Shortfin Barracuda and that Oz should have gone for the *** Soryu-class; https://www.foreignaffairs.com/artic...oor-substitute

    Don't know enough about this sort of thing to offer a view but thought it might add to the discussion.
    This ignores the freaking obvious. You want an anti-Chinese alliance? It's Japan-Taiwan-South Korea. It ain't happening. This other stuff raises eyebrows, not alarms.
    Chimo

  14. #29
    Senior Contributor Stitch's Avatar
    Join Date
    14 Nov 06
    Location
    Patterson, CA
    Posts
    3,080
    Quote Originally Posted by Bigfella View Post
    You shouldn't. Under our last right wing government we ordered air warfare destroyers well above our requirements & Abrams tanks we probably can't deploy beyond our shores without US logistics assistance. Why would we do such a thing? it was made clear at the time that both capabilities were purchased with the intent that they be able to integrate quickly & easily into a US force of some sort. There were other reasons, most of them poor. We do this sort of stupid stuff all the time. SIGH!
    Hey! We'll sell you more C-17's so you can move those M1's around!
    "There is never enough time to do or say all the things that we would wish. The thing is to try to do as much as you can in the time that you have. Remember Scrooge, time is short, and suddenly, you're not there any more." -Ghost of Christmas Present, Scrooge

  15. #30
    Senior Contributor Bigfella's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jan 07
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    9,091
    Quote Originally Posted by Stitch View Post
    Hey! We'll sell you more C-17's so you can move those M1's around!
    We can move them and we can keep them supplied & fuelled...more or less...provided we don't plan to deploy anything else anywhere else while we are doing it. Sheer fucking genius!


    Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Only in Australia
    By Parihaka in forum World Affairs Board Pub
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 28 Dec 09,, 17:34
  2. Australia Isn't Going Anywhere
    By Leader in forum International Politics
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 22 Jul 05,, 01:08

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •