Originally Posted by
LeadSled
Junior VH-LFA,
The core reason is really simple, nuclear power in any form cannot be discussed, it is so non-PC.
We even have lunatic legislation to that end in the Cth and some states.
Can't upset the Loony Left and the Greens --- nobody ever told them sunlight is nuclear radiation.
Are you seriously suggesting that, given the vast distances the RAN has to travel, that diesel is either technically or tactically (or both) superior to nuclear powered subs??
Thread drift, I know, but the mind boggles at such a suggestion.
Tootle pip!!
Yes I am seriously suggesting that, with a considerable level of professional knowledge on the subject.
Not withstanding this countries irrational fear of nuclear power, which is absolute and it's beyond ridiculous that we don't use nuclear energy, there are a variety of tactical and strategic reasons for Australia's preference for Diesel power submarines, not least of which is the vessel's increased ability to avoid detection. Our submarines are not nuclear armed, they are not a deterrent. They exist to support the fleet, with particular reference to intelligence gathering.
Here's an interesting article worth your persual:
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/th...y-battle-25639
Even news.com.au is fielding this:
https://www.news.com.au/technology/i...06b5bf3aa212b0
I'm sure they Navy would like a combination of both types, but given the role our force finds itself employed in, no one within the RAN wants or is chasing Nuclear submarines at the expense of SSK's. The additional cost, the lack of support facilities, the noise, the inability to perform well in the RAN's core tasks all make them unsuitable for purpose.
As for why the French design was chosen etc, that I can't really help you with. I suspect much of it has to do with having them built here. I am happy to concede that it will probably be an expensive disaster that will rival Collins. No doubt the guys in the fleet will make it work over time, but not without some substantial cost blow outs. Like many Defence acquisitions, operational capability and cost are usually the last thing anyone thinks about, it's usually about "jobs and growth." The RAAF seemingly has learnt the lesson, Growler, P-8, JSF and C-17 have all been good examples of how it should be done. But to say there's no leadership involved just isn't accurate; there very clearly is. It's just bad leadership, aimed at holding office, not achieving outcomes.