Originally Posted by
West Coast
How far from Australian shores should a submarine have to go to defend the approaches to the homeland in your opinion? Safe to say they’d have to stay there for a period of time.
1. The simplest tracking n' targetting solution is proximate to the home port of your playmate. Open ocean tracking sucks biggly, but there are ways n means.
2. An AUS boat assisting the defence of a USN carrier group is a lovely story, not one that the USN skimmer drivers would be so pleased about. (blood is thicker than anechoic rubber)
3. If I had a choice of target to chase between an SSN and an SSK, that is a no-brainer.
4. boat drivers still like to look n' see. Got photos somewhere of the attack periscope of a 688i (nice camo) chasing a DIII.
AUS defence needs boats, enough to have a credible number out in the playpen at any time, so that their exact location becomes both a tactical and a strategic issue for those that may have a grumpy disposition. Range is not an issue, nor is transit speed. What is needed is FOBs that permit a number of quiet boats to be an inconvenience to the planning of those with a case of excessive testosterone.
All navies have manpower deficits, particularly of long lead skills. Last time I looked, AUS had more boats than crews, Time to get reserve programs working.
As nice as a new shiny, glow in the dark toy set is, I would have thunked that a big buy of SSKs would be a better defence posture, coupled to enough manpower to keep a large number out in the open sea at any given time.
Better yet, a bunch of standoff armed drones.
Whatever, don't plan on having GPS based guidance, in the SCS area, the unannounced GPS jamming is becoming an irritant, along with the PLAF/PLANF bleatings of their hurt feelings on "their safety being compromised" by nations that are actually compliant with the UNCLOS. 121.5 is now apparently a PRC propaganda freq.