Originally Posted by
Lonewolf_50
fdr:
Is Aus's intent to have submarines as defensive assets, or as longer range assets? t
That's where the choice between Diesel and Nuke boats lies.
An AIP (German 212 or similar) would certainly offer good defensive capability, but Aus is as big as the US with way more coastline.
Maybe the unrestricted cruising range of an SSN allows them more flexibility and fulfills all other needs.
Dunno.
Not my bucket of popcorn to butter, but you need to look hard that the intentions at the Operational and Strategic level before assessing their choices (cost being the other 800 pound gorilla in the room).
Just looking at tactical capacities is too narrow of a view to take.
Part of my problem with Mr Trump's offer of the Virginias - sending a few to Oz early puts pressure on US shipyards, and maybe that forces an increase in capacity?? -- is that he may change his mind next week.
Which throws a curve ball at the kind of time horizons needed to plan and implement something like standing up an SSN capability.
The US, as well as the USMC we have now, wants to forward base the subs in Western Australia. They want port infrastructure and repair facilities, using a mix of US and local labour. If we don't have the Virginia. Will the US get what they want and who will pay to set it up?
My personal opinion is, that I'd like to get the Virginias. However, there will be less cost running one class of sub, the AUKUS/SSN. The US will have the number of subs in the area that they need and will probably if needed, add the 3 earmarked for AU.
If we need more than the Collins interim capability. It has hit the fan. Then we will be a part of a coalition. More than likely lead by the US.