the operating endurance of the sub is limited solely be the amount food the crew have. A diesel electric will eventually run out of fuel and become a sitting target, so they can't range far from a home port, while a nuclear powered attack sub can go round the world and back.
Theoretically, could you grow food onboard using hydroponics? But I imagine the space requirements would make it economically unfeasible for everyone except the USN, who have resupply ports around half the planet anyway.
If it was viable, it'd still almost certainly be better to have a separate food ship that docks with the combat subs while underwater and transfers supplies. Carrying a farm around with you is a lot of extra weight and volume.
>Theoretically, could you grow food onboard using hydroponics? But I imagine the space requirements would make it economically unfeasible for everyone except the USN, who have resupply ports around half the planet anyway.
Even for the USN, all the space used for hydroponics COULD be used for yet more food storage instead, which would be enormously better in terms of density unless a boat had to stay under for like, decades. Hydroponics isn't really a military ship thing, it'd be more for if someone got really serious about sea steading and trying to make a fairly self-reliant floating colony. Obviously military ships could then go dock there, but in general military vessels are going to prioritize mass density and operational tempo. Growing and processing food is not space efficient.
If someone wanted to imagine some post-apoc thing with underwater colonies that would undoubtedly be part of the mix however.
With all the other unnecessary amenities a garden would be neat. Although it'd probably smell and taste like everything else that went through the air scrubbers. Mainly farts, fumes, BO, and whoever snuck in smokes in the engine room.
but itd be worth it for small herbs like basil for a tomato based pasta sauce, or green onions for garnish on a fried rice. i should be a chef on a sub
FMD, a whole CBG and no FriedChikkin?
No wonder recruiting targets arent getting met.
Next Recruiting will be telling Tyreesavicius theres no Grapedrank in the vending machines.
there's a diagram somewhere from when australia was thinking about adopting the soryuu-class regarding range and endurance in the south pacific and for the soryuu-class in particular it was something like 45 total days of transit for 7 days on station at the malacca strait
vs nuclear which is probably 25 days of transit and lol on station
The solution is simple but everyone is rightfully too afraid to even think of it: Autonomous AI-controlled nuclear subs.
Mark my words, if not you then your kids or grandkids will see this come true.
France's small deterrent will still frick your shit up, they make no secret that their boomers were made to commit warcrimes (countervalue your cities to Valhalla)
>France: 290 nukes >UK: 225 nukes
I would say even with just 20 nukes into your arsenal you're more than capable to ruin the entire planet
also Russia is said to have more than 5K but how many of them are still really maintained and operational?
>Russia is said to have more than 5K but how many of them are still really maintained and operational?
Lets check the UKs figures >UK 5th GDP $2.3T ish >UK def budget $75B ish >Total manpower 190,000 >260 nukes
Now Russia >Russia 11th GDP $1.7T >Russian Def budget $60B >Total manpower 3,000,000 >5000 nukes
Its ridiculous to think they can maintain a stockpile the size of the USAs on a budget less than UKs.
>strategic advantage of nuclear powered attack submarines?
For Australia it doesn't matter because it's a symbolic tribute aka wealth transfer from the Australian tax payer to the US military industrial complex to solidify our relationship before the hot war with China kicks off.
Australia is a lower-mid-sized regional power, it has absolutely no use for that kind of force projection and will never be able to maintain or use it properly without the assistance of the US which is a big part of why it's happening.
Paul Keating was 100% correct albeit blabbering incoherently about how we should have spent the money on solutions more attune to defending our homeland.
>unironically want to get fricked in the ass by China
When has China ever threatened Australia militarily? All the want is the Australia gov to shut up and keep selling them cheap iron ore.
Also, what is the advantage to being a US ally? More and more it's looking like a shittier option.
China sperged out and tried to wage a trade war (and failed because they still need our resources) over Australia merely wanting to know the truth of COVID's origins. I absolutely expect them to start an actual war that we get dragged into over something completely fricking moronic this century.
>over Australia merely wanting to know the truth of COVID's origins
That was part of it but really they were seething at Australia campagin against foreign influence >first c**t to block hauwei from 5g rollout >first non littoral c**t to speak about the South China Sea >first c**t to cancel a Belt and Road deal (it was signed by a state government) >banning foreign political donations >remove chinese friendly politicians (sam dastyari) >establish foreign investment laws scrutinising SOEs >blocking chinese takeovers/investment of Australian companies (some dairy but mainly rare earth)
>Aussie Labour fricking losing their minds over AUKUS cause they unironically want to get fricked in the ass by China
labour has been supporting it. They played the usual political games when the libs made a contract with the french and then surprise cancelled it at the cost of a billion dollars to order even more expensive ones from america, but they supported and still support aukus
Australia should unironcally start developing it's own missile tech independent of the US and Eurogays. We've already got guys at uni doing hypersonic missile research.
Yeah. The government is working with Lockheed and Raytheon. Australia wants to have the industry show returns by 2025 but the first batch will be assembled from imported overseas parts like IKEA furniture. Then there hoping to get proper >We understand the first batch will require a lot of overseas input, but we fully expect the government will transfer as much activity into the local industrial base going forward. Not much recent talk of the desire for "hypersonic" capability recently
10 months ago
Anonymous
Didn't mean to include >Not much recent talk of the desire for "hypersonic" capability recently
Even better, US Defence committee just locked in funding for SLCM-N (N for "Nuke Chinks)
So every V-class hunter boat, including RAN, has the capability to load up on canned-sunshine and go glass Beijing like the boomers. >https://www.defensenews.com/congress/budget/2023/06/22/gop-moves-to-instate-sea-launched-cruise-missile-nuclear-program/
Seethe Chang
10 months ago
Anonymous
>Rep. Joe Courtney, D-Conn., who chairs the sea power subcommittee, cited May testimony from Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Michael Gilday stating that the warheads needed to make a SLCM-N program would cost at least $31 billion. >“The Navy can do a lot of other things with $31 billion,” Courtney said ahead of the vote. “You can build 15 DDG destroyers with $31 billion, 10 Virginia-class submarines with $31 billion.” >“You put nuclear warheads on these vessels, then you are changing the mission,” he added while questioning the ability of the National Nuclear Security Administration to absorb a new program. He also noted that the combatant commanders have not asked to make SLCM-N a program of record in their unfunded priorities lists.
I'm with Joe on this one
10 months ago
Anonymous
Frick the "more boats to play sailor with" Admirals.
The real answer is always "more subs with more nukes" to fry Chinks.
Imagine having to force Woke-homosexual senior officers to take 'nukes they don't want'.
Rickover would frick them up their homosexual asses - nohomo.
10 months ago
Anonymous
The USN really does need new ships and a lot of them. $31 billion is a lot of money on a program that isn't a priority for the Navy.
10 months ago
Anonymous
The Navy+MIC priority is more ships, the real priority is nuking lots of Chinks from submarines so you don't need extra toy ships to get sunk around Taiwan.
Surface Navy is an anachronism and just to employ more Flips while ex-Admirals get contractor positions.
10 months ago
Anonymous
Yeah, what the frick are more nukes going to do for us, polish the trinitite glass? We should be focusing on hardware we'd actually use in a fight.
It has been a rumor for years that it was an offer on the table that australia turned down.
10 months ago
Anonymous
>rumor
Any sauce on that. Some shitty article or Autobiography? Nothing against you but Obama was honestly a pussy
10 months ago
Anonymous
Nothing official, but it has been a long standing rumor in the industry and it makes sense for both nations, but Australia at the time saw the nuke factor as too taboo, and thus continued with the conventional Collins replacement.
At the end of the day if it did happen it was an under the table discussion, nothing that would've been publicly acknowledged or reported and it clearly didn't go anywhere as the attack-class from France was ordered.
10 months ago
Anonymous
>but Australia at the time saw the nuke factor as too taboo, and thus continued with the conventional Collins replacement.
Sounds right tbh. PM Turnbull was asked by Trump why he wouldn't buy American for Australia's Collins replacement. He said something like Australia doesn't do nuclear (how wrong he was)
10 months ago
Anonymous
>He said something like Australia doesn't do nuclear (how wrong he was)
Eh, one of the few things he's said that he can't be faulted on. For decades it was fact, undeniable fact, until one day when it suddenly wasn't and 'we nuke subs now'.
Xi seems to play both parties.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/apr/02/daniel-andrews-returns-from-media-free-china-trip-as-opposition-vows-to-pursue-unanswered-questions
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-04-04/chinese-austalian-voters-political-awakening-labor-aston-win/102179934
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/may/20/chinese-australians-say-coalitions-rhetoric-on-beijing-could-see-voters-switch-from-liberal-to-labor
>tries to play both parties >they end up supporting any and every policy to curb your c**t's influence
10 months ago
Anonymous
I wouldn't mind if the chinks nuke Melbourne. Hopefully both are taken out at once.
10 months ago
Anonymous
China being one of the few nations with a stated nuclear doctrine to only use nuclear weapons as a response to a nuclear attack against them first. So I don't see too many scenarios that would result in a chinese nuke blowing over melbourne.
The frick are you talking about Black person? Albo is the one pushing for the subs -- he's going hard on foreign policy to deny Dutton an avenue of attack, and it's working. The Libs are the ones trying to court the chinks with reps like Gladys Liu, who is literally linked to CCP agents of influence in Australia. They would sell their mothers to Xi if they could reduce their marginal tax rate by 1%, nothing but moneygrubbing c**ts.
>he's going hard on foreign policy to deny Dutton an avenue of attack
No this is a narrative spread by Keating and his acolytes. Albanese is "going hard" because that's what it take to counter chink influence and further Australia's interests
yes, they are to sit off the edge of the south china sea. They can't really enter the south china sea without getting detected. The Chinks have got sub sensors that cover that entire area.
Australia having a huge coastline is exactly why the nuclear subs are a terrible idea. We'd be better off with a greater number of cheaper subs that can cover more ocean between them.
>Leaves port. >Reaches patrol station. >Immediately has to return to port because of lack of endurance.
You'd cover a lot of ocean, but it would be the same patch over and over again.
They don't have to cover the whole ocean. Having control of the Australian territorial waters and the international waters surrounding it should be prioritised over being capable of blockading Australia's biggest trading partner in about 20 years from now (assuming no delays)
>muh biggest trading partner
I never understood this obession as point. China trades a lot with America, yet its building a navy to take on America. China trades a lot with India yet it kill Indian soldiers and siezes their territory. China trade a lot with ASEAN yet it claims their waters, sends ship into their territory and harrases their people and is just dick in general
even if you're equipping primarily for defensive scenarios, there is value to being able to project force outside your territorial waters.
If any situation where it would be useful to have 20 subs defending close to australias coastline we have already fricked up so badly or are facing an overwhelming force we could not fight alone.
With conventional subs, an adversary would have a rough idea of whether any subs could be in the area or not based on mission duration. with nuclear, the second they leave home there could be a sub around.
The bigger problem is naval bases, by necessity are located around major population centers. They need a large civilian workforce to build and maintain the naval forces. Submarines (nuclear or conventional) require a massive industrial base to support, this means Australias submarines need to have their port THOUSANDS of miles from the area they need to patrol. There simply aren't ports in northern Australia to support a submarine force. The entire RAN submarine force is at Perth. Which means if you want to patrol the eastern coast of Australia you have to travel all the way around the entire fricking country to do it.
Meanwhile a nuclear sub just needs to be resupplied with fresh food semi-regularly.
Nuclear subs make a TON of sense for Australia, it's just the nook taboo that keeps morons like you making these moronic arguments for a massive fleet of conventional subs you can't man or maintain.
Nuclear logistics make more sense for submarines than they do for anything else, including carriers. Long distance, stealth enabling technologies with as much sea time between top ups as possible and the ability to functionally circumnavigate the globe without even surfacing, refueling or restocking is a massive win factor for subs.
For carriers, there's merits for both due to anti-nuclear blocks on certain waters, tho agreements can be made, and the whole 3 carriers to keep 2 in rotation debacle that works for the US and has hampered France's carrier deployment.
The only notable factor that can be against a nuclear powered submarine is sheer cost but diesel subs aren't cheaper when you factor in the extra logistics.
How do we defend 16,010 miles of coastline with 3 subs?
https://i.imgur.com/VBI7y99.jpg
No. The purpose of these subs is they have better range, endurance and speed. Australia is a maratime country and needs to operate submarines that can go the distance. >muh china
These subs will be a threat to anyone including the chinese
whats the point of having 3 subs that can launch missiles when we don't have the blue water navy or ICBMs to back them up?
Subs don't tool around the coast like Patrol Boats
See
https://i.imgur.com/VBI7y99.jpg
No. The purpose of these subs is they have better range, endurance and speed. Australia is a maratime country and needs to operate submarines that can go the distance. >muh china
These subs will be a threat to anyone including the chinese
map - there are only 3-4 points where any PLA-N boats can get through the shithole that is Indon-seethe-ia and a couple of Nuke Subs can just sit there and wait for months, swapping out to go get more beer&pies.
The problem with diesel boats is they have to snorkel every few days - Oberons used to routinely sneak up to China be doing night-runs through Indon because the only risk of being seen was the TNI-N who are useless, but now they have to run submerged all the way to do it because PLA has satellites.
>Oberons used to routinely sneak up to China
Yep. Also, when Oberons used to track chinese and soviet submarines during the cold war they would struggle to keep up with their nuclear powered counterparts.
Sydney, but they'd have to transit to Darwin, refuel and re-victual and then make their run
And with the Chinks leasing East Arm, nobody's doing that until after WW3 starts and all the Darwin Chinks are rounded up into Palmerston Coof-camp
RAN Subs will be happy they can go back to basing at Harry's Cafe d'Wheels and the Cross
>How do we defend 16,010 miles of coastline with 3 subs?
Your final plan is for like 8 of them.
3 Virginias is just to start, with the option for 2 more if AUKUS-class is delayed.
No. The purpose of these subs is they have better range, endurance and speed. Australia is a maratime country and needs to operate submarines that can go the distance. >muh china
These subs will be a threat to anyone including the chinese
>Bruce controlled nuclear submarine pops up within range of Beijing >fires nuke >skedaddles back to Bruceland >burgers get blamed >WW3 ensues
do you burgers realize what you've done!?
There isn't anything that needs to be changed tbf. A noticeable amount of the issues from "Australianisation" orginate with the need for American systems
Because you don't need to worry about battery life you get this phenomenal underwater performance with subs being able to actually evade torpedos with the assistence of noisemakers.
They are are faster with more power. Can be much larger, insane range, can stay under for longer periods, they can do a bunch of things because of this. Its a very bad idea for Iranians to blow one up off their coast for instance.
It's a Gerald Ford aircraft carrier vs a 1917 destroyer in technology difference.
the worst submarines were the german biber-class midget submarine because they were a shoddily designed desperation weapon that gassed their own crew with engine fumes.
MAD is still the dominant strategic theory therefore all sources of nuclear, peaceful ideally but strategic weapons or power should proliferate. >t. rand corporation 1956
the operating endurance of the sub is limited solely be the amount food the crew have. A diesel electric will eventually run out of fuel and become a sitting target, so they can't range far from a home port, while a nuclear powered attack sub can go round the world and back.
Theoretically, could you grow food onboard using hydroponics? But I imagine the space requirements would make it economically unfeasible for everyone except the USN, who have resupply ports around half the planet anyway.
If it was viable, it'd still almost certainly be better to have a separate food ship that docks with the combat subs while underwater and transfers supplies. Carrying a farm around with you is a lot of extra weight and volume.
There's just not enough space onboard. Even with verticle farming you also have to pack or create fertilizer which can be messy.
Think of how many fish are in the ocean. Surely the crew could just fish to replenish fresh food?
>Theoretically, could you grow food onboard using hydroponics? But I imagine the space requirements would make it economically unfeasible for everyone except the USN, who have resupply ports around half the planet anyway.
Even for the USN, all the space used for hydroponics COULD be used for yet more food storage instead, which would be enormously better in terms of density unless a boat had to stay under for like, decades. Hydroponics isn't really a military ship thing, it'd be more for if someone got really serious about sea steading and trying to make a fairly self-reliant floating colony. Obviously military ships could then go dock there, but in general military vessels are going to prioritize mass density and operational tempo. Growing and processing food is not space efficient.
If someone wanted to imagine some post-apoc thing with underwater colonies that would undoubtedly be part of the mix however.
Hydroponics has an advantage for crew morale. They get fresh vegetables and get to relax while gardening.
Not a big enough difference to make the space worth it.
With all the other unnecessary amenities a garden would be neat. Although it'd probably smell and taste like everything else that went through the air scrubbers. Mainly farts, fumes, BO, and whoever snuck in smokes in the engine room.
but itd be worth it for small herbs like basil for a tomato based pasta sauce, or green onions for garnish on a fried rice. i should be a chef on a sub
>i should be a chef on a sub
reminder that submarines are the only ships in the USN that still come with deep-fat fryers.
i would do fried chicken thursdays and leave the fryer on for some nice midrat treats when I can for my fellow bubbleheads
FMD, a whole CBG and no FriedChikkin?
No wonder recruiting targets arent getting met.
Next Recruiting will be telling Tyreesavicius theres no Grapedrank in the vending machines.
there's a diagram somewhere from when australia was thinking about adopting the soryuu-class regarding range and endurance in the south pacific and for the soryuu-class in particular it was something like 45 total days of transit for 7 days on station at the malacca strait
vs nuclear which is probably 25 days of transit and lol on station
The solution is simple but everyone is rightfully too afraid to even think of it: Autonomous AI-controlled nuclear subs.
Mark my words, if not you then your kids or grandkids will see this come true.
For the US, with 50 attack subs and 15 slbm subs critical component in combination with 500 F35s and 200 F22s + 5,500 M1 mbts
For the UK and France? Useless, they are better off replacing with F35s and a minimum credible amount of MBTs
>Just give up your nuclear deterent bros
Shut the frick up you moronic turd worlder
France's small deterrent will still frick your shit up, they make no secret that their boomers were made to commit warcrimes (countervalue your cities to Valhalla)
>France: 290 nukes
>UK: 225 nukes
I would say even with just 20 nukes into your arsenal you're more than capable to ruin the entire planet
also Russia is said to have more than 5K but how many of them are still really maintained and operational?
Nah 20 nukes won't ruin the planet, it's a bad day for sure though.
200+ nukes though will cripple any nation in the planet outside maybe China and the US assuming they can intercept at least some of them.
20 nukes in your arsenal gets you NK pariah status. 200 nukes and a decent conventional military makes you one if the leading world military powers.
>Russia is said to have more than 5K but how many of them are still really maintained and operational?
Lets check the UKs figures
>UK 5th GDP $2.3T ish
>UK def budget $75B ish
>Total manpower 190,000
>260 nukes
Now Russia
>Russia 11th GDP $1.7T
>Russian Def budget $60B
>Total manpower 3,000,000
>5000 nukes
Its ridiculous to think they can maintain a stockpile the size of the USAs on a budget less than UKs.
Ok pepe le poo
>France
>buying F35
Tl;dw?
The funniest part is Aussie Labour fricking losing their minds over AUKUS cause they unironically want to get fricked in the ass by China
>strategic advantage of nuclear powered attack submarines?
For Australia it doesn't matter because it's a symbolic tribute aka wealth transfer from the Australian tax payer to the US military industrial complex to solidify our relationship before the hot war with China kicks off.
Australia is a lower-mid-sized regional power, it has absolutely no use for that kind of force projection and will never be able to maintain or use it properly without the assistance of the US which is a big part of why it's happening.
Paul Keating was 100% correct albeit blabbering incoherently about how we should have spent the money on solutions more attune to defending our homeland.
>unironically want to get fricked in the ass by China
When has China ever threatened Australia militarily? All the want is the Australia gov to shut up and keep selling them cheap iron ore.
Also, what is the advantage to being a US ally? More and more it's looking like a shittier option.
This post smells of gutter oil and industrial accidents.
have fun dying for Israel Bruce
>NOOOO PREASE DONT GET THE NUCREAR SUBMARINE
China sperged out and tried to wage a trade war (and failed because they still need our resources) over Australia merely wanting to know the truth of COVID's origins. I absolutely expect them to start an actual war that we get dragged into over something completely fricking moronic this century.
>over Australia merely wanting to know the truth of COVID's origins
That was part of it but really they were seething at Australia campagin against foreign influence
>first c**t to block hauwei from 5g rollout
>first non littoral c**t to speak about the South China Sea
>first c**t to cancel a Belt and Road deal (it was signed by a state government)
>banning foreign political donations
>remove chinese friendly politicians (sam dastyari)
>establish foreign investment laws scrutinising SOEs
>blocking chinese takeovers/investment of Australian companies (some dairy but mainly rare earth)
>CHING CHONG PING PONG
wow, compelling argument anon. thank you for these insightful remarks.
>Aussie Labour fricking losing their minds over AUKUS cause they unironically want to get fricked in the ass by China
labour has been supporting it. They played the usual political games when the libs made a contract with the french and then surprise cancelled it at the cost of a billion dollars to order even more expensive ones from america, but they supported and still support aukus
Australia should unironcally start developing it's own missile tech independent of the US and Eurogays. We've already got guys at uni doing hypersonic missile research.
https://www.globalaustralia.gov.au/news-and-resources/news-items/australia-accelerates-sovereign-guided-weapons-manufacturing
Is that not the plan?
isn't the US doing a bunch of missile-related tech transfer to australia as well
Yeah. The government is working with Lockheed and Raytheon. Australia wants to have the industry show returns by 2025 but the first batch will be assembled from imported overseas parts like IKEA furniture. Then there hoping to get proper
>We understand the first batch will require a lot of overseas input, but we fully expect the government will transfer as much activity into the local industrial base going forward. Not much recent talk of the desire for "hypersonic" capability recently
Didn't mean to include
>Not much recent talk of the desire for "hypersonic" capability recently
Even better, US Defence committee just locked in funding for SLCM-N (N for "Nuke Chinks)
So every V-class hunter boat, including RAN, has the capability to load up on canned-sunshine and go glass Beijing like the boomers.
>https://www.defensenews.com/congress/budget/2023/06/22/gop-moves-to-instate-sea-launched-cruise-missile-nuclear-program/
Seethe Chang
>Rep. Joe Courtney, D-Conn., who chairs the sea power subcommittee, cited May testimony from Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Michael Gilday stating that the warheads needed to make a SLCM-N program would cost at least $31 billion.
>“The Navy can do a lot of other things with $31 billion,” Courtney said ahead of the vote. “You can build 15 DDG destroyers with $31 billion, 10 Virginia-class submarines with $31 billion.”
>“You put nuclear warheads on these vessels, then you are changing the mission,” he added while questioning the ability of the National Nuclear Security Administration to absorb a new program. He also noted that the combatant commanders have not asked to make SLCM-N a program of record in their unfunded priorities lists.
I'm with Joe on this one
Frick the "more boats to play sailor with" Admirals.
The real answer is always "more subs with more nukes" to fry Chinks.
Imagine having to force Woke-homosexual senior officers to take 'nukes they don't want'.
Rickover would frick them up their homosexual asses - nohomo.
The USN really does need new ships and a lot of them. $31 billion is a lot of money on a program that isn't a priority for the Navy.
The Navy+MIC priority is more ships, the real priority is nuking lots of Chinks from submarines so you don't need extra toy ships to get sunk around Taiwan.
Surface Navy is an anachronism and just to employ more Flips while ex-Admirals get contractor positions.
Yeah, what the frick are more nukes going to do for us, polish the trinitite glass? We should be focusing on hardware we'd actually use in a fight.
>Labor losing their minds
Cope and seethe, LibChink. Labor are moving forward with nuke subs and there is nothing you can do about it.
Liberals, Nationals and Chinks on suicide watch.
Honestly, why the frick didn't they take obama up on the deal offered in ~2014/15?
Thank god Australia is finally doing something good
>why the frick didn't they take obama up on the deal offered in ~2014/15?
There is no way Obama would've even considered that?
It has been a rumor for years that it was an offer on the table that australia turned down.
>rumor
Any sauce on that. Some shitty article or Autobiography? Nothing against you but Obama was honestly a pussy
Nothing official, but it has been a long standing rumor in the industry and it makes sense for both nations, but Australia at the time saw the nuke factor as too taboo, and thus continued with the conventional Collins replacement.
At the end of the day if it did happen it was an under the table discussion, nothing that would've been publicly acknowledged or reported and it clearly didn't go anywhere as the attack-class from France was ordered.
>but Australia at the time saw the nuke factor as too taboo, and thus continued with the conventional Collins replacement.
Sounds right tbh. PM Turnbull was asked by Trump why he wouldn't buy American for Australia's Collins replacement. He said something like Australia doesn't do nuclear (how wrong he was)
>He said something like Australia doesn't do nuclear (how wrong he was)
Eh, one of the few things he's said that he can't be faulted on. For decades it was fact, undeniable fact, until one day when it suddenly wasn't and 'we nuke subs now'.
Chinks vote Liebor moron.
Liberal MP's are literal Chinese spies.
Xi seems to play both parties.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/apr/02/daniel-andrews-returns-from-media-free-china-trip-as-opposition-vows-to-pursue-unanswered-questions
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-04-04/chinese-austalian-voters-political-awakening-labor-aston-win/102179934
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/may/20/chinese-australians-say-coalitions-rhetoric-on-beijing-could-see-voters-switch-from-liberal-to-labor
>tries to play both parties
>they end up supporting any and every policy to curb your c**t's influence
I wouldn't mind if the chinks nuke Melbourne. Hopefully both are taken out at once.
China being one of the few nations with a stated nuclear doctrine to only use nuclear weapons as a response to a nuclear attack against them first. So I don't see too many scenarios that would result in a chinese nuke blowing over melbourne.
why would they nuke their own city
The frick are you talking about Black person? Albo is the one pushing for the subs -- he's going hard on foreign policy to deny Dutton an avenue of attack, and it's working. The Libs are the ones trying to court the chinks with reps like Gladys Liu, who is literally linked to CCP agents of influence in Australia. They would sell their mothers to Xi if they could reduce their marginal tax rate by 1%, nothing but moneygrubbing c**ts.
>he's going hard on foreign policy to deny Dutton an avenue of attack
No this is a narrative spread by Keating and his acolytes. Albanese is "going hard" because that's what it take to counter chink influence and further Australia's interests
The only purpose of these are to blockade China, no?
yes, they are to sit off the edge of the south china sea. They can't really enter the south china sea without getting detected. The Chinks have got sub sensors that cover that entire area.
Nuclear submarines have unlimited range and Australia has a huge coastline.
Australia having a huge coastline is exactly why the nuclear subs are a terrible idea. We'd be better off with a greater number of cheaper subs that can cover more ocean between them.
>Leaves port.
>Reaches patrol station.
>Immediately has to return to port because of lack of endurance.
You'd cover a lot of ocean, but it would be the same patch over and over again.
They don't have to cover the whole ocean. Having control of the Australian territorial waters and the international waters surrounding it should be prioritised over being capable of blockading Australia's biggest trading partner in about 20 years from now (assuming no delays)
>muh biggest trading partner
I never understood this obession as point. China trades a lot with America, yet its building a navy to take on America. China trades a lot with India yet it kill Indian soldiers and siezes their territory. China trade a lot with ASEAN yet it claims their waters, sends ship into their territory and harrases their people and is just dick in general
even if you're equipping primarily for defensive scenarios, there is value to being able to project force outside your territorial waters.
If any situation where it would be useful to have 20 subs defending close to australias coastline we have already fricked up so badly or are facing an overwhelming force we could not fight alone.
With conventional subs, an adversary would have a rough idea of whether any subs could be in the area or not based on mission duration. with nuclear, the second they leave home there could be a sub around.
>A coastal defense navy in an era of long-ranged land attack cruise missiles.
It's a bold strategy, to be certain.
The bigger problem is naval bases, by necessity are located around major population centers. They need a large civilian workforce to build and maintain the naval forces. Submarines (nuclear or conventional) require a massive industrial base to support, this means Australias submarines need to have their port THOUSANDS of miles from the area they need to patrol. There simply aren't ports in northern Australia to support a submarine force. The entire RAN submarine force is at Perth. Which means if you want to patrol the eastern coast of Australia you have to travel all the way around the entire fricking country to do it.
Meanwhile a nuclear sub just needs to be resupplied with fresh food semi-regularly.
Nuclear subs make a TON of sense for Australia, it's just the nook taboo that keeps morons like you making these moronic arguments for a massive fleet of conventional subs you can't man or maintain.
>it's just the nook taboo
It really is this. There trying to make muh nuclear waste a thing, like no country has figured it out.
Nuclear logistics make more sense for submarines than they do for anything else, including carriers. Long distance, stealth enabling technologies with as much sea time between top ups as possible and the ability to functionally circumnavigate the globe without even surfacing, refueling or restocking is a massive win factor for subs.
For carriers, there's merits for both due to anti-nuclear blocks on certain waters, tho agreements can be made, and the whole 3 carriers to keep 2 in rotation debacle that works for the US and has hampered France's carrier deployment.
The only notable factor that can be against a nuclear powered submarine is sheer cost but diesel subs aren't cheaper when you factor in the extra logistics.
How do we defend 16,010 miles of coastline with 3 subs?
whats the point of having 3 subs that can launch missiles when we don't have the blue water navy or ICBMs to back them up?
Subs don't tool around the coast like Patrol Boats
See
map - there are only 3-4 points where any PLA-N boats can get through the shithole that is Indon-seethe-ia and a couple of Nuke Subs can just sit there and wait for months, swapping out to go get more beer&pies.
The problem with diesel boats is they have to snorkel every few days - Oberons used to routinely sneak up to China be doing night-runs through Indon because the only risk of being seen was the TNI-N who are useless, but now they have to run submerged all the way to do it because PLA has satellites.
>Oberons used to routinely sneak up to China
Yep. Also, when Oberons used to track chinese and soviet submarines during the cold war they would struggle to keep up with their nuclear powered counterparts.
>advantage
Get there fastest with the mostest
And stay on station longest
And where were these Oberons stationed?
Sydney, but they'd have to transit to Darwin, refuel and re-victual and then make their run
And with the Chinks leasing East Arm, nobody's doing that until after WW3 starts and all the Darwin Chinks are rounded up into Palmerston Coof-camp
RAN Subs will be happy they can go back to basing at Harry's Cafe d'Wheels and the Cross
>How do we defend 16,010 miles of coastline with 3 subs?
By sinking enemy ships before they get anywhere near your coastline.
Nuclear submarines *are* a blue water navy.
>How do we defend 16,010 miles of coastline with 3 subs?
Your final plan is for like 8 of them.
3 Virginias is just to start, with the option for 2 more if AUKUS-class is delayed.
No. The purpose of these subs is they have better range, endurance and speed. Australia is a maratime country and needs to operate submarines that can go the distance.
>muh china
These subs will be a threat to anyone including the chinese
>Bruce controlled nuclear submarine pops up within range of Beijing
>fires nuke
>skedaddles back to Bruceland
>burgers get blamed
>WW3 ensues
do you burgers realize what you've done!?
>Oh bother
Was looking for this image.
SSNs get to station faster and stay there longer
It'll be all over before we see one sub delivered, the fifth column in this country has stalled and sabotaged our sub programs from the start.
Has Australia decided on a class name for thei Virginia boats?
Honestly they might just keep it as Virginia-class. The RAN isn't changing anything about them AFAIK.
There isn't anything that needs to be changed tbf. A noticeable amount of the issues from "Australianisation" orginate with the need for American systems
HMAS Roberts-Smith
To kick the shit out of chinks.
>thumbnail is of a US SSBN
Because you don't need to worry about battery life you get this phenomenal underwater performance with subs being able to actually evade torpedos with the assistence of noisemakers.
They are are faster with more power. Can be much larger, insane range, can stay under for longer periods, they can do a bunch of things because of this. Its a very bad idea for Iranians to blow one up off their coast for instance.
It's a Gerald Ford aircraft carrier vs a 1917 destroyer in technology difference.
Distances pretty much.
new HI Sutton kino: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4olY6atUFQ
Tldr?
the worst submarines were the german biber-class midget submarine because they were a shoddily designed desperation weapon that gassed their own crew with engine fumes.
neat
MAD is still the dominant strategic theory therefore all sources of nuclear, peaceful ideally but strategic weapons or power should proliferate.
>t. rand corporation 1956