Skip to comments.Half-price super subs tempt navy
Posted on 12/25/2011 3:48:56 PM PST by naturalman1975
AUSTRALIA can build a new fleet of 12 state-of-the-art submarines in Adelaide for $18 billion, less than half the cost of initial estimates, according to a major report to be released next month.
The report, by strategic think tank the Kokoda Foundation, will be embraced by the Gillard government, which has been under pressure from critics to opt for smaller, cheaper, ready-made submarines from Europe rather than pursue Navy's more expensive but preferred option of building a next generation of the Collins-class boats.
The report - Australia's Future Submarine, obtained by The Australian - estimates it would cost only $18bn to build a dozen homegrown 3800 tonne "son of Collins" submarines rather than the previously published cost estimate of up to $36bn predicted in 2009 by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute.
While this would still make it the most expensive military project in the nation's history, it makes it comparable with the second largest military project - the $16bn plan to purchase up to 100 Joint Strike Fighters - and as such it is more likely to receive the go-ahead.
At 3800 tonnes, the new submarines proposed by the Kokoda Foundation would be bigger and more sophisticated than the current 3000-tonne, Collins-class boats. They would also be capable of anti-ship and anti-submarine operations as well as strategic strike, mine warfare, intelligence collection and support for the special force operations.
(Excerpt) Read more at theaustralian.com.au ...
These will be conventional rather than nuke though? The aussies should have gone in with us and bought a couple of Astutes. More effective and if the Commonwealth (or at least the none mickey-mouse countries within it) did this there would be considerable savings due to economy of scale efficiency...
Five, five, five dalla foot loooong...
anyone every actually seen one of those things?
That thing is made of 200 pound test fibreboard! Good to 300 feet!
Nuclear propulsion is still too controversial here. I know that doesn’t make much sense from a scientific or engineering viewpoint, but it’s a political reality. We’re not going to get nuclear submarines in the short term, so we need to get the best conventional submarines we can.
Comes with nuclear missiles and torpedoes. The neighbor’s little shih-tzu won’t be crapping in my yard anymore.
“Taking another dump, eh Lady? Well here’s a nuclear torpedo to clean that mess up. Wonder what the blast radius is on a nuclear torpe...........”
$6.98 for a polaris nuclear sub? I’ll bet there’s no air conditioning.
There were no end of mistakes and cost overruns with the Collins class, but going on the cheap for this generation of subs is not the answer.
Nor is paying more than we need to. That’s always the balancing act.
How cheap you want to go with those sailors lives or your national defense?
I served over twenty years in the RAN. I don’t believe you ever compromise on safety or capability and especially not for reasons of money. But I also know there are unscrupulous contractors out there who will take advantage of that approach and we need to be aware of that.
Or $2 for a 6 inch (until the end of the month).
Whyever do you care?
Are corporations not supposed to advertise? Or employ salesmen to sell their wares?
Or employ lobbyists to protect their stockholders' interests, in the face of a government that can destroy them -- if it wishes?
Thank you for your service.