Let’s say then that Australia will pay $100 billion for eight SSNs. It seems from the Morrison government’s very sketchy statements that Australia will get eight SSNs for somewhere about the $80–90 billion (through-life costs) that it was expecting to pay for the 12 Attack-class boats under the old deal. On fleet size, SSKs are (or should be) clear winners. Thus how many ships Australia can sink depends a lot on how many boats it has on station, and that in turn depends on several factors how many boats are in the fleet, how many of those are available for operations at any one time, and how long it takes them to get to and from the AO. SSNs and SSKs carry essentially the same weapons and sensors, so either kind of boat is equally capable of sinking a ship once the targets are in range. It is a question of how many submarines Australia can keep on station in the key areas of operations (AO) for every billion dollars that is spent. Whether SSNs are more cost-effective than SSKs depends on a third issue. In practice, the length of time an SSN can spend at sea is no greater than an SSK, because the key limits to endurance are not fuel but crew fatigue, food and in a hot war, weapon stocks. SSN’s have the advantage, both because their higher speed means they can do those long transits faster, and because not having to snort to charge their batteries allows them more easily to evade the high-intensity anti-submarine warfare (ASW) operations that the adversary would maintain around their submarine bases. That means Australia’s subs must do long transits to the operational area. They do that by deploying as close as possible to the adversary’s submarine bases, because that is where their subs are easiest to find. If Australia wants to project power by sea itself, then it needs to achieve sea control, and the best way subs can contribute to that is by sinking the adversary’s submarines. That in turn depends on whether Australia’s overall maritime operational aim is sea control or sea denial. What kind of subs do this best depends on whether ships or subs are the primary targets. Subs can do a lot of things, but their core role is to sink the adversary’s ships and submarines. The second question concerns how Australia would use subs in defending itself. So it makes sense to optimise Australia’s subs for Australia’s defence. ![]() If it doesn’t remain a major power, subs will be a vital part of all that stands between Australia and the People’s Liberation Army. If America remains a major power in Asia, it doesn’t really matter what subs Australia has because America will be there. But it is worth noting that the time Australia would really rely on subs would be when facing China (or another great power) alone. This is not the place to argue the merits of these competing versions of Australian national strategy ( I’ve done that here). It is a question of how many submarines Australia can keep on station in the key areas of operations for every billion dollars that is spent. But if the main role of the new boats is to defend Australia and its near neighbours independently, then it is not so clear. If their primary role is to support America in a war with China then SSNs are probably the way to go, because they are unbeatable in the main task that America would want Australian subs to help perform, which would be to help find and kill China’s subs near their home bases. Their relative merits depend on four key questions.įirst, it depends what Australia is buying subs to do. The answer is not simple, but it is far from clear that SSNs are a better bet operationally than SSKs for Australia in the decades ahead. But are nuclear-powered submarines (SSNs in clunky but convenient navy-speak) the right way to go, or should Australia be looking for a new and better way to buy a new fleet of conventionally-powered boats (SSKs)? Let’s agree that the French project was an irredeemable dud, which had to be abandoned. ![]() Are nuclear-powered submarines better – more cost-effective – for Australia’s operational needs than conventionally-powered ones? This is one of the many questions that deserve a bit more attention than they have received since Scott Morrison’s AUKUS coup.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |