Australia to invest billions of dollars in nuclear submarine shipyard

drone stocks*

The Ukrainians have shown us the importance of both aerial and naval drones in modern warfare. Their drones are more important than Russian submarines. Is the Australian Navy doing anything to modernize itself in that regard?

Yes. Australia sends drones stokes monthly to Ukraine, drone jammers and Australia is developing unmanned submersibles for its navy and for export to allies.

deanzaZZRToday 02:23 pm JST

Why not bring in India into this military nuclear technology sharing USA? Perth is located in the Indian Ocean so certainly such a development is of interest to India, also a Quad member. Share and share alike, right?

.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_submarines_of_the_Indian_Navy

.

The India navy has two nuclear powered Ballistic missile submarine (SSBN).

Another is under construction in India.

.

They have plans to have 10 more submarines.

S5 class Ballistic missile submarine (SSBN) x 3

Project 75 Alpha Attack submarine (SSN) x 6

Akula class Attack submarine (SSN) x 1 from Russia.

.

Please note: The entry "mid-life refit in 2020-21" means the data is at lest 4 years old.

So ones under construction could already be in active service and the planed submarines could be started or canceled.

The Ukrainians have shown us the importance of both aerial and naval drones in modern warfare. Their drones are more important than Russian submarines. Is the Australian Navy doing anything to modernize itself in that regard?

Eisenhower warned about the "Industrial-Military Complex," but it was not they who overthrew the democratically elected governments in Iran and Guatemala. Eisenhower bears responsibility for those disastrous mistakes.

The "Complex" is not responsible for the current depredations of Iran, North Korea, Syria, and Russia, but helps make the weapons needed to fight those regimes.

The depredations of the (capitalist) Industrial-Military Complex, as Eisenhower warned long ago, remains the greatest threat to human life on earth, and as the military conflicts now playing out before our eyes confirm.

If it's just the U.S. fine, but sad to see Australia being suckered into it as well.

This kind of money is better spent on raising living standards of the Australian people, especially the original inhabitants who are still owed by the white settlers who seized the "Terra Nullius". The depredations of the (capitalist) Industrial-Military Complex, as Eisenhower warned long ago, remains the greatest threat to human life on earth, and as the military conflicts now playing out before our eyes confirm.

@wasabi, did you personally lose the contract?

Yes it was broken but paid out in good faith as per good business acumen.

I live near where these subs will be built/based and it will create a lot of jobs locally not to mention rotational crew and families etc moving here, some good and bad things but overall long term a good thing I’d suggest.

WoodyLeeToday 05:48 pm JST

War mongers are busy preparing for WW3 which looking more likely day by day.

Do you also condemn China for building warships?

I do agree, though, that the major element of expenditure will be military assets with no civilian value.

Lots and lots of ongoing civilian jobs and thats worth a heap to the local economy. The rest is investment in the nations defense, so worth the cost.

War mongers are busy preparing for WW3 which looking more likely day by day.

@M1984FA The submarine project has already delivered substantial physical infrastructure, so there are elements of lasting investment. l lived within site of the Osborne shipyard in Adelaide and witnessed the building and redevelopment programme there in preparation for the submarine contract. I do agree, though, that the major element of expenditure will be military assets with no civilian value.

Spending money on military projects is not "investing", as there is no return on the amount. It is simply spending taxpayers money. Calling this an investment is misleading.

They are part of a 4 country alliance with you to maintain security (as you would like to see it) in this region, so I suggest that you trust them, regardless of minor imperfections (from which no country or person is immune).

You lost me here. This has nothing to do this this.

You wont trust a country that cancelled and paid out one contract, even though they came to your rescue not once but twice and paid in blood to do so. Your position makes no sense at all.

@ Blackstar

I am all for moving on of course. I am just saying, if they broke one contract, they may to the same again. Better not trust them.

Besides Australia helped defend France in two world wars paying for it with the lives of 10's of thousands of Australian soldiers. France is indebted to Australia.

You lost me here. This has nothing to do this this.

@Wasabi

I do not really care about this. I just say if you have an history of breaking a contract you lose my trust. This rule is valid in my daily work. What about you, will you still trust such a person / country?

You have to get over some things and move on. Where would Japan be if no country chose to move on from its vicious crimes circa 1931-1945? You would still have no friends in the world.

Most of the world has chosen to move on and trust the "new" Japan (although those most horrifically affected still struggle with it to some extent).

I do not really care about this. I just say if you have an history of breaking a contract you lose my trust.

Loosing a lucrative contract is disappointing for anyone but they paid it out as per the contract requirement for cancellation. If they had not paid it out then trust would be broken. I wont stop trusting for a change of mind when they fulfill the terms of the contract for having that change of mind.

This rule is valid in my daily work. What about you, will you still trust such a person / country?

I wont stop trusting for a change of mind when they fulfill the terms of the contract for having that change of mind. Besides Australia helped defend France in two world wars paying for it with the lives of 10's of thousands of Australian soldiers. France is indebted to Australia. The cancellation and payout of one contract does not negate that debt.

@Gareth Myles

In any case, the allocation of servicing to WA is a textbook example of pork-barrel politics. Hand round the pork by building in SA and servicing in WA, and who cares if this is rational?

Oh yeah? And how should it have been done then? Building in NSW and servicing in Qld? Please enlighten us on your advanced level understanding of where such activities are ideally suited to take place.

Or do you just have no idea what you're talking about and feel like taking an empty pot shot at the national government? Hmm...which could it be??

Really? You think Australia is the only country to cancel a military contract?

I do not really care about this. I just say if you have an history of breaking a contract you lose my trust.

This rule is valid in my daily work. What about you, will you still trust such a person / country?

The contract between Australia and France for naval submarines was mistaken from the outset. It involved the purchase of diesel-powered submarines of an untested design. Consequently, it succeeded in the impossible achievement of being both risky and outdated simultaneously. The French also have no track record of successful naval engagements since the 18th century unless you count the sinking of the Rainbow Warrior in Auckland. Whether the new AUKUS agreement is good for Australia is another good question. In any case, the allocation of servicing to WA is a textbook example of pork-barrel politics. Hand round the pork by building in SA and servicing in WA, and who cares if this is rational?

Australia is a long time ally and India is not an official ally to any in AUKUS, so why on earth share sensitive nuclear technology with a non ally? Sure there is Quad by thats not official and is as much economic as it is military anyway.

IF they do not find a better deal elsewhere and break this contract too! I would not trust Australia after what they did with they last contract.

Really? You think Australia is the only country to cancel a military contract? And as per the contract it was paid out for the cancellation. Australia has gone "all in" on the AUKUS deal so no going back on it. And for the record Australia has had a number of successful contracts with France in the past like the Mirage jet fighters we had for decades before the F/A-18's.

Here is some interesting reading on cancelled military contracts of the past.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cancelled_military_projects

The article is about where Australia will do maintenance on their subs. None of these comments are on topic.

But..."share" with India? I'd be very cautious about that, given the high volume of scams/cons run by Indians in Australia. (I've experienced it. I know what I'm talking about.) Trust needs to be earned.

deanzaZZRToday 02:23 pm JST

Why not bring in India into this military nuclear technology sharing USA? Perth is located in the Indian Ocean so certainly such a development is of interest to India, also a Quad member. Share and share alike, right?

We're not in the business of transferring technology to India, especially when who knows whether they will ever lift a finger against China.

Why not bring in India into this military nuclear technology sharing USA?

Last time I check, India was buying russia oil/gas, so no deal with the USA.

Why not bring in India into this military nuclear technology sharing USA? Perth is located in the Indian Ocean so certainly such a development is of interest to India, also a Quad member. Share and share alike, right?

IF they do not find a better deal elsewhere and break this contract too! I would not trust Australia after what they did with they last contract.