The South China Sea is shallow, a poor operating environment for nuclear subs.
Containment of China to the South China Sea is a US strategy and one which Australia is subsiding, while materially hurting its ability to defend Australia’s coastline.
Comment on Aukus will cost Australia $368bn. What if there was a better, cheaper defence strategy?
skribe@aussie.zone 2 days agoWe deploy our subs for blue water not just littoral use. They patrol up as far as the South China Sea. Nukes allow us the stay on station for much longer than DEs.
Cypher@lemmy.world 2 days ago
skribe@aussie.zone 2 days ago
A nuke sub operating there for a couple of months is still better than a DE that leaves after a week (presuming it can reach that far at all).
philpo@feddit.org 1 day ago
You have a massive misconception about the current capabilities of Diesel powered subs. They have a range of 8000nm +x (most sources give a range of 12000nm for next generation subs), can stay submerged for 30+ days and are far quieter than Nuclear subs.
Tenderizer@aussie.zone 2 days ago
If we’re so concerned about the South China Sea, we can give Taiwan or Japan diesel subs. It’s not like the nuclear subs would be of much use to us anyway if they’re on the other side of Indonesia.
Although I can’t imagine an Internal Combusion Engine sub being at all stealthy, so I’d hope there’s some kind of third option.
Tau@aussie.zone 2 days ago
Although I can’t imagine an Internal Combusion Engine sub being at all stealthy
Diesel electrics can be very stealthy, with the potential to be even more so than nuclear subs when trying to hide (given equivalent level of technology elsewhere in the design). What they can’t do is continue being stealthy for anywhere near the time a nuclear sub can as eventually you need to come near the surface and run the diesel to recharge the batteries. Diesel electrics are also comparatively range limited - while they can travel a considerable distance nuclear subs are effectively only limited by their ability to supply the crew.
As a side note you need the electric part of diesel electric to have an effective submarine. Running a submarine on an internal combustion engine only is impractical as without an adequate oxygen supply you can’t operate underwater without the engine using all the oxygen, so the diesel engines are used on the surface (or just below drawing air through a snorkel) to charge a battery bank which then runs an electric motor when submerged.
Cypher@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Diesel-electric subs are actually far quieter than Nuclear subs, and have out performed them regularly in war games.
It isn’t a black and white case of one technology being better than the other but nuclear costs a lot more.
philpo@feddit.org 1 day ago
Modern Diesel-Fuel Cell subs like the German/Italian Class 212 have a (minimum) range of 8000nm, can stay submerged for 30 days and are far quieter, which becomes especially relevant in areas with low depth, as you cannot hide in favourable temperature layers that easy there. There is also an option for a “longe version” available which seems to be able to stay submerged even longer and there is always the updated Dolphin class Israel uses as well as the Drakar class or Singapores 218SG. They have been specifically designed to operate in conditions that are very similar to the ones in the yellow sea (that’s why SK bought them). There are also alternatives from Sweden(Gotland&Blekinhe class), the updated Soryu from Japan (which is specifically built for a mission profile similar to the Australian one), Spain, South Korea (they even have a nice mixture of hunter-ballistic sub available)etc.
There is a reason that every nation that has a mission profile in the South Chinese sea, the straight or Malacca and the yellow sea has decided to use a non nuclear sub - even nuclear friendly Japan doesn’t.
The only good reason beyond Cronyism and bribes for Australia to use nuclear US subs is that OZ might want to use them in support of future US conflicts e.g. in the Gulf of Oman, off the Pakistani shores, etc.