Paphitis:
Thank you for reading my post ..... it must have been hard to then reply ..... but I appreciate the thoughts!
First of all, the Nuclear option hasn't been ruled out. It's still being discussed. The nuclear propulsion hasn't been ruled out and the subs are still in the design phase and there is the Nuclear option on the table.
The vessel has to be designed around the propulsion unit. So if that decision is still pending, then the whole project must be in the very early stages. So maybe 2025 is a bit optimistic?
Secondly, not even a single Shortfin has been built yet, so no they are not obsolete.
They are not ‘
obsolete’ in the context of old fashioned or old technology. The time it takes to design and build them in this rapidly changing world, means that the technology on smaller projects designed to nullify the advantage of these boats, is ahead of the weapon it is designed to defeat. This is the reason Russia designs for 10 years and that the weapon can be continually upgraded throughout its short life. In the meantime they are designing its replacement. A reason that the Russian missiles are more lethal than those of the US.
In addition, Nuclear Weapons are not even useful aside from offering a deterance. They just have a deterance value. The Tomahawk Cruise Missile and other conventional ICBM options are 100 times more useful.
I agree. But the danger comes from the country (
say Israel or Pakistan) that has its back to the wall and is facing defeat in a local war. I am sure you have heard of the Samson option?
In a conflict, it is these weapons that will be used, and hopefully it stops there. Nuclear options will only be entertained once there is no other choice. It's not something that anyone would be eager to do because the ramifications are dire. The Australian boats would see more use and be more useful to the alliance because they can pound away and level an entire city like Pyongyang from over 4000 kms away which means they can launch from almost anywhere and hit their targets to within 5m. That is a huge Deterance and a massive capability which is a lot more likely to be of use than a nuclear device.
But what you suggest is not just limited to your side, the other lot will have similar capabilities .... maybe even more advanced? Big threat is that certain countries, still have a first strike option on the books! This is obviously intended to pre-empt an attack. As you may have noticed ..... often the information that would have made the decision to launch the only option .... later turns out to be false! Sorry doesn’t mean much with millions (billions) of dead and the planet is a pile of glass and rubble! Maybe that's the plan????
But that is not the reason why Australia is getting these boats. They are super quiet with jet propulsion. No screws. And they have 24 ICBM launchers. So they are looking at an ICBM capability. The only logical step is Nuclear Warheads which they can easily acquire.
As I said about technology, propeller signatures are now old hat apparently. Satellites pick up the surface heat signature of a submerged vessel and the technology is so mind boggling .... they can almost tell what aftershave the Captain is using.
Jets sound great but one drawback! The sea is filling up with millions of tonnes of plastic rubbish, what happens when a fishing net or a large sheet of plastic gets sucked in? Would you not need to surface to clear it; would a satellite not see the boat surface; if it was a war situation would the enemy missiles not destroy it before it could submerge again? A few thousand sheets of plastic would be like a minefield if dropped around a jet powered sub? Just saying, as I am no authority on submarine warfare.
I still question WHY Australia needs such a weapon? In fact I question why any country needs such a weapon, it seems to be only to keep up with those that already have them. Apart from an incident in WWII when I believe Darwin was attacked by the Japanese ..... Australia has never been attacked or threatened. The same applies to the USA? But Europe and Asia is a different story.
These are the first boats with jet propulsion. And they are the most stealthy as well.
As I said ......... technology has a way of overcoming these initial advantages. The repeater rifle made the musket obsolete, that was later replaced with automatic rifles and sub-machine guns but the Gatlin gun was a whole new concept. Stealth is not quite the panacea it is perceived to be. The US has stealth drones ..... but the Iranians managed to bring them down and in a controlled fashion and they never gave them back either!
