Utopia Talk / Politics / Nuclear subs

jergul large member	Sat Sep 18 10:49:16 Seb Your handwaving simply underlines how useless the submarines are for the role you describe. The 1/3+ can and will be sunk at their moorings once combat operations begin. That Australia chose to power the military vessels with nuclear reactors is entirely on it. They are however politically useful for the stuff the US always wants Austrialia to do. Show support by engaging with primitives with a significan fraction of the very few cruise missiles Australia will have in its arsenal. The subs have no role versus China.
jergul large member	Sat Sep 18 10:52:31 Shannon may be on to something in terms of the anglosphere or whatever they are calling that concept these days. "Look, its like we are almost a single country sort of" A nice illusion and very affordable as everyone is supposed to sacrifice 2% of its economic activity on the alter of the military industrial complex. So sure, why not nuclear subs. They are very expensive, so you don't need many of them to meet spending targets.
Seb Member	Sat Sep 18 12:18:05 Jergul: I'm sorry but I think your assessment is wrong. A pre-emptive attack on a naval base with nuclear assets, including in all likelihood US vessels and service personnel would be "another pearl harbour". It works make political commitment to an all out war in the US impossible for any administration to resist. If it is in the context of a hot war, the subs will not be in harbor because they will have been put to sea to avoid the eventuality. And you yourself have argued enough times that attacks on nuclear capabilities risk nuclear responses.
Seb Member	Sat Sep 18 12:18:27 *It would make..
Seb Member	Sat Sep 18 12:22:52 In the context of say, a Chinese invasion of Taiwan it would mean an expansion to targeting domestic facilities and open the way to attacks on China itself as opposed to naval skirmishes. Australia approached the UK before the US, so it appears. In addition your assessment of effectiveness of subs in an anti shipping role flies in the face of all the evidence from war games conducted by most countries in the last three decades; and against the PLANs own strategy.
jergul large member	Sat Sep 18 16:08:24 Seb Not anywhere did I say a pre-emptive attack. So scratch that pearl harbour theory. Normally 3/4ths of nuclear subs will be in harbour. In a crisis, perhaps 1/3rd, of which none will be visiting guests. Australia does not have a nuclear response option. As mentioned, this is one of the flaws with the whole idea. If you feel you can embrace a nuclear power plant as a nuclear deterrent, then it follows that Australia is in breach of the NPT. You keep on tacking on hostage elements that somehow should keep submarines in their moorings safe. Wargame victories are never open ocean victories. Subs are fine access denial vessels in complex waters. PLANs own strategy for nuclear attack submarines is to use them as escorts. This is incidentally the most common role for US attack submarines too. The subs are a white elephant justified only by the need to feed the military-industrial complex 2% of gdp each and every year.
jergul large member	Sat Sep 18 16:18:31 Complete list of submarines that have sunk a vessel since world war II PNS Hangor HMS Conqueror Complete list of victims to submarines since wwii INS Khukri ARA Gen. Belgrano
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sat Sep 18 16:48:31 Isn't that 100% of all countries with submarines to get into a conflict with another country that has an actual navy?
jergul large member	Sat Sep 18 16:59:58 Nimi No. Though noted that the incredibly low marginal utility is multiplied by most countries correctly thinking submarines suck donkey balls under most conditions. They do have niche uses. The US likes to use them as carrier escorts to name one example.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sat Sep 18 17:02:14 What other countries/conflicts?
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sat Sep 18 17:04:04 I also want to take the occasion and giggle over men nerding over things designed to project death and destruction on other people and their stuff.
jergul large member	Sat Sep 18 17:07:18 Now ask me how many submarines have been lost since world war 2 :D
jergul large member	Sat Sep 18 17:08:57 Nimi I am nerding over their futility in case you missed that. Given their track record since world war 2, I think it a huge stretch to say that submarines are designed for anything at all (boomers are fine. They have a clear purpose).
jergul large member	Sat Sep 18 17:09:33 (do you want me to list every conflict since 1945?)
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sat Sep 18 17:11:28 *rolls eyes* sigh...how many.
jergul large member	Sat Sep 18 17:13:35 Answer: At least 17.
jergul large member	Sat Sep 18 17:18:04 To put it into perspective. If we absolutely must spend an arbitrary % of our gdp on something, then why not fully carbon compensated space exploration? The military industrial complex is a thing and a tremendously wasteful thing. Do the nuclear subs make sense? Absolutely. The easiest way for Australia to meet its spending goals. It would however be even better if Australia could just burn the money and count that burnpiles as military spending instead.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sat Sep 18 17:19:58 Jergul Just the ones where there are two navies involved where one side has submarines. And we have to have some level for what a "conflict" is?
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sat Sep 18 17:23:24 "Answer: At least 17." Thing go wrong under water, not good *shakes head*
Habebe Member	Sat Sep 18 17:47:14 Jergul, In this case one of the main uses would be the ability to cut off maritime oil supplies to China.
jergul large member	Sat Sep 18 18:00:16 habebe Because submarines are particularly well suited to boarding iranian/chinese tankers trying to leave the Persian Gulf?
Habebe Member	Sat Sep 18 18:12:11 Jergul, They play an important role in the blockade.Plus their is the political show of strength.Australia is a good size and location while the US/UK have naval tech and power and naval tradition/expertise. Pipelines and arctic shipping lanes lessen this impact.
shannon Member	Sat Sep 18 18:23:16 Jergul you are completely off your rocker. Sad. Lol @ the jergulmaths of how many RAN SSNs will be tied up on a wharf during wartime, patiently waiting for a 1970s era underwater disco aka Chinese SSN attack. The USN and RN will be basing SSNs at HMAS Stirling. So there goes the idea of no nuclear umbrella protecting the base. You are also entirely ignorant of the existence of the Harold Holt listening station also located in Western Australia. This is the primary USN station for monitoring the Indian Ocean. There is ZERO chance of a sneak attack on the Australian submarine base. Let it go you fool.
shannon Member	Sat Sep 18 18:23:17 Jergul you are completely off your rocker. Sad. Lol @ the jergulmaths of how many RAN SSNs will be tied up on a wharf during wartime, patiently waiting for a 1970s era underwater disco aka Chinese SSN attack. The USN and RN will be basing SSNs at HMAS Stirling. So there goes the idea of no nuclear umbrella protecting the base. You are also entirely ignorant of the existence of the Harold Holt listening station also located in Western Australia. This is the primary USN station for monitoring the Indian Ocean. There is ZERO chance of a sneak attack on the Australian submarine base. Let it go you fool.
shannon Member	Sat Sep 18 18:30:43 Seb, by selling HMS Agincourt to Australia you are not “shrinking the RN’. HMS Trenchant was due for decommissioning in 2021. It is laid up but has not yet been officially decommissioned…remember that this AUKUS deal is 18 months in the making. It may be a complete surprise to you and the French, but behind the scenes this is well planned. HMS Trenchant was refitted and upgraded on 2011 and 2016. She can easily be put back into service for a few more years to 2027. As for saying Australia spend money and not get any increase in the number of SSNs, just what are you on about? The idea is to increase the number of SSNs in Her Majesty’s service! You really do think like a petulant thieving Frenchman.
jergul large member	Sat Sep 18 20:13:20 habebe Exactly 0 role to play in an oil embargo. Surface vessels are much more suited boarding chinese/iranian oil tankers than submarines. Shannon Lol, dont you worry your little head about these things. You will get to fire several...maybe as many as 6...tomahawk missiles from a sub at primitives every other decade or so. Huzaa! Rofl.
Habebe Member	Sat Sep 18 21:24:05 Mabey its just a pissing contest, or trying to get China to spend more, they have a larger sub fleet now. Mabey its just to have more force deployment in the South china Sea.
Habebe Member	Sat Sep 18 21:40:33 That said I'm not sure why you wouldn't use subs to help enforce an embargo, I'm no naval strategist but isnt it nice to be able to take out on coming ships without being seen? Probably some mines too.
Seb Member	Sun Sep 19 04:44:52 Shannon: The Trafalgar have already been extended as long as possible, the last life extension eeked 18 months out to cover the delay. If you can get a few more years out, then those should be leased to Australia - get the crew up to speed on nuclear operations. "As for saying Australia spend money and not get any increase in the number of SSNs" It's about the number of missions you can sustain. As it stands anything that sees a RN submarine switched to Australia for two years to fill the gap of one or two Collins - that's a net reduction. If the Collins stay and one astute goes from RN to RAN and the Collins are not decommissioned, that's no net change overall, but a reduction in RN capacity where it is needed in the North sea. We would be reducing the ability to keep an eye on the Russians and escort our boomers to patrol grounds. I'm definitely not up for anything that makes the UK less safe just because Australia fucked up its defence procurements. And finally the RN and RAN have different missions. It's not about symbolic oaths to the Queen - she isn't in the chain of command.
Seb Member	Sun Sep 19 04:51:28 Jergul: "Normally 3/4ths of nuclear subs will be in harbour. In a crisis, perhaps 1/3rd, of which none will be visiting guests." Unlikely in a crisis. You are describing a situation where there is already a shooting war happening (otherwise pre-emptive). Either the third are unlikely to be relevant - so targeting them is militarily ineffective and marks a large escalation - or indicates China plans this to be a long war - so again an escalation. An attack on a nuclear facility that isn't involved in hostilities is a nuclear incident. One thing to blow up a nuclear reactor that's shooting at you. Another to blow one up that by your own definition *isn't capable* of doing so, in a way likely to recklessly harm civilians. The overwhelmingly likely situation in this scenario is that the US is in this war already, and will need to decide how to respond to this nuclear incident; or if not, it will now be drawn in. Australia does not have a nuclear response option. As mentioned, this is one of the flaws with the whole idea. If you feel you can embrace a nuclear power plant as a nuclear deterrent, then it follows that Australia is in breach of the NPT. You keep on tacking on hostage elements that somehow should keep submarines in their moorings safe. Wargame victories are never open ocean victories. Subs are fine access denial vessels in complex waters. PLANs own strategy for nuclear attack submarines is to use them as escorts. This is incidentally the most common role for US attack submarines too. The subs are a white elephant justified only by the need to feed the military-industrial complex 2% of gdp each and every year.
jergul large member	Sun Sep 19 04:54:23 habebe Enforcing an oil embargo is just a question of boarding and arresting any questionable supertankers close to their point of loading. Loyds and DNV insurance costs will limit volume to whatever vessels a select few state actors can lay their hands on. I am unsure of how naval operations are supposed to proceed in any event. The degree of integration with the USN will involve placing the subs under direct US control. US vessels underwritten and crewed by people with funny accents essentially. An alternate and more sovereign plan is to use the vessels to screen Australia's 2 helicopter assault ships (classed as landing helicopter dock ships). Its not like Australia has enough surface vessels for that job. Its a bit different for the UK. It can surge two carrier groups, so can use its nuclear attack submarines to screen those forces. It bloody well will have to for the same reason as Australia will have to. Lack of other ships. Australia does not hav
jergul large member	Sun Sep 19 04:58:30 Seb I get it. Invulnerable superships of the Anglosphere alliance. No need for proper bases because they will never be attacked. Sooo safe. With that logic, why do you need any ships at all beyond a nuclear arsenal. "The Chinese sank the royal rowboat. A clear escalation! Time to go nuclear!. China can and will sink them at their moorings if anything goes hot. Australia can step back from the brink after that. Probably will have to as people wonder why militarized nuclear reactors were placed outside of an urban city in the first place.
jergul large member	Sun Sep 19 05:04:25 Habebe You have correctly identified minelayers as the most dangerous platform in the post wwii era.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Sep 19 05:25:11 Seriously though, somebody help me. What other conflict where there with naval engagements and submarines available besides India-Pakistan and Falklands? The only one I can think about of is Iran vs the Arabs+USA. Only the US had subs and the Persian gulf is a very shallow and small place, probably not great for subs.
Seb Member	Sun Sep 19 11:34:10 Jergul: I suspect in any putative conflict, China and the US would avoid attacking home land facilities of the major participants to avoid escalation. I expect Australia/Japan would be so included. "China can and will sink them at their moorings if anything goes hot." If there are a third of those boats moored for the Chinese to shoot at in a conflict *after* it had escalated to attacking home territory rather than skirmishes at sea, then it can only be because they are unable to go to sea, which makes the attack militarily unnecessary to China unless they think the war will go on for some time. I don't think it is likely to be true that there would be a third of Aussie subs sitting at harbour in such a conflict. The only things that would actually prevent them going to sea would be servicing nuclear propulsion which won't be done in Australia. But if it was the case, it would be true of a diesel sub. In which case that's just the cost of doing business - the 1/3rd never available in a conflict and the down payment for having 2/3rds available. Otherwise, the scenario requires sudden and unanticipated escalation or pre-emption by China which I think they would be unlikely to do. None of this seems a compelling argument against nuclear subs.
Seb Member	Sun Sep 19 11:35:04 Also lol at having a hissy fit and arguing this logic amounts to saying subs are invulnerable. That's not so much a straw man as a bale of hay.
Seb Member	Sun Sep 19 11:41:54 Also, given the main mechanism for such an attack would be ballistic missile, the Chinese would need to have balls of fucking steel to target a nuclear facility in a shooting conflict with ballistic missiles. Even if it wasn't misinterpreted as a nuclear strike, it's an invitation for the US to escalate to tactical nuclear weapons at Chinese islands in the South China sea or even Chinese mainland; something that makes things much easier for the Americans than 2 - 4 nuclear attack subs that are by definition in your scenario unavailable for combat operations. There'd be no domestic or political opposition if they can point to clouds of radioactive ash falling all over Perth.
jergul large member	Sun Sep 19 11:43:25 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars:_1945%E2%80%931989 Remember that the primary target is merchant shipping, so any conflict with an embargo where subs are not sinking things during the embargo.
jergul large member	Sun Sep 19 11:45:09 Seb Yes, we get that everything is a hostage so everything is in fact unattackable. Seems a huge waste. Why not just have a royal dingy that could justify nuclear war if China ever touched it?
Seb Member	Sun Sep 19 11:59:23 Jergul: You yourself have argued in the past attacks on nuclear facilities are likely to trigger a nuclear attack. And your entire argument depends on a China dropping a balistic missile on a nuclear sub that your own scenario requires to be incapable of carrying out offensive operations. And as you've pointed out, will spread radioactive debris into civilian areas. How would it be different to the US dropping bunker busters into a Chinese nuclear reactor? Blowing up out of theatre nuclear reactors - whether civilian or military - is a hugely provocative thing to do.
Seb Member	Sun Sep 19 12:07:07 There will be plenty of voices in the US military arguing that tactical nukes are the best way to take out China's SCS bases. They are not civilian and not recognized as Chinese soil. Clearly, if China is blowing up Australia they are behaving if this is "it", the showdown for at least regional if not global military supremacy. At this point the US would have to decide accepting militarily defeat by China, or nuclear escalation. China would be in the same situation. It's a very dangerous rung. But as I said, of China is already prepared to target Australia for what are - by the definition of your own scenario, as the subs are incapable of putting to sea for weeks or months - nugatory tactical or strategic advantage, then we are well passed the stage where subs will be definitive and well on the way to a nuclear war anyway.
jergul large member	Sun Sep 19 12:36:49 Seb Militarized nuclear power for a non-nuclear power is a completely new concept. I think they should be treated as conventional vessels until Australia withdraws from the NPT at least. Subs will in no way be definitive. The Aussie ones will be escorting the helicopter landing docks.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Sep 19 12:41:55 Jergul That is the trivial part! I have a fairly good (not perfect*) idea of what has happened in terms of wars since 1945, since I also suffer from this typically male fascination with war and violence, especially if it involves engineering. But I can't think of two conflicts with the necessary intensity, that involved naval battles and and one side had submarines. *I thought you had something specific in mind :(
Seb Member	Sun Sep 19 13:32:25 Jergul: What you think isn't really the point. If they are escorting LHDs in a shooting war, then Australia can only be attacking Chinese islands, China, or a Chinese occupied Taiwan - and it's all redundant anyway because things are about to escalate to a nuclear exchange. The real utility is in surveillance, preventing the Chinese from being able to do trade embargo with zero risk in the run up phases, and in attacking Chinese subs and surface vessels during the naval skirmish phases. There will be no other phases - China's Island bases will either have been bombed flat or nuked before LHDs can get anywhere; and the only place left to go is either an attempt to re-invade Taiwan, which would only be successful if America was willing to nuke Chinese mainland bases.
Seb Member	Sun Sep 19 14:45:06 ...or China which is again, nuclear escalation point.
jergul large member	Sun Sep 19 17:04:05 Nimi Shall we arbitrarily decide that 5% of total munitions dropped in wwii = a conflict with enough intensity to warrant submarine warfare if indeed it is such that what they do cannot be done better with other means? Seb So, you are arguing that the LHDs are also useless. Fair point. If the LHDs ever leave port, then they will need to submarines to act as escorts. Trade embargoes are 0 risk from submarines, submarines suck at surveillance and subs have close to 0 chance of sinking Chinese subs and surface vessels. Even if they could do any of that, it would still mean losing 1/3rd of the subs in their morings. In addition to the LHDs if they are also to remain moored like you suggest.
jergul large member	Sun Sep 19 17:05:24 "However, these ships are not just diplomatic and humanitarian platforms. When they enter service, the LHDs will be able to exploit the attributes of reach, access, flexibility, poise and persistence in carrying out preventative diplomacy tasks and (if needed) they offer a high level of coercion, especially through deterrence and compellence. It will offer the ADF the ability to project force, and in certain circumstances, provide for forcible entry operations." = escort duty for subs.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Sep 19 17:24:14 Jergul I was honestly just curious, what other conflicts besides those two, where submarines were even available to either party. From there I gathered that, well not just any "conflict" it has to involved naval battles, which are not very common, because you need two navies that have parity, at least in theater. Like the USA didn't need to use submarines to destroy Iraq's "navy", even if the Persian gulf was not so shallow. I think it is easier to start with what countries have submarines and have been in a conflict, then let's worry about the intensity and making the use case. Well, let's filter out countries with submarines that were part of the NATO engagement in Iraq and Afghanistan, like Spain and Italy. It was not really a "real" conflict for these countries. I guess my point is that whatever role submarines have, does not come to its' own without an enemy with a real navy or at least a merchant fleet. It's not a very versatile weapon I grant you, but in the case of Australia as part of the greater barrier against China, that is where it submarines would be useful. China has a actual navy and an economy that relies on sea trade.
jergul large member	Sun Sep 19 17:34:42 Nimi The purported value of submarines is that they are an assymetrical force. The other side can have as much naval and aerial supremacy as it wants. Subs can still do their thing against under protected targets. This is the scenario that very seldom applies. Under other conditions. Airpower and surface vessels do the job far, far better. They are useful for some things. Mainly invasion defence (where complex waters give submarines a tremendous boost) and as escorts where their sonar arrays below thermoclines give advantages. Mainly that the main fleet can steam ahead at full speed without reduction implicit to towed sonar arrays. Submarines are simply not that great. It saddens me to say this. The vessels are the backbone of the Norwegian navy, but it is what it is.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Sep 19 17:52:57 Yet in both instances where they were used since WW2 was in a conflict where the opposing sides where fairly even in the conflict theater. *shrugs*
Habebe Member	Sun Sep 19 18:41:00 The backbone of the Norweigan navy is 6 submarines....
Seb Member	Sun Sep 19 18:51:53 Jergul: A chinese surface force trying to interdict civilian ships (in full view of global satellite surveillance) would need to have how many escorts running anti submarine warfare duties? Given any ship running asw duties could also be doing interdiction... You haven't thought this through.
Seb Member	Sun Sep 19 18:54:11 Long wave transmission creates an asymmetric situation here that's not evident in previous conflicts. Even at low bandwidths inherent in this mode, hidden subs can know where enemy ships are active without getting disclosed. Very different to ww2.
jergul large member	Mon Sep 20 00:27:43 Nimi You are looking for a pattern that is not there. habebe Per capita? It would be like you having 300 subs Seb How many extra ships would a chinese navy group need to have? 0. *Ignores technobabble*
Habebe Member	Mon Sep 20 01:07:22 I was just pointing out what you called the backbone of the Navy was 6 subs. We have 50 or 60, but of course we also have a bunch of other ships to compliment. Back to Norway , to be more specific you have 6 Ula.class subs.I dont know much about them but knowing how scandinavians design cars and jets with a meticulous attention to detail they probably are rather impressive. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ula-class_submarine
Habebe Member	Mon Sep 20 01:08:48 Scandinavians/Germans*
Habebe Member	Mon Sep 20 01:15:42 Actually I applaud the calls in Europe to develop a military industrial complex to rival the US and China. Stoked further by Biden's sub deal actually, and their is a chip production/distribution deal. Probably the best part of his FP, he did deliver on that promise.
Seb Member	Mon Sep 20 01:27:05 Jergul: I didn't ask how many *extra*, I asked how many would be running ASW and not be available for stopping and inspecting civilian ships. That's a lot of sea for a task group to cover of it's going to stay as a single task group for self defence. The more assets tied up doing force protection and the less doing sea control, the better. VLF/ELF shore to submarine communication systems are hardly technobable.
Seb Member	Mon Sep 20 02:11:39 France continues to have an absolute meltdown over this - now cancelling defence summit with UK. Don't really understand how they can be so pissed off. After all they used brexit as an excuse to pull out of the UK FCAS and start a rival programme; then there's the Galileo issue. If they wanted to be partners, not rivals, in the defence market, they have not been showing it lately.
jergul large member	Mon Sep 20 02:26:58 Seb Again, none. A task force has its fixed composition and embargo enforcement is done by using radio to redirect vessels. Most maritime control in conflict zones are dictated by the contraints Loyds and DNV insurance puts on vessel operators. You may be confusing the concept with anti pirate or anti smuggling operations. I had not made an issue of submarine communications. Why is France upset? You caught the part about militarising nuclear power, right? NPT specifies nuclear power for civilian use. Australian nuclear subs are paradigm changing and way outside of contractional considerations France had with its deal.
jergul large member	Mon Sep 20 02:28:31 How exactly where you thinking submarines were good platforms for ship inspections anyway?
Habebe Member	Mon Sep 20 02:58:41 "VLF/ELF shore to submarine communication systems are hardly technobable." Dumb question, but what does VLF/ELF mean?
jergul large member	Mon Sep 20 03:11:08 very long frequency extremely long frequency Radio signals. The longer the frequency, the better the transmission.
Seb Member	Mon Sep 20 03:26:41 jergul: "How exactly where you thinking submarines were good platforms for ship inspections anyway?" I wasn't, and I puzzled as to how it could be that you believe anything I have said could reasonably lead you to that conclusion. Could you articulate precisely what I have said that leads you to this conclusion? "A task force has its fixed composition and embargo enforcement is done by using radio to redirect vessels." Why would they comply? "I had not made an issue of submarine communications." You have made an issue about historic use of submarines as anti-surface warfare platforms, historically this has been hampered by the need for a submarine to identify targets at a distance while remaining stealthy. "Why is France upset? You caught the part about militarising nuclear power, right?" That is not the basis of any of France's stated objections: they are all about the loss of contract and being cut out of the loop.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Sep 20 03:33:06 Jergul Right you are reading my mind now, there actually is no pattern because there have been very few opportunities for submarines warfare, so anything we say is in a near total darkness of actual experience. It's all speculation, or as we call it Sweden "man-guessing". :)
shannon Member	Mon Sep 20 08:05:14 Is Jergul seriously so delusional he thinks China could use a nuclear tipped ICBM to hit a joint strategic RAN-RN-USN nuclear submarine base and not receive in return a complete glassing of every city in China? Seb, Trenchant is good to go until 2027 given it’s refits and upgrades. It was merely budget that it was to be withdrawn once Anson launched.
shannon Member	Mon Sep 20 08:11:15 Firstly the PLA-N surface fleet and airforces in the SCS are quickly destroyed by Anglosphere surface fleets and airforces. The submarine service will be used to blockade Chinese mainland ports. No need to risks surface ships or aircraft. Within six months they will be experiencing a real life Zombie Apocalypse with hundreds of millions of destitute and starving Chinese looking to eat the brains of any CCP functionary.
jergul large member	Mon Sep 20 09:15:59 Nimi My point is that "very few opportunities" for submarine warfare is the pattern. Shannon Why the fuck would the UK and US be basing subs in Perth?
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Sep 20 09:26:07 Jergul I skimmed through the list of mostly civil wars and insurgency you linked. Apart from finding out that the Korean war also involves usage of subs. The sample size of countries with submarines is too small.
jergul large member	Mon Sep 20 09:37:47 Nimi Many of the conflicts had parties involved with submarines.
Habebe Member	Mon Sep 20 09:58:08 A further show of strength, Australia was part of a US/Japan/India/Australia pact to secure chip supply chains. http://www...a/amp_articleshow/86368995.cms
Habebe Member	Mon Sep 20 10:00:45 I think we will see more supply chain networks agreements for strategic items and to have fewer weaknesses to the Chinese.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Sep 20 10:27:40 Jergul Can you please name one? Let's keep in mind, we both think subs are most useful out at sea, against trade ships and navies. There are not a lot of conflict that would satisfy that scope, asymmetrical or otherwise.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Sep 20 10:46:42 I found 2 more conflict where Submarines where at play and played some role just existing as a threat. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Trikora http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War
jergul large member	Mon Sep 20 15:56:38 Nimi Submarine impact as a force in being is an interesting perspective. Not because subs are great, but rather because decisionmakers think that subs are better than they actually are.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Sep 20 16:13:29 In the Trikora operation they seem to played a more significant role than in the Sex day war. Perhaps we could have seen more action if the conflict had not been so short, because there were submarines on both sides, strategic bombers and an aircraft carrier. A missed opportunity!
shannon Member	Tue Sep 21 04:41:24 Jergul have you not heard of AUKUS, the Anglosphere military pact to contain China? Lol do you not understand what this means? It has two elements. One is building nuclear submarines for Australia. The other is to base US long range air (Darwin) and sea (Perth) forces in Australia. HMAS Stirling is the home of the existing RAN submarine fleet and has for many decades received both USN and RN nuclear submarines. During WW2, Fremantle was the 2nd largest submarine base in the world, second only Pearl Harbour. Western Australia is home to the primary Indian Ocean USN submarine communications station, Harold Holt, built in the 1960s, 850km north of Perth. Perth is also where the SASR are based, and a significant part of the RAAF and fully half of the RAN surface fleet. Perth is closer to Singapore than it is to Sydney. It’s the Anglosphere’s greatest fortress on the Indian Ocean and will be protected at all costs.
shannon Member	Tue Sep 21 04:48:55 And to top it off 60% of Australia’s exports by value leave WA ports. It’s the most economically vital State with the richest billionaires in Australia. WA has an economy 1/6 the size of Russia with 1.5% of their population.
murder Member	Tue Sep 21 07:00:24 "A chinese surface force trying to interdict civilian ships (in full view of global satellite surveillance) would need to have how many escorts running anti submarine warfare duties?" It's 2021. Precision guided standoff munitions are plentiful. Airpower can easily deal with any surface threats.
Seb Member	Tue Sep 21 08:26:18 murder: Oh gosh, this is turning into a bit of a pain in the arse because nobody is following the thread. If China were to decide to try and exert pressure on Australia, it could enforce a trade embargo using it's force projection from the south china seas into the various choke points in the Indonesian archipelago. China obviously couldn't go on a spree of blowing up civilian surface ships, it would need to physically stop them with warning shots etc. but it now has the largest surface navy in the world, so this is pretty easy for them to do - any old tub with a gun on it will do because civilian ships are very vulnerable. What can Australia do to stop this happening? Well, it could wait for the US to ride to the rescue - but they might want to ask an Afghani interpreter on the wisdom and reliability of that. So lets put that on the back burner as Plan D. The first thing it could do, decisively defeat the Chinese navy or whatever part had been assigned to do this blockade. Australia does not have the capability to take on the Chinese navy and airforce - not far from Australia's coast. For a start, China has many more ships, it has many more missiles, it has carriers, and the Aussies don't. Secondly it could escort convoys and protect them from Chinese interdiction. Well, that's possible but not many civilian shipping companies will risk their ships getting into a fight. What you would probably end up with is Australian and Chinese flotillas in a stand off each trying to physically block each other and daring each other to shoot first. But under this circumstances the the civilian ships sitting tight to see what happens - advantage China: those ships aren't going to Australia. Thirdly - it could send subs out and announce it was prepared to sink Chinese ships. At the very least, this forces Chinese surface ships to stay in task forces running ASW drills rather than dispersing - which is a very effective way for Australia, alone, to limit the effectiveness of any Chinese blockade. It also offers the opportunity to actually physically destroy Chinese ships in a decisive skirmish the event of escalation - in a way that direct conflict between surface vessels which is much much harder given the disparity of size. However, diesel subs have limited range and time on station - nuclear subs are much better for such operations.
jergul large member	Tue Sep 21 08:57:16 Seb It would need to physically stop ships by declaring an embargo zone and let Loyds and DNV insurance details. Then it would need to radio any ships approaching its not sail zone to immediately desist. After that? Helicopter boarding. Missiles are last resort only if it looks like the ship might actually try to break the blockade. Sending some nuclear subs out saying they are going to destroy chinese ships will ensure that those not sent out will be sunk at their moorings.You are petulantly resistant to seeing that a hardened submarine base goes hand in hand with any 2030s scenario. Nuclear attack subs still only have 90 days endurance. Its not the game changer you think it is.
Seb Member	Tue Sep 21 09:16:19 jergul: "It would need to physically stop ships by declaring an embargo zone and let Loyds and DNV insurance details." Doesn't stop ships attempting to run other embargos - insurance is only an issue if China, rather than stopping and turning around ships, starts blowing them up. If it does, then far more likely other countries will get involved. And there are relatively easy ways for Australia and countries that might not be willing to get into a shootout to circumvent that - e.g. acting as an underwriter. "Helicopter boarding." The PLAN has fewer helicopters than surface vessels, and it limits interventions to helicopter range, and boarding a ship from helicopter a long way from a ship opens up interesting possibilities about Australian special forces arresting pirates at sea in a sting operation. Particularly if they can exfiltrate their captives onto a submarine. "will ensure that those not sent out will be sunk at their moorings." Ok, in which case the situation has escalated into one that is guaranteed to draw the US into the conflict, thus achieving Australia's strategic aim. The aim here is to deny China low cost measures to exert pressure on Australia in a way that would allow it to be picked off. So we've gone from a situation where China can turn away ships 'peacefully' to one where it actually needs to kill people and blow up shit to do so; risk loss of its own assets in doing so; and is far more likely to pull it into military conflict with the US. ".You are petulantly resistant to seeing that a hardened submarine base goes hand in hand with any 2030s scenario." First time you've mentioned hardened submarine base. But it's irrelevant either way to the point. "Nuclear attack subs still only have 90 days endurance. Its not the game changer you think it is." It's the difference between 14 days on station and 78 days on station in the straits of Malacca - and not having to come to surface in range of detection by air assets. That's pretty decisive in the type of conflict I'm talking about. http://twitter.com/shashj/status/1438179433001758720?lang=en
jergul large member	Tue Sep 21 09:38:48 Seb An embargo most definitly changes insurance terms and deflects a huge volume of shipping. Its business seb. It also matter that ships and cargo are not covered in the event of an arrest. Its business seb. What would stop Australian terrorists from taking hostages in any boarding scenario (to mirror your inflaming language)? Aircraft, helicopters and missiles are the reach of a task force, not the deck guns, so, no. There would be no stealthy escape from stalag 14 or whatever the fuck you are using as a role model here. The US will be involved in any and all events. There is not fucking way Australia would ever go solo on a military conflict with China. So, yah, sunk at their moorings if Australia signals an intent to engage Chinese vessels. Mentioned underground bases many times already. Its what the pros that have put a lot of thought into this do. Your straight of mallaca example shows exactly how easy it is for a task force to control an embargo. Nothing desisive about it. 1 set sail those that can. 2. Fuck around for a month or two acheiving nothing. 3. Seek sanctuary in a US military port.
jergul large member	Tue Sep 21 09:45:58 6.5 knots is a ludicrous estimate for average speed of conventional subs. However, nuclear subs to have the advantage of keeping up with the task force they are escorting. Which is how they fucking well will be used unless Australia is also supposed to lose its LHDs at their moorings.
Seb Member	Tue Sep 21 10:45:51 Jergul: "Aircraft, helicopters and missiles are the reach of a task force" Ah, the Keanu Reeves approach to hostage situations. As I said, this isn't intended to stop China from blowing up civilian ships, rather it is intended to make that a requirement of such an endeavour. "The US will be involved in any and all events. There is not fucking way Australia would ever go solo on a military conflict with China." You are being a bit slow on the uptake. I encourage you to read the post to murder again. The point is to allow Australia to deter against attempt by China to use control of trade routes to pressure Australia, by making use of direct force on civilian traffic an inevitable requirement of such an endeavour and thus escalation to a regional war involving the US inevitable. You seem to have inflated this into "Australia needs to be able to win a shooting war with China alone and will be able to do so". I don't think it's pointful to continue until we are on the same page in scenario parameters, otherwise you are just going up waste your time making critiques of arguments I haven't made.
Seb Member	Tue Sep 21 10:46:43 Re underground bases, I don't think you have in any of these threads. But in any case, probably unnecessary in this instance.
Seb Member	Tue Sep 21 10:48:27 Why? Because the only submarines there will not be capable of operations and so militarily irrelevant, or the war starts with a pre-emptive strike by China. So waste of time building hardened shelters.
Seb Member	Tue Sep 21 10:49:59 It's pretty much turning into "everyone should surrender to China preemptively or China will destroy them".
jergul large member	Tue Sep 21 10:56:59 Seb What hostage situation? The imaginary one where special forces boarding a vessel are overwhelmed by very special forces hiding in barrels and shit? Not that it will come to that. Insurance terms and risk of arrest will keep shipping operators well clear of any embargoed zone. Your weak-assed afghani intepreter analogy? In a country where the US was engaged in combat for 20 years? My point is that nothing Australia can do will deter China from controlling trade routes if that is what China wants to do in the 2030s. It will be mostly an administrative excersise by China anyway. Ships wont go where china says dont go. Nuclear subs are worse than useless if Australia insists on basing them in an unprotected harbour close to a major town. Just mirror what China does. They think subs are at risk of being sunk in port, so they are.
jergul large member	Tue Sep 21 11:00:14 Seb This has already turned into "Gee, China is pretty powerful once we pretend the US does not exist" What a fucking surprise that is.
jergul large member	Tue Sep 21 11:06:42 You may want to read up on ship rotation principles. Vessels preparing for their combat tour are not useless unless you think Australia is investing 90 billion to delay meeting Chinese demands for 90 days. Hardened bases also cloak how many vessels are at sea at any given time.
Seb Member	Tue Sep 21 12:56:12 Jergul: If China announces an embargo, you think that all global shipping will just price in China blowing up freighters, that's your argument? "Your weak-assed afghani intepreter analogy?" Remind me again, the actions that US surface combatants saw during the Falklands conflict? The US just pulled out of Afghanistan after 20 years and firm commitments, with very little consultation with allies. You'd be very foolish to just plan on American intervention as a given. You need to make sure it will happen. It's far from clear that the US would start a shooting war over a matter of Australian unemployment rates. So Australias options would be to try and tough it out, or concede to whatever the demand is. This encourages such levers to be pulled in the first place. Australia needs to be able to bake escalation into Chinese planning symptoms. Your point is stupid because it treats China's military options as binary (nothing, or all out war and attacks on Australian soil), rather than a continuum; whereas the whole point of Australia's move here is precisely to narrow the options, create such a binary decision, thus raising the cost of pressuring Australia. "They think subs are at risk of being sunk in port, so they are." Your entire argument is that subs are only useful to protect a task force from other attack submarines. Where are these Australian LHDs going to be sailing to to launch an amphibious assault that has a capable submarine force exactly? "Vessels preparing for their combat tour" ...can be put to see pretty quickly, and if the attack is to be triggered by action on Australias part (you having explicitly ruled out pre-emptive strike) we can rule out the idea that any sub still at port at that point is available for use. Consistency in assumptions is needed here jergul.
TheChildren Member	Tue Sep 21 13:09:08 why france so upset? coz this aint da first time u screwed them over anglo. but go ahead and use those subs 2 protect from da big important trade ships in da seas... tradeships that literally come 2 china and leave from china because they literally dealin business with china but somehow they need ur protection from china... lmao idiocracy is real
murder Member	Tue Sep 21 13:50:50 France is so upset because they hate being reminded that they aren't as important as they think they are.
jergul large member	Tue Sep 21 15:19:40 Seb My argument is that ships will follow an embargo. No blowing up of ships required. US intel was instrumental in the UK victory. Do you feel you needed more help than that? But that is a different argument than the weak assed afghani intepreter variant. Its binary only in so far as Australia actually threatens to use the nuclear submarines offensively. That is when it will lose the ones still moored. I posted Australia's doctrine on LHD use. Most likely use is re-enforcing some country or another. But sure, marginal value in those too. The rule of thumb for conflict is that 1/3rd of vessels are in position, 1/3rd in transit, 1/3rd in port. Consistency is my thing. Just assume you are missing something if you cant see it.
Seb Member	Tue Sep 21 16:15:47 jergul: "My argument is that ships will follow an embargo." Given that ships regularly run western trade sanctions, can you explain why you think it is that they would follow a (presumably) unilateral Chinese one? I'm pretty sure Australia and friendly countries could put together some kind of underwriting. No, if China imposes trade sanctions they will actually need to enforce them, not rely on the insurance industry. "US intel was instrumental in the UK victory." What is Australia going to do with US intel? For Australia to have a hope here, it needs the US actually fighting. "But that is a different argument than the weak assed afghani intepreter variant." I find it amusing you think that the Afghani example is weak. The US humiliated itself and walked away from a 20 year commitment in a prime strategic location, taking casualties as it went. And from this we are supposed to conclude that the US would fight a naval conflict with China to ensure Australia doesn't face some unemployment? Not actually very likely is it. "Its binary only in so far as Australia actually threatens to use the nuclear submarines offensively. That is when it will lose the ones still moored." So, we have to assume that Australia would be dumb enough in this instance to announce their intention before their subs have left port. Is this really a credible assumption for you to make, jergul? "The rule of thumb for conflict is that 1/3rd of vessels are in position, 1/3rd in transit, 1/3rd in port." And in the Falklands conflict - as a good example of a major conflict where a mid sized power was responding on its initiative to an act of aggression - what were the ratios for, say, aircraft carriers? 100% deployed Type 42 destroyers - 5 fought, 2 were on station, 1 was in dry dock having run over a bouy while prepping to head - so that's 60%. I think some of the others were on active duty elsewhere too. We could go on. A rule of thumb for standard deployments isn't the thing to be using in such a scenario. The main things that would prevent a sub being ready at say a week or so's notice are major servicing servicing - which would not be happening in Australia - there will not be any subs at port. And if there were any fundamentally inoperative, and China attacked them, it would almost certainly draw in the US; which is the strategic objective here. Your point is inconsistent. On the one hand, you don't want China to be taking pre-emptive action - which means Australia has the initiative here. On the other hand, you want to use a standard deployment schedule that is not compatible with Australia having the initiative.
Seb Member	Tue Sep 21 16:19:28 "Its binary only in so far as Australia actually threatens to use the nuclear submarines offensively. That is when it will lose the ones still moored." Also, this is a category error - it's binary if Australia threatens to use the nuclear submarines - great: that's the point. Australia has then removed the long tail of situations where China can leverage it's strength to impose trade disruption as leverage to secure policy changes by Australia to China's advantage. It needs to be prepared to get into a shooting war that will likely involve the US.
Seb Member	Tue Sep 21 16:22:59 This isn't a hard concept to grasp - the objective is to limit the scope of what China can do without risking triggering a regional war.
jergul large member	Tue Sep 21 16:45:58 God the rabbit holes you create for yourself. You are confusing smuggling and piracy with trade route disruptions. Shipping cannot run embargoes put in place by a global power. Its bad business. Your assumption is that China is not a global power after all, and shipping will simply ignore its embargo instructions. Your other failed assumption is that the US would accept any form of Australian embargo in the first place. That happening would be so world changing that assuming the US would then follow up later is naive to the point of it being meaningless to discuss.
Cloud Strife Member	Wed Sep 22 08:57:26 I can see you've all thought about this quite a lot. There will be no embargoes, whew. There will also not be any overly aggressive posturing, fantastic. Major powers haven't gone to war with one another, (even in a proxy sense ALA Korea or Vietnam) in a very very long time. There are just so much more efficient ways to affect political ends than crude explosions. The point of having and maintaining a military is just because c'mon you're supposed to be a rich country. How can you not have some cool toys? What would the other leaders think about you if you can't even play in their war games?
	show deleted posts