Thread: ON OUR NEW SUBMARINES-SO IMPORTANT TO GET ON WITH IT.

I believe the Navy cannot man the current fleet....well if all the fleet was available.

My son is at Navy Officer school right now and becoming a submariner isn’t that popular. I believe 90% got the allocation of which stream they will go into.

My young fella is one of three out 120 ish that don’t have an allocation, don’t believe any of the three will be considering submariner as first choice.

Big risk Australia designing and building the biggest sub on our limited funds....another failed mission.

Yeah Weeds, the article points to that too , that they should have crews trained and inducted onto these new vessels as they role out.

Most training these days can be done by a simulator.

A young guy I know who recently left the Navy did nearly all his training on simulators and his actual experience was no better as he spent most of his time on board inboard in a small room surrounded by electronics. His comment...."I may as well have been in a sub because I rarely got outside the room or my quarters and rarely saw the ocean I was sailing on"

He now suffers a lot of problems.

So submarine manning is going to take some special effort by the Defense Dept.

They have more potential Submarine Officers than seamen.

The defence force is still behind the times in respect to training......

I can't even conceive how you would begin to design a platform the needs to be usable in 2080......

Regards
Tote

Not to worry. The subs, if any are actually delivered, will be just another in a long line of white elephants.

A ship mate of mine thinks it is a bit of a mess. Future Submarine program facing multi-billion-dollar blowout, Senator Rex Patrick says - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

[QUOTE=weeds;2855915]I believe the Navy cannot man the current fleet....well if all the fleet was available.

The high command might have to winkle all the old depot stanchions out of their comfortable berths and sinecures and send them to sea.

The few times they have done this it caused tearing of hair, gnashing of teeth, rending of garments etc. "Sending me to sea? I didn't join the navy to go to sea."

Are not a couple of ships aground on their empty bottles?

Just ask a submariner what a navel force is and they will say submarines and target's (anything on the surface is a target)

subs offer a much greater defense then ships can as a single sub can stop an entire task force a single frigate or destroyer can not, hell even a single american aircraft carrier by its self could not.

why have we gone for conventional over nuke its simple really the area's we operate subs are shallow and nuke subs are louder then conventional subs running electric

disadvantage of subs is they can not project power or transport large forces, nothing says i think you should change for mind then a carrier fleet turning up and going are you really sure you want to do that AKA gun boat diplomacy

why does Australia need this ability, we need to be able to project a soft power to keep shipping lanes clear and free for Australian good's, this is why Australia latches onto the dominate navel force and supports it with out question so as to protect Australia's shipping lane's (prior to ww2 this was the united kingdom and by 1943 it was america )

btw if i had to go into the military and be in the front lines it would be in a sub