(Australia) The strange submarine saga: strategy and nightmares

[Nilgiri]

This article itself is a summary of how the strategic thought of Australia (after the grievous imminent threat to it in WW2 i.e Japan that most shaped the downstream psyche) was first geared towards Indonesia in the post WW2 scenario, and how it has now transitioned to PRC in the last couple decades.

It has links to further articles within it to more subject matter for context for the interested reader/watcher of Australian defence, associated defence technology/acquisition and defence strategy in general....which I have also brought up in other threads (in context of Australia).

The strange submarine saga: strategy and nightmares | The Strategist

Submarines are a top-of-the-budget answer to a top-of-the-pile nightmare. The argument for subs lies within the fundamental call on any nation: defend the realm and protect the currency (proving the oldest-profession status of strategists and ...

www.aspistrategist.org.au

Submarines are a top-of-the-budget answer to a top-of-the-pile nightmare.

The argument for subs lies within the fundamental call on any nation: defend the realm and protect the currency (proving the oldest-profession status of strategists and economists in the state-building game).

Subs touch both bits of the realm–currency injunction: new boats to defend the borders cost a cornucopia ($89.7 billion is the current Attack-class price tag).

While economists reside in gloom, strategists dwell in horrors: dream up the worst possible scenario and then defend against it. Strategy wonks speak of low-probability, high-impact events.

To argue from first principles, submarines are what you have for the ultimate military nightmare—hostile forces coming to harm your territory. It has only happened once in the history of this Commonwealth, a high-impact moment that consumed all else. The 1942 experience is the existential fright that haunts Oz strategy.

(More at link)

@Joe Shearer @#comcom @Nein2.0 @Webslave @mrmoo @Test7 @Yoyo @ANMDT @Dante80 et al.

 

[Yoyo]

This article itself is a summary of how the strategic thought of Australia (after the grievous imminent threat to it in WW2 i.e Japan that most shaped the downstream psyche) was first geared towards Indonesia in the post WW2 scenario, and how it has now transitioned to PRC in the last couple decades.

It has links to further articles within it to more subject matter for context for the interested reader/watcher of Australian defence, associated defence technology/acquisition and defence strategy in general....which I have also brought up in other threads (in context of Australia).

The strange submarine saga: strategy and nightmares | The Strategist

Submarines are a top-of-the-budget answer to a top-of-the-pile nightmare. The argument for subs lies within the fundamental call on any nation: defend the realm and protect the currency (proving the oldest-profession status of strategists and ...

www.aspistrategist.org.au

Submarines are a top-of-the-budget answer to a top-of-the-pile nightmare.

The argument for subs lies within the fundamental call on any nation: defend the realm and protect the currency (proving the oldest-profession status of strategists and economists in the state-building game).

Subs touch both bits of the realm–currency injunction: new boats to defend the borders cost a cornucopia ($89.7 billion is the current Attack-class price tag).

While economists reside in gloom, strategists dwell in horrors: dream up the worst possible scenario and then defend against it. Strategy wonks speak of low-probability, high-impact events.

To argue from first principles, submarines are what you have for the ultimate military nightmare—hostile forces coming to harm your territory. It has only happened once in the history of this Commonwealth, a high-impact moment that consumed all else. The 1942 experience is the existential fright that haunts Oz strategy.

(More at link)

@Joe Shearer @#comcom @Nein2.0 @Webslave @mrmoo @Test7 @Yoyo @ANMDT @Dante80 et al.

Nice little article shedding light on the Aussie psyche, thanks for sharing. Here's what I learned from it:

• Indonesia was the threat #1 for Australian Navy but it's now been replaced by China
• Indonesia appears to have become a buffer and therefore an "ally"
• Canberra class is expensive but will provide an important aspect of protecting Australian shores by 2030
• Australian mainland hasn't been threatened by anyone since the WW2 (Japan) and has powerful allies so some Aussies' complaining about humongous defence costs may have some merit.

 

[Ryder]

Nice little article shedding light on the Aussie psyche, thanks for sharing. Here's what I learned from it:

• Indonesia was the threat #1 for Australian Navy but it's now been replaced by China
• Indonesia appears to have become a buffer and therefore an "ally"
• Canberra class is expensive but will provide an important aspect of protecting Australian shores by 2030
• Australian mainland hasn't been threatened by anyone since the WW2 (Japan) and has powerful allies so some Aussies' complaining about humongous defence costs may have some merit.

You know in ww2 lots of submarines infiltrated Australia. Japanese subs even went into Sydney.

Australias huge coasts basically make it vulernable to submarines. Australia needs a good submarine force they are already working on it they should have got German submarines to be honest. French program is riddled with delays it is said by the time we get them they might be obsolete. Will see to be honest.

Edit: Sorry guys mainly Ww2 where German and Japanese submarines infiltrated Australian coasts. Japan got the closest by reaching sydney harbour.