AIP

I don't agree with this piece stating that AIP is mandatory for the replacement of the Collins subs.

What is mandatory is understanding how you want to use a submarine.

While AIP is useful, it will cost more and require various considerations in the future submarine design. This is pointed out in the article.

Yet, AIP will also require more short-term and long-term mainteance, pushing up those costs, and complexity. Resources also include: having skilled manpower. Only those really in the know, will have a grasp on sound signatures with such equipment...in what may be...an evolved design.

The Japanese are ditching AIP completely in any new-build Soryu. It is fair to say that they may have shorter patrols and operational methods. But, we do not know exactly how they use their submarines. They may have an ops effort that mimics long-range patrols.

A boat with high-tech batteries like Lithium-ion, and a symplistic design may be a just as good a way to go.

Many years ago, what was selected to be the Collins-class submarine, went through a strong evaluation process. That team found that AIP was not necessary for operational methods.

None of what I am stating should be considered anti-AIP. I think it is a great technology.

A solid requirements process done by naval experts and skilled project engineers, will make the final decision if AIP is necessary for the Collins replacement.

All of this is classic risk-management.

There was a time when we had a strong leadership process to understand these things.

Today, the question may not be AIP or not, but how seriously have we been leadership-deskilled over the years?

.