Well, I think a few big submarine is the wrong answer for a defense force.
A big submarine is a long range strike option.
OK, Maybe 6 out of 12 submarines are ready ( I doubt the 12 due to financial reasons). What could Australia do to answer e.g. a Chinese attack? Some conventional missiles against what? Laughable. Australia alone against China? Laughable. So what?
Long range for intelligence gathering? What about refueling at friendly ports? Guam, South Korea, Japan, Christmas Island ...
- Christmas Island to Hong Kong: 2,000 nm
- Guam to Taiwan: far less than 2,000 nm
- Okinawa to Peking: around 1,000 nm
- Guam to Taiwan: far less than 2,000 nm
- Okinawa to Peking: around 1,000 nm
A submarine with long range is not necessary for such operations.
From the center of Australia it is about 1,000 nm to each coast. So about 6,500 nm Australian coastline to defend. Need for long range? - No. Many bases with submarines would be better. Even a nuclear powered submarine can't be at 2 places at once.
I think even the Type 214 is to big for Australia. I would recommend the even smaller Type 210mod with a displacement of just 1,000 t.
Next thing is the price of such a small submarine. Australia could afford to build one submarine every year - endless! Cheaper than 12 4,000 t behemoths. After 24 years a new submarine could replace an old submarine of a 24 submarine sized fleet. - According to displacement around half the price for 12 4,000 t submarines. - Yes, the price is quite proportional to displacement.
24 submarines are hell for any enemy.
Worst case just 8 are ready. With 8 submarines Australia can control the choke points from China to the west.
Worst case just 8 are ready. With 8 submarines Australia can control the choke points from China to the west.
Australia should think smart, think small.
The big problem is the size. You can't fit an US combat system in such a submarine. Several cronies want to make their deals.
