Australia's defence discussion

[Juliar]

Does anyone actually recall what this bedraggled tattered long winded armchair arm waving waffley "thread" is about ?

USA is Australia's armed forces.

Australia's NAVY is basically there to keep Labor's illegal Invaders out.



All hands on deck!!!!

[Bogan]

Juliar wrote

Does anyone actually recall what this bedraggled tattered long winded armchair arm waving waffley "thread" is about ?

What Brian Ross and I am engaged in, Mr Julian, is called ''debating'', something you obviously don't know much about. This topic deals with "Australian defence", which is a topic you obviously know nothing about, and which is above your what your vestigial intelligence can handle. Of course, if you think you have enough neuronal ability to contribute to this discussion, you could make some sort of attempt. But don't bother if you don't have the IQ to write less than a paragraph.

Sneery one liners are OK if used occasionally. But if that is all you have, then what you really are is a heckler, not a debater.

However, if you wish to contribute to this topic, could you please read back from page 1? This is so that you can come up to speed before you display your total ignorance and speak about issues already covered previously on this topic? That is, of course, if your attention span is up to reading through several pages?

Failing that, my advice to you is to turn on the idiot box and spend your time watching "Survivor" or some such puerile trash more suited to your intellect.

[Juliar]

Bogan, more perceptive observers would describe your antics as perhaps armchair arm wrestling with any facts being purely accidental.

The simple FACT is that Australia is ENTIRELY dependent on the military might of the mighty USA.

Australia could not defend itself against an invasion by the Bolshoi Ballet.

Australia's NAVY's main responsibility is to stop Labor's Illegal Invaders.

[brian ross]

Australia is not "entirely dependent" on any other nation for it's defence, Juliar.

You really are a long way behind the times if you believe the reverse. Even your favoured Tory party ceased to believe that after their victory in 1996. They discovered that they required defence industries and of course, with the defence industries came defence votes. Australia was warned way back in 1960 that it had to either, "play nice" with it's neighbours or spend big on it's own defence forces. The US was not going to interfere in disputes between two allies (ie Australia and Indonesia) as the petty squabbles between Greece and Turkey proved. Canberra did both. It played "nice" and it spent bigger on defence and it undertook a third strategy - involve Washington more deeply in our region and it's disputes (ie Vietnam).

Washington accepted the more assertive defence strategy downunder. We have paid in blood and dosh (ie Vietnam, Somalia, East Timor, Afghanistan, Iraq). We have purchased defence equipment from various overseas sources. We have built our own defence equipment. Today Australia is much more able to see to it's own defence needs.

Bogan is right, if you're not willing to contribute, what is your point being here?

[Bogan]

Briney wrote

As I keep pointing out, the F/A-18s have not been "duds" except in your imagination, Bogan.

And in the US Navy's imagination, too. The US Navy was so disappointed in the F-18's eventual performance that it almost canned the entire project.

Briney wrote

The problem with your thinking is that we would always be behind what our opponents have because we would always be adopting outmoded and outdated equipment. If you don't order off the drawing board, you are buying old stuff which has seen it's day.

Rubbish. Of the five contenders for the Australian fighter contract, four had only recently in come into production and they were state of the art, with known performance and price. The only one which was still on the drawing board was the F-18, which had inferior performance to the other four.

Briney wrote

According to you, would be buying P-40 Kittyhawks and not Mustangs. We would be buying Meteors and not Sabres (wait, we actually did that, now didn't we? How'd that work out in the end, Bogan?). We would be buying Hunters and not Mirages. We would be buying Mosquitoes and not Canberras. We would be buying A-5s and not F-111s. The list goes on and on...

Rubbish again. The old Mirage 111 had a top speed of mach 2, the clapped out "more modern" F-18 could only manage mach 1.8. No wonder the US Navy wanted to scrap it. Meanwhile, the F-15, the "old" fighter that the air force wanted, has a top speed of mach 3+. This means that the "more modern", underpowered F-18 has nearly half the speed of the F-15. The F-15 has a power to weight ration of greater than 1, which means it can actually accelerate going straight up. In every respect, the 'old" F-15 is a much superior fighter aircraft than the clapped out "more modern" F-18.

Briney wrote

The BARRACUDA submarines were purchased for a political reason. The Government wanted to be not so dependent on the US for all it's defence purchases. Just as it had before, for its Centurion MBT replacement and the COLLINs class of submarines. Australia is highly dependent on other countries for our defence purchases.

Australia is dependent on other countries for our defence purposes because designing and building our own weapons systems would be uneconomic. So when we purchase overseas weapons, we should make sure that we get the best for the price. The Barracuda project looks like another drawing board catastrophe waiting to happen. Any fool should have appreciated that 12 submarines costing supposedly $80 billion, before the always inevitable spiralling price rises, was simply uneconomic. We are going to spend god knows what on 12 obsolete submarines when we could have bought far more capable subs from the USA for at least half the price. Why does the DOD just keep making the same mistake, over and over again?

Briney wrote

We have been bitten in the past because of this. I suspect you can't even name those instances, can you, Bogan?

We keep getting bitten all right Brian. Because we keep making the same mistake, over and over again. We buy a weapon system off the drawing board, then act shocked when the price skyrockets away from the original quoted price, and we end up with a new weapon system that is not up to scratch.

Briney wrote

There is a world of difference between an aircraft and a nuclear powered submarine, Bogan. If you cannot see that, what is the point in continuing with your diatribe against Australian defence decisions?

You have claimed that the USA would not sell nuclear submarines to Australia but have provided no evidence to back up your claim. The yanks sell their most modern weapons to just about anybody, something that their own service chiefs complain about. But if they are stupid enough to sell F-15's to Saudi Arabia and M1A2's to Iraq and Egypt, then I don't see any problem with them selling their Virginia class subs to Australia. There would be much advantage to them with having a reliable ally with the same class of warships as the USA.

Briney wrote

A nuclear submarine brings with it a complete refusal of policy which has lasted over 50 years and is held by both major political parties. It overturns our anti-nuclear stance and destroys everything we have said to our region and to the world about nuclear power and weapons. This would be a massive change in Australian Government policy.

Just because a submarine is nuclear powered does not automatically mean that it must be armed with nuclear weapons. It almost goes without saying that the Barracuda project will go way over budget, way over the already long production lead time, and may well create a unique, one of a kind class of submarine, that sounds like a rock concert underwater. When that happens, both Labor and Liberals will be pointing the fingers at each other and trying to blame each other for the monumental $80 -? billion dollar fuckup. Meanwhile, France will have our money, the public servants who recommended this abortion will have retired to Batemans Bay, and we will end up with 12 obsolete submarines that we no one in their right mind would want to crew.

Briney wrote

You really have no understanding of how programme costs are determined do you, Bogan?

Yes I do. The rule of thumb has always been, "Weapon systems bought off the drawing board always double in price."

Briney wrote

BARRACUDA is not "obsolete" in the slightest

If it is diesel electric, it is obsolete. As soon as it snorks to charge up the batteries it makes noise, and the hot diesel exhaust can be seen by FLIR equipped anti submarine assets.

Briney wrote

political decision made on political considerations, not purely military ones, Bogan. Take it up with the Government of the day. Oh, wait, they were your lot, weren't they? Prime Minister Turnball and Co. from your pet Tory party? Oh, dearie, dearie, me.

Since when was Turnbull ever a Tory? He was the best Labor Prime Minister that the Labor Party ever had.

Briney wrote

As for the power black out in South Australia - that was caused again by a Tory Government under Dean Brown who decided it was, "more economic" to sell off the power station at Port Augusta (and allow the new owners to shut it down) and the power distribution system (which the new owners didn't maintain) and the failure to insist on a second interconnector with the eastern states. Along came the bad weather, down went the power lines and there was no power flowing from the eastern states 'cause the interconnector overloaded. That occurred on one day, Bogan.

Oh rubbish. South Oz is another Labor state run by ideologues who think that Earth is about to turn into Venus. They won't build any more power stations because they have an ideological aversion to them.

Briney wrote

How often do you get blackouts in Sydney, I wonder.

Unlike Labor Victoria and Labor SA, NSW has never had a state wide blackout, yet. I say "yet" because we are getting over 100,000 immigrants a year but out tweedledee/tweededum Lib/Lab governments will not build any more power stations either. So it is just a matter of time. It's a bit like our purchasing of military weapons, we need to lose a war before we can start thinking straight.

[Neferti]

Brian was in the Army (or something), didn't you know? He's been there and done everything. Older than dirt I imagine.

[brian ross]

Briney wrote

As I keep pointing out, the F/A-18s have not been "duds" except in your imagination, Bogan.

And in the US Navy's imagination, too. The US Navy was so disappointed in the F-18's eventual performance that it almost canned the entire project.

And your evidence for is, what, exactly, Bogan?

The US Navy hitched it's wagon to the F/A-18 quite happily. Afterall, it wasn't an F-16, now was it? The choice taken by the US Navy was to bank on a twin engined fighter-bomber equipped with BVR missiles - something the F-16 lacked at the time. The RAAF and the other air forces which adopted it, did the same.

The US Navy didn't believe in the navel version of the F-15, preferring the F-14.

Briney wrote

The problem with your thinking is that we would always be behind what our opponents have because we would always be adopting outmoded and outdated equipment. If you don't order off the drawing board, you are buying old stuff which has seen it's day.

Rubbish. Of the five contenders for the Australian fighter contract, four had only recently in come into production and they were state of the art, with known performance and price. The only one which was still on the drawing board was the F-18, which had inferior performance to the other four.

Of the five contenders, only the US ones were operational. The British one, the Tornado didn't have a working radar until 10 years later. The French one, the Mirage F.1 didn't have the range required. That left three US ones. The F-15 was judged too expensive. That left the F/A-18 or the F-16. The F-16 was optimised as a short-range, visual dog-fighter, whereas the F/A-18 wsa optimised for beyond visual range combat. The Government of the day preferred the latter, as did the RAAF.

Briney wrote

According to you, would be buying P-40 Kittyhawks and not Mustangs. We would be buying Meteors and not Sabres (wait, we actually did that, now didn't we? How'd that work out in the end, Bogan?). We would be buying Hunters and not Mirages. We would be buying Mosquitoes and not Canberras. We would be buying A-5s and not F-111s. The list goes on and on...

Rubbish again. The old Mirage 111 had a top speed of mach 2, the clapped out "more modern" F-18 could only manage mach 1.8. No wonder the US Navy wanted to scrap it. Meanwhile, the F-15, the "old" fighter that the air force wanted, has a top speed of mach 3+. This means that the "more modern", underpowered F-18 has nearly half the speed of the F-15. The F-15 has a power to weight ration of greater than 1, which means it can actually accelerate going straight up. In every respect, the 'old" F-15 is a much superior fighter aircraft than the clapped out "more modern" F-18.

Just goes to show how out of date your thinking is, Bogan. Air-to-air combat is not just about sheer speed. It is about manoeuvrability as well. You use your missiles to do your long range, beyond visual fighting. You use short range missiles to do your short range fighting and you use your guns to dogfight. The F/A-18 is a compromise, like all aircraft. You want the best of everything, then you must pay for the best of everything. The F-15 was considered too expensive. We had 100 F/A-18s. We could afford 50 F-15s. Are you prepared to see our fighter strength halved yet again?

Briney wrote

The BARRACUDA submarines were purchased for a political reason. The Government wanted to be not so dependent on the US for all it's defence purchases. Just as it had before, for its Centurion MBT replacement and the COLLINs class of submarines. Australia is highly dependent on other countries for our defence purchases.

Australia is dependent on other countries for our defence purposes because designing and building our own weapons systems would be uneconomic. So when we purchase overseas weapons, we should make sure that we get the best for the price. The Barracuda project looks like another drawing board catastrophe waiting to happen. Any fool should have appreciated that 12 submarines costing supposedly $80 billion, before the always inevitable spiralling price rises, was simply uneconomic. We are going to spend god knows what on 12 obsolete submarines when we could have bought far more capable subs from the USA for at least half the price. Why does the DOD just keep making the same mistake, over and over again?

What you are missing is that invariably our services like to fiddle with the design of the systems they are purchasing, in order to make them more suitable for Australian conditions. This involves fitting drinking water systems, air-conditioning, better seating, etc. Little things but all which add to the cost as it means the original systems need to be redesigned. Redesign which costs money and adds significantly to their costs. Redesign which the suppliers are quite happy to do because it allows them to add bells and whistles.

Our defence market is insignificant compared to the world market. You're right numbers do matter as far as economics are concerned. One hundred MBTs versus a thousand? Guess which is cheaper?

Briney wrote

We have been bitten in the past because of this. I suspect you can't even name those instances, can you, Bogan?

We keep getting bitten all right Brian. Because we keep making the same mistake, over and over again. We buy a weapon system off the drawing board, then act shocked when the price skyrockets away from the original quoted price, and we end up with a new weapon system that is not up to scratch.

We have also been bitten because overseas governments have disagree with our government about allowing the ADF to use the weapons they have sold to us on operations they disagree with.

Briney wrote

There is a world of difference between an aircraft and a nuclear powered submarine, Bogan. If you cannot see that, what is the point in continuing with your diatribe against Australian defence decisions?

You have claimed that the USA would not sell nuclear submarines to Australia but have provided no evidence to back up your claim.

Mmmm, evidence? Name a single nation the US has sold a nuclear submarine to, Bogan? Any? None. Case proven.

The yanks sell their most modern weapons to just about anybody, something that their own service chiefs complain about. But if they are stupid enough to sell F-15's to Saudi Arabia and M1A2's to Iraq and Egypt, then I don't see any problem with them selling their Virginia class subs to Australia. There would be much advantage to them with having a reliable ally with the same class of warships as the USA.

There is a world of difference between selling an MBT and a nuclear powered submarine to another country, Bogan. You're inability to see the difference is really worry. Tell me, how many countries has the US sold, nuclear powered anything to? None.

Briney wrote

A nuclear submarine brings with it a complete refusal of policy which has lasted over 50 years and is held by both major political parties. It overturns our anti-nuclear stance and destroys everything we have said to our region and to the world about nuclear power and weapons. This would be a massive change in Australian Government policy.

Just because a submarine is nuclear powered does not automatically mean that it must be armed with nuclear weapons.

Not suggesting it does. Nuclear power however is a whole world of difference compared to diesel or gas turbine. Countries do not just hand out such power systems out, wily-nilly.

It almost goes without saying that the Barracuda project will go way over budget, way over the already long production lead time, and may well create a unique, one of a kind class of submarine, that sounds like a rock concert underwater.

You are supposing quite a lot there, Bogan. Quite a lot. On what evidence, exactly, Mmmm?

When that happens, both Labor and Liberals will be pointing the fingers at each other and trying to blame each other for the monumental $80 -? billion dollar fuckup.

If it happens - which is unlikely - it will be totally a Tory party fuckup, Bogan. It was the Tory Government in charge when the decision was made. It is their responsibility.

Meanwhile, France will have our money, the public servants who recommended this abortion will have retired to Batemans Bay, and we will end up with 12 obsolete submarines that we no one in their right mind would want to crew.

France will not have all our money, Bogan. It was a decision made by the Government not the public servants. The French were judged to be the country which fulfilled all the requirements laid out to fulfill the contract. No matter how much you whinge or squirm, the decision has been made.

Briney wrote

You really have no understanding of how programme costs are determined do you, Bogan?

Yes I do. The rule of thumb has always been, "Weapon systems bought off the drawing board always double in price."

No, they don't. Try again, Bogan and please, be sensible.

Briney wrote

BARRACUDA is not "obsolete" in the slightest

If it is diesel electric, it is obsolete. As soon as it snorks to charge up the batteries it makes noise, and the hot diesel exhaust can be seen by FLIR equipped anti submarine assets.

The correct term is "snorts", Bogan. For their exhaust to be "seen", you need an ASW asset in the vicinity. They do not snort when there is anything around. Diesel-electric submarines are not obsolete. Not in the slightest. The COLLINS class are called upon by the US Navy to undertake tasks that their noisy nuclear powered boats don't dare. The BARRACUDA will no doubt do the same.

Briney wrote

political decision made on political considerations, not purely military ones, Bogan. Take it up with the Government of the day. Oh, wait, they were your lot, weren't they? Prime Minister Turnball and Co. from your pet Tory party? Oh, dearie, dearie, me.

Since when was Turnbull ever a Tory? He was the best Labor Prime Minister that the Labor Party ever had

.

Turnball led the Tory Party. He was the Tory Prime Minister. Did you miss those years or something, Bogan?

Briney wrote

As for the power black out in South Australia - that was caused again by a Tory Government under Dean Brown who decided it was, "more economic" to sell off the power station at Port Augusta (and allow the new owners to shut it down) and the power distribution system (which the new owners didn't maintain) and the failure to insist on a second interconnector with the eastern states. Along came the bad weather, down went the power lines and there was no power flowing from the eastern states 'cause the interconnector overloaded. That occurred on one day, Bogan.

Oh rubbish. South Oz is another Labor state run by ideologues who think that Earth is about to turn into Venus. They won't build any more power stations because they have an ideological aversion to them.

Dean Brown lead the Tory Party in South Australia, Bogan. He was Premier between 14 December 1993 and 28 November 1996 and between 22 October 2001 and 5 March 2002. Did you miss those years as well? Tsk, tsk.

Briney wrote

How often do you get blackouts in Sydney, I wonder.

Unlike Labor Victoria and Labor SA, NSW has never had a state wide blackout, yet. I say "yet" because we are getting over 100,000 immigrants a year but out tweedledee/tweededum Lib/Lab governments will not build any more power stations either. So it is just a matter of time. It's a bit like our purchasing of military weapons, we need to lose a war before we can start thinking straight.

All caused by the previous Tory Governments which decided to sell off or close down power systems, Bogan. You do realise that Tory Governments have ruled in all those states at various times, don't you? Have you been in a coma or something?

[Juliar]

The Armchair arm wrestling between the armchair "experts" continues like 2 walruses squabbling. Any reference to a FACT is purely accidental.

Is "debating" a synonym for making it up as you go ?

ScoMo was cementing USA's role as the Defence force of Australia when he visited Trump recently.

Has one of the Collins Subs ever fired a shot in anger ? Are they even armed ?

Australia's armed force's main function is to keep Labor's illegal Invaders out.

It is getting serious when WA pinches SA work!!!



WA lobbies to pinch submarine work from SA
AUGUST 12 2019 - 11:23AM


Western Australia has its eye on the submarine maintenance work currently done in South Australia.

The West Australian government is lobbying to pinch submarine maintenance work from South Australia, arguing it's in the "national interest".

At the opening of the Indo-Pacific Defence Conference in Perth on Monday, the McGowan government released two independent studies on moving the Collins class full-cycle docking maintenance program to WA.

PriceWaterhouseCoopers concluded relocation would lessen risk to the Attack class submarine and Hunter class frigate programs, and free up workers in South Australia for the ambitious build program.

The study also found Osborne Naval Shipyard in South Australia would face constraints, while Henderson in WA had room to expand.

The WA government also cited an Acil Allen study, which found full-cycle docking would significantly boost the state economy.

"Western Australia is the right place for this to happen - the submarines are based here," Premier Mark McGowan told reporters.

"To get this work done, they only have to travel 5km across Cockburn Sound, rather than 3000km to Adelaide, and we have the workforce and skills here to do it."

Mr McGowan said former defence minister and South Australian Chrstopher Pyne was "very effective for his state".

"But I do think the Commonwealth has to be above parochial interests."


WA's defence issues minister Paul Papalia has been directly lobbying new federal defence minister Linda Reynolds, a West Australian, in a bid to secure the work.

https://www.theflindersnews.com.au/stor ... k-from-sa/

[Bogan]

Briney wrote

And your evidence for is, what, exactly, Bogan?

The US Navy hitched it's wagon to the F/A-18 quite happily. Afterall, it wasn't an F-16, now was it? The choice taken by the US Navy was to bank on a twin engined fighter-bomber equipped with BVR missiles - something the F-16 lacked at the time. The RAAF and the other air forces which adopted it, did the same.

The US Navy didn't believe in the navel version of the F-15, preferring the F-14.

The US Navy hitched it's wagon to the FA-18 very unhappily. The FA-18's performance was so disappointing that the US Navy came close to scrapping the entire program, but stayed with it for reasons I have already mentioned. "The evidence" was in the form of newspaper articles and articles in contemporary defence journals of that time who recounted to their readers (like me) just how close the US Navy came to canning the FA-18. It was hardly a public secret. What were you doing at the time when you should have been better informed?

Briney wrote

Of the five contenders, only the US ones were operational. The British one, the Tornado didn't have a working radar until 10 years later. The French one, the Mirage F.1 didn't have the range required. That left three US ones. The F-15 was judged too expensive. That left the F/A-18 or the F-16. The F-16 was optimised as a short-range, visual dog-fighter, whereas the F/A-18 wsa optimised for beyond visual range combat. The Government of the day preferred the latter, as did the RAAF.

The FA-18 was not operational and nobody really knew what it's performance was going to be after the US Navy "navalised" it. But everybody knew that the F-15 was the world's best fighter with the F-14 a comparable plane. But the DoD procurement arseholes knocked the F-15 back because at $22 million a plane, it was just too expensive. The FA-18 was supposed to be significantly cheaper. But once again, our DoD morons convinced the politicians to buy a pig in a poke. The FA-18 ended up costing us $25 million a plane, for an aircraft with significantly less performance than the magnificent F-15. When will these idiots learn to stop buying stuff off the drawing board?

Briney wrote

Just goes to show how out of date your thinking is, Bogan. Air-to-air combat is not just about sheer speed. It is about manoeuvrability as well. You use your missiles to do your long range, beyond visual fighting. You use short range missiles to do your short range fighting and you use your guns to dogfight.

Brian, we are not talking about a 5% or even 15% difference in speed. The mach 1.8 FA-18 is so underpowered it could not even match the mach 2 Mirage 111 it was supposed to replace. What other modern fighter in the world has a top speed less than mach 2? The F-15 has a top sped of mach 3.2 which means it is almost twice as fast as a FA-18. The F-15 has a power to weight ratio greater than one, which means it can accelerate going straight up. That means it has power to spare and power to recover very quickly from energy sapping tight turns, something that the underpowered FA-18 is incapable of.

Briney wrote

The F/A-18 is a compromise, like all aircraft. You want the best of everything, then you must pay for the best of everything. The F-15 was considered too expensive. We had 100 F/A-18s. We could afford 50 F-15s. Are you prepared to see our fighter strength halved yet again?

The FA-18 is not a compromise, it is a fuck up. It works tolerably well as a multi role fighter bomber but it is way too expensive and outclassed in performance in every way by the cheaper F-15.

And something is very wrong with your maths. If the FA-18 costs $25 million a plane and the F-15 costs $22 million a plane, which plane is cheaper?

Briney wrote

What you are missing is that invariably our services like to fiddle with the design of the systems they are purchasing, in order to make them more suitable for Australian conditions. This involves fitting drinking water systems, air-conditioning, better seating, etc. Little things but all which add to the cost as it means the original systems need to be redesigned. Redesign which costs money and adds significantly to their costs. Redesign which the suppliers are quite happy to do because it allows them to add bells and whistles.

Well, since the Tiger cost $14 million dollars more than an Apache, they must have been very expensive seats and water tanks. It is just incredible how far you will go to protect your public service mates from their gross incompetency.

Briney wrote


Our defence market is insignificant compared to the world market. You're right numbers do matter as far as economics are concerned. One hundred MBTs versus a thousand? Guess which is cheaper?

Brian, talk plainly. People who talk in riddles are usually either stalling or trying to hide their ignorance while trying to sound clever.

Briney wrote

We have also been bitten because overseas governments have disagree with our government about allowing the ADF to use the weapons they have sold to us on operations they disagree with.

What does that have to do with the topic under discussion?

Briney wrote


Mmmm, evidence? Name a single nation the US has sold a nuclear submarine to, Bogan? Any? None. Case proven.

Pig's arse it is. The USA rather stupidly sells it's most advanced weapons to almost anyone, much to the annoyance of their own service chiefs. Some of these weapons have even been used against the USA. It must rankle the yanks to see Muslim terrorists running around with M-16's and SAW's. Iran has Hawk AA missiles and F-14's. But I doubt if Australia is going to declare war on the USA anytime soon.

Briney wrote

There is a world of difference between selling an MBT and a nuclear powered submarine to another country, Bogan.

They are all class A war machines, Brian.

Briney wrote

You're inability to see the difference is really worry. Tell me, how many countries has the US sold, nuclear powered anything to? None.

That does not mean that they would not sell their nuclear submarines to one of their closest allies, who's acquisition of such a machine would not only bolster the US economy, give jobs to the their defence industries, but significantly bolster the strength of US Navy in the Pacific. Australia was the only other nation trusted to purchase the F-111.

Briney wrote

Not suggesting it does. Nuclear power however is a whole world of difference compared to diesel or gas turbine. Countries do not just hand out such power systems out, wily-nilly.

Yair, and the most significant difference being, that nuclear submarines run on uranium products of which Australia has an abundance, and obsolete diesel submarines run on diesel, of which Australia has no ability to refine. If a war comes and our sea lanes providing us with diesel fuel is cut off, perhaps we should do what the Japs did with the Yamato? Give our new obsolete subs just enough fuel for a one way trip?

Briney wrote.

You are supposing quite a lot there, Bogan. Quite a lot. On what evidence, exactly, Mmmm

+

The indisputable evidence that whenever the DoD buys a weapons system off the plan, it always ends up costing us way over the quoted price.

Briney wrote

France will not have all our money, Bogan. It was a decision made by the Government not the public servants. The French were judged to be the country which fulfilled all the requirements laid out to fulfill the contract. No matter how much you whinge or squirm, the decision has been made.

Yeah, and once again, Australians will sit back and watch it turn into another horrendously expensive fiasco. Just like the F-111's, the FA-18's, and the F-35's.

Briney wrote

No, they don't. Try again, Bogan and please, be sensible.

Yes they do. The Collins class subs had serious cost over runs and the lead boat was so full of defects that the last I heard, it was going to be scrapped because it was considered too expensive to fix. When you told me that it was back in service, I was really surprised. I don't know if the F-111 project doubled in price, but newspapers at the time were expressing shock and horror at how much the price of each plane had risen from the original quoted price. The FA-18 was the "cheap" fighter which wasn't.

Briney wrote

The correct term is "snorts", Bogan. For their exhaust to be "seen", you need an ASW asset in the vicinity. They do not snort when there is anything around.

Submarines go where the enemy is, and where their anti submarine assets are. Obsolete DE subs don't always get to snork when or where they want to, or need to. A nuke can stay underwater for weeks. Obviously, a nuclear submarine would be much more survivable than an obsolete DE.

Brieny wrote

Diesel-electric submarines are not obsolete. Not in the slightest. The COLLINS class are called upon by the US Navy to undertake tasks that their noisy nuclear powered boats don't dare. The BARRACUDA will no doubt do the same.

The Virginia and Seawolf class US subs are so quiet they have been called "holes in the water." US attack submarines have routinely trailed Soviet ballistic missile boomers for weeks without the Sovs even knowing they were there. A DE sub would be unable to perform such a task.

Briney wrote

All caused by the previous Tory Governments which decided to sell off or close down power systems, Bogan. You do realise that Tory Governments have ruled in all those states at various times, don't you? Have you been in a coma or something

Complete and utter bullshit, Brian. I have worked as a contractor on Elcom projects and I have seen the unbelievable featherbedding and outright bludging by public servants on these projects. No wonder socialism never works. The privatisation of electricity production in NSW was the best thing that ever happened to this industry. No private company would tolerate the abuses that I witnessed on those Elcom jobs.

it is just amazing how far you will go to protect your socialist ideals and your public service mates, Briney. All you need to believe in a government "of the public service, by the public service, and for the public service" is the ability to suspend reality, fact, and reason.

[Juliar]

Bit of Grimy bashing going on there.