Originally Posted by
rattman
...We asked for a DE sub and french proposed the barracuda because it was the only design they had with the displacement required for all the BS requirements we wanted. The others proposals were half the displacement...
So if RAN had BS (Bull S##t ?) requirements for Attack class, then how would you characterise the RAN requirements for the AUKUS SSN, if there are even such requirements anymore (as opposed to a political decision)? Furthermore, were the RAN requirements already BS for the Collins class back in the day?
Originally Posted by
rattman
...Me personally think they are going to use AUKUS as a hammer to get 3.5% GDP spending. When we refuse they are going to say "See australia isn't serious and its their own fault".
I am still staggered this submarine acquisition appears so open ended unlike past contracts where the terms seemed to be more "contractual". Unclear to me whether cost is even clearly defined (accepting that would include escalation clauses). What is stopping AUKUS sub program sucking up 3.5% of GDP alone... (only half joking)