Originally Posted by
rattman
People going oh nuclear subs are more expensive. Dont think people grasp the extreme scale the attack class budget had blown out. So australia uses whole life cost accounting on its defence budgets
The original attack class was claimed to be about 60 billion for 12 subs over their service life time. Our equiv of GAO reviewed this and actually found government documents stating that it would over 100 billion and probably closer to 120 billion life time cost
AUKUS is projected to cost 360 billion over its lifetime, is the virginia (ignoring the SSN AUKUS) 3 times better sub than the proposed attack class. Others may disagree but I think absolutely yes is the answer
Ok, I haven't cross checked the source of your figures but are you comparing the through life costs (say AUS$120B) of 12 Attack class submarines against only 3 Virginia class (AUS$360B)? If so, you think 3x SSN are 3x better than 12x SSK??
I very much doubt Australian DoD (or ANAO) would have a reliable handle on through life costs in either case. Where would they be obtaining reliable information in an Australian context?
I noticed our Defence Minister in a recent interview noting the importance of Australian sea lanes of communication (trade) in relation to the subs. So are they now proposed as escorts for commercial shipping??!!... all 3 of them...