PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Jet Blast (https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast-16/)
-   -   War in Australia (any Oz Politics): the Original (https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/477678-war-australia-any-oz-politics-original.html)

Andu 20th Jan 2014 20:52

The new submarines will have a unit cost that dwarfs the Collins-class subs if built here, or roughly three times the cost of acquiring the submarines from foreign shipyards. The navy disputes this disparity but history does not.

The grand South Australian submarine project is an unaffordable hold-over from Kevin Rudd's unbudgeted grandiosity. The government will save more than $20 billion if it brings this project down to size and offshore.
I find myself hoping that Sophie Mirabella was given this "job for the girls" (as it was scathingly referred to at the time she was appointed) specifically to do the hard graft in bringing an end to this madness, even if it is going to thoroughly gut the South Australian engineering workforce.

There's a really hard decision to be made here, Prime Minister Abbott. Make the right one and you'll

(a) save the lives of many RAN sailors should we ever go to war,

(b) give the RAN a credible submarine force (which might just save us from ever having to go to war),

(c) save a bucket load of money, and

(d) cost you a lot of votes in South Australia and Canberra.

Guess what, Mr Abbott? Most of the people who won't vote for you if you make this hard decision weren't ever going to vote for you anyway.

'Virginia' is the word virtually every man and woman in the RAN, particularly its submariners, is waiting to hear.

Saltie 20th Jan 2014 23:15

Tony Abbott would be showing some balls he has not yet given any hint of possessing to shut down the SA Defence Industry moneypit and buy nukes. Poor Sarah Hyphen would have to leave South Australia if any offset work that even hinted at a nuclear connection was to come SA's way.

...now there's an idea....

500N 20th Jan 2014 23:19

Stick "two dads" into a torpedo tube and fire her out,
preferably at 200 feet below the surface.

That way no one will hear the screams !

rh200 20th Jan 2014 23:21

'Virginia' is the word virtually every man and woman in the RAN, particularly its submariners, is waiting to hear.
Sort of reminds me of Dr Who, "the question that must never be asked" why the answer.

Mention Virginia and all where going to here for now and f#$% knows how long, is "Nuclear" " the sky is falling" on the front age of every thing you can imagine.:p

Sorry if I got on the wrong tack with your Virginia statement and its implications.

500N 20th Jan 2014 23:27

You are exactly on the right track in all aspects.

You can see the headlines now and the 6.00pm news where
every Huggy Fluffy and their dog would be getting 30 seconds
worth if air time :rolleyes:

And it would go on for weeks.

Re SA and the money pit, surely someone in SA can attract some sort
of business that is new, growing and employs people. I don't think I have
ever seen a business plan in the media for SA.

Dark Knight 20th Jan 2014 23:33

I still await someone more versed in Defence experience to explain why, with today's modern technology available, we need Submarines?

Should we realty need them then leasing several nuclear powered ones from the US of A would seem a commercially viable proposition?

Saltie 21st Jan 2014 00:01

Dark Knight, if I may make so bold, whilst not professing to be any sort of Defence expert, I'll try.

In peace time, (and if a country hopes to keep it that way with a political crisis brewing with a neighbour), the main value of the submarine is its ability to project a threat/presence into a contested area without the nation having to acknowledge that it has actually deployed it into the area.

Particularly if it's a nuke, it gives that nation the ability to maintain that threat/presence for some considerable time with minimum expenditure in defence assets, as the potential adversary doesn't know exactly where it is - or even if it's really there. There's minimal potential for a face to face confrontation (as could, and almost certainly would, occur if surface ships were deployed) and such confrontations can escalate to the point where 'face' will have to be lost by one side or the other unless one side decides to start shooting.

In short, submarines are a really effective tool to keep a potential adversary from escalating a political issue into something far worse. With the enormous distances involved in the most obvious potential Australian areas of operations, nukes are the only option that makes any sense, as a conventional boat needs to be refuelled far too often. Whilst conventional boats are usually quieter than nukes, (not as big an issue today with the more modern nukes as it once was, I understand), long transit times to refuel make it far less effective (in time 'off station') as well as far easier to locate as it is far more predictable on where it will have to go to refuel.

Clear as mud?

Ken Borough 21st Jan 2014 00:51

Stick "two dads" into a torpedo tube and fire her out,
preferably at 200 feet below the surface.

That way no one will hear the screams !
I wonder if 500N is attending The Alan Jones School of Bigotry? This comment is somewhat similar to that made by Jones about a former PM for which he was universally criticized. :E :mad:

500N 21st Jan 2014 01:08

Thanks, but have already graduated:p

As has two dads who is just as much one.

I don't like her or what she stands for or how much she has
Cost this country.

Ethel the Aardvark 21st Jan 2014 01:10

Keep dreaming about nuclear subs, we can't even dig up uranium safely never mind operating nuclear powered subs.
I think the vice admiral of the fleet would get respect if he stood up to the gov and not sent his armed navy personnel against unarmed civilians. I thought that the navy's role was to defend Australia against armed hostile attacks. I wonder what the Anzacs would think of this debacle?

500N 21st Jan 2014 01:11

What do you mean ?

Of course we can dig it up safely.

rh200 21st Jan 2014 01:21

I thought that the navy's role was to defend Australia against armed hostile attacks
You know what thought thought is.:p

I thought their job was to defend Australia from any outside threats the government thought was needed. Though could be wrong.

rh200 21st Jan 2014 01:26

think the vice admiral of the fleet would get respect if he stood up to the gov and not sent his armed navy personnel against unarmed civilians.
He could also be very popular if the Government said, okay the navy's budget is cut by two thirds, transfers two thirds of the navy to a newly formned coast guard. Then giving the yanks the option of having a couple of large full time naval bases. Could be called CVA-west and CVA-east. (CVA = carrier vessel Australus) :E

Dark Knight 21st Jan 2014 01:29

Thanks Saltie makes some sense and could go around in Indonesian territorial waters without them even knowing; Not sure they know now.

Heard on TV last night a journo with some more than left/soft leanings describe Sarah Two Dads as evil, a threat to Australia and Australian society which was somewhat enlightening. Went on to say the whole Green movement has no real interest any more in `Green Values'; whatever they are.

Agree, Sarah 2D would make good torpedo fodder certainly if used for torpedo practice from a Nuclear Sub - poetic justice?

ps>> we mine, transport, export uranium extremely safely, successfully and professionally; our armed services, servicemen & women have demonstrated over & over again, in wartime and in peace they are more than fully capable of professionally operating nuclear and nuclear armed submarines. Additionally, they are capable, highly professional serving their (OUR) nation and protecting OUR people, OUR shores. Just so happiness this is what it is about, a fact which seems to escape some whose education of the real world is more than apparently lacking.

Ken Borough 21st Jan 2014 02:16

I don't like her or what she stands for or how much she has
Cost this country.
Funny that! Neither do I, along with many many Australians, but that doesn't give one the excuse to suggest such evil ideas. Disagree with political foes and their thought bubbles all you like but to initiate an ad hominem attack suggests that one is coming from a point of weakness without a valid and logical argument. There is absolutely no need to make unwarranted vicious attacks - does 500N actually know the said person to have such a vehement opinion? Even if he/she did, such comment I suggest is unwelcome - even in this robust forum.

bosnich71 21st Jan 2014 02:59

Worrals ..... without being pedantic in any way whatsoever I shall have to keep on spelling labour the correct way not some mongrel American version.
Thank you for your explanation ref. your name .... I got something right for once.
P.S. I was most definitely not, "raised a Pom". Indeed I had the good fortune to be born an English person, and raised as one. However if Australians wish to use silly names when referring to one particular ethnic minority in Australia whilst complaining of racist comments etc. a la ABC / MSM then I will continue to ignore their silliness. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/sr...cons/icon7.gif

bosnich71 21st Jan 2014 03:05

Ref. the Collins Class Subs. and their replacement......

It's a long time ago now when the first tenders were put out for the Collins and I'm sure that there are others on here from the RAN who have a lot more knowledge etc. but wasn't there, originally, a set of guidelines set out that what became the Collins class had to pass?
I seem to remember something like .... A. Must be a boat already in service with a national navy. B. That navy must be a deep water operator. C. Not a "paper" boat etc. D. Fixed price.
Didn't the RAN eventually get a design that was none of these and wasn't there an ex Admiral who continually wrote to the press for a number of years about that fact before eventually giving up ?

Worrals in the wilds 21st Jan 2014 03:39

As you wish. Is 'Brit' acceptable? :)
Re the submarines, it all seems so needlessly complicated. The ADF buy cars, trucks, aircraft and such from overseas rather than building them all from scratch, so what's the difference with subs? :confused:

500N 21st Jan 2014 03:59


I think you are correct in most or all of that.

I still can't understand why for such a small military we can't pretty much
use "off the shelf" stuff with minor adjustments. After all, not that much of
what we do is unique and / or not done by the US somewhere in the world
and the C-17's prove how well it can go when we do purchase "off the shelf".

This is especially so since we have access to virtually everything the US
makes and could probably get that if we asked.

Clare Prop 21st Jan 2014 04:44

Duuno about others but I don't like "Brit". I am English and an Australian citizen. I have never considered myself the amalgamation that is "British" and no longer hold a British passport. Despite being brought up in a minefield of manners and etiquette I don't get all sensitive about being called a pom, it's just kinda boring and lazy from whoever is saying it. I don't like labels being stuck on people.

All times are GMT. The time now is 10:10.

Copyright 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.