|
sudly
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,789
|
|
Quote:
Stable Genius said: Instead of behaving like a pompous twat and you're serious about your disgust for Australia being another puppet state of the U.S. send an email or letter to the Senate inquiry into these bloody nuclear submarines.
You can shoot your big mouth off in the right direction for a change and do something useful. I'm not holding my breath though.
The first response I ever made to this thread was,
Quote:
Let's can the 90 billion dollar French diesel electric submarine program and buy American nuclear submarines we don't even have the engineers to maintain!
Aussie Aussie Aussie, What Tha Fluk!
That's a great idea and I support an inquiry.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
twighead
mͯó



Registered: 08/27/08
Posts: 29,547
Loc: Glenn Gould's Fuck Windmill
Last seen: 52 minutes, 5 seconds
|
|
Quote:
Stable Genius said: Instead of behaving like a pompous twat and you're serious about your disgust for Australia being another puppet state of the U.S. send an email or letter to the Senate inquiry into these bloody nuclear submarines.
You can shoot your big mouth off in the right direction for a change and do something useful. I'm not holding my breath though.
You're just mad because you are incapable of thinking logically whatsoever when it comes to the US
Obviously they will be provided with the training necessary to operate these subs which are superior in every way that matters
Furthermore - logistical support and closer strategic ties make way more sense with the US/UK - US especially being far closer and having far more regional assets - and a way more powerful industrial base to support said assets (and thus provide support to Aus submarines) - furthermore the US has the most experience of any navy on the planet hands down - the training and perspectives offered by the partnership are simply superior
France wasn't going to be delivering any subs till 2035-2040 and would take until 2050+ to complete the deal - way too long as far as AUS was concerned.
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,789
|
Re: The Australian Politics Thread [Re: twighead]
#28325094 - 05/18/23 04:17 PM (8 months, 6 days ago) |
|
|
The subs won't be available till some time in the 2030s, we don't yet have trained nuclear experts of our own, by the time they are made they're likely to be obsolete, and the cost which is already 300 billion over 10 years is very likely to blow out as happens with these kinds of projects.
This kind of spending on a handful of submarines that'll likely be useless and extra costly by the time they're made, if at all, is a stab to all other things that could be invested into like healthcare, tuition, infrastructure or renewable energy projects.
We got 2 billion in funding for hydrogen power in the latest budget.
And still 30 billion a year for the nuclear subs.
Australia doesn't have the kind of money the US does and these numbers are relatively astronomical for us to be spending in a way that doesn't benefit anyone outside of military contractors.
And national security will always be a hotword to scare people into submission, we do build our military and spend plenty already, and like the US does, we go way too far in spending on the military industrial complex because their associated donors and lobbyists have bought and paid for our politicians.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
twighead
mͯó



Registered: 08/27/08
Posts: 29,547
Loc: Glenn Gould's Fuck Windmill
Last seen: 52 minutes, 5 seconds
|
Re: The Australian Politics Thread [Re: sudly]
#28325176 - 05/18/23 05:07 PM (8 months, 6 days ago) |
|
|
I doubt they'll be obsolete considering the design is being worked on still - it'll be cutting edge at the time of its construction
Also afaik the cost is over the course of 30 not 10 - and calculates out to 8 bil/ year
I mean yeah I agree as far as overspending on mil complex in general... afaik it will provide 4,000 jobs in australia so at least there is a considerable investment back into the country in some form.
But if you were thinking from an australian security point of view - as literally an island nation - is there any more sensible investment to make than in their navy?
And face it - right now the australian navy is really weak - of course they have good regional allies - but it's not good to be too reliable on anyone.
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,789
|
Re: The Australian Politics Thread [Re: twighead]
#28325223 - 05/18/23 05:40 PM (8 months, 6 days ago) |
|
|
I've looked up more recent articles, and it's worse than I remembered.
Quote:
The program is forecast to cost $268bn to $368bn between now and the mid 2050s, most of it beyond the first four-year budget period, and will depend on help from the US and the UK.
The first Australian-built nuclear-powered submarines, fitted with vertical launch systems to fire cruise missiles, are due to enter into service in the early 2040s.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2023/mar/14/aukus-nuclear-submarines-australia-commits-substantial-funds-into-expanding-us-shipbuilding-capacity
Even given the 32 year program time starting from now, that could be 11.5 billion a year on these subs. The purchase and maintenance is overtly expensive. And having this cost every year is unacceptable when it's diverted from all the other useful spendings I referred to earlier.
Thousands of jobs can be created by investing in a diversity of industries.
I'm sure several hundred billion could create far more the 4000 jobs given diverse investment.
We can grow our defensive capabilities but not at the cost of investing ludicrous amounts in military over other developments like infrastructure, healthcare, education and energy.
Purchasing these subs is irresponsible and a disgrace to the fiscal responsibility many chime as important.
The lack of diversity outside of these sub investment is the Crux of the issue imo.
The following is an opinion piece but I think it makes a fair point about how by 2040 or 2050, mine technology or submarine eradication may exceed the usefulness of the subs.
Like how anti-tank weaponry is outpacing the development of tanks defensive capabilities.
Quote:
As for the nuclear-powered submarines to be built in South Australia, the ambitious schedule is to deliver the first by the early 2040s. By the 2050s, however, it would be surprising if there would be any place for manned submarines at all. The oceans are becoming transparent through the development of new sensors. Cheap, ubiquitous smart sea-mines, sensors and UUVs will render them obsolete.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.smh.com.au/politics/federal/we-ve-bet-everything-on-subs-that-will-be-obsolete-by-the-time-they-arrive-20230314-p5cs3t.html
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
Kryptos
Stranger

Registered: 11/01/14
Posts: 12,258
Last seen: 9 hours, 14 minutes
|
Re: The Australian Politics Thread [Re: sudly]
#28325395 - 05/18/23 07:57 PM (8 months, 6 days ago) |
|
|
The oceans will not be transparent for some time. But I do expect subs to soon become unmanned. Too much effort keeping us meatbags alive, and that limits the ability to dive deeper.
I think aus made the wrong call on the subs. Nuclear subs are an offensive deterrent weapon. Diesel-electric subs are a coastal defense weapon. Nuclear subs trade absolute silence for longer patrol range.
As Aus is not a nuclear state, the only benefit of nuclear subs--the ability to spend a year underwater ...somewhere... while carrying a nuclear payload does not apply.
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,789
|
Re: The Australian Politics Thread [Re: Kryptos]
#28325419 - 05/18/23 08:15 PM (8 months, 6 days ago) |
|
|
Sounds like an escape capsule for pollies who take all the bribes
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
twighead
mͯó



Registered: 08/27/08
Posts: 29,547
Loc: Glenn Gould's Fuck Windmill
Last seen: 52 minutes, 5 seconds
|
Re: The Australian Politics Thread [Re: Kryptos]
#28325592 - 05/18/23 10:27 PM (8 months, 5 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Kryptos said: The oceans will not be transparent for some time. But I do expect subs to soon become unmanned. Too much effort keeping us meatbags alive, and that limits the ability to dive deeper.
As Aus is not a nuclear state, the only benefit of nuclear subs--the ability to spend a year underwater ...somewhere... while carrying a nuclear payload does not apply.
They aren't SSBNs though so that was never the designs purpose in the first place
When UUVs become the primary means of a navy - a nuclear submarine still offers a lot of utility... it could still be used as a forward carrier for UUVs - carrying a large complement of UUVs, as well as acting as a forward base for their operation, extending their range, reducing latency, and allowing for higher bandwidth transmissions. (which are typically the biggest current issues with UUVs)
I think if you take the deal at face value - as in the merits of diesel vs nuclear vs the costs involved - it's not too easy to see the benefit...
where I think the biggest benefit lies is in increased cooperation when it comes to cutting edge technology between the US/UK/AUS - the breadth of the deal and the complexity in its implementation will garner a lot of valuable experience for Australia and experience when it comes to logistical support between the countries and it will serve as a platform for the acquisition and implementation of new technology in the future - the agreement is also going to include work on cybersecurity/computing/hypersonic missiles/and missile defense.
(which face it - Aus is nearly entirely dependent on acquisitions from allies - and as previously stated, the US just makes way more sense in this regard than France in almost every way.)
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,789
|
Re: The Australian Politics Thread [Re: twighead]
#28325607 - 05/18/23 10:42 PM (8 months, 5 days ago) |
|
|
The submarines could be used for a lot of things but it's not worth the price.
Half the subs, maybe then we can start talking. The loss of future jobs due to lack of diversity in government funding is what I have an issue with.
4000 is not good enough for $360 billion.
$80 million dollars of investment to create 1 job is abysmal imo.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
twighead
mͯó



Registered: 08/27/08
Posts: 29,547
Loc: Glenn Gould's Fuck Windmill
Last seen: 52 minutes, 5 seconds
|
Re: The Australian Politics Thread [Re: sudly]
#28325627 - 05/18/23 10:55 PM (8 months, 5 days ago) |
|
|
I guess there's only really a few main possibilities - that there are some really major possibly secret caveats to this deal that truly make it a better choice - even considering costs - that france was showing signs of difficulty when it came to delivering on the deal - or that there is significant graft and lining of pockets taking place as a result of this deal.
Probably all 3 to a degree.
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,789
|
Re: The Australian Politics Thread [Re: twighead]
#28325641 - 05/18/23 11:13 PM (8 months, 5 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
twighead said: that there are some really major possibly secret caveats to this deal that truly make it a better choice
I'm waiting, but diversity of investment is my stance.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
Stable Genius
Durka durka


Registered: 09/26/18
Posts: 5,755
Loc: Durkadurkastan
Last seen: 1 hour, 16 minutes
|
Re: The Australian Politics Thread [Re: sudly] 1
#28325841 - 05/19/23 06:15 AM (8 months, 5 days ago) |
|
|
|
twighead
mͯó



Registered: 08/27/08
Posts: 29,547
Loc: Glenn Gould's Fuck Windmill
Last seen: 52 minutes, 5 seconds
|
|
why do political cartoons always have the dumbest takes lol, there's plenty of valid criticism - there's really no need to make up shit
|
Kryptos
Stranger

Registered: 11/01/14
Posts: 12,258
Last seen: 9 hours, 14 minutes
|
Re: The Australian Politics Thread [Re: twighead]
#28325910 - 05/19/23 07:44 AM (8 months, 5 days ago) |
|
|
They've gotten worse recently. There were a lot of good ones back in the Clinton years.
|
Stable Genius
Durka durka


Registered: 09/26/18
Posts: 5,755
Loc: Durkadurkastan
Last seen: 1 hour, 16 minutes
|
Re: The Australian Politics Thread [Re: twighead] 1
#28325912 - 05/19/23 07:44 AM (8 months, 5 days ago) |
|
|
What's dumb about it?
We could get 40 - 50 Collins Class subs for the same price, that are capable of defending our coastline.
Instead we get 8 nuclear subs, of which only 3 will be operational at any given time that are able to stay underwater longer for sure, which will be great for sitting off the coast of China armed with U.S. missiles, but has very little to do with protecting our coastline.
This Albanese Labor government have lost the plot.
It's not just me saying it either. Have a listen to some common sense from ex Labor Prime Minister Paul Keating. Just the first 12 minutes, this is the type of leader we desperately need and haven't seen for decades. If you have the time and want to watch him savage the idiot, war mongering, pimply faced journalists responsible for parroting this anti-China rubbish then keep watching, it's ugly but I was fucking cheering as he gave it to them one after another. These people got what they deserved. I don't know who had the bright idea to line them up like this, with no right of reply, but I bet we'll never see something like this ever again 
And let me just say before sudly sends the discussion into the weeds that Keating made a few terrible decisions, de-regulating the banks being one of his worst. However he's smarter than the entire front bench of the current Labor Party combined.
Ex NSW Labor Premier Bob Carr chimed in today on Twitter too. https://twitter.com/bobjcarr/status/1658736832325226496?s=20
|
twighead
mͯó



Registered: 08/27/08
Posts: 29,547
Loc: Glenn Gould's Fuck Windmill
Last seen: 52 minutes, 5 seconds
|
|
Everything about it? I mean it's literally false lol. Like I said there's valid criticism but we both know that take isn't a reflection in any way of the reality. Ofc there are pros and cons to US military presence in the area (but this $ has nothing to do with it and you know it) - it could be portrayed as causing undue tension with China, or 'painting a target' on Australia - but the other aspect of it, is having by and far the most powerful navy and air force protecting your country (and shipping lanes), Aus has one of the most vulnerable supply chains in the world, with few resources to protect them. The nearby US naval assets provide security and reliability to those vital trade lanes.
China has been moving towards establishing bases in the soloman islands & vanuatu - directly off the coast of Aus and hemming in Australia's northern ports - which literally serve no purpose other than an offensive one against Australia - potentially threatening the trade route between the US/AUS.. (which would then only require cutting off the straight of malacca/south china sea to essentially cut off 95+% of Aus trade) - - while this doesn't seem likely at the moment, depending on the reaction of Aus in the case of a Taiwanese invasion, or some form of increased expansionism in the south china sea (i.e. if Aus withheld resource shipments to China)- China would potentially apply blockade esque tactics to pressure economically.
Quote:
Stable Genius said:
We could get 40 - 50 Collins Class subs for the same price, that are capable of defending our coastline.
Choosing to go with domestic upgraded subs is an option - but one way or another to bring it up to speed they would need to buy and incorporate some kind of foreign tech, --- The platform is dated, it would take a full redesign to match this project. The in between path of acquiring Virginia class subs makes sense, the platform is extremely well tested, and has proven its reliability & capability to be consistently upgraded with top of the line tech ----
Australia would not be able to operate anywhere near 40-50 subs like you purport, and the down time would be even worse --- right now Australia only has 1 sub base - in Perth , there's no way they could all operate from there. Also mind you - they only have 3 ready at a time as it is... With the combination of the virginia class, extension of collins lifespan, the new sub model - and opening of a new sub base on the east coast, Aus will likely be able to double its readiness #s. & What lol, you mention 'US missiles' like its a new negative, they're already utilizing US weaponry & fire control systems on the old model.
The deal also isn't just for subs, it includes future technologies such as ' cooperation on advanced cyber mechanisms, artificial intelligence and autonomy, quantum technologies, undersea capabilities, hypersonic and counter-hypersonic, electronic warfare, innovation and information sharing' - - Australia isn't by any means technologically incompetent - however it lacks the breadth of research of the US/UK combined - there is only so much capacity in the country, so the country has to be rather discerning as to what it researches domestically .... tech sharing is absolutely vital to keeping aus up to date.
There are some major benefits to the increased range and loitering ability - one of the most major vulnerabilities that Australia has, is its reliance on shipping, of which a huge % passes through a few small choke points around Indonesia and the South China Sea --- right now Aus doesn't have much ability to actually protect or exert any influence over these routes... diesel subs lack the range, need to refuel - and need to surface... which are all major vulnerabilities operating that far from home.
... for better or worse - Australia lacks the military research and inventions to outfit their own military.... I don't doubt that they could make it happen with time, but so far it's been overall cheaper to just buy from the US...
Consider programs like the F35 that the US is providing to AUS... (and the extremely outdated F-111s it replaced) the development and research that went into that project was extremely expensive and the culmination of technology only possessed by a single country on the planet... There is no way aus would've been able to fund or easily develop that sort of thing for themselves, and they receive the product and benefit from the associated technologies, without the associated headaches and investment...
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 4 months, 20 days
|
|
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,789
|
|
It's not hard to criticise american military imperialism as well as Russian imperialism at the same time.
The suggestion to concede to Russian demands about the proximity of NATO allainces is evident.
Wasn't any point by point discussion in the videos of the protest I came across.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
Stable Genius
Durka durka


Registered: 09/26/18
Posts: 5,755
Loc: Durkadurkastan
Last seen: 1 hour, 16 minutes
|
Re: The Australian Politics Thread [Re: twighead] 1
#28329497 - 05/22/23 04:45 AM (8 months, 2 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
twighead said: Everything about it? I mean it's literally false lol. Like I said there's valid criticism but we both know that take isn't a reflection in any way of the reality. Ofc there are pros and cons to US military presence in the area (but this $ has nothing to do with it and you know it) - it could be portrayed as causing undue tension with China, or 'painting a target' on Australia - but the other aspect of it, is having by and far the most powerful navy and air force protecting your country (and shipping lanes), Aus has one of the most vulnerable supply chains in the world, with few resources to protect them. The nearby US naval assets provide security and reliability to those vital trade lanes.
China has been moving towards establishing bases in the soloman islands & vanuatu - directly off the coast of Aus and hemming in Australia's northern ports - which literally serve no purpose other than an offensive one against Australia - potentially threatening the trade route between the US/AUS.. (which would then only require cutting off the straight of malacca/south china sea to essentially cut off 95+% of Aus trade) - - while this doesn't seem likely at the moment, depending on the reaction of Aus in the case of a Taiwanese invasion, or some form of increased expansionism in the south china sea (i.e. if Aus withheld resource shipments to China)- China would potentially apply blockade esque tactics to pressure economically.
Quote:
Stable Genius said:
We could get 40 - 50 Collins Class subs for the same price, that are capable of defending our coastline.
Choosing to go with domestic upgraded subs is an option - but one way or another to bring it up to speed they would need to buy and incorporate some kind of foreign tech, --- The platform is dated, it would take a full redesign to match this project. The in between path of acquiring Virginia class subs makes sense, the platform is extremely well tested, and has proven its reliability & capability to be consistently upgraded with top of the line tech ----
Australia would not be able to operate anywhere near 40-50 subs like you purport, and the down time would be even worse --- right now Australia only has 1 sub base - in Perth , there's no way they could all operate from there. Also mind you - they only have 3 ready at a time as it is... With the combination of the virginia class, extension of collins lifespan, the new sub model - and opening of a new sub base on the east coast, Aus will likely be able to double its readiness #s. & What lol, you mention 'US missiles' like its a new negative, they're already utilizing US weaponry & fire control systems on the old model.
The deal also isn't just for subs, it includes future technologies such as ' cooperation on advanced cyber mechanisms, artificial intelligence and autonomy, quantum technologies, undersea capabilities, hypersonic and counter-hypersonic, electronic warfare, innovation and information sharing' - - Australia isn't by any means technologically incompetent - however it lacks the breadth of research of the US/UK combined - there is only so much capacity in the country, so the country has to be rather discerning as to what it researches domestically .... tech sharing is absolutely vital to keeping aus up to date.
There are some major benefits to the increased range and loitering ability - one of the most major vulnerabilities that Australia has, is its reliance on shipping, of which a huge % passes through a few small choke points around Indonesia and the South China Sea --- right now Aus doesn't have much ability to actually protect or exert any influence over these routes... diesel subs lack the range, need to refuel - and need to surface... which are all major vulnerabilities operating that far from home.
... for better or worse - Australia lacks the military research and inventions to outfit their own military.... I don't doubt that they could make it happen with time, but so far it's been overall cheaper to just buy from the US...
Consider programs like the F35 that the US is providing to AUS... (and the extremely outdated F-111s it replaced) the development and research that went into that project was extremely expensive and the culmination of technology only possessed by a single country on the planet... There is no way aus would've been able to fund or easily develop that sort of thing for themselves, and they receive the product and benefit from the associated technologies, without the associated headaches and investment...
Good post  However you and I are coming from 2 completely different positions. Basically this idea that China is able to invade Australia is almost as ridiculous as them invading the U.S. As Keating pointed out, how are they going to invade without their ships being taken on the way in? They're our largest trading partner, I'd rather we invested in diplomacy instead of investing in U.S. weapons. Look how that approach has worked so far for you guys Warmongering all over the globe and for what?? The U.S. goes home with it's tail between it's legs, after ruining other nations, time after time. It's nuts.
|
Stable Genius
Durka durka


Registered: 09/26/18
Posts: 5,755
Loc: Durkadurkastan
Last seen: 1 hour, 16 minutes
|
|
Quote:
sudly said: I've looked up more recent articles, and it's worse than I remembered.
Quote:
The program is forecast to cost $268bn to $368bn between now and the mid 2050s, most of it beyond the first four-year budget period, and will depend on help from the US and the UK.
The first Australian-built nuclear-powered submarines, fitted with vertical launch systems to fire cruise missiles, are due to enter into service in the early 2040s.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2023/mar/14/aukus-nuclear-submarines-australia-commits-substantial-funds-into-expanding-us-shipbuilding-capacity
Even given the 32 year program time starting from now, that could be 11.5 billion a year on these subs. The purchase and maintenance is overtly expensive. And having this cost every year is unacceptable when it's diverted from all the other useful spendings I referred to earlier.
Thousands of jobs can be created by investing in a diversity of industries.
I'm sure several hundred billion could create far more the 4000 jobs given diverse investment.
We can grow our defensive capabilities but not at the cost of investing ludicrous amounts in military over other developments like infrastructure, healthcare, education and energy.
Purchasing these subs is irresponsible and a disgrace to the fiscal responsibility many chime as important.
The lack of diversity outside of these sub investment is the Crux of the issue imo.
The following is an opinion piece but I think it makes a fair point about how by 2040 or 2050, mine technology or submarine eradication may exceed the usefulness of the subs.
Like how anti-tank weaponry is outpacing the development of tanks defensive capabilities.
Quote:
As for the nuclear-powered submarines to be built in South Australia, the ambitious schedule is to deliver the first by the early 2040s. By the 2050s, however, it would be surprising if there would be any place for manned submarines at all. The oceans are becoming transparent through the development of new sensors. Cheap, ubiquitous smart sea-mines, sensors and UUVs will render them obsolete.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.smh.com.au/politics/federal/we-ve-bet-everything-on-subs-that-will-be-obsolete-by-the-time-they-arrive-20230314-p5cs3t.html
|
|