New Submarines

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by cheap

Oh that's right you were over in the UK helping with their debt crisis, happy and content with your work you came back to the mothership to continue your work. Based on your economic rhetoric your personal bank accounts, P&L and assets must be something to behold.

Oh don't be like that. Building submarines for Australia in Australia is good. So is training Australians in Australia for Australia is good. Keeping jobs in Australia is good too.

PS: I own my own house with no mortgage, I have no credit card debt or car loans and actually have cash in the bank. And I am happy. I don't like personal debt cause I'm tight and hate paying interest, but acknowledge in an economy debt isn't a bad thing when necessary and used appropriately (no comment on recent years).
One thing a government can do is raise taxes on its proletariat, a mortgagee cant) so my rhetoric is sound thanks.

Oh and cheap I didn't vote labour never have and didn't get to choose my representatives in the UK so had no say about their debt either...

[cheap]

Originally Posted by jpblue1000

Oh don't be like that. Building submarines for Australia in Australia is good. So is training Australians in Australia for Australia is good. Keeping jobs in Australia is good too.

PS: I own my own house with no mortgage, I have no credit card debt or car loans and actually have cash in the bank. And I am happy. I don't like personal debt cause I'm tight and hate paying interest, but acknowledge in an economy debt isn't a bad thing when necessary and used appropriately (no comment on recent years).
One thing a government can do is raise taxes on its proletariat, a mortgagee cant) so my rhetoric is sound thanks.

Oh and cheap I didn't vote labour never have and didn't get to choose my representatives in the UK so had no say about their debt either...

Outstanding, so you live within your means, save a few dollars here and there, minimal/manageable debt, isn't that the way government should behave?

And if the current gov didn't inherit such a massive debt, we probably wouldn't be considering foreign subs, we could tolerate more screw ups from ASC, put up with the AWU extorting money from the taxpayer and beat the nationalistic drum about "hand made in Australia", but that isn't the case.

It is hard to not ignore how/who got us into this mess. And it's the very same mob that wants to continue with the same narrative.

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by cheap

Outstanding, so you live within your means, save a few dollars here and there, minimal/manageable debt, isn't that the way government should behave?

Yes when its possible!.
Sometimes to benefit the economy national debt is beneficial sometimes it is absolutely necessary.
Few western countries managed to get through the GFC with such a low level of debt as Australia. The spending aided many Australians in helping keep jobs or at worst prolong their employment this is good. Unemploeyd people are as much a financial burden on the economy as interest paid on debt. But they are socially a greater burden than debt so borrowing to maintain employment is in my opinion worthwhile.
However what the money is spent on needs greater scrutiny than perhaps what has gone before or currently. The three year political term is a problem here, as Politicians are always in re-election ode.
Now Submarines. In lieu of automobile manufacturing et al Id like to see our nation invest in itself to build these and other 'necessary' (yes inverted commas necessary) objects. High quality high value manufacturing is our future.
And before anyone argues fit for purpose, the Allies in WW2 made more tanks, guns and planes than the Germans, the Germans made much better guns, tanks and planes and still lost. the best equipment doesn't win wars! USA lost in Vietnam and all wars since despite significantly better ordinance and hardware.
Perhaps we should be building 200 patrol boast instead of 15 submarines!

JP

[cheap]

Originally Posted by jpblue1000

Yes when its possible!.
Sometimes to benefit the economy national debt is beneficial sometimes it is absolutely necessary.
Few western countries managed to get through the GFC with such a low level of debt as Australia. The spending aided many Australians in helping keep jobs or at worst prolong their employment this is good. Unemploeyd people are as much a financial burden on the economy as interest paid on debt. But they are socially a greater burden than debt so borrowing to maintain employment is in my opinion worthwhile.
However what the money is spent on needs greater scrutiny than perhaps what has gone before or currently. The three year political term is a problem here, as Politicians are always in re-election ode.
Now Submarines. In lieu of automobile manufacturing et al Id like to see our nation invest in itself to build these and other 'necessary' (yes inverted commas necessary) objects. High quality high value manufacturing is our future.
And before anyone argues fit for purpose, the Allies in WW2 made more tanks, guns and planes than the Germans, the Germans made much better guns, tanks and planes and still lost. the best equipment doesn't win wars! USA lost in Vietnam and all wars since despite significantly better ordinance and hardware.
Perhaps we should be building 200 patrol boast instead of 15 submarines!

JP

I would preferred we invest in thermo-nuclear weapons with regional delivery capability. By far the best bang for the buck. But some hopeless left wing government signed the NPT in 1973 and we've be beholdent ever since to other country "protecting our security". The same mod that signed the NPT tends to bite the hand that protects us too - go figure!

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by cheap

It is hard to not ignore how/who got us into this mess. And it's the very same mob that wants to continue with the same narrative.

It makes great ammunition for blaming someone else for current failings but the buck must stop now. The current government is making decisions now. They are responsible. They are the ones determining the future of a whole sector, industry and part of society basing a decision on purely economic conditions.
I don't believe the Australian government debt is that bad all things being considered. They could eradicate debt pretty quickly by actually making the hard decisions rather than what they are actually doing. This goes for all sides of politics. But the balance is one of economic benefit vs social benefit vs re-election. We don't have good leaders on either side so I don't expect things to get any better.
I do want to see a government investing in the country rather then selling it out from beneath us for short term gain our GDP is circa 1600 Billion US dollars or about 2.5 percent of the global economy. the savings from going offshore are economically miniscule over the life of the project.
I hope they put fly screen doors on them too!

JP

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by cheap

I would preferred we invest in thermo-nuclear weapons with regional delivery capability. By far the best bang for the buck. But some hopeless left wing government signed the NPT in 1973 and we've be beholdent ever since to other country "protecting our security". The same mod that signed the NPT tends to bite the hand that protects us too - go figure!

How civil is this, not an insult for 3 posts!
It only takes a hopeless right wing government to act against the Nuclear proliferation treaty, say one that wants to 'shirt front' the Russian president. Perhaps we didn't sign the anti shirt front proliferation treaty. Perhaps none of the right wing war mongers have done it because its actually a bad Idea. I don't like nukes or nuclear and I paid 30 buck in electricity last 1/4 so I have that luxury, oh but I invested in myself there Hmmm
Plus Nuclear devices are not so good at spying on the neighbours, like peeking through their windows while they mess about in bed! nor are they good at deterring illegal immigration as it cost more to build the bomb used than paying the immigrants to go home, and seriously who is going to bomb an inflatable dingy with a nuke!

JP

[pottery beige]

Originally Posted by cheap

Just ordinary people. Who happened to be there by pure coincidence in front of a megaphone wielding ALP (ex-union hack) senator Penny Wong leading the banshee!

You did read your article didn't you? The part which says "Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union representatives yesterday rallied against the potential loss of jobs."

Like I said the AWU grave train is at risk...

i glance over the odd article, in the past have been mostly negative beat ups that feed those of simple minds

[pottery beige]

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/s...-1227093221869

[cheap]

^ You do see the irony/contradiction in the above article, perhaps not.

[pottery beige]

yeanah, I'm just quietly surprised you didn't slip in an anti union / screw the establishment rant

btw

morning cheap

[cheap]

Originally Posted by pottery beige

yeanah, I'm just quietly surprised you didn't slip in an anti union / screw the establishment rant

btw

morning cheap

The day is still young and evil unions never rest, morning to you too, PB

[pottery beige]

Originally Posted by cheap

The day is still young and evil unions never rest, morning to you too, PB

You need to let go of focusing on the unions with this topic, very muchly a non unionised workforce on this site

in being pro active with the subject at hand

I can't knock them

[Road_Warrior]

Roos is an idiot, if what he is saying is true then -

The UK wouldn't have sold Challenger II tanks to Oman;

The US wouldn't have sold AH-64E Apache Longbows to Indonesia

The US wouldn't have sold the Aegis combat system to us for our new ships;

The US wouldn't have sold the Abrams tank to Australia, Egypt, and Iraq;

Israel wouldn't have sold its Popeye missile tech to Australia.

Boom tish.

[Road_Warrior]

Originally Posted by cheap

we can have 10 subs for $15 billion.

Where did you get this figure from?? If you want to get subs made in Bangladesh then I'm sure $15 Billion is possible, don't expect them to work

[pottery beige]

Originally Posted by Road_Warrior

Roos is an idiot, if what he is saying is true then -

The UK wouldn't have sold Challenger II tanks to Oman;

The US wouldn't have sold AH-64E Apache Longbows to Indonesia

The US wouldn't have sold the Aegis combat system to us for our new ships;

The US wouldn't have sold the Abrams tank to Australia, Egypt, and Iraq;

Israel wouldn't have sold its Popeye missile tech to Australia.

Boom tish.

bit of yea and no there with roos

he does have a relative / valid point tho

[SB076]

In regards to cost analysis we need to be mindful that even though the local option may be more expensive the government will reclaim a lot of that money back anyway through taxes etc (which is part of the reason why we are more expensive in the first place)

Edit It would be interesting to know how much of the budget blow out is due to government interference? Changing specifications, or requirements during a build will increase cost blow outs.

[Road_Warrior]

Originally Posted by SB076

In regards to cost analysis we need to be mindful that even though the local option may be more expensive the government will reclaim a lot of that money back anyway through taxes etc (which is part of the reason why we are more expensive in the first place)

Edit It would be interesting to know how much of the budget blow out is due to government interference? Changing specifications, or requirements during a build will increase cost blow outs.

Funny you should say that, one of the reasons for cost overruns and technical problems with the Collins class was because “we” took a 1900 ton design optimised for use in the cold shallow waters of the Baltic sea, and enlarged it and modified it to meet Australia’s spec. Without testing all those design changes beforehand I might add.

Instead of say, taking an off-the-shelf design that meets our specs straight up and building it without oddball “unique to Australia” requirements or gear – kind of like what that German sub builder has now proposed.

The Government has been called out on it, HDW has IMO torpedoed the government’s claims that it would cost $50+ billion to build subs here because like the Germans say, if you stick to the plan and use off the shelf gear, you shouldn’t have too many problems.

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by Road_Warrior

Roos is an idiot, if what he is saying is true then -

The UK wouldn't have sold Challenger II tanks to Oman;

The US wouldn't have sold AH-64E Apache Longbows to Indonesia

The US wouldn't have sold the Aegis combat system to us for our new ships;

The US wouldn't have sold the Abrams tank to Australia, Egypt, and Iraq;

Israel wouldn't have sold its Popeye missile tech to Australia.

Boom tish.

Did they sell the most advanced versions of each of those weapons. I doubt it. The apache was sold (export) in in A, D and E configurations. The A being the original 1975 design, hardly cutting edge with downgraded avionics, weapons and target acquisition compered to the US versions
Don't we have the M1A1 Abrams vs the newer better M1A2 and soon to enter service M1A3 the US uses?
Plus the numbers sold 20 here 10 there is hardly a match for the home team the USA which has near 6000 Abrams for example
I doubt we would get the full Monty version or the best training or support and if we or other importers do I doubt we buy enough to warrant concern by the original manufacturing nation.

JP

[cheap]

Originally Posted by jpblue1000

Did they sell the most advanced versions of each of those weapons. I doubt it. The apache was sold (export) in in A, D and E configurations. The A being the original 1975 design, hardly cutting edge with downgraded avionics, weapons and target acquisition compered to the US versions
Don't we have the M1A1 Abrams vs the newer better M1A2 and soon to enter service M1A3 the US uses?
Plus the numbers sold 20 here 10 there is hardly a match for the home team the USA which has near 6000 Abrams for example
I doubt we would get the full Monty version or the best training or support and if we or other importers do I doubt we buy enough to warrant concern by the original manufacturing nation.

JP

We got what we could afford, besides, the M1A1 (assuming you can feed the hungry beast with enough fuel and bridges do not fail under its weight) is still "light years" ahead of anything other countries in our region have could deploy. One hell of a tuff tank.

[CoupeKing]

How many countries, besides us, are currently tearing up the skies in a super hornet?

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by cheap

We got what we could afford, besides, the M1A1 (assuming you can feed the hungry beast with enough fuel and bridges do not fail under its weight) is still "light years" ahead of anything other countries in our region have could deploy. One hell of a tuff tank.

Yes exactly, we didn't get the best even if it was offered for sale. So why all the debate amongst others about the Japanese or German subs being better than anything else. We wont buy the best or they wont sell it so we might as well build it. Our Collins class subs while problematic in early years are world class. we just need 200 or more to be worth having one.
JP

[Road_Warrior]

Originally Posted by jpblue1000

Did they sell the most advanced versions of each of those weapons. I doubt it. The apache was sold (export) in in A, D and E configurations. The A being the original 1975 design, hardly cutting edge with downgraded avionics, weapons and target acquisition compered to the US versions
Don't we have the M1A1 Abrams vs the newer better M1A2 and soon to enter service M1A3 the US uses?
Plus the numbers sold 20 here 10 there is hardly a match for the home team the USA which has near 6000 Abrams for example
I doubt we would get the full Monty version or the best training or support and if we or other importers do I doubt we buy enough to warrant concern by the original manufacturing nation.

JP

Indonesia has the AH64E. The latest and greatest version which is being rolled out into US Army Apache units. A new AH-64F is under development.

We have the M1A1 AIM SA version of the Abrams tank. The M1A2 (in current service with the US Army and USMC) has been sold to other countries including Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, and the as-yet unseen M1A3 is still under development. The only difference between the US M1A1 and ours is ours don’t have depleted uranium armour, and we initially opted to not buy the Tank-Urban Survival Kit, which we’ve now bought.

It doesn’t matter what the numbers are, the fact is the US and other countries have sold their best tech and gear to other countries. Money talks in the US military-industrial complex. Friendly countries I might add. The US Government will restrict who it sells gear to through the Foreign Military Sales Program office if it was that worried about technology transfer.

[pottery beige]

Originally Posted by Road_Warrior

Indonesia has the AH64E. The latest and greatest version which is being rolled out into US Army Apache units. A new AH-64F is under development.

We have the M1A1 AIM SA version of the Abrams tank. The M1A2 (in current service with the US Army and USMC) has been sold to other countries including Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, and the as-yet unseen M1A3 is still under development. The only difference between the US M1A1 and ours is ours don’t have depleted uranium armour, and we initially opted to not buy the Tank-Urban Survival Kit, which we’ve now bought.

It doesn’t matter what the numbers are, the fact is the US and other countries have sold their best tech and gear to other countries. Money talks in the US military-industrial complex. Friendly countries I might add. The US Government will restrict who it sells gear to through the Foreign Military Sales Program office if it was that worried about technology transfer.

some light reading

https://www.pmddtc.state.gov/regulations_laws/itar.html

[cheap]

Originally Posted by jpblue1000

Yes exactly, we didn't get the best even if it was offered for sale. So why all the debate amongst others about the Japanese or German subs being better than anything else. We wont buy the best or they wont sell it so we might as well build it. Our Collins class subs while problematic in early years are world class. we just need 200 or more to be worth having one.
JP

And you know for a fact that we're not getting the best or sub-par subs because?

As far as I know no decision is made.

If Collins is so good, then why hasn't anyone else bought into this "world class" submarine, not even NZ would buy one. Heck out dollar was trading at 70 cents, bloody bargin! Fact is you couldn't give one away.

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by cheap

And you know for a fact that we're not getting the best or sub-par subs because?

And you know for a fact we are?
At least my assumption isn't Naïve enough to believe in fairy godmothers and their gifts.

JP

[b0son]

Why do we need the best subs? Have they ever been used for anything other than training exercises?

[pottery beige]

Originally Posted by b0son

Why do we need the best subs? Have they ever been used for anything other than training exercises?

some pretty cool training excercises

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8Kv4rqR6RQ

as to what they get up to day to day - lol use your imagination

[cheap]

^ that seems more of a promotional video, shot in a highly staged and controlled situation... Now if a Collins sub could take a photo of Kim Jong Un taking a wee from one of his supposedly many luxury yachts, that would count.

[pottery beige]

its all warm, fluffy and a little fuzzy - of course it is

but you get the idea

[pottery beige]

heres a promo vid if you like them

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxzlPX4Wks0

block building like a bawse

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jh0BPHxlDwQ

up you go

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2lsbC4j5as

had a giggle around the 0.40 mark - ship evac