Swagman wrote on Sep 10^th, 2014 at 8:23am:


It's one mighty big kick in the asset delivering a serious bang that is big enough to sink silly ideas that might be forming inside the hull of a head.....

Quote:


There's nothing wrong with our memory Mr Shorten you piece of union sh!t.

Quote:


Yes, we remember Mr Phuking Shorten. We remember you and your stinking phuking union rabble.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 10^th, 2014 at 9:02am:



Well the Collins class diesel electrics actually became quite a capable asset.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Sep 10^th, 2014 at 10:56am:


When they're serviceable, yeah, they're an exceptionally capable submarine. Much quieter than any nuclear submarine, albeit with a substantially lower endurance (range). The problem with the current submarines is their appalling rate of availability, which partly stems from problems with their construction, which was done by none other than ASC.

TWO Australian states are definitely leaners rather than lifters. South Australia and Tasmania would barely be viable were it not for financial assistance from the other states. Their economies are threadbare and, even worse, both appear to be making little effort at improving their own situation. 
 
These awkward facts are part of the reason for yesterday’s flurry of concern over suggestions Australia may seek to replace our submarine fleet with submarines made overseas, rather than in South Australia.

“No one can predict every threat or future conflict,” Labor leader Bill Shorten told workers at the Adelaide headquarters of naval shipbuilding company ASC. “But we do know that Australia will remain an island nation and submarine and shipbuilding is a strategic asset that we can’t let wither and die.”

Translated, that means continuing a weapons-as-welfare scheme for the benefit of the South Australian economy above Australia’s ­national interest.

Shorten went on to claim any move to source submarines from overseas would involve contracting Australia’s national security offshore. This suggests that by using foreign-made vessels Australia would somehow be in danger of ­exposing national military secrets to whichever nation supplies us with submarines, should such an arrangement occur.

Our current fleet of locally made Collins Class submarines had substantial foreign input during design and construction. According to one estimate, work on the Collins Class subs was contracted out to 426 companies in 12 different countries.

If Shorten is worried about foreigners using our subs to infiltrate Australian military information, he’d best start by looking at the vessels we presently have. Labor’s confected fury over foreign submarines is less to do with our nation’s best defence interests than it is to prop up Labor support in South Australia. A broader view would accept that there is at least some merit in looking at overseas sources for naval hardware.

“The most important thing is to get the best and most capable submarines at a reasonable price to the Australian taxpayer,” Prime Minister Tony Abbott said earlier this week, and he is correct. Submarines purchased from either Japan or Germany would cost around half the price of locally built vessels.

A truly enlightened military policy may even consider buying something equivalent to the US Navy’s Ohio-class submarines, complete with clean and long-­lasting nuclear power. The idea is worth suggesting, just to hear the reaction from the Greens.

Another military expert joined the debate yesterday. PUP senator Jacqui Lambie wants submarines built in Australia, and even claimed Tasmanian firms could fit out the next generation of vessels.

Sure they can, senator. We’ll get back to you the minute the navy ­decides to decorate our subs with dole forms, rollie papers and “Save the Franklin” stickers.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/security-a-priority-in-naval-hardw...

Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 10^th, 2014 at 11:00am:



As opposed to an illiterate Sri Lankan on a 457 visa & $2 p/hour

Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 10^th, 2014 at 11:01am:


While it would be amusing to see how the Greens reacted to news that the Ohio Class was being considered, it'll never happen because (a) they're nuclear powered and we aren't a nuclear navy (for better or worse) and (b) at around 600ft long, it was originally designed to carry 24 inter-continental ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads. Sure, we could have the missile tubes altered to carry 24 cruise missiles instead, but I don't see us going for this kind of capability. The upside of the Ohio Class is they can stay submerged for three months straight without coming to the surface once and have the range to reach anywhere in the world - or as far as their food stores will last. But nuclear subs aren't as quiet as diesels and they're more expensive to buy/operate. If we did go down this path, I'd say instead of up to 12 diesel subs, we'd probably go for 4 or 5 nuclear submarines instead, due to the cost and the fact that nuclear subs need larger crews than diesels.