QUOTE
Aussie defences sunk by bad submarine buys
By Barry Prismall
June 14, 2014, midnight
WE'RE an opulent lot. Peasants on a rock star lifestyle.
For a country with a population no bigger than Texas, don't we just love the extravagance.
Global stimulus? Ka-ching, $50billion. Welfare? Ka-ching, $146billion.
Paid parental leave, $6billion. National disability scheme, $22billion. Gonski, $14billion.
Even in Tassie, with a population smaller than the smallest mainland US state, Wyoming, we have a budget topping $5 billion.
In terms of riches, we're like Third World middle-class battlers, with First World tastes.
With this in mind, it is hard to fathom the previous federal government's decision to spend $40 billion buying 12 conventional- powered submarines, to eventually replace the six duds we have.
The Collins-class subs made too much noise, were often under- manned, cost $5 billion to build and just about every part of them, from combat systems to periscopes, failed, although near the end of their life, they are doing quite well in war games.
They rarely struck fear into the hearts of our neighbours, as a U-boat-style wolf pack.
Rarely have they all been operational.
At one stage, only two out of the six were functioning.
In 1986, Robin Gray actually fostered a bid for Tasmania to build them, but the Hawke government wanted the Bannon Labor government to survive in South Australia and so the contract headed further west.
The six duds were all finally available in 2004, but they were frequently plagued with operational problems, while costing $322 million a year to maintain.
The next dozen or so diesel- powered replacements will not be ready until 2030.
The Abbott government has not committed to this massive undertaking and is flirting with other options such as leasing, or buying replacements off the rack from overseas.
The feds wouldn't care too much about South Australia because the state is still Labor.
The question is, do you base your military spending on jobs, or strategic objectives?
Imagine the pressure from the defence brass and unions for locally built subs in South Australia.
A few years ago, I ventured into the old decommissioned sub moored near the maritime museum in Sydney's Darling Harbour.
It was so claustrophobic I got that rabbit sensation where you just want to bolt, but I couldn't double back and had to stay on the tour.
No wonder the current subs have been tied up in port due to undermanning.
Both the previous and current governments have ruled out the nuclear option which is strange, because diesel-powered subs must surely be laughed at by China.
Even Indonesia wouldn't be fussed too much by subs that have been in dry dock more times than out, and make too much noise.
If you're going to max the credit card on a new fleet, why not go nuclear and be done with it?
Why spend the equivalent of six Tasmanian budgets buying underwater canoes, that are either practically useless or highly limited in modern warfare, given the price, and, won't be available for another 14 years, or even 20 years, based on past experience?
Why not buy or lease a few second-hand nuclear "boomers" from the Americans, and really get the attention of folks up north?
Of course that's not going to happen, but it shows how dumb we are to be even considering a $40billion purchase of hardware that would be rendered useless the moment conflict broke out in our region.
If not nuclear-powered, the next batch of subs will need ballistic missile capability, which we could lease from the Americans.
If we are to even get close to wiping the grins off a few military faces in Asia, we need a little more than a grandiose employment factor in South Australia.
Otherwise, what's the point? What a waste of money.
By Barry Prismall
June 14, 2014, midnight
WE'RE an opulent lot. Peasants on a rock star lifestyle.
For a country with a population no bigger than Texas, don't we just love the extravagance.
Global stimulus? Ka-ching, $50billion. Welfare? Ka-ching, $146billion.
Paid parental leave, $6billion. National disability scheme, $22billion. Gonski, $14billion.
Even in Tassie, with a population smaller than the smallest mainland US state, Wyoming, we have a budget topping $5 billion.
In terms of riches, we're like Third World middle-class battlers, with First World tastes.
With this in mind, it is hard to fathom the previous federal government's decision to spend $40 billion buying 12 conventional- powered submarines, to eventually replace the six duds we have.
The Collins-class subs made too much noise, were often under- manned, cost $5 billion to build and just about every part of them, from combat systems to periscopes, failed, although near the end of their life, they are doing quite well in war games.
They rarely struck fear into the hearts of our neighbours, as a U-boat-style wolf pack.
Rarely have they all been operational.
At one stage, only two out of the six were functioning.
In 1986, Robin Gray actually fostered a bid for Tasmania to build them, but the Hawke government wanted the Bannon Labor government to survive in South Australia and so the contract headed further west.
The six duds were all finally available in 2004, but they were frequently plagued with operational problems, while costing $322 million a year to maintain.
The next dozen or so diesel- powered replacements will not be ready until 2030.
The Abbott government has not committed to this massive undertaking and is flirting with other options such as leasing, or buying replacements off the rack from overseas.
The feds wouldn't care too much about South Australia because the state is still Labor.
The question is, do you base your military spending on jobs, or strategic objectives?
Imagine the pressure from the defence brass and unions for locally built subs in South Australia.
A few years ago, I ventured into the old decommissioned sub moored near the maritime museum in Sydney's Darling Harbour.
It was so claustrophobic I got that rabbit sensation where you just want to bolt, but I couldn't double back and had to stay on the tour.
No wonder the current subs have been tied up in port due to undermanning.
Both the previous and current governments have ruled out the nuclear option which is strange, because diesel-powered subs must surely be laughed at by China.
Even Indonesia wouldn't be fussed too much by subs that have been in dry dock more times than out, and make too much noise.
If you're going to max the credit card on a new fleet, why not go nuclear and be done with it?
Why spend the equivalent of six Tasmanian budgets buying underwater canoes, that are either practically useless or highly limited in modern warfare, given the price, and, won't be available for another 14 years, or even 20 years, based on past experience?
Why not buy or lease a few second-hand nuclear "boomers" from the Americans, and really get the attention of folks up north?
Of course that's not going to happen, but it shows how dumb we are to be even considering a $40billion purchase of hardware that would be rendered useless the moment conflict broke out in our region.
If not nuclear-powered, the next batch of subs will need ballistic missile capability, which we could lease from the Americans.
If we are to even get close to wiping the grins off a few military faces in Asia, we need a little more than a grandiose employment factor in South Australia.
Otherwise, what's the point? What a waste of money.
source
This post has been edited by azriel: Jun 14 2014, 07:28 PM
Jun 14 2014, 07:28 PM
Quote

























0.0272sec
0.62
7 queries
GZIP Disabled