Totally confused on the whole submarine thing!
Put aside the conventional V nuclear bit; I've heard both that the Attack Class project was a complete disaster and other accounts that the program was tracking Ok.
As much as many want to bag the French, the reality of that situation for myself is I really just don't know what the true reality is, other than it stirs up a lot of emotion.
I have read much on the subject and to this day are still at a complete loss as to what is fact and fiction.
As to going Nuclear, there is so little in the public space to really form an informed opinion.
I get the ledger of one propulsion system versus the other with the reality that pretty much everything else on the sub will be the same.
I get that benefit.
I also get that AUKUS will be a new thing that gives us stuff, which will in turn expect stuff from us.
No free lunches.
So at the end of the day, we are hoping sacrificing 5 000 000 000 dollars written off plus what billions we will spend will provide a net benefit of speed and distance in a submarine that will be the game changer in our area of operation.
I'm open that this may actually be the case!
I'm also open to the concern that I need to trust that with so many unknowns with this project that we are actually on the correct path.
Going nuclear has it's benefits.
It also has ramifications on many levels.
Hopefully some more information coming to hand later this year
Regards S
PS - Not sure anyone could be held to account for writing off such a large sum, but at the same time I'd hate to think we should trivialise such sums.
It's difficult not to think what these vast sums of coin could purchase in domestic infrastructure. Hospitals, schools, road, rail etc.
I want to pick up on one particular point you’ve made:
“I get the ledger of one propulsion system versus the other with the reality that pretty much everything else on the sub will be the same.”
That is drastically understating the performance difference between a conventional and nuclear submarine.
It’s not just speed, or endurance of speed because of the propulsion system.
A conventional submarine operating at high speed will use most of its fuel reserves getting to that far away operational area, but having done so, it then has to turn around and come back. Time on station is compromised.
Yes it can transit at slow speed and stay on station longer, but one compromises the other, can’t have both.
A nuclear submarine on the other hand, has the ability to both transit at high speed and then stay on station, at very long distance for a very long time.
This is what makes it difficult for the other guy, he has to invest considerably more to try and counter the fact that a nuclear RAN sub is always lurking nearby somewhere.
Has it cost us six years and $5b to learn that lesson? You could say, yes it has, but it’s going to cost him a $hit load more to try and counter the fact that one or more RAN nuclear sub is out there, nearby, somewhere.
A pretty good deterrent in my opinion.
One last point.
We can all sit here and moan about the ‘wasted’ $5b, it’s an easy thing to moan about, and point fingers at too.
But who if us here hasn’t made a not so good financial decision in their life? I have, we all have (if you say you haven’t, you’re lying).
Everyone one of us here has ‘blown’ money on something, $50? $500? $5000? or more?
Had a meal at a restaurant that was crap, the new fridge, TV or washing machine that was crap too?
Purchased that car that turned out to be a lemon, bought the new house that ended up being a bad decision, or that very expensive holiday that turned out $hit.
The list goes on.
Our politicians are ‘our politicians’, we elected them, pointing fingers at them also points back to us too.
As I said at the beginning, $hit happens, learn and move on.