John Newman
The Bunker Group
Mate, I’ll give you an ‘A’ for effort, ok?I'm sorry I failed, I will try harder. I still would like to know what all those billions of dollars have actually been used for, while we never got past a paper boat. Lot's of long boozy lunches for some folks. I also hope some lessons have been learnt, but if their is no critical enquiry into how it happened then the chances of learning something is small.
* Fact - At the start of this project the ‘nuclear’ option was ‘not’ on the table
Agree, a decade ago there wasn't, but with increasing PRC belligerence there may have been an option later in the decade, perhaps even by 2016 when the decision was made.
* Fact - the LNP would have been more inclined to go nuclear from the start, but as we all know the ALP has strong ‘anti nuclear policies’, eg, no bipartisan support for nuclear.
Yep, but with engagement on this issue with Labour, this may not have been true, so this is an assumption rather than fact.
* Fact - There was no conventional MOTS option to replace Collins.
I believe so.
* Fact - All options required a bespoke solution, the French Barracuda SSN design came closest to a ‘reference’ design of the same size,
High risk option, and with the aid of the retrospectoscope a very, very bad choice to pick a French 'Frakensub'. Do you think the Gov could have at least tried to sell the idea of a nuclear boat then? if the government/ADF had said no conventional submarines meet our needs and things are deteriorating in our neighbourhood, so a nuclear submarine is by far the best option. I suspect if Labour were in power they have chosen 'son of Collins'.
* Fact - The French reference design was chosen in April 2016, six years ago.
Yep, that ones a fact
* Fact - The ‘strategic environment has changed’ as you’ve acknowledged above.
Yep, also a fact.
* Fact - The Attack class project ran for approx five years, total cost approx $5b, or approx $1b per year on yearly average.
Yep, and all for nought. I really don't think people should trivialise wasting 5 billion dollars.
* Fact - Due to the change in our strategic circumstances, the Government made the choice to go nuclear and create AUKUS with our UK and US friends.
True. The only issues I have with it is the subs are a very long way off and the challenges of constructing and maintaining a nuclear boat.
IIRC have seen the figure quoted as 3.5-4 billion having actually been spent already. I assume the rest is getting out of the contractual arrangements. From the Senate Estimates committee on Friday:
Under questioning from Labor's Penny Wong, Defence Department deputy secretary Tony Dalton confirmed the final cost of the aborted program could exceed $5 billion.
"We now have a situation where the taxpayer will pay up to $5.5b for non-existent submarines?'' Senator Wong asked.
Mr Dalton responded that: "The final negotiated settlement will be within that price, senator."
A 50% mark, a pass, just, you especially lost points on spelling.
The ‘L’ in ALP is spelt ‘Labor’ not ‘Labour’, you did it twice, you’ll have to stay after school and attend the remedial spelling class, ok?
At the end of the day I don’t think you and I will agree, that’s ok, we all have differing opinions and views.
But I would suggest one thing, you appear to be really focused on the $5b.
You remind of the story of the guy standing only a few inches from the wall, only focusing on the dot ($5b) in front of your eyes.
Step back half a dozen paces and have a good look at the whole wall.
The view is a bit different when you take the whole picture in!