I would like to see ASC kept by the Australian Government and not sold off.I think having an asset like ASC owned by the Commonwealth is the way to go for the Australian(ADF) ship building industry.
A few thougts: I do understand that you would like to keep ASC, however selling off ASC will probably have some very good reasons as well, esp. regarding costs.
First of all Australia is a relatively small country (population and economy) compared to the large national economies like e.g. the US or Japan and Germany and would probably have even more difficulties in supporting a government owned company the size of ASC in times of crisis.
Secondly and most important government owned companies have a history of catastrophic failure regarding cost and quality control, the same goes for "good project management and time management", as you put it. Effectiveness ("do the right things") and efficiency ("do things right") are not common among them. You really want politicians to control the company? Come on...
Another thing is that if a government owned company competes on the world market, there often are provisos with regard to competition laws.
ASC will act as the project managers and client.
I hope I get this right, it sounds like the total economical nightmare. Conflict of interests? Mighty thing.
Ananda said:
That's my point, if the Australian public realizing the costs, and say they still willing to pay the costs, the questions will they willing to pay for the most expensive SSK or just go for SSN ?
Afterall no matter how capablle and expensive a SSK, still it will have limitation compare to SSN. With China set to double their SSN fleet (even triple after 2020), and India determined to have at least half a dozen SSN on the next decade, will Australia follow the suit ?? (considering the budget Aussies Navy proposed on getting next gen submarines).
Regarding costs, SSK's are much more cost effective than SSN's. Not only do you have to keep in mind what you want to do with the nuclear material after the sub's lifespan (and I guess the Australians wouldn't let them rot away in some harbour or just dump them in the sea) but you would have to set up a completely different infrastructure.
Apart from public mindset there are good reasons to go non-nuclear and I believe the Australians made a list with the pro's and con's and will chose what suits their requirements.
There are some countries that could very easily build SSN's if they wanted to, among them Japan and Germany, as they have the technology base to design and build or acquire what it takes. They won't however, and IMHO that's not only because the people won't allow it.
Ananda said:
AIP or other non nuclear propulsion technology is coming out, but at least again in my oppinion also still an unproven technology.
Unproven at the sense still do not warrant the additional cost it's incurred versa the additional potential it supposed to be given (compared to existing non AIP SSK).
No, at least for fuel cells it's working perfectly well. And I don't know what gf was referring to (I wish I did, as always... sigh), but battery, fuel cell and generator/electric engine technology are making quantum leaps at the moment and will be smaller, lighter, more powerful and durable. Sooner or later the full hybrid will emerge and I even could imagine that one day there will only be a small diesel generator for hydrogen generation and emergency (just my opinion).
), are submarines really that practical?
