'Defense' Minister David Johnson sinks his own boat.

[madmug]

A convenient distraction from what we should be debating . . . why do we need submarines at all?

Why do the US need 10 x 100k ton nuclear carriers? Why do we have war? Do we really need disease? Lets get rid of all of them.

Now back to the real world.

I would argue that we dont need 72 F35's, we dont need 59 70ton M1A1 tanks, But we do need an efficient navy. The most effective naval craft for us would be a good Submarine force. That is the best deterrent to anybody threatening us or our trade routes.
You also need the capacity to repair, service & maintain such assets. To do all that takes quality facilities. If you've got that then you may as well build them yourself.

 

[Floor Pie]

I'm not trying to take a side on it, I just want the best deal for Australia/Earth in general but I don't have all the information to take a side one way or another.

I was noting that the government propping up of business is rolling back and those businesses are dropping off the scene because of it.

We can't compete because what we make isn't uniquely desirable and what is unique can't compete on value to the rest of the world.

I thought so.
You're a good poster.


But, what about the fact that many other equal manufacturers are propped up by their government? The main reason we need to prop up certain businesses like manufacturing, is because we are competing with companies that take advantage of third world conditions.

Look at what BHP is doing to the mining industry at the moment. Basically destroying Gina, and others, to remove competition.

 

[Tasmaniac]

A convenient distraction from what we should be debating . . . why do we need submarines at all?

If we ever get into a big shooting war (particularly Asia), submarines will be our no.1. weapon/asset.

Not Strike fighters, not SAS not AW destroyers, not tanks.

They are the most cost effective 'area sea denial' weapon available on the planet, excellent/essential for our continental defence (against conventional invasion).

I certainly rate them as more important than the 2 x huge amphibious warships we have just built.

More important than the 3 x AW destroyers we are building.

They also do a magnificent sideline in surveillance on other countries, their ability to sneak in and look at things others would like to keep private. Drop off special forces teams to do the same (or to do some sabotage), or to hang back, raise some Electronic Warfare antenna's and monitor their signals.


Of course if humanity all hold hands sing Kumbaya and live together in peace and harmony then they will be a waste of money.

So we better get our act together and get them built/bought.

 

[Tasmaniac]

Another note.

Apparently the cost of the submarine program will be something like 3-4 times the cost of Australia's JSF buy up. Boggles the mind considering all the airplay the J35 gets.

If we go down the ASC route they had better get it right. A 20-30% cost overrun might approach the total cost of the JSF.

 

[Taylor]

I thought so.
You're a good poster.


But, what about the fact that many other equal manufacturers are propped up by their government? The main reason we need to prop up certain businesses like manufacturing, is because we are competing with companies that take advantage of third world conditions.

Look at what BHP is doing to the mining industry at the moment. Basically destroying Gina, and others, to remove competition.

Is it BHP that is undercutting the sale price of iron ore at the moment? That is literally costing WA and Australia a fortune.

If we can't offer a product that is measurably superior to another nation then we are finished. Mining is a dangerous game like that, multi million dollar wage costs per day compared to the dollars being paid in African nations for what is ultimately the same element.

The issue I see as the biggest is that we have been distracted with our innovating. Our new technologies are about making it cheaper to extract value from the ground as a measure of man power (I guess everything is eventually), where an Australian man hour is worth 400x that of his African counterpart so the cost of buying multimillion dollar efficiency devices is worthwhile. All in a quest to keep the cost of extracting to sale price ratio in parity with competition.

I see that as a future hurdle because those technologies will eventually be produced cheaper in the third world and be available for the competition, suddenly the edge is gone.

We should be looking into ways that allow us to charge a 400x rate to keep our current lifestyle sustainable. Development of new materials for export based off our natural resources, uniquely Australian.

As a totally random example, let's pretend the sand of Australia is so fine that it makes a glass so bonded that it allows an order of magnitude greater strength while being lighter and thinner.

Alternatively we could build a space elevator in the middle of the desert that will mean all space traffic will flow through us. The $250 million rocket replaced by the $25 million space elevator trip, much larger cargo capacity etc.

We just can't compete with the world playing the world's current game.

 

[Floor Pie]

Of course if humanity all hold hands sing Kumbaya and live together in peace and harmony then they will be a waste of money.

It's funny. I've seen the same stance used, to defend the JSF cost.

I feel like I need to do a post, explaining the OP. Because plenty of posters are doing all they can, to distort the actual issue.

 

[JeffDunne]

If we ever get into a big shooting war (particularly Asia), submarines will be our no.1. weapon/asset.

If we get into a "big shooting war", we will rely on our allies as our #1 asset.

Without them, submarines or not, we're screwed.

Of course if humanity all hold hands sing Kumbaya and live together in peace and harmony then they will be a waste of money.

There is a lot of options between that and being an aggressor nation.

 

[Tasmaniac]

There is a lot of options between that and being an aggressor nation.

We aren't talking about being an aggressor, we are talking about submarines

Excellent for defence, not quite so good on long distance offence (mainly due to non-nuclear), and also very good at the in between (covert Ops, surveillance).

 

[Maggie5]

Blame Sophie Mirabella, she is a board member.

 

[Taylor]

We aren't talking about being an aggressor, we are talking about submarines

Excellent for defence, not quite so good on long distance offence (mainly due to non-nuclear), and also very good at the in between (covert Ops, surveillance).

How would submersible torpedo platform drones compare? We could equip the C-130 to drop a pallet off the back and they would move to position themselves, then destroy anything within range, like a hidden, high range mine.

 

[JeffDunne]

We aren't talking about being an aggressor, we are talking about submarines

Neither was I. Just pointing out it's not a choice of two extremes.

Excellent for defence, not quite so good on long distance offence (mainly due to non-nuclear), and also very good at the in between (covert Ops, surveillance).

I heard that too before we acquired the last lot of subs. How did that turn out?

There are far cheaper & more effective methods for surveillance than subs.

 

[Floor Pie]

Is it BHP that is undercutting the sale price of iron ore at the moment? That is literally costing WA and Australia a fortune.

Yep. Yay for free market! Lucky we have the FTA coming up to pants us even more, right?

I'm starting to feel like you are in support of the Coalition's policies.

If we can't offer a product that is measurably superior to another nation then we are finished. Mining is a dangerous game like that, multi million dollar wage costs per day compared to the dollars being paid in African nations for what is ultimately the same element.

What can Australia offer that is measurably superior than another nation? Apart from Aboriginal products, and location centric sales?
What can we offer, that cannot be reproduced in Taiwan for cents to the dollar?
Should we cut wages to equal the Somali minimum wage?

The issue I see as the biggest is that we have been distracted with our innovating. Our new technologies are about making it cheaper to extract value from the ground as a measure of man power (I guess everything is eventually), where an Australian man hour is worth 400x that of his African counterpart so the cost of buying multimillion dollar efficiency devices is worthwhile. All in a quest to keep the cost of extracting to sale price ratio in parity with competition.

One of our most promising, and innovative industries was renewable resources.
That has been cut and spat on by the current Government.
Tasmania is now losing money, because their RE has been told to eat a dick.

If you want us to be more like Africa, I would recommend you insist our cost of living be equal to Africa, or you are crazy! And I know you're no crazy.

I see that as a future hurdle because those technologies will eventually be produced cheaper in the third world and be available for the competition, suddenly the edge is gone.

That's why we need to be productive globally.
The only way that a third world country, will suddenly be mass producing competitive technology, is because a large corporation is taking advantage of the union free, basically slave trade, situation that the country has.
This isn't socialism, or actual free market. This is greedy corporations making as much money as possible.

We should be looking into ways that allow us to charge a 400x rate to keep our current lifestyle sustainable. Development of new materials for export based off our natural resources, uniquely Australian.

As I said, renewable energies were one of the biggest future investments that we had. But the Coalition has attacked solar and wind, to the point that suddenly solar and wind are hippy lefty conventions, and anyone against coal is a pot smoking, jobless, criminal.

We could have remained at the forefront of renewables. But instead, we have cut everything, and forced our leading scientists to follow the funding.

As usual. Shot term gain, long term pain.

As a totally random example, let's pretend the sand of Australia is so fine that it makes a glass so bonded that it allows an order of magnitude greater strength while being lighter and thinner.
Alternatively we could build a space elevator in the middle of the desert that will mean all space traffic will flow through us. The $250 million rocket replaced by the $25 million space elevator trip, much larger cargo capacity etc.

I'm sorry, I read this three times, and I don't understand. Sorry.

From what I understand, there is no way that you think cheaper glass would make us be able to create an elevator that takes us out of the Earth's atmosphere, and that a CBA would mean it would be best in the middle of the desert.

We just can't compete with the world playing the world's current game.

That's the big problem. We are just accepting that the rich deserve to become more wealthy. Because anyone who deserves and demands their fair due, is a lefty hippy, who should be grateful for what they have.

Why do we accept the richest people, telling us that we should suck it up?


I like you Tayl0r, and I don't mean this post to be derogatory or insulting.

 

[Tasmaniac]

How would submersible torpedo platform drones compare? We could equip the C-130 to drop a pallet off the back and they would move to position themselves, then destroy anything within range, like a hidden, high range mine.

This a a good suggestion. I know the US had a version of this back in the 80's (possibly late 70's), called CAPTOR (Capsule Torpedo or some such).

It was a specialist Anti-Submarine version. Basically a sea mine (so no moving around) with listening sensors, when it could detect an enemy submarine in range, torpedo away.

Problem: Range is very short, you need the sub/ship to more or less drive over the top of the device (talking a few km here), excellent if your nation is blessed with maritime chokepoints (the US version was for laying down in the Iceland/Greenland channel against communist subs coming through). Would be sweet if the Indo's let us cover 100's of passages between their islands with them, but it's not going to happen. Ring fencing the continent is not a realistic option.

 

[Taylor]

That's the big problem. We are just accepting that the rich deserve to become more wealthy. Because anyone who deserves and demands their fair due, is a lefty hippy, who should be grateful for what they have.

Why do we accept the richest people, telling us that we should suck it up?


I like you Tayl0r, and I don't mean this post to be derogatory or insulting.

I was thinking more along the lines of us "Cheating" by living off the cheaper wage of the third world and that when the shoe is on the other foot, when we are trying to sell things to the world, we are crying poor because they can produce their products so much cheaper than us.

As long as either the rest of the world is cheaper or we are too expensive, depending on which direction you think the equalisation should go, we can't compete.

The idea behind the glass example was that it would mean the world's needs for fish tanks or submarine/air craft/space craft windows etc would suddenly be an Australian expertise market. We would have a uniquely valuable product that the market will pay a rate able to sustain the high cost of hours. Iron ore is iron ore so the buyer doesn't care what it looks like, they want a cheapest price per tonne of pure stuff.

The space elevator was an example of creating a new industry that fills an expensive current need. The bottleneck in space exploration is getting off the Earth, as soon as that is passed with Australia's elevator it will open the door to a whole new era of mankind investing in looking outward at a fraction of the cost.

It's effectively outsourcing like telemarketing except it's a new technology. I guess it's like email currently wiping out fax machines.

I'm a believer that when there is a need, people will pay for a happy solution that won't change their current lifestyle. In regards to renewable energy as a means of combating climate change and peak oil, the holy grail is fusion power, easily attainable and stable but in the meantime I wonder if other nations won't pay for us to "offset" years of their emissions with a new Australian invention.

If we can genetically alter the algae in the ocean, that breathe something like 60% of the CO2 into O2 for the entire planet, into something that can be farmed in our wide open spaces then perhaps we can undo the damage while nations like the USA can write a cheque for $250 billion dollars a year to us to wipe out their emissions. It's politically clean too, we just need someone to develop it.

edit.. Oh, the reason I put the space elevator in the middle of nowhere is because if the super high strength cables (the thing that needs to be invented) break they will be tonnes of super fast falling and reach out kilometers. Just another hurdle to jump through.

 

[Tasmaniac]

I heard that too before we acquired the last lot of subs. How did that turn out?

They turned out brilliantly (once the incompetence and assorted screw ups by every man and his dog were solved). Massively over cost and late due to those stuff ups. The lesson here is don't stuff up.

Rated the worlds best diesel/electric submarine in their prime. Long in the tooth now.

Frankly we should already be 3-4 years down the track of replacements, not just starting. Labour turned chicken s**t and decided not to start the process because it was always going to be hard/expensive. So now we are looking a timing gap between retirement of the oldies, and receiving the newbies, no doubt we will end up having to fork over extra cash to hire something to cover the gap.

 

[madmug]

It's funny. I've seen the same stance used, to defend the JSF cost.

I feel like I need to do a post, explaining the OP. Because plenty of posters are doing all they can, to distort the actual issue.

No doubt the operation of the ASC will need close attention, like all building contracts, you will want it to be as efficient as possible.

The deal about building them & maintaining them here is that the money stays here. All the quality jobs will lead other jobs being created by economic activity. They all add to the taxes being paid by those workers & the others jobs their spending will generate. The economic benefits will permeate through the country.

This anti Australian stance from many on the right is just STOOPID.

Really its a pity that most of our politicians arent as efficient as other workers in this country.

Its clearly a case of 'do as I say, not as I do'

 

[Floor Pie]

I was thinking more along the lines of us "Cheating" by living off the cheaper wage of the third world and that when the shoe is on the other foot, when we are trying to sell things to the world, we are crying poor because they can produce their products so much cheaper than us.

And that doesn't make you pause and think?
Somehow, as efficient as we can be... a third world country can reproduce our work... cheaper?
Here is where two people split:
Short term: I can pay for that now, because the current economy shows I can!!!
Long term: This is the profit/pay ratio, and it's where Australia is going, so I won't purchase it, I'll save my money and withdraw it, and hide it under my bed... Because I'll need it when the banks default.

It's like the GFC happened, but because the infrastructure stimulus worked so well, we think that America could never happen to us.
Thusly the GFC doesn't exist, and the ALP were spendthrifts!


Taylor, if you want me to respond to the rest of your post, please ask me to, and I will.
I am not excluding the rest of your post out of disrespect. It's more that you didn't respond to my last full post, and I'm drunk!

 

[Taylor]

And that doesn't make you pause and think?
Somehow, as efficient as we can be... a third world country can reproduce our work... cheaper?
Here is where two people split:
Short term: I can pay for that now, because the current economy shows I can!!!
Long term: This is the profit/pay ratio, and it's where Australia is going, so I won't purchase it, I'll save my money and withdraw it, and hide it under my bed... Because I'll need it when the banks default.

It's like the GFC happened, but because the infrastructure stimulus worked so well, we think that America could never happen to us.
Thusly the GFC doesn't exist, and the ALP were spendthrifts!


Taylor, if you want me to respond to the rest of your post, please ask me to, and I will.
I am not excluding the rest of your post out of disrespect. It's more that you didn't respond to my last full post, and I'm drunk!

I recognise the issue, and I don't want us to live like those in Africa by the way

We cost too much because we expect more for our time and effort because we have to pay for the things we expect to have in life, and our life is much better than those we are competing against to sell our same iron ore etc.

It's a vicious cycle but we need to make better value from our better living conditions. If we don't use the extra time we have, both during the day to day lives and overall lifetime, to get smarter and innovate then we are wasting our gift. Living the same life in shinier shoes doesn't achieve anything for the exploitation of the third world.

Hopefully we can bring the rest of the world along with us for the ride and everyone lives better.

 

[madmug]

I recognise the issue, and I don't want us to live like those in Africa by the way

We cost too much because we expect more for our time and effort because we have to pay for the things we expect to have in life, and our life is much better than those we are competing against to sell our same iron ore etc.

It's a vicious cycle but we need to make better value from our better living conditions. If we don't use the extra time we have, both during the day to day lives and overall lifetime, to get smarter and innovate then we are wasting our gift.

Hopefully we can bring the rest of the world along with us for the ride and everyone lives better.

Maybe if some of our well paid 'leaners' in mining, other business & those who benefit greatly from upper middle class welfare paid their fair share of taxes then we would get more things done in this country. After all they benefit from good infrastructure & defense spending more than us normal plebs, because they have more to lose in a war.

 

[Floor Pie]

I recognise the issue, and I don't want us to live like those in Africa by the way

We cost too much because we expect more for our time and effort because we have to pay for the things we expect to have in life, and our life is much better than those we are competing against to sell our same iron ore etc.

It's a vicious cycle but we need to make better value from our better living conditions. If we don't use the extra time we have, both during the day to day lives and overall lifetime, to get smarter and innovate then we are wasting our gift. Living the same life in shinier shoes doesn't achieve anything for the exploitation of the third world.

Hopefully we can bring the rest of the world along with us for the ride and everyone lives better.

I like your post for some aspects. But I see that part of our ideologies and polar.

This is all assumption, so please feel free to correct me.
But I think you think we need to decrease our minimum wage, to become more combative. Without first reducing our cost of living.

I, on the other hand, think we need to reduce the cost of living, before we reduce the minimum wage.
And I think the FTA is a step in the wrong direction.

 

[Mofra]

How would submersible torpedo platform drones compare? We could equip the C-130 to drop a pallet off the back and they would move to position themselves, then destroy anything within range, like a hidden, high range mine.

Nowhere near as effective - especially from an intelligence gathering perspective (something our Sub fleet do almost continuously, now).

I simply wonder how we're going to crew 10 subs considering we can't crew 6 currently. Range issues with the Jap subs are also a major concern - spending billions on equipment that wont; do what we need them to do, given the range we require is unique to our circumstances as a low/mid range power with an enormous coastline.

 

[Taylor]

I like your post for some aspects. But I see that part of our ideologies and polar.

This is all assumption, so please feel free to correct me.
But I think you think we need to decrease our minimum wage, to become more combative. Without first reducing our cost of living.

I, on the other hand, think we need to reduce the cost of living, before we reduce the minimum wage.
And I think the FTA is a step in the wrong direction.

Ideally, I'd like the living standard of the entire world to be lifted to ours but then the cost of living here will skyrocket.

 

[Ice-Wolf]

Nowhere near as effective - especially from an intelligence gathering perspective (something our Sub fleet do almost continuously, now).

I simply wonder how we're going to crew 10 subs considering we can't crew 6 currently. Range issues with the Jap subs are also a major concern - spending billions on equipment that wont; do what we need them to do, given the range we require is unique to our circumstances as a low/mid range power with an enormous coastline.

We should have been building and designing them ourselves for years, we should have a built a competitive advantage when it came to long range diesel-electric submersible technology.

 

[Taylor]

Nowhere near as effective - especially from an intelligence gathering perspective (something our Sub fleet do almost continuously, now).

I simply wonder how we're going to crew 10 subs considering we can't crew 6 currently. Range issues with the Jap subs are also a major concern - spending billions on equipment that wont; do what we need them to do, given the range we require is unique to our circumstances as a low/mid range power with an enormous coastline.

Are we self restricting the use of nuclear powered technology?

If so then we are artificially altering the margins for what is acceptable while potentially tying our own shoes together on final output.

Ie. (mythical example) all our tanks have to be hybrids so we can only choose to buy the 5th best option by output which happens to be the second most expensive too.

 

[Ice-Wolf]

Are we self restricting the use of nuclear powered technology?

If so then we are artificially altering the margins for what is acceptable while potentially tying our own shoes together on final output.

Ie. (mythical example) all our tanks have to be hybrids so we can only choose to buy the 5th best option by output which happens to be the second most expensive too.

Nuclear Powered Tanks FTW!