so we ordered 12 French designed subs, Clive Parmer claims they only do 6 knots cause we are not taking the nucular option at 17 knots, and now tonight and today in goverment talks after u the people voted them they are saying not. 60 % employment building them here but like 10% . Really was that false campaigning? Are we just a bunch of sheep in a padlock?
Select to expand quotesouthace said..
so we ordered 12 French designed subs, Clive Parmer claims they only do 6 knots cause we are not taking the nucular option at 17 knots, and now tonight and today in goverment talks after u the people voted them they are saying not. 60 % employment building them here but like 10% . Really was that false campaigning? Are we just a bunch of sheep in a padlock?
Clive Palmer is cherry picking and talking out of his a!$e. The problems with not going nuclear has more to do with how long they can stay fully submerged for, not a lot to do with speed capabilities. Theyre diesel electric, no doubt more than capable of 17+knots when the diesels are running.
6knts is probably what they would cruise at fully submerged to maximize how long they can run on batteries. Max speed is less and less relevant, with what subs are used for these days anyway.
As to the lies about aussie employment oppurtunities, you know politicians are lying when you see their lips moving.
I don't understand? They say it's French design but 60% of the labour will be Aussie so we give the government the Vote and go with the contract and then they turn around and say oh sorry just 10% of the sub will be built here, thanks for the votes anyway not that it counts. What's the point you don't really have a say ...sheep
If people are listening to Clive Palmer there is a bigger problem than the nation's submarines.
Clive would be a leading authority on submarines and business management and everything in between wouldn't he? 
Nuclear submarines are for projecting power globally. They have incredible range, and can stay submerged longer. They are a strategic weapons platform.
A diesel sub is faster, quieter, more manoeuvrable, and of course cheaper. It has a smaller range. Diesel subs are used to project power locally. A diesel sub will destroy any nuclear sub. They are a tactical weapons platform.
People tend to equate, after a few moment's thought, that a nuclear sub must be better than a diesel sub because it is nuclear. This is incorrect.
Australia, because it is not patrolling the entire ****ing world needs diesel submarines to protect its supply routes from any current, or future adversaries. Diesel subs are far more appropriate for this task; protecting a fleet; fighting.
Our major trading partner is China. The most likely future adversary is China. So, to protect our trade routes with China, from China, we need all these subs. 
(personally I think China is just buying Australia)
Select to expand quotePaddles B'mere said..
Clive would be a leading authority on submarines and business management and everything in between wouldn't he?
Yep, just look at how many he's sunk 
Select to expand quoteevlPanda said..
Nuclear submarines are for projecting power globally. They have incredible range, and can stay submerged longer. They are a strategic weapons platform.
A diesel sub is faster, quieter, more manoeuvrable, and of course cheaper. It has a smaller range. Diesel subs are used to project power locally. A diesel sub will destroy any nuclear sub. They are a tactical weapons platform.
People tend to equate, after a few moment's thought, that a nuclear sub must be better than a diesel sub because it is nuclear. This is incorrect.
Australia, because it is not patrolling the entire ****ing world needs diesel submarines to protect its supply routes from any current, or future adversaries. Diesel subs are far more appropriate for this task; protecting a fleet; fighting.
Our major trading partner is China. The most likely future adversary is China. So, to protect our trade routes with China, from China, we need all these subs.
(personally I think China is just buying Australia)
+1 on the subs
The major reason for nuclear subs is as a launching pad for nuclear missiles, they are easily tracked via satellite by the major powers- as the cooling puts out huge quantities of heat, that leave a trail across the oceans.
Australia's defense is twofold... alliances so we can hopefully get help (US) or Indonesia where we inbed with their forces.
What the subs are really for is strategic strikes closer to home, landing commandos etc into hotspots (read Indonesia)
Why not explore the possibility of underwater drones instead of submarines. I'd imagine for the cost of one sub around a thousand torpedoes that are "smart" could be bought. I doubt any enemy fleet would be used to assist an invasion of Australia if there were tens of thousands of dangerous, guided, semi or fully autonomous torpedo drones lurking around all over the place .
not such a silly idea - as long as the drones controls don't get hacked!
without all the life support stuff needed for the crew, you could build a much smaller sub with more range and lurking time.
Our diesel subs - for all their perceived faults - have been well known for punching above their weight.
The old Oberons managed to get close enough to count barnacles on com-blok warships going in and out of Vietnamese harbours, which is something Uncle Sam couldn't manage with his nuclear subs, and our Collins boats have scared the bejeezus out of everyman and his dog who tried to hunt them down during wargames, official secrets red tape hasn't let any details of the Collins class subs "real working hours" stuff go public yet.
Select to expand quoteevlPanda said.....The most likely future adversary is China. (personally I think China is just buying Australia)
Personally I think Australia is kidding itself if it thinks it can repel a military attack from China.
A far more logical political strategy for Australia is total militarised neutrality where our armed forces are only involved in peacekeeping, like Switzerland.
Select to expand quoteAdriano said..evlPanda said.....The most likely future adversary is China. (personally I think China is just buying Australia)
Personally I think Australia is kidding itself if it thinks it can repel a military attack from China.
A far more logical political strategy for Australia is total militarised neutrality where our armed forces are only involved in peacekeeping, like Switzerland.
Not all of Australia is cowards like you
Select to expand quotequikdrawMcgraw said..Not all of Australia is cowards like you
A land mass can't be "cowards" LOL ..... and besides, true cowards hide behind weaponry instead of their ability to inspire peace.
I wouldn't characterise the Swiss as cowards. Try saying that to one of them in their home and they'd probably pull out their SIG pistol and pop a cap into your sorry arse.
Select to expand quoteAdriano said..
A far more logical political strategy for Australia is total militarised neutrality where our armed forces are only involved in peacekeeping, like Switzerland.
Showing your "pignorance" on all things military again bono.
I'm sure the ADF would be able to provide coverage to an area with a land mass less than two thirds the size of Tasmania, with only half a dozen efficient entry point, most of it uninhabitable alpine perma frost with zero coastline, so no sea borne approaches to defend, f*** me even NZ or Italy could probably manage that.
To provide an equivalent level of "armed neutrality" to the Swiss model would require millions of people (which we dont have), using millions of pieces of ordnance (that we dont possess), flying thousands of jets (that we cant afford), using thousands of major logistics platforms and support crews who dont exist........so, tell me more about how this could be achieved.
The main purpose of the ADF is to support the latest incursion by the U.S. armed forces in the Middle East.
So yeah it would be great to have an ADF that is about defending Australia but that won't happen.
What the Swiss do could happen here but it is unlikely many political types would be keen on every house having military assault rifles in it along with inhabitants trained to use it.
Select to expand quoteMobydisc said..
it is unlikely many political types would be keen on every house having military assault rifles in it along with inhabitants trained to use it.
Too true,
From the early 1900's through to 1997, our NRAA rifle clubs were under military control - even being required to take the same oath as regular military personnel.
For much of this time the club members were all using the current military issue rifle.
However, at the outbreak of hostilities the rifle clubs were closed down by the military and our federal government.
During WW2, these rifle clubs were even overlooked when it came to the defence of Australia - the clubs were shut down - and the club members personal rifles required to be surrendered and then either sent to the UK for their home guard, or used/abused by our own military for training.
When it looked like the Japanese were forming up to invade, the rifle clubs were overlooked completely by the Government - and the RSL was given control of our own Home Guard - the Volunteer Defence Corps.
The Defence act of 1903 was repealed back in '97 [iirc], and ever since then the NRAA rifle clubs have been struggling to survive - incredibly though - any club that promotes the old .303's has no problem attracting members!
