AUKUS

[Baltimore Jack]

So $368B on Subs is good value, but acting on Climate Change will cost too much?

I think I see the problem

 

[Sphynx]

So $368B on Subs is good value, but acting on Climate Change will cost too much?

I think I see the problem

And yet the Greens will be the first to whinge about sovereign security in the event of an actual regional conflict.

I thought anti-climate change was only big bad Scomo and Dutton though?

It looks like the ALP have had a peak at the national security issues once in office and realised the risk Australia is now at and double downed on the work the LNP began.

 

[CD Xbow]

So $368B on Subs is good value, but acting on Climate Change will cost too much?

I think I see the problem

I have no idea how they got that number, but assume it's realistic. Sounds a lot, but over 50 or so years it's not so much. If the project starts in early 2030's with the old Virgins, with the first new boats to be built in 2040-2050 timeframe it is entirely possible some of these boats will be operating in the '80's. That's about 7 billion a year over 50 years, approximately a sixth to a seventh of the current defence budget. A decent whack. If you had to spend defence money on naval platforms, submarines are the best bet. I'm not sure the future of surface combatants in the latter part of the 21c is very bright with proliferation of drones, PGM's and missiles.

I believe the Governments policy is to act on climate change and is doing so.

 

[Baltimore Jack]

And yet the Greens will be the first to whinge about sovereign security in the event of an actual regional conflict.

I thought anti-climate change was only big bad Scomo and Dutton though?

It looks like the ALP have had a peak at the national security issues once in office and realised the risk Australia is now at and double downed on the work the LNP began.

Oh Jesus, we have a Cooker among us

If a "regional conflict" (you really mean World War) starts, we are all fkng dead, with or without nice new Boats

 

[Gigantic]

I have no idea how they got that number, but assume it's realistic. Sounds a lot, but over 50 or so years it's not so much. If the project starts in early 2030's with the old Virgins, with the first new boats to be built in 2040-2050 timeframe it is entirely possible some of these boats will be operating in the '80's. That's about 7 billion a year over 50 years, approximately a sixth to a seventh of the current defence budget. A decent whack. If you had to spend defence money on naval platforms, submarines are the best bet. I'm not sure the future of surface combatants in the latter part of the 21c is very bright with proliferation of drones, PGM's and missiles.

I believe the Governments policy is to act on climate change and is doing so.

The program costs is based on 30 years.

 

[Gough]

And yet the Greens will be the first to whinge about sovereign security in the event of an actual regional conflict.

I thought anti-climate change was only big bad Scomo and Dutton though?

It looks like the ALP have had a peak at the national security issues once in office and realised the risk Australia is now at and double downed on the work the LNP began.

It's also given Albanese a free hit on more economic reform, even Spud has seen that one and come out hitting with his comments about the NDIS last night on 730. This stuff is eye wateringly expensive and the burden is impossible just to pass on to the usual targets for a Liberal government when it comes to budget savings.

 

[CD Xbow]

The program costs is based on 30 years.

It may be, the 'cost was presented in the range 268-368 billion. I used the higher one, so it may still be close to my rough calculation. I think there was a quote from Marles that it was required an additional 0.15% to the defence budget, which is about 7-8 billion per year. The reactors are good for 30+ years, so a boat built in 2050 will, barring incident, still be running around in the early 2080's.

 

[Mofra]

Only around ~4% of C4I projects are delivered on-time and on-budget. The use of existing platforms in the interim de-risks this part of the deal significantly, but using the upper figure for estimates is a good start.

 

[Power Raid]

The Drive have an article suggesting 3 second hand Virginia's in the 2030's then new build of an Astute replacement later, perhaps the 2040's - which is consistent with the rumours mentioned earlier. The Collins are due to retire from the early 2030's.

Australia Will Buy At Least Three U.S.-Made Virginia Class Submarines (Updated)

The AUKUS deal will see Australia buy up to five U.S. nuclear submarines before acquiring boats of a new class based on a British design.

www.thedrive.com

This is how the navy increases its capabilities, often buying second hand and then replacing with new

we saw this with kanimbla and manoora

 

[CD Xbow]

This is how the navy increases its capabilities, often buying second hand and then replacing with new

we saw this with kanimbla and manoora

Yes, but this is a bit bigger in scope. I think the sequencing is good, first build the facilities to maintain a nuclear subs (bar refuelling), next maintain and sustain the US and our Virginia's through the 2030's then lastly building our own in the 2040's. Bite sized steps.

The US is miles behind on its Virginia schedule, so I think it's pretty certain Australian workers will go to the US (to learn) and enable them to open a third line, without this I can't see how the US would have the capacity to provide us with 3 subs in the early 2030's.

 

[Power Raid]

It may be, the 'cost was presented in the range 268-368 billion. I used the higher one, so it may still be close to my rough calculation. I think there was a quote from Marles that it was required an additional 0.15% to the defence budget, which is about 7-8 billion per year. The reactors are good for 30+ years, so a boat built in 2050 will, barring incident, still be running around in the early 2080's.

yep

this link here is to a fuel, sub 20%, designed by Australians. TRISO and FCM Fuel

what I'm hearing is this is the same fuel design concept but but higher enrichment

what I'm also hearing is Australia will probably be enriching the material, using chemicals rather than centrifuge, as traditionally the US supply was from down blending russian weapons. That's not on the table any longer.

 

[Power Raid]

Yes, but this is a bit bigger in scope. I think the sequencing is good, first build the facilities to maintain a nuclear subs (bar refuelling), next maintain and sustain the US and our Virginia's through the 2030's then lastly building our own in the 2040's. Birte sized steps.

The US is miles behind on its Virginia schedule, so I think it's pretty certain Australian workers will go to the US (to learn) and enable them to open a third line, without this I can't see how the US would have the capacity to provide us with 3 subs in the early 2030's.

the bold is smart thinking

 

[Sqotty from office works]

Has anybody asked who is responsible for the holding of the waste after the submarine finishes its life.

Can see us having a specialised dumping site.

There was an atomic commission paper written years ago that you need to hold your own waste.
The Americans tried to make a deal with us to let them build a wastage site in underground caverns somewhere over the Nullarbor.
Native elders pointed out any disruption would be leaking into groundwater.
Pretty sure it was tabled in parliament not to allow waste into Australia. These countries tried to give us nuclear power for free if they could.
Yanks English and French have tried to sell us nuclear for years so they could piggy back waste at our site.

 

[Jbudds]

Can someone explain to me, as I know nothing, why it takes so long to build these things, why it is so complicated and why it takes so long to be able to operate them? I mean, it takes something like 15 years before you are ready to captain a nuclear sub.

 

[Taylor]

So $368B on Subs is good value, but acting on Climate Change will cost too much?

I think I see the problem

That's $600k per job over thirty years invested in zero emission distributed power.

 

[Baltimore Jack]

That's $600k per job over thirty years invested in zero emission distributed power.

uwotm8?

 

[Festerz]

Feel a bit like the miserable reformed alcoholic sod turning up at the street party.

But a reminder that NO major defence project in this country in living memory has progressed without major blowouts in cost, time and capability. Heck most of them have been cancelled or had their performance parameters significantly downgraded.

The massive circle jerk associated with counting up all the investment and jobs this subs deal will create has united the left and right of politics in this country that will last months, possibly years. There will be very limited detailed scrutiny of this deal and its long term economic , social and environmental consequences from either the Dutton led opposition or the mainstream media outlets.

Costs will inevitably blow out, no government will dare back out, and it will be used for decades as a reason why a relatively small but prosperous coutry like Australia can’t invest properly in social security, housing, environment etc.

Enjoy the party.

 

[Taylor]

uwotm8?

The ALP are spending almost 400 billion dollars on zero emissions power that can be sent all over as required, so it's distributed, creating 20,000 jobs over thirty years which amounts to $600k per job per year for thirty years.

Watch for it to be accounted for as green energy spending, because it is.

 

[Taylor]

Feel a bit like the miserable reformed alcoholic sod turning up at the street party.

But a reminder that NO major defence project in this country in living memory has progressed without major blowouts in cost, time and capability. Heck most of them have been cancelled or had their performance parameters significantly downgraded.

The massive circle jerk associated with counting up all the investment and jobs this subs deal will create has united the left and right of politics in this country that will last months, possibly years. There will be very limited detailed scrutiny of this deal and its long term economic , social and environmental consequences from either the Dutton led opposition or the mainstream media outlets.

Costs will inevitably blow out, no government will dare back out, and it will be used for decades as a reason why a relatively small but prosperous coutry like Australia can’t invest properly in social security, housing, environment etc.

Enjoy the party.

I'd think the betting odds on this project being north of half a trillion dollars by the time it's done will be close to 1.05

 

[Festerz]

I'd think the betting odds on this project being north of half a trillion dollars by the time it's done will be close to 1.05

The main cost I am worried about is opportunity cost.

The massive multi-generational investment in enhancing Australia's defence capabilities in the face of enhanced global security threats is not without strong logical underpinnings.

But it is an investment that will be made by diverting billions of dollars from other public services.

Also thinking about the 'free-rider' effect for countries like New Zealand who get all the benefits of a massive enhanced defensive presence in our region of the world without the consequential budget impact.

 

[Taylor]

The main cost I am worried about is opportunity cost.

The massive multi-generational investment in enhancing Australia's defence capabilities in the face of enhanced global security threats is not without strong logical underpinnings.

But it is an investment that will be made by diverting billions of dollars from other public services.

Also thinking about the 'free-rider' effect for countries like New Zealand who get all the benefits of a massive enhanced defensive presence in our region of the world without the consequential budget impact.

I put it to you that Australia's PM touring India's aircraft carriers and then signing a huge deal with our US and UK allies was actually Australia paying the lease on 500,000 US and UK marines coming to fight for Australia should the local region fall into conflict.

But I agree that nations like NZ will benefit from it for free and that Australia could invest in something else - such as a widespread bulk farming operation to make the Asian region dependent on Australia for food, or even energy via gas pipelines as another means of increasing security in the region.

 

[Not Important]

 

[Taylor]

It's alluding to something real though, once Australia is so armed China's ability to control the region will be reduced. Their window should they wish to engage in any activity is now set at ten years and closing.

This is where history would later comment that China was driven to action by the action of others but contemporary comments from media will be that China was unprovoked in the action it took - similar to how other conflicts are discussed now.

 

[Power Raid]

Can someone explain to me, as I know nothing, why it takes so long to build these things, why it is so complicated and why it takes so long to be able to operate them? I mean, it takes something like 15 years before you are ready to captain a nuclear sub.

the scope hasn't been worked out and the weapon system will be modern as opposed to last century

the reactor and sub is not complex, other than it will need to be large enough to support laser and drones

 

[Nuggs Bunny]

The main cost I am worried about is opportunity cost.

The massive multi-generational investment in enhancing Australia's defence capabilities in the face of enhanced global security threats is not without strong logical underpinnings.

But it is an investment that will be made by diverting billions of dollars from other public services.

Also thinking about the 'free-rider' effect for countries like New Zealand who get all the benefits of a massive enhanced defensive presence in our region of the world without the consequential budget impact.

The most logical, most sensible and most appeasing way to find $300bn over 30 years is to scrap the tax cuts that were going to cost us $250bn over 10. The risk that I see is that the ALP will need one of the Greens or the LNP to help get this through the senate. The LNP will not want to sacrifice one of their cornerstone policies and the spiteful campaigners would clearly rather go after the NDIS instead. The Greens, from what I'm reading, will probably go out of their way to be as obstructionist on this as possible so what the ALP would need to give up to placate them is anyone's guess, if it's even possible at all.

I'm in agreeance with you on the last part, and to be honest, it's been something that's irked me about NZ in a variety of fields for many years.