SandS said...
36 billion for submarines !!!!!
Do we need subs. Or would destroyers do us
How many subs do we get for 36 billion ?
In the late 80s, the original project cost wayyyyy more than what the gov't had said, for subs that were used only from around 2000, so for some 12 years - and sparsely too. Those subs also had to be continually modified on the way (less noise, etc.), so the project cost even way more.
In 2007, only 4 years after the last of the 6 Collins went into the water, the Gov't was studying replacing them. 4 years.
It's the same liars - gov't and defense people - saying: don't worry, will cost 'only' $40B, there will not be overruns this time, we need them, etc. Both the gov't and the defense people are in a conflict of interest here.
If someone can demonstrate all of the following, then I'm happy to fork out my taxpayer's money:
- that we stand to lose
at least $40B if we keep the old ones going
- a guarantee that there will be no cost overruns
- a guarantee that the new class will be xx times better than the old one
- guarantee that the $$ used for the project stays in the country
Yep, that's what I thought: not even 1 out of 4. Let alone 4/4.
There's a book "The Collins Class Submarine Story" that relates the disaster of the Collins class. I like the quote: "Even with the enhanced Rockwell system, it was believed that the capabilities of the fast track Collins boats was only equivalent to the Oberons."
- remember it was quite complex Mark!
