Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Leisure and Society
Society
Regions of the World
Australian & New Zealand
Australians, unite! (Republican debate)
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Aussie Pete" data-source="post: 76439300" data-attributes="member: 421731"><p>The deal with the French was acceptable at the time but strategic priorities changed real quick. Keating may be smart, but his grasp of military matters is flawed and his thinking more 1980's. All we have to do is convince China that we are not worth the trouble of attacking. Nuclear subs are a part of that strategy.</p><p></p><p>The Barracuda subs are nuclear but relatively old tech. They need refueling far more often than the US or UK submarines. Who wants their submarine fleet tied up in France, waiting to be refueled according to French priorities, not necessarily ours? We already have good military relationships with US and UK armed forces.</p><p></p><p>The biggest peacetime problem with submarines is crewing them. It's not a lifestyle too many choose these days. Submariners used to be elite volunteers. No longer. Even with substantial extra pay, not enough people volunteer. Nuclear subs may well overcome that issue. They are vastly more comfortable and there is a deal of prestige attached to the job.</p><p></p><p>This proposed procurement is most unlike Australia. It is sensible, well thought out and takes a very long term view. Of course, any government in the future can step in and mess it up. That's the joy of democracy.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Aussie Pete, post: 76439300, member: 421731"] The deal with the French was acceptable at the time but strategic priorities changed real quick. Keating may be smart, but his grasp of military matters is flawed and his thinking more 1980's. All we have to do is convince China that we are not worth the trouble of attacking. Nuclear subs are a part of that strategy. The Barracuda subs are nuclear but relatively old tech. They need refueling far more often than the US or UK submarines. Who wants their submarine fleet tied up in France, waiting to be refueled according to French priorities, not necessarily ours? We already have good military relationships with US and UK armed forces. The biggest peacetime problem with submarines is crewing them. It's not a lifestyle too many choose these days. Submariners used to be elite volunteers. No longer. Even with substantial extra pay, not enough people volunteer. Nuclear subs may well overcome that issue. They are vastly more comfortable and there is a deal of prestige attached to the job. This proposed procurement is most unlike Australia. It is sensible, well thought out and takes a very long term view. Of course, any government in the future can step in and mess it up. That's the joy of democracy. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Leisure and Society
Society
Regions of the World
Australian & New Zealand
Australians, unite! (Republican debate)
Top
Bottom