Anything that Abbott says would be a no brainer. He is a fissile inferior infidel. It’s only going to take 15 years to set up an atomic capability. Remember all of the rolling back flips and he broke every promise he ever made. We are paying the penalty of Abbott backing out the price on carbon with high power costs. Industry does not know which way to go, and it is costing us badly. Even the RBA is calling for rise up and get wages moving. Abbotts failure was the dumbing down of wages growth so business could hire more staff. That has failed to the extent that no one can afford to buy goods. Everything that Abbott touched turned to mud.

I know absolutely nothing about Submarines, but to my untrained mind and from what I've read and seen in Doco's on TV, without question, Nuclear is the way to go. And to further muddy the waters, 'apparently' the French could build the ideal Sub. suitable for our strategic needs, rather than several other Nuclear powered Nations, by all accounts. As I said at the outset, I haven't got any specific knowledge about Submarines or Submariner's, other than a friend of mine who was a Lt. in the Oz Submarine fleet in Sydney. It was my humble opinion, all Submariners were essentially mad!

o sung wu,

Madness helps, there is nothing like submerging in a sub for the first time; all the disaster movies come to mind!!

I've just finished reading Malcolm Davis's article
written in The Australian newspaper, May 15, 2017.
Malcolm Davis is a senior analyst at the Australian
Strategic Policy Institute.

He asks, "Is it time to begin a discussion on nuclear
powered submarines for the Royal Australian Navy?

In his analysis there are quite a few questions.

1) What key operational advantages are offered by nuclear
subs for Australia?
a) Long range, and endurance?
b) tactual advantage in speed, manoeuvrability, power and stealth?

Are our submarine missions focused on long-distance deplyments
rather than short-range coastal defence?

In which case then he imagines that nuclear subs offer this
much more effectively than coventional boats.

The article ends with the very important fact that -
'We should also not entertain any illusion that nuclear subs
would be operated at anything less than the highest safety
standards."

He goes on to tell us - "That however demands a cadre of
skilled nuclear experts with the navy and a substantial logistics
base to maintain sovereign operation."

According to Malcolm Davis, "This is a critical capability area
that Australia lacks."

I know nothing about the technology of submarines, but that is irrelevant.

Aiden thinks they could go somewhere else to get refuelled.
Perhaps they could get the US Navy to do it at sea. If they had to go
to the US to refuel, what is their range ? By the time they got back
would they need to refuel ? Would they then have enough to get back to the US.
It would certainly make a hole in their patrol time.
Of course other countries are closer but they would be in the same
boat as us,if you will pardon the pun.

Is Mise, it does not matter how efficient a submarine is, if its base
does not manufacture diesel fuel it is just expensive junk.
Remember if they set out on a patrol and came back after two weeks the
supermarkets would be almost empty and steam trains would be being
resurrected to bring food into the cities.

It is a really serious problem whether it is a war situation or a
Middle East problem or any number of other problems.

But as Paul Fletcher MHR Minister for Infrastructure said;

"We have good commercial arrangements for the supply of fuel!".

Oh Yes ?

Bazz,

"Is Mise, it does not matter how efficient a submarine is, if its base
does not manufacture diesel fuel it is just expensive junk"

Substitute 'surface ships' for submarines and you're in the same boat (pun intended)!

Then what about trains?