I'm a little surprised by the reaction around the world to Australia's
announcement of nuclear powered submarines...

France : "stabbed in the back"
china (lower case) : You have started an arms race, you will shoot
yourself in the foot.
USA : "Thank you, my friend down under".
New Zealand: 'They're not coming here!"

Let me look at each one in turn...

France says we stabbed 'em in the back. They've been paid 2-3 billion
already, and will probably get billions more. 5 years after signing the
contract, it's $40 billion over the contract price, and a further 10
years till the first hits the water. That contract must have more holes
than Tomas Gumps credability...

china: "you have started an arms race." Us? really? How the fuck did we
do that, when were simply replacing 12 diesel elec subs with nuclear
powered subs? They both still fire torpedoes and cruise missiles, they
still play hide and seek... yet you fucking mindless clones created
artificial islands in the South china Sea, and militarised them after
telling Obama you wouldnt. And now your getting upset because the rest
of the world thinks your a cunt. Including those whos waters youve
claimed. And as for shooting ourselves in the foot, I think we'll be
aiming a bit higher and at you, ya filthy bat-eating flogs.'Highly
irresponsible" they said. So is chinavirus. Look at what thats done to
the world.

USA.: We've become the 51st state of the USA. Wether we like it, or not.
I'd rather eat KFC, than bats or #43 and short soup... china warned us
not to take sides, and then forced us to. Eat shit and die, china.
And Virginia class subs (which we should buy from the US, and let them
maintain them) would be way better than the French offering anyway. And
cheaper.

New Zealand. They wont allow any nuclear powered or nuclear armed
warships in their waters, which is fair enough. Not too sure wether it's
a loss or a gain. But it's their waters, and I respect that.

Me? I think it's the best thing since sliced bread. But rather than
build them here, (20 years?), buy from the USA, and get them to do the
heavy maintainence on them. Let those in the Adelaide shipyards continue
with plans for the Collins class upgrades which will be needed for quite
some time yet.

And since we buried our aging F-111 fleet, perhaps lease a dozen or so
long range strike aircraft... B-1 Lancers would be nice, and multiple
Patriot anti-missile batteries as well. The new LRASM missiles look the
goods, Australia has apparently ordered 200 of them.

E&OE MHOO

On 17/09/2021 4:23 pm, lindsay wrote:
> I'm a little surprised by the reaction around the world to Australia's
> announcement of nuclear powered submarines...
>

By the time we get them they will be obsolete.

Situation normal then... :-)

On 17/09/2021 6:23 pm, lindsay wrote:

> I'm a little surprised by the reaction around the world to Australia's
> announcement of nuclear powered submarines...

It's been a bit strange....
> France : "stabbed in the back"
> china (lower case) : You have started an arms race, you will shoot
> yourself in the foot.
> USA : "Thank you, my friend down under".
> New Zealand: 'They're not coming here!"
>
> Let me look at each one in turn...
>
> France says we stabbed 'em in the back. They've been paid 2-3 billion
> already, and will probably get billions more. 5 years after signing the
> contract, it's $40 billion over the contract price, and a further 10
> years till the first hits the water. That contract must have more holes
> than Tomas Gumps credability...

ROTFL :)

With all due respect to the cheese eatin' surrender monkeys (and that
ain't much), if they actually *wanted* the contract to go ahead they
wouldn't have continually fucked with it to the point where it became
unafordable.

They have no one but themselves to blame.

> china: "you have started an arms race." Us? really? How the fuck did we
> do that, when were simply replacing 12 diesel elec subs with nuclear
> powered subs? They both still fire torpedoes and cruise missiles, they
> still play hide and seek... yet you fucking mindless clones created
> artificial islands in the South china Sea, and militarised them after
> telling Obama you wouldnt. And now your getting upset because the rest
> of the world thinks your a cunt. Including those whos waters youve
> claimed. And as for shooting ourselves in the foot, I think we'll be
> aiming a bit higher and at you, ya filthy bat-eating flogs.'Highly
> irresponsible" they said. So is chinavirus. Look at what thats done to
> the world.

Couldn't agree more. The utter *hypocrisy* of the Chinese here is beyond
pale. As far as I'm concerned they can go fuck themselves sideways.

> USA.: We've become the 51st state of the USA. Wether we like it, or not.
> I'd rather eat KFC, than bats or #43 and short soup... china warned us
> not to take sides, and then forced us to. Eat shit and die, china.
> And Virginia class subs (which we should buy from the US, and let them
> maintain them) would be way better than the French offering anyway. And
> cheaper.

Yep. I'm totally in favour of the idea, and would love it stupid if we
got the US to build the things and look after them for us instead of us
doing it here. The Collins class exercise doesn't exactly instill me
with confidence.

> New Zealand. They wont allow any nuclear powered or nuclear armed
> warships in their waters, which is fair enough. Not too sure wether it's
> a loss or a gain. But it's their waters, and I respect that.

Same, but it's largely academic. As much as I love the Kiwi's (and I'm
saying that here in case the wife walks in :), it's not like our subs
will ever have much of a need to dock in NZ ports.

> Me? I think it's the best thing since sliced bread. But rather than
> build them here, (20 years?), buy from the USA, and get them to do the
> heavy maintainence on them. Let those in the Adelaide shipyards continue
> with plans for the Collins class upgrades which will be needed for quite
> some time yet.

I think the Collins class exercise has shown that we should leave the
building of such things to the people who do it best, and that's not us.

> And since we buried our aging F-111 fleet, perhaps lease a dozen or so
> long range strike aircraft... B-1 Lancers would be nice, and multiple
> Patriot anti-missile batteries as well. The new LRASM missiles look the
> goods, Australia has apparently ordered 200 of them.

I'd be happy for the Americans to have an extensive military presence
here, along with a few hundred hardened silos loaded with missiles
pointing straight at China.

Fuck China.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 17/09/2021 6:23 pm, lindsay wrote:
> I'm a little surprised by the reaction around the world to Australia's
> announcement of nuclear powered submarines...
>
> France : "stabbed in the back"
> china (lower case) : You have started an arms race, you will shoot
> yourself in the foot.
> USA : "Thank you, my friend down under".
> New Zealand: 'They're not coming here!"
>
> Let me look at each one in turn...
>
> France says we stabbed 'em in the back. They've been paid 2-3 billion
> already, and will probably get billions more. 5 years after signing the
> contract, it's $40 billion over the contract price, and a further 10
> years till the first hits the water. That contract must have more holes
> than Tomas Gumps credability...

The whole French thing was stupid, taking subs designed to be nuclear
and converting them to be diesel electric when the Germans could have
provided them off the rack.

> china: "you have started an arms race." Us? really? How the fuck did we
> do that, when were simply replacing 12 diesel elec subs with nuclear
> powered subs? They both still fire torpedoes and cruise missiles, they
> still play hide and seek... yet you fucking mindless clones created
> artificial islands in the South china Sea, and militarised them after
> telling Obama you wouldnt. And now your getting upset because the rest
> of the world thinks your a cunt. Including those whos waters youve
> claimed. And as for shooting ourselves in the foot, I think we'll be
> aiming a bit higher and at you, ya filthy bat-eating flogs.'Highly
> irresponsible" they said. So is chinavirus. Look at what thats done to
> the world.

Perhaps we should have bought the subs from the Chinese, they'd be
cheaper, delivered sooner, and they'd be less pissed off with us.

> USA.: We've become the 51st state of the USA. Wether we like it, or not.
> I'd rather eat KFC, than bats or #43 and short soup... china warned us
> not to take sides, and then forced us to. Eat shit and die, china.
> And Virginia class subs (which we should buy from the US, and let them
> maintain them) would be way better than the French offering anyway. And
> cheaper.
>
> New Zealand. They wont allow any nuclear powered or nuclear armed
> warships in their waters, which is fair enough. Not too sure wether it's
> a loss or a gain. But it's their waters, and I respect that.
>
> Me? I think it's the best thing since sliced bread. But rather than
> build them here, (20 years?), buy from the USA, and get them to do the
> heavy maintainence on them. Let those in the Adelaide shipyards continue
> with plans for the Collins class upgrades which will be needed for quite
> some time yet.
>
> And since we buried our aging F-111 fleet, perhaps lease a dozen or so
> long range strike aircraft... B-1 Lancers would be nice, and multiple
> Patriot anti-missile batteries as well. The new LRASM missiles look the
> goods, Australia has apparently ordered 200 of them.
>
> E&OE MHOO

On 17/9/21 7:33 pm, keithr0 wrote:
> On 17/09/2021 6:23 pm, lindsay wrote:
>> I'm a little surprised by the reaction around the world to Australia's
>> announcement of nuclear powered submarines...
>>
>> France : "stabbed in the back"
>> china (lower case) : You have started an arms race, you will shoot
>> yourself in the foot.
>> USA : "Thank you, my friend down under".
>> New Zealand: 'They're not coming here!"
>>
>> Let me look at each one in turn...
>>
>> France says we stabbed 'em in the back. They've been paid 2-3 billion
>> already, and will probably get billions more. 5 years after signing
>> the contract, it's $40 billion over the contract price, and a further
>> 10 years till the first hits the water. That contract must have more
>> holes than Tomas Gumps credability...
>
> The whole French thing was stupid, taking subs designed to be nuclear
> and converting them to be diesel electric when the Germans could have
> provided them off the rack.

Agree, I never thought that it was a great idea.
>
>> china: "you have started an arms race." Us? really? How the fuck did
>> we do that, when were simply replacing 12 diesel elec subs with
>> nuclear powered subs? They both still fire torpedoes and cruise
>> missiles, they still play hide and seek... yet you fucking mindless
>> clones created artificial islands in the South china Sea, and
>> militarised them after telling Obama you wouldnt. And now your getting
>> upset because the rest of the world thinks your a cunt. Including
>> those whos waters youve claimed. And as for shooting ourselves in the
>> foot, I think we'll be aiming a bit higher and at you, ya filthy
>> bat-eating flogs.'Highly irresponsible" they said. So is chinavirus.
>> Look at what thats done to the world.
>
> Perhaps we should have bought the subs from the Chinese, they'd be
> cheaper, delivered  sooner, and they'd be less pissed off with us.

LOL, an interesting idea:-)

--
Daryl

On 17/9/21 6:23 pm, lindsay wrote:
> I'm a little surprised by the reaction around the world to Australia's
> announcement of nuclear powered submarines...
>
> France : "stabbed in the back"
> china (lower case) : You have started an arms race, you will shoot
> yourself in the foot.
> USA : "Thank you, my friend down under".
> New Zealand: 'They're not coming here!"
>
> Let me look at each one in turn...
>
> France says we stabbed 'em in the back. They've been paid 2-3 billion
> already, and will probably get billions more. 5 years after signing the
> contract, it's $40 billion over the contract price, and a further 10
> years till the first hits the water. That contract must have more holes
> than Tomas Gumps credability...
>
> china: "you have started an arms race." Us? really? How the fuck did we
> do that, when were simply replacing 12 diesel elec subs with nuclear
> powered subs? They both still fire torpedoes and cruise missiles, they
> still play hide and seek... yet you fucking mindless clones created
> artificial islands in the South china Sea, and militarised them after
> telling Obama you wouldnt. And now your getting upset because the rest
> of the world thinks your a cunt. Including those whos waters youve
> claimed. And as for shooting ourselves in the foot, I think we'll be
> aiming a bit higher and at you, ya filthy bat-eating flogs.'Highly
> irresponsible" they said. So is chinavirus. Look at what thats done to
> the world.
>
> USA.: We've become the 51st state of the USA. Wether we like it, or not.
> I'd rather eat KFC, than bats or #43 and short soup... china warned us
> not to take sides, and then forced us to. Eat shit and die, china.
> And Virginia class subs (which we should buy from the US, and let them
> maintain them) would be way better than the French offering anyway. And
> cheaper.
>
> New Zealand. They wont allow any nuclear powered or nuclear armed
> warships in their waters, which is fair enough. Not too sure wether it's
> a loss or a gain. But it's their waters, and I respect that.
>
> Me? I think it's the best thing since sliced bread. But rather than
> build them here, (20 years?), buy from the USA, and get them to do the
> heavy maintainence on them. Let those in the Adelaide shipyards continue
> with plans for the Collins class upgrades which will be needed for quite
> some time yet.
>
> And since we buried our aging F-111 fleet, perhaps lease a dozen or so
> long range strike aircraft... B-1 Lancers would be nice, and multiple
> Patriot anti-missile batteries as well. The new LRASM missiles look the
> goods, Australia has apparently ordered 200 of them.
>
> E&OE MHOO

Agree in general but I really don't get why we need subs in the first place.
AFAIK they are an offensive weapon so unless we are planning on sneaking
up on someone and attacking why do we need them?
Better to have a larger number of big fuck off surface ships patrolling
our north to scare away the bad guys.

--
Daryl

What a waste of money!
Boom-boom wars are fading away, to be replaced with virus-salting and
cyber warfare. If they must have subs, get the type to snip submarine
cables.
The military are always behind the times.

On 18/09/2021 8:14 am, Peter Jason wrote:
> What a waste of money!
> Boom-boom wars are fading away, to be replaced with virus-salting and
> cyber warfare. If they must have subs, get the type to snip submarine
> cables.
> The military are always behind the times.
>
OK that must be why the Chinese have a million plus man army, and are
building warships, warplanes, and missiles like there is no tomorrow.

lindsay wrote:
>
>I'm a little surprised by the reaction around the world to Australia's
>announcement of nuclear powered submarines...
>
>France : "stabbed in the back"
>china (lower case) : You have started an arms race, you will shoot
>yourself in the foot.
>USA : "Thank you, my friend down under".
>New Zealand: 'They're not coming here!"

The real mystery being as to why we ordered diesel subs in the first
place as they were already obsolete?
(IIRC it was also to more expensive to convert the original French
design from nuclear to diesel.)

--
John H

On 18/09/2021 8:14 am, Peter Jason wrote:
> What a waste of money!
> Boom-boom wars are fading away, to be replaced with virus-salting and
> cyber warfare. If they must have subs, get the type to snip submarine
> cables.
> The military are always behind the times.

It that right, General?

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 18/09/2021 11:28 am, John_H wrote:
> lindsay wrote:
>>
>> I'm a little surprised by the reaction around the world to Australia's
>> announcement of nuclear powered submarines...
>>
>> France : "stabbed in the back"
>> china (lower case) : You have started an arms race, you will shoot
>> yourself in the foot.
>> USA : "Thank you, my friend down under".
>> New Zealand: 'They're not coming here!"
>
> The real mystery being as to why we ordered diesel subs in the first
> place as they were already obsolete?
> (IIRC it was also to more expensive to convert the original French
> design from nuclear to diesel.)

To be honest I expected *way* more objection to nuclear powered
submarines than what we've seen.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 17/09/2021 5:33 pm, keithr0 wrote:
> On 17/09/2021 6:23 pm, lindsay wrote:
>> I'm a little surprised by the reaction around the world to Australia's
>> announcement of nuclear powered submarines...
>>
>> France : "stabbed in the back"
>> china (lower case) : You have started an arms race, you will shoot
>> yourself in the foot.
>> USA : "Thank you, my friend down under".
>> New Zealand: 'They're not coming here!"
>>
>> Let me look at each one in turn...
>>
>> France says we stabbed 'em in the back. They've been paid 2-3 billion
>> already, and will probably get billions more. 5 years after signing
>> the contract, it's $40 billion over the contract price, and a further
>> 10 years till the first hits the water. That contract must have more
>> holes than Tomas Gumps credability...
>
> The whole French thing was stupid, taking subs designed to be nuclear
> and converting them to be diesel electric when the Germans could have
> provided them off the rack.
>

Agreed.

>> china: "you have started an arms race." Us? really? How the fuck did
>> we do that, when were simply replacing 12 diesel elec subs with
>> nuclear powered subs? They both still fire torpedoes and cruise
>> missiles, they still play hide and seek... yet you fucking mindless
>> clones created artificial islands in the South china Sea, and
>> militarised them after telling Obama you wouldnt. And now your getting
>> upset because the rest of the world thinks your a cunt. Including
>> those whos waters youve claimed. And as for shooting ourselves in the
>> foot, I think we'll be aiming a bit higher and at you, ya filthy
>> bat-eating flogs.'Highly irresponsible" they said. So is chinavirus.
>> Look at what thats done to the world.
>
> Perhaps we should have bought the subs from the Chinese, they'd be
> cheaper, delivered  sooner, and they'd be less pissed off with us.
>

They'd also inform the Chinese of their exact location. Handy for them,
not so much for us.

On Fri, 17 Sep 2021 18:23:37 +1000, lindsay posted:-

> I'm a little surprised by the reaction around the world to
> Australia's announcement of nuclear powered submarines...
>
> France : "stabbed in the back"
> china (lower case) : You have started an arms race, you will shoot
> yourself in the foot.
> USA : "Thank you, my friend down under".
> New Zealand: 'They're not coming here!"
>
> Let me look at each one in turn...
>
> France says we stabbed 'em in the back. They've been paid 2-3 billion
> already, and will probably get billions more. 5 years after signing
> the contract, it's $40 billion over the contract price, and a further
> 10 years till the first hits the water. That contract must have more
> holes than Tomas Gumps credability...
>
> china: "you have started an arms race." Us? really? How the fuck did
> we do that, when were simply replacing 12 diesel elec subs with
> nuclear powered subs? They both still fire torpedoes and cruise
> missiles, they still play hide and seek... yet you fucking mindless
> clones created artificial islands in the South china Sea, and
> militarised them after telling Obama you wouldnt. And now your
> getting upset because the rest of the world thinks your a cunt.
> Including those whos waters youve claimed. And as for shooting
> ourselves in the foot, I think we'll be aiming a bit higher and at
> you, ya filthy bat-eating flogs.'Highly irresponsible" they said. So
> is chinavirus. Look at what thats done to the world.
>
> USA.: We've become the 51st state of the USA. Wether we like it, or
> not. I'd rather eat KFC, than bats or #43 and short soup... china
> warned us not to take sides, and then forced us to. Eat shit and die,
> china. And Virginia class subs (which we should buy from the US, and
> let them maintain them) would be way better than the French offering
> anyway. And cheaper.
>
> New Zealand. They wont allow any nuclear powered or nuclear armed
> warships in their waters, which is fair enough. Not too sure wether
> it's a loss or a gain. But it's their waters, and I respect that.
>
> Me? I think it's the best thing since sliced bread. But rather than
> build them here, (20 years?), buy from the USA, and get them to do
> the heavy maintainence on them. Let those in the Adelaide shipyards
> continue with plans for the Collins class upgrades which will be
> needed for quite some time yet.
>
> And since we buried our aging F-111 fleet, perhaps lease a dozen or
> so long range strike aircraft... B-1 Lancers would be nice, and
> multiple Patriot anti-missile batteries as well. The new LRASM
> missiles look the goods, Australia has apparently ordered 200 of them.
>
> E&OE MHOO

Good post, thanks.

On Sat, 18 Sep 2021 11:32:30 +1000, Noddy <me@home.com> wrote:

>On 18/09/2021 8:14 am, Peter Jason wrote:
>> What a waste of money!
>> Boom-boom wars are fading away, to be replaced with virus-salting and
>> cyber warfare. If they must have subs, get the type to snip submarine
>> cables.
>> The military are always behind the times.
>
>It that right, General?
Yes private, now you know.

>
>
>
>
>
>--
>--

On 18/09/2021 11:33 am, Noddy wrote:
> On 18/09/2021 11:28 am, John_H wrote:
>> lindsay wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm a little surprised by the reaction around the world to Australia's
>>> announcement of nuclear powered submarines...
>>>
>>> France : "stabbed in the back"
>>> china (lower case) : You have started an arms race, you will shoot
>>> yourself in the foot.
>>> USA : "Thank you, my friend down under".
>>> New Zealand: 'They're not coming here!"
>>
>> The real mystery being as to why we ordered diesel subs in the first
>> place as they were already obsolete?
>> (IIRC it was also to more expensive to convert the original French
>> design from nuclear to diesel.)
>
> To be honest I expected *way* more objection to nuclear powered
> submarines than what we've seen.

Wait until the Adelaidians find out that there will be the odd nuclear
reactor lying about on the fringe of their town.

On 18/09/2021 11:46 am, Clocky wrote:
> On 17/09/2021 5:33 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>> On 17/09/2021 6:23 pm, lindsay wrote:
>>> I'm a little surprised by the reaction around the world to
>>> Australia's announcement of nuclear powered submarines...
>>>
>>> France : "stabbed in the back"
>>> china (lower case) : You have started an arms race, you will shoot
>>> yourself in the foot.
>>> USA : "Thank you, my friend down under".
>>> New Zealand: 'They're not coming here!"
>>>
>>> Let me look at each one in turn...
>>>
>>> France says we stabbed 'em in the back. They've been paid 2-3 billion
>>> already, and will probably get billions more. 5 years after signing
>>> the contract, it's $40 billion over the contract price, and a further
>>> 10 years till the first hits the water. That contract must have more
>>> holes than Tomas Gumps credability...
>>
>> The whole French thing was stupid, taking subs designed to be nuclear
>> and converting them to be diesel electric when the Germans could have
>> provided them off the rack.
>>
>
> Agreed.
>
>>> china: "you have started an arms race." Us? really? How the fuck did
>>> we do that, when were simply replacing 12 diesel elec subs with
>>> nuclear powered subs? They both still fire torpedoes and cruise
>>> missiles, they still play hide and seek... yet you fucking mindless
>>> clones created artificial islands in the South china Sea, and
>>> militarised them after telling Obama you wouldnt. And now your
>>> getting upset because the rest of the world thinks your a cunt.
>>> Including those whos waters youve claimed. And as for shooting
>>> ourselves in the foot, I think we'll be aiming a bit higher and at
>>> you, ya filthy bat-eating flogs.'Highly irresponsible" they said. So
>>> is chinavirus. Look at what thats done to the world.
>>
>> Perhaps we should have bought the subs from the Chinese, they'd be
>> cheaper, delivered  sooner, and they'd be less pissed off with us.
>>
>
> They'd also inform the Chinese of their exact location. Handy for them,
> not so much for us.
>
Perhaps I should have included a smiley for those who couldn't work it
out for themselves.

Noddy wrote:
>On 18/09/2021 11:28 am, John_H wrote:
>> lindsay wrote:
>
>>>
>>> I'm a little surprised by the reaction around the world to Australia's
>>> announcement of nuclear powered submarines...
>>>
>>> France : "stabbed in the back"
>>> china (lower case) : You have started an arms race, you will shoot
>>> yourself in the foot.
>>> USA : "Thank you, my friend down under".
>>> New Zealand: 'They're not coming here!"
>>
>> The real mystery being as to why we ordered diesel subs in the first
>> place as they were already obsolete?
>> (IIRC it was also to more expensive to convert the original French
>> design from nuclear to diesel.)
>
>To be honest I expected *way* more objection to nuclear powered
>submarines than what we've seen.

Floating Chernobyls according to Adam Bandt but I suspect the rest of
us only need worry if they happen to sink! :)

--
John H

On 18/9/21 11:32 am, Noddy wrote:
> On 18/09/2021 8:14 am, Peter Jason wrote:
>> What a waste of money!
>> Boom-boom wars are fading away, to be replaced with virus-salting and
>> cyber warfare.  If they must have subs, get the type to snip submarine
>> cables.
>> The military are always behind the times.
>
> It that right, General?
>
As far as the Australian military are concerned, yes.

--

Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 18/9/21 11:33 am, Noddy wrote:
> On 18/09/2021 11:28 am, John_H wrote:
>> lindsay wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm a little surprised by the reaction around the world to Australia's
>>> announcement of nuclear powered submarines...
>>>
>>> France : "stabbed in the back"
>>> china (lower case) : You have started an arms race, you will shoot
>>> yourself in the foot.
>>> USA : "Thank you, my friend down under".
>>> New Zealand: 'They're not coming here!"
>>
>> The real mystery being as to why we ordered diesel subs in the first
>> place as they were already obsolete?
>> (IIRC it was also to more expensive to convert the original French
>> design from nuclear to diesel.)
>
> To be honest I expected *way* more objection to nuclear powered
> submarines than what we've seen.
>
>
>
Nuclear armed and nuclear powered are different ball games.

--

Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 18/09/2021 2:25 pm, John_H wrote:
> Noddy wrote:

>>> The real mystery being as to why we ordered diesel subs in the first
>>> place as they were already obsolete?
>>> (IIRC it was also to more expensive to convert the original French
>>> design from nuclear to diesel.)
>>
>> To be honest I expected *way* more objection to nuclear powered
>> submarines than what we've seen.
>
> Floating Chernobyls according to Adam Bandt but I suspect the rest of
> us only need worry if they happen to sink! :)

Lol :)

I don't think anyone gives a crap about anything that fucking lunatic
Adam Bandt has to say, but I was expecting the Labor party to make some
mileage out of it.

Oh well. Perhaps it will pave the way for nuclear power stations :)

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 18/09/2021 12:15 pm, keithr0 wrote:
> On 18/09/2021 11:46 am, Clocky wrote:
>> On 17/09/2021 5:33 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>> On 17/09/2021 6:23 pm, lindsay wrote:
>>>> I'm a little surprised by the reaction around the world to
>>>> Australia's announcement of nuclear powered submarines...
>>>>
>>>> France : "stabbed in the back"
>>>> china (lower case) : You have started an arms race, you will shoot
>>>> yourself in the foot.
>>>> USA : "Thank you, my friend down under".
>>>> New Zealand: 'They're not coming here!"
>>>>
>>>> Let me look at each one in turn...
>>>>
>>>> France says we stabbed 'em in the back. They've been paid 2-3
>>>> billion already, and will probably get billions more. 5 years after
>>>> signing the contract, it's $40 billion over the contract price, and
>>>> a further 10 years till the first hits the water. That contract must
>>>> have more holes than Tomas Gumps credability...
>>>
>>> The whole French thing was stupid, taking subs designed to be nuclear
>>> and converting them to be diesel electric when the Germans could have
>>> provided them off the rack.
>>>
>>
>> Agreed.
>>
>>>> china: "you have started an arms race." Us? really? How the fuck did
>>>> we do that, when were simply replacing 12 diesel elec subs with
>>>> nuclear powered subs? They both still fire torpedoes and cruise
>>>> missiles, they still play hide and seek... yet you fucking mindless
>>>> clones created artificial islands in the South china Sea, and
>>>> militarised them after telling Obama you wouldnt. And now your
>>>> getting upset because the rest of the world thinks your a cunt.
>>>> Including those whos waters youve claimed. And as for shooting
>>>> ourselves in the foot, I think we'll be aiming a bit higher and at
>>>> you, ya filthy bat-eating flogs.'Highly irresponsible" they said. So
>>>> is chinavirus. Look at what thats done to the world.
>>>
>>> Perhaps we should have bought the subs from the Chinese, they'd be
>>> cheaper, delivered  sooner, and they'd be less pissed off with us.
>>>
>>
>> They'd also inform the Chinese of their exact location. Handy for
>> them, not so much for us.
>>
> Perhaps I should have included a smiley for those who couldn't work it
> out for themselves.

Perhaps I should have done the same...

On 18/09/2021 12:25 pm, John_H wrote:
> Noddy wrote:
>> On 18/09/2021 11:28 am, John_H wrote:
>>> lindsay wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm a little surprised by the reaction around the world to Australia's
>>>> announcement of nuclear powered submarines...
>>>>
>>>> France : "stabbed in the back"
>>>> china (lower case) : You have started an arms race, you will shoot
>>>> yourself in the foot.
>>>> USA : "Thank you, my friend down under".
>>>> New Zealand: 'They're not coming here!"
>>>
>>> The real mystery being as to why we ordered diesel subs in the first
>>> place as they were already obsolete?
>>> (IIRC it was also to more expensive to convert the original French
>>> design from nuclear to diesel.)
>>
>> To be honest I expected *way* more objection to nuclear powered
>> submarines than what we've seen.
>
> Floating Chernobyls according to Adam Bandt but I suspect the rest of
> us only need worry if they happen to sink! :)
>

lol :-)

On 18/09/2021 1:12 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 18/09/2021 2:25 pm, John_H wrote:
>> Noddy wrote:
>
>>>> The real mystery being as to why we ordered diesel subs in the first
>>>> place as they were already obsolete?
>>>> (IIRC it was also to more expensive to convert the original French
>>>> design from nuclear to diesel.)
>>>
>>> To be honest I expected *way* more objection to nuclear powered
>>> submarines than what we've seen.
>>
>> Floating Chernobyls according to Adam Bandt but I suspect the rest of
>> us only need worry if they happen to sink!  :)
>
> Lol :)
>
> I don't think anyone gives a crap about anything that fucking lunatic
> Adam Bandt has to say, but I was expecting the Labor party to make some
> mileage out of it.
>
> Oh well. Perhaps it will pave the way for nuclear power stations :)
>
>
>

....and spent fuel rods headed you way :-)

On 18/09/2021 10:29 am, Peter Jason wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Sep 2021 11:32:30 +1000, Noddy <me@home.com> wrote:
>
>> On 18/09/2021 8:14 am, Peter Jason wrote:
>>> What a waste of money!
>>> Boom-boom wars are fading away, to be replaced with virus-salting and
>>> cyber warfare. If they must have subs, get the type to snip submarine
>>> cables.
>>> The military are always behind the times.
>>
>> It that right, General?
> Yes private, now you know.
>

:-)

On 18/09/2021 3:38 pm, Clocky wrote:
> On 18/09/2021 1:12 pm, Noddy wrote:
>> On 18/09/2021 2:25 pm, John_H wrote:
>>> Noddy wrote:
>>
>>>>> The real mystery being as to why we ordered diesel subs in the first
>>>>> place as they were already obsolete?
>>>>> (IIRC it was also to more expensive to convert the original French
>>>>> design from nuclear to diesel.)
>>>>
>>>> To be honest I expected *way* more objection to nuclear powered
>>>> submarines than what we've seen.
>>>
>>> Floating Chernobyls according to Adam Bandt but I suspect the rest of
>>> us only need worry if they happen to sink!  :)
>>
>> Lol :)
>>
>> I don't think anyone gives a crap about anything that fucking lunatic
>> Adam Bandt has to say, but I was expecting the Labor party to make
>> some mileage out of it.
>>
>> Oh well. Perhaps it will pave the way for nuclear power stations :)
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> ...and spent fuel rods headed you way :-)

On US boats, they last the life of the boat so not likely to be a
problem in most people hers lifetime.