On 18/09/2021 4:12 pm, keithr0 wrote:
> 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.

Of course that should be "heres".

On Sat, 18 Sep 2021 11:33:34 +1000, 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....

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

On 18/9/21 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.)
>

Probably because anything nuclear seems to be frowned upon in Australia
especially by the greenies.

--
Daryl

On 18/9/21 2:25 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! :)
>

Adam Brandt is probably scared of the dark so anything with nuclear in
its name would have him wetting himself.
If he bothered to look at the history of US/UK built nuclear subs they
have an excellent safety record, the Russians have a few mishaps with
theirs but Russians aren't exactly known for building anything properly.

--
Daryl

On 18/9/21 4:12 pm, keithr0 wrote:
> 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.

Plus the amount of spent fuel rods will be small and can dealt with and
stored safely.

--
Daryl

On 18/09/2021 12:29 pm, 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.

ROTFL :)

Peter Jason, Max, Mountain Magpie. How many of these blow ins are all
the same retard? :)

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 17/09/2021 11:36 pm, Daryl wrote:
> 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...

>> 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.

Deterrence. Defence. And an offensive weapon if attacked.

> AFAIK they are an offensive weapon so unless we are planning on sneaking
> up on someone and attacking why do we need them?

Because the other side (and in this case, china) are an expansionist
country, and have no respect for anyone else.

> Better to have a larger number of big fuck off surface ships patrolling
> our north to scare away the bad guys.

Hmmm... imho, big fuck off ships make for big targets. Argentina's
General Belgrano during the Falklands War is a prime example.
Australia's 3 main fighting warships may last 10 mins in a shootout.
They have a 48 cell anti air vertical launch system. china's newer
destroyers have 96. Its been said that when the shit hits the fan in the
South china Sea, china will attempt to destroy the US carriers with a
strike of 100's of anti-ship missiles per carrier to simply flood their
defences. Whilst thats happening, the chinese navy will be performing a
3 and a half somersault with pike, and suddenly dissapear beneath the
waves. The US navy has a lot of nasty subs.. and the Virginia class is
amongst the best in the world, if not the best. Again, imho. :-)

On 17/09/2021 6:46 pm, Clocky wrote:
> 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... :-)

yep. unless we're permitted to buy off the shelf. the shit is supposed
to hit the fan when china invades Taiwan. Apparently in 6 years or less.
We'll be still argueing what color the new subs should be painted by then.

On 17/09/2021 7:08 pm, Noddy 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...
>
> It's been a bit strange....

France has retaliated by withdrawing their diplomats. Woot!

>> 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.

Yep. no-ones seems to give a shit that the price has nearly doubled, and
the first sub was already 10 YEARS late. There's blame on both sides,
but a 80% price increase?

>
>> 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.

I love the chinese foreign minister. The one with herpes on his lip.
Reminds me of Baghdad Bob, the Iraqi propaganda minister. Never forget
his yelling "there is no invasion!!" as the US Abrahms tanks crossed a
bridge behind him :-) The pair of them are fucking cretins.

>
>> 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.

The building , and the first 5 years in service were troublesome. but
they have become one of the best diesel elec subs in the water. Their
curent problem is lack of speed, range and finding a crew. AFAIK.

>
>> 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.

We simply are batting out of our league. We need subs with speed and
range NOW, not in 20 years time.
>
>> 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.

I can supply the silos. Wombat burrows.
>
> Fuck China.

You first, I'll take notes. :-D
>
>

On 17/09/2021 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.

Or the Japs. And installing a US fire control system into a french
sub... may have something to do with the yelling and screaming.. France
dont have access to the MK 48 ADCAP torpedo.
>
>> 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. Imagine getting to a chinese sub. It's be like their space
station.. you rock up alongside and see "Made in china". I'm not getting
in either, thanks very much. :-)

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?

Yep, my understanding is they were to be equipped with lead acid batteries?

> (IIRC it was also to more expensive to convert the original French
> design from nuclear to diesel.)

Sounds about right. :-)

The world around Aus has changed in 5 years. Aus has now tied itself to
the USA, and the fight will be in the South china Sea. I'm not sure of
the endurance and range of Collins class, but i doubt it'd be up to Los
Angeles or Virginia class subs. Who knows how long on-station a collins
boat could operate? We would be better off buying new from the States,
rather than trying to re-invent the wheel....
>

On 18/09/2021 10:55 pm, lindsay 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?
>
> Yep, my understanding is they were to be equipped with lead acid
> batteries?
>
>> (IIRC it was also to more expensive to convert the original French
>> design from nuclear to diesel.)
>
> Sounds about right. :-)
>
> The world around Aus has changed in 5 years. Aus has now tied itself
> to the USA,

we were already tied to the USA

> and the fight will be in the South china Sea. I'm not sure of the
> endurance and range of Collins class, but i doubt it'd be up to Los
> Angeles or Virginia class subs. Who knows how long on-station a
> collins boat could operate? We would be better off buying new from the
> States, rather than trying to re-invent the wheel....
>>
>

--
"A mans got to know his limitations"
- clint Eastwood as Dirty Harry

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.
>

that's what I was thinking. maybe also remote controlled auto destruct.  :)

--
"A mans got to know his limitations"
- clint Eastwood as Dirty Harry

On 18/9/21 10:04 pm, lindsay wrote:
> On 17/09/2021 6:46 pm, Clocky wrote:
>> 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... :-)
>
> yep. unless we're permitted to buy off the shelf. the shit is supposed
> to hit the fan when china invades Taiwan. Apparently in 6 years or less.
> We'll be still argueing what color the new subs should be painted by then.
>

Agree, whilst I understand the reasoning behind wanting to build them
here history has shown that it will take forever and there will be a
massive cost overrun.
Way back in the early 80's when I worked for Ford Tractors the Defense
Dept put out a big tender for the supply of a lot of tractors, Ford
decided against tendering because previous experience with a Defense
contract was such a screw up they didn't want to go through the same
shit again.
In the 70's I used to work for a Massey Ferguson industrial dealer so I
used to service some tractors that were part of a Defense contract,
somehow they made managed to turn one of the most reliable small
tractors every made into a pile of unreliable junk by doing lots of
modifications.
I remember going to an Army base to service one of those machines, I
think they were serviced annually regardless of how many hours they did,
when I looked at the service log I found out that no one had even
started it since I serviced it last time, the mods made it so useless
they gave up using it.
The Defense Dept certainly knows how to waste our money.

--
Daryl

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?

not really. both have their advantages.

> (IIRC it was also to more expensive to convert the original French
> design from nuclear to diesel.)
>

--
"A mans got to know his limitations"
- clint Eastwood as Dirty Harry

On 18/09/2021 10:19 pm, lindsay wrote:
> On 17/09/2021 7:08 pm, Noddy wrote:

>> 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.
>
> Yep. no-ones seems to give a shit that the price has nearly doubled, and
> the first sub was already 10 YEARS late. There's blame on both sides,
> but a 80% price increase?

Yep. They were just taking us for a ride, and now they've recalled their
Ambassadors in protest.

Fuck 'em :)

>> 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.
>
> I love the chinese foreign minister. The one with herpes on his lip.
> Reminds me of Baghdad Bob, the Iraqi propaganda minister. Never forget
> his yelling "there is no invasion!!" as the US Abrahms tanks crossed a
> bridge behind him :-) The pair of them are fucking cretins.

Lol :)

>> 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.
>
> The building , and the first 5 years in service were troublesome. but
> they have become one of the best diesel elec subs in the water. Their
> curent problem is lack of speed, range and finding a crew. AFAIK.

You'd have to *really* want to be a submariner, and I can understand the
lack of interest in people wanting to be one. Whether the idea of being
under water for months at a time on a Nuclear powered sub changes that
or not I can't tell you, but I'm not sure I would like it.

>> 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.
>
> We simply are batting out of our league. We need subs with speed and
> range NOW, not in 20 years time.

Absolutely.

>>> 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.
>
> I can supply the silos. Wombat burrows.
>>
>> Fuck China.
>
> You first, I'll take notes. :-D

ROTFL :)

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 18/09/2021 8:04 pm, lindsay wrote:
> On 17/09/2021 6:46 pm, Clocky wrote:
>> 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... :-)
>
> yep. unless we're permitted to buy off the shelf. the shit is supposed
> to hit the fan when china invades Taiwan. Apparently in 6 years or less.
> We'll be still argueing what color the new subs should be painted by then.
>
>
>

Yep... and we've had if China decides to strike us now that Scummo has
ruined our relationship with our former ally France. Without their
picnic baskets full of wine and cheese we don't stand a fucking chance :-)

Daryl wrote:
>On 18/9/21 2:25 pm, John_H wrote:
>> Noddy wrote:
>
>>>
>>> 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! :)
>>
>
>Adam Brandt is probably scared of the dark so anything with nuclear in
>its name would have him wetting himself.
>If he bothered to look at the history of US/UK built nuclear subs they
>have an excellent safety record, the Russians have a few mishaps with
>theirs but Russians aren't exactly known for building anything properly.

AFAIK tthe Americans have never had issues with their reactors (unlike
the Russians) but they have lost a couple over the years, at least one
of which was nuclear armed, now at the bottom of the briny precise
locations possibly unknown.
Supposedly they haven't leaked yet but there must eventually come a
time!

--
John H

On 18/09/2021 11:48 pm, Noddy wrote:

> You'd have to *really* want to be a submariner, and I can understand the
> lack of interest in people wanting to be one. Whether the idea of being
> under water for months at a time on a Nuclear powered sub changes that
> or not I can't tell you, but I'm not sure I would like it.

Bob Newharts address given by the captain of a nuke sub surfacing after
2 years.

Men, I know you are all anxious to be reunited with your loved
ones... in some cases your wives... but we have a few moments
before we surface and I've just jotted down some things that I
think are kind of important, I wouldn't take the time if I
didn't. First of all, I think we ought to give the cooks a
standing ovation for the wonderful job they've done. So, if you
men want to stand now and let's really hear it for the cooks.
I don't think you men realize the difficult problem it is aboard
a submarine to... uh... you men want to stand now for the cooks?
Come on now men, let's let by-gones be by-gones and let's hear
it for the cooks, huh?
Look men, I'm not going to surface until I hear it for the
cooks!!! Alright, that is a little better. Today, as we add
another glorious page to the history of the U.S.S. Codfish,
I think it is important that we reflect on some of the past
glories of the Codfish... uh... I don't know how many of you
men know this, but the Codfish holds a record for the most
Japanese tonnage sunk. Being comprised of five freighters and
fifteen aircraft carriers. A truly enviable record.
Unfortunately, they were sunk in 1954. However, it stands as the
largest peacetime tonnage ever recorded. Our voyage has received
a lot of coverage in the newspaper and I would like to present
our side of it... I think our firing on Miami Beach can best be
termed ill-timed. It happened on what they call in the newspaper
business a slow news day and as a result received a lot more
space than I think it deserved -- since it was the off-season
down there.
Men, I think you will agree, I have been pretty lax as far as
discipline is concerned, and golly nobody enjoys a joke more
than I do, but I would like the executive officer returned.
Now we have looked in the torpedo tubes, we have looked in your
bags and uh ...; I mean it's been over two weeks, men and I...
we're just lucky that it wasn't the navigational
officer or someone real important like that.
Uh... looking back on the mutiny, I think a lot of the trouble
stemmed from the fact that you men weren't coming to me with
your problems... as I told you, the door to my office is always
open. I think you know why it's always open -- that was stolen,
I'd like that returned. It looks like the work of the same man.
But since started the cruise on such a low note, I think it is
important that we try to end it on a high note... and to me
there is, there is nothing more impressive in the Navy as a
submarine that breaks water to see a bunch of sailors in their
dress blues as they come rushing up out of the... oh... the
uh ... that, that hole there, uh ... and come to a parade dress.
This, this to me is one of the, oh... oh, alright... Men, I
have just been notified that we will be surfacing in just a
moment and uh... you might be happy to know that you will
be gazing on the familiar skyline of either New York City or
Buenos Aires ... is that right ? I can't quite make that out..
dismissed men -- that's all.

On 19/9/21 9:04 am, keithr0 wrote:
> On 18/09/2021 11:48 pm, Noddy wrote:
>
>> You'd have to *really* want to be a submariner, and I can understand
>> the lack of interest in people wanting to be one. Whether the idea of
>> being under water for months at a time on a Nuclear powered sub
>> changes that or not I can't tell you, but I'm not sure I would like it.
>
> Bob Newharts address given by the captain of a nuke sub surfacing after
> 2 years.
>
> Men, I know you are all anxious to be reunited with your loved
> ones... in some cases your wives... but we have a few moments
> before we surface and I've just jotted down some things that I
> think are kind of important, I wouldn't take the time if I
> didn't. First of all, I think we ought to give the cooks a
> standing ovation for the wonderful job they've done. So, if you
> men want to stand now and let's really hear it for the cooks.
> I don't think you men realize the difficult problem it is aboard
> a submarine to... uh... you men want to stand now for the cooks?
> Come on now men, let's let by-gones be by-gones and let's hear
> it for the cooks, huh?
> Look men, I'm not going to surface until I hear it for the
> cooks!!! Alright, that is a little better. Today, as we add
> another glorious page to the history of the U.S.S. Codfish,
> I think it is important that we reflect on some of the past
> glories of the Codfish... uh... I don't know how many of you
> men know this, but the Codfish holds a record for the most
> Japanese tonnage sunk. Being comprised of five freighters and
> fifteen aircraft carriers. A truly enviable record.
> Unfortunately, they were sunk in 1954. However, it stands as the
> largest peacetime tonnage ever recorded. Our voyage has received
> a lot of coverage in the newspaper and I would like to present
> our side of it... I think our firing on Miami Beach can best be
> termed ill-timed. It happened on what they call in the newspaper
> business a slow news day and as a result received a lot more
> space than I think it deserved -- since it was the off-season
> down there.
> Men, I think you will agree, I have been pretty lax as far as
> discipline is concerned, and golly nobody enjoys a joke more
> than I do, but I would like the executive officer returned.
> Now we have looked in the torpedo tubes, we have looked in your
> bags and uh ...; I mean it's been over two weeks, men and I...
> we're just lucky that it wasn't the navigational
> officer or someone real important like that.
> Uh... looking back on the mutiny, I think a lot of the trouble
> stemmed from the fact that you men weren't coming to me with
> your problems... as I told you, the door to my office is always
> open. I think you know why it's always open -- that was stolen,
> I'd like that returned. It looks like the work of the same man.
> But since started the cruise on such a low note, I think it is
> important that we try to end it on a high note... and to me
> there is, there is nothing more impressive in the Navy as a
> submarine that breaks water to see a bunch of sailors in their
> dress blues as they come rushing up out of the... oh... the
> uh ... that, that hole there, uh ... and come to a parade dress.
> This, this to me is one of the, oh... oh, alright... Men, I
> have just been notified that we will be surfacing in just a
> moment and uh... you might be happy to know that you will
> be gazing on the familiar skyline of either New York City or
> Buenos Aires ... is that right ? I can't quite make that out..
> dismissed men -- that's all.

LOL.

--
Daryl

On 19/09/2021 10:11 am, Daryl wrote:
> On 19/9/21 9:04 am, keithr0 wrote:
>> On 18/09/2021 11:48 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>
>>> You'd have to *really* want to be a submariner, and I can understand
>>> the lack of interest in people wanting to be one. Whether the idea of
>>> being under water for months at a time on a Nuclear powered sub
>>> changes that or not I can't tell you, but I'm not sure I would like it.
>>
>> Bob Newharts address given by the captain of a nuke sub surfacing
>> after 2 years.
>>
>> Men, I know you are all anxious to be reunited with your loved
>> ones... in some cases your wives... but we have a few moments
>> before we surface and I've just jotted down some things that I
>> think are kind of important, I wouldn't take the time if I
>> didn't. First of all, I think we ought to give the cooks a
>> standing ovation for the wonderful job they've done. So, if you
>> men want to stand now and let's really hear it for the cooks.
>> I don't think you men realize the difficult problem it is aboard
>> a submarine to... uh... you men want to stand now for the cooks?
>> Come on now men, let's let by-gones be by-gones and let's hear
>> it for the cooks, huh?
>> Look men, I'm not going to surface until I hear it for the
>> cooks!!! Alright, that is a little better. Today, as we add
>> another glorious page to the history of the U.S.S. Codfish,
>> I think it is important that we reflect on some of the past
>> glories of the Codfish... uh... I don't know how many of you
>> men know this, but the Codfish holds a record for the most
>> Japanese tonnage sunk. Being comprised of five freighters and
>> fifteen aircraft carriers. A truly enviable record.
>> Unfortunately, they were sunk in 1954. However, it stands as the
>> largest peacetime tonnage ever recorded. Our voyage has received
>> a lot of coverage in the newspaper and I would like to present
>> our side of it... I think our firing on Miami Beach can best be
>> termed ill-timed. It happened on what they call in the newspaper
>> business a slow news day and as a result received a lot more
>> space than I think it deserved -- since it was the off-season
>> down there.
>> Men, I think you will agree, I have been pretty lax as far as
>> discipline is concerned, and golly nobody enjoys a joke more
>> than I do, but I would like the executive officer returned.
>> Now we have looked in the torpedo tubes, we have looked in your
>> bags and uh ...; I mean it's been over two weeks, men and I...
>> we're just lucky that it wasn't the navigational
>> officer or someone real important like that.
>> Uh... looking back on the mutiny, I think a lot of the trouble
>> stemmed from the fact that you men weren't coming to me with
>> your problems... as I told you, the door to my office is always
>> open. I think you know why it's always open -- that was stolen,
>> I'd like that returned. It looks like the work of the same man.
>> But since started the cruise on such a low note, I think it is
>> important that we try to end it on a high note... and to me
>> there is, there is nothing more impressive in the Navy as a
>> submarine that breaks water to see a bunch of sailors in their
>> dress blues as they come rushing up out of the... oh... the
>> uh ... that, that hole there, uh ... and come to a parade dress.
>> This, this to me is one of the, oh... oh, alright... Men, I
>> have just been notified that we will be surfacing in just a
>> moment and uh... you might be happy to know that you will
>> be gazing on the familiar skyline of either New York City or
>> Buenos Aires ... is that right ? I can't quite make that out..
>> dismissed men -- that's all.
>
> LOL.
>
>
I've gone on 3 subs, none of which made me feel that I wanted to dive on
one. We went on the Nautilus, the first nuke boat now a museum exhibit
in Groton Connecticut, it was smaller that I'd expected but considerably
bigger than the Russian sub that used to be in the Sydney Maritime
Museum. That was a diesel electric boat, the engineers bunk was only
centimeters from the diesel exhaust pipe. It probably wasn't a smelly as
this Swedish sub though

https://imgur.com/sco6nuc

On 19/9/21 11:23 am, keithr0 wrote:

> I've gone on 3 subs, none of which made me feel that I wanted to dive on
> one. We went on the Nautilus, the first nuke boat now a museum exhibit
> in Groton Connecticut, it was smaller that I'd expected but considerably
> bigger than the Russian sub that used to be in the Sydney Maritime
> Museum. That was a diesel electric boat, the engineers bunk was only
> centimeters from the diesel exhaust pipe. It probably wasn't a smelly as
> this Swedish sub though
>
> https://imgur.com/sco6nuc

LOL, very odd.

--
Daryl

On 9/19/2021 9:04 AM, keithr0 wrote:
> On 18/09/2021 11:48 pm, Noddy wrote:
>
>> You'd have to *really* want to be a submariner, and I can understand
>> the lack of interest in people wanting to be one. Whether the idea of
>> being under water for months at a time on a Nuclear powered sub
>> changes that or not I can't tell you, but I'm not sure I would like it.
>
> Bob Newharts address given by the captain of a nuke sub surfacing
> after 2 years.
>
> Men, I know you are all anxious to be reunited with your loved
> ones... in some cases your wives... but we have a few moments
> before we surface and I've just jotted down some things that I
> think are kind of important, I wouldn't take the time if I
> didn't. First of all, I think we ought to give the cooks a
> standing ovation for the wonderful job they've done. So, if you
> men want to stand now and let's really hear it for the cooks.
> I don't think you men realize the difficult problem it is aboard
> a submarine to... uh... you men want to stand now for the cooks?
> Come on now men, let's let by-gones be by-gones and let's hear
> it for the cooks, huh?
> Look men, I'm not going to surface until I hear it for the
> cooks!!! Alright, that is a little better. Today, as we add
> another glorious page to the history of the U.S.S. Codfish,
> I think it is important that we reflect on some of the past
> glories of the Codfish... uh... I don't know how many of you
> men know this, but the Codfish holds a record for the most
> Japanese tonnage sunk. Being comprised of five freighters and
> fifteen aircraft carriers. A truly enviable record.
> Unfortunately, they were sunk in 1954. However, it stands as the
> largest peacetime tonnage ever recorded. Our voyage has received
> a lot of coverage in the newspaper and I would like to present
> our side of it... I think our firing on Miami Beach can best be
> termed ill-timed. It happened on what they call in the newspaper
> business a slow news day and as a result received a lot more
> space than I think it deserved -- since it was the off-season
> down there.
> Men, I think you will agree, I have been pretty lax as far as
> discipline is concerned, and golly nobody enjoys a joke more
> than I do, but I would like the executive officer returned.
> Now we have looked in the torpedo tubes, we have looked in your
> bags and uh ...; I mean it's been over two weeks, men and I...
> we're just lucky that it wasn't the navigational
> officer or someone real important like that.
> Uh... looking back on the mutiny, I think a lot of the trouble
> stemmed from the fact that you men weren't coming to me with
> your problems... as I told you, the door to my office is always
> open. I think you know why it's always open -- that was stolen,
> I'd like that returned. It looks like the work of the same man.
> But since started the cruise on such a low note, I think it is
> important that we try to end it on a high note... and to me
> there is, there is nothing more impressive in the Navy as a
> submarine that breaks water to see a bunch of sailors in their
> dress blues as they come rushing up out of the... oh... the
> uh ... that, that hole there, uh ... and come to a parade dress.
> This, this to me is one of the, oh... oh, alright... Men, I
> have just been notified that we will be surfacing in just a
> moment and uh... you might be happy to know that you will
> be gazing on the familiar skyline of either New York City or
> Buenos Aires ... is that right ? I can't quite make that out..
> dismissed men -- that's all.
   <Pissa> ;)

--
"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea. Massive,
difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of
mind-boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." — Gene
Spafford, 1992

On 9/18/2021 3:12 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!  :)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 Probably not even then....

>
> 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 :)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 Hopefully, yes.

>
>
>

--
"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea. Massive,
difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of
mind-boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." — Gene
Spafford, 1992

On 9/18/2021 4:44 PM, keithr0 wrote:
> On 18/09/2021 4:12 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Of course that should be "heres".

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 Matter of opinion really.

--
"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea. Massive,
difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of
mind-boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." — Gene
Spafford, 1992