Noddy wrote:

>
> They are the only government, State or Federal, that I can recall in my
> lifetime where on the day of the Election in 1992 the Herald-Sun called
> in a front page headline "They must go".

Hypocrisy Alert! PLUS Bonus Stupidity!

You pecked out a barrage of posts telling felix that he wasn't thinking
for himself, but here you are doing what Murdoch tells you to!

And of course there's monumental stupidity in quoting a newspaper
proprietor as a source. These people in Oz tend to be called Murdoch,
Stokes, Packer. They are *extremely* wealthy people Buffo, so guess
which side of the centre they're going to favour?

Yor a jenios alrite.

alvey

On 20/11/2023 12:30 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 20/11/2023 1:05 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>> Larry wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Omg! Now you're an expert on submarines. Even unbuilt ones!
>>
>> the French contract was for diesel subs. that's kinda like contracting
>> to buy Spitfires for the Air Force. not such a great idea, to put it
>> mildly
>
> It's not just that.
>
> The original contract was for a version of one of their Nuclear powered
> submarines, the Barracuda class, that was to be modified for
> diesel-electric use, and this was something the French had not don't
> before. Nor had they shown any definitive progress some years into the
> contract, and the expected date of when the first in class boat was due
> to start construction had come and gone without the final design even
> *remotely* close to being completed. Not to mention the *massive* cost
> over runs which had seen the contract go from it's original projected
> price of 50 billion to almost a hundred billion before the designs for
> the submarines had even been finalised let alone construction started.
>
> The French got their knickers in a twist over the cancellation, but they
> had no one to blame but themselves. They were treating us like mugs in
> doubling the price of providing something they clearly had no idea how
> to deliver, and as a result we walked.
>
> And good job, too. In the end we will end up with *vastly* superior
> equipment.
>
>
>
The idea of converting a nuclear sub to diesel electric was stupid in
the first place, the interior, at least, would have to be completely
redesigned. If diesel electric was what they wanted, there were better
options available.

The main reason that the French got their knickers in a knot was the way
that they got to learn about the cancellation after Morrison kept
assuring them that the deal was still on.

On 21/11/2023 5:22 am, alvey wrote:
> Mighty Mouse wrote:
>> alvey wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>>> That may be so, but the Libs have a better track record when
>>>>>>>>>> it comes to financial management than Labor does, and by a
>>>>>>>>>> very long way.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> that's exactly right
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Really? Is there any credible proof of that?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> yeah. Australia's political history
>>>>>
>>>>> Ok, you haven't got anything then.
>>>>
>>>> I believe I have
>>>
>>> What would that be?
>>
>> as I said.. our political history proves it.
>
> If that's your best response then there's no point in continuing.
>
> Fwiw, my belief is that there's little, if any, difference in fiscal
> management between the two major parties. Political practicalities
> dictate this. It's the mindless chanting of unproven factoids that
> irritates me.
>

Same.

--
In thread "May need to buy petrol soon" Sept 23 2021 11:15:59am
Keithr0 wrote: "He made the assertion either he proves it or he is a
proven liar."

On Sept 23 2021 3:16:29pm Keithr0 wrote:
"He asserts that the claim is true, so, if it is unproven, he is lying."

On 21/11/2023 2:33 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
> On 20/11/2023 12:30 pm, Noddy wrote:

>>> the French contract was for diesel subs. that's kinda like
>>> contracting to buy Spitfires for the Air Force. not such a great
>>> idea, to put it mildly
>>
>> It's not just that.
>>
>> The original contract was for a version of one of their Nuclear
>> powered submarines, the Barracuda class, that was to be modified for
>> diesel-electric use, and this was something the French had not don't
>> before. Nor had they shown any definitive progress some years into the
>> contract, and the expected date of when the first in class boat was
>> due to start construction had come and gone without the final design
>> even *remotely* close to being completed. Not to mention the *massive*
>> cost over runs which had seen the contract go from it's original
>> projected price of 50 billion to almost a hundred billion before the
>> designs for the submarines had even been finalised let alone
>> construction started.
>>
>> The French got their knickers in a twist over the cancellation, but
>> they had no one to blame but themselves. They were treating us like
>> mugs in doubling the price of providing something they clearly had no
>> idea how to deliver, and as a result we walked.
>>
>> And good job, too. In the end we will end up with *vastly* superior
>> equipment.
>>
>>
>>
> The idea of converting a nuclear sub to diesel electric was stupid in
> the first place, the interior, at least, would have to be completely
> redesigned. If diesel electric was what they wanted, there were better
> options available.

Agreed. Opting for modified subs from the French was a stupid idea from
the get-go.

> The main reason that the French got their knickers in a knot was the way
> that they got to learn about the cancellation after Morrison kept
> assuring them that the deal was still on.

They're French. They were always going to be pissed off, regardless.

There's been a few sources that claimed they learnt about the
cancellation of the contract through the media, and that's bullshit.
Morrison apparently told them himself shortly before going public. I
think the main reason they were shitty is the loss of the money and
jobs, and the fact that the AUKUS deal was done behind their back while
they were still rubbing their hands together thinking their deal was on.

And I don't blame Morrison for that one bit. Prudence demanded that he
kept all of his options open for as long as he possibly could and that's
precisely what he did.

Fuck the French. They would have done exactly the same to us, and any
country that thinks it's okay to blow up private ships in foreign
harbours killing people in the process is no friend of ours.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

Noddy wrote:
> On 21/11/2023 2:33 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
>> On 20/11/2023 12:30 pm, Noddy wrote:
>
>>>> the French contract was for diesel subs. that's kinda like
>>>> contracting to buy Spitfires for the Air Force. not such a great
>>>> idea, to put it mildly
>>>
>>> It's not just that.
>>>
>>> The original contract was for a version of one of their Nuclear
>>> powered submarines, the Barracuda class, that was to be modified for
>>> diesel-electric use, and this was something the French had not don't
>>> before. Nor had they shown any definitive progress some years into
>>> the contract, and the expected date of when the first in class boat
>>> was due to start construction had come and gone without the final
>>> design even *remotely* close to being completed. Not to mention the
>>> *massive* cost over runs which had seen the contract go from it's
>>> original projected price of 50 billion to almost a hundred billion
>>> before the designs for the submarines had even been finalised let
>>> alone construction started.
>>>
>>> The French got their knickers in a twist over the cancellation, but
>>> they had no one to blame but themselves. They were treating us like
>>> mugs in doubling the price of providing something they clearly had no
>>> idea how to deliver, and as a result we walked.
>>>
>>> And good job, too. In the end we will end up with *vastly* superior
>>> equipment.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> The idea of converting a nuclear sub to diesel electric was stupid in
>> the first place, the interior, at least, would have to be completely
>> redesigned. If diesel electric was what they wanted, there were better
>> options available.
>
> Agreed. Opting for modified subs from the French was a stupid idea from
> the get-go.

Don't tell me. You've worked on more subs than I've had hot dinners.
Quite why you expect anyone to believe that you know what you're talking
about is inexplicable.

>> The main reason that the French got their knickers in a knot was the
>> way that they got to learn about the cancellation after Morrison kept
>> assuring them that the deal was still on.
>
> They're French. They were always going to be pissed off, regardless.

Wow! Opinion straight from the Herald Sun. The beating heart of the
loading bay & cleaners' staff room part of it. My assumption here is
that you support Morrison because you're both congenital liars. Now
obviously lying doesn't matter when you do it, but Morrison damaged
Australia's reputation as an 'honest trader' with his barefaced lying to
the French.
snip bleating drivel

alvey
Wondering what will happen to AUKUS if a Republican wins the US
presidency next year.

Clocky wrote:
> On 21/11/2023 5:22 am, alvey wrote:
>> Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>> alvey wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That may be so, but the Libs have a better track record when
>>>>>>>>>>> it comes to financial management than Labor does, and by a
>>>>>>>>>>> very long way.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> that's exactly right
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Really? Is there any credible proof of that?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> yeah. Australia's political history
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ok, you haven't got anything then.
>>>>>
>>>>> I believe I have
>>>>
>>>> What would that be?
>>>
>>> as I said.. our political history proves it.
>>
>> If that's your best response then there's no point in continuing.
>>
>> Fwiw, my belief is that there's little, if any, difference in fiscal
>> management between the two major parties. Political practicalities
>> dictate this. It's the mindless chanting of unproven factoids that
>> irritates me.
>>
>
>
> Same.

And haven't the chanters folded faster than a Kmart beach tent in a
gale? Typical... These people just can't think for themselves...

alvey

On 21/11/2023 3:23 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 21/11/2023 2:33 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
>> On 20/11/2023 12:30 pm, Noddy wrote:
>
>>>> the French contract was for diesel subs. that's kinda like
>>>> contracting to buy Spitfires for the Air Force. not such a great
>>>> idea, to put it mildly
>>>
>>> It's not just that.
>>>
>>> The original contract was for a version of one of their Nuclear
>>> powered submarines, the Barracuda class, that was to be modified for
>>> diesel-electric use, and this was something the French had not don't
>>> before. Nor had they shown any definitive progress some years into
>>> the contract, and the expected date of when the first in class boat
>>> was due to start construction had come and gone without the final
>>> design even *remotely* close to being completed. Not to mention the
>>> *massive* cost over runs which had seen the contract go from it's
>>> original projected price of 50 billion to almost a hundred billion
>>> before the designs for the submarines had even been finalised let
>>> alone construction started.
>>>
>>> The French got their knickers in a twist over the cancellation, but
>>> they had no one to blame but themselves. They were treating us like
>>> mugs in doubling the price of providing something they clearly had no
>>> idea how to deliver, and as a result we walked.
>>>
>>> And good job, too. In the end we will end up with *vastly* superior
>>> equipment.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> The idea of converting a nuclear sub to diesel electric was stupid in
>> the first place, the interior, at least, would have to be completely
>> redesigned. If diesel electric was what they wanted, there were better
>> options available.
>
> Agreed. Opting for modified subs from the French was a stupid idea from
> the get-go.

Lead acid batteries...lol...

>> The main reason that the French got their knickers in a knot was the
>> way that they got to learn about the cancellation after Morrison kept
>> assuring them that the deal was still on.
>
> They're French. They were always going to be pissed off, regardless.
>
> There's been a few sources that claimed they learnt about the
> cancellation of the contract through the media, and that's bullshit.

Yep. It's Macron who's the liar here.. Navy warned the French, and
Defence several times that the whole project was sinking (cuse the pun)
Way over budget, way past start date, no hope in hell of delivering on
time. On top of that, china (deliberate lower case) was becoming more
belligerent more quickly. Short-fin Baracuda wasnt that much better than
our Collins, in that time-on-station in the SC sea was 10-12 days to
Collins 7 days. Virginia and now Aukus boats are measured in months.

> Morrison apparently told them himself shortly before going public. I
> think the main reason they were shitty is the loss of the money and
> jobs, and the fact that the AUKUS deal was done behind their back while
> they were still rubbing their hands together thinking their deal was on.

French fools...

> And I don't blame Morrison for that one bit. Prudence demanded that he
> kept all of his options open for as long as he possibly could and that's
> precisely what he did.

Yep, watching the fucking disease ridden chinese throw their weight
around... and we were gunna be saddled with unsuitable subs for a
further 50 years...
>
> Fuck the French. They would have done exactly the same to us, and any
> country that thinks it's okay to blow up private ships in foreign
> harbours killing people in the process is no friend of ours.

Yes, the rainbow warrior.... :-(

Whilst on the subject of defence, I mentioned in here (maybe 6 months
ago?) that our newly designed Hunter class frigates were becoming a
waste as they were massively outgunned before even being built. china's
pumping out destroyers with 96 cell missile launchers, whilst our Hunter
class frigates had 32 cells.. Someone must be reading aus.cars, because
I saw last week that it's been suggested that they can be upgraded to 96
cell for not a large sum of money. Methinks it'd be a wise choice, at
least we can stay in the fight longer. How we're gunna afford an extra
64 missiles..? There goes the captains rum tot. :-D

On 21/11/2023 5:20 pm, lindsay wrote:
> On 21/11/2023 3:23 pm, Noddy wrote:

> Whilst on the subject of defence, I mentioned in here (maybe 6 months
> ago?) that our newly designed Hunter class frigates were becoming a
> waste as they were massively outgunned before even being built. china's
> pumping out destroyers with 96 cell missile launchers, whilst our Hunter
> class frigates had 32 cells.. Someone must be reading aus.cars, because
> I saw last week that it's been suggested that they can be upgraded to 96
> cell for not a large sum of money. Methinks it'd be a wise choice, at
> least we can stay in the fight longer. How we're gunna afford an extra
> 64 missiles..? There goes the captains rum tot. :-D

Lol :)

Put your chit in as a design consultant. The way the gubmint throws
money around you might be able to buy your own cruise liner :)

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 21/11/2023 5:20 pm, lindsay wrote:
> On 21/11/2023 3:23 pm, Noddy wrote:
>> On 21/11/2023 2:33 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
>>> On 20/11/2023 12:30 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>
>>>>> the French contract was for diesel subs. that's kinda like
>>>>> contracting to buy Spitfires for the Air Force. not such a great
>>>>> idea, to put it mildly
>>>>
>>>> It's not just that.
>>>>
>>>> The original contract was for a version of one of their Nuclear
>>>> powered submarines, the Barracuda class, that was to be modified for
>>>> diesel-electric use, and this was something the French had not don't
>>>> before. Nor had they shown any definitive progress some years into
>>>> the contract, and the expected date of when the first in class boat
>>>> was due to start construction had come and gone without the final
>>>> design even *remotely* close to being completed. Not to mention the
>>>> *massive* cost over runs which had seen the contract go from it's
>>>> original projected price of 50 billion to almost a hundred billion
>>>> before the designs for the submarines had even been finalised let
>>>> alone construction started.
>>>>
>>>> The French got their knickers in a twist over the cancellation, but
>>>> they had no one to blame but themselves. They were treating us like
>>>> mugs in doubling the price of providing something they clearly had
>>>> no idea how to deliver, and as a result we walked.
>>>>
>>>> And good job, too. In the end we will end up with *vastly* superior
>>>> equipment.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> The idea of converting a nuclear sub to diesel electric was stupid in
>>> the first place, the interior, at least, would have to be completely
>>> redesigned. If diesel electric was what they wanted, there were
>>> better options available.
>>
>> Agreed. Opting for modified subs from the French was a stupid idea
>> from the get-go.
>
> Lead acid batteries...lol...
>
>>> The main reason that the French got their knickers in a knot was the
>>> way that they got to learn about the cancellation after Morrison kept
>>> assuring them that the deal was still on.
>>
>> They're French. They were always going to be pissed off, regardless.
>>
>> There's been a few sources that claimed they learnt about the
>> cancellation of the contract through the media, and that's bullshit.
>
> Yep. It's Macron who's the liar here.. Navy warned the French, and
> Defence several times that the whole project was sinking (cuse the pun)
> Way over budget, way past start date, no hope in hell of delivering on
> time. On top of that, china (deliberate lower case) was becoming more
> belligerent more quickly. Short-fin Baracuda wasnt that much better than
> our Collins, in that time-on-station in the SC sea was 10-12 days to
> Collins 7 days. Virginia and now Aukus boats are measured in months.

None of this will be any interest to most of us because it will almost
10yrs before we see any of those subs in Australia and 20 yrs before we
get our own so if any of us are still alive we will be very elderly
citizens.
In that time frame the whole world could be a very different place and
those subs will most likely be obsolete well before they are delivered,
a bit like ordering a new Ford ute in 2023 and the dealer delivers a BA
ute instead of a Ranger.

--
Daryl

On 21/11/2023 1:48 pm, alvey wrote:
> Noddy wrote:
>> On 21/11/2023 2:33 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
>>> On 20/11/2023 12:30 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>
>>>>> the French contract was for diesel subs. that's kinda like
>>>>> contracting to buy Spitfires for the Air Force. not such a great
>>>>> idea, to put it mildly
>>>>
>>>> It's not just that.
>>>>
>>>> The original contract was for a version of one of their Nuclear
>>>> powered submarines, the Barracuda class, that was to be modified for
>>>> diesel-electric use, and this was something the French had not don't
>>>> before. Nor had they shown any definitive progress some years into
>>>> the contract, and the expected date of when the first in class boat
>>>> was due to start construction had come and gone without the final
>>>> design even *remotely* close to being completed. Not to mention the
>>>> *massive* cost over runs which had seen the contract go from it's
>>>> original projected price of 50 billion to almost a hundred billion
>>>> before the designs for the submarines had even been finalised let
>>>> alone construction started.
>>>>
>>>> The French got their knickers in a twist over the cancellation, but
>>>> they had no one to blame but themselves. They were treating us like
>>>> mugs in doubling the price of providing something they clearly had
>>>> no idea how to deliver, and as a result we walked.
>>>>
>>>> And good job, too. In the end we will end up with *vastly* superior
>>>> equipment.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> The idea of converting a nuclear sub to diesel electric was stupid in
>>> the first place, the interior, at least, would have to be completely
>>> redesigned. If diesel electric was what they wanted, there were
>>> better options available.
>>
>> Agreed. Opting for modified subs from the French was a stupid idea
>> from the get-go.
>
> Don't tell me. You've worked on more subs than I've had hot dinners.
> Quite why you expect anyone to believe that you know what you're talking
> about is inexplicable.
>
>>> The main reason that the French got their knickers in a knot was the
>>> way that they got to learn about the cancellation after Morrison kept
>>> assuring them that the deal was still on.
>>
>> They're French. They were always going to be pissed off, regardless.
>
> Wow! Opinion straight from the Herald Sun. The beating heart of the
> loading bay & cleaners' staff room part of it. My assumption here is
> that you support Morrison because you're both congenital liars. Now
> obviously lying doesn't matter when you do it, but Morrison damaged
> Australia's reputation as an 'honest trader' with his barefaced lying to
> the French.
> snip bleating drivel
>

He most certainly did.

>
> alvey
> Wondering what will happen to AUKUS if a Republican wins the US
> presidency next year.
>

It's all irrelevant anyway. If the shit hit the fan we can't defend
ourselves and I doubt very much if the yanks would be much of a rainy
day friend.

They might throw some outdated ammo our way to go with our tiny fleet of
obsolete junk and other antiquated rubbish but other than that they're
just as likely to throw us under the bus if push came to shove.

We should start teaching Mandarin in school, that might come in handy
one day.

(he said facetiously... so no need for the dullards to whip themselves
into a frenzy)

--
In thread "May need to buy petrol soon" Sept 23 2021 11:15:59am
Keithr0 wrote: "He made the assertion either he proves it or he is a
proven liar."

On Sept 23 2021 3:16:29pm Keithr0 wrote:
"He asserts that the claim is true, so, if it is unproven, he is lying."

On 21/11/2023 9:29 pm, Daryl wrote:

> None of this will be any interest to most of us because it will almost
> 10yrs before we see any of those subs in Australia and 20 yrs before we
> get our own so if any of us are still alive we will be very elderly
> citizens.
> In that time frame the whole world could be a very different place and
> those subs will most likely be obsolete well before they are delivered,
> a bit like ordering a new Ford ute in 2023 and the dealer delivers a BA
> ute instead of a Ranger.

Ordering military hardware more than a decade out is fraught with the
probability of it being obsolete long before delivery. There is talk
even now of atomic powered drone subs that can seek out and destroy
conventional ones. Will they come out before we get our subs? Who knows
but, as you say, it won't be our problem, we're leaving that to the next
generation.

Keithr0 wrote:
> On 21/11/2023 9:29 pm, Daryl wrote:
>
>> None of this will be any interest to most of us because it will
>> almost 10yrs before we see any of those subs in Australia and 20 yrs
>> before we get our own so if any of us are still alive we will be very
>> elderly citizens.
>> In that time frame the whole world could be a very different place
>> and those subs will most likely be obsolete well before they are
>> delivered, a bit like ordering a new Ford ute in 2023 and the dealer
>> delivers a BA ute instead of a Ranger.
>
> Ordering military hardware more than a decade out is fraught with the
> probability of it being obsolete long before delivery. There is talk
> even now of atomic powered drone subs that can seek out and destroy
> conventional ones. Will they come out before we get our subs? Who
> knows but, as you say, it won't be our problem, we're leaving that to
> the next generation.
>

thousand dollar drones are currently killing multi million dollar
Russian tanks in the Ukraine war

--
Have a nice day!..

On 21/11/2023 10:29 pm, Daryl wrote:
> On 21/11/2023 5:20 pm, lindsay wrote:

>> Yep. It's Macron who's the liar here.. Navy warned the French, and
>> Defence several times that the whole project was sinking (cuse the pun)
>> Way over budget, way past start date, no hope in hell of delivering on
>> time. On top of that, china (deliberate lower case) was becoming more
>> belligerent more quickly. Short-fin Baracuda wasnt that much better
>> than our Collins, in that time-on-station in the SC sea was 10-12 days
>> to Collins 7 days. Virginia and now Aukus boats are measured in months.
>
> None of this will be any interest to most of us

It may well become of interest to *all* if the chinese get the la-la's
and make push become shove in the South china Sea, Taiwan, and even
India's northern borders. Face it. china is the only nation that
threatens stability in the Indo/Pacific region. They keep pushing, and
sooner, rather than later, someone is going to push back.

> because it will almost
> 10yrs before we see any of those subs in Australia and 20 yrs before we
> get our own so if any of us are still alive we will be very elderly
> citizens.

And happy to be eating bacon and eggs through a straw, rather than rice
puree... Still, the grandkids deserve a life under Aussie rule, rather
than chinee...

> In that time frame the whole world could be a very different place and
> those subs will most likely be obsolete well before they are delivered,

Yep. Could be. But methinks that's fairly debatable, as the Virginia
class are probably the best long range sub going round (except for the
Seawolf, but there's only 2 of them now), and the Aukus class are
entirely new boats. Lots of people poo-pooed the Collins class in their
early days, they turned out as one of the best diesel/elec subs going
round... and perhaps rightfully so. New subs are expensive, and yes, I
wonder where the crews are coming from, but like the RAAF taking steps
with strategic strike with the F-111 and it's deterrent factor nearly 60
years ago, i'm much happier that we're now buying/building quality,
rather than buying French subs that have bugger-all range and endurance.
Great for swanning around the Channel, but.....

I'd personally also like to see Aus lease a dozen B-1B Lancers.
And the new B-21 Raider... oooh-eeer. :-) Work in progress there... :-)

> a bit like ordering a new Ford ute in 2023 and the dealer delivers a BA
> ute instead of a Ranger.

Yeah, naah. Were not ordering new old stock... we'll buy 2-3 2nd hand
Virginia class boats from the US whilst the Collins are taken out of
service, which will tide us over as the new Aukus class are constructed
and delivered.
>
>

On 22/11/2023 6:27 pm, lindsay wrote:

> I'd personally also like to see Aus lease a dozen B-1B Lancers.
> And the new B-21 Raider... oooh-eeer. :-) Work in progress there... :-)

I'm afraid you're not going to see that, the yanks would never sanction
their latest and greatest in foreign hands, even friendly ones.

On 22/11/2023 7:27 pm, lindsay wrote:
> On 21/11/2023 10:29 pm, Daryl wrote:
>> On 21/11/2023 5:20 pm, lindsay wrote:
>
>>> Yep. It's Macron who's the liar here.. Navy warned the French, and
>>> Defence several times that the whole project was sinking (cuse the pun)
>>> Way over budget, way past start date, no hope in hell of delivering
>>> on time. On top of that, china (deliberate lower case) was becoming
>>> more belligerent more quickly. Short-fin Baracuda wasnt that much
>>> better than our Collins, in that time-on-station in the SC sea was
>>> 10-12 days to Collins 7 days. Virginia and now Aukus boats are
>>> measured in months.
>>
>> None of this will be any interest to most of us
>
> It may well become of interest to *all* if the chinese get the la-la's
> and make push become shove in the South china Sea, Taiwan, and even
> India's northern borders. Face it. china is the only nation that
> threatens stability in the Indo/Pacific region. They keep pushing, and
> sooner, rather than later, someone is going to push back.

What I meant was a lot of us will be long dead before any subs arrive,
in 10yrs I'll be 81 and 91 before AUKUS subs arrive.
>
> > because it will almost
>> 10yrs before we see any of those subs in Australia and 20 yrs before
>> we get our own so if any of us are still alive we will be very elderly
>> citizens.
>
> And happy to be eating bacon and eggs through a straw, rather than rice
> puree...  Still, the grandkids deserve a life under Aussie rule, rather
> than chinee...

Certainly affect my Grand kids who are 9 and 12 at the moment.
The Chinese are certainly a bit crazy but crazy enough to start WW3?
I just don't see that there is enough for them to gain to risk starting
a massive war.
The US might not be all that in defending us if it wasn't for the very
strategic bases (eg Pine Gap) they have here, the Chinese would have to
take that into consideration and IMHO its mostly the reason I don't
think that they would seriously consider an invasion.
Easier to just buy the place, the dumb cunts in Canberra don't seem to
restricting the sale of Aussie properties to Chinese interests.
https://www.news.com.au/finance/real-estate/melbourne-vic/greystones-sir-william-angliss-rural-estate-sells-for-first-time-in-90-years/news-story/9b744519582f448e2a67302a62254523
That place is less than 10km from my house.

>
>> In that time frame the whole world could be a very different place and
>> those subs will most likely be obsolete well before they are delivered,
>
> Yep. Could beBut methinks that's fairly debatable, as the Virginia
> class are probably the best long range sub going round (except for the
> Seawolf, but there's only 2 of them now), and the Aukus class are
> entirely new boats. Lots of people poo-pooed the Collins class in their
> early days, they turned out as one of the best diesel/elec subs going
> round... and perhaps rightfully so. New subs are expensive, and yes, I
> wonder where the crews are coming from, but like the RAAF taking steps
> with strategic strike with the F-111 and it's deterrent factor nearly 60
> years ago, i'm much happier that we're now buying/building quality,
> rather than buying French subs that have bugger-all range and endurance.
> Great for swanning around the Channel, but.....
>
> I'd personally also like to see Aus lease a dozen B-1B Lancers.
> And the new B-21 Raider... oooh-eeer. :-) Work in progress there... :-)

I think anti ship/sub aircraft would have been much better value for the
money and also be available much quicker, they also need a lot less
people to operate.

--
Daryl

On 22/11/2023 8:52 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
> On 22/11/2023 6:27 pm, lindsay wrote:
>
>> I'd personally also like to see Aus lease a dozen B-1B Lancers.
>> And the new B-21 Raider... oooh-eeer. :-) Work in progress there... :-)
>
> I'm afraid you're not going to see that, the yanks would never sanction
> their latest and greatest in foreign hands, even friendly ones.
>

Same reason we haven't got any F22's.

--
Daryl

On 22/11/2023 8:37 pm, Daryl wrote:
> On 22/11/2023 7:27 pm, lindsay wrote:
>> On 21/11/2023 10:29 pm, Daryl wrote:
>>> On 21/11/2023 5:20 pm, lindsay wrote:
>>
>>>> Yep. It's Macron who's the liar here.. Navy warned the French, and
>>>> Defence several times that the whole project was sinking (cuse the pun)
>>>> Way over budget, way past start date, no hope in hell of delivering
>>>> on time. On top of that, china (deliberate lower case) was becoming
>>>> more belligerent more quickly. Short-fin Baracuda wasnt that much
>>>> better than our Collins, in that time-on-station in the SC sea was
>>>> 10-12 days to Collins 7 days. Virginia and now Aukus boats are
>>>> measured in months.
>>>
>>> None of this will be any interest to most of us
>>
>> It may well become of interest to *all* if the chinese get the la-la's
>> and make push become shove in the South china Sea, Taiwan, and even
>> India's northern borders. Face it. china is the only nation that
>> threatens stability in the Indo/Pacific region. They keep pushing, and
>> sooner, rather than later, someone is going to push back.
>
> What I meant was a lot of us will be long dead before any subs arrive,
> in 10yrs I'll be 81 and 91 before AUKUS subs arrive.
>>
>>  > because it will almost
>>> 10yrs before we see any of those subs in Australia and 20 yrs before
>>> we get our own so if any of us are still alive we will be very
>>> elderly citizens.
>>
>> And happy to be eating bacon and eggs through a straw, rather than
>> rice puree...  Still, the grandkids deserve a life under Aussie rule,
>> rather than chinee...
>
> Certainly affect my Grand kids who are 9 and 12 at the moment.
> The Chinese are certainly a bit crazy but crazy enough to start WW3?
> I just don't see that there is enough for them to gain to risk starting
> a massive war.
> The US might not be all that in defending us if it wasn't for the very
> strategic bases (eg Pine Gap) they have here, the Chinese would have to
> take that into consideration and IMHO its mostly the reason I don't
> think that they would seriously consider an invasion.
> Easier to just buy the place, the dumb cunts in Canberra don't seem to
> restricting the sale of Aussie properties to Chinese interests.
> https://www.news.com.au/finance/real-estate/melbourne-vic/greystones-sir-william-angliss-rural-estate-sells-for-first-time-in-90-years/news-story/9b744519582f448e2a67302a62254523
> That place is less than 10km from my house.

Hmm that's nothing compared to leasing the port of Darwin to them.

>>> In that time frame the whole world could be a very different place
>>> and those subs will most likely be obsolete well before they are
>>> delivered,
>>
>> Yep. Could beBut methinks that's fairly debatable, as the Virginia
>> class are probably the best long range sub going round (except for the
>> Seawolf, but there's only 2 of them now), and the Aukus class are
>> entirely new boats. Lots of people poo-pooed the Collins class in
>> their early days, they turned out as one of the best diesel/elec subs
>> going round... and perhaps rightfully so. New subs are expensive, and
>> yes, I wonder where the crews are coming from, but like the RAAF
>> taking steps with strategic strike with the F-111 and it's deterrent
>> factor nearly 60 years ago, i'm much happier that we're now
>> buying/building quality, rather than buying French subs that have
>> bugger-all range and endurance. Great for swanning around the Channel,
>> but.....
>>
>> I'd personally also like to see Aus lease a dozen B-1B Lancers.
>> And the new B-21 Raider... oooh-eeer. :-) Work in progress there... :-)
>
> I think anti ship/sub aircraft would have been much better value for the
> money and also be available much quicker, they also need a lot less
> people to operate.
>

On 22/11/2023 3:51 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
> Keithr0 wrote:
>> On 21/11/2023 9:29 pm, Daryl wrote:
>>
>>> None of this will be any interest to most of us because it will
>>> almost 10yrs before we see any of those subs in Australia and 20 yrs
>>> before we get our own so if any of us are still alive we will be very
>>> elderly citizens.
>>> In that time frame the whole world could be a very different place
>>> and those subs will most likely be obsolete well before they are
>>> delivered, a bit like ordering a new Ford ute in 2023 and the dealer
>>> delivers a BA ute instead of a Ranger.
>>
>> Ordering military hardware more than a decade out is fraught with the
>> probability of it being obsolete long before delivery. There is talk
>> even now of atomic powered drone subs that can seek out and destroy
>> conventional ones. Will they come out before we get our subs? Who
>> knows but, as you say, it won't be our problem, we're leaving that to
>> the next generation.
>>
>
> thousand dollar drones are currently killing multi million dollar
> Russian tanks in the Ukraine war
>

You're not wrong. In some of the latest 'meat assaults' by the russians
whole convoys or armoured vehicles, crew and infantry are being
obliterated in short time in well co-ordinated and accurate defensive
operations and drones are playing a significant role in that both for
observation and in direct attack.

--
In thread "May need to buy petrol soon" Sept 23 2021 11:15:59am
Keithr0 wrote: "He made the assertion either he proves it or he is a
proven liar."

On Sept 23 2021 3:16:29pm Keithr0 wrote:
"He asserts that the claim is true, so, if it is unproven, he is lying."

On 22/11/2023 10:16 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
> On 22/11/2023 8:37 pm, Daryl wrote:
>> On 22/11/2023 7:27 pm, lindsay wrote:
>>> On 21/11/2023 10:29 pm, Daryl wrote:
>>>> On 21/11/2023 5:20 pm, lindsay wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Yep. It's Macron who's the liar here.. Navy warned the French, and
>>>>> Defence several times that the whole project was sinking (cuse the
>>>>> pun)
>>>>> Way over budget, way past start date, no hope in hell of delivering
>>>>> on time. On top of that, china (deliberate lower case) was becoming
>>>>> more belligerent more quickly. Short-fin Baracuda wasnt that much
>>>>> better than our Collins, in that time-on-station in the SC sea was
>>>>> 10-12 days to Collins 7 days. Virginia and now Aukus boats are
>>>>> measured in months.
>>>>
>>>> None of this will be any interest to most of us
>>>
>>> It may well become of interest to *all* if the chinese get the
>>> la-la's and make push become shove in the South china Sea, Taiwan,
>>> and even India's northern borders. Face it. china is the only nation
>>> that threatens stability in the Indo/Pacific region. They keep
>>> pushing, and sooner, rather than later, someone is going to push back.
>>
>> What I meant was a lot of us will be long dead before any subs arrive,
>> in 10yrs I'll be 81 and 91 before AUKUS subs arrive.
>>>
>>>  > because it will almost
>>>> 10yrs before we see any of those subs in Australia and 20 yrs before
>>>> we get our own so if any of us are still alive we will be very
>>>> elderly citizens.
>>>
>>> And happy to be eating bacon and eggs through a straw, rather than
>>> rice puree...  Still, the grandkids deserve a life under Aussie rule,
>>> rather than chinee...
>>
>> Certainly affect my Grand kids who are 9 and 12 at the moment.
>> The Chinese are certainly a bit crazy but crazy enough to start WW3?
>> I just don't see that there is enough for them to gain to risk
>> starting a massive war.
>> The US might not be all that in defending us if it wasn't for the very
>> strategic bases (eg Pine Gap) they have here, the Chinese would have
>> to take that into consideration and IMHO its mostly the reason I don't
>> think that they would seriously consider an invasion.
>> Easier to just buy the place, the dumb cunts in Canberra don't seem to
>> restricting the sale of Aussie properties to Chinese interests.
>> https://www.news.com.au/finance/real-estate/melbourne-vic/greystones-sir-william-angliss-rural-estate-sells-for-first-time-in-90-years/news-story/9b744519582f448e2a67302a62254523
>> That place is less than 10km from my house.
>
> Hmm that's nothing compared to leasing the port of Darwin to them.

Yep, just an example of the many ways they are just buying Australia and
nothing being done by our Govt to stop them.

--
Daryl

On 23/11/2023 12:45 pm, Daryl wrote:
> On 22/11/2023 10:16 pm, Keithr0 wrote:

>> Hmm that's nothing compared to leasing the port of Darwin to them.
>
> Yep, just an example of the many ways they are just buying Australia and
> nothing being done by our Govt to stop them.

On the contrary. It is the governments, both Federal and State, that is
allowing them to do it. All in the interests of the dollar.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 23/11/2023 1:48 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 23/11/2023 12:45 pm, Daryl wrote:
>> On 22/11/2023 10:16 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
>
>>> Hmm that's nothing compared to leasing the port of Darwin to them.
>>
>> Yep, just an example of the many ways they are just buying Australia
>> and nothing being done by our Govt to stop them.
>
> On the contrary. It is the governments, both Federal and State, that is
> allowing them to do it. All in the interests of the dollar.
>

Sure seems that way, the country is for sale to the highest bidder.

--
Daryl