Purchase cost of one attack class submarine.https://www. naval-technology.com/news/australias-attack-class-submarine-programme-to-cost-152bn/
In comparison, the total federal government annual spend on education is about $36BILLION, or on reducing greenhouse emissions is about $1.7BILLION.
But hang on, we're ordering 12 underwater death machines and maintenance is expected to cost $145BILLION until 2080 .
So about AU$225BILLION total project cost.
That's BILLION, not MILLION....
Australia is a very mineral rich county, with heaps of land, very appealing to our neighbours to the north.
Select to expand quoteGazuki said..
Australia is a very mineral rich county, with heaps of land, very appealing to our neighbours to the north.
I wonder. Sure, we have heaps of minerals, but the heaps of land thing is a bit of a difficult one. Compared to Indonesia, we have heaps of land, but nowhere near as productive as theirs. Would they really want it? Same with China. They have their own arid areas that they have to deal with, so why would they want ours?
Select to expand quoteGazuki said..
Australia is a very mineral rich county, with heaps of land, very appealing to our neighbours to the north.
Bahhahaha
Hahaha haha
Education is constitutionally the states responsibility
Federal funding of education should be zero
Select to expand quoteGazuki said..
Australia is a very mineral rich county, with heaps of land, very appealing to our neighbours to the north.
America isn't to the north.
The military will always be under-appreciated until there is a war.
It feels all very peaceful now, but it hasn't always been that way.
Select to expand quotebjw said..
The military will always be under-appreciated until there is a war.
It feels all very peaceful now, but it hasn't always been that way.
A bit like insurance, a rip off until you need it.
The real crime is not the cost so much it's that there is a high risk they won't be effective being an unproven design modified for our antiquated no nuclear policy.
Hope we never need em.
I reckon people need to have a good hard think about what we're actually purchasing here and then the cost becomes a little more understandable. You can't just rock down to your submarine dealer and buy the latest model military submarine. Military hardware of this nature is essentially a "prototype" where you are designing/fabricating/buying a bespoke piece of engineering that has technology upgrades implemented into through the entire procurement process. There is a real chance that it will need continued technology upgrade during its service life too. There is no such thing as "proven" with a prototype, it's all untried in a bid to get the latest technology. This is why cost estimates "blow out" in military procurement, it's just par for the course.
As for the fear of an invasion from the north, get a grip! It costs way less to simply buy our resources than it costs to invade and then govern a country, ask the Americans 
Select to expand quoteTonyAbbott said..Federal funding of education should be zero
I agree.
Select to expand quoteGazuki said..
Australia is a very mineral rich county, with heaps of land, very appealing to our neighbours to the north.
Pretty misguided. Refer Paddles cost-benefit opinion. Makes sense. War is messy and more expensive than a simple purchase.
Select to expand quoteBara said..
The real crime is not the cost so much it's that there is a high risk they won't be effective being an unproven design modified for our antiquated no nuclear policy.
Hope we never need em.
Diesel subs are faster, quieter, more manoeuvrable, and cheaper than nuclear subs. Nuclear subs are platforms for patrolling the entire world, which we don't do, and for launching nukes, which we don't have. It's not as simple as nuclear must be better.
These subs are tasked with protecting our trade routes to the north. Our major trading partner is China. The most likely adversary is China.
So, these subs are designed to protect our trading routes with China, from China.
Diesel subs are WW2 technology. Nuclear subs were the answer, BUT the bleeding heart lefties
could not stomach anything nuclear!
So at double the cost these perfectly serviceable nuclear subs will be converted to diesel.
All done to try and save the limpdick politician Christopher Pynes south Australian seat.
He of course with his incredible loyalty to the party and aust. resigned before the election
because he thought they may lose power, which he couldn't stomach.
So now he has a job as a defence consultant with his knowledge of these dealings.
Almost as idiotic a decision as the bleeding NBN, god help us but still better than
what freaking labor would have done to us.
Select to expand quoteevlPanda said..
Diesel subs are faster, quieter, more manoeuvrable, and cheaper than nuclear subs.
got a source? if true it would be surprising to me at least...
Select to expand quoteboofta said..
Diesel subs are WW2 technology. Nuclear subs were the answer, BUT the bleeding heart lefties
could not stomach anything nuclear!
So at double the cost these perfectly serviceable nuclear subs will be converted to diesel.
All done to try and save the limpdick politician Christopher Pynes south Australian seat.
He of course with his incredible loyalty to the party and aust. resigned before the election
because he thought they may lose power, which he couldn't stomach.
So now he has a job as a defence consultant with his knowledge of these dealings.
Almost as idiotic a decision as the bleeding NBN, god help us but still better than
what freaking labor would have done to us.
Chill dude. Chill. Lefties are funny, but they're not responsible for everything worth getting angry about.
Probably a lot more to do with limp dick Liberal pollies who wouldn't know what leadership was if it was served up to them on a silver tray.
If nukes are good, sell them to us. Explain using more than three-word-slogans.
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..
So about AU$225BILLION total project cost.
Why should be constrained to old fashion technology.
Trump is aiming at the sky with Space Forces.Couldn't Australia invest those two hundred billions into space troops, rocket, death rays, weaponized satellites etc.
Give that 200 Bln to Trump in return for access to space technology,
And the job description of the space trooper looking at stars is less distressing then submariner hiding for a year on the ocean bottom.
Beside space rockets becomes now reusable, since submarine you could sink only once.
www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/aug/10/space-force-everything-you-need-to-know
Developing space technology, even for military purposes my have positive side effect for civilian use - like bushfire spotting.
Submarines will never have any civilian use at all.
I remember reading somewhere that they will be using Lead-Acid batteries when the diesel motors are turned off. I may be a greenie but I can't see why you would retrofit a modern design with 70 year old technology and pay more for it!
Select to expand quoteevlPanda said..Bara said..
The real crime is not the cost so much it's that there is a high risk they won't be effective being an unproven design modified for our antiquated no nuclear policy.
Hope we never need em.
Diesel subs are faster, quieter, more manoeuvrable, and cheaper than nuclear subs. Nuclear subs are platforms for patrolling the entire world, which we don't do, and for launching nukes, which we don't have. It's not as simple as nuclear must be better.
These subs are tasked with protecting our trade routes to the north. Our major trading partner is China. The most likely adversary is China.
So, these subs are designed to protect our trading routes with China, from China.
They definitely aren't faster as it stands at the moment. Quieter is debatable. When the diesels are running they definitely aren't. Running on the batteries potentially they are, but they have a very limited time span where they can operate fully submerged.
but it's a good point you make. Australia doesn't play "world police". The diesel electric platform is a cost effective way for us to have submarines in our fleet. When they don't need to venture much further than asia.
Select to expand quotePaddles B'mere said..
I reckon people need to have a good hard think about what we're actually purchasing here and then the cost becomes a little more understandable. You can't just rock down to your submarine dealer and buy the latest model military submarine. Military hardware of this nature is essentially a "prototype" where you are designing/fabricating/buying a bespoke piece of engineering that has technology upgrades implemented into through the entire procurement process. There is a real chance that it will need continued technology upgrade during its service life too. There is no such thing as "proven" with a prototype, it's all untried in a bid to get the latest technology. This is why cost estimates "blow out" in military procurement, it's just par for the course.
As for the fear of an invasion from the north, get a grip! It costs way less to simply buy our resources than it costs to invade and then govern a country, ask the Americans
sure you can, and it's only 35mil!
www.netflix.com/au/title/80202236
I wonder whats better in a submarine. Safe old lead acid with a lower energy density, or potentially lithium ion batteries with a higher energy density that can catch fire and burn up out of control?
I know which one I would prefer to be colocated with 
Nuclear subs have the same problem as nuclear power and thats enrichment processing not available in Australia.
As I said in another thread the only time it becomes viable is if you are building a nuclear weapon then you would also have nuclear power and subs because you would then have plenty of material left over to do so still very expense.
If you decided to use a 3rd party to enrich then you lose total security of supply no military would look at this.
To build an enrichment plant 1st you would have to find some ones back yard to do it in good luck with that,
Then find a process, I doubt you could get a licence off the shelve (US included) if you could build and bring to production it would take some time.
I think in reality is you would have to develop then scale it up massive time frame and cost plus risk
Bwahaha .................. that's a red hot price at $35M comrade mickeeH, will it come with some extra "stars" so we can change the single soviet star to a southern cross for Australian usage?
I'd like to think that greater minds than the dark corner of a watersports forum have reviewed the performance requirements and knocked up some design criteria 
Select to expand quotekb53 said...I may be a greenie but I can't see why you would retrofit a modern design with 70 year old technology and pay more for it!
That's Liberals showing us how well they can manage our money...
People, there is no argument for us having nuclear submarines. They are not appropriate for Australia.
It has has absolutely nothing do do with greenies.
It is explained well here:
www.aspistrategist.org.au/nuclear-versus-diesel-electric-case-conventional-submarines-ran/
Thinking man's tip: anything Tony Abbott says can confidently be taken to be completely wrong, because he consistently demonstrates the he has limited knowledge on a variety of topics, and subsequently displays a lot of (over) confidence. It's the confidence that is the tell (textbook Dunning-Kruger, actually).
Unfortunately people are attracted to confidence, not (at least some) doubt, which is more often what experts display.
Will be picked off by lurking drone subs the minute they leave their anchorage. Supersede technology by the time they launch.
Select to expand quoteboofta said..
Diesel subs are WW2 technology. Nuclear subs were the answer, BUT the bleeding heart lefties
could not stomach anything nuclear!
So at double the cost these perfectly serviceable nuclear subs will be converted to diesel.
All done to try and save the limpdick politician Christopher Pynes south Australian seat.
He of course with his incredible loyalty to the party and aust. resigned before the election
because he thought they may lose power, which he couldn't stomach.
So now he has a job as a defence consultant with his knowledge of these dealings.
Almost as idiotic a decision as the bleeding NBN, god help us but still better than
what freaking labor would have done to us.
No, SSNs have to be bigger and noisier because of the reactors and the pumps that they need. That means that they are not "the answer".
Saying diesel subs are WW2 technology is like saying that jet fighters and guided missiles - which were both used in WW2 - are WW2 technology.
Select to expand quoteBara said..evlPanda said..
Diesel subs are faster, quieter, more manoeuvrable, and cheaper than nuclear subs.
got a source? if true it would be surprising to me at least...
www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2018/june/theres-case-diesels
Note - the nuke has a higher infra-red signature and even the vast US industry can only build two per year
www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/01/usa-is-not-buying-cheaper-and-deadlier.html
www.wearethemighty.com/gear-tech/worlds-stealthiest-submaries?rebelltitem=4#rebelltitem4
Even our old Oberons were known as being amongst the world's quietest submarines - quieter than "boomers" (AKA nuclear subs). As well as engine noise, hull design, other equipment, rafting and propeller cavitation are critical factors.
If you don't know this sort of stuff, why did you assume that you knew more about submarine design than the people who actually do it for a living?
Select to expand quoteevlPanda said..
People, there is no argument for us having nuclear submarines. They are not appropriate for Australia.
It has has absolutely nothing do do with greenies.
It is explained well here:
www.aspistrategist.org.au/nuclear-versus-diesel-electric-case-conventional-submarines-ran/
Thinking man's tip: anything Tony Abbott says can confidently be taken to be completely wrong, because he consistently demonstrates the he has limited knowledge on a variety of topics, and subsequently displays a lot of (over) confidence. It's the confidence that is the tell (textbook Dunning-Kruger, actually).
Unfortunately people are attracted to confidence, not (at least some) doubt, which is more often what experts display.
The guy who was in charge of the subs from the navy's side is a sailor I know. He is not just a sailor - he won a world title against a two-time Olympic medallist. He is extremely exacting, very bright, and no one's fool. Incidentally, the only naval architect I know who works for the RAN is a national champ, if I recall correctly, in the same class which is one of the most popular in the country. In other words, rather than being morons as some imply, they are both very successful people at the activities that Seabreeze revolves around - they are better at "Seabreeze stuff" than the people who imply that they are stupid. That alone shows that these people are not worth throwing **** at, as some apparently like to do.
What is pretty weird is that threads like this show that so many people assume that they are gods, and that people like sub designers and selectors are morons. It's utterly illogical; after all, most of us have never ever bothered to try to work out how subs work, and therefore it is stupid to assume that we can come up with a better solution than people who have been working out sub selection for 40+ hours a week, 48 weeks a year, for about 20+ years. R.E.S.P.E.C.T. is such a sadly rare thing these days.
Agreed in total.
The question I was raising, is whether this is the best way to spend $250BILLION odd in Australia, not whether one particular underwater death machine design was better than another.
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..
Agreed in total.
The question I was raising, is whether this is the best way to spend $250BILLION odd in Australia, not whether one particular underwater death machine design was better than another.
This is amazing how it works. Indeed we need to spend 250 bln dollars we don't have. So we need to borrow that money from USA which don't have money either but could print those in a second. Submarines will be super secret so nobody will ever see them either. The only real here is debt that must be repaid eventually, counted in our real Australian dollars from taxpayers money.
Here is picture of our 12 nuclear submarines that cost us 250 bln dollars.
But there is more on this picture. There are also stealth jet fighters from the same army supplier, that double the debt.
Well, one may thing that those weapon will keep us safe, but other could say that if you don't pay your debt something could be confiscated - maybe some piece of land _Tasmania being pawn/ security or just oil and gas fields alone?
This mean that those two purchases alone : submarines + jet fighters cost as much as 1/10 oth the whole country / continent size is worth (?) Indeed ? 10% of the whole country for the few useless metal scraps ?
