Comments by "Tony Wilson" (@tonywilson4713) on "The Newsmakers" channel.

  1. Its only $268b on the project with $100b in contingency and Virginia's cost AU$5.5b each not $3b each. But even the right numbers make this a ridiculous deal. The fundamental problem with AUKUS is not that it was an agreement between Australia the UK and America or that it was for nuclear powered submarines. I'm an engineer and the REAL PROBLEM is the project itself which is hopelessly conceived and its costs are mindlessly stupid which is par for the course with Australian military agreements. I'm 100% in favor of Australia getting nuclear powered subs but am 100% against AUKUS. Because of how much ocean we need to patrol we need faster long range subs and nuclear powered subs are over 50% faster than subs like the Collins and that's the first of several points. Here's my 2 main points on why AUKUS needs to be ripped up and started over. 1) The Virginia requires too large of a crew and there's just no way Australia can operate more than 2 of them let alone 3 or 3 + 5 of the AUKUS subs. This point has been brought up again and again and the RAN has never answered how they'd solve this problem. 2) The basic cost of a Virginia class is AU$5.5billion and the project is costed at AU$33.5billion per sub. NOBODY has explained where the other $28billion per sub is going. I have done some research and costing on this. I even constructed a project costing model and started plugging in numbers. I threw everything I could at this and then started doubling the cost of things and even tripled some and then added in an outrageous bonus system to get stuff built on time. With all I tried I could not explain where over AU$115billion might be going.
    5
  2. The fundamental problem with AUKUS is not that it was an agreement between Australia the UK and America or that it was for nuclear powered submarines. I'm an engineer and the REAL PROBLEM is the project itself which is hopelessly conceived and its costs are mindlessly stupid which is par for the course with Australian military agreements. I'm 100% in favor of Australia getting nuclear powered subs but am 100% against AUKUS. Because of how much ocean we need to patrol we need faster long range subs and nuclear powered subs are over 50% faster than subs like the Collins and that's the first of several points. Here's my 2 main points on why AUKUS needs to be ripped up and started over. 1) The Virginia requires too large of a crew and there's just no way Australia can operate more than 2 of them let alone 3 or 3 + 5 of the AUKUS subs. This point has been brought up again and again and the RAN has never answered how they'd solve this problem. 2) The basic cost of a Virginia class is AU$5.5billion and the project is costed at AU$33.5billion per sub. NOBODY has explained where the other $28billion per sub is going. I have done some research and costing on this. I even constructed a project costing model and started plugging in numbers. I threw everything I could at this and then started doubling the cost of things and even tripled some and then added in an outrageous bonus system to get stuff built on time. With all I tried I could not explain where over AU$115billion might be going.
    3
  3. The fundamental problem with AUKUS is not that it was an agreement between Australia the UK and America or that it was for nuclear powered submarines. I'm an engineer and the REAL PROBLEM is the project itself which is hopelessly conceived and its costs are mindlessly stupid which is par for the course with Australian military agreements. I'm 100% in favor of Australia getting nuclear powered subs but am 100% against AUKUS. Because of how much ocean we need to patrol we need faster long range subs and nuclear powered subs are over 50% faster than subs like the Collins and that's the first of several points. Here's my 2 main points on why AUKUS needs to be ripped up and started over. 1) The Virginia requires too large of a crew and there's just no way Australia can operate more than 2 of them let alone 3 or 3 + 5 of the AUKUS subs. This point has been brought up again and again and the RAN has never answered how they'd solve this problem. 2) The basic cost of a Virginia class is AU$5.5billion and the project is costed at AU$33.5billion per sub. NOBODY has explained where the other $28billion per sub is going. I have done some research and costing on this. I even constructed a project costing model and started plugging in numbers. I threw everything I could at this and then started doubling the cost of things and even tripled some and then added in an outrageous bonus system to get stuff built on time. With all I tried I could not explain where over AU$115billion might be going.
    2
  4.  @andrewg3238  Yeah I have looked into the whole lifecycle stuff too and no matter how much money I threw at stuff I could not come close to the $268b lower mark. Even adding in the money to help improve America's construction didn't come close. Somebody somewhere in this shitshow is making a mountain of money that makes Everest look small at our expense.
    1
  5.  @rosshughes7977  As part of the exercise I did on alternatives one of those was simply buying 6 upgraded Astutes with American GE reactor systems and a Virginia derived combat system. WHY - because if you don't give the yanks something they'd freak TF out. To pad out the fleet we'd also by 6 German 212s which if you look at what was in that white paper that said we needed 12 subs the 212 was what they had in mind. When I looked into our needs we actually have 2 different needs. First - we need a long range blue water sub capable of going almost anywhere in the Indo-Pacific. Second - we need a cost effective sub that can handle more confined places and shallower waters across our northern coast and around our reef systems. In those places it would be almost impossible for a sub like a Virginia or Astute to operate. They are for deep open ocean waters. Here's another thing. The combined crew size for an Astute and a 212 is around 125 while a single Virginia is 139. The cost of the program I had was over $115billion less than the lower $268b of AUKUS. Nothing against the Virginia. Its clearly a beast that nobody should ever want to mess with but Australia needs to look after Australia first not America. Saving over $100billion is in our nations best interest.
    1
  6.  @Scion3Sevens  Agreed on those basic points. When I did my cost model I built all of the boats in Britain and based the costs and time on the Astute class. Yes I know there's issues with that assumption but I had to use something to construct an alternative and the AUKUS boats themselves are based on the Astute. Remember the actual AUKUS boats are actually a joint AUS-UK effort with US input for things like the reactors and weapons systems.
    1
  7. Nope just a grumpy old man in decline forgetting what day of the week it is.
    1
  8.  @grassCrow  Yeah but smart Presidents surround themselves with intelligent people not a pack of gutless suckrats.
    1