Comments by "" (@pwillis1589) on "Not ‘much sympathy’ for those who signed up for French sub deal" video.

I have no sympathy for Turnbull but the Sub decision made 5 years ago was a cabinet decision made by Yes you guessed it Morrison, Dutton, Payne, Joyce, Hunt, and the same clowns there now.
1
Brett Mitchell And I have no trust in the numptys there now who were the same numptys 5 years ago to make the right decision for the future. As it is now we have no decision all they have done is reverse their last decision. 9 years of LNP clusterfucking around and we are back at square one.
1
Brett Mitchell No problems with AUKUS, definitely a good thing, and I have worked with the Marines in Darwin and they are excellent. Allowing US and UK force elements to train and operate out of Australia is one thing, and in my opinion a cowardly way of attempting to dissuade Chinese ambitions in the South Pacific. It is an attempt by the current government to hide their massive FU in the procurement of a strategic capability. If the current government had of chosen the Barracuda class 9 years ago as was offered by the French then we would have our own capability in the water within 5 years. Yes there would have been some refuelling issues but not insurmountable, the best we can hope for now is maybe some ex Trafalgar or Los Angeles class boats to train and familiarise with in the short and medium term, till whatever we decide on is in service sometime in my grandchildrens lifetime.
1
@te8828 Absolute rubbish, electric subs are significantly quieter than nucs. Have you even read a book on submarine propulsion systems? As well the attack class had a water jet propulsion system that the UK and US boats have.
1
@te8828 For the most part of a diesel/electric subs mission it runs on battery power which is effectively silent and considerably quieter than a nuclear reactor converting water into steam and then using high pressure steam to run a turbine. Yes the batteries need recharging and this process means the sub has to run just under the surface raise a snorkel and suck in air to run the diesel. It is not so much the noise of the diesel engine but the fact the sub is so close to the surface is what makes it vulnerable to detection.
1
@te8828 Batteries.
1
@ahmadfordham4630 Exactly correct, and it was Morrison and Dutton in the cabinet that approved it 5 years ago and now make out they are doing the right thing when it was their FU 5 years ago that got us into this mess.
1
Non proliferation relates to weapons only. Lavrov was talking out his arse.
1
This is a common misconception. They are actually considerably quieter than Nuc subs as they mostly run on batteries. It is not the noise of the Diesel engine it is the fact they have to run near the surface to take in air and hence are venerable to detection.
1
So the facts are France offered us their Nuc boat we knocked it back. US and U.K. Boats run on weapons grade uranium that lasts 30 years and wouldn't make it available. The French run on commercial grade, but it only lasts 10 so it would require refuelling. The same clowns in government then are the same clowns now who wasted $2 billion.
1
The reason this so FU is because the US wouldn't share the necessary technology 5 years ago in the first place. Thanks for nothing.
1