Tisme
Apathetic at Best
- Joined
- 27 August 2014
- Posts
- 8,952
- Reactions
- 1,141
This where it's at !! We can import cooking oil from China and recycle it into diesel trucks
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrv78nG9R04
The Abbott Government
- Thread starter Calliope
- Start date
This where it's at !! We can import cooking oil from China and recycle it into diesel trucks
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrv78nG9R04
- Joined
- 26 March 2014
- Posts
- 19,581
- Reactions
- 11,841
- Joined
- 10 December 2012
- Posts
- 3,632
- Reactions
- 9
The major cost blow out is the ship bulding infrastructure that would need to be built. Seems the Japanese witht heir still large ship building industry have that infrastructure already available.
That is the question. Do we continue to prop up local industry or do we import. Cost is a major consideration, but then so is defence. So at what point is it deemed to be too costly to do it in house?
- Joined
- 10 December 2012
- Posts
- 3,632
- Reactions
- 9
Still in its infancy in terms of yield. Would have to be scaled up massively to achieve the economy of scale required. Not sure if it will provide the import relief we need by 2020.
Some trials in using algae feed via flue gas are being done. So far costs are not competitive but hopefully as lessons are learnt it gets to the point we could retrofit it to most fossil fuel power stations.
So would it not be unreasonable to give our Australian ship builders and the Japanese a specification outlining what we require and expect in a submarine and have both organizations submit a tender with say a 10% preference to the Australian content.
During my experience of tendering for a project we were given 10 % preference over interstate and a 20 % preference over overseas competitors.
Sounds reasonable to me.
The difference with this project is we're buying subs that are already established and in use with the Japanese Navy. We would basically be paying them to just manufacturer that sub for us, they already have all the infrastructure in place. But for Australia to build the subs would require the research and development into a new sub which then must have all the infrastructure manufactured to produce the sub which would then require intensive testing before we could mass produce the sub.
By all accounts the Australian ship builders are a lot more than 20% more expensive.
Julia
In Memoriam
- Joined
- 10 May 2005
- Posts
- 16,986
- Reactions
- 1,973
From "The Australian" today, Newspoll:
But I thought I heard Bill Shorten say today that we have the infrastructure and that if he won the next election, he would build the subs in Australia at a cost of $50 billion plus.......so therefore the infrastructure you mentioned which would be needed to start building the subs would cost $30 billion.
We did build the Collins Class subs here so wouldn't the infrastructure still be in place there in South Australia?
- Joined
- 26 March 2014
- Posts
- 19,581
- Reactions
- 11,841
I think we are going the way of the British arms industry in the 1950's. Amass the experience and skills to build high quality equipment, and then decide it's all too expensive and let all that expertise rot.
Depending on who you listen to, the Collins is either a lemon, or the problems have now been sorted out and the ships are operating efficiently. From reports they performed well in exercises with the US Navy. If the problems have been sorted, it wold be a shame to let the knowledge bases that built them to disperse in favour of an off the shelf sub whose capabilities are widely known to potential enemies.
Bit who will pay for the extra $30 billion over and above the cost of the Japanese subs?
- Joined
- 26 March 2014
- Posts
- 19,581
- Reactions
- 11,841
You and me old chap.
It's all guesswork though isn't it ? The Collins has never been needed, the F111's were never used in anger, so is any of our defence spending worth the money ?
IFocus
You are arguing with a Galah
- Joined
- 8 September 2006
- Posts
- 7,432
- Reactions
- 4,420
Last edited by a moderator:
I guess it is like an insurance policy........if you don't have it something major will happen.
If an aggressive country observes you are weak in defense, you then become very vulnerable.
Bill Shorten does not seem to care who will pay for the extra cost....probably borrow more like Rudd/Gillard/Rudd did before, get voted out of office and let the next government worry about paying back the money with interest.....Perhaps he might ask the unions to dig deep with some contribution.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ine-deal-shorten/story-e6frg8yo-1227053138785
- Joined
- 14 February 2005
- Posts
- 15,071
- Reactions
- 16,787
From a defence perspective, it seems a bad idea to be buying "off the shelf" equipment manufactured overseas. Do that and should we need to use it in anger, well then (1) our capabilities become extremely well known and (2) we are reliant on foreigners for ongoing support.
That sounds a bit like having the plans for your building security system prominently displayed in the front window for all to see. Should anyone want to break in, they'll know exactly how to evade or disable the system. Same concept with foreign military equipment really.
I can accept that there might be some price difference in local production versus imports, but a 4:1 ration doesn't sound right to me given that Japan is a developed country with relatively high costs. Something just isn't right there - in short I have trouble believing that it's really such a huge difference to build a comparable submarine. Are we comparing similarly equipped vessels here? Or are we comparing a postie bike with a limousine?
That sounds a bit like having the plans for your building security system prominently displayed in the front window for all to see. Should anyone want to break in, they'll know exactly how to evade or disable the system. Same concept with foreign military equipment really.
I can accept that there might be some price difference in local production versus imports, but a 4:1 ration doesn't sound right to me given that Japan is a developed country with relatively high costs. Something just isn't right there - in short I have trouble believing that it's really such a huge difference to build a comparable submarine. Are we comparing similarly equipped vessels here? Or are we comparing a postie bike with a limousine?
From a defence perspective, it seems a bad idea to be buying "off the shelf" equipment manufactured overseas. Do that and should we need to use it in anger, well then (1) our capabilities become extremely well known and (2) we are reliant on foreigners for ongoing support.
That sounds a bit like having the plans for your building security system prominently displayed in the front window for all to see. Should anyone want to break in, they'll know exactly how to evade or disable the system. Same concept with foreign military equipment really.
I can accept that there might be some price difference in local production versus imports, but a 4:1 ration doesn't sound right to me given that Japan is a developed country with relatively high costs. Something just isn't right there - in short I have trouble believing that it's really such a huge difference to build a comparable submarine. Are we comparing similarly equipped vessels here? Or are we comparing a postie bike with a limousine?
The costs bandied around are 12 subs from Japan $20 to $25 billion.
12 subs made in Australia $50 to $80 billion.
I should imagine the security system would be secretive only to Australia.
I believe you are talking in the extreme with your statement of comparison.
If it was coming out of your pocket would be prepared to pay the difference?
Just imagine what we could do with the difference in cost......How many dams could we build or how many kilometers of highways could we construct?
The Labor Party reduced out defense spending to 1.8% of GDP....the lowest level since 1938 and now Bill Shorten wants to spend an extra $30 to $55 billion to appease the CFMEU......It really does not make sense.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/..._the_lost_soldier_still_fighting_world_war_2/
From what I read, the Collins Class submarines seemed to be in trouble from start to finish with cost blow outs of almost 100%, delays of 21 to 41 months over scheduled completion.
Almost half of the design and components came from overseas companies .......from diesel electric motors, 400 tonne of acid batteries, torpedo tubes to even the periscopes.
There was bias exhibited by the Left wing Labor Party to a Swedish company..there was persistent union problems.
So would we once again face these same problems?...No doubt we would.
During the study, various accusations of foul play by or unsuitability of both submarine designers were made by Australian politicians and the media.[26] These included claims that the similar left-wing political leanings of the Australian Labor Party (ALP) and the Swedish Social Democratic Party, both in power at the time, would lead to a pro-Kockums bias, investigations into perceived coaching of IDL/HDW representatives in the questions to be asked at an ALP Caucus briefing session on the project, and public emphasis on security incidents in both Sweden and West Germany.[26] These incidents either lacked supporting evidence or were proven false, and were the result of the Liberal Party attempting to discredit the Labor government, or pro-British politicians and organisations who believed both submarines were inferior to the Vickers Type 2400 offering
Each submarine was constructed in six sections, each consisting of several sub-sections.[37] One of the main criteria of the project was that Australian industries contribute to at least 60% of the work; by the conclusion of the project 70% of the construction and 45% of the software preparation had been completed by Australian-owned companies.[23] Work was sub-contracted out to 426 companies across twelve countries, plus numerous sub-sub-contractors.[35] In many cases, components for the first submarine were constructed by companies outside Australia, while those for the following five boats were replicated by an Australian-owned partner or subsidiary.[38] The project prompted major increases in quality control standards across Australian industries: in 1980, only 35 Australian companies possessed the appropriate quality control certifications for Defence projects, but by 1998 this had increased to over 1,500.[39]
Although the acquisition project organisers originally planned for the first submarine to be constructed overseas, the Cabinet decided as part of the project's approval that all six submarines would be built in Australia; the increases in construction time and cost from not building the lead ship in the winning designer's home shipyard was considered to be offset by the additional experience provided to Australian industries.[40] Even so, two sections of the first submarine were constructed by Kockums' shipyard in Malmo, Sweden
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collins-class_submarine#Periscopes_and_masts
Almost half of the design and components came from overseas companies .......from diesel electric motors, 400 tonne of acid batteries, torpedo tubes to even the periscopes.
There was bias exhibited by the Left wing Labor Party to a Swedish company..there was persistent union problems.
So would we once again face these same problems?...No doubt we would.
During the study, various accusations of foul play by or unsuitability of both submarine designers were made by Australian politicians and the media.[26] These included claims that the similar left-wing political leanings of the Australian Labor Party (ALP) and the Swedish Social Democratic Party, both in power at the time, would lead to a pro-Kockums bias, investigations into perceived coaching of IDL/HDW representatives in the questions to be asked at an ALP Caucus briefing session on the project, and public emphasis on security incidents in both Sweden and West Germany.[26] These incidents either lacked supporting evidence or were proven false, and were the result of the Liberal Party attempting to discredit the Labor government, or pro-British politicians and organisations who believed both submarines were inferior to the Vickers Type 2400 offering
Each submarine was constructed in six sections, each consisting of several sub-sections.[37] One of the main criteria of the project was that Australian industries contribute to at least 60% of the work; by the conclusion of the project 70% of the construction and 45% of the software preparation had been completed by Australian-owned companies.[23] Work was sub-contracted out to 426 companies across twelve countries, plus numerous sub-sub-contractors.[35] In many cases, components for the first submarine were constructed by companies outside Australia, while those for the following five boats were replicated by an Australian-owned partner or subsidiary.[38] The project prompted major increases in quality control standards across Australian industries: in 1980, only 35 Australian companies possessed the appropriate quality control certifications for Defence projects, but by 1998 this had increased to over 1,500.[39]
Although the acquisition project organisers originally planned for the first submarine to be constructed overseas, the Cabinet decided as part of the project's approval that all six submarines would be built in Australia; the increases in construction time and cost from not building the lead ship in the winning designer's home shipyard was considered to be offset by the additional experience provided to Australian industries.[40] Even so, two sections of the first submarine were constructed by Kockums' shipyard in Malmo, Sweden
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collins-class_submarine#Periscopes_and_masts
- Joined
- 26 March 2014
- Posts
- 19,581
- Reactions
- 11,841
Maybe there is doubt that we would face those problems again
I'd like to think that lessons have been learned.
Do you really think the Labor Party learn from their mistakes?...The way Bill Shorten was addressing a union rally in Adelaide yesterday, he did not appear to have taken any notice of the Labor Party history of failures.
Bill is still a union leader through and through and will appease the unions at any price with disregard for the consequences of cost to the nation.....He does not have the interest of the rest of the people of Australia nor the interest of the nation as a whole....He is certainly not capable of making hard decisions.
- Joined
- 26 March 2014
- Posts
- 19,581
- Reactions
- 11,841
Typical ad hominem attack showing your bias again.
What's the point of having an "off the shelf" weapons system that other people know the capabilities of ? The work has been done fixing problems, but all the Abbott government is concerned about is money. That is why we will soon have no car industry, and by the end of Abbott's term, no industrial capability at all.
Don't talk to us about "Team Australia" , Mr Abbott, you don't know the meaning of the word.