Tisme
Apathetic at Best
- Joined
- 27 August 2014
- Posts
- 8,954
- Reactions
- 1,152
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
Oil from algae is a promising alternative
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/innov...de-oil-in-less-than-an-hour-180948282/?no-ist
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
So if we build 12 Submarines here in Australia at $80 billion, where will the extra $60 billion come from considering we could buy 12 Subs from Japan for $20 billion?
Why are our costs so much higher than Japan?
And given we could save $60 billion, how many Kilometers of new roads and highways could we build for $60 billion?
Oil from algae is a promising alternative
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/innov...de-oil-in-less-than-an-hour-180948282/?no-ist
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?
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.
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.
THREE out of five Australians are in favour of the federal government providing humanitarian aid and weapons to forces opposing Islamic State militants, as Tony Abbott holds open the option of going further with increased military support.
The Prime Minister said no specific request had been made but Australia was talking to its partners and allies about helping to provide “military advisers” and “air capability”.
Newspoll figures
Contingency plans could involve special forces, but not infantry, on the frontline to provide advice and training and aircraft to assist or carry out *airstrikes.
The US has conducted more than 130 airstrikes against militants in Iraq and US President Barack Obama will lay out his “game plan” to defeat Islamic State later this week.
A Newspoll, conducted exclusively for The Australian over the weekend, revealed that 62 per cent of voters supported the action taken so far by the *Abbott government, which has involved the RAAF providing humanitarian aid drops of food, water and hygiene packs as well as shipments of weapons and ammunition.
But the poll of 1207 people found 25 per cent of voters were opposed and 13 per cent uncommitted. Men, Coalition supporters and older Australians were most in favour.
Newspoll shows that 70 per cent of men support the action, with 18 per cent against. Among women, 54 per cent favour the government’s action, with 31 per cent opposed. Three-quarters of Coalition supporters back the action, with 19 per cent opposed, while 53 per cent of Labor supporters are in favour, with 31 per cent against. Support is strongest among older voters with 68 per cent of those older than 50 in favour compared with 56 per cent among those aged between 18 and 34 and 60 per cent support in the 35 to 49-year age group.
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?
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?
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?
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 ?
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?
So would we once again face these same problems?...No doubt we would.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?