Comment by tomhoward | Hacker News Reader

Comment by tomhoward | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Here's one commentator's take on the matter, from the Australian Financial Review:

Can there possibly be an upside to [Prime Minister] Malcolm Turnbull's decision to squander billions of taxpayers' dollars building 12 French submarines in [the state of] South Australia?

It's hard to think of one.

Of course, there are potentially critical South Australian seats at stake in the coming election and Turnbull no doubt believes it's worth every penny to ensure that the Australian people are not deprived of his greatness.

But surely there were cheaper ways to buy off the South Australians.

With a 30 to 40 per cent local cost premium as a starting point and the history of the Collins class submarine to go by, the federal government could have hired all the Australian Submarine Corporation (ASC) workers to do nothing and the taxpayer would have been billions of dollars better off – because at least they wouldn't have been making grossly overpriced submarines.

http://www.afr.com/opinion/columnists/alan-mitchell/turnbull...

> With a 30 to 40 per cent local cost premium as a starting point and the history of the Collins class submarine to go by

It's a popular myth that the Collins class subs were a failure. They were actually a great success (once the teething problems were ironed out) and, from memory, came in at only around $50m over budget.

Yes this is true - the problem is we can't crew them.

Why? Australian ambition too big for its population size? Not enough people willing to serve? I would think competition to get into the submarine service, among military people, would be high.

If the Australian Navy is anything like the British navy, getting sailors into the submarine service and getting them to stay there is awfully tricky. The RN tries very hard to make submarine service all volunteer, which constrains the pool further. By and large, it's a far less pleasant working and living environment than a surface vessel, and a number of submariners also cite the massively constrained communications as a reason for being thoroughly sick of it. Extra pay only goes so far.

Is submarine crew a good position in the military? Seems like a shit gig to sit in a metal can with no sunlight for months at a time but maybe that's just me.

It's slightly better paid and a chance to do some "real" operations even in peacetime, e.g. surveillance on rival nations (a lot of this during the Cold War), delivering and extracting SOF, being first on station in the event of a crisis, live-firing cruise missiles, etc etc. Everyone's motivated differently I guess.

It's relatively "elite," for people that care about that.

The problem is Australia is too large for a dozen submarines to patrol. That kind of duty is pretty arduous, and if you don't give the men enough R&R they quit.

Indeed. You can watch a Collins class sub take out a US Destroyer during war games, in this relatively short video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqFVOL7mLd4

The subs are an insurance policy for our heavily trade-dependent economy. We need to be able to project monitoring and intelligence gathering over a very large part of the world - including the key trade routes near to us that no less than a half-dozen nations are currently posturing over.

That is the reason we went from 6 submarines to 12.

Considering our size, our island status, the nations we are surrounded by etc. our 1.8% of GDP spent on defense is a bargain in international terms (we rank past 50th on that scale)

As for building the next-generation sub in South Australia - stimulating an economy that has been disproportionately impacted by the decline in manufacturing has to take precedence over the relationship between two prime ministers (which is the dumbest possible reason to spend $50 billion).

Hopefully the investment will not only avoid queues at welfare offices (likely to cost more over time - especially with pension and healthcare obligations) but could lead to the development of next-generation industries, including the first local lithium-ion battery manufacturing plant.

http://insidestory.org.au/keeping-the-sea-lanes-open-a-cost-...

> Vague claims about economic interests loom large in such discussions, but attempts to pin them down to concrete realities are generally ignored.

There have been two defense white papers in 3 years, they're both about 200 pages long and that is just the overview of the strategic thinking. It is hardly 'vague'

His argument - on the other hand, involves plugging a number that is literally made up into a discredited formula that doens't apply to this situation and then arguing the logical fallacy of what we don't know we don't know but it could be bad.

Gets me thinking about how much of past centuries violence is still here but channeled and diffused through dissuasion and heavy armory like these subs.

As someone from SA: we needed those jobs. I'd like it to be different, but there isn't room in SA for long term economics at the moment - Holden closing is putting too many people out of work, and too many suppliers out of work too.

And the cost difference simply isn't true. They are comparing the SA full lifetime cost (including maintenance) vs the overseas build-only cost, as the maintenance was always planned for SA.

You could make an electric cargo trike for every single person in the country, plus have some money left over. Some of that left over money could go into building bike paths.

What an amazing country where every single person would have free transport.

Less people would be dying because of obesity, and air pollution. Two of the biggest killers. Actual things that are killing Australians right now. Not imaginary ones.

As a cyclist I'd love to see that business in SA too. I don't see why a government should build that business though, but I accept the argument that the government should be responsible for defense.

Additionally I think submarines aren't a terrible thing to spend money on for a country like Australia.

So you don't believe Australia should have any form of maritime defense or offense force?

Air pollution is the least of anyone's concern in Australia. Life expectancy is amongst the highest in the world.

That cost difference doesn't seem bad considering you'll get to tax the income once earned, and you have to imagine investing in this could give rise to some cottage industries that will contribute to the area for generations.

Christopher Pine had better be worth it.

Pyne. Turns out he delivered this and is pro-marriage equity. Maybe he wasn't as bad as I thought (although his attempt at education reform when education minister was a debacle).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com