11–20 of 23 posts
> the Pentagon budget draft request includes construction of just one Virginia-class nuclear submarine for 2025 We’re selling them, right? Presumably not at a loss? Why does the Congress need to appropriate for a boat Canberra is buying?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s Democracy at it’s finest.
I think it's just "humanity" and self interest, not sure any given government form is immune to such things. Historically when I see folks rise up to stop such things, they just mean get their own piece of the pie, or all of it. Humanity is very good at "problem solved, because it is ok when i do it".
> the Pentagon budget draft request includes construction of just one Virginia-class nuclear submarine for 2025 We’re selling them, right? Presumably not at a loss? Why does the Congress need to appropriate for a boat Canberra is buying?
Incidentally, Scott Morrison, the former PM who scuttled the French deal in favour of AUKUS - which costs the Australian tax payer 380 billion - is now on the board of at least one US defence think tank and I think at least another military manufacturer.
> the Pentagon budget draft request includes construction of just one Virginia-class nuclear submarine for 2025 We’re selling them, right? Presumably not at a loss? Why does the Congress need to appropriate for a boat Canberra is buying?
The issue is industrial capacity. Right now the US has enough industrial capacity to deliver maybe 2 submarines a year, and that needs to scale a lot. But that requires the companies involved to build more dockyards, train more workers (this is fairly specialized stuff), etc. Thats a big upfront cost for those companies, and they aren’t entirely sure such investments would pay off, and things like the above budget re…
I suppose I’m curious for the specific fixed costs General Dynamics is concerned about and why they can’t bake that into the price of the second boat.
> the Pentagon budget draft request includes construction of just one Virginia-class nuclear submarine for 2025 We’re selling them, right? Presumably not at a loss? Why does the Congress need to appropriate for a boat Canberra is buying?
You can't build and sell a warship (or submarine in this case) without congressional approval in the US
I have to say, knowing a bit more than is public about the deal the Australians had in the first place with the French and that they chose to just throw away, that I'm left laughing out loud.
> that they chose to just throw away I believe the tech transfers are still happening. That’s massive. American nuclear submarine technology is in a class of its own.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> that they chose to just throw away I believe the tech transfers are still happening. That’s massive. American nuclear submarine technology is in a class of its own.
My understanding is that one of the big problems with the French design was that their nuclear reactors used less enriched uranium and need to be be refuelled several times before the EOL of the submarine. This is not a problem for the French since they have their own nuclear industry and easy access the necessary enriched uranium. However getting access to this fuel would have been a big problem for Australia. The U…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The issue is industrial capacity. Right now the US has enough industrial capacity to deliver maybe 2 submarines a year, and that needs to scale a lot. But that requires the companies involved to build more dockyards, train more workers (this is fairly specialized stuff), etc. Thats a big upfront cost for those companies, and they aren’t entirely sure such investments would pay off, and things like the above budget re…
> that requires the companies involved to build more dockyards, train more workers (this is fairly specialized stuff), etc. I suppose I’m curious for the specific fixed costs General Dynamics is concerned about and why they can’t bake that into the price of the second boat.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's just "humanity" and self interest, not sure any given government form is immune to such things. Historically when I see folks rise up to stop such things, they just mean get their own piece of the pie, or all of it. Humanity is very good at "problem solved, because it is ok when i do it".
This was a lot worse in the Soviet Union. The level of inequality there is hard to comprehend, where your personal essentials such as freedom to move or being able to defend yourself from violence highly depended on your "wealth", that is your standing in the "nomenklatura". Not to even mention actual wealth, like having a car or real estate.