Oh yeah. And I wanted to say thank you to the DMO for all of their great work helping to defend our nation.
Our enemies may give you all a medal.
7 comments:
Bonza
said...
Oh and by the way, the way we measure cost is to divide the budget by the number of subs operated to arrive at how much each costs to operate.
How many Collins and USN subs are there?
Cause there's no economies of scale benefits that come from operating a larger fleet, obviously...
Also we pay a premium for running diesel subs against the reduced (yearly) fuel costs of nuclear submarines too, which is a political decision all sides of Government have taken in relation to our Navy vessels for a long time now.
DMO has been around for 10 years.It is responsible, how long does it need.We are now talking ongoing maintenance. With7,700 employees there must be someone with some competence.Maybe an odd project manager with talent? And diesel fuel makes it more expensive? Go and do a course in basic accounting, regarding costing etc.
To run a nuclear powered fleet we would need a local nuclear industry to provide the industrial backdrop of skilled engineers and capabilities with the fuel cycle.
That's a very big ask in Australia where the local population have been well and truly indoctrinated to view all things nuclear with irrational and unquestioning fear.
Not to mention a good 15 to 20 years away even if the political will could be established.
mind you - we could make some very effective, small and passively safe 4th gen reactors based on either a mix of uranium and Thorium or just Thorium.
Something I posted somewhere. If it costs that much to keep them going, why not keep popping them out every year at say $600 millin each and not undertake the 7 year makeover. You get a branf new one and scrap the old one. One for DMO?
7 comments:
Oh and by the way, the way we measure cost is to divide the budget by the number of subs operated to arrive at how much each costs to operate.
How many Collins and USN subs are there?
Cause there's no economies of scale benefits that come from operating a larger fleet, obviously...
Also we pay a premium for running diesel subs against the reduced (yearly) fuel costs of nuclear submarines too, which is a political decision all sides of Government have taken in relation to our Navy vessels for a long time now.
You are incorrect, it is totally due to the incompetenece of DMO
DMo didn't exist when we bought the Collins Class and didn't exist for most of their life to date.
Next broken record?
DMO has been around for 10 years.It is responsible, how long does it need.We are now talking ongoing maintenance. With7,700 employees there must be someone with some competence.Maybe an odd project manager with talent?
And diesel fuel makes it more expensive? Go and do a course in basic accounting, regarding costing etc.
To run a nuclear powered fleet we would need a local nuclear industry to provide the industrial backdrop of skilled engineers and capabilities with the fuel cycle.
That's a very big ask in Australia where the local population have been well and truly indoctrinated to view all things nuclear with irrational and unquestioning fear.
Not to mention a good 15 to 20 years away even if the political will could be established.
mind you - we could make some very effective, small and passively safe 4th gen reactors based on either a mix of uranium and Thorium or just Thorium.
Both elements Australia has in abundance.
Something I posted somewhere. If it costs that much to keep them going, why not keep popping them out every year at say $600 millin each and not undertake the 7 year makeover. You get a branf new one and scrap the old one.
One for DMO?
Because of DM0.
Post a Comment