onetrack Posted yesterday at 01:48 PM Posted yesterday at 01:48 PM (edited) Not actually a video, it's a Betoota Advocate FB page comparing buying used U.S. subs, to getting a rooted Captiva, when you actually ordered a new Calais! 😄 https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=1436470628513101&set=pb.100064505329784.-2207520000 Edited yesterday at 01:49 PM by onetrack
red750 Posted yesterday at 02:07 PM Author Posted yesterday at 02:07 PM Now they are trying to tell us that they wanted second hand subs in the first place. 1
facthunter Posted 22 hours ago Posted 22 hours ago No they are not saying that. They are saying this will be done sooner to meet our needs. We already have a lot of crew being trained on operating Subs. Nev 1
red750 Posted 22 hours ago Author Posted 22 hours ago Richard Marles said that explicitly. I saw it on video. 1
onetrack Posted 21 hours ago Posted 21 hours ago Here is Richard Marles interview on 7:30 on the ABC that backs what Peter is saying... https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-06-03/aukus-deal-under-scrutiny/106756374 1
facthunter Posted 21 hours ago Posted 21 hours ago He said it meets our needs better since we get them much sooner. He's spoken of it many times. The NEW ones are way too far into the future.. Nev
onetrack Posted 17 hours ago Posted 17 hours ago So, essentially, Marles and his mates went to Washington to buy several new Holden Calais, but the Americans convinced them they'd be better off taking 3 knackered Captivas to fill in, while they wait 30 years for the Calais' to be built? Sounds like the deal of the century to me - for the U.S. They're probably still clinking champagne glasses over unloading three well-used Virginia subs onto a pile of hicks and suckers from Down Under, that are going to need huge levels of maintenance in the near future - that we'll have to pay for, and which can only be done by U.S. shipyards, seeing as they contain secret-squirrel power plant technology?
facthunter Posted 15 hours ago Posted 15 hours ago I don't see the Clunkers analogy, We have had to extend our Collins class subs service life. The Yanks have trouble building enough New Nuclear ones for themselves. Who signed up to AUKUS in the First Place? Now we are stuck with it.. Pull out and we may lose the Lot as it would then be Australia Breaking the deal. Nev 1
Marty_d Posted 14 hours ago Posted 14 hours ago I think that may be a better outcome than sticking with it. Short term cost to save a lot more in the long term. 2
nomadpete Posted 2 hours ago Posted 2 hours ago 11 hours ago, Marty_d said: I think that may be a better outcome than sticking with it. Short term cost to save a lot more in the long term. And how many proven Ukrainian submersibles could we buy with whatever cash was left after that? What war plan scenario showed that a couple of big outdated subs would win, against any believable agressor? 1 1
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now