Funny videos

[old man emu]

These baby videos are so funny.

 

 

[onetrack]

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 Wednesday at 01:49 PM by onetrack

[red750]

Now they are trying to tell us that they wanted second hand subs in the first place.

[facthunter]

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

[red750]

Richard Marles said that explicitly. I saw it on video. 

[onetrack]

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

[facthunter]

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]

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]

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

[Marty_d]

I think that may be a better outcome than sticking with it. Short term cost to save a lot more in the long term.

[nomadpete]

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 What war plan scenario showed that a couple of big outdated subs would win, against any believable agressor?

[kgwilson]

Well according to the defence chiefs, 3 second hand subs were the original preference as they would be delivered sooner. Why do we need 3 nuclear powered submarines anyway. The navy is spending $1.7 billion on a fleet of our own designed Ghost Sharks. They are designed to do almost everything that manned submarines can do at very low cost as well as low operating cost and we can have heaps of them. They won't say how many but there are apparently dozens being built. Aukus is costing at least $368 billion.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/sep/10/ghost-shark-submarine-drone-australian-navy-explainer

[Marty_d]

Nuclear subs have an hour limit on the reactor. When that limit is reached, the sub is decommissioned.

If we get old Block 3 Virginians that the yanks have been thrashing for 10 years or more, half their useful life may already be gone. Can't run these buggers "on condition".

[facthunter]

That would be Obvious to anyone with Nuclear sub Knowledge and I doubt it won't be OK.. That would be a Basic. Nev