Carlton Supporters Club

“These are huge numbers and yet the Albanese government hasn’t shown any way it intends to be able to pay for this in the next three years or the next 15 years.”.. says The Australian’s National Editor Dennis Shanahan.

Shanahan knows as well as anybody else that the budget figures are in today dollars, not the 2050 dollars.

As with any major purchase or infrastructure project, it seems expensive at the time, but decades later it'll seem cheap and we won't be able to work out why it didn't happen earlier.

When I was a munchkin opponents claimed the Westgate Bridge was a luxury item the state could not afford, now we are replicating it with tunnels and people are claiming the tunnels are too expensive and a bridge would be a cheaper option.

Didn't I hear something on radio the other day about a bridge across Port Phillip Heads or Westernport Heads, aka the Bay Ring Road? Somebody claimed it was too much at estimated $90B, seems cheap today!

Unfortunately I dont see China waiting 30 years to do what they want to do next ie Taiwan and building military infrastructure on the many pacific islands they will probably control. You also have to ask what we build will it still be relevant? and the question asked was where is the money coming from? I guess more taxes given Albanese has already broken an election promise and is fiddling with franking credits again and superannuation.

Unfortunately I dont see China waiting 30 years to do what they want to do next ie Taiwan and building military infrastructure on the many pacific islands they will probably control. You also have to ask what we build will it still be relevant? and the question asked was where is the money coming from? I guess more taxes given Albanese has already broken an election promise and is fiddling with franking credits again and superannuation.

Serious question, could one of you ex Navy/Military dudes explain to a layman (moi) how such a huge investment on Subs make us safer/stronger defensively? I would have thought state of the art bombers, fighters and aircraft carriers would be the go.

We have state of the art multi-role aircraft but their range is limited.  There aren't many specialised bombers in production these days and the US operates their bombers from Australian bases.

Aircraft carriers are expensive and very vulnerable to attack.  You would need a naval task force to protect your carrier from enemy submarines, aircraft, missiles, etc.  Losing your carrier(s) to enemy action would be devastaing. That's why there are very few genuine aircraft carriers in service; USA - 11, France - 1, Italy - 2, Japan -2, China - 2, UK - 2, India - 1, Russia - 1, Spain -1.  Technically, we could convert our two helicopter carriers to aircraft carriers but, apart from requiring new aircraft, that would mean more surface ships and submarines for protection.

Nuclear subs have virtually unlimited range and are stealthy.  They carry torpedoes, ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, underwater drones, miniature submarines, special forces; all of which can be deployed while undetectable.

Thanks DJ. For context, from a weaponry point of view, how much does sub carry? I know nuclear subs can stay submerged for months at a time and can be virtually undetectable, but what sort of weapons payload can they carry compared to say a surface battleship?

Thanks DJ. For context, from a weaponry point of view, how much does sub carry? I know nuclear subs can stay submerged for months at a time and can be virtually undetectable, but what sort of weapons payload can they carry compared to say a surface battleship?

The way things are going we'll be lucky to see 2025, let alone 2050, without a full scale conflict.
The world will be a very different place by 2050.