The Albanese Government is forking out billions for nuclear-powered AUKUS submarines   
2025-03-26
greens.org.au
The Albanese Government has cranked up funding for AUKUS to $18 billion over five years, largely as a tribute payment to President Trump.

This represents an additional $6 billion compared to last year’s budget for nuclear-powered submarines. This AUKUS cost will keep growing year by year, with a total project cost now hitting $375 billion.    

This is funding that will not be going towards the things the public needs, like dental and mental health into Medicare, public housing or funding public education.

This budget also sees the Albanese Government paying $1.6 billion to make a nuclear submarine base for the US off the coast of Perth at HMAS Stirling.

Labor has also budgeted to pay $445.4 million as a payment to “sustain” nuclear submarines over the next five years, which are submarines we don't have. This funding will likely instead sustain US nuclear submarines, having Australian taxpayers subsidise Donald Trump’s military.

There will also be $28 million to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade for “international policy advice and diplomatic support for the nuclear-powered submarine program.” Effectively, funding to send diplomats to beg Donald Trump to give us nuclear submarines.

Largely due to AUKUS, the total Defence budget is now almost $59 billion a year and now makes up 6.6% of all Government expenditure.

David Shoebridge, Greens spokesperson on Defence, said: “On the same day that Donald Trump and his mates shared secret war plans with a journalist on Signal, the Albanese government decided to double down on AUKUS, adding an extra $6 billion to the forward estimates.

“Why on earth, in the middle of a cost of living crisis, as the climate crisis gets worse, is the Albanese Government choosing to dump billions more into nuclear submarines we will never get?   

“It is all part of this dangerous escalation in the region. Australia is rapidly militarising and becoming an arm of the US military. This isn't keeping anyone safe.

“This budget has the Albanese Government paying $445.4 million over the forward estimates to 'sustain' US nuclear-powered submarines, and another $1.6 billion to build the US a nuclear submarine base off Perth. This only makes us less safe.

“Millions of Australians can see that AUKUS is sinking, but Labor and the Coalition keep pouring Australia's treasure into it in the doomed hope it will make Donald Trump play nice.“

whiteknight wrote on Mar 28^th, 2025 at 6:26am:

A fraction of it is coming from your pocket.

One of the most idiotic deals that Australia has ever done.

whiteknight wrote on Mar 28^th, 2025 at 6:25am:


Two mistakes there. First of all, there's been no talk of Australia not getting nuclear powered submarines. Secondly, we aren't becoming an arm of the US military. If anything, under Trump, we are being shown we cannot rely on the US (nor should we) and that we need to have the tools to defend ourselves. This capability gives us those tools. I'm glad the Greens weren't around in the 1930's and 1940's, or else I suspect we'd all be speaking Japanese right now.

Submarines are absolutely useless against air attack or air invasion, and any such action is far more probable than any sea borne attack.

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Mar 29^th, 2025 at 8:04am:


Really? So you don't think that a submarine can lurk undetected off the coast of a hostile nation and launch an attack at an airbase if the need should arise? A submarine is probably the ONLY way to do such an attack without risking detection. The nuclear powered submarines we will be buying from the US have this very capability with the missiles having a range of 2,000 kilometres.

Bobby. wrote on Mar 28^th, 2025 at 9:08am:


It's good value .. the submarines even come with flyscreens included. Thats normally an optional extra.

Video:

https://m3.gab.com/media_attachments/23/2e/78/232e78906c6a2ca498101d96d55dd89d.m...

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 29^th, 2025 at 9:03am:

Yes, really and bear in mind that the subs we will be getting are not nuclear powered.

Bobby. wrote on Mar 29^th, 2025 at 3:19pm:

Beg to differ, nuclear power in the context of submarine is a misnomer.

Bobby. wrote on Mar 29^th, 2025 at 4:26pm:

That’s just the point the nuclear reactor can run until its fuel rods are dead and, of itself, can only project anxiety but it cannot move the sub,

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 29^th, 2025 at 12:40pm:

Wow!! Another brilliant and well thought out contribution by Long bayonets Brian,

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Mar 29^th, 2025 at 5:21pm:



But they will be nuclear powered.    

Bobby. wrote on Mar 29^th, 2025 at 5:32pm:


That’s the point, they will NOT be nuclear powered, there are no nuclear powered ships, the French tried a submarine but it was considered to be very dangerous and converted or scrappedthe Russians may have had a go but as bone of their subs’ are nuclear powered its a moot point.

Bobby. wrote on Mar 29^th, 2025 at 6:04pm:

I have and they are demonstrably wrong, although they are probably aware of the truth, but it’s good politics to call them nuclear powered.
Read the link again, it explains why the subs are no
T nuclear powered ships.

Now all the 'experts' have had their say, here are the facts of the matter from a real expert :  https://johnmenadue.com/why-does-australia-need-submarines/?fbclid=IwY2xjawJVdqh...

Belgarion wrote on Mar 30^th, 2025 at 11:00am:

Does anyone deny or challenge the notion that Australia needs subs?

Belgarion wrote on Mar 30^th, 2025 at 11:59am:

I think there's a need to develop a societal 21st-century attitude towards nuclear power as opposed to the 1960s attitude that has dominated at least 3 generations.

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Mar 29^th, 2025 at 2:59pm:


Where do you come up with this? You're completely wrong. The Virginia-class attack submarines we are buying from the US Navy are nuclear-powered submarines. The subsequent submarines we will design and build (the AUKUS-class) with the UK are also nuclear powered.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 30^th, 2025 at 12:33pm:


I think what he is trying to say is that nuclear powered submarines use steam to turn the propellor, which in his mind makes them steam powered. This is akin to saying that a car is powered by expanding gas, not petrol. While this is true in a sense, common usage and understanding describes the fuel source, not the propulsion process.
And just to refute his argument entirely, never have I heard a nuclear submariner refer to his vessel as steam powered.

Belgarion wrote on Mar 30^th, 2025 at 1:10pm:


All ships, previous to the so called nuclear powered ones were/are described by their motive power.
Sailing ships and before them as oared, single bank, two etc.
Ships propelled by steam engines are Steam ships, they are never called by their fuel type.
Motor ships by their power plant also, diesel-electric subs are called after their power plant type not after their fuel
Murray River paddle boats, as another example, are called steam boats not after their main fuel, wood.

So the erroneously termed Nuclear submarines are steam boats because they are powered by steam, their fuel source is a nuclear reactor, which without the boiler, water and steam engines can do sfa to move the boat.
Here endeth the lesson, except to remark that of course submariners are going to call them what the boss calls them, submariners are chosen for their intelligence as well as other factors, e.g. size.; they aren’t stupid.

Politicians coined the Nuclear Powered misnomer because of votes.
Steam ship sounds so old fashioned.

Edit.
The analogy with cars fails because cars are not ships and the terms of reference are somewhat different, however steam cars are never known by their fuel source, Abner Doble’s famous cars used petrol as a fuel to make steam, they were however referred to as steam cars not petrol cars.
However I am willing to be educated, so explain why so called Nuclear submarines are not steam boats.

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Mar 30^th, 2025 at 2:51pm:


Condensed and recycled perpetually - unless it leaks somewhere it could go on for the life of the reactor - and batteries in case of damage are a must.

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Mar 30^th, 2025 at 1:56pm:


No one says they do not use steam for propulsion, however your ridiculous pedantry ignores the common understanding of the term 'nuclear power'.  This does not make you look clever, but merely an attention seeker. 

Oh, and BTW, I have read with interest this post you made previously:

They also have the permanent capacity to make a lot of noise and although they have improved in this respect they are still noisier than our long retired ‘’Orion’’class of the 1970s.
Then there is the detectable heat signature, some thing which cannot be avoided where there is a.nuclear reactor., it has to be kept relatively cool and cold water in equals hot water out’.

Perhaps you should leave any comments on submarine capabilities and operations to those of us who know what we are talking about.

Belgarion wrote on Mar 30^th, 2025 at 4:12pm:

Steam engines make a lot of noise especially afloat and even more submerged and there is a significant heat signature from the very nescessary cooling system, but you’re an expert so explain for all those who don’t know, just why steam submarines don’t warm the seawater around them.

To give another illustration as you moved the discussion to land, steam locomotives are always referred to as steam never by the fuel, they are not called coal engines, nor are the oil fired ones called oil engines and the ones that had the water boiled by electricity were not called electric engines.
Diesel electric ones are called after their propulsion system not their fuel.

But I suppose that fireless steam locos could be called Nuclear locomotives if they draw their steam from electric boilers powered by electricity generated by a Nuclear power station.

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 30^th, 2025 at 4:26pm:

Good one, I just nicked it for another forum, but glad to see that you finally realise the logic behind the fact that 99.9% of ships, vehicles et al that are propelled by steam engines are called steam ‘’whatever’s’’. and so it’s logical to call steam powered submarines ‘steam boats’.
The infamous British K class were the first serious steam submarines, nobody called them oil powered,’ as that was their boiler fuel.
Interesting boats, very fast but unfortunately prone to accidents.

Belgarion wrote on Mar 30^th, 2025 at 8:13pm:

Well, what do you want to know that you don’t already know?
You are undoubtedly well aware of the fact that one of the class “sunk” the USS ‘Enterprise’ on exercise and the undetected cruise in a major Chinese river of another.
I don’t have any personal records of the thousands of measurements of components that I checked over the years otherwise we could possibly discuss the wear rates of the various bits and pieces.norebo

Pedantic? Yes, but right, the fact that the steam subs are commonly known as Nuclear because of the boiler doesn’t mean that to call them Nuclear powered is right, they are steam vessels with vastly improved boilers

MeisterEckhart wrote on Apr 1^st, 2025 at 5:25pm:



Yes - I heard it on the radio today - he spoke well.

We have been totally sucked in by the Yanks.

Jasin wrote on Apr 1^st, 2025 at 7:39pm:



We'll never see any new subs -

the Collins will be retired and that's it.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2025 at 5:16am:



Did you actually listen to what Malcolm said?

here:

The whole submarine 'deal' is so obviously a shakedown, it could have been made more obvious if it were a movie plot.

A wait of nearly 2 decades to see them operating - if at all, during which time Australia pays anyway...

The US 'preference' for the US to own the subs and 'manage' Australia's defense needs if, of bloody course, Australia builds and pays for a base in Western Australia to harbour and service US nuclear-powered subs and, of bloody course, pays the US for the 'privilege' of having US-owned and operated subs in Australian waters.

The shakedown will go on for decades with no requirement for the US to deliver subs at all if it decides the subs Australian taxpayers paid for are needed as part of US defence strategy.

And the British building the so-called 'SNAUKUS' subs? Totally dependent on US approval, which the US can revoke at any time.

What part of dumcunt arselicker did the Morrison government not understand about itself?

Brian - this is your chance to listen to what Malcolm said:

here:

Brian Ross wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2025 at 8:53pm:

Yes, logic can be boring.