Don, This is not the same sort of project - they're engineering the hull of a submarine here and (apparently) not much else. You can't compare that to a project in India where people work for a fraction of the wages of Australians.
I work in heavy industry and over the years on a number of operational and major project's, one site employed 26,000 people. I've seen the fall out economic benefit these projects create, even with most of the technology actually imported. Hell the job in India almost the entire plant was fabricated in China and shipped to India and yet we still had 26,000 people on site, yes not the most productive but still there. Likewise similar projects but on a smaller scale in Australia. Very noticeable in smaller cities and towns.
You however think Sadie the cleaning lady and her boyfriend will be the only winners and some how $XB will be spent for zero impact on the SA economy. Don, your dreaming......the nice version. Enjoy your BS Don.You're letting your pathological hatred of me blind you to the realities of this project. You think I'm to blame for posting the truth about what's going on with this thing.
Have you actually read what we've been discussing? I don't think you have - because if you did you'd realise that the promised local jobs and the promised local content is not emerging - the local content likely now to be well below fifty percent according to Naval and in fact it will probably just be the actual hull construction and fit-out in the end. So the assertion that it will be worth 20,000 jobs to our nation is entirely fiction - I know it's incredibly hard for you to admit that you were wrong on this but you were definitely wrong. The number of jobs created will probably be less than 2,000 and even then much of that expertise will probably have to be imported on working visas anyway. It's a far cry from the promised 'jobs for locals' we were told when Pyne signed the contract.
And really, it makes sense for the French to do it that way. Their contract doesn't actually specify a minimum local content level and most of the fittings, equipment, etc are already being made on production lines overseas with existing employees and expertise that will not be easily replicated here. It's the same old story that's been killing Aussie-made for the last 40 years - why should they have to replicate those engineering processes here when they can save money by going off-shore?
You need to stop hating on me because I'm telling the truth about this extremely expensive, inefficient and obsolete boondoggle. I'm just telling it how it is.
Umm, I can and I did and I will, why because it is comparable.
The Indian's were an assembly team, everything was supplied from China, fabricated into assembly sets. I'm talking even safety stairs.
Also, I wasn't just referencing India, just one of a few examples including Australia where more fabrication was done on site, please keep up.
No hatred Don, that's in your mind, not mine. I have no reason to hate you.
Before asking me what I've read, ask yourself have you read what i posed? Which is a fair comment because you often say you don't or haven't. I've said all along the most likely local content is mostly the most complicated bit, will mostly likely be sourced from Australia and assembled in Australia short of complex alloy's.
Systems such as the Navigation, sonar, engines, war, environmental etc etc will no doubt be imported as assembled plug and play packages, the same that happens with V/line trains. Yes these complex systems will more than likely tie up 50% of the cost as you would expect especially the war system as its military, typically advanced technology, small production and all designed for one of the more complex machines ever built by humans, a sub.
50% local content is 50 x more than what you proposed, which was 100% import of completed product so please don't try and have ago at bit with your anti-Australian comments! Honestly I've never met someone so intent in off-shoring a large fed govt tax payer funded project. You go on and on about immigration and lack of jobs and here you are defending month in month out your decision to off-shore the sub project so that almost no Australian gets the opportunity to gain employment from this project. You won't be happy until the Sub arrives here in turn key fashion from where ever not even with an Australian crew on board.
On the jobs numbers, I used simple common sense for the money spent and industry experience of what might happen and happened elsewhere. On the flip side all you can bring to the table is Sadie the Cleaning Lady and her boyfriend. So am I wrong on the jobs? I never said I was right but i suspect far less wrong than you.
The so called job numbers you keep quoting from me are me using YOUR cost numbers. If you quote me correctly I originally stated a lower number. For every billion dollars in construction there are around 5000 jobs created somewhere directly, do the math! As the project is for nearly a generation, then we are talking jobs for almost life for some people. Providing baseload demand on goods and services and boost employment and create greater job security for people in the region. But again you'd rather import the subs! Good for you Don, but please for the sake of others financial future, lets hope you don't get your way which thankfully the Australian govt has seen not to.