Are they using the same accounting formulas as Canadian media outlets?
Nuclear subs are expensive, no matter what way they are looked at. But $368 Billion over 30+ years is far too vague a number to draw any real conclusions as TJ whether that is money being well spent or not.
As we all know, accounting in the defence world is a tricky and inconsistent thing - rife with political agendas, projected GDP growth, assumed pace of operations, and different formulas used from country to country. So much so it’s practically impossible to compare apples to apples.
So where am I going with all of this?
- Does that figure of $368B factor in such things as crew salaries, food/supplies, etc that would have been money spent regardless of whether the RAN went nuclear or not?
- or is that the projected acquisition & operating costs of just the boats? Does it include the upgrades to their submarine base?
- or is that projected costs with an extra 15% contingency bolted onto it?
It’s expensive no matter what way we slice the pie, but whether it’s outrageously expensive or not remains to be seen.
Still a heavy sticker shock to the Sustrakiaj taxpayer, no doubt
(Seeing that are getting slightly used American subs, have become an important hub for American subs operating in that region, and will operate mixed crews at least initially…they’ve probably realized some efficiencies they otherwise would have missed for a while. So that price tag could have been even higher yet…)