So you're arguing and supporting the admiral that it was a better deal even though Australia dropped the deal.
You're
extremely confused. What kind of submarines Australia wants is up to them. I'm not making
any argument, of
any kind, as to what would be best for them. And... wait for it...
Neither was the rear admiral, who was trying his best to correct the confused and idiotic assumptions of the senator. That decision had already been made several years prior and was
not the purpose of the hearing
nor his appearance there. Several years prior to the hearing, government policy makers—not the rear admiral—came to the decision that the next generation of submarines would be conventionally powered. Whatever their reasons were, a decade or more ago, that decision had already been made—or if you prefer... that ship had already sailed. The rear admiral was simply part of an expert naval group assigned the task of reviewing and evaluating the design proposals and bids from naval engineering firms in Japan, Germany, and France. He was there to answer questions regarding that process and the proposals received.
The hearing was simply an oversight review of the contracting and bidding process which had been completed. The purpose was NOT to turn back the clock on a government policy decision which had been made at least six years prior by others. That fact made the senator's questions regarding nuclear subs to the rear admiral, along with her failed attempt to
elicit classified information in a public setting, even more stupid. She was simply trying to score some sort of political point by posing obviously confused questions
and asking the rear admiral about a decision which had been made several years prior by government officials other than himself. If she had an issue with the decision for conventionally powered subs—once again,
made several years prior by others—she was taking it up with the wrong person; at the wrong time; in the wrong setting. But, that really isn't what stood out in the videos that I linked. It was her inability to understand
repeated explanations given to her regarding the simple difference between a propulsion system (propeller/pump jet) and the power plant which makes it turn. It was
that inability which made her look like a unusually dense idiot—not to mention her question about whether using a more modern replacement for a propeller would limit submerged operation to 20-minutes.
I know that you do not and will not understand any of these facts or any of the context. I also realize that you want to engage me in some sort of circular argument that will go round and round and then thru a series of irrelevant rabbit holes.
I decline.
