Flogging A Dead Horse
OK this thing is so last year but I can't help writing it here. While eating a packet of nasi lemak for breakfast, I noticed a particular comment in a readers' column of a local newspaper (used as the nasi lemak packing material). It reads (translated):
"Diesel powered submarines use obsolete technologies which require scheduled and continuous maintenance and repair. It incurs a highly prohibitive costs in the long run as compared to nuclear submarines. A lot of problems will be suffered by the two Malaysian submarines. The government should have consulted the real experts before embarking on any projects - Marine Engineer"
So, using nuclear propulsion means LESS maintenance then? Are you sure Mr Marine Engineer? And if the diesel propulsion method is so 50 years ago, I wonder why the United States Navy, the Royal Navy and Marine Nationale are the only navies exclusively operating nuclear subs whilst the majority of the world stick with diesel-electric?
4 comments:
The Marine Engineer forgot about cost effectiveness!
bior bebenor sedara tu. gomen baru sebut cadangan masa depan nak bina loji nuklear tuk janakuasa elektrik pun orang sudah bising, inikan pula nuclear powered SSK.. wow, bertambah meriah parlimen
mz@mymil
Then all lorries, trucks and pick-ups or even locomotive should switch to nuclear power...
wonder who these experts are? the same ones who said we are getting Agosta SSKs?
I always wonder why these 'experts" never commented on our southern neighbours getting second hand SSKs. A case of other people do it ok, if we do it(even when we don't) not ok?
Post a Comment