Clawing back savings may not apply to all.

A reader, known as Anonymous, provided the following:

Proposition 1 - We need twice as many submarines ie. 12.

Proposition 2 - The 12 should be "regionally superior".

Proposition 3 - If the goal is regional or State economic development then spreading Federal money
                         for plausible reasons is an end in itself.
                         :  hence putting a price on the A$50 Billion does not present an obvious bargaining
                            failure, now or in 20 years time.
                         :  Japan Inc. and TKMS did not understand that saving money had nothing to do with                             it. TKMS saying A$20 Billion could buy all 12 submarines positively sealed its                                   own fate.

Proposition 4 - The major providers have years of notice that they are the only major providers, and
                         there are no other conceivable customers. So all are comfortably catered for, for
                         decades.

Proposition 5 - As with other Projects any major management problems will be rectified by adding
                         more Management companies at greater cost rather than removing Management
                         companies to save money.

Proposition 6 - No competitive structures, eg. duopolies, are conceivable at the priceless end of the
                         shipbuilding industry once a definite number of A$Billions in public money is
                         promised for decades.

Proposition 7 - Savings on small items, from small suppliers, under industry offset
                         arrangements, will be trumpeted - definitely not the main money for the monopoly
                         suppliers.

Proposition 8 - No-one will rock the boat because those in the know either benefit from industry
                         connections or government connections or both,

Anonymous asks "Is all this responsible, fair and inevitable?"