AUKUS

[pants on fire...]

Not to suggest in any way that there is any implication of impropriety in this Australian deal, but consider the larger picture and history. It is easy to understand the outrage over this submarine deal that is now underwater, however, it is always worth considering the history of the righteous state-owned builder and some of their past deals? These implicate individuals at the highest levels of Government on both sides of the deal and have had major political and criminal implications that run for decades in some cases. The sums of money involved are staggering and there is no way they are paid without visibility at the highest levels of business and government.

https://corruption-tracker.org/case/brazils-dcns-submarine-contract
https://corruption-tracker.org/case/the-malaysian-scorpene-submarine-affair
https://corruption-tracker.org/case/laffaire-karachi
https://corruption-tracker.org/case/taiwans-lafayette-frigate-affair

Corruption from other suppliers and countries remains a major issue in the arms business where huge amounts of money are involved, and the contemporary global compliance efforts must be wholeheartedly applauded.

[West Coast]

The point is, even when they are quiet, SSNs make noise that can be tracked.

So the perfect weapons system hasn’t been developed yet, got it.


You tell me. You are obviously an expert.

Somehow you missed the link early in this thread that provides estimates on endurance vs range.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/42390/australian-navy-goes-nuclear-with-future-submarine-force

[rjtjrt]

And is damned all use in littoral waters.

I know you are an expert, but is the Sea of Okhotsz a littoral zone/water and didn't US operate a nuclear sub there quite successfully?

[ExAscoteer2]

Oh FFS!

My point I merely pointed out that SSNs are easier to track than are SSKs, as you would know if you had ever had to do so. Get over yourselves.

[Grumpy retiree]

Oh FFS!

My point I merely pointed out that SSNs are easier to track than are SSKs, as you would know if you had ever had to do so. Get over yourselves.

I have no personal experience of tracking subs but have talked to PC3 Orion Pilots who have and you are undoubtedly correct.
However 2 big factors in favour of nuclear subs. Range and access to the whole suite of sensor technology etc.
Range has always been a big issue for the RAN and is what probably what ruled out the German option.
Five years ago the nuclear option was not on the table. As soon as it was it was a nobrainer.

[rattman]

Didn't turball mention in memoirs that he picked the french because there was an option to change later deliveries back to nuclear subs

[megan]

Anyone like to comment. Are we in the poo, the Fat Man is also complaining about the neuclearisation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0xSRh1ya7U

[rattman]

Anyone like to comment. Are we in the poo, the Fat Man is also complaining about the neuclearisation.


No major nuclear power is going to deploy nuclear weapons, the first country to launch is the second country to die

[Gnadenburg]

Anyone like to comment. Are we in the poo, the Fat Man is also complaining about the neuclearisation.

Firstly, Australia via its alliance with the USA and critical joint facilities, was presumably a Cold War nuclear target. Now, with or without nuclear powered submarines, it is a target of the CCP. Australia has been advised as much with threats from CCP run media.

Victor Gao had no logic despite claiming so. He was aggressive and threatening and if behaviour like this continues, sadly we will have to expect nuclear proliferation in Asia. China doe not want well armed regional nations no does it want regional military pacts.

[tartare]

Australia has been a target for nuclear strikes ever since it set up Pine Gap.
That facility is the NSA's eyes and ears on the whole of Asia - uplinking and downlinking to and from US SIGINT and IMINT birds, and Australia's own SIGINT bird that is part of the constellation.
Pine Gap will have played a critical role in the withdrawal from Afghanistan - anyone else wonder why a USAF C-17 made a trip from Guam down here at the height of those festivities?
And should war break out in the South China sea and nukes start being lobbed around - betcha it'll be one of the first places that disappears in a fireball.
Gao's assertion Australia is not already targeted is bull****.
Interestingly, if a senior commentator with very good guangxi at highest levels in the CCP is prepared to speak and behave in such a way in public, imagine what is being said in private?
Even filtering out the usual Chinese propensity for Peking Opera rage and bluster - in my view the tenor of his comments absolutely underline the necessity for Australia to acquire these submarines, and further weapons.

[Grumpy retiree]

If America and Britain can supply nuclear weapons to Australia, then why can't Russia supply the same to Cuba or Venezuela?

You do understand the difference between weapons and propulsion systems don’t you ?
Thanks to the likes of Adam Bandt et al I can see this debate getting very silly very quickly.
A Chernobyl in every city ? Really ?

[Maggie Island]

wonder why a USAF C-17 made a trip from Guam down here at the height of those festivities?


Because the YBAS flight is so regular you might aswell call it RPT?

[tartare]

If America and Britain can supply nuclear weapons to Australia, then why can't Russia supply the same to Cuba or Venezuela?

Last time they tried that, it got a bit messy I seem to recall.
And they had to back down.
Ultimately cost Nikita Sergeyevich his job too...

[AerialPerspective]

Based in Western Australia. Perhaps built in Adelaide?

Extraordinarily decisive new direction which is in part rather alarming. Long range bombers, in some form, will be next. The new Treaty driving a number of possibilities in this area.

I would expect there'll be a request to purchase B21 Long Range Bombers. Australia has been without an effective strike capability since the F-111 was retired.

[AerialPerspective]

Australia, UK and Us sign new treaty to share nuclear submarine secrets and build a fleet and operate of nuclear hunter-killer submarines (SSN not SSBN) based in Adelaide.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/biden-announce-alliance-with-britain-australia-tech-cyber-defense-politico-2021-09-15/

https://www.smh.com.au/world/north-america/australia-us-and-britain-unveil-new-aukus-defence-pact-to-counter-china-20210915-p58rzz.html

Just a query, I believe one of the likely subs that Australia will choose to acquire will be the US Virginia Class which is an SSBN. As far as I'm aware, SSN means Sub Surface Nuclear (Nuclear referring to the propulsion), SSBN is the same but carries Ballistic Missiles - hence Sub Surface Ballistic Nuclear - in both instances 'Nuclear' is referring to the power-plant, not what is on the tips of the missiles. Ballistic Missiles can carry conventional warheads and if we get what is essentially a Virginia Class, it will have a Virtical Launch System, hard to imagine Australia not taking advantage of that capability and putting conventional BMs on it (or having the option in future).

Personally, I think the nuclear subs are a good move, I think we should arm them with nuclear missiles however. I mean, if you're going to have a deterrent, may as well have a real one.

[gcal]

Time will tell and England, and its government, are fast becoming unstable.

[tartare]

I would expect there'll be a request to purchase B21 Long Range Bombers. Australia has been without an effective strike capability since the F-111 was retired.

I agree.
Ideal jet for Australia.
And both platforms are special weapons capable.
Which Hugh White says needs to be part of the discussion - his report is very interesting reading.
The Australian public is hopelessly naive in my view - I am in favour of a full nuclear deterrent.

[HK144]

Just a query, I believe one of the likely subs that Australia will choose to acquire will be the US Virginia Class which is an SSBN. As far as I'm aware, SSN means Sub Surface Nuclear (Nuclear referring to the propulsion), SSBN is the same but carries Ballistic Missiles - hence Sub Surface Ballistic Nuclear - in both instances 'Nuclear' is referring to the power-plant, not what is on the tips of the missiles. Ballistic Missiles can carry conventional warheads and if we get what is essentially a Virginia Class, it will have a Virtical Launch System, hard to imagine Australia not taking advantage of that capability and putting conventional BMs on it (or having the option in future).

Personally, I think the nuclear subs are a good move, I think we should arm them with nuclear missiles however. I mean, if you're going to have a deterrent, may as well have a real one.

Virginia class boats are not SSBNs they are SSN - Attack Subs. The forthcoming Columbia Class are SSBNs.

[ORAC]

Just a query, I believe one of the likely subs that Australia will choose to acquire will be the US Virginia Class which is an SSBN
No, the Virginia class are hunter-killer SSNs, the USN current SBNs are the Ohio class.

Early block Virginia class boats had 12 vertical launch tubes for conventional tomahawk cruise missiles. The block 3 boats replaced these with larger vertical payload (VLP) tubes able to carry up to 7 tomahawk or other payloads such as SF UAVs for infiltration etc. From from 2025 onwards 9 of the last block will be stretched versions including a VPM module containing another 4 VLPs, increasing their conventional firepower

This isn’t an innovation - the USN has 4 SSGN boats (modified Ohio class) do the same job, but those will, presumably, be retired at the same time as the SBN boats are replaced boats are being retired and replaced by the Columbia class from 2029 onwards.

The USN do not currently have a nuclear cruise missile, so no possibility of the new boats carrying nuclear weapons.

The USN are developing a new nuclear cruise missile, to enter service in about a decade. At which point they will be able to deploy them on their block 3-5 Virginia class boats if they wish.

Whether Australia will buy Virginia class boats and whether they would have any VLP/VLM is something I am sure will be a matter for discussion - but of course cruise missiles can be fired from conventional torpedo tubes, as the RN has amply demonstrated, so the point is moot except for regards the total number able to be carried.

In the meantime there has currently been no suggestion of Australia considering acquiring nuclear weapons.

http://submarinesuppliers.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Virginia-Payload.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio-class_submarine#SSBN/SSGN_conversions

[Widger]

Time will tell and England, and its government, are fast becoming unstable.

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland if you please....Great Britain consisting of Scotland, Wales and England. It is like talking about Catalonia, when you meant Spain or British Airways, when you mean IAG. :E

Anyway, according to sleepy joe, the US has no closer ally than Australia.........Really?...I mean, really?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/21/us-has-no-closer-ally-than-australia-says-biden-after-aukus-pact

[Asturias56]

Wales is stable, Scotland is stable, England & N Ireland are not stable

[Asturias56]

Can't see Australia buying B21's (even if they are for sale which I really doubt) - the cost will be extreme with no chance of offsets

[Widger]

Wales is stable, Scotland is stable, England & N Ireland are not stable

Might have something to do with this!

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/barnett-formula

[West Coast]

If America and Britain can supply nuclear weapons to Australia, then why can't Russia supply the same to Cuba or Venezuela?

First, there’s no transfer/purchase of nuclear weapons.

Giving/selling to them presumes that Russia believes the Cubans and Venezuelans are technically savvy, competent, reliable along with a whole host of other attributes needed to successfully manage the weapons. It’s not in Russia’s best interests to have client states with nukes if they can’t properly manage them.

[ORAC]

Getting to the stage where we might need a new thread just for ramifications for NATO….

https://www.eurointelligence.com/column/snookered-by-anglo-saxons

Snookered by Anglo-Saxons

The Europeans have misread Biden and misjudged Johnson. A bad combination

The withdrawal of an ambassador is the attempt to react to a 21st century strategic shift with 19th century diplomacy. Huffing and puffing achieves nothing. But France is right in one specific respect. The Aukus nuclear submarine alliance between the US, Australia and the UK will have lasting implications for Nato. Nato won’t be disbanded, but it will play a more peripheral role in the future.…..

Over time, I would expect Nato to wither, and the transatlantic link to weaken. The EU talks about strategic autonomy, but underestimates the size and, more importantly, the nature of the task. That would require a federal political union, with a federal foreign policy and European defence force, both independent of member states. To fund it, such a federal union would require tax raising and debt issuing powers.

The UK’s inevitable strategic realignment is making that task even harder because the UK used to play a critical part in European security, one that Germany will not fill.

The adult version of strategic autonomy is a very serious undertaking, for which the EU is not equipped. The collective failure to understand Biden’s foreign policy and the need for an alliance with the UK is telling us that the venture has no hope of succeeding.

Wolfgang Münchau is co-founder and director of Eurointelligence. He writes a weekly column on European affairs, syndicated to El Pais, Corriere della Sera and Handelsblatt.

[Trim Stab]

Argentina has been trying to buy modern subs (and multirole fighter jets) for many years, but France has always vetoed sales to them out of loyalty to their "ally" the UK...

[ORAC]

Argentina has tried to buy fighters off of many countries over the past 40 years. What’s stopped them isn’t a French veto - it’s that they don’t have any money…

[recceguy]

The very day AUKUS was announced, French naval shipyards got a letter in the morning from the Australian government, stating that everything was fine and that they were happy with the process, ready to move forward to the next step. If that's not duplicity, tell me what it is.
This letter does exist, and will be published quite soon.
Brace for it.

Feeling the uncertain ground, now the Anglo-Saxons resort to jokes and pleasant words like "give my a break" "we understand your frustration".... "it's already behing us"

Anyway, we will all have white beards when the first Aussie SSN sails out of Darwin or anywhere else. Will be probably a second-hand USN something, with a sealed nuclear compartment under US control, and a bunch of crew with double passports, as it so commonly happens. But if it does suit them, who cares after all ?

Just for information, the day after AUKUS was announced, the Australian technicians and families in France were already packing their stuff, ready to leave - as in the Anglo-Saxon world, you can get banned immediately from your office and a company the day you are no longer needed. Nothing like that in Cherbourg - they were told by the management that they had French contracts, and that therefore they were still welcome and that a solution was going to be found for them - probably remaining Naval Group employees, in Cherbourg or somewhere else. A sharp contrast to the treatment they are getting from their own government....

For those expressing their unhappiness about French "colonialism " in the Pacific, I suggest they dig a little bit more in their Aborigin and Maori history...

When flying to Auckland, a regional F/O told me that he had been to Noumea once, and that great, "it was looking like France"
Therefore it was my pleasure to say "yes, of course, because IT IS France" - like it or not.

And suddely India is very interested in French SSN - so strange - to complement their current squadron of French-made Scorpene classic subs.
Why not, there is more potential, future and brain in 1/20 of India than in the whole Oz. And everybody knows that.

By the way, I flew Jaguars in the RAF. Your move.

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1599x724/scorpene_india_0d320a3b0a1b816ad749a50c7c4b0a0cb9d7919f.jpg
Fifth "Scorpene" for Indian Navy. Who needs Oz ?

[ORAC]

And suddely India is very interested in French SSN
Good luck with that….

For those expressing their unhappiness about French "colonialism " in the Pacific, I suggest they dig a little bit more in their Aborigin and Maori history...
No one was expressing unhappiness, just pointing out that decolonisation in the Pacific has been a US policy since before WWII, and they don’t regard places such as New Caledonia integral parts of France, even if France does.

Interestingly neither do the local inhabitants it seems. I would be interested to hear what the Vrench secret services and others are doing to persuade the people otherwise….

https://www.npr.org/2021/03/11/975273437/new-caledonias-new-government-seen-as-significant-turning-point-in-the-pacific

Whatever, it is merely to point out the USA doesn’t see France as a major player in the region - or at least not one on their side because of their different policy on China.


Fifth "Scorpene" for Indian Navy. Who needs Oz ?
So why so upset at possibly* losing a contract?

* No contract yet cancelled as far as I know, though future follow-on phases may not be signed or implemented.

[recceguy]

.... a US policy since before WWII, and they don’t regard places such as New Caledonia integral parts of France, even if France does.
.
And we have to call them "friends" or "allies" ??
It was so good to see them running away at KBL recently, we were playing the vid's again and again.....

[rattman]

And we have to call them "friends" or "allies" ??
It was so good to see them running away at KBL recently, we were playing the vid's again and again.....


France is the ultimate judge of running away, been doing it through out their history

[rattman]

Good luck with that….



Wonder what the ramifiactions of selling nuclear hardware to a non signitory of the NPT would be

[recceguy]

.... of running away....
Like the Brits in Dunkirk ?

By the way, ex-Australian PM Kevin Rudd signed today a very offensive paper in French newspaper "Le Monde" - against current PM Scott Morrison, regarding this matter.
I suggest everybody here to get informed a little bit more.

[ORAC]

Dunkirk? A fighting retreat where the rearguard fought to the last man, including the 1st French Army which held half the line. A retreat which saved over 300,000 troops to form the nucleus of those who later liberated Europe, including the free French army…

“Despite this German military success, the Allies were able to rescue 338,226 military personnel from the Dunkirk perimeter. This included 139,997 French, Polish, Dutch and Belgian troops.”…..

Dunkirk - Defence of the Perimeter » Dunkirk 1940 - The Before, The Reality, The Aftermath (http://dunkirk1940.org/index.php?&p=1_17)

But that you react in this way show the depth of the anger which losing a contract, which has been forecast for years, has generated - and makes the future of the Franco-British Lancaster agreements on joint production of missiles and mutual support of maritime and land operations in doubt.

And of course the doubts, as reflected in the articles above, on the future of NATO as US attention pivots to the Pacific theatre.

[Video Mixdown]

Like the Brits in Dunkirk ?

By the way, ex-Australian PM Kevin Rudd signed today a very offensive paper in French newspaper "Le Monde" - against current PM Scott Morrison, regarding this matter.
I suggest everybody here to get informed a little bit more.
I really think you need to calm down a bit. A French company has lost a contract, that's all. It happens all the time.

[recceguy]

.... need to calm down a bit
So you insult people, and you ask them to calm down after ?

A French company has lost a contract, that's all..
It's not about losing a contract - how many times shall we have to tell that ? it's about being betrayed.
Contract had been signed, and it appeared its value was like one of a working contract in Dubaï.
Therefore WE, and not you, will decide when it's over.

And you would be surprised about my personal position regarding UK and Oz establishment - but no way unfortunately I'm going to put that here.

[rattman]

So you insult people, and you ask them to calm down after ?


It's not about losing a contract .

Nah its about all the bribes and corruption that they spent gone to waste


By the way, ex-Australian PM Kevin Rudd signed today a very offensive paper in French newspaper "Le Monde" - against current PM Scott Morrison, regarding this matter.

You mean kevin Rudd, registered agent of a foreign government - China

But Rudd hates morrison he would team up with chinese to **** on morrission. I hate morrission but this was the right decision. NG were screwing australia straight up intentionally they are equally responsible and should take the blame as well

[GeeRam]

Why not, there is more potential, future and brain in 1/20 of India than in the whole Oz. And everybody knows that.


Not in my experience.

They are just cheap. And for a reason.

[BFSGrad]

Wonder what the ramifiactions of selling nuclear hardware to a non signitory of the NPT would be
As long as the transfer is for peaceful use (i.e., use for other than nuclear weapon), the NPT imposes no restrictions.

[Gnadenburg]

recceguy

You dodged my snippet earlier and surely you know this as it was passed to me by ex-French Rafael and Mirage pilots. Former French fighter pilots have accepted consultancy contracts in the Peoples Republic of China to teach PLA pilots Western tactics.

Now I was of the understanding this was not just targeting Taiwanese Mirage operations, it extended to NATO. If it was just Taiwan, what duplicity and betrayal, as you have an active exchange program with the Taiwanese (recently at least).

What of your ex-submariners? The PLAN has all the leaked info they want on Indian submarines what of any other unofficial French assistance.

To be honest, your anger is misplaced and comparing it to wage contracts in the Middle East simple. Australia always had options to leave the program if not satisfied. For years now, commentary has been critical of the program and to go from 50 billion to 90 billion was never sustainable, especially with commercial offsets starting to look shady and not guaranteed.

British and American personnel have fought side by side with Australians. Even on our own soil. I'm sorry you are offended, but for most Australians, this new security pact is far more comforting than any Great White Hope in the form of French naval technology.

Can I just add the Australian submarine base is near Perth, Western Australia. Adelaide, South Australia is where they are to be built. Darwin is not a submarine base despite some saying it should be (a number of researchable issues)

[Lookleft]

The very day AUKUS was announced, French naval shipyards got a letter in the morning from the Australian government, stating that everything was fine and that they were happy with the process, ready to move forward to the next step. If that's not duplicity, tell me what it is.
This letter does exist, and will be published quite soon.
Brace for it.

All you are highlighting is that there were parts of the Australian Government that were also not told about the decision to source the subs from somewhere else. Its not unusual. A bit like an airline continuing to recruit and train pilots when those in the know are preparing to shut it down. If you can produce a letter that was signed by the PM then that would be a revelation.

By the way, ex-Australian PM Kevin Rudd signed today a very offensive paper in French newspaper "Le Monde" - against current PM Scott Morrison, regarding this matter.
I suggest everybody here to get informed a little bit more.


If you actually knew a bit more about Australia you would realise that former PM Kevin 07 (look that phrase up) would have sold us all to China and spends a lot of time denigrating Scott Morrison whenever the opportunity presents itself. Even Rudd's own political party didn't like him and got rid of him at the first opportunity.

It's not about losing a contract - how many times shall we have to tell that ? it's about being betrayed. Contract had been signed,

So how would you classify what France did to Israel in the late 60's? You don't seem to want to address that issue as that was a real stab in the back when Israel had paid for and the equipment was built awaiting delivery. It was also at a time that Israel was facing very hostile neighbours whose stated aim was to destroy them. That is what a real stab in the back looks like.

You want to invoke Dunkirk as an example of the Brits running away. You might want to ask your good mates the Belgians as to why they wouldn't allow the BEF into Belgium before the Germans invaded which is why they were forced to the coast. You might want to also look at the history of the 51st Highland Division. The figure often quoted is 300,000 evacuated. What is not quoted, especially by the French, is that half of that number were French soldiers who were then returned to France. If you want to start looking at the French contribution in WW2 you might also, in the interest of balanced discussion, talk about the Vichy collaboration with the Germans run by a French General. Then there is the whole hero worship of Napoleon, it says a lot about French sensitivities to their position in world affairs.

[Grumpy retiree]

Dunkirk ? Really ?
For the second time in 25 years in British and Commonwealth troops were deployed in defence of France.
And you call it running away ???
I’ll tell you what the biggest mistake was. It wasn’t cancelling the sub. contract. It was getting involved in 1914.
Should have sat it out like the Franco-Prussian War.

[ehwatezedoing]

Back to the usual French bashing I see. Not surprising in a predominantly Anglo speaking forum.
You will say what you want, AUKUS was a total betrayal the way it was “created”

Things will eventually smooth out.

[rattman]

Can I just add the Australian submarine base is near Perth, Western Australia. Adelaide, South Australia is where they are to be built. Darwin is not a submarine base despite some saying it should be ( a number of researchable issues )

All the RAN keep there is some patrol boats. And its gets visited by the USN every so often when bringing in equipment for the rotational marine force that spends 6 months there. Theres been talk for years that the USN is building a base there, but its a pretty ****ty location for one. That all said a large contract was let by the DOD for construction of a large tank farm for storage of fuel in the last few weeks

[rattman]

Interesting apparently the US were the ones that rushed the announcement, not giving smirko enough time to notify everyone

e minimal heads-up from the three nations to their French ally came up during a phone call between Biden and Macron on Wednesday.

Philippe Etienne, the French ambassador to the US, said he found out about the allies pulling out of the deal through the press despite Australian officials saying they provided notice. American officials acknowledged they only gave Australia a few hours' notice before announcing the deal, according to The New York Times.

"The two leaders agreed that the situation would have benefitted from open consultations among allies on matters of strategic interest to France and our European partners," the Biden and Macron administrations said in a joint statement.

"They will meet in Europe at the end of October in order to reach shared understandings and maintain momentum in this process," they continued. "President Emmanuel Macron has decided that the French Ambassador will return to Washington next week."



Macron got his chance to play the anti anglo card before the election to give himself the boost.

[tartare]

All the RAN keep there is some patrol boats. And its gets visited by the USN every so often when bringing in equipment for the rotational marine force that spends 6 months there. Theres been talk for years that the USN is building a base there, but its a pretty ****ty location for one. That all said a large contract was let by the DOD for construction of a large tank farm for storage of fuel in the last few weeks

I thought the water round there and the Timor Sea was pretty shallow too?
Big, strong tides and currents.
Hard to get a big boat (in a submarine sense) in and out, treacherous on the way and easy for people who wanted to - to track arrivals and departures.
Only when you get over near West Timor, or east of the Gulf of Carpentaria that it starts to get really deep.

[Lookleft]

Back to the usual French bashing I see. Not surprising in a predominantly Anglo speaking forum.
You will say what you want, AUKUS was a total betrayal the way it was “created”

Yeah because recceguy has been graceful in his suggestion that Australian's are stupid and don't have the intelligence to operate anything larger than a tinnie.

You do however bring up a good point about the predominantly Anglo speaking forum. The lesson is- If you take on one you take on all.

[rattman]

I thought the water round there and the Timor Sea was pretty shallow too?
Big, strong tides and currents.
Hard to get a big boat (in a submarine sense) in and out, treacherous on the way and easy for people who wanted to - to track arrivals and departures.
Only when you get over near West Timor, or east of the Gulf of Carpentaria that it starts to get really deep.

Pretty much the arafura and timor seas aren't that good for subs. The only imho place worse for naval base in australia would be the north east coast of queensland because of the barrier reef

If you wanted to make new base and willing spend the billions broome / derby / port headland area would be the place. Hundreds of KM from anything gives go good security. Virtually immediate access to open/deep water

[itsnotthatbloodyhard]

I’m wondering if all this hysterical French fury is for real, or just a bit of performative outrage that might impress the likes of the Chinese (who go in for that sort of thing).

[Grumpy retiree]

Yeah because recceguy has been graceful in his suggestion that Australian's are stupid and don't have the intelligence to operate anything larger than a tinnie.

You do however bring up a good point about the predominantly Anglo speaking forum. The lesson is- If you take on one you take on all.

Agree.
Also words and phrases like ‘betrayal’ and ‘running away’ don’t sit well with those of us who had close relatives who fought on the western front in WW1 and the skies over France in WW2.

[tartare]

Put em in Exmouth. :)
RAAF Learmonth just down the road - Harold E Holt antennae farm nearby, and a coupla lovely deep channels out to deep water...

[itsnotthatbloodyhard]

By the way, ex-Australian PM Kevin Rudd signed today a very offensive paper in French newspaper "Le Monde" - against current PM Scott Morrison, regarding this matter.
I suggest everybody here to get informed a little bit more.

Ah yes, Kevin Rudd. A grandiose narcissist, whose idea of his own importance isn’t really supported by objective reality. And who is prone to flying into rages when things don’t go the way he wants.

There are some interesting parallels there…

[megan]

Re Darwin as a base, it was attempted to set up a sub base there in WWII, but the high tides, shallow water (easily mined) and open coast line scotched the idea. There is a Japanese sub with the entire entombed crew sitting on the bottom in 157' of water close by, had been sunk by depth charge from a corvette.

[rjtjrt]

Ah yes, Kevin Rudd. A grandiose narcissistic, whose idea of his own importance isn’t really supported by objective reality. And who is prone to flying into rages when things don’t go the way he wants.

There are some interesting parallels there…

I suggest the French have Kevin. They should offer him some position with a grandiose title, and lots of time so he can phone important people in Europe.
Ask Angela Merkel how much she enjoyed his phone calls.
They will soon send him back!

[Grumpy retiree]

Kevin Rudd is priceless!
Have a look at his record on Wikipedia.
Never has so little be achieved in such a short time in power.
And yet you would think his John Curtin or Robert Menzies the way he carries on.
Julia Gillard thought he was nuts.
Why anybody listens to him is a mystery.

[golder]

Like the Brits in Dunkirk ?

By the way, ex-Australian PM Kevin Rudd signed today a very offensive paper in French newspaper "Le Monde" - against current PM Scott Morrison, regarding this matter.
I suggest everybody here to get informed a little bit more.
I don't think anyone is saying that diplomatically, That it wasn't done poorly and ham-fisted. That doesn't change the facts on the ground.

[golder]

Back to the usual French bashing I see. Not surprising in a predominantly Anglo speaking forum.
You will say what you want, AUKUS was a total betrayal the way it was “created”

Things will eventually smooth out.
You are confusing the two. AUKUS is an upgrade from 5 eyes. What is contained in that far exceeds a nuke sub. The nuke sub is a shiny, distracting headline to what is happening and is just a small part of AUKUS

[ATSA1]

Looks like USA and France have kissed and made up...

Move along, game over...

[golder]

I’m wondering if all this hysterical French fury is for real, or just a bit of performative outrage that might impress the likes of the Chinese (who go in for that sort of thing).
There is an election coming. Nationalistic ranting always turns out the voters.
The French are very fair. They will sell anything to anybody.

[Lookleft]

The French are very fair. They will sell anything to anybody.

But if you displease them and not pay enough homage then they will take your money and keep the goods.

[tartare]

Interesting - Chris Uhlmann just mentioned on 9 that all the Aussie head spooks are up in Washington with Morrison as well.

[golder]

Interesting - Chris Uhlmann just mentioned on 9 that all the Aussie head spooks are up in Washington with Morrison as well.
As I said earlier. The sub is just a shiny headline. There is some real stuff going on.

[Guptar]

The Pundits are saying that a B-21 Raider (12 airframes) order will be announced in due course.

[AerialPerspective]

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland if you please....Great Britain consisting of Scotland, Wales and England. It is like talking about Catalonia, when you meant Spain or British Airways, when you mean IAG. :E

Anyway, according to sleepy joe, the US has no closer ally than Australia.........Really?...I mean, really?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/21/us-has-no-closer-ally-than-australia-says-biden-after-aukus-pact

Yeh, that gets up my nose too - Americans are the WORST for constantly referring to the UK as 'England' - which hasn't been a sovereign state for more than 300 years, including when they won their independence, they should read their own Declaration of Independence, it doesn't mention England once but rather, refers to "... the history of the present King of Great Britain...."

Then of course, that was the founding fathers who were intelligent and educated - as the Late Gore Vidal once noted "Our Republic was created by the smartest people in the country and we haven't seen them since."

[AerialPerspective]

Virginia class boats are not SSBNs they are SSN - Attack Subs. The forthcoming Columbia Class are SSBNs.

Thanks. I must've misread it, I was thinking of the Ohio Class boats which I believe are SSBNs.

[AerialPerspective]

I agree.
Ideal jet for Australia.
And both platforms are special weapons capable.
Which Hugh White says needs to be part of the discussion - his report is very interesting reading.
The Australian public is hopelessly naive in my view - I am in favour of a full nuclear deterrent.

I'll look for that Hugh White article. We should have upgraded the F-111 with supercruising engines - an asset tossed away because of politics. As for the B21, of course the yanks may refuse to sell it but it seems a bit incongruous as they'd be saying "You're our closest ally and we trust you with hour leading edge sub technology but not the aeroplane". We'd probably only need 12.

[rattman]

I'll look for that Hugh White article. We should have upgraded the F-111 with supercruising engines - an asset tossed away because of politics. As for the B21, of course the yanks may refuse to sell it but it seems a bit incongruous as they'd be saying "You're our closest ally and we trust you with hour leading edge sub technology but not the aeroplane". We'd probably only need 12.

assuming if he was to announce it, its a given that it that they would expect to get. I personally doubt congress would allow it to be exported. I have heard there is going to be an aviation announcment but it said V-22's to replace MRH-90

[tartare]

Crikey - if they're trusting us with reactors etc. and the JSF - then the new jet isn't much of a step further.
And personally - I'd be holding out for the V-280 rather than the Osprey.
That thing is going to be a fantastic aircraft.

[henra]

Therefore WE, and not you, will decide when it's over.

Who is 'We'?

[henra]

Crikey - if they're trusting us with reactors etc. and the JSF - then the new jet isn't much of a step further.

Well, it's a strategic Bomber. So far only Russia and the US have strategic Bombers. And this one is a VLO Strategic Bomber. So far only the US has such toys.

[Guptar]

Should we be thinking of some new platforms for the RAAF.

Example: F15EX replacing Super Hornet.

Does the single engine, short range F-35 cut it in the theatre of long range projection.

[Grumpy retiree]

So, Macron wont answer the phone.
And “ You “ will decide when its over……..
Let me see. A pissed off France or Virginia Class subs ?
Really difficult choice. Not.
Why does France have tickets on itself ?
Nobody else cares.
Nice place to visit but thats about it.
Get over yourselves.

[rduarte]

France is the ultimate judge of running away, been doing it through out their history


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_France

You need to read more often , mate !

[golder]

So, Macron wont answer the phone.
And “ You “ will decide when its over……..
Let me see. A pissed off France or Virginia Class subs ?
Really difficult choice. Not.
Why does France have tickets on itself ?
Nobody else cares.
Nice place to visit but thats about it.
Get over yourselves.
The French don't worry me much. I'm probably more grateful, that we didn't cancel the Swedish Collins. Those Vikings can be a handful.

Which sub will Australia build?
https://www.australiandefence.com.au/news/which-submarine-will-australia-build

[finestkind]

Like the Brits in Dunkirk ?

By the way, ex-Australian PM Kevin Rudd signed today a very offensive paper in French newspaper "Le Monde" - against current PM Scott Morrison, regarding this matter.
I suggest everybody here to get informed a little bit more.

I think it has all been said "I suggest everybody here to get informed a little bit more" and highlighted that before you make such a hubris comment you had better have the information yourself.

[Gnadenburg]

The French tantrums over a legitimate exit from a basket case contract cannot be all there is to this saga. It has been apparent for a number of years the French were not delivering on offsets and work for local companies. As well, the final capability was questionable and loaded with more and more risks, with a project blow-out from 50 billion to 90 billion AUD, which was always going to be terminal once our Allies onside with nuclear propulsion. Below is an excerpt from today's newspaper The Australian.

"Mr Hamilton-Smith said the deal with the French started with a commitment to 90 per cent of the work being done locally, which dropped to 80, then 70 and “after quite a scuffle” to 60 per cent."

While the French outbursts are complex, and you can look no further than within this thread, I'd invite those interested to spend an evening on deep and very researchable historical information of the French in the South Pacific ( you'll nee a lot longer if looking at Indo-China ). 1939 onwards is probably most relevant in getting an appreciation of what weight to place on French policy in the region moving forward.

Australia is facing a deteriorating security situation and whilst cooperation with France is important in the Pacific, the reliability of such a relationship to extend toward a coherent mutual defence of interests would be a folly now as much as it was with the Japanese steamrolling through the region in the early 1940's. In this century, a strategic investment with the French would always be at the mercy of a better deal for that European nation with the Chinese Communist Party.

A well equipped Australian military, with a committed UK and US in the region, will probably well suit the French eventually. It will allow for fence sitting and minor defence commitments to the South Pacifc whilst others are left to challenge a rising China ( in whatever form that may take ).

[rjtjrt]

EU and France talk of not honouring contracts.
EU refused to allow COVID vaccine purchased by Australia from Astra-Zenica to be exported from EU.
Then they decided they didn't want to use it but still refused to allow it to leave EU.
Hypocrisy rules.

[ORAC]

https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/600x195/image_50d7f6dc132eebda5e066f7488ad71f34a0b5a9e.gif

[ORAC]

Decades?

https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2021/09/23/gilday-australian-sub-deal-brilliant-partnership-with-french-navy-remains-strong/

Gilday: Australian sub deal ‘brilliant,’ partnership with French Navy remains strong

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Navy’s chief of naval operations is committed to helping Australia with its newly announced nuclear-powered submarine program and equally committed to operating seamlessly alongside the French Navy, after the recent Australia-U.K.-U.S. submarine agreement caused a political fallout between the triad and France.

Adm. Mike Gilday called the so-called AUKUS agreement, in which the U.S. Navy and U.K. Royal Navy would help Australia design, build and support a nuclear-powered attack submarine program of its own, “strategically … very important and, I think, a brilliant stroke with respect to our posture in the Pacific (https://www.defensenews.com/global/asia-pacific/2021/09/17/what-are-the-regional-reactions-to-the-new-us-uk-australia-security-pact/), particularly vis a vis China.”

He said the arrangement would require the U.S. Navy to work “very closely with the Australian Navy to help determine what the optimal path will be to safely deliver not solely the submarines, but the enterprise that has to support them. This is everything from a defense industrial base in Australia; to a community inside the Australian Navy that’s able to man, train, and equip those submarines; to sustain them; to have the oversight mechanism similar to what we have in the United States Navy to oversee those nuclear power vessels.”

“This is a very long-term effort that’ll be decades, I think, before a submarine goes in the water — it could be. I don’t see this as a short-term timeline. We have an 18-month exploratory period that’ll get after a lot of these questions and help Australia come to grips with exactly what they need to do to get in the path akin to the United States Navy,” Gilday continued during his remarks at Defense One’s State of the Navy event online.

The U.S. Navy not only has program offices that support submarine design, construction and maintenance, but a Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program, or Naval Reactors, program exists under the U.S. Department of Energy to handle the nuclear-powered propulsion system design, maintenance and safety……

[wiggy]

Good to see the topic has allowed the Francophobes another opportunity to get things off their chest….

Personally I’d be wary of assuming keeping the project within the “Anglosphere” is automatically a good thing since I think there’s a tendency towards thinking a shared language (of sorts) means Brits/Aussies/Americans are all singing from the same song sheet, have the same interests or do business in the same way….that’s not always been my experience having of worked in/lived in a few of the countries involved in this spat.

Oh, has Suez been mentioned?

[JustinHeywood]

….

Oh, has Suez been mentioned?

Well that was 65 years ago, global security is a completely different paradigm now.

I would argue that AUKUS is not simply an ‘Anglo’ alliance; all three countries share a commitment to a relatively liberal democracy, stable governance and a willingness to act as reasonable global citizens.
Relatively of course.

[Grumpy retiree]

Suez ?

The lesson of Suez is that adventurism by the UK and France without sanction from the US is a really bad idea.
Sort of proves the opposite of the point you are trying make.
Gareth Evans has written a very balanced article in todays Financial Review.
Another one in the New York Times.
France is pissed off because their long term positioning in the Pacific has been thwarted.
Maybe the real question is “ is France a major power anymore ? “
Its the internal politics leading up to an election that has really what’s wound them up.
Nothing to do with being Francophobic.

[wiggy]

Well that was 65 years ago, global security is a completely different paradigm now.

I would argue that AUKUS is not simply an ‘Anglo’ alliance; all three countries share a commitment to a relatively liberal democracy, stable governance and a willingness to act as reasonable global citizens..

You are correct with the point about 65 years so maybe some upthread need to stop using events that happened even further back than that as justification for views held in 2021.

However if there’s still insistence on arguments along the lines of “well in XXXX you did this so there” :ugh: then a reminder that there was a much more recent event where the actions of one of the AUKUS triad dropped the other two in the mire to a certain extent and ended up being accused by some of being an unreliable ally.


As to the sub deal - There may well have been good practical, contractural and strategic reasons why the French/Aus contract fell apart but I think ultimately it might be a tad naive to think the new arrangement/agreements will automatically be plain sailing by virtue of the Anglo aspect..most especially once the industrial-military complex gets it’s teeth into the sharing of work so I suspect stories about this deal will be surfacing :} on a regular basis over the next couple of decade…

Finally (hurrah) a gentle nudge that plenty of non Anglo countries have values that claim to involve liberal democracy, stable governance and a willingness to act as reasonable global citizens….

[Davef68]

How much metal has been cut on the now-cancelled subs? Or is it all just been prep work?

[Not_a_boffin]

How much metal has been cut on the now-cancelled subs? Or is it all just been prep work?

None. They hadn't even got to the stage of approved design.

[henra]

It has been apparent for a number of years the French were not delivering on offsets and work for local companies. As well, the final capability was questionable and loaded with more and more risks, with a project blow-out from 50 billion to 90 billion AUD, which was always going to be terminal once our Allies onside with nuclear propulsion. Below is an excerpt from today's newspaper The Australian.

"Mr Hamilton-Smith said the deal with the French started with a commitment to 90 per cent of the work being done locally, which dropped to 80, then 70 and “after quite a scuffle” to 60 per cent."

Looking at those facts it is not so surprising that the Alternative of a combination of a Security alliance and more capable Subs was attractive enough to switch horses. That the French didn't see that coming is to quite some extent their own fault. That said, French Companies tend to act similarly when having taken over foreign Companies - they exploit and marginalise them so that the French locations get the Cherry Picking while the foreign entities take the hit. The French Government tends to back such activties up whereas other Countries Governments typically don't intervene, so the big French Companies are not used to negative impact when they try to exploit other companies or state institutions. In the short term, French Companies are often benefitting from this but in the longer run the French Industry as a whole has lost competitiveness.
This time -it seems- they gambled too high and didn't see the writing on the wall.
For Australia it is a win- win. For France it hurts in multiple ways: Loss of Influence in the Asia Pacific Theater. Loss of a big Deal. Loss of reputation (massive Price increase, drop of local share, way of dealing with unhappiness of customer). And all this after multiple other Military Programs that shared some of these problems. The planned phase- out and replacement of the Tiger helicopters was a clear warning. They should try to learn from this instead of acting as a petulant child.

[AerialPerspective]

Should we be thinking of some new platforms for the RAAF.

Example: F15EX replacing Super Hornet.

Does the single engine, short range F-35 cut it in the theatre of long range projection.

Certainly we should. The retirement of the F-111 was a highly political event. The nonsense about maintenance costs was a fallacy, some of the most advanced aircraft like the F-22 require something like 100 hours of maintenance for every 1 hr of flying time. It is completely unfathomable that the F-111 would have been anywhere near that ballpark. Yet it was a good solid platform with the capability of carrying weapons that the F/A-18F (a pigmy by comparison, a 5th of the combat radius, a third of the load and much, much slower - yet it was touted as an F-111 replacement. Replacement my a-se)....... and the F-35 cannot carry some of those weapons either. Anyway, the F-111 has gone now unfortunately but I've often thought the F-15SE or the newer F-15EX would have been a FAR better replacement. The F-35 is simply NOT going to be able to do everything the F-111 could and an advanced F-15 at least has close to the weapons load and almost the combat radius (short by 300 miles or so but much more than the anaemic F-35 and the totally pathetic -18F - Defence carried on about how 'range isn't important', the same ADF was expressing interest in conformal fuel tanks for the F/A-18F so, yeh, range IS important) and the F-15 is slightly faster than the F-111 (Mach 2.5 for the -111 and either 2.6 or 2.7 for the F-15)....

One analyst has suggested we should be scaling back the Army, putting the money into 24-32 Nuclear Subs including some SSBNs with nuclear weapons and a strong aerial strike capability. The logic is that any large scale operation to 'invade' would have to come by sea and we need a force that can sink them on the way and strike back. The striking back bit of course is the deterrent part.

It is entirely arrogant IMHO for China to be throwing a hissy fit when they are churning out ships and aircraft like a sausage machine. Nuclear powered and armed Subs with a very capable strike platform (12 B21s would be nice but the yanks probably won't sell them to anyone, but they wouldn't sell their subs to us until now so you never know.......) simply sends a message that we are more than capable of defending ourselves and retaliating so go bully someone else.......

[rattman]

The planned phase- out and replacement of the Tiger helicopters was a clear warning.
Rumors are MRH-90 is going as well. No idea what options there are to replace it, navy dumped thiers and are going to seahawks

[rattman]

How much metal has been cut on the now-cancelled subs? Or is it all just been prep work?
The contract was 2 parts, one was the design and then a construction contract based on the final design. The construction contract has not been signed because there was no detailed design yet

The were to be paid 600 million for the phase 1 contract that covered the design. That was broken into sub phases, a basic design and the detailed design for construction. If australia cancelled the contract after the basic design, NG get 200 mill for contract cancellation, if after detailed design they get 400 million,

[JustinHeywood]

…plenty of non Anglo countries have values that claim to involve liberal democracy, stable governance and a willingness to act as reasonable global citizens….

Very true, but not too many realistic AUKUS candidates in our corner of the Pacific though. Ultimately it is surely about building real military capacity down here, not another feel-good, all-inclusive but toothless confederation. Realpolitik.

[Video Mixdown]

Very true, but not too many realistic AUKUS candidates in our corner of the Pacific though. Ultimately it is surely about building real military capacity down here, not another feel-good, all-inclusive but toothless confederation. Realpolitik.
I personally find it a bit sad that New Zealand seems to have drifted so far away - they have been a valued and trusted ally for so long. In the past it would have been a given that NZ would be in that acronym somewhere. How do most Australians feel about it?

[henra]

Very true, but not too many realistic AUKUS candidates in our corner of the Pacific though. Ultimately it is surely about building real military capacity down here, not another feel-good, all-inclusive but toothless confederation. Realpolitik.
Personally I'm wondering why South Korea and Japan are not part of that agreement. Both are significantly investing in their Military. Both are sharing Western values to quite some extent. Both have relevant potential for conflict with China.
Are the US concerned that this might be considered too much of an aggression by China?

[Fliegenmong]

How do most Australians feel about it?

Don't care, half of NZ live here and hate Australia, and make it known. Kinda like certain nationalities in the UK who are happy to live there but hate it and all that it stands for...

[Buster Hyman]

France is pissed off because their long term positioning in the Pacific has been thwarted.
The thing that I don't get is how a commercial contract cancellation impacts upon Frances ability & desire to be a part of protecting their Pacific 'assets'. Are they withdrawing from the Pacific now? It's almost like they've cried so much to the EU that they can't back down anymore.
Was being part of a coalition standing up to China conditional on this deal? Does that make them Mercenaries? Obvious answers to both of those but, whilst we know Oz is not a big player in Military expenditure (big for us though), does the EU seriously want to undermine the fact that a lot of our kit is from Europe already?

[rattman]

Personally I'm wondering why South Korea and Japan are not part of that agreement. Both are significantly investing in their Military. Both are sharing Western values to quite some extent. Both have relevant potential for conflict with China.
Are the US concerned that this might be considered too much of an aggression by China?

This whole thing was pretty rushed and its why it turned into a cluster, betting there is some behind the scenes talks imagine with india, japan, singapore and korea to see if they are interested in either this or an expansion to quad

[JustinHeywood]

I personally find it a bit sad that New Zealand seems to have drifted….How do most Australians feel about it?


https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/739x415/e8be1d7d_718b_451d_8c47_5f6a572a6fee_bb0b7676c4ca83b2ae138f6 3bb0c45e29ac18bba.jpeg
That’s how ’The Australian’ feels about it. Personally I think NZ is small enough to carry on without having to make hard choices like the bigger players.

[Emoclew]

Rare poster but since I'm texting from Dublin and aware of what happens to the grass when elephants fight, does anyone have insight as to why the diplomacy was so unnecessarily bad?

[sandiego89]

Lets see, how could the worst program work?....in the name of maximum equality share for the US and UK, and local jobs for AUS, US systems and weapons suite (or maybe even the reactor) is shoehorned into an Astute, BAE is hired as the integrator, and rips out all the perfectly good US gear and tries to splice it to the UK black boxes, and the whole thing is assembled by Australian pipe fitters and welders who are underexperienced with the specialized metals that go into sub work....ooh and several late changes in specs for new technologies and mission creep....

[rjtjrt]

Lets see, how could the worst program work?....in the name of maximum equality share for the US and UK, and local jobs for AUS, US systems and weapons suite (or maybe even the reactor) is shoehorned into an Astute, BAE is hired as the integrator, and rips out all the perfectly good US gear and tries to splice it to the UK black boxes, and the whole thing is assembled by Australian pipe fitters and welders who are underexperienced with the specialized metals that go into sub work....ooh and several late changes in specs for new technologies and mission creep....

I hope that prediction doesn’t turn into a best case scenario!

[JustinHeywood]

Lets see, how could the worst program work?....in the name of maximum equality share for the US and UK, and local jobs for AUS, US systems and weapons suite (or maybe even the reactor) is shoehorned into an Astute, BAE is hired as the integrator, and rips out all the perfectly good US gear and tries to splice it to the UK black boxes, and the whole thing is assembled by Australian pipe fitters and welders who are underexperienced with the specialized metals that go into sub work....ooh and several late changes in specs for new technologies and mission creep....

Well, they could always let Lucas be in charge of the electrics.

[recceguy]

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Navy’s chief of naval operations .[..]... from a defense industrial base in Australia, to a community inside the Australian Navy that’s able to man, train, and equip those submarines, to sustain them....
[..]
“This is a very long-term effort that’ll be decades, I think, before a submarine goes in the water ……

Americans are quite realistic in pointing out the problems..... good to read that.

Some Aussies seem to regret that their workshare in the program with the French went to 90 % (?) to 70 then 60% (which is my knowledge)
Delays and cost-increase in the contract were coming exactly from that specific requirement, quite unrealistic because of the "lack of expertise" down South . It's a little bit similar to those people considering themselves " an aeronautical nation" .. yes, they share a common laguage with Brits and Yanks, theyr have airlines pilots scattered all around Asia and Middle-East, usually trusting the management positions because of their golfing abilities, but where are the factories, the research centers and the Technical Universities ?

Anyway, that was quite refreshing to learn about ex-PM Kevin Rudd being despised by quite a lot here, and NZ having to stay at the door - I enjoyed reading that, their world is not so solid, it seems.

And regarding the letter of program appreciation received by the French governement the morning of the AUKUS annoucement, saying as it has been wrtten above : "departments are numerous in government offices, they don't talk to each other " " that was a proof of the secrecy of the deal to come" does seem to me a little bit immature, like a child miserable excuse. Who is the petulant child once again ?
Petulant and livid maybe, but still with some honor.
Keep treating your allies like that, and you will see the results.

[henra]

Obvious answers to both of those but, whilst we know Oz is not a big player in Military expenditure (big for us though), does the EU seriously want to undermine the fact that a lot of our kit is from Europe already?
It's not the EU. It's France. They try to get some backing from the rest of the EU but the response is rather lackluster. It was an Arms Deal between France and Australia. End of. EU was never involved in that deal and would not have profited.
It's the general loss of interest of the US in the transatlantic axis and the massive shift towards APAC what worries Europe (and where the solitary retreat from Afghanistan was showing the same pattern). That part of the cry- out is rather genuine. The tears over the dropped deal with France are not so much (except in France where it is almost the opposite). That's probably more kind of support of Macron against Front Nationale/Marine LePen.

[MCDU2]

I personally find it a bit sad that New Zealand seems to have drifted so far away - they have been a valued and trusted ally for so long. In the past it would have been a given that NZ would be in that acronym somewhere. How do most Australians feel about it?

NZ is laughing all the way to the bank.....They have been under pressure for years by the Ozzies to increase their defence spend as a % of GDP but have resisted. To not be invited to the big table means that they didn't have to respectively decline the offer and then deal with the diplomatic fallout thereof.

[Doors Off]

Wow! Some serious thread creep from the spotters amongst us. As much as us Aussies are getting pointy in our panties about B-21’s, V22’s V280’s F15EX’s etc etc etc, we are the ultimate Bower Birds.
We will collect, gesticulate, pontificate all to you know, whaticate.

The submarine “announcement” will hopefully come to fruition, it is a no brainer in the current climate of the Xiping Dragon, whom is no doubt hell bent on ruling the Pacific and Indian Oceans - no matter the cost. Subs like the Virginia and Astute will keep him worried, we need those subs. (P.S. I ain’t Chips n Gravy - not weird enough)

As for the Spotter/Bower Bird milk bottle top collectors, perhaps we should put our energy in to pressuring our government to shorten the time frame of an off the shelf Virginia/Astute boat.

The Lord knows the Amateur, sorry, Australian Army Aviation Corpse will try and turn any V22/V280 into an IFR RPT Rotary Airliner never able to deploy and waste at least a decade reinventing the round wheel into a square wheel.

The RAAF will most likely see greater benefit from Rapid Dragon and an expansion of the Transport fleet, rather than F15EX, they are smart enough to know it.

Here is truly hoping that all the milk bottle tops, hair ties, and discarded lego pieces that us Aussie’s collect - never need to be used, and that Xiping Dragon drops dead soon and the Chinese people are left to enjoy their great country in a peaceful way.

[RAFEngO74to09]

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/679x382/image_4f393593b57d746ed2c3834747afc209ae7e9968.png
Macron: ""Tu es une merde !"
Biden: "C'mon Man - quit whining about the submarine deal"

[recceguy]

India formalises acquisition of 56 Airbus C295 aircraftProgramme to kick-start first-ever private aircraft manufacturing in India; will contribute significantly to developing the country’s military industrial ecosystemhttps://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1920x1280/c295_avro_81d5c0b18fcde960e9f2624d49e677a550bfd666.jpg

[golder]

And that relates to AUKUS in what way?

[langleybaston]

Don't care, half of NZ live here and hate Australia, and make it known. Kinda like certain nationalities in the UK who are happy to live there but hate it and all that it stands for...

That would be the Jocks and Welsh, who depend on the English for handouts, which they waste.

[Lookleft]

From the JTA News Bulletin Jan 8 1968:

........Some diplomatic sources in Jerusalem said the French move places Paris squarely behind the Arabs and loses for it any standing as a possible intermediary in the Middle East dispute. The “total embargo” announcement shocked Israel as there had been no hint that such action was contemplated. But diplomatic observers believed that while Jerusalem-Paris relations would be frigid they would not be broken.

Editorial comment was bitter. The independent daily Haaretz declared: “We will never forget de Gaulle’s hostile intention to make us surrender. But we will not surrender.”

(Paris newspapers, with the exception of the Gaullist La Nation and the Communist Humanite, severely criticized the French Government for its “total embargo.” Le Figaro termed it a “further escalation of France’s anti-Israel attitude.” L’Aurore called the de Gaulle decision a “breach of honor.” Several prominent French political personalities also criticized the de Gaulle move, among them George Duhammel, president of the Independent Party, and Daniel Mayer, president of the French League for the Rights of Man.)


From History Net:

By 1968 contractors had completed and delivered seven of the Cherbourg boats. But France prohibited release of the remaining five, even though Israel had already paid for them. With France reneging on the deal, Israeli forces hatched a plan to spirit the boats away from Cherbourg and sail them to Israel.


The word renege means; go back on a promise, undertaking, or contract."they have reneged on their promises to us"

I put the bolding in. Me thinks some French people are the pot calling the kettle "noir"

[Gnadenburg]

And that relates to AUKUS in what way?


India operates high-tech French military equipment at the forefront of its defence against the Chinese Communist Party.

6 x Scorpene-class submarines: confidential design and data specifications leaked in a major security breach.

Rafael/Mirage 2000 combat aircraft: following 2019 trade agreements which included large civilian aircraft orders, France appeared to turn a blind-eye at its former Armée de l'Air combat pilots employed in consultancy roles with the PLA, addressing the well known divide in operational training standards. recceguy could confirm the extent of this cooperation.

So all in all, if you see China as a player in your security and strategic outlook, and operate French-made military equipment, caveat emptor.

[golder]

India operates high-tech French military equipment at the forefront of its defence against the Chinese Communist Party.

6 x Scorpene-class submarines: confidential design and data specifications leaked in a major security breach.

Rafael/Mirage 2000 combat aircraft: following 2019 trade agreements which included large civilian aircraft orders, France appeared to turn a blind-eye at its former Armée de l'Air combat pilots employed in consultancy roles with the PLA, addressing the well known divide in operational training standards. recceguy could confirm the extent of this cooperation.

So all in all, if you see China as a player in your security and strategic outlook, and operate French-made military equipment, caveat emptor.
Again, how does that relate to the subject of AUKUS? Take it to another thread to talk about French stuff. Naval group and the short fin sub is the only relevant thing that is French

[Gnadenburg]

golder

How about connecting the dots? One major driver of AUKUS is Australia receiving advanced military technology transfers. France is not the only country recently given the boot. The Israelis were too. You cannot have your major defence capabilities compromised by potential security leaks or lack of confidence in the durability of relationships.

There's a lot of issues other than the cancelled submarines relevant to the French. Previous projects, capabilities ( or lack of ) and promised offsets not materialising. Confidence in security as well.

AUKUS:The agreement covers key areas such as artificial intelligence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_intelligence), cyber warfare (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberwarfare), underwater technologies, and long-range strike capabilities. It also includes a nuclear component, possibly limited to the US and the UK, on nuclear defence infrastructure.[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AUKUS#cite_note-Politico-15-sep-1) The agreement will focus on military capability, separating it from the Five Eyes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes) intelligence-sharing alliance that also includes New Zealand and Canada

[megan]

the F-15 is slightly faster than the F-111 (Mach 2.5 for the -111 and either 2.6 or 2.7 for the F-15)Looking at figures in such a manner doesn't give any indication as to a particular aircrafts capability. Yes, a F-111 will do 2.5M, but only above 50,000 feet, decreasing linearly to 1.2M at sea level. The F-18E/F 2.0M above 35,000 feet decreasing linearly to 1.1M at sea level. Then those numbers are for basic aircraft which change with aircraft configuration, it takes real in depth analysis to gauge which aircraft is the better for the mission you desire it to fly.

[Buster Hyman]

It's not the EU. It's France. They try to get some backing from the rest of the EU but the response is rather lackluster. It was an Arms Deal between France and Australia. End of. EU was never involved in that deal and would not have profited.
Yes, I know. France were trying to involve the EU, (I thought I had posted as much) however it appears that the EU are not so gullible to join in the festivities. Perhaps they remember who spoke their mind about MH17 when others couldn't. Anyway, time has moved past the relevance of my post. :ok:

[itsnotthatbloodyhard]

Looking at figures in such a manner doesn't give any indication as to a particular aircrafts capability. Yes, a F-111 will do 2.5M, but only above 50,000 feet, decreasing linearly to 1.2M at sea level. The F-18E/F 2.0M above 35,000 feet decreasing linearly to 1.1M at sea level. Then those numbers are for basic aircraft which change with aircraft configuration, it takes real in depth analysis to gauge which aircraft is the better for the mission you desire it to fly.

Unfortunately all this talk of M2+ is operationally irrelevant, and also a bit inaccurate (good luck seeing M2.7 in an F-15 or M2.0 in a Super Hornet). None of the types mentioned are going to be doing those sort of speeds with any sort of useful offensive loadout. The 111 was a fine and capable machine right up to the point it was retired, but keeping it going was a big ask, and not just a simple matter of money. Really, its time was up and the game has changed- and that’s speaking as someone who was a big fan of it and spent a fair while flying it.

[Asturias56]

There was a mention on the need for training Aussie crews - the UK had to train crews pretty much from scratch when they built the "Dreadnought" SSN way back - any idea how long that took?

[rattman]

RE - the F-111. Confirmation the other day that Loyal Wingman final assembly will be in Queensland. An ambitious plan to enhance RAAF medium range capability.

https://amp.abc.net.au/article/100484924

Kinda OT but wonder if we will see MQ-25's built at same place if we were to buy some

[Flap Track 6]

Lets see, how could the worst program work?....in the name of maximum equality share for the US and UK, and local jobs for AUS, US systems and weapons suite (or maybe even the reactor) is shoehorned into an Astute, BAE is hired as the integrator, and rips out all the perfectly good US gear and tries to splice it to the UK black boxes, and the whole thing is assembled by Australian pipe fitters and welders who are underexperienced with the specialized metals that go into sub work....ooh and several late changes in specs for new technologies and mission creep....

Firstly, the British company who designed and built the Astute class Weapon Launch System was also working on AFSP (Attack class) because thye RAN uses American submarine weapons. The French sub's weapon launch system was designed for French weapons, so a new system was required. The same British company designed and built the WLS for the Collins class for the same reason - the original Swedish sub was designed for Swedish weapons and the RAN uses American weapons. The Astute class WLS is a very flexible system and can be easily used for US weapons.

Secondly, the Australian Submarine Corporation (ASC) built, maintain, repair and overhaul the Collins class submarines, so have a lot of accumulated knowledge, which was one of the main drivers in its creation.

Apologies for the serious answer.

[Asturias56]

" Australian Submarine Corporation (ASC) built, maintain, repair and overhaul the Collins class submarines, so have a lot of accumulated knowledge"

I think its fair to say they have a bit of a chequered record?
​​​​​​​

[minigundiplomat]

Don't care, half of NZ live here and hate Australia, and make it known. Kinda like certain nationalities in the UK who are happy to live there but hate it and all that it stands for...

you mean Asturias?

[Video Mixdown]

you mean Asturias?
Excellent!

[Asturias56]

Alas, alack gentlemen I am not an inhabitant of Australia or New Zealand but I have a lot of friends in Adelaide - and even in Port Adelaide (tho' I follow the Crows)

As to ASC:-The first submarine, HMAS Collins (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMAS_Collins_(SSG_73)), was laid down in February 1990. Collins' launch was originally planned for 1994, but was later set for 28 August 1993.[ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collins-class_submarine#cite_note-50) Although launched on schedule, she was not complete: the design of the submarine had not been finalised, important internal pipes and fittings were not installed, the components of the combat system had yet to be delivered, and some hull sections were actually sheets of timber painted black so the submarine would appear complete in photographs of the launching ceremony.

Within weeks of the launch, Collins was removed from the water, and it was not until June 1994 that the submarine was completed. Progress on the other five submarines was delayed by the extra effort required to meet Collins' launching date and the subsequent work to complete her. Collins was not commissioned into the RAN until 27 July 1996; eighteen months behind schedule, because of several delays and problems, most relating to the provision and installation of the combat data system software. Collins was not approved for operational deployments until 2000.

The other five submarines were scheduled for completion at 12-month intervals. However, the series of defects and problems encountered during sea trials (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_trial) of the submarines (particularly Collins) resulted in the repeated diversion of resources from those still under construction, adding to delays. Consequently, delivery of the submarines ran significantly behind schedule; submarines were presented to the RAN between 21 and 41 months late, and the entire class was not cleared for full operational service until March 2004, a year after the last boat was commissioned. These delays forced the RAN to keep several Oberon-class submarines and the submarine base HMAS Platypus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMAS_Platypus_(naval_base)) in service beyond their planned decommissioning dates.

[minigundiplomat]

I wasn’t referring to Aus/NZ. It seems to be the UK you hate, and feel the need to chip away at on any and every occasion:

You’d fit in well at the BBC

[Flap Track 6]

Consequently, delivery of the submarines ran significantly behind schedule;

The last Collins class sub was so far behind schedule that delivered equipment for her had to be relifed (overhauled) to replace life limited seals before being installed as the seal life had been used up in storage.

A problem that has also affected another current heavily delayed submarine programme.

[Derfred]

Collins: 6 boats lay-down to commission: 14 years.

Astute: 4 boats lay-down to commission: 20 years.

[ORAC]

Just starting on BBC4 at 10pm - “How to Build a Nuclear Submarine” - the building of the Astute class… 1/3….

Doubtless available on BBC catch up…

[rattman]

Collins: 6 boats lay-down to commission: 14 years.

Astute: 4 boats lay-down to commission: 20 years.

spanish S-80 16 years for first of 4

suffren 13 years for first on 6

Anyone would think making subs is hard

[Video Mixdown]

I wasn’t referring to Aus/NZ. It seems to be the UK you hate, and feel the need to chip away at on any and every occasion:

You’d fit in well at the BBC
I'm relieved that I'm not the only one to have noticed his pattern of malicious behaviour. It's been going on for years.

[AerialPerspective]

It's like Federation never happened. Australia still behaves like a colonial relic; an outpost of empire from which the mother country(ies) can launch military adventures and source cannon fodder and commodities.

A tragic waste of what could have been a genuinely great nation.

A useful distraction though for alleged leaders trying to draw attention away from debacles of own their making like Afghanistan, Brexit and the vaccine "stroll out". The "yellow peril" is still a potent political tool as it was in the 1800's.

It's because we're not a republic. A lot of people can't see that when we finally make that break, it will change the way we think of ourselves as a nation - it's not about getting rid of the Queen, it's about standing up and being counted not based on what some other country thinks, but because we will start to think independently.

Sadly, at this point in time the opposition to such a move (although dwindling from 85% in the 60s to probably less than 40-50% today) is characterised by people who are either moribund in their thinking or can't escape the anglophile mindset that Britain is largely irrelevant in today's world and they show their lack of imagination by trotting out hackneyed garbage lines such as "served us well" and the most annoying of all "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" - I often ask when someone says that "Do you own a car and have electricity in your house????" They of course say yes, to which I reply "Well you should have stayed with candles and a horse, because, you know, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".

If everyone had that attitude and society rested on that foundation, we'd still be inhabiting caves and running around half-naked killing animals with a club.

Then there's the 'but the US is a republic and look at the problems they've had with their previous President' - as if they are happy to discard 234 years of general stability because of the last 4.

It might seem esoteric what I'm saying but there's a subtle but powerful mindset that comes with making your nation independent. That includes a realisation that we are where we are today with a fairly stable democratic state because we have a written constitution (based on the US and the Swiss as the UK doesn't have a constitution) and because of a general respect for the rule of law. NOT, because some nonogenarian woman in London has some magic powers of casting stability....... which is clearly nonsense because if she did, Scotland wouldn't have an independence movement, the IRA wouldn't have been setting off bombs everywhere and Fiji would have been protected from their coup by the juju up the mountain nonsense attributed to one Elizabeth Saxe Coburg von Gotha or whatever her real name is.

Bottom line, to make credible and Independent decisions, Australia first needs to grow the hell up.

When Britain abandoned us, we cottoned on to the United States. Now the ANZUS Alliance is seen not as an equal partnership but is almost worshipped like a religious icon. Why???? Because when Mummy let us down we had to have a Daddy to turn to, so incapable of independent thought in foreign policy, defence policy and many other areas because we still are an 'almost nation'.

Yes, people can say correctly that 'legally' we are sovereign and independent but as long as we have a head of state that isn't even a citizen (it's like if the Rome was still a 'country', the leftover from the Roman Empire, Britain having the leader of Rome as it's head of state still) and a flag that screams BRITAIN!!!! or subordinate then the mindset isn't going to change.

[ORAC]

based on the US and the Swiss as the UK doesn't have a constitution)

The UK has a constitution, it’s just unwritten, based on common law. Just because it’s not written in one document doesn’t mean it’s not there.

https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/administrative-law/the-advantage-of-unwritten-constitution-administrative-law-essay.php

[Gnadenburg]

Bit of an irrelevant republican outburst .

However, keeping on topic historically, lots of researchable information online about Australia's direction in the sixties and choice not to pursue nuclear weapons. I'd argue that Australia, based on where it is positioned in the world and if it chose non-alignment, would have required a nuclear deterrent.

[RickNRoll]

The usual Republican spiel. Keating-esque propaganda.
Becoming a Republic would make precisely zero difference.
Australia’s strategic position would be exactly the same. What would make a difference would be if we increased defence spending to over 5% of GDP and committed to designing and manufacturing our own fighters, missiles, submarines , tanks and artillery etc. etc.
Like Sweden.
But its not going to happen.
We snapped up the opportunity to acquire the Virginia Class for the same reason we acquired the F35 , and before that of course the F18 ,the E-7A Wedgetail ,the P-8A Poseidon ,the Tactical Command and Control system for the Collins Class etc. etc. etc.
Because we cant or wont do it ourself.
Plus huge bang for our bucks , massive capability for a middle power and interoperability and continued alliance with our most import strategic ally.
Its called reality.
No one has mentioned anything about what we are buying other than that it will be nuclear powered.

[Asturias56]

"Anyone would think making subs is hard"

precisely - the US has had its moments as have the Russians - the point being that a betting man wouldn't put odds on home-built Australian SSN's for a considerable time.

I still think its the right decision to acquire them but its pure political spin to envisage they'll all be built in Australia.

[Asturias56]

"No one has mentioned anything about what we are buying other than that it will be nuclear powered."

Given that it is going to be British or American there really isn't much choice - waiting for a new design would push back in service dates by over a decade. Taking a current design and modifying would be a very bad idea (see numerous posts above).

Given the small number of "Astutes", the slow roll -out rate and the need to start building new SSBNs in the UK, it looks very likely to be a "Virginia" - possibly second hand to start with. Still a lot of punch for your dollar

[Flap Track 6]

Anyone would think making subs is hard

Not only is it hard, but for many countries you have a lack of continuity, leading to skills and knowledge loss. something the UK is trying to solve with Astute > Dreadnought > SSN(R). The benefit for the US is continuous production, allowing EB to maintain their skills.

Designing and building a new submarine every 25 years makes a hard job much more difficult.

I think this is one of the issues why the French have reacted so badly - they now see a large gap where their sub design team is not active.

[NumptyAussie]

"Given that it is going to be British or American there really isn't much choice - waiting for a new design would push back in service dates by over a decade. Taking a current design and modifying would be a very bad idea (see numerous posts above)."

What about something that has already been modified to take cruise missiles such as the early Ohio's, as a stop gap?

[rattman]

What about something that has already been modified to take cruise missiles such as the early Ohio's, as a stop gap?

My personal opinion I dont think stop gap subs would be particularly useful, maybe for astutes where theres a limited amount of a operational subs some other nuclear sub might be worth the money/time/effort. I mean TClasses are totaly shagged, theres 2 part documentary on the trenchent on youtube, the sub is a floating rust bucket https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBDHsF6frhU&t=1431s so nothing would be gained by puttering around on one of them. Hear contradictory stories on the 688's, probably better basing RAN crew out of their operating port because suspect they might be coming back for repairs regularly if the T Class is any indicator. Youtube channel smarter every day spent 24 hours on a 688 and thier oxygen generators were US


But for virginia's theres a large amount available for just adding a few crewman onto each or having some of them just rotate through stirling each spending a couple of months just doing training cruise or shorter "combat cruises" with RAN taking some the postions. Also specifically with the Ohio's I think the political optics of using an SSBN even modified might be a bridge to far. Also the issues with the 160-170 needed for one

If the virginia or some deriviative of it picked I think (assuming the yanks are in on it) leasing some of the early model virginia's based at hawaii for a for a few years, or some them permanently deploying to stirling would be the goto plan for the navy. Theres like 20 or so in service theres a enough that even adding a few RAN to each will get trained crew and a not have a real effect on the a crewing of the collins that will still need to be crewed during this period

[golder]

We could look at what the defence minister said...Lease or buy EXISTING sub. To me that is a sub that is in the water now, not one that is being built. The US would be the only one and for a short to mid term, A longer term build Astute, or joint UK/AU on their SSNR and build ours in Australia, with US fire systems. It helps both the UK and AU, more than the US. I can't see the US being bothered doing the same and they benefit by the UK and AU having a solid base.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3KIant351k

[recceguy]

...Lease or buy EXISTING sub. To me that is a sub that is in the water now, not one that is being built.
Exactly.
Lease a couple of hulls, and hire some crew from knowledgeable navies, and miracle, you have a submarine force. How easy.

I think this is one of the issues why the French have reacted so badly - they now see a large gap where their sub design team is not active.
Don't worry for them, they are busy designing and building toys you wouldn't even dream about in your country.

[CargoOne]

I am not so familiar with Oz politics and military doctrine but given it is Pacific/Indian oceans how much you can do with diesel submarines anyway? There are some enclosed theatres like Baltic sea, North sea, Black see and Mediterranean where the diesel submarines make sense cost/capability wise but Pacific??? What is the best mission OZ can carry with a diesel submarine - a friendly visit to NZ accompanied by a tanker all the way?

[ORAC]

JAUKUS? It could be, politically, argued, that a submarine reactor is peaceful, being similar to a land based reactor, and not weapons related….

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/japanese-pm-candidate-backs-nuclear-submarines-b66xs2plr

Japanese PM candidate backs nuclear submarines

The popular choice to be Japan’s next prime minister believes that the country should acquire nuclear-powered submarines, a move that would drastically increase military tension in east Asia, following the announcement that Australia is to do so.

Taro Kono was speaking during a televised debate among candidates to be the next leader of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP). The LDP has a decisive parliamentary majority, meaning that the winner of Wednesday’s party election will be voted in as prime minister next Monday.

“It is very important for Japan to have nuclear submarine capability,” said Kono, 58, yesterday. “The question of whether there are regions willing to accept them as home port, their operational capability, and realistic costs will have to be examined.”

The complexities of the LDP election system, and the fact that three other candidates are running, make the upcoming party election unpredictable and Kono is not guaranteed to win. But he remains the most popular candidate among the general public, and his open support for nuclear submarines, which would have been unthinkable a few weeks ago, is a sign of how quickly old assumptions about defence and security in Asia are changing.

Tokyo has welcomed the formation of Aukus (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-times-view-on-the-aukus-defence-pact-pacific-protection-rs5tkmcml), a defence pact between Britain, the United States and Australia, which will provide nuclear-powered submarines to Canberra. Japan already has 20 diesel-powered submarines and although its defence chiefs would undoubtedly welcome the long-range and stealth of nuclear submarines, compared with Australia their strategic need is not so great.…….

Japan’s nuclear energy law specifies that nuclear power can be used only for peaceful purposes, a stipulation intended to block spent nuclear fuel from being reprocessed into the fuel for nuclear warheads – but which also represents an obstacle to nuclear-powered, conventionally armed, vessels.

Any move to change the law would be met with public anxiety and strong political opposition.

[rattman]

I am not so familiar with Oz politics and military doctrine but given it is Pacific/Indian oceans how much you can do with diesel submarines anyway? There are some enclosed theatres like Baltic sea, North sea, Black see and Mediterranean where the diesel submarines make sense cost/capability wise but Pacific??? What is the best mission OZ can carry with a diesel submarine - a friendly visit to NZ accompanied by a tanker all the way?

You can range the whole pacific with DE boats the issue is how long they can stay in their patrol area, dunno the accuracy but there was someone saying a DE could spend 7 days on station in south china sea based out of perth while nuclear could spend 70 days


The whole china sea in reality is sorta enclosed theres only a few ways in and out, so much of shipping has to through enclosed straights, the video linked below he looks at it the shipping routes and just look at suff going through the big straits like malacca

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kSQWp4UEXw

[ChrisJ800]

The French deal was for converting their nuclear subs to diesel electric with most (90%) of the work to be done in Australia and was won against good bids from Germany and Japan. The Oz mission then was to go near Indonesia for intelligence gathering including counter terrorism and people smuggling. The Oz mission has now changed to counter China especially as they are building super carriers and their own nuclear subs. At the same time the French deal was blowing out in total cost and the proportion to be done in Oz dropped (I think to 50%) on last negotiations.

We now have F35's that can network with the USAF. We have AEGIS Hobart class destroyers that network with the USN. So it makes sense for our subs to network with the USN. Not sure how the British can help but they have had the one sinking of a cruiser by a nuclear sub. That sent the entire Argentine navy back to port. The French need to " passer à autre chose "

[rattman]

Theres been issues with virginia's, parts that were expected to last the life of the sub are having to be replaced. Because they were expected to never be replaced the spares dont exist so they taking them from in build subs

Among the biggest challenges is that the Navy assumed certain parts of the sub would last the life of the boat. However, as in-service Virginias arrived for maintenance, the Navy found it had to replace parts that weren’t supposed to need replacing. Since there aren’t spares available, maintainers have been taking the parts from the construction line, slowing down production at Electric Boat and Newport News Shipbuilding and contributing to those new boats being late, Stefany said.

“Whether it was bad design, bad assumption, whatever — it is what it is, so now we need to go do something,” he said, and the new PEO SSN will make that easier to coordinate by having a single flag officer in charge of SSN construction and sustainment.

https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2021/09/27/us-navy-reorganizes-submarine-enterprise-to-address-challenges-in-construction-maintenance/

[tartare]

I reckon that's what they're planning.
Give Australia an older boat or two to learn the ropes - possibly even refresh the USN fleet from the bottom up by doing so.
I also wonder what's being planned SIGINT wise.
I reckon they'll be talking about expanding Pine Gap - and possibly adding to The Hook sosus network around South East Asia.
There must be a lot of very stealthy secret squirrel stuff on the shallow floor of the South China sea as well... listening...

[recceguy]

... The Oz mission has now changed to counter China especially as they are building super carriers and their own nuclear subs.
Waooh ! I hope you knew a little bit in advance what the Chinese were building. If you discovered just now what their Navy has been up to - and for many years - it speaks volume about your intelligence services....

.. At the same time the French deal was blowing out in total cost and the proportion to be done in Oz dropped (I think to 50%) on last negotiations.
Simply because to build more in Australia was becoming more and more unrealistic, given the local capabilities...

. The French need to " passer à autre chose " I'm afraid you will not escape so easily from the bill ....

[Asturias56]

The original plan way back IIRC was to acquire around 33 "Virginias" - Congress now seems to be looking at maybe 66 eventually. Current status is around

Completed 19
Building 11
On order 8

with 3 - 4 years between being laid down and commissioning so you could say that the current order book pretty much fulfills the original intention. Selling a few out of the future production run won't hurt, especially as they will be effectively working as USN boats against the same threats.

[ORAC]

The USN intend to stop production of the. Irginia class in 2031, at current production rates that’s about another 20 boats, EBbthink they might be able to fit in another 4 or 5. The current fleet of around 65 subs will, on current trend, sink to the low 40s, so I don’t think they would be happy to give any up.

The USN has never been that happy with the Virginia compared with the Seawolf - see it as a kind of F-35/F -22 performance thing - and the SSNX is supposed to close that gap. So they won’t want to slip the changeover to build more Virginia class instead.

https://news.usni.org/2021/08/11/report-to-congress-on-navy-ssnx-next-generation-attack-submarine-3

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/shrinking-silent-service-us-navy-faces-massive-submarine-shortage-50512

[golder]

Waooh ! I hope you knew a little bit in advance what the Chinese were building. If you discovered just now what their Navy has been up to - and for many years - it speaks volume about your intelligence services....


Simply because to build more in Australia was becoming more and more unrealistic, given the local capabilities...

I'm afraid you will not escape so easily from the bill ....
We aren't breaking a contract. there was a series of steps, with an exit ramp at each point. The 'bill' is the exit clause, no more, no less. I've seen AU$400m said, I've also seen 200m. What do you think it has as a fee?

[junior.VH-LFA]

I'm afraid you will not escape so easily from the bill ....

There were multiple escape clauses and gates built into that contract. France will get the contracted exit fee and not a cent more, no matter how much grandstanding they do.

[rattman]

There were multiple escape clauses and gates built into that contract. France will get the contracted exit fee and not a cent more, no matter how much grandstanding they do.

no contract had been signed for the build phase because no detailed design had been submitted. I am hearing on the rumor mill it will be 200mil for completeing the basic design work (they have already been paid for that) , and a break fee 400mill because they failed to submit a detailed design plus reasonable incurred expenses ie like if they had already bought steel, modifications done to facilites and any other reasonable expenses incurred

A lot of these additional payments could be up to the goodwill of the AUS governement, probably why NG group is saying nothing about this whole situation.

[Gnadenburg]

There's been plenty of press about US assistance with the Brit's. Not so much on the US helping the French develop their nuclear submarines and other deterrent forces.

Recently declassified documents reveal that in 1958, France approached the United States for help building its nuclear submarine.




https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/09/24/australia-will-get-nuclear-powered-submarines-some-see-proliferation-threat/

[Asturias56]

Interesting articles ORAC but I can't see tyhem developoing a new sub in 9 years.... and

"Unlike the VIRGINIA Class Submarine, which was designed for multimission dominance in the littoral, SSN(X) will be designed for greater transit speed under increased stealth conditions in all ocean environments, and carry a larger inventory of weapons and diverse payloads. It will also be designed to retain multi-mission capability and sustained combat presence in denied waters, with a renewed priority in the anti- submarine warfare (ASW) mission against sophisticated threats in greater numbers. SSN(X) will be required to defend against threat UUVs [unmanned underwater vehicles], and coordinate with a larger contingent of off-hull vehicles, sensors, and friendly forces. (Budget-justification book for FY2022 Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Navy account, Vol. 3 [Budget Activity 5], p. 1301.) A Navy official stated in July 2021 that the Navy wants the SSN(X) to incorporate the speed and payload the Navy’s fast and heavily armed Seawolf (SSN-21) class SSN design, the acoustics (i.e., quietness) and sensors of the Virginia- class design, and the operational availability and service life of the Columbia-class design. (Justin Katz, “SSN(X) Will Be ‘Ultimate Apex Predator,’” Breaking Defense, July 21, 2021.) "

Doesn't sound cheap - in fact it sound very expensive. The Seawolf programme was canned because of the cost - and yet they want a Seawolf type sub again. I suspect its far more likely they'll get a lot more "Virginias" - if there a shortage stopping an ongoing programme and starting a new one isn't a great idea

[ORAC]

It would seem the timescale is deliberate to enable the Columbia design team to transition directly to the detail design of the SSNX, then the construction crews to start moving directly from the Columbia class in the same manner in order to preserve experience.

https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2021/07/21/submarine-industry-is-growing-less-fragile-but-it-needs-stability-going-into-ssnx-increased-repair-work/

[Asturias56]

is the Columbia fully designed? The first boat is still building - and that's when the issues often turn up, no?

So the SSN(X) is more about keeping designers busy - I suspect when the estimates come in they'll just move them on to the next design and buy more, but slightly updated, Virginias - that's more or less what has happened to the Arleigh Burke class

[Navaleye]

I would still not be surprised if both a Virginia and an Astute end up being based down under for a while with a degree of mixed crewing from the Collins class. This would give them a hands on feel for the pros and cons of each while a couple of Collins are in for life extension. The reactor trained crews would remain USN/RN as would the CO and senior team.

[recceguy]

The reactor trained crews would remain USN/RN as would the CO and senior team.
Once again, if it makes them happy down under, why not ? They seem to get some comfort in being under US supervision, good for them.
Let them make war against unmasked people as today on Melbourne beaches, that's what they are good at.

In the meantime, who needs Oz ? (apart from getting the legal compensation for breaking the contract, which will not be cheap)

Today announcement (Sep 28th) :

https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1666x872/fdi_2_bbcd54876f5e140b8735a3a71a5c53f7bd9fc9f1.png

Built 100 % in France. At least the customer doesn't pretend this time he can do the job at home.

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/990x865/fdi_b7f83051f87231d9894b191033a78d574aa85b64.png

.... probably why NG group is saying nothing about this whole situation.
That's not my perception. Get informed, read something else than Aussie newpsapers

[rattman]

I would still not be surprised if both a Virginia and an Astute end up being based down under for a while with a degree of mixed crewing from the Collins class. This would give them a hands on feel for the pros and cons of each while a couple of Collins are in for life extension. The reactor trained crews would remain USN/RN as would the CO and senior team.

Who AUKUS could be something massive a complete nothing, if the british carrier is being escorted by an astute, they have said 2 of the escorts will be staying in the area after the carrier, that could be the first one.

[rattman]

That's not my perception. Get informed, read something else than Aussie newpsapers

Your perception is not fact. I have found only one press release from them issued on the 17th

Naval Group takes note of the decision of the Australian authorities to acquire a fleet of nuclear submarines in collaboration with the United States and the United Kingdom following their comprehensive capability review.The Commonwealth decided not to proceed with the next phase of the program. This is a major disappointment for Naval Group, which was offering Australia a regionally superior conventional submarine with exceptional performances. Naval Group was also offering Australia a sovereign submarine capability making unrivalled commitments in terms of technology transfer, jobs and local content.

For five years, Naval Group teams, both in France and in Australia, as well as our partners, have given their best and Naval Group has delivered on all its commitments.

The analysis of the consequences of this sovereign Australian decision will be conducted with the Commonwealth of Australia in the coming days.

Is there another press release issue by them or a board member I have missed ?

[tartare]

Aaaand the latest bloviating expert to weigh in - one Malcolm Bligh Turnbull AC - renowned crippler of the National Broadband Network.
https://www.smh.com.au/national/australia-will-have-to-go-nuclear-to-keep-nuclear-subs-running-20210928-p58vf2.html
Demonstrating as much knowledge about nuclear submarines as he has about telecommunications.

[JustinHeywood]

Aaaand the latest bloviating expert to weigh in - one Malcolm Bligh Turnbull AC - renowned crippler of the National Broadband Network.
https://www.smh.com.au/national/australia-will-have-to-go-nuclear-to-keep-nuclear-subs-running-20210928-p58vf2.html
Demonstrating as much knowledge about nuclear submarines as he has about telecommunications.

As the principal author of the wobbly deal to build French nuclear subs with diesel engines, I don’t think I’d be looking to Turnbull for a balanced assessment of AUKUS.

I once had great hopes of Turnbull as PM, but he proved a hopeless ditherer when in office and a spiteful wrecker since.

[tartare]

All commonsense suggestions.

[tartare]

Thank you. Which is why it probably will never happen.

I’m just using my experience of introducing a new aircraft type in the mob I used to work for.
One of the highlights of my career was working with the Boeing people in Seattle. Great people to work with.
Not that different I suspect.
Be humble and listen !
It works !

Wow.
May I ask what type?

[TWT]

Whatever deal is struck, let's hope it includes the reactor decommissioning costs after their useful lives are over.

[Asturias56]

"This whole debate could be simplified very easily and quickly.

1. Accept the fact Virginia Class subs will NOT be built in South Australia. Minor fit-out and routine maintenance yes, build no.
2. Take the Virginia as is , no modifications.
3. Get in the queue of the production line ASAP.
4.Start organising training , exchange programs etc.on leased boats ASAP."

Now there's the right approach - but will any politico be willing to say Item #1?

[recceguy]

Your perception is not fact. I have found only one press release from them issued on the 17th
Is there another press release issue by them or a board member I have missed ?
Don't worry, you will get the bill. I have official statements, but they are in French, which you probably don't master.

So after Kevin Rudd, it seems now Malcolm Turnbull considers that France has been deliberately and unelegantly betrayed.
That makes two ex-Australian PM against one - but for some reasons, it seems commentators here do prefer the N° 3, Scott Morrison (why ? no idea - that's internal Aussie politics, and I don't really care)

Anyway, I'm happy to read here that after believing that they could build at least parts of submarines, they came down under to acknowledge that no, they are absolutely unable of that. So next time think twice before pretending to play with the big boys.

[RickNRoll]

"This whole debate could be simplified very easily and quickly.

1. Accept the fact Virginia Class subs will NOT be built in South Australia. Minor fit-out and routine maintenance yes, build no.
2. Take the Virginia as is , no modifications.
3. Get in the queue of the production line ASAP.
4.Start organising training , exchange programs etc.on leased boats ASAP."

Now there's the right approach - but will any politico be willing to say Item #1?

No. However, my son works in SA and the first thing he asked was "What does it mean for jobs here"? So, they might not want to say it, but the question was being asked from the first day.

[Asturias56]

". However, my son works in SA and the first thing he asked was "What does it mean for jobs here"? "

I suspect there'll be plenty of jobs - just maintenance and repair will cost you a lot (but all going to Australian taxpayers of course)

Should be a lot of work on the Type 26 frigates over the same period and more suited to the yard and the local supply chain

[recceguy]

Is there another press release issue by them or a board member I have missed ?

You will find it in Financial Times :

" Naval Group vows to claw back millions for cancelled submarine deal French defence contractor says Australia faces penalty clauses after pulling out of A$90bn contract in favour of rival Aukus deal Naval Group has already been paid €840m for its investments in the submarine project

The French defence contractor at the heart of the diplomatic crisis over the new “Aukus” strategic pact for the Indo-Pacific has vowed to claw back tens of millions of dollars from Australia for a cancelled A$90bn (US$65.4bn) submarine contract. “We will defend our rights and all our costs . . . every cost that we incurred and every cost related to the demobilisation,” Pierre-Eric Pommellet, chief executive of Naval Group, told the Financial Times. French officials and executives say that by cancelling the order for 12 diesel-electric submarines for strategic reasons rather than because of any fault by Naval Group — Australia has decided to buy nuclear-powered submarines from the US instead in a pact that also involves the UK — Canberra must repay money already spent and meet the costs of winding down a large design and engineering operation to build the vessels in Adelaide. Pommellet said Naval Group, in which the French state holds a majority stake and Thales a further 35 per cent, had already been paid €840m for its investments in the project before the cancellation. When the costs of other contractors such as Lockheed Martin, which was to make the submarines’ combat systems, are taken into account, the Australian government is likely to have spent nearly double that on a project that will produce nothing. Australia may also have to pay out under penalty clauses in the French contract. Although Pommellet declined to say if the contract included such clauses, Australia’s ABC network previously said it had obtained part of the strategic partnering agreement signed in February 2019 showing that Australia would be liable for a €90m “break payment” if it decided to cancel when Naval Group had already submitted a basic design, rising to €250m for a detailed design — which has yet to be provided. Even if all its costs are eventually covered, Naval Group has suffered a heavy blow from the cancellation of its flagship project. It represented 10 per cent of revenue, or about €500m a year as an average for the years to come, said Pommellet. “Losing 10 per cent of turnover is big.” Meanwhile, Thales Group, which had its own agreement to supply subsystems to US defence company Lockheed Martin for the submarine programme as well as its stake in Naval Group, downplayed the immediate impact of the cancelled contract, saying it would not affect its 2021 targets. Though it had booked only €30m of orders on the programme so far, Thales still stood to earn up to €1bn from the agreement in the years ahead, according to some analyst estimates. And the ruptured agreement could have wider ramifications on its relationship with the government of Australia, which has become an important market for the company in recent years, some analysts said. For Naval Group, a lucrative, high-tech contract that was not only a project but “a transformation for the company” and “a transformation for France”, suddenly turned out to be “a huge crisis” from which the company must extricate itself through growth in other areas and with other customers*, Pommellet said.
Pierre-Eric Pommellet: ‘We will defend our rights and all our costs . . . every cost that we incurred and every cost related to the demobilisation’ Australian prime minister Scott Morrison kept Aukus secret within such a small group of trusted advisers that Pommellet was convinced none of his interlocutors in the French contract negotiations earlier this year knew what was about to happen.
Indeed, Naval Group received a letter from the Australian government on September 15 confirming that everything was on track for the next phase. Pommellet said he could hear his colleagues in Paris celebrating the news in a nearby office as he took a call explaining that the deal had in fact been cancelled. “Imagine coming in and telling your team, ‘I have something to tell you’ . . . it’s hard.” In addition to throwing into doubt the future of 1,000 French employees in France and Australia, the cancellation also affected 80 Australian families who had moved to be near one of Naval Group’s sites in France. “The city of Cherbourg has created an international school for them . . . They hear this story the same day as us, and so, for them, from one day to another — just nothing to do.”
Having cancelled the Naval Group project and deeply offended France by brushing aside its ambitions in the Indo-Pacific, Australia now faces many years of negotiations to secure a different set of submarines that could be even more expensive and complicated to build, not least because they are nuclear-powered. French officials have been scathing about the vagueness of the Aukus plan, described by one as “only a framework of the study of a project of a project” and by Pommellet previously as no more than “a slogan”. “We don’t know what it is,” he told the FT. “It’s very secret. But for us, the Aukus deal is a contract that terminates, 1,000 people that need to find jobs, 80 Australian families that are just left, and a shipyard where you had hundreds of people working that just stopped in the centre of Adelaide.”

(*) done already - Greece

[golder]

"€90m “break payment” if it decided to cancel when Naval Group had already submitted a basic design, rising to €250m"
€250m is $400m. Although the full plan hasn't been provided yet, it has been worked on as I understand it. I don't think we declined to go forward. At the basic design 'break payment' of €90m. So i would guess it is between the two.
Australia has spent $2.4 billion, it wasn't a decision taken lightly.

[rattman]

The French defence contractor at the heart of the diplomatic crisis over the new “Aukus” strategic pact for the Indo-Pacific has vowed to claw back tens of millions of dollars from Australia for a cancelled A$90bn (US$65.4bn) submarine contract

Which I what I said a couple of posts up they will be entitled to a rumored 200 million exit payment. They will also be entiltled to payments of any provable losses they incured, but they will be required to pay back any payments they recieved for work not carrierd. Compensation will be hundreds of millions and not billions or 10's of billions as many french media are saying

[Gnadenburg]

Australia's decision to cancel a French nuclear submarines deal will not change France's strategy in Indo-Pacific region, President Emmanuel Macron said on Tuesday.

Macron told a news conference the deal cancellation would have a relatively limited impact on France, concerning a few hundred jobs.



Excessive compensation claims from Naval Group will just confirm the stupidity of the Australian Government of the time, having been being hoodwinked into a commercial rort.

France's Indo-Pacific strategy is as pertinent to Australia as it was in Indo-China & the South Paciifc in 1940. It could go either way, friend or foe?

[rattman]

Germany is buying P-8's and not french second hand french atlantics. Are they going to withdraw their ambassador from germany ?

[tartare]

Yes - back on thread.
Aviators and submariners share a lot in common.
Use of sophisticated and expensive machines to travel through media where they don't really belong.

[Ninthace]

Maybe. But what goes up comes down.

[ORAC]

https://thediplomat.com/2021/10/chinas-aukus-response-highlights-beijings-bunker-mentality/

China’s AUKUS Response Highlights Beijing’s Bunker Mentality

Beijing seems completely unwilling – or unable – to consider its own actions might be feeding the “China containment” push.

Beijing is in overdrive to respond to the news that Australia will build nuclear-powered submarines, thanks to technology being shared by the United States and the United Kingdom. No event since China’s 2016 loss to the Philippines in an international arbitration case over disputed waters in the South China Sea has evoked such a howl from Chinese officialdom.….

Initially, China’s response was characterized by statements calling AUKUS “extremely irresponsible.” A Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson said (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-58564837) that the pact “seriously undermines regional peace and intensifies the arms race.” The reaction was, diplomatically speaking, strong but measured.

But the language from China’s official news outlets devolved into insults, threats, contempt, and disparagement.……

[henra]

But the language from China’s official news outlets devolved into insults, threats, contempt, and disparagement.……
Which I would consider as a good sign that this strategy does absolutely not suit them. On the other hand one might wonder why? They do not really expect to be attacked by Australia right out of the Blue I would assume!? Then, what is their worry?!

[Asturias56]

I suspect they're worried that the Australians are only the first in line - if the US started selling SSN's to Japan, S Korea and maybe India it would make the PLA (N) look a bit .. exposed - all that money in surface ships......... :(

[Video Mixdown]

Which I would consider as a good sign that this strategy does absolutely not suit them. On the other hand one might wonder why? They do not really expect to be attacked by Australia right out of the Blue I would assume!? Then, what is their worry?!
Perhaps other aspects of the pact such as a coordinated strategy to exclude them from telecommunications systems and action to prevent their acquisition of companies working in advanced AI, semiconductors and other sensitive technologies. Until AUKAS they probably assumed that this would go largely unchallenged.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

I suspect they're worried that the Australians are only the first in line - if the US started selling SSN's to Japan, S Korea and maybe India it would make the PLA (N) look a bit .. exposed - all that money in surface ships......... :(

But India already gets SSNs from Russia! Australia has always operated submarines far from home, and missions in excess of fifty days are not uncommon for the Collins class. What makes you think that Australian submarines would be a threat to PLA(N) surface vessels and not submarines? I suspect Australia seeks a counter to an increasing Chinese submarine forces, as well as submarines operated by smaller nations that might come into conflict. I also wonder if they are look to do more task group type deployments.

Pity that they have no V/STOL aircraft to go on the twp LHDs with ski jumps.

[rattman]

I suspect they're worried that the Australians are only the first in line - if the US started selling SSN's to Japan, S Korea and maybe India it would make the PLA (N) look a bit .. exposed - all that money in surface ships......... :(

Japanese are absolutely on the cards, the top candidate to replace Suga said it during a televised debate, dont think korea will be in the short term and india is doing their own and are not signitories to the NPT which has a section that covers naval reactors

Kono Taro, who has a commanding lead in polls to head Japan’s ruling Liberal Democratic Party and succeed the outgoing Suga Yoshihide as prime minister, expressed support for building nuclear-powered (not nuclear-armed) submarines this week. While being questioned alongside other candidates in a televised forum, he called (https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/Nuclear-submarine-for-Japan-Kono-says-yes-Kishida-says-no) the development of nuclear submarines a “very important” capability for Japan.



Pity that they have no V/STOL aircraft to go on the twp LHDs with ski jumps.

I got a captains tour of the canberra, with the EO, way back when it was first commissioned. Someone asked this question the EO had the reply already to go, he said the canberra had been modified to make sustained flight ops impractical. The things he mentioned was that some aviation fuel tanks had been converted to diesel for vehicles it carries, some ammunition elevators had not been installed and part of the hanger had been converted to light vehicle bays. Dont pretend to even have a clue how easy or not it would be to reverse these.

There was rumors that one of the british aircraft carriers would be one deployment to the horn of africa, assume Dijbouti, but with aukus it might be more practical to do it to sydney. That might give us a some impetus to buy some or convert some the existing order to F-35bs to fly off the UK and possibly reverse the mods on one of the a Canberra to fly F-35's

[rattman]

In other news the guardian has got the letter, under FOI, that was sent to NG on the 15th. They dont show the whole letter

But the director general of the Future Submarine Program – Royal Australian Navy Commodore Craig Bourke – added a caveat about the government not yet granting authorisation to proceed.

He told Naval Group: “The matters addressed in this correspondence do not provide any authorisation to continue work or for the reimbursement of that work under CWS1 [Core Work Scope 1], other than in accordance with References A, B and C.”

Reference B means the submarine design contract, but references A and C were blacked out by the FOI decision maker, apparently to protect “trade secrets or commercially valuable information”.


https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/oct/02/australia-told-french-submarine-firm-it-didnt-have-green-light-to-proceed-hours-before-deal-cancelled

[Flap Track 6]

In other news the guardian has got the letter, under FOI, that was sent to NG on the 15th. They dont show the whole letter

As engineering lead, I send out letters like that all the time.

I can confirm XX engineering milestone has been achieved and ZZ activity has been completed. This letter does not address future project, legal or commercial aspects which will be the subject of further correspondance from the relevant parties.

[Flap Track 6]

dont think korea will be in the short term

Depends what you mean by 'short term', but I think the South Koreans certainly have plans in that direction. They now have conventional ballistic missile submarines in service and nuclear is the next step forwards.

[43Inches]

The original decision was influenced by politics and naturally produced a clusterf*ck. The new one will do the same, but for time being it puts Scotty from Marketing ahead on the national security/defence (as well as economic management) polls. The upcoming federal election will be fought by the coalition on the: "Would you really trust Labor and Albanese with the nation's defence, security and finances?"

A really good comparison to how bad Australia's submarine policies have been is vs the US. LA Class attack subs have been in service since the 1970s, with one from the 70s and a majority from the 1980s still in service. The cost per unit was around $950million each in 1990. Australia went for the Collins class in 1990 at a cost of around $800 mil per unit, and they are saying they are obsolete after only being in service since 1996, the last one joining the RAN in 2003. We were then going to buy a retrograde diesel submarine from the French that would have had the same issues and problems of the Collins class at a cost per unit of around $3 billion, which is roughly the same cost as the current VA class in the USN.

PS for those who don't know the major differences between a diesel and nuclear powered sub. The nuclear one only needs fueling every 30 years, can stay submerged indefinitely, only restricted by food and maintenance, can maintain its top speed under water indefinitely, including cruising between operational areas submerged. Vs the diesel with about 80 days cruising range at low speed (less than half) surfaced or snorkeling to conserve fuel, limited underwater cruising speed and time and generally smaller and poorer crew accommodation, all limiting its combat service time and effective ability.

[Chronic Snoozer]

A really good comparison to how bad Australia's submarine policies have been is vs the US. LA Class attack subs have been in service since the 1970s, with one from the 70s and a majority from the 1980s still in service. The cost per unit was around $950million each in 1990. Australia went for the Collins class in 1990 at a cost of around $800 mil per unit, and they are saying they are obsolete after only being in service since 1996, the last one joining the RAN in 2003. We were then going to buy a retrograde diesel submarine from the French that would have had the same issues and problems of the Collins class at a cost per unit of around $3 billion, which is roughly the same cost as the current VA class in the USN.

The list of Projects of Concern keeps growing.....

[Derfred]

We were then going to buy a retrograde diesel submarine from the French that would have had the same issues and problems of the Collins class at a cost per unit of around $3 billion, which is roughly the same cost as the current VA class in the USN.


Noted. Except that $90B divided by 12 is $7.5B each.

What an awesome deal.

Signed by the same Prime Minister who said that running optic fibre to Australians was too expensive… copper was the way to go.

[43Inches]

Noted. Except that $90B divided by 12 is $7.5B each.

What an awesome deal.

That included technology rights and stuff to build them here, no doubt any deal with the UK or US will have similar add-ons. If someone with brains gets involved and signs up for 5 or so VA class then we could theoretically offer a return deal for an Indian ocean maintenance facility for the USN, which could sweeten the terms. But that would be smart thinking, which our gov tends to lack ability in. My thoughts are that mr stupid will get involved again and we'll end up with something British, that works, but is mega expensive to operate with no compatibility to local regional partners.

[Ladloy]

Noted. Except that $90B divided by 12 is $7.5B each.

What an awesome deal.

Signed by the same Prime Minister who said that running optic fibre to Australians was too expensive… copper was the way to go.
I thought he would sign us up for the coal subs

[Lead Balloon]

Abbott made the 'least worse' call when he chose an off-the-shelf Japanese diesel electric boat.

[43Inches]

Abbott made the 'least worse' call when he chose an off-the-shelf Japanese diesel electric boat.

Wasn't it Shorten that said afterwards that we can't go Japanese because 'we fought them in the war' and that German submarines would be a better choice....

[AerialPerspective]

I agree. But...

In federal politics, the best form of attack is Defence. Hence the subs announcement.

The original decision was influenced by politics and naturally produced a clusterf*ck. The new one will do the same, but for time being it puts Scotty from Marketing ahead on the national security/defence (as well as economic management) polls. The upcoming federal election will be fought by the coalition on the: "Would you really trust Labor and Albanese with the nation's defence, security and finances?"

That’s good in theory except that polls well after the subs announcement show the LNP Feds going backwards by at least two percentage points, with the ALP again on 54/46 TPP. I suspect that while 57% agree with the submarine decision they see it for what it is, just what you said, an attempt to create a narrative to save themselves after bullsh-ting endlessly for 3 years…….

[rattman]

Depends what you mean by 'short term', but I think the South Koreans certainly have plans in that direction. They now have conventional ballistic missile submarines in service and nuclear is the next step forwards.

I just dont think it would be worth the financial cost. The big advantage for australia with a nuclear sub is the ability to transit and sit in a combat zone. Of which is a non issue to korea as any fights it would get into would be on it door step. Korea talks about it every so often but its an on again off again thing and not sure they could / would commit to the a development time it would take

[Chronic Snoozer]

Noted. Except that $90B divided by 12 is $7.5B each.

What an awesome deal.

Signed by the same Prime Minister who said that running optic fibre to Australians was too expensive… copper was the way to go.

At the time the budgeted cost was $40-50b to purchase. About half the cost you've calculated, originally.

[golder]

Those 2 LHD are fully committed as is. To have fixed wing, they will need to buy more.

[HAS59]

I smile as I see people writing about countries acquiring nuclear powered submarines, as if it was a simple upgrade, from a ‘GT to GTI’. It is not, it is a whole new industry which needs to be built carefully and in stages. Take a look at the Brazilian approach to building their SSN. It has taken time, re-evaluations, re-designs and is progressing with help from France. It is not some nervous knee-jerk reaction as we see in Australia. Why Australia didn’t buy excellent large ocean-going submarines from Japan was likely based on nationalistic rather than military reasons.

On the same subject but a different point. At what time in our so-called democracy are we the people of the United Kingdom going to be asked our opinion about this fundamental change in strategic military policy? Defence issues may not be vote winners but if the ‘leadership’ is going to weaken any European/NATO contribution by diverting assets down under I for one would expect a debate to be held in the house of commons, not another bumbling rambling unchallenged announcement.

I am well aware of the rise of China, its speed its capabilities and its stated objectives which have been openly published many times. It is not going to stop or waver with the odd RN Frigate sailing through the Strait of Taiwan. The South China Sea was lost to China years ago, the naval bases there will support their fleets into the Indian Ocean and beyond.Does anyone seriously expect China to say 'Oh sorry, we'll just pack up and leave the islands then'?

The defence of Europe within the NATO Alliance is well understood, debated, funded and equipped. This shift in direction is none of these things.

[601]

PS for those who don't know the major differences between a diesel and nuclear powered sub.

All we are doing is replacing a smelly noisy polluting diesel engine with a clean green non-polluting nuclear power plant that only needs one lot of fuel.
This should help us in GHG reduction..

[Derfred]

At the time the budgeted cost was $40-50b to purchase. About half the cost you've calculated, originally.
And he signed a contract - to deliver 12 subs with 90% build in Australia for $50B - which after 5+ years morphed into a bill for $90B with 50% build in Australia, and still not a firm set of design plans in sight, let alone an Adelaide tradie with a welding torch in his hand.

Thank Christ Scomo, or was it Dutton, found an out.

[Herod]

recceguy. Your location says a lot. People who live on isolated islands, with no-one to talk to, often go mad. Not that I think for a moment that is your location.

[Gnadenburg]

Why Australia didn’t buy excellent large ocean-going submarines from Japan was likely based on nationalistic rather than military reasons

The military reason was they are relatively short-ranged submarines needing controversial forward basing ( Guam etc ). The national reason was pork barrel spending. The Japanese subs couldn't be built in Adelaide whereas the French sales team claimed their submarine design could. PM Abe was bitterly disappointed, betrayed and let down by Australia not choosing their submarines ( but no tantrums ).

Winding back time, a Japanese sub purchase with additional AWD destroyers built in Adelaide, would have seen the commencement of a successful and timely naval build-up. If the CCP regional threat is as genuine as being presented, the Australian Navy is a basket case, leaving the only medium term option being an expansion of the RAAF. I guess one additional Growler is a start.

[rattman]

The military reason was they are relatively short-ranged submarines needing controversial forward basing ( Guam etc ). The national reason was pork barrel spending. The Japanese subs couldn't be built in Adelaide whereas the French sales team claimed their submarine design could.PM Abe was bitterly disappointed, betrayed and let down by Australia not choosing their submarines.


Japanese actually didn't care, they weren't all that interested in selling to us or not. The Soryu's was one of the first major attmepts to sell japanese hardware and they didn't know how the game was played, they also wouldn't give the AUS government the detailed performance specs of the subs as they were considered a national secret

[rattman]

And he signed a contract - to deliver 12 subs with 90% build in Australia for $50B - which after 5+ years morphed into a bill for $90B with 50% build in Australia, and still not a firm set of design plans in sight, let alone an Adelaide tradie with a welding torch in his hand.

Thank Christ Scomo, or was it Dutton, found an out.

Not defending either the federal government or NG/DCNS but these subs have been a ******* shambles. 50 billion was never a realistic number, even the head of the finance department confirmed in front of the senate estimates that they were told to budget 90-100 billion but for months after the government were going on about 50 mill price tag. Also DCNS/NG would tell what ever lie it took to get the contract, it was the NG that said they would have 90% local content. The government just ran with the lie. In reality the collins was about 60% local content and was considered a very successful.

I am betting there wont be a large amount of local on what ever is picked mostly because osborne shipyard and ASC/BAE will be busy with collins life extension, first 3 hunter class frigates but probably all 9 and the Arafura OPV's

[Gnadenburg]

Politically the Japanese did care. Two years ago, seeing the Naval Group promises starting to unravel, they confirmed their submarines were still available and still with the relatively speedy delivery timeframe.

[ORAC]

https://twitter.com/pinstripedline/status/1444594100217466881?s=21

[WE Branch Fanatic]

I wonder why Canada was left out of this new alliance within an alliance?

Excluded from AUKUS? Canada Should Seek to Invite Itself Aboard (https://www.cigionline.org/articles/excluded-from-aukus-canada-should-invite-itself-aboard/)

For Canada, though, the news is generating concern (https://www.theglobeandmail.com/world/us-politics/article-canada-left-out-as-us-uk-australia-strike-deal-to-counter-china/) that we were not invited to a rather important party, given our membership in the “Five Eyes” security network comprising Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States.

That concern is not unreasonable. The Five Eyes group, stemming from the historic relationship between the British Empire and the United States during World War II, unites English-speaking democracies with similar values into an intelligence-sharing agreement (https://providencemag.com/2017/05/know-five-eyes-intelligence-community/) designed to keep each member country safer.

Why didn’t this body, rather than a subset that excludes Canada and New Zealand, enter into the new pact?

There are several possible explanations. One rather obvious one is that Canadian policy makers were, until recently, embroiled in an election campaign. Another is that New Zealand has a standing policy of not permitting nuclear-powered ships to navigate its waters. Nor does Canada own or operate any nuclear vessels.

But neither a fleeting distraction nor the nuclear issue justifies leaving out Canada. Quite simply, this country should quietly but persistently press to be included — the sooner, the better.

Here’s why. Canada isn’t located near China, obviously. But we depend heavily on Indo-Pacific waters for trade, and we share a historic commitment to freedom of navigation with our allies, which all countries need to help uphold. In the face of China’s muscular rise and its growing willingness to project power, those trade routes are critical choke points for our economy, as well.

More fundamentally, though, Canada should be at the table because technology-focused defence cooperation is increasingly critical to national security in the twenty-first century.

[rattman]

I wonder why Canada was left out of this new alliance within an alliance?


If you listen to the new uk high commissioner. She a did an interview and was asked this question, answer was straight up canada didn't ask

https://youtu.be/ZNhQMFF5_80?t=1104

[Asturias56]

Canada has enough problems funding the armed forces they have - they don't have the political will to invest more

[sandiego89]

I wonder why Canada was left out of this new alliance within an alliance?
.

While hardly alone in changing their minds and taking their time on decisions, Canada constantly dithers on military procurement, changes specs, changes politics, and changes direction, and can't afford it. Frankly not likely worth the hassle for such a program, and cuts into the share of the big three that actually have the means and interests in such a big program. I recall the F-35 program where Canada was "in" and negotiated a significant work share, and then dithered, then was "out" , or was maybe out, and then dithered some more....

[Buster Hyman]

So...do they want to attract Qantas' new fleet order, or will they keep carrying on? :confused:

[golder]

I wonder why Canada was left out of this new alliance within an alliance?

Excluded from AUKUS? Canada Should Seek to Invite Itself Aboard (https://www.cigionline.org/articles/excluded-from-aukus-canada-should-invite-itself-aboard/)


Possibly because it is not part of the 5 eyes agreement. AUKUS is separate to that. as it is separate to the QUAD.

[WhatsaLizad?]

I'm afraid you (The Aussies) will not escape so easily from the bill ....

It seems your lot has experience with that plan, that is, a vindictive policy to extract your "pound of flesh" which worked swimmingly well (pardon the pun) for the former French Colony of Saint-Domingue, now know as Haiti. Of course in that case, France took all the flesh and sucked out the bone marrow as well after the revolution there with 140 years of required debt payments. (helped by a stateless bank in the US of course)

[tartare]

Two interesting stories in The Oz this morning - British Defence Secy and former US sub commander both saying that Oz boats will be Astutes.
Smaller, cheaper, (faster!) build avaliable at end of 2020s and more multi-mission capable.He said the submarine production would fit in with the British production cycle, given that the country has just kicked off its hunter-killer submarines, and the US is in full flow on its own boats. Australia has yet to decide whether to model its new submarine on the British or American models.

The British are in the final stages of completing the fifth Astute-class submarine, HMS Anson, which will begin sea trials early next year.

“We are in a strong position to help the Australians achieve that capability so I am very confident that British engineering, British skills, Australian nous, will deliver a very good submarine,” Mr Wallace said.

and:

Former submariner and navy commander Bryan Clark, a senior fellow at Washington’s Hudson Institute, said his discussions with US Navy and defence industry figures suggested the Virginia-class design would not be made available to Australia.

“I don’t get a sense that the US is going to share the Virginia re*actor plant with Australia,” he told The Australian. “I think it is pretty clear this is likely to be a British effort that the US supports through technology transfer.”

[Bankstown Boy]

So ... I know very little about submarines but what tartare said in #470 is similar to the thinking that I had when the pact was announced - otherwise, why include the UK? If it was going to be US Virginia class, with US tech, then it would likely have been a AUUS alliance. The Astute class makes most sense as that production line nears it's conclusion - hence AUKUS. Plus everyone knew the Virginia prod line is full for the next decade or two.

I also wonder if I've accidentally stumbled on why the French are so 'hissy' about, what is otherwise, a commercial transaction ... you see ... the Astute class have all been named already, even the two yet to be delivered. the 7th (and last British) Astute class is named ... wait for it ... HMS Agincourt!

Perhaps the French are somewhat miffed that the answer to "what comes after Agincourt" is likely to be "Australian Nuclear Powered subs"

[sarc-off] in case anyone was wondering

[rattman]

So ... I know very little about submarines but what tartare said in #470 is similar to the thinking that I had when the pact was announced - otherwise, why include the UK? If it was going to be US Virginia class, with US tech, then it would likely have been a AUUS alliance. The Astute class makes most sense as that production line nears it's conclusion - hence AUKUS. Plus everyone knew the Virginia prod line is full for the next decade or two.


Because we approached the brits first, they needed the US permission due to the tech in the astute

That all said know a now retired submariner and he thinks it will be the astute, find we might get 6-7 (agincourt and aggamemon ) and the brits stay at 5 and start work on SSN(X) and we build the extras

[Bankstown Boy]

Makes sense. Maybe too sensible:)

[Asturias56]

UK has one real production line - as the Astutes are finished everyone slowly transits over to the new SSBN's - there aren't the people to build totally in parallel

even the US has problems with capacity - it would need an expensive and long-term commitment to up the pace and add more capacity. As the initial Virginia target is about reached you could transfer a few late Los Angeles/early Virginias to Australia and stretch the delivery of the later Virginias a few years without as serious impact on capability. After all you're not really losing the transferred boats from the strategic balance.

[Video Mixdown]

Because we approached the Brits first, they needed the US permission due to the tech in the Astute
Whilst no definitive decision will be announced for some time, that's the scenario that best fits the information that's been made public.

[Right20deg]

Whilst no definitive decision will be announced for some time, that's the scenario that best fits the information that's been made public.

The public perception is slewed as always by misleading articles in the UK media.
It was always more than just...submarines, a point which would need emphasising to some hard of hearing in the UK and France.
A predictable and over the top reaction from france with upcoming elections.
With recent events in Taiwan, tooling up cannot come soon enough.

[FakePilot]

Ok, let's paint a scenario shall we?

RAN takes out a Chinese destroyer with one of these you bewt new subs.

30 minutes later RAAF Tindal is a smoking hole in the ground.

If you are going to play with the big boys, carry a bigger stick. This is just embarrassing.

You've defeated your own argument. The Chinese can respond many more ways because of their sticks of all sizes. They don't have to nuke an airbase. In fact, they wouldn't, not when they have so many other options.
So if you accept that small sticks are useless without big sticks, then the Chinese strategy will be to "rule of thumb" you.

Most important, the more sticks you have mean more steps of escalation, which gives more time for diplomacy and world opinion to have effect.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

From Linkedin - Operation Hookless by Professor Dr Julian Lindley-French (https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/operation-hookless-professor-dr-julian-lindley-french/?trackingId=KUPm9x4kPa6XIoSlhZFiPg%3D%3D)

September 30th, 2021. Operation Hookless, or the Australia, United Kingdom, United States security and defence pact (AUKUS) as it has become known, began in a rather unexpected way. In March 2020, the First Sea Lord (Chief of the Royal Navy) Admiral Sir Tony Radakin attended an important but nevertheless routine meeting at the Australian High Commission in London. At the meeting he met with Vice-Admiral Michael Noonan, the Chief of the Royal Australian Navy (RAN). Noonan explained that Canberra was increasingly concerned about growing capability of the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN). The Australians are particularly concerned about the new Type 095A nuclear attack submarine, and the ability of the French-designed Short-fin Barracuda/Attack-class to meet Australia’s strategic needs.

The Australians enquired if London, and possibly Washington, would be interested in helping the Australians build a fleet of nuclear-powered attack submarines that would be faster, stealthier and with unlimited endurance than the planned conventional diesel-electric submarines the Australians were building in Adelaide under a 2016 contract with the French Naval Group. At the meeting the Australians said that endurance and the ability to undertake stealthy surveillance were particularly important capabilities for them to have. The Australians already had a close and trusted relationship with the British through the Five Eyes intelligence community and discussions were taken forward.

Thereafter, Sir Stephen Lovegrove, the Permanent Secretary at the Ministry of Defence in London, took over responsibility for dealing with the request (which was given the codename Operation Hookless). Hookless also had the full backing of Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who wanted a much deeper strategic relationship to emerge from it (AUKUS). Such was the sensitivity of the negotiations that in London only ten people were kept in the loop. The British then approached the Americans. This delayed the negotiations somewhat as the request had to pass through the laborious Pentagon machine during a Washington election year. This delay caused concern in Canberra as the Australians were under growing time pressure as they were fast approaching a contract requirement which would see the costs of the French contract increase exponentially. Eventually, the new Biden administration agreed in principle to the pact, the final shape of which was agreed behind closed doors by Biden, Johnson and the Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison at the June 2021 Carbis Bay G7 meeting in Cornwall.

Article continues...

[ChrisJ800]

So the French ambassador is returning. Maybe we can put him up in suitable hotel quarantine such as an Ibis.

[rattman]

So the French ambassador is returning. Maybe we can put him up in suitable hotel quarantine such as an Ibis.


they get to quarantine at the embassy or their home for 14 days

[golder]

While overall, a return is normal procedure. Is it just me that thinks France's school report should read, 'France doesn't play well with others'. Do we really want to welcome France back with open arms? it has been quite the dummy spit over the last 3 weeks. They even tried to sink the EU/AU free trade agreement. Of course we could always use French negation tactics if they play up. We could turn the power off to the embassy. Like they are threatening to do over a UK fishing dispute.

[Lyneham Lad]

Boris Johnson's analysis of the situation during his speech at the Tory party conference:-
on foreign policy. “I know,” he acknowledged, “that there has been a certain raucous squawkus from the anti-Aukus caucus”.

[rjtjrt]

The French at their best.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-58814977

[ehwatezedoing]

While overall, a return is normal procedure. Is it just me that thinks France's school report should read, 'France doesn't play well with others'. Do we really want to welcome France back with open arms? it has been quite the dummy spit over the last 3 weeks. They even tried to sink the EU/AU free trade agreement. Of course we could always use French negation tactics if they play up. We could turn the power off to the embassy. Like they are threatening to do over a UK fishing dispute.
You can keep your condescending tone for yourself, fact is your country bailed out from a signed contract! You are the bad guys. What is the value of a contract if anyone can bail out of it freely like that!? Although, as you all would like to be, it won't be that "free" in this case.

And once again if you all feel that this contract was sooooo bad towards Australia, why your country agreed to it beforehand!? Because when I read all the "experts" comments here, it looks like it was Frankly-A-Stupid-Idea to have it signed.

So stop bashing the French and put the blame on your own (Past?) But visibly incompetent government who agreed to that.

[rattman]

You can keep your condescending tone for yourself, fact is your country bailed out from a signed contract! You are the bad guys. What is the value of a contract if anyone can bail out of it freely like that!? Although, as you all would like to be, it won't be that "free" in this case.

And once again if you all feel that this contract was sooooo bad towards Australia, why your country agreed to it beforehand!? Because when I read all the "experts" comments here, it looks like it was Frankly-A-Stupid-Idea to have it signed.

So stop bashing the French and put the blame on your own (Past?) But visibly incompetent government who agreed to that.

Takes two to sign a contract. If NG were incapable to meet deadlines and metrics that they agreed to then the government absolutely has the right to withdraw. I think NG know they screwed up just as much as the australian government. Hence why except for a small press release early on NG has been quiet and making no comment. If they believed they have legal leg to stand on they would be screaming from the tallest building how they were hard done by.

[Gnadenburg]

Yfact is your country bailed out from a signed contract! You are the bad guys. What is the value of a contract if anyone can bail out of it freely like that!? Although, as you all would like to be, it won't be that "free" in this case.

Nonsense. It's been well published and brought to the Australian publics attention for 18 or so months, that we were at a point in the contract whereby termination more affordable. The diplomatic outburst from the French Government, claiming betrayal and back-stabbing was in fact, not a contractural reality.

The security of the Indo-Pacific has changed. The Australian government has recognised this and has been brave in the face of previous incompetence. The UK, US and Australia have common strategic interests in the region. To be crude, all have spilt blood on Australian soil in her defence, whereas the French could go either way for their own interests, as they did in WW2. Yes, that's crude, however, French foreign policy in the Indo-Pacific post-1940 is very relevant to Australia's future security.

BTW, the French Government have cancelled military projects too. Many expensive projects cancelled for the same reasons Australia did- changing strategic circumstances and cost overruns driving a massive capability risk. You could start with Alsace battleships and move up to swing-wing Mirages etc etc.

The French government would have been better served by asking Australia to honour its contractural commitments. Not the irrelevant tantrums. Australia would have been better explaining its concerns that the cost and risk was too much and it needed help from its traditional Allies- and then ordered a half a dozen more Airbus tankers.

[golder]

A complete surprise?

February 2021.
https://indaily.com.au/news/2021/02/25/what-we-know-today-thursday-february-25/
Prime Minister Scott Morrison has ordered a top level study to look at how to terminate the $90 billion contract, while also investigating alternative options to contract Swedish Shipbuilders Saab Kockums or renovate the Australian Navy’s current Collins Class fleet.

January 14, 2020
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/design-on-future-submarines-hits-nine-month-delay-20200114-p53rd2.htmlThe audit report also reveals that during negotiations over a key agreement with French company Naval Group in 2018, the federal government's hand-picked advisory group floated the idea of walking away from the contract with the French shipbuilder.

The Naval Shipbuilding Advisory Board told Defence that it should consider whether proceeding with the project was in the national interest "even if negotiations succeeded" with the Strategic Partnering Agreement.


Australia Reportedly Looking At An Alternative To Its Costly New French-Designed Submarines
JANUARY 19, 2021
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/38790/australia-reportedly-looking-at-an-alternative-to-its-costly-new-french-designed-submarines

[ChrisJ800]

Meanwhile the USS Connecticut SSN just struck an underwater object in the South China Sea (not near the seabed). Getting crowded there!

[Lookleft]

Nice work! It looks like the French were going to make us pay either way. Its very hard to be stabbed in the back when your alleged assailant is being bent over and about to have a pineapple inserted.

You are the bad guys. What is the value of a contract if anyone can bail out of it freely like that!?

Exactly what the Israelis said in 1967 when the French failed to provide naval vessels and 50 Mirages that were paid for. Strangely none of the French cheer squad want to even mention it in their "outrage" over the submarine contract which ,if you bother to read the articles golder has provided, has been on shakey ground for a while.

[golder]

Meanwhile the USS Connecticut SSN just struck an underwater object in the South China Sea (not near the seabed). Getting crowded there!
They watch too many movies. The Chinese are doing 'crazy Ivan'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRUpAipGu5w

[golder]

If there subs are as good as their helicopters. I'd say we did the right thing. Also this complete dummy spit with Australia, along with the issues it is having with other countries. Show that they may not have been the most stable of partners. As the examples show, something else would have set them off. They don't play well with others. Even within NATO, there are issues.

[Buster Hyman]

....fact is your country bailed out from a signed contract! You are the bad guys. What is the value of a contract if anyone can bail out of it freely like that!?
A signed contract with an exit clause which, based on the next quote, you know all about!
Although, as you all would like to be, it won't be that "free" in this case.

It is France that has linked a commercial contract to a defence policy. Was AUD90Bn the cost of Frances support in the Indo-Pacific?

[golder]

Buy my car and I'll be your friend...You didn't buy my car. I'm not your friend anymore.

[Right20deg]

Buy my car and I'll be your friend...You didn't buy my car. I'm not your friend anymore.

Nem.con M Barnier recently apologised for the french arrogance over recent years and its faltering position in public perception.
Truth be that the UK now has the dominant Navy in the european area and that will not sit well with some.

[Navaleye]

Actually, some people here have a superficial understanding of how military contracts work. Its not like signing up for a phone contract. In a major contract such as this there are a number of "gates" which allow the client to back out with a predefined penalty which must be paid to the other side. This is what has happened and the Australian govt are entirely within their rights to do so. No breach of contract.

[Surplus]

France sent their ambassador back to Australia, I trust they'll make him quarantine for 2 weeks!

[minigundiplomat]

France sent their ambassador back to Australia, I trust they'll make him quarantine for 2 weeks!

hopefully in the Kingsford Hotel in Brisbane.

[t43562]

This is laying up a great foundation to see how people in various countries behave when someone backs out of a multi-billion dollar contract with them. Hopefully with the equinamity they would like to see from the French.

[ORAC]

Just like the UK with Skybolt? Or perhaps France/Dassault pulling out of the AFVG in 1967?

You have to learn that, in such matters, nations have interests - not friends - and adapt accordingly.

[Gnadenburg]

And another 12 x Romeos for the Royal Australian Navy. In part to be rid of the MRH-90? That's two European helicopters gone in a year from Australia's force structure. The Apache order in January ending the Tiger.


https://www.australiandefence.com.au/news/australia-buys-12-more-mh-60r-helicopters

[golder]

As you know, there were issues with the MRH-90, So the naval ASW NFI-90 wasn't purchased. The RAN went with Romeos for the ASW role.

I would expect the existing MRH-90 to continue their current role in the RAN. I think we are keeping the fleet of MRH-90, for now.
https://www.navy.gov.au/aircraft/mrh-90-taipan

[rattman]

As you know, there were issues with the MRH-90, So the naval ASW NFI-90 wasn't purchased. The RAN went with Romeos for the ASW role.

I would expect the existing MRH-90 to continue their current role in the RAN. I think we are keeping the fleet of MRH-90, for now.
https://www.navy.gov.au/aircraft/mrh-90-taipan
The navy operates 6, its still to be determined wether these romeos are replace the MRH-90, but considering its a pretty large excess Romeo's and MRH-90 being transferred to army. Its not confirmed but seem everyone believes the navy will be transferring them to army under sea-1000

[golder]

It's possible they will give the 6 they have on rotation back to the army. Then use some of the Romeo for general purpose. We will find out.

[Asturias56]

"Just like the UK with Skybolt?"

ORAC - the UK didn't pull out of Skybolt - it was cancelled by the USA - which led eventually (but not immediately) to the offer of Polaris

[junior.VH-LFA]

You can keep your condescending tone for yourself, fact is your country bailed out from a signed contract! You are the bad guys. What is the value of a contract if anyone can bail out of it freely like that!? Although, as you all would like to be, it won't be that "free" in this case.

And once again if you all feel that this contract was sooooo bad towards Australia, why your country agreed to it beforehand!? Because when I read all the "experts" comments here, it looks like it was Frankly-A-Stupid-Idea to have it signed.

So stop bashing the French and put the blame on your own (Past?) But visibly incompetent government who agreed to that.

Except it wasn’t a signed contract.

[ehwatezedoing]

Except it wasn’t a signed contract.
Ok then if it's that simple....:rolleyes:

I recon that Wikipedia is not the best place for accurate information, can you please go there and update its wording?
"Terminated the not signed yet contract for convenience"
Naval Group said that Australia had "terminated the contract for convenience". The French Ministry of Defense claimed that on the day that the contract was cancelled, Australia had written to France stating that "they were satisfied with the submarine's achievable performance and with the progress of the program." The French foreign minister Jean-Yves Le Drian said that Australia told France one hour before the public announcement of the cancellation. He called the decision to cancel the contract and the secret AUKUS negotiations a "stab in the back". He said in regards to NATO alliance partners the US and the UK that "In a real alliance you talk to each other, you don’t hide things, you respect the other party." Christian Cambon, chairman of the Committee of the French Senate’s Foreign Affairs, Defence and Armed Forces, said the decision to cancel the contract must lead France "to wonder about the recurrent attitude from some of our allies, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack-class_submarine)

Who was plane bold lying to who?

[golder]

I wouldn't worry too much, I'm sure someone will write in wiki about its troubled history. Dating from 2018. You have already been told it was a step by step program, with exit ramps along the way.
Australia signed for the design, of which there were 3 stages. Australia exited the program at stage 2. Before entering the detailed design phase.
Australia never signed to build the submarine. That was the next step and only one was to be built, before the next exit ramp.

https://www.anao.gov.au/work/performance-audit/future-submarine-program-transition-to-design
"Design and Mobilisation Contract (entered into in September 2016); Strategic Partnering Agreement (entered into in February 2019); and Submarine Design Contract (entered into in March 2019). "
https://www.anao.gov.au/sites/default/files/Auditor-General_Report_2019-2020_22.pdf


February 2021.
https://indaily.com.au/news/2021/02/25/what-we-know-today-thursday-february-25/
Prime Minister Scott Morrison has ordered a top level study to look at how to terminate the $90 billion contract, while also investigating alternative options to contract Swedish Shipbuilders Saab Kockums or renovate the Australian Navy’s current Collins Class fleet.

January 14, 2020
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/design-on-future-submarines-hits-nine-month-delay-20200114-p53rd2.htmlThe audit report also reveals that during negotiations over a key agreement with French company Naval Group in 2018, the federal government's hand-picked advisory group floated the idea of walking away from the contract with the French shipbuilder.

The Naval Shipbuilding Advisory Board told Defence that it should consider whether proceeding with the project was in the national interest "even if negotiations succeeded" with the Strategic Partnering Agreement.


Australia Reportedly Looking At An Alternative To Its Costly New French-Designed Submarines
JANUARY 19, 2021
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/38790/australia-reportedly-looking-at-an-alternative-to-its-costly-new-french-designed-submarines

[rattman]

So the rumors are going strong that the a 'friendly' country that the Toebbe's tried to sell nuclear secrets to were the french. Country1 had the plans and were in communications with Toebbe for 8 months before they contacted the FBI.

I personally dont believe the french would be dumb enough to do something like that. But if, a really big IF they did I could understand how the US government could be pissed and decided to do aukus as a bit of a screw you to france