AUKUS

[ORAC]

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

[Gnadenburg]

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.

[ORAC]

Significance absence is, perhaps, NZ out….

[MAINJAFAD]

Significance is, perhaps, NZ out….

No Nukes Policy!!!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_nuclear-free_zone

[ORAC]

Perhaps also their seeming policy of appeasement towards Chinese sanctions and trade policy rather than support Australia and other allies.

NZ would seem to be rapidly approaching a point where they will have to take sides in an increasing Cold War in the pacific.

https://www.voanews.com/east-asia-pacific/voa-news-china/new-zealand-assures-australia-there-no-rift-over-china

[West Coast]

Perhaps also their seeming policy of appeasement towards Chinese sanctions and trade policy rather than support Australia and other allies.

NZ would seem to be rapidly approaching a point where they will have to take sides in an increasing Cold War in the pacific.

https://www.voanews.com/east-asia-pacific/voa-news-china/new-zealand-assures-australia-there-no-rift-over-china

That’s an interesting thought ORAC. Could the Chinese add NZ as a client state? Talk about making the Ozzies paranoid. I don’t think so, but it’s not beyond the Chinese to make a run at it.

[Gnadenburg]

NZ is an agrarian economy, very dependant upon China and cleaning up in any Sino-Australian trade disputes. Its defence force has been relegated toward a paramilitary like status in many areas however, it plays an important role in the South Pacific: fisheries patrol, disaster relief and humanitarian roles.

Great to have the Brit's back. Deployments welcomed.

[tartare]

Several years ago I asked here why Australia was not acquiring nuclear boats from the US - and was roundly mocked by many on the forum who thought they knew better.
Well, time seems to be proving me right.
I think this is an excellent decision... more detail awaited with great interest.
And I hope that somewhere in Canberra - someone is lobbying to get some B-21s as well.

Yep - the Greens have started to whine already:"I also do think that it is attempting to gain a beachhead for a nuclear industry in Australia, which we know has been something that the Coalition, many people in the Coalition have been pushing for, for some period of time.

But at the end of the day, the prime minister needs to explain – what will happen if there’s an accident with a nuclear reactor now in the heart of one of our major cities?

How many people in Brisbane, Adelaide or Perth will die as a result of it?

What is going to happen if there is a problem with one of the nuclear reactors? And today we’ve heard nothing about the safety.
Well, these will be floating Chernobyls in the heart of our major cities. And it will increase tensions in our region at a time when Australia, as a middle power, should be taking an independent course and doing everything that we can to de-escalate conflict in the region."

[West Coast]

After this sinks in, I’ll be curious to see the man on the street reaction in Australia. Was under the impression anything nuclear was taboo.

[Lookleft]

The history of submarine warfare mainly covers the North Atlantic in both World Wars and the Cold War. However for those who are interested do a bit of searching on submarine warfare in the Pacific during WW2 and you will discover the significant role the submarine base at Fremantle played in strangling Japanese maritime traffic. Essentially the Allies did to the Japanese what the Germans tried to do to England. I have no doubt that somewhere behind these plans for a nuclear powered sub, which is a very significant shift from Australia's policy on how their subs are to be powered, is the history of the last maritime conflict in the Indo Pacific. I also wonder if they have received information about Chinese detection capability of conventionally powered subs.

[tartare]

After this sinks in, I’ll be curious to see the man on the street reaction in Australia. Was under the impression anything nuclear was taboo.

You're right - it is.
The Australian anti-nuclear lobby is loud and utterly scientifically ignorant.
Despite having some of the worlds greatest reserves of yellow cake, a need for carbon neutral power, revitalisation of domestic manufacturing and building of STEM capability.
Not to mention China.

[Ascend Charlie]

Soundly in favour of it, about time we ditched the (polluting) diesel subs and went nuclear. We are a huge source of uranium, though it will need overseas processing to become fuel rods.

The French contract was a horse's arse, massive modifications to make it sort of suitable, and driven by politicians wanting some of the action in their electorates. Also not delivered till 2035, about 10 years after China takes over Hong Kong and Taiwan and a bunch of other islands in the Philippines and Indonesia.

Typical Greens, screeching about explosions in the capital cities. Can we turn them into Soylent Greens?

[tartare]

At an ADFA open day a few years ago, I had a long discussion with a senior RAN submariner.
He hinted they already spend a lot of time cruising around in the South China sea itself - shallow water.
The supposed rationale for diesel electric boats was primarily that they are quieter and smaller than nuclear boats.
The current quietest sub in the world is Swedish and diesel/electric.
I suspect that in the classified world - the capability of long range UUVs is getting to the point that nuclear mother boat will be able to sit in deeper water for months and dispatch loyal seamen (tee hee) to sneak in and do the ultra quiet shallow water stuff.
I wonder whether the RAN will get off the shelf Virginia class boats, or the Astute class and what the weapon load out will be.

[rjtjrt]

I suspect we will get Astute class as UK shipbuilding of Astute class will be running down in not too distant future. Aust will build them in Australia but with a lot of stuff made in UK. Apparently US needed to give approve for UK to sell some of their nuclear reactor tech to Aust..
I also can’t see us getting 12 subs now. Fewer needed given nuclear range and speed. This will mean easier for us to crew them (even though they have larger crews) as submariners are not in plentiful supply. However we will need to get a lot of new crew and maintenance skills that will take a long time to mature. A lot of help will be needed from US and UK for basically ever.

[unmanned_droid]

I'm not so sure about partnering with Australia given how they've been treating their population over the past 18 months. The actions get more and more extreme.

[junior.VH-LFA]

I'm not so sure about partnering with Australia given how they've been treating their population over the past 18 months. The actions get more and more extreme.

Righto champion

[tartare]

An interesting article here on the thinking - with an map showing time on station in South East Asia for nuclear boats - 77 days.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/42390/australian-navy-goes-nuclear-with-future-submarine-force
The articles talking about Australia being part of the Indo-Pacific that have been appearing in Australian media over the last few weeks now start to make a lot of sense.

[Stationair8]

Just remember The Greens don’t run Australia, so their opinion is worth SFA!

[tartare]

Just remember The Greens don’t run Australia, so their opinion is worth SFA!

Thank Christ...

[Lookleft]

The capitalists in Washington, London and Canberra have nothing but a hammer therefore Chinese economic growth can only be viewed as being a nail.

The Chinese, like the Russians before them will respond to the growth of western militarism by manufacturing swords and we will be constantly reminded of the need to build more weapons to counter the Chinese threat.

Good to see that the CCP is taking an active interest in the discussion. You are not on the staff of a Federal Labor politician are you OF?

[Grumpy retiree]

Breathtaking decision but the correct one.
The French contract was a dogs breakfast.
There will be a vocal minority against but I think a majority for the deal.
We are already part of the nuclear cycle.
We sell uranium. We have a small reactor at Lucas Heights. We welcome Nimitz class carriers routinely.
The Greens can get over it.
This is quantum leap in capability and I’m a little surprised the yanks would even consider letting us access the Virginia Class.
But I sincerely hope they do.
China can bleat all they want.
NZ is part of the Five Eyes but has given up on being militarily competitive. They haven’t had fast jets for years.
Silence would be their best response.

[tartare]

Wow - they're talking eight boats.
That's a serious commitment.

[SevenTwentySeven]

LOL a nuclear sub hobbled with conventional weapons.

Somehow I don't think the Chinese are too concerned with this latest development.

[aero383]

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.

[tartare]

LOL a nuclear sub hobbled with conventional weapons.

Somehow I don't think the Chinese are too concerned with this latest development.

Really?
Not concerned by something that can hang around undetected for two and a half months - possibly loaded out with conventional TLAMs, heavy torpedos, UUVs etc?
I imagine they'll have a pretty significant SIGINT suite as well.

[Grumpy retiree]

LOL a nuclear sub hobbled with conventional weapons.

Somehow I don't think the Chinese are too concerned with this latest development.

We are talking attack submarines not ballistic missile submarines.
Not hobbled at all.
Extremely, extremely capable.
Standing by for a flood of ill-informed opinion.
Adam Bandt already living up to expectations.

[SevenTwentySeven]

We are talking attack submarines not ballistic missile submarines.
Not hobbled at all.
Extremely, extremely capable.
Standing by for a flood of ill-informed opinion.
Adam Bandt already living up to expectations.

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.

[tartare]

So... the weapon from the you beaut sub will have a big Ostrayan flag on it will it?
Sheesh...

[junior.VH-LFA]

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.

By that logic why even have a defence force?

[tartare]

Exactly.
If it got to the point where a RAN boat was taking out a Chinese destroyer - I think the Chinese would already have a helluva lot more to worry about than RAAF Tindall.
This is all about being part of an alliance at a strategic level - and an orbat at a tactical level.
No way we'd be acting alone in a fight.
It's a huge development.
There are two crown jewels in the special relationship - SIGINT, and nuclear capability.
Australia already is an essential partner in terms of SIGINT, and has now been given access to something that only the UK had prior.
Very significant indeed in a geopolitical sense.

[belly tank]

I agree with the decision however how many times have we seen bungled purchases by the Govt / DMO? (Collins, Sea-sprite, NH90, French Subs, dare I say F-35's ).

I remember being in Newcastle harbour back in around 1995 ( Nowdays 49% Chinese owned) when the nuclear powered USS John S McCain sailed into the port for a visit, the greenies were all lined up and down the break wall in protest of it being nuclear powered and that the city was going to blow up!


Soundly in favour of it, about time we ditched the (polluting) diesel subs and went nuclear. We are a huge source of uranium, though it will need overseas processing to become fuel rods.

The French contract was a horse's arse, massive modifications to make it sort of suitable, and driven by politicians wanting some of the action in their electorates. Also not delivered till 2035, about 10 years after China takes over Hong Kong and Taiwan and a bunch of other islands in the Philippines and Indonesia.

Typical Greens, screeching about explosions in the capital cities. Can we turn them into Soylent Greens?

[Grumpy retiree]

The RAN was going to blow $ 90 billion trying to stuff a diesel electric power plant into nuclear sub platform all the while pretending it could somehow come up with a capability similar to , guess what ? , a nuclear submarine.
Ironically the Virginia Class will be cheaper !
Opposition to a nuclear submarine has always been political , not military.
A rational solution at last………..

[rjtjrt]

One big question is why is US selling submarines to a country like Austria that is landlocked?

[Grumpy retiree]

One big question is why is US selling submarines to a country like Austria that is landlocked?

Haven’t you seen the Sound of Music ?
The Austro - Hungarians had a navy !

[Lookleft]

But I have lived long enough to know that when we are being told to fear a threat its because someone is waiting in the wings to make loads of money from it.

Or the other alternative is that there is actually a threat. If you really are border line fascist then you would remember your mob in the 30's where the threat wasn't appreciated until almost too late. You don't think Stalin wasn't prepared to steamroll Europe post war if he had kicked the Allies out of Berlin? Xi Jinping has made no secret of his determination to take Taiwan by force and has become a dictator in the process. This is no capitalist plot to make lots of money as they can make more money if there is no conflict. i would be interested to know what your definition is of having lived long enough. If you are in the 55 to 75 demographic then your knowledges of history could do with a bit of a polish.

[West Coast]

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

That’s kinda the whole idea of upgrading to a nuclear submarine, a bigger stick.

[Gnadenburg]

"We will be enhancing our long-range strike capability including Tomahawk cruise missiles to be fielded on the Royal Australian Navy Hobart class destroyers and joint air-to-surface stand-off missiles extended range for our Royal Australian Air Force capabilities," Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison told reporters in Canberra.

Tomahawk missiles too.

[tartare]

Given the Tomahawk is modular - one would assume that if changing payloads ever became a necessity... it could be done.
Command and control would be an altogether different issue...

I see my other homeland to the east has already told the RAN any nuclear powered subs won't be able to visit.

[Grumpy retiree]

Given the Tomahawk is modular - one would assume that if changing payloads ever became a necessity... it could be done.
Command and control would be an altogether different issue...

I see my other homeland to the east has already told the RAN any nuclear powered subs won't be able to visit.

Dont think a ban on our subs will be much of an issue. Nukes only require to surface for food and R and R.

[ORAC]

https://twitter.com/tomtugendhat/status/1438273128245907460?s=21

[tartare]

Noted on NZ visits - more of an observation that they won't be shifting their position any time soon.
This really is a long term game changer... as your MP above observes.
Collins had a range of ~9,000nm snorting - just 400nm submerged.
Nuclear boats... how much food can you carry?

[ORAC]

Tartare,

The differences between different versions of TLAM are somewhat more complex. Though the USN retired their TLAM-N in 2013 they are, reportedly, working on a replacement.

https://www.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/202560/why-the-navy-should-retire-tlam-n/

https://fas.org/blogs/security/2013/03/tomahawk/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidhambling/2021/06/02/us-navy-funds-new-submarine-launched-nuclear-cruise-missile-biden-called-a-bad-idea/

[DogTailRed2]

Won't this just create an arms race in the Pacific? A self fulfilling prophecy?

[typerated]

Breathtaking decision but the correct one.
NZ is part of the Five Eyes but has given up on being militarily competitive. They haven’t had fast jets for years.
Silence would be their best response. The Canberra government is seen as being a Trump like right wing group climate change deniers - a very unpopular stance in NZ.

But Australia has created a groundswell of resentment by sending the' 501's citizens to NZ .

If Australia wants to pay billions in defence to keep China’s expansion under control then NZ reaction is “ Good on Ya Mate”
What goes around comes around when you do the dirty on your neighbour

[Grumpy retiree]

The Canberra government is seen as being a Trump like right wing group climate change deniers - a very unpopular stance in NZ.

But Australia has created a groundswell of resentment by sending the' 501's citizens to NZ .

If Australia wants to pay billions in defence to keep China’s expansion under control then NZ reaction is “ Good on Ya Mate”
What goes around comes around when you do the dirty on your neighbour

No , not dirty on our neighbour.
You guys should know what we think of you.
But Australia takes its strategic position in the world much more seriously than NZ.
Thats just an observable fact.
You can act as a small nation of no great importance in the South Pacific.
Hence giving up on your airforce.
Australia can’t.

[ORAC]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/16/cold-war-mentality-china-criticises-aukus-us-uk-australia-submarine-pact

…..France’s foreign minister criticised the deal, which heralds the end of a $90bn deal that Australia made with the French company Naval Group in 2016 to replace its ageing Collins class submarine fleet. France accused Australia of “going against the letter and the spirit” of the deal.

“The American choice to push aside a European ally and partner like France from a structural partnership with Australia at a time we are facing unprecedented challenges in the Indo-Pacific region … shows a lack of coherence that France can only acknowledge and regret,” said the foreign minister, Jean-Yves Le Drian, and the defence minister, Florence Parly, in a joint statement.

On Twitter, France’s former ambassador to the US Gérard Araud went further, saying: “France has just been reminded this bitter truth by the way the US and the UK have stabbed her in the back in Australia. C’est la vie.”

Araud also appeared to question why Australia did not seek nuclear submarines from France. “A nuc powered submarine would have been much easier to France to offer since all its submarines are nuc powered,” he tweeted. “The difficulty was precisely to convert nuc powered into conventional powered ships.”

[rich34glider]

I'm not so sure about partnering with Australia given how they've been treating their population over the past 18 months. The actions get more and more extreme.

Protecting us from decimation by stupidity you mean?

[typerated]

No , not dirty on our neighbour.
You guys should know what we think of you.
But Australia takes its strategic position in the world much more seriously than NZ.
Thats just an observable fact.
You can act as a small nation of no great importance in the South Pacific.
Hence giving up on your airforce.
Australia can’t.

We love that you will protect us for free
As I said - Good on Ya.
Although we will hold your coat and bag when go and fight.

[Grumpy retiree]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/16/cold-war-mentality-china-criticises-aukus-us-uk-australia-submarine-pact

…..France’s foreign minister criticised the deal, which heralds the end of a $90bn deal that Australia made with the French company Naval Group in 2016 to replace its ageing Collins class submarine fleet. France accused Australia of “going against the letter and the spirit” of the deal.

“The American choice to push aside a European ally and partner like France from a structural partnership with Australia at a time we are facing unprecedented challenges in the Indo-Pacific region … shows a lack of coherence that France can only acknowledge and regret,” said the foreign minister, Jean-Yves Le Drian, and the defence minister, Florence Parly, in a joint statement.

On Twitter, France’s former ambassador to the US Gérard Araud went further, saying: “France has just been reminded this bitter truth by the way the US and the UK have stabbed her in the back in Australia. C’est la vie.”

Araud also appeared to question why Australia did not seek nuclear submarines from France. “A nuc powered submarine would have been much easier to France to offer since all its submarines are nuc powered,” he tweeted. “The difficulty was precisely to convert nuc powered into conventional powered ships.”

Stabbed in the back ?
Like 1914 and 1940 ?
Got to wonder if we went to war on the right side.
French narcissism is breath taking.
The contract was a big mistake from the start.

[rjtjrt]

One thing to keep in mind is relying on other countries, especially European, to support weapons with spares, etc in time of war.
All it needs is a change in political party in power for even a previously steadfast ally to become unwilling to provide parts for weapons.
We learned a hard lesson in Vietnam about this, from European arms suppliers.
A heavy bit of economic coercion from China could leave us with a very compromised capability at a critical time.
Having said that, the US especially, and UK are much less likely to act in such a way even with a China heavy on them.

[ORAC]

More on French pique…

https://www.politico.eu/article/france-slams-australia-us-e50b-submarine-deal/

‘Stab in the back’: France slams Australia, US over move to ditch €50B submarine deal

The French government has hit out Australia's decision to tear up a submarine deal with France worth more than €50 billion to instead acquire American-made nuclear-powered submarines.

"It's a stab in the back. We had established a trusting relationship with Australia, and this trust was betrayed," French Foreign Affairs Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian said in a Franceinfo interview Thursday morning. Le Drian added he was "angry and very bitter about this break up," adding that he had spoken to his Australian counterpart days ago and received no serious indication of the move……

Le Drian indicated that France would fight the move. “This is not over," he said. "We’re going to need clarifications. We have contracts. The Australians need to tell us how they’re getting out of it. We’re going to need explanation. We have an intergovernmental deal that we signed with great fanfare in 2019, with precise commitments, with clauses, how are they getting out of it? They’re going to have to tell us. So this is not the end of the story."……

[Grumpy retiree]

One thing to keep in mind is relying on other countries, especially European, to support weapons with spares, etc in time of war.
All it needs is a change in political party in power for even a previously steadfast ally to become unwilling to provide parts for weapons.
We learned a hard lesson in Vietnam about this, from European arms suppliers.
A heavy bit of economic coercion from China could leave us with a very compromised capability at a critical time.
Having said that, the US especially, and UK are much less likely to act in such a way even with a China heavy on them.

Agree.
For that reason alone , I couldn’t understand a deal with the French.
The Yanks always had a problem putting a US combat system in a French sub.
French subs leak like a sieve from an intelligence point of view.

[tartare]

France.
She who has never backstabbed an ally, shafted a friend or welched on a deal under pressure.

[rjtjrt]

France is a decent country, but like most it acts in self interest in the final analysis.
There is little sense of kinship between continental Europe and Australia.
However, I feel there is residual sense of kinship between between many in UK and Aus that influences attitudes over pure self interest.

[Frostchamber]

Seismic stuff and plenty of reverberations still to come. Intrigued to see how it will pan out. French anger was to be expected and I guess this won't do much to help Anglo French relations - although we continue to loyally support them elsewhere eg with heavy lift etc in the Sahel.

Most intriguing to me is what brand of nuclear subs we are talking about here. Hot favourites must be Virginias, in which case it's hard to see what the UK brings to the table beyond getting a few crumbs from said table, eg BAe or Babcocks getting some management or maintenance contracts. Could there be a scenario however where the US isn't actually keen on exporting Virginias but really likes the idea, strategically, of Australia upping its game in the area with nuclear subs. That could just open the door to an Astute-based solution - something HMG would presumably love to see, and it's interesting that the UK is said to have been a prime mover in bringing this whole arrangement about. Very much a long shot, certainly, but...

[ORAC]

I can see the probability that UK will provide the reactors and supply the fuel - and contract to take it back for reprocessing and storage.

The Astute could also be built under licence in Oz - not sure Congress would allow that for the Virginia class for security reasons.

[Not_a_boffin]

Seismic stuff and plenty of reverberations still to come. Intrigued to see how it will pan out. French anger was to be expected and I guess this won't do much to help Anglo French relations - although we continue to loyally support them elsewhere eg with heavy lift etc in the Sahel.

Most intriguing to me is what brand of nuclear subs we are talking about here. Hot favourites must be Virginias, in which case it's hard to see what the UK brings to the table beyond getting a few crumbs from said table, eg BAe or Babcocks getting some management or maintenance contracts. Could there be a scenario however where the US isn't actually keen on exporting Virginias but really likes the idea, strategically, of Australia upping its game in the area with nuclear subs. That could just open the door to an Astute-based solution - something HMG would presumably love to see, and it's interesting that the UK is said to have been a prime mover in bringing this whole arrangement about. Very much a long shot, certainly, but...

Our industrial base struggles to deliver our own boats - let alone anyone else's. While welcome in strategic terms, this is going to pose a real risk to UK capabilities - primarily in manpower terms.

Any UK expertise might well be in helping the Aussies set up the build, support and safety infrastructure needed. It's non-trivial.

[anson harris]

I agree with the decision however how many times have we seen bungled purchases by the Govt / DMO? (Collins, Sea-sprite, NH90, French Subs, dare I say F-35's ).

I remember being in Newcastle harbour back in around 1995 ( Nowdays 49% Chinese owned) when the nuclear powered USS John S McCain sailed into the port for a visit, the greenies were all lined up and down the break wall in protest of it being nuclear powered and that the city was going to blow up!

It sounds like they need to do a bit more homework. The John S McCain is conventionally powered.

[tartare]

So, a question for our British friends as you wake up and we go to sleep.
I read a lot in this forum about how incompetent, wasteful etc. BAE are in terms of military aircraft, but know nothing about their performance on the Astute class.
Wikipedia talks about early delays, cost overruns etc - par for course on any new military project it seems.
What's the general feeling about the Astute Boats and BAE submarines at present?
Have they reached some sort of early maturity? I see the RN was pretty chuffed with itself in 2012 about besting a Virginia attack boat in exercises.
Having very little knowledge of submarines - I assume the Virginia class would be:
a) too much boat for Australia's needs
b) not likely to be approved for export by Congress - and even if they were - a long queue to wait for the USN to get their full compliment of 30+
But I would feel a bit more confident about buying from GDEB than BAE subs.
Over to those who know more than I do.

[ORAC]

https://www.naval-technology.com/features/astute-vs-virginia-best-submarine/

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/might-be-one-best-submarines-ever-not-us-navy-151446

Then, of course, they could skip a generation…..

https://www.forbes.com/sites/hisutton/2019/12/08/new-intelligence-on-the-secretive-next-generation-british-attack-submarine-ssnr/

[Video Mixdown]

Coincidentally, the BBC documentary ‘How to Build a Nuclear Submarine’ is repeated on BBC4 next Sunday. It follows the construction of an Astute Class submarine and the many highly skilled jobs and apprenticeships it supports.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00syt1w

[GeeRam]

Any UK expertise might well be in helping the Aussies set up the build, support and safety infrastructure needed. It's non-trivial.

That would be my guess as well.
In the not too distant future the residents of Barrow might be getting to hear the sound of Aussie accents on a regular basis around town....??

[layman]

Some years ago I was at a seminar where Ziggy Switowski (then head of the ANSTO) was one of the speakers. From memory he thought that it would take Australia 20(?) years to develop self-sufficiency in the expertise required to support a nuclear industry i.e. be able to design, build, operate, then decommission, a nuclear power station. Presumably a slightly simpler set of problems than nuclear power plants in a maritime environment.

I assume the RAN will be using existing nuclear technology but, even if sailors are despatched tomorrow (or 'yesterday'?), I would imagine there will need to be a few British and / or US accents on the Australian submarines for some time. It may even be an ongoing requirement for Australia to get access to the technology.

[ORAC]

Australia submarine deal: France's Naval Group expresses 'great diasppointment

'French shipbuilder Naval Group issued the following statement:

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.

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.

[BRE]

At an ADFA open day a few years ago, I had a long discussion with a senior RAN submariner.
He hinted they already spend a lot of time cruising around in the South China sea itself - shallow water.
The supposed rationale for diesel electric boats was primarily that they are quieter and smaller than nuclear boats.
The current quietest sub in the world is Swedish and diesel/electric.
I suspect that in the classified world - the capability of long range UUVs is getting to the point that nuclear mother boat will be able to sit in deeper water for months and dispatch loyal seamen (tee hee) to sneak in and do the ultra quiet shallow water stuff.
I wonder whether the RAN will get off the shelf Virginia class boats, or the Astute class and what the weapon load out will be.

The Swedish technology uses a Stirling engine for AIP (air independent power), and according to this article, is battery-powered, not Diesel-powered when it needs to run fast:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/hisutton/2020/05/17/swedens-famously-stealthy-submarine-just-got-even-quieter/?sh=22d85d532bfb

The German U212A class uses Diesel-electric for speed and fuel cells for quiet AIP:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_212_submarine
https://www.bundeswehr.de/de/ausruestung-technik-bundeswehr/seesysteme-bundeswehr/u-boot-klasse-212-a

More background on how these rather small, quiet, shallow-water boats are used here (sorry, you'll need to use autotranslate):
https://www.abendblatt.de/politik/ausland/article107314674/Das-Zielfoto-das-einen-US-Admiral-wuetend-machte.html

It does not seem clear which ones are the most quiet. While the first and fourth link mention Swedish AIP and older German Diesel-powered (non AIP) boats breching US defenses in manouvres, this article seems to say the Americans consider theirs to be the most quiet, followed on the heels by Russian boats:
https://www.businessinsider.de/tech/leise-und-toedlich-us-admiral-warnt-dass-russlands-u-boote-jede-hauptstadt-in-europa-erreichen-koennen-2018-10/

[Akrotiri bad boy]

NZ has been cosying up to China for some time. Immigration policy has looked favourably on Chinese businessmen and investors to the detriment of skilled workers and professionals. Check out the air traffic on FR24, despite the blanket ban on pax arrivals traffic between China and NZ barely missed a beat throughout the pandemic and continues apace. I'm with ORAC on the possibility that NZ will have to come down off the fence pretty soon and depending on which side they land will depend on whether one of the five eyes develops cataracts.

[Navaleye]

A possible next step could be to "Forward base" either Agamemnon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Agamemnon_(S124)) or Agincourt (Boats 7 or 8) in Oz to with mixed crews for give the RAN experience of SSN ops, with the option to buy/lease downstream or replace with locally built derivatives.

[orionsbelt]

If China is so outraged and innocent why is it selling submarines to Thailand (What's the threat to Thailand that it need these weapons?)

The Royal Thai Navy (RTN) is set to receive three Type 039B Yuan-class submarines from China at a total cost of US$1.1 billion.
The Deal now on hold as Thailand is broke however seems it now has an offer of Buy 2 get one free!!!!
***

PS from Wikipedia Type 39A Sub
Combat control systemsChina was known to have imported the Thales TSM 2233 ELEDONE / DSUV-22 and Thales TSM 2255 / DUUX-5 from France during the 1980s and early 1990s. It also has access to a wide range of modern Russian sonar (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonar) systems (MG-519 MOUSE ROAR, MGK-500 SHARK GILL) through its purchase of the Kilo class (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilo-class_submarine). Comparable systems are expected to be copied for the Type 039A. It is likely to be fitted with a comparable surface/air search radar similar to the MRK-50 SNOOP TRAY, a commercial navigation radar like a Furuno (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Furuno) unit observed on a number of SONG class and ESM system is comparable to the Type 921A.

No wonder the French are upset they want to sell the stuff to both sides............................

[Frostchamber]

Our industrial base struggles to deliver our own boats - let alone anyone else's. While welcome in strategic terms, this is going to pose a real risk to UK capabilities - primarily in manpower terms.

Any UK expertise might well be in helping the Aussies set up the build, support and safety infrastructure needed. It's non-trivial.

Agreed but just to be clear, I'm certainly not suggesting any Astute-based solution would involve build at Barrow. If what you're saying is that we don't have the wherewithal to support Australia in setting up and running an Astute build facility in Australia then you may be right I guess - we'll just have to see what pans out. Overall I'd agree that the UK is most likely in line for crumbs from the table - but for the reasons I mentioned an Astute scenario exists, even if only just...

[Barksdale Boy]

This seems to have annoyed both China and France - what's not to like? As for Australians visiting Barrow - one feels for them.

[Frostchamber]

In other news, England has just leapfrogged France in the FIFA world rankings. It never rains...

[dead_pan]

Maybe Oz offered the UK the option to base its subs their when Scotland eventually goes independent and declares itself nuke-free. Our deterrent doesn't need to be based in the Atlantic.

PS I wonder if the France option is still on the table?...

[Asturias56]

As a choice I think it's the right one - the RAN need long range and endurance - not something you get with a diesel.

The big problem is building the damn things - the UK has been building them since the '50's and still has problems - "Audacious" spent 4 years working up due to "emergent technical issues" in a class that is over 4 years old.

There are some nice people in Port Adelaide but the yard has had issues before completing high tech warships

Would the US sell them direct?

[ORAC]

Sir Humphrey….

https://tinyurl.com/38j9euza

Underway on Nuclear Power - AUKUS and Australian Nuclear Submarines

….There are challenges though to delivering this vision. Firstly, nuclear submarines are extremely expensive and need heavy investment to build and deliver – the challenge Australia will face is working out a strategy that finds sufficient skilled workers to build them, and put the supporting infrastructure in place.

It may be a challenging task, particularly at a time when there is already an extremely ambitious naval construction programme underway in Australia with the Type 26 frigate. Additionally, this is going to need to be an open ended building programme – as the UK and US have found, shutting down construction yards for nuclear submarine construction makes for a very expensive experience when you need to reopen it.

If Australia is serious about becoming, and remaining, a nuclear navy, then it will need to think carefully about building timescales, and essentially always having an SSN in the construction plan to prevent the yards closing. Once closed, the cost to reopen is astronomical – but this in turn may pose significant challenges for the Australian defence budget.

A wider challenge will be putting the infrastructure in place for berthing and supporting these vessels, which will be expensive and require major changes. It will also need a significant retraining and skills uplift in the navy and its support staff to ensure that they can maintain and support these vessels.

The challenge will be in both finding and training these staff, and also potentially handling the nationality restrictions imposed on access to nuclear material. As a nation built on immigrants, it may prove challenging to find the right blend of people who can satisfy the security vetting criteria that they can have access to the highly sensitive nuclear areas and work.

Finding enough crew will also be hard – the Australians have long staffed their military through both local recruitment and the encouraging of former UK (and other) nationals to join for a second career – they are hard worked for a few years, then retire on a good salary and citizenship. The pool of nuclear submariners is small though, so the first challenge is finding them locally, then not poaching too many from the UK or US, a move which may cause tensions if too many British submariners were to ‘jump ship’ to join the RAN.

Finally there is a wider issue of keeping the focus to ensure this project is delivered – realistically this is a 10-20 year project to acquire and build sufficient nuclear submarines to provide a credible capability. Having the focus, resources and political desire to do this, even as the bills mount up and opposition grows is going to be a challenge. Hopefully it happens, but it may not. There is always a slim chance that billions will be spent, and that the Australians will have nothing to show for it (perhaps they should follow the UK example and call the SSN’s the ‘AJAX’ class?)………

[tartare]

Thank you for those posts Orac.
The Astute class would seem to be quite a capable boat.
And the French will likely get a slice of the pie anyway - given the 2076 sonar is developed by Thales!

[ORAC]

https://twitter.com/pinstripedline/status/1438483810744688652?s=21

[ORAC]

There seems to be a real worry in Europe, not least in France, that this is the UK turning its eyes, and it’s military, to the Pacific - and realising how much they need the UK strategically. Not sure if the joint declaration on AUKUS being so close to this meeting was a coincidence or deliberate.

Might have been more appropriate in the EU army thread - but also fits here.

Back in the day the UK, along with the USA, was involved in not only NATO but also CENTO and SEATO. The latter two withered on the vine. One wonders what the rise of AUKUS will mean for the former as the focus shifts back to the Pacific.

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

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

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/dutch-leader-mark-rutte-will-invite-britain-to-join-deal-with-eu-rp9c05bnl

Dutch leader Mark Rutte will invite Britain to join deal with EU

Boris Johnson will be offered a pact with the European Union on defence and security co-operation today during a meeting in Downing Street with Mark Rutte, the Dutch prime minister…..

“Afghanistan is a catalyst for further discussion on European defence co-operation, preferably including the UK,” a diplomatic source said. “Since Brexit, not enough European leaders have been in touch with Johnson. It is important to look at the geopolitics without being divided and there is a need to work with the UK.”

France and Germany support the initiative and EU sources have suggested that Downing Street is more receptive to talks after British tensions arose with President Biden……

Rutte will make the offer despite French anger over a security pact between Australia, the US and Britain. The EU regards the issue as primarily a trade dispute over Australia’s decision to drop a submarine contract with France rather than a strategic question.…..

Dutch, French and other European governments back greater co-operation with Britain to overcome European dependency on the US for airlifts, evacuation of nationals and emergency humanitarian assistance.

Doing a deal with the UK is integral to European plans to develop a rapid reaction force to intervene independently of the US to ensure aid is delivered and evacuations carried out in a crisis……

The EU yesterday expressed “regret” that neither the Americans nor the British had consulted European capitals over the new alliance with Australia to counter China but it played down the significance of the row.

Borrell [the EU’s foreign affairs chief] said: “I understand the extent to which the French government must be disappointed. We regret not being informed.”

He said that the EU foreign ministers would discuss the agreement and the French would call for European navies to increase their military presence in the region.

“EU foreign and defence ministers will be pressing for an increase of our presence in the Indo-Pacific and enhanced defence of our interests in the region,” Borrell said. “I am not saying we should send a European fleet in but we should have vessels there.”

[Flyingmole]

Given how "successful" (not!) decades of Green et al protests around Faslane have been in blunting the British R boats and now V boats, methinks that there is not much there to worry about

[Asturias56]

The Sir Humphrey post hits most of the nails on the head - yes its a great idea BUT can the Aussies carry it through over a 20 year period?

[ORAC]

Reinforcing the French/EU angle….

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/macron-s-ambitions-have-been-torpedoed-by-aukus

AUKUS deal showing France and EU that Biden not all he seems

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/sep/16/what-is-the-aukus-alliance-and-what-are-its-implications

What is the AUKUS alliance and what are its implications?

https://www.politico.eu/article/jilted-france-fumes-and-takes-some-retaliatory-measures/

Jilted France cancels events over lost submarine deal

https://www.politico.eu/article/biden-eu-asia-pacific-france-china-power-play/

Biden shuns EU with Asia-Pacific power play

[ORAC]

https://www.defensenews.com/global/asia-pacific/2021/09/16/australia-details-its-nuclear-submarine-ambitions/

Australia details its nuclear-submarine ambitions

MELBOURNE, Australia – The Australian government has established a Future Nuclear Submarine Task Force which will work with U.K. and U.S. counterparts over the next twelve to eighteen months to determine the best way to acquire the boats.

While a specific type of nuclear submarine is yet to be determined, likely candidates would appear to be either Britain’s Astute-class attack submarine or the U.S. Virginia-class vessel. Construction is slated to take place locally at Osborne in South Australia…..

A decision on the final number of new submarines is expected to be made by Canberra during the upcoming analysis phase.….

The decision is understood to have been brought about by the deteriorating security environment and rapidly evolving military technologies in the Indo-Pacific region, and it is enabled by new technology which allows Australia to build nuclear-powered boats that do not require a supporting civil nuclear industry.

Australia has spent around $2.4 billion (US$1.76 billion) on the Attack-class design so far, but the additional cost of terminating the current contract is yet to be negotiated. The projected cost of the new future nuclear submarine has also yet to be determined or announced…..

The change of heart is likely to mean the Royal Australian Navy’s Collins-class submarines will now remain in service, in diminishing numbers, until the late 2040s. The six Collins boats will cycle through a further Full Cycle Docking (FSD) activity and Life of Type Extension (LOTE) program to ensure their effectiveness until withdrawal.

The scope of the LOTE upgrade has not been made public, but an announcement by South Australian Premier Steven Marshal Thursday revealed the work will also be done at Osborne.

[RickNRoll]

AUKUS is AWKWARD but better then U-SUK-A.

[ORAC]

https://www.politico.eu/article/why-australia-wanted-out-of-its-french-sub-deal/

Why Australia wanted out of its French submarine deal

[dead_pan]

As a choice I think it's the right one - the RAN need long range and endurance - not something you get with a diesel.


If you want range and endurance, why not develop an unmanned system? They could also go a lot deeper than a manned sub. Talking of which, I wouldn't be surprised if China has developed such systems and our now contemplating deploying them in international waters off Australia's bases, to pick up and shadow their subs as they leave port.

While I can understand the Oz decision, our role doesn't exactly make sense. As Theresa May noted in Parliament yesterday, would we really contemplate going to war with China over Taiwan or anywhere else within that neck of the woods?

[andytug]

All this shows as ever is that China, its leaders unencumbered by the need to win a election every 4-5 years, thinks much longer term than any Western country. Why ever start a messy war when you can just gradually buy the bits of the world that you want......

[Frostchamber]

There seems to be a real worry in Europe, not least in France, that this is the UK turning its eyes, and it’s military, to the Pacific - and realising how much they need the UK strategically. Not sure if the joint declaration on AUKUS being so close to this meeting was a coincidence or deliberate.

Might have been more appropriate in the EU army thread - but also fits here.

Back in the day the UK, along with the USA, was involved in not only NATO but also CENTO and SEATO. The latter two withered on the vine. One wonders what the rise of AUKUS will mean for the former as the focus shifts back to the Pacific.

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

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

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/dutch-leader-mark-rutte-will-invite-britain-to-join-deal-with-eu-rp9c05bnl

Dutch leader Mark Rutte will invite Britain to join deal with EU

Boris Johnson will be offered a pact with the European Union on defence and security co-operation today during a meeting in Downing Street with Mark Rutte, the Dutch prime minister…..

“Afghanistan is a catalyst for further discussion on European defence co-operation, preferably including the UK,” a diplomatic source said. “Since Brexit, not enough European leaders have been in touch with Johnson. It is important to look at the geopolitics without being divided and there is a need to work with the UK.”

France and Germany support the initiative and EU sources have suggested that Downing Street is more receptive to talks after British tensions arose with President Biden……

Rutte will make the offer despite French anger over a security pact between Australia, the US and Britain. The EU regards the issue as primarily a trade dispute over Australia’s decision to drop a submarine contract with France rather than a strategic question.…..

Dutch, French and other European governments back greater co-operation with Britain to overcome European dependency on the US for airlifts, evacuation of nationals and emergency humanitarian assistance.

Doing a deal with the UK is integral to European plans to develop a rapid reaction force to intervene independently of the US to ensure aid is delivered and evacuations carried out in a crisis……

The EU yesterday expressed “regret” that neither the Americans nor the British had consulted European capitals over the new alliance with Australia to counter China but it played down the significance of the row.

Borrell [the EU’s foreign affairs chief] said: “I understand the extent to which the French government must be disappointed. We regret not being informed.”

He said that the EU foreign ministers would discuss the agreement and the French would call for European navies to increase their military presence in the region.

“EU foreign and defence ministers will be pressing for an increase of our presence in the Indo-Pacific and enhanced defence of our interests in the region,” Borrell said. “I am not saying we should send a European fleet in but we should have vessels there.”


Politically this seems timely for the UK, especially in the light of recent events. It strikes me that it represents an opportunity and the UK could demonstrate its post-Brexit European bona fides by responding positively to it.

[ORAC]

While I can understand the Oz decision, our role doesn't exactly make sense. As Theresa May noted in Parliament yesterday, would we really contemplate going to war with China over Taiwan or anywhere else within that neck of the woods?
The pact is about support for Australia. There was carefully no mention of China, let alone Taiwan, Korea or Japan during the television briefing (which might worry Japan and Korea more than Taiwan).

Australia stepped into support the UK in Europe during two wars, I would think being prepared to do the same thing if heads ever come to a head in their region would find public support.

[Navaleye]

You should bear in mind that switching to a French SSN gives you a sub that requires refuelling every 10 years using shoreside infrastructure Australia does not have. An Astute with a Core H reactor is fuelled for life, thus cheaper to run and maintain and arguably more capable and can be integrated with US kit. Its a sensible move IMHO

[ORAC]

To follow on from that. and from the comments I have seen concerning the decision..,

The French haven’t yet finished commissioning their first new SSN for 30 years (the Suffren), which is only displaces 5K tons compared to the Astute class at 7.5K, and hence can carry only a total of 18 torpedo/Mx (French models only). Not a lot of firepower if you have to cross an ocean to rearm.

Not sure if the size is a result of reactor output, but it has also led to far more automation with a crew of only 65, even at that complement it can only carry enough food and other consumable for a maximum of 70 days as opposed to around 90 for the Astute. With comments raised about rotation in combat and fatigue on long patrols. Again something not optimum for Pacific oceanic distances.

In short, once deciding to go nuclear, there would have been a lot of risk in Oz opting for a French boat built for for Med and Atlantic littoral Ops for the Pacific theatre.

One thing I discovered when researching Astute vs Virginia class subs, which surprised me was the following.

”The US Virginia-class SSN has a S9G reactor of about 150 MW driving a 30 MW pump-jet propulsion system built by BAE Systems (originally for the Royal Navy).”

https://www.navaltoday.com/2014/02/20/bae-systems-bags-virginia-class-propulsors-deal/

p.s. The Virginia class S9G reactor doesn’t need refuelling for it’s planned lifetime, as with the PWR2 in the Swiftsure and Astute subs - but again it would then depend on Congress approving export of nuclear material.

[Not_a_boffin]

You should bear in mind that switching to a French SSN gives you a sub that requires refuelling every 10 years using shoreside infrastructure Australia does not have. An Astute with a Core H reactor is fuelled for life, thus cheaper to run and maintain and arguably more capable and can be integrated with US kit. Its a sensible move IMHO

Although defuelling at EoL tends to require the same infrastructure as that for refuelling. I don't think they'll get an infrastructure saving here, but probably a reduction in scope of mid-life refit in both cost and duration.

[Not_a_boffin]

One thing I discovered when researching Astute vs Virginia class subs, which surprised me was the following.

”The US Virginia-class SSN has a S9G reactor of about 150 MW driving a 30 MW pump-jet propulsion system built by BAE Systems (originally for the Royal Navy).”

https://www.navaltoday.com/2014/02/20/bae-systems-bags-virginia-class-propulsors-deal/

I wouldn't read too much into that. While the pumpjet was first applied operationally to an S-boat in the RN, the people who designed it are long-retired and it was built by a company called VSEL. The unit on the end of the Virginia class is US-designed and US manufactured.

[Video Mixdown]

Politically this seems timely for the UK, especially in the light of recent events. It strikes me that it represents an opportunity and the UK could demonstrate its post-Brexit European bona fides by responding positively to it.
I sincerely hope the answer is no. The UK’s support for European defence and security is through its full contribution to NATO - something most EU states signally fail to do. If they want a separate RRF they should fund it themselves.

[Barksdale Boy]

ORAC's #92 resonates with me.

[jmmoric]

I sincerely hope the answer is no. The UK’s support for European defence and security is through its full contribution to NATO - something most EU states signally fail to do. If they want a separate RRF they should fund it themselves.

Why would Europe care about what happens in the far east? Besides if nations we consider allies gets attacked that is....

That area is more US sphere of interrest. (And the UK has obviously also made it hers)

Giving Australia nuclear subs is also dragging them into a conflict (with China) they would have a hard time to reach using "normal" boats.... kind of "I scratch your bag.....".

[PAXboy]

All this shows as ever is that China, its leaders unencumbered by the need to win a election every 4-5 years, thinks much longer term than any Western country. Why ever start a messy war when you can just gradually buy the bits of the world that you want......
This is the correct view, as well as the one about needing numerous body bags.

I am amused that most of the posts here are about the hardware - it is the 'software' of the Diplomatic failure that is far more important as it is the route that could lead to needing the hardware.

Across the last 30+ years, China has acheived all it needed without firing too many bullets. They own vast tracts of Africa and have many others under their thumb. I do not expect politicians to remember lessons from over 100 years ago (Afghanistan) but the AUKUS announcement tells us that the politicians have forgotten the lessons of the last 20 years. Since 1950, PRC has made it's view of Taiwan very clear - and now UK, USA, Aus have ignored modern history.

If you do not like what China does to it's people, then do not trade with them! Move your manufacturing back home but, to try and have cheap manufacturing - whilst antagonising your trading partner? Such stupidity.

The American M.I.C. blends too well with the old colonial view of gunships. The past 18 months have shown us how important an integrated, collaborative world is. This is a colosal mistake all round.

[Frostchamber]

I sincerely hope the answer is no. The UK’s support for European defence and security is through its full contribution to NATO - something most EU states signally fail to do. If they want a separate RRF they should fund it themselves.


Normally I'd tend to agree, but we are living in interesting times (which, for good or ill, we have just helped to make more interesting still) and I think the balance of considerations has shifted in a way that such a traditional binary approach isn't necessarily the smart play right now.

What we have here are fellow European nations beating a path to the UK's door to tell us that they both want and need us to be part of their undertaking. That's quite significant and not unhelpful from a UK viewpoint, bearing in mind that there are other areas where the UK rather wants to be part of the European setup, and getting their agreement to that hasn't always been straightforward. Incidentally I suspect it's no coincidence that they have chosen the Dutch to pitch it to us, unless the Dutch have chosen themselves. More surprising just now would have been a pitch by the French.

I suspect your view will prevail and it's one I entirely understand - the NATO point is an important one. But there are ways round things, our involvement could be couched around with statements about NATO primacy etc, UK assets temporarily attach themselves to EU efforts in the Med, the western Indian Ocean etc when it suits, and this needn't be too much different. Having the EU saying they want us along warrants a bit of magnanimity I think and it does no harm to take an opportunity to visibly underline our credentials as Europeans at this particular juncture.

[Navaleye]

HMG has awarded BWOS and RR £85m for initial studies for the SSNR project replacing the Astute class. Coincidence?

[Asturias56]

"If you want range and endurance, why not develop an unmanned system? They could also go a lot deeper than a manned sub."

true but people want people out there in difficult situations - you can't communicate easily with anything submerged so you are dependent on people on board - think the "Belgrano" - would you be happy to leave that to AI?

[Asturias56]

"They own vast tracts of Africa and have many others under their thumb."

legally yes - but since when has that counted for much in places like Africa? If the local despot says "kick the Chinese out" then out they go - the Russians found that out in Egypt way back

[Not_a_boffin]

HMG has awarded BWOS and RR £85m for initial studies for the SSNR project replacing the Astute class. Coincidence?

Probably. They are at least learning that you need to keep design teams constituted and functioning, otherwise we get a repeat of Astute (and T26 and potentially Dreadnought). In the context of a nuclear submarine programme, it's not a huge amount. For example at £55M pa, that's about 15% of one DAYS NHS spend.

For comparison - that £170M is less than the Assessment Phase contract award to BAES for T26 back in 2010 or so. That assessment phase that went so well a four year game of chicken then ensued between MoD and BAES over who was going to pay the additional amount.....

[ORAC]

https://twitter.com/engagestrategy1/status/1438727107408977921?s=21

[ORAC]

From The Times.

Probably just as political partners - however, there is a possibility……

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/submarine-deal-war-with-china-cannot-be-ruled-out-cmncwvfp6

….In Canada Justin Trudeau, the prime minister, was facing pressure from election opponents (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/canadian-election-justin-trudeau-faces-revolt-of-the-suburbs-vjddsh68c) over his country’s exclusion from AUKUS.

Trudeau, 49, played down Ottawa’s absence, saying the pact was merely a way for the US to sell nuclear submarines to Australia.

“We continue to be strong members of the Five Eyes,” he said of the intelligence alliance between the UK, US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. “This is a deal for nuclear submarines, which Canada is not currently or any time soon in the market for. Australia is.”

However, senior government officials told The Globe and Mail that Ottawa was not consulted on the pact and had no idea the announcement was coming until just before it was made on Wednesday by the leaders of the three participating countries.

“This is another example that Mr Trudeau is not taken seriously by our friends and allies around the world,” said Erin O’Toole, the Conservative leader who is tied in polls with Trudeau as the country prepares to vote in a national election (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/justin-trudeaus-snap-election-call-may-bite-him-d9wqkv58k). “Canada is becoming more irrelevant under Mr Trudeau.”

O’Toole said he would seek to join the new Indo-Pacific security arrangement, aimed at countering China’s military and political sway in the region, if the Conservatives are elected on Monday.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada-class_submarine

[ORAC]

Toys cot….

I saw a tweet saying they were also withdrawing their ambassador to the UK, but no confirmation as yet…

https://news.sky.com/story/france-to-recall-ambassadors-in-us-and-australia-after-aukus-submarine-deal-snub-12410788

France to recall ambassadors in US and Australia after AUKUS submarine deal snub

France has recalled its ambassadors to the Unites States and Australia in a backlash over a new security partnership.

The country's foreign minister Jean-Yves Le Drian made the announcement following the deal between the UK, US and Australia - which aims to help Australia obtain nuclear-powered submarines.

Mr Le Drian said in a statement that the decision, on request from President Emmanuel Macron, "is justified by the exceptional seriousness of the announcements" made by the two countries.

He said the cancellation by Australia of a big contract to buy French conventional submarines in favour of nuclear-powered subs built with US technology is "unacceptable behaviour".

A White House official has said the US has been in contact with French partners based on the decision to recall their ambassador…..

[Herod]

"On The Beach". Nevil Shute 1957. Recommended reading.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

The Times: ‘Like a scene from Le Carré’: how the nuclear submarine pact was No 10’s biggest secret (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/f8481ac4-17c1-11ec-8982-e4706e2eecb0?shareToken=6a3fdbb5e368f4fbb378a43ebe6f19ca)

When the First Sea Lord was invited to a meeting at the Australian high commission in March this year, he had no idea of the magnitude of what was about to unfold. Admiral Sir Tony Radakin — described by colleagues as a “doer” — was asked by Vice-Admiral Michael Noonan, the Australian Chief of Navy, whether the British and Americans could help their ally to build a new fleet of nuclear-powered submarines (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/submarine-pact-with-australia-against-china-qnjv9rskn).

The 12 Barracuda diesel-electric submarines that Australia had agreed to purchase from France five years earlier as part of a £47 billion contract were no longer enough to ward off the threat from China, which was pouring billions of pounds into building the world’s largest navy and fortifying islands outside its territorial waters.

They wanted ones that were faster, stealthier and with almost limitless endurance. The key was “surveillance”, according to defence sources familiar with the discussions.

“They had carried out a review and the ones they were getting were not fit for purpose. China has a lot of money but is not developed in some areas of capability,” the defence source said. The Australians wanted nuclear-powered submarines to “move quietly, sit outside a port, track movements, keep an eye on undersea cables and follow submarines in a move to curb Chinese reach in the region”, they added.

Both Britain and America not only had six decades of experience building up their own sovereign capability but were crucially in the Five Eyes intelligence-sharing partnership with Australia — unlike France — which meant they might be persuaded to give up their nuclear technology.

“That was the first contact. It was a big strategic play. He [Radakin (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/military-hunt-for-head-of-the-armed-forces-breaks-ranks-78smlf5ht)] then came back and handed the whole thing over to [Sir Stephen] Lovegrove,” said a security source referring to the permanent secretary at that time at the Ministry of Defence. The source compared it to a scene out of the fictional John le Carré spy novels.

So began Operation Hookless — as it was codenamed inside No 10 —and the most closely guarded secret inside government in years. Only about ten people in Britain were privy to the details, including the prime minister, the foreign secretary and the defence secretary. Lovegrove, who was still the Ministry of Defence’s permanent secretary when handed the proposal, left the department to take on the job of national security adviser, making him even better placed to help carve out the deal of his career. John Bew (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/john-bew-profile-pragmatist-who-led-the-defence-review-nxgblxqcx), Johnson’s foreign policy adviser and the mastermind behind the integrated review that talked of a “tilt” towards the Indo-Pacific region, was also allowed into the fold. Those who were present were “read in”, meaning they had to sign a paper vowing not to let the secret details of the discussions out of the room.

After the initial meeting in March, the proposal was put to the Americans. “It took quite a long time to go through the American machine — it had to be discussed at the Pentagon, the state department and the energy department,” the source said. In the weeks that followed, those in the British circle believed there was a “20 per cent chance of it falling apart”.

The clock was ticking for the Australians, who warned the British government that there was a looming deadline where the costs for the French deal would quickly rack up and there would be no getting out of it. “The internal dynamics were delicate. It could easily have not come together,” said the security source.

Although initial conversations had begun around the submarines, back in No 10 an excited Johnson was keen for something much deeper. “Boris really pushed it. There was a choice about how broad it would be — was it just a technical agreement on a specific subject or is this more broad? Boris was pushing that it had to be as ambitious as possible. This was a strategic move,” a government source who was involved in the discussions said.

By the time of the G7 summit in Cornwall (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/french-rage-against-australias-nuclear-pact-betrayal-zbnrzqxj5) in June, the plans were well under way. As the French were occupied with the unfolding so-called “sausage war” over the Brexit divorce deal, Johnson, President Biden and Scott Morrison (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/that-fella-down-under-joe-biden-appears-to-forget-scott-morrisons-name-nqjfz8837), the Australian prime minister — referred to as “ScoMo” in No 10 — thrashed out the details of a top-secret pact that would later be known as the “Aukus” defence and security alliance.

“There was a lot of noise at G7 about sausages and the EU and there was a lot of excitement around that, and it seemed odd for us that we were doing serious, serious, business in this meeting,” the government source added.

Yet they were braced for a backlash not only from China, but also from the French. A source said that Australia’s existing submarine deal with the French had put everyone in a “difficult situation”, adding: “No one had any desire to piss off the French, everyone knew it would be difficult.” Defence sources said that it was “nothing personal”, adding it was about the kit and questioned whether the French — who also have nuclear-powered submarines — would have been willing to share their sovereign capabilities with the Australians. The defence source said that it was different for the British given the fact the Australians were in the Commonwealth.

“Once you give that information you cannot get it back. You can only give it to the nations that you will be friends with for ever,” said the defence source, caveating the comment with the fact they said the UK was also extremely close to the French.

Although the rise of China was the “first order of concern” for the Australians, government sources said the pact went much deeper than Beijing and was more about the decades going forward and other security issues that could arise. “This matters in three administrations,” they said.

After the announcement of the pact this week, Lovegrove described it as “the most significant capability collaboration anywhere in the world in the past decades”. Senior figures in government have compared it to the 1958 mutual defence agreement (MDA) between President Eisenhower and Harold Macmillan, the British prime minister, and the beginning of the “special nuclear relationship” that allows the nations to exchange nuclear materials, technology and information — an agreement which continues today.

Given the importance of AUKUS, it is perhaps not surprising that Radakin — the man who brought it in — is rumoured to be one of two likely candidates for the new job as head of the armed forces.

[ORAC]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/sep/17/aukus-pact-china-us-european-security-nato

The Aukus pact is a sign of a new global order

…..The achilles heel of Aukus may not be in security, but in a different area: trade.

China is the biggest partner for all its neighbours and is outside only one major trading bloc in the region, the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership.

A British Foreign Policy Group report this week, which I co-authored, predicted that a move to join the CPTPP would be part of China’s strategy to improve the regional narrative around itself. The day after Aukus was announced, Beijing declared its formal bid to join the partnership.

This is a smart move but also a risky one. The CPTPP demands a range of standards for trade and, crucially, labour, which are certainly weaker than EU rules but still more exacting than those in China itself.

Beijing has heft, and may be able to negotiate its own terms more freely than smaller members. But its entry may well include discussions with what seems likely to be the partnership’s newest member (https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/jun/22/uk-talks-asia-pacific-cptpp-trade-treaty-liz-truss-brexit) in 2022 – the UK, which will be, after Japan, the second biggest economy in this grouping…..

[Ascend Charlie]

But to be allowed into CPTPP, China must have unanimous support, and it is unlikely to get the nod from Australia, unless China backs off its aggressive trade bans.

[rattman]

From The Times.

“This is another example that Mr Trudeau is not taken seriously by our friends and allies around the world,” said Erin O’Toole, the Conservative leader who is tied in polls with Trudeau as the country prepares to vote in a national election (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/justin-trudeaus-snap-election-call-may-bite-him-d9wqkv58k). “Canada is becoming more irrelevant under Mr Trudeau.”

O’Toole said he would seek to join the new Indo-Pacific security arrangement, aimed at countering China’s military and political sway in the region, if the Conservatives are elected on Monday.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada-class_submarine

In defence why would anyone take canada seriously, they probably have one of the worst militaries for thier size of any of the western countries

[rjtjrt]

In defence why would anyone take canada seriously, they probably have one of the worst militaries for thier size of any of the western countries

They have very good people in their military, but those people are, to say the least, not well supported financially by their government and the electors who keep electing governments that don't value defence highly.

[tartare]

If you want range and endurance, why not develop an unmanned system? They could also go a lot deeper than a manned sub. Talking of which, I wouldn't be surprised if China has developed such systems and our now contemplating deploying them in international waters off Australia's bases, to pick up and shadow their subs as they leave port.

While I can understand the Oz decision, our role doesn't exactly make sense. As Theresa May noted in Parliament yesterday, would we really contemplate going to war with China over Taiwan or anywhere else within that neck of the woods?

In buying a nuclear boat - you're acquiring a modular mothership that can remain on station for upto 3 months.
It will be able to deploy all sorts of long range UUVs, ROVs - and possibly even tube or silo launched aerial drones that are yet to be developed.
It's also a powerful SIGINT asset to augment the South east asian Sosus networks that are already on the ocean floor and tracking local submarine activity - all in the public domain.
https://amti.csis.org/indias-undersea-wall-eastern-indian-ocean/
and
https://www.globaldefensecorp.com/2020/01/15/sound-surveillance-system-sosus-the-fish-hook-that-catches-chinese-submarines/

[The Baron]

Surely the French knew Australia had become completely exasperated with this program in the last couple of years. Most people in Australia were aware. It's been in the media for months. Mr Macron is entitled to withdraw his ambassador if it helps his position in domestic politics. Others may argue but, the last piece of kit we bought from our French friends that was relatively popular would be the Mirage III. From the latest reports, it will be the Virginia Block V and hopefully, straight off the shelf identical to USN specs. The case for a small diesel electric submarine for surveillance in littoral zones is being overtaken by technology. The UUV is making them obsolete.

[rjtjrt]

Watch out for a new port to built in Darwin.

[Gnadenburg]

The lead time is too long for submarines if the strategic situation so dire. Unless we get an early delivery announced after the next election to avoid the previous porkbarelling of the Adelaide shipyards. Expanding the RAAF is by far the fastest option inside five years, perhaps ten?

Australia just dumped an Israeli contract on the basis of security concerns and the French submarines had similar emerging concerns. An utter mess and a commercial con job. AUKUS should be the way forward for major equipment procurement.

[tartare]

If you have a look at the list of Virginia class boats on order by the USN - I suspect Australia might be waiting a very long time to get it's hands on new boats.
I'm sure the RAN would be drooling at the thought of the Virginia class but $2.8bn versus $2.4bn per unit for the Astute.
An extra $1.6bn overall at least for buying American.
The Astute is slightly faster submerged - and depending who you believe, has a more capable sonar.
If they are going with the US I wonder whether both navies would consider Australia acquiring a few older block one or two boats - and the USN replacing them with more block 4s and 5s.
Australia gets a still very capable boat or three early and cuts down on the capability gap, the US replaces them with the latest and greatest.
Zut alors - the French really have les merdes with us - French ambassador now referring to `treason in the making.'

[rjtjrt]

One option that ticks a few box’s is early lease of the decommissioning Los Angela’s class, that have a few more years left in them, with large amount of US crew who want a posting to Perth, so we can start the learning curve, and free up Collins class for refurb for extended life.
I presume US does not have spare Virginia class hulls to sell, nor a lot of spare capacity to increase production rate for an early off the shelf purchase whilst Aust gets it’s act together.
It would also keep our crews using US combat system (Raytheon CCS Mk2 (AN/BYG-1)) that RAN are so keen on.
So lease of old boats is a way to get foot in door. Somewhat like what India has done with Russian nukes.
Have to overcome some RAN resistance to old ships given experience with Kanimbla and Manoora, but RAN will be keen to do anything to facilitate getting their foot in the door of nuclear subs so it becomes real rather than a future proposal that someone can cancel.

[RickNRoll]

What submarine is being purchased. No one knows.

[rattman]

One option that ticks a few box’s is early lease of the decommissioning Los Angela’s class, that have a few more years left in them, with large amount of US crew who want a posting to Perth, so we can start the learning curve, and free up Collins class for refurb for extended life.
I presume US does not have spare Virginia class hulls to sell, nor a lot of spare capacity to increase production rate for an early off the shelf purchase whilst Aust gets it’s act together.
It would also keep our crews using US combat system (Raytheon CCS Mk2 (AN/BYG-1)) that RAN are so keen on.
So lease of old boats is a way to get foot in door. Somewhat like what India has done with Russian nukes.
Have to overcome some RAN resistance to old ships given experience with Kanimbla and Manoora, but RAN will be keen to do anything to facilitate getting their foot in the door of nuclear subs so it becomes real rather than a future proposal that someone can cancel.
Have you actually bothered to read anything or watch the press conference ? Part of the deal the subs will be built in australia, specifically at osborne ship yards in adelaide. While we dont know the specifics as they have allocated 12-18 months to determine the design / winners. It believed that the a nuclear power plant will be built which ever countries sub is selected. Will be shipped to australia as a sealed black box where it will be installed onto the sub. The majority of the sub will be built in adelaide with US/UK technical support. I assume the overal program will be managed by electric boat the same way they did with the astute program

[tartare]

...or overhaul, workup, update existing Virginia class boats at Osborne...

[ORAC]

I'm sure the RAN would be drooling at the thought of the Virginia class but $2.8bn versus $2.4bn per unit for the Astute
https://news.usni.org/2021/08/11/report-to-congress-on-navy-ssnx-next-generation-attack-submarine-3

Report to Congress on Navy SSN(X) Next-Generation Attack Submarine

The Navy wants to begin procuring a new class of nuclear-powered attack submarine (SSN), called the Next-Generation Attack Submarine or SSN(X), in FY2031. The SSN(X) would be the successor to the Virginia-class SSN design, which the Navy has been procuring since FY1998…..

Since FY2011, Virginia-class SSNs (Figure 1) have been procured at a rate of two boats per year, and a total of 34 have been procured through FY2021.

Most Virginia-class boats procured in FY2019 and subsequent years are to be built with the Virginia Payload Module (VPM), an additional, 84-foot-long, mid-body section equipped with four large-diameter, vertical launch tubes for storing and launching Tomahawk cruise missiles or other payloads.

When procured at a rate of two boats per year, VPM-equipped Virginia-class SSNs have an estimated procurement cost of about $3.4 billion per boat.…..

[RickNRoll]

Have you actually bothered to read anything or watch the press conference ? Part of the deal the subs will be built in australia, specifically at osborne ship yards in adelaide. While we dont know the specifics as they have allocated 12-18 months to determine the design / winners. It believed that the a nuclear power plant will be built which ever countries sub is selected. Will be shipped to australia as a sealed black box where it will be installed onto the sub. The majority of the sub will be built in adelaide with US/UK technical support. I assume the overal program will be managed by electric boat the same way they did with the astute program
That is what we call "Aspirational". No one knows what's going to happen yet.

[Lookleft]

Before the French get too righteous over Australia changing its mind they might want to reflect on what they did to Israel after the Six Day war and why Australia's Mirages did not see active service in Vietnam. The Canberra did even though the UK was not involved in the war.

[Mil-26Man]

Several years ago I asked here why Australia was not acquiring nuclear boats from the US - and was roundly mocked by many on the forum who thought they knew better.
Well, time seems to be proving me right.

Lol, nursing a grudge much tartare? Got to let it go, man!

[Asturias56]

"Anyone fool enough to trust the UK government, at least the present one, is likely to be be disappointed."

Come on - this is a US led deal - the Brits are tagging along as they have experience of low-rate production in the back of beyond :ok:

[Case One]

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.

Again, these are SSNs, there’s nothing embarrassing about them. You clearly have zero understanding of naval warfare. Your scenario makes no sense as it would be followed by a US nuclear strike on China. That’s the point of an alliance. Anyway, no-one launches a nuclear strike just because a destroyer gets sunk. Arguing for an independent Australian strategic nuclear deterrent is a different subject. Good luck with that.

Oh, and I don’t support this development.

[ORAC]

Not sure why the French are complaining, haven't they been noticed that their Foreign policy over China is diametrically opposed to that of the USA and Australia?

The USA, especially, Biden, has been urging the EU to get tough on China for several years but getting nowhere. On the contrary German and France has been urging the EU to see itself as a "third power bloc" between the USA and China with an especial emphasis on expanding trade relations.

The question for not only the USA but especially Australia therefore is how would France react to pressure from China over crises in the pacific and Asian regions - could they depend on French standing with them or not? That would be especially critical concerning nuclear submarines with reactors needing regular refuelling in France and using French weapons.

The French talk about trust - the fact is that, based on history and their proclaimed policy on China - they aren't seen as being trustworthy enough.

[TWT]

Operation Noa (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherbourg_Project)


The Cherbourg Project (or Boats of Cherbourg) was an Israeli (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel) military operation that took place on 24 December 1969 and involved the escape of five remaining armed Sa'ar 3 class boats (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sa%27ar_3_class_missile_boat) from the French port of Cherbourg (Cherbourg-Octeville (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherbourg-Octeville) since 2000, Cherbourg-en-Cotentin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherbourg-en-Cotentin) since 2016). The boats had been paid for by the Israeli government (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_government) but had not been delivered due to the French arms embargo (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embargo) in 1969. The whole operation was planned by the Israeli Navy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_Navy), and was codenamed Operation Noa, after the daughter of Captain (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captain_(naval)) Binyamin "Bini" Telem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Telem).[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherbourg_Project#cite_note-1)

[Lookleft]

There were the boats and then there were the 50 Mirage 5s that were paid for and France blocked delivery of. Mmm what to do? In very Israeli fashion they worked out how to steal the plans from the Swiss and manufacture their own. Thus the Kfir was born.

[SaulGoodman]

While I am certainly not in the “Pro-China camp” I fail to see the gain that Australia has in AUKUS.

The hardest we can hit China is by imposing trade restrictions. Presence is the South China Sea is a good idea but for that you don’t need AUKUS. “New World Order”? Its the Old World Order plus the UK and Australia.

[RickNRoll]

While I am certainly not in the “Pro-China camp” I fail to see the gain that Australia has in AUKUS.

The hardest we can hit China is by imposing trade restrictions. Presence is the South China Sea is a good idea but for that you don’t need AUKUS. “New World Order”? Its the Old World Order plus the UK and Australia.

China is Australia's major trading partner. It's complicated.

[PAXboy]

The failure of Diplomatic conversation is massive. Only the 'Old World Order' could think that sending gunboats to spy on one of your biggest trading partners will work out in your favour! China is already the de facto global superpower and they have Russia as best friends. You can trade with them but don't try and argue.

Of course, the USA Military Industrial Complex has to make it's profits somehow!

[West Coast]

The failure of Diplomatic conversation is massive. Only the 'Old World Order' could think that sending gunboats to spy on one of your biggest trading partners will work out in your favour! China is already the de facto global superpower and they have Russia as best friends. You can trade with them but don't try and argue.

Of course, the USA Military Industrial Complex has to make it's profits somehow!

Now there’s the attitude the Chinese want, trade with us but otherwise remain subservient.

As far as Russia being a best friend, not so sure about your analysis.

[PAXboy]

If you do not like what China does - then don't trade with it. Manufacture all your stuff in your own country. History tells us that they want to win at all costs. Since they do not have to consider the costs, it will be expensive. Russia will be friends with anyone - if they acknowledge that Russia is superior to all. Unfortunately, the Chinese think they are superior to all. More unfortunately, the USA think they are superior ... and so does every other tribe on the planet.

[gcal]

"Anyone fool enough to trust the UK government, at least the present one, is likely to be be disappointed."

Come on - this is a US led deal - the Brits are tagging along as they have experience of low-rate production in the back of beyond :ok:I

Going further into the back of beyond by the minute.
When (and not if) Scotland becomes independent then the bases and facilities there may have to move.
I think this is the only reason Plymouth still remains open.
All agreements are based on a good deal of trust and the present cabal of shysters in Westminster has proven, time and time again, that they cannot be trusted.
Fair warning for anyone thinking of any kind of agreement.

[West Coast]

If you do not like what China does - then don't trade with it. Manufacture all your stuff in your own country. History tells us that they want to win at all costs. Since they do not have to consider the costs, it will be expensive. Russia will be friends with anyone - if they acknowledge that Russia is superior to all. Unfortunately, the Chinese think they are superior to all. More unfortunately, the USA think they are superior ... and so does every other tribe on the planet.

Do you thinks it’s that simple, don’t trade with someone and the threat is mitigated?

[cynicalint]

I

Going further into the back of beyond by the minute.
When (and not if) Scotland becomes independent then the bases and facilities there may have to move.
I think this is the only reason Plymouth still remains open.
All agreements are based on a good deal of trust and the present cabal of shysters in Westminster has proven, time and time again, that they cannot be trusted.
Fair warning for anyone thinking of any kind of agreement.
Gcal, have you been speaking to the three hags at the blasted heath of Auldearn or the living one in Holyrood? Either way, all four harridans have been misleading you. Support for Independence is weakening rapidly, and you can't move the bases, they are physically restrained within Scotland. The SNP are the worst, lying cabal of shysters in British politics.

[Video Mixdown]

I

Going further into the back of beyond by the minute.
When (and not if) Scotland becomes independent then the bases and facilities there may have to move.
I think this is the only reason Plymouth still remains open.
All agreements are based on a good deal of trust and the present cabal of shysters in Westminster has proven, time and time again, that they cannot be trusted.
Fair warning for anyone thinking of any kind of agreement.
Have you asked the Scots who work at the bases and in the many other local businesses that depend on them if they're happy for their livelihoods to be sacrificed on the altar of your Nationalist wet dream? They may well think that it's you and your ilk who can't be trusted.

[RickNRoll]

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.
Peter Hatcher was on Insiders claiming that the new submarines will be used to plug the way from the China Sea to the rest of the world. Is he insane? How can AUKUS submarines stop Chinese naval vessels sailing anywhere they want. AUKUS vessels are happily sailing the South China Sea right now and China can't stop them.

[Gnadenburg]

On May 31, the Royal Malaysian Air Force said fighter jets had been scrambled after 16 Chinese military aircraft approached Malaysia’s coastline in Sarawak, located on the island of Borneo.

The aircraft, which included a large Xian Y-20 military transporter, did not enter Malaysia’s territorial airspace. But China got pretty close, crossing into what Kuala Lumpur refers to as the Malaysia Maritime Zone (MMZ) where aircraft movements are monitored and in some cases foreign planes asked to identify themselves.


The PLA's aggressive posture is extending beyond Taiwan and North East Asia. This recent event a good example, perhaps putting into context the challenges of an aggressive China and out of date bilateral arrangements such as the Five Power Defence Arrangements (FPDA). China's rise is becoming aggressive and within the region few countries are in a position to resist. AUKUS is a deliberate and defensive counter to China's aggressive rise. Australia is not seeking to fight China alone and any confrontation with Australia will most likely involve the US and perhaps now the UK. The scenario of Tindal being "bombed" seems ludicrous when within the next few years, it won't be far away from being a joint facility supporting USAF bomber operations.

AUKUS isn't just about submarines. Australia seeks to build weapons under license such as the Tomahawk missile and connecting this production directly into logistic channels of the US & UK.

AUKUS is a significant strategic shift, shoring up a traditional alliance in the face of an aggressive China, committing the UK and the US to the region with more military rotations in Australia in addition to technology transfers. It will have ramifications for other nations and strengthen regional cooperation. Japan and India for example.The French reaction is problematic, bordering on a tantrum, considering their vested interests in the French Pacific. China's reaction is as expected at the moment though interesting where it goes? A significant alliance of this sort would not have been expected and if it motivation for a more pragmatic and cooperative response from smaller regional players, the CCP will need to go back to the drawing board.

[tartare]

Lol, nursing a grudge much tartare? Got to let it go, man!

Nah, not at all old son.
Just proving that the loudest and most dismissive voices more often than not don't know what they're talking about!

[rattman]

When it comes to superpowers, everyone has to pick side. France wants the EU to be a super power. So guess the UK and Australia have already picked their sides

French defence minster Bruno Le Maire said at a business congress near Lake Como in Italy Saturday, Reuters reports. "Europe has to become the number three super-power besides China and the United States. Let's open our eyes, we're facing threats and we cannot rely anymore on the protection of the United States", he said.


***edit*** someone corrected it apparently hes the economy and finance minister not defence minister

[Gnadenburg]

Rounding up cats comes to mind.....

I wonder if Australia made and fast alternative defence order the French would save face? Their tantrums akin to the CCP. What have we bought from the French that works? Helicopters? Nope. Swindled on capability and offsets ( where the subs were going ). The KC-330 seems to be a success. Additional tankers to support AUKUS aircraft in the region wouldn't go astray.

[rattman]

Rounding up cats comes to mind.....

I wonder if Australia made and fast alternative defence order the French would save face? Their tantrums akin to the CCP. What have we bought from the French that works? Helicopters? Nope. Swindled on capability and offsets ( where the subs were going ). The KC-330 seems to be a success. Additional tankers to support AUKUS aircraft in the region wouldn't go astray.


To late after tanty that macron threw. I wouldn't do anything before election all you would be doing is helping out macron. Dunno anything about french politics or his opposition so what options might exist. Ultimately they made their bed they can lie in it

[Lookleft]

So OF is your assertion the the CCP is just completely misunderstood by the West and that Xi Jiping really just wants to make China a peaceful trading nation? Are you suggesting that the Chinese have a legitimate claim to the 9 dash line in the SCS and that invading and subjugating the Taiwanese by force is also legitimate? Is their treatment of the Uighurs and democracy advocates in HK acceptable in your opinion because the CCP have every right to commit genocide in the name of communist thought? America isn't perfect and they made a big effort to stay out of world affairs in the 30's but Western democracies couldn't do without their industrial and manpower capabilities. If only the Communists were content to keep their ideology within their own borders and not have a doctrine of making every country Communist then there would have been a much more peaceful period of time post WW2.

The CCP want to defeat the West and rub their noses in what the CCP call the Century of Humiliation. All the West is doing by rearming and Australia getting nuclear powered subs is making a statement that it is not going to happen without a fight. Xi Jiping made his intentions very clear when he got rid of the 5 year term for CCP Chairman and made himself leader for life. If you want to look at the timeline of deteriorating relations with China then that is a good place to start.

[ORAC]

French still throwing toys out of their cot. I presume NATO makes France a “vassal” state to the USA as well?

Clément Beaune, France’s outspoken Europe minister, turned his fire on the UK. “Our British friends explained to us that they were leaving the EU to create Global Britain. As you can see, it is a return to the American fold and accepting a form of vassal status,” he told Public Sénat, a state television station.

In an interview with France 24, he added: “Global Britain seems to be more about [being] a junior partner of the US than working with different allies.”

[dagenham]

Gents

Two quick questions for those far more in the know than I ?

1. I note China announced last week they had made small nuclear reactors that were cooled by salt. I seem to remember reading mr clancy’s finest that the fastest subs in the world, the akula class have small sodium cooled reactors? So wonder if China is about to up its game there?

2. Didn’t Australia have a very bad experiences with thier french attack helicopters? Coupled with all the security breaches in the french sub company and issues they have get these subs into service in France I guess it a case of fool me one same on you fool me twice shame on me ?

[rattman]

Gents

Two quick questions for those far more in the know than I ?

1. I note China announced last week they had made small nuclear reactors that were cooled by salt. I seem to remember reading mr clancy’s finest that the fastest subs in the world, the akula class have small sodium cooled reactors? So wonder if China is about to up its game there?

2. Didn’t Australia have a very bad experiences with thier french attack helicopters? Coupled with all the security breaches in the french sub company and issues they have get these subs into service in France I guess it a case of fool me one same on you fool me twice shame on me ?

Yes the tiger had issues with toxic fumes in the cockpit which the french and german did not have even though the tigers were built in france. Airbus pacific were unable to determine was causing it so as far as I know its never been resolved. Also big issues with the engines and gearbox, basically airbus up the service cost and halved the time between services. They have to be sent to france. The same issue with the MRH-90. Know someone who is a part of the squadron, can take 12 months to get an engine serviced. Theres a gearbox that has been in france for almost 18 months

[recceguy]

Betrayal treason and duplicity... project cancelled with no warning, and Brits should be proud of that, considering it to be a success of secret diplomacy ? just like Mers-el-Kébir and running away from the front line to rembark at Dunkirk in 1940 - no warnings, and they are proud of that ? Not a way to treat friends, simply.

First, an agreement had been signed between both governments, after years of discussions. Simply saying like Oz PM that "it's not a change of mind, it's a change of needs" is a little bit too easy : I had signed for a house, but now I need an apartment. I had signed for a Chrysler, but now I think a Ford would be better suited to my needs.

By the way, in the agreement was written that :
- going away from it had to be submitted in written manner. Still nothing received in Paris, it seems.
- should breaching the agreement happen after 24 months (which is the case) 12 months of dicussion are needed....
In other words, you just don't walk away from such a contract. Lawyers will have their day, and price will be high for Australian taxpayers, that's the best we can hope. And don't forget dozens of Australian families which had already moved to the French shipyards, simply dropped by their government (like they dropped Oz citizens worldwide during COVID, by the way)

Years ago, they didn't want nuclear subs - now they have been convinced by the US, that it's what they need.....
Why French subs ? because US and UK are no longer building diesel subs. And those ones have been chosen by India, Malaysia, Chile, Brasil....
Germans shipyards are only good those days in small subs - for Baltic or Mediterranea - and Japanese are not as good as the French in making silent and war-going subs (no nukes in Japan) French subs do benefit from technology of nuclear SLBM subs, even if Paris will not export it ("nuclear dissuasion")

After chaos in Kabul and running away from Bagram without informing the Afghan Army (how surprising they didn't fight after that !) and dropping NATO allies in the same country, notably Germany and...UK ! the world is getting used to the value of the US signature. And especially in two capital cities : Kiev and Taîpei.... Beijing and Moscow just know they have to wait a couple of years now.

Anyway, UK, Autralia and US are just the same country, everybody should know that. And please don't tell us "we came to liberate you in 1944" No, we were on the way, that's all. If it had been more interesting to land in Netherlands than in Normandy, that's what would have been happening, and France would have been bypassed like Greece or Norway have been. We suffered more casulaties from US and RAF bombings than from German occupation, and more ships have been sunk by the sames, than by German action. And remember Syria-Lebanon in 1941 - invaded for no real reason, with quite a few RAAF aircraft shot down by French Armée de l'air, for those who forgot - same for Australian troops strafed on the roads.

Anyway, fascinating to see how many Navy experts we have here, in this aviation forum.
I personnally spent some time in Marine Nationale subs. Anybody here ?

[ORAC]

As I said, toys out of cot…. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Anyway, UK, Autralia and US are just the same country, everybody should know that.
Anglo-Saxon to be accurate. The Anglosphere always been seen suspiciously and mistrusted by the French. So why are they so surprised?

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-real-reason-france-was-excluded-from-aukus

The real reason France was excluded from Aukus

Compared to the present it is a poignant historical example of how, to paraphrase Lord Palmerston, diplomatic and military alliances are never permanent, only interests. France, after all abandoned its western allies in 1966 when it withdrew at short notice from Nato’s integrated military command…..

The historically attuned Macron of all people should now put this snap diplomatic embarrassment behind him and work constructively with Aukus. But the new architecture of the Indo-Pacific will not be easy to negotiate.

What the three Anglosphere states in the Aukus pact have put together is a loose, flexible and nimble arrangement for managing Indo-Pacific security directly. This is something that is second nature to states of a culture that General de Gaulle always referred to as ‘Anglo-Saxon’.

It is just the kind of arrangement that is anathema to the formal, rational and legalistic method of the French and their cultural offshoot the EU, whose modus operandi was best demonstrated by the glacial formalism applied to the Brexit negotiations.

This clash of cultures – or cultures at cross purposes – was demonstrated prior to the First World War, when following the 1904 informal Entente Cordiale France was desperate for a formal binding written commitment from London to side with her in the event of a German attack. Britain would only agree to wait and see.

This was a problem France also experienced in the interwar years. Then to cap it all, Aukus is a club within another very exclusive culturally defined Anglosphere club that has existed since the Second World War and that has never had France as a member, the ‘Five Eyes’ (with New Zealand and Canada).

The second problem for Paris is that Aukus is not just a coalition of three. It will be the nexus of a much broader web drawing in other informal regional groupings with varied objectives from security to trade, such as the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, or Quad, of US, Japan, India and Australia, or the 12 nation Trans Pacific Partnership trade agreement which includes the US (albeit withdrawn under Trump), Australia, Japan, Vietnam, Malaysia, Singapore, New Zealand and a pending UK membership.

France could now find herself outside these concentric circles……

[ORAC]

Reference the French military withdrawal from NATO in 1966 mentioned above (which lasted decades), I wonder if a repeat might be on the cards…..

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/19/baptism-of-fire-as-liz-truss-heads-to-us-amid-submarine-row

Baptism of fire as Liz Truss heads to US amid submarine row

Peter Ricketts, a former permanent undersecretary at the Foreign Office and former UK ambassador to France, said the fallout from the affair would be extensive.

“This is much more than a diplomatic spat about an arms deal or recalling ambassadors. The French had invested in a strategic security pact with Australia that they described as structural. Australia has now trashed that,” he said…..

He added: “France sees it as a betrayal by the British and the US, who did this secretly with Australia for the last six months. French diplomats have told me that America lied about what they were doing and they will be releasing documents to show that America lied. They are asking themselves, ‘What is the point of being a Nato ally if this is how the US behaves?’”

“You will remember about 18 months ago, Emmanuel Macron described Nato as ‘brain dead’ and this will confirm that view. This has caused a huge rift down the middle of Nato.”

The former ambassador predicted France would now be looking to allies closer to home to beef up European security and would “pull the shutters down on Nato”.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/biden-is-losing-nato

Biden is losing Nato

[Grumpy retiree]

Recceguy….

Mers-el-kefir . Really ? And the alternative was ?
Dunkirk ? Really ? And the alternative was ?

The minute the Yanks offered the Virginia Class it was game over. It wasn’t on the table 5 years ago and the issue was forced by the colossal incompetence of the management of the French project.
Let me see , Virginia Class subs versus French alliance in the Pacific ?
Difficult choice. Not.
Remind me again why we went to war in 1914 ? Logic of that is a bit fuzzy now.

[SWBKCB]

The former ambassador predicted France would now be looking to allies closer to home to beef up European security and would “pull the shutters down on Nato”.

And where does the money come from for that?

[Grumpy retiree]

Pulling down the shutters on NATO ?

NATO is the only thing that has kept the Russians out and the Germans and French from each other’s throats for the last 72 years.
To be replaced by what exactly ?
If you asked the Yanks to leave they would probably say yes.

[Asturias56]

Lets not wander into the NATO argument - it's covered elsewhere

As I've said I think from a military viewpoint the deal makes a great deal of sense - but can the RAN crew them, support them and afford the costs and time to build the local infrastructure?

They'd be advised to look at early USN SSN operations that had ship based support rather than try and duplicate somewhere like Coulport

[rattman]

As I said, toys out of cot…. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

such as the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, or Quad, of US, Japan, India and Australia,

The quad is of much greater significance than the aukus. Quad + UK + singapore + south korea would really get the ball rolling. But I dont believe SK would join. I do believe france would be asset as well, but between the tantrum they are throwing and desire to make the EU the 3rd super power. Cant see them being invited anytime soon

Biden is losing Nato

Been saying for a while nato is a alliance whose best days and requirements are behind them

[Davey Emcee]

https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/600x385/frog_sub_b5a42c75c44aee6ce77b1b4e5290ece64e1787d9.jpg
Stolen, but I thought it was funny.

[Lookleft]

Betrayal treason and duplicity

So how do you reconcile your Gaulic outrage with the Vichy pact with the Germans, the blockade of armaments paid for and yet to be delivered to Israel when they were still surrounded by hostile Arab nations? How do you reconcile the savage wars the French fought against Vietnam and Algeria? How do you still revere a dictator who laid waste to large sections of Europe and Russia? If I were a Frenchman I wouldn't be looking back into history to find examples of other countries betrayal treason and duplicity.

[recceguy]

Let's be clear : Australia has no industrial basis - especially shipyards - no nuclear plants, and where are the Technical and Engineering Universities which make other countries so powerful ? it's a nation of farmers and miners, Their Navy has big recruiting problems because you get better salaries working in desert mines, than getting seasick under military discipline.
So those US subs - should they sail one day - will be crewed by USN sailors (probaby a 50/50 basis, and anyway it's the same people as I said before) And all the nuclear technology will be under US control.
They shouldn't underestimate France anger, for being treated like that.
It's not a story of losing a contract during the awarding process - it's years after, seeing your partner walking away, saying "it's my interest in doing so " (*) thus denegating any value to his signature and words.

What has been the interest in following US in Afghanistan, Syria, Ukraine ? France had no interest in those places, it was just to please Washington - losing quite a few soldiers in the process.

So in NATO, US will probably be replacing France by Latvia and Georgia, and France will get closer to Russia, as a significant part of the French population already wants. To stir up resentment against "anglo-saxons" across France, you don't need a lot - and the govenrment knows it, by the way, thus making retaliation easier to implement.

Dozens of military and big aerospace firms are already making business with Russia, and it's even the same with China (get informed, start with helicopters and navy guns) so let's just increase it, for fun now.

We were making fighter squadrons exchanges with the USSR during the Cold War, last time in 2012, stopped on US request - we can do it again (just an idea)

Anyway, it was pleasure to commit the best of our industry in making very nice blue water subs, designed to the specifications of the RAN (I remember walking along their base in Sydney, also another occasion watching their ships from the boat to Manly Beach) it would have been a great adventure, to the benefit of both sides. Because after years of rensetment (nuclear experiments from the 60s and the 70s in Polynesia) we had reached a more serene relationship - because we are somewhat partners in the Pacific, aren't we ? A couple of Rafale fighters came this summer from France mainland to Tahiti (probably to show the Navy, that the Air Force can do it quicker than the aircraft carrier...)

(*) like in the civilian world : "I have my family to support" which has been for years the excuse for the worst behaviours.

Rafales to Tahiti :
https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1280x720/tahiti_0a9e133746f955cb5feaa4c504a08480c2c64302.jpg

[Video Mixdown]

They'd be advised to look at early USN SSN operations that had ship based support rather than try and duplicate somewhere like Coulport
Irrelevant. That facility is only used to support SSBN.

[Grumpy retiree]

recceguy, Really ?

An alliance with Russia ?

That worked so well in 1914.

[tartare]

Agree on the assessment of Australia as a nation of miners and farmers.
That's why it's such a pity that a domestic nuclear industry is being ruled out.
Imagine the wonderful effects on the Australian STEM curricula, schools, polytechnics and universities if there was a clear career path for nuclear engineering.
Girls and boys - nuclear science is a genuine option for you.
Do anything from design the next climate change defeating micro-reactor to contributing to national defence.
A pipe dream.
Suggestions tonight by Dutton that leasing boats is initially an option.
I reckon that's a hint they may go US.
Not so sure about the 50 per cent USN sailors.
Virginia or Astute, the reactor is essentially a sealed unit that runs for the life of the sub.
You need some pointy headed people behind the classified door to the reactor room - but other than that - logic would suggest a sub is a sub - surely?
It drives the same way, fights the same way.
A nuclear power source just gives you a lot more options and flexibility.

[Easy Street]

I must say I'm finding France's accusations of perfidy highly amusing given its withdrawal from the European Fighter Aircraft programme to launch the remarkably similar Rafale, allowing it to trouser 100% of export income from sales that might otherwise have gone to Typhoon. The biter bit...

[Grumpy retiree]

recceguy , it would be quite amusing if you are actually on Clipperton Island.
Because that about sums up the relevance of France to the Pacific.
Why does France try to hang on to its colonial past ?
Relations with France or the US ?
Difficult choice. Not.

[sfm818]

If the switch to nuclear boats is based on regional security and the threat of territorial expansion from a foreign power, why has Australia given consent for China to acquire Darwin Port on a 99-year lease? How will that affect USMC deployments to the Northern Territory. This raises the question - is the hand brake turn on defence policy being driven by Canberra or Washington. China's strategy is colonization through debt trap. In this case however, why would Australia willingly cede control of Darwin Port? Who in the long term expects the better end of that deal.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-12/why-did-northern-territory-sell-darwin-port-to-china-what-risk/10755720

[golder]

Let's be clear : Australia has no industrial basis - especially shipyards - no nuclear plants, and where are the Technical and Engineering Universities which make other countries so powerful ? it's a nation of farmers and miners, Their Navy has big recruiting problems because you get better salaries working in desert mines, than getting seasick under military discipline.
So those US subs - should they sail one day - will be crewed by USN sailors (probaby a 50/50 basis, and anyway it's the same people as I said before) And all the nuclear technology will be under US control.
They shouldn't underestimate France anger, for being treated like that.
It's not a story of losing a contract during the awarding process - it's years after, seeing your partner walking away, saying "it's my interest in doing so " (*) thus denegating any value to his signature and words.

What has been the interest in following US in Afghanistan, Syria, Ukraine ? France had no interest in those places, it was just to please Washington - losing quite a few soldiers in the process.

So in NATO, US will probably be replacing France by Latvia and Georgia, and France will get closer to Russia, as a significant part of the French population already wants. To stir up resentment against "anglo-saxons" across France, you don't need a lot - and the govenrment knows it, by the way, thus making retaliation easier to implement.

Dozens of military and big aerospace firms are already making business with Russia, and it's even the same with China (get informed, start with helicopters and navy guns) so let's just increase it, for fun now.

We were making fighter squadrons exchanges with the USSR during the Cold War, last time in 2012, stopped on US request - we can do it again (just an idea)

(*) like in the civilian world : "I have my family to support" which has been for years the excuse for the worst behaviours.
Clearly, you know nothing of Australia. Is this the same mighty Russia, you are talking about ?

1. United States (https://www.investopedia.com/insights/worlds-top-economies/#1-united-states)
2. China (https://www.investopedia.com/insights/worlds-top-economies/#2-china)
3. Japan (https://www.investopedia.com/insights/worlds-top-economies/#3-japan)
4. Germany (https://www.investopedia.com/insights/worlds-top-economies/#4-germany)
5. India (https://www.investopedia.com/insights/worlds-top-economies/#5-india)
6. United Kingdom (https://www.investopedia.com/insights/worlds-top-economies/#6-united-kingdom)
7. France (https://www.investopedia.com/insights/worlds-top-economies/#7-france)
8. Italy (https://www.investopedia.com/insights/worlds-top-economies/#8-italy)
9. Brazil (https://www.investopedia.com/insights/worlds-top-economies/#9-brazil)
10. Canada (https://www.investopedia.com/insights/worlds-top-economies/#10-canada)
11. Russia (https://www.investopedia.com/insights/worlds-top-economies/#11-russia)
12. South Korea (https://www.investopedia.com/insights/worlds-top-economies/#12-south-korea)
13. Australia (https://www.investopedia.com/insights/worlds-top-economies/#13-australia)
14. Spain (https://www.investopedia.com/insights/worlds-top-economies/#14-spain)
15. Mexico (https://www.investopedia.com/insights/worlds-top-economies/#15-mexico)

[rattman]

If the switch to nuclear boats is based on regional security and the threat of territorial expansion from a foreign power, why has Australia given consent for China to acquire Darwin Port on a 99-year lease? How will that affect USMC deployments to the Northern Territory. This raises the question - is the hand brake turn on defence policy being driven by Canberra or Washington. China's strategy is colonization through debt trap. In this case however, why would Australia willingly cede control of Darwin Port? Who in the long term expects the better end of that deal.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-12/why-did-northern-territory-sell-darwin-port-to-china-what-risk/10755720


Because it was owned by the northern territory and the federal government, just like the airfield in WA that was sold to chinese mining company by fatty mc**** face



There has been legislation bought in after this that allows the federal government reverse agreements made by states and territories that they believe are contrary to national security. Also believe they are putting a strictly military port nearby for american forces and australian navy assests are expected to move there as well

Go have a look at google maps at the port of darwin. NNE of there Glybe point. Theres a naval base going in there apparently

[Gnadenburg]

We were making fighter squadrons exchanges with the USSR during the Cold War, last time in 2012, stopped on US request - we can do it again (just an idea)



You have something similar with the PLA? One of your colleagues told me there are Ex-Armée de l'Air Rafael pilots on contract consulting with the PLA on Western fighter tactics.

I'm sorry the French lost face but as an Australian taxpayer good riddens. 50bn AUD to 90bn AUD in 5 years and who knows who will end up with the technical specs on the French subs? The Americans warned Australia from day one on the risks with a French contract and our Government was incompetent not to listen.

[Chugalug2]

If the switch to nuclear boats is based on regional security and the threat of territorial expansion from a foreign power, why has Australia given consent for China to acquire Darwin Port on a 99-year lease? How will that affect USMC deployments to the Northern Territory. This raises the question - is the hand brake turn on defence policy being driven by Canberra or Washington. China's strategy is colonization through debt trap. In this case however, why would Australia willingly cede control of Darwin Port? Who in the long term expects the better end of that deal.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-12/why-did-northern-territory-sell-darwin-port-to-china-what-risk/10755720

Both worrying and informative. Thanks for the link, sfm. Perhaps the best comment in the piece is this :-

But by leasing the commercial port in Darwin, even though it is well down the harbour, to someone who runs the risk of being a potential adversary over the next 99 years, it's the equivalent of leasing the Port to the Japanese in 1938.

[golder]

recceguy , it would be quite amusing if you are actually on Clipperton Island.
Because that about sums up the relevance of France to the Pacific.
Why does France try to hang on to its colonial past ?
Relations with France or the US ?
Difficult choice. Not.
He saw what China did in reclamation and thought the atoll was a good base. To invade Australia from, in the style of Don Quixote. If we didn't buy the French sub.

[Case One]

Anyway, fascinating to see how many Navy experts we have here, in this aviation forum.
I personnally spent some time in Marine Nationale subs. Anybody here ?

I personally spent time aboard Royal Navy boats, but yes, we do seem to have an awful lot of “experts” here.

And why is half of the punctuation missing in my sentences when I’m logged out?

[Gnadenburg]

The aircraft, which included a large Xian Y-20 military transporter, did not enter Malaysia’s territorial airspace.

So just to be clear, you consider this to be “aggression”?

On the scale of aggression, were there one, how would it compare to sailing the USS Nimitz through the Taiwan Straits? Or shooting down an Iranian airliner in Iranian airspace? Or, say, the almost destruction of Vietnam, a country that had zero intention of firing a single bullet towards the US?

Would you apply the same label to America? And should Australia mobilize to fight a war against American aggression?




Yes it is. For all intents and purposes it simulates an airborne assault on Malaysia. Just another shade of CCP coercion.

The CCP shot-down an airliner too. They also invaded Vietnam. And the rest is just nonsense.

[recceguy]

The Americans warned Australia from day one on the risks with a French contract

What a surprise.... as I said, same language, same people. Good to see them running away from KBL, by the way.

And here is a French-made gun (100 mm Compact) as found on many PLN ships.

https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/500x397/otr_naval_creusotloire_v5_2743dea26e6438e5c0b30186b6f0e0f2fd 58cb1e.jpg

[arf23]

recceguy, Really ?

An alliance with Russia ?

That worked so well in 1914.

Perhaps the French could cuddle up to the Chinese, lease Marseille to them?

[recceguy]

Chinese version of Super-Frelon helicopter - they seem to enjoy it

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1024x768/z8_super_frelon_7cfda54b60e180e71369ca1f114990afc9f073ec.jpg
and here is the well-known Dauphin

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1024x1024/z9_panther_3f5dcf74aa22f42f27c794a9df3f797ce9326157.jpg

[golder]

I'm waiting for him to put up a picture of the Tiger

[055166k]

Top Marks for the Green option. A lot of diesel saved. Way to go Ozzies👍

[ORAC]

Recceguy seems to be making a very good case why Australia, if considering China a long term threat, couldn’t trust France to have their backs logistically or be guaranteed not to leak information on designs and capabilities.

[recceguy]

I'm waiting for him to put up a picture of the Tiger
Start making helicopters before smiling.

[ORAC]

I think this, French orientated, opinion piece clearly sums up the French strategy and views. It does reflect the French view of themselves as a global, and especially Indo-Pacific, power where it seems to see itself as an equal participant to the USA and China.

https://www.thelocal.fr/20210918/opinion-frances-australian-submarine-row-shows-that-macron-was-right-about-nato/

OPINION: France’s Australian submarine row shows that Macron was right about NATO (https://www.thelocal.fr/20210918/opinion-frances-australian-submarine-row-shows-that-macron-was-right-about-nato/)

Some of the views expressed above are driven by considering Reunion and New Caledonia as integral parts of France whilst most (including the USA) would consider them colonies.

If you have read into the strategy of the USA both during and post WWII you will know they despised colonialism, especially in the Far East and Pacific and the dismantling of the British, Dutch and French Empires, as they saw them, and particularly decolonisation were an essential part of their plans.

I can well accept that view still holds in Washington and the "slap-down" by the USA has been deliberate.

The UK lesson learnt after Suez, as expressed by MacMillan, was that it was better to be an ally of the USA rather than opponent, that learnt by DeGaulle was that France had to be able to stand alone - one reason, as previously noted, he withdrew militarily from NATO in 1966.

The tome of the above article, when seen in the light of French comments in the last few days, is that Macron intends to emulate DeGaulle. If the French see their only way ahead is to attempt to build an alternate EU power base independent of the USA then the comments being uncertain future of NATO are not unfounded.

[RickNRoll]

Recceguy….

Mers-el-kefir . Really ? And the alternative was ?
Dunkirk ? Really ? And the alternative was ?

The minute the Yanks offered the Virginia Class it was game over. It wasn’t on the table 5 years ago and the issue was forced by the colossal incompetence of the management of the French project.
Let me see , Virginia Class subs versus French alliance in the Pacific ?
Difficult choice. Not.
Remind me again why we went to war in 1914 ? Logic of that is a bit fuzzy now.
Have they offered the Virginia Class?

[ORAC]

Congress is desperate to get Virginia class production up from 2 a year to 3 just to meet their own needs - not sure they could fit in any orders for Australia.

Regardless production is due to end in 2032-33 with the ramp up of SSNX production.

With the timescales being discussed I would suggest SSNX would be the more likely candidate - and it seems better fitted to Australian needs.

The current shortfall in numbers of fleet SSNs, and projected fleet shrinkage, would see to limit the chances of any loaners - though establishing a permanent detachment to a home port in Adelaide might be a way forward

.https://news.usni.org/2020/11/18/navy-confident-it-could-build-3-virginia-ssns-a-year-though-more-study-needed-on-shipyard-capacity

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2021/05/u-s-navy-outlines-the-next-generation-attack-submarine-ssnx-program/

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

[recceguy]

RAN will get submarines minimum 7 years later than expected :
- 5 years lost - working with the French.
- 2 years now to design some arrangement with US (nothing concrete so far)
and it was supposed to be urgent...

Considering that the production line of US SSNs is fully booked for years to come, what can be expected ?
Probably basing at Darwin a couple of USN submarines, and accomodating on board some Australian crew - dealing witht he nuclear reactor remaining under US control (and the Ossies have no technicians for that, anyway) - what an exciting prospect for the RAN (so they will be "integrated")... but after all, if it does suit them, why bother ?

I had some first-hand knowledge of all that - one of my Academy classmates became Chief Propulsion Engineer of the nuclear carrier "Charles de Gaulle" (finishing later as a 5-stars admiral) There is no way you can build from scratch such a specialised workforce, in a country deprived of Engineering Universites dealing with nuclear matters. Absolutely no way.

It's a pity, considering the pleasant cooperation we did enjoy with RAN on HMAS Success (Durance-class of replenishment ships) - those subs would have been a nice and big adventure.

[L1649A]

If Morrison loses the next election in Australia, presumably there is nothing to stop a new administration cancelling AUKUS ?

[West Coast]

With the timescales being discussed I would suggest SSNX would be the more likely candidate - and it seems better fitted to Australian needs.

Hopefully the Chinese will be so kind as to wait before they kick off the festivities.

[Asturias56]

They've only just started work on designing the SSNX - the likelihood they'll be delivering them in the early 2030's looks very optimistic - - more likely late '30s at the earliest

[medod]

I just can't stop coming back to the fact that even if the RAN takes every shortcut available to them, buying boats off-the-shelf from the US or UK and having Australian crews trained abroad, maybe even home-basing the boats in the US or UK, it's going to be decades before they could possibly operate a nuclear submarine competently.
​​​​​​
If they want to build the boats in-country, and possibly even train their crews in Australia... I fully foresee them failing, no doubt after decades of trying having spent many tens of billions. Some future government will recognise the folly of a country of just 25 million trying to afford and acquire nuclear boats, and chop the project.

(For clarity: it's really, really hard to safely operate a nuclear submarine safely. Get it wrong and the results are catastrophic. To not get it wrong requires knowledge and experience I just can't see Australia being able to acquire and maintain with any level of independence.)

I imagine the French contact was to build boats capable of littoral surveillance, just without nuclear propulsion. I guess Australia thinks it can spend a bit more and get nuclear boats. Can't fault their ambition. They're going to get a hard reality check at some point.

[Video Mixdown]

I just can't stop coming back to the fact that even if the RAN takes every shortcut available to them, buying boats off-the-shelf from the US or UK and having Australian crews trained abroad, maybe even home-basing the boats in the US or UK, it's going to be decades before they could possibly operate a nuclear submarine competently.
​​​​​​
If they want to build the boats in-country, and possibly even train their crews in Australia... I fully foresee them failing, no doubt after decades of trying having spent many tens of billions. Some future government will recognise the folly of a country of just 25 million trying to afford and acquire nuclear boats, and chop the project.

(For clarity: it's really, really hard to safely operate a nuclear submarine safely. Get it wrong and the results are catastrophic. To not get it wrong requires knowledge and experience I just can't see Australia being able to acquire and maintain with any level of independence.)

I imagine the French contact was to build boats capable of littoral surveillance, just without nuclear propulsion. I guess Australia thinks it can spend a bit more and get nuclear boats. Can't fault their ambition. They're going to get a hard reality check at some point.
You talk as if they’re beginners. RAN is a very professional and experienced service who will have full access to long-established RN/USN training programmes. I’d be surprised if they have not had officers serving aboard US/UK boats for many years. Such cross-postings are common throughout UK/US/AUS military, where integration is seamless.

[recceguy]

I imagine the French contact was to build boats capable of littoral surveillance, just without nuclear propulsion. .

No. They were truly blue ocean ships. Once again, the German ones were for coastal waters operations, so their failure to be awarded the deal six years ago.

Thanks medod anyway for your informative post. Regarding the Aussies, you change your mind, so you lose time. And for them, it's not only being 25 millions (Israêl, South Africa were doing much more with less) but just a story of being a little bit.... inadequate regarding education, especially scientific. And everybody knows that. They play a decent rugby anyway. And they will have to deal with their not-so -reliable woke partner with a veiled PM anyway (that's why NZ was not to be included in the deal, on US request)

[rattman]

You talk as if they’re beginners. RAN is a very professional and experienced service who will have full access to long-established RN/USN training programmes. I’d be surprised if they have not had officers serving aboard US/UK boats for many years. Such cross-postings are common throughout UK/US/AUS military, where integration is seamless.

Yep all sub commanders go through perisher in the UK or netherland also go through the equivient american course. Other assorted officers dont always but some go through RN/USN various command/officer schools

[rattman]

(For clarity: it's really, really hard to safely operate a nuclear submarine safely. Get it wrong and the results are catastrophic. To not get it wrong requires knowledge and experience I just can't see Australia being able to acquire and maintain with any level of independence.)


Theres probably some here who have done it but nuclear school in the US to actually only a 6 month course added onto your electral rating from what I can find. Positions like supervisors all seem to have a degree level nuclear engineering as well. Machinist mates nuclear is a 2 your course. Also the nuclear school is tough, fail one exam you are out, some exams have 100% pass rate.

Australian nuclear qualified wont happen overnight, but it will happen and meanwhile assuming that a US/UK will be able supply personel to fill these positions initially. Same way that over 50% of our current sub commanders are from different navies (1 from RN, 1 for south africa and 1 from canada)

[mopardave]

Anyone fool enough to trust the UK government, at least the present one, is likely to be be disappointed.
Nothing other than a lie has come out of them in the last five years at least.
It's all smoke and mirrors and wobbly promises.
And I suppose the French are trustworthy are they? The French look after their own interests in a way I wish we did sometimes!

[Gnadenburg]

And I suppose the French are trustworthy are they? The French look after their own interests in a way I wish we did sometimes!

That's how silly this makes the Government of the time look. The French were not trustworthy in such a critical defence project. They have the history to prove it and the Americans were concerned about technological transfers. Who knows what will suit the French in the Pacific? Perhaps the CCP's interests or duplicity may suit the French economy at the time?

Let's see what AUKUS can deliver in terms of an interim and future submarine capability. In the meantime, inside of a decade and perhaps considerably less, it is Australia's air force that can be expanded and fleshed out for regional conflict. Additional French made tankers would be a good start.

[Ndegi]

I have a long memory of French Terrorists using French submarines as part of their plans to bomb the Rainbow Warrior in Auckland harbour. From the attitudes of our friend above, the French attitude has not changed.

[rjtjrt]

Chinese version of Super-Frelon helicopter - they seem to enjoy it

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1024x768/z8_super_frelon_7cfda54b60e180e71369ca1f114990afc9f073ec.jpg
and here is the well-known Dauphin

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1024x1024/z9_panther_3f5dcf74aa22f42f27c794a9df3f797ce9326157.jpg

It is very refreshing to see recceguy slut shaming his own country.
It appears I have more respect for France than he does.

[rjtjrt]

Have you actually bothered to read anything or watch the press conference ? Part of the deal the subs will be built in australia, specifically at osborne ship yards in adelaide. While we dont know the specifics as they have allocated 12-18 months to determine the design / winners. It believed that the a nuclear power plant will be built which ever countries sub is selected. Will be shipped to australia as a sealed black box where it will be installed onto the sub. The majority of the sub will be built in adelaide with US/UK technical support. I assume the overal program will be managed by electric boat the same way they did with the astute program

Rat (I hope I can call you by your diminutive).
Of course you can believe that the subs will all be built in Adelaide. A press release form the Liberal or Labor government of the day undertaking to do something in 10+ years time is something you can take to the bank.
Lease of 1 or 2 older near decommission subs to get training started and some capability, and increase sub numbers to 8, is the most likely early move. Then off the shelf overseas build of 2 new boats, assuming we can get US or UK to free up build space, will most likely happen. Adelaide will get more non sub orders to appease them. By then Osborne will have not built a sub for 30+ years.
The previous imperative to have a sovereign sub build and maint capability was only there when we had to buy conventional subs i.e. Continental European designs. Now we are can source subs from more reliable countries, home build is desirable but not essential, and impractical in terms of timeframe, recent experience and cost. UK and US have a sense of kinship with Australia, Continental Europe do not and that is the difference.
Adelaide will loose sub build, as it did car manufacture.
Still, none of us really know. All here is just speculative opinion from people who most likely have no real idea.

[rattman]

Rat (I hope I can call you by your diminutive).
Of course you can believe that the subs will all be built in Adelaide. A press release form the Liberal or Labor government of the day undertaking to do something in 10+ years time is something you can take to the bank.
Lease of 1 or 2 older near decommission subs to get training started and some capability, and increase sub numbers to 8, is the most likely early move. Then off the shelf overseas build of 2 new boats, assuming we can get US or UK to free up build space, will most likely happen. Adelaide will get more non sub orders to appease them. By then Osborne will have not built a sub for 30+ years.
The previous imperative to have a sovereign sub build and maint capability was only there when we had to buy conventional subs i.e. Continental European designs. Now we are can source subs from more reliable, trustworthy countries home build is desirable but not essential, and impractical in terms of timeframe, recent experience and cost.
Adelaide will loose sub build, as it did car manufacture.
Still, none of us really know. All here is just speculative opinion from people who most likely have no real idea.

Where else can they be built ? The US has no spare capacity, niether does the UK. We maybe close friends but the US or the UK are not going to delay the production of their own subs to fit ours. I have said it before these will be manufactured in australia, they will be supervised / managed by probably general dynamics electric boat in the same way they did for the astutes. Once its complete there would be somewhere to service the subs a lot closer to china, osborne shipyards are building the new hunter frigates. I still think they will be majority built there with certain sections built overseas and shipped over. If for only reason being is that there is no where else to build them, there appears to be zero capacity worldwide

[RickNRoll]

These are all questions to be answered and no one, including Morrison, knows those answers. All we have now are aspirations and announcements and a cancelled contract.

[ehwatezedoing]

recceguy , it would be quite amusing if you are actually on Clipperton Island.
Because that about sums up the relevance of France to the Pacific.
Why does France try to hang on to its colonial past ?
Relations with France or the US ?
Difficult choice. Not.
Huh!?

Nothing to do with hanging to a colonial past, those territories figured out it was better staying French than trying the "independence" route. A lot of you French bashers are conveniently forgetting that France rank #1 in maritime borders, contiguous zones and territorial waters.

Want it or not, they do have a say in the Pacific region.

[Grumpy retiree]

Huh!?

Nothing to do with hanging to a colonial past, those territories figured out it was better staying French than trying the "independence" route. A lot of you French bashers are conveniently forgetting that France rank #1 in maritime borders, contiguous zones and territorial waters.

Want it or not, they do have a say in the Pacific region.

So, French possessions in the Pacific are not an anomaly?
Well, youre in a very small cheer squad on that one.
Certainly no basis for Australian foreign policy.

[West Coast]

French possessions are not insignificant in the Pacific. From personal experience, the fishing near Clipperton island is fantastic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overseas_France#/media/File:France_in_the_World_(+Antarctica_claims).svg

[ORAC]

https://twitter.com/pinstripedline/status/1439565872289521668?s=21

[Bengo]

There is more to this than finding someone/somewhere to build the boats and training some nuclear submariners. Routes for these things exist and there is quite possibly room in the US or UK pipelines for enough Aussie trainees.
What does not exist is an Australian nuclear Regulatory Environment, because Australia has no civil nuclear base.

It will take a good time to sort out the legislation, train the (civilian?) Staff to replicate the role of the UKAEA or its US equivalent and for it to write some rules. The new body will have zero experience at start up and will need to borrow that from others.

There are a hell of a lot of non-trivial tasks to be done. Who will be the Rickover of dunnunder?

N

[Grumpy retiree]

https://twitter.com/pinstripedline/status/1439565872289521668?s=21

The French response to what is a perfectly sensible response by Australia to a floundering program is exactly why there is no French equivalent of the Five Eyes agreement. Why would you trust the French ?

[jonkster]

There is more to this than finding someone/somewhere to build the boats and training some nuclear submariners. Routes for these things exist and there is quite possibly room in the US or UK pipelines for enough Aussie trainees.
What does not exist is an Australian nuclear Regulatory Environment, because Australia has no civil nuclear base.

FWIW Australia does have one operating nuclear reactor and has previously run 2 research reactors on the site since 1958 until the new one commenced operation.

We do not use them for power generation though. Australia was after WW2 a fairly prominent player in the nuclear research field.


It will take a good time to sort out the legislation, train the (civilian?) Staff to replicate the role of the UKAEA or its US equivalent and for it to write some rules. The new body will have zero experience at start up and will need to borrow that from others.

I would assume ANSTO (Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation) that has in one form or another been operating since the 1950s.


There are a hell of a lot of non-trivial tasks to be done. Who will be the Rickover of dunnunder?
N

I am not an expert in the field so happy to be educated but I would ask, didn't the US, UK, France USSR, China, India (and soon Brazil) manage to get themselves operational with Nuclear powered submarines starting from a starting point where there weren't any nuclear powered submarines, (or even helpful collaborators) following WW2.

Not suggesting it is a trivial task but given other countries have developed nuclear powered vessels so why is it not feasible that Oz does the same? (especially given support from 2 countries with extensive experience in the field).

Note - not saying this is a good or bad idea but is the lack of previous experience really a consideration given a 20 year implementation timeframe and promised support from 2 highly experienced operators?

[Asturias56]

The problem is now France - they've just gone through a "Suez" moment and it can be expected to cause all sorts of issues going forward.

Let's say co-operation will be limited - that applies in places like the Sahel and Djibouti. They could decide to get closer to China - or at least less obstructive. That could open up most of the S Pacific to the PLA(N) - running right through any US-Australian "defence line"

I can't see them being very keen to help out the UK with the illegal immigrant problem either

They will be less helpful at the EU, NATO and the UN etc etc

So there will be price to pay

[ORAC]

I would assume ANSTO (Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation) that has in one form or another been operating since the 1950s.
ARPANSA

https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/IAEA-team-completes-review-of-Australian-regulator

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

[gcal]

Submarine consortia to be enlarged to include France and Portugal and re-named AFUKUP

[West Coast]

The problem is now France - they've just gone through a "Suez" moment and it can be expected to cause all sorts of issues going forward.

Let's say co-operation will be limited - that applies in places like the Sahel and Djibouti. They could decide to get closer to China - or at least less obstructive. That could open up most of the S Pacific to the PLA(N) - running right through any US-Australian "defence line"

I can't see them being very keen to help out the UK with the illegal immigrant problem either

They will be less helpful at the EU, NATO and the UN etc etc

So there will be price to pay

Don't see the French spiting the US and Oz over this given their values align with the rest of the west and not with the Chinese. The former French Ambassador to the US said mostly the same today on one of the Sunday talk shows this am. This will blow over soon enough.

[ehwatezedoing]

So, French possessions in the Pacific are not an anomaly?
Well, youre in a very small cheer squad on that one.
Certainly no basis for Australian foreign policy.
No more an anomaly than the Falklands, Gibraltar, Cayman, Montserrat, Pitcairn, etc...
Your French Bashing is a bit tiring. Not Grumpy for nothing :p I'd like to remind you that it is Australia who bailed out of a signed contract! Not the other way round. Blame your own government to have it signed at first if it was "such a bad deal"

Anyway like West Coast wrote, it will be blown over soon enough.

[Video Mixdown]

Anyway like West Coast wrote, it will be blown over soon enough.
Agreed. The hysterical reaction of some of their politicians is doing France no favours. Their pride is hurt, but they know perfectly well that they cannot force the Australians to buy submarines that they no longer want. There will be cancellation terms in the contracts and no doubt the lawyers will get involved, but as far as building the boats is concerned, it’s over.

[Fliegenmong]

The Port of Darwin 'deal'.....done by the Federal Government under John Howard, one of his right hand men Andrew Robb brokered the deal with the Chinese Government, then promptly retired and took up a very lucrative job as a consultant to them? I believe i recall is what happened...Andrew Robb was his name???

[HK144]

The Port of Darwin 'deal'.....done by the Federal Government under John Howard, one of his right hand men Andrew Robb brokered the deal with the Chinese Government, then promptly retired and took up a very lucrative job as a consultant to them? I believe i recall is what happened...Andrew Robb was his name???

Landbridge won the bidding for the lease in October 2015 under Abbott/Turnbull and was subsequently awarded such by the NT Government at the time. Andrew Robb did join Landbridge on leaving Politics; however, left the company in 2018.

[dead_pan]

French possessions are not insignificant in the Pacific. From personal experience, the fishing near Clipperton island is fantastic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overseas_France#/media/File:France_in_the_World_(+Antarctica_claims).svg

Alas most are in the wrong half of the ocean.

Gordon Brown's comments about the French response seem to be on the money.

[ORAC]

Australia was talking about walking awa6 from the deal over 2 years ago - the nuclear sub part of the AUKUS treaty negotiated over the last year or so is a consequence of Australian dissatisfaction, not a cause of it.

Reference break clauses and penalties, these were also discussed and identified - a price Australia is obviously willing to pay to wash their hands of it.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-15/australia-to-pay-hundreds-of-millions-if-french-sub-deal-sinks/11112952

[RickNRoll]

The French sub was to be a heavily modified nuclear sub. It would have been a lot simpler to just take their nuclear sub. It also uses a more modern technology that doesn't need highly enriched uranium.

[ORAC]

It also uses a more modern technology that doesn't need highly enriched uranium.
The K15 is a brand new untried reactor - designed specifically to fit inside the Barracuda class. So inherently there is risk.

It also needs refuelling every 5-10 years as it s uses similar fuel to land based French PWR. Not a problem for the French with the entire infrastructure and production and storage chain - but a complex problem for Australia relying on the support French over the life of the boat.

https://tinyurl.com/ue6zbzw3

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2019/07/more-details-on-suffren-the-french-navy-next-gen-ssn-on-its-export-ssk-variants/

[ORAC]

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/submarine-row-france-threatens-to-block-eu-trade-deal-with-australia-fbz8gjfc3

Submarine row: France threatens to block EU trade deal with Australia

France has threatened to veto and block an EU free trade agreement with Australia over the cancellation of a €50 billion submarine deal following last week’s security alliance between the Australians, Americans and British.

The French move risks dividing the EU amid widespread reluctance among European countries to become involved in the row, which is seen as a commercial dispute between Paris, Washington, London and Canberra.

Clément Beaune, the French Europe minister, said that Paris would block any further progress in the trade talks, which were expected to make a breakthrough with a planned 12th round of negotiations in Brussels next month…..

“Keeping one’s word is the condition of trust between democracies and between allies,” he said. “So it is unthinkable to move forward ontrade negotiations as if nothing had happened with a country in which we no longer trust.”…..

Any decision to block an agreement will anger European governments, such as the Dutch, Swedes and Irish while causing unease in Berlin.….

France faces an uphill struggle to convince other European countries to back it in the dispute with Australia over an arms industry contract that has never been discussed at the political level in the EU.

Speaking last Friday as the dispute escalated, Josep Borrell, the EU’s foreign affairs chief, specifically ruled out “ad hoc” suspension of the trade talks. “Trade agreements with Australia will continue down their path, and we will see how things develop,” he said, last Friday.

Senior EU diplomats have described the row as a “small hiccup” that only affects the French arms industry over a bilateral French-Australia security agreement that Paris agreed unilaterally without reference to the EU……

[Asturias56]

"Don't see the French spiting the US and Oz over this given their values align with the rest of the west"

we'll see - not a split but I doubt they'll cross the street to help any of the AUKUS crowd in anything for quite a while

[ORAC]

Germans don’t seem impressed….

https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.tagesspiegel.de%2Fpolitik%2Fnach-dem-geplatzten-u-boot-geschaeft-drama-queen-macron-nimmt-nato-und-berlin-aufs-korn%2F27627196.html

[BFSGrad]

Theres probably some here who have done it but nuclear school in the US to actually only a 6 month course added onto your electral rating from what I can find. Positions like supervisors all seem to have a degree level nuclear engineering as well. Machinist mates nuclear is a 2 your course. Also the nuclear school is tough, fail one exam you are out, some exams have 100% pass rate.
The basic path for U.S. nuclear trained enlisted personnel is boot camp, 6 months A school, 6 months nuclear power school, 6 months prototype, and 3 months sub school (not required for surface assignment). For officers, the same minus the A school and boot camp. Enlisted, no degree required. Officer, degree required but it doesn't have to be STEM. Officers have to pass the Naval Reactors interview (usually while midshipmen). Regarding exams in the nuclear pipeline, there is no required 100% pass rate for any exam. Enlisted or officer can also fail one or more exams in nuclear training but those who do are put on rigorous academic probation and quickly shown the door if remediation fails.

[squidie]

Not seen much info on what the builds will be, I.e Sea Wolf/Virginia or Astute/Trafalgar classes so I reckon it’ll be a new type...

[golder]

There is no time for a new type, this time. We will take off the shelf, as much as possible. Probably Astute and the US fire system. Although the Virginia already has the fire system installed, so it would be easier. The UK may then be the nuke engine. I would say the decision has been made, it's a matter of when it will be released.

[rjtjrt]

If UK with Astute can integrate US fire control system that allows US torpedo to be used, in a cost effective and timely manner, then I guess that would probably address most of RAN desired minimum specs. However an off the shelf Astute would be better than a late, and half working bespoke Astute.
I say guess as that is basically what all of us here are doing!

[FullOppositeRudder]

An enlightening discussion here: https://www.news.com.au/national/french-reaction-has-been-utterly-ridiculous-amid-cancelled-sub-deal/video/ce05cdd54d9911814cbd3b4cc20e8712

Factually, every flamin' kangaroo in the country could see the writing on the wall as the exploration of the French option slowly unraveled. The only surprise is that it took this long to state the obvious ...

[rattman]

The basic path for U.S. nuclear trained enlisted personnel is boot camp, 6 months A school, 6 months nuclear power school, 6 months prototype, and 3 months sub school (not required for surface assignment). For officers, the same minus the A school and boot camp. Enlisted, no degree required. Officer, degree required but it doesn't have to be STEM. Officers have to pass the Naval Reactors interview (usually while midshipmen). Regarding exams in the nuclear pipeline, there is no required 100% pass rate for any exam. Enlisted or officer can also fail one or more exams in nuclear training but those who do are put on rigorous academic probation and quickly shown the door if remediation fails.

Thanks for that info it seems sorta hard to find out that sort of stuff. I could find an USN interview / whats your job involved for a mechanical rate and they commented that they did 2 years training before thier first deployment

[golder]

It's also the partnered CBASS Torp, that has Aussie tech. Easiest is the virgin, but has more crew, with the UK engine. So I read...UK is approved, there are some interal yank hurdles to jump to be able to supply power plant direct.

[Gne]

It is to be hoped that for this acquisition the ADF does not follow the long established policy, typified by the recent purchase of HB pencils where the sharp ends were cut off and the blunt ends sharpened to suit those unique Australian conditions.

Gne

[Lookleft]

So I read...UK is approved, there are some interal yank hurdles to jump to be able to supply power plant direct.

It should also mean that there won't be any power of veto as to where it can be/cannot be used like the French did with the Mirages during Vietnam.

The CCP want to defeat the West and rub their noses in what the CCP call the Century of Humiliation

You may have the timeline a little askew regarding exactly which century.

If you need to ask that question then you don't know what is motivating the CCP. Clearly all you want to do is engage in anti-America rants so fill your boots but that sort of rhetoric is cliché and boring.

[Asturias56]

The answer has to be off the shelf - and even second hand. The strain of staffing and operating a new class of submarine will stretch Australia a long way (see the Sir Humphrey article referenced above)- adding in building and (even worse) a new or modified design would be insane.

The Uk has enough problems getting Astutes out of the door from a single yard in time to get the new SSBN's on track (and thats after 60 years of building SSN's) - any new production has to be in the USA - give a decent order the yards there are in a better state to up production over 3-5 years - which is how long it will take to train the crew (s)

Building them in Adelaide - a very long way away

[ORAC]

The UK may then be the nuke engine.
Production of the PWR2 ceased with the construction of the last 2 for the Last current Astute class.

The Dreadnaught class under construction uses the PWR3 which is reportedly based on a S9G used in the Virginia class.

The latest US reactor is the S1B for the new Columbia class SSBN, and the SSNX, (which have a 42ft beam as opposed to the 38ft if the Virginia class*)

(* The Astute has a 42ft beam, a feature which was driven by having to use the PWR2 reactor designed for the Trident Vanguard class. That seems to have proved serendipitous with better stealth than the Virginia, a route the USN now seem to be following.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_PWR

https://news.usni.org/2020/11/02/bwxt-ceo-navys-next-generation-ssnx-attack-boat-will-build-off-columbia-class

If a design based on the Astute was chosen it would therefore need either the production of the PWR2 to be restarted in future years, or a redesign to accommodate one of the above.

All hedging around current non-proliferation treaties.

https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/limiting-the-nuclear-proliferation-blowback-from-the-aukus-submarine-deal/

https://thebulletin.org/2021/09/the-new-australia-uk-and-us-nuclear-submarine-announcement-a-terrible-decision-for-the-nonproliferation-regime/

[SaulGoodman]

So what exactly has Australia to gain from AUKUS? I still fail to see there benefits.

[ORAC]

More on the reaction of French and implications for NATO.

It would seem they are getting the EU on their side as far as looking at building up the EU as a military force and “third pillar”.

https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-charles-michel-biden-disloyalty-allies-aukus/

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-eu-should-keep-out-of-france-s-spat-with-australia

[Asturias56]

"So what exactly has Australia to gain from AUKUS? I still fail to see there benefits."

SSN's can operate longer and safer further N than the diesel boats - unless you look at a map its hard to believe but China is actually closer to Finland than to Australia

SSN's are hard to detect and can carry a serious conventional punch - they last a long time and, overall, are very flexible. It was SSN's that kept he Argentinean navy in port thru the Falklands War

[Video Mixdown]

More on the reaction of French and implications for NATO.

It would seem they are getting the EU on their side as far as looking at building up the EU as a military force and “third pillar”.

https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-charles-michel-biden-disloyalty-allies-aukus/

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-eu-should-keep-out-of-france-s-spat-with-australia
Has anyone had the bad taste to ask the people who live in EU states if they really want control of their own military handed over to Brussels? And where does this leave the neutral countries (Austria, Ireland, Finland, Malta and Sweden)? Would they be compelled to participate as a condition of EU membership?

[JPJP]

No more an anomaly than the Falklands, Gibraltar, Cayman, Montserrat, Pitcairn, etc...
Your French Bashing is a bit tiring. Not Grumpy for nothing :p I'd like to remind you that it is Australia who bailed out of a signed contract! Not the other way round. Blame your own government to have it signed at first if it was "such a bad deal"

Anyway like West Coast wrote, it will be blown over soon enough. Meh. You say Falklands, I say Etendard carrying Excocet. Or that brilliant helicopter named Tiger. Or the vapourware French Submarine. At least we know this one will work as advertised.

France is a lovely country. But …. 🏳 :E

[ExAscoteer2]

SSN's are hard to detect and can carry a serious conventional punch.

SSKs are a shed load harder to detect (until they snort) and can carry the same punch.

[Yellow Sun]

SSKs are a shed load harder to detect (until they snort) and can carry the same punch.

But the SSN has no limiting lines of submerged approach.

YS

[Count of Monte Bisto]

I am a Brit and unashamedly supportive of my country - I could therefore be considered biased in this debate. However, the French are some of the most aggressive and unscrupulous arms and technology salesmen on the planet. The will sell any weapons to absolute anyone at all, without any embarrassment whatsoever, as long as they have the money. They sold Exocet missiles to the Argentinians that took out British ships. We, incidentally, previously owned the Belgrano and their Aircraft Carrier, so we are not blameless either. Those with long memories may recall the Israelis carrying out 'The Raid on the Sun' (Operation Opera, also sometimes known as Operation Babylon) on 7 June 1981 when their very nice new F-16s took out the Iraqi's nearly-finished Osirak nuclear reactor near Baghdad. It should come as no surprise to anyone that the reactor was supplied by none other than the French. They never gave a second's thought to the wider ramification of a madman like Saddam Hussein having nuclear weapons - it is all about having money in the bank after all.

Move now to the present day where the French have seriously got the hump because their not-so-posh submarines have been usurped by better offerings fro the Brits and Americans. Again, followers of history will know that it was the Brits who were the last to sink a ship with a submarine when HMS Conqueror (UK-built nuclear submarine with conventional torpedos) sunk the Belgrano in the Falklands War. There are a lot of things the Brits could do better at - when it comes to submarines, we do seem to be doing quite well. Does anyone seriously think for a moment the French would have hesitated to have stuffed the Brits or Yanks if the tables had been turned. These are the same French who thought nothing of blowing up the Rainbow Warrior on 10 June 1985 in Auckland Harbour - New Zealand being a major ally of the French and the Australians incidentally. Therefore, at a technical level, the purchase of British and American submarines, instead of French one, makes total sense. Again, followers of history may be interested to know that of the 59 submarines used by the French navy in WW2, 3/4 of them were sunk - not exactly inspiring stuff.

So, to the question of whether the Chinese care about 8 Australian submarines. Of course, they are not running in fear of their navy being sunk by the Australians, but that is not how these things work. The reason Argentina felt empowered to invade the Falklands in 1982 is that the UK announced it was moving one tiny little Ice Breaker (HMS Endurance) away from the South Atlantic. In diplomatic terms, this was a 'please invade now' call and was interpreted as such. The purchase of 8 submarines that actually work tells the Chinese that Australia in extremely unhappy about their advances into the ocean beyond their shores and have only so much tolerance of such behaviour - that is diplomacy in action. So, well done to the Australians who decided not to be defrauded by the French. The French will go back to selling arms to anyone they can find - I am sure that if that delightful new government in Afghanistan show signs of starting a blue water navy the French have some spare submarines available at bargain prices.

[henra]

SSKs are a shed load harder to detect (until they snort) and can carry the same punch.
SSN's can travel long distances fully submerged at high speeds and are thereby a tremendous danger to an opposing Overwater Fleet. They can catch up to any conventionally powered overwater Unit over longer distances. In confined waters a diesel or especially a fuel cell unit will be more stealthy but for PLAN trying to put pressure on a country thousands of miles away from their homeland a fleet of 8 SSN armed with torpedos and harpoon is a huge threat.

[etudiant]

Surely the message here is not in the details of the contract or the specific tech transfers, rather it is that the US is actively disseminating nuclear technology in Australia/Asia.
China has done zip to halt the North Korean nuclear effort, so the US will help its friends to arm up correspondingly. South Korea, India, Japan and Taiwan are on the agenda, imho in that order.
China will be deterred militarily, that is relatively easy. The commercial dependencies will be a lot more difficult to deal with.

[SaulGoodman]

"So what exactly has Australia to gain from AUKUS? I still fail to see there benefits."

SSN's can operate longer and safer further N than the diesel boats - unless you look at a map its hard to believe but China is actually closer to Finland than to Australia

SSN's are hard to detect and can carry a serious conventional punch - they last a long time and, overall, are very flexible. It was SSN's that kept he Argentinean navy in port thru the Falklands War

I get that the hardware might be a little better (which they could have ordered instead anyway) but I still fail to see what the country of Australia has to gain. Don’t get me wrong, I am everything BUT a China fan but in my eyes AUKUS has changed Australia in an American vassal state with the risk of seriously pissing of their biggest trade partner.

keep your friends close but your enemies closer!

[rattman]

"So what exactly has Australia to gain from AUKUS? I still fail to see there benefits."

SSN's can operate longer and safer further N than the diesel boats

AUKUS is a lot more than just the headline grabbing sub decision, theres been a lot more subtle stuff already come and expected more over the coming months

[ExAscoteer2]

But the SSN has no limiting lines of submerged approach.

YS
And is damned all use in littoral waters.

[ExAscoteer2]

SSN's can travel long distances fully submerged at high speeds and are thereby a tremendous danger to an opposing Overwater Fleet.

An SSN at speed is easy to track passively.

[TWT]

Count of Monte Bisto

Again, followers of history will know that it was the Brits who were the last to sink a ship with a submarine when HMS Conqueror (UK-built nuclear submarine with conventional torpedos) sunk the Belgrano in the Falklands War.

A minor point but the ROKS vessel 'Cheonan' was sunk in 2010 by a North Korean submarine.

[Video Mixdown]

An SSN at speed is easy to track passively.
I think it's just possible that combat tactics forms part of the Commanders course.

[ExAscoteer2]

I think it's just possible I have something over 1000 hrs Nimrod. Your move.

[West Coast]

SSKs are a shed load harder to detect (until they snort) and can carry the same punch.

And their time in theatre is what compared to a SSN?

[ExAscoteer2]

You tell me. You are obviously an expert.

[Video Mixdown]

I think it's just possible I have something over 1000 hrs Nimrod. Your move.
My genuine respect - poorly worded. I just meant that presumably they wouldn't deliberately make it easy for you. I'm out.

[ExAscoteer2]

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