AUKUS
India operates high-tech French military equipment at the forefront of its defence against the Chinese Communist Party.
6 x Scorpene-class submarines: confidential design and data specifications leaked in a major security breach.
Rafael/Mirage 2000 combat aircraft: following 2019 trade agreements which included large civilian aircraft orders, France appeared to turn a blind-eye at its former Armée de l'Air combat pilots employed in consultancy roles with the PLA, addressing the well known divide in operational training standards. recceguy could confirm the extent of this cooperation.
So all in all, if you see China as a player in your security and strategic outlook, and operate French-made military equipment, caveat emptor.
6 x Scorpene-class submarines: confidential design and data specifications leaked in a major security breach.
Rafael/Mirage 2000 combat aircraft: following 2019 trade agreements which included large civilian aircraft orders, France appeared to turn a blind-eye at its former Armée de l'Air combat pilots employed in consultancy roles with the PLA, addressing the well known divide in operational training standards. recceguy could confirm the extent of this cooperation.
So all in all, if you see China as a player in your security and strategic outlook, and operate French-made military equipment, caveat emptor.
golder
How about connecting the dots? One major driver of AUKUS is Australia receiving advanced military technology transfers. France is not the only country recently given the boot. The Israelis were too. You cannot have your major defence capabilities compromised by potential security leaks or lack of confidence in the durability of relationships.
There's a lot of issues other than the cancelled submarines relevant to the French. Previous projects, capabilities ( or lack of ) and promised offsets not materialising. Confidence in security as well.
How about connecting the dots? One major driver of AUKUS is Australia receiving advanced military technology transfers. France is not the only country recently given the boot. The Israelis were too. You cannot have your major defence capabilities compromised by potential security leaks or lack of confidence in the durability of relationships.
There's a lot of issues other than the cancelled submarines relevant to the French. Previous projects, capabilities ( or lack of ) and promised offsets not materialising. Confidence in security as well.
AUKUS:The agreement covers key areas such as artificial intelligence, cyber warfare, underwater technologies, and long-range strike capabilities. It also includes a nuclear component, possibly limited to the US and the UK, on nuclear defence infrastructure.[1] The agreement will focus on military capability, separating it from the Five Eyes intelligence-sharing alliance that also includes New Zealand and Canada
the F-15 is slightly faster than the F-111 (Mach 2.5 for the -111 and either 2.6 or 2.7 for the F-15)
Evertonian
Looking at figures in such a manner doesn't give any indication as to a particular aircrafts capability. Yes, a F-111 will do 2.5M, but only above 50,000 feet, decreasing linearly to 1.2M at sea level. The F-18E/F 2.0M above 35,000 feet decreasing linearly to 1.1M at sea level. Then those numbers are for basic aircraft which change with aircraft configuration, it takes real in depth analysis to gauge which aircraft is the better for the mission you desire it to fly.
There was a mention on the need for training Aussie crews - the UK had to train crews pretty much from scratch when they built the "Dreadnought" SSN way back - any idea how long that took?
RE - the F-111. Confirmation the other day that Loyal Wingman final assembly will be in Queensland. An ambitious plan to enhance RAAF medium range capability.
https://amp.abc.net.au/article/100484924
https://amp.abc.net.au/article/100484924
Lets see, how could the worst program work?....in the name of maximum equality share for the US and UK, and local jobs for AUS, US systems and weapons suite (or maybe even the reactor) is shoehorned into an Astute, BAE is hired as the integrator, and rips out all the perfectly good US gear and tries to splice it to the UK black boxes, and the whole thing is assembled by Australian pipe fitters and welders who are underexperienced with the specialized metals that go into sub work....ooh and several late changes in specs for new technologies and mission creep....
Secondly, the Australian Submarine Corporation (ASC) built, maintain, repair and overhaul the Collins class submarines, so have a lot of accumulated knowledge, which was one of the main drivers in its creation.
Apologies for the serious answer.
"Australian Submarine Corporation (ASC) built, maintain, repair and overhaul the Collins class submarines, so have a lot of accumulated knowledge"
I think its fair to say they have a bit of a chequered record?
I think its fair to say they have a bit of a chequered record?
Alas, alack gentlemen I am not an inhabitant of Australia or New Zealand but I have a lot of friends in Adelaide - and even in Port Adelaide (tho' I follow the Crows)
As to ASC:-The first submarine, HMAS Collins, was laid down in February 1990. Collins' launch was originally planned for 1994, but was later set for 28 August 1993.[ Although launched on schedule, she was not complete: the design of the submarine had not been finalised, important internal pipes and fittings were not installed, the components of the combat system had yet to be delivered, and some hull sections were actually sheets of timber painted black so the submarine would appear complete in photographs of the launching ceremony.
Within weeks of the launch, Collins was removed from the water, and it was not until June 1994 that the submarine was completed. Progress on the other five submarines was delayed by the extra effort required to meet Collins' launching date and the subsequent work to complete her. Collins was not commissioned into the RAN until 27 July 1996; eighteen months behind schedule, because of several delays and problems, most relating to the provision and installation of the combat data system software. Collins was not approved for operational deployments until 2000.
The other five submarines were scheduled for completion at 12-month intervals. However, the series of defects and problems encountered during sea trials of the submarines (particularly Collins) resulted in the repeated diversion of resources from those still under construction, adding to delays. Consequently, delivery of the submarines ran significantly behind schedule; submarines were presented to the RAN between 21 and 41 months late, and the entire class was not cleared for full operational service until March 2004, a year after the last boat was commissioned. These delays forced the RAN to keep several Oberon-class submarines and the submarine base HMAS Platypus in service beyond their planned decommissioning dates.
As to ASC:-The first submarine, HMAS Collins, was laid down in February 1990. Collins' launch was originally planned for 1994, but was later set for 28 August 1993.[ Although launched on schedule, she was not complete: the design of the submarine had not been finalised, important internal pipes and fittings were not installed, the components of the combat system had yet to be delivered, and some hull sections were actually sheets of timber painted black so the submarine would appear complete in photographs of the launching ceremony.
Within weeks of the launch, Collins was removed from the water, and it was not until June 1994 that the submarine was completed. Progress on the other five submarines was delayed by the extra effort required to meet Collins' launching date and the subsequent work to complete her. Collins was not commissioned into the RAN until 27 July 1996; eighteen months behind schedule, because of several delays and problems, most relating to the provision and installation of the combat data system software. Collins was not approved for operational deployments until 2000.
The other five submarines were scheduled for completion at 12-month intervals. However, the series of defects and problems encountered during sea trials of the submarines (particularly Collins) resulted in the repeated diversion of resources from those still under construction, adding to delays. Consequently, delivery of the submarines ran significantly behind schedule; submarines were presented to the RAN between 21 and 41 months late, and the entire class was not cleared for full operational service until March 2004, a year after the last boat was commissioned. These delays forced the RAN to keep several Oberon-class submarines and the submarine base HMAS Platypus in service beyond their planned decommissioning dates.
I wasn’t referring to Aus/NZ. It seems to be the UK you hate, and feel the need to chip away at on any and every occasion:
You’d fit in well at the BBC
You’d fit in well at the BBC
Last edited by minigundiplomat; 26th Sep 2021 at 17:48.
A problem that has also affected another current heavily delayed submarine programme.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
Just starting on BBC4 at 10pm - “How to Build a Nuclear Submarine” - the building of the Astute class… 1/3….
Doubtless available on BBC catch up…
Doubtless available on BBC catch up…
I'm relieved that I'm not the only one to have noticed his pattern of malicious behaviour. It's been going on for years.
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.
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.
Sadly, at this point in time the opposition to such a move (although dwindling from 85% in the 60s to probably less than 40-50% today) is characterised by people who are either moribund in their thinking or can't escape the anglophile mindset that Britain is largely irrelevant in today's world and they show their lack of imagination by trotting out hackneyed garbage lines such as "served us well" and the most annoying of all "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" - I often ask when someone says that "Do you own a car and have electricity in your house????" They of course say yes, to which I reply "Well you should have stayed with candles and a horse, because, you know, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".
If everyone had that attitude and society rested on that foundation, we'd still be inhabiting caves and running around half-naked killing animals with a club.
Then there's the 'but the US is a republic and look at the problems they've had with their previous President' - as if they are happy to discard 234 years of general stability because of the last 4.
It might seem esoteric what I'm saying but there's a subtle but powerful mindset that comes with making your nation independent. That includes a realisation that we are where we are today with a fairly stable democratic state because we have a written constitution (based on the US and the Swiss as the UK doesn't have a constitution) and because of a general respect for the rule of law. NOT, because some nonogenarian woman in London has some magic powers of casting stability....... which is clearly nonsense because if she did, Scotland wouldn't have an independence movement, the IRA wouldn't have been setting off bombs everywhere and Fiji would have been protected from their coup by the juju up the mountain nonsense attributed to one Elizabeth Saxe Coburg von Gotha or whatever her real name is.
Bottom line, to make credible and Independent decisions, Australia first needs to grow the hell up.
When Britain abandoned us, we cottoned on to the United States. Now the ANZUS Alliance is seen not as an equal partnership but is almost worshipped like a religious icon. Why???? Because when Mummy let us down we had to have a Daddy to turn to, so incapable of independent thought in foreign policy, defence policy and many other areas because we still are an 'almost nation'.
Yes, people can say correctly that 'legally' we are sovereign and independent but as long as we have a head of state that isn't even a citizen (it's like if the Rome was still a 'country', the leftover from the Roman Empire, Britain having the leader of Rome as it's head of state still) and a flag that screams BRITAIN!!!! or subordinate then the mindset isn't going to change.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
based on the US and the Swiss as the UK doesn't have a constitution)
https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-...-law-essay.php