AUKUS

[AerialPerspective]

Originally Posted by Lead Balloon

I agree. But...

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

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

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

[rattman]

Originally Posted by Flap Track 6

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

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

[Chronic Snoozer]

Originally Posted by Derfred

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

What an awesome deal.

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

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

[golder]

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

[HAS59]

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

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

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

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

[601]

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

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

[Derfred]

Originally Posted by Chronic Snoozer

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

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

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

[Herod]

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

[Gnadenburg]

Originally Posted by HAS59

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

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

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

[rattman]

Originally Posted by Gnadenburg

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

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

[rattman]

Originally Posted by Derfred

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

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

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

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

[Gnadenburg]

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

[ORAC]

Twitter

[WE Branch Fanatic]

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

Excluded from AUKUS? Canada Should Seek to Invite Itself Aboard

For Canada, though, the news is generating concern that we were not invited to a rather important party, given our membership in the “Five Eyes” security network comprising Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States.

That concern is not unreasonable. The Five Eyes group, stemming from the historic relationship between the British Empire and the United States during World War II, unites English-speaking democracies with similar values into an intelligence-sharing agreement designed to keep each member country safer.

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

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

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

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

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

[rattman]

Originally Posted by WE Branch Fanatic

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

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

You Tube

[Asturias56]

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

[sandiego89]

Originally Posted by WE Branch Fanatic

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

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

[Buster Hyman]

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

[golder]

Originally Posted by WE Branch Fanatic

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

Excluded from AUKUS? Canada Should Seek to Invite Itself Aboard

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

[WhatsaLizad?]

Originally Posted by recceguy

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

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