AUKUS
Thread Starter
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Joined: Jul 2000
Aviation Qualifications: Spotter
Posts: 24,645
Likes: 7,343
From: Peripatetic
https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/Def...S.-funding-cut
Australia sure it will get nuclear subs despite U.S. funding cut
Australia sure it will get nuclear subs despite U.S. funding cut
Joined: Dec 2017
Posts: 638
Likes: 101
From: australia
"Messmer warned that a second Trump presidency is a “big risk” to the future of the entire AUKUS deal, as the U.S. has to loan Australia several submarines as a part of the deal while new ones are being built."
Nothing is right in this paragraph. It's bipartisan, corporates want it. Trump will do as he's told to at the end of the day. Worst case, he is out in 2028, still got time for early 2030's delivery. They aren't loaning subs. We are buying 2 secondhand with 20 years left on them. The new build is 1 with an option for 2 more.
Also the main sub isn't the US, but UK/AU
Australia moves to prop up Aukus with $4.6bn pledge to help clear Rolls-Royce nuclear reactor bottlenecks in UK | Aukus | The GuardianThe Australian government will seek to prop up the Aukus pact by sending A$4.6bn (£2.4bn) to the UK to clear bottlenecks at the Rolls-Royce nuclear reactor production line.
The funding – revealed on the eve of high-level talks between the Australian and UK governments on Friday – is in addition to billions of dollars that will be sent to the US to smooth over production delays there.
The Australian government will also announce on Friday that the government-owned shipbuilder ASC and the British defence firm BAE Systems will jointly build the nuclear-powered submarines for the Royal Australian Navy.
Nothing is right in this paragraph. It's bipartisan, corporates want it. Trump will do as he's told to at the end of the day. Worst case, he is out in 2028, still got time for early 2030's delivery. They aren't loaning subs. We are buying 2 secondhand with 20 years left on them. The new build is 1 with an option for 2 more.
Also the main sub isn't the US, but UK/AU
Australia moves to prop up Aukus with $4.6bn pledge to help clear Rolls-Royce nuclear reactor bottlenecks in UK | Aukus | The GuardianThe Australian government will seek to prop up the Aukus pact by sending A$4.6bn (£2.4bn) to the UK to clear bottlenecks at the Rolls-Royce nuclear reactor production line.
The funding – revealed on the eve of high-level talks between the Australian and UK governments on Friday – is in addition to billions of dollars that will be sent to the US to smooth over production delays there.
The Australian government will also announce on Friday that the government-owned shipbuilder ASC and the British defence firm BAE Systems will jointly build the nuclear-powered submarines for the Royal Australian Navy.
Last edited by golder; 21st March 2024 at 13:21.
Joined: Dec 2017
Posts: 638
Likes: 101
From: australia
https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/Def...S.-funding-cut
Australia sure it will get nuclear subs despite U.S. funding cut
Australia sure it will get nuclear subs despite U.S. funding cut
Thread Starter
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Joined: Jul 2000
Aviation Qualifications: Spotter
Posts: 24,645
Likes: 7,343
From: Peripatetic
What funding cut?
Being spun as reducing the pressure on present production to allow increased cash and manpower to improve the manufacturing base to support a later increase to 2 subs a year.
https://www.nationaldefensemagazine....budget-request
Fact remains that, at the point the planned handover of subs to Australia is due to take place the fleet will be 46 out of a planned/required 66.
Not saying it won’t take place - but it’s politics and could come under pressure in Congress. Sale is on the proviso that:
Not less than 270 days prior to the transfer of a vessel authorized under subsection (a), the President shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees and leadership a certification that—
(A)(i) the transfer of such vessels will not impact United States undersea operational requirements….
(B) the United States has the industrial capacity to meet and maintain the submarine production requirements needed to meet both the need for Virginia class and Columbia class submarines…
https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-...act+2024%22%7D
Last edited by ORAC; 21st March 2024 at 14:44.
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,618
Likes: 205
From: aus
Yeah not really a funding cut, what has happened previously including 2022 and 2023 is the navy cuts the sub purchase. Congress after much hand wringing give them an additional budget to get the submarine, the target number is actually 3, 2 virginia per year and 1 Columbia every 18 months + catching up delayed maintainence
Joined: Dec 2017
Posts: 638
Likes: 101
From: australia
Yeah not really a funding cut, what has happened previously including 2022 and 2023 is the navy cuts the sub purchase. Congress after much hand wringing give them an additional budget to get the submarine, the target number is actually 3, 2 virginia per year and 1 Columbia every 18 months + catching up delayed maintainence
Last edited by golder; 21st March 2024 at 22:02.
Joined: Jul 1999
Posts: 3,933
Likes: 143
From: Warrington, UK
British Aerospace to build the submarines, Rolls Royce the power plant.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/u...kus-submarines
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/u...kus-submarines
Joined: Jun 2001
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 1,898
Likes: 17
From: South Pole
Since British Aerospace has grown massively and now encompasses a lot of non aerospace work, they prefer to be known as BAE Systems - similar to how BOC Gases wants everyone to forget that they were originally British Oxygen Company.
Apart from that bit of trivia, it would be good to know the technicalities of how the Australian taxpayer money is appropriated & accounted for. Some reports are that the RR facility that assembles the nuclear reactors will be jointly owned by the British & Australian governments so that is a tangible asset but with a limited customer base, I can’t see the market growing.
Apart from that bit of trivia, it would be good to know the technicalities of how the Australian taxpayer money is appropriated & accounted for. Some reports are that the RR facility that assembles the nuclear reactors will be jointly owned by the British & Australian governments so that is a tangible asset but with a limited customer base, I can’t see the market growing.
Thread Starter
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Joined: Jul 2000
Aviation Qualifications: Spotter
Posts: 24,645
Likes: 7,343
From: Peripatetic
https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/au...e-they-allies/
Australia and Britain deepen defence cooperation, but are they allies?
Australia and Britain have concluded a new treaty-level Defence and Security Cooperation Agreement (DSCA). To what extent does this move the dial of their close defence relationship towards a formal alliance? This question matters because the informal, customary nature of the Australia-UK relationship may no longer be appropriate for the strategic tests that lie ahead.
The answer is that they’ve moved significantly closer to becoming de facto allies, with commitments that approach, though do not quite reach, the level of Australia’s alliance with the US, ANZUS. Also, Anglo-Australian military cooperation is intensifying…..
The UK is more strategically aligned with Australia now than at any time since the early 1960s or even earlier. Their shared path might never take the form of a de jure alliance, but, as last week’s developments demonstrate, they are well on track to becoming de facto allies.
Australia and Britain deepen defence cooperation, but are they allies?
Australia and Britain have concluded a new treaty-level Defence and Security Cooperation Agreement (DSCA). To what extent does this move the dial of their close defence relationship towards a formal alliance? This question matters because the informal, customary nature of the Australia-UK relationship may no longer be appropriate for the strategic tests that lie ahead.
The answer is that they’ve moved significantly closer to becoming de facto allies, with commitments that approach, though do not quite reach, the level of Australia’s alliance with the US, ANZUS. Also, Anglo-Australian military cooperation is intensifying…..
The UK is more strategically aligned with Australia now than at any time since the early 1960s or even earlier. Their shared path might never take the form of a de jure alliance, but, as last week’s developments demonstrate, they are well on track to becoming de facto allies.
Joined: Apr 2020
Posts: 1,982
Likes: 378
From: Hampshire
AFAIK OZ and the UK do have a common defence treaty. In that the treaty that underlay SEATO, the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty, is (IIRC) still in force for those countries that didn't formally withdraw or cease to exist (Pakistan and South Vietnam). Its affects in relation to the PRC depend on whether the signatories consider the CCP is actually Communist
.
The USA has a particular interpretation of IV.1
The treaty area's northern limit is just south of Taiwan & Hong Kong so way south of Japan.
.
Article IV
1. Each Party recognizes that aggression by means of armed attack treaty area against any of the Parties or against any State or territory which Parties by unanimous agreement may hereafter designate, would endanger own peace and safety, and agrees that it will in that event act to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional processes. Measures taken this paragraph shall be immediately reported to the Security Council of United Nations.
2. If, in the opinion of any of the Parties, the inviolability or the integrity the territory or the sovereignty or political independence of any Party in treaty area or of any other State or territory to which the provisions of paragraph 1 of this Article from time to time apply is threatened in any way other than armed attack or is affected or threatened by any fact or situation which endanger the peace of the area, the Parties shall consult immediately in order agree on the measures which should be taken for the common defense.
1. Each Party recognizes that aggression by means of armed attack treaty area against any of the Parties or against any State or territory which Parties by unanimous agreement may hereafter designate, would endanger own peace and safety, and agrees that it will in that event act to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional processes. Measures taken this paragraph shall be immediately reported to the Security Council of United Nations.
2. If, in the opinion of any of the Parties, the inviolability or the integrity the territory or the sovereignty or political independence of any Party in treaty area or of any other State or territory to which the provisions of paragraph 1 of this Article from time to time apply is threatened in any way other than armed attack or is affected or threatened by any fact or situation which endanger the peace of the area, the Parties shall consult immediately in order agree on the measures which should be taken for the common defense.
Article XI
(...)
UNDERSTANDING OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
The United States of America in executing the present Treaty does so with the understanding that its recognition of the effect of aggression and armed attack and its agreement with reference thereto in Article IV, paragraph 1, apply only to communist aggression but affirms that in the event of other aggression or armed attack it will consult under the provisions of Article IV, paragraph 2.
(...)
UNDERSTANDING OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
The United States of America in executing the present Treaty does so with the understanding that its recognition of the effect of aggression and armed attack and its agreement with reference thereto in Article IV, paragraph 1, apply only to communist aggression but affirms that in the event of other aggression or armed attack it will consult under the provisions of Article IV, paragraph 2.
Article VIII
As used in this Treaty, the "treaty area" is the general area of Southeast Asia, including also the entire territories of the Asian Parties, and the general area of the Southwest Pacific not including the Pacific area north of 21 degrees 30 minutes north latitude. The Parties may, by unanimous agreement, amend this Article to include within the treaty area the territory of any State acceding to this Treaty in accordance with Article VII or otherwise to change the treaty area.
As used in this Treaty, the "treaty area" is the general area of Southeast Asia, including also the entire territories of the Asian Parties, and the general area of the Southwest Pacific not including the Pacific area north of 21 degrees 30 minutes north latitude. The Parties may, by unanimous agreement, amend this Article to include within the treaty area the territory of any State acceding to this Treaty in accordance with Article VII or otherwise to change the treaty area.
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,618
Likes: 205
From: aus
They pulled out the model of SSN-AUKUS again.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GJhTj_DX...name=4096x4096
Same model that was at indopac 2023
https://www.navalnews.com/wp-content...-DSEI-2023.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GJhTj_DX...name=4096x4096
Same model that was at indopac 2023
https://www.navalnews.com/wp-content...-DSEI-2023.jpg
Joined: Dec 2021
Posts: 41
Likes: 9
From: Noumea
French Naval Group just sold two Barracudas to the Indonesian Navy.
After the Dutch contract (four submarines two weeks ago) the Aukus contract is well forgotten.
And those customers will get their ships in time.... as did India, Brasil, Chile and Malaysia in their time.
So long, boys.
Naval Group vend deux sous-marins du type Scorpène à l’Indonésie | Mer et Marine
After the Dutch contract (four submarines two weeks ago) the Aukus contract is well forgotten.
And those customers will get their ships in time.... as did India, Brasil, Chile and Malaysia in their time.
So long, boys.
Naval Group vend deux sous-marins du type Scorpène à l’Indonésie | Mer et Marine
Joined: Dec 2021
Posts: 41
Likes: 9
From: Noumea
So too bad for you guys, once again.
Call me back when you get your british (or american, or whatever) subs.
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,618
Likes: 205
From: aus
lol now I know you are liar, scorpene and barracudas are different subs scorpene are about 2000 tons displacement attack was about 4500 tons displacement
take your butthurt to somewhere that cares
Joined: Jun 2001
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 1,898
Likes: 17
From: South Pole
French Naval Group just sold two Barracudas to the Indonesian Navy.
After the Dutch contract (four submarines two weeks ago) the Aukus contract is well forgotten.
And those customers will get their ships in time.... as did India, Brasil, Chile and Malaysia in their time.
So long, boys.
Naval Group vend deux sous-marins du type Scorpène à l’Indonésie | Mer et Marine
After the Dutch contract (four submarines two weeks ago) the Aukus contract is well forgotten.
And those customers will get their ships in time.... as did India, Brasil, Chile and Malaysia in their time.
So long, boys.
Naval Group vend deux sous-marins du type Scorpène à l’Indonésie | Mer et Marine
Last edited by Going Boeing; 3rd April 2024 at 10:44.
Joined: Jul 2017
Posts: 41
Likes: 3
From: Canberra
We will but not before you call us back when France can produce a tank that has more forward gears than reverse!
Last edited by HK144; 4th April 2024 at 07:08. Reason: Additional text
Thread Starter
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Joined: Jul 2000
Aviation Qualifications: Spotter
Posts: 24,645
Likes: 7,343
From: Peripatetic
I am not sure why this spleen and resentment still exists.
Australia reconsidered their strategic needs and decided they needed nuclear subs due to the threat and the vast patrol areas to be covered.
They also decided, again for strategic reasons, they couldn't consider subs which need their reactors to be refuelled mid-life, meaning an extended absence from operations for up to 5 years and being dependent on the good will of the supplying nation decades hence.
The only 3 allied nations with SSKNs are France, the UK and the USA.
France, for its own reasons, has switched from HEU to LEU reactors requiring mid-life refuelling, acceptable for France which can perform this domestically, but not acceptable for Australia.
Both the UK and the USA continue to use HEU reactors which will last the life of a boat. The USA is considering switching to LEU (but it doubt that will go further than theoretical trials), so SSN-AUKUS will be built around a UK built reactor.
End of.
The French contract was cancelled, they've done extremely well out of the initial deal and the cancellation settlement. Apart from pique and rancour I can't see why some people just don't accept the logic of the above and move on.
I am sure that, based on history, Australia is more than willing to make further purchases from France - as long as nobody wants to use any negotiations as an opportunity to throw their toys out of the cot again.
Australia reconsidered their strategic needs and decided they needed nuclear subs due to the threat and the vast patrol areas to be covered.
They also decided, again for strategic reasons, they couldn't consider subs which need their reactors to be refuelled mid-life, meaning an extended absence from operations for up to 5 years and being dependent on the good will of the supplying nation decades hence.
The only 3 allied nations with SSKNs are France, the UK and the USA.
France, for its own reasons, has switched from HEU to LEU reactors requiring mid-life refuelling, acceptable for France which can perform this domestically, but not acceptable for Australia.
Both the UK and the USA continue to use HEU reactors which will last the life of a boat. The USA is considering switching to LEU (but it doubt that will go further than theoretical trials), so SSN-AUKUS will be built around a UK built reactor.
End of.
The French contract was cancelled, they've done extremely well out of the initial deal and the cancellation settlement. Apart from pique and rancour I can't see why some people just don't accept the logic of the above and move on.
I am sure that, based on history, Australia is more than willing to make further purchases from France - as long as nobody wants to use any negotiations as an opportunity to throw their toys out of the cot again.
Last edited by ORAC; 4th April 2024 at 10:04. Reason: sp