AUKUS
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 Apr 2024 at 10:44.
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 Apr 2024 at 07:08. Reason: Additional text
The following users liked this post:
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
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 Apr 2024 at 10:04. Reason: sp
The following 2 users liked this post by ORAC:
Its the first part of the Australia France Bilateral roadmap, apparently its already covers to be a standing invitiation for french aircraft to participate in Pitch Black and the Navy / Army in Talisman Sabre
I'm sure somone will write a good book on this saga one day, like they did with the Collins class shenanigans.
Before going to the French, the RAN wanted the Astute class but the Aus politicians wouldn't countenance nuclear. The tried to get BAES interested in doing a non-nuclear Astute but it never went anywhere. By the time they finally realised they had to go nuclear, they were too late for Astute, so need to go with Astute replacement.
'Steel, Spies & Spin' is recommended bedtime reading for anyone in the UK submarine business.
Also 'End of an Era' by RJ Daniels which has a chapter on Aus O class replacement. I lent that book to one of the senior British sub engineers involved with Collins and he said it rang true.
Before going to the French, the RAN wanted the Astute class but the Aus politicians wouldn't countenance nuclear. The tried to get BAES interested in doing a non-nuclear Astute but it never went anywhere. By the time they finally realised they had to go nuclear, they were too late for Astute, so need to go with Astute replacement.
'Steel, Spies & Spin' is recommended bedtime reading for anyone in the UK submarine business.
Also 'End of an Era' by RJ Daniels which has a chapter on Aus O class replacement. I lent that book to one of the senior British sub engineers involved with Collins and he said it rang true.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
Only pillar 2… so far…..
https://globalnews.ca/news/10409582/...iance-trudeau/
Canada exploring possibility of joining AUKUS alliance, Trudeau says
https://archive.ph/2024.04.08-180349...1-96fc61115378
US, UK and Australia say Japan could join part of Aukus pact
https://globalnews.ca/news/10409582/...iance-trudeau/
Canada exploring possibility of joining AUKUS alliance, Trudeau says
https://archive.ph/2024.04.08-180349...1-96fc61115378
US, UK and Australia say Japan could join part of Aukus pact
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/work...rom-australia/
Work ongoing for UK nuclear sub to operate from Australia
As part of AUKUS, the United Kingdom and the United States are establishing a rotational presence of one UK Astute class submarine and up to four U.S. Virginia class submarines at HMAS Stirling, located near Perth in Western Australia, by 2027….
Work ongoing for UK nuclear sub to operate from Australia
As part of AUKUS, the United Kingdom and the United States are establishing a rotational presence of one UK Astute class submarine and up to four U.S. Virginia class submarines at HMAS Stirling, located near Perth in Western Australia, by 2027….
Only pillar 2… so far…..
https://globalnews.ca/news/10409582/...iance-trudeau/
Canada exploring possibility of joining AUKUS alliance, Trudeau says
https://globalnews.ca/news/10409582/...iance-trudeau/
Canada exploring possibility of joining AUKUS alliance, Trudeau says
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
AUKUS is expanding its Pillar II component to Land capabilities, with a focus on Long Range Fires for 2024.
Both Australia and UK intend to adopt the Precision Strike Missile and UK has ambitious plans for putting advanced payloads on GMLRS rockets, so there is obvious scope.
Both Australia and UK intend to adopt the Precision Strike Missile and UK has ambitious plans for putting advanced payloads on GMLRS rockets, so there is obvious scope.
The following users liked this post:
This weeks Economist
"Some Australians are increasingly sceptical of AUKUS -The government needs to sell its ground-breaking security pact much harder................................ A decades-long commitment, then, with a big price tag—the subs alone are expected to cost Australia up to $368bn. In return, AUKUS ties Australia’s security more closely to America’s and, Australia hopes, ties America more securely into the Indo-Pacific region. On April 8th the defence ministers of the three countries released a cautious statement saying they were “considering co-operation” with Japan, too.
Not everyone in Australia is pleased. Indeed an AUKUS awkward squad, with varied political persuasions and an assortment of not always cohering grievances, is dropping what one AUKUS backer calls “depth charges of dissent”. The critics include Paul Keating and Malcolm Turnbull, two former prime ministers, Gareth Evans, a former foreign minister, and Hugh White, a strategist. Criticisms start with practicalities—above all, whether America can deliver the Virginia-class subs. .................................. Mr Turnbull says Australia may see no Virginias “simply because the US Navy won’t be able to spare them”. That would leave Australia less secure, not more.
Others question reliance on Britain’s defence capacity, with its underwhelming record for delivering on time, at cost or up to standard. Meanwhile, Mr White contends, Australia will get suckered into subsidising the other two members’ defence industries...............................................
Add to that the risk of Donald Trump’s possible return to the White House. If Mr Trump saw America as spending money on Australian interests, Mr Evans argues, he could nix the whole thing. Australia, he points out, has no plan B. But the strongest criticisms of AUKUS have to do with a loss of sovereign agency—hitching Australia’s fortunes to an ever-less dependable superpower, as Mr Turnbull sees it, or one liable, as Mr Evans argues, to drag Australia into a war over Taiwan that is counter to Australia’s interests.
For now bipartisan support for AUKUS remains strong. Yet the pact will have few concrete results to show for years to come. The risk is that all the griping will start to erode public confidence. From the start AUKUS’s backers have not made a frank enough case for it. The deal was negotiated in secrecy. Anthony Albanese, then leader of the opposition, was given only hours to throw his support behind it. Now prime minister, he paints AUKUS chiefly as a jobs scheme rather than as a project of vital deterrence.
Rather, Labor and the conservative opposition should better highlight the progress made so far. This includes making HMAS Stirling a useful pit-stop for friendly subs, and new American and Australian money being allocated to building up a submarine industrial base. Above all, they should talk of the challenge posed by Chinese ambitions. They should be clearer about the importance of Australia’s contribution to deterrence. And they should be upfront both about the financial costs and, more grimly, the human ones. If Australia’s politicians do not come clean and seek support for AUKUS on honest terms, the sceptics may well erode the consensus for it. That also poses grave consequences for Australia’s own security. For if the point of deterrence is to prevent a war, then you have to be seen to be ready to fight one. ■"
"Some Australians are increasingly sceptical of AUKUS -The government needs to sell its ground-breaking security pact much harder................................ A decades-long commitment, then, with a big price tag—the subs alone are expected to cost Australia up to $368bn. In return, AUKUS ties Australia’s security more closely to America’s and, Australia hopes, ties America more securely into the Indo-Pacific region. On April 8th the defence ministers of the three countries released a cautious statement saying they were “considering co-operation” with Japan, too.
Not everyone in Australia is pleased. Indeed an AUKUS awkward squad, with varied political persuasions and an assortment of not always cohering grievances, is dropping what one AUKUS backer calls “depth charges of dissent”. The critics include Paul Keating and Malcolm Turnbull, two former prime ministers, Gareth Evans, a former foreign minister, and Hugh White, a strategist. Criticisms start with practicalities—above all, whether America can deliver the Virginia-class subs. .................................. Mr Turnbull says Australia may see no Virginias “simply because the US Navy won’t be able to spare them”. That would leave Australia less secure, not more.
Others question reliance on Britain’s defence capacity, with its underwhelming record for delivering on time, at cost or up to standard. Meanwhile, Mr White contends, Australia will get suckered into subsidising the other two members’ defence industries...............................................
Add to that the risk of Donald Trump’s possible return to the White House. If Mr Trump saw America as spending money on Australian interests, Mr Evans argues, he could nix the whole thing. Australia, he points out, has no plan B. But the strongest criticisms of AUKUS have to do with a loss of sovereign agency—hitching Australia’s fortunes to an ever-less dependable superpower, as Mr Turnbull sees it, or one liable, as Mr Evans argues, to drag Australia into a war over Taiwan that is counter to Australia’s interests.
For now bipartisan support for AUKUS remains strong. Yet the pact will have few concrete results to show for years to come. The risk is that all the griping will start to erode public confidence. From the start AUKUS’s backers have not made a frank enough case for it. The deal was negotiated in secrecy. Anthony Albanese, then leader of the opposition, was given only hours to throw his support behind it. Now prime minister, he paints AUKUS chiefly as a jobs scheme rather than as a project of vital deterrence.
Rather, Labor and the conservative opposition should better highlight the progress made so far. This includes making HMAS Stirling a useful pit-stop for friendly subs, and new American and Australian money being allocated to building up a submarine industrial base. Above all, they should talk of the challenge posed by Chinese ambitions. They should be clearer about the importance of Australia’s contribution to deterrence. And they should be upfront both about the financial costs and, more grimly, the human ones. If Australia’s politicians do not come clean and seek support for AUKUS on honest terms, the sceptics may well erode the consensus for it. That also poses grave consequences for Australia’s own security. For if the point of deterrence is to prevent a war, then you have to be seen to be ready to fight one. ■"
Evertonian
Being such a high tech & secretive project that doesn’t release details to the public, it’s great to get updates on the SSN AUKUS design status - even if it’s light on detail.
https://www.defensenews.com/naval/20...-technologies/
https://www.defensenews.com/naval/20...-technologies/
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
Not sure how much fail to put in that article since they get it wrong from the start by saying it will have a US reactor and turbines when it will be powered by a RR reactor module built in Derby based on the PWR3 used in Dreadnaught.
Allegedly public nuclear submarine crew applications will be made available on ADF careers late this year, Image its going to have a pretty astounding ROSO for any applying
I suspect that RR are making a lot of the reactor components under licence to keep the politicians happy in that a local company is supplying the main cost item for the SSN’s.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
Aston Martin cars use AMG engines, it doesn't make them Mercedes.
RR got major input from the US on how to improve the design of the PWR3, leading to a 30% in the number of parts, but that doesn't make it an American reactor.
Designed, built and fuelled at Derby so not dependent on the USA for support during it's service life.
RR got major input from the US on how to improve the design of the PWR3, leading to a 30% in the number of parts, but that doesn't make it an American reactor.
Designed, built and fuelled at Derby so not dependent on the USA for support during it's service life.
Last edited by ORAC; 16th Apr 2024 at 09:20.