AUKUS
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...
Join Date: Aug 2021
Location: Oz
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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-...-risk/10755720
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-...-risk/10755720
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.
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.
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-...-risk/10755720
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-...-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
Last edited by rattman; 19th Sep 2021 at 10:07.
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.
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-...-risk/10755720
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-...-risk/10755720
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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: What day is it?
Age: 17
Posts: 71
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And why is half of the punctuation missing in my sentences when I’m logged out?
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?
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.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Clipperton island
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
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.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
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
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.
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
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.
Last edited by ORAC; 19th Sep 2021 at 12:40.
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.
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.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
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/nav...pyard-capacity
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news...-ssnx-program/
https://news.usni.org/2021/08/11/rep...ck-submarine-3
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/nav...pyard-capacity
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news...-ssnx-program/
https://news.usni.org/2021/08/11/rep...ck-submarine-3