From the JTA News Bulletin Jan 8 1968:

From History Net:

The word renege means; go back on a promise, undertaking, or contract."they have reneged on their promises to us"

I put the bolding in. Me thinks some French people are the pot calling the kettle "noir"

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.

Again, how does that relate to the subject of AUKUS? Take it to another thread to talk about French stuff. Naval group and the short fin sub is the only relevant thing that is French

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.

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.

Yes, I know. France were trying to involve the EU, (I thought I had posted as much) however it appears that the EU are not so gullible to join in the festivities. Perhaps they remember who spoke their mind about MH17 when others couldn't. Anyway, time has moved past the relevance of my post. :ok:

Unfortunately all this talk of M2+ is operationally irrelevant, and also a bit inaccurate (good luck seeing M2.7 in an F-15 or M2.0 in a Super Hornet). None of the types mentioned are going to be doing those sort of speeds with any sort of useful offensive loadout. The 111 was a fine and capable machine right up to the point it was retired, but keeping it going was a big ask, and not just a simple matter of money. Really, its time was up and the game has changed- and that’s speaking as someone who was a big fan of it and spent a fair while flying it.

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?

Kinda OT but wonder if we will see MQ-25's built at same place if we were to buy some

Firstly, the British company who designed and built the Astute class Weapon Launch System was also working on AFSP (Attack class) because thye RAN uses American submarine weapons. The French sub's weapon launch system was designed for French weapons, so a new system was required. The same British company designed and built the WLS for the Collins class for the same reason - the original Swedish sub was designed for Swedish weapons and the RAN uses American weapons. The Astute class WLS is a very flexible system and can be easily used for US weapons.

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?
​​​​​​​

you mean Asturias?

Excellent!

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.

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

The last Collins class sub was so far behind schedule that delivered equipment for her had to be relifed (overhauled) to replace life limited seals before being installed as the seal life had been used up in storage.

A problem that has also affected another current heavily delayed submarine programme.

Collins: 6 boats lay-down to commission: 14 years.

Astute: 4 boats lay-down to commission: 20 years.

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…

spanish S-80 16 years for first of 4

suffren 13 years for first on 6

Anyone would think making subs is hard

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.