|
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...
|
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. |
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 |
Originally Posted by recceguy
(Post 11113370)
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. |
Originally Posted by sfm818
(Post 11113390)
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 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 |
Originally Posted by recceguy
(Post 11113370)
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) 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. |
Originally Posted by sfm818
(Post 11113390)
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 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. |
Originally Posted by Grumpy retiree
(Post 11113389)
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. |
Originally Posted by recceguy
(Post 11113335)
Anyway, fascinating to see how many Navy experts we have here, in this aviation forum.
I personnally spent some time in Marine Nationale subs. Anybody here ? And why is half of the punctuation missing in my sentences when I’m logged out? |
Originally Posted by Orange future
(Post 11113285)
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? 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. |
Originally Posted by Gnadenburg
(Post 11113405)
The Americans warned Australia from day one on the risks with a French contract
And here is a French-made gun (100 mm Compact) as found on many PLN ships. https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....f2fd58cb1e.jpg |
Originally Posted by Grumpy retiree
(Post 11113380)
recceguy, Really ?
An alliance with Russia ? That worked so well in 1914. |
A good relationship
Chinese version of Super-Frelon helicopter - they seem to enjoy it
https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....afc9f073ec.jpg and here is the well-known Dauphin https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....7ce9326157.jpg |
I'm waiting for him to put up a picture of the Tiger
|
Top Marks for the Green option. A lot of diesel saved. Way to go Ozzies👍
|
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.
|
Originally Posted by golder
(Post 11113424)
I'm waiting for him to put up a picture of the Tiger
|
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. |
Originally Posted by Grumpy retiree
(Post 11113342)
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. |
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 |
RAN will get submarines minimum 7 years later than expected :
- 5 years lost - working with the French. - 2 years now to design some arrangement with US (nothing concrete so far) and it was supposed to be urgent... Considering that the production line of US SSNs is fully booked for years to come, what can be expected ? Probably basing at Darwin a couple of USN submarines, and accomodating on board some Australian crew - dealing witht he nuclear reactor remaining under US control (and the Ossies have no technicians for that, anyway) - what an exciting prospect for the RAN (so they will be "integrated")... but after all, if it does suit them, why bother ? I had some first-hand knowledge of all that - one of my Academy classmates became Chief Propulsion Engineer of the nuclear carrier "Charles de Gaulle" (finishing later as a 5-stars admiral) There is no way you can build from scratch such a specialised workforce, in a country deprived of Engineering Universites dealing with nuclear matters. Absolutely no way. It's a pity, considering the pleasant cooperation we did enjoy with RAN on HMAS Success (Durance-class of replenishment ships) - those subs would have been a nice and big adventure. |
If Morrison loses the next election in Australia, presumably there is nothing to stop a new administration cancelling AUKUS ?
|
With the timescales being discussed I would suggest SSNX would be the more likely candidate - and it seems better fitted to Australian needs. |
They've only just started work on designing the SSNX - the likelihood they'll be delivering them in the early 2030's looks very optimistic - - more likely late '30s at the earliest
|
I just can't stop coming back to the fact that even if the RAN takes every shortcut available to them, buying boats off-the-shelf from the US or UK and having Australian crews trained abroad, maybe even home-basing the boats in the US or UK, it's going to be decades before they could possibly operate a nuclear submarine competently.
If they want to build the boats in-country, and possibly even train their crews in Australia... I fully foresee them failing, no doubt after decades of trying having spent many tens of billions. Some future government will recognise the folly of a country of just 25 million trying to afford and acquire nuclear boats, and chop the project. (For clarity: it's really, really hard to safely operate a nuclear submarine safely. Get it wrong and the results are catastrophic. To not get it wrong requires knowledge and experience I just can't see Australia being able to acquire and maintain with any level of independence.) I imagine the French contact was to build boats capable of littoral surveillance, just without nuclear propulsion. I guess Australia thinks it can spend a bit more and get nuclear boats. Can't fault their ambition. They're going to get a hard reality check at some point. |
Originally Posted by medod
(Post 11113564)
I just can't stop coming back to the fact that even if the RAN takes every shortcut available to them, buying boats off-the-shelf from the US or UK and having Australian crews trained abroad, maybe even home-basing the boats in the US or UK, it's going to be decades before they could possibly operate a nuclear submarine competently.
If they want to build the boats in-country, and possibly even train their crews in Australia... I fully foresee them failing, no doubt after decades of trying having spent many tens of billions. Some future government will recognise the folly of a country of just 25 million trying to afford and acquire nuclear boats, and chop the project. (For clarity: it's really, really hard to safely operate a nuclear submarine safely. Get it wrong and the results are catastrophic. To not get it wrong requires knowledge and experience I just can't see Australia being able to acquire and maintain with any level of independence.) I imagine the French contact was to build boats capable of littoral surveillance, just without nuclear propulsion. I guess Australia thinks it can spend a bit more and get nuclear boats. Can't fault their ambition. They're going to get a hard reality check at some point. |
Originally Posted by medod
(Post 11113564)
I imagine the French contact was to build boats capable of littoral surveillance, just without nuclear propulsion. .
Thanks medod anyway for your informative post. Regarding the Aussies, you change your mind, so you lose time. And for them, it's not only being 25 millions (Israêl, South Africa were doing much more with less) but just a story of being a little bit.... inadequate regarding education, especially scientific. And everybody knows that. They play a decent rugby anyway. And they will have to deal with their not-so -reliable woke partner with a veiled PM anyway (that's why NZ was not to be included in the deal, on US request) |
Originally Posted by Video Mixdown
(Post 11113594)
You talk as if they’re beginners. RAN is a very professional and experienced service who will have full access to long-established RN/USN training programmes. I’d be surprised if they have not had officers serving aboard US/UK boats for many years. Such cross-postings are common throughout UK/US/AUS military, where integration is seamless.
|
Originally Posted by medod
(Post 11113564)
(For clarity: it's really, really hard to safely operate a nuclear submarine safely. Get it wrong and the results are catastrophic. To not get it wrong requires knowledge and experience I just can't see Australia being able to acquire and maintain with any level of independence.) Australian nuclear qualified wont happen overnight, but it will happen and meanwhile assuming that a US/UK will be able supply personel to fill these positions initially. Same way that over 50% of our current sub commanders are from different navies (1 from RN, 1 for south africa and 1 from canada) |
Originally Posted by gcal
(Post 11112916)
Anyone fool enough to trust the UK government, at least the present one, is likely to be be disappointed.
Nothing other than a lie has come out of them in the last five years at least. It's all smoke and mirrors and wobbly promises. |
Originally Posted by mopardave
(Post 11113672)
And I suppose the French are trustworthy are they? The French look after their own interests in a way I wish we did sometimes!
Let's see what AUKUS can deliver in terms of an interim and future submarine capability. In the meantime, inside of a decade and perhaps considerably less, it is Australia's air force that can be expanded and fleshed out for regional conflict. Additional French made tankers would be a good start. |
I have a long memory of French Terrorists using French submarines as part of their plans to bomb the Rainbow Warrior in Auckland harbour. From the attitudes of our friend above, the French attitude has not changed.
|
Originally Posted by recceguy
(Post 11113418)
Chinese version of Super-Frelon helicopter - they seem to enjoy it
https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....afc9f073ec.jpg and here is the well-known Dauphin https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....7ce9326157.jpg It appears I have more respect for France than he does. |
Originally Posted by rattman
(Post 11112871)
Have you actually bothered to read anything or watch the press conference ? Part of the deal the subs will be built in australia, specifically at osborne ship yards in adelaide. While we dont know the specifics as they have allocated 12-18 months to determine the design / winners. It believed that the a nuclear power plant will be built which ever countries sub is selected. Will be shipped to australia as a sealed black box where it will be installed onto the sub. The majority of the sub will be built in adelaide with US/UK technical support. I assume the overal program will be managed by electric boat the same way they did with the astute program
Of course you can believe that the subs will all be built in Adelaide. A press release form the Liberal or Labor government of the day undertaking to do something in 10+ years time is something you can take to the bank. Lease of 1 or 2 older near decommission subs to get training started and some capability, and increase sub numbers to 8, is the most likely early move. Then off the shelf overseas build of 2 new boats, assuming we can get US or UK to free up build space, will most likely happen. Adelaide will get more non sub orders to appease them. By then Osborne will have not built a sub for 30+ years. The previous imperative to have a sovereign sub build and maint capability was only there when we had to buy conventional subs i.e. Continental European designs. Now we are can source subs from more reliable countries, home build is desirable but not essential, and impractical in terms of timeframe, recent experience and cost. UK and US have a sense of kinship with Australia, Continental Europe do not and that is the difference. Adelaide will loose sub build, as it did car manufacture. Still, none of us really know. All here is just speculative opinion from people who most likely have no real idea. |
Originally Posted by rjtjrt
(Post 11113731)
Rat (I hope I can call you by your diminutive).
Of course you can believe that the subs will all be built in Adelaide. A press release form the Liberal or Labor government of the day undertaking to do something in 10+ years time is something you can take to the bank. Lease of 1 or 2 older near decommission subs to get training started and some capability, and increase sub numbers to 8, is the most likely early move. Then off the shelf overseas build of 2 new boats, assuming we can get US or UK to free up build space, will most likely happen. Adelaide will get more non sub orders to appease them. By then Osborne will have not built a sub for 30+ years. The previous imperative to have a sovereign sub build and maint capability was only there when we had to buy conventional subs i.e. Continental European designs. Now we are can source subs from more reliable, trustworthy countries home build is desirable but not essential, and impractical in terms of timeframe, recent experience and cost. Adelaide will loose sub build, as it did car manufacture. Still, none of us really know. All here is just speculative opinion from people who most likely have no real idea. |
These are all questions to be answered and no one, including Morrison, knows those answers. All we have now are aspirations and announcements and a cancelled contract.
|
Originally Posted by Grumpy retiree
(Post 11113389)
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. Nothing to do with hanging to a colonial past, those territories figured out it was better staying French than trying the "independence" route. A lot of you French bashers are conveniently forgetting that France rank #1 in maritime borders, contiguous zones and territorial waters. Want it or not, they do have a say in the Pacific region. |
Originally Posted by ehwatezedoing
(Post 11113768)
Huh!?
Nothing to do with hanging to a colonial past, those territories figured out it was better staying French than trying the "independence" route. A lot of you French bashers are conveniently forgetting that France rank #1 in maritime borders, contiguous zones and territorial waters. Want it or not, they do have a say in the Pacific region. Well, youre in a very small cheer squad on that one. Certainly no basis for Australian foreign policy. |
French possessions are not insignificant in the Pacific. From personal experience, the fishing near Clipperton island is fantastic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overse...ca_claims).svg |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 17:47. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.