Possibly because it is not part of the 5 eyes agreement. AUKUS is separate to that. as it is separate to the QUAD.

It seems your lot has experience with that plan, that is, a vindictive policy to extract your "pound of flesh" which worked swimmingly well (pardon the pun) for the former French Colony of Saint-Domingue, now know as Haiti. Of course in that case, France took all the flesh and sucked out the bone marrow as well after the revolution there with 140 years of required debt payments. (helped by a stateless bank in the US of course)

Two interesting stories in The Oz this morning - British Defence Secy and former US sub commander both saying that Oz boats will be Astutes.
Smaller, cheaper, (faster!) build avaliable at end of 2020s and more multi-mission capable.He said the submarine production would fit in with the British production cycle, given that the country has just kicked off its hunter-killer submarines, and the US is in full flow on its own boats. Australia has yet to decide whether to model its new submarine on the British or American models.

The British are in the final stages of completing the fifth Astute-class submarine, HMS Anson, which will begin sea trials early next year.

“We are in a strong position to help the Australians achieve that capability so I am very confident that British engineering, British skills, Australian nous, will deliver a very good submarine,” Mr Wallace said.

and:

Former submariner and navy commander Bryan Clark, a senior fellow at Washington’s Hudson Institute, said his discussions with US Navy and defence industry figures suggested the Virginia-class design would not be made available to Australia.

“I don’t get a sense that the US is going to share the Virginia re*actor plant with Australia,” he told The Australian. “I think it is pretty clear this is likely to be a British effort that the US supports through technology transfer.”

So ... I know very little about submarines but what tartare said in #470 is similar to the thinking that I had when the pact was announced - otherwise, why include the UK? If it was going to be US Virginia class, with US tech, then it would likely have been a AUUS alliance. The Astute class makes most sense as that production line nears it's conclusion - hence AUKUS. Plus everyone knew the Virginia prod line is full for the next decade or two.

I also wonder if I've accidentally stumbled on why the French are so 'hissy' about, what is otherwise, a commercial transaction ... you see ... the Astute class have all been named already, even the two yet to be delivered. the 7th (and last British) Astute class is named ... wait for it ... HMS Agincourt!

Perhaps the French are somewhat miffed that the answer to "what comes after Agincourt" is likely to be "Australian Nuclear Powered subs"

[sarc-off] in case anyone was wondering

Because we approached the brits first, they needed the US permission due to the tech in the astute

That all said know a now retired submariner and he thinks it will be the astute, find we might get 6-7 (agincourt and aggamemon ) and the brits stay at 5 and start work on SSN(X) and we build the extras

Makes sense. Maybe too sensible:)

UK has one real production line - as the Astutes are finished everyone slowly transits over to the new SSBN's - there aren't the people to build totally in parallel

even the US has problems with capacity - it would need an expensive and long-term commitment to up the pace and add more capacity. As the initial Virginia target is about reached you could transfer a few late Los Angeles/early Virginias to Australia and stretch the delivery of the later Virginias a few years without as serious impact on capability. After all you're not really losing the transferred boats from the strategic balance.

Whilst no definitive decision will be announced for some time, that's the scenario that best fits the information that's been made public.

The public perception is slewed as always by misleading articles in the UK media.
It was always more than just...submarines, a point which would need emphasising to some hard of hearing in the UK and France.
A predictable and over the top reaction from france with upcoming elections.
With recent events in Taiwan, tooling up cannot come soon enough.

You've defeated your own argument. The Chinese can respond many more ways because of their sticks of all sizes. They don't have to nuke an airbase. In fact, they wouldn't, not when they have so many other options.
So if you accept that small sticks are useless without big sticks, then the Chinese strategy will be to "rule of thumb" you.

Most important, the more sticks you have mean more steps of escalation, which gives more time for diplomacy and world opinion to have effect.

From Linkedin - Operation Hookless by Professor Dr Julian Lindley-French

September 30th, 2021. Operation Hookless, or the Australia, United Kingdom, United States security and defence pact (AUKUS) as it has become known, began in a rather unexpected way. In March 2020, the First Sea Lord (Chief of the Royal Navy) Admiral Sir Tony Radakin attended an important but nevertheless routine meeting at the Australian High Commission in London. At the meeting he met with Vice-Admiral Michael Noonan, the Chief of the Royal Australian Navy (RAN). Noonan explained that Canberra was increasingly concerned about growing capability of the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN). The Australians are particularly concerned about the new Type 095A nuclear attack submarine, and the ability of the French-designed Short-fin Barracuda/Attack-class to meet Australia’s strategic needs.

The Australians enquired if London, and possibly Washington, would be interested in helping the Australians build a fleet of nuclear-powered attack submarines that would be faster, stealthier and with unlimited endurance than the planned conventional diesel-electric submarines the Australians were building in Adelaide under a 2016 contract with the French Naval Group. At the meeting the Australians said that endurance and the ability to undertake stealthy surveillance were particularly important capabilities for them to have. The Australians already had a close and trusted relationship with the British through the Five Eyes intelligence community and discussions were taken forward.

Thereafter, Sir Stephen Lovegrove, the Permanent Secretary at the Ministry of Defence in London, took over responsibility for dealing with the request (which was given the codename Operation Hookless). Hookless also had the full backing of Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who wanted a much deeper strategic relationship to emerge from it (AUKUS). Such was the sensitivity of the negotiations that in London only ten people were kept in the loop. The British then approached the Americans. This delayed the negotiations somewhat as the request had to pass through the laborious Pentagon machine during a Washington election year. This delay caused concern in Canberra as the Australians were under growing time pressure as they were fast approaching a contract requirement which would see the costs of the French contract increase exponentially. Eventually, the new Biden administration agreed in principle to the pact, the final shape of which was agreed behind closed doors by Biden, Johnson and the Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison at the June 2021 Carbis Bay G7 meeting in Cornwall.

Article continues...

So the French ambassador is returning. Maybe we can put him up in suitable hotel quarantine such as an Ibis.

they get to quarantine at the embassy or their home for 14 days

While overall, a return is normal procedure. Is it just me that thinks France's school report should read, 'France doesn't play well with others'. Do we really want to welcome France back with open arms? it has been quite the dummy spit over the last 3 weeks. They even tried to sink the EU/AU free trade agreement. Of course we could always use French negation tactics if they play up. We could turn the power off to the embassy. Like they are threatening to do over a UK fishing dispute.

Boris Johnson's analysis of the situation during his speech at the Tory party conference:-

The French at their best.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-58814977

You can keep your condescending tone for yourself, fact is your country bailed out from a signed contract! You are the bad guys. What is the value of a contract if anyone can bail out of it freely like that!? Although, as you all would like to be, it won't be that "free" in this case.

And once again if you all feel that this contract was sooooo bad towards Australia, why your country agreed to it beforehand!? Because when I read all the "experts" comments here, it looks like it was Frankly-A-Stupid-Idea to have it signed.

So stop bashing the French and put the blame on your own (Past?) But visibly incompetent government who agreed to that.

Takes two to sign a contract. If NG were incapable to meet deadlines and metrics that they agreed to then the government absolutely has the right to withdraw. I think NG know they screwed up just as much as the australian government. Hence why except for a small press release early on NG has been quiet and making no comment. If they believed they have legal leg to stand on they would be screaming from the tallest building how they were hard done by.

Nonsense. It's been well published and brought to the Australian publics attention for 18 or so months, that we were at a point in the contract whereby termination more affordable. The diplomatic outburst from the French Government, claiming betrayal and back-stabbing was in fact, not a contractural reality.

The security of the Indo-Pacific has changed. The Australian government has recognised this and has been brave in the face of previous incompetence. The UK, US and Australia have common strategic interests in the region. To be crude, all have spilt blood on Australian soil in her defence, whereas the French could go either way for their own interests, as they did in WW2. Yes, that's crude, however, French foreign policy in the Indo-Pacific post-1940 is very relevant to Australia's future security.

BTW, the French Government have cancelled military projects too. Many expensive projects cancelled for the same reasons Australia did- changing strategic circumstances and cost overruns driving a massive capability risk. You could start with Alsace battleships and move up to swing-wing Mirages etc etc.

The French government would have been better served by asking Australia to honour its contractural commitments. Not the irrelevant tantrums. Australia would have been better explaining its concerns that the cost and risk was too much and it needed help from its traditional Allies- and then ordered a half a dozen more Airbus tankers.

A complete surprise?

February 2021.
https://indaily.com.au/news/2021/02/...y-february-25/
Prime Minister Scott Morrison has ordered a top level study to look at how to terminate the $90 billion contract, while also investigating alternative options to contract Swedish Shipbuilders Saab Kockums or renovate the Australian Navy’s current Collins Class fleet.

January 14, 2020
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/fede...14-p53rd2.htmlThe audit report also reveals that during negotiations over a key agreement with French company Naval Group in 2018, the federal government's hand-picked advisory group floated the idea of walking away from the contract with the French shipbuilder.

The Naval Shipbuilding Advisory Board told Defence that it should consider whether proceeding with the project was in the national interest "even if negotiations succeeded" with the Strategic Partnering Agreement.


Australia Reportedly Looking At An Alternative To Its Costly New French-Designed Submarines
JANUARY 19, 2021
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...ned-submarines