To be fair by the time they have done a review... defined requirements and then run a tender process and got a contract over the line Biden will probably be out of power
AUSUK
- Thread starter Wednesday at Stoke
- Start date
Paul the Wolf
Full Member
And by the time submarines are delivered Biden will be more than out of power. But it will be for the USA, that's all that matters to Biden whether he 's around or not.To be fair by the time they have done a review... defined requirements and then run a tender process and got a contract over the line Biden will probably be out of power
Cooksen
The Millennium Falcao
Can't forget Dutton also using this as a beating stick.The French sub deal was shit but this is more about #scottyfrommarketing getting reelected by "standing up.to China" than anything else.
Cooksen
The Millennium Falcao
The French were making the deal more expensive but a fair amount of this must be on the Australian govenment.Isn't this a case of the French screwing the Aussies? The deal was apparently getting very costly and the Australians let their frustrations know to France who weren't really arsed.
The Liberal party signed it as a debt trap as they were expected to lose the election to the Labor Party but they won so their debt trap blew up in their faces. The subs were originally meant to be diesel electric conversions of an existing French design that could be serviced in Australia. Now when the issue has become too big for the Liberal party to ignore (a common thread of Scotty from marketing and his govenment) they did this deal, but also did not annouce it to the French who found out about it via the Media over actual channels (which naturally pissed the French off, also this not the first time Scotty from marketing has done this)
Abizzz
Full Member
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2014
- Messages
- 7,636
Can't say I'm all too hot about this. Anytime the US, UK and Australia got together in my life time it didn't end all that great. I hate 5 eyes (not exactly those 3 I know) and Iraq worked about as well as competent people can achieve.
Other NATO members should look elsewhere I reckon.
Other NATO members should look elsewhere I reckon.
MikeUpNorth
Wobbles like a massive pair of tits
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2007
- Messages
- 19,938
By all accounts, this isn’t a narrow arms deal - "perhaps the most significant capability collaboration in the world anywhere in the past six decades" is how it was described.
If you read the transcript of background call the Biden administration did for the press, it's obvious why the French are so pissed off. There are several bits which are inflammatory, but this in particular stood out:"...spur cooperation across many new and emerging arenas — cyber; AI — particularly applied AI; quantum technologies; and some undersea capabilities as well.
We’ll also work to sustain and deepen information and technology sharing, and I think you’re going to see a much more dedicated effort to pursue integration of security and defense-related science, technology, and industrial bases, and supply chains. This will be a sustained effort over many years to see how we can marry and merge some of our independent and individual capabilities into greater trilateral engagement as we go forward."
The last thing Macron wants is for GB to be described as the US's chosen link between Europe and the Indo-Pacific.And again, these relationships with Great Britain and Australia are time tested — our oldest allies, generally. This is designed not only to strengthen our capabilities in the Indo-Pacific but to link Europe, and particularly Great Britain, more closely with our strategic pursuits in the region as a whole.
sun_tzu
The Art of Bore
It's also worth factoring in an element of posturing and playing to the media (removal of ambassador etc) as the French election is April next yearThe last thing Macron wants is for GB to be described as the US's chosen link between Europe and the Indo-Pacific.
I don't think that it has any effect, french are extremely cynical when it comes to posturing, unless Macron decisively, people will mock any posturing. Also it's a matter of money more than anything else and it's a french issue, not a European issue.It's also worth factoring in an element of posturing and playing to the media (removal of ambassador etc) as the French election is April next year
As China flexes itself regionally, targets Australia economically to try and make it more 'pliable' this comes as no surprise. We are fecking terrified of China after a series of WTO fights and there is essentially no diplomatic communication between the states.
However like anything with a conservative government, everything is half-assed, mismanaged and changed without warning. The french deal was a dead weight from the minute it was signed, it's just poetic that another conservative government ham-fists the change in direction.
However like anything with a conservative government, everything is half-assed, mismanaged and changed without warning. The french deal was a dead weight from the minute it was signed, it's just poetic that another conservative government ham-fists the change in direction.
Last edited:
Maticmaker
Full Member
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2018
- Messages
- 4,681
The French now know how the Brits felt when they sold the Exocet missile to the Argentine, when we were engaged in the Falklands conflict, they were supposed to be our EU partners... what goes around comes around!
Superden
Full Member
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2013
- Messages
- 2,104
so all those who crowed about corbyn being a threat to the future of NATO....where are YOU.?
11101
Full Member
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2014
- Messages
- 21,297
Backing out of the sub deal was the right thing to do. France sold Australia nuclear submarines that they promised to convert into non-nuclear submarines. Australia had big issues with their last submarine class and this was an even riskier project that was already looking like it would be worse than that one. The had French fecked it, and the US stepped in with a far more capable offering.
Put simply the next conflict arena looks likely to be in the Pacific, NATO and the EU are on the wrong side of the world. An opposition to China needs to be on that side of the map, and any opposition without the US is not much use.
Put simply the next conflict arena looks likely to be in the Pacific, NATO and the EU are on the wrong side of the world. An opposition to China needs to be on that side of the map, and any opposition without the US is not much use.
Superden
Full Member
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2013
- Messages
- 2,104
nickm
Full Member
- Joined
- May 20, 2001
- Messages
- 9,166
Dunno, maybe paying no attention to yesterday's man?so all those who crowed about corbyn being a threat to the future of NATO....where are YOU.?
nickm
Full Member
- Joined
- May 20, 2001
- Messages
- 9,166
Don't think the posturing matters. Ultimately the Aussies get the capability to deter Chinese naval threats, and the US gets a more capable ally in an area of strategic interest. I guess Britain gets some contracts or something...?
Superden
Full Member
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2013
- Messages
- 2,104
and the russians get a divided NATO and Europe. its happy days.
Indeed.Backing out of the sub deal was the right thing to do. France sold Australia nuclear submarines that they promised to convert into non-nuclear submarines. Australia had big issues with their last submarine class and this was an even riskier project that was already looking like it would be worse than that one. The had French fecked it, and the US stepped in with a far more capable offering.
Put simply the next conflict arena looks likely to be in the Pacific, NATO and the EU are on the wrong side of the world. An opposition to China needs to be on that side of the map, and any opposition without the US is not much use.
As I understand it, Australia was to buy diesel submarines.
But in reality, there are severe limitations with that type of propulsion. Not the least being speed.
The Australian coastline is massive. And diesel submarines would not be able to react anything like quick enough.
So the opportunity to be able to build and operate nuclear powered submarines makes sense.
And Australia has long been an operator of US defense equipment, the latest being the F35 stealth jets. As does the UK.
And BAE Systems has a strong relationship with Australian shipbuilding.
The potential threats from the massive build up of Chinese military equipment is a very real threat to the region. And quite simply, you need the very best equipment to be able to counter such a threat.
nickm
Full Member
- Joined
- May 20, 2001
- Messages
- 9,166
The Russians have been getting that anyway. It is a problem.and the russians get a divided NATO and Europe. its happy days.
But the US and France have been competing for arms deals for decades, I don't see this as fundamentally altering anything.
This will not divide NATO.and the russians get a divided NATO and Europe. its happy days.
What will divide NATO will be the lack of spending, under the agreed 2% of GDP by too many countries. Germany being a case in point.
France shouldn't be in NATO, there is no point to it. No one knows why Sarkozy thought that it was an idea let alone a good one.and the russians get a divided NATO and Europe. its happy days.
And exactly. It's not a geopolitical issue, it's a money issue and France will be upset with the US more than anyone else. From a geopolitical standpoint people should remember that France territories stretch to the Pacific ocean and it has an interest to protect and maintain peace in the area, so in the end everyone will work together.The Russians have been getting that anyway. It is a problem.
But the US and France have been competing for arms deals for decades, I don't see this as fundamentally altering anything.
Paul the Wolf
Full Member
The Aussies could have bought the nuclear version but insisted originally on the diesel submarines because of their obligations in the area. So they could have bought the Nuclear version of the same one. This has probably p!ssed off France more.Indeed.
As I understand it, Australia was to buy diesel submarines.
But in reality, there are severe limitations with that type of propulsion. Not the least being speed.
The Australian coastline is massive. And diesel submarines would not be able to react anything like quick enough.
So the opportunity to be able to build and operate nuclear powered submarines makes sense.
And Australia has long been an operator of US defense equipment, the latest being the F35 stealth jets. As does the UK.
And BAE Systems has a strong relationship with Australian shipbuilding.
The potential threats from the massive build up of Chinese military equipment is a very real threat to the region. And quite simply, you need the very best equipment to be able to counter such a threat.
Seems like Biden made an offer Australia couldn't refuse and switched to nuclear.
Considering that they haven't even decided which submarine they want or the specification or the cost or the date it will be in service, one thing's for certain I won't be around to see it.
And yes, it is the diesel-electric version that was offered and sold to Australia in 2016.The Aussies could have bought the nuclear version but insisted originally on the diesel submarines because of their obligations in the area. So they could have bought the Nuclear version of the same one. This has probably p!ssed off France more.
Seems like Biden made an offer Australia couldn't refuse and switched to nuclear.
Considering that they haven't even decided which submarine they want or the specification or the cost or the date it will be in service, one thing's for certain I won't be around to see it.
sun_tzu
The Art of Bore
Actually I don't think that's quite rightThe French now know how the Brits felt when they sold the Exocet missile to the Argentine, when we were engaged in the Falklands conflict, they were supposed to be our EU partners... what goes around comes around!
They sold them before the conflict but introduced an arms embargo once the conflict began (and provided some operational support to the uk)
https://www.warhistoryonline.com/war-articles/falklands-war.htmlThe missiles were sold to Argentine by France prior to the war before it seemed likely the two countries would enter into combat with each other.
When the war began, France embargoed weapons sales and support for Argentina. They also allowed the British to use French ports in West Africa and provided them with information on the weapons and planes that they had sold to Argentina.
I already told him in the Brexit thread that he was reinventing history. France sold them to Argentina in 1979 with 14 Super-Etendard.Actually I don't think that's quite right
They sold them before the conflict but introduced an arms embargo once the conflict began (and provided some operational support to the uk)
https://www.warhistoryonline.com/war-articles/falklands-war.html
Maticmaker
Full Member
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2018
- Messages
- 4,681
That is partially correct, the French had refused to give specific detailed technical information about the Exocet to the British, that is until they were 'leaned on' by the Americans. Al Haig (Secretary of State) was the main go between, with the British, because President Reagan had to be seen to have 'clean hands'... of course in those days the Americans were worried about their relations with France.... but now it would seem they are less worried.They sold them before the conflict but introduced an arms embargo once the conflict began (and provided some operational support to the uk)
MikeUpNorth
Wobbles like a massive pair of tits
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2007
- Messages
- 19,938
Nah, from what has leaked, France did offer to sell nuclear subs, but refused the technology transfer to allow them to be built/ maintained in Australia.The Aussies could have bought the nuclear version but insisted originally on the diesel submarines because of their obligations in the area. So they could have bought the Nuclear version of the same one. This has probably p!ssed off France more.
Seems like Biden made an offer Australia couldn't refuse and switched to nuclear.
Considering that they haven't even decided which submarine they want or the specification or the cost or the date it will be in service, one thing's for certain I won't be around to see it.
Clearly, relying on a nation as far away as France for maintenance of naval defences is untenable, especially as the French nuclear subs are based on inferior technology and need to have their nuclear fuel replaced every 10 years.
Paul the Wolf
Full Member
The American technology dates from 1998. As nothing has yet been decided not even which submarine or specification it's a bit early to say and as this was apparently decided in June, all sounds a bit fishy.Nah, from what has leaked, France did offer to sell nuclear subs, but refused the technology transfer to allow them to be built/ maintained in Australia.
Clearly, relying on a nation as far away as France for maintenance of naval defences is untenable, especially as the French nuclear subs are based on inferior technology and need to have their nuclear fuel replaced every 10 years.
Either way Australia are not getting any new submarines any time soon. France have the nearest presence with their territories in the Pacific. I doubt I will ever know the outcome.
Maticmaker
Full Member
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2018
- Messages
- 4,681
Agreed, you have to suspect that this is all for show. Oh yes, sometime in the future the subs will appear, Britain, US ...and France will have done a deal over building and 'kitting out' the subs and China will have had its card marked (if that makes any difference!) and the Aussies will be able trumpet their 'capability' to hit back.Either way Australia are not getting any new submarines any time soon. France have the nearest presence with their territories in the Pacific. I doubt I will ever know the outcome.
Incidentally Paul, I do think the French have put on an exceptionally good show of being 'royally pissed off' ... especially in recalling their ambassadors. It added some drama and might just have convinced the Chinese they are as mad as hell and also would they like to buy 12 diesel-electric powered subs...going cheap, Monsieur fell the back of a lorry!!
Paul the Wolf
Full Member
They were due to be built in Australia as will be the phantom unknown new ones sold by Biden as he crushed Morrison's fingers in a friendly handshake.Agreed, you have to suspect that this is all for show. Oh yes, sometime in the future the subs will appear, Britain, US ...and France will have done a deal over building and 'kitting out' the subs and China will have had its card marked (if that makes any difference!) and the Aussies will be able trumpet their 'capability' to hit back.
Incidentally Paul, I do think the French have put on an exceptionally good show of being 'royally pissed off' ... especially in recalling their ambassadors. It added some drama and might just have convinced the Chinese they are as mad as hell and also would they like to buy 12 diesel-electric powered subs...going cheap, Monsieur fell the back of a lorry!!
I think France are going to get even more 'royally pissed off' . this could drag on for quite a while.
In fifty years time, long after we're all gone, Australia are still waiting for their new subs.
Yeah one of the sites of Naval Group is in Papeete and they are the ones doing the maintenance, I don't know if it was supposed to be done there though. I'm also not sure about the inferior technology, we are talking about the Suffren-Barracuda class it's the newest thing.The American technology dates from 1998. As nothing has yet been decided not even which submarine or specification it's a bit early to say and as this was apparently decided in June, all sounds a bit fishy.
Either way Australia are not getting any new submarines any time soon. France have the nearest presence with their territories in the Pacific. I doubt I will ever know the outcome.
11101
Full Member
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2014
- Messages
- 21,297
They're getting access to the very best technology from the Astute and Virginia class attack submarines. The RN is generally accepted to be excellent at submarine design and the US is the US. They needed to be sure they were getting the best product first and foremost.The Aussies could have bought the nuclear version but insisted originally on the diesel submarines because of their obligations in the area. So they could have bought the Nuclear version of the same one. This has probably p!ssed off France more.
Seems like Biden made an offer Australia couldn't refuse and switched to nuclear.
Considering that they haven't even decided which submarine they want or the specification or the cost or the date it will be in service, one thing's for certain I won't be around to see it.
The other important thing is the US opening up it's reactors to foreign use. Thats quite a big deal and a level of cooperation that has never been extended to anybody other than the UK. Forget the subs themselves, Australia would have been daft to turn that down.
11101
Full Member
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2014
- Messages
- 21,297
The nuclear reactor is older tech though from the previous class and needs refueling every 10 years. Current US and UK subs never need refueling. There are also the sensors and interoperability with US current and future weapons to consider.Yeah one of the sites of Naval Group is in Papeete and they are the ones doing the maintenance, I don't know if it was supposed to be done there though. I'm also not sure about the inferior technology, we are talking about the Suffren-Barracuda class it's the newest thing.
Not exactly, the reactor is a new hybrid design that is superior to the Rubis class, I don't really now why it has a 10 year refuelling instead of the 30+ year refuelling of the Rubis/Ohio class but that distinction doesn't make new or old tech particularly when all of these submarines have an overhaul maintenance after 10 to 12 years.The nuclear reactor is older tech though from the previous class and needs refueling every 10 years. Current US and UK subs never need refueling. There are also the sensors and interoperability with US current and future weapons to consider.
The reality is that none of us can tell much about these submarines, they are probably the most difficult equipement to judge from the outside because everyone lie about what they can and can't do, and you don't really see them in action.
Green_Red
New Member
- Joined
- May 29, 2013
- Messages
- 10,296
Anglo saxon? What fecking year is this 700AD?So the thickheads in US, Australia and the UK created a new Anglo-Saxon partnership, slyly aimed at countering China in the South Asian seas. The first act was for US and UK to partner up and sell the Royal Australian Navy some nuclear powered submarines, which meant that Australia abandoned a $66 billion deal to purchase diesel-electric submarines from a French company.
This pissed off France to an extent not seen since may be war time, as the foreign minister essentially called it a "stab in the back" from apparently close allies. The nuclear non-proliferation groups are mad that submarines running on enriched uranium would give other dickheads like Iran a new excuse to enrich uranium, which can conceivably be used for nuclear weapons.
France today kicked things off to a higher gear by recalling its ambassadors to both the US and Australia, which, traditionally doesn't happen between allies.
So, that escalated quickly and this probably merits its own thread.
700 years after the birth of Jesus in the Gregorian calendar.What fecking year is this 700AD?
Nani Nana
Full Member
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2009
- Messages
- 5,658
- Supports
- Whoever won the game
KB is smilingSo the thickheads in US, Australia and the UK created a new Anglo-Saxon partnership, slyly aimed at countering China in the South Asian seas. The first act was for US and UK to partner up and sell the Royal Australian Navy some nuclear powered submarines, which meant that Australia abandoned a $66 billion deal to purchase diesel-electric submarines from a French company.
This pissed off France to an extent not seen since may be war time, as the foreign minister essentially called it a "stab in the back" from apparently close allies. The nuclear non-proliferation groups are mad that submarines running on enriched uranium would give other dickheads like Iran a new excuse to enrich uranium, which can conceivably be used for nuclear weapons.
France today kicked things off to a higher gear by recalling its ambassadors to both the US and Australia, which, traditionally doesn't happen between allies.
So, that escalated quickly and this probably merits its own thread.
11101
Full Member
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2014
- Messages
- 21,297
Because French reactors use low enriched uranium which needs lengthy refueling and overhaul - the Rubis class needs it every 7 years. Only the US and UK use high enriched uranium which doesn't need replacing and is also more capable. The overhaul on the Astute will be a small piece of work compared to what used to be required on older subs.Not exactly, the reactor is a new hybrid design that is superior to the Rubis class, I don't really now why it has a 10 year refuelling instead of the 30+ year refuelling of the Rubis/Ohio class but that distinction doesn't make new or old tech particularly when all of these submarines have an overhaul maintenance after 10 to 12 years.
The reality is that none of us can tell much about these submarines, they are probably the most difficult equipement to judge from the outside because everyone lie about what they can and can't do, and you don't really see them in action.
On a contract of the magnitude of the Australia/French submarine, I am sure that there are sufficient clauses to protect both sides up to a point of cancellation.They're getting access to the very best technology from the Astute and Virginia class attack submarines. The RN is generally accepted to be excellent at submarine design and the US is the US. They needed to be sure they were getting the best product first and foremost.
The other important thing is the US opening up it's reactors to foreign use. Thats quite a big deal and a level of cooperation that has never been extended to anybody other than the UK. Forget the subs themselves, Australia would have been daft to turn that down.
It all boils down to what is the most suitable equipment for Australia to procure for its future use. Given that nuclear powered submarines remain in service for a significant period of time.
And if that is now deemed to be what the US/UK are prepared to offer, then it is perfectly understandable that Australia has changed its mind.
And remember, this is far more than just equipment supply.
11101
Full Member
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2014
- Messages
- 21,297
There was. France was notified earlier this year that they needed to fix up by September or risk cancellation. They didn't, so the contract was cancelled. The French are smarting and trying to save some face, but the cancellation is entirely their own doing and separate to the US deal.On a contract of the magnitude of the Australia/French submarine, I am sure that there are sufficient clauses to protect both sides up to a point of cancellation.
It all boils down to what is the most suitable equipment for Australia to procure for its future use. Given that nuclear powered submarines remain in service for a significant period of time.
And if that is now deemed to be what the US/UK are prepared to offer, then it is perfectly understandable that Australia has changed its mind.
And remember, this is far more than just equipment supply.
The US has then swooped in with an offer to cooperate that was too good to refuse and goes well beyond the submarines themselves, but had France stuck to the original plan the opportunity would never have presented itself.
Thank you.There was. France was notified earlier this year that they needed to fix up by September or risk cancellation. They didn't, so the contract was cancelled. The French are smarting and trying to save some face, but the cancellation is entirely their own doing and separate to the US deal.
The US has then swooped in with an offer to cooperate that was too good to refuse and goes well beyond the submarines themselves.
Just out of interest, what was meant by 'fix up'.