AUSUK

Wednesday at Stoke

Full Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2014
Messages
18,520
Location
København
Supports
Time Travel
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.
 

Gandalf

Full Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2018
Messages
1,739
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.
Are we sure they were recalled? They might have been surrendering, they have form.
 

Wednesday at Stoke

Full Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2014
Messages
18,520
Location
København
Supports
Time Travel
Are we sure they were recalled? They might have been surrendering, they have form.
https://abcnews.go.com/Internationa...us-australia-submarine-deal-backlash-80085447

Only Sleepy Joe, Sloppy Boris and the utter moron that is Scott Morrison can go about wanting to create a new alliance and end up driving a wedge between NATO allies. This is tragic foreign policy blunder on the back of the killing of 10 civilians in Afghanistan in the same week. Blinken needs to lose his job.
 

Gandalf

Full Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2018
Messages
1,739
The wisdom of creating this new alliance can be debated but despite their silly posturing the French are just pissed off that they lost a big arms deal. In the realm of selling armaments for dubious justifications and in spite of the interests of their allies the French have no moral high ground whatsoever. The recalling of their ambassadors is just posturing by Macron.
 

Wednesday at Stoke

Full Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2014
Messages
18,520
Location
København
Supports
Time Travel
The wisdom of creating this new alliance can be debated but despite their silly posturing the French are just pissed off that they lost a big arms deal. In the realm of selling armaments for dubious justifications and in spite of the interests of their allies the French have no moral high ground whatsoever. The recalling of their ambassadors is just posturing by Macron.
He has an election coming up and could do without being handed a loss from NATO allies.
 

MadMike

Full Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2015
Messages
10,050
Location
London
They could have come up with a better name, like Sexy Saxons or something
 

Classical Mechanic

Full Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2014
Messages
33,031
Location
xG Zombie Nation
I read an article when Biden was elected that he was pretty pissed off with the EU on some trade business or something they did with China. The EU decided in the wake of Trump that the US was an inherently unstable ally politically and is seeking more of its own path on foreign policy etc. Biden thought the EU should have spoken to him before dealing with China and is not happy that the EU don’t wish to explicitly oppose China. He sees China as the West’s greatest threat by far in the coming decades which was the major reason for him getting out of Afghanistan, apparently this has been his position for over a decade. I guess this pact is to ramp up opposition to China with the added bonus of giving an EU nation a slap for slighting him.
 

Gandalf

Full Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2018
Messages
1,739
Wasn’t it the UK and the USA who basically surrendered to the taliban a few weeks ago
That was a complete shitshow peaceful transition of power.

If you want to spoil a good old fashioned joke about the cheese eating surrender monkeys with your logic and facts then go ahead, next you will be claiming 'Allo 'Allo is not actually a documentary.
 

Moby

Dick who hates the homeless
Joined
May 20, 2011
Messages
40,387
Location
Nicki Minaj's Secret Bedroom
That was a complete shitshow peaceful transition of power.

If you want to spoil a good old fashioned joke about the cheese eating surrender monkeys with your logic and facts then go ahead, next you will be claiming 'Allo 'Allo is not actually a documentary.
Is this brewlio?
 

Wibble

In Gadus Speramus
Staff
Joined
Jun 15, 2000
Messages
78,928
Location
Centreback
As BoJo was a major player in this why haven't the French withdrawn their UK Ambassador?
 

Wibble

In Gadus Speramus
Staff
Joined
Jun 15, 2000
Messages
78,928
Location
Centreback
The French sub deal was shit but this is more about #scottyfrommarketing getting reelected by "standing up.to China" than anything else.
 

Red_toad

Full Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2010
Messages
9,437
Location
DownUnder
The French sub deal was shit but this is more about #scottyfrommarketing getting reelected by "standing up.to China" than anything else.
I've no idea how the next election will go. But the deal with the French should never have happened, buying old tech to see you through the next 30 or so years isn't a great idea.
 

utdalltheway

Sexy Beast
Joined
Aug 20, 2001
Messages
18,795
Location
SoCal, USA
The French could not be counted on if the shit hit the wok. No surprise the deal was scuppered.
 

Gambit

Desperately wants to be a Muppet
Joined
Sep 30, 2004
Messages
30,659
It's all just postering on the French side, Australia had been sending warnings it was looking to back out of the sub deal with France from the start of the year over various issues such as delays and the cost doubling from its original 50 billion.

When maintenance costs were factored in it was triple. Also with delays on the French side they didn't expect to receive the first sub until 2035 and the last one in 2050. Not within the proposed timeline of the decommissioning of Australia's current fleet meaning Australia had to suddenly come up with an equally expensive refurb plan.

Perhaps the biggest of all though was the French kept changing the agreement. The original plan was for the subs to be built mostly in Australia with the French supplying the engines, weapons systems and electronics meaning repurposing the declining car manufacturing industry in Australia and jobs for the locals. France declared that it was now impossible for the subs to be built in Australia and would need to be built in France. The Oz government sent new proposals that the project would be 90% in France and 10% in Australia. Some thing the French refused while demanding the second phase was signed off immediately.

Less one party being stabbed in the back, than more one walking away from being fleeced.
 

MikeUpNorth

Wobbles like a massive pair of tits
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
19,578
As BoJo was a major player in this why haven't the French withdrawn their UK Ambassador?
Brexit. The French haven’t even mentioned the UK in any of their communications on the deal - they really don’t want to give any impression that the US and other allies are somehow siding with the UK over the EU.
 

Gambit

Desperately wants to be a Muppet
Joined
Sep 30, 2004
Messages
30,659
Well be hearing lots more from France as they will now be haggling over the exact reasons for the contract ending over specific clause interpretations to make sure they get as big a walking away payment as possible.
 

sun_tzu

The Art of Bore
Joined
Aug 23, 2010
Messages
17,398
Location
Still waiting for the Youthquake
Well be hearing lots more from France as they will now be haggling over the exact reasons for the contract ending over specific clause interpretations to make sure they get as big a walking away payment as possible.
Yes... though I suspect arguments on both sides as apparently the contract was running behind schedule as the French contractor had agreed to a certain % of locally sourced supply but had not actually got sufficient supply chain in place to achieve that

So yeah in essence there will be termination clause in the contract and it will probably take years and my guess would ultimatley be an out of court agreement as to what they are.

I'm guessing that if Australia has any cost to bear it will probably be more than offset if the sub maintenence and doc facilities are also compatible with the US and UK subs as no doubt we will use them (and pay for that) when in the South China Sea etc as its got to be more efficient than trapsing back to Scotland
 

Don't Kill Bill

Full Member
Joined
May 14, 2006
Messages
5,230
Its a good idea.

You can't cover the distances under water required to cover the pacific without nuke subs. This is more than just the subs though.

If the French and Germans want an EU defence force, the US can't stop them but they won't subsidies it through NATO and those who don't want to be part of an EU defence alliance will partner up without them.
 

Don't Kill Bill

Full Member
Joined
May 14, 2006
Messages
5,230
Yes... though I suspect arguments on both sides as apparently the contract was running behind schedule as the French contractor had agreed to a certain % of locally sourced supply but had not actually got sufficient supply chain in place to achieve that

So yeah in essence there will be termination clause in the contract and it will probably take years and my guess would ultimatley be an out of court agreement as to what they are.

I'm guessing that if Australia has any cost to bear it will probably be more than offset if the sub maintenence and doc facilities are also compatible with the US and UK subs as no doubt we will use them (and pay for that) when in the South China Sea etc as its got to be more efficient than trapsing back to Scotland
Also an option if Scotland become independent while the UK builds another sub base.
 

sun_tzu

The Art of Bore
Joined
Aug 23, 2010
Messages
17,398
Location
Still waiting for the Youthquake
Its a good idea.

You can't cover the distances under water required to cover the pacific without nuke subs. This is more than just the subs though.

If the French and Germans want an EU defence force, the US can't stop them but they won't subsidies it through NATO and those who don't want to be part of an EU defence alliance will partner up without them.
Yes I think the 5 eyes
Usa Canada UK Australia and New Zealand will grow in the coming years

Japan were already making noises about joining... wouldn't be shocked if South Korea did as well and there is as you say a lot of scope for it to grow beyond that if the existing nato alliences become strained
 

Pogue Mahone

Poster of the year 2008 & 2020
Joined
Feb 22, 2006
Messages
112,024
Location
"like a man in silk pyjamas shooting pigeons
Is there anything the Tories won’t do to try and pretend Brexit isn’t an utter catastrophe and a better relationship with the likes of Australia will somehow compensate? Pounds and ounces seemed like the bottom of the barrel. Now this. Fecking hell.
 

MikeUpNorth

Wobbles like a massive pair of tits
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
19,578
Is there anything the Tories won’t do to try and pretend Brexit isn’t an utter catastrophe and a better relationship with the likes of Australia will somehow compensate? Pounds and ounces seemed like the bottom of the barrel. Now this. Fecking hell.
Not sure this agreement has much to do with Brexit in reality. By all accounts it was Australia pushing for it after losing confidence in France and their sub-standard subs. And it seems a sensible deal for all parties, if I understand it correctly.
 

Pogue Mahone

Poster of the year 2008 & 2020
Joined
Feb 22, 2006
Messages
112,024
Location
"like a man in silk pyjamas shooting pigeons
Not sure this agreement has much to do with Brexit in reality. By all accounts it was Australia pushing for it after losing confidence in France and their sub-standard subs. And it seems a sensible deal for all parties, if I understand it correctly.
Fair enough. I’ll admit to going straight to knee-jerk “fecking Brexit” mode based on not much info. Because… fecking Brexit.
 

Paul the Wolf

Full Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2014
Messages
12,752
Location
Nouvelle Aquitaine, France. Aka Paul the Pogba
US said he brokered the deal. The Guardian reports that he brought Morrison to the G7 for that purpose.
They'll almost certainly be US submarines built in Australia

MELBOURNE, Australia — The Australian government has established a Future Nuclear Submarine Task Force which will work with U.K. and U.S. counterparts over the next twelve to eighteen months to determine the best way to acquire the boats.

While a specific type of nuclear submarine is yet to be determined, likely candidates would appear to be either Britain’s Astute-class attack submarine or the U.S. Virginia-class vessel. Construction is slated to take place locally at Osborne in South Australia.

Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison, U.S. President Joe Biden and U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson jointly announced the formation of a new tripartite alliance known as AUKUS on Thursday (local time), under which the first initiative will to build at least eight nuclear-powered submarines for the Royal Australian Navy.

Morrison also announced that a previous $90 billion (US$65.88 billion) contract Australia holds with France’s Naval Group for the construction of 12 conventional submarines, which were to have been known as the Attack class in Royal Australian Navy’s service, has been terminated.

A decision on the final number of new submarines is expected to be made by Canberra during the upcoming analysis phase.

“We intend to build these submarines in Adelaide, Australia in close cooperation with the United Kingdom and the United States,” Morrison said, “But let me be clear: Australia is not seeking to acquire nuclear weapons or establish a civil nuclear capability and we will continue of meet all our nuclear non-proliferation obligations.”

The change to a nuclear-powered boat in lieu of the conventional submarine Australia was designing in conjunction with Naval Group and Lockheed Martin Australia (for the Combat System) was made as a result of the meeting between the three leaders at the G7 Summit held in the UK in June, during which the AUKUS alliance concept was formulated.

The decision is understood to have been brought about by the deteriorating security environment and rapidly evolving military technologies in the Indo-Pacific region, and it is enabled by new technology which allows Australia to build nuclear-powered boats that do not require a supporting civil nuclear industry.

Australia has spent around AU$2.4 billion (U.S. $1.76 billion) on the Attack-class design so far, but the additional cost of terminating the current contract is yet to be negotiated. The projected cost of the new future nuclear submarine has also yet to be determined or announced.

In a statement following Thursday’s announcement, Naval Group described the Australian decision a “major” disappointment. “Naval Group was offering Australia a regionally superior conventional submarine with exceptional performances. A sovereign submarine capability making unrivaled commitments in terms of technology transfer, jobs and local content,” the company said.

“For five years, Naval Group teams, both in France and in Australia, as well as our partners, have given their best and Naval Group has delivered on all its commitments.”

The company said an analysis of the consequences of the decision will be conducted with the Commonwealth of Australia in the coming days.

The deputy secretary for the national naval shipbuilding program, Tony Dalton, told Defense News that “the decision to not proceed with the Attack Class Submarine Program was driven by a consideration of the strategic circumstances and the impact this has on Australia’s submarine capability requirements.”

“It was not related to the performance of Naval Group or Lockheed Martin,” Dalton added. “Over the coming months, the Department will conduct negotiations with both Naval Group Australia and Lockheed Martin Australia to reach a fair and equitable agreement to wind up the Attack class submarine program. "

The change of heart is likely to mean the Royal Australian Navy’s Collins-class submarines will now remain in service, in diminishing numbers, until the late 2040s. The six Collins boats will cycle through a further Full Cycle Docking (FSD) activity and Life of Type Extension (LOTE) program to ensure their effectiveness until withdrawal. The scope of the LOTE upgrade has not been made public, but an announcement by South Australian Premier Steven Marshal Thursday revealed the work will also be done at Osborne.
 

Classical Mechanic

Full Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2014
Messages
33,031
Location
xG Zombie Nation
They'll almost certainly be US submarines built in Australia

MELBOURNE, Australia — The Australian government has established a Future Nuclear Submarine Task Force which will work with U.K. and U.S. counterparts over the next twelve to eighteen months to determine the best way to acquire the boats.

While a specific type of nuclear submarine is yet to be determined, likely candidates would appear to be either Britain’s Astute-class attack submarine or the U.S. Virginia-class vessel. Construction is slated to take place locally at Osborne in South Australia.

Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison, U.S. President Joe Biden and U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson jointly announced the formation of a new tripartite alliance known as AUKUS on Thursday (local time), under which the first initiative will to build at least eight nuclear-powered submarines for the Royal Australian Navy.

Morrison also announced that a previous $90 billion (US$65.88 billion) contract Australia holds with France’s Naval Group for the construction of 12 conventional submarines, which were to have been known as the Attack class in Royal Australian Navy’s service, has been terminated.

A decision on the final number of new submarines is expected to be made by Canberra during the upcoming analysis phase.

“We intend to build these submarines in Adelaide, Australia in close cooperation with the United Kingdom and the United States,” Morrison said, “But let me be clear: Australia is not seeking to acquire nuclear weapons or establish a civil nuclear capability and we will continue of meet all our nuclear non-proliferation obligations.”

The change to a nuclear-powered boat in lieu of the conventional submarine Australia was designing in conjunction with Naval Group and Lockheed Martin Australia (for the Combat System) was made as a result of the meeting between the three leaders at the G7 Summit held in the UK in June, during which the AUKUS alliance concept was formulated.

The decision is understood to have been brought about by the deteriorating security environment and rapidly evolving military technologies in the Indo-Pacific region, and it is enabled by new technology which allows Australia to build nuclear-powered boats that do not require a supporting civil nuclear industry.

Australia has spent around AU$2.4 billion (U.S. $1.76 billion) on the Attack-class design so far, but the additional cost of terminating the current contract is yet to be negotiated. The projected cost of the new future nuclear submarine has also yet to be determined or announced.

In a statement following Thursday’s announcement, Naval Group described the Australian decision a “major” disappointment. “Naval Group was offering Australia a regionally superior conventional submarine with exceptional performances. A sovereign submarine capability making unrivaled commitments in terms of technology transfer, jobs and local content,” the company said.

“For five years, Naval Group teams, both in France and in Australia, as well as our partners, have given their best and Naval Group has delivered on all its commitments.”

The company said an analysis of the consequences of the decision will be conducted with the Commonwealth of Australia in the coming days.

The deputy secretary for the national naval shipbuilding program, Tony Dalton, told Defense News that “the decision to not proceed with the Attack Class Submarine Program was driven by a consideration of the strategic circumstances and the impact this has on Australia’s submarine capability requirements.”

“It was not related to the performance of Naval Group or Lockheed Martin,” Dalton added. “Over the coming months, the Department will conduct negotiations with both Naval Group Australia and Lockheed Martin Australia to reach a fair and equitable agreement to wind up the Attack class submarine program. "

The change of heart is likely to mean the Royal Australian Navy’s Collins-class submarines will now remain in service, in diminishing numbers, until the late 2040s. The six Collins boats will cycle through a further Full Cycle Docking (FSD) activity and Life of Type Extension (LOTE) program to ensure their effectiveness until withdrawal. The scope of the LOTE upgrade has not been made public, but an announcement by South Australian Premier Steven Marshal Thursday revealed the work will also be done at Osborne.
I know but if BoJo brokered the deal then he was obviously heavily involved in it. I think @MikeUpNorth 's explanation is the more likely.
 

VorZakone

What would Kenny G do?
Joined
May 9, 2013
Messages
22,984
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.