International Australia to Buy Nuclear Attack Submarine from US; France Furious Over Betrayal

[Ruprecht]

Disingenuous hackery.

I think it's a fair criticism honestly.
I still have no idea why this would be landed on our allies via a surprise announcement in the media, if that is indeed what's happened.

 

[X Factor]

I would think the biggest downside in terms of nuclear powered subs would be the requirement for a nuclear industry that can support it, and if the US is willing to offer life-of-ship powerplants which can circumvent that, I can see why it would bother China. Although India's nuclear submarines were developed in cooperation with Russia and I really can't see Japan deciding to change strategy because of this.

Yeah starting from scratch would be a mountain of an uphill battle. It’s certainly a bigger budget project then diesel electric. All the government contractors, equipment manufacturing, handling of materials/overall upkeep not to mention properly training military personnel to operate a reactor isn’t a small task. Outsourcing the work to the US would probably be quickest and safest.

 

[D3THRONED]

Good. France is notorious for being scummy when it comes to competition and bidding for military contracts. This was an extremely poor project to begin with and the subs are subpar. Good move for Aussies and the US/UK.

 

[A Lurker]

Why? These are two heavily subsidized industries that can be used to save diplomatic face between the US and France.

It's politics, not economics.

Next, Congress will look to "update" the Fly America Act.

Tongue was firmly in check when I posted that.

However, It is a stock tip, a rather good one at that.

 

[A Lurker]

I think it's a fair criticism honestly.
I still have no idea why this would be landed on our allies via a surprise announcement in the media, if that is indeed what's happened.

I do not buy that is what occurred for a single minute.

 

[Ruprecht]

I do not buy that is what occurred for a single minute.

I can't see the benefit to pretending otherwise then.
Neither with France, nor the Quad.
I wonder where this puts us in terms of worldwide weapons imports? I think we're already top 4.
Not that it really says anything about capabilities, given the others are the Saudis, Egypt and India, but it indicates how big a deal it is for the MIC.

 

[CantCucktheTuck]

 

[MicroBrew]

How does this work as the left eating itself?

We made a deal which seems to be in the greater national security interest (aren't you guys always claiming Obama is soft on China?), by giving bigger-dicked submarines to the Aussies and screwing France out of a multi-billion dollar deal. Now I get why France would be pissed, but why are you throwing a fit? I don't see liberals complaining about this deal. Just you twats, and you can't even think of a sensible angle to go about it.

We both know if this Sub deal had been concluded under Trump, he would tooting Trump's horn, claiming how America is winning under Trump. Since it's Biden, he makes this situation out to be a negative.

 

[CaptHANDSUP]

Would it have been a good idea for India or another country near the South China Sea to buy these subs from the French instead?

I imagine that diesel would be more effective for defensive use around the SCS region based on what has been said in this thread. Effectively that it is slower and has a limited range but is less noisy and smaller.

 

[eddymotto]

I don’t know anything about the sub deal. I didn’t even know about the Franco-Aussie 2016 deal until 2 days ago.

But this does not seem complicated. When I lived in Australia their defense strategy was pretty clear - “be friends with the USA”

 

[lsa]

As a German my compassion is very limited. As far as I remember France fought hard against ThyssenKrupp (German company) to get this contract. And let me tell you this, it wasn't very fair either.

Everyone who knows how aggressive and how dirty France acts against other competitors, can't feel bad for them.

Based on history... Funny stuff right there.

 

[Fox by the Sea]

explanation is pretty easy
the US needed a "win" after the absolute clusterfuck that was afghanistan retreat, so they pull out of some dusty drawer another "security arrangement". these are the easiest things to sell, appear important, seem like it's a progress and tightening of relations, when in fact it does diddly that is in any way new or meaningful.
for boris johnson, he needed to convince the uppity brits that hey look, we are still a pacific power amirite guys oi oi, rule britannia. giving the finger to the french was a bonus, as it always is for the brits. they probably were the ones that insisted on the secrecy of the matter.
for the aussies, they are just happy to wag their tail towards the bigger brothers of the anglosphere, america and GB.

 

[Neph]

explanation is pretty easy
the US needed a "win" after the absolute clusterfuck that was afghanistan retreat, so they pull out of some dusty drawer another "security arrangement". these are the easiest things to sell, appear important, seem like it's a progress and tightening of relations, when in fact it does diddly that is in any way new or meaningful.
for boris johnson, he needed to convince the uppity brits that hey look, we are still a pacific power amirite guys oi oi, rule britannia. giving the finger to the french was a bonus, as it always is for the brits. they probably were the ones that insisted on the secrecy of the matter.
for the aussies, they are just happy to wag their tail towards the bigger brothers of the anglosphere, america and GB.

An easy but wrong explanation, at least for us Australians.

The sub program has been on life support for well over a year in our media, it's been a clusterfuck and I have posted earlier in this thread the very serious failings of it.

 

[Fox by the Sea]

An easy but wrong explanation, at least for us Australians.

The sub program has been on life support for well over a year in our media, it's been a clusterfuck and I have posted earlier in this thread the very serious failings of it.

all concerns should have been vocalized to france, which, at the very least, is part of the liberal democratic order and an ally. you don't fuck around with that order for low stakes like this. cause that's how you open the door of europe for china. by doing dumbass decisions like this. to create a powerful opposition towards china you need a united liberal democratic front. and this stupid endeavor is the opposite of that.

 

[Neph]

all concerns should have been vocalized to france, which, at the very least, is part of the liberal democratic order and an ally. you don't fuck around with that order for low stakes like this. cause that's how you open the door of europe for china. by doing dumbass decisions like this.

I have no problem with us cancelling the French submarine contract - everything I heard about it was bad.

Nonetheless the French are our allies and we should never blindside our friends in this way. If we really didn't say anything until we announced to the world the swap then I think we've done them a disservice.

Their withdrawal of their ambassador is an emotional overreaction and really just makes them look bad.

To reaffirm - we should have told them first.

However, they should have known they fucked it up.

The original deal was $50B, and it had almost doubled.
DCNS, who was the French partner, were hacked and 22,000 documents relating to their Scorpene submarines were released. These submarines were being built for India.
The French regularly failed to meet project milestones to the point where our Defence Minister refused to meet the French Naval group when they visited Australia.
90% of jobs were contracted to be made locally. This was then reduced to 60%, and then pushed back again by the French.

Basically the fucked it to the amount of tens and tens of billions of dollars and unable to meet milestones. Australia had been openly talking about its disappointment for a long time and the French should not be surprised the pin was pulled.

 

[Fox by the Sea]

we are in agreement mostly then. i have no problem with canceling a bad deal. i do have a problem with how it was done.

 

[Ruprecht]

explanation is pretty easy
the US needed a "win" after the absolute clusterfuck that was afghanistan retreat, so they pull out of some dusty drawer another "security arrangement". these are the easiest things to sell, appear important, seem like it's a progress and tightening of relations, when in fact it does diddly that is in any way new or meaningful.
for boris johnson, he needed to convince the uppity brits that hey look, we are still a pacific power amirite guys oi oi, rule britannia. giving the finger to the french was a bonus, as it always is for the brits. they probably were the ones that insisted on the secrecy of the matter.
for the aussies, they are just happy to wag their tail towards the bigger brothers of the anglosphere, america and GB.

Strategically it makes a fair difference. It means Australia can patrol the Malacca straight and South China Sea rather than leaving it entirely to the US or allowing China control of the worlds premier shipping lanes. It also means the US can more readily continue or increase it's freedom of navigation patrols in the region.

 

[Fox by the Sea]

Strategically it makes a fair difference. It means Australia can patrol the Malacca straight and South China Sea rather than leaving it entirely to the US or allowing China control of the worlds premier shipping lanes. It also means the US can more readily continue or increase it's freedom of navigation patrols in the region.

ineffectual by leaving out India and Japan. it makes no strategic sense.

 

[Ruprecht]

ineffectual by leaving out India and Japan. it makes no strategic sense.

India will be patrolling the other side of the Malacca straight, they are building nuclear subs (including SSBNs) currently but they are made with Russian support so they won't be part of any technology sharing agreement.
Japan has always rejected this sort of US tech sharing agreement and stuck with conventional Subs. They are building their latest generation, the Taigei, already. I believe the US has convinced them to keep their ships in service an additional 8 years though, which will increase their fleet from 22 to around 30.

 

[Fox by the Sea]

India will be patrolling the other side of the Malacca straight, they are building nuclear subs (including SSBNs) currently but they are made with Russian support so they won't be part of any technology sharing agreement.
Japan has always rejected this sort of US tech sharing agreement and stuck with conventional Subs. They are building their latest generation, the Taigei, already. I believe the US has convinced them to keep their ships in service an additional 8 years though, which will increase their fleet from 22 to around 30.

thats nice and pretty, but besides the point. you think these two enjoy being left out of a security agreement over the pacific? which is what happened.