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

[Ruprecht]

Not exactly true...

But it's nice to know that we can't stick to international business agreements on top of all our current shit.

Just showing our willingness to follow the US and UK into the next war mongering, refugee creating drama for years to come.

In fact I think we did something similar years ago in regards to a French attack helicopter agreement. My memory is vague on that one though

I was very surprised they've agreed to build nuclear subs in my backyard. Considering all the other nuclear proposals for SA have been squashed.
Fukushima is ancient history I guess.

 

[Ruprecht]

The contract the Aussies signed with France was a huge clusterfcuk. There's been criticism of it for a long time now, not just because of the soaring cost but the long wait time and the inferiority of choosing diesel electric over nuclear.

TL : DR - Australia was " dudded " .

Saw this Sky News report last year. It is pretty critical of the Australian-French deal

Skynews in general, and Andrew Bolt in particular, are a good source of information on precisely nothing but Murdoch's opinions and interests.

 

[Ruprecht]

Says the country that has barely existed for 200 years. Easy to have few military defeats when you literally have no history and all your wars involved an enemy an ocean away - zero real risk. France has a rich military record, to suggest they don't is profound ignorance that's not even worth addressing.

If I were EU countries looking at this, I'd be done making deals with the commonwealth. 27 countries in the EU, small countries with negligible economies like Australia or the UK aren't absolutely needed as trade partners by anyone - especially not at the cost of betrayal.

They have good reason to be pissed. The inferior specifications, delays and cost blow outs were mostly a result of our insistence they make a conventionally powered version of their nuclear subs due to our lack of nuclear infrastructure. If we'd bought the nuclear versions in the first place, we'd probably already have built a couple. Although setting up local construction was the other area they struggled, so we'll see if the yanks are any better at it.

 

[MicroBrew]

Skynews in general, and Andrew Bolt in particular, are a good source of information on precisely nothing but Murdoch's opinions and interests.

Well I figured they would be your version of Fox, being a Murdoch channel, but in this case they do appear to be right.

 

[Cid]

If I were EU countries looking at this, I'd be done making deals with the commonwealth. 27 countries in the EU, small countries with negligible economies like Australia or the UK aren't absolutely needed as trade partners by anyone - especially not at the cost of betrayal.

24 of those countries have smaller economies.

I wouldn't call Australia or the UK negligible economies. UK is 5th largest economy in the world by GDP, Australia is 13th.

 

[Ruprecht]

Well I figured they would be your version of Fox, being a Murdoch channel, but in this case they do appear to be right.

Nah, that's not even a one sided account or half the information. Bolt was just throwing dirt on Turnbull for being the wrong sort of Liberal.
In fact until we hear what the plan is for nuclear infrastructure and the US plan to transfer technology, we haven't heard much at all.

 

[Fluffernutter]

TLDR Version: France and Australia signed a $90 billion deal in 2016 to supply Australia with submarines. US and UK announced yesterday they will supply Astute or Virginia Class SSN instead to counter China, sinking France's cash cow. French are extremely pissed since they already started constructing the subs and are now left holding the bag.

‘Stab in the back’: French fury as Australia scraps submarine deal | France | The Guardian

Obviously, China is going "REEEEeeee!!"

Aukus: China denounces US-UK-Australia pact as irresponsible - BBC News

Step 1: French ambassador invites members of Congress to a swanky party at the embassy and gives a slide show on how close our ties have been since the revolutionary war.

Step 2: member of Congress that was at the party slips in an earmark into the Defense Bill an amendment to cover the $90 billion dollar cost for the french.

Step 3: french subs get sent to Israel/Saudi Arabia

 

[X Factor]

I dont think we should be selling Nuclear Subs

As a former Submariner I’m shocked. Everything that has to do with nuclear engineering has for the most part been held close to the chest for the US. Rickover is probably rolling over in his grave. This is actually concerning that China has become such a problem in the South China Sea that the US is helping other countries build nuclear powered subs.

 

[HeffDoesWant]

The French deal was looking shakey since day dot, but I thought it was locked in. I imagine some expensive exit costs.

I'm unsure how I feel about this as it would be the easiest start on an Australian nuclear program, not nukes but reactors.

Why would anyone buy military equipment from a bunch of cheese-eating surrender monkeys like the French? Motherfuckers have been getting absolutely curbstomped in war for the last 500 years.

Name a war America has won without the French?

 

[Ruprecht]

The French deal was looking shakey since day dot, but I thought it was locked in. I imagine some expensive exit costs.

I'm unsure how I feel about this as it would be the easiest start on an Australian nuclear program, not nukes but reactors.

Name a war America has won without the French?

I'm surprised they've pushed it through unannounced. Haven't heard a peep about nuclear industry since Fukushima, and the plans for nuclear tracking and disposal here in SA went tits up as a consequence.
It's always been a very unpopular topic though, so are they just planning to build nuclear infrastructure here on the quiet? Like Pine Gap and JORN?

 

[Orgasmo]

As a former Submariner I’m shocked. Everything that has to do with nuclear engineering has for the most part been held close to the chest for the US. Rickover is probably rolling over in his grave. This is actually concerning that China has become such a problem in the South China Sea that the US is helping other countries build nuclear powered subs.

China's own nuclear subs are fast catching up to US. Their latest 093B is estimated to be somewhere in the ballpark of improved Los Angeles class, armed with sophisticated towed array sonar and quieter than its predecessors.

Type_093B.pdf (admiraltytrilogy.com)
Why the US Navy Should Fear China's New 093B Nuclear Attack Submarine | The National Interest

By 2030's, China will likely have 095 SSN in service which will likely rival the Seawolf and Virginia class. Australia cannot match that kind of capability with French diesel-electric subs.

 

[Ruprecht]

China's own nuclear subs are fast catching up to US. Their latest 093B is estimated to be somewhere in the ballpark of improved Los Angeles class, armed with sophisticated towed array sonar and quieter than its predecessors.

Type_093B.pdf (admiraltytrilogy.com)
Why the US Navy Should Fear China's New 093B Nuclear Attack Submarine | The National Interest

By 2030's, China will likely have 095 SSN in service which will likely rival the Seawolf and Virginia class. Australia cannot match that kind of capability with French diesel-electric subs.

I'll be surprised if we have the first domestically produced nuclear sub operational by 2040.

 

[Orgasmo]

I'll be surprised if we have the first domestically produced nuclear sub operational by 2040.

I don't think Australia will actually produce these boats. At most, they will be assembled with US/UK made sections and sub-systems. The most significant aspect of this deal is that Australia is all in on containing China, which means it will be hosting US and UK fleet assets as a bastion against China in South China Sea in the coming decade. There will be significant upgrades to naval bases to accommodate large fleets in the future.

It will be interesting how this plays out. Australia is joining a military alliance against its largest trading partner, which has no historical precedent anywhere.

 

[X Factor]

China's own nuclear subs are fast catching up to US. Their latest 093B is estimated to be somewhere in the ballpark of improved Los Angeles class, armed with sophisticated towed array sonar and quieter than its predecessors.

Type_093B.pdf (admiraltytrilogy.com)
Why the US Navy Should Fear China's New 093B Nuclear Attack Submarine | The National Interest

By 2030's, China will likely have 095 SSN in service which will likely rival the Seawolf and Virginia class. Australia cannot match that kind of capability with French diesel-electric subs.

My honest opinion is what China might do with AIP is scarier and their Russian made diesels are a big issue as well. Chinese nuclear powered subs are growing in capability but still not on the same level of US nuclear power.
As far as French diesel capability it’s a matter of preference and what they anticipate encountering. Different types offer different upsides and downsides.

 

[Ruprecht]

I don't think Australia will actually produce these boats. At most, they will be assembled with US/UK made sections and sub-systems. The most significant aspect of this deal is that Australia is all in on containing China, which means it will be hosting US and UK fleet assets as a bastion against China in South China Sea in the coming decade. There will be significant upgrades to naval bases to accommodate large fleets in the future.

It will be interesting how this plays out. Australia is joining a military alliance against its largest trading partner, which has no historical precedent anywhere.

They can't not produce them here. They've already spent 2 billion developing the local sub building capacity and that was the sticking point in the deal with France. Political suicide to outsource production after cancelling that. The ability to build and maintain out own fleets has always been a firm demand.

 

[Orgasmo]

My honest opinion is what China might do with AIP is scarier and their Russian made diesels are a big issue as well. Chinese nuclear powered subs are growing in capability but still not on the same level of US nuclear power.

Diesel-electric subs with AIP are quieter yes, but they don't have the speed and endurance to take the fight to the deep seas. They're more suitable for operations in shallow water closer to shore, laying in ambush near chokepoints and shipping lanes. China's best SSN are roughly on par with 688i improved Los Angeles class built in early 1990's. It will take them at least 2 decades to reach parity with US.

They can't not produce them here. They've already spent 2 billion developing the local sub building capacity and that was the sticking point in the deal with France. Political suicide to outsource production after cancelling that.

Constructing nuclear subs is a lot more complex than building diesel-electric SSK. If Australia insists on building its own, that will only lead to delays. You might not see any SSN in service until 2035 in that case, by which time it might become obsolete against what China may have at that time. Looks like you're between a rock and hard place.

 

[Ruprecht]

Constructing nuclear subs is a lot more complex than building diesel-electric SSK. If Australia insists on building its own, that will only lead to delays. You might not see any SSN in service until 2035 in that case, by which time it might become obsolete against what China may have at that time. Looks like you're between a rock and hard place.

That's right, and no transfer plan nor time frame has been revealed, but the opposition party has stated indications are 2040. In fact a large part of the cooperation agreement will inevitably be extending the life of the Colins class subs with some sort of extensive retrofit. Which is something that was publicly announced, back in June.

 

[terrapin]

Opposed to the US who hasn’t won a war in god knows how long.

 

[X Factor]

Diesel-electric subs with AIP are quieter yes, but they don't have the speed and endurance to take the fight to the deep seas. They're more suitable for operations in shallow water closer to shore, laying in ambush near chokepoints and shipping lanes. China's best SSN are roughly on par with 688i improved Los Angeles class built in early 1990's. It will take them at least 2 decades to reach parity with US.


Constructing nuclear subs is a lot more complex than building diesel-electric SSK. If Australia insists on building its own, that will only lead to delays. You might not see any SSN in service until 2035 in that case, by which time it might become obsolete against what China may have at that time. Looks like you're between a rock and hard place.

Yup i agree a diesel isn’t going to go as deep or as fast surely not out running anybody that is what pushed the US into nuclear power is their inability to outrun Russian surface ships dropping depth charges when counter detected during the Cold War. But when youre dealing with the South China Sea diesel is a concern. I think especially in hostile encounters between subs the ability to shoot first is most important. Like you said it really comes down to area of operation.

 

[badascan]

How does Australia feel that former vice president Biden couldn't remember their presidents (?) name? But we want to sign some kind of deal... clown world...