It amuses me to no end how people are so focussed on the submarine aspects and the French reaction. Talk about a well crafted smokescreen. There is much much more to this Treaty than just some subs. This is why it had to be done in secret.
AUKUS Treaty NEWS ONLY
- Thread starter Rhinocrates
- Start date
On a somewhat tangential topic, while people tie themselves in knots over this and there is negative comments about what the Australia, UK & USA have done and the supposed slight to France, what about this:
www.reuters.com
It even includes talk of joint production of submarines!
Think about that: a NATO member talking with Russia about joint Fighter and Submarine cooperation...
Erdogan says Turkey is looking at further defence steps with Russia
Turkey is considering more joint defence industry steps with Russia including for fighter jets and submarines, President Tayyip Erdogan said after talks with President Vladimir Putin, despite a U.S. warning of further sanctions.
It even includes talk of joint production of submarines!
Think about that: a NATO member talking with Russia about joint Fighter and Submarine cooperation...
- Joined
- 27 September 2006
- Messages
- 5,744
- Reaction score
- 5,633
Erdogan has staged a coup in Turkey similar to the one in Iran in 1979. Nominally the country is a democracy so this might be reversed.
A future Labour government in Canberra might well have different views on AUKUS
A future Labour government in Canberra might well have different views on AUKUS
Unless Turkey, and or Russia have found the magic money tree, its not going to happen. AUKUS countries can clearly afford a lot of new nuclear boats.On a somewhat tangential topic, while people tie themselves in knots over this and there is negative comments about what the Australia, UK & USA have done and the supposed slight to France, what about this:
Erdogan says Turkey is looking at further defence steps with Russia
Turkey is considering more joint defence industry steps with Russia including for fighter jets and submarines, President Tayyip Erdogan said after talks with President Vladimir Putin, despite a U.S. warning of further sanctions.
It even includes talk of joint production of submarines!
Thank about that: a NATO member talking with Russia about joint Fighter and Submarine cooperation...
Anthony Albanese confirms a Labor government would continue AUKUS alliance
Labor leader Anthony Albanese has thrown his support behind the AUKUS security partnership signed by Prime Minister Scott Morrison, saying it would "certainly continue" if he wins the next election.
www.sbs.com.au
- Joined
- 27 September 2006
- Messages
- 5,744
- Reaction score
- 5,633
China has only itself to blame for the reaction to its naval build-up.
While it is perfectly understandable that a country which uses international shipping lanes needs a blue water navy, China has used its armed forces to threaten neighbours in various disputes.
Australia has done the only sensible thing it can in response.
While it is perfectly understandable that a country which uses international shipping lanes needs a blue water navy, China has used its armed forces to threaten neighbours in various disputes.
Australia has done the only sensible thing it can in response.
The Wolf Warrior diplomatic thing seems like a particularly pointless exercise/self inflicted wound. It’s like their diplomatic ministry went out of its way to fail at diplomacy. The only explanation I have is that their foreign policy is really designed for domestic consumption.
- Joined
- 21 January 2015
- Messages
- 10,687
- Reaction score
- 12,347
Yes but there’s no getting away with the fact that Morrison badly bungled the handling of this with an ally.
Australia told French submarine firm it didn’t have green light to proceed hours before deal cancelled
Letter, sent to Naval Group on 15 September, is at the heart of diplomatic rift between France and Australia
timmymagic
Forever disappointed in MoD procurement...
- Joined
- 23 August 2011
- Messages
- 1,055
- Reaction score
- 2,800
The published letter pretty much blows the French Foreign Minister, Le Drian's, 'they lied' claim straight out of the water.
It's not a good look at all for him. It's now clear either he lied...or he didn't comprehend the letters very clear meaning. The letter is very clear about its intent and explicitly tells Naval Group that it is not in any way to be taken as approval to proceed any further.
It's not a good look at all for him. It's now clear either he lied...or he didn't comprehend the letters very clear meaning. The letter is very clear about its intent and explicitly tells Naval Group that it is not in any way to be taken as approval to proceed any further.
I'm not sure there would be a good way to leave NG and go with US/UK.
You cant leave NG without announcing where your going, and possible more embarrassing if Macron had got on a plane to Aus to 'sort it out'.
And overall this sudden announcement has had a big impact where it was meant to, China.
France I'm sure will get some apologies and some new toys from Uncle Sam.
You cant leave NG without announcing where your going, and possible more embarrassing if Macron had got on a plane to Aus to 'sort it out'.
And overall this sudden announcement has had a big impact where it was meant to, China.
France I'm sure will get some apologies and some new toys from Uncle Sam.
As most are...
And some orders from Australia I think. As mentioned earlier, some more KC30 tankers would do nicely. The A400M option pops up every once in a while though I am hearing more C-130Js are being considered.
The RFP for Project Air 6502 Ph 1 is on the streets looking for new Medium Range, Ground Based Air Defence Capability (i.e. SAMs) to compliment the Land 19 Ph7's Enhanced NASAMS AIM-120/AIM-9X Block 2 missiles. While I suspect MIM-104 Patriot is the likely outcome, I wonder if an attractive enough package around Aster 15/30 could be offered as an alternative?
- Joined
- 9 October 2009
- Messages
- 19,975
- Reaction score
- 10,475
Also, the RAN is definitely going to need more surface combatants, preferably nuclear powered.
Such as??
- Joined
- 9 October 2009
- Messages
- 19,975
- Reaction score
- 10,475
A proper area air defence cruiser class for one thing.
That will not be happening and certainly not nuclear powered. If anything they might consider a 4th Hobart Class AWD but even that would be unlikely given ASC will be presumably moving attention to SSNs.
And when you say "proper" are you implying that there is something insufficient with the Hobart class?
Should we be obsessing over Macron's behaviour?
More important is AUKUS and what it could do. A strategic shift is underway and being as much the outcome of democratic processes as any consistent civil service conclusions, it's capacity to defeat China's aims is frankly more important than the egos of entire nations. Let alone a President.
More important is AUKUS and what it could do. A strategic shift is underway and being as much the outcome of democratic processes as any consistent civil service conclusions, it's capacity to defeat China's aims is frankly more important than the egos of entire nations. Let alone a President.
Nuclear power in a surface combatant is pointless. It arguably is efficient when scaled to CVNs; it isn’t worth the effort for any other vessel type. For Australia it’s an obvious non starter.
Rhinocrates
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 26 September 2006
- Messages
- 2,112
- Reaction score
- 4,509
Sure enough, they've invited commentary on AUKUS. Rather odd that he of all people would quote Burke's counsel of caution, but interesting anyway. He makes a critical distinction between the Cold War and our current situation.
www.economist.com
Thus aukus may foreshadow a series of separate but interrelated collective-defence entities. These operational partnerships need not be limited to conventional military activities but treat the full range of Chinese threats in the political, economic and social spheres. The close economic ties between China and the rest of the world inevitably make this process more complicated than the way the West responded during the cold war, when the two blocs had fairly limited economic contacts.
Diplomacy is the continuation of war by other means.
John Bolton on how a new era of American alliances is under way
The AUKUS accord heralds a wise and necessary shift in how America forges ties and counters China, says a former American national security adviser
Thus aukus may foreshadow a series of separate but interrelated collective-defence entities. These operational partnerships need not be limited to conventional military activities but treat the full range of Chinese threats in the political, economic and social spheres. The close economic ties between China and the rest of the world inevitably make this process more complicated than the way the West responded during the cold war, when the two blocs had fairly limited economic contacts.
Diplomacy is the continuation of war by other means.
Last edited:
jeffb
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 7 October 2012
- Messages
- 1,227
- Reaction score
- 1,722
Trashing relations with trading partners, penalizing Australian producers and traders while demonstrating that any agreement that is actually made with the Australian govt may not be worth the paper it's written on, discarding Australian sovereignty and agency simply in order to become a forward operating base for the US military in the Pacific will benefit Australia how exactly?
This is the point, AUKUS is of nearly no benefit to Australia at all except in the logistics support jobs that the pact will produce supplying US troops and strategic assets on it's soil. All the benefits flow to the US. Nuclear powered submarines nothing but a smoke screen.
He isn't, but it wouldn't be relevant if he was. Turnbull was Morrison's Prime Minister, his boss and leader of the parliamentary party Morrison belongs to until he was knifed in a Party room coup.
While he may ultimately be angry about being screwed over by his party, the points he made in the address linked above criticizing the AUKUS agreement all refer to simple matters of fact.
A reminder: the Barracuda deal came about as the result of a competitive tender process that emphasized Australian requirements and Australian industry involvement in the construction of the new subs.
Last edited:
jeffb
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 7 October 2012
- Messages
- 1,227
- Reaction score
- 1,722
Yeah, that's not going to happen. Australia doesn't have the industry or technical background necessary to support a nuclear surface fleet.
If Australia wants to resist China, having a close military relationship with the US is a good thing. If Chinese hegemony is an acceptable status quo, then yes there is no benefit to Australia. That Australia poisoned its relationship with France the way it handled its communications is hardly the fault of the US or UK.
- Joined
- 19 July 2016
- Messages
- 3,728
- Reaction score
- 2,694
I believe it took two to tango as far as the Barracuda deal went.
- Joined
- 16 April 2008
- Messages
- 8,398
- Reaction score
- 10,353
No one is building nuclear surface combatants. Not happening.
The only surviving nuclear powered surface combatants are two of the Kirov class (two more withdrawn but in existence), the dead cat bounce of nuclear powered cruisers. The USN gave up on nuclear surface ships (outside CVNs) in the 70s/80s.
Nor Nuke submarines........
Nuke boats may or may not happen, realistically, but if they do come to pass the key enabling technology will be single core reactors that require no refueling for the life of the boat. I think this is why a French nuclear option wasn’t more seriously contemplated. It seems likely that the RAN would never have to do any serious work on a reactor-it would be delivered as a unit from the US/UK and then be disposed of in the US/UK.
You do know about the Tango-class submarines, do you ?
Tango-class submarine - Wikipedia
No this is a political biased opinion. Not facts but warping of facts to suit a certain political position.
Facts are this should not impact trade deals unrelated to submarines. If it is, then look to which side is doing that and ask why. Which is an interesting and disturbing issue, though very political.
Unless Turkey, and or Russia have found the magic money tree, its not going to happen. AUKUS countries can clearly afford a lot of new nuclear boats.On a somewhat tangential topic, while people tie themselves in knots over this and there is negative comments about what the Australia, UK & USA have done and the supposed slight to France, what about this:
Erdogan says Turkey is looking at further defence steps with Russia
Turkey is considering more joint defence industry steps with Russia including for fighter jets and submarines, President Tayyip Erdogan said after talks with President Vladimir Putin, despite a U.S. warning of further sanctions.
It even includes talk of joint production of submarines!
Thank about that: a NATO member talking with Russia about joint Fighter and Submarine cooperation...
What's more, 90% of Erdogan combat jet fleet is made of US jets. Start p**sing Uncle Sam too much, and the flow of spares will be cut. Then the planes will be grounded. And Erdogan will have next to nothing to defend his airspace against, say, Greek... Rafales.
Which bring us back to France, in passing.
I'm not trying to defend Macron or Le Drian in any way here, please.
Just saying that FOUR HOURS is not a lot of "warning time" when cancelling a $60 billion contract.
Ok, NG was WARNED about the cancellation, but four hours ahead of AUKUS, really ?
Give it some days, damn it. Just one weekk would be fine. A month, at worse !
4 hours was certainly a ..... flawed outcome and I think that likely relates to a host of trivial factors.
Does raise questions about both NG's contacts inside the Australian Government and a curious attitude between Australian government departments.
Does raise questions about both NG's contacts inside the Australian Government and a curious attitude between Australian government departments.
You are right, it applies both ways:
NG --- Australia Gvt
and
Australia Gvt --- NG
In a more detailed way
FRENCH SIDE
NG --- Le Drian --- Macron
AUSTRALIAN SIDE
Contractors --- Ministry of defense --- ScoMo
Appropriate & mandatory song
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EH7QMVnSRI
NG --- Australia Gvt
and
Australia Gvt --- NG
In a more detailed way
FRENCH SIDE
NG --- Le Drian --- Macron
AUSTRALIAN SIDE
Contractors --- Ministry of defense --- ScoMo
Appropriate & mandatory song
Technically it would once SSNs start being operated though I still doubt any nuclear powered surface combatants will be ever acquired.
Take out the domestic political rhetoric going on (remember France has a Presidential election early next year) and explain exactly what "Trashing relations with trading partners" has gone on here?
Evidence please?
Any Government has the right to exit deals and I think you will find that there were definite clauses allowing the decision to exit the Attack Class SSK deal quite straightforward and thus fully IAW "the paper it's written on".
Please provide proof for such assertions. It comes across as simply melodramatic.
The Australian Government and ADF don't seem to think it is of no benefit and from the bits of information that have come out it seems that the Australians were the ones who initiated discussions in the first place so I challenge your "no benefit" claim. You are also grossly over-simplifying things with your comments here and also seem to forget that the UK is part of this.
It would be interesting to see how things might have gone down if France didn't have domestic political considerations, including a Presidential election, to factor in here...
I would expect that AUKUS will form some sort of military trading deal, along the lines of benefit to the home country(best), benefit to A or US(for UK, seconf best, but better than say India) , in terms of spending, thus Australia benefits, as UK could license build the loyal wingman, or if Aus gets UK to build large bits of the subs, UK will buy Australian build loyal wingmen.
Possibly. I expect the Boeing Airpower Teaming System (ATS) aka Loyal Wingman certainly is one of the things that might be going the other way (i.e. out of Australia).
I said it already some posts up thread: French people just don't care about that fuss.
It's EXTERNAL affairs when the election is INTERNAL stuff.
Main worry is COVID
Then yellow jackets
then the election
then Bernard Tapie death (will make headlines for the next week, just like Belmondo last month)
Scoop: the main event in the frontline news, related to the coming election, is NOT Australia nor the submarines.
ITs whacky crazy Vichy apologist Eric Zemmour shooting to 15% of the popular vote, on Marine Le Pen heels and ready to overtake her as "the right wing nut qualifying in 2nd position to fight Macron at round 2".
Submarines and Australia have next to zero relationship to the coming election. Not even on the unemployment front - it is not as if NG very existence was threatened with 30 000 jobs to go up in smoke.
Anyway, enough of the French reaction or lack thereof. As already stated, this thread should be more about what the AUKUS Agreement/Treaty/Pact includes and developments from moving forward.
Similar threads
-
-
Could HMAS Australia have been saved from scrapping ?- Started by Oberon_706
- Replies: 39
-
Australian-Built Aircraft and the Industry, By Keith Meggs- Started by GTX
- Replies: 34
-
Why These Badass Balloons Are the Pentagon's New Secret Weapon
- Started by seruriermarshal
- Replies: 18
-
Future Cruise / Anti-Ship Weapon (FC/ASW)- Started by Triton
- Replies: 90