Rhinocrates

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 26, 2006
Messages
801
Reaction score
1,552
The Economist's perspective. It devotes most space to looking at the political context.

The new partnership also comes at an opportune time for Mr Biden. His withdrawal from Afghanistan, and the ensuing collapse of the Afghan government, caused concern among many allies about America’s reliability. In theory, that withdrawal was part of a broader reorientation of American diplomatic and military resources to Asia. In practice, many allies there have been sceptical. “The Biden administration’s approach to the Indo-Pacific has so far lacked focus and urgency,” complained a report by the United States Studies Centre (USSC) at the University of Sydney last month.

Ashley Townshend, the co-author of that report, says that Mr Biden’s willingness to share highly advanced defence technology—“something the US has rarely been willing to do”, he notes—is a welcome surprise. “It suggests a more strategic approach to collective defence.” On September 24th Mr Biden is also due to host the first-ever summit of the leaders of the Quad, a burgeoning diplomatic bloc that includes America, Australia, Japan and India.
 

UpForce

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Feb 5, 2011
Messages
290
Reaction score
224

"Morrison said teams from the three countries would draw up a joint plan over the coming 18 months for assembling the new Australian nuclear-powered submarine fleet, which will be built in Adelaide."

"The agreement spells the end for a $90bn contract Australia signed with the French company Naval Group in 2016. That deal had become bogged down in cost over-runs, delays and design changes. It marks a setback for President Emmanuel Macron.

“The world is a jungle,” the former French ambassador to Washington, Gérard Araud, observed on Twitter. “France has just been reminded this bitter truth by the way the US and the UK have stabbed her in the back in Australia. C’est la vie.”"

As to the French angle, it would've been much, much better to include them in this deal somehow. It's next to impossible to see entirely benign reasons or overriding necessities in doing this in such an abrupt, disruptive manner. It's not like France is unaffected by the developing great power rivalry in Asia, has no interests in the Pacific, isn't a democracy or has no expertise in nuclear submarines. By now it was clear to everyone that the requirements of the original deal with Australia were not a good fit with the evolving situation so the French would likely have, even grudgingly, understood the wider framework and accepted a new role in the process.

I don't see how it would benefit the U.S. or the U.K to risk destabilizing NATO in the short or long term as if the emerging China focus should somehow be an interchangeable or, indeed, in any way separate issue from the pressures Europe and the EU are under. This is a huge deal for the French, the clear intentionality in blindsiding them plays right into the latent societal distrust they have of alliances, both the far right and far left (with ample support from Putin) will exert maximum pressure on this fissure now. I truly hope the U.S. will move swiftly, meaningfully and reliably to repair the damage that has been done here.
 

Bhurki

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jul 16, 2020
Messages
310
Reaction score
294
^^^
From France's perspective, this looks like a competition between them and Brits.
AUUSUK would look like another Anglophone alliance to undermine their credibility. Unfortunately, they don't have a lot of options other than being salty about it.
 

isayyo2

Lurker alert
Joined
Nov 24, 2011
Messages
550
Reaction score
747
Wow. Just wow.

So many questions still left unanswered
Who will supply the HEU?
Will the RAN personal go through Nuke School or set up a domestic equivalent?
Is it even legal to have nuclear naval vessels while having a ban on civilian reactors?
Will Tomahawks be acquired?
It may not use HEU reactors, the reactors and fuel might not be produced domestically, we'll see in 18 months.
They probably ultimately set up their own school, but sending officers to US/UK to start with seems very likely.
Australia can interpret Australian laws for themselves, but my understanding is the ban is against processing and enrichment facilities.
Possible, but if we are to assume these boats would hit the water in the 30s the Tomahawk will probably be on its farewell tour about then.
This just popped up on the SNAFU blog


 

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
4,810
Reaction score
4,324
On the French side, a lot of discontent, obviously, but also an apparent incredulity when the story today is reminiscent to the KC-30/MRTT: bidding with vapourware and claiming no responsibility for the drastic cost increase or delay.
(in Fr, not translated, but contains ex-mod and present foreign minister's take on the event)


Edit:
Most is translated here
 
Last edited:

Flyaway

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2015
Messages
7,030
Reaction score
6,029
The French certainly sound pretty darn angry with Biden now with them accusing him of being no better than Trump.

 

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
7,347
Reaction score
6,341
You two posted the same link.
an apparent incredulity when the story today is reminiscent to the KC-30/MRTT: bidding with vapourware

Whaat ? Airbus A330 and Barracuda are vaporware ? really ? Neither were Collins and KC-46s... and we all know how that ended.

There is a level of mutual respect and ability to work together I have never seen with the French or Spanish, let alone the Japanese companies I have dealt with.

No. Let's be honest: as far as big arm deals are concerned, anybody can turn a a major... annoyance (to avoid rude words) and corrupt.

I mean, there are no teletubbies on one side and Dexter Morgans on the other. Big weapon deals can make any country corrupt

Case in point 1: Lockheed bribery scandals affecting such "clean" countries as The Netherlands, Japan and Germany.

Case in point 2: Bofors, Sweden and some ugly corrupt deals with India and elsewhere.

If goddam Sweden, of all countries, can't get an transparent arm deal, then no others country can.

Massive arm deals are a game of fools. See Saudi Arabia contracts with UKUS.
 
Last edited:

Moose

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,564
Reaction score
694
Wow. Just wow.

So many questions still left unanswered
Who will supply the HEU?
Will the RAN personal go through Nuke School or set up a domestic equivalent?
Is it even legal to have nuclear naval vessels while having a ban on civilian reactors?
Will Tomahawks be acquired?
It may not use HEU reactors, the reactors and fuel might not be produced domestically, we'll see in 18 months.
They probably ultimately set up their own school, but sending officers to US/UK to start with seems very likely.
Australia can interpret Australian laws for themselves, but my understanding is the ban is against processing and enrichment facilities.
Possible, but if we are to assume these boats would hit the water in the 30s the Tomahawk will probably be on its farewell tour about then.
This just popped up on the SNAFU blog


I did say "possible." :D

Interesting that they say it's for the Hobart class, and no mention of other applications. Have to imagine Hunter will get them at some point, if they're in the inventory. But how about encapsulated weapons for subs?
 

GTX

All hail the God of Frustration!!!
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Messages
3,834
Reaction score
2,380
Website
beyondthesprues.com
“The Biden administration’s approach to the Indo-Pacific has so far lacked focus and urgency,” complained a report by the United States Studies Centre (USSC) at the University of Sydney last month.
I would have to dispute this. It might be that public statements have been less pronounced but behind the scenes at the working levels a lot has been going one.

As I mentioned back in May, the pull out from Afghanistan was quite obviously a need to re-position/re-deploy forces for potentially bigger, more important things to come (i.e. the IndoPac). The players involved no longer need to be tied down by a backwater sideshow...
 

GTX

All hail the God of Frustration!!!
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Messages
3,834
Reaction score
2,380
Website
beyondthesprues.com
I would love to see the full details of the AUUKUS Agreement. Whilst the focus is on the submarine aspect, I am sure there is a lot more, significant though probably less sexy, aspects to the agreement. For example, basing and crew rotation aspects. Things unrelated to submarines, etc etc...
 

Flyaway

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2015
Messages
7,030
Reaction score
6,029
It said on the news that the Biden administration were surprised at how angry the French were over this deal. If that’s really the case it doesn’t say much for the administration as it seems pretty obvious the French would be angry. Also that the French maybe looking for a pay off from the US. I am guessing this deal is going to cost the US more than it thinks as I doubt any pay off would be cheap.
 

Pioneer

Seek out and close with the enemy
Senior Member
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
2,155
Reaction score
690
I really have to ask, how is Britain going to be able to sustain an effective presence in the Pacific, when it's military is so all over the shop. The British military is struggling to meet it's commitment in its own backyard - Europe, let alone on the other side of the world.
I'm still getting my head around the fact that the British needed the assistance of a USMC F-35B Squadron and I believe a USN Arleigh Burke class DDG to supplement it's deployment during its China rattling deployment says a lot to me.

I heard today that Indonesia has openly had a go at Australia about its adventurism as a self-proclaimed 'middle power'. I never really thought about it, but this wet dream by Australia of wanting to play with the big boys and their toys, might contribute to a regional arms race - Indonesia feeling compelled to acquire SSN's.

I also don't have confidence in our politicians/ADF really appreciating how much of a money pit these SSN's are going to be. Not am I just adimit Australia will struggle to man and sortie these SSN's, I think the rest of the ADF will have to financial suffer as a consequence.

Regards
Pioneer
 
Last edited:

Forest Green

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 11, 2019
Messages
812
Reaction score
606
Interesting points coming to the fore now that everyone has been distracted by the 'nuclear subs for Australia' announcement is that part of the AUKUS deal includes Australia allowing a far larger, and at first reading permanent US military presence in Australia.
The AUKUS pact seems very vague, the nuclear submarines angle seems to have been pushed hard in the media. It does cover AI, quantum computing and cyber warfare security technologies (not sexy subjects for jurnos to espouse on, they just about know what a submarine is) and there have been one or two vague references to UK and US nuclear sub basing in Australia but the emphasis has very much been on the technology transfer side although there must be other commitments, hence Theresa May's questions beyond the purely technical aspects.
Some of the cyber stuff was probably under 'Five Eyes' already.

You can understand why France is annoyed, if the Australians had wanted an SSN and approached the UK and they approached the US to release nuclear technology then fair enough. But its far more than a simple submarine deal, it seems like London and Washington leapt on this as a bandwagon for the geopolitics in the region and hung an array of additional extras on it. Australia wanted a submarine and came away with a defence pact and all the high-tech goodies - a big win win for them.
For the UK and USA its a lot of pain and political fallout today over submarines that might be built in a decade's time.

France might be miffed but the fact is we don't know whether Paris would have exported Barracuda had been asked back in March (they did nearly export Rubis to Canada 30 years ago though). Some commentators are saying it shows that the US doesn't trust France with it with its nuclear technology, well that's nothing new since De Gaulle's day and irrelevant, the RAN wasn't going to fit a Barracuda with UK or US reactor, they wouldn't have needed to seek any US technology release for the K15 (as far we know).
France sunk themselves politically in the Pacific.


 
Last edited:

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
7,347
Reaction score
6,341
Interesting points coming to the fore now that everyone has been distracted by the 'nuclear subs for Australia' announcement is that part of the AUKUS deal includes Australia allowing a far larger, and at first reading permanent US military presence in Australia.
The AUKUS pact seems very vague, the nuclear submarines angle seems to have been pushed hard in the media. It does cover AI, quantum computing and cyber warfare security technologies (not sexy subjects for jurnos to espouse on, they just about know what a submarine is) and there have been one or two vague references to UK and US nuclear sub basing in Australia but the emphasis has very much been on the technology transfer side although there must be other commitments, hence Theresa May's questions beyond the purely technical aspects.
Some of the cyber stuff was probably under 'Five Eyes' already.

You can understand why France is annoyed, if the Australians had wanted an SSN and approached the UK and they approached the US to release nuclear technology then fair enough. But its far more than a simple submarine deal, it seems like London and Washington leapt on this as a bandwagon for the geopolitics in the region and hung an array of additional extras on it. Australia wanted a submarine and came away with a defence pact and all the high-tech goodies - a big win win for them.
For the UK and USA its a lot of pain and political fallout today over submarines that might be built in a decade's time.

France might be miffed but the fact is we don't know whether Paris would have exported Barracuda had been asked back in March (they did nearly export Rubis to Canada 30 years ago though). Some commentators are saying it shows that the US doesn't trust France with it with its nuclear technology, well that's nothing new since De Gaulle's day and irrelevant, the RAN wasn't going to fit a Barracuda with UK or US reactor, they wouldn't have needed to seek any US technology release for the K15 (as far we know).
France sunk themselves politically in the Pacific.


Or maybe NATO is worth nothing since a) its inception in the 50's or b) since 1991 and the end of Cold War

De Gaulle called it "le machin" (= the gizmo) and, for all his flaws elsewhere, he is had some good reasons scorning it...
 

Forest Green

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 11, 2019
Messages
812
Reaction score
606
Interesting points coming to the fore now that everyone has been distracted by the 'nuclear subs for Australia' announcement is that part of the AUKUS deal includes Australia allowing a far larger, and at first reading permanent US military presence in Australia.
The AUKUS pact seems very vague, the nuclear submarines angle seems to have been pushed hard in the media. It does cover AI, quantum computing and cyber warfare security technologies (not sexy subjects for jurnos to espouse on, they just about know what a submarine is) and there have been one or two vague references to UK and US nuclear sub basing in Australia but the emphasis has very much been on the technology transfer side although there must be other commitments, hence Theresa May's questions beyond the purely technical aspects.
Some of the cyber stuff was probably under 'Five Eyes' already.

You can understand why France is annoyed, if the Australians had wanted an SSN and approached the UK and they approached the US to release nuclear technology then fair enough. But its far more than a simple submarine deal, it seems like London and Washington leapt on this as a bandwagon for the geopolitics in the region and hung an array of additional extras on it. Australia wanted a submarine and came away with a defence pact and all the high-tech goodies - a big win win for them.
For the UK and USA its a lot of pain and political fallout today over submarines that might be built in a decade's time.

France might be miffed but the fact is we don't know whether Paris would have exported Barracuda had been asked back in March (they did nearly export Rubis to Canada 30 years ago though). Some commentators are saying it shows that the US doesn't trust France with it with its nuclear technology, well that's nothing new since De Gaulle's day and irrelevant, the RAN wasn't going to fit a Barracuda with UK or US reactor, they wouldn't have needed to seek any US technology release for the K15 (as far we know).
France sunk themselves politically in the Pacific.


Or maybe NATO is worth nothing since a) its inception in the 50's or b) since 1991 and the end of Cold War

De Gaulle called it "le machin" (= the gizmo) and, for all his flaws elsewhere, he is had some good reasons scorning it...
Well bottom-line is that it worked against the USSR, an accusation nobody could ever level at De Gaulle.
 

jeffb

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Oct 7, 2012
Messages
477
Reaction score
554
Interesting points coming to the fore now that everyone has been distracted by the 'nuclear subs for Australia' announcement is that part of the AUKUS deal includes Australia allowing a far larger, and at first reading permanent US military presence in Australia.
The AUKUS pact seems very vague, the nuclear submarines angle seems to have been pushed hard in the media. It does cover AI, quantum computing and cyber warfare security technologies (not sexy subjects for jurnos to espouse on, they just about know what a submarine is) and there have been one or two vague references to UK and US nuclear sub basing in Australia but the emphasis has very much been on the technology transfer side although there must be other commitments, hence Theresa May's questions beyond the purely technical aspects.
Some of the cyber stuff was probably under 'Five Eyes' already.

Yes, what's being drowned out in the hubub about nuclear technology transfer is the fact that the new pact includes basing of US strategic bombers ** and munitions ** in Australia. It also includes an unspecified number of new US bases in northern and southern Australia.

What really happened with regard to the Collins class replacement yesterday was that Australia cancelled its submarine contract with France -- and that is all. The rest of it is all speculation and intentions.

Allegedly, a new submarine design will be built in Adelaide and will include nuclear reactor technology provided by the United States. There's no time frame, no budget, no partnerships announced, no contracts, nothing.

I'd note that, as part of the US strategic pivot to China, another 8 SSNs (or SSGNs if armed with Tomahawks) really isn't going to make that much difference, especially as they won't become available till ~2040. Basing strategic bombers in Australia on the other hand, does. Both to the potential defence of Taiwan and to projecting force into the South China Sea.

Northern Australia is still within range of PLA DF-26 IRBMs, but is protected to a degree by the JORN OTHR system which will make detection and interception of missiles a simpler exercise.

I strongly suspect the announcement of a future nuclear RAN sub fleet was simply a dead cat, a big messy announcement to distract from the really significant and potentially politically difficult news that nuclear armed US strategic bombers would now be basing out of Australia.
 

Opportunistic Minnow

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Nov 10, 2008
Messages
271
Reaction score
416
Interesting points coming to the fore now that everyone has been distracted by the 'nuclear subs for Australia' announcement is that part of the AUKUS deal includes Australia allowing a far larger, and at first reading permanent US military presence in Australia.
The AUKUS pact seems very vague, the nuclear submarines angle seems to have been pushed hard in the media. It does cover AI, quantum computing and cyber warfare security technologies (not sexy subjects for jurnos to espouse on, they just about know what a submarine is) and there have been one or two vague references to UK and US nuclear sub basing in Australia but the emphasis has very much been on the technology transfer side although there must be other commitments, hence Theresa May's questions beyond the purely technical aspects.
Some of the cyber stuff was probably under 'Five Eyes' already.

Yes, what's being drowned out in the hubub about nuclear technology transfer is the fact that the new pact includes basing of US strategic bombers ** and munitions ** in Australia. It also includes an unspecified number of new US bases in northern and southern Australia.

I strongly suspect the announcement of a future nuclear RAN sub fleet was simply a dead cat, a big messy announcement to distract from the really significant and potentially politically difficult news that nuclear armed US strategic bombers would now be basing out of Australia.

Is it that big a deal though? A B-2 can deploy from Guam & Diego Garcia right now, without this agreement. If it needs to forward-deploy at all. That's the beauty of strategic bombers!

I do get that it may be a big shift for the Australians though.
 

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
7,347
Reaction score
6,341
Well bottom-line is that it worked against the USSR, an accusation nobody could ever level at De Gaulle.

B.S - and not the subject of this thread...
 

jeffb

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Oct 7, 2012
Messages
477
Reaction score
554
Found a better diagram but know I'm confused, is the range of the DF-26 4000 or 5000km? If it's only 4000km then the US move to base aircraft from Northern Australia makes even more sense as opposed to Guam.

1631879107828.png


1631878994651.png
 
Last edited:

Fluff

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 9, 2019
Messages
757
Reaction score
645
Interesting points coming to the fore now that everyone has been distracted by the 'nuclear subs for Australia' announcement is that part of the AUKUS deal includes Australia allowing a far larger, and at first reading permanent US military presence in Australia.
The AUKUS pact seems very vague, the nuclear submarines angle seems to have been pushed hard in the media. It does cover AI, quantum computing and cyber warfare security technologies (not sexy subjects for jurnos to espouse on, they just about know what a submarine is) and there have been one or two vague references to UK and US nuclear sub basing in Australia but the emphasis has very much been on the technology transfer side although there must be other commitments, hence Theresa May's questions beyond the purely technical aspects.
Some of the cyber stuff was probably under 'Five Eyes' already.

Yes, what's being drowned out in the hubub about nuclear technology transfer is the fact that the new pact includes basing of US strategic bombers ** and munitions ** in Australia. It also includes an unspecified number of new US bases in northern and southern Australia.

I strongly suspect the announcement of a future nuclear RAN sub fleet was simply a dead cat, a big messy announcement to distract from the really significant and potentially politically difficult news that nuclear armed US strategic bombers would now be basing out of Australia.

Is it that big a deal though? A B-2 can deploy from Guam & Diego Garcia right now, without this agreement. If it needs to forward-deploy at all. That's the beauty of strategic bombers!

I do get that it may be a big shift for the Australians though.
I think its a push psychologically, that China is more 'contained'. And politically its much better to have a base in Australia, rather than have to ask for visiting rights each time, especially as that leaves you open to 'protestors' sponsored by whoever....

Same point on it being 'only' another 8 subs.

UK couldn't send an astute today, by the time it gets there, it would need to come back, so having a service base for Nuke powered subs in Australia, means we can now send one. So you get 8 aus boats, 1 UK, a couple more US boats, and the faster turnround of US and the UK boat. Plus again the psychological impact, that the G20 etc isnt going to sit back and let China do whatever it wants.

And as China builds more CV, they get more contained by lots of new Subs. The game of chess continues.

Also the base in Aus maybe more use to the US army and Marines, rather than the USAF.
 

Jimmo952

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Sep 21, 2020
Messages
63
Reaction score
73
.....wouldn't an austere version of Virgina make sense? ........ There would be no engineering costs or risk there........

An "austere Virginia" is a new class of boat. Plenty of cost and risk to be had. You can't just build a Virginia with some bits you don't want left out. That path is spirally and lies madness!

Now, I'm all for an all-American boat if that is what the Australians want. No way is that boat going to be a "Virginia" as we know it (Jim). Whether UK or US-built, these subs won't be exactly like anything currently in the water. Neither an Astute or Virginia is a good fit for the RAN. There's personnel considerations if nothing else (and there's always something else)!

As an aside, what even is a Virginia at this stage? There's already more blocks than in Legoland!

"Oh, we don't need LAB or VLS, so we'll go with a Block II please."
"We don't do Block II any more......"
"Doh!"
Collins front end, Astute Middle and Fin, Virginia reactor and prop. Crew training by the French.....

What could go wrong?? [would]
Safety by
Compliments:-
Virginia 135
Astute 98

Still it's nice to hear the UK has nothing to offer this alliance and isn't needed.
Presumably people think Biden is doing the UK a favour?

.....wouldn't an austere version of Virgina make sense? ........ There would be no engineering costs or risk there........

An "austere Virginia" is a new class of boat. Plenty of cost and risk to be had. You can't just build a Virginia with some bits you don't want left out. That path is spirally and lies madness!

Now, I'm all for an all-American boat if that is what the Australians want. No way is that boat going to be a "Virginia" as we know it (Jim). Whether UK or US-built, these subs won't be exactly like anything currently in the water. Neither an Astute or Virginia is a good fit for the RAN. There's personnel considerations if nothing else (and there's always something else)!

As an aside, what even is a Virginia at this stage? There's already more blocks than in Legoland!

"Oh, we don't need LAB or VPT, so we'll go with a Block II please."
"We don't do Block II any more......"
"Doh!"

The Aussies want the American CMS, weapons and coms. The want VLS and the ability to support UUVs.

Sounds like a Virginia and I say that without national bias.

That is different though than being able to afford, produce or crew one.

There is a call on the US side to provide the boats or parts of the boats to Australia at cost.

Let's see where this goes.
If they want all this....

And there is no UK IP restrictions on anything in the Virginia class.
.....
Then why approach the UK as we are told they did?

What is the point of the UK being party to this at all?
After all Biden isn't exactly pro-uk.

This is about creating a bulwark against Chinese expansion and influence.

Certainly, the three countries presenting a united front and signaling cooperation is important.

Even Biden, or more likely the team around him, can see that.

The Brits have decades of experience dealing with nuclear submarines. This surely will be useful in bringing the Aussies up to speed.
 

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
7,347
Reaction score
6,341
Folks, would you please also learn to cut down quotes a bit please. There is no need to re-quote the entire post your are responding to. It gets especially painful when one is re-quoting multi-paragraph posts or worse, quotes within quotes. It only takes a few minutes to cut things down.

@GTX is right there...
 

GTX

All hail the God of Frustration!!!
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Messages
3,834
Reaction score
2,380
Website
beyondthesprues.com
What will be also interesting to watch will be any developments on the Japanese front.
Partial info though not directly related to AUUKUS

 

GTX

All hail the God of Frustration!!!
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Messages
3,834
Reaction score
2,380
Website
beyondthesprues.com
Interesting points coming to the fore now that everyone has been distracted by the 'nuclear subs for Australia' announcement is that part of the AUKUS deal includes Australia allowing a far larger, and at first reading permanent US military presence in Australia.
I agree that the submarine announcement has taken the headlines. Just look how the missile parts were hardly mentioned. I look forward to the full details coming out

Is the nuclear powered subs announcement simply a massive distraction to cover Australia agreeing to allow a permanent US military presence on its soil?
Re US military in Australia, I understand the USMC/US Army typically rotate about 2000 - 2500 troops through Darwin etc each year. That is supposed to increase to about 7500 with potential permanent. I also understand there is action to permanently activate some of the Bare Bases. More to follow...
Don't know how well it's going to work, Australians generally have never wanted US bases here.
Too broad a statement. Like all countries I think you will find the reactions are widespread and mixed.
 

GTX

All hail the God of Frustration!!!
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Messages
3,834
Reaction score
2,380
Website
beyondthesprues.com
The AUKUS pact seems very vague, the nuclear submarines angle seems to have been pushed hard in the media. It does cover AI, quantum computing and cyber warfare security technologies (not sexy subjects for jurnos to espouse on, they just about know what a submarine is) and there have been one or two vague references to UK and US nuclear sub basing in Australia but the emphasis has very much been on the technology transfer side although there must be other commitments,
There is definitely more to this than just the Subs. As you have mentioned AI and other things. I also understand there is IP going other ways too - for instance I heard the Boeing ATS "Loyal Wingman" mentioned as one candidate yesterday.

The other non-sexy stuff will be interesting to see.
 

GTX

All hail the God of Frustration!!!
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Messages
3,834
Reaction score
2,380
Website
beyondthesprues.com
I really have to ask, how is Britain going to be able to sustain an effective presence in the Pacific,
Part of that may be solved by having more permanent presence here - I'm sure more than a few RN crews will welcome a chance to billet in Australia;)
I heard today that Indonesia has openly had a go at Australia about its adventurism as a self-proclaimed 'middle power'. I never really thought about it, but this wet dream by Australia of wanting to play with the big boys and their toys, might contribute to a regional arms race - Indonesia feeling compelled to acquire SSN's.
Not really. Indonesia, along with other regional players such as Malaysia and Philippines are concerned about China as well. they just don't have the resources to do anything about it more than being minor 'speed bumps'. This sort of development might actually be welcomed
I think the rest of the ADF will have to financial suffer as a consequence.
I believe there may be a change in direction for some programs. for instance a greater focus on the Air-Sea-Space aspects might signal a reduction in focus for Land domain. Therefore be prepared for potential changes on the Land907Ph2/Land8160/Land 8116/Land 400-3 fronts. One might also see link ups - e.g. OMFV-L400-3 would make a practical combined program.
 

GTX

All hail the God of Frustration!!!
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Messages
3,834
Reaction score
2,380
Website
beyondthesprues.com

Yes, what's being drowned out in the hubub about nuclear technology transfer is the fact that the new pact includes basing of US strategic bombers ** and munitions ** in Australia. It also includes an unspecified number of new US bases in northern and southern Australia.
As mentioned earlier - see the Bare Bases (the grey dots in the map below):

dc17cd7587c47e92bfb4ce3231c5377c

What really happened with regard to the Collins class replacement yesterday was that Australia cancelled its submarine contract with France -- and that is all.
With hindsight:


Allegedly, a new submarine design will be built in Adelaide and will include nuclear reactor technology provided by the United States. There's no time frame, no budget, no partnerships announced, no contracts, nothing.
Standby - more to follow...
Both to the potential defence of Taiwan and to projecting force into the South China Sea.
I expect there will be some future announcements on the Taiwan front. Potentially as momentous as the AUUKUS announcements.
Northern Australia is still within range of PLA DF-26 IRBMs, but is protected to a degree by the JORN OTHR system which will make detection and interception of missiles a simpler exercise.
I wouldn't be surprised to see some developments on Australian participation on BMD front in the near future.
I strongly suspect the announcement of a future nuclear RAN sub fleet was simply a dead cat, a big messy announcement to distract from the really significant and potentially politically difficult news that nuclear armed US strategic bombers would now be basing out of Australia.
I wouldn't simplify it as such.
 

Colonial-Marine

Fighting the UAV mafia.
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Messages
782
Reaction score
135
I can understand why the French would be mad but this seems rather ridiculous. Don't they have a long history of putting their own industry first? (which is entirely understandable) They've definitely "thrown their weight around" when it comes to their participation on multi-national projects. So is this display of outrage at the US/UK really necessary?
 

zen

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
2,800
Reaction score
1,520
I can understand why the French would be mad but this seems rather ridiculous. Don't they have a long history of putting their own industry first? (which is entirely understandable) They've definitely "thrown their weight around" when it comes to their participation on multi-national projects. So is this display of outrage at the US/UK really necessary?
Election is coming.
Macron was looking like a dead duck before this and maybe now he's gambling on a proper crisis making him look presidential.
Depends on how the French people perceive this mess.

However......why hasn't Paris recalled their Ambassador to the UK?
Depending on other factors we may yet see that happen.
 

Fluff

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 9, 2019
Messages
757
Reaction score
645
However......why hasn't Paris recalled their Ambassador to the UK?
Depending on other factors we may yet see that happen.
We're waiting for their declaration of war to arrive....

1000 years of mutual animosity means we get the next level up...
Meh, captain mainwaring is on duty this weekend…..
 

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
4,810
Reaction score
4,324
The funniest part is that Naval Group isn't refraining any effort to explain that the deal was a multi-phase contract. Australia just didn't renew their confidence at the end of the initial phase. Nothing out of the ordinary. Things like that often happen in the industry. It's even possible that there won't be any penalties to pay.

My take on this is that some in the French foreign office were expecting their bonus from, allegedly, negotiating this in 2014 and they are now deprived of it... And quite frustrated as we can see.

To see how much the National policy could have been hijacked by private interests is flabbergasting. I am sure that Europeans are delighted to see such drama queens ready to take in the coming days the presidency of the union...
 
Last edited:

timmymagic

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
125
Reaction score
248
To see how much the National policy could have been hijacked by private interests is flabbergasting. I am sure that Europeans are delighted to see such drama queens ready to take in the coming days the presidency of the union...
It's genuinely mindblowing, its really, really not a good look. There will be a lot of countries looking at procurement contracts with French companies who are suddenly looking at the risk level on a governmental basis climb through the roof. Big weapons deals don't always stay on track, but factoring a massive national flounce into the deal may make French deals unpalatable for some countries. Better not to choose them if there is this risk...

In the UK we're all expecting Ajax to be cancelled, and for there to be a monstrous legal battle between MoD and GD. Its got a whole lot more money invested in it than the Attack Class as well...but will the UK or US withdraw their Ambassadors when the inevitable happens....No.

And this isn't new behaviour...French governmental behaviour during the Swiss and the Belgian fighter competitions that eventually swung in F-35's direction has been appalling. Take the loss like a man for christs sake...
 

zen

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
2,800
Reaction score
1,520
Would Chirac have done this?
Sarkozy?
Miterrand? (Spelling)
 

timmymagic

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
125
Reaction score
248
Would Chirac have done this?
Sarkozy?
Miterrand? (Spelling)
Possibly...any of them would have had their finger in the pie...no-one likes it when they can't wet their beak anymore..
 

Similar threads

Top