AUKUS Treaty NEWS ONLY

Bounce said:
Rhinocrates said:
As a symptom of further complications, the RNZAF recently decided to order more C-130s instead of A400Ms with interoperability with our US and Australian allies cited as a major reason.
Click to expand...
Why would they go with C-130s? We're dumping the hercs for A400s in 3 years.
Click to expand...
They went with C-130s because they were a better fit/more economical than the other contenders (which included A400M and KC390). They originally wanted C-17s but left it too late to make a decision.
 
us.yahoo.com

NKorea slams US over submarine deal, warns countermeasures

North Korea has criticized a U.S. decision to provide nuclear-powered submarines to Australia and threatened unspecified countermeasures if it finds the deal affects its security. State media on Monday published comments from an unidentified North Korean Foreign Ministry official who called the...
us.yahoo.com us.yahoo.com
 
Last edited:
Forest Green said:
Grey Havoc said:
www.telegraph.co.uk

Furious France calls off EU trade talks with Australia over bitter Aukus submarine row

'Keeping one’s word is the condition of trust between democracies and between allies,' said French Europe minister
www.telegraph.co.uk www.telegraph.co.uk
Click to expand...
Australia should breathe a sigh of relief, the EU never makes trade deals that are actually good for the other party.
Click to expand...
Also probably not worth it, Aus has spent the money for next 20 years with USA and UK.....
 
In_A_Dream said:
Forest Green said:
In semi-related news. Oops, I think we broke it.

Thread here.
Click to expand...

China doesn't usually let anything collapse, I think this may have be intentional.
Click to expand...
A short little war would help their economy, or at least turn the eye of the middle class.

I just wonder if Mr. Biden had any idea a little sub deal would cause this sort of angst.
 
GTX said:
As mentioned earlier - see the Bare Bases (the grey dots in the map below):

dc17cd7587c47e92bfb4ce3231c5377c

Click to expand...

I think the most important point about Australian basing is not that they may or may not be further out than Guam or out of DF-26 range, but they are geographically dispersed from each other. The US is quite concerned about bomber basing, to the point it is trying to reactivate some of the old strips in Guam and Tinan on an adhoc basis and also has built up Wake into more of a permanent forward base. Having even several additional locations, let alone half a dozen, drastically complicates opponent targeting.
 
us.yahoo.com

Philippines supports Australia nuclear sub pact to counter China

The Philippines is backing a new defence partnership between the United States, Britain and Australia, hoping it can maintain the balance of power in the Indo-Pacific region, a view that contrasts sharply with some of its neighbours. Known as AUKUS, the alliance will see Australia get...
us.yahoo.com us.yahoo.com
 
jeffb said:
Have to wonder why, if Australia had decided to "go nuclear", they didn't simply approach the French about a contract modification to build nuclear Suffren SSNs under license in Australia and install French built reactors shipped to Australia? Why were the US and UK suddenly so willing to share nuclear submarine power technology?

Can't help but wonder if it doesn't have something to do with Diego Garcia.
Click to expand...

To the point of a Baracuda buy, there are I suspect a number of reasons. First, NG as an organization simply wasn’t trusted at this point. French boats use LEU and need refueling ever ten years where as US/UK boats now operate with a single HEU core for life. I think the USN/RN boats are also just seen as superior. It’s work noting Collins uses an American fire control and that the RAN made this a requirement for whichever country got the Attack contract. Mk48 mod 7 was codevekoped with Australia after all. Finally, there are much deeper ties across the board both pre existing and developing across the AUKUS group. As someone on the other thread put it, ‘this deal isn’t just about submarines’.
 
Josh_TN said:

To the point of a Baracuda buy, there are I suspect a number of reasons. First, NG as an organization simply wasn’t trusted at this point.
Click to expand...

Which is an interesting take because it wasn't NG that cancelled a $90B contract with literally a few hours notice after as recently as two weeks ago saying that the issues with the agreement had been ironed out and both parties were now moving forward.

As someone on the other thread put it, ‘this deal isn’t just about submarines'.
Click to expand...

Which is my point really, the US and the UK didn't decide to share submarine nuclear propulsion technology (one of the most closely held secret military technologies in the world) along with Tomahawk cruise missile technology with Australia out of the goodness of their hearts. Call me cynical, but I don't think the US and the UK do 'favors' like this unless there is something substantial in it for them as well.

I suspect your post earlier is closer to the truth, Northern Australia provides multiple basing opportunities for both strategic aircraft and Naval vessels, that are only slightly further away from mainland China and the Taiwan Strait than Guam, are out of current PLA IRBM range, but aren't as distant as Diego Garcia in the middle of the Indian Ocean.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
jeffb said:

Which is my point really, the US and the UK didn't decide to share submarine nuclear propulsion technology (one of the most closely held secret military technologies in the world) along with Tomahawk cruise missile technology with Australia out of the goodness of their hearts. Call me cynical, but I don't think the US and the UK do 'favors' like this unless there is something substantial in it for them as well.
Click to expand...
Ofcourse. This isn't altruism. It can be a win-win for both sides though.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
jeffb said:
Which is my point really, the US and the UK didn't decide to share submarine nuclear propulsion technology (one of the most closely held secret military technologies in the world) along with Tomahawk cruise missile technology with Australia out of the goodness of their hearts. Call me cynical, but I don't think the US and the UK do 'favors' like this unless there is something substantial in it for them as well.

I suspect your post earlier is closer to the truth, Northern Australia provides multiple basing opportunities for both strategic aircraft and Naval vessels, that are only slightly further away from mainland China and the Taiwan Strait than Guam, are out of current PLA IRBM range, but aren't as distant as Diego Garcia in the middle of the Indian Ocean.
Click to expand...

Hopefully Australia allows the US to base more assets in country to help deter China. Forcing China to strike Australia to stifle any US support in the region opens up a big can of diplomatic worms for the Chinese.
 
Grey Havoc said:
www.telegraph.co.uk

Clumsy Biden desperate to woo back France – but will Macron pick up the phone?

More awkward diplomacy by the Biden administration has plunged relations with a key ally to a worrying low
www.telegraph.co.uk www.telegraph.co.uk

www.telegraph.co.uk

France warns submarine row puts Brexit talks at risk

France's outspoken Europe Minister Clément Beaune accuses the UK of breach of trust, as the EU backs up Paris in spat with US
www.telegraph.co.uk www.telegraph.co.uk
Click to expand...
The worst they can do on Brexit is no deal, which would be a marked improvement on the existing deal. It's been a bad year for Macron all round.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrRNudQjVxo
 
Not directly related to AUKUS but still a sign of the increasing US-Australian alignment/preparedness activities:

www.abc.net.au

US government awards tender for $270m defence fuel storage facility in Darwin

The biggest fuel storage facility in the Northern Territory will be built in Darwin in coming years in a $270 million US investment to support continued American defence operations in the Top End.
www.abc.net.au www.abc.net.au
 
Forest Green said:
Grey Havoc said:
www.telegraph.co.uk

Furious France calls off EU trade talks with Australia over bitter Aukus submarine row

'Keeping one’s word is the condition of trust between democracies and between allies,' said French Europe minister
www.telegraph.co.uk www.telegraph.co.uk
Click to expand...
Australia dodged a bullet there, the EU never makes trade deals that are actually good for the other party, and their negotiators will bore you to the point of wanting to kill yourself and others.
Click to expand...
LOL everyone does that it’s hardly unique to the EU.
 
In_A_Dream said:
Hopefully Australia allows the US to base more assets in country to help deter China. Forcing China to strike Australia to stifle any US support in the region opens up a big can of diplomatic worms for the Chinese.
Click to expand...

It occurred to me Tindal and Darwin would put the PRC coast from Taiwan to Hainan within the unrefueled combat radius of B-2s, while basically being out of range of just about anything that didn’t classify as an ICBM. Hopefully B-21s have a roughly equivalent range.
 
Josh_TN said:
In_A_Dream said:
Hopefully Australia allows the US to base more assets in country to help deter China. Forcing China to strike Australia to stifle any US support in the region opens up a big can of diplomatic worms for the Chinese.
Click to expand...

It occurred to me Tindal and Darwin would put the PRC coast from Taiwan to Hainan within the unrefueled combat radius of B-2s, while basically being out of range of just about anything that didn’t classify as an ICBM. Hopefully B-21s have a roughly equivalent range.
Click to expand...

Could have sworn this has already been pointed out.
 
Flyaway said:
Forest Green said:
Grey Havoc said:
www.telegraph.co.uk

Furious France calls off EU trade talks with Australia over bitter Aukus submarine row

'Keeping one’s word is the condition of trust between democracies and between allies,' said French Europe minister
www.telegraph.co.uk www.telegraph.co.uk
Click to expand...
Australia dodged a bullet there, the EU never makes trade deals that are actually good for the other party, and their negotiators will bore you to the point of wanting to kill yourself and others.
Click to expand...
LOL everyone does that it’s hardly unique to the EU.
Click to expand...

No they don't, and burning allies and trading partners the way Australia is at the moment tends to have unexpected and unpleasant consequences. An EU FTA *IS* a big deal for Australia, especially now that it's is cutting it's nose off to spite it's face re trade with its largest trade partner China (trade that has been picked up by the US -- go figure).

It's going to wind up costing Australia a lot (way beyond the cost of submarines). It's going to wind up costing the US and UK very little (and then propably not for about a decade). Australia's reputation as a bunch of gullible rubes will be quite safe.

Won't even mention COP21 and the likely diplomatic and trade fallout for Australia over that.
 
While everyone is talking about submarines, and a few about missiles and basing, AFAICS the most important thing for Australia is probably the political aspect. China's been getting (more) disturbingly bellicose in recent years, and its favourite diplomatic tactic seems to be an attempt to verbally and/or economically bully anyone who raises its ire. Which has been Australia as often as not. I don't think China likes having a nation in the Pacific that's potentially a symbol of resistance to Chinese diktats, and which has a tradition of being vocally blunt about what it thinks. It might encourage others to emulate it.
And while Australia's well beyond the 2nd Island Arc and any direct threat, that's still a lonely place to be when China is engaging in rants that would be embarrassingly immature in a bunch of 13yos, never mind in a nascent superpower.
Australian defence is already linked to the rest of the anglosphere, everyone knows that, but reminding China of that definitely won't hurt. And visibly reminding them of it by putting US boots on the ground at Tindall or elsewhere might even give them pause for thought. It definitely won't hurt the South East Asian powers to see the US committing itself to the region. The UK doesn't add much to that militarily, but our name's still worth a bit diplomatically, the Commonwealth links open doors in a lot of the smaller territories that might be vulnerable to Chinese pressure, and China's had a tendency to rant in our direction as well, so they've positively invited the response.
I would not be surprised to see this being extended with tacitly acknowledged links to India and Japan even if they fall below the level of AUKUS integration. Ideally I'd say South Korea too, but I'm not sure how willing they are to annoy China when China's a useful influence on North Korea for them. (Singapore getting on board probably goes without saying).
 
jeffb said:

No they don't, and burning allies and trading partners the way Australia is at the moment tends to have unexpected and unpleasant consequences. An EU FTA *IS* a big deal for Australia, especially now that it's is cutting it's nose off to spite it's face re trade with its largest trade partner China (trade that has been picked up by the US -- go figure).

It's going to wind up costing Australia a lot (way beyond the cost of submarines). It's going to wind up costing the US and UK very little (and then propably not for about a decade). Australia's reputation as a bunch of gullible rubes will be quite safe.

Won't even mention COP21 and the likely diplomatic and trade fallout for Australia over that.
Click to expand...
I thought the original point was about the EU not the Australians, now I am throughly confused.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Opportunistic Minnow said:
Wow, reading here and elsewhere, France are really doubling-down on burning bridges. What are they going to do next? Melt down all the Concordes and Jags? Rename the Charles de Gaulle the Bucentaure?

Yer pissed, message received and understood. Take a break?
Click to expand...

Add in a C in front of : AUKUS.
CAUKUS ?
For you english speaker it sounds like "caucus" - nothing much offending.
But for us it sounds like "cocus" - which is a rather appropriate word for the present feelings of the French, related to the Australians...
(go browsing the translation, and laugh).
 
I am still puzzled why France did not see this coming.
The UK Carrier Task Group going to the Far East for the first time in years with an Astute sub in its mix.
Biden's hard line on China in the first part of his Presidency.
The deep rift between Australia and China.
We have raised the possible need for Aussie SSNs in this thread over the years.
I suspect the real reason for French anger is that France knows its SSNs are not as good as their UK and US counterparts.
More widely France does not offer much heft in countering China. its focus is on Europe and Africa.
On a personal level Macron does not inspire the grudging respect given to Chirac, Mitterrand etc.
However, there are many other areas where France, the UK and US do need one another. The commercial blow back for Australia from the EU may be the worst part for Australian business.
 
Can we not have this thread closed because some want to drag it into political controversy?

Please focus on technical, military, and functional aspects.
 
It will be difficult to achieve that in this instance. Rather than blow over as some have suggested, it has all been artificially escalated and is already impacting joint projects elsewhere.

This treaty will have massive relevance to defence projects for decades to come. I hope it won't be locked. Perhaps some specific guidance on this thread only from the Mods?
 
British Prime Minister Boris Johnson told France on Wednesday to get a grip and give allies in the United States and Australia a break over a row about a trilateral nuclear submarine deal that tore up a separate French contract.
Click to expand...
www.reuters.com

Get a grip, British PM Johnson tells France after submarine row

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson told France on Wednesday to get a grip and give allies in the United States and Australia a break over a row about a trilateral nuclear submarine deal that tore up a separate French contract.
www.reuters.com www.reuters.com
 
Folks, I think the time for going over the French reactions to this are well past. We all recognise that this treaty and its immediate implications on the SSK/SSN front were a shock to many (both in Australia and France especially). What is done is done and there is no going back. Please keep this thread for any new developments on the AUKUS Treaty front - e.g. new announcements on programs under the aegis of AUKUS or operational basing etc.
 
DWG said:
www.foreignminister.gov.au

The Australia-U.S. Ministerial Consultations Joint Statement: An Unbreakable Alliance for Peace and Prosperity

Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin hosted Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Women Marise Payne and Minister
www.foreignminister.gov.au

TLDR:
"The Secretaries and Ministers endorsed the following areas of force posture cooperation
  • Enhanced air cooperation through the rotational deployment of U.S. aircraft of all types in Australia and appropriate aircraft training and exercises.
  • Enhanced maritime cooperation by increasing logistics and sustainment capabilities of U.S. surface and subsurface vessels in Australia.
  • Enhanced land cooperation by conducting more complex and more integrated exercises and greater combined engagement with Allies and Partners in the region.
  • Establish a combined logistics, sustainment, and maintenance enterprise to support high‑end warfighting and combined military operations in the region."


    There's a US quote I've seen reported on twitter but not tracked down to who said it that adds maintenance to 'logistics and sustainment' for US submarine and surface forces, which IMO takes it past just US vessels using Australian bases.

    https://twitter.com/x/status/1438643174029758464
    View: https://twitter.com/ashleytownshend/status/1438643174029758464
Click to expand...
 
I feel the only truly useful deployments would be very long ranged aircraft-strategic bombers, refuelers, recon, and MPA aircraft. The RAAF has an adequate inventory for any kind of local engagement, which would be limited to Y-8/H-6 types and carrier ac for the foreseeable future.
 
I did actually mean to post that US basing post Grey Havoc quoted in this thread, not the Collins replacement one, so thanks for copying it over!
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom