Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 4174
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: New defence pact AUUKUS

Thu Sep 16, 2021 7:22 pm

FlapOperator wrote:
What we are talking about is the willingness of the CCP to change the map of Asia by force,


Other than Taiwan, not sure if China will be willing to commit force to take other occupied land.

Bullying Vietnam and the Philipines is a different matter.

FlapOperator wrote:
Its far more about the Chinese being forced to invest to continue their combat power overmatch


The new Cold War.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Biden pulled the rug on NATO last month in Afghanistan,


It was Trump who negotiated the withdrawal. Biden just didn't put the rug back. The quick collapse of the Afgan government has shown that the withdraw was the right move. Not a Trump supporter but will give him credit for that.

bt
 
johns624
Posts: 4045
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

Re: New defence pact AUUKUS

Thu Sep 16, 2021 7:52 pm

FlapOperator wrote:
johns624 wrote:
Australia by itself doesn't need them


Oh, I'd like to see your work on this assertation.
That's the reason that they were getting new SSKs until this happened.
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 11476
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

Re: New defence pact AUUKUS

Thu Sep 16, 2021 9:03 pm

bikerthai wrote:
Bullying Vietnam and the Philipines is a different matter.

You left Australia (among a few others of course). China is definitely pushing its weight around.

Tugg
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 4174
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: New defence pact AUUKUS

Thu Sep 16, 2021 9:14 pm

Tugger wrote:
You left Australia (among a few others of course). China is definitely pushing its weight around.


I was only thinking about the Spratley and that outcrop that those Chinese fishing boats anchored at.

Not sure if there are Island dispute with other countries where Chineses vessels have claimed eminent domain.

Just to show that countries with robust naval assets will be less prone to such maneuvers.

bt
 
johns624
Posts: 4045
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

Re: New defence pact AUUKUS

Thu Sep 16, 2021 10:30 pm

johns624 wrote:
FlapOperator wrote:
johns624 wrote:
Australia by itself doesn't need them


Oh, I'd like to see your work on this assertation.
That's the reason that they were getting new SSKs until this happened.
It was too late to edit so I'll add this. Before this treaty, Australia was basically protecting themselves, so it was more defense oriented. Now, with the treaty with the Uk and US, it's a more proactive take-the-fight-to-them strategy.
PS--Yes, I know about the other treaties with NZ, Singapore, Malaysia, etc., but this is with the big boys and directed against China.
 
User avatar
SeamanBeaumont
Posts: 78
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2021 3:12 am

Re: New defence pact AUUKUS

Thu Sep 16, 2021 10:54 pm

johns624 wrote:
johns624 wrote:
FlapOperator wrote:

Oh, I'd like to see your work on this assertation.
That's the reason that they were getting new SSKs until this happened.
It was too late to edit so I'll add this. Before this treaty, Australia was basically protecting themselves, so it was more defense oriented. Now, with the treaty with the Uk and US, it's a more proactive take-the-fight-to-them strategy.
PS--Yes, I know about the other treaties with NZ, Singapore, Malaysia, etc., but this is with the big boys and directed against China.

ANZUS was signed in 1951. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ANZUS
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 11476
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

Re: New defence pact AUUKUS

Thu Sep 16, 2021 11:43 pm

I am curious to see how the France ruckus will pan out. I suspect there was more to it than just what is being presented. Ultimately of course this was Australia's choice and decision.

Tugg
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 4174
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: New defence pact AUUKUS

Thu Sep 16, 2021 11:56 pm

johns624 wrote:
Before this treaty, Australia was basically protecting themselves, so it was more defense oriented.


What? All this treaty does is bringing Australia to the level of chumminess that the US have had with the UK for the longest time. Australia have been a strong US ally for years and no doubt the US would gave come to the Austrailians aid even before this deal was struck.

I mean E-7, P-8A. The new treaty is just the US now taking advantage of the increase capability for the Austrailians to manufacture high end military hardware themselves (loyal wingman as an example).

Perhaps even pay back for two decades of support in the middle east

bt
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 14738
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: New defence pact AUUKUS

Fri Sep 17, 2021 12:28 am

Tugger wrote:
I am curious to see how the France ruckus will pan out. I suspect there was more to it than just what is being presented. Ultimately of course this was Australia's choice and decision.

Tugg


Another nail in NATO's coffin is my prediction.
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 14738
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: New defence pact AUUKUS

Fri Sep 17, 2021 1:00 am

FlapOperator wrote:
The French have no right to be. French support to previous Australian defense programs was abysmal; multiple Australian governments had publicly cajoled the French into action, but its taken decades and millions of dollars for mature helo programs like Tiger to get to FOC, and there were plenty of people within the RAAF for one that remembered the service after the safe of the F-111 or F-18 compared to the Mirage.


Ever heard of the concept of a contract ? The Australians have the right to cancel the deal, I'm sure it will not be cheap.

The Tiger isn't French but European, and has had trouble at home too (although now it seems to be doing fine in the Sahel region). Here we're talking about a submarine designed with plenty of Australian input, and that would be built in Australia. Any problem with it would be an Australian-French one not just a French one.
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Posts: 2003
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: New defence pact AUUKUS

Fri Sep 17, 2021 1:15 am

Lets talk about the deal they had with the french: "The total cost of the program, which includes the production of 12 submarines, has also risen from $40 billion to nearly $70 billion. At the same time, the French government has continued to insist that its own effort to acquire six nuclear-powered Barracudas will only cost just over $10 billion ..."

A British Astute is something over $US 2B, and a Virgina is about $US 2.7B each.
 
LTEN11
Posts: 247
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2020 10:09 am

Re: New defence pact AUUKUS

Fri Sep 17, 2021 2:02 am

bikerthai wrote:
johns624 wrote:
Before this treaty, Australia was basically protecting themselves, so it was more defense oriented.


What? All this treaty does is bringing Australia to the level of chumminess that the US have had with the UK for the longest time. Australia have been a strong US ally for years and no doubt the US would gave come to the Austrailians aid even before this deal was struck.

I mean E-7, P-8A. The new treaty is just the US now taking advantage of the increase capability for the Austrailians to manufacture high end military hardware themselves (loyal wingman as an example).

Perhaps even pay back for two decades of support in the middle east

bt


I think you're underestimating the level of "chumminess" between Australia and the U.S. Sure there aren't masses of troops or aircraft based here, but that's more because the main field of concern was the Soviets in Europe. There have long been joint bases at Pine Gap and Northwest Cape, but it is highly likely the presence of U.S troops (Marines currently) near Darwin will be greatly expanded and instead of rotating units, a permanent basing will occur. There is already construction happening to help facilitate that. It has also been suggested that surveillance and transport aircraft maybe based at certain RAAF bases and also the possibility of bombers. The shift to the Indo Pacific region will only continue and along with the bases in Japan, Korea and Guam, expect more and more equipment and troops to find their homes in Australia.
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 11476
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

Re: New defence pact AUUKUS

Fri Sep 17, 2021 4:20 am

Aesma wrote:
Tugger wrote:
I am curious to see how the France ruckus will pan out. I suspect there was more to it than just what is being presented. Ultimately of course this was Australia's choice and decision.

Tugg


Another nail in NATO's coffin is my prediction.

?? Seriously? No. No way. France has long had issues with NATO, they have many other reasons to break with NATO that don't involve this. They'd quit only for their own reasons. Not other's issues. They more take issue with the US tech usurping theirs in this deal. They are very earnest arms merchants. But there was no way they would share nuke tech with others. Honestly I would not be surprised if that was a background issue that was causing friction with Australia. Their wanting to "further" the tech relationship in the deal and France not budging. So they went elsewhere.

But this won't break NATO. (But France could leave cuz' they'll do what they want to do, but I still don't think they'll leave. At least not yet or over this.)

The above is just my opinion, not saying anyone needs to agree.

Tugg
 
889091
Posts: 366
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2019 7:56 pm

Re: New defence pact AUUKUS

Fri Sep 17, 2021 8:15 am

Tugger wrote:

But this won't break NATO. (But France could leave cuz' they'll do what they want to do, but I still don't think they'll leave. At least not yet or over this.)

Tugg


Wasn't/Isn't Macron pushing for an European Army sometime back (if memory serves me correctly)?
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 14738
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: New defence pact AUUKUS

Fri Sep 17, 2021 9:19 am

Yes that's my point. Not France leaving NATO, but pushing very hard for the EU to become less dependent on it, buying less US tech etc.

kitplane01 wrote:
Lets talk about the deal they had with the french: "The total cost of the program, which includes the production of 12 submarines, has also risen from $40 billion to nearly $70 billion. At the same time, the French government has continued to insist that its own effort to acquire six nuclear-powered Barracudas will only cost just over $10 billion ..."

A British Astute is something over $US 2B, and a Virgina is about $US 2.7B each.


I don't think all these numbers are comparable. The biggest one may include costs over the life of the boats or something. I'm not familiar with the latest AIP systems but they could well cost more than nuclear reactors. The 6 French Navy's Barracudas will cost much more than 10 billion dollars, no doubt.

I opened a thread in the non aviation forum to discuss the geopolitical aspects of this : viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1464897
 
bajs11
Posts: 42
Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2021 2:29 am

Re: New defence pact AUUKUS

Fri Sep 17, 2021 9:56 am

Yes, that's pretty much what the French want especially now that the UK has left the EU.
Get rid of NATO and US of A and become the new dominant power in Europe
https://www.politico.eu/article/brexit- ... tegration/
https://www.politico.eu/article/brexit- ... is-berlin/

While the reality is that not only do the rest of the EU/Nato countries need the US but so do every other liberal democracies unless they start spending a lot more on defense to be able to defend themselves against powerful authoritarian regimes.
 
bajs11
Posts: 42
Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2021 2:29 am

Re: New defence pact AUUKUS

Fri Sep 17, 2021 10:46 am

bikerthai wrote:
bajs11 wrote:
considering the USN may not even have enough ships to counter the PRC and its allies.


That is why the US is leaning in to its allies.

As for the Chinese, what allies?

Third point. Statistics may be used to inflate capacity. What is the nature of those Chinese ships and their capacity to operate in the Indian Ocean as opposed to the Taiwan Straight?

bt

It does seem that those two are closer than the US with some of its NATO "allies" like France
https://apnews.com/article/europe-relig ... ed1311aacb

as for how close the PRC is with the DPRK:
https://thediplomat.com/tag/china-north ... relations/

don't worry. they are getting there...
https://thediplomat.com/2020/01/with-it ... ater-navy/
Future Chinese carriers look certain to include CATOBAR, although they are intended still to be conventionally powered, potentially leaving power generation problems if EMAL is selected over steam as the launch system. The Type 003 is expected to launch in 2023 and is expected to weigh in at 85,000 tons. This carrier is likely to have learned the lessons of integrating carrier and air wing. and will be a step change in capability


https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-nav ... at-matter/
While a fleet-to-fleet comparison may not tell the whole story, the Congressional Research Service report notes that the PLAN poses “a major challenge to the U.S. Navy’s ability to achieve and maintain wartime control of blue-water ocean areas in the Western Pacific,” a challenge the United States hasn’t faced since the Cold War ended 30 years ago.
 
MohawkWeekend
Posts: 977
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:06 pm

Re: New defence pact AUUKUS

Fri Sep 17, 2021 11:04 am

Heck - I'd sell the Aussie's a couple of already built US attack subs. Maybe even the entire B-1 fleet (see F-111). Cheap. Just like we did with Lend Lease in WWII
If they are ever used in combat, they'd be fighting along side us. Just like WWII. Korea, S. Vietnam. Afghanistan and Iraq.

Would save the Aussie's and the US a lot of money and allow for investments in things like B-52 re-powering and new Virginia class subs for US.
 
mxaxai
Posts: 2759
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

Re: New defence pact AUUKUS

Fri Sep 17, 2021 11:38 am

MohawkWeekend wrote:
Cheap. Just like we did with Lend Lease in WWII

Lend Lease was anything but cheap. Even though Lend Lease itself did not expect repayment, it made the receiving nations highly dependent on US support even after the agreement ended. The UK was virtually bankrupt post-war - or rather during the war already, the whole point of the lend-lease agreement was to avoid and defer payments - and kept repaying loans to the US until 2006.

I doubt that either the US nor Australia would really want a comparable agreement. I'm also not sure if AU has an appetite for hand-me-down equipment. Maintenance and refurbishment of such old stuff can cost more than simply buying new.
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 14738
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: New defence pact AUUKUS

Fri Sep 17, 2021 11:53 am

Australia isn't exactly keen on a war with China, though. China is a mere 39% of Australia's exports, and it has a healthy trade surplus with it !
 
GDB
Posts: 14390
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

Re: New defence pact AUUKUS

Fri Sep 17, 2021 12:17 pm

Aesma wrote:
Tugger wrote:
I am curious to see how the France ruckus will pan out. I suspect there was more to it than just what is being presented. Ultimately of course this was Australia's choice and decision.

Tugg


Another nail in NATO's coffin is my prediction.


Well France would know a lot more about that, loved to have been a fly on the wall with the senior French military and intel people when de Gaulle did his 1966 hissy fit, access to the combined intelligence content from what were close allies already prepared to share? Gone. Influence in planning. Gone. Still, for all that, the US provided assistance with the French first generation SLBMs, in navigation systems, then the comms systems for them, UK PM Wilson, admittedly to steal a march on his Tory rival Ted Heath in getting the UK in the EEC in 1967, covertly aided France on their H Bomb program, which up to that point was taking over twice as long as China in going from A to H bomb. Even after that, we still got screwed by de Gaulle.

To think that he only ever retained his position as leader of the Free French in WW2, which set him up for his eventual ascendency to become President due to Churchill, despite all the insults, paranoia about ‘Anglo plots’, general bad behavior, which so exasperated the Americans they pushed hard to replace with some Admiral. Despite getting by far the worst of de Gaulle the British PM insisted he stay in place, as unlike other candidates, he did not have a collaborationist bone in his body.
The US even bankrolled France’s hopeless attempts to hang on to their Indo-China colonies.

Unsurprisingly as soon as de Gaulle was out of power then in the ground, a slow reversal of his policies in this area over decades began.
(There was also the attempt, on a state visit to Canada in 1966, when he tried to ferment a separatist movement in Canada, ‘Quebec Libre!’ he the guest proclaimed, the Canadian PM retorted that Quebec IS free, as is Canada, as is France, due in part to the thousands of French and Anglo Canadians who died fighting there.)
He was basically, a piece of work.

To say as some leading French politicians have in the wake of this deal, that Biden is acting like Trump is absurd, for a start neither the US or UK went touting to ‘do a deal’ like that clown pretended to to on ‘reality tv’ and then the White House, the Australians went to the US and UK to extricate themselves from this deal with France which raised concerns from its being signed several years ago. And was looking less attractive. Plus why the French not offer a nuclear boat, which this design is based on after all?
As stated, this came as a surprise, the most experienced and well connected reporters and maritime and naval specialists did not see this coming.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10963
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: New defence pact AUUKUS

Fri Sep 17, 2021 12:19 pm

A couple of points, France left NATO years ago, they returned with a lot of carve-outs, so I would say they are not a full member, so this is more about France losing a sale versus a hit in the NATO alliance, besides when the USA under the past couple POTUS did their pivot to Asia, NATO did not feel threatened.

As for the deal itself, two points, one it will be decades before Australia deploys any nuclear subs, secondly, when China flexes its economic power and Aussies see store shelves empty and prices going through the roof, the odds are very good that a new government will substantially scale back or even cancel this deal. Nuclear subs are not defensive, so if they are replaced, we know the USA will get basing but someone else will have to build the diesel subs, put France back in the running.

Who knows, if I put on my tin foil hat, this may the ultimate goal, the USA wants additional bases for its subs in the Pacific and Australia is an option, how do you convince the Aussie public to allow bases for nuclear subs.........
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10963
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: New defence pact AUUKUS

Fri Sep 17, 2021 12:19 pm

 
User avatar
Kiwirob
Posts: 13630
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

Re: New defence pact AUUKUS

Fri Sep 17, 2021 12:25 pm

Zkpilot wrote:
SeamanBeaumont wrote:
cpd wrote:

Will such a submarine be ready to take to the water within 40-50 years?

It's a huge announcement, but all it will take is a return to Trump in the USA and the whole thing is finished.

It won't be a new boat, just a mod of an Astute or Virginia and likely the Virginia Blk V or VI. Won't be SSN(X) as that isn't due for 25 years and it won't be a SSBN-X derivative. Sure as hell less risky than modifying a French boat to conventional and more useful buying nuc to transit fast from Skippyland to the South China Sea.

Not sure what Trump has to do with this, the land of skippy buying Nuc boats is good for US business and even better for US interests. US Naval Industry already has an issue building enough SSN boats to timeline, an additional production line in Oz might actually help future production. Could even see the US operating Oz built boats should production need to increase to deter China.

My money is on a Virginia derivative, but it could be Astute to give the Brits a part to play.


I would put money on it being an Astute, there a couple of reasons for this.

Astute is roughly the same size as the now cancelled Attack class, it will fit without modification the existing production facilities in South Australia, 97m v 115m or 140m
Astute requires far less crew than a Virginia, 90 v 135
Astute is cheaper

So IMO it will be an Astute with the reactor compartment built in the UK with the Lockheed combat system from the Collins and chosen for the Attacks, if it wasn't going to be an Astute I don'æt see any reason for the UK being part of this alliance.
 
User avatar
Kiwirob
Posts: 13630
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

Re: New defence pact AUUKUS

Fri Sep 17, 2021 12:34 pm

cpd wrote:
GDB wrote:

To the question of why the RAN needs SSN’s, look at how vast the Pacific is, look at China’s accelerating build up.


The reaction from China suggests this already has the desired effect and it is the right decision. Of course if we get some small number of nuclear subs it is destabilising security, but never if China does a big build up. Yeah right!

Arm these things with some nice long range hypersonic weapons as well for even better effect.


It's probably going to take 10-15 years before the first sub is delivered, Collins will be held together by duck tap and twin by then and a lot can change politically. Also the rate the China can put new hulls into the is something else, the are outbuilding the USN and RAN put together.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2435
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: New defence pact AUUKUS

Fri Sep 17, 2021 12:35 pm

Australia should not build the subs in Australia. To build a Virginia or Astute class sub in Australia the price would be instantly doubled. Australia does not have the facilities, the experience or industry to make high end submarines. The workers on the Collins class are retired.

Australia should instead buy submarines off the UK or US assembly lines. The purchase can be offset by the US and UK purchasing Australian made equipment of equal value. My suggesting would be to propose that Australia builds a Frigate and Offshore patrol vessel that are adopted by the US Navy and/or the Royal Navy. This would keep ship building alive in Australia and give excellent economy of scale.

I also think the Tempest project should be cancelled and that all three AUUKUS members purchase the US built 6th gen fighter that has already flown.
 
User avatar
Kiwirob
Posts: 13630
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

Re: New defence pact AUUKUS

Fri Sep 17, 2021 12:54 pm

Tugger wrote:
bikerthai wrote:
Bullying Vietnam and the Philipines is a different matter.

You left Australia (among a few others of course). China is definitely pushing its weight around.

Tugg


What's the difference between China pushing its weight around and the US pushing its weight around, both do it, what makes the US right and the Chinese wrong? When was the last time China started a war which lead to millions of deaths and the destabilisation of the middle east for 20 years and counting?

It's like the US sanctioning any Germany company involved in Nord Stream, what business is Nord Stream to the US, it's a deal between Russia and Germany, the only reason the US is using sanctions as a weapon is they want the Germany to buy far more expensive shale gas.
 
User avatar
Kiwirob
Posts: 13630
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

Re: New defence pact AUUKUS

Fri Sep 17, 2021 12:57 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
Australia should not build the subs in Australia. To build a Virginia or Astute class sub in Australia the price would be instantly doubled. Australia does not have the facilities, the experience or industry to make high end submarines. The workers on the Collins class are retired.

Australia should instead buy submarines off the UK or US assembly lines. The purchase can be offset by the US and UK purchasing Australian made equipment of equal value. My suggesting would be to propose that Australia builds a Frigate and Offshore patrol vessel that are adopted by the US Navy and/or the Royal Navy. This would keep ship building alive in Australia and give excellent economy of scale.

I also think the Tempest project should be cancelled and that all three AUUKUS members purchase the US built 6th gen fighter that has already flown.


The US and UK don't have any capacity to build subs for anyone other than themselves. Tempest won't be shelved, doing that would make the UK far too sub servant to US political whims.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 4174
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: New defence pact AUUKUS

Fri Sep 17, 2021 12:58 pm

bajs11 wrote:
It does seem that those two are closer than the US with some of its NATO "allies" like France


China and N Korea. What a pair.

US, S Korea, Japan, Austrailia, maybe India, Indonesia, NZ.

Again relying on published article can be misleading. We all know now that even the most trusted publication will have their agenda.

You need to look at the operation tempo and try to glean into the future. Yes be cautious but also remember the history. . . USSR.

As for the sub, perhaps they can do what they did with the E-7. For the first hull, send a whole bunch of people to the existing production line to learn and help build while you set up the facility at home. Then they can take all that knowledge back for the follow on.

bt
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10963
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: New defence pact AUUKUS

Fri Sep 17, 2021 1:11 pm

Kiwirob wrote:
What's the difference between China pushing its weight around and the US pushing its weight around, both do it, what makes the US right and the Chinese wrong? When was the last time China started a war which lead to millions of deaths and the destabilisation of the middle east for 20 years and counting?

When was the last time you saw someone complain about the USA in public, when was the last time you saw mass demonstrations in the world against the USA, when was the last time you saw complaints about the USA president, when was the last time the USA tolerated public dissent on its policies?
The world saw the Kurds suffering from mustard gas in Iraq, unfortunately, no one saw the nuclear weapons program which overtook everything, imagine if that were not the case perhaps the gas would not have been used in Syria civil war.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10963
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: New defence pact AUUKUS

Fri Sep 17, 2021 1:15 pm

bikerthai wrote:
bajs11 wrote:
It does seem that those two are closer than the US with some of its NATO "allies" like France


China and N Korea. What a pair.

US, S Korea, Japan, Austrailia, maybe India, Indonesia, NZ.

Again relying on published article can be misleading. We all know now that even the most trusted publication will have their agenda.

You need to look at the operation tempo and try to glean into the future. Yes be cautious but also remember the history. . . USSR.

As for the sub, perhaps they can do what they did with the E-7. For the first hull, send a whole bunch of people to the existing production line to learn and help build while you set up the facility at home. Then they can take all that knowledge back for the follow on.

bt

Nuclear subs are very complicated weapons programs, the actual sub is just the tip of the spear, the programs behind it, training, procedures are extensive, one fatal accident and the program could go tits up, it would be decades before local production and training facilities would be up to scratch. However, my question would be when are Australian sailors going to start getting hands on experience by going on deployments in US and UK subs.
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboo ... avy-182904
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 4174
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: New defence pact AUUKUS

Fri Sep 17, 2021 1:23 pm

par13del wrote:
Nuclear subs are very complicated weapons programs, the actual sub is just the tip of the spear, the programs behind it, training, procedures are extensive,


The E-7 program was the same except for the nuclear part. I admit that it is a big exception.

As for training, they have the blue print already - see RAAF and RAF P-8A initial training plan.

bt
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 11476
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

Re: New defence pact AUUKUS

Fri Sep 17, 2021 1:52 pm

Kiwirob wrote:
Tugger wrote:
bikerthai wrote:
Bullying Vietnam and the Philipines is a different matter.

You left Australia (among a few others of course). China is definitely pushing its weight around.

Tugg


What's the difference between China pushing its weight around and the US pushing its weight around, both do it, what makes the US right and the Chinese wrong? When was the last time China started a war which lead to millions of deaths and the destabilisation of the middle east for 20 years and counting?

It's like the US sanctioning any Germany company involved in Nord Stream, what business is Nord Stream to the US, it's a deal between Russia and Germany, the only reason the US is using sanctions as a weapon is they want the Germany to buy far more expensive shale gas.

Well for one, China has been very overt in its threats and actions economically against Australia anytime they have been displeased with Australia taking a stance they don't like. They are perfectly happy to wield their economic clout as well as their military clout. Cutting off things like wine, seafood and coal, as well as tourism and students being able to attend university.

So far as I know, no in the USA has described Australia like China has, as "“Chewing gum stuck on the sole of China’s shoes.”.

Tugg
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 11476
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

Re: New defence pact AUUKUS

Fri Sep 17, 2021 1:56 pm

889091 wrote:
Tugger wrote:

But this won't break NATO. (But France could leave cuz' they'll do what they want to do, but I still don't think they'll leave. At least not yet or over this.)

Tugg


Wasn't/Isn't Macron pushing for an European Army sometime back (if memory serves me correctly)?


Aesma wrote:
Yes that's my point. Not France leaving NATO, but pushing very hard for the EU to become less dependent on it, buying less US tech etc.

Which I would be fine with. It is good if such partners develop their own independent tech and capabilities. And I say partners as we really are and seek to be and allow our nations to participates and visits and be together with common goals and values. Even though there are very clearly strong differences as well.

Tugg
 
MohawkWeekend
Posts: 977
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:06 pm

Re: New defence pact AUUKUS

Fri Sep 17, 2021 2:00 pm

Some folks posting here haven't been following China's reaction to being "insulted" that the Australians had the audacity to question if COVID came from a lab in Wuhan.

There is nothing old and decrepit about a USN attack submarine. It is probably the weapon system any naval adversary would fear the most.
 
FlapOperator
Posts: 283
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2021 4:07 pm

Re: New defence pact AUUKUS

Fri Sep 17, 2021 2:57 pm

Kiwirob wrote:

What's the difference between China pushing its weight around and the US pushing its weight around, both do it, what makes the US right and the Chinese wrong? When was the last time China started a war which lead to millions of deaths and the destabilisation of the middle east for 20 years and counting?


You're right Rob. When the Chinese Communist Party kills people, its usually in the multi-millions and its usually their own people.

It's like the US sanctioning any Germany company involved in Nord Stream, what business is Nord Stream to the US, it's a deal between Russia and Germany, the only reason the US is using sanctions as a weapon is they want the Germany to buy far more expensive shale gas.


That's wrong, because likely it would African or even ME/Med sourced gas that would be cheaper than anything from US.

The problem is that we shouldn't be marrying the strategic stability of places like Europe to places like Russia. In the oil/gas game...oil relationships are like dating, gas relationships are like marriage. And, we really shouldn't be doing such marriages just to make a few Euro politicians and Russian oligarchs wealthy, for starters for the populations of both Europe and Russia.
 
FlapOperator
Posts: 283
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2021 4:07 pm

Re: New defence pact AUUKUS

Fri Sep 17, 2021 2:58 pm

Tugger wrote:
Which I would be fine with. It is good if such partners develop their own independent tech and capabilities. And I say partners as we really are and seek to be and allow our nations to participates and visits and be together with common goals and values. Even though there are very clearly strong differences as well.

Tugg


Indeed, especially if there are clearly strong differences. Any open society should never fear honest and open debate.
 
GDB
Posts: 14390
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

Re: New defence pact AUUKUS

Fri Sep 17, 2021 3:06 pm

Another thing to consider, Astute production is running down, (I think the RN need 8 or 9 not 7 but hey), thanks to the massively botched 2010 defence review, the replacement for the Trident boats being effectively frozen for 5 years, the program having begun in 2006, when the 'coalition' took office in 2010, the excuse given was 'the Lib Dems are against renewing Trident, we cannot break our coalition promises to them'. Really? They broke all the other ones and the dopey Lib Dems didn't pull out of it.

This means that there is a big gap between the last Astute and first Dreadnought Class SSBN, the last time this happened was between the last Trident boat and first Astute, creating all sorts of problems, delays, cost overruns and skills lost. And the costly challenge in running the Trident boats on longer than planned.

So maybe the UK part is to make the hull of the first of these RAN SSN's, it goes to Australia, perhaps via the US, for installation of combat systems and weapons of their choice, the US providing these systems as well as the other material and technical support, with subsequent hulls built in Australia with increasing local content.
Despite the RR PWR reactors being of wholly UK design since HMS Valiant, the US reactor being fitted to the previous HMS Dreadnought, which was essentially a prototype SSN, the 1958 US-UK nuclear agreement will have clauses about the UK selling sub reactors, regardless of them being RR ones.

In the late 80's the Canadian government toyed, for a time, with getting SSN's, either a French design or adapted Trafalgar Class, the idea did not last long but had the French design been chosen there might have been an issue with reactor fuel and technology from what was not a full NATO member.

Some more recent and above surface precedent here? The RAN Type 26 Frigates have different weapons and some systems to the RN ones.
 
giblets
Posts: 177
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2013 8:34 am

Re: New defence pact AUUKUS

Fri Sep 17, 2021 3:50 pm

A lot of talk about the ‘stab in the back’, but this project has been on a downward spiral for some time. And that’s not even including issues over the French insistence on taking their full 1hr lunch break.

The price has rocketed from $40b to $50b, then $90b and is expected to be more. The entry date was due to be in the 2020s, then 2030s, now set for the 2040s.
Meanwhile Australian work share, original set to be 90%, is down to 60% and Naval is insisting it should be lower.

Meanwhile Australia has been pushing back, with big talks back in February and Morrison telling Macron in June that they needed to deliver detailed plans but September or the contract would be ended...

https://www.fr24news.com/a/2021/06/scot ... -deal.html

It all sounds very similar to the Rafale deal with India!


A good summary to date:
https://independentaustralia.net/politi ... face,14846


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 4174
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: New defence pact AUUKUS

Fri Sep 17, 2021 4:22 pm

GDB wrote:
So maybe the UK part is to make the hull of the first of these RAN SSN's, it goes to Australia, perhaps via the US, for installation of combat systems and weapons of their choice, the US providing these systems as well as the other material and technical support, with subsequent hulls built in Australia with increasing local content.


Sounds like you need to have a seat with the working group. :highfive:

bt
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 14738
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: New defence pact AUUKUS

Fri Sep 17, 2021 4:35 pm

giblets wrote:
A lot of talk about the ‘stab in the back’, but this project has been on a downward spiral for some time. And that’s not even including issues over the French insistence on taking their full 1hr lunch break.

The price has rocketed from $40b to $50b, then $90b and is expected to be more. The entry date was due to be in the 2020s, then 2030s, now set for the 2040s.
Meanwhile Australian work share, original set to be 90%, is down to 60% and Naval is insisting it should be lower.

Meanwhile Australia has been pushing back, with big talks back in February and Morrison telling Macron in June that they needed to deliver detailed plans but September or the contract would be ended...

https://www.fr24news.com/a/2021/06/scot ... -deal.html

It all sounds very similar to the Rafale deal with India!


If by similar you mean that Australia doesn't have the capability to build it despite insisting on it, then yes it seems that way. I'm sure the price and delays could have come down if the plan was changed to production in France instead. Is that a reason to go instead for UK made or US made ?

As for the nuke or not nuke part, from what I could find in 2016 it wasn't conceivable for Australia to order a nuclear boat, with Fukushima still fresh in memories. The idea with the Barracuda order was that during the project, propulsion could be switched from conventional to nuclear, since that design would already exist.

I'm sure that didn't help keep the costs down. It also proves France was willing to provide nuclear boats.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 4174
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: New defence pact AUUKUS

Fri Sep 17, 2021 4:41 pm

Aesma wrote:
Is that a reason to go instead for UK made or US made ?


Isn't there some cost benfit with respect to licenses and intellectual properties being part of the commonwealth?

Didn't the UK benefit somewhat when they bought the E-7 considering some of the intellectual properties from the Wedgetail development belonged to the AUS?

bt
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 11476
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

Re: New defence pact AUUKUS

Fri Sep 17, 2021 5:12 pm

giblets wrote:
A lot of talk about the ‘stab in the back’, but this project has been on a downward spiral for some time. And that’s not even including issues over the French insistence on taking their full 1hr lunch break.

The price has rocketed from $40b to $50b, then $90b and is expected to be more. The entry date was due to be in the 2020s, then 2030s, now set for the 2040s.
Meanwhile Australian work share, original set to be 90%, is down to 60% and Naval is insisting it should be lower.

Meanwhile Australia has been pushing back, with big talks back in February and Morrison telling Macron in June that they needed to deliver detailed plans but September or the contract would be ended...

https://www.fr24news.com/a/2021/06/scot ... -deal.html

It all sounds very similar to the Rafale deal with India!


A good summary to date:
https://independentaustralia.net/politi ... face,14846

And so we now see the other shoe drop...

Thanks for the info.

Tugg
 
giblets
Posts: 177
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2013 8:34 am

Re: New defence pact AUUKUS

Fri Sep 17, 2021 5:15 pm

Aesma wrote:
If by similar you mean that Australia doesn't have the capability to build it despite insisting on it, then yes it seems that way. I'm sure the price and delays could have come down if the plan was changed to production in France instead. Is that a reason to go instead for UK made or US made ?

As for the nuke or not nuke part, from what I could find in 2016 it wasn't conceivable for Australia to order a nuclear boat, with Fukushima still fresh in memories. The idea with the Barracuda order was that during the project, propulsion could be switched from conventional to nuclear, since that design would already exist.

I'm sure that didn't help keep the costs down. It also proves France was willing to provide nuclear boats.


I think the requirements were clear at the beginning. I understand the Japanese pretty much refused to build the boat in Australia, the French knew better (and throw into the mix converting a nuclear to conventional boat into the bargain).
As with India, it seems that France seems to think the negotiating begins after you sign the contract!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
johns624
Posts: 4045
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

Re: New defence pact AUUKUS

Fri Sep 17, 2021 5:15 pm

bikerthai wrote:
GDB wrote:
So maybe the UK part is to make the hull of the first of these RAN SSN's, it goes to Australia, perhaps via the US, for installation of combat systems and weapons of their choice, the US providing these systems as well as the other material and technical support, with subsequent hulls built in Australia with increasing local content.


Sounds like you need to have a seat with the working group. :highfive:

bt
Speaking of which...where's Astuteman when you need him?
 
johns624
Posts: 4045
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

Re: New defence pact AUUKUS

Fri Sep 17, 2021 5:16 pm

Aesma wrote:
Australia isn't exactly keen on a war with China, though. China is a mere 39% of Australia's exports, and it has a healthy trade surplus with it !
Not everything is about trade. Power and prestige are sometimes more important. In fact, I'd say they are more important most of the time.
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 11476
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

Re: New defence pact AUUKUS

Fri Sep 17, 2021 5:23 pm

johns624 wrote:
Aesma wrote:
Australia isn't exactly keen on a war with China, though. China is a mere 39% of Australia's exports, and it has a healthy trade surplus with it !
Not everything is about trade. Power and prestige are sometimes more important. In fact, I'd say they are more important most of the time.

And to that point, these are a couple interesting reads on that
https://www.theatlantic.com/internation ... ca/619544/
https://www.reuters.com/world/china-sus ... 021-05-06/

Also the actions that China is taking against Australia are not the be all and end all for Australia's economy.
many of the firms and industries targeted by China’s trade restrictions have been successful in redirecting goods to other export destinations.

“Of those goods targeted by trade actions, our total exports to China are estimated to have fallen by around $5.4bn over the year to the June quarter,” he will tell the Australian National University’s Crawford Leadership Forum.

“But over the same period, exports of those goods to the rest of the world have increased by $4.4bn.”

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... nberg-says

Tugg
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 11476
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

Re: New defence pact AUUKUS

Fri Sep 17, 2021 5:27 pm

giblets wrote:
Aesma wrote:
If by similar you mean that Australia doesn't have the capability to build it despite insisting on it, then yes it seems that way. I'm sure the price and delays could have come down if the plan was changed to production in France instead. Is that a reason to go instead for UK made or US made ?

As for the nuke or not nuke part, from what I could find in 2016 it wasn't conceivable for Australia to order a nuclear boat, with Fukushima still fresh in memories. The idea with the Barracuda order was that during the project, propulsion could be switched from conventional to nuclear, since that design would already exist.

I'm sure that didn't help keep the costs down. It also proves France was willing to provide nuclear boats.


I think the requirements were clear at the beginning. I understand the Japanese pretty much refused to build the boat in Australia, the French knew better (and throw into the mix converting a nuclear to conventional boat into the bargain).
As with India, it seems that France seems to think the negotiating begins after you sign the contract!

OK, I am confused with the mention of Japan in this...

Can either of you, in simple layman's terms, outline what the agreement between France and Australia covered? Submarines, buying, building, support, and Japan?

Tugg
 
giblets
Posts: 177
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2013 8:34 am

Re: New defence pact AUUKUS

Fri Sep 17, 2021 5:52 pm

Sorry for any confusion, in the original competition, Japan offered the Soryu submarine. Unlike many of the competitors they were only offering assemble and fit out of the submarines, less than offered by competitors, think they moved a little to offer some build too

https://www.afr.com/policy/foreign-affa ... 106-12iu26


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10963
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: New defence pact AUUKUS

Fri Sep 17, 2021 8:07 pm

Aesma wrote:
If by similar you mean that Australia doesn't have the capability to build it despite insisting on it, then yes it seems that way. I'm sure the price and delays could have come down if the plan was changed to production in France instead. Is that a reason to go instead for UK made or US made ?

If they are promising more local production, yes, most nations today want to create their own industries as agreements today are written in political paper, subject to change with the wind.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Naincompetent and 13 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos