GDB wrote:

It’s an illusion too many British politicians have of a ‘Special Relationship’ with the US which understandably can annoy some in Europe and fuel those tired old Gaullist fantasies but there IS a unique one, centered around nuclear and intelligence cooperation, while there are US manned intelligence facilities in the UK and elsewhere in NATO, there is also a substantial GCHQ presence within their US counterparts, the NSA, or as one source put it, they occupy a whole floor of the NSA HQ.
The former, via the 1958 agreement has made this submarine saga a tri national thing.

Still, like our brexiteer’s fantasies, which events right now connected to them are finally being exposed to a lot of people, the old ‘Yanks are out to do the Francophonie down’ are very similar.
So more from Jonathan Meades, on the whole idea, where it comes from, it’s effects, done again in his own witty, sometimes caustic style;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3rc_vHYk7jY

(You just wait until the end and the grand old man of France, threatened by a pop song)!

First, thank you for introducing me to Jonathan Meades. I can't believe I've missed him to date.

Second, I think just like the French are never really done fighting the French Revolution (which effects everything the French do) British foreign policy will be forever torn between its Continental and Atlanticists poles. Oddly enough, throughout most of British history, the British right were the Continentals. This has obviously changed. Honestly, I think there is a very good argument that the Atlanticist/global pole has stronger economic future, versus that of the EU.

Third, it is at once hard to distinguish the exact nature of the Special Relationship. I do believe it exists, in a multitude of ways, and will likely persist for a long time. Much of it is, like the British Constitution, not nailed down in treaty and agreement, but by a complex and deep collection of relationships that with the possible growing exception of the Australians and to a very limited degree, the Canadians, is not replicated.

Honestly, I am not bullish strategically on the EU for a host of reasons (despite the fact I think it has great utility in certain matters.) One reason I constantly bring up is that Europe at its most effective is a collection of complementary states, rather than a political monocultural that isn't terribly representative.

The UK would always be a junior partner in a Franco-German dominated EU; at best it would be the counterweight that the small nation/eastern European/Nordic majority of the EU could flee for a fair hearing and advocate. I've heard plenty of Nordic/Eastern Euros decry Brexit because they prime advocacy against Brussels is gone.

Damn, I can barely follow what you two are talking about. But your pros are refreshing!

Keep it up.

bt

Great exchanges. To me, in layman's terms, a lot of the "Western Alliance" countries are like friendly neighbors on the block. You have your tiffs but you look out for each other. When an outside gang threatens the street certain neighbors are great to have on your side. But you always have neighbor you call when the crap hits the fan. You have copies of the house keys, the kids wander freely in and out across the backyard fence and you know where to turn in times of sickness or financial problems. That's the 'Special Relationship" to me. It's says a lot that France is always wanted and welcome in the first scenario. It also says a lot that it doesn't have its own special relationship.

FlapOperator wrote:

GDB wrote:

It’s an illusion too many British politicians have of a ‘Special Relationship’ with the US which understandably can annoy some in Europe and fuel those tired old Gaullist fantasies but there IS a unique one, centered around nuclear and intelligence cooperation, while there are US manned intelligence facilities in the UK and elsewhere in NATO, there is also a substantial GCHQ presence within their US counterparts, the NSA, or as one source put it, they occupy a whole floor of the NSA HQ.
The former, via the 1958 agreement has made this submarine saga a tri national thing.

Still, like our brexiteer’s fantasies, which events right now connected to them are finally being exposed to a lot of people, the old ‘Yanks are out to do the Francophonie down’ are very similar.
So more from Jonathan Meades, on the whole idea, where it comes from, it’s effects, done again in his own witty, sometimes caustic style;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3rc_vHYk7jY

(You just wait until the end and the grand old man of France, threatened by a pop song)!

First, thank you for introducing me to Jonathan Meades. I can't believe I've missed him to date.

Second, I think just like the French are never really done fighting the French Revolution (which effects everything the French do) British foreign policy will be forever torn between its Continental and Atlanticists poles. Oddly enough, throughout most of British history, the British right were the Continentals. This has obviously changed. Honestly, I think there is a very good argument that the Atlanticist/global pole has stronger economic future, versus that of the EU.

Third, it is at once hard to distinguish the exact nature of the Special Relationship. I do believe it exists, in a multitude of ways, and will likely persist for a long time. Much of it is, like the British Constitution, not nailed down in treaty and agreement, but by a complex and deep collection of relationships that with the possible growing exception of the Australians and to a very limited degree, the Canadians, is not replicated.

Honestly, I am not bullish strategically on the EU for a host of reasons (despite the fact I think it has great utility in certain matters.) One reason I constantly bring up is that Europe at its most effective is a collection of complementary states, rather than a political monocultural that isn't terribly representative.

The UK would always be a junior partner in a Franco-German dominated EU; at best it would be the counterweight that the small nation/eastern European/Nordic majority of the EU could flee for a fair hearing and advocate. I've heard plenty of Nordic/Eastern Euros decry Brexit because they prime advocacy against Brussels is gone.

Very well written.

I agree that there is a "special" relationship between the US & UK. This new pact continues to cement that mutual trust with the addition of the Australians. I can say that in the ME fight, the Australians are second to none in bringing the fight, offering assistance and being fantastic partners. I truly hope the Afghanistan withdrawal does not damage that spirit and Warrior mentality.

I would like to see the US base 2 F-35 squadrons in Australia within the framework of this pact. I believe that would strengthen the military ties and also create great training opportunities for the US and AU without anyone having to "travel". It would also mirror the US's commitment of 2 F-35 squadrons in the UK.

CX747 wrote:

Very well written.

I agree that there is a "special" relationship between the US & UK. This new pact continues to cement that mutual trust with the addition of the Australians. I can say that in the ME fight, the Australians are second to none in bringing the fight, offering assistance and being fantastic partners. I truly hope the Afghanistan withdrawal does not damage that spirit and Warrior mentality.

I would like to see the US base 2 F-35 squadrons in Australia within the framework of this pact. I believe that would strengthen the military ties and also create great training opportunities for the US and AU without anyone having to "travel". It would also mirror the US's commitment of 2 F-35 squadrons in the UK.

For us in ASEAN, the Australians are the drunk tourist you like to get rid of. A big mouth but no substance. (most of the Australians in my organisation agree with this).

But on a serious note: how is this ever going to work? The British think they sold British submarines, the Americans think they sold Virginia Class submarines and the Australians think they will keep local employment in tact. For the record, a friend of mine has been working on the Collins class submarine in Adelaide for the last 20 years and was counting on the French submarine to make it till retirement which for him is less than 10 years away. Australian submarines always have been a tool to win or lose local elections. And if the government is changed from liberals to labour, everything is going to be renegotiated from scratch.

I just can not see AUKUS work. And a number of countries in SE-ASIA have come to the same conclusion and just offer vague media statement as in reality the hope that this just goes away.

AngMoh wrote:

For us in ASEAN, the Australians are the drunk tourist you like to get rid of. A big mouth but no substance. (most of the Australians in my organisation agree with this).

From the analyses I read many in ASEAN view the Chinese like tourists that might turn into permanent residents. A big mouth (1.4B of them), a big army and zero restraint when the time comes. One of the key points of AUUKUS is to help ensure ASEAN countries never have to make the hard choice, or worse, have it made for them. Territorial fishing rights gone today, what's gone tomorrow? I'd take a drunk Aussie any day of the week over someone taking my food and livelihood. Granted, some people prefer to live under the boot than take a stand.

AngMoh wrote:

But on a serious note: how is this ever going to work? The British think they sold British submarines, the Americans think they sold Virginia Class submarines and the Australians think they will keep local employment in tact.

I keep tending to think it will be the Astute class that is chosen. For several reasons but in particular the availability of workforce to train local Australians on the construction techniques. I don't see the US shipyards having the ability to let workers and staff go when they are constrained already. The British workforce should be more available based on the timing of their programs. The US still has the nuclear and tech systems elements which is an equally huge chunk of the contract.

I also tend to think the Astute is better sized for Australia at this time.

Tugg

wingman wrote:

Chinese [...] tourists

Don't Chinese tourist actually now have a worse reputation than Americans?

Tugg

AngMoh wrote:

The British think they sold British submarines, the Americans think they sold Virginia Class submarines and the Australians think they will keep local employment in tact.

They have a year to figure it out.

But seems to me that this agreement will go beyond subs.

We hear that the US Air Force has interests in the E-7. The RAAF helped developed the plane and hold rights to the design. This agreement will be able to smooth out any US purchase.

And there is that Loyal Wingman factory opening up. I see lots of work for Austrailia to supply these drones to the UK if not the US.

Heck by the way things are set up, I would not be surprised if the RAAF decide to buy the MQ-25 tanker and have the FA there as well.

bt

GDB wrote:

hence the dismay at how a bunch of charlatans forced a skittish and shallow UK PM via his party members, into that damned referendum, easily the most dishonest campaign I have ever seen.

If that's the delusion that you want to believe then fine. I'm just surprised remainers haven't found a way to blame Covid on Brexit but I'm sure it's only a matter of time.

bikerthai wrote:

AngMoh wrote:

The British think they sold British submarines, the Americans think they sold Virginia Class submarines and the Australians think they will keep local employment in tact.

They have a year to figure it out.

But seems to me that this agreement will go beyond subs.

We hear that the US Air Force has interests in the E-7. The RAAF helped developed the plane and hold rights to the design. This agreement will be able to smooth out any US purchase.

And there is that Loyal Wingman factory opening up. I see lots of work for Austrailia to supply these drones to the UK if not the US.

Heck by the way things are set up, I would not be surprised if the RAAF decide to buy the MQ-25 tanker and have the FA there as well.

bt

A year to figure it out?

There is to be a 18mth study on the options for Australia and that will be presented at the end of that time to government then they have to go over the recommendations then they have to get the UK/US on board, so I imagine that it will be 3 years before announcement. the interesting thing is going to be the federal election which has to happen next year, what happens to the project and the middleman doing the roads between the federal governments of the 3 nations plus the defence ministry's of each respective nation. its telling on the direction of perhaps the outcome as it was the Ex SecNav Prof Winter who recommend to abandonment of the French build and no appears to be the special advisor to the PM on the project

Yes I can still see Australia building the Submarines in Australia building them here is not the problem, the nuclear reactor are the problem. that section will either be completely built oversees than shipped to Australia or we will fit. the current combat system for Collins comes visa the US nuc boats its a close relation

Yeah agree that AUKUS is more than just a nuclear submarine deal


But I see that the French are whining that again about being lied to, all it shows was that someone sent a letter of what they knew at the time in different departments. the only ones who know the real timing are not says who knows the timing for the announcement might have been insisted by any of the 3 heads of government.

Time for the French to build a bridge get over it, they have still made a fair bit of coin out of the project so far plus the 400 million in break fees. whats done is done

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-n ... -broadside

AngMoh wrote:

For us in ASEAN, the Australians are the drunk tourist you like to get rid of. A big mouth but no substance. (most of the Australians in my organisation agree with this).

And a number of countries in SE-ASIA have come to the same conclusion and just offer vague media statement as in reality the hope that this just goes away.

1. I'll take a drunk Aussie in a fight over anyone else in that part of the world...
2. Those other countries think that if they play nice with China, everything will be okay. The Chinese look at "playing nice" as weakness. Just like another poster upthread said that the Aussies should've done a treaty with smaller countries. No, if push comes to shove, you don't want small backers, you want the heavyweights.

It makes no sense to base political decisions on the behaviour of drunk tourists.

Building the infrastructure in Australia won't be cheap. Probably in the range of US$ 10-20bn, if not more. Add to that some US$ 2.2bn. per boat.
12 Astute class would be a fairly massive fleet. The UK have commissioned 4 in 10 years, it seems reasonable that the new Australian yard would be busy for the next 30+ years, with the first perhaps delivered by the end of the decade. I don't think there has ever been an Australian defence project of a comparable scale.

mxaxai wrote:

It makes no sense to base political decisions on the behaviour of drunk tourists.

Building the infrastructure in Australia won't be cheap. Probably in the range of US$ 10-20bn, if not more. Add to that some US$ 2.2bn. per boat.
12 Astute class would be a fairly massive fleet. The UK have commissioned 4 in 10 years, it seems reasonable that the new Australian yard would be busy for the next 30+ years, with the first perhaps delivered by the end of the decade. I don't think there has ever been an Australian defence project of a comparable scale.

No, but considering its basically going to be full up technology transfer, that's a pretty good investment in Australian defense industrial base.

There are tons of boutique skills in the manufacture, operation and design of SSNs that have nice spinoff effects. For example, the high end precision welding required often is of the same variety required for space craft.

mxaxai wrote:

It makes no sense to base political decisions on the behaviour of drunk tourists.

Building the infrastructure in Australia won't be cheap. Probably in the range of US$ 10-20bn, if not more. Add to that some US$ 2.2bn. per boat.
12 Astute class would be a fairly massive fleet. The UK have commissioned 4 in 10 years, it seems reasonable that the new Australian yard would be busy for the next 30+ years, with the first perhaps delivered by the end of the decade. I don't think there has ever been an Australian defence project of a comparable scale.

It's only 8 boats, but the extra costs of doing it in Australia (Adelaide) are worth it. The extra infrastructure built, the skills learned, these are the types of things needed here to broaden the industrial base in Australia and is usually money well spent.

LTEN11 wrote:

mxaxai wrote:

It makes no sense to base political decisions on the behaviour of drunk tourists.

Building the infrastructure in Australia won't be cheap. Probably in the range of US$ 10-20bn, if not more. Add to that some US$ 2.2bn. per boat.
12 Astute class would be a fairly massive fleet. The UK have commissioned 4 in 10 years, it seems reasonable that the new Australian yard would be busy for the next 30+ years, with the first perhaps delivered by the end of the decade. I don't think there has ever been an Australian defence project of a comparable scale.

It's only 8 boats, but the extra costs of doing it in Australia (Adelaide) are worth it. The extra infrastructure built, the skills learned, these are the types of things needed here to broaden the industrial base in Australia and is usually money well spent.

Yep and the government gets a % back through taxes at various levels a lot of money stays within a Australia.I remember reading a report many years ago that about 30% gets washed back in taxes

mxaxai wrote:

It makes no sense to base political decisions on the behaviour of drunk tourists.

Building the infrastructure in Australia won't be cheap. Probably in the range of US$ 10-20bn, if not more. Add to that some US$ 2.2bn. per boat.
12 Astute class would be a fairly massive fleet. The UK have commissioned 4 in 10 years, it seems reasonable that the new Australian yard would be busy for the next 30+ years, with the first perhaps delivered by the end of the decade. I don't think there has ever been an Australian defence project of a comparable scale.

Not only will the infrastructure be expensive, but I suspect it will come with a lot of political backlash in Aus.

For what its worth, I wouldn't expect any future Aussie SSN's to be Astute class, but that's just my opinion

Rgds

A101 wrote:

LTEN11 wrote:

mxaxai wrote:

It makes no sense to base political decisions on the behaviour of drunk tourists.

Building the infrastructure in Australia won't be cheap. Probably in the range of US$ 10-20bn, if not more. Add to that some US$ 2.2bn. per boat.
12 Astute class would be a fairly massive fleet. The UK have commissioned 4 in 10 years, it seems reasonable that the new Australian yard would be busy for the next 30+ years, with the first perhaps delivered by the end of the decade. I don't think there has ever been an Australian defence project of a comparable scale.

It's only 8 boats, but the extra costs of doing it in Australia (Adelaide) are worth it. The extra infrastructure built, the skills learned, these are the types of things needed here to broaden the industrial base in Australia and is usually money well spent.

Yep and the government gets a % back through taxes at various levels a lot of money stays within a Australia.I remember reading a report many years ago that about 30% gets washed back in taxes

No way amigos, local assembly is an utter waste of money and the only reason it happens is politics. If the Aussies were going to export subs back to the US then perhaps a reason to do so but local assembly at least doubles the overall cost and to what benefit, maybe 5000 workers over 30 years get a decent wage compared to millions of others in the economy who see essentially zero benefit. The Aussies could invest that money in growth areas of the economy instead of dead end boat building. Imagine putting that extra 20 or 30 billionarios into health research or quantum computing or building an SMC fab and literally print money for the next 30 years.

The only real benefit for the Aussies is having the boat when they want it instead of relying on an overscheduled and running late US boat building program.

SeamanBeaumont wrote:

A101 wrote:

LTEN11 wrote:

It's only 8 boats, but the extra costs of doing it in Australia (Adelaide) are worth it. The extra infrastructure built, the skills learned, these are the types of things needed here to broaden the industrial base in Australia and is usually money well spent.

Yep and the government gets a % back through taxes at various levels a lot of money stays within a Australia.I remember reading a report many years ago that about 30% gets washed back in taxes

No way amigos, local assembly is an utter waste of money and the only reason it happens is politics. If the Aussies were going to export subs back to the US then perhaps a reason to do so but local assembly at least doubles the overall cost and to what benefit, maybe 5000 workers over 30 years get a decent wage compared to millions of others in the economy who see essentially zero benefit. The Aussies could invest that money in growth areas of the economy instead of dead end boat building. Imagine putting that extra 20 or 30 billionarios into health research or quantum computing or building an SMC fab and literally print money for the next 30 years.

The only real benefit for the Aussies is having the boat when they want it instead of relying on an overscheduled and running late US boat building program.

Actually, US submarine production is underutilized; the Virginia class submarines are being built in two yards, and it is well acknowledged that the USN can afford to buy more Virginia's at a faster rate, or focused their purchases towards one yard only, but chose to keep two yards going for national security reasons.

ThePointblank wrote:

SeamanBeaumont wrote:

A101 wrote:

Yep and the government gets a % back through taxes at various levels a lot of money stays within a Australia.I remember reading a report many years ago that about 30% gets washed back in taxes

No way amigos, local assembly is an utter waste of money and the only reason it happens is politics. If the Aussies were going to export subs back to the US then perhaps a reason to do so but local assembly at least doubles the overall cost and to what benefit, maybe 5000 workers over 30 years get a decent wage compared to millions of others in the economy who see essentially zero benefit. The Aussies could invest that money in growth areas of the economy instead of dead end boat building. Imagine putting that extra 20 or 30 billionarios into health research or quantum computing or building an SMC fab and literally print money for the next 30 years.

The only real benefit for the Aussies is having the boat when they want it instead of relying on an overscheduled and running late US boat building program.

Actually, US submarine production is underutilized; the Virginia class submarines are being built in two yards, and it is well acknowledged that the USN can afford to buy more Virginia's at a faster rate, or focused their purchases towards one yard only, but chose to keep two yards going for national security reasons.

They kept two yards going to foster competition and deliver value for money....

Rgds

SeamanBeaumont wrote:

A101 wrote:

LTEN11 wrote:

It's only 8 boats, but the extra costs of doing it in Australia (Adelaide) are worth it. The extra infrastructure built, the skills learned, these are the types of things needed here to broaden the industrial base in Australia and is usually money well spent.

Yep and the government gets a % back through taxes at various levels a lot of money stays within a Australia.I remember reading a report many years ago that about 30% gets washed back in taxes

No way amigos, local assembly is an utter waste of money and the only reason it happens is politics. If the Aussies were going to export subs back to the US then perhaps a reason to do so but local assembly at least doubles the overall cost and to what benefit, maybe 5000 workers over 30 years get a decent wage compared to millions of others in the economy who see essentially zero benefit. The Aussies could invest that money in growth areas of the economy instead of dead end boat building. Imagine putting that extra 20 or 30 billionarios into health research or quantum computing or building an SMC fab and literally print money for the next 30 years.

The only real benefit for the Aussies is having the boat when they want it instead of relying on an overscheduled and running late US boat building program.

Can’t find the original report that I read years ago, but a quick search found this from PWC

The importance of the industry is not limited to the direct output and employment it generates (i.e. “direct impact”). Companies in the shipbuilding and repairing industry purchase inputs from other domestic industries, contributing to economic activity in those sectors (i.e. “indirect” impact). Employees spend their incomes, helping to support the local and national economies (i.e. “induced” impact). Thus, the economic importance of the ... shipbuilding and repairing industry includes direct, indirect, and induced effects.

https://www.pwc.com.au/publications/pdf ... -oct17.pdf

A101 wrote:

SeamanBeaumont wrote:

A101 wrote:

Yep and the government gets a % back through taxes at various levels a lot of money stays within a Australia.I remember reading a report many years ago that about 30% gets washed back in taxes

No way amigos, local assembly is an utter waste of money and the only reason it happens is politics. If the Aussies were going to export subs back to the US then perhaps a reason to do so but local assembly at least doubles the overall cost and to what benefit, maybe 5000 workers over 30 years get a decent wage compared to millions of others in the economy who see essentially zero benefit. The Aussies could invest that money in growth areas of the economy instead of dead end boat building. Imagine putting that extra 20 or 30 billionarios into health research or quantum computing or building an SMC fab and literally print money for the next 30 years.

The only real benefit for the Aussies is having the boat when they want it instead of relying on an overscheduled and running late US boat building program.

Can’t find the original report that I read years ago, but a quick search found this from PWC

The importance of the industry is not limited to the direct output and employment it generates (i.e. “direct impact”). Companies in the shipbuilding and repairing industry purchase inputs from other domestic industries, contributing to economic activity in those sectors (i.e. “indirect” impact). Employees spend their incomes, helping to support the local and national economies (i.e. “induced” impact). Thus, the economic importance of the ... shipbuilding and repairing industry includes direct, indirect, and induced effects.

https://www.pwc.com.au/publications/pdf ... -oct17.pdf

PWC, telling governments what they want to hear for 150 years...

SeamanBeaumont wrote:

A101 wrote:

SeamanBeaumont wrote:

No way amigos, local assembly is an utter waste of money and the only reason it happens is politics. If the Aussies were going to export subs back to the US then perhaps a reason to do so but local assembly at least doubles the overall cost and to what benefit, maybe 5000 workers over 30 years get a decent wage compared to millions of others in the economy who see essentially zero benefit. The Aussies could invest that money in growth areas of the economy instead of dead end boat building. Imagine putting that extra 20 or 30 billionarios into health research or quantum computing or building an SMC fab and literally print money for the next 30 years.

The only real benefit for the Aussies is having the boat when they want it instead of relying on an overscheduled and running late US boat building program.

Can’t find the original report that I read years ago, but a quick search found this from PWC

The importance of the industry is not limited to the direct output and employment it generates (i.e. “direct impact”). Companies in the shipbuilding and repairing industry purchase inputs from other domestic industries, contributing to economic activity in those sectors (i.e. “indirect” impact). Employees spend their incomes, helping to support the local and national economies (i.e. “induced” impact). Thus, the economic importance of the ... shipbuilding and repairing industry includes direct, indirect, and induced effects.

https://www.pwc.com.au/publications/pdf ... -oct17.pdf

PWC, telling governments what they want to hear for 150 years...

Really??

What would the point being in doing that, that’s a good way of actually losing work in the long term


Still have really seen anything that points national shipbuilding being bad and that includes submarines.

I know of a couple of metal fabricators whoatevery good, got there start on submarines, 1st with the O boats then the Collins class

A101 wrote:

SeamanBeaumont wrote:

A101 wrote:

Can’t find the original report that I read years ago, but a quick search found this from PWC



https://www.pwc.com.au/publications/pdf ... -oct17.pdf

PWC, telling governments what they want to hear for 150 years...

Really??

What would the point being in doing that, that’s a good way of actually losing work in the long term


Still have really seen anything that points national shipbuilding being bad and that includes submarines.

I know of a couple of metal fabricators whoatevery good, got there start on submarines, 1st with the O boats then the Collins class

You have never worked with PWC before. Their MO is all over that report.

Propping up a few companies in a small workforce is just flushing dollars down the toilet, the Aussies aren't going to export any boats to anyone so no return Those bucks should go to industries that would grow and return that money ten times over. How's about you say the last Aussie naval build on budget or on time? Not AWD, not ANZAC, not FFG, not Collins, not even River.

The Aussies aren't alone here, the Canuks are wasting billions building T26s themselves and already projected to go billions over budget before the first keel is even laid. Skippy and the land of maple syrup are long past ship building, why bother trying to restart a 19th century industry in the 21st.

SeamanBeaumont wrote:

A101 wrote:

SeamanBeaumont wrote:

PWC, telling governments what they want to hear for 150 years...

Really??

What would the point being in doing that, that’s a good way of actually losing work in the long term


Still have really seen anything that points national shipbuilding being bad and that includes submarines.

I know of a couple of metal fabricators whoatevery good, got there start on submarines, 1st with the O boats then the Collins class

You have never worked with PWC before. Their MO is all over that report.

Propping up a few companies in a small workforce is just flushing dollars down the toilet, the Aussies aren't going to export any boats to anyone so no return Those bucks should go to industries that would grow and return that money ten times over. How's about you say the last Aussie naval build on budget or on time? Not AWD, not ANZAC, not FFG, not Collins, not even River.

The Aussies aren't alone here, the Canuks are wasting billions building T26s themselves and already projected to go billions over budget before the first keel is even laid. Skippy and the land of maple syrup are long past ship building, why bother trying to restart a 19th century industry in the 21st.

Agree when it was a boom bust cycle as government did not have a comprehensive shipbuilding plan, if they kept Navy with 17 major fleet units as a minimum and replaced on time we would not be in that position, government with the new shipbuilding plan is the right track.

Nothing stopping AU from doing all the things you suggest plus a national shipbuilding plan

Isn't a defense industry something that isn't entirely decided by numbers? Having the domestic capability is more important than sheer numbers.

SeamanBeaumont wrote:

The Aussies aren't alone here, the Canuks are wasting billions building T26s themselves and already projected to go billions over budget before the first keel is even laid. Skippy and the land of maple syrup are long past ship building, why bother trying to restart a 19th century industry in the 21st.

I don't believe the British have the capacity to build 30+ T26s, especially with the varied weapons and sensors.

SeamanBeaumont wrote:

A101 wrote:

LTEN11 wrote:

It's only 8 boats, but the extra costs of doing it in Australia (Adelaide) are worth it. The extra infrastructure built, the skills learned, these are the types of things needed here to broaden the industrial base in Australia and is usually money well spent.

Yep and the government gets a % back through taxes at various levels a lot of money stays within a Australia.I remember reading a report many years ago that about 30% gets washed back in taxes

No way amigos, local assembly is an utter waste of money and the only reason it happens is politics. If the Aussies were going to export subs back to the US then perhaps a reason to do so but local assembly at least doubles the overall cost and to what benefit, maybe 5000 workers over 30 years get a decent wage compared to millions of others in the economy who see essentially zero benefit. The Aussies could invest that money in growth areas of the economy instead of dead end boat building. Imagine putting that extra 20 or 30 billionarios into health research or quantum computing or building an SMC fab and literally print money for the next 30 years.

The only real benefit for the Aussies is having the boat when they want it instead of relying on an overscheduled and running late US boat building program.

This is the reason I think that everything is very far from being a done deal. The French sub went out of control due to Australian localisation requirements: the French themselves built 6 nuclear subs for 10B Euro while 12 Australian diesel subs with 60% local Australian content cost 40B Euro. I was living in Adelaide when the Collins class was initiated and it was very political even though financially it made no sense at all. The last Liberal party South Australian state election victory was won on the confirmation the French subs would be built in Adelaide. Australian domestic politics are far from settled.

johns624 wrote:

SeamanBeaumont wrote:

The Aussies aren't alone here, the Canuks are wasting billions building T26s themselves and already projected to go billions over budget before the first keel is even laid. Skippy and the land of maple syrup are long past ship building, why bother trying to restart a 19th century industry in the 21st.

I don't believe the British have the capacity to build 30+ T26s, especially with the varied weapons and sensors.

You've got that right, though if they had a brain cell of strategic thinking encouraging development of and in some cases re generating yards elsewhere in the UK, would be to use against the SNP, if they demand Trident (and the whole of the UK sub fleet too) to vacate Scotland, the government could say 'fine, in which case forget any further Ministry of Defence shipbuilding orders beyond the ones currently in work, therefore within a few years, no industry there hardly'.
Not in a position to do this right now, though given the modular nature of surface ship construction major modules are built around the country but you would need more facilities to assemble, launch, complete them/fit them out.

The last time there was a really sustained period of warship ordering was in 1976-78, (2 of the 3 Invincibles, 5 of the Type 22's and a similar number of Type 42's, plus subs, RFA supply ships etc).
The PM at the time being the last one, maybe due to his wartime RN service, to ask on a weekly basis where the ships are.
Which probably explains this;

https://en.mercopress.com/2012/08/08/so ... ds-in-1982

Didn't do that 5 years later, not when the government were hell bent on slashing the RN.

Back to subs, in the late 60's there was a second yard, aside from Barrow In Furness, that constructed subs, including SSN's and two of the Polaris boats, Cammell Laird in Liverpool. However delays and suspected sabotage (HMS Revenge was seen throughout it's service as the more prone to problems), with their two ended them getting any further nuclear sub contracts, they did get 3 of the four Type 2400 SSK's ordered in 1986 however.
Cammell are, unlike many of the others, still going, most recently in the news with construction the research vessel RRS David Attenborough.

SeamanBeaumont wrote:

Propping up a few companies in a small workforce is just flushing dollars down the toilet, the Aussies aren't going to export any boats to anyone so no return Those bucks should go to industries that would grow and return that money ten times over. How's about you say the last Aussie naval build on budget or on time? Not AWD, not ANZAC, not FFG, not Collins, not even River.

The Aussies aren't alone here, the Canuks are wasting billions building T26s themselves and already projected to go billions over budget before the first keel is even laid. Skippy and the land of maple syrup are long past ship building, why bother trying to restart a 19th century industry in the 21st.

johns624 wrote:

Isn't a defense industry something that isn't entirely decided by numbers? Having the domestic capability is more important than sheer numbers.

This.
It makes sense to produce stuff and tech like that at home to keep your skilled workforce inside the country, maintain or develop capabilities, and thus reduce reliance on other countries, even if they are your closest allies.
That money is not going down the drain for those reasons alone. You also always have significant indirect and induced spending in your economy as a result of such contracts so the money will be put to good use.

johns624 wrote:

Isn't a defense industry something that isn't entirely decided by numbers? Having the domestic capability is more important than sheer numbers.

It is. The question still is what you spend your limited budget on, and just how useful that particular domestic capability is.

Submarines are highly specialized weapon systems. Having local production can be useful if you fear that maintenance at foreign shipyards will become impossible in case of an actual conflict. It can also accelerate production, and the blue-collar knowledge, infrastructure and tooling can be useful if you want to design your own boats at some point in the future.

Building a shipyard for state-of-the-art submarines (including tooling, infrastructure, knowledge and processes) is expensive, doubly so if you don't have much other naval construction going on. It's so expensive that it makes more sense to keep building boats at a low rate, even if you don't need them right now, rather than shut it down and reopen it later. We see similar effects in aircraft FALs. Historically, a comparable example would be battleships.

For the projected cost of 12 French subs, Australia could have gotten several hundred F-35. Or they could've bought twice as many nuclear subs, but built in France (or the UK, perhaps, with this new deal). What offers the better return on investment?

As a specialized technology, the benefits for the remaining economy tend to be limited. Again, this is similar to modern aircraft. Modern military aircraft are so different from civilian aircraft that only the most basic items are shared, such as materials research. The big cost drivers of 5th gen jets - stealth, sensor fusion, maneuverability, supersonic performance - are irrelevant for civilian applications.

GDB wrote:

johns624 wrote:

SeamanBeaumont wrote:

The Aussies aren't alone here, the Canuks are wasting billions building T26s themselves and already projected to go billions over budget before the first keel is even laid. Skippy and the land of maple syrup are long past ship building, why bother trying to restart a 19th century industry in the 21st.

I don't believe the British have the capacity to build 30+ T26s, especially with the varied weapons and sensors.

You've got that right, though if they had a brain cell of strategic thinking encouraging development of and in some cases re generating yards elsewhere in the UK, would be to use against the SNP, if they demand Trident (and the whole of the UK sub fleet too) to vacate Scotland, the government could say 'fine, in which case forget any further Ministry of Defence shipbuilding orders beyond the ones currently in work, therefore within a few years, no industry there hardly'.
Not in a position to do this right now, though given the modular nature of surface ship construction major modules are built around the country but you would need more facilities to assemble, launch, complete them/fit them out.

The last time there was a really sustained period of warship ordering was in 1976-78, (2 of the 3 Invincibles, 5 of the Type 22's and a similar number of Type 42's, plus subs, RFA supply ships etc).
The PM at the time being the last one, maybe due to his wartime RN service, to ask on a weekly basis where the ships are.
Which probably explains this;

https://en.mercopress.com/2012/08/08/so ... ds-in-1982

Didn't do that 5 years later, not when the government were hell bent on slashing the RN.

Back to subs, in the late 60's there was a second yard, aside from Barrow In Furness, that constructed subs, including SSN's and two of the Polaris boats, Cammell Laird in Liverpool. However delays and suspected sabotage (HMS Revenge was seen throughout it's service as the more prone to problems), with their two ended them getting any further nuclear sub contracts, they did get 3 of the four Type 2400 SSK's ordered in 1986 however.
Cammell are, unlike many of the others, still going, most recently in the news with construction the research vessel RRS David Attenborough.

Cammell Laird is in Birkenhead not Liverpool. They built hull modules for Astute. Their covered building hall was going to build Type 31 if they won the tender. There are 3-4 yards that could built frigates in the UK, BAe Systems Maritime, Cammell Laird, and Babcocks Rosyth. Two of those three yards are building frigates. The 4th is Harland & Wolff in Belfast but a lot of money would need to be spent training staff and equipping the yard, they haven't built a ship since 2003.

What's also interesting is the type 26 and type 31 are too large for the Frigate Refit Complex in HNB Devonport,

Kiwirob wrote:

GDB wrote:

johns624 wrote:

I don't believe the British have the capacity to build 30+ T26s, especially with the varied weapons and sensors.

You've got that right, though if they had a brain cell of strategic thinking encouraging development of and in some cases re generating yards elsewhere in the UK, would be to use against the SNP, if they demand Trident (and the whole of the UK sub fleet too) to vacate Scotland, the government could say 'fine, in which case forget any further Ministry of Defence shipbuilding orders beyond the ones currently in work, therefore within a few years, no industry there hardly'.
Not in a position to do this right now, though given the modular nature of surface ship construction major modules are built around the country but you would need more facilities to assemble, launch, complete them/fit them out.

The last time there was a really sustained period of warship ordering was in 1976-78, (2 of the 3 Invincibles, 5 of the Type 22's and a similar number of Type 42's, plus subs, RFA supply ships etc).
The PM at the time being the last one, maybe due to his wartime RN service, to ask on a weekly basis where the ships are.
Which probably explains this;

https://en.mercopress.com/2012/08/08/so ... ds-in-1982

Didn't do that 5 years later, not when the government were hell bent on slashing the RN.

Back to subs, in the late 60's there was a second yard, aside from Barrow In Furness, that constructed subs, including SSN's and two of the Polaris boats, Cammell Laird in Liverpool. However delays and suspected sabotage (HMS Revenge was seen throughout it's service as the more prone to problems), with their two ended them getting any further nuclear sub contracts, they did get 3 of the four Type 2400 SSK's ordered in 1986 however.
Cammell are, unlike many of the others, still going, most recently in the news with construction the research vessel RRS David Attenborough.

Cammell Laird is in Birkenhead not Liverpool. They built hull modules for Astute. Their covered building hall was going to build Type 31 if they won the tender. There are 3-4 yards that could built frigates in the UK, BAe Systems Maritime, Cammell Laird, and Babcocks Rosyth. Two of those three yards are building frigates. The 4th is Harland & Wolff in Belfast but a lot of money would need to be spent training staff and equipping the yard, they haven't built a ship since 2003.

What's also interesting is the type 26 and type 31 are too large for the Frigate Refit Complex in HNB Devonport,

I put Liverpool as it's the nearest major city, for clarity for those outside the UK. One that most have heard of.
Rosyth would be an issue if the SNP got their way. HW building major ships again would be a huge undertaking and thanks to the B word, N.I. are headed the same route as the 'party of the Union' do their upmost it seems to split it up.

GDB wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

GDB wrote:

You've got that right, though if they had a brain cell of strategic thinking encouraging development of and in some cases re generating yards elsewhere in the UK, would be to use against the SNP, if they demand Trident (and the whole of the UK sub fleet too) to vacate Scotland, the government could say 'fine, in which case forget any further Ministry of Defence shipbuilding orders beyond the ones currently in work, therefore within a few years, no industry there hardly'.
Not in a position to do this right now, though given the modular nature of surface ship construction major modules are built around the country but you would need more facilities to assemble, launch, complete them/fit them out.

The last time there was a really sustained period of warship ordering was in 1976-78, (2 of the 3 Invincibles, 5 of the Type 22's and a similar number of Type 42's, plus subs, RFA supply ships etc).
The PM at the time being the last one, maybe due to his wartime RN service, to ask on a weekly basis where the ships are.
Which probably explains this;

https://en.mercopress.com/2012/08/08/so ... ds-in-1982

Didn't do that 5 years later, not when the government were hell bent on slashing the RN.

Back to subs, in the late 60's there was a second yard, aside from Barrow In Furness, that constructed subs, including SSN's and two of the Polaris boats, Cammell Laird in Liverpool. However delays and suspected sabotage (HMS Revenge was seen throughout it's service as the more prone to problems), with their two ended them getting any further nuclear sub contracts, they did get 3 of the four Type 2400 SSK's ordered in 1986 however.
Cammell are, unlike many of the others, still going, most recently in the news with construction the research vessel RRS David Attenborough.

Cammell Laird is in Birkenhead not Liverpool. They built hull modules for Astute. Their covered building hall was going to build Type 31 if they won the tender. There are 3-4 yards that could built frigates in the UK, BAe Systems Maritime, Cammell Laird, and Babcocks Rosyth. Two of those three yards are building frigates. The 4th is Harland & Wolff in Belfast but a lot of money would need to be spent training staff and equipping the yard, they haven't built a ship since 2003.

What's also interesting is the type 26 and type 31 are too large for the Frigate Refit Complex in HNB Devonport,

I put Liverpool as it's the nearest major city, for clarity for those outside the UK. One that most have heard of.
Rosyth would be an issue if the SNP got their way. HW building major ships again would be a huge undertaking and thanks to the B word, N.I. are headed the same route as the 'party of the Union' do their upmost it seems to split it up.

BAe Systems Maritime have there yards in Scotland as well, that makes 2 from 4 potential trouble, HW are in the running for the RFA Fleet Solid Support Ship competition, they will be the block assembly yard if Team Resolute wins. The building yard is just one of the problems, the bigger issue is not enough shipyard workers in the UK to go around.

Kiwirob wrote:

BAe Systems Maritime have there yards in Scotland as well, that makes 2 from 4 potential trouble, HW are in the running for the RFA Fleet Solid Support Ship competition, they will be the block assembly yard if Team Resolute wins. The building yard is just one of the problems, the bigger issue is not enough shipyard workers in the UK to go around.

The worker issue I think is a problem nearly everywhere. I read somewhere its a problem in Russia, as petroleum industries are quick to poach the dock workers.

Here is a good overview on Australia submarine capability and why have a domestic build capability


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XEDy4_ozmnw

astuteman wrote:

mxaxai wrote:

It makes no sense to base political decisions on the behaviour of drunk tourists.

Building the infrastructure in Australia won't be cheap. Probably in the range of US$ 10-20bn, if not more. Add to that some US$ 2.2bn. per boat.
12 Astute class would be a fairly massive fleet. The UK have commissioned 4 in 10 years, it seems reasonable that the new Australian yard would be busy for the next 30+ years, with the first perhaps delivered by the end of the decade. I don't think there has ever been an Australian defence project of a comparable scale.

Not only will the infrastructure be expensive, but I suspect it will come with a lot of political backlash in Aus.

For what its worth, I wouldn't expect any future Aussie SSN's to be Astute class, but that's just my opinion

Rgds

Makes plenty of sense, but a requirement, AFAIK is the US combat system as used in the "Collins".
I have no info. on whether this is a problem - or not.
Over to you, Mr Astuteman.

cheers

My suspicion is that the British think sold British submarines, the Americans think they have agreed to the technology transfer that will allow that and the Australian government think they have bought British submarines with the US combat system that will be primarily built in the UK but can't reveal that until after the next Federal election due to the risk of losing seats in South Australia.

Aesma wrote:

De Gaulle thought the UK would be a US mole in the EU. He was proven right many times over.

While I wouldn't use the term, 'mole', there is no doubt that the 'special relationship US/UK', gave the US an entree into the foreign policy of the EU. it was pretty much above board. And was not without benefits to the EU. Certain US conservative populists were unable to see all of the unspoken influence we had with our allies throughout the world. Trade and other issues were all at stake. Trump seemed unable to understand that he was suppose to sustain US interests rather that feel good emanations with China. Without doubt we lost several rounds in the competition with China. The damage may be permanent. China is an unfriendly paramount trade partner.Repairing the damage will be hard. Without some wise men or women in the Senate this may be impossible.

alanb976 wrote:

My suspicion is that the British think sold British submarines, the Americans think they have agreed to the technology transfer that will allow that and the Australian government think they have bought British submarines with the US combat system that will be primarily built in the UK but can't reveal that until after the next Federal election due to the risk of losing seats in South Australia.

Your suspicion is wrong. The Aussies are taking 18 months to figure out what they are going to do, nothing has been decided yet. The 18 months just happens to coincide with the contract clause to get out of the Attack class.

SeamanBeaumont wrote:

alanb976 wrote:

My suspicion is that the British think sold British submarines, the Americans think they have agreed to the technology transfer that will allow that and the Australian government think they have bought British submarines with the US combat system that will be primarily built in the UK but can't reveal that until after the next Federal election due to the risk of losing seats in South Australia.

Your suspicion is wrong. The Aussies are taking 18 months to figure out what they are going to do, nothing has been decided yet. The 18 months just happens to coincide with the contract clause to get out of the Attack class.

I highly doubt they would have gone down this path without a pretty good idea about what was going to happen next. Yes there is the 18m clause, they will wait that out. In the meantime they will be quietly making arrangements for getting the new subs.

Zkpilot wrote:

SeamanBeaumont wrote:

alanb976 wrote:

My suspicion is that the British think sold British submarines, the Americans think they have agreed to the technology transfer that will allow that and the Australian government think they have bought British submarines with the US combat system that will be primarily built in the UK but can't reveal that until after the next Federal election due to the risk of losing seats in South Australia.

Your suspicion is wrong. The Aussies are taking 18 months to figure out what they are going to do, nothing has been decided yet. The 18 months just happens to coincide with the contract clause to get out of the Attack class.

I highly doubt they would have gone down this path without a pretty good idea about what was going to happen next. Yes there is the 18m clause, they will wait that out. In the meantime they will be quietly making arrangements for getting the new subs.

I reached out to a "mate" who I had shared "a shrimp on the barbie" with many moons ago and who is in the know in Aussieland, on some project team somewhere or something. He was firm that no decision has been made on British or US boat etc and no options yet presented to Politicians to decide. We know US combat system and US weapons, same as Attack, but that is all.

SeamanBeaumont wrote:

I reached out to a "mate" who I had shared "a shrimp on the barbie" with many moons ago and who is in the know in Aussieland, on some project team somewhere or something. He was firm that no decision has been made on British or US boat etc and no options yet presented to Politicians to decide. We know US combat system and US weapons, same as Attack, but that is all.

Like I said earlier, I bet there are lots of squirming in seats at NR and Millington as the reality emerges of what RAN poaching could do to manning, especially now that an increasing number of Os and Es are under BRS, and not the traditional retirement plan.

Personally, I think there could be a significant forcing function from Australian defense modernization as the real market value for in-demand skill sets in the UK and US recalibrates once value isn't artificially deflated by the 20 year retirement.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

While I wouldn't use the term, 'mole', there is no doubt that the 'special relationship US/UK', gave the US an entree into the foreign policy of the EU. it was pretty much above board. And was not without benefits to the EU. Certain US conservative populists were unable to see all of the unspoken influence we had with our allies throughout the world. Trade and other issues were all at stake. Trump seemed unable to understand that he was suppose to sustain US interests rather that feel good emanations with China. Without doubt we lost several rounds in the competition with China. The damage may be permanent. China is an unfriendly paramount trade partner.Repairing the damage will be hard. Without some wise men or women in the Senate this may be impossible.

Blaming Trump for losing China is laughable. Trump was the first US President in the post Cold War world to firmly call out Chinese bad actions for what they were.

For 30 years we were told by your "wise men" that increased trade with China, entrance into the WTO, MFN and the raft of other bilaterals would strengthen the Chinese middle class and slowly democratize China.

These polices have done nothing but strengthen a repressive and autocratic Chinese Communist Party, feed a rapidly growing military and create dependence on Chinese manufactured goods at the expense of other, far more aligned nations.

I don't know if the American middle class or our Asian allies can survive many more years of your "wise men" governance.

Flap.... Are you suggesting that actual war with China is inevitable? I do not otherwise understand your post.

FlapOperator wrote:

Trump was the first US President in the post Cold War world to firmly call out Chinese bad actions for what they were.

Calling out publicly but incapable of executing through incompetence is worst than being mute publicly but privately excecuting a realistic plan of action.

I for one do not begrudge the last 30 years of China trade. It's giving me large screen TV at reasonable prices and provide me with inexpensive flat screen monitors and computer so I can work more efficiently on a US defense contract project.

It also provide a large market for my state's agricultural product as well as jobs for the port an rail worker shipping the coal to China.

bt

The parallels between now and 1938 are amazing.
1) No one in the West wants war.
2) If we just give him this, they'll stop.
3) They are rational. War is horrible.
4) They aren't harboring grudges from past offenses, are they?
5) They are all against our right to prosperity and our rightful place in the world.
6) We need more room and resources. You aren't using all yours are you?

Who am I describing?

MohawkWeekend wrote:

The parallels between now and 1938 are amazing.
1) No one in the West wants war.
2) If we just give him this, they'll stop.
3) They are rational. War is horrible.
4) They aren't harboring grudges from past offenses, are they?
5) They are all against our right to prosperity and our rightful place in the world.
6) We need more room and resources. You aren't using all yours are you?

Who am I describing?

You forgot 7) They have a lot of trade with us, they wouldn't start a war.

bikerthai wrote:

FlapOperator wrote:

Trump was the first US President in the post Cold War world to firmly call out Chinese bad actions for what they were.

Calling out publicly but incapable of executing through incompetence is worst than being mute publicly but privately excecuting a realistic plan of action.

I for one do not begrudge the last 30 years of China trade. It's giving me large screen TV at reasonable prices and provide me with inexpensive flat screen monitors and computer so I can work more efficiently on a US defense contract project.

It also provide a large market for my state's agricultural product as well as jobs for the port an rail worker shipping the coal to China.

bt

Big wheel keep on turning, military industrial complex keep on burning!

So, your job in building a war machine to counter China is in made possible by the monitor you buy, from China so you can buy a TV, made in China.

Am I the only thinking "self licking ice cream cone" analysis, here?

alanb976 wrote:

My suspicion is that the British think sold British submarines, the Americans think they have agreed to the technology transfer that will allow that and the Australian government think they have bought British submarines with the US combat system that will be primarily built in the UK but can't reveal that until after the next Federal election due to the risk of losing seats in South Australia.

I just don't see the UK sub with a US combat system....
I'll place a bet that if a UK platform is decided upon, it will come with the Combat System it was designed for......
These CS fits are incredibly integrated these days....

But who knows. If enough money and time are thrown at it .....

Rgds