GrahamHill wrote:

johns624 wrote:

Mortyman wrote:

Mother France might be far away, but they have a large and constant navy presence in the Indo Pacific and has had so for many decades. As mentioned before, it would be unwise not to have a good relation to France.

While they have a constant presence, I wouldn't classify it as "large".

It's still larger than the British forces in the region, which amount to 0.

They're not there out of the goodness of their hearts. There are French colonies there. Yeah, I know they aren't called colonies, but they are. Ever hear of New Caledonia and French Polynesia. If they didn't have a presence there, they would be negligent. I don't know if it's still there, but the RN had a CSG there earlier this summer.

johns624 wrote:

GrahamHill wrote:

johns624 wrote:

While they have a constant presence, I wouldn't classify it as "large".

It's still larger than the British forces in the region, which amount to 0.

They're not there out of the goodness of their hearts. There are French colonies there. Yeah, I know they aren't called colonies, but they are. Ever hear of New Caledonia and French Polynesia. If they didn't have a presence there, they would be negligent. I don't know if it's still there, but the RN had a CSG there earlier this summer.

That's not my point. What I was implicitly highlighting is why Australia would turn down on an ally with already a (rather) strong military presence in the Pacific, and team up with a country that has nothing over there.

The US, I understand.
The British, I don't.

GrahamHill wrote:

johns624 wrote:

GrahamHill wrote:

It's still larger than the British forces in the region, which amount to 0.

They're not there out of the goodness of their hearts. There are French colonies there. Yeah, I know they aren't called colonies, but they are. Ever hear of New Caledonia and French Polynesia. If they didn't have a presence there, they would be negligent. I don't know if it's still there, but the RN had a CSG there earlier this summer.

That's not my point. What I was implicitly highlighting is why Australia would turn down on an ally with already a (rather) strong military presence in the Pacific, and team up with a country that has nothing over there.

The US, I understand.
The British, I don't.

It would seem to me that the problem your are highlighting is that the British were able to set their "colonies" of on their own. The French have not been able to do that (and obviously neither have the British in other parts of the world) and so still maintain a presence directly.

Tugg

GrahamHill wrote:

johns624 wrote:

GrahamHill wrote:

It's still larger than the British forces in the region, which amount to 0.

They're not there out of the goodness of their hearts. There are French colonies there. Yeah, I know they aren't called colonies, but they are. Ever hear of New Caledonia and French Polynesia. If they didn't have a presence there, they would be negligent. I don't know if it's still there, but the RN had a CSG there earlier this summer.

That's not my point. What I was implicitly highlighting is why Australia would turn down on an ally with already a (rather) strong military presence in the Pacific, and team up with a country that has nothing over there.

The US, I understand.
The British, I don't.

Maybe it's because they might be getting British submarines. The French are being very selective in their poutrage. The US is always good as the big, bad bully. They know they have nothing else to sell, or buy from Australia. Yet, the British are right across the Channel and they have to live with their next door neighbor, so they haven't said much about them. Too many ties and projects going on between the two of them.

AeroVega wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

Shock horror I actually agree with you. Some of them like the Dutch were utterly useless and allowed a massacre to take place on their watch, if those men hadn't been the cowards they were they should have fought to the last man to protect those civilians. .... 370 well trained members of the Netherlands finest light infantry brigade v 1500 poorly trained Bosnian Serb peasants????

Would you mind sticking to the facts next time? Dutchbat had 150 lightly armed fighting men and were up against 2000 Serbs supported by artillery. You can read it all here: https://undocs.org/A/54/549

Kiwirob wrote:

I'd very much doubt a British or US battalion would have walked away without putting up a vigorous defense first

I very much doubt that a British or US battalion would have gotten their requests for air support denied by a UN superior. And even with massive air support, the mightiest military in the world was unable to defeat an unruly mob of Afghan peasants and walked away.

I read your link. The pertinent part starts on page 53. It appears that there were more than 400 Dutch troops there. I know in the USMC, every soldier is a trained infantryman, no matter what their actual job is. I will admit that they were poorly equipped, but that has more to do with the Dutch government as anything else. To bring this discussion full circle, I've read that the NATO air commander who refused air support was French!

Tugger wrote:

GrahamHill wrote:

johns624 wrote:

They're not there out of the goodness of their hearts. There are French colonies there. Yeah, I know they aren't called colonies, but they are. Ever hear of New Caledonia and French Polynesia. If they didn't have a presence there, they would be negligent. I don't know if it's still there, but the RN had a CSG there earlier this summer.

That's not my point. What I was implicitly highlighting is why Australia would turn down on an ally with already a (rather) strong military presence in the Pacific, and team up with a country that has nothing over there.

The US, I understand.
The British, I don't.

It would seem to me that the problem your are highlighting is that the British were able to set their "colonies" of on their own. The French have not been able to do that (and obviously neither have the British in other parts of the world) and so still maintain a presence directly.

Tugg

Again, I don't think that's the point I want to highlight . Let's leave France and their territories aside for one moment please, and let's approach this from the Australian perspective.

On a purely geopolitical, strategic, defense and/or military points of view, what is the benefit for Australia to partner with a country with absolutely no military presence in its vicinity?

For me it would make more sense to strengthen an alliance with military powers in the region rather than with a country 10,000 miles away with little to no experience in that particular region.

johns624 wrote:

Maybe it's because they might be getting British submarines. The French are being very selective in their poutrage. The US is always good as the big, bad bully. They know they have nothing else to sell, or buy from Australia. Yet, the British are right across the Channel and they have to live with their next door neighbor, so they haven't said much about them. Too many ties and projects going on between the two of them.

It makes sense for the subs, but besides that I still can't understand why Australia decided not to take better advantage of France's military options in the Pacific.

Anyway, I'm not a Prime Minister or President, so what do I know

Maybe because with the two new CVAs, the UK is planning on being more involved in the region. They have a basing agreement with Singapore and I'm sure the Aussies would also allow them space. They are also reshaping the RM to more closely model the new look of the USMC. The fast, small forces are tailormade for the SCS.

GrahamHill wrote:

On a purely geopolitical, strategic, defense and/or military points of view, what is the benefit for Australia to partner with a country with absolutely no military presence in its vicinity?

For me it would make more sense to strengthen an alliance with military powers in the region rather than with a country 10,000 miles away with little to no experience in that particular region.

I think for me, the reality is, Australia is an isolated entity in that part of the world. It's only real partner is New Zealand. And 10,000 miles away is what France is in reality. All it's decision making and "real Politik" will be based on 10,000 miles away realities, not theirs. Whatever Australia does will need to be able to operate independently, to a large part.

And the USA is the one that really has the next biggest foot in the space after China and them.

Tugg

johns624 wrote:

Maybe because with the two new CVAs, the UK is planning on being more involved in the region. They have a basing agreement with Singapore and I'm sure the Aussies would also allow them space. They are also reshaping the RM to more closely model the new look of the USMC. The fast, small forces are tailormade for the SCS.

There's the naval party in Sembawang as you say, but more to the point there's the garrison in Brunei. 1500 personnel centered around a battalion of the Gurkha Rifles, paid by the Sultan.

Of the 6000 french troops in the indo Pacific, more than half are in the likes of Djibouti and Qatar. And of course, the UK also has a presence in Oman, Bharain and Kenya. None of them is about containing China, which is the relevant thing. With a presence in the South China Sea, and the FPDA, the UK is arguably more engaged than France. As for interests, the UK only has one principle. Forget Liberté, égalité, fraternité, forget the pursuit of happiness, we've got the free movement of goods, capital and labour. We've long had issues with China on that score, only the drugs don't work any more.

It's not a willy waving competition, but I think the idea that the UK is halfway around the world and disengaged is a bit off the mark. And as you say, they may even want Astute. It's a toss up with the Virginia class, Astute is cheaper, and if they're primarily focussed on sea denial it may even be the better choice.

GrahamHill wrote:

Again, I don't think that's the point I want to highlight . Let's leave France and their territories aside for one moment please, and let's approach this from the Australian perspective.

I think you answered your question already, France still maintains colonies in the region, the UK does not, but one cannot deny the historical ties that exist between AUS and the UK. In any rivalry between the French and the UK, regardless of spats between them, AUS is more closely aligned to the UK than France.
If you want to approach it from a strictly military standpoint, the 0 that the UK has is probably equivalent to the 500 or so that France has, AUS would not be counting on those 500 or so for anything as their local resources are greater than the French. As you say, the USA is different because the resources they have in the region dwarfs that of AUS, which is the number to look at, who in the region has resources that AUS can call on, India is probably up there with the USA....

I think this thread is descending off topic.

Please stay on topic. This thread is getting perilously close to being locked.

Please read the forum rules, in particular this is not a topic to disrespect other cultures.

If you have facts, post links.

Lightsaber

johns624 wrote:

Maybe it's because they might be getting British submarines. The French are being very selective in their poutrage. The US is always good as the big, bad bully. They know they have nothing else to sell, or buy from Australia. Yet, the British are right across the Channel and they have to live with their next door neighbor, so they haven't said much about them. Too many ties and projects going on between the two of them.

The French foreign minister, who has done most of the "outraging", Jean-Yves Le Drian, said he didn't call back the UK ambassador because the UK is a bit player :

https://www.politico.eu/article/france- ... tary-pact/

PARIS — While France has seethed with rage at Australia and the U.S. over a secretly negotiated military pact, it has expressed a different attitude — dismissiveness — toward the deal’s other partner: Britain.

Over the weekend, several French officials downplayed the U.K.’s role in the landmark deal, which led Australia to cancel a billion-euro submarine deal with France, even suggesting they expected such behavior from the Brits.

“Great Britain in this matter is a bit of a fifth wheel on the carriage,” French Foreign Affairs Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian told TV channel France 2 Saturday evening.

Indeed, the U.K. has so far been the least-involved player in an escalating diplomatic war of words over the new arrangement, despite playing a reportedly significant part in the negotiations.

After Australia axed its submarine contract with France’s Naval Group, worth more than €50 billion, Paris recalled its ambassadors to Australia and the U.S. in protest — but not the French envoy to the U.K.

Le Drian explained France’s decision by hinting that London had merely been a bystander in the military deal and therefore was not worth Paris’ wrath. “We know their constant opportunism,” he said, referring to the U.K.

The cynical rhetoric comes amid a backdrop of already-soured relations between Paris and London, mainly because of Brexit.

According to a column in the French paper Le Monde, Paris has a political and diplomatic interest in downplaying London’s part in the military deal — it helps minimize the U.K.’s pro-Brexit rhetoric. In private, French officials have derided the U.K. as an interloper in the new trilateral partnership, desperately trying to show it had global diplomatic sway post Brexit.

French Secretary of State for European Affairs Clément Beaune — who didn’t shy away in the past from slamming the U.K. and Brexit on Twitter — also dismissed the Brits on television, saying that by leaving the EU, they “returned to the American fold” as Washington’s willing vassals.

Arion640 wrote:

The better product won at the end of the day, just like when the A350 is pitched against the 787 and the customer comes to a conclusion on which one to purchase.

This was more like the A350 being pitched against an A340 - the newer and more efficient aircraft won.

Can you point me out to the tender the "better product" won ? What is the better product anyway ? So far one submarine had won a tender, it was the Attack-class in 2016. That was the better product. Now it's been cancelled, and we don't know what will replace it. Will there even be a tender ?

Arion640 wrote:

France have never had an issue in the past screwing someone over to get its own way. Now they are throwing their toys out the pram and no one has actually done anything wrong.

There are no friends in business.

It's not just business it's geopolitics. Having friends can be useful.

Aesma wrote:

johns624 wrote:

Maybe it's because they might be getting British submarines. The French are being very selective in their poutrage. The US is always good as the big, bad bully. They know they have nothing else to sell, or buy from Australia. Yet, the British are right across the Channel and they have to live with their next door neighbor, so they haven't said much about them. Too many ties and projects going on between the two of them.

The French foreign minister, who has done most of the "outraging", Jean-Yves Le Drian, said he didn't call back the UK ambassador because the UK is a bit player :

https://www.politico.eu/article/france- ... tary-pact/

PARIS — While France has seethed with rage at Australia and the U.S. over a secretly negotiated military pact, it has expressed a different attitude — dismissiveness — toward the deal’s other partner: Britain.

Over the weekend, several French officials downplayed the U.K.’s role in the landmark deal, which led Australia to cancel a billion-euro submarine deal with France, even suggesting they expected such behavior from the Brits.

“Great Britain in this matter is a bit of a fifth wheel on the carriage,” French Foreign Affairs Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian told TV channel France 2 Saturday evening.

Indeed, the U.K. has so far been the least-involved player in an escalating diplomatic war of words over the new arrangement, despite playing a reportedly significant part in the negotiations.

After Australia axed its submarine contract with France’s Naval Group, worth more than €50 billion, Paris recalled its ambassadors to Australia and the U.S. in protest — but not the French envoy to the U.K.

Le Drian explained France’s decision by hinting that London had merely been a bystander in the military deal and therefore was not worth Paris’ wrath. “We know their constant opportunism,” he said, referring to the U.K.

The cynical rhetoric comes amid a backdrop of already-soured relations between Paris and London, mainly because of Brexit.

According to a column in the French paper Le Monde, Paris has a political and diplomatic interest in downplaying London’s part in the military deal — it helps minimize the U.K.’s pro-Brexit rhetoric. In private, French officials have derided the U.K. as an interloper in the new trilateral partnership, desperately trying to show it had global diplomatic sway post Brexit.

French Secretary of State for European Affairs Clément Beaune — who didn’t shy away in the past from slamming the U.K. and Brexit on Twitter — also dismissed the Brits on television, saying that by leaving the EU, they “returned to the American fold” as Washington’s willing vassals.

Arion640 wrote:

The better product won at the end of the day, just like when the A350 is pitched against the 787 and the customer comes to a conclusion on which one to purchase.

This was more like the A350 being pitched against an A340 - the newer and more efficient aircraft won.

Can you point me out to the tender the "better product" won ? What is the better product anyway ? So far one submarine had won a tender, it was the Attack-class in 2016. That was the better product. Now it's been cancelled, and we don't know what will replace it. Will there even be a tender ?

Arion640 wrote:

France have never had an issue in the past screwing someone over to get its own way. Now they are throwing their toys out the pram and no one has actually done anything wrong.

There are no friends in business.

It's not just business it's geopolitics. Having friends can be useful.

The 'bit player' was more than decade ahead of France in nuclear subs, who for their part went for SSBN's first for reasons of strategic deterrence rather than conventional operations, rather than SSN's then SSBN's as the RN did.
Who also are so far the only one to use one in naval combat, as opposed to launching cruise style weapons on land targets, the RN being the first European navy to do that too.

As for blame, well the Aussies, or rather more like senior political and naval officers, let themselves be suckered into this Attack class Frankensub.
There is only one thing more surprising than the cancellation of the project, that is the fact that design was chosen in the first place.

Always in the back of my mind since the turn of the century: those huge hyper expensive warships are in the class I would call 'Targets', particularly if they are doing anything beyond launching very long range missiles or surveillance. Drones, medium range missiles, maybe hyper sonic, some of which are difficult to trace or document to their source, all of these are having impacts not yet understood - and scary. Some of the most useful things US nuclear subs have done remains classified - deeply so.

Perhaps this discuss could digress just a bit into what exactly does Australia (and the US/UK) expect these subs, if built, will do.

GDB wrote:

Aesma wrote:

johns624 wrote:

Maybe it's because they might be getting British submarines. The French are being very selective in their poutrage. The US is always good as the big, bad bully. They know they have nothing else to sell, or buy from Australia. Yet, the British are right across the Channel and they have to live with their next door neighbor, so they haven't said much about them. Too many ties and projects going on between the two of them.

The French foreign minister, who has done most of the "outraging", Jean-Yves Le Drian, said he didn't call back the UK ambassador because the UK is a bit player :

https://www.politico.eu/article/france- ... tary-pact/

PARIS — While France has seethed with rage at Australia and the U.S. over a secretly negotiated military pact, it has expressed a different attitude — dismissiveness — toward the deal’s other partner: Britain.

Over the weekend, several French officials downplayed the U.K.’s role in the landmark deal, which led Australia to cancel a billion-euro submarine deal with France, even suggesting they expected such behavior from the Brits.

“Great Britain in this matter is a bit of a fifth wheel on the carriage,” French Foreign Affairs Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian told TV channel France 2 Saturday evening.

Indeed, the U.K. has so far been the least-involved player in an escalating diplomatic war of words over the new arrangement, despite playing a reportedly significant part in the negotiations.

After Australia axed its submarine contract with France’s Naval Group, worth more than €50 billion, Paris recalled its ambassadors to Australia and the U.S. in protest — but not the French envoy to the U.K.

Le Drian explained France’s decision by hinting that London had merely been a bystander in the military deal and therefore was not worth Paris’ wrath. “We know their constant opportunism,” he said, referring to the U.K.

The cynical rhetoric comes amid a backdrop of already-soured relations between Paris and London, mainly because of Brexit.

According to a column in the French paper Le Monde, Paris has a political and diplomatic interest in downplaying London’s part in the military deal — it helps minimize the U.K.’s pro-Brexit rhetoric. In private, French officials have derided the U.K. as an interloper in the new trilateral partnership, desperately trying to show it had global diplomatic sway post Brexit.

French Secretary of State for European Affairs Clément Beaune — who didn’t shy away in the past from slamming the U.K. and Brexit on Twitter — also dismissed the Brits on television, saying that by leaving the EU, they “returned to the American fold” as Washington’s willing vassals.

Arion640 wrote:

The better product won at the end of the day, just like when the A350 is pitched against the 787 and the customer comes to a conclusion on which one to purchase.

This was more like the A350 being pitched against an A340 - the newer and more efficient aircraft won.

Can you point me out to the tender the "better product" won ? What is the better product anyway ? So far one submarine had won a tender, it was the Attack-class in 2016. That was the better product. Now it's been cancelled, and we don't know what will replace it. Will there even be a tender ?

Arion640 wrote:

France have never had an issue in the past screwing someone over to get its own way. Now they are throwing their toys out the pram and no one has actually done anything wrong.

There are no friends in business.

It's not just business it's geopolitics. Having friends can be useful.

The 'bit player' was more than decade ahead of France in nuclear subs, who for their part went for SSBN's first for reasons of strategic deterrence rather than conventional operations, rather than SSN's then SSBN's as the RN did.
Who also are so far the only one to use one in naval combat, as opposed to launching cruise style weapons on land targets, the RN being the first European navy to do that too.

As for blame, well the Aussies, or rather more like senior political and naval officers, let themselves be suckered into this Attack class Frankensub.
There is only one thing more surprising than the cancellation of the project, that is the fact that design was chosen in the first place.

Every tech given by the US or still US made, like Polaris. Even US maintained.

Even worse than getting angry at an ally is insulting one.

Aesma wrote:

GDB wrote:

Aesma wrote:

The French foreign minister, who has done most of the "outraging", Jean-Yves Le Drian, said he didn't call back the UK ambassador because the UK is a bit player :

https://www.politico.eu/article/france- ... litary-pac


Can you point me out to the tender the "better product" won ? What is the better product anyway ? So far one submarine had won a tender, it was the Attack-class in 2016. That was the better product. Now it's been cancelled, and we don't know what will replace it. Will there even be a tender ?


It's not just business it's geopolitics. Having friends can be useful.

The 'bit player' was more than decade ahead of France in nuclear subs, who for their part went for SSBN's first for reasons of strategic deterrence rather than conventional operations, rather than SSN's then SSBN's as the RN did.
Who also are so far the only one to use one in naval combat, as opposed to launching cruise style weapons on land targets, the RN being the first European navy to do that too.

As for blame, well the Aussies, or rather more like senior political and naval officers, let themselves be suckered into this Attack class Frankensub.
There is only one thing more surprising than the cancellation of the project, that is the fact that design was chosen in the first place.

Every tech given by the US or still US made, like Polaris. Even US maintained.

The subs are not, nor are the warheads, plus Polaris/Chevaline - the latter part being the wholly UK developed penetration upgrade done in the 70's and early 80's was retired in 1995), as for support much of that was, quietly and recently, essentially nationalized by the UK government. (Not really their political doctrine so small wonder it was done quietly).

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/uk-rena ... blishment/

Plus the command and control for the SSBN's is unique to the UK, France replicated, with technical US assistance, the US method.
Trident was more expensive to the overall defence spending than Polaris originally was, since the UK warheads had to be integrated into the missile, meaning the UK paid 5% of Trident D5's development costs. Doesn't sound much but D5 was much more capable than the original C4 version.

With the Australian program, the other main contender was a Japanese design, they have excelled in making ocean going SSK's, however my understanding was that it foundered on workshare, in particular the Australian desire for their version to be constructed there, which Japan were not keen on.
Recently the latest German led design for a bigger SSK has started construction, it looks from some angles like an Astute.

But in all this, the main driver is the greatly ramped up aggression by China and contempt for international laws concerning the seas in the region.
Might as well try and spin it as a 'co prosperity sphere'. Heard that one before?

ThePointblank wrote:

Some choice quotes from the NYT (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/16/us/p ... arine.html) :

The part that seems operative to me is:

Mr. Étienne, one of France’s most experienced diplomats, acknowledged in an interview on Thursday that there had been discussions with the Australians over the rising price tag of the submarines that France was supposed to deliver to Australia — which were not nuclear-powered, even though France has its own fleet of nuclear-powered submarines.

In early summer, the French government had declined to sign documents committing to the next phase of the deal — apparently because of the pricing disputes.

Politico ( https://www.politico.eu/article/why-aus ... -sub-deal/ ) suggests the program price has doubled and the commitment to create employment in Australia has declined from 90% of the workforce down to 60% and falling further.

Seems like more than enough grounds to cancel the program, and both sides know it.

Seems to me the anger is really just a reaction to getting called out for losing control of the program.

Yes I will repeat the main issue is the lying and doing secret deals (that are still secret, at least we don't know what Australia will get).

We can also conclude that Australia's industry isn't able to build a submarine, but the country isn't admitting it.

Aesma wrote:

Yes I will repeat the main issue is the lying and doing secret deals (that are still secret, at least we don't know what Australia will get).

We can also conclude that Australia's industry isn't able to build a submarine, but the country isn't admitting it.

They built the Collins class, and I'm sure they learned from their mistakes. At one time, India and China couldn't build their own submarines, either.

Aesma wrote:

Every tech given by the US or still US made, like Polaris. Even US maintained.

So does that mean the tech was not useable, or that in the age of nuclear weapons, it is more important who made it?

In France there is a commonly held belief (difficult/impossible to prove) that US weapons/hardware can be shut down by the US at any time.

Aesma wrote:

In France there is a commonly held belief (difficult/impossible to prove) that US weapons/hardware can be shut down by the US at any time.

Recent footage from Afghanistan suggests otherwise.

Aesma wrote:

In France there is a commonly held belief (difficult/impossible to prove) that US weapons/hardware can be shut down by the US at any time.

So staying on the UK nuclear capability where you started this trend of thought, the UK would not have been in control of their Polaris subs?
We know European countries have denied the USA overflight rights, how many times have the USA denied France the right to use equipment for them to have such feelings?
Tell me those feelings do not date back to WWII where the USA pushed for the dismantling of colonies?

DeGaulle and Leclerc sure didn't turn down all that American equipment we gave them so that they could liberate France.

Really not sure what all the hooha is all about really, the Australians made a strategic decision, wow you would think that France has never done the same.

France actually does not have a contract to build yet, all they have at this stage is a contract to design. It has still pass main gate for build contract.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-n ... ll-be-lost

The ABC reported in 2019 that the confidential overarching contract – the strategic partnering agreement – would see Australia pay about $400m if it pulled out after the design was completed but before a submarine was completed.

They did it when the resumed nuclear testing in the Pacfic


The former foreign minister Hervé de Charette and his response in 1995 to fellow EU nations that condemned France for resuming its nuclear tests.

As far as the reaction of other governments is concerned, I can tell you that France will not bend when it comes to the defence of its national interests.

Aesma wrote:

In France there is a commonly held belief (difficult/impossible to prove) that US weapons/hardware can be shut down by the US at any time.

In the USA there is a commonly held belief that people can and will make up whatever that want and then choose to believe it with not proof. Seems we are not the only one's with this problem.

By the way, just a thought, but if this can actually be done, then you would have to assume that France would do the exact same with systems they provide too, no?

Tugg

Aesma wrote:

In France there is a commonly held belief (difficult/impossible to prove) that US weapons/hardware can be shut down by the US at any time.

That's precious.

The US's goal is not to harm France's safe position, but to help maintain it against threats coming from totalitarian states. The paranoid thoughts should be directed at China, which does pose a threat.

To give you an example, a random comment from a couple hours ago I stumbled upon on reddit (that's not me, I haven't posted any message there) :

https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comment ... &context=3

OwnFeedback3239
Italy
eurofighters are all european. amx are all italian, tornado is european. the f-35 in italy are all built in am italian factory. i think we are fine

gikgoh
France
That's cute to think you have control over your f35

johns624 wrote:

Aesma wrote:

Yes I will repeat the main issue is the lying and doing secret deals (that are still secret, at least we don't know what Australia will get).

We can also conclude that Australia's industry isn't able to build a submarine, but the country isn't admitting it.

They built the Collins class, and I'm sure they learned from their mistakes. At one time, India and China couldn't build their own submarines, either.

Collins had huge issues, it was delayed for years and the boats sat tied up alongside for years before they became operational. That's the reason why they can have there lifetimes stretched out, they haven't bee heavily used. Most of the people who built Collins are retired.

par13del wrote:

Aesma wrote:

In France there is a commonly held belief (difficult/impossible to prove) that US weapons/hardware can be shut down by the US at any time.

Tell me those feelings do not date back to WWII where the USA pushed for the dismantling of colonies?

Which was ironic since the US has many of there own colonies which they have no indention of dismantling, Hawaii, Midway Island, Wake Island, Guam/Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, US Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico.

Aesma wrote:

In France there is a commonly held belief (difficult/impossible to prove) that US weapons/hardware can be shut down by the US at any time.

Yes, paranoia about does seem to be common. What was one of the US’s most sensitive weapon systems say, 40 years ago?
The AIM-54 Phoenix air to air missile and associated AWG-9 fire control system as fitted to the F-14 Tomcat, certainly there was a lot of concern about the security of that system, seen as vital for the air defence of US Carrier Battle Groups against sustained air and missile attacks, which had been brought by Iran.
Now suddenly Iran was a hostile nation, would the Soviets get hold of it? Especially if suddenly deprived of technical support, it was not as if Iran really had the industrial base to support them.
And yet.....Iran used the system, in combat from 1980 against Iraq, for years afterwards.
So where was the fabled ability for the US, god like, to ‘switch off’ this sophisticated weapon system?

Just one example but this whole idea ‘common in France’ seems to be a modern day version of the Dreyfus Affair, a deep paranoia embedded in aspects of French society including the military.
One reason why the US supplied first Polaris, then Trident to the UK, is a very long standing desire not to have France as the only European nation with nuclear weapons, they remember the tumult around Algeria, the political instability, the wannabe coup instigators of the OAS and their multiple attempts to assassinate the President, having a large Communist Party also did not help and to cap it all, twice this century the rise of the Facist National Front getting to second place in Presidential elections.

What is provable (and why the Mistral saga was such a big deal here) is that France has supported the weapons (planes, in particular) it has sold even when it didn't please the US. Mirages, Super Etendards and Exocets sold to Saddam for example.

Kiwirob wrote:

par13del wrote:

Aesma wrote:

In France there is a commonly held belief (difficult/impossible to prove) that US weapons/hardware can be shut down by the US at any time.

Tell me those feelings do not date back to WWII where the USA pushed for the dismantling of colonies?

Which was ironic since the US has many of there own colonies which they have no indention of dismantling, Hawaii, Midway Island, Wake Island, Guam/Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, US Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico.

1. Hawaii--state
2. Midway Island--uninhabited other than nonresident scientific study teams
3--Wake Island--same as Midway
4--Puerto Rico--could become a state or become independent whenever they vote to.

Kiwirob wrote:

par13del wrote:

Aesma wrote:

In France there is a commonly held belief (difficult/impossible to prove) that US weapons/hardware can be shut down by the US at any time.

Tell me those feelings do not date back to WWII where the USA pushed for the dismantling of colonies?

Which was ironic since the US has many of there own colonies which they have no indention of dismantling, Hawaii, Midway Island, Wake Island, Guam/Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, US Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico.

To be clear, you are comparing those to the former colonies of New Zealand and Australia? Did the english make New Zealand a county or part of the UK like Wales or how the USA made Hawaii a state?
In any event, as I posted earlier, the ties between the UK and its former colony Australia is stronger than any commercial contract they may sign with France.

Aesma wrote:

What is provable (and why the Mistral saga was such a big deal here) is that France has supported the weapons (planes, in particular) it has sold even when it didn't please the US. Mirages, Super Etendards and Exocets sold to Saddam for example.

I thought France pulled support and ceased selling a/c to Israel?
I honestly do not think you can make the claim that France unlike the USA and everyone else does not look out for numero uno versus anything else.

par13del wrote:

Aesma wrote:

What is provable (and why the Mistral saga was such a big deal here) is that France has supported the weapons (planes, in particular) it has sold even when it didn't please the US. Mirages, Super Etendards and Exocets sold to Saddam for example.

I thought France pulled support and ceased selling a/c to Israel?
I honestly do not think you can make the claim that France unlike the USA and everyone else does not look out for numero uno versus anything else.

After the 1967 six day war, France embargoed deliveries of the Mirage 5, a simpler attack oriented version of the Mirage III, developed specifically for Israel in the first place.
They were put into French AF service. An aircraft optimized for the clear weather operations of the Mid East now in NW Europe!

Aesma wrote:

Yes I will repeat the main issue is the lying and doing secret deals (that are still secret, at least we don't know what Australia will get).

.

No lying involved, every country on earth has there own state secrets.and act in its own interests the only people who know the full story are not telling.

The Morrison government was in a position that saw the French try to leverage the Australians thinking that the Submarine contract was to big to fail, the French were playing hard ball knowing full well what the Australians wanted in regards to local build/content and price. An opportunity presented themselves which wasn't available at the time of the original program parameters.

The Morrison government was keeping its options open which was no big secret to the French as it was reported by the Agence France-Presse (AFP) several months ago that Australia was actively looking at plan B. certainly the Government wasn't going to cancel the French boat until the last minute because plan B could have fallen over right up to announcement, Australia was committed to design work.

The French are whining that they were not involved with the nuclear option, the US didn't want the combat information sent to France there was no way in hell the were going to give the French the holy grail of nuclear reactor tech to France to incorporate and design into a nuclear boat as the only way that the Australian government could get bipartisan support for nuclear powered submarines was no nuclear power industry in Australia as the opposition is very reliant on the green vote whom are opposed to nuclear, no way were they going to contemplate French nuclear power that needs refueling after about ten years

Aesma wrote:

We can also conclude that Australia's industry isn't able to build a submarine, but the country isn't admitting it.

Actually bashing metal the Australians do very well, when Collins class was being built a section was imported from overseas that was so bad that the Australians had to rectify it

https://archive.lowyinstitute.org/the-i ... t-disaster

the only manufacturing fault recorded was faulty welding in the bow section of the first boat – done in Sweden and the only section produced overseas.

Kiwirob wrote:

johns624 wrote:

Aesma wrote:

Yes I will repeat the main issue is the lying and doing secret deals (that are still secret, at least we don't know what Australia will get).

We can also conclude that Australia's industry isn't able to build a submarine, but the country isn't admitting it.

They built the Collins class, and I'm sure they learned from their mistakes. At one time, India and China couldn't build their own submarines, either.

Collins had huge issues, it was delayed for years and the boats sat tied up alongside for years before they became operational. That's the reason why they can have there lifetimes stretched out, they haven't bee heavily used. Most of the people who built Collins are retired.

No question the boat had issues at the beginning, but a major reason why the boats were not operational for a long time was when at the height of the miming boom in WA, the mines were poaching qualified submariners,


https://www.smh.com.au/national/miners- ... -1yaj.html

One also has to remember that before Collins class submarines were home ported in Sydney at HMAS Platypus before being relocated to WA, that also had a dramatic affect on the submarine service, hence why with 12 boats there were going to build a new port on the east coast to make life for submariners more attractive option

https://www.navy.gov.au/hmas-platypus-history

par13del wrote:

Aesma wrote:

What is provable (and why the Mistral saga was such a big deal here) is that France has supported the weapons (planes, in particular) it has sold even when it didn't please the US. Mirages, Super Etendards and Exocets sold to Saddam for example.

I thought France pulled support and ceased selling a/c to Israel?
I honestly do not think you can make the claim that France unlike the USA and everyone else does not look out for numero uno versus anything else.

No what I'm claiming is that the US looks for itself, and wants others to look for US interests too. Remember what happened when France said there were no WMD in Iraq ? Thanks to our own, independent intelligence ?

A101 wrote:

Aesma wrote:

Yes I will repeat the main issue is the lying and doing secret deals (that are still secret, at least we don't know what Australia will get).

No lying involved, every country on earth has there own state secrets.and act in its own interests the only people who know the full story are not telling.

French embassy in Australia asked if there was something going on between Australia and the US (because we knew there was something going on) and the answer was "no, our deal is solid". If that's not a lie then maybe we need to define what a lie is, first.

Aesma wrote:

par13del wrote:

Aesma wrote:

What is provable (and why the Mistral saga was such a big deal here) is that France has supported the weapons (planes, in particular) it has sold even when it didn't please the US. Mirages, Super Etendards and Exocets sold to Saddam for example.

I thought France pulled support and ceased selling a/c to Israel?
I honestly do not think you can make the claim that France unlike the USA and everyone else does not look out for numero uno versus anything else.

No what I'm claiming is that the US looks for itself, and wants others to look for US interests too. Remember what happened when France said there were no WMD in Iraq ? Thanks to our own, independent intelligence ?

A101 wrote:

Aesma wrote:

Yes I will repeat the main issue is the lying and doing secret deals (that are still secret, at least we don't know what Australia will get).

No lying involved, every country on earth has there own state secrets.and act in its own interests the only people who know the full story are not telling.

French embassy in Australia asked if there was something going on between Australia and the US (because we knew there was something going on) and the answer was "no, our deal is solid". If that's not a lie then maybe we need to define what a lie is, first.

I'm sure the talks going on were well above ambassadorial level.

Aesma wrote:

French embassy in Australia asked if there was something going on between Australia and the US (because we knew there was something going on) and the answer was "no, our deal is solid". If that's not a lie then maybe we need to define what a lie is, first.

Well its certainly not a lie, what did you expect him to say at the time,the contract to design was still solid as classified talks only just started in regards to nuc submarines

Macron knew the deal was in trouble after the talks in France with PM Morrison, that is why he refused to talk to Morrison before announcement, Morrison had to send a letter about terminating the project. The Australians could have waited until preliminary design work had been completed before announcement in hindsight it might have been better

here is a good summary of the troubled replacement, majority of it is politically induced

https://johnmenadue.com/submarines-gros ... te-part-1/

https://johnmenadue.com/without-a-clear ... vy-part-2/

Aesma wrote:

par13del wrote:

Aesma wrote:

What is provable (and why the Mistral saga was such a big deal here) is that France has supported the weapons (planes, in particular) it has sold even when it didn't please the US. Mirages, Super Etendards and Exocets sold to Saddam for example.

I thought France pulled support and ceased selling a/c to Israel?
I honestly do not think you can make the claim that France unlike the USA and everyone else does not look out for numero uno versus anything else.

No what I'm claiming is that the US looks for itself, and wants others to look for US interests too. Remember what happened when France said there were no WMD in Iraq ? Thanks to our own, independent intelligence ?

Which still confuses me to this day, the entire world saw the effects of WMD's on the Kurds, you know the same gas used in Syria, but everyone conveniently shifted WMD's to nuclear only, so I guess with that definition, we have a different story.

So the rumors of France looking to the other EU members for support is false?

Please post on topic. Post in site related or contact moderators@airliners.net if you have questions.

Just wondering has Morrison/Macron had a conversation yet about the Sub deal, its been a fortnight since the announcement and nothing about returning the french ambassador to Australia

A101 wrote:

Just wondering has Morrison/Macron had a conversation yet about the Sub deal, its been a fortnight since the announcement and nothing about returning the french ambassador to Australia

The last reporting I saw was that Nacron had not returned Morrison's calls, although he has now spoken publicy and confirmed France's role in the Pacific.

If you can get past the paywall, here's a great opinion piece from a former Australian Prime Minister responding to an opinion piece by the Defence Minister. https://www.smh.com.au/world/asia/a-rel ... 58vdu.html

Kent350787 wrote:

A101 wrote:

Just wondering has Morrison/Macron had a conversation yet about the Sub deal, its been a fortnight since the announcement and nothing about returning the french ambassador to Australia

The last reporting I saw was that Nacron had not returned Morrison's calls, although he has now spoken publicy and confirmed France's role in the Pacific.

If you can get past the paywall, here's a great opinion piece from a former Australian Prime Minister responding to an opinion piece by the Defence Minister. https://www.smh.com.au/world/asia/a-rel ... 58vdu.html

Love how he touts his amazing ability to get leaders to sit down together:
From the linked article.

I singlehandedly talked two American presidents into sitting down annually with the president of China, the prime minister of Japan and the president of Indonesia and, in China’s case, persuading them to sit beside the representatives of Taiwan and Hong Kong. That is what I did in developing the APEC Leaders’ Meeting. Could you imagine Morrison or Payne or the growling policeman from Queensland achieving such a thing?

He does go on to note that others have claimed he is from a "bygone era" etc. but still... the China of today is NOTHING like the China and Pacific situation he dealt with back in 1991 to 1996 when he was PM.

Not everything is wrong in his opinion piece but still his experience really is vastly out of date.

Tugg

Tugger wrote:

Kent350787 wrote:

A101 wrote:

Just wondering has Morrison/Macron had a conversation yet about the Sub deal, its been a fortnight since the announcement and nothing about returning the french ambassador to Australia

The last reporting I saw was that Nacron had not returned Morrison's calls, although he has now spoken publicy and confirmed France's role in the Pacific.

If you can get past the paywall, here's a great opinion piece from a former Australian Prime Minister responding to an opinion piece by the Defence Minister. https://www.smh.com.au/world/asia/a-rel ... 58vdu.html

Love how he touts his amazing ability to get leaders to sit down together:
From the linked article.

I singlehandedly talked two American presidents into sitting down annually with the president of China, the prime minister of Japan and the president of Indonesia and, in China’s case, persuading them to sit beside the representatives of Taiwan and Hong Kong. That is what I did in developing the APEC Leaders’ Meeting. Could you imagine Morrison or Payne or the growling policeman from Queensland achieving such a thing?

He does go on to note that others have claimed he is from a "bygone era" etc. but still... the China of today is NOTHING like the China and Pacific situation he dealt with back in 1991 to 1996 when he was PM.

Not everything is wrong in his opinion piece but still his experience really is vastly out of date.

Tugg

Australia would have been a very, very different country if Keating had remained PM, rather than back to the 1950s with Howard. I do agree that the current Government is very poor for the nation internationally, but Keating is not the powerhouse he once was (noting I attended his first post PM major speech, at the Australia-Asia forum, in 1996 and thought it was pretty amazing)