Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
Kent350787
Posts: 2094
Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 12:06 am

Re: ‘Stab in the back’: France accuses US of sinking Australia submarine deal

Wed Sep 29, 2021 12:31 am

sierrakilo44 wrote:
Kent350787 wrote:

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)


I found those like Hawke/Keating/Rudd/Gillard, maybe Turnbull, at least recognised where australia was in the world, who are trading partners are, where the largest source of our migrant intake will come from in the future. Howard/Abbott/Morrison still think it’s 1950 and Australia is “British to the boot heels” to quote Bob Menzies.

Don’t forget Scott Morrison is the federal member for the area in Sydney that gave us the infamous “Cronulla riots”, where thousands of young drunken Anglo Australians draped in Aussie flag paraphernalia enacted mob violence against anyone with darker skin than them, beating those they considered to be of middle eastern descent to a pulp.

Morrison comes from this very Anglo Saxon area of Sydney, the Sutherland shire. Abbott comes from the similar very Anglo Northern Beaches of Sydney. It’s a joke amongst Sydney siders that residents of those two areas rarely travel into the more diverse parts of Sydney and stay within their own little insular communities.

John Howard represented the white bread North shore electorate of Bennelong for many years, until a redistribution changed the boundaries to intake a more diverse electorate with a higher Asian population, and he suffered the indignity of being a sitting PM voted out of parliament.

Whereas Paul Keating, Julia Gillard and current ALP leader Albanese represent some of the most ethnically diverse multicultural electorates in the country.

I think this is a good insight into how these leaders think about Australia’s place in the world.


Totally off-topic but slightly fun fact - Albanese lives three blocks from the former Howard family service station, both of which are in Marrickville but outside his electorate (but only just).

I won't argue that Labor is always correct, but it has regualrly demonstrated that it is less in the thrall of Old Mother England and the USA.
 
A101
Posts: 2546
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: ‘Stab in the back’: France accuses US of sinking Australia submarine deal

Wed Sep 29, 2021 1:50 am

Kent350787 wrote:
Tugger wrote:
Kent350787 wrote:

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)


Ahh Keating, I remember him

The Prime Minister that said it’s the recession that Australia had to have, with Australia going to be a banna republic
 
Kent350787
Posts: 2094
Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 12:06 am

Re: ‘Stab in the back’: France accuses US of sinking Australia submarine deal

Wed Sep 29, 2021 1:59 am

A101 wrote:
Kent350787 wrote:
Tugger wrote:
Love how he touts his amazing ability to get leaders to sit down together:
From the linked article.
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)


Ahh Keating, I remember him

The Prime Minister that said it’s the recession that Australia had to have, with Australia going to be a banna republic


Proven correct I believe. given Australia's economic performance since that time. He was actually Federal Treasurer when he said that, and it was in the context of Australia aligning itself with global markets following the float of the AUD.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 23086
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: ‘Stab in the back’: France accuses US of sinking Australia submarine deal

Wed Sep 29, 2021 2:19 am

Please post on topic.
 
User avatar
Aesma
Topic Author
Posts: 14834
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: ‘Stab in the back’: France accuses US of sinking Australia submarine deal

Wed Sep 29, 2021 2:35 am

For China this isn't good news but it simplifies things. Now Australia is like a US extension, a US state. If relations with the US go down, they will go down with Australia too, and vice versa.
 
MohawkWeekend
Posts: 1063
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:06 pm

Re: ‘Stab in the back’: France accuses US of sinking Australia submarine deal

Wed Sep 29, 2021 4:09 am

Aesma wrote:
For China this isn't good news but it simplifies things. Now Australia is like a US extension, a US state. If relations with the US go down, they will go down with Australia too, and vice versa.



Isn't that kind of the idea that you have a united front and cooperation of your allies? The Australians need the Americans - we Americans need the Australians. And we both need the Brits.
Worked out pretty good last time against Imperial Japan.
 
Kent350787
Posts: 2094
Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 12:06 am

Re: ‘Stab in the back’: France accuses US of sinking Australia submarine deal

Wed Sep 29, 2021 6:25 am

MohawkWeekend wrote:
Aesma wrote:
For China this isn't good news but it simplifies things. Now Australia is like a US extension, a US state. If relations with the US go down, they will go down with Australia too, and vice versa.



Isn't that kind of the idea that you have a united front and cooperation of your allies? The Australians need the Americans - we Americans need the Australians. And we both need the Brits.
Worked out pretty good last time against Imperial Japan.


Don't mention the fall of Singapore....

For Australia, AUKUS appears to provide greater defence certainty than ANZUS. For the UK, it seems to be a face-saving agreement post-Brexit.

But I still believe that Australia's best interests would have been served as part of a mid-tier alliance rather than the Anti-China AUKUS. At least the Quad alliance seems more positive.
 
User avatar
Aesma
Topic Author
Posts: 14834
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: ‘Stab in the back’: France accuses US of sinking Australia submarine deal

Wed Sep 29, 2021 8:46 am

Another (more recent) former Australian PM, Malcolm Turnbull, has described his successor's scrapping of the French submarine deal as "clumsy, deceitful and costly" and believes Australia will need to develop a nuclear industry : https://twitter.com/CuriousInquest/stat ... 7846439936

Also Turnbull and Macron have spoken on the phone : https://twitter.com/KJBar/status/1443047507500535817
 
GDB
Posts: 14408
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

Re: ‘Stab in the back’: France accuses US of sinking Australia submarine deal

Wed Sep 29, 2021 9:41 am

Some analysis of the choices and factors behind this whole story, from a Centre/Left publication not known for flag waving, military or otherwise, often quite the opposite in fact;

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/ ... aukus-pact

As the QE task group has been mentioned, despite the dope with the blonde, untidy for PR mop and his burbling about 'Global Britain' (meaningless term by the sinister and stupid), I should remind that the UK carrier program began in the first true post Cold War defence review, in 1998.
Project go ahead/design chosen, 2003. An Anglo French one which one side later pulled out of their version of.
Steel cutting begins, 2009.
All prior to the current mob getting in (and they tried hard to axe the whole project until they found out it would cost more to do that).

Context is king.
 
A101
Posts: 2546
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: ‘Stab in the back’: France accuses US of sinking Australia submarine deal

Wed Sep 29, 2021 9:50 am

Aesma wrote:
Another (more recent) former Australian PM, Malcolm Turnbull, has described his successor's scrapping of the French submarine deal as "clumsy, deceitful and costly" and believes Australia will need to develop a nuclear industry : https://twitter.com/CuriousInquest/stat ... 7846439936

Also Turnbull and Macron have spoken on the phone : https://twitter.com/KJBar/status/1443047507500535817



I reckon he is talking about the deal with the French being clumsy, deceitful and costly with the French reneging on what the AusGov wanted in relation to cost and build using local content, it was determined at the start to be 90% local content but French got it done lower than 60 at one time is was below 50%

So yesthe French bid was clumsy, deceitful and costly

While the Department of Defence had anticipated this stage would cost about $2.5 billion to $3 billion, it is understood Naval Group's costing is about 50 per cent higher, 'shocking' the government.


Local industry content
2.64
With much fanfare it was announced in April 2016 that Australian industry content for the FSP was to be at 90 per cent. Indeed, this was one of the great selling points for the decision to go with the French boat.





2.65

But, as has been shown, by early 2020 Naval Group and the Defence Department were speaking of 50–60 per cent local industry involvement. The SPA didn't include a specific target and the 60 per cent was only included in 2021 after the SPA had had new clauses inserted into it. 60 per cent is not 90 per cent and local industry also have a right to feel justified in their disappointment.


https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Bu ... 16%2F76873
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 5138
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: ‘Stab in the back’: France accuses US of sinking Australia submarine deal

Wed Sep 29, 2021 2:13 pm

The US needs to think carefully about its relationship with China. Most thinking people want to put China in the category of sometimes dangerous competitor rather than enemy. Part of the danger is a justified reaction against those thinking the US should be hegemon up to Chinese shores. Similar thinking was extending NATO to Russian boundaries. Russia and China are essential and valuable parts of the international economy. Mutual accommodations are in order. I don't think I have a view on this submarine deal. I keep hoping someone with expertise will explain what they will do and why Australia needs nuclear subs. Australia seems to agree through several administrations that they do need them.
 
johns624
Posts: 4243
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

Re: ‘Stab in the back’: France accuses US of sinking Australia submarine deal

Wed Sep 29, 2021 2:21 pm

frmrCapCadet wrote:
why Australia needs nuclear subs. Australia seems to agree through several administrations that they do need them.
The Pacific is a large body of water with long transit times required. Nukes will allow much higher underwater transit speeds and no need for a fuel logistics setup.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10988
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: ‘Stab in the back’: France accuses US of sinking Australia submarine deal

Wed Sep 29, 2021 2:51 pm

frmrCapCadet wrote:
Similar thinking was extending NATO to Russian boundaries.

Russia restarted expanding their boundaries closer to NATO, cue Crimea, China has been building military bases on disputed islands closer to its Pacific neighbours, so reviewing both along with what the USA / NATO attempted, how do you determine that the strategy works for one but will not for another?
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 5138
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: ‘Stab in the back’: France accuses US of sinking Australia submarine deal

Wed Sep 29, 2021 3:21 pm

Foreign relations are hard. Actions have consequences. Oddly, the one thing Trump was saying in 2016 I agreed with is that US foreign policy was too aggressive in eastern Europe. Gorbachev has also spoken on this issue. Trump did not follow through with a reasoned out rational policies.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10988
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: ‘Stab in the back’: France accuses US of sinking Australia submarine deal

Wed Sep 29, 2021 3:56 pm

frmrCapCadet wrote:
Foreign relations are hard. Actions have consequences. Oddly, the one thing Trump was saying in 2016 I agreed with is that US foreign policy was too aggressive in eastern Europe. Gorbachev has also spoken on this issue. Trump did not follow through with a reasoned out rational policies.

So the actual shooting war that Russia engaged in with Crimea was a result of the USA deploying troops on invitation to neighbors of Russia? I would think taking actual military action was more aggressive.
In any event, I think we are taking the thread off course, we already have one post where this deal makes Australia a USA state but did not make Australia a French colony.
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 5138
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: ‘Stab in the back’: France accuses US of sinking Australia submarine deal

Wed Sep 29, 2021 5:23 pm

The US needs a solid alliance with Australia, New Zealand, The Philippians, Japan, and a very careful one with Taiwan. I am just saying it will be hard, and every effective action will have consequences. Further we are very dependent upon Chinese manufacturing and Chinese engineers and scientists. I do not think anything said in this post is controversial. Just very hard to put into effect.
 
A101
Posts: 2546
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: ‘Stab in the back’: France accuses US of sinking Australia submarine deal

Wed Sep 29, 2021 5:45 pm

frmrCapCadet wrote:
. I keep hoping someone with expertise will explain what they will do and why Australia needs nuclear subs. Australia seems to agree through several administrations that they do need them.


A couple of slightly now dated reports on why the Australians need large submarine, but the crux of it is the need for endurance


https://www.dst.defence.gov.au/sites/de ... 4%20LR.pdf

https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com ... 4noRDwBmX0
 
User avatar
Aesma
Topic Author
Posts: 14834
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: ‘Stab in the back’: France accuses US of sinking Australia submarine deal

Fri Oct 01, 2021 2:24 pm

France will take the rotating presidency of the EU next so that will be 6 more "interesting" months.
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 11532
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

Re: ‘Stab in the back’: France accuses US of sinking Australia submarine deal

Fri Oct 01, 2021 2:26 pm

Aesma wrote:
France will take the rotating presidency of the EU next so that will be 6 more "interesting" months.

Absolutely. But in truth, it will probably make setting a trade deal with Australia easier, not harder.

When does that go into effect?

Tugg
 
Toenga
Posts: 312
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2020 2:55 am

Re: ‘Stab in the back’: France accuses US of sinking Australia submarine deal

Fri Oct 01, 2021 9:26 pm

An interesting insight from the centre right NZ Leader of the Opposition into the role of the US and the UK in creating a trade void that China has capitalised on the Pacific.
The opposition party here is suffering heavily because of self inflicted disunity problems, but more significantly there is little scope to provide sensible and credible major deviations to the positions of the centre left governing Labour Party in Covid response and International trade.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/ ... do-pacific
Here she argues that trade protectionism pusued by the US and the UK, has left little options for such external trade dependant nations such as NZ but to maximise their trade opportunities elsewhere in the world especially China.
 
astuteman
Posts: 7454
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

Re: ‘Stab in the back’: France accuses US of sinking Australia submarine deal

Sun Oct 03, 2021 9:43 am

BaconButty wrote:
“Some Australians wanted to ring up one week and say we’re so sorry, we’re putting out the diesel submarine contract, and ring up the next week and say we just want you to know that we found a better submarine and it’s British,” the defence source said.


From the Guardian article linked above. If correct, does that imply Astute Class subs? Might be someone on here with an informed opinion on that ....

The drum beat on that program is largely budget driven I imagine, but looking at the shortest time for long lead items ordered to being laid down, launched and commissioned, the best that can be hoped for seems10 years. A change of CMS and longer again. And they're discussing things for 18 months. 2035 IOC? Maybe an interim solution? Trafalgar or Los Angeles class?


Can't pretend to be an "informed" person in that respect - I do know what I don't know :)

Having read the thread, just a couple of opinions, and nothing more...

I'd suggest forgetting past classes such as Trafalgar or Los Angeles (despite Trafalgars being the best SSN ever created (IMO :) ) )
I think the supply chain will be largely gone.
And good luck in qualifying a nuclear reactor that is 2 generations out of date.... :shakehead:

Current gen? Virginia might be possible - I personally don't think Astutes will be on the cards.

I'm inclined to consider this a strategic agreement, rather than a procurement contract per se.
And given the nature of the product, the agreement would have to be about way more than just subs - it will have to be about the whole 9 yards of support infrastructure, training, supply chain, qualification and assurance etc - the subs will be less than 1/2 the package, irrespective of what gets built where.

I'm not really up on the original contract signed between the Australians and the French.
But it can be argued that the threat scenario has escalated in recent times.

And in my lifetime, I've observed that, keeping to the faith of minding their own business, French SSN's tend to be smaller, and more "regional" in capability.
Just looking at the specs for Suffren

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_submarine_Suffren

70 days endurance and 20 weapons..... compare that to Virginia or Astute ....
The Australian subs are likely to be involved in very long range, long endurance operations, given their location, and for me that makes the more classic UK or US SSN's a better fit.
(Trafalgars can operate 100 day cruises and carry 24 reloads, and were operating in 1983).
Not dissing Suffren here - the French are superb Naval Architects

Guesses here.
What gets ordered? Personally I'd be inclined to look forward rather than backward in time.
What gets built where? Who knows :)

Rgds
 
astuteman
Posts: 7454
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

Re: ‘Stab in the back’: France accuses US of sinking Australia submarine deal

Sun Oct 03, 2021 9:45 am

Aesma wrote:
For China this isn't good news but it simplifies things. Now Australia is like a US extension, a US state. If relations with the US go down, they will go down with Australia too, and vice versa.


Question - was it actually the US that Australia approached in this deal?

Rgds
 
User avatar
Aesma
Topic Author
Posts: 14834
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: ‘Stab in the back’: France accuses US of sinking Australia submarine deal

Sun Oct 03, 2021 10:22 am

We don't expect to be fighting another world war alone, maybe ? I really don't know how attack submarines are used, considering they're basically "useless" when there is no war.

About the deal, I don't know, but the US knew probably more about the French contract and its state than the UK since the Attack class is full of US tech.
 
cpd
Posts: 6823
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:46 am

Re: ‘Stab in the back’: France accuses US of sinking Australia submarine deal

Sun Oct 03, 2021 12:33 pm

astuteman wrote:
BaconButty wrote:
“Some Australians wanted to ring up one week and say we’re so sorry, we’re putting out the diesel submarine contract, and ring up the next week and say we just want you to know that we found a better submarine and it’s British,” the defence source said.


From the Guardian article linked above. If correct, does that imply Astute Class subs? Might be someone on here with an informed opinion on that ....

The drum beat on that program is largely budget driven I imagine, but looking at the shortest time for long lead items ordered to being laid down, launched and commissioned, the best that can be hoped for seems10 years. A change of CMS and longer again. And they're discussing things for 18 months. 2035 IOC? Maybe an interim solution? Trafalgar or Los Angeles class?


Can't pretend to be an "informed" person in that respect - I do know what I don't know :)

Having read the thread, just a couple of opinions, and nothing more...

I'd suggest forgetting past classes such as Trafalgar or Los Angeles (despite Trafalgars being the best SSN ever created (IMO :) ) )
I think the supply chain will be largely gone.
And good luck in qualifying a nuclear reactor that is 2 generations out of date.... :shakehead:

Current gen? Virginia might be possible - I personally don't think Astutes will be on the cards.

I'm inclined to consider this a strategic agreement, rather than a procurement contract per se.
And given the nature of the product, the agreement would have to be about way more than just subs - it will have to be about the whole 9 yards of support infrastructure, training, supply chain, qualification and assurance etc - the subs will be less than 1/2 the package, irrespective of what gets built where.

I'm not really up on the original contract signed between the Australians and the French.
But it can be argued that the threat scenario has escalated in recent times.

And in my lifetime, I've observed that, keeping to the faith of minding their own business, French SSN's tend to be smaller, and more "regional" in capability.
Just looking at the specs for Suffren

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_submarine_Suffren

70 days endurance and 20 weapons..... compare that to Virginia or Astute ....
The Australian subs are likely to be involved in very long range, long endurance operations, given their location, and for me that makes the more classic UK or US SSN's a better fit.
(Trafalgars can operate 100 day cruises and carry 24 reloads, and were operating in 1983).
Not dissing Suffren here - the French are superb Naval Architects

Guesses here.
What gets ordered? Personally I'd be inclined to look forward rather than backward in time.
What gets built where? Who knows :)

Rgds


We need the best current submarine that is available yesterday! That’s the problem. We shouldn’t have gone down the French path in the first place. Time is ticking away.

Apologies if this is off topic, but since submarines cannot fly and don’t go into space, the Aukus submarine discussion on “Military Aviation and Spaceflight” seems inappropriate.
 
astuteman
Posts: 7454
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

Re: ‘Stab in the back’: France accuses US of sinking Australia submarine deal

Sun Oct 03, 2021 12:52 pm

cpd wrote:
astuteman wrote:
BaconButty wrote:

From the Guardian article linked above. If correct, does that imply Astute Class subs? Might be someone on here with an informed opinion on that ....

The drum beat on that program is largely budget driven I imagine, but looking at the shortest time for long lead items ordered to being laid down, launched and commissioned, the best that can be hoped for seems10 years. A change of CMS and longer again. And they're discussing things for 18 months. 2035 IOC? Maybe an interim solution? Trafalgar or Los Angeles class?


Can't pretend to be an "informed" person in that respect - I do know what I don't know :)

Having read the thread, just a couple of opinions, and nothing more...

I'd suggest forgetting past classes such as Trafalgar or Los Angeles (despite Trafalgars being the best SSN ever created (IMO :) ) )
I think the supply chain will be largely gone.
And good luck in qualifying a nuclear reactor that is 2 generations out of date.... :shakehead:

Current gen? Virginia might be possible - I personally don't think Astutes will be on the cards.

I'm inclined to consider this a strategic agreement, rather than a procurement contract per se.
And given the nature of the product, the agreement would have to be about way more than just subs - it will have to be about the whole 9 yards of support infrastructure, training, supply chain, qualification and assurance etc - the subs will be less than 1/2 the package, irrespective of what gets built where.

I'm not really up on the original contract signed between the Australians and the French.
But it can be argued that the threat scenario has escalated in recent times.

And in my lifetime, I've observed that, keeping to the faith of minding their own business, French SSN's tend to be smaller, and more "regional" in capability.
Just looking at the specs for Suffren

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_submarine_Suffren

70 days endurance and 20 weapons..... compare that to Virginia or Astute ....
The Australian subs are likely to be involved in very long range, long endurance operations, given their location, and for me that makes the more classic UK or US SSN's a better fit.
(Trafalgars can operate 100 day cruises and carry 24 reloads, and were operating in 1983).
Not dissing Suffren here - the French are superb Naval Architects

Guesses here.
What gets ordered? Personally I'd be inclined to look forward rather than backward in time.
What gets built where? Who knows :)

Rgds


We need the best current submarine that is available yesterday! That’s the problem. We shouldn’t have gone down the French path in the first place. Time is ticking away.

Apologies if this is off topic, but since submarines cannot fly and don’t go into space, the Aukus submarine discussion on “Military Aviation and Spaceflight” seems inappropriate.


Agree about the Mil Av and Space thread.

On the subject of timing - I can't see any new-build being available soon.
Astutes and Virginias are needed by their home countries, and will be followed in the production stream by the Dreadnought and Columbia SSBN's, which will almost guarantee production capacity in both nations being filled for some time to come. And those vessels HAVE to be available on time to sustain CASD.
Hence it won't be possible (IMO) to "insert another SSN" into the production run.
That is why my guess is the long term solution being next gen SSN's
I'm guessing older T boats or LA boats could be refurbished (again) and put to use for the shorter term, but I can see a number of difficulties with that, too. I believe they would be horribly difficult to maintain.


Rgds
 
johns624
Posts: 4243
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

Re: ‘Stab in the back’: France accuses US of sinking Australia submarine deal

Sun Oct 03, 2021 1:28 pm

cpd wrote:
Apologies if this is off topic, but since submarines cannot fly and don’t go into space, the Aukus submarine discussion on “Military Aviation and Spaceflight” seems inappropriate.
They can launch Tomahawks... :D
 
A101
Posts: 2546
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: ‘Stab in the back’: France accuses US of sinking Australia submarine deal

Sun Oct 03, 2021 6:59 pm

astuteman wrote:
Aesma wrote:
For China this isn't good news but it simplifies things. Now Australia is like a US extension, a US state. If relations with the US go down, they will go down with Australia too, and vice versa.


Question - was it actually the US that Australia approached in this deal?

Rgds


From the snippets from what I have seen, it appears that the Australians approached the UK first then they approached US,

Not to discount the idea that it may have been a planted from a seed by ex secnav Winter who was a special advisor during the evaluation process and the person who recommended that Australia abandon the french project
 
A101
Posts: 2546
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: ‘Stab in the back’: France accuses US of sinking Australia submarine deal

Sun Oct 03, 2021 7:19 pm

Aesma wrote:
We don't expect to be fighting another world war alone, maybe ? I really don't know how attack submarines are used, considering they're basically "useless" when there is no war.



They go more places and useful than you really ever hear about, submarines are the ultimate ISR tool, but I disagree with them being useless outside of war

I suggest you read "Blind Man's Bluff: The Untold Story of American Submarine Espionage"

https://www.navalofficer.com.au/o-boats1/
 
Toenga
Posts: 312
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2020 2:55 am

Re: ‘Stab in the back’: France accuses US of sinking Australia submarine deal

Sun Oct 03, 2021 8:20 pm

I think the Australian Government's primary consideration was something far, far more short term them adding to Australia's defence capabilities in a couple of decades time.
Their Government with a very slender majority, a couple of significant recent scandals is going to have to face an election probably within the next six months.
The big immediate issues are all covid related and the ruling LNP parties responsibilities and responses, now resulting to the stark division between those states with covid and those without.
Those without covid understandably have little desire to downgrade to the same status as those with, a situation exacerbated by the LNP's very uneven treatment and messaging to the states with Labor state governments and those with LNP state governments. This uneven treatment has been especially
manifest in vaccine allocations, and federal income support. But also in messaging, Labor held QLD and WA have had to suffer constant haranguing for closing borders, but LNP led, SA and who have also closed borders have escaped censure. In fact it is Tasmania, that has signaled the strictest of reopening criteria of all. 90% double vaxed first.
Such government messaging undoubtedly shores up support in NSW, but at what expense elsewhere?
So the Government needed another big issue, "to steer the narrative" prior to the impeding election. An issue that the costs will fall far far in the future.
An issue certainly with appeal to a significant portion of their population that has much more affection to the US and Britain then to France.
And being the Sherrif of the South with the best armed force South of the Equator undoubtedly does have voter appeal.
 
astuteman
Posts: 7454
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

Re: ‘Stab in the back’: France accuses US of sinking Australia submarine deal

Sun Oct 03, 2021 8:29 pm

A101 wrote:
astuteman wrote:
Aesma wrote:
For China this isn't good news but it simplifies things. Now Australia is like a US extension, a US state. If relations with the US go down, they will go down with Australia too, and vice versa.


Question - was it actually the US that Australia approached in this deal?

Rgds


From the snippets from what I have seen, it appears that the Australians approached the UK first then they approached US,

Not to discount the idea that it may have been a planted from a seed by ex secnav Winter who was a special advisor during the evaluation process and the person who recommended that Australia abandon the french project


That is how I have seen it presented in the press as well.
As for why the USA is involved, this is certainly one of the factors ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1958_US%E ... _Agreement

The 1958 US–UK Mutual Defence Agreement

Rgds
 
johns624
Posts: 4243
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

Re: ‘Stab in the back’: France accuses US of sinking Australia submarine deal

Sun Oct 03, 2021 8:37 pm

Does this further upgrade of the AU armed forces distance them even more from New Zealand? They seem to take the changing world a lot more seriously. With NZ deferring from tagging along with the T26 order and other tensions, I wonder?
 
Toenga
Posts: 312
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2020 2:55 am

Re: ‘Stab in the back’: France accuses US of sinking Australia submarine deal

Sun Oct 03, 2021 8:54 pm

I think the Morrison Government generally has increased the distance between the positions of NZ and Australia on a lot of issues.
NZ highly values it's independence, and is very wary of subcontracting out it's Foreign Affairs policies to any alliance, that by virtue of it's minimal size, it also has minimal influence. It reluctantly participated in the Vietman war, Iraq and Afganistan, only really to preserve trade access. History shows this reluctance was well justified.
However we are digressing from the Forum topic, so better leave it at that.
 
johns624
Posts: 4243
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

Re: ‘Stab in the back’: France accuses US of sinking Australia submarine deal

Sun Oct 03, 2021 9:18 pm

Toenga wrote:
I think the Morrison Government generally has increased the distance between the positions of NZ and Australia on a lot of issues.
NZ highly values it's independence, and is very wary of subcontracting out it's Foreign Affairs policies to any alliance, that by virtue of it's minimal size, it also has minimal influence. It reluctantly participated in the Vietman war, Iraq and Afganistan, only really to preserve trade access. History shows this reluctance was well justified.
However we are digressing from the Forum topic, so better leave it at that.
Yet, Australia doesn't seem to have any qualms about doing the exact same thing-being the (by far) smallest member of an alliance. The difference is that Australia recognized the need and is building itself up as much as possible instead of letting others do all the "protecting".
 
A101
Posts: 2546
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: ‘Stab in the back’: France accuses US of sinking Australia submarine deal

Sun Oct 03, 2021 10:02 pm

johns624 wrote:
Does this further upgrade of the AU armed forces distance them even more from New Zealand? They seem to take the changing world a lot more seriously.


No dont really think so just because its nuclear propulsion, Australia was always moving ahead defence and security wise from NZ. I think the mindset from the populace towards defence is a big plus. I think that is a legacy from WWII with the bombing of northern Australia as well as Sydney by midget submarines



johns624 wrote:
With NZ deferring from tagging along with the T26 order and other tensions, I wonder?


That's going to be an interesting debate to watch and that is were we will see the true determination from NZG
 
johns624
Posts: 4243
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

Re: ‘Stab in the back’: France accuses US of sinking Australia submarine deal

Sun Oct 03, 2021 10:20 pm

A101 wrote:
johns624 wrote:
Does this further upgrade of the AU armed forces distance them even more from New Zealand? They seem to take the changing world a lot more seriously.


No dont really think so just because its nuclear propulsion, Australia was always moving ahead defence and security wise from NZ. I think the mindset from the populace towards defence is a big plus. I think that is a legacy from WWII with the bombing of northern Australia as well as Sydney by midget submarines



johns624 wrote:
With NZ deferring from tagging along with the T26 order and other tensions, I wonder?


That's going to be an interesting debate to watch and that is were we will see the true determination from NZG
I visited NZ a few years ago and had cruise tickets for this past January to visit again, before Covid hit. I really liked them but their defense confuses me. At the time, they had mainly stopped using their IPVs and were talking about getting an ice strengthened OPV. Nothing seems to have happened yet. The Canterbury seems like a lot of ship for a country with only 2 inf bns. Yet, they want to replace it and add a second ship. It's almost like their armed forces are more a "disaster aid" force than a military one. It's nice to have military assets that can do that work in peacetime, but defense should be the major driver. Meanwhile, the Anzacs are getting long in the tooth without another nation's orders to piggyback on. A great ship for them would be the Danish Absalons. They are basically a decent modern frigate that can do quite a bit of logistic work.
 
Toenga
Posts: 312
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2020 2:55 am

Re: ‘Stab in the back’: France accuses US of sinking Australia submarine deal

Sun Oct 03, 2021 11:11 pm

A101 wrote:
johns624 wrote:
Does this further upgrade of the AU armed forces distance them even more from New Zealand? They seem to take the changing world a lot more seriously.


No dont really think so just because its nuclear propulsion, Australia was always moving ahead defence and security wise from NZ. I think the mindset from the populace towards defence is a big plus. I think that is a legacy from WWII with the bombing of northern Australia as well as Sydney by midget submarines



johns624 wrote:
With NZ deferring from tagging along with the T26 order and other tensions, I wonder?


That's going to be an interesting debate to watch and that is were we will see the true determination from NZG


Or you could put it since WW2 Australia armed force policies have been much more about belligerence then defence, with it's heavy involvement in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. None of these places posed a direct threat to Australia, and certainly involvement in the last two actually reduced world security by spawning ISIS.
Recently Australia has announced it's ambition to become a top ten world's armament supplier, not through benevolence,or to make the world a better place, but just to take a bigger share of this incredibly lucrative trade.
Countering China, would be much better achieved by offering more trading opportunities and products in competition with Chinese offerings, then just acquiring more guns and missiles to point at them.
America and Britain have both expressed disquiet at NZ's level of trade with China but at the same time almost extinguish trade with us by the imposition of punitive tariffs on agricultural produce, by far our main export earner.
 
johns624
Posts: 4243
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

Re: ‘Stab in the back’: France accuses US of sinking Australia submarine deal

Mon Oct 04, 2021 12:22 am

By the time something is a "direct threat", it's sometimes too late. While I make no excuses for Iraq, Afghanistan started out as a just war. ISIS was spawned, but AQ was extinguished.
 
A101
Posts: 2546
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: ‘Stab in the back’: France accuses US of sinking Australia submarine deal

Mon Oct 04, 2021 12:25 am

Toenga wrote:
Or you could put it since WW2 Australia armed force policies have been much more about belligerence then defence, with it's heavy involvement in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. None of these places posed a direct threat to Australia, and certainly involvement in the last two actually reduced world security by spawning ISIS.


I would think not so much belligerence, more of a sign of the times of the political situation and being involved in wars of choice in assuring the security umbrella in which providing forces can have multiple objectives

Toenga wrote:
Recently Australia has announced it's ambition to become a top ten world's armament supplier, not through benevolence,or to make the world a better place, but just to take a bigger share of this incredibly lucrative trade.

That means diversify what the government can do for industry, I think in the end it will end up like local car manufacturing, the intentions were good in the beginning but at the end of the day its still private enterprise who have do the hard yards.
I think what we have seen is that Australia has come up with good ideas but doesn’t get the R&D funding nor the economies of scale,
Nulka Being a point of a good idea but needing the Americans to see it to fruition

Toenga wrote:
Countering China, would be much better achieved by offering more trading opportunities and products in competition with Chinese offerings, then just acquiring more guns and missiles to point at them.

Agree to a point trade is only one point in countering an aggressive China, but I’m reminded of Roosevelt "speak softly and carry a big stick”, It’s also a Strategic decision by AusGov for more self-reliance in defence which is always a good thing
Toenga wrote:
America and Britain have both expressed disquiet at NZ's level of trade with China but at the same time almost extinguish trade with us by the imposition of punitive tariffs on agricultural produce, by far our main export earner.

No country is going to reduce their exports more than they have to, If China wants to buy so be it, but you don’t keep that trade flowing at all costs and buy putting all your eggs in one basket, tariffs are protectionism. Small countries want trade but they also want to be competitive you don’t want another country to flood your domestic market
 
Toenga
Posts: 312
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2020 2:55 am

Re: ‘Stab in the back’: France accuses US of sinking Australia submarine deal

Mon Oct 04, 2021 2:38 am

johns624 wrote:
By the time something is a "direct threat", it's sometimes too late. While I make no excuses for Iraq, Afghanistan started out as a just war. ISIS was spawned, but AQ was extinguished.

Calling things that don't directly threaten you a "just war" is very judgmental. Just an attempt to impose outside values by force on another society.
Not surprising that eventually local support evaporated, like Vietnam some decades earlier.
And Al Qaeda was very largely funded by Saudi Arabia, and largely operated out of Pakistan. So they went to war with Iraq. Massive target miss that one, that very largely led to the formation of ISIS.
Getting back to nuclear powered submarines, how useful really would they be in any sub armageddon type conflict with a conceivable military enemy that Australia might face?
 
A101
Posts: 2546
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: ‘Stab in the back’: France accuses US of sinking Australia submarine deal

Mon Oct 04, 2021 4:24 am

This is going all off topic fast but my 2bobs worth anyway
Toenga wrote:
Calling things that don't directly threaten you a "just war" is very judgmental. Just an attempt to impose outside values by force on another society.

Wonder what the world would look like if the UK/USA didn’t get involved in WWII, didn’t turn out too well for Russia and non-aggression pact between the two
Really, I would not say there were getting involved was to impose their own values was the original intent, of the earlier wars such as Indochina it was in support of government that had similar democratic values at face value, certainly would have been interesting if both uncle Ho and Wilson were more in lockstep in the anti-colonialism views and more later after WWII

Toenga wrote:
Not surprising that eventually local support evaporated, like Vietnam some decades earlier.

Home support was not just in regards to the war, public perception was directed at multiple place such as Civil Rights battle in the US, it was also the 1st real war that the media were truly mostly uncensored. There is a deference in going to war for a cause in your own name
Also, the Norths reason were vastly different from the French/American reason, the French wanted their colony back the Americans wanted to stop communism from gaining further, but for the North just wanted one country

Toenga wrote:
And Al Qaeda was very largely funded by Saudi Arabia, and largely operated out of Pakistan. So they went to war with Iraq. Massive target miss that one, that very largely led to the formation of ISIS.

Invading Pakistan was always going to be a no no due to politics, AQ training was mostly done in Afghan, the 2nd gulf war was just a pretext to finish the job from the 1st

Toenga wrote:
Getting back to nuclear powered submarines, how useful really would they be in any sub armageddon type conflict with a conceivable military enemy that Australia might face?

Really come on, if that’s your opinion on why Australia should not get nuclear power submarine because it might start a nuclear war, then no one needs them they all have enough IBCM for Armageddon to take place,

But if it stays a conventional war by crikey it’s hard not to argue against nuclear powered subs for endurance speed and the ability to stay under water with needing to snort and increase detection. The sinking of the General Belgrano comes to mind it forced the Argentines to port there aircraft carrier out of harms way, submarine can create a huge response in red forces counter in something that may or may not be lurking nearby
 
Toenga
Posts: 312
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2020 2:55 am

Re: ‘Stab in the back’: France accuses US of sinking Australia submarine deal

Mon Oct 04, 2021 4:51 am

In reply to the last point by A101
A prior Chinese President said, or words to the effect of, "If it came to war with the USA we would win, because they would be overly constrained about not loosing too many of their own fighters lives"
Chilling.
 
A101
Posts: 2546
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: ‘Stab in the back’: France accuses US of sinking Australia submarine deal

Mon Oct 04, 2021 7:20 am

Toenga wrote:
In reply to the last point by A101
A prior Chinese President said, or words to the effect of, "If it came to war with the USA we would win, because they would be overly constrained about not loosing too many of their own fighters lives"
Chilling.



That depends on the circumstance on how war came about and in who's backyard, do not underestimate US resolve if China try to get in 1st

Lets hope it doesn't come to that but we do not want another day of infamy
 
GDB
Posts: 14408
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

Re: ‘Stab in the back’: France accuses US of sinking Australia submarine deal

Mon Oct 04, 2021 7:36 am

astuteman wrote:
cpd wrote:
astuteman wrote:

Can't pretend to be an "informed" person in that respect - I do know what I don't know :)

Having read the thread, just a couple of opinions, and nothing more...

I'd suggest forgetting past classes such as Trafalgar or Los Angeles (despite Trafalgars being the best SSN ever created (IMO :) ) )
I think the supply chain will be largely gone.
And good luck in qualifying a nuclear reactor that is 2 generations out of date.... :shakehead:

Current gen? Virginia might be possible - I personally don't think Astutes will be on the cards.

I'm inclined to consider this a strategic agreement, rather than a procurement contract per se.
And given the nature of the product, the agreement would have to be about way more than just subs - it will have to be about the whole 9 yards of support infrastructure, training, supply chain, qualification and assurance etc - the subs will be less than 1/2 the package, irrespective of what gets built where.

I'm not really up on the original contract signed between the Australians and the French.
But it can be argued that the threat scenario has escalated in recent times.

And in my lifetime, I've observed that, keeping to the faith of minding their own business, French SSN's tend to be smaller, and more "regional" in capability.
Just looking at the specs for Suffren

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_submarine_Suffren

70 days endurance and 20 weapons..... compare that to Virginia or Astute ....
The Australian subs are likely to be involved in very long range, long endurance operations, given their location, and for me that makes the more classic UK or US SSN's a better fit.
(Trafalgars can operate 100 day cruises and carry 24 reloads, and were operating in 1983).
Not dissing Suffren here - the French are superb Naval Architects

Guesses here.
What gets ordered? Personally I'd be inclined to look forward rather than backward in time.
What gets built where? Who knows :)

Rgds


We need the best current submarine that is available yesterday! That’s the problem. We shouldn’t have gone down the French path in the first place. Time is ticking away.

Apologies if this is off topic, but since submarines cannot fly and don’t go into space, the Aukus submarine discussion on “Military Aviation and Spaceflight” seems inappropriate.


Agree about the Mil Av and Space thread.

On the subject of timing - I can't see any new-build being available soon.
Astutes and Virginias are needed by their home countries, and will be followed in the production stream by the Dreadnought and Columbia SSBN's, which will almost guarantee production capacity in both nations being filled for some time to come. And those vessels HAVE to be available on time to sustain CASD.
Hence it won't be possible (IMO) to "insert another SSN" into the production run.
That is why my guess is the long term solution being next gen SSN's
I'm guessing older T boats or LA boats could be refurbished (again) and put to use for the shorter term, but I can see a number of difficulties with that, too. I believe they would be horribly difficult to maintain.


Rgds


Yes, SSBN's are hot on the heels of the current SSNs.
Speaking of the T class, did you see that 2 part series filmed on HMS Trenchant? Rather surprising what they left out since the doc shows a load of technical problems, the blocked heads being just a minor one, a lot of U/S equipment, still they did carry out their tasking. What was left out was, surprisingly the RN did not press for this, was even a statement revealing that the boat decommissioned in March after 34 years. Many viewers would have been left with the impression that RN subs ARE as depicted in a drama on another channel, y'know where the Vanguard Class seems to have more internal volume than a Soviet era Typhoon Class!

The docs, some cringe narration when you compare to the sub docs in the 80's also on You Tube;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBDHsF6frhU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hw8dLsFtxI

The superb ones from the 1980's on this channel;
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUEq-1 ... 97LB7TnsZw

Back to topic, could this be in the mix with the Aussies?
http://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/contract ... submarine/
Last edited by GDB on Mon Oct 04, 2021 7:54 am, edited 2 times in total.
 
chimborazo
Posts: 446
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 7:51 pm

Re: ‘Stab in the back’: France accuses US of sinking Australia submarine deal

Mon Oct 04, 2021 7:46 am

GDB wrote:
chimborazo wrote:
Super Étendards et Exocet


Huh? You mean the ones Argentina had? That further deliveries of were embargoed by France without the UK having to ask immediately after the invasion. French technicians there were sent home. French AF Mirage III aircraft also provided the Sea Harriers with air combat training against the aircraft type when the Task Force sailed through the Bay of Biscay.

To the subject, some questions;
With what seems to be a change in Australian defence thinking, considering a SSN now more suitable, because of the rapid Chinese military build up and their behavior in the region, given they had made the, to most observers, strange choice for a SSN design converted to a large SSK, the obvious question is why was their first option not to see if since they chosen a design with it's basis as a SSN?

Did they do this and find the costs NAVAL quoted even more astronomical than the current option?

Or was it made clear much earlier in the program that NAVAL, for legal or their own national security laws, could not build a SSN for an export customer, even a Western ally?

Maybe the RAN asked much more recently and got the same answer?

Could NAVAL do it but were told not to by the French government? Not for legal but for 'don't piss China off too much' reasons? (Though France has been maintaining rights of navigation through the areas of the South China Sea, as stated, which massively upsets them).

If any of the above is true then all of the diplomatic reaction from the French government is really silly, given the change in direction from the customer, there was only one (or two) other places they could go.


Yes I mean the ones that Argentina had. You know, Argentina that had been itching to get it’s hand on a nearby British territory for years. A territory for which Britain would need ships to defend. Hmmmmm… what are Exocets designed to do…?

France are not, and never have been, true allies of the British. The French have and always will do entirely what suits them. At least they made a few francs on the planes and missiles, eh.
 
Toenga
Posts: 312
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2020 2:55 am

Re: ‘Stab in the back’: France accuses US of sinking Australia submarine deal

Mon Oct 04, 2021 8:32 am

A101 wrote:


That depends on the circumstance on how war came about and in who's backyard, do not underestimate US resolve if China try to get in 1st

Lets hope it doesn't come to that but we do not want another day of infamy


You are making a great case for not getting too involved on either side.
 
GDB
Posts: 14408
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

Re: ‘Stab in the back’: France accuses US of sinking Australia submarine deal

Mon Oct 04, 2021 8:35 am

chimborazo wrote:
GDB wrote:
chimborazo wrote:
Super Étendards et Exocet


Huh? You mean the ones Argentina had? That further deliveries of were embargoed by France without the UK having to ask immediately after the invasion. French technicians there were sent home. French AF Mirage III aircraft also provided the Sea Harriers with air combat training against the aircraft type when the Task Force sailed through the Bay of Biscay.

To the subject, some questions;
With what seems to be a change in Australian defence thinking, considering a SSN now more suitable, because of the rapid Chinese military build up and their behavior in the region, given they had made the, to most observers, strange choice for a SSN design converted to a large SSK, the obvious question is why was their first option not to see if since they chosen a design with it's basis as a SSN?

Did they do this and find the costs NAVAL quoted even more astronomical than the current option?

Or was it made clear much earlier in the program that NAVAL, for legal or their own national security laws, could not build a SSN for an export customer, even a Western ally?

Maybe the RAN asked much more recently and got the same answer?

Could NAVAL do it but were told not to by the French government? Not for legal but for 'don't piss China off too much' reasons? (Though France has been maintaining rights of navigation through the areas of the South China Sea, as stated, which massively upsets them).

If any of the above is true then all of the diplomatic reaction from the French government is really silly, given the change in direction from the customer, there was only one (or two) other places they could go.


Yes I mean the ones that Argentina had. You know, Argentina that had been itching to get it’s hand on a nearby British territory for years. A territory for which Britain would need ships to defend. Hmmmmm… what are Exocets designed to do…?

France are not, and never have been, true allies of the British. The French have and always will do entirely what suits them. At least they made a few francs on the planes and missiles, eh.


Nonetheless those are facts, do you really want to know who helped Argentina with final AM-39/Super Etendard integration?
Same state which ignored the post 1977 UN arms embargo to Apartheid South Africa, what would be called ‘rogue state’ behavior.
Israel.
There was rapid action and from the French government unanimous support from the departments concerned, whereas in the US, many in the State Department were not supportive, Jeanne Kirkpatrick an Anglophobe harridan always keen to dine out with South American dictators and always ready to excuse IRA terrorism. Luckily the Department of Defense was, hence Casper Weinburgers honorary gong in persuading a bemused, disinterested Reagan to eventually come down on our side, helped by The actual Sec of State above Kirkpatrick, Al Haig, finally getting driven to doing the same after too many encounters with the Junta.

You don’t seem to have any knowledge on this issue beyond exposure to the toxic UK tabloid culture, hence not being aware that what you accuse the French of seems to miss out the following inconvenient facts.
Where Argentina got their two Type 42 Destroyers and Lynx helicopters from, plus the 1000lb aircraft bombs, the Blowpipe Man Portable SAM that shot down Bob Iveson’s Harrier GR.3, ammunition for their 35mm radar directed AA cannon, just to list the items sold, guess who was working hard to compete with the Super Etendard order?
BAe and the Sea Harrier.
This before we get into the diplomatic signals to Argentina from London from 1980, the notorious 1981 Defence Review which included withdrawing the final UK service presence in the region, just an ice patrol ship and Marines but a hell of a signal to an aggressive regime.

My objection to France’s stance with the RAN submarines, is more about selling the Aussies a very dubious design, still the RAN are an experienced sub operator so they were either cut out of the loop by political concerns, nothing new there.
As I said further up, the cancellation of the contract was as surprising as the design being selected in the first place.
Last edited by GDB on Mon Oct 04, 2021 9:02 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
A101
Posts: 2546
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: ‘Stab in the back’: France accuses US of sinking Australia submarine deal

Mon Oct 04, 2021 8:50 am

Toenga wrote:
A101 wrote:


That depends on the circumstance on how war came about and in who's backyard, do not underestimate US resolve if China try to get in 1st

Lets hope it doesn't come to that but we do not want another day of infamy


You are making a great case for not getting too involved on either side.



Nope making a case for Australia to be as capable as it can be. appeasement didn’t work in 37/38. Australia also overly relied on the motherland to keep them safe along with fortress Singapore

Should we take the same approach of Neville Chamberlain and German Army and Sudetenland?
 
johns624
Posts: 4243
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

Re: ‘Stab in the back’: France accuses US of sinking Australia submarine deal

Mon Oct 04, 2021 1:00 pm

Toenga wrote:
In reply to the last point by A101
A prior Chinese President said, or words to the effect of, "If it came to war with the USA we would win, because they would be overly constrained about not loosing too many of their own fighters lives"
Chilling.
On the one hand, you say China is not a threat, and now you post this. The US (or any other Western country) will never (I know, never say never) get involved in a land war in Asia. Any confrontation will be almost entirely a naval/air war with some minor raiding.
 
johns624
Posts: 4243
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

Re: ‘Stab in the back’: France accuses US of sinking Australia submarine deal

Mon Oct 04, 2021 1:04 pm

Toenga wrote:
A101 wrote:


That depends on the circumstance on how war came about and in who's backyard, do not underestimate US resolve if China try to get in 1st

Lets hope it doesn't come to that but we do not want another day of infamy


You are making a great case for not getting too involved on either side.
If the US and China ever, heaven forbid, get involved in a war, there is no way not to get "involved". Too many people in NZ think that they are in the middle of nowhere and nobody will bother them. No, they'll just come down there and strip your EEZ and there's nothing that you can do about it. Then where will you be?
 
Toenga
Posts: 312
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2020 2:55 am

Re: ‘Stab in the back’: France accuses US of sinking Australia submarine deal

Mon Oct 04, 2021 7:49 pm

A101 wrote:
Toenga wrote:
A101 wrote:


That depends on the circumstance on how war came about and in who's backyard, do not underestimate US resolve if China try to get in 1st

Lets hope it doesn't come to that but we do not want another day of infamy


You are making a great case for not getting too involved on either side.



Nope making a case for Australia to be as capable as it can be. appeasement didn’t work in 37/38. Australia also overly relied on the motherland to keep them safe along with fortress Singapore

Should we take the same approach of Neville Chamberlain and German Army and Sudetenland?


WW2 over 70 years ago was a continuation of WW1 fought over 100 years ago.
WW1 was fought by two colonial powers largely over their competing threats to their colonial holdings. The US belatedly, and strategically, joined both wars as an opportunist seeking to enlarge it's worldwide political and economic footprint at a time when the other major parties were debilitated by those wars. Nothing at all about" just wars"
Japan joined in because the US had been aggressively denieing it of access to the required resources for it's economic progression.
The geopolitical landscape present in the first half of the last century is of little relevance now except in the minds of too many nostalgic buffs and members of their powerful armaments industries in the US and Britain " Make America/Britain Great Again" camp.
The armaments industry needs international conflict for it's very existence so stirring those nationalistic pots is an extraordinarily important part of their existance, and therefore imbedded in the economic and political cultures of those players.
I think China would far rather just continue to buy up those Australian coal and iron ore mines rather then invade and get caught up in a hostile occupation scenario. Invade NZ? as a stepping stone to Antarctica? Perhaps if global warming makes Antartica habitable and swathes of China uninhabitable.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Dutchy, stratosphere and 33 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

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

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

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

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

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

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

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos