Aukus : Australia, UK & US form a pact to Counter China

[rjfp1962]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-58564837

[Iminquarantine]

There are a few interesting things about this.

1. Why the UK? AU has traditionally had a closer defence relationship with the US than the UK, even if all are part of Five Eyes. Does the UK want to start projecting power into the South China Sea?
2. What will happen to the AU contract for French diesel-electric submarines?
3. Will they still use the French submarines which were designed around nuclear propulsion and were being re-engineered for diesel-electric?
4. Why did Bozza not notice that with him standing right in front of the union flag in the news conference, it looked like a United States-Australia only job.

[Jader1973]

Iminquarantine said:

There are a few interesting things about this.

1. Why the UK? AU has traditionally had a closer defence relationship with the US than the UK, even if all are part of Five Eyes. Does the UK want to start projecting power into the South China Sea?
2. What will happen to the AU contract for French diesel-electric submarines?
3. Will they still use the French submarines which were designed around nuclear propulsion and were being re-engineered for diesel-electric?
4. Why did Bozza not notice that with him standing right in front of the union flag in the news conference, it looked like a United States-Australia only job.

1. Don’t know
2. Reports are that they’ll walk away. I expect they’ll pay a massive exit fee mind you.
3. No, not based on the news down here.
4. He is a numpty.

[Petrus1983]

Reports are they’ve walked away from the French deal which (understandably) majorly pissed them off.

Who’s paying for all this?

[anonymous-user]

I imagine Beijing are stting themselves in terror.

[Iminquarantine]

Petrus1983 said:

Reports are they’ve walked away from the French deal which (understandably) majorly pissed them off.

Who’s paying for all this?

I wonder why not just keep the French contract, but with nuclear propulsion as it was originally designed. You can still get the reactor from whoever you want.

[Iminquarantine]

Newarch said:

I imagine Beijing are stting themselves in terror.

I think they would genuinely see another country with nuclear submarines as an additional barrier to their further ambitions with Taiwan and the South China Sea.

[paulrockliffe]

Iminquarantine said:

There are a few interesting things about this.

1. Why the UK? AU has traditionally had a closer defence relationship with the US than the UK, even if all are part of Five Eyes. Does the UK want to start projecting power into the South China Sea?
2. What will happen to the AU contract for French diesel-electric submarines?
3. Will they still use the French submarines which were designed around nuclear propulsion and were being re-engineered for diesel-electric?
4. Why did Bozza not notice that with him standing right in front of the union flag in the news conference, it looked like a United States-Australia only job.

1. Given your usual posts on here I'm not surprised you can't answer this. We're a reliable partner with nuclear missiles on submarines with overlapping interests.
2. Hahahaha
3. Nope, see 2.
4. He's trolling you.

[Flooble]

Iminquarantine said:

There are a few interesting things about this.

1. Why the UK? AU has traditionally had a closer defence relationship with the US than the UK, even if all are part of Five Eyes. Does the UK want to start projecting power into the South China Sea?
2. What will happen to the AU contract for French diesel-electric submarines?
3. Will they still use the French submarines which were designed around nuclear propulsion and were being re-engineered for diesel-electric?
4. Why did Bozza not notice that with him standing right in front of the union flag in the news conference, it looked like a United States-Australia only job.

US nuclear technology was shared with the UK back in the 50s (Rickover). While the UK now makes its own, more or less, if you can move towards commonality you can reduce costs. And if you have interoperability (e.g. communications) then you can achieve better force projection. E.g. the Aus subs can cover around Antarctica for the US and the UK subs can cover the Eastern half of the North Atlantic for the US. Reduces the cost to the USA and also means that if one of their subs has an accident there are extra units that can fill the gap and operate seamlessly with the rest of the US fleet.

[anonymous-user]

Iminquarantine said:

Newarch said:

I imagine Beijing are stting themselves in terror.

I think they would genuinely see another country with nuclear submarines as an additional barrier to their further ambitions with Taiwan and the South China Sea.

Aren't these going to be nuclear powered though rather than carrying nuclear missiles?

[nebpor]

Newarch said:

Aren't these going to be nuclear powered though rather than carrying nuclear missiles?

Correct. It would break other agreements if Aus was to have nuclear weapons.

[Iminquarantine]

Newarch said:

Aren't these going to be nuclear powered though rather than carrying nuclear missiles?

Correct; but the benefit is increased endurance and therefore increased ability to harrass or monitor Chinese surface ships as well as China's mostly conventional but some nuclear submarines. Or maybe now there is a new contract, they will be fitted with submarine launched cruise missiles.

[frisbee]

Newarch said:

I imagine Beijing are stting themselves in terror.

They should be. In the year 2263 when Australian covid travel restrictions are lifted they'll sneak into the South China sea in their stealthy submarines and launch absolutely nothing.

[rxe]

Iminquarantine said:

I wonder why not just keep the French contract, but with nuclear propulsion as it was originally designed. You can still get the reactor from whoever you want.

Spannering arbitrary reactors into a submarine is probably not very easy. Probably harder than putting a V6 into a VW Polo.

If I was in the market for a nuclear submarine, would I prefer a design that was already in service, was demonstrably able to display reducing costs per unit and seems to be top of the pack when it comes to operational performance? Or would I choose one that is none of these things? There an another angle - Aus has no domestic nuclear capability - the Astute class can go for 25 years without refuelling, the Barracuda class can do 8 - 10 years.

This is a massive win for the UK and BAE Systems, really good news.

I do like old Jacinda complaining about nuclear subs and not allowing them into her waters …. how would she even know, and what would she do about it?

[Jader1973]

rxe said:

This is a massive win for the UK and BAE Systems, really good news.

If BAE are involved it is going to take forever. It does explain why ScoMo went in this direction though.

BAE are building a version of the Type 26 frigate in Adelaide - already over budget and behind schedule, first one not laid down yet and meant to launch in 2031.

Adelaide was chosen because when the Libs shafted the Australian car industry Adelaide got hit hard - Holden were one of the largest employers in the city. Therefore to buy votes, sorry “make use of the skilled workforce” the Libs decided to build navy ships there.

I assume the subs will be built in Adelaide too.

[mick987]

rxe said:

Spannering arbitrary reactors into a submarine is probably not very easy. Probably harder than putting a V6 into a VW Polo.

If I was in the market for a nuclear submarine, would I prefer a design that was already in service, was demonstrably able to display reducing costs per unit and seems to be top of the pack when it comes to operational performance? Or would I choose one that is none of these things? There an another angle - Aus has no domestic nuclear capability - the Astute class can go for 25 years without refuelling, the Barracuda class can do 8 - 10 years.

This is a massive win for the UK and BAE Systems, really good news.

I do like old Jacinda complaining about nuclear subs and not allowing them into her waters …. how would she even know, and what would she do about it?

Added bonus the French have their tail feathers ruffled.

[paulrockliffe]

rxe said:

Spannering arbitrary reactors into a submarine is probably not very easy. Probably harder than putting a V6 into a VW Polo.

If I was in the market for a nuclear submarine, would I prefer a design that was already in service, was demonstrably able to display reducing costs per unit and seems to be top of the pack when it comes to operational performance? Or would I choose one that is none of these things? There an another angle - Aus has no domestic nuclear capability - the Astute class can go for 25 years without refuelling, the Barracuda class can do 8 - 10 years.

This is a massive win for the UK and BAE Systems, really good news.

I do like old Jacinda complaining about nuclear subs and not allowing them into her waters …. how would she even know, and what would she do about it?

Not just that, Aus asked for Nuclear engines and were told no, because France won't supply reactors to anyone else. The result was a whole load of fking about redesigning the boat to take an engine the Customer didn't want that means the boats are now late and over-budget.

Now the French are kicking up a fuss because the Customer said, fk this st we'll just buy what we actually want from someone that will sell us that instead. And the usual remainers are suggesting Aus are at fault because there's some vague tangential link to the UK and Grrrr Brexit etc etc.

[Chris944_S2]

Iminquarantine said:

There are a few interesting things about this.

1. Why the UK? AU has traditionally had a closer defence relationship with the US than the UK, even if all are part of Five Eyes. Does the UK want to start projecting power into the South China Sea?
2. What will happen to the AU contract for French diesel-electric submarines?
3. Will they still use the French submarines which were designed around nuclear propulsion and were being re-engineered for diesel-electric?
4. Why did Bozza not notice that with him standing right in front of the union flag in the news conference, it looked like a United States-Australia only job.

To the last point, it may have been unintentional but I get the feeling that it is a good metaphor for the whole alliance.

The impression I am getting is that we tagged along because we are the US’s “special” friend, but it’s essentially the US who is driving this and using Australia as a geographically close and politically aligned ally.

[anonymous-user]

Chris944_S2 said:

The impression I am getting is that we tagged along because we are the US’s “special” friend, but it’s essentially the US who is driving this and using Australia as a geographically close and politically aligned ally.

This. The UK aren't really a significant political entity in our own right anymore, our link to Australia these days is largely historical and ceremonial, most Aussies are much more closer aligned with the Yanks these days culturally.

Defence wise the US is still remembered for helping defend Australia during the Second World War, whilst Britain drew off ANZAC troops for the disastrous defence of Singapore and to fight in North Africa. No wonder Australia has closer links to the US.

[DaveCWK]

It's a pretty big deal the US sharing nuclear technology with another country; I'm glad the UK are a part of it.