Australia to Get Nuclear Submarines

[Nobu]

Interesting. I think I see where the generals are coming from. If China invades and loses, they lose the war.

If China invades and wins, they lose the peace.

Not sure if I agree with it, but it's worth thinking about at the very least.

It would be ironic if what it took to stop China's growth was an invasion in the first place.

[Stuart Galbraith]

It illustrates we need to be careful buying all the 'China Stronk!' bullshit. As others have pointed out, a painful amount of their material requirements come from abroad. It would not take much to make importing materials via sea impossible. And whilst much is made of the new silk road, its still dependent on Russian goodwill, among others.

That said, China is a potential threat, it clearly wants to be seen as a potential threat. Thats fine, lets treat it that way whilst still smiling nicely.

[JasonJ]

29 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

And you are right. And we all know about how the FSX program got shafted by the US back in the 1980's. OTOH, as you well know the Japanese Government is looking very closely at the British Tempest program and is actively looking at jumping aboard. So clearly there are alternatives on offer, and the US is not always the Jealous master that the French are pretending they are. Its hardly as if the French ever passed up an opportunity to sell weapons to people whom were not the friends of Britain and America. Did we ever complain?

The point to be made here is that it was not the US elbowing in. It was the Australians trying to find a way out of the hole they dug themselves into with France.

 

The way some of your arguments sound is Pro-Anglosphere in this region. Those arguments work actually work in favor of Pro-CCP camp because they still imply the seeking of a result that goes at the expense of regional countries. 

The way the Australia sub program change was abrupt. Even if the French program was not working well, it was still completly out of the blue that there was a Morrison-Biden-Boris joint statement about a new alliance with new sub program. Such summits by leaders are almost always the climax of a process of first diplomats, then FM and or Defense ministers, talking about a topic in mind. I cannot find any good reason for the sub program change to have to skip past all those motions in the open. To make pretend that it wasn't only reinforces the impression that things are more about Pro-Anglosphere than anything else. 

Of course, despite saying that, we don't know much about the new program yet. Whether its Astute or Virginia or whatever. And if it goes smoothly or bumpy and wasteful.

Yes, there's looking like a participation with the UK in the tempest and perhaps vice versa with the F-3. That's fine.

[Nobu]

"It illustrates we need to be careful buying all the 'China Stronk!' bullshit."

That sounds like something Nixon would have said to Kissinger with the tape recorder running if he were in office right now 

 

Edited September 19, 2021 by Nobu

[Nobu]

5 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

It illustrates we need to be careful buying all the 'China Stronk!' bullshit. As others have pointed out, a painful amount of their material requirements come from abroad. It would not take much to make importing materials via sea impossible. And whilst much is made of the new silk road, its still dependent on Russian goodwill, among others.

That said, China is a potential threat, it clearly wants to be seen as a potential threat. Thats fine, lets treat it that way whilst still smiling nicely.

I don't disagree. If it takes yelling and serious posturing to clarify each side's lines of understanding, that's better than both sides not being sure where they actually are.

Edited September 19, 2021 by Nobu

[DB]

I'm slightly confused here. "The West" is selling military technology into the region as it has done for decades. The rate of procurement may be higher than before, but it's not "The West" that's building airbases on other countries' islands.

[Adam_S]

On the whole cancellation thing: Australia hasn't actually cancelled shit. The project was about to hit a "gate" whereby the decision had to be taken to proceed further or forget about the whole thing. They can bail at this point with very little in the way of penalty clauses.

[Ssnake]

2 hours ago, RETAC21 said:

remember the Germans building chemical weapon plants in Irak and Syria

Both were criminal acts against export law, and not official German policy. At least Jürgen Hippenstiel-Imhausen, the guy behind the plant in Libya, went behind bars for eight years. Personally, I think he should have gotten life without parole unless he returned the profits from the trade, but the law applies to everyone with equal measure, for better or for worse.

[Stuart Galbraith]

2 hours ago, JasonJ said:

The way some of your arguments sound is Pro-Anglosphere in this region. Those arguments work actually work in favor of Pro-CCP camp because they still imply the seeking of a result that goes at the expense of regional countries. 

The way the Australia sub program change was abrupt. Even if the French program was not working well, it was still completly out of the blue that there was a Morrison-Biden-Boris joint statement about a new alliance with new sub program. Such summits by leaders are almost always the climax of a process of first diplomats, then FM and or Defense ministers, talking about a topic in mind. I cannot find any good reason for the sub program change to have to skip past all those motions in the open. To make pretend that it wasn't only reinforces the impression that things are more about Pro-Anglosphere than anything else. 

Of course, despite saying that, we don't know much about the new program yet. Whether its Astute or Virginia or whatever. And if it goes smoothly or bumpy and wasteful.

Yes, there's looking like a participation with the UK in the tempest and perhaps vice versa with the F-3. That's fine.

So its fine we can participate in the Japanese F3, but its not fine that we have a military relationship with America and a member of our Commonwealth? Why is one any different from the other?

Its been pretty clear the French knew the project was not working well. It may have been a surprise the way the Australians jumped ship, but it could not have been a surprise they wanted out. What I believe this is really about is Brexit. It was expected the French would muscle in and replace Britains role as the conduit to Europe, their new best ally. And this has completely and totally thrown them. You do not see the rest of Europe throwing their toys out the pram do you? There is no skin in the game for them.

I have to say, its a little rich people getting wound up about Britain and America selling arms to Australia, when they were never wound up about the French doing it. What gives?

[JasonJ]

4 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

So its fine we can participate in the Japanese F3, but its not fine that we have a military relationship with America and a member of our Commonwealth? Why is one any different from the other?

Its been pretty clear the French knew the project was not working well. It may have been a surprise the way the Australians jumped ship, but it could not have been a surprise they wanted out. What I believe this is really about is Brexit. It was expected the French would muscle in and replace Britains role as the conduit to Europe, their new best ally. And this has completely and totally thrown them. You do not see the rest of Europe throwing their toys out the pram do you? There is no skin in the game for them.

I have to say, its a little rich people getting wound up about Britain and America selling arms to Australia, when they were never wound up about the French doing it. What gives?

The way the Australia sub program change was abrupt. Even if the French program was not working well, it was still completly out of the blue that there was a Morrison-Biden-Boris joint statement about a new alliance with new sub program. Such summits by leaders are almost always the climax of a process of first diplomats, then FM and or Defense ministers, talking about a topic in mind. I cannot find any good reason for the sub program change to have to skip past all those motions in the open. To make pretend that it wasn't only reinforces the impression that things are more about Pro-Anglosphere than anything else. 

https://www.tanknet.org/index.php?/topic/46225-australia-to-get-nuclear-submarines/&do=findComment&comment=1548073

[Stuart Galbraith]

Once again, you are blaming the British and American's for what was almost entirely Australia's decision. They wanted to end the contract, they wanted an alternative. What were we supposed to do, throw Australia under a bus for the sake of French business interests?

Dont take my word for it, read the article from the Times I posted above. It did not happen the way you seem to think it did.

Yes, its regrettable the French feel shafted. But are you telling me that the French havent done similar things in their time? Search 'Exocet' or 'IKARI Radar System'. They have never cared whom they upset in their sharp business practice. They one time we do it, they throw their toys out the pram. It wont do.

[seahawk]

6 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

 

But that isnt the problem. The problem is the EU says its going to deal with Chinese aggression, just like it is going to deal with Russian aggression, and then IT DOESNT DO ANYTHING. 

China has been on the warpath for years. The EU is still importing 7 percent of its steel production. It is STILL China's greatest foreign trading partner. The EU simply will not do anything about China, because it knows what the economic cost of trying to block cheap Chinese goods. This is remarkably similar to the EU talking butch on Russia about Ukraine, and then sitting on its hands whilst Russia builds Nordstream 2.

We can argue about what is the right thing to do all day, but its Irrelevant, because the EU is not a political organization, its primarily a trading organization.  its still at heart the EEC, and it doesnt want to be held responsible for the damage to its member countries. I know it, you know it too.

Protectionism either is or is not a good thing, dependent on context. But I do know if the EU say they were going to block that cheap Chinese Steel, the German Car industry would be the first to complain about it.

 

Why should the EU act, when the USA and UK do not?

[JasonJ]

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Once again, you are blaming the British and American's for what was almost entirely Australia's decision. They wanted to end the contract, they wanted an alternative. What were we supposed to do, throw Australia under a bus for the sake of French business interests?

Dont take my word for it, read the article from the Times I posted above. It did not happen the way you seem to think it did.

Yes, its regrettable the French feel shafted. But are you telling me that the French havent done similar things in their time? Search 'Exocet' or 'IKARI Radar System'. They have never cared whom they upset in their sharp business practice. They one time we do it, they throw their toys out the pram. It wont do.

Your Times article can not be found in the thread.

Again, the typical process for looking into major procurement or major policy change that involves international cooperation has been diplomats meet thinking about doing so and so. So and so agenda reaches next level with foreign ministers or defense ministers meeting. Then the agenda is sealed with the leaders getting together. At each stage of the way is a chance for press conference and media to run the agenda through the air.

But that didn't happen here. It was sudden. If it was the typical step by step fashion, the French would have less of a good reason to complain.

And since its about nuclear subs, US cooperation is an absolute necssity. So that would mean that the Biden administration was in on proceeding with the program entirely behind the scenes. You were pissed when Biden pulled the rug out from beneath the feet of allies in Afghanistan but now you're all in on the rug pulling because this time, the UK benefits. I would be less negative about it if it wasn't so sudden. Whose to say something sudden like that won't happen again?

But then of course there is the whole other side of it about what I would say are valid concerns as expressed multiple times in this thread already about crew size (nuke boats have longer stay team so fewer subs needed, ok perhaps), cost, tech dependency, and time frame. And those concerns are primarily for Australia. But even though I have expressed those concerns, I still have said, twice, good luck with it. If it works out then good. Was it necessary to do a shock announcement on it? I don't see why.

The next QUAD meeting is coming up (no surprise). Morrison and Suga had an online meeting on September 15th. Contents were about the upcoming QUAD meeting and the recent DPRK missile launch. It was just the next day that Morrison announced with Boris and Biden about the sub change. If Suga had heard nothing about then it would seem like Japan was kept out of the loop as well. Well yeah Australia's choice right. Being kept in the dark doesn't speak well for one's posture in the so-called security network of partners. But maybe the Suga team did catch some degree informing prior the surprise 3 leader announcemnt.

 

Edited September 19, 2021 by JasonJ

[Stuart Galbraith]

Most of the story has been taken down, but the meat is in the first paragraph. Australia asked Britain.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/like-a-scene-from-le-carre-how-the-nuclear-submarine-pact-was-no10s-biggest-secret-dj7z5f8bh

When the First Sea Lord was invited to a meeting at the Australian high commission in March this year, he had no idea of the magnitude of what was about to unfold. Admiral Sir Tony Radakin — described by colleagues as a “doer” — was asked by Vice-Admiral Michael Noonan, the Australian Chief of Navy, whether the British and Americans could help their ally to build a new fleet of nuclear-powered submarines.

The 12 Barracuda diesel-electric submarines that Australia had agreed to purchase from France five years earlier as part of a £47 billion contract were no longer enough to ward off the threat from China, which was pouring billions of pounds into building the world’s largest navy and fortifying islands outside its territorial waters.

The whole thing can still be found on reddit. It's an extraordinary story.

 

Edited September 19, 2021 by Stuart Galbraith

[JasonJ]

Alright, that was interesting, hope it works out. 

[Nobu]

If the Broadway show known as USA/China starts running any longer (50 years) and being any more profitable ($36 trillion), the question arises: when does it start getting called a hit? 

[BansheeOne]

Any histrionics between third parties focusing on what submarines Australia will get are pretty much missing the point anyway. First I'm still not convinced they will end up with any SSNs, for reasons stated before; much less British ones, which aren't even talked about anymore just a few days later. By now it's been pretty clearly pointed out that the French indignation is about the combination of the slap against their own wider agreement of strategic cooperation with Australia, and the way it was (not) communicated.

There are various claims they were actually informed shortly before by the Australians (to whom the Americans seem to have happily left the job), but even commentators Down Under seem to say it was too little, too late, including to other partners in the region. Their fury is also not necessarily shared, but at least understood by other allies since after the Afghanistan debacle, this is the second time in a short space that the current US administration follows through with a scheme developed under Trump in the worst, most rash way, without notification of affected partners. Which elevates this kind of thing from happenstance to coincidence, and we all know what comes next. 

If it was just about an arms deal, even a huge one, the excitement would indeed be overdone. As noted, the sub procurement process had reached a regular decision point, and though the break couldn't necessarily be expected three weeks after the Australian defense minister celebrated cooperation with the French at a visit to Paris with apparently no word lost on this, that's still just business. Now pulling the rug out from under an ally's entire strategic design for a world region is rather similar to what the US did to France and the UK over Suez in 1956. This will have repercussions beyond the sale of a couple subs, missiles etc. 

[Stuart Galbraith]

Is it really possible to get worked up on France's behalf, when we see silliness like this?

Why are they worked up? Look at the last G7 meeting. You can see why. Macrons master plan for a second term folded up on him.

Edited September 19, 2021 by Stuart Galbraith

[R011]

7 hours ago, Nobu said:

Triggering some premature Chinese overextension or outright aggression might actually set them back a few generations.

I still would not want to see them replace their inefficient communist leadership with a more efficient, but just as nationalistic, liberal democratic one.

 

30 years ago, I think the Koreans (of all people) were building fans and toasters. For the past 10, they have been steadily working on their own attack sub program. What the Australians have been doing for the past 10 years I have no idea, but it reminds me of someone cram schooling it to compensate for giving up on the studying thing to begin with.

This might be a wake-up call for Australia to get it together, before it gets passed by.

Korea has been building ships for about half a century.  They've been building sub's continuously since the early nineties.  Had Australia kept building sub's after the Collins Class, they'd be well practiced, but have two or three times as many as they could crew.  It's the downside of domestic ship production for a smaller sized navy that ships last a lot longer than it takes to build them leading to big gaps between contracts.

 

The first Korean subs, by the way, were 1200 tons compared to 3100 tons for Collins.  The ROK could start with small subs because of location.

Edited September 19, 2021 by R011

[Stuart Galbraith]

Thought this was interesting.

 

[seahawk]

Imagine there would be a harbour in Darwin...

[Ssnake]

3 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Once again, you are blaming the British and American's for what was almost entirely Australia's decision. They wanted to end the contract, they wanted an alternative. What were we supposed to do, throw Australia under a bus for the sake of French business interests?

Sorry, no.

When the tender for the new sub went out, the US simply wouldn't export its nuclear submarine technology except for Britain. Only after the US changed her export policy there actually was an alternative; the US created it, possibly for the purpose of pushing France out.

Maybe the decision is in the best interest of Australia (I remain decided less enthusiastic about it because rather than reducing the crew headcount from the current Collins class, they are about to more than double it, and the very likely result will be that Australia will end with much fewer submarines than what is currently being fantasized about). But make no mistake, it was a deliberate move on the side of the US, and you have to ask yourself what changed between 2016 and now that the US made a 180° on their nuclear submarine export policy. Was China any less of a problem at the time?

[Stuart Galbraith]

Nils, please read the story I posted above. The reason why America unlocked the nuclear tech is because Australia, through Britain, asked for access to it. This is exactly how Britain became part of the SSN club, because we asked. 

America doesn't go trolling around offering nuclear tech to all and sundry. Along with 5 eyes, it's the holiest of holies. Are people seriously supposing Britain and America ganged up to queer Frances pitch? Why would we want the bother? This is accepting a clearly hysterical Macrons position, which is not based on any evidence. 

Australia can do it, if they do as we do and emphasise the Navy over the Army and Air Force. They do have 15 years to figure it out. I suspect secondment by both navies to the RAN would take some of the strain off.

 

[seahawk]

And in 2016 the Aussies did not even ask for the option?

[RETAC21]

5 hours ago, Ssnake said:

Both were criminal acts against export law, and not official German policy. At least Jürgen Hippenstiel-Imhausen, the guy behind the plant in Libya, went behind bars for eight years. Personally, I think he should have gotten life without parole unless he returned the profits from the trade, but the law applies to everyone with equal measure, for better or for worse.

Yes, but that's not the point, the Germans got the contract, but they were not the only ones in competition. During the Iran-Irak was there was a European muntitions cartel to ensure both sides got enough of them and the business was well spread out, including private and public companies. Point is, western companies and government will work against each other for good business and will share markets if no other option available, there's no hive overmind called The West.