Forum menu
Can anyone explain this in a positive way?
What are the negatives?
The only people I have seen to be complaining are the Chinese (inevitably) and the French (because Australia have now cancelled a deal with them to buy French-made subs).
Can anyone explain this in a positive way?
The point seems to be that the liberal democracies tried a policy of engagement with China on the assumption that China would see the benefits of being less autocratic. That's based on a win-win view of relations. China is extremely insecure and sees things as a zero-sum game so any benefit for other countries is automatically a loss for China. Their crackdown in Hong Kong was a clear message that they have absolutely no intention of becoming less autocratic or honouring any agreements that hinder them. The same goes for their attempt to annex the entire South China Sea. China has been provoking small scale confrontations with most of its neighbours. Taiwan is a fairly liberal democracy, but China seems fairly intent on reunifying by force. AUSUK seems to be intended as a signal to China that the democratic countries have given up on the engagement policy and they are prepared for military confrontation if China continues on its current course.
Also, France is unhappy, that's a bonus.
Lots of folks leaving Barrow-in-Furness for Adelaide?
Can anyone explain this in a positive way?
Come 2030 or thereabouts the Australian submarine fleet will be using less diesel. Diesel's bad, right?
Also, France is unhappy, that’s a bonus
You're just unhappy that they dissed us by not even bothering to recall their ambassador like they have for Australia and the US because they see the UK as "only a junior partner" in the deal.
^^ and doubly so for Canberra I'd have thought!
Can anyone explain this in a positive way?
It means you won't have to learn Chinese until 2030, as opposed to 2025.
Even if going to war with China were a good idea (which it clearly isn't) two piddly insignificant countries like the UK and Australia don't really pose a threat to them. I'm not sure what this brings to the US.
It brings legitimacy.
So far it seems to be mostly about Australia and the US screwing France. Because obviously if western liberal states are to oppose China the best way to do it is to fight amongst themselves.
What do we get out of it? I mean, I know what our government gets out of it, they get to say "look, we are a world power". But what will we gain?
So far it seems to be mostly about Australia and the US screwing France
Yeah appeals to the xenophobes, see here -
Also, France is unhappy, that’s a bonus.
And the Tories know that their base are easily manipulated by that.
I do see it as increasing liklihood of UK getting sucked into war in s China Sea, at the very least we will be sending a lot more ships and crew to that part of the world (at no small cost)
Meanwhile Putin squeezing our balls with gas supply + middle East, Afghanistan still cooking pots of dissent
Johnson sees an opportunity to improve relations with America and Aus, for short term political gain, but longer term implications will be costly
And as an extra bit of shortsightedness pissing off France as Patel is begging them for help with refugees is extra daft
Even if going to war with China were a good idea (which it clearly isn’t) two piddly insignificant countries like the UK and Australia don’t really pose a threat to them. I’m not sure what this brings to the US.
It's about not going to war with an expansionist China, the nuclear subs are a step change in capabilities compared to the diesel electric the French were selling. Then there are the issues with the French sub deal, so I can see spending a fortune on a programme that would struggle to compete against Chinese subs, would be a political albatross, hugely expense, probably late would not be attractive.
The French should have known this was coming
https://www.politico.eu/article/why-australia-wanted-out-of-its-french-sub-deal/
The Chinese had hacked the French designs and so are probably very upset that the deal makes their sub issues bigger
Even if going to war with China were a good idea (which it clearly isn’t) two piddly insignificant countries like the UK and Australia don’t really pose a threat to them. I’m not sure what this brings to the US.
I'm a big fan of putting down the UK but being honest neither the UK nor Australia are piddly and insignificant, neither can stand alone against China but quite clearly neither are planning to as alone they'd get their arses handed to them.
Which is the actual takeaway from this, which is the building of alliances to contain China. Of which AUSUK is just one part. An example being the Quad.
Is this a good idea, I dont know. Doubt anyone here does.
So far it seems to be mostly about Australia and the US screwing France.
I think the French deal was screwing the Australians
Because obviously if western liberal states are to oppose China the best way to do it is to fight amongst themselves
It's a procurement fight, it's not going to change much
I do see it as increasing liklihood of UK getting sucked into war in s China Sea, at the very least we will be sending a lot more ships and crew to that part of the world (at no small cost)
Our navy costs regardless, arguably it's a deterrent, it makes the hurdle for the Chinese military planners higher for things like the invasion of Taiwan, South China Sea expansion etc
Meanwhile Putin squeezing our balls with gas supply + middle East, Afghanistan still cooking pots of dissent
He's gripping the Germans balls a lot tighter than ours, middle East is arguably at a lower state of mess than in the last few years, Afghan wants the west to go away other than the £££££
Johnson sees an opportunity to improve relations with America and Aus, for short term political gain, but longer term implications will be costly
In what way, other than the short term upset for the French the risks are no different to the current ones
The Chinese had hacked the French designs and so are probably very upset that the deal makes their sub issues bigger
Do you have a source for that which isnt from that utter shite spout rag of liars?
The French should have known this was coming
The French were upset because they learned about it by Press release & aus also never asked France for their nuclear option.
Tho beset by delays on the French side, wasn't all their fault
Part of the problem was Australias insistence that they be built there, so France have to rebuild their shipyards down under
I believe that's still something they want in the new deal, with rolls Royce engines being built in America? , what Britain's involvement will be is unknown, I wouldn't be surprised if our part of the deal is to take the nuclear waste at the end of the engines lifetime!
Our navy costs regardless,
The fuel costs alone are bonkers, extra patrols won't come cheap
I've stood in the empty bays on one of our T45 destroyers, that are meant to house cruise missles but are currently an extra spacious crew gym because we can't afford the launchers.
Do you have a source for that which isnt from that utter shite spout rag of liars?
Did find a link saying China had hacked US submarine plans 😳
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44421785
www.ft.com/content/182399f2-69be-11e6-a0b1-d87a9fea034f&ved=2ahUKEwiMtp_2xojzAhWOa8AKHWQsBLAQFnoECAMQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1oLz80sCxAaXxi5P9Gk6hT
French leak covered in the FT amongst others
They have also hacked the Russians and US
Another article explaining what went on. First sub in the water in 2040!
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/sep/18/the-nuclear-option-why-has-australia-ditched-the-french-submarine-plan-for-the-aukus-pact
Its a really nasty devious move, disrupts Nato badly, pisses of the french and does russias job for them.
Utterly stinks. Typical double dealing and xenophobia from Johnson and co
the reprecussions will be big and long lasting. the UK can say goodbye to what little goodwill was left
I’m not sure what this brings to the US.
Its their latest whipping boy for all the evils of the world. They've fkd South America, the Middle east, Russia to some degree and have decided to look again towards Asia.
For the past several months the US population(the dumbo half) have been clogging up social media boards projecting hate towards China. they're the new and latest shiny Enemy.
But I think much like previous economic wars the US engages in they're hoping to use Australia to fight it for them, rather than risk China engaging them directly.
We're just along for the economic ride, given we will also produce the weapons the Aussies will need.
We’re just along for the economic ride, given we will also produce the weapons the Aussies will need.
? conventional weapons? What do you refer to?
If anyone thinks we will get more than crumbs economically from this I will bet my house you are wrong.
What do you refer to?
Whatever you think mate 😉
We've screwed our supplies of brie and Bordeaux, now it's the turn of battery gadgets and slip-on crocs. That's the takeaway.
the nuclear subs are a step change in capabilities compared to the diesel electric the French were selling.
France proposed nuclear subs (like their own) but Oz insisted on diesel, so France had to redesign specially.
Whatever you think mate
I really do not know hence asking. What weapons do we make for these subs?
I really do not know hence asking. What weapons do we make for these subs?
Dunno about weapons but I think I read we will make the reactor cos US have laws about that sort of stuff. Surely one of the "Vigil" armchair experts can enlighten us?
That’s the takeaway
Very good.
Croc wearers will be first up against the wall
Looks like the Aussies realised that they were being dramatically overcharged (the French designed diesel subs would cost about 3-4 times the going rate for a modern US or UK nuclear attack sub) and reacted accordingly...I think this project was one of the the jewells in France's military-industrial export strategy hence the subsequent outrage in Paris.
Or perhaps they undiplomatically said that Jacobs Creek Cabernet Sauvignon was way better than ChateauNeuf du Pap and it all went downhill from there.
Sorry, I thought it would be obvious.
We make torpedoes, and surface to air missiles that subs can carry. But its possibly trying to get into Australia's defence market that Britain hopes to do. We are skint after all.
The US is looking for a closer relationship in its new sphere in influence against the Chinese.
I wonder how much Australia will actually be paying and how much the US will be funding their construction
Doesn't see much of an issue, commonality across the 3 nations now for the future, guessing it'll be a modified astute, which will benefit the UK as during design, testing, etc they may provide improvements for the current fleet, and reduce through life costs for both nations, as well as the US who will supply some of the main aspects of the design and manufacture.
It's not the first time we've got together, the UK and Australia both being part of the F35 programme, again something the French did not like, with their carrier based Rafale being the one they wanted to sell to everyone.
It's also not really all about China, they could be friends in 5 years, or not, it's about supporting a capability for the next 30 years, and this fills the Australian requirement.
dyna-ti
Free Member
Sorry, I thought it would be obvious.
We make torpedoes, and surface to air missiles that subs can carry. But its possibly trying to get into Australia’s defence market that Britain hopes to do. We are skint after all.
The US is looking for a closer relationship in its new sphere in influence against the Chinese.
I wonder how much Australia will actually be paying and how much the US will be funding their construction
Pretty sure TLAM isn't a UK product!
Torpedo wise, i don't think the UK sell spearfish to anyone else, as it's the new torpedo they don't tend to sell the same level of technology, the US do similar with a lot of stuff to keep ahead of the game.
No worries dyna ti
Its a really nasty devious move, disrupts Nato badly, pisses of the french and does russias job for them.
It's a procurement dispute, it will blow over, Macron is posturing because he's got an election coming. UK chinnocks are providing heavy lift in the Sahel, we jointly operate in the Baltic States.
Utterly stinks. Typical double dealing and xenophobia from Johnson and co
I imagine the Australians approached UK/US for a alternative, we don't use diesel/electric subs so only one offer on the table. The French deal was abysmal for the Australian navy.
the reprecussions will be big and long lasting. the UK can say goodbye to what little goodwill was left
That goodwill we build every time we lift troops, ammo, water, rations, medical in the Sahel?
https://www.forces.net/news/raf-chinooks-pass-3000-flying-hours-milestone-mali
I imagine the Australians approached UK/US for a alternative, we don’t use diesel/electric subs so only one offer on the table. The French deal was abysmal for the Australian navy.
It was the ausies insisted on diesel, post fukushima they decided against nuclear (according to your own link b&d) , French have nuclear subs too & now asking why, if the ausies wanted nuclear they didn't ask for them?
Costs were also partially so hi because Australia insisted on work being done there & cost & delays were to refitting ship yards there, IIRC they still want work to be carried out there on these ones
Australia has its nuclear power waste processed overseas, any bets Sellafield will be getting written into the decommissioning of these?
I think the French deal was screwing the Australians
Ah so we rescued our Antipodean cousins from the dastardly cheese eating surrender monkeys?
Its a really nasty devious move, disrupts Nato badly, pisses of the french and does russias job for them.
This.
Utterly stinks. Typical double dealing and xenophobia from Johnson and co
This too.
I'm amazed that people see anything other than the uk going along for the ride here.
Other than the obvious link with the 5 eyes what exactly could we have done to make this happen, you can bet 95% was aus and the us. Chances are the uk was only invited to the conference as we already have asub deal with the us, otherwise they probably wouldn't have bothered
Plus you really think bojo has that much influence?
I would agree. the UK ghas gone tagging on the US coat tails for very little gain and for huge loss.
Perfidious albion
It’s a procurement dispute, it will blow over
You really think pissing off a neighbour we have already pissed off badly and who we need a lot of co operation from is nothing?
you think the damage done to NATO thru this is nothing?
You think the further erosion of trust in the UK is nothing
Jeepers
this will have repercussions for a long time.