MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
Comes to something when chewkw is much more rational and coherent than tj.
That's my best English explanation I am afraid, not my first language etc ...
If you get it you get it otherwise chill man, chill and let the world be.
We are not going to live forever. LOL!
p/s: once I spoke to a friend who has very high qualification such as PhD Prof whatever ... he kept telling me that the information we saw was in the past i.e. already happened, and we could never learn to see the future because we ignore the past. ... eeerrmm ... I thought he was spaced out ... next time I am going to try it on few more Profs (yes, Profs ... they might be retired but good laugh)
The RAN decided that they prefer nuclear propulsion and apparently the government decided that the better performance justified the political and economic cost.
I thought there are two developments; slow progress from the French to deliver the French AUX-made diesel subs, and a new willingness to share US nuclear propulsion technology to speed delivery of subs to the South China Sea.
Who isn't ruing that diesel SUV purchase that's taking an age to be delivered, only to find that a nice EV version will now have a 400 mile range and not incur a ULEZ charge to boot? 😉
Who isn’t ruing that diesel SUV purchase that’s taking an age to be delivered, only to find that a nice EV version will now have a 400 mile range and not incur a ULEZ charge to boot?
Lol, plus a they can't take shore leave in nz in the new ones, it's handy they have the range to get somewhere hotter
Graham - its funny how even Uk ex diplomats agree with me that this is really serious and damaging
Some of the right wing commentators on here are so blinded by their xenophobia and jingoism that they simply refuse to see what is really obvious to anyone looking at this rationally
“This is far more than just a diplomatic spat. The withdrawal of ambassadors is the tip of the iceberg,” Peter Ricketts, a former permanent undersecretary at the Foreign Office and former UK ambassador to France, told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.
“There is a deep sense of betrayal in France because this wasn’t just an arms contract, this was France setting up a strategic partnership with Australia and the Australians have now thrown that away and negotiated behind the backs of France with two Nato allies, the US and UK, to replace it with a completely different contract.
“For the French this looks like a complete failure of trust between allies and calls into doubt what is Nato for. This puts a big rift down the middle of the Nato alliance … Britain needs a functioning Nato alliance.”
Etc etc etc
Plenty of other learned commentators agree with this position - its really obvious.
TJ - There are at least two of us on this thread who work in the industry and have actual knowledge of the Aus/French platform development including the delivery capability in to that programme. There were very valid reasons for cancelling the contract. The cancellation also affects the UK companies involved and the French know this too.
Whilst the French are pissed off about this and will be less willing to work with the UK and US in the future this really is in the best interests of Australia in both financial and capability terms.
In terms of cost one of the main drivers is Australia's determination to develop a sovereign capability through transfer of technology including the build and maintenance of these platforms in Australia. That is a very expensive aspiration.
jon
Irrelevant to my point about the political damage this has caused.
And the French are masters at sneaking around people backs anyway
Cheese eating surrender monkeys
Smell of garlic and Gauloises
Are we missing something from the list? Jeez.
TJ - It is not irrelevant. Where that programme had got to was untenable and unrecoverable. It could not be renegotiated. It had to be cancelled regardless of the political fallout.
There are at least two of us on this thread who work in the industry and have actual knowledge of the Aus/French platform development including the delivery capability in to that programme. There were very valid reasons for cancelling the contract. The cancellation also affects the UK companies involved and the French know this too.
Company I work for designs and builds equipment for Navy ships and submarines.
Our French office have had their design contract cancelled for this project last week - and our manufacturing contract (20+ year commitment) has also gone.
There were valid reasons for cancelling the contract - the French being hard work and difficult to deal with being a factor - we've heard this first-hand from the Aussie shipyard who were going to builds the subs (and reflects my own experience on multiple defence projects over the last 15 years)
However, there is a strong possibility the new solution will include significant technology from the UK, which is good for our economy.
Irrelevant to my point about the political damage this has caused.
The French will end up back to where they were relatively quickly as the harsh reality is that they will need UK support for any power projection such as the current situation in the Sahel or in the Baltic States. The French see themselves as a global power but like Britain can't do it solo, the rest of the EU is not interested in the same issues or doesn't have the capabilities or political will and so they will have to work with the UK
I am not sure why you are so hysterical on this issue, any UK government pre or post Brexit would have been in a bind with the Australians request. As soon as they asked someone would get upset, do you tell them you can't talk and they have to buy the expensive lower capability solution that's late and the French backtracking on building a Aus infrastructure, or do you help them if you can? Someone was going to be unhappy.
Strategically you want more Aus capability in a shorter time frame if at all possible, why would you not?
If you think that's a view that exhibits
xenophobia and jingoism
then fill your boots
But it seems very strange that Johnson and co are keen to play the whole thing down, none of what you describe, AUKUS described as non exclusionary etc etc.
the French being hard work and difficult to deal with being a factor
my mistake, here's another.
Are we missing something from the list? Jeez.
Wine at lunchtime...
This is a internet forum not the foreign office
Anyway back to being a vassal of the US for us...
This is a internet forum not the foreign office
Really? It was starting to look a lot like the Mail letters page.
the French being hard work and difficult to deal with being a factor
my mistake, here’s another.
Yep - after working with them for 15 years i'm more than happy to defend my opinion..
But you crack on with your pollical correctness crusade ;o)
Wine at lunchtime…
As served in the canteen in our French factory!
Really? It was starting to look a lot like the Mail letters page.
I wouldn't know as I don't read it, you can stop reading it if you want
Yep – after working with them for 15 years i’m more than happy to defend my opinion..
But you crack on with your pollical correctness crusade ;o)
Let me guess - you have friends that are French/black/gay*
*delete as applicable
Let me guess – you have friends that are French/black/gay*
*delete as applicable
As it happens - Yes I do!!
I have a number of good friends in our French office - doesn't mean they're not difficult to work with though - the two points are not mutually exclusive.
Not sure what this has to do with submarines either, but keep going if its making you happy.
Irrelevant to my point about the political damage this has caused
Publicly no doubt there will be more blustering and strong language but I doubt much will be impacted behind the scenes. Publicly it might even get used as a reason France limits cooperation with the UK over Brexit or migrants from France etc. but in reality that will just be something convenient/election point scoring for France to use to push back on any unreasonable demands Britain makes, they'd still have pushed back anyway.
The French will end up back to where they were relatively quickly as the harsh reality is that they will need UK support for any power projection such as the current situation in the Sahel or in the Baltic States. The French see themselves as a global power but like Britain can’t do it solo, the rest of the EU is not interested in the same issues or doesn’t have the capabilities or political will and so they will have to work with the UK
This is a good point, both politically and when it comes to submarines on a technical level.
The UK have our Technology on Frances subs, and soon we'll have French technology on every sub in the UK fleet - we've got to get along, whether we like it or not.
This really is the death throes of empire, isn't it? The English speaking West still wanting to assert dominance over the rest of the world; this is more to do with the US controlling Australian military power, than it is to do with France or the UK. Meanwhile, the US, UK and Australia are collapsing from within. But demonising 'others' is far easier than sorting out your own problems...
This really is the death throes of empire, isn’t it? The English speaking West still wanting to assert dominance over the rest of the world; this is more to do with the US controlling Australian military power, than it is to do with France or the UK. Meanwhile, the US, UK and Australia are collapsing from within. But demonising ‘others’ is far easier than sorting out your own problems…
Silly me, I thought a large chunk of the issue was the French ambitions to be a Indo-Pacific power, don't think they are English speaking?
This really is the death throes of empire, isn’t it?
Looks quite post-empire to me.
he French being hard work and difficult to deal with being a factor
I'm not going to defend xenophobia but there are certain working cultures in all countries and they don't always work well with each other. I'm not placing the UK on a pedestal (my favourite working experiences have been Scandinavian and Dutch), we'll be just as difficult from others' perspectives. This comes about because most people learn to work with people in their own countries most of the time.
Silly me, I thought a large chunk of the issue was the French ambitions to be a Indo-Pacific power, don’t think they are English speaking?
Do you just argue with everyone, even if they're not actually arguing with you?
It's clear the US needs to forge strong alliances with nations it considers 'friendly' in terms of overall political out look; France has traditionally been seen as a bit too 'socialist' for the US, hence the Francophobic crap that comes out of the likes of Trump etc. Yes, France has it's own imperial ambitions, and like the UK, a blinkered and distorted view of it's own 'greatness', but it's been wary of being involved too heavily in recent Western belligerence, unlike the UK which dutifully does whatever Washington tells it to. The US sees France at the forefront of a potential federal Europe, and hates the idea that it's own dominance could be threatened at all. But the fact is that China really rule the waves now. A few US nukes down in Australia won't change things at all. We all rely on China for much of our stuff, so anything else is just posturing and sabre rattling.
This really is the death throes of empire, isn’t it?
At this point, it's hard to know what it is. There are a bunch of different military alliances and partnerships in the Asia-Pacific region, this looks like it might signal a major change in U.S. priorities. Japan and South Korea are major U.S. allies in the north Pacific, but they have their own historical disputes. Both of those countries are very concerned about North Korea. Taiwan also relies on the U.S. for military support, but it's not officially an alliance to avoid offending China. Taiwan and Japan also have historical disputes, but both are afraid of China. India also has disputes with China and seems to be moving closer to the U.S., but has historical grievances with the U.K. Other countries bordering the South China Sea have ongoing disputes with China and each other, but they have ambivalent relations with the U.S. Indonesia and Australia are a bit wary of each other and Indonesia is unhappy about this submarine deal, while Malaysia seems worried about a regional arms race.
The U.S. seems to be trying to put together a bunch of different alliances to counter China, but an alliance like NATO is impossible because there are so many regional tensions so it requires multiple treaties and agreements. The larger situation isn't really an English speaking alliance, it's a complex set of alliances between democracies, plus attempts to get other countries on board to counter China. It might turn out to be the best thing that ever happened to the region, it might turn out to be a catastrophic blunder. Impossible to know at this stage.
The US sees France at the forefront of a potential federal Europe, and hates the idea that it’s own dominance could be threatened at all.
I doubt it even registers in the top 10 concerns of anyone in States. The EU is unlikely to federate in the current political generation or into the foreseeable future
But the fact is that China really rule the waves now.
Not yet, their Navy has a long way to go before dominance
A few US nukes down in Australia won’t change things at all. We all rely on China for much of our stuff, so anything else is just posturing and sabre rattling.
They will change the calculations of the Chinese military planners, which is exactly what is needed
Do you just argue with everyone, even if they’re not actually arguing with you?
I sometimes agree with people, some pertinent points are often made from surprising posters
I doubt it even registers in the top 10 concerns of anyone in States. The EU is unlikely to federate in the current political generation or into the foreseeable future
The US is rapidly diminishing as a 'superpower', yet still sees itself as World Police. Most of the rest of the World has had enough; the US has caused more death and destruction in the period following WW2 than any other nation. France and Germany know that their continued progress is reliant on stronger trade links between European states, and other emerging powers. Recent events in the US, plus the view many nations will have that the US got its arse kicked in Afghanistan, further diminishes its 'power' in the eyes of many; yet China continues to supply everyone with stuff. Hence France's interest in its own former colonies. France will not be controlled by the US the way the UK is, so France will be very much in the 'top 10 concerns' of those who wield power in the US.
Not yet, their Navy has a long way to go before dominance
So Western propaganda will have you believe. You have no idea what power the Chinese really possess, militarily. But the US government might have an inkling, hence their desire to control the Pacific from Australia. And as for actual hardware; the US might have all the fancy kit, but as so many conflicts have shown, particularly Vietnam and Afghanistan; all the gear, no idea. Still get their arses kicked by far less well resourced forces.
They will change the calculations of the Chinese military planners, which is exactly what is needed
They'll have predicted this move ages ago. And already planned their strategy. This won't change much for China.
You have no idea what power the Chinese really possess, militarily.
On the contrary, The PLA are one the most written about militaries in the world. Estimates of how "powerful" it is may be a bit overstated It has some well known longstanding issues, corruption, a disjointed regional command structure ruled somewhat as personal fiefdoms , lack of joined up thinking in doctrine between the various branches, lack of experienced leadership, a lack of joined up logistical systems, and perhaps most importantly of all, it's on a very tightly controlled CPC leash*, and has been ever since the Korean war. They haven't fought since 1979, so have little to experience of a actual shooting war. Having aid all that, regionally it's still to be reckoned with for the likes of Vietnam, Korea, Thailand etc.
*EDIT: Since the Korean war experience the CPC have purposefully "regionalised " the military to make sure it cannot act quickly in a unified way against them. It's been very successful in those efforts. Each of these regional armies is still a pretty powerful player, but how quickly they could start acting together (or whether they even could) is another question all together. They tend not to exercise nationally, lots of these armies haven't ever worked together (because the CPC won't let them)
They haven’t fought since 1979
They had a brawl with Indian troops up in the Himalayas not so long back, using rocks and boards with nails in them. Apparently the Chinese troops did pretty well for themselves.
, yet still sees itself as World Police.
Is that the "America First" America which is withdrawing from it's world policing?
so France will be very much in the ‘top 10 concerns’ of those who wield power in the US.
If the EU and a federal Europe isn't top ten then I really don't see how France registers at all.
hence their desire to control the Pacific from Australia.
8 nuclear subs aren't going to contribute much to control the Pacific, they will have half that in the water. Operations away from territorial waters will be very limited.
And as for actual hardware; the US might have all the fancy kit, but as so many conflicts have shown, particularly Vietnam and Afghanistan; all the gear, no idea
Blue water operations are slightly different to trying to control a country with boots on the ground
You have no idea what power the Chinese really possess, militarily.
You are the 50 cent brigade, surface water assets are visible from space, subs as well to an extent. Or do the Chinese have a vast fleet of James Bond villian Q ships?
Is that the “America First” America which is withdrawing from it’s world policing?
No; it's the 'America first' US that gets it's arse kicked then withdraws, leaving an almighty mess where millions of innocent people suffer.
On the contrary, The PLA are one the most written about militaries in the world.
Written about by whom? Western 'observers' who know little more than you or I? Fact is; China knows more about our military systems than we do about theirs; they make the electronics for a lot of it! 😀 But military 'strength' is increasingly meaningless in this world today; the USA keep proving that by getting their arses kicked by forces with far 'inferior' resources. China has far more economic power now; their investments in regions such as South America and Africa, over the last few decades, have given them a much stronger foothold globally, than the USA now has. And don't forget Russia; they'll happily ally with China, if it means getting one over the US. The USA is like an old drunk in a pub; still thinks he's 'got it', when everyone else knows he's just a belligerent old drunk who gets his arse kicked all the time.
You are the 50 cent brigade, surface water assets are visible from space, subs as well to an extent. Or do the Chinese have a vast fleet of James Bond villian Q ships?
Like I said; you've no idea. Pretending you do, doesn't make you actually knowledgable.
I really don’t see
Quite.
Written about by whom? Western ‘observers’ who know little more than you or I?
Yeah, who needs experts, right? I mean almost no one is literally spending hours in universities studying the world's military, for all intents and purposes the PLA may well not exist.
the USA keep proving that by getting their arses kicked by forces with far ‘inferior’ resources
AFAIK no military power has ever defeated an insurgent army. The US are not alone in this. The PLA got it's arse handed to it in 1979 by the same Vietnamese army that whopped the US
Yeah, who needs experts, right? I mean almost no one is literally spending hours in universities studying the world’s military, for all intents and purposes the PLA may well not exist.
All they know is whatever is 'visible'. And China keeps a lot of its military interests invisible. So none of us know the true extent of China's military power. Add to that Western Propaganda which will always play down the 'opposition's' real capabilities, and we have at best a distorted picture of what's actually there.
AFAIK no military power has ever defeated an insurgent army. The US are not alone in this. The PLA got it’s arse handed to it in 1979 by the same Vietnamese army that whopped the US
So you're comparing the PLA of 42 years ago, with today? Ok. Because that will give a properly accurate picture, won't it? 😀
They had a brawl with Indian troops up in the Himalayas not so long back, using rocks and boards with nails in them. Apparently the Chinese troops did pretty well for themselves.
If you want to extrapolate from a nasty hand to hand fight to high intensity military operations it might be a bit of a leap
Written about by whom? Western ‘observers’ who know little more than you or I? Fact is; China knows more about our military systems than we do about theirs; they make the electronics for a lot of it!
I'm pretty sure the detailed threat assessments of various governments aren't in the public domain
The Chinese have been very good at hacking and we know about some of the activities. We know nothing about the activities in the opposite direction.
Add to that Western Propaganda which will always play down the ‘opposition’s’ real capabilities, and we have at best a distorted picture of what’s actually there.
I thought the military industrial complex overplayed the threat to justify selling more arms......
If you want to extrapolate from a nasty hand to hand fight to high intensity military operations it might be a bit of a leap
I’m not going to defend xenophobia but there are certain working cultures in all countries and they don’t always work well with each other. I’m not placing the UK on a pedestal (my favourite working experiences have been Scandinavian and Dutch), we’ll be just as difficult from others’ perspectives. This comes about because most people learn to work with people in their own countries most of the time.
+1.
i've worked with people from various nations on a number of projects and also found the Dutch to be pretty easy to work with.
Whereas the French (and the Aussies in some instances) not so much.
I can certainly see why the French and the Aussies have clashed.
The Chinese have been very good at hacking and we know about some of the activities. We know nothing about the activities in the opposite direction.
What do you think people in China are told by their government, media etc?
Australia wrote to France to say they wanted to go ahead with next phase a day b4 AUKAUS announcement 😳
https://twitter.com/HerveGrandjean/status/1440251824007614467?s=19
What do you think people in China are told by their government, media etc?
Is there free media in China?
I imagine they are told what the CCP wants them to hear
I imagine
So you don't actually know then? Thanks for clarifying.
I know that we're not being told the full story; after all, the UK and Australia share the same head of state...
The very same head of state on whose behalf a prime minister was deposed when he started asking too many questions about the CIA's involvement in Pine Gap
Ain't called the Royal Australian Navy for nothin'
So you don’t actually know then?
I'm not on the 50 cent brigade mailing list for their daily briefing.....
All they know is whatever is ‘visible’. And China keeps a lot of its military interests invisible. So none of us know the true extent of China’s military power. Add to that Western Propaganda which will always play down the ‘opposition’s’ real capabilities, and we have at best a distorted picture of what’s actually there
Ofc there will be Chinese technology that either isn't publicly known or even known to Western intelligence agencies - but the same applies in reverse to US technology.
I'd also say it's more typical for countries to overstate the threat from rivals/enemies, it's the best way to secure military funding (and the support of the populace for the taxes needed for it in Western countries which aren't autocratic)
As someone else pointed out to, you really can't compare a mostly naval and air war (as anything in the South China Sea would likely be) with a land based guerrilla war. Technology is a massive force multiplier in naval & air battles, much less so in land warfare (especially in an environment such as Vietnam).
I'm not really sure what AUSUK building up a bigger submarine fleet will actually help with though. China have obviously seen how easily Putin can manipulate Western powers by basically just ignoring their threats. I can't see anything really kicking off in the South China Sea unless it's by accident and I imagine even that would be very contained (I can't see one side accidentally sinking one of the other side's carriers...). So China will keep grabbing the islands they want as the West/NATO/AUSUK huff and puff. Sanctions didn't really work against Putin and they'd be far more damaging to the West if implemented against China.
The West needs to play the long game and become much less economically dependent on China before it has a hope of keeping China in check but Western governments are short term so that's not going to happen. So we'll just keep splurging money on more shiny new military toys that never get used in anger - rather than on the things we need to be spending money on.
I can't but help think that Australia having a few nuclear subs in the region really doesn't hinder China at all.
China has all the time in the world and no election cycles to worry about.
It's like building a wall of sand against the tide.
My resignation in this matter doesn't make me happy though. China is increasingly belligerent and I don't see it simply wanting to be an economic superpower alone.
It's been sensing the demise of the US and (perhaps) democracies in general for some time and it's hungry.
Anyway, just my thoughts. It's all crystal ball stuff and to pretend otherwise is just daft.
As pointed out a few pages ago, have the ausies put it to their electorate about the long term costs of a nuclear navy?
What would happen if the backlash against this when the costs & details emerge ends up dumping the government out in next years elections?
What would happen if the backlash against this when the costs & details emerge ends up dumping the government out in next years elections?
Depends on the policies of the replacement government. It won't be one issue alone that will remove the incumbents
Ain’t called the Royal Australian Navy for nothin’
Alright L Ron, where was E-Lizard-beth when they signed the deal with the French?
Got a linked in post today that (jokingly) alluded that the Australians might get (an upside down) SSNR as a platform. But would be a distinct possibility. Share the dev costs, platform integration etc.
The West really needs to keep up with the technology or their future generations will regret it once the great war starts again. At the moment they are entering the phase of policy preparation etc ...
Looking at the Chinese (commies) expansion together with some of the recent plans (resource acquisition and infrastructure projects etc), I suspect another great war is looming in 2 or 3 generations time at the latest. This is because they need their 3 children policy to take effect fully in order to stock up their forces.
Please note that Chinese (descended from the mainland 5 generations or more ago) in other parts of the world are completely different from those currently in mainland. Those on the mainland are very "drone" like.