@PJM1974

the usual response is some form of non-sequitur.

Amazing.

@chewkw

LOL! I knew you lot were going to use that line of argument.

Please don’t be rude. So far only I responded to/addressed your claim. I’m me. Not a ‘you lot’. I’m not part of a collective.

Let’s look at the statistic as you wish

But you’re not looking at statistics ‘as I wish’. You’re avoiding my argument. I won’t guess why, maybe you can tell me?

I ‘wished’ that you would tell me the per capita palm oil consumption of China in 2020 vs EU27 in 2020?

So please tell me

I think we (Aus) have been told we need nuclear powered subs.

Which will take years to complete.

At great cost.

For the “China War”

We currently have no nuclear weapons, and no military nuclear program.

So we need silent nuclear subs with no nuclear capability. Sounds legit.

I think we (Aus) have been told

I think that’s exactly what happened as well.

… not that the whole French deal wasn’t a merde-show since the get-go apparently.

I think we (Aus) have been told we need nuclear powered subs.
Which will take years to complete.
At great cost.
For the “China War”
We currently have no nuclear weapons, and no military nuclear program.

I don’t think that’s what happened at all. As I understand it, Australia already has a fleet of diesel subs that are aging and need replacement. Projects like this take 10 to 20 years and are always expensive. At the time, they decided to stick with non-nuclear propulsion and the contract was awarded to France. The French contractor was behind schedule and not meeting specifications and the RAN was unhappy. They decided to cancel the French contract. Things have moved on since the original tender and the U.S. agreed to technology sharing for nuclear propulsion (which is required for British or American built nuclear subs). The advantage of nuclear propulsion is that the sub has effectively unlimited range and can cruise at high speed submerged, whereas a diesel sub has to cruise at lower speed at snorkel depth, which makes it much easier to track. The Pacific Ocean is enormous so having subs that can easily reach the South China sea and Northern Pacific without surfacing was seen as important given how badly most countries in the region are getting on with China. Australia wasn’t pressured into this, the French ****ed it up and the U.S. came in with an offer that is more suited to the current situation.

The nuclear propulsion issue is completely unrelated to nuclear weapons. A conventionally powered sub can fire nuclear weapons and a nuclear powered sub can fire conventional weapons. The Argentinian cruiser that was sunk during the Falklands conflict was hit by a conventional torpedo fired by a nuclear powered submarine. Nuclear propulsion gives higher sustained underwater speed and unlimited range, that’s a huge benefit for a conventionally armed sub, it has no relationship to what weapons the sub carries.

If that was indeed what happened then why didn’t the Australians inform the French of their new requirements and launch a new tender exercise? Instead of sneaking around behind the French backs.

So we need silent nuclear subs with no nuclear capability. Sounds legit.

The ones being discussed are hunter killer subs not ballistic missile subs
The purpose is to sneak up on naval task forces and sink the carriers and other key ships rather than wipe out cities although with tomahawks they would have limited anti ground force capability as well.

A good example of the usage was the Falklands war when after the Belgrano was sunk the Argentinians withdrew their aircraft carrier for fear it was next on the release which reduced their ability to launch air raids.
Of course the Chinese will have been working hard to get rather better anti sub warfare equipment.

I think that is the biggest issue, someone massively dropped a bollock on comms there

The discussion I’ve seen is that the Australians specifically asked for diesel-powered rather than nuclear-powered subs from the French.

I think that is the biggest issue, someone massively dropped a bollock on comms there

Yeah. Comms issue. That’s what I told my wife when she found me shagging the au pair.

If that was indeed what happened then why didn’t the Australians inform the French of their new requirements and launch a new tender exercise? Instead of sneaking around behind the French backs.

Breaking a contract like this could end up quite expensive, the French will be seeking damages. So it’s not a decision lightly entered into.

The likely scenario is that the assessment of the RAN is that the French would delay any retender process, any process would add more years to the program even if smooth, the French might not be able to meet performance requirements and Aus build %, etc

As for the secrecy it would have been absolute, you can’t make the decision to terminate until you have your ducks in a line and the French finding out early would have disrupted this. Contingency planning like this is perfectly normal in the commercial world.

You mean shafting partners is normal? I am glad I do not have your ethics

If that was indeed what happened then why didn’t the Australians inform the French of their new requirements and launch a new tender exercise?

I gather that they had been unhappy with the progress for some time. I don’t know why they didn’t give a bit more warning that the contract was being cancelled. They haven’t actually signed a new contract, just cancelled the existing one. I assume they will ask for tenders before signing a new contract, with the subs being built in Oz and the reactors and weapons systems supplied by U.S. or U.K. suppliers.

Yeah comms is a mild way of putting it, but ultimately the aussies should have been clearer with the French team rather than pulling the carpet out from under their feet.

I assume they will ask for tenders before signing a new contract, with the subs being built in Oz and the reactors and weapons systems supplied by U.S. or U.K. suppliers.

A tender where you’ve pre-selected one applicant is not very good procurement practice. The admiral in the video describes the criteria used in selecting the French sub. Those criteria are now out of the window because what is now being chosen is a new strategic partnership, not just a new piece of kit. The French believed the Australians to be long term partners not a short term transactional relationship.

Just like my wife. For some reason she was upset when I told her I had new requirements for someone with longer legs and firmer tits.

It’s more like you telling your wife you like long hair, her spending ages growing it down to her waist, just for you, and then you sneaking off with a women with cropped hair.

tjagain
Full Member

You mean shafting partners is normal? I am glad I do not have your ethics

If the boatyard was behind schedule and failing to meet requirements – then who is shafting who?

kelvin
Full Member

It’s more like you telling your wife you like long hair, her spending ages growing it down to her waist, just for you, and then you sneaking off with a women with cropped hair.

…and massively increased ‘endurance’

The discussion I’ve seen is that the Australians specifically asked for diesel-powered rather than nuclear-powered subs from the French.

Yes, they did. The French design was a nuclear powered sub modified to run conventional propulsion. I think that decision was mostly political – nuclear power was seen as politically untenable. Whether France or anyone else was willing to sell nuclear powered subs was probably a big consideration too, the U.K. and U.S.A. probably wouldn’t have back then (when Obama was president).

I think two things happened. The first was that the RAN was unhappy with the French progress and decided to cancel the contract. The second was that international relations in the region have deteriorated and most countries are very concerned about the direction China is heading in. The RAN decided that they prefer nuclear propulsion and apparently the government decided that the better performance justified the political and economic cost.

I suspect that the RAN would *always* have preferred nuclear propulsion. Now the politicians have made a choice to prioritise a partnership with US (with UK tagging along like an annoying little brother) over France.

Interesting to see how the sub build goes – it’s not like Trident ever kept within budget.

But you’re not looking at statistics ‘as I wish’. You’re avoiding my argument.

That’s part of his schtick – to bomb threads with completely made up assertions and when challenged either go off on a tangent about something with a tenuous connection to the thread, to respond with alphabet soup or to insult and patronise the person who sets the facts straight. The individual concerned is long overdue a permaban IMHO.

Back on track to the thread subject.

Projects like this take 10 to 20 years and are always expensive. At the time, they decided to stick with non-nuclear propulsion and the contract was awarded to France. The French contractor was behind schedule and not meeting specifications and the RAN was unhappy.

Australia’s submarine procurement has been fraught with difficulties for decades. With diesel subs being the only option for them to patrol a massive coastline (16,000 miles!) they need a lot of hunter killer subs with respectable endurance. Contrary to popular opinion, a diesel sub running on battery power is exceptionally stealthy – Sweden, Germany and Israel have diesel subs with a fearsome reputation for stealth, but the three countries mentioned have much smaller coastlines to patrol.

The cost of France’s own Barracuda class of nuclear attack sub programme is mooted to be approx €10.42bn for six boats, against the cost of approx €55bn for twelve boats for Australia with reduced capability. It’s no wonder that Australia’s sub procurement programme has been controversial.

Interesting to see how the sub build goes – it’s not like Trident ever kept within budget.

Especially since it seems like it will be done mostly in Australia and so they will need to get all the kit in place and then train up all the local staff.

a diesel sub running on battery power is exceptionally stealthy

True, but they are noisy as **** when they have to snorkel to recharge.

Especially since it seems like it will be done mostly in Australia and so they will need to get all the kit in place and then train up all the local staff.

Dont worry, American will be picking up that bill.

If part of the delay was with the shipyards being built in Aus, im not sure the americans building their shipyards there wont encounter similar problems

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/sep/20/the-uk-and-us-are-kindly-letting-us-pay-too-much-to-help-build-fancy-nuclear-submarines

Seems about right.

You mean shafting partners is normal? I am glad I do not have your ethics

The world of black and white is very simple isn’t it. Unfortunately the real world has lots of shades of grey.

If the French weren’t delivering (the French were busy renegotiating reduced Aus build, delays, increased costs etc ) then the duty of the team is to find a way out. They would have been negotiating with the French who would have been squeezing the Australian side thinking they were the only game in town.

In the real world it works both ways it’s not uncommon for performance to drop in a contractor/subcontractor who is taking pain in a contract so as to get thrown off and claim penalties. Where is the ethics there?

Or the NHS forcing care homes to take transfers as specified in their contracts at the height of the Covid crisis. Where are the ethics there?

The duties of the RAN/Australian government aren’t prioritizing French jobs. Contracts have termination clauses for a lot of very good reasons.

I know there’s a lot of discussions, and costs and so on being raised, but has anyone actually seen what the agreement is, and what the costs cover, from what i have read, it’s an agreement by the three nations to assist Australia in procuring nuclear submarines, armaments and other equipment to achieve other requirements, it isn’t ‘buying’ any submarines, there is no talk of 12 subs or whatever, just an agreement to assist in the technology required, so Australia will still have to tender for the actual submarines.

The whole quote fo 90 billion or whatever is just a number, the A$90 billion was the original contract with the French, it almost appears as if folk are just making up facts where there are none to just have an argument.

From what i understand, the UK are being brought in due to Rolls Royce and their nuclear propulsion for submarines being mooted as a solution, same with the US and their ITAR, the UK have a similar position with the propulsion, hence why we’re in the agreement, but they still need a company to build them!

If that was indeed what happened then why didn’t the Australians inform the French of their new requirements and launch a new tender exercise? Instead of sneaking around behind the French backs.

Why should they? And the French are masters at sneaking around people backs anyway. Thats not how things necessarily work. This is not an emotionally driven thing. Also why were the French unable to fulfil the needs of the Australian Navy? Maybe they couldn’t fulfil all the requirement and it was a case of over promising and under delivering, so a re-tender with the French would be useless. We deal with French companies all the time and they don’t think twice about throwing us under the bus and going back on previously agreed positions and contracts so don’t be trying to hold the French up as some global beacon of ethical behaviour. I think the 1 billion euro fine dished out to Airbus by the Serious Fraud Office highlights that.

It’s not unusual for negotiations with other parties to be going on at the time when a previous deal has been signed. Happens all the time and its about managing risk…there is always risk when entering into a partnership/deal with another party…risk around delivery, cost, meeting spec and the contractual obligtions…and of course spec’s and requirements change. Any sensible and well run organisations will always keep their options open until the very last minute as much as anything to cover their own backsides and not being left high and dry should things not be delivered on time, or at all or be delivered and not meeting the original specificaion.

It’s clear that whatever went on ultimately it was a case of either the French couldn’t deliver what the Aussies needed or the brits and yanks rocked up with an alternative offer that was superior. Or maybe it got to a point where the Aussies just couldn’t trust the French and they didn’t want to proceed with such an important contract where there wasn’t a basis of trust there. Who knows? But the last thing on peoples minds are ‘hurting the other parties feelings’. It’s not even a consideration.

Not much to add that hasn’t already been said.
We were talking to a guy in the shipyard in Adelaide a year ago who was moaning about how difficult the French had been to work with, and how thought these subs would never get built.
Things worth pointing out –
BAE Systems have leased the ship-build yard in Adelaide from the Aussie Government, predominantly to build the Hunter Class frigates.
I cannot see them being too happy about sharing the facility with anyone else.

The AWD (Hobart Class) and future Hunter Class surface ships have the American Aegis combat system on board – i’d have thought they’d want their new subs to be able to fully integrate with this.

To me Diesel/Electric subs made no sense for Australia if they want to do more than patrol their own coastline – they can only stay submerged for days rather than the 3+ months that nuclear powered subs can stay submerged. (food for the crew is the limiting factor)

The UK and the Americans have a number of submarine designs which could be adapted to meet the Aussie project brief – A budget version of Astute for a start, along with the LA, Seawolf and Virginia Class subs.

The AWD (Hobart Class) and future Hunter Class surface ships have the American Aegis combat system on board – i’d have thought they’d want their new subs to be able to fully integrate with this.

My assumption was that they would want everything to integrate with U.S. systems. Taiwan and Japan use U.S. hardware and so do a lot of other countries in the region. Let’s face it, these subs are to counter China and Australia isn’t going to go to war with China unless the U.S. is in there with them.

UK subs are made from french steel 😬

The duties of the RAN/Australian government aren’t prioritizing French jobs.

the job losses are australian as thats where they were being built, the french lost face rather than jobs

I don’t think anyone’s going to war, tbh. I can’t even see how it’d be used as a threat. Western economies depend on the stuff China makes – they know it, we know it, it’s not happening. If there are significant moves to bring manufacturing back to the West that might be a bad omen.

I know there’s a lot of discussions, and costs and so on being raised, but has anyone actually seen what the agreement is, and what the costs cover, from what i have read, it’s an agreement by the three nations to assist Australia in procuring nuclear submarines,

australian ministers have said that they dont know what the costs of the new deal will be

french are annoyed because they had ask aussies several times if they wanted to switch to nuclear subs and they said no

consequences will take a while to shake out

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/09/20/business/france-australia-europe-trade-deal/index.html

I don’t think anyone’s going to war, tbh. I can’t even see how it’d be used as a threat. Western economies depend on the stuff China makes – they know it, we know it, it’s not happening. If there are significant moves to bring manufacturing back to the West that might be a bad omen.

yeah its a weird situation, a potential cold war with china when the ROW is dependent on chinese goods & china wants us to buy them! – Australia framsers were already suffering from chinese trade disputes, which is why they were so keen on EU trade deal, yet China want in on CPTPP
meanwhile imminent Chinese homebuilder collapse has potential to screw up global finacial markets again

the job losses are Australian as thats where they were being built, the french lost face rather than jobs

There will be a lot of jobs lost in France as a result of this – primarily within Naval Group who had the head contract but also at the subcontractors who would be building/supplying components.

Australia might have been assembling the subs, but a good percentage of the parts/sub-assemblies would have come from France.

Long term there will be very few (if any) job losses in Australia as they’ll be assembling a submarine to someone else’s design using bits sent from a different country.

The AWD (Hobart Class) and future Hunter Class surface ships have the American Aegis combat system on board – i’d have thought they’d want their new subs to be able to fully integrate with this.

Aegis is for air defence and can see a very long way. If the Sub wants this data (why, I do not know), then it would have to be a snorkel depth to get it, probably over satellite.

Also, if integrating with this system for surface craft is a good idea, why did the UK not put this on the [vastly more expensive] air defence destroyers that the Royal Navy bought? You know, the ones that cost half a billion UKP each and that stopped working in warm conditions.

I don’t think anyone’s going to war, tbh.

The purpose of this alliance and Australia’s arms purchases is to send a message to China that the democratic countries are prepared to confront it if it continues on its current course. It’s possible that China will moderate its policies and this will blow over, but it’s also quite possible that they won’t. The problem for China is that it is very insecure and has huge domestic problems so cracking down on Hong Kong and threatening Taiwan are ways to fend off domestic unrest. That makes it difficult for Chinese leaders to back off from their confrontational policies. The idea behind deterrence is that you don’t want to use it, but it’s only effective if you are actually prepared to use it. Armed conflict isn’t out of the question over the next few decades. Not saying it’s probable, but it would be a mistake to believe it can’t happen.

Today I learned that Brazil is currently building a nuclear powered attack sub. Here.

That put’s Australia’s precedent in a slightly different light.

@p7eaven

Please don’t be rude. So far only I responded to/addressed your claim. I’m me. Not a ‘you lot’. I’m not part of a collective.

Okay, you are not part of the collective. (Note: I thought “you lot” or “you guys” are the normal reference? I used “you lot” because if I were to address “you guys” some gender might get offended. Hence I used the term “you lot”. Fair enough you are not part of the collective and perhaps should addressed you individually. The quote may come from you but I was answering the usual people that questions me … can’t be arsed to keep quoting the rest of them one by one. Anyhoo … chill man, chill … we are not going to live forever.

I ‘wished’ that you would tell me the per capita palm oil consumption of China in 2020 vs EU27 in 2020?

Sorry but I don’t frame the question that way. Whatever statistic you see is in the past. I am referring to the future, hence it is the increase in the consumption level. Look at the statistic where most countries have more or less reduced their consumption but China’s is steadily increasing.

Now you may argue that they are still way below the Western consumption per capita but my concern is the increasing consumption. In a generation or two China’s consumption will definitely be the top overtaking the world going by their growth in consumption. You may say that it’s impossible because future (the crystal ball says noooo …) does not say so according to the statistical increment … yes, but you have forgotten about recent Chinese policy of population expansion. The current consumption is based on 1.4 billion people something like that with one child policy. But China has now changed that policy to allow for 3 children per family. Therefore, if having a larger family is the norm (it is), then the demand will naturally increase together with their living standard. China population expansion is also in anticipation for future regional expansion as they are already charting their territories. They might not admit it but that’s what they are doing. In a generation or two Asia will be under their influence. Yes, you might say that’s not a bad thing but you should live under their system to understand them. We are under their indirect influence politically and life is certainly not pleasant put it that way …

I don’t think anyone’s going to war, tbh. I can’t even see how it’d be used as a threat. Western economies depend on the stuff China makes – they know it, we know it, it’s not happening. If there are significant moves to bring manufacturing back to the West that might be a bad omen.

In Asia, especially SE Asia, many are already talking or anticipating war in the coming generation or two. The war might or might not happen with the Western power but definitely with some in SE Asia. Not all SE Asia people welcome Chinese (mainland commies) or their descendants (more than 5 generations) in that region. However, the corrupted politicians love the Chinese (commies) “investment” but their actions normally resulted in tension between the local natives and the “immigrant” Chinese (even after 5 generations). They see Chinese (commies) money influence as corrupting their politicians but they take it out on “immigrant” Chinese …