AUKUS Strategic nuclear submarine pact
 

BREAKING: Unprecedented in modern times, but No. 10 have just announced: UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson, U.S President Joe Biden and Australian PM Scott Morrison will make a joint TV address at 10pm tonight. It will be "a strategic national security announcement”.

Edit (Chris) This now seems worth a thread of its own … posts split from the Joe Biden thread.

Re: US President Joe Biden
 

I’m guessing they’re going to say stern things about North Korea given this week’s fireworks display in the Sea of Japan. Kim is getting close to being able to directly threaten the Australian mainland, which gives us and the Yanks a decent excuse to get more involved. Expect to hear that HMS Lizzie and her F-35s are heading to the area to conduct exercises, most likely joined by HMAS Castlemaine or whatever.

10pm catches the early evening news in the US, late evening in the UK and Thursday breakfast TV in Oz. Plus it’s a gift wrapped opportunity for Biden to stop looking completely clueless. Everyone wins.

Re: US President Joe Biden
 

And what about the USS dropping your allies in the schyt will that be in the operation.

Re: US President Joe Biden
 

I suspect the Yanks are quite keen on the possibility of repairing the damage they’ve done to their reputation in that regard. If it’s what I think it is, it’s a quick win - a bit of sabre rattling but no actual shooting.

Re: US President Joe Biden
 

The Queen has already sent stern words to North Korea, it'll have them petrified, so no need for nuclear weapons... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-fam...-national/amp/

Re: US President Joe Biden
 

You misunderstand old chap - Her majesty’s good wishes take the form of 65,000 tons of heavily armed steelwork, which we named after her and then sent round the world to show Johnny Foreigner what’s what.

Re: US President Joe Biden
 

Wouldn't trust biden to cut my grass . Were can I buy a nuclear bunker !!!!

Re: US President Joe Biden
 

What's all the fuss about?

We're talking about nuclear powered subs, not armed. The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) wouldn't allow for that.
Australia will be able to build nuclear powered subs. Not sure subs are much use against land-based missiles from North Korea.
Doesn't seem much more than, access to nuclear powered submarine technology and coordinated naval presence in the area.

Re: US President Joe Biden
 

Tbf I wouldn't trust anyone to cut your grass as it cost you £15k and it's plastic.... :D

Re: US President Joe Biden
 

ISIS didn’t exist then, the aim of invading Afghanistan immediately after 9/11 was to remove Al-Qaeda from the country and weaken the Taliban. Predominately US/U.K. forces in coalition with the Afghan Northern Alliance did this. We should have left after this, as the Taliban had been weakened and their only domestic opponent, the Northern Alliance, strengthened. We could have left them to act out a civil war for as long as required.

The Illegal invasion of Iraq and the decision to nation build in Afghanistan are monumental fu…………mis-judgements.

Re: US President Joe Biden
 

'that fella down under'


Mr Biden thanked the Prime Minister for his introduction saying: "Thank you Boris."

He then turned to Mr Morrison and said: "I what to thank...uh...that fella down under."

"Thank you very much pal," added the President.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world...under-video-VN

Re: UK-USA-AUS Strategic nuclear submarine pact
 

Thread split …

---------- Post added at 08:15 ---------- Previous post was at 08:00 ----------

No doubt some people will try to make a nuclear proliferation issue out of this but that’s just background noise from the usual suspects. This is a big story because there are only six nations presently operating them - the 5 permanent members of the UNSC plus India. They represent a step change in capability for any navy because they can remain submerged for months at a time. In the present case it would make no sense for Australia to form a strategic submarine pact with the UK and the US against China when it was the only player relying on diesel-electric subs which have an endurance measured in days.

China could be doing literally anything across the indo-pacific with its subs, monitoring shipping, interfering with communication cables or installing listening devices, and the only defence against that is long-endurance submarine patrols to find and shadow them, and to remind them that they too are being watched from they know not where.

This is also big news for the French naval construction sector because they are inevitably now going to lose the massive order for diesel-electric subs the Australian government placed with them about 5 years ago. I’m curious about how sweet the US and the UK must have made this for the Aussies in order for the termination charges to have been worthwhile, plus the not inconsiderable cost of maintaining a nuclear fleet. I would have to assume that it will be the Americans who will be supplying the hardware now as I doubt we have the capacity to do it, or to do it as cheaply.

Re: UK-USA-AUS Strategic nuclear submarine pact
 

BREAKING: China decries new AUKUS (U.S-UK-AUS Defence Pact) BEIJING, Sept 16 (Reuters) - China's foreign ministry on Thursday decried a new U.S.-Britain-Australia security partnership that will involve helping Canberra acquire nuclear-powered submarines, saying the three countries are damaging regional peace and stability.

China will closely monitor the situation, ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian told a daily news briefing in Beijing. Source Reuters News Agency.

Re: UK-USA-AUS Strategic nuclear submarine pact
 

Good to see the US sticking up for the West after the wilderness years of Trump and the withdrawal from Afghanistan.

Re: UK-USA-AUS Strategic nuclear submarine pact
 

Doing it with the aim of maintaining peace and tranquility in an area where those pesky Russians Chinese might take liberties, no money will be made by the US in this venture, honestly :p:

Re: UK-USA-AUS Strategic nuclear submarine pact
 

LATEST: France lashes out at AUKUS Pact….France has accused U.S President Joe Biden of stabbing it in the back and acting like his predecessor, former President Trump, after Paris was snubbed from a $40bn (£29bn) defence deal it had signed with Australia. Source: Sky News.

https://news.sky.com/story/france-ac...-deal-12409319

Re: UK-USA-AUS Strategic nuclear submarine pact
 

So, the French are upset and China’s realised it isn’t going to get everything its own way in the Pacific. A good day at the office so far.

Re: AUKUS Strategic nuclear submarine pact
 

NEW: Brussels sticks it’s head above the parapet: European Council President, Charles Michel: “The #AUKUS security partnership further demonstrates the need for a common EU approach in a region of strategic interest.

A strong EU Indo-Pacific strategy is needed more than ever.

I welcome today’s presentation of @JosepBorrellF strategy

On the agenda of the October #EUCO”

Re: UK-USA-AUS Strategic nuclear submarine pact
 

:tu:

Re: AUKUS Strategic nuclear submarine pact
 

I really have no idea how they plan to do anything meaningful in strategic security terms. China’s attempt to annexe great swathes of the South China Sea as its own territorial waters is the major issue in that part of the world. While anyone with a frigate can perform freedom of navigation patrols in the area, only doing so with a significant show of strength is worth the effort. That means you need a carrier group, which we have (but only just). France has a carrier but is certainly no more capable of supporting a full strike group on a world cruise than we are. It might be able to muster the support of the Dutch or the Italians to sail with it but is it seriously going to put that sort of mission under an EU flag, with EU operational oversight? France loves EU integration to the extent it benefits the French. It can talk about a common military security policy but all it is really interested in is smaller EU forces falling into line behind French commanders.

Re: AUKUS Strategic nuclear submarine pact
 

tbh I don't understand either France or the Anglosphere's distrust of each other. France is really the only other major player in Europe so it's in our interests for them to be close to us and it's in their interests too. Does France want to carry most of Europe on its back when it comes to defence?

Re: AUKUS Strategic nuclear submarine pact
 

They're both key collaborative NATO members. Perhaps it plays to each country's electorate to keep it this way.

Re: UK-USA-AUS Strategic nuclear submarine pact
 

Re: UK-USA-AUS Strategic nuclear submarine pact
 

:tu:

China is trying, and succeeding, to control both the China Sea and big chunks of the Indian Ocean, aided by ports built in Africa. Plus their island-building project is not showing signs of slowing, neither is its naval force.

Re: AUKUS Strategic nuclear submarine pact
 

Anglo-French rivalry is a fact of life. It has been for as long as England and France have existed (the Scots like to think of their ‘Auld Alliance’ with France, but seem oblivious to the fact that the ‘alliance’ existed only as long as it suited French interests with regards to their ongoing rivalry with England).

No, the French don’t want to carry European defence by themselves and I think there’s more than a little bit of faux outrage at play. They know they can put the boot into the Anglos because they know they are never actually going to have to carry the can for it. That said, losing that sub contract will sting, so a little genuine hurt on that score is understandable.

Re: AUKUS Strategic nuclear submarine pact
 

France ! Does history not teach as anything

Re: AUKUS Strategic nuclear submarine pact
 

Interesting article in the Spectator today.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/...f-eu-impotence

Re: AUKUS Strategic nuclear submarine pact
 

BREAKING: NEW: France recalls ambassadors to both United States and Australia (but not to the UK)

https://news.sky.com/story/france-to...-snub-12410788

Re: AUKUS Strategic nuclear submarine pact
 

Wow. They’ve really thrown le hochet out of le landau. :rofl:

Re: AUKUS Strategic nuclear submarine pact
 

Re: AUKUS Strategic nuclear submarine pact
 

United we stand, divided we fall.... We've never really grasped that one.

Re: AUKUS Strategic nuclear submarine pact
 

It’s a useful case in point actually. Australia is a sovereign nation that has decided breach of contract is in its national interest.

It’s interesting though that France isn’t taking diplomatic retaliation against the UK - I mean, I know it’s the USA that’s supplying home assembly kits to the Australian navy but we’re most certainly egging them on, and we’re signatories to the pact that will coordinate the way HMAS Duke Nukem is eventually deployed to monitor Chinese activity.

Perhaps it’s a further case in point: that when it comes to it, France needs to keep Britain close more than it needs to prove a diplomatic point. Funny, that.

---------- Post added at 21:43 ---------- Previous post was at 21:42 ----------

It’s difficult to see how this is relevant to the issue. Could you elaborate?

Re: AUKUS Strategic nuclear submarine pact
 

According to The Times, Australia came to us and then we both went to convince the Americans so it's rather surprising the French have exempted us from this. Maybe it's a passive-aggressive attempt to play down our role in it or it's just not realistic to do so.

Re: AUKUS Strategic nuclear submarine pact
 

I’m sure the French will have the Aussies in court, after all it’s not in the spirit of things.

Re: AUKUS Strategic nuclear submarine pact
 

The reality is, we don’t have the manufacturing capacity to provide Australia the components they need to self-assemble their new subs. Nor do we have the capacity to assemble them. The shipyard at Barrow is fully occupied and its supply chain is fully committed. Nevertheless we could have provided them with something eventually, so the Yanks would have nothing to lose (as in, they couldn’t stop Australia acquiring nuclear powered subs, assuming they even wanted to) and everything to gain by being the ones to sell them the gear. Plus, the strategic case is actually quite strong, because an Australian nuclear submarine fleet takes some of the pressure off the Americans, and also gives them access to potentially very useful naval dockyard facilities on the other side of the Pacific. There is a very high level of integration between the US and UK armed forces so I imagine the Aussies got a very high-level hearing in Washington really quite quickly.

I don’t think the French are being passive-aggressive towards us though. They need day-to-day diplomatic relations with us in a way they just don’t with either the Yanks or the Aussies. They are fizzing, with some justification, but realpolitik requires them to choke it down in our case. Again, I note the significance of that with regards to other aspects of our relationship with European countries.

Re: AUKUS Strategic nuclear submarine pact
 

The contract was to be signed in phases, ie a halt could happen at any of those stages.
The French weren't sticking to their commitments.
Link

Re: AUKUS Strategic nuclear submarine pact
 

Re: AUKUS Strategic nuclear submarine pact
 

suggest you read nomad kings post above. trying to compare this to the current U.K./EU situation makes your desperation even more acrid than usual.

One day you’ll have to explain what the French did that hurt you so much, perhaps you could point on the dolly to show us.

Re: AUKUS Strategic nuclear submarine pact
 

There is going to be a massive exercise in whataboutery in the courts over this. These sorts of contracts do usually have escape clauses in them which the Australians will no doubt attempt to use. The French for their part will argue that unreasonable demands, or failure on the Australian side to meet their own obligations are to blame for any apparent shortcomings on the French side. It would appear these arguments are already being marshalled and briefed to friendly journalists.

I suspect the Australians probably were being a pain in the neck. Military procurement is famously fraught with continuing changes to specification and poor project management. I think it also very likely the French were not being at all accommodating, reasoning that Canberra was so deeply invested in the project it ultimately had nowhere else to go and would have to take what it was given. If so, they miscalculated badly.

Re: AUKUS Strategic nuclear submarine pact
 

Re: AUKUS Strategic nuclear submarine pact
 

Pretty much any major contract will be staged in that way, workday, SAP & Oracle have all been hit by similar things in the past couple of years

Workday ~shudders~

---------- Post added at 22:30 ---------- Previous post was at 22:29 ----------

You’ve made no direct comparison I’ll grant you but the inclination was there ;)

Re: AUKUS Strategic nuclear submarine pact
 

Re: AUKUS Strategic nuclear submarine pact
 

Aaaw let’s not fight, gis a cuddle

Re: AUKUS Strategic nuclear submarine pact
 

Giggles.

Re: AUKUS Strategic nuclear submarine pact
 

Re: AUKUS Strategic nuclear submarine pact
 

A mwah ? Pour moi ? Merci !!

Re: AUKUS Strategic nuclear submarine pact
 

:nono: now then, you know he probably doesn't like french kisses :D

Re: AUKUS Strategic nuclear submarine pact
 

Re: AUKUS Strategic nuclear submarine pact
 

Indeed.

However it’s important not to get hung up on the who said what and who’s right or wrong in this case - this really isn’t a story of a supplier/customer relationship breakdown. There has been political pressure in Australia for its navy to access nuclear sub technology for some time now, because it is very obvious the strategic naval threat comes from China which has nuclear subs. You can’t effectively counter a sub that can remain underwater for 3 months with one that can barely manage 3 weeks. The wrangling over the Australian-French contract will be an interesting sideshow but arguments over who said what to who shouldn’t cloud the important fact, which is that Australia suddenly has a way to acquire and control technology that 5 years ago it simply didn’t think it could get access to.

As far as I can see, the Oz Admiralty never looked too seriously at procuring a nuclear fleet when they were in the market for new boats prior to 2016. That could have been due to cost but it is more likely something to do with technology transfer. You don’t have sovereign control over your subs if you have to return them to the country of manufacture every time they need service or repair. We know that the defunct French deal mandated a great deal of component manufacturing to take place in Australia. There’s no doubt Australia could have maintained its French diesel-electric subs in its own yards, especially if the critical components could be manufactured locally. I strongly suspect that in 2016 nobody was prepared to sign a technology transfer deal with Australia that would allow them to fully maintain nuclear subs domestically. (Just such a deal was signed between Britain and the US before we finally committed to buy the F-35, allowing us to do all maintenance and repair domestically, even on the most sensitive aspects of its systems).

There is now a compelling strategic case for Australia to have access to this technology that Britain has made to the US and the US has agreed to. For Australia to be able to assemble US-designed nuclear subs in Australian yards means they have signed a tech transfer agreement, which is no small matter (the F-35 deal was held up for months by Congressional demands for some extremely detailed assurances about our ability to guard American military secrets).

Re: AUKUS Strategic nuclear submarine pact
 

Plus, would you really buy a Peugeot, Citroen or Renault over a Ford? If the French build their Subs with as much care and attention as they build cars they wouldn’t make it to their first MOT.

Re: AUKUS Strategic nuclear submarine pact
 

Re: AUKUS Strategic nuclear submarine pact
 

NEW: France's decision NOT to recall the French ambassador to the UK was intended as a deliberate snub to Boris Johnson

Via @lemondefr

Re: AUKUS Strategic nuclear submarine pact
 

Gosh i bet he was upset about that.

Re: AUKUS Strategic nuclear submarine pact
 

All relative, Peugeot 205 Gti 1.9, Renault 5 GT turbo or a Clio V6 I’d have in a heartbeat for the S&G

Re: AUKUS Strategic nuclear submarine pact
 

So is it meant to be like the person who always hangs around way after the end of a party annoying you because you just want to go to bed?

Re: AUKUS Strategic nuclear submarine pact
 

I am not sure I understand the concept of a what they are saying, if you are recalling ambassadors to certain countries, surely that is a kind of diplomatic snub, but not calling ours is a bigger snub.

The French are weird. I get they're upset but Macron is pathetic. :erm:

Re: AUKUS Strategic nuclear submarine pact
 

They’re so cunning it’s impossible to understand what they’re doing even after they’ve explained it….

Re: AUKUS Strategic nuclear submarine pact
 

On reflection, I do find it surprising America and Britain especially didn't at least try to find some way of doing this in a way that allowed the French to save face. They are a big member of NATO, one of the permanent members of the Security Council (the only other one allied with US/UK) and military we do a lot of joint operations with.

You think there must have been options from giving them more notice or including them if only in a tokenistic way into the plan.

Even if the end result is for the better I can't see any advantages in the way this was sprung on the French, seems very undiplomatic. Not to mention Macron is coming up to an election and you've backed him into his corner.

Re: AUKUS Strategic nuclear submarine pact
 

It would have required a lot more goodwill than presently exists between London and Paris to concoct a mechanism that might make this look anything other than it is (namely, a thorough shafting). I woudn’t go so far as to suggest that this was a move calculated to remind the French that the world is bigger than the EU, but I’m quite sure the optics were well understood in Downing Street and that it didn’t stop them, or even slow them down.

Re: AUKUS Strategic nuclear submarine pact
 

So we upset the French ... we care why exactly ?

Re: AUKUS Strategic nuclear submarine pact
 

Well a cynical mind might think they could try to retaliate against the U.K. by other methods. One possible method could be with the French governments interests in Renault which has a subsequent controlling interest in Nissan

Re: AUKUS Strategic nuclear submarine pact
 

That’s fanciful. And despite what they’ve been saying to their own voters over the weekend, French politicians aren’t going to escalate a diplomatic war with us because we, unlike Australia and the US, are their next door neighbour and they can’t afford the outright havoc that would cause.

Meanwhile, HMG is suggesting that there could be work in it for British shipyards. No detail on what, but it sounds like they’ll be pushing the Australians to buy additional equipment and maybe support vessels from us.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58613195

Eventually I suspect specialists from our own RN will be involved in training the Aussies on the operation of long-duration sub missions.

Re: AUKUS Strategic nuclear submarine pact
 

Re: AUKUS Strategic nuclear submarine pact
 

Latest: A French Minister declares Britain a ‘spare tyre’ in the AUKUS partnership.

These daily snowflake tears from the French are delicious. :beer:

Might come across as obnoxious, but they’re quite happy to steal our financial businesses and institutions and they were not exactly helpful during the corrupted EU exit negotiations.

Re: AUKUS Strategic nuclear submarine pact
 

I did say it was cynical 🤣

Re: AUKUS Strategic nuclear submarine pact
 

Interesting view in the Times today about why France was less harsh towards the U.K. on this matter.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/s...efd4159d3e470c

Re: AUKUS Strategic nuclear submarine pact
 

Of maybe Aukus was our cynical attempt to pay Macron back for the Brexit difficulties he is causing us.

Sooner or later, France will see that it’s better to be friends with us than be our enemy. Hopefully, cool heads and common sense will prevail.

Re: AUKUS Strategic nuclear submarine pact
 

Re: AUKUS Strategic nuclear submarine pact
 

Macron is a dead man walking, electorally speaking.

Re: AUKUS Strategic nuclear submarine pact
 

Re: AUKUS Strategic nuclear submarine pact
 

Yup … in so many words, this is the position expressed by HMG - the UK and France rely on each other and we can’t afford to fall out. So the French will do nothing because there’s nothing they can do, then tell their electorate they’re doing nothing because we’re not important enough.

Re: AUKUS Strategic nuclear submarine pact
 

But again it is also in our interests to help France where possible.

The two nations share military operations and have broader similar geopolitical interests. Oftentimes more aligned which each other than America. This incident aside it's infuriating how the politicians of both nations seem to approach the relationship with such antagonism.

---------- Post added at 20:45 ---------- Previous post was at 20:41 ----------

Unless the Républicains manage to make inroads or Mélenchon has an unexpected surge the final round of the Presidental Election is Le Pen vs Macron. In that event, Macron is going to have a tough election but is still the favourite.

He is, at the moment, far from a 'dead man walking' electorally. He is competitive. Hollande was a deadman walking electorally last time.

Re: AUKUS Strategic nuclear submarine pact
 

Perhaps or perhaps it's a sign of our standing in the world at the moment

This compelling strategic case isn't a pressing concern though, iirc these boats won't be ready till 2040 so providing the Chinese don't try anything till then all will be well.

---------- Post added at 14:38 ---------- Previous post was at 14:31 ----------

They could tell pretti Patel to stick the migrant deal and even more actively help them across the water, might not be a bad thing if they did tbh, at least then the pretense would be removed

Re: AUKUS Strategic nuclear submarine pact
 

AUKUS allows the Australians to lease nuclear powered subs from either the Yanks or us (in reality, most likely the US) while their own fleet is being built. Morrison is meeting Biden to discuss it this week.

https://www.afr.com/policy/foreign-a...box=1632085145

Re: AUKUS Strategic nuclear submarine pact
 

On what basis do you come to that conclusion? Is it wishful thinking? ;)

https://www.paddypower.com/politics/french-politics

Re: AUKUS Strategic nuclear submarine pact
 

Interesting, wonder how much the lease is, it's sound more like a defense trade deal than anything else

Re: AUKUS Strategic nuclear submarine pact
 

I think opening up bases in Australia would be the bigger things than necessarily the dollar value. Having good bases in a stable, friendly country in a strategic part of the world is a big carrot. That's part of the reason for the French anger as New Caledonia and Réunion are definitely in sailing distance of Australia and are constitutionally part of France

Re: AUKUS Strategic nuclear submarine pact
 

A post that has not aged well.

Meanwhile, the AUKUS deal is being reviewed by the US.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy8d3d5l9l1o

Re: AUKUS Strategic nuclear submarine pact
 

So Australia desiring to upgrade to nuclear powered subs that can stay underwater for more than a few days at a time … is that not ‘stepping up to do their part’ for collective defence in the Pacific? Someone make it make sense …

Re: AUKUS Strategic nuclear submarine pact
 

Maybe they want to use the submarines as a bargaining tool to get Australia to increase its overall arms spend? With Trump's regime, don't expect deals to be honoured especially if he didn't sign them.