AUKUS Strategic nuclear submarine pact

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Mwah.

A mwah ? Pour moi ? Merci !!

[Carth]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

A mwah ? Pour moi ? Merci !!

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

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Carth

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

Er, no - it is I who doesn't like French kisses, obvs.

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

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~

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).

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Chris

Indeed………….:

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.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Pierre

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.

I wouldn't buy a French car for the other reason!

This AUKUS thing is very good. Two of the three countries fully trust each other, the third has franchised part of its customary role (the Pacific Fleet) to the UK and Australia and will be sharing costs for whizzy new technology.

I feel safer with this highly strategic alliance in place.

Compare this with the EU. 26/27 countries are nervous of France, the only military power in the EU. When we were there, the 26 were comforted by our counter-balance over France and for that matter Germany. The EU should gave done more to keep us in. I would be very surprised if VdL manages to get an EU army.

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

Via @lemondefr

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Mick

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

Via @lemondefr

Gosh i bet he was upset about that.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by Pierre

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.

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

Originally Posted by Mick

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

Via @lemondefr

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?

Originally Posted by Chris

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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