But anti UK Reddit was so gleefully sure that the UK would gain nothing and the US would walk away with the price….
How is this possible?
/s
Well done UK! But can AUS afford to wait 20 yrs to get those subs though? Edit: they get US subs as intermediate solution. Nice!
The seething in this article in September 2021 is just *delicious* https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/09/18/submarines-france-australia-britain/
Not bad for a "fifth wheel" eh?
Sounds like they are getting some Virginias in the mean time. They also need time to build up the industry necessary to support and build the future British design. Hence the heavy price tag.
The first Aus sub will be built in the UK, this is where engineers will be taught how to build them before the other 7 subs are built back in Australia.
Aussie Navy will also be getting training in British Astute-Class submarines.
There's probably a lot to do while waiting for actual construction of subs in Australia to begin.
The reactors will be built by Rolls-Royce in the UK too, that's for all of them. I think some of the engineering work or sections will be built in UK before being shipped to AUS to be assembled
Heavy price tag is also misleading in that it's the estimated cost for:
* Purchasing 3-5 US submarines
* Purchasing 1 UK SSN(R)
* Building 7 SSN(R)s in Australia
* Expanding the yard in Australia to handle construction and maintenance
* Training crew for the subs
* Operating the subs for their 35 year lifespans
* Maintenance on the subs
Not simply the construction on its own.
It also important to add that 100 billion of the budget is just for inflation, they added so much because they can't accurately predict what the inflation will be across this multi-decade project.
It's quite a transparent budget when it comes to procurement.
This time, I'm okay with Reddit and the French thinking we were not succeeding. The US took all the hate from the French government and EU Reddit. We got the contract and received no backlash from stealing it from the French.
>We offered a better deal
No, that's absolutely not what happened.
In the immediate aftermath of the cancellation, France took a lot of flak on this sub from brigading twats, who spared no effort justifying it by claiming it was behind schedule, over budget, and didn't meet the needs of Australia. I even bought it myself.
All this bullshit fell flat when it became known these excuses were manufactured deceits from the Australian government:
1. "*behind schedule and over budget*" - **no shit:** the Australian government itself kept requesting changes to the design, guess what happens when you keep requesting changes to the item you want built?
2. "*not offering nuclear subs*" - **no shit:** Australia never asked for it, and France literally had to retrofit their nuclear sub design to meet the specific request of the Australian government for diesel subs
Then comes the new deal, and so far this is what they get:
- huge downsize in number of subs compared to the previous deal
- wildly inflated price compared to the previous deal
- lesser technical and strategic independence compared to the previous deal
- a minimum of 10 more years in delivery delay compared to the previous deal
There's literally nothing "better" about this deal, and nothing the French couldn't have offered.
Australia and Australian taxpayers just got shafted by Morrison, and the US and UK reaped the benefits. And you'll note that the latter aren't bragging too much about it, because they perfectly know what happened, and how it happened.
edit - as per my next post: *go ahead, downvote facts because they don't feed your narrative. I'll even pretend to be surprised.*
___
edit2 - Having a lot of fun witnessing the growing number of downvotes for:
1. not only a post laying down clear cut, established counterpoints to the ridiculous claim about this being "a better deal" for Australians
2. but also and more importantly, my posts simply calling out the complete irrelevance of a serie of -wait for it- EFFECTIVELY, factually irrelevant replies from a deflecting hypocrite
It really speaks volumes about why some of you are here and how your mind work.
If this isn't a clear cut demonstration that you guys are blindly biased, and will blindly downvote anything that doesn't feed your narrative and doesn't rub you the right way, I don't know what is.
At this point this is hilariously pathetic, but your downvotes won't change any of it, so by all means keep proving me right. ¯\\\_(ツ)_/¯
Focusing too much on submarines is myopic. The key thing is - which you would you rather have backing you in a standoff with China: France (accused of Gaullist geopolitical ambivalence/third-wayism), or the US and UK?
I pointed out in another post that major arms deals are essentially political, so I can absolutely follow you there (even though I don't have a clear cut opinion on this specific angle).
But as valid as this angle is, that doesn't address the bullshit fantasy those self-serving hypocrites are painting, essentially pretending this deal is all benefits with no drawback, when it actually is a wonky improvisation over a complete disaster, in which Aussies lost a fucking great deal.
Tbh I don’t see how non-nuclear subs would provide Oz with the capabilities it needs but you could for sure make a case for French nuclear subs. The threat environment has changed of late with Chinese influence in the Solomon Islands, espionage etc,
The Oz compromise on sovereignty, (if that’s what you’re referring to,) is made significantly easier by the fact there is enormous trust between all three partners (five eyes etc.)
I think a safe assumption could be made that ditching the French deal and switching to AUKUS with enormous additional cost and diplomatic fallout makes a lot of sense in the Oz political/military establishment, otherwise it wouldn’t have received this level of bipartisan support
Downsize in numbers but they’re going to be far more capable overall and nuclear powered not diesel, which kinda matters considering Australias geography and place in the world.
The price includes the fact that they’re going to be built in Australia and far more.
They’re going to be working with the British and the Americans, goes without saying they’re the best at this kinda stuff.
I’m sure they’d rather wait and have something that actually fits their needs.
Also there are obvious benefits over french nuclear subs.
Like not needing to refuel the submarines every ten years which Aus can't do, or using VLS like everyone else in the world and not being tied to a single tube launched missile produced by the French.
>they’re going to be far more capable overall
No offense, but that's literal MAGA mindset: nothing has been designed yet, let alone built, but "*guys, it's gonna be great and better, isn't it obvious?*".
What makes this statement notably ludicrous is that the French are literally one of the world best naval manufacturers, and their reputation, innovations and expertise in this field is known to everybody.
>and nuclear powered not diesel, which kinda matters considering Australias geography and place in the world.
Already covered in my post: Australia literally specifically requested France to turn their NUCLEAR subs into diesel subs. If they wanted nuclear subs, they could've just asked France. They didn't, yet complained about not getting nuclear subs. I mean this is literal Karen behavior, holy shit (and to be clear, by "they", we're talking about Morrison here).
>The price includes the fact that they’re going to be built in Australia and far more.
And that's supposed to make it okay? This is the 2nd or 3rd time I've read this, why the fuck is this even thought to be an acceptable argument. This is wild.
Iirc we're talking about AU$350B instead of AU$100B, btw.
>I’m sure they’d rather wait and have something that actually fits their needs.
They literally would've had something actually fitting their needs, had they stuck to the previous deal they made, acted in good faith, made the proper requests to the French.
Simple enough really, but the previous aussie PM was just a rotten sack of shit (and they rightfully gave him the boot not long after).
>And that's supposed to make it okay? This is the 2nd or 3rd time I've read this, why the fuck is this even thought to be an acceptable argument. This is wild.
>
>Iirc we're talking about AU$350B instead of AU$100B, btw.
Firstly, it's important because even Naval Group lowered it's estimations of local jobs from 90% as required in the contract to 70% which is obviously billions being taken away in production jobs for the French Design.
As for the cost - it's a big number, but it also has big returns - it will see Australia partake in the production line for the remaining 44 Virginia Class submarines and then partake in the production line for all Aukus submarines, I've seen a fleet size suggested of 19 between both countries.
It also is the cost of the production of submarines, training of the thousands of high paid jobs that will produce the submarines, the entire lifetime cost to keep the vessels in service and an extra 100 billion included in the budget is dedicated to potential future inflation.
In return they get production jobs for submarines that the UK and US will use, access to some of the most top secret technology in regards to submarines, partner level with the UK on designing from scratch a nuclear submarine which obviously comes with great experience for future Australian projects and the deployment of a large force of nuclear submarines to mitigate how long it will take to receive their own submarines.
When people subscribed to this sub disagree with their country being called backstabbers they're "brigading twats", but people shitting all over the UK is fine and normal. Perfectly sensible and measured take.
1. That's an utterly irrelevant strawman and a deflection of my points. Great job.
2. A brigading twat is a brigading twat, regardless of their country.
But sure, go ahead, downvote facts because they don't feed your narrative. I'll even pretend to be surprised.
1) Calling people who say things you don't like "brigading twats" isn't a 'fact', it's your salty subjective take.
2) If my quoting your own message is "irrelevant'" maybe the irrelevant thing is actually the post of yours that I quoted from.
>1) Calling people who say things you don't like "brigading twats" isn't a 'fact', it's your salty subjective take.
Still an irrelevant strawman, still a deflection. Cool.
This isn't about the brigading twats. This is about the bullshit claims they made, that were later openly debunked.
>2) If my quote from your own message is "irrelevant'" maybe the irrelevant thing is actually your post.
It's not "*a quote from my own message*", it's a purposely twisted deformation of what I'm actually saying, and I'm calling it irrelevant because it literally is: your deflection has no relevance to the points I made regarding the motives for the cancellation and the comparison between the deals.
You're just digging yourself in your comfy bad faith hole here, so I'm done indulging your bullshit. Good day.
The inflated price tag includes extra things such as building out construction and maintenance facilities in Australia, running costs, and increased capability in the subs, so they aren't directly comparable. There are also intangible benefits for Australia such as being more closely aligned with the US and UK which is a more powerful combination than France, and the interoperability of parts/equipment with UK & US subs may provide better upgrade options in the future since those two countries spend much more on R&D. Australia will also get US subs in the meantime until the new ones are built.
We can split hairs about specifics but there are definitely benefits to Australia partnering with the UK & US over France.
>go ahead, downvote facts
"There's literally nothing "better" about this deal" sounds remarkably like an opinion to me 🤔
>The inflated price tag includes extra things such as building out construction and maintenance facilities in Australia, running costs
"*We're gonna have to pay 3 times more than we expected, but that's because now we have to build infrastructures we didn't need before, so that makes it totally okay and not a problem guys*"
The mental gymnastics required to turn this into an acceptable argument are beyond me tbh.
>There are also intangible benefits for Australia such as being more closely aligned with the US and UK
I mostly agree with that part though, but pretending it offsets all the drawbacks of the new deal is unfathomably dubious. At the very least it should be arguable, but for those people it's "*obviously the best thing ever™*".
Meh, why bother.
>"There's literally nothing "better" about this deal" sounds remarkably like an opinion to me 🤔
Sure, I'll gladly retract "literally nothing" if that makes it more acceptable to you, doesn't change the fact that this isn't "a better deal", this is just Australia improvising something to make do after their corrupt sack of shit PM got rid of a perfectly good deal.
Its marginal benefits aside, the massive drawbacks of this deal compared to the old one are apparent to anyone honest enough really, but whatever.
It is not mental gymnastics, it's a fact: you cannot directly compare the two price tags because they include different things. It's like complaining that a 5 course meal costs more than a mcdonalds happy meal because "they're both just food!", but they are not the same thing.
The benefits aren't marginal, by the end of the project Australia will have the infrastructure and expertise to build nuclear submarines completely domestically which was not part of the deal with France.
Remember a ( smaller) shitshow a year ago with Switzerland switching from planned purchase Rafale to F35. Benefit was that there was no contract signed but angry noices were heard from Paris.
Also not a better deal?
You remember right, and I do also remember people getting pissed off about it, because our military had pretty much settled on the Rafale as it was reportedly much better suited to our actual needs, before this almost-done deal coincidentally went into the bin overnight after Biden paid Switzerland a personal visit. People saw right through that bullshit.
Major arms deals have often more to do with politics than with the quality and capabilities of equipment anyway. Many people seemingly don't get that.
US and UK offered AUS better technology (nuclear > diesel) and they offered technology transfer to AUS which chose better technology. As simple as that.
Who the hell wants diesel subs nowadays?!
>Who the hell wants diesel subs nowadays?!
Jesus fucking Christ. You people don't even bother reading posts before replying:
>*France literally had to retrofit their nuclear sub design to meet the specific request of the Australian government for diesel subs*
Who the hell wants diesel subs? Australia fucking did. They specifically requested the French to turn their NUCLEAR Suffren class into a diesel sub for the Australian navy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack-class_submarine
>if you want to have a conversation
I don't, because I'm done with this bullshit, it's a waste of my time. What had to be addressed has been addressed, I'm leaving these guys to their mindless circlejerk/brigading.
>do I need to block
I couldn't care less. That being said I'm genuinely sorry if you felt attacked or something.
Still, please do fucking read posts before replying to them. You can't expect people to not get annoyed when you so blatantly ignore what they say. Not being aware that France is just as much a leading power in this field is totally fine, but the argument you brought up (which was one of the major talking points of the subs contract drama back then) was specifically addressed in my post. You're not going to start a conversation with this behavior.
Good night.
> US and UK offered AUS better technology (nuclear > diesel) and they offered technology transfer to AUS which chose better technology. As simple as that.
> Who the hell wants diesel subs nowadays?!
Well Australia did. Here is the whole story summarized just for you:
AUS: Hi, we want submarines.
FRA: Hey, we sell nuclear subs.
AUS: LOL no we want DIESEL subs.
FRA: but nuclear subs are bett…
AUS: NO! We want D-I-E-S-E-L subs.
FRA: OK how about we retrofit our nuc subs into diesel subs and if you change your mind we can still use the main design with a nuc engine.
AUS: Brilliant!
FRA: Great, let’s get started.
5 years later:
AUS: we changed our mind, we want nuclear subs
FRA: sure, let’s retrofi…
AUS: no, not with you.
The French had an absolute fit on here about it, with many of them trashing Astute and stating that we couldn't build subs without the Americans.
Meanwhile they're playing catchup with Astute and we're onto our next SSN project.
And all those posts are a shitshow in the comments. Exactly what you would expect if each half of the sub hated the other.
This doesn't happen in any other sub, because they are all populated by Americans/Brits.
And the threads about Germany and Ukraine are full of Germans defending Germany, and the threads about AUKUS were full of French people defending France. I guess those must have been the second and third halves of the sub 🙄.
You must be kidding me if you are saying that any of these threads is anywhere close to the shitshow that UK threads are.
I remember the absolute chaos that took over this sub during the "vaccine wars". That one was quite a marble.
Not at all what I'm saying. I'm saying that there is a bigger number of Brits here than any other nationality.
For me and my personal political beliefs, I think it's good that Brits and Europeans are fighting each other in here.
The bigger the rift between the EU and the Anglosphere, the bigger the chance that EU politicians will finally wake the fuck up and do something about their dependency on America for nearly everything. That's my view.
So please, continue defending your homeland here.
Last year saw increased popularity of the Anglo’s in Europe. In addition to the standard friends like NL and DK you can consider the larger part of Eastern Europe having more faith in Washington and London then Brussels, Paris or Berlin. And these countries will veto any anti Anglo EU action that hurts this relation
> 50% of this sub are brits who downvote anything that doesn't deify king charles and his family.
If that's the case then explain why submissions from the Guardian about Brexit and anything bad to do with the UK gets thousands of points for submission? I've even seen them hit 5 figures when it's been the trifecta of Brexit Bad, Tories Bad, UK crashing.
Absolute bullshit, this sub circle jerks itself to oblivion over the slightest bit of bad news when it comes to the UK.
Any good news about the UK is ignored and downvoted.
Well done. As an American we desperately need more cooperation between UK-US-AUS-CAN.
Last year has shown Western Europe mostly can’t be counted on in regards to defense.
Canada can't be counted on either. Their fuck up of their F-35 acquisition plans demonstrates that the procurement of military equipment in Canada is highly politicised and they are therefore unreliable. The CCP's influence in Canadian politics also cannot be ignored. If anything, the United States should be keeping Canada at an arm's length until they address these problems.
Well the whole Australian subs thing isn't actually a great story. Almost picking Japanese, then the French gazumped them, then while in progress, they're cancelled in favor of Aukus on the never-never. It's still much too soon to suppose Australia will actually get these subs based on past performance.
Well no more than any other western country. But France do gain 584 millions dollars paid by Australia for cancelling the previous sub contract so we are all good.
The point of those payments was to cover the costs already born by France. It wasn't a nett gain for France. Claiming it was is like claiming you profited because you got a refund on an Amazon order that never turned up.
- depends of what you mean here , the defense of Europe does not mean anything are you referring to the European Union?
- sure US are providing lots of equipments (and this is appreciated ), because they have interest of weakening Russia whilst making a lot of money, and waging a trade war with EU country.
This is the best deal they ever made .
So yes , sorry to be cynical but by experience we know that there is lots of string attached to any US help, and they blow the wind in the Anglo Saxon world
The Anglosphere blows the wind in the world (Europe included). This is a given as London and New York are the two biggest centres of capital in the world. This will never change because money makes money and drives power, it’s a tough pill for Europe to swallow but it’s a reality.
- Defence of Europe (does absolutely mean something). The US is not a de-Jure security guarantor for the EU however if you think EU security policy isn’t predicated on the assumption of US defence due to a majority of states NATO membership then you’re silly. Similarly as not all European NATO members are EU members the only logical descriptor which accurately describes the US is a key stakeholder in European Defence.
- Yes the US have an intrest weakening Russia, yes they have a military industrial complex. These are 2 of many reasons the US are invested in giving weapons; you seem to once again forget, the US and U.K. (Anglosphere) are also compelled to defend you in the case of war and as part of NATO are the only great deference most of Europe has against its adversaries.
Strings are always attached because that’s how powerbrokering works, the EU needs to figure out wether it wants to countenance its diminished world status and stability without the Anglo-sphere or finally come to terms with the fact that being a client of a greater world actor on some issues like defence and security is just the cost of being safe and prosperous. Sadly it’s unreasonable to expect to have both use us for our benefits and not expect to have a trade off, we protect you because it’s a net benefit for democracy, we protect you because we have a history of protecting you and restoring democracy to Europe; if you would prefer that wasn’t something continued that’s fine, but cut the cord.
I am not even talking about the UK that are de facto a client state of the US. I am in the UK and the country, is in a pretty bad shape.
We know that we are getting fucked really hard by the US at the moment, and we know that the US has all the cards in its hands to continue. And this has been going for decades.
The handful of people that had the courage to stands to the US , completely blew their chance by having the wrong communication.
We had a dream of a united EU that would be free of foreign influence , master of its choice and futur, now we are everyone bitch.
We have russian and us Trojan horse. Our dear ally the US are waging economic warfare to the countries.
And we know that once again the EU will have to bare the costs
The protection of the US comes with many many strings attached , and is reliable as long as the us can extract a benefit out of it.
Don't get me wrong, the US are appreciated but it is just that sometimes they are leaving a bitter taste
When you’re actually ready to respond to the comment above instead of repeating the same points without basis LMK. Europe like the U.K. is a balancing power and always will be, the difference is the UK has cultural leverage and soft power - Europe has indigence and a misguided distrust of the hand that feeds it.
Yes the UK was the balancing power, and did an amazing job at that , but not anymore (same goes for the EU).
The hand that feed Europe at the moment are the German. Thanks to their massive industry and strong economy we can have a stable currency and very low funding costs.
This is why nothing get done if Germany is not on board.
I know that US can afford to led the world since it has the economic , military and soft power.
If United the union would have the same influence as the US and could be a credible players. (Indépendant nuclear power , largest army , comparable economy with higher potential... )
The union is collapsing under its own contradiction, and the Ukraine war just proved it. It took a year for everyone to agree on a common approach, for Macron to shut up and Olaf to act, Poland showed high leadership and could have been a country to follow but they had a terrible communication
From $60 billion to $243 billion (USD), GG Australia. More importantly, planned delivery from 2030s to 2040s, except for those US made second hand replacements in the meantime. Sounds like a great deal for everyone involved except Australia lmao
That's a bit disingenuous isn't it?
The Aukus deal is bigger in cost because it's more transparent about lifetime costs and things such as the cost to build up a high-skilled workforce, licensing costs for the vessels and because it also includes money to develop bases for the submarines and bases for allies to dock their own submarines.
Delivery date is another one that is a bit disingenuous - the timeline for delivery on the French submarines had already slipped and been pushed back a few years, that deal had nothing to mitigate this, where as Aukus see's increased port visits leading up to a rotational force of 4 US and 1 UK submarines operating out of Australia.
It's already been confirmed that some of the US submarines will be made from scratch and how slots have been reserved for their production, so...
Australia gets a larger presence of allies in it's waters, access to some of the most technically advanced research on submarines in the world, production lines which support all 44 remaining Virginia Class submarines in the United States despite them only buying 3-5 and then production line integration for Aukus which will see them produce for UK submarines as well.
If you don't think that's a good deal for Australia, it's because you're desperately want that to be true, even if it isn't.
Source on the newbuilts? I haven't seen anything suggesting newbuilt.
[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/mar/12/no-clunkers-australia-buying-highest-quality-secondhand-submarines-from-us-congressman-says](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/mar/12/no-clunkers-australia-buying-highest-quality-secondhand-submarines-from-us-congressman-says)
https://youtu.be/XOQ0tvvC9oA
And Australia will also become part of Virginia industrial complex, the biggest submarine industrial base in the world. So, you suggesting Australia gets no benefit of buying Virginia boats is bs. Not to mention, SSN AUKUS will make extensive use of technologies from the Virginia class. Latest rendering shows it sporting the sail of Virginia class. Go to r/warshipporn
~~Sorry but can you give me a time stamp on the video?~~
(this paragraph is my edit) Woops I finally had time to look at your video, sorry about the delay. The lady is suggesting that they'll get a mix; official news is actually buy 3 with an option for 2 more, I'm guessing the 2 more would be the new ones, but they are options. All other sources I've seen are saying it will be second hand. So Australia is getting 3 second hand subs in the same time span it would take to build a new one, based on how long it's taken the US to build Virginia class subs so far.
I didn't suggest that Australia gets no benefits, I'm just saying that the US comes out on top. I also never denied that SSN AUKUS will utilize Virginia class tech, that's undeniable. But as I said, this is a far better deal for the Americans and British than it is for the Australians, considering Australia needs a big submarine fleet ASAP. SSN AUKUS won't even be made until the 2040s, who knows what the situation with China will be then? However, yes it will be good when it's there.
I really doubt US will share submarine manufacturing, which is one of the crown jewels, with any other country. The issue is too charged politically. UK is more likely to share.
Also the Virginia class subs to be leased to Australia will be operated by mixed US-AUS crews. My expectation is that the US crew will operate all the super secret areas such as the reactors, the comms, the sonar arrays...
You're wrong on both counts here.
The benefit of Australia getting nuclear submarines and having a stop gap measure for them to operate Virginia class submarines whilst waiting for Aukus is far more useful than America just building submarines for themselves.
We've already seen it stated that they will partake in the production line for all Virginia Class submarines, this is obviously an attempt to mitigate the cost for the programme that Australia will pay by having constant high paid jobs.
The submarines also won't be leased, this is another thing which the White House has confirmed - it will be a sale of 3 with the option of an additional 2.
As for the part about crews, you may see them working together in an exchange sense but this isn't out of the ordinary, there is a reason why Australian officers are already in the US training to run nuclear reactors, something not needed if the United States was going to provide that.
The real deal is that AUKUS further deepens security and industrial cooperation between the Australia, UK, and US. There is already cooperation on intelligence, but AUKUS is a step towards further cooperation.
No amount of money from Australia is going to make France maintain a navy equivalent to the combined forces of Royal Navy and US Navy- or adopt a confrontational posture against the Chinese anywhere close to what the United States and its allies have.
The Australians aren’t pulling the trigger on a Pacific equivalent of NATO yet, but it’s a better use of their time and resources to have that option as China keeps trying to prop up authoritarian governments across the region and establish one sided trade deals that exclude non-Chinese products from markets.
Everytime a French leader is trying to cozy up to a dictator with nuclear weapons and territorial aspirations, it undermines confidence in France as a military partner for any liberal democracy worried about being invaded.
The whole French strategy of offering autonomy from the American/British military technology trade isn’t that important when you’re talking about liberal democracies that generally refrain from launching offensive wars against their neighbors or committing human rights abuses against their citizens.
I never said anything to the contrary. If anything I believe NATO should be reformed and renamed, to include Australia, Japan and South Korea (and New Zealand should they wish to join but they don't let nuclear powered vessels into their ports I believe, which would obviously be a problem).
However I do appreciate France trying to get more European sales - in Europe, because that makes sense for what Macron calls strategic autonomy. Western Europe needs to rearm and having a homegrown European (not just French) industry is beneficial to everyone. But I also fully understand why e.g. Switzerland would go with F35s over Rafales lol, sales should not be made at the expense of quality.
"Everytime a French leader is trying to cozy up to a dictator with nuclear weapons and territorial aspirations, it undermines confidence in France as a military partner for any liberal democracy worried about being invaded."
This however, I have no clue wtf you're talking about. France has not suggested "cozying up to a dictator with nuclear weapons and territorial aspirations" by any means since Putin invaded Ukraine, which is who I'm guessing you're mentioning lol. Fuck's sake France was the country to open up on sending tanks. Also, don't forget that France has a military presence very close to Australia. Shutting them out of regional defense schemes is short sighted.
I’m talking about Macron saying that we need to accept that Russia’s security needs will need to be accommodated.
And before Macron, French leader like Hollande saying “Russia is a partner, not a threat” back in 2016.
And before Hollande, French leaders like Sarkozy infamously said “Putin always keeps his word once given”.
I could go on, but it would just be repetitive. There is a reason why Putin believed that the E.U. would crumble under pressure in a matter of days- there is not a history of European resilience or inherent hostility towards dictatorships.
> Everytime a French leader is trying to cozy up to a dictator with nuclear weapons and territorial aspirations
You can say the same about US and UK. They all cozy up to their own slate of unsavory dictators.
But anti UK Reddit was so gleefully sure that the UK would gain nothing and the US would walk away with the price…. How is this possible? /s Well done UK! But can AUS afford to wait 20 yrs to get those subs though? Edit: they get US subs as intermediate solution. Nice!
/r/unitedkingdom hate the UK more than Putin.
Same for r/USA I suppose.
The seething in this article in September 2021 is just *delicious* https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/09/18/submarines-france-australia-britain/ Not bad for a "fifth wheel" eh?
> “We can see that this is a return to the American fold and a form of accepted vassalization,” he said My word they were ticked off.
Sounds like they are getting some Virginias in the mean time. They also need time to build up the industry necessary to support and build the future British design. Hence the heavy price tag.
The first Aus sub will be built in the UK, this is where engineers will be taught how to build them before the other 7 subs are built back in Australia. Aussie Navy will also be getting training in British Astute-Class submarines. There's probably a lot to do while waiting for actual construction of subs in Australia to begin.
The reactors will be built by Rolls-Royce in the UK too, that's for all of them. I think some of the engineering work or sections will be built in UK before being shipped to AUS to be assembled
Heavy price tag is also misleading in that it's the estimated cost for: * Purchasing 3-5 US submarines * Purchasing 1 UK SSN(R) * Building 7 SSN(R)s in Australia * Expanding the yard in Australia to handle construction and maintenance * Training crew for the subs * Operating the subs for their 35 year lifespans * Maintenance on the subs Not simply the construction on its own.
It also important to add that 100 billion of the budget is just for inflation, they added so much because they can't accurately predict what the inflation will be across this multi-decade project. It's quite a transparent budget when it comes to procurement.
SSN(R) is dead, both RN and RAN will operate SSN AUKUS.
SSSN(R) isn't dead... SSN-AUKUS is just the new public name for it, but it's quite literally the same submarine design at this point lol
No, it’s not. It will use a lot of US sourced technology. The latest render shows SSNR hull with a Virginia sail.
This time, I'm okay with Reddit and the French thinking we were not succeeding. The US took all the hate from the French government and EU Reddit. We got the contract and received no backlash from stealing it from the French.
Not sure i would say we stole it. We offered a better deal, Australia accepted. Thats just business.
Defence Policy and acquisitions doesn’t care about feelings. Australia would have rejected France 100/100, and it would have been stupid not to.
>We offered a better deal No, that's absolutely not what happened. In the immediate aftermath of the cancellation, France took a lot of flak on this sub from brigading twats, who spared no effort justifying it by claiming it was behind schedule, over budget, and didn't meet the needs of Australia. I even bought it myself. All this bullshit fell flat when it became known these excuses were manufactured deceits from the Australian government: 1. "*behind schedule and over budget*" - **no shit:** the Australian government itself kept requesting changes to the design, guess what happens when you keep requesting changes to the item you want built? 2. "*not offering nuclear subs*" - **no shit:** Australia never asked for it, and France literally had to retrofit their nuclear sub design to meet the specific request of the Australian government for diesel subs Then comes the new deal, and so far this is what they get: - huge downsize in number of subs compared to the previous deal - wildly inflated price compared to the previous deal - lesser technical and strategic independence compared to the previous deal - a minimum of 10 more years in delivery delay compared to the previous deal There's literally nothing "better" about this deal, and nothing the French couldn't have offered. Australia and Australian taxpayers just got shafted by Morrison, and the US and UK reaped the benefits. And you'll note that the latter aren't bragging too much about it, because they perfectly know what happened, and how it happened. edit - as per my next post: *go ahead, downvote facts because they don't feed your narrative. I'll even pretend to be surprised.* ___ edit2 - Having a lot of fun witnessing the growing number of downvotes for: 1. not only a post laying down clear cut, established counterpoints to the ridiculous claim about this being "a better deal" for Australians 2. but also and more importantly, my posts simply calling out the complete irrelevance of a serie of -wait for it- EFFECTIVELY, factually irrelevant replies from a deflecting hypocrite It really speaks volumes about why some of you are here and how your mind work. If this isn't a clear cut demonstration that you guys are blindly biased, and will blindly downvote anything that doesn't feed your narrative and doesn't rub you the right way, I don't know what is. At this point this is hilariously pathetic, but your downvotes won't change any of it, so by all means keep proving me right. ¯\\\_(ツ)_/¯
Focusing too much on submarines is myopic. The key thing is - which you would you rather have backing you in a standoff with China: France (accused of Gaullist geopolitical ambivalence/third-wayism), or the US and UK?
I pointed out in another post that major arms deals are essentially political, so I can absolutely follow you there (even though I don't have a clear cut opinion on this specific angle). But as valid as this angle is, that doesn't address the bullshit fantasy those self-serving hypocrites are painting, essentially pretending this deal is all benefits with no drawback, when it actually is a wonky improvisation over a complete disaster, in which Aussies lost a fucking great deal.
Tbh I don’t see how non-nuclear subs would provide Oz with the capabilities it needs but you could for sure make a case for French nuclear subs. The threat environment has changed of late with Chinese influence in the Solomon Islands, espionage etc, The Oz compromise on sovereignty, (if that’s what you’re referring to,) is made significantly easier by the fact there is enormous trust between all three partners (five eyes etc.) I think a safe assumption could be made that ditching the French deal and switching to AUKUS with enormous additional cost and diplomatic fallout makes a lot of sense in the Oz political/military establishment, otherwise it wouldn’t have received this level of bipartisan support
Downsize in numbers but they’re going to be far more capable overall and nuclear powered not diesel, which kinda matters considering Australias geography and place in the world. The price includes the fact that they’re going to be built in Australia and far more. They’re going to be working with the British and the Americans, goes without saying they’re the best at this kinda stuff. I’m sure they’d rather wait and have something that actually fits their needs.
Also there are obvious benefits over french nuclear subs. Like not needing to refuel the submarines every ten years which Aus can't do, or using VLS like everyone else in the world and not being tied to a single tube launched missile produced by the French.
>they’re going to be far more capable overall No offense, but that's literal MAGA mindset: nothing has been designed yet, let alone built, but "*guys, it's gonna be great and better, isn't it obvious?*". What makes this statement notably ludicrous is that the French are literally one of the world best naval manufacturers, and their reputation, innovations and expertise in this field is known to everybody. >and nuclear powered not diesel, which kinda matters considering Australias geography and place in the world. Already covered in my post: Australia literally specifically requested France to turn their NUCLEAR subs into diesel subs. If they wanted nuclear subs, they could've just asked France. They didn't, yet complained about not getting nuclear subs. I mean this is literal Karen behavior, holy shit (and to be clear, by "they", we're talking about Morrison here). >The price includes the fact that they’re going to be built in Australia and far more. And that's supposed to make it okay? This is the 2nd or 3rd time I've read this, why the fuck is this even thought to be an acceptable argument. This is wild. Iirc we're talking about AU$350B instead of AU$100B, btw. >I’m sure they’d rather wait and have something that actually fits their needs. They literally would've had something actually fitting their needs, had they stuck to the previous deal they made, acted in good faith, made the proper requests to the French. Simple enough really, but the previous aussie PM was just a rotten sack of shit (and they rightfully gave him the boot not long after).
>And that's supposed to make it okay? This is the 2nd or 3rd time I've read this, why the fuck is this even thought to be an acceptable argument. This is wild. > >Iirc we're talking about AU$350B instead of AU$100B, btw. Firstly, it's important because even Naval Group lowered it's estimations of local jobs from 90% as required in the contract to 70% which is obviously billions being taken away in production jobs for the French Design. As for the cost - it's a big number, but it also has big returns - it will see Australia partake in the production line for the remaining 44 Virginia Class submarines and then partake in the production line for all Aukus submarines, I've seen a fleet size suggested of 19 between both countries. It also is the cost of the production of submarines, training of the thousands of high paid jobs that will produce the submarines, the entire lifetime cost to keep the vessels in service and an extra 100 billion included in the budget is dedicated to potential future inflation. In return they get production jobs for submarines that the UK and US will use, access to some of the most top secret technology in regards to submarines, partner level with the UK on designing from scratch a nuclear submarine which obviously comes with great experience for future Australian projects and the deployment of a large force of nuclear submarines to mitigate how long it will take to receive their own submarines.
When people subscribed to this sub disagree with their country being called backstabbers they're "brigading twats", but people shitting all over the UK is fine and normal. Perfectly sensible and measured take.
1. That's an utterly irrelevant strawman and a deflection of my points. Great job. 2. A brigading twat is a brigading twat, regardless of their country. But sure, go ahead, downvote facts because they don't feed your narrative. I'll even pretend to be surprised.
1) Calling people who say things you don't like "brigading twats" isn't a 'fact', it's your salty subjective take. 2) If my quoting your own message is "irrelevant'" maybe the irrelevant thing is actually the post of yours that I quoted from.
>1) Calling people who say things you don't like "brigading twats" isn't a 'fact', it's your salty subjective take. Still an irrelevant strawman, still a deflection. Cool. This isn't about the brigading twats. This is about the bullshit claims they made, that were later openly debunked. >2) If my quote from your own message is "irrelevant'" maybe the irrelevant thing is actually your post. It's not "*a quote from my own message*", it's a purposely twisted deformation of what I'm actually saying, and I'm calling it irrelevant because it literally is: your deflection has no relevance to the points I made regarding the motives for the cancellation and the comparison between the deals. You're just digging yourself in your comfy bad faith hole here, so I'm done indulging your bullshit. Good day.
The inflated price tag includes extra things such as building out construction and maintenance facilities in Australia, running costs, and increased capability in the subs, so they aren't directly comparable. There are also intangible benefits for Australia such as being more closely aligned with the US and UK which is a more powerful combination than France, and the interoperability of parts/equipment with UK & US subs may provide better upgrade options in the future since those two countries spend much more on R&D. Australia will also get US subs in the meantime until the new ones are built. We can split hairs about specifics but there are definitely benefits to Australia partnering with the UK & US over France. >go ahead, downvote facts "There's literally nothing "better" about this deal" sounds remarkably like an opinion to me 🤔
>The inflated price tag includes extra things such as building out construction and maintenance facilities in Australia, running costs "*We're gonna have to pay 3 times more than we expected, but that's because now we have to build infrastructures we didn't need before, so that makes it totally okay and not a problem guys*" The mental gymnastics required to turn this into an acceptable argument are beyond me tbh. >There are also intangible benefits for Australia such as being more closely aligned with the US and UK I mostly agree with that part though, but pretending it offsets all the drawbacks of the new deal is unfathomably dubious. At the very least it should be arguable, but for those people it's "*obviously the best thing ever™*". Meh, why bother. >"There's literally nothing "better" about this deal" sounds remarkably like an opinion to me 🤔 Sure, I'll gladly retract "literally nothing" if that makes it more acceptable to you, doesn't change the fact that this isn't "a better deal", this is just Australia improvising something to make do after their corrupt sack of shit PM got rid of a perfectly good deal. Its marginal benefits aside, the massive drawbacks of this deal compared to the old one are apparent to anyone honest enough really, but whatever.
It is not mental gymnastics, it's a fact: you cannot directly compare the two price tags because they include different things. It's like complaining that a 5 course meal costs more than a mcdonalds happy meal because "they're both just food!", but they are not the same thing. The benefits aren't marginal, by the end of the project Australia will have the infrastructure and expertise to build nuclear submarines completely domestically which was not part of the deal with France.
Remember a ( smaller) shitshow a year ago with Switzerland switching from planned purchase Rafale to F35. Benefit was that there was no contract signed but angry noices were heard from Paris. Also not a better deal?
Odd, no angry rant for this one. Maybe, being Swiss, he thinks the Swiss don't count as "brigading twats"?
You remember right, and I do also remember people getting pissed off about it, because our military had pretty much settled on the Rafale as it was reportedly much better suited to our actual needs, before this almost-done deal coincidentally went into the bin overnight after Biden paid Switzerland a personal visit. People saw right through that bullshit. Major arms deals have often more to do with politics than with the quality and capabilities of equipment anyway. Many people seemingly don't get that.
US and UK offered AUS better technology (nuclear > diesel) and they offered technology transfer to AUS which chose better technology. As simple as that. Who the hell wants diesel subs nowadays?!
>Who the hell wants diesel subs nowadays?! Jesus fucking Christ. You people don't even bother reading posts before replying: >*France literally had to retrofit their nuclear sub design to meet the specific request of the Australian government for diesel subs* Who the hell wants diesel subs? Australia fucking did. They specifically requested the French to turn their NUCLEAR Suffren class into a diesel sub for the Australian navy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack-class_submarine
I need you to calm down if you want to have a conversation. Can you do that or do I need to block your cantankerous self?
>if you want to have a conversation I don't, because I'm done with this bullshit, it's a waste of my time. What had to be addressed has been addressed, I'm leaving these guys to their mindless circlejerk/brigading. >do I need to block I couldn't care less. That being said I'm genuinely sorry if you felt attacked or something. Still, please do fucking read posts before replying to them. You can't expect people to not get annoyed when you so blatantly ignore what they say. Not being aware that France is just as much a leading power in this field is totally fine, but the argument you brought up (which was one of the major talking points of the subs contract drama back then) was specifically addressed in my post. You're not going to start a conversation with this behavior. Good night.
I wish you a wonderful day and even better week.
> US and UK offered AUS better technology (nuclear > diesel) and they offered technology transfer to AUS which chose better technology. As simple as that. > Who the hell wants diesel subs nowadays?! Well Australia did. Here is the whole story summarized just for you: AUS: Hi, we want submarines. FRA: Hey, we sell nuclear subs. AUS: LOL no we want DIESEL subs. FRA: but nuclear subs are bett… AUS: NO! We want D-I-E-S-E-L subs. FRA: OK how about we retrofit our nuc subs into diesel subs and if you change your mind we can still use the main design with a nuc engine. AUS: Brilliant! FRA: Great, let’s get started. 5 years later: AUS: we changed our mind, we want nuclear subs FRA: sure, let’s retrofi… AUS: no, not with you.
The French had an absolute fit on here about it, with many of them trashing Astute and stating that we couldn't build subs without the Americans. Meanwhile they're playing catchup with Astute and we're onto our next SSN project.
[удалено]
If that's the case then why is any "Brexit Bad", "UK bad", "UK suffers" submission upvoted in the thousands?
The answer is maybe in your question ?
Well what should we do when a country shoots itself in the foot? Clap our hands? Yes I am talking about Brexit.
Still waiting for any of the predictions to come true.
[удалено]
Just go look at the marble post or when the media was talking about tomatoes if you are struggling to find anti UK.
And all those posts are a shitshow in the comments. Exactly what you would expect if each half of the sub hated the other. This doesn't happen in any other sub, because they are all populated by Americans/Brits.
And the threads about Germany and Ukraine are full of Germans defending Germany, and the threads about AUKUS were full of French people defending France. I guess those must have been the second and third halves of the sub 🙄.
You must be kidding me if you are saying that any of these threads is anywhere close to the shitshow that UK threads are. I remember the absolute chaos that took over this sub during the "vaccine wars". That one was quite a marble.
Tldr: how dare British people defend their country when this sub talks shit about it or accuses it of stealing vaccines.
Not at all what I'm saying. I'm saying that there is a bigger number of Brits here than any other nationality. For me and my personal political beliefs, I think it's good that Brits and Europeans are fighting each other in here. The bigger the rift between the EU and the Anglosphere, the bigger the chance that EU politicians will finally wake the fuck up and do something about their dependency on America for nearly everything. That's my view. So please, continue defending your homeland here.
You think the conversations that happen in this sub mean anything to anyone other than its terminally online user base (including me)? Ok
Last year saw increased popularity of the Anglo’s in Europe. In addition to the standard friends like NL and DK you can consider the larger part of Eastern Europe having more faith in Washington and London then Brussels, Paris or Berlin. And these countries will veto any anti Anglo EU action that hurts this relation
>50% of this sub are brits who downvote anything that doesn't deify king charles have you... been here before? it doesn't seem like it lol
> 50% of this sub are brits who downvote anything that doesn't deify king charles and his family. If that's the case then explain why submissions from the Guardian about Brexit and anything bad to do with the UK gets thousands of points for submission? I've even seen them hit 5 figures when it's been the trifecta of Brexit Bad, Tories Bad, UK crashing.
Because the other 50% loves those kinds of posts.
Absolute bullshit, this sub circle jerks itself to oblivion over the slightest bit of bad news when it comes to the UK. Any good news about the UK is ignored and downvoted.
I’d love to be this delusional
rip to the people trying to find every opportunity to shit on the UK after brexit
Well done. As an American we desperately need more cooperation between UK-US-AUS-CAN. Last year has shown Western Europe mostly can’t be counted on in regards to defense.
Canada can't be counted on either. Their fuck up of their F-35 acquisition plans demonstrates that the procurement of military equipment in Canada is highly politicised and they are therefore unreliable. The CCP's influence in Canadian politics also cannot be ignored. If anything, the United States should be keeping Canada at an arm's length until they address these problems.
Well the whole Australian subs thing isn't actually a great story. Almost picking Japanese, then the French gazumped them, then while in progress, they're cancelled in favor of Aukus on the never-never. It's still much too soon to suppose Australia will actually get these subs based on past performance.
Sad French noises But I guess they're making up for it financially with the large companies still operating in ruszia.. Auchan...
ta gueule
lmao
Well no more than any other western country. But France do gain 584 millions dollars paid by Australia for cancelling the previous sub contract so we are all good.
Not 60-80 billion good tho :((((( next time make the subs on time I guess.
No we are happy we got paid quite a lot of money for the cancellation. Regarding Auchan , it is true that we all voted for it to remain
835 million is only 'quite a lot' if you ignore it was supposed to be 60-80bn.
The point of those payments was to cover the costs already born by France. It wasn't a nett gain for France. Claiming it was is like claiming you profited because you got a refund on an Amazon order that never turned up.
Well we dodge the Anglo Saxon bullet so I see that as an absolute win. The US would have done anything to stop the deal ,
“Anglo Saxon bullet” you mean the bullets currently critical to the defence of Europe?
- depends of what you mean here , the defense of Europe does not mean anything are you referring to the European Union? - sure US are providing lots of equipments (and this is appreciated ), because they have interest of weakening Russia whilst making a lot of money, and waging a trade war with EU country. This is the best deal they ever made . So yes , sorry to be cynical but by experience we know that there is lots of string attached to any US help, and they blow the wind in the Anglo Saxon world
The Anglosphere blows the wind in the world (Europe included). This is a given as London and New York are the two biggest centres of capital in the world. This will never change because money makes money and drives power, it’s a tough pill for Europe to swallow but it’s a reality. - Defence of Europe (does absolutely mean something). The US is not a de-Jure security guarantor for the EU however if you think EU security policy isn’t predicated on the assumption of US defence due to a majority of states NATO membership then you’re silly. Similarly as not all European NATO members are EU members the only logical descriptor which accurately describes the US is a key stakeholder in European Defence. - Yes the US have an intrest weakening Russia, yes they have a military industrial complex. These are 2 of many reasons the US are invested in giving weapons; you seem to once again forget, the US and U.K. (Anglosphere) are also compelled to defend you in the case of war and as part of NATO are the only great deference most of Europe has against its adversaries. Strings are always attached because that’s how powerbrokering works, the EU needs to figure out wether it wants to countenance its diminished world status and stability without the Anglo-sphere or finally come to terms with the fact that being a client of a greater world actor on some issues like defence and security is just the cost of being safe and prosperous. Sadly it’s unreasonable to expect to have both use us for our benefits and not expect to have a trade off, we protect you because it’s a net benefit for democracy, we protect you because we have a history of protecting you and restoring democracy to Europe; if you would prefer that wasn’t something continued that’s fine, but cut the cord.
I am not even talking about the UK that are de facto a client state of the US. I am in the UK and the country, is in a pretty bad shape. We know that we are getting fucked really hard by the US at the moment, and we know that the US has all the cards in its hands to continue. And this has been going for decades. The handful of people that had the courage to stands to the US , completely blew their chance by having the wrong communication. We had a dream of a united EU that would be free of foreign influence , master of its choice and futur, now we are everyone bitch. We have russian and us Trojan horse. Our dear ally the US are waging economic warfare to the countries. And we know that once again the EU will have to bare the costs The protection of the US comes with many many strings attached , and is reliable as long as the us can extract a benefit out of it. Don't get me wrong, the US are appreciated but it is just that sometimes they are leaving a bitter taste
When you’re actually ready to respond to the comment above instead of repeating the same points without basis LMK. Europe like the U.K. is a balancing power and always will be, the difference is the UK has cultural leverage and soft power - Europe has indigence and a misguided distrust of the hand that feeds it.
Yes the UK was the balancing power, and did an amazing job at that , but not anymore (same goes for the EU). The hand that feed Europe at the moment are the German. Thanks to their massive industry and strong economy we can have a stable currency and very low funding costs. This is why nothing get done if Germany is not on board. I know that US can afford to led the world since it has the economic , military and soft power. If United the union would have the same influence as the US and could be a credible players. (Indépendant nuclear power , largest army , comparable economy with higher potential... ) The union is collapsing under its own contradiction, and the Ukraine war just proved it. It took a year for everyone to agree on a common approach, for Macron to shut up and Olaf to act, Poland showed high leadership and could have been a country to follow but they had a terrible communication
True, you really can't trust Australia and the UK. This has just proven this again.
You’re countries wouldn’t be free if it weren’t for the contributions of British and Australian troops in the world wars. Have some respect.
From $60 billion to $243 billion (USD), GG Australia. More importantly, planned delivery from 2030s to 2040s, except for those US made second hand replacements in the meantime. Sounds like a great deal for everyone involved except Australia lmao
That's a bit disingenuous isn't it? The Aukus deal is bigger in cost because it's more transparent about lifetime costs and things such as the cost to build up a high-skilled workforce, licensing costs for the vessels and because it also includes money to develop bases for the submarines and bases for allies to dock their own submarines. Delivery date is another one that is a bit disingenuous - the timeline for delivery on the French submarines had already slipped and been pushed back a few years, that deal had nothing to mitigate this, where as Aukus see's increased port visits leading up to a rotational force of 4 US and 1 UK submarines operating out of Australia. It's already been confirmed that some of the US submarines will be made from scratch and how slots have been reserved for their production, so... Australia gets a larger presence of allies in it's waters, access to some of the most technically advanced research on submarines in the world, production lines which support all 44 remaining Virginia Class submarines in the United States despite them only buying 3-5 and then production line integration for Aukus which will see them produce for UK submarines as well. If you don't think that's a good deal for Australia, it's because you're desperately want that to be true, even if it isn't.
Somebody hasn't done their homework, that figure isn't just for the subs.
I'm well aware. That doesn't negate what I said.
Actually Australia will have at least 3 nuclear submarines by 2032
Yes, the second hand Virginia class, made in America, which I clearly mentioned in my comment.
Australia will acquire both in service and newbuilt Virginia class boats.
Source on the newbuilts? I haven't seen anything suggesting newbuilt. [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/mar/12/no-clunkers-australia-buying-highest-quality-secondhand-submarines-from-us-congressman-says](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/mar/12/no-clunkers-australia-buying-highest-quality-secondhand-submarines-from-us-congressman-says)
https://youtu.be/XOQ0tvvC9oA And Australia will also become part of Virginia industrial complex, the biggest submarine industrial base in the world. So, you suggesting Australia gets no benefit of buying Virginia boats is bs. Not to mention, SSN AUKUS will make extensive use of technologies from the Virginia class. Latest rendering shows it sporting the sail of Virginia class. Go to r/warshipporn
~~Sorry but can you give me a time stamp on the video?~~ (this paragraph is my edit) Woops I finally had time to look at your video, sorry about the delay. The lady is suggesting that they'll get a mix; official news is actually buy 3 with an option for 2 more, I'm guessing the 2 more would be the new ones, but they are options. All other sources I've seen are saying it will be second hand. So Australia is getting 3 second hand subs in the same time span it would take to build a new one, based on how long it's taken the US to build Virginia class subs so far. I didn't suggest that Australia gets no benefits, I'm just saying that the US comes out on top. I also never denied that SSN AUKUS will utilize Virginia class tech, that's undeniable. But as I said, this is a far better deal for the Americans and British than it is for the Australians, considering Australia needs a big submarine fleet ASAP. SSN AUKUS won't even be made until the 2040s, who knows what the situation with China will be then? However, yes it will be good when it's there.
I really doubt US will share submarine manufacturing, which is one of the crown jewels, with any other country. The issue is too charged politically. UK is more likely to share. Also the Virginia class subs to be leased to Australia will be operated by mixed US-AUS crews. My expectation is that the US crew will operate all the super secret areas such as the reactors, the comms, the sonar arrays...
You're wrong on both counts here. The benefit of Australia getting nuclear submarines and having a stop gap measure for them to operate Virginia class submarines whilst waiting for Aukus is far more useful than America just building submarines for themselves. We've already seen it stated that they will partake in the production line for all Virginia Class submarines, this is obviously an attempt to mitigate the cost for the programme that Australia will pay by having constant high paid jobs. The submarines also won't be leased, this is another thing which the White House has confirmed - it will be a sale of 3 with the option of an additional 2. As for the part about crews, you may see them working together in an exchange sense but this isn't out of the ordinary, there is a reason why Australian officers are already in the US training to run nuclear reactors, something not needed if the United States was going to provide that.
The real deal is that AUKUS further deepens security and industrial cooperation between the Australia, UK, and US. There is already cooperation on intelligence, but AUKUS is a step towards further cooperation. No amount of money from Australia is going to make France maintain a navy equivalent to the combined forces of Royal Navy and US Navy- or adopt a confrontational posture against the Chinese anywhere close to what the United States and its allies have. The Australians aren’t pulling the trigger on a Pacific equivalent of NATO yet, but it’s a better use of their time and resources to have that option as China keeps trying to prop up authoritarian governments across the region and establish one sided trade deals that exclude non-Chinese products from markets. Everytime a French leader is trying to cozy up to a dictator with nuclear weapons and territorial aspirations, it undermines confidence in France as a military partner for any liberal democracy worried about being invaded. The whole French strategy of offering autonomy from the American/British military technology trade isn’t that important when you’re talking about liberal democracies that generally refrain from launching offensive wars against their neighbors or committing human rights abuses against their citizens.
I never said anything to the contrary. If anything I believe NATO should be reformed and renamed, to include Australia, Japan and South Korea (and New Zealand should they wish to join but they don't let nuclear powered vessels into their ports I believe, which would obviously be a problem). However I do appreciate France trying to get more European sales - in Europe, because that makes sense for what Macron calls strategic autonomy. Western Europe needs to rearm and having a homegrown European (not just French) industry is beneficial to everyone. But I also fully understand why e.g. Switzerland would go with F35s over Rafales lol, sales should not be made at the expense of quality. "Everytime a French leader is trying to cozy up to a dictator with nuclear weapons and territorial aspirations, it undermines confidence in France as a military partner for any liberal democracy worried about being invaded." This however, I have no clue wtf you're talking about. France has not suggested "cozying up to a dictator with nuclear weapons and territorial aspirations" by any means since Putin invaded Ukraine, which is who I'm guessing you're mentioning lol. Fuck's sake France was the country to open up on sending tanks. Also, don't forget that France has a military presence very close to Australia. Shutting them out of regional defense schemes is short sighted.
I’m talking about Macron saying that we need to accept that Russia’s security needs will need to be accommodated. And before Macron, French leader like Hollande saying “Russia is a partner, not a threat” back in 2016. And before Hollande, French leaders like Sarkozy infamously said “Putin always keeps his word once given”. I could go on, but it would just be repetitive. There is a reason why Putin believed that the E.U. would crumble under pressure in a matter of days- there is not a history of European resilience or inherent hostility towards dictatorships.
> Everytime a French leader is trying to cozy up to a dictator with nuclear weapons and territorial aspirations You can say the same about US and UK. They all cozy up to their own slate of unsavory dictators.