How to P"""" off the French

BobKowalski said:
Well, it’s nice they have plenty of ideas, but we still won’t see a nuclear Aussie sub in service until well into the next decade.

I don’t think this is a particularly contentious point, nor is the observation that defence contracts are invariably beset with technical issues, delays and budget overruns - like the amv contract Australia has with a German firm.

www.abc.net.au

Concerns for fleet of armoured vehicles deemed overweight and unprotected from missile attack

An overweight weapons system is threatening to delay a multi-billion-dollar army project, prompting alarm across government, the military and defence industry.
www.abc.net.au www.abc.net.au

Nuclear subs are on a whole different level.
Click to expand...

Yes very nice for them.

Delays and overruns are usually from entirely new designs - if they go for a known design and tech there shouldn’t be any significant delays - I imagine they might want to use their own systems onboard which might add some compatibility issues. Next decade is when the French were due to deliver their conventional subs.

I think it takes us about 7-8 years to build an Astute class sub, then a couple of years to commission it, so sometime in 2030 would seem a reasonable assumption unless we are happy to let them lease the 2 we currently under construction (doubtful) - the Aussies have until 2036 for their existing sub fleet so I guess that fits the already perceived timelines. Britain is due to replace Astute class sometime between 2040/50. If the Aussies say they wanted something entirely new then they’ll be looking at similar timelines. If the Aussies went for a US sub they can probably get something to them sooner than we can.
 
metalblue said:
Yes very nice for them.

Delays and overruns are usually from entirely new designs - if they go for a known design and tech there shouldn’t be any significant delays - I imagine they might want to use their own systems onboard which might add some compatibility issues. Next decade is when the French were due to deliver their conventional subs.

I think it takes us about 7-8 years to build an Astute class sub, then a couple of years to commission it, so sometime in 2030 would seem a reasonable assumption unless we are happy to let them lease the 2 we currently under construction (doubtful) - the Aussies have until 2036 for their existing sub fleet so I guess that fits the already perceived timelines. Britain is due to replace Astute class sometime between 2040/50. If the Aussies say they wanted something entirely new then they’ll be looking at similar timelines. If the Aussies went for a US sub they can probably get something to them sooner than we can.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what point you are trying to make or why.

If the conventional subs were not going to be ready until the next decade, then neither will the nuclear subs. It’s a major defence program costing billions and involving technology Australia has no expertise or history with. It will take a long time. This is perfectly normal given what‘s involved.
 
BobKowalski said:
I have no idea what point you are trying to make or why.

If the conventional subs were not going to be ready until the next decade, then neither will the nuclear subs. It’s a major defence program costing billions and involving technology Australia has no expertise or history with. It will take a long time. This is perfectly normal given what‘s involved.
Click to expand...

I’ve merely been rebutting your original statement that the subs won’t be ready until 2040 at least and if all goes well. You failed, IMHO, to look at the bigger picture and the solutions that are available to the Aussies.
 
metalblue said:
I’ve merely been rebutting your original statement that the subs won’t be ready until 2040 at least and if all goes well. You failed, IMHO, to look at the bigger picture and the solutions that are available to the Aussies.
Click to expand...

Solutions to what?

Big ticket "defence" items like submarines and particularly these nuclear powered submarines have almost nothing to do with defence/deterrence at all and that explains China's rather muted response, it's not as if the region isn't chock full of military hardware already.

It's the political decision to acquire them and the alliance that follows that is significant, whether they're ready in 2040, 2050 or sometime never is beside the point.

In the run up to the First World War Britain and Germany engaged in a naval arms race, but for all the dreadnoughts we built and the large surface ships the Germans built, only one rather inconclusive naval battle took place.

What really mattered back then, and it was a major contributing factor to the war itself, was that over a relatively short period of time it became an accepted fact amongst the British, French and Russian ruling class and then, via newspaper Barons, their general public, that Germany was a threat and that the appropriate response to that threat must be primarily belligerent rather than diplomatic.

Here we are over a hundred years later and we're playing the same game. These submarines are just another step in framing China as a threat, a threat requiring a military response. When these submarines get built or if they'll be of any use is almost immaterial.
 
Last edited:
The perfect fumble said:
Solutions to what?

Big ticket "defence" items like submarines and particularly these nuclear powered submarines have almost nothing to do with defence/deterrence at all and that explains China's rather muted response, it's not as if the region isn't chock full of military hardware anyway.

It's the political decision to acquire them and the alliance that follows that is significant, whether they're ready in 2040, 2050 or sometime never is beside the point.

In the run up to the First World War Britain and Germany engaged in a naval arms race, but for all the dreadnoughts we built and the large surface ships the Germans built, only one rather inconclusive naval battle took place.

What really mattered back then, and it was a major contributing factor to the war itself, was that it became an accepted fact in the minds of British, French and Russian politicians and then their general public, that Germany was the enemy and that the appropriate response was to be primarily belligerent rather than diplomatic.

Here we are over a hundred years later and we're playing the same game. These submarines are just another step in framing China as a threat, a threat requiring a military response, when these submarines get built or if they'll be of any use is almost immaterial.
Click to expand...

I fully agree the sub delivery date is irrelevant. Upgrading to modern tech and capability isn’t. This isn’t about 12 subs, no one cares - the US could have added them to the region if that was the only objective - it’s about building cooperation, alliances and a message

I certainly don’t think the world wants to fall out with China it just wants it to operate in the frame of international norms. ie China is not a threat to world peace but to world order. The Chinese for their part probably don’t see they are doing much wrong.

Regionally is where we see this manifest. Unfortunately here China isn’t really exerting soft power anymore, it’s not benign and has increased military spending again. They’ve acted with increasing hostility towards their neighbours particularly in relation to the the land grab/island building in territorial waters of others, sure they placate them with loans which dampens the protests but ultimately they are denying those states and those people of income from their untapped resources that now “belong” to China. Further they’ve tried to extend China’s territorial waters by building islands to both increase their resource claims and deny international shipping access. Just because it’s an invasion by money and engineering rather than guns, doesn’t make it less of an invasion. Words aka diplomacy has been tried but China doesn’t listen to the words of the international community and it’s promises aren’t worth a lot, the only thing left is to see if China pays attention to strength. I don’t even “blame” China here, what they are doing makes sense for them - and it’s a novel approach. But unless we are going to rip up world order and go back to the days of conquest of the weak by the rich/powerful and empires then we need to act.

If history has taught us anything then it is doing nothing is usually the worst option of all. Had the allies not shied away from taking more robust steps to kerb Hilters ambitions during the 1930s things may well have turned out differently. We’re nowhere near that here but making China’s stop and take stock of its ambition with strategic alliances seems the most sensible option for now. It’s important to not skew alliance strength too much against China as they will perceive it as unnecessarily aggressive (eg adding Japan to the alliance)
 
metalblue said:
I fully agree the sub delivery date is irrelevant. Upgrading to modern tech and capability isn’t. This isn’t about 12 subs, no one cares - the US could have added them to the region if that was the only objective - it’s about building cooperation, alliances and a message

I certainly don’t think the world wants to fall out with China it just wants it to operate in the frame of international norms. ie China is not a threat to world peace but to world order. The Chinese for their part probably don’t see they are doing much wrong.

Regionally is where we see this manifest. Unfortunately here China isn’t really exerting soft power anymore, it’s not benign and has increased military spending again. They’ve acted with increasing hostility towards their neighbours particularly in relation to the the land grab/island building in territorial waters of others, sure they placate them with loans which dampens the protests but ultimately they are denying those states and those people of income from their untapped resources that now “belong” to China. Further they’ve tried to extend China’s territorial waters by building islands to both increase their resource claims and deny international shipping access. Just because it’s an invasion by money and engineering rather than guns, doesn’t make it less of an invasion. Words aka diplomacy has been tried but China doesn’t listen to the words of the international community and it’s promises aren’t worth a lot, the only thing left is to see if China pays attention to strength. I don’t even “blame” China here, what they are doing makes sense for them - and it’s a novel approach. But unless we are going to rip up world order and go back to the days of conquest of the weak by the rich/powerful and empires then we need to act.

If history has taught us anything then it is doing nothing is usually the worst option of all. Had the allies not shied away from taking more robust steps to kerb Hilters ambitions during the 1930s things may well have turned out differently. We’re nowhere near that here but making China’s stop and take stock of its ambition with strategic alliances seems the most sensible option for now. It’s important to not skew alliance strength too much against China as they will perceive it as unnecessarily aggressive (eg adding Japan to the alliance)
Click to expand...

You spent several pages arguing the toss over the sub delivery dates.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.