AUKUS : US, UK and Australia forge military alliance to counter China

a true security partner doesn't get upset and cancels the security partnership, when you stop an order. You can trust them. It is no wonder that france has such a bad image and reputation.

These are a couple, you can google more
These involve programmes to procure the Boeing AH-64E Apache Guardian, Sikorsky UH-60M Black Hawk, and an expanded fleet of Boeing CH-47F Chinooks.

\​

 
I'm not the patient type. Pedagogy is not my first virtue, and I don't like wasting my time with idiots. But because you insult France/French people all the time ("the f. are liars", "the f. are crooks", "we *censored*ed them up in the *censored*", etc), I'm forced to make an effort.
(...) You attack the messenger, because you don't like the message. When France had its childish tantrum and withdrew its ambassador. France also cancelled the security agreement.(...)
Of course, I understand that you would have preferred to be supplied with Vaseline instead
(...) In the following thread, I actually stood up for the french military, saying that the military to military relationships are ongoing, while political squabbles are short. I said there was no reason for the security relationship to be affected by a canceled sale.(...)
Where did you write this? These words seem to me to be full of good sense, but I have not read anything like that coming from you. Moreover, this is not like you: on the contrary, you rejoice in each message to have well buttfucked the French.
Can you show us where you wrote that?
(...) In no way can france be considered a true security alliance partner..France considers everyone as a customer. You can also look at what they did to Argentina, They aren't even a reliable supplier to their customers.(...)
Like it or not, the Falklands are British territory. Which was invaded by the Argentinians. So France has helped its British ally with whom it shares defence agreements. What is the problem? On the contrary, it proves that France is a reliable ally.

Marine Australienne: modernisations, acquisitions et exercices navals.
errr... i don't understand, are you an air-defense forum member? If yes can you tell me what is your pseudonym there?
 
Yo pops , your big day came with a bang & went with a whimper. You'd be getting 3 Virginia class hand me downs for which you pay top dollar & if you're good boys ( read you don't pull the wrong levers & cause a N reactor to blow up ) & the US's broke you get 2 more . Of course of the US's broke , you still get to buy it irrespective of whether you've sunk 1 or all the subs you operate.

Then it's the pommies's turn to gyp you . They'd be selling you submarine designs , design & fabricate the N reactor plus maintain & refuel it charging you for the services , design & consultancy work which in turn would fully subsidise their own next gen SSN project.

Sounds like the deal you're used to . @Optimist
 

Virginias offer a great capability set sure, but this is expensive as hell. Los Angeles-class boats could have been enough to wipe the seafloor with any Chinese sub by themselves, and would have costed an order of magnitude less (to refurbish older hulls & take them off USN's hands). It would have also allowed greater numbers, and getting the boats sooner.

But I suppose it helps to stay 2 steps ahead in tech - plus Virginias would make the transition to SSN(R) easier.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BMD
We even extend the hand of friendship to the frogs. the video is bookmarked to that

It's an hour long, but if you are interested.

 

Australian nuclear submarine program to cost up to $368b as AUKUS details unveiled​


Australia’s nuclear submarine program will cost up to $368 billion over the next three decades, with confirmation that the federal government will buy at least three American-manufactured nuclear submarines and contribute "significant additional resources" to US shipyards.​
The Australian government will take three, potentially second-hand Virginia-class submarines early next decade, pending the approval of the US Congress.​
There will also be an option to purchase another two under the landmark AUKUS defence and security pact, announced in San Diego this morning.​
In the meantime, design and development work will continue on a brand new submarine, known as the SSN-AUKUS, "leveraging” work the British have already been doing to replace their Astute-class submarines.​
That submarine — which will form the AUKUS class — would eventually be operated by both the UK and Australia, using American combat systems.​
One submarine will be built every two years from the early 2040s through to the late 2050s, with five SSN-AUKUS boats delivered to the Royal Australian Navy by the middle of the 2050s.​
Eventually, the fleet would include eight Australian submarines built in Adelaide into the 2060s, but the federal government is leaving open the option of taking some from British shipyards if strategic circumstances change.​
Meanwhile, the federal government estimates the cost of the submarine program will be between $268 billion and $368 billion over the next 30 years.​
As part of that figure, $8 billion will be spent on upgrading the naval base HMAS Stirling in Western Australia.​
From as early as 2027, four US and one UK submarine will start rotating through Western Australia, to be known as the Submarine Rotational Forces West.​
No decision has been made on a future east coast base for submarines, although Port Kembla has firmed as the most likely location.​
Standing alongside Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, US President Joe Biden spoke of the strength of the alliance already.​
"Today, as we stand at the inflection point in history, where the hard work of announcing deterrence and enhancing stability is going to reflect peace and stability for decades to come, the United States can ask for no better partners in the Indo-Pacific where so much of our shared future will be written," Mr Biden said.​

US subs to rotate off Australian coast​

During the announcement, President Biden flagged that, from this year, Australian navy personnel would embed with both US and UK crew on submarines and at their shipyards.​
"In fact, as we speak, the nuclear-powered sub, is making a port call in Perth and later this year, there will be a rotational presence of nuclear-powered subs to Australia to help develop the workforce it will need to build," he said.​
"AUKUS has one overriding objective: to enhance the stability of the Indo-Pacific amid rapidly shifting global dynamics."​
Mr Albanese confirmed that Australian submariners were already undergoing nuclear power training in the US.​
"I am proud to confirm that they are all in the top 30 per cent of their class," he said.​
"This will be an Australian sovereign capability, commanded by the Royal Australian Navy and sustained by Australians in Australian shipyards, with construction to begin within this decade."​
Mr Albanese reiterated that Australia purchasing nuclear submarines would not breach non-proliferation treaties ratified by the country.​
Mr Sunak described the alliance as a "powerful partnership" that would see "truly interoperable" submarines.​
"The Royal Navy will operate the same submarines as the Australian Navy and we'll both share components and parts with the US Navy," he said.​
"Our submarine crews will train together, patrol together and maintain their boats together.​
"They will communicate using the same terminology, and the same equipment."​

Money for US shipyards​

Australia will also contribute $3 billion over the next four years to US and UK production lines, with the bulk of that money heading stateside.​
White House officials insisted Australia was preparing to make a "substantial contribution" to US submarine production facilities.​
The US government will also request an extra $US4.6 billion from Congress to upgrade the nation's submarine infrastructure, with a concession that the readiness of American production lines are "not where it should be".​
"More will be needed, and the Australians will also contribute there, so this is a generational opportunity," a senior official said.​
Included in its overall project budget, Australia will spend $2 billion over the next four years upgrading the Osborne shipyards in South Australia.​
The purchase of Virginia-class submarines from the United States was described by American officials as "a potent nuclear powered submarine force in the 2030s, much earlier than many had expected".​
US officials tried to allay concerns about restrictions on sharing its nuclear technology with Australia.​
"Australia is one of our very closest allies. They have stood next to us in no shortage of events and we feel very confident that they will take this this unique capability in a responsible fashion," one official said.​
The three AUKUS leaders made the announcement at Naval Base Point Loma, in front of the Virginia-class submarine USS Missouri, which arrived in San Diego Harbor late last week.​
Opposition Leader Peter Dutton said the Coalition would support the submarine deal "come hell or high water".​
"We were the authors of it. We give full credit to the government for continuing it and arriving at today," he said.​
"Regardless of the next election, if the Coalition is successful or not, AUKUS will continue and it must because the times demand it."​
Ashley Townshend from the Carnegie Endowment — an international affairs think tank — said Australia's move to acquire Virginia-class submarines in the 2030s was "far more than a stopgap measure".​
"These are by far the most-capable submarines Australia has ever operated and the first to incorporate the capacity for long-range strike with vertically launched Tomahawk-land attack cruise missiles," he said.​
He also said the announcement that the United States and the United Kingdom would build a rotational force of five submarines at HMAS Stirling in Western Australia would have profound implications.​
"This is by far the most significant near-term contribution by AUKUS to strengthening deterrence in the Western Pacific," Mr Townsend told the ABC.​
"It is also part of a seismic shift in the US-Australia alliance that will see Australia play an increasingly pivotal role in supporting and contributing to military operations in the region." /end
I think it's not expensive enough. I think it will increase. It's always increasing.
 
If that is the only article you have read. It is probably what you think. Of course that's also assuming you actually read it and not just posted, because of the clickbait headline.

The $268 to $368 billion. Would you like to tell me what the money doesn't include? Would you like to tell me what percent of GDP, it is said to be?
 
Last edited:

in summary: three parts of this deal raise questions:

1) This is a Frankenstein deal - Australia is going to buy a handful of two different submarines. We need to acquire allied capabilities at scale. So is this the right approach from a cost and complexity perspective?

2) Buying a few more Virginia-class subs would be cheaper and easier than a whole new AUKUS-class. So might a future Aussie government facing budget shortfalls rethink this approach and cancel its Phase 3 participation despite the political costs of doing so?

3) This plan effectively cuts 3-5 Virginia-class subs from the U.S. inventory in our greatest time of need. Australia is a sovereign country that can and should make its own deployment decisions. Is losing ~1/10th of the U.S. sub fleet the right choice in this timeframe?
(Zack Cooper)​
 
1678894594026.png
 
  • Informative
Reactions: RASALGHUL