Canada to join the WASP alliance?
caukus?
caukus?
[edit] It reminds me of a very goood movie, in which an official angle says in a confidential tone: "this is the Canadian delegation: you can recognize them by their surprised expression at having received an invitation to participate in the summit".
huhu.
(sorry for the Caribous)
On this subject, do you know the story of the sale of the 4 old rotten English Upholder class subs (1) to the Maple Leafs?
In the late 80s, the French had been chosen to provide SSNs to the Canadian Navy, and then the anglos made us "a Caribou". (2)
Here is [FRENCH SSNs SOLD TO CANADA? [A COLLECTIVE DREAM THAT WAS CLOSE TO SUCCESS]:
In May 1989, the French head of the General Delegation for Armament was in Ottawa, invited by his Canadian counterpart to sign the intergovernmental agreement launching the program. When suddenly:
"the [Canadian] Minister of Finance made a flash presentation on television at the beginning of the 8 p.m. news to announce the cancellation of the Nuclear Attack Submarine Acquisition Program by the Canadian authorities.
We would later learn that this decision, taken in the greatest secrecy between the Prime Minister, Brian Mulroney and the Minister of Finance, who had not informed the Minister of Defense, Perrin Beatty, had been dictated by the Americans. Our English competitors having learned that the Canadians were going to announce the choice of the French submarine, in preference to theirs, had denounced the program to the Americans so that the latter would sink it... etc."
_______
(1) 4 submarines that will spend most of their career in the Canadian Navy docked, due to chronic unavailability.
(2) 30 years later, the same ones will make us « a Kangaroo ». We are really too stupid.
huhu.
(sorry for the Caribous)
On this subject, do you know the story of the sale of the 4 old rotten English Upholder class subs (1) to the Maple Leafs?
In the late 80s, the French had been chosen to provide SSNs to the Canadian Navy, and then the anglos made us "a Caribou". (2)
Here is [FRENCH SSNs SOLD TO CANADA? [A COLLECTIVE DREAM THAT WAS CLOSE TO SUCCESS]:
In May 1989, the French head of the General Delegation for Armament was in Ottawa, invited by his Canadian counterpart to sign the intergovernmental agreement launching the program. When suddenly:
"the [Canadian] Minister of Finance made a flash presentation on television at the beginning of the 8 p.m. news to announce the cancellation of the Nuclear Attack Submarine Acquisition Program by the Canadian authorities.
We would later learn that this decision, taken in the greatest secrecy between the Prime Minister, Brian Mulroney and the Minister of Finance, who had not informed the Minister of Defense, Perrin Beatty, had been dictated by the Americans. Our English competitors having learned that the Canadians were going to announce the choice of the French submarine, in preference to theirs, had denounced the program to the Americans so that the latter would sink it... etc."
_______
(1) 4 submarines that will spend most of their career in the Canadian Navy docked, due to chronic unavailability.
(2) 30 years later, the same ones will make us « a Kangaroo ». We are really too stupid.
Out of the way, USA | Lowy Institute (23.09.2024)
The Lowy Institute's 2024 survey shows that Australians have a certain mistrust of the United States. 56% of respondents trust the United States to act responsibly, far behind France [81%] and Japan [87%].
The Lowy Institute's 2024 survey shows that Australians have a certain mistrust of the United States. 56% of respondents trust the United States to act responsibly, far behind France [81%] and Japan [87%].
Good , very good ! But as pops would say that still isn't good enough to get Le Francais back into the game to mfg submarines. That's a closed chapter , implying that Aussies are the US's & UK's bunnies.
Both US & UK love taking the Aussies for a ride & the Aussie loves being taken for a ride by the US & UK but not by anyone else. It's non negotiable.
Tell him will you pops ! @Optimist
#Collins
THE LOTE PROJECT
www.jeumontelectric.com
23 APRIL 2024
The LOTE (Life of type extension) project is the name of the programme to extend the life of Australia's six Collins class submarines.
JEUMONT Electric has been chosen to replace the propulsion system on the first submarines. This system consists of a motor powered by control cabinets that will ensure high-performance acoustic discretion.
More than three years of research were needed to design this silent system. The manufacturing phase of the engine and its cabinets has just begun, and the first set of equipment will be delivered to Australia in 2026 for integration on board the 1st submarine.
A project to keep an eye on!
Jeumont, it is french.
THE LOTE PROJECT
Le projet LOTE – JEUMONT Electric
www.jeumontelectric.com
23 APRIL 2024
The LOTE (Life of type extension) project is the name of the programme to extend the life of Australia's six Collins class submarines.
JEUMONT Electric has been chosen to replace the propulsion system on the first submarines. This system consists of a motor powered by control cabinets that will ensure high-performance acoustic discretion.
More than three years of research were needed to design this silent system. The manufacturing phase of the engine and its cabinets has just begun, and the first set of equipment will be delivered to Australia in 2026 for integration on board the 1st submarine.
A project to keep an eye on!
Jeumont, it is french.
Jeumont, it is french.
you seem surprised that Australia and France have defence ties. It's only internet trolls that don't know this. Google Thales Australia for a start.
I didn't know that french sub was rejected. Imagine it being considered a worse option than what they got
At this point AUKUS makes as much sense as the lyrics of this song. Don't believe me ? Go thru the comments . Of the YT video i e .
Another version of the US saying - the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak.
How come the UK can't build those subs you may ask ? Well after that sterling example of British engineering - The old hag's son aka The Prince of Wales Aircraft Carrier , even the Australians , not exactly the most intelligent species around , are having second thoughts.
How say you Pops , Paddy & Sweetie ? @Optimist ; @BMD ; @Innominate
Incredible, even the US Congress now admits that Australia will probably not get the AUKUS submarines. And they propose an alternative that achieves the feat of being even far worse than AUKUS (which was already a terrible deal).In a new report (which you can find here: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/RL32418…) the US Congressional Research Service admits that the country's industrial base is very far from achieving the target of building 2.33 submarines per year needed to build replacement submarines for those sold to Australia: in fact the rate is currently only "1.2 to 1.4".
Given this, they actually propose to just forgo the sale of submarines entirely (!) and go for an alternative approach where the US deploys US submarines manned by the US Navy to Australia instead: "up to eight additional Virginia-class SSNs would be built, and instead of three to five of them being sold to Australia, these additional boats would instead be retained in U.S. Navy service and operated out of Australia.
"But since they don't want to miss out on the Australian money meant for the subs, they conveniently propose that Australia instead spends it on other US military products: "Australia, instead of using funds to purchase, build, operate, and maintain its own SSNs, would instead invest those funds in other military capabilities—such as, for example, long-range anti-ship missiles, drones, loitering munitions, B-21 long-range bombers, or other long-range strike aircraft".
All this for the purpose of "performing military missions for both Australia and the United States".So essentially, from Australia's standpoint, the new deal would mean:- Zero control over the submarines operated on its territory since it'd all be manned by the U.S. Navy- Australia still spends a similar eyewatering amount of money ($368 billion) on US military equipment that is mostly "long-range": "long-range anti-ship missiles", "B-21 long-range bombers", "long-range strike aircraft".
Meaning by definition not used for the defense of Australia but undoubtedly to attack China. Which is pretty clear: China is mentioned 44 times in the document...- This US military equipment is to be used, as per the document, to "perform military missions for both Australia and the United States" which is extremely unusual: militaries normally don't perform missions FOR another military. Allied countries might perform missions alongside each other or in support of each other, but not explicitly "for" each other.How could Australia possibly justify such a deal to its public?
AUKUS was already, according to former Australian PM Paul Keating the “worst deal in all history” because it'd "turn Australia into the 51st state of the United States", but this new proposal would strip away even the illusion of Australian sovereignty.
Given this, they actually propose to just forgo the sale of submarines entirely (!) and go for an alternative approach where the US deploys US submarines manned by the US Navy to Australia instead: "up to eight additional Virginia-class SSNs would be built, and instead of three to five of them being sold to Australia, these additional boats would instead be retained in U.S. Navy service and operated out of Australia.
"But since they don't want to miss out on the Australian money meant for the subs, they conveniently propose that Australia instead spends it on other US military products: "Australia, instead of using funds to purchase, build, operate, and maintain its own SSNs, would instead invest those funds in other military capabilities—such as, for example, long-range anti-ship missiles, drones, loitering munitions, B-21 long-range bombers, or other long-range strike aircraft".
All this for the purpose of "performing military missions for both Australia and the United States".So essentially, from Australia's standpoint, the new deal would mean:- Zero control over the submarines operated on its territory since it'd all be manned by the U.S. Navy- Australia still spends a similar eyewatering amount of money ($368 billion) on US military equipment that is mostly "long-range": "long-range anti-ship missiles", "B-21 long-range bombers", "long-range strike aircraft".
Meaning by definition not used for the defense of Australia but undoubtedly to attack China. Which is pretty clear: China is mentioned 44 times in the document...- This US military equipment is to be used, as per the document, to "perform military missions for both Australia and the United States" which is extremely unusual: militaries normally don't perform missions FOR another military. Allied countries might perform missions alongside each other or in support of each other, but not explicitly "for" each other.How could Australia possibly justify such a deal to its public?
AUKUS was already, according to former Australian PM Paul Keating the “worst deal in all history” because it'd "turn Australia into the 51st state of the United States", but this new proposal would strip away even the illusion of Australian sovereignty.
The US component of the AUKUS deal could die, but the British component could still be available.
from the USCongress pdf:
financialreview.au:
(…)In interviews with insiders with intimate knowledge of the process, the Financial Review can reveal : Australia’s pathway to a nuclear submarine capability was intended to be an exclusively British one [without direct U.S. involvement]; [Australia’s Department of the] Treasury and the Department of Foreign Affairs were excluded from the process; and serious risk and feasibility studies were largely sacrificed in the name of securing a politically symbolic deal….
As is now well known, the project to buy and build nuclear submarines for Australia under the AUKUS agreement arose from a crisis in the contract with France [for acquiring a new class of non-nuclear-powered submarines for Australia]….
As a result, the [AUKUS Pillar 1] project emerged hurriedly, almost on the back of an envelope, and in top secret. The lead was taken by politicians in the National Security Committee of cabinet and a closed group of officials and advisers in Scott Morrison’s office. For secrecy and political reasons, they could not draw upon the depth of strategic thinking in defence nor on experts knowledgeable of the serious issues in both the US and British submarine construction industries….
The Australian Labor Party, for fear of being [politically] wedged, bought into Scott Morrison’s AUKUS deal, but did not de-risk the proposals nor include new and essential strategic analysis. (…)
availawhat?
financialreview.au:
(…)In interviews with insiders with intimate knowledge of the process, the Financial Review can reveal : Australia’s pathway to a nuclear submarine capability was intended to be an exclusively British one [without direct U.S. involvement]; [Australia’s Department of the] Treasury and the Department of Foreign Affairs were excluded from the process; and serious risk and feasibility studies were largely sacrificed in the name of securing a politically symbolic deal….
As is now well known, the project to buy and build nuclear submarines for Australia under the AUKUS agreement arose from a crisis in the contract with France [for acquiring a new class of non-nuclear-powered submarines for Australia]….
As a result, the [AUKUS Pillar 1] project emerged hurriedly, almost on the back of an envelope, and in top secret. The lead was taken by politicians in the National Security Committee of cabinet and a closed group of officials and advisers in Scott Morrison’s office. For secrecy and political reasons, they could not draw upon the depth of strategic thinking in defence nor on experts knowledgeable of the serious issues in both the US and British submarine construction industries….
The Australian Labor Party, for fear of being [politically] wedged, bought into Scott Morrison’s AUKUS deal, but did not de-risk the proposals nor include new and essential strategic analysis. (…)
Is that USD or AUD ? that looks like a huge amount for conventional capability increase even if it is staggered over next 10 years.
You guys have seen this game before, with the F-35.
Telling congress that if they don't get the money they want. The world will end. They want money to upgrade the yards to build the subs.
Are Biden and Congress playing chicken with AUKUS?
www.ussc.edu.au
Just the man I wanted to see . Pops , you're a sight for sore eyes. I dedicate this meme to you & your fellow Aussies especially the big ones at the top running the show.You guys have seen this game before, with the F-35.
Telling congress that if they don't get the money they want. The world will end. They want money to upgrade the yards to build the subs.
Are Biden and Congress playing chicken with AUKUS?
Right . Given the fact that the world's getting closer to the Chinese deadline to take Taiwan where's the guarantee that even if the Congress approves the planned expenditure to fund the shipyard's expansion , the USN half way through building those SSNs under the auspices of the AUKUS don't appropriate those submarines for their own use declaring an emergency asking you to wait your turn.You guys have seen this game before, with the F-35.
Telling congress that if they don't get the money they want. The world will end. They want money to upgrade the yards to build the subs.
Are Biden and Congress playing chicken with AUKUS?
Who knows , you may still get those SSNs after the war as hand me downs after some cursory refurbishments while shelling out costs for a brand new submarine + cost of refurbishment .
from the USCongress pdf:
availawhat?
financialreview.au:
(…)In interviews with insiders with intimate knowledge of the process, the Financial Review can reveal : Australia’s pathway to a nuclear submarine capability was intended to be an exclusively British one [without direct U.S. involvement]; [Australia’s Department of the] Treasury and the Department of Foreign Affairs were excluded from the process; and serious risk and feasibility studies were largely sacrificed in the name of securing a politically symbolic deal….
As is now well known, the project to buy and build nuclear submarines for Australia under the AUKUS agreement arose from a crisis in the contract with France [for acquiring a new class of non-nuclear-powered submarines for Australia]….
As a result, the [AUKUS Pillar 1] project emerged hurriedly, almost on the back of an envelope, and in top secret. The lead was taken by politicians in the National Security Committee of cabinet and a closed group of officials and advisers in Scott Morrison’s office. For secrecy and political reasons, they could not draw upon the depth of strategic thinking in defence nor on experts knowledgeable of the serious issues in both the US and British submarine construction industries….
The Australian Labor Party, for fear of being [politically] wedged, bought into Scott Morrison’s AUKUS deal, but did not de-risk the proposals nor include new and essential strategic analysis. (…)
I was referring to the first variation. The SSN-AUKUS is a new class meant to replace Astute.
It makes more sense for the USN to keep their subs; better personnel, better training, more experienced, better overall efficiency versus the same technologies used by allies. They can aim to build 8 SSN-AUKUS instead of 5.