Australia nuclear submarine deal: Aukus defence pact with US and UK means $90bn contract with France will be scrapped

[shlomo]

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/sep/16/australia-nuclear-submarine-deal-contract-france-scrapped-defence-pact-us-uk

Fury in Paris at Australia’s decision to tear up plans to buy a French-built fleet of submarines is not only a row about a defence contract, cost overruns and technical specifications. It throws into question the transatlantic alliance to confront China.

The Aukus deal has left the French political class seething at Joe Biden’s Trumpian unilateralism, Australian two-facedness and the usual British perfidy. “Nothing was done by sneaking behind anyone’s back,” assured the British defence minister, Ben Wallace, in an attempt to soothe the row. But that is not the view in Paris. “This is an enormous disappointment,” said Florence Parly, the French defence minister.

 

As recently as August, Parly had held a summit with her Australian counterpart, Peter Dutton, in Paris, and issued a lengthy joint communique highlighting the importance of their joint work on the submarines as part of a broader strategy to contain China in the Indo-Pacific region. Given Dutton’s failure to tell his French counterparts of the months of secret negotiations with the US, the only conclusion can be he was kept out of the loop, was deeply forgetful, or chose not to reveal what he knew.

[Gigantic Purple Slug]

Could be good news if they decide to go for the Astute class.

These are state of the art boats that require no refuelling over their lifecycle, and because they are a developed product the risk and cost associated with them is less.

They have an excellent sonar system and cruise missile launch capability, which is probably what will annoy the Chinese so much. Plus they have a much better range that the original diesel boats proposed had, so are much more practical for operating in the role Australian wants them for.

The UK is currently churning these out at about one every 4 years and my guess is that they could interleave the production to get them faster than after the UK construction ends.

My guess is though that the US will want to produce the subs and will deliver the nuclear tech and we will probably get the sonar as we have traditionally been world leaders at that.

Bit of a shame that they didn't go for this earlier, as the Astute program could have used another partner and Aus would have been ideal. Partners on nuclear programs are always tricky because of the nuclear tech, but the fact that Aus is part of the US led intelligence alliance would have smoothed that over considerably.

[shlomo]

 

[LetsBuild]

19 minutes ago, Gigantic Purple Slug said:

Could be good news if they decide to go for the Astute class.

These are state of the art boats that require no refuelling over their lifecycle, and because they are a developed product the risk and cost associated with them is less.

They have an excellent sonar system and cruise missile launch capability, which is probably what will annoy the Chinese so much. Plus they have a much better range that the original diesel boats proposed had, so are much more practical for operating in the role Australian wants them for.

The UK is currently churning these out at about one every 4 years and my guess is that they could interleave the production to get them faster than after the UK construction ends.

My guess is though that the US will want to produce the subs and will deliver the nuclear tech and we will probably get the sonar as we have traditionally been world leaders at that.

Bit of a shame that they didn't go for this earlier, as the Astute program could have used another partner and Aus would have been ideal. Partners on nuclear programs are always tricky because of the nuclear tech, but the fact that Aus is part of the US led intelligence alliance would have smoothed that over considerably.

Astute is state of the art now but is a bit long in the tooth if you consider the development cycle. The RN is on to the next generation of reactors with HMS Dreadnought etc. I would have thought the Aussies will want in on the replacement for Astute in 10 or so years time given how long this announcement will take to implement. I reckon they they will order the reactor in from the US/U.K. and build the sub themselves.

[Gigantic Purple Slug]

16 minutes ago, LetsBuild said:

Astute is state of the art now but is a bit long in the tooth if you consider the development cycle. The RN is on to the next generation of reactors with HMS Dreadnought etc. I would have thought the Aussies will want in on the replacement for Astute in 10 or so years time given how long this announcement will take to implement. I reckon they they will order the reactor in from the US/U.K. and build the sub themselves.

I kind of agree on the lifecycle point. OTOH, you've got to ask what actually changes in a sub. It's mostly the electronics stuff like the sonar and particularly the analysis packages, so they could go with the same plans on the structure but upgrade things like the electronics package. The stuff I have read on Astute says they designed it around this upgrade capability.

There is also massive risk (both time and cost) involved on embarking on a completely new design.

As regards PW3 (type!), I tend to agree that that would be preferred for the same reason that the UK wants it for its ballistic missile subs. But then you've got the risk and cost again associated with the new design and whether the Americans would want to provide a new sub design with PW3 type integrated.

I think one of the reasons why the French project was cancelled was arguments over workshare, so yes I am sure they will want to build them in Aus. But if they did go for Astute type then there would be a lot of business in transferring the build process over. My guess is that the US though will want the lions share of the work so Astute will be out of it in any case.

Edited September 16, 2021 by Gigantic Purple Slug

[steve99]

Part of the Aus desire for the new subs to be built in Australia rather than imported directly now was for pork barrelling purposes in Adelaide which had just lost its car manufacturing (thanks to the very same government). This was a potential loss of LNP (right wing nut jobs running the country) votes. I suspect this government wont be in charge for more than a few months now due to massive failure on many fronts (regardless of the massive Murdoch propaganda machine in Aus) and as such the potential incoming government might not agree to this.  

[Roman Roady]

Yay, go Global Britain, released from the shackles of the EU!

[Gigantic Purple Slug]

16 minutes ago, steve99 said:

Part of the Aus desire for the new subs to be built in Australia rather than imported directly now was for pork barrelling purposes in Adelaide which had just lost its car manufacturing (thanks to the very same government). This was a potential loss of LNP (right wing nut jobs running the country) votes. I suspect this government wont be in charge for more than a few months now due to massive failure on many fronts (regardless of the massive Murdoch propaganda machine in Aus) and as such the potential incoming government might not agree to this.  

Can't blame Aus really for that.

It of course would be better if Aus built us/uk 60 billion quids worth of stuff we need and exchanged it, but it's a lot of money and people in the uk/us would probably kick off over their job losses.

I find it hard to understand how Macron allowed this. He is finished.

[Staffsknot]

Not guaranteed to be Astute could be Virginia class from Yanks.

They won't get anything until 2047 and the Collins class will have to soldier on past the 2027 replacement date of the conventional replacement they just lost.

Its the US getting Australia to pay to be a nuclear repair facility for US kit in event of war.

Conventional subs would have made tons more sense but willy wanggling. The price needs 145bn of service life and maint costs and they will need nuclear fueling facility or be dependent on 3rd party.

Its another Oz procurement cluster******.

Believe me US wins out of this and everyone else is thinking they are getting a great deal until they are rolled over. 

[zugzwang]

31 minutes ago, steve99 said:

Part of the Aus desire for the new subs to be built in Australia rather than imported directly now was for pork barrelling purposes in Adelaide which had just lost its car manufacturing (thanks to the very same government). This was a potential loss of LNP (right wing nut jobs running the country) votes. I suspect this government wont be in charge for more than a few months now due to massive failure on many fronts (regardless of the massive Murdoch propaganda machine in Aus) and as such the potential incoming government might not agree to this.  

 

More of Uncle Rupe's shit-work. 👇

 

[shlomo]

19 minutes ago, Staffsknot said:

 

Its another Oz procurement cluster******.

Believe me US wins out of this and everyone else is thinking they are getting a great deal until they are rolled over. 

As my moldvan workmate said, "It is better to have corrupt politicians than ones that are fools"

[Staffsknot]

3 hours ago, Gigantic Purple Slug said:

These are state of the art boats that require no refuelling over their lifecycle

Not wanting to piss on anyone's chips but that is only true on the projected lifespan. 25 yesrs the Core H reactor needs pulling out and replacing in Davenport.

Replacement boats can only be builtat Barrow, repairs done at Davenport.

The LOP on Vanguard massively overran and that means the other boats are late on theirs. Dreadnought class were delayed by Cameron gov so Vanguards need to run longerand tie up Davenport.

Barrow is still building Astutes and if UK supplies anything made in UK to Oz it ties up RR & BAe Barrow. Astutes and Dreadnought have to be done and out the way for Astute replacements + no further drain on resource. HMS Astute is already half way through its reactor life and Agincourt if there are no delays will be entering service 2026/27 now - Audacious was 2 years late.

I can see a reactor replacement SLEP and LOP program on the horizon.

[Confusion of VIs]

3 hours ago, Staffsknot said:

Not guaranteed to be Astute could be Virginia class from Yanks.

They won't get anything until 2047 and the Collins class will have to soldier on past the 2027 replacement date of the conventional replacement they just lost.

Its the US getting Australia to pay to be a nuclear repair facility for US kit in event of war.

Conventional subs would have made tons more sense but willy wanggling. The price needs 145bn of service life and maint costs and they will need nuclear fueling facility or be dependent on 3rd party.

Its another Oz procurement cluster******.

Believe me US wins out of this and everyone else is thinking they are getting a great deal until they are rolled over. 

The Astute is a pretty old design that dates back to the 80s, I recall reading that it was a flawed design from the outset because spending constraints meant it had to use an old reactor design that was larger and not as quiet as a modern re design would have been. 

It's probably telling that the gov has rowed back from initial claims of it "creating 1,000s of jobs" to "protecting hundreds".  

[reddog]

3 hours ago, Gigantic Purple Slug said:

Can't blame Aus really for that.

It of course would be better if Aus built us/uk 60 billion quids worth of stuff we need and exchanged it, but it's a lot of money and people in the uk/us would probably kick off over their job losses.

I find it hard to understand how Macron allowed this. He is finished.

Maybe AUS could just mine $60 billion gold and give us that!

[reddog]

I am hardly a military strategist, but it is actually surprising how few countries have nuclear submarines.  Even China has very few, so saying the British design will eventually be out of date seems a bit unfair.  No idea what Aus should procure, but from what I can see Britain is bang up to date in this technology.

Edited September 16, 2021 by reddog

[zugzwang]

54 minutes ago, Confusion of VIs said:

The Astute is a pretty old design that dates back to the 80s, I recall reading that it was a flawed design from the outset because spending constraints meant it had to use an old reactor design that was larger and not as quiet as a modern re design would have been. 

It's probably telling that the gov has rowed back from initial claims of it "creating 1,000s of jobs" to "protecting hundreds".  

 

Antagonising the world's No.1 economic superpower for no comprehensible reason isn't going to protect hundreds of jobs.

Empty words still have consequences.

 

[Confusion of VIs]

1 hour ago, reddog said:

I am hardly a military strategist, but it is actually surprising how few countries have nuclear submarines.  Even China has very few, so saying the British design will eventually be out of date seems a bit unfair.  No idea what Aus should procure, but from what I can see Britain is bang up to date in this technology.

A lot think that modern diesel electric subs are much more cost effective,  quieter and better suited to defending costal waters than nuclear. As far back as 2005 a Swedish one was able to sneak up on a US carrier group and "sink" the carrier, then to show it wasn't a fluke did it again.      

[zugzwang]

F**k off, HSBC.

 

https://cyprus-mail.com/2021/06/29/hsbc-humbled-by-china/

In interviews with Reuters, bankers at HSBC said the broader campaign against the bank in China curtailed efforts to expand its business: freezing it out of bond issuances, stymying its access to retail customers and locking it out of pitches for syndicated loans – lending done by groups of banks.

Syndicated loans and bond underwriting – two key publicly available indicators of the bank’s performance – both showed declines in 2020, according to Refinitiv data.

In syndicated loans, HSBC’s China market share for loans in which it was a lead lender dropped from sixth to ninth. The value of HSBC’s share of syndicated loans to all Chinese companies, including state-controlled firms, plummeted by about 55 per cent in 2020, to $3.2 billion from $7.2 billion in 2019, Refinitiv data shows. The market overall slipped just 4 per cent. Standard Chartered PLC, a British archrival of HSBC with a similarly long presence in the region, saw an increase in total proceeds from its China syndicated loans in 2020, according to the data.

While HSBC handled 174 bond underwriting deals in 2019, that number dropped to 155 issuances in 2020 – even as the total number of bond issuances by the industry jumped 29 per cent. Overall, the value of those bonds managed by HSBC rose from $13.8 billion to $15.4 billion between 2019 and 2020. That 12 per cent increase for the bank was below a 26 per cent rise in total volume for the industry.

HSBC has little choice but to tough it out. The bank’s mainland and Hong Kong operations accounted for 39 per cent of its annual $50.4 billion in revenue in 2020, while the United Kingdom, its second largest market, brought in 28 per cent. And mainland China offers HSBC the biggest potential for growth globally: Last year, the bank was getting only about 6 per cent of its revenues from the mainland itself, home to the world’s second-largest economy.

[crash-and-burn]

A 300-kiloton warhead could easily wipe out 1 million+ people and injure a great many more, the world doesn't need more weapons of mass destruction. Why not create deterrents for a tiny fraction of the cost - something that gives off the signature and vibe of a nuclear capable vessel, whilst remaining benign.

[winkie]

What is this, simply nuclear powered subs, clean energy or is it something more sinister?.....

[Staffsknot]

8 hours ago, Confusion of VIs said:

The Astute is a pretty old design that dates back to the 80s, I recall reading that it was a flawed design from the outset because spending constraints meant it had to use an old reactor design that was larger and not as quiet as a modern re design would have been. 

It's probably telling that the gov has rowed back from initial claims of it "creating 1,000s of jobs" to "protecting hundreds".  

The original Trafalgar replacement was 80s design. Astute was more 90s - most issues were Marconi doing a Marconi 😉 fixed with more cash and a bit of help from General Dynamics if memory serves.

They are very capable but by 2047 we will need to have a replacement in the water.

French are peeved as US - Aus deal banning military nuclear material on Oz soil prevented them offering Barracuda design which is in the works.

A lot of the French bashing is theatre for Oz public as the Australians changed spec on DCNS a couple of times causing price jumps and delays - which politicians then need to blame on someone other than own ineptitude.

The more being talked about this the more US plans to be pushing its kit and we will supply elements. We talked up our role as usual to hide fact we've gone from solo tech share with US to being at same level in US eyes as Oz. Possibly less so in Pacific.

Yanks also pushing for us to send assets regularly to Pacific...

[Staffsknot]

6 hours ago, Confusion of VIs said:

A lot think that modern diesel electric subs are much more cost effective,  quieter and better suited to defending costal waters than nuclear. As far back as 2005 a Swedish one was able to sneak up on a US carrier group and "sink" the carrier, then to show it wasn't a fluke did it again.      

It is range and endurance vs trade offs of draft and maint / repair issues.

Conventionals are very effective, smaller and as you say better suited to coastal defence. Nuclear are force projection and require less tender or harbour resupply.

Basically nuclear is limited by fuelling the crew not the boat.

Aus now though could run into operational issues as it cannot go near NZ waters with nuclear subs and not piss off its neighbour. That means W Aus base.

[shlomo]

7 hours ago, zugzwang said:

 

Antagonising the world's No.1 economic superpower for no comprehensible reason isn't going to protect hundreds of jobs.

Empty words still have consequences.

 

My thoughts exactly, It’s best not to antagonise the French 

[satsuma]

To be fair the Chinese are building up a lot of military of their own.  The Oz subs cant launch nukes so are not a threat to China.  Hopefully both sides can see sense and perhaps decide to focus efforts on less destructive activities.  However, I suspect that there may be more to this that the public are aware of.  

[satsuma]

38 minutes ago, shlomo said:

My thoughts exactly, It’s best not to antagonise the French 

The French are an odd bunch, can they really be surprised that after pushing so hard to punish the UK during Brexit that the UK jumps into bed with new partners?  As for the US, they will go with the team that delivers for the US.