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

[shlomo]

24 minutes ago, Staffsknot said:

Think that will get negotiated down a long way. The problem for Oz is there's the sub deal that is terminated but then the infrastructure agreement is another bit.

Whole process is a 3 year thing. 1 year consultation and formal agreement to terminate, then the actual termination and decommissioning of the interconnected contracts.

Basically Australia sent notice to terminate. Until its all formally killed there are bills and costs to calculate. The gated bit Morrison keeps holding up is 1 part of the sub deal not the entire thing.

I don't see the French getting 45bn but a shedload of money is likely coming their way. They also have the freedom to market the design so anyone wanting a cut price high performance sub ( looking at you Malaysia & Indonesia) should head to NG for a chat.

Do you think Biden will also cut French arm sales to India, get the Indians to buy F-35 instead of more French kit

The man is a genius, and he has form

What is macron going to do withdraw the French ambassador and throw another hissy fit

Edited September 24, 2021 by shlomo

[Staffsknot]

6 minutes ago, shlomo said:

Do you think Biden will also cut French arm sales to India

The man is a genius 

Nope French have an alliance with them and India happy to cut Australia out + going overtly over to US stirs things on their border.

France sold them Rafale M fighters for their carrier + sold them subs already.

[shlomo]

4 minutes ago, Staffsknot said:

Nope French have an alliance with them and India happy to cut Australia out + going overtly over to US stirs things on their border.

France sold them Rafale M fighters for their carrier + sold them subs already.

The French did not fulfill the contract on the Rafale sales, they sold them for $200m each which had a invest in India clause and the French have invested nothing in India 

Do you not think US $200m for one Rafale aircraft is a tad expensive, don’t tell me Modi and Morrisons are brothers from another mother 

[Confusion of VIs]

26 minutes ago, Staffsknot said:

Think that will get negotiated down a long way. The problem for Oz is there's the sub deal that is terminated but then the infrastructure agreement is another bit.

Whole process is a 3 year thing. 1 year consultation and formal agreement to terminate, then the actual termination and decommissioning of the interconnected contracts.

Basically Australia sent notice to terminate. Until its all formally killed there are bills and costs to calculate. The gated bit Morrison keeps holding up is 1 part of the sub deal not the entire thing.

I don't see the French getting 45bn but a shedload of money is likely coming their way. They also have the freedom to market the design so anyone wanting a cut price high performance sub ( looking at you Malaysia & Indonesia) should head to NG for a chat.

Maybe not £45bn but pulling out of a contract for convenience is usually very expensive.

A reasonable claim would be for any work done to date (which Oz says they have paid upfront) plus all of the potential lost profits.  As you indicate it will come down to how the contract was constructed but that is not as simple as it seems, as a court will consider "reasonable expectations" when deciding how it was intended to operate. 

I imagine France will want to cause maximum embarrassment for Morrison come election time.

[Gigantic Purple Slug]

4 minutes ago, shlomo said:

The French did not fulfill the contract on the Rafale sales, they sold them for $200m each which had a invest in India clause and the French have invested nothing in India 

Do you not think US $200m for one Rafale aircraft is a tad expensive, don’t tell me Modi and Morrisons are brothers from another mother 

Any two sentence review of that deal is likely to have some shortcomings.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafale_deal_controversy

For the insomniacs.

But to me the greater relevance of this is in the context of the Aus cancellation. The point I tried to make before was that these deals are massively complex, change all the time from what was originally promised, often don't deliver the goods and present multiple opportunities for the original supplier to be kicked out in favour of another.

That's why in all of them you have to be absolutely on top of your game in monitoring what's going on and making sure it doesn't turn out to your disadvantage. There shouldn't be any surprises coming out of nowhere.

[Staffsknot]

38 minutes ago, shlomo said:

The French did not fulfill the contract on the Rafale sales, they sold them for $200m each which had a invest in India clause and the French have invested nothing in India 

Do you not think US $200m for one Rafale aircraft is a tad expensive, don’t tell me Modi and Morrisons are brothers from another mother 

They've delivered 26 and are delivering total 36 on schedule.

It isn't just a straight plane purchase either.

Wikipedia ain't your friend here as the deal included options on Meteor and SCALP weapon systems.

The Offset partner was HAL who would build a chunk of Rafale under licence ( something like 100). But there were rows and Modi changed the plan to just buy 36 planes from Dassault and they would reinvest through a regional partner - Reliance Industries who are close to Modi and probably corrupt as hell. Changes in anti-corruption law mean Dassalut might get stung as Gupta acting as agent of Dassault subsidiary.

The investigations were over favouritism as Sukhoi would have been a cheaper option and they already use many Sukhoi aircraft, but modern Chinese jets are comparable to the Sukhoi offering. Indian opposition interested as hope it hurts Modi.

India wary of buying US stuff as Americans can often limit what you can stick on it as well as downgrading capability for export. F-16s were sold to Pakistan without the lookdown shootdown radar sys years back, it both annoyed India and made them wary of how US won't kit out that region with anything offering advantage.

India and France have good ties on military kit as America tries to avoid selling US kit to regular Russian kit clients. French will sell and customise.

India also has a good domestic arms industry - Arjun MBT, INSAS rigles, etc and self build licence kit a lot. French prepared to licence stuff.

Westland-Augusta has been caught up in similar scandal which brought this one up.

[Staffsknot]

50 minutes ago, Gigantic Purple Slug said:

Any two sentence review of that deal is likely to have some shortcomings.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafale_deal_controversy

For the insomniacs.

But to me the greater relevance of this is in the context of the Aus cancellation. The point I tried to make before was that these deals are massively complex, change all the time from what was originally promised, often don't deliver the goods and present multiple opportunities for the original supplier to be kicked out in favour of another.

That's why in all of them you have to be absolutely on top of your game in monitoring what's going on and making sure it doesn't turn out to your disadvantage. There shouldn't be any surprises coming out of nowhere.

Rafale is still exactly what they want and the kit with it. HAL is the domestic industry supposed to do it who then arsed about not doing anything and pushing Dassault.

There's effectively 2 deals here:

First one is HAL to licence build the Rafale.

Scond was an Oh F!$k we still haven't got a single aircraft and China is building roads near our mountain bases in Himalayas let's get cracking and just buy some OTS. That is where the 36 come in.

France has delivered 26 of the 36 I believe.

The payments to agents and PEPs is what all the swirl is about and no doubt that was swung by Modi when HAL fannying about risked the programme. I think the HAL chairman was a mate of Modi's rival at the time.

[Staffsknot]

59 minutes ago, Confusion of VIs said:

Maybe not £45bn but pulling out of a contract for convenience is usually very expensive.

A reasonable claim would be for any work done to date (which Oz says they have paid upfront) plus all of the potential lost profits.  As you indicate it will come down to how the contract was constructed but that is not as simple as it seems, as a court will consider "reasonable expectations" when deciding how it was intended to operate. 

I imagine France will want to cause maximum embarrassment for Morrison come election time.

Morrison is trying to avoid stick any dollar signs out on anything or even % signs as Hugh White, the Aus Defence expert who has advised gov before has said in some defence journo stuff % spend to GDP may need to go from 2.1 to 4% for a few years. At present its $35bn in USD. Plan was for USD $150bn spend over 10 years on that budgeting.

If they got stung for $3bn one off payment its a massive chunk of the DF budget in one hit. 

This assumes Oz economy doesn't hit a bump too. They are committed to a lot of spend.

[shlomo]

4 hours ago, Staffsknot said:

Morrison is trying to avoid stick any dollar signs out on anything or even % signs as Hugh White, the Aus Defence expert who has advised gov before has said in some defence journo stuff % spend to GDP may need to go from 2.1 to 4% for a few years. At present its $35bn in USD. Plan was for USD $150bn spend over 10 years on that budgeting.

If they got stung for $3bn one off payment its a massive chunk of the DF budget in one hit. 

This assumes Oz economy doesn't hit a bump too. They are committed to a lot of spend.

https://www.jpost.com/international/what-does-the-us-france-australia-submarine-row-mean-for-israel-680165

AUSTRALIA VEERED from France to America because its main geopolitical concern is China. China is also America’s main foreign concern. France’s main geopolitical concern is not China. It’s Russia. Not because Russia might invade France, but because it might invade other members of the European Union.

[Staffsknot]

2 hours ago, shlomo said:

https://www.jpost.com/international/what-does-the-us-france-australia-submarine-row-mean-for-israel-680165

AUSTRALIA VEERED from France to America because its main geopolitical concern is China. China is also America’s main foreign concern. France’s main geopolitical concern is not China. It’s Russia. Not because Russia might invade France, but because it might invade other members of the European Union.

Nah they could have had both. They already had defence ties to America and regular joint ex via RIMPAC. They were in 5 eyes so saying they had to switch to US is a bit brain dead reporting. They also misreport when the subs from AUKUS deal could be in service. 2035 is not possible if built in Oz, even Oz Defence Secretary saying 2040s so take with huge pinch of salt.

France has launched its whole Indo-Pacific strategy which signals intent.

If Russia really did anything in Europe the Americans via NATO would be forced to intervene anyway.

This is why counting how many ships America has vs China is pointless as China doesn't have other theatres it could be commited to.

If a NATO nation asked for assistance and America said no that would be the end of a lot of strategic alliances they have elsewhere too. Alliances only work if you believe in those in them.

Why do you think China is in an alliance of convenience with Russia and Iran. Prevents direct focus on just one.

This is just what Israelis think and well they rely on America to back them. They don't care much about China or Russia but they care America stays behind them.

Its a pretty daft piece that Britain should be more interested in China than France and also disinterested in Russia.

Tbh what an Israeli paper says doesn't matter as they have no skin in either containing Russia or China. Its very much putting the American perspective here, which when it doesn't clash with Israel's interests, is always how these things are reported.

If that AUKUS alliance and China focus caused America to pull away from ME and Iran benefited the Israeli papers would go into meltdown.

Edited September 24, 2021 by Staffsknot

[shlomo]

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/23/world/europe/france-submarine-deal-australia.html?

ARIS — Beneath France’s angry outbursts about a secretive “knife-in-the-back” American deal to provide nuclear-powered submarines to Australia lay a single question that, as the French say, put the finger where it hurts.

After much tiptoeing in France around the issue, the newspaper L’Opinion asked at the top of its front page a question familiar to anybody who knows “Snow White.”

“Mirror, mirror on the wall, tell me if I’m still a great power?’’

Europe is speckled with fading former imperial powers. But France has clung more than most to its past as a great power, still seeing itself as having global interests partly because of territorial possessions in the Indo-Pacific and the Caribbean. Imbued with a sense of grandeur, France harks back to the Enlightenment to speak about fighting obscurantism in the world today and proffers its secular universalism as a model for modern societies. It often punches above its geopolitical weight, though it also overreaches.

The question of whether France is still a great power — not only the answer, but also the fact that it is still being asked — shows how its past glory continues to shape its national psyche. The flip side — the repeated assertion that France is suffering from an existential decline — is one of the most potent themes in French domestic politics, pushed forward mostly by the right and far right.

--------------------------

And so the crisis over the submarines has forced France to look into the mirror and, rather than settling for a soothing ambiguity, seek uncomfortable truths. Was there an unbridgeable divide between France’s vision of itself and its actual power?

---------------------------------------

“And we were viewed as being small,” Mr. Badie said. “That kills a country like France.’

Edited September 25, 2021 by shlomo

[Gigantic Purple Slug]

41 minutes ago, shlomo said:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/23/world/europe/france-submarine-deal-australia.html?

ARIS — Beneath France’s angry outbursts about a secretive “knife-in-the-back” American deal to provide nuclear-powered submarines to Australia lay a single question that, as the French say, put the finger where it hurts.

After much tiptoeing in France around the issue, the newspaper L’Opinion asked at the top of its front page a question familiar to anybody who knows “Snow White.”

“Mirror, mirror on the wall, tell me if I’m still a great power?’’

Europe is speckled with fading former imperial powers. But France has clung more than most to its past as a great power, still seeing itself as having global interests partly because of territorial possessions in the Indo-Pacific and the Caribbean. Imbued with a sense of grandeur, France harks back to the Enlightenment to speak about fighting obscurantism in the world today and proffers its secular universalism as a model for modern societies. It often punches above its geopolitical weight, though it also overreaches.

The question of whether France is still a great power — not only the answer, but also the fact that it is still being asked — shows how its past glory continues to shape its national psyche. The flip side — the repeated assertion that France is suffering from an existential decline — is one of the most potent themes in French domestic politics, pushed forward mostly by the right and far right.

--------------------------

And so the crisis over the submarines has forced France to look into the mirror and, rather than settling for a soothing ambiguity, seek uncomfortable truths. Was there an unbridgeable divide between France’s vision of itself and its actual power?

---------------------------------------

“And we were viewed as being small,” Mr. Badie said. “That kills a country like France.’

Interesting point and I think it might get to the heart of the matter.

I can't speak for French people and how they view themselves, but my feeling on the UK is that there are less and less people here who believe we are a great power, or at least have the power to have global influence.

We pretty much outsourced our independence to the US in this regard some time ago. Every now and then we shift a bit, or question some of the things they do, but we are pretty much supportive of them. Maybe the reason for this is the UKUS agreement since the war.

Anyway, I think most of this boils down to who sees who as the most reliable ally. The US/Aus/UK see each other as more reliable allies than France, and of course the US is the biggest kid in the playground currently. So why on earth would you partner with someone smaller when the big kid rocks up and says they want to collaborate over common interests ?

This is the heart of it to me. Arguments about acronyms, scheduling, contracts, individual capabilities, bases, what someone did or didn't do, it's all micro detail that can be overcome and in the context of a countries global strategy is largely irrelevant.

[Staffsknot]

2 hours ago, Gigantic Purple Slug said:

Interesting point and I think it might get to the heart of the matter.

I can't speak for French people and how they view themselves, but my feeling on the UK is that there are less and less people here who believe we are a great power, or at least have the power to have global influence.

We pretty much outsourced our independence to the US in this regard some time ago. Every now and then we shift a bit, or question some of the things they do, but we are pretty much supportive of them. Maybe the reason for this is the UKUS agreement since the war.

Anyway, I think most of this boils down to who sees who as the most reliable ally. The US/Aus/UK see each other as more reliable allies than France, and of course the US is the biggest kid in the playground currently. So why on earth would you partner with someone smaller when the big kid rocks up and says they want to collaborate over common interests ?

This is the heart of it to me. Arguments about acronyms, scheduling, contracts, individual capabilities, bases, what someone did or didn't do, it's all micro detail that can be overcome and in the context of a countries global strategy is largely irrelevant.

They weren't mutually exclusive alliances. You can be friends with more than one country.

Japan, India & Australia were all already in an Alliance with both US and France.

They could be in the tech share AUKUS and still have been in an alliance with France. They could have exited the sub deal properly and remained on good terms and not caused all the reprecussions.

All Australia had to do was act properly and America might have taken the time to check.

Scott Morrison has also referred to Canada and NZ as the freeloaders of 5 eyes and pissed them off more. He's basically sparking rows for domestic politics to try and look tough. America needs to be sure his play acting doesn't dent their interests.

[Staffsknot]

For those still wondering if the nuclear subs in Oz might cause regional issues:

- two leading Japanese election hopefuls are ( Takaichi & Kuno) are openly saying they need a nuclear submarine... Japan looked at it in 50s, 70s, 80s, 90s and 00s and decided stupid idea way too expensive. But want to be regional golden boy.

- S Korea snap response was if Japan gets access to this tech will be destabilising unless we do too

Australia has nowt yet and all players are swinging into high gear.

[shlomo]

5 minutes ago, Staffsknot said:

For those still wondering if the nuclear subs in Oz might cause regional issues:

- two leading Japanese election hopefuls are ( Takaichi & Kuno) are openly saying they need a nuclear submarine... Japan looked at it in 50s, 70s, 80s, 90s and 00s and decided stupid idea way too expensive. But want to be regional golden boy.

- S Korea snap response was if Japan gets access to this tech will be destabilising unless we do too

Australia has nowt yet and all players are swinging into high gear.

The genie is out of the bag, at the same time building these nuclear submarines is not easy, without a partner 

[shlomo]

Each progressive spirit is opposed by a thousand mediocre minds appointed to guard the past.“ —  Maurice Maeterlinck

 

[Staffsknot]

******** Baffles Brains

Sorry thought we were doing thought for the day

[rollover]

Australia-EU trade talks delayed as row deepens

Trade talks between Australia and the European Union have been postponed as a row with France over the so-called Aukus security partnership deepens.

In solidarity with France, European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen has questioned whether the EU would be able to strike a trade deal with Australia.

BBC

[satsuma]

There are over 100 nuclear subs creeping about the ocean, just takes one to have a meltdown to destroy millions of square miles of ocean.  Why is no politician openly asking for de escalation.  I’d like to see China step up here and calm fears about their plans and ambitions.  

[satsuma]

18 minutes ago, rollover said:

Australia-EU trade talks delayed as row deepens

Trade talks between Australia and the European Union have been postponed as a row with France over the so-called Aukus security partnership deepens.

In solidarity with France, European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen has questioned whether the EU would be able to strike a trade deal with Australia.

BBC

I’m afraid the whole deal may be scrapped in the end, it’s years off producing anything and the Australians may decide its not worth the lost trade.  On the other hand they may throw their lot in with the Americans and get into genetically modified lamb.  Not sure that scrapping the nukes is a bad thing.

Edited October 1, 2021 by satsuma

[shlomo]

52 minutes ago, rollover said:

Australia-EU trade talks delayed as row deepens

Trade talks between Australia and the European Union have been postponed as a row with France over the so-called Aukus security partnership deepens.

In solidarity with France, European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen has questioned whether the EU would be able to strike a trade deal with Australia.

BBC

I am not sure the EU want to get involved in an argument between France and Australia, maybe they are trying to get Morrison to lose the Australian election and then back to business 

[Gigantic Purple Slug]

1 hour ago, satsuma said:

There are over 100 nuclear subs creeping about the ocean, just takes one to have a meltdown to destroy millions of square miles of ocean.  Why is no politician openly asking for de escalation.  I’d like to see China step up here and calm fears about their plans and ambitions.  

From what I can tell from the accident reports of the several that have sunk this is unlikely.

If there was a meltdown and molten fuel escaped the reactor compartment it would probably be cooled pretty quickly and form some sort of crust on top as the seawater reacted with the metal (seawater is very corrosive/reactive). The whole mess would be contained in a small area and probably dilute gradually over time. The amount of material contained in the reactors is relatively small compared with power stations.

If it happened near the coast it would probably be more serious.

It isn't really isn't anything near as bad as Chernobyl, where the fire basically lead to a large amount of radioactive material being pumped into and rapidly dispersed in the atmosphere.

[Saving For a Space Ship]

Steve Keen Retweeted theJuiceMedia @thejuicemedia · 32m

The Australien Government has made an ad for its new AUKUS military alliance, and it’s surprisingly honest and informative

https://twitter.com/i/status/1444523835554893825

[shlomo]

On 9/29/2021 at 9:41 PM, Staffsknot said:

******** Baffles Brains

Sorry thought we were doing thought for the day

Who is this guy?

[jonb2]

9 hours ago, shlomo said:

Who is this guy?

Looks like Major Wilfred Thesiger to me Schlomo.

But then  I have the advantage of having had him as my desktop image for 16 years.

🙂