24 ms·

Australia to acquire nuclear submarine fleet (AUKUS)

46 points by L_226 5y ago

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Tsiklon 5y ago
Simultaneously annoying both China and the French, the British foreign office must be terribly pleased with this new partnership.
- ksec 5y ago
  It's just like Old Times. Edit: To all the downvote. The line which OP used and my reply are reference to Yes Minister.
  - abbassi 5y ago
    Just like the times before World Wars.
  - Tsiklon 5y ago
    Well spotted. I can see Humphrey's smile already.
- roel_v 5y ago
  I'm cackling behind my desk here as I imagine some British bureaucrats gleefully hopping in their chairs as they drink tea with their pinkies up, round spectabled, shouting "well done chaps" to each other.
- markus_zhang 5y ago
  But isn't France our allies?
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > But isn't France our allies? Geopolitics isn't a simple binary alignment of fully-aligned teams. Is France our ally? Yes. Is France our rival for arms sales, especially to our other allies? Also, yes.
    - markus_zhang 5y ago
      Just trying to echo Mr. Hacker
nsonha 5y ago
I'm sure people have said this countless time but here it is: Cold War mentality. I'm from a small country. You would think that countries like us tend to have to pick a side but since a very young age, in our textbook, we're taught that the world is no longer the place it used to be and there are no such things as friends nor enemies. Honestly all the propaganda from the US about Russia caring so much and always tries to undermine them and how their politics are fuelled by their policies toward "the enemy", whether that's China or the Middle East, sounds stupid to me. Australia is the same, all they do is whining about China instead of, you know, build a stronger country.
- mytailorisrich 5y ago
  It seems to me, reading on the relation between Australia and China, that Australia tends to have a superiority complex. Australia is a country of 25 million: they are no match to China or any other major powers, so whilst it is of course right for them to defend their interests I don't see how their current aggressive rhetoric can lead to anything positive.
  - ben-gy 5y ago
    It’s a lot more strategically complex than that. Fo example, America manages the majority of its signals intelligence for a large chunk of the Asian content through various faculties such as pine gap [1]. You’d be foolish to postulate that geopolitically charged agendas are driven by a simple explanation such as “a superiority complex”. 1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pine_Gap?wprov=sfti1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pine_Gap?wprov=sfti1 https://maps.apple.com/?ll=-23.799000,133.737000&q=Pine%20Gap&_ext=EiQpjMzNQ4vMN8Axljf9gJW3YEA5jMzNQ4vMN8BBljf9gJW3YEA%3D https://maps.apple.com/?ll=-23.799000,133.737000&q=Pine%20Ga...
    - mytailorisrich 5y ago
      Of course the US are powerful, and in fact pretty much control Australia, which is indeed a small country. Australia is getting a bit ahead of itself if they think they are a match for China. I think Australia would be foolish to believe that being best bud with the playground's biggest bully means that they can freely do as they please and that it is useless for them to remain civil to others.
jjk166 5y ago
Honestly I'm surprised that Australia didn't go with nuclear submarines earlier. As an island nation, naval strenth needs to take top priority. It has an incredibly long coastline, much of which is sparsely populated, particularly in the north where any attack would be reasonably expected to come from, with few bases in the area to support fleet operations (to my knowledge there are no naval depots between Perth and Darwin with about 2500 miles of coastline in between). All potential adversaries are a long distance away and Australia has no overseas naval bases at which to refuel. Critically, all the major chokepoints that a potential adversary would need to sail through are very far from Australia, with it's territorial waters being extremely open. It's really a perfect use case for nuclear attack subs.
- marticode 5y ago
  Australia is not a nuclear nation and as such, is normally not supposed to be able to buy nuclear devices of any sort. Which is why they initially bought French submarines that are nuclear but asked them to be retrofitted for standard propulsion. What the US and the UK did here is a breach of a worldwide agreement by nuclear powers to not supply non nuclear ones in order to restrict nuclear proliferation. Which is one reason the French are pissed - the US took away their contract by breaking a rules the French had stuck to.
  - vijayr02 5y ago
    I understand France is helping Brazil build a nuclear submarine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazilian_submarine_%C3%81lvaro_Alberto https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazilian_submarine_%C3%81lvar... Did that get an exception? Seems strange France could get that for Brazil but not Australia.
    - marticode 5y ago
      Brazil has multiple civilian nuclear reactors in operations. Australia has no significant nuclear expertise. France would probably have preferred selling nuclear submarines because it would have saved on retrofitting cost.
  - 5y ago
hkt 5y ago
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglosphere https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglosphere
KingOfCoders 5y ago
Well played UK!
KingOfCoders 5y ago
"Always the dollars. Always the f*' dollars." -Nicky Santoro
throwawaymanbot 5y ago
This is Xi Jinping fault. His leadership and his desire to idiotically curtail Chinas blossom, while encouraging chinas fist, is backfiring, everywhere. When you surround yourself with sycophants and propaganda you believe in your own unilateralism and Hubris. Well Xi Jinping …now look what’s happened.
est 5y ago
Australia's Defence Policy Explained https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTCqXlDjx18 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTCqXlDjx18
- roca 5y ago
  That video is fun but silly. Australia has major trading partners that aren't China.
iamtedd 5y ago
I like this idea from a purely environmental perspective (ignoring the strategic reasons, which I leave for others). It's about time we stopped that ridiculous plan to modify an already nuclear design for diesel-electric. Not to mention how poorly the delivery was performing. However small difference a nuclear submarine fleet would bring, we urgently need to wean ourselves off polluting energy and start being progressive again.
dirtyid 5y ago
Just announced hosting more US bombers as well https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-09-17/us-raises-concerns-about-china-economic-coercion-of-australia/100469360 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-09-17/us-raises-concerns-ab... Reality is that AU needs nuclear subs for offensive deterrence againt PRC because AU has already sunk cost too much into US orbit that the only thing left is to double down. PineGap, Geraldton, Exmouth communication hubs, US is absurdly dependent on AU facilities for Indo-Pac operations. Aforementioned facilities will 100% be targeted by PRC if US containment efforts become kinetic. Hence these subs to threaten PLAN at choke points. It helps that AU is a steadfast historic US ally, bordering on sycophancy, but in Mearsheimer words on future PRC/US/AU dynamic, if AU picks PRC, they become US enemies. I would extend that to AU being neutral as well. US _NEEDS_ AU facilities for Indo-Pac operation the same way it needed ME oil pre-Shale. AU doesn't have a choice but to cooperate with US because “implications”. So here we are. Overdue capabilities for AU, assuming aquisition doesn't fall through. At least 8 nuke subs that AU has even less experience building, which likely will overshoot planned delivery by 10+ years, and go massively over budget, of which 2-3 can be deployed at once. Worse case scenario, project goes nowhere, PRC gets the crown jewels of SSN technology via espionage while having shipyard designed to launch 2 nuke subs per year.
- cknight 5y ago
  It seems our governments tried to walk a fine line for a while with China, because the trade dollars were so good. That's all a bit out the window now. They've slapped us (economically) a few times over the last couple of years but I don't think they can go too much further down that route - they still need a lot of the stuff we're digging out of the ground. With little for Australia left to lose trade-wise, doubling down on the US relationship makes sense. We're so intertwined already, we may as well get any more benefits we can out of it. The more the US has sitting in Australia, the more it's in their interests for us to be safe and stable. Pity about France but it seems that project was not going well anyway. If we're going to waste money we may as well get better kit out of it (eventually).
bg117 5y ago
If France joins, will the grouping be named FAUKUS? Sounds very weird...
- markus_zhang 5y ago
  On the contrary, France is royally screwed this time.
- jobigoud 5y ago
  Did you do this on purpose? Faukus would sound the same as faux-culs (false ass) which is slang for hypocrite.

46 points by L_226 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

Simultaneously annoying both China and the French, the British foreign office must be terribly pleased with this new partnership.

ksec 5y ago
It's just like Old Times. Edit: To all the downvote. The line which OP used and my reply are reference to Yes Minister.
- abbassi 5y ago
  Just like the times before World Wars.
- Tsiklon 5y ago
  Well spotted. I can see Humphrey's smile already.
roel_v 5y ago
I'm cackling behind my desk here as I imagine some British bureaucrats gleefully hopping in their chairs as they drink tea with their pinkies up, round spectabled, shouting "well done chaps" to each other.
markus_zhang 5y ago
But isn't France our allies?
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > But isn't France our allies? Geopolitics isn't a simple binary alignment of fully-aligned teams. Is France our ally? Yes. Is France our rival for arms sales, especially to our other allies? Also, yes.
  - markus_zhang 5y ago
    Just trying to echo Mr. Hacker

nsonha 5y ago

I'm sure people have said this countless time but here it is: Cold War mentality. I'm from a small country. You would think that countries like us tend to have to pick a side but since a very young age, in our textbook, we're taught that the world is no longer the place it used to be and there are no such things as friends nor enemies. Honestly all the propaganda from the US about Russia caring so much and always tries to undermine them and how their politics are fuelled by their policies toward "the enemy", whether that's China or the Middle East, sounds stupid to me. Australia is the same, all they do is whining about China instead of, you know, build a stronger country.

mytailorisrich 5y ago
It seems to me, reading on the relation between Australia and China, that Australia tends to have a superiority complex. Australia is a country of 25 million: they are no match to China or any other major powers, so whilst it is of course right for them to defend their interests I don't see how their current aggressive rhetoric can lead to anything positive.
- ben-gy 5y ago
  It’s a lot more strategically complex than that. Fo example, America manages the majority of its signals intelligence for a large chunk of the Asian content through various faculties such as pine gap [1]. You’d be foolish to postulate that geopolitically charged agendas are driven by a simple explanation such as “a superiority complex”. 1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pine_Gap?wprov=sfti1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pine_Gap?wprov=sfti1 https://maps.apple.com/?ll=-23.799000,133.737000&q=Pine%20Gap&_ext=EiQpjMzNQ4vMN8Axljf9gJW3YEA5jMzNQ4vMN8BBljf9gJW3YEA%3D https://maps.apple.com/?ll=-23.799000,133.737000&q=Pine%20Ga...
  - mytailorisrich 5y ago
    Of course the US are powerful, and in fact pretty much control Australia, which is indeed a small country. Australia is getting a bit ahead of itself if they think they are a match for China. I think Australia would be foolish to believe that being best bud with the playground's biggest bully means that they can freely do as they please and that it is useless for them to remain civil to others.

jjk166 5y ago

Honestly I'm surprised that Australia didn't go with nuclear submarines earlier. As an island nation, naval strenth needs to take top priority. It has an incredibly long coastline, much of which is sparsely populated, particularly in the north where any attack would be reasonably expected to come from, with few bases in the area to support fleet operations (to my knowledge there are no naval depots between Perth and Darwin with about 2500 miles of coastline in between). All potential adversaries are a long distance away and Australia has no overseas naval bases at which to refuel. Critically, all the major chokepoints that a potential adversary would need to sail through are very far from Australia, with it's territorial waters being extremely open. It's really a perfect use case for nuclear attack subs.

marticode 5y ago
Australia is not a nuclear nation and as such, is normally not supposed to be able to buy nuclear devices of any sort. Which is why they initially bought French submarines that are nuclear but asked them to be retrofitted for standard propulsion. What the US and the UK did here is a breach of a worldwide agreement by nuclear powers to not supply non nuclear ones in order to restrict nuclear proliferation. Which is one reason the French are pissed - the US took away their contract by breaking a rules the French had stuck to.
- vijayr02 5y ago
  I understand France is helping Brazil build a nuclear submarine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazilian_submarine_%C3%81lvaro_Alberto https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazilian_submarine_%C3%81lvar... Did that get an exception? Seems strange France could get that for Brazil but not Australia.
  - marticode 5y ago
    Brazil has multiple civilian nuclear reactors in operations. Australia has no significant nuclear expertise. France would probably have preferred selling nuclear submarines because it would have saved on retrofitting cost.
- 5y ago

hkt 5y ago

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglosphere https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglosphere

KingOfCoders 5y ago

Well played UK!

KingOfCoders 5y ago

"Always the dollars. Always the f*' dollars." -Nicky Santoro

throwawaymanbot 5y ago

This is Xi Jinping fault. His leadership and his desire to idiotically curtail Chinas blossom, while encouraging chinas fist, is backfiring, everywhere. When you surround yourself with sycophants and propaganda you believe in your own unilateralism and Hubris. Well Xi Jinping …now look what’s happened.

est 5y ago

Australia's Defence Policy Explained https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTCqXlDjx18 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTCqXlDjx18

roca 5y ago
That video is fun but silly. Australia has major trading partners that aren't China.

iamtedd 5y ago

I like this idea from a purely environmental perspective (ignoring the strategic reasons, which I leave for others). It's about time we stopped that ridiculous plan to modify an already nuclear design for diesel-electric. Not to mention how poorly the delivery was performing. However small difference a nuclear submarine fleet would bring, we urgently need to wean ourselves off polluting energy and start being progressive again.

dirtyid 5y ago

Just announced hosting more US bombers as well https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-09-17/us-raises-concerns-about-china-economic-coercion-of-australia/100469360 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-09-17/us-raises-concerns-ab... Reality is that AU needs nuclear subs for offensive deterrence againt PRC because AU has already sunk cost too much into US orbit that the only thing left is to double down. PineGap, Geraldton, Exmouth communication hubs, US is absurdly dependent on AU facilities for Indo-Pac operations. Aforementioned facilities will 100% be targeted by PRC if US containment efforts become kinetic. Hence these subs to threaten PLAN at choke points. It helps that AU is a steadfast historic US ally, bordering on sycophancy, but in Mearsheimer words on future PRC/US/AU dynamic, if AU picks PRC, they become US enemies. I would extend that to AU being neutral as well. US _NEEDS_ AU facilities for Indo-Pac operation the same way it needed ME oil pre-Shale. AU doesn't have a choice but to cooperate with US because “implications”. So here we are. Overdue capabilities for AU, assuming aquisition doesn't fall through. At least 8 nuke subs that AU has even less experience building, which likely will overshoot planned delivery by 10+ years, and go massively over budget, of which 2-3 can be deployed at once. Worse case scenario, project goes nowhere, PRC gets the crown jewels of SSN technology via espionage while having shipyard designed to launch 2 nuke subs per year.

cknight 5y ago
It seems our governments tried to walk a fine line for a while with China, because the trade dollars were so good. That's all a bit out the window now. They've slapped us (economically) a few times over the last couple of years but I don't think they can go too much further down that route - they still need a lot of the stuff we're digging out of the ground. With little for Australia left to lose trade-wise, doubling down on the US relationship makes sense. We're so intertwined already, we may as well get any more benefits we can out of it. The more the US has sitting in Australia, the more it's in their interests for us to be safe and stable. Pity about France but it seems that project was not going well anyway. If we're going to waste money we may as well get better kit out of it (eventually).

bg117 5y ago

If France joins, will the grouping be named FAUKUS? Sounds very weird...

markus_zhang 5y ago
On the contrary, France is royally screwed this time.
jobigoud 5y ago
Did you do this on purpose? Faukus would sound the same as faux-culs (false ass) which is slang for hypocrite.