5 ms·

Actually, as mentioned multiple times in the past couple of days by former French Ambassador to the US Gerard Araud, diesel was an Australia demand, which requi

by gpayan 5y ago

Actually, as mentioned multiple times in the past couple of days by former French Ambassador to the US Gerard Araud, diesel was an Australia demand, which required France to modify its subs (all nuclear powered) and added complexity to the project. According to the former Ambassador, it would have been much easier and cheaper for France to supply Australia with nuclear subs.

edrxty 5y ago
Then why is it the US's fault Australia changed its mind?
- fspeech 5y ago
  These nuclear subs run on highly enriched uranium. There is serious NPT issue involved that only the US has the power to ignore.
  - xref 5y ago
    Power plants run on about 5% enriched, subs on 50%, weapons on 90%. Any country that can sell you a nuclear sub can also sell you the fuel, non-proliferation doesn’t come into it.
    - sudosysgen 5y ago
      US and UK subs run at 93-97%. Other countries use 20-50%.
  - throwaway210222 5y ago
    > There is serious NPT issue involved that only the US has the power to ignore. Incorrect, the UK has already shat all over the NPT. The recent Trident plans will raise the UK's weapons from 180 to 260 warheads (> 40% increase). Which is in complete violation of article VI. The NPT is for the rest of us.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
- csomar 5y ago
  The US probably pressured Australia. At this point, one can assume that Australia is just a bunch of land where some people live on it while being monitored electronically.
beerandt 5y ago
Well I suspect the demand was at least partially due to budget, as opposed to philosophical or technological reasons for diesel over nuclear. Separately, I've got to think turnkey access to the tomahawk missiles has almost got to play a bigger role in this than the sub itself, other than being capable of carrying said missiles.
- ikr678 5y ago
  It was technical, of sorts. The initial demand for diesel refit was because Australia has no home nuclear capability and wanted to be able to do some of the maintenance locally. Otherwise they spend half their time in the northern hemisphere. This may be a precursor to increased US naval presence/base in Australia.
  - beerandt 5y ago
    >Australia has no home nuclear capability and wanted to be able to do some of the maintenance locally. That's premised on whether France would have been willing to sell that capability to AUS, and for what price, vs the price (economic and military) of French nuclear maintenance, vs buying diesel. That equation is easily changed by a competing US/UK offer, be it technology sharing/ training for AUS to gain dinners nuclear maintenance capabilities, or that by being more politically aligned with the US/UK, relying on a foreign country for maintenance isn't as much of a military risk. >This may be a precursor to increased US naval presence/base in Australia. I suspect the opposite. What does the US gain by naval presence in Australia (vs Guam or Okinawa or Philippines, etc) besides an additional layer of rapid response in the region? AUS & US already partner in most things that would make a larger military presence in AUS beneficial. Whereas equipping AUS provides a potential partner for any international rapid response needed in the region. And I think for most incidents that would merit a US/UK rapid response in the region (ie China), AUS would have an equal or greater interest in responding to it. The other advantage is logistical- if the US and UK deal involves sharing industrial capabilities with AUS, it gains the US and UK likely use of those AUS capabilities and facilities in the event of conflict, instead of having to return to the US/UK. AUS gains technological and economic benefits, while US and UK get backup maintenance and repair facilities on the other side of the world, without having to pay for a base or for a contractor's presence. (Maybe you'd consider this increased US naval presence.)
mmerlin 5y ago
When you look deeper, the true entire purpose of this deal was not to build subs. It was to "create 3000 jobs" and save one politician (Christopher Pyne) who did win the next vote, then "retired" shortly thereafter and went to "work" as a highly paid lobbyist for EY (who he brokered this twisted dodgy deal with in the first place, when he was a politician). This is borderline corrupt behaviour IMHO (and many others HO's too). There are "guidelines" for the political class, but nobody ever enforces anything even when the corruption is so blatant. Don't even get me started on Barnaby Joyce and Angus Taylor funnelling tens of millions of taxpayer funds paying for fresh water runoff that was never realistically ever going to be worth anything to anybody. [2] It was sent to Angus' Cayman Islands company that he founded, then he claimed he did not benefit personally (yeah right). Also see Christian Porter and his "blind trust" suddenly donating a million bucks into his failed defamation rape case against the ABC. [3] [4] He says he has no idea where the money came from. Yeah right. For more about Christopher Pyne, and how confected this French Frankenstein sub deal was, read the first 3 links I posted elsewhere earlier [1] [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28580443 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28580443 [2] https://www.michaelwest.com.au/barnaby-joyce-80m-valuation-discrepancy/ https://www.michaelwest.com.au/barnaby-joyce-80m-valuation-d... [3] https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/blind-trust-gift-to-porter-undermines-faith-in-democracy-20210917-p58soj.html https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/blind-trust-gift-... [4] https://chaser.com.au/national/prime-minister-who-said-we-cant-blindly-trust-porters-alleged-victim-blindly-trusts-1m-donation/ https://chaser.com.au/national/prime-minister-who-said-we-ca...

by gpayan 5y ago

edrxty 5y ago

Then why is it the US's fault Australia changed its mind?

fspeech 5y ago
These nuclear subs run on highly enriched uranium. There is serious NPT issue involved that only the US has the power to ignore.
- xref 5y ago
  Power plants run on about 5% enriched, subs on 50%, weapons on 90%. Any country that can sell you a nuclear sub can also sell you the fuel, non-proliferation doesn’t come into it.
  - sudosysgen 5y ago
    US and UK subs run at 93-97%. Other countries use 20-50%.
- throwaway210222 5y ago
  > There is serious NPT issue involved that only the US has the power to ignore. Incorrect, the UK has already shat all over the NPT. The recent Trident plans will raise the UK's weapons from 180 to 260 warheads (> 40% increase). Which is in complete violation of article VI. The NPT is for the rest of us.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
csomar 5y ago
The US probably pressured Australia. At this point, one can assume that Australia is just a bunch of land where some people live on it while being monitored electronically.

beerandt 5y ago

Well I suspect the demand was at least partially due to budget, as opposed to philosophical or technological reasons for diesel over nuclear. Separately, I've got to think turnkey access to the tomahawk missiles has almost got to play a bigger role in this than the sub itself, other than being capable of carrying said missiles.

ikr678 5y ago
It was technical, of sorts. The initial demand for diesel refit was because Australia has no home nuclear capability and wanted to be able to do some of the maintenance locally. Otherwise they spend half their time in the northern hemisphere. This may be a precursor to increased US naval presence/base in Australia.
- beerandt 5y ago
  >Australia has no home nuclear capability and wanted to be able to do some of the maintenance locally. That's premised on whether France would have been willing to sell that capability to AUS, and for what price, vs the price (economic and military) of French nuclear maintenance, vs buying diesel. That equation is easily changed by a competing US/UK offer, be it technology sharing/ training for AUS to gain dinners nuclear maintenance capabilities, or that by being more politically aligned with the US/UK, relying on a foreign country for maintenance isn't as much of a military risk. >This may be a precursor to increased US naval presence/base in Australia. I suspect the opposite. What does the US gain by naval presence in Australia (vs Guam or Okinawa or Philippines, etc) besides an additional layer of rapid response in the region? AUS & US already partner in most things that would make a larger military presence in AUS beneficial. Whereas equipping AUS provides a potential partner for any international rapid response needed in the region. And I think for most incidents that would merit a US/UK rapid response in the region (ie China), AUS would have an equal or greater interest in responding to it. The other advantage is logistical- if the US and UK deal involves sharing industrial capabilities with AUS, it gains the US and UK likely use of those AUS capabilities and facilities in the event of conflict, instead of having to return to the US/UK. AUS gains technological and economic benefits, while US and UK get backup maintenance and repair facilities on the other side of the world, without having to pay for a base or for a contractor's presence. (Maybe you'd consider this increased US naval presence.)

mmerlin 5y ago

When you look deeper, the true entire purpose of this deal was not to build subs. It was to "create 3000 jobs" and save one politician (Christopher Pyne) who did win the next vote, then "retired" shortly thereafter and went to "work" as a highly paid lobbyist for EY (who he brokered this twisted dodgy deal with in the first place, when he was a politician). This is borderline corrupt behaviour IMHO (and many others HO's too). There are "guidelines" for the political class, but nobody ever enforces anything even when the corruption is so blatant. Don't even get me started on Barnaby Joyce and Angus Taylor funnelling tens of millions of taxpayer funds paying for fresh water runoff that was never realistically ever going to be worth anything to anybody. [2] It was sent to Angus' Cayman Islands company that he founded, then he claimed he did not benefit personally (yeah right). Also see Christian Porter and his "blind trust" suddenly donating a million bucks into his failed defamation rape case against the ABC. [3] [4] He says he has no idea where the money came from. Yeah right. For more about Christopher Pyne, and how confected this French Frankenstein sub deal was, read the first 3 links I posted elsewhere earlier [1] [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28580443 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28580443 [2] https://www.michaelwest.com.au/barnaby-joyce-80m-valuation-discrepancy/ https://www.michaelwest.com.au/barnaby-joyce-80m-valuation-d... [3] https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/blind-trust-gift-to-porter-undermines-faith-in-democracy-20210917-p58soj.html https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/blind-trust-gift-... [4] https://chaser.com.au/national/prime-minister-who-said-we-cant-blindly-trust-porters-alleged-victim-blindly-trusts-1m-donation/ https://chaser.com.au/national/prime-minister-who-said-we-ca...