Thread: US will share nuclear submarine technology with Australia in new defense partnership

Originally Posted by sabang

Stress and Uncertainty is the warriors lot.

Nonsense.

The average digger moans like a pom. If they get shelter and 3 squares, then they are happy to hurry up and wait. But stress or uncertainty about the next meal? No way!

Don't worry- we'll be sure to make the caring and sharing sessions non-gender specific and fully inclusive willy.

Originally Posted by sabang

Stress and Uncertainty is the warriors lot.

Yes, and we see how that works so well . . .

I stand in absolute awe of the staggering incompetence of the Australian military/public service. They were given a choice between a Benz, a Lexus and a Renault and for reasons not yet fathomable in this Universe, they picked a Renault FFS.
Next they will be buying japanese champagne and german baguettes filled with french Bratwurst for the annual Christmas party.

Originally Posted by Hugh Cow

They were given a choice between a Benz, a Lexus and a Renault and for reasons not yet fathomable in this Universe, they picked a Renault FFS.

Yea . . . but to be fair, despite the submarine 'experts' here who gasbag about how bad diesel subs are . . . many types of diesel-electric are quieter than nuclear subs and don't 'belch smoke'.

Range? More than will ever be necessary.


Nuclear isn't necessarily the newest nor most advanced technology.

Originally Posted by panama hat

Yea . . . but to be fair, despite the submarine 'experts' here who gasbag about how bad diesel subs are . . . many types of diesel-electric are quieter than nuclear subs and don't 'belch smoke'.

Range? More than will ever be necessary.


Nuclear isn't necessarily the newest nor most advanced technology.

True diesel subs can be quieter on electric only but not with the Diesel running and most have a limited undersea time. Well Australia could use A sub designed for Diesel such as the German 214 using super quiet electro catalytic cells rather than the a sterling cycle engine as in other Air independant propulsion (AIP) submarines and can stay underwater for a few weeks rather than days. They are slower and have a shorter range than nuclear subs which can stay under for 3 or 4 months. Australia has 25,000 k/m of coastline though before you even patrol through blue water. You may be correct and this might be a better choice for Australia, depending on the brief the navy had set which I am not privy to. In any case, whatever they buy should be "off the shelf". Australia does not have the time or unlimited resources to waste money on designs that are converting a nuclear to a diesel sub, in short reinventing the wheel at a hugely inflated price. We should have learnt from the Collins class that were plagued with early problems and cost blow outs after being purchased from Kockums, an "off the plan" design that had never been built let alone tested.

No-one seems to be listening to the deafening silence from the froggies EU partners.

They're as unpopular there as they are in the Anglophone world.

Iran hits out at U.S., Britain over AUKUS deal

Excellent news! Upsetting the Iranians will always help with the "negotiations".

Former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull has warned Australia will need to develop a nuclear industry to maintain its proposed fleet of submarines and lashed his successor, Scott Morrison, for not being upfront with France over its decision to dump a $90 billion contract.

Mr Turnbull, who chose Paris in 2016 to build a fleet of 12 conventionally powered submarines, said the government should have explored the possibility of building a nuclear-powered fleet using low-enriched uranium with France and the United States.

He suggested the French nuclear technology had "safety and non-proliferation advantages" over the weapons-grade uranium used in American and British submarines and accused the federal government of running a "clumsy, deceitful and costly" process.

"Safety and sovereignty dictate that we will need to develop nuclear facilities in Australia to maintain and support these submarines," Mr Turnbull wrote in an opinion piece for The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age.

Mr Morrison announced the shock decision to dump the French deal two weeks ago and instead use American and British technology to develop a fleet of nuclear-powered submarines as part of a new defence pact named AUKUS.

The move, designed to present a more forceful posture amid increased Chinese aggression in the Indo-Pacific, enraged France and sparked warnings from Beijing that regional stability would be undermined.

While developing a nuclear-powered fleet by 2040 would be a "good development", Mr Turnbull said the "hyperbole around the new AUKUS partnership has been dialled up to 11″.

"With the swirl of media sound bites, the impression has been created that the Australian government has replaced a diesel/electric French-designed submarine for a nuclear-powered American or British one. This is not the case," Mr Turnbull said.

"Australia now has no new submarine program at all. We have cancelled the one we had with France and have a statement of intent with the UK and the US to examine the prospect of acquiring nuclear-powered submarines."

While the nuclear option will deliver Australia considerable advantages in weapons storage, speed and endurance, the first of the submarines may not be in the water until 2040 - six years later than the first French boat was scheduled to be built.

The federal government decided to ditch the French deal and go with the AUKUS agreement on the basis that the US and Britain use highly enriched uranium, which means the submarine's reactors never need to be refuelled. If Australia were to build nuclear-powered submarines with the French, the nuclear fuel in the core of the boat's reactors would have to be replaced every 10 years.

But Mr Turnbull questioned whether it was credible to have a "hands-off" approach on a nuclear reactor "filled with weapons-grade uranium and not inspect it for 35 years". He said if something went wrong with the reactors, Britain and the US had "extensive nuclear facilities and expertise to deal with it" while "Australia does not".

Mr Turnbull, who will address the National Press Club on Wednesday, said if Mr Morrison had been "upfront" with French President Emmanuel Macron, he could have explored the option of going nuclear with the French and the US using low-enriched uranium reactor technology.

Considering all French submarines went in for a lengthy refit every decade, Mr Turnbull said "in this regard at least, French naval nuclear reactor safety standards are stricter than those applied in the United States and the UK".

While the American nuclear-powered submarines would not be a breach of the international Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, Mr Turnbull said the move set a precedent that other countries, such as Iran, would "seek to exploit as a justification" for producing highly enriched uranium.

With more than 600 subcontractors signed up to the French build, Mr Turnbull also questioned whether the new program would create as many local jobs.

"And the submarines, we are told, will still be built in Adelaide. But if there are no nuclear facilities there, that must mean the submarine hulls will be transported to the US or the UK to have the reactor installed together with all of the safety and other systems to which it is connected," he said.

"You don't need to be especially cynical to see it won't be long before someone argues it looks much simpler to have the first submarine built in the US or the UK, and then the second, third and so on."

‘Clumsy, deceitful and costly': Turnbull slams handling of nuclear submarine decision (msn.com)

Originally Posted by sabang

Mr Turnbull, who chose Paris in 2016 to build a fleet of 12 conventionally powered submarines, said the government should have explored the possibility of building a nuclear-powered fleet using low-enriched uranium with France and the United States.

He suggested the French nuclear technology had "safety and non-proliferation advantages" over the weapons-grade uranium used in American and British submarines and accused the federal government of running a "clumsy, deceitful and costly" process.

Yes, it was really a knee-jerk reaction to an unexpected offer

Originally Posted by Saint Willy

Turnbull Cries

Turnbull's not Chinese and . . . ugh . . . you must be having breakfast just about now

Originally Posted by sabang

Former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull

Is upset that it looks like he made a shit decision.

And so it begins....



Talks between Australia and the European Union over a free trade agreement (FTA) have been reportedly postponed in the wake of the Federal Government's decision to scrap a $90 billion submarine deal with France.

Negotiations were due to be held this month but have now been put back to November, reports says.

"The FTA trade round has been postponed for a month until November," an EU official in Canberra told AFP.

EU suspends Australia free trade talks amid submarine row (msn.com)​

...The EU will huff and puff for a month or two to save French face, then get back to business...

It's a negotiating tool, and a quite potent one when you look at the combo of a huge trade deficit with the EU, and the loss of several Chinese export markets.

Originally Posted by sabang

It's a negotiating tool

...exactly...I'm sure the Aussie side is well aware...

Originally Posted by OhOh

China opposes utilitarian approach to, double standards on NPT: envoy

Xinhua | Updated: 2021-09-28 09:21

"UNITED NATIONS -- A Chinese envoy said Monday that China opposes a utilitarian approach to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) or the application of double standards. Both the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) and the NPT are important pillars of the international nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation regime. While promoting the early entry into force of the CTBT, the international community should also conscientiously safeguard the authority, universality, and effectiveness of the NPT, said Zhang Jun, China's permanent representative to the United Nations.

This has naught to do with the Convicts Sub Deal.

The Subs will be nuclear powered, not nuclear armed.

But the Chinese are trying to obfuscate the argument.

Originally Posted by tomcat

...The EU will huff and puff for a month or two to save French face, then get back to business...

Hardly 'huff and puff', it's calculated. The EU is a group of countries that has strength in being exactly that. Fuck with one and you fuck with them all. A combined $20 trillion worth. Australia $1.3.

Australia fucked with one of the big ones, the second largest economy in Europe @ $2.8 trillion(see-sawing with the UK) - Australia done fucked up, y'all.

Originally Posted by panama hat

Yea . . . but to be fair, despite the submarine 'experts' here who gasbag about how bad diesel subs are . . . many types of diesel-electric are quieter than nuclear subs and don't 'belch smoke'.

Range? More than will ever be necessary.


Nuclear isn't necessarily the newest nor most advanced technology.

Your lack of understanding the differences between diesel electric, and nuclear powered submarines just plumbed new depths. Pun intended.

Originally Posted by panama hat

Hardly 'huff and puff', it's calculated. The EU is a group of countries that has strength in being exactly that. Fuck with one and you fuck with them all. A combined $20 trillion worth. Australia $1.3.

Australia fucked with one of the big ones, the second largest economy in Europe @ $2.8 trillion(see-sawing with the UK) - Australia done fucked up, y'all.

The EU is unbalanced and not renowned for unity on such matters. One point five nations care about this. Macron is already stuffed, so anyone who cares enough, is waiting for his replacement.

Originally Posted by panama hat

Australia done fucked up, y'all.

...so, you're from southern NZ then...

Originally Posted by panama hat

Australia done fucked up, y'all.

If it goes tits up for the Convicts, they can always borrow a few Subs off their cousins across the ditch.

Originally Posted by Switch

Your lack of understanding the differences between diesel electric, and nuclear powered submarines just plumbed new depths. Pun intended.

Again, you just make sweeping statements - please do correct me, I'd appreciate it.

And . . . you still haven't shown me where I insulted Chitty.

Originally Posted by Switch

The EU is unbalanced and not renowned for unity on such matters.

Wasn't it you who said posters should only make ill-informed comments about the country they were born in, paid taxes, have family or will return to live in?

Originally Posted by Switch

One point five nations care about this. Macron is already stuffed, so anyone who cares enough, is waiting for his replacement.

And your proof if this is . . . ?

Originally Posted by tomcat

...so, you're from southern NZ then...

Soooooooooooeeeeeeeee!

Originally Posted by David48atTD

If it goes tits up for the Convicts, they can always borrow a few Subs off their cousins across the ditch.

Not much of a navy here . . . let alone subs

Originally Posted by panama hat

Again, you just make sweeping statements - please do correct me, I'd appreciate it.




Wasn't it you who said posters should only make ill-informed comments about the country they were born in, paid taxes, have family or will return to live in?



And your proof if this is . . .

If you had first hand experience of both methods of propulsion, you would not have made such a contrary statement.

I lived and worked oin various parts of the EU, and the UK was until recently, a member.

Macron’s idiocy has obviously escaped your notice. Germany has an economic and geographic obligation to France. Not sure why.

Originally Posted by Switch

Pun intended.

HeHeHe.

Good one.