But Australia cancelled the contract with the French allegedly because it wasn't for a nuclear submarine. So much for that. They never even tried to renegotiate it. And countries do not export submarine nuclear reactor technology. No one does it. Brazil has wanted a nuclear submarine program for decades and no one exports the technology to them. The closest thing to such a deal was Russia's lease of nuclear attack submarines to India. US nuclear subs use US reactors, UK ones use UK reactors, French ones use French reactors, etc.
Lethe
Captain
Exactly. Dutton and others made a strategic decision to align us even more closely with the United States. It wasn't just about switching from conventional to nuclear, but about embedding us so deeply in the American machinery that no future government could hope to extricate us. As for the question of if France would really have been willing to support a nuclear submarine for Australia, I suspect that enquiries had quietly been made, and promising answers received, prior to the selection of Barracuda.
Lethe
Captain
I am (manually!) quoting from former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull's reply to Professor Hugh White in Quarterly Essay 87 (September 2022):
Given the good relationship between Malcolm Turnbull and French President Emmanuel Macron and how scathing Turnbull has been of the Morrison government's treatment of France, it is difficult to imagine that Turnbull would be writing these things if the subject had not previously been raised at some level during his term of office, let alone if they had been raised and refused!
Given the good relationship between Malcolm Turnbull and French President Emmanuel Macron and how scathing Turnbull has been of the Morrison government's treatment of France, it is difficult to imagine that Turnbull would be writing these things if the subject had not previously been raised at some level during his term of office, let alone if they had been raised and refused!
Last edited:
The whole idea, from the military standpoint, is to turn the prospective RAN nuclear submarines into a USN SSN subfleet, effectively. But if that additional SSNs were to come from the existing capacity allocation for USN itself, this exercise becomes rather pointless for USN.
Last edited:
This sounds suspiciously like the US and Australia really want to make the Five Eyes a nominal Anglo entity, a CANZUKUS in effect.
Lethe
Captain
Looks like the US senators' concerns weren't just precautionary or in response to vague rumours, but in response to direct briefings:
EDIT: I can't fix this formatting bullshit on my phone. Just deal with it.
So it seems that direct transfer of formerly USN-bound submarines to Australia is something that has indeed come up as a potential solution to the schedule challenge.
This at least partly validates Peter Dutton's claim that he believed obtaining two Virginia-class submarines before 2030 to be a realistic option.
On the other hand, for those of us who are concerned about Australian sovereignty, the prospect of such an act of "self-sacrifice" on the part of the US is alarming, because we well know that there is no such thing in international affairs, and that the price the US would exact from Australia in return would be steep indeed. I said at the time of the AUKUS announcement that this was the death knell for Australia as a sovereign nation, and I see no reason to change that assessment.
Note also how the UK seems to have almost completely disappeared from the AUKUS discourse these past months.
EDIT: I can't fix this formatting bullshit on my phone. Just deal with it.
So it seems that direct transfer of formerly USN-bound submarines to Australia is something that has indeed come up as a potential solution to the schedule challenge.
This at least partly validates Peter Dutton's claim that he believed obtaining two Virginia-class submarines before 2030 to be a realistic option.
On the other hand, for those of us who are concerned about Australian sovereignty, the prospect of such an act of "self-sacrifice" on the part of the US is alarming, because we well know that there is no such thing in international affairs, and that the price the US would exact from Australia in return would be steep indeed. I said at the time of the AUKUS announcement that this was the death knell for Australia as a sovereign nation, and I see no reason to change that assessment.
Note also how the UK seems to have almost completely disappeared from the AUKUS discourse these past months.
Last edited:
Lethe
Captain
Nine members of US Congress have written to Biden in support of further expanding the American nuclear submarine construction capacity to support building Virginia-class boats for Australia while simultaneously meeting USN requirements for Virginia- and Columbia-class boats:
Despite how this is being framed ("strong support"), absent from this document is any support for the idea of depriving USN of boats to service Australia's needs, which is what the prior Senatorial letter was warning about. Indeed, this letter notes that it is "essential" that the US receive two Virginia-class submarines per year, which is effectively in line with the Senatorial letter.
The material difference between the two letters is that this one more actively considers and advocates for expanding US production capacity. No doubt this can be achieved, the timescale is what is in question, given that Australia's submarine requirement coincides with declining USN submarine inventory and a demand peak from adding Columbia-class submarines to the order book. The letter notes that the authors believe this can be done rapidly enough to support transitioning Australia from Collins to Virginia. It is not clear what the basis for this belief is.
Despite how this is being framed ("strong support"), absent from this document is any support for the idea of depriving USN of boats to service Australia's needs, which is what the prior Senatorial letter was warning about. Indeed, this letter notes that it is "essential" that the US receive two Virginia-class submarines per year, which is effectively in line with the Senatorial letter.
The material difference between the two letters is that this one more actively considers and advocates for expanding US production capacity. No doubt this can be achieved, the timescale is what is in question, given that Australia's submarine requirement coincides with declining USN submarine inventory and a demand peak from adding Columbia-class submarines to the order book. The letter notes that the authors believe this can be done rapidly enough to support transitioning Australia from Collins to Virginia. It is not clear what the basis for this belief is.
More reason to believe that Airstrip #2 is in fact the 52nd state of the United States of America.
Lethe
Captain
This talk with Paul Keating about "Australia and China" is a few months old now, but still crackles with his intelligence, acerbic wit, and an historical sensibility that is almost entirely lacking from today's political class. It seems odd to describe a former Prime Minister as an outsider hurling truth bombs at the establishment, but this is where we are.
I'm including this stuff about Australia's status under the British crown because I think it is crucial to understanding the underlying psychological dynamics of how we have ended up where we are, in relation to the United States, China, and our neighbours throughout South-East Asia:
Onto the China/Taiwan/AUKUS stuff:
The full discussion can be viewed here:
I'm including this stuff about Australia's status under the British crown because I think it is crucial to understanding the underlying psychological dynamics of how we have ended up where we are, in relation to the United States, China, and our neighbours throughout South-East Asia:
Onto the China/Taiwan/AUKUS stuff:
The full discussion can be viewed here:
Last edited:
Lethe
Captain
Turnbull still pushing the question of sovereignty:
One might think that when you have two former Prime Ministers, from both major parties no less, raising concerns of this nature, that it suggests that there is some prospect for a rethink or at least alternative voices at the table. But in truth there is no such prospect and even former Prime Ministers like Keating, Turnbull, and Fraser (were he still alive) are left just pissing in the wind as our nation is led toward the abyss.
One might think that when you have two former Prime Ministers, from both major parties no less, raising concerns of this nature, that it suggests that there is some prospect for a rethink or at least alternative voices at the table. But in truth there is no such prospect and even former Prime Ministers like Keating, Turnbull, and Fraser (were he still alive) are left just pissing in the wind as our nation is led toward the abyss.