French Defence General News

I read somewhere Australia has difficulties with its current subs and only half are serviceable because they lack crews.

I guess it will be worse with SSN which need two or three times more people onboard.

They should just buy 3 french Scorpene and everyone is happy.

That nuclear sub program will be a disaster. Delays and over budget will be worse than for a diesel sub program. Because if they are surprised by french overcost and delays they will have heart attack with the US.

Apparently at the Macron/Aus PM meet in June the PM complained about the continuing increases in costs, the delayed timescales and the reduced level of technical transfer including critical sections to be French made.

Hahaha... yeah, because when I think of projects done on time and to budget the first thing that leaps to mind is the US and UK...

Several centuries ago an Estonian captain... Captain Thadius Von Bellingsheusen (sorry for the spelling) went on the first world cruise for the Russian Navy and he essentially wrote the manual for the Russian navy on how to do it. He was the first person to actually see the continent of Antarctica but refused to revise his records to reflect that... he sailed around the world and visited many countries and didn't lose a single sailor... this was at a time when ships would sail from Europe to the US of A and 200 out of the 500 odd people on board would die of Scurvy... (likely because they had a poor diet to begin with and the limited provisions on the ships finished them off).

Anyway after putting in to the UK for repairs his recommendation was to pay for the job rather than an hourly wage because the english shipbuilders essentially pulled a go slow to make him pay more for the job at the agreed hourly rate.

Now the Americans are involved this is going to be really expensive...

The French might enjoy a lot of I told you so, but not really compensation for the money they are losing out on.

The French seem to have, in their Gallic way, shrugged their shoulders saying 'c'est la vie'.

They did the same to India with the Rafale, and it meant they bought 36 instead of the original 126...

This whole thing is going to cost a fortune, that I doubt Australia has.

SSKs are defensive and not really suited to attack but would be fine for Australia. SSNs are not cheap or simple and are literally called attack subs for a reason... which means they are a big very very expensive stick to poke the dragon with...

The obvious French revenge, if the have the balls, is to refuse to renew the EU's Russian sanctions this autumn.

Well I am biased, but I actually think that might drive a bigger wedge between the UK and EU and the US and the EU and could possibly push them to be more friendly with Russia, but the EU needs to deal with the new yapping poodles that the US keeps giving treats to when they bark at Russia for no reason at all.

The big boys in the EU need to sit them down and have a good talk to them about the physical realities and the waste and effects of pushing Russia away far outweigh any little cookies the US might bake for the EU.... their shipped gas alternative does not help the EU as much as it helps the US so you know they really don't give a shit about the EU so why listen to them?

With the UK gone , the only powerful anti Russian member is gone from the EU so now it is more possible than before... this might be the biggest cockup Biden has made... and he has made some crackers already...

That Bush meme where he is saying "Miss me yet?" when Trump was elected? Trump could almost do the same if Biden pushes the EU to grow some real man balls and restore relations with Russia...

Would be good for the EU, would be OK for Russia, but personally I would prefer to see them independent of the west because I think the west is a terrible corrupting influence... but they could change... and they will have to to get Russia back... I think Putin has had it with them but will cooperate where Russia benefits.

I read somewhere Australia has difficulties with its current subs and only half are serviceable because they lack crews.

The Collins class were not a shining example of what to do...

I guess it will be worse with SSN which need two or three times more people onboard.

They should just buy 3 french Scorpene and everyone is happy.

When the budget triples and then doubles again and nothing gets into the water for quite a few years I think they might end up considering French again... but just for fun... how about they pick a Chinese made sub produced in record time to their exact specification and under budget.... hahahaha...

That nuclear sub program will be a disaster. Delays and over budget will be worse than for a diesel sub program. Because if they are surprised by french overcost and delays they will have heart attack with the US.

But the media will hide the problems and excessive costs with the American project... it will be like the Indian market where France plays Russia and the US plays France...

Remember if it is American then it is the best in the world so they will need to pay extra... till they get them in the water and find out they are not that great... but by then it will be too late.

60 Bill. for 12 subs. For that money Russia would build you a yard, a factory to produce the steel for the subs and a NPP to power all of it. Even then there would be enough money left to produce 50 subs.

Lots of very accurate observations here

Australia should have just asked for Scorpene boats, they could have asked for addition of VLS segment if it was such a big deal, it was perfectly doable and it would have given them space for extra batteries to get better range and endurance as well (I've been suggesting this for Russian Lada-class too)

If they wanted nuclear French already have Barracudas on offer

Now with the whole AUKUS thing the least disastrous option would be to just ask for regular Astute boats and call it a day, it's in production, it works, it needs smaller crew and it's way cheaper than Virginia

But we all know they will not be doing the smart thing

PapaDragon wrote:
Lots of very accurate observations here

Australia should have just asked for Scorpene boats, they could have asked for addition of VLS segment if it was such a big deal, it was perfectly doable and it would have given them space for extra batteries to get better range and endurance as well (I've been suggesting this for Russian Lada-class too)

If they wanted nuclear French already have Barracudas on offer

Now with the whole AUKUS thing the least disastrous option would be to just ask for regular Astute boats and call it a day, it's in production, it works, it needs smaller crew and it's way cheaper than Virginia

But we all know they will not be doing the smart thing

Astute boats 6 and 7 are currently under construction. Nice little potential export earner with medium term reduction in our Defence budget, win win. Also BAE is starting work on Astute 2 or SSN(R) with eta in 10 years which could probably be brought forward.

Hole wrote:60 Bill. for 12 subs. For that money Russia would build you a yard, a factory to produce the steel for the subs and a NPP to power all of it. Even then there would be enough money left to produce 50 subs.

It was 50 billion $ on 50 years and more than one contract. Not pay in one time for one contract.

But they clearly went over budget with last figure being 90 billion. For 12 boat that's a joke. Even if they were SSN.

Same deal as with India... it doesn't matter what they choose... if they demand to make it for themselves then the price goes up 10 times because they are asking to be taught how to make them... how to become a rival on the international arms market and no body will do that for free or even very cheap....

GarryB wrote:
Well I am biased, but I actually think that might drive a bigger wedge between the UK and EU and the US and the EU and could possibly push them to be more friendly with Russia, but the EU needs to deal with the new yapping poodles that the US keeps giving treats to when they bark at Russia for no reason at all.

That's not going to happen soon, the French political class has only just received the slap to the face, they haven't had time to get over their indignation and process their options yet

And even when they do, they are still too set in their ways. Turning more towards independence and pursuing a multi-vector foreign policy is a generational change, and the French are simply not ready to think in this way.

In 5-10 years, we can consider it, sure.

What the French need to process is the fact that they've been riding the gravy train of world empire for the past 15 years at the very least, which worked well for them, but that world empire is increasingly being challenged by up and comers like China, Russia and the BRICS as a whole. The empire has lost a couple peripheries and it accounts for a lot less of the world economy than 20 years ago. It's being contested in Asia, the Middle East, and even the Balkans.

All this adds up to considerably less gravy to go around between the empire's member states, with the cuts instead being taken by outside powers. In this situation, a gradient of more and less prioritized members begins to take shape.
The Anglos are all safe from sacrifice, America has demonstrated who it trusts the most.
The Turks acted smartly and made themselves indispensable to Washington and Brussels, by controlling the energy routes, by carving their own small sphere of influence out in various neighbouring territories and countries, but also managed to hedge their bets with Russia.
The Baltics/Poland/Romania are all needed as they are crucial to 'containing' Russia (and keeping the Germans on the right side), they know Washington won't abandon them as long as its in rivalry with Russia - which is basically forever, and they can continue to ride the EU's gravy train and subsidies for a long time yet.
Germany forms the economic core of the EU, so it can't be forsaken either

And France is the 5th wheel and it got promptly rolled off and into the spares pile. It has its sphere of influence in West Africa but that doesn't amount to much, and Russia is making inroads there anyway. It's defense industry is a superflous one to NATO like the Swedish one was and is similarly going to find it ever harder to secure orders as the Anglos prioritize them for themselves while the Turks are going to get orders independently by virtue of the leverage they field in the Middle East by now.
Who is France going to sell to? It's best bet is probably a further tilting towards Germany, in fact that's its only option, some joint-projects in defense and so on.

Yet when the French realize the big picture they may conclude that both they and Germany stand to gain a lot more by pursuing closer ties to Russia, and for that matter their own ties with China independent of Washington's wishes. Like I said though, that will yet take a while.

The empire has lost a couple peripheries and it accounts for a lot less of the world economy than 20 years ago. It's being contested in Asia, the Middle East, and even the Balkans.

Yeah, but they are the main reason their colonies remain shitholes with pretty beaches for French people to visit... they could have just as easily helped those countries to become much more successful countries with better quality of life for their people, but they chose to make sure the help remembered they were the help.

All this adds up to considerably less gravy to go around between the empire's member states, with the cuts instead being taken by outside powers. In this situation, a gradient of more and less prioritized members begins to take shape.

The real problem is that China and Russia don't make colonial demands like the european colonials which means the locals can benefit and develop with restriction or limitation that demands they sell out anything of value to the global power that is fleecing them at that particular time while "protecting" them from smaller wolves...

The Baltics/Poland/Romania are all needed as they are crucial to 'containing' Russia (and keeping the Germans on the right side), they know Washington won't abandon them as long as its in rivalry with Russia - which is basically forever, and they can continue to ride the EU's gravy train and subsidies for a long time yet.

But they are taking the risk of being kicked out of the EU if the EU ever gets the balls to realise the nord stream i and ii shit was about the interests of the US and actually goes against the needs and interests of the EU... the EU should not have given US protestations a second thought regarding NSII... the only two victims in that crime was the US not being able to overcharge the EU for energy when they had stocks to supply them and the Ukraine which stole gas from the EU in teh past and created the entire purpose of the NS II pipelines in the first place.... so NSII is a victimless crime really... not even a crime, and investment in infrastructure.... obviously something the US knows nothing about... trillions on wars and not much on infrastructure at home... a good indicator of a failed state in a time of peace where you can pick and choose your wars most normal countries would pick no wars at all.

Yet when the French realize the big picture they may conclude that both they and Germany stand to gain a lot more by pursuing closer ties to Russia, and for that matter their own ties with China independent of Washington's wishes. Like I said though, that will yet take a while.

The ridiculous irony is that the EU including France have taken part in sanctions and abuse by the US directed at Russia and China to stop them growing powerful, yet they can't see that at the same time the artificial hostility it creates between the EU and Russia and the EU and China is about limiting the EUs potential too.

The US is forcing the EU to fight Russia and China... two countries spending enormous amounts of money that Russia can't really afford to waste, and China would not waste if it didn't think it was worth the effort to make trade lines from Asia to the EU quicker and cheaper and safer... but the EU talk about aggression from Russia and China and accuse them of the debt slavery methods they have been applying to the third world for over as long as they had relations with them.

But they will claim to be smart and civilised... maybe they think they are playing both sides...

Morons.

They might never work it out.

White House Press Release: New Australia SSN confirmed to be with HEU.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/press-briefings/2021/09/20/background-press-call-by-a-senior-administration-official-previewing-the-76th-session-of-the-united-nations-general-assembly/

In theory a nuclear weapon could be made with 20% enrichment, but in practice most weapons nowadays have 90% enrichment to lower the weapon's mass.

US, UK used HEU in naval nuclear reactors with 93% enrichment. This meant Australia's new SSN will almost definitely be a life-to-hull design.

Nuclear proliferation. There should be sanctions put in place against all parties involved.

France is acting tough but truth is they neither have any SSN or SSBN to spare that can be leased to a country of their choice. Unlike the French the US Navy has several SSNs at its disposal and at least 2-3 of these subs can easily be leased to Australia ASAP.

60 Bill. for 12 subs. For that money Russia would build you a yard, a factory to produce the steel for the subs and a NPP to power all of it. Even then there would be enough money left to produce 50 subs.

The really amusing thing is that the reason this deal is so damn expensive... apart from being French of course, is that Australia is not asking for an SSK like Scorpiene.... they wanted a Baracuda SSN quality sub in the form of a SSK... and they wanted to build them for themselves... this is like demanding that the US develop a Seawolf class Submarine that is actually an SSK that they can make in Australia... of course it was going to be eye poppingly expensive...

But the irony is that this sub is already being built... very slowly... it is the Lada class SSK that the Russians are very slowly getting right... with SSN level sonars and systems and weapons and SSK propulsion... what the Aussies were wanting was very very difficult and there is no guarantee the French could deliver on such a buy because this was a very demanding challenge.

France is acting tough but truth is they neither have any SSN or SSBN to spare that can be leased to a country of their choice. Unlike the French the US Navy has several SSNs at its disposal and at least 2-3 of these subs can easily be leased to Australia ASAP.

They don't want to buy SSNs off the shelf... they wanted the French and now the British to teach them to build a new SSN in Australia using US propulsion systems...

They don't want to buy SSNs off the shelf... they wanted the French and now the British to teach them to build a new SSN in Australia using US propulsion systems...

IMO it's the US that wanted that. Australia had to buy it. US can't compete with China on numbers so they need Australia to have its own subs to fight in US groups in the pacific. SSK can't do that.

Isos wrote:...IMO it's the US that wanted that. Australia had to buy it. US can't compete with China on numbers so they need Australia to have its own subs to fight in US groups in the pacific. SSK can't do that.

Subs are one Naval thing that USA fully dominates over China, they are not doing this because they are stupid

In sub warfare USA wins on day 1

PapaDragon wrote:

Isos wrote:...IMO it's the US that wanted that. Australia had to buy it. US can't compete with China on numbers so they need Australia to have its own subs to fight in US groups in the pacific. SSK can't do that.

Subs are one Naval thing that USA fully dominates over China, they are not doing this because they are stupid

In sub warfare USA wins on day 1

Today yes but what about tomorrow ?

Xi said Taiwan will be Chinese before 2050 so a war may start in 20 years. And in 20 years china will be using tens of modern subs.

They have achieved the upgrade of their surface fleet at least when it comes to numbers. Now they are exclusively building big ships and are almost done.

Then those shipyards will start building SSN in huge numbers. And most will have 1000-2000km range missiles.

US will have far less hardware and most can be destroyed at port with BM or cruise missile. A modern Pearl harbur will be devastating for them. I guess they are aware of that.

In peace time they clearly don't have enough ships and subs. Obama tried to send 70% of its navy in the Pacific by paceafing its relations with Russia which he failed. Trump succeeded a little but Biden refailed miserably. So they have a huge Russia that is modernizing its fleet with state of art stuff and China that has more ships than Nato combined. And in the same time they have NATO looser armies as allies.

That's why they need Australia to get their SSN and patrol for them in the pacific. Australia doesn't need them, they are 100% dependant on China.

I guess they are fucked.

The US wants nuclear powered subs based in Australia because it is a useful place to base their own nuclear subs in theatre that is not in Hawaii... they want any future Pearl Harbour attack to happen to Australia rather than the US... but of course in US terminology that would be pre-emptive self defence and perfectly legitimate these days or a day that will live in infamy.... depending on who did it.

Australia already use Blackhawk helicopters and Abrams tanks and Hornets... not because these platforms suit Australia, but because that is what they have been sold.

In sub warfare USA wins on day 1

But the Australians buying SSNs and working with the US and UK and there will be pressure by the US on India to boost its military spending and to spend more on its navy... likely a few old ships the Americans have that they want to offload to India for top dollar to pay for new ships for the US Navy....

Which is going to drive the Chinese to a much more serious anti sub focus... the Chinese have home advantage because these conflicts are not going to take place in US or Australian or Indian waters, but around Taiwan and the South China Seas, so the potential for sonar sea bed arrays will be interesting as well of course as underwater drones... the best way to kill an enemy sub is to detect it at long distance and fire ballistic rockets with torpedos attached like the Russian Ovtet, or older SS-N-15 and SS-N-16 torpedo launched missiles or the current Ovtet that can be loaded and fired from UKSK launch tubes...

Precision cutting machines and high speed computers should have reduce the noise their subs make and increased computer processing power is key to anti sub warfare... give them a few years...

The cost of the new subs and the cost of trade links lost with China will probably lead to a rethink by the next government... nothing has been built yet.

Oh dear

France Removes Australia From List of Strategic Partners Over AUKUS Betrayal

https://sputniknews.com/20220222/france-removes-australia-from-list-of-strategic-partners-over-aukus-betrayal-1093273906.html

Haha... so they no longer trust the Aussies, but it is business as usual with UK and US.... they make it hard to feel sorry for them sometimes.

d_taddei2 wrote:Oh dear  

France Removes Australia From List of Strategic Partners Over AUKUS Betrayal

https://sputniknews.com/20220222/france-removes-australia-from-list-of-strategic-partners-over-aukus-betrayal-1093273906.html

This is karma for the Mistral bullshit, **** those French-tickling f*ggots!

Not just British and American pilots, even French Navy pilots are training Chinese fighter pilots.

Question is training the Chinese to fight against whom - Taiwan? India? Japan? or maybe even Russia?