It amuses me to no end how people are so focussed on the submarine aspects and the French reaction. Talk about a well crafted smokescreen. There is much much more to this Treaty than just some subs. This is why it had to be done in secret.
Unless Turkey, and or Russia have found the magic money tree, its not going to happen. AUKUS countries can clearly afford a lot of new nuclear boats.On a somewhat tangential topic, while people tie themselves in knots over this and there is negative comments about what the Australia, UK & USA have done and the supposed slight to France, what about this:
Erdogan says Turkey is looking at further defence steps with Russia
Turkey is considering more joint defence industry steps with Russia including for fighter jets and submarines, President Tayyip Erdogan said after talks with President Vladimir Putin, despite a U.S. warning of further sanctions.www.reuters.com
It even includes talk of joint production of submarines!
Thank about that: a NATO member talking with Russia about joint Fighter and Submarine cooperation...
A future Labour government in Canberra might well have different views on AUKUS
Yes but there’s no getting away with the fact that Morrison badly bungled the handling of this with an ally.However tactless or insensitive the Australian government may have been in handling this issue the facts remain:
China is building a large naval and air presence with a proven track record of using it to bully regional powers.
The SSN is the most effective counter to such activity. The US and UK have a much deeper capability in this area than France.
The European countries have displayed little appetite for spending money or people to defend countries outside their geographical area. The US remains the only power able to counter Chinese military ambitions.
Australia cautioned the French contractor – hours before the $90bn submarine deal was cancelled – that its achievement of a key contractual milestone did “not provide any authorisation to continue work”.
The letter, sent to Naval Group on 15 September, is at the heart of an extraordinary diplomatic rift between France and Australia, with the French foreign minister telling a parliamentary hearing this week that “someone lied”.
The Guardian can now publish the full letter, having obtained it under Australia’s freedom of information (FOI) laws. The defence department released the requested document to the Guardian on Saturday morning, several hours after the Australian newspaper published an article quoting portions of the letter.
As most are...The only explanation I have is that their foreign policy is really designed for domestic consumption.
And some orders from Australia I think. As mentioned earlier, some more KC30 tankers would do nicely. The A400M option pops up every once in a while though I am hearing more C-130Js are being considered.France I'm sure will get some apologies and some new toys from Uncle Sam.
Also, the RAN is definitely going to need more surface combatants, preferably nuclear powered.
That will not be happening and certainly not nuclear powered. If anything they might consider a 4th Hobart Class AWD but even that would be unlikely given ASC will be presumably moving attention to SSNs.A proper area air defence cruiser class for one thing.
Also, the RAN is definitely going to need more surface combatants, preferably nuclear powered.
Long term, Australia will probably benefit from it.
As for Turnbull... if he is the PM who negotiated the Barracuda deals back in 2014-2016; and if he is from the political opposition to Morrison (excuse my absolute ignorance of Australian politics)
- then no surprise he feels angered by the deal going into the wall the way it did. It is a bit of his legacy that is going down the drain now.
I would be cautious about Turnbull feelings if only because of the two points above. He was the deal maker back then, and he lost to Morrison: two good reasons to be a little angry.
Yeah, that's not going to happen. Australia doesn't have the industry or technical background necessary to support a nuclear surface fleet.Also, the RAN is definitely going to need more surface combatants, preferably nuclear powered.
Also, the RAN is definitely going to need more surface combatants, preferably nuclear powered.
Nor Nuke submarines........Yeah, that's not going to happen. Australia doesn't have the industry or technical background necessary to support a nuclear surface fleet.Also, the RAN is definitely going to need more surface combatants, preferably nuclear powered.
Nor Nuke submarines........Yeah, that's not going to happen. Australia doesn't have the industry or technical background necessary to support a nuclear surface fleet.Also, the RAN is definitely going to need more surface combatants, preferably nuclear powered.
I believe it took two to tango as far as the Barracuda deal went.
No this is a political biased opinion. Not facts but warping of facts to suit a certain political position.Trashing relations with trading partners, penalizing Australian producers and traders while demonstrating that any agreement that is actually made with the Australian govt may not be worth the paper it's written on, discarding Australian sovereignty and agency simply in order to become a forward operating base for the US military in the Pacific will benefit Australia how exactly?
Unless Turkey, and or Russia have found the magic money tree, its not going to happen. AUKUS countries can clearly afford a lot of new nuclear boats.On a somewhat tangential topic, while people tie themselves in knots over this and there is negative comments about what the Australia, UK & USA have done and the supposed slight to France, what about this:
Erdogan says Turkey is looking at further defence steps with Russia
Turkey is considering more joint defence industry steps with Russia including for fighter jets and submarines, President Tayyip Erdogan said after talks with President Vladimir Putin, despite a U.S. warning of further sanctions.www.reuters.com
It even includes talk of joint production of submarines!
Thank about that: a NATO member talking with Russia about joint Fighter and Submarine cooperation...
The published letter pretty much blows the French Foreign Minister, Le Drian's, 'they lied' claim straight out of the water.
It's not a good look at all for him. It's now clear either he lied...or he didn't comprehend the letters very clear meaning. The letter is very clear about its intent and explicitly tells Naval Group that it is not in any way to be taken as approval to proceed any further.
In the FOI request, the Guardian also sought the exact time the letter was sent to Naval Group. Internal defence records indicate the document was created on 15 September at 12.05pm, Canberra time, and modified at 4.34pm, Canberra time, (8.34am, Paris time).
The Australian prime minister, Scott Morrison, has said he informed the French president, Emmanuel Macron, of the decision to terminate the contract a few hours later – about 8.35pm Canberra time (12.35pm, Paris time).
Technically it would once SSNs start being operated though I still doubt any nuclear powered surface combatants will be ever acquired.Australia doesn't have the industry or technical background necessary to support a nuclear surface fleet.
Trashing relations with trading partners,
penalizing Australian producers and traders
while demonstrating that any agreement that is actually made with the Australian govt may not be worth the paper it's written on,
discarding Australian sovereignty and agency simply in order to become a forward operating base for the US military in the Pacific will benefit Australia how exactly?
The Australian Government and ADF don't seem to think it is of no benefit and from the bits of information that have come out it seems that the Australians were the ones who initiated discussions in the first place so I challenge your "no benefit" claim. You are also grossly over-simplifying things with your comments here and also seem to forget that the UK is part of this.This is the point, AUKUS is of nearly no benefit to Australia at all except in the logistics support jobs that the pact will produce supplying US troops and strategic assets on it's soil. All the benefits flow to the US. Nuclear powered submarines nothing but a smoke screen.
It would be interesting to see how things might have gone down if France didn't have domestic political considerations, including a Presidential election, to factor in here...That Australia poisoned its relationship with France
It would be interesting to see how things might have gone down if France didn't have domestic political considerations, including a Presidential election, to factor in here...That Australia poisoned its relationship with France