News AUKUS - new Australia/UK/US alliance

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Commodus

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2004
9,206
6,799
136
You mean an alliance with "that guy down under"


Senility in action.

You still support a pathological narcissist who makes Biden look like... well, a "stable genius." You're not in a position to argue anything.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
45,893
32,684
136
I think this agreement is a good idea for the US. It's not the money. It's that we need to check Chinese force projection into the South China Sea, and Australia can't do that with diesel powered subs.

I get that France is pissed over losing the money, but they'll get over it. Our and France's strategic interests are better served by this.

The press is quite strangely painting the friction with the French as a defeat for Biden when this outcome is certainly preferable to him and basically the entire country.
 

[DHT]Osiris

Lifer
Dec 15, 2015
14,004
12,070
146
The press is quite strangely painting the friction with the French as a defeat for Biden when this outcome is certainly preferable to him and basically the entire country.
Not to mention the environment. Nuclear subs is ironically one of greenest decisions AU has made in a hot minute.
 

Ajay

Lifer
Jan 8, 2001
15,332
7,792
136
I very much doubt they will be American Subs. the American SSN's , seawolf , Virginia , LA class are all way to big with way to large a crew requirement. Far more likely to be a Astute Class Hull/ drive train / reactor with mostly American weapons, fire control and sensors. would lose the VLS tubes but that seems a reasonable compromise.

Also expect the Large amount of the subs construction to be done in OZ. American sub yards are full , UK's isn't as they are coming to the end of build for Astute, So there is an ideal opportunity to build the first hull in the UK while skilling up AUS engineers while at the same time building out the naval base assets needed to support SSN's at Australia's two main fleet bases. On top of that it would bridge a large amount of the time gap between the last astute and the next gen gen of UK SSN being built, not losing skills and workforce is very important.

If this really is a Force projection to the China Sea. US/AUS probably want to be able to station subs in Darwin as well.

In tems of the now cancelled "Attack" class sub, so far its been 5 years and 2 billion dollars and not much to show for it. in all honesty the wrong bid one that tender , mostly because the Japanese completely fucked it up.

This video here does a great job of summing up ( over a year ago) what a basket case the Attack class project was.
Great write up. I was baffled when the news insinuated that we’d be selling US subs to the to the Aussies.


On a side note: Too many people don’t understand that the US, as a global power, must pivot to Asia - it’s already the region with largest population and will be the the most economically influential region in the world. It’s not all about China. But, if we need to demonize China, to have at least one hand on the wheel in indo-asian region, we will. Europe is not enjoying the transition (and the former administration effed up by running wildly roughshod over our friends didn’t help).
 

Meghan54

Lifer
Oct 18, 2009
11,504
5,027
136
Correction, the Yugo dealership mad a company cancelled and bought Tesla's instead.

Small diesel subs? WWII tech? Get the F out of here France with that bullshit. Aussie Navy doesn't want to get killed.

Develop better subs, and actually deliver them on time, if you want to play in the market.

In complete truth, diesel electric subs, which were what France was going to supply, can be damned near invisible while submerged and on battery power, from what I’ve gleaned in reading.

Of course, the downside is battery life and the need to run on the diesel to recharge the batteries, which of course limits the sub’s effectiveness.

Honestly, I’d think Aus would want a few diesel electric subs to patrol the immediate coast while a few nuclear powered subs are used for long range whatever.
 

Ajay

Lifer
Jan 8, 2001
15,332
7,792
136
In complete truth, diesel electric subs, which were what France was going to supply, can be damned near invisible while submerged and on battery power, from what I’ve gleaned in reading.

Of course, the downside is battery life and the need to run on the diesel to recharge the batteries, which of course limits the sub’s effectiveness.

Honestly, I’d think Aus would want a few diesel electric subs to patrol the immediate coast while a few nuclear powered subs are used for long range whatever.
Diesel electric subs are better for defense (they can be made quieter). But, but nuclear powered subs are better for power projection. Nuclear subs real limit is food supply, not diesel reserves.
 

Meghan54

Lifer
Oct 18, 2009
11,504
5,027
136
Diesel electric subs are better for defense (they can be made quieter). But, but nuclear powered subs are better for power projection. Nuclear subs real limit is food supply, not diesel reserves.

Nice restatement of my last paragraph. 👍
 

NTMBK

Lifer
Nov 14, 2011
10,208
4,940
136
Honestly, I’d think Aus would want a few diesel electric subs to patrol the immediate coast while a few nuclear powered subs are used for long range whatever.

A mixed fleet would probably just make maintenance and supplies more complicated.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ajay

Bitek

Lifer
Aug 2, 2001
10,647
5,220
136
In complete truth, diesel electric subs, which were what France was going to supply, can be damned near invisible while submerged and on battery power, from what I’ve gleaned in reading.

Of course, the downside is battery life and the need to run on the diesel to recharge the batteries, which of course limits the sub’s effectiveness.

Honestly, I’d think Aus would want a few diesel electric subs to patrol the immediate coast while a few nuclear powered subs are used for long range whatever.

I actually watched the 1+hr video linked earlier by @itsmydamnation and it was informative (had to watch on 2x speed, and skip fwd when he was just reading slides, ...).

The Japanese subs with the fuel cell tech sounded pretty cool actually. High capacity and high output so that sub is comparable to a nuclear sub in speed even on battery.

They totally bungled the politics tho. France played the tech and the politics well and won, but fumbled the ball on execution.

What wasn't discussed is why the US wasn't in the initial bidding process. Maybe too expensive and our tech not fit for purpose?

Sounds like we came out of nowhere once France won and Aus offended the other bidders. Maybe frustrated and nowhere else to go?
 
Last edited:

NTMBK

Lifer
Nov 14, 2011
10,208
4,940
136
So that's why we and every other major power has a mixed fleet?

I'm British :) We have a solely nuclear fleet.

The US has an order of magnitude more money to spend than Australia. The UK is a better comparison. We sold off our diesel subs and focused exclusively on nuclear.
 

Ajay

Lifer
Jan 8, 2001
15,332
7,792
136
So that's why we and every other major power has a mixed fleet?
@NTMBK made the point I forgot to. Australia is too small of a nation to support a mixed sub fleet - so it's one or the other. Given the new AUKUS focus on power projection, there was only one option. It all played well together, the forming of a new alliance and a rethinking of the sub project.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
45,893
32,684
136
Henry Olsen, conservative columnist, who has had nary a kind work to say of Biden, calls this agreement a "masterstroke."


The media is framing this development at a loss for Biden on re-engagement with allies and not as a win for Biden on something that even his critics applaud. They are so eager to write "Biden stumbles" stories that they've lost the plot.
 
Dec 10, 2005
23,987
6,788
136
The media is framing this development at a loss for Biden on re-engagement with allies and not as a win for Biden on something that even his critics applaud. They are so eager to write "Biden stumbles" stories that they've lost the plot.
Media wants to both sides stuff to give the appearance of being impartial, because Trump's and the GOP's actions are supposed to be equivalent to Biden's and the Democratic Party's actions. Instead, it just shows that they have severe worms and their framing only serves to normalize the insanely abnormal behavior of Republicans.
 
  • Like
Reactions: K1052

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
The media is framing this development at a loss for Biden on re-engagement with allies and not as a win for Biden on something that even his critics applaud. They are so eager to write "Biden stumbles" stories that they've lost the plot.

It's highly amusing that they're going to bat for the "cheese eating surrender monkeys", anyway.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Saylick

Meghan54

Lifer
Oct 18, 2009
11,504
5,027
136
I'm British :) We have a solely nuclear fleet.

The US has an order of magnitude more money to spend than Australia. The UK is a better comparison. We sold off our diesel subs and focused exclusively on nuclear.

I do believe that is incorrect. The Royal Navy’s Queen Elizabeth class of aircraft carriers are NOT nuclear powered, for instance.


And there are a “few” other Royal Navy surface ships that are non-nuclear powered, just like the U.S’s surface fleet—of which 83 are nuclear powered . The RN’s
subs, like ours, are all nucs.
 

MrSquished

Lifer
Jan 14, 2013
21,004
19,443
136
The media is framing this development at a loss for Biden on re-engagement with allies and not as a win for Biden on something that even his critics applaud. They are so eager to write "Biden stumbles" stories that they've lost the plot.

It's like as if Australia is not a fucking ally. Wait. Are they actually commies?
 

NTMBK

Lifer
Nov 14, 2011
10,208
4,940
136
I do believe that is incorrect. The Royal Navy’s Queen Elizabeth class of aircraft carriers are NOT nuclear powered, for instance.


And there are a “few” other Royal Navy surface ships that are non-nuclear powered, just like the U.S’s surface fleet—of which 83 are nuclear powered . The RN’s
subs, like ours, are all nucs.

Oh sure, I was referring to only the sub fleet.
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
26,968
35,584
136
Not a fan of the timing (Australia getting real subs is long overdue) but glad to see the change in direction away from the diesel/electric boats even if it pisses off a great ally. Australia cannot turn it's back on the differences in capability, though I hope the differences in cost and time getting fins wet/crews trained will be minimized. I don't believe France was ready to discuss nuclear power plant tech transfer, while we were willing to repeat what we did for the Brits in the last Cold War. Countering the toxic, aggressive expansion of the CCP and their goal of undermining international law is more important than French feels. Sorry Paris. You guys aren't broke and there will be other contracts for expensive military items. C'est la vie.

Important to note that France still benefits from Aussie "Virginias" (Ipswitch class?) helping keep the peace.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: cytg111