Thoughts on Australia as a nuclear power?

Remove this Banner Ad

Sttew

Brownlow Medallist
Oct 28, 2006
22,578
21,308
Who's asking?
AFL Club
Geelong
Why was that not an "option available with the French"?

Sounds like you made that up
Just quoting what was said in the Guardian article I linked earlier:

"Pyne wrote that the lack of a civil nuclear industry was an “insurmountable hurdle” when Australia chose the French option in 2015-16, but access to the US technology removed that hurdle.

Brent Clark, the chief executive of the Australian Industry and Defence Network (AIDN) said it would be “common practice” for the United States or the United Kingdom to build and maintain the nuclear part of the submarine, leaving Australia with all the non-nuclear work."

My take from the above is that it wasn't an option with the French
 

Ned_Flanders

Premium Platinum
Aug 22, 2009
70,706
129,488
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
76'ers
It's difficult to fathom why we went with the French deal. It sounds like there were reservations from the outset:

"The contract with France was written with several built-in escape clauses. Although the details remain secret, the Australian National Audit Office said the agreement “contains rights, remedies and incentives, including protections, ‘control gates’ in the form of mandated system reviews based on defined exit and entry criteria, and establishes contractual off-ramps”.

The ABC reported in 2019 that the confidential overarching contract – the strategic partnering agreement – would see Australia pay about $400m if it pulled out after the design was completed but before a submarine was completed."

The Japanese boat was going to be mostly made in Japan and has less flexibility to be customised the way we wanted.

Forget the issues with the german
 

Log in to remove this ad.

QuietB

Brownlow Medallist
May 13, 2008
29,313
41,214
Melbourne
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Just quoting what was said in the Guardian article I linked earlier:

"Pyne wrote that the lack of a civil nuclear industry was an “insurmountable hurdle” when Australia chose the French option in 2015-16, but access to the US technology removed that hurdle.

Brent Clark, the chief executive of the Australian Industry and Defence Network (AIDN) said it would be “common practice” for the United States or the United Kingdom to build and maintain the nuclear part of the submarine, leaving Australia with all the non-nuclear work."

My take from the above is that it wasn't an option with the French
Oh, I see, a Liberal "said" :rolleyes:

ffs - you guys are the easiest people in the world to fool.
 

Power Raid

TheBrownDog
Oct 15, 2004
72,896
63,430
West Perth
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
If they're that useless, wtf did we sign a contract to build them in the first place?
You're right there is more than one party guilty here. The dope that bought the subs, the dope that presented a sub that didn't work and all those smart advisors that claimed a solution could be found.

Rewind............we ask the world to tender for a conventional sub with the leading candidates germany, japan and france. We chose the french nuclear sub and we were sued by germany and japan claiming, if we wanted to nuclear sub why not ask for one.

Issue 1 why did we choose a nuclear sub if we wanted a conventional one. Politics requires the thin edge of the wedge and you waste money on a conventional lemon sub, then claim its all to hard but we tried and now we are going nuclear. The french were perfect partners on this as they are leaders in nuclear power.

I can confirm of the 12 subs the first three were going to be conventional, the last 3 nuclear and the 6 in between a question mark.

Issue 2 although there was no propulsion system Australia and France thought for $10B they could invent a new system. We have gone 150 years with the combustion engine and Australia, a non-engineering nation, was going to revolutionise power generation...........it was never going to happen.

This was a huge issue as the lie about conventional vs nuclear was exposed immediately. As the subs had to be reduced in size by 60%, go nuclear now or buy tugs to tow the sub.

Issue 3 submarine warfare has changed dramatically since the french program began. The major changes are drones, AI and laser.........non of which the french design could achieve.

So we had to scrap the french design.

Issue 4 who do you partner with on nuclear technology? do you continue with the french but tell them to design a modern sub, capable of laser, AI and drone given their defence capabilities does not have this technology?

Issue 5 do you continue with french nuclear given the french is partners with the Chinese and the Chinese their biggest customers?

Issue 6 the french can't lend us 4 nuclear submarines as an interim solution for experience and licensing or interim defence capabilities
 

Sttew

Brownlow Medallist
Oct 28, 2006
22,578
21,308
Who's asking?
AFL Club
Geelong
Oh, I see, a Liberal "said" :rolleyes:

ffs - you guys are the easiest people in the world to fool.
Not just a liberal but the ******* minister responsible for the program. Who do you want me to quote? Brent Clark? Oh wait, I did quote the Chief Executive Officer at Australian Industry & Defence Network (AIDN National)

And what beef do you have with Brent Clark?
 

Festerz

Club Legend
May 20, 2019
1,318
4,851
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Details of why the UK and US were so eager to share their nuclear secrets with Australia for boats that will not be sea ready for at least 20+ years, in response to a very rapidly emerging confrontation with China are starting to emerge:


"Britain’s nuclear-powered submarines are to use Australia as a base so that they can have a more permanent presence in the Indo-Pacific region under plans discussed by ministers,"


 

Festerz

Club Legend
May 20, 2019
1,318
4,851
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
However, the UK/USA alliance means the nuclear work is all carried out in the United States or the United Kingdom, and the rest can be done here. That was not an option available with the French.
Why was that option not available with the French, considering the French modified an existing nuclear powered submarine for Australian project?

The French submarine fleet is all nuclear, just like the US and the UK.

This commentary from the Asia-Pacific Defence Reporter highlights one of a number of huge holes in the logic of the PMs public announcement pretty well I think:

"If the government is actually serious about having nuclear powered submarines, why not have structured a FAUSUK treaty – France, Australia, US and UK – that could have produced a nuclear powered Attack class and taken advantage of all the work done for the last five years rather than throwing everything in the rubbish bin? In one of many ironies, the parent Barracuda class is indeed a nuclear-powered attack submarine – and an extremely good one of that, being more stealthy than counterparts from the US and UK. Redesigning it as a conventionally powered boat was always problematic, to put it mildly.

The Attack class were already a hybrid US-French product with the combat system to be supplied by Lockheed Martin. At its heart is the AN-BYG1 tactical data handling system that equips Virginia class attack submarines – and a great deal of work has already taken place Australianising that system, which is already also in the Collins class. Why not extend this principle of cooperation to the submarine’s power source and replace a French nuclear reactor in the Barracuda/Attack class with one from the US or the UK?"
 
Last edited:

Power Raid

TheBrownDog
Oct 15, 2004
72,896
63,430
West Perth
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Just quoting what was said in the Guardian article I linked earlier:

"Pyne wrote that the lack of a civil nuclear industry was an “insurmountable hurdle” when Australia chose the French option in 2015-16, but access to the US technology removed that hurdle.

Brent Clark, the chief executive of the Australian Industry and Defence Network (AIDN) said it would be “common practice” for the United States or the United Kingdom to build and maintain the nuclear part of the submarine, leaving Australia with all the non-nuclear work."

My take from the above is that it wasn't an option with the French
it is also worthwhile noting Australians developed the most advanced nuclear technology to date and likely reactor for the new subs, place have the fuel fabrication, plus developed the enrichment process that is the only process on the planet that can deliver the feed (other than downgrading nuclear weapons)

So this idea that Australia is the hanger on in this deal, is wrong
 

Gough

Moderator
Sep 29, 2006
56,903
101,435
AFL Club
Hawthorn
It's a back door route for the numbnuts on the back bench and the the mining companies with their hands up their arses to agitate for nuclear power in Australia. Nothing surer.
 

Power Raid

TheBrownDog
Oct 15, 2004
72,896
63,430
West Perth
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
It had no propulsion system because Australia insisted it could not be nuclear.

Stop speaking sh*t.
correct nut if you win a tender to build a boat, you have to deliver. If you can't deliver the contract is ripped up. Or do you think we should give them $90B for not being able to deliver what they said they could?

please wipe your lip. You've got a brown mark.
 

Power Raid

TheBrownDog
Oct 15, 2004
72,896
63,430
West Perth
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
But that is what the Aus specs called for, so the French tendered on that basis
there are two parts of quality being:
1) design
2) conformance to design

if the design doesn't work as represented, then it fails at step 1)


please confirm we should give the french $90b for tendering a sub that can't be built and operate to spec?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Power Raid

TheBrownDog
Oct 15, 2004
72,896
63,430
West Perth
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
I would advocate if we are going to terminate a contract we dont do it via the media

I would advocate giving the party a chance to rebid based upon nuclear technology

I would NOT explicitly exclude them from the defence coordination part of the agreement, esp when they have more troops and vessels in the pacific than the British do
if you win a tender based on a spec you deliver or the contract is ripped up

the termination is not done through the media rather a contractual and dispute resolution process

you do not change scope and request a nuclear reactor when the fundamental issues extend beyond propulsion but the inability to have AI, drones and laser. Are you really advocating increasing costs from $90B and limiting yourself to 1980s warfare and denying the opportunity for modern warfare systems?
 

QuietB

Brownlow Medallist
May 13, 2008
29,313
41,214
Melbourne
AFL Club
Hawthorn
correct nut if you win a tender to build a boat, you have to deliver. If you can't deliver the contract is ripped up. Or do you think we should give them $90B for not being able to deliver what they said they could?

please wipe your lip. You've got a brown mark.
The USA will not have to deal with such petty concerns, there is no contract.

Your last comment is more than a little ironic as you sit in your basement doing Morrison's bidding for him.

This entire screw up is ALL by the current government. They tendered the project, selected the successful tender, signed a contact, broke the contract, decided to go with someone else without even having a contract, and in the process pissed off more than a few international partners.

It is farcical and beyond incompetence.

And here you are defending it asking others to "please wipe your lip".

Your lack of self awareness is staggering.
 

Ned_Flanders

Premium Platinum
Aug 22, 2009
70,706
129,488
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
76'ers
if you win a tender based on a spec you deliver or the contract is ripped up

the termination is not done through the media rather a contractual and dispute resolution process

you do not change scope and request a nuclear reactor when the fundamental issues extend beyond propulsion but the inability to have AI, drones and laser. Are you really advocating increasing costs from $90B and limiting yourself to 1980s warfare and denying the opportunity for modern warfare systems?
the french learned about this via the media. scomo admitted as such, with us "trying" to call Macron once word leaked

you thinking this is a good way to do business is laughable
 

Gough

Moderator
Sep 29, 2006
56,903
101,435
AFL Club
Hawthorn
USA media is already talking about how this will see australia adopt nuclear power
What's a more fundamental, more dangerous shift in Australian policy, marriage equality or nuclear power? Strikes me that an expensive non binding plebiscite might have been called for before we took this step
 

Sttew

Brownlow Medallist
Oct 28, 2006
22,578
21,308
Who's asking?
AFL Club
Geelong
the french learned about this via the media. scomo admitted as such, with us "trying" to call Macron once word leaked

you thinking this is a good way to do business is laughable
But the French had known for months that something was brewing, so to feign being blindsided is a bit rich

I don't profess to know a fraction of the the intricacies of what went down, but it baffles me that so many left leaning posters on this Board are suddenly experts on Foreign Affairs, complicated trade deals and contract law
 

Ned_Flanders

Premium Platinum
Aug 22, 2009
70,706
129,488
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
76'ers
But the French had known for months that something was brewing, so to feign being blindsided is a bit rich

I don't profess to know a fraction of the the intricacies of what went down, but it baffles me that so many left leaning posters on this Board are suddenly experts on Foreign Affairs, complicated trade deals and contract law
its about respect - you dont do sh*t like this over the TV

even the USA are saying it was our job to brief the french beforehand

there is a way to do these kind of things, this isnt it
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad