Thoughts on Australia as a nuclear power?

[Geelong_Sicko]

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.

Nuclear power subservient to foreign interests, that is. If it was our own tech for our own people I'd be all for it but it won't be. This deal will further put us under foreign policy thumbs of foreign nations.

We truly are a spineless, lapdog chihuahua nation. Governmentaly speaking of course.

 

[Sttew]

was listening to a radio stream. and nothing definitive, just their industry being very excited that the traditional AU ban on everything nuke is broken, so they are expecting GE, Westinghouse, and co to start lobbying hard

So it’s a vibe?

 

[Ned_Flanders]

So it’s a vibe?

I'd call it more an educated guess. one of my former gigs was working in a regulatory environment, and you have to move before the regulators make a decision. In this case, if a GE can basically advise the govt on how to open up and rules to have in place, they optimise their chance of winning any tender to build. Waiting until the official announcement means you're at the complete mercy of whatever criteria they come up with.

Also nuclear power is the way the Libs can end the climate change attacks on them, solve the coal power station shutdown issue, and keep their stakeholders happy. Only an idiot wouldnt be on to the phone already

 

[Nuggs Bunny]

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

I don't think anybody on this board is privvy to the sort of information required to make that assessment. There are many possible reasons why we formally ended the contract with Naval Group after the the announcement of an unprecedented technology sharing alliance, there's also countless opportunities in the last 24 months that Australia could have (and likely did) express our deep dissatisfaction with how the project was progressing and how any of our feedback was received and what, if any, attempts at placating us is also totally unknown and may forever be. The French response is not to be unexpected because ripping up contracts and walking away can never be portrayed outwardly as a mutually acceptable scenario between any two parties in anything ever, that's the whole point of crystallising an agreement with a written contract.

At simple face value, the deal between Australia and France for these submarines was complete s**t with an unfair amount of risk apportioned to our side of the deal, it would have been an absolute miracle if we made it through the next 18 years without having a major dispute over the terms of the contract and we very likely lost nothing by walking away from it when we did. The counter argument is that we shouldn't have signed up to the deal in the first place; this is true but at the time our only other choices were between buying a submarine that was not what we needed or not buying submarines at all. We're not a littoral nation, the way we envisioned our submarines operating should have ruled out diesel electric submarines at the beginning and we could have gone down this path 8 years ago. How and why we ended up here or what changes of heart have led us to this point is anyone's guess, but I am certain that if nuclear was indeed a viable option in 2013 we would have gone with it then before we started this crazy s**t.

Keen to see what specifically we'll get out of this but beating what value for money and time we would have gotten from the Attack-class program is to clear an exceedingly low bar.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

I don't think anybody on this board is privvy to the sort of information required to make that assessment. There are many possible reasons why we formally ended the contract with Naval Group after the the announcement of an unprecedented technology sharing alliance, there's also countless opportunities in the last 24 months that Australia could have (and likely did) express our deep dissatisfaction with how the project was progressing and how any of our feedback was received and what, if any, attempts at placating us is also totally unknown and may forever be. The French response is not to be unexpected because ripping up contracts and walking away can never be portrayed outwardly as a mutually acceptable scenario between any two parties in anything ever, that's the whole point of crystallising an agreement with a written contract.

At simple face value, the deal between Australia and France for these submarines was complete sh*t with an unfair amount of risk apportioned to our side of the deal, it would have been an absolute miracle if we made it through the next 18 years without having a major dispute over the terms of the contract and we very likely lost nothing by walking away from it when we did. The counter argument is that we shouldn't have signed up to the deal in the first place; this is true but at the time our only other choices were between buying a submarine that was not what we needed or not buying submarines at all. We're not a littoral nation, the way we envisioned our submarines operating should have ruled out diesel electric submarines at the beginning and we could have gone down this path 8 years ago. How and why we ended up here or what changes of heart have led us to this point is anyone's guess, but I am certain that if nuclear was indeed a viable option in 2013 we would have gone with it then before we started this crazy sh*t.

Keen to see what specifically we'll get out of this but beating what value for money and time we would have gotten from the Attack-class program is to clear an exceedingly low bar.

where have i said they shouldnt have terminated the contract? link please

my objection is the french found out via the media, and scomo only tried to call Macron once the report hit the news

we should have shown the respect to call them before letting it go public

 

[Nuggs Bunny]

where have i said they shouldnt have terminated the contract? link please

my objection is the french found out via the media, and scomo only tried to call Macron once the report hit the news

we should have shown the respect to call them before letting it go public

Where did I say you did say that? I'm just typing my thoughts out Ned, give a man some space

But still, what we said to the French about the status of this project before we announced this deal is anybody's guess, I don't think you will get a straight answer of how this transpired from any of the parties involved. I find it incredibly hard to believe the French were totally blindsided in this or that the Australian side of the project just stopped answering the phones in the last 18 months. Some of the commentary suggest this deal was dead in the water for over a year.

 

[QuietB]

I don't think anybody on this board is privvy to the sort of information required to make that assessment. There are many possible reasons why we formally ended the contract with Naval Group after the the announcement of an unprecedented technology sharing alliance, there's also countless opportunities in the last 24 months that Australia could have (and likely did) express our deep dissatisfaction with how the project was progressing and how any of our feedback was received and what, if any, attempts at placating us is also totally unknown and may forever be. The French response is not to be unexpected because ripping up contracts and walking away can never be portrayed outwardly as a mutually acceptable scenario between any two parties in anything ever, that's the whole point of crystallising an agreement with a written contract.

At simple face value, the deal between Australia and France for these submarines was complete sh*t with an unfair amount of risk apportioned to our side of the deal, it would have been an absolute miracle if we made it through the next 18 years without having a major dispute over the terms of the contract and we very likely lost nothing by walking away from it when we did. The counter argument is that we shouldn't have signed up to the deal in the first place; this is true but at the time our only other choices were between buying a submarine that was not what we needed or not buying submarines at all. We're not a littoral nation, the way we envisioned our submarines operating should have ruled out diesel electric submarines at the beginning and we could have gone down this path 8 years ago. How and why we ended up here or what changes of heart have led us to this point is anyone's guess, but I am certain that if nuclear was indeed a viable option in 2013 we would have gone with it then before we started this crazy sh*t.

Keen to see what specifically we'll get out of this but beating what value for money and time we would have gotten from the Attack-class program is to clear an exceedingly low bar.

where have i said they shouldnt have terminated the contract? link please

my objection is the french found out via the media, and scomo only tried to call Macron once the report hit the news

we should have shown the respect to call them before letting it go public

It does not really matter what your position is on this matter,

1. If you agree with breaking the contract, that is a Liberal Government screw up. They negotiated and signed the contract which they have subsequently breached.
2. If you disagree - that is a Liberal Government screw up as well.
3. If you think they have handled the diplomacy poorly - that is also a Liberal Government screw up
4. If you think it should have been nuclear subs from the start - that is a Liberal Government screw up
5. If you think conventional propulsion was never going to work in the French subs - that is a Liberal Government screw up
6. If you think they have pissed away $4 billion plus dollars - that is a Liberal Government screw up
7. If you are not happy that we do not even have a contract for new subs and have no idea how much they are going to cost - that is also a Liberal Government screw up

No matter what your position, it is because of a Liberal government screw up, and most of it is Morrison screw ups.

Morrison was the Prime Minister who formally signed the contract - it was worth $50 billion in 2019.

This level of incompetence cannot be accepted.

 

[Sttew]

Where did I say you did say that? I'm just typing my thoughts out Ned, give a man some space

But still, what we said to the French about the status of this project before we announced this deal is anybody's guess, I don't think you will get a straight answer of how this transpired from any of the parties involved. I find it incredibly hard to believe the French were totally blindsided in this or that the Australian side of the project just stopped answering the phones in the last 18 months. Some of the commentary suggest this deal was dead in the water for over a year.

They weren't. The issue was raised in April and June. Add to that Australia was yet to sign the next contract, so the French must have had a fair idea things weren't rosy.

 

[Festerz]

But the French had known for months that something was brewing, so to feign being blindsided is a bit rich

oh come off it.

The French Govt. and Naval Group were in discussions with their Australian counterparts about serious contract issues and contract amendments as recently as last month.

They, the Australian people, the EU and every country in our region had absolutely zero idea of the titanic shift in strategic military priorities that Scott Morrison announced via a press conference.

It was an appalling act of international diplomacy by any measure. And one that will have serious consequences for us as a nation for the many years to come before those boats ever hit the water.

 

[Bestbird]

Given the complete or minimal lack of details in regards to the new agreement which is straight from the Morrison grandiose statement playbook, what could go wrong

The outcome is just as likely as an acronym to be FUKUS with the current govt track record

 

[Sttew]

oh come off it.

The French Govt. and Naval Group were in discussions with their Australian counterparts about serious contract issues and contract amendments as recently as last month.

They, the Australian people, the EU and every country in our region had absolutely zero idea of the titanic shift in strategic military priorities that Scott Morrison announced via a press conference.

It was an appalling act of international diplomacy by any measure. And one that will have serious consequences for us as a nation for the many years to come before those boats ever hit the water.

You honestly believe the French were blindsided? You don't think what we are seeing play out is a massive face saving exercise? They may have been surprised by the timing, not having been consulted immediately beforehand, but concerns were raised by the French in April and June, with Macron even asking if the contract was in jeopardy. The fact that Australia refused to sign the new contract extensions spoke volumes too. I don't know enough about the whole saga, but there are two sides to any story and we are yet to hear the finer details. What we have heard is that Australia was being asked to pay $90,000,000,000 for a submarine that had design flaws, was behind schedule and the French were making promises that weren't being delivered.

 

[Kwality]

You assume that I don't get Fox just because I don't pay for Fox?

The idiot is the person who assumes because you pay you get a superior product.

You pay to to become stupider.

Did you know some people get paid to watch Fox?

In what way did I assume Fox .... a range of sources allows you to understand an issue, not simply enforce an entrenched view.

 

[Kwality]

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

Wanting a customised product is part of the problem, building it here is another. They are on us to measure the cost benefit & the delay in defence terms.

 

[Kwality]

Nuclear power subservient to foreign interests, that is. If it was our own tech for our own people I'd be all for it but it won't be. This deal will further put us under foreign policy thumbs of foreign nations.

We truly are a spineless, lapdog chihuahua nation. Governmentaly speaking of course.

If we need to play second fiddle permanently, we must learn not to shoot or mouth off, give advice to other nations on what to do. Two examples spring to mind, Morrison on Wuhan & Keating on Malaysia.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

If we need to play second fiddle permanently, we must learn not to shoot or mouth off, give advice to other nations on what to do. Two examples spring to mind, Morrison on Wuhan & Keating on Malaysia.

Yeah. Talking smack, then hiding behind the biggest person on the playground. My little brother was exactly like that!!

 

[Festerz]

You honestly believe the French were blindsided?

You honestly think the French were aware that Australian was going to walk away from the Attack class contact that Morrison himself had a key role in framing and signing AND enter into a new tripartite military treaty arrangement with the US and the UK commencing immediately in relation to emerging threats in the South China sea?

It blind sided absolutely every other country in the world AND the Australian people.

To believe the French was not blind-sided as well is ridiculous.

And if we ignore, as you seem to be, the main part of this deal which is the AUSUK security pact and just focus on the announcement that Australia will get some unspecified nuclear powered submarine some time in the distant future why the heck did the Australian government not discuss that issue with the French rather some BS line that the existing contract (based on a conventional diesel electric power as demanded by the Australian government) needed significant re-working. ?

After all, as I posted before, the Naval Group Attack class submarine is based on a nuclear powered design currently in operation in the Pacific region that has significant advantages over existing US and UK attack class alternatives:



"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?"


Source: Asia-Pacific defence Reporter.

 

[Gough]

Wilcox sums it up perfectly.

 

[Nuggs Bunny]

And if we ignore, as you seem to be, the main part of this deal which is the AUSUK security pact and just focus on the announcement that Australia will get some unspecified nuclear powered submarine some time in the distant future why the heck did the Australian government not discuss that issue with the French rather some BS line that the existing contract (based on a conventional diesel electric power as demanded by the Australian government) needed significant re-working. ?

After all, as I posted before, the Naval Group Attack class submarine is based on a nuclear powered design currently in operation in France that has significant advantages over existing US and UK attack class alternatives:



"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?"


Source: Asia-Pacific defence Reporter.

This is main character syndrome in foreign affairs. Australia has only been granted access to nuclear submarines on the provision that we're pointing them towards Asia on behalf of a greater power and now we're hypothesising chairing a historic agreement between the French and the US to share american nuclear military technology... just so Australia doesn't need to rip up an existing contract with a competing French naval contractor? There's literally zero reason for the US to agree to that and without the US assisting us in upkeep, maintenance and supporting capabilities, Australian nuclear submarines are not possible.

 

[Festerz]

Nuclear power subservient to foreign interests, that is. If it was our own tech for our own people I'd be all for it but it won't be. This deal will further put us under foreign policy thumbs of foreign nations.

My most serious concern is not that we will be subservient to foreign interests in relation to nuclear technology but rather that we will be subservient to the strategic needs of 2 foreign powers who have shown themselves to be highly unpredictable in terms of foreign policy and strategy in recent years - namely a BREXIT UK that is rapidly isolating itself from its European neighbours and a US Government that came within a whisker of re-electing an ever more erratic Trump led administration.

Let's not forget that according to reliable sources, including Washington Post Reporters Bob Woodward and Robert Costa the chairman of the United States’ joint chiefs of staff twice called his Chinese counterpart in the final months of the Trump administration and as late as January this year to reassure him that Donald Trump had no plans to attack China in an effort to remain in power.

Are these the 2 nations we want to align with in terms of our ongoing international diplomatic and defence strategy as we face a rapidly deteriorating situation in the South China sea?

 

[Festerz]

Australia has only been granted access to nuclear submarines on the provision that we're pointing them towards Asia on behalf of a greater power

And that statement on its own should send alarm bells ringing in every rational thinking Australian. Which was my (and the Asia Pacific Defence Reporter publication which I quoted) key point.

It is THE main issue at play in relation to the PMs announcement. And the one we should be most concerned about.

NOT the shift to an unspecified, un-costed nuclear powered sub that may be built sometime over the next 20-30 years that has tech-heads and narrow minded defence boffins in a lather of orgasmic joy.

 

[Messenger]

Australia can't even run Lucas Heights competently, let alone be a "nuclear power".

 

[Power Raid]

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.

I have been consistent in calling out the s**t decision to build a conventional sub let alone a french nuclear sub being converted.......as it would never work under current technology

so I have been critical of the govt for over a decade with all their considerations and tenders

 

[Festerz]

I have been consistent in calling out the sh*t decision to build a conventional sub

Your view has many vocal supporters from both within and outside the defence analytics field. And given the well publicised reasoning that a nuclear powered boat offers significant advantages in terms of speed and time it can remain submersed (albeit with trade offs in terms of acoustic detection and cost) I can certainly understand why.

But of course that comparative assessment lacks merit unless it is coupled with and founded upon a clear view on what should be the strategic role of an Australian submarine fleet (assuming we should have one).

My experience across many fields in project scope and delivery is that if you fail to get the 'why?' are we doing this question framed and answered correctly, then the with 'what?', 'how?' and 'when?' (and at what cost) questions and answers that follows are bound to be wrong. And depending upon the scale of the project, getting the 'why' question wrong almost invariably leads to spectacular failure in project delivery. Given that we are dealing here with international relations and Australia's position in any potential regional or global conflict it is not being melodramatic to state the obvious reality that the consequences of getting that 'why?' question wrong could be catastrophic for us as a nation.

That is my fundamental problem with this whole sudden press announcement before an election process that has been adopted by our PM. And that is that he has failed to articulate, or explain, WHY the sudden need to change boats midstream (to excuse the pun) and what is our intended role in this AUKUS treaty that mandates the need for submarines with substantially expanded reach and submersablity capability?

Actually the rationale IS well understood and debated in defence analytical circles. But surely that is what needs to be openly discussed and debated with us, the voters, before long term treaty and defence arrangements are made on our behalf?

 

[Power Raid]

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

incorrect

they learnt about it 1 hour before the media announcement

 

[NSWCROW]

We can't even put together a competent national broadband network, let alone a bunch of nuke reactors