>>65196996
>we gonna buy second hand nuclear subs that usa will literally replace only on EOL

my god the french dodged a fucking nuclear bomb lmao

At the end of the day, will it be better than a Collins? Ie, does it have to run in reverse every 1000miles or so to re-set the shaft seals?

File: 2ec.png (208 KB, 327x316)

208 KB PNG

>invest billions into building a nuclear submarine shipyard
>don't build any nuclear submarines for yourself
I knew Aussies were retarded but, come on man...

Whats the actual objection here? I know ship purchases always end up being political, but why cant you just go to an established submarine builder and buy one off the shelf? Australia isnt poor, I dont see why this has to be such a rigamarole.

>>65197007
>>65197022
Actual retard takes.
>>65196996
This is a change to the existing plan for one single submarine out of the entire procurement of, like, 12 or whatever. Of the 3 US interim boats, instead of 2 being used and 1 being new and of a different flight, all 3 will be used and of the same flight. That seems pretty sensible to me and should have been the plan from the start. Assuming the plan wasn't operating some 688i starting 10 years ago and then transitioning to interim Virginias, but alas, I am Cassandra.

>>65197023
US production of Virginias is fucked. Takes way too long and this sale is subject to Congress approval which they will almost certainly say 'no' because they can't build enough to keep their own fleet at appropriate levels.

Why doesn't Aus go buy new ones from someone else as an interim? Good question. I think that's exactly what should happen. A few new ones from Japan to tide us over as the Collins, despite being technically good, are utterly fucked maintenance wise and on their last legs. That would keep us going until SSN-AUKUS arrives eventually.

>>65197051
>A few new ones from Japan
Conventional subs are a titanic WOTAM for anyone with a coastline bigger than a large beach. Australia'a biggest submarine problems all fundamentally stem from adopting Collins instead of Trafalgar or Los Angeles. Making the jump to nuke boats was always going to be hard and suck, but every minute we've fucked around avoiding the reality that the biggest island in the world is not, and will never be, a suitable operator of low-tier, short-ranged, slow, lightly-armed boats has made that transition harder and more painful. Another conventional interim would add to the real underlying problems, not alleviate them in any way.

>>65197062
Well what do you think the alternative is? Hope that the US sells Virginias (they won't) or try limp Collins along until the mid 2040s when SSN-AUKUS eventually is produced? Or try and buy some from the French who'll also likely tell us to fuck off due to the previous debacle?

The brand new Jap ones are quite good. Haven't seen range stats on the brand new lithium battery versions but I'd assume its substantial. Also at being 500mil ish a pop, that's not too bad to buy and then sell off to a poor neighbour afterwards. And despite only being conventional they're better than a Collins falling apart from rust

>>65197062
Why the fuck didn't you cunts buy standard Barracudas back in 2015? The frogs originally offered you a share in the program. You'd already have 2 operational with a 3rd being fitted by now. Instead you fucked around with a diesel version, then discovered it wouldn't be usable, after the island ngubus in the Solomons accepted a zhangstani naval base (and electronic espionage equipment). So you panicked and hitched your rickety cart to the USUK shitfest.

>>65197071
Why are you so sure they won't sell us them? Why do you think it's in their interest to not do so?

>>65197074
>Why the fuck didn't you cunts buy standard Barracudas back in 2015?
If we wanted nuclear boats, or capable military equipment in general, then France wouldn't even be on the list of possible vendors. We aren't even finished getting fucking Eurocopter and NH90 out of inventory yet, let alone starting to rebuild rotary wing aviation as an even vaguely useful capability yet.

>>65197075
Construction is backed up, maintenance is taking too long, so the available fleet is well under what it used to be. I can't remember the numbers off hand but I think it was somewhere like currently 30 in operation compared to 40+ a decade ago. It's an issue. Navy is procuring them at 2 a year yet only building 1. Given this, and in an era where US leadership is pushing so much for their own self interest I would be very surprised if Congress agreed to sell 3 boats and reduce their fleet even further especially with the current situation.
I'll happily be wrong but I just don't think it'll be the case, especially since its required to be a Congress agreement and it's not a set in stone purchase.
My personal thought is that even though Aus has now pumped like 5bil into US production to try and improve the situation they'll deny the sale based on national security reasons and that'll be that.
The only way I see forward is if US say they'll bring forward the plan to rotate their subs through the WA bases as a 'sorry' measure.

>>65197074
>>USUK shitfest
>Laughs in Virginia
>Laughs in Astute
OK thirdie

>>65197039
the entire procurement is almost 15 years behind anon
you should already know this by now

File: 50686.png (54 KB, 480x336)

54 KB PNG

>>65197023
they have to buy from the US because they're the most loyal shabbos goys. but the US Military industrial complex doesn't actually make anything anymore. and the small production they do run to keep up appearances is needed to replace the losses inflicted by goat-heards with toy helicopters.

And France wins again

File: 1772640024417572.jpg (280 KB, 1053x2733)

280 KB JPG

Je veux simplement dire, n'est pas de remboursement

File: 1758029309718.jpg (1.2 MB, 2560x2160)

1.2 MB JPG

In a single pic, the real reason for AUKUS... to contain INDONESIA, not CHINA... it also massively expands the USA's presence in the Indian Ocean beyond Diego Garcia... but AUSTRALIA will disappear from the chart forever... soon to be past their use-by date as a G20 economy

Without western alliances, Indonesia can take over Australia easily. Indonesia is growing 2 times faster than australia, thats why its military ranking keeps increasing, and australia stays the same forever. australia is one of the reasons Indonesia stays neutral between western countries and russia+china.

without australia's presence, Indonesia will be ally of the west.

>>65197238
oh great it's the indo pinda, moet je niet in een boom kruipen achter wat kokosnoten kleine aap?

>>65197023
Buying used subs to save money is a losing game because the cost of maintaining a submarine increases exponentially when you start running them beyond their planned retirement date.

>>65197051
>the Collins, despite being technically good, are utterly fucked maintenance wise and on their last legs.
Absolutely crazy that they admitted in the NDS that they might need to keep the Collins going into the 2040s lmao. Shits fucked.

>>65196996
At this point we really should go full bore on Ghost Sharks, just start shitting them out at like 50 to a 100 a year.

>>65197238
For the love of God IndoAnon you are not going to fight anyone. You are not going to fight us, you’re not going to fight Malaysia, or Singapore or China or America or even the lost continent of Lemuria. All your going to fight is cannibals in West Papua and durka durka’s in Ache when they inevitably spaz out again when Jakarta says they have curtail their female circumcision rates by like 5% or some shit, not a single country is going to or want to invade you.

>>65196996
Australia's purchase of nuclear submarines is such a mess, in the end, Australia will ask France if they would be willing to supply the Short Fin Barracuda after all.

Even the United States struggles to secure the specialized welding technicians needed for the construction and maintenance of nuclear subs, demonstrating the difficulty of training and securing such talent.

>>65197013
>At the end of the day, will it be better than a Collins? Ie, does it have to run in reverse every 1000miles or so to re-set the shaft seals?
Story here? Is there a built in RETREAT requirement for this class? Collins isn't a French word...

>>65197337
>Propeller shaft seals were a significant problem on Collins and Farncomb.[94] Although designed to allow for a leak of 10 litres (2.2 imp gal; 2.6 US gal) per hour, during trials it was found that the seals would regularly misalign and allow hundreds of litres per hour into the boat—during one deep diving test the flow rate was measured at approximately 1,000 litres (220 imp gal; 260 US gal) a minute.
> It was found that the problem could be temporarily alleviated by running the propeller in reverse for 100 revolutions, pulling the seal back into alignment, although a permanent solution could initially not be found, as ASC refused to accept responsibility for the problem, and the original manufacturer of the seals had closed down.

>>65197269
And that's assuming they don't scrap the current plans and start all over again, and again, and again.
SAAB bets learn to like those Vegemite sandwiches, 'cause they'll be doing life-extension refurbs on the Collins until the pacfic dries up.

File: 5c964d694b500452ad78cbf55(...).jpg (56 KB, 862x485)

56 KB JPG

>AUKUS thread
>random screenshot from the Guardian
>no link to article, cant have actual info
>buying 3 Block IV Virginia Class niw
>not 2 Block IV and a lone Block VI
>no longer have have a lone orphan asset
>this is somehow bad and not logistically sound

Yawn

>>65197482
>Australian industrial production:0
there's your answer. AUKUS was supposed to transfer know-how to Australia; now Australia is just an operator

>>65197499
If the economic incentive of building the asset is more important than the asset you get, you're doing it wrong.

>>65197499
The industrial production starts in the 2040s and the long lead items are being purchased you retard. The Optimal Pathway was always part of the transition. Go on faggot explain how Australia would've benefited from one lone Block VI

>>65197499
Virginia subs are not AUKUS.
They are interim (short term) learning tools to understand nuclear capability and strengthen the Navy.
The AUKUS submarines for Australia will be made in Australia (building them in Australia).
The US is the least important AUKUS Pact member, but they think they're the most important (they aren't).

Did I dumb it down enough for you, nitwit?

>>65197287
take note that indonesia see australia as frienemy. australia is a friend, but have high potential to become an enemy. if you read history about relationship between the two countries, the two countries already find them self as enemies many times in history. there's even a prophecy by king jayabaya from 7th century that said nusantara (indonesia) will go to war with it's southern nation (australia) to become the regional superpower that rule indian ocean and south east asia

Looking at how the US turns a blind eye to Israelis killing women and children, Indonesians fear they would be treated similarly to Palestinians if there were conflicts, for example, between Indonesia and Australia. Historically, Indonesia has been mistreated by the US and Australia before. Indonesian has more realistic view of relationship with Superpower.

In fact, Indonesia is the one who has to worry even though it is non-aligned but is surrounded by American military bases. such as in Singapore, Papua New Guinea, Australia, etc. there is a possibility that other countries will attack it to take its resources, for example, Australia, which has a military backup from the US, could help Papua become completely independent, especially as Indonesia's military equipment is much more outdated than Australia's. especially because Indonesia is flanked by China and Australia, where the issue will definitely be related to the blurred South China Sea and Australia's potential to help Micronesia push for the liberation of Papua... so maintaining and increasing Indonesia military strength is important

>>65197238
>>65198847
The rupiah just fell 9%, you're not buying shit

>>65198847
>Australia, which has a military backup from the US, could help Papua

Indogs are honestly schizos, Australia has been throwing tiny break away states under the bridge for 50 years. Australia let Timor be fucked over by you Indogs. Refused to sign any real defebce treaty with Papua New Guinea so they couldnt fuck with neighbouring states and hide behind Australia. Been screwing over Bougainville for 20 years pretending their neutral over their independence dispute only to blatantly side with PNG every time.

>>65198847
>Indonesians fear they would be treated similarly to
the way they treat ethnic chinese in the past and to this day: not permitted to have chinese names, or speak chinese, or own freehold property, discriminated at all levels of society
But you can't stop it, indog
You're gonna reap what you sow

>>65199033
>the way they treat ethnic chinese in the past and to this day: not permitted to have chinese names, or speak chinese, or own freehold property, discriminated at all levels of society
Based?

>>65199050
until it's done to you
then you squeal and cry about "The Great Replacement"

do as you would be done by, or be done by as you did

Aussie sub procurement has been so retarded that they might’ve actually been better off just starting a homegrown one
Sure it wouldnmt lead anywhere but at least they’d waste the money on their own economy

>>65196996
Who is this Major Aukus? Why is only a Major making such important decisions?

>>65199054
>Defend your enemies
Lol chink

>>65197007
The French deal was a joke, the non nuclear subs the Frogs offered would not have been able to stay at sea long enough to reach the China area of operations and more importantly wou;ld have been forced to surface half way there and thus be vulnerable to strikes by the PRC in a contested area while they took on supplies.

The French subs would have been a strategic liability.

>>65197039
>Actual retard takes
bots gonna bot
nothing personnel

>>65197051
>A few new ones from Japan to tide us over
there is no "tiding over". Australia doesn't have the resources or fleet strength to run two sub procurement programmes. either shit or get off the pot.

>>65197062
>every minute we've fucked around avoiding the reality
>made that transition harder and more painful.
this

>>65197071
>Haven't seen range stats
they're gonna be shit

there are also tactical considerations surrounding endurance. basically, you want to minimise going in and out of ports as much as possible, because they are choke points for enemy action, you might be bombed while replenishing, and time spent in transit is time not spent on operations. SSNs can also replenish food at sea and can extend patrols. for this, SSNs are well worth two or even three SSKs.

look at HMS Spartan in the Falklands War. IINM it was the longest-serving ship throughout the entire conflict. it left England before the actual Argentinian invasion, simply to show the flag; it returned to England after cessation of hostilities.

File: sub3.jpg (203 KB, 1000x663)

203 KB JPG

Image related, nations that are more technically competent than the current Australian MoD:

>>65197238
i cant believe we're selling the EX to indonesia. I'd rather see thousands of them in Japan and South Korea.

>>65197039
There is a very good chance they'll won't get any. This type of time frame - if an accident or unforeseen hole opens in production or parts USN will fill it by cannibalizing or varying schedule, Australia gets the scraps from that process.

OK if there is heaps of relatively simple scraps. However this is not a tank or jeep or similar that can be rolled onto cargo ship and forgotten about its a re-ramp and transfer project, almost a rebuild. Of a complete set of limited and potentially important mothballed equipment. USN just won't want to do it. It will drag out for certain already is.

>>65197023
How many nuclear submarine builders offer them for sale?
Dumbass.

>>65197261
Great to learn on.

>>65199123
All the reliable nuclear fuel suppliers for uranium that Australia could depend on are based in North America or are allied to them. The second largest stockpile of uranium/yellow cake on earth is owned by Cameco in Canada, Australia knows it can't fuck around with this sort of thing.

I'm disgusted that Australia doesn't have a atomic weapons capability, if South Africa, Israel, Pakistan and the DPRK can do it while having conventional armies that make Australia's look like a fucking joke then Australia has no excuse, Australia has superior resources, culture and population. Even you are just inbred criminals at least try to act responsibly.

File: file.png (82 KB, 797x623)

82 KB PNG

>>65199155
>Australia knows it can't fuck around with this sort of thing

>>65199074
yea, that's why the French offered the Australians their nuclear attack subs. but the Australians demanded a diesel and a large amount of work share based on an industry they don't have

>>65199155
Nigga TF u talkin bout. Cuntistanis literally nailed their own nuts to the cuck chair in the 1970s, due to the coal lobby's antinuclear pressure. Which they refuse to talk about even to this day.
They have more than enough uranium ore to sustain an independent nuclear industry.

>>65199184
>They have more than enough uranium ore to sustain an independent nuclear industry.
They have nearly half of the world's uranium, in fact.

>>65199188
They have 21% of the proven reserves of the top 10 countries by proven uranium reserves, what made you decide to make this post?

>>65199160
The crazy thing about this is that iirc, Australia has no uranium mines currently operating. All of that production is purely a side effect of copper mining.

>>65199188
They have no enrichment capacities or their own reactors.

>>65199116
>How many nuclear submarine builders offer them for sale?
>>65197023
>why cant you just go to an established submarine builder and buy one off the shelf?

People who build Nuclear powered submarines:

>USA, it's the USA
>France (not selling, subs are OK and untrustworthy people)
>UK (USA subsidiary, they just borrow shit from the USA)
>Russia, super untrustworthy and the enemy of everyone
>China, like Russia but worse except they sell cheap stuff that is half functional
>India, good luck with that. Might yield some basic idiot proofing info via accident reports. Second worse/best option.
>North Korea. Advantages: North Korean technology historically works better than expected considering the desired results. Disadvantages: North Korean technology historically works better than expected considering the desired results.
>Israel: Has a few small Kraut boats that have AIP/Diesel and maybe minor nuclear propulsion (like nuclear batteries for system standby, crawling and lurking) as well as a few nukes.

Chose carefully.

>>65199198
not uncommon in mining so I heard, but that's one industry I didn't dabble in

>>65199206
>France (not selling
They offered a share in the Barracuda program back circa 2009, before the official diesel boat tender was launched. The cuntistanis declined.

>>65199206
>France (not selling, subs are OK and untrustworthy people)
not only did the French offer them nuclear capable subs, they offered to set up uranium enrichment and processing industries in Australia so they could be fuel independent (not that it matters that much when you only need to refuel every decade or so)
also had any rabbit problems this spring?

>>65199206
>France (not selling
not strictly true
>subs OK
using lower-powered low-enrichment fuel

>>65199222
>>65199221
>>65199184
no doubt at ruinous prices and with shitty aftermarket services that puts every other customer 3rd tier behind France (looks at Airbus)
in other words, like the US but 20x poorer and less able to deliver everything their big Gallic mouths say

>>65197051
Do we really want to sell the Aussies anything? They'll just give it to the Chinese again.

>>65199233
Can't be worse than Israel and they get all the best shit with more access than our actual allies

>>65199233
>>65199235
get better material, nigger

>>65199178

Flip your script, France wanted to give Australia diesel electrics and USA/UK offered old Sea wolfs.

>>65199184
>>65199188
>Nigga TF u talkin bout.
The companies name is Cameco, CCJ if you have a stock account which i assume you don't unless i'm being trolled.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cameco

They own a interest in half the worlds functioning nuclear plants via their tech support company:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westinghouse_Electric_Corporation

>>65199221
Australia was rightfully more interested in the long term plan to give them the seawolf fleet and make them locally. Australia sucks at real heavy industry, what they need is for the USA to build a few huge factories and shipyards there like EB/Electric Boat.

>>65199229
>>France (not selling
>not strictly true
>>subs OK
>using lower-powered low-enrichment fuel
The problem with France is when it comes to military technology they could always come up with a unique idea in military tech. Or they used to. Today France is downright boring when it comes to innovation. I am sure Ukrainians and Norks both spit on the French. The Norks probably brought a few drunk old Vietnamese people to the party.

So do you want a nuclear submarine or not?

>>65199229
>no doubt at ruinous prices
about 2-2.5 billion depending on the profit margin and customization
so about half the price of a Virginia class
>shitty aftermarket services that puts every other customer 3rd tier behind France
I honestly don't know where you'd get that impression.
with AUKUS they're getting bad service before the first hull is even being laid down.

that being said the Aussies chose to be more closely aligned with the US and this was a geopolitical not a defense procurement decision

>>65199240
>Flip your script, France wanted to give Australia diesel electrics and USA/UK offered old Sea wolfs.
>France wanted
mate the Ausies put out a tender for a diesel boat.
the frogs asked them if nuclear would have been good and got told no, we want a diesel boat.
I know you live in a dream world where if kim says, it is
but this isn't even something kim talks about

>>65199240
>they could always come up with a unique idea in military tech
what have they ever come up with post-WW2 that was truly unique and not also explored by the Anglos?

>France wanted to give Australia diesel electrics
France did offer nuclear boats but Australia at the time was in the grip of the fucking anti-nuke greenys

>Australia sucks at real heavy industry, what they need is for the USA to build a few huge factories and shipyards there like EB/Electric Boat
nobody has the scale

the whole AUKUS affair is quite simply: Virginia, Maine, Washington, and Barrow can't supply all required needs. the Anglos need a fifth nuclear submarine shipyard. but where will it be built? all three nations have different major disadvantages, but principally, the most logical option, Australia, has the disadvantage of needing to build a nuclear industry from scratch and yet still needing to be massively subsidised by the two other partners, which they cannot hope to repay.

>>65199242
>about half the price of a Virginia class
also about half the displacement, no VLS tubes, and no doubt lower endurance and less sophisticated sensors (the Americans build big boats because of all the sensors they cram in, not just missile tubes)

>I honestly don't know where you'd get that impression
how about, every single Airbus combat aircraft programme that

>with AUKUS they're getting bad service before the first hull is even being laid down
not really
essentially, they're still negotiating the terms as described above
which is better than the French who named the price and said "take it or leave it"
then threw a wobbly when they left it

>the Aussies chose to be more closely aligned with the US and this was a geopolitical not a defense procurement decision
indeed
on the other hand, the French were shortsighted in not being able to bend their prices for the sake of geopolitical considerations
then again, the French are skint, so I don't fault them much either

>>65199244
>I know you live in a dream world where if kim says, it is
Naw, Kim lies all the time. I'm crazy not stupid, if i don't believe myself why should i ask it of you?

>>65199253
>what have they ever come up with post-WW2 that was truly unique and not also explored by the Anglos?

I like the wheeled tanks the French make. I think that with some changes (all related to amphibious capacity) they would fit almost perfectly into a North Korean order of battle. The two armies would probably fit together well since they are both weird assholes.

>Ponders a DPRK/French military alliance

>>65199253
>Australia, has the disadvantage of needing to build a nuclear industry from scratch and yet still needing to be massively subsidised by the two other partners, which they cannot hope to repay.
Which is why it's such a shit deal, regardless of how the pie ends up sliced. Either US/UK end up subsidizing AUS, or the average AUS taxpaying cunt ends up paying, in either instance for shit that will see only slightly more use than the average Olympic Village post-event.

>>65199076
>there is no "tiding over". Australia doesn't have the resources or fleet strength to run two sub procurement programmes. either shit or get off the pot.
Then what are you trying to say? That they fucked up and waited a few decades too long to do anything about it? That is very obvious to everyone, nobody is arguing against that.

The current options are
1) hope the US sells some (they 95% won't for aforementioned reasons)
2) have no submarines until late 2040
3) buy conventional submarines from someone else

There are no other options. None of the other nuclear submarine producers will sell. The Collins will not last until the end of this decade let alone until 2045. I don't understand what your argument even is.

>>65199178
France never offered Nuclear Submarines you lying retard, they said they would consider it some point after the 2050s as a replacement for their shitty attack class

>>65199277
>Either US/UK end up subsidizing AUS, or the average AUS taxpaying cunt ends up paying
yes, and everyone knows that
negotiations are not actually about lowering prices, but rather about coming up with substitutes that will satisfy all parties
benefits in kind rather than in cash, for example

>for shit that will see only slightly more use than the average Olympic Village post-event
Olympic villages are actual revenue-generating units, they're just loss-making, that's all
so actually, even less

nonetheless, by the logic of only using utilisation rates as a metric, all militaries are useless and should be disbanded
their main function however is DETERRENCE*, not use
think of the locks on your doors. if nobody attempts to force them, their utilisation rates are zero, so are they useless and should be done away with?

*especially against faits accompli

>>65199279
>The current options are
>1) hope the US sells some (they 95% won't for aforementioned reasons)
>2) have no submarines until late 2040
>3) buy conventional submarines from someone else
yes
anon who talked about "tiding over" seemed to think that Australia can do option 3 as a stopgap, and then 1 or 2
for many reasons, the answer is "hell no"

off the top of my head: no Anglo country builds SSKs. the only options, including the Japs, all use non-American sensors and weapons. you need a minimum of four boats for any kind of combat sustainability. Australia can only operate four boats. buying SSKs therefore merely means kicking the AUKUS problem down the road another 3 decades.

>>65199285
>their main function however is DETERRENCE*, not use
SSNs aren't for deterrence. They're for force projection. The AUS combat strategy shifted from home waters overwatch to supporting US forces around zhangistani contested areas. If they wanted pure deterrence, SSKs would've sufficed, as they do for half a dozen other small militaries.

>>65198847
Don't forget that Indonesia's population is eight times that of Australia. In fact, the combined 42 Rafale and 48 KAAN aircrafts significantly boost Indonesia's capabilities, even though Australia has 72 F35s. Rest assured, the Rafale and F15 EX's firepower is deadly, not to mention the additional J10C from China. >>65198882

File: 2026_05_18_175831_1779091(...).jpg (169 KB, 1200x801)

169 KB JPG

>>65198882
Rafale have already arrived in Indonesia and Giuseppe Garibaldi is on the way. You lost Austranny

>>65199304
>The AUS combat strategy shifted from home waters overwatch

Australian strategy hasnt been about homewaters since the clusterfuck of the Timor Intervention and the failure of muh sea-air gaps. The focus on Long range strike is a return to form. SSKs never sufficed, Australia sent its Submarines into the SCS and Indian Ocean throughout the Cold War and no matter what they could never keep up with Soviet or Chinese SSNs.

>>65199304
>SSNs aren't for deterrence. They're for force projection
fundamental misunderstanding
ALL militaries are for deterrence, deterrence against ALL kinds of enemy attack, against allies as well as homeland, and by means of retaliation as well as defence
>SSKs would've sufficed
by that logic, nuclear ballistic missile submarines are not a deterrent
which is an equally nonsensical point of view

and even then, actually no, because SSKs still have operational shortcomings even when used purely defensively. I gave a brief outline of these above.

>>65199307
>Giuseppe Garibaldi is on the way
Why would you need a 42 year old air craft carrier? You have like a bajillion islands that can hold a airfield and no desire to do expeditionary combat, and from the looks of it you have no fixed wing aircraft that can be launched off it, so what is the point besides costing the Indonesian tax payer (if such a thing exists)?

File: file.png (68 KB, 953x427)

68 KB PNG

>>65199306
>eight times population
>still depreciating 4% constantly for the past 5 years
rest assured, those F-15s will never arrive until they are long obsolete, because the rate of rupiah collapse will accelerate, since the useless mouths keep growing

>indo and malay masquerading as auscunt have an e-slapfight
It's all so tiresome. Could we go back to shitting on auscunts' lack of strategic foresight, please?

>>65199364
No and shut up faggot

>>65199364
it's always been just the one indog

>>65197223
>>65197231
Ferme ta gueule, toi. T'avais qu'a honoré ton contrat, Jean-Francois Malocul

>>65199465
>Ferme ta gueule, toi. T'avais qu'a honoré ton contrat
ferme ta gueule is enough, you've clearly used google translate because it makes you feel like a badass
perhaps next time don't demand such a large workshare if you don't have the industry to back it up, oops that's exactly how AUKUS is going to end up in stormy water

>>65199525
>sign contract with agreed upon workshare
>try and change it after contract signed

Oops now you have no contract pierre, this is why no one likes you faggots, keep coping about AUKUS tho

>>65198847
>Indonesians fear they would be treated similarly to Palestinians if there were conflicts, for example, between Indonesia and Australia
A bogan that's had two dozen VBs is infinitely less harmful than even the most seemingly docile kike

>>65199853
>you have to make x, y and z in australia, we've plenty of local suppliers
>local supplier is just Dave and his mates in a shed that haven't worked on anything more complicated than an excavator's scoop
I'll cope about AUKUS when you manage to put a hull in the water

>>65199206
>UK (USA subsidiary, they just borrow shit from the USA)
Hardly, it's BAE (Vickers) at Barrow and RR in Derby.

Mad the aussies don't have their own nuclear industry, at least civil, given all that uranium

>>65200207
>Mad the aussies don't have their own nuclear industry, at least civil, given all that uranium
blame the fucking greens

>>65199206
Retarded nigger UK sub industry is its own
Stay in your lane fag

>>65197007
It's a known system with impecable maintenance that will be rarely deployed and is meant to be a second line if conflict with China ever starts.

>>65197364
>260 gallons/minute
Holy shit. That's 2,230# of unplanned ballast.

>>65200176
>its just dave and his mate
>sign contract anyway
>now dave is getting a better deal anyway
>pierre gets nothing
Whomp whomp nigga

>>65200632
and now we'll get to see if dave and his mates can pull it off, well in a decade or so
because they won't start putting down hulls in australia until late next decade. because dave and his mates where totally ready to start putting down submarine hulls when they said he was to the frogs.
and in that decade when they go to put down that first hull and they have to delay it because as it turns out even after more than a decade dave and his mates aren't up to the challenge I'll be laughing my ass off.

but you are right, dave and his mates got a better deal at grifting of the Australian taxpayer

>>65200655
>Dave and his friends cant pull it off
>sign contract with Dave and his friends
>alter contract after signing it
>WHAAAAAAA DAVE'S FAULT
Hon hon hon whiny fag

>>65200720
>we promise that dave and his mates can pull it of so give us the work share
>sure
>ah sorry that dave can't pull it off but you've still got to give us the work share, just make it happen
>we'll try
>oh sorry that took to long and we've changed our minds dave and his mates will now do an even harder job
the issue isn't like you think it is "muh french and how I can mock them" it's being blind to the limits of you own MiC and how they and Cambera are taking the taxpayer for a ride
should the franch have been more critical of what the Australian MiC could do upfront? sure.
the other candidates for the program bowed out because the work share being asked was to high.
but if they where than there wouldn't have been a diesel sub program at all.
so now again we come to the point where the simple question of "we couldn't make good on our part of the workshare on a diesel, how the fuck are we going to make good on our part of the workshare on a nuclear?" and more importantly the rider on that "and what if we can't?"

>>65200756
>NOOO DAVE HELD US AT GUN POINT AND MADE US SIGN A CONTRACT
>Accept Dave's money anyway
>cry and denand more money and work share from Dave
The other candidates for the program never bowed out you retard, Japan was the front runner and they would have the contract if you had the foresight not waste Australia's time. They would have delivered a smooth program unlike the duplicitous frogs

>>65199283
When Australia selected the French proposal in 2016, it was explicitly seeking a conventionally powered (diesel-electric) submarine, not a nuclear-powered one. France's offer was the Shortfin Barracuda, a conventional submarine derived from its nuclear-powered Barracuda/Suffren attack submarine design.

France was actually offering access to technology derived from its most advanced nuclear submarine program. Australian parliamentary documents at the time noted that the French Barracuda was a "state-of-the-art nuclear attack submarine" whose design would be adapted into a conventional submarine for Australia.

The more interesting question is whether Australia later explored buying nuclear submarines from France.

The answer is also yes. After the deterioration of the Future Submarine Program and before the AUKUS announcement, Australian Defence Minister Peter Dutton confirmed that Australia had considered acquiring nuclear-powered submarines from France.

As for France's position: France was generally open to discussing it. Unlike the United States and United Kingdom, France has an independent nuclear submarine industry and exports sophisticated submarine technology. Several analysts and officials argued after the cancellation that France could potentially have provided nuclear-powered submarines to Australia

>>65199242
>that being said the Aussies chose to be more closely aligned with the US and this was a geopolitical not a defense procurement decision
Do they really hope that by paying tribute to the US they won't get thrown under the bus like everyone else the moment things heat up?

>>65200787
A lot of words to say in fact no, there was no offer from France
>b-b-b they were open to discussing it
Yeah as a replacement for the Attack Class as the head of DCNS said, do better than some ChatGPT slop of an answer

>>65200804
>A lot of words to say in fact no, there was no offer from France
We will never know because Australia never asked :^)
Hmmm I wonder why they didn't run a new competition

Another nato partner getting screwed over because they got tricked in to buying american weapons.
Just like a lot nato nations are now questioning the point of buying all F35's over other nato build planes when it's know that the US build literal kill switches in them.
Who needs enemies with friends like that.

>>65196996
So instead of:
>2 used Virginias and 1 new Virginia
We get:
>3 used Virginias (of the same block)
Sounds like a good deal to me, and what it always should have been.

>>65197007
>US SSN
>Second hand
That's like buying a Factory Ferrari, or MB F1 car after they move to the newer model.
Unless they specifically let it go to shit, knowing it would not be fielded, that thing has been maintained on a schedule that most people cannot even imagine.
Or afford.

>>65200216
>blame the fucking greens
Oh believe me I do but I also equally blame the fossil fuel and mining companies.
God I wish we got the bomb during the sixties

>>65199184
Also pollies being retarded about nuclear power in general. Howard banned nuclear power under pressure from the greens, and the only attempt to have a serious conversation about it in recent years was so retarded it looked like self-sabotage. The main problem is that it's a seriously political issue, mostly on environmental policies, and not on what's good for the country, despite a majority of the country supporting it.

>>65201102
A minority support nuclear power, you're kidding yourself if you think it has majority support.
But no one really wants to spend $60 billion and 20 years building one reactor complex.

>>65199206
>USA
Untrustworthy as fuck even to allies while the orange retard fucks the global economy and backs out of arms deals.
>France untrustworthy
Not really? They sell to anyone but they always back their strongest allies first.
>UK (USA subsidiary, they just borrow shit from the USA)
No? What crack are you on, their sub building is one of the few military industries they have high experience and material production in which is why they were even a part of the original project.
>Russia
>China
>NKorea
Natural enemies for which they need the subs for in the first place
>Israel or Germany
Lmfao no

You also forgot Skorea is in the process
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/news/south-korea-goes-full-steam-ahead-on-nuclear-powered-submarines/ar-AA24zDeS
Japan is also considering it.
https://www.asahi.com/sp/ajw/articles/16143129

The east asian US vassal allies were forbidden from making them, it's not really their fault. Europe isn't as subservient to US interests due to cold war instability lead to bartering and favors for alignment.

>>65196996
Our dicksucking prime minister kowtow'd to Biden who's intention was not to provide Australia with military security but to secure Australia under America's military sphere for the next few decades. I hate your country so fucking much. We're going to get nook'd because of how retarded America is.

>>65201129
>kowtow
Chink verbiage btw
Australia wont get nooked, too valuable in extracted resources and too many nook allies. In a nuclear exchange they would be the first country the winners negotiate with for its surviving resource extraction.
At best you have a few nooks landing in US bases.

>>65201137
>Pine gap and American radar systems that project nuclear power north and the many US bases will only get nook'd and not the cities

Right...

Do you actually think we're going to go to war with you over China? Nobody fucks with America anymore and you guys don't even want the war yourselves.

>>65201137
>kowtow
>Chink verbiage
chinks don't actually say that, if ever we actually did
especially modern chinks, we have totally different terms for this

>>65201669
No shit, kowtow is imperial manchu speak, modern zhangs don't use it no mo.

>>65201102
The coal lobby poisoned the well all the way back 60 or so years ago, back when nuke and coal tech were competing for baseload power. The nuke industry writ large made the fatal mistake of letting autistic engineers in charge of everything, including the marketing and public relations departments, and it went about as well as you can imagine.