|
Frosted Flake posted:The Australian government put out a giant paper about how the US was not actually going to give them the valuable or labour intensive parts of the submarine construction but France would. I mean they neoliberaled the hell out of their industry anyway because literal McKinsey and Co. told them having experienced shipyard workers with long term employment and steady work was inefficient because they would demand more wages, so weep not for Australia. This is all exceptionally lmao-worthy, yeah. We just need a looping gif of Abbott eating that raw onion, skin-on. IMO the part about the US sailors crewing the australian subs has to be about the reactor engineering teams. Nuke propulsion is loving insane poo poo and if the US hadn't had an autistic visionary establish an intergenerational choke-hold on its naval nuclear force I think it's safe to bet there'd be dozens of little elephant's feet scattered across the floors of the atlantic and pacific by now. small mercies
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2023 16:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 13:35 |
|
|
but rest assured, that laser-focused commitment to operational preparedness and safety has been subject to the same forces as the rest of the world for decades now, and it's only a matter of time before it is completely eroded in the name of efficiency. the US will lose WW3
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2023 16:45
|
|
|
captainbananas posted:This is all exceptionally lmao-worthy, yeah. We just need a looping gif of Abbott eating that raw onion, skin-on. From a basic sovereignty point of view, having the propulsion of your warships controlled by sailors of another power effectively means you do not actually own them - they can't put to sea based on your wishes, against theirs. It would be fine for the RAN to send their sailors to Nuke School, they have plenty of time since the keels haven't even been laid down. Having the whole black gang belong to another navy is ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2023 17:31
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:From a basic sovereignty point of view, having the propulsion of your warships controlled by sailors of another power effectively means you do not actually own them - they can't put to sea based on your wishes, against theirs. you're not wrong, and i think the agreement had already opened the door for RAN kids to ship out to nuke school. But school only takes you so far; you need petty officers who have spent deployments working on reactor plants in situ both for the hands-on domain knowledge and the tacit knowledge they pass on to the new kids. i think they also talked about letting RAN sailors deploy on US and UK subs to train; that might help some too. But really the risks from under-experienced people trying to run a mobile nuclear reactor as it blindly saltates around the pacific are probably more existential than a bunch of US kids deciding to pull a reverse Crimson Tide or w/e.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2023 17:42
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:From a basic sovereignty point of view, having the propulsion of your warships controlled by sailors of another power effectively means you do not actually own them - they can't put to sea based on your wishes, against theirs. it reminds me of the US completely refusing to train any Afghan maintenance personnel for the Strong and Capable Afghan Air Force and forcing them to rely on US-supplied foreign contractors for everything more complicated than refueling them obviously the Afghan Air Force was a US colonial auxiliary force and was never going to do anything without US permission anyway, but by making it materially impossible for them to fly without the blessing of the US, it made that subservience a real, tangible thing that could not be broken without also breaking the organization
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2023 18:14
|
|
|
Mister Bates posted:it reminds me of the US completely refusing to train any Afghan maintenance personnel for the Strong and Capable Afghan Air Force and forcing them to rely on US-supplied foreign contractors for everything more complicated than refueling them You jogged my memory of a relevant book, but you'll have to wait for the twist, AIR FORCE ADVISING AND ASSISTANCE: Developing Airpower In Client States The increased focus on counterinsurgency warfare and US nation building efforts after the attacks of 11 September 2001 reignited interest in military advising within military and other government organizations, private think tanks, and defense related contractors. Most studies on the subject, based on the chronological scope and numerical preponderance of ground advising missions, has quite naturally focused on these past efforts. Less attention has been given to air or naval advisory missions. This work seeks in part to help redress this current imbalance by examining a number of historical case studies dealing with air advisory efforts. By examining a number of historical case studies, this volume analyzes the challenges and opportunities inherent in aerial advisory efforts and offers insights into the methods by which such missions succeed or fail. Air advisory missions date almost to the first days of powered flight. Air advisory efforts have a number of unique elements based on the fundamental role of advanced technology and the extensive resource requirements associated with aviation operations. For example, air advisory efforts are profoundly influenced by the types of aircraft involved and the types of mission flown. Likewise, the issues of maintenance support and the infrastructure needed for these missions plays a key role in determining capabilities available to the host nation. In the case of infrastructure, airfields, fuelling depots, maintenance and repair facilities, and radar and communications equipment offer a few of the most obvious requirements to support flight operations. The early history of advisory efforts reveal issues that remain relevant today, including questions related to the nature of aerial technology to be shared, the type of training to be provided, and the potential economic benefits that might accrue to the donor nation as a result of the sale of aviation technology to the host country. In many respects, air advisory efforts raise a number of profound strategic questions for the donor nation. Among others, these questions relate to the type of technology to be shared, the nature of training to be given, the role of foreign advisors in operations, the issue of infrastructure development and auxiliary training programs, the preparation of foreign advisors for their duties, and perhaps most significantly the development of the type of capabilities required to address the host nation’s security environment. Via a series of historical case studies, this volume explores these questions and others. Which has a sister volume, raising some questions about how the US views Australia, NAVAL ADVISING AND ASSISTANCE: History Challenges and Analysis This original edited volume is the only book on naval advising. Drawing upon the work of scholars and practitioners from all over the world, it takes a comparative and global approach to examining the history, theory and evolution of naval advising and assistance. Starting with a brief history of the evolution of naval advising, the book then moves to late-19th century naval advising efforts. These generally involved individuals such as the American adventurer in China, Philo McGiffin, but also included State-sponsored formal missions such as the first such US effort: Colonel John Lay’s 1870s mission to Egypt. A comparative multi-national examination of the ability of non-European States such as China, Turkey and Japan to adopt Western naval methods and doctrine - and an examination of the French naval advising mission to Peru - round out the book's pre-First World War offerings. The trends in naval advising between the World Wars—particularly their use as tools of economic and political penetration—are revealed through chapters on the British naval aviation mission to Japan; the British and French naval missions to Poland; the US mission to Peru; and a comparative study of Italian naval missions in Persia, China and Spain. The latter also reveals early ideological motivations for dispatching advising missions. The Cold War saw an intensification of military advising—including naval advising—as both the Communist and the Western Powers used advising as ideological tools. The US naval missions to Nationalist China and South Vietnam are assessed, as are the Soviet naval advising efforts in East Germany and China. Together, through a wealth of original research, the studies in this book provide numerous lessons for future naval advising efforts and constitute a unique contribution to the field. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2023 18:34
|
|
|
Yeah, the idea wasn't for AUS to get submarines, just to pay rent to be in the hegemon's club (as is Australian tradition) and for the oligarchs to get a nice kickback. Mister Bates posted:it reminds me of the US completely refusing to train any Afghan maintenance personnel for the Strong and Capable Afghan Air Force and forcing them to rely on US-supplied foreign contractors for everything more complicated than refueling them Gee I wonder why the colonial auxiliary army just melted the second the suzerain split 
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2023 18:44
|
|
|
The way US is constructing the Aukus submarine program is like the F35 program right? First you get all the ally countries to sign up on the wonder waffle and more importantly kill their own indigenous programs. Which ever countries sign up first and pay "founders fee" the most get the "co-development" credit, which is like the executive productor credit you hand out. Secondary and fringe allies gets the program dangle in front of them, use the congressional approval as a teasing device. You have room to pull back if they don't behave, see UAE. So you ends up paying only half or less than half of the program but you get to completely control the distribution of the weapon. Kind of like holding the controlling share of stocks. It was very profitable for the F35 program so the US and the MIC are carrying the learnt experience to a different part of the MIC. I am trying to think what other weapon the US can use this joined venture model, since the US doesn't have enough ship yard they probably can't do it on next generation of cruisers. Maybe they can do it to the next gen helicopter carrier.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2023 18:58
|
|
|
Could they do it again? I’m not sure why militaries would fall for the same scam a third time, especially when you consider that at least the F35 is going to be delivered even if it isn’t good, it’s pretty crazy to spend a third of a trillion for submarines and not get any submarines.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2023 20:24
|
|
|
it’s not like the execs and politicians actually drive the subs so what do they care, as long as the checks clear…
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2023 20:29
|
|
|
us weapons manufacturing has yielded dissolving boats, planes that can't fly over the international dateline, and helmets that internally decapitate pilots. i can't figure out if poorly instructed amelia bedelia or a bunch of polish guys are in charge of making these weapons
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2023 20:33
|
|
|
They’re going to lose a shooting war regardless. What’s it matter if their military is too small a speed bump.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2023 20:34
|
|
|
The MIC should receive the Nobel Peace Prize, you can’t wage war with weapons that don’t work or don’t exist
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2023 20:47
|
|
|
Death of Innocence posted:The MIC should receive the Nobel Peace Prize, you can’t wage war with weapons that don’t work or don’t exist You're in for a surprise.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2023 20:48
|
|
|
They work just fine when you want use reified money to mash up poor people and lord over them. Just doesn't work as well when they can fight back.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2023 20:50
|
|
|
The only war Australia is getting into is one they start themselves, the idea anyone would attack them is just xenophobic delusion
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2023 20:50
|
|
|
Death of Innocence posted:Could they do it again? I’m not sure why militaries would fall for the same scam a third time, especially when you consider that at least the F35 is going to be delivered even if it isn’t good, it’s pretty crazy to spend a third of a trillion for submarines and not get any submarines. The issue is that because the Australians were predisposed to go with America in the first place, France pretty comprehensively developed a plan to not only build subs but an entire industry in Australia (which had previously existed, was privatized in the 80's and 90's and dissolved). It's very hard to revert to the fallback position of "better things aren't possible" and "nothing we could do", when they cancelled the project after France had already done much of the work to get to work building submarines. I'm not sure if I'm explaining that well because it's pages and pages of reports on shipbuilding capacity and subassemblies, but France proved it was possible before that contract was cancelled. I don't know how they will explain cancelling a program that was working for one that isn't with their usual claim that it wasn't possible in the first place. e: I realize the Murdoch media and Australian politicians will insist, and the public will believe, otherwise, but on a very fundamental level they should have bought off the Australians to not accept the French contract in the first place, like how they rigged our F-35 competition against the Swedes and Frogs. Frosted Flake has issued a correction as of 22:12 on Oct 4, 2023 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2023 22:10
|
|
|
don’t worry we’ve had constant crew shortages for decades with the six subs we have. they pay sub crews $130-200k but you can make more than that in mining if you want a poo poo job that pays well.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2023 22:15
|
|
|
Trimson Grondag 3 posted:don’t worry we’ve had constant crew shortages for decades with the six subs we have. they pay sub crews $130-200k but you can make more than that in mining if you want a poo poo job that pays well. I was just reading about RAN manning issues and how the Army is going to cut bayonet strength in battalions. The whole loving commonwealth military is falling apart because improving material conditions, even for soldiers, is beyond the imagination.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2023 22:22
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:but on a very fundamental level they should have bought off the Australians to not accept the French contract in the first place There's no greater proof of power than to knock down something that is working when done by someone else and replace it with hot poo poo straight out of your own rear end in a top hat
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2023 22:23
|
|
|
The Oldest Man posted:There's no greater proof of power than to knock down something that is working when done by someone else and replace it with hot poo poo straight out of your own rear end in a top hat It's wild. Superpower politics aside, I think there's a domestic angle. If you read about Australia before the First World War and then again before the Second, it seems like their cattle and mining ruling class is actively opposed to industrialization. Hell, Britain had to force Australia to federate in the first place, then force Australia to create a military and pay for their defence.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2023 22:25
|
|
|
What im learning from this discussion is that the US needs to get to work crippling France. They still have a functional arms industry.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2023 22:40
|
|
|
France is functionally another US client state but has a whole lot of national pride tied up in the idea that they aren't, and that they could totally act independently of the United States if they ever wanted to
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2023 22:55
|
|
|
Is that true? I think they still have their own little mini empire in Africa.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2023 22:58
|
|
|
Fell Mood posted:What im learning from this discussion is that the US needs to get to work crippling France. They still have a functional arms industry. This is likely why they just sat back and relaxed when France's African uranium extraction colonies started revolting
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2023 22:59
|
|
|
The USNI has a book out on France’s independent naval policy from 1945-65. The US tried to sabotage them at every turn.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2023 23:02
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:The only war Australia is getting into is one they start themselves, the idea anyone would attack them is just xenophobic delusion You can buy off Australian politicians very cheaply. A nice bottle of wine or a Rolex. No need to invade.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2023 23:15
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:I was just reading about RAN manning issues and how the Army is going to cut bayonet strength in battalions. Anything you're reading about Australia and also written & published in Australia is an outright lie, or heavily massaged at best. It's just paper covering giant holes long enough for it to become the next guy's problem.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2023 23:27
|
|
|
I don’t really understand America’s relationship to its client states, like in what ways it wields the influence to make these sort of deals. Obviously corruption and bribes are a part of it, but that can’t be the only explanation because it’s not like French arms dealers are somehow not capable of the same. I don’t know if America offered any kind of large incentive, but it’s kind of hard to imagine what kind of consequences they could openly follow through on against an ally for not taking the deal.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2023 00:11
|
|
|
Death of Innocence posted:I don’t really understand America’s relationship to its client states, like in what ways it wields the influence to make these sort of deals. Obviously corruption and bribes are a part of it, but that can’t be the only explanation because it’s not like French arms dealers are somehow not capable of the same. I don’t know if America offered any kind of large incentive, but it’s kind of hard to imagine what kind of consequences they could openly follow through on against an ally for not taking the deal. America offers the best incentive. Follow orders like a good little pet and they won't overthrow you or bomb you into the stone age. France isn't even in the same league.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2023 00:17
|
|
|
That’s too simplistic because they aren’t about to do that to Australia over one arms deal.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2023 00:25
|
|
|
Death of Innocence posted:I don’t know if America offered any kind of large incentive, but it’s kind of hard to imagine what kind of consequences they could openly follow through on against an ally for not taking the deal. Where Canada is concerned, the US ginned up trade disputes over two of the most important exports - softwood lumber and beef - until the Canadian government folded to their demands for deploying large numbers of troops to Afghanistan. During the F-35 negotiations, Trump reimposed tariffs on raw Canadian aluminum, another one of the most important exports. Read The Price of Alliance
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2023 00:29
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:Read The Price of Resistance
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2023 00:31
|
|
|
Mister Bates posted:France is functionally another US client state but has a whole lot of national pride tied up in the idea that they aren't, and that they could totally act independently of the United States if they ever wanted to I think this is 100% true of the UK but France and Germany have both maintained and built up enough domestic heavy industry and military production that I don't think it's actually true of them to the same extent. That's why the US still has to do poo poo like covertly blow up natural gas pipelines to ensure that they are pushed further into and kept inside the US's economic sphere of control.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2023 00:33
|
|
|
The Oldest Man posted:I think this is 100% true of the UK but France and Germany have both maintained and built up enough domestic heavy industry and military production that I don't think it's actually true of them to the same extent. That's why the US still has to do poo poo like covertly blow up natural gas pipelines to ensure that they are pushed further into and kept inside the US's economic sphere of control. The Fall and Rise of French Sea Power: France's Quest for an Independent Naval Policy, 1940–1963 The Fall and Rise of French Sea Power explores the renewal of French naval power from the fall of France in 1940 through the first two decades of the Cold War. The Marine nationale continued fighting after the Armistice, a service divided against itself. The destruction of French sea power—at the hands of the Allies, the Axis, and fratricidal confrontations in the colonies—continued unabated until the scuttling of the Vichy fleet in 1942. And yet, just over twenty years after this dark day, Charles de Gaulle announced a plan to complement the country’s nuclear deterrent with a force of nuclear-powered, ballistic missile-carrying submarines. Completing the rebuilding effort that followed the nadir in Toulon, this force provided the means to make the Marine nationale a fully-fledged blue-water navy again, ready to face the complex circumstances of the Cold War. An important continuum of cooperation and bitter tensions shaped naval relations between France and the Anglo-Americans from World War II to the Cold War. The rejuvenation of a fleet nearly wiped out during the hostilities was underpinned by a succession of forced compromises, often the least bad possible, reluctantly accepted by French politicians and admirals but effectively leveraged in their pursuit of an independent naval policy within a strategy of alliance. Hugues Canuel demonstrates that the renaissance of French sea power was shaped by a naval policy formulated within a strategy of alliance closely adapted to the needs of a continental state with worldwide interests. This work fills a distinct void in the literature concerned with the evolution of naval affairs from World War II to the 1960s. The author, drawing upon extensive research through French, British, American, and NATO archives (including those made public only recently regarding the sensitive circumstances surrounding the French nuclear deterrent) maps out for readers the unique path adopted in France to rebuild a blue-water fleet during unprecedented circumstances.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2023 00:34
|
|
|
US is powerful enough to make Australia get rip of their PM Kevin Rudd.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2023 00:40
|
|
|
stephenthinkpad posted:US is powerful enough to make Australia get rip of their PM Harold Holt.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2023 00:43
|
|
|
stephenthinkpad posted:US is powerful enough to make Australia get rid of their PM Gough Whitlam.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2023 00:45
|
|
|
The Oldest Man posted:I think this is 100% true of the UK but France and Germany have both maintained and built up enough domestic heavy industry and military production that I don't think it's actually true of them to the same extent. That's why the US still has to do poo poo like covertly blow up natural gas pipelines to ensure that they are pushed further into and kept inside the US's economic sphere of control. it wasn't convert though i mean yeah it was 'covert' in terms of dumb rear end normies who just watch the news but everyone important knows who blew those pipelines up. And they let it happen. They might have had industries but an America in decline hit the emergency button and is now consolidating at the core.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2023 00:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 13:35 |
|
|
Lord of Pie posted:In December 1967, Holt disappeared while swimming in rough conditions at Cheviot Beach, Victoria. He was presumed dead, although his body was never recovered; Very normal 
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2023 00:58
|
|