Auspol May - Crisis on Infinite Australias - The Something Awful Forums

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Auspol May - Crisis on Infinite Australias

«‹›90 »

Laserface: Dec 24, 2004

Frogmanv2 posted:

Why do you last names for males but first names for females?

Oh my loving god who gives a gently caress you pedantic oval office.

E: Page snype like a boss.

# ? May 2, 2016 04:37

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 29, 2024 17:51

Cartoon: Jun 20, 2008; poop

^^Says the poo poo smear who immediately and obliviously used a gendered slur in his reply. gently caress off mysoginist.

WhiskeyWhiskers posted:

Negligent is an idiot.

Oh don't you start lying too! :colbert:

# ? May 2, 2016 04:37

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

quote:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/op...07fb-1462160235

MALCOLM Turnbull�s $50 billion submarine deal takes a big strategic risk that�s escaped attention: it gives France unprecedented power to cripple us in war.

In fact, the Prime Minister risks giving France, an unreliable ally, a veto power it has already used against other countries that have bought its weapons.

France has three times cancelled or delayed the delivery of weapons or critical spares and ammunition to customers fighting wars that don�t suit French national interests.

And on a fourth occasion, it allegedly betrayed Australia, too, reportedly threatening to withhold spare parts for our French-built Mirage jets to prevent the RAAF from using them in the Vietnam War.

The question now is: did Turnbull make a strategic error in not giving the submarines contract to Japan, a more reliable ally, especially in any conflict with China?

Here are some disturbing examples of how France has hurt buyers of its armaments just when those countries needed them most.

In 1967, France placed an arms embargo on Israel during its six-day war against Egypt, refusing to supply key spare parts for Israel�s French-built Mirage jet fighters. France, looking to build relations with Arab dictatorships, also refused to hand over 50 other Mirages that Israel had paid for before the war.

In 1980, France, wanting to help Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war, stopped the delivery of French-built missile-launching patrol boats ordered by Iran.

In 1982, France gave in to threats from Britain during the Falklands War and agreed to delay delivery of its deadly Exocet missiles to Argentina and its intermediaries.

France caved after its missiles had already been used to sink HMS Sheffield, and French president Fran�ois Mitterand even agreed to give Britain detailed information about plans and weapons France had sold to Argentina.

But what should alarm Australians most are allegations that in 1968, France warned Australia not to use our French-built Mirage jets in the Vietnam War, or it would block supplies of spares and ammunition. None of the Mirages fired a shot in Vietnam.

Defence sources a decade later denied France made any such threat, but the claim is reported as fact to this day by the Australian Defence Association and Royal Australian Air Force Association.

Moreover, Sweden and Switzerland, also critics of the war in Vietnam, likewise stopped Australia from using weapons they�d built � Swedish missiles for a Swedish-built antitank system and one Swiss-built aircraft.

Now ask yourselves: can France be trusted not to do the same again with our submarines?

If we are ever in a conflict with China, who would France side with � some country at the end of the world or the rising superpower of the 21st century?

And who would it side with if we sent our French subs to a war against a Muslim country, particularly as France�s own Muslim minority becomes dangerously big and volatile?

Yet the Turnbull Government last week awarded to DCNS, a company 62 per cent owned by the French Government, the contract to build 12 submarines.

One of the extraordinary aspects of this deal is that the first submarine won�t be delivered until around 2032 and the last not until after 2050 � and perhaps closer to 2060.

As Turnbull said last week in boasting that DCNS would build the submarines largely in Adelaide: �Fifty years from now, submarines will be sustained here, built here.�

That leaves France involved in our national security for half a century.

Government figures with whom I have raised France�s record of betraying its clients say this proves Turnbull was actually smart to insist all 12 submarines be built in Australia, and to accept a bid that involved guarantees that France would transfer technology to Australian companies. Sean Costello, head of the DCNS in Australia, has promised just that: �We set them up in Australia with French technology. We transfer that fully into the company.�

But this overlooks some big caveats.

First, France will actually build parts of the submarines in France, and presumably the most technologically difficult.

Turnbull on the ABC last week refused to say whether 50 per cent or 70 per cent of the submarines would actually be built in Adelaide, but DCNS chief Herve Guillou said the project would employ 4000 people in France, while just 2800 workers would be employed here.

True, much of that French work will almost certainly be just on the initial design of the submarine, but Guillou said the project would also benefit French shipyards and industrial sites in Brest, Lorient, Cherbourg and Nantes.

Someone might be overselling the deal here.

And that design work raises serious questions.

DCNS has not yet built the kind of sub it is selling us � involving conventional fuel cells rather than the nuclear power of France�s subs, plus a new pump jet propulsion system no one has managed yet to use in non-nuclear subs.

Who can be sure this technology will work � or mesh with the weapons systems to be installed by US suppliers? What technology will we even need by 2050, when the last submarine or two is being built?

I am told by senior government sources that the design for our submarines by then could have switched to nuclear power or even to subs with a capability to deploy unmanned underwater drones, which suggests French know-how on this French project would almost certainly remain critical.

So how can the Turnbull Government have any confidence in French reliability for the next 35 years or more?

Of course, the government can minimise the risk by building stockpiles of spares and insisting on technology transfer so we can eventually build the entire submarine ourselves.

But almost any other likely supplier would be a safer bet.

The US, for example, would almost certainly be on our side of any major dispute, particularly if it involved China or the Middle East.

It is largely for that reason Australia will at least get US weapons systems for these submarines.

But Japan would be just as staunch in any stand-off with China. China is its existential rival, and Turnbull�s rejection of Japan�s submarine bid has been interpreted by senior Japanese ministers as a surrender to China.

Shouldn�t Australians also worry?

Here is a project that will cost us billions of dollars more just so the subs can be built in Adelaide and save Liberal seats.

It is a project that doesn�t actually deliver a single sub for perhaps 17 years � again, because the government gave Adelaide the job.

As DCNS warned, not building at least the first few submarines in France meant the company �delivers submarines to the Royal Australian Navy more slowly and at a higher overall cost�.

Moreover, this project won�t deliver the last submarine for at least 35 years, when we don�t even know if we�ll still need such technology.

Perhaps most dangerously, it gives an historically unreliable ally and supplier the power to nobble one of our major armaments if we fight a war it doesn�t like.

Is this smart?

# ? May 2, 2016 04:40

MonoAus: Nov 5, 2012

open24hours posted:

Is this smart?

No, it is not.

# ? May 2, 2016 04:47

I would blow Dane Cook: Dec 26, 2008

"Mon dieu, our plan to invade Australie has been revealed by Monsieur Bolt. Quickly Francoise, prepare the white flag of surrender!"

# ? May 2, 2016 04:53

LibertyCat: Mar 5, 2016; by WE B Bourgeois

We should have built Nuclear subs.

# ? May 2, 2016 04:54

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

First you win the military contracts, then you invade them with their own materiel!

# ? May 2, 2016 04:54

Endman: May 18, 2010; That is not dead which can eternal lie, And with strange aeons even anime may die

Where was the Bolt article on the USA deliberately sabotaging our Air Force with the F-35?

# ? May 2, 2016 04:56

Doctor Spaceman: Jul 6, 2010; "Everyone's entitled to their point of view, but that's seriously a weird one."

Hahaha, it's basically Sir Humphrey's view on the French, just with shittier writing and not satirical.

# ? May 2, 2016 04:57

Solemn Sloth: Jul 11, 2015; Baby you can shout at me,
But you can't need my eyes.

Doctor Spaceman posted:

Hahaha, it's basically Sir Humphrey's view on the French, just with shittier writing and not satirical.

Except backed up with concrete examples of France doing exactly the thing the article is talking about?

# ? May 2, 2016 05:03

Negligent: Aug 20, 2013; Its just lovely here this time of year.

I'm sure the dudes buried at Villers- bretonneux would be happy to hear that France is an unreliable ally compared to a country we fought a war against

# ? May 2, 2016 05:06

ewe2: Jul 1, 2009

Commentary:

On the one hand we did buy a bunch of French planes and they crashed a lot (seriously, look up the stats on the RAAF Mirages, we lost something like 16 aircraft in crashes), but I don't think that was intentional, it was just cheap at the time.

On the other hand the French don't really care how we use their subs as much as Blot claims, the US only wants us to buy broken planes and not the good ones, and demands trade treaties and bases as well. So LOOK FRANCE DOES TOTALLY EVIL poo poo is a bit rich coming from a US cheerleader. I mean, how dare they have an opinion which could hurt themselves financially too, right? Caving into British threats oh noes. I'll deal with that below.

Then Blot goes on to whine about various parts of the deal like that's never happened with any other defence deals and similar caveats wouldn't happen with the Japanese deal if they'd had a clue and were bastards like the French and US. It's pitiful. Sure we're going to war against China and "muslim countries", totally gonna happen and then Blot will remind us he told us so.

I'm also not aware of multiple submarine suppliers we can go to in case the dastardly French stand us up during some mythical conflict Blot just made up to whine about a deal he disagrees with to pass the time of day and earn media mouth bucks, but maybe I'm wrong and he just knows the US would have heaps of spares we can buy for a reasonable price honest.

Here's several things Blot doesn't understand about defence deals:

* They always lose money, for the buyer and seller often equally. France was renowned for undercutting competitors for its Mirages by literally halving the price, but see below. Arms dealers are worse than drug dealers, it's all about getting the addict on the hook.
* It's never frontline tech, no one's stupid enough to sell a weapon that can be used against them without a way to nullify that threat. The F35 is shaping up to be its own nullification. But this also covers the situation where the tech simply becomes outdated. The whole point of arms dealers is to hedge on this rather than build your own. 9/10 times, you get it wrong.
* The money is in the parts. Like so many things, like parts for your car, the aftermarket is where they clean up. This is typically where France has wielded its power. But this is common to other arms dealers, the US and the British and the Russians have all applied the same arm-twisting.
* It's always broken. Rare exceptions like the Exocet missile prove the rule. But given how incompetent we are at building our own stuff, we're probably ahead by not buying US this time around.

# ? May 2, 2016 05:08

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

I'm surprised he didn't mention the Russian fiasco, it's the most recent example.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mistral-class_amphibious_assault_ship#Russian_purchase

# ? May 2, 2016 05:14

LibertyCat: Mar 5, 2016; by WE B Bourgeois

If anyone could make good use of Nuclear subs it's Australia. Ideally unmanned ones that could lie dormant for months then suddenly surface in Jakarta Bay, unleash a swarm of drones, then vanish.

# ? May 2, 2016 05:17

Solemn Sloth: Jul 11, 2015; Baby you can shout at me,
But you can't need my eyes.

The whole war with China thing is blatant yellow perilism but the idea of not handing control over a strategic asset to a government owned company of a nation who has shown itself happy to throw muscle around by withholding contracted material is the least dumb thing he's ever written

# ? May 2, 2016 05:17

Scarecow: May 20, 2008; 3200mhz RAM is literally the Devil. Literally.; Lipstick Apathy

LibertyCat posted:

We should have built Nuclear subs.

We dont have the nuclear industry here to support the supply of fuel and maintenance that nuclear subs need

# ? May 2, 2016 05:20

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

Easily solved: set up a nuclear industry.

# ? May 2, 2016 05:25

Doctor Spaceman: Jul 6, 2010; "Everyone's entitled to their point of view, but that's seriously a weird one."

Solemn Sloth posted:

The whole war with China thing is blatant yellow perilism but the idea of not handing control over a strategic asset to a government owned company of a nation who has shown itself happy to throw muscle around by withholding contracted material is the least dumb thing he's ever written

There's also the "what if we fight Muslims but French ~~terrorists~~ Muslims don't want us to" bit.

I'm not saying the French subs are a good idea (because ahahahaha jesus loving christ), but Bolt is out of his depth here.

# ? May 2, 2016 05:29

Solemn Sloth: Jul 11, 2015; Baby you can shout at me,
But you can't need my eyes.

Doctor Spaceman posted:

There's also the "what if we fight Muslims but French ~~terrorists~~ Muslims don't want us to" bit.

I'm not saying the French subs are a good idea (because ahahahaha jesus loving christ), but Bolt is out of his depth here.

I think my brain passed over the "what if radical Islam takes hold of the French government" bit on first pass out of self defence.

# ? May 2, 2016 05:32

hooman: Oct 11, 2007; This guy seems legit.; Fun Shoe

I know we've had this discussion before but why do we even have a war footing submarine fleet?

Apparently they do heaps of sig-int and stuff, but why do we even bother with torpedoes and poo poo on them?

# ? May 2, 2016 05:32

LibertyCat: Mar 5, 2016; by WE B Bourgeois

Jobs, baseload power that is way safer and cheaper than anything else on a $/joule metric, and greatly improved defenses more suited to our region. We have low population density, stable geotectonics and a shitload of empty space to store waste. It's madness that we aren't nuclear already.

# ? May 2, 2016 05:33

Cleretic: Feb 3, 2010; Ignore my posts!
I'm aggressively wrong about everything!

open24hours posted:

Easily solved: set up a nuclear industry.

Easierly solved, how about this: nuclear submarines powered by coal.

# ? May 2, 2016 05:34

LibertyCat: Mar 5, 2016; by WE B Bourgeois

^^^ because we're an island and it's way better to sink ships before they drop an invasion force on our shore. Haven't you ever played Civ?

# ? May 2, 2016 05:34

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

Well, this was one of the best selling books of 2015 in France. Maybe it's more likely than you think.

# ? May 2, 2016 05:35

WhiskeyWhiskers: Oct 14, 2013

Maybe having a second leash on Australian ambitions for war would be a good thing? :shrug:

# ? May 2, 2016 05:36

hooman: Oct 11, 2007; This guy seems legit.; Fun Shoe

LibertyCat posted:

^^^ because we're an island and it's way better to sink ships before they drop an invasion force on our shore. Haven't you ever played Civ?

You are adorable, you think Australia would trivially win or lose any war we ended up in with our neighbors irrespective of submarines.

# ? May 2, 2016 05:37

LibertyCat: Mar 5, 2016; by WE B Bourgeois

Who said it'd be trivial?

The best way to maintain peace is not to look like an easy target.

# ? May 2, 2016 05:39

Scarecow: May 20, 2008; 3200mhz RAM is literally the Devil. Literally.; Lipstick Apathy

hooman posted:

I know we've had this discussion before but why do we even have a war footing submarine fleet?

Apparently they do heaps of sig-int and stuff, but why do we even bother with torpedoes and poo poo on them?

Well the collins class is the only sub afaik that has had a confirmed aircraft carrie kill shot in the war games we do *shrug*

# ? May 2, 2016 05:40

Anidav: Feb 25, 2010; ahhh fuck its the rats again

This thread is a mess.

A big FAT mess.

# ? May 2, 2016 05:45

hooman: Oct 11, 2007; This guy seems legit.; Fun Shoe

LibertyCat posted:

Who said it'd be trivial?

The best way to maintain peace is not to look like an easy target.

Sorry I mistyped, it should have said "wouldn't"

Any country we went to war with in the local area would either thoroughly trounce us, or we would wreck. Submarines wouldn't make a difference if say China or Indonesia decided to try and take over.

Both of which are pretty unrealistic scenarios.

# ? May 2, 2016 05:45

Negligent: Aug 20, 2013; Its just lovely here this time of year.

Area denial at sea is a really good strategic tool for scenarios that aren't war. Your neighbours knowing that whenever they sail into international waters there's potentially a submarine there is useful if, for example, they are currently involved in sending fishing boats and coast guard ships to start poo poo with Vietnam and the Philippines.

# ? May 2, 2016 05:50

Negligent: Aug 20, 2013; Its just lovely here this time of year.

Anidav posted:

This thread is a mess.

A big FAT mess.

Steak or fish

Write in Albanese

# ? May 2, 2016 05:51

hooman: Oct 11, 2007; This guy seems legit.; Fun Shoe

Negligent posted:

Area denial at sea is a really good strategic tool for scenarios that aren't war. Your neighbours knowing that whenever they sail into international waters there's potentially a submarine there is useful if, for example, they are currently involved in sending fishing boats and coast guard ships to start poo poo with Vietnam and the Philippines.

Do you have any more info or links on this kind of stuff.

I really don't have an understanding of why Australia needs a submarine capacity (beyond intelligence work).

# ? May 2, 2016 05:54

Negligent: Aug 20, 2013; Its just lovely here this time of year.

Yes, professor Hugh White's column in the smh is good, and the Lowy Interpreter blog for foreign affairs stuff generally.

# ? May 2, 2016 05:58

hooman: Oct 11, 2007; This guy seems legit.; Fun Shoe

Negligent posted:

Yes, professor Hugh White's column in the smh is good, and the Lowy Interpreter blog for foreign affairs stuff generally.

Cheers.

# ? May 2, 2016 05:58

I would blow Dane Cook: Dec 26, 2008

Everyone is missing the most important issue, how can we use these subs to stop the boats?

# ? May 2, 2016 06:04

xPanda: Feb 6, 2003; Was that me or the door?

Has it been answered yet how we're going to crew our 12 new submarines when we can't even crew the 6 we already have?

# ? May 2, 2016 06:05

Les Affaires: Nov 15, 2004

Does anybody know anything about immigration law? My girlfriend has a few weeks to get a job or a uni offer before she has to leave the country.

# ? May 2, 2016 06:06

Negligent: Aug 20, 2013; Its just lovely here this time of year.

Marry her

# ? May 2, 2016 06:14

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 29, 2024 17:51

Negligent: Aug 20, 2013; Its just lovely here this time of year.

That wasn't even a flippant answer a guy at work married his Chinese girlfriend because she was going to get booted out of the country otherwise

# ? May 2, 2016 06:18

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Auspol May - Crisis on Infinite Australias

«‹›90 »