Into the Black

Last Link of the Day: Watch Ken Block's Hoonigan team build a real life 'Halo' Warthog vehicle. Thanks Neutronbeam.
View : : :
21 Replies. 2 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  2  ] Older
21.
 
Re: Into the Black
Sep 22, 2021, 17:12
21.
Re: Into the Black Sep 22, 2021, 17:12
Sep 22, 2021, 17:12
 
Man, I wish Biden simply told Macron, "Look, put your dick back in your pants and let's move on." (Something Trump might have done which I would have actually supported)
“Extinction is the rule. Survival is the exception.” -- Carl Sagan
20.
 
Re: Into the Black
Sep 22, 2021, 17:07
20.
Re: Into the Black Sep 22, 2021, 17:07
Sep 22, 2021, 17:07
 
France To Send Its Ambassador Back To The U.S. Following A Macron-Biden Call NPR

45 Junior aka Boris Johnson told the French to "get a grip" and "give me a break", ever the good neighbor.
- I refer to it as BC, Before Corona, and AD, After Disaster. -
Avatar 58135
19.
 
Re: Into the Black
Sep 22, 2021, 16:53
19.
Re: Into the Black Sep 22, 2021, 16:53
Sep 22, 2021, 16:53
 
The more I read about this the more convinced I become this is less about the money and more about France's desire to look like a military leader for the EU and in the Indian Ocean theater. They probably have a legitimate complaint in all of this, but nothing worthy of recalling their US ambassador -- at least in what I have seen to date.

This comment was edited on Sep 22, 2021, 17:09.
“Extinction is the rule. Survival is the exception.” -- Carl Sagan
18.
 
Re: Into the Black
Sep 18, 2021, 21:00
18.
Re: Into the Black Sep 18, 2021, 21:00
Sep 18, 2021, 21:00
 
Based on the article Redeye linked in The Atlantic, it sounds like the French deal was falling apart anyway. Seems like, at least in hindsight, someone could/should have seen this could possibly happen based on the issues the deal was having...
“Extinction is the rule. Survival is the exception.” -- Carl Sagan
17.
 
Re: Into the Black
Sep 18, 2021, 20:31
17.
Re: Into the Black Sep 18, 2021, 20:31
Sep 18, 2021, 20:31
 
Burrito of Peace wrote on Sep 18, 2021, 01:04:
Mr. Tact wrote on Sep 18, 2021, 00:26:
I've been seeing the headlines about the French being mad over the US/UK/AUS submarine deal. And I was kind of wondering "why" they were mad, I mean sure -- breaking the deal is kind of shitty but it didn't seem bad enough to recall their ambassador... according to one article I read it means a $65 billion dollar loss for their defense industry. Please tell me they aren't that mad for a lousy $65 billion? What is that, like one week of the US government spending?

I read it as a $90B contract and that the French are more pissed off at the Australians (whom they recalled their ambassador from before they recalled their ambassador to the US) for the rather clumsy way that Australia handled ending the contract. France is throwing a tantrum because they feel they were humiliated. Despite the fact that their contract with the Australians was way behind schedule, way over budget, and they couldn't quite meet the requirements that the Australians are looking for in a new sub design. The Virginia class subs are pretty damn impressive and they even outclass Britain's new Astute class subs. I would infer from what I have read is that the Australians are rather enamored of the Virginia class' modularity, something that even the Astute class cannot match. Add to that that we're already building them and we can deliver them cheaper than anyone else can. In further addition to that, the French don't have a decent nuclear powered sub to sell. Their Suffren class only has one example built and it has had significant teething problems. It's not as modular as Astute and Virginia and it's a small boat. It doesn't have the endurance like the other two (70 days vs 180 for the US and UK subs).

The US Government will probably slip the French the $90B, the French will probably posture a bit more, and then the ambassadors will quietly return. The French are just pissed that no one takes their sub program or their "power" in the Indo-Pacific region seriously.
In addition to what you said, a bunch of things made that French deal very expensive: creating a sub-building infrastructure in Australia, equipping the French subs with American equipment instead of French, the massive size of the subs (the largest modern non-nuclear ones to be built), etc. Basically they wanted close to the capability of a nuke, but couldn't acquire a nuke. Now they can.

Britain has also just begun research into a new design.
“The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts, while the stupid ones are full of confidence.”
― Charles Bukowski
Avatar 22024
16.
 
Re: Into the Black
Sep 18, 2021, 20:17
16.
Re: Into the Black Sep 18, 2021, 20:17
Sep 18, 2021, 20:17
 
Mr. Tact wrote on Sep 18, 2021, 11:44:
I gotta say, the idea Australia was going to buy diesel subs seems completely weird. Was there an objection from some party about sharing nuclear tech with them?
Beyond the UK (IIRC) the US has never shared its nuke sub tech with any other nation. So sharing with Aus is a huge Biden deal.
“The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts, while the stupid ones are full of confidence.”
― Charles Bukowski
Avatar 22024
15.
 
Re: Into the Black
Sep 18, 2021, 20:13
15.
Re: Into the Black Sep 18, 2021, 20:13
Sep 18, 2021, 20:13
 
1badmf wrote on Sep 18, 2021, 02:52:
just to emphasize the ridiculousness of the contract, the deal was for 12 non-nuclear powered subs, for $90B. to be delivered in the mid 2030s assuming no further delays (unlikely). that's about $8 BILLION per sub for something that will likely be out of date before it even hits the water.

for comparison the american Virginia class nuclear attack subs cost about $3B per and as burrito stated are ready to go at a moment's notice. in my personal estimation, it's like paying $100,000 to get a toyota camry in 15 years when you could pay $50,000 for a Lexus today. and a key aspect of this that i think isn't emphasized enough is that, with the millions of square miles of open ocean surrounding australia, they REALLY needed nuclear boats that can go on long term, long range patrol without worrying about coming to the surface, well, ever, short of returning to port. conventional subs are great at coastal patrol but in the open ocean rapidly lose effectiveness compared to nukes. if we're to build that allied fence around china we really needed nuclear boats on patrol that have eyes and ears open 24/7 for months at a time, not helpless at the surface once a week before returning to port every month.

the french acting outraged by this is utter slimy greed considering they were about to rob an ostensible ally of a contract that cost more than double a superior alternative. this is nothing but shameful crying that they couldn't fleece the aussies for free billions.
It's important to realize that the US "sail-away" cost of a Virginia at $3.5B isn't what Australia will pay for the boats. Arms export deals almost always double the price to include: profit, support, parts, training, armament, etc. Our F-35As roll off the line at $80M each, but typical export deals price them at $180-$220M each depending on how the deal was structured. So the price will likely be the same, but as you point out, nuke boats are vastly superior to conventional subs, and fit Australia's needs much better.

Also, the price of the French deal included creating total a sub infrastructure in Aus so they could build their own, not just the subs themselves. It will be interesting to see if the American-UK deal does the same, minus the reactors of course.
“The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts, while the stupid ones are full of confidence.”
― Charles Bukowski
Avatar 22024
14.
 
Re: Into the Black
Sep 18, 2021, 20:03
14.
Re: Into the Black Sep 18, 2021, 20:03
Sep 18, 2021, 20:03
 
RedEye9 wrote on Sep 18, 2021, 19:09:
France is mad but not that mad, they still served dessert.
Okay, this was amusing:

Worse still, the French received word only hours before the public found out, reportedly because the Americans and the Australians each insisted that the other deliver the bad news.
“Extinction is the rule. Survival is the exception.” -- Carl Sagan
13.
 
Re: Into the Black
Sep 18, 2021, 19:09
13.
Re: Into the Black Sep 18, 2021, 19:09
Sep 18, 2021, 19:09
 
France is mad but not that mad, they still served dessert.
- I refer to it as BC, Before Corona, and AD, After Disaster. -
Avatar 58135
12.
 
Re: Into the Black
Sep 18, 2021, 16:15
12.
Re: Into the Black Sep 18, 2021, 16:15
Sep 18, 2021, 16:15
 
Mr. Tact wrote on Sep 18, 2021, 11:44:
I gotta say, the idea Australia was going to buy diesel subs seems completely weird. Was there an objection from some party about sharing nuclear tech with them?

australia and new zealand have always had a strong anti-nuke sentiment in their government; also the US is strongly protective of its nuclear technology and the only ones we've ever shared it with was the brits. we've made an exception for this deal because it was necessary to counter the chinese, but the state and defense department have both stated it isn't likely to be made again. new zealand has stated they won't allow the new aussie SSNs to come to their ports, as an example of how anti-nuke they are. which is kinda horseshit because modern nuclear reactors are extremely safe, especially western ones.
11.
 
Re: Into the Black
Sep 18, 2021, 16:09
11.
Re: Into the Black Sep 18, 2021, 16:09
Sep 18, 2021, 16:09
 
RedEye9 wrote on Sep 18, 2021, 11:20:
There's a lot of numbers being tossed around. The lower numbers between 40 to 65b was the original contract between Australia and France. "The deal is a blow to France, who was set to help provide 12 diesel-electric submarines under a deal worth roughly $66 billion, the AP noted."

The 90 b is for the new deal involving the USA, UK and Australia.

Back in 2015 the number being tossed around was 50b. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-20/submarines-announcement-expected-next-week/7340996

i've been hearing that $90B number for years, long before this new deal was announced. $50-$60B was the number the turnbull government put out that turned out to be overly optimistic bullshit. their own internal auditing showed the real number was $80 to $90B. i haven't heard any prices associated with the new deal, but i'd be shocked if it was anywhere close to $90B. even with the cost of maintenance counted + the cost of 12 Virginias, it's still only about halfway to 90.
10.
 
Re: Into the Black
Sep 18, 2021, 13:38
10.
Re: Into the Black Sep 18, 2021, 13:38
Sep 18, 2021, 13:38
 
Mr. Tact wrote on Sep 18, 2021, 12:28:
RedEye9 wrote on Sep 18, 2021, 11:49:
Yes
From the abc Australia link i posted
The Japanese bid has been pushed by some US officials who raised the prospect that America might not allow its most advanced combat systems to be installed in the European subs.
I’m sure that includes nuclear powered.
Well, maybe. That statement sounds more like everything but the nuclear stuff -- you wouldn't install US nuclear power into a European sub. But it is interesting the pushing was in the direction opposite from what I was guessing might be happening.

It's even weirder given France originally offered nuclear powered subs, and AUS gov said NO and opted for Diesel instead. (When they could have gotten hybrid diesel/fuel cell stealth hunter killer subs from Germany for a tenth of the price too).

The deal never made any sense when you think about it.

To be even clearer, they could have gotten 100 ! subs from Germany for 65bn ;p
Avatar 54727
9.
 
Re: Into the Black
Sep 18, 2021, 12:28
9.
Re: Into the Black Sep 18, 2021, 12:28
Sep 18, 2021, 12:28
 
RedEye9 wrote on Sep 18, 2021, 11:49:
Yes
From the abc Australia link i posted
The Japanese bid has been pushed by some US officials who raised the prospect that America might not allow its most advanced combat systems to be installed in the European subs.
I’m sure that includes nuclear powered.
Well, maybe. That statement sounds more like everything but the nuclear stuff -- you wouldn't install US nuclear power into a European sub. But it is interesting the pushing was in the direction opposite from what I was guessing might be happening.
“Extinction is the rule. Survival is the exception.” -- Carl Sagan
8.
 
Re: Into the Black
Sep 18, 2021, 11:49
8.
Re: Into the Black Sep 18, 2021, 11:49
Sep 18, 2021, 11:49
 
Yes
From the abc Australia link i posted
The Japanese bid has been pushed by some US officials who raised the prospect that America might not allow its most advanced combat systems to be installed in the European subs.
I’m sure that includes nuclear powered.
- I refer to it as BC, Before Corona, and AD, After Disaster. -
Avatar 58135
7.
 
Re: Into the Black
Sep 18, 2021, 11:44
7.
Re: Into the Black Sep 18, 2021, 11:44
Sep 18, 2021, 11:44
 
I gotta say, the idea Australia was going to buy diesel subs seems completely weird. Was there an objection from some party about sharing nuclear tech with them?
“Extinction is the rule. Survival is the exception.” -- Carl Sagan
6.
 
Re: Into the Black
Sep 18, 2021, 11:20
6.
Re: Into the Black Sep 18, 2021, 11:20
Sep 18, 2021, 11:20
 
There's a lot of numbers being tossed around. The lower numbers between 40 to 65b was the original contract between Australia and France. "The deal is a blow to France, who was set to help provide 12 diesel-electric submarines under a deal worth roughly $66 billion, the AP noted."

The 90 b is for the new deal involving the USA, UK and Australia.

Back in 2015 the number being tossed around was 50b. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-20/submarines-announcement-expected-next-week/7340996
- I refer to it as BC, Before Corona, and AD, After Disaster. -
Avatar 58135
5.
 
Re: Into the Black
Sep 18, 2021, 05:37
5.
Re: Into the Black Sep 18, 2021, 05:37
Sep 18, 2021, 05:37
 
Mr. Tact wrote on Sep 18, 2021, 00:26:
I've been seeing the headlines about the French being mad over the US/UK/AUS submarine deal. And I was kind of wondering "why" they were mad, I mean sure -- breaking the deal is kind of shitty but it didn't seem bad enough to recall their ambassador... according to one article I read it means a $65 billion dollar loss for their defense industry. Please tell me they aren't that mad for a lousy $65 billion? What is that, like one week of the US government spending?

If you were European you wouldn't be surprised.... France is the reason Ariane 6 is not reusable because as majority operator of the Ariane Group it demanded it's factories to be at "maximum capacity at all times" and if you don't blow your boosters to pieces that wouldn't be a thing. So we ended up with a inferior rocket that is more expensive, La tribune had a totally mind-blowing scathing hit-piece on Ariane Group way back that also put into doubts the launch costs...

So yeah, nobody HERE is surprised at all. To be honest, nobody here even understood why Australia was paying that much to France. We always assumed it was corruption.
Avatar 54727
4.
 
Re: Into the Black
Sep 18, 2021, 02:52
4.
Re: Into the Black Sep 18, 2021, 02:52
Sep 18, 2021, 02:52
 
just to emphasize the ridiculousness of the contract, the deal was for 12 non-nuclear powered subs, for $90B. to be delivered in the mid 2030s assuming no further delays (unlikely). that's about $8 BILLION per sub for something that will likely be out of date before it even hits the water.

for comparison the american Virginia class nuclear attack subs cost about $3B per and as burrito stated are ready to go at a moment's notice. in my personal estimation, it's like paying $100,000 to get a toyota camry in 15 years when you could pay $50,000 for a Lexus today. and a key aspect of this that i think isn't emphasized enough is that, with the millions of square miles of open ocean surrounding australia, they REALLY needed nuclear boats that can go on long term, long range patrol without worrying about coming to the surface, well, ever, short of returning to port. conventional subs are great at coastal patrol but in the open ocean rapidly lose effectiveness compared to nukes. if we're to build that allied fence around china we really needed nuclear boats on patrol that have eyes and ears open 24/7 for months at a time, not helpless at the surface once a week before returning to port every month.

the french acting outraged by this is utter slimy greed considering they were about to rob an ostensible ally of a contract that cost more than double a superior alternative. this is nothing but shameful crying that they couldn't fleece the aussies for free billions.
3.
 
Re: Into the Black
Sep 18, 2021, 01:07
3.
Re: Into the Black Sep 18, 2021, 01:07
Sep 18, 2021, 01:07
 
France should have known the deal was on shakey ground.
The outrage is equivalent to the soccer flop, it's for the settlement.
- I refer to it as BC, Before Corona, and AD, After Disaster. -
Avatar 58135
2.
 
Re: Into the Black
Sep 18, 2021, 01:04
2.
Re: Into the Black Sep 18, 2021, 01:04
Sep 18, 2021, 01:04
 
Mr. Tact wrote on Sep 18, 2021, 00:26:
I've been seeing the headlines about the French being mad over the US/UK/AUS submarine deal. And I was kind of wondering "why" they were mad, I mean sure -- breaking the deal is kind of shitty but it didn't seem bad enough to recall their ambassador... according to one article I read it means a $65 billion dollar loss for their defense industry. Please tell me they aren't that mad for a lousy $65 billion? What is that, like one week of the US government spending?

I read it as a $90B contract and that the French are more pissed off at the Australians (whom they recalled their ambassador from before they recalled their ambassador to the US) for the rather clumsy way that Australia handled ending the contract. France is throwing a tantrum because they feel they were humiliated. Despite the fact that their contract with the Australians was way behind schedule, way over budget, and they couldn't quite meet the requirements that the Australians are looking for in a new sub design. The Virginia class subs are pretty damn impressive and they even outclass Britain's new Astute class subs. I would infer from what I have read is that the Australians are rather enamored of the Virginia class' modularity, something that even the Astute class cannot match. Add to that that we're already building them and we can deliver them cheaper than anyone else can. In further addition to that, the French don't have a decent nuclear powered sub to sell. Their Suffren class only has one example built and it has had significant teething problems. It's not as modular as Astute and Virginia and it's a small boat. It doesn't have the endurance like the other two (70 days vs 180 for the US and UK subs).

The US Government will probably slip the French the $90B, the French will probably posture a bit more, and then the ambassadors will quietly return. The French are just pissed that no one takes their sub program or their "power" in the Indo-Pacific region seriously.
"Lock the doors. Kill the light. No one's coming...home tonight. It's getting colder."

If you would like help or further details on a technical discussion we're having, email me at bnhelp (at sign) keepusiel.net .
Avatar 21247
21 Replies. 2 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  2  ] Older