Woedende Fransen roepen ambassadeurs terug uit VS en Aus

quote:

Op zondag 19 september 2021 21:46 schreef Straatcommando. het volgende:

In running costs en daarnaast is een F16, mits gemoderniseerd, prima in staat samen te werken met een 35 waardoor de twee samen veel beter uit de verf komen. Zoals ik al zei, de 35 is een top toestel, maar te duur en niet hetgeen wij als NL zouden moeten hebben.

quote:

Op zondag 19 september 2021 15:54 schreef polderturk het volgende:
Frankrijk is nu ook boos op Zwitserland omdat ze voor de Amerikaanse F35's gekozen hebben.

[ twitter ]

quote:

It was French and Italian jet pilots who escorted the Ethiopian Airlines plane hijacked by its co-pilot safely to Geneva airport on Monday morning – because, at 6.02am, it was still nearly two hours before the Swiss air force came to work.

"Switzerland cannot intervene because its airbases are closed at night and on the weekend," spokesman Laurent Savary told AFP. "It's a question of budget and staffing."

quote:

Op zondag 19 september 2021 21:47 schreef AchJa het volgende:

[..]
Het wordt nog veel duurder om er meerder toestellen op na te houden. Dat kunnen wij al helemaal niet betalen.

Daarnaast is de F16 ook een multirole toestel he.

quote:

Op zondag 19 september 2021 21:49 schreef Straatcommando. het volgende:

Ja dat weet ik, daarom zou ik zelf eerder voor een vloot f16's hebben gekozen dan 35's, maar goed. Er is een reden dat ik daar niet over ga natuurlijk

De VS hebben dat geld wel en hebben dus een hele mooie mix van alles waardoor het gros elkaar complimenteer. Dat is mooi wark..

quote:

Op zondag 19 september 2021 21:37 schreef Straatcommando. het volgende:

[..]
Een beetje duurder is wel een understatement. Het was en is vooral een politiek speeltje die onder aan de streep weinig toevoegt aan onze luchtmacht. In feite maken we dezelfde fout als de Amerikanen door niet compleet committed te gaan. In ons geval de 35 en in de VS de 22.

Ja dat kost centjes, maar het werd toch al eens tijd om meer geld in defensie in het algemeen te proppen.

quote:

Op zondag 19 september 2021 22:00 schreef sp3c het volgende:

[..]
er is een politiek spelletje van gemaakt

de KLu is altijd vanaf de conceptfase tot nu fan geweest van F35 puur omdat het doet wat wij met ons jachtvliegtuig willen doen ... alles

en meer

vraag me af hoeveel geld er in Den Haag was bespaart aan onderzoeken en vergaderingen en debatten die tot de uiteindelijke order allemaal op dezelfde conclusie uitkwamen en gewoon van het oordeel van de mensen die ermee moeten werken af was gegaan ... denk dat we er nog wat bij hadden kunnen kopen

quote:

In aanloop naar een besluit stonden de ministeries van Defensie en Economische Zaken (EZ) tegenover elkaar. Defensie verklaarde de Apache te willen aanschaffen. EZ had echter een voorkeur voor de Tigre en bestempelde het uitgesproken standpunt van Defensie als 'een typisch staaltje arrogantie van de legertop'.

quote:

If there were any doubt that the accord is on the ropes, German MEP Bernd Lange, chair of the European Parliament's international trade committee, said the deal was in trouble, for reasons that stretched beyond France's opposition. "The willingness to compromise, on the European side, has now certainly decreased," Lange told POLITICO, arguing that Australia's recent U-turn also hit German interests.

"In addition to Australia's security policy orientation, the deal with the U.S. also sends industrial policy signals against the EU," said Lange, noting the new pact also affects the German company Atlas Elektronik, which is part of Thyssen Krupp Marine.

quote:

Op zondag 19 september 2021 22:00 schreef sp3c het volgende:

[..]
er is een politiek spelletje van gemaakt

de KLu is altijd vanaf de conceptfase tot nu fan geweest van F35 puur omdat het doet wat wij met ons jachtvliegtuig willen doen ... alles

en meer

vraag me af hoeveel geld er in Den Haag was bespaart aan onderzoeken en vergaderingen en debatten die tot de uiteindelijke order allemaal op dezelfde conclusie uitkwamen en gewoon van het oordeel van de mensen die ermee moeten werken af was gegaan ... denk dat we er nog wat bij hadden kunnen kopen

quote:

Op zondag 19 september 2021 22:08 schreef Straatcommando. het volgende:

[..]
Het zou natuurlijk ook geholpen hebben als de geraamde kosten iets dichter bij de realiteit lagen, maar iets zegt me dat de keuze dan niet gemaakt was.

quote:

Op zondag 19 september 2021 22:07 schreef crystal_meth het volgende:
UK-France defence summit cancelled in Aukus row

De kans dat de free trade agreement tussen EU en Australië nog doorgaat lijkt klein. Ook de Duitsers zijn niet blij met wat er gebeurd is.
[..]
https://www.politico.eu/a(...)ver-submarine-furor/

quote:

Defence is looking at alternatives to $90 billion French submarines

Defence has confirmed for the first time it is looking at alternatives for submarines if the troubled $90 billion deal with French company Naval Group does not go ahead.

Department secretary Greg Moriarty told a Senate estimates hearing on Wednesday he had been thinking about the issue over the past 12 months although he stressed the government wanted to go ahead with the existing contract.

The government selected DCNS, now Naval Group, in 2016 to build Australia’s new attack-class submarines to replace its ageing Collins class fleet.

Since then, there have been tensions in the relationship over cost and timeline blowouts and disagreements over the commitments to meet local contract requirements.

The first of the 12 submarines is not scheduled to be built until the early 2030s.

Mr Moriarty told the committee “it became clear to me that we were having challenges with the Attack Class program over the last 15-12 months”.

“So of course, you do reasonably prudent thinking about what one of those options might be or what you might be able to do if you are unable to proceed,” he said.

Mr Moriarty said he had held several discussions with senior officers about what that might involve.

“I wouldn’t refer to it as Plan B, I’d say prudent contingency planning,” he said.

However, Mr Moriarty said the government was “absolutely committed to trying to work through with Naval Group and build a regionally superior submarine in Adelaide”.

A spokesman for Naval Group said the company was “fully committed to continuing to achieve important program milestones”.

“Significant progress has already been made on submarine design, workforce growth and Australian industry involvement,” the spokesman said.

Prime Minister Scott Morrison is expected to discuss the submarine project with French President Emmanuel Macron when they meet in Paris later this month.

Opposition defence spokesman Brendan O’Connor called on Mr Morrison to explain what changes could be made to the largest Defence contract in Australia’s history.

“There has been no certainty about the future submarine for some time, yet it is only today we are hearing confirmation that the government is looking at other options for our submarine capability,” he said.

It has been reported Australian officials are now considering German options including submarines from TKMS and Saab.

Mr Moriarty would not comment on specific options but said, “it’s fair to say we’re looking at capability pathways,” when Labor senator Penny Wong asked whether Defence was engaging with other suppliers.

“I’m not going to go into those pathways but the Chief of Navy said that yesterday we’re not looking at the TKMS,” he said.

Commodore Tim Brown, who was previously the director-general of submarine capability and is now in a role looking at overall force structure requirements, repeatedly told the senators he could not discuss whether he was involved in considering alternatives because everything he did in that previous job was classified.

Independent senator Rex Patrick eventually lost his temper at this evasion, telling Commodore Brown everything he did was paid for by taxpayers.

“We have an oversight role and we are entitled to ask questions and we expect answers,” the senator said.

quote:

Op zondag 19 september 2021 22:00 schreef sp3c het volgende:

[..]
er is een politiek spelletje van gemaakt

de KLu is altijd vanaf de conceptfase tot nu fan geweest van F35 puur omdat het doet wat wij met ons jachtvliegtuig willen doen ... alles

en meer

vraag me af hoeveel geld er in Den Haag was bespaart aan onderzoeken en vergaderingen en debatten die tot de uiteindelijke order allemaal op dezelfde conclusie uitkwamen en gewoon van het oordeel van de mensen die ermee moeten werken af was gegaan ... denk dat we er nog wat bij hadden kunnen kopen

quote:

Op zondag 19 september 2021 23:08 schreef Havermout2 het volgende:

[..]
De piloten veel invloed hebben binnen de KLu, dat leidt wel eens tot problemen, juist omdat zij alles willen. Voorbeeld is de Chinook D waar allerlei aanpassingen voor gedaan voor de Nederlandse versie, met name in de cockpit. Boeing was welwillend maar heeft de luchtmacht vrolijk platgefactureerd met kosten voor speciale ondersteuning. De D's waren lang niet op, maar de resterende exemplaren zijn van pure ellende maar vervangen door F's die wel standaard US issue zijn om de ondersteuningskosten maar omlaag te krijgen.

quote:

Op zondag 19 september 2021 22:30 schreef AchJa het volgende:
Artikel van juni dit jaar:
[..]
Sydney Morning Herald

De Fransen moeten niet net doen alsof dit plotsklaps uit de lucht is komen vallen.

quote:

Australia is also set to formally agree with the French company building the government’s 12 new attack-class submarines on its plan for the next 2½ years of the program, allowing for the pressure hull for the first boat to be built as early as 2024.

Multiple senior sources within the government, who were not authorised to speak publicly, confirmed the agreement was set to be formally locked in by the end of the next week.

quote:

Op zondag 19 september 2021 22:18 schreef AchJa het volgende:

[..]
De Duitsers zijn natuurlijk team Frankrijk aangezien TKMS aan de kant geschoven is door Nederland vwb de vervanging van onze subs.

quote:

Op zondag 19 september 2021 21:47 schreef tjoptjop het volgende:

[..]
Wie gaat straks buiten kantooruren de intercepties doen in Zwitserland
[..]
https://www.theguardian.c(...)jacking-office-hours

quote:

Op maandag 20 september 2021 09:12 schreef Niek92 het volgende:

[..]
TKMS is officieel nog in de race, Navantia ligt er uit. Dus de Duitsers en Fransen hebben beide belangen bij de Nederlandse onderzeeërs.

quote:

Op zondag 19 september 2021 21:47 schreef tjoptjop het volgende:

[..]
Wie gaat straks buiten kantooruren de intercepties doen in Zwitserland
[..]
https://www.theguardian.c(...)jacking-office-hours

quote:

Op maandag 20 september 2021 12:12 schreef icecreamfarmer_NL het volgende:

[..]
Welke zijn nog in de race? Ik dacht dat we samen gingen werken met de Noren?

quote:

Op maandag 20 september 2021 07:11 schreef Peppert het volgende:
Julian Assange is in mijn ogen een martelaar. De media hoor je niet over hoe deze legende achter slot en grendel wordt gehouden omdat hij als kwaliteit onderzoeksjournalist de nodige vuile was naar buiten heeft gebracht die het publiek niet mocht zien. De prijs is zeer hoog want die komt niet meer vrij. De 'journalisten' die de mainstream politici en denktanks na kraaien zijn zwaar dominant. Een parel deze Assange. Speld en hooiberg wat betreft journalistiek. Rust zacht prachtige man. Man, mijn respect is levensgroot voor de in mijn ogen historische figuur. Hij had ook gewoon netjes in lijn kunnen lopen net als de meeste journalisten maar was een rebelse journalist. De prijs is hoog en een waarschuwing naar anderen dat ze gigantisch zullen boeten als ze in Assange voetstappen volgen.
[ twitter ]

quote:

From the submarine to the ridiculous
The old plan was to build a conventionally powered version of a nuclear-powered French submarine. It was crazy. The new plan – to buy a nuclear-powered submarine instead – is worse. It will make the replacement of the Royal Australian Navy’s fleet of Collins-class boats riskier, costlier and slower. It means an even bigger slump in our submarine capability over the next few dangerous decades. And it deepens our commitment to the United States’ military confrontation of China, which has little chance of success and carries terrifying risks.

There is a reason why only six countries, all of them nuclear-armed, operate nuclear-powered subs. For everyone else their advantages, especially higher range and speed, do not outweigh their much greater costs. Nuclear propulsion makes perfect sense for nuclear-armed ballistic missile subs, and for the “hunter–killer” subs that are designed to track and destroy them. But for other tasks, especially for operating against enemy shipping, conventionally powered diesel–electric subs are more cost-effective.

If Australia’s submarines were intended primarily to defend Australia and our closer neighbours, then there is no way we’d consider nuclear propulsion. But the navy decided many years ago that the primary role for our new boats should be to operate off the coast of China in co-operation with the US Navy, and the government has eagerly gone along. That required a submarine that was bigger and more complex than any conventional sub in the world, with attributes only found in nuclear-powered boats. It was the attempt to satisfy these demands that led us to the highly problematic French deal, which has now imploded so spectacularly.

Under the new AUKUS arrangement, announced on Thursday, Australia will get access to highly sensitive nuclear propulsion technology that will allow us to go nuclear ourselves. The plan is to build eight boats in South Australia, based either on the American Virginia-class or the British Astute-class designs. Scott Morrison said the decision will be made after an 18-month process to explore and assess all the issues and options involved.

In some ways switching to nuclear power makes a kind of sense – but only if we really need the highly ambitious capabilities that have driven us to this step, and are now driving us further and further into bigger and more complex boats. You can see this by looking simply at the size of the submarines we are talking about. The Collins class are 3000 tonnes. The now-abandoned French-designed Attack class were going to be 4500 tonnes. The American and British that we are now looking at are more than 7000 tonnes.

That is a lot of boat, and they are very capable. But those capabilities carry immense penalties. Start with cost. The prime minister has acknowledged that the new plan will cost even more than the old one, and the numbers will be cut from 12 to eight. At an estimated $80 billion for 12 boats, the French program was already staggeringly expensive. International comparisons make it clear we could build large, modern, conventionally powered subs for half that price. We could have twice as many submarines in service for the same amount of money if we scrapped the French but stayed with conventional power and didn’t go nuclear. Now we will have only eight boats. That’s a big operational loss, because numbers really count in battle.

Then there is timing. The PM has acknowledged that we will now not see the first of the new nuclear-powered submarines in service before 2040. Even if all goes well, that means we will not have replaced the six Collins-class boats until after 2050, and will not have 12 boats in service until the mid-2060s. That is just way too slow when our strategic circumstances are changing so fast. We need a much bigger submarine capacity, much sooner.

And that timetable may well slip, too. All subs are complex, but nuclear subs are doubly so, and Australia has no expertise at all in this form of propulsion, and very little expertise in nuclear engineering to build on. No decision has been made on what design we will buy – on whether we will buy an existing British or American design “off-the-shelf” or develop a modified design of our own. Even an off-the-shelf design would be risky, and any modifications would make it far more so. Then the challenge of building these boats in Australia, as the government remains committed to do, is daunting. Long delays are very likely, so we must prudently expect to wait to the mid 2040s for the new subs to enter service.

Until then the government is relying on the old Collins-class boats to fill the gap. They plan a major upgrade to extend the Collins’ operational life, but that project also is complex and risky, and it is only now getting under way. There is no way to avoid a serious drop in capability in the 2030s, and a real risk that fumbles in the Collins upgrade and delays in the new nuclear boats will see our submarine force disappear for a while.

Then there is the challenge of operating and maintaining nuclear-powered submarines safely. This is an immensely complex and demanding responsibility, and would impose huge responsibilities on the navy, which has struggled in recent years to operate much simpler systems. No doubt the government and the navy intend to rely heavily on Britain and the US to help, but therein lies a problem. Apart from cost and delay, opting for nuclear subs deepens our dependence on the US and Britain, and that carries real strategic risks in the tense and fast-changing power politics of our region. So much for the government’s much-touted sovereign submarine capability.

It is a big step for the US to agree to share, and to allow Britain to share, its nuclear-propulsion technology with Australia. They have never done that before with anyone else. Their reason has nothing to do with the boilerplate talk of shared values and mutual commitment to a free and open Indo–Pacific. It has everything to do with the US’s hard-nosed strategic interest to tie us in more closely to its military strategy against China.

Washington wants Australia to be able to do more – much more – to support them in a war with China. It is therefore in America’s interest to see us invest in forces designed for that, and nuclear-powered submarines fit their needs perfectly. The government would argue this is in our interests, too, because we must depend on the US to resist China’s threatening ambitions, so we should do all we can to help them.

But putting all our eggs in America’s basket is only a good strategy if the US is sure to win the contest with China over which of them will dominate Asia in the decades ahead, and if its interests in the region will always align with ours. That is far from assured. Scott Morrison may refer to our alliance as the “forever relationship”, but nothing is forever in power politics. The US faces an immense challenge in confronting and containing China in its own backyard. It is the most formidable rival the country has ever faced, and it will demand huge sacrifices to defeat.

We have seen tough talk out of Washington now for a decade about its determination to take China on. But so far we have seen no sign that US voters or their leaders are really willing to bear the burdens and pay the costs involved. On the contrary, both Joe Biden and Donald Trump, in their different ways, have made it clear that when push comes to shove they have little appetite for the obligations of global leadership. We in Australia simply cannot plan our future on the assumption that the US will always be there for us, no matter how many nuclear subs we buy.

And if the US, by miscalculation, does find itself at war with China, we absolutely cannot assume that it would win. That must, surely, enter our calculations about whether we commit ourselves to fighting alongside America. And yet that is what we are increasingly doing.

What should we do instead? First, we should recognise, as our neighbours in South-East Asia do, that confronting and containing China won’t work. Whether we like it or not, we are going to have to live with China’s power and growing influence. That doesn’t mean doing whatever China says, but it does mean stepping back from Washington’s policy of trying to push back China by threatening war.

Second, we should be building forces to defend ourselves without relying on the US, rather than deepening our dependency in an ally that, for all its tough talk, is becoming less and less credible. That means buying submarines and other systems that work cost-effectively to defend ourselves, not serve our allies – which means buying conventional rather than nuclear submarines.

And third, we should step back and think about our long-term future as a country. Thirty years ago Bob Hawke and Paul Keating said Australia had no choice but to stop looking for our security from Asia and start looking for it in Asia. That remains true, and it is the very opposite of turning back the clock to the days of Robert Menzies and his two Anglo-Saxon “great and powerful friends”.

But that is exactly what Morrison has done this week. He has tied Australia to a deal that undermines our sovereign capabilities, overspends on hardware we can barely be confident of operating, and drags us closer to the front line of a war we may have no interest in fighting.

quote:

Op zondag 3 oktober 2021 23:19 schreef Terecht het volgende:
Interessant opiniestuk over deze affaire. De nieuwe onderzeeboten gaan nóg meer kosten dan de Franse onderzeeboten, en komen véél te laat. Australie komt hiermee ook in de tang te zitten van het VK en de VS omdat het zelf niet de capaciteiten heeft om de nucleaire aandrijving van deze onderzeeboten te onderhouden (Australie heeft geen eigen civiele nucleaire industrie waar ze op kunnen terugvallen). De begeleidende podcast is ook de moeite waard: Everything wrong with Australia's nuclear submarine deal
[..]
Laatste alinea somt het mooi op. Deze deal brengt ontzettend veel risico's met zich mee, bovenop het gegeven dat je de relatie met een andere bondgenoot (Frankrijk) ernstig beschadigd.

quote:

Op vrijdag 16 september 2022 17:14 schreef J.B. het volgende:
Mooie ontwikkelingen in dit verhaal. Australië annuleerde de aankoop van Franse onderzeeërs vanwege AUKUS, daaruit volgend zouden Amerikaanse nucleaire onderzeeërs worden gekocht. De diplomatieke relaties met Frankrijk zijn in de tussentijd enigszins gerepareerd, en zijn er miljarden aan schadevergoeding aan de Fransen betaald.

Nu blijkt echter dat de Amerikanen de bestelde onderzeeërs wegens drukte helemaal niet kunnen leveren en komt Frankrijk (mogelijk) weer om de hoek kijken:

France could build submarines for Australia, after all
https://rfi.my/8k5w.W