Nifty
Member
Posts: 5,016
|
Post by Nifty on Sept 21, 2021 20:13:24 GMT 1
F words….
’ What’s behind Macron’s fury?‘
sounds a bit like the Daily Fail
|
|
|
Post by plog on Sept 22, 2021 9:54:47 GMT 1
Try looking at this in another way. The ambassadors did not get wind of the upcoming aukus conspiracy so were they doing thier job? As for old fashioned subs, if you order diesel/electric engines, you will get diesel/electric engines and they will be state of the art. when you live near a potential threat, it is not far to go to refuel so who needs nuclear/ steam turbine. The steam turbine was first described in 1551 (acc Wiki) is that old fashioned enough for you? If you have ever worked in a steam engineroom with leaky shaft glands and condensation filling your shoes, you would wonder why a sub would ever have a steam engineroom. Would you rather have a rolls royce or a renault???
Germany needs to rein in France as this deal is the best for the western world against the threat of China.
There’s nothing “Renault “ or old fashioned about a modern quiet diesel/electric sub - you might want to ask the Swedes and/or the Japanese since they amongst others build and operate modern designs. The underlying issue with this deal whether a diesel electric sub was ever suitable for what Australia really aspired to do with it’s boats, and whether they were completely honest in their dealings with the French. Swedish subsJapanese Submarine capabilities
|
|
ibis
Banned Member
Posts: 1,376
|
Post by ibis on Sept 22, 2021 11:22:29 GMT 1
From what i heard it came down to the every 8th year refueling (french) or the every 30th year refueling (us of a) when the aussies decided they did not want a diesel sub.
|
|
|
Post by Polarengineer on Sept 22, 2021 13:12:48 GMT 1
From what i heard it came down to the every 8th year refueling (french) or the every 30th year refueling (us of a) when the aussies decided they did not want a diesel sub. You are listening to the wrong data. Stop spreading fake info.
|
|
|
Post by plog on Sept 22, 2021 18:10:11 GMT 1
From what i heard it came down to the every 8th year refueling (french) or the every 30th year refueling (us of a) when the aussies decided they did not want a diesel sub. As I understand it there’s an element truth in that… I suspect the Royal Australian Navy always fancied a nuclear boat but way back when the whole deal was being considered as I understand it the Aussies politicians weren’t keen on nuclear politically (domestic politics) plus they had, compared with France/US/UK, little experience of nuclear operations (I think there’s one research reactor in country, that’s it). As a result they didn’t want to get involved with something that would need to be either refueled by them mid life or be sent to France for a midlife refuel…. Unfortunately Oz at that retime sharing technology with the US/UK wasn’t an option, so they went for the French boat with conventional propulsion. Fast forward a few years and suddenly sharing some technology with US/UK get thumbs up, and those boats have a much longer time before refuel than the French design. There’s also a possibility that with the emergence of China as an increasing maritime threat having a “bigger boat” was perhaps seen by the Australian government as being more important than catering to some of the Greens demands and a way had to be found to be found to switch boats..
|
|
|
Post by tim17 on Sept 23, 2021 6:59:34 GMT 1
I see that Macron and Biden have had a chat and France is sending it's Ambassador back to Washington, there's been no 'u-turn' on cancelling the sub order though so France has still lost out.
|
|
|
Post by Polarengineer on Sept 23, 2021 9:45:29 GMT 1
From what i heard it came down to the every 8th year refueling (french) or the every 30th year refueling (us of a) when the aussies decided they did not want a diesel sub. You are listening to the wrong data. Stop spreading fake info. If you are referring to a French nuclear sub needing refueling after 8 years (maybe, maybe not). Why are you referring to it? It is not even on the table in the lost deal. Your statement confuses the issue and is open for misinterpretation by some.
|
|
|
Post by woolybanana on Sept 23, 2021 11:21:04 GMT 1
My understanding, for what it is worth, is that the French nuclear option was reconsidered but that the refuelling option was the deal breaker.
|
|