When will we see some movement on this issue? The debate has been stuck at the same point for years with no indication that the US plans to deliver the submarines and no willingness from our government to back out. Like am I going to be reading the exact same talking points in a decade from now or will something finally change by then?

[–] fizzle@quokk.au 1 points 1 day ago

Things are happening but they're just not sexy "here's your submarine mate" things.

This type of "what if it doesn't work out" question will always be news worthy up until the day a submarine does get delivered.

Sadly, yes you are still going to be reading the same headline a decade from now because we're not going to receive our first submarine within the next decade, if we receive any at all.

[–] mthomson@forum.macaque.social 12 points 1 day ago

We're not getting any submarines anyway!!

[–] thanksforallthefish@literature.cafe 25 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Australia will be left with no submarines regardless of whether it does or does not leave AUKUS. It is not getting any through AUKUS regardless of wishful thinkng. The US has no intention of fulfilling its end of the deal, and the UK are not capable

[–] fizzle@quokk.au 1 points 1 day ago

There must be at least some likelihood of a positive outcome, or some kind of recourse.

I'm happy to acknowledge the ineptitude of our government but public servants in general aren't just throwing away billions of dollars.

[–] CurlyWurlies4All@slrpnk.net 13 points 2 days ago

Australia will be left with no submarines ~~if it abandons Aukus, senior defence official warns~~

[–] spiffmeister@aussie.zone 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Surely the cost of just building our own (you know, just in case) is gonna be chump change compared to how much we paid for aukus anyway.

[–] Nath@aussie.zone 3 points 1 day ago (2 children)

The Collins project taught us that building submarines is not trivial. And that was starting with another country's R&D (Sweden). We also have no clue how to make a nuclear submarine.

While there issues with the French Barracuda subs, I think we should have had an open conversation with the French instead of secretly entering into the AUKUS pact. The French do have nuclear tech, so using that as an excuse to change after we'd asked them to make us diesel subs is a bit rich. I don't know whether that'd have made nuclear subs, but I know it would have been something we could have asked about.

[–] shirro@aussie.zone 1 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago)

From memory, suggest fact check, the French nuclear subs use less enriched uranium so require more frequent refueling. If the French agreed to give us access we would basically be acquiring nuclear technology to be able to maintain them ourselves. I think the US/UK lawyered their way around things. They provide more highly enriched fuel which is closer to weapons grade, and so more of a proliferation risk. However it goes back to the US for servicing very infrequently (10 yrs or something) and we claim we just operate the reactors and there is no technical proliferation? Or something like that. Like everything from the US I would guess the reactor tech is more like a rental with extensive T&C.

Converting the French subs to diesel seems to have been a source of problems. If we had been up front with France about the US/UK promising nuclear subs they might have been open to negotiation. We took the first offer like suckers.

[–] spiffmeister@aussie.zone 1 points 1 day ago

You're probably right. From what I remember most submarine-boffins/recommendations was to build diesel subs anyway - I'm sure if we offer the French some baguettes and a chance to annoy the British they'll still build us some subs.

[–] NigelFrobisher@aussie.zone 2 points 1 day ago

But where will we play Sardines then?