this post was submitted on 12 Jun 2025
21 points (92.0% liked)

Australia

4271 readers
334 users here now

A place to discuss Australia and important Australian issues.

Before you post:

If you're posting anything related to:

If you're posting Australian News (not opinion or discussion pieces) post it to Australian News

Rules

This community is run under the rules of aussie.zone. In addition to those rules:

Banner Photo

Congratulations to @Tau@aussie.zone who had the most upvoted submission to our banner photo competition

Recommended and Related Communities

Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:

Plus other communities for sport and major cities.

https://aussie.zone/communities

Moderation

Since Kbin doesn't show Lemmy Moderators, I'll list them here. Also note that Kbin does not distinguish moderator comments.

Additionally, we have our instance admins: @lodion@aussie.zone and @Nath@aussie.zone

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
lodion@aussie.zone
Fluid@aussie.zone
bestusername@aussie.zone
eatham@aussie.zone
Nath@aussie.zone
21
Conceived in secrecy and born in haste, Aukus (submarine deal) is on its last legs. (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 4 days ago by thanksforallthefish@literature.cafe to c/australia@aussie.zone
16 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Aukus had a less than immaculate conception. It was conceived in secrecy and born in haste, a tribute to political opportunism and a travesty of disciplined planning. The enthusiasm of theatrical announcements notwithstanding, it was in trouble from the beginning. The US Navy had serious doubts about both the ability of US shipbuilders to deliver submarines in any workable timeframe and the ability of the Royal Australian Navy to integrate and operate them. That was not a question of trust but of capacity – on both sides.

And, of course, experienced and well-informed Australian defence planners rang the warning bells from the beginning.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Aussieiuszko@aussie.zone 0 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago) (1 children)

Yeah it's a real shame the French tried to fuck us over and change the original deal or else we'd still be doing business with them.

[–] Sylvartas@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago)

All I can find is that the costs followed inflation as expected. And, yeah there were some delays but getting full sovereignty over the construction of your military submarines at the end of the contract is kind of a fucking amazing deal (because that was the end goal there, the transfer of technologies, including state of the art, silent non-nuclear propulsion and various other top secret shit, so Australia could ultimately build their own subs "with total sovereignty", according to the deal). I see zero mention of the terms of the contract changing after its signing apart from that.

And if you think that's bad I've got some news for you about the delays and costs of that AUKUS thing...

Edit : Also I doubt the next prime minister would have paid us $555 millions for breaking the contract if we were in the wrong here ?

Edit 2 : while researching the edit above, I found out that the AUKUS subs are nuclear powered ?? When a big part of the original deal was that Australia wanted non nuclear subs (All the ones we have in France are nuclear powered, so surely it would have been a lot easier to make one). Nah I'm sorry, you played yourselves and now you're mad at us somehow ?