But won’t there be another newer sun available?
Don’t agree, he should go immediately
he drove drunk then mislead his constituents in his statement after the fact.
1 Like
There was much made in regard to AUKUS that Australia was the first country that the UK and/or US were prepared to share their nuclear sub technology.
It may also have been the case at the time of negotiating contracts for replacement subs that our policy ruled out nuclear powered weaponry.
The further element favouring France was the extent to which it would allow Australian local content and assembly in Australia.
- which has been a feature of our sub contracts and some other defence procurement in the past
- Macron noted the high level of local content and services in the contract,
Sharma, look at this incident from 50 years ago! French cant be trusted.
Baxendale, look at this driving without a licence issue from 2009! Something about Labor.
Can’t be any worse than barnaby
1 Like
The French model(if not converted to diesel) we get left with nuclear waste and no facility to process. So it was never a desired model IF going nuclear afaik.
The American one the nuke bit is good for the life of the sub and is returned to the USA after.
And there’s not a lot of alternatives, at least with our allies. Can’t see us buying a Chinese sub.
These aren’t iPhones with a new model every year 
Did we ever ask the French that if we bought a nuclear sub, (which we have never said we would do) would they be able to handle the waste?
Kinda think if it was put on the table it wouldn’t have been such a big deal to them, seeing they also have nuclear power stations that would generate a bit more than the subs we were looking at.
2 Likes
IIRC correctly the French subs needed their nuclear fuel replenished every 6-8 years, whereas these models are quoted for not needing refueling for the life of the sub (20-30y?)
Dont the French process our medical nuclear waste already?
2 Likes
1 Like
Yes protocols are arranged through ANSTO
When AUKUS was announced the ANSTO Chief, who had not been privy to the deal, was interviewed…
On the assumption that the nuclear subs were to built here, he said that ANSTO would need to set up new special protocols for the transport…
Reportedly, confidential documents with the US have also been leaked , in an effort to discount Biden’s claims that he was misled by Australia, or at least that his people had misinformed him.
Rule 101 - don’t tweak Uncle Sam’s tail.
That’s what you get when Defence runs Australia’s foreign policy and the Foreign Minister has no clout in Cabinet.
3 Likes
15 Likes
A huge amount of our thinking with submarine construction, maintenance and ownership of intellectual property comes from the Oberon class submarines. These were British made subs that served from 1960 to 2000.
Because we didn’t build the Oberon, the designs were the intellectual property of the manufacturer. Any time a part needed to be replaced, it needed to be ordered from England. This multiplied the cost of maintaining the fleet many fold and led to almost zero availability, with every sub in some form of maintenance.
We specifically designed and built the Collins in Australia to avoid the migraine that comes from not completely owning and controlling your maintenance.
Imagine if our entire submarine fleet relied on the French servicing the reactor every 6 years. With a 12 boat fleet it would mean that at any stage 2 boats would be parked in a French dock being overhauled. If the French wanted to apply pressure, they could just refuse to maintain our subs. In 2 years they could have 4 subs out of action. In 3 years half the fleet would be inactive. Even if they didn’t screw us like that, they could charge an arm and a leg every time we sent a sub for an overhaul.
There’s a legitimate reason to stay self sufficient with our defence maintenance capability. The French reactor just didn’t make sense in a myriad of ways.
1 Like
Yep and that against the law and he will be dealt with.
He is employed by his electorate so let them decide if he loses his job.
1 Like
Patents run out after 21 years, any IP constraints are long over.
hes paid for by us, so he can ■■■■ right off
1 Like
Not sure Scott’s religion is all that interested or compatible with, “Science”.
Look how much the coalition have cut out of the CSIRO’s budget.
1 Like
I’ve done maintenance work on heavy industrial equipment that was 21+ years old. Because we never had the IP from day 1, we never had the design and fabrication drawings. With contractors long since bankrupt, there is often nothing to base a replacement part off other than the physical broken object you need to replace.
I can 100% empathise with the navy wanting every drawing so that it had complete control over future repairs.
1 Like
More
Seems that Macron did not take the PM’s call on 14 September, as he was giving a speech in Roubaix.
- it was televised.
Our Ambassador could have informed the PM if he had bothered to go though her, but she was kept in the dark
And, as advised at Senate Estimates, the contract was on track.