Reply to: They really don't understand sovereignty do they?

[jamesbrown]

Except French nuclear subs need to be refuelled every 10 years

Yup, that's what I was referring to.

[jamesbrown]

Fair enough.

Horses for courses. Diesel/electric, when on electric it's essentially silent. Problem is you have to refuel, and normally you have to surface to recharge the batteries. Nuclear has a heat signature and not as quiet as electric, but can run for decades.

No, I meant the French nuclear platform is a bit naff when compared to the UK/US one - I gather that the Barracuda class French sub needs to be refueled every 10 years whereas the UK/US sub has a core life equal to the lifetime of the vessel.

[eek]

Fair enough.

Horses for courses. Diesel/electric, when on electric it's essentially silent. Problem is you have to refuel, and normally you have to surface to recharge the batteries. Nuclear has a heat signature and not as quiet as electric, but can run for decades.

Except French nuclear subs need to be refuelled every 10 years

[NotAllThere]

No, I think that's wrong. I don't think the French were unwilling to offer it. I think the Aussies wanted Diesel-Electric because, at the time the contract was negotiated, they didn't believe they had the expertise to operate nuclear subs independently.

Fair enough.

The French platform is nevertheless a bit naff when compared to the UK/US platform, I gather.

Horses for courses. Diesel/electric, when on electric it's essentially silent. Problem is you have to refuel, and normally you have to surface to recharge the batteries. Nuclear has a heat signature and not as quiet as electric, but can run for decades.

[jamesbrown]

Yes. I know the French have nuclear sub technology, and the Aussies asked for diesel electric. The question is whether the French would have been willing to share their nuclear technology has the Aussies asked. The implication of a number of reports is that they wouldn't, so when Australia decided nuke subs would be better at combating the Chinese threat, they had to turn to the US and UK.

No, I think that's wrong. I don't think the French were unwilling to offer it. I think the Aussies wanted Diesel-Electric because, at the time the contract was negotiated, they didn't believe they had the expertise to operate nuclear subs independently. The French platform is nevertheless a bit naff when compared to the UK/US platform, I gather.

[NotAllThere]

I believe the Aussies explicitly asked for a diesel-electric platform. But, yes, the French have nuclear sub technology.

Yes. I know the French have nuclear sub technology, and the Aussies asked for diesel electric. The question is whether the French would have been willing to share their nuclear technology has the Aussies asked. The implication of a number of reports is that they wouldn't, so when Australia decided nuke subs would be better at combating the Chinese threat, they had to turn to the US and UK.

[vetran]

https://www.epexspot.com/en/market-data

The will of the people.

Where the heck did we find negotiators that were better than the French? Apparently our lot couldn't close a deal to save their life - well according to 48% of voters...

[jamesbrown]

Anyone know whether the French would have built nuclear subs for the Aussies if asked? One of the reasons for switching to the UK and US was, apparently, a willingness to share nuclear technology.

I believe the Aussies explicitly asked for a diesel-electric platform. But, yes, the French have nuclear sub technology.

[eek]

https://www.epexspot.com/en/market-data

The will of the people.

Nope. More accurately that's the impact of 2gw of power that the French would prefer to sell to the UK but currently can't because the 2gw france / england interconnect is screwed for the next few weeks.

[NotAllThere]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-sub-deal.html



We might be your friend now, we are not your lap dog anymore!

We're someone else's lapdog, so ner to you, froggy!

Anyone know whether the French would have built nuclear subs for the Aussies if asked? One of the reasons for switching to the UK and US was, apparently, a willingness to share nuclear technology.

I must say I find the fact that this was negotiated at the last G7 (or is it G8) summit while sausagegate was going on and consuming The French's time, really rather funny.

[Whorty]

the good old days of the 70's (with rampant inflation) or pre Eu whichwe joined on January 1st 1973

We're talking gammons here ... so the 70's where Churchill won the war for us

[WTFH]

https://www.epexspot.com/en/market-data

The will of the people.

[eek]

Isn't that what gammons want? The good old days of the 70s, pre Eu?

the good old days of the 70's (with rampant inflation) or pre Eu whichwe joined on January 1st 1973

[Whorty]

Well its blooming idiocy that we are dependent on foreign sources of fossil energy. We should be self sufficient and greener. Or is that treason?

As can be seen we are already in trouble with damaged cables, if Putin puts the gas price up or 'accidentally snags' our cables it will be back to the 70s for power.

Isn't that what gammons want? The good old days of the 70s, pre Eu?

[vetran]

Absolutely - they must realise that they can charge whatever they like for energy now that we are no longer tied to them!

That'll show 'em!

Well its blooming idiocy that we are dependent on foreign sources of fossil energy. We should be self sufficient and greener. Or is that treason?

As can be seen we are already in trouble with damaged cables, if Putin puts the gas price up or 'accidentally snags' our cables it will be back to the 70s for power.