Pretty much my view as well.
I think the government see it as the USA grabbing the submarine deal but more importantly going behind their back. I've seen some comments by the public blaming the Aussies. The UK seem to be irrelevant in the blame game, Johnson's seen as a clown and a liar anyway.
The UK are seemingly irrelevant. Now regarding France there seems to be three things, first money is being lost which is never nice, egos have been bruised and most importantly it seems that trust is gone, that's for the diplomats and civil servants; the latters are important because on the long run they are the ones leading foreign policy and it seems that they are leaning toward not giving a damn about proliferation with now rumours about France being willing to sell nuclear submarines to India. I wouldn't be surprised if the US just provoked a change of doctrine in France.
Appreciate this and understand it.
Thank you for this.
Historically that is true, NATO's formation and presence deterred the outbreak of a 'fighting' war but fueled the cold war. Many would argue that it was Reagan's determination to press on with the so called 'Star Wars' developments where the US defensive system could, among other things, shoot down enemy missiles before they reached their target (allegedly) that eventually led to the fall of the USSR.
Agreed, but then the Russians won't necessarily come a knocking on the 'front door', in fact they might not even come up to the 'backdoor' (if there is one). Energy supply is the threat (perhaps we are already seeing the start of it?) and why Trump was climbing all over the Germans and their energy links with Putin.
You are surprised that someone is worked up after losing the opportunity to make billions?
Yes, they specifically asked for non-nuclear submarines because of the restrictions in the area and of course their close alliance with NZ which prohibits all nuclear vessels in their waters. The design was supposed to be done in France and Australia, I believe 400 or 500 people in France and 300 or so in Australia employed by Naval Group. I've seen various figures but those figures look about right but the submarines were supposed to be built in Adelaide and 60% of the overall cost would be returning to Australia. I don't know about the 10%.
No not really, but I think Pres Macron is quietly laughing up his sleeve, if not now then especially when he will realise (eventually) that France has 'dodged a bullet.
Yep. Can not find fault with any of that.
Why would you think that Australia isn't going to purchase submarines, they already have Collins class submarines and they need to replace them from 2030. The only thing that France dodged is money, there is no point pretending otherwise, France didn't dodge a bullet and someone else will make a lot of money.
I won't be around to see it. The UK are already 5 years behind building their own ones.
I have little or no doubt that the nuclear powered submarines will be built. The threat from China is not going away. If anything, they will deliberately ratchet that up looking for a reaction.
As is of course the new EDF designed nuclear power station at Hinkley Point just down the road in Somerset....
What do you think the pact actually change? Does it change the way the US /China will act and react? The pact is a tool to justify proliferation, nothing else.
That was part of why Australia cancelled the contract. It was looking like almost all of the work would have to be done in France and Australian industry wouldn't benefit at all. Half the reason they chose France was because they promised they would be built in Australia.
It's supposed to be an EPR, right?
I am not saying that, my view is these particular submarines are doing their job now, their value is in the shock they create in certain other places, in the fact that the US/AUS/UK can/will be seen to fallout with another ally, France, is meant to underlie the seriousness of the situation.
Naval group already employ people in Australia, they're about to lose their jobs. The subs (non-nuclear) were to be built in Adelaide, Morrison even said so the other day, he also said he thought the nuclear ones would be too from the US (surprise!) they wouldn't be.
From what I have read, it greatly extends US and to a degree UK intelligence sharing and cooperation with Australia as well as access to some of the US intellectual property and enhanced F35 support. The Australian F35 are not the Carrier (C) or VTOL (B) versions.
That was the problem. France started making noises that less of the production than expected would be done in Australia, and back in February Australia gave them 6 months to come up with a solution. 6 months ended a couple of weeks ago and obviously the solution was not satisfactory.
I don't disagree with a lot of that other than the French company were still trying to resolve the matter but the biggest point of contention was that Australia didn't say they had an agreement with the USA. Morrison probably didn't have a lot of choice with Biden. The other point is that Morrison has no idea when he's going to get these subs or how much they will cost. Plus there's no work for Australia. He hasn't resolved a lot other than in some time in the future he's getting some American nuclear submarines (whether he likes it or not).
The effect is nothing, the US will give nothing when it comes to intelligence, they never had and never will. And the second part is interesting, the versions that you mentioned are the ones sold to Italy and at least one other country. to me it looks like the US are trying to convince Australia that they are special clients in order to secure a sale, it's the military version of door to door sales. For Australia the kind of good thing is that they get access to HEU reactors, which isn't legal.
Do you have examples of actual wrongdoings?
About the French-Australian deal?
Well, yes.
I think that at that point in February they didn't have an agreement with the US. When they realised France was having difficulties they went out to look for alternatives, that they only had 6 months is why the US deal is so short on detail.
Obviously I'm not an in-the-know but there are articles about the Australian perspective. Here's one:
But the point is they asked for diesel-electric subs and asked France to redesign their nuclear subs. it's like ordering a Tesla and wanting a diesel version. Tesla agrees and then they changed their mind and wanted an electric one whether it was because of difficulties or Biden's pressure or whatever and didn't tell France they had done so.
France deny the costs claims and say that the prices mentioned come from Australian parliament and delays are the norm. I don't really see where the "a lot" come from or it was different to pretty much any similar project, it applies to all manufracturers.
Interesting.
It's your domain, so you know that Dassault will give absolutely nothing to other countries or companies. They refused to share with Airbus too.
Like I said, France will argue their case. The matter of fact is that Australia wasn't satisfied enough to continue the deal. If France wants to reduce the risk of such cancellations in the future they need to step their game up.
But surely you see that you are considering that France actually did something wrong while not providing anything to support it. If France wanted to avoid this cancellation they needed to offer HEU fuelled Submarines which isn't what Australia asked for in the first place.
From what I've read I'm not getting the impression it's that black-and-white. Again, Australia wasn't satisfied enough: https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-...-submarine-project-was-risk-years-2021-09-21/
The US use HEU and France use LEU because one of them respect the non proliferation treaty and doesn't encourage uranium enrishing at high percentages. Unless your point is that France shouldn't respect these rules, which I agree they shouldn't, then what is your point?
