I honestly don't know what you're arguing against. Australia wasn't happy with the delays and budget overruns, and possibly other stuff as many articles report. What's so controversial about saying France needs to step up its game if it wants to reduce the risk of future cancellations?
AUSUK
- Thread starter Wednesday at Stoke
- Start date
Because you need to determine whether the unhappiness is legitimate and actually fixable. It's not because someone is unhappy about something that you are in the wrong and failed. That seems fairly obvious to me and that's why I asked you what are the lot of things that Naval Group did wrong.
Last edited:
Naval Group wasn't good enough, that's the impression I get from reading articles. Whether they couldn't do better or whether they did things wrong, the end result is they weren't good enough to convince Australia to continue. Hence my comment that France needs to step up its game. You're basically asking me to prove that Australia's unhappiness was legitimate. Again, I can only cite the articles I read JP, I don't work in the Australian government.
If France wants to become more competitive in the arms market compared to the US/UK, they have to step their game up.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/09/20/australia-aukus-nuclear-submarines-china/
(you can read the article in incognito)
Last edited:
And again my point is that none of these articles actually point to anything even vaguely specific outside of delays and cost estimations which could be created by an infinity of factors one of them being the clients own new requirement after design meetings. I'm not telling you that Naval Group aren't at fault because I don't know but I can't also tell you that the Austalian Navy isn't at fault because I know nothing about the how those meeting went and whether changes were required. I believe that it is the logical stand to have particularly when it's exactly what happens when countries build ships for themselves.
As for the other point, I already addressed it, France in order to follow non-proliferation rules stopped producing military HEU reactors and focused on LEU and diesel/electric fuelled submarines since the latters have potentially more clients, what your are suggesting is that France should produce HEU fuelled submarines and then sell them? That idea is/was a bit daft up until last week, while France could produce them for themselves they would have no business selling them to anyone, the fact that the US may do it with Australia is a bit fishy.
In all likelihood nothing vaguely specific will ever become public. Delays and cost overruns are common in defence projects and they're also a common reason for projects getting cancelled. When it's local industry governments can deal with some cost overruns as extra money goes back into the economy, but France kept wanting to build more and more in France.
For reference the full construction of the far more complex and capable Astute class overran by 'only' 50%. The cost of the Barracuda had almost doubled in the 5 years since Naval Group got the contract and they hadn't even started building them. Australia was going to end up paying more for diesel electric subs than the UK or US did for their nuclear powered boats.
I think when the contracts are all said and done the US won't sell the reactors to Australia. They will retain ownership somehow and lease them. They don't want Australia knowing whats in them and it's easier for Australia that way.
The problem is that what you are suggesting here is one side of the story and not the official or contractual one, surely you see the problem? You know that each sides will always try to build a narrative that suit them, you are using non-facts as facts and running with it not even realizing two things, first that it comes from Australian politicians and secondly there is a small detail that is particularly suspicious, the design phase of the project started in 2018, at that time according to australian sources an independent american firm audited the project(one that barely actually started) and suggested that it should be abandoned and that's roughly that timeframe(2018-2021) that aussies are using as an argument.
So let me ask you a few questions. Do you think that design phases can and often lead to more costs due to new requests or potential technical hurdles? Do you think that we should ignore the clear interference from an american company and former US secretary(Donald Winter)? Do you agree on the idea that we don't actually have anything solid supporting the idea that Naval Group are the cause for potential increased costs or delays?
Also let me be clear, due to my nationality you can think that I'm biased but I assure you that when it comes to the non-geopolitical side of things, I do not care about Naval Group, if they messed up, we should know about it and criticize them. The issue here is that I see parties that have an interest in making a scapegoat and they haven't provided anything to support it, so it's a bit strange to see people just run with it.
I think you misunderstand me here. I'm not really placing blame on either side, more suggesting Australia were within their rights to cancel the contract and probably quite right to do so give the cost and delays.
Though design phases can throw up extra hurdles it's not a good look if Naval Group massively underbid in the tender phase, though we will probably never know if they did. From what i read in the news and on here France accepts Australia had the right to cancel and its the Americans they're annoyed at.
It wouldn't surprise me if the Americans had been involved as they would no doubt love a new foothold in Australia as they don't have much presence on the Southern side of the South China Sea.
But what if Australia are the main reason behind the increase in costs and delays? I'm not saying that they are because I have no clue but lets say that during the design phase Australia asked for significanly different specs and designs than the ones agreed on in 2016? What if Australia had to provide certain personnels to the Adelaide construction sites that they couldn't provide in time, I know that the DGA always have/want to provide personnels when they deal with other manufacturers?
Edit: An other important point. Whatever the reason I can't fault Australia too much because whether Naval Group failed or the US made a far better offer post 2016, we are talking about long term strategic investment. If you offer me a better option in that domain, I will think carefully about it and probably take it. So I could see a situation where France is right to be upset, Australia are justified in their decision and the US are slimy(
).
Last edited:
Then they still have a right to cancel, as long as they pay the agreed penalties. All large contracts like this have milestones where both sides can walk away. In defence it does happen quite often too. Look at how many billions the US has wasted on various cancelled Navy and Air Force projects over the years.
They have a right to cancel, no one argued against that. Keep in mind that the post you initially responded to was about a post putting blame on Naval Group when it could simply be a change of mind on the Australian side for whatever reason.
By the way. Is it not AUKUS and not as the thread AUSUK ?
Or have I missed something.
Or have I missed something.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ly-than-australia-says-biden-after-aukus-pact
You see that's why I don't value the pact. The UK and France have followed and supported the US in almost every situation since 1945 with or without pacts or treaties, yet US presidents make that type of claims. Maybe I'm overreacting but I find it insulting particularly when they will act as if it never happened when they need both of these countries to be their sidekicks.
An other thing from August 31st:
https://www.minister.defence.gov.au...australia-france-22-ministerial-consultations
Last edited:
Boris being as diplomatic to the French as usual.
Denmark sides with the US in row with France
Danish PM:
Danish PM:
Macron's speaking to Boris's master today but I don't think he'll buy Boris an estate car for Xmas.
Didn't they let the US spy on their European partners?
I think Bojo is an opportunistic who will sell anyone and anything for his gain.
Indeed, they allegedly helped the US spy on the largest EU members.
View from Australia - Kevin Rudd - ex PM
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...alier-treatment-of-france-will-hurt-australia
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...alier-treatment-of-france-will-hurt-australia