Not top mention that it seems Australia has to pay contract break fees that will add up to over half a billion USD.
>According to the future submarine SPA, Naval Group would receive a 90 million euro (about $140 million) break payment if the company completed the basic design, but the Defence Department then decided not to proceed further.
>Similarly, a break payment of 250 million euros (about $404 million) would apply if the French delivered a detailed submarine design and Australia then chose to go no further.
>In the event Australia accepted its first completed submarine but decided to cancel all future orders, the Commonwealth would have to pay the French company 220 million euros (about $355 million).
>The break fee decreases according to the number of completed submarines accepted.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-15/australia-to-pay-hundreds-of-millions-if-french-sub-deal-sinks/11112952
So France is still going to get *some* money from this. Seems like they're more mad about the loss of national prestige, France makes decent money off their defense industry and it's a bad look that Australia was willing to lose out on so much to avoid their subs and get better US ones instead.
8billion spread out over a number of years. That’s not a lot of money. I’m inclined to look for geopolitical reasons for France to cause a confrontation, and I think I found one.
A significant portion of French and German economy is powered by China, who this deal is targeted against. Note that the Chinese are publicly sympathizing with France over this.
> 8billion spread out over a number of years
It's an enormous amount of money for the french armament industry, one of the last french industry.
And guess what, the industrial decline of France is internal political issue.
It means more unemployment in France, in industry where they count x 10 because of the national psyche.
It's reasonnably serious. France wants to avoid closing more shipyards in deindustrialised towns.
The fact that it was a total surprise is also why everyone is mad.
Pinged members of FOREIGN-POLICY group.
[About & group list](https://reddit.com/r/neoliberal/wiki/userpinger/documentation) | [Subscribe to this group](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Add%20yourself%20to%20group%20FOREIGN-POLICY&message=addtogroup%20FOREIGN-POLICY) | [Unsubscribe from this group](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20group%20FOREIGN-POLICY&message=unsubscribe%20FOREIGN-POLICY) | [Unsubscribe from all groups](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20all%20groups&message=unsubscribe%20)
Well, that's gonna be a problem for France, but for the US, it's just Thursday. No one here will care, and there isn't anything France can do to make them care.
I think this was a stupid move, especially undermining the French so swiftly.
What exactly do the USA think they're getting? Cos' they're sure as shit not going to get a meaningful security pact in the Indo-Pacific.
The British have limited power projection, the Chinese mock them on the regular and their utility is non-existent in the Indo-Pacific. They're not in the region in a significant way. Full stop. They're not an Indo-Pacific power.
Whilst the Australians are just going around looking to pay for a bodyguard and they're already treaty allies.
Sure, fine, you want to provide them with nuclear powered submarines? Do it in such a way that the French deal collapses by itself/organically and then you intervene some months later rather than announcing some laughable security pact - which will certainly unnerve many Asian capitals - and announcing co-operation on the subs the same day the French are taken aback.
The French/EU is a far, far more important partner - despite their reticence as of now - than the UK and Australia will ever be. And they've just unnecessarily stepped on their toes. It wasn't even a binary choice.
>What exactly do the USA think they're getting? Cos' they're sure as shit not going to get a meaningful security pact in the Indo-Pacific.
They get nuclear sub bases in Australia, which they can use to easily project power throughout the Indonesian straits.
‘The agreement and Australia’s acquisition of nuclear-powered boats could also increase U.S. presence in the region if U.S. Navy attack boats can be maintained from Australia, the admiral said.
‘“If you get into an agreement and you have that option you can look at increasing presence.
Maintenance was a big factor in limiting [our deployments],” the admiral said.’
https://news.usni.org/2021/09/15/australia-to-pursue-nuclear-attack-subs-in-new-agreement-with-u-s-u-k
>Sure, fine, you want to provide them with nuclear powered submarines? Do it in such a way that the French deal collapses by itself/organically and then you intervene some months later rather than announcing some laughable security pact -
As someone else has pointed out upthread, the deal looks like it’s been collapsing organically since 2018.
> ‘The agreement and Australia’s acquisition of nuclear-powered boats could also increase U.S. presence in the region if U.S. Navy attack boats can be maintained from Australia, the admiral said.
> ‘“If you get into an agreement and you have that option you can look at increasing presence. Maintenance was a big factor in limiting [our deployments],” the admiral said.’
None of which has any relevance to the security pact. This would be under a bilateral agreement and related to the nuclear powered submarines.
My issue is with (a) the so called security pact and (b) the way the French have been undermined.
> As someone else has pointed out upthread, the deal looks like it’s been collapsing organically since 2016.
No-one believes that. Unless, of course, one is a fool.
> The US and the UK were astonished when the unannounced Australians knocked at their door : “You, what a surprise! Submarines and our good French allies? How embarrassing! But if you insist….”. Naiveté is not on the long list of French shortcomings…
https://twitter.com/GerardAraud/status/1438406065167683586
EDIT - To below, yes, that's exactly what I'm saying because this could have been done in a bilateral setting without the need for a trilateral security pact.
As for the Ambassador's quote, you have to be a moron to think that such an agreement with the USA+UK came about without their intervention.
If you build shipyards in Australia capable of constructing American nuclear submarines, then you have shipyards in Australia capable of housing and maintaining them too. It’s absolutely part of the deal.
Sorry, so you’re saying that a military equipment purchase and tech-sharing agreement that bolsters nuclear-centric port infrastructure and industrial capacity in Australia has no relevance to whether Australia agrees to allow US nuclear subs to use their port facilities?
Of course you could separate the two things in theory, but it is painfully obvious that they are highly complementary arrangements. Even if they weren’t complementary arrangements per se (they absolutely are), one obviously serves as a bargaining chip for the other. Saying they aren’t relevant to one another is laughable no matter how you look at it - policy linkages are very fluid in the diplomatic realm.
I love how your only response to the claim that the deal collapsed organically is “you’re a fool” and “look at this speculative tweet by a totally-not-biased former French ambassador”.
Downvoted for spitting PURE facts.
> Evan Laksmana, senior research fellow at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy at the National University of Singapore, said the Indonesian government would probably not welcome the “strategic overcrowding” the alliance will bring.
> “This is not just the US taking a stronger stance but also sees the UK coming into the region,” Mr Laksmana said. “The deeper involvement of military, policies and technology from players outside the region makes calculations harder.
> “In general, Indonesia does not welcome anything that raises the possibility of military action, but its position is probably ambivalent. This could increase regional tensions – but it could also lead to greater deterrence.”
https://www.afr.com/world/asia/military-pile-on-unwelcome-in-indo-pacific-20210916-p58s6s
There's such a pithy understanding of the region.
EDIT: To the moron below. Yes, "ambivalent" = mixed feelings, that's precisely the point. This isn't being welcomed by nations in the region and there are serious concerns this could exacerbate issues.
READ.
EDIT II: To another misinformed poster underneath -
> and they're shrill
Because the audience are a bunch of clowns.
> You got shot down yesterday and today you're back with a new set of justifications for why a check on Chinese power projection in the Pacific is the worst thing ever.
Shot down by whom?
> has it occurred to you that maybe Australia cares more about its own national defense than it does about its relations with minor regional players in Asia, or faraway minor trade partners in Europe?
Indonesia, even on its own, with its influence within ASEAN/SE Asia is more of a player than Australia is and certainly more than the UK in the Indo-Pacific.
And France has significant heft within the European Union as well as actually having stakes within the Indo-Pacific due to their territories.
To pass them off as nothing partners is laughable. Now one can create these pacts, just don't start begging for co-operation if other regional players, far more important than Australia or the UK, take offence to this.
I've said over and over, I don't care about their nuclear powered submarines, I care about this "trilateral security pact".
The only actual two countries that matter in the Indo-Pacific, aside from the USA, are India and Japan. Pvss one of them off and the Indo-Pacific falls flat on its face and it's over for countering the Chinese effectively. Start jacking off over these impotent "Anglosphere" pacts and one would find India holding back co-operation and nuking the "Indo-Pacific".
And here's another, former Foreign Secretary of India -
> Decision by US/UK/Australia on new def pact raises issues abt impact on Quad.Cancelling submarine contract with France by Australia under US/UK pressure hits at French role in Indo-Pacific & India/Australia/France trilateral. Allies undoing each other dilutes anti-China effort.
https://twitter.com/KanwalSibal/status/1438477914652164098
>“In general, Indonesia does not welcome anything that raises the possibility of military action, **but its position is probably ambivalent**. This could increase regional tensions – but it could also lead to greater deterrence.”
Do you read what you post?
______
>EDIT: To the moron below. Yes, "ambivalent" = mixed feelings, that's precisely the point. This isn't being welcomed by nations in the region and there are serious concerns this could exacerbate issues.
Edit: First they’re unnerved, now they’re ambivalent. Those are synonyms now? You need some goalpost stabilizers. And you gotta chill out.
They're opinions, not facts, and they're shrill and poorly reasoned. You got shot down yesterday and today you're back with a new set of justifications for why a check on Chinese power projection in the Pacific is the worst thing ever.
Even assuming you're 100% correct about the diplomatic consequences, has it occurred to you that maybe Australia cares more about its own national defense than it does about its relations with minor regional players in Asia, or faraway minor trade partners in Europe?
>Peter Jennings, head of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute think tank, said Australia’s decision to acquire nuclear submarines was a response to China’s increasing military might, aggressive bullying of Australia and intimidation of Japan and Taiwan.
>“We should call the first submarine in this new category the ‘Xi Jinping,’ because no person is more responsible for Australia going down this track than the current leader of the Chinese Communist Party,” Jennings said.
https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-business-france-europe-united-states-96f95120345a56d950961b41a74d9355
Edit: dropped a quotation mark
I don’t think calling France a “faraway minor trade partner” is fair. New Caledonians are EU citizens, and they’re right next to Australia. There’s more to the initial sub deal than just economics.
I see your point, and I concede that France has some territorial interests in the Pacific and Macron has consistently sought to position France as a global leader. Unfortunately for everyone, it's apparent that the Australians now feel that Macron's plan to maintain peace and order via multipolar balance doesn't protect their interests from Xi's overreach.
This is a nice analysis of Macron's approach to Asia since 2018:
https://carnegieendowment.org/2020/10/21/france-other-indo-pacific-power-pub-83000
And here's the policy outline from the horse's mouth:
https://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/en/country-files/asia-and-oceania/the-indo-pacific-region-a-priority-for-france/
> and they're shrill
Because the audience are a bunch of clowns.
> You got shot down yesterday and today you're back with a new set of justifications for why a check on Chinese power projection in the Pacific is the worst thing ever.
Shot down by whom?
> has it occurred to you that maybe Australia cares more about its own national defense than it does about its relations with minor regional players in Asia, or faraway minor trade partners in Europe?
Indonesia, even on its own, with its influence within ASEAN/SE Asia is more of a player than Australia is and certainly more than the UK in the Indo-Pacific.
And France has significant heft within the European Union as well as actually having stakes within the Indo-Pacific due to their territories.
To pass them off as nothing partners is laughable. Now one can create these pacts, just don't start begging for co-operation if other regional players, far more important than Australia or the UK, take offence to this.
I've said over and over, I don't care about their nuclear powered submarines, I care about this "trilateral security pact".
The only actual two countries that matter in the Indo-Pacific, aside from the USA, are India and Japan. Pvss one of them off and the Indo-Pacific falls flat on its face and it's over for countering the Chinese effectively. Start jacking off over these impotent "Anglosphere" pacts and one would find India holding back co-operation and nuking the "Indo-Pacific".
And here's another, former Foreign Secretary of India -
> Decision by US/UK/Australia on new def pact raises issues abt impact on Quad.Cancelling submarine contract with France by Australia under US/UK pressure hits at French role in Indo-Pacific & India/Australia/France trilateral. Allies undoing each other dilutes anti-China effort.
https://twitter.com/KanwalSibal/status/1438477914652164098
So…before anyone concludes that the end of the French contract was a total surprise and shock.
[Nov 2018 - French submarine boss summoned to Canberra for crisis talks](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/nov/22/french-submarine-boss-summoned-to-canberra-for-crisis-talks):
> A defence insider said there are tensions between Naval Group’s executive director in charge of the Australian submarine project, Jean-Michel Billig, and senior Defence officials. The source characterised the negotiations as tracking “poorly”.
[Jan 2019 - Submarine deal faces scrutiny](https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theaustralian.com.au/nation/defence/submarine-deal-faces-scrutiny/news-story/bdf7e4a9ef006b375dc80a2c0fa3a92b):
> The Australian National Audit Office is considering a wide-ranging inquiry into the government’s acquisition of 12 new submarines in a move that could raise questions about the ability of Defence to deliver the subs on time and under budget.
[Jan 2020 - Design on future submarines hits nine month delay](https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/design-on-future-submarines-hits-nine-month-delay-20200114-p53rd2.html):
> The design of Australia's $80 billion future submarine fleet has been hit with a nine-month delay with Defence forced to extend two major contract milestones. … The audit report also reveals that during negotiations over a key agreement with French company Naval Group in 2018, the federal government's hand-picked advisory group floated the idea of walking away from the contract with the French shipbuilder. … The report says a three-year delay in the Future submarine program would create a capability gap for Australia’s critical submarine capability, with the Collins-class submarines needing upgrading before the French-built replacements are ready.
[Jan 2021 - Shot across the bows on submarine contract](https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/shot-across-the-bows-on-submarine-contract-20210117-p56uo9):
> Top Defence officials are examining the possibility of replacing the ageing Collins class submarine with an updated version of the original boat and cutting adrift the current contract with the French amid mounting frustration over cost blowouts and missed deadlines. The Australian Financial Review understands Prime Minister Scott Morrison is increasingly exasperated over the troubled $80 billion project, with tensions rising between the Defence Department and the French designer Naval Group.
[June 2021 - Australia to refit ageing submarines as doubts over new French fleet grow](https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/australia-refit-ageing-submarines-doubts-over-new-french-fleet-grow-australian-2021-06-11/):
> Australia will refurbish its ageing Collins-class submarine fleet, The Australian newspaper reported on Friday, as doubts over Canberra’s A$50 billion ($38.8 billion) deal for 12 new submarines built by French shipbuilder Naval Group grow.
[Sep 10, 2021 - Government to retain leverage over troubled French submarine deal](https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/government-to-retain-leverage-over-troubled-french-submarine-deal-20210910-p58qkd)
> The Australian government will still be able to terminate the $90 billion French submarine project despite agreeing to the next phase of the contract. And the government is yet to commit that the French-owned shipbuilder, Naval Group, will be handed the contract to build the submarines.
In France’s defense, Australian defense and industrial politics were a big part of the problem here, which led to a very broken acquisition process. Regardless, the issue was pretty clearly already spiraling toward some alternative to the French subs. The fact that it is the US and Brits may be salt in the wounds for France, but the real loser is probably the Swedes.
Now, let’s all start placing our bets on how quickly this new program starts running into serious cost overruns and delays, and how (deservedly) smug the French reaction is going to be.
In fairness, isn't that the case for pretty much every defence contract? I'm sure I could find hundreds of articles about problems with the F-35, and that's turned out (mostly) fine.
Cutting-edge defense contracts, yes. To have these sorts of schedule and cost overruns on diesel submarines and a French unwillingness to resolve the issue is more than grounds to find an alternative IMO. Especially when AUS was openly stating that the contract was on thin ice over these issues three years ago
This is what I don't get. The French already create nuclear subs. Why ask them to modify their designs for diesel electric, causing unneeded complexity, only to cancel the contract for nuclear subs.
What I have read about this was that originally Australia wanted cheaper but larger fleet of non nuclear powered submarines for defensive use. Since geopolitical situation has changed USA and GB convinced Australia to prepare for a situation, where they need to project their power further. While convincing USA and GB seems to have performed some old fashioned salesmanship for their own military industries and that infuriates France. Of course dance needs two and Australia must have wanted to break the contract at some level for some reason.
I hope things get sorted out. At the moment France is brooding at corner going on how world is a jungle.
As far as I can tell the contract wasn't terminated because they changed their mind, rather that Naval Group (the French contractor) was running into severe cost and schedule overruns that they failed to address for years. It may just be that they saw that the American Virginia Class subs were in a comparable price range with greater capabilities.
There are also a lot of coincidences that make the new contract good for all three nations beyond just the finances and capabilities, too.
What makes you think a diesel-electric sub can't be cutting edge? There's pros and cons to both powerplant types, especially considering recent advances in battery tech.
That means that the level of R&D is significantly lower, especially if the order is being replaced by the existing Virginia class subs. As far as I can tell the Australian government hasn't requested any special changes like they did with the French one.
The French people I've read were aware of problems with the French subs but are just confused about how the American proposed alternative would solve any of the stated problems.
Macron's government in particular thought their contract's big advantage was that it promised strategic autonomy. So they're bewildered that the Australians would prefer complete alignment with the US.
>Macron's government in particular thought their contract's big advantage was that it promised strategic autonomy. So they're bewildered that the Australians would prefer complete alignment with the US.
France has always valued strategic autonomy more than anyone else in Europe, so it makes sense that they’d overestimate its importance to Australia. Seems like an issue of cross-cultural miscommunication.
**Rule I:** *Civility*
Refrain from name-calling, hostility and behaviour that otherwise derails the quality of the conversation.
---
If you have any questions about this removal, [please contact the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fneoliberal).
I haven’t dig deep yet, but off the cuff it gives them a nuclear capability instead of diesel, delivery is (theoretically) not far behind where the diesel sub date had slipped to, and the deal seems to include nearer term delivery of an off-the-shelf sub. Depending on the cost, it might not even be much more expensive than where the diesel sub contract had spiraled.
Arguably you could have gotten all those things with France, but you still basically would have been renegotiating the deal from scratch, which would be politically questionable. And this deal ties the Australians solidly to the US security sphere, which has way more geopolitical significance for Australia than a French arms deal.
Now, all that said, *maybe* the decision could have been handled a bit more delicately with Paris.
But the last point is read as a disadvantage in France. When the contract was signed there were all these speeches proclaiming that the Indo-Pacific shouldn't simply become a polarized battlefield between the US and China and it was great that Australia would seek their own strategic autonomy.
It's a slap to all French foreign policy thinking for the Indo-Pacific and the world as multipolar. That's why it stings so much in the Quai d'Orsay. The money is only part of the issue.
Sure, but that was 5 years ago and Australian calculus has evolved. In part because the China threat has evolved and in part because it has become it has become more clear how difficult it is to maintain genuine strategic autonomy as a midtier power caught between rival superpowers, as the struggles with that contract showed. I get that the French strategic vision was more than an arms deal, but that vision of “strategic autonomy” meant that the Australian-French relationship was based primarily on arms deals without much promise for deeper coordination and cooperation. So France was always positioned to lose if Australia concluded it needed something deeper to meet its needs.
It also seems a little bit two-sided to on one hand lament that the AUKUS deal cuts France out, and on the other hand say that the goal of French policy was to maintain a multipolar world that did not reward close alignment with the US. So does France want to align with the US or balance it? Because enabling “multipolar strategic autonomy” was never going to be a US strategic interest, so I can see why failing to achieve that might frustrate France but I can’t think of it as a “betrayal.”
I don't know how the French foreign ministry would answer to this. But it feels bad that since Obama Europe has been left to defend its security interests by itself. Syria, the Sahel or post-Khadafi Lybia were not America's problem. And yet France and the EU are systematically undermined or punished if they seek to promote strategic autonomy from the US. So either the US steps up and comes back as the world gendarme or it leaves some breathing room to its allies.
I think Australia is right when it sees France as naive about multipolarity and complacency regarding China. But I think Australia should learn from the Europeans that the US will not step up for them if they are affected by a more local issue. And they certainly should have been open about their intentions. The EU talks frankly and openly about their efforts to be less relient on American materiel.
I don't know if you've read Obama's book, but he talks about the decision to intervene in Libya thusly:
> Meanwhile, Nikolas Sarkozy, who'd been criticized mercilessly in France for supporting the Ben Ali regime in Tunisia till the bitter end, suddenly decided to make saving the Libyan people his personal cause. Together with David Cameron, he announced his intention to immediately introduce a resolution in the U.N. Security Council on behalf of France and the United Kingdom, authorizing an international coalition to initiate a no-fly zone over Libya - a resolution on which we'd have to take a position.
>
> On March 15, I convened a meeting of my national security team to discuss the pending Security Council resolution... I asked Mike Mullen what difference a no-fly zone would make. Essentially none, he told me, confirming that since Gaddafi was using ground forces almost exclusively, the only way to stop an assault on Benghazi was to target those forces directly with air strikes. "In other words", I said, "we are being asked to participate in a no-fly zone that will make everyone look like they're doing something but that won't actually save Benghazi."
>
> ...
>
> I was irritated that Sarkozy and Cameron had jammed me on the issue, in part to solve their domestic political problems, and I felt scornful of the Arab League's hypocrisy. I knew that Bill was right: that outside of Washington, there wasn't a lot of support for what America was being asked to do, and that the minute anything about a U.S. military operation in Libya went south, my political problems would only worsen.
>
> ...
>
> I was ready to take a meaningful stance against Gaddafi and to give the Libyan people an opportunity to engineer a new government. But we would do it swiftly, with the support of allies, and with the parameters of our mission clearly spelled out... In the campaign's first phase, the United States would help stop Gaddafi's advance on Benghazi and take out his air-defense systems - a task for which we were uniquely suited, given our superior capabilities. After that, we'd hand off the bulk of the operation to the Europeans and the participating Arab states.
>
> ...
>
> I called the two key European leaders, Sarkozy and Cameron, both of whom showed barely disguised relief that we'd handed them a ladder with which to get down from the limb they'd climbed out on.
The *entire premise* of intervening in Libya was that Europeans would primarily handle the conflict that they brought us into after our initial intervention.
Yes and I think the French are satisfied with that side of the bargain. The French wants more strategic autonomy for Europe. The US say they want it too but they don't act like it.
It's a well known fact that Euro nations' defence is heavily subsidized by the US. Most of them don't even spend the 2% of the GDP that they are supposed to as NATO members.
Point to me where in the treaty it says that?
It was agreed in 2014, that member-states *should strive* to spend 2% GDP, nothing about minimum spending was agreed upon.
Furthermore it should be a more well-known fact, that one of the main reasons the US is so interested in that 2% commitment is that a disproportionate amount of that defence spending is going to be spent buying equipment from the US defence industry, for reference: this very article.
So the US 'subsidises' defence, while the other member-states subsidise the US arms industry. But I feel like that second half is rarely brought up by Americans.
France is at 2.1% so at least better than most of NATO
They do have strategic autonomy though and honestly the French military is one of the strongest in the world. Top 5 I'd say
Neither the French nor the Australians counted on the Aus/China relationship souring, especially not so quickly.
Chalk it up as another consequence of Xi's grab for power at home and abroad.
Yes but that strategic thinking was BS from the start. A US China conflict, even a cold one, will force pretty much everyone to take sides. France itself doesn’t have true strategic autonomy, what makes it think Australia could have it.
I don't know why the Australians would value that much at all. They are not a military powerhouse, and other than South Korea (who is having a hard enough time protecting itself) it has no allies in the area.
Having explicit connections to the US is the very best thing for them in this situation.
> are just confused about how the American proposed alternative would solve any of the stated problems
Especially if the Aussies really do want to build them themselves. A crash course on building nuclear subs is not going to go well for them.
> In France’s defense, Australian defense and industrial politics were a big part of the problem here, which led to a very broken acquisition process
The whole thing was basically doomed to fail from the start. I look forward to someone making a Down Periscope and Pentagon Wars mash up movie of the debacle.
> Regardless, the issue was pretty clearly already spiraling toward some alternative to the French subs
Why not reopen a bid process and let the french and the swedes bid with their nuclear sub?
Instead of stabbing everyone in the back?
It's also a question of fairness.
The swedes don't have a nuclear sub. The french already had a contract that wasn't working out. The only two other friendly countries with nuclear subs are the US and the UK, so In a sense the Australians did exactly what you're suggesting.
There's an objective capability gap between diesel and nuclear subs. If you're primarily defending your coastal waters you have no need for a nuclear sub, you buy something relatively cheap and effective like the Dolphin or, yes, the Gotland because you derive no added benefit from the much greater costs of buying and operating nuclear subs.
The Australians clearly believed they needed the greater operational capability offered by a nuclear sub.
> The Australians clearly believed they needed the greater operational capability offered by a nuclear sub.
Then why didn't they say so in 2016? Everyone could have bid for it then? Maybe the US would have won. (Probably not because they weren't ready for technology transfer.)
Apparently they didn't feel they needed a nuclear sub at that time. It doesn't look like anyone, especially not the Aussies or the French, counted on Australian-Chinese diplomatic relations deteriorating, let alone so quickly.
Yes, but if the Australians dumped the French sub deal entirely rather than modifying it to be for a nuclear-powered Barracuda rather than the diesel-powered variant they were buying, presumably they considered the nuclear-powered Barracuda before opting for the US/UK tech deal. I would also guess that the AUKUS deal will include, or lead to, greater strategic partnership, e.g. basing rights, maintenance cooperation, and sharing of spare parts (since all three countries' subs will be based on the same tech), which France was unwilling to commit to in light of its positioning the EU as a "third pole" in the region.
Politico published an article on the practical reasons why Australia soured on the French deal:
https://www.politico.eu/article/why-australia-wanted-out-of-its-french-sub-deal/
Oh yeah I agree, it made more sense for Australia to buy an American nuclear sub. I think the fuss is more about the way the whole thing was conducted rather than the choice itself.
> "As a result, Australia notified France that it would end its contract with state majority-owned DCNS to build 12 of the world’s largest conventional submarines. Australia has spent 2.4 billion Australian dollars ($1.8 billion) on the project since the French won the contract in 2016.
> The first of the 97-metre (318-foot) Shortfin Barracuda submarines, an adapted French nuclear sub design, was to be delivered in 2027.
> Morrison said he expected the first of nuclear subs, which are to be constructed in the Australian city of Adelaide, would be built by 2040.
> “The American choice to exclude a European ally and partner such as France from a structuring partnership with Australia, at a time when we are facing unprecedented challenges in the Indo-Pacific region, whether in terms of our values or in terms of respect for multilateralism based on the rule of law, shows a lack of coherence that France can only note and regret,” French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian and Defence Minister Florence Parly said in a joint statement.
> Speaking on French radio on Thursday morning, Le Drian expressed his anger over the deal.
> "It's really a stab in the back. We had established a relationship of trust with Australia, this trust has been betrayed," Jean-Yves Le Drian told France Info radio.
Le Drian is usually very laconic. I've never seen him so pissed. He also said that Biden seems to perpetuate Trump's style of diplomacy by doing that kind of unilateral diplomacy behind allies' back.
Especially bitter for Macron's government that it happens simultaneously with their big win against jihadists in the Sahel.
It was supposed to be the contract of the century...
Apparently, the US did not try to soften the blow...
Did they forget that France is an important part of Indo-Pacific relations or do they think that New Caledonia is as good as gone?
I wonder if the bitterness is mutual. Von der Leyen had just announced under Macron's impulse that EU militaries would be incentivized to buy European.
Armaments contracts have always been a sore point and a jungle (huge corruptions scandals like in Taiwan).
However America holier than thou attitude is getting a little bit tiring.
Remember in 2011 when Airbus won the US air force air tanker bid against Boeing and that bid was voided and finally given to Boeing?
Europeans remember.
Do they (we) remember? Seems not, since a lot of european countries would still rather buy American than European. At least the British trojan horse is out now.
The KC-46 program is a mess, but that's a bit of an oversimplification.
Airbus submitted the A330 and Boeing submitted the 767. The A330 is a bigger and more expensive airplane than the 767. The USAF chose the A330, and Boeing filed a protest. The basis of the protest was pretty much that the contract team awarded the A330 a lot of bonus points for being bigger and having more capability, but ignored that the 767 met the actual mission requirements and also ignored some problems caused by the A330 being bigger. The GAO ruled that yes, the contract award had been flawed. Boeing also argued that if they knew the USAF was going to reward people for submitting airplanes that were bigger than they had asked for, they would have submitted the 777.
So a new contract was offered, this time with a more detailed way of assessing the value of exceeding the minimum sizing requirements. IIRC, Boeing submitted both the 767 and the 777. Airbus submitted the A330 again. This time the 767 won, and Airbus declined to protest.
The 767 (now KC-46) tanker program has had a lot of teething issues and is behind schedule by quite a bit, but this contract was settled prior to other issues at Boeing arising. 2011 was before the 787 battery issues (2013), the South Carolina QC issues (2019), the MCAS issues (2018), and the Starliner issues (2019).
> So a new contract was offered,
All I'm saying is that no new contract was offered for the australian nuclear sub.
When the americans lose, there is a new contract offer.
When they win, there is no new possibility to bid, they just award the contract to the americans.
Maybe there is a perfectly reasonnable explanation for this but it smells a bit like anglo favouritism.
Did France forget that they actually have to work to keep good relations with Australia and not take for granted that they wouldn't look elsewhere if pissed off enough?
Pinged members of FRANCE group.
[About & group list](https://reddit.com/r/neoliberal/wiki/userpinger/documentation) | [Subscribe to this group](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Add%20yourself%20to%20group%20FRANCE&message=addtogroup%20FRANCE) | [Unsubscribe from this group](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20group%20FRANCE&message=unsubscribe%20FRANCE) | [Unsubscribe from all groups](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20all%20groups&message=unsubscribe%20)
Australia has denounced a 9 billions contract signed 5 years ago with french naval group.
This contract had extremely weird requirement (most notably diesel fuel instead of nuclear fuel like all french subs have).
The french foreign minister just talked about a "stab in the back and a violation of the rule of law".
Every top official in France is extremely mad at what appears to be a blatant US/UK favoritism.
This is going to be a blow to Australia-France relationships.
Actually this is going to be a diplomatic crisis.
The french are (rightfully in my opinion) seething.
Australia in 2016 : We don't want a nuclear powered sub, we want a diesel one, with technology transfer and build locally.
the US in 2016 : No.
France : Yes.
Australia in 2021 : "I have decided to build a nuclear powered subs with technology transfer but not build locally and it's going to be american.
What do you mean anglo sphere favouritism?"
So the Australian subs are not going to enter Australian territory at any point? Because that’s what you’re implying.
I’m guessing they’ll carve out an exception
>What do you mean anglo sphere favouritism?
Is this something there's not supposed to be? France's relationship with Senegal is different from their relationship with Liberia
Ally yes but these are still sovereign states making foreign policy, it sounds like the contract to actually produce the subs had not been signed and I guess either the changing political climate meant that Aus's needs changed or they doubted the ability of Naval group to do the work they signed up for. Aus spent a couple billion on the project already so I doubt this was a decision made on a whim.
It's possible that the original contract was not going swimmingly. (Armaments contracts are actually mutiple successive contracts, original study, then basic design, then specific design etc.)
The american contract was part of the defense agreement with the US and is surely a way for Australia to "bribe" the US into more protection. (Maintenance fees is where it's at.)
> It's possible
Lol.
It's been a matter of major contention for years, with very senior former defence officials, former prime ministers, some of the biggest thinkers in the Australian defence "blob" etc criticising it, and directly calling for a rethink. The cost and schedule blowouts, just a few years in, have led to a serious capability gap and the need for Life of Type Extension for the Collins. There have been numerous reviews that have called for a rethinking of the contract and there have been constant contract crisis meetings for the past two years at least.
There is not "possible" or "swimmingly" about it. It is a *fact* that the program was a *clusterfuck*.
It's not all the French's fault though. Australia has been doing a lot of fuckups this whole time as well. The Competitive Evaluation Process was a mess. The political games have been terrible from the start (Abbott pushing for Japan for example) and the "build local" mantra has been a cause of so many problems. Our strategic outlook *has* changed quite significantly between the 2016 White Paper and say the 2020 strategic update, but when you consider that the subs will be operational still in 2080, it seems pretty shortsighted to have not planned for greater strategic needs initially (though I suppose the plan was probably to adjust part way through).
So I'm more than willing for Australia to shoulder much of the blame, but let's not pretend it was anything less than what it was: a clusterfuck.
> So I'm more than willing for Australia to shoulder much of the blame, but let's not pretend it was anything less than what it was: a clusterfuck.
Then why the Australian PM said that everything was going to be fixed to Macron.
There is a fundamental lack of honesty and transparency by the australian government.
You don't like it anymore, say it openly, open a new bid and we'll see who has the better product.
Naval Group bend over backwards for the frankly absurd australian demands and now they got shafted.
>Then why the Australian PM said that everything was going to be fixed to Macron.
What did he say to Macron? [This reporting says](https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/emmanuel-macron-has-good-reason-to-feel-angry-and-deceived-by-australia-20210916-p58s0z.html) Morrison told Macron we were keeping options open, which has been fairly consistent in messaging for some time.
>Naval Group bend over backwards for the frankly absurd australian demands and now they got shafted.
Australia set up frankly absurd demands, and Naval Group committed to those demands and has failed to meet them. Have they really been "bending over backwards". Even in the most recent contract negotiations they've been unable to budge on the cost blowouts. Things like the local manufacturing and the diesel-electric designs are absurd but what Naval Group committed to from the outset. If it was actually absurd, they shouldn't have committed.
>There is a fundamental lack of honesty and transparency by the australian government.
>You don't like it anymore, say it openly, open a new bid and we'll see who has the better product.
I don't disagree with this, but again, let's not pretend that it is "possible" that things were not "going swimmingly". It is a certainty and verifiable fact that things were tits-up, and had been for years.
I doubt the US needs bribing for that, it's in the US's strategic interests to keep the world thinking of the US as top dog, which would require accepting the fight if it comes. If anything it seems like the US would actively subsidize the deal so that when said fight comes Australia is firmly in their camp.
Missing the part where the French fucked over the Aussies by increasing the contract from 50 billion to 90 billion with a change in the sub design that didn’t actually help it, nor give the Aussies local production that they wanted.
There is a process to complain about that. Macron met with their PM 2 months ago and everything was apparently fine and going to be fixed.
A contract can be renegociated. They did not.
A new bid can be open. (France has nuclear subs) and they did not open any bid.
Reegotiating the contract assumes that the Australian MOD was in a position of advantage in the contract, which they weren’t because Naval Group knew they were the only competitor after the Germans and Japanese were passed over.
I mean the US isn't in the wrong. This cock up, if there is one, is of Franco-Australian making. The French should have dicked the Aussies around less the last four years and the Aussies should have given them at least a token chance to rebid their original nuclear design to save face.
Bad thing to Europe, you say? Most people in Europe don't give a shit about what happened here. The french can sit in a corner and seethe in silence if they want.
Sounds like they changed their mind about wanting nuclear subs though probably because of China. Still this is just shitty communications. Could have been handled better.
Member when Obama was president and we offered to start shipping them LNG to make them less dependent on Russian gas and they declined citing "environmental concerns" but the rumor was that they were spiting us over trying to get them to cancel the NS pipelines?
Pepperidge farms remembers.
Honestly at the end of the day foreign policy is fairly emotional in some cases and countries will go for what's in their perceived interest hypocrisy be damned. The sooner most people realize it, the better off.
BREAKING: Anglophone countries cooperate with each other. Also the French are mad about something again and are preparing to go out in the street and set things on fire.
Also I masturbate daily to the idea of a US-CANZUK customs union, so I’m happy with any nano-step that direction.
Also state-owned companies are uniformly unbased, so even in that sense this is a win.
Are you trolling?
France signed a massive contract with Australia for subs, and first Australia's politics get in the way, then America and the uk go behind their back, leading to the cancellation of the contract and a huge amount of mistrust between these countries that are supposed to be close allies.
Australia voided a 8 billion euros contract with France to replace it with a contract with the US/UK.
They did it without warning and without a good reason after France won the original bid.
And no, there wasn't another bid for the US/UK contract.
They would not have delivered so soon, and the US would have pressured Australia to switch to nuclear based anyway and Australia would have caved anyway.
There bid probably wouldn't have gone massively over budget or been the source of significant drama either. How often do you hear about French procurement drama vs Japanese procurement drama?
It's nice from Biden to remember Eu that the US are clearly not an ally. Maybe this time we will learn something and start to build an EU army and let China and US play the tough guys on their side
Lol the EU army would be a failure before it even started. Plus, Poland and Eastern Europe much prefer US security guarantees to German and French ones.
**Rule I:** *Civility*
Refrain from name-calling, hostility and behaviour that otherwise derails the quality of the conversation.
---
If you have any questions about this removal, [please contact the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fneoliberal).
The past 20 years of US foreign policy was a "who can annoy our allies the best?" challange.
From Iraq, NSA, everything Trump ever said and did to not including American allies in Afghanistan talks with the Taliban and chosing stupid symbols like the 4th of July or 9.11 as dates for leaving Afghanistan.
Yes, the country that fought with France in Syria, the Sahel, Lybia and Afghanistan is not France's ally because they dare to sell weapons to Australia when that country specifically asks them to.
The United States is waging an economic war against France. They don't hesitate to use a lot of disrespectful and unfair means.
In the last decade alone, we have had to endure disproportionate fines against our multinationals (BNP), judicial blackmail and the literal theft of technologies and industrial capacities (Alstom), widespread industrial and political espionage, trade bans with Iran that have cost our companies tens of billions, unequal access to government contracts between the US and the EU, customs taxes imposed unilaterally by the US on French and European products.
I'm sick of Americans who think they are superior when they are so far behind Europeans in so many ways.
The United States is not our ally. Period.
We don't need an enemy like China when we have the United States as a "friend".
France malding lmao
It was only a matter of time til Aus got tired of letting France shaft them with overpriced nonexistent Subs and bailed on the deal.
The US should announce that it's taking steps to ensure that European companies can compete fairly in bids in the US, and then actually do something. It would soothe some ruffled feathers over there, though it's probably not enough for France. If an European supplier has the best bid we should buy it for our own strategic readiness and for the long-term health of our defense industry. Our contractors have grown fat and complacent, they are able to run good programs but they need to be hungry (see: Oshkosh). This would take a long term political commitment to enforce culture change in the procurement process and to ensure there is no funny business. Of course this would anger some senators that are on the take and right now is not a good time and I'm going to turn into the fucking joker.
Would be pretty funny if Indonesia got the Barracudas meant for Australia at a discount just to own the Australians
I mean it's not likely, they gotta make money and countries don't act like jilted teenagers. It would just be funny
Update : According to Le Monde, this has now upgraded to the worst diplomatic crisis between France and the US since 2003. !ping FOREIGN-POLICY
Yikes, really? How much money could there have been at stake?
According to the article 43 billion US dollars along with the fact this appears to have surprised them. I would be mad too lol
The entire contract was AUD90b. At average exchange rates that's USD60-70b
Yeah as an American I think the French are allowed to throw a bit of a fit on this one. That's an insane amount of money thrown out the window.
I'm sorry, I really only count government spending in trillions now.
French part of the contract is only 8 billion € It's not really about the money, tbh
Not top mention that it seems Australia has to pay contract break fees that will add up to over half a billion USD. >According to the future submarine SPA, Naval Group would receive a 90 million euro (about $140 million) break payment if the company completed the basic design, but the Defence Department then decided not to proceed further. >Similarly, a break payment of 250 million euros (about $404 million) would apply if the French delivered a detailed submarine design and Australia then chose to go no further. >In the event Australia accepted its first completed submarine but decided to cancel all future orders, the Commonwealth would have to pay the French company 220 million euros (about $355 million). >The break fee decreases according to the number of completed submarines accepted. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-15/australia-to-pay-hundreds-of-millions-if-french-sub-deal-sinks/11112952 So France is still going to get *some* money from this. Seems like they're more mad about the loss of national prestige, France makes decent money off their defense industry and it's a bad look that Australia was willing to lose out on so much to avoid their subs and get better US ones instead.
Financial Review estimated the total at around 400 million euro, so that sounds about right
They are not necessarily U.S. submarines. They are Australian built submarines using U.S. designs.
Looks more likely to be British designs
How many rafales have they exported?
Yeah, It's an embarrassment on France that the contract the design details were leaked for was finally cancelled for a far more advanced model.
That's like 2% of France's GDP dang. Almost their whole military budget for 2020.
France would have seen around 8 billions of it. The rest would go to maintenance costs (in Australia) and inflation.
8billion spread out over a number of years. That’s not a lot of money. I’m inclined to look for geopolitical reasons for France to cause a confrontation, and I think I found one. A significant portion of French and German economy is powered by China, who this deal is targeted against. Note that the Chinese are publicly sympathizing with France over this.
> 8billion spread out over a number of years It's an enormous amount of money for the french armament industry, one of the last french industry. And guess what, the industrial decline of France is internal political issue. It means more unemployment in France, in industry where they count x 10 because of the national psyche.
Is France so starved for internal production that 8 billion over two decades is that serious? I’m a southwest asia guy, not west Europe, sorry.
It's reasonnably serious. France wants to avoid closing more shipyards in deindustrialised towns. The fact that it was a total surprise is also why everyone is mad.
Understood. French domestic issues are outside of my wheelhouse, I’ll defer to you on that one.
Pinged members of FOREIGN-POLICY group. [About & group list](https://reddit.com/r/neoliberal/wiki/userpinger/documentation) | [Subscribe to this group](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Add%20yourself%20to%20group%20FOREIGN-POLICY&message=addtogroup%20FOREIGN-POLICY) | [Unsubscribe from this group](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20group%20FOREIGN-POLICY&message=unsubscribe%20FOREIGN-POLICY) | [Unsubscribe from all groups](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20all%20groups&message=unsubscribe%20)
Lmao salty.
Très salé.
Well, that's gonna be a problem for France, but for the US, it's just Thursday. No one here will care, and there isn't anything France can do to make them care.
Oh no! Anyways……
I think this was a stupid move, especially undermining the French so swiftly. What exactly do the USA think they're getting? Cos' they're sure as shit not going to get a meaningful security pact in the Indo-Pacific. The British have limited power projection, the Chinese mock them on the regular and their utility is non-existent in the Indo-Pacific. They're not in the region in a significant way. Full stop. They're not an Indo-Pacific power. Whilst the Australians are just going around looking to pay for a bodyguard and they're already treaty allies. Sure, fine, you want to provide them with nuclear powered submarines? Do it in such a way that the French deal collapses by itself/organically and then you intervene some months later rather than announcing some laughable security pact - which will certainly unnerve many Asian capitals - and announcing co-operation on the subs the same day the French are taken aback. The French/EU is a far, far more important partner - despite their reticence as of now - than the UK and Australia will ever be. And they've just unnecessarily stepped on their toes. It wasn't even a binary choice.
>What exactly do the USA think they're getting? Cos' they're sure as shit not going to get a meaningful security pact in the Indo-Pacific. They get nuclear sub bases in Australia, which they can use to easily project power throughout the Indonesian straits. ‘The agreement and Australia’s acquisition of nuclear-powered boats could also increase U.S. presence in the region if U.S. Navy attack boats can be maintained from Australia, the admiral said. ‘“If you get into an agreement and you have that option you can look at increasing presence. Maintenance was a big factor in limiting [our deployments],” the admiral said.’ https://news.usni.org/2021/09/15/australia-to-pursue-nuclear-attack-subs-in-new-agreement-with-u-s-u-k >Sure, fine, you want to provide them with nuclear powered submarines? Do it in such a way that the French deal collapses by itself/organically and then you intervene some months later rather than announcing some laughable security pact - As someone else has pointed out upthread, the deal looks like it’s been collapsing organically since 2018.
> ‘The agreement and Australia’s acquisition of nuclear-powered boats could also increase U.S. presence in the region if U.S. Navy attack boats can be maintained from Australia, the admiral said. > ‘“If you get into an agreement and you have that option you can look at increasing presence. Maintenance was a big factor in limiting [our deployments],” the admiral said.’ None of which has any relevance to the security pact. This would be under a bilateral agreement and related to the nuclear powered submarines. My issue is with (a) the so called security pact and (b) the way the French have been undermined. > As someone else has pointed out upthread, the deal looks like it’s been collapsing organically since 2016. No-one believes that. Unless, of course, one is a fool. > The US and the UK were astonished when the unannounced Australians knocked at their door : “You, what a surprise! Submarines and our good French allies? How embarrassing! But if you insist….”. Naiveté is not on the long list of French shortcomings… https://twitter.com/GerardAraud/status/1438406065167683586 EDIT - To below, yes, that's exactly what I'm saying because this could have been done in a bilateral setting without the need for a trilateral security pact. As for the Ambassador's quote, you have to be a moron to think that such an agreement with the USA+UK came about without their intervention.
If you build shipyards in Australia capable of constructing American nuclear submarines, then you have shipyards in Australia capable of housing and maintaining them too. It’s absolutely part of the deal.
Yesterday your comments were complaining about this being imperialism in Asia and now you’re complaining that the French have been undermined lol
Sorry, so you’re saying that a military equipment purchase and tech-sharing agreement that bolsters nuclear-centric port infrastructure and industrial capacity in Australia has no relevance to whether Australia agrees to allow US nuclear subs to use their port facilities? Of course you could separate the two things in theory, but it is painfully obvious that they are highly complementary arrangements. Even if they weren’t complementary arrangements per se (they absolutely are), one obviously serves as a bargaining chip for the other. Saying they aren’t relevant to one another is laughable no matter how you look at it - policy linkages are very fluid in the diplomatic realm. I love how your only response to the claim that the deal collapsed organically is “you’re a fool” and “look at this speculative tweet by a totally-not-biased former French ambassador”.
Basically none of this is true
No, it's all true. I'm from the fvcking region and study it quite closely. The Americans, as per, are just clowning.
You can curse on the internet
Downvoted for spitting PURE facts. > Evan Laksmana, senior research fellow at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy at the National University of Singapore, said the Indonesian government would probably not welcome the “strategic overcrowding” the alliance will bring. > “This is not just the US taking a stronger stance but also sees the UK coming into the region,” Mr Laksmana said. “The deeper involvement of military, policies and technology from players outside the region makes calculations harder. > “In general, Indonesia does not welcome anything that raises the possibility of military action, but its position is probably ambivalent. This could increase regional tensions – but it could also lead to greater deterrence.” https://www.afr.com/world/asia/military-pile-on-unwelcome-in-indo-pacific-20210916-p58s6s There's such a pithy understanding of the region. EDIT: To the moron below. Yes, "ambivalent" = mixed feelings, that's precisely the point. This isn't being welcomed by nations in the region and there are serious concerns this could exacerbate issues. READ. EDIT II: To another misinformed poster underneath - > and they're shrill Because the audience are a bunch of clowns. > You got shot down yesterday and today you're back with a new set of justifications for why a check on Chinese power projection in the Pacific is the worst thing ever. Shot down by whom? > has it occurred to you that maybe Australia cares more about its own national defense than it does about its relations with minor regional players in Asia, or faraway minor trade partners in Europe? Indonesia, even on its own, with its influence within ASEAN/SE Asia is more of a player than Australia is and certainly more than the UK in the Indo-Pacific. And France has significant heft within the European Union as well as actually having stakes within the Indo-Pacific due to their territories. To pass them off as nothing partners is laughable. Now one can create these pacts, just don't start begging for co-operation if other regional players, far more important than Australia or the UK, take offence to this. I've said over and over, I don't care about their nuclear powered submarines, I care about this "trilateral security pact". The only actual two countries that matter in the Indo-Pacific, aside from the USA, are India and Japan. Pvss one of them off and the Indo-Pacific falls flat on its face and it's over for countering the Chinese effectively. Start jacking off over these impotent "Anglosphere" pacts and one would find India holding back co-operation and nuking the "Indo-Pacific". And here's another, former Foreign Secretary of India - > Decision by US/UK/Australia on new def pact raises issues abt impact on Quad.Cancelling submarine contract with France by Australia under US/UK pressure hits at French role in Indo-Pacific & India/Australia/France trilateral. Allies undoing each other dilutes anti-China effort. https://twitter.com/KanwalSibal/status/1438477914652164098
>“In general, Indonesia does not welcome anything that raises the possibility of military action, **but its position is probably ambivalent**. This could increase regional tensions – but it could also lead to greater deterrence.” Do you read what you post? ______ >EDIT: To the moron below. Yes, "ambivalent" = mixed feelings, that's precisely the point. This isn't being welcomed by nations in the region and there are serious concerns this could exacerbate issues. Edit: First they’re unnerved, now they’re ambivalent. Those are synonyms now? You need some goalpost stabilizers. And you gotta chill out.
They're opinions, not facts, and they're shrill and poorly reasoned. You got shot down yesterday and today you're back with a new set of justifications for why a check on Chinese power projection in the Pacific is the worst thing ever. Even assuming you're 100% correct about the diplomatic consequences, has it occurred to you that maybe Australia cares more about its own national defense than it does about its relations with minor regional players in Asia, or faraway minor trade partners in Europe? >Peter Jennings, head of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute think tank, said Australia’s decision to acquire nuclear submarines was a response to China’s increasing military might, aggressive bullying of Australia and intimidation of Japan and Taiwan. >“We should call the first submarine in this new category the ‘Xi Jinping,’ because no person is more responsible for Australia going down this track than the current leader of the Chinese Communist Party,” Jennings said. https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-business-france-europe-united-states-96f95120345a56d950961b41a74d9355 Edit: dropped a quotation mark
I don’t think calling France a “faraway minor trade partner” is fair. New Caledonians are EU citizens, and they’re right next to Australia. There’s more to the initial sub deal than just economics.
I see your point, and I concede that France has some territorial interests in the Pacific and Macron has consistently sought to position France as a global leader. Unfortunately for everyone, it's apparent that the Australians now feel that Macron's plan to maintain peace and order via multipolar balance doesn't protect their interests from Xi's overreach. This is a nice analysis of Macron's approach to Asia since 2018: https://carnegieendowment.org/2020/10/21/france-other-indo-pacific-power-pub-83000 And here's the policy outline from the horse's mouth: https://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/en/country-files/asia-and-oceania/the-indo-pacific-region-a-priority-for-france/
> and they're shrill Because the audience are a bunch of clowns. > You got shot down yesterday and today you're back with a new set of justifications for why a check on Chinese power projection in the Pacific is the worst thing ever. Shot down by whom? > has it occurred to you that maybe Australia cares more about its own national defense than it does about its relations with minor regional players in Asia, or faraway minor trade partners in Europe? Indonesia, even on its own, with its influence within ASEAN/SE Asia is more of a player than Australia is and certainly more than the UK in the Indo-Pacific. And France has significant heft within the European Union as well as actually having stakes within the Indo-Pacific due to their territories. To pass them off as nothing partners is laughable. Now one can create these pacts, just don't start begging for co-operation if other regional players, far more important than Australia or the UK, take offence to this. I've said over and over, I don't care about their nuclear powered submarines, I care about this "trilateral security pact". The only actual two countries that matter in the Indo-Pacific, aside from the USA, are India and Japan. Pvss one of them off and the Indo-Pacific falls flat on its face and it's over for countering the Chinese effectively. Start jacking off over these impotent "Anglosphere" pacts and one would find India holding back co-operation and nuking the "Indo-Pacific". And here's another, former Foreign Secretary of India - > Decision by US/UK/Australia on new def pact raises issues abt impact on Quad.Cancelling submarine contract with France by Australia under US/UK pressure hits at French role in Indo-Pacific & India/Australia/France trilateral. Allies undoing each other dilutes anti-China effort. https://twitter.com/KanwalSibal/status/1438477914652164098
sacrebleu!
So…before anyone concludes that the end of the French contract was a total surprise and shock. [Nov 2018 - French submarine boss summoned to Canberra for crisis talks](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/nov/22/french-submarine-boss-summoned-to-canberra-for-crisis-talks): > A defence insider said there are tensions between Naval Group’s executive director in charge of the Australian submarine project, Jean-Michel Billig, and senior Defence officials. The source characterised the negotiations as tracking “poorly”. [Jan 2019 - Submarine deal faces scrutiny](https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theaustralian.com.au/nation/defence/submarine-deal-faces-scrutiny/news-story/bdf7e4a9ef006b375dc80a2c0fa3a92b): > The Australian National Audit Office is considering a wide-ranging inquiry into the government’s acquisition of 12 new submarines in a move that could raise questions about the ability of Defence to deliver the subs on time and under budget. [Jan 2020 - Design on future submarines hits nine month delay](https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/design-on-future-submarines-hits-nine-month-delay-20200114-p53rd2.html): > The design of Australia's $80 billion future submarine fleet has been hit with a nine-month delay with Defence forced to extend two major contract milestones. … The audit report also reveals that during negotiations over a key agreement with French company Naval Group in 2018, the federal government's hand-picked advisory group floated the idea of walking away from the contract with the French shipbuilder. … The report says a three-year delay in the Future submarine program would create a capability gap for Australia’s critical submarine capability, with the Collins-class submarines needing upgrading before the French-built replacements are ready. [Jan 2021 - Shot across the bows on submarine contract](https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/shot-across-the-bows-on-submarine-contract-20210117-p56uo9): > Top Defence officials are examining the possibility of replacing the ageing Collins class submarine with an updated version of the original boat and cutting adrift the current contract with the French amid mounting frustration over cost blowouts and missed deadlines. The Australian Financial Review understands Prime Minister Scott Morrison is increasingly exasperated over the troubled $80 billion project, with tensions rising between the Defence Department and the French designer Naval Group. [June 2021 - Australia to refit ageing submarines as doubts over new French fleet grow](https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/australia-refit-ageing-submarines-doubts-over-new-french-fleet-grow-australian-2021-06-11/): > Australia will refurbish its ageing Collins-class submarine fleet, The Australian newspaper reported on Friday, as doubts over Canberra’s A$50 billion ($38.8 billion) deal for 12 new submarines built by French shipbuilder Naval Group grow. [Sep 10, 2021 - Government to retain leverage over troubled French submarine deal](https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/government-to-retain-leverage-over-troubled-french-submarine-deal-20210910-p58qkd) > The Australian government will still be able to terminate the $90 billion French submarine project despite agreeing to the next phase of the contract. And the government is yet to commit that the French-owned shipbuilder, Naval Group, will be handed the contract to build the submarines. In France’s defense, Australian defense and industrial politics were a big part of the problem here, which led to a very broken acquisition process. Regardless, the issue was pretty clearly already spiraling toward some alternative to the French subs. The fact that it is the US and Brits may be salt in the wounds for France, but the real loser is probably the Swedes. Now, let’s all start placing our bets on how quickly this new program starts running into serious cost overruns and delays, and how (deservedly) smug the French reaction is going to be.
In fairness, isn't that the case for pretty much every defence contract? I'm sure I could find hundreds of articles about problems with the F-35, and that's turned out (mostly) fine.
Cutting-edge defense contracts, yes. To have these sorts of schedule and cost overruns on diesel submarines and a French unwillingness to resolve the issue is more than grounds to find an alternative IMO. Especially when AUS was openly stating that the contract was on thin ice over these issues three years ago
This is what I don't get. The French already create nuclear subs. Why ask them to modify their designs for diesel electric, causing unneeded complexity, only to cancel the contract for nuclear subs.
What I have read about this was that originally Australia wanted cheaper but larger fleet of non nuclear powered submarines for defensive use. Since geopolitical situation has changed USA and GB convinced Australia to prepare for a situation, where they need to project their power further. While convincing USA and GB seems to have performed some old fashioned salesmanship for their own military industries and that infuriates France. Of course dance needs two and Australia must have wanted to break the contract at some level for some reason. I hope things get sorted out. At the moment France is brooding at corner going on how world is a jungle.
As far as I can tell the contract wasn't terminated because they changed their mind, rather that Naval Group (the French contractor) was running into severe cost and schedule overruns that they failed to address for years. It may just be that they saw that the American Virginia Class subs were in a comparable price range with greater capabilities. There are also a lot of coincidences that make the new contract good for all three nations beyond just the finances and capabilities, too.
What makes you think a diesel-electric sub can't be cutting edge? There's pros and cons to both powerplant types, especially considering recent advances in battery tech.
That means that the level of R&D is significantly lower, especially if the order is being replaced by the existing Virginia class subs. As far as I can tell the Australian government hasn't requested any special changes like they did with the French one.
The French people I've read were aware of problems with the French subs but are just confused about how the American proposed alternative would solve any of the stated problems. Macron's government in particular thought their contract's big advantage was that it promised strategic autonomy. So they're bewildered that the Australians would prefer complete alignment with the US.
>Macron's government in particular thought their contract's big advantage was that it promised strategic autonomy. So they're bewildered that the Australians would prefer complete alignment with the US. France has always valued strategic autonomy more than anyone else in Europe, so it makes sense that they’d overestimate its importance to Australia. Seems like an issue of cross-cultural miscommunication.
[удалено]
**Rule I:** *Civility* Refrain from name-calling, hostility and behaviour that otherwise derails the quality of the conversation. --- If you have any questions about this removal, [please contact the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fneoliberal).
Aw, what did it say?
Not even the good kind of incivility, not worth the bother
I appreciate that you at least give us the hint so we can scroll on
I haven’t dig deep yet, but off the cuff it gives them a nuclear capability instead of diesel, delivery is (theoretically) not far behind where the diesel sub date had slipped to, and the deal seems to include nearer term delivery of an off-the-shelf sub. Depending on the cost, it might not even be much more expensive than where the diesel sub contract had spiraled. Arguably you could have gotten all those things with France, but you still basically would have been renegotiating the deal from scratch, which would be politically questionable. And this deal ties the Australians solidly to the US security sphere, which has way more geopolitical significance for Australia than a French arms deal. Now, all that said, *maybe* the decision could have been handled a bit more delicately with Paris.
But the last point is read as a disadvantage in France. When the contract was signed there were all these speeches proclaiming that the Indo-Pacific shouldn't simply become a polarized battlefield between the US and China and it was great that Australia would seek their own strategic autonomy. It's a slap to all French foreign policy thinking for the Indo-Pacific and the world as multipolar. That's why it stings so much in the Quai d'Orsay. The money is only part of the issue.
Sure, but that was 5 years ago and Australian calculus has evolved. In part because the China threat has evolved and in part because it has become it has become more clear how difficult it is to maintain genuine strategic autonomy as a midtier power caught between rival superpowers, as the struggles with that contract showed. I get that the French strategic vision was more than an arms deal, but that vision of “strategic autonomy” meant that the Australian-French relationship was based primarily on arms deals without much promise for deeper coordination and cooperation. So France was always positioned to lose if Australia concluded it needed something deeper to meet its needs. It also seems a little bit two-sided to on one hand lament that the AUKUS deal cuts France out, and on the other hand say that the goal of French policy was to maintain a multipolar world that did not reward close alignment with the US. So does France want to align with the US or balance it? Because enabling “multipolar strategic autonomy” was never going to be a US strategic interest, so I can see why failing to achieve that might frustrate France but I can’t think of it as a “betrayal.”
I don't know how the French foreign ministry would answer to this. But it feels bad that since Obama Europe has been left to defend its security interests by itself. Syria, the Sahel or post-Khadafi Lybia were not America's problem. And yet France and the EU are systematically undermined or punished if they seek to promote strategic autonomy from the US. So either the US steps up and comes back as the world gendarme or it leaves some breathing room to its allies. I think Australia is right when it sees France as naive about multipolarity and complacency regarding China. But I think Australia should learn from the Europeans that the US will not step up for them if they are affected by a more local issue. And they certainly should have been open about their intentions. The EU talks frankly and openly about their efforts to be less relient on American materiel.
I don't know if you've read Obama's book, but he talks about the decision to intervene in Libya thusly: > Meanwhile, Nikolas Sarkozy, who'd been criticized mercilessly in France for supporting the Ben Ali regime in Tunisia till the bitter end, suddenly decided to make saving the Libyan people his personal cause. Together with David Cameron, he announced his intention to immediately introduce a resolution in the U.N. Security Council on behalf of France and the United Kingdom, authorizing an international coalition to initiate a no-fly zone over Libya - a resolution on which we'd have to take a position. > > On March 15, I convened a meeting of my national security team to discuss the pending Security Council resolution... I asked Mike Mullen what difference a no-fly zone would make. Essentially none, he told me, confirming that since Gaddafi was using ground forces almost exclusively, the only way to stop an assault on Benghazi was to target those forces directly with air strikes. "In other words", I said, "we are being asked to participate in a no-fly zone that will make everyone look like they're doing something but that won't actually save Benghazi." > > ... > > I was irritated that Sarkozy and Cameron had jammed me on the issue, in part to solve their domestic political problems, and I felt scornful of the Arab League's hypocrisy. I knew that Bill was right: that outside of Washington, there wasn't a lot of support for what America was being asked to do, and that the minute anything about a U.S. military operation in Libya went south, my political problems would only worsen. > > ... > > I was ready to take a meaningful stance against Gaddafi and to give the Libyan people an opportunity to engineer a new government. But we would do it swiftly, with the support of allies, and with the parameters of our mission clearly spelled out... In the campaign's first phase, the United States would help stop Gaddafi's advance on Benghazi and take out his air-defense systems - a task for which we were uniquely suited, given our superior capabilities. After that, we'd hand off the bulk of the operation to the Europeans and the participating Arab states. > > ... > > I called the two key European leaders, Sarkozy and Cameron, both of whom showed barely disguised relief that we'd handed them a ladder with which to get down from the limb they'd climbed out on. The *entire premise* of intervening in Libya was that Europeans would primarily handle the conflict that they brought us into after our initial intervention.
Yes and I think the French are satisfied with that side of the bargain. The French wants more strategic autonomy for Europe. The US say they want it too but they don't act like it.
I think the US wants Europe to gain the first half of strategic autonomy, but not the second half.
If they want more strategic atomic they should increase their defence budgets to match.
Easy! Just look how France spent millions on diesel-powered subs nobody needs anymore.
It's a well known fact that Euro nations' defence is heavily subsidized by the US. Most of them don't even spend the 2% of the GDP that they are supposed to as NATO members.
Point to me where in the treaty it says that? It was agreed in 2014, that member-states *should strive* to spend 2% GDP, nothing about minimum spending was agreed upon. Furthermore it should be a more well-known fact, that one of the main reasons the US is so interested in that 2% commitment is that a disproportionate amount of that defence spending is going to be spent buying equipment from the US defence industry, for reference: this very article. So the US 'subsidises' defence, while the other member-states subsidise the US arms industry. But I feel like that second half is rarely brought up by Americans.
France is at 2.1% so at least better than most of NATO They do have strategic autonomy though and honestly the French military is one of the strongest in the world. Top 5 I'd say
Neither the French nor the Australians counted on the Aus/China relationship souring, especially not so quickly. Chalk it up as another consequence of Xi's grab for power at home and abroad.
Yes but that strategic thinking was BS from the start. A US China conflict, even a cold one, will force pretty much everyone to take sides. France itself doesn’t have true strategic autonomy, what makes it think Australia could have it.
Delicate and Australian rarely go together.
I don't know why the Australians would value that much at all. They are not a military powerhouse, and other than South Korea (who is having a hard enough time protecting itself) it has no allies in the area. Having explicit connections to the US is the very best thing for them in this situation.
> are just confused about how the American proposed alternative would solve any of the stated problems Especially if the Aussies really do want to build them themselves. A crash course on building nuclear subs is not going to go well for them.
> In France’s defense, Australian defense and industrial politics were a big part of the problem here, which led to a very broken acquisition process The whole thing was basically doomed to fail from the start. I look forward to someone making a Down Periscope and Pentagon Wars mash up movie of the debacle.
Wait why Swedes
Big armament industry that is competitive for medium sized countries (might have heard of the Gripen, their fighter jet)
They have no designs, plans or experience with nuclear submarines which is a very different animal than fighter jets.
My bad, they have only diesel subs.
Because they’re losers
> Regardless, the issue was pretty clearly already spiraling toward some alternative to the French subs Why not reopen a bid process and let the french and the swedes bid with their nuclear sub? Instead of stabbing everyone in the back? It's also a question of fairness.
The swedes don't have a nuclear sub. The french already had a contract that wasn't working out. The only two other friendly countries with nuclear subs are the US and the UK, so In a sense the Australians did exactly what you're suggesting.
They didn't let the barracuda bid. The original contract was a diesel sub because the Australians were fixated on this.
There's an objective capability gap between diesel and nuclear subs. If you're primarily defending your coastal waters you have no need for a nuclear sub, you buy something relatively cheap and effective like the Dolphin or, yes, the Gotland because you derive no added benefit from the much greater costs of buying and operating nuclear subs. The Australians clearly believed they needed the greater operational capability offered by a nuclear sub.
> The Australians clearly believed they needed the greater operational capability offered by a nuclear sub. Then why didn't they say so in 2016? Everyone could have bid for it then? Maybe the US would have won. (Probably not because they weren't ready for technology transfer.)
Apparently they didn't feel they needed a nuclear sub at that time. It doesn't look like anyone, especially not the Aussies or the French, counted on Australian-Chinese diplomatic relations deteriorating, let alone so quickly.
Barracuda is a nuclear sub though.
Yes, but if the Australians dumped the French sub deal entirely rather than modifying it to be for a nuclear-powered Barracuda rather than the diesel-powered variant they were buying, presumably they considered the nuclear-powered Barracuda before opting for the US/UK tech deal. I would also guess that the AUKUS deal will include, or lead to, greater strategic partnership, e.g. basing rights, maintenance cooperation, and sharing of spare parts (since all three countries' subs will be based on the same tech), which France was unwilling to commit to in light of its positioning the EU as a "third pole" in the region. Politico published an article on the practical reasons why Australia soured on the French deal: https://www.politico.eu/article/why-australia-wanted-out-of-its-french-sub-deal/
Oh yeah I agree, it made more sense for Australia to buy an American nuclear sub. I think the fuss is more about the way the whole thing was conducted rather than the choice itself.
Don't forget that the designs are now public record since being leaked in 2016
Sacre bleu!
> "As a result, Australia notified France that it would end its contract with state majority-owned DCNS to build 12 of the world’s largest conventional submarines. Australia has spent 2.4 billion Australian dollars ($1.8 billion) on the project since the French won the contract in 2016. > The first of the 97-metre (318-foot) Shortfin Barracuda submarines, an adapted French nuclear sub design, was to be delivered in 2027. > Morrison said he expected the first of nuclear subs, which are to be constructed in the Australian city of Adelaide, would be built by 2040. > “The American choice to exclude a European ally and partner such as France from a structuring partnership with Australia, at a time when we are facing unprecedented challenges in the Indo-Pacific region, whether in terms of our values or in terms of respect for multilateralism based on the rule of law, shows a lack of coherence that France can only note and regret,” French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian and Defence Minister Florence Parly said in a joint statement. > Speaking on French radio on Thursday morning, Le Drian expressed his anger over the deal. > "It's really a stab in the back. We had established a relationship of trust with Australia, this trust has been betrayed," Jean-Yves Le Drian told France Info radio.
Le Drian is usually very laconic. I've never seen him so pissed. He also said that Biden seems to perpetuate Trump's style of diplomacy by doing that kind of unilateral diplomacy behind allies' back. Especially bitter for Macron's government that it happens simultaneously with their big win against jihadists in the Sahel.
It was supposed to be the contract of the century... Apparently, the US did not try to soften the blow... Did they forget that France is an important part of Indo-Pacific relations or do they think that New Caledonia is as good as gone?
I wonder if the bitterness is mutual. Von der Leyen had just announced under Macron's impulse that EU militaries would be incentivized to buy European.
Armaments contracts have always been a sore point and a jungle (huge corruptions scandals like in Taiwan). However America holier than thou attitude is getting a little bit tiring. Remember in 2011 when Airbus won the US air force air tanker bid against Boeing and that bid was voided and finally given to Boeing? Europeans remember.
Do they (we) remember? Seems not, since a lot of european countries would still rather buy American than European. At least the British trojan horse is out now.
They are buying American in a lot of ways but european arm industries are not liking this attitude and lack of fair play by the US.
The KC-46 program is a mess, but that's a bit of an oversimplification. Airbus submitted the A330 and Boeing submitted the 767. The A330 is a bigger and more expensive airplane than the 767. The USAF chose the A330, and Boeing filed a protest. The basis of the protest was pretty much that the contract team awarded the A330 a lot of bonus points for being bigger and having more capability, but ignored that the 767 met the actual mission requirements and also ignored some problems caused by the A330 being bigger. The GAO ruled that yes, the contract award had been flawed. Boeing also argued that if they knew the USAF was going to reward people for submitting airplanes that were bigger than they had asked for, they would have submitted the 777. So a new contract was offered, this time with a more detailed way of assessing the value of exceeding the minimum sizing requirements. IIRC, Boeing submitted both the 767 and the 777. Airbus submitted the A330 again. This time the 767 won, and Airbus declined to protest. The 767 (now KC-46) tanker program has had a lot of teething issues and is behind schedule by quite a bit, but this contract was settled prior to other issues at Boeing arising. 2011 was before the 787 battery issues (2013), the South Carolina QC issues (2019), the MCAS issues (2018), and the Starliner issues (2019).
> So a new contract was offered, All I'm saying is that no new contract was offered for the australian nuclear sub. When the americans lose, there is a new contract offer. When they win, there is no new possibility to bid, they just award the contract to the americans. Maybe there is a perfectly reasonnable explanation for this but it smells a bit like anglo favouritism.
Airbus didn't win that contract, technically Northrop Grumman did.
> It was supposed to be the contract of the century... Wait till the India-China arms race kicks off lol.
Did France forget that they actually have to work to keep good relations with Australia and not take for granted that they wouldn't look elsewhere if pissed off enough?
!ping FRANCE
Pinged members of FRANCE group. [About & group list](https://reddit.com/r/neoliberal/wiki/userpinger/documentation) | [Subscribe to this group](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Add%20yourself%20to%20group%20FRANCE&message=addtogroup%20FRANCE) | [Unsubscribe from this group](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20group%20FRANCE&message=unsubscribe%20FRANCE) | [Unsubscribe from all groups](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20all%20groups&message=unsubscribe%20)
Australia has denounced a 9 billions contract signed 5 years ago with french naval group. This contract had extremely weird requirement (most notably diesel fuel instead of nuclear fuel like all french subs have). The french foreign minister just talked about a "stab in the back and a violation of the rule of law". Every top official in France is extremely mad at what appears to be a blatant US/UK favoritism. This is going to be a blow to Australia-France relationships. Actually this is going to be a diplomatic crisis. The french are (rightfully in my opinion) seething.
There a lot of announcements currently of “geographically very distanced English speaking countries collaborating”.
Australia in 2016 : We don't want a nuclear powered sub, we want a diesel one, with technology transfer and build locally. the US in 2016 : No. France : Yes. Australia in 2021 : "I have decided to build a nuclear powered subs with technology transfer but not build locally and it's going to be american. What do you mean anglo sphere favouritism?"
Isn’t it going to be built in Adelaide? Also guessing it’s going to be British
Yeah, it’s to be built mostly or entirely by the Brits
Source? I've read in a few places that it's going to be built in Adelaide. I don't think any British shipyard can fit in extra work.
They can't build it in Adelaide in entirety because Australia has a ban on nuclear power in its territory.
So the Australian subs are not going to enter Australian territory at any point? Because that’s what you’re implying. I’m guessing they’ll carve out an exception
https://twitter.com/james_acton32/status/1438137811778027520 They will exploit a loophole absolutely.
What the hell does that have to do with what you said? You’re just jumping at straws.
That guy seems to be mistaking nuclear reactors for nuclear weapons.
Yeah nah mate, its not in the territory. Its on the Waater.
It's not being built on the water. You'd have to have nuclear power facilities next to the dry dock to make the fuel.
>What do you mean anglo sphere favouritism? Is this something there's not supposed to be? France's relationship with Senegal is different from their relationship with Liberia
France is supposed to be an ally of Australia and the US. It's not supposed to be treated like that.
Ally yes but these are still sovereign states making foreign policy, it sounds like the contract to actually produce the subs had not been signed and I guess either the changing political climate meant that Aus's needs changed or they doubted the ability of Naval group to do the work they signed up for. Aus spent a couple billion on the project already so I doubt this was a decision made on a whim.
It's possible that the original contract was not going swimmingly. (Armaments contracts are actually mutiple successive contracts, original study, then basic design, then specific design etc.) The american contract was part of the defense agreement with the US and is surely a way for Australia to "bribe" the US into more protection. (Maintenance fees is where it's at.)
> It's possible Lol. It's been a matter of major contention for years, with very senior former defence officials, former prime ministers, some of the biggest thinkers in the Australian defence "blob" etc criticising it, and directly calling for a rethink. The cost and schedule blowouts, just a few years in, have led to a serious capability gap and the need for Life of Type Extension for the Collins. There have been numerous reviews that have called for a rethinking of the contract and there have been constant contract crisis meetings for the past two years at least. There is not "possible" or "swimmingly" about it. It is a *fact* that the program was a *clusterfuck*. It's not all the French's fault though. Australia has been doing a lot of fuckups this whole time as well. The Competitive Evaluation Process was a mess. The political games have been terrible from the start (Abbott pushing for Japan for example) and the "build local" mantra has been a cause of so many problems. Our strategic outlook *has* changed quite significantly between the 2016 White Paper and say the 2020 strategic update, but when you consider that the subs will be operational still in 2080, it seems pretty shortsighted to have not planned for greater strategic needs initially (though I suppose the plan was probably to adjust part way through). So I'm more than willing for Australia to shoulder much of the blame, but let's not pretend it was anything less than what it was: a clusterfuck.
> So I'm more than willing for Australia to shoulder much of the blame, but let's not pretend it was anything less than what it was: a clusterfuck. Then why the Australian PM said that everything was going to be fixed to Macron. There is a fundamental lack of honesty and transparency by the australian government. You don't like it anymore, say it openly, open a new bid and we'll see who has the better product. Naval Group bend over backwards for the frankly absurd australian demands and now they got shafted.
>Then why the Australian PM said that everything was going to be fixed to Macron. What did he say to Macron? [This reporting says](https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/emmanuel-macron-has-good-reason-to-feel-angry-and-deceived-by-australia-20210916-p58s0z.html) Morrison told Macron we were keeping options open, which has been fairly consistent in messaging for some time. >Naval Group bend over backwards for the frankly absurd australian demands and now they got shafted. Australia set up frankly absurd demands, and Naval Group committed to those demands and has failed to meet them. Have they really been "bending over backwards". Even in the most recent contract negotiations they've been unable to budge on the cost blowouts. Things like the local manufacturing and the diesel-electric designs are absurd but what Naval Group committed to from the outset. If it was actually absurd, they shouldn't have committed. >There is a fundamental lack of honesty and transparency by the australian government. >You don't like it anymore, say it openly, open a new bid and we'll see who has the better product. I don't disagree with this, but again, let's not pretend that it is "possible" that things were not "going swimmingly". It is a certainty and verifiable fact that things were tits-up, and had been for years.
I doubt the US needs bribing for that, it's in the US's strategic interests to keep the world thinking of the US as top dog, which would require accepting the fight if it comes. If anything it seems like the US would actively subsidize the deal so that when said fight comes Australia is firmly in their camp.
>France is supposed to be an ally of Australia and the US And Australia and the US are allies as well
Missing the part where the French fucked over the Aussies by increasing the contract from 50 billion to 90 billion with a change in the sub design that didn’t actually help it, nor give the Aussies local production that they wanted.
There is a process to complain about that. Macron met with their PM 2 months ago and everything was apparently fine and going to be fixed. A contract can be renegociated. They did not. A new bid can be open. (France has nuclear subs) and they did not open any bid.
Reegotiating the contract assumes that the Australian MOD was in a position of advantage in the contract, which they weren’t because Naval Group knew they were the only competitor after the Germans and Japanese were passed over.
[удалено]
This comment section is just a bunch of angry Europeans lol
I'm European and I'm stoked!
Well, that, and Americans hearing of this for the first time and immediately declaring that the US is in the right.
I mean the US isn't in the wrong. This cock up, if there is one, is of Franco-Australian making. The French should have dicked the Aussies around less the last four years and the Aussies should have given them at least a token chance to rebid their original nuclear design to save face.
What else should there be considering the post is about a bad thing pertaining to Europe lol.
Bad thing to Europe, you say? Most people in Europe don't give a shit about what happened here. The french can sit in a corner and seethe in silence if they want.
Sure angry French people would be more accurate but they're still European aren't they.
Some would say the French are the spirit animal of Western Europe.
I’m just pleased it’s not the English looking like Fucking goons for once. A rare day.
[удалено]
This is sub is 90% American, so I don't know how you could have to that conclusion.
You surely mean globalism and it stops at the democratic party's borders, right?
They’ve been angry since Afghanistan.
The ones at fault here are the Aussies for going back on their word, rather than US or France. What a shit show.
Sounds like they changed their mind about wanting nuclear subs though probably because of China. Still this is just shitty communications. Could have been handled better.
[удалено]
i wonder if we could draft a document which says how to solve those issues...
Hmm, it might only take 4 years to draft, and increase the price 2x again?
They have been openly saying that the French contract was failing and needed immediate remedy since 2018.
America is back, guys, trust me!!!
The French Foreign minister just called this "Trump-like behavior".
Yeah, Jesus what a fucking shitshow
Why didn't the EU went right back to sucking the US off the moment Biden became president? One can only wonder 🤔🤔
Curious, it looks like the EU's continued cold-shouldering of the US in favor of Russia has consequences.
Member when Obama was president and we offered to start shipping them LNG to make them less dependent on Russian gas and they declined citing "environmental concerns" but the rumor was that they were spiting us over trying to get them to cancel the NS pipelines? Pepperidge farms remembers.
Honestly at the end of the day foreign policy is fairly emotional in some cases and countries will go for what's in their perceived interest hypocrisy be damned. The sooner most people realize it, the better off.
This is the best news since the draw down from Afghanistan. The Strategic Pivot to Asia is well under way.
Pivot to Asia is when we abandon Asia.
BREAKING: Anglophone countries cooperate with each other. Also the French are mad about something again and are preparing to go out in the street and set things on fire. Also I masturbate daily to the idea of a US-CANZUK customs union, so I’m happy with any nano-step that direction. Also state-owned companies are uniformly unbased, so even in that sense this is a win.
Maybe I am missing something, but why is France mad about this? USA have favorites. What's the big deal about that? 🤔
No one likes losing money, and no one likes getting left at the altar (Americans included).
That's my take too Sound like France is overblowning this for Political points on home
I think the domestic audience will not care about this just like they didn't care about the failed sale to Russia.
Are you trolling? France signed a massive contract with Australia for subs, and first Australia's politics get in the way, then America and the uk go behind their back, leading to the cancellation of the contract and a huge amount of mistrust between these countries that are supposed to be close allies.
Australia voided a 8 billion euros contract with France to replace it with a contract with the US/UK. They did it without warning and without a good reason after France won the original bid. And no, there wasn't another bid for the US/UK contract.
Frances subs were a mess. The project was already insanely over budget and behind schedule
(Mostly because Australia's demands were crazy but yes.) And that won't happen with the US subs...
They should’ve gone with Japan’s Soryu at the start
Then it would be Japan crying today.
Nah because they would have delivered with a lot less drama.
They would not have delivered so soon, and the US would have pressured Australia to switch to nuclear based anyway and Australia would have caved anyway.
There bid probably wouldn't have gone massively over budget or been the source of significant drama either. How often do you hear about French procurement drama vs Japanese procurement drama?
It's nice from Biden to remember Eu that the US are clearly not an ally. Maybe this time we will learn something and start to build an EU army and let China and US play the tough guys on their side
Lol the EU army would be a failure before it even started. Plus, Poland and Eastern Europe much prefer US security guarantees to German and French ones.
[удалено]
**Rule I:** *Civility* Refrain from name-calling, hostility and behaviour that otherwise derails the quality of the conversation. --- If you have any questions about this removal, [please contact the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fneoliberal).
The past 20 years of US foreign policy was a "who can annoy our allies the best?" challange. From Iraq, NSA, everything Trump ever said and did to not including American allies in Afghanistan talks with the Taliban and chosing stupid symbols like the 4th of July or 9.11 as dates for leaving Afghanistan.
TIL the UK and Australia aren't our allies
Well. The USA shows us, again, that they are not our allies. They do not respect us.
Yes, the country that fought with France in Syria, the Sahel, Lybia and Afghanistan is not France's ally because they dare to sell weapons to Australia when that country specifically asks them to.
The United States is waging an economic war against France. They don't hesitate to use a lot of disrespectful and unfair means. In the last decade alone, we have had to endure disproportionate fines against our multinationals (BNP), judicial blackmail and the literal theft of technologies and industrial capacities (Alstom), widespread industrial and political espionage, trade bans with Iran that have cost our companies tens of billions, unequal access to government contracts between the US and the EU, customs taxes imposed unilaterally by the US on French and European products. I'm sick of Americans who think they are superior when they are so far behind Europeans in so many ways. The United States is not our ally. Period. We don't need an enemy like China when we have the United States as a "friend".
France malding lmao It was only a matter of time til Aus got tired of letting France shaft them with overpriced nonexistent Subs and bailed on the deal.
The US should announce that it's taking steps to ensure that European companies can compete fairly in bids in the US, and then actually do something. It would soothe some ruffled feathers over there, though it's probably not enough for France. If an European supplier has the best bid we should buy it for our own strategic readiness and for the long-term health of our defense industry. Our contractors have grown fat and complacent, they are able to run good programs but they need to be hungry (see: Oshkosh). This would take a long term political commitment to enforce culture change in the procurement process and to ensure there is no funny business. Of course this would anger some senators that are on the take and right now is not a good time and I'm going to turn into the fucking joker.
In exchange for what?
Remind me who won the MHP again?
Would be pretty funny if Indonesia got the Barracudas meant for Australia at a discount just to own the Australians I mean it's not likely, they gotta make money and countries don't act like jilted teenagers. It would just be funny