"Current submarine dispute between France and Australia" Topic

Hi guys, I feel the need to put something on a public record somewhere about all the fuss the French are making in the global Press about the collapse of the submarine supply deal between France and Australia. I need to get this off my chest.

The French President, French politicians, Ambassadors and officials are talking to the Press and representing themselves as the shocked and wounded party that has been betrayed by Australia choosing to ditch a deal with France to supply Australia with a dozen conventionally powered Subs.

This deal was done back in 2016. At the time I remember thinking, as a professional engineer, that it would be wiser and less costly to buy largely off the shelf products from either Germany or Japan who also responded to the Tender.

So here we are 6 years later and the French have increased the price at least 3 times, from an initial $38 USD billion to now $90 USD+ billion – an eye watering contract price variation.

The French have asked for multiple time extensions and in 6 years have delivered nothing! Not even a single keel has been laid! At the current Australian submarine shipyards in my city of Adelaide there a few staff wandering around with the NAVAL Group logo on their overalls but thats about it.

So why are the French so outraged when we tell them we're no longer interested in continuing with the deal?! Anyone would throw out such a deal on commercial grounds alone.

In addition over the last 6 years of delays and dithering and revised estimates of dollars and time the strategic defence situation in the western pacific has changed dramatically for Australia. Give the rise of Communist China's navy and increasingly aggressive moves and language our Defence planners feel our equipment needs should be reviewed. Given the failure of the French to supply anything, or even look like supplying anything and their rapidly increasing cost blowouts we have decided to end the deal and find another partner to supply our navy with nuclear powered submarines.

No part of the globe is as richly drenched in the blood and sacrifice of Australian soldiers as northern France. We sent our bravest and our best for 4 long, bloody and grinding years to defend France against Germany. I alone lost 4 Great Uncles and I grew up with a maiden Great Aunt who lost her fiance in France and never married again.

And now the thanks we get is to be ripped off by this French naval consortium's failure to supply anything in 6 years but excuses and price extortion! And to top it off we now have to watch their President and officials strut the world stage in Glasgow and insinuate that somehow Australia has betrayed them!!! They've got a bloody cheek!

Well said, sir.

Blame is not all on French.

Adelaide shipyard was notorious for ineptitude and cost blow outs – as one minister said "I wouldn't trust them to build a canoe."

The whole thing was not a defence program but a jobs creation program designed to keep a number of politicians elected (primarily Christopher Pyne).

And Government went with the French proposal despite it being inherently stupid (nuclear sub converted to diesel-electric with American supplied combat systems in a French submarine – French have been "deAmericanising" their weapon systems for years).

The nuke subs deal is probably garbage too – they're going to spend the next two years figuring out whether Australia can even operate nuke subs.

They think the earliest the nuke subs might enter service is 2042 (which is later than French ones) at which point Collins class is 50 years old.

The correct answer was Japanese Soryu class subs. But the Australians bungled this diplomatically – signalling the Japanese subs were aa sure go and then abruptly chosing the French deal.

Again Japanese were peeved off at this – when it comes to diplomacy Australia is incompetent (always has been, I read somewhere Australia's diplomats are poorly trained, lack subtlety and often naive and don't understand the ramifications of things and importance of words).

-----------

As for laying keels, defence projects take forever. Eg Arleigh Burke production line was set up in the 1980s yet it still takes 6-7 years from ordering long lead items to commissioning a new one.

---------

As for French and WWI, that was over 100 years ago. An irrelevance. Note your ancestors were fighting French 200 years ago! Irrelevant. They were also fighting the French 80 years ago in Syria-Lebanon (416 Aussies killed, 1300+ wounded by Vichy French). Also an irrelevance.

In all cases it wasn't even the same France that exists today (today its Fifth Republic which came into being in 1958). Australia has certainly never fought or fought for the current France.

Blame is totally with the French .. they were warned numerous times to stop ripping us off but they thought it was a done deal … thank god for exit clauses

Interesting reply, arealdeadone. Your last two paragraphs, if they had merit, would be excellent arguments against the current nonsensical fashion for governments apologising for things done decades or centuries ago.

Alas they (your last paragraphs) are mere sophistry.

DBDD

You're not alone. The French have completely over reacted to the UK fishing thing as well…

So many things I could write…

The media reporting I've read is a mix of political slant and ignorant journo's making bad guesses- so nothing new there and nowt upon which to base an informed opinion. Perhaps in 30 years the real story will come out (I don't know what it is, and the rumour mill at work has been running quick). Fault is on both sides and the French were told we were looking at bailing a couple of months ago- hence them sending over a senior (naval officer or diplomat- can't remember) to try to smooth the waters.

Pollies from two countries were trying to pork barrel jobs for votes. Basic real life equivalent- two four-year-olds trying to eat the same piece of cake. As expected, it all ended in tears. As also expected they're both moaning over it a month later.

The real losers are the tax payers from France and Australia that have to pay for these gross examples of idiocy, and the wages of the idiots exchanging dummy spits in Glasgow. The strategic view- the clowns are still in charge in at least two countries (and considering some 3rd party uninformed comments, in three).

Darrell B D Day, how is it sophistry? It's fact.

Nsolomon99 was claiming some sort of historical debt from the French for Australian actions in 1916-18 when there is none. A different time and a different place.

If you want to talk facts then you should probably speak to the actual French citizens who live in northern France today.

If you walk the battlefields of WW1 in northern France today, stroll through the villages, talk with the local people they most certainly feel a huge debt of gratitude to the ANZACs who fought and died for them, as they see it. Politicians can and do say anything they want. Armchair analysts can split hairs about dates of assorted French republics but the actual French people of actual northern France absolutely feel an historical debt. Its fact.

French people don't have anything to do with the French government just like Australia government certainly haven't got anything to do with Australian people.

What the people want and what the governments do are two separate things, democracy or not.

Eg I know a lot of Serbs who hate America and NATO for the 1990s and especially loss of Kosovo but it doesn't stop the Serb government from dealing with USA and NATO including military exercises now does it?

-----

And I suspect those French people probably aren't happy at their country being screwed out of $90 USD billion dollars worth of business and in such a cruddy uncourteous manner.

"Bonjour President Macron, we ze French people think zat given Australians died for us over 100 years ago, we should allow their super génial premier ministre Le ScuMo to screw us over as much as zey want. Sounds like a fair deal, eh mon ami."

Indeed if push came to shove and one day Australia and France were at war with each other, I suspect those French people would be baying for Australian blood regardless of what happened in 1916-18!

What foolish notions you often come up with!?!

A foolish notion is assuming the French should give Australia some slack because of a war over a hundred years ago.

Darrell B D Day, how is it sophistry? It's fact.

No – merely assertions by you. "Irrelevant" – an assertion. Stating that because it was a different time and place renders the events without meaning – again, assertion. No more than that.

I enjoy your posts – you are very well informed and make excellent reading but in this case, you've over reached yourself.

DBDD

Never said the events didn't have meaning. They do and any fan of history would recognise this.

Merely saying it has nothing to do with modern diplomatic relations let alone commercial deals.

Very well said, nsolomon99.

Drama, drama, drama.

The French, much like other nations' leaders, ARE infamous for that, e.g. China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran – notice the bloc there(?).

I can't blame the Australian government for literally torpedoing the deal, and going for the new US/UK/Aus one, since even before that I and others were commenting that nuke boats would have probably been cheaper AND a better choice.

It appears sanity has won out, and there are apparently discussions of "leased" nuke boats in the interim in order to get SSNs to Australia faster.

It will be interesting to see if that comes to pass, but clearly, due to far superior capabilities for operations in the vast Pacific, nuke boats ARE the wiser choice.

A pity the Japanese deal fell thru, but I don't recall the Japanese raising such a stink with such abandon as the French are doing now.

Perhaps they should not have tripled their price, while providing "vapor ware" in the interim.

Poor decisions have consequences, and this IS just one of them.