Submitted by TheGuvnor247 t3_10pgmfn in worldnews
Upbeat_Lingonberry18 t1_j6kpv2l wrote
Reply to comment by AtheianLibertarist in Australia and France announce joint plan to supply Ukraine with artillery shells by TheGuvnor247
ScoMo was super-incompetent on the sub thing. On lots of other things too. He's a bit of a walking travesty.
AbleApartment6152 t1_j6kvi05 wrote
Understatement of the decade.
damo_w15 t1_j6m0dov wrote
At the end of the day, nuclear submarines are much more suited to future warfare and the types of seas surrounding Australia.
It might not be a "fun" subject, but better to be fully prepared with the right equipment before any future conflicts arise, rather than figuring it out only when the danger becomes apparent.
Contagious_Cure t1_j6m6t6w wrote
The French also have nuclear subs and also submitted tenders for nuclear subs. Time will tell if the AUKUS deal delivers. I think there's already some delays. But Scomo's biggest fuck up is in diplomacy, apparently he didn't even have the balls to call Macron to tell him lol.
thevalid t1_j6mc7da wrote
French boats need to be refueled every 6-8 years and can only be refueled in France. i'm sure you can understand why this would never be workable.
oakpope t1_j6nmycp wrote
It's 10 years.
BloodyChrome t1_j6mix50 wrote
The French nuclear subs are shit. The diesel subs also were behind schedule and over budget.
Christopher135MPS t1_j6m8w1u wrote
Sure, but one of the reasons the French subs were taking so long, and costing so much, was because australia was asking France to modify their nuclear design to conventional power.
And then when we decided we wanted nuclear subs, instead of just buying existing french designs, we fucked them over and bought US subs.
Like, what the fuck? God scomo and his government were a fucking joke.
thevalid t1_j6mchqo wrote
French boats need to be refueled every 6-8 years and can only be refueled in France. i'm sure you can understand why this would never be workable.
we asked them to design a conventional boat, they choose to modify a nuke boat then start from new.
BloodyChrome t1_j6mj34e wrote
The nuclear subs from US/UK are a better choice even the ALP agreed with that. French subs are rubbish, now the conventional builds may have been taking so long and costing so much because of a modification but they knew they were making modifications and so were over budget and behind schedule even after taking all that into account
killingtime1 t1_j6m6rfr wrote
Just FYI in case you're not following as close as us Australians are, the submarines are not expected to be in the water for another 40 years. I will be 70+ by then
thevalid t1_j6mdmzv wrote
road map will drop in march so we will find out then, the only way it could even take 40 years if we dont go with an off the shelf design and build them all in aus. In all likelihood we will be using a nuke boat built in the USA by mid 2030 or early 2040
Sieve-Boy t1_j6m255f wrote
Just like the time he walked into Engadine Macca's.
Tyrx t1_j6lvx0k wrote
I'm no fan of Scott Morrison (ScoMo), but the sub issue really wasn't his fault.
Australia had signaled they were exploring alternative sub options in public forums one year piror to the actual cancellation due to contract underperformance. The decision to accept the nuclear subs deal was also supported by both major Australian political parties so it was hardly a captains call.
Macron made a huge deal out of Australia terminating the contract because the French industrial complex is state owned, and consequently it had political ramifications domestically. In the defense industry it was widely viewed as an over-the-top emotional reaction, and highlighted why doing arms deals with state-owned companies is a bad idea.
FullM3TaLJacK3T t1_j6lxb7h wrote
It's about how ScoMo handled the situation. Macron had the impression that the deal was still on, even with issues in the contract. And when ScoMo was confronted about it, he showed private text messages between him and Macron, which enraged Macron even further.
And amongst all that, the French lost the contract to nothing really. Our replacement contract is a dud. We don't know what we are getting, how many we are getting, when we are getting them and how much they will cost.
Oh and those French subs were originally nuclear subs that Australia insisted on modifying to diesel.
So, tell me, how can the French not be salty about losing the contract?
marcusaurelius_phd t1_j6mdnel wrote
> even with issues in the contract.
There was never any real issues with the contract. Just before the deal was nuked, the Australian MoD had just performed a review that found the progress satisfactory.
You're misremembering hints of problems that were planted in the conservative press by Morrisson's buddies to prepare for the betrayal.
Christopher135MPS t1_j6m93dm wrote
The nuclear-modified-to-diesel fuckery, just for us to turn around and buy nuclear subs from a different country. What an absolute gong show.
[deleted] t1_j6mj51v wrote
[removed]
Tyrx t1_j6lyvps wrote
One year isn't enough notification for Macron? The reality is that his advisors likely told him that Australia was unlikely to terminate due to no other viable options, and consequently the contract underperformance wasn't a huge deal. That turned out to be incorrect.
>And amongst all that, the French lost the contract to nothing really. Our replacement contract is a dud.
It's safe to say you don't understand the American defense industry if you are making this comment. The only concerning barrier is how quickly Australia can acquire the trained workforce to operate the nuclear submarines.
>Oh and those French subs were originally nuclear subs that Australia insisted on modifying to diesel.
I don't agree with the logic here. Australia always had specified they were looking for diesel-electric submarines. DCNS (aka the French Naval Group) responded to that request with a modified nuclear design.
With that said, fault does exist with Australia because in the end they should have better verified that DCNS had the capability of delivering on the contract. In retrospect, the Japanese/German bids likely would have been better in that regard.
>So, tell me, how can the French not be salty about losing the contract?
That's the entire problem. It was a busines decision. The French got way too emotional about the contract being revoked because there's no separation between the state and the arms industry, and the performance of said industry is basically part of their national identity now.
FullM3TaLJacK3T t1_j6m0key wrote
Lol, the only concerning barrier is acquiring a trained workforce? So, you're telling me what type of sub doesn't matter, cost don't matter, and when we are getting them don't matter?
Not to mention, ITAR restrictions don't matter? The fact that we will have highly enriched uranium and will be in violations of nuclear treaties don't matter?
Typical "Naw yeah, she'll be alright mate" australian mentality.
[deleted] t1_j6lyvh4 wrote
[deleted]
Ok-Delay5473 t1_j6m7y6o wrote
There is no need to pay if Australia did not do anything wrong. So, why did Australia pay €555m for ending the signed agreement? Oh wait! that's because they did sign an agreement. Once it's signed, it's signed! Looks like you never signed any contract.
thevalid t1_j6md2vg wrote
you understand that the contract had multiple phases and at the end of each of these phases it had an opt out clause where we would pay them for work done. this is what happened, the french knew it could happen and knew it might happened.
this is not the fuck up, the fuck up is telling them over text msg lmao.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments