Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Tyrx t1_j6lvx0k wrote

Reply to comment by Upbeat_Lingonberry18 in Australia and France announce joint plan to supply Ukraine with artillery shells by TheGuvnor247

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.

−12

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?

25

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.

5

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.

3

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.

−12

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.

5

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.

−1

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.

3