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.

Australia literally made public comments one year piror to the contract cancellation stating they were looking at alternative options. The contract underperformance was widely known and the actual cancellation didn't really come the surprise of anyone - the French just thought it was "too big to fail" so to speak.

Now, you might be able to argue the French were correct that Australia wouldn't cut its losses and terminate the contract if the nuclear sub deal wasn't on the cards. However, it's hardly the fault of Australia if it makes the desire to seek alternative options known and another viable option is presented.

If France cared that much, they should have dealt with the underperformance. It's like a business failing to deliver their services to an adequate standard, and then getting pissed off because the client went to another company. That's how business works. France gambled that Australia wouldn't have any other option than to throw good money after bad, and they lost that bet.

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.