7 ms·

It is super laughable because the nuclear powered version that they are building for themselves was a fixed bid contract for something like 10 billion for 8 sub

It is super laughable because the nuclear powered version that they are building for themselves was a fixed bid contract for something like 10 billion for 8 subs.. and the Australian contract keeps going up and up something like 35 billion for ten subs. The diesel sub for Australia is based on the nuclear sub that they signed the fixed bid contract for. Anybody with half brain can tell they are making up the lost of fixed bid contract by charging the Australia more.. and then they act surprised when Australia pulls out when they can get nuclear subs for cheaper. When nuclear subs usually cost 2.5* the cost. These people do great reporting on all of this. https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone

mahkeiro 5y ago
French contract took 4 years to be negotiated, the US one less than 6 months, in total secret with no public check… expect big surprises at the end, US weapons program are not known to never overrun their costs
- tkojames 5y ago
  For sure all that is right as well. But if I was in the Australian shoes this is just to good of deal from US and UK to turn down.
- enkid 5y ago
  The cost on the French contract had already gone up by tens of billions of dollars, and nothing had been delivered.
  - mahkeiro 5y ago
    UK frigate program for Australia navy is having the same issues: https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/getting-real-about-the-schedule-for-australias-future-frigates/ https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/getting-real-about-the-sch...
- mytailorisrich 5y ago
  Of course, 'negotiation' concludes faster when it's one way.
- i_am_proteus 5y ago
  The most recent submarine program (Virginia class) was effectively on-budget.
  - edrxty 5y ago
    Probably due to its predecessor, the Seawolf, from which it was derived ended up being wildly cost ineffective.
    - i_am_proteus 5y ago
      That is not correct. Seawolf was cancelled and only three units were built, causing R&D costs to be spread across those three units, raising unit price. It was cancelled because it was expensive, but it was ordered during the end of the cold war and was radically more capable than the class it was meant to replace. This cost was acceptable at time of order, but then subject to budget cuts after the USSR collapsed. This raised the per-unit cost, but lowered the overall cost. The eventual replacement (Virginia) ended up being more evolutionary from the previous class (not from Seawolf) than revolutionary, but much cheaper.
      - edrxty 5y ago
        Do you have a source for this? The Virginia shares many more features with the Seawolf that the LA class. The Virginia is basically a scaled down Seawolf hull with a different weapons arrangement.
        i_am_proteus 5y ago
        Look at the USS San Juan and later hulls. My source is having been on all three classes of submarine.
        GareyBaldo 5y ago
        Concur. Unlikely to find prompt jumps in design that weren't previously field tested. Technologies pioneered by Seawolf class were rolled into the VA class, but ultimately decades of building 688s was more valuable than 3 Seawolfs (seawolves?)
fruffy 5y ago
How trustworthy is The War Zone? It seems to be largely focussed on US defence tech industry, so I expect fairly biased reporting on this topic. Is there a better source?
- tkojames 5y ago
  It is 100% biased to USA sources. But they have interesting information on how the US defence tech industry works and goes more in depth than most places. It is a very fair point. I like how they actually talk about the technology and all that. Thanks for reminding me to keep in mind the source!
  - fruffy 5y ago
    Thanks for clarifying! This was not meant to be an attack, but with analysis pieces on these matters I am always hesitant with respect to the source.
    - tkojames 5y ago
      None taken it all. It got me thinking about what I learned in high school about what you said about sources. It is really is appreciated.
- nradov 5y ago
  There is some pro-US military bias in their analysis and editorial content. But their factual reports tend to be more accurate than the mainstream media.
  - guerrilla 5y ago
    > But their factual reports tend to be more accurate than the mainstream media. How do you know that?
- beerandt 5y ago
  They have a POV, but I wouldn't call it a US bias. They're pretty quick to criticize. (It's one of my few regular reads besides HN.) They always post their sources, and then explain any speculation from there. Usually the speculation is more accusative of the US military than anything else, but Russia, China etc also get covered. Now, many of the "sources" are US military or other US government FOIA requests or similar, as well as some vets sharing technical details of what their deployment was like, etc. (I actually think they have more trouble with bias in proximity to US domestic politics than they do any US bias.) Any US "bias" isn't really a skew of reality, so much as the US military is pretty much the topic the focus on covering. They get giddy about some historical stories, but it's usually more about the tech than the allegiance. Is hacker news biased for having a large number of articles about, or from the POV of, tech/startup/otherwise-HN crow? (excluding comments) Or is it just what the site is about?
gpayan 5y ago
Actually, as mentioned multiple times in the past couple of days by former French Ambassador to the US Gerard Araud, diesel was an Australia demand, which required France to modify its subs (all nuclear powered) and added complexity to the project. According to the former Ambassador, it would have been much easier and cheaper for France to supply Australia with nuclear subs.
- edrxty 5y ago
  Then why is it the US's fault Australia changed its mind?
  - fspeech 5y ago
    These nuclear subs run on highly enriched uranium. There is serious NPT issue involved that only the US has the power to ignore.
    - xref 5y ago
      Power plants run on about 5% enriched, subs on 50%, weapons on 90%. Any country that can sell you a nuclear sub can also sell you the fuel, non-proliferation doesn’t come into it.
      - sudosysgen 5y ago
        US and UK subs run at 93-97%. Other countries use 20-50%.
    - throwaway210222 5y ago
      > There is serious NPT issue involved that only the US has the power to ignore. Incorrect, the UK has already shat all over the NPT. The recent Trident plans will raise the UK's weapons from 180 to 260 warheads (> 40% increase). Which is in complete violation of article VI. The NPT is for the rest of us.
      - deleted 5y ago
emmelaich 5y ago
Australian submarine situation has been a shit-show for 40 years. Glad its all over.
- dustintrex 5y ago
  If Labor wins the next election, it's quite probable that they pull the plug on this deal.
  - senectus1 5y ago
    they appear to be right behind it right now.
driscoll42 5y ago
The War Zone looks interesting, but I find the combination of detailed military asset reporting from a website otherwise devoted to automotive news and car reviews odd.
Renaud 5y ago
The upset is not just about the loss of a commercial deal, I'm sure there will be some contractual compensations. The issue is about the manner in which the deal was announced. Newspapers describe the urgent calls from the AU officials to their French counterparts hours before the very public announcement by the US, UK and AU. Diplomatically, that's a pretty callous thing to do to a partner. The ballooning costs may have been a factor in the decision, but it's more likely that the move is purely geopolitical. In these matters, there is also no guarantee that the deal with the US will end up cheaper at all. The more important subtext here is the damage done to the US' image and trustworthiness as it's willing to do backroom deals to serve its interests by disregarding friends and allies. Not the end of the world, but not a very smart move either if you want to be trusted.
- BrandoElFollito 5y ago
  As a French, this is very much the feeling here. We do not talk much about the financial impact (though Naval Group is obviously not happy) but indeed rather the way it was announced. As for the trust part, I would say that this is more being naive, which is always a surprise to me. We dealt with the British during Brexit and the overall feeling is that we lost the deal (fishing, British disregard of the deal, Irelands as an open entry point, ...). This is probably just a gut feeling, but we tend as a nation to wake up the hard way - surprised that others are not friendly. It is time to acknowledge that we are a small fish compared to the US, China and we need to find a way to deal with that, and not still live in the idea that the world is looking at is.
  - mrlonglong 5y ago
    You need to unify with Germany and other countries with the EU, this will give you the required clout against the other blocs of the world. As a Brit, Brexit was the day the world fell apart.
    - hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
      It works for many other aspects, but not the military: there is no EU army.
Robotbeat 5y ago
I heard (from The Drive https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/42390/australian-navy-goes-nuclear-with-future-submarine-force https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/42390/australian-navy-...) the French deal had gone up to $70 billion. Why is this fact not presented more obviously? France seems to have been soaking Australia for an inferior, non-nuclear submarine fleet. Why is it surprising or even controversial that they cancelled the deal? I realize France is doing a full time PR push, here, but it seems to come down to a pretty terrible deal that Australia doesn’t want any more. Seriously, $70 billion for 12 diesel subs??

mahkeiro 5y ago

French contract took 4 years to be negotiated, the US one less than 6 months, in total secret with no public check… expect big surprises at the end, US weapons program are not known to never overrun their costs

tkojames 5y ago
For sure all that is right as well. But if I was in the Australian shoes this is just to good of deal from US and UK to turn down.
enkid 5y ago
The cost on the French contract had already gone up by tens of billions of dollars, and nothing had been delivered.
- mahkeiro 5y ago
  UK frigate program for Australia navy is having the same issues: https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/getting-real-about-the-schedule-for-australias-future-frigates/ https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/getting-real-about-the-sch...
mytailorisrich 5y ago
Of course, 'negotiation' concludes faster when it's one way.
i_am_proteus 5y ago
The most recent submarine program (Virginia class) was effectively on-budget.
- edrxty 5y ago
  Probably due to its predecessor, the Seawolf, from which it was derived ended up being wildly cost ineffective.
  - i_am_proteus 5y ago
    That is not correct. Seawolf was cancelled and only three units were built, causing R&D costs to be spread across those three units, raising unit price. It was cancelled because it was expensive, but it was ordered during the end of the cold war and was radically more capable than the class it was meant to replace. This cost was acceptable at time of order, but then subject to budget cuts after the USSR collapsed. This raised the per-unit cost, but lowered the overall cost. The eventual replacement (Virginia) ended up being more evolutionary from the previous class (not from Seawolf) than revolutionary, but much cheaper.
    - edrxty 5y ago
      Do you have a source for this? The Virginia shares many more features with the Seawolf that the LA class. The Virginia is basically a scaled down Seawolf hull with a different weapons arrangement.
      - i_am_proteus 5y ago
        Look at the USS San Juan and later hulls. My source is having been on all three classes of submarine.
        GareyBaldo 5y ago
        Concur. Unlikely to find prompt jumps in design that weren't previously field tested. Technologies pioneered by Seawolf class were rolled into the VA class, but ultimately decades of building 688s was more valuable than 3 Seawolfs (seawolves?)

fruffy 5y ago

How trustworthy is The War Zone? It seems to be largely focussed on US defence tech industry, so I expect fairly biased reporting on this topic. Is there a better source?

tkojames 5y ago
It is 100% biased to USA sources. But they have interesting information on how the US defence tech industry works and goes more in depth than most places. It is a very fair point. I like how they actually talk about the technology and all that. Thanks for reminding me to keep in mind the source!
- fruffy 5y ago
  Thanks for clarifying! This was not meant to be an attack, but with analysis pieces on these matters I am always hesitant with respect to the source.
  - tkojames 5y ago
    None taken it all. It got me thinking about what I learned in high school about what you said about sources. It is really is appreciated.
nradov 5y ago
There is some pro-US military bias in their analysis and editorial content. But their factual reports tend to be more accurate than the mainstream media.
- guerrilla 5y ago
  > But their factual reports tend to be more accurate than the mainstream media. How do you know that?
beerandt 5y ago
They have a POV, but I wouldn't call it a US bias. They're pretty quick to criticize. (It's one of my few regular reads besides HN.) They always post their sources, and then explain any speculation from there. Usually the speculation is more accusative of the US military than anything else, but Russia, China etc also get covered. Now, many of the "sources" are US military or other US government FOIA requests or similar, as well as some vets sharing technical details of what their deployment was like, etc. (I actually think they have more trouble with bias in proximity to US domestic politics than they do any US bias.) Any US "bias" isn't really a skew of reality, so much as the US military is pretty much the topic the focus on covering. They get giddy about some historical stories, but it's usually more about the tech than the allegiance. Is hacker news biased for having a large number of articles about, or from the POV of, tech/startup/otherwise-HN crow? (excluding comments) Or is it just what the site is about?

gpayan 5y ago

Actually, as mentioned multiple times in the past couple of days by former French Ambassador to the US Gerard Araud, diesel was an Australia demand, which required France to modify its subs (all nuclear powered) and added complexity to the project. According to the former Ambassador, it would have been much easier and cheaper for France to supply Australia with nuclear subs.

edrxty 5y ago
Then why is it the US's fault Australia changed its mind?
- fspeech 5y ago
  These nuclear subs run on highly enriched uranium. There is serious NPT issue involved that only the US has the power to ignore.
  - xref 5y ago
    Power plants run on about 5% enriched, subs on 50%, weapons on 90%. Any country that can sell you a nuclear sub can also sell you the fuel, non-proliferation doesn’t come into it.
    - sudosysgen 5y ago
      US and UK subs run at 93-97%. Other countries use 20-50%.
  - throwaway210222 5y ago
    > There is serious NPT issue involved that only the US has the power to ignore. Incorrect, the UK has already shat all over the NPT. The recent Trident plans will raise the UK's weapons from 180 to 260 warheads (> 40% increase). Which is in complete violation of article VI. The NPT is for the rest of us.
    - deleted 5y ago

emmelaich 5y ago

Australian submarine situation has been a shit-show for 40 years. Glad its all over.

dustintrex 5y ago
If Labor wins the next election, it's quite probable that they pull the plug on this deal.
- senectus1 5y ago
  they appear to be right behind it right now.

driscoll42 5y ago

The War Zone looks interesting, but I find the combination of detailed military asset reporting from a website otherwise devoted to automotive news and car reviews odd.

Renaud 5y ago

The upset is not just about the loss of a commercial deal, I'm sure there will be some contractual compensations. The issue is about the manner in which the deal was announced. Newspapers describe the urgent calls from the AU officials to their French counterparts hours before the very public announcement by the US, UK and AU. Diplomatically, that's a pretty callous thing to do to a partner. The ballooning costs may have been a factor in the decision, but it's more likely that the move is purely geopolitical. In these matters, there is also no guarantee that the deal with the US will end up cheaper at all. The more important subtext here is the damage done to the US' image and trustworthiness as it's willing to do backroom deals to serve its interests by disregarding friends and allies. Not the end of the world, but not a very smart move either if you want to be trusted.

BrandoElFollito 5y ago
As a French, this is very much the feeling here. We do not talk much about the financial impact (though Naval Group is obviously not happy) but indeed rather the way it was announced. As for the trust part, I would say that this is more being naive, which is always a surprise to me. We dealt with the British during Brexit and the overall feeling is that we lost the deal (fishing, British disregard of the deal, Irelands as an open entry point, ...). This is probably just a gut feeling, but we tend as a nation to wake up the hard way - surprised that others are not friendly. It is time to acknowledge that we are a small fish compared to the US, China and we need to find a way to deal with that, and not still live in the idea that the world is looking at is.
- mrlonglong 5y ago
  You need to unify with Germany and other countries with the EU, this will give you the required clout against the other blocs of the world. As a Brit, Brexit was the day the world fell apart.
  - hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
    It works for many other aspects, but not the military: there is no EU army.

Robotbeat 5y ago

I heard (from The Drive https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/42390/australian-navy-goes-nuclear-with-future-submarine-force https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/42390/australian-navy-...) the French deal had gone up to $70 billion. Why is this fact not presented more obviously? France seems to have been soaking Australia for an inferior, non-nuclear submarine fleet. Why is it surprising or even controversial that they cancelled the deal? I realize France is doing a full time PR push, here, but it seems to come down to a pretty terrible deal that Australia doesn’t want any more. Seriously, $70 billion for 12 diesel subs??