4 ms·

>>On one hand I understand them, sudden cancelation of a contract is very unpleasant and demeaning. It was definitely not sudden. They had been warned many tim

by rmm 5y ago

>>On one hand I understand them, sudden cancelation of a contract is very unpleasant and demeaning. It was definitely not sudden. They had been warned many times for growing costs, delays etc.. It may have been 'sudden' in the sense that they didnt think Australia would actually pull through with the threat.

sofixa 5y ago
Sudden in the sense that in spring they discussed concretely what's going wrong and what is needed to fix it, and came out thinking everything is OK for Australia. While Australia was negotiating with the US and UK. If growing costs and delays are the supposed issue, buying nuclear submarines of an unspecified design while having no nuclear facilities or know-how, with the scheduled date of arrival of the first nuclear sub is in 2040, is a very weird way of fixing it. If Australia wanted a quick and cheap submarine class, they should have bought the Japanese proposal. If they wanted a nuclear one, they could have tendered for it and gotten a French proposal based on the Barracudas. But they did neither.
- rmm 5y ago
  >Sudden in the sense that in spring they discussed concretely what's going wrong and what is needed to fix it, and came out thinking everything is OK for Australia. While Australia was negotiating with the US and UK. I saw no evidence of that. There was only reports of worsening relations. >If growing costs and delays are the supposed issue, buying nuclear submarines of an unspecified design while having no nuclear facilities or know-how, with the scheduled date of arrival of the first nuclear sub is in 2040, is a very weird way of fixing it. No nuclear facilities or know-how is a a problem that can now be finally fixed. 2040 gives us plenty of time, and really, its only 10 years later than what was expected. >If Australia wanted a quick and cheap submarine class, they should have bought the Japanese proposal. If they wanted a nuclear one, they could have tendered for it and gotten a French proposal based on the Barracudas. But they did neither. Yeah but come on. Comparing the french nuclear subs versus the US ones is apples an oranges. Only the US have the tech for sealed engines, and no need to refuel.
lerela 5y ago
French and Australian Defence ministers met in August and issued a joint communique [1] mentioning that they discussed "enhancing and diversifying France’s military co-operation with Australia" and stating that "both sides committed to deepen defence industry cooperation and enhance their capability edge in the region" and most specifically that "ministers underlined the importance of the Future Submarine program". Announcing 2 weeks later that the contract was cancelled sounds like a "sudden" announcement to me, while the press reports that discussions had been ongoing for almost 18 months in secret make that communique slightly deceitful from Australian government imo. [1]: https://www.foreignminister.gov.au/minister/marise-payne/media-release/inaugural-australia-france-22-ministerial-consultations https://www.foreignminister.gov.au/minister/marise-payne/med...

by rmm 5y ago

sofixa 5y ago

Sudden in the sense that in spring they discussed concretely what's going wrong and what is needed to fix it, and came out thinking everything is OK for Australia. While Australia was negotiating with the US and UK. If growing costs and delays are the supposed issue, buying nuclear submarines of an unspecified design while having no nuclear facilities or know-how, with the scheduled date of arrival of the first nuclear sub is in 2040, is a very weird way of fixing it. If Australia wanted a quick and cheap submarine class, they should have bought the Japanese proposal. If they wanted a nuclear one, they could have tendered for it and gotten a French proposal based on the Barracudas. But they did neither.

rmm 5y ago
>Sudden in the sense that in spring they discussed concretely what's going wrong and what is needed to fix it, and came out thinking everything is OK for Australia. While Australia was negotiating with the US and UK. I saw no evidence of that. There was only reports of worsening relations. >If growing costs and delays are the supposed issue, buying nuclear submarines of an unspecified design while having no nuclear facilities or know-how, with the scheduled date of arrival of the first nuclear sub is in 2040, is a very weird way of fixing it. No nuclear facilities or know-how is a a problem that can now be finally fixed. 2040 gives us plenty of time, and really, its only 10 years later than what was expected. >If Australia wanted a quick and cheap submarine class, they should have bought the Japanese proposal. If they wanted a nuclear one, they could have tendered for it and gotten a French proposal based on the Barracudas. But they did neither. Yeah but come on. Comparing the french nuclear subs versus the US ones is apples an oranges. Only the US have the tech for sealed engines, and no need to refuel.

lerela 5y ago

French and Australian Defence ministers met in August and issued a joint communique [1] mentioning that they discussed "enhancing and diversifying France’s military co-operation with Australia" and stating that "both sides committed to deepen defence industry cooperation and enhance their capability edge in the region" and most specifically that "ministers underlined the importance of the Future Submarine program". Announcing 2 weeks later that the contract was cancelled sounds like a "sudden" announcement to me, while the press reports that discussions had been ongoing for almost 18 months in secret make that communique slightly deceitful from Australian government imo. [1]: https://www.foreignminister.gov.au/minister/marise-payne/media-release/inaugural-australia-france-22-ministerial-consultations https://www.foreignminister.gov.au/minister/marise-payne/med...