Forum menu
tjagain
Full MemberYou mean shafting partners is normal? I am glad I do not have your ethics
If the boatyard was behind schedule and failing to meet requirements - then who is shafting who?
kelvin
Full MemberIt’s more like you telling your wife you like long hair, her spending ages growing it down to her waist, just for you, and then you sneaking off with a women with cropped hair.
...and massively increased 'endurance'
The discussion I’ve seen is that the Australians specifically asked for diesel-powered rather than nuclear-powered subs from the French.
Yes, they did. The French design was a nuclear powered sub modified to run conventional propulsion. I think that decision was mostly political - nuclear power was seen as politically untenable. Whether France or anyone else was willing to sell nuclear powered subs was probably a big consideration too, the U.K. and U.S.A. probably wouldn't have back then (when Obama was president).
I think two things happened. The first was that the RAN was unhappy with the French progress and decided to cancel the contract. The second was that international relations in the region have deteriorated and most countries are very concerned about the direction China is heading in. The RAN decided that they prefer nuclear propulsion and apparently the government decided that the better performance justified the political and economic cost.
I suspect that the RAN would *always* have preferred nuclear propulsion. Now the politicians have made a choice to prioritise a partnership with US (with UK tagging along like an annoying little brother) over France.
Interesting to see how the sub build goes - it's not like Trident ever kept within budget.
But you’re not looking at statistics ‘as I wish’. You’re avoiding my argument.
That's part of his schtick - to bomb threads with completely made up assertions and when challenged either go off on a tangent about something with a tenuous connection to the thread, to respond with alphabet soup or to insult and patronise the person who sets the facts straight. The individual concerned is long overdue a permaban IMHO.
Back on track to the thread subject.
Projects like this take 10 to 20 years and are always expensive. At the time, they decided to stick with non-nuclear propulsion and the contract was awarded to France. The French contractor was behind schedule and not meeting specifications and the RAN was unhappy.
Australia's submarine procurement has been fraught with difficulties for decades. With diesel subs being the only option for them to patrol a massive coastline (16,000 miles!) they need a lot of hunter killer subs with respectable endurance. Contrary to popular opinion, a diesel sub running on battery power is exceptionally stealthy - Sweden, Germany and Israel have diesel subs with a fearsome reputation for stealth, but the three countries mentioned have much smaller coastlines to patrol.
The cost of France's own Barracuda class of nuclear attack sub programme is mooted to be approx €10.42bn for six boats, against the cost of approx €55bn for twelve boats for Australia with reduced capability. It's no wonder that Australia's sub procurement programme has been controversial.
Interesting to see how the sub build goes – it’s not like Trident ever kept within budget.
Especially since it seems like it will be done mostly in Australia and so they will need to get all the kit in place and then train up all the local staff.
a diesel sub running on battery power is exceptionally stealthy
True, but they are noisy as **** when they have to snorkel to recharge.
Especially since it seems like it will be done mostly in Australia and so they will need to get all the kit in place and then train up all the local staff.
Dont worry, American will be picking up that bill.
If part of the delay was with the shipyards being built in Aus, im not sure the americans building their shipyards there wont encounter similar problems
Seems about right.
You mean shafting partners is normal? I am glad I do not have your ethics
The world of black and white is very simple isn't it. Unfortunately the real world has lots of shades of grey.
If the French weren't delivering (the French were busy renegotiating reduced Aus build, delays, increased costs etc ) then the duty of the team is to find a way out. They would have been negotiating with the French who would have been squeezing the Australian side thinking they were the only game in town.
In the real world it works both ways it's not uncommon for performance to drop in a contractor/subcontractor who is taking pain in a contract so as to get thrown off and claim penalties. Where is the ethics there?
Or the NHS forcing care homes to take transfers as specified in their contracts at the height of the Covid crisis. Where are the ethics there?
The duties of the RAN/Australian government aren't prioritizing French jobs. Contracts have termination clauses for a lot of very good reasons.
I know there's a lot of discussions, and costs and so on being raised, but has anyone actually seen what the agreement is, and what the costs cover, from what i have read, it's an agreement by the three nations to assist Australia in procuring nuclear submarines, armaments and other equipment to achieve other requirements, it isn't 'buying' any submarines, there is no talk of 12 subs or whatever, just an agreement to assist in the technology required, so Australia will still have to tender for the actual submarines.
The whole quote fo 90 billion or whatever is just a number, the A$90 billion was the original contract with the French, it almost appears as if folk are just making up facts where there are none to just have an argument.
From what i understand, the UK are being brought in due to Rolls Royce and their nuclear propulsion for submarines being mooted as a solution, same with the US and their ITAR, the UK have a similar position with the propulsion, hence why we're in the agreement, but they still need a company to build them!
If that was indeed what happened then why didn’t the Australians inform the French of their new requirements and launch a new tender exercise? Instead of sneaking around behind the French backs.
Why should they? And the French are masters at sneaking around people backs anyway. Thats not how things necessarily work. This is not an emotionally driven thing. Also why were the French unable to fulfil the needs of the Australian Navy? Maybe they couldn't fulfil all the requirement and it was a case of over promising and under delivering, so a re-tender with the French would be useless. We deal with French companies all the time and they don't think twice about throwing us under the bus and going back on previously agreed positions and contracts so don't be trying to hold the French up as some global beacon of ethical behaviour. I think the 1 billion euro fine dished out to Airbus by the Serious Fraud Office highlights that.
It's not unusual for negotiations with other parties to be going on at the time when a previous deal has been signed. Happens all the time and its about managing risk...there is always risk when entering into a partnership/deal with another party...risk around delivery, cost, meeting spec and the contractual obligtions...and of course spec's and requirements change. Any sensible and well run organisations will always keep their options open until the very last minute as much as anything to cover their own backsides and not being left high and dry should things not be delivered on time, or at all or be delivered and not meeting the original specificaion.
It's clear that whatever went on ultimately it was a case of either the French couldn't deliver what the Aussies needed or the brits and yanks rocked up with an alternative offer that was superior. Or maybe it got to a point where the Aussies just couldn't trust the French and they didn't want to proceed with such an important contract where there wasn't a basis of trust there. Who knows? But the last thing on peoples minds are 'hurting the other parties feelings'. It's not even a consideration.
Not much to add that hasn't already been said.
We were talking to a guy in the shipyard in Adelaide a year ago who was moaning about how difficult the French had been to work with, and how thought these subs would never get built.
Things worth pointing out -
BAE Systems have leased the ship-build yard in Adelaide from the Aussie Government, predominantly to build the Hunter Class frigates.
I cannot see them being too happy about sharing the facility with anyone else.
The AWD (Hobart Class) and future Hunter Class surface ships have the American Aegis combat system on board - i'd have thought they'd want their new subs to be able to fully integrate with this.
To me Diesel/Electric subs made no sense for Australia if they want to do more than patrol their own coastline - they can only stay submerged for days rather than the 3+ months that nuclear powered subs can stay submerged. (food for the crew is the limiting factor)
The UK and the Americans have a number of submarine designs which could be adapted to meet the Aussie project brief - A budget version of Astute for a start, along with the LA, Seawolf and Virginia Class subs.
The AWD (Hobart Class) and future Hunter Class surface ships have the American Aegis combat system on board – i’d have thought they’d want their new subs to be able to fully integrate with this.
My assumption was that they would want everything to integrate with U.S. systems. Taiwan and Japan use U.S. hardware and so do a lot of other countries in the region. Let's face it, these subs are to counter China and Australia isn't going to go to war with China unless the U.S. is in there with them.
UK subs are made from french steel 😬
The duties of the RAN/Australian government aren’t prioritizing French jobs.
the job losses are australian as thats where they were being built, the french lost face rather than jobs
I don't think anyone's going to war, tbh. I can't even see how it'd be used as a threat. Western economies depend on the stuff China makes - they know it, we know it, it's not happening. If there are significant moves to bring manufacturing back to the West that might be a bad omen.
I know there’s a lot of discussions, and costs and so on being raised, but has anyone actually seen what the agreement is, and what the costs cover, from what i have read, it’s an agreement by the three nations to assist Australia in procuring nuclear submarines,
australian ministers have said that they dont know what the costs of the new deal will be
french are annoyed because they had ask aussies several times if they wanted to switch to nuclear subs and they said no
consequences will take a while to shake out
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/09/20/business/france-australia-europe-trade-deal/index.html
I don’t think anyone’s going to war, tbh. I can’t even see how it’d be used as a threat. Western economies depend on the stuff China makes – they know it, we know it, it’s not happening. If there are significant moves to bring manufacturing back to the West that might be a bad omen.
yeah its a weird situation, a potential cold war with china when the ROW is dependent on chinese goods & china wants us to buy them! - Australia framsers were already suffering from chinese trade disputes, which is why they were so keen on EU trade deal, yet China want in on CPTPP
meanwhile imminent Chinese homebuilder collapse has potential to screw up global finacial markets again
the job losses are Australian as thats where they were being built, the french lost face rather than jobs
There will be a lot of jobs lost in France as a result of this - primarily within Naval Group who had the head contract but also at the subcontractors who would be building/supplying components.
Australia might have been assembling the subs, but a good percentage of the parts/sub-assemblies would have come from France.
Long term there will be very few (if any) job losses in Australia as they'll be assembling a submarine to someone else's design using bits sent from a different country.
The AWD (Hobart Class) and future Hunter Class surface ships have the American Aegis combat system on board – i’d have thought they’d want their new subs to be able to fully integrate with this.
Aegis is for air defence and can see a very long way. If the Sub wants this data (why, I do not know), then it would have to be a snorkel depth to get it, probably over satellite.
Also, if integrating with this system for surface craft is a good idea, why did the UK not put this on the [vastly more expensive] air defence destroyers that the Royal Navy bought? You know, the ones that cost half a billion UKP each and that stopped working in warm conditions.
I don’t think anyone’s going to war, tbh.
The purpose of this alliance and Australia's arms purchases is to send a message to China that the democratic countries are prepared to confront it if it continues on its current course. It's possible that China will moderate its policies and this will blow over, but it's also quite possible that they won't. The problem for China is that it is very insecure and has huge domestic problems so cracking down on Hong Kong and threatening Taiwan are ways to fend off domestic unrest. That makes it difficult for Chinese leaders to back off from their confrontational policies. The idea behind deterrence is that you don't want to use it, but it's only effective if you are actually prepared to use it. Armed conflict isn't out of the question over the next few decades. Not saying it's probable, but it would be a mistake to believe it can't happen.
Today I learned that Brazil is currently building a nuclear powered attack sub. Here.
That put's Australia's precedent in a slightly different light.
Please don’t be rude. So far only I responded to/addressed your claim. I’m me. Not a ‘you lot’. I’m not part of a collective.
Okay, you are not part of the collective. (Note: I thought "you lot" or "you guys" are the normal reference? I used "you lot" because if I were to address "you guys" some gender might get offended. Hence I used the term "you lot". Fair enough you are not part of the collective and perhaps should addressed you individually. The quote may come from you but I was answering the usual people that questions me ... can't be arsed to keep quoting the rest of them one by one. Anyhoo ... chill man, chill ... we are not going to live forever.
I ‘wished’ that you would tell me the per capita palm oil consumption of China in 2020 vs EU27 in 2020?
Sorry but I don't frame the question that way. Whatever statistic you see is in the past. I am referring to the future, hence it is the increase in the consumption level. Look at the statistic where most countries have more or less reduced their consumption but China's is steadily increasing.
Now you may argue that they are still way below the Western consumption per capita but my concern is the increasing consumption. In a generation or two China's consumption will definitely be the top overtaking the world going by their growth in consumption. You may say that it's impossible because future (the crystal ball says noooo ...) does not say so according to the statistical increment ... yes, but you have forgotten about recent Chinese policy of population expansion. The current consumption is based on 1.4 billion people something like that with one child policy. But China has now changed that policy to allow for 3 children per family. Therefore, if having a larger family is the norm (it is), then the demand will naturally increase together with their living standard. China population expansion is also in anticipation for future regional expansion as they are already charting their territories. They might not admit it but that's what they are doing. In a generation or two Asia will be under their influence. Yes, you might say that's not a bad thing but you should live under their system to understand them. We are under their indirect influence politically and life is certainly not pleasant put it that way ...
I don’t think anyone’s going to war, tbh. I can’t even see how it’d be used as a threat. Western economies depend on the stuff China makes – they know it, we know it, it’s not happening. If there are significant moves to bring manufacturing back to the West that might be a bad omen.
In Asia, especially SE Asia, many are already talking or anticipating war in the coming generation or two. The war might or might not happen with the Western power but definitely with some in SE Asia. Not all SE Asia people welcome Chinese (mainland commies) or their descendants (more than 5 generations) in that region. However, the corrupted politicians love the Chinese (commies) "investment" but their actions normally resulted in tension between the local natives and the "immigrant" Chinese (even after 5 generations). They see Chinese (commies) money influence as corrupting their politicians but they take it out on "immigrant" Chinese ...
Comes to something when chewkw is much more rational and coherent than tj.
Comes to something when chewkw is much more rational and coherent than tj.
That's my best English explanation I am afraid, not my first language etc ...
If you get it you get it otherwise chill man, chill and let the world be.
We are not going to live forever. LOL!
p/s: once I spoke to a friend who has very high qualification such as PhD Prof whatever ... he kept telling me that the information we saw was in the past i.e. already happened, and we could never learn to see the future because we ignore the past. ... eeerrmm ... I thought he was spaced out ... next time I am going to try it on few more Profs (yes, Profs ... they might be retired but good laugh)
The RAN decided that they prefer nuclear propulsion and apparently the government decided that the better performance justified the political and economic cost.
I thought there are two developments; slow progress from the French to deliver the French AUX-made diesel subs, and a new willingness to share US nuclear propulsion technology to speed delivery of subs to the South China Sea.
Who isn't ruing that diesel SUV purchase that's taking an age to be delivered, only to find that a nice EV version will now have a 400 mile range and not incur a ULEZ charge to boot? 😉
Who isn’t ruing that diesel SUV purchase that’s taking an age to be delivered, only to find that a nice EV version will now have a 400 mile range and not incur a ULEZ charge to boot?
Lol, plus a they can't take shore leave in nz in the new ones, it's handy they have the range to get somewhere hotter
Graham - its funny how even Uk ex diplomats agree with me that this is really serious and damaging
Some of the right wing commentators on here are so blinded by their xenophobia and jingoism that they simply refuse to see what is really obvious to anyone looking at this rationally
“This is far more than just a diplomatic spat. The withdrawal of ambassadors is the tip of the iceberg,” Peter Ricketts, a former permanent undersecretary at the Foreign Office and former UK ambassador to France, told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.
“There is a deep sense of betrayal in France because this wasn’t just an arms contract, this was France setting up a strategic partnership with Australia and the Australians have now thrown that away and negotiated behind the backs of France with two Nato allies, the US and UK, to replace it with a completely different contract.
“For the French this looks like a complete failure of trust between allies and calls into doubt what is Nato for. This puts a big rift down the middle of the Nato alliance … Britain needs a functioning Nato alliance.”
Etc etc etc
Plenty of other learned commentators agree with this position - its really obvious.
TJ - There are at least two of us on this thread who work in the industry and have actual knowledge of the Aus/French platform development including the delivery capability in to that programme. There were very valid reasons for cancelling the contract. The cancellation also affects the UK companies involved and the French know this too.
Whilst the French are pissed off about this and will be less willing to work with the UK and US in the future this really is in the best interests of Australia in both financial and capability terms.
In terms of cost one of the main drivers is Australia's determination to develop a sovereign capability through transfer of technology including the build and maintenance of these platforms in Australia. That is a very expensive aspiration.
jon
Irrelevant to my point about the political damage this has caused.
And the French are masters at sneaking around people backs anyway
Cheese eating surrender monkeys
Smell of garlic and Gauloises
Are we missing something from the list? Jeez.
TJ - It is not irrelevant. Where that programme had got to was untenable and unrecoverable. It could not be renegotiated. It had to be cancelled regardless of the political fallout.
There are at least two of us on this thread who work in the industry and have actual knowledge of the Aus/French platform development including the delivery capability in to that programme. There were very valid reasons for cancelling the contract. The cancellation also affects the UK companies involved and the French know this too.
Company I work for designs and builds equipment for Navy ships and submarines.
Our French office have had their design contract cancelled for this project last week - and our manufacturing contract (20+ year commitment) has also gone.
There were valid reasons for cancelling the contract - the French being hard work and difficult to deal with being a factor - we've heard this first-hand from the Aussie shipyard who were going to builds the subs (and reflects my own experience on multiple defence projects over the last 15 years)
However, there is a strong possibility the new solution will include significant technology from the UK, which is good for our economy.
Irrelevant to my point about the political damage this has caused.
The French will end up back to where they were relatively quickly as the harsh reality is that they will need UK support for any power projection such as the current situation in the Sahel or in the Baltic States. The French see themselves as a global power but like Britain can't do it solo, the rest of the EU is not interested in the same issues or doesn't have the capabilities or political will and so they will have to work with the UK
I am not sure why you are so hysterical on this issue, any UK government pre or post Brexit would have been in a bind with the Australians request. As soon as they asked someone would get upset, do you tell them you can't talk and they have to buy the expensive lower capability solution that's late and the French backtracking on building a Aus infrastructure, or do you help them if you can? Someone was going to be unhappy.
Strategically you want more Aus capability in a shorter time frame if at all possible, why would you not?
If you think that's a view that exhibits
xenophobia and jingoism
then fill your boots
But it seems very strange that Johnson and co are keen to play the whole thing down, none of what you describe, AUKUS described as non exclusionary etc etc.
the French being hard work and difficult to deal with being a factor
my mistake, here's another.
Are we missing something from the list? Jeez.
Wine at lunchtime...
This is a internet forum not the foreign office
Anyway back to being a vassal of the US for us...
This is a internet forum not the foreign office
Really? It was starting to look a lot like the Mail letters page.
the French being hard work and difficult to deal with being a factor
my mistake, here’s another.
Yep - after working with them for 15 years i'm more than happy to defend my opinion..
But you crack on with your pollical correctness crusade ;o)
Wine at lunchtime…
As served in the canteen in our French factory!
Really? It was starting to look a lot like the Mail letters page.
I wouldn't know as I don't read it, you can stop reading it if you want
Yep – after working with them for 15 years i’m more than happy to defend my opinion..
But you crack on with your pollical correctness crusade ;o)
Let me guess - you have friends that are French/black/gay*
*delete as applicable
Let me guess – you have friends that are French/black/gay*
*delete as applicable
As it happens - Yes I do!!
I have a number of good friends in our French office - doesn't mean they're not difficult to work with though - the two points are not mutually exclusive.
Not sure what this has to do with submarines either, but keep going if its making you happy.
Irrelevant to my point about the political damage this has caused
Publicly no doubt there will be more blustering and strong language but I doubt much will be impacted behind the scenes. Publicly it might even get used as a reason France limits cooperation with the UK over Brexit or migrants from France etc. but in reality that will just be something convenient/election point scoring for France to use to push back on any unreasonable demands Britain makes, they'd still have pushed back anyway.
The French will end up back to where they were relatively quickly as the harsh reality is that they will need UK support for any power projection such as the current situation in the Sahel or in the Baltic States. The French see themselves as a global power but like Britain can’t do it solo, the rest of the EU is not interested in the same issues or doesn’t have the capabilities or political will and so they will have to work with the UK
This is a good point, both politically and when it comes to submarines on a technical level.
The UK have our Technology on Frances subs, and soon we'll have French technology on every sub in the UK fleet - we've got to get along, whether we like it or not.
This really is the death throes of empire, isn't it? The English speaking West still wanting to assert dominance over the rest of the world; this is more to do with the US controlling Australian military power, than it is to do with France or the UK. Meanwhile, the US, UK and Australia are collapsing from within. But demonising 'others' is far easier than sorting out your own problems...