Australia says France knew of 'grave' submarine concerns


The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2021 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

Login to comment

Some of France's best disdain over the sinking of the sub deal was reserved for the UK, when France's Minister of State for European Affairs, ClémentBeaune, said on Sunday:

“Our British friends explained to us they were leaving the EU to create Global Britain. We can see that this is a return into the American lap and a form of accepted vassalisation,” he said.

“The UK is clearly trying to find its feet, perhaps there was a lack of thought about the strategic future. Today they are hiding in the American fold. I hope that will not be their policy for the decades to come.”

He later added: “We see through this partnership, this strategic alliance and after the Kabul crisis, that Global Britain seems to be more about a US junior partner than working with different allies.”

Clearly he was holding back on how he really felt.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

When our seven year old has a tantrum and runs off to hide somewhere I just ignore him until he settles down and is ready to talk calmly. Hell usually come moping around saying "I'm sorry dad". Then we can have a serious discussion. By analogy let the French piss and moan for a while until they run out of energy to complain and are ready to likewise have a serious discussion.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

And there you have it, the other side of the coin and it all makes perfect sense. What's the point in spending $66 billion dollars on a weapon which is obsolete? If you're shopping and you have a choice between acquiring a Ferrari or a VW Beetle, well, it's a no-brainer, isn't it? Nothing wrong with the Beetle, but there's no comparison with a Ferrari.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

@stormcrowToday 10:01 am JST

A more accurate comparison would be this. You tendered out bids for a van. People have been telling you that what you really needed was a bus, but you claim to have considered your finances and other factors, and are going for the van even if it has to be *specially designed from scratch to come close to what you want it to do*. After a bidding process, you contracted with F Company to design and build your van (remembering, you are not buying off-the-shelf).

Then all of a sudden, one day, bam. You tell F Company you are canceling their contract and buying a bus from A Company. Since you can now *afford a *bus, it's clear you didn't suddenly run out of funds. Nor was there a real change in circumstances. You just suddenly decided you needed a bus after all (just like many people have been telling you). That's still fine, but F Company also sells buses. If only you told them about it they might be able to make a good offer to you for a bus. Instead they are shut out and were just told their contract was cancelled and you are buying a bus from A Company.

I think F Company has every right to feel miffed. I think we have to at least acknowledge that France is a real victim here.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

We Australian need to be angry about the Naval Group Sub contract because the Sub didn't come out from drawing board after 5 year and wasted 2.5 billion tax payer money.

The contract was initially 40 billion for 12 Submarines and 145 billions for maintainece but after 5 year past, budget blow out to 90 billions but the Sub was nowhere to find and even didn't complete the drawing of the Sub yet.

Trust me, the budget will further blow out to 200 billions for 12 Submarines and another 180 billions for life time maintainece.

If the Australian Government was bought Soryu Class Sub from the Japan and then the Sub will be serving in Royal Australian Navy and save a lot of money.

Now Australia Navy will have high tech Nuclear Sub and the costs will be not different from the Franch Naval Group wasting Australian tax payers' money. We Australians are not lemon.

The French Naval Group was dishonestly won the tender over German and Japanese Sub Companies. Majority of Australian peoples are skeptical about the French Naval Group Sub project from beginning and want cancel the French Naval Group Sub contract after cost blow out after blow out.

The Australian Government was continue Sub project with the Naval Group because the French President Macron visiting and already spent billions of dollars.

Now PM Scott Morrison has chosen right decision and Australia Sub project was back on the track.

We don't know what the problem with the French Naval Group but the Naval Group doesn't have the technology that Naval Group included in Submarine tender. The Naval Group had proposed to build Sub with technology it doesn't have it and better budget than German Sub Company and Japanese Sub Company.

The French Government has majority shares in the Naval Group Company and the French Government involment in the Sub project was an another problem for doing business with Naval Group. Anyway, we Australian peoples were finally released from the trap. We can breath freely now.

Nissan Company should be always careful about the French Government's intention.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Chop ChopToday 11:28 am JST

We Australian ...

Don't be naive you'll have the same budget inflation issues with the new contractor, it's always the case.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The Australian has very mere industrial potential to build sophisticated nuclear submarines! They will get the nuclear reactors from US or UK but the boat itself is very challenging! They built the "Collin" class under Swedish design and technical assistance, the result was not a satisfactory one! Now you are talking to build a bigger displacement boat with nuclear safety also a concern! Nuclear submarines for some countries with a massive naval budget, a very exclusive "Club"! Australia does not belongs to this one, they will regret Mr.Morrison's unmature decision very soon!

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@Kazuaki Shimazaki

Yeah, the French have a right to be miffed. If the Aussies were buying a bus instead of a van or a van instead of a bus, then maybe things would've been different. However, this is about national security, and national security will always take priority at the end of the day. The most bang for your buck, wouldn't you agree? At the same time, I don't know what kind of arrangements had been made or struck or what have you, and perhaps Australia will regret having done things the way they have, but this is national security we're talking about. Do you go with something that provides more or less national security? Most would probably choose something that provides more, or more bang for the buck.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

What's the issue here?

Contracts for stuff from mobile phones to military grade hardware are cancelled on a regular basis around the world, there is always a clause to cancel a contract at any time, normally with some payoff required. France will still get a couple of Billion out of it so they can quit their whining and playing the victim.

Australia decided the UK/US deal was better so they cancelled, they will pay off the relevant % that was laid out in the cancellation clause and the world keeps on revolving while the French keep on complaining.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Boris' response to Minister Beaune?

Love ya!

From today's Independent:

“We are very, very proud of our relationship with France and it is of huge importance to this country,” he told reporters travelling with him to the United Nations in New York. “It is a very friendly relationship - an entente cordiale - that goes back a century or more and is absolutely vital for us.”

Mr Johnson said the UK works “shoulder to shoulder” with France in Nato’s mission to the Baltic states, as well as in operations in the west African state of Mali and in joint simulations of nuclear weapons tests. “British troops and French troops are side by side,” he said. “There are no two sets of armed forces that are more capable of integration together and working side by side.

“This is something that goes very, very deep. Our love of France, our admiration of France is ineradicable.”

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Para Sitius: NO! This is not a political one, this is a technical one! Nuclear submarines required a very high technology skills and expertise, Australia has no nuclear submarine operation experiences even building diesel electric powered submarine was "Mere", they got in that business 20 years ago and they want to jump to a higher level within 10 years! First of all, depends on budget, can they afford that expensive one?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites