world

France and Australia agree submarines won't stop trade deal

11 Comments
By ROD McGUIRK

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 This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.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.

11 Comments
Login to comment

Business is business after all.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

after all if China joins the TPP itll be the largest trading block in the world, be hard for the EU to join if you pee off other TPP members, free trade is reciprocal

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Two things Macron was believing:

EU would support any sanction against Australia and were upset as they with the pact. But the countries in the EU, almost entirely non supportive of France' lead of an EU self sustaining super military, know their economic priorities over ride French submarinegate.

Macron also believed NATO would be derailed, but it is a dinosaur with fleas. He even said so a couple of years ago. One might as well fax NATO info to all countries. It's outdated, inefficient and mostly useless.

Countries are so nationalistic of late, alliances are less trusted and that makes each countries own priorities the main thing they're concerned with. To say the US has lost its allies is fanciful.

For a French pity party, it is mainly within her borders. England and France are the only European countries which have big militaries, but are still small without American support. England knows this. France wanted to be a military power, something Macron should have figured out was never gonna happen. Macron thinks the role of France is bigger than it really is, it is not a self sustaining power.

England, as part of the EU and NATO understood this, so they never did promote the self sustaining military strength for EU. Their difference of this new pact dissing France shows how relatively meaningless consequence to NATO and EU are, and any economic suffering is negligible.

The sub deal broken may be the best thing to happen for France. Macron wants an excuse, but the problem is, he was wrong to ever think France could center a collaboration of EU countries committing to military strength association. He need no longer worry about it, probably at the expense of his political career, but for countries wary of China, no biggie, and actually, just fine.

Australian needs changed, with China's threat, in the five years it took for France not fulfilling the order, and their subs were relatively obsolete in comparison to the US product, but years ago, there was less of a threat to them, and didn't need the best subs.

As is, Australia had a no brainer here for its own protection, and a wake up call to China.

This is in spite of Australia knowing that their main trade partner is China, as the priority of self interest and protection led to a decision of angering China, as well as France. The tech to build the subs, of which France would not give, is given to Australia. A huge sweetener, and not just the sale of subs like a military power broker wannabe in France.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

after all if China joins the TPP itll be the largest trading block in the world, be hard for the EU to join if you pee off other TPP members, free trade is reciprocal

With China's recent actions of genocide, censorship, cherry picking when to be capitalistic as it suits them, when to seemingly be free trade and when it's authoritarian communist rule denies it and disallows things like labor rights and transparency of regulations, it is doubtful China will agree to some rather strict TPP requirements, and more so, be accepted by the TPP.

I doubt they gain admission to the TPP, especially with Japan as the current chair.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

President Macron should sell those submarines where they are wanted and not forced OZ if Canberra already rejected it.

Sell it to Taiwan instead and add some new Mirages and frigates too!

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Selling each other their wine to ease the pain

0 ( +0 / -0 )

France thought it could rally EU outrage but failed to realize that the US as NATO’s largest participant already fills that role quite nicely thank you very much.

Then there is the problem with French weapons systems and weapons not being interoperable with other systems.

All-in-all, it was a bad fit, over budget and way behind schedule. Australia acted in its strategic interests and that is that. France will pocket the contractually obligated cancellation fee.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

President Macron should sell those submarines where they are wanted and not forced OZ if Canberra already rejected it.

France has no such subs to sell. The subs in question would have been unique to Australia and were to be built in an Australian shipyard. However five years into the contract and the design wasn't even finished yet.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Then there is the problem with French weapons systems and weapons not being interoperable with other systems.

French systems are fully NATO compatible. French forces have operated with other NATO forces in Afghanistan since the beginning. Their aircraft refuel from USAF and RAF tankers and are directed by AWACS and Navy E-2 Hawkeyes. Their ships refuel from other NATO nations replenishment ships. Their data links and communications are NATO standard equipment. Their naval Rafales operate from US Navy aircraft carriers from time to time (though US Navy F/A-18s and F-35s are too heavy for the French carrier's cats and elevators to handle)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The OZ will regret this decision made by Scotty within 5 or 10 years! Indeed the French deal was a "Con-job" the French like doing that to third world country customers! But if she think one jump can step in the "SSN Club", that is naive! Nuclear subs required a massive budget to build and keep! They won't afford it!

Their Australian built the Swedish design "Collin" class, a problematic nightmare! They have been using the British built"Oberon" class for many years, both were conventional sub and were not very advanced one! This is not about politics, this is a technology one!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Their Australian built the Swedish design "Collin" class, a problematic nightmare! 

An yet the Swedes have a reputation for making excellent submarines for their own navy. The US Navy leased one for a year, HMS Gotland, for trials, apparently to study how to detect and eliminate a small AIP equipped DE boat, something the US Navy doesn't possess, and they liked it so much they extended the lease a second year. I'm not sure many of the problems with the Collins were Australian in origin. The RAN is notoriously understaffed and I have seen some mishaps on the aviation side that were caused by the most basic of omissions, forgetting to safety wire components that not only should their QA have caught but the pilots on pre-flight inspection should have see that and shut the bird down until safety wire was installed. I used o press the safety wire with my finger gently to make sure it was nice and tight on pre-flight! It's not something a pro misses. If there were maintenance omissions in the subs of that nature I can see what they had problems. So I have also been wondering if the RAN is ready to step up to the level of detailed procedures and maintenance necessary to safely operate nuclear submarines. It's not cheap and it requires a very high level of professionalism or really bad things happen.

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