AUKUS

[rattman]

Originally Posted by junior.VH-LFA

There were multiple escape clauses and gates built into that contract. France will get the contracted exit fee and not a cent more, no matter how much grandstanding they do.

no contract had been signed for the build phase because no detailed design had been submitted. I am hearing on the rumor mill it will be 200mil for completeing the basic design work (they have already been paid for that) , and a break fee 400mill because they failed to submit a detailed design plus reasonable incurred expenses ie like if they had already bought steel, modifications done to facilites and any other reasonable expenses incurred

A lot of these additional payments could be up to the goodwill of the AUS governement, probably why NG group is saying nothing about this whole situation.

[Gnadenburg]

There's been plenty of press about US assistance with the Brit's. Not so much on the US helping the French develop their nuclear submarines and other deterrent forces.

Recently declassified documents reveal that in 1958, France approached the United States for help building its nuclear submarine.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...ration-threat/

[Asturias56]

Interesting articles ORAC but I can't see tyhem developoing a new sub in 9 years.... and

"Unlike the VIRGINIA Class Submarine, which was designed for multimission dominance in the littoral, SSN(X) will be designed for greater transit speed under increased stealth conditions in all ocean environments, and carry a larger inventory of weapons and diverse payloads. It will also be designed to retain multi-mission capability and sustained combat presence in denied waters, with a renewed priority in the anti- submarine warfare (ASW) mission against sophisticated threats in greater numbers. SSN(X) will be required to defend against threat UUVs [unmanned underwater vehicles], and coordinate with a larger contingent of off-hull vehicles, sensors, and friendly forces. (Budget-justification book for FY2022 Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Navy account, Vol. 3 [Budget Activity 5], p. 1301.) A Navy official stated in July 2021 that the Navy wants the SSN(X) to incorporate the speed and payload the Navy’s fast and heavily armed Seawolf (SSN-21) class SSN design, the acoustics (i.e., quietness) and sensors of the Virginia- class design, and the operational availability and service life of the Columbia-class design. (Justin Katz, “SSN(X) Will Be ‘Ultimate Apex Predator,’” Breaking Defense, July 21, 2021.) "

Doesn't sound cheap - in fact it sound very expensive. The Seawolf programme was canned because of the cost - and yet they want a Seawolf type sub again. I suspect its far more likely they'll get a lot more "Virginias" - if there a shortage stopping an ongoing programme and starting a new one isn't a great idea

[ORAC]

It would seem the timescale is deliberate to enable the Columbia design team to transition directly to the detail design of the SSNX, then the construction crews to start moving directly from the Columbia class in the same manner in order to preserve experience.

https://www.defensenews.com/naval/20...d-repair-work/

[Asturias56]

is the Columbia fully designed? The first boat is still building - and that's when the issues often turn up, no?

So the SSN(X) is more about keeping designers busy - I suspect when the estimates come in they'll just move them on to the next design and buy more, but slightly updated, Virginias - that's more or less what has happened to the Arleigh Burke class

[Navaleye]

I would still not be surprised if both a Virginia and an Astute end up being based down under for a while with a degree of mixed crewing from the Collins class. This would give them a hands on feel for the pros and cons of each while a couple of Collins are in for life extension. The reactor trained crews would remain USN/RN as would the CO and senior team.

[recceguy]

Originally Posted by Navaleye

The reactor trained crews would remain USN/RN as would the CO and senior team.

Once again, if it makes them happy down under, why not ? They seem to get some comfort in being under US supervision, good for them.
Let them make war against unmasked people as today on Melbourne beaches, that's what they are good at.

In the meantime, who needs Oz ? (apart from getting the legal compensation for breaking the contract, which will not be cheap)

Today announcement (Sep 28th) :



Built 100 % in France. At least the customer doesn't pretend this time he can do the job at home.

Originally Posted by rattman

.... probably why NG group is saying nothing about this whole situation.

That's not my perception. Get informed, read something else than Aussie newpsapers

[rattman]

Originally Posted by Navaleye

I would still not be surprised if both a Virginia and an Astute end up being based down under for a while with a degree of mixed crewing from the Collins class. This would give them a hands on feel for the pros and cons of each while a couple of Collins are in for life extension. The reactor trained crews would remain USN/RN as would the CO and senior team.

Who AUKUS could be something massive a complete nothing, if the british carrier is being escorted by an astute, they have said 2 of the escorts will be staying in the area after the carrier, that could be the first one.

[rattman]

Originally Posted by recceguy

That's not my perception. Get informed, read something else than Aussie newpsapers

Your perception is not fact. I have found only one press release from them issued on the 17th

Naval Group takes note of the decision of the Australian authorities to acquire a fleet of nuclear submarines in collaboration with the United States and the United Kingdom following their comprehensive capability review.

The Commonwealth decided not to proceed with the next phase of the program. This is a major disappointment for Naval Group, which was offering Australia a regionally superior conventional submarine with exceptional performances. Naval Group was also offering Australia a sovereign submarine capability making unrivalled commitments in terms of technology transfer, jobs and local content.

For five years, Naval Group teams, both in France and in Australia, as well as our partners, have given their best and Naval Group has delivered on all its commitments.

The analysis of the consequences of this sovereign Australian decision will be conducted with the Commonwealth of Australia in the coming days.

Is there another press release issue by them or a board member I have missed ?

[tartare]

Aaaand the latest bloviating expert to weigh in - one Malcolm Bligh Turnbull AC - renowned crippler of the National Broadband Network.
https://www.smh.com.au/national/aust...28-p58vf2.html
Demonstrating as much knowledge about nuclear submarines as he has about telecommunications.

[JustinHeywood]

Originally Posted by tartare

Aaaand the latest bloviating expert to weigh in - one Malcolm Bligh Turnbull AC - renowned crippler of the National Broadband Network.
https://www.smh.com.au/national/aust...28-p58vf2.html
Demonstrating as much knowledge about nuclear submarines as he has about telecommunications.

As the principal author of the wobbly deal to build French nuclear subs with diesel engines, I don’t think I’d be looking to Turnbull for a balanced assessment of AUKUS.

I once had great hopes of Turnbull as PM, but he proved a hopeless ditherer when in office and a spiteful wrecker since.

[tartare]

All commonsense suggestions.

[tartare]

Originally Posted by Grumpy retiree

Thank you. Which is why it probably will never happen.

I’m just using my experience of introducing a new aircraft type in the mob I used to work for.
One of the highlights of my career was working with the Boeing people in Seattle. Great people to work with.
Not that different I suspect.
Be humble and listen !
It works !

Wow.
May I ask what type?

[TWT]

Whatever deal is struck, let's hope it includes the reactor decommissioning costs after their useful lives are over.

[Asturias56]

"This whole debate could be simplified very easily and quickly.

1. Accept the fact Virginia Class subs will NOT be built in South Australia. Minor fit-out and routine maintenance yes, build no.
2. Take the Virginia as is , no modifications.
3. Get in the queue of the production line ASAP.
4.Start organising training , exchange programs etc.on leased boats ASAP."

Now there's the right approach - but will any politico be willing to say Item #1?

[recceguy]

Originally Posted by rattman

Your perception is not fact. I have found only one press release from them issued on the 17th
Is there another press release issue by them or a board member I have missed ?

Don't worry, you will get the bill. I have official statements, but they are in French, which you probably don't master.

So after Kevin Rudd, it seems now Malcolm Turnbull considers that France has been deliberately and unelegantly betrayed.
That makes two ex-Australian PM against one - but for some reasons, it seems commentators here do prefer the N° 3, Scott Morrison (why ? no idea - that's internal Aussie politics, and I don't really care)

Anyway, I'm happy to read here that after believing that they could build at least parts of submarines, they came down under to acknowledge that no, they are absolutely unable of that. So next time think twice before pretending to play with the big boys.

[RickNRoll]

Originally Posted by Asturias56

"This whole debate could be simplified very easily and quickly.

1. Accept the fact Virginia Class subs will NOT be built in South Australia. Minor fit-out and routine maintenance yes, build no.
2. Take the Virginia as is , no modifications.
3. Get in the queue of the production line ASAP.
4.Start organising training , exchange programs etc.on leased boats ASAP."

Now there's the right approach - but will any politico be willing to say Item #1?

No. However, my son works in SA and the first thing he asked was "What does it mean for jobs here"? So, they might not want to say it, but the question was being asked from the first day.

[Asturias56]

". However, my son works in SA and the first thing he asked was "What does it mean for jobs here"? "

I suspect there'll be plenty of jobs - just maintenance and repair will cost you a lot (but all going to Australian taxpayers of course)

Should be a lot of work on the Type 26 frigates over the same period and more suited to the yard and the local supply chain

[recceguy]

Originally Posted by rattman

Is there another press release issue by them or a board member I have missed ?

You will find it in Financial Times :

" Naval Group vows to claw back millions for cancelled submarine deal French defence contractor says Australia faces penalty clauses after pulling out of A$90bn contract in favour of rival Aukus deal Naval Group has already been paid €840m for its investments in the submarine project

The French defence contractor at the heart of the diplomatic crisis over the new “Aukus” strategic pact for the Indo-Pacific has vowed to claw back tens of millions of dollars from Australia for a cancelled A$90bn (US$65.4bn) submarine contract. “We will defend our rights and all our costs . . . every cost that we incurred and every cost related to the demobilisation,” Pierre-Eric Pommellet, chief executive of Naval Group, told the Financial Times. French officials and executives say that by cancelling the order for 12 diesel-electric submarines for strategic reasons rather than because of any fault by Naval Group — Australia has decided to buy nuclear-powered submarines from the US instead in a pact that also involves the UK — Canberra must repay money already spent and meet the costs of winding down a large design and engineering operation to build the vessels in Adelaide. Pommellet said Naval Group, in which the French state holds a majority stake and Thales a further 35 per cent, had already been paid €840m for its investments in the project before the cancellation. When the costs of other contractors such as Lockheed Martin, which was to make the submarines’ combat systems, are taken into account, the Australian government is likely to have spent nearly double that on a project that will produce nothing. Australia may also have to pay out under penalty clauses in the French contract. Although Pommellet declined to say if the contract included such clauses, Australia’s ABC network previously said it had obtained part of the strategic partnering agreement signed in February 2019 showing that Australia would be liable for a €90m “break payment” if it decided to cancel when Naval Group had already submitted a basic design, rising to €250m for a detailed design — which has yet to be provided. Even if all its costs are eventually covered, Naval Group has suffered a heavy blow from the cancellation of its flagship project. It represented 10 per cent of revenue, or about €500m a year as an average for the years to come, said Pommellet. “Losing 10 per cent of turnover is big.” Meanwhile, Thales Group, which had its own agreement to supply subsystems to US defence company Lockheed Martin for the submarine programme as well as its stake in Naval Group, downplayed the immediate impact of the cancelled contract, saying it would not affect its 2021 targets. Though it had booked only €30m of orders on the programme so far, Thales still stood to earn up to €1bn from the agreement in the years ahead, according to some analyst estimates. And the ruptured agreement could have wider ramifications on its relationship with the government of Australia, which has become an important market for the company in recent years, some analysts said. For Naval Group, a lucrative, high-tech contract that was not only a project but “a transformation for the company” and “a transformation for France”, suddenly turned out to be “a huge crisis” from which the company must extricate itself through growth in other areas and with other customers*, Pommellet said.
Pierre-Eric Pommellet: ‘We will defend our rights and all our costs . . . every cost that we incurred and every cost related to the demobilisation’ Australian prime minister Scott Morrison kept Aukus secret within such a small group of trusted advisers that Pommellet was convinced none of his interlocutors in the French contract negotiations earlier this year knew what was about to happen.
Indeed, Naval Group received a letter from the Australian government on September 15 confirming that everything was on track for the next phase. Pommellet said he could hear his colleagues in Paris celebrating the news in a nearby office as he took a call explaining that the deal had in fact been cancelled. “Imagine coming in and telling your team, ‘I have something to tell you’ . . . it’s hard.” In addition to throwing into doubt the future of 1,000 French employees in France and Australia, the cancellation also affected 80 Australian families who had moved to be near one of Naval Group’s sites in France. “The city of Cherbourg has created an international school for them . . . They hear this story the same day as us, and so, for them, from one day to another — just nothing to do.”
Having cancelled the Naval Group project and deeply offended France by brushing aside its ambitions in the Indo-Pacific, Australia now faces many years of negotiations to secure a different set of submarines that could be even more expensive and complicated to build, not least because they are nuclear-powered. French officials have been scathing about the vagueness of the Aukus plan, described by one as “only a framework of the study of a project of a project” and by Pommellet previously as no more than “a slogan”. “We don’t know what it is,” he told the FT. “It’s very secret. But for us, the Aukus deal is a contract that terminates, 1,000 people that need to find jobs, 80 Australian families that are just left, and a shipyard where you had hundreds of people working that just stopped in the centre of Adelaide.”

(*) done already - Greece

[golder]

"€90m “break payment” if it decided to cancel when Naval Group had already submitted a basic design, rising to €250m"
€250m is $400m. Although the full plan hasn't been provided yet, it has been worked on as I understand it. I don't think we declined to go forward. At the basic design 'break payment' of €90m. So i would guess it is between the two.
Australia has spent $2.4 billion, it wasn't a decision taken lightly.