AUKUS
Nice work! It looks like the French were going to make us pay either way. Its very hard to be stabbed in the back when your alleged assailant is being bent over and about to have a pineapple inserted.
Exactly what the Israelis said in 1967 when the French failed to provide naval vessels and 50 Mirages that were paid for. Strangely none of the French cheer squad want to even mention it in their "outrage" over the submarine contract which ,if you bother to read the articles golder has provided, has been on shakey ground for a while.
You are the bad guys. What is the value of a contract if anyone can bail out of it freely like that!?
If there subs are as good as their helicopters. I'd say we did the right thing. Also this complete dummy spit with Australia, along with the issues it is having with other countries. Show that they may not have been the most stable of partners. As the examples show, something else would have set them off. They don't play well with others. Even within NATO, there are issues.
Evertonian
It is France that has linked a commercial contract to a defence policy. Was AUD90Bn the cost of Frances support in the Indo-Pacific?
Truth be that the UK now has the dominant Navy in the european area and that will not sit well with some.
Suspicion breeds confidence
Actually, some people here have a superficial understanding of how military contracts work. Its not like signing up for a phone contract. In a major contract such as this there are a number of "gates" which allow the client to back out with a predefined penalty which must be paid to the other side. This is what has happened and the Australian govt are entirely within their rights to do so. No breach of contract.
This is laying up a great foundation to see how people in various countries behave when someone backs out of a multi-billion dollar contract with them. Hopefully with the equinamity they would like to see from the French.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
Just like the UK with Skybolt? Or perhaps France/Dassault pulling out of the AFVG in 1967?
You have to learn that, in such matters, nations have interests - not friends - and adapt accordingly.
You have to learn that, in such matters, nations have interests - not friends - and adapt accordingly.
And another 12 x Romeos for the Royal Australian Navy. In part to be rid of the MRH-90? That's two European helicopters gone in a year from Australia's force structure. The Apache order in January ending the Tiger.
https://www.australiandefence.com.au...0r-helicopters
https://www.australiandefence.com.au...0r-helicopters
As you know, there were issues with the MRH-90, So the naval ASW NFI-90 wasn't purchased. The RAN went with Romeos for the ASW role.
I would expect the existing MRH-90 to continue their current role in the RAN. I think we are keeping the fleet of MRH-90, for now.
https://www.navy.gov.au/aircraft/mrh-90-taipan
I would expect the existing MRH-90 to continue their current role in the RAN. I think we are keeping the fleet of MRH-90, for now.
https://www.navy.gov.au/aircraft/mrh-90-taipan
As you know, there were issues with the MRH-90, So the naval ASW NFI-90 wasn't purchased. The RAN went with Romeos for the ASW role.
I would expect the existing MRH-90 to continue their current role in the RAN. I think we are keeping the fleet of MRH-90, for now.
https://www.navy.gov.au/aircraft/mrh-90-taipan
I would expect the existing MRH-90 to continue their current role in the RAN. I think we are keeping the fleet of MRH-90, for now.
https://www.navy.gov.au/aircraft/mrh-90-taipan
"Just like the UK with Skybolt?"
ORAC - the UK didn't pull out of Skybolt - it was cancelled by the USA - which led eventually (but not immediately) to the offer of Polaris
ORAC - the UK didn't pull out of Skybolt - it was cancelled by the USA - which led eventually (but not immediately) to the offer of Polaris
You can keep your condescending tone for yourself, fact is your country bailed out from a signed contract! You are the bad guys. What is the value of a contract if anyone can bail out of it freely like that!? Although, as you all would like to be, it won't be that "free" in this case.
And once again if you all feel that this contract was sooooo bad towards Australia, why your country agreed to it beforehand!? Because when I read all the "experts" comments here, it looks like it was Frankly-A-Stupid-Idea to have it signed.
So stop bashing the French and put the blame on your own (Past?) But visibly incompetent government who agreed to that.
And once again if you all feel that this contract was sooooo bad towards Australia, why your country agreed to it beforehand!? Because when I read all the "experts" comments here, it looks like it was Frankly-A-Stupid-Idea to have it signed.
So stop bashing the French and put the blame on your own (Past?) But visibly incompetent government who agreed to that.
Drain Bamaged
Ok then if it's that simple....
I recon that Wikipedia is not the best place for accurate information, can you please go there and update its wording?
"Terminated the not signed yet contract for convenience"
Naval Group said that Australia had "terminated the contract for convenience". The French Ministry of Defense claimed that on the day that the contract was cancelled, Australia had written to France stating that "they were satisfied with the submarine's achievable performance and with the progress of the program." The French foreign minister Jean-Yves Le Drian said that Australia told France one hour before the public announcement of the cancellation. He called the decision to cancel the contract and the secret AUKUS negotiations a "stab in the back". He said in regards to NATO alliance partners the US and the UK that "In a real alliance you talk to each other, you don’t hide things, you respect the other party." Christian Cambon, chairman of the Committee of the French Senate’s Foreign Affairs, Defence and Armed Forces, said the decision to cancel the contract must lead France "to wonder about the recurrent attitude from some of our allies,
Who was plane bold lying to who?
I recon that Wikipedia is not the best place for accurate information, can you please go there and update its wording?
"Terminated the not signed yet contract for convenience"
Naval Group said that Australia had "terminated the contract for convenience". The French Ministry of Defense claimed that on the day that the contract was cancelled, Australia had written to France stating that "they were satisfied with the submarine's achievable performance and with the progress of the program." The French foreign minister Jean-Yves Le Drian said that Australia told France one hour before the public announcement of the cancellation. He called the decision to cancel the contract and the secret AUKUS negotiations a "stab in the back". He said in regards to NATO alliance partners the US and the UK that "In a real alliance you talk to each other, you don’t hide things, you respect the other party." Christian Cambon, chairman of the Committee of the French Senate’s Foreign Affairs, Defence and Armed Forces, said the decision to cancel the contract must lead France "to wonder about the recurrent attitude from some of our allies,
Who was plane bold lying to who?
I wouldn't worry too much, I'm sure someone will write in wiki about its troubled history. Dating from 2018. You have already been told it was a step by step program, with exit ramps along the way.
Australia signed for the design, of which there were 3 stages. Australia exited the program at stage 2. Before entering the detailed design phase.
Australia never signed to build the submarine. That was the next step and only one was to be built, before the next exit ramp.
https://www.anao.gov.au/work/perform...tion-to-design
"Design and Mobilisation Contract (entered into in September 2016); Strategic Partnering Agreement (entered into in February 2019); and Submarine Design Contract (entered into in March 2019). "
https://www.anao.gov.au/sites/defaul...19-2020_22.pdf
February 2021.
https://indaily.com.au/news/2021/02/...y-february-25/
Prime Minister Scott Morrison has ordered a top level study to look at how to terminate the $90 billion contract, while also investigating alternative options to contract Swedish Shipbuilders Saab Kockums or renovate the Australian Navy’s current Collins Class fleet.
January 14, 2020
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/fede...14-p53rd2.htmlThe audit report also reveals that during negotiations over a key agreement with French company Naval Group in 2018, the federal government's hand-picked advisory group floated the idea of walking away from the contract with the French shipbuilder.
The Naval Shipbuilding Advisory Board told Defence that it should consider whether proceeding with the project was in the national interest "even if negotiations succeeded" with the Strategic Partnering Agreement.
Australia Reportedly Looking At An Alternative To Its Costly New French-Designed Submarines
JANUARY 19, 2021
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...ned-submarines
Australia signed for the design, of which there were 3 stages. Australia exited the program at stage 2. Before entering the detailed design phase.
Australia never signed to build the submarine. That was the next step and only one was to be built, before the next exit ramp.
https://www.anao.gov.au/work/perform...tion-to-design
"Design and Mobilisation Contract (entered into in September 2016); Strategic Partnering Agreement (entered into in February 2019); and Submarine Design Contract (entered into in March 2019). "
https://www.anao.gov.au/sites/defaul...19-2020_22.pdf
February 2021.
https://indaily.com.au/news/2021/02/...y-february-25/
Prime Minister Scott Morrison has ordered a top level study to look at how to terminate the $90 billion contract, while also investigating alternative options to contract Swedish Shipbuilders Saab Kockums or renovate the Australian Navy’s current Collins Class fleet.
January 14, 2020
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/fede...14-p53rd2.htmlThe audit report also reveals that during negotiations over a key agreement with French company Naval Group in 2018, the federal government's hand-picked advisory group floated the idea of walking away from the contract with the French shipbuilder.
The Naval Shipbuilding Advisory Board told Defence that it should consider whether proceeding with the project was in the national interest "even if negotiations succeeded" with the Strategic Partnering Agreement.
Australia Reportedly Looking At An Alternative To Its Costly New French-Designed Submarines
JANUARY 19, 2021
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...ned-submarines
Last edited by golder; 11th Oct 2021 at 10:08.
So the rumors are going strong that the a 'friendly' country that the Toebbe's tried to sell nuclear secrets to were the french. Country1 had the plans and were in communications with Toebbe for 8 months before they contacted the FBI.
I personally dont believe the french would be dumb enough to do something like that. But if, a really big IF they did I could understand how the US government could be pissed and decided to do aukus as a bit of a screw you to france
I personally dont believe the french would be dumb enough to do something like that. But if, a really big IF they did I could understand how the US government could be pissed and decided to do aukus as a bit of a screw you to france
