Re: AUKUS Strategic nuclear submarine pact
 

United we stand, divided we fall.... We've never really grasped that one.

Re: AUKUS Strategic nuclear submarine pact
 

It’s a useful case in point actually. Australia is a sovereign nation that has decided breach of contract is in its national interest.

It’s interesting though that France isn’t taking diplomatic retaliation against the UK - I mean, I know it’s the USA that’s supplying home assembly kits to the Australian navy but we’re most certainly egging them on, and we’re signatories to the pact that will coordinate the way HMAS Duke Nukem is eventually deployed to monitor Chinese activity.

Perhaps it’s a further case in point: that when it comes to it, France needs to keep Britain close more than it needs to prove a diplomatic point. Funny, that.

---------- Post added at 21:43 ---------- Previous post was at 21:42 ----------

It’s difficult to see how this is relevant to the issue. Could you elaborate?

Re: AUKUS Strategic nuclear submarine pact
 

According to The Times, Australia came to us and then we both went to convince the Americans so it's rather surprising the French have exempted us from this. Maybe it's a passive-aggressive attempt to play down our role in it or it's just not realistic to do so.

Re: AUKUS Strategic nuclear submarine pact
 

I’m sure the French will have the Aussies in court, after all it’s not in the spirit of things.

Re: AUKUS Strategic nuclear submarine pact
 

The reality is, we don’t have the manufacturing capacity to provide Australia the components they need to self-assemble their new subs. Nor do we have the capacity to assemble them. The shipyard at Barrow is fully occupied and its supply chain is fully committed. Nevertheless we could have provided them with something eventually, so the Yanks would have nothing to lose (as in, they couldn’t stop Australia acquiring nuclear powered subs, assuming they even wanted to) and everything to gain by being the ones to sell them the gear. Plus, the strategic case is actually quite strong, because an Australian nuclear submarine fleet takes some of the pressure off the Americans, and also gives them access to potentially very useful naval dockyard facilities on the other side of the Pacific. There is a very high level of integration between the US and UK armed forces so I imagine the Aussies got a very high-level hearing in Washington really quite quickly.

I don’t think the French are being passive-aggressive towards us though. They need day-to-day diplomatic relations with us in a way they just don’t with either the Yanks or the Aussies. They are fizzing, with some justification, but realpolitik requires them to choke it down in our case. Again, I note the significance of that with regards to other aspects of our relationship with European countries.

Re: AUKUS Strategic nuclear submarine pact
 

The contract was to be signed in phases, ie a halt could happen at any of those stages.
The French weren't sticking to their commitments.
Link

Re: AUKUS Strategic nuclear submarine pact
 

Re: AUKUS Strategic nuclear submarine pact
 

suggest you read nomad kings post above. trying to compare this to the current U.K./EU situation makes your desperation even more acrid than usual.

One day you’ll have to explain what the French did that hurt you so much, perhaps you could point on the dolly to show us.

Re: AUKUS Strategic nuclear submarine pact
 

There is going to be a massive exercise in whataboutery in the courts over this. These sorts of contracts do usually have escape clauses in them which the Australians will no doubt attempt to use. The French for their part will argue that unreasonable demands, or failure on the Australian side to meet their own obligations are to blame for any apparent shortcomings on the French side. It would appear these arguments are already being marshalled and briefed to friendly journalists.

I suspect the Australians probably were being a pain in the neck. Military procurement is famously fraught with continuing changes to specification and poor project management. I think it also very likely the French were not being at all accommodating, reasoning that Canberra was so deeply invested in the project it ultimately had nowhere else to go and would have to take what it was given. If so, they miscalculated badly.

Re: AUKUS Strategic nuclear submarine pact
 

Re: AUKUS Strategic nuclear submarine pact
 

Pretty much any major contract will be staged in that way, workday, SAP & Oracle have all been hit by similar things in the past couple of years

Workday ~shudders~

---------- Post added at 22:30 ---------- Previous post was at 22:29 ----------

You’ve made no direct comparison I’ll grant you but the inclination was there ;)

Re: AUKUS Strategic nuclear submarine pact
 

Re: AUKUS Strategic nuclear submarine pact
 

Aaaw let’s not fight, gis a cuddle

Re: AUKUS Strategic nuclear submarine pact
 

Giggles.

Re: AUKUS Strategic nuclear submarine pact