Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking
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 |
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.