Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

France Recalls Its Ambassadors to the U.S. and Australia over a Submarine Deal

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 299 posts

Re: France Recalls Its Ambassadors to the U.S. and Australia over a Submarine Deal

#281

Post by ericmay »

chris1993 wrote: post #239
ericmay wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your premise is that the US, UK, and Australia just went about this as though they didn’t know exactly how France would react and that what they did was stupid and unintentional, and that they believe that France or the EU are important strategic partners. What I would say is that I question this premise. It’s not Trump. I don’t doubt for a second that this reaction is something of a surprise for the allies we’re dis…

This deal was initiated during the trump administration.

The sub deal with Australia? I mean it's not like the U.S. had to do it and Biden and his diplomats didn't have to not tell France and just keep on with it lol...

Re: France Recalls Its Ambassadors to the U.S. and Australia over a Submarine Deal

#282

Post by edrxty »

i_am_proteus wrote: post #257
edrxty wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably due to its predecessor, the Seawolf, from which it was derived ended up being wildly cost ineffective.

That is not correct. Seawolf was cancelled and only three units were built, causing R&D costs to be spread across those three units, raising unit price. It was cancelled because it was expensive, but it was ordered during the end of the cold war and was radically more capable than the class it was meant to replace. This cost was acceptable at time of order, but then subject to budget cuts after the USSR collapsed. Th…

Do you have a source for this? The Virginia shares many more features with the Seawolf that the LA class. The Virginia is basically a scaled down Seawolf hull with a different weapons arrangement.

Re: France Recalls Its Ambassadors to the U.S. and Australia over a Submarine Deal

#283

Post by i_am_proteus »

edrxty wrote: post #282
i_am_proteus wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is not correct. Seawolf was cancelled and only three units were built, causing R&D costs to be spread across those three units, raising unit price. It was cancelled because it was expensive, but it was ordered during the end of the cold war and was radically more capable than the class it was meant to replace. This cost was acceptable at time of order, but then subject to budget cuts after the USSR collapsed. Th…

Do you have a source for this? The Virginia shares many more features with the Seawolf that the LA class. The Virginia is basically a scaled down Seawolf hull with a different weapons arrangement.

Look at the USS San Juan and later hulls.

My source is having been on all three classes of submarine.

Re: France Recalls Its Ambassadors to the U.S. and Australia over a Submarine Deal

#284

Post by fspeech »

ericmay wrote: post #279
fspeech wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that is what US political elites want but it is actually a good outcome for world peace. Russia is not moving anywhere, neither is China. Continental detente will play out over many decades, way beyond US election cycles. An independent Europe trading normally with both US and China, and Russia, is a much more stable configuration. Core Europe will feel secure at the price of peripheral Europe. However…

> I don't think that is what US political elites want but it is actually a good outcome for world peace. Russia is not moving anywhere, neither is China. Continental detente will play out over many decades, way beyond US election cycles. An independent Europe trading normally with both US and China, and Russia, is a much more stable configuration. Core Europe will feel secure at the price of peripheral Europe Agreed…

> Well Europe certainly won't ally with China barring something insane happening. They've chosen the path of keeping more neutral, which lends to your first point about the stable configuration.

European neutrality is all that China could hope for and it is good enough for strategic detente.

> This move just upped the ante and is yet another signal of Anglosphere commitment to the region.

If it is about moving US troops and assets out of harm's way by stationing them down under, it will be a strategic retreat dressed up as pivot. It is good for peace but it also gets US out of the play. US will be like Aaron Burr: out of the room where the play is made.

> well why are European countries saber rattling against Chinese influence?

Because some peripheral European countries are desperate to keep US engaged. As much as they don't like the Russians, they won't necessarily welcome German overlords either.

Re: France Recalls Its Ambassadors to the U.S. and Australia over a Submarine Deal

#285

Post by mrlonglong »

hdjjhhvvhga wrote: post #269
mrlonglong wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You need to unify with Germany and other countries with the EU, this will give you the required clout against the other blocs of the world. As a Brit, Brexit was the day the world fell apart.

It works for many other aspects, but not the military: there is no EU army.

I'm pretty sure they will have to, this AFUKUS thing has forced their hand.

Re: France Recalls Its Ambassadors to the U.S. and Australia over a Submarine Deal

#286

Post by throwawaylinux »

sam_lowry_ wrote: post #255
throwawaylinux wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Untrue, USA won the Gulf War.

David against Goliath? IRL, Goliath wins.

Could you rephrase your question?

The parent was suggesting basically that the US is not a Goliath (in expeditionary war).

Re: France Recalls Its Ambassadors to the U.S. and Australia over a Submarine Deal

#287

Post by maccolgan »

systemvoltage wrote: post #190

This is not good - the west should be unifying against Russia and China, not infighting. Bunch of comments here about how US is an unreliable partner, how France is throwing a tantrum over trivial matters and how Australia is stabbing them in the back. The larger picture of all this bickering is causing sentiment dent amongst NATO countries and the rest of the western powers. Media finds all this spicy and it has bee…

You are speaking as if The West is one big unified group of countries with a common agenda...

Re: France Recalls Its Ambassadors to the U.S. and Australia over a Submarine Deal

#288

Post by ericmay »

fspeech wrote: post #284
ericmay wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't think that is what US political elites want but it is actually a good outcome for world peace. Russia is not moving anywhere, neither is China. Continental detente will play out over many decades, way beyond US election cycles. An independent Europe trading normally with both US and China, and Russia, is a much more stable configuration. Core Europe will feel secure at the price of peripheral Europe Agreed…

> Well Europe certainly won't ally with China barring something insane happening. They've chosen the path of keeping more neutral, which lends to your first point about the stable configuration. European neutrality is all that China could hope for and it is good enough for strategic detente. > This move just upped the ante and is yet another signal of Anglosphere commitment to the region. If it is about moving US tro…

> European neutrality is all that China could hope for and it is good enough for strategic detente.

Right which is why the US is moving forces out of the EU. But the problem is in the event of an actual war the EU will either be neutral (unlikely) or pro-US. It also doesn’t matter because the EU was never going to Asia anyway. So nothing of importance listed

> If it is about moving US troops and assets out of harm's way by stationing them down under, it will be a strategic retreat dressed up as pivot. It is good for peace but it also gets US out of the play. US will be like Aaron Burr: out of the room where the play is made.

No the US and the Anglosphere is just arming Australia. The US hasn’t withdrawn any troops.

> Because some peripheral European countries are desperate to keep US engaged. As much as they don't like the Russians, they won't necessarily welcome German overlords either.

Sure. That just means a thorn in the side of the Russians and Chinese.

Re: France Recalls Its Ambassadors to the U.S. and Australia over a Submarine Deal

#289

Post by GareyBaldo »

i_am_proteus wrote: post #283
edrxty wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have a source for this? The Virginia shares many more features with the Seawolf that the LA class. The Virginia is basically a scaled down Seawolf hull with a different weapons arrangement.

Look at the USS San Juan and later hulls. My source is having been on all three classes of submarine.

Concur. Unlikely to find prompt jumps in design that weren't previously field tested. Technologies pioneered by Seawolf class were rolled into the VA class, but ultimately decades of building 688s was more valuable than 3 Seawolfs (seawolves?)

Re: France Recalls Its Ambassadors to the U.S. and Australia over a Submarine Deal

#290

Post by GareyBaldo »

Renaud wrote: post #180
tkojames wrote: post #16

It is super laughable because the nuclear powered version that they are building for themselves was a fixed bid contract for something like 10 billion for 8 subs.. and the Australian contract keeps going up and up something like 35 billion for ten subs. The diesel sub for Australia is based on the nuclear sub that they signed the fixed bid contract for. Anybody with half brain can tell they are making up the lost of…

The upset is not just about the loss of a commercial deal, I'm sure there will be some contractual compensations. The issue is about the manner in which the deal was announced. Newspapers describe the urgent calls from the AU officials to their French counterparts hours before the very public announcement by the US, UK and AU. Diplomatically, that's a pretty callous thing to do to a partner. The ballooning costs may…

One should note that diplomatic dealings are not going to be reported in the press. What gets reported in the press is what is announced and/or what is leaked (on purpose).

We comment on what we think is diplomatically callous without actually knowing if/when France was informed. I think that France's best option, domestically, is to act surprised in order to save face. What should they do otherwise, after losing such a huge deal in a lucrative region? Honest question. What would you recommend France do in response, even if they realized there were substantial issues months ago and a real risk of losing the contract?

There is a lot of speculation without anyone here likely knowing what the truth is.

Post reply on HN