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

291–299 of 299 posts

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

#291

Post by mmerlin »

gpayan wrote: post #89
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…

Actually, as mentioned multiple times in the past couple of days by former French Ambassador to the US Gerard Araud, diesel was an Australia demand, which required France to modify its subs (all nuclear powered) and added complexity to the project. According to the former Ambassador, it would have been much easier and cheaper for France to supply Australia with nuclear subs.

When you look deeper, the true entire purpose of this deal was not to build subs. It was to "create 3000 jobs" and save one politician (Christopher Pyne) who did win the next vote, then "retired" shortly thereafter and went to "work" as a highly paid lobbyist for EY (who he brokered this twisted dodgy deal with in the first place, when he was a politician).

This is borderline corrupt behaviour IMHO (and many others HO's too). There are "guidelines" for the political class, but nobody ever enforces anything even when the corruption is so blatant.

Don't even get me started on Barnaby Joyce and Angus Taylor funnelling tens of millions of taxpayer funds paying for fresh water runoff that was never realistically ever going to be worth anything to anybody. [2]

It was sent to Angus' Cayman Islands company that he founded, then he claimed he did not benefit personally (yeah right).

Also see Christian Porter and his "blind trust" suddenly donating a million bucks into his failed defamation rape case against the ABC. [3] [4] He says he has no idea where the money came from. Yeah right.

For more about Christopher Pyne, and how confected this French Frankenstein sub deal was, read the first 3 links I posted elsewhere earlier [1]

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28580443

[2] https://www.michaelwest.com.au/barnaby-joyce-80m-valuation-d...

[3] https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/blind-trust-gift-...

[4] https://chaser.com.au/national/prime-minister-who-said-we-ca...

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

#292

Post by fspeech »

ericmay wrote: post #288
fspeech wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> The US hasn’t withdrawn any troops.

Sure but I thought your point is that US should or will leave Europe. I actually don't believe that will happen.

> No the US and the Anglosphere is just arming Australia.

The first sub is not expected to be in service before 2040.

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

#293

Post by mahkeiro »

enkid wrote: post #59
mahkeiro wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

French contract took 4 years to be negotiated, the US one less than 6 months, in total secret with no public check… expect big surprises at the end, US weapons program are not known to never overrun their costs

The cost on the French contract had already gone up by tens of billions of dollars, and nothing had been delivered.

UK frigate program for Australia navy is having the same issues: https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/getting-real-about-the-sch...

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

#294

Post by sam_lowry_ »

throwawaylinux wrote: post #286
sam_lowry_ wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

This was not a question but statement. IRL = In Real Life.

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

#295

Post by ericmay »

fspeech wrote: post #292
ericmay wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> The US hasn’t withdrawn any troops. Sure but I thought your point is that US should or will leave Europe. I actually don't believe that will happen. > No the US and the Anglosphere is just arming Australia. The first sub is not expected to be in service before 2040.

Well unless there is a reason to you’re probably not giving up bases but what I mean is that in terms of geopolitics the US is shifting remaining away from Europe. The region no longer supports the US interests (logistically or otherwise) because all the future action is in Asia.

> The first sub is not expected to be in service before 2040.

Right. So if you wanted to say that wasn’t meaningful, then they wouldn’t do it because the timeline is perceived to be too long. But I think they’re operating on longer time scales.

But also this is just one action of many. Wouldn’t surprised to see something like a joint US, UK, Australian base in Australia or similar.

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

#296

Post by fruffy »

tkojames wrote: post #72
fruffy wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How trustworthy is The War Zone? It seems to be largely focussed on US defence tech industry, so I expect fairly biased reporting on this topic. Is there a better source?

It is 100% biased to USA sources. But they have interesting information on how the US defence tech industry works and goes more in depth than most places. It is a very fair point. I like how they actually talk about the technology and all that. Thanks for reminding me to keep in mind the source!

Thanks for clarifying! This was not meant to be an attack, but with analysis pieces on these matters I am always hesitant with respect to the source.

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

#297

Post by beerandt »

ikr678 wrote: post #232
beerandt wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well I suspect the demand was at least partially due to budget, as opposed to philosophical or technological reasons for diesel over nuclear. Separately, I've got to think turnkey access to the tomahawk missiles has almost got to play a bigger role in this than the sub itself, other than being capable of carrying said missiles.

It was technical, of sorts. The initial demand for diesel refit was because Australia has no home nuclear capability and wanted to be able to do some of the maintenance locally. Otherwise they spend half their time in the northern hemisphere. This may be a precursor to increased US naval presence/base in Australia.

>Australia has no home nuclear capability and wanted to be able to do some of the maintenance locally.

That's premised on whether France would have been willing to sell that capability to AUS, and for what price, vs the price (economic and military) of French nuclear maintenance, vs buying diesel.

That equation is easily changed by a competing US/UK offer, be it technology sharing/ training for AUS to gain dinners nuclear maintenance capabilities, or that by being more politically aligned with the US/UK, relying on a foreign country for maintenance isn't as much of a military risk.

>This may be a precursor to increased US naval presence/base in Australia.

I suspect the opposite. What does the US gain by naval presence in Australia (vs Guam or Okinawa or Philippines, etc) besides an additional layer of rapid response in the region? AUS & US already partner in most things that would make a larger military presence in AUS beneficial.

Whereas equipping AUS provides a potential partner for any international rapid response needed in the region. And I think for most incidents that would merit a US/UK rapid response in the region (ie China), AUS would have an equal or greater interest in responding to it.

The other advantage is logistical- if the US and UK deal involves sharing industrial capabilities with AUS, it gains the US and UK likely use of those AUS capabilities and facilities in the event of conflict, instead of having to return to the US/UK.

AUS gains technological and economic benefits, while US and UK get backup maintenance and repair facilities on the other side of the world, without having to pay for a base or for a contractor's presence. (Maybe you'd consider this increased US naval presence.)

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

#298

Post by tkojames »

fruffy wrote: post #296
tkojames wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is 100% biased to USA sources. But they have interesting information on how the US defence tech industry works and goes more in depth than most places. It is a very fair point. I like how they actually talk about the technology and all that. Thanks for reminding me to keep in mind the source!

Thanks for clarifying! This was not meant to be an attack, but with analysis pieces on these matters I am always hesitant with respect to the source.

None taken it all. It got me thinking about what I learned in high school about what you said about sources. It is really is appreciated.

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

#299

Post by make3 »

throw_m239339 wrote: post #146
make3 wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

trying to sell weapons to Russia, an aggressive total dictatorship, you deserved that one

> trying to sell weapons to Russia, an aggressive total dictatorship, you deserved that one Well USA is selling or has sold weapons to Saudi Arabia, a known democracy respecting human rights/s Weapons used to massacre children in Yemen, I mean let's not claim USA is a paragon of virtue either, when it comes to the business of war.

I'm not American, that was also wrong
Post reply on HN