Comments by "Chef Chaudard" (@chefchaudard3580) on "Binkov's Battlegrounds"
channel.
-
19
-
13
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@michaeldobson107 i just answered you post : The cost was because Australia wanted a specific design, build it's own manufacturing facilities, and technologies transfers. This ain't cheap. Naval Group just proposed what Australia wanted and won the bid. Buying a design from the shelf and manufacturing it outside Australia was a cheaper option from the start, and Australia knew it, and they could probably have had it from whoever could build nuclear subs, US, UK, Russia or... France!
And, please, leave the UK out of that: they have no more power than France in the Pacific Ocean, nor more advanced technology.
1
-
@michaeldobson107 We actually agree on a point: from a purely strategic point of view, Australia move is fully understandable, if China is perceived as the major threat.
Supposed Naval Group shortcomings look like excuses, however. Cost overuns, according to Naval Group, were due to several factors, like changes in requirements and Euro exchange rates. Technologies transfers and the "made in Australia" were never questioned. And the project was on schedule.
My feeling, so far, is that this failure is not because of France, it is a change in strategy. The 'Shortfin' beeing designed by the Japanese or the Germans would have make no difference. Australia is going for US protection, and the requirements are simply outdated.
Anyway, future will tell. Either Australia pays the penalties, or it goes to court. We'll see then who is right and who is wrong. I have no more information about that than what can be found in public medias, so it is just my thoughts.
We have now more information about this Aukus alliance: The UK starts working on an Astute class replacement. UK has voted 200 millions £ budget few days ago. To be delivered in 2040. Australia will likely be part of the project.
In the meantime, for at least 20 years, the USA and the UK will "share" their own submarines, as part of the Aukus alliance. The form is still unclear. Will Australia obtain some subs on loan from the US or the UK, after crews are trained? Will the US and UK subs patrol the seas on behalf of Australia, with only some crew members being Australian?
What was announced is that the subs will not be based in Australia, but that the country will welcome some US and UK military.
1
-
1
-
@michaeldobson107 Do you know what "fair competition" is? Is it "fair competition" if a signed contract with a country can fall apart simply because your ally decides that it is better if they do it themselves?
This is a major concern. The US can kill European military industry, or parts of it, simply with that.
Designing a submarine, a fighter, costs billions. This cost is partly funded by foreign sales. If the manufacturer loses markets, not because the product is not good, but because some 'ally' decides so, it is not fair competition.
And the US have shown that they can play this game, under Trump, and now under Biden.
Of course, France will not go bankrupt because of the loss of this project. Most of the money was supposed to be spent in Australia, anyway. But it shows that the US is ready to play its allies and that military business rules have changed.
The EU is now fully aware of that, and is considering it.
The US have lost France trust, and I think any request from the US for EU sanctions on China will be vetoed, unless there are in the best interrest of the EU.
1
-
@michaeldobson107 I don't want to repeat myself and will go with only parts I did not address so far.
"The first of the French-designed submarines wasn't to have been delivered until 2027. That is 6 years from now."
When do you think you will receive your first sub? Will it be made in the US or the UK? When do you think the first one "made in Australia" will be launched, if any?
"Generally, these sort of outside military contracts are generally FULLY funded by foreign sales."
On the contrary, most large projects are funded by the country's taxpayers. The manufacturer tries to sell them abroad, but costs have already been covered, except for modifications specifically asked by the customer.
"Tell me, what has the Naval Group done with nearly $2 billion (USD) dollars, and what do the Australians have to show for that expenditure?"
According to Naval Group, they were ready for the acceptance review of the current phase, after which the next phase negociated in last August could have started.
"Tell me, why would a manufacturer "lose markets?" Because of dumping?
"The US is without peer in the arena of military sales worldwide.""The US OWNS the market." According to the SIPRI, USA export market share is 37%, the EU 20%. That's not "without peer".
"France has NOTHING comparable to US military tech."
Nuclear and conventional submarines, nuclear aircraft carrier, advanced naval fighter, FREMM frigate...
"How do you think French made DIESEL subs (from old designs) will match up against modern Chinese NUCLEAR subs?"
That's what Australia ASKED FOR! France proposed an SSN, more suited to the needs and cheaper in the end, but Australia REFUSED! If Australia had ordered standard Barracudas, with a French combat system in place of the US one, made in France it would have 1 or 2 subs under construction by now, maybe one launched.
"The EU is now fully aware of that, and is considering it." "You mean France is."And I hate to point out the incredible obviousness of this next statement, but absolutely no one cares what the EU thinks."'Again, I doubt the US will care much, as the US market is (again) at least twice the market in just about every category as the EU is combined."
The EU is basically the second largest economy in the world, 22% for the USA 24%. So, I don't know what you refer to, but I think the whole world does care. Look at the dispute between Airbus and Boeing. A truce was finally agreed, but the USA did not win in the end. And I don't think the Chinese don't care about any sanction the EU could vote.
"The only people that seem to be "concerned" are the French at the moment, so I fail to see your point here."
You know nothing about the EU, it seems.
"One of our member states has been treated in a way that is not acceptable, so we want to know what happened and why," Ms von der Leyen said. "First of all, clarify that before we can keep on going with business as usual."
"It is a serious issue because [the submarine deal] is a kind of attack against European interests and European industry," (German MP Bernd Lange, also chair of the European Parliament's Committee on International Trade), said.
"It's not just a case of France, also a German company is involved in this submarine project, so it is a question of how serious and how reliable Australia is."
But Mr Lange said EU nations were discussing the best way to respond and that the forthcoming trade deal between Australia and the EU could be delayed as a result of the deal.
You see, now? It is not only France which is "pissed off".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1