Active Now

Malizz
Discussion » Questions » Current Events and News » Why is France so upset that US is sharing submarine information with Aussies?

Why is France so upset that US is sharing submarine information with Aussies?

Posted - September 20, 2021

Responses


  • 19942
    They aren't upset because we are sharing that information.  They're upset because ...

    "Australia bailed on a submarine contract with France worth $66 billion last week, choosing instead to work with the United States and the United Kingdom. Outraged, France recalled its ambassadors to the U.S. and Australia."

    https://www.npr.org/2021/09/19/1038746061/submarine-deal-us-uk-australia-france
      September 20, 2021 9:42 PM MDT
    3

  • 32529
    Thank you I just heard a snippet of a report. 
      September 21, 2021 8:34 AM MDT
    1

  • 6023
    Personally, I think Australia would have been better served with the French diesel-electric subs.  They are quieter, when running submerged, than a nuclear sub.  

    Unless Australia is planning to use them for anything other than defense, they don't need the range of a nuclear sub.
      September 21, 2021 11:06 AM MDT
    3

  • 19942
    I know virtually nothing about submarines other than that they can move underwater almost undetected.  There must have been some good reason for them to cancel such a large contract with France. 
      September 21, 2021 1:18 PM MDT
    1

  • 6023
    The reason was probably "those French subs can't link to our (American) defense network".

    If you (or anyone) is interested ... here's an article from 2016, comparing nuclear vs AIP submarines (what France was selling Australia).

    https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/did-sweden-make-americas-nuclear-submarines-obsolete-18908

      September 21, 2021 2:37 PM MDT
    2

  • 19942
    Thanks.  While I generally like reading about new things, I don't think I'll be finding many conversations where I could bring up information about nuclear subs. :)
      September 21, 2021 3:45 PM MDT
    1

  • 13251
    I know nothing about submarines, but on June 18, 1977, I was in Groton, CT for the launch of a Los Angeles class nuclear sub called the USS New York City. I remember being surprised at its massive size. I found it on Wikipedia and learned that it was decommissioned and recycled in 1997. This post was edited by Stu Spelling Bee at September 22, 2021 9:47 AM MDT
      September 22, 2021 9:40 AM MDT
    0

  • 19942
    These ships are huge.  I wonder why it was scrapped after only 20 years.
      September 22, 2021 10:32 AM MDT
    0

  • 258
    and to All:

    Just want to add that the deal to purchase submarines was made by Australia with France in 2016 and while I do not know what the contract said about delivery, no submarines have been delivered to date.

    However, the most important point here, is that France was to supply conventionally powered (diesel) submarines ! (Why Australia agreed to this I have no idea; I can only assume based on cost and the then level of security threat to be countered): 
    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-09-16/why-australia-wants-nuclear-submarines/100466204

    With the new American/British deal, the Australians will get nuclear powered submarines: 
    https://theprint.in/theprint-essential/what-are-nuclear-powered-submarines-that-australia-will-acquire-under-first-aukus-initiative/735854/

    The following gives information about the advantages of nuclear powered submarines over diesel powered submarines (scroll down to view all the text): 
    https://www.online-sciences.com/the-energy/nuclear-submarines-nuclear-powered-ships-advantages-and-disadvantages/

    Conventionally powered submarines will not be a proper counter to the increase in Chinese power in the region.
    The nuclear powered submarines to be supplied are apparently not intended to carry nuclear missiles.

    The submarines under the AUKUS deal are to be built in Australia.

    Australia may lease some nuclear powered submarines from America in the meantime: 
    https://www.afr.com/policy/foreign-affairs/leased-submarines-to-fill-security-gap-20210919-p58syl


    France has expressed considerable outrage at the torpedoing of its submarine deal with Australia, because this means the loss of a significant amount of money and of related jobs. No doubt the contract that the French had with the Australians, contains provisions for compensation for such breach of contract.


    When it comes to international relations, France does not do itself any favors: Its state-owned "France 24 English" TV news service has been describing the final U.S. evacuation from Afghanistan (from the Kabul Airport) (and also therefore regarding the demise of the democratically elected Afghanistan government), as the:
    end of U.S. "occupation" ! 

    Example - "France 24 English", September 15, 2021:
    - - - - Start of extract: - - - -

    "A month after the Taliban's takeover of Afghanistan, signs of the 20-year US-led occupation are still visible at Kabul's airport -- including clear evidence of Washington's humiliating exit."

    Extract source:
    https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20210915-at-kabul-airport-remnants-of-us-war-bear-testimony-to-chaotic-exit

    - - - - End of extract - - - -

    Another example from "France 24 English", June 23, 2021:
    [Heading:] "Junkyard of empires: Afghans sift through leftovers of US occupation": 
    https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20210623-junkyard-of-empires-afghans-sift-through-leftovers-of-us-occupation

    France's insulting description of an alleged 20 year U.S. occupation of Afghanistan, despite the existence and demise of a democratically elected Afghan government, is rather strange, since France has contributed militarily there alongside the U.S.
    - - - - Start of extract: - - - -

    "[...] As of 1 November 2009, 4,000 French personnel were deployed in Afghanistan [...]
    In November 2012, France's combat troops were withdrawn from Afghanistan, leaving just the logistical contingent in the country [...]"

    Extract source
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_forces_in_Afghanistan

    - - - - End of extract - - - -

    This post was edited by Robert at September 23, 2021 11:52 PM MDT
      September 22, 2021 9:12 AM MDT
    2

  • 16199
    One reason why the French deal was inked in the first place is maintenance. Even though Australia is a major exporter of uranium ore, we have no local nuclear industry (yet - watch this space) so any repairs relating to the reactors in nuclear subs will need to be carried out overseas. Diesels we can fix here.
    The whole AUKUS deal is bunk, purely political and it cuts out Australia's staunchest and most reliable ally - New Zealand.
    If the electorate grows a brain and boots Morrison and Co at the next Federal election (possible only if people stop reading newspapers), it's highly likely that AUKUS will be torn up.
      September 22, 2021 10:02 PM MDT
    0

  • 258
    and to All:

    AUKUS seems primarily aimed at countering China's military expansion in the Pacific:
    - - - - Start of extract: - - - -

    "[...] None of the three leaders [of the AUS, UK, US] mentioned China, but there was no doubt that the initiative was a response to China’s expansionist drive in the South China Sea and increasing belligerence towards Taiwan.

    “We need to be able to address both the current strategic environment in the region, and how it may evolve, because the future of each of our nations and indeed the world, depends on a free and open Indo-Pacific enduring and flourishing in the decades ahead,” [President] Biden said. [...]"

    Extract source:
    https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/sep/15/australia-nuclear-powered-submarines-us-uk-security-partnership-aukus

    - - - - End of extract - - - -


    (This response is not intended to agree with, disagree with, nor ignore, the post from contributor Slartibartfast - My intention is just to draw the reader's attention to what I assume to be the main reason for the AUKUS agreement.)

    This post was edited by Robert at September 24, 2021 12:20 AM MDT
      September 24, 2021 12:00 AM MDT
    0

  • 16199
    So why is the UK even involved, since it has zero presence in the Indo-Pacific region? None at all.
      September 24, 2021 2:55 AM MDT
    0

  • 258
    and to All:

    The answer seems to be here:
    - - - - Start of extract: - - - -

    From: Prime Minister's Office, 10 Downing Street [, London, United Kingdom]
    Published 15 September 2021

    "[...] The UK has built and operated world-class nuclear-powered submarines for over 60 years. We will therefore bring deep expertise and experience to the project through, for example, the work carried out by Rolls Royce near Derby and BAE Systems in Barrow. [...]

    The Prime Minister [UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson] said:

    "The UK, Australia and US are natural allies – while we may be separated geographically, our interests and values are shared. The AUKUS alliance will bring us closer than ever, creating a new defence partnership and driving jobs and prosperity.

    This partnership will become increasingly vital for defending our interests in the Indo-Pacific region and, by extension, protecting our people back at home. [...]

    Extract source:
    https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-us-and-australia-launch-new-security-partnership

    - - - - End of extract - - - -


    Contributor Slartibartfast also wrote:
    "[...] it [the UK] has zero presence in the Indo-Pacific region [...]"

    - - - - Start of further extract from the above source: - - - -

    "In recent weeks the UK’s HMS Queen Elizabeth Carrier has been deployed to the Indo-Pacific region alongside personnel and equipment from the US. Last month the Carrier Strike Group undertook a series of exercises with countries including Australia to build interoperability with like-minded partners."

    - - - - End of further extract - - - -

    This post was edited by Robert at September 24, 2021 3:33 AM MDT
      September 24, 2021 3:29 AM MDT
    0

  • 16199
    Bailing on the $90bn (Australian) contract is what is upsetting them. However, the fact that Australia has to buy subs at all rather than building them locally is a savage indictment of the neglect and outright hostility of successive conservative governments towards the local manufacturing sector - and it's entirely political, a squeeze on the unions to which the manufacturing workers belong.
    I'm almost certain that Rupert has a hand it it, he doesn't own a significant stake in French media, so he can't control Macron the way he does Scummo and Boris.
      September 22, 2021 12:48 AM MDT
    1

  • 3680
    What seems unasked is what if any significance is there in that the contract with the French was for diesel engined boats, whereas the UK and UK ties are for nuclear-electric ones.

    The primary difference is that the nuclear-powered ones can patrol completely submerged and almost silently, more or less for as long as the crew can be kept fed. They can be detected only by listening on hydrophones, and they are very, very quiet. Submariners, who seem to call their vessels "boats" rather then "ships",  pride themselves on being the "Silent Service" *.

    A conventional diesel-electric boat using batteries when completely submerged has to cruise on the surface, or at least at shallow depth using its snorkel, to recharge the batteries. In that state life aboard must be rather grim in heavy seas, but more seriously they are far easier to detect and track, even in shallow submergence: by sonar submerged, radar or ariel/satellite reconnaisance on the surface.

    So might it be that the Australians have decided to replace their diesel with nuclear-powered boats, but have done so in a clumsy fashion, peremptorily breaking the contract instead of letting it run its course or perhaps negotiating shortening it?

    '

    *(The idea that any navy's vessels, especially submarines, go around the oceans emitting loud ASDIC "pings" all the time is a Hollywood and green-activist myth based on WW2 tactics for homing in on a nearby enemy submarine. They can, but don't because a series of "pings" travels a long way underwater, obviously revealing their own vessel's position and course. )  
      September 22, 2021 5:01 AM MDT
    3

  • 16199
    France has been building nuclear subs for a generation. They actually had them before the UK did. Scott Morrison's boss, however, has a negligible media footprint in France, so he'd rather do business where his displeasure with any decisions has political ramifications.
      September 22, 2021 5:09 AM MDT
    2

  • 6023
    If you follow my link, you will see that diesel submarines have come a long way.
    Even in 2016, they had technology that allows them to be more quiet than nuclear subs and stay submerged for weeks. 
      September 22, 2021 7:17 AM MDT
    1

  • 258
    The following gives information about the advantages of nuclear powered submarines over diesel powered submarines (scroll down to view all the text): 
    https://www.online-sciences.com/the-energy/nuclear-submarines-nuclear-powered-ships-advantages-and-disadvantages/

      September 22, 2021 9:37 AM MDT
    0

  • 2217
    Pot calling kettle black.

    France shares with EU which leaks info to the whole world. 

      September 22, 2021 6:12 AM MDT
    2