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

Thank you I just heard a snippet of a report. 

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.

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. 

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

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. :)

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

These ships are huge.  I wonder why it was scrapped after only 20 years.

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

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.

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

So why is the UK even involved, since it has zero presence in the Indo-Pacific region? None at all.

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

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.

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. 

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/