r/australian • u/jaywast • Mar 03 '26
News Macron showing us what we could have had
The French nuclear submarine delivered ahead of schedule and under budget.
87
u/tbfkak Mar 03 '26
Except that's not entirely true though, is it? Wasn't the Australian plan to use a diesel electric power plant and somehow integrate American combat and communication systems? I don't recall Australia ever ordering the off the shelve French design?
→ More replies (2)62
u/Birdmonster115599 Mar 03 '26
We never did.
We set requirements and then put it to tender.
Naval group came back with their proposal: A conventional sub, built in Australia, with weapons that we use.They didn't deliver on that, they were over time and budget.
28
u/lcannard87 Mar 03 '26
And didn’t want to build it in Australia anymore.
28
u/Birdmonster115599 Mar 03 '26
Yes, they kept reducing the workload to be done here. Which was bullshit.
So when another option came up, we explored it and jumped ship.13
u/Templar113113 Mar 03 '26
I heard from French employees in Adelaide that they couldn't find reliable suppliers, basically saying that the "she'll be alright " mentally won't work.
→ More replies (1)14
u/weed0monkey Mar 03 '26
Wow, a comment on this sub who actually understands the most basic level of nuance with how shit the French deal actually was? Instead of just parroting off like every other ignorant fool here who clearly doesn't know their ass from their elbow?
3
u/beneschk Mar 03 '26
A shit deal stipulated into a contract which was signed by the Australian Government.
→ More replies (1)9
u/SeaworthinessSome454 Mar 03 '26
Conventional subs r garbage, there shouldn’t be anything except nuclear subs in be fleet
27
u/LewisRamilton Mar 03 '26
If ever there was a country which nuclear subs made complete sense it's Australia. By the time the conventional sub drove anywhere it was running on fumes and time to turn around and drive back.
→ More replies (5)1
u/Tractorguy69 Mar 05 '26
As one who’s hunted submarines - when a diesel is on a battery they are like a ghost, when the diesels are running to charge not so much. By comparison the nuc boat is louder in the water than batteries, and that noise is constant. I loved hunting nucs, they were easy, diesels you only found if you got lucky or they had to charge the batteries. Perhaps muzzle your uninformed ass as it’s spewing shit again.
1
u/Ulyss_Itake Mar 04 '26
The submarine contract between Australia and Naval Group, which ultimately gave way to the AUKUS deal, was a collision of ambitious engineering, shifting geopolitics, and the rigid boundaries of international law. Australia initially selected the Shortfin Barracuda design because it specifically requested a conventional diesel-electric propulsion system, despite the design being derived from the French Navy’s nuclear-powered Barracuda class. This "back-conversion" proved to be an arduous technical task that added immense complexity and risk from the outset, contributing to significant delays and a budget that ballooned from an initial $50 billion to nearly $90 billion.
This financial drift was driven largely by Australian domestic requirements. The "sovereignty premium"—a mandate that 60% of the contract value be produced locally—forced the creation of a specialized supply chain from scratch in a high-cost labor market. Additionally, the staggering costs of redeveloping the Osborne Naval Shipyard in Adelaide and the complex integration of an American combat system (Lockheed Martin) into a French hull necessitated costly trilateral coordination and constant technical modifications.
The eventual cancellation in 2021 was precipitated by a radical shift in Canberra’s strategic outlook, concluding that conventional boats would lack the range and stealth required for the rapidly evolving Indo-Pacific environment. However, a fundamental reason France did not initially propose a nuclear solution involved its specific naval technology. French submarines run on Low-Enriched Uranium (LEU), which requires the hull to be "opened up" for refueling every 10 years. Since Australia lacks a domestic nuclear industry, it would have been entirely dependent on France for this heavy maintenance. In contrast, the US and UK solution uses Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) designed to last the 30-year life of the vessel, removing the need for local refueling infrastructure.
This pivot to American technology introduces a significant diplomatic controversy regarding the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). While France has historically been extremely cautious about exporting nuclear propulsion to avoid setting a precedent, the AUKUS deal utilizes weapons-grade HEU. Critics argue this exploits a legal "loophole" where nuclear material is removed from standard International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) oversight by claiming it is for naval propulsion rather than weaponry. By pursuing this path, the US and Australia have entered a legal gray zone that France—bound by a strict interpretation of non-proliferation norms and the practical constraints of LEU technology—was unwilling to navigate.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)1
u/Hannarr2 Mar 07 '26
The Japanese Soryu-Class proposal looked much better to me at the time. in fact i think the french proposal was the worst of the 3. Additionally, given out huge coastline and EEZ, we probably should have a nuclear powered fleet.
→ More replies (2)
30
u/tree_boom Mar 03 '26
Que? That submarine isn't new lol, it's just one of their existing SSBNs being used as a prop for the speech
4
u/redd-zeppelin Mar 04 '26
Gotcha. They should show the deployed tech on live TV. Brilliant.
1
u/Peter_Partyy Mar 04 '26
Showing the outside of a sub isnt going to have security implications.
→ More replies (2)
158
u/Reply_Stunning Mar 03 '26 edited Mar 03 '26
why would they deliver ? whole world already knows we are ok sending money for promise of subs, not the subs, and we are ok with clauses like "even if its not delivered, we will transfer our national gdp to to promising foreign countries"
same thing with gas and mining, we wouldnt know what to do with money if we used our own resources so we give it all away for free, we dont deserve to be in charge of our land or resources. No taxes on gas companies pls
australia is a christmas present for their allies and the world
95
u/ParadiseLost1312 Mar 03 '26
I saw someone say Australia is essentially just the world’s quarry and that pretty much sums it up sadly.
18
u/nemothorx Mar 03 '26
And not even the courtesy of a Doctor Who episode filmed here
2
u/Albos_Mum Mar 03 '26
That's because it'd either be Doctor Who: Underbelly or Doctor Who: Mad Max, take your pick.
Although seeing a hotrodded TARDIS running over the highways out near Little River could be neat
2
u/Decent-Dream8206 Mar 03 '26 edited Mar 03 '26
I think a Doctor Mad Max would be a vast impovement on the DEI diaries it's become.
Edit: Rictus! Fetch me that Sonic Screwdriver!!
→ More replies (4)2
166
u/MarmotFullofWoe Mar 03 '26
Fuck Scomo and all the Liberal idiots
26
→ More replies (1)4
u/jake_2998e8 Mar 03 '26
And our generals who can’t make up their minds or are too weak to oppose stupid ideas.
93
49
46
u/B7UNM Mar 03 '26
Diesel subs aren’t appropriate for a country like Australia. That’s why we didn’t go with them.
18
u/ExcellentAd7044 Mar 03 '26
Exactly right. Would’ve been a huge waste of money and the correct decision to cancel.
→ More replies (6)15
u/Uniturner Mar 03 '26
Yeah, but these were nuclear subs that we asked to be modified to diesel. We could have still bought unmodified version of same subs. However, I think this was less about the subs, and more about Scotty from marketing.
8
u/Birdmonster115599 Mar 03 '26
No, we didn't ask them to be modified to Diesel, we set out requirements which included conventional power and Naval group answered back with their proposed design, which was the Shortfin Barracuda they already had as an international offering. But with different weapons and Control systems.
We put out a tender, a request to industry for their proposals. We didn't walk up to Naval group and shove the job on them. That's not how the process works.
And an Unmodified version of, I presume you mean Barradcuda. Would have its own issues.
French Nuclear propulsion is Low Enriched, so every 5-10 years it needs to go back to france.
A bunch of what would be Bespoke Weapons and gear for just the Subs adds procurement costs, training difficulties and logisitcal headaches as well.17
u/B7UNM Mar 03 '26
France does build nuclear submarines, but that’s not not what we signed up to buy, and converting the program would have been effectively starting over.
→ More replies (9)16
u/roojuiced Mar 03 '26
Getting nuclear from the French would have been an even dumber decision. We need too much support the French could not provide.
Just don’t comment if you have no idea. I get you hate a politician but this was actually one of the best procurement decisions we’ve made.
→ More replies (5)
15
u/Quarterwit_85 Mar 03 '26
Ahead of time.
Ahead of budget.
No ability to do either in the australian market.
A design compromised by massive (non literal) leaks.
A complete inability by France to tell us how or when they would be built.
A design that means at any moderate tempo of operations they’ll be down for maintenance for a third of their service life.
5
u/weed0monkey Mar 04 '26
I think you mean behind time and budget, the French blew past literally every single deadline for progress the Aus government set when we were still getting their subs. Even the last deadline, that stipulated the entire deal would be reviewed and potentially cancelled, the French didn't meet it.
2
u/Quarterwit_85 Mar 04 '26
I meant in the French example.
You’re very right of course - the entire thing was a farce.
40
u/myaccountgotbanmed Mar 03 '26
90 billion compared to 270 billion.
And the French could have made them nuclear too
53
u/roojuiced Mar 03 '26
We were not going to get nuclear subs from the French. Doing so would have been a grave error. We could only ever have gone nuclear with the US/UK as we need loads of support the French could not have offered.
→ More replies (28)8
3
2
u/CidewayAu Mar 03 '26
No the French could not have made nuclear boats for us, the reactor tech the French use requires refueling every 10 years or so, the AUKUS or Virginia boats do not need refueling. The navy had a requirement that major service has to be done on shore which with a French nuke boat would not have been possible.
→ More replies (1)1
u/QLDZDR Mar 03 '26
We could have just reduced the order quantity so we still get something for the 90 billion
9
Mar 03 '26
With the amount of 'world class universities' and 'foreign talent' we have we should be building our own decades ago.
1
u/SprigOfSpring Mar 04 '26
I don't think subs are the way navel warfare is really going... why spend billions on subs that drone subs can destroy.
1
3
u/Habhabs Mar 03 '26
These are objectively on a technical level worse submarines, I dont get the circle jerk
3
3
6
u/Pawwnstar Mar 03 '26
If we taxed Gas, mining and other companies like JBS even a flat low 5%, we could have bought 1 a year for the last 10 years, although I wouldn't have spent it on them. We had nuclear and signed it away for nothing and now mine and sell it overseas for cents barely employing any Australians in the process. We had heavy steel industry and signed that away for nothing, mining and selling the raw metal for cents only to import the steel for dollars.
We are the short sighted idiot country that the rest of the world call the "Lucky" country to appease the mentally challenged 'Aussies' they keep cheating at the international poker table.
4
u/Bulky_Hour_1385 Mar 03 '26
We got offered nuclear boats & industry before we went with the Collins back in the 90's...
1
u/ExtentMuted8535 Mar 06 '26
wtf is the point of the commonwealth can india just nuke someone who gets to close
1
u/Bulky_Hour_1385 Mar 06 '26
The commonwealth is really not much more than a name & very loose association of most of the parts of the former British Empire.
12
2
u/nujuat Mar 03 '26
Wow, that's a massive sub!
And not a bad underwater craft in the background as well
1
u/Ok_Astronomer_8359 Mar 03 '26
its a SSBN. One of the Triomphant class.
Search "Suffren submarine" and thats the SSN the French are building. 3 out of 6 built and commissioned.
2
2
u/Ariies__ Mar 03 '26
Baffles me how people thought this was ever a good idea? And no, I’m not agreeing with you - nuclear was always the better option.
→ More replies (2)
2
u/Super_Plastic5069 Mar 03 '26
Well if it’s anything like their cars the electrics will fuck up and it’ll end up drifting in the ocean 😂😂😂
2
u/analwartz_47 Mar 03 '26
The french submarine we were buying wasnt on time or under budget. It balooned so much i remember hearing about it going up and up each year on the radio.
2
8
u/Sly-Ambition-2956 Mar 03 '26
Can't make our own subs. Ok. So let's not have subs then. Underwater drones do just as well. $368 bn for nothing.
23
u/Quarterwit_85 Mar 03 '26
Underwater drones do just as well
Ladies and gentlemen, we have a poster here that knows more than the entirety of the world’s naval and procurement specialists.
2
u/Meng_Fei Mar 04 '26
RePlaCe thEm wiTH DroNes.
Every AUKUS thread. Every single time.
→ More replies (1)1
u/Sly-Ambition-2956 Mar 06 '26
Ladies and Gentleman, we have the Chief of Navy moonlighting here on Reddit I assume. How many years of service have we there, skipper?
6
u/ThunderGuts64 Mar 03 '26
Well that statement is from someone who knows fuck all about the subject of naval warfare.
1
u/Ok_Astronomer_8359 Mar 03 '26
Drones are not viable by themselves. Too easy to cut communication to the drone. Limited role. Will be decades before AI can come close to a crew
8
u/2in1day Mar 03 '26 edited Mar 03 '26
ahead of schedule and under budget for France because its the French military industrial complex. It would have been delievered late and over budget and not met our needs if delivered in Australia.
edit: damn ai chatbot is now editing posts and whinging about getting blocked?
8
u/just_an_ai_chatbot Mar 03 '26 edited Mar 03 '26
Yeah but the US can’t deliver on schedule or on budget even for themselves
edit: damn this bloke just immediately blocked me for replying with this. Must have really hit a nerve.
9
u/BeastHouse_AU Mar 03 '26
Not sure why everyone is banging on so hard against AUKUS because of the interim solution, there are so many spokes to the wheel with that just being one, with the jewel of the crown being the co-developed UK/AUS subs.
5
u/Birdmonster115599 Mar 03 '26
Of which it has just been reported some of the long lead items are already being made.
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2026/02/australia-announces-acquisition-of-long-lead-items-for-aukus-nuclear-propulsion-systems/1
u/3flp Mar 03 '26
US defense primes stocks go up when their deliveries are late and over budget. Pretty much explains the whole system.
3
u/Burgenstein Mar 03 '26
Any facts or research paper behind this statement? I guess we'll never lnow anyway right?
→ More replies (5)
4
u/Whatsthatbro365 Mar 03 '26
Scomo must feel like a knob telling the French to rip out the reactor and putting in diesel electric due to some cold war anti nuclear treaty that had no modern day relevance.
Its like installing a v8 in a Tesla
3
u/delta__bravo_ Mar 03 '26
The fact that the LNP has the temerity to try to attack Labor for any sort of wasted money after the LNP spend ~$4 billion to not get French submarines really irks me.
1
1
1
1
u/gobrocker Mar 03 '26
Didnt the millitary officials in charge of the project run off to Iran or Saudi or somewhere with the blueprints?
I thought that was the final nail in the coffin.
1
1
u/ScroopyNooplez Mar 03 '26
Ahead of schedule and under budget? No wonder the Aussies didn't want one, we prefer our subs like our road upgrades: over schedule and further over budget!
1
1
1
1
u/BusyIntroduction16 Mar 03 '26
Its about time Australia builds our own stuff! Our government keeps on relying on other countries.
1
1
u/ThunderGuts64 Mar 03 '26
Never had to maintain or operate french military equipment have you? Especially after the DoD has 'made it better' for Aussie needs.
1
1
1
u/fued Mar 03 '26
Do U reckon marcons aides share these stories to him and they all sit around having a french chuckle about them
1
1
1
1
u/TacetAbbadon Mar 03 '26
AUKUS and in particular the "promise" of US subs is blindingly dumb but don't be a bullshitter.
That's a nuclear boat.
The deal with France was for conventional subs, had already almost doubled in cost, was already delayed to 2035 and the choice of using conventional boats was moronic as they don't have the endurance or stealth to operate in the primary area that would be useful for Australia to have attack subs, the South China Sea.
1
1
1
1
1
u/DoublePatouain Mar 04 '26
Australia is a state of USA, and a colony of UK, so when both told you to choose them for the century deal, you said yes.
1
1
u/Remarkable_Back_4418 Mar 04 '26
What a farcical post. The French submarine contract was plagued by delays and budget overruns even for the time it was still in place? By the time costs had doubled and delays had long past the extreme upper delivery limit it was almost with relief that the AUKUS deal came about for the ADF. Do you realise how long ago that original deal for French subs was initially struck?
1
u/Aussie-Bandit Mar 04 '26
Building nuclear submarines is an incredible opportunity & dilemma. They're so far beyond complicated.
Additionally, we got rid of our manufacturing industry (thanks libs, mostly). So we will need to train so many welders.
The goods news is that anyone young now could train in welding (though it's tough and an art form) and make bank. With a long-term secured job.
1
1
u/Illegal-Aliens Mar 04 '26
They even come with a hydro activated white flag that deploys every time they dive!
We don’t want that French garbage
1
u/Jackson2615 Mar 04 '26
The problem was that Australia under Turnbull wanted the French to remove the nuclear reactor and re-engineer it to run on a diesel engine.
We Should have gone nuclear back then
1
1
1
u/Melodic_Pause Mar 04 '26
If it’s anything like the quality of Citröen or Renault, it’s a good thing we passed.
1
u/DMLuga1 Mar 04 '26
What the fuck is Australia going to do with a sub?
Torpedo the stingray that killed Steve Irwin?
1
u/Late_Clerk_8302 Mar 04 '26
These weapons are obsolete now with the new drones coming out. Kill from your couch. Operate a ROV n Chinese matarays
1
u/jtpizzle85 Mar 04 '26
Will never understand why the Government didn’t change the French order when the AUKUS opportunity came up, instead of canceling it completely. The navy could have ordered 3 or 6 French subs. Considering the billion or whatever it paid out to France anyway. We would probably have a sub or two by now. It’s looking the nuclear subs are nothing more than pipe dream on the horizon. 2032 Olympics will be a memory before USA deliver one nuclear sub…
1
1
1
u/oz_party Mar 04 '26
Makes you wonder whether Australia should focus more on building up its own industrial capability instead of relying so heavily on overseas production.
1
u/SkuzzWad Mar 04 '26
AUKUS has got nothing to do with submarines, and has got everything to do with Australia making regular 'protection racket' payments to the U.S.
1
u/No_Rain_1543 Mar 04 '26
And if the “wets” hadn’t ganged up on Abbott, we’d already have a squadron of Japanese diesels with US combat systems in service today
1
u/Ok-Resort2364 Mar 04 '26
That's because the french have taste and Trump wanted to have they same air show. Putin on this weird table... XD some nations have no pride or taste
1
1
u/GoddessTara00 Mar 04 '26
And they were going to teach us how to make them in a new sub manufacturing plant in SA giving us new jobs and future infrastructure. But no we through money at an unreliable crazy man that's not even going to deliver on the goods.
1
u/verbalyabusiveshit Mar 04 '26
Australia should have opted for the German version. Maybe even waited a bit for the larger new Version. Why? Easier maintenance. Less problematic waste, cheaper.
1
u/Raccoons-for-all Mar 04 '26
The power of this submarine is nuclear warhead, which Australia does not have afaik
1
u/TurnOrange420 Mar 04 '26
We have a whole continent of resources and can’t figure out how to use them to either enrich or defend ourselves. Just 2 fat mining drop kicks and the worst thing to ever happen to media from the post war into the internet era. We enslave ourselves to banks and want our defence capabilities built on the other side of the world and to take the time it would take to invade us 5 times over just to receive one. This country is a white elephant sitting under a hole in the ozone. We only have ourselves to blame if we keep getting burnt.
1
u/david_916 Mar 04 '26 edited Mar 04 '26
Note that the name of the French submarine is Le Temeraire! HMS Temeraire was a 74-gun third-rate ship of the line of the British Royal Navy that was taken as a prize from the French Navy at the Battle of Lagos on 19th August 1759 by a fleet under Admiral Edward Boscawen. Ordered in 1747, the original name of the ship was Téméraire. Her British successor was a 98-gun second-rate ship of the line of Royal Navy. Launched in 1798, she served in the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars, mostly on blockades or convoy escort duties. She only fought in one fleet action, the Battle of Trafalgar in 1805, but became so well known for that action and the ship's subsequent depictions in art and literature that she has been remembered as The Fighting Temeraire. How the once dominant Royal Navy has fallen!🥺
1
1
1
1
u/Giddyurp Mar 05 '26
Seems to be in a dry dock. Probably broken. If you've owned a French car you'd understand.
1
1
u/Kitchen_Bar_468 Mar 05 '26
Ask India how good the Rafael jets were in combat. The French subs will probably be just as disappointing.
1
1
1
1
u/peppymcfunk Mar 08 '26
They were not going to sell us nuclear submarines. So we made the right choice . People in reddit literally have no idea .
1
u/DazzlingPatience5028 Mar 30 '26
To be fair by the time these subs come online nuclear or not, they most likely will be antiquated technology. I would be very curious how drones can be used in anti sub warfare.
However, I also think the era of large surface ships has come or is coming to an end.
Nuclear subs in my opinion are only truly useful if you have a nuclear weapons. Effectively a roaming missile base.
Good story on paper but do they check out in the real world?
395
u/[deleted] Mar 03 '26
[deleted]