Furious French defence contractor to seek compensation over Aukus deal
Head of Naval Group attacks Australia’s ‘political’ decision to cancel €56bn contract with his firm
The Virginia-class fast-attack submarine, the USS Illinois. Australia has scrapped an order for 12 similar submarines from France’s Naval Group in favour of a deal with the US and UK to provide nuclear-powered submarines. Photograph: Petty Officer 1st Class Michael B Zingaro/AP
Australia has signed up to an empty promise by agreeing to a US nuclear powered submarine deal for which there is no clear delivery date or technology transfer agreement, the furious head of the French defence contractor Naval Group has warned.
Pierre Eric Pommellet also said his firm will be seeking compensation for Australia’s cancellation of a €56bn (£48bn) contract for 12 new Attack-class submarines, which he described as a purely political decision which came without warning.
His comments to Le Figaro were the latest allegations that Australia’s decision to replace the French contract with the Aukus deal with the UK and US was political rather than defence-based. Australia has implied that the contract cancellation followed a new assessment of the security threat posed by China.
Pommellet said the only tangible point of the proposed new contract “is the decision to acquire nuclear powered boats. When, how, with which partners, which technological transfer? No one knows. Australia, on the other hand, knows what it is losing and what we were committed to building.”
He added: “At Naval Group … we had no warning sign or the slightest information that we were becoming a plan B in favour of a plan A with the United States and the United Kingdom.
“Discussions between these two countries and Australia have undoubtedly been conducted in a very small circle at the highest political level for several months.
“This decision was announced to us without any notice, with incredible brutality.”
The submarine contract, Australia’s biggest defence acquisition, had been plagued by delays, cost blowouts, and disputes over local industry involvement.
But the French ministry of defence said this week that Australian military officials sent them a letter saying they were “extremely satisfied” with French submarines just hours before they announced the cancellation of the project.
Australia has signed up to an empty promise by agreeing to a US nuclear powered submarine deal for which there is no clear delivery date or technology transfer agreement, the furious head of the French defence contractor Naval Group has warned.
Pierre Eric Pommellet also said his firm will be seeking compensation for Australia’s cancellation of a €56bn (£48bn) contract for 12 new Attack-class submarines, which he described as a purely political decision which came without warning.
His comments to Le Figaro were the latest allegations that Australia’s decision to replace the French contract with the Aukus deal with the UK and US was political rather than defence-based. Australia has implied that the contract cancellation followed a new assessment of the security threat posed by China.
Pommellet said the only tangible point of the proposed new contract “is the decision to acquire nuclear powered boats. When, how, with which partners, which technological transfer? No one knows. Australia, on the other hand, knows what it is losing and what we were committed to building.”
He added: “At Naval Group … we had no warning sign or the slightest information that we were becoming a plan B in favour of a plan A with the United States and the United Kingdom.
“Discussions between these two countries and Australia have undoubtedly been conducted in a very small circle at the highest political level for several months.
“This decision was announced to us without any notice, with incredible brutality.”
The submarine contract, Australia’s biggest defence acquisition, had been plagued by delays, cost blowouts, and disputes over local industry involvement.
But the French ministry of defence said this week that Australian military officials sent them a letter saying they were “extremely satisfied” with French submarines just hours before they announced the cancellation of the project.
Aukus: Australia sent ‘extremely satisfied’ letter hours before axing French contract
The Australian government has played down the significance of the letter to Naval Group, but Pommellet rejected claims that Canberra had given a clear warning that the contract was risk.
“All the lights were green. On the morning of 15 September, we received a letter officially informing us that the Australian government had accepted our offer as well as the technical choices that would have made it possible to initiate a new phase of the programme, called ‘basic design’ of the submarines. Everything was OK to finish the negotiation and sign this new contract quickly.”
He said the claim for compensation will be given to the Australian government in a few weeks, adding “as an industrialist, we will assert all our rights”.
In the interview he continually sought to defend the reputation of his firm, saying the cost increases were due to the Australian government reassessing its security needs, including increasing its requirements from eight to 12 submarines.
Its technical requirements have also evolved, particularly in cybersecurity, a theme that was less significant in 2016, when the contract was first signed.
He insisted Naval Group was the only company in the world with the knowhow to produce both conventional and nuclear submarines, implying his firm should have been allowed to bid if Australia had decided to rewrite the contract specifications.
[An earlier photograph showed a Los Angeles class submarine. The Virginia class submarine is similar to the vessels Australia was to buy from France’s Naval Group]
The Australian government has played down the significance of the letter to Naval Group, but Pommellet rejected claims that Canberra had given a clear warning that the contract was risk.
“All the lights were green. On the morning of 15 September, we received a letter officially informing us that the Australian government had accepted our offer as well as the technical choices that would have made it possible to initiate a new phase of the programme, called ‘basic design’ of the submarines. Everything was OK to finish the negotiation and sign this new contract quickly.”
He said the claim for compensation will be given to the Australian government in a few weeks, adding “as an industrialist, we will assert all our rights”.
In the interview he continually sought to defend the reputation of his firm, saying the cost increases were due to the Australian government reassessing its security needs, including increasing its requirements from eight to 12 submarines.
Its technical requirements have also evolved, particularly in cybersecurity, a theme that was less significant in 2016, when the contract was first signed.
He insisted Naval Group was the only company in the world with the knowhow to produce both conventional and nuclear submarines, implying his firm should have been allowed to bid if Australia had decided to rewrite the contract specifications.
[An earlier photograph showed a Los Angeles class submarine. The Virginia class submarine is similar to the vessels Australia was to buy from France’s Naval Group]
The compensation would be miniscule compared to the savings and what Oz would be getting, fit for purpose. Like Malay-sia paid compensation to Sin-Jia-poe for the abandoned HSR that would have been a complete waste of money.
ReplyDelete...Frenchie s'il te plait ne fais pas semblant d'être stupide...
QUOTE
Australian documents showed French submarine project was at risk for years
By Kirsty Needham
SYDNEY, Sept 21 (Reuters) - France should not have been surprised that Australia cancelled a submarine contract, as major concerns about delays, cost overruns and suitability had been aired officially and publicly for years, Australian politicians said....
...as early as September 2018, an independent oversight board led by a former U.S. Secretary of the Navy Donald Winter had advised Australia to look at alternatives, and questioned whether the project was in the national interest, a 2020 public report from the country's Auditor-General shows.
Australian parliamentary hearings and reports on the project, first priced at $40 billion and more recently at $60 billion, even before construction had begun, also showed problems emerging. In June the defence secretary told parliament "contingency planning" for the programme was under way.
"They would have to have their eyes shut not to realise the danger they were facing," said Rex Patrick, an independent senator for South Australia, referring to France.
Government ministers said this week Canberra had been "up front" with Paris about the problems.
A French lawmaker also raised questions in parliament in June about Australian concerns over delays, and whether Australia might be considering submarine alternatives, French parliamentary records show...
...The deal was first announced in 2016. A pre-design review was delayed in 2018 because the "work provided to Defence by Naval Group did not meet Defence's requirements", the Australian audit said, citing lack of design detail, operational requirements and 63 studies not completed.
The contract between Australia and Naval Group, majority owned by the French government, was signed 16 months late in February 2019....
...It included contractual off-ramps in which Australia could pay to exit the project, and established "control gates" whereby Naval Group must meet criteria before progressing to the next phase. The defence department considered these "hold points" for assessing the project's risk, the Auditor-General said.
In September 2019, with A$446 million ($325 million) already spent in France, the defence department told the auditor it had examined extending the life of Australia's Collins-class submarine fleet "and the time this would allow to develop a new acquisition strategy".
The 2020 Auditor-General's report examining the submarine deal - the Department of Defence's biggest ever - found the department had been "frank and timely" in communicating concerns with Naval Group.
UNQUOTE
Wakakakakaka…
DeleteQu'est-il arrivé aux vues françaises!!!
- as September 2018, an independent oversight board led by a former U.S. Secretary of the Navy Donald Winter had advised Australia to look at alternatives.
Wakakakaka… truly independent!
- The deal was first announced in 2016. A pre-design review was delayed in 2018 because the "work provided to Defence by Naval Group did not meet Defence's requirements"
The contract was signed based on the well operational Baraccuda-class diesel subs.
The French Barracuda class bdiesrl subs ISN'T a new design on board. It's already doing its round under the sea!
Delays caused by "work provided to Defence by Naval Group did not meet Defence's requirements"??!!
Blame the French!
What about the incompetent & blurred Oz as in
The 2020 Auditor-General's report examining the submarine deal - the Department of Defence's biggest ever - found the department had been "frank and timely" in communicating concerns with Naval Group.
Wakakakakaka…
A truly & genuine know-nothing c&p fart from a bored katak dibawah perigi - bravo!
"An earlier photograph showed a Los Angeles class submarine. The Virginia class submarine is similar to the vessels Australia was to buy from France’s Naval Group"
ReplyDeletePatently untrue.
The Virginia Class would have eaten the Barracuda for Breakfast.
Old moneyed mfer, r u comparing apple to apple?
DeleteOr durian seed to peanut?
Virginia class is a nuclear-powered cruise missile fast-attack submarine. While the Oz ordered the diesel version of the newer French Barracuda attack subs.
BTW, the model that Oz is going to 'finally' get wouldn't be the Virginia class. Too expensive!
Rumors have it that it would be based on the pommie's aging Astute class attacking sub. The more advanced Trafalgar class is still a problematic work in design!
The Aukus pact works along the principle of using Pommie design + Yankee upgrades & know-how + Oz paymaster!