Submitted by TheGuvnor247 t3_10pgmfn in worldnews
Comments
Thommohawk117 t1_j6m7zki wrote
Yeah, the amount of shells this project will be making is really quite small. My feeling is that this is both an olive branch from the Aus Labor Government to France and a chance for both the Aus and French Defence industries to begin improving munitions manufacturing. A very big lesson from Ukraine for the world is just how much ammo is used in a modern war.
StrongPangolin3 t1_j6mvqbw wrote
yeah, the 'just in time' style production form the war on terror where a company sized force would be a big thing is kinda out the window now. We literally need millions of shells and billions of rifle rounds sitting ready. If anything, only the US was seriously stocking stuff in reserves, and that's probably only serendipitously happening because some ammo contract was in a marginal district or some shit.
bluGill t1_j6nc7p7 wrote
I think just in time production is correct. However what we are missing is massive numbers of factories that can scale up production fast. (including their entire supply chain). That is a lot of factories that have the ability to produce 10,000 per day, but in reality only are turned on for a few hours every year to make sure everything still works.
88rosomak t1_j6ml091 wrote
It is not modern war, it is WW1 style war. West will end war against Russia in few weeks with massive precision long range strikes destroying their communications, electricity, weapons storage and paralysing logistics. War in Ukraine is far from being modern. It is WW1 with some fancy toys.
Swift_F0x t1_j6n134x wrote
Yeah the big difference is the US and Europe have thousands of combat aircraft including hundreds of stealth aircraft capable of deep penetration through layered air defenses, something neither Russia or Ukraine have. It’s got to the point where conventional cruise missiles can be taken out by some dude with a stinger if they know they are coming too. Stealth is a necessity now.
Infinite-Outcome-591 t1_j6od7yd wrote
Any war
AtheianLibertarist t1_j6kjdp7 wrote
Damn. That Sub thing was really a big deal for y'all
Upbeat_Lingonberry18 t1_j6kpv2l wrote
ScoMo was super-incompetent on the sub thing. On lots of other things too. He's a bit of a walking travesty.
AbleApartment6152 t1_j6kvi05 wrote
Understatement of the decade.
damo_w15 t1_j6m0dov wrote
At the end of the day, nuclear submarines are much more suited to future warfare and the types of seas surrounding Australia.
It might not be a "fun" subject, but better to be fully prepared with the right equipment before any future conflicts arise, rather than figuring it out only when the danger becomes apparent.
Contagious_Cure t1_j6m6t6w wrote
The French also have nuclear subs and also submitted tenders for nuclear subs. Time will tell if the AUKUS deal delivers. I think there's already some delays. But Scomo's biggest fuck up is in diplomacy, apparently he didn't even have the balls to call Macron to tell him lol.
thevalid t1_j6mc7da wrote
French boats need to be refueled every 6-8 years and can only be refueled in France. i'm sure you can understand why this would never be workable.
oakpope t1_j6nmycp wrote
It's 10 years.
BloodyChrome t1_j6mix50 wrote
The French nuclear subs are shit. The diesel subs also were behind schedule and over budget.
Christopher135MPS t1_j6m8w1u wrote
Sure, but one of the reasons the French subs were taking so long, and costing so much, was because australia was asking France to modify their nuclear design to conventional power.
And then when we decided we wanted nuclear subs, instead of just buying existing french designs, we fucked them over and bought US subs.
Like, what the fuck? God scomo and his government were a fucking joke.
thevalid t1_j6mchqo wrote
French boats need to be refueled every 6-8 years and can only be refueled in France. i'm sure you can understand why this would never be workable.
we asked them to design a conventional boat, they choose to modify a nuke boat then start from new.
BloodyChrome t1_j6mj34e wrote
The nuclear subs from US/UK are a better choice even the ALP agreed with that. French subs are rubbish, now the conventional builds may have been taking so long and costing so much because of a modification but they knew they were making modifications and so were over budget and behind schedule even after taking all that into account
killingtime1 t1_j6m6rfr wrote
Just FYI in case you're not following as close as us Australians are, the submarines are not expected to be in the water for another 40 years. I will be 70+ by then
thevalid t1_j6mdmzv wrote
road map will drop in march so we will find out then, the only way it could even take 40 years if we dont go with an off the shelf design and build them all in aus. In all likelihood we will be using a nuke boat built in the USA by mid 2030 or early 2040
Sieve-Boy t1_j6m255f wrote
Just like the time he walked into Engadine Macca's.
Tyrx t1_j6lvx0k wrote
I'm no fan of Scott Morrison (ScoMo), but the sub issue really wasn't his fault.
Australia had signaled they were exploring alternative sub options in public forums one year piror to the actual cancellation due to contract underperformance. The decision to accept the nuclear subs deal was also supported by both major Australian political parties so it was hardly a captains call.
Macron made a huge deal out of Australia terminating the contract because the French industrial complex is state owned, and consequently it had political ramifications domestically. In the defense industry it was widely viewed as an over-the-top emotional reaction, and highlighted why doing arms deals with state-owned companies is a bad idea.
FullM3TaLJacK3T t1_j6lxb7h wrote
It's about how ScoMo handled the situation. Macron had the impression that the deal was still on, even with issues in the contract. And when ScoMo was confronted about it, he showed private text messages between him and Macron, which enraged Macron even further.
And amongst all that, the French lost the contract to nothing really. Our replacement contract is a dud. We don't know what we are getting, how many we are getting, when we are getting them and how much they will cost.
Oh and those French subs were originally nuclear subs that Australia insisted on modifying to diesel.
So, tell me, how can the French not be salty about losing the contract?
marcusaurelius_phd t1_j6mdnel wrote
> even with issues in the contract.
There was never any real issues with the contract. Just before the deal was nuked, the Australian MoD had just performed a review that found the progress satisfactory.
You're misremembering hints of problems that were planted in the conservative press by Morrisson's buddies to prepare for the betrayal.
Christopher135MPS t1_j6m93dm wrote
The nuclear-modified-to-diesel fuckery, just for us to turn around and buy nuclear subs from a different country. What an absolute gong show.
[deleted] t1_j6mj51v wrote
[removed]
Tyrx t1_j6lyvps wrote
One year isn't enough notification for Macron? The reality is that his advisors likely told him that Australia was unlikely to terminate due to no other viable options, and consequently the contract underperformance wasn't a huge deal. That turned out to be incorrect.
>And amongst all that, the French lost the contract to nothing really. Our replacement contract is a dud.
It's safe to say you don't understand the American defense industry if you are making this comment. The only concerning barrier is how quickly Australia can acquire the trained workforce to operate the nuclear submarines.
>Oh and those French subs were originally nuclear subs that Australia insisted on modifying to diesel.
I don't agree with the logic here. Australia always had specified they were looking for diesel-electric submarines. DCNS (aka the French Naval Group) responded to that request with a modified nuclear design.
With that said, fault does exist with Australia because in the end they should have better verified that DCNS had the capability of delivering on the contract. In retrospect, the Japanese/German bids likely would have been better in that regard.
>So, tell me, how can the French not be salty about losing the contract?
That's the entire problem. It was a busines decision. The French got way too emotional about the contract being revoked because there's no separation between the state and the arms industry, and the performance of said industry is basically part of their national identity now.
FullM3TaLJacK3T t1_j6m0key wrote
Lol, the only concerning barrier is acquiring a trained workforce? So, you're telling me what type of sub doesn't matter, cost don't matter, and when we are getting them don't matter?
Not to mention, ITAR restrictions don't matter? The fact that we will have highly enriched uranium and will be in violations of nuclear treaties don't matter?
Typical "Naw yeah, she'll be alright mate" australian mentality.
[deleted] t1_j6lyvh4 wrote
[deleted]
Ok-Delay5473 t1_j6m7y6o wrote
There is no need to pay if Australia did not do anything wrong. So, why did Australia pay €555m for ending the signed agreement? Oh wait! that's because they did sign an agreement. Once it's signed, it's signed! Looks like you never signed any contract.
thevalid t1_j6md2vg wrote
you understand that the contract had multiple phases and at the end of each of these phases it had an opt out clause where we would pay them for work done. this is what happened, the french knew it could happen and knew it might happened.
this is not the fuck up, the fuck up is telling them over text msg lmao.
TheGuvnor247 OP t1_j6kawbl wrote
Full Transcript Below:
Australia and France will jointly produce ammunition to be provided to Ukraine, ministers for the two countries have announced in Paris.
KEY POINTS:
*France and Australia have signed a partnership to supply ammunition to Ukraine.
*The meeting comes amid a thawing of relations between Australia and France.
*Several thousand 155-millimetre shells will be manufactured for Ukraine.
Foreign Minister Penny Wong and Defence Minister Richard Marles have announced plans for Australia and France to jointly produce ammunition to be given to Ukraine.
The pair held a press conference in Paris overnight alongside French Foreign Minister Catherine Colonna and Armed Forces Minister Sebastien Lecornu.
"We are really pleased to be able to announce today that Australia and France are working together in providing supply of 155-millimetre ammunition to Ukraine... to make sure Ukraine is able to stay in this conflict and see it concluded on its own terms," Mr Marles said.
"It represents a novel co-operation between Australian and French defence industry."
Mr Lecornu said several thousand 155-millimetre shells will be manufactured, with Australia supplying the gunpowder and French firm Nexter producing the ammunition.
"This partnership will allow us over time, over the coming weeks and months, to assist Ukraine," Mr Lecornu said.
The meeting comes amid a thawing of relations between Australia and France following the previous coalition government's decision to scrap a multibillion dollar submarine deal with the European country in favour of nuclear-powered vessels as part of the AUKUS security pact.
Ms Colonna alluded to the past tensions as she welcomed the Australian ministers.
"It is the first time that our consultations have taken place at this level - in the so-called 2+2 format - since an incident I shall not come back to," she said.
Murderface_1988 t1_j6kt9td wrote
This isn't really about the shells, it is likely moreso the Australian government trying to find any olive branch to work with the French on- they hated- really hated-Australia as a whole (unfairly) due to one politician cancelling a sub contract
MalusSylvestris t1_j6l1l9g wrote
Well it was fair and contractually permitted to exit the contract at that point, but to do so with no communication beforehand is where Morriscum messed up. So besides just giving French SI/Mil Industry contracts as an apology this is exactly what they are doing.
lewger t1_j6le9r6 wrote
Yep, I got the impression the French were taking the piss a bit with the subs prior to losing the contact. Scomo could have read them the riot act beforehand though.
Ill_Emphasis_6096 t1_j6m9iyp wrote
I'm French but fair dues to him for responding to calls from Liberals & the opposition to get more jobs in Australia if the budget was projected to increase (he inherited it from Abbott, it's fine to not be happy with it). But budgets always go up.
It's ironic that none of the disputes would've happened without the € - $AU conversion rate - looking back post-Ukraine invasion, losing a deal because the euro was just too strong in 2021 feels hilarious.
Tyrx t1_j6lwmdw wrote
Australia literally made public comments one year piror to the contract cancellation stating they were looking at alternative options. The contract underperformance was widely known and the actual cancellation didn't really come the surprise of anyone - the French just thought it was "too big to fail" so to speak.
Now, you might be able to argue the French were correct that Australia wouldn't cut its losses and terminate the contract if the nuclear sub deal wasn't on the cards. However, it's hardly the fault of Australia if it makes the desire to seek alternative options known and another viable option is presented.
If France cared that much, they should have dealt with the underperformance. It's like a business failing to deliver their services to an adequate standard, and then getting pissed off because the client went to another company. That's how business works. France gambled that Australia wouldn't have any other option than to throw good money after bad, and they lost that bet.
Ohhisseencule t1_j6olwse wrote
Literally everything you wrote is garbage propaganda that has been entirely debunked a while ago.
> In the end, France’s Naval Group gave Morrison no excuse for detonating the deal. It delivered all its contracted work on time. Australia’s Admiral “Greg Sammut reported that we’d received the report from the French and it met our requirements,” a department official said. “The reply was, ‘very good, the government will be advised’.”
> Defence gave Naval Group a formal letter confirming that the work “has been achieved as required under the Submarine Design Contract”.
Australian government were, indeed, lying cunts. Everything they "leaked" were fabricated lies with no basis in reality.
damo_w15 t1_j6m0fc7 wrote
You know this, how? Sounds like your personal opinion to me...
autotldr t1_j6kh1a7 wrote
This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 62%. (I'm a bot)
> Foreign Minister Penny Wong and Defence Minister Richard Marles have announced plans for Australia and France to jointly produce ammunition to be given to Ukraine.
> "We are really pleased to be able to announce today that Australia and France are working together in providing supply of 155-millimetre ammunition to Ukraine... to make sure Ukraine is able to stay in this conflict and see it concluded on its own terms," Mr Marles said.
> Mr Lecornu said several thousand 155-millimetre shells will be manufactured, with Australia supplying the gunpowder and French firm Nexter producing the ammunition.
Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Minister^#1 Australia^#2 France^#3 Ukraine^#4 come^#5
Clur1chaun t1_j6ks1dv wrote
Russia beat them to it.
laurenth t1_j6m8946 wrote
I love this dark humour . . . .
Infinite-Outcome-591 t1_j6od3ga wrote
Nice, thank you Australia 🇦🇺 and thank you to France 🇫🇷 Slava Ukraini 💙💛💙💛💙💛
[deleted] t1_j6m4seu wrote
[removed]
Lahm0123 t1_j6orffh wrote
It must be a nightmare for Ukraine to sort out and actually use all this military aid.
I mean a lot of it is NATO standard which probably helps. But some of it is not.
valvaro t1_j6klnlr wrote
Why cant they just do it silently? Announcement will prompt Rusia to hasten their preparation and Ukraine will lose the initiative/surprise effect.
decomposition_ t1_j6km211 wrote
Unfortunately for us Russia is not gathering their intelligence by waiting for redditors to post information on r/worldnews, so this article doesn't really change anything in regards to the element of surprise.
locri t1_j6knysu wrote
Russian intelligence advised against the invasion even during the hearing for it itself, Putin notably said "speak clearly" to the FSB head to kick him in line and say the invasion will be over quickly.
The Russian system is weird, there's a reason they're doing horribly.
decomposition_ t1_j6ko7wk wrote
Highly recommend watching Perun on YouTube, he does very thorough videos on various aspects of the Russia/Ukraine war and focuses on the strengths and weaknesses of both sides and seems to do a good job of being unbiased to either side when it comes to purely analysis of what is going on
[deleted] t1_j6kp8v9 wrote
[deleted]
Ok-Cardiologist302 t1_j6l6my9 wrote
To be fair they've always done horrible in the first year then they just keep throwing bodies at the problem till they make gains.
valvaro t1_j6kmgz3 wrote
I get that but what other things will be achieved by the announcement? If it is to coax others to do the same, I'm pretty sure all governments involved have been talking to each other behind the scene.
Jazzlike-Equipment45 t1_j6kosoy wrote
It is Austrailia and France trying to grow closer to NATO. Russia is surprsingly good at using spies and probably knew this was comming so there is little need for secrecy.
Ukraine will need regular shells as since the line is largely static Russia (a country famous for its use of arty) is in its element. It can't advance well but can make life hell. If Ukraine wants to win the arty war and go on the offensive it will need the shells to sustain a long term bombardment. Arty shells dry up really quick when you use them for long periods of time, for example the American's fired 1.2 million of them in the Ardenes offensive.
flight_recorder t1_j6lgixp wrote
For those that are wondering, the Ardennes offensive was 6 weeks.
The USA used 1.2 million artillery rounds in 6 weeks. That’s 1,100 shells per hour, every hour, for a month and a half
brettzio t1_j6kqtq1 wrote
The point is exactly to announce support on the world stage.
locri t1_j6kmc5t wrote
It's demoralising to the Russians, which is intended. Ukraine will not run out of supplies.
valvaro t1_j6kml53 wrote
Ok makes more sense, thanks
efrique t1_j6kxb8a wrote
Showing public solidarity has a number of advantages, and it's unlikely Russia would be unaware of such developments for long.
Announcements often encourage other countries to follow suit with additional help. Lots of countries announcing aid also helps spread the backlash from Russia around. It's easy for them to bully a handful of countries; its much harder when it's dozens of countries.
Kent_Knifen t1_j6kqxqj wrote
Tbh I just assume every announcement comes 2 weeks after action is made.
y2jeff t1_j6lupus wrote
It's a statement of support for Ukraine and almost certainly a popular domestic move in both countries
Yossarian465 t1_j6m61c8 wrote
Just a thought...but shouldn't they supply them before announcing it? Why tell Russia? Make em work for tmit at least geez
AMeasuredBerserker t1_j6lbrjx wrote
More of a story for Australian and French relations than one about Ukraine sadly, but at least the Ukrainians get some shells out of this modest rekindling I guess.