- Jan 12, 2011
- 25,401
- 35,580
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
He does that a lotWhy was that not an "option available with the French"?
Sounds like you made that up
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
He does that a lotWhy was that not an "option available with the French"?
Sounds like you made that up
Just quoting what was said in the Guardian article I linked earlier:Why was that not an "option available with the French"?
Sounds like you made that up
It's difficult to fathom why we went with the French deal. It sounds like there were reservations from the outset:
"The contract with France was written with several built-in escape clauses. Although the details remain secret, the Australian National Audit Office said the agreement “contains rights, remedies and incentives, including protections, ‘control gates’ in the form of mandated system reviews based on defined exit and entry criteria, and establishes contractual off-ramps”.
The ABC reported in 2019 that the confidential overarching contract – the strategic partnering agreement – would see Australia pay about $400m if it pulled out after the design was completed but before a submarine was completed."
‘Right decision’ to scrap French submarines but South Australian jobs will be lost
Senator Rex Patrick says there were doubts over the Shortfin Barracuda but ‘it’s a huge jump’ to building a nuclear submarinewww.theguardian.com
Prove it! I was accused of making it up a few weeks ago when I said it was crap NSW had received secret stashes of vaccinations and Andrews knew what he said was false. It's since come out that Andrews lied...He does that a lot
Just quoting what was said in the Guardian article I linked earlier:
"Pyne wrote that the lack of a civil nuclear industry was an “insurmountable hurdle” when Australia chose the French option in 2015-16, but access to the US technology removed that hurdle.
Brent Clark, the chief executive of the Australian Industry and Defence Network (AIDN) said it would be “common practice” for the United States or the United Kingdom to build and maintain the nuclear part of the submarine, leaving Australia with all the non-nuclear work."
My take from the above is that it wasn't an option with the French
If they're that useless, wtf did we sign a contract to build them in the first place?
Not just a liberal but the ******* minister responsible for the program. Who do you want me to quote? Brent Clark? Oh wait, I did quote the Chief Executive Officer at Australian Industry & Defence Network (AIDN National)Oh, I see, a Liberal "said"
ffs - you guys are the easiest people in the world to fool.
However, the UK/USA alliance means the nuclear work is all carried out in the United States or the United Kingdom, and the rest can be done here. That was not an option available with the French.
Just quoting what was said in the Guardian article I linked earlier:
"Pyne wrote that the lack of a civil nuclear industry was an “insurmountable hurdle” when Australia chose the French option in 2015-16, but access to the US technology removed that hurdle.
Brent Clark, the chief executive of the Australian Industry and Defence Network (AIDN) said it would be “common practice” for the United States or the United Kingdom to build and maintain the nuclear part of the submarine, leaving Australia with all the non-nuclear work."
My take from the above is that it wasn't an option with the French
It had no propulsion system because Australia insisted it could not be nuclear.
Stop speaking sh*t.
But that is what the Aus specs called for, so the French tendered on that basis
I would advocate if we are going to terminate a contract we dont do it via the media
I would advocate giving the party a chance to rebid based upon nuclear technology
I would NOT explicitly exclude them from the defence coordination part of the agreement, esp when they have more troops and vessels in the pacific than the British do
It's a back door route for the numbnuts on the back bench and the the mining companies with their hands up their arses to agitate for nuclear power in Australia. Nothing surer.
correct nut if you win a tender to build a boat, you have to deliver. If you can't deliver the contract is ripped up. Or do you think we should give them $90B for not being able to deliver what they said they could?
please wipe your lip. You've got a brown mark.
if you win a tender based on a spec you deliver or the contract is ripped up
the termination is not done through the media rather a contractual and dispute resolution process
you do not change scope and request a nuclear reactor when the fundamental issues extend beyond propulsion but the inability to have AI, drones and laser. Are you really advocating increasing costs from $90B and limiting yourself to 1980s warfare and denying the opportunity for modern warfare systems?
It's a back door route for the numbnuts on the back bench and the the mining companies with their hands up their arses to agitate for nuclear power in Australia. Nothing surer.
What's a more fundamental, more dangerous shift in Australian policy, marriage equality or nuclear power? Strikes me that an expensive non binding plebiscite might have been called for before we took this stepUSA media is already talking about how this will see australia adopt nuclear power
Jobs in Adelaide is the only reason. Smart decision would have been nuclear subs built in US or UK from the start.If they're that useless, wtf did we sign a contract to build them in the first place?
But the French had known for months that something was brewing, so to feign being blindsided is a bit richthe french learned about this via the media. scomo admitted as such, with us "trying" to call Macron once word leaked
you thinking this is a good way to do business is laughable
And how would the US Media know? Link?USA media is already talking about how this will see australia adopt nuclear power
And how would the US Media know? Link?
But the French had known for months that something was brewing, so to feign being blindsided is a bit rich
I don't profess to know a fraction of the the intricacies of what went down, but it baffles me that so many left leaning posters on this Board are suddenly experts on Foreign Affairs, complicated trade deals and contract law