Naval Group and the government of Australia have reached what they call a “fair and equitable settlement to bring a conclusion to the Future Submarine Program”, following Australia’s decision to work with the United States and United Kingdom to procure nuclear-powered submarines.
Naval Group said it has worked closely with and assisted its partners and subcontractors in Australia and France and said “Naval Group pays tribute to all individuals, teams, and its partners who have worked and delivered on this program for more than five years. Naval Group also recognises the important work of those who contributed to the discussions leading to this agreement.”
The prime minister’s office of Australia said “the former government made the decision to terminate the contract on the basis of advice about capability requirements for the Australian Defence Force—advice that was accepted by Labor in opposition.
“We have reached a fair and equitable settlement of €555 million (around $830 million) with Naval Group. Now that the matter is resolved we can move forward with the relationship with France,” the government’s statement said. “Australia and France share deep historical ties of friendship, forged in common sacrifice in war. We are both vibrant democracies, committed to upholding human rights and fundamental values. We deeply respect France’s role and active engagement in the Indo-Pacific. Given the gravity of the challenges that we face both in the region and globally, it is essential that Australia and France once again unite to defend our shared principles and interests: the primacy of international law; respect for sovereignty; the rejection of all forms of coercion; and taking resolute action on climate change.”
For Editorial Inquiries Contact:
Editor Kym Bergmann at kym.bergmann@venturamedia.net
For Advertising Inquiries Contact:
Director of Sales Graham Joss at graham.joss@venturamedia.net
Can someone explain to me why We have to pay Naval Group for failing to deliver on a contract that they signed to deliver a product that they had no idea how to build and no intention of adhering too.
Would it not have been easier to just switch to the French nuke. It doesnt look like the US or UK options are available right now. Both seem to have no room in the line pushing entry date way out
I think it’s something that should be explored in detail. Critics say that because French submarines need to be refuelled every 10 years – but I think that’s something we need to know a lot more about rather than just dismissing the idea – as Defence and the previous government have done repeatedly.
With the help of the US and UK, Australia should build its own nuclear submarines. The idea that we can’t do it is backward and unthinking. Physicist Mark Oliphant, who made the UK aware of the US desire to keep all nuclear weapons technology to itself, was involved in the first nuclear weapon development program in 1943. Australia built its first nuclear reactor in 1958 before many other countries. We tested nuclear weapons along with the British, years before many other countries. Saying we can’t build our own submarines is a slap in the face to the strength, abilities, and talent that our universities are producing every day. It is time for us to reclaim fully our nuclear pathway that we had many years ago.
You raise some interesting points.