It was during a parliamentary hearing on the 2022-2023 budget that Australian taxpayers discovered on Friday 1er April, how much the termination of the contract with the French industrialist Naval Group for the acquisition of twelve diesel-electric submarines would cost them: 3.7 billion euros. Certainly a trifle compared to the amount they will have to pay to acquire British or American nuclear-powered submarines, estimated at between 80 and 115 billion euros, according to a study published in December 2021 by the Australian Institute. of strategic policy (ASPI).
“We knew that by opting for nuclear-powered submarines rather than the diesel-electric ones initially planned, the consequences would be significant. But we were ready to make tough decisions.”defended himself, Friday 1er April, Finance Minister Simon Birmingham. In early March, Prime Minister Scott Morrison described the tripartite agreement between Canberra, Washington and London (Aukus), announced in September 2021, as the “the most important defense partnership since the Anzus [le traité de sécurité signé en 1951 par l’Australie, la Nouvelle-Zélande et les Etats-Unis après la seconde guerre mondiale] »at a time when the island-continent “faces the most difficult and dangerous security environment in eighty years”. In the sights of the head of government: the rise of China in the Indo-Pacific region.
China is scary
This sum of 3.7 billion, which is only an estimate since negotiations with Naval Group are still in progress, covers all the expenses incurred by Canberra since the signing of the “deal of the century”, in 2016: the costs of the French industrialist, those of the American Lockheed Martin, which was to supply the Barracuda combat system, those of the subcontractors, not to mention the costs linked to the construction of the shipyard in Australia- Southern. Naval Group, which lost around 10% of its business (some 4 billion euros) with this contract, will only receive part of this amount.
“It’s a terrible waste, but conventionally powered submarines no longer made sense, given our changing strategic environment. China is much more aggressive and has a much greater projection capacity than we anticipated in 2016”, assures Michael Shoebridge, director of the defense program of the ASPI. Two new elements have reinforced this observation in recent months.
You have 49.22% of this article left to read. The following is for subscribers only.