It’s time for reconciliation and the resumption of relations between France and Australia, a year after the clash that followed the cancellation by the Australians of a contract for the construction of nuclear attack submarines Barracuda-like. Despite the announcement of the payment of compensation of 555 million euros to Naval Group for breach of contract, the incident had left its mark.
The return of dialogue
The visit to France on Thursday 1 September by Australian Deputy Prime Minister and Defense Minister Richard Marles illustrates the return to dialogue between the two countries after the Labor Party came to power in Canberra in the spring. Accompanied by his French counterpart Sébastien Lecornu, the Minister attended, off Brest, a joint exercise aboard the multi-mission frigate Brittanybefore going to the department of the Somme, for a ceremony to commemorate the engagement of the Australian armies in the First World War.
“We are entering a period of increasing our defense budget, modernizing our army, and we are confident and optimistic about the crucial role that the French arms industry can play in Australia to carry out this task “, assured Richard Marles, during a joint press conference.
“The French industrial base is at the disposal of the Australian government”, approved his French counterpart, welcoming a “dramatic warming of the relationship” with Australia. Sébastien Cornu said he wanted « intensifier » them “projected force operations” of France in the Pacific, evoking the possibility of “send fighter jets, maybe every two months”.
“Hit in the back”
France and Australia signed a 56 billion euro contract in December 2016 for the supply of 12 conventional submarines, derived from the future French Barracuda nuclear submarines. In September 2021, former Prime Minister Scott Morrison announced that his country would acquire nuclear-powered submarines as part of the new Aukus partnership with the United States and the United Kingdom, thus canceling the French contract. . Paris had denounced a “hit in the back” and recalled his ambassador, opening a diplomatic crisis.
The Aukus partnership included building nuclear submarines in Australia and sharing naval nuclear propulsion technology with the United States and the United Kingdom. In June, Australian analysts Marcus Hellyer and Andrew Nicholls had raised the possibility of building some of these submarines in the United States or the United Kingdom to speed up the process.
Priority to the construction of American submarines
When asked about this in a webinar last week, a senior US Navy official described this possibility in very negative terms. “If you ask my opinion, if we were to add additional submarine construction to our industrial base, it would be detrimental to us at this time, without significant investment to provide additional construction capacity,” said Admiral Scott Pappano, program director for strategic submarines.
In other words, building nuclear submarines for Australia would be too heavy a burden for already overstretched US nuclear shipyards. The top brass made it clear that the priority for the United States was to bolster its own submarine capabilities.
Some military experts say that in the event of a potential conflict with China involving Taiwan, US surface ships may not be able to enter the Taiwan Strait, due to the risk of being sunk by Chinese missiles. The U.S. military emphasizes submarines, which can operate safely in an environment that prohibits access to waterways and airspace.
According to Admiral Pappano, the construction of American submarines in fiscal year 2025 is expected to increase fivefold compared to 2020. The United States intends to make up for the reduction in capability caused by the retirement of submarines from attack in the 2020s, a submarine gap coinciding, in the late 2020s, with the period when the risk of conflict in Taiwan will be the highest.
Currently, only six countries have nuclear submarines, the five permanent members of the UN Security Council and India. The rapid advancement of Chinese capabilities worries American planners.