France and Australia have reaffirmed their “full commitment” to ensuring local firms play a role in building Australia’s next generation submarines, after the main French contractor suggested Australian industry was not up to the job.

French Defence Minister Florence Parly met counterpart Linda Reynolds on the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference after the comments by French shipbuilder Naval Group sparked outrage.

According to a joint statement:

“Both of us reaffirmed our full commitment to the program, in particular with respect to the schedule and Australian industry capability. We are committed to work together to make it a success.”

The Naval Group consortium, partly owned by the French state, was chosen in 2016 to design and build 12 attack-class submarines for the Australian navy.

The first submarine is slated for delivery in 2032.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Helions (@guest_496149)
1 year ago

Should have gone with the latest Soryu class IMO.


Paul T
Paul T (@guest_496184)
1 year ago
Reply to  Helions

Helions – yes all three Bidder’s designs had an element of risk ,the Japanese Soryu one probably carried the least,i just hope this project doesn’t end up being a failure – its a massive undertaking for all parties.

Helions (@guest_496231)
1 year ago
Reply to  Paul T

The commonality and existing design would have worked well for that Pac Region that Oz is in. The Japanese just commissioned its first lithium ion powered version. They are now planning on a new class to succeed the Soryu.


Alex (@guest_496279)
1 year ago
Reply to  Helions

So should the RN

4thwatch (@guest_496332)
1 year ago
Reply to  Alex

After the Dreadnoughts and before the future SSN’s four advanced conventional submarines for RN to prototype equipment for the SSN’s. Bring in Oz now, they will be hurting from dealing with a fist in the face.

Amir (@guest_496925)
1 year ago
Reply to  Alex

There were discussions about whether the RN should re-constitute the SSK capability (Upholder Class) it had in the Cold War that was later sold to the Canadians as the Victoria Class Submarines. My personal opinion is that we ought to do so as a cheaper capability able to secure and patrol the GIUK Gap and enable the Astute Class to conduct fleet operations globally. It should be a minimum class of 3 to enable a continuous presence. Ideally, 6 ought to be procured to allow 2 boats to be at sea continuously and secure either side of the gap.

BB85 (@guest_497067)
1 year ago
Reply to  Helions

100% the decision was moronic to convert a Nuclear sub into an AIP, then pay the same price as a Nuclear sub for a fraction of the capability.

Ian (@guest_516885)
8 months ago
Reply to  BB85

Even if the unit cost for the boats is comparable, not having to maintain the defence nuclear infrastructure represents a huge difference in on-going costs. The Canadians considered buying SSNs back in the 80s, but abandoned the idea for that very reason.