Australia finalises biggest military deal ever

[Skybird]

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-a...-idUSKCN1Q002H

I think they are optimistic a bit if thinking they can afford to wait until 2050 before they complete their submarine order. The Chinese pressure cooker will blow up earlier, I think.

I wonder how Australias ability is to actually crew this many boats? The germans and the Brits for exmaple have massive problems to find enough personnel for their armed forces and navies.

I also have no clue how the general Australian public'S relation to its armed forces are. Are the met with contempt like in Germany, or more with natural ease or even pride, like in many other Western countries?

https://www.dw.com/en/france-to-buil...nes/a-19214374

The DCNS submarine is the Shortfin Barracuda (pictured), a model that the company claims will remain state-of-the-art until the 2060s. It is a diesel-electric version of a 5,000-ton submarine that is currently nuclear-powered.
Germany's ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems had offered to revamp its 2,000-ton Type 214 class submarine, but Canberra reportedly thought that was too technically challenging to make the option feasible. Japan would have built Australia a variant of its 4,000-ton Soryu submarine.
Australia is significantly increasing its defense spending as it seeks to protect its interests in the Asia-Pacific region amid the rising power of China. But awarding the bid to a French company had the advantage of not alienating Beijing, which would have bristled at a Japanese victory. China is Australia's top trading partner.

A strange reason to not reward the order to a regional producer, considering that defence is most vitally about own self interest.

The deal really stirred the waters when it was first announced already two years ago:

https://thediplomat.com/2017/10/aust...ubmarine-deal/

The report claims that Australia’s new submarine fleet will cost far more than necessary. “We will pay far too much for a boat that will do far too little,” Hugh White, author of the study, said on September 27, during a presentation of the report in Canberra. “Our calculation in the report is that, in 2016 dollars, these 12 boats will cost us $40bn, plus $6bn for the combat system – well over $3bn a boat. In every major project like this, the costs escalate.”
However, according to the report, the bigger risk with sticking to the modified Barracuda-class is that “Australia will be left with a submarine capability that is either seriously inadequate or, in the worst case, non-existent for several years.” The report states:

Engineering experts consider the technical risks around the Shortfin Barracuda to be high. It will be a very large conventional submarine and the engineering challenges are formidable. Most surprisingly, the present concept design does not incorporate modern batteries or AIP, considered by most experts as essential in a future operational environment where submarine detection technologies will have improved significantly.

Thats what surprises me, too. I would have thought the 214 were the better option. But the French company is state-owned by two thirds and thus enjoys heavy protectionism and subsidizing by the tax payers, different to Germany France puts utmost priority on protecting its industrial branches considered to be key technology and competence. I assume that pulled some triggers in the background.