You know, once you drive a submarine out of the dry dock, it loses half of its value.
If the Aussies had gone with the more expensive French subs they would have had to finance the deal and they were afraid they would be under water on the payments from the start.
(Especially if they had to settle for a ‘sub’ prime loan!)
With military projects like these, people tend to imagine that they’re all about strategic and military considerations, and getting the best bang for your buck. That’s a little naïve.
The primary consideration is the vast sums of money that can be made from these massive contracts, who exactly gets that money, and which politicians will benefit from the hype and the job creation in their areas.
I would add that this particular instance demonstrates that it is also a little like the post Renaissance practice of marrying your daughter to your surly neighbor’s son (at the royal level, obviously) to maintain peace and consolidate power. Being in a long term business deal concerning national defense and proprietary military technology tends to cement allegiance.
French companies are without doubt smarting for the lost revenue, but this seems far more about the jilted lover aspect of finding out your mistress Australia is going to leave you and marry your best friend/fraternity brother the U.S.A. The betrayal is bigger than the lost deposits or non refundable airline tickets. It is the disrespect, not the money (entirely).
From First Dog on the Moon (Australian cartoon):
My understanding of the whole thing is that the French nuclear subs would have had to be recharged periodically and the USA/UK ones would not and so were better for their purposes. And diesel is quieter than either. So I guess the Aussies made the best choice for them? Sorry if this stuff has been mentioned before.
I was thinking rather more in terms of Australia deciding the French flirtation was costing them too much and involved them in wider social ambitions than they wanted, and preferring to go back to the wife (and her tag-along sister), even though that was going to cost them just as much in make-up presents.
This must be what they mean when they talk about the romance of the sea.
Yes. Nuclear-powered submarines are way more capable than diesel subs, and can also travel significantly further distances and stay a much longer time on station once they do get to a particular place.
Throughout history, the French have always been throwing temper tantrums. 
Nobody wants French subs. They all have French doors. 
The sunk cost alone would really make them want to give this project The Boot.
So Australia insisted that they needed a non-nuclear sub, chose a nuclear sub and asked that it be converted to diesel-electric operation, complained that it was taking too much time and money to design and create this animal, so switched to a competitor’s nuclear sub instead, with longer lead times and probably for more money.
Couldn’t they have tried to renegotiate with the French supplier to switch to the original, nuclear version of the first sub ?
One of the issues sounds like the french subs would need to be refuelled every 10 years, which is a complex operation requiring a lot of support, which would leave Australia vulnerable to french cooperation for the life of the subs. The American subs can have a nuclear core that does not require refueling. I would assume that’s the reason they were unwilling to go with the French nuclear design, although that’s just speculation.
Ahem… “Das Boot”.
Why is France upset with the US? Do we have some agreement that we clear our arms deals with them?
Eh…I kind of can see why they’re disgruntled. To use a relationship analogy, a woman (Australia) has every right to break up with her bad boyfriend (France.) But it would be better for her to do so openly, rather than sneak around with another guy in secret for a few months (America) before breaking the news.
The U.S. Navy wishes. American submarine nuclear reactors do have finite fuel duration, and do need refueling if the rest of the submarine outlasts the initial fuel charge.
Of course, 33 years like the G.E. S9G reactor in the USS Virginia class may count as “not require refueling” for Australia’s use case.
Would it be possible to make a reactor have a longer lifespan at the beginning by just having more fuel to begin with (i.e., a larger compartment for a 50-year supply instead of 30 years,) or is it a lot more complex than that?
Sure, that’s why France is upset with Australia. But America had no reason to inform France of our negotiations with Australia.
Yeah I was 50/50 on saying Das Boot or saying ‘The Boot’ as the intent was to say 'to be kicked out or given the boot ’ with the capitalisation to hint at the movie in an oblique way. I just failed on my conning word play.