> even with issues in the contract.

There was never any real issues with the contract. Just before the deal was nuked, the Australian MoD had just performed a review that found the progress satisfactory.

You're misremembering hints of problems that were planted in the conservative press by Morrisson's buddies to prepare for the betrayal.

The nuclear-modified-to-diesel fuckery, just for us to turn around and buy nuclear subs from a different country. What an absolute gong show.

One year isn't enough notification for Macron? The reality is that his advisors likely told him that Australia was unlikely to terminate due to no other viable options, and consequently the contract underperformance wasn't a huge deal. That turned out to be incorrect.

>And amongst all that, the French lost the contract to nothing really. Our replacement contract is a dud.

It's safe to say you don't understand the American defense industry if you are making this comment. The only concerning barrier is how quickly Australia can acquire the trained workforce to operate the nuclear submarines.

>Oh and those French subs were originally nuclear subs that Australia insisted on modifying to diesel.

I don't agree with the logic here. Australia always had specified they were looking for diesel-electric submarines. DCNS (aka the French Naval Group) responded to that request with a modified nuclear design.

With that said, fault does exist with Australia because in the end they should have better verified that DCNS had the capability of delivering on the contract. In retrospect, the Japanese/German bids likely would have been better in that regard.

>So, tell me, how can the French not be salty about losing the contract?

That's the entire problem. It was a busines decision. The French got way too emotional about the contract being revoked because there's no separation between the state and the arms industry, and the performance of said industry is basically part of their national identity now.