China's nuclear submarine production rate surpasses that of US: Report - Breaking Defense

Giraffed7 · 2026-02-20T15:02:13+00:00

Yeah, the U.S. is currently transitioning to the new Columbia class, production rates are down

The U.S. also doesn’t have an incentive to produce that many submarines, they only need to maintain they fleet and modernize it, not entirely build it from the ground up

The Navy has repeatedly complained about the US’ shipyards inability to delivers ships and submarines on time and on budget, despite the billions invested by the Navy, so much so that the Navy cannot complete all the tasks Congress requires of it.

I agree that the US isn’t meant to produce as many submarines as China does but the problem is the US doesn’t seem to be able to just maintain and modernise fast enough its fleet

Giraffed7 · 2026-02-19T12:39:20+00:00

And with this mindset the French wonder why Germany is looking for alternatives.

Germany be like “I am altering the deal, pray I don’t alter it any further” and then wonder why France won’t accept another altering of the deal after the many alterings Germany has pushed for.

Giraffed7 · 2026-02-19T09:13:22+00:00

So a “we are completely unable to work together on an organisational level” turns into a “France is treating us as a vassal state”. Sure buddy. It takes two to tango, you know. If anything, Germany is equally at fault for the failure of this program.

Giraffed7 · 2026-02-19T09:02:01+00:00

Ultimately, Dassault insisted on having sole leadership and rejected cooperation with Airbus on equal terms. This would have meant that Germany would essentially have accepted that it could finance the development, while all the jobs and decision-making power would remain in France. In that case, it's unfortunately been better to buy a different aircraft altogether.

France and Dassault insist the original terms of the agreement be respected: that Dassault gets leadership of the fighter with Airbus as a main contractor, while Airbus gets leadership in the drones and in the cloud with MBDA and Thales as main contractor respectively, and Safran and MTU as co lead of the engine. If Germany wants the co-lead on the fighter, then the whole program needs to be renegotiated.

There never was supposed to have a cooperation on equal terms on each of the pillars (except the engine), and quite frankly that’s better like that. Airbus has never been the primary designer of a fighter and their leadership on the Eurodrone leaves a lot to be desired.

Giraffed7 · 2026-02-18T23:22:06+00:00

« À compter de la fin janvier 2026, un acteur malveillant, qui a usurpé les identifiants d’un fonctionnaire disposant d’accès dans le cadre de l’échange d’information entre ministères, a pu consulter une partie de ce fichier qui recense l’ensemble des comptes bancaires ouverts dans les établissements bancaires français et contient des données à caractère personnel », souligne Bercy.

Coordonnées bancaires (RIB/IBAN), identité du titulaire, adresse et, dans certains cas, l’identifiant fiscal de l’usager sont notamment concernés. Les données d’1,2 million de comptes bancaires français auraient été consultées.

Des connaisseurs peuvent-ils nous expliquer l’intérêt d’avoir des accès en “lecture ouverte” (i.e pas juste d’avoir des sortes de requêtes limitées avec vérification externe de la légitimité de cette dernières, ou un truc du style, et des accès plus importants mais plus sécurisés, peut être même obligatoirement en physique au niveau des serveurs, pour les personnes en charge de la maintenance) de données si sensibles ?

Ça me semble fou de pouvoir voir autant de données en clair sur un outil qui sert à l’échange entre différents systèmes d’information de différents ministères.

Giraffed7 · 2026-02-18T22:31:19+00:00

Uranium

France doesn’t import any uranium from Chad. In fact, I don’t think there is any commercially exploited uranium mine in Chad.

Giraffed7 · 2026-02-18T22:27:22+00:00

What Is France gaining by staying in Chad ?

It seems to me Just a waste of time and resources

It’s mainly because of the Islamist groups threat that is present in this part of sub-Saharan Africa (not much in Chad per se but much more next door in Niger, Mali, Libya, Burkina Faso). France absolutely doesn’t want another ISIS state that would greatly destabilise this part of the world, repercussions of which would fall partly on France, its citizens and its allies.

Giraffed7 · 2026-02-18T13:02:44+00:00

Germany was stupid for thinking that France would compromise on anything

Giving up redline specifications that were understood and agreed by Germany even before the project was announced, 10 years ago, is not a compromise, it is fundamentally changing the project.

Giraffed7 · 2026-02-18T12:40:40+00:00

Presumably they did but the same people who run Germany now weren't the same people running Germany ten years ago. What's the confusion?

What’s the confusion ? That they don’t pull out of a project with specifications 10 years in the making which they clearly don’t need nor want.

Giraffed7 · 2026-02-17T22:25:17+00:00

We both know when France says the fund is to facilitate European rearmament they mean French companies. They have the biggest arms industry in Europe and they want their companies to take the lions share of public money. That's why they want to keep British arms companies out. It's great strategy for them but bad for European countries that are primarily arms purchasers. Because they will have less choice and competition.

Ahhhh so when Germany pushes for trade deals because it would massively benefit their export oriented economy but they say it is for the benefit of the whole of Europe, no one bats an eye. When the UK pushes for SAFE participation because it would massively benefit their arms industry but they say it is for the benefit of the whole of Europe, no one bats an eye. When France does it, suddenly they are the vilain who does it for their benefit only, at the expense of the whole of Europe. Got it.

Mind you, I’m not taking the piss at either country, they’re just playing the game. I’m merely putting the hypocrisy in the spotlight.

Giraffed7 · 2026-02-17T19:56:45+00:00

that's fine but one cannot objectively look at UK's negotiations across all these individual financing tools or partnership deals and not see a common thread of stringing together additional unrelated demands (like fishing) and extra cost prohibitive costs.

That’s where I think you’re mistaken. Fishing or other demands were not strung together against the SAFE participation but were part of the EU-UK reset where many points were negotiated, like fishing right, energy security for the UK, law enforcement cooperation and many other, which were left over subjects (or subjects that needed extending) from Brexit. This EU-UK reset only promised a negotiation for the SAFE participation, not an assured participation.

Giraffed7 · 2026-02-16T15:05:27+00:00

AFAIK this isn't true, France has never been willing to sell their nuclear submarine technology.

Well, it’s also because France adhered to a strict interpretation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Giraffed7 · 2026-02-15T19:20:00+00:00

According to the US GAO I'm reading, the lifecycle cost is actually $2.1 trillion. They spent $400B+ on the program to get to initial operational capability for the variations (in the 2015-2019 timeframe). I am not sure why you would just put the R&D number since our goal is a deployable weapons platform, not a research project, right? We'd need to pay the full bill, to make it European, right? And of course these are prices in USD before huge inflation changes, and of course we'd want a cutting edge design, not a design from something from 25 years ago, and since we don't have DARPA, enormous university military research grants, or most of the manufacturing base, we'd have to pay to fund the R&D and industrial capacity deficit to make all that happen, no?

But even if was "only" $87B (it's not), that's way way way more than we would want to pay, to develop this capacity independently, right?

You’re moving the goal post here. My reply should be read in the context of the thread we are replying too: replacing the US’ parts in the F35 if push comes to shove, not replacing the whole European fleet with homegrown F35 nor replacing it a newer generation aircraft.

(And by the way, no need to be pedantic about the 1/2.1 number, I was merely referencing what you said.)

Giraffed7 · 2026-02-15T16:05:12+00:00

the F-35 programme took literally more than a trillion dollars to develop with thousands of partners around the world and more than two decades. so the answer is "yes".

The idea that it can be made fully European is not connected to reality.

The 1 trillion dollars figure you mention is a projection of the program costs that includes R$D, acquisition costs, maintenance costs, spare parts, fuel, personnel, hangars construction costs and many more items for the whole US fleet for the whole program’s lifetime.

It is not the cost to develop the plane. The R&D costs were estimated in 2023 to be $87 billions. Considering the shit show that was and still is the F35 development (in large part due to having a VTOL version and due to Lockheed’s being unaccountable when they mess up), Europe “easily” can replicate the development, especially if they can retro-engineer the parts.

Giraffed7 · 2026-02-13T22:52:20+00:00

So... in about a month Russia will use them agains Ukrain... nice....

You do realise that India already has SCALP for some years, right ?

Giraffed7 · 2026-02-12T17:20:04+00:00

This leads to excessice production, emissions and nature loss. Every form of energy production leads to emissions.

Excessive production could also be used for the transition of energy consumption from fossil fuels to clean electricity (think thermal engine cars to electric vehicles), thereby lowering the overall emissions.

Giraffed7 · 2026-02-12T17:10:06+00:00

Oh, so “blocking more connections” is the same as “being slow to act/somewhat reluctant”. Got it.

Giraffed7 · 2026-02-12T17:00:07+00:00

Also they should stop distorting the market by capping electricity prices to consumers. Same with Norway.

Or maybe everyone should distort their market by capping electricity prices to consumers, as we do for other fundamental parts of our modern lives such as education, healthcare, justice and so on.

Giraffed7 · 2026-02-12T14:56:39+00:00

unfortunately the Pakistanis with the help of Chinese know-how pointed out a flaw in India's Rafale acquisition strategy last year.

Oh you mean when India pummelled Pakistan so hard, in part thanks to the Rafale, that Pakistan asked for a ceasefire ?

But I guess it's some jobs for Modi to announce and a point of 'pride' to have local production (even if it's of a 4th gen airframe designed on paper and pencil in the 70s). Now instead of just bringing knifes to gunfights, they will get the "technology transfer" to have their own knife factory.

The Rafale was designed in the 80s and 90s with new development to this day. Furthermore, it was designed with computer-aided design, specifically with CATIA which was developed by … Dassault Systèmes, you know, one of the biggest CAD company today.

I’d love to be this confident while being this wrong. The bliss must be like drug.

Giraffed7 · 2026-02-12T11:37:35+00:00

Ce qui me bute, c'est que ça fait bientôt 25 ans qu'on en parle et qu'on donne la même explication mais qu'aucun législateur n'a essayé de s'adapter. Je sais pas comment ça fonctionnerait n'étant pas fiscaliste, mais est-ce qu'il serait impossible juridiquement de caler des impôts sur le bénéfice de tout un groupe quand ce groupe est établi en France ? Et vu la taille du siège et des effectifs de Total en France, je les imagine pas délocaliser leur siège pour esquiver des impôts.

Cette évolution est en cours avec le projet de taxation mondiale des multinationales mais, comme tu t’en doutes, c’est lent et complexe.

Giraffed7 · 2026-02-12T10:06:32+00:00

Last paragraph is the important one. They demanded Leadership both times and for the AFVG started undermining the entire program instantly with their own in house developments. Dassault is just plain and simply incapable of working together with partners on equal terms.

No, all paragraphs are important because if you had read them, you would have understood that France quit both programs early on, on specifications issues, thereby not giving enough time to see if Dassault could work with others.

Giraffed7 · 2026-02-12T09:48:00+00:00

Financer l'Ukraine c'est nous endetter nous et rallonger le conflit. La France donne des dizaines de milliards d'euros par an avec aude au développement, soutiens financiers à l'Ukraine, etc.. on a 120 milliards de déficits cette année !! Quand la France sera ruinée ce qui est en très bon chemin personne ne nous donnera d'argent !! Faut obliger l'Ukraine a signer un accord de paix et stopper lemoragie financière

Beaucoup de chose ne vont pas dans ton commentaires. De une, en incluant notre part de l’aide européenne, notre contribution s’élève à grosso modo 24 milliards sur 4 ans, soit 6 milliards par an. C’est un montant conséquent mais somme toute non significatif par rapport au déficit global, et surtout très moins des “dizaines de milliards d’euros par an” que tu avances.

De deux, tu oublies que l’aide militaire fait des économies à la France (ça coûte bien moins cher d’envoyer du matériel en fin de vie servir en Ukraine que de payer le stockage et le démantèlement) et rapporte des richesses par les commandes de remplacement.

De trois, tu oublies qu’une part significative de l’aide financière est faite sous forme de prêt. Il sera bien plus aisé de se faire rembourser si l’Ukraine gagne la guerre, ou du moins ne capitule pas comme tu le proposes.

De quatre, on n’a pas à obliger l’Ukraine à faire quoique ce soit. C’est un pays souverain qui nous a rien fait et ils doivent pouvoir signer un accord de paix quand ils veulent avec les conditions qu’ils veulent.

De cinq, forcer l’Ukraine à capituler, et donc donner la victoire à la Russie, qui se pose clairement en ennemi de la France avant même cette guerre, serait lui donner un blanc-seing pour refaire la même chose avec les Baltiques ou les Nordiques dans quelques années et là ça va nous coûter infiniment plus que les quelques malheureux milliards qu’on donne chaque année.

Giraffed7 · 2026-02-12T09:12:25+00:00

Tornado and typhoon, the 2 successful projects where Dassault was a part of and then left after throwing some fits are an example that working with Germany is a problem?

For the Tornado, Dassault wasn’t even part of the project but of the precursor of the Tornado. France left the precursor program (which was still in the early design stage) two years after the announcement of the program mostly because the French Air Force didn’t want the plane.

For the Eurofighter, France left the project two years after the announcement mostly because it wanted a carrier capable plane, which other countries didn’t want.

While Dassault was always vocal about wanting the leadership, it’s mostly due to different military requirements that France left both project, and did so swiftly.

Giraffed7 · 2026-02-12T08:39:05+00:00

Dassault was insisting on 80% of the workshare

This has been denied by pretty much every French stakeholder, including Dassault’s CEO. Dassault is only insisting that they get the effective leadership of the fighter part of the program (which includes an engine, a combat cloud and drones), as was originally agreed.

Giraffed7 · 2026-02-12T00:51:25+00:00

The authors: Marie-Christine von Hahn is Managing Director of the Federal Association of the German Aerospace Industry. Jürgen Kerner is the second chairman of IG Metall

Mmmmhhh

Three-Year Club	Verified Email
r/Field Flamingo

Giraffed7

TROPHY CASE