SEA 1000
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
Australia is soon set to deliver this week a verdict for the SEA 1000 tender, on which company will build the next fleet of twelve submarines for the RAN in all up estimated 50 billion AUD (39 billion USD) deal.
DCNS (France) - Shortfin Barracuda
TKMS (Germany) - Endeavour (Type 216)
MHI (Japan) - Modified Soryu
Interviews by each company on why should be picked.
DCNS
http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/designing-the-shortfin-barracuda-block-1a/
Mitsubishi
http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/why-the-japanese-proposal-is-low-risk-part-1/
http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/why-the-japanese-proposal-is-low-risk-part-2/
TKMS
http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/building-the-future-ran-the-potential-for-australian-german-industrial-collaboration/
Which one would you pick?
Gib astutes plz
>>29718894
No nuke engines, Tom.
Go Germany
Interesting about the little things that have to be modified.
>beer fridge
>BBQ
>less giant rice cookers
>less baguette makers
>bigger berthing areas
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/future-submarines-first-look-inside---soryu-sub-as-japan-ups-ante-in-contract-bid/news-story/cf1f8da4615121bf46a53b70e911f8aa?nk=f0a57708f71d4b5ea6bcc2890d43c5cf-1461483001
Japan will win for political reasons while Germany would be the best submarine.
>>29718853
To bad the fuckers won't use Australian Steel
>>29718853
>aspi strategist
What a name
>>29719139
They won't use Australian Uranium neither
>>29718853
The government fucked up big time choosing a conventional sub.
>>29719155
>protection the long coast line of Australia
>going for submarines with several times higher noise and heat emmisions.
>>29719127
Actually leaks indicated that Japan is seen as the weakest bid amongst the three, the situation is so bad that Shinzo Abe is considering directly calling Malcolm Turnbull.
http://www.baka.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/japanese-pm-considers-call-to-malcolm-turnbull-in-attempt-to-rescue-bid-to-build-australian-subs-20160422-gocmb1.html
>>29719184
Fuck.
Replace baka with the initials of Sydney Morning Herald.
Hahaha.
>>29719184
Abe will find a way.
>>29718853
>soon
when exactly?
>>29719099
>requires a subscription to view
For fucks sake just build some nukes and be done with it, you aren't protecting all of Australia conventionally it's too big.
>>29718853
>>29719184
SO... the real question:
Who should I buy shares in to catch the contract bump?
>>29719284
Yes we are. Right now Collins deployed from Fleet Base East and West have plenty of range to protect our coastline and EEZ.
>>29719263
My mistake. I found out after I posted when I tried to view it a second time.
Apparently searching from google allowed me a one look trial. Gay.
>>29719294
http://www.asc.com.au/
>>29719155
You have no idea what building the associated nuclear infrastructure costs. The nuclear option was ruled out because of that from very early on.
>>29719369
It's also the technical inferior solution.
>>29719384
Well, it does have its merits in the long range/endurance domain.
>>29719404
The drawbacks aren't worth if your naval doctrine doesn't make crossing the Pacific a main objective.
>>29719369
It's not just the cost and delay of nuclear infrastructure, it's also a little bit of public perception - dumb fuck general public is scared of the N word - and also the fact that it suits the US to have a close ally with capable diesel boats in various theatres - diesel boats can do things nuc boats can't - like how our Oberons used to run into the shallow waters 13NM off the Soviet base in Cam Ranh Bay to get hull pictures of Soviet warships leaving the harbour.
In a conflict, the basic essence of the idea is that any tasks that need a nuc boat hopefully have a USN submarine available.
>>29719443
The only task that needs a nuclear powered submarine would be being part of a carrier strike group.
Which is indeed a job for American submarines.
The latest rumors are that the Japanese won't get the contract, making the Germans the most likely candidate.
https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/world/south-and-central-asia/2016/04/16/japanese-unlikely-supply-our-submarines/14607288003128
>implying kangaroo fuckers aren't already deep jelly of Singapore's upcoming Type 218SGs
>>29719418
That's a bit silly. A doctrine is always adapted to the likely adversaries. If one of them posesses nuclear missile subs, nuclear attack subs are always to be considered because the adversary's missile subs could outrun your conventional subs. You don't go at double digit speeds with battery power for very long.
French firm DCNS is the frontrunner.
Japan in damage control after leaks reveal their dead last.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/defence/nervous-japanese-sweat-over-new-subs-deal/news-story/12166cdc8eafc989e5c788a0c7530811?nk=f0a57708f71d4b5ea6bcc2890d43c5cf-1461489140
http://www.wsj.com/articles/japan-falls-behind-in-race-for-australian-submarine-contract-1461144176
>>29719488
Too small and short legged.
>>29719139
>To bad the fuckers won't use Australian Steel
Australian steel has long been uncompetitive in steelmaking, why would we throw even more money at the industry when we all know it probably won't make the quality control tests.
The steel for the hull will come from either Europe, or Japan.
>>29719155
Even though we could develop our naval strategy to use nuclear subs, we are perhaps 15-20 years from that point. Plus we have no industry to support even training techs to run the reactor.
>>29719306
A little known fact is that fleet base west is the most strategically important submarine base in the world. The Americans, Russians, Chinese etc all have multiple bases from their mainlands. Whereas Fleet base west is the only submarine port the West can use on the Indian Ocean.
>>29719494
>French firm DCNS is the frontrunner.
That's the worst part. Perhaps the best business case, but everyone knows the Soryu class is the best strategic case.
>Japanese tech and reliablity with US combat system.
>Strengthens the relationship with Japan
>Avoids the orphan class shortfin Baracuda project, which would be Collins class MkII
>Don't have to worry about the French OPSEC debacles.
The thing that frustrates me the most is the blatant disregard for the nation's security or budget South Australia has. They don't give a fuck whether it works as long as it's built there.
>>29719490
No nuclear submarine is going "double digits" in the supposed operation area of the Australian submarine.
>>29718853
>Soryu
Pros:
>Proven design
>Very nifty sub
>Closer relations with Japan
Cons:
>Requires modification to meet Australian standard
>Japs don't have much experience with exports
>Type 216
Pros:
>Krauts build good subs
>Lots of experience building for export
Cons:
>Clean sheet design
>It's basically just a though bubble in some Engineer's mind at the moment
>Baby Barracuda
Pros:
>Frogs build good subs
>Lots of experience building for export
Cons:
>Less experience exporting subs
>A Diesel variant of a nuclear sub is a terrible fucking idea and would require a major re-design
Nips > Krauts > Frogs
>>29719514
way to misread a post
Japan are shitting their pants. Replace baka with 'S'ydney 'M'orning 'H'erald.
http://www.baka.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/japanese-pm-considers-call-to-malcolm-turnbull-in-attempt-to-rescue-bid-to-build-australian-subs-20160422-gocmb1.html
>>29719505
France and Germany are in the lead because of 'technical and engineering' reasons. And defence are liking the French subs better whilst the Germans have the better business deal.
I don't see why either company can't easily introduce an American combat system.
Also, we should be picking our subs by their technical criteria, not because Abbott said so. That said, the Japanese we still pursue a deeper relationship with us regardless of who we pick.
The Shortfin whilst developed from the Barracuda has essentially been designed upfront accommodating a diesel-electric AIP. And the Collins class is a good boat minus all the cock ups ASC made.
Also, on the contrary the French are pretty fucking mum. Wouldn't be surprised if they had the intelligence one up on everyone else. Keen industrial spies they are.
>>29719545
>I don't see why either company can't easily introduce an American combat system.
The Americans sure as shit aren't going to expose that kind of technology to the French.
>>29718853
According to /k/, French sub is the worst (classical).
But DCNS is the frontrunner.
When will you recognize the quality of french industry?
>>29719558
>implying France has the money to use this technology
>>29719545
>I don't see why either company can't easily introduce an American combat system.
Why should they introduce an American combat system?
>>29719590
'Straya is a vassal state of the USA..
>>29719558
Obama gave Turnbull the A-okay for US combat systems no matter which company won.
>>29719590
It's what the RAN requested.
>>29719590
It's a requirement of the bid
>>29719590
Compatibility with existing assets (aircraft, weapons, ships, etc etc)
>The Japanese bid has been pushed by some US officials who raised the prospect that America might not allow its most advanced combat systems to be installed in the European subs.
>The Government is now convinced that is not that case and one senior source said President Barack Obama had made it clear to Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull the submarine deal was a sovereign issue for Australia and there would be no implications for the alliance, no matter which bidder won.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-20/submarines-announcement-expected-next-week/7340996
>>29719545
>Also, we should be picking our subs by their technical criteria, not because Abbott said so.
Well the soryu class is certainly one of the best conventional subs out there and is probably the measure of either the French or German exports.
Abbott had the strategic vision to see that building subs in Australia is a terrible idea. Collins class are great, but only when they work. And the only reason they don't work was because we allowed ASC to build them. The old defence minister was correct when he said they shouldn't be trusted to build a canoe.
The Dolphon-class uses an Israel combat system.
The U-218 for Singapore also uses a new domestic developed combat system.
And I think at least the Turkish U-214 submarines will also use domestic software systems.
So getting a different combat system isn't really a problem with German submarines, not sure about France.
Unrelated. Both of Australia's major naval bases are located on Garden Island, yet they are separated by 3000km.
Because there are two Garden Islands, located at opposite ends of the country and they both house one of Australia's two major naval bases each.
There's no way they cant go with the german deal. Nobody else has AIP like the 214, two weeks at 4 knots going dead motherfucking quiet is literally the only thing this sub could bring to the table that the virginias dont. It's super type 21x or bust.
>>29719505
>The thing that frustrates me the most is the blatant disregard for the nation's security or budget South Australia has. They don't give a fuck whether it works as long as it's built there.
This shits me beyond belief - it's a serious, strategic national asset we hope never to have need of - not a fucking make-work program for union ship workers.
>Avoids the orphan class shortfin Baracuda project, which would be Collins class MkII
Anything we get will be an orphan - we demand a range capability beyond any other diesel, so not matter what we select it'll have to be extended to bunker the fuel to do it.
>>29719505
>>29719681
You guys seem to think that the building facilities & abilities are of no strategic military concern. Are you twelve?
>>29719634
Not really a problem at a. Just about every country chucks in a different combat system when they buy subs.
>>29719706
It generally makes everything more expensive.
>>29719694
The problem is that our workers in those yards perform shoddy work at union-protected rates and conditions that mean the end product is less well made than had we bought it outright, and costs us more. In some cases, enough to have bought more of the asset.
We used to have car manufacturing down here that was initially billed as a way to ensure we had the ability to produce war material if ever required - the most iconic of those factories, Holden, will shut down in <12 months because of a variety of factors, one of which being union labour costs. But get this. An unrelated *BELGIAN* company decided "shit, we could probably make cars in the same factory if we bought the place off you, and we think we could make a profit". They pulled out of the deal once they discovered that our union labour laws meant that they, an unrelated company, if they bought that factory, would have to hire their own, unrelated employees, ONE THE SAME UNION WAGES that killed Holden.
tl;dr - our labour laws make our union workforces expensive and the product they produce is not worth the money.
>>29719725
*ON THE SAME
I'm retarded.
>>29718853
It's purely going to be decided by bribes and/or political deals; as is almost every arms deal.
>>29718894
>Implying the UK would share tech of that level with anyone other than the USA.
You could have used Trafalgars if it wasn't for your countries fear of nuclear power.
>>29719728
nah, buddy, your not retarded. a typo dont make you retarded. Gliderfag is retarded.
My face when the biggest Japan supporter might have sunk the deal himself.
http://www.afr.com/news/politics/japan-and-us-fear-abbott-hurting-subs-bid-20160301-gn83zf
>>29719741
The government and the MoD said yes years ago if Australia wanted the nuclear option.
I'd be more scared of BAE Systems fucking something up.
>>29719725
While that is indeed a concern, a simple comparison of prices on these grounds is insufficient. A local production also means more money flows back to the government via taxes on the company and the worker's wages.
>>29719681
>This shits me beyond belief - it's a serious, strategic national asset we hope never to have need of - not a fucking make-work program for union ship workers.
What is every arms procurement programme ever.
>>29719725
Spoken like a real conservative.
>>29719781
Thank you.
The high dollar just makes it plain impossible for the Australian industry to compete.
>>29719767
The company in question is government owned.
I still maintain - having a product that is fit for purpose is more important than having the ability to turn out a subpar product at a premium price.
>>29719789
Well, I can't judge the manufacturing quality. I was only arguing the price comparison.
>>29719800
Yeah I was making my argument based on both, up above.
>>29719808
I'm not familiar with the "can't build a canoe" slur. Can you point me to a newspaper report what this is all about?
Funny how the U-216 only needs half the crew of the Souryuu class.
Souryuu class never appeared to me like something super modern with the large crew, short range (based on official specs) and use of Swedish Kockums stirling engines straight from the 90s as AIP for half of the submarines of the class.
>>29719781
With logic and facts. Are these so scary for you leftists to try once in a while?
>>29719769
True, but normally there's at least a system that works after spending the money
>>29719820
There aren't any public official specs for the modified Soryu class that Japan is bidding.
They're redesigning the lot for Australia to achieve the range requirements, and they've dumped AIP for lithium-ion batteries.
>>29719757
>AFR
>not faifax hack article
Pick one
>>29719757
>I'd be more scared of BAE Systems fucking something up.
clearly the Trafalgars work but you have to wonder how much life old boats like that have left
I wonder how the reactor personnel would work for the first few years. I Guess they would have to do something like the Russian/Indian deal where there are Russian technical advisers to stop the Indians from destroying the designated shitting reactors
>>29719814
That was another anon, but he was referring to former Defence Minister David Johnston:
http://www.baka.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/defence-minister-doesnt-trust-australian-shipbuilder-to-make-a-canoe-20141125-11tqv7.html
Any high res CG of Germany and Japan's offering?
>>29719854
Shit. Forgot the filter. That link should infact be www. SYDNEY MORNING HERALD .com.au with the initials of the newspaper.
>>29719725
Am i crazy or was Shorten the one that got them those union rates at holden?
>>29719876
>Am i crazy or was Shorten the one that got them those union rates at holden?
Shorten was in parliament by the time their final EBA was agreed to, but working at the AWU he probably had a hand in it.
http://resources.news.com.au/files/2013/12/11/1226780/877147-aus-news-file-holden-eba-2011.pdf
There's their most recent EBA if you're interested.
DCNS marketing video. Couldn't find anything from TKMS or MHI.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHZUJe3N99c
>>29719725
why are australian workers so terrible? if you are getting paid so much, surely you can put in the effort to do a great job?
>>29719948
That's an excellent question to which I would love an answer. Overpaid, over-insulated, over-protected workers are the problem, just to be clear - not all workers.
So the combat system is down to Raytheon and Lockheed Martin.
Which one?
>>29719788
>high dollar
>when it's weaker than the usd
Assuming that Australia goes through with 12 subs, would they be the only nation to have more subs than surface combatants?
Well, TKMS basically announced they would open a shipyard in Australia for the Asian market.
That's sure quite the additonal strategic asset.
>>29720025
The AWDs and some of the ANZAC replacements may well be online by then, which might change the numbers. The Armidale class isn't exactly a surface combatant with its 25mm cannon, but would you consider the proposed offshore patrol vessel one? I believe the idea is to make them helo capable.
>>29720043
Nope, surface combatants are ocean going vessels for the explicit purpose of fighting wars.
I noticed that the displacement of the proposed designs are much larger than the displacement of current Collins-class subs. Anyone know the reason? If it was closer to 3000-3500 tonnes the Australians could have teamed up with the Netherlands for a sub design. Both countries pretty much have the same requirements regarding range, endurance, complement, tasks and operational capabilities.
>>29718853
100% not Japan.
For.fucks sake we still haven't settled the whaling thing. Why would we want Japan to provide for our Navy?
>>29720106
Long range and big weapons payload.
RDM haven't made subs since the early 90s. The only other contender would've been Saab but they got shit on hard by TKMS and any hard feelings with ASC.
>>29720118
Because we're best mates now, we've both been working on a tighter foreign and defence relationship for a while now. The whaling issue is just a separate side show the government half arses when the public outcry is enough.
That said, Japan's been seemingly all but eliminated. We're getting either French or German boats.
>>29720135
I didn't mean Dutch-built subs. I meant a international cooperation between Australia and The Netherlands for a joint procurement agreement, sharing the development costs.
The replacement of the Walrus-class subs will most likely be built by either TKMS (enlarged Type 214), DCNS (Extended Oceanic SSK) or Saab/Damen (enlarged A26).
>>29720118
>>29720147
In that case, no we don't have the same requirements, missions, doctrines, etc as the Dutch.
Also subs are a pretty big sovereign issue, a few European nations thought about joint procurement.
Norway, Netherlands and Poland. The Polish are keen on it, but the Norwegians and Dutch aren't so keen on it afterall.
>>29720186
>no we don't have the same requirements, missions, doctrines, etc as the Dutch
Care to elaborate? It seems largely the same. Diesel-electric, blue water capability, >10000nmi range, large endurance, capable of operating in different climates and oceanic conditions, used for patrolling/intelligence gathering/deploying special forces/deterrence.
There's a reason why the Walrus-class almost won the tender for the Oberon-class replacement without any modifications to the design. There's also a reason why Australia sends officers to the Dutch Submarine Command Course.
>Also subs are a pretty big sovereign issue
Then why use a foreign design?
>>29720264
dunno how to build subs lol
>>29720264
Buying stuff with others is dildos.
NH90 dildos
Tiger dildos
Typhoon dildos
F35 dildos
Shit is easier, cheaper and less dildos.
God forbid if you tried to do subs together, dildos.
Like if the dildos were measured by geographic area. USSR/dildos.
>>29719515
>Proven design
In combat?
>Very nifty sub
What does that even mean?
>Clean sheet design
Not completely; it's an enlarged 212/214
For reference.
>>29719757
>I'd be more scared of BAE Systems fucking something up.
A company renowned for building exceptional (albeit pricey) subs?
Unless you mean the BAE Australia work issues.
>>29720392
Most of the problems those projects face(d) have very little to do with them being multinational military projects.
And I hope that you see the irony in your post since the construction of the Collins-class has been the biggest clusterfuck in submarine building in quite some time.
>>29720543
Mate, please. The Astute program has been a huge sink in terms of time and money.
It's not the asking cost but the costs overgrowth and time slips. That said, BAE seem to have their shit squared away now.
However it's a moot point, nukes were never a part of the competition.
>>29720576
Can you imagine a Collins building debacle with two countries, spooky. Imagine the legal, financial and political ramifications. Multinational procurements are gay, I don't know why people still do it beyond we have no money to go it alone which doesn't seem to be a problem for Australia.
>>29720659
Not all multinational projects are failures.
Typ 212A was a success.
U-216 appears to be the most advanced design.
so which sub type should i go for
the old boomers, the new fast attacks or the SSGNs?
>>29720659
> The Astute program has been a huge sink in terms of time and money.
To be fair a lot of that wasn't down to BAE, it was down to the Labour government allowing for a submarine production gap and having to rebuild skills and organisation because of it.
>>29720659
>Can you imagine a Collins building debacle with two countries
Or maybe it wouldn't have been a debacle with an extra set of eyes watching over the project
>Imagine the legal, financial and political ramifications
The consequences would be shared
Anyway, my original question was why the new sub design is much larger than the current Collins-class. I asked the question because if they held on to the displacement of the Collins, the design would have been interesting for the Netherlands as well. It would also mean that the sub would be a bit less of a special snowflake design and it could have a lot of of advantages to both, like more leverage in the development phase, more information sharing between research institutes and defense contractors of both countries and of course lower costs.
>>29719781
fuck off union shill
How do you defend being solely responsible for manufacturing fleeing the west
Pretty.
>>29718853
I can't speak to the relative capabilities of the three designs, but it would be in Aus' interest to cozy up to the Japanese in response to Chinese aggression in the region.
Funny how I know jack shit about subs but Im shipping out to sub school in 2 months with the US navy.
>>29722767
"It means constantly getting slammed face-first into a wall covered in the crusted semen of crusty seamen."
http://www.cracked.com/personal-experiences-1276-6-things-movies-dont-show-you-about-life-submarine.html
>>29719515
>A Diesel variant of a nuclear sub is a terrible fucking idea and would require a major re-design
see http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/designing-the-shortfin-barracuda-block-1a/
>>29719741
>Implying the Astutes weren't actually designed by Americans
How long will the current class remain in service?
A few interesting stories of Australian spying missions.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/secret-spy-missions-forced-to-the-surface/2006/09/07/1157222265317.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/inquirer/cold-war-exploits-of-australias-secret-submarines/story-e6frg6z6-1226742599268?nk=f0a57708f71d4b5ea6bcc2890d43c5cf-1461549799
What other countries are due to make decisions on replacing their submarine fleets soon?
>>29730365
The Netherlands and Norway.
>>29730365
>>29731179
What if the just got rid of them like the Danes did?
Norway has short-listed DCNS and TKMS with Saab not making the cut.
http://www.janes.com/article/59384/norway-downselects-dcns-tkms-for-submarine-project
>>29731220
There's also Poland.
>>29731220
They're not silly.
>>29720659
Mate that sub has technologies where you can detect and analyze sounds coming from New York when you are in the middle of the altantic ocean. Aussies will never be trusted with that technology.
The future is littoral ships. Just fleets and fleets of littoral ships.
>>29731301
>They're not silly.
No...but our politicians tend to be
Anyone got good modern submarine documentaries?
>>29731220
The Netherlands won't for sure
1) Pretty big lobby to keep them
2) Dutch Antilles and a expeditionary doctrine
3) Keeps the Dutch Submarine Command Course relevant as the best command course for diesel-electric subs
4) Blue-water diesel-electric subs are a great asset to NATO
>>29731301
Weird they already ruled out Saab-Kockums, the A26 seems interesting.
>>29731418
Saab Kockums has had a shit decade, no thanks to TKMS buying them out and sitting on them as HDW got all the work before the Swedish government bought them back.
Unsurprised no one is inviting them to anything. I'll be surprised if they ever export subs again seeing as Singapore and Australia gave them the cold shoulder being incumbent buyers.
>>29731318
So an astute in the pacific has to listen to an entire continent's worth of shitposting. God help them.
Any similar videos?
Real interesting topic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqFVOL7mLd4
>>29731637
They have a good chance to get the order for the new Dutch subs, seeing as they teamed up with Damen and being the most proactive candidate. They would have to come up with a new design though, since the A26 is far too small. And that design would also have to be made in cooperation with other organizations and firms on the Dutch side (Defence Materiel Organisation of the Dutch MoD, research institutes like TNO/MARIN and naval engineering firms like Nevesbu). I doubt DCNS and TKMS will allow that kind of interference, so if Saab-Kockums agrees with that, they'll probably get the order.
>>29731784
Nice, maybe they'll make a comeback.
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/naval/submarines/2015/02/01/damen-saab-sweden-subs-deal/22535665/
>>29731784
>They would have to come up with a new design though, since the A26 is far too small
Not to mention there's a hole in the front
>>29718894
Why does the coning tower look all busted up?
>>29724567
[Citation Needed]
>>29732723
Because it is.
>>29718853
>lithium ion batteries
>"Emergency report, emergency report. Fire, fire in the [whatever part of the ship they put their battery well in], fire from literally fucking everywhere"
>>29733648
Straight from the wiki. Hell, the US is also largely designing the Vanguard successor as well.
Tell me about lithium ion batteries.
Are they worth putting into a submarine?
>>29737849
That depends on how much fire you want in a sub.
IT'S HAPPENING! Announcement today!
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-26/federal-government-poised-to-make-submarine-announcement/7357030
Japan is seppuku.
>>29737870
>implying lead-acid batteries don't burn when they contact sea water
Frogs won
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/australian-submarines-france-wins-50bn-contract/news-story/986ee35387c768a0c401f3edc97c5402
>>29738324
Well, France designs solid subs, They certainly don't fuck around with the quality of their nuclear boats. So there there's that. I just hope the actual production won't be a clusterfuck.
>>29737734
Your own source completely ruins your claim you deluded fucktard.
For one, that was from 2003 when they came over for only 2 years. By that point the entire thing had been designed and was already under manufacturing, given it had been designed in the late 90s.
And even then, it was just an engineering MANAGEMENT team. They didn't design shit on the actual boat. It was just to help out with the actual management of a project because there'd been a big gap in production. The later one was simple to ensure connectivity with the US and help with the design of the construction process, not the actual ships. Thats why they switched the manufacturing method and ended up with a faster one similar to the Virginia's construction schedule design.
tl;dr - You're talking a load of absolute bollocks.
Vive la France.
I'm pretty happy we went with the Frogs.
>>29738471
Try again. The PWR2 is still only a modified S6G reactor which, at its core, was designed by the US. And I know for a fact that you guys utilized US input into the design of the Astute reactor compartment (I work with the guys who actually did it).
More to the point is that the Vanguard successor program is relying even more on US expertise, especially considering that the entire missile compartment is US designed (and partially built in the US). That's in addition to a lot of the RC design work and the actual fabrication of large RC components being built in the US.
Try again though.
>>29739155
Yup. That's true. Because there is so much dead time between UK programs that they can't retain expertise, or even advance research very well, and because BAe are such a bunch of grafting, useless cunts that they fuck up everything they touch anyway.
None of this will change until UK goverments start taking defense seriously, and stop hating the military.
That the British armed forces have anything at all constantly amazes me.
>>29738471
Also, you do know that design work continues (albeit in smaller measures) during manufacture, right?
>>29738324
>>29738509
I'm good with this.
Also allows of the possibility of using French ordnance in addition to US stuff - if it turns out you can't chuck an LRASM out of a 533mm torpedo tube, the MdCN/Storm Shadow is a decent alternative.
Plus, there's that French submerged anti-helo missile that's basically a MICA launched from a torpedo tube in an exocet container. That's a cool toy.
Any word on the range of the Shortfin Barracuda?
>>29740503
or on armament?
what is the difference between the barracuda and the scorpene?
>>29740745
Barracuda is brand new and much bigger; it's the latest French Nuke sub. The Shortfin looks to be the same thing just with a Diesel+AIP power plant.
Scorpene maxes out at about 2000t displacement for the chunkiest model, the Barracuda and Shortfin Barracuda are nearly 5000.
>>29740542
>>29740503
DCNS's initial spitballing has given the Shortfin a range of 18,000nm at 10 knots, which is huge for a conventional sub.
Armament is presently quoted as the same for the Barracuda; 4 21" torpedo tubes, which are all rated for F21 Heavyweight torpedoes, mines, Exocets, A3SM Anti-helo missiles and MdCN/Storm Shadow cruise missiles.
Since the RAN wants a US combat system though, it's probably going to pack the same shit that's on the Virginias; after all they authorised the AN/BPY-1 super-spoopy system that's broadly the same as the Virginia's shit for the Collins-class.
So basically whatever's in the US Submarine arsenal short of nuclear weapons, plus probably the capability for all the French kit.
>>29740993
>DCNS's initial spitballing has given the Shortfin a range of 18,000nm at 10 knots, which is huge for a conventional sub.
For comparison; the two most notable conventionals, the German Type 212 and the Russian Kilo, do 8,000nm at 8kts and ~6,000nm at 7kts respectively.
The newer Type 214 can manage 12,000nm at 8kts, allegedly.
>>29740993
>DCNS's initial spitballing has given the Shortfin a range of 18,000nm at 10 knots, which is huge for a conventional sub.
Hope they achieve that; the Collins hits 11,500NM at 10 knots, which is pretty good. When they started talking about replacing them with 6,100NM ranged Soryus I was shocked, because we not only have a lot of coast and waters, but we also need to be able to do cheeki breeki stuff up in Asia. 18,000NM will make the Navy and ASD / ASIO cream themselves.
>Exocets, A3SM Anti-helo missiles and MdCN/Storm Shadow cruise missiles.
Do we know how many vertical tubes there'll be? Collins never had any which limited it there.
>plus probably the capability for all the French kit.
We know they're putting in some US combat systems, but I wonder if we'll use the BPY-1 or go with the Barracuda's native sonar.
>>29741294
>Do we know how many vertical tubes there'll be?
Best I can find is "They'll have some", no word on how many.
I don't think they were too high a priority on the original french design because all their ordnance is designed to be torp-tube launchable underwater; Exocets, MdCN, A3SMs, etc.
tl;dr Hell if I know.
>>29741294
>18,000NM will make the Navy and ASD / ASIO cream themselves.
In addition to the hilariously quiet pump-jet propulsion for the ultimate in Sneeki breeki operations.
