Looks like the Norwegians have down-selected DCNS and TKMS for their next group submarines to replace the Ula clas. Being Saab is suffering.
Will DCNS offer the Scorpene or Shortfin Barracuda like with Australia?
http://www.janes.com/article/59397/norway-cites-economic-industrial-and-military-factors-in-downselecting-dcns-tkms-for-submarine-plans
Netherlands has quite a nice little submarine fleet for being such a tiny country.
>>29541441
They actually had their own submarine industry until China killed it.
>>29541407
>Will DCNS offer the Scorpene or Shortfin Barracuda like with Australia?
Hopefully, we don't want the French submarine here in Australia. Soryu class with an extended range capability is the obvious choice but there's a good chance domestic gibs me dats politics will mean the decision isn't based on technology and strategic goals, rather who can spend the most in South Australia propping up their economy.
Whoa, when did Designated get their hands on an Akula?
>>29542511
2012
>>29542511
They're looking to lease another one as well.
Any hard details on the Type 216 or 218?
off topic, but sub none the less
I heard the US was going to build some diesel subs
I thought the reason we didn't use diesels is because SOSUS can track literally every diesel sub in use in the world
Or are they using them against countries who wouldn't have such capabilities?
>>29541407
The Rooskies only have 1 Typhoon?
>>29544163
They only ever had 6 and five were decommissioned during 2000's
The last one was a test bed for Bulava missiles and training vessel for Borei class crews, no idea what are they doing with it now.
Typhoons are a bitch to maintain.
>>29542503
>Hopefully, we don't want the French submarine here in Australia.
which is based on ? shitpost more.
>Soryu class with an extended range capability is the obvious choice
Barracuda AIP version has an even greater range. shitpost more.
>but there's a good chance domestic gibs me dats politics will mean the decision isn't based on technology and strategic goals
barracuda AIP will be the same sub as the french nuclear ones except for the propulsion. They've got the finest tech you can think about. DCNS offers ToT where the japs are reluctant to do so. Shitpost more.
>rather who can spend the most in South Australia propping up their economy.
which is exactly what a tech transfert is about. Also, DCNS offers the means to build a submarine base, a complete maintenance infrastructure, aka independance, based on decades of experience within that field. What are the japs offering ?
And most important question : are you done shitposting ?
http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/focus-analysis/naval-technology/2777-strengths-a-weaknesses-of-the-contenders-for-australias-submarine-replacement-programme.html
>>29544138
No, the US is not building diesel-electric subs.
No, they weren't stopped because of SOSUS, but because of nuclear propulsion.
>>29541407
Australia is making a horrible mistake buying conventional subs. We're the only people using conventional subs like the superpowers use their nuclear subs and it's clear the subs aren't built for it.
We should buy Astute or Virginia class boats. We might even be able to devise a system where some are built in Australia. Say Australia sends its shipbuilders to the US or UK to help build the first two boats and then they come back to Australia and finish the rest in here. Some parts will have to be made overseas (reactors? and definitely the fuel assemblies) but a lot of it can be done here.
>>29542503
I have no idea what I'm talking: the post
>>29541441
They wanted to sell them all. Till the US 'asked' them not to.
The process of buying 4 new ones has started. The submarines are always on operations.
Because they are diesel electric they are completely silent. because they are small they can dive in shallow water. main reason the US wanted them to stay.
>>29544474
nuclear propulsion always gives interference though. Good for combat and long range patrols. Not so well for intelligence operations.
>>29544441
I knew they were kinda too big to maintain, and I guess since the Cold War ended the dick waving makes less sense.
Still, kinda sad. Rip in peace Tom Clancy
>>29542503
>we don't want the French submarine here in Australia.
French subs and ships are one of the best in the world, so it's 'Stralia loss
>>29544722
So that's why the US has all those diesel boats... Oh wait.
>>29544484
>We should buy Astute or Virginia class boats.
Not for sale m8
>>29544855
The Australian government hasn't even asked. The US would agree on the basis it's pretty much increasing the number of nuclear submarines available to them by a 1/4th.
>>29544882
The Government has routinely failed to explain why they haven't even considered nuclear boats. It's pathetic.
>>29544882
They wouldn't be sold to Australia even if they asked. While Australia are nowhere near being a military partner that receives technology as sensitive as modern SSN's.
The US and UK have been working for decades on the technology that goes into these subs.
You would probably be able to buy some old Los Angeles or Trafalgar class. Possibly a a watered down version of Virginia or astute.
Not that it matters because Australia is nuclear free.
>>29544934
>Not that it matters because Australia is nuclear free
It's not. We've never signed any treaties banning nuclear reactors, only nuclear power plants are illegal (and that can be changed very easily).
If the they had asked and the US had said no that's what they would have said instead of some wishy-washy bullshit about "not having the knowledge and local industry".
Saab (together with Damen) will probably get the contract for the Dutch replacement of the Walrus-class
It will need to be a lot larger than the A26 though, with a displacement of about 3000 t
>>29544972
You think hippie Australia will be okay with nuclear powered ships in muh barrier reef ? pls.
They are smart enough not to ask. Why would the government publicly humiliate themselves by saying that they weren't important enough for the UK and US to share SSN technology. (and also lose face in Australia for looking into nuclear vessels)
>>29544899
No public/political support.
Nuclear propulsion is sacred. America would not sell nuke boats.
No nuclear infrastructure.
No nuclear engineers.
Simple.
>>29544882
No, they wouldn't. Nuclear propulsion technology is a golden egg.
>>29545197
>No nuclear infrastructure.
>No nuclear engineers.
We don't need infrastructure, the boats only need to be fuelled once and we can train reactor operators fast than we can build the boats.
>No public/political support.
Most nuclear objection (outside of greenies) is from NIMBYs. NIMBYs don't exist when you're on a boat in the ocean.
>>29545217
>We don't need infrastructure
You fucking what? So we base all our subs in America?
>>29545016
Yes, saab has signed a contract with damen to build an elongated version of the a26, known as type 612.
>>29545225
Alright then, explain what infrastructure besides the stuff we already have for submarines that we would need.
What "special" things would we need?
>>29541407
I'm genuinely impressed about the size of Turkey's sub fleet here.
>>29541475
I'm surprised,nay shocked, Taiwan doesn't have more subs. Seems like an immense shortsightedness on their part compared to China's overall sub fleet.
They are going to get fucked in a war.
>>29545248
The whole maintenance, safety and security chain.
Countries with nuclear power plants and submarines already have agencies to deal with nuclear emergencies.
You'll need somewhere to dispose of the nuclear waste, and submarine hulls once you're done with them.
You'll need teams of engineers that can repair and refuel the reactors, and you'll need to teach them yourself. Because there is no country in the world with a surplus of experienced nuclear engineers.
If you really think you can just own an SSN and borrow a few crew from oversees, I dont know why i'm wasting my time.
>>29545349
>The whole maintenance, safety and security chain.
Maintenance on the actual reactor itself is minimal. Safety and security wouldn't be much higher than already exists for important naval vessels and is easily developed before you get the first boat.
>Countries with nuclear power plants and submarines already have agencies to deal with nuclear emergencies.
They have small agencies that offer information to local response team. Easily developed before you receive the sub.
>You'll need somewhere to dispose of the nuclear waste, and submarine hulls once you're done with them.
You scrap the hulls as you normally would an either use SA'sa new nuclear waste dump or do what the US does and shallow bury them.
>You'll need teams of engineers that can repair and refuel the reactors, and you'll need to teach them yourself. Because there is no country in the world with a surplus of experienced nuclear engineers.
The reactors a fuelled once. It's also piss easy to send your people overseas. A master in nuclear reactor engineering is a two year degree and is offered by dozens of universities in the US, Canada and the UK. You also (once again) have ample time to train them - a decade or more.
Prove there is a shortage of nuclear engineers. I'm a mechanical engineer looking at doing my nuclear masters. Nowhere in all my research have I been told there is a shortage of nuclear engineers.
>If you really think you can just own an SSN and borrow a few crew from oversees, I dont know why i'm wasting my time.
No, I don't, instead I recognise we have a good decade or more before the subs even enter service which is ample time to develop what we need to support a nuclear sub fleet. And also, it's because you're clearly a moron.
