Quote:
Originally Posted by Skybird
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-a...-idUSKCN1Q002H
I think they are optimistic a bit if thinking they can afford to wait until 2050 before they complete their submarine order. The Chinese pressure cooker will blow up earlier, I think.
I wonder how Australias ability is to actually crew this many boats? The germans and the Brits for exmaple have massive problems to find enough personnel for their armed forces and navies.
I also have no clue how the general Australian public'S relation to its armed forces are. Are the met with contempt like in Germany, or more with natural ease or even pride, like in many other Western countries?
https://www.dw.com/en/france-to-buil...nes/a-19214374
A strange reason to not reward the order to a regional producer, considering that defence is most vitally about own self interest.
The deal really stirred the waters when it was first announced already two years ago:
https://thediplomat.com/2017/10/aust...ubmarine-deal/
Thats what surprises me, too. I would have thought the 214 were the better option. But the French company is state-owned by two thirds and thus enjoys heavy protectionism and subsidizing by the tax payers, different to Germany France puts utmost priority on protecting its industrial branches considered to be key technology and competence. I assume that pulled some triggers in the background.
[/INDENT]
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skybird
No, the second link from 2017 says: "The 12 submarines — except for some specialized parts — are slated to be built in Adelaide, home to the Australian Submarine Corporation (ASC)".
Wikipedia says the same.
The main criticism seems to be three-fold: 1. too optimistic - already high - cost calculations, 2. unproven design and technological components, and 3. becoming obsolete much faster than anticipated.
Wikipedia says the Barracuda/Suffren (short finned) is a conventional Diesel-electric version of the nuclear Barracudas. The French plan to commission the first such nuclear boat this year. It bases on the Triomphant design, another nuclear boat. The diesel version has never been done before, and exists only on paper. It should have a length of 90 meters and a displacement of over 4000 tons. I do not like that even the nuclear mother design so far is unproven as well, and now they already plan the conventiuonal version on the basis of that unproven nuclear design. Sounds like "one complication level ahead" to me. I think its smarter to do such a stunt only on grounds of an already proven mother design.
The Australians may end up serving as lab rats, so to speak. Serves them well. They should have bought our boats.  |
Australia de-facto wants SSNs for forward deploying it's submarines. Because SSNs are not an option (for political reasons from what I understand) they want long range/endurance SSKs.
As such they went for a big SSK with extended batteries instead of AIP. The other mentioned advantage of the French is their ability to provide the full life cycle of the submarine as a package.