France wins A$50bn Australia submarine contract

[Picdelamirand-oil]

Great point, but here in this tender, aren't the Shortfin Barracuda's going to have US systems in them? In its 2015 White Paper, Australia stated they'd prefer US fire control systems and weapons be used on any submarine it purchases to replace Collins.

Its preferred fire control system was the AN/BGY-1.

Is this still the case? Do we know what major and subsystems will be on these submarines? Did Australia drop or harden its requirement for US gear given its experience and familiarity with them?

It's not hard fit, given as how our Ula replacements, built by either TKMS or DCNS will also feature systems of out choice, tailored to our unique requirements. And with Australia being a major US ally, they'd be supplied with US control systems and software without much fight.

The contract is around $ 38 billions on this amont there is 18 Billions for US weapon system. America's Raytheon Co, which built the system for Australia's ageing Collins-class submarines, is vying for a separate combat system contract with Lockheed Martin Corp, which supplies combat systems to the U.S. Navy's submarine fleet. A decision on the weapons system is due later this year.
The French shipbuilder's share of the overall contract will amount to about 8 billion euros ($9.02 billion), according to sources with knowledge of the deal.
The remaining will be in Australia.

 

[kaykay]

wtf is this submarine ! ! approx 3.17 billion usd/unit ! ! !
can some one tell me its specification ! !

Its conventional variant of Barracuda SSNs....displacement of around 4500 tons.

 

[C130]

1.) Australia had build Sub before. The Collins class (The French sub replacing now) was build in Osbourne, South Australia.

2.) It have nothing to do with politics, if Politics are involved, we would have gone with Type 216 design (with Full US, German and Sweden Support)

3.) Soryu Class is not the best in this deal, the Best would be A-26, to anyone who actually follow this deal would know, technological wise, A-26 design is the best, while the Soryu design was to be the cheapest,

I would agree on your point being the DCNS non-nuclear sub is untried. But then DCNS have a lot of joint venture with Australia, which make it a good partner for reinvestment.

I want the U.S to buy A26 so bad.

24 of them for for $12 billion dollars assuming $500 million each

Australia's mandating that US Fire control and weapons systems be put on any class of submarine it buys, right? This condition being because of their familiarity with US systems and their use of US weapons like the Mk48:

If so, then there's no need for concern about interoperability, not any more then there was with the Collins class.

...

A pumpjet's an interesting choice though. Aren't pumpjets less efficient at slower speeds then are prop and screw type designs? And aren't SSKs typically used as ambush hunters, lying in wait, as opposed to SSNs which are hunter-killers? Or is this just for SSCs like our Ula class?

makes sense Australia has a large stockpile of Mark 48 Mod 7 CBASS and UGM-Harpoon, and are trained with these weapons. It wouldn't make sense to junk those and buy new torpedoes and anti-ship missiles.

 

[mike2000 is back]

Can you 100% sure Australia turn down Soryu sub not to do with China's concern? Although I know French sub is also more mature and more advanced than Japan. Giving contract to French is the best solution Turnbull has, cause China is the biggest trading partner of Australia. Don't drag in some bs tech blab kanal, it's about reality and politics. Congratulation to DCNS and France, well done.

Lool this has NOTHING TO DO WITH CHINA AT ALL mate. It will be another joke of the century to think Australia will reject such a bid because of China, thats the least of their concerns when it comes to making such a decision. Lol

 

[chauvunist]

Thank God this deal doesn't India otherwise there would have been bragging about mother,grand mother and father of all deals for more than a decade and nothing fruitful would have come out..

 

[Picdelamirand-oil]

According to a French MOD source, the submarine contract with Australia would never have been signed in case of delivery of Mistral to Russia.

Great point, but here in this tender, aren't the Shortfin Barracuda's going to have US systems in them? In its 2015 White Paper, Australia stated they'd prefer US fire control systems and weapons be used on any submarine it purchases to replace Collins.

Its preferred fire control system was the AN/BGY-1.

Is this still the case? Do we know what major and subsystems will be on these submarines? Did Australia drop or harden its requirement for US gear given its experience and familiarity with them?

It's not hard fit, given as how our Ula replacements, built by either TKMS or DCNS will also feature systems of out choice, tailored to our unique requirements. And with Australia being a major US ally, they'd be supplied with US control systems and software without much fight.

The Evaluation Process was mainly overseen by people from USA!

The rigorous and independent process was led by Head of the Future Submarine Program, Rear Admiral Greg Sammut, and General Manager Submarines, retired US Navy Rear Admiral Stephen Johnson, who was previously in charge of the program to replace the Ohio Class ballistic missile submarines.

The process was overseen by an independent Expert Advisory Panel, chaired by former Secretary of the United States Navy, Professor Donald Winter. It was peer reviewed by retired US Navy Vice Admiral Paul Sullivan and retired US Navy Rear Admiral Thomas Eccles.

http://news.navy.gov.au/en/Apr2016/Fleet/2875/Future-submarine-announcement.htm#.VyEQ8dSLTGh

 

[帅的一匹]

Lool this has NOTHING TO DO WITH CHINA AT ALL mate. It will be another joke of the century to think Australia will reject such a bid because of China, thats the least of their concerns when it comes to making such a decision. Lol

Japan wanna explanation from Australia as why Aussie kick out Japan sub in the bid? You answer should be because Mr Abbot is not PM.

 

[BoQ77]

Lool this has NOTHING TO DO WITH CHINA AT ALL mate. It will be another joke of the century to think Australia will reject such a bid because of China, thats the least of their concerns when it comes to making such a decision. Lol

Australia used to send subs to spy China during Cold War era.
I guess they don't hesitate to buy anything they want, even against China will.

In this case, they must believe they get the deadliest subs for handling the hostile, although I don't want to point out who their hostile is now

 

[BoQ77]

Canberra’s submarine deal tilts security balance
Source:Global Times Published: 2016-4-27 0:53:01
6
Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull on Tuesday awarded an A$50 billion ($40 billion) contract to build a new fleet of submarines for Australia to a French enterprise. Japan, which had been a frontrunner in the contest, lost the bid. Japan's Soryu-class submarines are some of the most advanced diesel-electric submarines in the world. Some attributed Japan's failed bid to its lack of experience in military weapons exports and Australia's considerations of avoiding offending China.

However, some Chinese scholars hold that Japan lost the deal because Australia still has concerns over its submarine-building compatibilities. Technological factors weigh more in such a mega project than political factors.

The worst-case scenario seems to have been avoided since Australia snubbed Japan's submarines.

However, as Australia is an ally of the US, these 12 new submarines will beef up the US' strategic strength in the West Pacific, negatively affecting China's strategic security.

Canberra has attached great importance to its economic links with Beijing, its biggest trading partner. But meanwhile, it has offered more support to US military deployment in the Asia-Pacific region that targets China. Nonetheless, Australia is different from Japan. The former is more willing to show its effort of balance between China and the US, while the latter boasts of its partiality to the US.

Canberra needs to know that its submarine plan, be it independent or not, is part of the geopolitical game in the Asia-Pacific and will be used as a bargaining chip for the regional strategic wrestling. Should it add to military pressure against China, it will be compelled to develop stronger counteroffensive capabilities, which in the end runs counter to the national interests of Australia.

Australia after all is located far away from China's continental sea. The simmering tensions between China and the US in the South China Sea are harmful to Australian national security. Therefore, Australia can only secure its best interests by detaching from the South China Sea disputes and not fanning the disputes from outside.

That China will reconstruct the order of the South China Sea, stifle freedom of navigation and block the trade routes of Australia is an illusion. China was accused of changing the status quo of the South China Sea through island building. But it's the US that is a real status quo changer by increasing troop numbers in Darwin, deploying a P-8 Poseidon spy plane to Singapore and reopening five military bases in the Philippines.

If Australia pursues long-term national development and security, it should use its own advantages to help alleviate strategic tensions between China and the US. It should find the correct balance for the sake of peace in the Asia-Pacific.

Posted in: Editorial

 

[Picdelamirand-oil]

 

[Picdelamirand-oil]

A nuclear Barracuda submarine: the SNA Suffren under construction in Cherbourg
(© DCNS)

 

[Taygibay]

^^^ That's one clean factory for something that gets soldered and greased and the likes!

Good! Tay.