Naval Ship & Submarine Propulsion Systems

[t68]

oh well. lets hope contracting lock up the KPI's and the IP firewalls to the US can be negotiated

one would hope they did that before announcement.

From the announcement they said some ex USN submarine types looked over the bid, they should have knowledge about the risk in dealing with the French and still come out on top.

still in a state of shock really that option J didn't get the nod, seemed the least risk to me even if the Japanese had no prior experience with defence exports, its not like they have an isolationist policy on exports. from their economy.

 

[Punta74]

Just looking into the specs on the SSN to compare with SMX.

The SSN does already have 2 Diesel and Electric Module. Is it possible that the forward section up to the deck shelter could remain the same ?

Good link below with a detailed view of SSN to compare.

Barracuda class SSN nuclear powered attack submarine SNA sous-marins nucléaire d'attaque French Navy Marine Nationale DCNS Suffren Duguay-Trouin Tourville Duquesne De Grasse Dupetit-Thouars datasheet pictures photos video specifications

P.S We could call this the HMAS Barramundi !!

 

[gf0012-aust]

one would hope they did that before announcement.

the US on the surface (NPI) is not going to intrude upon a sovereign decision, so they would be publicly agnostic - however nothing would be negotiated with them beforehand as contractually it couldn't. the meandering begins now.

From the announcement they said some ex USN submarine types looked over the bid, they should have knowledge about the risk in dealing with the French and still come out on top.

I can only input from personal experience as a contractor, and as someone who worked on UDT across a number of different sub types - and job specific conversations with Dept Commerce, US State, NAVSEA, ONR, USN and exchange RN. That includes working for a french company that was involved in acoustic management. Nobody I dealt with in the USG uniform or suit subscribed to that view

still in a state of shock really that option J didn't get the nod, seemed the least risk to me even if the Japanese had no prior experience with defence exports, its not like they have an isolationist policy on exports. from their economy.

c'est la vie c'est la guerre

 

[t68]

oh well. lets hope contracting lock up the KPI's and the IP firewalls to the US can be negotiated

just another quick one on this, say for instance the US does object and do not allow us to integrate the combat system, how would that effect the bid if we cannot get over those hurdles. does that mean we have to use the French system or does the whole lot go back to tender leaving the possibility no one will retender?

 

[gf0012-aust]

just another quick one on this, say for instance the US does object and do not allow us to integrate the combat system, how would that effect the bid if we cannot get over those hurdles. does that mean we have to use the French system or does the whole lot go back to tender leaving the possibility no one will retender?

the US won't deny access to the combat system - but because they clearly have IP issues with respect to France (and thats not "news" to anyone) then State Dept can establish how the French will be involved. State can stipulate who will integrate the systems and the French have no say in the matter - and State will set the IP firewall constraints as well.

France will have to suck it up on US decisions on who they say can be involved with integration

the degree of protection may delay how things are done, but the US won't stop it - they will just work on how they can protect their IP to an extent that they would not necessarily do if it was the UK or Japan. eg BAE already does work on US nukes, so they could end up as the US nominated integrator.

This is my last comment of "woe" - but jeez I wish the poms were still in the conventional sub business

 

[Gordon Branch]

Speaking of the UK being in the conventional boat business: Can someone explain why the Canadians had so much trouble with the Upholder Class boats? Did the the RN have problems with them prior to them being sold to our Canadian cousins?

 

[kaz]

I suppose the issue on steel was the deal breaker. AFAIK, the other two emphasized their top-secret "state of the art" steels which would undoubtedly involve more complicated ToT and training.

Pity TKMS going home empty handed as none of its bids have succeeded despite an impressive commercial push. Anyhow, the ship has sailed.

 

[Todjaeger]

Speaking of the UK being in the conventional boat business: Can someone explain why the Canadians had so much trouble with the Upholder Class boats? Did the the RN have problems with them prior to them being sold to our Canadian cousins?

From memory, the Upholder-class was either not mothballed properly, or as a normal result of having been mothballed the wiring needed to be stripped out and replaced. The RAN had done an eval on the ex-RN subs, prior deciding to build the Collins-class subs. The eval team IIRC determined that there would be problems with bringing the subs back into service, and deemed the effort not worth it. This was prior to Canada deciding to purchase them, and then running into problems related to issues the RAN team found.

AFAIK they were good conventional boats while in RN service (once the torpedoe issue was resolved) but were only in commission for ~4 years. They were then stored alongside of 5+ years before started to be recommissioned into Canadian service between Dec 2000, and Sept 2004.

 

[Nick underscore]

Interesting that Merkel didn't conduct 1-2-1 meetings with Turnball regarding these large defense contracts, whereas Hollande did the exact opposite.

I'll admit that I'm surprised on this selection and disappointed... Yes, the designs of a conventional Barracuda look attractive, but I can't help to think the project will require a Lazarus moment sometime in the future.

I'm sure in the end, we will get the capability we wanted. It's the cost, time and effort achieving this - that concerns me regarding this contract.

 

[vonnoobie]

In regards to integration and issues between the US and France, If (most likely) France is barred from being involved in the integration of US combat systems does that hinder/prevent any possible sale of the ASC to DCNS?

It does seem impractical to have two differing work forces occupying the same location at differing times to work on them.

 

[gf0012-aust]

In regards to integration and issues between the US and France, If (most likely) France is barred from being involved in the integration of US combat systems does that hinder/prevent any possible sale of the ASC to DCNS?

nope, but it can impact on schedule in the end. the french just won't be able to deal with the squirrel side of things. I suspect that State would nominate NG, Raytheon or BAE as its integrators as they are already covered under various relevant ITARs arrangements.

It does seem impractical to have two differing work forces occupying the same location at differing times to work on them.

happens all the time - no impact with trusted partners

eg BAE with US nuke subs, JSF, various INT tools, various combat systems etc....

 

[gf0012-aust]

Watching the RAN CN on the ABC he seems to be toeing the company line, doesn't seem so enthusiastic towards it might have a lot of reservations about the French being able to pull it off, just hope the French don't screw us in the future.

yep, the boss looked ecstatic

 

[gf0012-aust]

Funnily enough I was looking at Block V Virginia specs today....

"my kingdom for a horse...."

 

[gf0012-aust]

And all you guys got excited over the white paper! #whatajoke

not me, I was always nervous about Subs... I (and a few others in here) have been for the last 10 years.

The white paper was always going to be politically steered and geared

 

[the road runner]

At least we have a winner .... for who? Time will tell.
I was pretty shocked by the call but its done now and we can all hope for a French platform that serves us well into the future.

I am under the impression the Barracuda design has areas set aside for underwater drones,silos for cruise missiles,a mini sub able to deploy commando's. It dose seem this is what "extra's" Australia was looking for.

Now hopefully we can turn this nuke into a conventional. On the call of the combat system, and integration issues ... have we heard if all systems will be french ,except for the combat system? Wont the design be evolved now and contract will specify what systems we will use?

Edit.. Could Raytheon or other US companies get more work on sensors,computers,work stations ect or will it all be French ?

 

[gf0012-aust]

At least we have a winner .... for who? Time will tell.
I was pretty shocked by the call but its done now and we can all hope for a French platform that serves us well into the future.

yep, onward, upward, tally-ho....

I am under the impression the Barracuda design has areas set aside for underwater drones,silos for cruise missiles,a mini sub able to deploy commando's. It dose seem this is what "extra's" Australia was looking for.

Its a stumpy sized nuke design - so all those capabilities are inherent to all western nuke subs - and some of that already exists in Collins. The issue revolves around whether full ToT actually does exist as DCNS Aust have advertised repeatedly. Its going to make things very interesting for France as they have rejected full ToT to other countries - so those countries might want to have another stab at the pinyata. They've got some political dancing to do with other customers....

Now hopefully we can turn this nuke into a conventional. On the call of the combat system, and integration issues ... have we heard if all systems will be french ,except for the combat system? Wont the design be evolved now and contract will specify what systems we will use?

final specs to be worked on now that the selection has been made. no detail available outside of the need for BYG

Edit.. Could Raytheon or other US companies get more work on sensors,computers,work stations ect or will it all be French ?

any ITARs and FMS tech will be subjected to State Dept decisions. US companies can only be engaged if State nominate them. US tech is owned by the US Govt when exported - and State have carriage of responsibility in exercising the protection of those tech sets and capabilities.

So it could be anyone from NG to EB to Boston Consulting etc etc......

The french have no say on who State select

 

[the road runner]

Sorry gf just a couple more Question.

Will Australia be paying the freight to turn this Nuke boat into a conventional ?

And will we get IP rights or be a partner in owning some IP rights for this new boat?
My mind boggles how we can spend 50 billion and just buy a sub with no IP rights as we take the risk just as much as the French do ,or am i wrong on this ?

 

[gf0012-aust]

Sorry gf just a couple more Question.

Will Australia be paying the freight to turn this Nuke boat into a conventional ?

And will we get IP rights or be a partner in owning some IP rights for this new boat?
My mind boggles how we can spend 50 billion and just buy a sub with no IP rights as we take the risk just as much as the French do ,or am i wrong on this ?

DCNS have indicated a full ToT - so I would be hoping that contracting have learnt the lessons from dealing with Kockums

If I was the prime, I would be amortising/billing the development costs into the contract.

if I was the customer, I'd be ensuring that any tech developed to build le skippy can only be onsold to future french customers with our permission - and that the ToT means that we have ownership and sale/royalty rights

early days yet.

as the Commonwealth has a history of being screwed in contracts, I would hope that we have an experienced legal shop acting on our behalf and that they stay closely wedded to Attorneys General on protecting the Commonwealth.

$50bn is the through life contract cost.

One would hope that the French were prepared to cap the development and build costs like the Germans and Japanese.

but in real terms I have NFI as the contract management details will have not been determined yet.

 

[the road runner]

DCNS have indicated a full ToT - so I would be hoping that contracting have learnt the lessons from dealing with Kockums

If I was the prime, I would be amortising/billing the development costs into the contract.

if I was the customer, I'd be ensuring that any tech developed to build le skippy can only be onsold to future french customers with our permission - and that the ToT means that we have ownership and sale/royalty rights

That's the one lesson i hope we have learnt from Kockums/Collins.Being able to fix the boat or add extra tech without having to go to court ! Royalties would be an added bonus .... I wonder now Australia has chosen DCNS .... if other countries such as India and Canada have their radar fixed on this project.

It really is a very big win for DCNS and for ongoing sales for countries seeking and ocean going boat !

Cheers

 

[gf0012-aust]

It really is a very big win for DCN and for ongoing sales for countries seeking and ocean going boat !

Cheers

there is an irony here - Australia is regarded as a gold reference site when it comes to pulling off a sale (from the Primes perspective) - sometimes I think that can colour the capacity to think clearly and we are easily seduced by "purchasing and selection hubris" and fall victim to the charms of the primes.

I wish it wasn't so.....