In the posted videos they say 2 billion australian dollars each new Hobart, almost the same for the first 3 HUnters, 2 billion. It´s a bargain for having antisatellite and antiballistic capabalities.
The first video has zero credibility, it is nothing more than a YouTuber with a grand total of 2500 subs, trying to sell his videos. The 2nd one is nothing more than an Australian News channel "claiming" that members of the RAN are pushing for the Navantia proposal, both videos are over a year old.
I suggest looking a bit wider for sources, particularly ones with more depth than a sound-byte in YouTube clips.
My interpretation from "growing support from the navy for 3 new Hobarts" in Sky news, or "the offer is going to be reviewed by certain body by march" by Sky news, but more important it was the australian prime minister who came to Madrid, so probably is Australia who is asking for the offer. It is Australia knocking the door of Madrid. I trust more in Sky news than in the personnel in this forum.
You can find the antisatellite capability of the Sm3 missile at the end or the article.
Thank you for providing zero credibility to support your thoughts or claims. You have also demonstrated an aversion to reading through links others have posted, since they directly address and in some cases counter and dispel claims or assumptions you have made.
Again, I think the reason for avoiding the French SSN option was political, not technical. Fitting the US combat system to the Barracuda design was already part of the Attack class project. This was being done by Lockheed Martin with US approval. By all reports LM were performing well on that work at the time of Attack cancellation. The Lockheed Martin workforce that had been working on fitting the US combat system to the Attack class were redeployed after the contract settlement. See details in this article.
www.navalnews.com
I think you missed the gist of my post. There was a work group managing the combat system integration for the conventionally powered Attack-class design, and it was being handled in a way that would keep information on the combat system way from the French. Had the design been both French and LEU reactor powered, then in addition to existing American concerns about possible access to US sub tech by the French, the French would naturally be concerned about US accessing French sub & nuclear tech. Now this is a shot in the dark on my part, since I do not deal with such tech, but I would imagine that the US would be concerned about France learning information like the sorts of power and cooling demands the BYG-1 combat system has. Similarly, I would imagine that the French would be concerned about the US learning more about the Barracuda-class SSN's reactor and it's ability to meet power demands, and/or how differing power demands might impact the need for refueling cycles.Again, I think the reason for avoiding the French SSN option was political, not technical. Fitting the US combat system to the Barracuda design was already part of the Attack class project. This was being done by Lockheed Martin with US approval. By all reports LM were performing well on that work at the time of Attack cancellation. The Lockheed Martin workforce that had been working on fitting the US combat system to the Attack class were redeployed after the contract settlement. See details in this article.
.Australia and Naval Group Reach Settlement - Naval News
The Australian Government has finalised negotiations with Naval Group to conclude the Attack class submarine program.
This was also confirmed by local press.
The biggest issue with France is their demonstrated lack of support post acquisition.I appreciate that this was the stated reason for the decision but I don’t believe it. I think the real reason was political and this was the excuse. Alan Kuperman of the Lowi Institute checked with France and confirmed that the refuelling could be done. If this reason was true it makes no sense of selecting the Barracuda design for Attack in the first place. The flexibility to shift to the nuclear powered version was a stated advantage of going with DCNS (Naval) Option.
France can help Albanese fix AUKUS | Lowy Institute
Labor faces a dilemma over nuclear-powered subs and the non-proliferation regime. An old partner might offer an answer.www.lowyinstitute.org
In practice the Suffren design has a special hatch to load new reactor cores and it is not dificult. If Australia ordered “spare” reactor cores from France and stockpiled them here then we could have complete control of the refuelling. Areva Technicatom has already replaced the LEU reactor core at the Lucas Heights reactor in Sydney. They also supply reactor cores to the French navy. So the expertise is already here.
The real challenge with whichever design is built will be learning how to maintain the reactor. That is a six month job for each design required every deep lift maintenance cycle.
Which posted videos? Can you please provide links?
The videos were in the post immediately ahead of the one you quoted, a link to that post is here. One was a ~30 sec. Sky News clip which claimed that RAN personnel were pushing for gov't to accept Navantia's offer. The other, longer vid claimed that Australia requested Navantia fast track their offer. The new reporting which came out at about the same time as the two clips were rather light on details, but even they had more information than the two linked clips.
Whoops! Sorry too quick on the response before I'd read to the end of the thread!
I think that may be part of the concern, falling back to a single yard, a single point of failure. They want some distribution of work, across more
All the internal documentation I've seen refer to the Hobart 2.0 offer as an unsolicited proposal, which we have received a number of over the last year. These are looked at and on occasion additional information is requested or varying depths of analysis conducted. This is in no way an acceptance of an offer and certainly not a signed contract.
@Flexson I'm genuinely interested in your opinion on Navantia-built ships - I never served on one but I know people who have served and are serving on Hobarts, LHDs and AORs, and their opinions are mixed - some like them and others don't. Would you mind sharing the reason(s) why you're not a fan of Navantia-built ships?
My patience is running thin too! Sadly there's an article in the Australian today that also confirms we won't hear anything concrete on the surface fleet review until early next year: https://www.theaustralian.com.au/na...y/news-story/d504ebf588db46dc8921339b8d614ee4
From what I've heard it's a case of the Hobart's are better than the LHDs, which are better than the AORs.
My opinions are from an engineering and ILS perspective. Search my posts for comments I've made in the past, I will acknowledge that they are pretty light on for specific details, but as a currently serving member I need to be careful about what I say. I would love to attach all the technical investigations and engineering reports I've read over the years but to do so would have ADFIS knocking on my door pretty quick.