Dave Dunlop
New Member
I believe the Asterix purchase will happen as well. I also think the second Resolve Class will also be built soon. Cheers!
Royal Canadian Navy Discussions and updates
- Thread starter stephen weist
- Start date
How long is a length of string is the correct question here I think. The non-conformance adjustments just seem like a black hole to me...
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Absent any commitments by gov't on making or announcing a decision, that does indeed seem to be the correct question. The entire 'Cure' process itself looks like a yawning maw to me, since we already know that none of the three entries were considered compliant, but we lack any information to make estimates on what would need to be changed to make the entries compliant. If the required changes are/were simple or of little consequence, that would be one thing. OTOH if the requirements involved changes to machinery spaces, weapons systems/load out, or sensors and CMS, any one of those can be quite difficult to achieve.
When looking at all the above and contemplating the entries still not being considered compliant... the adjustments and revised weighted scores sounds like it would have the whole programme stepping off into an abyss since I would assume Canada has some sort of mechanism where failed bidders can mount a legal challenge to a project award.
What could be an interesting notion which just occurred to me, would be if Canada awarded contracts to all three bidders for a build run of five vessels each. This could provide the RCN with a mix and match capability to form task forces with slightly different capabilities and areas of excellence as needed. Not sure what that would do to support and sustainment costs though.
Say what? That must have escaped my attention. care to remind me where it was "said" and by whom? A link to the source would be fine.
oldsig
I am with you on that ..... much as I would like to see the RAN with SSNs .... and I am not alone in that ...there is nothing to suggest that is going to happen that I can see. If there is a ‘report’ I would love to see it.
The political situation certainly is not going to facilitate this unless something dramatic occurs.
t68
Well-Known Member
I think that it was the media that said something along those lines, just because its based on a SSN. Submarines after those most likely will be nuc is the assumption of the media.
Coalition plans nuclear-powered submarine fleet over long term
Submarine Matters: Australian Nuclear Submarine Option - Virginia SSNs
Nuclear submarine option pushed by industry
I haven't heard any official mussing within defence. closest I remember was PM Howard trying to stimulate nuclear power options when in power.
Last edited:
Dave Dunlop
New Member
The Shortfin Barracuda Block 1A Submarine is a conventional version of DNCS Barracuda Class SSN from France. Australia will have the option to acquire the regular Nuclear version sometime during the construction of all 12 boats if Australia desires that option. The US will never, ever sell any of it's Nuclear Sub Technology to any foreign country (except the UK as they have a binding agreement exclusively with the U.S to that end) including Canada as Canada found out during the Trafalgar Class debacle in the mid 1980's. The Australians are under the same umbrella as Canada and no Nuclear Technology will be given to either country. Nothing has changed the mind of the U.S since then. As most of the Nuclear Technology for the British Astute Class SSN comes from the US, that sub will never be sold outside of the UK as well.
Sorry, this is an opinion, not a reference. You think, maybe, that Australia will have an option but on what basis? We have no idea whatsoever how much commonality there will be, we have no suggestion from any official source that there is to be any consideration of nuclear options at any point. I'm not suggesting that it would never happen, just that there is not a shred of evidence that ....
With due respect for t68, media speculation is not much basis for such a claim, especially knowing the "quality" of such reporting in this and other countries.
oldsig
t68
Well-Known Member
Your missing the point of my post,
In your reference that the Shortfin Barracuda Block 1A Submarine as being designed for the RAN could also become nuclear powered, that is not the case. The speculation that I have linked to is media and the US Ambassador Jeffery Bleich at the time on possible options put before us on either conventional or nuclear and the US would be willing to help get us their within constraints of there own national interest and laws as they view our submarine program very highly to their own national interests.
I remember one option that was brought up that there possibly could be a joint AU/US nuclear submarine base located in Australia
The above needs to either be sourced, or changed from being presented as a statement of fact to show that it is an opinion. When posting going forward, be sure to make it clear when posting an opinion, vs. when stating factual information. Also either show sources for some of the lesser known or more dubious facts, or expect to be challenged.
Members are welcome to and in fact expected to share their opinions on defense matters in forum discussions. However there are certain expectations that go along with that, such as also explaining or supporting one's reasons for having whatever opinion being held. There is also an expectation that members will differentiate between what is an opinion (whether theirs or someone else's), and what is a fact. Failing to distinguish between the two drags down discussion on the forum as members either work to factcheck a claim, or start debating something based only on conjecture without realizing it. The longer discussion progresses based on unsupported conjecture, the less grounded in reality such discussion usually becomes.
-Preceptor
SEA1000 is not a conventional version of the Barracuda Class SSN.
Barracuda is the reference design providing a base for a new conventional boat, it's no longer refered to as the "Shortfin Barracuda"
The following link provides some insight into the design process and should probably fit better into the RAN thread but seeing you made the statement, here it is.
Defence special report October 2017 — Sea1000
Dave Dunlop
New Member
Sorry should have said "may" have the option. Just my opinion anyway. Cheers!
Dave Dunlop
New Member
Sorry should have said "may" have the option to acquire the French Nuclear Barracuda Class SSN on some follow-on boats. Yes, the boat that Australia bought from DNCS France is in fact a slightly shorter version of the French SSN. Can you tell to me what the "new" name for the Australian's Short-Fin Barracuda Block 1A Class is?
You have totally misread the post or chose not to.
Australia is not buying a sub from Naval Group, it is not a shorter version of the French SSN and nowhere was a nuclear option mentioned.
It's name is SEA 1000 future submarine.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
The three CSC bidders must submit their "cure" bids by July 21.
It's make or break time for Canadian Surface Combatant bidders
It's make or break time for Canadian Surface Combatant bidders
There is no evaluation criteria related to the decisions made by other governments, so what happens in the Australian program will not factor into the Canadian decision.
Indeed - if it did work like that then the Canadians would have confirmed their F35 decision ages back
There's no connection between the two, and their requirements are separate.
Dave Dunlop
New Member
Two of the Canadian and Australian Frigate bidders, are the same companies with some requirements that parallel each other. You can't say for sure that the British Type 26 and Spanish Christopher Columbus Class bidders are not being talked about by both Countries? Can you say for sure that both Canada & Australia are not thinking the same on both these bidders? Something to think about anyway. Only just my opinion on this!Indeed - if it did work like that then the Canadians would have confirmed their F35 decision ages back
There's no connection between the two, and their requirements are separate.
But their requirements, both military and industrial are difference, so what one thinks of one bid may not be important to the other party. So, no, I don't believe Canada is waiting to see what decision is made by Australia. What if Australia decided to go with F100/Navantia on the basis of some familiarity with the hull and the contractor? Would Canada then take that into account or would they conclude that the same conditions don't hold for Canada ?
Again, there's no link here.
Again, there's no link here.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Yes, but also some of the required kit for the Australian SEA 5000 project has already been decided on by the AusGov. Given that the areas of RCN and RAN operations are different, and that there has not been either leaks or statements put out by gov't officials to indicate that the two gov'ts have the same roles in mind for the two projects, it would be a mistake IMO to believe that the two gov't were talking to each other about the bidders.
I could certainly see the bid teams from the same companies talking to each other about the entries for their respective project, but those discussions (if they were even to occur) would be 'in-house' between different divisions of the same company.
If two countries were to have talks about warship designs entered for their respective national shipbuilding programmes, prior to designs being selected or contracts awarded, I would expect there to be some leaks which would provide greater clarity on vessel roles, and/or specific mission systems which are deemed most important, (i.e. a more ASW-focused design, or a significant area air defence role, etc.) So far not only have we not heard anything like that, but we have a fairly good idea when Australia is expected to make a decision, yet there are only rumours about when Canadian will decide.
IMO if the Australian decision truly had the potential to influence the Canadian decision, the Canada would not have the 'cure' process which is supposed to be underway to make the non-compliant entries meet Canadian requirements. Also as a side note, I believe Lockheed Martin Canada is the leader of the team which includes BAE and is offering the Type 26 frigate for the CSC, with a version of the CMS 330. For the SEA 5000 project, it is BAE Systems offering the Type 26 itself, which would have to have the Aegis CMS and CEA phased array radar panels integrated to meet Australian requirements.