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.
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
c'est la vie c'est la guerre
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.
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.
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.
happens all the time - no impact with trusted partners
not me, I was always nervous about Subs... I (and a few others in here) have been for the last 10 years.
yep, onward, upward, tally-ho....
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....
final specs to be worked on now that the selection has been made. no detail available outside of the need for BYG
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.
DCNS have indicated a full ToT - so I would be hoping that contracting have learnt the lessons from dealing with Kockums
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.