The project (Sea 5000) has down selected Italian Fremm, Type 26 and Navantia’s F105, my gut feel is the F105 will get up

I’d say, and maybe Aussienscale can corroborate this, that its impossible to see the new boats main torpedo armament will be anything other than the Mk48mod7. The CBASS was a joint US/Australian development so they have every vested interest in keeping it in the fleet. As far as I understand it the build programme here will be split for hull, propulsion and habitation going to France and all the ‘fighty bits’ going to the US.

Dont see there will be a lot of scope, at this point, for French HWT’s, SM39 or SCALP though I imagine that there will be ‘suggestions’ all through build that Thales and MBDA could streamline into build very efficiently and at highest bang for buck. Especially if cost overruns start creeping in!

Correct Jonsey, it will be US supplied, relevant quote from the DWP

4.27 Australia’s new submarines will be supported by upgrades to enablers
and facilities such as wharves and port facilities, as well as simulators,
training and submarine rescue systems. The key strategic requirements
for the future submarines include a range and endurance similar to the
Collins Class submarine, sensor performance and stealth characteristics
which are superior to the Collins Class, and upgraded versions of the
AN/BYG-1 combat system and Mark 48 MOD 7 heavyweight torpedo
jointly developed between the United States and Australia as the
preferred combat system and main armament. The new submarines will
have advanced communications systems to link with other Navy ships
and aircraft to conduct anti-submarine warfare operations.

There has never been any question that it will be the AN/BYG-1 or the Mk 48 Mod 7, which is what is currently used on the Collins Class. Along with sub launched Harpoon. There has also been talk of a land attack missile as well, but no recent “mentions”. The biggest issue with this now as mentioned previously will be the IP firewall issues for integration, but not impossible to overcome.

Everything else other than this is just guess work at this stage, have seen some reference to the sonar being done by Thales, who have strong links already in Australia, but that is about it at this stage.

I have also seen a suggestion that we would be looking at photonics mast, which would make sense as it is much better for internal layout, but once again nothing official as yet, or who would supply it ? but if Thales is a potential for the sonar suite you never know, could be something like on the Astute’s or we could get US kit like the Virginia’s

Cheers

Just my two cents to clarify a few things 🙂

Firstly DCNS has not been awarded the contract to build the 12 Subs, the have won the exclusive right to negotiate with the CoA on the 12 Future Subs. That is what the CEP process was all about, death by powerpoint so to speak. The Shortfin Barracuda has not even remotely been designed, it is a powerpoint, vapourware design concept only.

What DCNS now has to do over the next 18 months is build their technical case for the claims/capabilities as presented, present it and get through the next stage, if they can’t come up with the goods within the next 18 months the Government then has the ability to go back to the next tender in the CEP process and engage them.

If DCNS can prove their case, then the submarine will actually be designed, with first steel cut around the 2025 ish mark.

In the DCNS proposal, they are indicating a sonar system from Thales, not a US system, but will be US AN/BYG-1 Combat System and the joint US/Aus developed Mk 48 Torpedo. Regardless of who builds the Sub, be it the French, German or Japanese, none of them will ever see the US kit, they will not install it, they will not integrate it, this will all be done as stipulated by the US State Dept with a nominated US company to do the integrations, be it Raytheon, Lockmart and possibly BAE.

So for my liking the DCNS option is absolutely the riskiest way to go.

The German design would be second, yes it is an upsized 214, so it is not as simple as putting in a plug to make it bigger, so much more to it than that, but you are no designing a brand new concept from scratch. France has built how many submarines ? V Germany who has built ?

The Soryu, or what would actually be an evolution of by the time it was built, was the least risk of all by a long shot. Yes it involved a plug etc etc, but at least it is in the water. Lifespan is not an issue, the Japanese do the 20 years to fit in with build cycle as was mentioned above. It has been stated that the hulls would have no problem with a 30+ year life span. The Japanese have been doing a continuous and evolutionary build program for decades, Soryu’s, Oyashio’s, Harushio’s etc.

The Japanese have done away with AIP, all future builds will be Li. AIP for the space taken, just simply does not have the energy density that you can get with diesel and even Lead Acid batteries, let alone new tech Li. Now don’t get me wrong, AIP has its place, especially for European navies based on geography and their use. For Australia and the distances involved and the requirements AIP just does not cut it. Australia did actually get an AIP unit, still sitting in a container in Adelaide 🙂

The listed distance for the Soryu ? don’t worry about what is publicly stated, Japanese, as are most countries, very coy about their capabilities 🙂

Did we fall for a best dog & pony show ? I think so !! Can DCNS pull it off ? time will tell, they have 18 months to convince us 🙂

Cheers

The Australian

Well that is a highly authoritative source isn’t it, the Australian ? really ?

First claim in what you have quoted is absolute rubbish. They can’t have any discussions on the weapons systems or integration until after the prime has been selected, now that DCNS has been selected, they can now start having ITAR’s and integration discussion with the US State Dept. Even if it was the German or Japanese design that was selected, they still would not do the integration of the combat and weapons systems, this is wholly and solely decided by US State Dept,

Would they have discussed the project in general terms ? for sure, in depth discussions, and to believe that Senior US Navy officials would dictate or try and influence ? no way in hell, they never have and never will. This is just journalistic rubbish.

Official US policy of neutrality ? you bet, have they made statements about preferences ? you bet. Do they actually influence our decisions ? no

Interesting. I thought the project had actually moved back towards the original requirement since the ‘lack of technical maturity’ statement….hence the downselect of those three yards?.

The trajectory after that, probably accurate at-the-time, statement seemed to suggest, as you say, a mildly warmed over Armidale (or similar) to gap fill until something that actually fit 1180 directly could be programmed in. This selection seems to bypass that though it seems?.

The PPB I thought was a curious decision. The Damen design that was eliminated still looks the superior one to me…the Austal design looks quite modest, likely a good one to stand up a steel-working capability for a yard, I’m not so sure that getting Austal additional manufacturing capability should have been the primary selection criteria though!?.

It has been an ever changing project, 2 Governments, 5 Prime Ministers (Kevin Rudd twice) so a lot of changes to keep up with.

While I do believe the Damen to be the best option, the political climate at the moment is fragile, so your guess would be as good as mine or anyone else’s !!

Yes a Damen design has been selected and being built as a helicopter training ship, it will not be a commissioned ship in the RAN, it will be civilian manned and operated. But having said that you would hope/assume that it will have the upper hand.

The Austal decision is purely a political one, I have spoken to many about this, both former serving, current serving, and they are also at a loss 🙁

Talk on this has been pretty quiet at the moment, most attention seems to be on the imminent decision and announcement of the Sea 1000 CEP winner, National Security Council has been meeting over the last few days, and recommendations are said to be going to Cabinet at the moment for final decision.

Cheers

The Submarine Problem – Deeper Than Meets the Eye (excerpt)

:highly_amused: Thanks for that, I really needed a good laugh !!! my cheeks hurt !!

Surely that’s not right. They’re saying that a single aircraft in the F-35 program that first flew 4 months after the first T-50 flight has clocked up more flight hours than the entire T-50 program.

Yes it is right, plenty of info on the net on the milestone 🙂

http://www.edwards.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123414865

Will also just ad this as well, program status as of 1 May 2014

http://www.lockheedmartin.com.au/content/dam/lockheed/data/australia/documents/F-35FastFactsMay2014.pdf

Labor, Greens challenge Tony Abbott to call for double dissolution

Of course the Liberals won’t call an early election, because they know they’d suffer a humiliating defeat that would be the end of their radical ideological assault on the Australian people. They need at least a couple more years in power to deepen the damage and to allow time for voters to forget their wanton betrayals. Even if an election was called and the government defeated, it’s far too late to do anything about the F-35/Super Hornet mess, but at least it would put an end to this pie-in-the-sky nonsense about F-35Bs and other military spending fantasies.

Seriously what are you on ? this has little to do with the thread, I think you need to find a political forum to play around in