Tweet
Cancelled French submarine program could cost taxpayers more than $5 billion
Ouch... (that's 4.1 USD or 3.7 euro)
Ouch... (that's 4.1 USD or 3.7 euro)
-
-
It ended up costing $835m Australian.Originally posted by jlvfr View Post
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ns-France.html"There is no such thing as society" - Margaret ThatcherComment
-
-
For those who don't open the article at the link, it reports that, "The prime minister confirmed at the weekend that Australia is paying $835 million to French Government-owned Naval Group shipbuilders to ditch the $90 billion diesel subs deal. But details of the contract have now been leaked that reveal Australia was only required to pay a $90 million 'break fee' to the shipyard to cancel the order. There was no compensation agreement written into the deal if it was scrapped - but Australia paid an additional $745 million over and above what was required. Even if the order had moved on to the next stage of development, Australia would still only have been liable to a $250 million compensation fee..."Originally posted by Aussiegunner View Post
Last edited by JRT; 30 Jun 22,, 20:46..
.
.Comment
-
I would certainly like an explanation for that if I were Aussie. Obviously a kiss ass deal to keep the French government happy behind closed doors. Lockheed Martin, another contractor, didn't get a "deal" for breaking of the contract, only the French. So much for hammering out a contract to abide by even if broken which is dealt with in said contract. Yep, kiss ass.Comment
-
Australia buying Virgina-class subs?
So, that's 5 SSN now (for a certain definition of "now") and a new class in... 20 years...
What's the cost of a single Virginia? 3 bilion, give or take?Comment
-
Well, its 3 for sure and maybe 2 more. The problem is that while we are getting used to those we will be building our new UK designed subs, which we will ultimately operate alongside the Virginias. How many nations have simultaneously operated nuclear subs from two different nations? Can't be many & none of them as small as us.Originally posted by jlvfr View Post
I understand the 'why' - we need new subs ASAP. I am also assuming the Yanks won't let us build Virginia and/or won't give us access to some technologies. Doesn't make this any less messy. Makes me wish we had got this properly sorted a decade ago.sigpic
Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C CComment
-
I posted this in the International Political Forum AUKUS thread.Originally posted by jlvfr View Post
The quickest an Astute has ever been laid down and commissioned was nine years. It is now around 11 years. A Virgina is about of a year and there are 22 of them out there. I think in terms of manning and facilities the Astute is the RAN best bet, but they are rare and production is measured in units of 1 and a decade long.
Virginia's are plentiful, quicker to produce than the Astute. Imagine two different submarine classes would be counterproductive and economically inefficient.
Comment
-
There's speculation that they may well not be new builds? There's also speculation the option for 5 is for when Collins reaches the end of its service life and there isn't a replacement.Originally posted by Dazed View Post
This kind-of makes sense - capability is stood up to replace the old, hence two separate types of nuke subs with the Virginia being a stop gap.
I think most of the purported cost is going to occur within SSN(x).
My 2cEgo NumquamComment
-
Wonder if the US will sell the Virginia "as is". It would be the fastest and cheapest solution, but I'm willing to bet there's some top secret gear inside the USN wouldn't be too happy to send out of the US, even to such an ally. Replacing that would take time & money.Comment
-
Apparently the 'plan' is to acquire five or so Virginia class SSNs as a stop gap pending finalization of the design of a more advanced Anglo-Australian sub that would include more (US) designed VLS systems than are currently included in the base Virginia class. As proposed this new class would not be at SSGN levels of capability in terms of the number of VLS tubes in the hull but would be superior to the current Virginia's production runs in terms of the of number of tubes included. So sort of an SSGN 'light' for want of a better term.Originally posted by jlvfr View Post
All of which at this stage is subject to change without notice of course!
Last edited by Monash; 15 Mar 23,, 12:56.If you are emotionally invested in 'believing' something is true you have lost the ability to tell if it is true.Comment
-
Hell of a platform when one thinks of it. Obviously no comparison to a b21 for sortie generation, but to shut down shipping and do land attack is next level.
Ego NumquamComment
-
Australia is also apparently looking into acquiring the US's next gen long range cruise missile system in it's mobile land based configuration which is apparently being developed for the US Army. From memory according to the specs I've read about the expectation is that a vehicle mounted system based around Darwin would be able to hit naval targets in the Makassar Strait!
Me thinks Indonesia might have 'some' concerns about that but not so much I suspect as another unnamed regional power.If you are emotionally invested in 'believing' something is true you have lost the ability to tell if it is true.Comment
-
It's like bringing back the Pershing 2 range wise to be used for surface attack! That'll really do a great job on marine denial!Originally posted by Monash View Post“Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
Mark TwainComment
Comment