You've quoted an article from the Weekend Australian, why? what's your comment or opinion? Many of us have read the paper and formed opinions, in many cases unprintable here.Swedish firm Saab bids to design new Royal Australian Navy submarines
You've quoted an article from the Weekend Australian, why? what's your comment or opinion? Many of us have read the paper and formed opinions, in many cases unprintable here.Swedish firm Saab bids to design new Royal Australian Navy submarines
Well, I didn't see it being mentioned, so I thought I post it up as a reference point for further discussion.You've quoted an article from the Weekend Australian, why? what's your comment or opinion? Many of us have read the paper and formed opinions, in many cases unprintable here.
Fellas I am a long time lurker and first time poster.Post deleted
I think he's barking up the wrong tree completely with regard to the RAN's interest in AIP technology. I've seen consistent commentary from people in the position to know that AIP isn't the silver bullet it's made out to be when the mainstream media reports on subs. In fact if I recall correctly there were a couple of AIP sets acquired for trials with Collins - these same sets are to the best of my knowledge currently gathering dust in RAN storage somewhere. Apparently AIP wasn't considered sufficiently beneficial/relevant to Collins, and so the sets were left out of the fleet entirely.Well, I didn't see it being mentioned, so I thought I post it up as a reference point for further discussion.
Anyway, here's my thought, it is definitely an interesting play by the Swedes. From a political perspective, I don't know going with yet another Swedish sub design will play well in the public after the challenges faced building the Collins class. Well, I know many of the forumers might well be informed that there were various reasons, and wouldn't necessary point fingers at Kockum, or the Swedes, but I feel that the general public, nor some of the less well informed press, might not necessary see it in the same light.
I believe that the HDW Type 216 class or the Japanese's Soryu have the greatest potential to succeed but deep down, I still think that going with the Swede has the potential to yield greater benefits in terms of technological transfer and really firming up the technological know how in submarine building. I also think that it gives us greater potential to even onsell the design to the Canadians in the future. Who knows.
Will be the most interesting to see how the event will unfold. The only thing I think RAN nor Australia can do is to procrastinate further. Just make a decision soon I hope.... and don't god plate everything. Buying 2 subs at a time has a great merit. Just see how the Singaporean did their buy, two Type 218S at a time for an eventual 6 boats.
I will focus on the firstFellas I am a long time lurker and first time poster.
I have 2 questions for you. I am interested to know why Angus Houston has been appointed to be in charge of the search for MH370. Not that I have anything against him and I am sure he is very competent but I would have thought that in a maritime environment and with the number of RAN and overseas naval resources involved that a senior RAN Officer would be the logical choice.
I have always wondered about the arrangements which are put in place for payment when foreign ships are replenished by our tankers such as Success and Sirius and vice versa when our ships are replenished at sea by other navy's ships. Does the host nation pay such as Australia in the search for MH370 and other exercises such as RIMPAC or does each navy pay its own expences.
They are a company that has never built submarines before, poaching staff from an existing submarine manufacturer does not instantly turn them into a first class shipbuilder.Anyway, here's my thought, it is definitely an interesting play by the Swedes. From a political perspective, I don't know going with yet another Swedish sub design will play well in the public after the challenges faced building the Collins class. Well, I know many of the forumers might well be informed that there were various reasons, and wouldn't necessary point fingers at Kockum, or the Swedes, but I feel that the general public, nor some of the less well informed press, might not necessary see it in the same light.
Umm... what you just said but drop the if and slot have been in place of were. ASC has more talent in long range conventional submarine design than many or even any of the competition, they are also the only conventional sub designer with reach back into EB and USN for sub and combat system design. Also through their new senior management and other staff they have not insubstantial links to the Astute, T, and V class (upholders too but we try and forget them), as well as other very experienced staff with backgrounds in the cancelled Viking Submarine Program for the Nordic navies, not to mention very experienced Dutch and Russians.They are a company that has never built submarines before, poaching staff from an existing submarine manufacturer does not instantly turn them into a first class shipbuilder.
On the other hand, if ASC which has now got a 25 year old history of building/maintaining submarines were to hire on people from HDW, BAe, Electric Boat etc, they would be integrating into an existing team with a clear idea of what the RAN needs (since they have been working with them for the last 25 years or so).
:rolling You are killing me.... :rollingThat is why the government will probably send the whole project off shore or build a new green fields site in WA part owned by Austal to deliver a class of trimaran aluminium submarines :finger
The article linked to upthread says that SAAB & TKMS are negotiating over the possible sale of Kockums to SAAB. That's a very different scenario than what you describe.Does it strike you as a bit lop sided that SAAB can supposedly design a suitable submarine for Australia with a couple of hundred poached designers and no background in submarine design ....
One of the linked articles seemed to convey the notion that Saab felt it could design/build subs in Sweden and/or Australia if it could purchase Kockums from the Germans, and the subs would be suitable for use by Sweden, Australia, and possibly export to other nations.The article linked to upthread says that SAAB & TKMS are negotiating over the possible sale of Kockums to SAAB. That's a very different scenario than what you describe.
All of the above and is deeply perniciousOne of the linked articles seemed to convey the notion that Saab felt it could design/build subs in Sweden and/or Australia if it could purchase Kockums from the Germans, and the subs would be suitable for use by Sweden, Australia, and possibly export to other nations.
IIRC the article was written by McPhedran who either has NFI what he is talking about, or has been put deep into Saab's pocket.
Something which constantly gets overlooked, especially by the public, press and pollies, is the (ir)relevance of how well-established some of the sub producing firms are.:rolling You are killing me.... :rolling
On a serious note, I do have serious doubt that just having built 1 class of submarine, ASC would be able to design a brand new class of sub independently. I think getting a well established company like TKDM or Mitsubishi Heavy Industries/Kawasaki Shipbuilding Corporation to help in the design of the new "sons of Collins" will ensure that the project will have less design issues, especially on the hull. Components are most likely going to be sourced from foreign firms US/UK/European/Japanese. Don't think ASC has any proven track record in designing the hull or the screw...
Just my 2 cents
Before you sink even further into bad assumption scenarios - you do realise that all the bad welding which almost resulted in Number 1 being written off was corrected in Australia:rolling You are killing me.... :rolling
On a serious note, I do have serious doubt that just having built 1 class of submarine, ASC would be able to design a brand new class of sub independently. I think getting a well established company like TKDM or Mitsubishi Heavy Industries/Kawasaki Shipbuilding Corporation to help in the design of the new "sons of Collins" will ensure that the project will have less design issues, especially on the hull. Components are most likely going to be sourced from foreign firms US/UK/European/Japanese. Don't think ASC has any proven track record in designing the hull or the screw...
Just my 2 cents