Thanks Gf0012-aust
No harm, no foul.
Aust dollars and was initially a complete through life, raise train and sustain till first major service point (which is a drydocking and hacksaw job). costs had to be revised after the US stepped in and helped resolve some of Kockums hull and system design problems so that impacted upon the previous through life, RTS costs as different players had to be bought in.
Its a good book i really enjoyed it.Makes you realise how big a project it is.
$300 million is pretty cheap per boat IMO.
StringrayOZ
Thats if they stick with the 12 planned, and not many in defence(down the hill)seem to think thats reachable with crewing numbers. The big problem is where to put them. If they split the subs East and West, then getting people into the subs may not be such a concern.
, which was in Sydney when the "O" was around, but shut down and now left derelict much to the complaints from locals. With Subs in the East it would increase the surface forces training with these units from once in a blue moon to weekly "hunts", i know our experience with the few operational units has been minimal this year with forced dry dockings and changes in schedule. Used to be quite a thrill to catch a glimpse of the boats as you drove down toward the harbour bridge. The 'Big Grey Warships' tied up at Garden Island - yeah, OK, but catching sight of the black hull and sail of a sub used to be far more interesting. Subs really are the 'chicken stranglers' of the sea.I believe it was called HMAS Platypus
Thats not what Tripovich and the current CASS (can't remember his name) are saying (as of 3 weeks ago when we had a briefing about future subs)
The small canteen inside gdn island sells decent food as well. so you can eat and watch when bored.
Abe and I spoke about some of this on T5C. I was able to see some of these HTS engines when in the US. They're approx 1/3rd equiv body mass and double the output on footprint compared to contemp engines.
I disagree on A$1 billion being 'too high' a price for the Collins II. The current USN Virginia SSN order has a per unit price of ~US$2 billion (AFAIK in 2007 dollars), and that for a 30 unit build. While I do expect that an SSN would be in some areas more complex and expensive than a conventional, a conventional sub is still amongst the most complicated warships around. This means that there are development costs for the design, equipment fitout, testing, etc. This development cost gets amortized across the entire design build, which is why drastic reductions in order numbers can trigger a dramatic per unit cost increase for complex equipment.
Sorry I was talking about the $1bn being the unit cost of the current Collins class which someone else quoted but I think this was the total progamme cost divided by 6, which take into account rectification issues.
The old HMAS Platypus,great to see the O Boats back then.As for basing them at HMAS Kuttabul...2 LHDs, 3 Anzacs, 1 AOR, 2 AWD, 1 RO-RO?, will be enough to fill the place, let alone the future FFH replacement and 4 subs. so another docking point in sydney harbour would be ideal...
I believe it was called HMAS Platypus
As it stands today - no it can't
they lost core experience years ago. a number of their best people have either been poached or have set up their own companies - in fact its the private companies that has done very well selling their experience and technology overseas. the existing mgt team IMO are incompetent and some of their engineers are not even remotely up to date with emergent tech etc... The sad thing is that this old cadre think that they are experts. They've misunderstood their role, what their involvement has been in rectifying the earlier probs (and it was fundamentally other australian companies, DSTO and US support via USN, SecDef, NAVSEA, DARPA and ONR that pulled it together.
The US won't move away from nukes, as they provide significant benefit. the upside for the US is that the new propulsion solutions make dismounts etc far more viable. That means new concepts, new technology and new doctrine.
it is their core business, by sheer mass and constant development they have stayed the big dog in what they play in.
US companies looked at ASC approx 4 years ago, and looked again taking the AWD project into consideration for value for money
nukes have their place. this tech does not compete with nukes, it competes with other conventional tech like diesels, hybrids, fuel cells etc...
What's your take on Ludlam, if I can ask mate? From what I've read of him he seems well qualified for the top job, do you think he's a step toward rectifying the state of things at ASC?