Well done FRANCE !

Originally posted by jsbuser: ↑

So let me understand this right?

1. We went to the market for a DIESEL submarine.
2. The Defence department liked to French sub offered bit not that it was NUCLEAR powered
3. So, if I recall, we selected the french sub with a Diesel engine, because it was the best fit to needs after an exhaustive evaluation process.
4. Now I think a german submarine came second, and something else came third. Cant recall any British or American submarines even close to the podium. Isnt that right?
5. So, the French are working away at making this Nuclear submarine into a Diesel one, the way that Australia asked for
6. China starts acting like a goose, partly on our prompting but a complete goose nonetheless.
7. Australia goes, whoa, that Diesel engine aint good enough in the face of those barley and wine tariffs. We are going to have to have a quieter engine to run around in so we can deploy our conventional warheads at a country that has 74 submarines.
8. And up fronts Boris and our good mate from UpYonder, who cant remember out Prime Minister's name, and goes you can have some secret nuke tech from 1957 to run your boat, and we have a pommy boat as well.
9. And, instead of saying, "where were you two years ago with this wonderful suggestion, you know, when we had the big tender with the French and German and Swedish and etc boats and the exhaustive evaluation process", we go "Ok, sounds great"
10. And nobody, I repeat nobody, went:
"Hold on, we have a Nuclear powered submarine we've evaluated already as best in class, why dont we just ask the French to make it nuclear powered after all and drop the Diesel bit?"

Now let's do some maths:
1. The USA have 64 submarines, the have 6 nuclear, we pick up 8 eventually that can be nuclear armed )and dont think they wont at a pinch).
2. But we can "rent them" in the interim. The USA can then fund some building of new subs for itself while soaking OZ for a few rental jobs. We'll end up paying for the eventual subs twice over.

Guess what, Australia just paid for the USA and Britain trying to get to sub parity with China without putting its hands in its own pocket.

I hope there is a robust termination for convenience clause in the French sub contract, or we will be up for substantive relief financially for breaking the agreement.

At best, under the Commonwealth Procurement Guidelines, France should be able to enter a competitive evaluation of their nuclear submarine against the USA/Brit one.

Expand

this is a garbage post.

4. the US or Britain do not currently have any diesel powered submarines and were not willing to repower existing designs.

6. completely the CCPs fault for being bullies

7. Diesel submarines are actually quieter than nukes, they just do not have the range or endurance.

8. the Brits currently have state of the art Nuclear power generation and have been involved in the nuclear power generation field for aslong as the Americans.

10. DCNS were already at double the original budget, yet still have not been completely ruled out as no class nor builder of submarine has yet been chosen.

section 2

1. the subs we are buying are the attack type, which cannot be nuclear armed, unless we pull the old nuclear tomahawks out of mothballs. The US sub fleet is purely nuclear powered other than 1 diesel they were renting off I believe Sweden for training their crews how to operate against the smaller quieter diesel boats.