(Source: Australian Department of Defence; issued Oct. 6, 2009)
Greg Combet, Minister for Defence Personnel, Materiel and Science, today finalised discussions with US industry on Australias Future Submarine project that will replace the Collins class submarines.
The United States is a leader in the design and development of submarine technology, and I expect that Australia will look to learn from companies like General Dynamics Electric Boat and Lockheed Martin in designing and developing the Collins class replacement, Mr Combet said.
The Future Submarine will be Australias largest ever Defence acquisition and the Rudd Government is committed to ensuring that Australia obtains a world leading submarine capability. US technology is likely to be an important facilitator of this capability.
Electric Boat designs and shares the build of the Virginia class submarines for the US Navy and has been instrumental in driving down production costs to enable the US to increase the production rate of these submarines.
Lockheed Martin is a major supplier in the US Navy submarine combat system, the Collins Replacement Combat System supplies submarine combat systems or components to Spain and the United Kingdom.
I welcome the interest from US industry in supporting the Future Submarine project.
Any US involvement in the Future Submarine would build on the relationships developed with Electric Boat and other US companies in support of the Collins class.
Mr Combet also discussed the ongoing arrangements between ASC and Electric Boat in support of the Collins class.
I wonder how long it will take Thunder to come in with "Electric boat designed Astute not BAE", which should actually be "Electric boat helped BAE with the software used to design Astute". Though of course by his logic, F22 and F35 are French designs as IIRC they use d'assaults CATIA for design
"He lives in a world where concept is reality..."
I once lived in France,
but left for Angleterre,
I dream up flying in planes,
and invent some sources too,
but when it comes to proving it,
it's Tampax down the drain!
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Well, now that it has been brought up, US Engineers were brought in to help get the Astute program back on track back years ago. Not saying it would or could not have been done on the Brits own, simply that that did happen, and to the other comment about the US having not designed or sold subs to anyone else, if they were asked it could be done.
The truth is out there - you just may not like hearing it.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
The U.S. sub industry is solidly centered around the USN which is by far the biggest market for them. And the USN is all about nuclear boats and boats of substantially larger size than anyone else is buying apart from maybe Russian, maybe.
I assume the Roos are just looking for technical/acoustic/hydrodynamic help..............they aren't considering nuke are they?
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
LOL i bet Australia will mess up this order as well trying to nitpick all systems so nothing works.
You seem hurt... there there.
Siege of Tobruk - One German POW said: "I cannot understand you Australians. In Poland, France, and Belgium, once the tanks got through the soldiers took it for granted that they were beaten. But you are like demons. The tanks break through and your infantry still keep fighting." Rommel wrote of seeing "a batch of some fifty or sixty Australian prisoners ... marched off close behind usimmensely big and powerful men, who without question represented an elite formation of the British Empire, a fact that was also evident in battle."
"As a Internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
"ppp56)
I wonder how long it will take Thunder to come in with "Electric boat designed Astute not BAE", which should actually be "Electric boat helped BAE with the software used to design Astute". Though of course by his logic, F22 and F35 are French designs as IIRC they use d'assaults CATIA for design"
It didn't take YOU moron too long to do your usual mediocre spinning and twisting... NOW please:
PUT your money where your dirty mouth IS and SHOW US MY comments on the subject.
"Electric boat helped BAE with the software used to design Astute".
NOPE, Electric boat helped BAe with USING the CAD software whatever is was they were using because BAE engineers made a harh mess of it from day one, meaning at design stage as they did Nimrod re-engineering and several other key MoD programes, all of which is very well documented by NAO yearly editions.
One doesn't spend £Millions for a software package, but i know of some trolls with a low-estime problem who keep talking off their @ss and try to imply others have the same issues.
= BAE and the Ministry of Defence reached an agreement in February 2003 whereby they would invest £250 million and £430 million respectively to address the programme's difficulties.[4]
= A major element of this was the enlisting of advice and expertise from General Dynamics Electric Boat.[11] The MOD also signed a design and production drawing work contract through the U.S. Navy which ran from 2004 to 2007.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astute_class_submarine#cite_note-11
= All this is a far cry from the disarray that the Astute programme found itself in back in early 2002. It was then, five years after the original prime contract award, that BAE Systems and the Ministry of Defence (MoD) finally woke up to the enormity of the cost overruns and schedule delays arising from a combination of poor project management, an immature computer-aided design (CAD) tool and a haemorrhaging of skills and experience in the submarine industry.
= Another vital dimension to the recovery programme was the involvement of US submarine builder General Dynamics Electric Boat in the design effort. The IPT concluded a Foreign Military Sales agreement with the US Naval Sea Systems Command to allow Electric Boat to second a management team to help BAE Systems complete the design process. In addition, a classified high-speed transatlantic computer link was established to allow a team of draughtsmen in the US to work on the Astute CAD model.
http://www.janes.com/defence/news/jdw/jdw060315_1_n.shtml
= BAE Systems will make a £750 million ($1.2 billion) provision against earnings for its troubled Astute submarine and Nimrod MRA4 maritime patrol aircraft programmes, and the UK government will kick in an additional £700 million for the programmes. The measures, announced on 19 February, are seen as a better-than-hoped-for outcome for BAE.
http://www.janes.com/business/news/jdw/jdw030221_1_n.shtml
Q: Is Astute in service yet?
PPP you realy have a huge problem with something too small in your own "design" for functioning properly, i wonder what bit of you is causing it?
"Rzeczpospolita)
You seem hurt... there there".
Well, as Sweeden probably designs the best SSKs in the world, used by the US for training their anti-Submariners in exercises, i understand he can be a little sarcky, he certainly in not envious, not even of the Germans, DCNS or Russians.
When it comes to western SSK designs, the tops are known:
Sweeden, Germany and France, i guess Australia will chose Germany for political (correctnes) purposes as Sweeden and France are competing vs the US on several other sectors.
This message has been edited by sampaix on Oct 8, 2009 10:29 AM This message has been edited by sampaix on Oct 8, 2009 10:25 AM This message has been edited by sampaix on Oct 8, 2009 9:40 AM
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
The new submarines will almost certainly be European-designed hulls with a US combat system.
---
That would be such a shame. Australia could and should go solo. None of Australia's likely adversaries have any noteworthy ASW capabilities so even if Australia's new SSI aren't all that good, it will be more than enough for what they need.
When I was young I used to pray for a bike, then I realized that God doesn't work that way, so I stole a bike and prayed for forgiveness.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
LOL i bet Australia will mess up this order as well trying to nitpick all systems so nothing works.
I bet that you bet wrongly.
That would be such a shame. Australia could and should go solo. None of Australia's likely adversaries have any noteworthy ASW capabilities so even if Australia's new SSI aren't all that good, it will be more than enough for what they need."
Australia's future acquisitions aren't meant to counter regional neighbours. Of whom none (apart from Singapore) have a noteworthy Navy or ASW abilities.
Not too long ago, they were still discussing building nuclear submarines locally. Australians often think they're a superpower.
Incorrect. Some within defence think tanks were lobbying for Nuclear subs.(As far as I am aware) Doesn't mean the Australian was government genuinely was pursuing it.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
"Australia's future acquisitions aren't meant to counter regional neighbours. Of whom none (apart from Singapore) have a noteworthy Navy or ASW abilities".
Really?
Well i guess you have to revise your opinion because the Chinese is ranked world's 3th since 2005 and i bet Japan have more capabilties as well, unless you discount allies it still leaves you with China as a regional threat.
This message has been edited by sampaix on Oct 8, 2009 12:19 PM This message has been edited by sampaix on Oct 8, 2009 12:17 PM This message has been edited by sampaix on Oct 8, 2009 12:17 PM
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Credit: DR
With 424 warships to 788 870 tonnes, the waking-up is a little harsh but the numbers are there. The Chinese fleet, expanding, is now a major world maritime powers.
26/12/2005
This role should be strengthened in the coming years. Sign of the times, the Chinese navy made its entry in the list of eight major marine 2006 edition of Combat Fleets. "For the first time that China is there and that presence will certainly shake the minds of all, as a first, it goes directly into third place, behind Russia and well ahead of Britain," says Bernard Prézelin. The author of this reference book, updated every two years, "how surprising since China became a superpower in the world? . In comparison, the Royal Navy in the middle dose of austerity, remains painfully to 470,000 tons and the Navy, sixth world fleet after Japan, has a tonnage of 307,000 tons. The arrival of the Chinese navy on the podium for the first three world, reveals a new emphasis that the Beijing government's place in maritime action. However, according to Bernard Prézelin, "It should put this finding, as it always has, yet, a regional focus. Recall however that this vocation was that local there is even less than ten years. Theaters of operation will probably expand to the extent that China has already or will help several countries bordering the Indian Ocean to build naval bases (who) will be as many points for its own buildings. It may well include Gwadar, Pakistan, the Maldives Marao, Chittagong in Bangladesh and the Coco Islands in Myanmar. The future role of the ocean Chinese fleet is reflected also in the construction of large oil tankers, with the commissioning of two units of 23,000 tons, bringing the fleet to five major PR (cons four for France, for comparison ).
The submarine fleet is modernized
In the 60s and 70s, China has embarked on a program of nuclear submarines. This research led to five submarine nuclear attack (SSN) type Han, the first copy, the 401 was launched in December 1970 and was last approved in 1991. Studies, such as testing of these vessels have been long and tedious. A strategic submarine (SSBN) has also emerged, but it would be left alone in its class. Laid down in 1978, the Xia is a building of 7,000 tons submerged, carrying 12 missiles Ju Lang-1. According to data collected by Combat Fleets of the scope of these devices beyond 3600 Kms. Its successor, the Ju Lang-2, currently under development, will reach 8000 kilometers. This two-stage missile would carry a head of 2.5 megatons or 3 MIRV 90 kilotons. It will equip the new-generation SSBN, whose top seed was launched in July 2004 and should join the fleet in 2007. Beijing has in fact decided to modernize its component deep underwater. Two NSS were also launched in late 2002 and late 2003. Probably derived from the Russian Victor III, their construction is shrouded in secrecy. The length will reach 107 meters and 6000 tons displacement. In the field of conventional submarines, the evolution is remarkable, "the eight Kilo ordered in 2002 to three different Russian sites, to obtain faster delivery, have all joined China in 2006," notes Bernard Prézelin which states that "the mass production of type Song has now amplified with two builders yards and ten units are in use and at least four under construction." These vessels of 2,250 tons submerged can spin NODE 22 and should be equipped with anti-ship missiles. A final type of submersible classic has finally emerged last year. This is the Yuan, Song intermediary between the Chinese and Russian Kilo. In total, China aligns 80 submarines, including 5 plants.
The stealth ships arrive en masse
Quietly but surely, the Chinese fleet changing image, with buildings now bearing forms furtive, approaching their Western counterparts. This is particularly the case of class destroyers Lanzhou, recently delivered their site in Shanghai. These beautiful buildings of 7,000 tons are equipped with antiaircraft missiles Chinese HQ-9 missiles and 16 anti-ship C 803 (Ying Ji-3) with a range of 160 Kms. They display, in addition, a four-faced radar plane that seems inspired by the U.S. Aegis system. Are also entered service last year, two units of type Guangzhou, with Russian missiles SA-N-7 anti-ship missiles and C 803. These destroyers of 6,800 tons, capable of spinning 29 NODE, measuring 160 meters long. According to Bernard Prézelin, "two other destroyers, missile derived from Shenzhen opened in 1999 (153 m, 6600 tons), but probably with missile surface to air or HQ-9 SA-N-6 are afloat for completion and one under construction for the second. With the four Russian destroyers type Sovremennyy, ordered the shipyards of Saint-Petersburg, the Chinese fleet will align in less than two years a dozen large buildings air defense. The evolution of the frigates is also known, with the entry into active service in the first two units of Class Ma'anshan (type Jangkai), bringing the series to four ships. Equipped with stealth forms, these ships, whose construction is planned to thirty copies were erroneously considered as replicas of the French La Fayette. From a displacement of 3,500 tons, they boarded a flak Rattlesnake modular and 8 anti-ship missiles. The class of frigates account also around ten Jiangwei II, slightly less fat than Ma'anshan (2250 tonnes), but with an equivalent weapon.
The first aircraft carrier?
What was hitherto an open secret begins to take shape. The carrier Varyag, sister ship of the Russian Kuznetsov, is actually undergoing a construction site in Dalian. Its construction was interrupted in 1993 when he was at 70% completion in the basins of Nikolaev. Officially bought in 2000 by a company in Macau, to be transformed into a floating casino, he finally joined China in winter 2002. Before that, China has been forced into tough negotiations with Turkey, which refused for reasons of boating safety, to leave the ship through the Bosporus. The visiting Chinese officials and the promise of economic aid from $ 350 million would have convinced Ankara to let the convoy. Purchased at the time 20 million dollars, three times the selling price for scrap, the ship is now painted gray, delivered the official Chinese navy. This will probably try to use it as a basis for future aircraft carriers. Two solutions are possible. Either the engineers would provide the basis for the realization of a ship of national construction, the building is completed, which would probably work long and hard without help from Russia. From a displacement of 65,000 tons at full load, its sister ship, the Kuznetsov, shipped 30 aircraft and an impressive arsenal of anti-ship missiles SS-N-19 (12) and anti-aircraft SA-N-9 (192). Its fleet includes Su-33 Flanker. A note in this connection that the Russian firm Sukhoi has opened an office in China.
Impressive development of the amphibious fleet
The strengthening of this component is vividly apparent this summer during the Russo-Chinese exercise "Peace Mission 2005". No fewer than 10,000 men were engaged in extensive naval and amphibious maneuver along the Shandong peninsula. This had also raised controversy in Russia, some political analysts and deeming that operation was more of the maneuver of intimidation against Taiwan as the fight against terrorism. In two years, are about twenty large landing craft tanks that have joined the Chinese navy. This has, to date, 100 amphibious ships, 36 of which have a tonnage exceeding 2000 tons. As the Russian-Chinese exercises have been shown, in addition to these units, the Chinese army has a number of armored amphibious capable of filling them. According to Combat Fleets of 2006, "a new series, hulled catamaran, was also launched at least nine are in service." To enable the deployment of airborne troops, the command of a first transport landing craft is being studied. The ship displaces over 12,000 tons.
Embargo on arms sales
At the heart of this development is the thorny issue, even explosive, arms sales. The United States categorically deny that the embargo be lifted, in contrast to a number of European countries. Thus, December 5, during the visit to France by Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao, Dominique de Villepin has called for lifting the arms embargo. This measure was taken in Europe in 1989, following the bloody suppression of the Tiananmen Square. For the French Prime Minister: "We continue to believe that this embargo is an anachronism. It does not reflect the reality of our relations with China, not reality, either, that the strategic partnership we are building with it. " If not matter, according to Matignon, that "Europeans do not intend in any manner whatsoever, to increase arms exports to China, both in qualitative terms that 'in quantitative terms, relations between Paris and Beijing are already on the subject and require probably only be revived. Thus, the Chinese navy uses material from French origin. Besides some helicopters Super Hornet, the fleet seeking to acquire other Dolphins, in addition to the 25 it owns. In 1993, Kaifeng was the destroyer, meanwhile, was upgraded with the assistance of French, receiving, on this occasion, a fire control DRBC 32-F and Castor II. A copy of sonar DUBV-43 is in use on some units, as the SQG-2B, on submarines Song class, it is neither more nor less than the passive sonar DUUX-5. Other weapons are also in use, such as turrets 100 mm Creusot-Loire and especially the missile batteries Rattlesnake modular. These facilities are, however, totally anecdotal when compared proportionately with Russian equipment, both in weapons and sensors as well, as we have seen ships.
A magazine in the China Sea?
Before the rise of the Chinese navy, Western experts wonder about the purpose of such a display of force with, of course, a special thought for Taiwan. Axis of major economic development, East Asia is a region of high tension. The diplomatic cold icy reign between Tokyo and Beijing in recent months with some notorious provocations is not likely to reassure policy makers, especially as all military sector is growing at no charge. Japan's navy continues to expand with new large-missile destroyers (with the anti-ballistic missile U.S. SM-3), carriers and attack helicopters of new submarines. Less and yet looked into changing the fleet of South Korea is also expected in the next few years, making its entry in the list of eight major marine world at the expense of Italy. Besides the program derived from destroyers Arleigh Burke U.S., Seoul wants to incorporate three-door attack helicopters and forty missile patrol boats, while its navy will have 12 submarines recent German origin. According to Bernard Prézelin: "The extensive sea near the Chinese coast, could become areas of high tension, are in this situation not only of the Spratly islands and Paracel claimed for many years by several states bordering the sea China, but especially the island of Taiwan, the mainland hopes to reclaim, if necessary by force of arms. " The author of Combat Fleets of Japan also believes "there Just add a string of islands to Japan, the Shenkaku, near Okinawa, which China claims as its own being, under the name 'the Diaoyu Islands. " Besides a simple territorial dispute secular, it is especially the political control and strategic importance in this case, with the key, the huge nature reserves, including gas, spotted off Okinawa. "These tensions lie in the enormous energy requirements of China that will only grow in the future"
http://www.meretmarine.com/article.cfm?id=958
Lockheed Martin is a major supplier in the US Navy submarine combat system, the Collins Replacement Combat System supplies submarine combat systems or components to Spain and the United Kingdom.
Though it should be stated that the UKs SSN combat system was made in the UK, in case there is any confusion.
Well, now that it has been brought up, US Engineers were brought in to help get the Astute program back on track back years ago. Not saying it would or could not have been done on the Brits own, simply that that did happen, and to the other comment about the US having not designed or sold subs to anyone else, if they were asked it could be done.
The point is he doesnt understand the difference between the software used for the design and the submarine design itself. The Brits had trouble with the design software, not the SSN design itself. You knew that though, right?
NOPE, Electric boat helped BAe with USING the CAD software whatever is was they were using because BAE engineers made a harh mess of it from day one
OMFG the troll can actually learn!!!
PPP you realy have a huge problem with something too small in your own "design" for functioning properly, i wonder what bit of you is causing it?
Do tell, when is the next French SSN entering service? Before or after Astute?
When it comes to western SSK designs, the tops are known:
And its not France.
That would be such a shame. Australia could and should go solo. None of Australia's likely adversaries have any noteworthy ASW capabilities so even if Australia's new SSI aren't all that good, it will be more than enough for what they need.
I'm sure they will do a lot of the work themselves.
Not too long ago, they were still discussing building nuclear submarines locally. Australians often think they're a superpower.
As opposed to China which builds SSNs that sound like cargo ships and barely stray from the border.
"He lives in a world where concept is reality..."
I once lived in France,
but left for Angleterre,
I dream up flying in planes,
and invent some sources too,
but when it comes to proving it,
it's Tampax down the drain!
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Well i guess you have to revise your opinion because the Chinese is ranked world's 3th since 2005 and i bet Japan have more capabilties as well, unless you discount allies it still leaves you with China as a regional threat."
You might want to understand what region of the world Australia is in.
Let me break this down for you.
Definitions of "region"
3. A specified district or territory.
4. An area of interest or activity; a sphere.
6. An area of the body having natural or arbitrarily assigned boundaries
The WAFF's retard will insist untill he hurts himself... LET';S have FUN.
No score for this post
October 8 2009, 12:50 PM
"ppp56)
Well, now that it has been brought up".
Sadly for YOU; reality is totaly different to YOUR rosy version of FACTS and you're even more stupid trying to spin your way out of it.
FACTS:
1) BAe DID screw Astute design.
2) Electric Boat was called with £millions to sort out Astute design for them.
"ppp56)
The point is he doesnt understand the difference between the software used for the design and the submarine design itself".
The point IS YOU are a stupid LIAR.
= Another vital dimension to the recovery programme was the involvement of US submarine builder General Dynamics Electric Boat in the design effort. The IPT concluded a Foreign Military Sales agreement with the US Naval Sea Systems Command to allow Electric Boat to second a management team to help BAE Systems complete the design process. In addition, a classified high-speed transatlantic computer link was established to allow a team of draughtsmen in the US to work on the Astute CAD model.
http://www.janes.com/defence/news/jdw/jdw060315_1_n.shtml
= Another vital dimension to the recovery programme was the involvement of US submarine builder General Dynamics Electric Boat in the design effort.
= Another vital dimension to the recovery programme was the involvement of US submarine builder General Dynamics Electric Boat in the design effort.
= Another vital dimension to the recovery programme was the involvement of US submarine builder General Dynamics Electric Boat in the design effort.
English ENOUGH for you RETARD?
= Another vital dimension to the recovery programme was the involvement of US submarine builder General Dynamics Electric Boat in the design effort.
= Another vital dimension to the recovery programme was the involvement of US submarine builder General Dynamics Electric Boat in the design effort.
= Another vital dimension to the recovery programme was the involvement of US submarine builder General Dynamics Electric Boat in the design effort.
Now with a little luck yopu might have been able to read =
= the involvement of US submarine builder General Dynamics Electric Boat in the design effort.
"ppp56)
The Brits had trouble with the design software, not the SSN design itself. You knew that though, right?"
The point IS YOU are a stupid LIAR.
= Another vital dimension to the recovery programme was the involvement of US submarine builder General Dynamics Electric Boat in the design effort. The IPT concluded a Foreign Military Sales agreement with the US Naval Sea Systems Command to allow Electric Boat to second a management team to help BAE Systems complete the design process. In addition, a classified high-speed transatlantic computer link was established to allow a team of draughtsmen in the US to work on the Astute CAD model.
http://www.janes.com/defence/news/jdw/jdw060315_1_n.shtml
"ppp56)
OMFG the troll can actually learn!!!"
Boy you still TRY as hard as you CAN to associate by mediocrity...
Infortunately as usual you're not only showing the difference between YOU and I but also making a right pointy of it.
YOU are an ineducated and frustrated mythomaniac cretin.
I at the very least have served my country, flew aircrafts and still do DC in gliders, learn my military and aerospacial theories and take time to inform myself properly as opposed to INVENTING MYSELF a reality.
So i guess that makes your signature a typical mythomaniac's associative morror psychological portrait. NO?
"ppp56)
Do tell, when is the next French SSN entering service? Before or after Astute?"
In time and cost.
Astute studies were launched in 1991, Barracuda will enter service before them at this rate, Astute will start to be a little obslete no?
"ppp56)
And its not France".
LOL! Let us guess, the UK have sold MORE SSKs in the export market then DCNS the last decade isn't?
"ppp56)
That would be such a shame...
Shut the FCUK-UP and go learn your ABC, moron!
"ppp56)
As opposed to China which builds SSNs that sound like cargo ships and barely stray from the border".
Better than the UK still incapable of sorting out their Astute and T55 designs, at least the Chinese dont call on the USA and France to sort them out.
"europeans make verry good none nuclear subs ???? i dont understand our goverment why dont they 2nd choices at least"
Yass sorry to say this but I have to agree with CharlieTurk. You have to improve your sentence structures. Admittedly Anglozionkiller does this but he's just being funny.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
In time and cost.
Astute studies were launched in 1991, Barracuda will enter service before them at this rate, Astute will start to be a little obslete no?
Just LOL at the concept of Asutute being obsolete compared to Barracuda.
LOL! Let us guess, the UK have sold MORE SSKs in the export market then DCNS the last decade isn't?
How does the fact that the UK only makes SSNs prove that France is ahead of Germany in SSKs?
"He lives in a world where concept is reality..."
I once lived in France,
but left for Angleterre,
I dream up flying in planes,
and invent some sources too,
but when it comes to proving it,
it's Tampax down the drain!
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
"Just LOL at the concept of Asutute being obsolete compared to Barracuda".
Well actually IT IS:
Barracusa is the FIRST SSN ever designed with a HYBRIN propulsion system for totaly electric high-speed cruise.
"How does the fact that the UK only makes SSNs prove that France is ahead of Germany in SSKs?"
MORE SPIN AND TWIST.
FIRST my own quotes placed Germany ahead, second it is NOT germany which we are taling about but BAe.
And about this, a little more nails in your daly trolling and flaming stupidity coffin.
= BAE Systems and the Ministry of Defence (MoD) finally woke up to the enormity of the cost overruns and schedule delays arising from a combination of poor project management, an immature computer-aided design (CAD) tool and a haemorrhaging of skills and experience in the submarine industry.
= and a haemorrhaging of skills and experience in the submarine industry.
= and a haemorrhaging of skills and experience in the submarine industry.
FIRST my own quotes placed Germany ahead, second it is NOT germany which we are taling about but BAe.
Why are you talking about BAE though? We're discussing either the best SSK maker in Europe (Germany) not the best SSN maker in Europe (UK).
"He lives in a world where concept is reality..."
I once lived in France,
but left for Angleterre,
I dream up flying in planes,
and invent some sources too,
but when it comes to proving it,
it's Tampax down the drain!
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
"Why are you talking about BAE though? We're discussing either the best SSK maker in Europe (Germany) not the best SSN maker in Europe (UK)".
YOU started telling to the rest of US LIES about BAE MORON!
"ppp56)
I wonder how long it will take Thunder to come in with "Electric boat designed Astute not BAE", which should actually be "Electric boat helped BAE with the software used to design Astute". Though of course by his logic, F22 and F35 are French designs as IIRC they use d'assaults CATIA for design"
And the UK are FAR from being the "Best SSN makers in Europe" not only their history of design and technical FCUK-UPS proves it, the FACT that they CANT do it without the US make sure of it.
Astute is already obsolescent technolgicaly before even entering service, Frances uses HEL 100 for one, the UK doesn't even have the technology.
As for Astute systems they are bought to a French company called Thales including its sonar and combat system, so what is so "British" in it now?
Thanks...
"Markus85)
we're discussing neither".
Good point; the cretin started a p!ssing contest about BAe and Astute then tries to turn the tables around because he got owned (as usual), don't expect proper informations on ANY subjects from this guy.
To return to the topic, the Germans are perhaps on top of your MoD list, it would be very interesting to get some informations on this one...
This message has been edited by sampaix on Oct 8, 2009 1:27 PM This message has been edited by sampaix on Oct 8, 2009 1:24 PM This message has been edited by sampaix on Oct 8, 2009 1:23 PM This message has been edited by sampaix on Oct 8, 2009 1:22 PM
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
YOU started telling to the rest of US LIES about BAE MORON!
Which lie would that be?
And the UK are FAR from being the "Best SSN makers in Europe" not only their history of design and technical FCUK-UPS proves it, the FACT that they CANT do it without the US make sure of it.
Its the CAD software remember? Not the sub itself! I thought you said you understood this?
the UK doesn't even have the technology as for Astute systems they are bought to a French company called Tlaes including its sonar and combat system.
Ahh yes, that old chestnut. Made in the UK, by Thales UK. The only link being Thales UK is a subsidiary, with its own board, the French can't access any programmes there without UK approval. Remember how the French bought the CVF design, which according to you is a French design anyway as the carrier design was done by a Thales UK company. Why would they buy their own design from us?
"He lives in a world where concept is reality..."
I once lived in France,
but left for Angleterre,
I dream up flying in planes,
and invent some sources too,
but when it comes to proving it,
it's Tampax down the drain!
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Ahh yes, that old chestnut. Made in the UK, by Thales UK. The only link being Thales UK is a subsidiary, with its own board, the French can't access any programmes there without UK approval. Remember how the French bought the CVF design, which according to you is a French design anyway as the carrier design was done by a Thales UK company. Why would they buy their own design from us?
---
That's really not an argument. Thales is a private company and if they design something a client, whether that is another company or a government doesn't matter, must pay for it. So if Thales (UK) designed the plans for the CVF, both the UK government and the French government paid for those plans. It doesn't really say anything about Thales (UK) being a British company or not. Thales would NEVER have given those plans for free to the French government.
When I was young I used to pray for a bike, then I realized that God doesn't work that way, so I stole a bike and prayed for forgiveness.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
About Astute DESIGN and it isnow clear to everyone that YOU LIED.
YOUR QUOTE: "ppp56)
which should actually be "Electric boat helped BAE with the software used to design Astute".
The point IS YOU are a stupid LIAR.
= Another vital dimension to the recovery programme was the involvement of US submarine builder General Dynamics Electric Boat in the design effort. The IPT concluded a Foreign Military Sales agreement with the US Naval Sea Systems Command to allow Electric Boat to second a management team to help BAE Systems complete the design process. In addition, a classified high-speed transatlantic computer link was established to allow a team of draughtsmen in the US to work on the Astute CAD model.
http://www.janes.com/defence/news/jdw/jdw060315_1_n.shtml
"ppp56)
"Its the CAD software remember? Not the sub itself! I thought you said you understood this?"
NO boy i thought you could READ ENGLISH. = DESIGN.
= the involvement of US submarine builder General Dynamics Electric Boat in the design effort.
= to allow Electric Boat to second a management team to help BAE Systems complete the design process.
The point IS YOU are a stupid LIAR.
= Another vital dimension to the recovery programme was the involvement of US submarine builder General Dynamics Electric Boat in the design effort. The IPT concluded a Foreign Military Sales agreement with the US Naval Sea Systems Command to allow Electric Boat to second a management team to help BAE Systems complete the design process. In addition, a classified high-speed transatlantic computer link was established to allow a team of draughtsmen in the US to work on the Astute CAD model.
http://www.janes.com/defence/news/jdw/jdw060315_1_n.shtml
"ppp56)
"Ahh yes, that old chestnut. Made in the UK, by Thales UK."
Using a technology datapool containing MORE than 50% of FRENCH technology.
"ppp56)
"The only link being Thales UK is a subsidiary, with its own board,"
Sorry BOY, Thales UK is 100% owned by Thales and as a matter of FACT it makes Dassault and the French State 50%+ owners of it.
"ppp56)
"the French can't access any programmes there without UK approval."
The UK MoD doesn't OWN Thales technologies which are ALL patenteds, you're so ineducated you can't even comprehend the difference between technologies and designs. RETARD.
"ppp56)
"Remember how the French bought the CVF design,"
Actually France didn't "Buy" CVF design but payed MoD to have acces to Thales primary design for further developements i.e detailed design and French DCNS/Thales technicians worked at Thales UK to improve it from the day the collaboration was agreed.
And as a matter of FACT let's SEE which one will enter service FIRST at the lower cost... My ten cents of the DCNS design despite the fact that our next carrier isn't even ordered yet.
"Nighthawk00)
That's really not an argument. Thales is a private company and if they design something a client, whether that is another company or a government doesn't matter, must pay for it".
This is not exactly accurate; a large share of Thales belongs to the French state today. Thales' major shareholders are the French state (27.1%) and Dassault Aviation (25.9%)
It emerged in December 2008 that Alcatel-Lucent had agreed to sell its 20.8 per cent holding to Dassault making the latter which already has a 5 per cent stake in Thales (held by Groupe Industriel Marcel Dassault) the second largest shareholder after the French state.
http://www.janes.com/news/defence/jdi/jdi090521_1_n.shtml
"Nighthawk00)
So if Thales (UK) designed the plans for the CVF, both the UK government and the French government paid for those plans."
Thales sales capabilties not technologies so you are right, while this collaboration went on, BOTH MoDs did pay for Thales design.
"Nighthawk00)
It doesn't really say anything about Thales (UK) being a British company or not. Thales would NEVER have given those plans for free to the French government".
Thales UK is like 99% of Thales branches 100% owned by Thales and they also uses a common datapool for the technologies they develop, the point is; more than half of it is developed in France.
This message has been edited by sampaix on Oct 8, 2009 1:56 PM This message has been edited by sampaix on Oct 8, 2009 1:50 PM This message has been edited by sampaix on Oct 8, 2009 1:45 PM
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
The new submarines will almost certainly be European-designed hulls with a US combat system.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why do I smell these will be S80 (if I'm not mistaken) of Navantia as far as this company is building the Australian destroyers and carriers...
FREE EASTERN TURKISTAN
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
"ren2704)
Why do I smell these will be S80 (if I'm not mistaken) of Navantia as far as this company is building the Australian destroyers and carriers..."
But as i suspected it might be a DCNS design (although obviously developed in collaboration with Spain) using French SSN technologies for the Hull, HEL 80 steel etc...
Considering that there have been issues between the two (Spain and France) over Spain selling them on their own (They don't own the right on the design and technologies) i am not certain the Spanish will go for it, but we never know.
"To return to the topic, the Germans are perhaps on top of your MoD list, it would be very interesting to get some informations on this one... "
well I am sure you're aware that the project envisions the development, design and construction here in Oz. With some off the shelf systems from overseas.
Not sure about the Germans, from what I read the key player will be the the USN and US defence industry. I assume, as both countries have very close military ties and in any naval conflict in the pacific region will most probably be fighting together. Along with their (US) greater experince in this field. It would make sense that the specs (which have not been finalised)and equipment be satisfactorily aligned with both nations wartime requirements in this region.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
"The new submarines will almost certainly be European-designed hulls with a US combat system.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why do I smell these will be S80 (if I'm not mistaken) of Navantia as far as this company is building the Australian destroyers and carriers..."
MoD announces design study in Australias biggest defence project
07:59 GMT, August 14, 2009 defpro.com | Australias next-generation submarine plans are progressing as the Minister of Defence, Sen. John Faulkner, recently announced a request for tenders (RFT) to complete a design study for what will be the most expensive defence procurement project in the countrys history. The Future Submarine Project, dubbed SEA 1000, is expected to cost nearly $17 billion.
The recent RFT announcement looks at providing the government with a more detailed understanding of what domestic design and manufacture capabilities are available. This RFT adds to these preliminary investigations by examining Australias design capabilities, and forms part of a programme of studies being undertaken to support the planning of Australias future submarines as outlined in the Defence White Paper, Faulkner explained.
Although the wholly government-owned defence company ASC has successfully carried out the last domestic submarine programme and in 2005 has been selected as the preferred shipbuilder for three new AEGIS-based Australian air warfare destroyers under the SEA 4000 project, analysts stated that it is not certain that the company will be awarded with a contract for this prestigious programme.
This message has been edited by Markus85 on Oct 8, 2009 2:13 PM This message has been edited by Markus85 on Oct 8, 2009 2:13 PM This message has been edited by Markus85 on Oct 8, 2009 2:12 PM This message has been edited by Markus85 on Oct 8, 2009 2:09 PM
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
"Markus85)
well I am sure you're aware that the project envisions the development, design and construction here in Oz. With some off the shelf systems from overseas".
No i wasn't i was barely jumping on th European solution following one poster's suggestion and investigating potential solutions.
"Markus85)
Not sure about the Germans, from what I read the key player will be the the USN and US defence industry".
I would be the logical first choice, yes.
"Markus85)
Along with their (US) greater experince in this field."
I'm not too sure about the hulls and propulsion systems considering the technologies available in Europe but other systems like combat systems and sonars etc i'd tend to agree, although the Brits (Thales UK management)trumpets Thales sonar as being "The most advanced in the world", go figure where reality starts and commercial bulls stops.
"Markus85)
It would make sense that the specs (which have not been finalised)and equipment be satisfactorily aligned with both nations wartime requirements in this region".
That's really not an argument. Thales is a private company and if they design something a client, whether that is another company or a government doesn't matter, must pay for it. So if Thales (UK) designed the plans for the CVF, both the UK government and the French government paid for those plans. It doesn't really say anything about Thales (UK) being a British company or not. Thales would NEVER have given those plans for free to the French government.
The plans were made for the British government and paid for by them too, so they aren't Thales UK to give away. Theres also the fact that those are almost certainly restricted, which means even if they were Thales UK owned they still couldn't sell without UK MoD approval. Similarly, Lockheed cannot sell F22 plans without US DoD approval.
About Astue DESIGN and it isnow clear to everyone that YOU LIED.
Could you be more specific about the lie? If I lied about the Astute design, and its so clear, why can't you quote me?
This shouldn't require million of pages of Janes to be scanned and posted btw.
Using a technology datapool containing MORE than 50% of FRENCH technology.
Ah yes, the mystery Thales data pool which opens and closes according to which most suits you in that thread. Some threads it exists, others it doesn't.
Sorry BOY, Thales UK is 100% owned by Thales and as a matter of FACT it makes Dassault and the French State 50%+ owners of it.
Owners, yes. But ownership doesn't equal access. You can buy all the shares in BAE, but they still won't show you classified info about the Eurofighter for example.
Actually France didn't "Buy" CVF design but payed MoD to have acces to Thales primary design for further developements
So they paid the MoD for access to a design which according to you isn't owned by the MoD and is actually owned by a French government owned company which has a completely shared data pool and therefore the French would have access to it anyway. Therefore, they paid another country for their own design, according to your logic
Not sure about the Germans, from what I read the key player will be the the USN and US defence industry. I assume, as both countries have very close military ties and in any naval conflict in the pacific region will most probably be fighting together. Along with their (US) greater experince in this field. It would make sense that the specs (which have not been finalised)and equipment be satisfactorily aligned with both nations wartime requirements in this region.
They don't really need to be, since submarines only interact in certain ways (e.g through comms). Some US subsystems might be suitable, but most will be designed for SSNs which are both much larger and most importantly have a very generous power supply compared to an SSK. It would therefore, make much more sense to use an SSK subsystem as it will already be optimised for the requirements of an SSK environment.
"He lives in a world where concept is reality..."
I once lived in France,
but left for Angleterre,
I dream up flying in planes,
and invent some sources too,
but when it comes to proving it,
it's Tampax down the drain!
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
"ppp56)
The plans were made for the British government and paid for by them too, so they aren't Thales UK to give away".
As THICK as NOT able to distinguish between technologies and DESIGN.
"ppp56)
Could you be more specific about the lie? If I lied about the Astute design, and its so clear, why can't you quote me?"
I QUOTED YOU REPEATEDLY and you LIED, you should try to see a psychiatrist.
"ppp56)
This shouldn't require million of pages of Janes to be scanned and posted btw".
A few lines were enough.
"ppp56)
Ah yes, the mystery Thales data pool which opens and closes according to which most suits you in that thread. Some threads it exists, others it doesn't".
It's NO mystery for those reading their annuasl reports, only for trolls like you in total reality denial.
"ppp56)
Owners, yes. But ownership doesn't equal access. You can buy all the shares in BAE, but they still won't show you classified info about the Eurofighter for example".
FULL acces to their technologies YES because they are PATENTED.
"ppp56)
So they paid the MoD for access to a design which according to you isn't owned by the MoD"
MORE TWIST AND SPIN, STILL as THICK as NOT able to distinguish between technologies and DESIGN.
"ppp56)
and is actually owned by a French government owned company which has a completely shared data pool and therefore the French would have access to it anyway."
MORE TWIST AND SPIN, STILL as THICK as NOT able to distinguish between technologies and DESIGN.
"ppp56)
Therefore, they paid another country for their own design, according to your logic"
Technolgies are PATENTED. English enough for your pub pillar thick head?
"ppp56)
it would therefore, make much more sense..."
For you to try the Legoland channel because it is more and morer obvious that you're a moron in totral reality denial and no understading of the subject.
YOUR QUOTE: "ppp56)
which should actually be "Electric boat helped BAE with the software used to design Astute".
vs. the involvement of US submarine builder General Dynamics Electric Boat in the design effort.
The point IS YOU are a stupid LIAR.
= Another vital dimension to the recovery programme was the involvement of US submarine builder General Dynamics Electric Boat in the design effort. The IPT concluded a Foreign Military Sales agreement with the US Naval Sea Systems Command to allow Electric Boat to second a management team to help BAE Systems complete the design process. In addition, a classified high-speed transatlantic computer link was established to allow a team of draughtsmen in the US to work on the Astute CAD model.
http://www.janes.com/defence/news/jdw/jdw060315_1_n.shtml
BAE Systems and the Ministry of Defence (MoD) finally woke up to the enormity of the cost overruns and schedule delays arising from a combination of poor project management, an immature computer-aided design (CAD) tool and a haemorrhaging of skills and experience in the submarine industry.
BAE = a haemorrhaging of skills and experience in the submarine industry.
BAE = a haemorrhaging of skills and experience in the submarine industry.
BAE = a haemorrhaging of skills and experience in the submarine industry.
FULL acces to their technologies YES because they are PATENTED.
LOL
Patented maybe, but it is an offense to supply restricted information to an unauthorised person(s). It's lucky you don't work for Thales UK, you'd cause them no end of problems
"He lives in a world where concept is reality..."
I once lived in France,
but left for Angleterre,
I dream up flying in planes,
and invent some sources too,
but when it comes to proving it,
it's Tampax down the drain!
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
The plans were made for the British government and paid for by them too, so they aren't Thales UK to give away. Theres also the fact that those are almost certainly restricted, which means even if they were Thales UK owned they still couldn't sell without UK MoD approval. Similarly, Lockheed cannot sell F22 plans without US DoD approval.
---
You're only confirming what I was saying: the plans are (intellectual) property of something or someone. The fact that the French government paid for the plans is in no way prove that Thales UK is totally independent from Thales.
When I was young I used to pray for a bike, then I realized that God doesn't work that way, so I stole a bike and prayed for forgiveness.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
You're only confirming what I was saying: the plans are (intellectual) property of something or someone. The fact that the French government paid for the plans is in no way prove that Thales UK is totally independent from Thales.
Thales UK is a subsidiary of Thales, but its projects for the MoD are only accessible by those persons authorised to do so by the MoD. This is what I am saying. Ownership by shares and such has no bearing on access to sensitive information. Being a subsidiary does not mean the parent company is authorised access to sensitive information.
Does this should answer your question regarding independence Eric?
But central to the company's strategy is the deep roots put down in each of its domestic markets. "Thales UK is a UK company and the government is very clear of that," Mr Dorrian says. "It is run by Brits, 95 per cent of supply to the Ministry of Defence is sourced in Britain, and the intellectual property remains in the UK."
I once lived in France,
but left for Angleterre,
I dream up flying in planes,
and invent some sources too,
but when it comes to proving it,
it's Tampax down the drain!
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
@p³, you still fail to see my point. I'm not arguing whether Thales UK is "independent" or not (reread this sentence ... twice). I'm just saying that using the argument that "France had to pay for the CVF plans is a clear proof that Thales UK is independent" is ridiculous. All it shows is that France has to pay the owner of the plans, i.e. the British government.
When I was young I used to pray for a bike, then I realized that God doesn't work that way, so I stole a bike and prayed for forgiveness.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
@p³, you still fail to see my point. I'm not arguing whether Thales UK is "independent" or not (reread this sentence ... twice). I'm just saying that using the argument that "France had to pay for the CVF plans is a clear proof that Thales UK is independent" is ridiculous. All it shows is that France has to pay the owner of the plans, i.e. the British government.
It's irrelevant though, as my points have been proven, absolutely
"He lives in a world where concept is reality..."
I once lived in France,
but left for Angleterre,
I dream up flying in planes,
and invent some sources too,
but when it comes to proving it,
it's Tampax down the drain!
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
The only point you made was that you're living in cuculand.
No score for this post
October 10 2009, 11:50 AM
EB receives $23M for UK Astute-class submarine work
(Oct. 23, 2003)
Electric Boat has received a $23 million contract modification to provide design assistance in the development and production of the Astute-class nuclear attack submarine for the British Royal Navy.
The award modifies a contract initially announced in March and brings the total value of the work to $52.7 million. Under the contract, Electric Boat will provide the resources required to complete timely, high-quality drawing outputs to support the production program of the Astute-class submarines. Ninety percent of the work will be performed in Groton; the remainder will be done in Barrow-in-Furness, Cumbria, UK.
http://www.gdeb.com/news/2003archives.html#10-23-03
READ again:
Under the contract, Electric Boat will provide the resources required to complete timely, high-quality drawing outputs to support the production program of the Astute-class submarines.
READ again:
Ninety percent of the work will be performed in Groton;
"Nighthawk00)
@p³, you still fail to see my point. I'm not arguing whether Thales UK is "independent" or not (reread this sentence ... twice)".
They ARE independent (From Thales Group) in a sense that they manage their own domestic market, for the rest all but one of Thales UK branches belong to Thales Group at 100% and all branches directors are subordonates to ONE French Manager for all non-French Operations.
Thales have a common technology datapool and owns their technologies.
Thales individual branches doesn't OWN their patent; Thales Group owns them, they are not patented to a singular branch but to the Group so there is no problem for Thales to use a technology from a branch to another.
They do not sale technologie but capabilties, designs if contracted by a MoD such as CVF belongs to the client but NOT the technology or intelectual rights used to put them together, it is stupid to pretend this is the case.
Thales doesn't have the budget to develop technologies for a particular customer but instead built their IT&S (Information, Technology and Service) from 2000.
This idiot is trying to imply that design and technologies are the SAME thing and LIE to us AGAIN about Thales UK.
This message has been edited by sampaix on Oct 10, 2009 12:34 PM This message has been edited by sampaix on Oct 10, 2009 12:21 PM This message has been edited by sampaix on Oct 10, 2009 12:12 PM
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Current Topic - Australia Looks to U.S for Future Submarine
![[linked image]](http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j17/ferryman2393/math5.gif)
![[linked image]](http://img66.imageshack.us/img66/1310/modsuckstt1.gif)
![[linked image]](http://www.gripen.com/NR/rdonlyres/40C3C2F9-5CBA-4A71-B408-430728E59F54/6861/NorgeGripen_360.jpg)
![[linked image]](http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/4529/coolprintvikingshipkx1.jpg)
![[linked image]](http://www.imagehostplus.com/v2/usr/1923/alaskanraptors_copy.jpg)
![[linked image]](http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j198/rcelej/RedList20Fist_1.png)
![[linked image]](http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r279/sampaix/RafSmall.jpg)
![[linked image]](http://img352.imageshack.us/img352/8664/hbombexplosion.jpg)
![[linked image]](http://www.barber.org.uk/coins/coinimgs/hagia-sophia.jpg)
![[linked image]](http://static.iq.lycos.de/data/de/497/1c/4971c3e5d969a55c50a75826c1e71530_1.jpg)
![[linked image]](http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/type_212/images/U212_13.jpg)
![[linked image]](http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1255171821.GIF)
![[linked image]](http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r279/sampaix/ThalesBranches.jpg)
![[linked image]](http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r279/sampaix/Patents.jpg)
![[linked image]](http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r279/sampaix/IPT.jpg)
![[linked image]](http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r279/sampaix/IPT2.jpg)