60% of the detailed design was made.
I think we may thank Australia for the help they gave to Naval Group to win the Dutch deal.
I read this week end that this summer, not a single Astute was ready to deploy...
I think we may thank Australia for the help they gave to Naval Group to win the Dutch deal.
Collins subs availability was always poor. I doubt a MLU can change that.
I think it was the right choice to made.
only 6 to 8 Short fins Barracuda, in a short track delivery (if only 6 units : maybe made in France... or high costs) and some more SSN of french, GB or US origin.
Each as its own quality.
The then Australia Prime Minister was really an idiot.
10.5 billions, including R&D & training stations, for 6 units.
Without R&D the 1 billion price seems likely.
Combien coûte le sous-marin nucléaire d'attaque (SNA) Suffren? - combien coûtent les armées?
Le Suffren, issu du programme Barracuda, est un sous-marin nucléaire d'attaque destiné à la maîtrise des espaces maritimes au sein d'une force navale ou de façon isolée. En quoi consiste le sous-marin nucléaire d'attaque (SNA) Suffren? Équipé d'une propulsion...
defense-militaire.over-blog.com
Even Barracuda is expensive, much more than Suffren as per Picdel. But Orka seems to be much cheaper and more interesting.
10.5 billions, including R&D & training stations, for 6 units.
Without R&D the 1 billion price seems likely.
Combien coûte le sous-marin nucléaire d'attaque (SNA) Suffren? - combien coûtent les armées?
Le Suffren, issu du programme Barracuda, est un sous-marin nucléaire d'attaque destiné à la maîtrise des espaces maritimes au sein d'une force navale ou de façon isolée. En quoi consiste le sous-marin nucléaire d'attaque (SNA) Suffren? Équipé d'une propulsion...
Yeah, it's much cheaper than I expected. Although the price is from 20+ years. New program costs will be much higher today, if Australia goes for it.
In France, inflation is low: an initial sum of €100.00 in 2004 corresponds to a discounted sum of €138.96 in 2024, i.e. an overall change of €38.96 over 20 years and cumulative inflation of 38.96%.
Over this period, annualised inflation is 1.66%.
Analysis: Australia's anti-French strategy
Gradual break-up of strategic partnerships:
The sudden cancellation of the Shortfin Barracuda contract in favour of AUKUS was not just a technological or operational preference, but also a geopolitical choice: to refocus their alliances around the United States and the United Kingdom, two Anglo-Saxon powers.
The setbacks of the NH90 and Tiger programmes gave the Australians an excuse to turn their backs on French technologies, despite the fact that these problems were often due to inappropriate use or unrealistic Australian requirements.
The implicit aim is to isolate France from the Pacific, and behind these choices lies a strategic plan to reduce French military influence in a region where France is the only European power capable of projecting significant forces (via New Caledonia and Polynesia).
Push French industrialists aside and turn exclusively to Anglo-Saxon partners (even at the cost of flawed projects like AUKUS).
This Australian vision might explain why Australia is trying to push France to scale down its peaceful ambitions, in the absence of solid local partners, while at the same time seeking to consolidate an ‘Anglo-Saxon’ sphere of influence vis-à-vis China, where France would be perceived as a secondary, even troublesome, player.
But reality is catching up with the Australian strategy, because the problem is that the Australian choices, motivated by this desire to ‘anglicise’ the Pacific, are coming up against industrial and operational realities:
Conclusion: Pride vs Realism
Australians are too proud to back down publicly. However, this does not prevent France from keeping the door ajar:
France must continue to position itself as a credible alternative if AUKUS fails.
It must maintain an active presence in the Pacific (local alliances, military manoeuvres, industrial partnerships) as a reminder that it is a power that cannot be ignored.
In short, Australia is dreaming of a Pacific without France... but it could be in for a rude awakening if its Anglo-Saxon alliances continue to disappoint.
Gradual break-up of strategic partnerships:
The sudden cancellation of the Shortfin Barracuda contract in favour of AUKUS was not just a technological or operational preference, but also a geopolitical choice: to refocus their alliances around the United States and the United Kingdom, two Anglo-Saxon powers.
The setbacks of the NH90 and Tiger programmes gave the Australians an excuse to turn their backs on French technologies, despite the fact that these problems were often due to inappropriate use or unrealistic Australian requirements.
The implicit aim is to isolate France from the Pacific, and behind these choices lies a strategic plan to reduce French military influence in a region where France is the only European power capable of projecting significant forces (via New Caledonia and Polynesia).
Push French industrialists aside and turn exclusively to Anglo-Saxon partners (even at the cost of flawed projects like AUKUS).
This Australian vision might explain why Australia is trying to push France to scale down its peaceful ambitions, in the absence of solid local partners, while at the same time seeking to consolidate an ‘Anglo-Saxon’ sphere of influence vis-à-vis China, where France would be perceived as a secondary, even troublesome, player.
But reality is catching up with the Australian strategy, because the problem is that the Australian choices, motivated by this desire to ‘anglicise’ the Pacific, are coming up against industrial and operational realities:
- AUKUS is in great difficulty, both technically and organisationally.
- The withdrawal of the NH90s and Tigers has not solved Australia's capability problems.
Conclusion: Pride vs Realism
Australians are too proud to back down publicly. However, this does not prevent France from keeping the door ajar:
France must continue to position itself as a credible alternative if AUKUS fails.
It must maintain an active presence in the Pacific (local alliances, military manoeuvres, industrial partnerships) as a reminder that it is a power that cannot be ignored.
In short, Australia is dreaming of a Pacific without France... but it could be in for a rude awakening if its Anglo-Saxon alliances continue to disappoint.
Barracuda built in Australia is expensive, because NG had to built a full ecosystem and train from scratch a rare manpower.
Orka will be built in France, with skilled workers and existing dock.
That might defeat the purpose of Australia wanting to build submarines. If the choice is between importing French subs or waiting and building AUKUS-SSNs, they will choose to do the latter.
Why? There is no conflict between Aussie & India?
Also, (till now to my knowledge) Australia did not interfere in internal affairs of India. Not sure about future.
AUKUS was created to counter both China and India. The Five Eyes nations are eventually going to become our rivals and even enemies when the time comes.
Australia follows US dictates when it comes to national security. And both Aus and NZ have worked against our govt via cultivating Khalistanis.
After failing at regime change in India twice, 2019-20 (CAA protests) and 2020-21 (farm protests), the Globalists have begun attacking India's corporate sector, particularly Adani, 'cause it appears Ambani has made some kinda peace with them, bent the knee basically, and attacking us through Khalistan, 'cause the farm protests were quite successful in their eyes.
This is why Ambani is now no longer being attacked by Congress. Ambani-Adani has now become only Adani. And Adani is the next target.
This is actually why Jack Ma was taken out by the CCP. The fight against the Globalists is also why Xi practically ran China's economy into the ground, probably inadvertantly.
There's a new regime change attempt being made in India, it started this year. It could begin again by Jan-Feb 2025, and could just as easily fizzle out as it did in Feb this year.
Long story short, the Globalists see BJP as an enemy, and Congress is an extension of the Globalists themselves. So as long as BJP is in power, the Five Eyes will eventually become our enemies. If Congress comes to power, with a majority, then India becomes part of the Globalists. And the goal is to crush India's economy and balkanize it. This is why Modi has publicly exposed Congress recently.
Why else do you think these guys are so afraid of Trump? German govt dissolved, French govt toppled and Trudeau resigning in Canada.
Just a few years ago the Globalists (Soros, Democrats, Congress and co) started an overt war with the Nationlists (Republicans, BJP, Israel etc). Hence we have a need for right wing nationalists to retake power in Europe, preferably in the Five Eyes.
a) Arvind (in X), who accurately predicted the fall of Syria, says that Chinese economy will go down further causing lots of unrest and Xi will attack India to divert attention. What is your opinion on this?
Doval is in China currently to discuss border.
B) I do believe india must settle border problem with china (China must be generous). What is your opinion? Is that possible in near term?
The choice is wider :
SSK made in Australia,
french SSN made in France,
french SSN made in Australia.
with US or french or GB... weapon system.
each solution with different price, and different lead time.
That's been my opinion since before the Ukraine War.
But this goes two ways. The Chinese need warfighting experience, so the best target to attack would be India 'cause all their alternatives are either too weak or too strong, or could get out of hand. Escalation in a war with India is easily manageable. Some territory can exchange hands, lots of soldiers can die, but both sides can avoid hard-killing each other's economies. And a nuclear war is quite unlikely in a border war.
But the main issues with this are a stalemate or loss to India could stop all their other war plans for decades. They could end up revealing far too much of their tech advances before fighting other more powerful adversaries. And while the war may be distracting enough in the beginning, it may be far too muted or may not last long enough to distract the Chinese public. The Chinese people are not dumb enough to be fooled by a border war unless civilian infra is under direct attack in massive numbers after all.
If the Chinese people need to be distracted, any war has to be big enough to involve them directly.
Otoh, a war over Taiwan is much more likely 'cause with every passing year both the US and Taiwan are becoming stronger and stronger to the point where they could cross over a threshold that can make an invasion impossible. So time's a-tickin'. Their best scenario is the US decides to sit out. A NoKo attack on SoKo can further distract US forces and fire up the entire front, although I'm not sure how the Russia-NoKo mutual defense pact's gonna play out here.
It's possible that they can attack a smaller country like Vietnam (piss off the entirety of ASEAN) or just invade Mongolia (piss off a Russia that's already at war), but there are major hurdles to such actions.
The thaw in our relationship with China could indicate that China wants to focus on the US (Trump, really). There's no real benefit to fighting India at this time. They did Galwan thinking India will back off without a fight so there's enough egg on their face as it is.
It's quite impossible. The Chinese don't just want small tracts of land around the LAC, they want the entirety of Ladakh, AP and Sikkim, with Pakistan taking over Kashmir. Their goal is to push India to the plains so they can completely secure their border in the West. The same with Tajikistan, they want the Pamir range. They want the Tian Shan in Kyrgyzstan. They want to push Vietnam into the plains. They likely have the same designs on Nepal and Bhutan.
Basically all of the Himalayas all around them.
You can't negotiate your way out of this in the current state. Even if you do, it will only be temporary, until they decide to uniliaterally break the agreement, like they did in 2020. Only hard power is the solution.
Our objective first and foremost has to be dismantling Pakistan. We planned on pushing Pakistan out of the Himalayas back in 1971, but the SU and US stopped that. So this still remains our smallest objective, never mind balkanizing Pak entirely. With Pak gone, the entire Himalayan chain from Kyrgyzstan to Vietnam will fall under our influence. This is the only way to get a negotiating advantage.
Anyway, we will have to eventually deal with Pakistan on a permanent basis someday. Alternatively, go to war and free Tibet, if we are capable. That's a debate for 10 or 20 years later. So status quo for today.