Posted on 05/02/2015 4:53:35 AM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
The US could own that business. But Congress passed ITAR legislation that effectively makes it nearly impossible to sell any military tech even to countries like Australia. It isn’t that they don’t want US companies to sell. It’s that the regulation is huge and self-contradictory so nobody will risk signing off on proposals. The extra delay makes responding in time to be considered almost impossible. This is just another way government makes it hard for business.
Companies that sell some equipment do so because somebody in government said, sell your xyz to (fill-in-country-with-great-lobby-here.)
Now that countries in Asia and Europe are building and buying Submarines, it makes me wonder what the U.S. is doing.
The U.S. hasn't built a conventional submarine for 60 years or so. For them to try and do that now would mean beating out countries and companies who have well-established designs and construction lines. It would cost billions to startup with little guarantee of making your investment back.
“...it makes me wonder what the U.S. is doing....”
With regards to defending against those subs or getting a piece of the business?
Incidentally, a diesel electric sub can be very hard to locate.
Building submarines. You're commissioning two Virginia class subs a year I think.
Personally I am very happy that the Swedish government broke the contract with Thyssen-Krupp. The Germans had entered the collaboration with the Swedish shipyard with the promise that Kockums would be treated as an equal partner. That was soon shown to be a lie. Instead the Germans used the deal to protect the HDW shipyard in Kiel.
Difficult but not impossible. The navy rented a Swedish sub for a year or two and learned a lot from the experience.
“For them to try and do that now would mean beating out countries and companies who have well-established designs and construction lines.”
Yes and no. It depends on how you go about it. For example, Canada will take anybody’s sub, cut it in half, and install a nuclear battery. There is also a large refitting business. Subs get old and need to be rebuilt with latest tech electronics and sound deadening. I’d agree if they started out to capture the entire sub from proposal to delivery. But as of now we’re not in any part of that business, and, say, a sonar, is (practically) the same regardless of what you put it on.
“Difficult but not impossible.”
If you don’t know they’re coming, as in say a surprise Iranian nuclear attack, difficult is probably enough.
What the heck is a nuclear battery?
There is also a large refitting business. Subs get old and need to be rebuilt with latest tech electronics and sound deadening. I’d agree if they started out to capture the entire sub from proposal to delivery. But as of now we’re not in any part of that business, and, say, a sonar, is (practically) the same regardless of what you put it on.
I think you are badly underestimating just how difficult that is.
The Iranians would have to get here first. Their Kilos don't have the range.
https://www.google.com/#q=nuclear+battery+power
Perhaps I’ve underestimated the difficulty for submarines but I have worked on updating other country’s obsolete tanks to the latest shoot-on-the-run technology. You take one apart and the engineers use the parts they can or must keep as the basis for the design. A company GD bought used a Polish T-72 and turned out a faster, lighter version of the Abrams with the same gun. Poland didn’t have the money and when we bought then the concept was shelved. But they had a beautiful tank in storage.
I believe you have. Take your T-72 and convert it to run on 8 wheels instead of tracks and then contract with Harley-Davidson to do the work and you would have a rough idea of how complex your suggestion is. Submarine hulls are designed around propulsion systems. You don't take an existing conventional hull and drop a nuclear reactor into it. And you don't go to any shipyard with no experience in building conventional submarined and say, "How hard can it be?" It's a specialized industry, and the U.S. has been out of it for decades.
“Take your T-72 and convert it to run on 8 wheels instead of tracks and then contract with Harley-Davidson to do the work and you would have a rough idea of how complex your suggestion is. “
I’ll grant that you’re correct. But if I were CEO of
Electric Boat and I wanted in, I’d buy somebody who already had contracts and use the synergy to gradually get in. But, given ITAR and the high probability that even no-brainer sales to, say, Brittan, might never be approved because of the bureaucracy...I’d not make the investment.
Britain is solely nuclear, which is why they flogged their Upholder-class lemons onto Canada. They also have a shipbuilding industry of their own so even if they went back into conventional subs they'd go with their own yards. Spain, Sweden, Germany, France, Italy, Japan, and Korea all build their own and have the export market. The U.S. is way behind the curve and can not compete in the relatively small market. So you would be wise not to have your company try.
It is the US that makes contradictory regulations and they are terrible and in fact do create prohibitive risk to prosecution... not for unwitting prosecution or willful convenient interpretation. Instead, the risk is interpretation and application of the ambiguous laws by anyone who wants to make a victim or example. The risk is open ended. You are subject to infraction on the whim of the regulators.
“It is the US that makes contradictory regulations and they are terrible and in fact do create prohibitive risk to prosecution... not for unwitting prosecution or willful convenient interpretation. Instead, the risk is interpretation and application of the ambiguous laws by anyone who wants to make a victim or example. The risk is open ended. You are subject to infraction on the whim of the regulators.”
Gosh that was well stated. You’ve captured all of ITAR in four sentences. (I’m gonna steal that.)
Regards,
GtG
That would apply to many industries. However, the things that make a diesel sub quiet are the same things that make a nuke sub quiet. Sound dampening/isolation, hull covering, quiet electric generators, hull shape, valve design, etc. already exist in our skill set, and in fact we have led in the industry in most instances.
If government was left out of it, we could field the best and quietest diesel/electric sub in short order.
I hunted subs for a living once upon a time. It is going to be a wake up call for us when WWIV kicks off.....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.