Posted on 05/29/2016 10:33:49 AM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
It was the smallest of sounds, too soft for human ears but deemed loud enough to potentially doom an Australian submarine.
Two weeks ago, behind closed doors in a shipyard in the German port of Kiel, the secrets behind Australia’s $150 billion submarine decision were finally revealed. It was a moment that left the Germans stunned. They were told for the first time that they had lost the bid because their proposed Australian submarine had an “unacceptable’’ level of “radiated noise’’.
In the world of submarines, noise equals potential detection and death, but when the Germans pressed the Australian officials in the room that day to explain further they were rebuffed. That information was classified, the Australians told them.
In a short and testy exchange, the truth became clear — France had won the largest defence contract in the nation’s history because it had best achieved the sound of silence. As a spying platform against China, and in the case of war, the proposed French submarine was seen to be more stealthy than those proposed by Germany or Japan.
But this is a $150bn judgment call — the construction phase is worth $50bn, with the sustainability of the submarines running to an extra $100bn over the life of the vessels — that the Germans fiercely contest, at least in private. It is also one that threatens to undermine relations with Berlin in the same way as the rejection of Japan’s bid has harmed Canberra’s ties with Tokyo.
The confidential debriefing for the failed German submarine bid took place inauspiciously on Friday the 13th this month, inside the historic Kiel shipyards.
(Excerpt) Read more at theaustralian.com.au ...
The chart is wrong in that the French Barracuda also relies on a pump-jet propulsor instead of a conventional screw type propeller. Australia’s comparison of the two subs likely showed that it was the competing German pump-jet propulsor that was not as quiet as the French model. In addition, the French proposal offered a newer sub design than the Germans, with the Barracuda being based on the new French nuclear sub, with further customization pledged to meet Australian needs. Finally, French scientific and technical competence should not be underestimated. When important national objectives are at stake, the French these days tend to get their act together.
?
Better excuse than that - US shipyards haven't built a diesel sub in almost 50 years...
Indeed.
Let's see who prevails in deep, blue waters.
When protecting surface ships in transit, nothing beats a nuke. Nothing.
They have at least twice the speed, 4x the endurance and are quiet enough to not be detected except in the close littorals.
And they are big enough to carry a full boat-load of weapons.
That said, the US needs a fleet of 50 of these little DE boats to patrol the med, Persian Gulf and the China Seas. They are unsurpassed in that particular role.
Dein Boot ist zu laut!
WAS! UMMAUGLICH!
They have good engineers and the French sub fleet is a force to reckon.
That being said, I believe their latest nuke attack sub was so small they had to miniaturize the reactor which created usability and maintenance nightmare.
- then even the ship's laundry washing machines caused problems. As originally bolted together - when used simultaneously - the vibrations were so powerful that the entire 40,000-ton ship shivered.
....who knew that the French washed......./snicker
See post 11. No US shipyard builds conventional subs.
Guess you’re not old enough to know the saying, “Give the man a Kewpie doll” for the winning answer.
Guess you’re not old enough to know the saying, “Give the man a Kewpie doll” for the winning answer.
Thank God I’m not old enough for SOMETHING. I’ve been getting a little worried lately... Lol!
The French have their own Muslim immigration issues.
Of course. The debate is an enduring one. Whether fighters or subs or land warfare. Each has competitive advantages and disadvantages. I agree the mix of the two (nuc and non-nuc) would maximize defense dollar value.
The beer taps in the German sub were too noisy.
America doesn't build conventional submarines.
That's the most economical speed. Top speed would be much higher.
Not with air-independent propulsion (AIP).
True. But nobody's bending over like Merkel.
Perhaps, but that criticism would not apply to the Barracuda class, which is not yet in service.
Gotland class were not in the running. Interesting.
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.