Can't help thinking about it further.
In an ideal world (note: I said IDEAL, more on this later) NG would accept a major reduction in the Attack / Short fin barracuda program; build 2 to 4 submarines instead of 12;
and these subs would be used
a) as interim types to fill the gap between the Collins and nuclear Barracudas
b) once enough Barracudas in RAN service, the handful of Attacks would become "training subs" for their similar
but nuclear "brothers".
Don't you think that would make some sense ?
It would
- salvage some of the $90 billion quagmire
- at a massive reduction in cost by cutting the number of hulls
- and results in a mixed fleet of, say
- 4 Attacks
- 6 Barracudas
A number close from the RAN initial target (for both Collins and Attacks: 12 subs).
And a mixed fleet of nuclear and non-nuclear subs, otherwise very similar since they are kind of "half brothers".
The non-nuclear subs would cost less for daily shores, saving the nuclear subs potential for the most important missions where range is all important.
If I were the french government, I would publically kick Naval Group in their...
rear end, presents some apologies to the offended Australians - and make the (counter)proposal described above
- make a handful of Attacks into interim & training subs for nuclear Barracudas later on.
Alas,
@Volkodav told us NG attitude toward their Australian customer(s) seems to be rather atrocious and toxic.
Right here
There are definite advantages to the UK/US deal but going a nuc Barracuda would appear logical. However the relationship with NG has been the worst in the experience of people I know on the project. Sometimes it is better to cut your losses.
These are people who have worked with B&V, Navantia, Kockums, Raytheon, BIW, BAE, EB etc. and they have never had an experience as bad. NG also hired some really good people with great reputations in industry, then screwed them over so badly they left the industry.
I don't know if its the company as a whole, or just the operation in Australia but the environment is apparently toxic.
It's really a shame... such a waste. Also noting that according to
en.wikipedia.org
- the French state holds a 62.49% stake
- the personnel a 1.64% stake.
- The remaining 0.87% are owned by the heir to the French naval dockyards and the Direction des Constructions et Armes Navales (DCAN), which became the DCN (Direction des Constructions Navales) in 1991, DCNS in 2007 and Naval Group since 2017.
So the French state has a massive stake in NG yet can't get its "troops" into order ? the mind wonder... it is not a free-wheeling private company we are discussing here. I'm a bit ashamed there.
One can wonder if the atrocious attitude described by
@Volkodav comes from " Thales 35% slice" or the French gvt's 63% sides ?
As I said, there is no such thing as an "ideal world" obviously - so forget it...