Talk:Attack-class submarine
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Attack-class submarine article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | A fact from Attack-class submarine appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 16 January 2008, and was viewed approximately 13,939 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg)
.svg){kind=logo}
air-independent propulsion
editcollins has tested AIP and has a unit on a pallet at osborne, it was found not to enhance the operational goal
probability at this stage is that the new sub is going to be hydrogen powered
i suggest the reference to AIP is qualified as to it not being existing common meaning
- Can you please provide some references which state that AIP has been ruled out? Everything I've seen says that it's still under consideration. Nick-D (talk) 09:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia mentioned in news story
editNaming
editThree boats have so far been named. HMAS Obsolete HMAS Noisy HMAS Scrap — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.110.67.11 (talk) 20:02, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
This isn't an article on the Attack Class.
editThis needs to be retitled. It's an article on the Collins Class Replacement Program, of which the Attack Class was eventually selected. There should be a seperate article on the Attack Class itself. 45.248.48.136 (talk) 08:01, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Relevance?
editWith the cancellation of the French contract is this page still relevant? If it is kept then shouldn't the focus be on the AUUKUS Group, and the work that comes out of that? 人族 (talk) 03:39, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Of course it is still relevant. It was a massive procurement project that was cancelled for important commercial and geopolitical reasons. That all needs to be recorded. Mark83 (talk) 04:40, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Confused about Cost
editI'm confused about the cost. The $90 AUD billon figure has been widely quoted. However, looking at a Virginia class nuke sub, cost here (from wiki) is $3.4 billion USD. Twelve would be 40.8 billion USD, or 56 billion AUD. So how did a conventional submarine cost out at 90? (1.6X nuke cost). Also I thought the $90 billion figure was just to purchase, not the life cycle cost.
- A 212 class cost is given as 560 million euro, or about 910 million AUD. Twelve would be 10 billion AUD or so. Obviously the Attack class is not the same as 212, but the cost difference is 9x Feldercarb (talk) 15:52, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- The cost blew out from 50B at contract signing to 90B. I think that's a lifetime cost. Yes they were going to cost more than nukes of an existing design, let's just wait and see how RAN/Defence stuff this up to make the nukes more expensive. Greglocock (talk) 22:48, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- As above, it's the life-cost of the program. So not just the platforms, but buildings, training, personnel, upgrades, maintenance etc projected out into the 2050s. Similar to the widely quoted US$1.5 trillion for the F-35 — IVORK Talk 00:33, 21 September 2021 (UTC)