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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

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:

Did you know... that it is expected to take 17 years to design and build the first of Australia's new submarines?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2008/January.

Wikipedia

Ships

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles

Military history: Maritime / South Pacific / European / French

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force
	European military history task force
	French military history task force

Australia: Military history / Maritime Mid‑importance

	Australia portal Attack-class submarine is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian maritime history (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

France Mid‑importance

	France portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

air-independent propulsion

collins 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)[reply]

Wikipedia mentioned in news story

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/national/why-dont-our-top-defence-officials-understand-what-submarines-are-on-offer/story-fni6ulvf-1227239418825?sv=6e94c0baf0b1979c6946ebcd19fd25c5

Moondyne (talk) 11:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Naming

Three 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)[reply]

This isn't an article on the Attack Class.

This 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)[reply]

Relevance?

With 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Confused about Cost

I'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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]