In response to Anonymous' Feb 3, 2022, 9:41:00 AM comments.
A big problem in comparing SSK and SSN prices is:
1. SSK prices often involve a profit margin for exporting to a foreign customer, while SSN prices have ALWAYS been to one's own navy (entailing more, literally Secret, unaccounted prices).
2. Australia is the FIRST FOREIGN CUSTOMER EVER for a whole foreign designed class of SSNs. This is an UNPRECEDENTED situation.
3. Even the UK's first nuclear submarine HMS Dreadnought (launched 1960) was mainly UK designed, except for the US provided S5W reactor.
4. As well as SSNs what price the on-shore, UK or US provided, Training Reactor at Australia's main submarine base at HMAS Stirling, near Perth, Western Australia?
5. What price Australia literally having to train a whole generation of naval and civilian nuclear experts (maybe up from 5 a year to 100 a year) through to 2050? This would be at whole new nuclear faculties in Perth, Adelaide, Canberra and Sydney universities.
6. Yes SSKs costs have many variables with SSK size being one of them. But price comparing SSKs with SSNs on size has never been convincingly done (to my knowledge).
7. Is Anonymous talking prices all in the same year? or initial estimates in Year 1 with final price at typical SSK commissioning in Year 15 or, for an Australian SSN launch, in Year 20? Raw price of construction only, or for training and spare parts, or whole 60 year life of program costs?
8. What largely Secret price for all safety measures including a new Defence Nuclear Safety Organisation for Australian SSNs?
9. France making the Attack class a lower/third priority after France's new SSNs and even lower than France's not yet conceptualised or built new SSBN class troubled Australia. Such prioritisation effectively handicapped the Attack class build program for Australia.
10. The situation, dynamics and pricing for Australia's future SSN are too distant to be predictable. The first SSN may only be launched in the 2040s.