See Naval Group (was DCNS) stating the Australian Future Submarine "Shortfin" was based on Barracuda - in April 2016 Youtube above.
In October 2017 it was reported Naval Group's (was DCNS) Executive Director, Australian Submarine Program, Mr Billig, said Naval Group is designing the Shortfin "from scratch". This directly contradicted Gerard Autret's and Sean Costello's both of Naval Group's statement of April 8, 2016 that the Australian Future Submarine was using the Barracuda AND Scorpene as design references. Australia duly selected Naval Group (DCNS) as the winner of the submarine competition on April 26, 2016.
Returning to Naval Group's statement of April 8, 2016 - this included the categorical words:
"As the nuclear Barracuda is designed to operate globally, shares the same hull form as the Shortfin Barracuda and is also compliant with nuclear safety standards, it is very suitable for the Australian requirement. This avoids many years of design studies for validation of equipment such as pumps and hoses, and allows the designer to take margins for higher performances elsewhere in the ship."
So this decoupling of the Australian Future Submarine design from Barracuda presumably adds:
"many years of design studies for validation of equipment such as pumps and hoses,
"the designer to take margins for higher performances elsewhere in the ship."
It is difficult for Naval Group to decouple Barracuda from the Australian Future Submarine because of their similar length and the same diameter/beam.
See Julien Kerr’s article of October 2017 in The Australian:
"Agreement has been reached on the length, diameter and tonnage of the Royal Australian Navy’s Future Submarine, an important milestone that will allow further progress on the concept design phase of the $50 billion program.
This was disclosed in the course of an industry briefing at the recent Pacific 2017 naval exposition in Sydney, although neither the Defence Department nor French submarine designer and constructor Naval Group would release specific details.
However, informed sources said the agreed dimensions were a length of 97 metres [Barracuda 99.4 metres], a diameter of 8.8m [Barracuda Beam 8.8 metres], and a submerged displacement of 4500 tonnes.”
Has Australian Future Submarine design been politically, but not technically, decoupled from Barracuda due to severe delays in the Barracuda Project?
On delays French wikipedia tries to explain the delay:
"The Barracuda definition phase started in October 1998. Then the design in 2002 for tests then planned in 2008 and an entry into service in 2010. In 2015, the entry into service of the first copy was postponed until 2018 following budgetary difficulties, then, in 2016, postponed until 2019."
The Barracuda severe delay may now amount to 3 further years (from no launch yet) until 2021 entry into service (ie: commissioning of the first of class). This omen provides little time for the Australian Future Submarine to profit from real world testing of Barracuda's hydrodynamic, sonar performance, anechoic tiles, photonic masts and of many other parameters before the Australian Future Submarine Project is supposed to cut steel in 2022.
More tomorrow on the actual reason Barracuda has been delayed and hence politically decoupled from the Australian Future Submarine Project.