April 6, 2016

Submarine "Announcement" Likely to be 12 Built in South Austrlia - No Winner


Turnbull's main target is beating Labor in the Election, not announcing the winning contender.
Cartoon by Valdman for the (Adelaide) Advertiser, April 7, 2016
---

Prime Minister Turnbull's main pre-Election concern is, unsurprisingly, to win votes in South Australia and other shipbuilding States. Turnbull needs to head off submarine build uncertainty which the Labor opposition in South Australia and nationally, is exploiting.

Turnbull's "submarine announcement" might be restricted to saying, his Government has decided  that:

1.  all 12 submarines will be built in Australia

2.  with final assembly in South Australia (but Turnbull may not risk saying "ASC")

3.  BUT with significant work (undefined) from the other Shipbuilding States/Territories which just happens to be ALL other States/Territories 

[Turnbull won't be saying the descending order of work in other States/Territories, which may possibly be:

-  Western Australia (especially Civmec)
-  NSW (maybe mostly at Tomago, maybe steel from Wollongong)
-  Victoria (Williamstown)
-  ACT (DoD, RAN, uniformed, officials, politicians, their staffs, many public servants, white collar consultants and some electronic component offsets)]
-  Tasmania
-  Queensland
-  Northern Territory (port upgrades in Darwin)

As any building decisions only need to be set in stone by 2026 Turnbull (who probably won't be PM in 2026) has a lot of wriggle room. The first of the new subs will, after all, only be launched in 2031 and commissioned in 2033. This is noting the mid-life upgraded Collins class will operate into the 2030s

No announcement as to the actual winning COUNTRY/company contenders necessarily needs to be made until after the Election. The winning contender announcement is less political if all contenders will be said to build all subs in Australia anyway.

Meanwhile Industry Minister Pyne (from South Australia) will say this is a huge win for (normally Labor voting workers in) South Australia.

Noting that Twitters of Tweets don't make it to Submarine Matters but alerting to an article link is appreciated :) over the last 6 hours Pyne continues to talk to AAP/9News and in that same article Labor Leader Bill Shorten points to Turnbull's political vulnerability on submarines 

As no final WHERE TO BUILD decision needs to be made until 2026 everyone is happy.

Note that where-ever a submarine is built subs are only put together from parts overwelmingly made in the winning contender's country - anyway.

Like any 2016 Election Promise a decision by a new-different Government in the early 2020s may be totally different. Such a 2020s Government may well decide to have the first one or two submarines built in Japan, Germany or France. 

But four to ten then built in Australia will be in the Collins tradition. 

Pete

28 comments:

Nicky K.D Chaleunphone said...

Hi Pete,
You may want to take a look at this;
Taiwan to Upgrade 2 Submarines
Taiwan’s navy is moving forward with a life extension program of two diesel-electric submarines.
http://thediplomat.com/2016/04/taiwan-to-upgrade-2-submarines/

Ztev Konrad said...

Its important to look at the cost package in some historic terms.
back when the the Collins project was being initaited the cost was seen in these quantums

Ministers announcement in 1989 of cost consisted of this. ( of course that was totally unrealistic but its the relativity we are thinking about)

cost $3.9 million in June 1986 prices, with
$2.8 billion being for the building of the six submarines, and
$1.1 billion for logistic support, management and other Defence costs.

We can see how the Defence costs could eat up so much as the RAN project office which evaluated the competing designs had 280 staff. Setting up the logistics and supply chain and the training systems would have required probably as many.
Then there was the combat system.
"...project team had decided already that the boats' CDS would be supplied to a separate RAN specification. Expected to comprise about 30 to 35 per cent of the submarine unit cost"

So we can see the above $2.8 bill in 1986 dollars for six boats, about 1/3 was going into the software /hardware of the combat system.

How Kockums was Selected for the Collins Class Submarine
http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp0102/02RP04#kockums

The waters are muddied now that the sustainment costs over 30 years are now added to the development/construction/entry into service costs that were given back in 1989.

We can see that actual hull costs can be only a fraction of the costs up to all vessels are in service. And yet that is what the public is being fooled by when a location is decided for . And conversely why building in Australia can be seen as being seen as only costing a 'small amount extra', that is until it all goes wrong.As its the human and intellectual capital behind building a submarine that Australia lacks and cant possibly master over the next 10 years.
So instead of being a premium over the basic shipyard costs, it will be a constant barrage of problems that they dont have the experience or knowledge to solve in a cost efficient way.

Peter Coates said...

Hi Nicky

I've noticed you have a special interest in Taiwan?

Yes the Taiwanese each year talk up a futile plan of massive US financial and technical assistance to upgrade their two decrepit Hai Lung-class (improved Dutch Zwaardvis-class) submarines.

This is unlikely to happen as the Taiwanese want all this help basically for free (they only say they'll fork out $12 million for the whole upgrade).

That upgrade would cost the US about $1 Billion + damage US relations with China.

Regards

Pete

Peter Coates said...

Hi Ztev

Your research certainly shows how complex submarine pricing and inclusions are.
To further complicate here's an Inflation Calculator http://www.rba.gov.au/calculator/annualDecimal.html Though it seems to underestimate increased weapons costs - which increase much quicker than a household basket of goods and services.

Any future Sub pricings by 2030 will also need to include:

- cost of maintaining the Collins subs (they'll still be operating in 2030)
- how many new subs the Government of the Day actually decides on (probably 6 or 8, not the 12 fantasy)
- how many will be built overseas (1 or 2? or all) for efficiency and to avert an Adelaide Collins 2 fiasco.

Regards

Pete

Ace Pilot said...

Seems the Japan's decision to enter the Australian submarine contest was terrible mistake.

http://www.australiandefence.com.au/news/the-submarine-problem-deeper-than-meets-the-eye

Nicky K.D Chaleunphone said...

HI Pete,
Looks like France and Germany are competing for Norway's Submarine business

Norway MoD Shortlisted TKMS and DCNS for Ula-class SSK Submarine Replacement
http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3814

Ztev Konrad said...

Ace Pilot, 'regionally superior' was supposed to the driving force behind the requirements of Collins class, and look how that turned out.
From your link
'The Australian Government tells us that the next generation of RAN submarines will be regionally superior because they will have higher performances in stealth, sensors, range and endurance,.."

For the Collins.
Equally significantly, the new submarine was expected to transit at twice the speed of the Oberons and to be able to submerge for up to three times as long as their predecessors(2) although, later, the objective for improvement in transit speed was reduced to a more realistic 25 per cent, together with an expected improvement of 30 per cent in maximum speed.

"The input from several types of sonar systems, as well as electronic warfare sensors, radar, infra-red detectors (and the more traditional periscope) and sophisticated navigation systems, would have to be handled simultaneously by this data system. To be useful, the CDS then would have to be capable of identifying possible targets (frequently checking against its library of pre-recorded ship noises), of determining relative positions and of tracking dozens of them simultaneously. All this data would have to be presented so that quick and effective command decisions could be made."
http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp0102/02RP04#kockums

The important point was that none of the contenders could meet ambitious requirements ( some probably cant be met even now) and for the CDS huge amounts of money were wasted on having the prefect system rather than having essential requirements first and then adding upgrades in the future.
One good decision that was made was going for a distributed processor system instead of of the then 'mainframe' solution as that's how heavy duty computing has evolved with multiple arrays of processor chips.

The other interesting point about the Kockums selection ( they too had never 'exported a sub before) is that the RAN selection team downgraded all the other final contenders list of capabilities but for some reason Kockums ability to meet the requirements was upgraded.

"In evaluating the designs, the 280 staff of the new submarine project team(84) revised the contenders' claims for the predicted performance of their boats. This is part of the normal tender evaluation process but, in this case, they invariably reduced the claimed performance of the IKL design and increased that of the Type 471. In several cases these revisions were marked. The covert transit range at ten kts was assessed by Kockums as 9300 nm and by the RAN at 10 440 nm.(85) The days on station claimed for the Type 2000 were reduced by 36 per cent; in contrast, the battery endurance estimated by Kockums was increased by 15 per cent.(86)
[IKL was the design side of the HDW shipyard]

You have to read the ADM article in light of its one-side approach. Which is heading down the path trodden by the Collins, ie asking for requirements in advance of what is capable, a completely new design which is specific to Australia, a poor evaluation methodology which boosted the favoured design but only had a critical eye on the other contenders design.
The final result for Kockums, its clear in hindsight that they were so much better at telling the RAN project team what they wanted to hear. Who would be around when the chickens came home to roost.

Peter Coates said...

Hi Nicky [8/4/16 7:20 AM]

The Norwegian Minister of Defense comment at http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3814 seems to be most notable for omitting or excluding Sweden's Saab-Kockums from contention.

Norway still says its early days and needs of Poland and Netherlands may be considerations. So comments may be aimed at getting better offers from DCNS, TKMS and Kockums.

Mention of "potential acquisition on an existing submarine design" may mean the existing DCNS Scorpene 2000 (tons) maybe the Scorpene 1000 drawing board design. Lack of a publicised mature AIP may hurt the Scorpene's chances as Norway likely will include some ops in the AIP intensive Baltic and under ice in the Arctic.

TKMS may have the advantage:
- made the Ula-210s that Norway currently has
- has the mature AIP 214 of the 1,800 ton larger size
- the 210mod is a drawing board design which Norway may go for if it includes AIP.

Regards

Pete

Nicky K.D Chaleunphone said...

Hi Pete,
If you were a betting man, what would you be betting on Norway getting for their Submarines; France or Germany.

Peter Coates said...

Hi Nicky [8/4/16 12:35 PM]

Sweden. Announced in 2018.

Cheers

Pete

imacca said...

Saw this on another blog.

" Reading that Elon Musk of Tesla fame has been asked to consider a factory in Australia, on the basis that they need extra capacity for the Model 3, and Australia is in an ideal location re Asia. "

Would be interesting if such a facility was built here as to whether of not they would be in the running to be a supplier for Lithium batteries for SEA 1000??

Ztev Konrad said...

Hi Pete
What did Norway announce about Sweden in 2018?
Regarding their short list of DCMS and TKMS its interesting this comment on navyrecognition.com

Norway’s approach is to base an potential acquisition on an existing submarine design. We want to avoid a large development project with the risk, uncertainty and cost such a project entails. Our criteria is therefore that Norway’s future submarines shall be built by a shipyard that has a long and continuous experience in building submarines, says ..[Minister of Defence Ine Eriksen Søreide]
http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3814

Thats very very wise of them.

Peter Coates said...

Hi Ztev [8/4/16 3:39 PM]

Norway's seems to be giving itself several years to decide which sub it chooses, what countries/companies and whether it will choose any sub at all.

Sweden 2018 is just to say all "nothing announcements" are political and tactical until an actual decision is actually made and announced.

Nicky K.D Chaleunphone said...

Hi Pete,
Looks like The Norwegian Ministry of Defense disagrees with you on the Sweden and says DCNS and the Scorpene is being shortlisted. What's your opinion on Norway getting the Scorpene or the Shorfin Scorpene.

DCNS shortlisted as a potential strategic partner for Norway’s future submarines
http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3820

Peter Coates said...

Hi Nucky

Norway still says its early days and needs of Poland and Netherlands may be considerations. So comments may be aimed at getting better offers from DCNS and TKMS.

DCNS Scorpene possible but the design lacks a modern AIP. Norway likely will include some ops in the AIP intensive Baltic and under ice in the Arctic.

TKMS may have the advantage:
- made the Ula-210s that Norway currently has
- has the mature AIP 214 of the 1,800 ton larger size
- the 210mod is a drawing board design which Norway may go for if it includes AIP.

True devotees of subs would exclude any thought of Shortfin for the Norks.

Regards

Pete

Nicky K.D Chaleunphone said...

HI Pete,
So between DCNS Scorpene and TKMS Type 214, 218SG, 210Mod. Where do you think Norway will go for. I would think they want an ocean going SSK with Littoral capability.

Nicky K.D Chaleunphone said...

Hi pete
Looks like Norway is looking at DCNS and the Scorpene class Submarine.

Norway shortlists DCNS and ThyssenKrupp for sub program
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/naval/submarines/2016/04/08/norway-dcns-thyssenkrupp-submarine/82791180/

Ztev Konrad said...

Interesting information about Norways existing subs.
"The construction of the vessels was an international project. The combat systems were made in Norway by Kongsberg, the attack sonar is German and the flank sonars French. The hull sections were produced in Norway and assembled in Germany by Thyssen Nordseewerke.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ula-class_submarine

They seem to have been able to have the CDS made in Norway, a project that failed when done in Australia around the same time. ( the requirements may have been quite different?).

But constructing the pressure hull in Norway and sending for 'stuffing' and final assembly in Germany does seem unique.For sustainment reasons you would think that the other way round would be better.
Australia found for its Oberon class that the half life overhaul cost was around $7mill when first done, when the unit cost was around $9 mill. (they used a 'sunroof' hull cut rather than the more efficient full circle hull cut preferred nowdays)

Peter Coates said...

Hi Nicky

Probably the 214 or maybe the 210mod.

Cheers

Pete

Nicky K.D Chaleunphone said...

HI Pete,
So why discount the Scorpene. I know Norway said they have shortlisted the Scorpene class SSK. Dose it mean Norway is trying to get TKMS to give them a better deal.

Peter Coates said...

Hi Ztev [at 9/4/16 8:45 AM]

Yes there are often components, weapons and processes from a combination of countries for a given submatine project.

It is certain Australia will use US combat system, US weapons, though perhaps UK mines, another country hull and propulsion and likely some French sonars.

Regards

Pete

Peter Coates said...

Hi Nicky [10/4/16 10:52 AM]

I think DCNS could not mount (probably important to Norway) second generation AIP technology up front - if DCNS is offering the 2,000 ton Scorpene or the 1,000 ton drawing board Scorpene 1000.

It is possible, though, that DCNS will offer Scorpenes at a very low upfront prices, with a promise of retrofitting AIP. If the price is low enough Norway may take Scorpenes.

Regards

Pete

Peter Coates said...

PS. Nicky

Yes, by publicising a shortlist of DCNS and TKMS, Norway is seeking better deals from both.

Pete

Peter Coates said...

Hi S [11/4/16 11:03 AM]

Thanks for the the heads up.

I think it advisable MHI funds my trip to/from Sydney so I can eyeball elastic mounts on Soryu submarine JS Hakuryu (in Sydney April 15 to 26) first hand.

Cheers

Pete

Peter Coates said...

Hi again S [at 11/4/16 11:03 AM]

I have now deleted the section about Elastic Mounts in http://gentleseas.blogspot.jp/2016/03/potential-soryu-problems-recalculations.html . The Elastic Mounts points were made by an Anonymous.

If you ( S ) have evidence that the Soryu does have Elastic Mounts then I might put that evidence in http://gentleseas.blogspot.jp/2016/03/potential-soryu-problems-recalculations.html .

Regards

Pete

Anonymous said...

Hi Pete

MoD has the standards of anti-vibration rubber of equipment for warship [1] which aims reduction of underwater radiation noise in warship [2] and is widely applicable equipment for warship [3]. It is very difficult to think that submarine which needs highest anti-vibration system is excluded from application of this standard. For example, anti-vibration rubber shall be applied for installing of Stirling generator [4].

[1]NDS (Standards for Mod) F 7501D “Anti-vibration rubber of equipment for warship”
[2]ibid, page18, 1. Aim of the standard. “This standard aims reduction of underwater radiation noise in warship”
[3]ibid, page18, 2.(1)(c) “Conventionally, scope was limited to hull and main and auxiliary propulsion, form this time, this standard is widely applicable equipment for warship.”
[4]NDS F8004 2 ”General rule on AC electric motor” 5.2.11.2e)

Regards
S

Ztev Konrad said...

This maybe helpful for some
FINITE ELEMENT MODELLING OF A RUBBER BLOCK EXPOSED TO SHOCK LOADING, a masters thesis from Lund University Sweden. One of the supervisors is an engineer at Kockums
http://www.solid.lth.se/fileadmin/hallfasthetslara/utbildning/examensarbete/TFHF5087.pdf

Peter Coates said...

Hi S [12/4/16 4:12 AM] and Ztev [12/4/16 11:50 AM]

I'll put that information in the "Recalculations" article tomorrow.

Regards

Pete