France has been negotiating submarine delays and cost overruns with a minority Australian Coalition Government that may only last to March or May 2019. "The [Victorian State] election outcome has put the Scott
Morrison government on course for a crushing defeat at next year's federal
polls..."
Australia's Future Submarines may only be operational in 2035 and cost more than $50 Billion + 25%. In an excellent
article Andrew Greene,
Defence Reporter for the Australian Government owned ABC, reports
December 5, 2018:
“Future
submarines could arrive late and cost more, confidential negotiations reveal”
"The first of Australia's new submarines could arrive late
and cost substantially more than expected as Defence attempts to finalise the
terms of the $50 billion project.
The ABC understands Defence recently offered a two-year
extension to the French company building the future submarines as it tries to
lock in a crucial final agreement.
Senior sources confirmed the "unprecedented"
offer to allow an extra two years and 25 per cent cost increase was initially
rejected by the French owned shipbuilder, Naval Group.
[France] instead wanted a three-year schedule delay and for an
allowance of a 30 per cent increase in delivery costs, but the company later
backed down.
The ABC can also reveal that negotiations between Defence
officials and Naval Group became so tense that a former senior bureaucrat was
hired in a bid to help resolve protracted disagreements.
Former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull announced Naval
Group, then known as DCNS, had been selected for the
lucrative project in 2016.
The French bid was successful in a competitive evaluation process (CEP),
beating rival offers from Germany's TKMS and the Japanese Government.
Unlike a regular military tender process, the CEP did not involve detailed
commercial contracts being submitted to the Defence Department.
Defence officials and Naval Group representatives have
since been locked in tough negotiations over details of the program to produce
12 submarines to replace Australia's ageing Collins Class fleet from the
mid-2030s.
The Coalition is now anxious to complete a crucial
Strategic Partnering Agreement (SPA), which will guide the submarine program
for decades, before next year's election.
Defence Minister Christopher Pyne insisted there was
"no real deadline for the SPA" but said he had "an unformal
deadline of signing [it] before the election".
The Defence Department is refusing to confirm or deny any
details of the confidential talks, telling the ABC the negotiations on the SPA
were in the "final stages"..."
COMMENT
While Naval Group's workforce are attempting to launch the (delayed for years) French Barracuda SSNs Naval Group does not have the workforce or fullscale testing to get the Australian Project on track.
There are no water flow results from the so far delayed not yet launched Barracuda for the French Navy. So Australia cannot be sure that Australia's Future Submarine (which will have the Barracuda hull shape) will move efficiently and quietly in the water.
There are no water flow results from the so far delayed not yet launched Barracuda for the French Navy. So Australia cannot be sure that Australia's Future Submarine (which will have the Barracuda hull shape) will move efficiently and quietly in the water.
Pete
22 comments:
12 Shortfins = AUD50Billion x 125% = AUD75Billion
12 Seawolfs = AUD55Billion
Something wrong, terribly wrong.
@Pete
Unsurprising that this went off the rails. Untested French design who's first in class wasn't in the water yet, and that nuke boat won't be anything like the conventional version sold to the RAN. I'm on the record as saying the French offering was the worst of all possible worlds with the absolute highest (and predictable) development risk. Both of the other designs were far more mature.
Cheers,
Josh
So the u-216 was launched and sailed?
Kawasaki offered to build soryu in Australia?
Bit biased...
Obviously Naval is subject to potentially large delays and data requirements and potentially costing significantly more. What I find intriguing is that Saab has put up its hand with possibly a scenario which involves Collins II with all the new tech that wasn’t available when the design choice was in progress.
Australia should have been designing a Collins II as soon as the Collins I had been completed. Well it looks like Kockums and Saab have been doing exactly that. The reason I even have the sheer audacity in bringing up this point is that between the ASP, Kockums and Saab we already have a substantial knowledge base, who else has the ability to zero in on what we need and to incorporate the new technology that has arrived.
To bring in house 1) the sustainment and up grade Collins I and 2) the design data needed to facilitate a modern diesel electric subs with all the requirements that comes with the Collins “evolution”. We would not have to split build the latest Collins everything would be here and under ASC and Saab control.
Australia's (current) Coalition Defence Minister Pyne
denies there is any hint of a problem with the submarine project.
As Minister Pyne is also likely to be gone as Minister in May 2019, sweet words and denying responsibility now will be soon forgot.
see https://www.reuters.com/article/us-australia-defence-submarines/australia-rejects-report-cost-of-new-french-made-submarines-to-blow-out-idUSKBN1O40C8
The Submarine Project's problems will likely to be passed to the new Federal Labor Government in May 2019. As Labor also relies on expedient deflection Labor politicians will blame all on their Coalition predecessors.
Unless this world's most expensive SSK Project is intended to open the way to Australia purchasing French SSNs not to mention French nuclear weapons, this exercise will be very sad for Australian taxpayers.
Pete
So the u-216 was launched and sailed?
Kawasaki offered to build soryu in Australia?
Bit biased...
Even if it was built in Japan and delivered to Australia it would not have cost more than 15 billion Au Dollars(Maintenance cost included), leaving 60 billion dollars to invest in creating a domestic industry that would employ lot more people in the long run.
On top the 12 Soryu types would have been all delivered by 2030 at the latest.
Which would you really want as a Australian citizen?
Pete, your last comment is so accurate. If Australia was not planning on an SSN-SSK fleet mix, the Short Fin makes no sense as the mother SSN design is still untested in the water (which actually reveals the detectable frequencies, profile etc..).
They could have gone for a series of U-214s with ability for medium range ocean patrols beyond the outer EEZ of Australia or as a writer suggests above they can upgrade the Collins on a war footing while laying down similar boats with improved features as the Collins II using SAAB Kockums and the existing knowledge base at the ASC.
The complete pig's breakfast of an outcome is financially disastrous and strategically dangerous, considering China is aggressively muscling up on the second island chain as it strives for naval supremacy. The mess is beyond belief. AUD 35-40 bil extra? mad.
PS: The Huludao Type 095 SSN assembly yard... here is the pic you had asked for
http://news.dwnews.com/china/big5/photo/2017-04-20/59811497.html
the shipyards at Bohai, Dalian etc are building two extra aircraft carriers, 6 128-VLS Type 055 cruisers, 2-4 extra Type-052D 80 VLS destroyers besides Type 94 SSBNs, Type 95 SSNs and Type 96 SSBNs under construction or at getting ready for construction in case of the 96.
Thanks everyone for your comments.
There were/ar strengths and pitfalls for all Australia's Future Submarine bids: TKMS, Japan, Naval Group and (outside the CEP) Saab Kockums.
For any bid it would be more than 15 years with many stages, imperfections and uncertainties.
But Australia's political instability of new Prime Ministers and new Parties in Government causes desparate lunges for quick desparate fixes which are unsuited to 15+ year projects.
http://news.dwnews.com/china/big5/photo/2017-04-20/59811497.html from Germany's DW, in Chinese, then translated into English, is scary. The Chinese seem to be building ships and subs all out, at near Cold War speeds.
Australian and Indian (more on Russian sub buying tomorrow) inefficiencies don't bode well against the Chinese threat.
Regards
Pete
Can someone please confirm that the build number for $50 billion is actually 12 short finned Barracudas or is the number actually 8?
The other side of the coin is this smoke and mirrors to actually get 12 subs?.
Fair enough Pete. Unfortunately as the late LKY of Singapore used to point out, democratically elected governments like India with a weakish federal government are not capable of nimble decision making in a timely fashion. Extends to big ticket defense too.
Whereas China has no such constraints (disadvantages of autocracy well not so relevant here) and with US$ 3 trillion plus in reserves.
(as Nouriel Roubini used to say, it is the right kind of forex as it is based on current account surpluses and is a true reserve in every sense, unlike India which has 400 bil US$ reserves but it is capital account based or an FDI IOU)
China is employing those financial reserves with frightening resolve and speed. Deng Xiaoping's 1979 sagacious dictum 'bide your time and build your strength' has been implemented with a precision that is historically quite rare.
Australia to a limited extent suffers from the same problem of 'Bunglers Inc.' running the government since Gillard atleast, with Slomo and gang being particularly egregious to boot.
Hi Lee,
If I understand the situation right and RAN stick with the Short fin (and the Suffren SSN does get tested in time), Australia might still get only 8 subs max or may be only 6 for the 50 billion figure being quoted.
I think if additional cost escalations are factored in (they usually are, in most India-France contracts it tends to happen, a small % per year escalation for changes, delay...)
50 billion might get RAN 6 Short Fins max if French contract history is anything to go by.
Cheers
@ Anonymous Anonymous said...
"So the u-216 was launched and sailed?
Kawasaki offered to build soryu in Australia?
Bit biased..."
The Type 212 is in the water and the Type 214 in production. As is Soryu class.
The French nuke boat is NOT. All three of those types would have needed modifications to fit RAN requirements, but one of them required its entire propulsion plant to be replaced and one of them had a base design that never hit the water. That isn't bias, that is just an obvious higher risk development cycle with predictable results.
Cheers,
Josh
Interesting story on the Costs of the Sub project
https://www.defenceconnect.com.au/maritime-antisub/2412-cost-of-future-submarine-project-in-the-spotlight
'In 2017, the submarine project paid one person $75,000 for one month’s consultancy work and then paid another consultant $4,500 per day for an entire year. There is also an investigation on-foot into misappropriations of public funds by a former project team member.'
Hi Josh and Ztev
Only if choosing France in 2016 with a blank cheque [1]
is an entry to French SSNs and French nuclear weapons (perhaps in the 2040s)
will choosing France make any sense.
[1] https://www.defenceconnect.com.au/maritime-antisub/2412-cost-of-future-submarine-project-in-the-spotlight
makes one weep
Regards
Pete
"The Type 212 is in the water and the Type 214 in production. As is Soryu class."
So the scorpene and the rubis too.
What was offered was the u216 not u212 or 214 so you're point is totally biased.
The japenese never offered to build in Australia and share their tech.
Both German and japenese navies don't have thé culture of long range patrols.
[quote]The japenese never offered to build in Australia and share their tech.
Both German and japenese navies don't have thé culture of long range patrols.[/quote]
So traversing from Yokosuka to South China sea for patrol and back is not long range?
It sound long range to me.
As for constructing the subs in Australia, that was to develop an industry so they can create jobs to the local people in a long term perspective.
It really doesn't have to be the ship building industry and if you have 50 Billion Au dollars you can invest in a big way like developing a rocket launching industry providing incentives for start-uppers to located their HQ in Australia or develop a solar generating farm use the generated energy to generate hydrogen, etc.
There are endless possibility when you have 50 billion to invest to create an industry.
If you ask me trying to hook it up with defense industry was a penny wise and pound foolish plan.
Hi Pete
As TKMS 212A is the Baltic Sea specfic-submarine, its endurance is short. The endurance of Japanese submarine is long i.e, maximam 70days. In CEP, then-the Japanese ambasseder in Australia told that Japan would offer all of submarine technologies to Australia and MHI was planning to train Australian welders for submarine building in Adelaid.
By the way, if Australia spends huge amount of money on the development of conventional submarines, how can she build the budget on future SSNs? Before the building of SSNs, deployment of UUVs is needed. Presumably, Australia will buy UUVs from USA, but they are definitely expensive.
Regards
I never Heard of japenese submarine long patrol without a destroyer or an amphibious ship like the kaga or any support ships.
The TOT has a price if the barracuda were built un France without TOT they would be at a lower price.
It's like comparing the price of 12 seawolves with 12 shortfin barracuda, you can't compare price for the local navy and price in export.
Don't mix pears and apples.
Hi Pete
As the TKMS 212A is a Baltic Sea specific-submarine, its endurance is short. The endurance of Japanese submarines are long i.e, maximum 70 days. In Australia's CEP subamarine competition, the then Japanese Ambasseder to Australia indicated Japan would offer all of submarine technologies to Australia. Japan's MHI was planning to train Australian welders for submarine building in Adelaide.
By the way, if Australia spends huge amounts of money on the development of conventional submarines, how can she have enough money to budget for future SSNs? Before building SSNs, Australian deployment of UUVs is needed. Presumably, Australia will buy UUVs from USA, but they are definitely expensive.
Regards
The Germans have never built a sub in the 4,000t range before (neither had Kockums & we know the problems that caused). The French have built nuke boats that big & bigger & build d/e subs of a similar size to Germany. The Japanese subs needed a plug of at least 6m to be added (not enough fuel & even Japanese sailors complain about internal space). SCS is not that far from Japan (especially naval base on Okinawa). Australiain subs come from Perth & go a lot further than SCS. The biggest risk with Japan was their lack of experience with not only military exports but overseas builds. They have not exported a submarine since before WW2 & I am not aware of them ever doing an overseas build for any naval ships or submarines before. You would be crazy to try it out on such a large & expensive program (cultural differences & language barriers to be added in as well). Australia should have started on evolved Collins 10 or 20 years ago. They should also have invited Kockums to tender once they had been taken over by SAAB. SAAB is a defence contractor we have had a long (& ongoing) relationship with. Quite a few unwanted ASC sub engineers (when it became clear Collins 2 was not going to happen) have joined SAAB. Even so, SAAB & ASC have recently signed 2 way support agreements as they recognise ASC still has considerable engineering knowledge on building 4,000t submarines they can utilise re their A26 ocean extended range version they hope to sell to Netherlands. In many ways, SAAB would have been the easiest for us to work with.
Hi everyone
All 3 CEP contenders (Naval Group, TKMS and Japan) as well as Kockums proposed Australia future subs be built in Australia.
Like all subs designed for foreign customers they would be a tailor made designs (for Aus with 12,000+nm, 60 crew, 70+day endurance).
For the Naval Group option it may be:
- 6 Shortfin SSKs built in 2030s (the first batch) then
- 6 later model Barracuda SSNs (maybe 1 built in Cherbourg then 5 built in Adelaide). LEU refueling facilities maybe buily in Rockingham Fleet Base West, Western Australia.
(US and UK likely to refuse to export their higher tech (bomb grade 90+% HEU reactors. So no Astutes or Virginias for export)
Wise to have middle sized UUVs launched from torpedo tubes of Australian SSKs and SSNs.
Regards
Pete
Pete,
for the fleets you suggest, we are looking at life cycle costs touching 1.5 to 2 trillion USD through 2070-80 and may be north of it.
The Bunglers Inc. at Canberra should have ideally declared SSNs a project of national importance and started working on a SSN around 2000 soon after the Collins I started operating. This laborious 4000t SSK followed by 6000t+ SSN is not only time consuming, it is a waste of precious resources. (Unless the idea is for a dedicated set of SSP/SSK/UUVs for inner EEZ littoral patrol/ambush attacks and SSNs to patrol open oceans and escort Aussie CBGs (Juan Carlos type with F-35Bs, AAWs, ASW frigates etc.)
For the crime of wanton cretinry and hideous wastage of $ exhibited since Howard onwards, all these politicians deserve to be thoroughly caned on their sorry backs.
Post a Comment