March 19, 2019

France least efficient Attack Submarine Builder - much more than "three-year delay"

On February 6, 2019 I wrote: “France's Barracuda SSN Submarine Launching in 2019 – Maybe at https://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2019/02/barracuda-ssn-submarine-launching-in.html with the text:

“The launching of France's delayed (laid down 2007) first of class Barracuda-Suffren class SSN will free up a good part of Naval Group's design and construction labour force.

...Once freed up the Naval Group design and construction labour force can begin to fully address Australia's huge Shortfin Barracuda (Attack class) SSK Program."

Six days later, Australia’s ABC “France maintains it will deliver Australia's $50 billion 'Barracuda' submarines on time” of February 12, 2019 at  https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-02-12/barracuda-delay-and-impact-on-australian-program/10800794 includes:

"France's visiting Defence Minister Florence Parly has assured Australia the future submarine program will run on time, despite a similar build project [of the Barracuda SSN] running three years late in her country.

In France, Naval Group has faced serious delays with another [the Barracuda] submarine project, the construction of new 'Barracuda' nuclear-powered submarines.

Despite Naval Group's three-year delay with its project in France, Ms Parly says there will be no flow on effects for Australia's program.

"It's very much related to the nuclear part of our submarines and related to new norms and controls that did not exist before," she said."

PETE COMMENT

France's current attack submarine delay is much more than a "three-year delay".  The US and UK have built nuclear attack submarines in less time. Why can't France? Is France having trouble funding or prioritising its whole submarine program?

Comparing the latest Japanese, US, UK and French attack submarine builds on a time, efficiency basis:

-  the Japanese laid down first of class Soryu in 2005 and launched in 2007 = just over 2 and 2/3
   years

-  the US laid down first of class Virginia in 1999 and launched in 2003 = 4 years,

-  the UK laid down first of class Astute in 2001 and launched in 2007 = 7 and 1/2 years
   and even that UK period to launch was considered excessive and embarrassing with “cost

Compare the above to France’s first Barracuda Suffren laid down December 2007 and not yet launched as at March 2019 = 11 and 1/4 years (so far)

So compared to the most efficient Japanese and the efficient (4 years) US we enter the less efficient, zone of the UK (7 and 1/2 years) with the French being the least efficient at "11 and 1/4 years (so far)".

This French inefficiency does not bode well for France’s next attack submarine build, which just happens to be Australia's future submarine. France's next domestic submarine project is to build a new ballistic missile submarine (SSBN) class. 

Australia's future submarine will need to compete for limited French resources with that future French SSBN.

Pete

6 comments:

Josh said...

@Pete:

Is there any amount of delays and problems that could realistically make Australia back out of the deal at this point?

Cheers,
Josh

Pete said...

Hi Josh

Australia and France have been steadily signing contracts (treated as tangible program milestones) over the last few months.

With each contract it has become more difficult for Australia to back out without paying $millions? or mabye $billions? in compensation to Naval Group.

A large impediment to Australia taking a proactive decision is Australia's Federal Election probably to be held on 18 May 2019. More specifically the Federal Government which selected Naval Group has some critical electoral seats/districts in Adelaide that it does not want to lose.

A secure submarine contract is essential in winning votes in Adelaide.

Regards

Pete

Anonymous said...

Barring a real submarine, one can always make a movie

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gzu0eOwFre0

KQN

Pete said...

Thanks KQN

I'll turn that submarine movie link into a article on Monday.

Regards

Pete

Anonymous said...

Since De Gaulle and the 5th Republic, France is inclined to go it alone on major weapons systems. The problem now for France is we are no longer talking about cheap simple systems like the Mirage III. All new weapons systems are very expensive to develop and to manufacture. Although France does invest into Defense much more than most other European nations, still the Defense budget does take a back seat to other social programs in the government annual budget. The inefficiencies we see with the latest SSN are the results of budgetary crunch. True when the nation's GDP is relatively stagnant.
Compounding the budget issues, the commercial nuclear power industry is not really doing well across the globe, outside of China, India and a few other places. This means you no longer can finance new military reactors from the profits gained on commercial sales. On top, you face a brain drain: experienced engineers were forced into early retirement, while new hire talent is getting scarce (if you are getting into engineering, you will no doubt think about AI and not about nuclear engineering unless there is a biomedical term next to it).
KQN

Pete said...

Hi KQN [at 24/3/19 7:09 PM]

Also once/if the UK Brexits this may negatively effect the French economy.

The UK has received much money saving American assistance/joint projects for its SSKs, SSBNs and especially advanced reactors. In contrast France has to pay $billions more for a wholey indigenous nuclear submarine + reactor sector.

Yes maintaining an expert French submarine reactor labourforce is difficult when new generation reactors emerge only about every 30 years.

Unfortuantely this may impact Australia's Shortfin Barracuda program. Buying a new Aussie sub from SSK only building Japan and Germany would have had some program advantages.

But then again, if France can share some late Barracuda + reactor development costs with Australia from about 2033 (on the way to an Australian Barracuda SSN) then Australia's French gamble may payoff...

Regards

Pete