February 22, 2021

France's new SSBN: Making Attack-class 2nd or 3rd Priority.


The above video was placed by Naval Group International on its new SSBN program website dated February 19/20, 2021.
---

Naval Group is proving itself an industrial miracle in simultaneously running its new SSBN "SNLE 3G" Program alongside its (over-budget, missed deadlines) Australian Attack-class SSK Program. Also see this new French SSBN reference.

Developing the almost totally new Attack-class is a major and difficult activity for Naval Group. This would ordinarily dominate Naval Group's submarine design effort for the next ten years. The Attack-class may share a common hull shape with the Barracuda-Suffren class SSN but that is all.  The Attack Program is also totally different from Naval Group turning out the near MOTS Scorpene-class subs that it has launched since 2003. So it is difficult for Naval Group to be involved with the development of the Attack-class and the future SSBN simultaneously. 

Naval Group can claim the Attack-class launch-of-sub timings place Attack SSK  before France's new SSBN. But each program lasts 15 years from initial contracts to commission of subs.

The Attack-class's 15 years extend from 2016 to 2031. France's new SSBN's timings extend from 2021 to 2036. That means there is a 10 year overlap (of limited French management, designer and worker resources) between the years 2021 and 2031. 

The statement accompanying Naval Group's February 20, 2021 video, when translated into English: 

"The [French] Minister of the Armed Forces Florence Parly will officially launch the realization of the [France’s new SSBN Program]. A major program for Naval Group, a benchmark industrial partner in the service of French sovereignty. This new generation of SSBN will meet the operational needs of the French deterrence posture from 2030 to 2090. The operational commissioning of the 1st submarine is scheduled for 2035, that of the other 3 at the rate of one every 5 years.

[Pierre Éric Pommellet Chairman and CEO of Naval Group said] “Naval Group is very proud to put its skills, talents and industrial resources at the service of France's dissuasion mission. The whole company will mobilize with its partners to carry out this exceptional project. [France’s new SSBN Program] remains one of the most complex industrial products ever made. Its design and construction require rare know-how, unique industrial resources and the ability to unite 200 partner companies. Our unique positioning as a systems integrator architect allows us to: commit to the overall performance of the vessels assume overall responsibility for their construction guarantee control of quality, deadlines and costs.”"

As Naval Group is French Government owned "62.25% by the French State” limited French management, designer and worker resources will prioritize the new French SSBN "dedicated to France's sovereignty" over Australia's Attack-class SSK.  

Readers should note SSBNs are always the highest priority weapon of the large nuclear weapon states that can afford SSBNs.

Counterintuitively Naval Group can continue to claim the Attack-class program is not second priority. Or not even third priority - when one considers Naval Group needs to make the Barracuda-Suffren class SSN operational. That SSN was commissioned on November 6, 2020 but "Full Operating Capability" is a hurdle Suffren has not yet  achieved. 

Completion of France's new SSBN Program on time, on budget, is reportedly part of France's 2019-2025 Military Plan Law. Does such a law apply to completion of Australia's Attack-class SSK, on time, on budget?

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

Amazing
Now the french or Naval are building too much !

Not only are they delivering on average one sub a year for the last 70 years but they do often the building outside France as well: Spain , Pakistan, India , Brazil...

Heard about Industrial learning curve, competence building and maintenance..

BTW : Barracuda n° 1 is commissioned see :UK naval news ,tag Suffren , nov 2020
Who knows were she is !

Anonymous said...

https://www.handelsblatt.com/politik/deutschland/ruestungsprojekte-bundeswehr-muss-laenger-auf-neue-u-boote-warten-/26204456.html

No problem either with the Norwegian /German sub programm (contract awarded in 2017 and may be finalized in summer 2021 "ambitious" Handesblatt dixit..
Norway wants a more expensive oceanic sub than the german , from this article

Anonymous said...

Hi Pete,

Maybe this video could be of interest especially the oxygen candle.

/Kjell

Don said...

Australians are too dumb to figure out that the French boats will naturally have priority over the Aussie subs. (I'm an Aussie)

Pete said...

Hi Anonymous [at February 22, 2021 at 7:42 PM ]

You will note I've changed my article.

Yes Naval Group (NG) has no problem churning out standard patten, MOTS, Scorpenes, since 2003, for Chile, Malaysia, India and Brazil.

But it is a far greater challenge for NG to develop a completely new (except approximate hull shape) Attack class sub, tailor made for Australia.

BTW the reference I provided in the article did in fact indicate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barracuda-class_submarine_(France)#Boats Suffren was commissioned "November 6 2020" but "Full Operating Capability" is a hurdle Suffren has so far failed to achieve.

PS. Permit my to add that most Australians are finding NG to be as arrogant and dismissive as you.

Meanwhile NG repeatedly misses Attack class deadlines - while increasing the price :)

Pete said...

Hi Anonymous [at February 22, 2021 at 8:36 PM]

Thanks for the update on the Norwegian-Germans Type 212CD program https://www.handelsblatt.com/politik/deutschland/ruestungsprojekte-bundeswehr-muss-laenger-auf-neue-u-boote-warten-/26204456.html

Cheers

Pete

Pete said...

Hi /Kjell

Thanks for https://youtu.be/g3Ud6mHdhlQ "How Do Nuclear Submarines Make Oxygen?" aboard USS Toledo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Toledo_(SSN-769)

The Americans are excellent at marketing their all nuclear sub force to US politicians and taxpayers.

It would be well within the US's industrial capacity to build Conventional SSKs for export. Australia would have bought such subs. Especially due to US-Aus close navies, common language, and the same combat systems.

But alas. Rickover onwards, US industry and USN realise that if the US produced SSKs the risk US taxpayers and DoD would opt for a much cheaper per sub part SSK force (like the Russians and Chinese) would be too tempting.

Oh well.

Regards

Pete

Pete said...

Hi Don [fellow Aussie]

Yes I, of course, agree "Australians are too dumb to figure out that the French boats will naturally have priority over the Aussie subs."

But counterintuitively in 2016 then Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull was cynical enough to realise:

that a happy South Australia (SA) was a critical swing state for the 2016 Federal Election.

The way to make SA happy was to direct the greatest amount of Federal money via a massive defence project to SA voters, unions and other interests.

Having the Highest Bid (about A$40 Billion...?) win the competition

(while Germany/TKMS and Japan bid only A$20 Billion) was THE way to make SA happy.

Therefore Turnbull's Coalition Party secured the extra 1 or 2 SA seats necessary to win the 2016 Federal Election.

And today all Australian taxpayers are reaping the dubious "benefit" of a non-fixed drifting upward Price, virtually OPEN CONTRACT subs :)

Cheers

Pete

Anonymous said...

Fair enough,and sorry, no arrogance but a little sarcasm towards the slight anti NG bias in this blog

NG Australian contract decision is very rational in my opinion.No obligation to share it but at least you need to hear it

Australia wants large oceanic subs (geography,) to be built in Australia which is obvious not only for jobs but because you do not commit for such strategic assets without having in place the ecosystem for 30 years(training , repair , maintenance ,upograde ,incl sub systems.See India South Korea, Greece or Brazil..Technology transfer is critical. This is a costly and complex endeavour

Tha Soryu class was probaly a serious contender but could not offer this technology transfer for various reasons
2 others contenders had not delivered a sub in the last 20 years, "a fortiori" large ones and had their own problems affecting their apparent credibility

The choice was between the world leader of outstanding coastal subs, with no experience in large subs and NG wich over the last 50 years has a proven track record of supplying an oceanic sub nearly every year, some very large ,meeting the requirements of MN similar to RN or USN of 30+ years life with about 160/200 days/year under the sea...

Any obvious difference beetween S Korea, Greece, Turkey ,Israel or Singapour and on the other hand Chili, India , Malaysia,Brazil or ..Australia ? Size ?


Pete said...

Thanks French Anonymous [at February 24, 2021 at 2:56 AM]

Apology accepted. And my apologies as well.

Re "the slight anti NG bias in [my] blog". What do you expect? My concern that Australia made a poor hasty choice is shared by friends in high places https://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2021/02/naval-group-criticized-in-australian.html

Japan is happily building and improving its already large (already diesel-electric) submarine without the vast nuclear-to-conventional modifications required of the "Shortfin". A 96m long Taigei (with a 13m plug mainly for longer range+comfort) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taigei-class_submarine . KHI/MHI are on-time on-price builders of subs - and Japanese maintenance of "face" would work in Aus's favour.

Buying Japanese (more a Pacific power than France) would have significantly strengthened the Quad. Also the US wanted Aus to buy Japanese.

Main thing going for France is its a nuclear power - French SSNs when visiting Pacific make more of an impression on China. France's track record of helping nuclear arm Israel (Negev Pu reactor-plant) and helping the Brazilian SSN project is significant.

France helping a hybrid Aus SSN and SSBN Program in the 2040s (ie."Baby Boomers" with Polaris A2 https://fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/slbm/a-2.htm 9.5m length SLBMs) is something no Aus or French official can talk about...yet.

Cheers

Pete

GhalibKabir said...

Japan has not done much defense sales let alone ToT on 'offensive platforms' such as SSKs..their underwater combat suite, the type 89/ newer type-18 torpedo and the sheer abilities of the Li-battery based Soryu class make them an ideal pelagic SSKs... Along with F-35B capable Hyuga/Izumo class supported by Japan's huge 100 plane strong LRMPA fleet and 100+ MH-60R ASW fleet can make these Soryus/Taigei class a great under water asset especially if combined with network linked UUVs and the strong surface assets that Japan has...


Australia, I think can still get SAAB Kockums to roll out one boat an year after paying the A$ 600-1000 million odd penalty to DCNS and asking them to bugger off...this 'adding extra mammary glands to a bull' type steps get the RAN/Aus. Gov nowhere...I am afraid this will be one ivory white elephant that could ruin Ozzie finances for a long time...

PS:
The Soryus would have been great buy for the IN too..sadly G2G negotiations were about easy as teaching an oyster to tap dance (IN faces the same issue with the US-2 ShinMaywa buy) and had to be abandoned in favour of DCNS....

Pete said...

Hi GhalibKabir
@ Feb 24, 2021, 4:52:00 PM

Its unlikely Australia's Morrison Government would take the major domestic political risk of ending the Naval Group (NG) contract. South Australia (SA) is hypersensitive about threats to its main money earner, the submarine contract with NG.

Morrison is more vulnerable because Federal Member of Parliament “Craig Kelly has just put serious pressure on the Coalition after leaving for the crossbench...” reported Feb 24/25 at https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-02-23/craig-kelly-departure-what-it-means-for-coalition-numbers/13183526 . This means Morrison’s Coalition government only needs to lose one seat in SA (in what may be an early October 2021 Election) for Federal Labor to win Government.

Also Defence Minister Linda Reynolds is already under too much political pressure over an alleged staff rape case, as it is.
____________

Of Japan or Saab alternatives:

Japan would probably offer the cheapest, fastest build. But Japan also expected/expects a much closer alliance in return. That is Australia strategically supporting Japan in Japan’s more immediate confrontation with China (eg. in the EAST China Sea). Australia did not/does not want to buy into Japan’s most short range neighbour confrontations with China and North Korea.

Saab has yet to prove (after no new subs pattern in 20 years) that it can turn out new subs rapidly and efficiently. The A26 Blekinge class https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blekinge-class_submarine#Units has still not been launched even for Saab’s own Swedish Navy. The last new subs Kockums built were the unpopular Collins (Rankin, launched 2001 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collins-class_submarine#Submarines_in_class )

Also there is the RAN's, Australian politicians and publics’ bad memory of numerous Kockums Collins technical and attitudinal shortcomings (the defective diesels are still in the Collins and still hobble-limit its performance).

So its a very bad time for Morrison to announce any return to Saab (and Japan and TKMS have 2016 shortlist legitimacy greater than Saab's).

Naval Group knows all this. So Naval Group is arguing with the Morrison Government from a Naval Group position of strength.

Regards

Pete