Just 8 Australian Future Submarines, not 12.

On January 12, 2018 I made a comment in a Forum that:

"The 12 Future Subs number has always been a ["furphy" ie. misleading annoucement]. The industry and [Australian] Navy are hoping for a 8 subs compromise."

This 8 sub expectation now seems accurate as the Australian Navy's thinking is revealed in an excellent article of October 28, 2018 by Andrew Tillett in the Australian Financial Review.

In the article Tillett interviews the Australian Navy's Head of the Future Submarine Program, Rear Admiral Greg Sammut. Tillett reports, in part:

“While the [Australian] Rudd government's 2009 defence white paper identified the need for 12 new submarines – doubling the size of the existing Collins class fleet – Admiral Sammut revealed Naval Group and the German and Japanese contenders had only been required to bid on the basis of providing eight conventionally powered submarines.

"So it is in that context that we are putting in place the [delayed Strategic Partnering Agreement] SPA with that understanding the offer was built around eight boats and necessarily the terms and conditions we have should contemplate that, noting that the size of the fleet beyond eight boats will be a matter for government," he said.

"That doesn't mean we must buy eight boats hell or high water, the contract enables us to contemplate what would occur if it was less than that and what would have to apply in those circumstances.”

SEE THE COMPLETE AUSTRALIAN FINANCIAL REVIEW ARTICLE

PETE COMMENT

There seems a conflict or at least ambiguity on whether Australia wants only 8 Future Submarines  and is Naval Group insisting on 12?

Just eight new submarines would have many strategic, operational and financial implications.

Following the rule of thirds only 2 or 3 submarines may be short term available for operations or on patrol instead of 4 available if Australia had 12 subs. Australia has a very long coastline, hence vast distances for only 2 or 3 slow SSKs.

If Australia is effectively paying half the development cost for the Shortfin/Future Submarine/Collins Replacement as well as paying the unit prices for 8 subs the purchase price has increased by at least a third.

So the widely advertised upfront figure of US$50 Billion, now covers only 8 Shortfins. This makes them as expensive as the world's most expensive (4 times larger, nuclear powered) US future Columbia class submarines.

Is it too late to buy off-the-shelf stretched Naval Group Scorpenes? Probably acceptable to Naval Group and a purchase that would not bankrupt Australia?

On Thursday November 15 I'll return to the major delay in Naval Group's Barracuda SSN program, including why Naval Group curiously discarded the confidence building term "Shortfin Barracuda Block 1A." Its taken longer than expected to assemble my arguments.

Pete