Following Submarine Matters, December 5, 2018 article "Australian Future Submarines likely 2 years Late + Maybe $20 Billion Extra"
an Anonymous has commented:
an Anonymous has commented:
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).
The South China Sea (SCS) is not that far from Japan (especially the naval base
on Okinawa).
Australiain subs come from Rockingham Fleet Bast West, near
Perth, Western Australia, and go a lot further than SCS.
The biggest risk with Japan was their lack of experience
with not only military exports but overseas weapon builds. Japan has not
exported a submarine since before WW2 and I am not aware of Japan ever doing an
overseas build for any naval ships or submarines before.
You would be crazy to try it out on such a large and
expensive program (cultural differences and 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 Kockums was
taken over by SAAB. SAAB is a defence contractor Australia has had a long (and
ongoing) relationship with.
Quite a few unwanted Australian Submarine Corporation (ASC)
submarine engineers (when it became clear Collins 2 was not going to happen)
joined SAAB. Even so, SAAB and ASC have recently signed 2 way support
agreements. This is because SAAB recognises ASC still has considerable engineering
knowledge building 4,000t submarines. SAAB can use this ASC input regarding SAABs A26 Ocean Extended Range
version that SAAB hopes to sell to the Netherlands.
In many ways, SAAB would have been the easiest for Australia
to work with.
A Collins II like Cutaway of Australian Future Submarine. Click on image to make it larger. (Coutesy Australian DoD via Australian National Audit Office on April 27, 2017.)
It is never too late (given where things are) and it is a good suggestion.
ReplyDeleteCan the Australian engineering team take the in progress A26 design from Saab and concurrently design the ocean going variant? Why not?
KQN
Saab may have taken over Kockums- after it was owned by the German shipyard HDW for a while, however Saab had zero previous submarine experience nor shipbuilding of any kind, so they were buying Kockums to gain that experience to add to their (unrelated) other defence businesses, mainly in the aviation and radar field.
ReplyDeleteJust having a new name over the gate of the Kockums shipyard/design offices doesnt change much.
Saab, I believe, liaised between Kockhams and the ASC, really the A26 is the evolution of “Gotland, Collins, A26 and upscaled versions are being proposed.. How is it foolish, to be part of a scalable Collins, considering what is available as far as the evolved, batteries, Japanese diesels and the miles of upgrades that are rapidly coming to fruition. We have all sat back for years, thinking to ourselves, “if only the Collins” had this or that, or to be more capable, more stealth, more whatever!. Well the future is staring us in the face and we are choking at the thought. If we can’t get past, the past!, we will never have the intestinal fortitude to be a modern maritime entity. Really the Collins w@s a massive task, completed, eventually, with volumes of data what not to do. We all seem to be paralysed with fear of going down a road well trodden, with all the sign posts telling us what not to do. That is what sign posts do.
ReplyDeleteHi Pete,
ReplyDeleteWhile there was understandable political reason to exclude Kockams/SAAB in SEA 1000, surely 1-2 years of inaction since and publicised difficulties should be enough to allow a change in direction back to the only people who ever designed a sub similar in size and capabilities to what the RAN wants.
Perhaps the Coalition wants to double down on its decision, or doesn't want offend France.
I can certainly see the logic with what Anonymous wrote about an evolved Collins, although the media has done a good job in publicising it's problems, such that it might have been quite difficult to announce back 10-20 years ago.
Andrew
ReplyDeleteWould there be penalties for pulling out of the French deal? Usually such large programs have clauses that force a hefty price for cancellation. That and obviously the entire program would be set back years. Though it looks like it will be set back years in any case.
Cheers,
Josh
I don't think Australia maintains a sufficient submarine design workforce. So, if Australia built a Collins II it is likely it would be designed by Saab-Kockums using much A26 tech.
ReplyDeleteI think there would be penalties on Australia for pulling out of the French deal.
Similarly there appear to be penalties against Naval Group having faults in the Australain Future Submarine design. However the cost of penalties on a supplier can always be passed on to the customer, in spare parts and other charges.
I don't think penalties are possible when Naval Group goes overtime and overbudget - as reported in December 2018 https://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2018/12/australian-future-submarines-to-be-2.html .
Temporary Australian Governments (current one likely to be voted out in May 2019) are in a poor bargaining position to extract penalties.
Regards
Pete
Hi Pete
ReplyDeleteFrom the viewpoint of technology, Australia need not pay penalties at all, and she can request penalties instead. Efficiency of pump jet is low suggesting fake proposal of key technology by Naval Group. Weak points of SAAB are lack of LIBs and powerful diesels. If Kawasaki and Toshiba offer diesels and LIBs, the weak points will be overcome.
Regards
Yes, since April 2016, when the Australian Government chose DCNS-Naval Group in pre-July 2016-Election desperation the pump jet has always seemed a Public Relations token.
ReplyDeleteAustralia's selectors are so conservative that they most probably have not chosen AIP or LIBs. So genuinely choosing a pump jet seems remote.
It is likely that Saab-Kockums will choose a low power Swedish designed diesel, with a short range fuel load, for Baltic conditions, and to backup its more used AIP. Australia's needs are totally different.
Pete
While Sweden may lack suitable heavyweight submarine diesels or LiBs, there are good European alternate suppliers such as MAN & MTU for diesels & the likes of Saft for LiBs. SAAB in particular is known for using equipment from quality suppliers from a number of countries, especially USA, UK, Italy & Germany. SAAB has closer defence relations with many more companies & countries than Kockums ever did. Even competitors in some areas are customers in others. The A26-ER is a 3,000t 80m sub with 10,000nm range. Basically another Collins but with 20 years of experience behind it (some of it coming from ASC). It won’t hurt Australian submarine design post Shortfin to have a relationship with a 2nd submarine designer if you want a sovereign capability rather than just copying France. Nobody has a copyright on good ideas.
ReplyDeleteIt truly bothers me in that, there is no plan b, we are at the mercy of the Naval group. We h@ve no leverage at all. The French have a reputation of dragging things out and considering we only have a small handful of operating subs to patrol our waters, we really have our posteriors up in the air with the “ Please Kick Here” sign strategically positioned in the most obvious sign holder.
ReplyDeleteWhere is the parallel alternative we could pick up if we find we have placed to much faith in one group who hold “ALL”the cards. Are we that, shall I say, that naive?.