See Robert Gottliebsen of The Australian's excellent article “Submarines project a $220bn disaster” of December 10, 2019 at https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/defence/submarines-project-a-220bn-disaster/news-story/ed563e92a735dfea84f8ed1adede153b.
Robert Gottliebsen reveals major distrust between the US (which is providing the combat system for Australia's future Attack-class submarine) and the French (who are designing the sub, choosing the contractors, and will oversee its assembly in Adelaide, South Australia).
In the same article Robert Gottliebsen also reveals:
"The Australian government announced in 2016 that it would be paying $50 billion, inflation protected, for the submarines. By 2018 that had blown out to $90 billion.
At that time, with help, I estimated that the final costs over the life of the submarines, including maintenance etc, would be around $225 billion.
I expected that [Australian] defence chiefs would deny such an incredibly high estimate. Two years later they have now confirmed my estimate, which makes me suspect that the real costs are much higher...."
Robert Gottliebsen reveals major distrust between the US (which is providing the combat system for Australia's future Attack-class submarine) and the French (who are designing the sub, choosing the contractors, and will oversee its assembly in Adelaide, South Australia).
In the same article Robert Gottliebsen also reveals:
"The Australian government announced in 2016 that it would be paying $50 billion, inflation protected, for the submarines. By 2018 that had blown out to $90 billion.
At that time, with help, I estimated that the final costs over the life of the submarines, including maintenance etc, would be around $225 billion.
I expected that [Australian] defence chiefs would deny such an incredibly high estimate. Two years later they have now confirmed my estimate, which makes me suspect that the real costs are much higher...."
Goodday Pete. It's a long time ago I had the paper version of The Australian in my hands.
ReplyDeleteYour provided link is behind a pay wall.
Please, can you publish the original text are your site.
Locum,
This is way to much money for a new Submarine that probably will be outdated when it arrives.
ReplyDeleteSorry Locum
ReplyDeleteI am also blocked by a paywall for The Australian, which only allows me to view one article per month.
For me to publish the full text of The Australian article would breach copyright - so no can do.
Cheers
Pete
Hi Lacka65
ReplyDeleteYes it looks like Australia will be paying too much for these French submarines.
Explanations include:
A. The high cost masks an Australian down payment on the right to access French Barracuda nuclear attack submarines (SSN) - some time in the future
and
B. The high cost masks an Australian down payment for French assistance (like France helped Israel) on ANY AUSTRALIAN NUCLEAR WEAPON AMBITIONS - also some time in the future. On Israel see US Colonel Farr's report quoted here http://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2019/11/pete-moving-to-bigger-place-sexy.html
Regards
Pete
The following article was found not in The Australian but in elsewhere.
ReplyDeleteAustralian submarines project a $220bn disaster that could jeopardise the nation for a generation. By Robert Gottliebsen.
I have access to information that has made me realise that the proposed submarine project is not a normal mistake that can be managed — it is a national disaster. …
Previously former PM Tony Abbott had a nodding agreement with the Japanese prime minister to buy the Japanese submarine. However, down the line staff in the Japanese submarine operation did not want to do such a deal and so undermined the efforts of those at the top. …
So someone got spun a line by the French. Oh dear.
Our defence systems are linked or at least compatible to the United States. The US defence and security people have never trusted the French since US defence secrets were leaked to Russia during the reign of President de Gaulle. That distrust has grown in the decades that followed and intensified when the base design of the Australian submarine was leaked prior to the deal. The Americans demanded that it only supply its combat system to the project if the US had a separate deal with Australia.
And so, the submarine development is two deals — one for the basic design between Australia and France and one for the combat system between Australia and the US. And the French will have restricted access to the combat system in the submarine they are designing. …
The US is very sensitive to its technology which was illustrated when Turkey bought antimissile systems from Russia. The US immediately cancelled its Joint Strike Fighter deal with Turkey. …
This is a high-risk new technology submarine so with two “warring” suppliers there will be an endless blame game. …
The Australian government announced in 2016 that it would be paying $50 billion, inflation protected, for the submarines. By 2018 that had blown out to $90 billion. At that time, with help, I estimated that the final costs over the life of the submarines, including maintenance etc, would be around $225 billion. …
Given the looming chaos that I have described we conceivably could be looking at $400 billion to $500 billion, although that is pure speculation.
Ridiculously expensive, and ridiculously technologically risky and probably inadequate because of political nonsense. A testament to the incompetence of the Australian deep state.
The US is paying about US$6 billion per nuclear submarine for its own boats, available to start building now (Virginia class, lifetime costs estimate). We are paying US$13 billion (maybe double that if there is a blow out) each for twelve slow old conventional, incompatible submarine, delivery 2040+. Brilliant.
Hi Pete
ReplyDeleteIf too much money is spent in the Attack-class, it will have an adverse effect on Indo- Pacific defense. Australian government should secretly touch US to seek an advice. If you catch a cold, you'd better go to the hospital at early stage, or it will turn pneumonia.
Regards
To get past Rupert's "Paywall" type the title of the story into Google, do a search, it will show a link to Teh Australian's story, which will themn magically open up to read.
ReplyDeleteSee Google ain't all bad.
$250 billion dollars ?? Why not just buy a dozen Soryu's from Japan for $600mln per sub and call it a day ? A dozen Soryu's would more than do the job, far better than six French subs.
ReplyDeleteHere is a alternative link
ReplyDeletehttps://wentworthreport.com/2019/12/10/australian-submarines-project-a-220bn-disaster-that-could-jeopardise-the-nation-for-a-generation/
Here's an interesting story....
ReplyDeleteThe Dutch are being offered "Blue Water" Submarines from Naval Group, TKMS and Saab-Kockums far quicker and Cheaper than Australia. Isn't the Frech offering to The Dutch also a Derivative os a Barracuda?
https://www.defenseworld.net/news/26007/Navantia_Out__Naval_Group__Saab_and_TKMS_in__3B_Dutch_Walrus_Replacement_Program
"According to reports, a firm order could be signed in 2022, with deliveries expected to begin in 2027. The country wants the delivery of all four submarines to be completed by 2031"
So 4 Boats finished before th efirst Australian boat is 1/2 completed.......something for Senator Rex to ask GM Subs
I have been consistently saying that even A$ 90 billion is likely a severe underestimate. These new design subs are not going to be cheap. 220 bn is a reasonable figure over a 40 year lifespan for these 12 subs. I doubt if Barracuda SSN will get included as the US is not likely to permit systems like the AN/BYG-1 and Tomahawk LACMs on-board french submarines. How will they square that circle is yet another question. Will they go the whole hog and use Thales and ask the Frenchies for MdCN missiles instead of the BGM-109?
ReplyDeleteRight at this critical juncture, Australia is stuck with a boofhead as prime minister who is busy making laws to enable bigotry, discrimination and spreading hate legal. A very inopportune time to be stricken with policy polio and intellectual bankruptcy.
A truly Sisyphean task for the RAN, thanks (in no small measure) to the motley crew of dimwits, imbeciles and clodhoppers in charge at the centre.
The series of self goals that Aussie politicians have managed since 2013 is outrageously criminal.
On Australia seeking advice from the US.
ReplyDeleteOne third of the Attack class project is US advice, software and hardware for the Combat System - being provided by Lockheed Martin. The Combat System being sensors, weapons, fire control and navigation computer power, etc.
If "advice" means buying and using the Virginia class nuclear submarine. As with the F-22 export ban the US Government is likely to ban export of its most sensitive nuclear submarine equipment, eg. the Virginia class. Also the Virginia involves nuclear weapons proliferation bans as the Virginia uses bomb grade %90+ HEU in its reactor.
Regards
Pete
Hi Mr. Kowalski
ReplyDeleteBut for Tony Abbott's personal interest in buying Japanese Soryu subs there seemed to be no natural Australian interest in such a buy. By the time Turnbull became Prime Minister the shortlist had been narrowed to Germany and France.
Also most of the Japanese military-industrial complex seemed unwilling or unable to effectively market a large scale weapon system - the Soryu.
Furthermore Japan and Germany had/have no means of "upsizing" to a nuclear propelled submarine armed with nuclear weapons. France has both nuclear technologies.
Regards
Pete
Hi Chucky Mc
ReplyDeleteTruth to tell the Dutch estimate seems just the upfront costs of just 4 individual submarines.
In contrast the Australian "$250 Billion" encapsulates much greater system costs for around 70 years (eg. upfront, spares, crew training (pay?), defence civilian administration? weapons (and rest of combat system), building factories, bases modifications for 3 times more subs.
Also are the Dutch and Australian using the same cost inflation measures? eg. 2060 dollars/Euros?
It does make one wonder though. If the Dutch buy a small conventional Barracuda (ie. Shortfin) from Naval Group for the Walrus replacement is Australia still going to be paying most/much Shortfin development costs while the Dutch pay few development costs?
Regards
Pete
Hi Ghalibkabir
ReplyDeleteYes the Australian Government (including Navy) may be shrewd in pointing to whole system costs. By the Government pointing out very high prices from the start the opposition and taxpayers are "immunised" against overbudget bill shock announcements.
Unlike the Collins PR failure criticism of the Attack class seems rather mild - SO FAR.
How Lockheed Martin, the Australian Government and Australian builders (ASC?) introduce all the ultra-senstive US combat system elements without leakage of such secrets to the French will be a slight-of-hand miracle.
Australia has been using Harpoon missiles in the Oberon and Collins for decades (I think) so use of a French/European ASM seems unlikely.
Also Australia has claimed the Collins can use Tomahawks land attack but are not fitted with Tomahawks so a change to Euro land attack technology is unlikely.
The French will just have to avert their eyes while US technology is intricatly inter-woven with French technology in the Attack class. What can go wrong with that good-sense-defying expectation!!!!!!!
Cheers
Pete
Hi Pete (December 17, 2019 at 11:10 AM)
ReplyDeleteAdvice means “dirty way to cut the price”. Naval Group tricked Australian government to raise the price. For example, until very recently Naval Group did not show post-Walrus submarine to hide adoption of LIBs, because Naval Group intent to double charge on battery system, LABs and LIBs. The proper way to treat such cunning people is needed. Then, they respect you and do not try to trick you for a while.
Hi Anonymous
ReplyDeleteI think Australia went in with its eyes open on the French "Attack-class" sub deal.
Much of the Aus Government's logic was "Its not $Billions extra to buy submarines. Its $Billions to buy votes in the swing state of South Australia in the 2016 Election." The sub deal was announced a few months before the 2016 Federal Election and around 2 critical seats were bought/won to push the Turnbull Government over the line.
All the signs are that Australia's Attack-class subs will have traditional lead-acid batteries (LABs). The RAN is too conservative, and Naval Group too inexperienced with LIBs for submarine, to build subs withs LIBs starting 2023-24.
Cheers
Pete