Australia's government
owned ABC News reports, January 14, 2019:
"Defence secretly considered walking away from the $50 billion French
submarine deal during protracted and at times bitter contract negotiations, and
started drawing up contingency plans for the new fleet.
The revelations are contained in a new report [here] by the [Australian] auditor-general
that also confirms the program is running nine months late and that Defence is
unable to show whether the $396 million spent so far has been "fully
effective"...
4 comments:
I am in awe of the RAN's expansion plans, but I am not sure how Oz will pull it off.
The French deal was the wrong one they should gone have with Japanese offering as it not only a proven design but an evolving design.
Personally I think the RAN need two classes. One for the seas between Oz and Indonesia and one for the long distance patrols to the South China Sea and to cover the Indian Ocean. Saying that I am not sure the RAN will get 12 boats and you would need that many to make two classes workable. And that is why the Japanese submarine was a good compromise. I hope the RAN get 8 boats.
It was a poor choice, of the two options they should have gone with the Japanese offering which is mature yet evolving design. It seems lithium batteries are the way to go over AIP.
Constantly amazed at the scale of RAN expansion plans but I can't see them getting 12 boats.
For me they need two classes. A 2000 ton boat to patrol the seas between Oz and Indonesia. And a boat larger than current Collins class for missions to the South China Sea and for patrolling the Indian Ocean. If the RAN has to fight China it will be off the north coast not off China.
AIP aside the SAAB A-26 seems conceptually the way they should have gone and 8 or 9 hulls being a more realistic (though still ambitious) figure. Six small boats for the north and training. A set of 3 for long distance missions.
Hi Steve and Anonymous
Buying Soryus from Japan faced lack of enthusiasm from several key parts of Japan's multi-actor submarine building establishment, which disturbed some Australian selectors. Parts of this Japanese establishment were more comfortable building, ONLY IN JAPAN, one Soryu per year, for the Japanese Navy only.
Also once Prime Minister Abe or his friend Prime Minister Abbott left office the deal was assessed as likely to fall apart. The deal DID FALL APART once Abbott left office...
Also some Japanese politicians and officials appeared to expect in return for a sub purcahe, Australian ship and air support in Japan's confrontations with China, North Korea and Russia in the East China Sea and other waters near Japan.
True the RAN's plans for 12 subs may mask a more mild expectation for 8. See my On Line Opinion article "Future submarine choices: more than a one horse race" of 11 December 2014 at https://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=16937&page=0 where I wrote:
"A requirement for twelve submarines was an uncosted, minimally justified, extravagance included in the 2009 White Paper (page 70, section 9.3) drawn up under the Rudd Government. There appears to be a historical trend of shooting high in Australian submarine numbers. The numbers of UK built Oberon class submarines proposed for Australia shrank from eight to six (operating 1967-1999). The proposed number of the Collins went from ten, to eight, to six (operating 1996 - present)."
The idea of building 2 classes of submarine:
- one small size class (usually called "coastal") and
- one larger size class (usuall called "patrol")
was discarded in favour of all patrol subs in the US and UK navies during WWII.
Australia also opted for all patrol with the 1960s Oberon purchase and then Collins.
Reasons are many. Two classes increases overall costs of development, purchase, upgrades, training and spares. Also 2 classes complicate basing and flag level command and control.
Furtheremore large patrol subs are preferred because they are more survivable and flexible, remaining longer on station (even somewhere around up close north...). Submarine commanders want larger subs with more torpedoes and extra fuel to sail further for longer, in case of unexpected tasking, or emergency (two extreme cases being the destruction of naval bases near Perth and/or Sydney).
Cheers
Pete
Thanks Pete.
I am both Steve and Anon. I thought I cocked up with posting my first comment.
I think the choice of a French boat poor. I also think going nuclear, if politically possible which it isn't, wouldn't do the RAN any favours.
I appreciate your comments re Japan. And I very familiar with types and classes of submarine: ie coastal, patrol, etc,
As for 2 classes that is why an A26 solution seems the best for RAN.
http://www.hisutton.com/A26.html
I wish we in the UK had opted to keep up SSN's numbers instead of playing carriers.
Post a Comment