Unlikely Australia Wants to End French Submarine Deal

In response to Nicky and David Candy regarding End French Sub Deal and Sweden's latest float of a "Collins II" future submarine concept for Australia idea.

Below concerns the French-Australian program to design, build and operate 12 future large "Attack-class" conventional, diesel-electric submarines for the Australian Navy.

It is far too early to say and probably unlikely that "Australia [is] Reportedly LookingAt An Alternative To Its Costly New French-DesignedSubmarines". 

I could write a book in response, but I note: 

The breach of contract penalties exacted by France on Australia might amount to A$500 million. Also the Australian Government most probably does not want to be involved in  Submarine Controversy. That is after past Australian governments suffered embarrassment over the original Collins "I" Project and PR fiasco, in the 1990s - early 2000s. 

Sweden's submarine makers have had a long term "buy Collins II" campaign in the Australian press, but this has been less than convincing. By 2014 when Australia's DoD were finalising their future submarine shortlist (down to France, Germany and Japan) Sweden's submarine industry was still in disarray.

In 1999 main Swedish submarine builder, Kockums, had actually been sold to Germany. Germany had made sure Kockums couldn't sell submarines - including to regular Kockums' customer Singapore. Sweden/Saab legally battled to buy Kockums back in 2014.

As at 2014 Sweden had not built a complete submarine for 18 years. Even today Saab-Kockums has not completed its only order - 2 submarines for the Swedish Navy. Back to 2014, Sweden was asking/hoping Australia would make the very large financial risk of buying 12 new submarines designed by Sweden. In the end Australia made the prudent decision of shortlisting fully active submarine builders Germany, Japan and France in 2014. 

Counter-intuitively France won because it offered the Highest Bid in what was really a 2016 Election winning Australian Federal Government multi-Billion dollar subsidy/promise to the key swing state of South Australia. Osborne, Adelaide, South Australia being the shipyard that will build the 12 future French designed subs.

At a rather secret level Australia most probably also opted for France as the extra $Billions to France are a down payment on possible long term future SSNs, SSBNs and even nuclear weapons from France. Germany, Japan and Sweden have no experience building nuclear subs or nuclear weapons and are less "nuclear-for-money" than France. France having designed a future SSN for Brazil (SN-BR). France having built a nuclear weapons Plutonium producing reactor/plant and Jericho ballistic missiles for Israel in the 1950s-60s.  

On a current level the Australian Government has regularly voiced its displeasure with missed milestones and cost over-runs in France's Naval Group building Australia's future submarines. French Government owned Naval Group is distracted and late in France's Barracuda SSN and future SSBN projects. Those nuclear sub projects are higher priority for France than the conventional future sub for Australia program.  

Also how much the Australian and French Governments have spent on their domestic COVID budgets comes into it. Australia wants to deter French Government owned Naval Group from seeing the Australia future submarine program as a revenue raising opportunity to cross subsidize France's higher than expected domestic COVID-19 costs.

Returning to Saab-Kockums. Sweden wants to sell 4 Collins II-like future subs to the Netherlands. Sweden again floating a "Collins II" to Australia may give the Netherlands  hope that much design work and price reductions have been already achieved by Sweden in possible future subs for the Netherlands.

So Australia will probably always stick with Naval Group even though the Australian Governments puts on hard bargaining acts from time to time

to legitimise the Attack class' huge costs.