Election Winning Sub Deals: Japan Delay or French SSN?

Following this article and in response to my friend GhalibKabir’s interesting comment I comment:

Over concerns about the level of Australian content in French Naval Group's Attack-class submarine project the Morrison Government's negotiations with Naval Group Chairman and CEO, Pierre Eric Pommellet, are largely window dressing. Determining "what is Australian content" is more a public relations art than a logistical science.

Back in 2016, and to win that year's Federal Election, the Turnbull Government prematurely chose a future submarine builder (Naval Group) as a sweetener to win one or two critical South Australia seats. Those seats actually won Turnbull the election and South Australians continue to rejoice in having the $10 Billions new submarine construction contract in their state. The higher the cost of a defence project the more political it is - vested interests and all.

But the Turnbull Government's choice happened so quickly that the contractual basis was largely open ended in Naval Group's favour. Now all Australian taxpayers are living with that reality today in terms of an open ended, rising, project price. 

In late February 2021 it is unlikely the Morrison Government would take the risky domestic political step of ending the Naval Group contract. But there is hope. South Australia remains hypersensitive to threats to its main manufacturing money earner, the submarine contract. 

Morrison is now acutely vulnerable because in mid February 2021 Federal Member of Parliament Craig Kelly put serious pressure on the Coalition after leaving for the crossbench. This means Morrison’s Coalition government only needs to lose one seat in South Australia (in a possible October 2021 Election) for Federal Labor to win Government.

Also Defence Minister Linda Reynolds is already under major political pressure over the alleged rape of a female staff member.

Regarding Japan or Saab as possible submarine building alternatives to Naval Group:

Japan would probably offer the cheapest build in South Australia but we would still be talking actual commissioning in the 2030s. 

In 2016, China overall was in Australia's good books, as Australia's major trade partner, with the strategic threat China posed far secondary.  Australian academics and policymakers were concerned Japan expected too much of a major submarine deal adding up to a closer strategic alliance between Japan and Australia. China being the major threat to Japanese and Australian allies.

Now in 2021 China is recognised as the major regional threat. If a submarine deal strengthened the (Australia, Japan, US, India) Quad that would be a good thing. The new Biden administration can do much to persuade Japan to leave its no-big-foreign-arms-deal-experience comfort zone and again think seriously of helping Australia build a variant of the latest Japanese sub (now the Taigei class).

Meanwhile Sweden's Saab-Kockums has yet to prove (after a 20 year hiatus) that it can turn out new subs efficiently. Saab's A26 Blekinge class has still not been launched even for Saab’s own Swedish Navy. The last new subs Kockums built were the unpopular Collins (HMAS Rankin launched 2001). Also there is the RAN's, Australian politicians' and the publics’ bad memory of numerous Kockums technical, cost and attitudinal problems in the building of the Collins (eg. the defective diesels are still in the Collins and still limit its performance). Furthermore Sweden was not even in the future submarine 2016 shortlist (which consisted of France, Germany and Japan).

Morrison could talk to Japan (which is hurting financially because of the de facto cancelled Olympics) in order to reignite sub-builders KHI and MHI enthusiasm for an Australian sub deal. Although it would take about 7 years for Japan to design an especially large, long enough range,  Australian submarine. Prime Minister Morrison would need to be brave to indicate to South Australia that Japan could be a viable alternative to Naval Group. 
_____________

Naval Group's Barracuda/Suffren class SSN is a better answer:

This Naval Group submarine design is ready now - no 10 year development delay. A nuclear propelled attack sub (SSN) most directly answers Australia's long distance/fast transit mission needs and is truely "regionally superior".

Many nuclear proliferation concerns can be countered that unlike US and UK SSNs, that use weapons grade HEU in their submarine reactors, the French SSN uses more legally and politically permissable LEU.  

South Australian voters can be assured that Australia is still sticking with a Naval Group submarine build in South Australia - main difference is that its a nuclear propelled submarine.

See influential conservative Australian commentator Peta Credlin explaining the SSN case. Although in contrast to her UK or US SSN suggestion I'd argue the French SSN is a more viable buy. This is in many respects, including the French SSN is smaller implicitly cheaper, needs a far smaller crew, has a low proliferation reactor, and France has a better record selling sensitive nuclear gear than the US or UK.

It would be better not to combine hence conflate the highly specialised French SSN reactors issue (these would be refueled in France) with the perpetually too-hard-basket issue of land based nuclear energy reactors in Australia.

Repeated public enquiries in Australia have indicated the public are against land energy reactors - making land reactors a scorching hot political potato that may take decades to resolve in favour of.