BAE Market Power Over Future SSNs AND Frigates Not Ideal

In response to Anonymous' February 24, 2022, comment:

I agree about the US Virginia submarine part of your comment:

"Further to my comments above that we need SSNs more than ever, I no longer have a strong view on whether they should be Astute/SSNR or Virginia Blocks IV, V or VI.

We should build whichever design we can reliably get in the water fastest. Anything else is a dangerous distraction now, as the geopolitical risks for Australia are too great."

Pete Comment

However, at this moment I think that I'm cautious about the UK's troubled past developing the way overbudget, very late Astutes. The UK eventually needed considerable US General Dynamics Electric Boat assistance to sort out UK Astute production problems. 

[Writers of Wiki record] "In August 2002 the [Astute] programme was estimated to be over three years late and hundreds of millions of pounds over budget.[9] BAE Systems issued a profit warning on 11 December 2002 as a result of the cost overruns and delays.[14] BAE Systems and the [UK Ministry of Defence] MOD subsequently renegotiated the contract, with an understanding that the MOD had to share some of the financial risks.[9] In December 2003 the contract modifications were signed, with the MOD agreeing to add another £430 million to the programme and BAE Systems assuming £250 million of the cost overruns.[15]

The MOD also enlisted the advice and expertise of General Dynamics Electric Boat through a U.S. Navy contract.[16] Eventually, a General Dynamics Electric Boat employee became the Astute Project Director at Barrow.[9]

Input from General Dynamics helped resolve many of the software issues associated with 3D CAD;[9] General Dynamics was also responsible for the introduction of vertical outfitting and other construction techniques."  

I think further Astute production (after HMS Agincourt) with its older style PWR2 reactor, is not a serious option. ie. new Astutes aren't an option for Australia. The more modern PWR3, or even a future PWR4, would define a new SSN.

If Australia chose a UK SSN(R) aka SSNR, it could not "reliably get in the water fastest." Instead Australia would need to wait more than a decade for the UK's relatively limited nuclear submarine design and construction workforce to permit the first Dreadnought class SSBN to be commissioned. That is expected in the early 2030s. Only after that could full UK attention be focussed on the SSN(R) intended to enter service with the UK RN "in the 2040s". Another source expected "The SSN(R) is likely to be delivered in the 2040s or 2050s.^[10]"

Even then the UK SSN construction drumbeat is 2 years or longer. So, faults in the operational performance will take longer to be revealed/detected than the US Virginia drumbeat which with the Block IVs is 2 subs a year or 6 months.

The US, continuously building Virginia's, probably for the next 20+ years, won't be upset by the US's new SSBN development/production (ie. the Columbia class). This is made possible by the US' much larger design, development and construction workforce. Also continuous build of its SSNs promotes higher efficiency.

I would say the US would allow Australian continuity of choice, with a larger pool of US  labour/expertise available to assist Australian engineers and shipyard(s). And in any case, it can be taken as given around 33% (of the work or effort) of an Australian build will be the pre-existing US-Australian Combat System (ie. sensors, databases and weapons). All this in a Indo-Pacific environment where most of the Australian SSN inter-operation will be with US subs and broader USN rather than with UK subs and broader RN.

So, for Australia, the US's larger submarine labour force and higher efficiency, enables continuity of SSN production, with it a higher drumbeat. 

Also, if a UK SSN design were chosen one UK corporation may have too much market power over Australian shipbuilding. This is because BAE Systems, already the main foreign contractor for our Hunter class frigates, would also be main foreign contractor for Australia's SSNs. This is noting BAE Systems states: “We design, manufacture, and support complex surface ships, submarines…”.