In response to Anonymous's from June 20, 2022 and /Kjell
Australia cannot simply choose a Japanese or Swedish "Interim" submarine without a tender process. The Australian Government has a financial, prudential, duty of care on how it spends $10s Billions buying an "Interim" submarine class.
Australia's SSK tender had its day in 2016.
The new Albanese government would be very unpopular with Australian taxpayers if it ran yet another conventional submarine (SSK) tender or SSK selection, which, on usual design-building-testing timelines would produce the first operational SSK in 2040.
Main reasons being:
- Australia had its SSK tender in 2016
- which chose France's Naval Group (was DCNS) an efficient, credible SSK builder
- the Morrison Government, with Albanese Labor's bipartisan agreement, ripped up the contract with the 2016 tender winner Naval Group.
- This is because it was judged an SSK would be obsolete against high tech naval superpower China by the mid 2030s.
- the Albanese Government is paying over A$3 Billion to Naval Group and other contractors in recognition an SSK Tender Winner is not what Australia wants now.
- All of this makes the idea of running yet another SSK tender inexplicable on financial, greater Chinese capability/threat, timing and definite unpopularity with Australian taxpayer reasons.
- Also all new submarines are to at least minimal degree tailor-made for customers.
- For Australia the tailor-making would be to a MAXIMAL degree due to Australia's unique long range-long endurance-at high speed-with large crew-with 20+ heavyweight shots requirements.
- An SSN, much larger than any SSK, meets those requirements.
- All the contractual milestone negotiations and design changes, from the Euro-sub, South Korean or Japanese norm, would mean an "INTERIM" submarine would probably only be operation in 2040 - which ISN'T "INTERIM"
and
- Australia has wanted a "regionally superior submarine" since 2009.
- China has raised the bar on what is regionally superior. For manned submarines only an Australian SSN by around 2040 would be regionally superior against the all-important Chinese SSN threat in the Indian and Pacific Oceans.
I think only an Orca unmanned submarine can be developed in time to be INTERIM.
2 comments:
Pete
Not sure if you were referring to my comments but if so I was referring to a tender for the SSN, presumably between RN and USN options with presumably EB/HI and BAE as tenderers, after clearance by their governments.
Hi Anonymous [Jun 21, 2022, 10:53:00 PM]
Maybe next year the UK, US and Australian Governments might think a US EB/HII vs UK BAE tender process is a good idea, or not.
BUT:
- Its likely to be a much more secretive process than a usual (mostly National Security and Commercial-in-Confidence) secret SSK requirements tender.
- Under AUKUS highly sensitive US and UK SSN characteristics (not only reactor related) have been constantly provided to Australia since September 2021.
- Anyway SSN, and any type of competitive tender issues are squarely the area for the
Taskforce*, National Security Committee of Cabinet, PM, and Defence Minister to report publically on or not, explain or not.
* the Taskforce https://www.defence.gov.au/about/taskforces/nuclear-powered-submarine-task-force is meant to report 18 months after Sept 2021 ie. maybe by March 2023. Maybe a Competitive Information Process will be a subject mentioned.
Australia might not want to spend 4 years in an SSN tender process because that may mean no AUKUS SSN operational until 2050.
Regards Pete
Post a Comment