Thanks to Anonymous, who, on Oct
20, 2022, advised that a key Washington Post article was carried by MSN on Oct 18, 2022 with the title
The Washington Post/MSN article was clearly gobsmacked that the retired US Admirals were unwilling to pass on personal details and the Australian and US Governments refused to pass on secrets about Australia's submarine programs. Whats more these retired US Admirals were receiving contract pay commensurate with the $multi-billion programs they advised on.
One must add China resents Australia being helped to build nuclear subs almost as much as France resents losing the $multi-billion conventional Attack class submarine program.
So I looked into the matter and discerned No smoking gun. Further, I discovered France's bid for the Australian submarine contract in 2016 would ultimately have benefitted from the presence of a retired US Defence Secretary and the retired US Admirals advising the Australian Government.
Just digressing, its curious in the negative-spin-seeking MSN/Washington Post article advises:
“The country [Australia] has no nuclear power plants, save for a single hospital that operates a tiny reactor for research purposes.”
This serves as a corrective to Australian nuclear energy organisations under the impression that they have operated research and isotope reactors at Lucas Heights, Sydney, since the 1950s, with no "hospital" in sight.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Submarine Matters has records of senior Americans mentioned in the MSN/Washington Post article who have assisted Australia's submarine program(s). These include:
- former Secretary of the US Navy, Donald C. Winter in June 2015, September 2015 and October 2015.
and
- retired Rear Admiral Stephen Johnson October 2015
The Mother load is here:
It is an April 2016 Submarine Matters article that carries the Joint Media Release demonstrating Winter and retired US Admirals were key parts of the process that selected France's DCNS/Naval Group in April 2016.
Relevant parts of Joint Media Release as follows:
“This rigorous and independent process was led by Head of the
Future Submarine Program, Rear Admiral Greg Sammut AM CSC, and General Manager
Submarines, Rear Admiral Stephen Johnson USN (retired), who was
previously in charge of the program to replace the Ohio Class ballistic missile
submarines
The process was overseen by an independent Expert Advisory Panel, chaired by former Secretary of the United States Navy, Professor Donald Winter. It was peer reviewed by Vice Admiral Paul Sullivan USN (retired) and Rear Admiral Thomas Eccles USN (retired).”
Hi Pete ,a French perspective on the whole sub story.
ReplyDeleteAt the same time rational (ie the Barracuda selection) and the Morrison switch explainable to a large extent but with a disgraceful process including no analysis of the practicality
The US Amiral story is marginal in my opinion
To replace the aging Collins , w/o Nuclear option,with construction from scratch in Aus, of very large oceanic SSK there where not that much options
-Saab had a very poor track record with the Collins Saga and was in trouble (resold by TKMS
-TKMS had no product matching the need, Navantia exhibited serious technical limits
-the Japanese had a relevant product but would not build in Aus and the concern was to go into trouble with China (a key partner these years
-The French are accustomed to successful tech transfer(cost are high,capacity limited in Fr) , had a relevant product coming on stream , could offer a NPET compatible,N pathway if needed, and were keen to build ties with Aus for New Caledonia and the Pacific Islands
As of 2017/2018 China changed and became more and more agressive. the Morrison Gov made the politicakl decision to side much more closely to the US in the coming China /US confrontation and even to join potentially a conflict.While Barracudas made sense around the Salomon or Singapour, you need N subs to engage the Bashi or Myako straits..Morrison wanted also a political coup
The French are really mad at the duplicity/lies of this hidden agenda and as important at the charged anglo press campaign/communication/story telling (The 8 B , over 20 years , becoming 90 B for an "inferior product" .!.. Programm delays due also to the rigidity of the Aus party not keen to move to the next step, for political reasons..ect)
They offered the original Suffren N version, within the NPT, built in Australia, with reactors shipped from Fr( and an inventory of N fuel /robotized to change it every 10 years probably)as U fuel stay a very long, long .. time...!
The contract could have beee severed legally and the change of tack could have been negotiated diplomatically with the right relationship/severance fees , good wording ect..One would have expected that Morrison could have made athorough analysis of the "what's next" with the right ressources (the secret kept to a few people reduced the debate to practically 0, ie flying by the pant ,and resulted in the Aus current situation
The Australian deal, now , public historic realities and the changes in the international situation(the need for subs everywhere in front of a limited supply) makes Naval Group and the French gov looking at this as History.Most of the French press look at Macron offer to help Australian now largely as a typical Macron style provocation..
Hi Anonymous @Oct 26, 2022, 3:44:00 AM of "a French perspective"
ReplyDeleteYes Australian SSK requirements were very ambitious even unrealistic
(non-French SSK competitors would disagree with you on their own bids).
After 5 years of the Attack class project with A$5 Billion spent Australia was surprisingly
permitted by major US/UK influence over non-proliferation law/politics
to allow Australia to have SSNs to meet the unexpected and rapidly rising Chinese threat.
Even if Barracuda SSNs were on offer Australia also needed to strengthen Australia's
alliances through SSN programs with the US/UK.
US/UK alliances being more important to Australia than an alliance with France - especially
Australia's alliance with the US in the Pacific, Indian and even Southern Oceans.
Morrison, in September 2021, probably couldn't have warned Macron that the Attack class
program was to be scrapped as starting AUKUS successfully needed to stay Top Secret until
announced.
Australia is mindful of its national interests.
However Australia's submarine strength will be diminished until the late 2040s. Australia
probably needs a nuclear weapon deterrent against China as a higher priority, long before
2040.
Regards Pete
Anonymous Oct 26
ReplyDelete"They offered the original Suffren N version, within the NPT, built in Australia, with reactors shipped from Fr( and an inventory of N fuel /robotized to change it every 10 years probably)as U fuel stay a very long, long .. time...!"
Personally I share your view that the Morrison government acted badly in the manner that the French contract was cancelled. The reasons given about difficulty refueling the French SSN were false. Areva Technicatom already supplies fuel to the Australian medical research reactor in Lucas Heights, Sydney. They are present in Australia and could do the same for Suffren class SSNs in Australian service.
In my opinion the original Suffren SSN offer from France was a good one. If it is still politically possible for Australia to change back, and France would still offer SSNs, we should buy them. The alternative is more distant, more expensive and more political risk.
Pete
ReplyDeleteOn the original question of conflicts of interest, I agree with you that what is presented in this story is not a "smoking gun".
The nuclear submarine industry is a small world and there would be few individuals who have both expert knowledge and no conflicts of interest.
Legally (when I was a federal public servant) the requirement was to declare any potential conflict of interest, not to not have any. Relevant Acts have provisions to permit persons with potential conflicts to work on projects in cases where their specialist knowledge is essential. That would obviously be the case with the USN admirals.
Hi Anonymous @Oct 28, 2022, 9:32:00 AM
ReplyDeleteYes I think Morrison intentionally acted like a bull in a china shop in his Attack-class program ending "diplomacy".
Like a pugilist he represented Australian interests. He played to his Australian audience and couldn't care less about French sensitivities.
I agree "The reasons given about difficulty refueling the French SSN were false."
and thanks for the extra info on France's "Areva Technicatom already supplies fuel to the Australian medical research reactor in Lucas Heights, Sydney. They are present in Australia and could do the same for Suffren class SSNs in Australian service."
I'm happy if the Taskforce proactively develops Australia having a French SSN as an Option B or even Option A - if the many downsides of the first UK designed SSN for Aus by the late 2040s are at last recognised.
Regards Pete
Hi Anonymous @Oct 28, 2022, 9:37:00 AM
ReplyDeleteI agree with all your points.
Former US, and I dare say former UK Admirals, and other senior staff will continue to advise Australia submarine programs for decades
as we haven't maintained fully experienced Australian staff on "how to build new SSKs?" since the early 2000s
and have never had Australian staff expert on "how to build SSNs?"
Regards Pete