In response to TDUA's well argued comments of August 29, 2023.
I agree. Given the work practices of Osborne Shipyard the Life Of Type Extension (LOTE) with expensive upgrades, may cost more than A$2 Billion and 3 years for each of 5 Collins. HMAS Collins herself may be cannibalised for spare parts as many parts have been out of production for more than 15 years.
The A$10 Billion (or more) LOTE submarine budget will also be occurring over the period of A$150 to 200 Billion being spent on the Virginia purchase, infrastructure upgrades (eg. an East Coast Base) and training of 1,000s of nuclear technicians/scientists/submariners/shipbuilders/officials in the late 2020s and 2030s. This is for up to 3 Virginias in the 2030s and maybe 2 in the 2040s. The LOTE + Virginias will form a huge distortion of Australia's defence budget, with likely reductions in non-submarine weapon systems across the Australian Defence Force.
Also, I see the hull life (immersed contraction and expansion cycles) of each Collins as a finite limitation that might only give each Collins 8-9 years of life after their LOTEs.
Instead 4 new SSKs would be a hedge against any understandable US decision not to deliver any Virginias. This decision will likely be USN and Congress driven over concerns about improved and more numerous Chinese SSNs and SSBNs threatening the American homeland.
The efficient Netherlands has similar long range, large SSK, submarine requirements as Australia.
Better for Australia (than the LOTE) would be leveraging information (including pricing) from the Netherlands thorough Walrus Submarine Replacement Program to select 4 TKMS, Naval Group or Saab designed SSKs. This Dutch selection program that began in 2014 would makeup 10 years of lost time in Australia. Australia could demand the same pricing for 4 Osborne built SSKs as Dutch built Walrus replacements. This would work as a ceiling on excessive pricing by foreign contractors, shipbuilding unions and Australia wide suppliers generally, that gouged the Collins build and the terminated Attack-class build.
Even if those 4 SSKs (each good for 33 years) were built at Osborne this would be a better solution than 5 LOTED Collins (only good for 9 extra years).
Australia has always had very few available Commanders and crew to man our subs. This scarcity is unlikely to change. Hence the diminished number of 4 SSKs (each with 52 crew) makes more sense than an unviable 12 SSKs (envisaged for the Attack class) or 3 to 5 Virginias (each with 135 crew).
In any sub-choice scenario 10 Anduril GHOST SHARK XLUUVs could also complement an Australian submarine force for the ongoing intelligence gathering tasking and even, in a run-up to war, smart-mine laying.
So, while so many in the ALP leadership and RAN are true AUKUS believers, they need to hedge in favour of new SSKs against the substantial chance the US won't deliver the vaunted Virginias.
12 comments:
Hi Pete.
Good blog, following for quite while now.
From time to time I were near to comment, especially when it came to German subs, but always someone was quicker.
If Netherlands goes for the German 212CD-E, these boats will most likely be build in Germany.
Afaik they will build their 212 lines always in Germany (and Italy). At least the pressure hull is said, can only be welded at Germany and Italy..
tkms also said that to Poland earlier, that the technology transfer for welding the special steel Germany uses in the 212 line, would just be to expensive.
So, if one will build all boats in Australia, one should consider that the price tag Netherlands got, is not realistic. I also guess it would take longer to build the boats, when not build by a nation/firm, that is constantly building subs with a trained workforce.
The situation for 209 and 214 lines is something other, but these are not the pinnacle of the German submarine technology.
Greetings
Sascha
Thanks Sascha at 8/29/2023 6:39 PM
My hunch is that the Dutch very much want to assemble the 4 Walrus replacements locally (as happened with the previous Walrus and Zwaardvis class subs) and don't wish to be dominated by large European powers. So this points to Saab's offering of the Expeditionary Submarine C718 [1] with Dutch Damen doing the assembling.
I may be wrong though
Which the Dutch 2023/24 choice may show [2].
[1] https://www.saab.com/newsroom/press-releases/2023/saab-offers-four-expeditionary-submarines-to-the-netherlands
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walrus-class_replacement_program#History
Cheers Pete
Hi Pete
I agree that it is critical for Damen and Saab to get that order in order not to disappear from the sub arena.They are mainly competitor to TKMS (with a lot of bad blood with Saab)
Their requirements, as we understand, (Dutch Carribean , Mediter, Nato North Atlantic..)sounds very similar to the non N Barracuda (or to the Japanese Taigei)
However Naval group is in competition with Damen and has a second tier local partner.The French are also mostly at odd with the Dutch on Defense and do not have the SAAB name presence and clout in th NL
Note also that Saab A 26 incorporates a lot of Fr subsystems(large Jeumont PM motors and E drives, Sonar suite from Thales, optronic mast from Safran, Navigation system from ECA and probably Li LFP batteries from Saft/Total..to name a few
Hi Pete
This job is also critical for TKMS as it is one of the problem child of Thyssen Kr.
It has been on the block informally (and now publicly) for sometimes.
https://www.reuters.com/markets/deals/germanys-top-union-enter-thyssenkrupp-defence-sales-talks-2023-05-05
In August the CEO of TKMS pleaded for more German Fed Gov participation as in NG (25 %) or Navantia
The Wismar yard (depressed Eastern G area yard) take-over is sound politically in Ger., but will add burden costs and barrier to local construction elsewhere ,incl. in the NL
This explain also the assertive recent posture of TKMS in India (Korean not running anymore..licences ?..) and the German chancellor Scholze payind a trip and pushing the sub sale (unusual for Germany, but as Macron, Biden or the SK president do)
Pete, thanks for the reply...one small addition: with the increased in interest worldwide...if AUKUS falls into place as hoped and on schedule...a class of AU built SSK's could likely be sold without too much effort. We are truly approaching a period of time where the supply will struggle to keep up with the demand.
Looks like Australia will also be getting new sea mines:
"Rheinmetall subsidiary, RWM Italia, has been awarded a multi-million-euro
order from Australia to deliver smart sea mines, the first time that the
country will have such a capability in decades."
"‘The types and numbers of sea mines to be provided are classified, but
delivery is expected to commence this year.’"
See:
https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/naval-warfare/rheinmetall-to-provide-royal-australian-navy-with-smart-sea-mines/
Looks like the Philippines in interested in new submarines as well:
"According to information published by the Philippine Daily Inquirer on
August 29, 2023, Spanish state-owned company Navantia has put forth a
$1.7-billion proposal to the Philippine Navy to create a submarine
fleet."
"With a displacement of 2,965 tons (2,918 long tons) when submerged, she
measures a significant 81.05 meters in length, 11.68 meters in beam, and
has a draught of 7.3 meters.
This submarine is powered by a single-shaft Etanol-AIP propulsion system,
three bio-ethanol engines each producing 1,200 kW, and a 3,500 kW
electric motor."
See:
https://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/naval-news/naval-news-archive/2023/august/13510-navantia-offers-two-s-80-plus-class-submarines-to-philippine-navy.html
This situation is also an element in the TKMS « bargain » to Israël
30% rebate( nobody has the
actual numbers ) This a very good diplomatic/PR story in Germany, in Israël,but also à way to subsidize the yard.For Israël it is an access to a great yard with « custom made « capabilties
Pete
I have to agree with the thrust of this post - that building new submarines is better value and more useful than rebuilding old submarines, quite apart from the technical edge that the new design would have.
I have a further concern - risk of loss. Although we talk about design lives as though they are fixed (25, 33, 40 years) in reality as complex structures age their failure becomes more likely and it is more a case of risk management. As the los of the Nagapasa sadly proved, when a sub is forty years old the risk is real. LOTE will be done as well as possible, but finding and replacing every fatigued piece of metal in the hull is difficult. You only have to miss one.
Holland could be doing Australia a big favour by getting up to date designs for long range SSKs developed and costed.
Anonymous Sascha said...
A lot of guessing will follow, because that program (Walrus replacement) and the offers, are still a black box, as usual in this business.
The offer of 212CD(-E) line, is in my eyes not an offer of some product and more an offer for participation in some program.
While Saab gone into a direct cooperation with the Dutch Damen yard (and France NG with Dutch Royal IHC), Germany/tkMS gone with the DMI (Directie Materiële Instandhouding) and that may also have a good reason.
The idea behind the 212CD seems to be, to have a common base when it comes to spare parts, training and even the interchangeability of sailors/crews.
I even once heard Norwegian ambassador Larsen mention a possible sharing of submarine bases in a NTV interview. [1]
The German offer is speaking about making Den Helder a "Submarine Valley", a "Centre for Submarine Sustainment and Innovation” for submarine development in europe.
While this is pure guessing, I would say that tkMS has far more to offer for a Dutch industry participation, than just building the whole 212CD-E in the Netherlands. For example, a lot of tkMS submarines will come to their half-life modernization phase over the next decades and there could be interesting contracts by that. So if they go with the tkMS offer, still Damen or other Dutch yards, could be the contractor for building large parts of 212CD-E and other tkMS export subs.
You mentioned the fear of domination / dependencies
Well, both navies work close together. [2]
So naturally they would also be good 212CD(-E) program partners, because both navies already are good partners.
So, at that level, both already are very depending on each other and will even going further down this road in the future, when it comes to military cooperation (and procurement).
But as long as this is a black box, we just can't know, what tkMS (and the others) offered and what the Netherlands really want. The tkMS offer could even turn out as some export version of the 212CD, build by conventional steel (and maybe lacking other key technologies), like what the class 214 is for the 212a.
And if it will become more some kind of export submarine like the class 214, then it could also indeed be something, that is buildable at the customer yards and not only by "project partners". Something that then, may also be interesting for Australia.
And about that "bad Blood", when it comes to Saab and tkMS.
I think alone by that, the Swedish offer will be very radical, maybe even to the point of being hyper-optimistic, when it comes to time schedule and budget. And even more, because they simply look with a bit of desperation, for a customer and partner.
[1]
In the Audio Interview, around minute 29:00
https://www.n-tv.de/wirtschaft/Der-U-Boot-Deal-mit-Deutschland-ist-einzigartig-sagt-Norwegens-Botschafter-bei-Wirtschaft-Welt-Weit-article23782828.html
[2]
https://www.zeit.de/news/2023-03/27/militaerische-integration-mit-der-niederlande-geht-voran
The below more a discussion on the Walrus replacement than Au. One thing is clear. Either of the three offers can build good quality submarines for the Netherlands and yet, there are pro's and cons with any eventual supplier. My 2cents on the offers.
TKMS: i think they are way to busy to add the Dutch to their order books and meet the Dutch timing requirements and this may force the Walrus class to be further delayed from retirement or risk a gap (all of which will impact the already strained work force). I haven't heard much about the current status of the 212cd build, but these take time and delays happen. Also, I wouldn't be surprised to see Norway and Germany add to their current orders of the 212cd, which could only exacerbate the timeline for building Dutch subs in time. The weapons complement may also cause some significant differences and hence makes the combined approach with Norway/Germany not optimal for combined training etc. Particularly if the current HW torpedo from Walrus will be maintained and there is lots of talk from the Dutch of US Tomahawk.
NG: If the Dutch watch what happened in AU, as a Navy/Gov official i am not sure i would want to risk signing up for program of this magnitude and importance on a boat being transitioned from Nuke to diesel (presuming they offered what their videos i have seen stated they were going to offer). The costs could begin to rise almost from the start. Also, lots of money being planned for NG expenditure for FR Navy programs (new submarines, air craft carrier) so again they are quite busy and delivery time will be a factor. It is not as if there are hundreds of unemployed design engineers sitting around waiting for work in any of these countries.
SAAB: Only real customer for new boats at present is A26 for Sweden. Kockums has a history of building good boats. Damen relationship and local build is a big plus (though i suspect all three have good local plans). So i would think they can get the boats to Netherlands to support Walrus sundowning in the 2030's. Two similar sized countries with good solid relations on a more even level. To me, as there is a risk with any of the yards, this is the lowest risk and one worth taking.
in a nutshell, do the Dutch want to be the dog or the tail of the dog. to be the Dog, pick SAAB. If you are comfortable being the tail, take either of the other two, though in priority order Tkms, then NG.
Time will tell and all we on the outside can do is wait and see what happens...March/April 2024 is right around the corner...thanks.
Pete
One more belated comment on this topic. We now know that sub (torpedo tube) launched Tomahawk is out of production and Australia was too late to buy any. So if Collins LOTE proceeds there will be no Tomahawks on it, only Mk48 torpedos.
Whereas if ASC built new SSKs there would be other options for SSMs and SLCMs they could be armed with.
Post a Comment