May 29, 2025

Australian subs "Interim, off the shelf" Won't Work

To hedge against the likely non-delivery in the 2030s of Virginias under AUKUS and the only temporary fix of the LOTE of Collins conventional subs (SSKs), some suggest weekly:

"Why doesn't Australia buy interim submarines, that are off the shelf, to bridge the submarine availability gap until Virginias or SSN-AUKUS's arrive in the 2040s (or don't arrive at all)?"

Increasingly the suggested SSKs are South Korea's KSS-III or Japan's Taigei.

Logic, productivity and efficiency since the beginning of Collins, through to today, have been usurped by South Australian state, more Australia wide, RAN and Federal Government financial-POLITICAL-electoral priorities. 

Basically ASC, the unions, South Australian Government and supply chain companies from all over Australia, require the LOTE then possible new SSK building to only be at Osborne, not overseas.

Reasons

Australia's SSK building tradition always involves the highest possible infusions of Federal Government funds into South Australia. Without the car factories it used to have, South Australia relies on warship and submarine building federal money. All these industrial-political realities double the building time for triple the money of a sub built overseas. 

What do Federal governments (be they Labor and/or Coalition) get out of this? They buy critical Federal Election votes from electoral swing state South Australia. A textbook example being then Prime Minister Turnbull winning the July 2, 2016 Election by rushing the selection, on April 26, 2016, of the Attack class submarine to be built at Osborne. Turnbull won enough federal seats in South Australia to win that Election. If Australia had waited it may have been able to bargain Barracuda-Suffren SSNs out of France.

"Off the shelf" in terms of stocks of completed subs sitting at foreign warehouses,  or a design meeting the needs of all customers, simply don't exist. As with the Collins the RAN has special high speed, very long range, long endurance, very large SSK requirements. South Korean, Japanese and German built subs (in response to their customer requirements) have different speed-range qualities that do not match the RAN's genuine need for long transit range missions at speed.  

Singapore's Type 218 Invincibles were not off the shelf but tailor made to Singapore's requirements using a mixture of Type 214 and Type 212CD characteristics. Every submarine customer requires some tailoring.  

Between what I call the Osborne "inefficiency" curse and necessary RAN tailoring any "Interim - Off the Shelf" SSK built at Osborne would take 15 years from 2026 = first sub commissioned in 2041, for triple the price than if it were built overseas (eg. in South Korea, the most efficient Western SSK builder).

4 comments:

Bill Seney said...

This really shows the cost of the decision to build submarines in Australia. Whether this capability is worth the cost is a political question but South Korea as offered Korean built KS III submarines to Canada with the first delivery in 5 to 7 years.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/south-korea-hyundai-heavy-industries-hanwha-ocean-submarine-pitch-1.7527252

Shawn C said...

Hi Pete,

I've mentioned that Australia's pivot to SSNs is not well thought out nor planned - yes, you do need deep water transit capabilities to cross the Indian Ocean and Pacific Ocean, but you do not need a nuke boat to visit New Zealand or the South West Pacific islands.

Yes, I've voiced a half-SSK/SSN fleet solution before, but we've traditionally seen this as two separate classes. What's now emerging, especially with the upcoming implementation of naval SMRs, is that this could be in the same design - like the KSS-III or Suffen - you could even build a SSK sub first, then slot in the SMR module during MLU.
https://www.navalnews.com/event-news/madex-2025/2025/05/madex-2025-hanwha-ocean-eyes-canadas-submarine-requirement/

Pete2 said...

Thanks Bill at 5/31/2025 3:10 PM

The Canadian CBC article is very interesting. 1.12 Aus $ = 1 Canadian $.

In CBC's last paragraph - at around A$27 Billion for 12 (South Korea built in 5-7 years all up) KSS-IIIs this is the kind of low cost, quick delivery deal that all the Build in Australia interest groups would automatically reject.

The Canadian foreign built specs are far more enlightened than Australia's home built submarine rigidity. But foreign built won't win Australian Federal Elections or South Australian State Elections.

Sadly Pete

Pete2 said...

Hi Shawn at 6/01/2025 8:39 PM

I've responded to your comment in an article "Retrofitting Reactors into SSKs Unlikely: Molten Salt Out" dated June 2, 2025 at https://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2025/06/retrofitting-reactors-into-ssks.html .

Cheers Pete