Adelaide Rates Shipbuilding Jobs over Nuclear Worries

On February 8, 2022 Anonymous commented:

Pete. I agree raising standards in the shipyard is the greatest concern. That is achievable, but will require action on infrastructure, training and management. The Rand report [this 2011 Rand Report?] on the revitalisation of the BAE Barrow Shipyard during the Astute program, overseen by technical assistance from US Electric Boat Company, is relevant. A similar approach at Adelaide would seem advisable, but is also possible given USN support.

A UK Astute-class SSN under construction. UK Astutes are "pug ugly" compared to the elegant extended teardrop/cigar lines of US Virginias. But subs, mostly below the surface, are not beauty contestants. The Astutes' angular sides may also stealthily deflect signals better. (Photo courtesy BAE Barrow Shipyards).

---

On the political question regarding acceptance in Adelaide, I admit to bias as I live in Adelaide. I have seen little evidence of significant opposition to them being nuclear. It isn’t a talking point. The main objection to the SSN decision in Adelaide was the delay to promised jobs. [These would have come with] the Attack Class program. Already [that program was] several years behind original promises from [former Minister for Defence Industry, and MP for an Adelaide electorate] Christopher Pyne . Pyne traded on that promise since 2015. Also, several local businesses that invested in working with Naval Group have lost money.

The South Australia State Election is on March 19, 2022, and I have not seen nuclear power raised as an election issue. The main political risk in Adelaide is not building nuclear subs there, but breaking the job promise. Labor has mentioned this several times. This is why I have repeatedly said the main political risk if Labor gain power is not following through on local construction jobs. That would kill it.

See AAP via Adelaide’s INDAILY, dated November 9, 2021, which states in part “Labor talks up SA jobs risk from new [AUKUS] subs deal”

"Labor will push to have Australian jobs written into any new submarine contract and has criticised the Morrison Government for leaving businesses high and dry after tearing up the $90b French deal.

The government axed the French submarine contract in September [2021], torpedoing the jobs of thousands of shipbuilders, contractors and workers who were set to be brought on in South Australia for the build.

Labor’s defence spokesperson Brendan O’Connor told the Submarine Institute of Australia conference the party would include a local jobs quota into any new contract.

“These are uncertain times for businesses and their employees in the defence industry,” he told the conference on [November 9, 2021].

“Defence has confirmed that [submarine?] shipbuilding jobs won’t come online for another six years.

“We need a detailed, actionable plan from the government for these workers so we can preserve and develop their skills and knowledge to ensure we have the talent required when the time comes to build the new submarines.”

O’Connor said 3000 South Australian jobs were at risk under the new submarine contract, with the 8000 direct jobs in the state under the French contract being revised down to 5000 in a government factsheet.

“If you were a worker who left Holden to go and work on submarines after this government shut down the car industry, you would be feeling a strong sense of deja vu,” he said.

“With the Australian government spending AU$270 billion over the next 10 years spent on defence, Labor wants to see a commitment to growing our sovereign defence industry with a focus on local jobs.”

Defence Industry Minister Melissa Price said there would be “significant opportunities for Australian industry involvement” under any new submarine deal.

The government is working with the UK and US on a plan to deliver a fleet of nuclear-powered submarines.

“I am determined to maximise (Australian) involvement and know-how wherever possible,” she told the conference.”...

Great Essay Favouring Australian Nuclear Subs (SSNs)

Former Commodore Denis Mole has written an excellent essay advocating nuclear attack submarines (SSNs) for Australia. Denis Mole served in the Royal Australian Navy for more than 35 years, commanding submarines and attaining the rank of commodore. He has recently retired from the commercial marine and defence support sector.

ESSAY

Here is Denis Mole's essay (already published at ASPI's The Strategist (April 15, 2021) and The National Interest (April 18, 2021) and at other websites).

"Nuclear submarines could lead to nuclear power for Australia

In Adelaide’s The Advertiser newspaper on 7 March, former defence minister Christopher Pyne said [at the Adelaide Now paysite]. ‘Then there is the nonsensical argument that the Attack Class submarines are no good because they aren’t nuclear. Almost all of these arguments are driven by people who either know nothing at all about submarines and defence or have outdated information that is no longer relevant.’ Pyne must therefore believe that Australia’s current and recent submarine commanding officers know nothing about submarines.

The 2016 defence white paper called for Australia’s future submarines to be ‘regionally superior’. As a former commander of the submarine force, I don’t know any submarine commanding officer over the past 30 years who has any doubt that, overall, nuclear-powered submarines are superior to diesel submarines of similar vintage. Australia’s new Attack-class submarines will probably be superior to most diesel submarines in our region, but they won’t be superior to China’s nuclear-powered submarines entering service in the 2040s and beyond. China’s navy is numerically larger than the US Indo-Pacific fleet now and is forecast to be more powerful than the American fleet by 2035. Australia’s 12th Attack-class submarine won’t enter service until around 2054 and will be in service until about 2080.

Pyne went on to say, ‘Australia does not have a nuclear industry. One cannot be created overnight.’ Pyne might have the cart before the horse. The Americans had their first nuclear-powered submarine in service before their first nuclear power station. The nuclear power station program in the US had been languishing until Captain, later Admiral, Hymen G. Rickover was appointed to head the nuclear reactor development for both naval and civil applications. In the early years, it was trained nuclear submariners leaving navy service and going into the commercial power sector that allowed that industry to grow rapidly.

The claim that Australia can’t have nuclear-powered submarines because it doesn’t have a nuclear industry has never been tested. An Australian ability to manufacture and reprocess nuclear fuel wouldn’t be essential in order to own and operate nuclear-powered submarines. Modern American and British submarines are built with nuclear fuel to last the life of the vessel. Japan has 33 nuclear reactors in power stations but doesn’t manufacture or reprocess nuclear fuel. This is also true of many countries in Europe and the Middle East that have nuclear power. Australia buys advanced combat aircraft and weapons that are manufactured overseas, so why not nuclear reactors and the whole-of-life fuel they require? Nuclear-powered submarines could be built in Australia with imported reactors.

Notwithstanding that reactors and fuel can be purchased from other countries (the OPAL reactor at Lucas Heights is from Argentina), why doesn’t Australia have a larger and more diverse nuclear industry? Of the top 20 economies (Australia is 13th), 17 have nuclear power. Australia, Italy and Saudi Arabia are the three exceptions. Italy imports 16% of its electricity from adjacent countries, more than half from France where it is produced from nuclear power. Saudi Arabia is acquiring nuclear power. And, as various countries commit to achieving net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, it’s noteworthy that no major economy intends doing so without nuclear power in the mix.

Diesel submarines have been around for about 120 years and nuclear submarines have been around for about 65 years, so neither form represents new technology. With a choice between the two technologies, the leading Western maritime powers of the US, UK and France all adopted the nuclear option with no diesel attack submarines, because nuclear power is the more effective and superior technology.

At the time when replacements for Australia’s Oberon-class submarines were being developed in the 1980s, it’s almost certain that neither the US nor UK would have sold nuclear submarines to Australia. With the Cold War at its peak, their focus was on the Soviet Union and the possibility of maritime warfare in the North Atlantic. France was just starting to develop its first nuclear-powered attack submarines. But what about when it came time to explore options to replace the Collins-class submarines?

The 2009 defence white paper announced that the Collins class would be replaced and Australia’s submarine force would be expanded to 12 boats. The defence minister at the time, Labor’s Joel Fitzgibbon, directed the department that, in developing options, it was not to bring forward any nuclear proposal. Three years later, when he was no longer defence minister, Fitzgibbon admitted it was a mistake ruling out a nuclear option; however, neither of his successors altered the ‘no nuclear’ guidance to the department. Consequently, when the Coalition government came to power in 2013, only conventional options had been developed.

The notion of conventionally powered submarines’ suitability for Australia in the second half of this century needs to be challenged. The Attack-class program should proceed as replacements for the six Collins-class submarines to avoid a capability gap; however, options to acquire nuclear-powered submarines for the additional six boats and eventually replacements for the six Attack-class submarines should be pursued immediately.

Submarines could lead to a broad nuclear industry in Australia. This possibility will be the subject of a seminar to be held at ASPI on Thursday 15 July, jointly hosted by the Submarine Institute of Australia and UNSW Canberra. More information is available here."

COMMENT

Submarine Matters over the years has been ambivalent about SSNs for Australia, mainly on the basis of the extreme cost eg. for nuclear training, including land based training reactors, new emergency base facilities on Australia's eastern seaboard and the cost of decommissioning SSNs. 

Another consideration is the likelihood an Australian SSN program would start an SSN arms race among some countries in Australia's region, particularly Indonesia. Since 2009 when Australia started talking 12 conventional subs significant Indonesian naval factions quickly arrived at an optimal number of 12 subs for Indonesia's hitherto tiny 2 submarine service. 

If Indonesia were to compete in the SSN race another concern is Indonesia's questionable industrial safety record. This includes the tragic KRI Nanggala sinking and Indonesia's ongoing Sidoarjo (aka "Lusi") mud volcano, caused by a 2006 blowout of a natural gas well. Also would Indonesia be prepared to pay the extreme costs of decommissioning its SSNs (rusting sub reactors near Australian waters!). 

Furthermore with Indonesia in the "Ring of Fire" future Indonesian SSNs in port and necessary nuclear reactors on land would all be vulnerable to tsunamis and earthquakes. An Indonesian tsunami "Fukushima" meltdown or gas explosion might spread nuclear debris into the atmosphere which may blow south, Australia's way. Simultaneously there might be  nuclear polluted water in the Timor Sea (between Australia, Indonesia and East Timor).

Yet Australia's vast coastline and strategic responsibilities (some unnamed straits and narrows, may include the South China Sea and one day may extend to helping to defend Taiwan) can only be adequately dealt with by very fast moving, long range, subs (ie. SSNs). This is especially if Australia is forced to confront (with declining US SSN support) hostile SSNs from China, maybe Russia and even from India (one day).

Are Australia's Two Main Naval Bases Too Far South?

Pete Comment

Babones' contention (bolded below) that Australia's 2 main naval bases (in Sydney and just below Perth) are too far south, could be refuted on several grounds. This includes:

- cost of moving bases 
- psychological impact of moving bases from the major population centers 
- loss of personnel, as they and families would reject living in isolated (hot, cyclonic) northern towns.
- need for large cities to support major naval bases 
- loss of distance protection from Chinese airstrikes
- ships and submarines can transit from Perth area and Sydney anyway.

ARTICLE

Salvatore Babones, for The National Interest has written an excellent article of August 28, 2019, titled "If Australia Wants Collective Defense, Then It Should Get Its Own Navy in Ship Shape". 
I have bolded the parts directly on submarines and base locations. Here it is below:

"China’s rise and rearmament has introduced a security schizophrenia into Australian politics. This is what lawmakers can do to address their fears of a Beijing invasion.

If Australia Wants Collective Defense, Then It Should Get Its Own Navy in Ship Shape

With the South China Sea dispute back on the front burner and trade tensions between the United States and China bubbling over, some of America’s regional allies are starting to feel the heat. Yet when Mike Pompeo told a Sydney forum that “You can sell your soul for a pile of soybeans or you can protect your people,” Australia’s good and great were “gobsmacked,” according to an eyewitness account from The Spectator Australia. Substitute a lump of Australian coal for a pile of American soybeans, and Pompeo’s message was clear.

China’s rise and rearmament has introduced a security schizophrenia into Australian politics. Canberra’s China doves argue that Australia should accommodate its giant neighbor and number one export partner, sign up to Xi Jinping’s Belt and Road Initiative, and do whatever it takes to avoid attracting China’s ire.

Meanwhile a certain species of Australian hawk believes that the United States is no longer a reliable ally, and that Australia should muscle up for a potential future confrontation with China. The most prominent of these is Professor Hugh White of the Australian National University, who thinks thatAustralia should be considering the development of an independent nuclear deterrent.

He’s not alone in worrying about American staying power in the Pacific. One of Australia’s most prominent conservative commentators, Paul Kelly, says that “the strong and astute America [that Australia] needs is not on display,” while the governor of Australia’s central bank says that he does “not have a clear idea of what strategy the U.S. has” for dealing with China.

Now a major research paper from the University of Sydney’s United States Studies Centre concludes that the United States “no longer enjoys military primacy in the Indo-Pacific” region and “has an atrophying force that is not sufficiently ready, equipped or postured for great power competition.” The paper was partly funded by the Australian Department of Defence, American defense giant Northrop Grumman, and the French multinational Thales Group.

The paper’s authors, Ashley Townshend, Brendan Thomas-Noone, and Matilda Steward, call for a NATO-style strategy of “collective defense” in the Indo-Pacific as a “way of offsetting shortfalls in America’s regional military power.” They repeatedly highlight the “decline,” “inadequacy,” and “questionable abilities” of the United States Armed Forces.

Meanwhile they laud Australia’s “significant submarine modernisation” program, which consists of the construction of twelve new diesel-electric boats to enter service in the 2030s and 2040s. Australia’s [former] Defence Minister Christopher Pyne has described the submarines “regionally superior,” which only makes sense if the region they’re talking about is Southeast Asia. He can’t mean the Indo-Pacific region. India and China already have nuclear-powered attack and ballistic missile submarines.

They also praise Australia’s “surface vessel recapitalisation” program, with nine new frigates to be built on a British design. Like the submarines, these likely won’t enter service until the 2030s. They are mainly designed for anti-submarine warfare, but as the Royal Australian Navy’s new workhorse vessels, they will have to do general duty as well.

They criticize the United States for planning to buy “only” 2457 fifth-generation F-35 fighters and cancelling the F-22. For the record, Australia has committed to buying just seventy-two F-35s in total. They expect to have ten by the end of the year. The USAF, Navy, and Marines already fly more than three hundred.

A Look in the Mirror

If, as the Australian report claims, the United States “no longer enjoys military primacy in the Indo-Pacific” region, then who does? If the United States is “not sufficiently ready, equipped or postured for great power competition,” then who is? Webster’s defines primacy as “the state of being first,” and no one seriously doubts that the United States is first in the Indo-Pacific region. Great-power competition implies a great-power competitor, and no one seriously believes that China is better-prepared for competition than the United States.

If Australians really are worried that the United States is no longer able to come to their defense, then perhaps they should take White’s advice and take a long, hard look in the mirror. No one expects a country of twenty-five million people to match the military spending of a global superpower thirteen times its size. But since the turn of the millennium, Australia has spent an average of only 1.8 percent of its Gross Domestic Product on defense, compared to 3.7 percent for the United States.

What the Australians do spend, they often spend inefficiently. For example, Australia’s politicized navy is buying diesel-powered submarines out of an ideological aversion to nuclear power. The United States, which has a real fighting navy, hasn’t built a diesel submarine since 1959.

There are also questions about readiness. Australia’s two main naval bases, Fleet Base East and Fleet Base West, are located in the pleasant southern cities of Sydney and Perth, ideally placed to defend the country against the march of the penguins from Antarctica. Meanwhile the U.S. Marines are sweating it out in Australia’s remote northern outpost of Darwin, where they serve as a rapid reaction force ready for deployment throughout the Indo-Pacific region.

Naval Gazing

The Royal Australian Navy's Sydney headquarters is particularly self-indulgent. Strategically stationed in the posh inner-Sydney suburb of Potts Point, the RAN’s top brass can comfortably grab a croissant on their morning walk to work from subsidized housing in one of Australia’s most expensive neighborhoods. In 2018, the city of Sydney wanted to acquire the base, which has golden sunset views of the landmark Sydney Opera House and Harbour Bridge, to use as a cruise ship terminal. The Navy turned them down.

Yet the base is incredibly insecure—and incredibly dangerous. Pedestrians walk on a public inner-city street within ten yards of the bows of the nearest ships. The whole base is hemmed in by a city park on one side and a luxury hotel on the other. Any decent quarterback could hit six ships with bombs lobbed from the park overlooking the base; a determined terrorist could sink half the fleet with a portable rocket launcher. Even an onboard accident could take out the civilian hotel just one hundred yards away.

A serious fighting navy would move north to the country town of Townsville, fifteen hundred sea miles closer to any potential threat emanating from China or emergency arising in the Pacific. The RAN has refused to move out of congested Sydney Harbour to nearby suburban Botany Bay. They say the reason is “tradition.” Another word for it is “lifestyle.”

Australia’s Fleet Base West should also be relocated fifteen hundred sea miles north to Port Hedland (population fifteen thousand). Australia’s iron miners tough it out on the country’s remote northwest coast, but then they have to: that’s where the iron is. The RAN prefers the comfortable climate and urban amenities of metropolitan Perth (population two million). And who can blame them? But if Australians prefer the good life to the rigors of military readiness, they’re in no position to demand additional American sacrifices on their behalf.

The Political Reality of Collective Defense

As the experience of NATO amply demonstrates, “collective defense” is really just a polite way of saying “American defense.” When it comes to collective defense, what is everyone's responsibility becomes no one’s responsibility—except America’s. In 2018, America’s European NATO allies spent an average of 1.5 percent of GDP on defense, in flagrant violation of their long-standing commitments to raise spending to 2 percent. Only five NATO members meet their 2 percent spending commitments: three frontline Eastern European countries, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

Australia is an important political ally that has provided welcome symbolic support for American missions in Afghanistan, Iraq, and (most recently) the Persian Gulf. Australia lost forty-one soldiers in fierce fighting in Afghanistan after taking up the call of Operation Enduring Freedom. Americans will always be grateful and proud to have Australians standing beside them in time of need.

But if Australians are serious about defending freedom in the Indo-Pacific region, then they should take a more active role in their own defense. That means buying the most effective weapons systems available and deploying them as efficiently as possible. It also means accommodating and hosting American forces, when its own aren’t sufficient to do the job. But most of all, it means making a genuine commitment to security partnership.

Opinion polls consistently show that the Australian people are willing to take on these responsibilities. It’s long past time for Australia’s political class to step up to the plate.

Salvatore Babones is the author of  The New Authoritarianism: Trump, Populism, and the Tyranny of Experts.

Maybe New Aussie "ALP" Government May 18, 2019. Submarine Program?

Those wearied by constant changes of political leaders in Australia can expect the likely removal of the Coalition Government in the May 18, 2019 Federal Election. In its place would be the Australian Labor Party (ALP). The ALP remains slightly ahead of the Coalition in "TPP" opinion polls. If it wins the ALP might adopt some substantial, though not revolutionary, changes in Australia's Future "Attack class" submarine program. Maybe in the following  ways:

1.  Still 12 new subs, but a review. On March 14, 2019 Australia’s DEFENCECONNECT reported:

"Ahead of the expected May poll, opposition spokesman [and likely future Minister] on defence Richard Marles has reaffirmed Labor’s commitment to the $50 billion future submarine program, but has stated that a Labor government would conduct a review of the project to ensure suitability..."

2.  Less of the submarine program in Adelaide. Major submarine work (eg. building one module)
     might be reallocated from Adelaide, South Australia to the pro-ALP, slightly leftwing, state of
     Victoria. The Coalition Government seems to have intentionally excluded Victoria (including its
     efficient Williamstown Dockyard) from the submarine building program. The ALP leader Bill 
     Shorten's own electoral seat of Maribyrnong is in Melbourne, Victoria. Also the Coalition
     Defence Minister Christopher Pyne (from Adelaide, South Australia) left the Government on
     April 11, 2019, hence he is no longer a "build all in Adelaide" factor.

     Other submarine program rearrangements effecting other Australian states, will follow, in accord
     with ALP priorities. 

3.  Unions to be more influential. As a former trade union leader Bill Shorten will be sensitive to
     calls from submarine building unions for better pay and conditions. This includes the principal
     shipbuilding union - the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU). See this (late April
     2016?) AMWU News Release which clearly supports Build In Adelaide and not overseas
     "The future of the South Australian economy depends on new shipbuilding orders..." Growing
     union influence vis a vis management and federal and state governments, remains likely.

Watch this space, for submarine program implications, following the May 18, 2019 Election. The Election will be close, as there are only 1 or 2% differences between the L/NP Coalition and the ALP according to Two Party Preferred (TPP) opinion polls.

Above is Bill Shorten (on the left) running neck and neck on the Election trail against current Coalition Prime Minister, Scott Morrison. (Photo courtesy Marco Catalano for ABC News)

---

Shorten pursuing fleeing Morrison for the Priministership. (Cartoon courtesy by John Shakespeare for the Sydney Morning Herald)

---

Pete

Australia’s Attack-class submarine diesels likely MTU 12V4000U83s

In a Joint Department of Defence Ministers’ Media Release is was announced on 7 April 2019

at https://www.minister.defence.gov.au/minister/cpyne/media-releases/attack-class-submarine-subcontract-signed

“Attack Class Submarine subcontract signed

7 April 2019

Joint Media Release

[The Hon Christopher Pyne MP
Minister for Defence and]

Senator the Hon Linda Reynolds CSC
Minister for Defence Industry

The first major equipment subcontract for the Future Submarine Program was signed today between Naval Group and MTU Friedrichshafen GmbH (MTU) for the design of the Diesel Generator Rectifier (DGR) for the Attack class submarine to turn mechanised energy into electricity.

Minister for Defence, the Hon Christopher Pyne MP said awarding this contract achieves a critical milestone in progress of the Program, with the design of the DGR a critical component of the overall Attack class design.

“I am very happy to announce that after a robust procurement process, MTU has been selected as the first major equipment subcontractor for the Attack class submarine,” Minister Pyne said.

“MTU has committed to establishing the necessary industrial capability in Australia, to deliver and support the DGR - a key element of achieving the sovereign build - operation and sustainment of the Attack class submarine,” Minister Pyne said.

Minister for Defence Industry, Senator the Hon Linda Reynolds CSC, said while the contract is directly with MTU, the company would leverage its existing strategic partnership with Penske Power Systems Australia.

“MTU will work with Penske during the design phase and will then grow Penske’s capacity in Australia. Importantly, this will transfer the technology and knowledge associated with this capability to Australia,” Minister Reynolds said.

“The DGR subcontract is part of the Government’s investment in the Attack class submarine, part of the creation of a sovereign naval shipbuilding enterprise and the Government’s continuous naval shipbuilding capability.””

COMMENT

MTU was one of the 2 German diesel makers predicted by Submarine Matters on March 5, 2019, at "German" Diesels to be on Australia’s future Attack class submarines” following Jean-Michel Billig of Naval Group announcing:

“Diesel generators [for Australia’s future Attack class submarine] will be German...”

So the diesel builder for Australia's future submarine is MTU diesels based in Friedrichshafen, Germany. The diesel type will most likely be the MTU 12V4000U83 (peak mechanical output may be 1,500kW) (photo below). "12V" means it is a V12. Less likely selected is an older diesel,
the MTU 16V396SE84, used since the 1980s.

The March 5, 2019 article correctly pointed to Penske Power Systems as the MTU supplier in Australia. Penske has a branch office in Edinburgh, Adelaide a few kms from where the Attack class submarines will be built (at Osborne, Adelaide).

Whether the diesels are MTU 4000s or 396s Anonymous on March 15, 2019 advised there will likely be 6 of them to comfortably generate the 6,000kW required for the 4,500 tonne (surfaced) future Attack-class submarine.

The choice by Australia and Naval Group of MTU diesels is a step in the right direction. The main problem of the preceding Collins class was probably the choice of a small, failing company diesel. In contrast MTU are used on many trucks, surface ships and for many other uses. In fact MTU diesels are probably the most frequently used diesels for diesel-electric submarines worldwide. Any bugs or adjustments required for the Attack-class' MTU diesels should be detected early and then be able to rely on MTU's very large industrial base for rectification. 

An MTU 12V4000U83 diesel for submarine (With "Roger Gleeson, National Manager - Defence Programmes Group" standing next to it - see Penske Australia and New Zealand website 2017).

---

Pete and Anonymous

France's Naval Group About the Future Australian Submarine Program SPA

Following on from yesterday's article on what the Australian Govenment said about the Shortfin Barracuda Future Australian Submarine Program Strategic Partnering Agreement (SPA) is

what French Government owned Naval Group says about the SPA.

Further comment and analysis, at Submarine Matters, will follow next week, noting the Australian Morrison Coalition Government will almost certainly be out of office on May 18, 2019, if not before with a new Labor Party Government in office. 

A rapid ousting of the Australian Government that signed the SPA will weaken the legitimacy of the SPA.

As usual I've added comments in [...] brackets, links and some bolding for emphasis.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

At http://naval-group.com.au/2019/02/11/naval-group-signs-the-strategic-partnering-agreement/

Happy signees of the Strategic Partnering Agreement Canberra February 11 2019. French Armed Forces Minister Florence Parly is in the center. (Photo courtesy Naval Group and Australian Department of Defence)

---

"NAVAL GROUP SIGNS THE STRATEGIC PARTNERING AGREEMENT

February 11, 2019

A significant milestone has been achieved today with the signing of the Future Submarine Program Strategic Partnering Agreement (SPA) by the Commonwealth of Australia (CoA) and Naval Group.

The agreement was signed in the presence of Prime Minister Scott Morrison, The Hon. Christopher Pyne, Minister for Defence and Florence Parly, French Minister for the Armed Forces. 

[despite Morrison being present no equivalent French President or French Prime Minister was present. So why did Morrison turn up? Or why was the French PM not there?] 

The agreement sets out the principles of cooperation between the two partners for the Attack class Submarine Program which will see:

·       the delivery of 12 regionally superior submarines to Australia with leading edge capabilities; [maybe the Shortfin Attack class will be superior conventional subs but are/will be far inferior to China's SSNs] 

• the delivery of new technologies and advanced manufacturing capabilities to Australia, introducing the next phase of Australian sovereignty as a submarine nation;
• the creation of thousands of direct and indirect Australian jobs which will positively impact many generations of Australians; and
• opportunities and long-term planning certainty for industry, allowing Australian companies involved in the submarine program to invest in the capabilities needed to support their involvement in construction and sustainment activities.

“Naval Group is known for building world-leading, technologically advanced submarines and has built 100 of them for nine different countries,” said Hervé Guillou, Chairman and CEO, Naval Group.

“This agreement with Australia will see Naval Group transfer the “know-how” and “know-why” to Australia to become a sovereign submarine nation. [Assembling a large proportion of French and Lockheed Martin (LM) US combat system parts does not add up to "sovereign". Don't forget the US LM mainly operating in Adelaide, is undertaking one third of the whole project.]

“We are very excited about the opportunities that lay ahead of us and are committed to delivering the Future Submarine Program for Australia.

“We are grateful to the teams from the Commonwealth of Australia and Naval Group who have worked hard to achieve this agreement,” said Mr Guillou.

Since being selected as Australia’s partner for the Attack class Submarine Program in April 2016, a lot has been achieved. 
[Really? Given full-sized hydrodynamic trials and stealth testing of the yet-to-be-launched baseline Barracuda SSN has not yet been achieved.]

Program milestones

• Pre-sizing of the Future Submarine has been completed.
• The Feasibility Study phase of the Future Submarine design contract being undertaken in France with the support of Australian engineers has been completed. This involves working closely with the Commonwealth to ensure the Future Submarine meets functionality, scheduling and cost requirements.
• The first sod has been turned at the Future Submarine construction yard in Adelaide. Phase 1 of the onsite works will focus on site establishment, earth works and piling for the new facilities with the development to create at least 600 jobs.
• The transfer of technology commenced with the relocation of the first group of Australian engineers to France to learn how to carry out the detailed design of the Future Submarines. The next group of engineers will depart for France in March 2019.
• Officially opened the Future Submarine Program office in Cherbourg housing Naval Group personnel alongside their Defence and Lockheed Martin Australia [are, there LM is, in Cherbourg (not Adelaide)] colleagues.
• Continued to work with education facilities, TAFEs and universities, having forged a collaborative engineering and research Memorandum of Understanding with the University of New South Wales.
• Suppliers of the top five pieces of equipment including the main motor, diesel generators, switchboards, batteries and weapons discharge systems have been reviewed and will be announced in 2019.

Industry milestones

• Continue to maximise the opportunities for Australian Industry involvement in the program, through all phases, without compromising the Commonwealths requirements against capability, cost and schedule.

o   To date Naval Group has engaged with over 1,100 Australian suppliers through expression of interests, requests for information, supplier visits and industry events to develop a in depth understanding of Australia Industry capability.

o   169 Australian suppliers have been pre-qualified for the program with Naval Group Australia.

o   Conducted numerous engagement activities in France and Australia to connect potential European and Australian suppliers.

• Released Expressions of Interests and Requests for Information for major equipment and common technologies equipment for the Future Submarine.
• Commenced efforts to procure capital equipment related to the Submarine Construction Yard including machining equipment, painting booths, a plate rolling machine, a plasma cutting machine, water jet cutting machine, rotating cradle and a milling machine. [the issue of "milling" a propeller OR parts of a pump jet still needs resolution.]
• Conducted nine Future Submarine industry briefings across the nation providing Australian companies information on how to become involved in the Future Submarine Program.

Naval Group Australia milestones

• Established our headquarters in Keswick, Adelaide.
• Expanded the Naval Group Australia team from 15 employees to over 100. By 2028-2029, when production is in full swing, we expect to employ 1,600 people.
• Successfully became ISO 9001 certified.

See the above Naval Group words in PDF, as well as extra wording about Naval Group and Naval Group Australia contact details here.

COMMENT

Next week - how Naval Group rebutted certain Australian media comments on the severe delay of Naval Group's not-yet-launched baseline Barracuda/Suffren class SSN (laid down 2007 I kid you not!). 

Pete

Australian Government on Future Submarine Program SPA

COMMENT

This is a preliminary, for the record, post on what the current Coalition (noting yesterday’s news) Government of Australian Prime Minister Morrison said. This is regarding the February 11, 2019, Australian Future Submarine Program Strategic Partnering Agreement (SPA).

Further comment and analysis, at Submarine Matters, will follow next week, noting the Australian Government will almost certainly be out of office on May 18, 2019, if not before with a new Labor Party Government in office. 

A rapid change of Government, just after the SPA is signed, will weaken the legitimacy of the SPA.

As usual I've added comments in [...] brackets, links and some bolding for emphasis.

--------------------------------

MEDIA RELEASE:11 Feb 2019: Prime Minister [Morrison], Minister for Defence, Minister for Defence Industry https://www.pm.gov.au/media/government-delivers-future-submarine-program

“A key plank of the Government’s plan to keep Australians safe has been locked in with the signing of the Attack class submarine Strategic Partnering Agreement with Naval Group.

The $50 billion Attack class program will see 12 regionally superior [but inferior to SSNs] submarines designed and built in Australia for the Navy.

The formal signing of the Agreement is a defining moment for the country.

The submarines will help protect Australia’s security and prosperity for decades to come and also deepen the defence relationship between Australia and France.

Work on the submarines has taken place under the Design and Mobilisation Contract and this will continue uninterrupted under this Agreement.

Our Government is committed to maximising local industry involvement in the program to ensure Australians get the most out of this important national investment.

It’s estimated the program will generate an annual average of around 2,800 jobs, helping end the ‘valley of death’ in naval shipbuilding jobs we inherited from the Labor Party.

Work continues to deliver the first Attack class submarine, to be named HMAS Attack, in the early 2030s within budget.

The formalisation of this agreement represents the contractual basis for the program.

The decision to partner with Naval Group (formerly DCNS) was made in 2016, following a competitive evaluation process commenced by our Government after the Labor Party failed to commission even one single new ship for our Navy. During the negotiations, the Government focused on delivering an equitable and enduring agreement in the interests of our nation.

Other activities required to deliver this major program, including the development of the submarine construction yard at Osborne in South Australia, are continuing. 

The Attack class submarines are a major pillar of our $90 billion National Shipbuilding Plan, which will see 54 naval vessels built in Australia, to meet the strategic requirements set out in our 2016 Defence White Paper and giving our Navy the edge it needs in an uncertain world.”
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMENT

Below is an abridged version of the Transcript deleting most of Morrison’s vacuous embellishments. After all, it is a business deal. Morrison did not need to be part of the event given neither the French President nor the French Prime Minister were there. But perhaps the SPA is Morrison’s Swan song before taking a related post political career position? 

A submarine deal does not maketh a defence alliance with France, particularly since some French companies supply/have supplied weapons and components to China.] 

 -------------

PRIME MINISTER MORRISON TRANSCRIPT, 11 Feb 2019, Russell [DoD] Offices, Canberra https://www.pm.gov.au/media/remarks-strategic-partnership-signing.

PRIME MINISTER [said]: ...I also extend a very warm welcome to [French Armed Forces] Minister Florence Parly, it’s wonderful to have you here with us today. I know you’ve made a special effort to be here with us today...

To his Excellency [French Ambassador to Australia] Christophe Penot, thank you very much for all of your efforts in bringing us to this point today, working so closely....To my ministerial colleagues who are joining us today, particularly the Minister for Defence Christopher Pyne, congratulations Christopher on your stewardship of this....

What that means is that ensuring we are at the front of the pack when it comes to the latest naval vessels and firepower. As part of our Government's plan to keep Australians safe, we’re celebrating a milestone today with the next phase of our Future Submarine Program. In 2016 the Government selected France and Naval Group as our international partners to deliver a 12 strong fleet of cutting-edge submarines, as we promised to do. The signing today of the Strategic Partnership Agreement to deliver these submarines underscores the longstanding and strategic partnership between Australia and France.

...It’s more than a contract.

This is a project that will not only keep Australians safe, but it will deliver Australian jobs. It will build Australian skills. It will be made and require Australian steel....

Our Government is committed to maximising Australian industry content in the Future Submarine Program...

Hundreds of Australians are already employed on the Future Submarines Program and thousands more will be through the supply chain during the construction phase. So, as pleased as I know Premier Marshall is about the jobs in South Australia, these jobs reach right across our great continent.

The signing of this agreement today demonstrates our Government is delivering on our promise on the naval shipbuilding plan. It is a $90 billion commitment to build in total 54 new naval vessels and grow a strong, sustainable and sovereign Australian naval shipbuilding industry.

...Our region, which we keep secure, in close partnership with our valued allies. So we are delivering for our Navy, our nation and our people as we promised. We are delivering for our defence industry and jobs and we are delivering on our steadfast commitment to keep Australians safe and secure.

I conclude by thanking again all of those who have brought us to this point today, but I particularly want to commend Ministers Pyne and Parly for the wonderful working relationship they've had to bring us to where they are today and look forward to that relationship continuing into the future as we get this done. Thank you.”

Pyne and Morrison pleased with themselves, while Parly pensive. Note submarine model has that controversial pump jet which France most probably won't be supplying.
---

 Next is a Submarine Matters article with Naval Group comments on the SPA.

Pete