Pick a Number. 100% Rise in Australian Future Sub estimate to $100 Billion

Andrew Tillett for The Australian Financial Review (AFR), May 29, 2018 reports:

“$100 billion babies: Defence reveals true cost of new submarines for taxpayers”  

"Taxpayers will spend $100 billion to build and operate [Australia's future submarines], [Australian] Defence Department officials have revealed for the first time as they also fended off warnings the naval shipbuilding program was at risk of cost blowouts and delays.

While the $50 billion budget to build the 12 French-designed submarines in Adelaide has been known for several years, Rear Admiral Greg Sammut told Senate estimates on [May 29, 2018] the same amount again would be spent on sustaining the submarines throughout their operating life, although he conceded the costs were yet to be finalised..."

COMMENT

How do you count the costs of a submarine program that may stretch to 2080?

A.  In 2018 dollars or 2080 dollars or somewhere in between? 

B.  In Australian Dollars, or factor exchange rate changes in US dollars or, in 20 years time, in Yuan

      World Currency? 

C.  Recall that we are not just talking Naval Group (was DCNS) or ASC costs in calculations. A

     quarter or a third of the money will go to Lockheed Martin as Combat Systems Integrator.

D.  What do you include? Inclusions are vital. Cost of:

-  building new shipyard sheds, slips and other facilities

-  costs of personnel in Australia's Defence Department, Navy, Army (for some Special Forces) 

-  cost of building 6 to 12 new submarines? As Australia's Defence Department or Navy try out

   higher numbers (say 12, 10 then 8) before settling for 6 (see my 2014 article). Hence 6 Oberons

   then 6 Collins submarines in the past.

-  "sustainment"(?) does that mean regular maintenance and upgrade costs?

-  training costs

-  some operational costs, eg. special skills (eg. US Navy may be Off-the-Books).

E.  Opportunity costs - for:

-  jobs and regional development (outside Adelaide)

-  money that could have been spent on sorely needed hospitals, schools, "green" energy and mass

    transport 

-  other Airforce, Army and Naval programs (eg. highly developed, future AUVs).

Setting, recording and publishing huge budgets is more a public relations art form than an accounting science.

Pete

Doc Declassified May 2018, Naval Group's "Australian Industry Plan" LIBs?

Senator Rex Patrick, writing in Australia’s useful website DEFENCE CONNECT, reports https://www.defenceconnect.com.au/maritime-antisub/2322-a-french-led-lithium-revolution-for-australia: “Naval Group’s recently released Australian Industry Plan [1] gave the strongest indication yet that Australia’s Future Submarines will be powered by lithium-ion batteries. One senator has argued such a decision could allow Defence to act as a catalyst for lucrative commercial opportunities...”

All Following by Pete (generally quoting Australian Government or Naval Group) NOT by Rex Patrick or Defence Connect

[1] the declassified on [May 10 2018] Plan (a very large PDF document, about 26 MB. 60 pages, including graphics) need to download whole Plan onto your computer to rotate some of the tables (eg, page 19 and 21) ) was originally Drafted by November 27, 2015 by Naval Group (then DCNS) and maybe Submission “17”. Up until May 9, 2018 it as classified:

Security Caveats

On top of page immediately below Minister for Defence's Cover letter is the crossed out caveats:

“SENSITVE PROPRIETARY INFORMATION

Contract DMO/FSP/00419/2015/Clause – 9.5” [or 9.3]

Then on bottom of page:

“FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

REL – AUS / FRA / GBR / USA”

Pete Comment - it is understandable document was RELeased to AUStralia, FRAnce and USA (a US company (Lockheed Martin chosen) was always to be Combat System Integrator and there was/is US program management advice overall). But why it was released to “GBR”, presumably Great Britain(?), is a mystery.

Much blacked out redacting follows, like

Some interesting pages of the Plan:

Top Cover Letter indicates document was released by Minister for Defence, Marise Payne letterhead, dated “10 May 2018”

page 19 - Australian Maritime College (AMC) Launceston, Tasmania, Australia, may handle “Hydrodynamics, Naval Design and Maritime Engineering”. Summary Students form French naval engineering establishments may spend 3 to 10 months at AMC on internships.

Defence Material Technology Centre (Victoria, Australia) may handle “Materials and processes” like “welding” and “bounding”.

University of Newcastle (NSW, Australia) may handle “Bacterial and microbiological corrosion”

page 21 [needs rotating]

[Pete Comment – The following Declassified details on Lithium-ion Batteries are 

non-committal. The large, blacked out, redacted bits prevent any conclusion.] Section on “Lithium-ion batteries [mostly black line redacted] DCNS has been working on lithium-ion battery technologies for many years with different partners” [big redaction] Many research initiatives are also occurring in Australia both in the defence space and in adjacent industries that could lead to technology breakthrough. The” [big redaction].

page 42 – [list of] “Australian Companies engaged by DCNS” [now Naval Group]

page 50 – [number of jobs created] “Figure 13. Anticipated Employment Outcomes from the FSP [Future Submarine Program]”

Much else is of interest.

Pete

Excellent Covert Shores Article on Soviet/Russian Submarine Activity

H I Sutton at Covert Shores regularly publishes interesting articles on submarines. For example:

Increase in #Russian Submarine Activity of 22 May 2018 http://www.hisutton.com/Russian_Submarine_Activity.html

"There have been reports that Russian submarine activity has returned to Cold War levels. This article uses publicly available data to compare recent activity to Cold War levels...." See WHOLE CORVERT SHORES ARTICLE

A useful Table courtesy Covert Shores. It indicates the steep decline in Russian submarine numbers since the Cold War years (1947-1991) with over 400 Russian subs in some years) to many less than 100 since 1991 (eg. 66 in 2016). 

What trends do you see in the Table (eg. more than 200 SSKs in 1980)?

Doubts about Zircon hypersonic anti-ship cruise missile

The Zircon (Graphic courtesy via Russian website.)

I don't know whether the future (late 2020s) Zircon missile proves Russia can solve the heat buildup barrier to sustained hypersonic flight in the dense atmosphere. Maybe it can become hypersonic in its endrun, maybe not. 

India has been talking of a joint Russian hypersonic BrahMos-II (or BrahMos-2) missile project (maybe Indian version of the Zircon?) for years. See Submarine Matters'  2013 article.

Russia's latest submarines may become Zircon capable.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3M22_Zircon. There are doubts about Zircon's effectivenes. 

Youtube originally uploaded October 11, 2018
---

Pete

Collapse of the US - North Korea Talks: Told Ya So!

On May 24, 2016 Trump announced the cancellation of the US - (Denuclearization of) North Korea Summit which was to be held in Singapore on June 12, 2018. 

A 2017, page 9 Pentagon analysis (which I've just read) is similar to the May 3, 2018 comment on North Korea relying on its nuclear deterrence to prevent invasion of North Korea and Kim Dynasty regime change: 

"I doubt if the neocon/militant Trump/Pompeo/Bolton would accept total withdrawal from South Korea - especially of THAAD, US aircraft and US SSN and SSGN visits to SK ports.

I think it unlikely Kim would make substantial and verifiable de-nuclearisation efforts. With timing and Devil in the Detail

If NK denuclearised it would leave itself open to "peaceful" democratic occupation by a much more attr[a]ctive wealthy SK

or the risk of a return of overwelming SK and US forces - remembering the fates of disarmed-regime changed Hussein/Iraq and Gaddafi/Libya. 

Also Kim Jong-un (III) would forsake his "dynastic duty" of handing down the grim NK regime to what ever Crown Prince, Kim IV is next.”

FURTHER COMMENT

It was hoped the Summit could be a positive outcome of Trump's hardline negotiating style against North Korea. But now the opportunity has been dashed. The world remains stuck with the Trump Administration's aggressively negative approach on most things. 

See earlier Submarine Matters' article North Korea's Nuclear Deterrent Totally Justified of 
May 24, 2018, on North Korea's deterrent preventing a recurrence of its history of being invaded. 

Pete

North Korea's Nuclear Deterrent Totally Justified

Causes, effects and doctrines are subtle. 

Before the sure handed statesman Trump and Kim meet or don't meet in Singapore on June 12, 2018 history needs recalling. 

Historical mentions of Korea are overlaid by simple moral assumptions: 

-  North Korea BAD

-  South Korea GOOD.

From the North Korean point of view, its status as the most invaded country in the world justifies a nuclear deterrent to prevent regime change and merely conventional destruction. Would Kim disarm on the word of such statesman as Trump and his neocon Pompeo noting the "Libyan solution"
 Bolton and Pence? What would stop them?

North Korea Most Invaded?

The territory that is now North Korea has been invaded by the Chinese many times, by Mongolians, Manchus twice, Japanese several times, Russians several times, the US three times, by UN forces (including Australians and British) twice and South Korea twice.

North Korea has a nervous relationship with China and Russia rather than friendly alliances. North Korea realizes it cannot rely on a nuclear protection guarantee from China. 

[see an excellent article What does China Really Think of North Korea? of May 25, 2018 from The Diplomat]

South Korea was no peace-loving democracy before North Korea invaded it in the 1949 (beginning the Korean War). The invasion followed frequent South Korea vs North Korean border clashes since 1945.

South Korea's leader, the authoritarian Syngman Rhee, killed between 14,000 and 30,000 of his own people during the Jeju uprising in 1948-49 just before the Korean War [1].

In 1950 Rhee had between 100,000 and 200,000 South Korean Bodo League prisoners murdered [2].

North Korea's capital, Pyongyang was bombed flat by the US Air Force during the Korea War. "By the time of the armistice, 75 percent of Pyongyang's area was destroyed by the conventional bombing campaign, which was part of a broader U.S. bombing effort throughout the country costing" the lives of between one and three million North Koreans by the time the war ended [3].

Nuclear disarming North Korea, which is China's buffer zone, could bring on World War Three like nothing else.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeju_uprising and subsequent massacre by South Korean troops.

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syngman_Rhee#Political_repression

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Pyongyang

Pete