The Australians are in a bit of a pickle bless them, they have recently made motions for the purchase of 12 french built scorpene submarines conventional like the Collins class i really don't think these are suitable for their navy, they had the option for the German enlarged type 214 (to be called type 220) which is AIP i do think this would have been the very best option for them, the other submarine types included a collaboration with japan which never went ahead and also a version of the new Swedish A26 programme (Collins are Swedish subs).
The problem with the Australian submarine service in particular is lack of volunteers they have a serious issue crewing the 6 they have and with potentially 12 boats now coming along they will need some serious recruitment drives, its long been known that the mines have been stealing sub crews for theer skills which eventually has not helped the situation one bit.
Currently Australia spends 1.9% GDP or A$34bn ($23bn USD) on defence and has a respectable size armed forces, in the Naval side of that which will see around 1/3 of the budget $7.7bn USD.
Some numbers for you to digest:
Army: 28,500 active serving with 14,000 reservists a small mechanised force with 60 M1A1 main battle tanks plus 139 Helicopters plus around 1600 other assorted vehicles and pieces artillery guns and infantry vehicles, probably the smallest and least funded arm of the military.
Air force: 110 combat aircraft mainly F18C/E/F/G models with the F35 on order and a firm order for 70 aircraft (none will fly from the LPA) the Australian air force has modernised over the years and has ceased buying up second hand units such as the F111 (all now retired), there is a total of 260 aircraft in service from transport with the C17 and maritime patrol P8 which is replacing the P3 orion.
This area has seen a big investment in recent years with the new purchases of P8 and F35's.
Navy: has a fairly robust navy with 47 commissioned ships including the two new major acquisitions of the Juan Carlos class LHD commissioned 2014 and 15 respectively, these are a half way return to fixed wing aviation for the RAN however it is extremely unlikely they will operate the F35 and be used solely a helicopter platform.
Other big purchases in recent years are the HMAS Choules (Formerly British bay class RFA Largs Bay) and also HMAS Sirus (2006).
Other items in the near future and it is very near the Hobart class Destroyer costing A$2bn ($1.55bn USD) per ship and having the AEGIS warfare system installed this gives them the most power fullest air defence vessels in the region.
So with the big ticket items now almost out of the way could we see the RAN obtaining a nuclear submarine?
Although due to the location of the country in question I really do not think having a fleet of SSN's is the way forward although tactically yes it would be to their advantage given the unlimited range factor, however economically it could indeed ruin them.
Australia is one of the worlds largest Uranium exporters and does operate nuclear power stations they have the technology in place to build one and put it to sea they also would likely have the backing of the British and American governments which likely under a technology share agreement (more specifically with the British) would assist in the building of such vessels.
What Australia does lack are the major port facilities to handle such vessels, there is no nuclear submarine facilities (nearest being west coast USA) so therefore would lack the much needed facilities to provide support upgrade and maintenance of these vessels, and also end of life decommissioning and scrapping.
Now that would be probably the single biggest ticket item ever purchased in the history of the RAN and a entire new dock to be built you would be looking in the order of $10 to 20bn USD just to get that stage up and running (remember the budget of the entire forces is $23bn USD)
You also need to factor in if you don't build this how much would it cost to send the vessel overseas for its maintenance and again you would look into the $3 to $4bn USD at that per year.
You also need to factor in specialist crewing costs plus training costs and also nuclear submarines tend to carry more personnel so the extra crew requirements plus specialities all adds up and your also prospectively jumping from a 6 boat fleet to a 12 boat fleet.
So what is the likely cost for a SSN well take the 688i $2.1bn USD (inflation adjusted) Virginia $2.67bn USD and British Astute $1.7bn USD per boat, now the Australians have gone for a French built submarine which unusually comes in two power settings AIP fuel cell (Which the Australians opted for) and nuclear (French replacing the Rubis class).
In comparison to American Russia and British boats they are going to be almost en par i would say, the Barracudas are somewhat larger (99m long compared to the Rubis 74m long) and more capable than the Rubis but the short fin version will be less powered due to the fuel cells and less range for obvious reasons and 2m shorter.
These boats are untested none are in sea trials although the Australians have a while yet before the building needs to start (2023-5) i think they should hold off firm orders for now or should have opted for the German tested design which would have been a cheaper option at $330m per boat as opposed to the DCNS Barracuda class costing a whopping $3.05bn per boat ! and for that price i would want a nuclear powered boat!
The reality is the Australian government has already made a firm commitment to purchasing 12 submarines with the sum of $50bn AUD set aside (36.7bn USD) and to do the math on that then it would mount to $4.16bn AUD per boat with inflation factored in and current rises in costs as the project is already 1 year behind schedule and more than $4bn USD over budget, and also to factor in one boat per two years based on current DCNS proposals if they were to sign today and start obtaining the vessels from 2026 onward.
I think they have made one huge costly mistake and maybe yes opted for the nuclear option if and only if they re invested in facilities which would be costing them an eye watering $60 to $70bn AUD ($44-$51bn USD) France would likely technology share with Australia however the current mandate doesn't call for the submarines to be nuclear and it is unlikely to in the future.
Also the strategic picture and ability of the navy must be also called into question here as the R.A.N has no over seas bases beyond its territorial limit and would rely heavily on British and American over seas bases and replenishment vessels.
Currently the R.A.N is a Green water navy it has limited capability to have sustained over seas operational deployments due to lack of logistical support, and mainly focuses its attention on its coast and Economic Exclusion Zone, it also works heavily with the Royal New Zealand Navy which is a Brown water / very limited Green water navy, and also in the areas around the Antarctic, it also supports foreign navies in exercises such as RIMPAC it also commits to operations in the Persian Gulf and also the Gulf of Aden anti piracy operation (Operation Manitou).
The current model for the RAN isn't going to change i don't think and i really don't think the RAN should opt for nuclear submarines, they do have a large very modern fleet with some good quality large surface units and are continually updating the fleet but a nuclear submarine would require considerable rise in the countries defence budget by at least another 1.5% in my estimates (if they were to have 6 SSN's)and thus making the force unsustainable in the long run it would also be a wasted venture due to the lack of fixed wing carriers and also other large operational platforms.
The RAN is best suited as it is and a good coalition partner in the future with good units and all round defence structure they also have the added strategical advantage of being right out of the way.
Just my 2 cents
|