Australia finalises biggest military deal ever

[Skybird]

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-a...-idUSKCN1Q002H

I think they are optimistic a bit if thinking they can afford to wait until 2050 before they complete their submarine order. The Chinese pressure cooker will blow up earlier, I think.

I wonder how Australias ability is to actually crew this many boats? The germans and the Brits for exmaple have massive problems to find enough personnel for their armed forces and navies.

I also have no clue how the general Australian public'S relation to its armed forces are. Are the met with contempt like in Germany, or more with natural ease or even pride, like in many other Western countries?

https://www.dw.com/en/france-to-buil...nes/a-19214374

The DCNS submarine is the Shortfin Barracuda (pictured), a model that the company claims will remain state-of-the-art until the 2060s. It is a diesel-electric version of a 5,000-ton submarine that is currently nuclear-powered.
Germany's ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems had offered to revamp its 2,000-ton Type 214 class submarine, but Canberra reportedly thought that was too technically challenging to make the option feasible. Japan would have built Australia a variant of its 4,000-ton Soryu submarine.
Australia is significantly increasing its defense spending as it seeks to protect its interests in the Asia-Pacific region amid the rising power of China. But awarding the bid to a French company had the advantage of not alienating Beijing, which would have bristled at a Japanese victory. China is Australia's top trading partner.

A strange reason to not reward the order to a regional producer, considering that defence is most vitally about own self interest.

The deal really stirred the waters when it was first announced already two years ago:

https://thediplomat.com/2017/10/aust...ubmarine-deal/

The report claims that Australia’s new submarine fleet will cost far more than necessary. “We will pay far too much for a boat that will do far too little,” Hugh White, author of the study, said on September 27, during a presentation of the report in Canberra. “Our calculation in the report is that, in 2016 dollars, these 12 boats will cost us $40bn, plus $6bn for the combat system – well over $3bn a boat. In every major project like this, the costs escalate.”
However, according to the report, the bigger risk with sticking to the modified Barracuda-class is that “Australia will be left with a submarine capability that is either seriously inadequate or, in the worst case, non-existent for several years.” The report states:

Engineering experts consider the technical risks around the Shortfin Barracuda to be high. It will be a very large conventional submarine and the engineering challenges are formidable. Most surprisingly, the present concept design does not incorporate modern batteries or AIP, considered by most experts as essential in a future operational environment where submarine detection technologies will have improved significantly.

Thats what surprises me, too. I would have thought the 214 were the better option. But the French company is state-owned by two thirds and thus enjoys heavy protectionism and subsidizing by the tax payers, different to Germany France puts utmost priority on protecting its industrial branches considered to be key technology and competence. I assume that pulled some triggers in the background.

[Jimbuna]

Australia found it difficult to crew the six Collins class they have so I doubt purchasing twelve vessels will make it any easier.

It would appear they are already attempting to appease China by porchasing from France instead of Japan but whichever way things develop I reckon it is a classic case of 'too little too late' as far as Chinese expansion is growing in the Asia-Pacific region.

[Mr Quatro]

Sounds like they will be built in France ... This is not fair to the Australian ship building industry or the countries economy to reap some of the 40 billion back to the common labor force.

Perhaps the deal still has to be voted on ... I hope so

[Skybird]

No, the second link from 2017 says: "The 12 submarines — except for some specialized parts — are slated to be built in Adelaide, home to the Australian Submarine Corporation (ASC)".

Wikipedia says the same.

The main criticism seems to be three-fold: 1. too optimistic - already high - cost calculations, 2. unproven design and technological components, and 3. becoming obsolete much faster than anticipated.

Wikipedia says the Barracuda/Suffren (short finned) is a conventional Diesel-electric version of the nuclear Barracudas. The French plan to commission the first such nuclear boat this year. It bases on the Triomphant design, another nuclear boat. The diesel version has never been done before, and exists only on paper. It should have a length of 90 meters and a displacement of over 4000 tons. I do not like that even the nuclear mother design so far is unproven as well, and now they already plan the conventiuonal version on the basis of that unproven nuclear design. Sounds like "one complication level ahead" to me. I think its smarter to do such a stunt only on grounds of an already proven mother design.



The Australians may end up serving as lab rats, so to speak. Serves them well. They should have bought our boats.

[Jimbuna]

I think its smarter to do such a stunt only on grounds of an already proven mother design.

Makes far more sense but at the end of the day, Australia don't exactly have an outstanding record regarding submarines and there technology.

[Reece]

Australia is a beautiful country run by a bunch of idiots!!

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

Makes far more sense but at the end of the day, Australia don't exactly have an outstanding record regarding submarines and there technology.

I was thinking about the French who will do the brain work. They have no practicla experience from the nuclear Barracuda in service, but already do a new theoretical design based on this brandnew and I think still not commissioned boat. That is what I call "leaving one step out". This is one of the two main reasons why I predict a steep climb of costs. The other reaosn of course is that such projects always systematically get nice-washed andf glossed over when costs get projected.


Lets bet. I say the total program in the end will cost 70% more than they now say. Minimum. We meet again in 2050 and then see who gets the pot.

[ikalugin]

 

Originally Posted by Skybird

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-a...-idUSKCN1Q002H

I think they are optimistic a bit if thinking they can afford to wait until 2050 before they complete their submarine order. The Chinese pressure cooker will blow up earlier, I think.

I wonder how Australias ability is to actually crew this many boats? The germans and the Brits for exmaple have massive problems to find enough personnel for their armed forces and navies.

I also have no clue how the general Australian public'S relation to its armed forces are. Are the met with contempt like in Germany, or more with natural ease or even pride, like in many other Western countries?

https://www.dw.com/en/france-to-buil...nes/a-19214374

A strange reason to not reward the order to a regional producer, considering that defence is most vitally about own self interest.

The deal really stirred the waters when it was first announced already two years ago:

https://thediplomat.com/2017/10/aust...ubmarine-deal/

Thats what surprises me, too. I would have thought the 214 were the better option. But the French company is state-owned by two thirds and thus enjoys heavy protectionism and subsidizing by the tax payers, different to Germany France puts utmost priority on protecting its industrial branches considered to be key technology and competence. I assume that pulled some triggers in the background.
[/INDENT]

Originally Posted by Skybird

No, the second link from 2017 says: "The 12 submarines — except for some specialized parts — are slated to be built in Adelaide, home to the Australian Submarine Corporation (ASC)".

Wikipedia says the same.

The main criticism seems to be three-fold: 1. too optimistic - already high - cost calculations, 2. unproven design and technological components, and 3. becoming obsolete much faster than anticipated.

Wikipedia says the Barracuda/Suffren (short finned) is a conventional Diesel-electric version of the nuclear Barracudas. The French plan to commission the first such nuclear boat this year. It bases on the Triomphant design, another nuclear boat. The diesel version has never been done before, and exists only on paper. It should have a length of 90 meters and a displacement of over 4000 tons. I do not like that even the nuclear mother design so far is unproven as well, and now they already plan the conventiuonal version on the basis of that unproven nuclear design. Sounds like "one complication level ahead" to me. I think its smarter to do such a stunt only on grounds of an already proven mother design.



The Australians may end up serving as lab rats, so to speak. Serves them well. They should have bought our boats.

Australia de-facto wants SSNs for forward deploying it's submarines. Because SSNs are not an option (for political reasons from what I understand) they want long range/endurance SSKs.


As such they went for a big SSK with extended batteries instead of AIP. The other mentioned advantage of the French is their ability to provide the full life cycle of the submarine as a package.